Cannabis activist and 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nomination candidate Steve Kubby wants candidates for chair of the Libertarian National Committee to act more like generals. Or more like one general, anyway.
In an article published today on Nolan Chart and Liberty For All, Kubby proposes a “Sherman Pledge” for those candidates:
The LP’s members need to know that their chair is focused on being a good chair, not on garnering the 2012 presidential nomination.
The LP’s activists need to have confidence that their national committee and staff is there to support their work, not to enhance the chair’s presidential nomination prospects.
This shouldn’t be a big deal. And it doesn’t have to be. The candidates for chair can take it off the table in a hot minute by signing on to the following pledge:
“I will not seek the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nomination. If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected I will not serve.”
Two of the chair candidates, George Phillies of Massachusetts and Wayne Allyn Root of Nevada, sought the party’s presidential nomination in 2008. While Phillies has since claimed disinterest in the 2012 nomination, Root publicly identified himself as a candidate for that nomination before declaring for chair. Since declaring, Root has pledged to take a leave of absence from the chairmanship if he becomes a presidential candidate.
Unfortunately for some of us, addictions can be all too easy to establish.
I didn’t read it that way.
I concur with Peak @86 and Holtz @ 67.
Alex @86
Alex @ please get with the program. Ron Paul has been clearly categorized as consitutional theocrat/dixiecrat conservative-NOT A LIBERTARIAN. Not just by me. Ask GP & TK. Most of 2008 we 3 were pointing this out to no avail. It is OLD NEWS. Get with it!
GP @89,90
“Using it for the benefit of a particular faction by using it to support a specific candidate for our party’s Presidential nomination is an act of fraud.”
and
“Those of you who have been around for the past decade will recall the failure to adhere to my position on this topic made a significant contribution to what happened to us over that period.”
Failure to adhere? Sir, I feel that you reveal too much with word choices like that.
The LNC should be balanced enough to make good and distributed choices for the various factions of the LP. The problem is that the representatives that the membership elects don’t seem to stay on there long and one faction is able to lever in more support than is representative of their views.
I agree with GP that there needs to be more diversity in our administrative leadership. That one faction has held to strong a sway for too long and the unhealthy effects are being tragically felt across the LP spectrum as much of what we need to do is left unfunded and unorganized.
But I do not think that someone who regularly expresses disdain for people in the general tense or does ally with a pack of habitual saboteurs is going to change it for the better.
It is a pattern of destructive tactics in intramural competition that is largely holding the LP back. I am looking for a chair that is going to REALLY be fair to the whole cloth of Libertarians.
gp, now it sounds as if you are referring ONLY to the Browne incidents, not the Paul incident of invitation. Correct?
“Fraud” involves understanding the intentions of the perpetrator, which is VERY difficult to establish. (As is “addiction” ;-). )
Determining whether an action is favoritism or in the overall interests of the party is difficult to prove, since intentions are difficult to prove. Regardless, I’m not so sure that favoritism toward Browne is having much affect on the LP today. Seems more like ancient history to me, especially since the LP is a) small and b) subject to fairly high rates of membership churn, near as I can tell.
The LNC and the national office need to be fair, but not ridiculous. Say John Stossel, Tucker Carlson and Robert Milnes vie for the prez nomination in 2012. When promoting this contest to the press, if the national staff position the contest as largely between Stossel and Carlson to the press and the public, that would seem in the party’s interest, all due respect to Milnes.
If that contest was between David Duke and Robert Milnes, a responsible LNC might want to encourage a third candidate to surface.
Expecting complete neutrality of the LNC seems contra-indicated.
Those of you who have been around for the past decade will recall the failure to adhere to my position on this topic made a significant contribution to what happened to us over that period.
Some of us aren’t internet addicts.
The income received by the party was received by the LNC for the benefit of the entire party. Using it for the benefit of a particular faction by using it to support a specific candidate for our party’s Presidential nomination is an act of fraud.
Robert Capozzi // May 11, 2010:
“……….. Phillies has responded on this thread and ………… the temperament issue once again hurts him ……”
as well as blatant trampling of ethics ………
Since Phillies has responded on this thread and has not addressed his “fraud” charge, I assume he’s going to stonewall on this one.
Understandable.
Yet, the temperament issue once again hurts him.
Mr. Holtz writes, “Ron Paul is not a saint, nor is he a ‘homophobic bigot.’ For all his faults, he remains a Libertarian icon, and LP NatCon delegates would be ecstatic to have him again working inside the LP. We can point out his faults without demonizing him, and we can enlist him without canonizing him.”
I find this to be a fairly-objective evaluation. I concur.
Alex
Brian,
You write:
“Regarding whether an LNC vote is void if it’s not a roll call, see ‘Timeliness Requirement for a Point of Order’, RRONR pp. 243-244.”
You’re correct that the time to have brought up a point of order on the LNC’s failure to properly vote on a motion was at that time — and barring that or a timely appeal to the Judicial Committee, it amount to de facto passage of the motion.
That doesn’t change the fact that a roll call vote was required, or that “without objection” is not a roll call vote.
Michael @83: I had one of those Playboys too, but I lost it in a fire in 1984. Good luck. BTW, is the centerfold intact? ;>)
What am I bid for a copy of the Playboy magazine that has the Karl Hess interview in it? The magazine is in plastic and in a drawer not exposed to light.
While it is not for sale I would be interested in seeing what it might get. I was thinking about donating it this afternoon. Interesting that D. Frank Robinson should come up with such an idea,
Has any candidate conceived of a documentary perhaps 60 or so minutes in length video illustrating the ideals of the LP and sketching its history and prominent advocates?
YouTube clips are fine, but why not a comprehensive coherent fuller presentation?
How many Watergate months would it take to produce such a video – three, five? Make it downloadable with a CC Copyright-you don’t even have to burn media and distribute it.
And while I’m at it: How about making the Nolan Chart video interactive? Each answer one gives puts a link on the chart so that when you are finished to get not only an overall score spot but links on the chart that discuss the issue in a short clip.
