likearock

http://www.nysun.com/article/2672 Election Spoiler May Turn Out to Be a Libertarian BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun October 5, 2004 Just as in 2000, a third-party candidate could tip the balance in this year's presidential contest. This time, however, the spoiler may not be Ralph Nader, but a man whose name most voters have never heard. The presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, Michael Badnarik, is on the ballot in 48 states. Mr. Nader, by contrast, is certain to be on the ballot in only 35 states, though he may pick up a few more by Election Day. Democratic activists, many still fuming over Mr. Nader's perceived role in Vice President Gore's loss to President Bush four years ago, have brought court challenges to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot in places across the country. By contrast, Republicans have said and done little about Mr. Badnarik, a 50-year-old computer programmer from Texas. Yet political strategists say he and the little-known Libertarians could affect the outcome in several battleground states crucial to Mr. Bush's re-election. "The Libertarians are drawing somewhere between 1% and 3% - not big numbers, but in these very close races like the presidential contest, they could well be the margin of difference," a political science professor at the University of Minnesota, Lawrence Jacobs, said. "They pose a genuine threat to be the kingmaker in several swing states." Most national polls don't ask about Mr. Badnarik, but some state surveys do. Polls done by Rasmussen Reports for Mr. Badnarik's campaign showed him with 5% of the vote in New Mexico in August and with 3% support in Nevada last month. Newspaper polls haven't shown him doing quite as well. They often peg his support at roughly 1%, but even that number could prove decisive. In 2000, Mr. Gore carried New Mexico by 366 votes, or 0.06%. Mr. Jacobs, who has studied third-party campaigns, said Mr. Bush's policies appear to have driven some conservative Republicans into the Libertarian camp. "They see the president as a federalizer. You've got the debt. You've got 'No Child Left Behind.' You've got the new Medicare entitlement. You've got the Patriot Act. And you've got the war," the professor said. "It's a very different approach to government than a small government Barry Goldwater." Mr. Jacobs said he conducted a survey in June and July in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa to examine support for third-party candidates. It showed that the vast majority of Badnarik voters described themselves as either Republicans or independents. Mr. Jacobs also said that Libertarian candidates in 2002 appeared to have tipped statewide races against the Republicans in Oregon and South Dakota. The danger for the GOP, the professor said, is especially great this year in states where Mr. Nader is not on the ballot. "It creates a drain on Republican voters that the Democrats aren't experiencing," Mr. Jacobs said. The Bush-Cheney campaign did not respond to a call seeking comment for this story. The communications director for the Badnarik campaign, Stephen Gordon, said he believes his candidate is drawing votes from both Mr. Bush and the Democratic nominee, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts. Mr. Badnarik has run a modest number of television ads in Nevada and in New Mexico. Mr. Gordon said the antiwar ads appear to resonate with some voters, while the message about government overspending hits home with others. "They negate each other if we run them in the same area," Mr. Gordon said. "We may pick up 10 Bush supporters and lose 10 Kerry supporters. "In a younger community, a college town, they are a lot more likely to be concerned about the war," he continued. "In an older, established, suburban community, they're not as interested in that." This year, none of the third-party candidates has come even close to the threshold of 15% that the self-styled Commission on Presidential Debates has set for inclusion in the presidential and vice-presidential debates. While Mr. Nader has done little but gripe about the snub this year, the Libertarians have gone to court. Last Friday, the Arizona Libertarian Party filed suit against Arizona State University, which is the host of the final Bush-Kerry debate, scheduled for October 13. The group is arguing that the school's sponsorship of the debate amounts to an illegal use of state resources to advance the two major political parties. The university has replied that the costs of the event are being borne by private donors. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released last night showed Mr. Bush maintaining a small lead nationally following last week's debate. Mr. Bush had support in the poll from 51% of those deemed likely to vote, while Mr. Kerry had 46% and Mr. Nader had 1%. A CBS News/New York Times poll, which was also released yesterday, had Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry tied at 47%, while Mr. Nader had 1%. In those surveys, voters were not asked about Mr. Badnarik or other presidential candidates. That irks the Badnarik campaign. "Nader was included even though in a lot of key states he's not even on the ballot," Mr. Gordon said. Mr. Badnarik will be on the ballot in New York, although the Libertarian Party does not have a regular line on the ballot. A spokesman for the state elections board, Lee Daghlian, said Badnarik supporters delivered more than 15,000 valid voter signatures by an Aug. 17 deadline to place their man's name on the ballot. A professor of political science at SUNY Cortland, Robert Spitzer, said third parties have made a difference in a number of statewide races in New York, but usually by giving their ballot line to a major-party candidate. "There's certainly been cases in recent years where third parties in New York have had a pretty big effect on outcome," Mr. Spitzer said. He pointed to the 1994 gubernatorial contest, in which Governor Pataki won with votes from the Conservative and Tax Cut Now ballot lines. Mr. Spitzer said he sees the earnest, small-government message of the Libertarians as limiting their appeal. "They're hampered by their consistency," Mr. Spitzer said. "It's a point of view that most Americans simply don't agree with. Even conservative Republicans that want to constrain the modern welfare state are not running to do away with it." Other observers say, however, that the Libertarians have new energy this year. "So many people who lean Libertarian have been arguing for years that the only effective thing to do is to work in the Republican Party," the editor of Ballot Access News, Richard Winger, said. "All those people ... have been rebuffed by what Bush does in terms of deficit spending and starting the war." Mr. Winger said the anti-war message has been adding momentum to Mr. Badnarik's campaign. "He's certainly more opposed to U.S. involvement in Iraq than Kerry," Mr. Winger said. Several campaign strategists said the Libertarians seem to win more support in certain states in the Southwest and Midwest. They appear to do less well in urban centers. "There is more of this natural 'Keep government off our backs' mentality out West," a New Mexico-based political analyst, Joseph Monahan, said. Mr. Badnarik was nominated by the Libertarian Party in May at its convention in Atlanta. In 2000 and 2002,he ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the House of Representatives. He is a technology specialist, who has worked at nuclear power plants and on the once-secret Stealth bomber program. While predicting a relatively strong showing for Mr. Badnarik, Mr. Jacobs, the professor at the University of Minnesota, cautioned that some voters ultimately shy away at the last minute from third-party candidates. "No question about it," he said. "You get kind of cold feet going to the ballot box." When The New York Sun conducted an unscientific survey of anti-war protesters during a major demonstration in the city in August, most participants said they planned to vote for Mr. Kerry. Several, however, spontaneously stated their support for Mr. Badnarik. They also complained that the survey mentioned only Mr. Bush, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Nader. Mr. Badnarik has also made a concerted appeal for the votes of Muslims and of other Arab-Americans. Last week he attended the national convention of the American Muslim Alliance in Orlando. Mr. Badnarik accepted an award from the group and endorsed its complaints about government-backed discrimination against those of the Islamic faith. "Muslims have borne the brunt of draconian government actions since 9/11," Mr. Badnarik told the group, according to a release from his campaign. "A plurality of American Muslims supported George Bush in 2000. Now they're looking outside the major-party club for candidates who support their rights."

