Libertarian Party squeezed out by Conservatives

[nomorelies]

When a radio newsman described Ralph Nader as "providing a choice for those who don't want to vote for President George Bush or Sen. John Kerry," I ran to my phone and dialed the station. "Don't you know," I asked the newsman, "that there already is a `choice' on the Oregon ballot, whether Nader is on or not?" I asked. "The Libertarian Party has been on the Oregon ballot for years," I huffed.

As a matter of fact, the Libertarian Party has been on the ballot of almost every state in the union, offering a third presidential candidate for years. Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik is obviously the major choice of the undecided vote. A Zogby poll released Aug. 30 showed Badnarik performing better than any other alternative candidate among the critical block of undecided voters.

But you'd never know that from radio, TV or newspaper reports.

According to Rasmussen Reports, a major polling firm, Badnarik not only has 3 percent support nationwide, but 10 percent of Americans identify their ideology as libertarian rather than conservative or liberal. Yet in most of the media, Badnarik has been virtually invisible.

What would happen to Badnarik's support if the media mentioned him 10 percent of the time? Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen. In fact, Badnarik's name has been suppressed.

My friend Dean Ahmad, former treasurer of the national Libertarian Party and a representative of Muslims for Badnarik, was invited to appear on Fox News' ``O'Reilly Factor,'' but was told by the producers not to mention Badnarik's name on the air.

Earlier, Badnarik himself had been invited to appear on the show but he was canceled the day before his appearance, without any reason given.

When "third parties" are mentioned in the media, the commentators almost never mention Badnarik or the Libertarian Party, although the party has run more candidates than all the other third parties combined in past elections and has 600 elected officeholders nationwide.

It makes you wonder, doesn't it? What are the major news media afraid of?

Could it be that most Americans share the Libertarian ideals of fiscal conservativism (reducing the size and cost of government) and social liberalism (allowing citizens control and responsibility for their personal lives)?

It is apparent that neither President George Bush nor Sen. John Kerry will discuss the many issues that cause new political parties to form.

In their debates, perhaps they will discuss how they plan to reduce our huge national deficit without initiating tax increases. Perhaps they will discuss the high cost and low results of the drug war, the declining value of the dollar, the real rate of inflation, the reason prescription drugs cost less in Canada, American public school students' relatively low test scores, the effect of environmental policies and the political favoritism given to special interests.

The American public has a right to hear discussions on all issues that concern them. But the commission that organizes the presidential debates was altered years ago when the League of Women Voters invited a Libertarian congressman to participate.

The candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties refused to debate him and formed their own commission. When Ross Perot siphoned off nearly 20 percent of the popular vote in 1992, the biased debates commission adopted requirements that eliminated third party candidates. This is obviously unfair.

There wouldn't be other political parties if the Republicans and Democrats covered all the issues of interest to the electorate.

If all views were represented, more voters would participate and the results would offer and a better indication of what voters really want. If the winning candidate could know the real concerns of the public, he or she could act upon them.

After all, the election is the most revealing and authentic poll of all, if the voters are aware of all viewpoints on issues.

The election isn't a horse race, and voters don't have to pick a winner. Voters should vote their consciences and pick the candidate who best represents their values.

That way is the best way, and really the only way, for voters to get their concerns before those who will ultimately determine the direction of this country.

[M]

Libertarian party canno be taken seriously as long as they lack any sort of national security and foreign policy.

[John Dibble]

Libertarian party canno be taken seriously as long as they lack any sort of national security and foreign policy.

We do. I assume you just don't agree with it, so you write it off.


As far as conservatives(I assume this is interchangeable with Republicans in this case?) squeezing us out, Democrats are just as bad - we did attain enough valid signatures to get on the ballot in New Hampshire, but it seems that a number of Democratic officials in many towns there mailed our signatures to the LPNH office almost a week late(they did this with Nader too). Since we have an 'anti-war' candidate, this year both Democrats and Republicans have a lot to lose if we got attention.

[nomorelies]

I like the Libertarian Party.

http://www.badnarik.org/plans_homelandsecurity.php
http://www.badnarik.org/plans_wariniraq.php

Thats for all the ignorant conservatives that think Bush isnt like all the other politicians in Washngton.

Libertarians do have policies that i like
http://www.badnarik.org/plans_warondrugs.php
proves that Bush is a liar. Its my body and if my wife gets sick and the only drug available i cant give her because the government says no then i will be pissed off. When you talk drugs people think crack, coke when in fact its responsibility thats the key. Those that dont consider the benefits just dont understand drugs.

http://www.badnarik.org/plans_economy.php
I think we shouldnt pay tax personally. I dont think a government should be allowed to have a defict.

[M]

I write it off because it is electrorally unimportant. Were it a major force, I would view it as extremely dangerous. Remember the last time the USA was isolationist? Bad things happened. VERY bad things. That should never, ever happen again.

[John Dibble]

I write it off because it is electrorally unimportant. Were it a major force, I would view it as extremely dangerous. Remember the last time the USA was isolationist? Bad things happened. VERY bad things. That should never, ever happen again.

Well, you either recognize we have one or you don't - writing it off as unimportant is different. Don't lie. Just say we would need a better one.

There's a difference between isolationist and non-interventionist. There's a post where I explain it(and my own position as well) in the 'Individual Politics' section, you can't miss it. EDIT - I'll save you a trip: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=14;action=display;threadid=8997

Also, do take into account that even if the Libertarians come into power they won't completely dominate. There will always be opposition, so things couldn't go too far(especially since, unlike some other political philosophies that could be considered dangerous, ours isn't tyrannical). It's not as if conservatives and left-liberals would just drop off the face of the Earth.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'd take the libertarians over any other party except the Dems, and the libertarians are better than even them in some ways.  

[nomorelies]

FOX are undermining Badnarik