MPP is hiring an organizer in NH

[FTL_Ian]

For the record, the prior head of NHORML is not particularly enthusiastic about MPP; neither is the prior Chairman of the NHLA. Both have told me that the MPP seems geared to big-state propaganda machinery, where a hundred thousand dollars and an army of professional lobbyists are the best chance to get legislation passed. The MPP is, apparently, like a big lumbering army that doesn't know how to deal with "guerrilla politics" like we have here in NH, where paid lobbyists can hurt your cause more than help it.

I agree.  MPP is lame.  I don't even bother to read the newsletters they send me.

[b1ueemu]

I wish the MPP would stop with this tax and regulate crap.  I do NOT want pot sold in state run stores like alcohol is around here.   We need to abolish regulation of alcohol and then I'll be okay with regulating pot like alcohol...  NOT AT ALL.   

Ian,

I think the purpose behind taxation and regulation is that it creates a paradox which must be clarified, it creates grounds for a court case. The State government would be indirectly in violation of Federal law, in an area historically reserved for the State. This is the next logical step in whittling away at Federal 'Commerce Clause' power. The Supreme Court could rule in line with US. v. Lopez and US v. Morrison, which could wipe out drug prohibition as well as a bulk of business regulations.

While MPP is, as Jane says, incrementalist, they also have a lot of money, and are a large, well-organized effort. To refuse to help them make progress because it isn't -enough- progress is not something I agree with. While endorsement from our parties and coalitions should be savored for the ideal, our labor needs not. We can help without being directly involved.

[d_goddard]

While MPP is, as Jane says, incrementalist, they also have a lot of money, and are a large, well-organized effort.

I personally think incrementalism is a fine and dandy approach, and I'll take every incremental step I can get.
And MPP definitely has bling-bling.

I'm not sure sure that they're well-organized, though. At least not in NH.
Their website remains an unfinished skeleton, that pretty much nobody knows about, despite the fact that the medical marijuana vote came and went.

What follows is a little of what I learned spending 2-3 days a week in the State House during this legislative session.
It's a long read, I know, but spend a minute doing so, and it may help you in your own pro-freedom efforts.

Getting "good" legislation passed is, to a certain degree, a matter of having either:
a) plenty of support among the Reps to begin with, or
b) a moderate amount of support, and effective lobbying

An example of "option (a)" is the bill against Real-ID -- 95% of the House voted in favor of it. Sure, that was partially because the public hearing was packed with supporters, but also because the voters and the popular sentiment in NH is against "Real-ID"

Medical Marijuana comes under "option (b)" -- the House was pretty much evenly split over the issue. So, what was needed was for a few dozen "on the fence" Reps to vote for the bill. Remember, some of the Republicans were in favor of medical marijuana (they co-sponsored the legislation, for heaven's sake!). Some are authoritarian dunderheads who simply need to be un-elected in 2008,
but most of them were truly undecided -- and those are the people whose opinion it is critical to sway. Doing that kind of convincing of elected officials is otherwise known as "lobbying".

MPP had hired a full-time, paid lobbyist. The thing is, the MPP lobbyist was focused on this issue and ONLY this issue. He wore an orange tag. He showed up only when "his" issue was being dealt with, and he clearly had an agenda. All of which is understandable (that's what MPP was paying him to do, after all), but it isn't very effective at actually changing anybody's mind.

Contrast this with NHLA-folk and the NHCCS: Unpaid. No orange badge, and so present totally out of a sense of Doing The Right Thing. Interested not in just one bill, but on the whole wide scope of Freedom and Liberty. Not shilling the same old party line at every single public hearing, but doing the research and speaking out only when there is truly new information that the legislators didn't already know. Trained in giving effective testimony. And -- this is crucial -- generally nice folks and friendly neighbors.

MPP has a hard time in NH because politics in NH is grass-roots, neighbor-to-neighbor politics. A hundred thousand dollars and a flash-enabled website doesn't go nearly as far as a few dozen real working people taking time out of their day for an issue they believe in, and talking to their Reps on the phone, giving the pro-Liberty viewpoint on the issue.


