Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:51:06 -0700 From: rsrchsoc@ionet.net (John Wilde) Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] Re: Values To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
You know Barry, instead of "leaving the door open" to be able to have access to the CE events, principle would have said, reject the program altogether and the when the Commission refused you access to the CE events sue them for the political bias. After all the purpose of the CE Commission and funding was to stop the "special interests." Well it sounds like the Commission was declaring itself to be a "special interest" unto itself. Deciding who was "clean" or "dirty" and excluding "dirty." If that is the case, then that is facially unconstitutional.
I am sure the Institute for Justice would have been more than willing to take it up the issue considering they were the ones responsible for have 75% of the funding mechanism itself thrown out.
By rejecting the program outright and then suing hen you were "excluded" would have garnered you substantially more name recognition than by continuing to be on the "inside" and appearing to have the desire to qualify.
You know, seems we heard that you did the same thing by "going inside" for the debates last Sunday down in Tucson.
Well at least you're consistent. That is "Being inside, while trying to convince others that you are really outside." Both times when you had the opportunity to clearly be on the outside, you chose to stay orgo inside.
g'day John Wilde
AZ Governor's Race 2k2 wrote:
> 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 do'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 here, 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 shold 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
ADVERTISEMENT>
> Community Web Page:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/community/lpaz-discuss
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ 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/