How did Harry do on "Meet The Press" ?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

libert...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 22, 2000, 10:53:16 PM10/22/00
to
I missed "Meet The Press" this morning due to a power outage in the SF
Bay Area. How did the interview with Harry go?


http://maxpages.com/statistcongame


L1


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Donald B. Ramage

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
I thought Harry did great, as usual. He has a knack for speaking
quickly in the limited time he is given, yet he is very clear, and his
message is succinct. This time I heard Phillips and Hagelin saying
things I hadn't heard before, which made Harry the candidate, and the
LP, the party of choice.


Henry Blaskowski

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
In talk.politics.libertarian libert...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I missed "Meet The Press" this morning due to a power outage in the SF
> Bay Area. How did the interview with Harry go?

I thought he did well. Russert tried to make each of them look
like extremists by taking the most radical part of each platform.
For the most part, Browne did well to diffuse this, although his
harping on 'America never being free again' probably turned off a lot
of voters. That's LP rhetoric, and doesn't connect with regular
people who think they are pretty free already.

I thought Browne came off looking the best of the 3. Haeglin looked
like a cro-magnon throwback. Phillips did pretty well, and I don't
think they pinned his radical TM-ism on him, so that he sounded
pretty reasonable. But Browne did a much better job explaining
LP posistions than I've seen him do in the past. Too bad he had
to add the rhetorical flourish each time to show why he's not on
the radar screen.

nde_...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
In article <8t096q$2e6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

libert...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I missed "Meet The Press" this morning due to a power outage in the
SF
> Bay Area. How did the interview with Harry go?

I got up really early but for some reason I missed it too.
However, if you are interested there is a complete transcript
at <http://www.msnbc.com/news/479997.asp>

Henry Blaskowski

unread,
Oct 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/23/00
to
In talk.politics.libertarian Jeffrey Quick <j...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> In article <8t1pfu$22q0$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>, Henry Blaskowski
> <hbl...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote:

>> I thought Browne came off looking the best of the 3. Haeglin looked
>> like a cro-magnon throwback. Phillips did pretty well, and I don't
>> think they pinned his radical TM-ism on him, so that he sounded
>> pretty reasonable.

> Sure you didn't confuse those two?

Of course I did... sorry about that.

Stan Rothwell

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to

"Donald B. Ramage" <spa...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:39F442B3...@datasync.com...

Personally, I think Harry is a good guy, just like Ron Paul.
However, the LP is spinning its wheels pretending to have
him run for president. If I were involved with their party,
I would concentrate more on the local candidates and issues,
gain recognition and build the party up from there. If the LP
wants to make a real impact, they could then concentrate on
local races and Congressional districts where the GOP
doesn't stand a chance in hell, and provide some real choice.
If they could gain 30+ Congressional seats in the next 6-8
years, they could form a big enough "swing bloc" to at least
make some impact at the national level.

I'm sure I'll catch flak from the third party types for
my assessment, but it's not like I shy away from
controvery in this NG... :Oo

Stan Rothwell

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to

"Rickpa" <thub...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:55uJ5.22221$rD3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Actually the Libertarian Party has candidates in over half the nation's
> congressional districts, quite a few senate races, plus numerous
statewide,
> county, and local races. I believe we have a couple hundred L.P. office
> holders on the local, and a few even in state legislators.
> So there!

I am quite aware what the LP has (and have voted for a
few on occasion). I'm just pointing out the fact that those
in the party (who I HOPE would know something about
economics) don't have unlimited resources, and can't afford
to squander efforts on all fronts. I'm suggesting that a more
modest, well-considered plan may be in the party's best
long-term interest.

So there!!! :O|

Rickpa

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 1:21:05 AM10/25/00
to

Liberty or Death

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 1:31:13 AM10/25/00
to
Phillips is a good, intelligent man. His only problem is that he wants to
legislate morality and impose Christianity on the nation.

Hagelin stands for nothing.

