Here is more correspondence from the debacle which has been going on in Oregon. The following three articles were found in November 2011 edition of Liberty for America November 2011 .
A history of the situation can be tracked by putting Oregon LP in the search box. then start treading from January 2011.
LNC Secretary Alicia Mattson has, we are told, advised the LNC that there is a disaffiliation request from Oregon, the re-ported text being:
“Chairman Hinkle had in a previous email indicated that 51 people in Oregon had asked the LNC to disaffiliate the LP of Oregon. As LNC Secretary, I am in receipt of that petition re-quest with those signatures. The signers have all been verified as either being sustaining members of the LP or as being LPO members with the best-available membership listing as of the date the Wagner-led LPO State Committee voted to toss the bylaws out the door.”
Mark Hinkle Capitulates to the Jud Com
Dear LNC,
RE: the LPO mess
I’ve been giving this a lot of thought over the weekend and through today. And even lost sleep over it.
I have spoken to many of you privately regarding this mess. I have also talked with dedicated activists that I respect outside of the LNC.
My conclusion is that if any member of the LNC wants to co-sponsor the two Dan Wiener motions, that will be the way to submit it to a mail ballot.
I’m not going to do it.
I’ve come to the conclusion that LPO is a mess that we can’t fix and they can’t fix.
So, to devote any more time, money, and talent to resolving their issues is an unproductive use of my time and any LNC resources.
It’s just too much infighting. I ran for LP Chair to try and bring this sort of thing to a end.
Having the LNC battle the JC and the LPO and incur the wrath of dedicated activists and donors is just not in the best interest of the organization as a whole.
The situation was near hopeless to start with, then JC’s hor-rendously bad decision created a virtual no-win situation for the LNC. We either disaffiliate the LPO and lose ballot status or spend tens of thousands of dollars on a lawsuit that may, or may not, remove the thug Wes Wagner from his illegal claim as the Chair of the LPO. Neither is worth the cost. We have other, higher, priorities to deal with.
I intend to essentially drop it. And I recommend that the LNC also drop it. It has already consumed too much time, tal-ent, and money.
And it’s been way way too decisive.
I know that’s going to infuriate some folks and delight oth-ers.
But, I need to focus on the building fund and hiring a succes-sor to Wes Benedict and everything else on my plate.
Something has got to give and it’s the LPO situation.
What Their Regional Rep Thinks of the Oregon State Party
Mr. Chair — Several thoughts:
First: When you wrote “And it’s been way way too decisive.”, I think you meant “divisive”.
Second, I realize this was not an easy conclusion for you to come to.
Third, the division was created by the outlaw gang in Oregon, though (as you note) it was reinforced by the majority of the JC. However, had the JC made the correct decision, Wagner most certainly would have still cost us money. It’s just the way he operates. His crew practically bankrupted the affiliate and forced them to close their popular and successful storefront office, so pursuing legal action if they had been rebuffed by the JC would have been a near certainty.
Fourth, I believe the outlaw gang that is currently in control of the LPO must be dealt with, and cannot be allowed to enjoy their victory. Doing so will poison every action the LNC and the LP take in accordance with our Bylaws, and will taint the very respect for the voluntary acceptance of reasonable rules that is part of the core libertarian philosophy. Leaving those thugs in control of the LPO will undermine our very legitima-cy, and not just in Oregon.
Fifth, no matter what we might decide in furtherance of trying to solve the problem that is Wagner and his gang, this would have remained a major aggravation to be addressed by the dele-gates at Convention in Las Vegas. And if they are going to HAVE to face this, and might very well reverse any action we take, why should we tread any deeper into that minefield?
Finally, I reluctantly and with substantial misgiving come to the same conclusion you have, and I commend you for the courage it took to make this difficult decision. It is a very bad position to take — but all the others are worse.
Dan Karlan
@ 46 Sorry I meant out-of-LP contributors, people not LP members.
I think the LPO situation will be resolved in its own time… and on its own terms… and when the noise dies down.
In that respect, I concur with Hinkle leaving it as it is.
I’ve looked into this from a clean slate when the time presented itself to do so.
Honestly, I’d be unsure of where to start. But in examining into this from the hypothetical standpoint of an arbiter, I would ask both factions what they do agree on in terms of:
1) Electoral objective
2) Philosophy
3) Facts (even if the only agreement is that the sky is blue)
I’d suggest LPO work from there to make 2012 work. Otherwise, resolution will only occur when one faction tires of fighting with the other.
