Reeves LPO Convention Delegates Letter; Comments from Mark Vetanen

The Reeves faction of the Oregon Libertarian Party has put out the following letter, presumably sent to and/or to be distributed to national convention delegates:

Reeves-LPO-Convention-Delegates-Letter.pdf

The letter was forwarded to IPR by Mark Vetanen of the other LPO faction, who adds

“A rather bizarre letter from Tim Reeves aka Richard Burke. We know that Burke writes this stuff and Aaron Star funds it.
Read the letter yourself and you will see it is a strange letter with a lot of false facts and their conjectures about what is happening, and it ends up in a full on attack of Lee Wrights!

Named in the Letter is Wes Wagner, Jeff Weston, George Phillies, Mary Ruwart and Lee Wrights.

Keep in mind that the Oregon State Committee is composed of 9 persons, of one that Wes Wagner only has one vote. Wes could not just adopt new bylaws himself….this is the story that Reeves does not want you to know. That the Oregon Bylaws where so horribly broken that even M Carling Called for new bylaws – See the VIDEO:”

Both Mr. Reeves’ claims in the letter and Mr. Vetanen’s claims in the forward above are highly controversial, and IPR is not taking a position on the veracity of either side – just presenting them to the readers so they can make up their own mind.

One factual claim in Mr. Reeves’ letter that I think I can address without editorializing is that Mary Ruwart is running for another term on the LNC. The information I have received is that she is not. Readers are free to confirm or deny this, and other factual claims made by Mr. Reeves and Mr. Vetanen, in the comments.

-paulie

54 thoughts on “Reeves LPO Convention Delegates Letter; Comments from Mark Vetanen

  1. Jill Pyeatt

    Wow, the mud-slinging continues.

    Calling Dr. Ruwart “Ms. Ruwart” is a subtle way of
    making sure she seems less competent. Just that deliberate error is enough to make me doubt everything. said in the letter. Plus, isn’t she planning on not running for At-Large?

    If the Reeves group thinks this will convince delegate goers that they’re right, well, good luck. It wouldn’t (doesn’t) convince me.

  2. paulie Post author

    Plus, isn’t she planning on not running for At-Large?

    That’s what I’ve heard. Not sure where. May have been Phillies.

  3. Richard P. Burke

    All,

    A couple of things about this letter. It is not mine, as Mr. Vetanen asserts, but the result of a collaborative effort including Mr. Reeves, the legitimate LPO Chair who signed the letter. Mr. Reeves is the head of Oregon’s Tenth Amendment Law Center and quite competent to do his own work and make his own decisions.

    Mr. Vetanen seemed to have no substantive retort to the letter itself other that to claim that Wes Wagner could not act alone on behalf of the LPO state committee, which we never claimed he did.

    Instead, we pointed out that Mr. Wagner and his associates purported to adopt new bylaws, without notice to the members, at a regular State Committee meeting rather than at a state convention as our bylaws require. If anything, Mr. Vetanen’s retort underscores this point.

    Mr. Vetanen also provides a video of M Carling saying that the LPO’s legitimate governing documents are the worst he knows of in the LP. This is not a retort as Mr. Carling’s opinions, which are sometimes controversial in their own right, are irrelevant to thus dispute and do nothing to alter the fact that the Wagner bylaws were not properly adopted in convention. But if Mr. Carling’s opinions are to be considered relevant by Mr. Vetanen, he should know that Mr. Carling believes that the Wagner bylaws are even worse than the legitimate ones.

    Whatever the strengths or shortcomings of the LPO’s bylaws might be, the process for amending them is fairly standard and very clear. They are also the legitimate governing documents of the LPO and we do not want to start building a culture within the LP where people condone others constituting coups and taking the law into our own hands because they don’t like our rules.

    The ends do not justify the means, and we cannot expect Americans to trust us to obey and decent the US Constitution if we cannot even be trusted to obey and defend our own rules.

    About Mary Ruwart – if she is not running for an LNC position, then fine. We’ll see. But the stuff about Lee Weights is dead spot on… His conflicts of interest in this matter are obvious to the point wherebthey command stipulation.

    Richard P. Burke

  4. Marc Montoni

    The Reeves/Burke/Starr/Holtz (RBSCH) faction is still basing its claims on the ‘continued convention’ where it elected Reeves et al.

    However, the group *still* needs to come up with some documentation that the (3? 5?) county chairs who were alleged to be the only remaining members of the state committee, were duly elected by their county parties, within their allotted time frame (ie if your bylaws require annual elections, but the last time a convention was called to elect officers was ten years ago), and so on.

    Documentation requirements go both ways.

    If your county LP hasn’t had an election within the required time frame, it is in ‘continuing breach’ of procedure and the organization needs to bring itself into compliance with its own rules before presuming to challenge compliance with the rules of other parts of the organization.

    And don’t forget that producing documents that were created after the fact will be considered fraud before the court.

    The Virginia LP does not have its own state membership “Life” category; however, we treat anyone who is a Life member of National and who is both resident of and domiciled within Virginia, as a current state LP member. In essence, we can also be said to have “disenfranchised” national Life member Virginians who have moved out of state. Therefore I find that part of the RBSCH argument unpersuasive.

    … especially since it seems likely that the main complainant on the Life Member question is an individual who is a “member” of several state parties and who, when he participates in the affairs of those parties, tends to ham up the proceedings.

  5. Richard P. Burke

    Jell @1,

    About the letter convincing you, I would like to ask you a few of questions:

    1. When Mr. Wagner’s group attempted to replace the LPO’s governing documents, do you dispute our charge that it was done at a State Committee meeting without notice to the members – rather than at a convention as our bylaws and constitution require?

    2. If you dispute this charge, on what basis do you dispute it?

    3. If you do not dispute this charge, is doing business that way okay with you?

    Thanks,

    Richard P. Burke

  6. Richard P. Burke

    Sorry about the typos in my previous posts. Damned predictive typing.

    Richard P. Burke

  7. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Montoni @ 4,

    A few things:

    First, your post does not address the matter of whether or not Mr. Wagner’s group properly amended the LPO’s governing documents to begin with in accordance with the LPO’s Constitution and Bylaws. That is the core issue here. Understandably, Wagner supporters repeatedly attempt to draw attention from this point.

    Second, some if not all of the paperwork you allude to exists. Whether or not it is relevant to the pending case is another matter.

    Third, even if Affiliated County Parties associated with the Reeves group were not operating in accordance with their own bylaws (which I doubt), recourse for such lapses are dealt with in the Legitimate LPO Bylaws including affiliate termination. Those processes were never initiated by the Weston or Wagner administration prior to March 31, 2011, so no basis would exist to declare them “invalid.” Certainly, during the March 31, 2011 meeting, the Clatsop, Washington, and Yamhill county representatives were all seated and permitted to cast votes under the Wagner-led State Committee.

    The above being the case, I think it would be quite a challenge to argue that the county reps at the State Committee meeting following the May 21st, 2011 session of the LPO convention were not empowered to appoint LPO members to fill officer vacancies.

    Richard P. Burke

  8. M Carling

    I did say that the Oregon LP bylaws (the real bylaws, adopted by the members in convention and last amended in 2009) were the worst I had ever seen. Most, but not all, of the bad provisions were written by Wes Wagner, including the one that broke the previously reasonable quorum requirement.

    The purported “bylaws” adopted by Wagner, Vetanen, and three of their friends outside of convention are much worse. Had they actually been adopted, they would have eliminated the Judicial Committee, extended the terms of officers, eliminated the non-initiation of force pledge for members, and disenfranchised many existing members, including but not limited to all the life members.

  9. Wes Wagner

    “The above being the case, I think it would be quite a challenge to argue that the county reps at the State Committee meeting following the May 21st, 2011 session of the LPO convention were not empowered to appoint LPO members to fill officer vacancies.”

    Except that nasty issue that if the 2009 bylaws were in effect the offices were not vacant… and the people doing the appointing would not have quorum according to parliamentary law.