Browne is the shit, but, of course, has no hope of winning. :(


<libert...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8t096q$2e6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

apple

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to

Stan Rothwell wrote:

> "Rickpa" <thub...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:55uJ5.22221$rD3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

apple

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to

Stan Rothwell wrote:

> "Donald B. Ramage" <spa...@datasync.com> wrote in message
> news:39F442B3...@datasync.com...
> > I thought Harry did great, as usual. He has a knack for speaking
> > quickly in the limited time he is given, yet he is very clear, and his
> > message is succinct. This time I heard Phillips and Hagelin saying
> > things I hadn't heard before, which made Harry the candidate, and the
> > LP, the party of choice.
>
> Personally, I think Harry is a good guy, just like Ron Paul.
> However, the LP is spinning its wheels pretending to have
> him run for president.

There are some good reasons for running a presidential candidate:
1. In a lot of states permanent ballot access and thus status as a
"major party" are linked to presidential vote. No candidate means
eternal petition collecting just to keep from losing ground.
2. The Prez candidate can get *some* national attention. No local
candidate can. Thats a unique and valuable opportunity to spread the
libertarian message.
3. The Prez can help local candidates get press. If you're a libertarian
running for Congress good luck getting press coverage. But if the Prez
candidate comes into town and holds a rally with you(which happens everywhere
Browne goes) then you can get a picture and an article in the paper.
4. The libertarian Prez has 'big coattails'. That is to say once you've bought into
the libertarian paradigm you are very likely to vote libertarian at every level you vote in.

> If I were involved with their party,
> I would concentrate more on the local candidates and issues,
> gain recognition and build the party up from there.

I hear this a lot and my response is that's exactly what we are doing.
We have 1430 candidates running this year, the vast
majority of those are city or countywide races. We currently have a
little over 300 officeholders, more than all other 3rd parties combined.
My county's LP meets a couple of times a month, we show up at gun shows
and pass out literature about how the GOP has abandoned the 2nd amendment
in favor of 'sensible'(and unconstitutional) gun control and how the LP is THE ONLY
100% pro RKBA party, we lobby hard against new bond initiatives that will raise local taxes,
we hang out at the post office on tax day handing out flyers with the LP's position on the income tax,
we come and speak at hearings on new local regs, making sure that a contrarian voice is always
heard. When the cops busted into the house of an elderly black couple and gave the husband a
fatal heart attack because they thought they had drugs the local media didn't care less but we took
up the cause and made a lot of friends in the black community.
As for building the party from the bottom up I agree. In fact I have a pet theory about it.
There are basically 5 levels of elective government.
1. Local
2. Statehouse
3. the US House
4. Senators & Governors
5. the Presidency
Parties grow in the form of a pyramid and it takes a dozen or so officeholders
in each level to advance '1' to the next highest. So in order to have a realistic chance
of winning the presidency we have to have as many officeholders that we have now for the
entire country in each individual state. That means lots of local action, never letting a seat
go uncontested, yadda yadda.... We don't have a real chance of winning the presidency
for decades.

> If the LP
> wants to make a real impact, they could then concentrate on
> local races and Congressional districts where the GOP
> doesn't stand a chance in hell, and provide some real choice.
> If they could gain 30+ Congressional seats in the next 6-8
> years, they could form a big enough "swing bloc" to at least
> make some impact at the national level.

Well yes, IF we could that would be great, but that's unrealistic.
We might conceivably get 1, possibly 2 seats in that time.
The good news is once we start to win we'll benefit from the 'snowball effect'.
Progress will come faster and more easily as we go along

> I'm sure I'll catch flak from the third party types for
> my assessment, but it's not like I shy away from
> controvery in this NG... :Oo

If you're catching flak it just means you are over the target.
But seriously the only thing folks in here get really worked up about
is the old 'a vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for Gore' mantra.

alan-...@nospam.swcp.com

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
In article <8t5onl$atu$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,

Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Personally, I think Harry is a good guy, just like Ron Paul.
>However, the LP is spinning its wheels pretending to have
>him run for president. If I were involved with their party,

>I would concentrate more on the local candidates and issues,
>gain recognition and build the party up from there. If the LP

>wants to make a real impact, they could then concentrate on
>local races and Congressional districts where the GOP
>doesn't stand a chance in hell, and provide some real choice.
>If they could gain 30+ Congressional seats in the next 6-8
>years, they could form a big enough "swing bloc" to at least
>make some impact at the national level.

I can certainly see where you are coming from here, but
I think you have a wrong assumption. Harry Browne isn't,
and never has, run for US President. He's running for
exposure for the LP! One person running for US President
gets more exposure than everyone else put together, and
though Harry Browne isn't going to get elected (we all
know that), he will likely be responsible for getting
a lot of the local guys elected.

--alan

Name Full - Full Name

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 21:51:33 -0400, "Stan Rothwell"
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>"Donald B. Ramage" <spa...@datasync.com> wrote in message
>news:39F442B3...@datasync.com...
>> I thought Harry did great, as usual. He has a knack for speaking
>> quickly in the limited time he is given, yet he is very clear, and his
>> message is succinct. This time I heard Phillips and Hagelin saying
>> things I hadn't heard before, which made Harry the candidate, and the
>> LP, the party of choice.
>

>Personally, I think Harry is a good guy, just like Ron Paul.
>However, the LP is spinning its wheels pretending to have
>him run for president. If I were involved with their party,
>I would concentrate more on the local candidates and issues,
>gain recognition and build the party up from there. If the LP
>wants to make a real impact, they could then concentrate on
>local races and Congressional districts where the GOP
>doesn't stand a chance in hell, and provide some real choice.
>If they could gain 30+ Congressional seats in the next 6-8
>years, they could form a big enough "swing bloc" to at least
>make some impact at the national level.
>

>I'm sure I'll catch flak from the third party types for
>my assessment, but it's not like I shy away from
>controvery in this NG... :Oo
>

Why would you catch flak for that? A number of people feel that way.
But if people really feel that way, they will become locally active on
their own, running for local positions.

>
>


Neonews

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 8:30:02 PM10/26/00
to
Very good! Harry knows he can't win because most people have grown up in a
socialist society that influences everything in their lives. It is hard to
think about a government that doesn't control everything. There is
definitely a place for government, but the question is: How much should it
control? Libertarians think it controls way too much. Democrats think it
controls way too little. Republicans "say" gov't controls too much but then
does everything in its power to control as much as possible because they
"think" that's the "best" way to get votes. The Democrats are Socialists.
The Republicans are whores. And the Libertarian Party can't get elected
because they don't offer enough "goodies. People haven't learned to trust
themselves yet and still want gov't to give them "more" than what they've
earned.

<alan-...@NOSPAM.swcp.com> wrote in message
news:8t7bqi$on7$1...@sloth.swcp.com...


> In article <8t5onl$atu$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >

> >Personally, I think Harry is a good guy, just like Ron Paul.
> >However, the LP is spinning its wheels pretending to have
> >him run for president. If I were involved with their party,
> >I would concentrate more on the local candidates and issues,
> >gain recognition and build the party up from there. If the LP
> >wants to make a real impact, they could then concentrate on
> >local races and Congressional districts where the GOP
> >doesn't stand a chance in hell, and provide some real choice.
> >If they could gain 30+ Congressional seats in the next 6-8
> >years, they could form a big enough "swing bloc" to at least
> >make some impact at the national level.
>

David Faerber

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 10:03:34 PM10/26/00
to
What the hell are you talking about?
Liberty or Death <votefor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:#oe#bRkPAHA.254@cpmsnbbsa07...

M. Simon

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 2:59:34 AM10/27/00
to
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 05:21:05 GMT, "Rickpa" <thub...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Actually the Libertarian Party has candidates in over half the nation's
>congressional districts,

245

>quite a few senate races,

22

>plus numerous statewide,county, and local races.

greater than 1,100

> I believe we have a couple hundred L.P. office
>holders on the local, and a few even in state legislators.
>So there!

A mayor or two as well.

M. Simon Space-Time Productions http://www.spacetimepro.com
Free CNC Machine Control Software
Free Source Code
Control the World From a Parallel Port

M. Simon

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 3:02:06 AM10/27/00
to
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:13:35 -0400, "Stan Rothwell"
<roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>"Rickpa" <thub...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:55uJ5.22221$rD3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

>I am quite aware what the LP has (and have voted for a
>few on occasion). I'm just pointing out the fact that those
>in the party (who I HOPE would know something about
>economics) don't have unlimited resources, and can't afford
>to squander efforts on all fronts. I'm suggesting that a more
>modest, well-considered plan may be in the party's best
>long-term interest.
>
>So there!!! :O|


National television exposure is nothing to sneeze at.

It all helps.

