He might win, and here is my latest article on the subject:

A Rigged ‘Scientific’ Poll
Deconstructed. Article by Rolf Lindgren.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/lindgren2.html

The earliest chance we have to do something about the problem, like it or not, is the convention. Electing new LNCers, who pledge to do something about the problem, is the only real fix. Regardless of whether they are Reformer or Radicals, I would hope that we can agree that anyone pledging to do so deserves our support.

Got anything relevant/interesting/amusing/useful to say?

Nope? Thought not.

Same old shit, I see.

otherwise, same old shit, I see. :/

http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=508

Right at the top Sean starts with “I’m currently serving on the Bylaws Committee of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina, and proposed that we adopt a Mission Statement copied from that adopted by the national party in convention in 1993.”

OK. What he’s referring to, apparently, is the piece of the Purpose Statement adopted in convention that he and a few others like to present as ‘the Mission Statement’. Someone not following too carefully or who is inclined to take a fellow activist at his word will (and did, I assure you) just assume that Sean (1) knew what he was talking about and/or (2) was being honest when he maintained that the national party does have an elections-centered Mission Statement.

This is either intellectual dishonesty or muddled thinking; I’ve little interest in deciding which. However, it should NOT be encouraged by the LNC, which is what they are doing by continuing to allow the non-existent so-called Mission Statement to be printed on every issue of the LP News by the staff.

If the history and veracity of the so-called Mission Statement are in doubt – and thank heavens at least most activists following along now at least acknowledge that much – then there can be no good argument for continuing to present this as an actual mission Statement until the matter is resolved. And there is a very compelling argument against it – that such repetition allows supporters of an elections-focused Mission Statement to imply that such a thing is already a ‘done deal’.

People voting at the convention will be told that the Bylaws change simply ‘brings the bylaws into compliance with the current Mission Statement’ – this is exactly what happened at the NC convention. Fortunately our delegates did not fall for it, but there’s simply no excuse to even foster the confusion.

I agree with you when you write that having a unofficial (or quasi-official or whatever) Mission Statement that only focuses on some of the Purpose is clearly incorrect, which is why I can’t see why you would not immediately agree that use of this “unofficial (or quasi-official or whatever) Mission Statement” should be immediately ceased until after the convention. Why wait? If it’s wrong to have something at odds with the purposes AFTER the convention, isn’t it just as wrong to have it BEFORE the convention?

Two possible outcomes exist:
1) The Purpose will be explicitly set as saying that the LP is a political party, focused on elected candidates. Then there is no contradiction with any Mission Statement, whether the existing statement’s existence is valid or not.

2) The Purpose will remain the same, vote failed, and then your issues can and should be addressed, since having a unofficial (or quasi-official or whatever) Mission Statement that only focuses on some of the Purpose is clearly incorrect.

My point is that unless and until the membership chooses a Mission Statement that is a subset of the current Bylaws Purposes statement, the LP staff should not ACT as if there is one.

This isn’t rocket science. Those favoring a restriction/focusing/whatever of the purpose statement are using their positions within the LP to create a de facto Mission Statement that was never chosen by the membership in direct contravention to what is in the Bylaws.

The staff should be directed by the LNC to stop acting as if such a Mission exists, and act instead as if they are following an organization that is run by member-approved Bylaws.

“Wait Until They Invade, Vote Libertarian!” – what a crock, Carl. Insulting to anyone that supports noninterventionism.

Dondero, it is my hope that Mr. Phillies and other LP candidates will offer liberventionist hawks like yourself a one-way ticket to Fallujah, a camo dunce cap, and a big bag of pig shit to snack on.

Steve argues:

“If our key goal isn’t to get people elected to public office, plenty of voters would have reason to feel defrauded.”

Maybe they wouldn’t feel defrauded if the LP didn’t give them false hope by making pie-in-the-sky predictions of likely victory. Perhaps a better approach would be to honestly recognize the position third parties have been relegated to in America and the traditional role they have played. At best, LP candidates serve as spoilers. A more realistic approach is to acknowledge that campaigns are about educating the public about issues.

Case in point: LP poster boy for electoral success Smither (who was running as a true conservative). A big fat loser who forgot to run as a true libertarian. Personally, I’d rather support a Republican (running as a true conservative) who espouses at least a few radical libertarian ideas.

I’d say most voters are more sophisticated than that. They vote third party as a protest vote; they’re not so deluded as to imagine their candidates might win. (Granted, many third party candidates may not be as sophisticated as the average, semi-literate voter.)

Stephen Gordon: “The goal of a general ideological organization is to have their goals enacted. The goal of an ideological political party is to have their goals enacted by electing its members to public office.”

So if someone broke into your house intending to kill your child, and you had no gun, just a hammer, you would say, “The goal of a hammer is to pound nails, not to act as a weapon, and so I cannot use this hammer to protect my family.”

A political party is a tool, to be used in whatever way is most useful.

To Dream, the impossible Dream…. To Fight, the unbeatable Foe…
To BEAR… with unbearable sorrow, to Run where the brave dare not Go….

Angela Quixote is my new nickname for you.

If you’re being mugged, and the crook asks you whether your wallet contains all of your money, do you tell him about the balance in your money belt? Is it “fraud” to answer in the affirmative?

We should use all ethical means of self-defense. There is nothing unethical about using the machinery in order to get more people to see it needs dismantling.

Lastly, from a practical standpoint, consider that the race we put the most resources into, is the one that is more certainly that any not going to be a “win”. And I’m glad that we do, because that race always brings in new blood.