I’d also suggest that throwing one faction out over the other won’t solve the problem, regardless of which has just claim to the leadership or not.
45 tk, ya know, I don’t have a view on Reeves&Co. and whether they launched a counter-coup or not. I’m a first-things-first sort. A charge was made that Team Wagner launched a coup and is inappropriately in charge of the LPO. I’ve simply asked whether that was true or not. Moulton made the technical case that it’s the case. I found his take persuasive and, thus far, not responded to. The responses have involved a “mitigating circumstances” argument, which I’m open to. However, the MC arguments that I’ve seen from Wagner and sympathizers have been stonewalls (eg disenfranchisement), misdirection (eg irrelevant history) and childishness (eg middle fingers). I’m still open to a MC argument, but I’d like to actually SEE one.
That’s how far I’ve gotten in peeling this onion.
Your process seems different. First, you say it’s no one’s business outside of OR (except for disaffiliation and possibly other, unspecified remedies). To the extent you have a view, you seem to want to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the two factions. I find that to be premature, but whatever works….
I happen to believe that the truth shall set you free. Sweeping untruths under the rug is contra-indicated, IMO. Yet, my guess is that MH may prevail here. Sometimes, punting is indicated.
My concern is that this sort of thing will continue so long as folks think that the ends justify the means. It might be helpful to give that up and go with seeking truth above all else, which I believe is the only way to create win/win situations. The conflict model appears to create a win/lose situation, but more often than not, it creates lose/lose situations. LPO is a classic lose/lose.
Next…
@42 My understanding is that the party asset at the time the Wagenr group took over was in large part a set of bills for about 40K$, which they paid off, and that their cash on hand is the money they are raising.
re Ralph @ 42 as far as I know all of it was paid for by contributors. That’s the only way we get money that I know of. Early on the LPO was getting UMP money, but I have no idea how much.
RC,
Fair enough. But what I’m looking for is the actual appearance of a coup in LPO. If one set of alleged officers had followed the bylaws and the other hadn’t, that would be one thing. Since neither set did, I have to look at the composition of the competing factions (one is all LPO; the other is part LPO and part GOP) and their actions (one faction took immediate action to fix the alleged bylaws problem that the situation was said to have arisen from; the only actions that I’m aware of the other faction taking are a) declaring themselves in charge, and b) seeking the assistance of the LNC in enforcing their writ).
tk, I have this image of Michael Moore’s face super-imposed over Lyndon Johnson’s as he is “sworn in” on Air Force One, flanked by Jackie O and Lady Bird. 😉
I would think that an outgoing officer would go the extra mile to avoid any hint of staging a coup. Proclaiming a “constitutional crisis” is what coup leaders do, after all.
The March on Rome did lead to the trains running on time, so there’s that…
Sorry, typed too fast. Should have been
“In that scenario, was Michael Moore the immediate past vice-president of the United States?”
and
“And was his new administration opposed by an alternative administration composed of …”
@8 Michael, my understanding was the $3K was being paid by out of LP contributors. Did that fall apart/
@Anyone: Where do the Libertarians in public office in the state stand?
RC@39,
I fail to see any significant resemblance between your Michael Moore scenario and the known facts.
In that scenario, was Michael Moore a the vice-president of the US?
And had some constitutional crisis arisen which made it impossible to hold a valid election, or to modify the Constitution to allow for such an election?
And had he set his new administration up in such a way as to address said crisis/inability to move forward?
And was his new administration opposed by an administration opposed by a previous White House chief of staff who had assembled a cabinet composed of citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea rather than of the United States?
more…
Is there a word for “coup beneficiary”?
38 tk, thank you…it’s “stolen,” not stolen.
If, after his coup, Michael Moore operates more or less like his predecessors, what word would we use to describe that behavior? Moore might even be an improvement over Obama, but his administration is still in place due to a coup.
RC@36,
Hold your horses. All I am trying to figure out is where the “allegation” that LPO assets have been “stolen” is coming from, or what it’s based on.
It is in THAT context that I mention that the state of Oregon recognizes the Wagner faction as the LPO, and that the LNC’s Judicial Committee has ruled in general, and has subsequently affirmed specifically, that the Wagner faction is the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon, a ruling and affirmation the LNC appears to have grudgingly accepted that it has to adhere to that ruling.
Absent a reversal of one or both of those facts of record, the Wagner faction is the rightful custodian of LPO assets.
