No offense, but your arguments aren't quite strong enough to worry about you getting the last word in these folks' inbox. But for the record:
Starchild wrote:
SC) It's more clear than ever that the LNC packed the Platform Committee with people desiring a watered-down platform. (SC
BH) If that's true, then LNC also picked a Chair who helped me stop them. (BH
SC) You imply here that you were siding with those of us trying to stop the removal of the most hard-hitting, controversial parts of the platform. (SC
Since you've never answered my oft-repeated question to you of what important principle is missing from the PlatCom's draft, I just assumed your silence meant you agreed it wasn't "watered down". Feel free to correct my assumption.
I do agree that the LRC Short A/B drafts would "water down" the platform, and that's why I opposed them.
SC) It is my impression that you (and Alicia?) were simply trying to ensure that the "reformist" proposals coming out of the Platform Committee would not be so anti-radical as to fail to secure a 2/3rds majority of delegate votes. (SC
Your impression is wrong. In fact, I was trying to ensure that the PlatCom's proposal was as close to my radical EcoLibertarian Manifesto as I could make it and yet still get approval from PlatCom and NatCon. Unfortunately, neither PlatCom nor NatCon -- nor you -- are ready for a platform that pure and that radical. But I have hope for all of you.
SC) In other words, the folks who wanted to water down the platform liked your approach just fine. (SC
Ah, so whatever a "reformer" agrees to must be wrong. Well, that certainly saves you from a lot of burdensome thinking. :-)
SC) And here you are, still trying to tinker with the packed PlatCom's proposals in order to maximize your chances of securing the 2/3rds (SC
I'm trying to maximize the chances that the LP leaves Denver with a comprehensive Platform.
SC) You would be more honest, by the way, to continue to call your proposals the "Directional Platform" as you apparently did at the outset, instead of this more recently adopted "Pure Principles" label (SC
I originally favored the name Greatest Hits. Our subcommittee was called Directional Principles, but when we decided to forego all novel language, we started calling it "Pure" Principles, to emphasize that it strives to be purely recycled and 100% principle, 0% implementation detail.
