|
 huck
Muth of the Republican Liberty Caucus is in Washington, D.C., this
week to meet with GOP operatives
on what may be the most underreported political phenomenon of the
last two election cycles: Libertarian Party candidates are seriously
hurting Republicans.
While much has been said about Ralph Nader arguably keeping Al Gore
out of the White House — the Green Party nominee drew more
than 97,000 votes in Florida, for example — hardly anybody
has noticed how Libertarians have put Republicans on the brink of
losing the Senate. In both 1998 and 2000, a Republican candidate
for Senate lost to a Democrat by a margin much less than the Libertarian's
total vote.
The most recent victim was Slade Gorton of Washington. In a final
tally that took weeks to add up and confirm, he lost to Maria Cantwell
by 2,228 votes. A Libertarian candidate, Jeff Jared, hauled in 64,734
votes. Two years earlier, Republican John Ensign lost to incumbent
Democrat Harry Reid in Nevada by a measly 428 votes, in a race that
saw Libertarian Michael Cloud draw 8,044 votes. If Ensign had won
that race — beating a man who is the second-ranking Senate
Democrat, no less — and another Republican had picked up the
seat Ensign came back to win last year, there would be two more
Republicans and two fewer Democrats in the chamber. Instead of a
50-50 split, Republicans would have a 52-48 majority. There would
be no morbid Strom Thurmond death watch.
The problem isn't just confined to the Senate. The GOP arguably
would also control two more House seats if no Libertarians had run
last fall. Rep. Steve Kuykendall of California lost re-election
against Jane Harman by 4,452 votes; Libertarian candidate Daniel
Sherma attracted 6,073 votes. In New Jersey, Democratic Rep. Rush
Holt fended off Republican Dick Zimmer by 651 votes. Worth Winslow
of the Libertarian Party attracted 1,225 votes.
"Libertarians need to understand that they're nothing but spoilers,"
says Muth. "And Republicans need to learn how to earn their votes."
Libertarian voters wouldn't necessarily support Republicans in the
absence of an alternative. Many might not turn out at all. Others
would choose another minor party, such as the Greens, in order to
register disapproval with the two major parties. A few might even
vote for Democrats. But in the main, Libertarians are freedom-loving,
small-government advocates who would find a more natural home in
the GOP than almost anywhere else. "Exit polling shows that we take
twice as many votes from Republicans as from Democrats," says Libertarian
Party spokesman George Getz.
The proof may be found in the 1992 Georgia Senate race, in which
no candidate won a majority. Republican Paul Coverdell led the pack
with 49 percent, Democratic Sen. Wyche Fowler nipped at his heels
with 48 percent, and Libertarian Jim Hudson took 3 percent. In a
runoff between the two leaders, Coverdell prevailed 51 percent to
48 percent. Hudson had endorsed him, and Libertarians like to think
that their flock accounted for Coverdell's 3-point jump in the runoff.
That's a rare case of Libertarians helping a Republican — but
only after forcing a near-death experience. The Georgia runoff might
easily have gone the other way.
In this age of Senate power sharing and a razor-thin GOP House majority,
Republicans can't ignore the Libertarians. If they do, it may cost
them dearly.
To learn more about the Republican Liberty Caucus, visit
here.
And for the Libertarian Party click
here.
|
