[Lnc-business] Previous Notice - Constructive Candidate Portrayal

Mon Dec 8 04:51:32 EST 2014

Top 10 reasons why I oppose this policy proposal:

10. The voters do not read our policy manual.

Our press relations should be guided by a rational and effective
strategy based on what can successfully enhance the brand and our
image in the national media, not by our own internal politics.

9.  Showing our candidates are making a difference can be good P.R.

There is a saying: "There is no such thing as bad publicity".  This is
certainly an over-statement, but the fact is that being ignored can be
worse than being viewed as an irritant.  It is good to be noticed.
Remember the adage: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win."  We need to keep moving away from
steps 1 and 2.

8.  Candidates are important when we help an authoritarian incumbent
get rejected by the people.

Richard Cordray was the Democratic incumbent Ohio Attorney General in
2010.  He was instrumental in the state taking lakefront property by
eminent domain and winning the right for Ohio police to give speeding
tickets by sight alone.  He also took $50,000 in campaign
contributions from New York lawyers to whom he sent millions of
dollars of Ohio legal work.  He lost the election 46% to 47%.  I
sincerely believe had I not run, and received 3% of the vote, he would
have won re-election, and had a good shot at Governor, and perhaps
President.  Now he is a loser, and I am proud of my role.  That is
part of the reason I am here.
http://ballotpedia.org/Richard_Cordray

7.  What is good P.R for the party should be determined by the voters
and the candidates, not the LNC.

P.R. is not just to win elections.  We need to establish our brand and
enhance our image in the public.  Part of this is to recruit and
retain excellent candidates.  I do not think it is helpful for the LNC
to interfere in this process through changes to the policy manual.

6.  It is already the job of the APRC.

As Scott helpfully pointed out, "
"The APRC shall review and advise whether public communications of the
Party violate our bylaws, Policy Manual or advocate moving public
policy in a different direction other than a libertarian direction, as
delineated by the Party Platform."  If any communication is hindering
the promotion and success of our candidates, the APRC can certainly
object, and should.

5.  Being a spoiler really upsets Republicans.

I like upsetting Republicans.  When Ann Coulter said "If you are
considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate
election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down
and drown you." I cannot think of a time I was more proud to vote
Libertarian.

4.  Being a spoiler means that you are having an effect on the
electoral process.

1% is ten times better than 0.1%.  3% is three times better than 1%.
Having influence is better than having no influence.  It is a positive
step, a step in the right direction.  It should be promoted.

3.  If the most important thing to us is winning elections, then we
are no different than the other power-hungry parties.

It is the Democrats and Republicans who believe that winning is
everything.  We are different.  We are part of a movement.  We are on
a mission.  Winning elections is a means to an end.  We are already
seeing a lot of success in our movement.

2.  There is nothing wrong with being a spoiler because the other
candidates are already rotten.

The only people concerned about us splitting votes or spoiling
elections, are the people who want Democrats or Republicans to win.  I
don't care much for those people.  Our primary targets should be
people who do not support Democrats or Republicans.  This is a very
large group of people that is only getting larger.

1.  Just because something something is bad, does not mean their
should be a law against it.

This is the most important point.  As we say in our party platform "we
defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful
and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world
we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own
dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any
authoritarian power."  We should extend this same freedom and
tolerance to our P.R. staff.  It is the Libertarian thing to do.

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com> wrote:
> We have PR people?
> I have to do damage control with people on a non stop basis to convince them we are NOT splitting the vote. This portrayal as spoilers is not helpful. If thats all you have to offer people...rethink your strategy and resources.
> Daniel Hayes
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Dec 7, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Marc Allan Feldman <marc at openivo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I disagree.  Out p.r. people  should be skilled enough to see what
>> works best.  If you think you have better ideas, then present the
>> evidence and educate them.  Micro-managing p.r. by LNC policy makes no
>> sense to me.  Shouldn't this be an issue for the communications
>> committee?
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Rich,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the good question.
>>>
>>> The portion of my proposal in question reads (caps added for emphasis),
>>> "They shall not be portrayed as spoilers, either directly or by implication,
>>> such as NOTING that the candidate's performance spans the margin between two
>>> other candidates."
>>>
>>> With this wording, I would interpret it as the latter of the two things you
>>> asked about.  Poll results can be shown, even if they happen to demonstrate
>>> that the candidate spans the gap, so long as that detail is not the point of
>>> what they are saying.  The surrounding text should not about some "spoiler"
>>> angle of that data.  The news should rather be that the candidate may be
>>> poised to retain our ballot access, or that the polling may suggest we'll
>>> see better results than past similar candidates, or some other positive
>>> news, etc.
>>>
>>> -Alicia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Rich Tomasso <rtomasso at lpnh.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/29/2014 4:59 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This new policy would require that our public communications portray our
>>>>> candidates as people seeking to change public policy by getting
>>>>> themselves elected, not as spoilers who get their kicks by just being
>>>>> monkey wrenches in some other candidate's election plans.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, with your proposed language, would an article
>>>> highlighting a poll showing the Libertarian candidate polling at greater
>>>> than the difference b/t his or her opponents be considered in violation of
>>>> this? Or should there simply be no text pointing out their percentage is
>>>> greater than the difference of the other candidates?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~Rich
>>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Marc Allan Feldman
>> CEO
>> OpenIVO, Inc.
>> Beachwood, OH
>> marc at openivo.com
>> http://about.me/marcallanfeldman
>> 216-312-4169 (direct)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- 
Marc Allan Feldman
CEO
OpenIVO, Inc.
Beachwood, OH
marc at openivo.com
http://about.me/marcallanfeldman
216-312-4169 (direct)