Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 02:06:38 -0700 From: jwalsh@potbellystudios.com (Potbelly Studios) Subject: Re: [lpaz-Pima] Re: Jason's Response to Bob and Paul's 2nd... Blah, Blah, Blah... To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com
Jason has once again hit the nail on the head. I've been hearing plenty of complaints that the Pima County Party is endorsing matching funds. What we are doing is endorsing a good candidate that happens to believe matching funds will help him get eleced. And once in, will work to change the rules.
I've come to the point in my life where any individual that is 100% "something" (be it Lib, Rep, Dem, Reform, Green, someone's rights... whatever) spooks the bejesus out of me. These are usually people that aren't well-rounded enough to be taken seriously on ANY account. Whenever I hear, "That's not libertarian enough!" or "We can NEVER bend our principles" as an argument to a thought... I tune out. It's just rhetoric that has kept this party small.
This may piss a few people off, but I'll take a 60-70% libertarian any day that can win an election. I believe it's foolish to expect any candidate, committeeman or activist to follow the "letter of the libertarian law." You won't find it in an electable candidate. We should be looking towards libertarian-leaning elected officials for support. And when I say "libertarian-leaning" I don't mean in just words... but in actual deeds. When we do get an elected lib, he or she would have a support system alread in place as opposed to being a "lone gunman."
If you think bitching about "party principles" will help change the world all at once, you're a damn fool. It takes generations to commit change. A minor change here, a minor change there. In 40 years or so, who knows... it might be a nicer place to live. That's what the Dem and Reps did to us. They didn't take our freedom away all in one day. They nibbled it away over 200 years. We can fight fire with fire. We may not live to see it, but maybe our kids and grandkids will.
Jay Walsh Proud Chairman of the PCLP
> From: auvenj@mailcity.com
> Reply-To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:25:16 -0000
> To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [lpaz-Pima] Re: Bob's 2nd AND Paul's 2nd
>
> --- In lpaz-Pima@y..., pls@t... wrote:
>> The sticking point is the old but still real one: matching funds.
>> These are prohibited by the ALP constitution.
>
> The Pima County Party has NOT taken matching funds. A _candidate_
> within Pima County has chosen todo so (or at least is seeking to do
> so...I don't know if he's actually been successful yet). Regardless
> of how you feel about the matching funds, the candidate and the party
> are clearly two separate entities, with different sets of books and
> different sets of officers on the campaign committee. As far as I
> know there is no comingling of funds (someone from the Hoffman
> campaign please correct me if I'm wrong on that). So PCLP itself is
> not in violation of the ALP constitution.
>
>> As for the present status of Pima, I'll admit I don't know. A
> county
>> organization has to apply to become an affiliate. My own opinion is
>> that the resolution in 99 cleared the way for that application, but
>> that they have not done so.
>>
>> Affiliation must be by consent on both sides. Pima either has to
> ask
>> for affiliation or to consider that the 99 resolution offered
>> affiliation and accept it. Either way it requires some action on
>> their part. An action I wouls support, by the way.
>
> I agree that affiliation is by mutual cosent. I think that already
> exists. If consent is given then it should be presumed to continue
> unless PCLP takes some action to the contrary. Here's the timeline
> as I understand it:
> (1) ALP and PCLP are affiliated and (presumably) happy together.
> (2) ALP disaffiliates PCLP without the consent of PCLP. (1995?)
> (3) ALP votes to reaffiliate PCLP. (1999)
>
> As far as I know PCLP never said anything official about revoking
> their desire for affiliation in this whole process. PCLP _could_
> certainly say, "now WE don't want to be affiliated with ALP because
> of what you did to us in 1995". But again AFAIK PCLP has never
> expressed a desire to be UN-affiliated with ALP, so why should they
> now have to take some action to reaffirm the original position of
> consent to affiliation? Makes no sense to me and certainly seems
> counter-productive to try to push such a requirement, given that
> there's no other faction in Pima County contesting for the
> affiliation. Unless, of course, one desires to set up roadblocks,
> loyalty tests, and other hurdles to membership and affiliation within
> the ALP. :-) I'm sure that's not your intention, is it Paul?
>
> --Jason Auvenshine
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpaz-pima-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~> Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered high school alumni--chances are you'll find your friends! http://us.click.yahoo.com/03IJGA/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/JwNVlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpaz-pima-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/