Open Thread for Libertarian National Convention June 27 to 29

The convention business starts on Friday the 27th, although several events were scheduled for Thursday, the 26th. Paul Frankel (AKA Paulie) is there, as is Starchild, and tlpusa LOGOhey’ll both blog as much as possible. Anyone else who wants to tell the rest of us about what’s going on can do so here.

1,064 thoughts on “Open Thread for Libertarian National Convention June 27 to 29

  1. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Okay, now that it’s here, I admit it: I wish I was there! It just didn’t work out this year, unfortunately.

  2. Joe

    How hard would it be to set up some sort of dial in conference number to at least be able to listen to the audio feed? Do we need more technogeeks to join the LP?

  3. Andy

    “Joe June 27, 2014 at 1:12 am
    How hard would it be to set up some sort of dial in conference number to at least be able to listen to the audio feed? Do we need more technogeeks to join the LP?”

    Why stop at audio? They ought to live cast video from the convention.

    Some of it will probably be aired on C-SPAN.

  4. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt Post authorJune 26, 2014 at 11:09 pm
    Okay, now that it’s here, I admit it: I wish I was there! It just didn’t work out this year, unfortunately.”

    I don’t really see how people have the time to pop up at all of these meetings.

  5. Stewart Flood

    Doug, what do you mean by “they teem to have a crowd late”? You were there… 🙂

  6. Stewart Flood

    Seem…seem!!! Not enough sleep…and why does it say that I posed the last message at 5:54am when it is clearly 6:54 am?

  7. Mark Axinn

    Jill–

    Sorry that you’re not here. I expect this to be much less confrontational than two yrs ago, which I missed, and lots of good times for all. Also there will definitely be some new faces on LNC. Right now I predict the biggest battle will be for Vice Chair.

    Must get ready to chair my delegation…

  8. Wes Wagner

    Well the Burke Reeves and Greg Burnett are dropping their black and white thesis on the tables at the moment.

  9. paulie

    Starchild is missing his computer. It’s a black Mac laptop with a bunch of stickers. He is wearing his butterfly outfit – if you see it, he should be pretty easy to spot. Hopefully he will find it.

  10. paulie

    Anyone who is here and has any time at all to provide updates please help us out. If you have photos and are not an IPR editor please send them to me and we will get them posted.

  11. Nicholas Sarwark

    Last night was good. Thanks to all the delegates that stopped by. We’ll be at it again tonight if I can pick up some more booze.

    Now it’s time to go down and attend to the party’s business.

  12. paulie

    Thanks for the hospitality suite Nick. There’s a place that delivers beer til 2:30 AM so you can most definitely get booze.

    I have wifi but not a place to plug in (at least not at the delegate table) so I will only be able to post sporadically, not provide detailed liveblogging like at a few of the recent conventions. I may be able to plug in at the media table (haven’t checked yet) but it is not near my delegation table like it was in Vegas.

  13. paulie

    Any other hospitality suites tonight? If anyone knows please post the here, text them to me at 205-534-1622 or see me in person.

  14. paulie

    Nick’s literature. If anyone else has files or scans of literature that is being passed out please send them to us. paulie.frankel@LP.org – someone else who can plug in their computer here or is at home please put them up as a thread if you feel it is warranted. Everyone please also post links to twitter feeds and links elsewhere of live LP national convention coverage, especially liveblogging if anyone finds it.

  15. Steve Scheetz

    The delegation has been officially seated at 10:48… NOW we are going to vote on the agenda….

    That is all I have to say about THAT…..

  16. Wes Wagner

    The LNC delegates voted to abridge our autonomy again. This will be taken under consideration and we will reconsider our relationship with this party.

  17. Nicholas Sarwark

    It should be noted that if Mssrs. Reeves, Burke, and Burnett had sent an email to Mr. Wagner asking to be seated as Oregon delegates, Mr. Wagner would have seated them.

    They decided not to conform to that procedure, preferring to ask the delegates from the other states to seat them over the objection of the Oregon Chair.

  18. paulie

    Does this mean that would-be delegates from any state now have grounds and precedent to ask the full body to seat them over the objection of their own delegation chair, so long as there are empty seats in their delegation? That is how I understood the logic Geoff used in his ruling which the delegates approved and which was also used to convince delegates to seat the disputed delegates.

  19. paulie

    It should be noted that if Mssrs. Reeves, Burke, and Burnett had sent an email to Mr. Wagner asking to be seated as Oregon delegates, Mr. Wagner would have seated them.

    If they are all registered Libertarian voters in Oregon.

  20. paulie

    Motion to allow electronic meetings of LNC and other committees with over 10 members (platform, bylaws etc) to meet electronically passes after some debate. Starr opposed. Redpath, Starchild and others in favor.

  21. paulie

    It allows electronic meetings but does not require, say what percent of meetings would be electronic, or set any other rules such as whether there would be non-committee observer access.

    I will be out of battery soon. At which point no more updates from me for a while.

  22. Steve Scheetz

    Given the fact that Chairman Neale chose to to allow the use of force on the Oregon Affiliate, I do not believe he is the right choice for chairman of a LIBERTARIAN political party.

    I spoke with Nicholas Sarwark, several times, so far, during this convention, and after my conversations with him, I believe that he is the right choice for the Libertarian Party as we move forward.

    I hereby formally endorse Nicholas Sarwark for Chairman of the LNC.

    I endorse him for his knowledge of parliamentary procedure,
    I endorse him for his philosophically Libertarian positions on the issues,
    I endorse him for his energy and his commitment to the party moving forward.

    Nicholas, I wish you all the luck in the world, not just for you, but for all of us.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, we NEED this change.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz
    Chairman, LPPA

  23. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I agree that Neale’s move is an example of why he isn’t strong enough to be the Chairman of the Libertarian National Party.

  24. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I also hope that the three beggars allowed to be on the Oregon delegation are made to sit among the sanctioned people of Oregon. I also hope they remain uncomfortable the enitre time .Ostracism can be an effective tool.

  25. mvetanen

    The LNC delegates cannot choose who the States seat as delegates. That is a complete corruption and perversion of the LNC bylaws of State autonomy.

    The LNC Judicial Committee should immediately call itself in order and reverse this bylaw crisis

    If that cannot or will not happen, then

    The LNC has violated its bylaws, and there for is now forfeit in my opinion.

    If this is allowed to stand, then going forward no State is safe and its delegation may be abridged by the whims of the LNC delegates.

  26. Phil

    Having trouble finding the convention on C-SPAN. As I might not be the only one if anyone has any links to streaming coverage would appreciate if it was posted here.

  27. Wes Wagner

    The vote to end our affiliate relationship with the national LP is currently running through an email ballot. It is ahead 3-0 at the moment.

  28. Fritz Sands

    OK, so I guess the other Oregon LP will be the one affiliated with national. I wonder which, if either, will be recognized by the state government and how much that matters.

  29. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Fritz. the Wagner-led group is recognized by the Secretary of State of Oregon. That’s one of the many reasons seating those three was wrong.

  30. Wes Wagner

    Ballot access … use of the party name and the voter registrations will stay with the actual Libertarian Party of Oregon.

    Multiple letters have been written on this subject by the Oregon Secretary of State.

  31. Nicholas Sarwark

    Mr. Vetanen is correct, it is a violation of the bylaws to seat delegates in a state delegation over the objection of the delegate chair. It was not correctly in order and should have been ruled out of order.

  32. Been There, Done That

    http://www.facebook.com/badlncbehavior

    Found out about this page. There’s plenty to watch and read.

    You know, the last national convention was interesting, for many reasons, not the least of which was that the declared candidates for Chair were not desirable to the membership.

    For any of you struggling with that same issue this year, I recommend a NOTA vote. You might be surprised to see who steps up, from the membership, to volunteer to lead.

    The LP definitely needs new leadership. Re-electing the same people over & over doesn’t work any better for Libertarians than it does in Congress for all of the US.

  33. Brian Holtz

    JudCom can review any decision of the LNC, but the convention is not the LNC. Per Bylaw 9.2, the only convention decisions JudCom can review are resolutions and platform planks, and even then the convention can override a JudCom veto with a 3/4 vote.

    JudCom’s job is to defend the Bylaws between conventions. During conventions, the delegates have to defend the Bylaws themselves. Not all Libertarians believe equally in the idea of following party Bylaws.

  34. Stewart Flood

    It would have been a travesty for anyone other than Hardy to win. The choice was obvious.

  35. Stewart Flood

    For those of you not here, he posthumously received the Samuel Adams award for activism.

  36. Brian Holtz

    396 delegates now registered. The delegates then voted to seat 5 more delegates who had been approved by the Credentials Committee.

  37. Rob Latham

    Region 1 Representative Norm Olsen is circulating notice that a caucus for the region today (Friday, June 27, 2014) at 6:00 p.m. (or earlier if the business session concludes earlier) at Audience Left, Rear Corner of the convention hall.

  38. Joseph Buchman

    Phil @ June 27, 2014 at 11:05 am

    CSPAN generally only covers one hour’s worth of the presidential nominating conventions; Paulie didn’t bring spare batteries or a long extension cord, Starchild’s computer was stolen or lost, Jill and I didn’t go, based on results the LP is short on technogeeks, so this is all there is . . . not even an audio feed or conference call number.

    Meanwhile the secret space conference that’s also happening this weekend has a live webcast with an additional 30 days access for only $60.00.

    http://www.secretspaceprogram.org/conference

  39. mvetanen

    @ Brian Holtz

    The LNC delegates have to follow a process to make changes. In the case of Adding delegates to a state organization over the objections of the State Chair the body would have to first suspend the orders of the day and move to bylaw changes, second amend the bylaws to grant themselves the power to pick and choose a states delegation, then they can seat the delegates they pick for the states.

    What actually happened was ‘out of order’ and a ‘violation of the bylaws’. The LNC convention cannot simply ‘ignore bylaws’. The Chair made an Out of Order ruling, and the parliamentarian should have caught that, An objection was raised and the failure to overruling the chair on this issue does not make the action a backdoor bylaw change… It is still illegal and the results are still illegal.

    The damage will only be to further alienate members uphold principles and ethics.

  40. Brian Holtz

    The delegates rejected a Bylaws change to have a consent calendar of “non-controversial” Bylaws changes. Nick Sarwark again successfully moved to skip the 10 minutes of amendment and go on to the next proposal.

  41. Brian Holtz

    By a vote of 171-92, the delegates rejected a Bylaws change to allow fusion candidacies — thus refusing to fix a Bylaw that multiple affiliates routinely (and wisely) flout.

  42. Brian Holtz

    The delegates rejected an amended version of the previous proposal, which would strike “who is a member” from Bylaw 6 about what candidates an affiliate may endorse.

  43. Brian Holtz

    The delegates approved Bylaws proposal 6: Eliminate Roll Call Vote Announcement
    by State Chairs for National Committee Elections.

  44. Rob Latham

    NEW ROOM: Region 1 Representative Norm Olsen is circulating notice that a caucus for the region today (Friday, June 27, 2014) at 6:00 p.m. (or earlier if the business session concludes earlier) at ***the Madison Room-2nd Floor.***

  45. Brian Holtz

    By a vote of 168-69, the delegates approved the Bylaws proposal to have 5 of the LNC’s 10 choices for convention committees be instead chosen by the 5 states with highest per-capita LPUS membership.

  46. Brian Holtz

    The delegates defeated Bylaws proposal 14 to reduce the number of at-large representatives by 1 and the number of regional representatives by 2.

  47. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    They have adjourned for the day, according to the twitter feed I’ve been following.

  48. Rob Latham

    The national chairman candidates’ debate is getting underway in the Regency Ballroom, 3rd Floor (same room as the venue of the business sessions earlier today).

  49. Krzysztof Lesiak

    The third largest party in America can’t get even 400 at a biannual national convention? I guess not all libertarians are that big on Cultural Marxism after all.

  50. Been There, Done That

    Geoff Neale blames a ‘loser LNC.’ Nice to know what he thinks of the choices the membership made to represent them. I think I’ve heard the Blame Game before…hm…where was it? Oh yes! I remember now. It’s the current occupant of the White House. Takes credit for all success and blames everyone else for failures. It’s not a good day when Libertarians can’t do any better.

  51. Joseph Buchman

    Krzysztof Lesiak @ June 27, 2014 at 8:08 pm

    “The third largest party in America can’t get even 400 at a biannual national convention?”

    They can’t seem to find a way to stream it on the Interwebs; nor even get it covered contemporaneously here on IPR either!

  52. Shane

    So was the LNC during Geoff’s first chair term also a “loser LNC?”

    Nothing was accomplished at that time either.

    I’d argue that yes, the LNC was wrong . . . but so was the chair.

    In looking at his demeanor during this term, he has operated with an ego and air of authority suited for Tammany Hall. It’s not what I expected of him.

    The LP has less political power than a single R\D county party. No one should be pretending to hold any power.

    It’s time for new leadership.

    Nick has been successful in his career (which is an indicator of characteristics the party should look for in leadership) and has a good track record with the party.

    I hope the delegates give him a shot and clean house for the rest of the LNC as well — especially regional reps who have served ineffectively for so long.

  53. Fritz Sands

    I was very pleased when Geoff volunteered two years ago to return to being chair and get us out of the horrible impasse we were stuck in. However, it does seem that perhaps it is time for someone new.

  54. Roger Roots

    Perhaps one explanation for the Convention’s low attendance is its timing during the summer. Summer weeks (and weekends) are precious. I don’t recall a previous LNC this late in the summer; most recent conventions have been in May, April, or even March. Speaking only for myself (and I am not in attendance because I am campaigning (and building a house) in Montana), I found the summer date very inconvenient.

  55. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Maybe $120 a night is the going rate for a hotel room, but that along with $500 plus airfare made a trip for me cost-prohibitive. I probably could have come up with the money for a presidential year, but I couldn’t justify it in 2014.

    I do wish I was there, though.

  56. Shane

    The attendance is standard for a non-presidential year. This convention was poorly promoted so I’m surprised attendance is as high as it is.

  57. Stewart Flood

    The debate was pretty good. It would have been better if Pojunis had not been in it. He gave answers (almost all in an agitated and angry tone of voice), but I don’t recall many of his answers actually having anything to do with the question he was being asked.

    I’m not sure why he thinks he has enough support to run.

  58. Stewart Flood

    The food is good, but the meeting rooms are spread out too far from each other. You spend a lot of time getting from the hotel to the convention floor or past it to other areas being used.

    The opening reception was nice, until the speakers were turned on and the MC started his program. Very nice singer but a so-so comedian, but with the sound level set to lets-pop-your-ear-drums it forced many of us to have to move to the back to continue conversations or simply leave.

    The turnout of vendors and their placement is actually an embarrassment. When we looked at the facility (which I voted against), the only logical place to put vendors was outside the ballroom being used as the convention floor. There are a few of what would be considered “preferred” vendors in that space, but the rest are down a hallway that many delegates won’t go by now that the LSLA’s events are over.

    On a good note, the elevators have not turned out to be as much of a problem as they were when we visited in 2011. The wait is still a bit longer than you’d expect, but not as bad as it was during that stay.

  59. Mark Axinn

    A few random thoughts at this point:

    1. Many state chairs offered the three members of the Burke group seats in their delegations–heck I have 22 unused delegation slots to fill.

    2. After two years on the Nevada/California border, NY has moved back east to form a contiguous region with all six New England states and New Jersey. I thank Brett, Kevin T. and others for out west for their warm welcome and allowing us to participate with them. Our new region is at 11.25%, more than enough for a region once the by-law amendment to reduce regions failed (and an idiotic amendment to eliminate regional reps failed too), we we don’t have to be a double region with the always gracious and helpful Dr. Lark and the states to our south. I am very pleased to be represented on the next LNC by Rich Tomasso (NH) and Josh Katz (CT), two Libertarians from the libertarian wing of the Party who are also state chairs. The next LNC will continue to have reps. who understand needs of affiliates and recognize their autonomy.

    3. Ohio LP has done a terrific job working with the hotel to keep things moving smoothly. Kudos to Knedler, Bridges, Linnabury, et al. Ohio had a nice party with great Mexican food Thursday night. Some of them are on the ballot, but of course Charlie Earl is not due to the John Kasich Re-elect Act pushed though the Republican legislature here. As Geoff and Nancy Neale both said repeatedly yesterday, never before has the hosting state’s LP been so involved and done so much of the work on a national convention as Ohio has done this year.

    4. MUCH too much time on by-laws yesterday. I have some young newbies in my delegation and they and many others were bored shitless. We need to come up with a better way to handle this.

    4A. Of course I was very disappointed the fusion amendment did not pass (vote was 171-92 which was not quite 2/3) and of course New York will continue to flout it. We vet all candidates and only endorse those whom we can support philosophically, but as NY is a fusion state and we are frequently approached by R’s and D’s with whom we can form alliances and as the LP is not even a minor party under NY election law (we are only an independent body), fusion is essential in our state. I doubt too many of the cheering No voters yesterday recognize that.

    5. Hearty thanks to Nick Sarwark who kept us all in food and booze until 1:00 am this morning. Very kind and generous expenditure for a man living on a public defender’s salary. Nick told my wife he “keeps people out of cages”–what a terrific way to describe his job fighting the prosecutorial arm of the state.

    6. Awards committee (Jim Lark, Bill Redpath, Kevin Knedler, one other who skips my mind)made fantastic choices. The tribute to Hardy was kindly and brought one to tears.

    7. Larry Reed’s book on character and his opening remarks were a great way to start the formal morning session. He is a wonderful man and I will miss FEE in New York when it completes its move to Atlanta this summer.

    8. New LSLA officers elected last night too. We had 30 states represented at the meeting. Past Board did a great job setting up two tracks of workshops on Thursday; thanks to Pat, Ken, Leigh, Aaron and Alicia for all their hard work. We ended up making a little over $1000 profit through vendor booth rentals so the seminars were presented at no cost to attendees and the next LSLA will start with about 9K in the bank. Alicia has very competently put the financials in order and on quickbooks, which will be a great help to the next Treasurer. Next year’s LSLA conference will be in one of five cities (Birmingham, AL, including Portland, ME, New Orleans, LA, Seatle, WA or Lexington, KY). Leigh Lechine of Alabama is the new LSLA Chair. That organization is in great shape.

    9. For those who are not here, Brett Pojunis has thrown his hat in the ring for National Chair. Sam Goldstein did a great job moderating the debate last night and a few times forgot that there were now three candidates! 🙂

    10. Oh and for Andy–My wife and I checked out Comfest in Goodale Park last night (after the Chair’s debate and before drinking courtesy of Mr. Sarwark): what a great scene! Kevin Knedler told us we should check it out and he was right. Bands, crowds of people (mostly MUCH younger!) and some nice smell in the air. And also a million cool restaurants in Short North district that runs down North High Street approx. half mile to 1.5 miles from the hotel. Columbus was an excellent choice of host city.

    Must get ready for day 2 (or 3 for those of us who were here for LSLA on Thursday). Attendance is way too low (approx. 400) and the overall cost of a convention too high although Columbus is not an expensive city; I am becoming convinced that we should do these only every four years.

  60. Nicholas Sarwark

    Thank you again to everyone for your support and for your criticisms. Thank you to every delegate who took the time to attend the convention to do our party’s business. I hope to be elected the next Chair of the LNC this afternoon and spend the next two years serving the candidates and activists who are the most important people in our party.

    If you haven’t already liked and shared the Facebook page, please take a minute and do so.

  61. paulie

    Mr. Vetanen is correct, it is a violation of the bylaws to seat delegates in a state delegation over the objection of the delegate chair. It was not correctly in order and should have been ruled out of order.

    I agree. Is there an option for the current judicial committee to meet, or will it have to be the next one?

  62. paulie

    Currently division standing count on deleting abortion plank after several motions to allow time for debate failed.

  63. Wes Wagner

    The national judicial committee does not have the authority … it is not in the list of its defined power.

  64. paulie

    Apparently we will not come back to bylaws. Anything that we did not get to yesterday will not be brought up again unless there is a suspension of the rules.

  65. paulie

    The national judicial committee does not have the authority … it is not in the list of its defined power.

    Then it should be addressed by the next convention, including a bylaw specifically prohibiting that from being done to any other state delegation in the future.

  66. paulie

    You know, the last national convention was interesting, for many reasons, not the least of which was that the declared candidates for Chair were not desirable to the membership.

    For any of you struggling with that same issue this year, I recommend a NOTA vote. You might be surprised to see who steps up, from the membership, to volunteer to lead.

    Why don’t these people that are going to step up run now, rather than wait for Nick and Geoff to be eliminated first? I have a feeling there is a stealth candidate. I don’t think the situation last time was analogous. Geoff and others who were nominated post-NOTA all tell me they did not plan to run at all until that happened and were reluctant recruits.

    I also don’t know what you have against Nick. I think he will be exactly the breath of fresh air you say you want.

  67. Wes Wagner

    Paulie

    It was already against the bylaws, Phillies explained why from the floor. The chair ruled that the motion was still in order — he was appealed, the delegates sustained the ruling off the chair, ergo the delegates helped violate the bylaws and so it happened.

    No more bylaws will help… you need better delegates and a better chair.

  68. paulie

    JudCom can review any decision of the LNC, but the convention is not the LNC. Per Bylaw 9.2, the only convention decisions JudCom can review are resolutions and platform planks, and even then the convention can override a JudCom veto with a 3/4 vote.

    JudCom’s job is to defend the Bylaws between conventions. During conventions, the delegates have to defend the Bylaws themselves. Not all Libertarians believe equally in the idea of following party Bylaws.

    I am sorry, you are correct. It is not that I don’t believe in following bylaws, it’s that I did not remember that. Now that you have reminded me, I agree that you are correct.

  69. paulie

    It was already against the bylaws, Phillies explained why from the floor.

    Yes, but it could be made more clear in the language so that it does not have to be explained.

    The chair ruled that the motion was still in order — he was appealed, the delegates sustained the ruling off the chair, ergo the delegates helped violate the bylaws and so it happened.

    I agree. I am just trying to figure out what can be done about it if anything.


    No more bylaws will help… you need better delegates and a better chair.

    I agree. And I will help get both if people will work with me.

    If my travel expenses can be covered I will help sign up a lot of delegates for the next convention. We had a plan to do that this time and it was not followed up on. This is what happens when it is not followed up.

  70. paulie

    I also hope that the three beggars allowed to be on the Oregon delegation are made to sit among the sanctioned people of Oregon. I also hope they remain uncomfortable the enitre time .Ostracism can be an effective tool.

    Sorry I haven’t caught up with the rest of this thread yet, so this may have been mentioned already. Apparently right after they sold the rest of the convention on being an “inclusive” slate, they held a vote in which they did not allow the prior properly credential Oregon delegates to participate and made themselves the leadership of the delegation. Wes, it that correct? Also, are you still a delegate, and if not, was it by choice because the process is now illegitimate or did they force you out? If you are, is it from Oregon or a different state?

  71. paulie

    OK, so I guess the other Oregon LP will be the one affiliated with national. I wonder which, if either, will be recognized by the state government and how much that matters.

    Wagner group will remain recognized by the State of Oregon regardless of who the LNC recognizes. Who the LNC recognizes will be up to the next LNC, not the convention. I do suspect that they might now recognize the Burke/Reeves faction, given that the Wagner faction is disaffiliating from LNC. However there will be a fight over this because we will lose national ballot access in Oregon, which is not easy.

    LNC will probably try a trademark lawsuit and will lose. LNC may try to petition on as Libertarian Party or some variant thereof, and will also probably lose on that as well.

    I am sure Wes will probably sue LNC. Hopefully that will not include me since I am not going to be on the new LNC.

  72. paulie

    Also, Burke/Reeves group will use the action of the delegates as evidence in their continuing lawsuits. I suspect the SOS and judge(s) will not care what LNC or national delegates have to say.

  73. paulie

    So no video feed? FYI LNC, it is 2014.

    D’oh!

    Can anyone here who knows how to use their webcam set that up please? Or put up a link if someone is already doing it? I have something that looks like a webcam on my laptop but I see no software associated with it nor have I ever used it. Also, my battery will not last.

    CSPAN is here but they are not providing continuous live coverage. They may or may not have some selected live coverage, and later broadcast (presuming there is any) will probably not be complete. It may also be on e.g. CSPAN 2 or 3.

  74. Wes Wagner

    The record on the lawsuit is closed… appeals have to be based on the record.

  75. paulie

    If nobody is streaming the convention, then feel free to listen in to an ad hoc audio feed at http://mixlr.com/brianholtz. Because it’s a free account I may have to restart it at the top of each hour.

    Thank you Brian. Please put that up as a separate thread if you have not already. Also, any other IPR editors who are here, please put up new threads with coverage of any developments here that our readers may find interesting.

  76. paulie

    Stewart Flood
    June 27, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    It would have been a travesty for anyone other than Hardy to win. The choice was obvious.

    Rob Latham
    June 27, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    Touching tribute to Hardy Macia. Well done, Awards Committee.

    Stewart Flood
    June 27, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    For those of you not here, he posthumously received the Samuel Adams award for activism.

    Agreed!

  77. paulie

    Jill Pyeatt Post author
    June 27, 2014 at 5:12 pm

    They have adjourned for the day, according to the twitter feed I’ve been following.

    Which twitter feed are you following?

  78. Stewart Flood

    From Mark Axinn: “The tribute to Hardy was kindly and brought one to tears.”

    Literally. It was very good.

    I agree that there has to be a better way to deal with ByLaws, but I don’t know what that would be. The attempt to put non-contentious changes in a single slate was a good idea, but I was still a bit on the fence over the potential for problems, since several proposals from the committee that they supported by either a significant majority or unanimously had already been rejected. I believe if this had been the first proposal considered it would have passed. I ended up voting against it.

  79. paulie

    Wes Wagner @ June 27, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    “Is there still a chair debate tonight ?”

    And will it be streamed (even as audio only?)

    Is there a recording of the debate? I wanted to attend but LSLA and my region caucus were a conflict. LSLA elected new officers, the once I remember are Leigh LaChine (state chair of Alabama) as Chair, Beth Vest of Louisiana as Vice Chair, Aimee Love of Alabama (vice chair of Alabama) as Treasurer. I think someone from KY and Jason Weinman of NV are the other two – I don’t remember which one is Secretary and which one at large.

    My region elected Jay Estrada of TX by 21-19 over Daniel Hayes of LA. Hayes is the new alternate by acclaim. I did not run again. The region remained the same (TX, AL, MS, LA, OK) but Arkansas may or may not join today. They are deciding between us, Dianna’s region and their current region.

  80. paulie

    Delegates are invited to come up to my hospitality suite in Room #1925.

    Thank you. I was too tired last night but may stop by tonight if I feel up to it. Texas will have a party also. Those are the only two I know of off the top of my head. Please post others if you know of them.

  81. paulie

    The third largest party in America can’t get even 400 at a biannual national convention? I guess not all libertarians are that big on Cultural Marxism after all.

    It has nothing to do with your fantasies about “cultural marxism.” I lived in the USSR, and it was socially regressive. Marxism is not at all culturally liberal. Marxism seeks to put government in charge of all aspects of people’s lives, including their personal lives. On those issues you are the cultural Marxist, not us.

    First of all there will be more delegates here on the weekend. Some people work during the week and only come to the convention for the main event – in this case the chair election and other officer elections. Second, IMO the convention was not promoted well enough or early enough – or enough period. Certainly less than many past conventions. Third, there is no big draw – none of the speakers are a huge draw, the officer candidates all announced late and have not run very active campaigns compared to past conventions and none of them are strongly opposed by many people as some past ones were. There is no presidential ticket of course. Porcfest is going on at the same time as us (was scheduled well after LP). The hotel is on the high end for LNC conventions and there were many times when people tried to get rooms here and they were not available at that time. Columbus is not a huge draw for those who bring their families (as opposed to some place like Vegas or Orlando). For all these reasons it will not be surprising if we are towards the low end of attendance for LNC national conventions – but that has yet to be determined as many people will be here this weekend.

    Most measures of LP strength are showing growth – participating at local level, voter registration and many others. National dues paying membership is stagnant, but free membership and state membership are growing. And so on.

    Are you planning to be here and help with media coverage this weekend? You certainly took enough of mine and national staff’s time to make sure you will be allowed to do that. Or did you just re-discover your cultural fascism in the last few days?

  82. paulie

    They can’t seem to find a way to stream it on the Interwebs; nor even get it covered contemporaneously here on IPR either!

    Who is “they”? I am spending a lot of money that I can’t really afford and doing my best to provide coverage with no outlets to plug into. A long extension cord would not have helped, unless it was about 50 feet long. I am also sick…it’s been two weeks now and is probably bronchitis or pneumonia at this point. I should really be the one skipping this as I am really not up to doing this at all. Also trying to balance providing coverage with serving as a delegate. It was a lot easier to do in Vegas when my delegation table was right next to the media table. All while I am sick here. Starchild lost his computer. Etc, etc.

    I agree LNC should have streamed this, but it does come with a huge charge from the hotel. The contract should have been negotiated better. That was done by a prior term IIRC.

    Meanwhile you and Chris are not here as far as I know. We could have certainly used your help if you were here.

  83. paulie

    Perhaps one explanation for the Convention’s low attendance is its timing during the summer. Summer weeks (and weekends) are precious. I don’t recall a previous LNC this late in the summer; most recent conventions have been in May, April, or even March. Speaking only for myself (and I am not in attendance because I am campaigning (and building a house) in Montana), I found the summer date very inconvenient

    The best attended convention I have been to was Anaheim in 2000. I think that was July 4th weekend, but I could be wrong.

  84. paulie

    The debate was pretty good. It would have been better if Pojunis had not been in it. He gave answers (almost all in an agitated and angry tone of voice), but I don’t recall many of his answers actually having anything to do with the question he was being asked.

    I’m not sure why he thinks he has enough support to run.

    I would not be surprised if he does, especially if his region and region 3 (which includes Ohio and Indiana) come out strong for him.

    But I rate the highest likelihood as getting skunked by a stealth candidate after a NOTA move from the conservative/moderate side. After that I rate Geoff’s chances as better than Nick’s, although I am supporting Nick.

  85. paulie

    The food is good, but the meeting rooms are spread out too far from each other. You spend a lot of time getting from the hotel to the convention floor or past it to other areas being used.

