During an interview with a Star reporter I was asked if I would ever consider running as a Republican.
My response was that I would only do so with the blessing of both the LPIN and GOP.
The Star condensed my comments giving a false impression, the rumors spread (your post being a typical), and trying to lay them to rest has been impossible.
If need be I am willing to take a polygraph test.
If you care to read my views on the GOP, copy/paste this link: http://xgop.blogspot.com/
For so many years, the Libertarians were the kooks on the outside. Now we have the ear of a lot of people. To say we're Libertarian but could be (another party) only adds the confusion. It gives and unsure voter cover to say, "well, if s/he is going Republican anyway, why not vote Rep in the first place." But thanks for the give-and-take Ken! As for "the scribe"...when did honest and pointed conversation becomes bombs for the outside? Did I say, "to hell with you Ken?" NO! I said take issue. Sound likes you're not sure what we true Libertarians stand for!
Sometimes I wonder if the disinformation is intentional.
Unfortunately there are some libertarians who challenge one's credentials as a dishonest effort to discredit those they don't like.
It's silly and immature, but can be devastating, nonetheless.
Example: A few months ago I took issue with banks that lie to customers. A fellow libertarian in Indy, one of a clique that perennially have me in their Cross hairs, spun my views as being anti-free market. My sound bite "Government should be the referee, not the coach and not the player" was spun out of context by the same as was my appeal to Republicans that "The Libertarian Party is more Republican than the GOP."
A more recent effort was made to shut me out of the anti-property tax iniative. I basically been shut out of any real involvement.
When will this crap stop?
Probably never. Sad. I prefer to be on the front lines; just can't tolerate the "friendly" fire in the backside.
Now you have the ear of a lot of people? Who are you kidding besides yourself?
Look, I have a lot of respect for a lot of people in that "party" but to delude yourself into thinking that you are players in any sense of the word is laughable at best. Once you break into double digits in any serious campaign, come back and talk to me.
The fact is the majority of your "party" falls into two distinct categories:
1)Those who feel tainted by actually participating in the system, and would rather do things like hold tax-day rallies and put up signs, but refuse to engage in any meaningful dialog. In fact, they feel they would be corrupted in some way by serious engagement.
2) Those who see an opportunity to be very big fish in a very small pond. We used to refer to this as the "Mark Schrieber Plan", as that was the perfect example of someone who saw the chance to further his own personal ambitions and ego in an obviously weak organization.
You guys freak when anyone might actually get elected and be a part of the very process you rail against.
After all, it's really hard to attack the system once you are part of it, right?
Unfortunately, gay activists within the LPIN have sought to marginalize some who lack their militant fervency.
That's unfortunate.
The LPIN has long been unique among state affiliates in its ability to remain cohesive while other organizations fragmented along lines of disagreement.
Scribe- Mr. Rutherford has a list of the elected partisan Libertarian office holders on this blog. The numbers of LPIN candidates who have broken double digits is too numerous to list.
The issue of viability is not in question with LPIN candidates. It is an issue that each individual voter must reconcile themself, in the voting booth. We are as viable as the voters cause us to be.
Mike, I said "serious campaign", not any campaign.
Electing people to non-partisan offices and small town city councils doesn't quite register on the radar. You really can't consider those to be serious victories, especially after 25+ years.
Listen, I'm not trying to be disrespectful or insulting in any manner. I'm just trying to point out the obvious, and that is the LP (nationally or statewide) is not a serious player on the political scene. My contention is simply that it doesn't want to be.
Scribe - If our party is still marginal, why are you in this forum and why are you commenting? It can only be because the grown up parties have marginalized your voice. In that case, welcome. You've tried to touch on so many points that it leads me to believe you're looking for just anywhere to go off. Now that I think about it, your voice is marginal, is trivial.
And Ken, please don't take this down the gay route. Quite honestly (and I'm just going by the first comment you made and trying to understand it based on how it is written), if we're not 100% dedicated to showing our party's worth and value, all the time, then we shouldn't be trying at all. To gay side is militant because they believe in fighting for their equality. We should be militant in fighting for our party.
And now, based on my last comment, maybe the scribe isn't too far off.
I've never questioned the human rights of anyone, including gays.
I objective, however, to any group insisting that, if I don't embrace their philosophy, I am someone opposed to their rights.
The KKK has rights; but far be it from me to embrace their agenda. If they choose to label me a klanaphobe, so be it.
Unfortunately, my refusal to embrace the gay agenda has placed me squarely in the Cross hairs of some gay libertarians (and many non-libertarians), in spite of my consistent support of human rights.
That's unfortunate.
The truth is, the gay lifestyle is harmful. If gays -- including some loved ones -- choose to participate in that lifestyle, that is their inherent right.
