Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:21:10 -0700 From: AZGovernor@Earthlink.net ("AZ Governor's Race 2k2") Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] Re: Values To: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com
Alan, Alan, Alan; You seem to not understand. ***
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Fanning" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > ----- Original Message -----
> From: auvenj
> I would think the willingness of the candidate to waffle and dissemble on
> crucial state issues would be more significant.
***'The Plan' all along was to qualify, then refuse funding. Everyone on this list knew that. Some didn't trust that, some didn't (hopefully sincerely) believe that and others simply chose to misconstrue, speculate and distort that for reasons of their own (shiny badges and all that). I had to keep the door open for access and the commission caught on before you did. They started excluding me from CE events a couple of weeks ago when they realized that I wouldn't request certification to participate. I was hoping that leaving it open and dangling would generate interest. It didn't. I admitted that the lies, innuendos and deliberate misconstruances got to me on a few rare days along the way. Did you ever get upset enough that you 'wanted' to smack someone? (but hopefully, didn't ;-) Same thing.
Since 'we' always say we play by our own rules, wouldn't it makes sense to work for a 'no-participation' clause into the LP platform, or insert it into the philosophy? As opposed to the taliban-esque unwritten corrollary stuff.
I see the snippy little nonsense like "I don't like him/her because they wear a suit" as extremely childish, and shallow attempts to bash a candidate for whatever undisclosed reasons. Some people don't think we should ever elect Libertarians, but to me that's silly. I can't say, "Baaa, Baaa" very well.
>The willingness of a
> candidate to portray himself as borrowing from the best of Republicans and
> Democrats would be more of an issue.
If this little comment was pointed to me, I should probably clarify your lack of understanding. I've said the Libertarian philosophy is a combination of both the 'great social conscience' (concern for the little guy) of the old once-honorable Democratic Party, and the 'fiscal prudence and constitutional constraint' of the old once-honorable Republican Party. I've also said that we are known (and we are) as 'Jeffersonian Democrats' as well as 'Goldwater Republicans'. My opponent distorted the line, (remember, I'm trying to appeal to voters used to the 2-party system): 'If we elect a Democrat or a Republican--it's gridlock. Only a Libertarian can walk the aisle and take good ideas from either side without fear of political reprisal or reppercussion'. To say Ds or Rs 'never' get it right is just plain stoopid, and drives people away--is that our intent? I've also said: "I'm not saying it was the Democrats or the Republicans who brought us to this abysmal circumstance--I'm saying it was the Democrats AND the Republicans who brought us ere, and it's gonna take a Libertarian to bring us home". Do you really have a problem with any of that?
If Barry's press release is to be believed he actually spent months > trying to decide if he would take the Un-clean Elections money. How can
you > support someone so indecisive?
The months spent considering were prior to my even getting in. My decision was made I think in May of last year. That I admit to having been tempted on a couple of occaissions in the interum should not be misconstrued. When it was clear that the decision was a 'real' one, I couldn't do it, and probably couldn't have actually succumbed to temptation at any time prior--much as the 'thought' had passed through my mind. Uh, Oh! Is that the sirens of the 'thought police' I hear?
It always strikes me as funny as to what people say on this list, and what they do/say to me off-list. You'd be schocked, I'm sure at how many on this list are contributing and helping this campaign. I'll give you a hint, there are 11 who aren't. It may surprise you to know that even someone who was going to run against me, because 1) I wasn't an atheist, 2) I was 'considering CE funding' and 3) That I was 'Pro-Life' (personally) gave me a $5.00 qualifying form with the words, "I don't care. I think you should take anyway". I kept the form aside, and still have it.
Harry Browne gave me the best advice, he said 'vote for the one you disagree with the least'. How's about you just cite what good your candidate will/would/could do for the cause of freedom rather than the 'against the other guy routine'? >
------------------------ 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/