Even though it is patently absurd, we should make the current problem sound like something that only negatively ffects whichever major party is currently the ruling junta.
I think that would be the neoimperialist pluto-theo-crats, elsewise known as the Texas Oil Mafia However, we aren't going to get much traction, since Shrubbery is not SO stupid that he won't realize that he owes his current dictatorship to the face that votes were screwed up. And corruption in Florida, I must say, has been proved. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 11:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [EM] NYTimes.com Article: A Third Party on the Right This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED] We should draft a response to this . . as well as the piece in the LP News. Who's up for some work? I am. [EMAIL PROTECTED] A Third Party on the Right November 16, 2002 By JOHN J. MILLER WOODBRIDGE, Va. - The decision this week by John Thune, the Republican candidate for senator from South Dakota, to concede to his rival, Tim Johnson, the Democratic incumbent, virtually guarantees that Mr. Thune's narrow defeat will go down in conservative lore as the one lost to voter fraud on an Indian reservation. This charge probably won't ever be proved, but people on the right will continue to believe it - just as many people on the left think corruption in Florida cost Al Gore the presidency. In both cases, however, there's a better explanation for what happened. George W. Bush is president today because of Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, whose liberal supporters almost certainly would have preferred Mr. Gore in a two-way race. In Florida, Mr. Nader attracted some 97,000 votes, dwarfing the 537-vote margin separating Mr. Bush from Mr. Gore. There's a similar explanation for Mr. Thune's 524-vote loss: a Libertarian Party candidate, Kurt Evans, drew more than 3,000 votes. It marks the third consecutive election in which a Libertarian has cost the Republican Party a Senate seat. If there had been no Libertarian Senate candidates in recent years, Republicans would not have lost control of the chamber in 2001, and a filibuster-proof, 60-seat majority would likely be within reach. The Republicans' Libertarian problem became apparent in a race than ended in victory. A decade ago, Paul Coverdell, Republican of Georgia, nipped the incumbent Democratic senator, Wyche Fowler, 49 percent to 48 percent. A Libertarian candidate, Jim Hudson, took 3 percent of the vote. Under Georgia law the winner must achieve a majority, so Mr. Coverdell and Senator Fowler were thrown into a runoff without Mr. Hudson. Virtually all the Libertarian's votes transferred to the Republican, and Mr. Coverdell won, 51 percent to 48 percent. The maddening defeats began in 1998, when John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, came 428 votes shy of ousting the Democrat, Senator Harry Reid. Michael Cloud, a Libertarian, collected more than 8,000 votes in the same contest. (Two years later, Mr. Ensign won election to Nevada's other Senate seat.) In 2000, Senator Slade Gorton, a Republican from Washington, lost to the Democrat, Maria Cantwell, by 2,228 votes. Jeff Jared, a Libertarian, gathered nearly 65,000 votes. If these elections had gone a different way, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont would not have switched control of the Senate when he bolted the Republican Party. The problem also affects gubernatorial races. Jim Doyle, the incoming Democratic governor of Wisconsin, probably owes his 68,000-vote victory to the 185,000 votes cast for Ed Thompson, a Libertarian and brother of Tommy Thompson, the former Republican governor. In Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, the Democrat, won by 33,000 votes as Tom Cox, the Libertarian, pulled in 56,000 votes. The only reason the governor's race in Alabama was so close this year as to be disputed beyond election night was that the Libertarian candidate, John Sophocleus, attracted 23,000 votes. It's important to appreciate that Libertarian voters are not merely Republicans with an eccentric streak. Libertarians tend to support gay rights and open borders; they tend to oppose the drug war and hawkish foreign policies. Some of them wouldn't vote if they didn't have the Libertarian option. But Libertarians are also free-market devotees who are generally closer to Republicans than to the Democrats. "Exit polling shows that we take twice as many votes from Republicans as from Democrats," said George Getz, a spokesman for the Libertarian Party. Yet Libertarians are now serving, in effect, as Democratic Party operatives. The next time they wonder why the Bush tax cuts aren't permanent, why Social Security isn't personalized and why there aren't more school-choice pilot programs for low-income kids, all they have to do is look in the mirror. John J. Miller is a writer for National Review. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/16/opinion/16MILL.html?ex=1038508609&ei=1&en= 1015a97b44af23c9 HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice. ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