Then why not have a Libertarian Song Award with a cash prize for the best freedom songs uploaded and put the best 20 or so into an online video concert? The same could be said for other artistic endeavors with a pro-liberty message.
Why not have an online LP memorabilia auction? For example, what am I bid for the copy of Robert’s I used at the Founding Convention in Denver in 1972? [It’s not for sale yet.]
Anyone else care to jump in? Let the Chair candidates steal from us. WE might profit.
@80
Yes. You can read our entire program at NewPathForThe LP dot org, but the Business HQ location is discussed at
http://goldamericagroup.com/diary/178
the key paragraphs being “The second quick fix: The Watergate location must go. Immediately, or as soon as practicable. A Washington location is needed if you are lobbying, holding press events, or investing in America by buying Congressmen. We aren’t. Lobbying is at most a Worthwhile Activity, something that gives way for the resource demands of our Mission-Critical Activities. Meanwhile the Watergate location is costing us over $10,000 a month, much of which could be redirected to more valuable ends.
Sidebar: How to Terminate a Commercial Lease …”
Cor: Does any one of…
Does any of these candidates plan to relocate the National HQ to a more economical venue?
How about that?
Mr. Holtz is essentially correct. The question is now moot. It’s just a rhetorical talking point now. There must be some issues being avoided that are relevant to a decision on the Chair. Can we move on?
Maybe we need better proctologists diagnosing each other.
Chuck @74: I think you present the prevailing view succinctly. If one doesn’t speak up, one will be subject to any variety of characterizations.
Sticklers for protocol often are given a reputation of being assholes. But even assholes are individual – some are more obnoxious than others but they are entitled to their say as much as anyone – especially if they have been elected to stick up for the rights of others not present.
Perhaps the LP needs more ‘good’ assholes to keep things open, recorded and transparent.
OK, Tom, so you still apparently believe that your preferred candidate for Chair cannot recognize whether or not the LNC has passed a resolution, and called for mass expulsions(*) when (according to you) the offending resolution in fact garnered zero votes.
Regarding whether an LNC vote is void if it’s not a roll call, see “Timeliness Requirement for a Point of Order”, RRONR pp. 243-244.
The point of the roll call vote provision was to put people on record and show divergent votes in the minutes for the benefit of LP members and LP convention delegates. Those aims are achieved with “without objection” votes, which show everyone agrees.
They are unanimous… anyone who disagrees can object and force a vote. That’s basic Robert’s.
It is good practice for a chair to emphasize at the start of the meeting that people shouldn’t be embarrassed about objecting.
Our bylaws force a roll call vote on all substantive motions. Without objection qualifies there. In addition the bylaws provide that any one LNC member can force a roll call even in procedural votes. (I have used this provision myself to put people on the record when they remove important matters from the agenda.) That means any vote the LNC takes can be put on the record as a roll call by 1 LNC member.
If you can’t find 1 LNC member to demand that, then probably everyone believes the vote was too irrelevant to be roll call and insisting on roll call would be a dilatory hold up.
Indeed, at Tom @ 71 shows. Ambiguity breeds contempt. Habitual ambiguity breeds active hostility. If one finds that shocking, one is probably feigning naivete.
Openness and transparency breeds confidence and respectful opposition. It’s really rather elegant morally.
We all succumb to monkey morality at times – we steal when we think the other monkeys won’t notice or don’t dare punish us. The more other people act like monkeys, the more noble it becomes to act rationally.
End of sermon on the banana bunch. ;>)
Mr. Peak, @60:
“… the pledge really wouldn’t need any formal enforcement.”
I don’t propose any retaliatory enforcement for breaking the pledge. I agree that retaliation for breaking the pledge offered by Mr. Kubby should be left to the delegates at the 2012 convention.
On the contrary, I propose a proactive course. After 2012 the Bylaws would simply disqualify any current or immediately preceding Chair or Vice-Chair from being placed in nomination for President or Vice-President.
In the event that a Chair or Vice-Chair had done such a spectacular job as Chair or Vice-Chair, then the nominating convention could suspend the Bylaw prohibition by a 2/3rd vote in that one instance and nominate the person(s), but the rule would remain intact thereafter until formally rescinded in say 2018.
The benefits of this rule are primarily prospective. Future candidates for the Chair and Vice-Chair are placed on notice that only outstanding performance and popularity could allow them to become a Presidential (VP) candidate immediately after the end of their term as Chair.
I would exclude other LNC officers and members from this rule because individually their influence on overall organizational success is too difficult to access.
What about the National Director? This is an employee position and no such encumbrance is justifiable.
Brian,
You write:
“It’s a question of believing Knapp’s claim (@55 @61) that passed-without-objection means no votes were cast, which means no resolution was passed. All I did was point out the reductio he backed himself into.”
I didn’t back myself into it. I walked right in facing forward.
There’s a difference between “the committee voted unanimously for the motion” and “the motion passed without objection.”
In the former case, every member of the committee is on record in favor of the motion. In the latter case, nobody hated the motion badly enough to object to its passage. Everyone either supported the motion or was willing to let it go rather than have a fight over it.
There’s a difference.
Of course, this shouldn’t have come up, because per the bylaws, “The National Committee shall use roll call voting on all substantive motions.”
I suppose it’s possible that Alicia Mattson could invent, or that Bob Sullentrup could purchase, an “interpretation” of Robert‘s which provides for an “only if it’s raining on the third Tuesday of the month and the chair sees his shadow” exception to “shall,” but in the real world, that bylaws provision means that if there was no roll call vote, the motion did not pass. Period.
Fraud minimally is intentional deception resulting in injury to another person.
In the absence of a recorded vote we have no indication of the ‘intentions’ of who intended what. Without evidence I think fraud is hyperbole.
It is still legitimate to consider the consequences but that is about judgment consequences NOT indicative of intent.
dfr, yes, I’d say this LNC “invitation” was non-trivial, and I’d say it was poor judgment to pass it without objection, rather than having a vote.