    Agreed. But it was much worse in Vegas!


    The opening reception was nice, until the speakers were turned on and the MC started his program. Very nice singer but a so-so comedian, but with the sound level set to lets-pop-your-ear-drums it forced many of us to have to move to the back to continue conversations or simply leave.

    The singer (Tatiana Moroz) was an is really good. The comedian sucked. I did not notice any loud music.


    The turnout of vendors and their placement is actually an embarrassment. When we looked at the facility (which I voted against), the only logical place to put vendors was outside the ballroom being used as the convention floor. There are a few of what would be considered “preferred” vendors in that space, but the rest are down a hallway that many delegates won’t go by now that the LSLA’s events are over.

    True. LSLA put together very very late.


    On a good note, the elevators have not turned out to be as much of a problem as they were when we visited in 2011. The wait is still a bit longer than you’d expect, but not as bad as it was during that stay.

    Elevators have been mostly OK.

  86. Stewart Flood

    Streaming it would not be difficult. It is a political question as well as one of the convention committee having the technical resources to do it. When I was on the LNC, I actually put in our own wifi network in St Louis so that we’d save $10K per day that the hotel wanted for wifi as well as have network connectivity from the registration/credentials area to the secretary on the floor.

    This stuff is not rocket science, and it appears that the days of hotels charging a fortune for internet access are going away. 2016 needs to be streamed. Regardless of any CSPAN coverage that we may get, the rest of the convention should be online.

    Will that get done? If this were Vegas, I’d give odds of 10 to 1 against.

  87. Stewart Flood

    It wasn’t the musicians that were too loud, the sound system was set way too high. It was very hard to actually mingle and talk. They wanted us to sit down and be entertained, so they cranked up the speakers. This was a social event where you want people to talk to each other, so the speakers should have been half the volume they were set at.

  88. paulie

    The recordings of yesterday’s business session are at http://mixlr.com/brianholtz/showreel/. Only one or two people tuned in yesterday, so I’ll probably not both streaming today so I don’t have to keep telling people near me that what they say is being broadcast/recorded.

    Brian please do put it up again today but put up a new thread so more people will know about it, and more people may listen later even if they are not listening now.

  89. paulie

    Leigh LaChine

    8:07 AM (2 hours ago)

    to chair, State, mslpvol, chair, mario.barnes, treasurer, Guy, mario.barnes, Leigh, vchair, Aimee, me, PATJDIXON, Daniel, Gary

    Libertarian National Convention

    Columbus, Ohio

    Region Formation Meeting Fri June 27, 2014

    The delegates to the Libertarian Party National Convention of the States of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas convened in the Marion Room at the Hyatt Regency in Columbus, Ohio at 7:30pm for the purpose of forming a Region in accordance with Libertarian Party bylaws.

    Mr. Patrick Dixon of Texas presided over the meeting. Kurt Hildebrand, State Chair of the Libertarian Party of Texas reported that the States of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas contained over 10% of the Libertarian Party membership and qualified as a Region under party bylaws.

    Mr. Dixon opened the floor for nominations for the Regional Representative to the Libertarian National Committee. Kurt Hildebrand nominated Jay Estrada of Texas for the position and Danny Bedwell nominated Daniel Hayes of Louisiana. The delegates decided the vote would be by secret ballot. Aimee Love motioned that the runner-up in the vote be appointed as the Alternate Regional Representative. After discussion, the motion passed.

    Jay Estrada was elected Regional Representative by a vote of 21-19 with Mr. Hayes becoming the Alternate Regional Representative.

    There being no further business the delegates adjourned at 8:12pm.

  90. paulie

    Grant Huihui

    7:47 AM (2 hours ago)

    to bcc: PaulFrankel

    All,

    If you are at the LP convention in Columbus Ohio, please vote for Brett Pojunis for LNC chair today. I had the privilege of working with Brett during Governor Johnson 2012 campaign, and he was by far one of our strongest allies. He is amazing at communicating, branding, strategy, etc. I know what he’s capable of and I ask my fellow directors to support Brett. Thank you!

    Grant

    OAI Southern California State Director

    PS. I believe Brett will help grow the party.

  91. paulie

    Aaron Starr

    1:24 AM (8 hours ago)

    to lsla

    Colleagues,

    This is my final set of minutes for my term of office as Secretary of the LSLA.

    I enjoyed serving all of you these last two terms. I really appreciate your attempts to nominate me to serve another term. Right now I am focused on running for Oxnard City Council and I aim to serve you all in the future as an elected official.

    For those of you wanting to follow my campaign, please go to http://www.StarrForOxnard.com.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to serve such a worthwhile organization.

    I will be working with the next board to assist with any transition required.

    Warmly,

    Aaron Starr, Secretary

    Libertarian State Leadership Alliance


    Minutes of the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance

    The annual meeting of the LSLA came to order at 6:25 PM on June 27, 2014 at the

    Hyatt Regency Columbus in Columbus, Ohio.

    Chairman Patrick Dixon opened the event.

    Secretary Aaron Starr took attendance. The states registered in attendance were as

    follows:

    Alabama – Leigh Lachine

    Arizona-Michael Kielsky

    California-Kevin Takenaga

    Colorado-Jeff Orrok

    Connecticut – Joshua Katz

    DC-Ryan Sabot

    Florida – Alex Snitker

    Idaho – Rob Oates

    Indiana – Dan Drexler

    Iowa-Keith Laube

    Kansas – Barry Albin

    Kentucky – Ken Moellman

    Louisiana – Guy McLendon

    Maine-Shawn Levasseur

    Michigan-Mary Buzuma

    Minnesota – Andy Burns

    Missouri – Cisse Spragins

    Nevada – Brett Pojunis

    New Hampshire – Rich Tomasso

    New Mexico-Elisheva Levin

    New York – Mark Axinn

    North Carolina – J.J. Summerell

    Ohio – Kevin Knedler

    Oregon-Tim Reeves

    South Carolina – Michael Carmany

    Tennessee-Vicki Kirkland

    Texas – Kurt Hildebrand

    Virginia – Bill Redpath

    Washington-Michael Pickens

    The bylaws defining quorum as a majority of those members registered, a quorum was

    found to be present.

    In addition there were a number of guests in attendance.

    Alicia Mattson presented a Treasurer Report covering 2012 through May 2014. She

    projects profitability of around $1,500 for the event. She has volunteered to assist with

    the transition to the new Treasurer.

    Nominations for Chair were opened. Ken Moellman nominated Leigh Lachine.

    Without objection, Leigh Lachine was elected chair.

    Nominations for Vice Chair were opened. Guy McClendon nominated Beth Vest of

    Louisiana. Without objection, Beth Vest was elected Vice Chair.

    Nominations for Secretary were opened. Brett Pojunis nominated Jason Weinman of

    Nevada. Without objection, Jason Weinman was elected Secretary.

    Nominations for Treasurer were opened. Leigh Lachine nominated Aimee Love of

    Alabama. Without objection, Aimee Love was elected Treasurer.

    Nominations for At-large were opened. Ken Moellman nominated David Capano of

    Kentucky. Without objection, David Capano was elected At-large.

    Selection of next LSLA meeting.

    The Chair asked for suggestions on where to have the next LSLA annual meeting.

    Suggestions were made for:

    Seattle, WA

    New Orleans, LA

    Birmingham, AL

    Lexington, KY

    Portland, ME

    Ken Moellman moved to commit the decision to the LSLA Board. The motion was

    adopted.

    Ken Moellman moved to commit the decision to the LSLA Board as to when the meeting

    is held. The motion was adopted.

    Without objection, the minutes were approved at 6:59 pm and we adjourned.

    Aaron Starr, Secretary

  92. paulie

    Rob Voluntaryist Latham posted in Libertarian Party National Convention 2014 — Columbus, Ohio — June 26–29, 2014
    Rob Voluntaryist Latham
    Rob Voluntaryist Latham 9:42am Jun 28
    Fellow delegates,

    I’m open to serving another term on the Judicial Committee. I serve on the current Judicial Committee, having been re-elected in 2012 (Las Vegas), and have served since my election in 2010 (St. Louis).

    I have served as a regional alternate on the LNC, member of the LNC’s Bylaws Committee, in various executive capacities for the Utah Libertarian Party from Legal Counsel to Chair, been a Libertarian candidate for offices from District Attorney to Lieutenant Governor, and petitioned for ballot access.

    I authored dissenting opinions on two 4-3 decisions of the Judicial Committee, linked below for your reference.

    http://bit.ly/1nRWiRG

    http://bit.ly/TFU93U

    Please come visit me at the Utah delegation, which is located audience left, rear corner of the convention floor.

  93. Brian Holtz

    Under suspension of the rules, delegates changed “advocate individual privacy but government transparency” to “advocate individual privacy and government transparency”.

  94. Nicholas Sarwark

    Not related to the Chair’s race, I’m selling the black “Statists Gonna State” shirt that Will McVay from Delaware is wearing on the floor. $15 each, find me if you want one.

  95. kknight

    We are trying to set up live video. Anyone with extra laptops etc come see paul and Kevin in Alabama delegation

  96. Nicholas Sarwark

    Sent from one OAI state coordinator to the OAI list earlier today:

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Liz
    Date: Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 8:35 AM
    Subject: Nick Sarwark

    I encourage you to support Nick Sarwark for LP chair. He has single-handedly convinced me and hundreds of other libertarians I know to change their party affiliations and get involved in supporting the LP (even those who left the party years ago), as well as recruited thousands of other independents to the Libertarian Party and its ideals.

    He has a long history working successfully within the party and has made those of us in other states take notice of CO and see what is possible. He’s convinced some of the staunchest “an LP vote doesn’t count” believers I have ever known that the LP IS the party of the future and has an is presented with an incredible opportunity right now. I hope you will read his website and then make a choice. http://chair.sarwark.org/

    Liz Dreckman

  97. Brian Holtz

    Delegates approved proposal 8.a. to add to 1.6 Self-Defense: “Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property.”

  98. David Colborne

    I heard Redpath might be the semi-mythical stealth Chair candidate. If that’s even remotely true, that would be interesting given his work on ballot access.

  99. Krzysztof Lesiak

    @Paulie

    Nationalism is not the same as fascism. Nationalism, if geunie, has nothing to do with chauvinism, racism or “Antisemitism.” Nationalism is simply a love for one’s nation that comes with deep obligations to fight and defend it from the forces of the New World Order, which ones to destroy the concept of strong, sovereign nation-states and if leftist “libertarians” have their way, they will eventually succeed.

    I remember that you wanted to destroy the entire concept of race, Paulie…at least you promoted interracial marriage to hasten that happening. I find that disgusting. Race is extremely important and there are racial differences. Most people, even if they don’t admit it, prefer to be among their own race and especially their racial subcategory, ethnic nationality. Look at Polish Chicago community. Look at all the Greek, Italian, Chinese, Irish, Russian communities…also look at the black ghettos. There is nothing wrong one choosing to be around one’s own people.

    Cultural Marxism: An offshoot of Marxism that gave birth to political correctness, multiculturalism and “anti-racism.” Unlike traditional Marxism that focuses on economics, Cultural Marxism focuses on culture and maintains that all human behavior is a result of culture (not heredity / race) and thus malleable. Cultural Marxists deny that biological reality of race and argue that race is a “social construct”. Nonetheless, Cultural Marxists support the race-based identity politics of non-whites. Cultural Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western religions above Western religions, speech codes and censorship, multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula, maladaptive sexual norms and anti-male feminism, the dispossession of white people, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries. Cultural Marxists have promoted idea that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children. Samuel P. Huntington maintained that Cultural Marxism is an anti-white ideology.

    Sounds what ya’all leftist “libertarians” want. Luckily, much of the world, especially Putin’s Russia, is rejecting this bullshit. Btw, look at some of the opinion polls of what Russians think about homosexuality. Over 90% don’t want gay marriage and even 30% want to take the ultra radical step of treating them for their disorder.

    I personally don’t give a shit if someone wants to be gay but they shouldn’t have more rights than normal people. It shouldn’t be socially accepted as right. And it isn’t in Eastern Europe and many other corners of the globe.

    Yes I was planning on being there. My dad was too, he even bought a ticket and a hotel room. However I couldn’t get time off work and since it was a new job I can’t afford to lose it. My reason for not being at this convention is strictly due to other obligations.

    Also, there is absolutely no youth in the LP…well, there is very little of it anyway. It’s not a good place for me to go and sling weed, acid and Ecstasy. PorcFest would have been a better pick.

  100. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Drugs have actually played a crucial role in shaping my political views. The first time I dropped acid, for example, I became a born-again Catholic, which is pretty unusual based on the conversations I’ve had with fellow stoners.

  101. Mark Axinn

    Morning business done. Abortion plank stayed in, many improvements made to the text (not the substance) of several other platform planks. Bill Redpath ably stepped in for Geoff a few times.

    Starchild’s outfit not as big as yesterday (the butterfly wings kept knocking over state signs!) and Aaron and Arvin had a big hug!!!! 🙂

    Jim Gray and Gary Johnson speak at 2:00 followed by a second awards ceremony and then voting for a new LNC. Hard stop tonite at 5:00 pm.

    Paulie–We are all here to help you report but you are still the best.

  102. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’ve still been wanting to learn all about the “extra rights” gays have supposedly demanded, Kzrysztof. Clearly, you’ve been hanging around with rightist types.

    I’m glad to hear you’re working. Did you graduate this year, or will you next year?

  103. Mark Axinn

    >It’s not a good place for me to go and sling weed, acid and Ecstasy.

    How wrong you are–Comfest is just a few blocks away. The median age there is around 20. Bands, people everywhere and perhaps even some substance consumption. An old fogey like me had a great time walking around, taking it all in and remembering way back when….

  104. paulie

    If I am Chair, it will get done.

    I hope you will be chair, for this and a number of other reasons, but I don’t think that will happen. I hope to be pleasantly surprised. So I agree with Stewart’s odds.

  105. Krzysztof Lesiak

    I’ve been definitively hopping around the chessboard of political spectrums. I read news and commentary from neocons sites, as well as leftist, WN, paleconservative, libertarian etc.

    @Jill

    Thanks. I’m going to take my High School Equivalency Diploma test in a few weeks and go to Harper College in the fall. I was in AP and honors classes and could have definitively excelled but I hated the public indoctrination system so I didn’t show up much of the time or do anything when there. The drug community at my school was solid and the Polish girls were amazing and everyone else sucked lol. I definitively think there should be alternatives to government “education”, like homeschooling, unschooling etc.School sucks and in in this regard I very much appreciate libertarianism. The modern education system saps the creativity, motivation and passion for learning in young human beings….or at least it did for me. I certainly don’t advocate anyone quit high school; however a G.E.D. is not the end of anyone’s life. A friend of mine has two B.S. degrees and is making decent money right now yet he never received a HS diploma.

    https://www.facebook.com/Unschooling

  106. paulie

    https://mobile.twitter.com/lpradparl has details of votes as they happen

    Here are Tweets from this morning …. more from yesterday, later today etc to be posted later:
    Tweets
    Tweets and replies
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Election of LNC officers after the speechy stuff, 2:30-ish. Be there, rads! #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    8a passes. Business is recessed for lunch. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Voting on proposal 8a. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Voting to end debate. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    The proposal is radical in spirit; it’s really just a question of marketing. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Back to the PlatCom report; 8a amends 1.6 concerning property owners’ rights about firearms. (And yes, 1.6, not 2.6, sorry.) #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    No amendments allowed. Motion to suspend the rules for 10 minutes to consider restorative justice plank. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    But 6b is maybe open for amendment, and there are some. Voting to allow amendments. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Proposal 6b fails. Motion to suspend the rules to amend plank 2.6; non sequitur. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Voting on proposal 6b. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Vote to close debate. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    “We’re responsible. We’re responsible for a *lot* of things!” —G.S. & D.S. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    On to 6b. Adds “responsible individuals” to gun-rights plank. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Motion to suspend the rules to take up migration plank proposal. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Motion is to suspend the rules to undo what we just did and make a different change instead. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Proposal 6a adopted. Motion to suspend the rules for an amendment… maybe? I think? #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Voting on proposal 6a. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Closing debate.
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Move to suspend failed. Twitterer too slow, sorry. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    On to 6a, amending 1.6, cleaning up weapon restriction language. Radical-neutral, but I like it. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Change passes. Motion to suspend the rules for two minutes, to add back in divestment sentence, no debate. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Voting on changing the first sentence. No debate. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Proposal 12 passes. Motion to suspend the rules to consider a single amendment to plank 2.6 without debate. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Thank you J.K. for proposing oppose and amend instead of suspending the rules. Voting now. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Good radical point against the proposal as written; oppose and amend. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Back to proposal 12, unamended. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Motion to suspend the rules to introduce a single amendment to proposal 12. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    On to proposal 12, amending 2.6 significantly. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Proposal 1 passes. Motion to suspend the rules for two minutes to further amend 1.0. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Now voting on proposal 1. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Vote to end debate. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    #nope We’re on proposal 1, amending 1.0, moving a sentence. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Change is passed in 1.2. Now on proposal 16b? #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    2h

    Voting on that change. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    No amendments allowed to 16a. Motion to suspend rules, to change “but” to “and” in 1.2. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Proposal 16a fails. Now voting on whether to allow amendments. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Now voting on proposal 16a. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Motion to suspend rules, 5 more minutes of debate. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    #LP2014 #protip P.D. shows how it’s done: when they start applauding, you’ve made your point.
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    When @VoteVohra and Aaron Starr agree, the writing’s on the wall. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    There are some radical points against 16a. What do you think? #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Continued debate on proposal 16a. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Vote to close debate. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    IMO, the radical vote is Y. We don’t oppose free association, but collective bargaining is destructive to the people. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    On to proposal 16a, opposing government employee unions. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Proposal 17 fails. Now voting on opening for amendment. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    P.D. makes a good point about a micromanaging platform. What do radicals think? #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    #LP2014 #protip Pay attention folks. I do this for you.
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Radical vote is Y on prop. 17, IMO. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Twitter won’t let me repeat myself on pro-forma actions. Now on proposal 17, adding anti-gov-pension to 2.7. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Voting on proposal 15. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Vote to end debate now. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Proposal 15 cleans up union-related language. Radical vote is Y; we oppose mandatory bargaining and so-called “right to work.” #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Another unanimous vote! On a single word. We can agree on that, at least. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Voting on the change from “and” to “or.” #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Proposal 14 adopted. Motion to suspend the rules to change “and” to “or.” #thatjusthappened #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Back to proposal 14. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Vote to close debate. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Proposal 14 amends 2.7; I think the change is an improvement over really opaque language. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Motion to reorder the platform committee report, moving all supplemental proposals to the end. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Voting on proposal 10. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Vote to end debate. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Proposal 10, amending 2.5, anti-fraud. Radical vote is Y, I think. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Motion to recess for 15 minutes. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Motion to suspend the suspend-the-rules rule. #wtf #LP2014 #parliamentarywankery
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Proposal 19 passes. Motion to suspend the rules to consider proposal 1. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Suspension fails; back to proposal 19. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Motion to suspend the rules to shorten the proposed change. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Now on proposal 19, amending 3.5 to assert organizational free association. IMO, radical vote is Y. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    #LP2014 #protip Get a sense of the body; don’t make motions that are sure to fail unless you are really trying to drive home a point.
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Correction: the proposal is indeed to add a full sentence. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    3h

    Motion to suspend the rules to amend 2.1 to insert an ungrammatical sentence fragment. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Motion to suspend rules to re-add restitution clause. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Now actually voting on the reconsidered, amended proposal for 2.1. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Amendment is amended. Voting on striking abuse, adding forfeiture. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Correction: the primary amendment is not wordy, he was restating what’s already there. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Back to voting on the amendment to the amendment (adding civil asset forfeiture). #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Motion to extend time for 10 minutes. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    The people who most need this are not reading it. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Ruling overturned. Amendment about asset forfeiture back in play. Motion to divide. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Ruling appealed; voting on sustaining the ruling (Y sustains the chair, N overturns). #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Motion to amend to add asset forfeiture (as a bad thing). #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Motion to amend with a lot of words… #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Now debating and amending 2.1. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    That motion was out of order; now a motion to reconsider instead. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Proposal 9 passes. Motion to suspend rules to further amend 2.1. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Proposal 9 rewrites plank 2.1 completely. IMO, not radical, rather utilitarian. Vote your conscience (as always). #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Proposal 11 passed UNANIMOUSLY. #LP2014 #thatneverhappens #herdingcats
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Back to proposal 11. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Motion to suspend the rules to allow amendment of platform committee proposals. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Needed power… now on proposal 11, changing 2.6’s title. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    1.2 amended for anti-spying. Now proposal 5, move victimless crime; no radical position, but a good clarification. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Vote on proposal 4. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Motion to close debate. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Radicals vote Y on 1.2. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    1.1, self-ownership, added to the platform. Now proposal 4, anti-spying. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    4h

    Proposal 3: new plank 1.1. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    5h

    Motion to sustain the ruling of the chair. Yes *supports* the chair. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    5h

    Pay attention to the rules, folks! Your points go over better when they’re made correctly. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    5h

    Going to a vote, really, on deleting 1.4. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    5h

    Motion to suspend for debate for 5 minutes. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    5h

    Going to a vote on deleting 1.4. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    5h

    Nope: motion is to debate *and allow amendment*. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    5h

    Motion to suspend the rules to debate this for 15 minutes. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    5h

    What’s the radical position on deleting 1.4? #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    5h

    Beginning Platform Committee. Abortion plank (1.4) is up for deletion vote. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    5h

    Vote to add Cummings (IL), Wolf(e?) (ID) as delegates. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    5h

    Credentials: 419 checked in, quorum: 168, majority: 210, two-thirds: 280, seven-eights: 367. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    LP Radical Parl’n @LPRadParl
    ·
    5h

    Call to order. Get in here for PlatCom. #LP2014
    ?
    Reply
    Replied to 0 times

    ?
    Retweet
    Retweeted 0 times

    ?
    Favorite
    Favorited 0 times

    ?
    More
    ? Retweeted by LP Radical Parl’n
    Libertarian Party OH @LPOhio
    ·
    8h

    Up and at ’em for another busy day at the Libertarian National Convention! #LP2014

  107. paulie

    Paulie–We are all here to help you report but you are still the best.

    Thank you! I am not the best today though. Although I am feeling better again. But I shouldn’t say that because every time I do I get worse…

  108. paulie

    Drugs have actually played a crucial role in shaping my political views. The first time I dropped acid, for example, I became a born-again Catholic, which is pretty unusual based on the conversations I’ve had with fellow stoners.

    Sounds like Pink in The Wall.

  109. paulie

    Nationalism is not the same as fascism.

    I said cultural fascism. It was a counter to your ridiculous term “cultural marxism” which is greatly at odds with actual cultural policies of marxism states.

    I remember that you wanted to destroy the entire concept of race, Paulie…at least you promoted interracial marriage to hasten that happening. I find that disgusting.

    The feeling is mutual.

    Race is extremely important and there are racial differences.

    Bullshit.

    Most people, even if they don’t admit it, prefer to be among their own race and especially their racial subcategory, ethnic nationality.

    Not me. I am proud to be part of the human race.

    No time to answer the rest of your rant but it does sound rather racist and fascist to me. And Putin is a budding fascist dictator.

    Russian anti-gay prejudice is a legacy of the real cultural Marxism. Glad I don’t live there anymore.

  110. paulie

    I heard C. Michael Pickens may be a candidate for Chair.

    Really? LOL, that would be even more last minute than Brett. Although I would think he would be for Brett, but who knows. .

  111. paulie

    I heard Redpath might be the semi-mythical stealth Chair candidate

    Because his last two terms were so great? BTW ballot access suffers when Bill is chair. Bill is already way overloaded with roles and work, and being national chair is a huge time commitment.

    I am thinking Rutherford or Knedler is more likely, despite what Knedler says publicly. Or perhaps Starr himself. I guess we will see.

  112. paulie

    (I posted the above one minute before it happened, so our live-blogging here is now even better than realtime.)

    Very nice. Keep doing that 🙂

  113. paulie

    Gary Johnson speaking now. Judge Gray before him.

    Brian, thank you for helping with coverage and for putting up and bringing back the feed!

  114. paulie

    I definitively think there should be alternatives to government “education”, like homeschooling, unschooling etc.School sucks and in in this regard I very much appreciate libertarianism. The modern education system saps the creativity, motivation and passion for learning in young human beings….

    Very true. One problem for you is that when you make government big enough to do the things you want it to do, it ends up doing a bunch of nasty things that you don’t want it to (that being one of them) and the problem just mushrooms from there. Government is a very dangerous weapon, and one that is very hard to aim accurately or keep under control (in fact impossible).

  115. paulie

    The attendance is standard for a non-presidential year.

    St. Louis and Indianapolis did better. Portland was worse. My memory does not go back further.

    . This convention was poorly promoted so I’m surprised attendance is as high as it is.

    It’s about what I expected.

    Maybe $120 a night is the going rate for a hotel room,

    140 with the tax. It’s on the high end for LP national conventions.

  116. paulie

    Videos on Harry Browne and Richard Winger. Carla Howell accepted on behalf of Browne. Bill Redpath introduced the Winger video. Browne and Winger are being inducted into the Hall of Fame.

  117. paulie

    Andy Jacobs and Lou Jasikoff added, so I think that means 429. Jim Lark starting elections because chair is first and Geoff is running for re-election.

  118. paulie

    JJ Summerell chair of NC nominates Brett Pojuns.

    Darryl Martin of TN nominates Geoff Neale.

    Nominations closed.

  119. paulie

    I’m pretty sure that was a Keep Neale sticker on Bill Redpath. Re: rumor that Redpath is the stealth candidate. Of course Redpath could still be the stealth candidate, if NOTA wins on the first or second ballot. David Williams, former CO chair, is making nomination speech for Sarwark.

  120. paulie

    Nominators for Pojunis: Jason Weinman, JJ Summerell. If I missed any let me know….multitasking.

    Also low battery.

  121. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Very true. One problem for you is that when you make government big enough to do the things you want it to do, it ends up doing a bunch of nasty things that you don’t want it to (that being one of them) and the problem just mushrooms from there. Government is a very dangerous weapon, and one that is very hard to aim accurately or keep under control (in fact impossible).

    Hmm. That’s something to think about, definitively. Is there any concept called Anarcho-Nationalism or something like that?

    Anyway, good job on the coverage. Hope it’s a good time for ya’ll that are there.

  122. Joe

    paulie @ June 28, 2014 at 9:56 am

    Joe wrote:

    “They can’t seem to find a way to stream it on the Interwebs;”

    Paulie wrote

    “Who is “they”?”

    The organizing committee for the convention. Seems it could be a money-maker. I’m spending $60 to get a live stream of

    http://www.secretspaceprogram.org

    and the “They There” can manage that (comes with a month of access), and “That They” has had a better website and promotion.

    Based on results the LP has fewer technogeeks available for such things.

    Paulie wrote:

    “I am spending a lot of money that I can’t really afford and doing my best to provide coverage with no outlets to plug into.”

    MY gratitude expression for that here is delayed and I apologize. I’ve been working late nights on a manuscript that I’ll still be working on this fall into winter at least. Up till dawn most nights because that’s when I’m finding I’m most productive, and the time with the fewest distractions (except for the swatch of the Milky Way outside!). At about 7am Columbus time (5AM here) I was expecting to see details of the chairs’ debate somewhere.

    BUT TODAY YOU’RE ON TOP OF IT LIKE CRAZY — THANKS Paulie. I’ll donate to your paypal again for that and urge others to do so as well.

    Paulie wrote:

    “A long extension cord would not have helped, unless it was about 50 feet long.”

    Exactly, what good is a technogeek without a fuel cell, solar panel, wind turbine, or at least 100 feet of extension cord. (That is what I travel with; it’s what got me power on the floor in Denver in 2008, and in 2012. I also remember getting you Internet access in 2012 (via my 3-g cell phone as a modem hack/app).

    So if you get a 100 foot extension cord from me for your next birthday, now you’ll know why.

    Hope you’re feeling better; hope the above made you laugh.

  123. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    “Bret just suggested that if elected chair, he will do things regardless of what the LNC votes.”

    So, Pojunis will do things the Obama way?

  124. David Colborne

    Brett’s been very solid in his brief time as Chair. We have more candidates on the ballot, voter registration numbers are picking up once more, we’ve been mentioned more in the press, our social media efforts are light years beyond anything we had previously… it’s hard not to understate the effect he’s had on the Party here.

  125. Joshua Katz

    Bill Redpath speaking for Geoff Neale. Praised him for the “building” purchase. I highly respect Bill, but I am shocked by this nominating speech after Vegas, and that he’d run on the so-called building purchase.

  126. Joshua Katz

    Neale now appears to be saying that his opponents aren’t worthy of a real campaign. Strategy seems to be treating his opponents as inexperienced and not worthy of running against.

  127. Joseph Buchman

    Recent timeline RE: Oregon.

    Let’s see if I have this correct (please correct me if I am wrong).

    (Not going back to Genesis, but starting somewhere in Acts)

    1. Neale recognizes Wes as the official chair of LPO.

    2. Wes openly supports Sarwark for chair.

    3. Neale announces he is running for reelection.

    4. Neale rules in favor of Starr, et. al. in an apparent violation of the bylaws regarding delegate selection to the convention (BTW: Having nothing to do with delegates — they could have been seated anywhere, including Oregon by simply asking the formerly acknowledged official chair (we’ll never know for sure as Neale didn’t require that denial to happen first). This was about other issues, perhaps a strategy for reelection.

    5. The LSLA seats Tim Reeves as Chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon; 27 other states, plus DC, also seat their chairs with him.

    6. The folks in Oregon with ballot access have an electronic vote regarding disaffiliating with the national Libertarian Party (formerly known as “libertarian”).

    7. How this plays out in the future? The lawsuit becomes moot. The national party affiliates with Starr, et. al; and then spends whatever it takes for ballot access. The party chair formerly acknowledged as “official” by the national chair does what? Continues a liberty-party in Oregon (likely with the name Libertarian) and/or defends lawsuits attempting to take that away. Sues the LNC . . . and then?

    All over a IMO purely petty pissing performance from the podium.

