Question of the Day
By Erick Posted in 2006 — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Democrats, in outing Mark Foley and his sordid page scandal, have been hoping to suppress the GOP turnout machine -- make no mistake, this was not an effort to turn voters from the GOP. It was an effort to suppress the GOP's vote.
The headlines are certainly spooky for the GOP right now -- lots of polls showing the Democrats head in key races. And now the GOP has some open seats that should be safe, but are now not. Yet, if the national generics are to be believed, nothing has changed. The GOP is still within about 5 points of the Democrats, which is a good sign for the GOP.
Now, the New York Times reports that evangelicals, those the Dems hoped to suppress, are mostly blaming Foley. Finally, as the GOP struggles to shift back to offense, North Korea has tested a nuke.
The question of the day is this -- has North Korea just blown up the Democrats' best chance to capture the House?
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Harold Ford Is Not A Lawyer -- Despite What He Says — Comments (35) »
Question of the Day 61 Comments (0 topical, 61 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Evidence of this that the detonation of a nuclear weapon by the North Koreans did not manage to even temporarily displace the Foley Scandal from the Washington Post Online's front page. It still has second billing there, and the Washintgon Post is demonstrating its sense of priorities by hosting a live chat at 11:00 this morning -- with Dan Baltz, on the Foley scandal. In the national media, the Foley scandal has far too many stories employing far too many journalists already in the pipeline to be displaced by anything so trivial as a rogue state that is a known proliferator and arms supplier to Iran and Syria as well as a counterfeiter of U.S. currency setting off a nuclear weapon on the Korean peninsula. Salacious stories of gay sex and instant messages are much more easily understood and discussed -- nay, are even more important! -- to the American people as we approach a momentous occasion like an election.
As usual, I'd like someone to prove me wrong. But I will almost certify that even after this event, regardless of the coverage it generates, there will still be more people in the United States who can identify Maf54 and locate him on a map than can do the same for Kim Jong-Il. We have evidence of this.
The question is whether Foley will result in turnovers in the House and Seante. So far, that seems to be a left-wing dream more than a race by race reality. Let's look at the next round of individual polls to see what impact, if any, Foley has on races other than his own.
I'll hold out the hope that this can be a positive for the Republicans but it is going to take some work and some skillful focus. Normally in an international crisis situation, the party in power stands to benefit if it can demonstrate a competent handling of the crisis and especially if the public realizes that.
I just wouldn't expect the Foley scandal to disappear beneath the waves because of this test. Now, if DPRK continues to escalate...the whole situation could change.
As I said earlier this past weekend, though, I don't think the Foley scandal is over. I reported that I had heard there was going to be more news breaking this weekend about Foley, and lo and behold this morning the WaPo is running the story about Kolbe and emails dating back to 2000, on Page A01.
And here's my worry in a nutshell:
It also expands the universe of players in the drama beyond members, either in leadership or on the page board.
And so as of this morning the world is still learning "new" facts and surprising revelations about Mark Foley from someone other than the Speaker of the House and from someone who is claiming awareness Foley's behavior before the Republican leadership has thusfar admitted.
So the question is: how much more feces is in this cat? How many new and shocking front-page revelations are we going to see on a Monday morning between now and November 7? How much more do other members of the House who haven't gotten with the program of the Leadership have stashed away in their closets, ready to blab to the WaPo or to ABC News? How many other former pages have kept copies of other emails that they're still sitting on?
The problem with the Foley scandal is that this information continues to come out in dribs and drabs, like water torture, not to put too fine a point on it. Now yes, it is true that the Republicans have a golden opportunity to show leadership and credibility in this new situation with North Korea. Let's hope they don't blow it. But now that North Korea has set off its fireworks, that part of the party is over (at least if it's the only one.) On the other hand, what worries me still about the Foley scandal are the "unknown unknowns." I wouldn't be surprised if are still a few of them out there.
outside of Foley's own race and perhaps Reynolds' re-election bid. In the case of Kolbe, he probably helps in that he fought the GOP nominee Randy Graf in Arizona 8 tooth and toenail and refused to endorse him. I'm sure the winner is glad--now--to have been at loggerheads with Kolbe.
Stuff may dribble out, but it will take a lot more than anything yet to turn elections. That's not to say it won't, but it hasn't yet.
