http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=679

I was going to place this in the 3rd party section, but I want to hear from everyone who wants in.

Can the Libertarians do any damage to the Republicans.?



Placing it on Fox is an excellent choice as its hits the majority of conservative viewers. While the social conservatives will obviously ignore Badnariks message, many fiscal conservatives might pay attention. Bush has put the Dems to shame with his spending and immense growth of the governments size. A Great many also disagree with the nation building and Iraq war regardless of terrorism concerns used as the excuse to do so. Since the Dems have little to none in the way of a chance to retake control, the idea of a roadblock in the form of a Dem president to a Republican house and Senate--and lets be honest, the Supreme Court. If the Libs can draw many fiscal conservatives, they can also draw them from those who dislike the social engineering politics of the Republicans.

This message may resonate with many who are leaning towards Bush



Will this tactic by the Libertarians be effective?

If you are a fiscal conservative are you tempted by this message?

Isn't it better than voting for the Democrats?


My response:
I have to be honest--I don't like Bush at all. Yet Democrats make me nervous with their willingness to take my money(tax) and find ways to charge ME (tax+tax)for the privelidge of taking my money
Yet I am fearful of another 4 years of Bush and was leaning towards Kerry. I may just vote Badnarik anyways, just to try and help build up 3rd options in American politics.
I think this an excellent idea from the Libertarians, and its nice to see them get a pair and come out fighting. While I disagree with enough of their platform to prevent me from finally finding a political home, they are the closest thing availible until the Christian Coalition Cartel control over the Republicans is finally broken.

Will this tactic by the Libertarians be effective? Perhaps. I am voting for Badnarik this year, and I would usually favor the Republican candidate (I haven't seen a Democratic candidate I would vote for since Paul Tsongas). I didn't vote for Bush the first time either, though. The stakes are so high in this election that many will hold their noses and vote Bush to avoid someone as liberal as Kerry. Obviously, Badnarik isn't going to win, so it's a protest vote at best. Perot was probably the most effective third party candidate in history...I'm convinced that Bush senior would have won without him (Perot had nearly 20 percent of the popular vote, and Clinton won with 43), so there's a historical precedent there.

If you are a fiscal conservative are you tempted by this message? I haven't seen the commercial (the links didn't work on my computer), but I gave in to that message long ago.

Isn't it better than voting for the Democrats? It depends on who the Democrat is, but I'd say yes, most of the time.

Will this tactic by the Libertarians be effective?
It may. Most of the Libertarian people I know, and myself included, think Bush spends our tax money like an optimist at a casino. I've also made some inroads with several Republican friends that aren't particularly enamored with Bush over fiscal policies, and have taken an interest in Libertarian ideas.

But the problem that arises, is most Republicans- if not all, and many Libertarians are turned off by Badnarik's dovish foreign policy. I think this tactic is only going to be real successful for those who feel stronger on domestic than foreign issues.

If you are a fiscal conservative are you tempted by this message?
If it wasn't for his stance on foreign policy issues, Badnarik would be a sure vote for me in November.

Isn't it better than voting for the Democrats?
Any reason is better than voting for Democrats.

Seriously, I am jealous over the activism and effort put out by most Democrats. And I really do admire the zeal and commitment they they exhibit. I'm sorry that I don't agree with the method they would use to get to the ultimate goal of equality, happiness and success for every American. The Republicans definitely lack the same grass roots segment of society and the third parties just don't have the access to the masses. But ultimately, for all of the political warfare we see in the media, and even here on AD, I can respect that people really just want the best for our nation. So any inroad's Badnarik can make with the ad campaign, to put third party issues out there for consideration, is a good thing. I abhor diversity quotas concerning skin color, gender or creed, but diversity of ideas shouldn't be shunned by anyone.

I doubt it, though I'm hopeful. Its too late in the game to instill your message in people now, Bush or Kerry have already won or lost in the hearts of the public. Besides, the lesser of two evil appears to be a prime motivator in this campaign. Liberals are afraid of Bush, and Bush has made it a campaign point to insure that conservatives are afraid of Kerry.


If I were a moderate republican, I would be tempted. But still, most rational people understand that the libertarians will never win. Badnarik made an effective plunge, though, in saying that the only way republicans will listen is to protest vote. If a fiscal conservative was tired of all this deficit spending, and felt assured that a relatively substantial protest vote would put the republicans back in line, it could work.


No, because the kerry economic policy is superior to either Bushes or Badnariks, the latter which I'm assume is an advocate of the general flat tax (and if you want to argue with me about that, start another thread). I'd put more faith in a libertarian though than Bush, and for moderates or libertarians I bet it feels a lot better.

Will this tactic by the Libertarians be effective?

Not particularly, the ad itself isn't a very good one.


If you are a fiscal conservative are you tempted by this message?

Not really, there isn't a message other than Bush bad, Kerry bad, vote for me....


Isn't it better than voting for the Democrats?

I'm the wrong one to ask that question.



The LIbertarian Party has been around for quite a long time and quite frankly, they've been pretty ineffective at all but the very local levels of government. When I lived in Simi Valley, California, a bastion of conservatism, I think we had one city council member who was a Libertarian and possibly the city dog catcher. It is entirely possible that those were the highest public offices held in the entire state of California by members of the Libertarian Party. I remember several years ago when a member of the LP ran for Congress in Simi and when the LA Times did one of those "ask the candidate" articles on the race, he refused to participate saying, "I don't play those political games like the Democrats and Republicans do". Excuse me? Talking about the issues is a "political game"? That is unfortunately the attitude held by a number of LP candidates I think and that I believe is a big part of the reason why they never really do well in most elections. But, I digress, probably not a good time or place to beat up on the LP.

