http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/07/13/the-walls-third-parties-face-at-every-turn/
Dear Everyone;
For the correct URL to access try this URL the other one had spaces between letters so wouldn't work.
http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/07/13/the-walls-third-parties-face-at-every-turn/
The article does articulate some good points for mulling over although some things pointed out will be difficult to change because of the dominance of the two major parties and controlling the legislators in state capitals and washington.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Not sure where Van Dyke is based, but in California all of these
complaints are easily rebutted:
1) Restrictive ballot access laws
A mere 150, or fewer, signatures, or something like a thousand
dollars, are required to get a candidate on the ballot. The sad
thing is that so few candidates are even able to (try to?) get the
signatures. For the Libertarian Party, the signature requirement is
actually _easier_ than for the major parties..
2) Lackluster media coverage
News, even political news, is entertainment, whether one likes the
fact or not. Candidates who lack charisma, who repeat uninteresting
dogma, who cannot speak coherently and ad hoc, are not entertaining,
and will not get coverage. Deal with it.
3) Fundraising and volunteers
Support in terms of money and time represents an investment. A
candidate must have a track record in community involvement and
voluntarism in order to demonstrate that he/she is a worthy
investment. Libertarians tend not to be involved in community or
voluntarism. (I mean things like PTA, city commissions,
neighborhood groups, etc., which the voters understand and respect,
rather than working in OPH booths and serving 3 times as LP county
chair, which they do not.) To get the support, it needs to be
earned, the hard way.
4) Debating major candidates
Not in California. To the best of my knowledge, the LOWV makes it a
point to invite _all_ the candidates, at least for offices State
Senate and down, to those debates for which it is chief organizer.
Further, through its Smartvoter website, the LOWV provides equal
opportunity exposure to all candidates who take the time to use it.
5) Election day (voting methods)
Agree that this is very low priority. For me personally, down to
zero in fact. I don't understand the logic that says the LP should
get even one officeholder just because it exists.
http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/07/13/the-walls-third-parties-face-
at-
Dear Allen;
Ask Judge Gray why the LOWV turned him down as a US Senatorial debate candidate and most likely Olivier as well for Gubernatorial debates. Judge Gray is quite articulate and could be considered charismatic yet media coverage was about zero - deal with that!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Dear Ron,
No problem.
First, I was careful in my short essay, on the matter of debates, to
use the phrase "at least for offices State Senate and down",
anticipating your exact complaint here.
Second, were I the LOWV I would probably make exactly the same
decision. It is a matter of how the debates are produced.
For "State Senate and down", they can use the cafeteria in an old
folks home, or the congregation space in the local synagogue, as a
place to hold the debate. The local TV station _might_ send around
a crew to treat the thing as news, with bad lighting and no makeup.
Cheap, big enough to hold the crowd, the effort needed to get media
involvement is zilch, and the candidates are eager for the
opportunity.
However, the Republican and Democratic candidates for US senate, or
H of R or President are going to demand a larger crowd and a bigger
facility, all feeding toward significant media coverage. The media
are not interested in providing that coverage for third party
candidates (see item 2 on my original list). And someone other than
the LOWV (like supporters of the Republican and Democratic Parties)
is going to have to donate money to pay for the hall. So, given the
choice of having absolutely objective standards and no debate, or a
debate with the relative non-entities excluded but the biggies
present, and the LOWV exalted, they compromise.
Since they and I both live in the real world, I am not inclined to
hold this against them.
Regards,
Allen Rice
PS. RE press coverage for Gray, whom I admire very much, he: 1) had
no charisma; 2) was uncomfortable in his role as politician, 3) was
underfunded, and 4) was not qualified, in terms of partisan
political service, for the job of US Senator. Item 2, again, and
item 3.
AR
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Allen;
Ask Judge Gray why the LOWV turned him down as a US Senatorial
debate candidate and most likely Olivier as well for Gubernatorial
debates. Judge Gray is quite articulate and could be considered
charismatic yet media coverage was about zero - deal with that!
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianFrom: Allen Rice <amrcheck@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 5:55:45 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Article: Why Third Parties Dont Win
Elections
Not sure where Van Dyke is based, but in California all of these
complaints are easily rebutted:1) Restrictive ballot access laws
A mere 150, or fewer, signatures, or something like a thousand
dollars, are required to get a candidate on the ballot. The sad
thing is that so few candidates are even able to (try to?) get the
signatures. For the Libertarian Party, the signature requirement
is
actually _easier_ than for the major parties..
