Harry Browne covered the “balance of power” in New Mexico and Florida in 2000, but since the Republicans were able to prevent a full and accurate recount and steal Florida for Bush, it was to no actual effect. Still, it was probably noticed by any GOP operatives concerned with the LP’s impact.

“Roscoe, you aren’t afraid World W.A.R. III might ‘pull one’ are you ? Gravel is more anti war than half the field and probably anti McCain as well so I don’t think you are worried about him. I understand Root has endorsed McCain before, so your concerns deserve contemplating…”

I haven’t seen enough evidence to allege that Root is a ringer, put in for the express purpose of withdrawing and endorsing the GOP nominee at the last minute … but there’s reasonable cause to suspect that the GOP would not be above making such an attempt.

Every two years (i.e. every election cycle since 2000), the GOP has paid more negative attention to the LP, and for good reason. If one stipulates to the accuracy and validity of the allegation that LP candidates tend to “take more votes away from” their Republican opponents than from their Democratic opponents, the LP has “cost” the GOP, right off the top of my head:

– Slade Gorton’s US Senate seat from Washington. – John Thune’s first attempt at US Senate from South Dakota. – The governorship of Washington (Democrat Christine Gregoire won it in an election that turned on ~100 votes, while the LP candidate polled about 65k votes—can’t remember the GOP candidate’s name). – Conrad Burns’s US Senate seat from Montana. – Jim Talent’s US Senate seat from Missouri.

... and there were others before that (for example, Democrat Harry Reid went to the US Senate over Republican John Ensign, who won the other seat later, when Libertarian Michael Cloud pulled a “balance of power” vote).

I don’t happen to stipulate to the accuracy/validity of the “they stole our votes” argument, but if one does, then the LP “took away” the GOP’s US Senate majority in 2006, and the blokes at National Review and other conservative publications have pissed and moaned about it with regularity.

The LP hasn’t covered “balance of power” in a presidential election yet, but it’s not out of the question that that could happen—Bush beat Kerry by 1.x million votes in 2004.

It would not surprise me a bit if the Karl Rove types decided at some point to try and torpedo the LP from inside via its presidential nomination.

You’re right, there’s always a way past reasonable precautions. It’s not a perfect world. The LP would have to be ready with a repudiation statement and press release.

Jerry S.,

Anti-war may be a big issue for many Libertarians, but (a) it’s not the only one, and (b) the LP isn’t officially anti-war, it’s anti-aggression. Anti-war means pacifist to everyone else even if not to those among us who use the phrase, and we are anything but pacifists. Perhaps if those among us who oppose the current foreign adventurism of the US “leadership” {{spit}} would use a more accurate term for their position, they’d get a little further with those others who have found ways to justify that adventurism.

In politics it is always how the issue is framed that sets the parameters of the disucssion. (For example, the discussion about abortion would be quite different if it were about responsibility rather than choice; immigration would be a different discussion if border security were not the context (or vice versa).)

More to your point, would Root betray the party over an alleged pet issue? I think first you must keep up to date with any new member who becomes a candidate, to see whether he is increasingly “geting it” and reflecting that change in his statements. That’s the convention’s task, discerning who would be the most stanle and effective spokesperson for the party.

I haven’t joined into the primary fray, and I haven’t spoken with Gravel yet at all, but I have spoken with and watched Barr, Root and Imperato, and I have seen each make great strides into Liertarianism, all three at an impressive rate.

The caution I ask for against clinging to initial impressions of new members probably applies to Barr least, Root somewhat (as reflected by your concern) and Imperato the most.

Like any other libertarian, each has had to take time to get to know and debate the positions and applications of our Principle. It might be well to note that such discussions don’t happen when the conversation is out of date and centered around past statements and endorsements (Root), associations (Barr), or personal criticism (Imperato).

But that’s always been a failing of libertarians: purity and personality tests being applied too harshly against new people; criticism and one-upmanship instead of mentoring. But that is changing.

Meanwhile, as always, vigilance!

0

same family”

Cris—My father and brother are both Republicans who work for the party. I am an Independent who agrees with most of the principles of the Green party. So I guess by your logic, Cynthia McKinney and John McCain are in cahoots. Its all a big conspiracy. Families never disagree about politics, right? I’ve never gotten into a heated political debate over Thanksgiving dinner, right!?

We are planning to stream the debate, as of today:
http://kcxl.com

Tune in to KCXL (1140 am in Liberty, MO) or KCTO (1160 am in Olathe, KS) to listen to the Presidential candidates debate on Saturday, April 5th from 10:00 to 11:30 am (central) followed by a special post-debate program from 11:30 to 12:00. You can also listen live online at kcxl.com.