So what I am asking you is whether you have evidence that calls one of those two facts of record into question, or whether you are asserting that the Reeves faction, or some other person or group, have stolen LPO assets.
more…
And, like Wilson, Michael Moore could go through a litany of injustices…Vietnam, the gap in women’s pay, unequal incarceration rates among the races, and Exxon’s profits. None would have any bearing that I can see about whether Moore was the duly elected president.
We might agree with some of Moore’s list, but he’s only president because he staged a coup.
35 tk: The Judicial Committee has ruled that the Wagner faction is also the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon…
me: Where does it say THAT? The JC’s ruling is MUCH narrower than that. It said: the LP “of a particular state…is the entity that is recognized by the secretary of state…” The JC also said the attempt by the LNC and EC to “recognize and empower” Reeves, not Wagner, is “beyond the authority” of the LNC and is void.
There has been no litigation about whether the Wagner group is or is not the duly authorized officers of LPO. It remains an open question. Being registered with the secretary of state is not in dispute.
Given all the misdirection, we still don’t even know what would have happened had the 13 not been — let’s call it — TEMPORARILY disenfranchised.
If Michael Moore were to stage a coup tomorrow, taking over the US government and naming himself president, and the Supreme Court said, Yes, Michael Moore is president, I would say it’s a fact that Michael Moore is president but I would also say that Michael Moore was not duly elected as president. Both can be true statements.
Ya follow?
RC@34,
You keep repeating: “alleged stealing of assets of a state LP.”
What alleged assets were stolen, and by whom?
One more time:
1) State LPs are organized under state election law, and the Wagner faction is recognized under Oregon law as the Oregon LP. All LPO assets are belong to it.
2) The Judicial Committee has ruled that the Wagner faction is also the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon, so any assets which are to be shared between LPO and LNC are in the proper custody, unless the Reeves faction stole them.
26 mhw: Capozzi I am not going to run through the history again since I think it has been fairly well laid out here in the past.
me: Yes, you’ve said that before. I’ve read the history. I don’t see what the history has to do with the disenfranchisement and alleged stealing of assets of a state LP.
My impression is you seem to think that the past injustices justify some palliative. I don’t disagree. What you’ve yet to share is how past injustices justify what the Wagneristas have done. You haven’t even attempted to make the case!!!
I ask you to make the case, and you repeat your report of past injustices.
How d’ya reckon that works?
more…
“in all 50 states” overstates. Should have said something like “in as many states as possible, preferably all 50 states.”
29 tk, yes, I remain open minded that the disenfranchisement (or delayed enfranchisement) was justified. I’ve yet to see Wagner address this, and this charge has been out there for a while now. It’s starting to look MIGHTY suspicious.
As to whether full-blown disaffiliation is the ONLY legit action, in this case I too don’t have enough information. Burning down the village to save it might make sense in some (very rare) circumstances. The LNC, though, does have an implicit fiduciary duty to field a presidential candidate in all 50 states, and to do so financially efficiently. If the LNC burns down the village (through disaffiliation), they run the risk of losing ballot status in OR, especially if Wagner keeps playing Dr. Strangelove. (I stipulate that in Libertarian Heaven, Wagner’s behavior might be unanimously approved of by Lao Tsu, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Jefferson, and Rothbard. At the moment, however, I kinda doubt that.)
27 mhw: Cappozi I don’t think anyone has suggested a crime except you.
me: My bad. I should have put quotes around “crime.” I guess I read too much Walter Block and Stefan Kinsella…
25 ns: At the end of the day, Oregonians will need to sort out the leadership of the Oregon party and it’s A waste of time trying to persuade you (a non-Oregonian) one way or the other. In short, I don’t have all of the facts re: the history, nor the inclination to gather them to persuade you, nor do I think it would help, after observing your responses to those (Wilson, Montoni, Knapp et al) who have tried to enlighten you.
me: Ouch. I am truly sorry you feel that way, Nick. I’d like to think that I am as open-minded as they come. I am open to the possibility that the 20 years of grievances are SO heinous that Wagner et. al. had to do something dramatic to right these long train of abuses. My default position, however, is that two wrongs don’t make a right. I trust that’s clear enough.
I have stipulated that it’s entirely possible that Burke is THE most corrupt/incompetent state LP player out there. From what I’ve seen from Wilson and Wagner, however, none of these longstanding grievances justifies disenfranchisement or stealing of state LP assets.
As for your “none of my business” stance, again, that is my default position as well. In this case, however, a state LP being in effect stolen (allegedly) is CERTAINLY a cause for concern among other Ls. Officers of the LNC seem to agree.
