Talk:Natural Law Party (United States)

message: I think hostile takeover is probably not NPOV to describe what happened.
Roadrunner 03:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is the standard terminology for what happened, exactly.  To say that the NLP only tried to run candidates under the USRP banner is highly misleading.  What they were after was the $12,000,000 is taxpayers' money.  It was a classic hostile takeover attempt.  Reverting.  Mcarling 06:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to disagree with Mcarling here.  Hagelin was supported by large factions within the Reform Party, most prominently that Mangia fellow and Lenora Fulani, because of their (in my opinion, unwarranted, but that is irrelevant) desperation to avoid Pat Buchanan's nomination.  When I voted in Illinois, John Hagelin was listed on the ballot as Reform, whereas Buchanan was listed as Independent, because the state party refused to go along with (the larger of the two factions of) the national party and supported Hagelin.  The Hagelin faction made Mangia party chair, which can hardly be seen as an outside takeover, because he was already an officer of the party. - Nat Krause 06:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Every hostile takeover has an insider.  The distinction between a friendly takeover and a hostile takeover is whether the management of the object supports the takeover.  In this case, both NL and Buchanan had many infiltrators and many sympathizers.  There was no consensus among the existing management of the RP, as it was in turmoil.  One might say that the RP management was, on average, more sympathetic to the NLP than to Buchanan, but not enough so to call it an attempted friendly takeover defense against Buchanan's hostile takeover attempt.  Mcarling 07:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we have to call it one or the other?  Can't we just say that there was a faction supporting one side and a faction supporting the other? - Nat Krause 07:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that conveys an accurate sense of what happened.  Is there any dispute that both the NLP and Buchanan tried to takeover the RP?  Is there any dispute that many old-time RP members tried to defend against both takeover attempts and retain control?  Hostile?  Is there any dispute that physical violence was involved?  Let's just tell it like it happened, without sugar coating.  That doesn't mean we need to go into every detail of every dirty deed.  However, I don't think we should mislead our readers by portraying this as some kind of friendly competition of ideas. Mcarling 08:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would dispute those claims.  What does it mean to "take over" a political party?  People are supposed to join parties.  Unless there was a pretty specific plot and a pretty clear distinction between infiltrators and party members, it just looks like politics as usual to me.  Buchanan was invited to join by Pat Choate and others, and part of his appeal was that he had his own group of followers.  Hagelin was invited to join by Mangia and others, and, of course, they knew that he had his own supporters, too.  Obviously, the factions were hostile to each other, but it's far from clear that they were hostile to the party.   The party chairman at the time, Gerry Moan, remained pretty neutral, as I recall. - Nat Krause 08:13, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two specific plots, one by NL and the other by Buchanan.  Their aims were not to join forces with the RP, but to take control and the $12,000,000 in taxpayers' money.  What does takeover mean?  To seize control.  Buchanan had virtually no interest in retaining the RP membership, he just wanted the money and the ballot access.  Hagelin wanted the money just as badly, the ballot access less so because he already it in some states, and had some hope of retaining some of the membership.  My recollection is that Gerry Moan didn't want to be taken over by either, but realized quickly that resistance would be futile as the RP bylaws made hostile takeover rather easy e.g. by allowing proxy voting. Mcarling 08:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: If takeover just means "seize control", would you say that, for instance, that Ron Brown performed a takeover of the Democratic Party in the 90s, that Haley Barbour performed a takeover of Republican Party, Mike Dixon and Joe Seehusen recently executed a takeover of the Libertarian Party, and that Gerry Moan himself had made a successful takeover attempt to become party chair of the RP, before which Pat Choate did a takeover, before which Jack Gargan did?  It's true that Buchanan and Hagelin wanted to control the party for political reasons, but I'm trying to understand how that is different than ordinary politics. - Nat Krause 08:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair question.  To clarify, I would say that in party politics a takeover is to seize control by bringing in outsiders and a hostile takeover is to do so with the support of less than a majority of the existing establishment.  BTW, how does Joe Seehusen fit in with Ron Brown, Haley Barbour, Michael Dixon, Pat Choate, and Jack Gargan?  Seehusen is paid staff, not an elected party officer.  He is neutral in matters of internal party power struggles. Mcarling 08:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Would it perhaps make more sense to say that the takeover is hostile if it is opposed by more than half of the party's previous membership?  Why privilege the opinions of the leadership over the people who choose them?  (As far as Seehusen, I know what you mean, but I would say that while Seehusen is theoretically neutral on internal issues, he is potentially influential nonetheless.  At least, I don't doubt that Steve Dasbach was influential when he was national director.  Not that any of this is important.) - Nat Krause 11:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Thanks for helping me to clarify my thoughts. Mcarling 16:47, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I think hostile takeover is

message: This article should be merged with Natural Law Party. I vote to keep this article's title, since there are other Natural Law parties, e.g., Natural Law Party of Canada.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.222.133 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they should be merged. Шизомби (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger needed 

message: What is that? Шизомби (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I can tell, it's what the US NLP turned into after dissolving as a political party.  Here is their Web site. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 01:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: United States Peace Government?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Natural Law Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091222184254/http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/08GEN/01000000.html to http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/08GEN/01000000.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is this in past tense, from the article the party is still active.
98.179.184.17 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past tense?