The Libertarian Party of California will Begin its 2010 Convention and Board of Directors Election tomorrow. The event is scheduled for three days, with over 60 attendees having registered as of Wednesday.
The Convention Schedule, Program and Speaker list have not been made available to the public or to any attendee this reporter has been in contact with. Official Party Website link: http://www.ca.lp.org/events.shtml#lpcaconvention has prices only.
Speakers include Wayne Root, Judge Jim Gray and several state LP Candidates. Annually designated elections will be held, and to fill the vacancies from recent resignations.
Topics expected to be covered are the upcoming election season, as well as the recent expulsion and reinstatement of two LPCA Members. (Yours truly being one of those two aforementioned members.)
The Platform Committee (PlatCom) meeting is rumored to be tomorrow, Friday at 9:00 AM. (That’s morning for those of you who live in Rio Linda.)
The Convention website lists $238 or 278 for Business Sessions, Saturday and Sunday breakfast and lunch buffets, plus the Saturday evening banquet. This does not include other meals or lodging. The minimum floor fee is $99 to enable Delegates to vote.
The usual discussion about the ethics of charging a floor fee is expected on the floor from both sides of the matter.
Delegate, Candidate, Donor and Volunteers are traditional at these events, as well as evening and late night parties. Onsite Registration has traditionally been available as well. No daily fee for any of the three days is listed and inquiries about this matter have gone unanswered.
The event takes place at the Marriott Courtyard Long Beach Downtown.
California is the largest Libertarian Party affiliate of the national LP, by Membership. Roughly 2/3 of the membership traditionally is from Southern California, though Conventions are traditionally rotated evenly between north and south.
No on site Convention or Party Contact information is available, so Delegates are keeping in touch with their County Chairs for updates and last-minute registration information.
IPR will be the first to report on the news from the Convention.
Well done Bruce. Nice news post–I look forward to the coverage.
Longtime Libertarian activist Dan Wiener is running to represent California on the Libertarian National Committee.
Dan Wiener has been active in The Libertarian Party since 1972 – the year the LP was founded. He has held leadership positions at the county and state level, and helped elect Sandi Webb to the Simi Valley City Council.
Dan has always been helpful to Libertarian activists who have needed his help. He has the experience and temperament we need on The Libertarian National Committee.
CONVENTION UPDATE:
As of the time of this post, the LPCA has emailed many members a program and schedule.
While it’s too long to present here, the author will forward it to any interested party if he gets an email request. ( Bruce@GetBruce.com )
This information is not posted on the web at this time.
Election timing is on the minds of Delegates most of all, it seems, so this excerpt from the program is appropriate:
“At 1:15 p.m., our business session resumes with the continuation of the Platform Committee report. We’ll nominate our Executive Committee At-large Representatives and Alternates, Judicial Committee, and California’s LNC Representatives and Alternates.”
There is still no onsite contact information listed, just the LPCA office number.
Your loyal reporter’s phone is ringing off the hook with questions and updates.
We will try to give you only the most accurate and relevant news through the weekend.
New Update, the floor fee, or as it’s opponents are calling it, the ‘poll tax’, is now $129.00 instead of $99, making the cost of voting at the CA Convention 30% more than the US Convention in St. Louis this May.
Please bring your wallet if you want to vote.
Is M*&thew Ba8ns going to show up?
Update: The Full program is on the web now, at: http://getbruce.com/index.php?menuID=Page&pid=8 or
http://snipurl.com/ucduw
My guess is Matthew will show up.
He truly believes he has done nothing wrong.
And, he loves being the center of attention.
Can You Help With A Logo?
The open primary now has a number . . . Proposition 14 on the June 2010 ballot.
We’re working to design a neat little logo for “Yes on 14: Tell The Parties – The Voters Are In Charge Now”.
http://www.independentvoting.org
jcoffey9991911@yahoo.com contact@independentvoice.org.
IndependentVoice.Org | 701 Taylor Street Suite 307 | San Francisco | CA | 94108
Daniel Wiener was one of the Fallacious Five who overtuned the Matthew Pedophile Barnes decision. I certainly hope there are better choices. NODA would be a better choice than Daniel Wiener.
Mike Seebeck is running for LNC Rep for region 2. I endorsed Mike the moment he announced his run, and I continue my support for him.
He’s already got an established relationship with members of the LNC and he has a reputation for getting things done. I’d be surprised if he ever misses an LNC meeting as our rep.
Mike Seebeck has been way more active than Wiener. In fact, Wiener isn’t even going to attend the convention! Don’t take Berkman’s endorsement too seriously as to what is best for the Libertarian Party. He’s historically been known to support Republican candidates over the Libertarian opponent.
“Floor fees?! We don’t need no stinking floor fees!”
A Google search for Executive Committee candidates has uncovered something troubling. I find it offensive that Lawrence Baird refers to Native Americans as ‘Injuns’ http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1998/libe43-19981225-07.html
I hope he can explain to delegates why he chooses to use a racial epithet.
To ‘wondering’: only if he wants to cause a circus scene at the convention.
What happened to the days when Cal.LP turned out more than 200 people to their state conventions??? Without the tremendous advantage of non-partisan races in Cal., I wonder if CalLP would ever elect anyone to anything? It certainly doesn’t seem big enought to frighten anyone.
Instead of worrying about the 2012 Presidential candidate, all state LPs should worry about how to grow. Each state chair should be the leader of whatever county showed the most growth in the prior two years. Do this for twenty years on a local and state level before worrying about which presidential nomination seeker is the most faithful to core libertarian principles.
“Old Guard Libertarian // Feb 12, 2010 at 8:50 am
A Google search for Executive Committee candidates has uncovered something troubling. I find it offensive that Lawrence Baird refers to Native Americans as ‘Injuns’ http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1998/libe43-19981225-07.html
I hope he can explain to delegates why he chooses to use a racial epithet.”
*********************************
I congratulate “Old Guard” on his or her research skills. I wonder why so many IPR commenters need to use pseudonyms…
If you take the time to read the article, you will see that the article is netural or positive towards Native Americans. The word “Injun” was used only in the headline of the article as a hook to get the reader’s interest.
Libertarians should avoid needlessly inflaming people by purposely using hurtful language, but a single use of the word “Injun” in the title of an article from 11 years ago is not a felony, or even a misdemeanor violation of the laws of political correctness.
Bruce Cohen // Feb 12, 2010:
“He truly believes he has done nothing wrong.
And, he loves being the center of attention.”
From personal experience, two decades ago
California Libs were all over the general election ballot. Many [MANY] were not active campaigners —– but they were present on election day. [May be that low level saturation initiative was not such a bad idea ……]
I thought there was going to be a debate among the announced candidates for LNC Chair, but I do not see it on the agenda. What happened?
I agree we should be reaching out to the Native Americans as potential recruits and supporters. I always wanted to have a rep from AIM come speak at our meetings . they are our natural allies.
I don’t ever remember meeting Lawrence.
But a little research reveals he is a Naitive American himself, a Cherokee.
He also is FaceBook friends with Russell Means…
And before someone says that’s meaningless, anyone can be FB friends with the Pope…
Mister Baird had Mister Means as a speaker at one of his meetings.
So, let’s stop with the false racist accusations against folks. (The real racists in the LP are not allowed to be called that, someone ALWAYS complains when I point out the anti-semites.)
Russell Means was the speaker at one of Baird’s LP Conventons, so it’s more than just a FB deal.
I think we should reach out to everyone and stop calling people right or left, Mormon or Jew, and just Libertarian Americans.
@18
Sunday afternoon — questions for LNC candidates. That includes you, I gather if you are there.
I send my fellow Libertarians in California my best thoughts, but there is no practical way for me to cross the continent between Sunday midafternoon and when I need to be here to work on Monday.
@21 – ‘fraid I will not be attending. I will be in Austin for the LSLA/LNC gathering two weeks from now, however.
LibGrrl // Feb 12, 2010:
“wanted to have a rep from AIM [American Indian Movement] come speak at our meetings; they are our natural allies.” (……….. and abused veterans and non traditional vets organizations)
@#5 & # 14: Of course Barnes will be there. He thinks the CA LP revolves around him.
Emotions are so high that, at this point, possibly only Barnes can keep things from being a circus.
He’ll probably run for the EX Com again. Why not? He’s been vindicated by the Fellatio Five
(the Judicial Committee- Hinkle, Wiener, Antman, Hacker, and Nichol.)
@16 I’ve known Larry for a few years now and all I can say is that he’s politically incorrect, nuthin’ wrong with that. I do understand that the label “injun” can be a bit inflammatory toward some though (I have Cherokee in my family background as well).
Larry isn’t racist. I don’t even think that posting was calling Larry racisit either. I just think it’s symptomatic of the LPCA coming apart at the seams. Under normal circumstances, I don’t think that would have made anyone bat an eye and even mention it.
I must say that since the LPCA Judicial Committee handed down their decision, things have gotten WEIRD. Now I am hearing about odd alliances and all sorts of stuff. The convention ought to be real interesting.
@19 I am a HUGE fan of AIM!
Don Lake said . . .
“Can You Help With A Logo?
The open primary now has a number . . . Proposition 14 on the June 2010 ballot.
We’re working to design a neat little logo for “Yes on 14: Tell The Parties – The Voters Are In Charge Now”.”
PLEASE tell me you’re not supporting this?
“Top Two” is the DEATH of minor parties.
http://bit.ly/cn0IJW
http://bit.ly/d8lggS
This is not hyperbole – in a “blue” district, all the Ds have to do is to run a second D candidate, and all General Election ballot choices will be D.
Ditto for “red” districts.
And the Green, Libertarian, Constitution and Progressive Parties never see another ballot line.
We LIVE it here. Our alt parties are joining to (try to) support an independent candidate – where the candidate is only “sort of” okay with all of us – because the goal is to bust the two party lock.
All Quiet on the Western Front.
A few people are working the parties and hospitality suites for votes.
No big surprises have been revealed to your loyal reporter.
Many people will be going tomorrow to vote, it seems, from feedback we get by email and phone.
At this time many of the folks already at the Convention are at the hospitality suites and parties, competing to see who can have the best hangover tomorrow.
Nobody has been found drunk and passed out in the parking garage like in Denver in 2008, at least not that I’ve heard so far.
Folks have been passing out printed material and we hear they are getting ready to put more of it in front of delegates.
How many trees must die for the Libertarian Party of California’s Election 2010?
Never mind the LPCA — how may trees must die due to politics in general?
I’ll be checking in all day tomorrow to see what’s going on.
It’s reville time in Long Beach for the Conventioneers.
Well, actually, that’s only for those who aren’t going to have breakfast at the Convention Buffet.
Conventions traditionally save money by underbooking the buffet with the Hotel by 50%.
And usually, there is still plenty of food left over to feed the volunteers, too.
Today’s breakfast speaker is Pam Browne and tomorrow’s is Judge Jim Gray.
Experienced speakers usually consider breakfast slots being sort of an insulting time slot placement, but maybe there is something I’m missing.
Pam Brown, one of our real-live Economists, and a working college professor is worth going to hear speak. Poor girl has to wake up pretty early to get there.
And did you see all her hair?
She had to start drying it at 3:00 this morning, I bet.
People who spent the night at the parties very well might want to sleep in a little late and just have room service. Folks arriving today probable had a drive through breakfast, or ate at home, and will just go for the business.
More trees will be killed to feel the insatiable need for people to tell their story in writing.
How deep will the flyer stack get in front of each delegate today?
Wayne Root is in the house, and we hear breakfast was good and so was the service.
Breakfast at my house is better, though maybe the service is slower.
Bacon served at the Convention breakfast. Obviously a slight at the many Jewish Libertarians. (Sarcasm, folks.)
24 people showed up for breakfast. Two stragglers came in late for a total of 26 warm bodies in the room to hear Pam and get the food they paid for.
Instead of bacon. Make it Turkey bacon. LOL
Pam Brown’s speech went into overtime and she is taking questions now.
I am on site right now and a credentialed delegate. I’ll give occasional updates.
Holtz issues a hit piece on Seebeck. I haven’t had such unintentionally entertaining reading in a while.
Over 20 AFH ‘culties’ are with Matty Barnz at the Convention.
They also have a vendor table where they are selling shirts and recruiting fresh blood into the ‘cult’, as Matzie’s ex-freinds all call it.
That’s a lot of people coming to vote.
Not good, not good [Opinion]
I distributed an “open letter” to delegates about “the situation” *cough cough*
Who are the announced candidates for the various positions?
Boomer Shannon for Southern Vice Chair.
Larry Baird for state ExCom.
Mike Seebeck for LNC Rep.
Dan Wiener for LNC Rep.
I’ll try and get a more comprehensive list later if time permits.
Just spoke to Scott Lieberman. He’s running for re-election as LNC alt.
Mike Seebeck is alsos running for CA ExCom*
This reporter heard yesterday Boomer has withdrawn his bid for SVC. Not confirmed, only two sources.
Mr. Aldrich has withdrawn his bid for a seat and is working today instead, as he has far too much on his plate already.
Brian Holtz is circulating flyers.
My sources say one is a hit piece on Seebeck, quoting him on the Barnzie and defends the Judicial Committee aquittal.
Your loyal reporter has several people saving the flyers and will scan and share post-convention with you all.
Jill and Alan Pyeatt are running for ExCom At Large.
[OPINION] I can’t support Jill or Alan until they apologize for ‘yelling’ at me and saying I was ‘wrong’ about Barnzie. Jill was really in my face about it, and guess what, I was right.
King Naga has called the Convention to Order.
Down to only 12 ‘black shirt’ AFH Barnzie culties. Where did the rest go? [Opinion: GOOD NEWS!]
[OPINION] Matthew B is cruising the Convention with his usual Fecal Eating and Canary Eating Smile. ( F.E.C.E.S.)
(sh*te eating grin is another way to put it…)
The people who recruited him and promoted him and could not figure out he was a freak, despite so many obvious ‘clues’ are trying to stay away from him, as he’s now become Libertarian Kryptonite with the smell of death and the look of F.E.C.E.S. on his face.
I have heard of no motion or action towards him, other than folks running away like a sink full of greasy water you drop soap into.
F.E.C.E.S. boy loves the attention, and is hoping to be a martyr, of course, so any motion or discussion will bring his F.E.C.E.S. smile and blush out.
Bruce and his all-seeing eye.
Convention adjourned for 5 minutes.
Aaron Starr is campaigning for Dan Weiner. Just spoke with him.
Seems Dan has generated a ton of support in less than three days.
Nobody knows why King Naga recessed for 5 so early, but I am sure it’s interesting!
Hope the poor guy doesn’t lose control of the body like he usually does.
I hear Starchild and Starr ran him over like a mack truck on steroids in San Diego.
Judicial Committee report is not on the agenda. Bob Weber is requesting it be put on the agenda.
I’m live-blogging the convention at http://www.calfreedom.net/2010/02/live-blogging-lpca-convention.html
My floor handouts are at http://sites.google.com/site/defendthelpca/
All the fun is here, Brian. Just put your comments here, buddy. And nice hit piece on Seebeck, too.
The Brian reports only 46 delegates in attendance.
Beau Cain reported over 60 enrolees just a few days ago, so this number is even lower than expected.
I guess when you don’t promote an event much, nobody will go.
Don @ 8,
I’d encourage you to read this:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_14,_Top_Two_Primaries_Act_%28June_2010%29#Arguments_against
Erik, stop hijacking the discussion. Dumbarse, you are, EG.
Newell just gave the worlds shortest Officer report. Which makes sense. Nobody has heard from the guy in three years.
Chair Naga had a fairly recent PowerPoint presentation where he listed one of his accomplishments as Jesse the racist’s Coffee Shop.
Now he’s bragging about some Junior Statesman of America events. Are those ones that his close friend and child molester Matzie Barnuz was at too? (If he was, I don’t know who was there…)
I told the Naga well over four years ago how Matzeww gave me a major freak alarm with how he acted around kids.
He chose to ignore that and all the other warning signs and embrace the guy.
Now Takenaga is telling people how to Campaign.
That’s like the blonde leading the blonde.
He can’t even return anyone’s phone calls or emails. What a fakey fake, vanity chair the Naga is.
Now he’s bragging about the Southern California Ontario Dave and Buster’s event.
All planned and put on by Matthew Barnes and he had zero to do with it, right?
I mean Matthew and he don’t even KNOW each other, right?
54 delegates checked in this morning, though the room has far more people than that. Several people have arrived since the credential committee report, so that number is likely to change.
@60
Seriously, Bruce? How immature are you?
It’s well within thread etiquette to respond to another person’s comment. That’s hardly ‘hijacking.’
Reports from the Convention say attendance and program are still underwhelming.
The room does look pretty full. That’s a good thing.
Oh good, I’m happy to hear we have increased in numbers some.
Mike Seebeck is up at the lectern now.
@69 The numbers increased ever so slightly from 2006. I don’t. Regardless, it *is* a step forward.
The pictures and video I recieved make it seem rather small of an event, especially in the heart of Southern California.
Seebeck is speaking for adding regulations to people in the auto insurance business for ‘fairness’. Yeah, require them to all be the same, that makes sense.
Well, I still like Mike.
To Erik Geib // Feb 13, 2010:
from Don Lake: I am woe fully ignorant and uninvolved in ‘top two’ stuff. Plz continue to
educate us on same and thx for replying to
my previous post on this thread.
I look for ward to the day that Reform Party
like insane, illogical snarkie remarks quit
dominating the LP (BC/BS).
I look for ward to the day that the LP breaks
out of the skankie snobby white male mode!
In three decades I have seen the West Coast ‘Liberty’ cabal nose dive during the massive expansion and build up of local, state, national, and international governance! What a sorry sorry reputation ALL GOVERNANCE has gained with the ‘voice of liberty’ a mere whisper on the breeze.
[Erik, how can you be high jacking subjects when replying to a previous post ????? ‘Tis a puzzlement.]
Starchild wants to bring his own food.
Hey Starchild! That’s what being a Libertarian is all about. Choice! Knock yourself out, but don’t use dairy, that exploits cows.
And I caught you using honey in your tea, and that’s exploiting the bees.
King Naga got smart and rented a small room so attendance looks better.
Still, Barnzie and company have a lot of votes and could really change things.
Too bad the Convention wasn’t promoted through our magazine (now shuttered) or much of any other way, either.
Mister Pyatt, I guess is Fundraising Chair? He forgot to do direct mail. WHOOPS!
If you ever take a political fundraising class, if you are getting more than 5% from events, you are blowing it.
And if you’re not doing direct mail, well, you’re foolish and don’t know what you are doing.
WHOOPS!
Not Alan’s fault, he’s just following orders as a loyal minion of King Naga’s.
I want to stress that Dan Wiener has the experience, commitment and temperament we need on The Libertarian National Committee.
As Chair of Riverside County Libertarian Party, I can assure you that Mike Seebeck lacks the discretion and grace needed for a leadership position in the party of freedom.
In an obvious slight to the Jewish Libertarians, lunch was Lasagna with cheese and sausage.
I had an avocado and cheese on whole wheat turmeric/jalepeno bread sandwich.
Mousse was served as dessert, an obvious slight on Diabetic Americans.
Came back from lunch (and perusing a nice farmer’s market going on a block away) and myself and others are finding copies of Barnes’ court files on the delegate tables. Another flyer about Barnes was also distributed (I haven’t read it yet).
The Emperor Has no Phone, LPCA Opinion Article, posted at http://www.GetBruce.BlogSpot.com
Discussing customer service as an important part of a membership based organization…
Quite pointed:
“…before anything else, the LPCA is a customer service organization. ”
and
“The Emperor not only has no phone, but has no manners or courtesy.”
I hope you will read it for whatever value you might find in my observations and opinions.
Too long to post here and only related to the Convention, not specifically about it.
Correction: Wayne Root has not been ‘in the house’, but will arrive tomorrow, we expect.
