Quoth Rittenberg: "Look at Scott Bludhorm. Ran for years as an LPer for State House in Illinois. Most he ever got was 7%."
Ran **once** for State Legislature in Illinois as a Liberterian. Got 7%. --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And that's precisely what many folks have done. Gotten out of the > Party. > > Look at Scott Bludhorm. Ran for years as an LPer for State House in > Illinois. Most he ever got was 7%. > > But two weeks ago he polled 45% in a GOP primary. Just as a > committed libertarian in his views as ever, just as much of a > loudmouth about libertarianism than ever. But he gained 45% and is > now identified as a "Rising Star in the IL GOP." > > Run those out who don't agree with the LP platform 100%. Those of us > in the libertarian Republican movement will welcome them with open > arms. > > > > --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <cottondrop@> > wrote: > > > > I'm not so worried about regular members but yes those that run for > > political office or hold office in the LP even as a county chair > need > > to follow the party line or get out, plain and simple, get out of > the > > party, go where you are welcomed, the LP still can work with you on > > some issues maybe most issues but you clearly do not belong in the > > LP. It is best to keep a check on politicans because they will have > > power if they win, power that can easily be abused, if no other > party > > is willing to tell their politicans that they are the hired help of > > the people not the boss the LP must be the party to do it. If you > are > > running for office and you can't deal with that then get out of the > > LP, run with another party, run as an indepedent, don't let the LP > > stop you. You say you know how to get votes then stop talking about > > it and blaming the LP, do it.--- In [email protected], > Jim > > Syler <Calion@> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 27, 2006, at 6:15 PM, mark robert wrote: > > > > > > > Elitism, dogmatism, oppression and terror are things > Libertarians > > > > are fighting against. Curious how you twist that around to mean > > > > if they fight those things too well, they become them. > > > > > > I'm confused by this sentence. Are you claiming that the purists > > are > > > not elitist, dogmatic, and as far as membership (or leadership) > in > > the > > > LP is concerned, oppressive? > > > > > > > While it might be true that Libertarianism will never become > > > > universal, that is no reason to compromise the philosophy. BTW, > > > > Libertarians do not exclude votes from "impure" Libertarians. > > > > > > Don't they? Don't they, by loudly proclaiming that "you're not > one > > of > > > us" if you don't agree with the purists 100% of the time on 100% > of > > the > > > issues, effectively do just that? > > > > > > > It is true that one has to separate reality from principle, but > > > > in a reverse fashion from your inclination. Allow the purist to > > > > be the movers. Don't criticize them for being too idealistic, > > > > especially when you agree with their principles. Don't blame > them > > > > for the status quo or the ignorance of others. Instead, respect > > > > the movers for their goals. If you blame them for the fact that > > > > their goals are less than met, you reason circular. There will > > > > always be plenty who will compromise; you do not have to promote > > > > it for it to happen; the "the goal of compromise" is not only > NOT > > > > a respectable goal, it is an oxymoron. > > > > > > This idea doesn't bother me. Only rarely have I heard anyone of a > > > moderate libertarian bent suggest purging the "purists" from the > > party, > > > and that only because of frustration because of the constant push > > by > > > the purists to get everyone else out of the Party, or at least > the > > > leadership. > > > > > > Which is the point, and the problem. If we could all work > together > > > toward liberty, using the "libertarian train" metaphor, that > would > > be > > > great. But that's not how it works. The purists (admittedly, not > > all of > > > them, but I don't hear the ones that don't chastising the ones > who > > do) > > > do everything within their power to move all others out of the > > Party, > > > by ridicule, by condemnation, by calling them "not libertarians," > > by > > > loudly trying to exclude them from leadership positions, from > > trying to > > > stymie every move in any direction if they are in leadership > > positions, > > > ad nauseam. > > > > > > I would love to work together. I really would. There have been > > those > > > NAPsters (Ken Prazak comes to mind) that I respect immensely, for > > their > > > honesty, their dedication, and their contributions to liberty. > But > > as > > > long as they don't believe that moderates like me belong in the > > Party > > > or its leadership, working together is impossible. > > > > > > j > > > > > > -- > > > "I used to think romantic love was a neurosis shared by two, a > > supreme > > > foolishness. I no longer think that. There's nothing foolish in > > loving > > > anyone. Thinking you'll be loved in return is what's foolish." > > > --Rita Mae Brown > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> 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/
