The Republican Party in Texas is concerned it may lose control of the state House in this or the next election. Republicans currently occupy 79 seats and the Democrats 71. The House handles the redistricting for the state, including Congressional districts.  A political party’s electoral fortunes depend on how creatively a political party draws the political maps.

Republican Suzanna Hupp, a former state House member, called up Libertarians in three particularly close races and asked them to drop out. She felt that without the Libertarians, the Republican candidate would pick up the votes and win the election.

To no one’s surprise, except Hupp’s and whichever Republicans she conspired with, the Libertarians refused to drop from the race. It is surprising that she considers the Libertarian Party as a Republican lapdog to rollover as needed. Third party candidates rarely have expectations to win, but they do believe in elections as a forum. Hupp may do well to check out the differences in the two parties’ platforms next time.

One of the Libertarians said that while Hupp did not directly offer board seats on local commissions, it was left open as a possibility. Hupp denied anything of the sort.

Wes Benedict, head of the Libertarian Party for Texas, dismissed the Republican requests for Libertarians to drop out. “Republicans need to earn those votes,” Benedict said.

(For more foolish stories visit

  • rachel

    What!? What on earth gave Rep. Hupp the idea that making such an outrageous request was a good idea?

  • gerryf

    It’s called GOP Texan ego-centricism. The world revolves around Republicans and the notion that isn’t true is just shocking to someone like Hupp.

    Intellectually, Hupp cannot get her head around the idea that a Libertarian is a real poltical party. It’s political hubris at its finest and it’s endemic to the party that spawned Bush and his Texas cronies.

  • kranky kritter

    Well it does beg a question that libertarians hate to answer, doesn’t it? What do libertarians achieve by drawing, let’s say 8% of the vote, thereby fostering the election of a democrat IF that democrat is demonstrably more fiscally reckless than the given republican and more in favor of bigger government?

    I know the answer, which is that libertarians value their party sovereignty, as it were, and believe that the GOP presents such a flawed vision that they must ultimately be swept aside anyway.

    Nobody wants to be a pawn, or be called a pawn. Or reminded that they’re currently no better than a pawn for all intents and purposes. But the game is what it is. I agree that its outrageously impolitic for the GOP to make such an appeal. Libertarians aspire to be more than pawns. They aspire to fundamentally change the game. But in 2008, they’re cast in the role of pawns whether they like it or not.

    And before folks object, don’t forget that pawns can absolutely affect the outcome of the game. In common parlance, the notion of a pawn is that it implies powerlessness and an inability to affect outcomes. But the correct analogy to chess suggests that pawns are simply less powerful than other actors, limited in their actions, and comparatively expendable in the eyes of the gods or generals moving the pieces. That’s a fairly good description of the libertarian party. Especially when, as we know, a pawn can in fact become a queen or some other powerful piece, even though that very seldom happens.