59 total votes on the floor, it seems.
Which, if one does the math, if MB has 20 black shirts, he has 1/3 of the votes. If he has 12, then it’s 1/5th of them.
With the last vote being 43-16 in favor of going into executive (secret) session, one thinks the lower number must be more correct than this morning’s reports of 20 AFH Barnzie disciples ‘in the house’.
I thought Zander resigned from the LP and is now an Independent.
Or did he, like some others, magically un-resign?
He’s making motions from the floor, so oviously the Chair and body recognize him as a Member…
Is the Board still in Executive Session 90 minutes later? Hopefully one of our field reporters will update us. Even the Holtz is silent since the 1:29 Motion to go secret on us.
Re #83:
Bruce, you have your facts wrong. Zander resigned his position as Southern Vice Chair. He did not resign from the party.
I don’t have my facts wrong.
He personally emailed me that he had resigned from the party. As wel, he changed his FaceBook page to show a new and different political affiliation.
Mister Collier stated to me in an email with a forensically verifiable full header that he had resigned from the party and had “no further plans” with the party.
This is true and correct to the best of my recollection and would be happy to provide said email.
Thank you and try again, Paul.
If he has truly resigned from the party, why don’t you challenge his seating at the convention?
I’m only interested in observing, first of all, Paul.
Second of all, Paul, I’m not at the Convention.
Third of all, with the way these guys play fast and loose with the rules and the truth, resigning and ‘unresigning’, I frankly wouldn’t get involved anyway.
However, that’s a really good question.
How about you suggest it to someone there?
The Holtz reports 57 votes, but 68 with credentials. 11 must have terrible hangovers.
Or paid and didn’t make it.
I don’t think further discussion regarding Zander is going to have much traction. I was told he walked out of the convention. His table is empty.
Michael Seebeck won Southern Vice Chair vote.
Congratulations to him.
Zander’s FB page currently lists his political views as “Independent.” Whether this has any bearing on his status as a member of the LP CA, I do not know. Or care.
Yes, Zander got only two votes in the SVC race and then walked out.
WRONG. Zander was already gone before elections started, and he did not run.
@93 He walked out BEFORE the SVC nominations/election.
Furthermore, Zander was credentialed just like everyone else, meaning his dues were paid in full, he is a registered Libertarian (at least for the next few minutes) and yes, paid the stupid floor fee to attend the convention.
Seriously, Bruce, you should leave reporting on this convention to those of us who are actually here. Passing on whatever Holtz tells you seems to work about as well as playing telephone.
I’m giving Holtz the benefit of the doubt, that he’s feeding you accurate information and you’re jacking it all to hell. If that’s not the case, please, correct my misunderstanding.
People are declining to run for ExCom seats now, very strange, even some who said they would run only a few days ago.
I have a handful of sources and am not talking to Brian. I checked his reporting for extra information a few times.
I do apologize for my error in timing of when Zander left.
Zander did say he resigned from the party, so I guess resignations have no weight around there.
Drum roll for the ExCom vote, please…
I’m not “feeding” Cohen anything. I’m live-blogging at http://www.calfreedom.net/2010/02/live-blogging-lpca-convention.html
I’ve not seen in the by-laws where resignations qualify as grounds not to allow someone to rejoin. I don’t really think we want to change that. Someone leaving the party, say, to change their registration to vote in a Republican primary shouldn’t qualify as grounds for them never to return.
Of course, Carolyn. But what is the procedure to ‘rejoin’? And was it followed? Does someone have to reapply and re-sign the pledge and pay dues again? Or can they just change their mind on a whim?
Inquiring non-Parliamentarians want to know.
I want to congratulate Mike Seebeck on his election to Southern Vice Chair. I am confident that he will fulfill his duties in a fair and principled manner with all the energy he has demonstrated over the years.
Seebeck wins LNC seat by one vote! Michael Seebeck, the winner again.
Board of Directors elected to 2 year terms:
Agrella
Mr. Pyatt
Mrs. Pyatt
Darr
Obviously there will be more, but this is what I have so far. This is not in vote order.
Holtz Reports the complete list:
5:27 Results (top eight elected)
•Fiumerodo 55
•McLorn 54
•Agrella 51
•Alan Pyeatt 49
•Darr 48
•Bowers 47
•Jill Pyatt 46
•Perrotte 45
Holtz reports that as alternates:
Vassiliev and Vanier won.
Motion to adjourn failed. Nominations for Judicial Committee now begins.
Paul Studier // Feb 13, 2010 at 6:26 pm
If he has truly resigned from the party, why don’t you challenge his seating at the convention?
me _ um , resigning an excom position is not the same thing as resigning your membership , if thats even possibe. I think you’d just let it lapse. nor does resigning 1 position exclude you , IMO from running for another Ibelieve
He did resign his Membership, he stated to me and to others.
It’s an interesting Parliamentary question.
If someone resigns, does it really actually happen?
Think what you will of Ernie Hancock, but the guy sure knows how to give a barn burner speech.
Dan Wiener wins as LNC rep after a lot of voting.
Ed Teyssier is right about IRV.
Why did Holtz and Hacker get only one vote each, when they are supposedly masters of diplomacy whom everyone likes?
From Holtz:
JC Results are clustered together with the winners:
•Weber 37
•McMahon 37
•Antman 33
•Fostore 26
•Bronstein 26
After that, the non winners are:
•Wiener 24
•Chartier 22
•Clark 22
•Gonella 22
•Gravanti 21
•Baird 20
•Burk 17
•Holtz 1
•Hacker 1
Thanks for the live blogging, Brian.
Bruce Cohen // Feb 13, 2010:
Why [when he is] supposedly masters of diplomacy whom everyone likes?
Thanks to Bruce and Brian for their updates. Too bad no one at the convention was sufficiently member-oriented to live blog the executive session.
Thanks Rod. I still can’t figure out what the rules of secrecy cover and don’t cover.
The guys in ‘charge’ tell me one thing, then do another. They say the cases were secret, then they email everyone Matthews, I have proof of at least three Board members doing so, and I heard mine was circulated less widely, but I haven’t been able to confirm.
They can smear me publicly, but I can’t respond because it’s secret.
Animal Farm anyone?
I’m very glad mattheeeeewwwww didnt get an office. However, the secrecy is what bothers me the most. I want to know A) did Zander read my letter and B) did the secrecy bylaws get changed?
If B did not happen, I will be forced by a matter of principle to resign.
From #113 Bruce Cohen
Bruce Cohen: Why did Holtz and Hacker get only one vote each, when they are supposedly masters of diplomacy whom everyone likes?
It is because Holtz and Hacker were not nominated. The one vote apiece were write-ins.
There was never any possibility of Barnes getting elected to an office. A Bylaw will be adopted tomorrow that will effectively foreclose that possibility.
We cannot reveal what was happened in executive session, but 1) bylaws cannot be changed in executive session, and 2) the LPCA has no bylaw overriding the RONR Ch. 20 principle that evidence supporting a successful suspension can (and arguably must) be shared with the assembly (and not the public).
An interesting thing happened outside the doors of the executive session. See the updated live blog for details.
Brian, it may not have a bylaw about non-secrecy, but that’s the problem. It should. Keeping things that have no right to be kept honestly repulse me. There’s no way I can stay in this party if that’s how it’s going to be.
Brian did someone slap someone? Sitting here on pins and needles all night begging for some action. And to think I gotta go to Frisco next month.
I have a bone to pick with whomever decided the convention should be on Valentines Day. I am glad I didn’t go A-waste of money to do nothing B-the secrecy would disgust me C-David needs to work on his new business D-VALENTINES DAY!!! and E-I’m a candidate and I need to work on really important things like GETTING SIGNATURES, as should all the other candidates.
Seriously…what a bad time to do this! March would have been better for all those things.
Does anyone know why George wasn’t given the opportunity to address the group on camera, since he couldn’t be there in person? This doesn’t seem like it would have been a major technical feat, and with Hinkle, Hancock, and Root able to present, it seems like it would have been nice (and fair) for delegates to have had the chance to hear him as well.
Kate@124 Aaron and I had a lot of California Liberhooligans point that out to us, and we made it part of our planning to avoid the V-Day weekend.
Candidates needed this, and a lot of the coupled Libertarians, had partners who resented them walking out on such a big day.
If my recollection, once we realized not everyone was insanely fanatically in love with the LP like us, and needed their Saint Valentine’s
Day to be free, we never scheduled it then again.
The Candidates also appreciated the extra siggy snagging time.
It makes sense too, because post- Convention, it seems like a lot of folks lose their ‘final lap’motivation and don’t push across the finish line to get on the ballot.
Kate is right.
She’s only young and dumb about being in love with her Husband.
Not about forward thinking.
Listen, the current Chair makes all his decisions seemingly not for results, but for political ‘advantage’.
Kevin needs to stop looking over his shoulder and worrying about me and others.
He is taking FAR LESS heat than Aaron or I ever did. Far, far less.
If he is so weak and thin skinned that he needs to trump up suspension/expulsion against me, esentially for shooting my mouth off and saying things he didn’t like to hear, then well…
He needs to march his skinny little butt over to Kmart and buy some thicker skin.
I’m just sayin!
Gary@125
Good question.
The folks* running this ‘Con’ Vention are always running around with conspiracy theories about how one person or another is doing this or that thing to them or whatever.
Overthinking and overplanning everything because why?
Because that’s how ‘they’* think.
So, that’s what they think others will do, same as them.
So, these forward thinking Yahoo/Internet/Computer Genies ought to have been able to easily pull off a Phillies address to the audience.
Clearly, this was either planned to shut out Phillies, or well, as everyone saw with the program, speakers and schedule, a lack of organization.
Just hours before the event is not good planning or marketing.
I guess that’s what you get when you are a student of the ‘West Wing’ School of Politics.
*Not all of the members in specific, the group and Chair in general.
Conventioneers are waking up and contacting me now. I still haven’t found out what’s for breakfast there.
But I certainly hope the organizers had the sensitivity to serve food their guests can eat.
After all: What Would Jesus Eat?
@125 My supporters made the proposal. Your state chair rejected it. Sorry. I will be here this afternoon if you want to arrange a phone link, and I’ll be happy to address whomever wants to listen. However, flying cross-continent between the end of a Sunday debate and the hour that the major airports here substantially close for the evening can’t be done.
Let me close with a few thoughts:
Our Party faces a crisis that threatens its existence. In the last decade we’ve lost more than half our membership. Income is down 70% in real dollars. We can’t even afford a monthly newsletter any more.
That’s despite the real political situation: We had an enormous opportunity after 9/11 — Look at the ACLU; their membership doubled. We had an enormous opportunity with Bush’s War on Iraq — we’re the only antiwar party. We had an enormous opportunity opposing the Bush-Pelosi police state. We had opportunities, but no outcomes.
We must change, or we shall surely fail.
Let’s learn from our opposition, a tale of two National Chairs, Howard Dean and Michael Steele.
Howard Dean was the candidate of the Democratic Netroots. His position was support activism, support volunteers, and go for the 50 state strategy — his party crushed the Republicans in 2006 and 2008, because his strategy was ‘Winning is me helping you’.
Michael Steele was the candidate of ‘Winning is you helping me’. He gives barnburner speeches–the huge fees go in his pocket. He plumps his book — he keeps the royalties. And elections? Steele is the poker player who drew a lucky hand and thinks he’s national champion. His torture-loving Cosmo pinup of a Senate candidate took Massachusetts, because Scott Brown ran against Martha Coakley, who thinks ‘go on vacation in the Cayman Islands’ is a campaign strategy.
So what do you want? A Howard Dean or a Michael Steele?
I’m offering you the Howard Dean model.
Kate N. Moore // Feb 14, 2010:
“I have a bone to pick with whomever decided the convention should be on Valentines Day ….”
2004 Reform Party [so called] National Convention was on Veterans Day, soooooooo [in] convenient for party establishment critics involved in veterans issues [Citizens For a Better Veterans Home] ………
Hmmmmmmmmmm, John Blare
Breakfast menu is potatoes, eggs, ham and Canadian bacon.
Again, the Jews, Muslims and traditional Christians are locked out of breakfast.
Clearly the atheists in charge hate us.
(sarcasm, folks, just teasing, geez.)
Interesting how Mister Phillies is locked out by our ‘open and transparent’ Chair.
Everyone knows I am supporting Wayne for Chair.
But I also like to play fair.
I’ve been locked out and lied about and been the subject of a lot of dirty and unfair tactics through the years…
So I don’t like to see it happen to others.
I wo wo wo wo wonder why?
Why did King Naga decree George isn’t allowed to have at least a little access?
Naga and his Knights of the Wobbly Table are all grandwebmaster flashes and know how to do this easily, no?
I haven’t given any candidate for LNC chair a commitment as of now. But I think basic fairness–not just to the candidates, but perhaps more importantly to the voting delegates–dictates providing an opportunity for delegates to interact with each candidate. I’m even more unhappy to learn that George offered the California party leadership the option of a video presentation and was turned down.
I’m sitting here in the Mariott lobby with 50 minutes to go before business begins. Perhaps I’ll try to make trouble.
Dear Gary,
Many thanks for whatever you choose to do to advance our party. As a modest technical note, the proposed link was audio. I don’t have video equipment, but most California activists have already met me.
George
I will not be attending today’s business session due to a long-standing family commitment. However, I do urge delegates to act with discretion regarding a rumored proposed bylaw change regarding felons holding party leadership. It will supposed to be focused ONLY on crimes against person and property, but not all felonies are created equally. Elin Woods (allegedly) beating up her husband’s SUV with a golf club could be considered a felonious crime against property (depending upon which state one is from), but is it really on par with sexual battery, robbing a 7-11, or molesting children?
I think one would find a wide variety of opinions.
The tippy top secret MB scandal is swept under
the ‘executive session’ rug and nobody will talk
about it much… So much for ‘open and transparent’.
I guess Campaign promises are meant to be broken.
I would also like to add that while I have been rather vocal about the Barnes situation, I am now considering it a dead issue. A healthy dose of spleen was vented yesterday and there is no doubt among delegates as to the crimes he was convicted of. Any further action beyond the proposed bylaw change is unwarranted. Matt rarely showed his face yesterday and after speaking with him privately, I believe he has been humbled by this experience. Ultimately, it was his choice to have extended this pain by refusing to step down. It was a sad situation all around and now is the time to move on.
Gene is 100% right.
MB could have been expelled for cause easily if he had been charged and prosecuted properly.
To whip up a special rule to go after him smacks of the usual nasty and Machiavellian tactics King Naga is known for.
Will they also pass a special law for me, not only Matty?
Nobody with the name of Bruce can criticize Kevin or they get expelled?
This is laughable on the face of it.
It’s petty schoolyard politics, and it’s typical for the students of the ‘West Wing’* School of Politics.
*(Our Chairperson thinks watching the TV serial ‘the West Wing’ is great political training.)
One more note: some have said that Mike Seebeck doesn’t have the “temperament” to be a leader in the LP. I disagree. He was the picture of professionalism and team building yesterday and I believe that is a major reason why he was elected Southern Vice Chairman of the LPCA. Not to slight Boomer Shannon, who also ran for SVC. I believe he is a genuinely good guy and do believe he has a productive future in the party, but his temperament on the floor didn’t exactly win him much favor.
After the situation cools down sufficiently, I told Boomer yesterday I would be happy to speak with him. In fact, I look forward to it : )
BH_An interesting thing happened outside the doors of the executive session. See the updated live blog for details.
me__ I read your whole live blog and didnt see any update about something juicy happening…where-abouts is it??
@140 I was there all day and sat through the executive session. I didn’t witness a single “juicy” thing, unless one considers high drama to be juicy.
Bruce Cohen // Feb 14, 2010:
“But I also like to play fair …… I’ve been locked out and lied about and been the subject of a lot of dirty and unfair tactics through the years … So I don’t like to see it happen to others.”
then why, in this thread alone, do you do so much of it ………..
Gene , could that be because you we’re in the exec session and this happened outside the doors??
I WANNA KNOW , was there a bitch slap or something?? lol
Report on yesterday’s secret ‘Executive Session’ from one of our field reporters:
“…yesterday afternoon, we went into ‘Executive Session’ for well over an hour. This when the ‘Judicial Committee Report’ came up on the Agenda.
Only Delegates were allowed to remain in the room. Visitors and non-delegates were kicked out.
No phones, cameras, twitters, etc., allowed.
The door was closed and no one was allowed in – or out. (Until some began to complain….that some of us may have to use the restroom at some point!)
Delegates who happened to be OUTSIDE the room when this session was convened… were NOT allowed in. (We had many delegates in the room — but not all [of the] delegates, at that point).
As you know, totally confidential, so I cannot divulge what was said.
Let’s just say ……that no changes were made to the status-quo decisions during this closed session, but we had plenty of vigorous discussion about recent Judicial & Executive Committee decisions.
Like the ‘Airing of Grievances’ on Seinfeld’s Festivus.”
I fixed some minor spelling and grammar errors.
Thank you to the many folks helping me cover this event.
I think the ‘juicy’ thing the Holtz refers to is the ‘lockout’. It was added in the time/space he suggested the ‘juicy’ stuff would be.
Brian’s opinion of what is ‘juicy’ is quite different than mine. Anyway, that’s my guess about what the BH meant.
Wayne Root is in the house!
Root for America, Baby!
The LNC Alternate seat is coming up for a vote.
Soon, I think.
Folks are lobbying for votes.
Also, Delegates are talking about a motion from the floor to allow Phillies to do a live audio pitch to the Convention. Seems even his opponents think it’s unfair to do a freezeout on Phillies.
Convention begins with a speaker.
All eyes and minds are on the vote, and the rumors of various motions from the floor.
The only rumor we feel confident enough to report on is the one about the motion to allow George Phillies to address the body.
If we confirm the other rumors with enough sources, we will report on those, too.
Roughly 40 delegates there today. One observer told me she thought they were all credentialed and voting Deli Gates.
@149 Canters Deli Gates?
Mister Michael Seebeck has been nominated for LNC Alternate. Scotty O’Lieberman is also running for this seat.
@150 yes, corned beef or pastrami for you, sir?
The Holtzenator reports 62 Delegates are credentialed. From the photos and video I see of this morning, there is no way there are that many in seats.
We will know for sure after the LNC Alternat vote, how many folks are actually seated.
Folks are working on getting the votes right now, hands are being kissed and babies shaken.
Several clusters of folks in the room from photo mail we are getting nearly live. More than half standing.
Drum roll, there won’t be a runoff.
Mike and Scott are both all in and their cards are showing.
I’m friends with both and know they both have good things to offer.
I’ve known Scott longer and he’s worked hard for me in the past, so my personal loyalty is with him.
I also consider Michael to be a rare ‘radical’ (I prefer ‘extremist’ lol) with integrity and is not a scorched-earth Alinsky RFR anything goes, ends justify the means type.
For example, now resigned ex-LPCA activist Mark Selzer, I would consider to be an RFR type.
I’m excited to see/hear the results.
Come on dealer, let’s see the flop!
I just got one report that Scotty O’Lieberman of the fighting Jewish Irish Libertarians won his seat.
Holtz at California Freedom dot Net is reporting the vote as 49-26 for O’Lieberman.
Thank you to both men for working so hard for no pay and much more grief than appreciation.
I’ll work shoulder to shoulder with either.
Any day.
75 folks voting.
That feels big for today.
Is it the Wayne Root effect?
I know a lot of folks said they were only going to vote on the Board of Directors seats, Southern Vice Chair seat Zander vacated, and the Judicial Committee, with the last thing the LNC seat….
So when the Alternate got held over ’til today, folks were saying ‘feh, who cares?’
Good job by Scottay and Mikey for getting out the vote and keeping folks interested and excited enough to turn out today.
Or, it could have been Wayne Root?
Nah. Folks could just show up at lunch.
Who knows? I’ll ask.
