The Continuing Self-Destruction of the Libertarian Party 
For starters, I'll have to admit to a degree of ignorance regarding the recent events within my party of choice for these past thirty-five years. Though I've almost always voted for LP candidates come election day, I haven't belonged, nor been particularly active in the Party since after Roger MacBride's candidacy in 1976. Neither did I have the time and money to go chasing around the country to attend meetings and conventions, nor did ol' career builder me have the inclination to do so.
Standing at a long arm's length from the Party for these past many years, I often read of such things as political infighting, rule breaking and financial abuses in the upper offices. There were a number of embarrassing fiascoes highlighted by the attempted Presidential candidacy of radio talker Howard Stern, and the virtual "food fight" that was that year's nomination convention.
I was always a fan of the "Pledge," the signing of which was a a requirement for many years. It's also been controversial for almost as many years. many so-called libertarians in the Party wanted to do away with the Pledge, to make the Party more inclusive.
It was a deal breaker for me. If a prospective member can't honestly take that Pledge, then he's no libertarian. Period. Having recently thought of recommitting myself to the Party, I've heard that they, in fact, have withdrawn the requirement to sign the Pledge. Until that decision is reconsidered, I won't be involving myself.
I will still, however, continue to vote for LP candidates I find significantly more palatable than those of the two branches of the Boot On Your Neck Party.
A recent event has come to my attention, though, which will require some study and thought. Seems one of the candidates for the nomination for President has allegedly made some snide distortions of a statement of another candidate, regarding child pornography. This, we cannot have.
Candidates vying for the right to run for any office under the label, "Libertarian Party" must argue their differences honestly and honorably. When I find whether or not this candidate has distorted the truth, I'll make it public in a subsequent post. Anyone who will stoop that low to secure the party's nomination belongs with the Democrats or Republicans, where that sort of thing is normal.
Politics, when there's money to be stolen, is the home of thieves.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag
Monday, April 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would think that any Conservative minded person, member of the LP or not wouldn't mind signing such a statement.
"I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN OR ADVOCATE THE INITIATION OF FORCE AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING POLITICAL OR SOCIAL GOALS"
Now, don't count on too many Democrats to line up with a pen in hand.
Unrelated to your article; what's up with word verification? It's like chicken scratch on drugs and more than difficult to decode.
TF,
I don't understand it, either. I signed on to it in 1972, and have never regretted it, though I'm not a member of the party at the moment.
As for the word verification, I never see mine, but I often have trouble with it on other sites. Sometimes, you just can't separate the letters. Before I started it, I used to get some pretty strange stuff in my comments.
Post a Comment