Now if tensions with Korea continue to ratchet up, and they may, I do think this will benefit the GOP regardless of how the Democrats try to spin it. The picture of Albright toasting lil' Kim is priceless. I agree, though, Foley is easier to grasp for the public and likely to be the lede unless things get really, really nasty with Pyongyang.
I want to believe you're right. And I'm very upset about Reynolds. I'm really beyond the Twilight Zone of anger about Reynolds' race, in fact. I really haven't begun to "process" that yet.
I mean -- I just need a second to vent here -- I *cannot believe* that the people in the 26th District of New York State are willing (as the Zogby poll indicates they might be) to remove Reynolds from the House Ways and Means Committee and see Charles Rangel strutting proudly there in his absence. Every time I've seen Rangel on television in the past week, I've had to shut it off and go outside and take a walk to prevent me from destroying my own property and having to perform a citizen's arrest on myself.
Even though it is Zogby, that poll is the only evidence out there and it supports your anger management problems with electronics. The only comfort is that the same phenomenon has yet to pop up elsewhere. I'll wait until the next round of polls, though, before I take a kick at the tube.
with their BDS, will keep dribbling out tidbits from now to election day, under the guise of 'news'. Frankly, I'm beginning to feel some sympathy for Foley and don't believe the IM's are going to hold up to close scrutiny in terms of their authenticity. I believe he resigned because he was embarrassed because he was outed as Gay.
Yeah, but..but...the Republicans have Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaays in their party!
The religious right doesn't hate homosexuals. The religious right hates adultery. Homosexuals who abstain from sex outside marriage should be accepted by the religious right with no problem, the way I read them.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Man you may be right, but I just think you are WAY off base (no pun intended). And why would you use the word "hate"? That appears to be straight from the Democrat playbook.
Generally speaking, the ones that I've met have been generally decent folks; their particular psycho-sexual quirks aside, they aren't that unusual. Heck, many of them are just simply admitting in public to things that a lot of people do in private. And certainly a lot of them are as patriotic as one could hope to find.
They also wouldn't thank you for your attempts to fuel homophobia here, so get the Hell off my website.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Ours is a tough but tender party. Tough on terrorism, tough on crime, tough on drugs. Tender of our brothers, sisters and friends in the GLBT community. As a gay Republican, I embrace the best of the Republican party values. The party of Lincoln.
We are going to take a pounding in November. And it is what we get for following the pied piper named bush/rove, whose move left "take the conservatives for granted" philosophy is about to bear very bitter fruit.
Now is when we pay the price for supporting the arnolds, chaffey's and their ilk.
The homosexual Republicans are coming out of the woodwork and that has been kept hush-hush and for good reason. Now we find out their are homosexuals throughout the power structure in the GOP and that is going to severely piss off our base. The latest I heard is fellow homosexual Congressman Jim Kolbe knew about Foley's antics back in 2000. Perhaps this is all part of the vaunted "homosexual lifestyle" that we are to robotically embrace, celebrate and tolerate? Well, I just don't see that happening.
I fear we are about to feel the brunt of a decade of using the social conservative base but never delivering and in fact, spiting them by filling our ranks with homosexuals. Economic conservatives need to look at it this way. What if social conservatives made only mock efforts to oppose minimum wage and tax increases and only delivered for the social conservative base? Because in reality, just the opposite has been the way the GOP has operated.
I don't think the base, even the evangelical base really cares that there are gays in government-or in the GOP.
[What part of "answer the question here before you comment again" was misunderstood? - Moe Lane]
it is my opinion that this issue is as important to the "evangelical base"/social conservatives as taxes and economic issues are to the economic conservative base. it would be tantamount to the social conservatives going along with the Dems on minimum wage and taxes and then claiming its no big deal, let's stick together.
i'll predict millions of social conservatives will go the polls in November with the mindset that the parties are the same on homosexual issues and if my choice if to "stay the course" in Iraq and rally against a minimum wage raise, they'll either stay home or vote Dem.
Now I am not sure I am a dyed in the wool social conservative/religious righter.
I am an evengelical Christian. I identify strongly with much in the social conservative movement.
I can't say that this matter changes my vote one whit or keeps me home.
The person who I find most responsible here is Foley-he wasn't my congressman.
I am not sure that Hastert deserves the coals being heaped on him, but he also isn't my congressman.
I think Shimkus is probably the biggest ball dropper of the bunch, but he too isn't my congressman.