  128. Joshua Katz

    Speech now has the feel of a classroom or lecture hall. Professor Neale is delivering a class on the organization of the Libertarian Party.

  129. Joseph Buchman

    Joshua Katz @June 28, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    “Bill Redpath speaking for Geoff Neale. Praised him for the “building” purchase. I highly respect Bill, but I am shocked by this nominating speech after Vegas, and that he’d run on the so-called building purchase.”

    Good grief. Politics does make for strange bedfellows.

  130. David Colborne

    Bret just suggested that if elected chair, he will do things regardless of what the LNC votes.

    Knowing Brett and after watching him in action, he’s not someone that asks for permission to, say, roll out of bed in the morning and won’t use a committee’s refusal to deliberate over the issue as an excuse to stay in bed all day. However, he is big on building and receiving consensus – though he’s capable of independent action, he’s never been shy about asking for help, support, or permission where appropriate.

    Take his run for Chair, for example. He wouldn’t be doing it if we in Nevada weren’t on board.

  131. paulie

    Brett is doing a great job in Nevada, but national is a whole different animal and level of complexity. I think he should put in some more time rebuilding Nevada before being national chair.

  132. paulie

    Neale has now shifted into a biology lesson, focusing on reproduction.

    He said nine men and one woman can’t make a baby in one month to illustrate his point that some things take time and that he has plans which have not yet come to fruition, but, he says will if he gets another term.

  133. paulie

    Joshua Katz @June 28, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    “Bill Redpath speaking for Geoff Neale. Praised him for the “building” purchase. I highly respect Bill, but I am shocked by this nominating speech after Vegas, and that he’d run on the so-called building purchase.”

    Good grief. Politics does make for strange bedfellows.

    Why does any of this surprise anyone?

  134. Antirevolutionary

    Maybe Sarwark has a good chance? Will Brett’s supporters vote for him?

  135. Joseph Buchman

    Paulie,

    “Why does any of this surprise anyone?”

    I guess I took Neale’s misrepresentation of why he resigned as Treasurer when Bill was chair, more personally than Bill did?

    I’d also guess if I had placed a bet in Vegas two years ago with Bill as to whether or not he’d be endorsing Neale today, I’d have just won big.

    All that plus I am clearly, not politically adept.

  136. paulie

    I told Sarwark to talk to Brett and get his endorsement but he said he would have it anyway. Strategic mistake if my new info is correct.

  137. AndyCraig

    Assuming the other votes remain static, Sarwark will need to pick up a net gain of 37 of Pojunis’s 66 votes in the second ballot to secure a majority. That seems plausible.

  138. paulie

    Maybe Sarwark has a good chance? Will Brett’s supporters vote for him?

    The Pojunis voters I know are switching to Neale

  139. paulie

    Assuming the other votes remain static, Sarwark will need to pick up a net gain of 37 of Pojunis’s 66 votes in the second ballot to secure a majority. That seems plausible.

    I am predicting another Neale term at this point.

  140. Joseph Buchman

    AndyCraig @ June 28, 2014 at 3:43 pm

    “Assuming the other votes remain static, Sarwark will need to pick up a net gain of 37 ”

    Are you accounting for the three of Starchild’s going to Sarwark, and the likelihood that some NOTA may shift to him as well?

    Pojunis is now playing king maker and is well positioned for vice-chair. Nicely played, IMO.

  141. paulie

    Anyone go to the Our America Initiative Presidential Debate Commission Fundraiser last night?

    I was there. It was pretty packed. They raised at least 10k, maybe more like 15.

  142. AndyCraig

    “Are you accounting for the three of Starchild’s going to Sarwark, and the likelihood that some NOTA may shift to him as well?”

    I did not, thus “all other votes remaining static”. It was just a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation. I agree those are possibilities as well, though, particularly Sarwarck picking up from NOTA voters.

  143. paulie

    For example AL was 4 for Nick, 3 for Neale and 2 for Pojunis in the first round; 4 For Sarwark, 4 for Neale and 1 for NOTA in the second. I think that will be fairly typical.

  144. Steve Scheetz

    I am reasonably sure that the NOTA voters will not be voting for Neale… However, they may not be going for Sarwark either. There may also be another write in candidate…. Hard to predict what will happen, but it is looking better for Neale at this point.

    Steve

  145. Joseph Buchman

    paulie @ June 28, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    “They raised at least 10k, maybe more like 15.”

    Good news! Is the CPD lawsuit the only thing OAI is currently supporting financially? Are candidates like Robert Sarvis, or others, getting any support from OAI?

  146. AndyCraig

    Joseph Buchanan

    The CPD is the only thing OAI proper is up to at the moment, in terms of spending. For legal reasons, things like endorsing and supporting candidates has to be under the auspices of OAI PAC rather than the regular OAI 501(c). The existence of the PAC has been announced and it has a website, but it hasn’t actually endorsed or supported any candidates yet.

    Andy Craig, Wisc. OAI State Director

  147. paulie

    OAI is not funding candidates but is issuing endorsements. Besides the lawsuit, OAI funds Gary and Jim’s road trips and helping them with social media and traditional media.

  148. Joseph Buchman

    I was surprised NOTA went up and didn’t shift toward Sarwark, and that only 9 of Pojunis’ voters broke for Neale (apparently, all other things being equal).

    This suggests Brett was/is seeking to be vice-chair with Sarwark as Chair, rather than desiring to work under Neale for another term.

  149. AndyCraig

    paulie-

    Which candidates has OAI (vs. Gary Johnson or Jim Gray personally) endorsed? The OAI PAC website doesn’t list any such candidates yet. Not to be down on it- I’m a huge fan of OAI and think it has big potential- but my understanding is it hasn’t reached that stage yet. I’m sure there will probably be some 2014 endorsements, though.

    I just stepped in to fill the WI S.D. position for OAI, and I’m also helping to run our Wisconsin LP campaign as the nominee for Secretary of State. I’m still trying to get a formal run-down of what the org. is up to, and what we should be doing on the ground locally.

  150. paulie

    Joe

    I am not all that surprised, in retrospect. Anti-incumbent votes mostly accumulated and some of Brett’s voters could not stomach either of the others. That is actually what should have been expected, other than the possibly false rumor about Brett’s endorsement. Endorsements don’t necessarily carry anyway.

  151. Shane

    Congrats, Nick!!

    Now, push those delegates for a clean slate on all other seats and regional reps!

  152. Joseph Buchman

    paulie @ June 28, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    “I am not all that surprised, in retrospect.”

    LOL. Okay then, since we’ve both learned from this, and have now polished our crystal balls, how about your prediction on vice-chair?

    Did Brett earn sympathy (aka Lee Wrights) sufficient to carry him into vice-chair to “balance things out” between the factions, or does Nick have the political capital now to get his preference? Will Brett and Nick compromise on some other position for Brett (he was on the Audit Committee, could serve as Treasurer). Will Chuck get to be secretary?

    An hour ago I was looking forward to a break from all things libertarian (at least those outside of Utah). Now I find I’m excited, motivated, interested. There are more, IMO, real libertarian delegates in Columbus than I had thought were possible, I’m grateful to them and to those who reached out to Nick to run (yes, Wes Wagner).

    I hope the violation of the bylaws regarding forcing Wes to accept as delegates those who do not respect his legitimate, proven, earned authority (if not love his personality) will now be reversed (they can go sit with another state that wants them), or that they will now pack up and go home . . .

    Are there enough delegates willing to create/demand “A Party of Principle” and ignore all the political musings above in favor of a reformed LP truly based in the politics that “easily and naturally derive from the non-aggression and self-ownership principles? is this the highlight of the convention (and the next two years) and it’s all downhill from here? Or is this the start of something BIG?

    Any bets on any or all of the above?

    Joe

  153. AndyCraig

    While we’re speculating, I can’t help but think that the unpopularity of Neale’s handling of the Oregon situation probably rebounded to hurt him much more than the 3 votes he may have picked up from seating the contested delegates. Hopefully now Sarwark will able to forestall (undo?) the pending disaffiliation of the Oregon party.

  154. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I agree, Andy. Neale had a chance to show some backbone, and didn’t.

  155. Mark Axinn

    New York’s dozen delegates split equally on both rounds. The one Pojunis vote went to Neale in second round (i.e., 6-5-1 Sarwark-Neale-Pojunis in first round became 6-6 in second).

    Probably pretty typical from my very informal chats with a few other state chairs.

  156. Fritz Sands

    Congratulations, Nick! And best wishes for the next two years — you will be facing many challenges.

  157. Michael H. Wilson

    Guess I’ll pay my dues now. But maybe I need to wait and see who else gets elected. Whatcha think?

  158. Mark Axinn

    I don’t know if there is a lot of support for Brett for Vice Chair; remember he only got 17% on the first round.

    Also there are three other declared candidates for the position: Sam Goldstein, Mark Hinkle and Arvin Vorha. Each have been working for support since at least yesterday, if not beforehand.

  159. Fritz Sands

    R. Lee Wrights inspired me at the 2012 convention. Basically the LP is family. A cantankerous family with a fair number of members who I just don’t like — but still family. So I said screw it and sent in my money for a life membership. I mean, it is not like I have anywhere else to go. I have been to Republican meetings and Democratic meetings. Shudder.

  160. Mark Axinn

    I believe Chuck is running for Secretary.

    Alicia Mattson is also a likely candidate for that job.

    Both of them are highly qualified.

    Dave Blau (who BTW did a stellar job today keeping up with all the platform amendments) is not seeking re-election.

  161. Brian Holtz

    The IPR commentariat vastly overestimates 1) how much most delegates know or care about Oregon, and 2) how many delegate votes can be swayed by “deals” between candidates.

    Aside from personal contact with the candidate, my theory is that delegate votes are largely won and lost by how much mic time one acquires and how well one uses it. I didn’t see the Chair debate, but on the floor I saw Nick put in many quality microphone minutes, while Neal probably was hurt by his frequent exasperation while fielding motions.

    My guess is that the Vice Chair race is Mark’s to lose — unless Nick delivers a Sarwarkian nominating speech for Vohra. It’s similarly possible that Nick could get Chuck elected Secretary over Alicia — who has the advantage of the Platform report having been easier to sell than the Bylaws report was.

    I’ve known since my first convention in Portland that Nick’s principled eloquence can get NatCon delegates to do almost anything he wants. I’m eager to see if it works as well on LNC members. I suspect it already works on juries. Most of all, I want to see it used on voters.

  162. Shane

    Thanks, Mark. I guess it was my hope that he’d run for VC again, but secretary is a great fit.

  163. Brian Holtz

    Michael, it took me 2 cycles, but I got you the Platform change you’ve been asking for. Despite this concierge Platform service, you’re still not sure whether to pay dues? 🙂

  164. Ruth Bennett

    Congratulations to Nick. I’d have voted for him!

    Now if you can get Mark or Arvin as VC and Chuck as Secretary and someone other than Aaron as Treasurer, I think we will have the start of a great LNC!

    Just a bit of historical background – 1981 was an off-year convention in Denver and we had 900 delegates. Also, this convention had multiple LP News issues to try to boost attendance which we certainly did not have for 2012 in Las Vegas.

    I’m not attending because it was too bloody expensive to get to Columbus from Tucson, the hotel was too expensive and none of the speakers appealed to me. Since 1981 this is just the 2nd Convention I’ve missed and I’ve run 3 of them.

    I thank the delegates for their good work and thank all of you posting here for keeping those of us unable/unwilling to attend up-to-date.

    Ruth Bennett
    a Libertarian actually holding office!
    Continental Elementary School District
    Governing Board Member

  165. George Phillies

    On round two, Sarwark just needed to end up wih more votes that Neale. With a lead of 26, and 66 votes perhaps in play, Sarwark’s position was excellent. Indeed, if all the Pojunis votes went to NOTA, Sarwark would almost certainly have won, namely that Neale wold have been eliminated on round two and then on round 3 it would have been Sarwark agains this good friend NOTA.

  166. Michael H. Wilson

    Thanks Brian. The dues will be paid. I appreciate the great customer service. 😉

  167. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Thanks for filling us in on the convention doings, Brian. I would expect tomorrow to be fairly uneventful.

  168. Shawn Levasseur

    “While we’re speculating, I can’t help but think that the unpopularity of Neale’s handling of the Oregon situation probably rebounded to hurt him …”

    Neale didn’t seat the delegates. The convention voted to seat them. He was merely chairing the meeting. If seating the 3 Reeves faction delegates was so unpopular, it wouldn’t have passed the vote.

  169. Nicholas Sarwark

    Thank you everyone for your congratulations. Thanks to Geoff for his service. Since I became a life member tonight at the banquet as part of the fundraising, I’ll be at the VIP breakfast in the morning at 7:30 am.

  170. Joseph Buchman

    Shawn Levasseur @ June 29, 2014 at 1:44 am

    “If seating the 3 Reeves faction delegates was so unpopular, it wouldn’t have passed the vote.”

    Sometimes something that smells good at first, rots quickly. My guess is that there was more buyer’s remorse over this, and more quickly, than Neale or most anyone else noticed.

  171. langa

    Cultural Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western religions above Western religions, speech codes and censorship, multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula, maladaptive sexual norms and anti-male feminism, the dispossession of white people, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries. Cultural Marxists have promoted idea that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children.

    I think you are confused. These things are typically part of a progressive, rather than libertarian, agenda. Of course, I can’t speak for all libertarians, but I am definitely not in favor of “race-based affirmative action”, “speech codes and censorship”, or “anti-male feminism”, nor am I in favor of making things like “diversity training” and “anti-Western education curricula” mandatory. I have no opinion on most of the other things in the list (and I’m not sure what some of them, like “the dispossession of white people”, are even referring to). As for interracial marriage, I couldn’t possibly care less who someone else wants to marry — although I am a fan of interracial porn (the contrast between dark and pale skin is quite aesthetically pleasing).

    Of course, my personal opinions about these things are really irrelevant anyway, since libertarianism is not about promoting any one set of preferences over another. In fact, libertarianism, as a political philosophy, is not concerned with ends at all. It is strictly concerned with the means that people use to achieve their ends. You seem to be confusing progressive ends with libertarian ends. In actuality, however, there are no such things as “libertarian ends”, unless you are referring to whatever ends naturally result from the use of libertarian means.

  172. Joshua Katz

    >Neale didn’t seat the delegates. The convention voted to seat them. He was merely chairing >the meeting. If seating the 3 Reeves faction delegates was so unpopular, it wouldn’t have >passed the vote.

    True. However, the vote shouldn’t have been necessary. The motion violated the bylaws and should have been ruled out of order.

  173. Shawn Levasseur

    “My guess is that there was more buyer’s remorse over this”

    Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean that Neale would be to blame. Reeves, certainly, as there were plenty of ways to be seated as delegates (although not as “Oregon” delegates), without this little drama.

    But getting back to the reasons why people might have turned off of Neale: As I said on twitter, he can be a bit gruff, and it showed in his campaign. I liked that he presented the reality of working in the LNC, and the limits and challenges of it, when contrasted with his opponents’ lofty promises which presume much more power than the Chair has.

    The problem is he didn’t package that no B.S. message in a positive manner. Some of the attacks on him did come across to him as personal, and probably fed into that non-positive style.

  174. Steve Scheetz

    Vice Chair speeches going on right now. Arvin is extremely energetic, and I believe he is going to be an awesome vice chair! (I am making my prediction now!!)

  175. Shane

    Neale, nor any other recent LNC chair has had a plan, or even actual goals. Some like Redpath have confused tactics with goals and where at least trying.

    Neale has always been a B.S.’er like most politicians. He has never been a strategist or sought out the advice of one.

    I’ve found, after observing 18 LNC meetings and five years of working with the LNC, that to most members, the LNC is the toy train they play with on the weekends. Most are not qualified to ever conduct a real train and have no idea where to start to gain the experience to do so.

    When they’re not falling for hucksters or chasing the latest scheme like an office purchase or a new shiny database, they’re fighting with one another. That defines the last LNC’s going back at least a decade — and many of the same people are serving on the committee today.

    Even members like Dr. Lark, as respected as he is, needs to go as they have a record of zero progress.

  176. Joshua Katz

    I don’t have ready access to a dictionary. Can someone please define “building?”

    Also, I do have access to the bylaws. Both VC candidates have failed to address the job they are actually seeking, according to those bylaws.

  177. Starchild

    First ballot results for voting for Vice Chair just in — very close race!

    Arvin Vohra – 157 votes
    Sam Goldstein – 154 votes
    NOTA – 8 votes

  178. Fred

    For those who wish to understand who will have ballot access, or how the LPO disaffiliating from the LNC will affect the ballot access or local parties–It would be revealing to examine what happened with both the Pacific Green Party, and the Constitution Party of Oregon.
    Oregon doesn’t value external national control.

  179. Starchild

    Chair conferred with parliamentarians regarding motion to conduct second round of voting by voice vote; motion needed 2/3, and failed. Aaron Starr and (I think) Alicia Mattson trying to reopen nominations.

  180. Starchild

    I think the motion clearly failed, but Aaron is still trying to get a division. Outgoing chair Geoff Neale just got fed up and handed the microphone over to Bill Redpath.

  181. Starchild

    Sam Goldstein just took the podium to withdraw and move to elect Arvin Vohra by acclamation. He said he will be running for an at-large seat.

  182. Shane

    Typical for Geoff, when the going gets tough . . .

    Fred, on Oregon, after several years of this nonsense, not many people care about that state affiliate.

  183. Joshua Katz

    Yes, but he has chosen to turn over the gavel. He can designate anyone he wants. It just seems the logical thing would be to designate Nick. He did say at the outset he would turn it over to people who are past chairs, but that wasn’t binding. I have no problem with giving it to Redpath or Lark – it just would have been nice for it to be Nick.

  184. Starchild

    Arvin Vohra has been elected vice-chair. People are now being nominated for secretary — Gary Johnson (nominated by Emily Salvette and someone else whom I cannot now recall), Chuck Moulton (nominated by Nick Sarwark and Arvin Vohra), and Alicia Mattson (nominated by Bill Redpath and Dianna Visek).

  185. Wes Wagner

    Mattson should apologize for her mistakes… it would be a winning move. But she won’t make it.

  186. Starchild

    That’s “the original” Gary Johnson, of Texas, the LNC regional rep., not Gary Johnson the 2012 LP presidential candidate.

  187. Shawn Levasseur

    Nick’s not even on the LNC right now (it happens at the close of the convention). Redpath and Lark are. Plus, they have experience in dealing with chairing the convention. This moment is not time for him to take on the role as a rookie.

  188. Shawn Levasseur

    I am tempted to ask Steve Dasbach if he wants to take a turn at the gavel, also being a past chair. However, I’m afraid I’d scare him out of the convention hall. 🙂

  189. Fred

    Shane,
    After several years of this non-sense, not many Oregonians care about the LNC

  190. Shane

    Fred, the. Why fight it? Disaffiliate then move on. The LP will just become the Liberty Party of Oregon or whatever. Easy enough.

  191. Starchild

    I’ve been preoccupied with other stuff and so not blogging here. Sold out of the few posters I brought for sale for the LPSF, trying to strategize and campaign with people, move my stuff out of the hotel room of someone who was checking out, etc.

    Alicia Mattson narrowly beat Chuck Moulton for secretary — if I recall correctly, the tally was 169 to 142, with 8 votes for None of the Above, and 2 write-in votes for me (go figure).

    I also proposed the motion I’ve talked about previously about wanting to introduce on IPR, to have the Libertarian Party repudiate the 2008 (Barr/Root) presidential ticket and apologize to the American people. Under our convention rules it needed a 2/3 vote of the delegates to suspend the rules in order to consider it, and didn’t get the 2/3 supermajority needed. But 142 people voted to suspend the rules to consider the resolution, while only 111 people voted against it. So if we can make it to the resolutions portion of the agenda at the end of the day, I may be able to reintroduce it at a time when it will only need a majority to be adopted.

    Right now a candidate for Congress from Virginia is addressing the body (didn’t catch his name). Ballots for the at-large race are being counted.

    No one ran against Tim Hagan for secretary treasurer , so he was reelected by acclamation.

  192. Shane

    Starchild, what should the campaign be apologizing for and why should it be repudiated? Having the second best campaign (at the time) in LP history?

  193. Shane

    Not to mention that was done without taking presidential matching funds unlike the more recent campaign and with the disadvantage of LNC political director who failed to supervise simple filing procedures costing ballot access in several states.

  194. Mark Hilgenberg

    Starchild wrote:

    “I also proposed the motion I’ve talked about previously about wanting to introduce on IPR, to have the Libertarian Party repudiate the 2008 (Barr/Root) presidential ticket and apologize to the American people. ”

    That would be great to do, it would help to dispel the myth that we are just Republican wannabes.

  195. Shawn Levasseur

    And Dasbach actually took the gavel too! I think that covers all the ex-LNC Chairs in attendance.

  196. Shane

    No, Mark. All that would do is discourage qualified candidates from seeking the nomination.

    No, past LP presidential candidates are treated well by the party after Election Day.

    It takes a toll on every one of them and the do-nothing LP “activists” spend a good deal of time bashing them for years.

    No person who knows this history would think of seeking the nomination. A motion like Starchild’s just makes it official and on the record. Who’s next Badnarik, Clark or Johnson?

  197. Joshua Katz

    The party should apologize for running a candidate who voted for the Patriot Act, voted for reauthorization after his supposed ‘awakening,’ wrote an op-ed while an at-large arguing against a reduced sentence for a 19 year old black man who received 20 years for getting a bj from a 15 year old, was lead defense counsel for Baby Doc, and did not fully oppose the war on drugs. And that’s just one half the ticket – the other half endorsed one of the worst crony capitalists in American history while an at-large.

  198. Shane

    Josh, maybe you should spend more time studying your newfound ideology, socialism than commenting on things you don’t know about.

    Barr wasn’t in office to vote for reauthorization and has testified against it. The only reason the Patriot Act has a sunset clause is because he fought for it — hence the vote.

  199. Michael H. Wilson

    The LP should move to call for criminal trials for Bush, Cheney and a number of others in the past administration.

  200. Fritz Sands

    There is no point beating a dead horse about the Barr candidacy — so I would be against Starchild’s resolution. I will say, however, that 2008 was the only Presidential election since I joined the LP in 1975 in which I refused to vote for the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. To a significant extent, the Barr nomination got me back active in the LP (hey, I was busy with job and family) since I decided that there was No Way In Hell that was going to happen to my party again if I could help it.

  201. Shane

    As far as Root being a “crony capitalist” you may not like him but at what point did he operate in an industry propped up by government regulation or subsidies?

    I know that you socialists don’t like capitalism but a significant change in definition occurs when you throw “crony” in front of it — which is the only type of capitalism that socialists typically prefer.

  202. Brian Holtz

    At-Large LNC winners are:
    Redpath 225
    Goldstein 191
    McMahon 165
    Johnson 161

    McLendon tied with Craig (136 votes each), and won the seat by coin toss.

    314 delegates currently registered.

  203. Starchild

    We’re now taking nominations for the Judicial Committee. There are 12 candidates for (correct me if I’m wrong) 7 seats:

    Steve Linabary (OH)
    M Carling (NY?)
    Rob Power (NY)
    Carol McMahon (CT)
    John Fockler (OH?)
    Dawn Young (TX)
    Barry Alban (KS)
    Starchild (CA)
    Dianna Visek (IL)
    Rob Latham (UT)
    Rebecca Sink-Burris (IN?)
    Andy Wolf (?)

    Our newly-adopted method of approval voting introduced as a bylaw by Aaron Starr — which I suspect may have contributed to my not being reelected to the LNC — is also now in effect for Judicial Committee elections. I believe it has taken much longer than usual to tally the votes.

    I’m not sure who nominated me for JC, but I accepted and said I’m willing to do it if elected.

  204. Starchild

    Joe – Yes, sad but true. I was actually looking forward more to serving again, now that Nick Sarwark and Arvin Vohra will be chair and vice chair, but apparently not enough of the delegates felt the same way.

  205. Joshua Katz

    I stand corrected on Barr – he only voted for the Patriot Act the first time. I do not stand corrected on Baby Doc, unless you have further information on the topic.

    My statement was that Root endorsed a crony capitalist, not that he is one. There is no questioning that Mitt Romney is one.

    Left-libertarianism has many variants, of which anarcho-socialism is only one. But I recognize that socialist is the go-to term for a subset of libertarians when looking for a criticism. So I might as well take it – “socialists like me” oppose capitalism as defined by Marx, Proudon, and Molieri. If someone wishes to use capitalism to mean free exchange, I support the concept but the language is confusing. “Socialists like me” do believe that many things can be accomplished in ways that right-libertarians might consider non-market, but which are non-statist and non-coercive.

    I assume that your comment that socialists like crony capitalism is based on some variant of “Democrats are socialists” or some such.

    I am a left-libertarian and a mutualist, undecided on land issues but at this moment opposed to Georgist-type solutions and more inclined to Carson use requirements. It’s quite common to call people like me socialists because we refuse to identify with capitalism, do not believe that property trumps all, don’t think we should ground basic human rights on derived property rights (with philosophical issues in the process) such as self-ownership, and believe that a free market would be filled with things like co-ops and worker-owned factories.

    I also suspect that almost all opposed to thick-libertarianism are actually thick-libertarians also, just with a different set of things they think are needed for a free world, although I acknowledge that it is possible to be a purely NAP libertarian, just somewhat uncommon.

    I would dispute that all Presidential candidates are later treated badly. Last night’s banquet featuring Gary Johnson and Jim Gray would speak against that idea. Some campaigns deserve to be repudiated, some don’t.

  206. Shawn Levasseur

    Starchild is still up for Judicial Committee. Picture it: A committee with a bunch of lawyers, law professors… and Starchild. 🙂

  207. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    So, what happened with Mark Hinkle today? It seems like he’s backed off today.

  208. Brian Holtz

    M Carling moved a resolution that the LNC cannot overturn or repudiate an action of the delegates in convention. A quorum count showed only ~85 out of the required 110.

  209. Shawn Levasseur

    There is a region with New York, New Jersey, and the New England states. It is being represented by Rich Tomasso (NH). I forget he it is from CT who is our alternate

  210. Been There, Done That

    Well, that was interesting.

    Thank you, Brian Holtz, for sharing all that information & updates & audio all weekend.

    @Paulie, I don’t have anything against Nick. I am pleased to see a young man in that position. I was simply reminding everyone that NOTA is always an option. In fact, the only shots I took were at Neale. I am personally glad that Neale is no longer Chair and that Hinkle is not VC. Those men have left the party w/a great deal of debt.

    Congrats to Nick & Arvin.

    This party needs new, young blood and my hope is that at least some of the priorities from the BEST Coalition will come to fruition. My other hope is that with an office close to DC, that the leadership will begin to visit the Hill on a regular basis, make the LP’s presence known and get in the game.

  211. Nicholas Sarwark

    First LNC meeting in the books, on a plane back home to get some sleep. Press release prepared by Carla, edited by me, and ready to go out after APRC approval.

    I would like the Libertarian Party to stop taking sides in the Oregon dispute, as it wends its way to final resolution in the Oregon courts. I proposed the following resolution at the first LNC meeting. It was tabled to an email ballot to be completed no later than August 1.

    Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “delegates to a Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party” (Article 11, 3 (b)), and

    Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “each state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.” (Article 6, 3), and

    Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “the autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party…” (Article 6, 5), and

    Whereas the Chair of the National Convention incorrectly ruled that it was in order for the convention to vote to seat three delegates in the Oregon delegation over the objection of the affiliate party chair, and

    Whereas the motion made did not challenge the report of the Credentials Committee as to who was the affiliate party chair, and

    Whereas the convention delegates subsequently voted to seat those delegates over the objection of the delegate chair,

    Be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee apologizes to the Libertarian Party of Oregon for the erroneous ruling of the National Convention Chair.

    We can’t change what the convention did, but we can apologize when we made a mistake.

  212. From Der Sidelines

    Well, that was interesting, but what was the JC results?

    The new LNC will be interesting to watch as always, but with recycled rejects in Redpath and Mattson back in, not to mention Starrflys Weiner and Liarman, we can only hope that Nick can shut down their bullshit.

  213. Losty

    Well that was interesting..

    Nice to put some faces with the names. Also, Got to talk to a few people I wanted to.

    Sad that Starchild didn’t get re-elected. It would be good to see a board with many different sides, and discussion. And apparently there was already some talk on Oregon in the LNC, and they couldn’t decide yet. Interesting.

    Love to see how apologizing could be construed as “altering”, and how can be rationalized.

    Then again, there was a long debate over a comma on something that failed.

    Hopefully some of the plans on access work, especially in some states that could have a major impact on 2014.

  214. Mark Axinn

    1. M Carling is from New York, as is Rob Power. Both were elected to the JC.

    2. The alternate rep. for former Region 5N (not sure what our number will be now) is Josh Katz of CT. As Shawn wrote, the region is all of New England, NY and NJ.

    3. To my friends Starchild and Josh–If there was enough support to consider Starchild’s motion to repudiate the Barr/Root ticket, I would have both spoken and voted against it. I voted for Mary Ruwart on all six ballots in 2008, but she did not win and after my candidate lost, I supported the candidates of the Libertarian Party. Period. I did not pack my toys and go home; I supported the decision of the delegates even if it wasn’t my preference. There is nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost to start publicly bashing our selections from prior years (in this case six years ago). How petty and foolish we would appear to the public (if any of them actually cared). We move on and start nominating Libertarians with both a small and capital “L”. We don’t broadcast our mistakes. We learn from them and move on.

    4. Yes, that’s Evan McMahon of Indiana with whom I had a very pleasant chat earlier today, elected to an at-large position.

    5. To Nick and team–All the best in turning the next two years into two of the best and most productive in the LP history. To Kevin and everyone in LPO who worked their tails off–thank you! To Geoff Neale and Dave Blau (assisted by Stewart Flood and Dan Karlan–Double thank you!

  215. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    We’ve discussed Starchild’s apology idea before on IPR. I also don’t think it’s a good idea. The public has largely forgotten about something that long ago, and I think moving forward sends a better message to anyone who does remember it.

  216. Shane

    Josh, I actually had you confused with Josh F. (featured on the front page for going from the LP then CP and now Socialist.

