Sloan: Who Are the Five?

From an article at Tom Stevens’ blog, “Liberty Lion”:

http://mce.csail.mit.edu/institute/self-help-best-help-essay/21/ writing instructions for children best place to buy essays watch click tu delft ewi master thesis https://childrenofthecaribbean.org/plan/literature-review-writer-for-hire-usa/05/ buyscienceessays com esl biography ghostwriters service for university https://thedsd.com/research-papers-on-abstract-algebra/ happiness concept essay sex pills like viagra academic assignment writing college essay examples why i want to go to this school doctor profession essay buy little blue pill why can't i send email from my iphone 7 plus click here personal statement https://pittsburghgreenstory.com/newyork/thesis-proposal-defense-format/15/ follow url source link 10 minute viagra approved by fda help with popular definition essay on founding fathers follow url dissertation michigan example of term papers english grammar thesis statement http://admissions.iuhs.edu/?page_id=edsupply-canada enter site top mba definition essay topic Sam Sloan Demands Carla Howell Release The Names Of The 5 Libertarian National Committee Members Who Voted In Favor Of Listing Each Of The Other LP Presidential Candidates At LP.ORG.

Sam Sloan, an announced Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, who met all the published criteria for being listed on the national party’s website at lp.org, was told by Carla Howell, LP Executive Director, on January 24, 2012 that “all presidential candidates must obtain the approval of at least five LNC members to be listed at the lp.org web site”.

Currently, the following six candidates are listed as 2012 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates at lp.org:

Roger Gary
R.J. Harris
Gary Johnson
Carl Person
Bill Still
Lee Wrights

Sam Sloan has demanded Carla Howell “release the names of the Libertarian National Committee members who voted for the listing of each of the presidential candidates, the dates on which said votes were cast and proof of the manner in which said votes were cast”.

Sam Sloan added:

I have observed such chicanery before where officials in power abuse their authority, ignore bylaw provisions, or outright lie to obtain a result they seek, no matter what means they need to employ to bring about their desired goal. It reminds me of a story I heard about Jim Davidson, who when Chair of the Boston Tea Party, closed the voting on an important motion early by unilaterally announcing he was shifting the time zone from Eastern to Atlantic so as to prevent some National Committee members from casting a vote in a manner not acceptable to him. That particular abuse of power resulted in all the members of four chartered chapters resigning en masse.

This situation is not very different. I met all the criteria for being listed as a 2012 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate and simply because some in the party might not want me listed (and I believe I know who they are), a new barrier was announced to justify my exclusion. Let me be clear. I do not believe the other listed candidates were formally approved in the manner described by Carla Howell. To quote George Phillies of the Massachusetts Libertarian Party, “She has made up a new criterion, one which she is not applying to other candidates”.

It is my belief that all Libertarian Party members seeking the Presidential Nomination should be listed on the national website. If they wish to require some objective criteria such as that a candidate be a member of the national LP or have a website with contact information, that is reasonable. However, when the LP starts to take sides in the contest and only lists candidates with “insider” support, they deny Libertarian Party members the opportunity to get the information they need to decide who to support. As for who should be allowed to participate in Presidential Debates at the upcoming Libertarian Party National Convention, I would again set the bar low, perhaps allowing all candidates to participate in an initial debate followed by a requirement that a candidate get 20 delegates to support their candidacy before being permitted to participate in future debates. 

This whole issue is one of philosophy. If you believe in top down control where your Libertarian National Committee members are the guardians of promoting a particular, purified, public imagine, then you have the result. If you support, as I do, an open process, maximum participation, principled positions on issues and bottom-up activism, then I am your man.

See the original article (and comments) here.

 

47 thoughts on “Sloan: Who Are the Five?

  1. Brian Holtz

    Liberty Lion also quotes Sloan thus: How will LNC members decide whether I should be listed? Will it be based on my ideological purity? Will it be based on whether I might be an embarrassment to the LP because I support decriminalizing polygamy? Will I not be listed because some think Muslims can’t be Libertarians or because I sued the New York State Libertarian Party for the serious improprieties I observed during the 2010 gubernatorial nominating process?

    Some of these questions seem to be of the self-answering variety — and these are just the questions that Sloan offers in his defense.

