All , I am not well at the moment, with tinnitus,dizziness and nausea, it's hard for me to concentrate on this, and I need to get some work done outside. I believe that the main thing that the writers of the platform in the past fail to realize is that a platform is ment to present solutions/positions to current election issues in a manner that will entice sympathic (that means they hold simular ideas) voter to support our candidates. It seems that the writers of past campaign platforms are all wound up in the sophomoric activity of defining what a Libertarian is and isn't. Perhaps there needs to be a preamble to the platform that states basic Libertarian philosophy and the planks define libertarian positions to issues, without over dinifinition and carefully constructed to avoid giving the opposition a handle to spin and twist the it. In the past we have seen candidates haveing some sliver of the platform split off and crafted to assert that the candidate under attack wants to abandon starving babies or something. A good example doesn't come to mind. There are ideas that some Libertarians find enormously important to themselves, that the general voter doesn't even think about, and, is not a issue that is relevant to any issue presently occuppying the elctorial debate. These things detract and confuse the voter. The platforms purpose is not to massage the masturbatorial desires of sophomoric, know-it-all, Libertarian monks. jal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana ACLP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:02 AM Subject: Re: my def of platform
> Paul is right we become a hindrance if we become specific. Lets try to > understand each other here. > > Gregg your hardwork on the platform is not going unnoticed thank you for > taking the time to change this hard part of our organization, we can use > your draft for throwing ideas back & forth, for making easy editing & for > helping make a Platform the members will agree to. Please don't forget our > fine love/hate line we have in this party. > We could be making our Platform more easy to understand & read without > setting it in stone. > The candidates need wiggle room no matter what. > Thanks, > Dana > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Tiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:06 AM > Subject: my def of platform > > > > Something not too specific. Yeah, wishy washy. Let the candidates be able > to > > point to it in regards to their own platforms and say stuff like, "the > > policies I have in mind match with the LPCO platform." > > > > When the platform gets too specific on answers to issues, then the > candidate > > can't use it. In fact, if the candidate comes up with a good libertarian > > response to an issue and that is not what the LPCO platform says, then > s/he > > is in danger of alienating voters and other LP members. > > > > One of the things that got me to leave the Rs was that candidates do not > > follow there platform. There are instances of Rs that I like that are > > clearly not following the R platform because they've come up with > solutions > > that work, even though they counter the Rs so called platform. But that > > wasn't and isn't the case with all Rs. A lot of them act like Ds, who > > haven't paid attention to their own platform for eons. > > > > I could demand that L candidate follow a stringent platform, but I would > say > > that we are too young for this sort of nonsense. We don't have a canned > > solution to every issue that really follows the libertarian ideal. The > > governmental mess didn't get to be where it is overnight, and simply > stated > > applications of libertarian ideal don't look straightforward to most. Many > > voters and even many Ls can't easily see how we are getting from what is > now > > to what is desired. To unwravel the mess we may have to take several > steps, > > and the path should be up to those in office or running for office. > > Candidates try to show the methodology. > > But if the path for them to follow is too tight, they not only can't be > very > > creative, but they will also spend far too much time trying to show how > > their personal ideals match LPCO ideals. > > > > Simple statements of libertarian idealism generally applied to issues. The > > more specific you get, the harder it is to live up to. > > > > Tough to keep my thoughts together at this hour, I am wandering. > > > > paul > > > > > >
