Vance's critic

A reader recently directed me to a web site entitled "The Reagan Wing" in response to this prior post. And lodged in the numerous articles is a follow up article by Libertarian basher Chuck Muth. Readers may recall he has already taken Vance to task for underestimating the LP. A few weeks ago I blogged about it, quoting Muth: "Truth be told, the Libertarian Party isn't so much of a 'problem' as it is a reality and a challenge."

Well, what does Muth argue now? Apparently, nobody understands the math. Vis:

"Let’s say that 99 percent of the LP candidate’s votes came from actual Libertarians and disaffected Democrats. That would mean that 1 percent of the 63,465 votes received by the Libertarian candidate came from Republican voters who weren’t happy, for one reason or another, with the Republican Party or its gubernatorial candidate. That would be 634 votes.

Again, the Republican lost by only 129 votes."

OK then, and we should ignore the 62,831 votes that would have gone to Gregoire?

And there are other examples of hazy thinking in the article, to which I will leave it to you, dear reader, to ferret out.

Frankly, I'm glad Muth considers himself a Republican. I suspect at the end of the day he will do as much for the Libertarians as he claims Vance has done.

UPDATE 1/29/05:

Here is a letter I sent to the webmaster at the website for "The Reagan Wing."

Chuck Muth takes Chris Vance to task for, among other things, the following:

"But first let me put to rest an argument which has been made by some folks who maintain the LP candidate in that race pulled more votes from the Democrat than the Republican. These folks are saying that more Democrats voted for the LP nominee because she was an “out” lesbian than Republicans who voted for the LP nominee because the LP is historically known for its limited-government bona fides. I don’t buy that argument for a minute. Let’s say these folks are correct. Let’s say that 99 percent of the LP candidate’s votes came from actual Libertarians and disaffected Democrats. That would mean that 1 percent of the 63,465 votes received by the Libertarian candidate came from Republican voters who weren’t happy, for one reason or another, with the Republican Party or its gubernatorial candidate. That would b 634 votes. Again, the Republican lost by only 129 votes. "

So, what does Mr. Muth have to say about the 62,831 votes that then would have gone to Gregoire? And how was Rossi to surmount that lead?

Just what is Mr. Muth saying? That Vance should have done all he could to crush the Libertarian Party? Apparently not, because he also condemns Vance for taking action to keep the Libertarians off the ballot.

No. It seems Mr. Muth thinks that the Libertarian Party should voluntarily disband and join the Reagan Wing of the Republican Party. Or at least Vance should pander to the libertarians within the Republican Party instead of those without his party. But Muth also admits there isn't a full overlap in Libertarian and Repubican policy interests, and offers no argument whatsoever how to reconcile the opposing policy positions that many libertarians have with what Muth calls the "greedy, Bible-thumping, gay-bashing, minority-hating redneck Victorians" within the Republican Party.

Muth even admits the Libertarian candidate was not a typical Libertarian candidate. Vis:

"I don’t think the Libertarians did themselves any favors in the credibility department by nominating a “novelty” gubernatorial candidate who was generally far out of step with them philosophically on most core issues."

Setting aside the fact Mr. Muth probably has never met the candidate or heard her speak, what then is Mr. Muth's problem? If Ruth Bennett, the Libertarian candidate, was so "out of step" with the libertarian views of the "Reagan Wing", with what was she "in step?" If Muth is correct that she didn't espouse the principles of libertarians, how she have "poached" Republican votes, and why is Muth so worried about what Vance has done? Is Muth advocating that Vance and Rossi should have embraced a pro-gay strategy in the campaign? Isn't Muth here tacitly admitting that the argument he has expressly rejected may in fact be correct?

Finally, who is Mr. Muth, an avowed Republican, to judge the credentials of a Libertarian candidate in any event? Does he arrogantly propose to know, better than the Libertarian Party, who should be its standard bearer?

Frankly, Mr. Muth has not really thought through the dynamics of a multi-party system. He needs to recognize what Republican state senator Pam Roach has already recognized; done properly, one can use minor parties to one's own advantage. The question is how to do it properly.