May 22, 2004
No Third Party Threat For President Bush
David Paul Kuhn, Chief Political Writer for CBSNews.com, suggests President Bush may face a Nader like threat from the Libertarian Party:
With conservatives upset over the ballooning size of the federal government under a Republican White House and Congress – and a portion of the political right having opposed the war in Iraq from the start, or else dismayed at how it's being handled – the Libertarian nominee, who will be on the ballot in 49 states, may do for Democrats in 2004 what Nader did for Republicans in 2000.
Kuhn cites several "Conservative operatives to support his thesis. Don Devine, vice chairman of the American Conservative Union said “I think [the Bush campaign] should be concerned. I don’t know how concerned." Grover Norquist, president of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, agrees with Devine that the Republicans should be paying attention to the Libertarian candidate, but says it is hard to gauge this early if many votes will be siphoned from Mr. Bush. Lee Edwards, vice chairman of the American Conservative Union also agrees that there some unhappiness among conservatives.
The Libertarians will nominate a presidential candidate next week at their convention in Atlanta. according to Kuhn, the most likely nominees include Gary Nolan, a talk-radio host and longtime Libertarian, and Aaron Russo, a successful Hollywood producer who ran a strong gubernatorial campaign in Nevada in 1998.
Kuhn also relies on Robert Novak's May 20th column which describes President Bush’s conservative base as “bothered.”
“I think [fiscal conservatives] don’t believe that [Mr. Bush] has really done anything to restrain the growth of government,” Novak said in an interview. “We are talking about a very small number of people. It becomes important only for [Mr. Bush] in a very close election where every vote counts.”
This Gallup analysis demonstrates that President Bush has no reason to worry if in fact his conservative base is bothered. Gallup says that President Bush has maintained about 90 percent approval ratings from Republicans throughout his presidency.
Charles Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, doesn't think the Libertarians will have the impact that Nader had in 2000:
“I may be very wrong but I would be absolutely stunned if [the Libertarians] turned into anything of any consequence,” said Cook.
Cook said this because “the American people overwhelmingly believe that there are big differences” between the major parties this year. But he also pointed out “the race will be close.”
In a close race, Libertarians have learned from Nader, it only takes one state to change the course of the nation.
Last month the Christian Science Monitor reported that in the 2002:
2 percent or more of voters in 15 gubernatorial and US Senate elections in 2002 cast their ballots for the Libertarian Party. And candidates running as independents cleared the 2 percent mark in seven other states. Numbers like these could be a decisive factor in a close contest between Messrs. Bush and Kerry.
The recent trends suggest that it is possible for Libertarians to make a Nader like impact. While it is interesting to muse about Conservative or Libertarian voters abandoning President Bush, it's not going to happen.
Cook is right about the Libertarians. They understand the conventional wisdom that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election and won't be similarly responsible for a Kerry win. These voters will not vote in protest for a third party candidate who can't win. In the end they will vote to reelect President Bush.
Posted by Dan Spencer at May 22, 2004 02:20 PMAnyone know anything about Judge Roy Moore’s rumored run as the Constitution Party candidate? Is his window of opportunity closed by now?
Posted by: ceejayoz at May 22, 2004 02:34 PMDan, excellent article right up to the prescient last paragraph :-).
For a Republican, I would think you would be ever mindful of Adam Smith’s description of the “invisible hand” that motivates human beings to act in their own self interest. Libertarians have a unique opportunity this election that has never presented itself before - an opportunity to garner REAL POWER over the GOP.
If I can see this, I guarantee Gary Nolan can as well. What is it we see? We see that all indications point to this election being nearly or as close as the 2000 race. We see a history of the GOP blocking Libertarian Party efforts in the past and their failure to respond to core Libertarian conservative values. We SEE that if the Libertarian Party can swing this November election to Kerry, the GOP can and will NEVER take the Libertarian Party for granted AGAIN! We see, that the Libertarian Party will garner for itself bargaining power with the GOP to enhance its own growth and stature. We see, that if the Green Party and the Libertarian Party can influence this election, the two Major Parties will be left with no choice in the future but to tear down some of the barriers established by the FEC in order to win support from their little cousin parties.
All that remains is for the Nominee to get this message out - and Libertarians will have an enormous incentive to concede the 2004 race to Kerry by siphoning Bush votes, in order to establish a brokering position and power the party has never had before.
Let’s face it, politics is about power and winning, and this kind of opportunity for the Libertarian Party may never come again. They will seize it while they have the chance.
David - doesn’t seem to have happened in the last four years with the Democrats, does it? Why would one believe it’d work differently in the Republican Party?
Posted by: ceejayoz at May 22, 2004 04:31 PMMany conservatives at World Net Daily announced weeks ago that they would not be voting for George “Delano” Bush this coming November, and have declared support either for actual traditional conservative candidates (perhaps Moore) or for the Libertarians. There are also a number of Republicans who are opposing Bush’s presidential bid, like Bill Wyatt.
Posted by: chsa at May 22, 2004 04:31 PMExcuse me, ceejayoz, what planet were you on when Kerry chose to meet with and barter with Nader?
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 22, 2004 05:13 PMAnd what came out of that meeting, David? Nothing of substance. Nader’s still running, and Kerry doesn’t seem to have had any new Nader-inspired ventures since that meeting.
Posted by: ceejayoz at May 22, 2004 05:59 PMWell, ceejayoz, I am not about to provide you with a course on diplomacy - suffice it to say, the door has been opened for negoitiations and they still have 6 months to negoitiate. This is a hugely significant move, but, I am pleased that potential detractors fail to see it as such.
I’d love to see the two come to some sort of agreement - have Nader focus on states that aren’t contested, for example. I’m just pessimistic as to the likelihood of that actually happening.
Posted by: ceejayoz at May 22, 2004 07:44 PMceejayoz, if Kerry is willing to offer something substantial to independents and third parties, or in one of Nader’s other core concern areas, like FEC overhaul, serious constrictions of lobbyist influence across the board, or disabling corporate entity legal status to function as a citizen in the halls of government and in the courts, then I am 99 9/10% confident Nader will direct his efforts and his followers to at the very least, not impair the Kerry vote.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 23, 2004 01:20 AMWow! Something I actually agree on with Dan…hmmm. But, that could change.
Gov. Ahhnold’s victory in California is a perfect example of how the words ‘arbitrary’ and ‘bed-rock’ are inter-changable when describing Conservative principles - victory at all cost.
This will again be tested seeing that 5 open US Senate seats in Nov. hold the key to the balance of power in the upper house. Oh, make that 4 open seats because you can go ahead and check off Illinois in the Dem column.
But, what to do about Pennsylvania? Conservative outrage over the administration’s support of the Ahmed Chalabi of the Republican Party (Arlen Specter), made their outrage over the abuse photos seem like,well… Rush’s outrage.
Plus, on the schedule is the Iraqi handover, the 9/11 report and the Wilson Spy Scandal. Not to mention the ever widening abuse scandal inching its way up to Rumsfeld and the coming toll of gas prices on a recovering economy is the new job’s number box score.
David Broder pointed out a study showing 14% of Conservatives ‘unsure’ of voting for Bush.
And, this is just the calm before the storm.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at May 23, 2004 02:21 PMThere is one minor gap in the original rationale.
Why would Libertarians choosing not to support their own party, as they should, vote for Bush and not Kerry? Why would a Libertarian view George Bush to be as good as John Kerry, let alone better? After all, it is Bush that gave us the Patriot Act, the War on Iraq, detention without trial for Mr. Padilla, a reinvigorated war on drugs, a half trillion dollar Federal Budget deficit. From a Libertarian perspective, replacing Bush with Kerry is progress.
Posted by: George Phillies at June 7, 2004 11:28 AM