If Brian’s count/math is right, and I’m certain that it is, there are 13 more votes than people credentialed a half hour before then.
That’s more than one every 2.3 minutes.
What an amazing job by the Credentials Committee out in the hall!
IF the math is right, that is.
Cohen doesn’t understand how LPCA conventions work. Election of our LNC reps are by approval voting. And when somebody only gets 1 or 2 votes, they are almost surely write-ins.
@159
Also, your Bylaws plainly say that you elect *two alternates* which does not appear to be what you are doing.
We elected two alternates by approval voting. Our ExCom will surely choose the top vote-getter to be our single alternate for as long as we only have one LNC seat.
@152 If I still ate meat, it would be pastrami all the way!
George @159 Very interesting point.
Waiting for Convention feedback on the floor.
They are busy passing a new rule.
Words to the effect: “a person convicted of a felony against a person or property shall not be an LPCA officer or candidate without the consent of 2/3 of the Executive Committee”
I am quoting Brian from CA Freedom dot net.
We’ll hear more about the Alternate question after they settle down.
Why will the ExCom have Shirley be the Alternate?
Brian, I don’t have to ‘understand’ anything. I have my own perspective and take on life and the way I look at and/or address things are not always going to match your style or fit your expectations.
Despite your claim to be an ‘inclusivist’, you apply that thought pattern selectively.
I hate Robert’s Rules of Order and really only bring out the book if I’m presiding. I just wait until things happen and let folks like you and Aaron set the stage as to how it all works.
And if I have a question, I’ll ask a point of order.
But anyway, if only I could be as smart as the Holtzenjammer.
But everyone knows I’m not, so that’s why I’m here on the Group W Bench.
With my dog.
And my big Espresso Machine.
And my big bag of freshly roasted coffee beans
And my big heavy cast iron mill.
I’m going to pull some shots of ristretto now and steam some half and half.
And give my dog some more chicken like Lidia Seebeck told me to do. (Bless you for helping me with Ginger, Lidia.)
I’m here on the Group W bench ’cause I’m just not as smart as you, Brian.
Aren’t you glad I’m not there?
I am!
It seems the LPCA went through some growing pains and came through with a resolution to prevent those convicted of crimes against person or property shall not be a party officer or an endorsed candidate without a 2/3 ExCom consent.
It’s strong, protects the party, and allows the ExCom some breathing room and flexibility. Pretty good stuff!
Wow. Part of what I wrote just disappeared while posting.
[OPINION]
I think the new ‘Felon Free’ rule is ridiculous.
How will it be applied and enforced?
This is a copout and a coverup and I could not disagree more.
Common sense and any amateur Parliamentarian knows we had plenty of ways to deal with Mister Barnes being among us.
This new rule, if it’s even ‘legal’, won’t change a thing.
The people that ignored his obvious character flaws and chose to promote and embrace him will do the same thing in the future unless they get a new Freak Radar detector they obviously do not have.
I personally told our current Chair of my misgivings about the Mattenfreak, and King Naga was very intimately involved with one of the FreakenMatt’s childish episodes at the LAX Sheraton LPCA Convention.
This guy creeps around behind people’s backs and tells strange stories about them and tries to manipulate people by lying and gossiping.
Get a clue.
It’s not about him being a molestizer.
It’s about who he is as a human being.
I say to the folks who served with him:
What took you so long?
Seriously, how COULD you accept this person in your homes and lives?
Is it really so that I was the only one who refused to shake his hand and got in his face every time he saw him for the last 4 plus years?
How could it be possible that stupid old me, sitting over here on the Group W Bench, with ‘no visible means of support’ and no ‘understanding’ of elections or process could magically figure it out?
Kevin and the rest of the De Nile Monkeys of the Knights of the Wobbly table are enablers.
Yep.
Eeh Ennn Aye Bull Erz
They enabled this guy to feed his strange addiction.
I have a lot more to say about this situation.
But I hope the incoming board will do the right thing and not rely on this silly new amended patch coverup bylaw.
Please, for the Membership of the LPCA, please suspend Mister Barnes for cause. And then properly make your case and expel him.
Is that really a lot to ask?
[Opinion]
This is explicitly copyright Independent Political Report as is all other content to the best of my knowledge, but Brian and Trent will correct me if I am wrong.
[Is it illegal to have fun at the same time as you are peeved off?]
Cohen has given two URLs for the site at which I’m live blogging, and neither is correct. It’s http://CalFreedom.net.
I want to know what you guys are having for lunch out there in Conventione’ world.
I’m thinking of a sandwich.
Sharp Cheddar on Homemade Jalepeno Cheese Onion Turmeric Whole Wheat Bread.
And since no meat…
I can have dairy…
And if I can have dairy, it means I can have some more coffee.
Ristretto with half and half, baby.
Come on Brian, I just named it, I didn’t put in a link. Gosh, you sure are touchy and territorial for a bald teddy bear inclusivist PTA type.
If you’re going to lift material from a source, then link to the source.
I’d be happy to accomodate you, Brian. Thanks for asking. As well as attribute. A very fair request.
Interesting to see how many folks come to see Wayne’s presentation.
The Holzenjammer reports the Convention added a bylaw: “We support the right of any political party to nominate the candidates of its choosing for public office, even when those candidates are the nominees of another political party or parties.” This from his website Cal Freedom dot Net
I’m going to name this the ‘Cohen Bylaw’, since this seems to be some kind of response to the Takenaga/Collier accusations that I dared work in campaigns for non-Libertarian.
I guess THAT cause for expulsion is no good no more, honest injun.
Will they also add a bylaw saying I’m allowed to discuss issues and people, or is that still grounds for expulsion, too?
Bwahahaha….
Maybe I’m reading too much into it, and I’m sure Brian will explain my lack of intellect momentarily.
But, that was a biggie topic of conversation in my neck of the woods for a few months since I got my accusation papers from Zandy and Kevie.
Anyone else have a good razor simple explanation? It’s interesting to speculate from afar, Brian as I do my semi-live reporting here at IPR.
Oh, Brian’s rather sterile ‘Blogging for Engineers’ is at:
http://www.calfreedom.net/2010/02/lpca-convention-day-2.html#more
How’m I doon, Bry?
Orange Chicken
Rice
Veggies + broccoli and carrots
German Chocolate Cake
Finally something everyone but Starchild can eat. Let us hope the organizers did make accomodation for the vegans, diabetics and dianetics among us.
NO FOODISM ALLOWED!
Delegates who happened to be OUTSIDE the room when this session was convened… were NOT allowed in. (We had many delegates in the room — but not all [of the] delegates, at that point).
That is so true. Starchild tried to get in but he was not allowed in. I guess he is to much of a threat.
Is that even “legal.” Probably not but since when has that stopped the Party elite.
Jose, stop making sense, please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXgMhnI3QOI
Video/music starts at 0:20
Talking Heads – Life During Wartime
The big shocker is Aaron Starr is dressed casually. And not even business casual.
No slacks, much less a blazer.
Was this a planned image change, the jeans and pendleton shirt?
Bruce,
You write:
“This new rule, if it’s even ‘legal’, won’t change a thing.”
Giving 1/3 of the state central committee veto power over any party election or candidate nomination with only the requirement that they assert the electee/nominee is a convicted felon sounds like a pretty big change to me.
Starchild was the other fashion shocker.
He really underdid it from what I saw in the pictures and videos my field reporters sent in to me.
Wings yes.
Hot pink patent leather thigh high boots, no.
Just dressed ‘normal’, with wings and a weird hat.
But I didn’t see any antenna.
Seems to be a mumu hat with blue puffy balls, sort of like mom would wear over her curlers.
Starchild, I hope you didn’t exploit any cows for milk or bees for honey today.
Thomas @ 180
You are perfectly correct in your approach to the situation.
What I mean is that this particular group of people seems to lack the skills to recognize someone like this, not that the actual process doesn’t tighten up some.
No, what my lament is, that even with this rule in place at the time, just like so many laws, without enlightened and honest people, the best intended ‘laws’ do nothing.
This is just an example of the LPCA behaving like the federal government.
Instead of using the tools they already have and should have used already, they hide behind the pretense of a new law.
That, like so many laws the government passes, won’t actually change much if anything.
Best Dressed Award: Mike Seebeck
Too bad he lost his Dilbert Tie.
Best Goth: look Gene Trosper
Clarification about my ‘Emperor Has no Phone’ article.
The SVC discussed was the one BEFORE Michael Seebeck stepped in to cover after his resignation.
For the record, Mister Seebeck was NOT the Southern Vice Chair mentioned in the article.
I know he has good customer service skills.
And I hope he leaves them turned on all the time now that he’s an elected officer.
Said article is at: http://www.GetBruce.BlogSpot.com
Brian’s website has some cool stuff and he gets the facts dead on and usually a few minutes before me. Everybody go look at Brian’s website ’cause he wishes we were talking about things there.
Come on.
Go give Brian some click traffic.
Poor guy is so cyber lonely.
Here is the link and I didn’t even source him this posting, it’s a freebie, Brian: http://www.calfreedom.net
I need to make a correction about lunch.
I don’t want Brian to question my integrity again, so as soon as I found out there was also cauliflower, I rushed to tell my readers.
Thank you so much for everyone keeping me honest here.
Also, for Brian to know, I had a few phone calls and emails explaining to me why Hacker et all got only one vote.
But thanks for saving me the electrons and clicks to manually correct it myself.
You guys make this so fun and easy.
Wayne looks good, but I can’t hear him, darn it.
Wish Mister Seebeck* or some of the other audio/visual IT whiz kids did a live webcast.
I guess if the ‘team’** was so mucked up they couldn’t even get a schedule/program going within what was it, 48 hours or something, before the event, there is no time to do that live ‘open and transparent’ webcasting like they talked about so breathlessly during their first election, some three years ago.
Oh the dreams and aspirations of the Knights of the Wobbly Table.
But you know, as Kevin says…
And as Zander no longer cares to say…
It’s all Aaron’s fault for leaving them with the problem.
And it’s my fault for picking on them with my trusty electron saber laptop.
Yeah, that’s why the LPCA is broke and they arent’ doing anything anymore.
It’s all our fault.
Blame me some more, I love it.
____________
*Mike never promised to do this.
That was NOT a dig on him.
If he says he will do something… He does it.
** Again, Mike was thrust into cleaning up a mess made by the ‘buck stops with Kevin’ team and it’s not him I blame.
I need to make another factual correction for the record because I know Brian will be late for his plane if I don’t do it myself.
Starchild did put on antenna later on and even changed outfits.
I am very dissapointed with my videographers not getting me this information and being so petty as to keep cameras on the speaker.
I apologize for this ommission of fact and do state for the record that I stand corrected, Starchild did indeed wear antenna at some time at the event.
I do not know if it was in conjunction with wings or not, however.
Knapp, violent felony convictions are a matter of public record and are easily checked for truth is such an assertion is made.
if* such an assertion is made. Sorry, laptop keyboard I’m not used to…
OK today’s style award is for Starchild.
His elegant combination of styles and colors reminds us of a day/desert camo mixed with western bondage.
His elegant black cowboy hat trailing with feathers and the black Village People’ leather vest tie together with his semi camo pants.
Very similar color to the Morabitoun we fought in Lebanon a couple of decades ago.
A bit less pinky and a bit more orange/black I would say.
Maybe those are suburban evening desert camo pants?
My IPR settings are all weird and I can’t post photos or video, sorry folks.
Wish I could share the butterfly wings and today’s dusk/desert camo/western bondage Star’wild’child look with you here, but it’s not working.
Best Gangster Tie: Larry Baird, the webmaster guy from Riverside.
Larry gets the LPCA Scarface Award for that day’s tie.
Sorry Mike Seebeck, your ties just aren’t special.
Ask the church lady.
Who picked out your ties?
SATAN?
And for the best Porter Rockwell look (on purpose)*: the Style Award winner is ALSO Larry Baird of Riverside, retired Military, retired Ranger, semi-retired Chaplain, non-retired freedom fighter.
The Porter Rockwell Style Award is NEVER given to someone who gets it by accident.
@184
Best Whiner/Loser Because of a Much-Needed Bylaw Change That *ONLY* Applies to Felons Convicted of Crimes Against Persons and Property: Bruce Cohen
Best Loser Who Didn’t Even Bother to Show His Face at the LPCA Convention Floor and Was A Coward for It: Matt Barnes
I rest my case.
Let’s move on….
Sorry, I meant @183, not @184.
Toad: Matt spent plenty of time on the floor, mostly sitting.
The Bylaws change was ‘much needed’?
Does The Boar have any anecdotal or other evidence that there have been persons in the past in the LPCA this bylaw would have been needed for?
Does the Bore Boar Toadie not think Robert’s Rules of Order and the Bylaws in place aren’t good enough in 49 other State Libertarian Parties, not to mention Puerto Rico and other US territories?
Well, Toadler… You can pick a fight with me any time, you sleepy eyed, dishonest freak. But in a war of wits, I keep saying it, buddy….
Toad, you come unarmed.
Try again, and thanks for playing.
Brian has some good stuff to say about the Candidate presentations from LNC Officer Candidates. But I’m not going to quote him, cause he’l get his feathers rumpled if I don’t precisely get his web link in there.
But remember, it’s good, though extraordinarily dry. On the other hand, his quotes are usually pretty accurate most of the time usually I think.
The only thing I’m gonna say, Brucie Boy, is this:
you sure as hell do look like a zombie in my photo album on Facebook. LOL
One more thing: you’re just a non-player, according to one prominent member of the LPCA (who told me this private). I won’t give out this person’s name, but I took that individual’s comment to mean that, for all intents and purposes, you are vastly and entirely expendable. As the sad sack you truly are, that much is really true.
From now on, you shall be forever known in King Todd’s castle as Brute Blowhen. Brute is an excellent name for you, because, while you may have some strength in your arms, you’re nothing but an intellectual imbecile with an IQ of a brute that can be counted by the digits of one’s hands.
I come very much armed, Lord Brute. Shall we fight to a duel? I gladly say that you shall lose, for I shall place a curse on thee.
Thine idiocy is just a waste of your talents, Dear Brute. Read a book sometime. You might enjoy it!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
King Todd
Ruler of Anarchy Castle
@194 He came in to sit every so often near the end of the day, but was otherwise conspicuously absent.
@197 Gene,
Thank you for that. 🙂 10 points for Gene, 0 for Brute.
😀
King Todd
Rule of Anarchy Castle
I can assure everyone I do not have any of Toadie’s pictures anyplace, much less in my FaceBook Photo Album.
But I am very flattered that the welfare frog boy likes me zombie countenance enough to save it for easy and frequent viewing.
As far as me being a ‘non-player’, I kinda/sorta
That was weird. Page refreshed and the partly composed message shot out.
…
As far as me being a ‘non-player’, I kinda/sorta halfway agree.
And half dis.
Here’s how I dis-agree:
Chairman Takanaga’s Administration can no longer point to Aaron and/or I and ‘blame’ us for their internal political and financia troubles.
We have a saying in Japan…
That I feel very qualified to share, since I am certainly more culturally Japanese than Chairman Kevin is.
Even his family and cute old Grandmother said so.
Here is the story/allegory/fable, as Brian Holtz will later officially label so I don’t get it wrong:
‘If you are under 40, you can blame your parents.
“But once you are 40, you can only blame yourself.”
Kevin is now politically 40.
He’s had pretty much the exact pick of people he’s wanted on his team for three years, and for this, his fourth year, even more so.
He picked Mazzy Bournez and Zander and Jesse and all these lovely, nice, inclusive, non-anti-semites, with kind hearts and good manners and work ethics that shine like a light for all to see.
Kevin, in what will likely be his last year has this one last chance to leave some kind of legacy better than the Ferret guys.
And he’s got exactly who he wanted, especially after throwing Zander and a few other people under the bus.
Yep, yep and Mattz Barnze’ is still a Member, so Kevin can take credit for Alive/Free/Happy events Matt and he do together.
We’re watching, even if you try and expel us, those of us who have been California Libertarians since the 70s want to see the duly elected Chairman show us how it’s done.
‘Cause someday the big, warm, loveable and huggable Kevinator wants to be National Chairman.
Yeah, that will happen.
So now how I agree.
I’m obviously a non-player.
I mean think about it.
As soon as everyone in the California Libertarian world got that 3 AM anonymous email Kevin was saying it was me that sent it out.
See?
I’m such a non-player, they are paranoid of me at every step.
And it keeps going on…
I did this.
I said that.
A lot of times it was untrue.
At Least Mike ‘Dilbert’ Seebeck was the rare man on the board to actually call me up and ask me for my side of the story.
A few more did too, but asked me for anonymity.
And even after Mister Vice Chairman Seebeck did stand before the Board electronically and verify he had checked the forensics of my email and determined it was impossible for it to be me that did it…
They still put it into the case file of Matth ewww Barn S. Don’t ask me why they keep talking about me in the Bar Nez file, but they do.
Seen it yet? At LEAST three Board members emailed it out beyond the official veil of secrecy.
But NOOOOOO I can’t talk about my case.
They can sneak around in the dark, like Matthew, and do back to him the very same thing they didn’t like him doing to them.
(And that I clearly warned people about, including Kevin…)
Yeah, I’m so irrelevant they had to try and expel me.
Oh, this is so fun.
Yeah, I’m here on the group W Bench being irrelevant with my puny electrons.
Take THAT you Toad!
It’s MORE than a flesh wound.
Silly Frog, Manners are for Libertarians.
[Folks, normally I don’t pick on brain-dead people so mercilessly, but after this moron called me a “dirty Jew”, I just don’t feel the need to deprive myself the pleasure.]
Yep, skunk, you’ve been poked.
Go ahead and spray, I’m wearing tomato lotion.
Carolyn,
You write:
“Knapp, violent felony convictions are a matter of public record and are easily checked for truth is such an assertion is made.”
The LP’s bylaws are a matter of public record and easily checked, too — but that hasn’t stopped the Starr/Sullentrup junta from making up novel interpretations to justify whatever they happen to feel like doing.
This will come back to bite you in the ass. Maybe not next week, but some time.
The mere bullshit that this Brute putz keeps peddling is humorous and inventive but tiresome after a while. *Yawn*
For the record, I never called him a “dirty Jew.” That’s a baldfaced lie. Unless Brute can come up with evidence – anecdotal or otherwise – to prove that I am guilty as sin of the crime, it’s merely circumstantial, not to mention moot.
I hear Brute is quite the ladies’ man. The question is, how many of them actually liked having sex with a disgusting whelp who of all things might have contracted a few — and possibly untreated — STDs to boot.
As I say in Italian: “Vai a farti fottere, amico bianco. Meglio ancora, andare immergere il salame in qualcun altro stasera la pasta!”
If someone wants to know what the translation means, I’ll tell you. Rest assured, it ain’t pretty…
King Todd
Ruler of Anarchy Castle
@203
“andare immergere” should be “vai immergere”
The translation is off, but the essence remains the same….
King Todd
Ruler of Anarchy Castle
You admitted you used a Jewish slur to get my goat when you were having your ‘Barr Won’ tantrum.
You admit to the Yahoo Conversation.
You admit to the content.
You admit to everything, but you are trying to say that you made a different derogatory comment about Jews, ‘just to get your goat’???
OK Toadie…
What WAS the Jew baiting insult you said, since my memory is so clearly flawed?
Y’know, if it comes back to bite me in the ass, so be it. But I watched NOT having a policy in place nearly destroy the CA party. If someone has a better idea, I’m sure our by-laws committee would love to hear it. But at this point, this was the only way to heal the CA party and make sure this doesn’t happen to us again.
Brute,
Give it a rest, ok? I never called you a “dirty Jew.” I remember some kind of an insult, except my memory is pretty hazy in terms of what it actually consisted of. But if you want to prove that I actually said such things, the burden of proof is on you.
