The Libertarian Legacy

by Dr. Ed Berry

EXB150In 2006, 10,377 conservative Montanans, who should have voted for the Republican candidate, voted for the Libertarian candidate for the US Senate. Democrat Jon Tester collected 199,845 votes compared to 196,293 votes for Republican Conrad Burns, a difference of 3,552 votes.

These 10,377 Libertarian votes were 2.55 percent of the total votes cast. The winning difference of 3,552 votes was 0.87 percent of the total votes cast. In the statistical definition, these  2.55 percent are in the “extreme” tail of the distribution. The tail wagged the dog.

These 10,377 Montana Libertarian votes sent Democrat Jon Tester to the US Senate where he became the 51st vote for the Democrats. The US Senate then elected Harry Reid (D) as their Senate Majority Leader. 

Libertarians are politically aligned more than 80% with the Republican Party and less than 20% with the Democratic Party. To better achieve their objectives, they should join the Republican Party. Yet for their 20%, they would rather fight than join.

Republicans are justifiably upset by the Libertarian betrayal in 2006 that sent Democrat Jon Tester to the US Senate to be the 51st Senate vote to give Democrats total control of Congress.

Yet, today, some of these 10,377 Libertarians say they will vote Libertarian again in 2012 because the Republicans don’t treat them nice enough. Are Libertarians only motivated by revenge? Do they not understand that their votes have consequences?

The Libertarians complain the Republicans did not give them 20 delegates to the Republican National Convention when they deserved only 3, a number they did not accept.

As a result of the 2006 Libertarian betrayal, the Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers of Congress for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held only 49 Senate seats, two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes.

This Democratic-controlled, 110th Congress overruled President Bush, reversed his economic progress, initiated America’s fall into its present depression, and paved the road for Obama. By September 15, 2008, they precipitated the global financial crisis and ignited a global recession. The financial crisis, of course, helped the Democrats win in 2008.

The 2006 Libertarian candidate had zero chance to win but this did not matter to the Libertarians. The Republican needed only a few more votes to defeat Jon Tester, but this did not matter to the Libertarians.

The Libertarians said the Republican candidate was not “good enough for them” so they decided to “make a statement” to “teach the Republicans a lesson.” In doing so, they shot themselves in the foot!

Their “statement” gave more federal power over Montana’s land, water and energy resources; gave Montana less control over wolves that have done extensive damage to Montana’s big game and livestock; caused people across America to lose their homes; and led us to the financial condition we are in today.

Whether you like it or not, politics is about being a team player. Lone Rangers can’t win.

Actions have consequences.

Never before in history has such a small number of “free” people voted for their claimed “principles” and caused so much worldwide economic damage and loss of freedom.

These 10,377 Libertarian voters would have done themselves better had they made their “statement” with T-shirts.

Now, the big question is …

Will Montana Libertarian voters repeat their mistake in 2012?

According to recent polls, the 2012 Montana US Senate race is up for grabs. The October4, Rasmussen poll has Republican challenger Denny Rehberg at 48%, Democrat incumbent Jon Tester at 48%, Libertarian Dan Cox at 3%, and 2% undecided.

In 2006, Libertarian voters displayed the first definition of insanity: Voting in a manner that causes the exact opposite of their goals.

In 2012, Libertarian voters for Dan Cox will display the second definition of insanity: Repeating their same mistake and expecting a different result.

In 2012, the Libertarians have the  power to save Montana and America, and by some accounts, the free world as we know it, if they were to vote for Denny Rehberg. Even without them, the undecided 2% may elect Rehberg.

If Montana Libertarian voters repeat their 2006 vote and send Jon Tester back to the US Senate, they will earn the legacy as the most destructive “loose cannons” in history of the human race and Dan Cox will go down in history as the man who made this happen.

Will Montana Libertarian voters realize a Libertarian vote is an OBAMM?

My recent data indicates about half of those who were considering a Libertarian vote now realize this would be an OBAMM: “One Big-Ass Mistake Montana.”

Therefore, I predict the Libertarian vote in 2012 will be less than 5,000 with the other 5,000 going to the Republican candidate.

Ron Paul’s endorsement of Denny Rehberg will convince many Libertarians to vote Republican.

Why is the election of Denny Rehberg so important?

While polls show Mitt Romney will be our next president, in order for Mitt Romney to put America’s fiscal, regulatory, and social houses in order, he needs Republican control of the US Senate.

