There has been much speculation on this and other blogs about what exactly LNC member Angela Keaton is being charged with, and by whom, in the item titled “Discipline of Angela Keaton” on this weekend’s LNC meeting agenda. The charges are being presented by Stewart Flood, and a summary is attached. Supporting evidence is expected to be made available later in the week.
resolution-of-discipline-for-angela-keaton
[Posted on my blog on Dec. 5]
Susan, revealing that you radicals oppose part of the Bill of Rights is a fact-ful example of what you apparently consider “interfering” with your work, so I don’t see how you’re contradicting me there. (Thank you for stipulating to my good intentions.)
I can’t agree that merely applying for PlatCom is prima facie evidence of wanting to drastically change it. After all, I applied for PlatCom too. I didn’t say you “endorse” the platform. I stand by my statement that there is nothing in your sample planks to suggest you want to restore the 2004 format or any of the crypto-anarchism (e.g. personal secession, immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws) of the 2004 platform.
Chris, I thank you for including me in your boorish attacks on the character of people who disagree with you. Such attacks tend to help discredit the ideas of those who make them. (Hi, Jim!) I’d ask you for an example of me ridiculing something that isn’t ridiculous, but I learned long ago that people like you never bother to back up their drive-by attempts at character assassination.
I do allow comments on my two main blogs, Libertarian Intelligence and Knowing Humans. I turn off comments at More Libertarian Intelligence simply because it’s an archive of comments I post elsewhere. I almost never forget to include a link to the forum where I posted the comment, and that is the obvious place to reply to me. The one time someone has insisted that I allow a comment directly on a posting there, I agreed. Just tell me which posting you want to try to rebut.
George, your attempt to paint me as suggesting that “inanimate objects think” is just too ham-handed to bother rebutting. I’ll gladly accept your stipulation that your Facebook group is not a petition against disciplining Angela, and that its members “may be pro, con or undecided/neutral and just want to learn more”. Thank you for completely undercutting the prima facie purpose of the group.
The LPradicals group is not organized around the narrow cause of asking a particular body to refrain from doing a specific thing to a specific person at a specific imminent meeting, so your analogy is flawed. However, I absolutely agree that I’m a radical. In fact, I claim that I’m more radical than the “LP Radicals” under the criteria I list at http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2008/11/taxonomy-of-radicalness.html. Sorry, Debra, you’ll have to revoke from George the trophy you awarded him for the apparently momentous feat of using “Holtz logic” against me. 😉
I’ve enabled comments on that cross-posting about your character, on the off chance that it will entice you into finally defending your claim that I exhibited “bad faith” by daring to point out the asymmetry of your chiding me but not Jim. Susan, my prediction that George would respond with argument-by-name-calling-assertion failed just as it was obviously designed to, so I’ll gladly (and provisionally) cop to having committed a tactical violation of my 11th Commandment — in order to try to bring Brother Donnelly back from the brink of perdition. 🙂 Given his subsequent “wrestling with pigs” remark, my self-sacrifice may have been in vain…
Trent, thanks for the kind words. I have no memory of us having disagreed on anything, so I don’t know what to make of your forecast that we might become “amicable enemies” when we’ve had enough success in shrinking the government. I generally agree with that sentiment with respect to anarchists, even though it’s a little sad to think that my enjoyment of minarchotopia would be marred by some of my government-shrinking anarchist comrades suddenly becoming my enemies. 🙂
Each of us has the conch.
Anyone who cares to read this thread objectively will understand why there are many, many small “l” libertarians, such as myself, who regard the Libertarian Party as joke. Do you ever do anything other than squabble?
Who has the conch?
Steve Newton analyzes the charges
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/12/because-absudity-is-obviously-foreign.html
White Rook takes Black Knight.
Oh, had enough, eh? Chicken!
I’m invincible! The Black Knight always triumphs!
@202 Holtz admits to sophistry, lies, and distortion. Thanks for declaring me the victor, Holtz. I won, you lost.
That’s Nevada.
From LG
we adopted the Tennessee resolution with names and officers changed . we had 5 yeas and 2 abstentions. its still ongoing no mention of the hillary issue yet
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/video-montage-for-lnc-in-sandy-eggo/
btw that article stirred up some controversy at reddit.
LOL @ those with a strange love for illegitimate authority…
btw that article stirred up some controversy at reddit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/7hg45/cnn_no_one_has_standing_to_enforce_constitution/
Ur welcome.
It’s a miracle!
Thanks for the link Paul.
Right on.
BTW George Donnelly has a good article if you guys want to issues anything about the Hillary Clinton thing.
http://georgedonnelly.com/opinion/constitution-hillary-clinton-state
Paulie , our meeting has been moved to 7pm tonite so more members can participate . I will email you the results directly after:)
yeah , worse than Dondero , never
Davidson’s over-the-top rhetoric makes GE look like my grandmother. Holtz loves liberty,and I dont think anyone, any sane person at least, could question that. That he wants to shrink the government seems obvious. Holtz, for all the pejoritive insults you’ve taken here, I’d like to say—I consider you a fellow travelor on as many issues as we agree on and so far as we agree to shrink the government. After that, we’ll become amicable enemies. =)
I’m calling it. At comment #200 this thread officially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumped_the_shark
@186 “There’s some Holtz logic for ya.”
In other words, sophistry, distortion, and lies.
Here’s a syllogism that I like:
Holtz is a reformer.
Reformers are vile.
Holtz is vile.
Perot is a reformer.
Reformers are vile.
Holtz is Perot.
@183 Holtz implicitly admits to liking the massacre of children in Iraq in his promotion of the 2008 LP platform.
It is pointless arguing with Holtz, Susan. He is “an anal retentive nit-picker, who twists and teases words in a tireless and desperate attempt to try and seem right at any cost” as Mr. Sipos so delightfully explains.
But, if you are going to argue with him, you should point out that as a lapsed Republican he is a defender of all things Republican and neo-conservative. As an atheist, he is a defender of all things Christian and Jewish. As an enthusiast for multiple socialist parties he is an enthusiast for all things socialist.
These are implied by his words to the exact same extent that any statement or action by you implies your consent to the 2008 LP platform.
Paulie @156. Looks like it. Only having trouble embedding the feed in non-blogspot posts. Check your email.
Oops, missed this. I didn’t get the email.
@181 Toss up, yes, Chris. When I see the toss pot’s name, I vomit. And that goes for either of them.
Yummmmm … bacon. Sadly, I have given up bacon and am eating mostly raw foods these days.
@175 “Jim, I do defend the sincerity of self-identified freedom-lovers in the BTP, just as I defend the sincerity of those in the RLC.”
Brian, “You’re an anal retentive nit-picker, who twists and teases words in a tireless and desperate attempt to try and seem right at any cost.”
You are a liar. You don’t have any respect for anyone who isn’t a vicious reformer swine who hates liberty as much as you do. You aren’t for individual liberty, private property, nor free markets. You’re a Republican neo-conservative fascist with delusions of grandeur. You’ve never rubbed two nice things to say about other people together in your life. And I should know.
George, make bacon instead. 🙂
LG, let me know how that works out, OK? 🙂
Will do
Let me know if it passes and I’ll do an article.
Also, if you want to issue a statement about this, I can make it an article as well
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/12/04/judicial-watch-hopes-to-sue-to-enforce-article-i-section-6-relative-to-hillary-clinton-nomination/
BTW the Nevada LP is holding an ex-comm meeting this afternoon where an item on the agenda is a resolution condemning the one against Angela . We are actually copying TN’s resolution word for word .
I expect it to pass unopposed .
Glad you got a laugh out of that. 🙂
Unfortunately I’m not sure one can say I won in any constructive sense of the word, since arguing with Brian Holtz is kind of like wrestling with pigs. 🙂
So I guess since Brian joined the LP-Radicals mailing list, by his own logic, that must mean he agrees with the radical statement of principles. Brian Holtz is a Radical! Do you deny it, sir? There’s some Holtz logic for ya.
ROFL … great job trapping him with his own logic!
you definitely win this round.
It may be a change in policy. Or, it may just be a software glitch. I wouldn’t make any assumptions.
I have seen a way to join (although I havent ) and post comments on Brians blog but today when I checked there was not one.
I see no way to comment on the post in which he obliquely references my character in a negative light.
http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2008/11/when-character-is-really-revealed.html
First off, Brian, you claim “a Facebook group … believes ” which is a collectivist statement on its face. Either that, or you think inanimate or ethereal objects think. Or maybe you have an omniscience machine that enables you to see into the minds of all 148 members and decipher their thoughts into such a simplistic either/or statement.
The description of the facebook group is:
This is not a litmus test or a pledge you have to sign. It is simply an attempt to motivate people. For the record, those are MY words. I wrote them.
Assuming that all members of the group signed off on that description and agree with it without reservation is like assuming that all Wal-Mart shoppers agree that Wal-Mart always has the lowest prices.
Not to mention that assuming things about large groups of people and without any purpose other than to discredit them is wholly a waste of time. You know the saying about what assuming makes out of you and me.
You claim you are a “word-quoter”, which may be literally and factually correct by the letter of the law, but not by the spirit. Sure, you quoted the words “only doing her job” from the Facebook group, but you ascribed to them a different context and significance than they actually have.
A group description is not the same as mission statement. A Facebook group is the technical and philosophical equivalent of a Yahoo Groups mailing list. You join in order to be in contact with other persons, centered around a topic. People may join because they are pro, con or undecided/neutral and just want to learn more.
So I guess since Brian joined the LP-Radicals mailing list, by his own logic, that must mean he agrees with the radical statement of principles. Brian Holtz is a Radical! Do you deny it, sir? There’s some Holtz logic for ya.
Chris,
I have had no difficulty in commenting on Brian’s blogs, and have availed myself of the opportunity on a number of occasions.
UGH … I must say , I disagree with the Reformer Caucus yet I remain on their group and pretty regularly disagree with them . In fact I dare say my whole reason for joining was to disagree with them , and they allow me to remain and in fact post everything I write. I have not been censored one time in there.
That’s fine – they’ve chosen to work that way and I respect that. There are plenty of venues for libertarians of all sorts to engage in debate and discussion; I personally had no interest in creating yet another. My goal was to create a place for radicals to strategize with each other, not engage in endless policy debate.
Susan Hogarth implicitly accepts the new platform in her PlatCom application…
That is an interesting read of my submission.
Wrong, but interesting.
If I ‘accepted’ the platform, what would I be doing applying to the Committee? I would have perhaps stated in my application that my goal was to protect the platform against any changes. Obviously that is not the case.
I ‘accept’ the current platform the way I ‘accept’ the current NC sales tax. If I called for a reduction in the sales tax, would you assume that meant I accepted the validity of the tax?
The current platform is what we have to work with, and my interest is in working with it to make it as straightforwardly libertarian and as inspiring as possible. You’ve got a lot of nerve treating my willingness to work with you as an endorsement of your (and others’) previous work.
We need more Brian Holtzes in the LP. I’m serious because it keeps people like me OUT!
I really don’t know who is worse these days: Eric Dondero or Brian Holtz. It’s a toss up!
UGH … I must say , I disagree with the Reformer Caucus yet I remain on their group and pretty regularly disagree with them . In fact I dare say my whole reason for joining was to disagree with them , and they allow me to remain and in fact post everything I write. I have not been censored one time in there.
Should be “righteousness” or “libertarian supreme overlord” whatever Mr. Holtz may prefer.
I see that Brian Holtz likes to ridicule others on his personal blog but there is no way on his blog to repudiate his “holy righteous” there. What are you afraid of Brian,huh? And why do you even bother with the likes of me anyways…I’m a nobody remember?
However, nobody on the Platform Committee’s minority … has uttered a peep of platform criticism since Denver. LPplatform-discuss has also been eerily quiet.
Perhaps you didn’t notice, but there was this crazy little event between Denver and now called an ‘election’. I don’t know about you, but that filled up more than enough time for me as to leave suggestions for the betterment of the platform on the back burner.
In fact, I think the LNC’s call for sample planks was too soon after the election, and will inevitably favor the contributions of people who preferred to spend the weeks before the election carefully crafting sample planks to actually getting out and talking to voters.
And that really is and example of ‘fact-free whining’, so I’ll can it for now.
I don’t know what’s said on the LPradicals list, because you guys kicked me off for trying to reveal e.g. that you radicals oppose part of the Bill of Rights.
Speaking of “fact-free whining”…
You were turned out of the group because you are not a supporter of its mission, and were actively interfering (with the best of intentions, no doubt) with our work.