    My apologies.

  217. Thomas Knapp

    Congratulations to Nick, Arvin and other new LNC officers/members!

    Nick’s election has me considering re-joining the party. Hopefully I’ll get over it.

    The delegate numbers did sound awfully low, but I haven’t kept track of just how active the states have been for the last four years. Going to a national convention is a pretty hefty financial commitment unless it happens to be in your back yard, and if activity is depressed at the state level, fewer people will be energized enough to make that commitment.

    Columbus seemed like a good choice for convention city.

    It has, however, always bothered me that the LNC seems to lean hard toward expensive hotels that are distant from the convention city’s airport. When the “group rate” is twice what one would pay via easy Internet booking at a typical nice business/family hotel, the room usually isn’t as nice as the room at a typical business/family hotel and then you have to pony up $50 each way for cab fare ON TOP of airfare, etc., that makes the convention even less affordable for and attractive to those who don’t consider plunking down four figures to spend four days sitting in folding chairs arguing with other people to be a casual undertaking.

  218. From Der Sidelines

    M(idget) Carling is on the JC? Well, that doesn’t help anything, and it sure isn’t going to mend any fences with the LP-Oregon folks (Wagner, that is, not the imitations in the Burke Cult).

    To address Knapp’s site point, he’s right on. The hotel model may be sorta “convenient”, but it tends to lack the proper amenities–modern ones like enough power in the meeting rooms, WiFi, and of course the rooms are overpriced fluff. A convention center with an assortment of hotels/motels and restaurants nearby is much more affordable, better for the delegates because it gives them options, but nobody can expect the Convention Committee to have enough brain cells to rub together to figure that out, let alone have an LNC that can properly budget for it.

    As usual, the LNC problem is in the personnel, logistics, planning, and money For the LP’s sake, hopefully Sarwark and Vorha can turn it around into something member-friendly and functional.

  219. Thomas Knapp

    Actually, I can think of at least one national convention that was held at a convention center with a variety of nearby hotels — Indianapolis 2002. Not sure what the transport situation from the airport was (we drove), but of the variety of hotels available we got a room at the Courtyard right across the street from the convention center at a reasonable price (back when Priceline was the cool new thing, as it happens).

    I understand that one of the considerations is often “we give you free or discounted meeting space if you fill up rooms in our hotel.” That model tends to work best if you use a hotel with no inexpensive alternatives nearby … which in turn means “nowhere near the airport” because airport areas are full of hotels in various price ranges.

    If I was still invested heavily in what the LP does, I’d still be suggesting “bite the bullet and pay for the meeting space instead of trying to find ways to make the delegates subsidize it with expensive rooms, etc. — especially if you’re then going to demand that people who are ponying up money for travel and so forth pay an additional floor fee for the ‘privilege’ of doing the party’s business for it.”

  220. Nicholas Sarwark

    Nick’s election has me considering re-joining the party. Hopefully I’ll get over it.

    Hopefully you won’t. As I posted on Facebook:

    As Chair of the Libertarian Party, I want to personally ask you to come home.

    If you have never been a member of the party, but you believe in human freedom, this is your home.

    If you joined the Republicans or Democrats believing they would fight for human freedom but you are disappointed by their broken promises, this is your home.

    If you were a member of the party, but left in frustration at something we did or didn’t do, this is your home.

    We are ready to welcome you home whenever you are ready. It’s time for the prodigals to return and for us to feast in celebration.

    It’s time for you to come home.

  221. Thomas Knapp

    Nick,

    I don’t resemble any of those descriptions — I’m just no longer convinced the Libertarian Party could accomplish the things I want to see accomplished even if it was perfect in every way.

    But I’ll think about it. I’m planning to come to Orlando in 2016 to hang out anyway, so being a delegate doesn’t seem like that much of a stretch.

  222. Fritz Sands

    So 2016 will be in Orlando? Hmm… Have to decide if I want to do a full-bore cross-the-continent motorcycle trip for that.

  223. Mark Axinn

    The hotel was about 1/3 the cost that it would have been in New York. Not Econo Lodge prices, but not terribly expensive either. There were other less expensive hotels within two or three blocks as well. Oh restaurants…about 100 of them within one mile. Cheap, fancy, chic, chains, all types of places. Stop complaining just to complain. It’s puerile.

    It is expensive to be a delegate as many of our delegates live far no matter what city is picked. Columbus was a day’s drive or less for 60% of the LP membership so it was an excellent choice.

    Comfest and Short North made it only that much better.

  224. Fritz Sands

    Oh — only 21 days for the run if I wanted it to be official. If I am at the convention for 4 that means I would really need to hustle. Might be fun, though.

  225. paulie

    Which candidates has OAI (vs. Gary Johnson or Jim Gray personally) endorsed?

    I do not remember off the top of my head but I do remember seeing that there were some.

    The OAI PAC website doesn’t list any such candidates yet.

    That is correct. They have not yet been posted. as far as I know. The only thing they have posted so far is the form.

    I just stepped in to fill the WI S.D. position for OAI,

    Yes, I remember. I think I helped set that up with Ron and Alexis on email.

    and I’m also helping to run our Wisconsin LP campaign as the nominee for Secretary of State. I’m still trying to get a formal run-down of what the org. is up to, and what we should be doing on the ground locally.

    Gary and Jim’s tours, social media, fill your other positions (Outreach Coordinator, Campus Coordinator, Fundraising Coordinator), public policy/issues lobbying…that would be some good places to start. Most of the state organizations are just a shell right now, only a few are even slightly active. We are hoping that changes, of course.

  226. Steve M

    Just thinking (always dangerous or at least might cause me a head ache)

    maybe we need to add a similar function for bylaws and platform as NOTA is for officers. A Who Cares? and if a bylaw or plank gets more who cares votes then the combined votes for or against an amendment the whole section get dropped from the bylaws or platform.

    Fusion candidates or Single Party candidates for example… I wonder how many that voted against allowing fusion candidates would have voted Who Cares?

  227. paulie

    LOL. Okay then, since we’ve both learned from this, and have now polished our crystal balls, how about your prediction on vice-chair?

    Getting this a bit late but I’ll try to remember what I thought at the time. After Nick won I did not know whether to expect good results in lower races or not.

    Did Brett earn sympathy (aka Lee Wrights) sufficient to carry him into vice-chair to “balance things out” between the factions, or does Nick have the political capital now to get his preference? Will Brett and Nick compromise on some other position for Brett (he was on the Audit Committee, could serve as Treasurer). Will Chuck get to be secretary?

    I did not know what to think. After Nick and Arvin won I started to be cautiously optimistic about Chuck. I think he cost himself the race by going negative against Alicia (which I warned him not to do the night before), by apologizing for making mistakes (supposedly) which, while it showed character, also made him look somewhat impulsive and/or incompetent, and by failing to emphasize his strengths in his nominating speeches. True they were cut short on time but all he had to do was list things which demonstrate his competence (yes Alicia is also competent…but:) mention that Nick and Arvin wanted him on there, and list the issues on which he differs from Alicia in a positive way (“I am for transparency..against floor fees”…etc) without even mentioning either other person running by name. I think he would have won if he had just simply done that. And there was enough time to at least hit the highlights. Alicia’s nominating speeches were simply and clearly better and more effective. Speeches count for a lot more than written handouts; relatively few delegates read them, much less know the issue involved or have time to analyze what they read. Chuck relied too much on written rather than verbal presentation and too much on negative contrasting.

    As for Brett, I think his time is better spent rebuilding Nevada right now rather than on LNC, where he was not getting much done except wasting time, getting distracted from Nevada, and getting frustrated. I am glad he can focus on where he is having some success right now. I think jumping in so late also made him look rash and impulsive and a lot of people already had a candidate preference before he jumped in.

    I already knew what happened with Wes OR delegates by the time you asked, so crystal ball would have been inapplicable.

  228. paulie

    Now, push those delegates for a clean slate on all other seats and regional reps!

    Most of the LNC is the same people as last term, with a few changes, but there are a lot of repeats. A few of those have changed roles on LNC.

  229. paulie

    While we’re speculating, I can’t help but think that the unpopularity of Neale’s handling of the Oregon situation probably rebounded to hurt him much more than the 3 votes he may have picked up from seating the contested

    I don’t think Neale lost many votes that way.

    Hopefully now Sarwark will able to forestall (undo?) the pending disaffiliation of the Oregon party.

    Looks like he will probably be stymied in that by the LNC majority.

  230. paulie

    The IPR commentariat vastly overestimates 1) how much most delegates know or care about Oregon, and 2) how many delegate votes can be swayed by “deals” between candidates.

    Aside from personal contact with the candidate, my theory is that delegate votes are largely won and lost by how much mic time one acquires and how well one uses it. I didn’t see the Chair debate, but on the floor I saw Nick put in many quality microphone minutes, while Neal probably was hurt by his frequent exasperation while fielding motions.

    I agree with Brian here.

  231. Joe

    Although I cannot find it on LP.org (maybe my poor search skills) ballot-access.org has:

    “The Libertarian presidential convention will be in Orlando, Florida, May 26-30, 2016.”

  232. paulie

    Just a bit of historical background – 1981 was an off-year convention in Denver and we had 900 delegates. Also, this convention had multiple LP News issues to try to boost attendance which we certainly did not have for 2012 in Las Vegas.

    Why did we not have multiple issues of LP news to boost Vegas? It was selected well ahead of time. And ’12 had presidential nominations, a more fun metro area and a more strongly contested chair election.

  233. Joseph Buchman

    paulie @ June 29, 2014 at 11:01 pm

    As always your analysis, even remembering after the fact (especially remembering? 🙂 ) is better than mine was 24 hours ago.

    I’d have not taken bets last night that Brett or Starchild would not be elected At Large (an effect of Approval Voting?), or that Nick and Arvin could endorse Chuck and that he would lose. . .

  234. paulie

    “If seating the 3 Reeves faction delegates was so unpopular, it wouldn’t have passed the vote.”

    Sometimes something that smells good at first, rots quickly. My guess is that there was more buyer’s remorse over this, and more quickly, than Neale or most anyone else noticed.

    I don’t believe so.

  235. paulie

    True. However, the vote shouldn’t have been necessary. The motion violated the bylaws and should have been ruled out of order.

    Correct.

  236. paulie

    Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean that Neale would be to blame. Reeves, certainly, as there were plenty of ways to be seated as delegates (although not as “Oregon” delegates), without this little drama.

    It was all about the drama. They could have been seated with Oregon too, if they are registered to vote as Libertarians and if they asked Wagner. Now we will probably have expensive ballot access and lawsuit issues that were completely avoidable….and maybe some other problems as well.

    But getting back to the reasons why people might have turned off of Neale: As I said on twitter, he can be a bit gruff, and it showed in his campaign.

    Yep.

  237. paulie

    Neale, nor any other recent LNC chair has had a plan, or even actual goals

    Not true. Neale did have goals, which he got the LNC to adopt but then did not achieve. Hinkle had a whole published list of goals, which I agreed with; he says he was stymied by the LNC majority, yet did nothing that I know of to push that agenda as At Large after filling the vacancy this last term. And so on.

    I’ve found, after observing 18 LNC meetings and five years of working with the LNC, that to most members, the LNC is the toy train they play with on the weekends. Most are not qualified to ever conduct a real train and have no idea where to start to gain the experience to do so.

    Yep!

    chasing the latest scheme like an office purchase or a new shiny database,

    I disagree that either one is a scheme.

  238. Losty

    And I am assuming that it would be the Party and Leadership, Not every Delegate Individually getting sued.

  239. paulie

    Sam Goldstein just took the podium to withdraw and move to elect Arvin Vohra by acclamation.

    Thank you Sam for showing some class, and delegates for electing Arvin!

  240. Shane

    Paul, as far as the plans I haven’t seen one that involves electing Libertarians to office. Redpath had goals such as ballot access, hiring a political director, etc., but they didn’t flesh out to an actual plan.

    As far as “schemes” I can change that to “distractions.” Raiser’s Edge was unnecessary and has done little to grow the party and nothing that I know of to elect Libertarians. My clients that have ten times the donors as the LP don’t have a database as expensive/complex as RE.

    The office purchase will fall in the same boat more than likely — and if we were to actually grow, LPHQ would quickly outgrow the office.

    On a positive note (I hate sounding negative), I’m grateful to the delegates for choosing new leaders. While I would have liked to see a clean slate, this is a GREAT start.

    Nick’s first bit of homework should be studying the Cantor/Bratt race. There’s a lesson there that should be identified and studied.

  241. paulie

    Josh, maybe you should spend more time studying your newfound ideology, socialism than commenting on things you don’t know about.

    Wrong Josh. You were replying to Josh Katz and referring to Joshua Fauver.

  242. paulie

    As far as Root being a “crony capitalist” you may not like him but at what point did he operate in an industry propped up by government regulation or subsidies?

    The reference was to Romney, whom Root endorsed.

    Wayne stands accused of endorsing a crony capitalist, not of being one, here.

  243. paulie

    wait… Starchild is no longer an At-Large? WTF!!!

    Sadly, I predicted that. I think it would have happened under either vote system. And Aaron did not introduce or support approval voting.

  244. Andy

    Starchild’s resolution to repudiate the Barr / Root ticket was great. I think he may have gotten the idea for it from a post I made here at IPR suggesting such a resolution. Regardless of where he got the idea, kudos for implementing it. It is a shame that it did not pass.

  245. paulie

    Starchild is still up for Judicial Committee. Picture it: A committee with a bunch of lawyers, law professors… and Starchild.

    Sadly that did not happen either. 4-3 majority for the “Starr-Mattson side” on the new Judcom ….which will probably be called into action this term.

  246. paulie

    So, what happened with Mark Hinkle today? It seems like he’s backed off today.

    Maybe he only wanted to work with Neale or did not believe he could win.

  247. Joseph Buchman

    If you are still reading here, and you’ve read all or most of the above then:

    Go to PAYPAL

    Hit “SEND MONEY TO A FRIEND”

    Put in Paulie’s email — travellingcircus (at) gmail.com (use the @ sign where the (at) is)

    It’s that simple (if you need to set up a Paypal account, it’s a bit more complicated).

    But just do it; it’s the “Free Market, Voluntary, Libertarian, Good” thing to do.

  248. paulie

    There is a region with New York, New Jersey, and the New England states. It is being represented by Rich Tomasso (NH). I forget he it is from CT who is our alternate

    Josh Katz

  249. Steve M

    Just occurred to me I wonder how many delegates would have voted “who cares” on a motion to seat the Oregon 3 in the Oregon delegation?

  250. paulie

    maybe we need to add a similar function for bylaws and platform as NOTA is for officers. A Who Cares? and if a bylaw or plank gets more who cares votes then the combined votes for or against an amendment the whole section get dropped from the bylaws or platform.

    There’s already a platform plank deletion procedure. That’s how most of the platform was deleted in 2006. There’s an attempt to delete the abortion plank at every convention, and this year it came fairly close – see somewhere way above.

  251. paulie

    Raiser’s Edge was unnecessary and has done little to grow the party and nothing that I know of to elect Libertarians. My clients that have ten times the donors as the LP don’t have a database as expensive/complex as RE.

    Agreed. We’d be better off with something a lot simpler that does not cost an arm and a leg to keep udating, and which is easy and intuitive to update, add fields to, understand, use, etc.

    The office purchase will fall in the same boat more than likely — and if we were to actually grow, LPHQ would quickly outgrow the office.

    Not a problem; move to a new and bigger office and sell the old one if it happens, or acquire an additional office or several. The first step would probably be to buy out the other half of the current building.

  252. Alicia

    Paulie,

    OAI does not endorse candidates. It’s a 501c4 and focuses on causes and education, such as supporting the CPD lawsuit.

    OA PAC has not endorsed any candidates yet. Candidates should not seek endorsement or anything of value from any PAC because that could be a campaign finance violation. OA PAC is working on its criteria for selecting candidates to support at the moment.

    Alicia D.

  253. Joseph Buchman

    paulie @ June 30, 2014 at 1:06 am

    “Joe – thanks for sending money”

    I guess that’s what I did, or the equivalent. Seems like science fiction, I hit a few buttons, some banks zip digits around on some wire, you get something that they somehow “took” from something . . . we call this “money” now?!?

    Whatever it was, I hope it helps and it’s a fair price to pay for your work here this weekend. If everyone did that, you might, I suppose, have enough for your bus fare halfway home . . .

    Regardless, you’re welcome.

    Joe

  254. Shawn Levasseur

    There is a region with New York, New Jersey, and the New England states. It is being represented by Rich Tomasso (NH). I forget (who) it is from CT who is our alternate

    Josh Katz

    And of course, I was sitting right next to the man while I was typing that… Ah well, not nearly as embarrassing as falling off my seat while trying to pick up my ipad.

  255. Kevin Knedler

    Thank YOu to all who attended the 2014 LP Convention. I just left the hotel on Monday morning. It has been three years since I started working on a bid for OHio and now it is over, with a focus back on Ohio and LP candidates. My goal was to make this a very successful convention and LSLA event, conduct a great awards presentation, and have positive financial results overall. We wanted people to feel comfortable in Columbus and showcase the downtown area which was alive with the activities of the SHort North, Arena District, and ComFest. We also wanted to showcase the Ohio LP and provide a level of behind-the-scenes support that has not been seen before. I think we can say “Mission Accomplished”. Thank you again to all that attended, all the volunteers who made it happen, and congrats to all the folks that ran for office during the weekend. Well done. Now we set sites on Orlando in May 2016. Kevin Knedler State Chair of the Libertarian Party of Ohio. Chair@lpo.org

  256. Thomas Knapp

    Quoth Paulie:

    “It was all about the drama.”

    But what is the drama about?

    My impression, which may be incorrect, is that a non-trivial percentage of LP drama at the national level and on the west coast is that the drama is about continually proving the ability of Aaron Starr and Friends to have things their way, on pain of fucking up anything they DON’T have their way.

  257. Fred

    Shane,
    “Why fight it?”

    Despite that the national party has tried to choose who runs our State party and now trying to decide who represents us, I have (at least in the past) thought being affiliated with the national party was a benefit to both us and the national party.
    I have done my share to help build the movement which includes contributing on the national level. I have an invested interest in the party.

    regardless, my original comment was an attempt to let others know that there have been similar discrepancies in Oregon with other parties and their affiliates. In both those cases the local party has maintained control of the party and the national party has lost its ballot access in our state.

    If that is the goal of the LP then continuing to try to control the LPO will likely result in that outcome.
    your lack of concern about the LP violating our autonomy has been noted. Hopefully should you find yourself in a similar situation you will not be met with such disdain.

  258. Michael H. Wilson

    Tom I think you miss-phrased your comment above. It should read “What does the drama mean?” To that I believe the correct answer is sickening. Constant back and forth like a ship rolling and pitching in the ocean.

  259. Mark Axinn

    Kevin–Thanks again for all the work you and the rest of LP Ohio did to give all of us such a good time this weekend. It was very nice of you to arrange for such interestingly- attired individuals on the streets in Short North too (gives Starchild a run for his money!). 🙂

    Fred–I and about 20 other state chairs offered to seat the Burke contingent in our delegation. I had 12 people and 41 spots so it would not have been a problem.

  260. Mark Axinn

    >And of course, I was sitting right next to the man while I was typing that…

    Shawn–It was a pleasure and an honor to hang out with you, Bonnie, Rich, Josh and the CT gang, George and the MA delegation and Jay and the NJ team this weekend. New York is glad to be home.

    See you in Orlando. I hope to have ballot access and dozens of candidates by then!

  261. ATBAFT

    Congratulations to Nick Sarwark on winning the Chair’s race. Now the real work begins and best wishes for reaching your goals. And, no matter which side one took, a big thank you is due to Geoff Neale, who like all Chairs before him, devoted countless hours to the Libertarian Party – hours which were not always appreciated, it seems. His kind of dedication is one big reason the LP has survived more than forty years. Kick back and relax, Geoff, until your talents are again needed by the libertarian movement.

  262. Starchild

    Apologies for misattributing the approval voting bylaw change to Aaron Starr; I thought I recalled it being his idea, but a couple people told me someone else proposed it and Paulie echoing that here suggests it’s probably true. Maybe the info’s on the Bylaws Committee blog page, but I’m not going to go look right now.

  263. Starchild

    Thanks to those who liked my resolution on the 2008 ticket, and who were disappointed in my not getting reelected.

    Sam Goldstein’s decision to withdraw for vice chair and save the delegates’ time in voting another round (which he likely would have narrowly lost) may have been classy, but was also I think a very good strategic move that set him up to be elected at-large. I also can’t help wondering whether any of the delegates confused Gary Johnson of Texas with Gary Johnson of New Mexico, although one would hope our delegates are better informed than that.

    Nick Sarwark and Arvin Vohra did a competent job running the first LNC meeting. But I don’t think they managed to set a much different tone. Things felt largely the same — restricted public comment, non-LNC members seated at a distance, meeting held in a sterile hotel room, etc. Not that I necessarily expected much more, but it would’ve been nice to be surprised. At least Nick plans to open the LNC-Discuss list to public viewing.

    It did appear though that at one point during the meeting Nick rejected a possibly more transparent form of holding a vote to populate the Executive Committee, people raising their hands to vote (suggested by Marc Feldman?), in favor of a possibly less transparent form, people voting by ballot. Of course ballot voting can be more transparent, if the results of who voted for whom are recorded and made public, but it wasn’t clear that was the intention. As it turned out, iirc, the LNC just approved Nick’s recommendations for the 3 non-officer members of the ExCom without holding an election: Bill Redpath, Sam Goldstein, and one other I can’t recall.

  264. Nicholas Sarwark

    I was constrained in the first meeting by having the time and venue set prior to my election; also by the lateness of convention business and people’s travel plans.

    Balloted votes will be reported in the minutes and I am confident that Ms. Mattson will have them done quickly and correctly. Balloting also allowed the committee to do other work while they were being tabulated.

    I got two out of three of my ExCom members that I asked for. The LNC chose Dr. Lark instead of Jay Estrada. He is an excellent choice and I am confident that I will work well with him as we serve on the ExCom together.

    There was a relatively large block of public comment (especially for a meeting that completed in 1:05) at the beginning, in addition to at the end.

  265. NewFederalist

    It strikes me that the LP has fumbled yet again. No wonder nobody takes them seriously!

  266. Losty

    NewFed, If All Goes well, Kentucky Will, and Virginia may already. Who knows what can happen in November if they get on.

  267. Chuck Moulton

    Starchild wrote:

    Apologies for misattributing the approval voting bylaw change to Aaron Starr; I thought I recalled it being his idea, but a couple people told me someone else proposed it and Paulie echoing that here suggests it’s probably true. Maybe the info’s on the Bylaws Committee blog page, but I’m not going to go look right now.

    Approval voting was absolutely proposed by Aaron Starr.

    http://lpbylaws2014.blogspot.com/2014/02/proposal-14-approval-voting-for-at.html

    It achieved the results I expected of such a voting method: minority viewpoints were entirely disenfranchised. This is why I voted against approval voting in committee and would have vigorously spoken against it were I on the floor rather than presenting the bylaws report on the stage.

  268. Darryl W. Perry

    Do we know the new names of the regions? I think I read that Region 5N was changing names. Also, any idea of the tally of the votes for Region Reps & alternates?

  269. Shantell George

    paulie, I am so sorry that you were feeling badly. Had Sarah and I known that you were trying to cover the convention for IPR, we’d have been very glad to help out. We were also trying to provide Twitter/Facebook coverage while serving as delegates. It would have been more effective to put forth a coordinated effort.

  270. Starchild

    I believe Idaho has currently joined whatever region contains Illinois, and I think California, Washington and Nevada now constitute a region. Other than that I don’t know — and I could be wrong about the above.

  271. Starchild

    By the way, if anyone still in Columbus (or who lives here) is reading this, I’ll be in town until tomorrow afternoon.

  272. Mark Axinn

    Former Region 4 is now just CA, NM and NV. Reps are Dan Wiener and Scott Lieberman.
    Starchild’s name for former 5N works for me!

  273. Joshua Katz

    The region formerly known a 5N (more or less) is temporarily nameless. Our representative is Rich Tommasso. I am the alternate. It now includes all new things – New England. New York, and New Jersey.

    In response to the tally request, our agreement called for IRV by state chairs, with first place winning rep and second winning alternate, with the provisio that both not be from the same state. I believe all ballots cast put Rich first and me second.

    I am excited to serve my first term on the LNC and look forward to a productive and professional term under the excellent leadership of Nick Sarwark. I would be remiss if I did not mention, though, my deep sadness at not serving with my closest ally and the strongest advocate for transparency in the party, Starchild. I hope to continue advancing the agenda of a transparent, bottom up organization governed in the manner we wish to govern our towns, states, and country (if govern we must at all, as I am a dedicated anarchist.) I will do my best.

    Additionally, while we have not seen the end of factionalism, and never will, I saw an unusual degree of mutual acceptance at the convention, with only one major exception. We even saw a hug we thought we’d never see. I am committed to working with all of my colleagues to advance those things we agree on. I have high hopes for a collegial LNC that works together to govern this party and advance freedom for all. I have high hopes that our disagreements will be handled with mutual respect and love. Finally, again, I believe our leader will see to it that we have a term as described. I believe that under Nick’s leadership, this party can advance as never before, new directions for a new generation, and more effectively than ever fight tirelessly for freedom. These are exciting days.

    All, please contact me at any time. My number, for free distribution, is 516 476 0055. My email is planning4liberty@gmail.com. I hope to hear from anyone with any concerns at all, about this party or any aspect of the freedom movement.

  274. Thomas Knapp

    I thought LNC at-large members had always been selected by approval voting. Am I incorrect, or did it change to some inferior system and then change back?

  275. George Phillies

    The Oregon situation is highly problematic. The Sarwark motion may or may not pass through the LNC. If it does, a little nose counting shows that the Judicial committee on appeal of this LNC act will overturn it, probably 4-3. The person who made the original motion to seat, an impolitic act, is now on the judicial Committee. Remarks in the last LNC meeting that Wes Wagner had intended to postpone Oregon actions until August were in fact tempered by his observation that Oregon has a nine-person board that may not necessarily do as he asks. After the LNC does nothing to offer compensation, Oregon may quit sending delegates to the National convention.

    Leaders in other states should consider the possibility that a National party that chose a few days ago to put people on the Oregon delegation may someday choose to put other people on your state committee, over your protests.

  276. George Phillies

    Rebecca Sink-Burris. In other notes, the $70,000 a year supposedly saved by buying a new building has already been spent by expanding staff.

    With respect to OR, the LNC is discussing setting up a new libertarian under some name party in Oregon, if Oregon disaffiliates, without considering whether the LPOR may take positive action in response, action against the LNC.

  277. Wes Wagner

    The negotiations regarding the issuance of an apology and the acceptance thereof have broken down. It is moot.

  278. Losty

    Oh, this must have been from the prior LNC, as there has literally been no time. All I saw at LNC was an encumbrance of the Ballot access funds already approved, and one mail ballot that I absolutely didn’t understand.

  279. Losty

    The Oregon Resolution. Seemed Pretty Straightforward, but then It will be resolved one way or another by August, unless it’s Moot by then.

  280. Joshua Katz

    Without commenting too much, the following seems very clear to me:

    Any federal or state law to the contrary notwithstanding, delegates to a Regular
    Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party;
    provided however, that only members of the Party as defined in these Bylaws, or
    members of the affiliate party as defined in the constitution or bylaws of such — 7 —
    affiliate party, shall be eligible to vote for the selection of delegates to a Regular
    Convention.

    So clear, in fact, that I see no reasonable interpretation that allows a convention to seat delegates in an affiliate’s delegation by any means other than selection by that affiliate through its selection process.

    Also clear to me is that a vote to ignore a bylaw, or act in a way that no reasonable interpretation permits, is void. However, our bylaws do not give jurisdiction to the JC on such matters, so what I see as less clear is the remedy. The LNC must act, but must, in my opinion, do so in accordance with proper procedure. I do think there can be conflicting reasonable interpretations as to what is a conflict with the actions of the delegates in convention.

  281. Joe

    Joshua Katz @ June 30, 2014 at 11:43 pm

    Is it not also the case that the delegates in convention can, in addition to revising the bylaws, also vote to ignore them?

    I believe it takes a 7/8ths vote to suspend or ignore the bylaws (but it seems it takes a lower level than that to approve changes).

    Last fall, Chairman Neale indicated that should such a thing as what occurred at this convention be proposed he would tell the delegates that they could only seat additional delegates not proposed by an affiliate that they would first need to vote to give themselves such power. I may even have this in an email from him, but it could have been on a phone call — or perhaps my memory is faulty.

    It did seem to me at the time I first learned of this, that he much have changed his mind between then and the convention.

    Any parliamentarians / bylaws experts around?

  282. David Colborne

    I believe it takes a 7/8ths vote to suspend or ignore the bylaws (but it seems it takes a lower level than that to approve changes).

    If I remember my Robert’s correctly, all delegates can unanimously vote to ignore the bylaws and it would still be technically out of order, though good luck enforcing that. Theoretically, it should be immaterial – the requirements to change bylaws are usually low enough (comparatively) where the body can just wait to amend the bylaws to better suit them, then come back to the original issue after the amendment has passed.

  283. Joshua Katz

    As far as I know, bylaws cannot be suspended even by a unanimous vote (but I’m not an RP, just an interested member of NAP and parliamentarian to my fire department.) The exception would be things that appear in the bylaws but are actually in the nature of special rules of order or relate to parliamentary procedure exclusively (but not the assignment of parliamentary authority, since a vote to suspend that is essentially a vote to have no rules.)

    So why allow amendment by 2/3? Well, first, if you said amendment should be as hard as suspension, you could never amend. Less flippantly, though, a permanent amendment is not an effort to do what you want, the rules agreed to by the organization by damned – which is exactly what an attempt to suspend the bylaws is. (Suspension of the rules, since they are of a parliamentary nature, is an attempt to do something that is desired by a significant supermajority yet finds a technical objection.)

    Anyway, the question is whether the bylaw in question may be regarded as being parliamentary or in the nature of a convention rule. One answer is “of course, it’s about conventions” but it’s actually not – it’s about how conventions come together, which is different from how a convention runs once in session. My answer is that it cannot reasonably be seen as being in the nature of a special convention rule or of a parliamentary nature. But again, IANAL and IANAPRP.

