ACTION ITEM Re: [lpsf-discuss] Getting the LP back on track - what can be done

How much would it cost?

Hi Eric,

Cost would be infinitely more than is in the LPSF treasury or that we
all could raise. I would suggest following Starchild's good advice
of getting the LP back on track (without the clause on
letting "George" pay for the Convention).


--- In, "eric dupree"
<dupreeconsults@...> wrote:

How much would it cost?
> From: "Ron Getty" <tradergroupe@...>
> To:
> Subject: Re: ACTION ITEM Re: [lpsf-discuss] Getting the LP back

on track - what can be done

> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:21:21 -0800 (PST)
> Dear Dr. Mike;
> The LP as you noted could be re-named as the "Tango Party " -


> like the dance - one step forward and two steps back. And a one


> a two ...
> However, based on politically imposed mandates in Californai as


> example to be "recognized" as a political party by the State of
> California we would need to get some 100,000 new registered


> as the Boston Tea Party party to get "State recognition".
> Although if we had the funds I'd love to see that mandate
> challenged in the State Supreme court as a deliberate legislative
> defacto disenfranchisement of residents of the state of


> to prevent any third parties from forming and challenging the
> hegemony of the two party system.
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
> From: "dredelstein@..."
> <dredelstein@...>
> To:
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 6:00:14 AM
> Subject: Re: ACTION ITEM Re: [lpsf-discuss] Getting the LP back


> track - what can be done
> Starchild,
> My taste says go with a new party, perhaps Knapp's Boston Tea


> (awful name!), with its like-minded people, rather than be mired


> the LP's constant bickering, feuding, temper tantrums, power


> with one-step-forward and one-step-back.
> Yes, every group will have it's disagreements. However, I prefer


> avoid the major libertarian policy disagreements we have with
> National and State LPs.
> Best, Michael
> From: Starchild
> To:
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 8:51 PM
> Subject: ACTION ITEM Re: [lpsf-discuss] Getting the LP back on
> track - what can be done
> Well, that is the big question. I don't think we're off track
> ideologically here in SF. That may be a small consolation, but


> something. That leaves two big sets of problems -- the state, and
> the national.
> Let's take the state first. We in SF have a convention coming up


> our backyard -- San Ramon, from April 20-22. State officer
> elections are this year, and every freedom-lover in California
> should plan on attending in order to vote out Aaron Starr as


> (or whatever like-minded replacement his faction comes up with,


> he decides not to run again). We need to be prepared to become


> actively involved at the state level, if we want to fix what's
> broken there. We need to identify and get behind principled,
> bottom-up oriented Libertarians to run for Chair, northern &
> southern Vice Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, Executive Committee,


> Judicial Committee. Please make sure that your membership dues


> current -- if you aren't 100% sure, contact state Secretary Dan
> Wiener <secretary@...> and ask him. To serve as a delegate, you
> must sign up as an LP member before January 20, 2007, or have
> current membership as of that date. Try to get other people you
> know who may not
> normally be that involved in the party, but could be persuaded


> come out for liberty, to sign up and attend.
> What shape the convention takes will also likely play a role in
> determining the success of our efforts to take back the party.


> important victories are that we are having the convention in
> northern rather than southern California (which is considered


> pro-Starr), and that we are not on a cruise ship or at the posher
> resort near Lake Tahoe that Starr wanted. But the fact that these
> things, which shouldn't even have been in question, are cause for
> celebration is an indication of how badly screwed up things are.


> traditionally rotate conventions between northern and southern
> California and it was the north's turn this year, and the effort


> push things in an upscale direction has gotten ever stronger. At
> one point this year, the ExCom imposed a minimum charge of $99


> person on delegates. It is difficult to think of a more asinine
> thing to do than *mandating* that a contractor charge your


> more money instead of less, when the money wouldn't even go to the
> LPC but rather to the contractor!
> I have been trying to keep abreast of the convention-planning
> efforts, with a major goal being to make sure that convention
> advertising does not send the message out once again that there


> a financial litmus test for LP members wanting to help the party


> serving as delegates. Please remind contractors Terry Floyd and
> Mike Denny (two good guys who are on the LPSF and I believe the
> Grassroots lists), and tell Jim Eyer <j.eyer@...> , Dan
> Goltz < dhgoltz@...> (two moderates involved in the
> planning process), and Muffet Brown < muffet@...> (the
> LPC newsletter assistant who will be designing a graphic for the
> convention and may be designing the ad to run in that


> how important it is to you that potential convention-goers be
> clearly informed that they will not be required to pay anything


> apply for charity in any way, shape or form if they just want to
> participate as delegates and vote on party business. Convention
> delegates are
> doing the LPC a service, not the other way around!
> Aaron Starr, who has unfortunately also inserted himself into the
> convention planning discussions, is pushing Chuck Muth as a


> to offer a "candidate training session." Muth is a Republican who
> has advocated the LP becoming more pragmatic and less


> Any candidate session he leads can be expected to focus on


> elections and "succeeding" in conventional terms, with little or


> focus on whether a candidate is a good libertarian or not. We


> need any more of that kind of advice -- we've had way too much
> already, and it's part of the reason the LP is in the shape it's
> in. Aaron also pushed for the convention theme to be "Libertarian
> Success," and it looks like that's going to be the theme because
> none of the other folks involved were willing to stand up and


> for anything different, so once again we have a theme that speaks
> the language of pragmatism rather than the language of a radical,
> grassroots movement for freedom.
> There's a good chance that the convention keynote speaker will be
> Bob Barr. The Executive Committee gets to choose the speaker for
> that slot, and given the conservative/pragmatic agenda of the


> majority, I'd be surprised if they didn't book him, if he is
> available. There may not be a large total number of presenters,


> it will be very important that others are booked who will
> counteract his presence. We need both speakers who represent a
> strong pro-freedom position, and speakers who will appeal to


> on the left (these are two separate qualifications which may not
> always overlap, but both are vital).
> The two speakers who have confirmed that they can attend are
> presidential candidates Steve Kubby and Christine Smith. Steve is
> both someone who can reach out to the left and someone who


> to generally support the Non-Aggression Principle and take strong
> pro-freedom positions. I don't know enough about Christine yet.


> other prospective LP presidential candidates, Doug Stanhope and
> George Phillies, have said they cannot attend.
> We need more good presenters. I'm going to try to come up with


> possible folks over the next few days. Terry Floyd will also be
> contacting potential speakers, and Allen Rice will be seeking to
> contact elected Libertarians. If you have any ideas or


> please let me know.
> Love & liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
> Dear Starchild;
> Okie dokie - so how do WE The People of the Libertarian Party -


> do genuinely care about the party and its direction get the
> Libertarian Party back on track?
> What has to be done to do this - a step by step program or an
> action plan or even ideas as such would be helpful.
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
> From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 7:19:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Congressman Ron Paul the Ally of
> Traditional Values Coalition And Louis Sheldon???
> I understand where you guys are coming from. However at this time


> think that it would take considerably less work to get the LP

back on

> track than to get a new party off the ground. Getting the LP back


> track is also a much more desirable outcome, imho, than having the
> freedom movement politically divided in this country and losing

all the

> effort we've put into educating people about the word libertarian


> having it identified with a party that the most pro-freedom

people have

> given up on. That would be a setback of immense proportions.
> Love & liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
> > Ron,
> >
> > An even more libertarian LP? I've been thinking about this for