Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:51:51 -0500 From: steve@trinwords.com (Steve Trinward) Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] LP national press release To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Richard - Although you are partly correct in terms of the overall statement in the LP release, you miss the point in several essential areas:
1.) the use of the term "maverick" to describe the group which already WAS (and still is, in the eyes of the state of Arizona, and everyone EXCEPT the national LP) the AZ affiliate party is both deceptive and unjust. That term better fits the usurper group who attempted (in most eyes without success) to co-opt the "title" by various NON-libertarian methods ...
2.) the declaration that Browne was barred from being on the ballot is false, as is yours that the Smith/Suprynowicz ticket was "tentative" ... As we both know too well, the order of operations was: (a) Browne invited to submit his name, and present his case, to the UNAFFILIATED ALP folks (he refused to do either, despite several opportunities); (b) ALP declared that the only way they could then NOT go their own way, was if LNC re-affiliated them (at which point they would have NO CHOICE but to put Browne on the ballot); (c) when neither of these things happened, a SLIGHT majority of the ALP Board of Directors (7-4 IIRC) reluctantly decided that they could no longer "bend and spread" and that it was time to move on ...
YOur characterization of the events is ALMOST as one-sided as Dasbach's was (and I might note that even some of his biggest advocates are more than a little annoyed at the wording he chose to describe the events of AZ's ongoing struggle in the press release ...)
Please find a way to present the case fairly ...
- Steve
Richard Winger wrote:
> I want to defend the national LP press release about the history of
> what happened in Arizona in 2000 concerning the presidential race.
> What happened in Arizona in 2000 was similar
But hardly identical! Now you would be implying (for anyone choosing to drop context) that this was a RACIAL issue, instead of one of PRINCIPLE!
> to what happened to the Democratic Party in Alabama in 1964 and in
> 1968. The Democratic national convention those years didn't seat
> the delegates from Alabama.
The LP seated SOME delegates from Arizona, just not the ones who'd been there all these years ...
> So the Democratic Party of Alabama refused to list the presidential
> candidate chosen by the national convention.
Their right, since they were denied participation, just as the LP folks were (oh yes, PA gave up some of its empty seats, so they could vote their token opposition to the farce and present themselves in the hall as the not-so-loyal opposition ... That's beside the point ...)
> LBJ wasn't on the ballot at all in Alabama in November 1964, and in
> November 1968, Hubert Humphrey only appeared as a minor party
> nominee in Alabama. And the press all reported this, in very
> similar terms to how the LP national office reported what happened
> in Arizona.
And IIRC with the same lack of objectivity ...
> It is indisputed that the national convention of the Libertarian
> Party chose Harry Browne.
By a narrow margin, thanks to last-minute manipulations and a high-dollar dog-and-pony show ...
> Therefore, any state unit of the Libertarian Party which didn't list
> Browne, "splintered" from the national party's choice.
But ALP was NOT a "State unit of the LP" at that time ... Don't you see that?
> Furthermore, delegates from the LP of Arizona did attend the Anaheim
> convention and were seated from states like Pennsylvania.
Yes, but the fact that there were some folks who placed a premium on fairness and justice does not gainsay the actions of the LP ruling body ...
> It's traditional in this country that all the state units of a
> national party, respect the choice of the national convention, as to
> the presidential candidate.
And all the "state units" DID ... ALP was NOT, and is not NOW, a "state unit" of the LP .. by the decision of the LNC!!
> It's just common language, common ways of describing things, to use
> "splinter" for those rare occasions when the national choice for
> president is rejected by a state party.
THEY ARE NOT AND WERE NOT A 'STATE PARTY' OF THE LP ... BY THE LP'S OWN CHOICE!!
> The Arizona LP chose L. Neil Smith tentatively on August 6, 2000.
Not tentatively, but firmly ... If they had been then re-affiliated, they would have had no choice but to endorse Browne, by your own declaration above ...
> The Arizona LP didn't turn in his name to the Secretary of State
> until the deadline, September 6, to give the national committee a
> chance to recognize its state officers.
In which case they would have been truly a "splinter" group if they had not put Browne on the ballot ...
> If the national LP had recognized the state officers,
> Browne would have been listed instead. So, at the time the Az LP
> chose Smith tentatively, it still considered itself affiliated with
> the national LP.
NO! It considered itself POTENTIALLY RE-affiliated, if LNC chose to do so ... Until that time, it was in limbo!
This AIN'T rocket-science, Richard! why do you have such a difficult time accepting that?? -- Steve Trinward, Soul [sic] Proprietor, trinWORDS If your to bussy buliding you're buisness too wory abbout "spelling"... < http://www.trinwords.com >
Like what I'm saying? < http://two-cents-worth.com/?http://two-cents-worth.com/?303678">steve@trinwords.com">http://two-cents-worth.com/?http://two-cents-worth.com/?303678&steve@trinwords.com >
I have FINALLY ripped an MP3 file of "Living Liberty" ... < http://www.trinwords.com/trinSONGS/SOUNDBYTES.html >
Where am I surfing? None of your business? < http://www.anonymizer.com/affiliate/door.cgi?CMid=18072 >
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." - John P. Curran, 1790