It certainly sounds like everyone at the table thought it was a good idea. As a rank-and-filer, I thought it was a good idea, too…at the time.
Dr. Phillies seems to think it was fraud.
The party patiently awaits why he thinks so….
Procedures in small group meetings often become informal. So much so that some people are virtually asleep at the switch when motions are “deemed” to have passed or been defeated. Non-trivial motions should always be formally recorded votes even if it means the minutes reflect a series of X for and Zero against results.
Motions that “passed without objection” imply unanimity. It is pointless to revisit them after the fact because there are no facts on record to revisit. Deliberate ambiguity breed contempt.
Any motion that mentions a particular person should always be a formal recorded vote. This all seems elementary.
George, it’s not a question of believing me. It’s a question of believing Knapp’s claim (@55 @61) that passed-without-objection means no votes were cast, which means no resolution was passed. All I did was point out the reductio he backed himself into.
So Bob’s question to you @54 still stands: did Anglea Keaton and Wes Benedict and Chuck Moulton and the rest commit a fraud upon the LP? I would ask further: if Benedict is a fraudster, will you as Chair be firing him from ED?
Ron Paul is not a saint, nor is he a “homophobic bigot”. For all his faults, he remains a Libertarian icon, and LP NatCon delegates would be ecstatic to have him again working inside the LP. We can point out his faults without demonizing him, and we can enlist him without canonizing him.
The enemy is not in this room, even when Ron Paul is.
gp, all due respect, but you seem to be avoiding the issue. In comment 49, you said:
“When the LNC acts as the shadow campaign committee it is using the dues and donations of supporters of other candidates to support the LNC’s candidate. That support is an act of fraud in violation of the Statement of Principles.”
Is this charge of “fraud” only referring to the Ballot Base issue, or the issue of the LNC’s invitation for Paul to seek the LP’s nomination?
Comments 64 and 65 seem cryptic and non-responsive to the main issue at hand.
If you are going to claim that others have committed a felony — in this case fraud — it seems you should be prepared to lay out your case.
Or, you should retract your charge of “fraud” to clear the air.
“Passed without objection” is of course the opposite of garnering no support.
For those of you who are curious whether or not you can believe Mr. Holtz without checking, see
http://www.lp.org/archives/lnc20071208.pdf
page 12 “Ron Paul and Ballot base”
the offending motion passed without objection.
I shall pause to note that Stuart Flood has assured me that he did object, namely that he informs me that he told the LNC that the software/hardware in question would crash if the motion were implemented. They didn’t listened.
It was implemented.
Stuart was right.
Tom, so you’re saying that your preferred candidate for Chair cannot recognize whether or not the LNC has passed a resolution, and called for mass expulsions(*) when the offending resolution in fact garnered zero votes?
(*) Phillies on 2009-05-20: “The LNC had a choice as to whether or not to support homophobia, racism, dominionism, seeking the death of our daughters via back room abortions, not to mention attaching ourselves to a candidate who courted the conspiracy folks on Alex Jones. They made the wrong choice. They also sought to recruit this person as our party’s presidential nominee. They, not Ms. Keaton, should be expelled from the LNC.”
Cohen, Holtz, Knapp, Rider, Tesselier: spin, spin, spin ………
Brian @ 57:
“Tom, LNC resolutions require a 2/3 vote. If there was no vote, then no resolution was passed.”
Sounds good to me.
Mr. Robinson,
Even if the LNC could be twisted to excuse a person for breaking her or his pledge, I think most libertarians (regardless of what subcategories they fall into) would be principled enough to take a very dim view of any person who does break her or his pledge, and would be disinclined to select such a person to be our presidential candidate. So, the pledge really wouldn’t need any formal enforcement.
I typically prefer to use the term “free market” over “laissez-faire capitalism,” although that’s probably because I prefer to avoid the term capitalism unless (1) I’m speaking with a rather conservative audience or (2) I’m refering to the private ownership of the means of production. (This isn’t to say that I do not use it in other contexts; but when I do, I try to define the context in which I’m using it.)
I know Linda & Morris Tannehill used the term “laissez-faire society” to refer to a stateless society. They may have also used the phrase “free society”; I do not recall.
Rothbard certainly used the phrase “free society” to refer to a stateless society. Although I have yet to encounter any writing of his that uses the term “minarchist,” it seems apparent that when Rothbard used the term “laissez-faire capitalism,” he meant for it to refer to what we would call minarchism, viz., a government that constrains itself to minimal intervention.
Personally, I do not think there is any real difference between free market and laissez-faire. I would say that both are incompatible with government intervention into the market, and that we do not have either. But while I regularly point out that we do not have a free market, I do believe we can say we have a freer market than the U. S. S. R. had.
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
…make that “…Ruwart’s entry into the race in 08….
tk, yes, I saw that. But the language says:
“RESOLUTION ADOPTED unanimously by vote of the Libertarian National
Committee, the 9th day of December 2007, in the city of Charleston, State of South
Carolina, United States of America.”
The minutes do say:
“There was no objection to the resolution as amended. Yet, some members called for a roll call. The chair ruled the roll call was unnecessary, and invited a request to override his ruling. A challenge did not materialize until later.”
I’ll leave parsing these parliamentary machinations to others.
It certainly looks to me like George is accusing the LNC of “fraud,” I’m assuming he’s referring to this instance and perhaps Browne and perhaps to some extent the pyrotechnics surrounding Ruwart’s entry into the race in 04. As George wants to be Chair, I think party members should understand what he actually means when he makes such an accusation. In the case of the Paul/LNC matter, I note that IF George is accusing the LNC of “fraud” in this Paul case, then I’d like to (as I suspect others would) understand if he’s including Keaton and Benedict as participating in a “fraud.”
He might be right…perhaps the LNC does commit “fraud”‘ and perhaps it did so in these cases. But that’s quite a charge, and I don’t think it’s wise of George to make such charges, especially casually on a comment thread. It doesn’t seem like a Chair’s temperament to me, but I am open minded on this matter.