The Kennedy kids, Johnson's daughter, Nixon's daughter, Amy Carter, Maureen and Ron Reagan, Chelsea Clinton were all subject to intense media scrutiny. Alexandra Kerry had her boobs shown around the world. If you don't want your family in the spotlight, you shouldn't run for high office. Agreed. But in this case the specific charge was that Kerry used the reference to Mary Cheney's orientation for political advantage. Which he did. However, from the Washington Times article above, it appears that Mr. Cheney did the same thing. Wayne

Actually, no, he didn't. Edwards talked about it openly and Cheney thanked him for the comment, but Cheney never brought up his daughter's sexual orientation. I seem to remember that Cheney did publicly bring up the issue of his daughter's orientation just before the Republican convention. Anybody else remember that? Wayne Found it: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040824-115323-6433r.htm Cheney sidesteps marriage debate By Joseph Curl THE WASHINGTON TIMES Vice President Dick Cheney said yesterday that homosexual couples should have equal freedom under the law and reiterated his 2000 campaign stance that states should have the right to decide what constitutes marriage. While Mr. Cheney did not unequivocally support President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual "marriage," he expressed support for the president's prerogative to set policy. "My own preference is as I've stated. But the president makes basic policy for the administration. And he's made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue," the vice president said in response to a question about his stand on homosexual "marriage" during a town hall meeting in Davenport, Iowa. Mr. Cheney said Mr. Bush was prompted to call for the constitutional amendment banning homosexual "marriage" after several judicial rulings sanctioned the practice, including a landmark ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. "I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change — without allowing the people to be involved, without their being part of the political process — that the courts, in that particular case, the state court in Massachusetts, were making the judgment or the decision for the entire country. "And he disagreed with that. So where we're at this point is, he has come out in support of a federal constitutional amendment," Mr. Cheney said. Mr. Cheney's comments are not at odds with the president's position, according to one of his spokesmen. "The vice president supports the president's right to set policy and make those decisions," Anne Womack said. "The vice president has been very clear and consistent on this issue." But she would not say the vice president supports the constitutional amendment itself. During the 2000 campaign, vice-presidential candidate Cheney took the position that states should decide legal issues about personal relationships and that Americans should be free to enter relationships of their choosing. Yesterday's response prompted reports that the vice president had broken with the president over the issue of homosexual "marriage." In his answer, Mr. Cheney noted that he and his wife "have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with." "With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free — ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction, or approval, is going to be granted by government, if you will, to particular relationships." The Cheneys have two daughters, both of whom work on the campaign. Mary Cheney, who is homosexual, is director of vice-presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. She held a public role as her father's assistant in the 2000 campaign and helped the GOP recruit homosexual voters during the 2002 midterm elections. While Mr. Cheney acknowledged that there were not enough votes on Capitol Hill to pass the proposed constitutional amendment banning homosexual "marriage," he said such a move may be unnecessary after all. "There is on the books the federal statute Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996, and to date it has not been successfully challenged in the courts, and that may be sufficient to resolve the issue," he said. The Democratic candidates, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, opposed the amendment, but they also oppose homosexual "marriage," although they defend a homosexual couple's rights to the same legal protections as those conferred in marriage. Mr. Cheney, kicking off three days of campaigning, will take a bus tour through the swing state of Pennsylvania.

Actually, no, he didn't. Edwards talked about it openly and Cheney thanked him for the comment, but Cheney never brought up his daughter's sexual orientation. I seem to remember that Cheney did publicly bring up the issue of his daughter's orientation just before the Republican convention. Anybody else remember that? Wayne

But you asked the question of me, not PhreeZ, so I am perfectly justified in replying. "If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" Harry S. Truman Applies nicely to Speakers Corner. Oh, I don't mind for myself. I really could care less. I just find it interesting that someone who has been so quick to yell "P.A." to the moderators in the past would resort to a two word response that was just that and, in addition, completely unnecessary. It reminds me a little of the two campaigns, how they scream and yell about soft money and negative campaigning on the part of the other guy, yet each wants to reserve the right to exercise them both. Wayne

How can it possibly be cheaper? Wayne Been asleep? Was that called for? Wayne Study after study for maybe 30 years or more has come to the conclusion that capital punshment is not cost effective. How come you missed all of them? My point is that PhreeZone had answered my question perfectly well, yet you felt the need to put in your little dig which added nothing of substance. Wayne

How can it possibly be cheaper? Wayne Been asleep? Was that called for? Wayne

I agree. Take advantage of the time you have until the Mirage comes to hone your belly skills. They're useful. Once you start freeflying, you may never take the time to do that! Wayne

How can it possibly be cheaper? Wayne

All those split screen cutaway shots that the DNC is displaying prominently on its web site would not have been possible if a different network were controlling the camera pool. After the CBS scandal, I doubt that CNN or MSNBC would have had the balls to defy the "no cutaway" rule agreed to by both campaigns. Kerry supporters should acknowledge there is a value to Fox after all! Wayne

IMHO, Bush's most costly omission was not reminding people that Kerry voted against Desert Storm. That's an issue at odds with many independents and not a few Democrats. Wayne

Guess you've never seen "Braveheart". Wayne

Pony up. The pundits at Fox were almost to the one very generous in there assessment of Kerry's performance. Wayne

Too bad they can't program the Patriot to do a U-turn and actually fly in the same direction as its target for a bit. That strategy might result in a better hit ratio. Wayne

He did nothing wrong. Just took his daughter to support the president. Very American. Bullshit. He used his daughter as a pawn in his own media campaign. He knew exactly what to expect because he's done it before: Source: http://wvgazette.com/section/News/2004091748 Wayne

What's disgusting to me is that a man would use his 3 year old daughter in the first place to promote his own political agenda. It's one thing to bring her to a Bush rally and let her experience the excitement of the campaign. It's quite another to set her up at a Kerry rally with a sign that's calculated to start trouble. That being said, the Kerry supporters shouldn't have ripped up the sign. Wayne

Even if Kerry does win it doesn't forego the possibility of Bush still being the last president. He could always run again. Wayne

And who would they be? Haven't seen anyone remotely close to fitting that description. There's people that think they know everything, but they're usually just Google-Champions. Sorry, I thought we were all adults here. My bad. Wayne

So did I. There are tons of browsable sites including this one. In fact, the Snopes article itself contains a link to the Koran source so it's not necessary to take it on faith at all. I guess some people have a lower priority than others when it comes to finding out what's true and what's not. Wayne

Isn't Assyria, or at least part of it, what is now called Syria? A little too good to be true. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/quran.asp Wayne

The one thing I don't like about them is having to undo them for wingsuit flying, then tie them up again when you want to freefly. Maybe some kind of clip attachment would help here. Wayne

But that's not even true. Take the example of the U.S. Presbyterians. Last year, they actively questioned the existing ban on gay clergy and eventually decided to abolish it. However, I still maintain that it is the individual who makes the moral choice. That choice may be viewed as moral or immoral by a number of different groups, many of which will disagree with the others. But in the end it's the individual who does the choosing and it's the individual who has to live with that choice. Wayne

No. You're confusing the issue. Or just being argumentative for the sake of an argument (which is fine if that's what you want -- just let me know). Not at all. Again, the issue we are discussing is whether making a moral choice requires unquestioning belief. I simply gave an example of such a choice and asked whether it would require unquestioning belief if you were the one making that choice. Wayne

Again, it's ONLY a moral choice because of the total agreements you've made with everyone over the course of your entire life. Somewhere along the line somebody said it's the equivilent of stealing and you either agreed to that concept or not. Are you speaking for yourself here? Are you saying if you found such a wallet, you'd decide whether or not to keep it based on a dogma that you have personally never questioned? Wayne

Sure it does. Maybe not by the person making the choice, but certainly by the people that agreed that doing activity X was "immoral". I can eat pork and it's not a moral issue for me at all, but there are some folks that believe it is. How would the person making the choice even know if something was or was not moral unless there was an agreement to that effect? Just take a look at the concept behind original sin. Let's say for a moment that God had NOT told Adam and Eve that they were not allowed to partake of the fruit. If they had eaten it -before- he told them, would that have been a sin? No, because there was no agreement as to what was and was not allowed. You're still just talking about one interpretation of what morality is, the interpretation of the religious true believers. Can't you see morality is larger than that? Suppose you happen to find a wallet with money in it as well as ID. You decide whether or not to keep the money based on a moral choice and that choice may or may not be dictated by any unquestioned belief. A fanatically religious person may decide to give back the money based solely on the uncontested tenets of a religion while a less religious person (perhaps like yourself) might make that decision in a more critical way. But either way, it's still a moral choice. Wayne