An article today at LibertyForAll.net by Dr. Mary Ruwart, an at-large representative on the Libertarian National Committee:
This term, LNC Treasurer Aaron Starr instigated attacks on At-Large reps that consumed more LNC time than any other single activity. I urge delegates to say “No!” to such divisive behavior by refusing to return him to the LNC in any capacity.
It saddens me to write these words, as I once had great respect for Mr. Starr and even supported his bid for Treasurer in 2004. However, serving with him on the last LNC has greatly changed my perspective.
In the LNC’s first full-length meeting (September, 2008), Aaron Starr accused At-Large Rep Angela Keaton of blogging confidential information from our Executive Session. We spent almost half of our meeting time deciding whether or not violations occurred and what, if anything, should be done about it. While such leaks can create liability for the LNC, nothing that Ms. Keaton blogged even approached that level. Most of the LNC— including myself, I regret to say—took Mr. Starr’s concerns more seriously than they warranted.
Prior to our second meeting, “The Discipline of Angela Keaton” appeared on the draft agenda. Ms. Keaton asked that she be given a copy of what was to be presented to the LNC; a bit wiser now, I supported her request. When the information was not forthcoming, I moved that this item be dropped from the agenda on the grounds that Ms. Keaton had no time to prepare her defense. However, my motion was voted down. The LNC thus spent a great deal of its December 2008 meeting listening to Stewart Flood, Mr. Starr’s collaborator, making a number of accusations against Ms. Keaton, most of which were utterly groundless and easily seen as such. No action was taken against her.
However, Ms. Keaton decided she had had enough and resigned her position. Alicia Matteson [sic] took her place and has voted in lock-step with Mr. Starr every since. Did Mr. Starr instigate these attacks to get his confederate a seat at the LNC table?
Next, Mr. Starr went after At-Large Rep Lee Wrights. Mr. Wrights was undergoing a divorce and was not at his place of residence to receive his dues renewal notices; according to his ex-wife, none were received. Even though the entire LNC gave current e-mail addresses to Mr. Kraus, HQ’s files were not updated. Consequently, Mr. Wrights did not receive a renewal notice via e-mail either. In April, 2009, when Mr. Wrights’ dues were a week late, Mr. Starr convinced Chairman Redpath and Secretary Sullentrup to send Lee Wrights a notice that he was no longer on the LNC, since LP membership is a requirement for election to that body. At the same time that Mr. Wrights received his dismissal e-mail, the LNC received one directing them to select his replacement.
Most LNC members were enraged by the treatment of Mr. Wrights, as well they should be. Each LNC member pays thousands of dollars each year in travel expenses to serve on that body. To thwart the will of the delegates by disenfranchising a member for being a week late with a $25 dues payment is ludicrous. A simple phone call to Mr. Wrights would have resolved the issue.
Instead, the LNC spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with the fallout, primarily because Mr. Starr would not back down. He continued his attack on Mr. Wrights with a memo to the LNC containing Mr. Wrights’ confidential donation history. Although Mr. Starr routinely labels anything containing his financial reports “confidential,” he neglected to do so for this memo. Anything not labeled this way invariably ended up on Independent Political Review, as Mr. Starr’s memo did shortly after it went to the LNC.
In this memo, Mr. Starr claimed that Mr. Wrights had not paid his dues in 2004 and therefore was never legitimately elected as LNC Vice-Chair in that year. Had Mr. Starr checked with Mr. Wrights, he would have learned that Mrs. Wrights had paid her husband’s dues, and had been credited with his membership. To the best of Mr. Wrights’ knowledge, the records had never been updated, in spite of his repeated requests.
Later investigation of UMP records revealed that Mr. Wrights’ records at one time did show him as paying his dues for 2004; these records had been altered either inadvertently or on purpose. However, Mr. Starr has not issued an apology to Mr. Wrights or a retraction for his accusation that Mr. Wrights was never elected LNC Vice-Chair in 2004. A less dedicated activist than Mr. Wrights might be tempted to sue our Treasurer for this slander, creating a legal liability for the LP.
Our Treasurer also claimed that Sean Haugh’s payment of Lee Wrights’ dues in 2008 was an “illegal contribution,” even though the LP has accepted gift memberships for years, just as HQ accepted Mr. Haugh’s check. Our FEC consultant, who was cited in Mr. Starr’s report, had evidently been given misinformation by Mr. Starr and did not support the designation of “illegal contribution” when questioned further. However, Mr. Starr has not retracted his statements, giving Mr. Haugh possible grounds for legal action.
Mr. Wrights’ case eventually was taken to the Judicial Committee, where Ms. Matteson [sic] made the case originally put forward by Mr. Starr. Not surprisingly, the Committee found that the LNC officers had acted improperly in dismissing Mr. Wrights from the LNC. Although Mr. Starr labels all of his budget-related material “confidential,” he continues to thwart attempts to make sure that donor information is similarly protected. Do we want a Treasurer who feels free to “leak” donor information that he is privy to when he wants to malign someone and refuses to clear the air when what he puts out is erroneous?
The attacks orchestrated by Mr. Starr against At-Large Reps Keaton and Wrights consumed more of the LNC’s time than any other single item. This LNC did do one thing right, however. It hired Wes Benedict as our Executive Director (ED). Mr. Starr, however, did everything he could to stop it. The LNC didn’t have the money to hire an ED. However, Mr. Benedict offered to take the lowest ED salary we’ve paid in recent history and receive bonuses only if stiff fund-raising goals were met. Mr. Benedict was also, in my opinion, the best candidate for the job and the only applicant that had actually been an ED in a major state party (Texas), turning it from sluggish to superstar. Given the precipitous decline of membership and fund-raising the LP is experiencing, we desperately needed the kind of results that Mr. Benedict had delivered in the past.
Mr. Starr, however, opposed Mr. Benedict’s appointment and tried to promote another well-known individual for ED, even though that person had not yet applied for the position, did not have experience as an ED, and was unlikely to match Mr. Benedict’s offer. Mr. Benedict had been waiting for months for the LNC to act and intended to go back into business if we continued to drag our feet. Mr. Starr, who had given little assistance to the ED Search Committee, attempted to override its choice with this stalling tactic.
In spite of Mr. Starr’s resistance, Chairman Redpath appointed Mr. Benedict as ED. However, Mr. Starr just wouldn’t quit. At Mr. Benedict’s first LNC meeting in June, 2009, Mr. Starr attempted to renegotiate Mr. Benedict’s newly-signed contract! Not only was this highly inappropriate, but in certain corporate cultures could actually have created legal liabilities for us.
