Sheehan Responds To Support For Her Run Against Pelosi

Dear Everyone;

Todays SF Chronicle had an article by Cindy Sheehan in response to the response to her announcement that if Pelosi did not start impeachment proceedings real quickly that she would run against Pelosi. There is one paragraph Sheehan wrote which I have highlighted because it is of interest to Libertarians.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/22/INGC6R23F41.DTL

http://tinyurl.com/24la5g

Sheehan: Let's get away from usual party politics
Peace activist voices her independent streak

The feeddback I have been receiving since I announced that I would challenge U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, for her House seat -- unless she gives impeachment the go-ahead -- has been running about 3-to-1 positive.
Some people have offered to quit their jobs to move to California's Eighth Congressional District to help my possible campaign. People are lining up to donate and help, and I am again very grateful and touched beyond belief by the generosity and energy of my fellow Americans.
I truly understand the not-so-supportive people, though, because I have been in their shoes. Here in the United States, most of us put our faith in a two-party system that has failed peace and justice repeatedly. The Republicans do not have a monopoly on the culture of corruption (although BushCo has elevated it to policy status), and the way we do politics in this country needs a serious shakeup, when all we the people are getting is a shakedown.
I was frightened out of ever voting for a third party, or an independent candidate, but voting out of fear is one of the things that bestowed us with the Bush crime mob and may give us the Republican, if not in party affiliation, Hillary Clinton.

I was a lifelong Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th century, except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal income taxes, not one but two World Wars, Japanese concentration camps, and not one but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan -- all brought to us via the Democrats.

Don't tell me the Democrats are our "saviors" because I am not buying it -- especially after they bought more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of President Bush's abysmal occupation. The Democrats also are allowing a meltdown of our republic by allowing the evils of the executive branch to continue unrestrained by their silent complicity.
Good change has happened during Democratic regimes, but as in the civil rights and union movements, the positive changes occurred because of the people, not the politicians. I will run as an independent because I find the corruption in both parties unhealthy, and I believe we need to have more allegiance to humans than to a political party.
I have nothing personally against Pelosi and have found our previous interactions very pleasant. However, being "against" the occupation of Iraq means ending it by ending the funding, preventing future illegal wars of aggression and holding BushCo accountable. Words have to be backed up by action, and if they aren't, they are as empty as Vice President Dick Cheney's conscience.
If Pelosi does her constitutional and moral duty by Monday, then I believe some balance will be restored to the universe, and my organization, People for Humanity, can carry on with its humanitarian projects. If she doesn't, we will carry on anyway, with a political campaign to boot.
I hope this challenges other people who desire healthy political change and not temporary Band-Aids to replace other Democrats and Republicans who do not conform to the beatitudes of peace, sustainability and the rule of law for everybody, not just poor or marginalized people.
Being a born and raised Californian and being a Bay Area resident for the past 14 years have given me great insight into the people and concerns of San Francisco.
I am concerned with many of the same things: same-sex partnership laws, the environment, health care, affordable post-secondary education, better schools, counter-military recruitment, poverty, AIDS research and cures, decriminalization of marijuana, and especially stopping war and ensuring real peace.
I think I agree with Pelosi on many of these issues, but the difference is, I don't live in a mansion on the hill. Many of these issues have affected me and my family personally, and I am committed to fighting for the people, not the corporate interests.
I wouldn't put myself through this if I weren't dead serious and committed to making America a better country than we have now, and holding people to a much higher standard than politics as usual. I am rested, restored to health and ready to rumble. I realize that if ever there was a time for politics as unusual, it is now.

One wonders how readily the Paul embracers would
embrace an effort to recruit Sheehan and her team into
Libertarian politics. I suspect, purely
speculatively, somewhere between "not at all" and "no
chance in hell!"