For me personally, it matters not. I’m just participating and sharing ideas about a highly nuanced ethical dilemma. It beats watching TV is how I figger it…
ns: BTW, are you going to be a delegate to the 2012 LP Convention?
me: Highly unlikely. Now, if there were a move afoot to delete or heavily prune the SoP, I might have to find a way to be there. While the extremism of the platform has been largely expunged, the SoP all but ensures that the LP is self-relegated to the fringes.
Consider my comments as they are intended: The sharing of ideas from an interested bystander. That’s all.
Do you have a problem with that?
RC@24,
As I’ve said before: Like you, I’d like to know what was up with the “delayed processing of membership applications” thing and whether the intent was to disenfranchise.
Unlike some others, I don’t place a great deal of emphasis on the long historical argument.
Rather, I accept the argument:
– That the LPO’s bylaws had apparently broken the organization by forcing it into a moribund state with an unreasonable quorum requirement for continuing to function;
– That it therefore became necessary to burn the bylaws village in order to save it;
– That of the two factions with flamethrowers, the Wagner faction’s claim to legitimacy seemed facially superior to the Reeves factions claim; and
– That the LNC’s only legitimate instrument for intervening in the situation was disaffiliation.
My mind is still reasonably open on all of the aforementioned items except the last one, which seems to be a well-settled point in both evidentiary and procedural senses.
@23
Nick is describing the motion to call the Judicial Committee names.
I will add this which I hope will offer a bit of a solution to the problem.
Cappozi I don’t think anyone has suggested a crime except you. That is a bit too far and if I have at some point please let me know. That kind of language should not be used.
There are a few things that can be done to address this issue. I’ll suggest that national has some interest here because if someone sends $25 to national and national then turns their name over to the local group then the local officers act like idiots that $25 that national received will be a onetime only event.
There should be a regular column in the LP news letter explaining what and how things can be done at the local level to grow the organization. Everything from how to use parliamentary rules, fund raising ideas, how to maintain a media list, how to send out news releases, plus many more issues should be covered.
State and local parties should also be recognized for the activism. Those with the best growth numbers and lowest churn should be recognized at the national conventions and rewarded financially. If parties are growing there is less chance that the sort of problems seen in Oregon will occur.
People from the national level also have to be willing to listen to both sides and not become personally involved as has happened in the past in Oregon. Over the years there has been a lot of outside involvement by others who do not know the local issues in the Oregon party.
Basically bad behavior has been rewarded while good behavior has been ignored.
Capozzi I am not going to run through the history again since I think it has been fairly well laid out here in the past. I don’t have the time and it will be of no value.
I don’t live in Oregon, don’t know all of the history, and haven’t been there since the Portland convention. We did take a field trip to the storefront office, it was nice.
At the end of the day, Oregonians will need to sort out the leadership of the Oregon party and it’s A waste of time trying to persuade you (a non-Oregonian) one way or the other.
In short, I don’t have all of the facts re: the history, nor the inclination to gather them to persuade you, nor do I think it would help, after observing your responses to those (Wilson, Montoni, Knapp et al) who have tried to enlighten you.
BTW, are you going to be a delegate to the 2012 LP Convention?
23 ns, thanks for your feedback. What you label “non sequitur” is my attempt to understand how what MH Wilson points to — a long train of abuses since the early 90s — has anything to do with what appears to me to be blatant disenfranchisement and stealing of the LPO and its (non-financial) assets by Team Wagner.
We keep hearing assertions from Wagneristas and their sympathizers that they are righting wrongs from decades ago. That IMO is the non sequitur, e.g., Evil LPO functionary X did Y in 1997, therefore 13 people were denied membership in the LPO in 2011. Or Heinous LPO functionary Y did Z in 2001, therefore Wagner had no choice but to appoint himself Chair with a little help from his friends. Now THOSE are non sequiturs!
Wilson won’t or can’t explain how he connects these dots…perhaps you can…
Non sequitur. The LNC is empowered only to affiliate/disaffiliate state parties and has no other powers in the bylaws with respect to those parties.
BTW, there’s currently a motion being voted on by the LNC to express their sense that the Judicial Committee’s actions were outside the scope of the bylaws, improper, and tainted by conflict of interest.
I’d advise the delegates to pay close attention to those who feel that this is an appropriate use of the time and efforts of the LNC and vote accordingly.
20 mm: But I guess misbehavior isn’t egregious when it is one’s partisan factional hacks who are engaging in it.
me: You could guess that, but unless someone has told you that they overlook only the egregious behavior of their allies, you’d be speculating…I suggest.
