Sounds reasonable to me. You may be surprise to know that I have absolutely No Problem at all with extremist Libertarians running for office.
The problem I have is with OBSCURE candidates running for office. Take Doug Stanhope. I presume he's a 100% totally hardcore Libertarian. Radical even. Now compare him to another 100% hardcore radical Libertarian Michael Badnarik. I have no problem with Stanhope running. In fact, I'm supporting him for 2008. But Badnarik! Eeek. Gag me with a spoon. --- In [email protected], doug craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eric This all seems to about the pure verus the none > pure.The reality is I am anarcho-capitalist.I would > like to work with the pure but they are not showing up > to run for office.My goal is to elect Libertarians(LP > members and maybe Boston Tea Guys).I am not a big fan > of the RLC.So I am going to help the most Libertarian > candidate that shows up to run under the Libertarian > banner.The free market will weed out the bad > candidate. When I have choice of working with you or > Harry Browne,I will go with Harry Browne therefor > leaving the less pure with less resources. Look I say > let everyone run under our banner and let the free > market sort it out. > > --- Eric Dondero Rittberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Do you know how many Political Quizes I handed out > > to Lieberman > > campaign workers and volunteers? > > > > Oh, maybe 40 to 50. > > > > With just about all of them, I walked them through > > the Quiz, and > > explained the questions to them, and especially > > graded them and > > explained to them the Pro-Freedom position on the > > issues they got > > wrong. > > > > I can assure you every one of these political > > activists came away > > with a positive impression of libertarianism and the > > libertarian > > movement. > > > > But I guess, it's better if we libertarians simply > > play it safe. > > Continue to attend our Monthly LP Supper Club > > meetings at Chiles and > > talk about issues amongst our Libertarian friends > > for hours on end, > > huh? > > > > Best not to get our hands dirty in the business of > > real world > > politics. Nah, let's continue to Preach to the > > Chior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Andr� Kenji > > de Kenji de" > > <andrekenjilistas2@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/08/08/libertarians-urged-to-board- > > joementum-train-wreck/ > > > RLC Founder Urges Libertarians to Board > > "Joementum" Train Wreck > > > > > > [image: Lieberman - libertarian rumors]According > > to the latest > > polls, > > > Joe "Kissy > > > > > > Face<http://www.wonkette.com/politics/funny-pictures/bush-kissing- > > lieberman-video-032091.php>" > > > Lieberman is running over 10 points behind Ned > > > "Kos- > > > Approved<http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/05/nedheads > > _pay_ho.html>" > > > Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary race > > for Senate. > > Barring a > > > miracle, Joe Lieberman will *not* be the > > Democratic nominee. > > However, the > > > taller half of "Sore/Loserman > > > > > > 2000<http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/04/stickers. > > election/>" > > > has indicated that he will run as an independent > > for the seat > > after a > > > trouncing by his own party. > > > > > > Now, why should Lieberman's sour grapes > > independent run, which may > > have cost > > > him the primary in the first > > > > > > place<http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/08/thoughts_on_connec > > ticut.html>, > > > matter to libertarians? According to Eric "Master > > > > > > Shake<http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2004/tle275-20040613-04.html>" > > > Dondero Rittberg, > > > > > > liberventionist<http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s041302.html>gadfly > > > and founder of the Republican > > > Liberty Caucus <http://www.rlc.org/> (their motto: > > "he promised to > > stop > > > beating us if we stay and work it out"), Lieberman > > is "one of the > > ONLY > > > decent Democrats in the Nation" and deserves > > libertarian support. > > Not only > > > that, he's pimping Libertarians for Lieberman on > > various email > > > > > > lists<http://www.libertarianpeacenik.com/articles/lieberman.htm>and > > > encouraging people to call him on his cell phone > > to help. > > > > > > Leaving aside for a second that Lieberman is > > > pro- > > > war<http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/pro_war_lieberman_bombing > > > _with_dems_regionalnews_maggie_haberman__in_west_hartford__conn___and > > _tom_topousis__in_new_york.htm>, > > > pro- > > > censorship<http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/sen_joseph > > _lieberman_gets_worked_up_over_video_games_again/>, > > > and pro-government > > > > > > intervention<http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/20 > > > 06/07/28/michael_schiavo_campaigns_against_lieberman/>(especially > > > since the > > > last Presidential candidate Rittberg > > > > > > endorsed<http://web.archive.org/web/20040925062425/http://www.liberta > > riansforbush.com/>was > > > all of those things), haven't we libertarians > > learned a painful > > > lesson about endorsing defectors from the major > > > > > > parties<http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/06/06/an-inconvenient- > > > libertarian-video-clip-william-weld-doesnt-want-you-to-watch/>? > > > Not only is Lieberman not a libertarian, I'm > > predicting that after > > the polls > > > close in Connecticut tonight, he's also going to > > be a loser. > > > > > > While some rightly criticize our willingness to > > lose while > > clinging to our > > > principles > > <http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/000450.html>, > > Rittberg would > > > have us abandon our principles to lose with a > > loser who's > > abandoned his. > > > > > > Update by Stephen VanDyke: RLC Secretary Thomas > > Sewell commented: > > > > > > I can tell you categorically that Rittberg is not > > an officer, > > spokesman or > > > otherwise entitled to speak on behalf of the RLC. > > Please attribute > > his views > > > solely to him, not to the RLC. > > > > > > Ouch > > > > > > Update by Nicholas Sarwark: As predicted, > > Lieberman > > > > > > lost<http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/08/lieberman_concedes > > _connecticut.html>and > > > he's gonna pick up his sour grapes and try to run > > as an > > Independent. > > > It's a gutsy move, but all of the bigtime Dems he > > got to stump for > > him in > > > the primary are very unlikely to support him now > > that Ned Lamont > > has been > > > selected as the Democratic nominee. > > > > > > Update by Nicholas Sarwark: Looks like Rittberg is > > in good > > > > > > company<http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/09/rove_offers_help > > _to_lieberman.html>in > > > backing Lieberman's bid. > > > > > > > > > [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/