2) Lackluster media coverage
News, even political news, is entertainment, whether one likes the
fact or not. Candidates who lack charisma, who repeat
uninteresting
dogma, who cannot speak coherently and ad hoc, are not
entertaining,
and will not get coverage. Deal with it.
3) Fundraising and volunteers
Support in terms of money and time represents an investment. A
candidate must have a track record in community involvement and
voluntarism in order to demonstrate that he/she is a worthy
investment. Libertarians tend not to be involved in community or
voluntarism. (I mean things like PTA, city commissions,
neighborhood groups, etc., which the voters understand and
respect,
rather than working in OPH booths and serving 3 times as LP county
chair, which they do not.) To get the support, it needs to be
earned, the hard way.4) Debating major candidates
Not in California. To the best of my knowledge, the LOWV makes it
a
point to invite _all_ the candidates, at least for offices State
Senate and down, to those debates for which it is chief organizer.
Further, through its Smartvoter website, the LOWV provides equal
opportunity exposure to all candidates who take the time to use it.5) Election day (voting methods)
Agree that this is very low priority. For me personally, down to
zero in fact. I don't understand the logic that says the LP should
get even one officeholder just because it exists.--- In lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com, Steve Dekorte <steve@>
wrote:
>
>
> http://hammeroftrut h.com/2006/ 07/13/the- walls-third- parties-
face-
Dear Allen 
While you were careful about the lower ranking positions and it was duly noted before I wrote I still stand by my commentez vous. The LOWV accepted a perceived mandate to present candidates in a debate in a non-partisan format.
This means all or none. I could care less about the costs of the hall or if TV is concerned about third rank third party candidates - that's just too bad.
You present all candidates or none. Or fold your tent and get out of the business of presenting yourself as an un-biased neutral party presenting candidates and issues so voters can make an informed choice.. BALONEY...
As far as Judge Gray not being qualified as per:
PS. RE press coverage for Gray, whom I admire very much, he: 1) had no charisma; 2) was uncomfortable in his role as politician, 3) was underfunded, and 4) was not qualified, in terms of partisan political service, for the job of US Senator. Item 2, again, and item 3.
Feinstein and Boxer are also abjectly unqualified and neither of them should be in a partisan political service either as combined together they have the mental capacity of a pound of ground beef.
And as a matter of fact if you were to combine the mentality of all the members of Congress they still would end up peeing into the wind collectively if they weren't already so busy doing that on We the Peoples of the USA.......
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Dear Ron,
I am curious to know from whom it was that you believe "The LOWV
accepted a perceived mandate to present candidates in a debate in a
non-partisan format." My impression is that they do what they do
out of a rather supercilious sense of civic duty, for the most part
successfully, on their own dime and their own time. Let us not
forget their Smartvoter site, where the ground provided, for free,
seems pretty much equal to me.
Thanks for mentioning Feinstein and Boxer. Note, per the points I
covered, that each of them: 1) has charisma, mellow in the one case
and abrasive in the other; 2) glories in the role of politician; 3)
deals in millions of dollars each election cycle, and 4) has a
background in politics - Feinstein was SF mayor, you may remember,
and I believe, hopefully correctly, that Boxer came up through SF
politics and the House of Reps. Each of them thereby handily
outdoing Gray on all four fronts.
As for such keen political analysis as "together they have the
mental capacity of a pound of ground beef" (etc., etc.), this is no
substitute for Gray's missing charisma.
Regards,
Allen Rice
PS Also, personally I like to avoid what might be called the Ireland
theory of political science, in which phrases like "I could care
less.." and "that's just too bad .." are scattered about. This
theory has an arrogant and dismissive quality that does not seem to
me either emotionally or intellectually likely to engage the
electorate. To which, I suppose, the response could be "I could
care less.." and "that's just too bad .." 
AR
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Allen
While you were careful about the lower ranking positions and it
was duly noted before I wrote I still stand by my commentez vous.
The LOWV accepted a perceived mandate to present candidates in a
debate in a non-partisan format.
This means all or none. I could care less about the costs of the
hall or if TV is concerned about third rank third party candidates -
that's just too bad.