One last thought -- the medical marijuana bill was killed in the House by just nine votes. That means, if just nine more liberty-loving people had been in the House, be they under "Brand (D)" or "Brand (R)", the bill would have passed. Then consider that over a dozen free-staters ran for office in '06. Imagine if 2 or 3 dozen run in '08 ....

[error]

How does one run for office?

[Dreepa]

How does one run for office?

For House of Rep in NH?

Be in NH for 2 years.
a bunch of stuff is here:
http://www.sos.nh.gov/register%20and%20run.html

[d_goddard]

How does one run for office?

A very good Step #1, no matter what the office is, is to do volunteer work in the community.
That's not on the official form, but it makes a hell of a big difference in terms of the number of votes you'll get.

[b1ueemu]

Denis,

I agree with you 100%, even on the volunteering part. As soon as I get down there, I'll be actively taking part in my community, as I think we all should.

[CNHT]

While MPP is, as Jane says, incrementalist, they also have a lot of money, and are a large, well-organized effort. To refuse to help them make progress because it isn't -enough- progress is not something I agree with. While endorsement from our parties and coalitions should be savored for the ideal, our labor needs not. We can help without being directly involved.

I don't remember saying that because I think MPP is lame too thanks to this 'tax and regulate' stuff.

It's like saying, 'you can have your pot as long as we can line the government's pockets with the profits'.

It's not progress, it's just more slavery.

Same with HB 437 -- some stupid rep said it was for 'freedom' but it was really for more regulation like the rest of us have to endure.

[CNHT]

One last thought -- the medical marijuana bill was killed in the House by just nine votes. That means, if just nine more liberty-loving people had been in the House, be they under "Brand (D)" or "Brand (R)", the bill would have passed. Then consider that over a dozen free-staters ran for office in '06. Imagine if 2 or 3 dozen run in '08 ....

I can think of almost 9 of our A-B reps who, if they had not been turned out by stupidity of the voters last time, would have voted for this...

[b1ueemu]

I don't remember saying that because I think MPP is lame too thanks to this 'tax and regulate' stuff.

What I was referring to was your use of the word incrementalist. Giving credit where credit is due.

[CNHT]

I don't remember saying that because I think MPP is lame too thanks to this 'tax and regulate' stuff.

What I was referring to was your use of the word incrementalist. Giving credit where credit is due.

Yes but I don't know where I said that about this group in particular since I view them as wanting similar government interference and involvement as with marriage, expanded gambling, cigarette taxes, liquor sales etc...

It's like saying, our rights to drink/smoke/marry/gamble are granted by the STATE and thus they can only be granted if the STATE says so and takes a cut. To me that is not MORE freedom but it's more slavery and more BIG GOVERNMENT. And the more power given to the government with money from these sources, the more they will use that power to take away other rights that are even more important than say, being able to gamble.

Decrim of smoking/marrying/gambling/drinking is the goal, not creating more bureaucracies that collect more money. But it was hard to convince people who like to gamble that this is not giving them 'more rights' and thus they are for state-controlled expanded gambling.

During the campaign, candidates were contacted relentlessly by the well-organized lobby (thugocracy) that pushes for this gambling in every state. It was horrid. That is what MPP reminds me of. Along with this whole gambling deal you will have the 'mafia' controlling your government. We don't really need or want that in NH! (In NH's case, they were wanting to use the revenues gained from the expanded gambling to fund education, further reducing the possiblity of separation of school and state! Why empower them more?)

It's also like saying the state is going to handle 'school choice'....it just ain't a'gonna happen.

[b1ueemu]

I don't remember saying that because I think MPP is lame too thanks to this 'tax and regulate' stuff.

What I was referring to was your use of the word incrementalist. Giving credit where credit is due.

Yes but I don't know where I said that about this group in particular since I view them as wanting similar government interference and involvement as with marriage, expanded gambling, cigarette taxes, liquor sales etc...

