The GOP's own Nader nightmare

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

In a final pre-election push, Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik may have a shot at derailing Bush the way Nader did Gore in 2000.

Badnarik is spending $500,000 on advertising in select swing states, and by his campaign's own admission, he's targeting conservatives with commercials on Fox News Channel. begins with a man at his kitchen table throwing down a newspaper in disgust and telling his wife "That's it! There's no way I'm voting for Bush again. He claimed to be a compassionate conservative, but what kind of conservative runs half-trillion dollar-a-year deficits, or gets us into an unwinnable war?"

The campaign's communications director, Stephen Gordon, expects Badnarik to siphon a substantial number of Republican votes. "There's a lot of disconnect between true conservatives and the Bush government over deficit spending and the war," Gordon told War Room. "Bush's support is very weak, and I think the Libertarian factor is going to be pretty significant this year. People are dying, and our supporters are very, very, opposed to the war in Iraq."

Of course, it's not that the libertarians are fond of Kerry. "We hate 'em both," Gordon says, speaking for himself and his wife. Badnarik's platform opposes welfare, most taxation and virtually any infringement on individual liberties; his official position on gun control is, "Don't even THINK about taking my guns!"

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/#libertarian

[nonconformist]

1. Go Badnarik!! nt

[johnnyrocket]

6. He actually seems like a decent guy...for a libertarian...

...he is a libertarian, but he himself doesn't espouse the extremism the party goes too. Who knows how he could or would ever govern...but he had some good points at the 3rd party debates a few weeks back.

[misterphelps]

2. Could pull from Kerry too

Sounds like a familiar stump speech

[aquart]

5. He has no attraction for Kerry people.

[LibertyorDeath]

3. siphon baby !! siphon!

:bounce::bounce::bounce:

[aquart]

4. Sweet justice.

How many states is that darling man running in?

[remfan]

7. Maybe 40 states

Not sure exactly how many states, but he's polling at 4%... which is something you'd think the media might mention now and then, but no, we get to hear about Nader's 1%.

[billyoc]

8. 49!

http://www.ballot-access.org/

on edit: Holy cow, look at Badnarik's internal polls:

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/25/politopia-poll-badnarik-at-89/

36.8% - John F. Kerry (Democrat)
35.4% - George W. Bush (Republican)
10.3% - Other / Not Voting
8.9% - Michael J. Badnarik (Libertarian)
4.9% - Ralph Nader (Independent/Reform)
2.2% - David K. Cobb (Green Party)
1.5% - Michael A. Peroutka (Constitution Party)
Total Responses: 17199

ROFL!

Oh, well, at least he's got Kerry winning. :)

[requiem99]

9. In saner times I would vote for Badnerik, but these are not sane times.

I saw the guy on the c-span debate with the other 3rd party candidates, and he is definitely presidential. The only one of the bunch, in fact. He could easily stand up and debate Bush or Kerry and win (against Bush anyway, probably not Kerry).

And the previous person was right, he doesn't stand for the extreme Libs out there, he's much more moderate (if such a word can be used on that party).

My guess: Libertarian party gains a lot of attention from this election if they can grab at least a million votes, and they are almost certain to get two or three times that. With that publicity they will make a lot of headway in future elections, and hopefully replace the Republican party in the 2 party system at some point (its a dream, but I can dream, right?)

Imagine: A 2 party system where BOTH parties represent the PEOPLE, and not corporations and special interests!

[realcountrymusic]

10. check out this editorial from the Columbia Spectator

it's the daily paper of Columbia University students (and it endorsed Kerry last week), and here is a conservative columnist claiming Kerry is the only true conservative in the race

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/29/4181c58b57f65



pinion


Another Conservative For Kerry?


Pravda



By David Plotz

October 29, 2004




Is George W. Bush really the conservative choice in Tuesday’s presidential election? A small but vocal segment of the punditry thinks not.


Conservative writers, ranging from the arch-traditionalist George F. Will to the socially libertarian Andrew Sullivan, have suggested that there is nothing conservative about the president at all. In fact, a case can be made that John Kerry may be the more conservative candidate. Despite his background as a “Massachusetts liberal,” Kerry would at least bring a modicum of sanity and restraint back to Washington, which is more than the president can offer if he is reelected.


At Columbia, many of us have a warped view of what it means to be conservative. For many of us, “conservatism” is synonymous with efforts to roll back abortion rights, hatred of gays and racial minorities, and assault weapons. All of these are hallmarks of today’s Republican party, or at least the wing represented by prominent legislators such as Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, and Trent Lott. But as a philosophy, American conservatism is not about a specific cultural orientation, but rather a general principle: government should not interfere with peoples’ lives. By this standard, George W. Bush has been one of the least conservative presidents in modern times.


Bush has certainly cut taxes, and plans to do so again in his second term. This is often seen as the hallmark of conservative fiscal policy, but no president has ever cut taxes during a war. Furthermore, a true conservative would be just as committed to reducing government spending as he is to cutting taxes. Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill in his entire presidency. He has tremendously expanded Medicare and the defense budget, and, of course, he has created a huge and cumbersome new Department of Homeland Security. As a result, the federal bureaucracy has expanded while, thanks to the tax cuts, revenues are completely inadequate. And despite his supposed commitment to free trade, Bush was for illegal protectionist policies before he was against them. This may be a good time to recall that it was Bill Clinton, with the support of John Kerry, who reformed the Welfare system and in fact reduced the size of the federal government. Bush is either mathematically incompetent or determined to bleed the budget dry, because his fiscal plan guarantees the huge deficits that conservatives used to shun.



http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/29/4181c58b57f65


rcm

[jsw_81]

11. Great!

I saw one of his TV ads here in Oregon the other day; I hope he helps tip the election to the good guys.

[Dancing_Dave]

12. Aren't these the same people who saw through 9/11?

I hadn't thought very highly of Libertarians until a bunch of 'em were among the first people to realize the official story about 9/11 was impossible and bogus and Bush and Cheney had to be involved in it somehow.

By now, lots of other intelligent people have figured that out--but in the USA, the Libertarians were the first folks to see right through that treacherous propaganda spectacle.

If Libertarians end up throwing any states away from Bush, Colorado and New Mexico would be most likely.

[Robbie67]

13. Gotta give it to the Libertarians

they're against the Iraq War.