    Nevertheless, I think a candidate should be listed if they can get something like 5% endorsement (or maybe 15% approval) among any group such as LNC members, state chairs, life members, or delegates to the previous NatCon. Sort of like the 10% standing second rule we have at convention.

  2. paulie

    Legalizing polygamy/polyandry among consenting adults seems to me to be a pro-liberty issue, albeit an esoteric one. I seem to recall that at least one town of polygamist fundamentalist Mormons went Libertarian back in the 1980s.

    Sloan doesn’t mention here what could be interpreted as support for legalizing bestiality, especially in light of the company he keeps. While there can be some legitimate argument over whether bestiality is an initiation of force, it strikes me as extremely foolish to have that argument in the context of a political campaign.

    I don’t think Sloan’s religion should be held against him in any way.

    Suing the LPNY may well be held against him. I understand that some LP members may wish to sue affiliates that they believe conduct dishonest internal elections, but it seems to me to be a bad way of handling the problem.

    Regardless of what you think of Sloan, the process question he raises here is a legitimate one.

  3. Marc Montoni

    I seem to recall that at least one town of polygamist fundamentalist Mormons went Libertarian back in the 1980s.

    Almost, but not quite.

    Alex Joseph and his wives were definitely polygamists, but they weren’t Mormons and definitely not fundamentalists:

    The same town then elected long-time LP activist Willy Marshall to the mayor’s office.

    As an aside, unfortunately it seems like some of the original live-and-let-live character has left town, as it is now regulating what I and other old-car hobbyists call “yard art” (what the town busybodies and bureaucrats call “junk cars”).

  4. Ad Hoc

    The link says

    Alex Joseph (1936 – September 27, 1998) (born Alec Richard Joseph; also referred to as Ronald Ellison)[1] was an outspoken polygamist and founder of the Confederate Nations of Israel, Mormon fundamentalist sect.

  5. Ad Hoc

    Which five LNC members supported Bill Still’s inclusion? Carl Person’s? It would be interesting to know,

    BTW just checked and neither the list of candidates nor the list of criteria has been changed.

  6. Eric Sundwall

    Sloan offers any organization an interesting libertarian dilemma. On the one hand, a private organization can exclude people it chooses not to associate with (he was booted from the LPNY and the Manhattan LP). On the other, a libertarian outfit ought to be as permissive and welcoming to all sorts as possible. Sam can be a very disturbing and uncomfortable person to many. His question to Bob Barr about the Clinton impeachment being simply about a fellatio at the 2008 LPNY convention might be a good example. There was some nitpicking about him nibbling cupcakes and not paying . . .

    In this case, he has presumably met the criteria set to have his candidacy listed and the LP has moved the goal line now. Continuing to deny him may very well do more harm then by simply listing him. That contention is not a capitulation that threats or fraudulent claims should be legitimized. It’s not clear that is the case yet, but in my estimation it’s quite possible. One of his affidavits to the court claimed I had never attended a national convention, despite being elected to the LNC at Portland four years previous.

    In NY he was denied the LPNY membership list prior to the convention and had a fit. Despite stating that he would not continue to attack Warren at the convention he proceeded to have a meltdown and compelled the party to court on numerous occasions, making very spurious claims about the same process that he seemed to yield to in 2006 when he got one vote, his own, for governor. Once the madam didn’t show, the anti-Redlich faction lead by a certain evil doctor, simply backed Sam. He never had any recourse with the other members from chapters he never visited (ie Hudson Valley, CDLP & Greater Rochester) however doubtful the effect would have had.

    He should have been provided the list (all the CDLP got his letter prior to the convention and also others) by the Chair at the time and a judge agreed. His further claims in court about the convention process were denied repeatedly. He simply didn’t have the votes and invented a wholly new narrative that Roger Stone aped later on. Sam also gave Stone the idea for the sexual predator ad, which was a result of Sam’s obsessive pouring over of Warren’s blog.

    For many in the LP, they may have to accept the occasional uncomfortable candidate for the sake of maintaining principle. Despite what might considered due cause and consideration, I have no problem letting the chips fall where the may in regard to Sam. His candidacy will be meaningless and unsupported. A marvelous train wreck to observe I’m sure. Remember Finan? Pure political poetry. I want the whole show, not a watered down march to the promised land of the five percenters and that 90 mil piece of imaginary fraudulent fruit.

