We're having a little debate on the Platform Committee. I can't share
much, but this seems simple enough that I don't think anyone would
object to my asking for help outside the committee. One of our members
made the following comment:
(Given the empirical evidence
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; from the 2000/2004
elections that antiwar doesn't grow the LP, I'd love to know the email
addresses of anyone you know of who joined the LP just for its antiwar
stance and then adopted other libertarian beliefs.
You don't have to tell me your email address, but if you were first
brought to the LP by its anti-war stance, please let me know if I can
share your name with the author of this comment and the committee. I'm
fairly certain that he's living in a bubble of Republican talk radio and
has no clue just how many people in the LP would leave if it became a
pro-war party.
But I could be wrong. It all depends on how many people come forward in
response to his claim.
Rob
Thanks Rob,
You might want to clarify the difference between a defensive war on our
own soil versus an offensive invasive war against another sovereign
nation not threatening our national security.
I am supportive of the first but would not support the latter or a
political party that would.
Mike
Rob,
I gather the Platform Committee debate is closed to those not on the committee. Will it be archived for open viewing after the 2008 convention?
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Dear Rob,
Thanks for your efforts in the Platform Committee. First, I need to
admit that I was not able to read the article you quote in its
entirety; the doublespeak was more than I could handle. Now for your
specific question: I personally would not be in the Libertarian Party
if it officially embraced a pro-war stance (I am assuming the article
you quote is talking about attacking sovereign nations that have not
attacked us). Hope this helps.
Regards,
Marcy
Dear Rob:
I believe that Scott Walker who came to our meeting last month for the first time was initially attracted to the LP by our antiwar stance. I don't know if he is a member of this list so will send you his contact info by separate email
Francoise
Rob Power <robpower@...> wrote:
We're having a little debate on the Platform Committee. I can't share
much, but this seems simple enough that I don't think anyone would
object to my asking for help outside the committee. One of our members
made the following comment:
(Given the empirical evidence
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; from the 2000/2004
elections that antiwar doesn't grow the LP, I'd love to know the email
addresses of anyone you know of who joined the LP just for its antiwar
stance and then adopted other libertarian beliefs.
You don't have to tell me your email address, but if you were first
brought to the LP by its anti-war stance, please let me know if I can
share your name with the author of this comment and the committee. I'm
fairly certain that he's living in a bubble of Republican talk radio and
has no clue just how many people in the LP would leave if it became a
pro-war party.
But I could be wrong. It all depends on how many people come forward in
response to his claim.
Rob
Francoise Fielding
820 Stanyan Street,#5
San Francisco, CA 94117
415-386-8643
Marcy makes a good point; I wasn’t going to (be able to) answer this
otherwise.
I can’t offhand think of anyone who *came* to the party because of our
anti-war stance. I do know a lot of people who *left* over it, but I
think that many or most of those who stayed are supportive of it, and a
significant portion — including Marcy and me — would have left if the LP
had endorsed the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, it’s possible that if the LP hadn’t taken any position at all — and
this may be Brian’s contention — that everyone would have stayed and
gotten along just fine. But I think that the immense pressure to take a
stand one way or the other in 2001 and 2002 would have riven the party.
I am certainly glad and supportive of the party’s current position. And
I don’t see how we could have kept any political relevancy at all while
remaining neutral on the issue of pre-emptive invasion.
~Chris