    Here’s something more clear, though – certainly no bylaw can be suspended by an act of the chair, which is, in essence, what was done. Even if one felt that this bylaw was in the nature of a parliamentary rule or special convention rule, it would need to be suspended for any action to take place. So the motion made by Credentials would still be out of order, and the chair would still be wrong to rule it in order (in response to George’s point of order.) It cannot be argued that a vote to sustain the chair is a vote to suspend the relevant ‘rules’ without using the words, since the vote threshold is different and the motions are of different classes.

    That’s my opinion, anyway.

  284. Joe

    Joshua,

    Thanks. That helps.

    My impression is that Neale did this falsely thinking that it would enhance his chances for reelection (nothing new here).

    Joe

  285. Fritz Sands

    You guys should have been at the LPWA convention. 2/3 to suspend the rules of the convention and agenda. Then 2/3 to have bylaws changes take place immediately, then 2/3 to close debate and pass new bylaws. Fun times.

  286. Joshua Katz

    Suspending convention rules looks appropriate, except that it requires, either included in the motion or immediately thereafter, an explanation as to what is to be done that would otherwise be against the rules. Suspending the agenda may work, but really takes unanimous consent as any member may call for orders of the day – it would have been more effective to amend the agenda to do what is desired. Why 2/3 to have bylaws changes take place immediately – is there some bylaw to the contrary (that would be suspendable?) In RONR they do take place immediately. Closing debate is fine, and amending the bylaws requires 2/3 – including strike and insert, so arguably striking everything and inserting a whole bunch of new things, but issues related to being germane may arise – although I’m not sure if that applies to main motions to amend.

  287. Fritz Sands

    In the LPWA case that was to force a new election of officers (which was by the old bylaws only in odd-numbered years). IIRC in the old bylaws changes took place at the end of the convention. Closing debate before any debate even began is quite possibly against Robert’s Rules of order.

  288. Michael H. Wilson

    Over my years in the LP I have seen a lot of amateurs running conventions. The recent LPWA one was no different than many others. This is why I think it would be wise to have a competent person write an occasional column in the LP News on parliamentary procedures so that all the members get an opportunity to see how meetings and conventions should be run. It might also be beneficial to have a short course available on the web site. I know there are places to find this stuff on the web but it might help if it was done under the LP banner. Heck even a brochure might be beneficial. I know I am wishing but I’ll keep trying.

  289. Thomas Knapp

    It would be a mistaken to write down the multiple Oregon fiascoes as failures of parliamentary procedure.

    Granted, parliamentary procedure has often been abused in the LP generally and on the LNC in particular, but most of that isn’t a matter of mistakes, it’s a matter of either abusing or ignoring procedure in order to achieve the desired result.

    One factor in my decision to give up on electoral politics was that I watched the LP/LNC closely over the years and realized that even if a “constitutional republic” could work, it couldn’t work with people in charge who care even less about the rules than, for example, Barack Obama does.

  290. Fred

    Thomas Knapp,
    you are correct.
    If you forget about how the bylaws were applied and just look at the affects of the issues, it is easy to see why this action is offensive.

    Imagine if your state was doing so well that it elected Libertarians to congress, during the opening days of the congressional season-the other congressman decided they had the right to choose to add other politicians to your states congressional delegation. The new politicians had not been chosen by the state and were not recognized by the rest of your delegation.

    Would you consider the delegates chosen by others –to be true representatives of you?

  291. Joshua Katz

    Oh, so the bylaws specified that amendments didn’t take effect until the end of convention? In that case, 2/3 can’t vote to have them take effect immediately – you can amend that bylaw, but that wouldn’t take effect until…you get the idea. That’s equivalent to wanting 2/3 to vote to suspend the bylaws.

    I agree with Knapp – the problem is not parliamentary mistakes – we have many very competent parliamentarians (although at the state level I do think there are often mistakes.) The problem is deliberate misuse of procedure.

    I think procedure differs from the Constitution in that a Constitutional Republic is already an inherently flawed idea, whereas parliamentary procedure is, in my view, a very good and important idea – the majority may act, but only after hearing the views of the minority (and possibly changing their minds.)

  292. George Phillies

    In my opinion, M Carling’s position that the LNC should not apologize for or repudiate an action of the National Convention is correct. If the LNC actually passes the Sarwark resolution…not a good bet…the other side will take it to the Judicial Committee, where it will be overturned.

    The people who made the motion and agreed that it was in order have likely done terrible damage to the party. they just have not yet found out about their error yet.

  293. Thomas Knapp

    I agree with George.

    The national convention broke the rules, and the then-chair allowed it to break the rules. But it’s not the job of the new LNC elected by that same convention to turn around and repudiate said convention.

    If the Oregon LP is of a mind to be amicable — I see no reason why they should be given that they’ve now been screwed by the national convention twice in a row — maybe they can work with the new LNC to avoid this kind of stuff in the future.

    If not and if Oregon chooses to disaffiliate, then hopefully the new LNC will be willing to take a cooling off period and talk with them again in six months or a year about re-affiliating, rather than inviting the impostor organization to become the LNC affiliate.

  294. Michael H. Wilson

    Joshua Katz I have seen people call out “call the question” from the floor and be recognized right away while others waiting to speak have been ignored. As I recall one person who passes himself off as a qualified parliamentarian in the LP allowed that to happen at one convention. In that case I believe it was a deliberate misuse of the motion. In other cases I have seen it happen but I honestly believe that people did not know better and just assumed it to be correct. So both happen. I think if things like this were written about in a column for LP News, an occasional column, not necessarily one in each issue, then that might help clear up some of the confusion. If nothing else the members sitting and watching would have some idea as to how qualified those running the show are and might benefit.

  295. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Fritz said: “In the LPWA case that was to force a new election of officers (which was by the old bylaws only in odd-numbered years).”

    Wow, that seems awfully significant, Fritz. Are you saying that Washington LP wasn’t slated to elect new officers this year?

  296. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Hey, did Neil Schulman show his movie “Alongside Night” at the convention? Did anyone see it?

  297. paulie

    I was constrained in the first meeting by having the time and venue set prior to my election; also by the lateness of convention business and people’s travel plans.

    Balloted votes will be reported in the minutes and I am confident that Ms. Mattson will have them done quickly and correctly. Balloting also allowed the committee to do other work while they were being tabulated.

    I got two out of three of my ExCom members that I asked for. The LNC chose Dr. Lark instead of Jay Estrada. He is an excellent choice and I am confident that I will work well with him as we serve on the ExCom together.

    There was a relatively large block of public comment (especially for a meeting that completed in 1:05) at the beginning, in addition to at the end.

    Nick, I think you and Arvin did a great job running the meeting – much, much better than what I experienced the term that I was on the LNC, and better than most LNC meetings I have observed in prior terms.

    I get the sense that you may have an LNC majority that will disagree with you on several key matters. At least that is the signal that was sent by the LNC not selecting Jay Estrada for Exec Comm; I think in the past the chair’s choices were routinely accepted, if I am not wrong. I hope you will not get stymied too much by the rest of the LNC.

    If possible, please provide Alicia with amplification at future meetings. She is too quiet for the gallery to hear at times.

  298. paulie

    paulie, I am so sorry that you were feeling badly. Had Sarah and I known that you were trying to cover the convention for IPR, we’d have been very glad to help out. We were also trying to provide Twitter/Facebook coverage while serving as delegates. It would have been more effective to put forth a coordinated effort.

    Where was your coverage?

  299. Shawn Levasseur

    Thomas Knapp:
    “… I just re-joined the LP…”

    “Just When I Thought I Was Out, They Pull Me Back In!” – Michael Corleone.

    Just can’t shake that addiction, can you?

  300. paulie

    I believe Idaho has currently joined whatever region contains Illinois,

    Correct. Rob Oates is their region rep. Visek is no longer on LNC.

    and I think California, Washington and Nevada now constitute a region. Other than that I don’t know — and I could be wrong about the above.

    CA, NV and NM. Represented by Wiener and Lieberman.

    My region remain the same except for addition of Arkansas. Rep is Jay Estrada (TX) and alternate is Daniel Hayes (LA).

    I believe Norm Olsen and Vicki Kirkland were still at the table at the post-convention LNC meeting. As far as I know their regions have not changed, but I do believe they both have new alternates. I don’t remember who those new alternates are.

    Region 3 is still the same but has new reps. I noted who they were either much earlier in this thread or in the pre-convention thread.

    New England states, NY and NJ are represented by Rich Tomasso of NH as rep as Josh Katz of CT as alterate.

    5S remained the same – represented again by Dr. Lark and Scott Spencer.

  301. Mark Axinn

    M is the Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

    I know that it is his hope that the JC has nothing to rule on this term.

  302. paulie

    I thought LNC at-large members had always been selected by approval voting.

    Past elections were, I believe, “vote for up to..” the number being selected – 5 LNC, 7 JC. There was no requirement of meeting a 50% plus one approval threshold, as there is now.

    Now, you can vote for more people than there are seats available, but those being selected are supposed to have 50% plus one. Although, for the 5th at large seat, the candidates who tied at 136 votes (Guy McLendon and Doug Craig) did not get 50%, but Guy was seated after a coin toss with Doug anyway.

  303. paulie

    Without commenting too much, the following seems very clear to me:

    Any federal or state law to the contrary notwithstanding, delegates to a Regular
    Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party;
    provided however, that only members of the Party as defined in these Bylaws, or
    members of the affiliate party as defined in the constitution or bylaws of such — 7 —
    affiliate party, shall be eligible to vote for the selection of delegates to a Regular
    Convention.

    So clear, in fact, that I see no reasonable interpretation that allows a convention to seat delegates in an affiliate’s delegation by any means other than selection by that affiliate through its selection process.

    Also clear to me is that a vote to ignore a bylaw, or act in a way that no reasonable interpretation permits, is void. However, our bylaws do not give jurisdiction to the JC on such matters, so what I see as less clear is the remedy. The LNC must act, but must, in my opinion, do so in accordance with proper procedure. I do think there can be conflicting reasonable interpretations as to what is a conflict with the actions of the delegates in convention.

    I agree. But, also, Wes has already said that the point is moot, as negotiations have broken down.

    I also agree with George:

    The Sarwark motion may or may not pass through the LNC. If it does, a little nose counting shows that the Judicial committee on appeal of this LNC act will overturn it, probably 4-3. The person who made the original motion to seat, an impolitic act, is now on the judicial Committee.

    As is Oregon plaintiff M Carling.

  304. Shawn Levasseur

    “So what is this Sarwark motion?”

    It was basically an apology for the actions of the convention and the convention chair in the way the three additional delegates were added. I’m not sure, but the wording may have been suggested by the nature of Wes Wagner’s threat of disaffiliating and denying the 2016 presidential nominee ballot access. Which is why I suspect that even if it passes, it will be disingenuous.

    “What did everyone miss at the new LNC meeting?”

    Not much, given how the convention went a bit long, the LNC meeting was quite short. They populated committees that HAD to be populated that day. Most substantive topics had votes deferred to an e-mail ballot, to allow a little more deliberation. (Including the heated issue of an apology to Oregon, and the less heated endorsement Geoff Neale’s efforts to form an international association of Libertarian Parties)

    Sarwark apologized for some of his more inflammatory comments during the chair’s race about there being no leadership on the LNC.

    David Blau reported on the how the tallying of At-Large and Judicial Comm. votes went under the just passed new rules of approval voting for these races.

    Geoff Neale reported on the finances of the con. Specific numbers to be determined, as the con had only just ended, but he confidently said that it did not lose money.

    This doesn’t cover everything that went on in the LNC meeting, just working off the top of my head.

  305. Jeremy C. Young

    So it sounds like the only “hooded key holders” who remain on the LNC are Wiener and Mattson, no? Visek and Pojunis got bounced, Lieberman is still there but only as an alternate (and since his region shrank, he’ll only ever vote in place of Wiener), and I don’t personally consider Evan McMahon a hooded key holder (that’s a bias, though, because I know him personally). Plus Hinkle and Cloud are gone (not hooded key holders, but LNC members I didn’t care for). Redpath is still there, but I think that’s inevitable as long as he remains the repository for knowledge on ballot access.

    Except for Chuck and Starchild not getting on the LNC, and Starr narrowly controlling the JC, it sounds as if things couldn’t have gone better.

  306. paulie

    Hey, did Neil Schulman show his movie “Alongside Night” at the convention? Did anyone see it?

    I saw it at Freedom Fest last year.

    I do believe he showed it again at the convention. I did not go to see it again, although I would if the time and place were convenient. At the convention I was busy.

  307. paulie

    It was basically an apology for the actions of the convention and the convention chair in the way the three additional delegates were added. I’m not sure, but the wording may have been suggested by the nature of Wes Wagner’s threat of disaffiliating and denying the 2016 presidential nominee ballot access. Which is why I suspect that even if it passes, it will be disingenuous.

    It does not explicitly apologize for the actions of the convention, which the LNC may not do. It apologizes for Geoff’s decision as chair to rule a motion which should have been clearly out of order to be in order. By implication only, it apologizes for the actions of the convention since the convention upheld that ruling of the chair. That implication, although not explicit, will be enough to cause an appeal to the JC if the current motion passes. Given who is on the JC, they will vote the LNC down on this.

    And it is all moot per Wes Wagner above, in any case.

  308. Thomas Knapp

    Of course, Nick doesn’t need a motion or a vote for him to issue a public personal apology for the convention’s/past chair’s actions.

  309. paulie

    I think a lot of people would consider it improper for the current LNC chair to do that. He could be removed for cause if that were to happen, and probably would be.

  310. Shawn Levasseur

    “Wes has already said that the point is moot, as negotiations have broken down.”

    What was the nature of these “negotiations”? All I saw was that the LNC wasn’t about to issue a apology without some consideration first, which the didn’t have time for on Sunday.

    Was the wording of the apology, and a timeline specified by Wagner? No deadline was mentioned at the LNC meeting other than an date when the Wagner faction LP Oregon state committee would be meeting, and would be able decide on their actions, if any.

  311. paulie

    With respect to OR, the LNC is discussing setting up a new libertarian under some name party in Oregon, if Oregon disaffiliates, without considering whether the LPOR may take positive action in response, action against the LNC.

    Please elaborate.

  312. Michael H. Wilson

    If something on this goes to the JC and Carling does not recuse himself then he should be removed.

  313. paulie

    There’s no one with authority to remove him – maybe the rest of the JC (I would have to check), but three of the other six are his allies.

  314. Wes Wagner

    M Carling did not recuse himself on the credentials committee twice… why would he now?

    He is a man without honor.

  315. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Wes, do you think it’s possible they pulled the delegate stunt to get you to disaffiliate?

  316. Shawn Levasseur

    George Phillies: “With respect to OR, the LNC is discussing setting up a new libertarian under some name party in Oregon, if Oregon disaffiliates, without considering whether the LPOR may take positive action in response, action against the LNC”

    If you are basing this on the post-con LNC meeting, They did not consider this. I believe it was mentioned by Redpath that if Oregon disaffiliates, and the LNC sought some other means of getting our 2016 nominee on the ballot, the downside would be that the nominee could not be listed as the “Libertarian Party” nominee but as something else, as the Wagner Group holds ballot access rights under that name.

    This was not a proposal, but a listing of the consequences of such a disaffiliation. I think it was even in a response to a member’s question of what the consequences would be, to help make the decision wether to issue the apology or not.

    If the Wagner group disaffiliates, I don’t see how they would have standing to prevent the national LP putting its presidential nominee on the Oregon ballot without the Libertarian label. If it was WITH the LP label, then they might have standing to act, depending on Oregon law.

    No motion was even on the floor concerning actions to take if Oregon choses to disaffiliate.

  317. Michael H. Wilson

    Knowing the people involved I think Jill is right on the money.

  318. George Phillies

    The LNC is assuming that the LPOR, if it concludes that the convention has disaffiliated it, will sit on its backside and only do things inside Oregon.

  319. George Phillies

    At the meeting and after: This appears to be the first time in a long time that the Chair did not get his choice of ExComm members, and that *after* he had modified his choice of ExComm members and apologized to people.

  320. Nicholas Sarwark

    The national convention broke the rules, and the then-chair allowed it to break the rules. But it’s not the job of the new LNC elected by that same convention to turn around and repudiate said convention.

    A resolution apologizing for a mistaken parliamentary ruling of the Chair is not a repudiation of that action or subsequent actions. It’s an apology. Resolutions don’t have legal effect.

    The tenuous argument otherwise was presented to the LNC and rejected by same.

  321. Stewart Flood

    “So it sounds like the only “hooded key holders” who remain on the LNC are Wiener and Mattson, no?”

    I have said in the past that while they have influenced him at times, Mr Wiener is not a hooded key holder. I have no knowledge of or reason to believe that Mr McMahon is one. If he is, he joined recently. But his boss is/was one and was referred to by someone speaking at this convention as “the godfather” of his state party.

    Olsen is not a key holder, but he is influenced by them.

    Small correction: I gave the report on ballot counting.

    The only person who can apologize for the action of the former chair without involving the JC is the former chair. He should, and it should be done before he is appointed our ambassador.

  322. Stewart Flood

    I agree with Mr Sarwark, but I believe it will have more strength if it comes directly from the person who made the ruling.

  323. Joshua Katz

    Michael Wilson, I agree. I suspect, though, that at national convention we see less mistakes and more deliberate action, while below that there’s more mistakes and lack of knowledge. I think a column would be good. There was a basic summary in the delegate bag. I used to write a parliamentarians corner that I included in the email where I sent out minutes, when I was state secretary.

    Maybe the affiliate support committee can hold classes?

    On Sarwarks motion, it’s worth noting that there wasn’t technically any debate on it. There was a point of order, an appeal, and debate on the appeal. As soon as the decision was upheld, a motion was made that was taken as a motion to postpone definitely, which passed.

  324. Thomas Knapp

    The Judicial committee’s purview is specifically described in Article 9, Section 2 of the bylaws.

    Nowhere within that description do I find anything resembling “deciding whether or not it likes something Nick Sarwark said.”

  325. Fritz Sands

    Indeed, Jill, that is correct. Until the major bylaws revision in the LPWA, state officers and SEC members were elected to two-year terms in odd-numbered years.

  326. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Wow, Fritz. Sounds like there were some significant power issues going on.

  327. Fritz Sands

    Well, yeah. Except for the complete lack of anything that any sane person would call “power”. It’s one of the things that has always puzzled me in LP things over the decades — people get into all sorts of drama over organizations which have virtually no resources. Very confusing.

  328. Michael H. Wilson

    What bugs me is that instead of developing anything positive most of the time the alienation that occurs just drives people away. Those that leave are generally more active than others. Oregon was a great example of this. It will be interesting to see what the post election months are like in the LPWA.

  329. Michael H. Wilson

    Joshua Katz the LP News could use something like that. If you have the time you might consider doing something similar. I’m not trying to rope you into something that you don’t have time for but we really need someway to spread the knowledge around.

  330. Stewart Flood

    “As soon as the decision was upheld, a motion was made that was taken as a motion to postpone definitely, which passed.”

    I was in the room and that isn’t what I heard. What I heard the chair say was that he was going to take his motion to an email ballot. I agree with those who say it will be difficult to pass, but I believe they will vote on it soon.

  331. Shane

    Nota2016? Really Knapp? Why rejoin the party if you’re simply going to resume the position of an adversarial troll? Do you just like the smidgen of attention?

    If you feel the party should not be involved in electoral politics then go form a non-profit. The LP was formed to compete politically, not to be the standard bearer for libertarianism.

    If you feel you have to back nota two years in advance, then that’s intellectually dishonest. Wouldn’t your time be better spent recruiting a candidate that you prefer? Or are you just giving up because you’ve finally realized that you’re simply no good at political strategy and your candidate would most likely lose at convention?

    Nota is an option at the last minute if no qualified candidates step up or an extreme event occurs such as the 2012 chair race.

    To shout nota two years out is like a toddler clutching his toy demanding that no one touch it — laughably childish for a grown man.

  332. Thomas Knapp

    “If you feel the party should not be involved in electoral politics then go form a non-profit. The LP was formed to compete politically, not to be the standard bearer for libertarianism.”

    You’ve got it exactly backward. When David Nolan called for formation of the Libertarian Party, he specifically listed winning elections as a slim possibility and the possibility as an afterthought. And the Libertarian National Convention has, multiple times, ratified bylaws which list a number of purposes in addition to “competing politically.”

    “If you feel you have to back nota two years in advance, then that’s intellectually dishonest.”

    Usually when someone tacks “intellectually” in front of “dishonest,” it’s prima facie evidence that they mean “I can’t find any reason to suspect that he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, but since I don’t like what he’s saying I’ll try to find a way to imply that he doesn’t believe it.”

    I don’t “feel” that I “have to” back NOTA two years in advance. I am choosing to back NOTA two years in advance and I’m being completely honest about it.

    “Wouldn’t your time be better spent recruiting a candidate that you prefer?”

    The candidate I prefer is NOTA. And it’s my time, so I’ll spend it as I damn well please.

    “Or are you just giving up because you’ve finally realized that you’re simply no good at political strategy”

    Want to compare resumes?

  333. Fred

    Jill,
    Those that wish to take over the LPO may have been trying to get us to disaffiliate. That in itself is troubling and would potentially be reason to not fall into their “trap”
    But the larger issue is that TOO MANY OF THE PEOPLE AT CONVENTION were willing to choose our representatives for us.
    This is an unfortunate recognition that they are not worthy allies. To me the question isn’t which side someone agrees with, the question is, “should the national organization be able to tell the state organization what to do?”
    When the majority of the members at the convention believe that they can force each local organization to accept the representatives of the national organizations choosing–then the national organization becomes something that we can no longer have a relationship with.
    If the majority of the body doesn’t recognize the foundational concept of autonomy–they will continue to try decide between wrong choices.
    They have no compass and try to discover North by watching the birds fly.

    We have been having a similar discussion with Republican candidates who are seeking our endorsement. They point to the issues they have in common with us and say they only have a few areas we disagree–so we should vote for them.
    But they don’t recognize that despite the things we agree on, they still believe in using the force of government to make others agree with them.

    At the point the majority of delegates at convention believe they have the right to use force against a delegation (whether they agree or disagree with the delegation) they have shown that they don’t understand the underlying philosophy necessary to make sound decisions.

  334. paulie

    The tenuous argument otherwise was presented to the LNC and rejected by same.

    I thought it was punted to email. And if it does get rejected by LNC – that is, if your motion is approved – they will appeal to JC and win, given who is on JC.

  335. paulie

    The Judicial committee’s purview is specifically described in Article 9, Section 2 of the bylaws.

    Nowhere within that description do I find anything resembling “deciding whether or not it likes something Nick Sarwark said.”

    They would call it an action of the LNC.

  336. Wes Wagner

    The LP will probably learn this term why having a judicial committee does not work.

    The entire Starr playbook has been played out in Oregon, we won.

    Now national has to fight the exact same battle that we (in Oregon) already know how to win.

  337. paulie

    I agree, it would be “an action of the LNC” by definition.

    The action of an individual member is not necessarily the same thing as the action of a body, but I don’t think Nick would go that route. The rest of the LNC would remove him for cause if he were to do that.

  338. paulie

    At the point the majority of delegates at convention believe they have the right to use force against a delegation (whether they agree or disagree with the delegation) they have shown that they don’t understand the underlying philosophy necessary to make sound decisions.

    Burke’s argument that they would seat both sides and that there are lots of empty slots sounds compelling to the average delegate who has no understanding of the Oregon issues or of why this has bad implications for state delegation sovereignty. It sounds like a compromise and like your side is being petty. I know that is not what it is, but only because I have read and talked a lot about these issues.

  339. paulie

    Shane,

    There is an argument that the LP should not run presidential candidates and that it is a distraction from local campaigns. I disagree with this argument for reasons I have laid out in IPR discussions many times. I think not running a presidential candidate would be disastrous for the LP. I’m not sure whether Tom’s argument is about running local candidates versus presidential ones, or whether he still wants to eschew electoral politics entirely. I’m sure we will delve into it quite a bit between now and 2016.

    I;m trying to find an old article here with a title something like “If not NOTA, who? If not now, when?” but for some reason IPR search box is not helpful.

  340. Wes Wagner

    Paulie

    I think Fred’s post clarifies exactly why that is a problem that cannot be rationalized away.

  341. paulie

    I think you are making it out to be more of an informed choice than it is. It was basically just crowd psychology at a very superficial level.

  342. Wes Wagner

    paulie

    The “gut instinct” of a libertarian should be to not use force to achieve their goal.

  343. Thomas Knapp

    “I’m not sure whether Tom’s argument is about running local candidates versus presidential ones, or whether he still wants to eschew electoral politics entirely.”

    Well, let’s be careful to separate “Tom’s argument” from “NOTA 2016’s arguments.” There’s a difference.

    Here are some arguments in favor of NOTA for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2016. Some of them I subscribe to, some I don’t:

    1) The only way we’re going to stop Republican rejects from sniffing around the LP’s presidential nomination is to STOP GIVING IT TO THEM. That will be the subject of NOTA 2016’s first op-ed, “A Declaration of Independence from Republican Rejects,” which I’m submitting to several publications that LP members read and which will be posted on the NOTA 2016 site on Friday (the 4th of July, hence the title). I’ve concluded, and I think that some other Libertarians will agree, that after two election cycles in a row, it comes down to “maybe if we want to get the squatters out, we need to burn the house down; we can rebuild it after that.”

    2) Some Libertarians — I’m not one of them and don’t subscribe to this argument — see the LP as a sort of ideological sidestream that’s useful for “getting ideas out there,” but that needs to “get out of the way” when the voting starts. They see LP candidates and campaigns as wasted efforts at best and “spoilers” at worst and prefer to see Libertarians vote for “libertarian Republicans.” Examples would include Eric Dondero’s gang and Ron Paul and/or Rand Paul supporters. I don’t agree with their goals, but I’ll be more than happy to have their support for NOTA.

    3) Some Libertarians — I’m one of them, and therefore subscribe to this argument — see electoral politics as a dead end. Whether or not one agrees with that, it’s certainly not illegitimate to suggest to a party which does have listed purposes other than electoral politics that it focus on those other purposes in preference to running e.g. yet another quixotic presidential campaign.

    4) I don’t subscribe to the “spend ‘our’ money on local/state candidates instead of on a presidential campaign” argument, for several reasons. One of those reasons is that the money doesn’t map on a 1:1 scale between the two kinds of efforts. Just because Libertarians DON’T donate a million dollars to a presidential campaign, that doesn’t mean they WILL donate that same million dollars to other campaigns. Some of them will just keep their money in their pocket or go to the casino or whatever. Another reason is that the presidential campaign CAN support those lower-level campaigns with its ballot access work, party promotion work, etc. So it’s not an either/or thing.

  344. paulie

    The “gut instinct” of a libertarian should be to not use force to achieve their goal.

    I don’t think it seemed like force to most delegates who had not delved into the issues. They just simply thought it made sense that you had open spots and everyone should be seated. If you don’t think about it any more deeply than that it does seem to make sense.

  345. paulie

    I don’t subscribe to the “spend ‘our’ money on local/state candidates instead of on a presidential campaign” argument, for several reasons. One of those reasons is that the money doesn’t map on a 1:1 scale between the two kinds of efforts. Just because Libertarians DON’T donate a million dollars to a presidential campaign, that doesn’t mean they WILL donate that same million dollars to other campaigns. Some of them will just keep their money in their pocket or go to the casino or whatever. Another reason is that the presidential campaign CAN support those lower-level campaigns with its ballot access work, party promotion work, etc. So it’s not an either/or thing.

    Well, there’s at least one point on which we agree.

  346. Wes Wagner

    paulie

    I did take the microphone and asked the body to not abridge our autonomy. When someone says no, and you proceed anyway, what is that?

  347. Stewart Flood

    This set a seriously troublesome precedent. Allowing the body to seat delegates in a state that did not ask for the delegates is a direct violation of our rights as affiliates. I have no direct knowledge of the events that led to them not being in the Oregon delegation, but I was told that they never even tried to be part of it.

    Is it possible that Mr Wagner would have seated them if asked in advance? Whether he would or wouldn’t have, t I can certainly understand the negative reaction to having the convention dictate to an affiliate — any affiliate — who their delegates will be.

    What if they decide in 2016 that there are extra delegates that can’t be seated and they want to take South Carolina’s unused slots? We came close with 9 of 13 this time, but we almost never fill up completely. If delegates approach us we may consider adding them, but we would certainly object to being told by the body that they were seating delegates in our state without our permission.

    As I recall, everyone in South Carolina voted against this. My guess is that most small state’s delegations voted no as well.

  348. Dave Terry

    paulie
    <responding to Nicholas Sarwack, who wrote:
    "It should be noted that if Mssrs. Reeves, Burke, and Burnett had sent an email to Mr. Wagner asking to be seated as Oregon delegates, Mr. Wagner would have seated them."

    "If they are all registered Libertarian voters in Oregon."

    Apparently Mr. Frankel is as unaware of the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party as Wagner & Co.

    To wit;

    "ARTICLE 5: MEMBERSHIP
    1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they
    oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."

    Question: How many of those "registered libertarians in Oregon have certified IN WRITING, their support of the NAP?

    WHO is the final arbiter of WHO is a legitimate "Libertarian"? Big Brother in Salem or those members, in good standing, according to the bylaws of the Libertarian Party.

  349. Stewart Flood

    I can say this much: if they did that to South Carolina, FOR ANY REASON, I would be in our next state executive committee meeting urging disaffiliation.

    I hope this can be settled, and I hope that Mr Wagner gives Mr Sarwark at least some amount of time to try. He’s been chair for less than 72 hours…

  350. Stewart Flood

    “If they are all registered Libertarian voters in Oregon.”

    So you’re saying that they ByLaws differ from what some of us were told? I have been told repeatedly that they require members to be registered as Libertarian with the state election commission. But on that point, I can’t see why Mr Burke and his associates would not be registered Libertarians.

    So what’s the problem with them asking to be seated? Are they all just that pig-headed that they can’t ask? Their argument is not over whether the Libertarian Party of Oregon is the Libertarian Party of Oregon, but over who the legal chair and officers of the party are. Is it giving in to ask to be seated? They probably think so, even though most people would not.

