Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT) From: email@example.com (Gary Fallon) Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] Values To: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com
Fair assessment with a couple of exceptions - I have worn a suit (well, at the protest I left my jacket in the car as I was not planning on going inside and it was hot) and tie at the non-Libertarian functions that I have attended.
Also, my statements may appear unrealistic but my objective is different than Barry's. He actually believes he can win the General. I believe my only chance of winning is through an act of God (which I know holds no weight with my atheist friends).
I am planting seeds so that the next time people here the slogan "War on Drugs" they might think of my characterization of drug users as political prisoners. Is that so radical that Libertarians consider it offensive?
Barry has used my dining analogy on education. Ten years ago people were shocked at that as well.
Here is a more recent slogan: There's no compassion in coercion. Barry is welcome to use it if he does not feel uncomfortable thinking he might offend someone.
I agree that Barry is entertaining but what does it really mean when he says he's going to bring a drill?
Or, when Barry talks about picking the best ideas from the Democrats and Republicans - he is actually crediting them with having good ideas! I'm sorry but the R's and D's are bankrupt on ideas. Heck, it would be more approriate to say that the R's and D's are taking our ideas once libertarians do the work to make them generally acceptable. School choice is a perfect example (even though they find ways to botch up the implementation).
I will continue to be an "unrealistic idealist" in defense of liberty.
I do encourage you to read both Barry's and my responses to the Republic's Quiz the Candidate. Here are some links:
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/governor/ (under "Quiz the gubernatorial candidates")
I also suggest looking at each of our websites:
--- auvenj <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > I have been watching with interest the sparring
> between Barry and
> There can be no doubt that Barry works harder at
> this campaign than
> Gary does, hell probably more than any Libertarian
> in this state ever
> has. Barry spends more time. Barry spends more
> money. Barry goes
> to more events. It ain't even close, folks.
> Now, it hasn't been discussed a lot but it is also
> my opinion that
> Barry is a much more dynamic, articulate, and
> entertaining speaker
> than Gary. Plus, he wears a suit and tie. Barry
> comes across as a
> mainstream politician with a few unorthodox ideas;
> Gary comes across
> as an unrealistic idealist. Which means that when
> Barry is working
> he's not wasting his time or coming across as a
> looney. He's
> generally making a positive impression.
> And while I think I've made some headway wit Gary
> on the abortion
> issue, there's no doubt that Barry's position to
> keep the government
> out of it is more compatible with my view of the
> moral course of
> action. Prosecuting a woman for murder because she
> uses an IUD is a
> truly horrendous thought.
> But I'm honestly still trying to figure out the
> whole Clean Elections
> thing with Barry. I've been told that I'm a
> reasonably intelligent
> guy. But I guess sometimes I just don't "get it",
> and this is one of
> those instances. Barry says he had 4000 $5 pledges
> a year ago. But
> he didn't call those pledges in because...he wanted
> to see if he
> could get the $5 contributions some other way? And
> then he doesn't
> get them the other way so he sends an email to the
> list that pledged
> it, mere days before the deadline but...he still
> doesn't get them?
> Barry told us all in Flagstaff that he was unhappy
> with the wording
> of the fundraising letter that his campaign manager
> sent out...but
> he sent an email himself mere days before that was
> just as strongly
> indicative of a plan to take the CE money if he
> qualified for it.
> It just doesn't make sense to me. I guess I'm slow.
> Because I
> really like Barry, and I admire the work he puts in
> and the positive
> appearance he gives to the party, I want to give him
> the benefit of
> the doubt. But it seems to me that he deceived his
> contributors by
> leading them to believe he would do everything in
> his power to
> qualify. The whole "I had 4000 pledges" thing just
> seems...unbelievable, that he would sit on that when
> his stated goal
> was to qualify even if his intention was to burn the
> Bottom line is that after a year of uncertainty
> regarding Barry and
> the Clean Elections money, the only thing I'm
> certain of now is that
> Barry didn't qualify. I don't know if he tried his
> best and
> failed...or didn't really try but only sorta
> tried...or pretended to
> try to satisfy his campaign manager but really
> didn't try at all. I
> don't know if he would've taken the money if he had
> qualified. And
> that's scary folks. Because I'd like to think that
> I'm smart enough
> and I've been paying attention enough that I would
> know these things
> if they were able to be known.
> Hard work and being a credible candidate IS a good
> thing. But
> unfortunately sometimes work and appearance is
> elevated above
> principle and substance. Peter and the other key
> players in ALP,
> Inc. rutinely deflect criticism with the retort
> that the person
> being criticized works harder at what he does than
> the person doing
> the criticizing. This carries a certain amount of
> weight simply
> because nobody likes to listen to people who do
> nothing but bitch
> from the sidelines. Still, giving someone an "A for
> effort" is
> bankrupt philosophically.
> We will get what we value in terms of casting our
> votes. If we value
> hard work, we will get more hard workers. If we
> value appearance, we
> will get candidates how appear better. If we value
> principle and
> plain speech, we will get that too.
> I value not being confused by a candidate. I
> consider myself an
> intelligent person, and if I still have the kind of
> questions I have
> about Barry's intentions after watching his campaign
> pretty closely
> for a year, that's a very real and serious problem.
> I also value an adherence to libertarian principle
> that does not
> require a police state to enforce or turn a woman
> into a murderer for
> using an IUD. Gary's position on abortion is a very
> real and serious
> problem, not because it's likely to affect me
> personally but because
> it belies a serious philosophical deficiency.
> Between Barry and Gary I find that I can only defend
> a vote for NOTA,
> which is enlightening in and of itself. The more
> closely I track
> contested races, the more likely I am to see NOTA as
> the only
> defensible option. Most recently, I felt that way
> about the election
> for national LP chair and voted for NOTA. I suppose
> I'm simply
> coming to the realization that nobody is truly
> qualified to hold
> these offices. Nobody is qualified to hold power
> over others. Gee,
> what a concept.
> --Jason Auvenshine
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Community Web Page:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/JdSolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Community Web Page: http://groups.yahoo.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/