To control the US Senate, Republicans need 4 new seats to get 51 votes. There are only 5 states where Republicans can win a new US Senate seat: Ohio, Indiana, Arizona, Virginia, and Montana.

The Tea Party Leadership Fund which is an outgrowth of is leading the fight to elect the US Senate Republican candidates in all these states … except Montana.

Why have Montana tea parties not joined the Tea Party Leadership Fund?

Because Montana independents “work alone” and they do not all agree on who to vote for. For that matter, they do not all agree on much of anything, except problems. Some work with Republicans. Others clean their .45’s, 12-gauges, and .305’s, and stock ammo, waiting for the day they can commit suicide by attempting to fight off the US Army and American tanks. Some think they are intellectual to say there is “not a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.” is working to help elect Mitt Romney and other Republicans because they realize only the Republicans will help them achieve their 13 key goals. TeaParty911 lists 18 Montana Tea Party groups, shown here.

We have an on-going discussion among leaders of those who consider themselves tea party folks. The range of different opinions are shown by these two voting recommendations:

(a) Mark French, who ran unsuccessfully against Denny Rehberg for US Congress in the 2010 Republican primary, says he will vote for Dan Cox in this 2012 election. 2010 Republican candidate, Mark French, votes Libertarian

(b) Lark Chadwick, who is very active in Montana politics and perhaps equally as influential as Mark, provided her Montana Voter Guide which solidly backs Republican candidates. Lark Chadwick’s Montana Voter Guide.

Tea Parties in other states and nationally overwhelmingly support Republican candidates. Only Montana is the wild card.


In conclusion, the Montana Libertarian vote will determine the Libertarian Legacy. If they abandon their Libertarian candidates and elect Denny Reberg and Rick HIll, then the world will know they still have some sanity in their noggins.

2 thoughts on “The Libertarian Legacy”

  1. This article is another example of the way that mainstream Republicans lie and distort their record of actions in office and another reason not to vote Republican, even if one is strongly opposed to the Democrat positions and record of actions in office.

    In it you claim: "This Democratic-controlled, 110th Congress overruled President Bush, reversed his economic progress, initiated America’s fall into its present depression, and paved the road for Obama. By September 15, 2008, they precipitated the global financial crisis and ignited a global recession. The financial crisis, of course, helped the Democrats win in 2008."

    This claim is a gross distortion of reality, trying to whitewash President Bush's complicity in the blowing of a gigantic credit bubble. He was the President who appointed Ben Bernanke Chair of the Federal Reserve knowing full well and encouraging the latter's loose monetary policy. I recollect numerous speeches of Bush, wherein he took credit for encouraging the easy loans to people of modest means, who overleveraged themselves, overpaid for housing, which was the primary cause of the financial crisis. Moreover, Bush was totally in support of the bail-out to the banksters responsible for the crisis. Of course, encouraging an economic boom through credit expansion is a favorite tool of politicians of all stripes, since it encourages a false sense of prosperity, which boosts government coffers as well as their electoral prospects.

    Your pushing of the voting for Republican candidates, irrespective of their positions and voting records, whether or not they may be aligned in principle to the electors' views is perfect example of the definition of insanity being the repetition of a mistake, expecting a different result. The previous decades' long list of poor policies, broken electoral promises and vote-buying, irrespective of which party was in office was possible because voters were duped into the false dichotomy of Left-Right, Democrat vs Republican and encouraged to always vote for the lesser of two evils and in the end, whichever Party was in control, the globalist-corporatist interests were served.

  2. Just a further note to my earlier comment, I recommend you view the attached linked videos, they articulate my views on participating in the rigged elections, which was blatantly exemplified by the Republican primaries. I recommend you view the attached linked videos. By the way, this has nothing to do with revenge, as you claim, but with standing up for the truth and principles you believe in:

    Boycott the Vote:…

    To be quite clear, I see only 3 alternatives for a principled, thinking voter in this election: 1. to boycott the vote, 2. to write in Ron Paul, 3. to vote for a Third Party candidate, specifically Libertarian Gary Johnson. I realize this may not result in ones' candidate 'winning', but it does make a statement. It does not matter who 'wins' this election, we are way beyond a political solution. The consequences for the past decades of mismanagement, lying, fraud, theft and a corrupt and unsustainable monetary system are going to blow up during the term of the next President, so it might as well be in the face of one of the corrupt, bought-and-paid-for corporate shills and puppets, I don't care which. I do, however, fear that whichever of them is elected, they will be finalizing the transformation of a constitutional republic to a fascist dictatorship.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.