My congressman is Charlie Bass (don't care much for him, vote against him in every primary I am given the chance)-to date, I haven't noticed him being connected to the scandal. Charlie gets my vote, because he isn't his opponent, and while he isn't a great conservative, he is still better than his opponent.
I think this is how the majority of evangelicals will see it, especially given that we understand that other important conservative values won't be moved forward if we stay home and the other side gets to take over.
And we absolutely won't do so, with regards to the senate-we know it is because the GOP controls the senate that we now have Cheif Justice Roberts and Justice Alito sitting on the bench. If there is a senate race in any state, I predice the soc cons still come out to vote.
is that we sometimes find ourselves responding to an actor who has already left the stage!
Alas, poor jeffgolden67 has already departed. victim of a cruel world...and his own idiot postings!
looks like I could have saved myself the time-oh well, he can still read it, even if he can't respond.
we may loose a few seats, but i don't think that's a pounding.this election is going to be more about incumbent change than democrat vs republican.i agree, bush leans more to the left than i like.if you look at the states arnold & chaffey are from they are still right of center,but not consevatives.this election will be about indiviual state turnout.
I don't know about others in the party, but I am more eager to vote this year than in the past. My Congressman is not one of the ones in trouble (Phil English), but my Senator is. It may befuddle some, but as an openly gay, Catholic, Republican, I am as conservative if not more conservative than just about everyone I work with and my group of friends, but according to the mainstream media I should a hippy, sign-waving, pro-gay marriage twenty something. Instead I am a productive workaholic. I never had a problem with Mark Foley and I am hoping that we can retain out majority. There are so many great candidates out there that I hope are not going to get defeated because of something they didn't do. My particular favorites are Jeff Lamberti, Diana Irey (who is in the district next door to me), Chuck Blasdel, Ralph Norman, and David McSweeney. I am also a huge fan of Michael Steele and Mike Bouchard, America would be a better place for them.
The media loves the selacious, and gay GOP congressman having sexual IM chats with former Pages is definitely selacious. This story is also easier than N Korea.
But if the media starts talking about the scary part of a nuclear NK-that NK, which already sells blackmarket weapons to rogue nations, may start selling nukes to rogue nations, and I don't think anyone is going to care who was IMing with who, given the fact that the guy doing it, resigned and is gone.
So it all depends on how much the media wants to cover either story.
I do think the problem for the Foley story is unless something new and interesting comes out, it probably doesn't have legs for too much longer, so in the end it may not do much to affect the election.
I do 100% agree that voter suppression is the goal of this, not neccessarily flipping voters. I said a while back and still say that this is likely the year of the apathetic voter-I suspect that swing/undecideds are mostly staying home, because they think one guy is as bad as the other. This is a year when getting the base out is the key.
And while I am not sure if I qualify as part of the evangelical Christian base, I can't say that the Foley stuff keeps me home, and I am not convinced it keeps others home as well.
Why should the media, as it is presently constituted, continue to set the terms of the debate?
I wouldn't mind if I didn't know that 95% of them are pulling for the other side.
the ability of the MSM to control the news.
But in this case the MSM is going to go for the selacious easy to cover story, and ignore (okay maybe not outright ignore, but I bet the foley/nk ratio is pretty high) the one that involves real security issues.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Yes, I think pod was the word I wanted, thanks, heh.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
While the Democrat-MSM spin machine keeps grinding out more anti Republican propaganda, the North Koreans detonate a nuke.
They disregard the fact that since 1975, out of every politician that has been caught with either his hands in the ccokie jar or a body part placed deliberately where it didn't belong, two to one have been Democrats.
They disregard the fact that it was James Earl Carter, (D-Ga), who went to Pyongyang, gave the North Koreans everything including the kitchen sink to not develope a nuke, who presented us with the Neville Chamberlain, "peace in our time" momemt in 1993. Bush was presented with a 'fait accompli' in 2001. If you remember the last time we went to war against a Communist initiative in Vietnam, the Communists took over the Democratic party apparatus starting in 1969. The ACP, chose not to run an oppostion candidate against John Kerry (D-Ma),Hero of the Revolution of the People's Republic of North Vietnam, demonstating the ACP's ability to recognize a duck when they saw one.
There is no way the Democrat-ACP alliance in this country would stand for a military action against a Communist regime.
There is no way the present Democrat-ACP party will stand for a military action against a present day Communist regime.