  351. Thomas Knapp

    Delegates to the Libertarian National Convention are not required to be members of the Libertarian National Committee (d/b/a “the Libertarian Party”). They can be state-only members, and not all states require the pledge certification. Missouri, for example, does not require the pledge and has on occasion chosen delegates who were not national members.

    The Oregon LP accepts registered Libertarian voters as members. That’s their call to make.

  352. Joshua Katz

    Mr. Terry is referencing the fact that he disputes what the bylaws of the party are – whether they are the 2009 bylaws or the 2011 bylaws. The expansion to registered Libertarians was in the 2011 bylaws, which he disputes, although I am unsure as to how to dispute them while accepting that the Reform Officers were the legitimate officers of the party at that time.

  353. Dave Terry

    Wes Wagner

    The LNC delegates voted to abridge our autonomy again. This will be taken under consideration and we will reconsider our relationship with this party.

    WHAT relationship? Clearly, your concept of “autonomy” trumps every other standard, by which Libertarians are defined. Your “faction” has, from the beginning, considered itself above and separate from active Libertarians.

  354. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt Post author June 27, 2014 at 10:59 am

    > “I also hope that the three beggars allowed to be on the Oregon delegation are made to sit among the sanctioned people of Oregon. I also hope they remain uncomfortable the enitre time .Ostracism can be an effective tool.”<

    LOL! REALLY, Jill; are you so arrogant that you seriously believe that your "disdain" is so powerful as to wilt the flower of legitimate libertarianism?

    Ostracism, after all, IS A TWO WAY STREET!!!!

  355. Dave Terry

    Wes Wagner
    The “gut instinct” of a libertarian should be to not use force to achieve their goal

    The OPERATIVE term is “a libertarian should not ‘INITIATE’ force to achieve their goal

    BIG DIF!!!!!!!!!!!

  356. Dave Terry

    Joshua Katz >July 2, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Mr. Terry is referencing the fact that he disputes what the bylaws of the party are – whether they are the 2009 bylaws or the 2011 bylaws. The expansion to registered Libertarians was in the 2011 bylaws, which he disputes, although I am unsure as to how to dispute them while accepting that the Reform Officers were the legitimate officers of the party at that time.

    THAT is an EASY question to answer; The “so-called” Reform Officers of the LPO are not NOW,
    nor have they ever been the “legitimate officers” of the party. A ‘coup’ is NOT a legitimate parliamentary maneuver.

  357. Wes Wagner

    Dave Terry

    Like when you committed battery against Mr Vetanen because he said something you didn’t like?

  358. paulie

    I did take the microphone and asked the body to not abridge our autonomy. When someone says no, and you proceed anyway, what is that?

    It’s people not understanding the implications and importance of the decision being made. The crowd psychology was that you were being petty and Burke was extending an olive branch/being inclusive. The problem was the ruling of the chair, which was clearly in error.

  359. paulie

    This set a seriously troublesome precedent. Allowing the body to seat delegates in a state that did not ask for the delegates is a direct violation of our rights as affiliates. I have no direct knowledge of the events that led to them not being in the Oregon delegation, but I was told that they never even tried to be part of it.

    Agreed.

    Is it possible that Mr Wagner would have seated them if asked in advance? Whether he would or wouldn’t have, t I can certainly understand the negative reaction to having the convention dictate to an affiliate — any affiliate — who their delegates will be.

    So can I. However, I think he is reading too much into how deeply most delegates understood the issue.

    What can be done to prevent such a precdent from being followed with more of the same in the future? JC has no jurisdiction over convention.

  360. paulie

    I hope this can be settled, and I hope that Mr Wagner gives Mr Sarwark at least some amount of time to try.

    I don’t see how it can be settled. The Sarwark resolution may or may not pass; if it does, it will be appealed to JC and voted down by 4-3 in all likelihood. And by that point chances are Wagner et al will have already disaffiliated.

    I won’t be surprised if they also sue the LNC; the national convention delegates affirmed a ruling of the chair which clearly violates LP bylaws and there is no internal mechanism I am aware of to resolve or correct this.

  361. paulie

    But on that point, I can’t see why Mr Burke and his associates would not be registered Libertarians.

    Some of them may be registered Republican. Otherwise, they probably are.

    So what’s the problem with them asking to be seated? Are they all just that pig-headed that they can’t ask?

    Yes. They don’t recognize Wagner as legitimate, so they are not going to ask him for anything at all.

    Is it giving in to ask to be seated?

    From their point of view, yes, it is.

  362. George Phillies

    States being oppressed have a variety of other approaches to dealing with a rogue National Chair, National Party, and convention. (That’s not the current chair.) Attempting to reduce greatly the influence of the national committee comes to mind, as for example via propaganda. Ignoring the next national convention and its actions comes to mind. The Arizona approach…if we ignore them, they will ignore us…works poorly for the mythical let alone the real ostrich, and also worked poorly for Arizona.

    The national party is under serious financial stress. While the LNC did save money by buying a poorly-chosen part of a building, that money has already been spent, so the building fragment is creating no free funds for political action. Doing things that may annoy donors is disadvantageous.

  363. George Phillies

    I would expect the LNC will manage to vote during July, so it will have acted before the LPOR state committee meets in person in August. The Judicial Committee is more complicated. An appeal requires the signatures of 1% of the sustaining membership or 10% of the delegates to the 2014 convention, so in order to appeal you actually need to pile up support. I expect that the needed support would be forthcoming. If need be, someone would simply buy 150 memberships for 150 signers.

    To expand on what I just said, the new building fragment saves ca $70,000 a year, but the LNC has already spent the $70,000 a year on more staff.

  364. Fred

    Mr. Wagner has no authority to have rejected them as delegates if they asked according to LPO policy. If he had taken that action, I would have immediately requested his resignation. Likewise, Mr. Wagner has no authority to disaffiliate the LPO from the LP. He may (and likely will) request the leadership call for a special convention which asks the membership to decide the issue. But if he tries to take authority not granted to him, he would find himself without a platform from which to stand.
    Which he needs to stand on to operate his pulley.

  365. Wes Wagner

    Fred

    Technically the board has the authority to vote for disaffiliation under the 2011 bylaws, because the LPO never became an affiliate of national through any action that is protected under the clauses in the LPO bylaws stating that which the board cannot do.

    On the other hand we all know better than to make a decision like that without referral.

  366. Dave Terry

    Wes Wagner >July 2, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    “Like when you committed battery against Mr Vetanen because he said something you didn’t like?”

    The incident which you have made into a ’cause celebre’ had absolutely NOTHING to do with WHAT he said, but the aggressive manor by which he expressed himself.

    My response was purely a reflexive action based on the fact that he suddenly, without warning,
    (or provocation) turned, jumped in my face and screamed an obscenity at the top of his lungs.

    I have absolutely NOTHING to apologize for.

  367. Wes Wagner

    Not following you there Steven … I think we may need the logic on that unpacked a little in order to understand you.

  368. Mark Axinn

    Wes Wagner wrote:
    >M Carling did not recuse himself on the credentials committee twice… why would he now?
    >He is a man without honor.

    Completely false. While I disagree with M’s (and others’) continuation of the Oregon battle (which I believe was improperly resolved by the JC over two years ago but resolution is supposed to be resolution), M actually resigned from the Credentials Committee (to which I had appointed him) Thursday morning in a matter of principle. The fact that I disagree with his position is irrelevant.

    I have known M for several years and can attest to his status as a man of honor.

    Frankly Wes, I consider your unnecessary ad hominen attack about as classy as sending the email photo of the finger to the prior LNC. Argue on principle (such as Dr. Phillies and others have eloquently done above); don’t call people names just because you disagree with them.

  369. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Mark said: ” M actually resigned from the Credentials Committee (to which I had appointed him) Thursday morning in a matter of principle.”

    Please explain, since it looked to me that he resigned because he couldn’t get his way.

  370. Wes Wagner

    Mark

    M Carling was supporting a bylaws swap using the same method we did in Oregon before we did it … he then reversed himself when we did it before Burke did it.

    He is without honor and his actions in this and other states have proven it true so many times it is impossible to not notice unless you want to be willfully ignorant.

  371. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    It was highly unethical for M to vote on the Credentials Committee in 2012 while he is a plaintiff in the lawsuit. I’m not even in the legal profession, and I know this. Especially considering that M is supposedly a parliamentarian, the only possible explanation is that he knowingly committed an unethical act.

  372. Wes Wagner

    Jill

    Even moreso he was the deciding vote. Anyone who claims alliance and friendship with him owns that act too.

  373. Stewart Flood

    I was following the ByLaws meeting and am unaware of what transpired in the Credentials meeting. Could someone post what happened (and in what order) for those of us who missed it?

    This thread is a little long, so could it start as a new article — if possible?

  374. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I haven’t seen anything to report about the Credentials committee, Stewart. My comment above was re: 2012.

  375. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Well, something DID happen in Columbus that made M Carling resign. I don’t know what it is, and I don’t know if it’s worthy of a new article. I’d hate to give him that much attention.

  376. Stewart Flood

    He resigned from the Credentials Committee? Interesting. It had to be over Oregon. I’d put money on it.

  377. George Phillies

    Stewart is correct.

    With respect to the Credentials Committee, I attended part of their meeting. What you are about to read is not an exact transcript, but I believe that captures much of what was said about Oregon. Dr. Lieberman moved to approve all state delegations except Oregon, and then to discuss Oregon separately. Someone indicated that M Carling had said that there was a controversy over the Oregon delegation. Emily Salvette said very emphatically that there is no controversy over Oregon. The national chair and the judicial committee have clearly and unambiguously ruled that there is one Oregon state party, the one with Wes Wagner as its chair. M Carling claimed that the LNC had voted six times that the Burke faction was the correct affiliate of our national party. Emily Salvette then gave historical background on the matter, with her version of the background sounding to me to be correct. She emphasized that the Libertarian National Committee had not spoken to her. The Judicial Committee had not spoken to her. They might have made rulings, but they have not addressed them to the Credentials Committee. M Carling indicated that the question is before the courts. Salvette said that in Oregon everything is before the courts. Gary Johnson of Texas asked: after we accept all except Oregon, do you have a motion? I believe the question was formally directed toward Scott Lieberman. Kane indicated that the issue was very important. Someone observed that California has 50 open slots for people from other states. Therefore, the Burke faction delegates will be seated. J.J. said that the committee should not cause an additional controversy. There was a motion on the floor to approve all except Oregon. The motion was defeated many-1. Gary Johnson and Beth Duensing moved to approve the entire list of delegates. The motion passed. Salvette hope that Wagner would see people from Oregon who want to be seated. At about this point, M Carling resigned from the Credentials Committee, and Burke departed the meeting. M Carling made a specific statement as to why he was resigning, but I didn’t transcribe it. Sorry.

    During the opening bit of the convention, there was a motion to seat three Oregon delegates from the Burke faction with the Oregon delegation. I rose to a point of order, and urged that the motion was out of order because it violated article 6, section 5 of the bylaws. Geoff Neale unfortunately ruled the motion was in order. The delegates were forcibly inserted into the Oregon delegation. It seems that the three Burke faction delegates somehow convinced the National Committee that they got to choose the Oregon delegation head, and chose one of their number as the delegation head. Readers will be shocked, truly shocked, to learn that this action did not go over entirely well with the delegates from our state affiliate.

    At the end of the convention, M Carling rose with a motion to ban the LNC from apologizing for or retracting the actions of the outbound National Chair or the Convention. That motion did not reach a vote.

  378. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    George said: “At about this point, M Carling resigned from the Credentials Committee, and Burke departed the meeting. M Carling made a specific statement as to why he was resigning, but I didn’t transcribe it. Sorry.”

    There certainly doesn’t seem to be any honor in this rendition of what happened. It sounds to me that Carling took his ball and left, when he didn’t get his way.

  379. Joe

    Jill Pyeatt Post @ July 2, 2014 at 10:30 pm

    “LOL, Nicholas (plus, now we’ve hit 500 posts!)”

    Jill, Paulie, what’s the record? didn’t one of them go over 1,000 a couple of years ago?

  380. Joshua Katz

    Mr. Terry – while I have no desire to debate with you, my understanding was that the office of the Reform Officers was a stipulated fact. I did not find any provision in your bylaws vacating their offices until replaced by an election, and since the bylaws made it impossible to hold a convention, I don’t see how you could have met to fill “vacancies.” On the other hand, your state laws do seem to allow a board to amend bylaws without a convention.

  381. Fritz Sands

    Ah, Oregon… I admit to being mostly ignorant of the specifics of the fight there (yeah, yeah, I am in the next state north, but this all seemed like nothing to get too close to). The fight has lasted for five or so years now, right? They have two groups with utter dislike and distrust for each other and enough resources to engage in dueling lawsuits — that much I have figured out. I gather some of this is a proxy war between factions in the national party — showing another case of “Why we can’t have nice things”. Is there any way forward or is this going to just keep grinding on for another decade?

  382. Matt Cholko

    Delegates in Columbus voted to seat delegates that wanted to be seated. No more, no less. Almost nobody there even gave a second thought to it. There was no big deal made out of it on the floor, and virtually nobody realized there was even an issue of substance at hand.

    It may be a big issue on the radar screen of people in Oregon, and a tiny handful of others. But, to most of the LP, the Oregon fiasco is not significant. I’d bet that half of the people at the convention weren’t even remotely aware that there has been anything other than business as usual taking place in OR.

    Stop reading stuff into it.

  383. Bonnie S

    re: Region 5N will henceforth be known as “The Land of No Steenkin’ Badges”.

    Correction: The region formation paperwork named it the “Region of Badassery” until a numerical designation may be assigned.

  384. Andy

    “Joshua Katz June 29, 2014 at 2:08 pm
    I stand corrected on Barr – he only voted for the Patriot Act the first time.”

    Voting for the Patriot Act even once was a disgraceful act.

  385. Andy

    “Thomas Knapp July 1, 2014 at 10:22 am
    Hey Mike — you’re in Florida, aren’t you? I just re-joined the LP, so hopefully we’ll meet some time soon!”

    Holy shit, Tom Knapp is back! What happened to Tom being done with the LP, and done with electoral politics?

  386. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Joe, we’ve had a couple threads make it past 1000 comments, but I don’t recall what they were right now. Not too many make it to 500, which is why I mentioned it. I don’t think we’ve had an article do that for a while.

  387. Fred

    Mark Axinn,
    Were you aware that M Carling had not recused himself from the credentials committee in 2012 (when he was deciding which group was the Oregon delegate while he was a party in the lawsuit)?

    If so, why would you even consider appointing him to the credentials committee in 2014?

  388. Fred

    Matt Cholko,
    While the intent of the delegates in Columbus may have been nothing more or less than trying to seat delegates who wanted to be seated, they did significantly more. Those delegates intentionally refused to ask the LPO to seat them and instead asked the convention to have them seated as Oregon delegates.
    Any other affiliate that had open seats could have chosen to include those delegates in their own state.
    What the delegates did was chose who would represent Oregon without the consent of Oregon.
    This may seem like an insignificant issue to you (and maybe insignificant to many others who were at the convention) but, unfortunately, other people being victimized often seems insignificant to those who unintentionally caused the problem.

  389. Fred

    Fritz,
    You are probably correct in your choice to not get to close to this. It has been a drain on everyone in the Oregon party for far too long.
    Can we move forward?
    Yes, the LPO has in most ways already moved forward. Certainly there is the continuation of a lawsuit the could (and in my opinion should) be dropped, but the party is conducting business better than I’ve ever seen it run. More people are involved, more candidates are running for elections, more people are doing activism.
    Can the national party move forward?
    I believe that it could move forward too. It simply has to stop engaging in this battle. For years I have been asking those from other states to do one thing to help fix Oregon.
    I usually state it more politely, but the message I’ve been giving is “mind your own fucking business” All the LP has to do to disengage in this battle is to except that the governing body of the LPO that will be accepted by the LP is the one that is recognized by the SOS of Oregon.
    This would mean that if the Burke/Reeves faction wins their lawsuit the LP would recognize them. If they do not, they will recognize the Wagner faction. They don’t have to continue to debate which faction or group is the biggest set of bastards. Its not relevant.
    They would also have to recognize that all state affiliates are autonomous. The most recent decision from the convention floor is that the national party can overrule a state and decide who they choose to represent them.

    What most delegates don’t know or recognize is that there authoritarian response is the crack in the LP that will allow the controversy to continue. In past threads, I have explained Wagner’s strategy. What is now playing out on the national stage is a repeat version of what has played out on the Oregon stage. If you want it to stop, the LP must disengage in the discussion of which group is the better group and 1) use external criteria to determine which group has authority. 2) follow the rules and bylaws of the organization.
    There have already been too many instances in which the LP did not follow those two simple requirements and have broken the trust of those who care about local autonomy. In order to regain our trust, the LP needs to find some way to prove they will not continue to break their own rules and to violate the local organizations.

  390. Joe

    The decision by Chair Neale to allow this motion from the floor was not consistent with the bylaws, as outlined above, as articulated by Dr. Phillies at the time, as is core to the bottom-up, state-to-national flowing authority (not LNC down flow of authority), intent of those bylaws and our founders.

    But, more importantly, it was not consistent with Neale’s fiduciary duty to the LP, just as Fred outlined above.

    This will, I fear, be costly. A drain on resources, a decrease in donations, an increase in expenses, a likely reduction in staff, a highly likely loss of ballot access in one or more states, and perhaps one or more state affiliates at a time closer to the next convention than this past one.

    The national LP through both its leadership and its assembled delegates, acted to repudiate state autonomy. People in Oregon have now voted with their feet in terms of which of the two LPOs they choose to support. I expect they will be voting with their feet regarding the national organization as well.

    Not seating those three people from Oregon (they did not become “Oregon delegates” until after the vote) would have ended this battle (at least pending their win of an appeal in the Oregon courts (a long-shot,and one that would nearly certainly not see a sudden influx of members/supporters from the current LPO).

    Instead the relatively (apparently intentionally, given some comments above regarding a desire “not to know all the facts” or sentiments that “it’s impossible to know for myself without a court telling me, who is right here”) ignorant delegates followed the lead of Chair Neale.

    (Who, given Wes’s public support of Mr. Sarwark at the time, probably felt it was his best, and perhaps only, hope for reelection.)

    Bottom line, IMO, there was a no lose outcome for Wes Wagner from long before Columbus started. In fact, this may be a bigger win (and I think it is) than what the other side kept him/the LPO from having, and likely what he intended, planned and executed as an equal in sweetness to Plan A, Plan B from the beginning.

    I’d suggest those confused look carefully for what he *really* wants. Here’s a hint, it’s not a slightly-better-than-republicans-and-we-legalize-pot, Rootish/Barrish/functionally libertarian, “controlled opposition,” weak-kneed, national party. It’s something else. And Burke, et. al. play right into that while apparently being funded by those who think they are protecting their goals. It’s a zen-master, Tai-Chi, use opponent’s force against them mastery. Playing to win; winning before battle begins; and never, not once, not ever, playing not-to-lose.

    People who play protect the goal against such opponents tend never to win, nor to know what hit them, nor from where.

    Or so it seems to me.

  391. Fred

    I think you’ve got it Joe,

    The funny thing is, even when you tell people exactly what Wes Wagner intends to do, and exactly how you can stop him from doing it — Many people keep trying to use aggressive methods to get him to stop.
    Its as if they have an addiction to authoritarianism.

    (which is pretty sad in the Libertarian Party)

  392. Thomas Knapp

    I have trouble believing that the chair’s ruling was intended as a Hail Mary play to achieve re-election. For one thing, it seems more likely to have had the opposite effect.

    One gains votes by emphasizing one’s accomplishments/qualifications or attacking those of one’s opponent, not by casually re-opening controversies that have been clearly and unambiguously settled by your party’s Judicial Committee and by Oregon’s courts, that probably seem petty to a large number of the people you’re trying to get to vote for you, and in a way that stomps on state affiliate/delegation autonomy.

    The question on my mind is:

    Why are certain people outside of Oregon, including but not limited to LNC members, intent on replacing the current affiliate with another organization or, failing that, getting national Libertarian organizations like LNC and LSLA to pretend that an organization other than the affiliate is the affiliate?

    So intent on it that at least one of them has spent six figures trying to do so, so intent on it that another made a clearly and unquestionably illegal ruling from the convention podium in front of hundreds of witnesses?

    While I don’t always agree with Neale, I’ve always liked him and I have difficulty imagining that he’s a plant or provocateur for e.g. the Republican Party or the federal government or something. Burke or Starr or Mattson, maybe. Neale, no.

  393. Stewart Flood

    Joe,

    What is it that you suspect/know that Wagner really wants?

    I have always been unclear about what the true motives of both sides are in this, and it does look like there has to be something else they are both after.

  394. Wes Wagner

    Knapp

    It was a trade for support from Ohio and Indiana as far as I can tell. A trade that Neale did not come out on the better end of the bargain on.

  395. Shawn Levasseur

    “I have trouble believing that the chair’s ruling was intended as a Hail Mary play to achieve re-election.” – Tom Knapp

    It’s the human desire to see intentional patterns, presuming results are all part of someones plan, that leads people into conspiracy theories (and religion).

    Often, actions taken in the moment have no grand forethought to them. Given that rulings by the chair can be overturned by the convention, I’m dubious of any claim of a chair trying to control the actions of a convention. If a Neale was capable of doing that, he would have had a much easier time of it behind the gavel.

  396. Eric Sundwall

    So if a LPUS member or state affiliate member wants to run for POTUS under the LP banner, are they still subject to the token system at the convention in order to be given a chance to share their vision?

  397. Fred

    Stewart,
    Why don’t you ask Wes what his real motives are.
    He just might tell you.

  398. Steven Wilson

    Oregon is just an example of how political the human can be. Our LNC has been just as dysfunctional as our federal congress. Oregon is an example of humans fighting over politics.

    In game theory, you must ascertain the objective of the game before you pick a strategy. In Oregon, the objective of the game is to play the game. Trying to win or lose is incidental, and for some it would be considered an error.

    This is identical to what happens at the national level; people playing politics rather than achieving a “victory” at the end of the game. The modern Libertarian plays politics and confuses that for a “victory”.

    Oregon is just a microcosm of the National LP.

    I can always score a game looking at the opportunity cost. Candidates in Missouri would love to have the legal fees paid to the attorneys for Oregon to use on their own campaigns. But that might lead to success, and that is not the object for the LNC or others in National.

    In the past month I have received at least seven emails requesting money for: ballot access, convention costs, general fund, and the office/closet fund.

    How many emails have I received requesting money for libertarian candidates? Zero

    Nick and his new team have a long way to go to regain a reputation for pragmatic solution based politic. Like Bush is blamed for Obama’s failures, Nick and his team will be fighting the past mistakes of those that came before him.

    In the meantime, why would you complain about Oregon LP when that behavior can be found all over?

    The Oregon LP has no power, but look at the resources being spent to run it. Evolution yeah?

  399. Michael H. Wilson

    A question if I may ask? BTW it relates to this issue.

    I have been puzzled by this problem since I have been in the LP. That is going back to 1980. I have run for an office in the LP at various times and each time someone nominates me and tells the delegates what a great person I am. Then I get to do basically the same and how great a job I have done in the past. What no one ever hears is what I did wrong or failed to follow through on or my bad temper or lack of thinking skills or how I am really squishy on the issues. Basically my friends and I get to give me a great job review but ignores the truth. In the end this is harmful to the organization whether it is a local, state or national one.

    How do we solve this problem? Maybe candidates should announce six months in advance with a closing date?

    I’d like to read what others think needs to be done if anything.

    Thanks.

  400. Michael H. Wilson

    Fritz the roots of the Oregon problem go back to the early 1990s.

  401. Mark Axinn

    I am so sick of the Oregon situation. Wagner group may have violated local by-laws, threw a coup, took over the State Party. Burke group challenged and eventually lost in Judiciary Committee decision. That should have resolved it years ago, but the battle continues. Wagner group won the battle and the fight should have ended.

    Many state chairs including me offered to sit Burke delegates in their states. Those delegates should have been seated, but not forced upon a state delegation which did not want them as Dr. Phillies has pointed out many times.

    I do not know what happened at 2012 credentials committee meeting as I was not in LV, but in 2014 when my representative called in sick two days before the Convention, M Carling volunteered to fill in. He thereafter chose to resign, which is fine with me. I am not going to call him names because he decided to resign. End of story.

    Instead of fighting the Oregon battle, I am going to concentrate on getting a dozen candidates on the ballot in New York this summer and hopefully gain permanent ballot access for the first time in 42 years. That’s a lot more important to me than this petty, churlish battle in which I have no stake or position.

    I am interested in building the Libertarian Party. Those of you who want to do the opposite can continue to opine on Oregon for the next decade.

  402. Wes Wagner

    Mark

    The issue is that our state continues to be attacked by people on a national level using the auspices of their offices and authority in the national LP …. are you familiar with the term “blowback” which is often used by intelligence agencies of imperialist nations?

    It can affect the guilty and innocent alike.

  403. Dave Terry

    Joe Wendt >June 29, 2014 at 1:54 pm
    ” wait… Starchild is no longer an At-Large? WTF!!!

    NOBODY is “At-Large” when Paulie is in the room!!

    :>)

  404. Dave Terry

    Michael H. Wilson >July 3, 2014 at 11:09 am
    ” Fritz the roots of the Oregon problem go back to the early 1990s.”

    Didn’t it all start in the Garden of Eden when Abel attacked Cain and
    was killed by Cain in self-defense?

    Seriously, WHO, aside from you, Bruce Knight and Burke were even
    active in the LPO then and are still active? Even YOU are a resident
    of Washington and member of the LP there, so you have no horse in
    this race.

    Ironically, according to the Wagner regime, since you are NOT a registered
    Libertarian in Oregon, you have no meaningful opinion.

  405. Dave Terry

    Steven Wilson >July 3, 2014 at 9:59 am

    “The Oregon LP has no power, but look at the resources being spent to run it. Evolution yeah?

    NO, “counter-evolution”

  406. Dave Terry

    Joshua Katz >July 2, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Mr. Terry is referencing the fact that he disputes what the bylaws of the party are – whether they are the 2009 bylaws or the 2011 bylaws. The expansion to registered Libertarians was in the 2011 bylaws, which he disputes, although I am unsure as to how to dispute them while accepting that the Reform Officers were the legitimate officers of the party at that time.

    Clearly, since the 2009 bylaws were not either repealed or modified in accordance with those bylaws, the “Reform Officers” were NOT the legitimate officers of the party that approved the 2011 bylaws. This is the CRUXT the whole issue.

  407. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Dave Terry said: “NOBODY is “At-Large” when Paulie is in the room!! ”

    Wow, has the Wagner opposition been recruiting from kidnergarten?

  408. Michael H. Wilson

    Your buddy Steve was and Bob Tiernan.

    I may not have a horse in the race but I know most of the history.

    And yes I do have a meaningful opinion. Wanna try me?

  409. Mark Axinn

    Wes–

    Understood. I hope there will be a day where the relationship between the LNC and your state party will not be at odds. Until then, I assume that you like me are concentrating on building the best possible state affiliate you can with an eye towards maintaining for you/acquiring for me ballot status for 2016.

    Good luck and keep up the good work you have done to re-build your state party.

  410. Mark Axinn

    Now, let’s leave the Oregon saga for a far more important issue.

    Bonnie is quite right that:

    >Region 5N will henceforth be known as…the “Region of Badassery” until a numerical designation may be assigned.

    We are now Region 8 which is a polite way of saying the Region of Badassery. 🙂

  411. Mark Axinn

    Eric–

    I am pretty sure that no change to the token system was even discussed. Perhaps we should raise it with the new LNC (after November 4).

  412. Joshua Katz

    Fred – I think the LNC should recognize the party its own JC told it to recognize, not the one the Secretary of State recognizes. The practical difference is that a change in the SOTS stance would be immaterial. SOTS doesn’t govern a national party, but our JC’s decisions are binding.

    Matt Cholko – I suspect that, in general, delegates fall into two groups – experienced and inexperienced. Experienced delegates are used to rubber-stamping whatever the Credentials Committee reports. Inexperienced delegates have no idea what’s going on. However, there certainly was a big deal made on the floor this time. We had a point of order followed by a motion to appeal, on which debate went to the time limit. I don’t think anyone had an excuse to say they didn’t realize there was more going on than a simple credentials report. Granted, though, anyone not familiar with the situation would be unable to learn on the spot what was happening, and anyone not familiar with the bylaws would be unable to learn them quickly enough, and anyone unfamiliar with Robert’s…the list goes on. Moral of the story – delegates really should know the bylaws and rules – especially since they plan to vote on amendments to them.

  413. Dave Terry

    Jill Pyeatt> July 3, 2014 at 1:35 pm

    Dave Terry said: “NOBODY is “At-Large” when Paulie is in the room!! ”

    Wow, has the Wagner opposition been recruiting from kidnergarten?

    So Jill, how come you only get upset when one of YOUR oxen is gored! :>)

  414. Bob Tiernan

    Wes: “M Carling did not recuse himself on the credentials committee twice… why would he now? He is a man without honor.”

    Not much of a man, either.

    B. Tiernan

  415. Bob Tiernan

    Steve Wilson: “Oregon is an example of humans fighting over politics.”

    .
    .
    Well, that’s very superficial. It hasn’t been “politics” all these years, but the fucking ego of one Richard P’rick Burke who never, never, never, ever wants someone else to have more control over the party than he. Someone said in one of the messages that it’s been Burke reacting to a coup (an alleged one). But Burke has always been fighting (mostly dirty) every time there were LPO elections and his side didn’t come out ahead.

    .

    B Tiernan

  416. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Dave Terry: So far, only the people associated with Reeves have acted like children, specifically you and M. I call things as I see them. My son learned not to make fun of people by the time he was out of grade school. What’s your excuse?

  417. Mike K

    As a member of the Credentials Committee, I attended our first in person meeting on Thursday before the start of Nat Con. (in addition to 3 others throughout the convention).

    Our Chair, Emily Salvette, made it known that there is one recognized affiliate in Oregon, and their Chair is Wes Wagner. A few gentlemen wearing fancy suits (who’s names I do not recall) brought up how there was a current dispute. This was quickly put to rest. There was a motion to seat all other 50 delegations, with Oregon’s to be discussed at the next credentials meeting before start of business on Friday morning. This motion failed.

    During the vote to seat all delegates in the database (which included the Wes Wagner submitted list), the committee near unanimously voted in favor of it. M. Carling proceeded to drop his RONR book on the table and resign from the committee, citing a violation of bylaws (but not specifying which ones. This resulted in added work for other committee members.

    I missed the beginning of the convention, so I’m unaware of what happened from the floor on Friday.

    Mr. Gary Johnson served as the Secretary during those meetings. If someone would like the minutes (which I don’t know if they are approved, but I trust them to be accurate), they should reach out to him directly.

    I plan on seeking another term on the Credentials Committee for the 2016 Convention.

    -Mike

  418. Joseph Buchman

    Stewart Flood @ July 3, 2014 at 7:55 am

    “What is it that you suspect/know that Wagner really wants?”

    I earned a PhD once, but not in pointing out the bleeding obvious, nonetheless, I’ll try.

    The transformation of the national Libertarian Party into an effective, principle-based, radical, tool for the advancement of liberty in our lifetimes; the repudiation of past actions which have been an anathema to that goal; a culture among both leadership and delegates which will never again allow, permit, tolerate nor endorse an abortion such as Barr/Root, repentance among those who support, or supported such a thing with a real commitment to undo the damage the culture and people who created that did to the brand, and continues to do today.

    He is using Oregon as a performance-artistish, highly experiential educational lesson and is, IMO, masterful in the execution of that plan, with multiple winning paths already in place and at his and the LPO’s disposal.

    “I have always been unclear about what the true motives of both sides are in this”

    This is a statement of self-immolation and would communicate to Wes and his noble band of warriors that you are worthless as a fellow warrior, and dangerous as a potential ally. A prerequisite for entering the battle (nee: educational performance art experience) is the ability to clearly discern (and then act promptly, with passion and power upon that discernment) morally right from morally wrong.

    Let me suggest that the side of this battle that seeks to turn the Libertarian Party into a slightly more socially liberal version of conservative Republicanism, the Barr/Roots or the Judge Grays with their clear articulation of “Fair” Taxes and their “Functional Libertarianism” are seen by the Wagner Warriors as morally wrong (Evil) and those fully grounded in the politics that easily and naturally derives from the NAP and Self-Ownership principles are morally right (Good).

    This is, in their view, not an issue of the candidates who have run being the problem, so much as the idea that the candidates who have run are symptomatic expressions of the disease of compromise of principle that is rotting away today in the heart of the Party.

    When you start to see it that way — think epic, mythical heroes and tragically unable or unwilling to discern their moral compromise villains (as well as a few who are villains indeed, out to destroy from within, sent by liberty-opposed forces — villains only feigning allegiance while offering substantial technical competence. (With some of each type sitting on the LNC itself, as well as making up the majority of some other states’ delegations and overall membership), and it will (by which I mean the Opera that is Oregon) start to make sense.

    I hope that helps.

  419. Steve M

    well I am currently a short timer resident (as I am on my way out) of California and probably going to be a future resident of Washington… but I still have horse in the Oregon Libertarian Party… my horse is the people who chose to vote libertarian… anyone that gives these voters more participation in the running of the party has my support… because they are running the party for the benefit of the voters who more or less agree with me.

    I support the faction that tries to give the most opportunity to voters who vote libertarian to have a say in their party. It is a model I wish the national party would follow.

  420. Steve M

    While I am a supporter of the right of woman to decide to have an abortion if they choose, try as I might I couldn’t figure out Joseph Buchman position.

    I think anti abortion rights but I am asking for clarification.

  421. Joseph Buchman

    Mark Axinn @ July 3, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    “I am so sick of the Oregon situation.”

    I understand how you feel.

    I felt the same way in my office in June 2012. Oregon gave me a headache, to say the least. The history is dense, convoluted and often misrepresented.

    But what I found was that this feeling of being sick is the result of not demanding of oneself the discipline required to see right from wrong.

    Once you do that, and then take up arms for the side that is in the right; you will no longer feel “sick” — no matter which side your best discernment tells you to choose.

    Then, in the course of your battle, the morally correct side will, indeed become clear. If your discernment was off, you’ll switch sides. If the feedback from battle leads you to know you discerned rightly, then you will be empowered. Neither choice will leave you sick. Defeated, perhaps, knowing you gave the best of yourself toward a morally correct goal or empowered, perhaps, by your victory — but not “sick” and never complaining.

    So, your language here and earlier is that of a classic, Randian, fencesitter.

    While you are not alone in that, based on the actions of the LNC and majority of (likely uninformed, uninterested or both)) delegates, it is, Mark, IMO time (past time really) to pick a side here.

    Once you do that, the feeling of being “sick” will vaporize, instantly.

    There are those working for a movement that will be firmly based on principles, the moral law that derives from NAP, Self-Ownership and the like; that do not limit themselves to playing within the lines of a Statist Playbook (noting the moral authority to do so derives, in part, because the state does not self-restrict to its own rules, even those grounded in moral law); that is the modern day equivalent of those ho have pledged their lives, fortunes and honor to such a cause.

    Then there are those working to appease the crown, to not offend potential voters, to “build the base,” who ignore the lessons inherent in the self-destruction of being all things to all people (or a slightly better version than those other guys), who preach compromise on principle as the path, rather than the self-refining power that comes from the adversity inherent with standing, unwavering, proud, unyielding (and perhaps with a profane response) in the face of one’s aggressors, their supporters and those unwilling to do the work to discern where which side is right, waiting for the dust to settle.

    Then there is a bulk of folks too busy, too uninterested, too lazy to choose sides.

    Here’s a hint: The first group that the first group above will destroy is not the second group I just identified, it’s the third. In the process they will discover who in the bulk will wake up to join them, who in the bulk is actually an agent for number two, and who will be run over before they even notice a battle has begun.

    Or so it seems to me,

    Joe

  422. Joseph Buchman

    Steve M @ July 4, 2014 at 1:15 am

    “While I am a supporter of the right of woman to decide to have an abortion if they choose, try as I might I couldn’t figure out Joseph Buchman position.”

    I am fully pro individual choice by the mother in terms of abortion, with those rights only diminishing somewhat later in term

    It is entirely possible that life begins at conception, at least morally; however the damage done by a state that would have the ability to act to protect that unborn being in the first few days, weeks and months, is clearly even more evil.

    One cannot defend the “right of the unborn” early in term without also demanding a state so large that it would know of its existence, and then so invasive as to protect it (make the mother eat the right things, not drink or smoke the wrong things, not take risks, etc, etc, etc).

    So, as I am anti big state, I am fully pro-mother’s-discernment-of-what-is-best, pro access to abortion providers (and utterly anti-tax support for same).

    (And, of course, anti-tax support for anything).

    “I think anti abortion rights but I am asking for clarification.”

    Hope that helps.

  423. Mike K

    I only just read Mr. Phillies account from the Credentials Meeting, and he is pretty much spot on. Any differences between our observations are pure semantics.

  424. Fred

    Joshua Katz,

    I see your point, but much of the problem is that the national party is trying to involve itself in an argument that many of its members don’t understand. Even when the judicial committee has made ruling it has done so with incomplete and highly subjective information.
    Regardless of the LPs choices, the SOS of Oregon is the only authority in regards to ballot access.
    Yes, the party should follow what jud com decides–but jud com should only look at objective criteria. The most relevant information is ballot access. If the LP sides with one side based on anything else then they would either not be with the group that currently has ballot access- or risk losing ballot access if the other group wins it’s lawsuit. All the while continuing to divide the national party based on an issue that isn’t their business.

  425. George Phillies

    Having asked, I seem to have found that the Judicial Committee position was that disaffiliating the Wagner faction of the LPO and (IMHO foolishly) affiliating the Reeves faction was allowable, but it required an unambiguous disaffiliation vote, which did not occur.

    Mike, I am glad to have my recollections validated. Certainly I could have missed things. George

  426. Fritz Sands

    Thank you, Joseph, for those expositions. If, as you state, at least one side in Oregon views their dispute as a moral crusade (a situation which occurs frequently in libertarian organizations), then it is clear that resolution of the issue will not be pretty nor soon.

    I had been not involved in libertarian circles for a few decades (raising kids, Microsoft job, that kind of thing), so I tend to compare what is going on now with what was going on in the 80s. It looks like NAP has replaced Objectivism as the philosophical backstop for asserting moral superiority.

  427. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I know the situation in Oregon as well as anyone else who doesn’t live there and, IMO, Dave Terry and possibly Scott Lieberman use and belileve the ” moral crusade” thing. Burke, IMO,doesn’t believe that at all; for him it’s power. For Starr, it’s a game. I don’t know M Carling (thank God!) well enough to know his motives, nor do I know Reeves’ motives. I doubt that it’s a “moral rusade” for either one, since they’re clearly smart enough to do know that destroying the Libertarian Party of Oregon is certainly not moral.

  428. Fritz Sands

    Thanks for that opinion. So — does Wes Wagner (in your opinion) consider it to be a moral crusade? FWIW I think there is a huge amount of daylight between Bob Barr and Jim Gray and I don’t think it is all that useful to lump them in the same bucket.

  429. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Good question, Fritz, as to whether I think it’s a moral crusade for Wagner. My inclination is “no”. His motive, I believe, is to further the Libertarian Party of Oregon and the principles that go with it. He has a winning formula, so why should he give in to usurpers? I’m sure I’ll be criticized for this comment.

  430. Ruth Bennett

    When I first introduced myself to Admiral Calley at an LNC meeting in Las Vegas years ago, I suggested that he not always accept M’s version or RONR without questions. In fact, I suggested that M’s business cards probably said: M Carling, MSU which stands for Makes Stuff Up. It appears as if that is still true.

  431. Stewart Flood

    I think it is a moral crusade for most of the players, including Mr Wagner. Just different morals, or in a few cases no morals at all. You are all free to decide for yourselves which players you believe have no morals and which players you feel have good or bad morals.

    I just want it to end. It is morally exhausting to the party…

  432. Stewart Flood

    Ok, now that I’ve written my 14,000 word submission (abridged version) for the IT committee, time to get back online!!!

  433. Stewart Flood

    Anyone want to hear some Oregon LP jokes?

    Here’s one: Wagner walks into a bar in one door, while Burke walks in the other. Bartender screams “Oh sh*t! Now we have to close for lack of quorum!!!”

  434. Stewart Flood

    Or how about…

    An elephant is standing in a field in Oregon. Does that meet a quorum at an LP convention?

  435. Stewart Flood

    Burke, Wagner and Reeves all get on the same train, but in different cars. If the train is moving at 65MPH, and it is 35 miles to the next stop, will they have quorum before the train wrecks?

  436. Stewart Flood

    Ok…I’m done. Sorry about that. Spent most of the day in a quiet room, trying to remember what the h*ll I’ve done over the past 40 years…

  437. Thomas Knapp

    Wes Wagner dies and goes to hell.

    The devil leads him past the lake of fire filled with former US presidents in bathing suits.

    The devil leads him past the steaming pit filled with former congresscritters being sodomized by Erik Prince and the Blackwater crew.

    The devil opens the door to a conference room and motions him in.

    Around the table are seated Burke, Reeves, Starr, Carling, Mattson and Jean-Paul Sartre.

    On the table is a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order.

  438. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Both Stewart and Thomas elicited laughs out of me!

    Ruth Bennett-I’ll have to remember “MSU”. Very funny!

  439. Wes Wagner

    Knapp’s version of the future has inspired me to join the Roman Catholic Church and confess … just in case he is right.

  440. Starchild

    It occurs to me that we have been overlooking a silver lining in the whole Oregon LP situation. Clearly the situation has the makings of an actual opera — a Wagnerian tragedy, naturally, with dark, Burkean underpinnings — if we can manage to attract the interest of a composer, this could be a good fundraising opportunity.

    Does the dispute involve any tempestuous love affairs, or big buxom women? If not, perhaps those details could be written in. It wouldn’t be any more manipulative than some LP fundraising letters. And giving Mark V. a stage role could help conclusively establish his lung capacity.

    The Judicial Committee or the LNC could serve as a kind of Greek chorus during the 8-hour performance, with Thomas Knapp’s story of Wes Wagner in hell as the denouement. I don’t believe the devil would want Aaron Starr in hell, however. Surely he would be too savvy to run the risk of Starr finding a loophole in the rules that would let him take over.

  441. Starchild

    Thanks, Michael. Lemons —> lemonade. I think this opera could be performed outdoors in a park, but I’m sure Mark Hinkle would insist the party rent out an expensive opera house. I suppose in this case, with the aim of attracting well-heeled opera-goers, he could be right.

  442. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Oh my goodness, that’s painting quite some image! And I’m also picturing M Carling at each performance adding different details to the scenario, since, of course, he Makes Stuff Up.

  443. Thomas Knapp

    Starchild FTW!

    Dress rehearsal in Orlando 2016. I want to see Starchild sporting blonde braids, a Viking helmet and a brass bra!

  444. Fred

    Starchild:
    Oregon, like most Libertarian parties, are in short supply of large breasted women (or, for that matter, small breasted women).
    We do have a few large breasted men. Will that suffice?

  445. Dave Terry

    Thomas Knapp> July 4, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    “Around the table are seated Burke, Reeves, Starr, Carling, Mattson and Jean-Paul Sartre.
    On the table is a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order.”

    The question, of course, is; which set of By-Laws are on the table, the real one or the bogus
    set concocted by the left-wing, collectivist, egalitarian (i.e. nihilist) perpetrators of the coup de
    facto.

    I’m not sure WHY M. Sartre is there, except possibly to translate terminology to Herr Wagner.

  446. Thomas Knapp

    Sartre is there because hell is other people.

    Not sure why the old bylaws would be on the table, given that all parties involved discarded them long ago.

  447. Stewart Flood

    This calls for a very large, very dark cave, with the audience sitting on rocks surrounding the stage.

    Performing this in an open park will not have desired affect, and using a hotel would certainly ruin it.

    As far as Satan not wanting Mr Starr there for fear of a coup, it is likely that Satan would be confident that if given the choice of either conquering hell or beating Mr Wagner, Mr Starr would choose to stay in the room with Wagner.

  448. Stewart Flood

    And having Starr child in the costume you mentioned would ruin it, because his costume would be perfectly suiting for the setting. He needs to be in something that clashes. Perhaps a large pink bunny suit with top hat and cane?

  449. Stewart Flood

    Not sure why Safari put a second “r” and a space in Starchild as I was typing. It seems to think it knows how to spell. No slight intended, it was the computer that did it!

  450. Fritz Sands

    I’m seeing more Vonnegut than Sartre here. “No damn cat; no damn cradle.”

  451. Dave Terry

    Thomas Knapp >July 5, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    >”Not sure why the old bylaws would be on the table, given that all parties involved discarded
    > them long ago.”

    Half of what you say is simply wrong and the other half is simply nonsense. This is precisely WHAT the problem has been, from the beginning.

  452. Joe

    Dave et al. (or for anyone following Oregon more closely (even Wes),

    What’s your best case scenario for once again being recognized by the Oregon Secretary of state, and what is your worst case scenario for being recognized?

    Just wondering because Aaron Starr was adamant at the LNC July meeting in 2012 that it was days to weeks, at most away.

    I’m a bit at a loss to understand how Arron, who has been absolutely correct (sincerely) on every other detail regarding any other question I’ve had of him (mostly on the audit committee), could have been so wrong on this issue. I assume someone, your attorney, other legal advisors, etc, on your side was overly optimistic.

    But I can also see that I have collapsed things a bit here (a halo effect I believe) and because the date of your winning the lawsuit was so wrong (and cost me time and effort that summer working for GJ2012, and ballot access there), that I’ve assumed you must be equally inaccurate about past events, and your likelihood of winning.

    So can you share what’s next from your point of view (best and worst case)? I assume it’s something like an appeal’s court ordering the Oregon SOS to remove Mr. Wagner, and to insert your current chair (or the chair you will elect at your convention next month)? And I’d assume you have a court date for that appeal to be heard, and then some idea of the clock involved after that in terms of when a decision would be reached?

    So best case is this fall, perhaps?

    And if you lose there, would it go to the Supreme Court of Oregon? Or maybe beyond?

    I’m not asking you to give away secrets, or strategy — but really am interested in hearing how/when you, Aaron, M. Carling, Richard Burke, et. al. expect to win here.

  453. paulie

    Oregon, like most Libertarian parties, are in short supply of large breasted women (or, for that matter, small breasted women).

    Birmingham, Alabama area LP is doing pretty well with gender balance, and the student group leadership is currently all female.

  454. paulie

    Starchild FTW!

    Starchild party in Orlando: everyone dresses like Starchild convention getups. Starchild in suit and tie.

  455. paulie

    Jill (and everyone else), please stop quoting David Terry. I don’t read his drivel, but when someone else quotes him I accidentally see it from time to time.

    As for me being at large, sometimes I get caught, but so far they have released me every time.

    Also, if that was a weight crack, I don’t mind those at all. If those bothered me, I would lose some weight already, right?

  456. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I can’t help myself, Paulie. Once a mom, always a mom. I’ll continue to try to ignore Dave.

  457. paulie

    Fred,

    Matt Cholko,
    While the intent of the delegates in Columbus may have been nothing more or less than trying to seat delegates who wanted to be seated, they did significantly more. Those delegates intentionally refused to ask the LPO to seat them and instead asked the convention to have them seated as Oregon delegates.
    Any other affiliate that had open seats could have chosen to include those delegates in their own state.
    What the delegates did was chose who would represent Oregon without the consent of Oregon.
    This may seem like an insignificant issue to you (and maybe insignificant to many others who were at the convention) but, unfortunately, other people being victimized often seems insignificant to those who unintentionally caused the problem

    It’s not an insignificant issue to me, and I don’t know that it is an insignificant issue to Matt or not. It certainly won’t be an insignificant issue to the national LP as consequences unfold.

    But, I think Matt is completely correct as far as the motivation of most delegates who voted to uphold the ruling of the chair went.

    I also think the chair’s ruling was blatantly incorrect.

  458. paulie

    The email ballot on Oregon appears to not have been issued yet. I also don’t see an email ballot for the next LNC meeting on LNC-business.

    The current email ballots are

    1. A fairly uncontroversial policy manual addition, naming Geoff Neale as International Representative and

    2. A motion to make LNC-discuss public, which is doing better so far than I would have expected:

    *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 12, 2014 at 11:59:59pm
    Pacific time.*

    *Sponsor:* Nick Sarwark

    *Motion:* The LNC-Discuss email list archives will be made available from
    June 30, 2014 forward and a Google group established, similar to the
    procedure for LNC-Business.

    Y: Katz (alt), Goldstein, Johnson, Feldman, Estrada, Vohra, McMahon, Hagan

    N: Lieberman (alt), Redpath, Wiener

    Goldstein’s vote is especially surprising, given discussions on the issue last term.

  459. paulie

    Regarding M Carling on credentials committee:

    M did not recuse himself and was the deciding vote in 2012 on the Credentials Committee regarding Oregon.
    In 2014, he was the sole dissenting vote (8-1) and again did not recuse himself, but resigned in protest when he lost.

    He will almost certainly once again not recuse himself, and will probably be the deciding vote, when the issue comes before the Judicial Committee this term, which I predict it will.

  460. Stewart Flood

    Sam Goldstein has changed a bit over the past few years. It doesn’t surprise me very much.

  461. paulie

    “LOL, Nicholas (plus, now we’ve hit 500 posts!)”

    Jill, Paulie, what’s the record? didn’t one of them go over 1,000 a couple of years ago?

    One thread from the 2012 convention has a little over a thousand comments.

    There have been no other threads that came close; I think one other thread ever made it over 700.

  462. paulie

    So if a LPUS member or state affiliate member wants to run for POTUS under the LP banner, are they still subject to the token system at the convention in order to be given a chance to share their vision?

    As far as I know, yes.

  463. paulie

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com

    9:44 PM (3 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    We have an electronic mail ballot.

    Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 15, 2014 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

    Co-Sponsors: Sam Goldstein, Vicki Kirkland, Evan McMahon, Bill Redpath

    Motion: to set the date/location of the next LNC meeting as Alexandria, VA the weekend of September 20-21, 2014 at a hotel within walking distance of the Libertarian Party headquarters.

    Alicia Mattson
    LNC Secretary

  464. paulie

    Thank YOu to all who attended the 2014 LP Convention. I just left the hotel on Monday morning. It has been three years since I started working on a bid for OHio and now it is over, with a focus back on Ohio and LP candidates. My goal was to make this a very successful convention and LSLA event, conduct a great awards presentation, and have positive financial results overall. We wanted people to feel comfortable in Columbus and showcase the downtown area which was alive with the activities of the SHort North, Arena District, and ComFest. We also wanted to showcase the Ohio LP and provide a level of behind-the-scenes support that has not been seen before. I think we can say “Mission Accomplished”. Thank you again to all that attended, all the volunteers who made it happen, and congrats to all the folks that ran for office during the weekend. Well done. Now we set sites on Orlando in May 2016. Kevin Knedler State Chair of the Libertarian Party of Ohio. Chair@lpo.org

    Thank you Kevin.

    I agree you and the Ohio team did well with helping run the convention.

    I think all the above worked out well.

    Hope to see Texas and the BosWash corridor get conventions in 2018 and 2020, or better yet 2017 and 2019 if we can move back to odd years.

  465. paulie

    Whatever it was, I hope it helps and it’s a fair price to pay for your work here this weekend. If everyone did that, you might, I suppose, have enough for your bus fare halfway home . . .

    Every little bit helps.

    I was fortunate enough to get a ride to Ohio and back from Bibb County Sheriff Candidate and new LP activist Kevin Knight. We split the gas, he provided the car and driving. He helped some with coverage also. He was also one of my roommates at the convention along with Andy, Don Meinshausen and Starchild. I got Kevin involved in LP of Alabama when I got him to sign our ballot access petition at a gun show a few months ago.

  466. paulie

    Losty

    Well that was interesting..

    Nice to put some faces with the names. Also, Got to talk to a few people I wanted to.

    It was good to meet you also. I don’t know why you kept apologizing for disturbing me; you were not diturbing me at all.

  467. paulie

    Anyone know the regional breakdowns / reps. Been too busy on floor to pay attention. PLL

    Libertarian Party Regions 2014-2016:
    Region 1 — Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Washington, Wyoming

    Regional Representative — Norm Olsen (Colorado)
    email: norman dot olsen at lp dot org

    Norm Olsen – Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

    Alternate — Ron Windeler (Alaska)
    email: ron dot windeler at lp dot org

    Region 2 — Florida, Georgia, Tennessee

    Regional Representative — Vicki Kirkland (Florida)
    email: vicki dot kirkland at lp dot org

    Vicki Kirkland – Region 2 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

    Alternate — Ed Marsh (Tennessee)
    email: ed dot marsh at lp dot org

    Region 3 — Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio

    Regional Representative — Marc Feldman (Ohio)
    email: marc dot feldman at lp dot org

    Marc Feldman – Region 3 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

    Alternate — Brett Bittner (Indiana)
    email: brett dot bittner at lp dot org

    Region 4 — California, New Mexico, Nevada

    Regional Representative — Dan Wiener (California)
    email: daniel dot wiener at lp dot org

    Dan Wiener – Region 4 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

    Alternate — Scott Lieberman (California)
    email: scott dot lieberman at lp dot org

    Region 5 — District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

    Regional Representative — Jim Lark (Virginia)
    email: james dot lark at lp dot org

    Jim Lark – Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

    Alternate — Scott Spencer (Maryland)
    email: scott dot spencer at lp dot org

    Region 6 — Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin

    Regional Representative — Rob Oates (Idaho)
    email: rob dot oates at lp dot org

    Rob Oates – Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

    Alternate — Sean O’Toole (Missouri)
    email: sean dot otoole at lp dot org

    Region 7 — Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas

    Regional Representative — Claudio “Jay” Estrada (Texas)
    email: jay dot estrada at lp dot org

    Claudio ‘Jay’ Estrada – Region 7 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

    Alternate — Daniel Hayes (Louisiana)
    email: daniel dot hayes at lp dot org

    Region 8 — Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont

    Regional Representative — Rich Tomasso (New Hampshire)
    email: rich dot tomasso at lp dot org

    Rich Tomasso – Region 8 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

    Alternate — Joshua Katz (Connecticut)
    email: joshua dot katz at lp dot org

  468. paulie

    Shane

    No, past LP presidential candidates are treated well by the party after Election Day.

    From context, I think you inserted the comma by mistake, but how are past nominees treated poorly?

    Johnson had numerous standing ovations and speeches (banquet, main floor, his own event and so on). Barr had the keynote in 2010. I am thinking back on other past nominees and I think they have generally been treated pretty well as far as I can remember. Granted, with some dissent; but then most of them were nominated with some dissent as well and we are a contentious bunch by nature.

    Starchild’s resolution seemed to get a majority, but not 2/3, for consideration. Some people may have voted for consideration that would have voted against actual repudiation.

    I don’t see any such sentiment to anywhere nearly that degree against Johnson/Gray, although there is some.

  469. paulie

    Outgoing chair Geoff Neale just got fed up and handed the microphone over to Bill Redpath.

    He also had little time left to hang out with his international friends, as he explained later. Plus he was exhausted.

  470. paulie

    Lesiak and langa:

    race-based affirmative action

    I am against that.

    the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry

    The US has never been rooted in common ancestry, and I don’t support either kind of state.

    elevating non-Western religions above Western religions

    Personal preference, should be irrelevant to politics.

    speech codes and censorship

    If you mean by governments, I am opposed.

    multiculturalism

    I like multiculturalism, but I don’t see it as something that should relate much to government.

    diversity training

    I’ve taken it a couple of times and found it to be total bullshit. I am certaily not in favor of making it mandatory.

    anti-Western education curricula

    I am for separation of school and state.

    maladaptive sexual norms

    WTF is that?

    anti-male feminism

    I am against that.

    dispossession of white people

    I am against government classifying people by so-called race, and the whole “race” concept is not very scientifically sound to begin with.

    mass Third World immigration into Western countries

    I’m for it.

    white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children.

    To the extent that it helps erase the socially harmful concept of race, yes, but then the same should be true of all so-called races. This is a personal preference, and has nothing to do with government policy.

    I find it curious that Lesiak can at the same time say that he finds “interracial” marriage to be abhorrent, that “white people should have white babies,” that immigration should be restricted for racial reasons (counterpoint to the wacky definition of “cultural marxism” he quotes approvingly), opposes multiculturalism and wants a nation based on common ancestry and yet says he is not racist. If that is not racist, what is?

    BTW, once again, actual Marxists rule very differently – as in say the USSR – than what is called “cultural marxism” here.

    langa:

    As for interracial marriage, I couldn’t possibly care less who someone else wants to marry — although I am a fan of interracial porn (the contrast between dark and pale skin is quite aesthetically pleasing).

    I enjoy so-called interracial porn (and the real life equivalent) but not in any way exclusively. I just really don’t care what so-called race anyone is. The only reason I like the idea of “interracial” marriage is to blend out these so-called races as soon as possible. But, again, that is personal preference. Government policy should be completely neutral as to so-called race.

    Of course, my personal opinions about these things are really irrelevant anyway, since libertarianism is not about promoting any one set of preferences over another. In fact, libertarianism, as a political philosophy, is not concerned with ends at all. It is strictly concerned with the means that people use to achieve their ends. You seem to be confusing progressive ends with libertarian ends. In actuality, however, there are no such things as “libertarian ends”, unless you are referring to whatever ends naturally result from the use of libertarian means.

    Exactly.

  471. paulie

    Thank you everyone for your congratulations. Thanks to Geoff for his service. Since I became a life member tonight at the banquet as part of the fundraising, I’ll be at the VIP breakfast in the morning at 7:30 am

    For my part I have been a life member since 2000, but just restarted my monthly pledge after quite a few years…I can’t remember how many exactly.

  472. paulie

    Congratulations to Nick. I’d have voted for him!

    Now if you can get Mark or Arvin as VC and Chuck as Secretary and someone other than Aaron as Treasurer, I think we will have the start of a great LNC!

    3 out of 4 ain’t bad. I still think Chuck could have won also.

  473. paulie

    via Chuck Moulton Do the right thing and vote to open up LNC discuss Guy McLendon, Norm Olsen, Vicki Kirkland, James Lark, Rob Oates, and Rich Tomasso <-- I agree!

  474. Dave Terry

    > Mark Axinn; July 3, 2014 at 12:17 pm wrote:

    “I am so sick of the Oregon situation. Wagner group may have violated local by-laws, threw a coup, took over the State Party. Burke group challenged and eventually lost in Judiciary Committee decision. That should have resolved it years ago, but the battle continues. Wagner group won the battle and the fight should have ended.”

    Mark, I can’t believe that you understand exactly how SHALLOW and short sighted that thought process is;

    Consider it in THIS Context;

    “I am so sick of reading about the European situation. The German National Socialists MAY have violated the sovereignty of the Polish State and MAY have driven their tanks up the stairs
    of the Polish capitol building and chased all the Polish government members into the streets.

    A Polish group led by a Mr. Burkowski challenged the League of Nations to intervene and lost.
    THAT should have resolved things then and there, but the “spoilsport” Poles continue to fight on. Herr Wagner’s panzers have been “declared” the wieners, but some people just won’t accept defeat.

  475. Andy

    “‘”mass Third World immigration into Western countries’

    I’m for it.”

    I’m opposed to anyone who is not an anarcho-capitalist or a small government constitutionalist living in the same society as myself, this includes both immigrants and native born.

    Studies indicate that most immigrants to the USA today support socialist economic policies and do not support gun rights. The people who control the government want these people to come in so they can put them all into the welfare system and register them to vote, and then they can vote to increase government and vote for gun control.

  476. Andy

    paulie
    July 5, 2014 at 10:20 pm
    I was fortunate enough to get a ride to Ohio and back from Bibb County Sheriff Candidate and new LP activist Kevin Knight. We split the gas, he provided the car and driving. He helped some with coverage also. I got Kevin involved in LP of Alabama when I got him to sign our ballot access petition at a gun show a few months ago.”