  7. Dan Reale

    How about this? If we’re going to limit who can be listed on the national LP site, why not do it by the affirmative vote of at least five LP state central committees? After all, the delegates come from the state affiliates to pick the nominee…

  8. Thane Eichenauer

    There are some candidates that I am happy have been filtered from the “official” list. That said I think that if you are going to change the rules you should tell all those who may be filtered and avoid changing the rules once you set them. Sam Sloan may not be my favorite pick but it is disappointing to have the national LP changes the rules so readily.

    I was happy to see the national LP do outreach at the Colbert rally but am disappointed in this latest example of why an average challenged American can find better ways to support freedom than by sending it to Washington, DC.

  9. Marc Montoni

    @ Ad Hoc in #4:

    The link says

    Alex Joseph (1936 – September 27, 1998) (born Alec Richard Joseph; also referred to as Ronald Ellison)[1] was an outspoken polygamist and founder of the Confederate Nations of Israel, Mormon fundamentalist sect.

    Read the article. While he could have been defined as a fundamentalist in the sixties, by the seventies he wasn’t. According to the Wikipedia article: “Joseph’s exposure to Mormon fundamentalist groups eventually led him to see them as oppressive and corrupt.”

    If you read some of the linked articles, it is plain that by the late seventies he could not be regarded as a fundamentalist, or even a Mormon — he described himself as a Christian.

  10. Melty

    Polygamy and polyandry should be legal, but I’m not in favor of including it in the Party Platform. It doesn’t make the top forty list of worthwhile talking points for a candidate either. Still, it’s a libertarian position.
    Why not just put the guy on the list and be done with it?

  11. paulie

    The posted criteria have now been updated. Sloan claims he still qualifies, at least until 2/3/12.

    Melty – pretty much my point above exactly.

    Marc – I read the article, and it says he was fundamentalist Mormon. I may post quotes later.

  12. Let the T-Rex of Talk Radio Entertain U2day

    Seven Questions fror LP members! With roughly 100 days until the convention, what are you Ls thinking about the LP POTUS race.

    1. Is the nomination a foregone conclusion ?

    2. How many candidates (and which ones) will officially be nominated this year ?

    3. Will the balloting go past the first Vote ?

    4. Will this be the year the LP breaks it records in votes and money RAISED ?

    5. (If no one else enters) Can you enthusiasticly support any of the current candidates with your money and your grassroots activism, and if so which ONES (If Ron Paul enters would you support him over all current candidates) ?

    6. Can you agree that a balanced ticket (a P and VP representing ALL [sides] wings of the LP) is much better for Party building and moral (than a ticket like ’08 which had two former but recent Republican Party members ) or would a “celeb” ticket be best (Clint Eastwood/Penn Julette) or perhaps gov’t experience matters more (Paul/Johnson) to you ?

    7. And finally what would be your ideal ticket for ’12 of the current announced and also (of anyone you could choose) overall ?

    Thank you for participating (and if you are a LP member I HOPE you will participate) roughly 100 days out !!! Also please let us know if you will be a delegate this year.

    I apologizing for using this thread for this, but I don’t have the power to start a new thread, and as the Open thread is OVERLOADED as is, and Mr. Sloan’s (and others) dilemma is being discussed throughly here and “elsewhere” I hope no one objects.

  13. Sane LP Member

    Mr. Sloan should articulate his vision for the country, how he would handle foreign affairs, the military, the economy, etc. Is this the guy we want to represent the free world. Is this the guy we want to stand eye to eye with Putin.
    Is this the guy we want on stage with Obama and Romney-Newt

  14. Gene Berkman

    I actually think some kind of filtering would be useful to keep kooks out of the media spotlight as “Libertarian candidates.” In 1996 Charles Collins was allowed into the LP Presidential candidates debate, and it just detracted from the seriousness of the Presidential candidate forum at the national convention.

    I don’t know enough about Sam Sloan to know if he is a kook, but the fact that he sued a Libertarian Party affiliate would be adequate reason to keep him off the lp.org website.

