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