Press "Enter" to skip to content


  1. JimDavidson JimDavidson December 8, 2008

    Fascinating questions, @16.

  2. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | December 8, 2008

    Jim @8: your new theory is about 6 months old…

    But still an interesting theory regardless of its age or parentage.

    Mike, as one member in good standing of the Sunshine Caucus to another, here is a paradox I hope you (or anyone else) can solve for me:

    Sean Haugh “fired” and blacklisted me primarily because of my Sunshine Caucus activities. Long before there was any talk of a caucus, I provided sunshine by blogging about the massive mismanagement of the ballot access drives that cost the party several states (most missed since 1984) and probably over $100,000 in misspent money.

    I attempted to shine some sun by asking what evidence exists that Fincher has committed acts of criminal violence against women.

    I shone some sun by accurately relaying what I knew about Fincher’s work, as someone who has worked side by side with him many times, although not this year.

    At this point Angela basically told me to go fuck myself and die, and nothing has changed since then. Also, she has had nothing but glowing praise for Sean Haugh.

    The same Sean Haugh who bragged about co-authoring the “kiddie porn” press release which was aimed at Mary Ruwart. The same Sean Haugh that told a laughing crowd at LSLA in Vegas that if Susan Hogarth ran for Congress he would vote for a Republican against her. The same Sean Haugh that’s been right in the middle of the aforementioned ballot access mismanagement fiasco and hates having it exposed to sunshine.

    The same Sean Haugh who was too busy relaying Eric Dondero’s ballot access management advice by way of Scott Kohlhaas to put together a list of candidates, until I did the job he gets paid for as a volunteer. Then I passed the ball to Donnelly, who took it down the field, and finally Sean got the ball right close to the goal line and spiked it.

    Then he gave Donnelly credit and me, none whatsoever, despite me making him very aware of my role in many different ways, having it confirmed by Donnelly, etc.

    The same Sean who has prevailed upon the Arizona LP not to hire me with their own money, even though I had already done the job there earlier this year and was told when I left that I would be welcomed back.

    Why would Angela be taking his side against me? This, I don’t get.

    Because as you correctly point out To The Keaton, for blazing the trail that I just made a little wider and smoother this weekend, and for making this needed breakthrough a necessity in some ways.

    So what gives? At least one inquiring mind wants to know.

    For that matter, what of Sean himself? Steve Trinward reminded me the other day how Sean used to be a Sunshine pioneer back when he was on the LNC. Now, he has become King of the Vampire Mushrooms. What the fuck happened?

  3. Michael Seebeck Michael Seebeck December 8, 2008

    Jim @8: your new theory is about 6 months old… 🙂

  4. JimDavidson JimDavidson December 8, 2008

    I prefer flashlight with busted bulb.

  5. JimDavidson JimDavidson December 8, 2008

    Enough to build a burning man.

  6. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | December 7, 2008

    Thanks for the bump. Got straw?

  7. JimDavidson JimDavidson December 7, 2008


  8. Ms. Know Ms. Know December 5, 2008

    Someone needs to tell the left-wing illuminati their package is not going to help, and it’s going to hurt the taxpayers too much.

  9. JimDavidson JimDavidson December 2, 2008

    I have a new theory. The LP is broke, and the boneheads like Redpath and Starr broke it. The budget news is very, very bad news.

    What to do when the news is bad and the people might revolt? Generally two choices. Foreign war (attack the BTP as the enemy, perhaps?) and domestic intrigue.

    So, my new theory is that attacking Angela in this completely asinine way, and even spending money to have pseudo-professional parliamentarians (of the quasi-noble variety) render an opinion on the validity of the process, is a smoke screen. Make a lot of noise over here, while you quietly admit to having bankrupted the party.

    Perhaps the focus of attention should be on the mis- mal- and non- feasance of Aaron Starr and Bill Redpath. They have run the LP into the ground. They have caused the LP to spend funds on members of the staff of the Barr campaign. They have caused the LP to spend funds on Andrew Davis. And they have organised a pogrom to cover it up.

    As to categorising these into misfeasance, malfeasance, or non-feasance, I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

  10. VirtualGalt VirtualGalt December 1, 2008

    Well I hope they have substantial lines of credit lined up, because this report shows they are essentially “temporarily without funds”.

    If I am mis-reading this, would someone please let me know. I hate being/feeling like a nattering nabob of negativism.

  11. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli Post author | December 1, 2008

    Was the 08 convention outsourced?


  12. VirtualGalt VirtualGalt December 1, 2008


    Looks like there are 2 different budgets… the one with the 168k deficit is a “current run rate” sort of budget, the breakeven one ($500 net) is the current run rate with 100k less in compensation, 20k less in media relations, and 40k less in “member communications”. Hmm. People are already complaining about being in the dark. Looks like it’s not going to improve any LOL sort of.

    Was the 08 convention outsourced? 04 and 06 show substantial convention revenues and expenses… but 08 does not.

  13. JimDavidson JimDavidson December 1, 2008

    There appears to be a projection for 2008 showing about $160K deficit. (How is this financed? Not with current cash, obviously.)

    There appears to be a proposed (!) budget for 2009 with a deficit (see page 5) of $168K. This seems like a poor choice to propose.

    Then again there is a proposed budget for 2009 with a surplus (see page 4) of $500. Not $500K, just $500. The inconsistency is hard to comprehend. The proposal to net $500 seems odd, since it is just a proposal. Why not propose to net somewhat more?

    The proposal for 2009 on page 5 to lose $168K seems bizarre. Why propose to lose money?

    The 2004 convention had revenues of $214K. The 2006 convention had revenues of $102K. The 2008 convention had revenues (year to date) of $1,460. That’s way out of line. Moreover, there is an extrapolation of convention revenue for 2008 to end the year at $1,752. How does a convention in May generate revenues in November or December? (page 5)

    These numbers don’t seem well put together. Lots of mysteries, few clues.

  14. George Phillies George Phillies December 1, 2008

    VG: Very well said.

    Mind you, a budget that puts a quarter+ of the money into paying people, and another quarter+ into ‘administrative’ basically puts no constraints on the staff. It is a bad joke and should be rejected out of hand.

  15. VirtualGalt VirtualGalt November 30, 2008

    I hate to be a pinhead, but I only observe that the entire “net assets” (equity) of the LP is comprised of this “other receivable”. And that having $100k/mo operating expenses and $6k cash on hand is not a great place to be (to put it mildly!).

  16. VirtualGalt VirtualGalt November 30, 2008

    Any clue as to what the $141k “other receivable” is? And whether that is something reasonably expected to turn into cash?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

1 × three =