    Also if someone reported the Libertarian Party or one of its candidates to the FEC, I think such a person should not get publicity through Libertarian websites or publications.

  15. Brian Holtz

    1) I’d give Johnson a 95% chance of beating the current field.

    2) Johnson and Wrights are a lock to get their 30 nominating tokens. Gary and Harris are very likely to also get 30. I’d be surprised if more than one of the rest of the current field could get 30.

    3) I’d be surprised if Johnson didn’t win on the first ballot against this field. It would require some kind of campaign blunder, or some event related to Ron Paul, or a mis-handling of his Fair Tax Achille’s heel.

    4) It should be close, but AE is a wild card that could help or hurt.

    5) I’d be shocked if my fellow delegates nominated a candidate I couldn’t enthusiastically support.

    6) Balance is a concern, but not my top one. I go by who will most effectively promote the Libertarian brand as the principled and sane alternative to Left and Right.

    7) From the current field, I guess Johnson/Gary would be my choice. If I had a magic wand to make a living person willing (and the right age) to take the LP nomination, I would wave it at (in roughly this order): Stossel, Paul, Thiel, Napolitano, Munger, Rogers, Clark, Friedman, Johnson, Root, Gray, Sarwark, Ruwart, Badnarik, Kubby.

  16. Confirmed what I already knew

    LP friend told me to read this. Now I know why LP isn’t taken seriously. LOL. These LP candidates like sex with animals? LP is so internal-focused and probably doesn’t care about so-called “average” citizens. Pretty obvious with some of these comments. Wow, scary stuff.

  17. Chuck Moulton

    Brian Holtz wrote (@21):

    7) From the current field, I guess Johnson/Gary would be my choice. If I had a magic wand to make a living person willing (and the right age) to take the LP nomination, I would wave it at (in roughly this order): Stossel, Paul, Thiel, Napolitano, Munger, Rogers, Clark, Friedman, Johnson, Root, Gray, Sarwark, Ruwart, Badnarik, Kubby.

    Interesting list. My list would be much the same, except juggled around a bit with a bunch of names added.

    My list (in order): John Stossel, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, John Allison, John Mackey, Walter Williams, Richard Epstein, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, Rand Paul, Peter Thiel, Judge Napolitano, David Friedman, David Boaz, Tom Palmer, Tom Woods, Michael Munger, T.J. Rogers, Jacob Hornberger, Ed Clark, Judge Gray, Nick Sarwark, Michael Badnarik, Barry Hess, Jim Lark, Bill Redpath, Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, George Phillies.

  18. Ad Hoc

    I am advised that lists of 5 are being collected now.

    By the candidates? Or LPHQ?

    However, most LNC members have not yet responded to the inquiry.

    Not surprising. I’d be interested to know which LNC members approve which candidates.

  19. Robert Capozzi

    Thiel is not native born, is my understanding.

    The Bylaws say: “No candidate may be nominated for President or Vice-President who is ineligible under the United States Constitution….”

    PT has the smarts, is articulate, is L (though I’m not sure he’s in the LP), and has some serious gwap, but I don’t think he is eligible.

  20. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@29,

    The Constitution lists no eligibility requirements for vice-president; it does specify a procedure for choosing a new president if the current one dies and the VP is unqualified to replace him. The reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that anyone is constitutionally qualified for VP, even if not for president.

    Also, the bylaws don’t specify eligibility for what. To serve as president or VP? To be elected president or VP? To be on the ballot for election as president or VP? That last one is presumably not unconstitutional, since it has happened before.

  21. Robert Capozzi

    tk 30, thanks, I stand corrected. Interesting wrinkle. By all means, put Thiel on the short list!

  22. paulie

    TK, 12th Amdt: But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

  23. paulie

    Also, the bylaws don’t specify eligibility for what.

    I think it is pretty clear what the intent of the bylaw is. Otherwise, it’s a meaningless collection of words.

    Nominating someone who is ineligible to serve may be OK for the PSL, but I don’t think it’s OK for an LP that wants to pretend to be taken seriously.

  24. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote (@31):

    25 cm, Lee and Amash are…interesting. What’s your thinking there?

    Both are fairly libertarian: Republican Liberty Caucus endorsed, pro-civil liberties, anti-war. The Campaign for Liberty promotes both along with Ron and Rand. I saw Lee speak at the Federalist Society national lawyers convention and I saw Amash speak at the Republican Liberty Caucus national convention. They both were excellent speakers who emphasized liberty. I’ve been following all of Amash’s congressional votes on Facebook and I consistently agree with him except for his pro-life stance.

  25. Robert Capozzi

    35 cm, thanks. As a practical matter, a GJ/Lee or Amash would entail a ticket of very recent converts from R to L. Are you saying that the “heavy-weight” aspect of such a ticket trumps what GP calls the “carpetbagger” factor for you? They are not at the top of you list, but in the top 10.

  26. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote (@36):

    35 cm, thanks. As a practical matter, a GJ/Lee or Amash would entail a ticket of very recent converts from R to L. Are you saying that the “heavy-weight” aspect of such a ticket trumps what GP calls the “carpetbagger” factor for you? They are not at the top of you list, but in the top 10.

    I wasn’t talking a VP for Johnson. I was giving an ordered list of presidential nominees I’d support, if they were eligible and interested in the LP nomination (responding to Brian Holtz who was doing the same). Most of them would have no interest in the LP nomination. A few aren’t eligible for age or birthplace reasons.

    Looking for a VP would mean very different criteria. Ticket balance would depend on the presidential nominee and what the VP could bring to the table to complement him or her. For Johnson I’d like to see a rich libertarian VP who could put a few million dollars into the campaign.

  27. paulie

    http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/2012-libertarian-presidential-candidates

    Requirements revised 1/31:

    The above candidates have met the following criteria as presidential candidates for the Libertarian Party nomination:

    Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
    Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
    Campaign website is current with contact information
    Obtained the approval of at least five members of the 18-member Libertarian National Committee.

    It appears all six of the previously listed candidates got at least 5 LNC members to approve them staying on the website, and the requirements about filing with the FEC and raising certain amounts of money by certain dates have been removed.

  28. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie@33,

    Doh! I stand corrected. I jumped directly to the 24th Amendment to see if anything had been slipped in there, forgetting that the original electoral scheme had been modified in the 12th.

    In any case, ineligibility to hold the office does not seem to be, on the basis of past precedent, a bar to being listed on the ballot for election to the office.

    Presumably this is because one’s name on the ballot is just a placeholder; the people actually being elected by the popular vote are the members of the electoral college.

  29. Rob Banks

    That’s true.

    But I don’t think the LP would be taken as seriously if it pulled a PSL move and ran an ineligible candidate.

  30. JT

    Chuck: “For Johnson I’d like to see a rich libertarian VP who could put a few million dollars into the campaign.”

    I think anyone would like to see that in a VP for any Libertarian candidate for President who isn’t fabulously wealthy himself.

  31. Rob Banks

    Th rumor is that it actually will happen this time. I don’t know if the rumor is true, but supposedly they have someone in mind who agreed to do it.

  32. Rob Banks

    Speaking of ineligibility, I heard second hand that some states are threatening not to put Gary Johnson on the ballot if he wins the Libertarian nomination because he was listed as a candidate in their Republican primary, even though Richard Winger has said that sore loser laws don’t apply to presidential candidates.

    Anyone know more about this?

  33. Chuck Moulton

    JT wrote (@41):

    Chuck: “For Johnson I’d like to see a rich libertarian VP who could put a few million dollars into the campaign.”

    I think anyone would like to see that in a VP for any Libertarian candidate for President who isn’t fabulously wealthy himself.

    No, if there was a presidential candidate with higher name recognition and more demonstrated fundraising prowess (e.g., Ron Paul), I’d prefer a VP for ticket balance that didn’t emphasize wealth (e.g., Gary Johnson, Walter Williams, John Stossel, Rand Paul, Mike Lee).

  34. JT

    Chuck: “No, if there was a presidential candidate with higher name recognition and more demonstrated fundraising prowess (e.g., Ron Paul), I’d prefer a VP for ticket balance that didn’t emphasize wealth (e.g., Gary Johnson, Walter Williams, John Stossel, Rand Paul, Mike Lee).”

    Point taken.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *