-Ken Buck, Colorado's Republican Senate candidate, was once an assistant federal prosecutor.
-There was an Aurora gun dealer who sold guns illegally and had 37 counts thrown at him. This was a violation of federal law, nothing to sneeze at.
- Ken Buck didn't pursue the prosecution.
-Ken Buck shared information with the defense team. That's right, he tipped them off. How's that for law enforcement? Then he resigned. Was he forced to?
-Ken Buck was reprimanded... by a Republican U.S. Attorney. A partisan witch hunt? Not so much.
-The illegal gun dealer benefited from Ken Buck's unethical, sleazy behavior. He was convicted of a misdemeanor.
The late Mary Travers once sang a song called "Where Have All the Flowers Gone? It was a lamentation about the human cost of war and it was a popular protest song during the Vietnam era. Well it seems to me that someone could write a song, or at least ask the same question, about Libertarians. Specifically, where have all the Libertarians gone?
In the din and roar surrounding politics in America today much is made of the importance of Libertarian thinking. Some have pointed out its importance to the Tea Party Movement: "More recently, the Libertarian theme of the "tea party" began with Republican Congressman Ron Paul supporters as a fund raising event during the 2008 presidential primaries to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement." That said it's interesting to consider the following two questions: First, if Libertarian ideas are so compelling, how come Libertarians garner such a small portion of actual votes during major electoral campaigns? Secondly, if Libertarians command such low voting totals, how is it that there is such a disproportionate number of Libertarian organizations and who is putting up the money to support them?
During the 2008 election cycle, America's Libertarian's had a clear choice among those vying for the Republican nomination for president. Ron Paul was an outspoken Libertarian and had been so for many years. Paul's Libertarian bona fides were well established, widely known and beyond question. But Paul wasn't even remotely competitive within the G.O.P.'s contest for candidate in the 2008 presidential election cycle. Yet even though Paul was eliminated from the race, Libertarians still had a choice in the person of Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman of Georgia, and the Libertarian Party's presidential pick for 2008. The irony of it all is that even though they still had a horse in the race, in an election that offered four different choices for president, the Libertarian candidate finished dead last with a paltry 523,686 votes or 0.4% of the total votes cast in 2008. With the aforementioned facts in hand, we can only conclude that Libertarians either do not vote, fail to vote for their own candidates or that there aren't very many of them in existence after all.
Well, if it's hard to discern the actual existence of Libertarians in any precise number, then how is it we have over sixty five Libertarian organizations afloat in the body politic according to Wikipedia? The Stason Organization lists 11 "Major Libertarian Organizations" and 33 "Think Tanks". But this begs the question: Why so many organizations for just over a half of a million voters, or less than one half of one percent of the voting public? It seems a bit fishy to me that we have all of these "Libertarian" organizations in a country that seems to have so few Libertarians. If we have so few Libertarians, then where does the cash that fuels all of these "Libertarian" organizations come from? After all it would be pretty hard to fund this large number of organizations out of the pockets of just 0.4% of the voting public. Could it be that these "Libertarian" organizations are propped up by those with a specific agenda and deep pockets or do these 523,686 voters just all happen to be billionaires? So can someone tell me where have all the Libertarians gone, long time passing?
Yesterday afternoon, former Republican Congressman and 2008 Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr had the audacity to say, "Waterboarding is torture." The reason it took audacity is that he was at CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. He was promptly booed.
Instead of adhering to the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions, conservative ideological leaders and Republican leaders have decided to shoot for political expediency, stubbornness, and sadism.
I'm sure you're dying to know who finished in third behind Barack Obama and John McCain. Well it's close enough we'll have to wait until all the votes are counted, but here are the rounded totals so far, according to state-by-state data from Wikipedia and added by me:
530,200 votes: Ralph Nader
519,800 votes: Bob Barr
179,900 votes: Chuck Baldwin
147,600 votes: Cynthia McKinney
30,800 votes: Alan Keyes (in CA)
28,300 votes: Write-in/other
10,500 votes: Ron Paul (in MT)
Nader! Feel the momentum. The total number of people who looked at Barack Obama and John McCain and said "nope" is approaching 1.5 million, an increase from 2004. Nader's total this year exceeds his total from 2004 which was about 464,000 but far below his 2000 showing of nearly 3 million.
Write-in votes will affect the final totals and I'm sure there are a significant number of Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul (only on the ballot in MT) and Zombie Reagan votes in there.
Running for office is incredible tough, and something that is difficult to imagine unless you've done it. So one interesting phenomenon we see is that credible people who run as fringe-y third party candidates tend to have interesting insights into what's wrong with the political system, but no actual willingness to subordinate their egos to actual solve the problems they cite. In 2000, though Gore and Bush weren't identical, there was definitely a reasonable critique of both parties as militaristic and excessively corporate; the next eight years have seen a vicious intra-party fight within the Democratic Party to expel the DLC. We are far from winning, but Nader was a good signal that such a fight was on the horizon.