Pyongyang will, with possession of a nuclear device, opt to take some 'lebensraum' at the expense of the people of South Korea, and the Congress, under the control of the Democrats, wearing their fully utilized "Adult Huggies" will after hanging the appropriate white bed linens in the best French tradition out the front windows, will try to find somebody to appease. FDR, HST, and JFK, the last Democrats who understood the folly of Chamberlain's appeasement in Munich,1938, are dead. The Democrats are convinced they are smarter and more skillful today than their predecessors. Madmen are still madmen, and there remains only one way to deal with them. The world is going to relearn the lesson of 1938 again.
They won't admit it, but that's what they think, deep in their bones and out loud in their private conversations. Especially those neanderthals that-- gasp homeschool their children!
Two good friends of mine are very strong in their Christian beliefs. The parents are USAF Academy grads. They homeschool. Their children are well-read, smart and a delight to be around. NO ONE in that family is a fool.
Through them, I've learned that many evangelicals/fundamentalists are active in politics. I suspect that these folks will sense that the MSM is peeing on their leg over Foley, and then trying to fool them by telling them that it's just the rain.
These folks don't like being insulted. Or belittled. And, by presuming that the evangelicals can be duped into staying home on Election Day by hyping the Foley story, the MSM insults and belittles these folks.
I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number of Christian Soldiers will return to the GOP ranks, because of the way the MSM has handled this whole matter.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I know of two families in my area that homeschool their children. I have been there during the afternoon and both parents had (looks left--looks right--whispers) Rush Limbaugh on the radio! Poisoning young minds!
[...and you don't get a second. Go home. - Moe Lane]
I post on some regional blogs. No offense meant, but is this a moderate Republican message board or an arm of the Log Cabin Republicans?
the Log Cabin Republicans' web site but I don't really see anything touching on the Foley matter.
The Democrats still don't have much in the way of a plan for much of anything and I don't believe national news necessarily bears on every race. District and state matters still dominate for the constituents.
The real story this election year which the liberal media has totally ignored, is the rise of the "Blue Collar Libertarians" or the "NASCAR Libertarians."
These are 30 something guys, maybe divorced once or twice, big sports bar goers, read Maxim, love golf outings with their buddies, fantasy football fanatics, and Spike TV addicts. But they also read the Wall Street Journal, have good stock broker jobs in downtown Chicago, and watch their 401Ks like a hawk.
They hold their nose and vote Republican most times. They like the GOP's views on economics, but can't stand the religious right.
Post Foley-Gate, these guys might switch to the Libertarian Party column, unless the GOP acts fast to reach out to them!
I'm seeing polling data that suggests the formerly moribund Libertarian Party is polling in specific races better than ever before. They could win the TX CD-22 seat (Tom DeLay). They're polling as high as 7 to 8% in some Governor's races. And these Blue Collar Libertarian guys love Kinky Friedman for Governor of Texas.
My bet, larger than ever vote for the Libertarian Party.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Whether the Libertarian Party can accumulate GOP votes is a legitimate question; whether we tolerate spambots is not. We don't. Write original comments here or don't write them at all.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
rather than just the generalized disgust that may be out there, I am not ready to panic. That isn't to say such polls may not pop up, but so far CQ, RCP, and the other bean counters don't show the Democrats reaching 15 in the House races or six net in the Senate. Close, yes, but still short in both chambers.
I was writing on the question for my column the other day. Are Republican voters in NY really going to abandon their Congressman because a guy from Florida wrote some tasteless IMs? There is, plainly, a real chance that Foley's own seat will fall, but no reason to think there will be any wider implications. Crist is ahead by double digit margins and Harris behind by even more, so those races are not going to be won or lost on this issue.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I don't know if the nuclear test will change the subject, but I do have a question for Erick or anyone with good information. In the story, Erick wrote that Republicans are within 5 points in the generic ballot. Is that internal polling you are referencing? In all of the polls used by RCP, Republicans seem to be down about 9 to 11 points.
I know how y'all like to get up in Dems' collective grills about the parroting on "Known Facts" which are not, in fact, facts.
What, then, is the status of "The Democrats, in outing Mark Foley and his sordid page scandal", in terms of its verified truthiness?
No one outside of the beltway and the media cares about who knew that Foley was Gay and when exactly they became aware that he was gay. This is without a doubt the most ridiculous media created "scandal" I have ever seen and I have been alive for a long time. Voters are not quite as stupid as people in the media and Washington think we are.
have made that point is as few words as you did, but with a 2-letter name (did you pitch?) , I guess it comes naturally!!