Tom, LNC resolutions require a 2/3 vote. If there was no vote, then no resolution was passed.
spin doctor, spin doctor, spin doctor.
I mean it folks, keep potential Libertarians away from Independent Political Report and the on going, infinite debating society.
Oh, never mind, you’ll lose them soon enough, after they chew off their arms to get away!
Bob,
You write: “it appears these LNCers voted for that resolution”
Not from the minutes linked above, it doesn’t. According to those minutes, there was no vote at all.
The measure passed “without objection,” and a motion by Dr. Lieberman to re-consider and take a roll call vote failed.
At the time this was publicly discussed as a unanimous vote in favor of the motion, and I assumed that was what had happened. I didn’t read the minutes until you brought up the question of any New Path presence on that LNC.
When a measure passes “without objection,” that does not mean that everyone would have voted in favor of it. It just means than nobody opposes it strongly enough that they want their opposition on record. If there HAD been a vote, it might have passed unanimously, or it might have passed with some no votes, or it might have passed with some abstentions. We have no way of knowing.
tk, thanks for the research.
gp, it appears these LNCers voted for that resolution: Bill Redpath, Aaron Starr, Bob Sullentrup. Chuck Moulton, Michael Colley, Pat Dixon, Angela Keaton, Dan Karlan, M Carling(2), Mark Johnson(2), Emily Salvette(3), Bob Barr(4), Dr. James Lark(5), Wes Benedict(6) and Hardy Macia(7).
Is that your accusation? I would note that several of these people are attorneys, so you might want to answer with some care. One — Angela Keaton –publicly encouraged you to run for Chair this year. Another, Wes Benedict, is the current LNC ED, so your charge might put a strain on your working relationship, should you be elected.
“OTOH, did not the entire LNC encourage Ron Paul to seek the LP nomination? Are there not New Path candidates who were on that LNC?”
Nope. Not a single member of the New Path slate was on the LNC at the time that the resolution in question was passed.
Here are the minutes of that meeting:
http://www.lp.org/archives/lnc20071208.pdf
RC@50
“Are there not New Path candidates who were on that LNC? Did they commit “fraud”?”
Don’t just ask questions, do some diligence!
Check each candidates’ history in serving the party, then check with the organizations to see if they really served, in the cases where the candidate actually had an office and completed their terms, ask whether anything improved under their leadership (or did things go to hell as they were the center dysfunction).
I (anonymously) advise delegates to check references: That includes Mr. Root, Hinkle, Meyers, Hancock and Philies as well.
While we argue about who is more Libperfectarian, we should also be looking very carefully at capacity and track record. The chair position is an administrative one, so party service is probably the best yardstick we have.
If the candidate has a hidden agenda, the whole party will find out one way or another. You cannot hide once in sight.
After Redpath and his singular notion of ballot access, the minarchist would like to see function. Not some kind of forecasting about future situations.
We need someone who will be here for all situations, not just a few or just one. We need someone with many skills, not just one.
I am running for office, and so far, I am dealing with questions about what is a libertarian or what does this party mean. Bob Barr voted this way, and Root said this.
I don’t need someone from the national office to help me with that question. I need someone who will not become a problem. I don’t need you to lead, I need you to be clear.
I pledge to the nightwatchman.
gp, agree certainly that it’s generally inappropriate for the LNC to favor one candidate over another for the prez nomination. But help us understand how that would be “fraud.”
OTOH, did not the entire LNC encourage Ron Paul to seek the LP nomination? Are there not New Path candidates who were on that LNC? Did they commit “fraud”?
James Oaksun is absolutely right. The LNC should generically encourage all Libertarians to run for office. It absolutely should not be the shadow campaign committee for a particular candidate.
When the LNC acts as the shadow campaign committee it is using the dues and donations of supporters of other candidates to support the LNC’s candidate. That support is an act of fraud in violation of the Statement of Principles.
If elected Chair, I will rule out of order any motion that seeks to use LNC resources to advance the nomination of a specific candidate for our Presidential nomination. I will also make sure that LNC resources are not used sub rosa to advance a particular candidate’s interests, as has happened in the past.
dfr, I’d say the terms are synonyms. Laissez faire is more obscure, however, in an American context, as we generally communicate in English.
Neither is “radical,” per se, IMO. Both are pretty much bumperstickers or, perhaps, aspirational statements.
I will not seek, nor would I accept, the LP’s 2012 presidential nomination (yes, believe it or not, a couple people have asked!).
I would go a step further, even. We have a huge rebuilding task ahead of us given the clear diminution in our fortunes at the national level over the last 5-10 years. The last — absolute last — thing we need, is for the LNC to become perceived as nothing more than a ________ ’12 shadow campaign committee. As a member of the LNC and an executive officer, I will strenuously object to and vote against any efforts to turn the LNC into such a shadow group. If I am unable to persuade a majority of my colleagues to similarly object, I will resign.
And one more thing.
David Nolan wisely insisted that a lower threshold for revision be allowed at the next national convention. This led to the so-called Dallas accord when the ‘laissez faire capitalism’ “Objectivist” sounding phrase was replaced by ‘the free market’.
I still wonder which is the more “radical”.
Mr. Carlson proposed the SoP AND the super majority rule. I want to be clear on who should be credited. I, as Chair, just agreed.
I failed to address one aspect of the Bylaw 14 issue. I do not recall anyone proposing in 1972 that the 2/3would require the approval of a majority of individual delegates in each state delegation of) 2/3rds of the State delegations to suspend a Bylaw (SoP excepted). However, I cannot see any valid objection to any State Party adopting a ‘unit rule’ for its own delegation – until or unless expressly prohibited in the National Bylaws.
The original idea was for each state party to send the people they trusted and then trust them to think on their feet at the convention and vote individually. I personally think this is the best practice. But the content of the SoP was to remain beyond the reach of everyone but an overwhelming massive super majority at all future conventions. Mr. Carlson of New Mexico proposed the super majority rule and was prescient on that matter. I am thankful we heeded him.