Pollster.com national regression line with third-party candidates Obama: 49.6%
McCain: 38.1%
Barr: 2.6%
Nader: 2.3%
That is not a competitive campaign. Including third-party options in polls right now clearly benefits Obama. An 11.5% victory for Obama would put him over 400 electoral votes, and put a whole swatch of red states either in play, or in his column. So, the question is, how can Obama go about raising the national numbers for third party candidates like Nader and Barr?
The answer, I think, is just to debate them. Next month, Obama should propose including Barr, Nader and McKinney in one of the presidential debates. This seems like a no-brainer that would benefit Obama no matter what McCain said in response:
Obama could frame the proposal as looking for discussion and solutions from all parties. Given that both he and McCain are trying to look bi- / post- / non-partisan, making this proposal is any easy way to back up that narrative.
If McCain accepts, then he is once again following Obama's lead. If he declines, then he looks chicken, not to mention unwilling to debate people with a wide range of viewpoints.
The third-party candidates will be the undoubted beneficiaries of a debate where they are included. Neither of the major party candidates can hope to gain as much from the debates as the third-party candidates. For example, consider how Perot's numbers shot way up after he first appeared in a debate back in 1992. Further, they will all probably receive a large influx in donations, thus helping them maintain their gains in the debates.
Even if the debate ends up only being Obama and the third-party candidates, it will still receive an enormous amount of coverage that will improve the standing of Nader, Barr and McKinney. The cable news nets will carry it live, even if the networks don't. Even news organization will run a top story on the debates.
In short, whether or not McCain accepts the debate, it will still receive a wave of free media that will help Nader and Barr (and maybe McKinney) in the polls. And, as the above numbers indicate, this election simply isn't close when Nader and Barr have decent showings in the polls. Further, just proposing the debate will make Obama look open to discussion from all quarters. There is nothing to be lost here, and a lot to gain.
So, I hope that Obama comes out with a proposal to include third-party candidates in at least one debate this cycle. Rarely would something so simple and easy provide so much potential gain in a presidential election.
Let me first say that I'm not actually one of those Democrats who thinks that third party challenges need to be squashed, or that the people who vote for leftist third party candidates are somehow actually supporting Republicans. My feelings on the matter are as follows:
A vote for a third party candidate is not the same as voting for a Republican. Instead, it is effectively the same as not voting at all. While no analogy is perfect (the truth is that voting for a third party candidate is the same as voting for a third party candidate), this one holds up much better to logical scrutiny. Other than the extremely rare situations where third-party candidates have a shot at winning, voting for a third party candidate ultimately impacts the outcome of the election in the same manner as not voting at all.
No one is entitled to votes. If progressives or Independents or whoever end up voting for third-party candidates, then the Democratic nominee just didn't do a good enough job winning those votes. Period. It isn't the fault of the voters--it is the fault of the candidate.
We shouldn't expect, or even desire, consensus. We would indeed live in a disturbing version of a republic if no one voted for third parties, if everyone voted, and if everyone was enthusiastic about one of the two major party nominees. Dissent via third parties, via not voting, and via "holding one's nose" is healthy for any republic. While third parties and not voting tend to be just about the least effective forms of dissent available, it would still be a shame if the 1-3% of the country that voted third party every two years went away.
Now, with all of that said, as I explain in the extended entry, I still don't want anything to do with third-parties. While they should not be existentially scorned, for anyone who actually wants to change the American political system, the ineptitude of third-parties is indeed worthy of scorn.
Of course he's a total hypocrite cause he used to be a Republican examining Bill Clinton's bedroom habits but that is besides the point.
I fear if he attacks Obama and McCain on things like civil liberties, gay marriage, foreign policy, and other issues that resonate with liberals those attacks might resonate with some of the younger new Democrats who Obama has been trying to recruit. Of course all the signs say that overall he will hurt McCain more than Obama, I do wonder if he could do damage in certain key areas/demographics. I could see him being popular with young liberal here in Georgia, but it is pretty hard to imagine him hurting the Dems more than the GOP.
I just saw him on Fox News Sunday and he appeared to be more attacking Obama from the left than attacking McCain from the right. We Democrats want Barr to slam the Republicans on economic fiscal conservatism as much as humanly possible. If he starts doing this, I think we should do our best to make sure he gets seated in as many debates as possible. However if he focuses on attacking Obama with the same concentration that some of these other anti-Obama media outlets have I could see it, at the very least, minimizing the amount that he will act as a spoiler against the Republicans.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. The Obama slime machines are in such full effect already I just get worries. The media is the only thing that is going to give McCain a chance in hell of winning in November. Fox News has become so apparently anti-Obama that its hard to imagine that even hardcore Republicans haven't noticed and adjusted accordingly. I would be willing to cut off one of my toes if that would make Juan Williams disappear. He drives me even more crazy than Sean Hannity because he actually poses as a neutral objective political analyst.
