[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Be that as it may, the leader is the face of the party. When the only people who have ever been the face of the party are people who have done damage to the party, that's what people remember.

Sure, Hinman didn't come out and say anything clearly religious (which is wise), but when asked about child care in the televised debate, he replied essentially with the wife belongs in the home rhetoric. Idiotic stuff, ironically mirrored by Iris Evans (but I think she has a little more leeway to talk out of her ass in a sexist manner since she's a woman calling out women's progress). That's a pretty traditional (and often religious) view.

I agree the leader is the face of the party and we will have a new one by October. I don't feel Paul or Iris have caused any huge damage to either party. I think he has done a great deal to get us to this point and did the right thing by stepping aside for someone else to take us to the next level.

I agree Paul did not articulate our position well in that particular case. (and yes, we have discussed it) All in all though the feedback on the debate was very favorable.

Especially when you consider he was the candidate for Cardston-Taber-Warner, which is a fairly mormon riding, and people tend to put the pieces together themselves. It doesn't matter if that's correct. Politics aren't about being correct, unfortunately, its about presenting the best package.

They elected Broyce Jacobs; also a mormon. Other areas have elected Tony Abbott; a minister and one of the female Calgary MLA's (her name escapes me right now) is a Sunday School teacher. I don't see religious involvement as being a huge impediment to being electable.

The Alliance needs more people like you in their mix and up front. Minorities, gays, women, divorcees, blended families, interracial couples, all backgrounds. Would be tough to call you guys out for Hinman and Thorsteinson's reputations when the party is surrounded by demographics like that.

We do have a number of members that would fit into those groups. In fact Paul himself is divorced. We try not to parade our members around.

Its very unfortunate that Libertarians tend to throw their hats in the ring with, or perhaps more accurately, get grouped up with the religious right. The ideals really don't mesh.

Actually they mesh very well. Libertarians (and our party) generally believe in freedom and protection of rights. The majority of the religious right just want to be left alone to have the freedom for themselves, their church and family to practice their religion.

Unfortunately it is a very small group who want to ram their beliefs down societys' collective throat.

I expand more on this here: http://janemorgan.blogspot.com/2009/...t-another.html

Convert the WRA into a progressive libertarian party with sound fiscal policy, pro-business attitudes, a pulse on urban issues and no patience for the religious right, and watch the votes roll in. Some of that appears to already be in place.

I would agree nearly all of it is in place, except the "no patience for the religious right". I really don't know what you mean by that.

If you mean the Bill Whatcotts of the world; I don't think I (personally) ever had any patience for them....
But I do support their right to spew the garbage they do.