Recently, and man contacted me about having my candidate for Governor of Texas, Jeff Daiell, on his Conservative Latino Talk Show entitled, "Latino Talk Texas". We, of course, were very happy to have been invited to be a guest on the radio, and the host, Lauro Garza, seemed to be as well...
Jeff Daiell was on this show on March 8, 2010, and can be heard at the following link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/conservative-latino/2010/03/08/0042-2010-conservative-latino-talk-radio
Have a listen, and see what you think.
I won't go into detail, other than by posting what Mr. Garza had to write on his blog after the hour-long interview with Jeff, followed by what Jeff Daiell and I both wrote in response to Mr. Garza.
"Libertarian Candidate for Texas Governor, Jeff Daiell, discusses Libertarianism, his history with it and his campaign for Texas governor. Mr. Daiell, not surprisingly, avoids answering questions with regard to religious principles and governance but was willing to discuss his advocacy regarding the dangers of illegal drugs.
He advocates for legalization of dangerous drugs and cessation of the effort in what he calls "Lifestyle" laws. Arguing that although he recognizes dangerous drugs "damage people" he still prefers they be legal so that people on drugs can and will seek treatment.
The discussion was lively and Mr. Daiell became annoyed with me when I pointed out the weakness in his argument that he did not wish to admit. Although he felt he won his argument, legalizing dangerous drugs, in his mind, does not, still, make them "okay" but he was glad for his appearance on my show.
Despite his assertions otherwise, Libertarianism is not the purer Republican faith nor is Republicanism a type of libertarian lite. They are fundamentally different and when confronted, crypto-libertarians and, apparently, real Libertarians attack. Among other things, he called me a "Republican". I can handle that.
- Lauro "Larry" Garza
This is Jeff's response:
Mr. Garza's inaccuraciesI'm not sure I can count them, but I will try:
I never said that using drugs was "OK", and Mr. Garza knows full well that I did not. What I said was that drug use was not a matter for the government, and that it was more important to punish murderers, child molesters, car thieves, etc., than those who smoke marijuana. Mr. Garza is entitled to put imposing his views on drugs ahead of safe streets, schools, and homes; as the father of twin daughters who were both molested by a man already convicted of child molestation, who had been given probation after that first offense because the prisons were too full of drug offenders, I put the safety of Texas's citizens, especially the children, first.
I answered his questions, to the extent he would allow me to without interrupting, so any claim that I did not is nonsense.
Rather than avoid discussion of morality and religion, I made it clear that the Republican Party had no monopoly on either, and that many Libertarians, like many Republicans, came to their respective viewpoints because of religious principles.
I never claimed that libertarianism is a form of Republicanism - indeed, I pointed out that the Republican Party is not consistent on ideology, bragging about its "big tent" approach that includes both conservatives and liberals.
For Texas, Liberty, and public safety,
Jeff Daiell
And finally, here is my response:
I must admit that I am quite surprised that you would request (multiple times) for Jeff Daiell to be on your show, only to treat him the way that you did on the air. I was simply floored that you “dribbled on” (your words) for approximately 6 minutes during the introduction of your show before you introduced your guest. One would think that as a host, especially a host with your credentials, you would know more about radio host/guest etiquette.
In the beginning of your show, Lauro, you boast about Jeff and the Libertarian Party - stating that you "respect and admire (Jeff), and want his message to be heard". Unfortunately for your listening audience, they didn’t get the opportunity to hear his message because you were too busy talking about yourself and interrupting him! As a matter of fact, you rudely spoke over my candidate on more than eighteen occasions and twisted his message many times! Although this behavior is rather typical of uber conservative folks like yourself, I expected more professionalism from you.
For whatever reason, you refused to accept the Libertarian point of view when you asked for Jeff Daiell's position on Anti-Prohibition (Is it really too much to ask that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make?), of Separation of Church and State (In order to govern a body of people effectively, religion has to be removed from laws in order to “level the playing field”, if you will, because we all do not share the same faith.), and regarding positions on Nullification (Do you really have an argument about the U.S. or the State having the right to invalidate any federal law that is deemed to be unconstitutional??).
These ideas of Common Sense may not coincide with your definition of Republicanism, and that is fine. As we Libertarians say, “Live and Let Live”, but to have the audacity to charge that my candidate “can not distinguish between arguments” when you make a claim that Lifestyle Crimes and Child Molestation go hand-in-hand is outrageous! If this was your attempt at playing the Devils Advocate, Mr. Garza, you failed.
You may not make any apologies for being a Conservative Republican (no one is asking you to), but you certainly do owe an apology to Jeff Daiell for misleading him when you asked for this interview, and also for your ill-mannered behavior during this “show”.
--Christie Cole-Pearson
Campaign Manager
Jeff Daiell for Governor
www.jeffdaiell.com
"Because We're Texans"
Hmm. I'm glad I got that off my chest.
No comments:
Post a Comment