When he is not attacking At-Large LNC members, pushing us to the edge of legal liability, or trying to create a hostile working environment for our new ED, Mr. Starr performs his duties as LNC Treasurer. Although content to publicize an erroneous donor record for Mr. Wrights and let it stand, our Treasurer refused to give LNC members copies of the 2009 budget detail prior to presenting it at the December 2008 LNC meeting. Consequently, what he presented had several errors. Even after the LNC passed the budget, Mr. Starr refused my requests for copies of the budget detail on the grounds that I was a security risk (!) and that he had proprietary formulas that he didn’t want to share. When I appealed to the Chair, who asked Mr. Starr to honor my request, the insubordinate Mr. Starr simply refused!
When my persistence paid off and I finally received the budget details without the formulas, I discovered several anomalies. Our renewal rates were far below what Mr. Starr had assumed, so our budget was based on overly optimistic projections. I don’t expect our Treasurer to be perfect, but this is precisely why budget detail should be shared. LNC members can crank the numbers themselves and catch anything that may have been missed before adopting a budget. A more serious problem, however, was that our direct mail pieces to rented lists (i.e., “cold” prospecting) had such a low rate of return that it was almost impossible to cover costs, even over a ten year period. Real rates of attrition caused a loss of the new members long before they had time to contribute enough to make the mailing profitable. However, the budget we had passed set aside funds for this money-losing proposition, while setting aside nothing for ballot access or candidate support.
There was a silver lining to this cloud, however. When evaluating the numbers, I discovered that direct mail to “warm” prospects (those who had asked HQ for more information or had taken our on-line survey) was immediately profitable. Our strategy, therefore, should be to increase the interactivity of our web site. Since most of our new members in 2009 came through the website, such a strategy should increase new members substantially.
I don’t fault Mr. Starr for not discovering this on his own. However, Mr. Starr continued to advocate direct mail to rented lists (i.e., “cold” prospecting) over the last year, in spite of my frequent posts reminding him that his recommendations would only put the LP in debt. This seems at odds with our Treasurer’s fiduciary responsibility to the Party.
I could go on, but enough has probably been said already. It troubles me to speak out against Mr. Starr, but I can’t sit back and let him continue to harm the LP either. As your At-Large Rep, I feel it is my duty to inform you of what goes on “behind the scenes.” I leave it to the delegates in St. Louis to decide if Mr. Starr should be returned to the LNC.
[A source who wishes to remain anonymous sent the following rebuttal:]
This article contains so many lies and misrepresentations that there is hardly enough time between now and convention to explain all the things wrong with it. So you’ll have to settle for some of the highlights, and then draw your own conclusions about the rest.
Highlight #1
Mary wrote:
“In the LNC’s first full-length meeting (September, 2008), Aaron Starr accused At-Large Rep Angela Keaton of blogging confidential information from our Executive Session. We spent almost half of our meeting time deciding whether or not violations occurred and what, if anything, should be done about it. While such leaks can create liability for the LNC, nothing that Ms. Keaton blogged even approached that level. Most of the LNC— including myself, I regret to say—took Mr. Starr’s concerns more seriously than they warranted.”
Minutes from this meeting are available here:
http://www.lp.org/files/LNC%202008-09-06%20DC.pdf
Mary’s paragraph above is the middle part of the story. Back up to the beginning on p. 10 of those minutes, where the LNC begins a discussion of Angela Keaton regarding “what penalties if any to assign for transgressions including apparently inappropriate blogs”. The minutes do not specify what the inappropriate material was, but given the apologies that follow, and the material in the subsequent LNC minutes, it is reasonable to presume it refers to the fact that LNC board member Angela Keaton made sexual comments about LNC employee members on a public blog.
Note the chain of events that follow and who does what:
1) Rachel Hawkridge moves to postpone the discussion and find a mediator in the meantime.
2) Aaron Starr moves a substitute for the postponement, to instead have the LNC issue an apology to the affected staff members.
3) The motion to apologize defeated the motion to postpone.
4) The motion for the LNC to issue an apology to staff members for Angela Keaton’s actions passed by a vote of 13-1, with only Angela Keaton voting against it, and Mary Ruwart voting in favor of it.
Then on p. 18 of the minutes begins the part discussed by Mary’s article. Note who does what.
1) The Chair points out that Angela Keaton blogged material from the executive session.
2) Pat Dixon moved to censure her for it.
3) Aaron Starr moved a substitute to, rather than censuring her, express that the LNC felt she should resign.
4) EVERYONE in the room (Angela had left after admitting to having done it) voted for the substitute motion.
5) Aaron Starr moved to have the offender leave the room while the LNC decided what to do.
6) The LNC agreed, and voted to have the offender leave the room, but after being given a chance to speak in her defense.
7) After Angela Keaton spoke, Mary Ruwart asked her to try again because Keaton had not addressed the concerns of the LNC.
8.) By a vote of 11-0, the LNC passed the motion that they believed Angela Keaton should resign.
Nowhere in these records do I see anything resembling Mary’s portrayal that this was one person, Mr. Starr, acting alone in persecuting an innocent victim. Nowhere do I see the minutes say anything like, “The motion magically passed by a vote of 1-15, with Aaron Starr voting in favor, and everyone else opposed.”
Mary can’t even get basic facts straight, as she says “Aaron Starr accused At-Large Rep Angela Keaton of blogging confidential information from our Executive Session”. However, the minutes approved by the LNC say that the Chair introduced this subject, not Mr. Starr.
What I see is an entire board enraged at the behavior of one of the board members, with Mary Ruwart herself voting with the rest of the board for Angela Keaton to issue an apology to staff, and Mary Ruwart herself voting with the rest of the board for a motion saying Angela Keaton should resign.
In this article, Mary attempts to portray it as one board member, the Treasurer, on a ruthless rampage against a person who had done no wrong. These decisions were made by an overwhelming majority of the board, not by one person, after Angela Keaton admitting to having done what she was being accused of.
Read the minutes for yourself, and then compare them to the Ruwart article above. Ruwart’s account here is outrageously flawed.
Highlight #2:
Mary claims that in the next meeting when the whole board adopted an agenda that included an item titled “Discipline of Angela Keaton” (after having voted down a motion to remove it), that ultimately, “No action was taken against her”.
Again, all one has to do is read the meeting minutes available at this link:
http://www.lp.org/files/LNC%202008-12-06%20San%20Diego.pdf
Pages 14-16 document the allegations against Keaton, including the fact that she had not apologized to the staff members even after the resolution of the LNC at the previous meeting, including publicly posting an anti-Semitic doctored-photograph of the Treasurer (note that Mary doesn’t condemn that Keaton-attack-on-Starr in this article).