I didn’t admit to the specific insult(s) you allege i admitted to. I admit that there was a chat, that it got heated, yet I I didn’t admit to everything. And I am NOT trying to say something different.
Again, who cares, Brutie Boy? If you can’t prove that I said anything remotely anti-Semitic (which is bullshit and cliched, considering anti-Semitism applies to Arabs, not Israelis), then you’ve got no case. Period. End of story, shithead.
If I made an insult to you, I did so because you were deserving of such an insult, not because I was aiming it at ALL Jews but to Bruce Cohen only. And, if I made a specific comment about you, it was only because I despise your fucking guts and wish a gods-damned anvil falling from the sky and cracking your noggin open like a Grade A egg that was taken out of an egg carton.
As to what the comment was, I don’t remember off-hand. I deleted the chat, which I don’t have anymore. If you have it, post it on here and let’s see if it will jog my memory. Otherwise, until then, you’re full of shit as always.
Brute, the fact is this:
1.) No one likes you because you’re a loser
2.) You’re a conservatoid and not an advocate of Liberty
3.) You’re a Neo-Con and supportive of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (like Eric Dondero)
4.) You’re a fucking bully who starts shit with people for no reason
and finally
5.) You’re completely and utterly pathetic, dude, who gives libertarianism a bad name.
And, even if I had said something against Jews (which is a lie because I never said anything of the sort), it may speak well about my character, but your homophobia and anti-gay remarks are far more condescending and pathetic than my so-called anti-Jew comments.
Do NOT paint me as a “Mel Gibson-esque” monster, Brute. I never had any hatred of Jews at all in my lifetime, and I’m not gonna start now for no reason.
If you believe that otherwise, then you don’t know a damn thing about me. Period.
Fucking loser piece of shit. No wonder the movement is in trouble because of pieces of shit like you and Dondero who make the Liberty movement look ridiculous.
You can go “waaah, waaah” all you want like you did on my radio show, ya big pussy.
But you are who you are. You’re a bully who attacked Mary Ruwart (anti-woman) and had an axe to grind with her (on bogus pro-kiddie porn charges), not to mention have an axe to grind with me over some bullshit cop-out such as, “That horrible Todd is a bigot against Jews” excuse.
PAAAAAATHETIC!!!! LOL
That’s all I’m gonna say on this for now…
Oh, and Eric Dondero, from what I’ve been told, likes to have sex with 13 year old Mexican prostitutes. Bruce just like the Japanese ones, I bet.
The idea of Brute spreading his seeds and spawning offspring is……well, ewwwwww!!!
*snickers loudly*
King Todd
Ruler of Anarchy Castle
Eric actually thinks it’s uncool to date girls much younger than you.
The handsome Don, of the Dero Clan, didn’t like it that 20 year olds would offer me their business card and/or email.
He thought that was stealing from the young guys and it was unfair.
Dondero thinks guys should date women their own age, so there goes your credibility Toadler.
As far as me picking a fight with you, boyo, you are the one who had a man-crush on me.
I had never heard of you when you started Yahoo messaging me.
You are the one who had the meltdown after Barr won.
I didn’t initiate the conversation.
And you personally blamed me individually for the coming demise of the LP.
“It’s all your fault” you said.
LOL
Stop smoking all that weed and buy something else with your welfare check, sleepy eyes.
Get off the bong for a few weeks and maybe your memory will return.
Go find your own sandbox you troll.
By the way, let it be known that Dondero and Brute are racists towards Arabs and anti-Semitic against them, yet they, having an axe to grind with me, state that I am anti-Semitic.
Dondero claimed a while back that I had called him a “dirty Jew.”
Wrong, as this evidence on the old Libertarian Republicans group list will show:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarianrepublicans/message/20784
After that, Dondero accused me of anti-Semitism, which is ridiculous considering I accused him of racism against Arabs.
Therefore, Blowhen and Spindero are anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. They hate Muslims and Arabs and wouldn’t mind carpet bombing them.
So who’s the anti-Semite now???
King Todd
Ruler of Anarchy Castle
I never “had a man crush” on you, Brutey Boy. How could I have a “man crush” on you and then be a supposed “anti-Semite” against you? That doesn’t make sense at all.
Can you all believe this dufus? He is really fucked in the head, isn’t he?
And, for your claim that you never heard of me before the Yahoo message, I sneeze out the word “Buuu-shit!” I have podcasts of you on my show picking a fight with Barry Hess a week after he fought with Dondero on the air and who was a coward for leaving the show. What a wimp indeed!
Anyone wants them? I’ll be glad to freely distribute them.
As for me saying in the chat that I blamed you for the “coming demise of the LP,” I doubt I said that. Where’s the proof, Brutey? How come you won’t post the chat?
Would it because….you don’t have it? You don’t have any proof? *covering his mouth and feigning shock* Oh poor Brutey, you don’t have it, do you??
Too bad..it would have been hilarious to show it on here.
I don’t have welfare checks, loser. I’m not on public assistance.
But I know you’re on the corporate welfare dole. What, not enough bailout subsidies for you because you need your sleazy penthouse, smack, and whore???
Too bad…
King Todd
Ruler of Anarchy Castle
“I remember some kind of an insult”
“you were deserving of such an insult”
“not because I was aiming it at ALL Jews…”
“sh*the*d”
” it was only because I despise your fucking guts”
Hope I didn’t take you too far out of context, but us ‘dirty Jews’ do that, and you know, make stuff up all the time.
Just ask Richard Boddie, he’ll tell you about the Jew conspiracy, you anti-semite.
I don’t remember your radio show.
How many people listen? Twelve?
I’m not homophobic.
I don’t have any issues with gays.
I’ve been in business with gay Americans, in Libertarian politics, had them as customers, neighbors, been their customers…
On the LPCA Board with some, whatever.
I don’t have the man-crush on you, Todster.
It’s you who followed me around cyber space with your short little boar cyberlegs.
Meanwhile, the Tea Party of Nevada has qualified as a third party, and will be running a Senator against Harry Reid.
This outbreak of real news of some political interest, in that the Libertarian Party may also have a candidate in this race, is brought to you to remind you that there is a real world.
A voice of common sense from the wilderness, thank you Professor Phillies.
George, if any of the other Candidates are seated as incoming Chair, will you support them from Saint Louis forward?
Meanwhile over at the other side of the dial at calfreedom we have Mark Hinkle commenting on recruiting with words such as “Advocates something like Project Archimedes direct mail, but via Internet since direct mail doesn’t work as well any more”.
I would suggest that we need to use both the Internet and direct mail as outreach tools and much more.
Now back to your regular infighting and bitch slapping.
Hmmm, I guess the voters in Nevada will have a choice between a Democrat, a Republican, a Tea Party Republican and just maybe a Libertarian.
As much as I’m mad at the CA LP, I’d like to take this chance on Valentines Day to thank Kevin for being the reason David (my husband) and I met. Kevin asked me to set up a facebook page for the Sonoma LP, and David saw that page. We’ve been blissfully in love ever since. <3
This is explicitly copyright Independent Political Report as is all other content to the best of my knowledge, but Brian and Trent will correct me if I am wrong.
Haven’t read any further than this yet but as far as I know no comments here are copyrighted.
My IPR settings are all weird and I can’t post photos or video, sorry folks.
Wish I could share the butterfly wings and today’s dusk/desert camo/western bondage Star’wild’child look with you here, but it’s not working.
Dunno what’s up with that, I’ll check in a bit…
Meantime you can send it to me and I’ll post it.
I left California five years ago, and everything falls apart. Geez!
Todd and Bruce,
happy v-day :-p
while you may have some strength in your arms,
lol, I initially misread “arms” as “anus”…
<3 Nolan 😀
As I say in Italian: “Vai a farti fottere, amico bianco. Meglio ancora, andare immergere il salame in qualcun altro stasera la pasta!”
If someone wants to know what the translation means, I’ll tell you. Rest assured, it ain’t pretty…
ok…shoot
It’s really sad how juvenille a lot of these comments are.
Btw, @203, falsely publishing that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease is libel per se in most states. Perhaps a new low here on IPR.
On the bright side, I’m very pleased to hear from @216 that Facebook has been successful at bringing libertarians together. I’m one of the people who turned Kevin on to Facebook’s potential for libertarian organizing.
And that’s all I’m sayin’ about that.
@227 Hallelujah.
Hey I did see Mike looking good, but he always looks good and doesn’t like anyone talking about him. But good call, Mister Seebeck.
Hey Kevin! Mister Chairman Grand Webmaster Flash guy.
It will really only take you a few minutes of your every so important and busy day to update our website.
You know, remember when you ran for Chair three years ago, the one you promised would be so whizbang terriffic with the circles and arrows and all kind of wunnerful things?
http://ca.lp.org/excommembers.shtml
This is the 2009-2011 lineup?
I don’t THINK so! LOL
Get with the program.
And don’t Zander me with the line how you have to work for a living and all. Remember, you make the big $50 an hour and have a flexible schedule.
Somehow the rest of us manage to keep websites up to date when we volunteer for them, you know?
Sorry yout job is so tough and nobody appreciates you, but it is what it is.
Get with it and fix the website or get someone to do it for you, willya?
Hey, thanks Kevie.
Cohen @175 incorrectly reports that I described a bylaws change, when in fact my live blogging said it was a platform change.
Seebeck @226: if merely distributing my in-context sans-commentary quotes is an “attack”, you can “attack” me like that any time you want. Your handout quoted David Nolan describing you as “calm”, “rational”, and “civil”. I hope that as Southern Vice Chair you will commit to live up to that description. You often talk of what “hat” you’re wearing when you say something, but as one of the top three leaders of the LP’s largest affiliate you no longer have the luxury of suggesting that how you behave in public does not reflect on the LPCA if you don’t want it to.
Can you quote what Party rule you think requires that delegates to a convention may not enter the hall if they were not present when executive session commenced? I see nothing in RONR pp. 92-93 requiring this. However, our Bylaws do say: “All delegates in good standing shall be eligible to vote on all matters.”
Executive session secrecy prevents me from saying who defended the barring of delegates from the floor, but I’ll say hypothetically that it would be hypocritical of anyone to oppose registration fees but support locking registered delegates out of the hall.
Michael Seebeck long ago beat you to the Platform vs. Bylaws correction, you got scooped again, Mister Live blogger guy.
Todd and Bruce V-day comment exchange theme
Paulie, after having your love, I could never settle for the Boar.
Cohen, what I was correcting was the inference that the mistake was mine, rather than yours.
It looks like Milnes has lost his title as IPR’s Most Confused And Self-Obsessed Troll.
Sorry Bruce, LG is just more appealing to me, and I’m just not that into you.
I wouldn’t kick Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta (BKA Lady Gaga) out of bed, either.
🙂
http://www.metrolyrics.com/bad-romance-lyrics-lady-gaga.html
for anyone without sound/youtube…
It is obvious that Mr. Cohen is a person with mental problems. He like getting attention, even if it is negative. He feeds on this and in the intrim like to drag people down with him. The best thing to do with a person like this is ignore him. His personality disorder fits along the lines of.
Narcissistic personality disorder
with associated disorders OCD, obsessive compulsive disorders. They have a grandiose sense of self-importance. They tend to exaggerate with. They lack empathy and have delusions of the truth.
Depending on the severe case of the disorder, it is very hard to treat. This can stem from child abuse, either clinical,enviromental factors or both.
These people have been know to cause abusive situation among their peers and relationships. Until they get professional help, they won’t realize they have a problem.
This will be my only posting.
@ 236 – LG = Lady Gaga or LibertarianGirl? Just askin’
LibertarianGirl, but it works either way.
Sam // Feb 15, 2010: “lack empathy and have delusions of the truth [and] ……… have been know to cause abusive situation among their peers and relationships. Until they get professional help, they won’t realize they have a problem. ”
[a] en masse, we all have an emotional problem! It’s called Establishment Duopoly syndrome, and then being screwed over by the big guys’ displacia.
[b] we are aware of the on going abuse and are angry and yet lacking a method of successfully fighting back.
[c] many individuals whom are not feeling in control may shake things up with others, including official allies. It does not help their position but relatively they are more in control than before.
[d] Logic, logic, look for the logic, or the lack of same …………………
Speaking as only myself again.
Brian, I recognize that.
Expressing my own personal opinions as a person does not reflect my ability do the job. As you saw this weekend, ALL of the officers and few awesome volunteers, including Wayne Meyers, Chris Agrella, some SBCLP folk whose names I don’t remmeber, Lee Welter and Lawrence Samuels, not to mention our parliamentarian Kim Goldsworthy, were all over the place doing the yeoman’s work to make the convention go, and that reflects a lot more on ability and dedication than mere words on a sheet of paper. People saw that, and rather clearly.
Put it another way: I ran on my accomplishments and goals and support. That was unanswered by critics completely. And I won. Sure I didn’t get LNC Regional Rep, and that’s the breaks. There are other ways to accomplish things at national besides being on the LNC, as I have shown repeatedly and will continue to do.
As for a rule about the door, it’s not in Robert’s. It’s in common sense. If you go to the convention to vote on party business, then you should be there on the floor at the proper time to vote on party business. That’s part of the accepted responsibility of being a delegate. We informed the body of the reconvene time before lunch; we did a hallway round-up call before and at that time after lunch. We had much more than a quorum at 1:15. In Executive Sessions the process of clearing the room of those who are not privy to the topic is normal–we’ve all seen it before, and that means nobody in or out to preserve the nature of the session. This just happened to be the first time this has happened in CA for the entire convention body, meaning the volume of people was higher. If you have any suggestions on how to handle it better without violating those rules then by all means, let’s hear it, since we welcome the input and readily acknowledge that the unprecedented situation and length of time made it a little rough. Rather than complain from the sidelines about rules followed or not, provide ideas and suggestions to improve the situation. Bizarre as it may sound to some coming from me, I give credit to Aaron for doing exactly that as well, throughout the entire convention.
We don’t need sideline QBs anymore. We need everyone on the field, playing a productive role.
2010: wanna clear the room in short order, yell Communism or Socialism!
2020: wanna clear the room in short order, yell Communism, Socialism, or Libertarian!
Mike Seebeck wrote (@242):
If you can convince Kevin to go along with a double region then find enough states to join which will accept giving California both the reps, you can still be a LNC regional representative.
http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2010/regions/
Chuck, exactly right.
The other states would have to sign off on me, depending on the agreement, and I tend to think that they wouldn’t like to have both reps be from CA–I tend to think they’d like to have one of their own as the other.
The other option is to have CA increase its national membership levels by 50% and make CA a superregion by itself with 20% of the national membership. I kinda like that idea, because it could dovetail nicely with increasing our voter registration in CA to 100,000, which would make our top-two issues a lot easier to deal with if that fiasco passes in June–plus the increased numbers and memberships are always good for the LP as well. but that’s a lot of work, too.
Mike Seebeck wrote (@245):
Increasing CA’s membership won’t work this cycle. The numbers are fixed as October 31, 2009 membership.
See here for more info:
http://www.lp.org/blogs/robert-kraus/an-update-from-lnc-secretary-bob-sullentrup
Mike Seebeck wrote (@245):
Yes, you’d think that would be hard. In the past though California was able to do just that. Usually they would give up one alternate slot to another state.
Part of the reason this was possible was that M Carling would visit the state conventions of these other states in the region and keep state chairs in the loop.
From a personally selfish perspective, negotiating giving up both alternate slots or giving up one rep slot and securing both alternate slots would get you on the LNC in some capacity.
I ran on my accomplishments and goals and support. That was unanswered by critics completely.
Nobody said you’ve had no accomplishments, but Hinkle and Wiener each clearly have had more. The point of my handout was to ask whether you would be sufficiently civil toward the leaders and candidates of the LPUS. Instead of distancing yourself from any of the quotes sitting in front of each delegate, you said: “I know I’m controversial, but I speak my mind.” Were you saying that we could expect more such quotes from you if you ever serve on LNC?
And I won.
Let’s put that in perspective.
You do a lot for the LP/LPCA, but you could get even more done if you tried to be more civil. I hope you take this criticism as constructive and fact-based, and I welcome corrections if any of my evidence is faulty.
We don’t need sideline QBs anymore. We need everyone on the field, playing a productive role.
Take a look at http://libertarianmajority.net/bh-lp-activism and http://www.calfreedom.net and then tell us whether you meant to suggest that I am a “sideline QB” or am not “on the field playing a productive role”. Go ahead, speak your mind. 🙂
The obvious way for an assembly to handle executive session is to have the door-keeper advise entering delegates that we are in executive session and must agree to keep secret anything that happens in it. It’s simply shameful that registered delegates were kept locked out for up to 90 minutes while the convention dealt with the most contentious issue of the convention, and indeed, of the entire year. I won’t confirm your possible secrecy violation in alleging that the assembly voted on the lockout during the session, but I will say that in any such situation, I would raise a point of order against such a lockout, and would ensure a motion was made to overturn any ruling of the Chair in support of a lockout.
Chuck @244, any second LNC seat for the LPCA would surely be given by ExCom to the second-highest vote getter, Mark Hinkle. Mike would only join the LNC in the unlikely coincidence that 1) LPCA’s 13% allocation becomes part of a 20% super-region that somehow grants us two LNC seats, and 2) Hinkle wins Chair and so vacates his seat, and 3) the ExCom ignores the delegates’ 49-26 preference for Dr. Lieberman over Mr. Seebeck.
Mike @245, see LPUS Bylaw 8.2.c. The delegate allocation was frozen as of 2009-10-31, and no amount of new CA-based sustaining LPUS members joining before St. Louis would change it.
The excomm discussed this yesterday. I’m not on the excomm, but I was in the gallery. The parliamentarian offered no advice on this particular point, so it was left to the chair’s discretion. There was some discussion of the point, but the general consensus was that if someone is 15 minutes late getting to the session, there’s no obligation to allow them to enter. I was of mixed feelings on this myself. Yes, I do believe that those who were delegates who simply left to go to the restroom who had been in the room at the time of the start of the executive session should have been allowed back in. Those who were late, especially 15 minutes or more? That’s a much tougher question since as delegates, you do have a responsibility to be on the floor on time. In college, if you’re 15 minutes late, a professor has NO obligation to allow you to enter and take your seat. If a professor is 15 minutes late, students have a right to leave without penalty. And we were easily 15 minutes into the session.
At the same time, s**t happens, and people get delayed. While people maybe COULD have guessed that we were going into executive session for the JC’s report, it wasn’t an assumption I think anyone made. So this was something a person could not have anticipated. I think that they should have been allowed back in provided they specifically and vocally agreed to the secrecy provision of executive session. But this was not the ruling of the chair.
I agree that having people coming and going at will is not ideal, since it puts a huge burden on the sgt at arms to keep track of who’s who and whether they came in or left or whatever. My feeling is that we should have decided on policy and on logistics before invoking executive session, and maybe even had a 10 minute break so everyone could deal with potty logistics or whatever in advance.
20/20 hindsight, live and learn. We’ve never done an executive session of the whole convention before, so this was a learning experience for everyone.
49 + 26 = 75. How does that work, in a convention with only 68 delegates on the floor? ~~ C
I’m sorry, that was the alternate race, which was Sunday right after the gavel struck, and the credentials committee had JUST said we had 62.
My question still stands. In what alternate universe does 75 = 62?
Holtz, don’t blame Boomer’s failure to win as SVC on his taking the “minority” position on Barnes. He’s not a victim here. His complete lack of professionalism in dealing with that situation and his attack on another delegate for which he had to be called out by the chair… THESE are what lost him that position.
I know Boomer really well. He can sell ice in the Arctic. With Zander out of the race and Seebeck just having announced and not having campaigned at all, that race was his to lose, and he did. Had he not come across as immature, insincere and out of control, he could well have won, regardless of which side of the Barnes issue he was on.
Our LNC reps are chosen by what is effectively approval voting.