Former Rep. Bob Barr won the Libertarian Party's Presidential nomination at the party's convention in Denver Sunday afternoon. He defeated long-time party activist Mary Ruwart, 54 to 46 percent, on the sixth ballot.
Fourteen candidates ran for the nomination. Former Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel was defeated in the fourth round.
Third place finisher Wayne Allyn Root, an internet gambling entrepreneur, is the vice-presidential nominee. (...)
"I'm sure will we emerge here with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," Barr said in his victory speech.
For a great play by play of the convention, click here.
Now, if Barr-Root actually will be "with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," it would require at least 1.07% of the popular vote, surpassing the 1.06% Edwards Clark scored for a fourth-place finish in 1980. Since that election, the best libertarian performance was 0.50% by Harry Browne in 1996, also for fourth place. In fact, 1984 and 1988 are the only elections where the Libertarian nominee even managed to finish in third-place.
As a former congressman, Bob Barr appears to be a more formidable candidate than the typical third-party crusader. Also, Ron Paul's campaign demonstrated that there was both activist excitement, and a 2-3% national voting base, for an effective libertarian candidate. So, there does seem to be an opening, at least in theory.
However, I just don't think that Barr is going to be able to make a real impact on this election. In fact, he probably won't even break the 1.06%, 1980 high-water for Libertarians. For one thing, after decline sets in, third-parties in American never recover. The No Names, the Populists, the Socialists, The Progressives, the Reforms, the Greens-all of them went into permanent decline after an initial splash. Further, you can't change leaders in mid-stream, and Bob Barr is not going to attract the same support that Ron Paul had. The activist excitement around Ron Paul over the last year was closely connected to Ron Paul himself, and will not be easily transferable in such a short period of time. Yet further, even if the activist excitement around Ron Paul was transferable, it isn't going to a Libertarian-come-lately like Bob Barr. Even the Libertarian Party was lukewarm about Barr, as it took him six ballots to receive a narrow delegate majority of 54%.
So, while I would like to believe that Bob Barr will receive more than 1.06% of the vote, I just don't think it will happen. In fact, with Ralph Nader in the field, he won't even get all of the non-ideological, "f**k you" vote, which is the roughly 1% of the electorate that always chooses third-parties no matter what. It is nice to dream of Barr pulling down 3% of the vote, with his supporters drawing roughly 2-1 from the McCain camp, but in truth he will probably get about 1% of the vote, with about two-thirds of his supporters being people who would never vote for either McCain or Obama. So, Barr might swing the election 0.1% in favor of Obama, and thus probably cancel out Nader. There is an outside chance even this small amount will swing a state or two, but not much.
Third parties will not be a significant factor in this presidential election. If Ron Paul himself had run for the Libertarian nomination, it would be a different story. Alas, 'twas not to be.
Update: Another reason Barr is unlikely to be a factor is that third-party performance is actually on the decline (or, at best, stagnant). Click here and here for my post-2006 election analysis on this subject.
Cross posted on from DailyKos with a different poll
Rasmussen recently published results of their first (as far as I know) poll involving more than the two major party candidates. While I am glad to see some reality based polling going on (there will be 5 or 6 candidates on most of the ballot for Pres in most states in November), Rasmussen has some pretty serious flaws in methodology (shocking, I know).
Obama earns 42% of the vote, McCain 38%, Bob Barr 6% and Ralph Nader 4%. Given those options, 11% were undecided.Barr and Nader were mentioned as candidates of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party respectively.
By comparison, Sunday's 2-way numbers were Obama 45 McCain 44 - clearly this is good news for Obama, even if the real pull the lever November support of these two candidates is only half what is shown here. Details on the poll numbers, as well as analysis of both the results and Rasmussen's flawed methodology after the jump.
As the Obama-Clinton battle winds down and Obama's magic number gets lower, some national polls are out there for the general election that are actually polling some of the other names on the ballot, or at least 'other' as an option.
While the Libertarian and Green Party nominations are not wrapped up yet either (Cynthia McKinney will almost certainly be the Green candidate, the 17 candidate battle royale in the Libertarian Party continues), the Constitution Party has nominated unknown Chuck Baldwin over better known but equally irrelevant Alan Keyes.
Of course, the three major party candidates get all the press attention, but it is interesting to take a look at possible 3rd party impact on the GE. Poll numbers after the jump:
STATE BLOGS
