Dead slience said a lot more than boos anyway, if some or most are chearing you on one issue and the whole room is totally slient on another issue that send a clear message that she had no suuport on the second issue, if she had been booed the message might have appeared only some were not with her on the issue.--- In [email protected], "Chuck Moulton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mann, if one thing came out of the RLC Convention yesterday > > it's that Katherine Harris, Congresswoman and US Senate > > candidate, IS A NEW FRIEND OF LIBERTARIANS!! > > > > She was fantastic last night in her presentation to the group > > at the hospitality suite. She was introduced by State Senator > > Mike Haridopolos. Then she gave a very animated presentation > > on her support for tax cuts and property rights. > > > > Katherine is stunningly beautiful in person. She's dynamic. > > She's got an aura about her that draws you in. > > > > She even spoke to some marijuana law reform guys after her > > speech and promised them she'd consider the issue. > > > > Katherine, stunningly stayed for the whole program. She sat > > with Phil's Dad, George Blumel at the dinner table and > > listened to libertarian hero Stephen Moore's banquet speech. > > Every two minutes Moore pointed to Katherine as a shining > > light for liberty in the US Congress. > > I was at the RLC national convention and my impression was very different. > > I only caught bits and pieces of Katherine Harris's pitch, but they > were the important bits and pieces. Later others filled in the blanks > for me. > > I was talking with three people at a vendor's table about the > libertarian position on patents. Eventually I realized it had been a > while since I'd seen most of the crowd, and I was afraid I would miss > dinner at the banquet if I didn't go in now. Upon excusing myself, I > discovered I was not missing the banquet, but was instead missing an > open bar reception. > > When I wandered into the room, Katherine Harris was addressing a group > of over 50 RLC members who surrounded her in a semicircle. She was > talking about the Fair Tax, which she said she supports and will make > a top priority if elected to the U.S. Senate. RLC members were all > clapping a cheering. Then she started talking about immigration and > said she was in favor of a large impenetrable wall around the country. > When I realized it was Katherine Harris I decided I'd rather debate > libertarian philosophy on patents than listen to an enemy speak, so I > went back outside to the vendor table and continued the earlier > discussion. In leaving the room I also realized she was about to be > lynched for her position on immigration. > > Later, during the banquet, I spoke with several people about Katherine > Harris's presentation. They said she spoke mainly about the Fair Tax > and immigration. After her Fair Tax pitch everyone in the room > applauded and cheered. After her immigration pitch there was dead > silence with crickets chirping. RLC members generally favor open > immigration. It turned out the night before the conference organizers > had asked everyone to be polite when Katherine Harris spoke, which > explained why no one booed. I remarked to the people relating what > happened that she probably looked at Ron Paul's position on > immigration and assumed the RLC shared it. > > During the banquet I had a few conversations about Katherine Harris. > Later I felt bad because I realized she was not sitting at the head > table like I had thought, but rather was sitting 3 feet away from me > at a table near the back (we had our backs to each other), so she > probably heard me rudely badmothing her. > > What did impress me was that Katherine Harris stayed for the whole > banquet dinner. Stephen Moore regularly refered to her during his > speech. I don't think he was praising her, so much as trying to > change her mind in a diplomatic way. He would say things like > "Katherine, you should go tell your democratic colleagues that the > Bush tax cut resulted in revenue doubling within two years." and > "Katherine, go tell Congress that 97% of new jobs were the result of > immigrants. Without immigrants our economy would not be growing." It > felt like Stephen Moore was tutoring Katherine Harris and we were all > unnoticed observers. > > Kartherine Harris was regularly nodding along with Stephen Moore and > took copious notes (about three pages). What impressed me most was > she was taking notes. She could have simply nodded to give people the > impression she agreed... taking notes conveyed to me that she was > actually planning on researching the things Stephen said more and > integrating them into her speeches or congressional votes. I'm not a > fan of Katherine Harris, but after the convention I liked her more > than before. > > I spoke with the conference organizers later. They told me they were > upfront with Katherine Harris's staff that it was a conference of > libertarians. Katherine Harris approached them to speak, not the > other way around. She was welcomed to speak during the reception, but > it was suggested that they stick to economic issues. She was not > offered a position at the head table... those positions were reserved > for the banquet speakers and elected libertarians such as Ben Brandon > and Mark Lindell. > > Chuck Moulton > Vice-Chair, Libertarian National Committee > > P.S. I attended the RLC convention because I am a supporter of the > RLC. In fact, I am a supporter of all facets of the libertarian > movement, including the Libertarian Party, the RLC, the Cato > Institute, the Mises Institute, the Advocates for Self Government, the > Institute for Justice, the ACLU, etc. I continue to be a registered > Libertarian and believe the Libertarian Party is a better vehicle for > me personally than the RLC. However, I welcome every libertarian to > make his own choice on whether to be a Libertarian or a Republican to > advance libertarianism. I was not a voting delegate at the RLC > convention (because as a registered Libertarian I was not elligible to > vote). > > I was invited to speak at the RLC convention since I was attending. > My speech focused on a few key points: > > 1) The Libertarian Party and the Republican Liberty Caucus are not > enemies; we help each other synergisticly. Neither organization > should be trying to recruit the other organization's members. At > least 28% of Americans are libertarian leaning... it's better for both > organizations to do outreach to the unaffiliated libertarians than for > both organizations to tug on the same group of activists until their > arms fall off. > > 2) Activists are important in politics. Philosophy arguments are > largely useless. Libertarian Party members and RLC members should be > running as candidates, working precincts, and doing outreach instead > of arguing amongst themselves about who is the most libertarian. We > ought to look at the libertarian movement as a train towards more > liberty, accepting anyone that wants to move us in a libertarian > direction. If some people want to leave the train earlier than > others, let them. It's far better to get a lot of people on the train > and having it move toward liberty than to argue endlessly about what > the destination should be without moving the train at all. > > 3) I told the RLC about PA Clean Sweep's success in toppling a state > supreme court justice, getting the pay raise repealed, having 20 state > legislators not seek another term, and defeating 20 state legislators > in the primary -- including the president pro tempore and majority > leader of the state senate. > > I was pleased to meet many additional dedicated libertarians at the > RLC convention and put faces to a few of the names I know from online > (like Aaron Biterman and Eric Dondero). It's interesting to note that > many RLC members told me although they support libertarian leaning > Republicans with their time and money, they usually vote for > Libertarian candidates when they are on the ballot (especially for > President). The only presidential candidate the RLC has endorsed in > its history is Steve Forbes, which I found very interesting because he > was my favorite Republican presidential candidate in the past 15 years. > > RLC members tend to be Regan fans, but not Bush fans (either one). > They do tend to think that George W. Bush has done a lot better than > Al Gore would have (which I disagree on... I think they would have > been equally terrible, just in different things). >
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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