You present all candidates or none. Or fold your tent and get out
of the business of presenting yourself as an un-biased neutral party
presenting candidates and issues so voters can make an informed
choice.. BALONEY...
As far as Judge Gray not being qualified as per:
PS. RE press coverage for Gray, whom I admire very much, he: 1)
had no charisma; 2) was uncomfortable in his role as politician, 3)
was underfunded, and 4) was not qualified, in terms of partisan
political service, for the job of US Senator. Item 2, again, and
item 3.
Feinstein and Boxer are also abjectly unqualified and neither of
them should be in a partisan political service either as combined
together they have the mental capacity of a pound of ground beef.
And as a matter of fact if you were to combine the mentality of
all the members of Congress they still would end up peeing into the
wind collectively if they weren't already so busy doing that on We
the Peoples of the USA.......
Dear Allen;
You are right.
re the PS
PS Also, personally I like to avoid what might be called the Ireland theory of political science, in which phrases like "I could care less.." and "that's just too bad .." are scattered about. This theory has an arrogant and dismissive quality that does not seem to me either emotionally or intellectually likely to engage the electorate. To which, I suppose, the response could be "I could care less.." and "that's just too bad .."
I am very dismissive and arrogant when it comes to the LOWV or other groups who present themselves as presenting bipartisanship - it is rarely anything but with hurdles in the way of any third party candidate.
But I am not running for office where I would have to intellectually or emotionally engage the electorate.
However, I can assure you I am exceptionally capable of engaging the electorates emotion and intellectually as well were I to run for elective office. I can easily spread the baloney with the best of them.
I just find it too psychic draining to do this. However if the money were right I could overcome that problem.
So therefore I sit on the sidelines taking potshots at the elected officials who do not represent me or my values and never could in a million years - like Feinstein and Boxer.
Which I am certain (watch for it) -" is just too bad " - because (here it comes) - "I could care less." (heh heh heh)
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Dear Ron,
Thanks for the agreement. As for those standing on the sidelines
and taking potshots, in the so-called Libertarian "Party" they are
in the majority and their numbers are legion.
Regards,
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Allen;
You are right.
re the PS
PS Also, personally I like to avoid what might be called the
Ireland theory of political science, in which phrases like "I could
care less.." and "that's just too bad .." are scattered about. This
theory has an arrogant and dismissive quality that does not seem to
me either emotionally or intellectually likely to engage the
electorate. To which, I suppose, the response could be "I could care
less.." and "that's just too bad .."
I am very dismissive and arrogant when it comes to the LOWV or
other groups who present themselves as presenting bipartisanship -
it is rarely anything but with hurdles in the way of any third party
candidate.
But I am not running for office where I would have to
intellectually or emotionally engage the electorate.
However, I can assure you I am exceptionally capable of engaging
the electorates emotion and intellectually as well were I to run for
elective office. I can easily spread the baloney with the best of
them.
I just find it too psychic draining to do this. However if the
money were right I could overcome that problem.
So therefore I sit on the sidelines taking potshots at the elected
officials who do not represent me or my values and never could in a
million years - like Feinstein and Boxer.
Which I am certain (watch for it) -" is just too bad " - because
(here it comes) - "I could care less." (heh heh heh)
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianFrom: Allen Rice <amrcheck@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 2:37:11 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Article: Why Third Parties Dont Win
Elections
Dear Ron,
I am curious to know from whom it was that you believe "The LOWV
accepted a perceived mandate to present candidates in a debate in
a
non-partisan format." My impression is that they do what they do
out of a rather supercilious sense of civic duty, for the most
part
successfully, on their own dime and their own time. Let us not
forget their Smartvoter site, where the ground provided, for free,
seems pretty much equal to me.Thanks for mentioning Feinstein and Boxer. Note, per the points I
covered, that each of them: 1) has charisma, mellow in the one
case
and abrasive in the other; 2) glories in the role of politician;
3)
deals in millions of dollars each election cycle, and 4) has a
background in politics - Feinstein was SF mayor, you may remember,
and I believe, hopefully correctly, that Boxer came up through SF
politics and the House of Reps. Each of them thereby handily
outdoing Gray on all four fronts.As for such keen political analysis as "together they have the
mental capacity of a pound of ground beef" (etc., etc.), this is
no
substitute for Gray's missing charisma.
