Yeesh, I think I have written more emails in the last week than I had in the entire preceding year -- all thanks to this matter. Anyway. . .
Kubby receiving 0.5% of the general vote would be like Ron Paul receiving approximately 2% of the GOP primary vote -- about 1.9% more support than Paul has received to date.
If we want Kubby (or whoever the nominee is) to receive a larger proportion of the vote, we're not going to do that by supporting Republicans.
Nor are we (as a party) going to get "our agenda" passed by supporting individuals like Ron Paul.
1) Ron Paul has no chance. Zero. Zippo. Nada. When people lecture me on how the LP has no chance, so they're going to give money to Ron Paul, I cannot help but chuckle a little. It's a bit like saying that Apple has no chance, so I'm going to go buy an Amiga.
2) "Playing within the system" doesn't work when it involves lobbying old-party politicians. It *does* when Libertarians control the light switch. Go up to Washington state, or over to Arizona, and ask GOP and Democratic candidates who lost due to an LP candidate "spoiling" the vote what they think of the LP -- and watch how they co-opt LP issues next time to get that vote.
3) I'm getting lectured continuously on how the LP is "doing the same things over and over" by people who are suggesting we go back to the LP's 1988 strategy and support Ron Paul! The wonders never cease. Incidentally, "throwing things at the wall to see if they stick" isn't a strategy. I hear constantly about how "advertising doesn't work, we tried that" when the reality is that our advertising has historically been terrible. The same is true in other categories as well. We should focus on incremental improvements, hard work, and building a real movement over time based not on magical heroes and dreams of a GOP libertopia -- but on reality.
4) Whether "we" have "allies in the Ron Paul movement" doesn't matter. Ron Paul's positions on key issues are just plain wrong. The LP wouldn't rush to support Dennis Kucinich simply because he agrees with Libertarians on gay rights, the Iraq War and the PATRIOT Act. If I advocated such a path as a Libertarian, I'd be laughed out of the room -- yet people do this every day with Paul.
5) I constantly hear how Ron Paul is attracting new people and the LP isn't. First, I don't believe Paul's attracting many people, judging from his primary poll numbers (which are below Tancredo's). As for the LP not attracting many newcomers, that's not for a lack of trying by LP-affiliated organizations. Outright, for instance, participates in a number of events (and will be participating in others) that are multipartisan and reach out to gay people who would be a natural fit. But general support from the LP for supporting our efforts varies. I know this is true for other libertarian allies as well -- in second amendment and economic issues in particular. We cannot complain when other groups reap the benefits of being confident in their own platforms, while LP strategists apologize for our own positions and water them down by reaching out for Ron Paul.
I've invited lots of Libertarian Party people in my time to participate in various grass roots initiatives -- particularly on the left side of the spectrum, which we keep ignoring in favor of the right. Nobody shows up, spends any energy at all, or offers to reach out to these easy catches. People tell me "why should I bother with the LP when they won't bother with me?" and they're right. That's not going to be any different for Ron Paul's people either. Folks showing up to oppose open immigration, LGBTQ issues, and women's rights aren't going to suddenly decide to be Libertarians.
Once we decide to:
1) Have pride in our candidates and positions;
2) View campaigning as a continuous process rather than a burst-of-energy and bemoaning another loss process;
3) Stop looking for the quick and magical fix;
4) Stop looking to the past for the answers to the future;
5) Stop saying no to new and innovative thinking;
6) Stop being afraid to ally with our nonpartisan natural allies;
7) Welcoming committed libertarians into the party and allowing them to have a natural leadership role without "proving themselves" through endless positioning. . .
Then we'll see some upticks in support.
But having LP officials slamming our candidates, declaring that our party is pointless and not worth supporting, and cheerleading for a social conservative from the Republican Party ain't gonna get us there.
Neither is Ron Paul.
Cheers,
Brian
Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote: So how will Kubby getting .5 percent of the vote in
November NOT be a failure similar to what you are
predicting for Ron Paul in the primary?
I am saying that we, as a party, need to work inside
the current realm of politics if we are to see our
agenda pass. I am saying that image is everything.
People need to be inspired by leaders like Ron Paul,
to know that their message is being received in
Washington. Ron Paul isn't perfect, but I can tell
you, I don't think Kubby or Root would be perfect
either. Although we know that Kubby was in the right
when the government was in the wrong, the vast public
at large will only see or hear that he fled to Canada
and is a "criminal". Kubby is hardly an inspirational
figure to the general public, most of whom don't know
him.