Of the board members noted in the minutes confronting Angela Keaton about specific allegations, there is mention of Pat Dixon, Julie Fox, Dan Karlan, Bob Sullentrup, but no mention of Aaron Starr in that discussion.
Then the board passed a motion, “The LNC shall form a dispute resolution committee to address this issue.” This motion passed WITHOUT OBJECTION. Ruwart did not object to it.
Later on p. 24 of the minutes we see that Rachel Hawkridge, Tony Ryan, Mary Ruwart, Rebecca Sink-Burris, Admiral Michael Colley, Michael Jingozian were appointed to this committee.
So a majority of LNC members agreed to discuss the issue. Several LNC members voiced objections to Keaton’s behavior. Without objection the LNC formed a committee to address the issue, and Ruwart was one of the members of that committee. But Ruwart presents it as the board taking “no action” against Keaton. (Keaton resigned the day after this meeting, before the subcommittee had time to do anything.)
And Ruwart describes the scenario as being one member, Aaron Starr, on a one-man ruthless rampage against a person who had done no wrong. These decisions were made by an overwhelming majority of the board, including Mary herself, not by one person acting alone.
Highlight #3:
Mary writes:
“In this memo, Mr. Starr claimed that Mr. Wrights had not paid his dues in 2004 and therefore was never legitimately elected as LNC Vice-Chair in that year. Had Mr. Starr checked with Mr. Wrights, he would have learned that Mrs. Wrights had paid her husband’s dues, and had been credited with his membership. To the best of Mr. Wrights’ knowledge, the records had never been updated, in spite of his repeated requests.”
As has been explained in open session in subsequent LNC meetings, there is no record of EVER having received a donation from Mrs. Wrights, not in 2004, not at any time. The Treasurer invited Mr. Wrights to provide any documentation, a canceled check, a credit card statement, anything to show a donation was made. The Treasurer even offered to reimburse Mr. Wrights for any bank fees for providing him with old banking records to back up this claim. To date, Mr. Wrights has provided no proof of a 2004 payment by either himself or Mrs. Wrights. Rather he wants records changed without providing evidence that they are incorrect.
Mary continues:
“Later investigation of UMP records revealed that Mr. Wrights’ records at one time did show him as paying his dues for 2004; these records had been altered either inadvertently or on purpose.”
That is just simply false. No such “investigation” revealed any such thing. Wrights did allege that someone had recently changed his email address in the national records so that any renewal reminders would intentionally be sent an incorrect email account so as to set him up to lapse, because Wrights claimed he had never given the national office the email address they had on file for him. But a quick check of archive records demonstrated that his email address had not recently been altered, and in fact, the email address in his national records had been there since at least 2006.
And since the implication here is that the Treasurer sabotaged the records, it should be noted that the Treasurer actually does not have direct access to these records. He merely reviews reports derived from them.
Example #4:
Mary writes:
“our Treasurer refused to give LNC members copies of the 2009 budget detail prior to presenting it at the December 2008 LNC meeting”
The LNC received copies of the 2009 budget well before the December 2008 meeting. Mary kept demanding additional information which was essentially the Treasurer’s scratch notes, but the LNC felt comfortable enough with the information provided to pass the budget and ignore Mary’s invented drama.
I can’t count how many times during reading Mary’s article that I was shocked at how bold her misrepresentations are. My list above is just the tip of the iceberg.
I think you get the point by now. Mary Ruwart did not write an objective and truthful representation.
She hopes to harm one individual by skewing the story and falsely blaming him for a series of actions taken by a majority of the LNC, and in fact some things that she, herself, voted to do.
Mary Ruwart wants you to think she is some sort of peacemaker, mediator, healer. Those who have worked with her know otherwise. There is a reason why many of her former supporters on the board have turned against her for just this type of behavior.
BH @62,
First, we both know how I feel about your version of the WSPQ.
Second, I admit I shouldn’t have used the phrase “just don’t want,” as it implies that this is my sole/primary reason for opposing him. I do, of course, dislike his right-wing fetish, his presidential ambitions, and his inexperience in dealing with the LNC. When I was president of my collegiate rugby club, it was a requirement that one first serve as a lower officer of the club to see how things operated. This tended to ensure each president was prepared to know how the officer corps functioned, what it’s responsibilities were, and to make sure no candidate for club president had unrealistic expectations of what he could accomplish. I’m not saying the LNC should have a similar proviso for chair, but prior committee experience and/or experience as a state chair is certainly a *huge* asset to have in my opinion.
I also severely dislike the discourteous nature with which he has corresponded with Wes, who I consider to be one our party’s true gems. And, honestly, I abhor the manner in which Wayne sells himself in interviews and media appearances. The ‘used car salesman’ moniker is thrown around with good reason.
Nevertheless, the core of my reason for opposition remains his newness to the party/ideology. Again, I’ve stated countless times that the only place I think this should be a higher standard is when it comes to the chair and the presidential ticket (which would, ideally, include the vice-president nominee, but that gate’s already been blown past). It’s one thing if a candidate who’s been advocating mostly libertarian positions for years decides to join the party, but it’s a whole ‘nother thing when someone like Wayne, a ‘millionaire Republican’ joins. Of course, I welcome all libertarians and libertarian-leaners to the party, but not to the top positions. His familiarity with the party is that of what, 3 years (?), and needless to say he’s still fleshing out many of his positions. Sure, he says most of the right things now, but how seriously has he thought them through? To what degree is he susceptible towards changing his mind again, and how might he fail to respond well towards questions of greater depth? True enough, he spouts anti-regimist rhetoric now, but to what degree would he were his conservative friends in power?
One of the main reasons so many people were able to get behind Ron Paul, and continue to believe in him, is his consistency. People like WAR, I just don’t know. He reminds me of a libertarian version of Mitt Romney – sure, he may genuinely have convictions towards his newer stances, but where’s the consistency? How do I know he’s not trying to ride a wave of populist sentiment? When the wave moves another direction, will he try to ride with it, or will he stand firm in libertarian principle? These are things I can’t be assured of with a recent convert, and things I don’t want to worry about when it comes to the faces of our organization (chair and presidential ticket).
Erik, it’s a strawman to suggest I’ve portrayed Hancock as “the sole representation of Radicals”. Heck, I consider myself to be a radical — a radical geolibertarian, but an ecumenical one. I’ve repeatedly made the point that Hinkle is a (big-tent) radical, so I obviously cannot be suggesting that all radicals support Hancock.
