Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Guy should join RLC?

Expand Messages
  • Joe Liberty
    Since when are members required to join the GOP? Are Libertarians $ worth less than the rest of ours? ... From: Dave Nalle To:
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Since when are members required to join the GOP?  Are Libertarians $ worth less than the rest of ours?

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Dave Nalle <graball@...>
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:54:52 AM
      Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: The Danger of Endorsements

      Guy, last I checked (see below) you were chairman of the Harris County Libertarian Party.  Perhaps you should have the guts to leave the LP behind and join the RLC wholeheartedly so we can take you more seriously.

       
      .


    • Steven Burden
      There are no rules about party membership, except for RLC officers. I personally think that we can use more libertarians like Guy in the RLC. --Steve ... $
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 14, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        There are no rules about party membership, except for RLC officers. I
        personally think that we can use more libertarians like Guy in the
        RLC.
        --Steve
        --- In RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com, Joe Liberty <joe_liberty@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Since when are members required to join the GOP? Are Libertarians
        $ worth less than the rest of ours?
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message ----
        > From: Dave Nalle <graball@...>
        > To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:54:52 AM
        > Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: The Danger of Endorsements
        >
        > Guy, last I checked (see below) you were chairman of the Harris
        County Libertarian Party. Perhaps you should have the guts to leave
        the LP behind and join the RLC wholeheartedly so we can take you more
        seriously.
        >
        >
        > .
        >
      • Guy McLendon
        Dave, Thank you for that kind thought. I do believe the RLC has an important role to play in the liberty movement, and I also believe RLC can be effective in
        Message 3 of 7 , Jun 14, 2007
        • 0 Attachment

          Dave,

           

          Thank you for that kind thought.

           

          I do believe the RLC has an important role to play in the liberty movement, and I also believe RLC can be effective in that role only if you’re not being seduced by “the dark side of the force”.  When I hear such things as … RLC-National won’t endorse Ron Paul … I get concerned the majority of the RLC National Board is occupied by mainstream Republicans.  If that were to happen, it’d be akin to a once-good Jedi turning to the dark side … Your organization would do more harm than good.  Pro-war folks will even “kill younglings”.  Once you put a higher precedence on blending with mainstream Republicans than you put on promoting your champions … you’re slipping down the slippery slope to the dark side.  That’s why Toby Nixon’s remarks raised a ** very ** serious ** flag … IMHO.

           

          So far as taking me seriously … watch & learn, baby!  I’d be willing to wager than the majority of RLC leadership has not done nearly as much work for Ron Paul’s campaign as I’ve done.

           

          If I can help bring a strong majority of constitutionalists into the LP, I may actually play a key role in helping the LP fulfill its potential.  In 2004/2005, I did think seriously about leaving LP and joining RLC fully.  However, the success that I helped achieve during the 2006 “Portland Purge” … in the words of a fellow RLC member of yours … made us both feel the LP may be salvageable.  Until I’m certain the LP can’t be reformed into a credible force for good, I’ll have to stick with her. 

           

          As Chair in Harris County, Texas … we’re going to focus on winning non-partisan, municipal elections.  We can gain electoral success in that arena, and train our activists on how to really run campaigns.  The county of Harris includes Houston , and our population is comparable to the state of Oregon .  It’s an honor to be elected as HCLP Chair, and I’m going to do my best while serving in that capacity.

           

          I may rescind my “cowardly” remark about the RLC … However, I’m going to wait until I see what your National Board does with regard to endorsing Dr. Paul and donating cash to his campaign.

           

          More respectfully this time,

          Guy McLendon

          Texas Rep to the 2008 LP National Platform Committee

          ~

           

          Posted by: "Joe Liberty" joe_liberty@...   joe_liberty

          Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:17 am (PST)

          Since when are members required to join the GOP? Are Libertarians $ worth less than the rest of ours?

          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Dave Nalle <graball@fontcraft. com>
          To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
          Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:54:52 AM
          Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: The Danger of Endorsements

          Guy, last I checked (see below) you were chairman of the Harris County Libertarian Party. Perhaps you should have the guts to leave the LP behind and join the RLC wholeheartedly so we can take you more seriously.