Consider this thought experiment: Assume Burke is the most vicious, criminal, underhanded, [fill in the blank] operator in the LP. Assume Reeves is a fool, tool, puppet, [fill in the blank] of Burke’s. Historically, these forces of darkness, these right-wing opportunists, have committed numerous crimes against liberty.
Now, explain how that has any bearing on the actions of Posse Wagner?
Now, explain how two wrongs make a right.
BTW, the complaint is that the LNC has overlooked the LPO’s criminal enterprise prior to this year, but isn’t the LNC made up of individuals? Don’t the people who sit in the chairs change fairly frequently? Who complained to the LNC in 1995 about Burke’s crimes, and to whom? In 2000? In 2005? What was the outcome of those complaints? Who is on the LNC today that was on the LNC in those years and the years in between?
Has any LNC member been on the LNC throughout this period? (Lark, Ruwart, Redpath seem to have some longevity…others?) Did Wagner complain specifically to this person?
@8 …$3,000 o month??!! holy effin jah you could get alot done with that money , all more important than a freakin office …
The problem is that the LPO situation attracted the attention of the LNC years too late.
Those on the LNC who now cry “foul!” now should have been paying attention several years ago, when it was Burke and his supporters who were practicing the art of active exclusion of anyone who didn’t march in lockstep, and playing games with the rules.
But I guess misbehavior isn’t egregious when it is one’s partisan factional hacks who are engaging in it.
Wagner and company used the nuclear option because they saw no other choice. I happen to disagree on their solution, but I’m not there.
My view from the outside is, from their perspective, they’d spent years dealing with state party leadership that marginalized and ignored them.
It would have been better for them to simply get involved in a different organization to work towards their goal of a free society, and remove their contributions and support from the LP that didn’t want them, rather than fighting what will be a losing war for everyone.
Burke’s group would have withered and died anyway, without any action by anyone else. His behavior, like supporting Republicans and other weirdness, would eventually have pushed so much of his support away that even he would have left, without so much as a “by your leave”.
16 jp: Did anyone ever see a comment by Wes Wagner regarding Alicia Mattson’s version of what happened?
me: I have not seen WW response to AM’s disenfranchisement charges. He has in the past used IPR to make his case, but thus far…radio silence. It’s starting to look more and more suspicious, but the fair-minded can wait a bit more to hear his side of the story…
15 mhw: Robert its ’cause you ain’t listenin’.
me: Hmm, it seems you’re quite sure of yourself and you certainty of your opinion.
A murderer may claim that he murdered because he was not breast fed, too…. I do miss that sort of “logic,” yes.
14 tk, right. The LNC is acting in a fiduciary manner when it assesses whether its affiliates should remain so. If the LNC chooses to disaffiliate an affiliate, it also can consider the consequences. That is certainly the LNC’s business, and the national LP’s business, in the sense that having a unified ticket running nationwide presents a stronger option for voters who want more liberty and less coercion.
When the LP ticket is inconsequential, I would suggest it doesn’t all that much matter. 2012 COULD be a year in which the LP’s candidate COULD be consequential if RP decided to continue his campaign for president as a L. GJ, in my view, not so much (although I prefer him ideologically). JV, about the same as GJ, and at this moment I think I’d prefer RP ideologically only because JV is a conspiracy theorist. He’s a pistol, though…interesting.
All these are remote but conceivable outcomes. If it weren’t, I might advise MH to stand up to the terrorism. I’m more cautious about standing up to the terrorism if it would jeopardize my ideal 2012 LP ticket of Paul/Johnson.
I just don’t have enough information to take firm position. I do, however, take a firm position against disenfranchisement, procedural monkey business, ill will, and childish communications.
Did anyone ever see a comment by Wes Wagner regarding Alicia Mattson’s version of what happened? If not, does someone know him well enough to ask him about it?
Robert its ’cause you ain’t listenin’.
RC @ 7,
I see where the disconnect is: You’re conflating LNC ballot access in Oregon (for the LNC’s presidential nominee) with ballot access for the LPO as such.
They are not the same thing.
The LPO is the LP in Oregon, period. Whether or not the LNC is also the LP in Oregon is entirely dependent upon whether the LPO remains affiliated with the LNC.
As far as “transition to a rightful LPO” is concerned, the Wagner faction’s claim to already being the rightful LPO seems to me much stronger than the Reeves faction’s. But that’s an internal matter, and none of my business … or the LNC’s.
mhw, of course, there are people who blame their lot in life on their parents, their race, their gender, their high school, blah blah blah.
Maybe they are correct. Maybe there IS causality.
I’m not seeing it…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq60_Wxx5T0
I’ll let Bono and U2 give my response.
Frankly Robert they have everything to do with now. If you are unwilling to look back at past history and see what led up to the present problem you will never remove the root of the problem.
I will grant you there were some bad P.R. moves by the other side, but they compare little to what has been going on over the years.
9 mhw: “…back to the early ’90s…”
me: I’d rather not waste my time unless you can SOMEHOW give me how what happened 20 years ago has ANYTHING to do with disenfranchising LP prospects; sending flaming-middle-fingers; and stealing the LPO…just because…
I’d suggest getting over 20 year grievances that have nothing to do with now.
RC # 7 Robert to get a fuller understanding of this issue you would have to go back to the early ’90s and that isn’t going to happen.
I can tell you about poor record keeping, misspent funds, out of the way conventions being held as outreach events where little or no outreach was done.
Taking people money as a membership fee and then making it difficult for them to attend conventions, or playing games with the rules when they do is not acceptable. That is just as much theft as taking it out of your wallet.
I was involved in the LPO from about 1989 until 2005. During that time I held a number of positions in the party. With that said I will state that I probably have a better understanding of the history of this dispute, which began in the early ‘90s, than Mr. Karlan has.
In reference to Wes Wagner Mr. Karlan has written “His crew practically bankrupted the affiliate and forced them to close their popular and successful storefront office…”
Many of us were against the office which costs about $3000 a month plus utilities. It was not popular and it was a drain on the finances. In my opinion it was not by any stretch successful. It was simply a place that Mr. Burke could play in daily.
I suggest going to the Secretary of State’s website and reviewing the expenses.
Those of us who do not live in Oregon should stay the hell out of this issue and let Oregon Libertarians solve it.
5 tk, I get the idea from the MH email, where he states: “We either disaffiliate the LPO and lose ballot status…”
I understood but disagreed with the “constructive disaffiliation” move. I’m of the understanding that if the LNC actually disaffiliates LPO, WW has threatened to jeopardize any transition to a rightful LPO organization were that to happen…a nuclear option that MH says would cost tens of thousands to rectify. Am I mistaken? Is he mistaken?
I’d need to get a fuller grasp of the expenses involved to have an opinion, but if I have this part scoped, this sounds like giving in to a form of terrorism. I’d be inclined to press against this, after first appealing to WW’s right mind to desist in the name of liberty.
Of course, there is an open question of whether there are 75% for disaffiliation. Were I on the LNC and disaffiliation failed (despite what surely looked to be a blatant disenfranchisement of prospective LP members), I’d probably resign, laying out my reasons for doing so. Accepting this sort of flaming-middle-finger behavior is not something I’d care to waste my time with…but that’s just me…
Time heals all wounds, and wounds all heels.
RC@3,
I’m not sure where you get the idea that Wagner “threatened the LPO and the entire LP with losing ballot access in this important election cycle.”
The LPO has ballot access, and is in fact running a candidate for Congress in a special election right now.
The LPO would have continued to have ballot access even if the LNC EC’s attempt at constructive disaffiliation of LPO had not been overturned.
The only ballot access at risk in Oregon was the LNC presidential candidate’s, and that was put at risk by the EC’s attempt to constructively disaffiliate LPO, not by Wagner.
It does appear that the Wag faction hijacked the LP of Oregon . So much for the non-initiation of FORCE. They forced themselves onto the LP of Oregon and took it over.
Is this the tip of the iceberg or do other LP affiliates have their sh– together with bylaws and procedures to prevent “thugs” from taking over in a forceful manner?
2 teeth, I agree that the use of the word “thug” is unfortunate and counterproductive. If MH washes his hands of the LPO mess, why take a potshot at WW as a last jab? What purpose does that serve?
None that I can see. Restoring civility requires civility.
Now, if MH wanted to simply be on record, he could have said that he didn’t believe WW is the duly elected Chair of LPO, and has — in effect — threatened the LPO and the entire LP with losing ballot access in this important election cycle, that would IMO have been an appropriate communication.
Throwing one last elbow was not indicated….
the thug Wes Wagner from his illegal claim as the Chair of the LPO.
I believe the outlaw gang … Leaving those thugs in control of the LPO … trying to solve the problem that is Wagner and his gang,
Nice that these gentlemen are not being “divisive” and are instead impartial and even-handed in their language.
LfA has been electronically mailed, paper mail is headed toward the USPS, and I will have the web issue up tonight.