>This is absurd. Please quit this constant harping on me not being a >Libertarian. You have already told me on several occasions that you won't >support any future candidacies of mine. Coming from a running mate, I find >you don't play for the team. This e-mail is nothing new.
Scott Jeffrey does not take criticism well. Scott apparently does not know what every other political candidate knows and what just about every other member of the general public knows, which is that anybody who runs for public office has to be prepared to be attacked. Nic Leobold did not attack Scott here. Nic merely offered Scott advice on how to conduct himself during the debate. Remember that Nic has a personal stake in this. Nic is a candidate on the ballot running on the same line as Scott. How Scott does in the debate will have an impact on how Nic does in the election.
I thought that what Nic wrote was quite good. His advice should certainly be considered. All Nic said was that Scott should adopt a Libertarian Platform. Scott says however: "We made a decision to run a moderate campaign many long months ago."
If Scott gets upset at the mild remarks of Nic, just think of how upset he will get if somebody really does attack him. Scott has many times accused me of attacking him. For example, a few days ago, I noted that Scott has only issued one press release and that was in April. Therefore, Scott should issue some press releases, I said. Instead of following my advice and issuing a few press releases, something quite easy to do, Scott accused me of attacking him.
One of the big events of my life was when I argued orally before the United States Supreme Court. SEC vs. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). My opponent at that oral argument was Harvey Pitt, who was then a low-level staff attorney but is now Chairman of the SEC. The night before my oral argument, I received telephone calls from lawyers all over the country. They all had suggestions and advice as to how I should argue my case. I listened to every word of their advice. Never once did I say, "This is my oral argument. It is up to me to decide how to argue it. You have to trust me on this." No. Although it was entirely my decision on how to argue, I welcomed the brainstorming advice I got from all of those lawyers. Moreover, I do not hesitate to say that I did in a few instances follow their advice. I was standing up there alone with only my mother and my girlfriend (who later became my wife) behind me and it was only me talking, but still remembering the suggestions of others was helpful and useful.
I won the case 9-0. I believe that even without all that outside advice, I still would have won 9-0, because I had an overwhelmingly strong case, but the point remains that nobody including Scott Jeffrey should refuse to listen to and consider advice.