First of all, I was talking, not about Candidates, but about LEADERS.
Our Chair, and the entire LNC should be chosen on what they can
and will ACCOMPLISH, not on some litmus test.
Yes, we should not have Republicans or Democrats as leaders.
No, we ought not 'hire' socialists, but as long as someone is
a self-declared Libertarian, and is pointing the ship in the right
direction, I am against micro-analyzing someone.
I supported Ron Paul, though I disagreed with him on some things.
I worked my ass off for Judge Gray and Art Olivier and Michael
Badnarik, though I disagreed with them, too.
Likewise, Shane Cory and I disagree on policy in a few key
instances. But, the man PRODUCES.
We have for too long chosen people based on sound bite
pontifications, and instead we should look at how well they
can DO THE JOB we are 'hiring' them for.
For example, this is why Aaron Starr and Angela Keaton
are such good friend and work together so well. This is why
both of them are an excellent fundraising team. Because
they don't care about their few disagreements, but focus
on the goal and the team.
Bob Giramma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A candidate's positions are surely important, but there's an implied
self-selecting process there. Communists, religious
fundamentalists, and other anti-liberty ideologues tend to avoid joining the
LP. We don't need to worry about that.
However, libertarians need to avoid the impulse to define a single absolutist
definition on who is the real libertarian. It's a
spectrum of beliefs -- not the entire Nolan chart space, but a loosely-bounded
corner region of it. A libertarian need not be the
dot in the far corner.
Libertarianism is a movement, not a religion. I accept anyone whose ideas will
move us in the direction of greater personal
liberty. To me, that is a libertarian in the political party context.
_____
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ma ni
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 8:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Libertarian] THE LP RULE POLICE?
I disagree with your priorities. If electing libertarian
candidates is not based on their positions, what happens to the
word "libertarian"? I would have said it differently:
"When electing good libertarian candidates, consider their
positions first, but don't forget their skills, experience and
temperament."
---------------------------
the only way to get anything done long term
within the LP is to elect good people.
And not to elect them based on positions,
but on three and only three factors.
Skills
Experience
Temperment.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
