Should the Libertarian Party of Alaska Have Ran Lisa Murkowski Instead?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://i53.tinypic.com/ohntrn.jpg

With Murkowski now in all likelihood headed towards victory, it's a fair question.

If the Libertarian party had run Murkowski, they would have gotten: their party's first victory and that monkey off their back, major electoral propaganda bragging rights, easier ballot access, media attention, etc.

But since they didn't, they get:

YouTube - Cricket Chirping (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA)

(Oh, and the usual 0.5% of the vote.)

Seems with the end result being exactly the same either way (Murkowski getting another six years in the U.S. Senate), nothing good came out of this whatsoever. But it could have if they swallowed their pride. Hooray for being permanent political pariahs and never winning nor getting even the chance to actually improve the federal government....or something. Though it is easier for a political party to never do anything and just complain and snipe from a distance.

[Flash]

What's the point of winning if you become just another Republican Party? I think the idea of a Libertarian Party is stupid anyways. It makes much more sense to infiltrate the Democratic & Republican parties at a local level. May be the LP & CP can stick around for educational purposes and principled victories once in a while.

[FrankRep]

Hell No.

[Elwar]

Alaska proved that they are the party of principle.

Comprimising for a Bob Barr type sends members fleeing.

[Monarchist]

I still can't believe that many people took the time to write in a candidate. I was hoping they would go in there and press the R button out of habit.

[oyarde]

What's the point of winning if you become just another Republican Party? I think the idea of a Libertarian Party is stupid anyways. It makes much more sense to infiltrate the Democratic & Republican parties at a local level. May be the LP & CP can stick around for educational purposes and principled victories once in a while.

Murk is worse than standard gop .

[Pericles]

I still can't believe that many people took the time to write in a candidate. I was hoping they would go in there and press the R button out of habit.
Wouldn't it be a kick if a number of those ballots in Alaska turn out to be "none of the above" or such.

[gls]

People like you who care about winning at any cost are the reason this country is in such terrible shape.

[libertarian4321]

What would be the point of endorsing the LESS libertarian candidate just to get a "win?"

The Libertarian Party is about standing for a certain set of principles, not about selling itself out to get one quick "win."

[Pericles]

What would be the point of endorsing the LESS libertarian candidate just to get a "win?"

The Libertarian Party is about standing for a certain set of principles, not about selling itself out to get one quick "win."
Not to mention that there are already two parties that do that.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think many people have forgotten the goal of politics...it isn't to win at any cost -- the point of politics insofar as it is undertaken is to advance a goal and that goal is namely liberty. That is the compass. So many people here are deluded into thinking that winning, just winning itself, is a victory. In that vein, I could claim it would be a victory if today the entire GOP establishment defected and went to the LP. That's not a win.

[Theocrat]

Call me skeptical, but I have a hard time believing all those write-in votes went towards Lisa Murkowski. She loses in the Republican Primary, but then she is able to come from behind and beat a candidate like Joe Miller with write-in votes?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

She loses in the Republican Primary, but then she is able to come from behind and beat a candidate like Joe Miller with write-in votes?

Joe Lieberman lost the primary in 2006 but won the general election. How is this surprising? It is two very different electorates.


I think many people have forgotten the goal of politics...it isn't to win at any cost -- the point of politics insofar as it is undertaken is to advance a goal and that goal is namely liberty.

Right. And you can't achieve that in this country's system by losing. Electoral losers get nothing in politics.

[oyarde]

Wouldn't it be a kick if a number of those ballots in Alaska turn out to be "none of the above" or such.

I am hoping so .

[libertarian4321]

Call me skeptical, but I have a hard time believing all those write-in votes went towards Lisa Murkowski. She loses in the Republican Primary, but then she is able to come from behind and beat a candidate like Joe Miller with write-in votes?

Because she's a moderate/centrist Republican and pulled in not only the votes she got in the primary (moderate Republicans), but lots of independents and many Democrats who knew their guy wasn't going to win, so voted for the "Republican" who seemed less evil in their eyes (Murkowski).

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Joe Lieberman lost the primary in 2006 but won the general election. How is this surprising? It is two very different electorates.



Right. And you can't achieve that in this country's system by losing. Electoral losers get nothing in politics.

How does electing Murkowski advance the goal of liberty? You are passing speculation and conjecture off as an advance of liberty. That is a bastardization of what a goal actually is, and how one achieves a goal. An advance of liberty would be fielding someone who will work to abolish the IRS. An advance of liberty would be someone who will end the wars. An advance of liberty would be someone who ends warrantless searches and seizures. I could go on, but an advance implies a tangible gain. There is nothing to believe that the election of Murkowski would necessarily lead to electoral victories for the LP, similarly, electing Murkowski is not an advance of liberty, it is a negation of liberty. I could go line by line down the record, but I don't think that is necessary.