Regards,
Allen RicePS Also, personally I like to avoid what might be called the
Ireland
theory of political science, in which phrases like "I could care
less.." and "that's just too bad .." are scattered about. This
theory has an arrogant and dismissive quality that does not seem
to
me either emotionally or intellectually likely to engage the
electorate. To which, I suppose, the response could be "I could
care less.." and "that's just too bad .."
AR--- In lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com, Ron Getty
<tradergroupe@ ...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Allen
>
> While you were careful about the lower ranking positions and it
was duly noted before I wrote I still stand by my commentez vous.
The LOWV accepted a perceived mandate to present candidates in a
debate in a non-partisan format.
>
> This means all or none. I could care less about the costs of the
hall or if TV is concerned about third rank third party
candidates -
that's just too bad.
>
> You present all candidates or none. Or fold your tent and get
out
of the business of presenting yourself as an un-biased neutral
party
presenting candidates and issues so voters can make an informed
choice.. BALONEY...
>
> As far as Judge Gray not being qualified as per:
>
> PS. RE press coverage for Gray, whom I admire very much, he: 1)
had no charisma; 2) was uncomfortable in his role as politician,
3)
was underfunded, and 4) was not qualified, in terms of partisan
political service, for the job of US Senator. Item 2, again, and
item 3.
>
> Feinstein and Boxer are also abjectly unqualified and neither of
them should be in a partisan political service either as combined
together they have the mental capacity of a pound of ground beef.
>
> And as a matter of fact if you were to combine the mentality of
all the members of Congress they still would end up peeing into
the
Dear Allen;
Then maybe it's time a charismatic leader arose from the Libertarian Legion of Liberty ranks and roused the hell out of the LLL and armed them to assault the Bastions of Taxation in DC and send the Looters and Plunderers and Robbers to the Bastaille!!! Or some such other un-savory locale.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
BTW got a spare hundred milllion? I could use it to run for El Presidente while rounding up the Libertarian Legions of Liberty!!!!! If not then a spare 1 million for a Congressional Campaign would do. Or maybe 3/4 of a million for a Mayoral run. Alms for the poor???
Afterall very sad to say Money is still the Mothers Milk of Politics - without one you don't get the other.
Dear Ron,
There it is. The expectation is that, somehow, a charismatic leader
will rise from the ranks of the LP, and do all you suggest.
Not gonna happen. Presently, "charismatic libertarian" is an
oxymoron. But libertarians can learn how to use government, pay
political dues like everyone else, and rise to a position where they
actually deserve support.
In the meantime, I'll continue to send money off to Ron Paul and
work against the most statist of my local politicians, by
contributing my time and money to their opponents.
By the way, there is a rumor that long time libertarian John Inks is
running for City Council in Mountain View. He paid his dues by
serving on a city commission, and is a known entity in city
politics. Check him out. You can probably support him financially
for far less than millions.
Regards,
Allen Rice
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:
Dear Allen;
Then maybe it's time a charismatic leader arose from the
Libertarian Legion of Liberty ranks and roused the hell out of the
LLL and armed them to assault the Bastions of Taxation in DC and
send the Looters and Plunderers and Robbers to the Bastaille!!! Or
some such other un-savory locale.
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianBTW got a spare hundred milllion? I could use it to run for El
Presidente while rounding up the Libertarian Legions of
Liberty!!!!! If not then a spare 1 million for a Congressional
Campaign would do. Or maybe 3/4 of a million for a Mayoral run. Alms
for the poor???
Afterall very sad to say Money is still the Mothers Milk of
Politics - without one you don't get the other.
From: Allen Rice <amrcheck@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 5:12:39 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Article: Why Third Parties Dont Win
Elections
Dear Allen;
If I support him for far less than millions will he stay bought??? ( heh heh heh) Or is he like any other pol??? Except of course Dr.No ( Ron Paul) as he is known in Congress.
Why is a charismatic Libertarian an oxymoron?
Oxymorons (or oxymora) are literary figures of speech usually composed of a pair of neighbouring contradictory words (often within a sentence).
"Charismatic Libertarian" certainly isn't like " Jumbo Shrimp" or like saying " they sure is pretty ugly" is it???
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian