Here is the speech that Nicholas Sarwark gave prior to the first vote for Chairman at the Libertarian National Convention, May 5, 2012. In it, he explains what a vote for NOTA (None of the Above) would mean to the Libertarian Party. NOTA initially won against the leading candidate Mark Rutherford, but that vote was challenged, sparking quite a drama-filled afternoon. The next morning, the vote was started over with new nominees, including with Mr. Rutherford and NOTA. Geoff Neale, who was Chairman from 2002 t0 2004,was eventually elected.
Mr. Sarwark is an attorney from Colorado. He has served on the Libertarian National Committee on the Judicial Committee from 2004 to 2012. He was elected to a new term on May 5th.
Chuck wrote:
“I voted Gary Johnson for president and Lee Wrights for vice-president. I’ll be proudly voting for Johnson/Gray in November (though the Fair Tax disgusts me).”
I feel the same way.
I look at a balance of things which include ideological purity, left/right balance and media reach.
In 2008 it was easy because Barr had problems both from the purity and balance perspectives.
In 2012 Wrights and Johnson were both good in terms of left/right balance, but Johnson had problems from the ideological purity side and Wrights had problems from the media reach/resume angle. Thus, it was not an easy decision, and knowing that Wrights would go for VP made it easier for me to justify voting for Johnson. It could have easily gone the other way with me.
Paulie: “I think it’s more complicated than that.”
In your case it definitely is.
Paulie: “I am most concerned with not having the party tilt too far to the right.”
I’m concerned about that as well. That’s really my problem with Wayne Root. I don’t mind his personality. But I’m repelled by his “libertarian-conservative” identification, focus on fiscal issues & never on social ones, and talk about how conservatives are allies & liberals are enemies.
Paulie: “I also don’t want the LP to turn into an aimless reform party that is a catch all for any and all non-establishment candidates regardless of ideology.”
I don’t want that either. That’s a disastrous situation. I don’t see that as a serious threat to the LP though.
Paulie: “I don’t want the LP to push for making government bigger in any area. Johnson concerns me as far as that goes with his tax policy. But he gives me a lot of hope with his strong emphasis on peace and civil liberties and his obviously improved media reach over what we have gotten used to.”
Agreed.
I’d say that Harry Browne is a good example of a “purist” Libertarian. He said at in a 2002 convention speech that Libertarian candidates must always run “pure” campaigns (yes, he used that word). There are many other Libertarians like him, including at the convention. You & Chuck don’t appear to be two of them though (although Chuck previously said that his primary concern for a Libertarian candidate for President is someone who’s good at articulating libertarianism. I wouldn’t apply that description to Johnson).
Mmmm…beer. It helped the savages settle down and create civilization 🙂
Yes, I guess you did. I was just elaborating on that.
In retrospect, neither what worried me about Badnarik nor what worried me about Barr turned out to be as bad as I feared in the course of their campaigns. I still think Russo would have been better in 2004, and Kubby or Ruwart in 2008, but I am glad what we got was not worse than it was.
This year, I am happier coming out of the nomination than I have been since 2000. Ideological puritywise less so, but in terms of left/right balance and media reach I am quite optimistic.
Paulie: “You skipped the point, which was that a lot of it was based on personal stuff, not ideology or governance issues.”
I already said that earlier though in Andy’s case?
@andy , whats cool about you is we can disagree and still have a beer together…:) love ya
You skipped the point, which was that a lot of it was based on personal stuff, not ideology or governance issues.
JT,
I think it’s more complicated than that.
I opposed the 2006 gutting of the platform and wanted the 2004 platform restored, but in retrospect the 2008 and subsequent platform did clean up some of the language, take out references to no longer existing or since renamed federal agencies, etc. I am not *that* unhappy with the platform, and certainly not unhappy enough to involve myself deeply in arguing about its particulars. Thus, I’ll mostly defer to those who want to or are willing to put more work into it than I do, unless/until it ever gets bad enough that I am forced to change my priorities.
Likewise with candidates, I generally prefer boldness to moderation, but there are other factors which balance against that, such as media reach.
I am most concerned with not having the party tilt too far to the right. I see young people (and some others, but mostly young) who tend to come at libertarianism from the left as our best opportunity for growth and I don’t want to drive them away. I think Johnson will bring them in, more so than other candidates since Clark. Hopefully even better than Clark, but we’ll see. I was unhappy with the Barr-Root ticket for this reason.
I want a campaign that is hardcore, but not invisible.
I also don’t want the LP to turn into an aimless reform party that is a catch all for any and all non-establishment candidates regardless of ideology, and I am pretty confident that is not what Johnson is doing – he clearly wants to move in a libertarian direction across the board (or almost across the board).
I don’t want the LP to push for making government bigger in any area. Johnson concerns me as far as that goes with his tax policy. But he gives me a lot of hope with his strong emphasis on peace and civil liberties and his obviously improved media reach over what we have gotten used to. Wrights concerned me with that “invisibility” thing, although I think he could have run a solid Badnarik level campaign, and Badnarik did better than I thought he would….I think we had a better opportunity this year, and I think Wrights would have been best as VP, not P.
It was not an easy decision at all, in balancing those factors between the two candidates.
Even with Gray as VP I am much happier than I was four years ago.
I’m also happier than I was eight years ago, as I was afraid coming out of Atlanta that Badnarik would have that invisibility thing going on.
I should add to my post 139 that “moderate” Libertarians also tend to be accepting of Libertarian candidates who don’t advocate moving in a libertarian direction on a few issues.
Paulie: “Andy wrote in Ron Paul in the delegate balloting for President, and voted for Jim Burns for VP. He also supported Rutherford for chair, Tim Hagan for Treasurer, NOTA for Secretary and NOTA for Vice Chair. That was probably not a combination of votes any other delegate made.”
Okay. That has nothing to do with my point, which only covered voting for Johnson instead of Wrights.
Paulie: “Not sure if you want to count Chuck as a radical. He is an anarchist who is either both a radical and (what used to be called) a reformer or neither. Anyway, he voted for Johnson, or at least planned to when I asked him.”
Chuck: “I’m an anarcho-capitalist philosophically and a libertarian politically. In the LP my issue positions would classify me as a radical, but I’m also an incrementalist and a big tent guy, which would classify me as a reformer given the original goals of the reform caucus.”
I should clarify what I mean then. I used the term “purist” and contrasted it with “moderate.” By the former I mean Libertarians who believe that candidates must espouse the policies found in the LP platform, and who generally opposed the changes to the platform made in 2006. By the latter I mean Libertarians who believe that candidates who espouse a general reduction on fiscal issues as well as on social issues are good ideologically.
I would’ve thought from many previous comments that both of you would fall into the former category. Your support for Johnson, who hasn’t towed the Libertarian line on taxation, entitlements, or non-intervention and isn’t exactly a stellar speaker is a surprise to me given the presence of Wrights in the race, even if you thought he’d run for the nomination for Vice President.
JT,
Andy wrote in Ron Paul in the delegate balloting for President, and voted for Jim Burns for VP. He also supported Rutherford for chair, Tim Hagan for Treasurer, NOTA for Secretary and NOTA for Vice Chair. That was probably not a combination of votes any other delegate made.
Some of those votes were based on personal beefs with Wrights and Redpath and with Hinkle for not going over Redpath’s head on some ballot access contracting issues.
Same here – word for word 100%! Except for the actual physical voting in government elections part, I probably still won’t be able to do that, but in spirit/support.
Andy: “No it is not self contained, and your saying that is quite foolish.”
By saying “self-contained,” I meant that you’re the only person I know of who wouldn’t vote for Wrights because of it. You obviously hate the man, given your numerous, lengthy diatribes on the subject. I don’t believe anyone else cares though. Certainly not a significant number of people who wouldn’t vote for Wrights because of your experience.
Paulie wrote (@132):
I’m an anarcho-capitalist philosophically and a libertarian politically. In the LP my issue positions would classify me as a radical, but I’m also an incrementalist and a big tent guy, which would classify me as a reformer given the original goals of the reform caucus.
I’ll support any candidate who wants to move public policy in a libertarian direction. I don’t demand that candidates have all libertarian positions, but I insist that most of their issues be libertarian and I practically always require that their top 3 issues be libertarian (that one of Johnson’s top 3 issues is a statist new tax and welfare program really made it really difficult to talk myself into supporting him).
I voted Gary Johnson for president and Lee Wrights for vice-president. I’ll be proudly voting for Johnson/Gray in November (though the Fair Tax disgusts me).
LibertarianGirl said: “me_ the in person version is twice as long…lol”
So you’ve heard this story more than once and you still think that Wrights is a good guy. WTF? Do you think that I’m making this stuff up, or are you the type of person who has to personally get burned by somebody before you acknowledge that they are toxic?
The bottom line is that Wrights caused LP donor money to be squandered, he caused things to be done inefficiently, he contributed to candidates not making the ballot in other states, and he acted like a rude jackass and told slanderous lies behind somebody’s back.
This is the true character of the person for whom you cast a vote.
P_”Andy,
That wasn’t detailed enough. Could you provide some additional information?
And for anyone out there who may be wondering, Andy was not on any kind of crank, crack, coke or even coffee when he wrote that. He did manage to wake me up quite a few times with the typing though.”
me_ the in person version is twice as long…lol
Andy,
That wasn’t detailed enough. Could you provide some additional information?
And for anyone out there who may be wondering, Andy was not on any kind of crank, crack, coke or even coffee when he wrote that. He did manage to wake me up quite a few times with the typing though.
JT,
Not sure if you want to count Chuck as a radical. He is an anarchist who is either both a radical and (what used to be called) a reformer or neither. Anyway, he voted for Johnson, or at least planned to when I asked him.
Oh, and if anyone out there doubts my character, all I can say is that I’ve got plenty of solid references to back me up. I think that I’ve got a pretty damn good reputation.
Here is a thread from Ballot Access News where one veteran Libertarian ballot access warrior rated me as the best Libertarian Party petitioner in the country:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/04/30/veteran-libertarian-petitioner-collects-510-illinois-signatures-in-one-day/
Al Anders said:
“As for whom I consider the best petitioners for the LP, my ranking is as follows.
1 Andy Jacobs, has Scotty’s tenacity, and Darryl Bonner volume. Plus he does an excellent job articulating the LP philosophy and will often pass out LP literature at his own expense.
2 Scott Kohlhaas, reliable, and a good articulator of our philosophy as well.
3 Gary Fincher, a very strong producer, with great validity, also does a first rate job explaining our philosophy and frequently provides literature at his own expense. Main drawback, has bad luck with thugs with badges.
4 Darryl Bonner, my only knock with Darryl is that he will sell the LP expediently by articulating an issue or two but not, to my knowledge, the underlying philosophy. He is however a workhorse who is extremely dependable.”
Look who he’s got at #1. I’m not posting this to “toot my own horn” even though it may appear that way, but rather to make a point, and that is that if I’m among the best and most reliable in the world of ballot access, then I’d say that it shows how irrational and destructive and just plain wrong it was for Haugh and Wrights to stab me in the back and treat me like dirt.
FYI, my best day in terms of number of unique signers was 600. This was on a Casino Gaming initiative petition. That’s a heck of a lot, but I’ve heard of a few people having higher (in terms of unique number of signers) best days than that.
Another one of my bests was getting 400 signatures in 4 hours (as in 100 signatures per hour for 4 hours straight) for the Libertarian Party in Pennsylvania.
I worked a festival for the Libertarian Party in Ohio where I unfortunately got there late both days that I worked it, yet I still managed to get 365 and 355 signatures in a short period of time. If I had arrived earlier in the day when the events started and staid until the end I could have had super monster record setting days, as in I probably could have gotten 700 or 800 signatures or something crazy high like that. I missed the first day of the festival due to my having to wait to get a new drivers license in the mail, and then having to spend time driving to a branch of my bank and withdrawing some money. Then I had to drive to Ohio from Pennsylvania and then when I arrived in Columbus I had to meet with somebody to pick up the petitions, and then I had to drive to where the festival was and find a place to park. This wasted a lot of time. I only ended up working like 4 hours. The next day I over slept and then the festival shut down early because it was Sunday so I only got to work around 4 hours or so that day as well.
Another one of my bests was being the top petitioner on the Recall Grey Davis petition in California back in 2003, or at least the top petitioner out of the petition office in San Fernando Valley (I don’t know about the entire states, but if I wasn’t #1 I had to have been pretty high on the list for the state). I did like 10,000 signatures in 7 weeks.
I’m not saying that I’m always #1, but I’m usually among the top producers and I usually have a high validity rate. Plus I don’t rip people off.
So yeah, if somebody causes me to lose money, is rude to me, betrays me, and slanders me with lies behind my back, I’m not going to think too kindly of that individual.
I had zero contact with Lee Wrights from February of 2001 (the last time I spoke to him on the phone) until I saw him at the Libertarian Party National Convention in late May of 2008. I never even said a bad word about him publicly after he stabbed me in the back and interfered with me working in 2007. Hell, I even refrained from calling him and cussing him out over the phone after he did this. However, this changed when I saw him at the LP National Convention in 2008.
Yes, I saw Wrights in Denver in 2008 and I just couldn’t let this opportunity slip away. I wanted to catch him when nobody was walking around with him, and I found my opportunity when he was out in the lobby from the convention hall where various booths were set up. I planned my approach in advance, I hadn’t seen him since 2001, but I figured that he’d remember me, and even if he didn’t, he’d certainly remember me after I said who I was and jarred his memory. I didn’t yell or act hostile when I approached him. I said something like, “Hey Lee, remember me from the petition drive in North Carolina a few years ago?” Then I reached out for a handshake which he accepted. Then I said something like, “Long time no see.” He responded in a friendly manner with a smile on his face. Well, the smile quickly turned to a stunned look, and then a frown after I said, “Bill Redpath told me that you trash talked me behind my back. I heard the same thing from Bob Richie. I know all about what you did in 2007. You told the ballot access committee to vote to block me from petitioning in North Carolina (note that outside of Wrights, nobody else knew me) and you lied about me behind my back.” Wrights became irrate after I exposed him and he started screaming and getting aggressive with me. When he saw that I wasn’t going to back down he started yelling and running away and saying that he was going to have me thrown out of the convention. After this happened a few people who witnessed this incident inquired about it and he told YET ANOTHER LIE to make a cover story for himself, a lie which anyone who knows me knows isn’t true, and which I believe is easily debunked by applying basic logic.
I’ve seen Wrights a few times since then and he’s never apologized. Somebody like that is a complete asshole in my opinion.
So forgive me if I cringe whenever I see or hear the name Lee Wrights/ Forgive me if it makes me want to puke that anyone took this guy seriously as a candidate for President. I think that my negative reaction is more than justified.
When a group has to conduct multiple petition drives in multiple states to get on the ballot for an election, any screw ups can have a ripple effect on other states. Due to the games played by Haugh and Wrights (what I mentioned above, plus some other stuff), the LP of NC petition drive for 2008 dragged on months longer than it would have otherwise. They didn’t finish it until like early May of 2008. The fact that the LP was still petitioning in North Carolina at this late date, when the drive could have been finished months prior to this, meant that petitioners who worked in North Carolina could have been dispatched to other states at an earlier date, thus boosting production in those states instead of the petition drive in North Carolina dragging on for so much longer than necessary. This lead to the Libertarian Party failing to qualify for the ballot in several places. Even if you are a person who didn’t like Bob Barr as the LP’s candidate for President, this was still a bad thing because, #1) The LP failing to qualify for the ballot in several states meant that there were other LP candidates who didn’t make the ballot in addition to Barr, and even in some places where the LP did qualify statewide, there were still some district candidates who didn’t make the ballot (such was the case in Pennsylvania); and #2) Libertarian Party donors donated money in part, to ensure that the Libertarian Party made the ballot, so there was a responsibility to the donors to make the best possible effort to make the ballot in every state and DC, and #3) Some states have a vote retention test where if a candidate gets a certain percent of the vote the party does not have to petition for the next election, and you can’t qualify for the vote test if you aren’t on the freaking ballot! There were other reasons for the ballot access failures of 2008, but slowing down the production of the LP of NC petition drive was one of them.
So yes, these two jackasses Haugh and Wrights DID in fact slow down the production on two petition drives for no legitimate reason, and to the detriment of their own freaking party.
Now it was Sean Haugh that put Lee Wrights up to this, but the fact that Lee Wrights went through it, particularly since Lee Wrights had acted like he was my buddy the last two times that I had spoken to him, as well as prior to this in person when I had interacted with prior to him blowing up at me over the phone for asking if Sean Haugh’s crazy, irrational behavior was drug induced, shows that Lee Wrights is a two-faced backstabber, and on top of this, a mindless destructive fool, because he carried out Sean Haugh’s wishes, no matter the fact that they were completely irrational, and he also slowed down progress on the LP of NC petition drive (which ended up having a negative ripple effect on other states).
This is well before I ever “went public” about Sean Haugh. I didn’t say anything publicly about Sean Haugh until 2008 AFTER Sean Haugh tried to lower my pay rate on an LP petition drive in Pennsylvania, after I had already agreed to work for a certain rate which had been approved by both the State and National Chair (Redpath was still National Chair), and after I had already turned down work in other states for different organizations and had already run up a lot of expenses while working for the LP in Pennsylvania. I had also found out that Haugh was paying a higher rate to one of his cronies. This really pissed me off, so it was only then that I went public about Sean Haugh, however, even then I didn’t say anything about Wrights until after I had a nasty run in with him at the 2008 LP National Convention in Denver (more on this later).
I was absolutely disgusted by Wrights’ betrayal, and I thought about just driving to North Carolina in spite of this and saying “FUCK YOU!” to Lee Wrights. The money at this point in time was coming for LP National, not the LP of NC, and I don’t believe that one Libertarian has the right to tell another Libertarian that they can’t petition anyway (also, note that Haugh and Wrights contributed little or nothing to the petition drive). I just had several weeks of my time wasted (and remember, time is money), and like I said above, I had already turned down work in other states just so I could petition for the LP in North Carolina (at the request of Scott Kohlhaas and Bill Redpath, and even ballot access guru Richard Winger had asked me to go in a conversation), so I was livid after being jerked and stabbed in the back like this. However, instead of driving down there (which I should have done in retrospect, either that or I should have headed out to the West Coast), I decided to call Bill Redpath figuring since he was the National Chairman that he’d work it out. So I called up Bill, I told him what the problem was, and he said that he’d call Sean Haugh and Lee Wrights and take care of it. I then wasted another week waiting to hear back from Bill Redpath. When I finally heard from him he said that he spoke to Sean Haugh and that he actually got Haugh to back down (note that Haugh was kissing Redpath’s ass at the time because he wanted the job with National as Political Director), but he said that Wrights refused to back down and was quite belligerent. I thought that this was odd, considering that I didn’t even think that I had a problem with Wrights. Redpath question Wrights about this and he gave a couple of reasons which didn’t stand up to any intellectual scrutiny, and it was so clearly apparent that even Redpath didn’t put any stock in what Wrights said. I then told Redpath that I should just say the heck with Wrights and that I’d go down there anyway, and that if he didn’t like it that it was his problem. Redpath didn’t want me to do this because he was concerned about Wrights throwing a fit and causing problems, but he assured me that he’d call Wrights again and fix the problem. So I waited around yet another week (and keep in mind that I didn’t work at all during this time period; I wanted to take some time off, but I didn’t intend to take THIS much time off) waiting to hear back from Redpath. I didn’t hear back from him so I called him and then I heard that Redpath had a family emergency with which he had to deal, so at that point I said the heck with it, and I decided to say, “SCREW IT!” to going to North Carolina. This was after I had wasted several weeks, the opportunity cost for which was a few thousand dollars, not to mention the loss of badly needed production for the LP of NC.