There is a great lecture by Rothbard on this given to the Michigan LP in the 80s you can find easily on youtube. I recommend it.

[justinc.1089]

Hindsight is 20/20... with that said, I back when this was actually happening and being discussed was not sure what the LP should have done, but I was leaning towards them not running Murkowski because I figured she didn't have a chance to win, and that the LP would pointlessly be running a no good candidate.

But I wasn't sure which would have been best because I knew there was a small chance she could win, and a chance she would run as a Libertarian.


So... looking back I now think the right decision would have been to run her as the Libertarian candidate if she would have been interested.

Here's why I think that:

1. The Libertarian Party has been losing for so many decades now I can't even be sure of how many its been now. It has to be approaching half a century to put it into perspective though. Of course, winning is less important than promoting liberty. That is absolutely correct. But winning is also not of zero value and zero worth. If you NEVER win, you will NEVER gain a position to actually advance liberty.

2. With Tea Party candidates winning, if Miller lost, it would have looked better if a Libertarian beat Miller. Imagine the headlines:

"Tea Party Candidate Joe Miller loses to Libertarian Murkowski!"

It would have been a win-win situation as far as promotion of anti-establishment movements. If Miller won, the Tea Party gets promoted with its supposed anti-Republican establishment, and if Murkowski had won, it would have promoted the Libertarian Party as beating the Tea Party.

Seriously, think about the story of the Libertarian Party defeating the Tea Party in Alaska, and how huge that would be. It would have been absolutely incredible.

3. Yeah Murkowski sucks, big time, but if the Libertarians had won that race what if it caused other good Libertarians to get elected in Alaska?

I feel certain it would have helped the Libertarian Party tremendously, and in the long run due to helping strengthen the LP, Murkowski running as a Libertarian would have done a lot of good.

[Thomas]

yes

[Kregisen]

Anyone know when we'll find out about the Alaska race?

[nobody's_hero]

I think the OP was trying to find a way to beat Alaska's ballot restrictions? (are they that bad? I hear my state of Georgia has the worst in the nation)

The suggestion, as I take it, wasn't to 'get a liberty candidate into office' this time around. It was more to find a loophole and suffer through the next six years so that libertarians (real ones) could run in the future—without having to do silly things like get 5% of the voters in their district to sign a petition to appear on the ballot, or get 20% of the votes in a state wide election to open up automatic ballot access for all races in the state (just a few of Georgia's rediculous incumbent-protection ballot laws).

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hindsight is 20/20... with that said, I back when this was actually happening and being discussed was not sure what the LP should have done, but I was leaning towards them not running Murkowski because I figured she didn't have a chance to win, and that the LP would pointlessly be running a no good candidate.

But I wasn't sure which would have been best because I knew there was a small chance she could win, and a chance she would run as a Libertarian.


So... looking back I now think the right decision would have been to run her as the Libertarian candidate if she would have been interested.

Here's why I think that:

1. The Libertarian Party has been losing for so many decades now I can't even be sure of how many its been now. It has to be approaching half a century to put it into perspective though. Of course, winning is less important than promoting liberty. That is absolutely correct. But winning is also not of zero value and zero worth. If you NEVER win, you will NEVER gain a position to actually advance liberty.

2. With Tea Party candidates winning, if Miller lost, it would have looked better if a Libertarian beat Miller. Imagine the headlines:

"Tea Party Candidate Joe Miller loses to Libertarian Murkowski!"

It would have been a win-win situation as far as promotion of anti-establishment movements. If Miller won, the Tea Party gets promoted with its supposed anti-Republican establishment, and if Murkowski had won, it would have promoted the Libertarian Party as beating the Tea Party.

Seriously, think about the story of the Libertarian Party defeating the Tea Party in Alaska, and how huge that would be. It would have been absolutely incredible.

3. Yeah Murkowski sucks, big time, but if the Libertarians had won that race what if it caused other good Libertarians to get elected in Alaska?

I feel certain it would have helped the Libertarian Party tremendously, and in the long run due to helping strengthen the LP, Murkowski running as a Libertarian would have done a lot of good.

I could just imagine the devastation to the libertarian philosophy that would have wrought if Murkowski won and ran on the ticket. The thing about the LP is it's political name is the name of the philosophy itself...a horrible mistake one which was almost defeated at the onset and one which many libertarians lamented at the time for this fact. Honestly, if she won we would be spending the next 20 years have to defend ourselves from this trash. Murkowski and LP, no no no no no.