Cheers,

Brian

--- Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...> wrote:

Dear Everyone;

Todays SF Chronicle had an article by Cindy Sheehan
in response to the response to her announcement that
if Pelosi did not start impeachment proceedings real
quickly that she would run against Pelosi. There is
one paragraph Sheehan wrote which I have highlighted
because it is of interest to Libertarians.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/22/INGC6R23F41.DTL

Well Brian, I AM interested in the fact that Cindy
Sheehan and Ron Paul are trying to high light things
that the LP has been talking about for 30 years. I
don't expect Sheehan, Paul or most of their non LP
member followers to join the LP, nor do we need them,
but we need to get our issues of peace, anti-fed
reserve out there in the mainstream and show that the
2 party system is whack, so that the LP will be helped
in the long run. I am not endorsing Sheehan, although,
she would be better than Pelosi, because she is more
left than I want to go, but in coalition government,
which is the only way to begin restoring our republic,
we have to give a little to get a little, as that is
how politics works, in general. The idea of "flipping
a liberty switch" and "boom", we are back to
Pre-Lincoln Jeffersonian style government, is a pipe
dream. We have to take little steps over the next 100
plus years and pass these ideas to our children. The
LP, alone, will never restore our republic. We have to
learn the 3 "C's" as I call them Coalitions,
Compromise and (voluntary) Cooperation. When these are
implemented successes are seen all over the political
world. The LP is starting to adhere to some of these
and should do more.

-TJ Campbell
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:

One wonders how readily the Paul embracers would
embrace an effort to recruit Sheehan and her team
into
Libertarian politics. I suspect, purely
speculatively, somewhere between "not at all" and
"no
chance in hell!"

Cheers,

Brian

--- Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...> wrote:

> Dear Everyone;
>
> Todays SF Chronicle had an article by Cindy
Sheehan
> in response to the response to her announcement
that
> if Pelosi did not start impeachment proceedings
real
> quickly that she would run against Pelosi. There
is
> one paragraph Sheehan wrote which I have
highlighted
> because it is of interest to Libertarians.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
>
>

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/22/INGC6R23F41.DTL

I am interested in the Sheehan campaign as well, since
it (unlike Paul's) actually has the potential to have
electoral impact.

Of course, if I was calling for the end of the
Libertarian Party running a candidate in San
Francisco, and referring to Cindy Sheehan as the "only
real choice" in this race, I'd be called bonkers --
and rightly so.

If I went further as you did before vis-a-vis Paul,
becoming an executive of an LP county organization,
and then slammed the LP candidates for Congress and
endorsed Sheehan above all of them, I'd be in even
more trouble.

I happen to believe that Sheehan is good for the LP
because she has people talking about issues dear to us
-- giving *OUR* candidates a forum to talk about our
solutions to those problems and allowing us to build a
real bridge to people on the left, historically
ignored by the LP, who are concerned.

Ron Paul doesn't offer us this opportunity. His
campaign appeals to LP stalwarts and the right wing.
Both those stalwarts and the right wing have been
overtargeted by the Libertarian Party for over a
decade now.

That you're willing to endorse the Paul campaign, and
not the Sheehan one, despite the fact that they're
equally "libertarian" is even more surprising to me.
After all, it's the Sheehan campaign, not the Paul
one, that is attracting real support from a base of
people not historically aligned with the LP. And
Sheehan, unlike Paul, will still be in the race and on
the ballot come election day in 2008.

Cheers,

Brian

--- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:

Well Brian, I AM interested in the fact that Cindy
Sheehan and Ron Paul are trying to high light things
that the LP has been talking about for 30 years. I
don't expect Sheehan, Paul or most of their non LP
member followers to join the LP, nor do we need
them,
but we need to get our issues of peace, anti-fed
reserve out there in the mainstream and show that
the
2 party system is whack, so that the LP will be
helped
in the long run. I am not endorsing Sheehan,
although,
she would be better than Pelosi, because she is more
left than I want to go, but in coalition government,
which is the only way to begin restoring our
republic,
we have to give a little to get a little, as that is
how politics works, in general. The idea of
"flipping
a liberty switch" and "boom", we are back to
Pre-Lincoln Jeffersonian style government, is a pipe
dream. We have to take little steps over the next
100
plus years and pass these ideas to our children. The
LP, alone, will never restore our republic. We have
to
learn the 3 "C's" as I call them Coalitions,
Compromise and (voluntary) Cooperation. When these
are
implemented successes are seen all over the
political
world. The LP is starting to adhere to some of these
and should do more.

-TJ Campbell
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:

> One wonders how readily the Paul embracers would
> embrace an effort to recruit Sheehan and her team
> into
> Libertarian politics. I suspect, purely
> speculatively, somewhere between "not at all" and
> "no
> chance in hell!"
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...> wrote:
>
> > Dear Everyone;
> >
> > Todays SF Chronicle had an article by Cindy
> Sheehan
> > in response to the response to her announcement
> that
> > if Pelosi did not start impeachment proceedings
> real
> > quickly that she would run against Pelosi. There
> is
> > one paragraph Sheehan wrote which I have
> highlighted
> > because it is of interest to Libertarians.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/22/INGC6R23F41.DTL

> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/24la5g
> >
> > Sheehan: Let's get away from usual party
politics
> > Peace activist voices her independent streak
> >
> >
> > The feeddback I have been receiving since I
> > announced that I would challenge U.S. Rep. Nancy
> > Pelosi, D-San Francisco, for her House seat --
> > unless she gives impeachment the go-ahead -- has
> > been running about 3-to-1 positive.
> > Some people have offered to quit their jobs to
> move
> > to California's Eighth Congressional District to
> > help my possible campaign. People are lining up
to
> > donate and help, and I am again very grateful
and
> > touched beyond belief by the generosity and
energy
> > of my fellow Americans.
> > I truly understand the not-so-supportive people,
> > though, because I have been in their shoes. Here
> in
> > the United States, most of us put our faith in a
> > two-party system that has failed peace and
justice
> > repeatedly. The Republicans do not have a
monopoly
> > on the culture of corruption (although BushCo
has
> > elevated it to policy status), and the way we do
> > politics in this country needs a serious
shakeup,
> > when all we the people are getting is a
shakedown.
>
> > I was frightened out of ever voting for a third
> > party, or an independent candidate, but voting
out
> > of fear is one of the things that bestowed us
with
> > the Bush crime mob and may give us the
Republican,
> > if not in party affiliation, Hillary Clinton.
> >
> > I was a lifelong Democrat only because the
choices
> > were limited. The Democrats are the party of
> slavery
> > and were the party that started every war in the
> > 20th century, except the other Bush debacle. The
> > Federal Reserve, permanent federal income taxes,
> not
> > one but two World Wars, Japanese concentration
> > camps, and not one but two atom bombs dropped on
> the
> > innocent citizens of Japan -- all brought to us
> via
> > the Democrats.
> >
> > Don't tell me the Democrats are our "saviors"
> > because I am not buying it -- especially after
> they
> > bought more caskets and more devastating pain
when
> > they financed and co-facilitated more of
President
> > Bush's abysmal occupation. The Democrats also
are
> > allowing a meltdown of our republic by allowing
> the
> > evils of the executive branch to continue
> > unrestrained by their silent complicity.
> > Good change has happened during Democratic
> regimes,
> > but as in the civil rights and union movements,
> the
> > positive changes occurred because of the people,
> not
> > the politicians. I will run as an independent
> > because I find the corruption in both parties
> > unhealthy, and I believe we need to have more
> > allegiance to humans than to a political party.
> > I have nothing personally against Pelosi and
have
> > found our previous interactions very pleasant.
> > However, being "against" the occupation of Iraq
> > means ending it by ending the funding,
preventing
> > future illegal wars of aggression and holding
> BushCo
> > accountable. Words have to be backed up by
action,
> > and if they aren't, they are as empty as Vice
> > President Dick Cheney's conscience.
> > If Pelosi does her constitutional and moral duty
> by
> > Monday, then I believe some balance will be
> restored
> > to the universe, and my organization, People for
> > Humanity, can carry on with its humanitarian
> > projects. If she doesn't, we will carry on
anyway,
> > with a political campaign to boot.
> > I hope this challenges other people who desire
> > healthy political change and not temporary
> Band-Aids
> > to replace other Democrats and Republicans who
do
> > not conform to the beatitudes of peace,
> > sustainability and the rule of law for
everybody,
> > not just poor or marginalized people.
> > Being a born and raised Californian and being a
> Bay
> > Area resident for the past 14 years have given
me
> > great insight into the people and concerns of
San
> > Francisco.
> > I am concerned with many of the same things:
> > same-sex partnership laws, the environment,
health
> > care, affordable post-secondary education,
better

=== message truncated ===

If there's no Libertarian candidate in the race, I would definitely support Sheehan over Pelosi, even if she's as far left as Fidel Castro. She'd fight more with the Republicans, producing more gridlock and less government action, and that would be a good thing. The system needs to be shaken up, and the devil you don't know is usually better than the incumbent, because the devil you don't know has less experience at holding and wielding power. The longer a politician stays in office, as a rule, the worse he/she becomes.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Brian,

  I think you're underestimating Ron Paul's appeal and saying what you'd like to believe is true, rather than actually looking at the reality. Come to a Ron Paul Meetup and ask some people what their political backgrounds are, and why they support him. I've met numerous people at his events who were neither LP stalwarts nor members of the right wing.

  I hardly think Ron Paul and Cindy Sheehan are equally libertarian. Ron Paul has a history in the freedom movement -- coming and speaking at LP conventions and libertarian events, appearing in libertarian films and video like Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism" and a John Stossel ABC special, running for office as a Libertarian, articulating the concept of the Non-Aggression Principle in his public speeches, etc. I'm not aware of Cindy Sheehan having done any of these things. If she does, great, but she has yet to establish her credentials in the way that Dr. Paul has.

Love & Liberty,
          <<< starchild >>>

I think I support Ron Paul, Sheehan, Jesse Ventura,
Gary Johnson, anyone who agrees on things like
eliminating the war on drugs, working to eliminate the
two party strangle hold and working to end the war. I
don't feel I should have to support a Libertarian
Candidate just because that is the party I signed up
with and agree with on most. I know many of our votes
for our candidates dont ONLY come from libertarians. I
know my mother, a HUGE democrat voted for all
Libertarians with her "Gore" vote in 2000 because I
asked her to and showed her why. I just don't know why
you can't see the bigger picture, that Ron Paul is
part of the freedom movement and attacking him is only
going to help Giuliani. And if you think a facist like
Giuli-nazi is going to give you more rights as a gay
person just remember that as he outlaws pride parades
as "covers of terrorism" and supports your
"encampment" as a way to appease his Christian
supporters who feel your lifestyle is affecting the
morale of our nation to fight this war on Islam. I
hope Giuliani's cancer comes back, personally, before
he gets the nomination, because he would make
Bush/Cheney look like a 15 year old Brown Shirt cadet.

-TJ
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:

I am interested in the Sheehan campaign as well,
since
it (unlike Paul's) actually has the potential to
have
electoral impact.

Of course, if I was calling for the end of the
Libertarian Party running a candidate in San
Francisco, and referring to Cindy Sheehan as the
"only
real choice" in this race, I'd be called bonkers --
and rightly so.

If I went further as you did before vis-a-vis Paul,
becoming an executive of an LP county organization,
and then slammed the LP candidates for Congress and
endorsed Sheehan above all of them, I'd be in even
more trouble.

I happen to believe that Sheehan is good for the LP
because she has people talking about issues dear to
us
-- giving *OUR* candidates a forum to talk about our
solutions to those problems and allowing us to build
a
real bridge to people on the left, historically
ignored by the LP, who are concerned.

Ron Paul doesn't offer us this opportunity. His
campaign appeals to LP stalwarts and the right wing.

Both those stalwarts and the right wing have been
overtargeted by the Libertarian Party for over a
decade now.

That you're willing to endorse the Paul campaign,
and
not the Sheehan one, despite the fact that they're
equally "libertarian" is even more surprising to me.

After all, it's the Sheehan campaign, not the Paul
one, that is attracting real support from a base of
people not historically aligned with the LP. And
Sheehan, unlike Paul, will still be in the race and
on
the ballot come election day in 2008.

Cheers,

Brian

--- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...>
wrote:

> Well Brian, I AM interested in the fact that Cindy
> Sheehan and Ron Paul are trying to high light
things
> that the LP has been talking about for 30 years. I
> don't expect Sheehan, Paul or most of their non LP
> member followers to join the LP, nor do we need
> them,
> but we need to get our issues of peace, anti-fed
> reserve out there in the mainstream and show that
> the
> 2 party system is whack, so that the LP will be
> helped
> in the long run. I am not endorsing Sheehan,
> although,
> she would be better than Pelosi, because she is
more
> left than I want to go, but in coalition
government,
> which is the only way to begin restoring our
> republic,
> we have to give a little to get a little, as that
is
> how politics works, in general. The idea of
> "flipping
> a liberty switch" and "boom", we are back to
> Pre-Lincoln Jeffersonian style government, is a
pipe
> dream. We have to take little steps over the next
> 100
> plus years and pass these ideas to our children.
The
> LP, alone, will never restore our republic. We
have
> to
> learn the 3 "C's" as I call them Coalitions,
> Compromise and (voluntary) Cooperation. When these
> are
> implemented successes are seen all over the
> political
> world. The LP is starting to adhere to some of
these
> and should do more.
>
> -TJ Campbell
> --- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:
>
> > One wonders how readily the Paul embracers would
> > embrace an effort to recruit Sheehan and her
team
> > into
> > Libertarian politics. I suspect, purely
> > speculatively, somewhere between "not at all"
and
> > "no
> > chance in hell!"
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Everyone;
> > >
> > > Todays SF Chronicle had an article by Cindy
> > Sheehan
> > > in response to the response to her
announcement
> > that
> > > if Pelosi did not start impeachment
proceedings
> > real
> > > quickly that she would run against Pelosi.
There
> > is
> > > one paragraph Sheehan wrote which I have
> > highlighted
> > > because it is of interest to Libertarians.
> > >
> > > Ron Getty
> > > SF Libertarian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/22/INGC6R23F41.DTL

> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/24la5g
> > >
> > > Sheehan: Let's get away from usual party
> politics
> > > Peace activist voices her independent streak
> > >
> > >
> > > The feeddback I have been receiving since I
> > > announced that I would challenge U.S. Rep.
Nancy
> > > Pelosi, D-San Francisco, for her House seat --
> > > unless she gives impeachment the go-ahead --
has
> > > been running about 3-to-1 positive.
> > > Some people have offered to quit their jobs to
> > move
> > > to California's Eighth Congressional District
to
> > > help my possible campaign. People are lining
up
> to
> > > donate and help, and I am again very grateful
> and
> > > touched beyond belief by the generosity and
> energy
> > > of my fellow Americans.
> > > I truly understand the not-so-supportive
people,
> > > though, because I have been in their shoes.
Here
> > in
> > > the United States, most of us put our faith in
a
> > > two-party system that has failed peace and
> justice
> > > repeatedly. The Republicans do not have a
> monopoly
> > > on the culture of corruption (although BushCo
> has
> > > elevated it to policy status), and the way we
do
> > > politics in this country needs a serious
> shakeup,
> > > when all we the people are getting is a
> shakedown.
> >
> > > I was frightened out of ever voting for a
third
> > > party, or an independent candidate, but voting
> out
> > > of fear is one of the things that bestowed us
> with
> > > the Bush crime mob and may give us the
> Republican,
> > > if not in party affiliation, Hillary Clinton.
> > >
> > > I was a lifelong Democrat only because the
> choices

=== message truncated ===

Starchild:

I don't think I'm underestimating Paul's appeal in the slightest.

Right now, the latest polls, supposedly after his "surge of support," put him at less than 1% support (and statistically at 0% due to his support being smaller than the margin of error in polls).

If he was creating a surge of support for libertarian thought, he'd be polling at 5% or more. Right now, with 1% of the GOP vote (which represents about 30% of all registered voters), he's polling at a national support level of 0.3% (on the generous side!).

For comparison's sake, Harry Browne received 0.5% of the national vote in 1996, or about 66% more support than Ron Paul's "surge" is showing.

If Paul is indeed the candidate that the vast majority of big-L Libertarians is supporting (which I don't believe, but will go along with for the sake of argument), these numbers indicate that Paul is actively harming the libertarian movement by turning in a significantly weaker poll performance than Harry Browne's first run for office. In other words, it's "negative momentum."

If Paul's support amongst big-L Libertarians is significantly below the phoney 70% level bandied about (as I suspect), then it shows his appeal even amongst Libs is highly limited, and that he is bringing in no real new support.

In either situation, it's hard to look at his dismal poll numbers and see "appeal" that's delivering any sort of quantifiable result. And we've already debated the qualitative results of conflating Libertarian messaging with Republican far-right-wing messaging.

Cheers,

Brian

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote: Brian,

I think you're underestimating Ron Paul's appeal and saying what you'd like to believe is true, rather than actually looking at the reality. Come to a Ron Paul Meetup and ask some people what their political backgrounds are, and why they support him. I've met numerous people at his events who were neither LP stalwarts nor members of the right wing.

I hardly think Ron Paul and Cindy Sheehan are equally libertarian. Ron Paul has a history in the freedom movement -- coming and speaking at LP conventions and libertarian events, appearing in libertarian films and video like Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism" and a John Stossel ABC special, running for office as a Libertarian, articulating the concept of the Non-Aggression Principle in his public speeches, etc. I'm not aware of Cindy Sheehan having done any of these things. If she does, great, but she has yet to establish her credentials in the way that Dr. Paul has.

Love & Liberty,
     <<< starchild >>>

I am interested in the Sheehan campaign as well, since
it (unlike Paul's) actually has the potential to have
electoral impact.

Of course, if I was calling for the end of the
Libertarian Party running a candidate in San
Francisco, and referring to Cindy Sheehan as the "only
real choice" in this race, I'd be called bonkers --
and rightly so.

If I went further as you did before vis-a-vis Paul,
becoming an executive of an LP county organization,
and then slammed the LP candidates for Congress and
endorsed Sheehan above all of them, I'd be in even
more trouble.

I happen to believe that Sheehan is good for the LP
because she has people talking about issues dear to us
-- giving *OUR* candidates a forum to talk about our
solutions to those problems and allowing us to build a
real bridge to people on the left, historically
ignored by the LP, who are concerned.

Ron Paul doesn't offer us this opportunity. His
campaign appeals to LP stalwarts and the right wing.
Both those stalwarts and the right wing have been
overtargeted by the Libertarian Party for over a
decade now.

That you're willing to endorse the Paul campaign, and
not the Sheehan one, despite the fact that they're
equally "libertarian" is even more surprising to me.
After all, it's the Sheehan campaign, not the Paul
one, that is attracting real support from a base of
people not historically aligned with the LP. And
Sheehan, unlike Paul, will still be in the race and on
the ballot come election day in 2008.

Cheers,

Brian

--- Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote:

Well Brian, I AM interested in the fact that Cindy
Sheehan and Ron Paul are trying to high light things
that the LP has been talking about for 30 years. I
don't expect Sheehan, Paul or most of their non LP
member followers to join the LP, nor do we need
them,
but we need to get our issues of peace, anti-fed
reserve out there in the mainstream and show that
the
2 party system is whack, so that the LP will be
helped
in the long run. I am not endorsing Sheehan,
although,
she would be better than Pelosi, because she is more
left than I want to go, but in coalition government,
which is the only way to begin restoring our
republic,
we have to give a little to get a little, as that is
how politics works, in general. The idea of
"flipping
a liberty switch" and "boom", we are back to
Pre-Lincoln Jeffersonian style government, is a pipe
dream. We have to take little steps over the next
100
plus years and pass these ideas to our children. The
LP, alone, will never restore our republic. We have
to
learn the 3 "C's" as I call them Coalitions,
Compromise and (voluntary) Cooperation. When these
are
implemented successes are seen all over the
political
world. The LP is starting to adhere to some of these
and should do more.

-TJ Campbell
--- Brian Miller <hightechfella@...> wrote:

> One wonders how readily the Paul embracers would
> embrace an effort to recruit Sheehan and her team
> into
> Libertarian politics. I suspect, purely
> speculatively, somewhere between "not at all" and
> "no
> chance in hell!"
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> --- Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...> wrote:
>
> > Dear Everyone;
> >
> > Todays SF Chronicle had an article by Cindy
> Sheehan
> > in response to the response to her announcement
> that
> > if Pelosi did not start impeachment proceedings
> real
> > quickly that she would run against Pelosi. There
> is
> > one paragraph Sheehan wrote which I have
> highlighted
> > because it is of interest to Libertarians.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/22/INGC6R23F41.DTL

> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/24la5g
> >
> > Sheehan: Let's get away from usual party
politics
> > Peace activist voices her independent streak
> >
> >
> > The feeddback I have been receiving since I
> > announced that I would challenge U.S. Rep. Nancy
> > Pelosi, D-San Francisco, for her House seat --
> > unless she gives impeachment the go-ahead -- has
> > been running about 3-to-1 positive.
> > Some people have offered to quit their jobs to
> move
> > to California's Eighth Congressional District to
> > help my possible campaign. People are lining up
to
> > donate and help, and I am again very grateful
and
> > touched beyond belief by the generosity and
energy
> > of my fellow Americans.
> > I truly understand the not-so-supportive people,
> > though, because I have been in their shoes. Here
> in
> > the United States, most of us put our faith in a
> > two-party system that has failed peace and
justice
> > repeatedly. The Republicans do not have a
monopoly
> > on the culture of corruption (although BushCo
has
> > elevated it to policy status), and the way we do
> > politics in this country needs a serious
shakeup,
> > when all we the people are getting is a
shakedown.
>
> > I was frightened out of ever voting for a third
> > party, or an independent candidate, but voting
out
> > of fear is one of the things that bestowed us
with
> > the Bush crime mob and may give us the
Republican,
> > if not in party affiliation, Hillary Clinton.
> >
> > I was a lifelong Democrat only because the
choices
> > were limited. The Democrats are the party of
> slavery
> > and were the party that started every war in the
> > 20th century, except the other Bush debacle. The
> > Federal Reserve, permanent federal income taxes,
> not
> > one but two World Wars, Japanese concentration
> > camps, and not one but two atom bombs dropped on
> the
> > innocent citizens of Japan -- all brought to us
> via
> > the Democrats.
> >
> > Don't tell me the Democrats are our "saviors"
> > because I am not buying it -- especially after
> they
> > bought more caskets and more devastating pain
when
> > they financed and co-facilitated more of
President
> > Bush's abysmal occupation. The Democrats also
are
> > allowing a meltdown of our republic by allowing
> the
> > evils of the executive branch to continue
> > unrestrained by their silent complicity.
> > Good change has happened during Democratic
> regimes,
> > but as in the civil rights and union movements,
> the
> > positive changes occurred because of the people,
> not
> > the politicians. I will run as an independent
> > because I find the corruption in both parties
> > unhealthy, and I believe we need to have more
> > allegiance to humans than to a political party.
> > I have nothing personally against Pelosi and
have
> > found our previous interactions very pleasant.
> > However, being "against" the occupation of Iraq
> > means ending it by ending the funding,
preventing
> > future illegal wars of aggression and holding
> BushCo
> > accountable. Words have to be backed up by
action,
> > and if they aren't, they are as empty as Vice
> > President Dick Cheney's conscience.
> > If Pelosi does her constitutional and moral duty
> by
> > Monday, then I believe some balance will be
> restored
> > to the universe, and my organization, People for
> > Humanity, can carry on with its humanitarian
> > projects. If she doesn't, we will carry on
anyway,
> > with a political campaign to boot.
> > I hope this challenges other people who desire
> > healthy political change and not temporary
> Band-Aids
> > to replace other Democrats and Republicans who
do
> > not conform to the beatitudes of peace,
> > sustainability and the rule of law for
everybody,
> > not just poor or marginalized people.
> > Being a born and raised Californian and being a
> Bay
> > Area resident for the past 14 years have given
me
> > great insight into the people and concerns of
San
> > Francisco.
> > I am concerned with many of the same things:
> > same-sex partnership laws, the environment,
health
> > care, affordable post-secondary education,
better

=== message truncated ===

What you "feel" is irrelevant. Libertarian Party officials have a fiduciary duty to support Libertarian candidates or, failing that, not criticize them in public forums while promoting Republicans.

You have consistently failed in that fiduciary duty in this forum, and thus obviously don't take your office very seriously.

Cheers,

Brian

Tim Campbell <profreedomradical@...> wrote: I
don't feel I should have to support a Libertarian
Candidate just because that is the party I signed up
with and agree with on most.