I’ll stop worrying about Hancock’s referendum on Libertarian purity if/when he loses it — not before.
By contrast, it wouldn’t be fair to say that Root considers his campaign a referendum on declaring anybody — whether newcomers or anarchists — to be second-class members, excluded from being Chair because of their libertarian ideology (or lack of tenure therein). Indeed, Root in the Kansas debate openly said that Hancock is more libertarian than he.
So I’m not sure I understand what your Root newness concern means, if it’s not equivalent to not trusting that he believes what he says he believes. Have you read his ideological self-test at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/wayne-root-doubles-down-on-david-nolans-challenge?
I’ve heard valid concerns about Root’s strategy of outreach to the Right, and about Root’s lack of experience on LNC. I find it harder to be concerned about LP members holding their membership/activism hostage to their ineffable disdain/distrust for Root. I don’t think we should choose a Chair according to how few members are protesting his election via hunger strike. 🙂
BH @58,
Yes, but said candidate isn’t the sole representation of Radicals, if one could even call him representation at all. I suspect that many Radicals will be voting for different candidates, and that their opposition to Root isn’t necessarily due to their ‘Radical’ nature.
I, for one, am no Radical, but I despise the thought of Root as chair. Were he elected, and were he to perform about the way I think he would, I’ve even given strong thought to leaving the party entirely until his influence is far removed. And this isn’t even necessarily because I think he ‘secretly harbors’ the same thoughts he had a scant three years ago – I’m on the record as saying I just don’t want someone so new to the ideology and the party as chair. I won’t/can’t question his beliefs, because nobody has anyway of really knowing but him. I do, however, retain my right to be skeptical about how much he’s thought everything out, as everyone should.
Mik,
Why is it a bad thing to say in the platform that reasonable people can come to different principled conclusions on the issue of abortion? At least is not like we are trying to ignore the issue.
The language is apparently somewhat vague to some people.
“Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”
To me, it seems clearly that this means
that the majority of the party support legal abortion (keeping government out of it) and that the decision on abortion should be a personal question – although there are enough pro-life libertarians that hold a different view, that the first clause recognizes this (“Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides”).
(Hopefully, we recognize that people have good faith views on the opposite site of the many other issues in our platform, but this seems to be an acknowledgement that the LP itself is split on this issue. Libertarians might be clearer than people here.)
The bigger problem with this language is that some people apprarently read this as something like “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that the LP should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question of whether abortion should be legal to each person for their conscientious consideration.”
This strikes me as an inaccurate reading of what the plank actually says, yet it seemed that more than one person – including a former Communications Director at LPHQ – read it that way.
Similarly, when the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – To me, it seems clear that the operative clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” and that the part which says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” just clarifies why some people think this right is important. However, many other people, including many legal scholars and some English professors, believe that what this sentence actually means is something more like “the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed only if they are part of a militia controlled by the state, such as the military, police, or national guard.”
Given these facts, it seems to me that these kind of qualifying clauses at the beginning of sentences are too confusing to too many people.
I would suggest that the LP plank might be clearer if the opening clause, assuming that it is not removed, was made instead into a separate sentence, for instance:
“We believe that government should be kept out of abortion decisions, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. However, we recognize that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides.”
Why is it a bad thing to say in the platform that reasonable people can come to different principled conclusions on the issue of abortion? At least is not like we are trying to ignore the issue.
Erik, I’m of course not saying that all self-identified radicals advocate a Rothbardian plumbline. And as I’ve said repeatedly, I think Denver demilitarized the Platform for purposes of anarchism-vs-minarchism disputes in the LP, so I agree that there is now less problem of radicals agitating for a restoration of crypto-anarchism in the Platform. (Also, you no longer hear any reformers at all agitating for a near-term contract-for-America-style N-point platform.) To the extent that radicals now merely want to not be excluded by Platform language — as opposed to restoring the old Rothbardian plumbline platform — then I say: welcome to the Reform Caucus. I would love to report that the reason the Reform Caucus is dormant is because we’re all reformers now.
But there are still real LNC candidates who publish white papers vaguely complaining that the Platform has been “watered down”. And one of the leading candidates for Chair is an anarchist who is explicitly asking for the race to be a referendum on libertarian purity.
Many radicals say they don’t “trust” that Root doesn’t still secretly advocate the same positions he advocated three years ago, but I for one am willing to believe any radical who now says he favors an ecumenical Platform. I would even believe it if Hancock said it.
But I don’t think he will.
Paulie,
Since an unorganized militia would probably suffice for “defense against military aggression,” I’d be okay with it.
As to abortion, if the LP is not going to take a real position on the issue, it shouldn’t put the issue in its platform.
Paulie @55:
When it comes to abortion, we don’t necessarily need a stance in the platform.
The Independence Party of Minnesota, for example, ignores the topic in their platform, leaving it for their individual candidates to decide.
@48 At first glance, most of those proposed changes look good. However: I think explicitly calling for a voluntarily funded military is probably too limiting as far as building a realistically broad party coalition, even though I oppose coercive funding myself.
Could, for instance, “We support the maintenance of a sufficient defense against military aggression” make the point in such a way that could encompass my/your position as well as that of those who support a coercively funded military, albeit one that does not try to act as world police/”liberator”?
On abortion: would you have a replacement plank, or none at all? It’s a major issue in the general public debate, so should it really be ignored completely?
The Radical Libertarian Creed
Not mine. Whose?
wow that child porno stuff will be the first thing the media tees-off on with Ruwart at the helm
1) LOL, doubtful. Major media have better things to do. If they pay any attention to it at all, it is only because some LP members persist in making/keeping it an “issue” in furtherance of intra-party factional dominance.
2) Helm? She’s not running for chair. Although she may run for president again, no such announcement has been made, or even hinted at anywhere that I have seen.
I agree–that and having an affair with her last campaign manager. The media would have a hey day!
Would “the media” care? I don’t even think it rises to the level of an IPR story even if you have proof (all I’ve seen are allegations). Why would “real” media possibly care that she allegedly had an affair?
To be fair, if the Radical position was that the LP could *only* advocate the positions you claim them to support, I would likely fall closer to your side of the argument on this one. However, most of the Radicals I know simply don’t want language that excludes them – I don’t know many who want to use language that excludes you or I. And even of those who may advocate that, I doubt their ability and influence to make such a thing happen. That being said, there’s no reason to falsely associate all Radicals with an extreme Rothbardian Radical position.
BH @50,
You do utilize a straw-man, though. The whole ‘Radical Libertarian Creed’ is a giant straw-man.
Just because *some* Radicals may propose the things you say, that doesn’t mean that *all* do, nor does it mean a majority do. Most of the Radicals I’ve spoken with can not be as neatly pegged as you’d like them to be.
*Some* Reformers have been pro-war, but that doesn’t mean all Reformers are. It also doesn’t mean that defending a Reform position is defending a pro-war stance.
Moreover, it was you that decided to interject (fairly) the Ruwart-Rothbard ideological connection, but that doesn’t mean all Radicals share such beliefs , nor does it mean that they’d like to see the platform reflect the details you consistenly insist they do. I don’t know how many times now I’ve seen you drag out the old detailed platform and make this grand, blanket statement that this is *the* Radical position, no matter how many times a Radical comes out and says “not so.”
I’m almost beginning to believe that you don’t know how to debate the Radical position without falsely claiming that it’s an exclusively pure Rothbardian ‘Restore ‘o4’ set of beliefs.
Eric, I’m not attacking strawmen. There really are some prominent Libertarians who consider Rothbardianism to be a “plumbline” that the LP should not apologize for. It’s also a fact that Rothbardianism includes the three positions I mentioned @44 (about child starvation, child prostitution, personal secession). And it’s a fact that one of the leading Chair candidates passes out tens of thousands of DVDs that say Lincoln and JFK were assassinated by international banking interests. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. When AroundTheBlock screams without qualification “We need to stop apologizing!”, I’m going to point out the stuff that “plumbline” Libertarians say that I don’t want to answer for.
My comment @46 was a direct response to AroundTheBlock’s assumption @45 that the “logical conclusions” of libertarianism define bright lines that can tell us who should be “thrown out of the libertarian pantheon”. I’m just saying that while there are principles that are common to the major schools of libertarianism, the LP should not endorse one school as canonical, and condemn any disagreement with it as heretical.
Again, I’m not making this stuff up. For the last few months on the LPCA candidates list, a vocal minority has been insulting geolibertarians as “socialist”/”Marxist” because they dare to disagree with some Austrian axioms about homesteading natural resources. My response has been that the LP’s tent should be big enough for both allodial libertarians and geolibertarians.
“Implicitly damn their views”? When the old Platform advocated personal secession, it explicitly damned minarchism. When the old Platform called for immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws, and privatization of streets, it explicitly damned most forms of minarchism.
I too would like to make significant changes to the LP platform, but I don’t see anything in it now that even implicitly crosses the cease-fire lines that I’ve described as a St. Louis Accord.
I consider the Platform Wars to be over, and the Platform to now be a demilitarized zone for LP infighting. However, that doesn’t mean that all the Platform guerrillas have gotten the word, and we still occasionally find some out in the jungle, vaguely muttering about a “watered down” platform and “dilution of the historical LP message”, without giving PlatCom actionable suggestions about what allegedly needs fixing. Their numbers will dwindle even further after the 2010 convention, which is on course to be the first since 2002 to not make a major overhaul of the Platform.
P.S. I’m as skeptical of the concept of a “smartest person in the room” as I am of the concept “most principled libertarian in the room”. I’m not very smart at all. I just remember and repeat the stuff I can’t argue against. I’m just the Frankenstein product of all the arguments I’ve ever lost. 🙂
@48 is what I’m talkin’ about.
Though Mr. Knapp’s and I’s views are not the same, I have zero problem with those platform proposals.
“Not every Radical wants the old, lengthy platform back.”
Since Holtz frequently name-checks me as a representative radical, I’d like to riff on that claim for a moment.
I did not support “Restore ’04.” I nominally supported Holtz’s “Greatest Hits Remix” proposal.
I’m all for a shorter platform. I’d be pleased as punch with the existing platform if:
– The nonsensical phrase “impact on the rights of individuals by government” in 1.3 was changed to something that means something in English (recommendatation: “bearing on government policies”).
1.4 was deleted.
– The false and ahistorical phrase “Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property” was deleted from 1.5.
– The word “conceivably” was inserted after “only” and before “proper ” in 2.0 and 3.0.
– The phrase “voluntarily funded” was inserted after “sufficient” and before “military” in 3.1.
– The sentence “However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property” was excised from 3.4.
Such a platform would a little shorter even than it is now.
BH @ 44 & 46:
I see you’re back to straw-manning the death out of the Radical Caucus again. Though some Ls may argue the positions you’re so boisterously screaming about, few do publicly, and these issues are hardly anywhere near the top of their agenda.
All of my discussions with the Radicals seem to indicate that a strong majority of them simply want language that doesn’t implicitly damn their views. As I’ve said before, this can be done quite subtlely.
Not every Radical wants the old, lengthy platform back. They would, from what I’ve observed, like the platform to be stronger, however. And, yes, I know you’ll now (as *the* smartest man in the room, always) scream for details of what specifically should be changed. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t know, because I’m not necessarily arguing this myself. I consider myself a Radical supporter, but not a Radical per se.
What needs to be thrown out of the libertarian pantheon is the idea that all our deities are channeling The One True Libertarianism. What needs to be thrown out is the idea that there are no free variables in libertarian theory.
The Radical Libertarian Creed
We believe in One Libertarianism, a theory almighty, creator of libertopia and the inerrant market hand, visible and invisible;
We believe in one Mr. Libertarian, one in being with Libertarianism;
By whom the Platform was made;
Who for us Libertarians, and our Party’s salvation, came to Dallas and was incarnated as an LP member;
He was crucified under Ed Crane, suffered, and was purged as a Cato shareholder, but in the third year he rose again, and ascended to radical control of the LP;
And his Radical Caucus will come again to judge the minarchists and Republican lite, and its ascendancy will have no end.
And we believe in Austrian economics, the font, the giver of Truth, which is deduced from the One Libertarianism by Mr. Libertarian, which with them is worshiped and glorified;
We believe in one holy, inerrant and apostolic Mises Institute.
We believe in one Aggression Abstinence Pledge for the magical prevention of statism,
We look for the collapse of The State, and the global anarchy to come.
Amen.
No Libertarian candidate is going to run on child sex or baby starvation or giving out heroin samples on street corners. However, some libertarians – even those who are most prominent like Rothbard was – are going to take such stands and the media is going to attempt to crucify all Libertarian candidates and leadership by making them explain such views. If libertarian philosophical principles do not lead to such “outlandish” conclusions, then it has to be articulated and Rothbard and Ruwart and others have to be thrown out of the libertarian pantheon. If, however, these ideas are logical conclusions of the “mainstream” libertarianism that is being preached – even if most libertarians don’t want to acknowledge it – then Li bertarians need to be prepared to deal with them.
Just because libertarianism isn’t currently in the American mainstream, that’s not a license to not think about whether an idea should be presented as the libertarian mainstream.
Making it legal to let your child starve isn’t the libertarian mainstream. Making it legal for children to sell sex isn’t the libertarian mainstream. Personal secession isn’t the libertarian mainstream. Saying Lincoln and JFK were assassinated by international banking interests isn’t the libertarian mainstream.
Ideas are supposed to matter to libertarians. Not all ideas of libertarians are created equal. I’m not saying any of these ideas are inherently unlibertarian. I just don’t want the LP’s leadership to present them as optimally libertarian or officially Libertarian.
No Libertarian candidate will ever be a blank slate that the media is incapable of attacking, either directly or by association with others, such as Rothbard, who held views outside the mainstream. We are outside the mainstream! We need to stop apologizing! Libertarianism has to succeed as a libertarian movement, not as something else that we mold to be acceptable to a plurality of Americans.
bh, hmm, I’d say the MSM did pickup on NewsletterGate…I saw Paul having to explain it to Wolf Blitzer during primetime. Since Paul’s answer was SO implausible and the newsletters were SO damning, it didn’t take much to topple him. In fact, Blitzer at one point almost apologized to Paul, explaining to him something like “this is how it’s done.”
But, sure, as a general matter, the MSM doesn’t do hit pieces on Ls. Why bother?
Alex, by “starving their children” I of course meant “allowing their children to starve”. Yours is a distinction without a difference when it comes to the most relevant cases (infants), and nobody (libertarian or otherwise) denies that physically stopping an innocent from eating is aggression.
Nobody is “innately” a parent. Most libertarians would agree that parents have an inherent positive obligation to feed their children. Indeed, the LP Platform used to say: “Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship.”
I reasonably sure that Ruwart disagrees, but I’m not holding my breath awaiting her answer to this or any of my other questions for her.
Re: Ruwart’s views getting into the mainstream media, the cat is already out of the bag: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1808384,00.html
But I stand by what I wrote back when the Ruwart controversy first broke in April 2008: “I’m confident this child pornography issue would no more affect a general-election Ruwart candidacy than the various smears on Root would affect his candidacy, or than Badnarik’s driver’s license affected his 2004 race. The Ron Paul newsletter episode demonstrated that the MSM just isn’t interested in knocking people off of pedestals that are only an inch high. The scalp of a L/libertarian candidate just isn’t a valuable addition to a mainstream journalist’s resume.”
I’d like to thank Mr. Capozzi for trying to remain fair. While I would vote for Mary Ruwart, I don’t begrudge someone like Mr. Capozzi for not thinking she’d make the best candidate. I can respect Mr. Capozzi because it’s clear he’s not trying to smear Ms. Ruwart (unlike the person posting as “Poor excuse”).
I disagree with “LP Pramatist.” (1) Ruwart has refined her position since she wrote that small book. Should LNC Chairs be held responsible for positions previously held—not actions taken, but positions previously held? (2) The position was written in a small book that I suspect few in the media have any interest in reading. (3) The mainstream media is far more likely to make her previous position an issue (and to discover it) if it is an issue in the blogosphere. Thus, I’d be inclined to say that those of us in the blogosphere are doing more damage to the LP than Ruwart ever has.
Mr. Holtz, your language misrepresents the Rothbardian position. When one thinks of X starving Y, one thinks of X actively preventing Y from acquiring or consuming food. Rothbard never supported starving people, and readily recognised starving people (as I have defined it here) to be an act of aggression and thus a crime. The actual Rothbardian position is that no person has an innate obligation to feed any other person. Now, of course, one might acquire the obligation to feed another either through contractual agreement or through committing an act of aggression. But no person has a positive obligation innately.
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
I’ve seen no evidence that Ruwart — as a member of the LNC — has tainted the LP with her novel views on kiddie porn. I for one appreciate her efforts on LNC, which is often a thankless task, even though I often disagree with her opinions.
She’s not running for Chair or the prez nomination that I’ve heard. I would likely not support her for either, although — let’s be fair — she doesn’t often promote her novel ideas about children’s rights. She’s nothing like Hancock, who, unlike Mary, has a record of promoting a variety of conspiracy theories.
@37–
I agree–that and having an affair with her last campaign manager. The media would have a hey day!
wow that child porno stuff will be the first thing the media tees-off on with Ruwart at the helm– damaged goods. Let’s think of what’s best for the party and not for one individual. I shudder to think of LP candidates having to answer questions about child porno. It is so disgusting that it doesn’t matter the answers or justifications.
Poor excuse // May 10, 2010:
“Mary [Ruwart] will promote child porno. [Lake: for sure, for 100% ?????] Maybe she had consented sex underage. [Lake: maybe, perhaps, could be ????]
I think Mary is a poor excuse for a doctor. [and I with Chiropractor Donald J. Grundmann per http://www.chiro.ca.gov! Have you contacted your local / state medical society and or licensing organization ????? Whom ever you are …….]
Alex, I normally wouldn’t dignify such trolling @33 with a response, but @34 you could be read as suggesting that Dr. Ruwart at some point in the past “promote[d] child porno”. You should not abet such a viciously false smear.
Also, I don’t see what @33 has to do with Root.
I doubt that Dr. Ruwart has changed her views on “sexual relations” over the last decade, and I don’t think it’s fair to say her position was ever generally cavalier. She takes the serious Rothbardian position that the state should have no role in protecting children from agreeing to sexual commerce. The only thing remotely cavalier I ever heard from her on this subject was her assertion that a child can’t competently consent to sexual acts if not old enough to have sexual “desire”. I don’t think sexual desire has anything to do with whether a child is competent to decide whether to trade sex for money or candy, but Ruwart apparently disagrees. (Or, maybe she thinks that the onset of “desire” is a close correlate of the general maturity/competence to make decisions about sex, but that would seem to contradict her position that competence is not a function of age.)
I’m not sure I’d even call Ruwart “cavalier” if she agreed with Rothbard that it should not be a crime for parents to starve their children to death. Rothbard took such ideas seriously, and if that’s Ruwart’s position then she’s probably serious about it too.
Apparently, there are some people who believe that we should accept that Mr. Root has changed his position, that he has genuinely become a libertarian over the past few years; but who also believe that we cannot accept that Ms. Ruwart has also changed her position, that she no longer takes the same cavelier position toward sexual relations that she did over a decade ago.
It sounds like the person posting under the name “Poor excuse” has a double standard.
A decade ago, I thought we should raise the minimum wage, save Social Security, and maintain the welfare system. If I can change, then so can Ruwart and Root. And while I do not believe that Root presents libertarianism in the manner he should, I have at least said that I believe he has actually become a libertarian. So why can’t people like “Poor excuse” admit that Ruwart has modified her position on sexuality?
The person posting as “Poor excuse” is a poor excuse for an anonymous political hack.
Yes Mary will promote child porno. Maybe she had consented sex underage. I think Mary is a poor excuse for a doctor.
Oh, come on!
……. George Phillies’ new path doesn’t have any glam or sparkle, but is has substance.
……….. [really, really ?????]
George Phillies is clear and open.
[a] no ‘loopy’ behavior and or photo on pot proponent (Californian, Canadian) Steve Kubby ?????
[b] LP as ONLY peace party (yeah, sure, right!)
[c] LP decades of floating down ‘Denial’ ……..
@JT, premature Libertarian president
Promotion is amway, and that is not what this is for. This party has no room for error. Another war monger barr moment, and that is it. Root is about ratings, spreads, and seduction. He is a used car with three wheels and no oil.
We are not selling anything, we are just doing. George Phillies new path doesn’t have any glam or sparkle, but is has substance. George Phillies is clear and open. He will build the glass house for all to see. He is a soldier. That is long term.
That is how you earn breakfast.
Appears that Mary is getting ready for a run for president again. Two articles in one week on Liberty For All. First taking a swing at Root then Aaron Starr (neither one a bad thing.) Her words are sounding a bit like Lee Wrights’, though, versus Mary Ruwart….just an observation……….
JT,
Ask your girlfriend.
Steven: “Was it better to shoot it on her thigh, or spend all night earning breakfast?”
What?
My point was that Root always mentions promotion. I have heard his number of appearances rant several times, and that is what he cares about. The number of times he is appeared on TV.
He believes growth of the party will come from the tea party and independents, and this is why it is illogical. He brings a soap opera. He is a scandal waiting to happen, especially when he bravely issues thoughts on his many failures.
Was it better to shoot it on her thigh, or spend all night earning breakfast?
The thing he wants from his nomination is the thing that won’t happen because of him. The campaign for liberty and AFP people in Missouri that I know, don’t trust him. I can’t speak for all people, but he is not going to grow anything.
Jim Davidson, why not?
Robert @23 you really wouldn’t.
The Deform Caucus-aligned Bob Sullentrup recently released an updated LNC Policy Manual.
Look for the Deform Caucus to cite to the Policy Manual as authority for its next treachery.
I would like to see every radical libertarian in the USA at this convention.
Fehr had a seemingly sensible idea – that a deep-seated human preference for fairness might play an important role in economics.
He thought it might explain why companies – even in countries without a minimum wage – don’t offer jobs paying wages far below the standard, despite research showing plenty of unemployed people would willingly take the work.
It doesn’t happen, he suggested, because companies know that workers hired at a lower wage feel they are being cheated, causing them to grow disgruntled and work less hard.
Fehr wrote a paper on the idea that fairness matters, which was promptly rejected by every prestigious economic journal he sent it to on the grounds that people only care about how much they get for themselves, not how that compares to what others might receive.
“Most economists would be deeply unhappy if paid less than what they consider to be fair, so I thought I had a convincing answer,” Fehr says. “But I found out that in theoretical economics, fairness just doesn’t count.”
The conservatarians on the LNC are really all goose-steppers. See you at the convention!
Can we lay to rest this BS about Keaton being ‘sexually inappropriate’ towards a staff member. Said staff member told me he wasn’t offended by it, and it was others who decided to be offended for him to further their political agendas.
“Independents and tea partiers looking for a new home will never join a soap opera.”
Could be the objective of the opportunists. Rule over the ruins and return to the GOOP and the Country Club.
Doesn’t matter though. The ideals of the LP do not rest on any single person or organization. The quest to kill the ideas and ideals is futile. Those ideas itch in more places than they can scratch up dissension. They come, they scratch, they go. The itch goes on.
This is just confirmation of the problem with the national party. Amateur hour. The people inside don’t understand what this does or what it looks like from the outside. The viewer watches this and would never relive he said, she said.
Independents and tea partiers looking for a new home will never join a soap opera.
@ Robert Milnes No. 5, I agree exactly.
Vote Phillies
I actually had the same reaction as Michael @ 14. It’s one thing to post an anonymous comment (I myself only use my initials). But if a rebuttal to a piece is offered that impugns someone else’s character, I don’t think it should be posted an addendum to the piece without a name. Reporters often use unidentified sources, but they don’t write stories without their own byline attached.
Advice: keep copies of all correspondence and bank records of transactions with the LP Treasurer from now on…regardless of who it may be. Write as if for publication at all times with LP HQ. Be prepared to submit copies to the LNC at any time. If you need allies, you need documentation for them to back you up.
If you have pertinent information on any candidates for any LP officers, build your dossier NOW, burn it on media and bring copies to St. Louis. Delete or redact immaterial personal information (SS number, DOB, etc.).
You may need to defend yourself from predators at this convention.
Gee, where’s Sara?
@Michael H. Wilson: You nailed!
In matters of this nature I think it is wise to disregard any reply that is anonymous.
Dr. Ruwart had the courage to put her name up front on her piece knowing that she would be criticized. Anyone wishing to have their reply seriously considered should do the same. Anything else shows a lack of convictions to put it politely.
Re Highlight #3 from the anonymous repsonder:
You are quite wrong on all counts in this one. An internal investigation conducted by our current ED did, in fact, reveal that the UMP records do reflect my dues were paid and that I was a member during the time that Mr. Starr falsely claims I was illegitimately elected as LNC Vice Chair.
This does a couple of things. First, and foremost, it has enabled staff to finally correct my membership records that had been, either mistakenly or by malicious intent, entered wrong for almost six years.
Secondly, it proves that the records were available in our own database all along to verify my valid membership. Had Mr. Starr bothered to ask me about it, or checked for himself more diligently, he could have avoided being so horribly wrong about the state of my membership; as well as, avoided possible legal liability for himself and his colleagues on the LNC.
I can see why the responder wishes to remain anonymous. It is not a good idea to reveal yourself when you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Alex,
As the person who made history by being the first person to webcast a LNC meeting, at least the December 2008 part of the video record is available at http://www.justin.tv/tannim123/all#r=PghLhJM~.
Furthermore, the twittering of both the Sept 2008 and Dec 2008 LNC meeting are available here at IPR in the archives. My play-by-play of Dec 2008 is far more accurate than Sullentrup’s solitaire-laden minutes. I encourage you to check these sources out for yourself.
As for the timeline of the Wrights membership situation, it can be seen, fully cited, at http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/timeline-of-duesgate.html.
Wills @ 2: Exactly. Both narratives have the LNC coming across more like a high school social club than the board of a successful organization. THAT should raise more warning bells for folks than the niggling details. But true to form, the rebuttal misses the whole forest for the individual needles on the trees.
Once the pies stop flying across the table, you have to ask yourself the questions we ask ourselves at every national election: Is the party better off today than it was two years ago? Did this LNC accomplish most or even some of what you as a delegate expected them to accomplish for the Libertarian movement? Did your causes, candidates, state parties and activists get anything like the support you’d like them to have gotten from national?
This isn’t about Starr. It’s about a culture that pervades the LNC at the moment, a culture of using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law, a culture of rules-mavening and well, authoritarianism and not a lot of activism. A culture where bickering about the internals of the LNC — not even the LP but the LNC — takes priority over getting the party’s work done.
This time around, let’s get some work done. Check out our business plan here: http://www.newpathforthelp.org/images/stories/newpathbook.pdf
I encourage you to support the New Path slate of candidates (myself included), but particularly James Oaksun, our New Path candidate for Treasurer of the LNC.
“Throwing mud” includes assuming that your opponents have secret nefarious intentions, like deliberately trying to keep the LP small to enhance their own relative position within it. If you can’t argue against the actions/positions of your opponents without hypothesizing secret nefarious intentions, then your arguments against them must not be very strong.
Regardless of how much Ruwart may have misrepresented the facts of the matters above, she mostly avoided questioning Starr’s motives — except for her comment about Starr “trying to create a hostile working environment for our new ED”.
There’s nothing wrong with marshaling your case against your opponent right as they stand for election — as long as you don’t misrepresent their actions or positions or stated intentions. I myself have read more from Root’s book as St. Louis approaches than I ever did when I first got a copy last year, and I too will soon finally be writing a review of it. I hope Cohen doesn’t object.
I’m trying to judge this matter as objectively as possible, and since I have nothing to go by other than what is written and linked above, I only have a few comments I feel I can legitimately make.
(1) I do not believe portraying-someone-one-doesn’t-like-with-a-Hitler-mustache is an anti-Semitic act. If one portrays someone she or he does like with a Hitler mustache, that could be considered an anti-Semitic act, however.
(2) At the end of the third highlight of the anonymous response, the author writes, “And since the implication here is that the Treasurer sabotaged the records, it should be noted that the Treasurer actually does not have direct access to these records. He merely reviews reports derived from them.”
Methinks it is inappropriate to claim that Ms. Ruwart “implied” that Mr. Starr altered the records. The anonymous author infers this.
(3) The minutes (assuming they are unbiased) presented by the anonymous responder appears to confirm her/his claims in highlights #1 and #2. Since video evidence of what happened is unavailable, and while Mr. Knapp’s comments may be correct, it would seem that the minutes are the best record we have to go by.
(4) While the anonymous responder presents evidence to back up his claims with regards to highlights #1 and #2, she/he does no such thing with regards to highlight #3 or example #4. I therefore reserve the right to remain sceptical about the anonymous author’s statements in highlight #3 and example #4.
(5) Mr. Wills is clearly wronb to claim that the LP has accomplished nothing in 39 years.
I have already responded to Ms. Sara when she made the same false claim, and to “Gen Y in the LP” when she/he made the same false claim.
(6) I see no evidence to back up Mr. Cohen’s claim that Ms. Ruwart wants to, and I’m admittedly taking some liberties with my paraphrase here, rule the LP with an iron fist. I am far more inclined to accept the comments of the anonymous responder, who has presented evidence to back her/his claim.
(7) I am not in a position to pass any judgements against Mr. Starr or Ms. Ruwart at this time. My inclination is that the truth is somewhere in between these two reports.
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
Purge baby purge. Rightists membership only in the PURE LP.
Even using the most base logic-the enemy of my enemy is my friend, my enemies include Root & Starr. Ruwart has recently sided against Root & now Starr. Therefore Ruwart is my friend.
As far as I am concerned the radical anarchist woman libertarian vp for my Independent ticket is first come first served including Ruwart & Keaton.
This does not even mention the Convict persecution resolution by Starr. That convicts be barred from LP offices & candidacies. This would be a defacto colateral attack on my possible getting the LP presidential nomination.
I say remove Starr & install the Phillies slate.
Ms. Ruwart has a track record of being less than accurate when dealing with people she doesn’t like and/or agree with. She’s done it with me. She did it and is doing it with Wayne Root and Aaron Starr.
This is all a personal issue for Mary and she’s going to keep throwing mud until she gets her way.
At which time, she’ll keep throwing mud.
Notice the timing of her attacks on Aaron and Wayne, too.
If she was so truly concerned about these things, why did she wait until a few weeks before the Convention?
How come she didn’t vote against the motions regarding Angela Keaton at the time?
How come she didn’t write a nasty book review about Wayne Root’s COAL best-seller when it came out?
Because it’s not really about that.
This is not about Mary being a watchdog/whistleblower, it’s about her grasping at ‘power’.
Mary is a ‘small pond’ Libertarian who would rather see the party destroyed to keep it ‘Ruwart Pure’, than see it successful.
Ms Ruwart and her views do not represent but a small part of the Libertarian world, of the Libertarian Party nor of the Membership.
She can only play the part of representing the underdog for so long until people figure out what and who she really is.
And that time seems to be coming very soon.
Don,
No, this is not (i.e. both sides of the story) precisely how the LNC operates.
Both sides of any fight can be expected to cast their own gloss on the facts. That’s true of any group, not just the LNC.
The minutes usually aren’t especially helpful — in recent years, the side of an argument with which the LNC’s secretary affiliated has been able to count on that secretary to produce minutes which affirm that side’s gloss.
I have not always supported Dr. Ruwart’s actions on the LNC. In particular, I was disappointed in her for pursuing a non-attainable “collegiality” on the board instead of standing up against the Keaton show trial.
But I wouldn’t say I’ve “turned against her” per Young over it. I’m still hopeful that she’ll seek the 2012 presidential nomination, and of the announced candidates for election or re-election to the LNC at-large positions, she’s certainly among the five I intend to vote for.
Is this (i.e. both sides of the story) how the LNC operates? No wonder the LP has accomplished exactly ZERO in 39 years.
I’d like to know what “former supporters” have turned against Ruwart for her behavior on the LNC. I know some people turned against her for Child Porngate back in early 2008, but since she’s been on the LNC people here seem to be pretty happy with her performance.