RE: Convention Carnage

Discussion
1

Dear Marcy and Other Interested Parties;

a 501c3 could do the fund raising aspects of the new party as the old adage goes - Money is the mother's milk of politics - suffice it to say you will do nothing politically without some money to grease the wheels - pure simple fact of politics - so live with it.

Why Libertarian could not be in the name so long as we defined ourselves as non-affiliated with the State or National Libertarian Party is a mystery to me..

We could conceivably call ourselves: San Francisco Libertarians - The Independent Libertarians of San Francisco - The Free Libertarians Of San Francisco - The Liberty Libertarians of San Francisco - etc etc etc and concentrate on strictly local issues and ignore the staet or national yahoos.

Obviously a topic for discussion.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

2

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

3

Dear Ron,

As a 501 non-profit, yes, of course you could use the word
Libertarian in any name, just like Outright does.

My question is the following: what are you and other activists
**prevented from *doing** right now as members of the LPSF, that you
will be able to do as members of a new libertarian organization? I
would love to see a list.

On the other hand, there is one thing at least that you can do right
now as members of the LPSF that you could not do as members of a
501c: run for partisan office; and thus, like David Nolan or Michael
Badnarik or Starchild or Phil Berg have a ready-made opportunity to
promote libertarianism, offer libertarian solutions, point out
fallacies in many of the establishment's solutions.

Perhaps another question might be in order: Is the idea of a non-
profit an attempt to "make a statement," or an attempt to better
promote a libertarian political environment? In either case, how?

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:

Dear Marcy and Other Interested Parties;

a 501c3 could do the fund raising aspects of the new party as the

old adage goes - Money is the mother's milk of politics - suffice it
to say you will do nothing politically without some money to grease
the wheels - pure simple fact of politics - so live with it.

Why Libertarian could not be in the name so long as we defined

ourselves as non-affiliated with the State or National Libertarian
Party is a mystery to me..

We could conceivably call ourselves: San Francisco Libertarians -

The Independent Libertarians of San Francisco - The Free Libertarians
Of San Francisco - The Liberty Libertarians of San Francisco - etc
etc etc and concentrate on strictly local issues and ignore the staet
or national yahoos.

4

Dear Marcy;

It is not what is being prevented to do it is the changes in principles which may have an impact on what can be done in presenting the LIBERTARIAN WAY vs. the Republican or Democratic way. Soem people who may have seriously considerd becoming a Libertarian because of the past core principles may not be so inclined with the watered down versions. People who may have voted for the Liberatraian in the genral election may not because of the watered down principles.

It is not a requirement or a mabndate to do so but it is an expression of frustartion with the yahoos who would gut the Libertarian Way for some vague self-serving personl political reasons in some ill-fated attempt to make Libertarianism more main stream or some such guff.....

Yes running for partisan offices can be done - However you can still appear on the ballot as a write in candidate for local offcies without really having to have a partisan party moniker. While far more difficult you could still run as a non-partisan candidate statewide or even nationally while espousing the bedrock core principles of Libertarianism which have disappeared from the National Party Platform. Like non-aggression non intervention the war on drugs and etc

Non-profit is to raise money as the STATE mandated laws and rules and regulations governing fund raising. We could still raise funds and not bother reporting or recording but I do not think that would get to far - although it would be nice to try.

Records! I don't need no steeenking records!!!

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

5

Dear Ron,

Reformers will only have an impact on our ability to move the
political environment our way if we let them. My own personal
opinion is that running away from the fight to keep the Party as it
was envisioned by the founders is allowing such an impact.

As an aside, the reason the reformers scored such a victory in
Portland, in my opinion, is that most core Libertarians did not take
them seriously; did not, for example, join the reformers website (as
I did) to vote against the more egregious changes being planned.

It is my opinion that abandoning the Party to the reformers is not
the answer, since I feel that the Party and its core principles are
worth fighting for. Ignoring the reformers is even worse. They are
here, they are focused, and they are organized as heck.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:

Dear Marcy;

It is not what is being prevented to do it is the changes in

principles which may have an impact on what can be done in presenting
the LIBERTARIAN WAY vs. the Republican or Democratic way. Soem people
who may have seriously considerd becoming a Libertarian because of
the past core principles may not be so inclined with the watered down
versions. People who may have voted for the Liberatraian in the
genral election may not because of the watered down principles.

It is not a requirement or a mabndate to do so but it is an

expression of frustartion with the yahoos who would gut the
Libertarian Way for some vague self-serving personl political reasons
in some ill-fated attempt to make Libertarianism more main stream or
some such guff.....

Yes running for partisan offices can be done - However you can

still appear on the ballot as a write in candidate for local offcies
without really having to have a partisan party moniker. While far
more difficult you could still run as a non-partisan candidate
statewide or even nationally while espousing the bedrock core
principles of Libertarianism which have disappeared from the National
Party Platform. Like non-aggression non intervention the war on drugs
and etc

Non-profit is to raise money as the STATE mandated laws and rules

and regulations governing fund raising. We could still raise funds
and not bother reporting or recording but I do not think that would
get to far - although it would be nice to try.

Records! I don't need no steeenking records!!!

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2006 9:10:45 AM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Convention Carnage

Dear Ron,

As a 501 non-profit, yes, of course you could use the word
Libertarian in any name, just like Outright does.

My question is the following: what are you and other activists
**prevented from *doing** right now as members of the LPSF, that

you

will be able to do as members of a new libertarian organization? I
would love to see a list.

On the other hand, there is one thing at least that you can do

right

now as members of the LPSF that you could not do as members of a
501c: run for partisan office; and thus, like David Nolan or

Michael

Badnarik or Starchild or Phil Berg have a ready-made opportunity to
promote libertarianism, offer libertarian solutions, point out
fallacies in many of the establishment' s solutions.

Perhaps another question might be in order: Is the idea of a non-
profit an attempt to "make a statement," or an attempt to better
promote a libertarian political environment? In either case, how?

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com, Ron Getty

<tradergroupe@ ...>

wrote:
>
> Dear Marcy and Other Interested Parties;
>
> a 501c3 could do the fund raising aspects of the new party as the
old adage goes - Money is the mother's milk of politics - suffice

it

to say you will do nothing politically without some money to grease
the wheels - pure simple fact of politics - so live with it.
>
> Why Libertarian could not be in the name so long as we defined
ourselves as non-affiliated with the State or National Libertarian
Party is a mystery to me..
>
> We could conceivably call ourselves: San Francisco Libertarians -
The Independent Libertarians of San Francisco - The Free

Libertarians

Of San Francisco - The Liberty Libertarians of San Francisco - etc
etc etc and concentrate on strictly local issues and ignore the

staet

6

Marcy:

This is a very important and powerful argument. I made the same
argument myself at the 1987 convention, when we confronted basically the
same issues. There wasn't any organized reform movement then, but large
numbers of those who had supported Russell Means against Ron Paul for
the nomination were planning to leave the Party as they left the
convention, convinced that the conservative, "gold and guns" types would
be dominating the Party from then on. I called an emergency meeting to
argue that our leaving would simply guarantee their dominance, and that
we should stay, as you argue, and try to recruit more like ourselves.
The outcome of that meeting was a caucus, with a national meeting in
Dallas several months later, and a newsletter which lasted maybe another
year, thanks to the generosity of Colin Hunter. I'm not sure what
lessons are to be learned from our loss of momentum; there were
particular circumstances like many members' discomfort with some of
Russell's own activism and values, which shot down my attempt to get him
nominated in 2004. But the sheer numbers are discouraging; for the
short run, at least, I think we're shoveling against the tide. Portland
was interesting in that the reformers had almost exactly 50%; a small
handful of purists would have made a big difference. I don't know where
the 2008 convention will be, but if it is in the conservative heartland,
like Indianapolis or Atlanta, we can be sure that the nearby delegations
will be packed; and the reformers will have a comfortable majority by
reason of geography alone.

7

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I don't quite understand why people here seem to think that the reformers are "conservative" in nature. From the ones I've met, especially the leaders of the movement (Carl Milsted, et al.), they seem to tend strongly toward left-libertarianism, wanting to moderate the economic positions of the party and leave the social ones relatively unchanged.

Jeremy

8

Hi Mike,

Thank you so much for sharing the experience of the 1987 convention!
The more things change, the more they remain the same -- the Party is
still here, and contrary to the hype, most of the really core issues
are still in the LP Platform. I just read an article in Hammer of
Truth, which I cut and pasted below, that seems to say that
basically, all is not lost.

Marcy

"One of the things that I think has really benefited the Libertarian
movement coming out of this past weekend's Portland convention is
that our platform is still intact on what many would agree are some
core issues. A lot of the planks of the cumbersome old platform may
have been hacked off with nothing to replace it until 2008. But if
you look at what's left, may not be such a detriment to the cause of
liberty as some are claiming.

Brian Doherty over at Reason explains in a nutshell what's left:
The current platform still commits the LP to ending all victimless
crime and drug laws; any laws against porn or commercial speech; an
end to the Federal Communications Commission; an end to all property
taxes and all government property ownership not explicitly allowed by
the Constitution; an end to all immigration quotas and laws punishing
employees for hiring illegal immigrants, and an insistence that the
government require only "appropriate documentation, screening for
criminal background and threats to public health and national
security" standards for allowing people in; that "marriage and other
personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely
defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is
not allowed." Finally the new platform demands an end to antitrust
and all corporate welfare.

While technically no planks related to foreign policy remain, the
preamble to the section that would have contained them still
says, "The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships
between governments. The United States government should return to
the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances,
abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures,
and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and
immigration."

That's hardly a gutting in my opinion, as it directly addresses many
issues that are relevant to voters, and allows our talking heads to
focus on what I think is important — issues we can actually win on.
I'll give purists credit for standing their ground on the whole issue
of platform reform, but in our 35-year history we've moved from
fringe party that doesn't stand a chance, to political voice that is
at least heard nationally again and again, if not yet winning those
same elections. Perhaps it's right for us to have some upheaval now
in our party and take this time to reexamine our platform priorities
(do we really need to push into the arena of space exploration,
health care and child's sexual rights, when the unifying libertarian
argument these days is privacy and government excess in power, size
and spending?).

I have no doubt that our 2008 convention will adequately address the
old platform and make changes that modernizes the language and is
more tactful when calling for repeal of large parts of government,
and I look forward to having everything put back in place in some
semblance of what some argue are our principles (all 40 of them,
hardly a small list that can easily be digested at once by the casual
voter).

So I say to the purists: this is a starting point that we should be
moving forward with, focusing on the issues we're damned good at, and
letting the old scabs that were ripped off heal for a while. It's
time to look to our core winnable positions and hold them higher than
we ever have before to the voters, and let them know that we're in a
reconstruction phase that will make us stronger than before. "

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@...>
wrote:

Marcy:

This is a very important and powerful argument. I made the same
argument myself at the 1987 convention, when we confronted

basically the

same issues. There wasn't any organized reform movement then, but

large

numbers of those who had supported Russell Means against Ron Paul

for

the nomination were planning to leave the Party as they left the
convention, convinced that the conservative, "gold and guns" types

would

be dominating the Party from then on. I called an emergency

meeting to

argue that our leaving would simply guarantee their dominance, and

that

we should stay, as you argue, and try to recruit more like

ourselves.

The outcome of that meeting was a caucus, with a national meeting in
Dallas several months later, and a newsletter which lasted maybe

another

year, thanks to the generosity of Colin Hunter. I'm not sure what
lessons are to be learned from our loss of momentum; there were
particular circumstances like many members' discomfort with some of
Russell's own activism and values, which shot down my attempt to

get him

nominated in 2004. But the sheer numbers are discouraging; for the
short run, at least, I think we're shoveling against the tide.

Portland

was interesting in that the reformers had almost exactly 50%; a

small

handful of purists would have made a big difference. I don't know

where

the 2008 convention will be, but if it is in the conservative

heartland,

like Indianapolis or Atlanta, we can be sure that the nearby

delegations

will be packed; and the reformers will have a comfortable majority

by

reason of geography alone.

________________________________

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-

discuss@yahoogroups.com]

On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 1:37 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Convention Carnage

Dear Ron,

Reformers will only have an impact on our ability to move the
political environment our way if we let them. My own personal
opinion is that running away from the fight to keep the Party as it
was envisioned by the founders is allowing such an impact.

As an aside, the reason the reformers scored such a victory in
Portland, in my opinion, is that most core Libertarians did not

take

them seriously; did not, for example, join the reformers website

(as

I did) to vote against the more egregious changes being planned.

It is my opinion that abandoning the Party to the reformers is not
the answer, since I feel that the Party and its core principles are
worth fighting for. Ignoring the reformers is even worse. They are
here, they are focused, and they are organized as heck.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> , Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
wrote:
>
> Dear Marcy;
>
> It is not what is being prevented to do it is the changes in
principles which may have an impact on what can be done in

presenting

the LIBERTARIAN WAY vs. the Republican or Democratic way. Soem

people

who may have seriously considerd becoming a Libertarian because of
the past core principles may not be so inclined with the watered

down

versions. People who may have voted for the Liberatraian in the
genral election may not because of the watered down principles.
>
> It is not a requirement or a mabndate to do so but it is an
expression of frustartion with the yahoos who would gut the
Libertarian Way for some vague self-serving personl political

reasons

in some ill-fated attempt to make Libertarianism more main stream

or

some such guff.....
>
> Yes running for partisan offices can be done - However you can
still appear on the ballot as a write in candidate for local

offcies

without really having to have a partisan party moniker. While far
more difficult you could still run as a non-partisan candidate
statewide or even nationally while espousing the bedrock core
principles of Libertarianism which have disappeared from the

National

Party Platform. Like non-aggression non intervention the war on

drugs

and etc
>
> Non-profit is to raise money as the STATE mandated laws and rules
and regulations governing fund raising. We could still raise funds
and not bother reporting or recording but I do not think that would
get to far - although it would be nice to try.
>
> Records! I don't need no steeenking records!!!
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2006 9:10:45 AM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Convention Carnage
>
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> As a 501 non-profit, yes, of course you could use the word
> Libertarian in any name, just like Outright does.
>
> My question is the following: what are you and other activists
> **prevented from *doing** right now as members of the LPSF, that
you
> will be able to do as members of a new libertarian organization?

I

> would love to see a list.
>
> On the other hand, there is one thing at least that you can do
right
> now as members of the LPSF that you could not do as members of a
> 501c: run for partisan office; and thus, like David Nolan or
Michael
> Badnarik or Starchild or Phil Berg have a ready-made opportunity

to

> promote libertarianism, offer libertarian solutions, point out
> fallacies in many of the establishment' s solutions.
>
> Perhaps another question might be in order: Is the idea of a non-
> profit an attempt to "make a statement," or an attempt to better
> promote a libertarian political environment? In either case, how?
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com, Ron Getty
<tradergroupe@ ...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Marcy and Other Interested Parties;
> >
> > a 501c3 could do the fund raising aspects of the new party as

the

> old adage goes - Money is the mother's milk of politics - suffice
it
> to say you will do nothing politically without some money to

grease

> the wheels - pure simple fact of politics - so live with it.
> >
> > Why Libertarian could not be in the name so long as we defined
> ourselves as non-affiliated with the State or National

Libertarian

> Party is a mystery to me..
> >
> > We could conceivably call ourselves: San Francisco

Libertarians -

> The Independent Libertarians of San Francisco - The Free
Libertarians
> Of San Francisco - The Liberty Libertarians of San Francisco -

etc

9

Jeremy:

I think Starchild made a similar point a few days ago, and in response I
spoke in my post yesterday of a distinction between conservative style
and substance. It is certainly possible for someone to be a
left-libertarian and a reformer, and you are right that the reformers
want to moderate our economic positions, e.g., calling for tax reduction
rather than abolition. In my observation, however, there has been a
strong overlap between conservatives and reformers, and I was proposing
an explanation for that yesterday. It's quite possible that I've
observed a biased sample, but I would be surprised if there were a lot
of left-libertarian reformers that I had missed.

10

Thanks. The author of this piece is much more optimistic than I am
about the restoration of the deleted planks. I'm not sure what to make
of that, given that she or he has clear reformist (and conservative)
tendencies. Given how strongly the platform has been under attack since
1996, I'll believe it when I see it.

11

I agree with Jeremy that "conservative" is not a good description of
the reformers. When you actually read what they have written on
social issues, it might be a bit toned down for the masses, but
basically it is what core Libertarians advocate. But, I might be
wrong too.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Linden <jlinden@...>
wrote:

> I don't know where the 2008 convention will be, but if it is in

the

> conservative heartland, like Indianapolis or Atlanta, we can be

sure

> that the nearby delegations will be packed; and the reformers

will have

> a comfortable majority by reason of geography alone.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I don't quite understand why people

here seem

to think that the reformers are "conservative" in nature. From the

ones

I've met, especially the leaders of the movement (Carl Milsted, et

al.),

they seem to tend strongly toward left-libertarianism, wanting to

moderate

the economic positions of the party and leave the social ones

relatively

12

At the convention, almost all of the reformers I met were left-libertarians. The leader of the reformers, Carl Milsted, was the founder of a left-libertarian magazine and looks like a huge hippie. As I've said, I just see very little evidence that at this year's convention the reformers were conservative...look at the platform planks that were retained.

Jeremy

13

I don't know that any inference can be drawn from the planks that were
retained; they just happened to be the ones brought forward by the
Platform Committee, whose choices, as I understood it, had to do with
issues like which ones needed to be consolidated or updated. The
reformers would have eliminated all of them if they could have. As for
the orientation of the reformers, your observations may be better than
mine.

14

Well, I'm referring not to those, but the four that were actually voted on to be retained, including Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Communication, The War on Drugs, and Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I believe.

Jeremy

15

Dear Marcy;

So then it's if you can't beat them join them - then beat the heck out of them from the inside out. Sort of like infiltration behind enemey lines and attacking them from the rear where they least expect it.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

16

Dear Ron,

It must work because that's what happened to us in Portland!!!!!

But, notice that words like "enemy" and "attacking" were not part of
my strategy. I like words more like "working together" and "being
aware of what the heck you are up to."

:-]

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
wrote:

Dear Marcy;

So then it's if you can't beat them join them - then beat the heck

out of them from the inside out. Sort of like infiltration behind
enemey lines and attacking them from the rear where they least expect
it.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2006 1:36:57 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Convention Carnage

Dear Ron,

Reformers will only have an impact on our ability to move the
political environment our way if we let them. My own personal
opinion is that running away from the fight to keep the Party as it
was envisioned by the founders is allowing such an impact.

As an aside, the reason the reformers scored such a victory in
Portland, in my opinion, is that most core Libertarians did not

take

them seriously; did not, for example, join the reformers website

(as

I did) to vote against the more egregious changes being planned.

It is my opinion that abandoning the Party to the reformers is not
the answer, since I feel that the Party and its core principles are
worth fighting for. Ignoring the reformers is even worse. They are
here, they are focused, and they are organized as heck.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com, Ron Getty

<tradergroupe@ ...>

wrote:
>
> Dear Marcy;
>
> It is not what is being prevented to do it is the changes in
principles which may have an impact on what can be done in

presenting

the LIBERTARIAN WAY vs. the Republican or Democratic way. Soem

people

who may have seriously considerd becoming a Libertarian because of
the past core principles may not be so inclined with the watered

down

versions. People who may have voted for the Liberatraian in the
genral election may not because of the watered down principles.
>
> It is not a requirement or a mabndate to do so but it is an
expression of frustartion with the yahoos who would gut the
Libertarian Way for some vague self-serving personl political

reasons

in some ill-fated attempt to make Libertarianism more main stream

or

some such guff.....
>
> Yes running for partisan offices can be done - However you can
still appear on the ballot as a write in candidate for local

offcies

without really having to have a partisan party moniker. While far
more difficult you could still run as a non-partisan candidate
statewide or even nationally while espousing the bedrock core
principles of Libertarianism which have disappeared from the

National

Party Platform. Like non-aggression non intervention the war on

drugs

and etc
>
> Non-profit is to raise money as the STATE mandated laws and rules
and regulations governing fund raising. We could still raise funds
and not bother reporting or recording but I do not think that would
get to far - although it would be nice to try.
>
> Records! I don't need no steeenking records!!!
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@ >
> To: lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2006 9:10:45 AM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Convention Carnage
>
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> As a 501 non-profit, yes, of course you could use the word
> Libertarian in any name, just like Outright does.
>
> My question is the following: what are you and other activists
> **prevented from *doing** right now as members of the LPSF, that
you
> will be able to do as members of a new libertarian organization?

I

> would love to see a list.
>
> On the other hand, there is one thing at least that you can do
right
> now as members of the LPSF that you could not do as members of a
> 501c: run for partisan office; and thus, like David Nolan or
Michael
> Badnarik or Starchild or Phil Berg have a ready-made opportunity

to

> promote libertarianism, offer libertarian solutions, point out
> fallacies in many of the establishment' s solutions.
>
> Perhaps another question might be in order: Is the idea of a non-
> profit an attempt to "make a statement," or an attempt to better
> promote a libertarian political environment? In either case, how?
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@ yahoogroups. com, Ron Getty
<tradergroupe@ ...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Marcy and Other Interested Parties;
> >
> > a 501c3 could do the fund raising aspects of the new party as

the

> old adage goes - Money is the mother's milk of politics - suffice
it
> to say you will do nothing politically without some money to

grease

> the wheels - pure simple fact of politics - so live with it.
> >
> > Why Libertarian could not be in the name so long as we defined
> ourselves as non-affiliated with the State or National

Libertarian

> Party is a mystery to me..
> >
> > We could conceivably call ourselves: San Francisco

Libertarians -

> The Independent Libertarians of San Francisco - The Free
Libertarians
> Of San Francisco - The Liberty Libertarians of San Francisco -

etc

17

Dear Marcy;

Oh - all right - so first we kiss the Reformists' posteriors right before we kick their Reformists' posteriors out of the party - right??? Then re-set the core principles and make sure they are carved in granite.... forever and forever and forever .....

Oh Oh Oh ouch ouch ouch said the Reformist was that a knife stuck into my back while my arm was being twisted as my head was being screwed on straight and the waste product between my ears was flushed out???

Ron ( Huggie Huggie Kiss Kiss ) Getty
SF ( Iron Toed Boots ) Libertarian

18

Good point, Jeremy. Your argument makes the situation look even more
grim to me. If not only conservatives but also left-libertarians want
to gut the platform, there is really no hope. They may be targeting
different planks, but deleting the whole thing makes an obviously
attractive compromise.

19

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

20

I'd much rather have the entire thing deleted than the way it is now. Personally I don't think the platform matters that much, for or against candidates. I suppose we'll see this next two years when we have a radically gutted platform. If, as the reformers contend, the platform is really what's keeping us down, we should see a marked increase in success, new members joining, etc. I highly doubt this will happen.

Jeremy