And Harry is drawing new activists. Just what is needed for party
building.

If you have a better plan impliment it. Love to see it work.

M. Simon

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 3:10:19 AM10/27/00
to

>> If the LP
>> wants to make a real impact, they could then concentrate on
>> local races and Congressional districts where the GOP
>> doesn't stand a chance in hell, and provide some real choice.
>> If they could gain 30+ Congressional seats in the next 6-8
>> years, they could form a big enough "swing bloc" to at least
>> make some impact at the national level.
>
>Well yes, IF we could that would be great, but that's unrealistic.
>We might conceivably get 1, possibly 2 seats in that time.

You are too pessimistic. We will win one Libertarian House seat in
2002.

Possibly this year even.

And there is the Republican Liberty Caucus to form coalitions with.

>The good news is once we start to win we'll benefit from the 'snowball effect'.
>Progress will come faster and more easily as we go along

True.

>> I'm sure I'll catch flak from the third party types for
>> my assessment, but it's not like I shy away from
>> controvery in this NG... :Oo
>

>If you're catching flak it just means you are over the target.
>But seriously the only thing folks in here get really worked up about
>is the old 'a vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for Gore' mantra.

A vote for anyone but Harry is a vote for tyranny.

Liberty or Death

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 11:39:46 PM10/26/00
to

David Faerber <dfae...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Wn5K5.125428$g6.57...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...

> What the hell are you talking about?

Are you really that lost???

David Faerber

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 11:28:01 PM10/27/00
to
no, but you must be

Liberty or Death <votefor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uPoKkf8PAHA.327@cpmsnbbsa09...

Liberty or Death

unread,
Oct 27, 2000, 11:48:24 PM10/27/00
to

David Faerber <dfae...@home.com> wrote in message
news:5JrK5.129203$g6.59...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...

> no, but you must be

Explain, fool...

Liberty or Death

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 4:51:25 PM10/28/00
to
Question : What state did the LP *not* get on the ballot in? And did they
get on the ballot in DC (not that it matters...)?

Jackson Harvey

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 5:02:30 PM10/28/00
to
Liberty or Death wrote:

> Question : What state did the LP *not* get on the ballot in? And did they
> get on the ballot in DC (not that it matters...)?

They got on the ballot in all states, but in one state the candidate is not
Harry Browne. I don't know about DC, though.

Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian

havoc

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 5:04:41 PM10/28/00
to
In article <39FB3EE6...@tc.umn.edu>, harv...@tc.umn.edu says...

>
>Liberty or Death wrote:
>
>> Question : What state did the LP *not* get on the ballot in? And did they
>> get on the ballot in DC (not that it matters...)?
>
>They got on the ballot in all states, but in one state the candidate is not
>Harry Browne. I don't know about DC, though.
I think the 'one state' is AZ.
>
>Jackson Harvey
>"moderate" Libertarian
>
>
>

Liberty or Death

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 6:04:30 PM10/28/00
to

Jackson Harvey <harv...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:39FB3EE6...@tc.umn.edu...

> Liberty or Death wrote:
>
> > Question : What state did the LP *not* get on the ballot in? And did
they
> > get on the ballot in DC (not that it matters...)?
>
> They got on the ballot in all states, but in one state the candidate is
not
> Harry Browne. I don't know about DC, though.

In that one state (which state?), who is the candidate???

How did that happen???

>
> Jackson Harvey
> "moderate" Libertarian
>
>
>


Jackson Harvey

unread,
Oct 28, 2000, 6:49:19 PM10/28/00
to
Liberty or Death wrote:

> In that one state (which state?), who is the candidate???
>
> How did that happen???

IIRC, the answers are Arizona, Smith, and intra-party politics.

Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian


Joe and Jackie Muha

unread,
Oct 29, 2000, 8:38:33 AM10/29/00
to
Actually,
The LP is on the ballot in AZ, but Harry is not the LPAZ candidate. Smith
is.

--

Get Paid to surf the web, like we do.
Go to:
http://www.alladvantage.com
and reference our account: HJU-957
Who is Harry Browne and why should you vote for him?
http://www.harrybrown2000.org/
Joe and Jackie Muha
Bella Vista, AR

"Jackson Harvey" <harv...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message

news:39FB57EF...@tc.umn.edu...

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages