It didn't work badly up until 1993. The benefits of the change have not
been realized. I respect your opinion as a longtime activist, but I 
respectively
disagree.

For life and liberty,
David Macko

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 8:28 PM
Subject: [badnarik2004] Re: [Badnarik2004-discuss] Re: [badnarik2008] Re: No 
National Con


>I predict that this movement will complete the transition from a
> revolutionary party trying to play politics, to a political party that
> has forgotten where it came from ...
>
> There were very good reasons for shifting away from early conventions
> (to shorten the time devoted to specific Presidential campaigning, for
> an office that was (and still is?) clearly beyond the grasp of any
> realistic effort, and with media blockage and off-balanced regulations
> to overcome; to take advantage of at least C-SPAN coverage, which IIRC
> did not happen until then?; etc.)
>
> There were also good reasons why we did not just rubber-stamp the
> nonminee's choice for running mate (look up the MacBride confrontation
> sometime), and why we did not just mimic the Duopoly way of doing
> other things as well ...
>
> I am not certain that it is isn't just time for all this change to
> happen, as the LP attempts to become what I kept hoping someone else
> would start -- a mainstream political party with at least a vague
> underpinning of Bill of Rights and liberty-based ideology beneath it.
> Had this happened, the LP could have continued to do what most of us
> do best: be the watchdog over the system, and the guide dog to lead it
> closer to the "light" ... of liberty and a sense of personal autonomy
> instead of lockstep conformity with the factory system under which it
> all now operates ,,,
>
> Too bad, though ... A lot of good people will be walking away shaking
> their heads ,,,
>
> Good luck, folks!
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Although it was a plausible theory to hold later conventions to
> obtain more media coverage,
>> we have since learned that the media is our enemy and the later
> conventions had no such
>> beneficial result.
>>
>> For life and liberty,
>> David Macko
>>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>>   From: Arnold & Linda
>>   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
> [email protected] ; badnarik ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ; badnarik2006 ; [email protected] ;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>   Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 9:54 AM
>>   Subject: [badnarik2004] Re: [Badnarik2004-discuss] Re:
> [badnarik2008] Re: No National Convention in 2008!
>>
>>
>>   We used to do that, but then discovered we got better press
> coverage having the nominating convention 4th of July. Otherwise the
> only coverage we used to get was local. With our severely diminished
> numbers, that might be all we can get now.
>>
>>   Arnold
>>     ----- Original Message ----- 
>>     From: Randy Langkraehr
>>     To: [email protected] ; badnarik ;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; badnarik2006 ;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [email protected] ;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>     Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 11:36 PM
>>     Subject: [Badnarik2004-discuss] Re: [badnarik2008] Re: No
> National Convention in 2008!
>>
>>
>>     I didn't approve David Macko's original message because I
> thought we should do away with the convention.
>>
>>     I do think however, some adjustment to the system is definitely
> in order. Not going to get into the chances of us winning, but I do
> think we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we wait till 6 months
> before the elections to choose our candidate. Gary Nolan and Michael
> Badnarik and for the part he was on the campaign trail Aaron Russo
> were forced to spend Summer of 2003 until Summer of 2004 carrying the
> water to the sea instead of to the desert by having to go around
> campaigning to Libertarians instead of campaigning to the public,
> months after the other parties had their candidates in place. If we
> could move the nominations up 6 months to a year, it would give the
> candidates time to lay foundations and I think it would have been good
> to have Michael out there talking to the public and the media rather
> than running around talking to state LP conventions.
>>
>>     Remember the big upheaval and panicky and rushed organizing that
> had to go on after the unexpected nomination in 2004? Why couldn't we
> make the decision spring/summer of 2007 giving our 2008 Presidential
> and VP candidates an additional year to build, organize and campaign,
> and use the 2008 campaign to rally and organize support for our
> candidates and try to get a little press? Why shoot ourselves in the
> foot by waiting till the 4th quarter to figure out the team to put in
> the game?
>>
>>     Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>       David - There are two very good reasons why this proposal
> doesn't work:
>>
>>       1) In order to take advantage of it, we would have to attract
> someone
>>       as a candidate who wanted to campaign full time, first for the
>>       nomination and then for the election, beginning about 2-1/2 years
>>       ahead of Nov 2008. As it is only one out of our last set of
> candidates
>>       was willing to devote ALMOST that much of his life to such a
> purpose
>>       (though admittedly Gary Nolan jumped in not too long
> thereafter). I
>>       really doubt that given both the likelihood of election of a
> labeled
>>       Libertarian, anywhere above a state legislator seat in a small
>>       district in a small state, and the level of funding possible
> to even
>>       pay the way for a road warrior like Michael showed he was ...
> anyone
>>       else will be quite that self-sacrificing and congenial next time.
>>
>>       2) You said it yourself, we are not going to gain media
> coverage, no
>>       matter what we do. The game is fixed and the dice are loaded.
> Why then
>>       put any more effort and time into a sabre dive like the
> Presidential
>>       nomination is? Far better to worry less about that, than about how
>>       many laws we can change through local action and plebiscite where
>>       possible, and by continuing to elect and raise issues with our
>>       candidates at the local level...
>>
>>
>>       --- In [email protected], "David Macko"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>       >
>>       > The Libertarian Party should not have a National Convention
> in 2008!
>>       > Now that I have your attention, let me assure everybody who is
>>       reading this
>>       > message that I am not a neocon saboteur hellbent on
> destroying the
>>       Libertarian Party.
>>       > I recommend that we hold our National Convention to nominate a
>>       presidential candidate
>>       > for 2008 in 2007.
>>       > This was our practice from 1976 until 1996. The arguments
> for the
>>       change seemed plausible at the
>>       > time, including more publicity in an election year. Since
> then it
>>       has been proven conclusively
>>       > that the establishment media is our enemy and will not give
> us fair
>>       coverage.
>>       > The most blatant proof of the media bias is the fact that if two
>>       presidential candidates had
>>       > been arrested in Russia, Iraq or Iran it would have been
> front page
>>       news and covered by all
>>       > the networks. Yet when Michael Badnarik and Green Party
> candidate
>>       David Cobb became the
>>       > first presidential candidates in American history to be arrested
>>       while campaigning, not to mention
>>       > that they were handcuffed and jailed for attempting to
> commit free
>>       speech, even Libertarians
>>       > without access to the internet did not know about this
> atrocity for
>>       weeks.
>>       > Nominating our candidates a year before the convention would
> give
>>       them more time to campaign
>>       > with unified party support. It would make petitioning easier
> in many
>>       states with more time and
>>       > less expense for paid petitioners where necessary since there is
>>       less competition in odd-numbered years.
>>       > Now is the time to promote this return to our original practice
>>       through all available media, including LP News.
>>       >
>>       > For life and liberty,
>>       > David Macko






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/g0CDCD/tzNLAA/cUmLAA/XgSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/badnarik2008/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to