The attendance of any individual member as a delegate to a national convention with voting rights is a representative privilege given the members in each state and not a right pertaining to membership in the LP itself. Once again, it’s more like the Articles of Confederation philosophy than unitary national supremacy philosophy.
Mr. Holtz’s point is well taken. “…to protect members of the assembly who don’t attend the convention.” The original understanding I had when we drafted the Bylaws was that the national convention was a convention of State Party delegations (members) – not a convention of autonomous members enrolled in the LP. The rights to be protected are those of the State Parties as represented by their respective delegates.
Now this very ‘old fashioned’ thinking of national political institutions reflecting the notion of a confederacy of states. Those States not in attendance at a convention who may see the outcome of convention as severely adverse to their interests have always had the option of secession and placing candidates on the ballot as nominees of that State Libertarian Party.
But the same also holds true for states with delegations in attendance at a convention. Candidates of the National LP, i.e., President and Vice President, must qualify for the ballot state by state.
Nevertheless, unless instructed by the membership of their respective states, the individual members of State delegations have the privilege of voting autonomously as individuals at a national convention. This is a practical matter for the expedition of business at a convention.
The intent as the CB&R Committee in Denver in 1972 was that the State Party leaders and delegates in attendance as a delegation were primarily responsible to protect their own interests and those of all other members concurrently. Therefore, persons not in attendance at a convention could not expect any advance notice of every item of Bylaws amendment in advance of its proposal from the the delegates of their own states.
This commentary is not intended to incite argumentation with Mr. Holtz. Nor do I imply that some alternative organizational structure is ‘unlibertarian’. A Libertarian Party in another country should certainly structure itself in whatever manner they believe is most congruent with the political institutions they find themselves in. That is what we attempted to do. Refinements will always be necessary as the present controversy illustrates.
Bylaws cannot be suspended by even a unanimous vote — unless they are in the nature of rules of order, i.e. procedural rules about how to conduct business. A bylaw forbidding a Chair from being nominated for president is definitely not in the nature of a rule of order.
The reason bylaws can’t be suspended is to protect members of the assembly who don’t attend the convention. That’s why the default rules in Robert’s require proposed Bylaws amendments to be noticed to members at the call of the convention.
Oddly, our Bylaw 14 seems to overrule this provision of Robert’s, allowing for a regular convention to instantly amend the Bylaws (except for the bylaw protecting the SoP) by 2/3 vote and without prior notice. Thus Bylaw 14 nullifies the protection that is supposed to be accorded to absent members by the default Robert’s rule that Bylaws amendments must be pre-noticed.
But hey, who cares about using rules to protect members, absent or otherwise? Let’s just cede absolute power to the common sense of the 51% majority. After all, it’s not like the passions of a majority ever violate the rights of minorities or individuals, right?
I think the matter should be handled informally as Kubby proposes this time. But a Bylaw could be adopted prospectively to block a future controversy. Letting a Chair run for the nomination does not seem prudent to me. BTW, I would NOT accept that the whole LNC should be disqualified from seeking the nomination – just the Chair and Vice-Chair after 2012.
2016 is a long way off. Who could object to such a rule for that election cycle except on principle? What principle might that be I would be interested to know.
Concurring with Ms. Marbury, the proposed pledge is not legally binding.
Even if Mr. Root did make such a pledge, I wouldn’t expect him to abide by it.
Libertarians should know better than to place faith in campaign promises.
Frank,
Yes, we could adopt a bylaw forbidding the nomination of a sitting chair, etc. for president.
Of course, the delegates could also vote to suspend the rules to allow it (and since that takes a 2/3 vote, the candidate for whom they did it would likely be one with a lot of support).
Personally, I see no reason to make it a bylaws matter.
Rather, let the process play out.
Kubby has challenged the chair candidates to pledge they won’t run for president.
They will so pledge or they won’t, and those who care what their responses were will vote accordingly.
If a candidate for chair does take that pledge, wins the chairmanship and then breaks his word, that will be an issue for 2012 delegates to consider, and it probably won’t help the pledge-breaker.
If a candidate refuses to take the pledge, wins the chairmanship and then runs for president, he’ll be able to truthfully say “hey, you asked me to promise not to do this, and I refused to make that promise. That should have told you I had it in mind. I didn’t lie to you.”
There is certainly nothing legally binding about this pledge. It is a matter of honor. This is something that in the culture of rules mavening is often lost. I would like to believe that all five of these men running for chair will not give their word in pledge about something without intending to keep that pledge in the hopes that legalisms and loopholes will somehow protect them from charges of having BROKEN THEIR WORD. Now, I realize that to the more cynical folks, breaking one’s word is considered par for the course, but I’ve met all of these men, and I don’t believe it is par for the course for any of them.
If they break that word, of course, well… it won’t look so good when they DO run for President, will it?
Sorry, to be such a show stopper apparently. Uh, not really. good nite.
Of course, nothing in the Bylaws of a political party can disqualify a person from seeking the Office of President or VP under the alleged Constitution of the US. Mr. Root, or any other LP member, is free to run as an Independent or the nominee of some other party.
Further legal research should reveal that a Bylaw that could withstand litigation is certainly possible. It is anyone’s guess what the courts would rule on such a matter. Election law in the US is very capricious – as we should all know.
If the convention delegates of a party at some future convention chose to revoke such a disqualifying rule, then a person could still be nominated AFTER the rule was revoked. But if the survival of a party is at stake, in the opinion of the delegates, then such a rule would seem to be a prudent measure.
So. Doesn’t it seem advisable as a matter for the Bylaws to adopt a rule disqualifying a current Chair, or any person who has served as Chair immediately preceding, from candidacy for the Presidential or Vice-Presidential nomination at a nominating convention? [Rough draft]
I wish we had thought of this in 1972, but time reveals events one cannot always imagine 38 years hence. It makes life interesting, no?
Of course, if one got control of the LPNC, then they could just “pardon” a Chair for breaking his pledge. After all, a “pledge” not in Robert’s Rules of Order or the Bylaws so they would feel free to make it up as they go along.
Any LNC candidate who looks like a Gerald Ford should be considered with great skepticism.
From my seat, far, far away from this, Root looks more like a party chair than a presidential candidate.
But actually he looks a lot like a guy who sold me a flood damaged car once. I’d never vote for him for anything.
How about Root as a gubernatorial candidate, albiet one who has a sometimes testy relationship with his party? Like the McCain of the LP?
Oh yeah, I think Paul does the same thing to the LP that Nader does to the GP – denies them votes.
Mr. Peak asks –
“After all, how can he focus on his chair-oriented responsibilities while also running an effective campaign?”
Presumably he might be able to double (or beyond) membership and revenues as chair. Would this satisfy the responsibilities stuff ? I’m sure someone else can chair the meetings and fill out the Quickbooks reports.
Presumably he could also raise another 10-20 million for a prez race, would that be considered effective ? Say what you will about the RP NH commercials, it would pay for a lot of air conditioning and limos.
You can argue until the cows come home about libertarian policy, philosophy and other pendantics, but successful third party POTUS forays in the 20th century to the present require rallying around a charismatic personality.
Whether or not that’s what the LP should do or if Root can in fact pull it off himself, is an entirely different matter.
Brain on Hold ~brain dead.
The LP/LNC is brain dead if it allows Ron Paul to return to the LP to be Chir and/por run for pres. Paul has been clerly identified as NOT A LIBERTARIAN. One of few who spoke up at the time about Barr trying to recruit Paul or endorse Paul for Pres. in 2008 was Prof. Phillies.
If Root hsn’t been discredited enough by 2012 nominations & my positions & Strategy including various peace proposals haven’t been recognized then you can have your policies & party & rightist Root nominee.
A pledge made carries with it the merit of the man who makes it. Wayne Root could pledge on toliet paper, sign it, wipe with it, and handicap the points of flush.
At this time, the party cannot suffer fighting on two fronts. Building a party at the state level is one front, but running for president is another.
Now is not the time for this behavior. It shouldn’t take a pledge or a promise or a triple dog dare you. This should be common sense. This party does NOT have the raw materials or the logistics to pull off a two front war.
The person you vote for will be smart enough to understand what I just said. If they are not, then there is no party after 2014.
Vote Phillies
Eric asks a great question about Ron Paul.
While Root was wise to address this issue when I asked him about it (see below), it really shouldn’t be necessary. LP NatCon delegates are savvy enough to see through any attempts at self-dealing by a Chair, as long as there is the requisite amount of transparency in the decisions of LPUS HQ.
A policy is brain-dead if it says LPHQ has to treat Wayne Root and Robert Milnes the same.
A policy is brain-dead if it says that Ron Paul can’t wake up tomorrow and decide to start his 2012 presidential campaign by taking the LP helm as Chair in St. Louis.
IPR: You’ve said that your latest plan is to not seek the LP presidential nomination for 2012 because the LP isn’t ready. Are there any concrete metrics that you would use to decide when the LP is ready?
Root: If the Citizen Revolution really catches fire in the 2012 cycle, and the LP is unified and organized enough to lead it and leverage it, then we could see LP voter registration and sustaining membership increase dramatically, and 50-state ballot access would be within reach. That would be one way to know that the LP is ready for the kind of presidential race I want the LP to run. More likely is that I can lead this party to minor victories on the local and state level, and major improvements in a variety of metrics: fundraising, candidate training, media appearances, brand recognition, ballot access, excitement from college students, etc. If I can help to achieve this kind of slow but steady success for the next 4 to 6 years, this might just provide the perfect window of opportunity for me to run as President in 2016. Until then, I’m thrilled and focused on being the CEO.
Mr. Turgidson,
That’s a strawman argument.
Mr. Nolan did not say that all have to be in lock-step with his many views. He simply said that he believed one would be an idiot for opposing this specific view. You’re free to disagree with him, of course, even on this specific view; but it is inapproprioate to misrepresent his position.
You mention ideological purity tests, but surely you must realise that this question has absolutely nothing to do with ideology.
You also write, “If Mr. Nolan prevails in St. Louis, The LP will be relegated to the trash heap insignificant former political parties.”
I assume this means that you believe that if the majority of delegates find themselves in agreement with Mr. Nolan that it is a conflict of interest to run for president while holding office as the chair of the LNC, the LP will somehow “be relegated to the trash heap insignificant former political parties.” Assuming this is indeed what you mean to say, then I must ask, in what manner could it possibly be true that the survival of the LP rests on allowing a woman or man to be simultaneously a presidential candidate and our national chairman? If, on the other hand, this is not what you meant to say, then please explain what you did mean to say so that we may correctly analyse your actual opinion.
Thanks in advance.
Mr. Sundwall writes, “What if Ron Paul decided to run for chair and subsequently for President on the LP line?”
I think we would find that problematic, no?
After all, how can he focus on his chair-oriented responsibilities while also running an effective campaign?
Honestly, if Ron Paul were to do this, I would be inclined to publicly ask whether he has the best interest of the party in mind.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak
Steve,
“I will not seek the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nomination. If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected I will not serve.”
I fully support this statement and you may publish it as you see fit.
It’s a huge conflict of interest for anyone in the LP Chair’s position to seek either the Presidential or Vice-Presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party. It would put any paid LP HQ staff in a very awkward position. And it could have a detrimental impact on even some of our vendors.
The job of LP Chair and the job of LP Presidential candidate are two very different jobs and require very different skill sets.
Even though I’ve run for office 8 times, I know my strengths are strongest in an Executive role. I’ve been a manager in the hi-tech world at two companies, I’m currently the owner of my own business, and have served as LP Chair of California for 6 years.
Frankly, giving essentially the same speech for months on end while seeking a presidential nomination and the sub-sequential presidential race would bore me to tears. And if I were gone that long on the campaign trail, my wife would probably divorce me as well. No thanks.
Yours in liberty………………Mark Hinkle,
Candidate for LP Chair
“I am sure the rad’s would have no problem if Mr. Nolan was chair and ran for prez”
Many of “the rads” had a problem with rad chair (and former LP presidential nominee) David Bergland in 1998 when he told the LNC to “sit down and shut up” over objections to his decision to use LPHQ to promote a (radical) candidate (Harry Browne) for the presidential nomination by making that candidate’s book a donor premium to be sent out to all new LP contributors.
Suggesting that the radicals might not always be consistent is fair enough, but the party’s history says you’re wrong.
It would be OK for Ron Paul because he is Ron Paul. I am sure the rad’s would have no problem if Mr. Nolan was chair and ran for prez>
Funny how Bruce Cohen always ascribes anyone’s disagreements with WAR as being due to some “personal thing” – jealousy, revenge, whatever.
Wrong, Bruce. Dr. Ruwart and I (along with many, many other people) do not want to see WAR as our party’s chair or spokesperson because WE DON’T AGREE WITH HIS MESSAGE. As we see it, he’s touting a watered down, compromised, right-tilting version of a proud philosophy that misleads the American people about what libertarianism really is.
There are a few libertarians I actually dislike on a personal basis (you, for instance, Bruce) but WAR is not one of them. I just don’t want to see him as the public persona of the LP.
What if Ron Paul decided to run for chair and subsequently for President on the LP line ?
So if the delegates in St. Louis, don’t vote per Mr. Nolan’s he will consider us idiots1 Now that’s a big tent myself and others want to be part of. We all sit in hushed silence waiting for Mr. Nolan’s opinion and will vote lock step to see his agenda ratified.
Being considered one of the founders of The LP has it’s privileges and responsibilities. I for one as a relative new comer to The LP have already grown tired of his pontification and ideological purity test. If Mr. Nolan prevails in St. Louis, The LP will be relegated to the trash heap insignificant former political parties.
I support Mr. Kubby’s logic here & hence the Sherman Pledge as amended. Generals have their place and are very important and necessary & should be dedicated.
I agree with Mr. Moulton.
If Root fails to get elected to the chair in 2010, then there’s no conflict of interest in his choosing to run for president in 2012.
But, if he does get elected to the chair, he should not run for president until his full chair term is complete.
Best,
Alex Peak
Note: By “that kind of chair” @17, I mean “a chair who remains above the presidential nomination fray as much as possible.”
I should have written “the former kind” instead of “that kind” in the next paragraph.
Bruce,
You write:
“It would be in Mister Root’s best interest to rebuilt and restart the LP so it would be possible for him to have a credible run at the Presidency.”
Yes, it would — and he has said as much, while alluding to building the LP to such a state in time for him to run and win in 2016 and 2020.
That doesn’t mean there’s no conflict between his presidential aspirations and the proper role of the LNC in general and the chair in particular., especially for 2012.
We’ve had situations in the past where the LNC, and/or the chair and/or LPHQ have been in the position — sometimes overtly, sometimes subtly — of attempting to influence the selection of the presidential nominee … and that was when the chair himself was not a candidate.
Instead of concentrating on Root, let’s pretend that the chair in question is George Phillies.
The chair is an ex officio member of all LNC subcommittees.
In his discussions with the 2012 convention site selection committee, would you expect George as chair AND presidential candidate to urge that the party choose Las Vegas, or do you think he might find Boston a better choice?
If LPHQ wants to send a prominent party member’s book out as a donor premium, do you think that George, as chair AND presidential candidate, would tell the executive director to ship The Conscience of a Libertarian, or do you think he might consider Stand Up for Liberty! more attractive? [Hint: See Bergland 1998]
When he chats up the editor of LP News about the stories for the next edition, do you think that George, as chair AND presidential candidate, is likely to woo that editor to feature Wayne Allyn Root’s speech at a tea party rally on the front page? Or do you think he might argue that the chair’s recent appearance on a cable TV news discussion panel is more front-pagey?
All other things being equal, it seems to me that having a chair who remains above the presidential nomination fray as much as possible is a good thing, and having a chair who wants to be nominated for president at the next national convention is a bad thing.
Kubby’s pledge proposal is aimed at getting that kind of chair for the party — and it’s entirely up to Wayne whether he wants to pledge to be that kind of chair or not.
If so, he’ll probably gain some votes.
If not, he’ll probably lose some votes.
That gain or loss might be the deciding factor in his election or non-election as chair.
While I can’t speak for Kubby, I can’t imagine that he’d have any problem with a candidate who pre-pended “if elected,” etc. to the pledge in question.
His goal is pretty clearly to have a chair who isn’t running for president, not to have failed chair candidates who aren’t running for president.
On the other hand, it’s not neccessarily a ‘conflict’ of interest…
Instead, one could consider this an interwoven interest.
It would be in Mister Root’s best interest to rebuilt and restart the LP so it would be possible for him to have a credible run at the Presidency.
How is this a conflict?
Rather, it would benefit us greatly to see someone as motivated as Mister Root, doubly motivated, because his payoff would be two-fold.
Not only would he have the satisfaction of helping the LP gain credibility, but on top of that, having a Party that could actually help a Presidential Candidate.
This argument against Mister Root doing one thing, but not the other is specious. If Wayne did pledge that, David and Mary would cast apsersions as to Wayne’s veracity.
And, if Wayne didn’t run for Chair, and then later ran for President in 2012, they would still say all kinds of weird and ugly personal stuff about him in opposition anyway.
This is like negotiating with the ‘Palestinians’. Give us Gaza or we will keep rocketing you.
But when you give us Gaza, we’ll rocket you even more.
Wayne has nothing to gain from giving this silliness the time of day, and personally, I hope he just ignores it, and keeps on running a positive campaign.