I do believe experience in public life is important to
garner public support. I do feel it is imperative that
the LP elect people to office and that we use these
offices to further our agenda, an agenda of freedom.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over again expecting a different result, and
the LP has been the king organization when it comes to
that.
I am saying our time and money is better spent right
now, getting donors and volunteers and candidates for
local winnable races and if they support Ron Paul too,
great, they shouldn't be attacked. Because, although
you AND I disagree with Paul's positions on gay and
abortion issues, we have allies in the Ron Paul
movement. It's time to rally and unite around what
brings us together not what separates us. Divisive
politics of the old wing of the LP just don't fly with
the average voter of today. I know this because I have
worked with the average voter for over 10 years while
running or helping with LP, GOP and local non-partisan
races. Say what you want about the usefulness of a LP
candidate for president, but I want to win. I don't
know if Ron Paul can win, but I know he is getting
more votes NOW, then a LP candidate will get in
November. I just think it's insane to constantly go
after offices we can't win.
It's basically if we work small and at the grass roots
and get these Ron Paul supporters, etc. to help our
candidates (and they will) we can then move up to
state and federal offices with this same ground swell
of support Ron Paul is getting. Vilifying Ron Paul
will do nothing but alienate even more people in and
close to our party. The LP has never been big on
compromise and coalitioning, 2 staples of today's
political world reality, and that has been our
failure. I am hoping that the future of our party will
take these past mistakes and failures and learn from
them. But those in the LP who don't see any of our
last 36 years as a failure are missing the point.
In no way am I putting all my eggs in one basket (Ron
Paul) but he has done far more to get new people
interested in politics. Youth, women, other groups the
LP can't attract are flocking to Ron Paul for his
message, and it's not all flocking to him for his
pro-life or anti-immigration stance. I want to find
out what is working with his message of freedom though
and how it isn't working with the LP, to attract these
new voters who will support our party and it's
candidates.
-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
> I don't really know where to begin, other than to
> note that Paul's record on the issues certainly
> isn't "pro-freedom" if you're a woman, or gay, or
> whatever.
>
> If the "libertarian movement" is going to come to
> power by embracing anti-choice, anti-gay,
> anti-immigrant philosophy -- and then celebrate
> incumbency of a "leader" who takes these positions
> as laudable -- then the libertarian movement will
> fail, plain and simple.
>
> And speaking personally, if senior officers in the
> Libertarian Party want to urge party members to
> abandon our own candidates' campaigns and go support
> a Republican candidate, that's their choice --
> however, I'd say that it's more appropriate that
> they do it from a position outside of Libertarian
> Party officialdom. I'd like to focus on our
> candidates and a message of real liberty -- building
> a real grass roots with our own message ala Paul or
> Kucinich (or Nader) -- rather than help prop up the
> GOP with yet another kinda-sorta "libertarian" who
> is attracting support for a number of unfree
> positions.
>
> Further, speaking as a Libertarian Party member (and
> California Coffee Club donor), I expect that
> officers within the Libertarian Party -- including
> yourself -- adhere to their fiduciary duty to build
> and support the party's candidates and processes.
> If individuals such as yourself wish to join the
> campaigns of "libertarian" Republicans or Democrats,
> you should be free to do so, but you should also
> ethically resign from your position within the LP
> for the obvious conflict of interest -- just as any
> Democratic or Republican leader in a similar
> position would do if he/she was lobbying for another
> party's candidate. Anything else is unethical.
>
> As for Ron Paul's "results," right now he's at a
> giant goose-egg within the Republican Party. If he
> cannot poll significantly within the Republican
> Party -- with the supposed groundswell of
> libertarian support flooding into the GOP -- he
> certainly isn't going to poll significantly come
> national election time. In fact, the support of the
> last three libertarian presidential candidates in
> the final poll represents a larger contingent of
> American voters than Paul supporters within the GOP.
>
> I object to the attacks on the LP candidates, all of
> whom have impressive records of achievement in their
> own right in the private sector. How atrocious that
> a "libertarian" would point to two decades of
> incumbency in political office as an asset that
> trumps a career as a successful businessman, a
> career as a published physicist, a career as a
> world-renowned and award-recognized charity
> entrepreneur, or a career as a marijuana and cancer
> treatment activist (and one of our most articulate
> candidates for governor).
>
> In the last election cycle, the Libertarian Party
> had its best ever performance in races across the
> country -- usually when running against Republicans.
> So what's the solution? Oh let's join the
> Republicans, and proclaim that the LP has no chance?
> Sorry, that's not gonna fly.
>
> Frankly, if you believe that throwing money and
> institutional Libertarian support at the Republican
> Party, slamming the principled people in our own
> party who are planning a run for president out of a
> commitment to liberty (rather than personal power),
> and attacking committed LP members who evaluate
> candidates based on actual facts represents the
> "future" of our party, I'd suggest you'd probably be
> more comfortable in the GOP.
>
> When the Paul campaign does fail (and fail it will),
> the next step for "real world libertarians" will be
> lamenting the loss and blaming everyone but
> themselves. This has been what has dragged us down
> in the past and this time, I am going to do
> everything in my power to make sure it doesn't
> happen again. There are more than a few
> Libertarians who agree with me and who are prepared
> to build on our momentum from 2006 to promote real
> liberty. Those who aren't interested in real
> liberty should feel welcome to join the GOP and keep
> their chains polished and shiny.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:
> I totally disagree, I
> think Ron Paul has done more for
> the libertarian movement than the LP has done in
> it's
> 36 year history. Somehow, Ron Paul has empassioned
> young people and independents like the LP has only
> dreamed of. The LP may be "destroyed" by Ron Paul
> but
> that fault will rest with the LP. The LP should
> embrace this opportunity to reach out and coalition
> with every aspect of the movement. I would love to
> see
> Paul endorsed by the LP, but if that doesn't
> happen,
> we need to reach out to these supporters that are
> giving time and money to Paul and somehow translate
> that into time and money for the LP and libertarian
> issues/agendas in California and all over the
> nation.
>
> The funny thing is that the LP is definately not
> the
> power house that some of the leaders think it is.
> DownSizeDC and Ron Paul and other libertarian
> groups
> are accomplishing a lot more in a short time than
> the
> Libertarian Party has done. The criticism comes
> back
> on me too because I used to just toil away on
> blogs,
> read CATO papers and attend dinner meetings. Then I
> realized that none of this is real political
> action.
> Many in the freedom movement crave being
> politically
> active and Ron Paul, DownSizeDC, and others like
> Kucinich on his anti-war stance, or the Drug Policy
> Alliance are getting these "action cravers" by the
> thousands. Instead of the LP attacking anyone that
> doesn't fit this damned "LP litmus test" we must
> learn
> to coalition together for common ideals. Only then
> will the LP become a real political force that will
> be
> taken seriously.
>
> New leaders, like Kevin Takenaga and Rich Newell
> here
> in California, and Bill Hall in Michigan are
> throwing
> out the old way of doing things and trying new
> ideas.
> We are working on local candidates with winnable
> opportunities. We are learning how to fund raise,
> and
> now to gather volunteers. We are learning how to
> win,
> and not just how to debate or argue on blogs. I
> will
> continue to support Ron Paul until we can get a
> real
> leader with the same kind of integrity that Ron
> Paul
> has. As for that BULL SH** about him being another
> "Empty promise" Reagan, first of all, Reagan did
> big
> government in California in the 60s as governor and
> Ron Paul has stood pat on his voting record. There
> are
> not many holes to find in it. He is very much in
> tune
> with our platform. But do our current LP candidates
> stand 100 percent with our platform too? As far as
> Kubby, or Phillies or Wayne Allen Root's records...
> they have none. Ron Paul has been re-elected to the
> US
> House numerous times. Why does the LP constantly
> attract losers? Why don't they try to win, and go
> for
> winnable races, instead of running paper candidates
> in
> un-winnable races? I'm not saying Ron Paul has a
> chance to win the President, I am saying he has a
> much
> better chance then the LP candidates, and with that
> said LPers should realize it's time to change how
> our
> party is doing politics. If you haven't seen the
> writing on the wall yet, then you possibly are a
> lost
> cause. Do you really think everyone who varies
> their
> opinions on parts of their platform should leave
> the
> party? I don't agree with everything on the LP
> platform, but as I am in tune with it on more than
> 90
> percent I feel I am better suited here in the LP
> than
> in the GOP or the Dem Party (or other minor parties
> for that matter).
>
>
=== message truncated ===