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
...it's more about the ages of the pages than the the gayness issue, isn't it?
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
worried anyway. This is just the same old same old lead up to elections for the last two cycles, and in some ways for cycles going back to 1980. The MSM always tries to at first drive the issues to make it look like dems will win, and then paint a anarrative explaing lib losses on anything but the rejection of liberalism, ie debate moments, events, etc.
I think issues, not even events, although issues can be related to events.
The issues that have driven elections since 1980 and even back to 1968 are war and economic policies.
Most Americans do not trust dems to defensd america and the late 70s convinced most that lib dem economics doesnt work.
The 90s were a vacation from war but even then Clinton had to run on conservatism to win while his lib dem congress was lost.
The MSM polls are never right until the day before the election, if then.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
If it's such a legitamate question whether or not sometimes Republican voters are going to go to the Libertarian Party, than why is it that nobody, particularly on groups like this, ever talk about it?
Really, my fellow Republicans act like the Libertarian Party doesn't even exist. This is a Party that is polling 7% in the Georgia Governor's race, 3% in the very tight Oregon Governor's race, 6% in the Michigan Gov's race, and 25% in Texas CD-22 (Tom DeLay seat). Yet the GOP pretends like the LP doesn't even exist.
WE MUST DEAL WITH THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY SITUATION NOW!! Or risk getting clobbered in the election on Nov. 7.
My suggestion: Propose a massive tax cut, and pledge to repeal the disastorous internet gambling legislation.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
of what a vote for a fringe candidate will really mean...few pull the lever on that candidate.
An awful lot of fringe party candidate poll great in October...few get votes in November!
...the Libertarian Party doesn't exist. And it'll take more than single digit showings in scattered gubernatorial races - or one-time strong showings in throroughly mucked-up Congressional races - to change that.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Sure, there are always people who vote for small parties, and in tight elections the vote for the third and fourth party candidates is greater than the margin between first and second. It is tempting for the loser to say 'if only . . .'. But this is nonsense. People who vote Libertarian or Green don't do so believing their candidate can win, but because they loathe the main parties. They won't vote Republican or Democrat. Take the minor parties off the ballot and they will join the largest constituency of all - non-voters.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Would you vote for any politician who would advocate allowing sex between men and underaged boys? So what is the point of charging Foley or any Republican with hypocrisy? What Foley did was much worse than any hypocritical stance. The best counter for Republican candidates would be to press Democrats on parental notification for abortion and taking children across state lines to avoid those laws.
Under what age are you talking about?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Quentin, trust me. I'm former Libertarian Party. I know these guys like the back of my hand. I even served as Ron Paul's Travel Aide in 1988 when he ran for President as a Libertarian. (Now he's a Republican Congressman from Texas).
You are absolutely wrong! The polling data is showing that the Libertarian Party is poised to have its best year ever.
In Texas CD-22 (Tom DeLay seat), the Libertarian Bob Smither is a well-known local hero for Victim's Rights. He's polling 25% to Republican write-in Sekula-Gibb's 11%. There've been Zogby/WSJ polls showing the Libertarian for Governor in Georgia polling 8%! The LP candidate for Governor in Michigan is polling 6%. The LP candidate for US Senate in Washington State just pledged to dump in $1.3 million into his campaign. The LP candidate for Governor of Oregon is polling 3%, in a race where Saxton the Republican is ahead by only 3%. In New Hampshire and Vermont Libertarians are poised to elect more State Legislators than ever in their history, at least 5 in Vermont alone. In Montana Burns is behind by 6 points. The Libertarian Stan Jones is polling 4%!
This is not small potatos, nor something to be "pooh-poohed" by mainline Republicans. This is SERIOUS!
The GOP needs to act quick! I suggest a major nationwide ad campaign reaching out to disgruntled Libertarian voters. Also, repeal of the idiotic internet gambling bill which royall pissed off Libertarians, and a promise to implement the second Bush tax cut.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
a) you could master nested comments. It helps to know what you are replying to. That would help you with your other problem too.
b) when puporting to reply to someone, please address what they actually wrote.
I am very happy to believe that this will be the LP's best year ever. Great. Hope it happens. Glad you have evidence of it.
But the studies on the impact of minor parties are very clear. You can't simply add up the votes for minor parties and say (sensibly) if they had all voted for X then X would have beaten Y. It doesn't make sense.
If larger numbers of people vote Libertarian this year, then I guarantee that many of them will be people who have not voted in previous elections, and nearly all of them will be people who would not have voted in THIS election if there had been no Libertarian candidate.
Thus, even if the Libertarian vote is greater than the Democrat margin of victory, it doesn't mean the Libertarians cost the Republicans that seat.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Moe, the Libertarian Party just last week elected a City Councilwoman in Juneau, Alaska; that's AK's third largest city and state capitol.
Nationwide, hundreds of Libertarians serve in public offices, including Sheriff Masters in Colorado, Judge Gray in Orange County, CA, Tom Tryon, County Supervisor in CA, Ed Thompson (brother of Tommy Thompson) as Tomah, Wisconsin City Councilman, and scores of small-town Mayors and City Councilmen.
Look at the polling data. Don't take my word for it. Libertarians usually poll 1 to 2%. This year according to WSJ/Zogby they're more in the 6 to 7% range.
95% of that comes directly out of the GOP column.
We Republicans could absolutely lose the Oregon Governor's race because of the presence of a Libertarian candidate on the ballot who is polling 3%.
I fear Conrad Burns will go down in Montana, mostly because the Libertarian there Stan Jones is well-known and is polling 4%.
In Washington State the Libertarian Party candidate is dumping $1.3 million into his race. That's not something to just kiss off. That's serious money.
I'm in Michigan right now, and I'm hearing all sorts of radio ads for Libertarian Party candidates during prime time Rush Limbaugh hours out of Detroit. The Governor's race here is razor thin, with Democrat Granholm ahead of Republican DeVoss by only 4 to 5%. There was one poll that showed the Libertarian in the race with 6% at one point!
Can you imagine if we lose the Governorship of Michigan to the Democrats all because of a Libertarian being on the ballot.
This is the BIGGEST STORY OF THE YEAR. And the media is totally ignoring this. And why is Red State ignoring it, as well?
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
You're jumping up and down excitedly over single-digit showings from a marginal political party and wondering why the rest of us are indifferent about it.
Yes, yes, they win all sorts of local elections. Good for them; that's how you get your start. And, yes, yes, they're stirring the pot in several national elections. But every single one of those national races have other metaphorical people stirring the same metaphorical pots, and we all know it. I'm sure that the Libertarians will no doubt brag that they were responsible for, say, Burns' defeat (instead of, say, Burns himself), but saying don't make it so.
I'll also note that you are assuming that attracting Libertarian voters would be a net increase for the GOP...
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Anyone who thinks they like libetarian principles and votes libertarian allowing a Democrat to win instead of a Republican is an idiot and a fool. They may not get all they like from the Republican but they will get a good dose of the things they don't like from the Dem.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Moe, you are correct in the Oregon Governor's race and a few others. Yes, there are other 3rd party candidates in those races that are "stirring the pot."
However, in Montana for intance, the Libertarian Party is the ONLY 3rd Party in the Senate and House race. Same with the Georgia Governor's race. Same with the Michigan Governor's race.
Yes, there are other "Minor" parties. But the Libertarians have always been the largest 3rd party, and the one that effects Republicans more than any other.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Such an attitude will do nothing but chase them away. And this is PRECISELY what I am trying to avoid. We need to reach out to these guys, not be cynical and tell them to "Get Lost."
What's that old adage about vineager and honey?
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
I say no, and the reason is that for the time being leading up to the election, this story will be a flash in the pan and the Foley scandal will continue to get top billing all the way through the election day. DPRK is unlikely to test any more nuclear weapons by November, and local politics and sex scandals are going to trump the complex international geopolitical wrangling and yawn-inducing inactivity at the United Nations and in Vienna. Also, this story is not a clear political plus for the Republicans: the Democrats are already working hard to prove that it was the Bush Administration's "distraction" in Iraq that emboldened and empowered the DPRK to take this step in the first place. Last night over at DKos they were already talking about how the US had "sabotaged" the negotiations leaving the DPRK no "other choice." The Donks will portray this as a failure of the current administration and a failure of Republicans who are hostile to diplomacy that could have prevented the test.
In the meantime, people will continue to be more interested in Mark Foley's sex life and his interest in young men, and what everyone knew about it, and how Republicans tried to keep it quiet, or didn't. It's a topic that people will never tire of chattering about.