A little bird told me the other day that he wanted to concentrate on the positives about people.
One of the major players in this little tempest in a demitasse cup said it to me.
Wayne has a lot to offer.
And that doesn’t change, whether he runs for Prez in 2012 or not.
That Mister Nolan and Ms. Ruwart have some kind of personal thing against Wayne is their problem, not mine, not yours, not the LPs and certainly not Mister Root’s.
Now back to your normally scheduled ad hominem attacks.
@11 – “If I am elected LNC Chair at the 2010 National Libertarian Party Convention…”
Sounds good to me. Kubby’s point, as I understand it, is that each of the LNC Chair candidates should clearly disavow any intentions of seeking the 2012 Presidential nomination … and that the delegates should shun anyone who does not.
And having said I am not interested in being the 2012 Presidential candidate, I urge my fellow Libertarians to prepare some strong choices for our National Convention.
Well, I am not interested in being the 2012 candidate, period.
“Chuck Moulton // May 9, 2010 at 2:07 pm
I would precede the pledge with an “If elected LNC Chair” clause.” ”
*************************************
Mr. Moulton gets an A-
It figures that it took a lawyer to discover that omission!
Aren’t you people (Mr. Kubby and Mr. Nolan and Mr. Knapp) in favor of Downsize DC’s Read the Bills Act? 🙂
Mr. Moulton just misses an A because I would have written it as …
“If I am elected LNC Chair at the 2010 National Libertarian Party Convention…”
so the time frame is totally clear to everybody.
I second Chuck’s comment. Nothing wrong with running for President if you don’t get elected to the chair position.
However, I would also say the pledge should be extended to any one of the four executive offices. For instance, if Michael Jingozian were to remain LNC Vice-Chair while launching another Presidential run (not that he’s doing that), that too would constitute a conflict of interest in my view.
I would precede the pledge with an “If elected LNC Chair” clause.
I could not imagine the scenario that would have to unfold for me to want or be asked to seek the Libertarian Parties nomination for President in 2012.
We have a lot of work ahead of us, I hope to be building a foundation that will make it more possible for our nominee to get out there and spread our message.
Our focus needs to be on lower level races.
I can say without a doubt that I will not accept the nomination or not run for that position in 2012.
Though I do have a vision for what our nominee might look like in 2012. Someone who is popular, who speaks to our core Libertarian values, someone who appeals to both the left and the right.
The reason I would like them to be popular is because though they will most likely not win, their popularity could be the key to bringing more attention to the party. If not popular they should be a pillar of Libertarian philosophy.
I think we need to start thinking hard about who we might be able to hoodwink into such a role. ; )
So somone like: Ron Paul, John Stossel, Judge Napolitano, Pinn Jillette, Kurt Russel, Drew Carey, Nick Gillespie, David Nolan, Clint Eastwood someone like that.
I am not expecting them to win in 2012 but to draw attention to our message.
2012 is coming and we need to be prepared.
(not in an aztec calendar sort of way)
“Thomas L. Knapp // May 9, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Dr. Lieberman,
I’m going to assume that your comment above is intended to allude to the “if elected I will not serve” clause.
I doubt that Kubby would consider Root an idiot for understanding that he isn’t going to be elected in 2012, period, let alone elected as an unwilling write-in candidate, which would be the only way he could be elected if he kept the rest of the pledge, and that therefore it costs him nothing to pledge not to serve if elected.
**************************************
Mr. Knapp gets a C-
Keep trying, everybody.
Dr. Lieberman,
I’m going to assume that your comment above is intended to allude to the “if elected I will not serve” clause.
I doubt that Kubby would consider Root an idiot for understanding that he isn’t going to be elected in 2012, period, let alone elected as an unwilling write-in candidate, which would be the only way he could be elected if he kept the rest of the pledge, and that therefore it costs him nothing to pledge not to serve if elected.
If Root really wants to be chair, he’d be an idiot not to make this pledge, or one remarkably similar.
I suspect that there are at least high double-digit numbers of delegates who will simply not support a candidate who refuses to firmly foreswear a 2012 presidential campaign.
I also suspect that a significant number of those delegates would be inclined to support Wayne if they knew he’d put his whole effort into the chairmanship and not go gallivanting off to run for president in mid-term-of-office.
Finally, I suspect that most of those who currently support him for chair will not stop supporting him for chair if he tells them “2012 will not be my presidential year.”
Wayne is at a fork in the road, and Yogi Berra’s answer (“take it”) won’t cover the situation. He needs to choose one direction or the other.
Without being privy to Steve Kubby’s innermost thoughts, I cannot say what his opinion of Wayne Root’s intelligence is. I can, however, say that the delegates in St. Louis will prove themselves idiots if they elect as Chair anyone who does not sign the pledge Mr. Kubby proffers.
Furthermore, anyone who appears likely to be running in 2012 should not be elected Chair.
I will, however, *not* fault anyone who has promised friends to run for chair if he keeps those promises and continues to run.
I am *not* going to run for President again in 2012. I will not campaign for the nomination, I will decline an honest draft not that there is such a thing, and that’s the end of things on that topic.
If elected Chair, I will ensure that the LNC and its staff treat all candidates for our nomination in a fair and even manner.
Mr. Kubby must think that Wayne Root is an idiot, if Mr. Kubby thinks that Wayne Root would sign that pledge.
I will leave it as an exercise for IPR readers to figure out why I say that. Remember, you will be graded on your answers.
Root is sending conflicting signals. In at least one interview since announcing for LNC Chair, he describes himself as a 2012 contender. And “taking a leave of absence” AFTER he uses his position as Chair to gain the 2012 Presidential nomination just doesn’t cut it. Kubby is absolutely correct: the delegates in St.Louis need an unequivocal assurance from each of the Chair candidates that he absolutely will not seek or accept the 2012 presidential nomination. Any candidate who will not make a “Sherman Statement” should be dismissed summarily. (This holds for all five declared candidates, not just Root.)