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: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Alan, Alan, Alan; You seem to not understand. ***
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Fanning" <apfanning@netzero.net>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: auvenj
> Jason,
> 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'?
>
> --Alan
------------------------ 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/