Susan, the evidence leads me to predict that George will respond with something that can be fairly characterized as argument by name-calling assertion. I’ll happily admit my prediction was wrong if he in fact does not do so. Truth is always a valid defense when charged with violating the 11th Commandment. 🙂
Marc, when I said “almost no criticism” I obviously wasn’t saying “there isn’t any”. Yes, there is still the background noise of fact-free whining that the platform has been “watered down” in recent years. However, nobody on the Platform Committee’s minority (except perhaps for the inimitable Dan Grow) has uttered a peep of platform criticism since Denver. LPplatform-discuss has also been eerily quiet. (I don’t know what’s said on the LPradicals list, because you guys kicked me off for trying to reveal e.g. that you radicals oppose part of the Bill of Rights.) The Restore04 web site has gone offline, and no Restore04 leader has called for trying again in 2010. Instead, Less Antman has publicly said radicals should “accept the less comprehensive platform on a permanent basis”, and cites only two planks of 27 where the platform merely “implicitly strays from plumbline libertarianism”. Susan Hogarth implicitly accepts the new platform in her PlatCom application, with plank submissions that maintain the short format and don’t try to restore any of the crypto-anarchism (e.g. personal secession, immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws) of the 2004 platform. I monitor this blog “and others” pretty closely for platform criticism, and I have seen no evidence of “hundreds of individuals” specifically criticizing the 2008 platform. Point me to it, and I’ll give it my usual treatment. 🙂
My old PlatCom wiki, including the list of platform criticisms, has been moved to http://libertarianmajority.net/platform-portal. Those “anecdotes” consisted of most of the mentions that our platform content that Google has ever noticed in the mainstream media. Not listed, obviously, are all the times that the media ignored the LP because they already knew we advocated personal secession and other codewords for abolition of the state.
Jim, I do defend the sincerity of self-identified freedom-lovers in the BTP, just as I defend the sincerity of those in the RLC. Any difference in how I regard them is due purely to the fact that the RLC is trying to infiltrate an established party that already has access to power, whereas a not-explicitly-anarchist BTP is just the Department of Redundant Freedom Party Department.
Thank you for painting a bullseye on your last comment at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/brian-holtz-responds-to-jim-davidson-multiple-freedom-parties-is-dumb. It’s now a smoking cinder. 🙂 Feel free to identify any other substantive criticism of me by you — anywhere, any time — that I’ve ever not rebutted.
The fact remains that I encourage self-identified libertarian candidates who want to infiltrate the incumbent parties in order to get into elective office, and I’ve never demanded that libertarian voters boycott incumbent-party candidates. I do still claim that it’s a waste of resources for libertarians to invest in multiple freedom parties (and of course multiple protest parties), but I explicitly admit that a libertarian could honestly and intelligently want to replace the LP if he considered it unsalvageable. I stand by my nine distinct arguments that “competition” among multiple freedom parties is wasteful, that internal caucuses are a far better way to salvage a party, and that it remains inane to insist that any such argument constitutes a demand for blind party loyalty.
Yes, Paulie, some people join Facebook groups without fully endorsing their mission statement, or perhaps just to monitor them. I’m willing to stipulate to as low a level of critical thinking among these subscribers as you want to suggest. 🙂
OK, time for you to name-call the above civil reasoned argument as a “distortion†or “bad faith†or “twisting†or “dishonest†etc.
Quick! Who said this?:
“When speaking of a fellow self-described lover of liberty, thou shalt ascribe the best possible motives that are consistent with the evidence.”
I wouldn’t read too much into what facebook groups someone joins. I get invitations to a lot of them all the time and often times click join because I vaguely agree with the title of the group, and very rarely do I read the whole statement at the top to see if there is something I disagree with in there. There’s a pretty high likelihood that many of my facebook groups contain portions of their mission statement that I do not subscribe to.
Mmm, I love the smell of fact-free whining in the morning.
Thomas, you’ve cited zero facts to back up your petulant mischaracterizations of the platform survey. An accurate characterization is when you quote from the survey and say — or better yet, actually argue — that the quote is evidence of “bias”. A mischaracterization is when you make up a fictional survey question and baldly admit it is an “exaggeration” or “poetic device”. Readers can decide for themselves whether your admitted poetic exaggeration is an instance of mischaracterization, and whether the one of us who actually quotes the platform survey is the one being “dishonest”.
George, the part about Angela “only doing her job” is a direct quote from the Facebook group’s self-description, so that alone refutes your “nothing more” assertion about what subscription to the group means. Yes, the subscribers obviously oppose Angela’s removal. (Does your “nothing more” really mean the subscribers cannot be assumed to oppose asking Angela to apologize for any of the things in Flood’s list that she gets shown to have actually done?) How is it a “distortion” to assume that the subscribers must have some grounds relating their opposition to the substance of the charges against Angela? I guess I could have added a third possibility that the subscribers simply don’t care about the sorts of charges Flood is making — charges (as yet unproven) like knowingly publishing false claims against our nominee, materially supporting another party’s opposition to our nominees, deliberately misleading major LP donors, and sabotaging a worthy LNC lawsuit. If I had added such a far-fetched possibility to the list, I’m confident you would have called it a “distortion”. Do you have any argument at all against the substance of my analysis, or is argument-by-assertion your new standard of debate?
Fantasize all you want that I’m persecuting you for your involvement in the BTP. Your the one who mentioned that other thread here, not me. The fact remains that in that thread you selectively criticized me for gently satirizing the short tenure of BTP chairs in a debate with a BTP ex-chair, while not criticizing him for in the same debate attacking the LP leadership as “corrupt vermin”. When I pointed out this asymmetry, you baldly denied it, said I was arguing in “bad faith”, and now are stonewalling my requests for you to defend these attacks on my character. So yes, I stand by my assertion that the character of the best debaters (like you) is measured less by the myriad times they are right than by the few times they are wrong. You were demonstrably wrong in denying the asymmetry that I identified, but rather than admit it, you chose instead to attack my character. And now you whine that I dare observe that this episode reflects on your own character.
OK, time for you to name-call the above civil reasoned argument as a “distortion” or “bad faith” or “twisting” or “dishonest” etc.
So my character is lacking because I failed to bite your pathetic bait?
Is that what this is about, testing me?
I stood up for the BTP, so now I’m a target?
Another distortion. Membership in the group only expresses one’s opposition to the removal of Ms Keaton from the LNC. Nothing more, nothing less.
I disagree with Alicia on strategy. That doesn’t stop me from believing Alicia is a terrific activist; in no small part because she wrote a great, useful piece of software called LP-Data for state LP database administrators, among her many other endeavors for the LP. I also appreciate her honesty; she didn’t deny the survey questions were designed to ‘funnel’ answers:
Now back to the claims of one of the commenters above:
I understand. Kind of like how there is “no longer any serious scientific debate about anthropogenerated climate change…”
Just because criticism is ignored doesn’t meant there isn’t any.
Since Denver, there have been hundreds of individuals on this blog and others who have criticized the 2008 platform. Long-time LP members have resigned over the changes. Yes, I acknowledge that if things had gone the other way, some on the other side would have left, instead. But the main point stands: it is simply not true that the new platform “has attracted almost no criticism”. Perhaps it is simply those who aren’t listening who can say that with a straight face.
The list of “Uses Of The LP Platform To Attack The LP”, which appears to have been deleted from the website it was posted on, consisted of anecdotes collected over a decade and barely filled up a single printed page.
Brian, don’t be embarrassed for me.
You’re an anal retentive nit-picker, who twists and teases words in a tireless and desperate attempt to try and seem right at any cost.
Alicia’s poll was biased. Slanted. Bogus. Jiggered to attain a desired result. I said it, and I mean it, and I never “admitted” otherwise.
No go scurry off to some dictionary and see what “jigger” and “slant” and “admit” means, and see if you can tease and torture some meaning out of it, to try and trip me up on some meaningless, petty point.
Jim @163, yes, but so did everyone else.
Paulie @156. Looks like it. Only having trouble embedding the feed in non-blogspot posts. Check your email.
@155 Eric Dondero Rittberg may have been a spokesmonster for the RLC in 2001, which year appears on the comment of his you post. He was not, the last time I checked with anyone still in the RLC.
@154 “For example, I defend the Republican Liberty Caucus from LPers who claim it is a GOP conspiracy to destroy the LP. ”
Funny, though, that you don’t defend the small “l” libertarians in the Boston Tea Party the same way. Although our party has endorsed in 2008 over 20 LP candidates, you insist not only that we seek to destroy the LP, but that the only conceivable viable strategy for our party must be to destroy the LP. How bizarre.
You repeatedly call for party loyalty. I’ve schooled you on this matter using extensive quotes from your various posts and sites. Last time I looked, you hadn’t answered on the “Brian Holtz says parties is dumber” thread.
@145 Didn’t she record a vote in September for having Angela apologise?
@132 How is our buddy Charles Jay doing on the states which have reported? I know he was a registered write-in for Utah, Montana, and Arizona, possibly some other places.
@131 A group in Kansas City had a meeting Wednesday evening (3 Dec) and several are going to the Constitution Party meeting in Orlando. I expect to report about it after their report to Liberty Restoration Project (.org) later this month.
Thomas, you wrote: “I thought those questions were biased to push people toward a desired result. Such as: Do you prefer a platform that attracts voters and successfully advances the cause or liberty in our lifetime? Or do you prefer a nit-picky, tedious platform full of obscure ideology that will confuse and repel voters? I exaggerate, but not by much.”
If you want to tell readers here that your “Such as” does not connect your admitted exaggeration to your characterization of the survey as “biased”, then I am simply embarrassed for you.
@130 Yes, true. But, of course, the insider clique wants to limit who can attend by making it as expensive as possible. That’s why they propose to hold the LP convention on a cruise ship or in Hawai’i. They won’t allow povertarians to participate in the process, that wouldn’t do, in their elitist view.
Mind you, if you want open deliberations and online participation there is *ahem* another libertarian party which makes its national committee put all their deliberations out in the open, and conducts all its business operations, including conventions, online. Currently, we’re holding a special election for chair. (And given the way the votes seem to be running, a special election for vice chair to follow.)
Brian, I don’t know whether you have poor reading comprehension skills, or are a dishonest debater. I assume the latter.
I never “admitted” to mischaracterizing Alicia’s platform poll — and you know it.
My post had two parts.
1. My claim that Alicia’s poll was slanted. (A characterization I stand by.)
2. My analogy to illustrate that claim, which I said was exaggerated. (Analogies are metaphors, poetic devices, and hence, often exaggerated to illustrate points.)
My characterization of Alicia’s poll, and my illustrative analogy, are two separate things.
And you know this..
Shame on you for mischaracterizting my post. A highly dishonest twisting of words indeed.
I realize you have a childish need to have the last word, and to “win” every online debate, but try to do so honestly.
@126 Embedded reporters! Visions of Iraq 2003.
Mission accomplished?
Hmmm….
Chuck, I agree that either cumulative voting or STV would be an improvement on our at-large voting process.
Thomas Sipos asks: When did I “admit†to mischaracterizing the platform survey?
Answer: comment 91, where you admitted that you “exaggerate” even as you gave what I promptly documented to be a severely distorted caricature of the platform survey.
George, if you’re ever unsure from the context what I mean by a word, then you can assume the most relevant sense given by Merriam-Webster. I’ll leave it to our English-speaking readers to decide for themselves whether I “twist, distort and misrepresent” when I say that to “exaggerate” is a way to “mischaracterize”. Anyone who wonders what thread George is talking about can pick up the trail at http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2008/11/when-character-is-really-revealed.html. Anyone who thinks I’ve ever been uncivil to George is invited to cite an example, either here, or to me privately, or to me anonymously via Chuck or Paulie. I’ll answer any such examples in the aforementioned blog, where I’ve politely answered every criticism I’ve ever seen George make of me.
Jim, the 11th Libertarian Commandment isn’t really a demand for LP loyalty, because it’s just a corollary of the more general rule that I advocate (and practice) for small-L libertarians. For example, I defend the Republican Liberty Caucus from LPers who claim it is a GOP conspiracy to destroy the LP. So nice try, but you’ll have to try harder if you ever want to start defending — against the overwhelming evidence I’ve already quoted to you — your recklessly false assertion that I demand party loyalty from LP members.
