Vegas was my first national meeting and one thing more than any other bothered
me and really disappointed the ideals Ive had concerning the way Libs are
supposed to act.
Now I dont know all the ins and outs and whos who of the Platform Committee
and I REALLY DONT CARE but as a outsider looking in it seemed to me the spirit
of Liberty was not in the room when they decided to not seat two alternates.
COUPLE POINTS OF OBSERVATION
1. 2 others were absent , but 2 members who paid to be there were ready ,
willing and able .
2 . One of the missing members is a registered Republican ( I never imagined
it possible to hold a position of extreme importance and be a member of another
Party) . Silly , naive me.
3.I sat thru the meeting and understand the minutia-rules they grandstanded
to oppose seating them , but I was curious why the fact that it had always been
assumed and allowed that alternates be seated wasnt a bigger factor.
Several people spoke of members and alternates freely sitting in for
eachother and in a court of law precedence carries much weight but in this
meeting at this time , some decided it was time to demand perfect adherence to
the letter of the bylaws , which was open to intrpretation anyhow.
3.I have never seen L.P people act like rule police before so this was quite
an eyeopener and abruptly killed this fantasy Ive held that all L.P members are
fair , inclusive and would never utilize tactics we abhorr in others to keep
out good and honest people .
Even without knowing all the behind the scenes politicing and reasoning I
couldnt help but ask myself what greater good this was serving . None of us got
to be Libertarians by obeying all the rules just because theyre so. If there
was even room for debate , and there was , it seemed to me the LP default
should be not in adhering stringintly to Roberts Rules but to include and allow
.Last time I checked Robert or his rules didnt give a crap about restoring
liberty.
I geuss when debates have voter quotas we should just accept our exclusion
because the rules say we dont qualify.Or maybe we should accept free-speech
zones without protest , unfair laws withoutout outrage and quietly try to push
our agenda through politely sitting thru city-council meetings , waiting our
turn and hoping we can acheive our ends thru obeying the means they provide us.
its ludicrous , my only point is that we have NEVER been focused on such
things so I was left to conclude that standing on the rule was a smokescreen
and it wasnt really the rules they cared about but not seating the alternates
was their purpose.
Now I met both alternates and they didnt seem like complete ass%^&* to me so
the only conclusion I could come to was that they would have voted differently
on things and upset some balance the excluders were and are relying on .
Someone made a great point , they said that some people would be so put off
by their tactics that what thay said after would fall on deaf ears , even if it
was a good idea. They couldnt have been more right .
I know nothing of the in-fighting on a national level and I dont care. This
was my first big meeting and I so disliked the way things were handled that Ive
found myself on a particular side and disliking the other side when I can
honestly say I have no idea what direction the Plat Comms heading in , what
proposals are being looked at or if Alicia and the other excluders are actually
nice people ( and im sure they are).
What I know is that at my first national meeting I saw something go down that
shattered my naive perception of Libertarians. I now find myself in opposition
to others when that was never my intention. These tactics keep us all from
uniting and focusing against the real enemy. I heard someone say , after
denying the seating , that the enemy is not in this room .
Theyre right the enemy isnt with-in our walls but how can we unite to even
begin to defeat our enemies when we deny our friends a seat at the table.
divided and conquered comes to mind
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