There was another victim to this 2007 betrayal, and that was Paul. He had arrived in North Carolina via bus right when I was talking to Bob Richie about going there. Paul doesn’t have a car and doesn’t drive, but I had already agreed to team up with him so he could ride with me to locations for signature gathering and that we’d split the motel room for which the Libertarian Party was supposed to pay, thus generating more signatures for the price of the motel (as in LP donors would have gotten more bang for their buck out of the motel expense). Paul was counting on me to be there because working without a car is generally difficult, and it was difficult for him in North Carolina. When this nonsense from Wrights got in the way of my being there it caused Paul to get less signatures than he would have otherwise (due to it taking longer to get to and from locations), this meant that he made less money than he would have made had I been there, and it also meant that the petition drive did not progress as quickly as it should have (which ended up having a negative effect on progress on petition drives in other states for the LP).
Cool story bro. Tell it again if you have time.
“Thomas L. Knapp // May 10, 2012 at 12:55 am
Keep in mind that in the Andytionary, “slowing down ballot access drives and causing the party to waste money ” is defined as “didn’t direct money to Andy, or didn’t direct as much money to Andy as Andy wanted.”
Knapp, you don’t even know what in the hell you are talking about.
Yes, Wrights did in fact slow down two ballot access drives in his own state. Sean Haugh threw a hissy fit over the phone and started screaming and yelling like a maniac, making wild false accusations at me and he told me to “get the fuck out of my (his) state!” back in 2001. It was completely crazy and Sean’s pattern of irrational behavior is well documented. This happened just a few days after Sean himself had begged me to stay in North Carolina longer, and offered me additional money to pay for a motel room (note that I paid for a flight to North Carolina out of my own pockect, and that I later found out (well after this, as in after I left the state) that Sean had lied to me that they didn’t pay for anyone’s travel). Note that I was in North Carolina for a month and had gathered 4,000 signatures during cold weather and without the use of a car. That is quite a high level of production, and on top of this, I did several VOLUNTEER registrations (as in I registered several people to vote as Libertarians even though I wasn’t getting paid to do this) for the LP of NC, plus I handed out a bunch of Libertarian outreach material, $100 worth of which was paid for out of my own pocket!
My thanks for this was that Sean Haugh stabbed me in the back. And yes, this is pattern behavior for Sean Haugh and it is exactly this pattern of behavior which caused Sean Haugh to be fired from both the National Libertarian Party and Free and Equal. Sean Haugh has a bad reputation for a reason. There were quite a few petition circulators (most of whom have never even worked for the LP) that got burned by Sean Haugh when he was with Free and Equal in Texas and in Georgia.
What does Lee Wrights have to do with this? Well, after Sean Haugh “blew up” on me over the phone, I didn’t know what to do, so I called Lee Wrights thinking at the time that he was a good guy and that he could resolve the situation. I called Wrights up and started explaining the situation to him, and during the course of this I said, “Sean’s acting pretty crazy. Is he on drugs or something? He sounds like he might be a drug user to me.” Now I think that it is a perfectly logical thing to question whether or not a person whom is displaying insane behavior is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I had several conversations with Wrights prior to this, and we had discussed politics at great length, so he knew that I was a Libertarian and that I was opposed to the War on Drugs, so my comments could not have been taken as an endorsement of the Drug War. Opposition to the Drug War has nothing to do with asking whether a person who is behaving in an insane and irrational manner is under the influence of drug or alcohol. It’s a pretty common question, and in fact I’ve heard other people ask the question in similar situations (including others in the Libertarian Party asking the same question of other Libertarians) and I’ve never heard anyone react like Wrights.
How did Wrights react? He started screaming at me like a maniac for daring to ask if Sean was on something and he shouted “GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA!” and then slammed the phone down on me. This was after I had spent $350 out of my own pocket to travel to North Carolina to save ballot status for the LP of NC, and after I had busted my ass in cold weather (North Carolina tends to have mild winters, but they were having really crappy weather when I was there) and averaged 1,000 signatures per week in addition to doing a lot of extra volunteer stuff such as handing out lots of LP literature (much at my own expense) and registering people to vote under the Libertarian Party banner.
I didn’t really know Sean Haugh very well since I had only spoken to him on the phone about 10 times prior to this and had never met him in person, but I had interacted with Lee Wrights in person several times during my first week in North Carolina, I even had dinner with him once, so I actually felt betrayed by this.
So after Wrights threw his tantrum, I said screw it, and I decided to just leave the state. After working without a car for four weeks, which was a MAJOR pain in the ass, I had just dipped into my own pocket and gotten a rental car. I had already paid out money for the car which I didn’t even get a chance to recover. So I returned the rental car and then I took a cab to the Grey Hound bus station.
I was still bummed out about the situation with Lee Wrights so I decided to call him before I left on the bus. This time Lee had calmed down and I explained to him that my asking if Sean Haugh was a drug user was not an endorsement of the Drug War, but rather I was just trying to get an explanation for why he acted in such a crazy, irrational, and hostile manner. Wrights then acted like he agreed with me, and he said something like, “I’d like for you to stay and keep working, but Sean is the Executive Director and he made an executive decision and there’s nothing that I can do about it.” So I left the state believing that I left on good terms with Lee Wrights.
A week later I called Lee Wrights again. We had what I thought was a good conversation, and once again he said something like, “I’m sorry. I’d like for you to come back down here and work, but Sean is the Executive Director and there’s nothing I can do about it. My hands are tied.” So once again, I thought that I was on good terms with Wrights.
Oh, a few weeks after I left the LP flew in a mercenary crew (as in a crew of non-libertarians) to petition in North Carolina and paid them a higher rate than I got. Considering that NONE of these people were libertarians, you can bet that ZERO LP outreach took place for the signatures which they gathered. Also, the LP had paid for my motel room for the week and I remember the motel saying that they did not offer refunds on their weekly rates, so after I left the motel room didn’t even get used (unless of course the motel rented it to somebody else, even though they kept the money from when I was there). This was an obvious waste of donor resources.
I remember reading about an LP National Convention, I think that it was in 2004, where Lee Wrights was running for something. I think that it was Vice Chair. He was running against Mark Selzer whom I knew from the Libertarian Party of California. I remember thinking something like, “Wow, I’d have a hard time choosing who to vote for because I like both of these guys.” Lee Wrights won, but as it turned out, Mark Selzer is a much better guy.
Anyway, I didn’t have any interactions at all with Lee Wrights after that last conversation that I had with him over the phone which would have been in February of 2001, but I figured that the problem I had with him had been resolved and that he was an OK guy.
Now fast-forward to early 2007. The Libertarian Party had a petition drive going on in North Carolina and they were behind on the production and needed to boost their numbers. I had been asked by three well known Libertarian Party members to go to North Carolina to petition to regain ballot status the LP of NC. They were Scott Kohlhaas (this was while we were still owed money from that infamous petition drive for the LP in Nebraska, but before it became apparent that Kohlhaas was not going to make good on his word by making sure that we got paid everything that we were owed), then LP National Chairman Bill Redpath, and long time Libertarian and ballot access guru, Richard Winger.
I had just finished a petition drive for the LP in Maryland and I went to visit some family in a near by state. I was contemplating going to work on some initiative campaigns in California or Oregon. but when I was asked to go petition for the LP in North Carolina and told that it was “they were about to get more money” for me to go down there, out of party loyalty, I decided to wait (like a sucker). I did tell Bill Redpath and Scott Kohlhaas that I had a problem with Sean Haugh, and their response was, “Don’t worry about Sean Haugh. We want you there so you can be there.” So I thought that it was set. When I got the call back to go to North Carolina I was told that I should call a guy named Bob Richie who had been appointed as the Ballot Access Coordinator for the LP of NC. I called Bob Richie and told him that Bill Redpath and Scott Kohlhaas said that I should call him. We discussed some details and then I asked him exactly what the terms were for getting a motel reimbursement (as in how much, etc….) and whether or not I was going to get my gas expense reimbursed for driving to North Carolina. Bob Richie didn’t know for sure but he said that he’d call me back in a day or two.
Two days then passed and I didn’t hear from him, so then I called him. He didn’t call me back, so a few days later I called him again. I still didn’t hear from him. Then I called him again with no response. This went on for two weeks (and this was after I had already wasted a few weeks waiting to hear back from Kohlhaas and/or Redpath about the funding) but then I finally got Bob Richie on the phone, and I could tell by his voice that there was something wrong, and then he said, “I regret to inform you of this, but the ballot access committee has voted to block you from petitioning in North Carolina.” My reaction was “WHAT?!?!?!?! Is Sean Haugh on the ballot access committee? Bill Redpath and Scott Kohlhaas said not to worry about Sean Haugh. What in the heck is going on here?” Bob Richie told me that it wasn’t Sean Haugh on the ballot access committee, that it was Lee Wrights, and that Lee Wrights told everyone to vote to block me from working there. I didn’t say it, but I thought, “THAT TWO FACED BACKSTABBING LYING SON OF A BITCH!”
Keep in mind that in the Andytionary, “slowing down ballot access drives and causing the party to waste money ” is defined as “didn’t direct money to Andy, or didn’t direct as much money to Andy as Andy wanted.”
Andy, you know it cuts against your case that you’re strongly implying that anyone who supports Wrights has been “snow jobbed.” I suppose it’s possible that everyone else is gullible except for yourself.
Marc Montoni said: “Maybe you shouldn’t assume I was, or am, a Wrights partisan. Wrights himself can tell you that I am not. I have had more than a few run-ins with Wrights over the years, and frankly I was not friendly with him.”
It sounds like Marc Montoni knows what I’m talking about when it comes to Wrights. The guy is a jerk. I’m astounded at the number of people he’s got snow jobbed.
“and then he streamed like a maniac.”
Should read “and then he screamed like a maniac.”
I think that the guy has mental problems. It’s pretty damn pathetic that he was the only real competition that Gary Johnson had for the nomination. Given this fact, it’s no wonder that Johnson won the nomination so easily.
“Wrights HELD BACK ballot access for his own state party on two occasions, and on one of those occasions it had a ripple effect of holding back ballot access for the LP in other states.”
Not only did he slow down ballot access drives on two occasions, he also caused the party to waste money in relation to these two occasions.
Slowing down ballot access drives and causing the party to waste money should disqualify Wrights from holding any office in the party or from being a candidate for any office.
JT said: “Andy’s beef with Wrights is self-contained.”
No it is not self contained, and your saying that is quite foolish.
Wrights HELD BACK ballot access for his own state party on two occasions, and on one of those occasions it had a ripple effect of holding back ballot access for the LP in other states.
Furthermore, Wrights was also very rude and irrational, and on top of this he FABRICATED a story which he repeated to several people behind my back, while at the same time he acted friendly to my face, that is up until the point when I told him that I knew about the false story which he had told behind my back, and then he streamed like a maniac.
Lee Wrights showed me that he’s a man of low character. He may have a lot of people in the LP snow jobbed, but I know the truth about him.
I’m glad that he lost the nomination. He didn’t deserve it.
I didn’t vote for Gary Johnson either, primarily because of his support for the Fair Tax.
I’m one of the few people who cast a write in vote. It was either that or vote for Jim Burns or None of the Above. I thought about voting for Jim Burns or NOTA but I thought that casting a write in vote would make more of a statement. I did vote for Jim Burns for the Vice Presidential nomination.
“I also knew that Wrights would run for VP so I decided to split the difference that way and voted for Wrights for VP.”
You should have voted for Jim Burns for VP instead.
JT,
I side more with the Radical camp but I want them to learn communication skills.
I voted for Johnson for Pres but against the establishment in the LNC elections.
Off the top of my head no. And I heard it from multiple sources.
I must admit, Paulie, I’m rather surprised by that.
Do you know of any “purist” delegate other than you who did that? And how did you know that Wrights would run for VP?
Many/most of the regional reps were not unseated.
@104
Before you criticise Mr Redpath for not understanding what happened, mindful that he is not an idiot, you might consider that the source you are using is Reason magazine writing on the LP, which in my opinion is not necessarily a reliable source. For example, later in the same article they claim that every sitting member of the LNC was unseated, which is simply completely wrong. Note, for example, Mr. Root, Mr. Wiener, and — changing offices — Mr. Redpath.
Can’t disagree with any of that either.
John Jay Myers wrote (@9):
Agree.
LibertarianGirl wrote (@23):
John Jay Myers wrote (@9):
Agree.
Nick Sarwark wrote (@10):
Agree.
And just out of curiosity, do you know people who are generally considered “purist” as opposed to “pragmatic” Libertarians, who were delegates, and who voted for Johnson & not Wrights?
Yes.
Me.
I ended up voting for Johnson after being undecided literally to the last minute.
I had to balance Wrights’ ideological superiority versus Johnson’s better media reach (Colbert, multiple MSNBC and Fox shows pre-nom, etc) and resume. It was not an easy decision, although I was not under any delusion that it would make the difference in the race. Johnson’s media reach and resume would not have tempted me if he was not also showing time and again that he was putting peace and civil liberties issues front and center and selling himself to the left at least as much as to the right.
I also knew that Wrights would run for VP so I decided to split the difference that way and voted for Wrights for VP.
BH @106
I had time called on me at the podium before I could do it at the front of the room. The first round of balloting was when I availed myself of the opportunity to walk the room to the delegations that I had the most support and lobbied them.
Consider the vote totals from the delegations where the ‘Wagner’ faction was seated when you decide whether to believe me or not.
Wes
I take both Burke and Wagner seriously.
I appreciate Burke’s civil fact-based unrebutted responses to repeated attempts to smear him as some kind of Republican operative. (In the LP, “Republican!” is the equivalent of “witch!”.) However, I don’t agree with his claim that Wagner had no standing to appeal to JudCom, I think it’s unwise for him to complain about Wrights’ conflict of interest, and his quorum call on Sunday was as realistic as Wagner running for Chair.
Wagner: I threw all my chair votes to Neele [sic] privately before the first round of balloting
This I find hard to take seriously. Neale was in no danger of elimination, and your voters would be free to vote for him after you and Hancock were inevitably eliminated.
Knapp: “And not all “purists” let ideological considerations determine their every action.”
No, of course ideology doesn’t “determine their every action.” That’s not what I said. I said that there weren’t any plausible reasons that I could think of as to why a substantial number of “purist” delegates would’ve voted for Johnson instead of Wrights, despite Wrights obviously being the “purist” candidate *relative to the “pragmatist” Johnson*. I don’t think the reason why Andy hates Wrights and/or a perception that Wrights look like a “biker” and/or Wrights being friendly with Geoff Neale or whoever caused dozens of “purists” to flock to Gary Johnson instead of Lee Wrights.
By the way, Wrights did get about a quarter of the vote, so it’s not as though I’m claiming that people widely considered “purist” Libertarians were an insignificant presence at the convention.
And just out of curiosity, do you know people who are generally considered “purist” as opposed to “pragmatic” Libertarians, who were delegates, and who voted for Johnson & not Wrights?
Knapp: “The taxonomy of partisan Libertarians is much more complex than “purists” versus “pragmatists” and “radicals” versus “moderates.””
Yes (although if I were asked what the main division among Libertarians is–or among virtually any philosophical group–I’d say that one). But that’s irrelevant as to the question of whether those categories most accurately reflect the breakdown of votes *in this particular case*.
Knapp: “But, to the extent that “purist” versus “pragmatist” considerations may have played, I still think if you look at the presidential vote totals versus the totals for LNC offices and reps, you’ll find that the vote counts went way down.
And my guess is that reduction increased the percentage of “purists” versus “pragmatists” in the room.”
Yes. It’s not surprising that there were far fewer votes for those offices compared to votes for the nomination for President. Not sure what the point is here relating to the proportion of “purist” vs. “pragmatist” delegates at the convention.
Sigh … Mark Rutherford still isn’t grokking what happened:
@102 I consider myself a purist but not how most purist define it. I think there are other ways to present a pure message without it being watered down.
Unfortunately many purists only want to hear the message that excites them, not one that may appeal to others. I talked to several first timers at the convention and some of them mentioned that without my prompting, they said it seemed like many libertarians just like being preached to with the same message.
We can be pure while articulating our message in a way that promotes the benefits, not just the features or what we want to abolish.
“Libertarian Activists Seek to Abolish the use of the Word “Abolish”
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150182623557699
JT @99,
Once again: Being a “purist” is not the same as being ONLY a “purist.”
“Purism” is an ideological orientation (and not a very well-defined one), and its content varies from person to person.
For example, per my particular “purism,” Wrights’s answer on immigration in the presidential debate was a big downer.
And not all “purists” let ideological considerations determine their every action.
The taxonomy of partisan Libertarians is much more complex than “purists” versus “pragmatists” and “radicals” versus “moderates.”
But, to the extent that “purist” versus “pragmatist” considerations may have played, I still think if you look at the presidential vote totals versus the totals for LNC offices and reps, you’ll find that the vote counts went way down.
And my guess is that reduction increased the percentage of “purists” versus “pragmatists” in the room.
A lot of “purists” place more importance on the LNC’s operations than it probably deserves vis a vis ideology.
And a lot of “pragmatists” figure that the nuts and bolts work happens in the campaigns and in the state LPs, and consider the LNC a minor sideshow.
Has someone seen the full set of At-Large votes?
With respect to @94,
I noticed the 126 votes Wagner and Hinkle received. I was surprised by that until I remembered that people could cast five votes rather than one and that, over his term, Hinkle had alienated a lot of people on both sides of the factional divide.
While it is clear that I have a personal interest in the LPOR matter, I don’t think that Mr. Wagner can use his unsuccessful run for LNC at-large to constitute any sort of endorsement or mandate.