Executive session is not a quiz or the SAT. It’s just a part of the session where proceedings have to be kept secret. I don’t see any excuse for registered delegates like Starchild or Scott Lieberman to have to wait in the hallway for over an hour while mere feet away the LPCA debates and decides the most contentious issue that I’ve ever seen in my decade of LPCA activism.
I wasn’t going to mention Boomer’s, um, exuberance, but I of course agree it didn’t help him in his race for Southern Vice Chair — any more than did his support for Barnes. Thanks for reinforcing my point about the narrowness of that outcome.
Chuck Moulton wrote (@246):
My mistake, I had misremembered the votes. You would need to negotiate either giving up one rep seat and keeping both alternate seats or keeping all the seats. Since Mark Hinkle beat you for LNC rep, simply giving up the alternate seats to retain the rep seats wouldn’t get you elected — unless Mark Hinkle is elected LNC Chair and the LPCA ex-com chooses to respect the vote totals for rep and seat you as the second rep.
Carolyn Marbry wrote (@249):
Approval voting. Vote for as many candidates as you approve of. Thus adding the votes together makes no sense.
Yes, Brian, I had misremembered the LNC rep vote. My mistake.
Btw, I’m with Brian on the executive session controversy: all delegates should have been allowed to enter even if late.
Ah, ok, that makes sense, then That’s right, we only have one spot, but we voted for “up to two.” Sounds like something we really should fix in the by-laws, if there’s a way to do it cleanly.
Let me clarify — what we should clarify in the by-laws is that we should vote on the number of reps and alternates that we can reasonably expect to seat. We should also vote in rank order instead of approval order since I imagine there were some who voted Scott as first choice and Seebeck as second, and vice versa. This would make more sense since “up to two” meant many people just wrote down both names and turned it in, regardless, knowing both would “win.” Muddies the results. If my first choice is Seebeck, for example, but I voted for both, unless I get to rank the choices, Lieberman gets an equal “approval” vote from me that puts him ahead even though my first choice was Seebeck, see what I mean?
In almost all cases, a representative body does those it represents a disservice when it conducts business in secret. That’s especially true when, as in this case, the most embarrassing verifiable facts have long been in the public record.
Presuming that an executive session was, as I deny, justified, there is no excuse for disfranchising members who either needed to leave the meeting room after the executive session began or who were late returning from lunch. Ms. Marbry is right that it matters that people didn’t have advance notice. But even if they had, their rights as members of the party and convention delegates don’t go away because they’re late.
Finally, the imposition of a gag order on communication regarding the executive session with credentialed delegates who were not present is a further instance of disfranchisement.
Handling matters as the convention did wasn’t fair to a variety of delegates and, more importantly, to those they represent. This isn’t about blaming anyone or calling anyone malicious. This was a high-pressure situation and there was little time for reflection. But I hope members and delegates are treated more inclusively the next time an issue like this arises, and I think an amendment to the Bylaws is in order accordingly.
Holtz: “Thanks for reinforcing my point about the narrowness of that outcome.”
Yes, the outcome was narrow. I don’t think anyone disputes that. But that’s not really indicative of anything except that enough Californians saw past Shannon’s razzle dazzle Billy Mays impression to look at Seebeck’s history with the party and his list of accomplishments.
I would say as much to Boomer himself, and y’know what? He’d probably agree with me. He and I are not friends, but one thing I will give him: He’s able to some degree to separate political disagreements from personal relationships, and vice versa.
It’s good that at least SOME California Libertarians can see past disagreements on specific issues not to have to consider anyone who disagrees with them a sworn enemy on all counts and vow to destroy them or launch smear campaigns against them.
Less Antman and I disagreed on the Barnes ruling, but he still endorses me for vice chair, and I still consider him one of my favorite Libertarians of all time.
Politics is a chess game. Do you hate someone simply because they beat you at a game, or you beat them? You shouldn’t. But there are some, particularly on this list, for whom every tiny issue becomes a personal crusade against someone. And that’s a shame.
Yes, Boomer’s presentations on Saturday did have a Howard Dean/I-have-a-Scream-Speech quality to them. His performances reminded me I’d missed some lint in the back of my sock drawer, so I attended to that vital task instead of attending the final day of the Convention.
Chris, the nature of executive session is such that those who attend are sworn to secrecy. Given that we were discussing sensitive information regarding a specific case involving suspension of a member, executive session was invoked as a formal nod toward protecting his privacy, such as it was, and of protecting those who voted this way or that way on it. Granted, the facts of the case are public information, but still… Those who wanted to participate should have been there as delegates and should have been on time, ideally.
Some at the meeting were complaining (loudly) that it wasn’t fair that Barnes wasn’t in the room. I agree with that. I don’t agree with their implication that he was “kept out.” He was at the convention all weekend, but he chose not to attend any of the floor sessions until the very end, after everything was already dealt with. I understand that it was probably a very painful thing for him to face and I sympathize, but don’t blame the officers or the body for his not being there. That was his own choice. NOBODY EXCLUDED HIM.
To borrow a phrase: Let me be perfectly clear: my campaign flyer was tailored to running for LNC, not SVC. My decision to run for SVC was made roughly ten minutes before nomination time. So that’s why the flyer said what it said. My SVC speech was pure, total off-the-cuff ad-libbing. I didn’t gladhand for it, or anything like that–too busy on the floor between logistics and family. So, yeah, in what is probably the shortest campaign I’ll ever have, I won. I won on ten minutes notice, a scramble for a nominator, an ad-lib speech, a less-than-stellar set of opponents, and pure reputation. Keep in mind that the majority of Shannon’s votes were SBCLP-and-their allies only. That speaks volumes more than my losing for LNC.
As for the comment on the flyer about being good for the XC, I had planned all along to rerun for my at-Large seat which I vacated to step up to SVC. Obviously that plan changed on the fly.
As for civility, re:Scott, I shook his hand after he won, and he accepted that graciously–never reported here. I had seen the totals before he did, and I knew I lost. He didn’t. You also don’t know what Mark and I discussed in the Green Room, either. If he wants to tell, he can, but I won’t. So your complaints about civility are based in a lack of reality of what goes on when you don’t see it, not to mention editing to whatever fits your own agenda. You really think I get the things done that I do in the LP by being uncivil? I think a lot of people who have seen me in person and see what I can and do do would say otherwise, far beyond what you see or read in print, spun or not. That’s the plain facts.
As for Dan, you can gloat all you want, but Dan was drafted to run at the last minute after I had announced a month and a half prior for one reason–to keep me from being elected. So yeah, I dinged him on his vulnerable point on the issues, but that’s campaigning politics right there. Had I done my LNC speech right, I would have pointed that out clearly, but I didn’t, and that’s my fault. Guess what, that’s the way politics is played, and I accept that. I’m sorry that you can’t. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over and done. I wish Dan luck on the LNC, but I’m not very confident in his ability to do right by the membership as I believe that he’s hopelessly out of touch on the current party issues. Time will tell.
Your comments about closed session are noted and we will discuss them in the XC. Thank you.
As for the rest, well, all I can say is that Chuck and Carolyn have the rational points here, as usual.
Ms. Marbry, I’m all about debunking smear campaigns against LPCA members, so if you can be a little more specific about what you’re talking about, I’d love to help. I think that one of the most insidious habits I see in the LP/LPCA is the use of such elliptical comments to try to suggest things about people that one wouldn’t have to courage to come right out and say. I’m going to assume you’re talking about Mr. Cohen, and that not naming him as an (admirable) attempt to avoid feeding the trolls.
As I said in my speech nominating Less for JudCom: “Everybody else today is getting nominated by their friends, but Less is the only one getting nominated by his frenemy.” I’m proud to have the respect and friendship of many people in the LP with whom I’ve had spirited public debates. It’s a wonderful gauge of their confidence in their convictions, that they can see their positions subject to persistent and detailed criticism, and yet still take that criticism in the constructive and friendly spirit in which it is offered.
I believe you understood me well on this point, Holtz. I have very little fondness for trolls, especially when they troll the LP.
Mike, I don’t think you can quote me as ever characterizing you as generally not civil. All I’ve done here is to offer unrebutted objective evidence that makes me question “whether you would be sufficiently civil toward the leaders and candidates of the LPUS”.
Another thing not reported here is that I shook your hand and congratulated you on your SVC victory. But no, I do not “accept” that “the way politics is played” is with statements like the following:
2008-09-12: [2008 LP presidential nominee Bob Barr] should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. That may not be very libertarian, but it is very deserving.
2008-11-26: I’m happily married. I don’t need to get a date. That would be Aaron Starr
2008-12-08: [Re: LNC rep Stewart Flood’s complaint that LNC rep Angela Keaton saying “I could have things done to you” via phone constituted a threat] I believe a four-letter word for Flood is appropriate: WUSS.
2009-03-12: [Re: the news that Barr has a weekly column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution] Once a week? Does it take him that long to sharpen his crayons and form coherent sentences without Verney’s hand up his ass?
2009-04-29: [Re: the Creator’s Rights Party candidate for Georgia governor admitting to bestiality] The question is, did he have sex with Bob Barr? And may THAT image scar you for life.
2009-07-16: [Re: videotaping meetings, LNC rep Stewart Flood asked “So who’s the camera team this time?”] Why should I tell you, Stewart? We’ll make sure we catch you good side, meaning the back of your head.
2009-09-24: [LP Chair Bill] Redpath is not “well-spoken” at all. In fact, he is a man out of his depth doing boilerplate responses and has shown himself to be nothing more than a ventriloquist dummy for certain others on the LNC. Whoop-dee-doo. He shoulda stuck to ballot access.
I just can’t agree that this is an acceptable way for leaders of the LP to publicly write about each other, and I invite Chuck and Carolyn and anybody else to pipe up here if they disagree with me.
Here’s a question, Holtz. Are those public communications or private ones? I ask because I’ve not seen those before, and I talk to Seebeck both in email and in person extensively.
Honestly, I could post some things from Sully’s emails that would make your jaw drop, but since that’s all on a “private” list, I won’t use those to discredit him since we all say things privately that we wouldn’t say publicly. I will inform my own opinion of his worthiness to serve as a national officer, but private is private.
My point is, what’s said behind closed doors — and a private excomm list or private email is “behind closed doors” — is not the same as having said such things to the press, for example, or to the membership at large.
So I’d be in better stead to judge those quotes with some context.
~~ C
I agree with Ms. Marbry @260: Barnes was not excluded, and events in executive session — even what points of order may have been made or what Chair rulings the assembly may have upheld — must not be divulged in public.
However, the events of convention executive session may be discussed in future convention executive sessions. Indeed, the spirit of RONR Ch. 20 is that any member of the assembled organization is allowed to know about the proceedings of such secret disciplinary sessions.
Ms. Marbry, I clearly described them as “public” @264, and in the handout itself. As the handout said, links to the statements are http://sites.google.com/site/defendthelpca/frommikeseebeck. The first is from LastFreeVoice, and the rest are from here at IPR.
Chris @ 257: Thanks for mentioning this. I agree that a bylaws amendment is in order, and brought it up at the ExComm meeting last night. If the Chair doesn’t refer it to the Bylaws Committee, then I probably will at the next meeting. Maybe those of you who have a strong opinion should make a recommendation to someone on the Bylaws Committee. They will be able to take their time and consider the ramifications of all the alternatives.
No, that wasn’t clear, actually. You said that you didn’t think that was a way for LNC officers to conduct themselves publicly, but that did not in any way say that those messages were necessarily public. It barely implied it. So I wanted that clarified.
Nor did it say WHERE they were. Now you’ve posted a link, and I will go look at it. Thanks!
Hmm, I get a 404 message when I click your link, Holtz. Is there another link that might work?
Brian reversed the content and the link in his “a” tag.
The link is here:
http://sites.google.com/site/defendthelpca/frommikeseebeck
I gave six quotes and then wrote immediately afterward: “I just can’t agree that this is an acceptable way for leaders of the LP to publicly write about each other”. Readers can decide for themselves if I “barely implied” that the quotes were public written statements.
And again, the handout on every delegate’s desk called them “public statements”, and said “Hyperlinks to each quote are available at http://sites.google.com/site/defendthelpca/frommikeseebeck“.
And I linked to the handout above @247 and @56.
As far as Barnes’ presence in the gallery yesterday, he chose instead to be in the lobby.
That was most likely so he could discuss the issue with anyone who asked, since he seems convinced that all he needs to do is talk to someone for them to understand his side.
But yet he chose to be in the very small quarters where the new Executive Committee met after the convention. Hmmm. I got your message, Barnes, that you don’t consider this to be over.
As far as I’m concerned, it is. The last six weeks have been terrible, and I don’t wish to allow him to cause any more grief. The situation was dealt with, the body spoke and made the decision of how to handle it, so I’m on to other things.
FYI Brian, the hit piece you prepared about Mike was absolutely hilarious. Everyone I talked to agreed that it showcased his high intellect by showing how funny he is. It simply showed that you can be a very petty man.
Brian Holtz wrote (@264):
I agree that LNC members and LP state board members ought to be civil towards one another. That is certainly a quality I take into consideration when I vote for such internal party offices. Making a person’s civility an issue in election is absolutely fair game.
I try to conduct myself civilly whenever possible and when I fail I invariably regret my behavior.
Although this is somewhat tangential here, where we may part ways is policy manual language that enforces civility on LNC members and other such LP offices (such as the proposed language on pages 14-15 of the September 2008 minutes, which is the 5th roll call vote on the most recent chart). I believe if the members choose to elect someone cantankerous, that is their right. Limiting speech to the incredibly politically correct, forbidding people from injecting any humor into proceedings, or preventing people from discussing motives allows those with a history of bad motives to run roughshod over the proceedings without fear of being called out for their transgressions. Speaking colorfully is sometimes appropriate.
Carolyn Marbry wrote (@265):
I can vouch for that.
However, at the same time I appreciate most of Bob Sullentrup’s jokes and enjoyed most of Angela Keaton’s jokes as well. Sometimes jokes go over the line to inappropriate or fall flat… but risking that is better than dealing with a cadre of emotionless LNC members who never get a well-needed laugh in the course of their business.
And had you simply said “statements like the following on LastFreeVoice,” that would have saved any possible question. I’m not attacking you, so don’t feel like you have to defend yourself. Just saying that this is why it wasn’t entirely clear and why I asked to clarify.
If an LNC officer or rep said these things PUBLICLY, it would be problematic since they speak with the presumed voice of the party. It’s not as clear for someone who is NOT on the LNC that a) they would continue to speak as freely as an officer or b) that speaking this way prior to being elected should be in any way disqualifying or even damaging.
Freedom of expression is one of the things we hold dear in this party. It’s also one of the things we give up to become officers of the party, just as officers in the military give up that right. We have more direct power to affect the image and well being of the party, especially to the outside world, as officers, so we have to be more careful.
As far as I know, Seebeck was not on the LNC at that time, so I don’t see how this would affect his worthiness to serve on the LNC now or in the future. I’m sure that time I threw mud at one of the kids on the playground in first grade wasn’t the picture of the comportment of an LNC officer, either, but hopefully no one will hold that against me in my run…
One thing I’ll grant you. He was on the excomm for part of these statements, and maybe he should have watched what he said because of that, but the CA delegates didn’t seem to find these statements odious in electing him as their southern vice chair, so… maybe it’s not that big a deal.
and you guys wonder why your you membership rolls are surging toward the ‘Decline To State’ basket ?????????
Year after year folks out side of LP Land hear of the ‘butter knife blood feuds’ ……… If ya notice, it sure does not bring in waves of the serious shoppers ……..
Jill @273. Thanks.
Mike’s covered a good bit of what I would say in this thread, except to say that this has been one of the most surreal experiences of my life.
The Scorpion’s song “Winds of Change” has a descriptive air right now.
So the questons still remains…
Does anyone have the guts to do the right thing and expel MB for legitmate cause.
Not some rambling ‘we don’t like him anymore’ juvinile rant, but something that actually makes sense as to why MB doesn’t belong as a Member.
That’s been all I’ve wanted, all along.
All the rest of this jibber jabber doesn’t matter anymore to me, can somebody on the LPCA Board please move to expel the guy?
What grounds would you suggest, Bruce? You’re saying “somebody” should “have the guts” to expel him for “legitimate cause,” okay… show me legitimate cause. If you’d rather continue this discussion offline, as might be wise if you really DO intend to bring a case and don’t want to dip your cards, you have my email and my facebook.
But I’d be interested to know what cause you think you have and what evidence you believe you have to support it. If you don’t have anything concrete beyond what’s already been offered, I suggest you stop now before you make him a martyr and have the whole thing backfire in your face.
Bruce since he can register to vote as a Libertarian can you actually kick him out?
The by-laws do allow for the Executive Committee to suspend a state membership (which means ending it) “for cause,” so the short answer is yes.
The JC’s ruling, about which I spoke to Mark Hinkle and Less Antman AT LENGTH came about because they didn’t believe the case presented the way it was showed sufficient cause.
That’s why I asked Bruce if he has something new that shows sufficient cause. Otherwise, I say leave MB alone.
He’s obviously seen the consequences of his actions, both those in the past and his more recent actions to cover it up, and I think he’s probably grateful for the opportunity to continue to serve in the LP.
Chuck, we may be on the same page after all. I don’t think civility should be enforced with rules, I think it should be enforced with good old-fashioned sunshine and shame. Hence my handout. Of course, if Mike and his supporters are as proud of the quotes above as Jill tries valiantly to suggest, then I may have to re-think my position here. 🙂 OK, re-think over. Jill, if you think my handout helped Mike’s results in his 49-26 loss to Scott’s civility campaign, then I’ll be happy to provide the same service in Mike’s future elections. [Chuck, let me know if my any of these jokes fall short of Seebeckian cleverness. As the Dec. 9 and 10 quotes from Seebeck show, people’s standards of humor can be startlingly inconsistent depending on who the humor is aimed at.]
Carolyn, Mike’s own floor handout said that he’s been a “party officer or leader” for 8 of the last 10 years, and that he’s a “party veteran with national stature”. If you think that what I quoted is more typical of a first-grader than an LP officer/leader, I’ll let you debate that one with Jill. 🙂 And if Mike thinks that his election to Southern Vice Chair is a green light from our delegates to continue making such statements, I invite him to tell us so.
I don’t agree that Libertarians should “give up their freedom of expression” when they are chosen to be officers. Instead, I think that our choice of officers should be based in no small part on their record of how they’ve already used their freedom of expression. Party office should be more about track record, and less about promises of future reformed behavior.
George Phillies // Feb 14, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Meanwhile, the Tea Party of Nevada has qualified as a third party, and will be running a Senator against Harry Reid.
This outbreak of real news of some political interest, in that the Libertarian Party may also have a candidate in this race, is brought to you to remind you that there is a real world.
me__Jim Duensing had stated , due to personal reasons , he no longer intends to run . our only other potential is Jim ‘the Libertarian’ Burns and he will almost assuredly be the candidate provided NOTA doesnt take the day.
I flippin hate his campaign strategy , which is to appeal to the left so as to take votes away from Reid and to ensure a GOP victory over Reid. AND YES HE SAYS THIS UN -ABASHEDLY. anyone but Reid is the strategy I guess.
sigh , I wish he’d just run as a friggin Libertarian an take otes away from whoever…
Well LG that’s what happen when we are not clear about our goals,
Brian Holtz wrote (@282):
Amen.
Where is the Rodney King Caucus when you need it?
RC is missing. Probably stuck in a snow drift somewhere. 🙁
Ms. Marbry @ 279/281
I think there is plenty enough already out there dating back for years.
If the LPCA can’t get their act together any better than to pass a BS coverup amedment pretending to prevent this from happening in the future, well…. Well?
Anyway, I’m not the type to keep my mouth shut or slow play my cards, so I’m not the Mister strategy Machevillian guy who is going to run around and worry about leaving Matt alone.
He said all kinds of weenie lies about me behind my back, and never could apologize in public, only in private and by email, so MB has nothing coming from me in the way of me ‘leaving him alone’.
Again, if cause can’t be found from what’s already out there, me piling new stuff on your desk is meaningless.
Holtz 282, the fact is, most people aren’t born knowing that one day they may want to do X or Y and how their present actions may affect that.
Look how many people get tattoos. 🙂
So along the line, almost everyone has a comment out of place or a bad relationship or whatever that someone might consider grounds for not electing them. It’s one thing to come across those posts and say to yourself, wow, I don’t think this guy’s really going to be diplomatic enough to work with the LNC. It’s another for someone to stay up nights looking for them or keeping a list of them to use to try to destroy that person’s campaign. As I’ve told the various candidates I’ve spoken with, it’s always better to campaign FOR someone than to campaign AGAINST someone else. One tends to look like a real jerk when he goes negative on someone.
You think Seebeck’s sharp tongue is going to be an issue; I actually don’t. I much prefer those who speak plainly and to the purpose, and I would rather know what someone really thinks than have them tell me what they think I want to hear.
Your mileage apparently varies. Okay, that’s cool, that’s your choice. That’s why we vote.
I’m sure that as an LNC officer, he’ll either mind what he says or be asked to do so if he gets out of line. Maybe you’ll even get an Angela Keaton style witch hunt if you’re very lucky and he REALLY goes off on someone.
Civility is good, I’m down with civil interactions between people right up to the point where expressing any negative sentiment or disagreement or even disapproval of someone’s actions becomes a lack of civility in someone’s mind. I’ve seen people twist the words of others until they could find something to get offended about, and that’s just as wrong as saying something deliberately offensive in the first place. We’re adults, and by golly we should act like adults.
Cohen 287, you do whatever you want, but good luck getting support.
I’m seeing a lot of “if you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you,” and that’s not useful for building any kind of case.
So whatever dude. I still say, let it go, at least until you can put something solid together.
Carolyn, “born knowing” is an even more feeble strawman than invoking a first-grade playground. The fact remains that Mike’s own handout said he’d been a “party officer or leader” for 8 of the last 10 years.
I didn’t “stay up nights” or “keep a list”. I just spent a couple hours Thursday afternoon doing some web searches. I’m sorry if you don’t agree that delegates should know ahead of time the best publicly-available possible reasons not to vote for a prospective officer. My own judgment is that more such opposition research could have saved the LPCA a whole lot of recent grief.
Nothing in my handout said that these quotes disqualify Mike from the LNC. I just said that delegates can use this data to “help them decide”. By contrast, Mike on his Facebook page described Dan Wiener as an apparent “puppet” who “doesn’t even respect his constituency enough to show up”. Are you saying I’m a “real jerk” here, but Mike’s not?
If you’re suggesting that me simply quoting Seebeck’s public statements is more objectionable than Seebeck’s public insults of LP leaders and candidates, well then, I guess we’ve indeed identified how our mileage varies.
Of course, the ultimate irony here is that one of Mike’s big campaign points was his current project to do — wait for it — opposition research.
Brian, I hate to be mean, but I find your inference in #282 above to be quite arrogant. Do you really think your mean-spirited but hilarious handout had anything to do with Mark and Daniel winning the LNC Rep position instead of Mike? You don’t think that the years Mark and Dan have put in, compared to the fact that Mike is a relative newcomer, had something to do with it?
I must say, I’ve been astonished to watch your postings on this site that made you appear to be a major player in the Barnes drama. You were not. I find it similar to Gail Lightfoot’s proclamation in an email last week that she’d “brought things to a head” regarding Barnes. Huh? For the most part, Brian, you knew some of the things that went on and made up the difference just like Bruce did. Is this really the best way for a man with three daughters to spend his day? You’re a good writer, Brian, why don’t you try to write a book or something? The Barnes saga was only prolonged and complicated by you and Bruce involving yourselves.
Thank God it’s over (at least as far as I’m concerned).
I’m suggesting nothing. Holtz, I SAY what I mean. You’re working so hard to read nefarious meaning into what I say that simply isn’t there… Try reading for the meaning I intended, at least on the first pass, and we’ll communicate ever so much better. I mean that sincerely.
Maybe this is what you don’t understand about me and why you’ve taken such a strong dislike to me when we’ve never even met. You seem to have in mind that I’m some kind of scheming bitch who looks for hidden meanings and attacks in everything you say, so you assume there are such things in what *I* say. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Straight up: If your purposes were truly to inform the voters, I would have expected to see a balance of quotes from Seebeck, both positive AND negative, AND EQUIVALENT BALANCED QUOTES FROM THE OTHER CANDIDATES. To pretend this was presented to “help the voters decide” as if it’s somehow unbiased? Come on, Holtz. It was a campaign piece to try to knock Seebeck down as a candidate. To say otherwise is just disingenuous. It’s not a criminal act or anything, so there’s no reason to get defensive again.
It’s just that I prefer to present the positive qualities of candidates I support rather than attack the perceived negative qualities of those I oppose. That’s not to say I will never go negative, but it’s not my first choice because at the end of the day, as George said in Denver, “the enemy’s out there.” We’re all Libertarians, and we should all be working together for freedom, not sniping each other’s every word down.
It’s no secret that Starr, for example, and I are on opposite sides of the floor fee thing or that I’m actively campaigning for his opponent, James Oaksun, in the treasurer race. Yet he and I treat it like a chess game. We talk with each other, we’re friendly, we even talk about the issues involved very candidly and respect each other’s point of view even though we don’t agree and we’re both playing to win.
RE earlier posts on Valentine’s Day… The convention committee apparently decided to set the date for “Presidents’ Day weekend” because it was a 3-day for most people, and didn’t realize that included February 14.
My partner and I weren’t thrilled to spend our entire Valentines Day locked up in meetings, including the Excomm meeting that ran late on Sunday night, but that’s how it goes sometimes. Guess it’s a good thing we’re both Libertarians AND we don’t get into hallmark holidays…
Kate, Mike and I met at the 2008 Libertarian Convention in San Diego, so we’re also a couple put together by the Party, in a sense. 🙂
And I met Alan at a Libertarian Christmas party at Pam and Rick’s Probsts’ in 1997! Isn’t that sweet?
I’m sensing a pattern here…
I guess the people planning it did’nt have anyone to kiss on valentines day 🙁
But even besides that, there’s no excuse for putting it on prime candidate signature gathering time. i don’t know any candidates who actually have their signatures. Some who are now worried they won’t get them because they went to the con-vention. I’ll do what I can to help them, but it’s pretty bad.
@carolyn and jill, 293 and 294: Aww! that’s so sweet! ^_^ It’s nice to see couples come together in such a romantic, noble way (fighting tyranny together). CUTE!
weird, my post vanished.
I guess the con-vention planners didn’t have anyone to kiss on valentines day 🙁
Besides that, like I said it’s prime candidate sig-gathering time, and how dumb is it to waste that with boring meetings? Everyone I know is still scrambling to get signatures. Part of the measure of a party is how they treat their candidates. The CA LP has simply neglected them for the most part. As a first time candidate, I feel I’ve pretty much been pushed off a cliff and told to land in a way that doesn’t kill me.
@carolyn and jill 293 and 294: Awwww! That’s so sweet! ^_^ I love seeing couples getting together through romantic, noble causes (fighting tyranny)
P.S. on 296, the one and only helpful person has been the amazing Mike Rodrigues, if anyone knows him. This guy is the nicest and most helpful person in the party, and it’s too bad more aren’t like him.
My sweet man bought me flowers to wear all day, and he actually brought to the convention candy, a card and a gift to give me on Sunday! How lucky am I???
Kate, in the Executive Meeting last evening we discussed the folly of having the convention before signatures were gathered. That won’t happen next year.
There was a table at the convention where people had their petitions out so everyone could sign them. I must have signed 15 petitions that day, probably some of them twice. As long as it either said San Bernardino County or no county (for higher state offices) I signed it. 🙂 So there was some support and compassion for those who needed to be gathering signatures. But at most you could get maybe 68 signatures or so — 80 if you counted hotel staff hehe. Out in the real world, you might have gotten a lot more in the same time. :-\
I got me some sausage for Valentines Day. 🙂
Wait, that sounded dirty. Let me explain.
There’s this restaurant on 3rd street in L.A. right off Alameda called Wurstkuche that makes awesome sausages. There’s one that has buffalo in it, another that has duck and bacon, I believe, and the one I had last night that was rattlesnake, rabbit and jalapeno. 🙂 Very tasty. They serve ’em like hot dogs with your choice of carmelized onions and peppers and mustards and whatnot, and they have a great selection of obscure microbrews to make Mike happy. (He’s a beer snob.) A lovely Valentines dinner. 🙂
I got me some sausage for Valentine’s Day, also…(wink, wink)…
In the words of my friend Rowan Wilson, “Men always say, why should you buy the whole cow if you can get the milk for free, and I have to agree with them. After all, why should you have to buy the whole pig just to get a little sausage?”
🙂
awwwww Jill! that’s SOOO sweet! @298
David and I made valentines for my coworkers, went on 2 walks, had fondue (he’d never had it!) and watched a romantic movie about how much laws suck ^-^
“similar to Gail Lightfoot’s [Mid Coast California] proclamation in an email last week that she’d “brought things to a head” regarding Barnes. Huh? …………”
I am not a registered Lib, but I have been trying to deal with such on abused veterans issues for years. My personal experience with Gale is for her to say one thing, tell another, and explain it away!
Jill, I don’t understand what you’re talking about re: 282. I have no idea how much Mike’s statements hurt his campaign, and I’ve never said otherwise. I thought the race with Lieberman would be closer, and I don’t know why it wasn’t. My joke @282 was about how you said @273 “everyone I talked to agreed that it showcased his high intellect”, and so you were apparently saying I inadvertently helped Mike’s campaign.
You apparently don’t know that I submitted a brief to the Judicial Committee regarding the two suspensions. Because of confidentiality, I can’t tell you how many JudCom members privately thanked me for it, or said it was the most thoughtful they’d received from anyone, or encouraged me to make the same arguments in public. So before assuming I’ve spoken out of ignorance, check your premises. And if you think I “made up” anything I said about this case, I challenge you to quote it. Please don’t insult me by putting me in the same league as Cohen, who has been one of the primary generators of the false or unsubstantiated allegations that I’ve tried to defend LPCA members from. I’m going to keep defending LPCA members from false or unsubstantiated allegations, whether they come from as high as an ExCom member or as low as Cohen.
“Mean-spirited”? Quoting Mike’s mean-spirited statements doesn’t make me mean-spirited. Please don’t confuse the message with the messenger.
“Write a book”? I’ve written two. If you want to see what I’ve been writing lately, check out http://www.calfreedom.net/. The ExCom you were on decided to cancel California Freedom and replace it with nothing, and I’ve stepped up to fill the gap. You’re welcome.
And how dare you question how much time I spend with my daughters? Would it be OK for me to question how much time a female Libertarian activist spends with her children? As it turns out, I spend more time with my daughters than my wife does. I get my girls up in the morning, make them breakfast and pack their lunches, pick them up from daycare, and manage their homework and cook their dinner while waiting for my wife to get home from work. When any of the girls are sick, I’m the one who picks them up from school, or stays home with them. I’m able to do all this because Yahoo knows it has to grant flexible hours to attract and keep top software engineers.
Carolyn, I have no “strong dislike” for you, and I wonder if you can see the irony of you imagining I have such “dislike” even as you accuse me of reading things into what you write. You have no grounds for saying I consider you a “scheming bitch”, and I find it sad that you would accuse me of that. My opinion of you is just that your polemical reach exceeds your grasp, and that the way you react to the exposure of this overreach tends to justify the unwritten rule that the LPUS leadership generally avoids forums like this. I find that disappointing, because I appreciate it when leaders like George Phillies and Aaron Starr and Lee Wrights and Stewart Flood come down from the mountain to interact with members here. You and Jill can call me “stupid” and “dense” and “arrogant” and “mean-spirited” and accuse me of hating you, but all I want is for you and other LP leaders to answer questions about their actions and their words. And I’ll keep politely asking such questions, no matter what names or accusations you use against me. I’m not very easy to intimidate, and in fact, the last successful expulsion from the LPCA involved a threat of physical violence against me.
I never said that my handout didn’t reflect poorly on Mike, and indeed I gently poked fun at Jill for suggesting otherwise. (What would you accuse me of if I had given her Seebeck-style treatment?) You said “one tends to look like a real jerk when he goes negative on someone”, when all I did was quote Mike’s own words and invite delegates to draw the obvious conclusion. By contrast, Mike’s Facebook page described Dan Wiener as an apparent “puppet” who “doesn’t even respect his constituency enough to show up”. Mike himself had the courage to stand behind his criticism of Dan: So yeah, I dinged him on his vulnerable point on the issues, but that’s campaigning politics right there. Had I done my LNC speech right, I would have pointed that out clearly, but I didn’t, and that’s my fault. Guess what, that’s the way politics is played, and I accept that. It seems hypocritical of you to give Mike a pass for insulting LP leaders and candidates and attacking Dan on his Facebook page, but complaining when I simply document Mike’s public statements during the “8 of 10 years” in which he says he’s been an LP “officer or leader”. (Are you going to answer that point about 8 of 10 years, or are you going to push your strawman from first grade to birth to conception next?)
Mike could have told the delegates: “Yes, I used to blow off steam on IPR comments, but as your LNC rep I will always treat LP leaders and candidates with respect, even when I publicly give them the criticism they deserve.” But he didn’t say that. Instead, he said, verbatim: “I know I’m controversial, but I speak my mind.” So he apparently stands by his words. If you have a problem with delegates knowing that, then complain to him, not me.
Where is the Rodney King Caucus when you need it? RC is missing. Probably stuck in a snow drift somewhere.
Dunno about Capozzi.
We may have a meeting of 2 or more members in Vegas this weekend if I make it up there.
Wiped out tired from work right now….
Brian, you’re absolutely right about my comment on your daughters. I was absolutely out of line. I apologize for that.
See, this is exactly what I mean. You get defensive if anyone doesn’t agree with you or says something you don’t like. You latch onto anything negative photographically and never notice anything positive, or conveniently forget about it. Your sheet on Seebeck pretty well characterizes your approach to people — all negative, but with this wide-eyed, innocent “What? I’m just putting the facts out there!” attitude behind it.
No, you don’t know me, nor have you gone to any effort at all to try. I was sitting two seats away from you at the excomm meeting, and you didn’t even give me so much as a nod. I must have passed you several times in the convention hall and in the corridors, but not even so much as a nod from you even when I tried to catch your eye. I GOT MORE FRIENDLINESS FROM BARNES when I passed him in the hall. So I don’t think it’s incorrect for me to take from that that you’re less than amiable toward me. I’m not reading it into just what you write. I’m reading it into your actions and your absolute lack of anything positive to say toward me EVER. Seems pretty indicative.
It’s a shame, Holtz, because I consider you a very intelligent person and someone worthy of respect for the way you express your opinions. You’re disciplined in the way you put together an argument even if I don’t always agree, and you are articulate. I think we could accomplish a lot in common if only you could stop trying so hard to pick apart what I say as a personal attack on yourself and actually try to find something constructive to work with, or if you’d ask for my opinion because you genuinely want it instead of wanting to trap me into saying something you can use against me.
And you wonder why the leadership and candidates don’t post here…
My man bought me a lovely corsage that went perfectly with my dress, and then proceeded to do an Outreach to the flower shop owner!! Now THAT is my man, always quick on his feet.
Lidia, his quip to Bob Weber that he was alreaady married was very funny, very indicative of his sharp wit. He’s one of the funniest people I know.
Brian, I actually think your page on Mike may have done more good than harm. Really.
I will continue to put you and Bruce in the same category. You both interjected yourselves into a situation that wasn’t yours, and simply invented things to fill the holes in your knowledge. You just happen to be a better writer than Bruce. And as far as you defending the Executive Committee? Who are you trying to kid?
I didn’t inject myself into this.
Kevin was blaming me from day one.
Otherwise, why did several XC Members call me to ask if what Kevin was saying was true?
Kevin injected me into it.
I was minding my own business when my phone started ringing off the hook and my email inbox started filling up.
And you, Miss Pyatt, wrote me a very hateful and nasty email defending Mister Barnes and basically saying I was mean and nasty and all kind of ugly things.
And to think I was on the Group W bench by myself minding my own business.
Yeah right.
OK, now I’m starting to piece this together. Carolyn, I stood right behind you in line at the microphone and you didn’t say a word to me. So what? Please don’t think you can read my mind, because you can’t. The nice thing about having a wedding ring is that it gives me the power to ignore beautiful women. 🙂 I tend to look past the more attractive women at Libertarian meetings, because there are far too many LP men who stare or are overly solicitous. I got the vague feeling that you and Mike were both trying to ignore me, but I’m too old for games about eye contact and nods, and I was pretty busy updating my live blog and making recordings, and looking for a camera I thought I’d lost, so I didn’t try to read anything into it.
At my previous LP meeting before the Long Beach convention, I got a question from the audience — for a talk about elected service on my local Water Board — asking whether I would apologize for supporting the overthrow of Saddam. So I figure, hey, if you aren’t calling me a baby killer, then you probably don’t consider me an enemy. No, scratch that, even Angela Keaton has pretty much said I supported baby-killing, and yet I think she would say we’re friendly.
Or consider Pam Brown, who spent much of the last few weeks on the LPCA candidates’ list comparing me to socialists/Marxists because as a geolibertarian I support land value taxes. But when we bumped into each other at the registration desk, we just shot the breeze like comrades-in-arms. So if your problem with me is just about some perceived slight in Long Beach, then prepare for a big hug the minute I see you in St. Louis. Just clear it with Mike first, because he’s a pretty chiseled-looking dude. 🙂
I’m reading it into your actions and your absolute lack of anything positive to say toward me EVER.
Please tell me what quota of agreement with you I need to fulfill. 🙂 We’re both Libertarians, so I presume we agree on roughly 99% of everything. I don’t care how often you express agreement with me, and for all my photographic memory I have no idea if it’s been fifty times or zero. I’m mature enough to know that the frequency or percentage of agreement with me has nothing to do with whether you personally like me. I do know that in this very thread @266 I wrote: “I agree with Ms. Marbry @260” — this very evening. OK, your turn: when was the last time you agreed with me? 🙂
I’ll repeat, I think it’s great that the LPUS Vice-Chair front-runner has set a precedent of answering members’ questions on public forums. I’m also elated that you consider yourself a Phillies-style centrist libertarian. You probably don’t know it, but I wore a Phillies sticker in San Diego, and he was my first choice in all three elections I could vote for him: San Diego, the California primary, and the first ballot in Denver. As his media coordinator you’re probably not allowed to say how much you ghost-wrote his releases, but I remember one of them moved me to post nothing more than: “George Phillies makes me proud to be a Libertarian.”
However, I’m probably not going to support George for Chair, or Rob for Secretary, just like I didn’t support Mike for LNC. In these three gentleman I’ve noted — and documented — disturbing amounts of incivility toward, or misrepresentation of, fellow Libertarians. Maybe such things don’t bother you as much as they bother me, but I consider that sort of behavior to be poisonous to the LP, and I will continue to oppose it. I hope you don’t think that makes me your enemy, and I hope you don’t fall into the same patterns of behavior I see in them.
Jill @312, you continue to baffle me with references you think I will get, but I don’t. I beg you, I plead with you, I beseech you, I implore you: quote me one thing I “invented”. (Carolyn, this is what I’m talking about. Jill just called me a liar twice in a row, without any concern for substantiating her calumny. I guess attacking my parenting wasn’t enough for her — and yet she calls me “mean-spirited” for simply printing some of Mike’s public statements. But I guess I’m just being “defensive”.)
And I don’t understand what you mean by me “defending the Executive Committee”. Again, can you be more specific?
I agree with your comment @311. Mike was quite good at the dias (except for when he said several times “The question has been called. Is there any more debate on the question?”) His multiple witty remarks would have probably won him several more votes if they had come before the elections.
No, I did not send you an email defending Barnes. Never. Ever. Never, ever, you liar. You’re making it up and lying. The minute I knew about Barnes, I was disgusted and did everything in my power to get rid of the sociopath. This was at some risk to my family and me, by the way, but I felt so strongly about someone harming children that I couldn’t keep my mouth shut. You stop telling horrible lies, Bruce. You are a disgusting liar and have no business in the Libertarian party.
You must have me confused with someone else. I was one of Barnes’ noisiest critics, but you never bothered to find out what was going on, did you? Yesterday you said something about me being in your face about this. Huh???? I’ve never met you in person, Bruce. I can smell a rat and I keep my distance.
Since I know you’re lying about me sending you an email defending Barnes–you liar, liar, liar– I’m sure you’re lying about others on the Ex Com calling you.
Here’s a juicy truth: The vote to suspend Barnes had two nos, but the vote to suspend you was unanimous. Doesn’t this tell you something?
I’m writing this as a disgusted individual who has been lied about for weeks. I am not representing the ExCom.
I won’t post about this any more, but Bruce telling a disgusting lie about me is unbelievable.
He is stark, raving mad, and a lying lunatic. .
The tirade above is directed at Bruce. I hadn’t read Brian’s post at 314, but I don’t think you’ve been lying, Brian, I just think you see things your own way, which is often different than many other people see things.
But I’m done with this thread. The Barnes nightmare has taken up too much time and energy, and I’m hereby DONE! No More! Nada!
Finito (I wish I knew another language).
The trolls can maybe talk to each other now.
Re: me and the Rodney King Caucus, we certainly need the latter. Since this thread’s about CA, it seems none of my business, as I’m in VA.
But, yes, Paulie, all this snow’s put a crimp on my style. Hard to get much done when shovelling snow. Thanks for your concern. But as Rodney’d likely say, “It’s all good.”
@293 I specifically skipped the Sunday portion of the convention so I could spend the day with my wife and get some quality time in. It was our 20th Valentine’s Day together and we spent it in San Diego around the Ocean Beach area.
Aaron and I had it pointed out how St. Valentine’s day and petitioning interfered with folks Libertarian lives and we tried, I think successfully, to avoid it, just for that reason.
Mark Murphy was the strongest advocate from Membership, for a later and non V-Day Convention.
For those people interested in this subject, the IPR post at: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/?s=Libertarian+suspension is the precursor to this conversation here.
In fact, in many ways, this conversation is a continuation of the previous one mentioned above.
Paulie , you coming to Vegas?? yeah!!
I’m pretty much stuck here until my g-baby gets out of the hospital at least 2 weeks:(
@Lidia: That’s so sweet!
@ Gene Trosper: That’s also super sweet!
Hey LG and Kate, stop this horrible and devious hijack. Who cares about babies and falling in love? Let’s get back to the accusations about me and why it’s all my fault in California.
🙂
sorry dude , I cant think of anything but my grand daughter , she’ll be there at least 2 weeks, and I made a promise never to discuss the MB situation again so … and the rest of Cali’s business is pretty mundane.
<3 babies and children.
And so does Ginger.
We were at Sprint a few hours before my show trial.
Of course, my phone quits the day of the trial, so I rushed to the Sprint store asap with barely an hour to spare.
I took Ginger with me as she loves to go along on drives, are you suprised? All girls like to ride shotgun.
And we were waiting for my new phone when a daddy was fussing with a baby in a stroller and kept making her cry.
Ginger barked at him a few times from across the room.
The mom said, 'stop making the baby cry' to him…
And finally, said 'look the dog thinks you are hurting the baby, knock it off!'.
Kids come first for Ginger.
And me.
and guess what, LG is that way too.
Don't mess with Texas.
And don't mess with kids when LG is around or you will WISH you had messed with Texas instead.
BC/BS is absolutely sure ’bout so many things. Why does he have so many problems ???? Ah, the arrogance of fools …………
‘Bout his views on Israel ……….
Bruce Cohen // Feb 16, 2010: “Let’s get back to ……… me and why it’s all my fault in California.”
Dems and GOP suck, why can’t we find reasonable folks to lead the charge ?????? The pitch forks and torches have been ready for decades!
Paulie , you coming to Vegas?? yeah!!
Hoping so.
We’re on track the finish this job before the weekend and it may be on the way to where my co-workers are going. Plus Starchild sent me $25 to pass out Grassroots Caucus fliers at state conventions, so I need to start making good on that.
I was thinking of going to the one we are talking about (Cali) but there was a gun show this last weekend and I had to stay and make some money. I worked out pretty well, too.
I’ll try to go to Texas for LSLA/LNC the following weekend after Vegas. Then I’ll need another job, assuming we wrap this one up as we are on track to. Got some leads, but not sure where yet.
I’m pretty much stuck here until my g-baby gets out of the hospital at least 2 weeks:(
Bummer…good luck with that whole situation, your family is in my thoughts.
See you this weekend, hopefully.
Gotta go make some more money..
One other thing before I go
Bruce writes,
Hey LG and Kate, stop this horrible and devious hijack. Who cares about babies and falling in love? Let’s get back to the accusations about me and why it’s all my fault in California.
I liked the post V-day comment exchange between Jill, Kate, Carolyn et al a lot more than the bizarro-V-day thing with Todd and Bruce.
Yes…we sure do need the Rodney King caucus…
OK, time to make the donuts..
There was this really weird guy at the convention (not Starchild weird, Norman Bates weird). He had dark hair, had an expensive shirt and black trench coat, looked really young and spoke with a forced deep voice like he wanted to sound older than he was. He spent a lot of time pacing around the back and outside in the hall.
What troubled me was that he told a friend he was a police officer on a safety assignment to make sure there “was no trouble”. Then he said that he hoped that it would not come to it but he was prepared to use deadly force if neccessary.
What was that all about? Was that one of the pervert’s boy toys threatening people? Is that who threatened Jill?
I remember the black trench coat and black gloves, but didn’t note anything else unusual about him. I don’t get a cop vibe from somebody so young and slender. He’s going to have to try a lot harder if he wants to be the really weird guy at an LP convention.
Huh? I wasn’t threatened at the convention. Where did that come from?
Who@330
In the pictures and video I saw of the Convention, I did see someone dressed that way and I’m pretty sure I know who it is.
That person is not the kind who would say he was a cop.
I know that several people did get strange email from the locus (MB) of this whole ordeal, myself included, and we did percieve them to be threatening.
I also know there were folks there who were keeping an eye on MB because of that, but that’s about where it ends.
I’m thinking ‘Who’ must have misinterpreted something or misheard…
@219: “I left California five years ago, and everything falls apart. Geez!”
Come back, David! Come baaaack!
# Who was that weirdo?
// Feb 16, 2010 at 1:56 pm
There was this really weird guy at the convention (not Starchild weird, Norman Bates weird). He had dark hair, had an expensive shirt and black trench coat, looked really young and spoke with a forced deep voice like he wanted to sound older than he was. He spent a lot of time pacing around the back and outside in the hall.
What troubled me was that he told a friend he was a police officer on a safety assignment to make sure there “was no trouble”. Then he said that he hoped that it would not come to it but he was prepared to use deadly force if necessary.
What was that all about? Was that one of the pervert’s boy toys threatening people? Is that who threatened Jill?
331 Brian Holtz // Feb 16, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I remember the black trench coat and black gloves …… He’s going to have to try a lot harder if he wants to be the really weird guy at an LP convention.
[and do not think non Libs have not heard these things after wards ………..]
The ‘falling apart’ happened a few years after Mister Nolan left.
Roughly three years ago, give or take a few seconds.
OK I have a picture of the ‘trench coat guy’ and it’s NOT who I thought it was at all.
I think ‘who’ is mixing things up a bit, based on the description he/she/it gives @330.
I’m going to try and post the photo here, so bear with me.
If the WordPress software doesn’t work, I’ll just email it to Paulie and we can see it together this evening after he gets back from the doughnut factory.
Settle down, everyone. It was Security. It’s not unheard of to have security at a politcal convention.
@319 Mark Murphy wants absolutely NOTHING to do with the LPCA anymore.
Bruce @ 287: You have so damn many good ideas, it’s a shame that you don’t have enough of a SPINE to actually show up on the convention floor and present them. Maybe you can write something PRESENTABLE up, and give it to an ExecComm member to follow up. Frankly, I’m not holding my breath while I wait.
I have my disagreements with Mr. Holtz and Mr. Barnes, but at least they have enough courage to show their faces. And while I think that Mr. Holtz, Mr. Barnes and I can all set aside our personal differences and work toward our common goal, the comments in this thread don’t indicate that possibility with you.
That’s a shame, because I would like for us to all be on the same team. However, it does fit in well with my theory that you are a wannabe Trojan horse, intentionally trying to destroy our party from within.
In fact, I would urge everyone in the CA LP to recognize the fact that our big disagreement is now resolved, despite Mr. Cohen’s pot-stirring. THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY IS AT STAKE! Surely we can leave the bickering to Cohen’s pathetic little posts, and work toward our common goal. We don’t have to like each other any more than I have to like my plumber, or car salesman, or grocery clerk. We just have to be able to work toward our common goal, despite the flak from irrelevant little irritants like Mr. Cohen, who will quickly find themselves on the outside looking in, as long as we don’t take his obvious bait.
@340
Well, Alan, that’s not the first time I’ve heard that accusation and I can assure you, I’m no plant. I’ve seen the emails claiming that and I know where the silly rumor started.
If you don’t like my style, so be it.
I realize I can be abrasive at times and don’t blame you for keeping your distance. Some manage to overlook my different ways and some do not.
As far as I am concerned, however, I DO have to like the car salesman or plumber. And so should we all. And customer service towards members and potential members is at an all time low.
With the exception of Beau, I see nobody taking calls who is kind or responsive to people looking for feedback.
Can you honestly tell me our Chair returns his emails or phone calls promptly? Can you honestly tell me that random people who have no internal axe to grind don’t get their heads bitten off by certain officers?
The ‘Republican Plant’ and ‘Trojan Horse’ story came originally from a now-resigned LPCA Member, and no I am not talking about Zander. Zander was never that malicious.
There is no bait being offered by me.
I have raised many important questions and frankly, I was asked by dozens of people to please get involved further, after I had already said my piece, months ago.
I at least have the courage to a) use my real name, b) say my honest opinons, and c) answer all comers, publicly and privately.
Many Board Members called me during this fiasco, for advice and for documentation. I denied no reasonable request and will keep their names confidential.
You sir, could have called me.
The only contact I got from your household was the “troublemaker” email from your wife.
I would be happy to set this behind me when it’s finished. A) it’s not finished and B) you keep making me want to respond to your accusations.
If you want to work with me, call me, pitch me on your favorite project, and if it’s halfway reasonable, I will help you with it, pro bono.
I will address your ‘spine’ allegation in my next post.
This is the trench coat guy, I think standing with the rest of the JC Candidates. I bet the Brian could look up from his notes and tell us with 100% certainty who he was.
And he’s no security.
The reason I didn’t go was several fold.
#1 Is that some of the folks who have been lobbing poo mortars at me for three plus years run around saying that when I AM at an event, it messes everything up.
For years Westwell and Selzer, among others have been goading me with the ‘Republican Plant’ and ‘ex-Republican’ insult stuff.
It’s a ‘catch-22’.
If I don’t go, I’m obviously scared, and have bad motives.
If I do go, I’m a problem and they go around telling people nasty things about me, etc..
#2 I’ve been terribly ill since 1999. I feel green a lot of the time, and would not want to barf on you or myself at a suit and tie event.
A lot of people asked me to go, even the night before and I just had to keep explaining why over and over.
Let me summarize:
I didn’t think it would be fun for me.
I didn’t think being there in person would be helpful to me or the event.
And I was sick, and preferred to stay at home with my dog and my espresso machine.
So Mister Pyatt, I have two things to say to you personally:
#1 Do you MIND letting me make my own decisions what events I go to? Call me next time you need my vote or my body or my money.
#2 My offer still stands. I will be quite pleased if you come up with an initiative I can help you succeed with. Try me.
When Mister Starr was Chair, he insisted that each and every Board member had their own portfolio.
I believe you guys call it a Committee.
I had a few.
Please check his Convention reports on what kind of work and results I produced.
Seems like I was a one man army if you read it, no?
Now what evil conspiracy can you think of that certain people like Steve Kubby or Michael Seebeck could call me up and ask me to do anything for them and I pretty dang much would, and so could Aaron Starr, but I had to mention those other names first… But other people are ‘allergic’?
Connect the dots on your own time, Alan.
Link: http://www.ca.lp.org/committees.shtml
You’ll see my name there until Kevin takes it down.
335, the person you’re referring to is my son, Jericho.
He is a police officer in training, and he was asked to help coordinate security with the hotel security people since this convention had the potential to have more drama than others. Fortunately, nothing happened, so he didn’t need to do much.
His voice is not forced deep — it IS that deep. I’m sorry if you found that disturbing, but *shrug* it’s genetic. His grandfather sings bass.
He would not have presented himself as a police officer unless he included “in training,” and he most assuredly would not have threatened Jill.
Now, there was another guy there, and maybe this is the guy your friend was talking about, who kept trying to present himself as some kind of secret agent. The guy who was doing credentialing. Could be he got the two mixed up.
Sorry to hear about your illness, Bruce. I was not aware of it, and certainly would not wish an illness on you.
I also was not aware of anybody else accusing you of being a Trojan horse, including Zander. I reached that conclusion on my own, after seeing several of your internet posts and hearing of people that left the LP because of you. After seeing your totally off-topic posts on the Jim Duensing thread, I accused you of being a wannabe Trojan horse. The following month, Jill and I met someone at the Mises Institute conference in Newport Beach, who claimed that he had quit the LP specifically because of you. Then I see your inflammatory posts on IPR, including this thread. For example, how about your post @ 46: “[OPINION] I can’t support Jill or Alan until they apologize for ‘yelling’ at me and saying I was ‘wrong’ about Barnzie. Jill was really in my face about it, and guess what, I was right.”
Please point out where I ever said you were wrong about MB. What I said was that you didn’t know what you were talking about when you criticized the 2009/2010 ExecComm for not doing anything about MB, and claiming that we were actually protecting him. Then I called you a wannabe Trojan horse.
Since then, it has been revealed that contrary to your accusations, the ExecComm WAS resolving the situation. In fact, the JudComm said that our response went too far. So no, you weren’t right, you were “talking out your azz.” Nothing for me to apologize for, except calling a spade a spade in public, for anybody who hadn’t already figured you out.
It all points to one conclusion, and if other people have independently reached the same conclusion, then that should tell you something.
We came out of the convention with a sense of unity, a sense that the wound in our party was healing. And then I see this thread, with all the sniping and bickering, and I look to see who’s stirring it up. And when I connect THOSE dots, they point to you, Bruce. And I don’t mind saying that I really resent that, after all our hard work, you are already trying to destroy the unity that all of us have worked so hard to forge.
MB has brought several people into the LP. But with all the discord, and all the effort this has taken away from working to elect our candidates and defeat “Top Two,” his ultimate effect on our party (until Sunday’s resolution was passed) was overwhelmingly negative. Could the same thing not be said of your “one man army?”
I don’t claim to be a Christian, but I do try to recognize wisdom when I hear it: “the tree is known by his fruit.” When I start to see positive, productive posts coming from your computer, then I will be happy to shut up and work with you.
Until then.
I can assure you, I’m no plant. I’ve seen the emails claiming that..l….
[a] oh come on. If some one else was as erratic and ‘agents provocateur’ as you have displayed your self [to pols all over the West Coast] for years —– what would YOU think and say ??????????
[b] other political groups have gone through the similar processes and if not spot on, the suspicions were ‘close enough for government work’. When you were dining with the other ethical midgets in the former Yugoslavia, did you count your fingers after shaking hands ???????? Did you get hints from them on how to keep pretty much every one around you off balance ?????????? Hints on dishonesty, and duplicity and thief ??????????
[c] Again, the shenanigans of less than honest Libertarians [not that any political groups is immune to the ‘Unethics Cabal Syndrome’], is legend on the Left Coast.
[d] Ya wanna membership increase ?????? Target folks whom are ignorant! Your ‘activists’ [like the Dems and GOP and other groups] have thoroughly ‘poisoned the well’. Rank piss and vinegar are not attractive agents ……….
[e] about Isreal verses the USA ……….
Again, I was NOT threatened at the convention at all, by anyone.
346 Alan Pyeatt // Feb 16, 2010:
“Sorry to hear about your illness, Bruce.
I also was not aware of anybody else accusing you of being a Trojan horse, including Zander. I reached that conclusion on my own ………… ”
[as have tons of non Libs on the Left Coast]
“after seeing several of your internet posts and hearing of people that left the LP because of you. I accused you of being a wannabe [wannabe ???????????] Trojan horse ……. Jill and I met someone ……..whom claimed that he had quit the LP specifically because of you. ”
“It all points to one conclusion, and if other people have independently reached the same conclusion, then that should tell you something …………..”
[about Isreal ………..]
Don, I used the term “wannabe” because if it’s out in the open AND PEOPLE DON’T TAKE HIS BAIT then he is totally ineffective. Unfortunately, a lot of people DO seem to take his bait. for the life of me, I can’t understand why.
Alan, thanks for your mostly nice words.
Let’s wait and see how everything goes.
Good luck and much success on the board.
We hope you raise a lot of money, recruit a lot of members, mail out a lot of good stuff by email and direct mail, and get in the news a whole bunch.
We as in the royal we and me, myself personally.
I’ll be over here on the Group W bench, watching, hoping and rooting you on.
I’m good and non-partisan on the phone, if you have a phone bank operation. (Good to do at least once a quarter per County if you can pull it off.)
Notwithstanding, I hope you all will be able to advance the party in the future.
I never did hear the hour of the debate, so as even to consider flying out. If I had been there, by the time you got to it on Sunday, I would have been gone, off to the airport.
I did offer to appear by speaker phone, when contacted by a person now on your state committee, and am advised that the proposal was rejected.
Carolyn @269: I’m not convinced. MB’s privacy wasn’t an issue—the most troubling verifiable details were already in the public record. Individual delegates’ votes could have been rendered private through the use of ballots. Delegates can reasonably be asked to take ownership of what they say—I don’t see what entitles them to conceal their words. And, in any case, from whom were their comments being concealed? Most non-LP members wouldn’t care about this debate, and LP members deserved to know what went on.
As regards the exclusion of credentialed delegates: Party representatives could easily have checked the credentials and identities of people reentering the room after the beginning of the session. This needn’t have been disruptive in any significant way.
I favor a Keatonesque view of executive sessions.
Bruce, please don’t take this the wrong way, but if you think my words were nice, then maybe that’s part of the problem? I DO hope they were constructive, and yes, I would like for us to be able to work together.
Maybe we can work some type of phone bank from the LP office. At this point, we think we can be more successful doing low/no overhead things where we don’t have upfront costs like office rent or mailings. If you know of somebody that can donate office space (or maybe their home for events), then please let me know.
Chris, I didn’t make the policy. I was explaining what I believed to have been the rationale behind it.
It’s a perfectly reasonable use of executive session to discuss a topic like whether the Party wants to dis-associate with a member because of his past actions.
The volunteer in glasses who again worked the whole convention — for free — at the registration desk is named, I think, Wayne Martin. He’s a very earnest young man who I first saw at an ExCom meeting in San Diego a couple years back, where he talked about his interest in secession and micro-nations. I may be mis-remembering this, but I think he once declared his rural California property to be a sovereign state. He takes his thankless credentials work very seriously, and I’m pretty sure Kevin and Beau are glad he volunteers.
hey guys, if anyone here is willing to help get our state secretary candidate, Christina Tobin, signatures, WE NEED HELP! I emailed everyone in my area and got ZERO response–so lazy. If anyone here can help her, she can get signatures all over the state, so please let me know and I’ll get her petition to you.
Thanks!
I’m going to hijack this thread with a nefarious message: Happy Mardi Gras, everyone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXId-5dYJjE
You may now return to your regularly scheduled infighting.
Well Bruce, if you really want to help, I sure could use some names and contact info. for donors, especially people who would be willing to donate office or meeting space for fundraisers, host events in their homes, etc. Who do they know and trust that would be willing to help our fundraising effort? What is the best way to approach them?
I could also use any info. you have regarding direct mail campaigns – response rates, costs, etc. At this point, we will probably emphasize activities that can be done with little to no upfront costs – house parties, etc. But I could certainly see us doing direct mail again, if we can expect a good rate of return. Have you done any e-mail solicitations? How did that work out?
Thanks,
Alan
Happy Mardi Gras to you too, Gene!
But as for the regularly scheduled infighting, I’m afraid that a Rodney King moment has inexplicably taken place…
: )
I lived in Los Angeles County /Lake View Terrace [yes, of cinema fame ……..] and ’twas no infighting, ’twas an out and out beating!
Alan Pyeatt // Feb 16, 2010:42 pm
[AS HE REGULARLY ENGAGES THE
AMERICAN ZIONIST BRUCE COHEN!]
Don [Lake], I used the term “wannabe” because if it’s out in the open AND PEOPLE DON’T TAKE HIS BAIT then he is totally ineffective.
[AND YOU OBVIOUSLY WANT HIM TO BE
EFFECTIVE AND A LP FLAT TIRE ]
Unfortunately, a lot of people [ME INCLUDED] DO seem to take his bait. for the life of me, I can’t understand why [I DO SUCH THINGS].
Really, Don?
You don’t think that’s just a bit of a reach?
LOL I just thought about using the phrase “I took the liberty…” when speaking to a libertarian. I’m going to use it!
Emailed to me by Bruce Cohen titled “trench coat guy”
The white socks clash with the rest of his outfit and he needs to shine the shoes.
You folks just made my day!! I don’t really this is the guy they were talking about originally because he isn’t really thin or young (no offense, Jason), and he doesn’t have a deep voice. But I haven’t laughed so hard in a while.
And to think I voted for the guy to be on the Judicial Committee–
Nope. That’s someone else. The individual in the picture, first of all, isn’t wearing a trench coat — that’s a duster. Second, that’s not an expensive shirt. Third, anyone who talked to him would tell you his voice was a 2nd tenor or high baritone at the lowest. Third, he was definitely not watching for security or even moving around the back of the room watching BECA– USE HE HAD A SMALL CHILD TO TEND.
The person who was there to help with security at the request of the officers and who is a police officer in training, the person whose voice is deep enough to give someone pause and who would be, as Holtz described, very slender and too young to have that cop vibe yet, the one in the expensive clothes and the expensive coat and yes, gloves when his hands are cold, is indeed Jericho.
“Trench coat guy?” Seriously? It’s funny that someone who was so freaked out by him didn’t notice that he spent so much time with me or that he looks just like a male version of me with super short hair…
Oh my god! Why didn’t anybody DO something about this malevolent, perverse, EVIL creature? HOW COULD WE LET HIM STAY IN THE ROOM, MUCH LESS RUN FOR JUDICIAL COMMITTEE? I’m gonna sue somebody!
Please, won”t somebody DO something?
Help! Help! Hellllllpppp!!!!
After seeing a photo of the malevolent, evil Trench Coat Impersonator, I’m convinced that what we really need is a Dramatic Reading of this entire thread.
No, seriously.
I am NOT kidding.
Hahahaha no kidding, Alan. WOW.
Hey Brucie, since you have so much time on your hands, why don’t you Google Ayn R. Key and see what you find? Weird guys can be pretty smart, especially weird Libertarians.
@369 good idea
Hey Brucie, since you have so much time on your hands, why don’t you Google Ayn R. Key and see what you find? Weird guys can be pretty smart, especially weird Libertarians.
I posted # 371 and # 373, not Alan.
Jill at 373
I know Jason Gonella and he knows me.
I was surprised to hear he wanted to be a cop based on his behavior he displayed at a LPLAC meeting when some Police Officers walked in.
Mister Gonella and I have crossed lances and exchanged words in person, and on email.
I take it everyone is SHOCKED.
Anyway, I’m glad Ms. Marbury’s boy was there to keep an eye on things. That’s a good thing to have one insider for that. Aaron and Kevin and M and I had paid security at a Convention a while back.
Alan @ 371
Any time, bud.
I’ve done each and everyone one of those, both paid and pro-bono.
Call or email me.
I agree the low front-end cost style is the way to start off now.
PS Love your FaceBook picture, but you need to shave your back.
Is it really so bad ya gotta pay for security? Come on you’re BSing me.
369, Okay, but Judy Densch gets to read all MY posts. 🙂
(Wouldn’t you love to see her play Eleanor of Aquitaine in Lion in Winter onstage? Almost makes me want to get into directing again…)
Bruce, I posted 371, not Alan. I need to be a little more careful.
Whoever got that picture of Jason Gonella ripped it off my Facebook page (I’m the photographer). That was part of a larger picture of all JudCom nominees lined up in front of the delegation.
The trench coat guy looks likes something from ShadowCon. Dark Shadows.
Another convention photo emailed to me by Bruce Cohen, of Starchild
After all the things we discussed and everything good that happened at the CA state convention this weekend in spite of the potential for the party to be ripped apart, all we have to talk about is how the delegates were dressed? What is this, People Magazine?
Yeah Bruce, maybe it IS time for a shave. : )
I’ll contact you via e-mail.
To reward the behavior you see on this thread, keep posting about it. 🙂 To review and discuss the real-world challenges and accomplishments of California Libertarians, I invite you to visit http://CalFreedom.net.
Paulie , you do now the LPNevada convention is in Reno dont you??:)
D’oh!
No, didn’t know. Thanks for posting that.
Are you going, and if so how and when?
I may not be able to go unless I get a ride from Vegas.
Im not going . I wanted to but I have priorities so Im grounded for awhile. I was gonna ride with Rowan , I think she may still be going , I dont know. Last I heard , Jim Duensing probably wasn’t going either . I can ask around if you want. Too bad you cant make it by tomorrow , we have out tavern drinking social Sam Adams night. To that I will be going for sure:)
Hmmmm. I probably could. But I was going to work a state convention into it, and I don’t get paid until Thurs. night/Fri. morning, so I’m not sure I can go anywhere before then.
And I also want to go to Texas the weekend after that, so I may not be able to make Nevada.
bummer:(
the Clark County LP had their convention this past weekend also.
read about it at Liberty-Watch magazine here:
http://www.liberty-watch.com/2010/5/feature5.php#0
Now also at IPR
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/02/liberty-watch-2010-libertarian-party-of-clark-county-annual-convention/
Add this:
Script:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html
Was hoping to see you before I head back east (if I head back east – not sure yet)
Will you be able to get away in time for Texas (Feb 26-28)?
I think Starchild should start being an Open Carry advocate.
It would go with the outfit.
And, Brian’s Blog is definitely a place to get a good perspective from a smart Northern California Libertarian Pragmatist or Inclusivist or whatever he wants to label himself as today.
Georgist?
Brian du jour.
Paulie @396, the inside joke is that Jill and I are friends with Jason and Rose Gonella, and spent part of Saturday evening with them. That’s why I was going on about that evil, malignant, perverse character. They entertained us with a dramatic reading they found on the internet of a woman’s poorly-written “Dear John” letter. I thought it was pretty entertaining, but then I’m easily amused.
I love Jason, but he does NOT strike me as a cop type. I guess you had to be there, but if you were, the humor kinda worked.
Yes, I figured you were being facetious.
I don’t know Jason IRL (to my knowledge) but we’ve corresponded online and he’s contributed to my blog…
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/author/aynrkey/
Paulie if you kept reading further down you would have gotten the candidate nomination results . I dont like the way Lew wrote it but there are several blips from the convention , the last one being the important one:)
after hearing the 3things speil for 10 years I have special contempt for it(just kidding):)
Jill @312:
That was pretty funny. I was thinking out loud, “I’d like to propose…….”
Not quite as good as the time Milton Friedman was asked at a libertarian gathering, if he could make one amendment to COTUS, “Congress shall make no law…..” and the whole group jumped up and applauded! But pretty good.
Paulie @367: That’s my nephew-by-marriage Jason Gonella. He met my niece Rose at the 2003 LPCA convention. He’s an aerospace engineer by profession. He has no ambition to become a cop. Rose and Jason and their son Arthur sat in back of the convention hall with me for the sessions.
He has no ambition to become a cop.
Yeah, I thought not.
REGARDING #35 This is very unprofessional attire: what kind of message is that sending? At this stage in the game we are all walking advertisments for the Libertarian Party. Does this character appeal to the mainstream voter? Or does he look like the kind of person to be entrusted with responsibilities of making laws and governing? No, he looks like the event is one big joke, a costume party, a chance to behave clownishly.
Like it or not, everything we do as Libertarians sets the stereotype for our Party, because there are so few of us. It is important that we understand this and not alienate the mainstream that we so desperately need right now to take a fair look at who we are and what we stand for.
I take it you mean comment 385, not 35? If you meant 35, are you referring to Bruce Cohen or to Pam Brown?
If you mean 385:
Does this character appeal to the mainstream voter?
Who appeals to the millions of non-mainstream voters and would-be voters?
Or does he look like the kind of person to be entrusted with responsibilities of making laws and governing?
Absolutely.
It is important that we understand this and not alienate the mainstream that we so desperately need right now to take a fair look at who we are and what we stand for.
Let’s not alienate the non-mainstream who are our natural constituency.
I ment #385 innappropiate attire.
Says who?
Hmmm.
I see Starchild is being picked on again and it’s made to sound like we were all dressed so.
I’d like to say that a good number of the activists were dressed in full business or even semi-formal attire. I myself wore the dress I wore to a Broadmoor soiree years ago on Saturday and a more business oriented dress on Sunday. A large number of the guys wore full suit and tie, a good number of the ladies wore very appropriate dresses. The main exception were the delegates from SBCLP who all wore their black shirts, generally with jeans.
People seeing a random batch of delegates were far more likely to see a mix of SBC shirts and formal/business attire. There are always a few people dressed in some sort of costume EVEN AT the MAJOR PARTY CONVENTIONS. So to single out Starchild seems vastly unfair.
Oh yeah, and we’re still off on this escapist route of critiquing dress and style. Let’s please get back to the issues?
Paulie, the reason why the Libertarian Party has no, zero, zilch, nada chance of winning the next Presidential election is your type of attitude. For all types of parameters which can be described by the Standard Normal statistical distribution, plus or minus one standard deviation constitutes an overwhelming majority. To go after “the fringe” at the expense of the majority is political suicide.
The task of Libertarians is precisely to show how Libertarian principles benefit the majority of voters, not to portray an image that Libertarians are weirdos, social misfits, and that one person out of thirty who just doesn’t get it.
Starchild singled himself out, by wearing the clothing. He wanted to be distinctive and he sure was.
Paulie, the reason why the Libertarian Party has no, zero, zilch, nada chance of winning the next Presidential election is your type of attitude.
Right, but for Starchild we’d be winning presidential elections?
See
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2008/05/excerpt-and-notes-cargo-cult.html
To go after “the fringe” at the expense of the majority is political suicide.
The majority are those who tend to be happy with the status quo.
We need to reach those who are not.
Maybe a loin cloth would be ok?
Sure, I don’t see why not.
Here’s the article from Knapp that I linked in 411 for all those that don’t follow links. With apologies to those who do…..
This is part of an article I wrote some years ago, the rest of which is trapped in the bowels of a mySQL database that used to run an obsolete version of one of my sites. I’m posting it here because I intend to refer to it in comments elsewhere.
Excerpt:
Notes:
While I still think the above is solid, I also believe I drew some erroneous conclusions from it at the time. To clarify: I don’t have anything against suits, power ties, confidence or smooth rhetorical delivery per se.
What I do have a problem with is the idea that any of those things trump, or can be usefully substituted for, libertarianism in a libertarian campaign.
I don’t believe that libertarian ideas can only succeed if they’re disguised and smuggled in rather than openly advocated. I don’t believe that libertarian ideas can be implemented in the real world by jettisoning them at the first hint of controversy.
And I sure as hell don’t believe that the Libertarian Party should submit to extortion on the part of Cargo Cultists whose main threat is “if you don’t ditch your libertarian presidential candidates and nominate a Cargo Cultist, we’ll …. TALK ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM!” Just because Cargo Cultists find libertarianism embarrassing and controversial, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us do too.
Now, granted, my strong preference this year is to run a “mainstream” campaign for Congress, focusing on issues that American voters care about and that large numbers of American voters tend toward the libertarian side of: Ending the war on Iraq, cutting taxes, repealing the USA PATRIOT ACT, ending marriage apartheid, etc. Not non-libertarian ideas, but rather the libertarian ideas that are most likely to elicit a positive response. Leading with your most timely and popular positions just makes sense.
But … I don’t negotiate with terrorists. When the Cargo Cultists tell me that if my party doesn’t nominate one of their ilk for president they’ll spend the summer and fall hyping the issues they find embarrassing, my reaction is simple: Go for it, and right back at ya.
To put it a different way:
– If the Libertarian Party nominates a libertarian (Steve Kubby or Mary Ruwart, for example) for president, I’ll happily spend the summer and fall campaigning on ending the war on Iraq, cutting taxes, repealing the USA PATRIOT ACT, ending marriage apartheid, etc., exactly as I expect that presidential candidate will.
– If, on the other hand, the Libertarian Party nominates one of the Cargo Cultists’ preferred candidates [bolded material edited after initial publication] (Wayne Allyn Root or Bob Barr, for example) for president, I may just forego my own campaign aspirations and instead spend my time promoting the presidential campaign … by circulating brochures featuring private ownership of nukes and legal heroin for six-year-olds.
Go ahead. Try me.
Paulie,
This should be an IPR story:
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/065099-2010-02-15-ernest-hancock-vs-wayne-allen-root.htm
Chuck,
Thanks for the tip – it will be.
I think I’ve posted enough stories for today, although of course other IPR writers are welcome (and invited) to beat me to the punch and post it first.
If not, I’ll post it tomorrow.
I do think Hancock’s headline is somewhat discriminatory against Mr. Hinkle, however.
If I’m the first one to get to it, I’ll retitle it.
Also, if Dr. Phillies would like to record a response, I can post that as well.
I agree the headline shouldn’t exclude Hinkle and a Phillies video should be posted as well.
But I don’t think it should wait till tomorrow because of some daily story quota. Nor I don’t think the article should wait for a Phillies contribution. I’d suggest putting something up now and updating it later when Phillies posts a video.
A lot of people will probably want to comment on this LP Chair’s debate.
You start from an undemonstrated assertion, namely that most Americans currently prefer radical change that is not directed at mainstream concerns.
There is a difference between showing the mainstream voter how Libertarian principles benefit them specifically, and tailoring your principles to fit temporary voter profiles.
I am arguing for the former, while you are erroneously accusing me of supporting the latter.
Libertarian principles do apply to the mainstream voter. Reagan won the Presidency by tieing principles he had advocated for decades to the concerns of the average voter. Compared to the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party, Reagan was far more libertarian. I would argue that Reagan has shown that a platform of radically smaller government (note: radically) and radically more personal freedom will be radically appealing to the mainstream voter IF SOLD CORRECTLY. You will not sell it correctly if you do not show the typical voter how libertarian principles relate to their concerns.
You will not win if you arrogantly assume that the voters will come to you….because you are so brilliant that by merely being on the ballot and radical, the voters will pull the lever to bet their families, their homes, their jobs, their futures on a radical idea….because it is radical.
Most people are risk averse. They buy various types of insurance, even when uncoerced to do so. They eat unhealthy food at chain restaurants…because they know what they are getting, and as average as it is, it is a known. They pay extra for brand name merchandise, because when they buy the brand it is a guarantee of a certain level of value. Anyone with an introductory course in economic theory should understand this phenomenon. To ignore it indicates that you have little grasp of politics.
I would happily lose your single vote in a hypothetical election in order to garner the thousands likely gained by addressing mainstream concerns rather than fringe, trivial, and irrelevant issues.
This country is on the brink of losing its fundamental freedoms, and along with them its prosperity. Those are my concerns, those are the concerns of the vast majority of Americans, and it damn well better be your concerns if you intend to see this party through to successfully capturing some degree of political power in the next two national elections.
Another reason for Libertarians to support Prop 14 — both the child-molesting faction and the anti-molestation factions can put up candidates to the general public.
The party than can see which stand on molestation draws more votes, and modify the platform accordingly at the next convention.
I just realized: it IS tomorrow. Article coming right up.
But generally speaking, I try to limit my addictive tendencies (including posting here) as well as allow some room for the other IPR writers to post articles.
Thanks for the assinine comment.
Of course, if prop 14/88 passes, that will be the end of Libertarians (and other third party and independent candidates) on the November ballot (when far more voters pay attention than during the primary). And there’s no “child-molesting faction.”
I see the term “libertarianism” used in several messages above.
What is that, exactly?
May its followers legitimately be called “libertarianists”?
M.,
I don’t recall making any such assertion, since I don’t believe that to be the case. Can you please quote what made you think I made such an assertion?
Again, I don’t recall making any such accusation. Would you please quote it?
I dispute that assertion. I think that on social issues and foreign policy/military spending, Reagan was less libertarian than the establishment, whereas on economic policy he was full of rhetoric he never lived up to. I could get into the argument of whether redistributing wealth upwards and the tax burden downwards is a libertarian economic policy, as well.
Please go ahead and argue for this assertion, then.
When did Reagan argue for “radically more personal freedom”?
And when you say he argued for “radically smaller government,” can you be more specific?
Again, you are arguing against an argument I have not made.
Thus, unlikely to risk voting for an unknown, untested party that they haven’t voted for before and which promises major changes.
However, not all people are risk-averse.
Logically, the ones who are much less risk-averse than the average person are much more likely to risk voting for an alternative party.
What makes you think that gaining those thousands of votes for each one you lose is “likely”? Do you have any actual evidence for this?
Weird, afraid-to-reveal-your-name, moron picking on Starchild. Get a life. If you want to dress fancy, fine. You don’t have to insult those of us who don’t. I like his outfit–it’s creative and shows he’s not afraid to be himself. If more people were like that, this world would be a better place. It’s super lame to go around imposing your strange, random “standards” on other people. I repeat: Get a life and stop picking on amazing men like Starchild. He’s one of the few decent people I know, and is actually a real libertarian.
Word
BTW I’m booted off this computer in 4 min and going to sleep so if anyone else has an urgent need to have anything else posted – you’ll have to wait or get someone else to do it 😛
Starchild probably puts more time, money and effort into the LP then many of the people who wear suits and ties but end up doing little other than criticizing others.
“I cant think of anything but my grand daughter , she’ll be there at least 2 weeks,”
LG – YOU are a grandma? :o) WOW. Like me, you ARE NOT old enough.
I wish your family the best possible outcome, and y’all have my best wishes; plenty of bright, healing light from The Real Washington (TM).
@406
Starchild does not represent the Libertarian Party.
He does not represent me.
He does not represent you.
The only way ANYONE could use his theater to embarrass YOU… is if you take ownership of the “shame”. It is YOU that accepts any shame. It is you, and you alone, that is responsible for any shame you feel. It is you and you alone that is responsible for adding any more shame to the public gestalt of shame.
Stop assuming Starchild is your responsibility and get on with your campaign. That is if you actually have a campaign.