I fear there is a decided bias against those of us who sympathize with evangelicalism and still believe, as the gay agenda prescribed in 1990's, that AIDS and HIV is a serious health threat.
Does that make be a homophobe? Do I deserve to be nudged out of the libertarian movement?
I am growing wearing of the gay apologists labeling me "homophobe" and "intolerant" simply because I have an opinion that differs from their opinions.
Rob thanks for your concern, but it is unwarranted. My voice isn't marginalized in any way, as I can count on a number of public officials I have helped get elected over the years. Any time I feel I need to express a point in person (versus through my blog) I can pick up the phone and contact any number of people and express it. They would be names that are familiar to you, no doubt.
Does anyone else think it's odd that Kenn Gividen rarely bothers to pay his taxes (a quick Lexis search reveals SEVERAL liens against him and his wife) but complains about alleged tax increases? It doesn't hold much water for a guy who pathetically shirks his responsibility to his state and country. He also lost a court judgement to Bartholomew County School Corporation--wonder if that's why he's got such a disdain for education.
A lying tongue hates those it hurts... — Proverbs 26:28
Actually I'm drawing fire from militant gay extremists for publishing the health risk associated with the homosexual lifestyle on my web site, http://www.endiana.com
I pay a CPA to handle my taxes for me, have cancelled checks and copies of 1040s etc.
That the militant gaysters would go back 15 or so years and find a $35 dispute over text book fees as the worst skelleton in my closet is quite an honor.
They launch similar hate attacks on Eric Miller, taking advantage of his divorce (ancient history) to plunder his reputation.
All this in spite of consistently defending human rights — including gays and others involved in hurtful lifestyles.
It isn't working. Nor will it.
A close friend from my late teens moved to San Francisco to live openly gay. He died of AIDS before he turned 30. I have close loved ones who are immersed in the homosexual liestyle.
If I hated gays, I would be quiet and allow them to self-destruct. Sorry, I won't do that.
16 comments:
Ken - I still have problems with you when you run as a Libertarian but say you'll turn Republican if elected.
During an interview with a Star reporter I was asked if I would ever consider running as a Republican.
My response was that I would only do so with the blessing of both the LPIN and GOP.
The Star condensed my comments giving a false impression, the rumors spread (your post being a typical), and trying to lay them to rest has been impossible.
If need be I am willing to take a polygraph test.
If you care to read my views on the GOP, copy/paste this link:
http://xgop.blogspot.com/
Pretty sad how the LPIN does such a good job of destroying any of it's potentially viable candidates.
Just ask Phil Miller.
Are you people that paranoid of actually winning something that you're willing to destroy any hopes of candidates actually capable of winning?
Is it really that much safer to sit on the sidelines and throw bombs from a distance?
For so many years, the Libertarians were the kooks on the outside. Now we have the ear of a lot of people. To say we're Libertarian but could be (another party) only adds the confusion. It gives and unsure voter cover to say, "well, if s/he is going Republican anyway, why not vote Rep in the first place." But thanks for the give-and-take Ken! As for "the scribe"...when did honest and pointed conversation becomes bombs for the outside? Did I say, "to hell with you Ken?" NO! I said take issue. Sound likes you're not sure what we true Libertarians stand for!
Rob -- You're welcome.
Sometimes I wonder if the disinformation is intentional.
Unfortunately there are some libertarians who challenge one's credentials as a dishonest effort to discredit those they don't like.
It's silly and immature, but can be devastating, nonetheless.
Example: A few months ago I took issue with banks that lie to customers. A fellow libertarian in Indy, one of a clique that perennially have me in their Cross hairs, spun my views as being anti-free market. My sound bite "Government should be the referee, not the coach and not the player" was spun out of context by the same as was my appeal to Republicans that "The Libertarian Party is more Republican than the GOP."
A more recent effort was made to shut me out of the anti-property tax iniative. I basically been shut out of any real involvement.
When will this crap stop?
Probably never. Sad. I prefer to be on the front lines; just can't tolerate the "friendly" fire in the backside.
Now you have the ear of a lot of people? Who are you kidding besides yourself?
Look, I have a lot of respect for a lot of people in that "party" but to delude yourself into thinking that you are players in any sense of the word is laughable at best. Once you break into double digits in any serious campaign, come back and talk to me.
The fact is the majority of your "party" falls into two distinct categories:
1)Those who feel tainted by actually participating in the system, and would rather do things like hold tax-day rallies and put up signs, but refuse to engage in any meaningful dialog. In fact, they feel they would be corrupted in some way by serious engagement.
2) Those who see an opportunity to be very big fish in a very small pond. We used to refer to this as the "Mark Schrieber Plan", as that was the perfect example of someone who saw the chance to further his own personal ambitions and ego in an obviously weak organization.