My understanding is that Rachel Hawkridge is opposed to the LNC asking Angela to apologize to the membership for any of the actions in Flood’s resolution that Angela might have committed. Rachel is a member of a Facebook group that apparently believes either 1) it already knows that Angela did not do any of the things listed in Flood’s resolution, or 2) if Angela did any of the things on Flood’s list, then she was “only doing her job”.
You’re right.
Of course, it was not posted 7 days ahead of time as specified in the policy manual, only 5.
And LP HQ says it should be in the same place as the minutes. I agree. And it is still not there.
But I guess that’s progress.
http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/december-lnc-meeting-agenda
If LNC reads things the same way, then they may not be as worried about ideological balance as we are.
Then they won’t be worried about losing the financial, activist, and moral support of radical party members.
Actually, George, the agenda is posted. Check the link up top.
George Donnelly wrote:
That is the fault of the whole LNC, not the unilateral fault of the Secretary. The Secretary is only allowed to post approved minutes.
That said, minutes get approved the fastest when the Secretary is proactive about proposing a mail ballot to approve them.
That’s nice but when it takes 81 days to post them on lp.org, something is broken. It’s a de facto shut out of the membership.
And maybe they wouldn’t have to be so thorough if he would get behind videotaping the meetings.
M Carling makes a distinction between minutes, which are concise, and meeting reports, which are long. Sullentrup does reports, not minutes. Perhaps he should do the latter and stop introducing motions to destroy videotapes.
Why is the agenda for the Dec meeting not yet posted on lp.org? (rhetorical question)
Since there have been some ad hominem attacks thrown around on this thread and others, I want to clarify my own position on those things. In a nutshell I think we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
I try my best to abide by Holtz’s Libertarian 11th Commandment, though I sometimes (too often for my liking) fail to live up to that ideal:
I have enormous respect for both Angela Keaton and Stewart Flood, for Alicia Mattson as well as Susan Hogarth. My criticisms of this resolution are not criticisms of Stewart Flood.
Although I sometimes disagree with positions taken by Stewart, Angela, etc. that doesn’t mean I think they are not assets to the LNC. I know they all have good intentions. My areas of disagreement are somewhat muted by that person being only one vote / one voice on a board of many. Thus there are many people I would support for a board position that I wouldn’t support for LP dictator if such a position existed.
People have positions they are uniquely suited. For example, I don’t agree with a lot of Aaron Starr’s votes, but I think he brings a lot of financial skill to the Treasurer position. And Bob Sullentrup puts an enormous amount of work into giving us thorough minutes.
So while I can be lumped with the group of people who oppose this resolution, don’t lump me with the group of people who oppose Stewart himself.
Sign me up for the Civility Caucus.
I proposed a Transparency Caucus be formed, yes, not that that is of any significance. What the word “formal” means in that sentence I can only speculate.
Give me a break. You have no business lecturing on manners.
#138 is a prime example of the way you twist, distort and misrepresent.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you chewed through it in a separate thread. You know which one.
Jim, You are reading too much into Rachel’s comments. From what I’ve seen here she has expressed no leaning one way or another on the issue.
@120 Another Holtz call for party loyalty.
Paulie @135: nobody saw that coming, because nobody thought that Jingo was running for it until he was actually nominated. That’s no slight to Jingo, either, but I voted for Chuck because I thought he presented his case well, with the records to back up his efforts. Plus he ran his parts of the convention exceptionally well, in stark contrast to Redpath, who didn’t seem to know what a gavel was at times.
But Chuck said, “I believe having representation on the LNC for radicals is even more important than having a radical VP candidate would have been.” I disagree; both were equally important, for different reasons. On the LNC side is pretty much self-explanatory considering the current situation. On the VP side it would have kept Barr in better line (maybe) with real libertarian leanings and messages and helped the vote totals–two things Root didn’t do.
@119 Concur. I think the issue at hand is that Angela has become exasperated at working and playing well with fools. The fools are upset that she’s exasperated, notably Stewie. Whether it is because now he’s sure he can’t get into her pants (and hell hath no fury like a Stewie scorned) or because he thinks he can make her look bad by throwing feces at her (rubber, glue), I dunno. It is a sort of zany thing.
@111 Thanks, Nicholas. I was unclear. It was helpful of you to parse that stuff for me.
@112 No one told you how to spend your money. Some people lamented it being spent to pursue this activity against Angela.
I gather from your comments, Rachel, that you are eager to spend your money to attend the LNC meeting for the express purpose of kicking Angela off it? Or am I reading something into what you wrote that isn’t there? (Just as you read into what Richard wrote what wasn’t there.)
Brian Holtz wrote:
I just responded to an email from a fellow Bylaws Committee member with this very question.
Rather than reinvent the wheel, I’ll just copy and paste the response I sent him:
Brian Holtz: “Sipos doesn’t try to defend his admitted mischaracterization of the Platform survey.”
When did I “admit” to mischaracterizing the platform survey?
Chuck, I already said I don’t have a problem with Susan filling an at-large vacancy that might open up on LNC. I guess the question you raise is whether Angela has been making or seconding motions that our radical members want made/seconded but that wouldn’t be by (say) Ruwart and Wrights if Angela were replaced by (say) Alicia. On that question I’ll have to defer to your record-keeping and superior knowledge of the people involved.
If factional balance is so important, do you support some kind of proportional representation voting for at-large members?
The big lesson I think I learned in Denver is that NatCon delegates — to say nothing of the broader LP membership — care much less about ideological infighting than I had assumed from listening to the LP’s blogospheric echo chamber. The 221 delegates who elected Dr. Ruwart to LNC could have easily elected a 5-person radical slate, and yet Susan only got 127 votes. The Reform Caucus allegedly took over the LP in Denver, but we could never get more than ten people to gather at any of our Denver meetings. The past and present leaders of the Reform and Radical Caucuses who ran for party office in Denver — you, Susan, M, Alicia, Jon — all lost.
My impression of the delegates in Denver was that they were so ideologically self-confident about the LP’s principles and radicalness that were willing to vote by communication skill and megaphone size (i.e. name recognition) instead of by ideology, whenever such a choice was presented. I can’t think of any races where the opposite occurred. If LNC reads things the same way, then they may not be as worried about ideological balance as we are.
@133 “just to outright inactivity.”
Outright libertarians for outright inactivity? Might fly.
Say, yes, please, let’s have more crazy stupid stuff at the LNC and LP HQ. Nothing seems to drive our membership numbers faster. http://www.bostontea.us
I just HATE that Jingozian replaced Chuck as vice chair.
That did sort of come out of the blue. I didn’t see it coming at all.
Damn.
I just HATE that Jingozian replaced Chuck as vice chair. At the time I was stunned, and every time I read something like the comment above I am irked anew.
Brian Holtz wrote:
Representation of minority viewpoints is important. Although those minorities may not win votes that are important to them, that faction feels like its represented in the government of the organization. They can get meaningful responsiveness and feedback that would be unlikely in a board completely composed of the majority. Even the LNC members who are responsive now might not be so responsive if they knew the demographic had no agent on the LNC that would take them to task for their unresponsiveness.
Also, LNC representation is about more than just being a decisive vote. While I was on the LNC I tried to bring important matters to a vote and get other LNC members on record as taking a position so they would be accountable to the membership for those positions in the next LNC election. I have handed out a charts of LNC attendance and roll call votes to that end. Among the roll call votes, I was on the losing side more often than not. But I was proud of my votes and felt Convention delegates would agree with me more than those on the other side of the votes.
Minority viewpoint representation on the LNC therefore isn’t just about being the decisive voter, but also about bringing important matters to a vote in the first place and demanding roll call votes (rather than unanimous consent) to force LNC members to put their names behind controversial actions.
In addition, a person’s influence on the LNC isn’t just his or her vote, but also ability to influence the votes of others through making points while debating motions. It is bringing concerns to the table from demographics that otherwise may not have been considered by some at the table. It is reporting back what the LNC did to those groups in a fuller narrative than that provided by the minutes.
I believe having representation on the LNC for radicals is even more important than having a radical VP candidate would have been. However, there are certainly legitimate arguments about whether there would be sufficient other radicals on the LNC without Angela to carry the torch.
I tend to think that the story that will be told if Angela is replaced by someone who is ideologically very different from her will be an attempt to shut that ideology out of the board. Regardless of whether that is actually true or not, that perception will lead to reduced donations from radicals and more flight out of the LP to the Boston Tea Party and other such outlets or just to outright inactivity.
Conversely, (to turn your own argument against you) if one vote is really so irrelevant, what’s the big deal about appointing a radical (rather than a non-radical) to replace Angela in the event she is removed?
A few exciting events are coming up as I see it. The LNC meeting, the CP meeting in Orlando, the Louisiana Congressional elections (Malik Rahim and Chester Kelley, Green and Independent)–new registration totals for the CP, GP, and LP.
It will also be interesting to see how Richard Winger totals the CP’s totals, with or without the AIP.
There’s also the write-in votes, which are still being counted; California has some county by county done and will complete a statewide report on 13 December. Some states already have totals posted, others don’t.
A few exciting events are coming up as I see it. The LNC meeting, the CP meeting in Orlando, the Louisiana Congressional elections (Malik Rahim and Chester Kelley, Green and Independent)–new registration totals for the CP, GP, and LP.
It will also be interesting to see how Richard Winger totals the CP’s totals, with or without the AIP.
TOA is correct. A lot of money could be saved all around, money that in this economy is in tight supply anyway. If the JudComm can do it when they need to, Carling’s weird idea tot the contrary notwithstanding, then the is no reason the LNC can’t either. The technology is simple and readily available for free.
I think Andy and Gary would be at every teleconference.
“G.E. // Dec 3, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Yeah, but Andy, if they held the meetings via teleconference, you and Gary couldn’t show up and ‘extort’ money out of the LNC.”
LOL!
Yeah, but Andy, if they held the meetings via teleconference, you and Gary couldn’t show up and “extort” money out of the LNC.
Paulie @109. I plan on doing a test broadcast with an embedded feed on my own blog tonight. If it works, then I think the last hurdle is overcome on the technical side, and then I will be talking to people about seeking to do a similar embedding in various spots.
“I reply – It’s a huge presumption on your part to suppose that you might direct where I spend my money . . .”
If it is your money you could bury it in your backyard for all I care. I was just pointing out that a lot of money could be saved if LNC meeting – or even just some LNC meetings – were held via teleconference.
LJ @105, The Keaton doesn’t look good in tar.
Susan, I’ll repeat that there is an enormous difference between ideological balance on a two-person presidential ticket vs. on a 17-member administrative board.
I’m not disputing that.
I wonder how many LNC votes this term have broken on identifiably factional lines and could have been changed by a single vote. I’m betting zero.
What I wonder is how many different *sorts* of votes there would have been with a more ideologically radical LNC. I’m betting something greater than zero.
Maybe we need to set up a Civility Caucus to promote this idea.
Yes.
I’ll repeat that there is an enormous difference between ideological balance on a two-person presidential ticket vs. on a 17-member administrative board.
Certainly, you can look at it that way.
Just don’t claim surprise if more people quit the LP or withdraw support if/when the LNC replaces Angela with someone who is considered to be a non-radical.
Susan, I’ll repeat that there is an enormous difference between ideological balance on a two-person presidential ticket vs. on a 17-member administrative board. I wonder how many LNC votes this term have broken on identifiably factional lines and could have been changed by a single vote. I’m betting zero.
George, I want it on the record that I didn’t say you claimed to be the only one in the LP who has advocated more transparency in party operations. Although I know you’re concerned with transparency, I don’t recall you having proposed a formal Transparency Caucus. I was using the term like how I use “Brevity Caucus” on the Platform Committee — a tongue-in-cheek way to refer to people who share a particular value.
This seems like a good time to remind us all of the Libertarian 11th Commandment: “When speaking to or about a fellow Libertarian, thou shalt ascribe the best possible motives consistent with all the available evidence, and thou shalt not say anything thou wouldn’t say in front of both thy mothers.” Maybe we need to set up a Civility Caucus to promote this idea. 🙂
In the case at hand, is not one of the prime complaints Ms Keaton’s alleged inability to “work and play well with others�
I was commenting on myself (Susan Hogarth), since I had been mentioned earlier, not on Angela or the complaints against her.
Angela has certainly demonstrated a strong ability to work well with others from various points on the libertarian spectrum.
In the case at hand, is not one of the prime complaints Ms Keaton’s alleged inability to “work and play well with others”?
I reply – It’s a huge presumption on your part to suppose that you might direct where I spend my money . . .
Rachel, who has done any such thing? The two quotes you share express opinions, not any sort of supposition of power to direct where you spend your money.
LNC members will have to decide for themselves how much they want to solemnize the idea of LNC ideological factionalism by allowing such considerations to override a straightforward application of the runner-up voting for LNC at-large.
Except that it’s not really ‘straightforward’. Picking the runner-up over the third-place finisher – especially when you are dealing with fairly significant ideological differences – can easily create a shift FROM one end of the ideological spectrum TO another – which is quite likely not the wish of the convention.
It’s not an easy problem, and I hope the LNC avoids the necessity for having to solve it.
I feel that the term ‘factionalism’ has a negative connotation which I hope you did not intend. Naturally my goal (I’ve stated it many times) is to (re)radicalize the LP, but I am perfectly willing and able to work with those nonradicals that the membership selects to represent them. If I were not willing to do so, I would not be a member of the LP, and I would not have placed my name in nomination for the LNC.
That’s what I was trying to say. Some people might “like to have that money to spend” on food and housing, for example.
It might also make it possible for some people, who have the time and desire but not the money, to run for the LNC.
Rachel – I agree. But if the meetings were held via teleconference, any members who wanted to meet face to face could voluntarily spend their money (as opposed to needing to as a function of the unpaid job) to meet up. It may not be a waste to you but it probably is to others, who’d like to have that money to spend in a different manner.
TheOriginalAndy // Dec 1, 2008 at 11:14 pm
“The $30,000 that is being spent on these meetings could be better spent on things like advertising, ballot access, law suits against the government, etc…” in response to . . .
“richardwinger // Dec 1, 2008 at 11:08 pm
The members of the national committee presumably spend, collectively, perhaps $30,000 on travel and lodging and incidental costs, to attend a meeting of the LNC. It seems a large proportion of the meeting will be taken up with this. What waste.â€
I reply – It’s a huge presumption on your part to suppose that you might direct where I spend my money . . .
The Judicial Committee is not authorized to review the conduct of an LNC member per se, but is authorized to review actions taken by the LNC. If the LNC takes an action against an LNC member, review of the underlying conduct may be appropriate to come to a decision on the LNC action.
When I say Alicia is almost always shoeless
Good for her. I used to walk around the streets of NYC shoeless. I grew up in what people call a “bad” neighborhood:
http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Chem101/war/html%20pages/ny-heights-crime.html
They called me “Nature Boy,” LOL.
I’m not holding my breath. It seems our transparency advocates don’t mind a little selective opacity every now and then.
Mark me down as a consistent member of the transparency caucus.
widely criticized by humorless radicals who bitterly insisted there was nothing funny whatsoever in my material.
Not me. Loved that stuff!
OK, it appears that I can webcast now, at least on the test runs…
Cool! How about transmitting it here and recording it for later use at the same time? I believe George Donnelly has offered to help…
. LNC members will have to decide for themselves how much they want to solemnize the idea of LNC ideological factionalism by allowing such considerations to override a straightforward application of the runner-up voting for LNC at-large.
I’m against solemnizing it, but let’s face reality. If the LNC replaces Angela with Alicia, it will further alienate a chunk of the party which is already pretty alienated right now, instead of working to bring them back in. Some people on the other side say “good” (as do some people in the BTP), but I know you are not among those.
I note that many people on the “other side” of the party decry our side’s lack of enthusiasm for the Barr-Root ticket, but I warned about that and proposed Kubby for VP. Unlike you, most people on the “other side” did not listen, and got exactly what they were asking for.
And, it could have been a lot worse – Kubby held it together with his speech in the hall, but moments before, he was contemplating getting up on stage and denouncing the ticket. Tom Knapp told him that if he gets up on stage and does anything other than endorse the ticket, they would never speak again.
That rift is not exactly patched up. So, think it through and consider that if the LNC replaces Angela with Alicia, it will cause more people to leave the party, or stop being involved in it.
No one has claimed that. I just want that on the record before you distort my words again.
Thomas, I’ve never listened to more than 10 consecutive seconds of the boorish illiberal Rush Limbaugh in my life. First “Bolshevism”, now Rush Limbaugh. Well, at least your hysterical fantasy world has some left-right balance. I know you’re a fiction writer by trade, but can’t you give us at least one comment here without any made-up facts? 🙂
George isn’t the only one in the LP who has advocated more transparency in party operations. Bonnie Scott and I were transparency sticklers on the last PlatCom. Chuck Moulton has been the LP’s most prominent transparency advocate, but that wasn’t able to overcome Jingozian’s name recognition in Denver. Many of the LPers with a foot in the Boston Tea Party are there allegedly because of transparency concerns, but a few dozen of them have signed onto a Facebook group saying that they know Angela “was only doing her job” even before having heard the charges or seeing the evidence. Thomas Sipos seems to think that none of these people have a problem with Flood publishing his data. Yeah, right. Sipos also ignores the fact that Flood is not asking for expulsion per se, but rather for an apology and a promise not to continue the behaviors. (Does Sipos advocate than Angela continue them?) Sipos further ignores the fact that I’ve left Angela’s intramural antics off my list of the list of charges that I consider most serious.
And of course, Sipos doesn’t try to defend his admitted mischaracterization of the Platform survey.
Keaton should be tarred and feathered! 🙂
All this drama really makes me want to contribute my hard earned money to the LP…
(yes, that is sarcasm)
I suspect he’s referring to me since I said somewhere in the last month that we need a Transparency Caucus.
“They are not skeptical of government. They are paranoid about it. They think it’s an all-powerful, all-knowing institution completely able to pull of the biggest conspiracy in the last 50 years and no one ever leaked a word about it.
They are lunatics.”
You have a very naive view of government as you sound like one of those people who think that everyone in government is stupid and tthere is no way they could have carried out something like 9/11.
There are stupid people in government, but they are mostly at the lower levels. The people who actually run/control government are not stupid. Many of them are highly intelligent.
Now you may say something like, “How can this be, government doesn’t work!” It depends on how you define “work”. From a Libertarian perspective, you’d be right, however, the only problem is that the people who run government DO NOT INTEND FOR IT TO WORK FROM A LIBERTARIAN PERSPECTIVE. Their REAL purpose is to screw people over! They are evil control freaks and they get off on the power that comes from controlling other people. Their purpose is to STEAL and to oppress.
It is rather ironic for Libertarians to assume that everyone in government is stupid. If this were so, then Libertarians would have no problem outsmarting them and achieving victory and we’d have a libertarian society right now.
Governmens have a history of false flag terror operations and of lying.
The sinking of the Lusitania.
Prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor.
The JFK assassination.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The sinking of the USS Liberty.
Watergate.
Iran-Contra.
Gulf War I.
Ruby Ridge.
Waco.
The OKC bombing.
Gulf War II.
The government lies to us on an everyday basis about all kinds of issues.
The War on Drugs.
The Federal Reserve System.
The income tax.
Social Security.
Politicians are professional liars. Government beauracrats lie to justify their jobs.
The REAL lunatics are the people who buy into ANYTHING the government says without quesiton.
It would have only taken a few key people in a few key places to have carried out the 9/11 attack. So it is not like the entire government carried out the attack, just a small handful of rogue individuals in the government would have been all that it took.
Could the government have carried out the 9/11 attack, and are there really people in government who would do this?
You bet your ass on both counts.
“You are right that most (99%) of ‘Truthers’ are nutcases.”
I’d say that anyone who is NOT a 9/11 Truther is a naive fool.
“Concerning 9-11 I beleive it is important , and Duensing tried to unite the movement with the LP in Denver . Our pre-convention debate was awesome . Dylan Avery speaking at the State Chairs meeting was too .
Its not the 9-11 truth movement I had a problem with , but I did have a problem with the lack of consulting others and I thought 3 days of 9-11 events at a 3 day event was overkill . Ecspecially since half the people paying to be there don’t believe it.”
Well then perhaps that half of the people there who believe the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 ought to be replaced with people who are not so naive as to buy into government propaganda. These people are cleraly NOT on the cutting edge of the Freedom Movement if they can’t comprehend that the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 is a lie and that the 9/11 Truth Movement represents a HUGE opportunity for the Libertarian Party to grow.
Check out Libertarians for 911 Truth:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertariansfor911Truth/
Brian Holtz: “I wonder if the Transparency Caucus will leap to Stewart’s defense for providing the membership with this particular data slice through the public record of one of our elected LNC representatives? I’m not holding my breath.”
You can breathe. No one has any problems with Stewart providing any “data slices.”
To suggest otherwise is your own fantasy, urban legend, straw man.
What people in the “Transparency Caucus” (you do love spinning new caucuses, don’t you?) dislike is the LNC using this petty “data slice” as an excuse to expel Angela.
You and Stewart are free to compile all the “data slices” you like, then pass it around, discuss it, email it to Rush Limbaugh, post blog screeds about it, and blow hot air over it.
Transparency is fine. Bogus expulsions are not.
Debra, I can’t really agree that Stuart has assembled a Penthouse-Letters-worthy collection of sexual references here. And if he’s done so just by quoting a few months’ of Angela’s choicest bon mots, then I don’t agree that the resulting embarrassment to the LP is primarily his fault. Hmm, I wonder if the Transparency Caucus will leap to Stewart’s defense for providing the membership with this particular data slice through the public record of one of our elected LNC representatives? I’m not holding my breath. It seems our transparency advocates don’t mind a little selective opacity every now and then. 🙂 Still, I agree with Chuck Moulton that compilations of intramural flaming — even flaming that tries to make up in shock what it lacks in Angela’s usual cleverness — are best saved for convention election handouts.
We had only vague unconfirmed reports of PlatCom alternates having been seated for temporary absences in one or two past conventions. I’m pretty sure it didn’t happen in 2006. The Bylaws hadn’t changed in this area, so I suspect that prior PlatComs just hadn’t studied the rules closely for differences in the three kinds of alternates therein. 2008 was unique in that it was only the second known time in LP history that a PlatCom was meeting in advance of convention week, and it was a PlatCom that faced an unprecedented Platform repair challenge, compounded by having two diametrically opposed solutions to consider. Meanwhile, one of the alternates you were hoping would be considered a “friend” was publicly calling some of us on PlatCom “lying puppets” — right before he asked us to bend the rules and seat him for an absence instead of for a requisite vacancy.
However, it appears I bought more webcam than I thought I needed. Ah well…
OK, it appears that I can webcast now, at least on the test runs…
Thomas, when the facts are on one’s side, one doesn’t need to exaggerate at all.
The facts are at http://knowinghumans.net/2008/02/platform-survey-rebukes-silence-and.html — direct excerpts from each survey question.
Fact: 3, 6, and 8 were straightforward questions on the long-style Atlanta format. That format lost fair and square on all 3, just like it went on to lose in Denver.
Fact: 1, 5, and 10 were straightforward questions on the the radical agenda of a deontological / destinational platform. That agenda lost fair and square on all 3, just like that agenda went on to lose in Denver.
Fact: 2 and 11 were straightforward questions to test the original Reform Caucus vision of a short top-N-list platform. That vision lost even more badly than I had predicted, but I’d already persuaded the reformers on PlatCom to give up on that vision.
Yes, questions 4 and 9 were softballs with predictably lop-sided responses, but those results didn’t favor any of the competing platform proposals so it didn’t matter. (By then the reformista proposal was not about explaining policy “benefits”, nor was it about cherry-picking “topics appealing to voters”.) Similarly, question 7 just pitted two different reformer approaches against each other, and the 50-50 response told us nothing.
Those are the facts about Alicia’s platform survey. We now return you to Thomas Sipos’ fact-free urban legend, already in progress.
@41 on the LNC discovering new standard for behavior, I agree with Mr. Sipos. I’m curious whether the LP bylaws would have the judicial committee review the conduct of a member of the LNC. Is this resolution even consistent with those bylaws?
@40 Thomas, that’s one of the nicest appeals for openness and transparency that I’ve seen. It reads very well.
Brian : I thought the Libertarian Matrix stuff was VERY funny , just so you know.
When I say Alicia is almost always shoeless I mean everytime I saw her she had no shoes on , seriously . It is in no way an extension of any hillbilly remark , like you think .
I think it’s reprehensible of Stewart or whoever to take ALOT of time and pour over everything Angela ever said and compile a list of largely sexual things to discuss.Is embarrassing for us all and IM sure more than one guy has jacked off to it .
Concerning the Bylaws and following them , tell me why had the alternates always been seated before ?I thought when bylaws had been always
been interpreted a certain way , then the precedence of that interpretation carries some weight.
Are you saying all the former seatings of the alternates during the first 36 years of the LP were wrong ? Are you saying that all former plat-coms ignored the rules? Or did it use
to allow seating them and then the bylaws were changed to not allow it?
Concerning 9-11 I beleive it is important , and Duensing tried to unite the movement with the LP in Denver . Our pre-convention debate was awesome . Dylan Avery speaking at the State Chairs meeting was too .
Its not the 9-11 truth movement I had a problem with , but I did have a problem with the lack of consulting others and I thought 3 days of 9-11 events at a 3 day event was overkill . Ecspecially since half the people paying to be there don’t believe it.
But like I said before , it was the best State Chairs conference ever .
Was Alicia responsible for those online platform committee questionaires in the months leading up to the convention?
I thought those questions were biased to push people toward a desired result.
Such as: Do you prefer a platform that attracts voters and successfully advances the cause or liberty in our lifetime? Or do you prefer a nit-picky, tedious platform full of obscure ideology that will confuse and repel voters?
I exaggerate, but not by much.
Debra, you’re mistaken to assume that “Robert or his rules don’t give a crap about restoring liberty”. Henry M. Robert in fact once wrote “Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty.” You’re right that “none of us got to be Libertarians by obeying all the rules just because they’re so.” Instead, we got to be Libertarians because we abhor the arbitrary rule of the mob and we uphold the rights of the individual — even when every last member of the mob lines up against her. We got to be Libertarians because we believe in the sanctity of contract and we say that violating voluntary agreements is naked aggression.
One voluntary agreement that all Libertarians by definition accept is the LP Bylaws, which say “These articles shall govern the association known as the ‘Libertarian Party'”. They go on to say that Robert’s Rules “shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.” This contract that we party members make with each other doesn’t say that these agreed rules “shall usually govern” or “shall govern the Party in most cases”. This contract doesn’t say that the rights of those who agreed to the rules can be ignored just because some subset of us decides that doing so is for “the greater good”. That is exactly the morality of the paternalists who impose without our consent the “unfair laws” and “free speech zones” that you rightly decry. Forcibly-imposed laws are in a completely different moral category than voluntary agreements among consenting adults.
Just asking, S.D., cuz I don’t know: how long did it take for word to be leaked on the Gulf of Tonkin? How about Pearl Harbor? Or do you reject the theory that FDR had advanced knowledge? I don’t know that “not a word” has been leaked about 9/11. It depends on how you define “leak.”
You are right that most (99%) of “Truthers” are nutcases. But they’re less annoying than the people who shut out any possibility of “inside jobbery.” I think that has to do with the varying definitions of “inside job.”
9/11 Truthers are already skeptical of government and they are also anti-war and pro-civil liberties.
They are not skeptical of government. They are paranoid about it. They think it’s an all-powerful, all-knowing institution completely able to pull of the biggest conspiracy in the last 50 years and no one ever leaked a word about it.
They are lunatics.
vicious adj. spiteful; malicious
Debra, readers can decide for themselves whether it was spiteful and malicious for you to say Alicia is “almost always shoe-less”, or that you “bet Stew the butterball jacked off at least 5 times writing that resolution”. Those kind of remarks say far more about you than about the people you’re attacking. As for “lightening up”, well, I tried injecting my own brand of humor into the Denver proceedings with my graphics and movies poking fun at the ideas (not waistline or feet) of radicals, and was widely criticized by humorless radicals who bitterly insisted there was nothing funny whatsoever in my material. Their reactions were far funnier than what they were reacting to. 🙂
The available evidence about what Duensing did with our meeting space is at http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/01/platcom-evicted-from-vegas-meeting.html. The money shot is this: “Duensing could find nobody who remembered the ‘commitment’ he says was made, and cited no authority by which anybody could have bound the PlatCom in the first place.”
Paulie, the bylaws say that a JudCom member cannot be an LNC member. Ruth could resign from JudCom to join LNC.
The ideological difference between Alicia and Susan on a 17-member administrative committee is orders of magnitude smaller than the difference between Root and Kubby in the VP spot under Barr. The presidential ticket is as much about ideology as it is about communication, and that’s why I voted for Kubby even though I was voting for Root after the first ballot of the presidential race. The LNC’s primary function is administrative, but I’m not one of those who deny that ideology should be a consideration. LNC members will have to decide for themselves how much they want to solemnize the idea of LNC ideological factionalism by allowing such considerations to override a straightforward application of the runner-up voting for LNC at-large.
“I had even bigger issues with the way he made the whole meeting about 9-11 truth most notable the very unproffessional question he asked Phillies during the debate .”
Why? 9/11 is one of THE biggest issues of our time and the 9/11 Truth Movement is has grown rapidly and is now many times larger than the Libertarian Party. 9/11 Truthers are already skeptical of government and they are also anti-war and pro-civil liberties. They should be ripe picking for the Libertarian Party, but instead too many Libertarians have chosen to either cower in the corner whenever the issue comes up or to spout the official government statist propaganda/fairy tale about 9/11. Jim Duensing was DEAD ON RIGHT to bring up the issue and I commend him for it.
Bylaws don’t allow her to resign from JC and go on LNC in the same term? Or serve on both at the same time (well, of course not)?
In either case the point wasn’t Ruth per se, or even Susan, but more that: If Angela is found to have behaved inappropriately and is removed from the LNC for this reason, it should not be used as an excuse to alter the caucus/faction/whatever you want to call it balance of the LNC. Given your stated reasons for having supported Kubby for VP, I would think you would agree.
Ruth would have to resign from the Judicial Committee in order to serve on LNC. The Bylaws don’t allow it.
I think either Alicia or Susan would be a fine choice for any LNC at-large vacancy.
I agree, and I do hold both of them in high regard, as I have said.
In this particular case, I think Susan would be a better choice – if she is interested.
If Angela is found to have behaved inappropriately and is removed from the LNC for this reason, it should not be used as an excuse to alter the caucus/faction/whatever you want to call it balance of the LNC.
Because of that, I would recommend that the LNC give strong consideration to possible candidates such as Susan Hogarth and Ruth Bennett who are, roughly speaking, from the same “side” of the party as Ms. Keaton.
Ill be video-taping the proceedings:)
In addition , being that I had dred-locks up until 6 months ago , I’m fairly certain more than a few people have talked about my appearance.
No biggie , the point is we are all adults , sexual innuendos , catty comments and name calling are no big deal .
Everyone will be happy to know my crazy hair is gone:)
However, recording it is the question mark at the moment. Anyone who wants to record the broadcast off the web can record it themselves with my blessings.
And any attempts to stop it will cause a small riot, on camera, too!
(That’s for the skulking trolls!)
Brian , lighten up.
Greusome 3some and shoeless may be a little catty but vicious it is not.
I’m never vicious.
Incidentally , Duensing had reasons for pulling that meeting space . He felt the Plat Com scheduling of the meeting was at a time that would ensure the least amount of people would attend . They had agreed to a certain time and we scheduled events around it , then at the last minute they changed their mind and wanted rto do it while everything else was going on .
Howvever , I did not agree with him that pulling the space was a good idea and told him so . I had even bigger issues with the way he made the whole meeting about 9-11 truth most notable the very unproffessional question he asked Phillies during the debate . All of this felt like bridge burning instead of bridge building and more a personal vendetta of his than a good idea.
He is my friend , a very close one , but lest you think I fall in line with folks just because they are my friends , I regularly argue with my own people. And the State Chairs conference was a big contention between us here in Nevada.
Incidentally , everyone said it was the best State Chairs conference ever.
People have asked. Yes I will be there. In plan on webcasting at best and Twittering at least. Details will be announced here, LFV, and probably my own blog and a couple of other places as I get them sorted out between now and Friday, and if I can get it right there will be ample means to see the webcast. The main reason I haven’t got it totally set up yet is because this is new technical stuff for me and I’m kind of feeling my way, but I’m confident it will work.
The only times I can recall seeing Alicia without shoes are 1) when she had to stand at the podium all day in Denver during the NatCon Platform debate, and 2) toward the end of the 2o-hour days she was putting in for us at our Vegas meeting. That weekend included walking back and forth between the LSLA convention and the meeting space that Alicia had to get for us because Debra’s friend Jim Duensing took away from PlatCom the room he was going to give us.
It’s just plain catty to say that Alicia “is almost always shoe-less”.
Debra (LibertarianGirl), you can’t possibly expect us to think that your sarcastic one-line dig about Alicia wearing shoes was more of a query about fashion choices than an attempt to echo Angela’s “hillbilly” remark quoted above. You can claim to have been “naive” coming into the PlatCom meeting in Denver — in a room that Alicia had to scramble to arrange because your friend sitting next to you at the meeting had peevishly revoked the room he had promised to PlatCom as organizer of the the LSLA conference — but please don’t pretend that readers here are as naive as you claim you had been. And are you also going to tell us there’s nothing vicious in your use of the epithet “gruesome threesome”?
The sad thing is, you are one of the most fair-minded and reflective of the self-identified LP Radicals, and your agreement with Paulie about the demonizing many Libertarians do is much more typical of what I’ve come to expect from you. Similarly, I’ll say that ever since her narrow loss in the Denver LNC race, Susan has been far, far less of a “mouthy” demonizer than she had been before. As the two runners up for LNC at-large, I think either Alicia or Susan would be a fine choice for any LNC at-large vacancy.
As I told you right after Vegas: “in appointing alternates, the LNC was very explicit in ranking the members and alternates, and even discarded some eager potential alternates because of opposition to them on LNC. Thus the LNC was not merely trying to put more shoulders to our oars, but had created an ordered roster for the team it wanted to work on repairing the Platform.” All the points you raise are addressed in the “Rule Police” thread you started then at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertarianReformCaucus/message/1772. As Bob said recently, the proof is in the pudding. The team that the LNC assembled was able to repair the Platform in spite of all the animosity going in to the Platform debate, and since its adoption the repaired platform has attracted almost no criticism. The process worked, and LNC deserves credit for naming Alicia interim chair.
P.S. It’s extremely ironic that you repeat your February comment about a PlatCom member being a registered Republican. Yes, that PlatCom member had temporarily re-registered to try to become a delegate for Ron Paul — a Republican candidate about whom Angela has been far more enthusiastic than about our own LP nominee. Now Angela is faced with more serious charges of party abandonment than what led to a resignation from PlatCom, but your standard seems to have changed since February.
Why doesn’t she wear shoes?
I have no idea , but she is almost always shoe-less.
from lprads group in response to someone suggesting Ruth.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. It has been suggested that one reason “they” want to get rid of Angela is that she asks questions and stands up to “them.” I don’t think they will put me in that spot, do you?
Ruth Bennett
Good choices. Ruth is already on JudCom I believe, so I don’t know if she would want to switch.
Susan Hogarth or Ruth Bennett would be replacing one mouthy broad for another , so I definitely would support either one 🙂
an old blog post of mine made directly after the Vegas meeting.
Vegas was my first national meeting and one thing more than any other
bothered me and really disappointed the ideals Ive had concerning the
way Libs are supposed to act.
Now I dont know all the ins and outs and who’s who of the Platform
Committee and I REALLY DONT CARE but as a outsider looking in it
seemed to me the spirit of Liberty was not in the room when they
decided to not seat two alternates.
COUPLE POINTS OF OBSERVATION
1. 2 others were absent , but 2 members who paid to be there were
ready , willing and able .
2 . One of the missing members is a registered Republican ( I never
imagined it possible to hold a position of extreme importance and be
a member of another Party) . Silly , naive me.
3.I sat thru the meeting and understand the minutia-rules they
grandstanded to oppose seating them , but I was curious why the fact
that it had always been assumed and allowed that alternates be seated
wasnt a bigger factor.
Several people spoke of members and alternates freely sitting in for
eachother and in a court of law precedence carries much weight but in
this meeting at this time , some decided it was time to demand
perfect adherence to the letter of the bylaws , which was open to
intrpretation anyhow.
3.I have never seen L.P people act like rule police before so this
was quite an eyeopener and abruptly killed this fantasy Ive held that
all L.P members are fair , inclusive and would never utilize tactics
we abhorr in others to keep out good and honest people .
Even without knowing all the behind the scenes politicing and
reasoning I couldnt help but ask myself what greater good this was
serving . None of us got to be Libertarians by obeying all the rules
just because they’re so. If there was even room for debate , and
there was , it seemed to me the LP default should be not in adhering
stringintly to Roberts Rules but to include and allow .Last time I
checked Robert or his rules didnt give a crap about restoring liberty.