Richard P. Burke
Knedler: Hey, we’re still the LPO, I’m just putting the LPOR down as a personal courtesy to you. 😉
Tom, in response to your post 70:
Phillies has never been taken seriously as a candidate by the vast majority of Libertarian delegates because of other issues. And justifiably so, IMO.
With regard to Wrights, I don’t think any of the factors you mentioned is a widespread phenomenon. Andy’s beef with Wrights is self-contained. Wrights has been a reliable radical vote on the LNC. Wrights’ best known association was with Mary Ruwart, who’s the darling of “purist” Libertarians.
But more important, the context here is Wrights *versus Johnson*. Johnson didn’t just edge out Wrights; he crushed him, receiving 70% of the vote on the first ballot. Assuming for the sake of argument that there were 50% “purists” at the convention, as you hypothetically posited, then that would mean that at least 2 out of 5 voted for Johnson instead of for Wrights. Don’t buy that at all.
Of course, that’s not taking into account the roughly 4.5% looney vote.
BH @ 97: “I’m happy to consider this matter closed.”
THANK YOU!
Jill, I am delighted to hear you assert that if, against LPHQ policy, the confidential delegate email list had been selectively leaked and was then used by Root supporters to promote his re-election, you would have just deleted the email and not complained about it at all.
You asserting that answer is very helpful for understanding what kind of person you are. I’m happy to consider this matter closed.
BH @ 89: “Again, the question was: what would you have done if you’d gotten a Re-Elect Root email that you found out was sent to a delegate email list that had been selectively leaked to/by a Root supporter?”
Answer: I would have deleted that damn thing and proceeded with my life.
If you don’t like my answers, then don’t ask me questions.
94 ww: Does anyone take this guy seriously ? Please speak up if you do.
me: I take you both seriously. We’re all members of an extended (deeply dysfunctional!) family.
Fwiw .. I threw all my chair votes to Neele privately before the first round of balloting.
Burke of course is ignoring that in the at large race I was almost as popular as the outgoing chair :p
Does anyone take this guy seriously ? Please speak up if you do.
@80,
Thank you for acknowledging that Ms. Ruwart and Mr. Wrights needed to maintain a professional distance with regard to the Oregon matter. Like you, I believe that what they do is nobody’s business – until one is voting on briefs written by the other.
If Bodenhousen abstained on the Credentials Committee because his participation would not have changed the outcome, it is reasonable to conclude that he would have voted for the Reeves group because a vote against WOULD have changed the result to a 4-4 tie. If so, though still unfortunate, M’s vote would not have been the tie breaker.
I understand what you are saying about “first out of the gate” with regard to the Credentials Committee 4-3 vote for the Reeves delegation. Although we are now in the realm of speculation, I think the biggest factor were the letters both sides distributed to the delegates before the floor vote making our cases. Delegates were probably more informed about the LPOR issue than any other non-election issue.
It seemed pretty clear that most delegates were not sympathetic to Wagner’s tactics. And while you are correct that Wagner was unlikely to garner many votes for national chair, I think his conduct in Oregon explains why he only got nine. I mean, seriously… nine?
I have no doubt that if I tried to do what Wagner’s group did, he and most of the people on IPR would be howling with rage. And like Wagner, who expressed no willingness to seat Reeves delegates had he won the floor fight, I probably wouldn’t even be seated as a delegate.
Richard P. Burke
Oh boy, never thought of Shakespeare. I meant what I said about Steve. He is my friend and fellow Ohio LP member. We don’t vote the same on stuff sometimes, but he votes and pulls NO shenanigans. Voting with good intentions to drive the party and its brand forward is critical. That was the context of my comment.
90 kk: …Mr. Linnabary of Ohio is an honorable man.
me: I’m assuming you mean this sincerely, not like “Brutus is an honorable man.” If so, I suggest losing that phrasing, since where Shakespeare wrote it, he meant it differently…
Interesting Credentials committee vote on the Oregon Situation. Members from Ohio and Michigan (Region 3) voted for Wagner. Just pointing this out. We come at libertarianism from different angles, but Mr. Linnabary of Ohio is an honorable man.
JP: If I had received a “Re-elect Root” email, I would have simply deleted it
That wasn’t the question. And you know it. Because I’ve told you repeatedly that it’s not about the spam, it’s about the leak.
You can misread me, or you can complain about me repeating myself, but it’s not fair to do both.
Again, the question was: what would you have done if you’d gotten a Re-Elect Root email that you found out was sent to a delegate email list that had been selectively leaked to/by a Root supporter?
BH @ 86: If I had received a “Re-elect Root” email, I would have simply deleted it, as I do all my unwanted emails. And then I would have forgotten all about it, because I’m always behind in email and I need to get through it quickly so I can get back to doing more important things.
I’m done with this topic, though. But, I promised Less Antman I would do my very best to continue the feeling of goodwill that I had when I left the convention, so I’ll try really hard not to pick on you or Richard Burke any more, which means I probably won’t respond here much to either one of you.
Goodnight.
Strike that — Carol’s already written two things that I’m willing to let stand as the last word on the matter. They were:
1) Nobody here but Brian cares that the confidential delegate email list was used to send an attack email against an LP officer.
2) “Conspiracy in defense of liberty is not vice”.
Oh puhleez. How “private” would the “feud” have been if some Root supporter had spammed all the delegates with “Re-Elect Root”? The half-dozen Certified Root Haters here would have been apoplectic over the misuse of the delegate email list. You should take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you’d be among them.
I “insist” nothing more than that 1) shameful actions be publicly shamed, and 2) public attempts to excuse them be similarly shamed.
If you’ll check the record, you’ll see that I’m in response-only mode on CarolGate. For example, you just brought it up here again, and so I responded.
If you think I’m going to let the last word on that matter be someone offering an unrebutted excuse/dismissal of her (in)actions — well, good luck with that.
Although, Brian, it’s odd to hear you admonish us when you insist on dragging us all in to your private feud with Carol over the email list.
http://www.facebook.com/rpburke
Okay, my apologies to Richard.
That’s not him.
Please stop the smearing. Just stop it. Please.
Richard, I went to Facebook to see if I know you. Is that you from Natchez, Mississippi?
I notice that you list your political views as “Republican”. Conflict of interest, maybe?
You might have gotten credit for it had you pointed that out on the convention floor.
Maybe, maybe not. Remember the abstention by Bodenhousen. I asked him why he abstained, and he said essentially that his participation wouldn’t have changed the outcome. Maybe he can chime in here if my memory of the discussion is inaccurate.
Had Carling done the right thing, perhaps Bodenhousen would have voted one way or the other.
Now you’re simply being disingenious. You know as well as I do the value of “first out of the gate”. Collectives are often unwilling to “overturn” a decision. Once the Credentials Committee made its choice, a certain fraction of the floor would have supported the CC’s decision.
Had the Credentials Committee voted to seat the Wagner group, it would have been **YOU** and the rest of the Reeves group who would have faced longer odds.
I think his votes for chair are irrelevant to this particular discussion. First of all, I have said repeatedly that 1) I am not a partisan of either side; and 2) both sides need to wipe and take a shower.
I advised Wagner weeks prior to the convention that he would find little support in his run for chair, and that he should find a way to begin resolving the OR issues. He can attest to that himself. The reasons I felt he would not get much support — which I didn’t share with him — were that I felt most people were just tired of the OR situation, and that everyone would understand that his run for chair was just payback.
Had your friend Reeves run for chair, he would have gotten 9 or so votes as well — so step off on the roostering.
What’s this collective guilt crap? I don’t remember saying Word One to you about it, much less “jump on you” over it.
All I’m doing is pointing out that you scrambled onto your surfboard about Wrights but couldn’t even be bothered to get into the water about Carling. Hypocrisy doesn’t become you and doesn’t help make your case.
Maybe you shouldn’t assume I was, or am, a Wrights partisan. Wrights himself can tell you that I am not. I have had more than a few run-ins with Wrights over the years, and frankly I was not friendly with him.
Frankly I have no idea what the relationship is between Lee and Mary. Nor do I want to know. Nor do I know who *you* are involved with, and I don’t *want* to know that, either. Ain’t really my business in either case.
If they are involved, fine — they need to maintain professional distance on professional questions.
Happy?
We’ve been over this before, and I’m not going to go over it again. Sorry.
Well, actually, that was what **YOU** argued:
Like I said: Grow Up.
@76,
The Reeves faction did NOT refuse to seat Wagner. We offered seats to Wagner’s slate without conditions. We had five vacancies. Three were filled by members of Wagner’s slate (Jabin, Gray, Skyba). Wagner did not take us up on our offer. Although he could have been seated in another delegation, he did not.
After he failed to take us up on our offer, I concluded that he was not interested in any sort of cooperation with us, even in convention. The tone of his speech for LNC chair underscored my belief that he does not subscribe to the Statement of Principles. I did not vote in the Sunday question of whether or not to seat him, though I wanted him voted on individually. I was away from my delegation, so I don’t know how they voted.
Richard P. Burke
Incidentally I recorded a video from my laptop camera, however, it is of poor quality. I’d be happy to provide a copy of it to anyone who requests it. That is, if I can figure out where the recording program saved the stupid file.
The more telling part of recording, though, was that when I started recording, Lieberman expressed rather extreme discomfort with the idea of being recorded.
Gary Johnson, (long-time TX LP member Gary Johnson, not that other guy from NM) on the other hand, had absolutely no problem with it, did not fear it whatsoever, and even let me know when my stupid laptop fell asleep during the meeting.
Of course I disagreed with his vote, but he immediately won my respect for the fact that he didn’t have a concern in the world about being recorded.
I think Gary understood what Lieberman does not: If you try to hide what you’re doing and make decisions (while hiding), you feed suspicion of your motives.
On the other hand, if you know you will be making a decision that will be controversial, but you do so openly without hiding, you lose the taint of suspicion of your motives — and the people who may disagree with you will simply argue your conclusions (instead of your motives).
@72, @ 73, @74,
Hey, hold on just a minute… give me some credit here – I already acknowledged that M had a conflict. Don’t I get some points for that? Geeez.
Not that it makes it okay, but had M not voted, credentials committee would have deadlocked 3-3 and it would have gone to the floor, which it did anyway. And the floor made it’s choice, so it’s hard to lay this on M if you are a Wagner supporter. If Wagner truly had support at the convention, he would have gotten more than 9 votes for chair and the delegation would have seated him as a delegate. It’s not an excuse, but It’s pertinent.
At the same time, you guys are not consistent. When I point out that Lee Wrights had conflicts of interest over his JudComm vote, you guys jumped all over me. Come on… Seriously… Lee’s conflicts were obvious given not only his relationship with Mary, who provided a brief upon which he ruled in the LPOR matter, but his status as a declared presidential candidate with an interest in who might send a delegation.
COME ON! Aren’t you guys big enough to meet me halfway and admit that that ain’t cool? Even Mary turned down a Judcomm candidacy to avoid the possibility of repeating the conflict – I heard her say so in the hallway. Even she saw the problematic nature of the issue. If Mary can see it, why can’t you???
And as far as the LPOR bylaws are concerned, even Wagner admits that his purported bylaw changes were not made in accordance with LPOR’s bylaws as approved by members in convention. He misapplied a statute from the STATE to justify it. NOBODY is arguing that he followed the bylaws because he so obviously did NOT, even by his own admission. So why are we arguing about it? Are you guys OK with that?
…Unless you are arguing that following bylaws is not important. Is anybody arguing that? And if you are arguing that rules don’t matter, then why bother to get fired up about conflicts of interest? If you are arguing that rules don’t matter, than all I can respond with is that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. PLEASE tell me that you are not arguing that.
Richard P. Burke
I understand that the Reeves faction refused to seat Wes Wagner.
For anyone interested in how the Credentials Committee voted, I put up a summary of the May 2 meeting where the Reeves faction was selected:
My one concern about Emily’s leadership of the meeting was that she failed to disqualify Carling due to his direct interest in the case. However, I think that was just an oversight. I pointed it out to her afterwards, and she looked pretty pained about it. I didn’t complain to her any further; it was Carling’s poor judgement and bias that kept him in the vote; and he knew 1) exactly what he was doing and 2) why it was very wrong of him to do it.
“Setting the example” is also an example of “he did it first!!”
Be the change you want to see.
Let’s put it this way: Would you rather be known as a petulant child, or a statesmanlike, fair-minded gentleman, who reaches across the aisle before anyone else?
RB @ 68: “But Mr. Wrights set the standard, and at least Mr. Carling can demonstrate that he acted in the Oregon matter in accordance with the LPOR bylaws. Mr. Wrights cannot say that.”
Puh-leez! Give me a break. Next, are you going to try to sell me the London Bridge?
@68,
Really? REALLY? Your response is to complain the equivalent of “But they did it first!!”?
What kind of schoolyard BS is this?
No wonder the OR situation is where it is.
GROW THE HELL UP!
Hell, everyone involved needs to grow up. Think about it, Burke — you could be the first.
MM @ 67 says: “”M Carling is one of the aggrieved parties in the LP-OR case, as I recall is a named party in the lawsuit, and in any case has a strong allegiance to one of the Oregon factions.
Yet he did not recuse himself from the Credentials Committee vote on which faction to credential. That vote directly affected M Carling. That in and of itself is the very definition of conflict of interest.
If you are going to continue to foam at the mouth about Wrights voting on the JudComm, then be fair and do the same about your own factionmate voting on CredComm.”
I completely agree with Mr. Montoni.
It is beyond belief that people on the National Committee made a big deal about Mary and Lee over a minor link,. but yet M Carling was allowed to vote on something with which he was a substantial part of. It’s exactly this kind of arrogance and disregard for common decency (not to speak of doing the right thing in the first place by seating the Wagner faction) that got the people on the National Committee replaced.
JT@62,
“So looking at this particular race, why would ‘purist’ Libertarians *not* vote for Wrights instead of Johnson?”
For the same reasons that many “pragmatists” and “moderates” didn’t vote for the most pragmatic and moderate candidate in 2008 (George Phillies).
Just because a “purist,” that doesn’t mean a “purist” is ALL you are.
Some “purists” have personal issues with Wrights (e.g. Andy).
Some “purists” may have issues with Wrights’s past record on the LNC (for example, he argued vigorously against the “zero dues” policy awhile back).
Some “purists” may be skeptical of his past or present personal associations (with Phillies; with Neale; in the past, with Rutherford and Lark, although I don’t know if he’s friendly with them now, not having had occasion to discuss either of them with him recently).
At least one LP member, whose ideological/factional alignments I have no clue about, apparently didn’t like him (and vocalized that dislike here on IPR more than once) because he thought he looked like a biker.
Wrights has been in the party for awhile. He’s done things while in the party, and some of those things have pissed some people off. That’s the way it works.
Assuming the delegates were 50% “purists,” if even 1/5th of them really disliked Wrights for non-ideological reasons, enough to set their “purism” aside, he was already down to 40%.
Keep in mind also that the delegate count probably went down after the presidential nomination, and it’s quite possible that “purists” were more inclined to stick around that “pragmatists” or whatever. The delegate mix is constantly changing.
Here is a lesson I learned in Vegas: If you’re going to a national convention, be prepared to hold office. You never know what kind of crazy s**t can happen, and you could at any point turn around and find yourself on the LNC.
@60,
With respect to M Carling, I must acknowledge that you have an arguable point. But Mr. Wrights set the standard, and at least Mr. Carling can demonstrate that he acted in the Oregon matter in accordance with the LPOR bylaws. Mr. Wrights cannot say that. Hopefully, everyone will hold themselves to higher standards in this new term and evaluate what happens in a state according to that state’s bylaws.
Richard P. Burke
@60,
Mr Burke should be ashamed of himself.
M Carling is one of the aggrieved parties in the LP-OR case, as I recall is a named party in the lawsuit, and in any case has a strong allegiance to one of the Oregon factions.
Yet he did not recuse himself from the Credentials Committee vote on which faction to credential. That vote directly affected M Carling. That in and of itself is the very definition of conflict of interest.
If you are going to continue to foam at the mouth about Wrights voting on the JudComm, then be fair and do the same about your own factionmate voting on CredComm.
Grow up.
Your hands are as dirty as you say anyone else’s are.
@64: drop me an email for my number.
Then shouldnt anything Aaron Starr and Alicia Mattson are involved in be brought into question as they are a couple…
Im pretty sure we should rely on assumptions of honor than impropriety
Nicholas at # 49.
We need to talk sometime on that thing they call the telephone. No agenda. Just talk. And NOT about the 2012 convention. LOL
Thanks for making Oregon the LPOR.
At one time there may have been TWO LPO’s.
LOL.
Kevin in Ohio LP or http://www.lpo.org
Just having some fun here.
Tom, in response to your post 38:
As you stated, there were issues other than ideology that impacted how Browne & Nolan were evaluated relative to their opponents in 2000 and 2004.
Johnson is considered an ideological “moderate” compared to Wrights. He has even endorsed the Fair Tax, which many self-identified moderate Libertarians won’t even do. I can’t think of anything that would cause a “purist” delegate to vote for him instead of for Wrights.
I wouldn’t call Johnson a significantly better speaker than Wrights, if at all.
Neither Wrights nor Johnson came into the convention with a lot of money.
Wayne Root, the poster boy for moderation in the LP and avowed enemy of Libertarian purity, is a known Johnson associate.
Johnson was a Republican politician for years, deciding to seek the Libertarian nomination for President only after having unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination. Wrights is a longtime Libertarian activist & official.
It’s true that Johnson is a former governor and Wrights isn’t one, but none of the “purist” Libertarians I know value prior government experience as much as ideology.
So looking at this particular race, why would “purist” Libertarians *not* vote for Wrights instead of Johnson? Maybe I’m overlooking something, but I don’t think so. I think Wrights probably got as much “purist” delegate support as there was to get.
All,
Sorry about bad spelling and grammar. I’m trying to do this on a phone.
You know, some of you drive me nuts (I’m sure the reverse is true) but I share and admire your Passion for Liberty. Lee Wrights is right about us being a family. But even families have squalls, right?
Richard P. Burke.
@59,
Unfortunately, Mr. Wrights and Ms. Ruwart played a significant role in the LPOR story. They, not us, put themselves in that position. The conflicts of interest, or at least the appearance of such conflicts, are real, and Mr. Wright’s job status was immediately relevant to that.I haven’t heard anyone dispute their conflicts of interest; they’re just upset that we pointed it out.
Richard P. Burke
it was the implication of impropriety from Dr. Ruwart and Lee and the mentioning his job status that was unnecessary , not the content of the letter
Readers might recall that Ruth Bennett was running against Alicia Mattson, which may have had some modest effect on the vote total, as opposed to ‘gave us floor fees’ and ‘last convention, nominated M Carling for Judicial Committee’.
With respect to floor fees, I will be curious to see how many additional responses of “TAANSTAFL” I see when the question is ‘We need volunteers to…’
Libertarian Girl @54,
Thank you. I am a mice person, I think, at least nicer than how I am portrayed. I’d rather do other things than help to disseminate an unpleasant letter, but sometimes the truth is ugly and needs to be brought out into the light. To date, nobody has disputed our account in the letter of what Wagner did.
Still, everyone deserves defenders and it is good to see that he has one. Actually, if the LNC chair vote is to be used as a measuring stick, he has nine. But as the supposedly radical-dominated crowd would not seat him as a delegate, he could count himself as a tenth.
Richard P. Burke
Wagner @52,
as in the legitimate LPOR bylaws, the legitimate LPO convention rules provide for the selection of national convention delegates in the agenda, but do not say that delegates may ONLY be selected in convention.
Richard P. Burke
To Wes Wagner , LOVED YA!
To Richard Burke , you seemed nice in person , a shame you wrote that nasty letter , I have a memory like an elephant …
You’re the one asserting the LPOR rules prohibited choosing delegates outside of convention, so please quote this alleged convention rule.
BH @51
There are convention rules covering it. Get a copy of the old convention rules.
Then apply the principles of interpretation dictated in Robert’s and you should arrive at the conclusion that all other methods are prohibited.
Wagner: Under the old rules, delegates could only be chosen at convention with a quorum
I searched the 2009 LPOR bylaws for the word “delegate”, and the only relevant hits I see are:
Nothing in the above implies that NatCon delegates may only be selected at an LPOR convention.
Wagner @48,
The legitimate 2009 LPOR bylaws provide for the election of delegates in state convention, but does not say that they may ONLY be chosen in convention (as is the case with our Judcomm members). This is actually consistent with the fact that delegate lists can be (and are) modified frequently before conventions and be delegate chairs at convention.
Richard P. Burke
@42: Hinkle was one of the LNC members who injected themselves into the last Oregon convention and dragged his feet in acknowledging and complying with the Judicial Committee ruling regarding the Oregon affiliate.
Hinkle also seemed to be trying to jam through the building purchase against the will of a majority of the LNC (Rutherford was in that majority).
But the bigger issue was that the last LNC term accomplished nothing of note and was characterized by obstruction and infighting on the committee.
BH @45
In theory, if the Reeve’s faction followed the bylaws they claimed were in effect, they could not even send a delegation. Under the old rules, delegates could only be chosen at convention with a quorum.
Their very presence was an act of fraud.
BH @ 45: Red asked yesterday for an explanation, and I didn’t answer because I was too busy. He is a good contributor here, and I chose to answer him today, knowing full well that you would jump in with your version. So, you give him an answer, I’ve given him an answer, and Mark Hilgenberg gave an answer. Dr. Phillips can then decide what he thinks went on, and who he wants to believe. He’s a smart enough man to know people have different opinions.
BH:
“It’s hard to square these facts [that the delegates voted to seat an alleged delegation from an organization other than the LNC’s Oregon affiliate, that the delegates voted down a proposal to seat delegates who refused to subsidize other people’s preference for luxury hotels and circus sideshows, and that the delegates elected a subsidy proponent and did not elect a member of the actual Oregon affiliate to LNC] with the opinion that Oregon and reg fees were major factors in Hinkle’s defeat.”
I’m not sure it’s that hard. One can be on one side rather than the other side of an issue while still thinking that someone handled that issue very poorly as an officer or leader.
Opinions are nice, but consider also some facts:
It’s hard to square these facts with the opinion that Oregon and reg fees were major factors in Hinkle’s defeat.
Wow, Red, where to begin…What Mark Hilgenberg said is pretty accurate. After seating the Reeves faction instead of the Wanger group, then not really heeding the concerns about the floor fees, plus experiencing the attitude of some of those on the National Committee that they’re in charge, so “neener, neener” to the rest of us, I think the general consensus of the group was to replace everyone on the LNC and to start fresh. I don’t think it was Mark Hinkle at all, it was just the fact that the LNC had been so dyfunctional the last couple years. I also don’t think it was Mark Rutherford in particular, either, but, unfortunately, those two seemed to get the brunt of the dissatisfaction.
Red @42,
I think Hinkle was more of an “innocent” victim in this whole thing. His main guilt was that he was a current LNC member. I know he had made some votes that many of us did not like but he was open minded and worked with all factions, in a way that was considered a negative I am afraid.
Could someone tell me briefly what the issues were with Hinkle? If anything, this strikes me as a repudiation of Hinkle’s term.
Knapp nails it @38.
The idea that the LP is cleaved into two factions is a meme spread by people who 1) know which libertarians are Evil and 2) consider as Evil anyone or anything promoted by those known to be Evil. (In math this is called transitive closure.)
I will say this , Nevada played a bigger role that they would have ever guessed. Had the top down control freaks not purged so many in NV , maybe there wouldnt have been so many afraid their state was next. Irony is if Tim Hagan had still been Clark County Treasurer and involved locally , the man would have never accepted the invitation to run citing lack of time to do a proper job….take that to the bank NevadaLP 🙂
@ Kevin Knedler
I want to add myself to the list of those who appreciated an apology for your outburst. We all know too many people that don’t apologize for their words or deeds even when it is obvious that they have hurt/harmed others. I find the ability to recognize and apologize for a transgression to be a positive character trait rather than a sign of weakness as some in pop culture would have us believe.
To those who think this whole episode was off-putting, would you prefer the choreographed dog & pony shows that the R’s and D’s put on (though good ol’ Uncle Ron may make things interesting this year)? I made my way to Las Vegas at considerable expense knowing that there probably would be contentious elections for the LNC and that my single vote could matter. I rather enjoyed the floor “fights” to a certain degree, though I’m still exhausted.
Regarding “purists” et. al:
There are numerous overlapping factions, fractions and tendencies within the LP.
It would be a mistake to assume that any particular vote of hundreds of delegates is necessarily an indicator of the dueling sentiments of any two of those factions, fractions and tendencies.
Harry Browne was a “purist,” but much of the opposition to him came from fellow “purists” who considered his campaign to be engaged in dishonest practices, and much of his support came from “pragmatists” who considered him telegenic, reasonable in voice, and campaign-savvy.
In 2004, Gary Nolan was the closest thing to a “purist” libertarian ideological candidate. He lost to a constitutionalist whom a high percentage of “purists” considered more sincere and less affiliated with the same people they had problems with in the Browne campaigns.
Interesting thread. NICK SARWARK FOR PREZ 2020 (or whenever eligible). Russo probably was ready to beat up Nolan.
William Sparkman, our hero!
Luckily there usually are just a couple people whose behavior is memorably bad enough at conventions to be mad at for years – and some of us don’t even have to be there to get some people mad for years 🙂
@Kevin, 33
Part of the issue I talked to many people about is the purity vs. practical debate. True or not, your slate was considered practical. To many this means you guys will water down the message.
Personally I don’t respond to or like the very radical message and I don’t like the practical or watered down message either. I am big on first showing people that we are on the same side; we all want a better world. I don’t think that we can come up with one path to promoting liberty, the radical vision won’t do it and the “conservative” sounding Root style won’t do it. This does not mean that we don’t need all of those styles.
We do but most of all we need a party that fosters creative and unique ways of promoting liberty. They will never do this by committee, everyone will have their “one true way” promoted as the best way. If the party (LNC) were to become a clearing house for sharing information and promoting options, we would see an explosion in the local activists that would carry over to national party growth.
What a waste
KK @ 33: It looks to me like you’re in a position to influence those around you in your community as to what Libertarians and liberty in general has to offer. That’s plenty to keep you real busy–
John, then I really Don’t know where that puts me.
I want to talk about the wars, the body bags, the use of state National Guard troops being used as cannon fodder in undeclared wars. I clearly remember the Vietnam crap and we are doing it once again. I have no hesitation talking about Gay Marriage, since I have a close family member in the GL community. And hell yes they should legalize marijuana. Can you imagine the small businesses that could open up. Let’s direct the money to legitimate businesses instead of organized crime.
I am not sure there is that much difference. For this small town guy from the fields of Ohio, it just seems to be the “style” of the presentation that is difference.
People seem confused about what happened, this was not a fight between radicals and people who want the party to grow (as Reason wrote) this was fight between top down control freaks who want to limit the platform and stay away from drugs, war and social issues. against EVERYONE else, everyone else is honestly a group of people who want to be a political party, who want to grow the party who want to be more principled and philosophical, but in the end, it was people who were sick of the control freaks.
Roots: “In 2004, the presidential frontrunners (Aaron Russo and Gary Nolan) almost came to blows after Nolan lost and endorsed Badnarik.”
I think “almost came to blows” is hyperbole. Russo & Nolan were definitely angry with each other. There was never a confrontation between them that was about to turn violent.
Roots: “I can’t really explain Gary Johnson.”
That’s proof that your theory is wrong then, isn’t it? Unless you think that half or more of the “purists” voted for Johnson over Wrights, which is extremely unlikely. It’s not as though Wrights was a horrible candidate & Johnson was the only decent option.
Roots: “I was supporting Wrights (and Jim Burns)…”
Burns should’ve skipped to the “Give me liberty or give me death” line in the speech, said the little bit about himself, and then left the stage. It’s unnecessary to watch him impersonate Patrick Henry for half an hour (or what felt like half an hour).
Roots: “Honestly, the presidential field was weak this year, and ripe for the entry of a dynamic renegade to emerge.”
When has the field been much stronger than it was this year? Seems to me like it was pretty close to those of the past.
Love it, Brian. 🙂
@22 — “and to a much ,much lesser degree myself for making sure everybody knew his name”
DITTO that!
You did a great job while I hesitated and Tim jumped in.
Had I known how things were going to turn out, I’d have walked through hot coals and broken glass to win that race. But the victory belongs to the fully committed, and while I was willing to serve, I didn’t commit until after Tim had. He deserved to win. Although, I suspect had you been my “campaign manager” instead, it would have turned out differently.
You’re a significant, and priceless jewel in this party, and I, for one learned a ton from you, am happy with the outcome, and energized and committed to looking for other opportunities to serve and make, if not as big as, at least a more significant positive contribution to this party and the fight for Liberty!
I’m still in Vegas, and hope you and Tim can join me for:
http://www.vegaschatter.com/story/2012/4/12/23712/0612/vegas-travel/Paul+Vigil's+Mystery+And+Magic+Still+Amazes,+Still+Free
Joe
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The Chair cannot hear the motion-maker;
Elections fall apart; the recount cannot be held;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the convention,
The flyer-choked tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is shouted down;
The rule-followers lack all conviction, while the violators
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the First Coming is at hand.
The First Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Bylaw 11.8
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with human body and the head of no man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert delegates.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That four decades of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a suspended rule,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Las Vegas to be not-elected?
@21 Roger,
While the “purists” aka Radicals, etc. were a large percentage, I think a broader coalition was just plain grassroots or local level activists.
Many of us align with the radicals but do explore various styles of communication, not a watered down message, we just allow for several paths to finding liberty including starting off with positive benefits, not just what we are against.
Robert Capozzi:
I can’t really explain Gary Johnson. I was supporting Wrights (and Jim Burns), but I will concede that neither Johnson nor Wrights are stellar debaters. Johnson does not repulse me, and I will support him in the campaign. (Unlike Barr, who I refused to even vote for.)
Honestly, the presidential field was weak this year, and ripe for the entry of a dynamic renegade to emerge. JJ Meyers might have actually beat Johnson. Maybe Michael Cloud. Someone like Jesse Ventura might have edged out Johnson. Ron Paul would have easily won the LP nomination merely by asking for it by telephone. RP probably wouldn’t have needed even to show up.
Just FYI, I don’t want to feel a NOTA speech is necessary at the 2014 convention and I hope all of the LNC members are working toward that end.
21 rr: …we (the “purists,” for lack of a better term) clearly had the majority this year.
me: Wasn’t there, but is GJ got 70% in the first round, that would be contrary evidence.
Regardless of what strain of L thought one holds, it really seems kinda obvious that the LNC has been dysfunctional. It should be no surprise, then, that a reset seemed in order.
It will be interesting whether this newly minted collective learns to put aside pettiness and adopts a productive, greater-good approach…
Mr Sparkman paid for 37 people to be there and paid for the vote everyone out signs , of which i left mine , with my jacket and my GA flag in the Texas party Sunday night , after way , way too much beer…can we all agree Texas can freaking throw a party
Also epic in changing the convention outcome was Wes Benedict for recruiting Tin Hagan to run for Treasurer and to a much ,much lesser degree myself for making sure everybody knew his name…
I agree with JJM , I had a ticket to the banquet but did not go , I felt beat down , but by the end of Sunday I was elated…
I know Ive said it other places but my apologies to Aaron Starr and George Phillies , there was no prior planning or shenanigans in his Treasurer run. It was in response to firstly Wes suggesting it and secondly asking people whom almost exclusively saying they were voting NOTA.
I’m not sure Sarwark’s speech turned the convention in a different direction (although it probably kept Hinkle from winning reelection as Chair). I agree with John Jay Meyers that the big NOTA vote on the first ballot was a sign of the events that would inevitably develop later. Kniedler’s objections did not change many votes, as we (the “purists,” for lack of a better term) clearly had the majority this year. This fact was the true theme of the Convention. We finally broke the back of the glossy-print neocon “reform” crowd, which had held majorities in every convention since at least Portland.
What was interesting is that most of the delegates (including myself) were unaware that the purists actually had the majority this year. It took until Sunday for everyone to realize this fact.
Not necessarily. Maybe that’s what it’ll take to get better candidates for office
Nick your speech was epic and changed my mind as well , you should be a lawyer…lol
To Kevin Knedler , I feel your pain and understand how you feel , probably not as deeply as you. You have done such good work in Ohio it’s a shame a loss of control over emotions cost you the spot that you were seeking.
I ended up screaming so much I thought I might stroke out whereas I had been working so hard not to be that angry girl ,
Everybody lost their minds Saturday and more devastating than personal losses were the new people that left and wont be back.
I really don’t think the convention was that contentious, when compared against prior conventions. They are all contentious. There was a LOT less booing on the floor this year than in past years. In 2004, the presidential frontrunners (Aaron Russo and Gary Nolan) almost came to blows after Nolan lost and endorsed Badnarik. I spoke with Russo afterward and he was so angry he was almost unable to speak. Nolan was in full meltdown mode.
JohnJeremyVines // May 8, 2012 at 11:39 am
If NOTA were available everywhere, it would win in a landslide.
–That’s a bad thing?
If NOTA were available everywhere, it would win in a landslide.
Kevin,
I know I have lost my temper more than a few times and it has cost me in both in business and personal relationships. Thankfully, most people are forgiving and can see that you have put in a lot of effort for the party. Don’t give up because of one mistake.
JJM: I agree about Mr Sparkman. Would you have time to write things up, and tell us a little about Mr. Sparkman and the Texas group, and their trip out here? They sure know how to party.
Kevin, I don’t know you, but your apology has been heard and noted. I’m personally prepared to move forward with as little animosity as possible. There’s plenty to do here in my little world in Pasadena, CA, as I know there is to do in your state.
Thanks for being man enough to admit you made a mistake (nothing sexist intended in that comment, folks!)
Nicholas, I’ll correct my info about you. I tried to find out a bit about you late last night and couldn’t so I erred on the side of caution
Don’t you do Facebook? I’m certain you’re awfully busy, but in the long run it mights save you some time. It’s very easy to communicate there.
Thanks again–
Nicholas , I really needed to hear that. Thank you. I have been beating the sh– out of myself for the past 63 1/2 hours. I am my toughest critic. I did volunteer to be on the awards commitee of the LNC, if they will have me. I am passionate that we need to honor people. Thank you again.
Minor correction. I’ve been on the committee without interruption since 2004, though some terms are less memorable than others.
Also, Kevin Knedler is a great Libertarian, a wonderful state chair, and a straight shooter in all of my dealings with him. He does good work with the LSLA and graciously volunteered time on a weekend to call in to the LP of Colorado’s strategy session to tell us what has worked in Ohio.
He also did great work in coordinating the awards presentations. It’s important for4 our party to recognize its heroes. Losing his temper on the floor of the convention during the Chair vote was unfortunate, but he was a big enough man to come to the convention floor the next day and apologize to the delegates.
We all make mistakes and sometimes they have consequences, but I hope everyone will move on from last weekend in a positive spirit to advance the party and work with Kevin Knedler and anyone else willing to serve the cause of freedom.
In the end Nick’s speech for NOTA was one of a few major factors that effected the outcome of the convention in the best way possible.
However, had he not made the speech Mark Hinkle would be chair now not Rutherford or Neale. People who voted for NOTA on the first round were not people who were going to vote for Mark Rutherford, they were not the moderates in the Party.
So they really made it a closer race, thus knocking out Hinkle. Nick’s speech caused much of the chaos that ensued, in the end that chaos became beautiful, but unfortunately for some it made the convention more contentious than it had to be.
Saturday nights dinner should have been a real celebration of Gary Johnson and whoever was chair, but everyone seemed beat to death.
However, in the end it all worked out, probably better than had Nick not made the speech, but it should be noted the speech also almost worked opposite of what I consider to be the favorable end.
The real hero of the convention was a guy named William Sparkman. If you are going to write a history of this convention, you should include his name with a plaque.
Your welcome Oranje Mike. 4 minutes ruined two years of work I did, plus the wonderful awards presentations on Friday and Saturday. Maybe you were not up that early. Oh well.
I guess my apology to 400 people on Sunday wasn’t enough to you. It is what it is.
I thank Nick Sarwark, Knedler’s boorish behavior and the Root Cabal for flooding the floor with literature for derailing the Root cabal.
@1 – I completely agree, and will once again cast a general election ballot with NOTA as my preferred candidate for multiple offices.
I think that None of the Above (or None of These Candidates) actually is an option that is on the ballot in Nevada.
I remember there being a ballot initiative on the ballot in California to get None of the Above as an option on the California ballot, but unfortunately it didn’t pass.
You’re right, Matt.
Since I was quite pleased with most of the people elected to the new committee, I owe Nicholas a great big “Thank you”!
Yes. Without Nick’s speech, Mark Rutherford would be LNC chairman, Kevin Knedler may have retained his seat on the LNC, and who know’s who else from the “Root Cabal” would have won seats.
It will be historic to the LP, for sure. It changed my vote. I went in to the convention expecting to vote for Mark Hinkle, but decided after hearing this speecj that perhaps NOTA was a better choice.
I thought that the speech that Nicholas gave in favor of NOTA was very good. NOTA should be on the ballot in every state for every election, for every office.