Posted to Facebook tonight:
I’m running for secretary of the Libertarian Party. I’d appreciate your vote at the Libertarian Party National Convention 2014 — Columbus, Ohio — June 26–29, 2014. If you want to endorse me, comment below or email / message / call me.
I’ll post campaign materials in the next couple days. In the interim, here are vote records from the last LNC term.
Here’s a pdf: Chuck Moulton Voting Records
I mean the whole list, not just this term.
Also, are you still privy to who has fallen in or out of favor with them or who has moved up or down? Or are you just assuming that people who were with them before are still with them now? Do you have inside sources and if so how do you know that they are trustworthy?
Thank you Chuck for running! You have my support. You were an impressive Vice Chair and the voting record sheets you maintain are an invaluable help to transparency.
I gave out that list a long time ago. The inner circle is/was Starr, Lieberman, Mattson, Carling. The outer circle of influenced/controlled LNC members on the board right now includes Visek, Weiner, Olsen, Pojunis…
The list was a lot larger a few terms ago.
Yup and of there is it will end very very very badly for everyone
Well, that’s good. But there could still be fuckery by delegates on the floor.
Paulie
I have been assured by Emily that the credentials committee will not be engaging in any tomfuckery.
Can we at least get a definitive list of who is or isn’t part of it, and who is in which circle?
Assumes the credentials committee and convention delegates won’t do something like what happened last time.
Dr. Lark and Mr. Redpath are not, and never were part of the Starr chamber. Yes, Dr. Lieberman is still there, but everyone knows that he is part of the inner circle of the chamber.
I think it is safe to assume that if it is chuck.v alicia the entire Oregon delegation would vote Chuck.
Alicia’s updated minutes for EC and LNC meetings have been forwarded to Chuck and George. It includes the July 2013 meeting. I also forwarded the files to IPR but the one with LNC minutes bounced. I would vote for Chuck over Alicia, and will if those are the choices, but I appreciate her work on this.
I guess it depends on who “them” are. Some people are still on the LNC from back then. Off the top of my head, Redpath, Lark, Lieberman, Wiener, Ryan, maybe some others? And some of the ones that are not on now may be back in less than a week.
He mentioned he will be really busy during the first couple of months of the term with dissertation work. Otherwise you are correct.
This was six years ago in Denver. I don’t recall which specific issues they disagreed with him on enough to want to remove him. Does it matter at this point? All of them are off the LNC now.
Chuck is a very strong candidate with a proven record as a secretary of other committees as well as the prior experience on the LNC needed to hit the ground running from day one.
“Stewart Flood June 24, 2014 at 2:59 am
They didn’t like his position on certain issues that the LNC had addressed. Anyone who votes against them on an issue is considered to be trouble.”
Which issues did they not like his positions, and what was his position on those issues?
They didn’t like his position on certain issues that the LNC had addressed. Anyone who votes against them on an issue is considered to be trouble.
“Stewart Flood June 24, 2014 at 2:41 am
The Starr chamber put up a candidate, with the sole purpose of defeating Chuck. I was asked to help, but declined since I thought Chuck was the better choice. The comment made to me at the time was to the effect that Chuck was trouble and had to be removed. ”
How exactly did “they” perceive Chuck to be trouble?
The Starr chamber put up a candidate, with the sole purpose of defeating Chuck. I was asked to help, but declined since I thought Chuck was the better choice. The comment made to me at the time was to the effect that Chuck was trouble and had to be removed. They had the votes, since convention delegates have a history of electing candidates who fail to win the presidential nomination to the LNC as some form of consolation prize.
From what I could tell at the time, Jingozian had no initial intention of running for the LNC after losing the presidential nomination. He was a poor choice for the position, and was not very effective as vice-chair.
Also having worked with Mr. Moulton in the Libertarian party of Virginia , I can say his minutes are impeccable.
I fully support Mr. Moulton for that reason, and almost more importantly, a consistent track record of voting the right way for the LP.
I’ll be voting for him too.
For what its worth, Chuck served as the secretary of the Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia, and produced absolutely excellent minutes. Best I’ve ever seen. I’ll be voting for him, based on this, and a large number of other factors.
I think she would have the inside track if she runs, especially given the likely composition of the delegates.
We discussed several possible scenarios under which he would run, only one of which involved running to win.
If that was true, he would already be Secretary now. David filled the vacancy because he was seen as more of a compromise candidate with Chuck and Alicia both being viewed as factional. Honestly that is not the sense I get from Chuck though.
Agreed! Yet he was beaten for reelection (iirc by a substantial margin, but I’d have to go back and check). So obviously not everyone is as happy with him as we are.
So am I. We’ll see if he gets a chance to do that.
She can’t beat Chuck. I don’t believe he would have announced if he was not reasonably sure that he has the support to win. Other than the core of the Starr Chamber, Chuck has no real “enemies” within the party. He did a better job as vice chair in the 2006-2008 term than either of his three successors have. I am certain he’ll do a great job as secretary.
There is now apparently a rumor that Alicia will not run after all. Anyone know whether that is true and if so why? She seemed clearly poised to run.
The entire IPR community #StandsWithChuck.
As for Kentucky in particular it was brought up by Ken Moellman on an EC call a few days ago. What was decided was that no vote was needed, but Ken would try to raise part of the money himself (myself, Mark Hinkle and a few other people gave him some advice), Wes Benedict would send out an email to the national list (last time I asked Wes he was hoping to get to it today), we will try to raise some of the money with Facebook (I got the design for liberty group to create a couple of Knock Out McConnell memes), and there would be some in person fundraising at the convention. After all that the LNC may provide some matching funds. There is not very much left in the 2014 ballot access budget after the EC approved New York’s request. What remains will probably go to get several different states that get close to their goal on their own over the top, although it may all go to one state yet to be determined or something later in the year (ie post-election). I am not sure what you mean about Ohio – they had enough to do their petition on their own, and the 2016 one is not starting yet.
Losty,
Generally speaking individual states appropriations for ballot access are handled by the EC, not the full LNC.
Shane, what about treasurer? Speaking of which, I am still not aware of any candidates for that – it’s only conjecture on my part that Tim Hagan would even run again.
Chuck, thanks for running for this position. It is the only position on the LNC that requires that actual work be done in the form of a product.
Generally the LNC contributes to presidential ballot access only. There are exceptions… most of the time the exceptions are roundabout presidential ballot access though, such as ballot access for a governor race where getting a certain percentage (deemed realistically achievable) would get retention for presidential ballot access in the next few years.
Losty wrote:
No, it is just the roll call votes.
Some things pass without objection (unanimously). They aren’t listed here.
Losty said: “as there are in all practicality very few restrictions on signers and for that matter circulators.”
I heard that there was a stupid law passed there, or perhaps an old law reinterpreted, that says that a Kentucky registered voter can only sign a petition for one candidate for each office. This would of course only be a factor if there were more than one minor party or independent candidate running for the same office though.
I think Chuck Moulton would be a fine Secretary for the LP.
I mean, I see thousands for Illinois, New York, and many other states, and nothing for Kentucky if I am reading this right. For that matter, Not sure I saw Ohio, though looking for Kentucky more for the reasons above.
Chuck, is this Everything they voted on?
One glaring thing I am not seeing that is important for the party, Kentucky Ballot Access.
At least for 2014 US Senate. I can not see how this party can not support Kentucky and their candidate getting on in a race that could change the Balance of power in the United States Senate. With the Minority Leader in the Senate in a very close race where 2-3% could hold the balance of power, it’s almost as if the Party seems to want that status quo when it wouldn’t take a large amount of funds to get them on, as there are in all practicality very few restrictions on signers and for that matter circulators.
That’s a great question. I have heard of no declared candidates. Maybe Hagan is quiet and unoffensive enough to coast to another term with no opposition?
So, there are awesome candidates for Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary now. (I actually like Geoff Neale too, so I’d say there are two pretty awesome candidates for Chair, which is a welcome change.) Who’s going to carry the torch for Treasurer?
Chuck Moulton’s reports are masterpieces of thoroughness and precision, for which he is to be greatly complimented. Unlike the last several LNCs, there is no particular sign of factional polarization, in the sense the it is hard to identify people voting as a block, and other people voting as a separate block. Careful statistical analysis might reveal people having similar opinions, but that is about it so far as I can see with an eyeball check.
He is a lousy chess player but what the hell!
Go, Chuck, Go!!!
We need change. He is a fine person.
Go Chuck!! Excellent.
As do I.
I endorse Chuck for secretary.