You guys freak when anyone might actually get elected and be a part of the very process you rail against.
After all, it's really hard to attack the system once you are part of it, right?
Scribe,
Unfortunately, gay activists within the LPIN have sought to marginalize some who lack their militant fervency.
That's unfortunate.
The LPIN has long been unique among state affiliates in its ability to remain cohesive while other organizations fragmented along lines of disagreement.
Together we stand. Fractured we fall.
We're fractured.
Scribe- Mr. Rutherford has a list of the elected partisan Libertarian office holders on this blog. The numbers of LPIN candidates who have broken double digits is too numerous to list.
The issue of viability is not in question with LPIN candidates. It is an issue that each individual voter must reconcile themself, in the voting booth. We are as viable as the voters cause us to be.
Mike, I said "serious campaign", not any campaign.
Electing people to non-partisan offices and small town city councils doesn't quite register on the radar. You really can't consider those to be serious victories, especially after 25+ years.
Listen, I'm not trying to be disrespectful or insulting in any manner. I'm just trying to point out the obvious, and that is the LP (nationally or statewide) is not a serious player on the political scene. My contention is simply that it doesn't want to be.
Scribe - If our party is still marginal, why are you in this forum and why are you commenting? It can only be because the grown up parties have marginalized your voice. In that case, welcome. You've tried to touch on so many points that it leads me to believe you're looking for just anywhere to go off. Now that I think about it, your voice is marginal, is trivial.
And Ken, please don't take this down the gay route. Quite honestly (and I'm just going by the first comment you made and trying to understand it based on how it is written), if we're not 100% dedicated to showing our party's worth and value, all the time, then we shouldn't be trying at all. To gay side is militant because they believe in fighting for their equality. We should be militant in fighting for our party.
And now, based on my last comment, maybe the scribe isn't too far off.
Rob,
Thanks for your comments.
I've never questioned the human rights of anyone, including gays.
I objective, however, to any group insisting that, if I don't embrace their philosophy, I am someone opposed to their rights.
The KKK has rights; but far be it from me to embrace their agenda. If they choose to label me a klanaphobe, so be it.
Unfortunately, my refusal to embrace the gay agenda has placed me squarely in the Cross hairs of some gay libertarians (and many non-libertarians), in spite of my consistent support of human rights.
That's unfortunate.
The truth is, the gay lifestyle is harmful. If gays -- including some loved ones -- choose to participate in that lifestyle, that is their inherent right.
I fear there is a decided bias against those of us who sympathize with evangelicalism and still believe, as the gay agenda prescribed in 1990's, that AIDS and HIV is a serious health threat.
Does that make be a homophobe? Do I deserve to be nudged out of the libertarian movement?
I am growing wearing of the gay apologists labeling me "homophobe" and "intolerant" simply because I have an opinion that differs from their opinions.
That is the essence of bigotry.
-- Cheers
Rob thanks for your concern, but it is unwarranted. My voice isn't marginalized in any way, as I can count on a number of public officials I have helped get elected over the years. Any time I feel I need to express a point in person (versus through my blog) I can pick up the phone and contact any number of people and express it. They would be names that are familiar to you, no doubt.
Does anyone else think it's odd that Kenn Gividen rarely bothers to pay his taxes (a quick Lexis search reveals SEVERAL liens against him and his wife) but complains about alleged tax increases? It doesn't hold much water for a guy who pathetically shirks his responsibility to his state and country. He also lost a court judgement to Bartholomew County School Corporation--wonder if that's why he's got such a disdain for education.
Nice hatchet job against a man who probably did more for your party than any candidate in the last ten years.
Takes a lot of class to so such a thing anonymously as well. I'm shocked that Mark would leave this comment up.
A lying tongue hates those it hurts... — Proverbs 26:28
Actually I'm drawing fire from militant gay extremists for publishing the health risk associated with the homosexual lifestyle on my web site, http://www.endiana.com
I pay a CPA to handle my taxes for me, have cancelled checks and copies of 1040s etc.
That the militant gaysters would go back 15 or so years and find a $35 dispute over text book fees as the worst skelleton in my closet is quite an honor.
They launch similar hate attacks on Eric Miller, taking advantage of his divorce (ancient history) to plunder his reputation.
All this in spite of consistently defending human rights — including gays and others involved in hurtful lifestyles.
It isn't working. Nor will it.
A close friend from my late teens moved to San Francisco to live openly gay. He died of AIDS before he turned 30. I have close loved ones who are immersed in the homosexual liestyle.
If I hated gays, I would be quiet and allow them to self-destruct. Sorry, I won't do that.
Post a Comment