From: [h--ge--p] at [cs.indiana.edu] (Paul Hager) Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs Subject: On the Campaign Trail -- Part 2 Date: 25 Aug 93 13:40:41 GMT On the Campaign Trail -- A Journal Part 2 SATURDAY, 21-AUGUST-1993 This evening I met with the Indiana state Libertarian Party leadership in the conference room of Laughner's Cafeteria. While I achieved my goal of receiving the blessing of the LP leadership, the meeting did have its bizarre aspects. What I had expected to ensue at this meeting was a discussion of what the LP considered to be "lead issues" and, perhaps a statement by me of my ideological bona fides. Instead, I got a long presentation on LP election strategy which amounted to, how not to win an election. After introducing myself and speaking briefly about my intention to run, a gentlemen, who I shall call the Theoretician, wanted to know who the incumbent in the 8th District was. Frank McCloskey, I said. The Theoretician then remarked that he knew that Frank usually won by only small margins and that it would be great if we could "knock him off" and throw the election to the Republican. He then described a "machiavellian" deal worked by a prominent Libertarian in Pennsylvania. This person was able to convince the Republicans in his district that if he ran he would preferentially drain off enough support from their candidate that he would lose the general election. His deal was to withdraw from the campaign and endorse the Republican with the stipulation that the Republican would vote 75% Libertarian on issues that came before him. The Theoretician said that the Republican had won and claimed that this deal had thus far held. I had been holding back while listening to this peroration but at its conclusion I burst out with, "I'm not in this race to lose." The Theoretician wanted to know how much money I intended to raise for the race. I said that I thought I could get by with $100K. He wanted to know how much McCloskey had spent in his last election -- I said, between $500K and $600K. He said, "Then you can't win -- you have to spend at least as much as your opponent to have a chance." I said that I figured that with my experience that I could run a much more cost-efficient campaign and take advantage of cheap cable TV in targeted local markets. I didn't lay out all of the potential ways I could buy or otherwise obtain media exposure but he began to see that there I did have a coherent media plan. He backed down somewhat from his earlier categorical dismissal of my chances. I then asked the Theoretician how much the last Libertarian candidate in the 8th had raised. The answer: about $5K! No wonder he only got 2% of the vote. I then told the Theoretician -- and the rest of the assemblage which by this time was listening to our discussion -- that I intended to build a coalition which would comprise a substantial chunk of the Perot people, the Brown people, disgruntled independents, and libertarian Republicans. The Theoretician said that the Indiana LP was "pragmatic" to the extent that we accept coalitions. The national LP apparently strives to remain ideologically pure and refuses to reach out to natural constituencies who may be maculate; who don't share the true and perfect vision of a libertarian society. If this is true, it's a hell of a way to "become THE majority party of the next century," as Andre Marrou was wont to say. Other people joined the conversation and we then began to discuss campaign mechanics such as ballot access. Steve Dillon, who was the LP candidate for Senate the last two elections is going to be running for Secretary of State in 1994. The ballot access laws in Indiana allow all parties that receive more than 2% in the previous election for Secretary of State to be listed on the ballot. Thus, if Steve gets over 2% in his bid, ALL Libertarian candidates will be listed on the ballot in the 1996 election. In the mean time, all of the LP candidates will have to petition to get on the ballot. I will need around 3K signatures with about another 50% to be safe. Steve will need a minimum of 30K but he already has over 20K so he is well on his way. For my part, I intend to get the ball rolling in the next few weeks with an eye toward qualifying for the ballot by early next year. After making arrangements for me to obtain the petition form in the next week or so, we engaged in social badinage for 10 or 15 minutes and then the meeting ended. MONDAY, 23-AUGUST-1993 I had my second meeting with the anti-NAFTA group. At this meeting it was decided to christen the group, "Coalition Against NAFTA." (I had broached the subject of NAFTA at the Indy Libertarian meeting and everyone there who expressed an opinion opposed it.) Once again, one of the union people in attendance gave an anti-NAFTA spiel. The main thrust of the meeting, for the union people, at least, was to put pressure on Frank McCloskey in order to get him to vote against NAFTA. Ultimately, however, they said they'd probably support him because he was their boy (not their words but that was the gist of it). After the union people made their declarations, one of the attendees said (as he had on the last occasion) that the group should consider other alternatives to McCloskey including 3rd parties. I spoke up and said that I'd be happy to discuss that option with anyone after the meeting. At the end of the meeting, I went over and spoke with the guy who had been promoting my cause. I introduced myself and thanked him for "pimping for me." He was favorably disposed toward my campaign. He decried the inability of some people -- notably the union people -- to break out of their McCloskey mindset. I circulated around and struck up a conversation with Lisa Seitz who had been a Brown delegate to the Democratic National Convention last year. I expressed my desire to meet with her and some of the others to explore whether or not they could support me in the coming election. She said that they would definitely set something up once the heat was off on the NAFTA campaign. We talked a little bit about issues, most of which we agreed on. I then decided it was time to lead with my chin. I said that there was one position I would take that she might have trouble with: the right to bear arms. I capsulized the main arguments -- emphasizing that I was approaching this from the perspective of a long-time member of the ACLU. As we were talking, someone suggested that the small group of people remaining (who were all former Brown people) should repair to J. Arthur's Tavern and continue there. At the tavern, I sat at a table with 3 couples. I got a chance to discuss my views on a number of issues that I thought would appeal to them. I presented my idea of repealing the income tax and replacing it with an excise tax. As I explained it, "Jerry only went half way -- I intend to go all the way." I stated that we had to end the drug war and move toward drug legalization in order to avoid a police state. Both of these went over very well. Then, I brought up the 2nd Amendment and RKBA. The reaction was chilly. As I was laying out a 9th Amendment analysis of the right to bear arms based upon the natural right to defend one's self, one young woman asked me my views on the death penalty. (I guess she hadn't heard that I was in the ACLU and was stereotyping me purely on the basis of my position on RKBA.) I responded to the interruption by saying that I opposed the death penalty chiefly because I didn't think that government should be entrusted with the power to kill citizens. That seemed to mollify her somewhat. I think this will prove to be the acid test. The people who I'm trying to attract to the inner circle of support will have to know who I am. They will have to understand the value I place upon honesty and the free exchange of ideas. They will have to accept that I will take some positions that differ from theirs. In the case of the Brown people, I suspect that many of them will be uncomfortable with my RKBA views. The Perot people will probably have trouble with my position on drug legalization. The bottom line is that if a winning coalition is to be assembled, people are going to have to accept the whole package. My job is to make the package as attractive as possible. -- paul hager [h--ge--p] at [moose.cs.indiana.edu] Hager for Congress, c/o Libertarian Party PO Box 636, Bloomington, IN 47402-636