           

        • Dave Nalle
          Guy. I admire your enthusiasm, but you re living in a dream world. The LP is going nowhere. Every day it exists it functions to trivialize the ideas it
          Message 4 of 7 , Jun 15, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            [RLC-Action] Re: Guy should join RLC?
            Guy.  I admire your enthusiasm, but you're living in a dream world.  The LP is going nowhere.  Every day it exists it functions to trivialize the ideas it promotes because of its endless history of failure.  Every successful new politicial party in the US has gone from start to national  success in less than a decade.  When it take 35+ years the party is clearly not viable.

            The libertarian party has, over the years, defined itself into a very narrow version of classical liberalism and become hostile to others who fit in the same tradition, but apply the principles slightly differently.  It has become a party of exclusion rather than inclusion, and that's a formula for failure.

            The only way for the LP to have any chance at accomplishing something as a political party at this point would be for it to disband almost immediately and then start over again as a new party with a new name in time for 2008.  Failing that I think it should give up on running candidates altogether and reinvent itself as a non-partisan movement to promote liberty in both parties.  A party name is a brand name, and as a brand name the LP stands for impracticality, extremism and failure.  The existence of the party is actually starting to taint the word 'libertarian' itself for those of us who'd like to use it in other contexts.

            And keep in mind that I worked on various presidential campaigns in the LP, was a paid LP employee at one time, contributed to and supported Paul's congressional campaigns, and ran for office as a libertarian myself.  All of that experience with the LP over a 25 year period as a supporter convinced me that they were no farther along in 2005 than they were when I worked on the Clark campaign in 1980.  That was enough wasted time for me and it ought to be enough wasted time for everyone.  I can't imagine why anyone would throw good time and money after bad with the LP.

            As for the non-endorsement of Ron Paul, I'm one of those who has raised concerns about him, though I would just abstain if it came to an endorsement vote.  The RLC has an awful lot of members who would probably (though incorrectly) be described as pro-war libertarians.  They're strongly libertarian on virtually every issue, but they believe in a more engaged foreign policy.  Ron Paul is an isolationist, despite his aberrant vote on the Afghan war.  If they make that their top issue, they are unlikely to support him. Support for the war does not necessarily even require a compromise of libertarian principles, because self-defense in protection of your rights is certainly a libertarian principle.  The issue of whether the war is self-defense or not isn't an issue of principle at all.

            And, of course, Paul is also pro-life and doesn't believe in the separation of church and state as most of us define it.  He's also a bit of a conspiracy nut, and a nativist, and his most ardent and outspoken followers are far worse.  Those are all significant issues to a lot of people.  Some people place them higher than most other issues.

            Let me give you a personal example.  I'm done with the religious right.  I think religious extremism in all forms is one of the greatest threats our nation faces.  I'm not going to actively support ANY candidate who makes his religious views a campaign issue or who holds political positions based on faith.  I can put up with candidates who go to church and believe in god, and I can put up with lip service to religion, but I cannot accept it as a basis for national policy.  I think Paul would cross that line.

            And don't try to condemn RLC libertarians as somehow less libertarian just because they want to achieve something within the GOP.  That doesn't mean they've compromised their principles.  Some of them might have to compromise their principles just as much in the LP, which is far from perfect and far from a perfect model of libertarianism, which does take multiple forms.  And even those who have decided that the threat from Islam is great enough to justify war, haven't necessarily given up on other libertarian positions.  You can believe in something which is not doctrinaire libertarianism in one area and still hold libertarian beliefs which are just as strong in every other area and on every other issue.

            I've gone on long enough.  Consider this, though.  Many of us think that your illogical continued support of the LP is just as irrational as you think our skepticism about Paul is.

            Dave
            -- 
            

            Scriptorium Fonts: http://www.fontcraft.com
            Ragnarok Press: http://www.ragnarokpress.com
            Customer Support: 1-800-797-8973
          • Guy McLendon
            Dave, I think it s cool you were an Ed Clark activist! That s when I started. I dropped out by the late 1980s, and didn t get back into the LP and activism
            Message 5 of 7 , Jun 16, 2007
            • 0 Attachment

              Dave,

               

              I think it’s cool you were an Ed Clark activist!  That’s when I started.  I dropped out by the late 1980s, and didn’t get back into the LP and activism until 2001.

               

              In the immediate wake of the 2006 Portland Purge, Steve Burden made a remark similar to “the LP may be salvageable”.  Certainly, the Purge was a move in the right direction.  That’s good, because I’d stated in 2002 I would quit in 2006 if something major didn’t happen.  Due to Ron’s campaign pulling many constitutionalists, we’ll be lucky to merely hold our ground in 2008 convention. 

               

              The year 2010, however, will be another prime opportunity to avalanche within the LP.  The LP National Convention of 2010 will be another line in the sand for me.  I do politics from a sense of duty, and not so much for enjoyment.

               

              I don’t think a *total* disbanding & recreation of LP is needed in order to reform it.  Rather, constitutionalists need to have a strong majority, so purists are a squeaky wheel … that does not impose policy.  It only takes a dinky 1000 persons in an LP national convention to take solid majority control, and a strong majority can make serious changes … eliminating most of the baggage that’s given LP a bad name.  In 2010, if enough Ron Paul activists don’t convert over to the LP sufficient to take solid majority control of LP … I’ll probably withdraw from politics, and focus on winning my personal war on poverty.  Life is too short to spend all your time in an infinite loop.

               

              If Ron can actually take the imperial throne, and personally shift power back to the congress, states & individuals … and, prompt Congress to pass amendments to reverse a long history of bad Supreme Court rulings … *that* could restore Liberty.  However, one of the worst things that could happen to Liberty would be for all the enthusiasm from the Ron Paul activists to be squandered in another fiasco similar to Gingrich’s Contract with America from 1994.  America ’s been there, done that.  Short of someone like Ron winning the White House, IMHO, there is no way the RLC is going to shake loose the Establishment. Instead, all those activists will simply be encapsulated in an organization they can not change.  As things stand, the “Leadership” in either party, Republican or Democrat” will *always* be there to trip a newbie who would make real change.

               

              About the war.  When I sit & talk to a pro-war person having an open mind, and we have a big block of time to cordially discuss it … I can often help them understand why the “go forward” option in the Middle East is very, very, very bad policy.  Being an engineer, I tend to rely on logic.  Of course, if a religious person has a radar lock, and is on a crusade to assure western nations control the Holy Land , those folks have an allegiance that facts won’t budge.  Also …

               

              After most folks have bought a bag of goods … like this war … they gain an emotional attachment, and their emotions cause them to refuse to accept the facts.  Admitting that one has been wrong is just too painful, I suppose.  It takes guts to admit you’ve been wrong.  No doubt, after tens of thousands more American kids are sacrificed, additional minds will be turned.  It’s a pity kids have to die before old men change their opinions.

               

              Please reconsider your willingness to vote in RLC to endorse Ron.  I’d be very interested in talking with you on the phone on various issues.  Perhaps I could share some thoughts that may cause you to reevaluate a few aspects of what you believe.

               

              Let’s both keep slugging away … trying to do what’s right.  Perhaps one day we’ll meet in the middle.

               

              Guy McLendon

              Tx Rep to 2008 LP Nat’l PlatComm

              Houston, Texas

              Cell 832-372-8131

               

              Bcc:  Key Ron Paul Harris County & Texas activists

               

               

              Posted by: "Dave Nalle" graball@...   ragnarokpress

              Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:41 pm (PST)

              Guy. I admire your enthusiasm, but you're living in a dream world.
              The LP is going nowhere. Every day it exists it functions to
              trivialize the ideas it promotes because of its endless history of
              failure. Every successful new politicial party in the US has gone
              from start to national success in less than a decade. When it take
              35+ years the party is clearly not viable.

              The libertarian party has, over the years, defined itself into a very
              narrow version of classical liberalism and become hostile to others
              who fit in the same tradition, but apply the principles slightly
              differently. It has become a party of exclusion rather than
              inclusion, and that's a formula for failure.

              The only way for the LP to have any chance at accomplishing something
              as a political party at this point would be for it to disband almost
              immediately and then start over again as a new party with a new name
              in time for 2008. Failing that I think it should give up on running
              candidates altogether and reinvent itself as a non-partisan movement
              to promote liberty in both parties. A party name is a brand name,
              and as a brand name the LP stands for impracticality, extremism and
              failure. The existence of the party is actually starting to taint
              the word 'libertarian' itself for those of us who'd like to use it in
              other contexts.

              And keep in mind that I worked on various presidential campaigns in
              the LP, was a paid LP employee at one time, contributed to and
              supported Paul's congressional campaigns, and ran for office as a
              libertarian myself. All of that experience with the LP over a 25
              year period as a supporter convinced me that they were no farther
              along in 2005 than they were when I worked on the Clark campaign in
              1980. That was enough wasted time for me and it ought to be enough
              wasted time for everyone. I can't imagine why anyone would throw
              good time and money after bad with the LP.

              As for the non-endorsement of Ron Paul, I'm one of those who has
              raised concerns about him, though I would just abstain if it came to
              an endorsement vote. The RLC has an awful lot of members who would
              probably (though incorrectly) be described as pro-war libertarians.
              They're strongly libertarian on virtually every issue, but they
              believe in a more engaged foreign policy. Ron Paul is an
              isolationist, despite his aberrant vote on the Afghan war. If they
              make that their top issue, they are unlikely to support him. Support
              for the war does not necessarily even require a compromise of
              libertarian principles, because self-defense in protection of your
              rights is certainly a libertarian principle. The issue of whether
              the war is self-defense or not isn't an issue of principle at all.

              And, of course, Paul is also pro-life and doesn't believe in the
              separation of church and state as most of us define it. He's also a
              bit of a conspiracy nut, and a nativist, and his most ardent and
              outspoken followers are far worse. Those are all significant issues
              to a lot of people. Some people place them higher than most other
              issues.

              Let me give you a personal example. I'm done with the religious
              right. I think religious extremism in all forms is one of the
              greatest threats our nation faces. I'm not going to actively support
              ANY candidate who makes his religious views a campaign issue or who
              holds political positions based on faith. I can put up with
              candidates who go to church and believe in god, and I can put up with
              lip service to religion, but I cannot accept it as a basis for
              national policy. I think Paul would cross that line.

              And don't try to condemn RLC libertarians as somehow less libertarian
              just because they want to achieve something within the GOP. That
              doesn't mean they've compromised their principles. Some of them
              might have to compromise their principles just as much in the LP,
              which is far from perfect and far from a perfect model of
              libertarianism, which does take multiple forms. And even those who
              have decided that the threat from Islam is great enough to justify
              war, haven't necessarily given up on other libertarian positions.
              You can believe in something which is not doctrinaire libertarianism
              in one area and still hold libertarian beliefs which are just as
              strong in every other area and on every other issue.

              I've gone on long enough. Consider this, though. Many of us think
              that your illogical continued support of the LP is just as irrational
              as you think our skepticism about Paul is.

              Dave

               

            • westmiller@aol.com
              Posted by: Dave Nalle graball@fontcraft.com ... Ditto on your excellent post. I agree with almost every point and won t bother to quibble with the others.
              Message 6 of 7 , Jun 16, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Posted by: "Dave Nalle" graball@...
                > Guy. I admire your enthusiasm ...

                Ditto on your excellent post. I agree with almost every
                point and won't bother to quibble with the others.

                Bill




                ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com
              • Steven Redlich
                ... ... While I find some interest in reading this thread, I think it s gone on far too long to be appropriate on RLC-Action. Thanks, Steve -- Ron Paul for
                Message 7 of 7 , Jun 16, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Guy McLendon wrote:

                  > I think it's cool you were an Ed Clark activist! That's when I started. I
                  > dropped out by the late 1980s, and didn't get back into the LP and activism
                  > until 2001.
                  ...

                  While I find some interest in reading this thread, I think it's gone on
                  far too long to be appropriate on RLC-Action.

                  Thanks,
                  Steve
                  --
                  Ron Paul for President
                  The Taxpayers' Best Friend
                  http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.