WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 — Much attention has been given to the so-called Nader Effect — that is, whether independent, progressive Green Party candidates block centrist-leaning Democrats from defeating Republicans. This scenario could play out in states across the nation, from Minnesota to Massachusetts. But there’s a flip side to it. In both Minnesota and Massachusetts, for example, there are alternate-party candidates who may disrupt Republican chances to win the governorship.

In Minnesota, Governor Jesse Ventura’s Independence Party is running a gubernatorial ticket of Tim Penny, a former Democrat, and Martha Robertson, a former Republican. (Robertson just happens to be the sister of Massachusetts candidate for lieutenant governor, Jim Rappaport.) In Massachusetts, the challenge to the GOP comes from Libertarian candidate Carla Howell and her running mate Rich Aucoin. Both third-party bids are aiming for an alienated centrist demographic, similar to the McCain voter in the 2000 election.

It’s true that Howell and Aucoin have run a pretty odd campaign to date. (Click here to see how Howell dissed Dan Kennedy.) And libertarian policies seem out of step with the post-9/11 times, at least to me. Still, the Libertarians are well financed and could find a voice among those angry at Beacon Hill. And if their responses to a recent Beacon Hill Institute tax survey are any indicator, they could win favor from the crowd that still relishes the passage of Proposition 2-1/2 back in 1980, which limits the amount by which Massachusetts communities can raise property taxes.

When last I checked, Howell gave a much more detailed response to the not-for-profit, right-leaning, think tank at Suffolk University than GOP gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney. (Romney eventually submitted a more detailed response, but did so more than one month after the group’s deadline — a deadline met by the rest of Romney’s opponents, including the Democrats, with the exception of Senate president Tom Birmingham.) Romney failed to answer questions on whether he favored targeted tax cuts, such as the Raytheon tax cut, increased tobacco taxes, and a gas tax. " Targeted tax cuts = political favoritism, " Howell responded. While Romney merely checked a box indicating he opposes altering Proposition 2-1/2, Howell gave a detailed explanation on how she favors making it more difficult for communities to override the measure. (To me, this seems a contradiction with Howell’s "Smaller is Better" philosophy. Isn’t the essence of smaller government letting individual communities do what they want with taxes?)

But my objections to Howell’s ideas are beside the point. What's important about her answers is that they matter to some of the fiscally conservative voters whom Romney needs to win a general election.

Right now, most of the focus in the race has been on the Democrats. But in another couple of weeks, when we are in the midst of a general election, everything will be different. In that context, a Howell candidacy could hurt Romney.