For years, the purists and pragmatists within the party have bickered among themselves, preached to the choir and had internet squabbles….all to no avail. Now, we can either take this opportunity to move forward and start behaving like a political party; or, we could do more of the same for the next 30 years and never acheive ballot status.

Weld made it very clear to the party leaders that he does not agree with us on everything, and for that, he got a lot of points. What other candidate today even dares to tell the truth in that regard? What we are pleased with his stand on lowering taxes, responsible use of eminent domain, and getting rid of useless government agencies which only suck taxpayer dollars.

The pragmatists and the purists within the Libertarian Party have been fighting with each other for years. Well, some of us are tired of it. Seems like the biggest thing standing in the way of libertarians sometimes is libertarians! We can either remain purists and not get anywhere; or take a chance on a candidate who has past experience, some name recognition and agrees with us on taxes and open up the way for third parties in general. Ideas are no good if nobody ever hears them.

And speaking of eminent domain: there will be a last-ditch effort on May 22 to bring closure to Susette Kelo and the remaining homeowners in Fort Trumbull [New London, CT]. A big demonstration and press conference will be held at the state capital in Hartford to urge Governor Rell to intervene and make the NLDC (New London Development Council) give the titles back to the residents.

Those who are seriously fed up with big government and its intrusions should go. This issue is bigger than all of us. Don’t wait until you or somebody you know is a victim of abuse of government power. I don’t know these people, but I’ve been following this case and think that this country has strayed too far from the Constitution as it is.

Eastern Long Islanders often have a reputation of being very self-absorbed and spending money on distractions while at the same time complaining about high taxes and the cost of living. Many view us as spoiled suburbanites——whether that assessment is just or not.

I hope to see some Long Islanders there at the state capital on May 22 Monday. The first couple of rallies had people who travelled from as far away as Texas! That’s right….they know the importance of liberty and the Constitution’s limits on government power.

There’s a famous quote; I forget who said it, but it goes something like this: ‘An attack on liberty anywhere is an attack on liberty everywhere.’ Let’s put our energy and our money where our mouths are for a change. Show support for the people at the center of this controversial Supreme Court decision. Thank you.

John

Endorsing Weld offers the New York LP the first serious possibility of gaining the 50,000 votes needed for ongoing ballot status. And given his stand on taxes, eminent domain and medical marijuana, a Libertarian candidate running against him would receive few votes anyway. And it does not look like the New York LP even has another candidate to back.

The New York LP has several choices for a strong antiwar Libertarian candidate for US Senate. The Republicans are having a hard time putting up a credible campaign against Hilary. So backing Weld and running an antiwar Libertarian for US Senate could give the New York LP the breakthrough they need for ongoing ballot status and public recognition.

LP Bylaws plainly state in Article 8: Affiliate Parties, 4. “No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election.” There doesn’t appear to be any exception for fusion voting systems.

This issue came up recently with controversy over a local affiliate’s veteran leadership’s interest in endorsing various Republicans and Democrats. The issue is more complicated here: is the above provision binding on local affiliates chartered by the one state LP affiliate recognized by LPUS under Article 8, Section 3. “There shall be no more than one affiliate party in any one state…”?

I voted for allowing my local affiliate to endorse candidates affiliated with other parties thinking that it would be used rarely and not being aware of LPUS 8-4. I have changed my mind and am now against it, seeing as it can be a conflict of interest for LP leadership in trying to fill ballot positions with Libertarian candidates, and is probably against LPUS Bylaws.

If there is a candidate of another party suitably libertarian-leaning, the LP in that area can simply not put up an active candidate against the suitable one, and informally point out that suitable candidate’s libertarian leanings, such as LP Texas does for Ron Paul (elected Republican congressman, very libertarian-leaning and former LP presidential candidate).

The national by-laws distinguish between the candidate program and the platform for that reason, so this is hardly new. The US LP platform was designed for activists, advisory board members and citizen initiatives and referenda, not electoral candidates primarily: the new executive summary is for that if desired. This was the approach at FLPNY in the past, but I don’t know how it is now.

I don’t know enough about the situation and players involved but getting on the ballot seems to be the priority. The LP there can then later run state house or other candidates and get sufficient names to build organization as I discuss in in http://www.libertyforall.net/mg.html to make the issue permanently moot, no?

I like what a lot of what I see of Weld, but, as an outside observe, I’m not sure this is an astute move for the LPNY.

The other issue is that the LP is a single issue party, and it shouldnt be one. e need to expand the attack on not just government but corporate control over the people in areas of life. Big government and big corps go together and feed off each other.

I would think there would be alot of interest in the LP from people who never gave it a second thought if Mr. Weld gets the endorsement. Also there’s the possiblity that Mr. Weld may become educated about the LP and become a convinced Libertarian.
The New York state practice of cross endorsement or fusion as those of you not from New York call it doesn’t mean the candidate is a 100% supporter. It means there’s some agreement between the candidate and the party cross endorsing him/her.
The New York State Libertarin Party has been trying for over 30 years to get ballot position and failed.It’s time to try something different.
By the way I hold elected office in my town in upstate New York as a “third party” candidate so I know a little bit about practical politics and not just theory.

“’Libertarian’ is not a bad word in my lexicon,” he said, noting one of his favorite expressions is: “I want the government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom.”...Weld said he’d back medical marijuana…

This should be seen as a momentum builder. If the LP is to go mainstream this sounds like the place to start—this year. Weld might be the first of many disenfranchised Republicans looking for a party that is fiscally responsible and socially tolerant than the Bushites.

If Weld accepts the NY LP nomination, then Tarrant a US Senate candidate in Vermont might seek the VT LP nomination.—Tarrant is trying to distance himself from Bush. He is spending tens of millions of his own money do to so, and is running against Bernie Sanders (avowed socialist).

Better to have 30% chance of some libertarian policies put into effect on any isue than having none with the R or the D nominee.