I geuss when debates have voter quotas we should just accept our
exclusion because the “rules” say we don’t qualify.Or maybe we should
accept free-speech zones without protest , unfair laws withoutout
outrage and quietly try to push our agenda through politely sitting
thru city-council meetings , waiting our turn and hoping we can
acheive our ends thru obeying the means they provide us.
its ludicrous , my only point is that we have NEVER been focused on
such things so I was left to conclude that standing on the rule was a
smokescreen and it wasnt really the rules they cared about but not
seating the alternates was their purpose.
Now I met both alternates and they didnt seem like complete ass%^&*
to me so the only conclusion I could come to was that they would have
voted differently on things and upset some balance the excluders were
and are relying on .
Someone made a great point , they said that some people would be so
put off by their tactics that what thay said after would fall on deaf
ears , even if it was a good idea. They couldnt have been more right .
I know nothing of the in-fighting on a national level and I dont
care. This was my first big meeting and I so disliked the way things
were handled that Ive found myself on a particular side and disliking
the “other side” when I can honestly say I have no idea what
direction the Plat Comms heading in , what proposals are being looked
at or if Alicia and the other excluders are actually nice people (
and im sure they are).
What I know is that at my first national meeting I saw something go
down that shattered my naive perception of Libertarians. I now find
myself in opposition to others when that was never my intention.
These tactics keep us all from uniting and focusing against the real
enemy. I heard someone say , after denying the seating , that “the
enemy is not in this room” .
Theyre right the enemy isnt with-in our walls but how can we unite
to even begin to defeat our enemies when we deny our `friends’ a seat
at the table.
divided and conquered comes to mind
Brian :The vicious substance-free attacks on Alicia are simply a measure of the inability of her detractors to make a case against the merits of her actions.
Ive never said anything vicious about her . I said I think she does the bidding for others and that she doesnt wear shoes.
Is that really vicious?
Matt Harris @ NFV:
By the way, if anyone has thoughts (intelligent ones, preferably) about who might be a good replacement for Angela if she is removed, let’s hear ‘em. I’m personally thinking Susan Hogarth, who ran for LNC, would be a good choice. I have not yet heard from her as to whether or not she’d be interested, however.
A few others spring to mind as well.
P.S. the now-moot 2006 rules on alternates are quoted at http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/02/either-lp-follows-its-own-rules-or-not.html. Simply reading them in the order shown is all that is needed to make the case.
As PlatCom Chair, Alicia was scrupulous about following the rules. At our Vegas meeting we had a massive subcommittee report to work through, but she repeatedly pointed out to those of us in the majority that in a committee we cannot “call the question” and thus limit the right of a lone dissenter to debate for as long as he or she wants. Even on seemingly dilatory replacement amendments that barely got seconded and sometimes didn’t even end up getting the seconder’s vote, she followed the rule allowing unlimited discussion and would then ask before each vote if there is further debate. On the question of seating alternates, her hands were completely tied by the rules. Chuck Moulton and I both initially disagreed with her interpretation, but changed our minds when we were shown the relevant rules. She’s been subject to the most vicious and degrading personal insults (“hillbilly”, “married to an uncle cousin”, and comments about her appearance that I won’t even repeat), but she’s never even dignified such comments with a response. She had to manage the podium for the most momentous all-day Platform debate in LP history, and did so with a level of grace and aplomb that I didn’t think she had in her. I had never heard of her before the 2008 PlatCom cycle, but her star turn in the Platform debate nearly vaulted her onto the LNC — and as the runner-up with a possible vacancy looming, still might. The vicious substance-free attacks on Alicia are simply a measure of the inability of her detractors to make a case against the merits of her actions.
weighing on me not in me LOL
Paulie : Some of that comes from not having the power to make the changes we feel so strongly need to be made in real world politics, so internal politics becomes a proxy.
You know I never thought of it like that but that kinda is weighing in me , I believe your right.
Nevada had a Pres debate and we tele-conferenced in Kubby because he couldnt travel at the time:)
True, but that was phone-only – we had video in Tennessee.
I understand that she is not universally liked.
But she is a hard working libertarian activist, and has – at least at certain times – extended help across internal party division lines, so I would like to give credit where it is due.
There is too much of a tendency to demonize each other in some of these internal party battles. Some of that comes from not having the power to make the changes we feel so strongly need to be made in real world politics, so internal politics becomes a proxy.
Nevada had a Pres debate and we tele-conferenced in Kubby because he couldnt travel at the time:)
I garner my dislike of Alicia based on her being the Plat Com Chair and going out of her way to not seat two alternates.
Also it’s always been my opinion that she’s a stooge for the greusome-3some ( Starr , M and Cory)
Caucus politics aside, I like Alicia.
When I was traveling around to state conventions trying to promote Kubby, she was the only one who was able to make a live teleconference happen. She went out of her way to accomodate us.
The teleconference did not go very well, mostly because of Kubby’s end – he was exhausted from driving around to find and then set up the equipment.
However, Alicia and Stewart Flood made it happen on the technical end in Tennessee, which we were not able to do in any other state, despite trying repeatedly.
And I very much doubt that either Alicia or Stewart were Kubby supporters.
I wonder if Alicia will wear shoes this time.
I REALLY cant stand her.
If anyone that will be there would like to provide running commentary, I can transmit it here.
Also, Chuck Moulton has said that M. Carling and Alicia Mattson “regularly” attend LNC meetings, so there is a high likelihood they will be there again. Chuck, however, is on the East Coast, so he is not likely to be there himself. I am in Alabama right now, so I won’t be there either.
Mike Seebeck has told me he is going, and I think Gene Trosper did also. I can’t remembers for sure if Andy said he is going or just thinking about it. Those are the ones I am aware of.
I’ll be there recording video and audio.
I bet Stew the butterball jacked off at least 5 times writing that resolution .
What a friggin waste of time and resources.
Who’s going to San Diego thats not a LNC member.
Jim Duensing and myself are riding up Friday night.
Alicia Mattson has been the center of some speculation as a likely successor if Keaton is removed from the LNC.
Bob Barr and Scott Lieberman (currently an alternate) have also been mentioned.
M. Carling:
There is no truth whatsoever to the allegation that I am vying for Ms. Keaton’s seat on the LNC.
I am reminded of the time in the late 80s when after GM had purchased EDS, they found themselves with Ross Perot on their Board. Ross was apparently a colossal pain in the tukkus, to put it mildly.
Eventually the Board got fed up with him and they booted him.
Of course, Perot was one of the largest (possibly The largest) GM shareholder at the time… so they had to buy back his stock.
I guess what I’m saying is, there are *objectives*, and then there are the *means* by which those objectives are sought.
Ms. Keaton’s objectives may be correct. I do not know the woman, other than from what I have read on the ‘net, so I cannot assess that. I would also be interested in hearing her explanation/defense, if any.
If her “means” are as described in the document attached to this post, well then I have to say (based on that information) they are most unprofessional and uncollegial.
E*** D****** R******* comments Next Free Voice:
Is this for real, or just a parody? It’s absolutely comical. You all better hope that Republicans don’t see this. They’ll think the Libertarian Party is absolutely pathetic.
The prostitute for donations deal is priceless.
On his blog, he (naturally) spins this as being all about prostitution, and writes “Angela is a personal friend of mine, and is a friend of Libertarian Republican blog. ” This was confirmed by Angela in Denver, when she told Scott Kohlhaas (unsolicited) while in the elevator with me that she “likes his friend E*** D*****,” by way of introduction.
E*** D****** R******* also misidentifies the author of the Next Free Voice article, which is by Matt Harris.
Jim, it’s simply illiterate to suggest I said LNC members shouldn’t be amusing or hilarious. Nor did I say LNC members can’t be aggravating; I just said they have to not be so deliberately and egregiously aggravating as to make an elected supermajority of the LNC conclude that their work is being obstructed. As for “loyalty”, if you can’t figure out the difference between the LP’s 15,000 dues-payers and the 17 people they entrust with those dues, then you’re too far ’round the bend for me to help you. It’s still a lie for you to claim that I’ve ever said that party members should never support a candidate of another party, or vote against an LP candidate, or quit the LP for another freedom party if they think the LP is unsalvageable. You’re simply obtuse if you can’t tell the difference between jumping off the boat, and steering the boat for the rocks.
Thomas, I too might find it refreshing if a party leader made your little fantasy speech — while resigning from the LNC, or maybe even while running for LNC. It’s just Orwellian to suggest that the pattern of behavior described in Flood’s resolution constitutes “trying to fix” problems with the LP and is evidence of “integrity”. It’s equally twisted to claim that LNC drawing a line against these behaviors constitutes a desire to “get votes by any means necessary”. Spare us your “slick B.S.” about an “All-Perfect Vanguard of the Revolution thus beyond criticism”, and just have the intellectual courage to say: “it’s OK for a self-declared lame duck officer to advocate against joining or donating to the party, to make false statements against its duly nominated candidates, and to materially aid a candidate in a race against an LP opponent.” If you can’t utter those words, you’re not competently disagreeing with me. Care to try? Or are you just going to give us more “B.S.” about “anal Bolshevism”?
It’s laughable to say that because LNC members can resign, they should have to collectively “endure” any misbehavior that one member cares to engage in. If you voted for Angela because she’s “mouthy”, then perhaps other delegates voted for other LNC members for their ability to distinguish mouthy criticism from deliberate sabotage. The ability of LNC to suspend a saboteur is indeed one of your “checks and balances to keep them in line” — or do you think that only one of the 17 LNC members gets to draw lines?
Paulie’s post says that supporting evidence for Flood’s resolution is going to be made available later this week. Flood will have the burden of proving his charges that Angela knowingly published false claims against our nominee, materially supported another party’s opposition to our nominees, deliberately misled major LP donors, and sabotaged a worthy LNC lawsuit. (The incendiary charge of verbally threatening him seems very hard to prove.) We should examine the evidence with an open mind and a firm presumption of innocence — but not with a prejudgment that any sabotage can be excused if you call it “self-criticism”.
George, last month you ran for BTP Chair, last week you were considering a run for LP Secretary, and this morning you’re thinking of working inside the GOP. I’m not sure what my writing is doing to make your activism so peripatetic, but I somehow doubt that anything I do will dampen the evident enthusiasm that you (and Jim and ex-LPers like him) have for fretting about the state of the LP. 🙂 Seriously, if the sober and earnest keyboard activity of a minor LP player like me can make you reconsider your LP involvement, then that’s all the more reason to cast a critical eye on the over-the-top antics of our most famous LNC member.
There will definitely be some reporting going on.
Is anyone going to be liveblogging/reporting on the proceedings? Or will we find out (possibly that is) months later?
I’m strongly considering working with the Ron-Paulians inside the GOP at this point.
Of course that is about the intellectual equivalent of cracking open a beer, if not as enjoyable.
(I love beer, btw, just being jocular.)
btw Brian Holtz is helping to convince me – in more ways than one – that working within the GOP is the only productive way to seek liberty through electoral means.
@ johncjackson well said.
I don’t even understand the purpose of the LNC. Could someone fill me in? It just seems like an excuse for a group of “libertarians” to act like Democrat/Republican big-shots and pretend they are important. Being on the National Committee of an almost non-existent political party.
I mean it seems to me that these people have just decided to give up on the LP/libertarianism in general so they need something to occupy their time and show-off their self-importance.
I can’t be the only one who sees something truly fucking bizarre about a bunch of LIBERTARIANS who sit around and jerkoff over Roberts Rules and think of endless ways to waste time demanding apologies because someone may have slightly offended someone or hurt someone’s feelings.
How can Libertarians really have any legitimacy when it comes to criticizing government, other political parties and other organizations, when it seems a great deal of Libertarian time and resources is spent emulating them when it comes to bureaucratic bullshit, wasteful administration.
Not to mention all the Inside Baseball bullshit. A lot of Libertarians just like insulating themselves from anything that actually matters and puffing up their chests as Big Fish in a microscopic pond, I guess.
John,
A Libertarian civilian with no interest in Roberts Rules, Parliamentarians, being an Officer, etc.
These is the kind of things that make involvement in the LP *uninspiring*. Just when I think things are safe and I can get involved again, something so stupid happens (such as Stewart Flood’s asinine resolution) I tell myself “to hell with it”, sit back and crack open another beer, waiting for sanity to return.
I’m probably stating the obvious ( or should be), but I don’t think anything Angela Keaton has done or could do has “damaged” the LP as much as these professional jerk-offs she has for colleagues.