Back to the topic. I watched the ad a couple of times and I realize it's only a 30 second spot, but it is a horrible waste of 30 seconds. It doesn't talk about the candidate at all. Mentions his name, but doesn't say anything about him other than he's not Bush or Kerry. A more effective ad would something along the lines of the following.......

"You know, I really don't like either of the choices for President this year, they're both pretty much the same thing in a different package. I think we need something different in this country."

"Well, I've been reading about this guy named Michael Badnarik who is running as a member of the Libertarian Party and he's got some really good ideas on how to make the kinds of changes we need."

Then they take the rest of the 30 seconds to lay out the broad agenda.

Won't win this election, but after all these years, it's about time the LP begin to actually talk about what they want to do if they ever want to be a force in American politics.

So no, no effect from this ad whatsoever. Not going to change one single vote.

Edited to add a response to this from DTOM....



I don't know where you are coming from with this comment, DTOM, but I assure you that the Republican Party's grassroots and core are every bit as energized as our friends on the left are. We may not be running around blowing up and vandalizing Kerry Campaign offices, but I wouldn't mistake that for a lack of zeal or committment. Even in California where there has been virtually no effort on the part of the national Bush/Cheney campaign there are still a whole lot of Republicans working hard to re-elect the President.

Where I'm coming from is just based on my observations, especially of late. I meant no disrespect, after all I'm closer to being a Republican than a Democrat.
But are there Republican Meet-ups? Have Republicans made as much use of the internet as Democrats have?

From where I sit, I see the Dem's doing a far better job at spinning the media. When the media portrays campaign activity, they show Republican with $1000 plate dinners, and they show Democrats holding town hall meetings.

That may either be accurate or liberal media bias, but either way, I just don't see Republicans as effective at getting their message out, or countering attacks.

That's what drives the appeal, in part, of third parties. Disaffection of the two party system and the status quo.

If the Republican party wants it's conservative Libertarian minded brothers and sisters back, (like me) then why don't they address issues that drove us out of the party? Both D's and R's spin their base during primaries, then do a cheetah flip back to the center in an attempt to make everybody happy, but never actually solving problems. Never actually decreasing the size of government or being fiscally responsible. Tax cuts are great, but what about the surge in discretionary spending? Why is my gas so expensive?

You've criticized the LP ad, but while it's not great, it more on target than anything I see coming out of McAuliffe or Gillespie.

It might offset the monetary support the Repubs have given Nader.



I am a fiscal conservative, and by that I mean I was a Clinton/Gingrich supporter regarding balancing the budget and creating budget surpluses. This message, however, does not tempt me in the least. My mind was already made up long ago that the currently sitting President should not be allowed to do more harm. Had it not been for Howard Dean, I'd not have gone from Libertarian to Democrat, but the Demos most definately appealed to my Lib side with the grassroots meetups and the cantankerous Dean. Whhhooooooooooooeeeeee!



It's actually voting for the Demos, just as a vote for Nader is a vote for the Repubs.

It looks to me that the tax/spend mantle has passed from the Demos to the Repubs. Eh, I suppose it'll be passed on back if power switches. For now though, we need a party in power that offsets the drunken sailors (no offense meant to real drunken sailors) who run this country.

Anyway, I already cast the one stinking vote I got for Kerry/Edwards with hope and a prayer. The hope is that we get some level heads in there; the prayer is that fiscal responsibility comes back to this country. I could have voted Lib, and did so on some local positions, but the thought had not run through my mind to vote Lib to hurt Repubs. Maybe if the message had been made earlier, it would have? Doubt it. I had no intention of voting Repub at all.

Will this tactic by the Libertarians be effective?

Not really. If you have not made up your mind two months ago, this will not sway many Libertarians.

Isn't it better than voting for the Democrats?

Yes, of course.

Most Libertarians tend to vote for a Republican not a Democrat. In this case they are painting Bush to not be a true Republican (which is false) and to vote for one who is.

I would love to see a true Libertarian come up in the ranks but this year I am voting for Bush because he understands the threat of today. Short of that, I dont like him in alot of ways (other than his tax cut mentality).

This will sway just as many Kerry voters as it will Bush voters (if it does sway any), just as Nader does.

In short this will not hurt either candidate.

If 9/11 did not happen I would vote for Badnarik most likely.

Had the Democrats nominated Lieberman or someone of his ilk, then Badnarik could likely collect some votes. However, for anybody who considers national security to be the most important issue, Badnarik is effectively as bad as Kerry, although he at least wouldn't walk into office bearing the loathing of the military he is to command.

I am a fiscal conservative, but I am also a social conservative, and as a result, the Libertarians have little attraction to me. Add their unrealistic foreign policy perspective and I find it very difficult to vote for one at the national level. Of course, if the choice were Badnarik or Kerry, I'd vote for Badnarik, if only because he's merely half-keestered, as opposed to ....

I admit that I was a bit surprised to see this spot on Fox News.

In another election, this appeal would have had some clout.

However, given the situation this country is in, I doubt fiscal conservatism is the greatest worry of many people. For the most part, the issues are national security and the economy, neither of which were covered in the ad.

This may sway some voters, most likely because they do not know the Libertarian stance on foreign policy. I doubt it will sway huge numbers, however.

In a recession “fiscal conservatism” is usually put aside to get the economy going again – which is happening.

Add the war and Kerry’s record and I will stay with Bush – Thank you very much.

Two things... One, the recession has been over for a couple of years. Two, Bush has actually campaigned on a platform of successful economic expansion.

Bush has directly contradicted your assertion there Ted.