Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:02:42 -0000 From: auvenj@mailcity.com Subject: [lpaz-Pima] Re: Can You Get an Egg Cream There? To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com
--- In lpaz-Pima@y..., Robert Bushkin <whigdout@t...> wrote: > >Regardless ***my point is this: if we
> >run "moderate" candidates and espouse "libertarian leaning"
policies >
> >>>>>>>> Having recruited candidates, tried and failed to recruit
other > candidates, been a candidate's campaign chairan etc etc etc I find
this > cavalier "assumption" of being able to choose this kind or that
kind of > candidate to be surreal
True...it's more about whether or not we refuse to support candidates who aren't "libertarian enough", and how we coach the candidates we do have. I didn't mean to imply that we can simply pick our preference from an arbitrarily large number of possibilities.
> >as Jay suggests, we will probably alienate the most "hard core"
> >libertarians but we WILL broaden our appeal to the vastly larger
> >number of "libertarian leaning" voters.
>
> >>>>>>>> prehaps we could call them "Libertarian fellow-travelers"
>
> >>>>>>>> pray tell who are they?
I'd say that they're people who agree with us more than either the R's or the D's, but do not accept the non-initiation of force principle.
> >This will almost certainly
> >net out to a big gain in both our membership and our voter support.
> >Unfortunately, it will also start the party down the inexorable
path > >that can only end in being indistinguishable from the R's and D's.
>
> >>>>>>>> by which you mean electing candidates and participating
in > making government policy?
Yeah...and handing out favors, catering to special interest groups, engaging in doublespeak, backpeddling on our platform, etc. etc. Are the two aspects inseperable? Hell if I know...but I'd speculate in the affirmative.
> >If we ditch the "hard core" and grow the party at the same time,
then > >the current moderates become the new "hard core" that the new (and
> >more numerous) "libertarian-leaners" want to ditch. It isn't hard
to > >see which direction the next move will be in.
>
> >>>>>>> and that is where, pray tell?
Towards the center of the political spectrum.
> >If by "participate fully" you mean taking government matching
> >funds...yeah, they definitely refuse to do that.
>
> >>>>>>> No!! They do more that refuse to take the money. They
sabotage > the efforts of Libertarians who do not agree with them.
What evidence do you have for your viewpoint? I believe it is incorrect and here is why (please correct me if I'm wrong): As I understand things, they did nothing to "sabotage" Ed Kahn's campaign back in '95, which took a boatload of matching funds. They were content to leave the Pima party and candidates alone to follow our own path. Then some individuals from our side went and formed a competing state party organization in an attempt to supplant the existing state party (no value judgement about that...just a fact). The existing state officers were slapped with personal six-figure lawsuits (IMHO a tactic with the predictible outcome of enmity and bitterness). The new organization attempted to sieze the existing organization's bank account (IMHO at best a very bad judgement call). Then the existing organization went on a "banishing spree" and started kicking people out of the party and disaffiliated Pima County (IMHO an extremely stupid and ineffective response). It's a sad, sordid history, many of the details of which now boil down to points of view and swearing contests between adversaries. But I don't remember anyone ever saying the "hardliners" tried to kick Ed off the ballot, or force him to give back the matching-funds money, and AFAIK the "banishing spree" had nothing to do with the Kahn campaign.
We've run campaigns which took matching funds twice since then, while all this litigation and fighting has progressed. AFAIK there has been no "sabotaging" of either of those campaigns. Now we have another campaign seeking matching funds. Aside from expressing a negative opinion about the taking of matching funds, I haven't seen any "sabotaging" emanating from the hard liners this time around either. If expressing a negative opinion about something constitutes "sabotage" I probably ought to get out of this party right now...my opinions come in all types and I'm an equal opportunity critc. :-)
They did pass an (IMHO unenforcible) bylaw prohibiting Libertarian candidates from taking matching funds. They passed said bylaw at a convention which was only attended by the ALP hard-liners due to the continuing state split. If we weren't still suing and avoiding each other and were all (hardliners and moderates) just sitting around discussing what ought to be in the bylaws, would that bylaw have passed? Who knows...but I sincerely doubt it.
In short, the only "sabotaging" I see is of no actual impact and results more from the fact that we are fighting than, from any inherent inclination of themajority of the "hardliner" folks in ALP.
--Jason Auvenshine
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~> We give away $70,000 a month! Come to iWin.com for your chance to win! http://us.click.yahoo.com/olMXHC/BJVCAA/4ihDAA/JwNVlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpaz-pima-unsubscribe@egroups.com