You didn't say it about this group, you said it in response to support of a candidate who isn't Ron Paul. The confusion wasn't intentional.

I'm not positive about MPP's intent, but, again, for a court to rule, there generally has to be conflict. Taxation and/or regulation of cultivation creates a conflict between the State and Federal government which isn't a direct conflict. Meaning, the Federal Supremacy Clause may not take precedence. It's just an idea.

The Federal and State governments have already (unjustly) taken these rights, and if MPPs tactics result in us getting them back, even incrementally, why denounce them? If the existence of taxation and/or regulation results in essential legalization, and then the taxation and/or regulation is repealed, won't that be precisely where you want to be?

These laws can be changed by both the Federal and State legislatures, -or- they can be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It seems clear that they are, infact, unconstitutional, an extreme overreaching of the Commerce Clause. But for the Supreme Court to rule, the right case needs to be brought before them with the right facts. Raich v. Ashcroft was not enough.

[CNHT]

I don't remember saying that because I think MPP is lame too thanks to this 'tax and regulate' stuff.

What I was referring to was your use of the word incrementalist. Giving credit where credit is due.

Yes but I don't know where I said that about this group in particular since I view them as wanting similar government interference and involvement as with marriage, expanded gambling, cigarette taxes, liquor sales etc...

You didn't say it about this group, you said it in response to support of a candidate who isn't Ron Paul. The confusion wasn't intentional.

I did? Who? I would never vote for anyone except Paul and I plan to write him in the general if he doesn't win the primary.

I'm not positive about MPP's intent, but, again, for a court to rule, there generally has to be conflict. Taxation and/or regulation of cultivation creates a conflict between the State and Federal government which isn't a direct conflict. Meaning, the Federal Supremacy Clause may not take precedence. It's just an idea.

The Federal and State governments have already (unjustly) taken these rights, and if MPPs tactics result in us getting them back, even incrementally, why denounce them? If the existence of taxation and/or regulation results in essential legalization, and then the taxation and/or regulation is repealed, won't that be precisely where you want to be?

It's freedom to do something -- but with strings attached -- namely, bigger government. No thanks. Just decrim already, period!
I don't need MJ or gambling bad enough to create a whole new state thugocracy to manage it.

PS - Can you help me find where I said MPP was incrementalist? I have so many things going on lately, I don't remember where that was.
Because to me, I think they are not even incrementalists, they are just bad. So I don't know where I would have said that. To me incrementalism is OK if it's truly a step forward, but like I said, if you have to create a state bureaucracy to manage one of your freedoms, that's a step backward in my opinion and not worth doing at all.

[b1ueemu]

I did? Who? I would never vote for anyone except Paul and I plan to write him in the general if he doesn't win the primary.

PS - Can you help me find where I said MPP was incrementalist? I have so many things going on lately, I don't remember where that was.

You were responding to my statement that we'd eventually have to choose a candidate who isn't Paul. I was saying that Giuliani may be the most fiscally conservative mainstream candidate, but he's since proven himself useless. As have all of the top three.

Again, you didn't say that MPP is incrementalist. You said that helping anyone but Paul is incrementalist, specifically:

"Wow you must be kidding! Giuliani doesn't come CLOSE to
Paul...but...if you accept incrementalism, I guess you accept Rudy's
limited gun control ideas. I DON'T.

I have met Dr. Paul and I am VERY impressed. This is why the up close
meeting of candidates is so important to those of us who live in NH."

I did write a response to this, but never sent it. Here it is:

"I didn't say that Giuliani came close to Ron Paul. I said that after Dr. Paul, Giuliani seems to be the best candidate. I assume that you, also, have a second choice, and I'd be happy to hear who it is, and why. Frankly, I'm not entirely confident that Giuliani is better than McCain or Obama. They're all 20% candidates, to me, none of them have significantly impressed me. But these recent comments by Giuliani, mixed with some of his past ones, give him at least a slight lead.

There will come a point where we'll need to choose between three candidates rather than the current field, and we can push toward the better of them, or not. Especially if there is a contrast, for example, Giuliani versus Clinton, I would be interested in contributing to their campaign. I don't agree with this sort of absolutism, so in a different way, perhaps I do agree in incrementalism. (I am a moral absolutist, an idealist.) Rome wasn't built... Incremental steps toward the ideal are at least steps. Contributing to a campaign does not define your beliefs in lockstep with the candidate, nor does it even necessitate public endorsement.

Meeting candidates is vital to every concerned citizen, no matter their residency. I'm from Maine, and many other people involved in the FSP are from other areas of the country -- this doesn't mean they don't also desire to meet the candidates they support. I do look forward to meeting him, and I'm glad you like him, it bolsters my faith."

James

[CNHT]

You were responding to my statement that we'd eventually have to choose a candidate who isn't Paul.

I SAID THAT? I am not sure, since if I would write him in, I would not be choosing any of the others. That's just me -- other republicans may vote for whoever the nominee is, but I won't. I'd like to see the place where I said that..

I was saying that Giuliani may be the most fiscally conservative mainstream candidate, but he's since proven himself useless. As have all of the top three.

But Giuliani is NOT fiscally conservative, making sure ILLEGALS get all sorts of welfare and other benefits.. He is indistinguishable from the 'moderate' Hillary...(meaning, when she makes out to be moderate in order to pander)

Again, you didn't say that MPP is incrementalist. You said that helping anyone but Paul is incrementalist, specifically:

"Wow you must be kidding! Giuliani doesn't come CLOSE to
Paul...but...if you accept incrementalism, I guess you accept Rudy's
limited gun control ideas. I DON'T.

OK what I meant was, Rudy's incremental GUN CONTROL legislation, in other words, it's only for this or that type of gun or this or that type of person.
I did not say you or anyone would or should vote for him, let alone me!

"I have met Dr. Paul and I am VERY impressed. This is why the up close
meeting of candidates is so important to those of us who live in NH."

I did write a response to this, but never sent it. Here it is:

"I didn't say that Giuliani came close to Ron Paul. I said that after Dr. Paul, Giuliani seems to be the best candidate.

And I'll say again that he isn't. I don't know who at this point is, but I know it's not Rudy! And I know I never said I even had a second choice at this point.

I assume that you, also, have a second choice, and I'd be happy to hear who it is, and why.

I don't. NONE of the Democrats would EVER be acceptable because they ascribe to big government. And the current other Rs are phonies and too involved with the NWO, especially Rudy.

Frankly, I'm not entirely confident that Giuliani is better than McCain or Obama. They're all 20% candidates, to me, none of them have significantly impressed me. But these recent comments by Giuliani, mixed with some of his past ones, give him at least a slight lead.

They gave him a definite 'never' for me..don't know what Rudy could have said that would make him have a lead with ANYONE.

There will come a point where we'll need to choose between three candidates rather than the current field, and we can push toward the better of them, or not. Especially if there is a contrast, for example, Giuliani versus Clinton, I would be interested in contributing to their campaign. I don't agree with this sort of absolutism, so in a different way, perhaps I do agree in incrementalism. (I am a moral absolutist, an idealist.) Rome wasn't built... Incremental steps toward the ideal are at least steps. Contributing to a campaign does not define your beliefs in lockstep with the candidate, nor does it even necessitate public endorsement.

Meeting candidates is vital to every concerned citizen, no matter their residency. I'm from Maine, and many other people involved in the FSP are from other areas of the country -- this doesn't mean they don't also desire to meet the candidates they support. I do look forward to meeting him, and I'm glad you like him, it bolsters my faith."

James

I hope you mean Ron -- because I totally DESPISE Rudy...

As for MPP, I am NOT going to trade rights for another huge state bureaucracy, whether it's for gay marriage, liquor sales, gambling or marijuana. Make it legal PERIOD and then LEAVE IT ALONE. It's an excuse to tax. I've already been fingered by the gambling thugocracy. Men with pinky rings. You want that in control of our state house? Here come the Sopranos (and I know what that's like.....)