“BrianHoltz // Dec 2, 2008 at 4:06 am
Chuck, I don’t think the 188 delegates who voted for Angela necessarily intended to give her carte blanche to do the kinds of things alleged in Flood’s motion.”
When I voted for Angela Keaton I did not intend to give her carte blanche to stab myself and two of my colleagues in the back and to spread lies about us, all to protect the job of the incompetent, parasitic, and corrupt Political Director, Sean Haugh.
Brian Holtz: “Nor do I think the 220+ delegates involved in electing the rest of LNC intended to sentence them to two years of enduring such behavior whether they like it or not.”
Of course they were not “sentenced.” Any LNC member can resign at any time.
Brian Holtz: “As unpaid volunteers in a largely thankless job, it’s up to the LNC to figure out the standards that will allow them to tolerate working together…”
No, it is not up to the LNC so “figure out the standards…etc.” The delegates elected everyone on the LNC. Thus, LNC members must now either endure or quit.
They cannot say: “This is not what I wanted. I don’t want to work with X, because she doesn’t meet my personal standards. Let’s kick X off the LNC, screw the delegates.”
I voted for Angela largely because of her mouthy, no-nonsense approach. I voted for her because I knew she’d keep the heat on the other delegates, and make them uncomfortable.
Those in authority should be made uncomfortable. That’s not anarchist thinking, that’s minarchist thinking.
An anarchist would abolish those in authority. A minarchist uses all sorts of checks and balances to keep them in line — such as preventing the job from becoming too cluby, cushy, or comfy.
Brian Holtz: “it’s another altogether for a self-declared lame duck officer to advocate against joining or donating to the party,”
As a voter, I’d find it refreshing and encouraging to hear a leader from Party X say, “Listen, my party screwed up on the following matters. I’m ashamed we acted so poorly. I urge you not to vote for my party until we’ve pulled our act together. I want us to earn your votes, not have you vote for us based on ignorance. Please demand higher standards from us, and I hope we’ll rise to those standards and earn your vote at some future date. For now, we don’t. But I’m trying to fix that.”
As a voter, I’d think, now there’s a party of principle. A party that’s honest and transparent, and doesn’t feed me the usual political B.S. I may not vote for them soon, but I’ll keep an eye on them for the future, and let others know about their integrity.
I say, let’s earn the voters trust through transparency and open self-criticism — and not try to hoodwink voters with P.R. coverups and slick B.S.
I think Angela wants the LP to earn its votes. Others want the LP to get votes “by whatever means necessary.” Not cool.
@38 So, just to clarify, Holtz, you are making a party loyalty argument. Members of the LNC have an obligation, in your view, not to express themselves in a fashion that would be considered as disloyal to the party, amusing or hilarious to the members, aggravating to the other members of the LNC, or disloyal to the chosen nominee of the party, yes?
Your comments in 38 read like a call for party loyalty. Yet, elsewhere you disavow ever having made a demand for anyone to be loyal or true to the LP.
I simply don’t believe you. You say that when I call you a person who demands party loyalty in others that I must be lying, but I say that the things you have said here about Angela read like a call for party loyalty.
You say that you are yourself a partisan for freedom, not for the LP. Suppose that Angela is also a partisan for freedom. Why, then, are you upset by her behaviors evincing no particular loyalty for the LP?
I understand that you doubt the effectiveness of her involvement with the Boston Tea Party as a strategy for liberty. However, your call for party loyalty in her case confuses me, because she is doing things that she sees either as amusing (I think a great many of her comments have been meant as humor) or as better ways to advance the cause of freedom.
You seem to be eager to exempt yourself from any loyalty to the LP when it is inconvenient (when, say, you can vote for one of your GOP boyfriends) but quite willing to demand party loyalty in others. Or, at least in this case, in Angela.
Chuck, I don’t think the 188 delegates who voted for Angela necessarily intended to give her carte blanche to do the kinds of things alleged in Flood’s motion. Nor do I think the 220+ delegates involved in electing the rest of LNC intended to sentence them to two years of enduring such behavior whether they like it or not. As unpaid volunteers in a largely thankless job, it’s up to the LNC to figure out the standards that will allow them to tolerate working together, and how to ensure compliance with those standards. They know they have to answer to the membership — at least the ones who care about their future in the LP. And that may be the fundamental problem here.
Petty and self-discrediting intramural flaming is one thing, but it’s another altogether for a self-declared lame duck officer to advocate against joining or donating to the party, to make false statements against its duly nominated candidates, or to materially aid a candidate in a race against an LP opponent. _IF_ such behavior can be convincingly shown to have been committed, then the LNC should indeed demand an apology and a promise against recidivism. This standard should be applied to anyone and everyone serving on LNC or seeking to (re)join it. If the standard wasn’t applied in the past, then that might be a good reason not to forgive an incumbent in the next LNC election, but it’s a lousy reason to give carte blanche for continued violations of the standard.
Yeah, most of what Chuck said at #22. And, damn, if this crap holds, I’m already disqualified from sitting on the LNC, since I have made many of the same criticisms of the LP and the Barr campaign that Angela has – only not nearly in as satirical a way as she has. I am also a member of the Boston Tea Party and have made salacious and sexual innuendos about LP officers. And I would not apologize for any of those offenses just to avoid the wrath of the Starr chamber.
@35, Thomas, I’ve got 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.
It seems someone scoured Angela’s blog postings, looking for any “negative remarks” she might have made about the LP.
This resolution is so anal. So much petty overkill. And so Bolshevik in its attempt to impose party discipline.
It’s the Bolsheviks who believed that the Party is the All-Perfect Vanguard of the Revolution, and thus beyond criticism.
Shame on the LNC for embracing Bolshevik style attacks against free speech and criticism.
@30 Given how many people contributed to you getting there and being able to participate, I would think you’d see a resolution of the type being proposed against Angela as an even worse thing. I mean, the value was contributed for your participation because those people believed you were making a meaningful contribution to freedom by being at the meetings, right? It just seems crazy to ask people to contribute the same way if the LP is nothing but a society of lamers and whiners complaining about one of their own.
Mind you, I think there are many parts of the LP, and many people still active within it, who are eager to make contributions to freedom. Which is why it is such a shame to see this waste of time and talent.
@29 Concur. lol
@24 Concur. I wonder if this waste of their time is going to be met with disgust.
@15 We know that there were fewer seats on the life boats than there were passengers on the RMS Titanic. Sadly, there were more seats on the life boats than passengers on the life boats. These facts seem to suggest that arguing over seating arrangements on the life boats was a vital matter, a matter of life and death. Are you characterising this brouhaha over whether Stewart Flood likes Angela as life or death in its significance? Or was that a “deck chairs” jest gone badly awry?
this whole conversation is more amusing than anything else, but I would like to clarify one thing:
When I served on the LNC (an occurrence more anomalous than anything else), I had:
A) a local benefactor who donated Southwest Frequent Flyer miles to allow me to get to (All but one of the) LNC meetings;
B) A series of better-heeled colleagues on the board, who repeatedly kicked in to help pay for my hotel rooms, some of the finer meals and other extras along the way; and
C) Both my own state party (LPTN) and several others (officially or not) donating stipends from their budgets (with consent of their convention delegates) to affray other costs (incl hotel rooms, meals and the gas I spent on one trip to Denver … at the end of which I managed to crash my car and end up taking a bus back home, for which busfare I still owe one of my colleagues at the time).
I raise this only to point out that in at least one case there WAS a member of the LNC who found a way to make it a cooperative process, instead of a huge financial burden assumed by the board-member alone. (I would add my opinion that anyone on the LNC who does not either write off most of the cost as a “business expense” (combining trip-purposes, etc.), take vacations around the meetings, or find some way to help subsidize the process … is either silly or short-sighted at best!)
As to why they are going to waste even a half-hour on this bullshit … I can only guess
Stewart Flood is such a douche bag , I can say that because my ex-comm believes in free speech and won’t try to punish me for saying unkind things!
Now , that resolution is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read .
The implications are that noone can ever say anything mean , or funny or suggestive or anything.
Calling the donors is the only real infraction , if it did happen and I’d bet it didn’t.
what a bunch a pathetic-ass babies , wah wah wah , Angela called me names . Better yet , the hot chick none of those idiots could EVER HAVE , is having sexual harassment charges lodged against her. ROFLMAO.
I think they just want to talk about sexually explicit things she said cause itas the closest they will ever get to getting any.
Agreed. There’s no reason these meetings couldn’t be conducted (publicly!) over the Internet. Though there is also a certain value to getting everyone together in one place every once in a while that can’t be replicated online, there’s no reason the LNC couldn’t still conduct some or even most official business online.
“richardwinger // Dec 1, 2008 at 11:08 pm
The members of the national committee presumably spend, collectively, perhaps $30,000 on travel and lodging and incidental costs, to attend a meeting of the LNC. It seems a large proportion of the meeting will be taken up with this. What waste.”
I TOTALLY agree here. Couldn’t they save a lot of money by conducting meetings via teleconferencing?
The $30,000 that is being spent on these meetings could be better spent on things like advertising, ballot access, law suits against the government, etc…
“like accusing the LP of defrauding donors,”
When it comes to the actions of Sean Haugh, I’d say that this charge is true, although it is rather ironic that Keaton wants Haugh to keep his job and was willing to lie for him so he could stay in that job.
I agree that it was just as wrong for Bob Barr to support candidates with LP opponents while on the LNC. However, that’s very different from supporting Ron Paul, who had no Libertarian opponent in his *primary* elections. There’s nothing wrong with that, even if Ron Paul wasn’t a former LP Presidential candidate, current LP member, and had close ties to both the LP and libertarianism. After all, Ron Paul has spoken at Libertarian conventions before (2004?). Are you saying he should have been booted from the Republican Congressional caucus and/or the Republican Party for doing so?
The members of the national committee presumably spend, collectively, perhaps $30,000 on travel and lodging and incidental costs, to attend a meeting of the LNC. It seems a large proportion of the meeting will be taken up with this. What waste.
I hope some of the more picayune things get cut from the final resolution, like some of the more childish but harmless jokes, but if the more serious charges are sustained I think the resolution should be passed. It’s not that she was necessarily wrong to say and do those things if she felt that way (though some things, like accusing the LP of defrauding donors, would have still been beyond the pale), it’s that she should not have remained on the LNC while doing so.
What a shame. I’m huge fan of her husband’s work, but he takes a much broader, saner view of the libertarian movement.
I think it was clear long before her election to the LNC this term that Angela regularly makes jokes in public of the types mentioned here. She was elected to the LNC by the Convention delegates in spite of that behavior (or perhaps even because of it). Abridging her free expression in this manner would be second guessing the clear will of the delegates.
I for one appreciate seeing my libertarianism mixed with humor — recognizing of course that humor should be limited by libel.
As for offering material support to another party, it seems clear to me that Bob Barr by virtue of his leadership PAC contributions to Republican candidates and several LNC members by virtue of their donations to the Ron Paul campaign have engaged in similar behaviors. If it’s fine for them, it should be fine for her.
Full disclosure: I make a monthly pledge to the Republican Liberty Caucus which is 1/4th the pledge I make to the national LP. I did not donate to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign while I served on the LNC.
If LNC members are concerned about the manner in which Angela Keaton expresses herself, I think a better approach would have been to oppose her re-election in Convention by passing out literature expressing their disdain for her behavior.
In contrast, breaches of confidentiality and Executive Session seem actionable if the confidentiality and Executive Session were not used improperly in the first place (as I believe they were when Angela was libeled) — especially if they are continuing occurrences.
If the LNC is serious about this type of motion, a much better approach would be a resolution of suspension contingent on a future breach of Executive Session or confidentiality as judged by a subcommittee appointed to monitor compliance. Remove all the fluff and get down to what many LNC members have told me is the root of the issue.
Note to LNC: it’s a bad idea to suspend an elected officer of the party for doing the same things Ron Paul has done (providing material assistance to a competing political party, publishing offensive statements under his name). Apparently IOKIYARonPaul.
Actually, if you read the turkey carefully, you will notice that there is a general statement “conduct injurious” but the resolution actually does not specify what the ‘conduct injurious’ was.
You could propose that the things Angela is listed as ‘apology required’ to do are the ‘conducts injurious, but the resolution could use improvement.
I suppose you could cover this in two days, but only if no one made a serious effort to defend or refute it.
I am sure the competent parliamentarians have noticed why the resolution as phrased violates the Bylaws and is out of order, not because of anything in the first two paragraphs.
I dunno about you all, But I’d be telling some people to get bent, if it were me.
“But Ron Paul did NOT endorse the LP candidate. He even went out of his way not to. ”
That COULD have something to do with the fact that the LP did NOT have a libertarian Presidential candidate this year, instead we had Bob Barr.
I think that Ron gave Barr a chance and Barr failed so he endorsed Baldwin instead. I can’t say that I blame him one bit.
I’d be willing to bet that if the Libertarian Party had nominated Mary Ruwart or Steve Kubby that Ron would have either endorsed them or he would not have endorsed anybody (wanting to remain on good terms with Ruwart/Kubby and Baldwin).
If Harry Browne or Aaron Russo were still alive and one of them were the candidate this year I bet that Ron would have endorsed them. I bet that Ron would have endorsed Michael Badnarik had run again.
Ron Paul not endorsing Bob Barr was more a rejection of Bob Barr than it was a rejection of the Libertarian Party.
@16 LOL
I believe a motion is in order to extend debate on this important item to the entire two-day meeting.
I can think of no better use for the current members of the LP National Committee than to conduct endless hearings into the manners of their members.
This is like arguing over deck chair arrangements on the Titanic.
I take that back. It’s more like arguing over seating arrangements on the lifeboats.
@12 Steve, Ron said he had plans to endorse no one. Barr then insulted him, Barr’s pet clown Shane Cory told one of Ron’s people to go f#ck himself, and Barr urged Ron to get off the sidelines and endorse someone, confident that it would have to be Barr. Not endorsing Barr was the right thing to do.
Endorsing Baldwin was the obvious move to expect, given Ron’s long relationship with Chuck. I don’t agree with the endorsement, but I wasn’t surprised by it.
I have a long list of prospective donors for the LP if they are getting Angela to sell sexual services for donations – men and women. I think it would be interesting to see what basis Angela has for having stated that she was being pimped by the LP. I seem to recall a number of conversations with her in this regard.
If the LP has been pimping her, or even giving the impression that any female members of the LP team are available for sexual services in exchange for substantial donations, or even asking female members of the LP to wear skimpy clothes when meeting prospective donors, then this accusation is exceedingly hypocritical. How utterly Victorian.
What I don’t get is how these things are being turned on Angela. As I suspect she has valid reasons for making the complaint, it is a sexual harassment and sex-in-the-workplace complaint with her as complainant, as victim, not as perpetrator. And it sort of makes a mockery of the Casey accusation.
I would be curious if Casey is a complainant, claims aggrieved status, or if all this nonsense is being trumped up without Casey’s agreement.
Yes, but Ron Paul is a Life Member of the Libertarian Party, a former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, and has been a long time member of the Libertarian Movement.
But Ron Paul did NOT endorse the LP candidate. He even went out of his way not to.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of past LNC conduct. Or of the Barr campaign.
Pacem en Terris
Steve
I had been under the impression that Casey Hansen called the comments “flattering.” Is this attack by Flood supported by Hansen? Or is Hansen just being named to generate mock outrage by hypocritical neo-conservative filth?
Politics is a game of appearances, and is often exceedingly vain and shallow. Sadly, people really do care how politicians and the staff of parties look, generally more than they care what these same people say or do. Saying it while looking good is a part of politics that cannot be ignored. So, it is actually relevant to his ability to do his job that Casey looks good, or dresses well. I don’t say that this standard for performance is rational, but it exists. Pretending that it is wrong to comment on how members of the party’s staff look is just silly.
And thinking that human beings ought to act like asexual automata is idiotic and outrageous. The whole fun of being for liberty is to be comfortable the way we really are, not the uptight, stuffed shirt, stupid way the neo-cons want us to pretend to be.
Stewart Flood is calling for a return to Victorian hypocrisy. What a load of jizz covers that jac wipe.
Steward Flood needs to “man up” and be consistent in his indictments of activities “injurious” to the LP. If he is unwilling to do so, he needs to drop this resolution against Keaton and resign himself.
Quite a bit of the resolution reads as a gag order, suspending the party’s platform which calls for free expression, where it applies to Angela. I wonder if the LNC members want to set a precedent that would then bind all of them down in dress codes, appropriate speech codes, rules of decorum, political correctness policies, and other chains.
@4 Gene, I completely agree. Bob Barr did damage to the LP as a member of the LNC, giving direct aid and comfort to the GOP. Phillies put together a list of the LP candidates who faced GOP opponents funded by Barr’s PAC. It seems utterly hypocritical to let Barr have a free pass and hit Angela with this garbage.
“6 Steven R Linnabary // Dec 1, 2008 at 9:49 pm
For that matter, didn’t the LNC offer support to a republican candidate (Ron Paul)??
Pacem en Terris
Steve”
Yes, but Ron Paul is a Life Member of the Libertarian Party, a former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, and has been a long time member of the Libertarian Movement.
“Gene Trosper // Dec 1, 2008 at 9:43 pm
If Stewart Flood is really concerned about activities that are “injurious†to the LP, then where is the resolution about Bob Barr providing support to Republican candidates while he was on the LNC? It sure as hell is more injurious than a joke about being passed around like a pu-pu platter.”
I agree that Bob Barr there should have been a resolution against Bob Barr for raising more money for big government Republican candidates than for the Libertarian Party while he was on the LNC. Bob Barr should have been removed from the LNC for this. For that matter, Bob Barr never should have been handed a seat on the LNC in the first place.
I didn’t like the way Barr was handed a seat on LNC as soon as he joined the party. It is not like Barr was even a long time small “l” libertarian before this, at best, he was a recent “convert”. Barr should have had to have EARNED his place on the LNC by joining the party and working his way up the ladder and then run for the position at an LP Convention.
For that matter, didn’t the LNC offer support to a republican candidate (Ron Paul)??
Pacem en Terris
Steve
Seems a rather lengthy indictment.
Why she would want to stick around, if she has such a dim view of the principals, baffles me.
Still, this all seems to me a diversion from the more important issue, i.e., coming up with a viable strategy and raising money (which it seems they’re out of).
If Stewart Flood is really concerned about activities that are “injurious” to the LP, then where is the resolution about Bob Barr providing support to Republican candidates while he was on the LNC? It sure as hell is more injurious than a joke about being passed around like a pu-pu platter.
“An apology to Wayne Allyn Root and the Libertarian Party for attempting to injure their public images by knowingly publishing on June 13, 2008 false assertions that an indictment on charges of fraud was pending against Mr. Root”
How about an apology to Andy and Gary for falsely accusing them of crimes, in addition to making other false statements about them?
How about an apology to Paul for saying that she was going to use her position on the LNC to blackball him from working just because he posted comments on a blog that said that the statements that she made about Andy and Gary were false?
Of course by this point I’m sure that an apology would not be sincere since she had plenty of time to do it on her own and failed to do so.
Text
Resolution of Discipline
Whereas, Angela Keaton has engaged in conduct injurious to the Libertarian Party and
its purposes; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Angela Keaton’s membership in the Libertarian National Committee is
suspended pursuant to Article 8, Section 5 of the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party; and
further be it
RESOLVED, That the aforementioned suspension is hereby rescinded, contingent upon
a determination by the Secretary that Angela Keaton has submitted within seven days of
the adoption of this resolution a letter for publication in LP News including (and limited
to):
· An apology for being in breach of a board member’s fiduciary duty of loyalty to
the Libertarian Party, publicly declaring her disinterest in the party, providing
material support to another political party and seeking to undermine the success
of and attempting to injure the Libertarian Party and its public image. The
contents of the apology to include the following:
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for seeking to undermine the success of and attempting to injure the Libertarian Party
and its public image by posting on her blog in July 2008, “Friends don’t let friends join the LP†and on September 5, 2008, “The LP is hopelessâ€
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for violating the fiduciary duty of a board member by joining and providing material
support to a competing political party while serving on the board of the Libertarian Party
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire for attempting on August 21, 2008 to sabotage the party’s attempt to win the right to candidate substitution for future elections
o An apology to Wayne Allyn Root and the Libertarian Party for attempting to injure their public images by knowingly publishing on June 13, 2008 false assertions that an indictment on charges of fraud was pending against Mr. Root
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for publicly offering on her blog on June 28, 2008, sexual services in exchange for donations to the Party, and suggesting in Internet interviews on June 20, 2008 and
June 26, 2008 that the Libertarian Party asks her to offer sexual services in exchange for donations to the Party
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian National Committee and to the members of the Libertarian Party for numerous blog posts and
Internet interviews with officers of a competing political party in which the Libertarian Party’s image was harmed with broad-sweeping general
hostility towards the LP, numerous broad insults of her fellow LNC members as being inept, unqualified and not “real†libertarians, and impugning the motives of fellow LNC members for serving on the LNC
o An apology to Bill Redpath for repeatedly asserting in an Internet interview and on blog postings that he has undergone a “lobotomyâ€
o An apology to Admiral Colley for asserting in an Internet interview on June 20, 2008 that due to his age he is incapable of handling special LNC
projects involving staff management
o An apology to Bob Sullentrup for calling him an “ass†and a “goofball whose activism days were long behind him†in an Internet interview on June 20, 2008
o An apology to Dan Karlan for saying in an Internet interview on June 26, 2008 that he isn’t qualified to be on the LNC
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for asserting in an Internet interview on June 26, 2008, that most LP members who are
concerned about border security are racists
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for misusing donor data to contact major LP donors and falsely telling them that the
Libertarian Party had defrauded them
· An apology for exhibiting a pattern of reckless behavior and poor judgment, potentially exposing the LP to harassment lawsuits, creating an uncomfortable environment for staff and fellow LNC members, and potentially discouraging groups of people from joining the LP. The contents of the apology to include the
following:
o An apology to LP staff member Casey Hansen for violating the LNC Policy Manual Article 1, Section 8.D and risking sexual harassment
accusations by blogging on September 6, 2008, “Nice staff piece of ass, Casey. Dark, young and easy prey for a cougar like myself.â€
o An apology to Aaron Starr and the Libertarian National Committee for violating LNC Policy Manual, Article 1, Section 8.D (which prohibits
harassment of LP staff or fellow LNC members with racial epithets and derogatory posters, pictures, cartoons, or drawings) by posting on her blog on June 16, 2008 a photo-shopped image of herself and Mr. Starr portraying him in Darth Vader costume and Hitler moustache and
identifying him as “Darth Herr Vaderâ€
o An apology to the Libertarian National Committee for violating LNC Policy Manual, Article 1, Section 8.D and risking sexual harassment accusations by posting on her blog on September 6, 2008 sexual comments regarding Julie Fox, Heather Scott, Executive Director candidate Donny Ferguson, and Admiral Colley
o An apology to Southerners and Christians for violating LNC Policy Manual Article 1 Section 8.A which states, “All collective deprecation, whether alluding to sex, race, color, national origin, disability, age, religion, or any other protected category, must be avoided. Every person is a unique individual, and as the Libertarian Party is the Party of Individual Liberty, this injunction should doubly applyâ€, for posting on her blog on June 13, 2008 referring to an LP member from the South as a “hillbilly†and further stating, “All those Christian types married to their uncle cousins look the same to me.â€
o An apology to the Libertarian National Committee for offering sex to the LNC officers conditional on the performance of our Presidential candidate by stating in an Internet interview on June 26, 2008, “If Bob Barr breaks
1%, the officers of the national party can pass me around like a pu-pu platter.â€
· An apology to the Libertarian Party for violating the confidentiality of the September 7, 2008 Executive Session with a blog post on the same date and also for violating the confidentiality of a February 2008 Executive Session with a blog post on June 15, 2008
· An apology to Stewart Flood for threatening by phone on November 6, 2008, “I could have things done to you.â€
· A promise not to commit similar offenses in the future while serving as a member of the Libertarian National Committee
Well, this goes quite a bit beyond the way Angela fills out a BTP t-shirt.
The parts about contacting major LP donors and threatening Flood are very disturbing, and of course would require solid evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence. The LNC will have to judge for itself how seriously to take the sum of Angela’s intramural performance-art antics; I guess that’s why the threshold for removal is 2/3. Such a majority would have to explain what they mean by “material support for a competing political party”. I think it’s forgivable even for LNC members to support candidates in other parties if the candidates are not facing an opposing LP candidate, but people like Tom Knapp disagree on that point.
This set of charges clearly won’t be resolved in 30 minutes. Hopefully the question can be divided along some lines that will group charges of similar nature and evidential basis.