    But ignoring all those problems, I guess I can see your point. “WE WANTSSSS IT!!!!”

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    RB@3,

    “the stuff about Lee Weights is dead spot on”

    Um … no.

    The letter states that Wrights is “without visible means of support.”

    In point of fact, at least two of his “means of support” are more visible than most people’s insofar as they are publicly disclosed. He is paid twice monthly for editorial work at a web site which posts public reports of its revenues and disclosures of how those revenues are disbursed, and his sale of stock a year or two ago was reported in SEC filings.

    Mr. Reeves is lying about something that’s easily checked. What’s he lying about that isn’t?

  11. George Phillies

    @3 “…a collaborative effort…” usually collaborations have more than one person in them. Perhaps the collaborators could be identified, if you believe there was a collaboration?

  12. Richard P. Burke

    George @3, Wes @9, etc.,

    Neither of your posts address the matter of whether or not Mr. Wagner’s group replaced the LPO’s bylaws and Constitution at a properly noticed convention or not. You are both attempting to direct attention away from that toward other issued which could be settled separately.

    Richard P. Burke

  13. Wes Wagner

    RPB @12

    I believe there is litigation in progress on that… any public comments on that matter would seem moot since it is going to get decided by a court.

    However, I will dispute claims that people are officers of the party when they are clearly invalid on their face because even if teir claim that the 2009 bylaws applied were conceeded, they would still not be the officers.

  14. Marc Montoni

    Mr Burke, to address your “first” point:

    I don’t believe I am on record as supporting the actions taken by the Wagner group — even though I *DO* understand how years of being ignored when one raises concerns (such as about support for the candidates of other parties) eventually reaches the nuclear level. Understanding why a substantial cohort of the OR LP got to the place they’re at is not the same thing as condoning their response. If you read IPR much, you by now have seen more than a few examples where I advise Wagner and his colleagues to behave with some restraint. Had I known what was going on there three years ago, I would have similarly advised you to listen to their concerns before everything blew up.

    In any case, my point all along was that if you want to attack someone else’s p’s and q’s, then you need to have your own in order, and quite frankly, you don’t.

    Your supporters likewise had several years to correct organizational deficiencies such as making sure county organizations maintained themselves; however, apparently nothing was done because you had other priorities.

    Second, if the paperwork does exist, then it should be presented to your opponents. But remember that if such paperwork did not exist a year ago but exists now, it will undermine your case.

    Third, that is a valid point, however a challenge to their credentials after the fact, if substantiated, still carries weight. Basic errors (or fraud) have invalidated entire meetings of much larger organizations in the past.

    Like I said, the best way to challenge Wagner’s p’s and q’s is to make sure yours are correct.

    Frankly I have no sympathy for a so-called “county chair” who sits on his tail for years on end and can’t even be bothered to call regular meetings, much less the annual or biennial convention to elect officers. Lard-tail “leaders” are the reason why the LP gets nowhere. Having organized as many local groups, and having signed up as many members, as I have, those sorts of non-leading, lazy ‘leaders’ should be regarded mainly as speed bumps in the LP’s path — they hinder, not help. They should do their jobs or resign.

    If that sort of individual is the sort you rest your case on, then you have a particularly poor case. I would have expected better from you.

  15. George Phillies

    @12 if the letter had wanted to deal only with the topic with which you are interested, why did it wander across the landscape with all the unrelated issues?

    A basic matter of modern and not-so-modern literary analysis is that written documents have subtexts, matters that were rational assumptions for the original authors but not for the reader. A first step in this is to understand who the authors are, that we may then ask what ideas may have informed their thinking.

    For example, note the historical discussion byreligious critics of Galileo, the people who thought his work was actually a religious polemic disguised via metaphor as a treatment of physics. In understanding their reaction, it is perhaps useful to note that in-period published works actually included texts that had this feature, and that if you (mis)read Galileo’s words as religious commentary the (supposedly) asserted positions were quite alarming. If you thought that the critics actually believed that the world was flat, you would form a much lower estimate of the merit of their criticisms than their criticisms actually deserved.

  16. Wes Wagner

    MM @14

    Since the time they started operating allegedly as the Libertarian Party of Oregon, ostensibly under their claimed legitimacy under the 2009 bylaws, they have:

    1) Sent a letter to all county chairs claiming that if they did not swear loyalty to the Reeves faction and that they are operating under the 2009 bylaws, that they would be disaffilaited by decree. The 2009 bylaws do not confer this power on the chair or the committee and the process of disaffiliation is clear.

    2) They have suspended the payment of dues. The payment of dues and the amount is a requirement of the 2009 bylaws, and not subject to suspension.

    3) They have appointed a slate of delegates and submitted them to national. The 2009 bylaws and party rules only allowed appointment of delegates at convention. Since they allege no quorum was reached, no delegation could be proposed. They must have violated the rules in order to have drafted a slate of delegates.

    There are a few other minor quibbles… but I figured I would point a couple of the larger elephants out.

  17. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Montoni @ 14,

    You wrote:

    “… I *DO* understand how years of being ignored when one raises concerns (such as about support for the candidates of other parties) eventually reaches the nuclear level.”

    What you fail to note here is that Mr. Wagner’s group occupied all of the officer positions at the time and a working majority on the State Committee. They held such stature in the party as far back as 2007 to varying degrees.

    This being the case, there is no measure by which they could regard themselves as “ignored,” given they were running the organization. For them to be ignored, they would have to ignore themselves. In truth, if anyone was ignored, it was the legitimate LPO members who had their rights unilaterally altered and/or diluted by the actions of Mr. Wagner’s group.

    These actions, to bring us home again, were to attempt to alter the LPO’s governing documents without notice to members at a State Committee meeting, not a convention as called for by our legitimate governing documents.

    Richard P. Burke

  18. Nicholas Sarwark

    That letter’s pretty quiet about the Judicial Committee decision, I see.

  19. Brian Holtz

    @4, the only faction I’m in is the follow-the-rules faction. I criticized Mr. Burke here when he suggested that Wagner had no standing to file a disaffiliation appeal to JudCom, on the question-begging assumption that Wagner was not legitimate.

    Your documentation complaint is one that the Wagner faction did not make before JudCom, and has not made in response to the Reeves lawsuit. That’s a strong hint that the complaint is rebuttable along the lines @7.

  20. Fred

    Under the 2009 Party bylaws the state committee is ran by the representatives from the County parties. I was one of the two representatives from Marion county. I have not been informed of or invited to a single meeting by the Reeves faction since they claimed to have been in power. Any actions they have taken as the Libertarian Party of Oregon they have taken without my knowledge or consent.

  21. Wes Wagner

    BH @22

    The lawsuit is still in preliminary motions. Not rebuttle to the lawsuit has been made yet because lawsuits go in a particular order of events.

    At the rate things are going, we might get to rebuttles by December 2012.

  22. Wes Wagner

    BH @22

    To the point that I did not raise these arguments in the judicial committee hearing, they would have been off topic.

    My complaint was that the LNC Ex Comm had created an effective disaffiliation without a vote and a hearing.

    I did not have to dispute the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the Reeves officers in order to make that point as we were still in legal possession of the LPO and were considered its leadership by the State of Oregon. Those points were well taken by the majority opinion.

    The legitimacy arguments were left for the actual disaffiliation hearing after a proper vote, which then never happened.

  23. Joshua Katz

    I find this letter disappointing. As a candidate for at-large, I would have preferred to be named as a member of this “evil cabal.” I suspect those mentioned in it will receive a large boost in their votes relative to those not mentioned.

  24. Brian Holtz

    NS@20 That letter’s pretty quiet about the Judicial Committee decision, I see.

    Huh? The first half of the third page is all about the JudCom decision, even quoting the part where the majority adds to our Bylaws out of thin air.

    Re: alleged payoffs to Wrights, I’m not sure which part is more shocking: 1) that Wes Wagner contributed $300 to Lee Wrights only 3 months after Wrights tipped the 4-3 decision Wagner’s way, or 2) that Wagner as a state chair has no FEC record of any other contributions to any other Libertarian Party cause, ever.

  25. Wes Wagner

    BH @28

    When Gary Johnson actually recognizes that prosecuting the fraud conducted by the banking cartel needs to be a plank in his run, I will give him a very sizeable contribution.

    My relatively small contribution to Wrights also reflects my disappointment that he is not recognizing this issue.

    I have otherwise kept my money in-state.

  26. jim

    How do you know that Mary Ruwart is Lee Wrights’ “significant other?” Thought she was already married.

  27. Nicholas Sarwark

    Fun fact: Judge Gray, Bill Hall, and myself all joined that Oregon opinion on the Judicial Committee, yet we don’t warrant a mention in this hit piece. Maybe Mr. Reeves can issue an update or revision in light of Judge Gray’s announcement of his bid for VP and Gary Johnson’s endorsement of Judge Gray.

  28. wolfefan

    Hi Brian @28 –

    I don’t know Wrights at all beyond what I’ve read here. Are you saying he’d sell his influence for $300? Crony-micro-capitalism? 🙂

  29. Wes Wagner

    wolfe @32

    Not only that, but my bagman arrived 3 months late and he still voted my way!

    What a bargain!

  30. Richard P. Burke

    Mr. Sarwark @ 31,

    Unlike Mr. Wrights, neither you, Judge Gray, or Bill Hall were declared candidates for the Libertarian presidential nomination when you supported the Judicial Committee decision.

    Richard P. Burke

  31. Losty

    Some Questions,

    Both of these groups are claiming to be LP of OR.

    The LP is having a convention this coming week.

    The State of Oregon has entrusted the Secretary of State of Oregon to oversee and administer all Federal, State, and Local elections.

    This question should be easy. Who does the Secretary of State of Oregon say is the Chairman of the LP of OR?

    Does that individual have the right to slate delegates to a properly called National Convention in the absence of a State Convention?

    If Not, will ANY delegates be seated from Oregon?

    And If not, due to the fact that no valid delegates would be seated due to ANY rules of ANY LP of OR,: Who has the right to slate candidates on the November General Election Ballot?

    If there is one consistent answer to these, shouldn’t that be the only slated delegates for the National Convention (If any are)?

  32. Brian Holtz

    @32 Are you saying Wrights would sell his influence for $300?

    No, which is why I wrote “alleged payoffs”. My point was about the wisdom of the two of them making such a transaction under those circumstances, and not about Wrights possibly selling his vote. I don’t doubt that Wrights would have voted as he did even if he weren’t seeking votes/contributions and even if Dr. Ruwart did not argue the case.

  33. Nicholas Sarwark

    @35: Convention delegates are allocated to each state affiliate based on a combination of how many votes for President our candidate received last time and how many National LP members live in the state.

    Which group is the LP affiliate in a state is a decision that can be made by the LNC only. After an appeal, the Judicial Committee held that the Wagner group was the current affiliate.

    While the current LNC can get supermajorities to say that the Judicial Committee is wrong, they apparently can’t or won’t take the vote necessary to choose a different affiliate, e.g. the Reeves group.

    As far as who the state of Oregon presently recognizes, that’s the Wagner group. As such, that’s the group that has ballot access for the upcoming election.

    Unless and until either (a) an Oregon court rules differently or (b) the LNC votes to disaffiliate the Wagner group, there is no support for the proposition that the Reeves group is entitled to any delegates at our convention. Moreover, if the LP wants the Presidential ticket on the Oregon ballot, only the Wagner group can make that happen, and if their delegates are not seated, I don’t see why they would put the nominee on the ballot.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp

    Losty@35,

    You write:

    —–
    The State of Oregon has entrusted the Secretary of State of Oregon to oversee and administer all Federal, State, and Local elections.

    This question should be easy. Who does the Secretary of State of Oregon say is the Chairman of the LP of OR?

    Does that individual have the right to slate delegates to a properly called National Convention in the absence of a State Convention?
    —–

    You’re asking the wrong question.

    The correct question is not “who is chair of, or which organization is, the Libertarian Party of Oregon?”

    The correct question is “who is chair of, or which organization is, the Libertarian National Committee’s affiliate in Oregon?”

    The two are not necessarily the same thing. There’s no requirement that a state’s Libertarian Party be affiliated with the LNC, or with any other national committee.

    Personally, I consider the Judicial Committee’s ruling confusing on that count, although it did correctly reach the issue that in order to recognize a new affiliate, the LNC must first disaffiliate the old one.

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    NS@37,

    “Moreover, if the LP wants the Presidential ticket on the Oregon ballot, only the Wagner group can make that happen, and if their delegates are not seated, I don’t see why they would put the nominee on the ballot.”

    They might do so because they consider that ticket superior to some other notional ticket that they might nominate themselves.

    They might do so out of good will if events following the seating of the fraudulent delegation include a backlash against the existing LNC’s members seeking re-election for their poor handling of the matter.

    But of course the best way to handle things would be to seat the genuine delegation.

  36. Losty

    Mr. Knapp at #38,

    Though Mr. Johnson may not be measuring the drapes yet, if one assumes that the main priority of a political party is to nominate candidates for elections, and eventually win elections.. If the Administrative body for Managing elections in a state that made its determination as to who is permitted to slate delegates on it’s line for the November elections carry overwhelming weight as to the slate of delegates from that state?

    If Mr. Wagner is the controlling authority at this time as to who is the Libertarian candidate for President within the state or Oregon, should he not have the right to vote on that choice? (With apologies to the other candidates, I am assuming conventional wisdom holds and it’s Johnson/Gray)

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    Losty, @ 40,

    “If the Administrative body for Managing elections in a state that made its determination as to who is permitted to slate delegates on it’s line for the November elections carry overwhelming weight as to the slate of delegates from that state?”

    You’re mixing apples and oranges here.

    A state’s election laws/authority designate what organization is a political party in that state.

    A national committee’s bylaws, etc., control what organization is its affiliate in a state.

    Oregon’s Secretary of State doesn’t control what organization is represented at the LNC’s national convention.

    The LNC’s convention outcomes are not binding on anyone but their affiliates.

    It so happens that at the moment, Oregon’s Secretary of State recognizes the Wagner faction as the Oregon Libertarian Party, AND the LNC (per Judicial Committee ruling) recognizes the Wagner faction as the LNC’s Oregon affiliate.

    So, all is good. But if the Reeves faction manages to fraudulently seat its delegation instead of the real affiliate’s delegation at the LNC’s national convention, presumably the real LNC affiliate will consider itself to have been constructively disaffiliated, and to no longer have any obligations to the LNC — including, but not limited to, placement of a candidate on the ballot in whose nomination it was not consulted.

  38. paulie Post author

    Mr. Sarwark @ 31,

    Unlike Mr. Wrights, neither you, Judge Gray, or Bill Hall were declared candidates for the Libertarian presidential nomination when you supported the Judicial Committee decision.

    Richard P. Burke

    Judge Gray is now a declared candidate for VP. Does that mean you will circulate a negative letter about his deciding vote in this case at the convention?

    But if the Reeves faction manages to fraudulently seat its delegation instead of the real affiliate’s delegation at the LNC’s national convention, presumably the real LNC affiliate will consider itself to have been constructively disaffiliated, and to no longer have any obligations to the LNC — including, but not limited to, placement of a candidate on the ballot in whose nomination it was not consulted.

    No presumption needed, as Wes Wagner has stated plainly and openly more than once in past threads that if his group is seated, they feel bound by the convention’s choice, and if they aren’t, they don’t feel so bound.

  39. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @42,

    “No presumption needed, as Wes Wagner has stated plainly and openly more than once in past threads that if his group is seated, they feel bound by the convention’s choice, and if they aren’t, they don’t feel so bound.”

    But, assuming that’s their attitude, it doesn’t mean they won’t run the same slate as the one picked by the LNC’s convention. It just means that they won’t be obligated to run the same slate as the one picked by the LNC’s convention.

    I think they very well might, for reasons cited above, and possibly others. Not that I blame them for brandishing the possibility that they won’t. Their best chance of putting a stop to e.g. the credentials committee nonsense is to play hardball.

  40. paulie Post author

    True. They’ll have no obligation to the LNC – but they may cooperate without any oblitgation.

    My guess (only a guess) is that they wouldn’t.

    If they place the national ticket on the ballot and they say it’s not because they are obligated to but because they want to, and the national party says they are obligated to, they aren’t really proving their case.

    That does not strike me as their style.

  41. Erik Viker

    Negative campaigning is distasteful. Regardless of which “side” you might support in the Oregon fiasco, candidates should tell us what they can do and not tell us how The Other Guys are so terrible.

  42. LibertarianGirl

    this is as distasteful as it gets and you damn well know the votes would be the same regardless of their pesonal relationship. this piece of garbage strikes at a very ugly place and two can play….Alicia mattson should not be voting or deciding on anything involving AAron Starr

    of course i dont believe that , id like to think all of our integrity is stronger than wanting to please a girlfriend or boyfriend….

    and calling into question Wrights means of support , thats just to be cruel , its meant to be demeaning and has 0 relevance…
    you guys seriously just fucked yourself out of support…

    and its DR RUWART , you jack ass

  43. paulie Post author

    you damn well know the votes would be the same regardless of their pesonal relationship.

    Yep.

  44. LibertarianGirl

    this was poorly thought out , many , many people were on the fence , this just decided it for them ..tacky tacky tacky…even Wayne wouldnt go there and Starr wouldnt be stupid enuf to sign his name if he did….Wagner , (no offense Wes) had done a pretty good job of appearing argumentative and such ( I understand why) what a stupid move by the Reeves faction just tactically . We need to print this and have it at every table Th. morn….

  45. paulie Post author

    Are you sure that will work in your favor? Negative campaigning is dirty, but on average it works more than it backfires. That’s why people keep doing it even though most people profess to hate it.

  46. LibertarianGirl

    I wont anyways im too lazy….i just talk mean but peter out to my default trying to play nice…if i actually did all the things i thought of id be an evil cabal of one ….lets get real , ill prob vote for whovever is nicest , or who someone I trust tells me too. i really like everyone , cept one guy , that one I just cant quit hating…..but thats personal. i never forget when someone i backed up stabs me in the back….

  47. fred

    @50
    Negative campaigning may work in winning an election but it does incredible damage in the process. It burns bridges, harms the ability to reach understanding or agreement, and polarizes people. We have plenty of that in our little party. Maybe its time we give up on killing our internal opponents and start working on building relationships.
    of course that is easier said than done and much more difficult if some of the players can only focus on immediate victory or have ulterior personal
    motives.

  48. Carol Moore

    There’s nothing wrong with accurate statements about bad things people have done, with lots of of references, and a little analysis and maybe a little dramatic flare. Like I do at http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/bootroot or the more subdued http://libertarians4peace.net press release (both of which 100+ libertarians had a chance to comment on in open to the public forums). Pure exaggeration and lies with no backup supporting material is what I can negative and destructive campaigning. The Oregon situation is too complicated for me to figure out, so I can only go by which group has the more shady characters from my personal experience, and I do have my opinion on that. (Hint, it’s not the Carling faction. They let this guy vote on that in Credentials Comittee! That is the height of corruption.)

  49. Brian Holtz

    The Oregon situation is too complicated for me to figure out

    The basic facts of the Wagner coup are not in dispute, as described on page 1 of the Reeves delegate letter above, or on pages 1-3 of this LNC brief.

    The dispute is about whether the Wagner coup was excusable by the vaguely-specified evilness of the people they claim as enemies.

    so I can only go by which group has the more shady characters

    Yes, you’ll have to decide for yourself whether there are Libertarians so evil that the ends of opposing them justifies the means of the Wagner coup.

Leave a Reply

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