i think a perfect example of why control going to the states would be bad is that in some states abortion would be legal and some it would not. Would this violate equal protection under the law? Anyway, I didn’t John Hagelin getting a lot of coverage. I explain any votes they got as fringe, just like Buchanan.
Finally, in defense of libertarians, I would say that you all are utopian thinkers. We need utopianists, they do contribute valuable ideas, but it isn’t a practical political platform. Maybe it will be someday in the far future. I would say the human race has a shot at creating the technology to build a true utopia for all or to destroy itself with pollution, nuclear weapons, etc. Which will come first?
Please. The same could be said about the Third Reich…errr…I mean the Reform Party, as well as the Commies…errr…I mean the Green Party. All three are mostly extremists, and the Libertarian party is larger than both the Reform and the Green, and on the ballot in more states than both. So why no coverage? It’s rediculous.
Browne did get on Fox News a couple times, but no mainstream network gave him any time.
I said exactly the same thing. And by the way John Hagelin got NO coverage on any station I watched, MSNBC or channel 6 in my state, ABC I think.
I called the Libertarians “idealists” I think they are, I used to be one myself, an idealist. I can’t afford to be one now. I know the reality of the situation. Harry and his supporters are working under the assumption that each state would always do the right thing for all of it’s citizens. They don’t do that now even when things like civil rights are mandated by the Constitution. They challenge it, they work around it, and they disobey it whenever they can get away with it.
I don’t intend to minimize this political philosophy I think it has an awful lot of valid points. I just don’t see how it could ever be fully implemented.
Could be that the other parties get less coverage because they attract less money. You know money talks. I just didn’t see much coverage at all on anyone but Gore and Bush. Even Nader wasn’t stressed much, especially since he didn’t do as well as predicted. And I think he wouldn’t have gotten the coverage he did if it hadn’t been for his big following in California. Let’s face it New York on the East Coast, California on the West they always get the most press coverage.
Don’t get whiney like the Republicans, just press on perhaps in 2004!
Browne was on the ballot in all 50 states. Nader was on 45 ballots, Buchanan was on 48.
Browne received a total of 379,716 votes to Buchanan’s 432,115, a difference of only 112,399 (closer than the Bush/Gore popular vote). Nader received 2,630,582. Browne actually beat Buchanan in 16 states; counting out the two in which Buchanan wasn’t on the ballot (Michigan and DC), he beat him in 14 states where both appeared. Browne even beat Nader in one state, Georgia. So, tell me again why Buchanan gets news coverage and Browne does not?
He is personally known to the folks who shape media coverage (all of whom think he personally is a swell guy, even if he holds forth an evil political philosophy) from his prior incarnations as a speechwriter and pundit, and
As I mentioned previously, we have zero celebrity status. At least Buchanon has been a regular on Firing Line and a political voice for a long while. No one knows Harry Browne, or any other LP member for that matter.
I’m not saying we need a Perot or a Nader to figure head the Party, but perhaps one respectable, well-known voice to vouch. Let’s say, if Tom Cruise or Michael Crichton (weak examples maybe) came out in favor of the LP platform, suddenly everyone might just talk about it, which would empower people to at least learn more about it.
I am sure your math skills are beyon reproach, usually, however the difference between Browne and Buchanan was even less then you stated (assuming your totals are correct)…
52,399 votes.
You don’t happen to work for the Florida Board of Elections do you?
BTW, I could not believe it when that CNN ticker at the bottom of the screen would show Gore, Bush, Nader, Buchanan and the Hagelin? are you kidding me??
And in USA Today today, where I was certain I’d find the results given by pldennison (thank you, BTW), they mentioned results only for Gore, Bush, Nader and Buchanan. It’s as if they refuse to acknowledge the LP even through we were on more ballots than the other two!.
The thing is, as far as the political landscape goes, the Libertarians are irrelevant to the outcome of the election. Buchanan is as well, but he has celebrity status. Nader arguably skewed enough votes to tip the election to Bush.
As far as the LP goes, they haven’t made enough people care. If they had, there might be coverage of them. As it stands, they get lumped with the Constitution Party, the Socialists, the Natural Law Party, and all the others that have not attracted more than a small core group that none of the major parties care to incorporate.
and finally, the reason taht nader got on the air a lot more than any other 3rd party candidates is because he is a national figure who has been on the scene for 30 years, and because journalists’ views are probably a lot more sypathetic to Nader than to the others
By the way you’ll be happy to know that Harry Browne DID get national attention today, and he could be in the center of the entire Florida controversy.
Because of the Florida punch ballot possibly not lining up correctly into the ballot machine, Browne got 302 votes in Osceola County, FL- even though there are only 112 registered Libertarians!
You’re mixing cause and effect here. You’re saying that the Libertarians don’t get coverage because they aren’t well known! Well, they’d be more well known IF THEY GOT THE COVERAGE THEY HAVE EARNED.
Last night, CNN’s running ticker reported results by state all night long, for Gore, Bush, Buchanan, and Hagelin. No mention of Libertarians. even though Hagelin wasn’t pulling 1/10 the votes that Harry Browne was. Didn’t anyone NOTICE this? In a race this close, why wasn’t anyone commenting on the possibility that the Libertarians could spoil the election for Bush, when they DID say that for Reform, Green, and Hagelin’s party?
A number of Libertarian candidates for various elective offices were described as ‘independent’. I had to go digging deep into the ‘background’ area of CNN’s web site to find out that they actually were libertarian.
The question I have is, if Harry Browne had gotten the kind of coverage that Buchanan and Nader got, how many more votes would the Libertarians have gotten? Perhaps 3%? Maybe even 5%? If so, wouldn’t that set the stage for the Libertarian party to be taken seriously enough in the NEXT election to draw some more popular candidates for President?
But as long as they are completely ignored, they will never have a chance to grow.
I’ve been watching MSNBC almost constantly since Wednesday (this whole thing is peculiarly fascinating, sorta like a train wreck), and I’ve heard NOTHING about the Libertarians. Zip. Zero. Nada. It’s as if simply mentioning the “L” word will cause the heads of the pundits to explode. I don’t get it.
I’m in Michigan, one of the “battleground” states. Buchanan was not on the ballot here. We had the Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Natural Law, and somebody else I don’t remember, but it wasn’t Reform. I thought for sure I’d see more of Michigan’s election results posted nationally, since both of the major parties were so hot for us. Nope. There was one brief mention of one of our propositions (Prop 1, about school vouchers), and a bunch of coverage about the Senate race between Debbie Stabenow & Spence Abraham (because Stabenow is a female, and her election tipped the Senate to 50-50, a position it hasn’t been in since the late 1800’s).
It’d be nice to see more coverage of the Libertarians & Natural Law, parties that most people have heard of, but know nothing about. People like me, who do not vote a straight party ticket, would like to see more coverage. Yes, we can do our own research and learn about the candidates, but not covering them on TV kinda makes it seem like they just don’t matter.
It’s not a straight cause and effect relationship between coverage and appeal. Each generates and sustains the other. The reason that the spotlight of public attention gets pointed toward Nader and Buchanan is because of their celebrity status, not their views. Very few people would have ever heard any of the Green party’s platform if Nader hadn’t been a consumer advocate for 30 plus years. Hell, I’d argue that better than 80% never heard any of his platform at all, despite his status. Same goes for Buchanan. The Dems and Repubs get covered by virtue of their size and entrenchment, but no third party gets any serious coverage given of their platform unless they have people who are interested in the candidates as personalities. If MArtin Sheen were to run as a Libertarian, I guarantee that there would be plenty of attention paid. As long as complete unknowns are fronting the party, I see no future as anything other than an ignored margin.
Sam Stone:Last night, CNN’s running ticker reported results by state all night long, for Gore, Bush, Buchanan, and Hagelin. No mention of Libertarians. even though Hagelin wasn’t pulling 1/10 the votes that Harry Browne was.
I sympathize with you on this one, Sam, and I urge all who were disappointed about the lack of media coverage to send a comment to the watchdog organization Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). Their chief purpose is to expose mass-media bias and suppression (whether deliberate or inadvertent) of important news, so this is the sort of thing that should be brought to their attention.
In the Department of Extenuating Circumstances, though, there is one reason why Hagelin would be likely to get more coverage than Browne: namely, he was actually a Reform Party candidate too. In September, the Reform Party delegations split their support (in a rather messy dispute, AFAIK) and some of them abandoned Buchanan to form a Natural Law/Reform coalition for Hagelin. As the September 7 press release put it,
So to some extent Hagelin’s coverage was probably due to a “coattail effect” from the Reform Party, which has more visibility and more official recognition than the LP. Still doesn’t justify complete silence about Browne, though (and I am personally solidly anti-Libertarian, and even I don’t think this is fair).
The LP is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That would make you fiscally liberal and socially conservative. In other words, a communist!
Tracer - LOL - unfortunately, Howard Stern promotes only himself, and used the LP to do that. He, sadly, could not care less which party he whored himself to.
Wrath: wow, that’s the first time I’ve heard communists described as “socially conservative”! Is oldscratch reading this?
Anyway, I am a devout civil-libertarian, but I’ve been in enough debates with LP members on this board to know that there are lots of other things we’ll probably never agree on. Nonetheless, I do think that when they run a candidate for by-God President of the United States and get a substantial number of votes, the papers should get around to mentioning it.
There is plenty of evidence that the Libertarian Platform would receive far more than 1% of the vote if the Libertarian Party could get the message out.
For example, I would point to the Internet, which is much more egalitarian for fringe parties. And in Internet polls and mock elections, the Libertarians often win, and when they don’t they ALWAYS get a decent percentage of the vote.
I would also point to audience reaction whenever Harry Browne or other Libertarians speak in public. I saw Harry on “Politically Incorrect”, and his comments drew cheers from the audience, even though the audience is largely Democratic.
I’m not trying to claim that the Libertarians are the party of choice. Clearly, only a small minority of people agree with them. But that’s all a legitimate 3rd party needs to be able to have a ‘voice’ in governing. If the Libertarians habitually drew 5-15% instead of 1%, which I think is possible if they were given equal time, then politicians would have to pander to that voting bloc, and it would shift the political debate somewhere towards the libertarian position. And it would allow Harry (or the next nominee) into the debates, which means that the Democrats and Republicans would have to come up with answers to his comments. That also would shift the tone of the debate.
It would also make the Libertarians more attractive to some big names with real money. TJ Rogers, for instance, would make a formidable presidential candidate. He’s a Libertarian, he’s worth hundreds of millions or more, he has testified before Congress, and is extremely well spoken. If Perot could buy 20% of the vote, a Libertarian party with hundreds of millions of dollars could do even better.
