In a message dated 8/16/03 2:50:59 AM, steve@... writes:
<< If Harry Brown ran under one of the two major parties, but retained all
the same positions and had a decent chance of winning, would you vote
for him?
Cheers,
Steve >>
Steve, I would....but that's like saying, "If your Grandmother had Testicles
would she be your Grandfather"
Live free or die, Michael S.
Michael R. Sawyer
Trade Printing
1761 Kelly Street
San Mateo, CA 94403
USA
ph: 650-286-0970
fax: 650-286-1980
TradePrnt@... wrote:
steve@... writes:
<< If Harry Brown ran under one of the two major parties, but retained all
the same positions and had a decent chance of winning, would you vote
for him?Steve, I would....but that's like saying, "If your Grandmother had Testicles
would she be your Grandfather"
I've found the best way to understand someone's thinking is to start at a point were you clearly agree and work towards the point in question. So I used an extreme to find a place where we would certainly agree. In this case, we appear to agree on the rule that positions make the candidate, not the party. And it seems to me that that rule is at odds with refusing to vote for someone because they're under the banner of another party.
So while I see the value of your points for why it can be beneficial to our cause to generally vote Libertarian, I don't think they override all other considerations. I think this election is may be an example of such a situation. Our goals may be further advanced with a win by a 70% Libertarian (if Arnold is such, I don't know yet if he is) than a loss by a 100% Libertarian.
Of course, if it looks like it's not going to be a close election, then I don't see any reason not to vote Libertarian.
Cheers,
Steve
OSX freeware and shareware: http://www.dekorte.com/downloads.html