    Everyone in the Libertarian Party needs to read the above comments over and over again, until the point is drummed into their heads, especially those who are on the LNC, serve on an LP state committee, or who want to run for office in a place where LP candidates do not have ballot access.

    This illustrates the value of having actual Libertarians out in the field gathering petition signatures for ballot access instead of having non-libertarian mercenaries doing all of the work.

    Does anyone out there think that a non-libertarian mercenary petitioner would have bothered to recruit a new party member, much less one who has become a candidate and a delegate at the nation convention? If a non-libertarian mercenary petitioner had been at that gun show instead an actual Libertarian activist like Paul, then you can bet that nothing more than a signature would have been gathered, and the LP would not have gotten a new activist and candidate that day.

  477. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt Post authorJune 27, 2014 at 10:37 pm
    Maybe $120 a night is the going rate for a hotel room, but that along with $500 plus airfare made a trip for me cost-prohibitive.”

    The room was more like $140 with the taxes. There were also parking fees for those who had cars.

    I flew to the convention, but it ended up costing me a lot more than I thought in opportunity costs, because my car broke down on the way back to the remote location where I’ve been working. I had to wait around for a tow truck and then get towed to some town where I got stuck at a crappy, over-priced motel. Then I had to get my car towed to a garage, and then rent a car so I could get back to work.

  478. paulie

    I’m opposed to anyone who is not an anarcho-capitalist or a small government constitutionalist living in the same society as myself, this includes both immigrants and native born.

    So let’s have border checkpoints and immigration quotas between states. How about between counties? cities? neighborhoods? blocks? ….

  479. Andy

    “3. To my friends Starchild and Josh–If there was enough support to consider Starchild’s motion to repudiate the Barr/Root ticket, I would have both spoken and voted against it. I voted for Mary Ruwart on all six ballots in 2008, but she did not win and after my candidate lost, I supported the candidates of the Libertarian Party. Period. I did not pack my toys and go home; I supported the decision of the delegates even if it wasn’t my preference.”

    I do not blindly support anyone. Barr and Root repudiated the Libertarian Party by quitting and endorsing the Republican Party candidate for President, and anti-libertarian, Mitt Romney. They repudiated us, so we should have repudiated them in return.

  480. Andy

    “”paulie
    July 6, 2014 at 2:00 am

    ‘I’m opposed to anyone who is not an anarcho-capitalist or a small government constitutionalist living in the same society as myself, this includes both immigrants and native born.’

    So let’s have border checkpoints and immigration quotas between states. How about between counties? cities? neighborhoods? blocks? ….”

    I’m in favor of a libertarian separatist movement, as I described in my Libertarian Zone posts on another thread.

    Libertarians are incompatible with non-libertarians.

  481. paulie

    Brian Thomas on FB:

    Bring up immigration, as in open borders, and watch the logical gymnastics happen. Mind you, open borders just means free travel, and the freedom to purchase private property. It is not talking about the welfare state. The argument that “illegals” get free hand outs, is an argument against the state, not immigration. In reality, we all immigrate every day. I immigrate to work every day and use my employers private parking, it’s a simple concept. I am in no way shape or form in favor for the welfare state, but I think this should be the point to discuss, not immigration.

  482. Andy

    GOVERNMENT BENEFITS
    hand clicking on a mouse
    Depending on your immigration status, length of time in the United States, and income, you may be eligible for some federal benefit programs.

    The links below will lead you to official government websites describing a range of assistance programs.

    Official website with information on all available federal benefit programs. (English version – Spanish version)
    Official website for Medicare, the health insurance program for people 65 years of age or older or who have specific disabilities.
    Official website for Medicaid, the joint federal/state medical care program for low-income people.
    Official website for the Social Security Administration. (English version – Spanish version)
    Social Security information available in foreign languages.
    Information on Supplemental Security Income benefits for aliens.
    Information on the Food Stamp Program for low-income families.
    A website containing links to available federal information in other languages.
    Information on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program.
    Information on access to federal benefits and services for immigrant survivors of domestic violence.

  483. paulie

    So what? From what I have seen, immigrants tend to work harder and get less welfare than native born Americans. A lot of “illegal” immigrants are scared of anything official so they won’t go anywhere near a government welfare office or website form. Many of them leave the US when there is no work. Many use fake SSNs to pay taxes into the system and will never make any attempt to collect from it.

    Just because there is some website that tells immigrants how to apply for government “benefits” that is a very poor excuse for migration barriers.

    Nothing you said addresses this logic:

    So let’s have border checkpoints and immigration quotas between states. How about between counties? cities? neighborhoods? blocks? ….

    Some people cross those lines to get welfare, too. Some of them even change their voter registration address and vote for welfare and gun control. How about walls on the MA and CA borders? Maybe blow up the bridges and tunnels from Manhattan to Brooklyn and Queens? Electric fences around Nevada?

    Maybe people should never be allowed to move anywhere ever. And if they leave their house, they can cross a checkpoint every two five minutes, that way we can make sure that no one will ever move somewhere and collect welfare or vote for welfare or gun control.

    Yeah liberty!

  484. Andy

    “”paulie
    July 6, 2014 at 2:45 am
    So what? From what I have seen, immigrants tend to work harder and get less welfare than native born Americans.”

    I’ve already acknowledged that there are native born Americans that are sacks of shit. This is covered in my Libertarian Zone concept.

    It should be of no surprise that the assholes who control this government we live under want to attract as many welfare parasites as possible to come to America. They need the foreigners who support the welfare state and gun control to accelerate the destruction of America.

  485. paulie

    want =/= get. And the whole concept of foreigners relies on the idea of nation-states and their borders as being legitimate, which they are not.

  486. paulie

    Joe

    So if you get a 100 foot extension cord from me for your next birthday, now you’ll know why.

    LOL. I have a transportation issue. Too much stuff to carry. The laptop is way too much as it is. Should have stuck with my previous long standing no laptop ownership policy.

    Lesiak

    Hmm. That’s something to think about, definitively. Is there any concept called Anarcho-Nationalism or something like that?

    Why, yes there is…trouble for you is it is rather openly and unashamedly racist. You’d have a very hard time claiming to be non-racist with this one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_anarchism

  487. George Phillies

    “He said nine men and one woman can’t make a baby in one month” The nine obstetricians will do just fine if at t=0 the woman is eight+ months pregnant.

  488. paulie

    “He said nine men and one woman can’t make a baby in one month” The nine obstetricians will do just fine if at t=0 the woman is eight+ months pregnant

    Clearly the reference was to a woman who was not already pregnant. The analogy was not unclear, all sophistry aside.

    Whether you accept his point as being true in this case – that he would complete unfinished projects if given another term – is a different question, but it was not illogical nor difficult to understand.

  489. paulie

    Paulie, I shall try to remember bringing an extension cord next time. George

    Thanks!

    Any equipment anyone can bring – extra laptops, cameras, webcams, what have you – and any extra people willing to live blog would always be a big help at these events.

    One or two people just can’t do it all.

    Please everyone also post any and all links to news coverage elsewhere, videos from the convention, photos from the convention, other liveblogs – you name it.

  490. paulie

    Krzysztof Lesiak Mike Mccalister do you have any idea how many WN’s supported Dr. Paul?
    Krzysztof Lesiak’s photo.
    July 2 at 4:20pm · Like
    Mike Mccalister Oh, so you were WN then?
    July 2 at 4:22pm · Like
    Krzysztof Lesiak Yes. I’ve always been one. I got deluded by libertarian/Cultural Marxist propaganda but thankfully I saw the light once again.

    WN= White Nationalist

  491. paulie

    More from the “non-racist” Lesiak:

    Krzysztof Lesiak Are you serious? The NWO wants to destroy nations! Nationalists are the only serious opposition to the Jew run NWO.

    This kid is seriously confused.

    He also posts human beings need strong leadership not a bunch of lawless, uncultured half-naked faggots running around all over the place. and Fuck anarchy, fuck libertarianism, fuck leftist scum. and Do you realize the Jews fund your bullshit anarchist/libertarian/CulturalMarxist movements. There’s much more like Skrewdriver (neo-nazi band) videos, “fuck the jews” and “eradicate the liberals” and confederate flags (from a northern Illinois kid)… Yet, he is still regularly “liking” posts about internal LP elections and such. Major cognitive dissonance.

    Combined with the glorification of illegal drug use (which somehow escapes his cultural fascism) and he’s a prime candidate for sex slave to neo-nazis in prison in the near future.

  492. paulie

    Those are awful.

    Agreed. I do not believe he is very mentally stable, honestly.

    Problems with social adjustment and a strong need to latch on to one extreme political movement after the other in rapid succession, always with a strong undertone of negativity and hatred towards others (whoever they may be at that particular moment).

    Speaks of alienation, which is prime recruitment material for fascists since days immemorial. BTW, he is now proud of the fascist label as well. All there on the FB…

  493. Green_w_o_Adjectives

    “I remember that you wanted to destroy the entire concept of race, Paulie…at least you promoted interracial marriage to hasten that happening. I find that disgusting. Race is extremely important and there are racial differences. Most people, even if they don’t admit it, prefer to be among their own race and especially their racial subcategory, ethnic nationality. Look at Polish Chicago community. Look at all the Greek, Italian, Chinese, Irish, Russian communities…also look at the black ghettos. There is nothing wrong one choosing to be around one’s own people.”

    You aren’t seeing the big picture. Read about the history of nationalism and fascism.

    Capitalist elites have traditionally encouraged tribalism and nationalism because the best way to maintain their domination is to keep the people divided and conquered. Unlikes socialists, nationalists have traditionally allied with elites to attain their goals because their loyalty is only to their race/tribe. As long as the people are divided in competing factions, they are unable to unify against their real enemy.

    If you’re really opposed to the NWO, nationalism and tribalism aren’t going to cut it. You think Alex Jones is going to lead a revolution? Reality check–Alex Jones is an NWO puppet. He works for THEM, just like the fake nationalist parties in England and France.

    THe only hope of stopping the NWO is working class unity based on the right of every individual to autonomy and self-determination, regardless of their sex or race. It’s time to throw off the fetters of racism and nationalism that have enslaved humanity.

  494. paulie

    GWOA

    I don’t think it’s really about ideology at all in this case. Ideology is just serving as a proxy for rather obvious mental pathology.

  495. Bob Tiernan

    Dave Terry: “Poles continue to fight on. Herr Wagner’s panzers have been “declared” the wieners, but some people just won’t accept defeat.”

    .
    .
    You’re not trying to imply that Poland can be compared to Burke, are you? The same puke who’s been undermining and backstabbing anyone who happened to be have more sanctioned authority in the LPO than he had at various times?

    .
    You’re just a real cry-baby loser, Dave. You had your chance to be with good people back in the 90s, but you made your choice and now you have to live with it.

    .
    Bob T

  496. Fritz Sands

    I think Dave Terry just did everyone the kindness of invoking Godwin on the thread.

  497. paulie

    The LNC resolution on Oregon is now being voted on.

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com

    3:00 AM (7 hours ago)

    to lnc-business
    We have an electronic mail ballot.

    Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 19, 2014 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

    Sponsor: Chair Nick Sarwark

    Motion:
    Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “delegates to a Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party” (Article 11, 3 (b)), and

    Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “each state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.” (Article 6, 3), and

    Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “the autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party…” (Article 6, 5), and

    Whereas the Chair of the National Convention incorrectly ruled that it was in order for the convention to vote to seat three delegates in the Oregon delegation over the objection of the affiliate party chair, and

    Whereas the motion made did not challenge the report of the Credentials Committee as to who was the affiliate party chair, and

    Whereas the convention delegates subsequently voted to seat those delegates over the objection of the delegate chair,

    Be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee apologizes to the Libertarian Party of Oregon for the erroneous ruling of the National Convention Chair.

  498. George Phillies

    If they had political sense, they would vote “Yes”. If it passes, they can take it to the Judicial Committee, and ask that the prior decision be reversed and the Reeves faction be recognized as our affiliate,which, since they have already packed the Judicial Committee, they are likely to be able to get as an outcome.

  499. paulie

    As I think you pointed out earlier, they can already appeal Arvin’s decision that the motion was in order regardless of whether this passes. So they can get the outcome they want from the judicial committee and still safely vote no on the Oregon motion itself.

  500. Thomas L. Knapp

    “As I think you pointed out earlier, they can already appeal Arvin’s decision that the motion was in order”

    Not according to the bylaws. Only acts of the national committee can be appealed. Motions and rulings on motions are not acts of the national committee.

  501. paulie

    Motions and rulings on motions are not acts of the national committee.

    I’m not sure the JC would agree with that (in fact I’m pretty sure they will not). Who would you appeal it to if they disagree with you?

  502. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    If the Oregon thing goes to the judicial committee and M does not recuse himself, I personally pledge an all-out protest that he will not like. I don’t think M could get away with not recusing himself.

  503. paulie

    But appealing the motion itself is a belt and suspender approach.

    Giving no quarter in any way is their whole game plan, and a strategic yes vote on the resolution which they don’t need to get the JC ruling they want would be out of line with that approach.

  504. paulie

    If the Oregon thing goes to the judicial committee and M does not recuse himself, I personally pledge an all-out protest that he will not like.

    I don’t think he will care very muh.

    I don’t think M could get away with not recusing himself.

    He has before, on the credentials committee in 2012. Why not again?

  505. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    If enough Libertarians scream bloody murder, we’ll just see what happens. He’s already proven he’s a big baby by resigning from the Credentials Committee. I’m a mom, remember? I know how to handle babies.

  506. Dave Terry

    > Thomas Knapp July 1, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    “Nope … but like I said elsewhere, I found a way to square it” [rejoining the LP} “with my dislike of electoral politics”

    So, what motivated you to rejoin? Wouldn’t make more sense to simply pour gasoline on yourself and ignite it?

  507. Thomas L. Knapp

    “So, what motivated you to rejoin?”

    The straw that broke the camel’s back was Nick Sarwark getting elected chair, but there were a number of reasons, some of them cumulative over my four-year non-membership (e.g. election of Starchild to LNC, return of Wes Benedict to LPHQ and just flat missing a lot of friends — for many years, the LP was the bulk of my social life).

    I shouldn’t have phrased it as a “dislike” of electoral politics. In fact, I like electoral politics a lot. I’ve run for office five times, managed or worked on several others’ campaigns, etc. I’m a junkie, and I just fell off the wagon. I remain confident in my conclusion that electoral politics isn’t going to get libertarians where we want to go, but that’s very different from “disliking” it.

  508. George Phillies

    The actual word in the Bylaws is “decision” not “act”. A decision that a motion is in order is, like, a decision. Also, this claim could be taken to the Judicial Committee if the LNC took note of it.

  509. Nicholas Sarwark

    The straw that broke the camel’s back was Nick Sarwark getting elected chair, but there were a number of reasons, some of them cumulative over my four-year non-membership (e.g. election of Starchild to LNC, return of Wes Benedict to LPHQ and just flat missing a lot of friends — for many years, the LP was the bulk of my social life).

    Breaking: LNC Chair Sarwark implicated in animal cruelty case involving a camel.

  510. Thomas L. Knapp

    Nick,

    I do deeply appreciate you schlepping all over downtown St. Louis with me looking for a bar that wasn’t out of bitters. But one Manhattan was enough for me 😀

    I’m sure we can get up to some kind of alcohol-fueled stuff in Orlando, though.

  511. Mark Axinn

    As the only person here who actually lives in Manhattan, I will be happy to join you guys in Orlando for Manhattans.

    What is the bourbon preference?

  512. Thomas L. Knapp

    Personally I prefer Old Crow. But these days I drink it seldom and even then heavily diluted in diet cola (I’ve heard that diabetic coma is a bad thing).

  513. Wes Wagner

    Nick

    That is “Yes please.”

    The power has already gone to your head 😉

  514. Andy

    July 9, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    ‘So, what motivated you to rejoin?’

    The straw that broke the camel’s back was Nick Sarwark getting elected chair, but there were a number of reasons, some of them cumulative over my four-year non-membership (e.g. election of Starchild to LNC, return of Wes Benedict to LPHQ and just flat missing a lot of friends — for many years, the LP was the bulk of my social life).

    I shouldn’t have phrased it as a ‘dislike’ of electoral politics. In fact, I like electoral politics a lot. I’ve run for office five times, managed or worked on several others’ campaigns, etc. I’m a junkie, and I just fell off the wagon. I remain confident in my conclusion that electoral politics isn’t going to get libertarians where we want to go, but that’s very different from ‘disliking’ it.”

    LOL! I called it a while ago. Tom Knapp is a political junkie who just could not stay away from the LP and politics in general.

  515. Dave Terry

    >Fritz Sands July 6, 2014 at 7:06 pm

    FRITZ? You are serious, aren’t you?

    “I think Dave Terry just did everyone the kindness of invoking Godwin on the thread”

    To be more precise, YOU invoked Godwin. The analogy STILL Fits!.
    It would ALSO fit, if I had referred to Stalin. Perhaps more so.

  516. paulie

    If we make it to 700 (I think that would be the third time in IPR history) we’ll need a suitable clip from the 700 club….

  517. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Heck, I can post enough music videos to get us to 700! Plus, I’ll have the added fun of irritating Dave Terry! 😉

  518. Mark Hilgenberg

    I just re-joined the national LP thanks to our new EC, I only wish Starchild had made it again. Maybe he can be incharge of an alternative or outreach oriented portion of the next convention? (hint hint)

  519. paulie

    Good idea. He could also be on one or several other committees (outreach, platform, and so on), assuming he is willing to be.

  520. Chuck Moulton

    George Phillies wrote:

    How is transparency doing?

    Paulie wrote:

    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2014/thread.html

    Ayes

    Katz (alt-not yet superseded)
    Goldstein
    Johnson
    Feldman
    Estrada
    Vohra
    McMahon
    McLendon
    Hagan
    Olsen

    Nays

    Lieberman (alt-superseded)
    Wiener
    Redpath
    Mattson

    Full members not yet voting:

    Kirkland, Lark, Oates, Tomasso, Sarwark

    Wiener proposed a new competing motion to sabotage it. His motion was co-sponsored by Goldstein, Kirkland, and Redpath. Goldstein flipped to nay on the original motion.

    Wiener motion:

    *Insert a new sub-section 4 to Section 2.07 PARTY RECORDS:*

    *4) EMAIL DISCUSSION LIST. Copies of LNC-Discuss emails from June 30, 2014
    forward, shall be made publicly viewable with the following limitations:
    The Chair shall appoint, and may replace at any time, a moderator who will
    pre-screen and exclude any email with the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in the
    subject line or which quotes or references or copies any other email with
    the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in the subject line. Furthermore, any such email
    shall not be transmitted to anyone who is not a member of the LNC-Discuss
    list without the explicit approval of that email’s author.*

    *[Proviso: This section replaces any previous motions on the subject of
    making public the LNC-Discuss emails.]*

  521. Joe

    What BS. Even if LNC-Discuss becomes fully public (and in a sense, with someone forwarding everything for at least the past several terms (to the point that LNC Discuss itself had references to “Hello George (Phillies)”) == there will still be off the record phone calls, person-to-person emails and likely a secret (to everyone but those pledging to keep it secret) alternative listserve.

    This is the Libertarian Party that calls for TRANSPARENCY in our federal government operating without a single, significant open discussion forum.

    FOOLS! is the best I can do without resorting to more profanity. HYPOCRITES!!! TRAITORS. Okay those come to mind too.

    Why the fight over LNC-Discuss? — ANSWER: the only reason for this opposition now is to provide cover for the fact that Wiener or others of his ilk, indeed have, will have, or will continue to have other non-transparent forms of communication with their cronys up and running.

    Or so it seems to me.

  522. Chuck Moulton

    Just to be clear: under the Wiener motion if Starchild were on the LNC and maintaining the public reflector, he could be removed for cause due to running afoul of the following sentence “any such email shall not be transmitted to anyone who is not a member of the LNC-Discuss list without the explicit approval of that email’s author”.

  523. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    F*ck Wiener and his non -transparency. I really, really wish we had someone else who could be region rep. Non-transparency has practically killed tthe LP of CA. I’d sure hate to see the National LP go any lower.

  524. paulie

    That’s too bad about Sam flipping his vote but I was rather surprised at his original vote to begin with.

    BTW why does any of this require a motion?

    The original bylaw change, resolution or whatever it was that passed in the 2012 convention applied to LNC discuss, since at that time there was no separate LNC business list. IIRC Geoff created LNC business by fiat – without any vote of the LNC, and over Starchild’s objection that this violated the spirit of his motion which passed in convention to make the list public, including discussion.

    I don’t see why Nick could not have just made LNC-discuss public by fiat without a motion to the LNC, but maybe it would have cost him too much political capital.

    I also don’t see why confidential emails need to be on LNC discuss.

    Why not instead create a LNC-exec list subject to the same rules as executive sessions at in-person meetings?

    Confidential emails could also be sent to a CC list of LNC members who agree to keep them confidential. In fact Dan Wiener already has the list set up for that and all he has to do is update its membership.

  525. paulie

    I assume it’s too late for Nick to make a unilateral decision on this now that it has been thrown up for motions, correct?

  526. paulie

    Looks like the fix may be in.

    Guy McLendon, who voted aye on the original motion, is now co-sponsoring the Wiener motion.

  527. paulie

    See https://www.lp.org/files/2012%20Libertarian%20Party%20Convention%20Minutes.pdf pg 5

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/155

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/275

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/276

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/296

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/299

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/323

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/342

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/601

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/617

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/621

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/642

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/721

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/730

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/773

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/LNCDiscussPublic/conversations/topics/782

    There’s more but that’s all I had patience to review for now.

  528. paulie

    I presume Nick probably knows this already but here are a few simple transparency issues we pushed for last term which I *think* he can make happen without having the rest of the LNC vote on it. I could be wrong.

    1) Allow LNC members who choose to do so to list additional contact info such as phone number and snail mail on the LNC page at LP.org (I realize that some people want to go further than that, but I think this would be a reasonable compromise for now.)

    2) Direct that the official recording of in-person LNC meetings be made public, rather than destroyed and/or kept only for the Secretary’s use. If possible also make it a livestream.

    3) Give LNC members the same access that staff has to post at LP.org blog. This was the policy Wes Benedict instituted in his first stint as ED. When Carla Howell was ED, she discontinued this. Her reasoning was that Wayne was dominating the blog with messages that diverged from the party’s stance and clearly seemed to favor Republicans and Romney and/or promote himself and a hybrid libertarian-conservative ideology during the height of the presidential election season. However, long after Wayne resigned from LNC and long after the presidential election ended the more restrictive policy is still in place, even with the return of Wes Benedict as ED. If need be, I have no objection to APRC review before submitted blog content goes live. I *think* Nick can just make this happen on his own, but I’m not a bylaws or parliamentary expert.

  529. paulie

    Of course, Nick would know better than I would how much political capital such unilateral decisions would cost him or whether they would be worth it, if I am correct that he has the power to make them on his own without a vote of the LNC.

  530. paulie

    Dan Wiener has voted no on the Oregon resolution.

    No one has voted yes yet as far as I can see, although none of the no votes are surprising.

  531. paulie

    Although voting on both motions is still going on, at this point I am not optimistic about the non-gutted transparency motion or the Oregon motion. Combined with the fact that Nick did not get his choice of exec comm, unlike other recent chairs, these would not be good signs, but would confirm what I was afraid of.

    I hope Nick is very busy figuring out exactly how much he can do without the approval of the whole LNC, and proceeds to start doing it rather than (perhaps excessively) hoarding political capital, which it appears he may not have much of with the committee.

  532. George Phillies

    Moulton writes “he could be removed for cause”.

    On one hand the faction doing this would need the votes. On the other hand, they might not enjoy the reaction of the members.

  533. George Phillies

    Almost no one has voted on the Oregon resolution at all.

    Perhaps the Pennsylvania readers should contemplate on your reaction if the LNC inserted your former state chair into your delegation and then agreed that he was the delegation head. The detail that the latter was also done, or so I am advised by some of the Oregon delegates, seems to have had less attention.

  534. Dave Terry

    FIRST QUESTION OF THE DAY!

    The 2014 LNC is the funniest act since,

    1. The Three Stooges
    2. Laurel & Hardy
    3. Abbot & Costello
    4. Martin & Lewis
    5. The 2012 Libertarian National Convention
    6. NOTA
    7. AOTA

    SECOND QUESTION OF THE DAY:

    How many members of the LNC can squeeze into a
    telephone booth?

    THIRD QUESTION OF THE DAY

    What the hell is a telephone booth?

  535. paulie

    Sam Goldstein has now also voted no on Oregon. The no votes so far are no big surprise – Johnson, Hayes (alt – not yet superseded), Lieberman (alt, superseded), Wiener, Goldstein. So far after two days not one person has voted yes. Given the additional no votes that we might expect based on the people who voted against allowing the vote to even be held on this, I am guessing it will fail. If it does pass, I predict it will be appealed to judiciary and overturned by them. If it fails, I predict the ruling by Arvin that the motion was in order will be appealed to judiciary and used as a pretext for a broader ruling which may go outside of the scope of what judiciary is supposed to rule on (but who would appeal that to whom?) … any way you look at it, I don’t see Nick’s attempt at making peace succeeding here, sorry to say.

    It looks like transparency will also probably get gutted. Anti-transparency LNC members will routinely mark their messages confidential after the “compromise” motion passes.

    if the LNC inserted your former state chair into your delegation and then agreed that he was the delegation head. The detail that the latter was also done, or so I am advised by some of the Oregon delegates, seems to have had less attention.

    I asked Wagner about this at the convention. If I understood him correctly, the attempt to make Burke the delegation chair failed. Did I misunderstand?

  536. George Phillies

    With respect to transparency, we shall have to see if the LNC springs leaks. I have over the years had sources come and go. The usual suspects have never had a clue who they were. The disadvantage of being conspiratorial is that you tend to see conspiracies that do not exist.

  537. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Only four more comments needed to pass 700 comments on this thread and make IPR history! Anyone have a fun video to post?

  538. Dave Terry

    Memo to Pollack Lesiak

    Do NOT pass Western Europe –
    Go DIRECTLY to Hell!

    (699)

  539. Dave Terry

    Last Memo to Lesiak;

    IF you are unable to go DIRECTLY to Hell
    Go to Poland and enter through the back door

    Memo to Jill; That’s (700!)

  540. Mark Axinn

    I don’t think Dave Terry’s comments should count towards 700, having nothing to do with this thread and perhaps a tad repetitive.

    I hope Chris recovers quickly, gives up his hatred of us jewcommies, and returns to Planet Earth.

    I hate to be a record-breaker, but all the discussion of post-Convention LNC activities really belongs on a new thread too…

  541. Dave Terry

    Hey Markie, are you gonna pick up your marbles and go home?

    The QUESTION is, WHY is the number of comments even relevant?

    The NEXT Question is; how many of the comments already posted
    have ANYTHING to do with the Libertarian National Convention? 50?
    100? maybe 200?

  542. Dave Terry

    Perhaps when it takes longer to scroll down to the “reply box” than to actually reply, MAYBE it’s time to start a new thread!!!!

  543. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Good suggestion, Mark. As specific events unfold regarding the LNC, we should start at least one new thread.

  544. George Phillies

    The Wiener opacity motion — the second transparency motion — is now up for a vote. The first vote came from Scott Lieberman. He voted “NO”.

    The motion
    Motion: to amend the Policy Manual by inserting a new sub-section 4 to Section 2.07 PARTY RECORDS:

    4) EMAIL DISCUSSION LIST. Copies of LNC-Discuss emails from June 30, 2014 forward, shall be made publicly viewable with the following limitations: The Chair shall appoint, and may replace at any time, a moderator who will pre-screen and exclude any email with the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in the subject line or which quotes or references or copies any other email with the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in the subject line. Furthermore, any such email shall not be transmitted to anyone who is not a member of the LNC-Discuss list without the explicit approval of that email’s author.

    Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 21, 2014 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

    Co-Sponsors: Dan Wiener, Sam Goldstein, Vicki Kirkland, Bill Redpath

  545. paulie

    I don’t think Dave Terry’s comments should count

    Period.

    towards 700, having nothing to do with this thread and perhaps a tad repetitive.

    That’s why I gave up reading them a long time ago and encourage others to do same.

    I hope Chris recovers quickly, gives up his hatred of us jewcommies, and returns to Planet Earth.

    Well, we can always hope.

    I hate to be a record-breaker, but all the discussion of post-Convention LNC activities really belongs on a new thread too…

    Maybe, but I have a perverse desire to keep this one going, and I just haven’t had the thread posting mojo lately. Someone else can do it if they have a yearning to do so.

    I haven’t even started posting convention pictures in a serious way yet. This one will leave the 2012 thread in the dust before I am done with it.

  546. paulie

    The Wiener opacity motion — the second transparency motion — is now up for a vote. The first vote came from Scott Lieberman. He voted “NO”.

    Already superseded by Wiener, who voted yes.

    Gary Johnson has voted no. Guy McLendon and Sam Goldstein have voted yes.

    The motion
    Motion: to amend the Policy Manual by inserting a new sub-section 4 to Section 2.07 PARTY RECORDS:

    4) EMAIL DISCUSSION LIST. Copies of LNC-Discuss emails from June 30, 2014 forward, shall be made publicly viewable with the following limitations: The Chair shall appoint, and may replace at any time, a moderator who will pre-screen and exclude any email with the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in the subject line or which quotes or references or copies any other email with the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in the subject line. Furthermore, any such email shall not be transmitted to anyone who is not a member of the LNC-Discuss list without the explicit approval of that email’s author.

    Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 21, 2014 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

    Co-Sponsors: Dan Wiener, Sam Goldstein, Vicki Kirkland, Bill Redpath

  547. Dave Terry

    > paulie July 12, 2014 at 2:10 am

    “I don’t think Dave Terry’s comments should count
    Period.”.

    On the other hand, EVERY word that Porky udders should
    be recorded and used as evidence against him.

  548. paulie

    From NC Libertarian newsletter:

    Ken Penkowsi was a North Carolina delegate to the 2014 Libertarian national Convention. This was the first national political convention he’s ever attended. Here are some of his observations and impressions:

    “In a weekend full of highs and lows, there are three significant take-aways that I would like to convey,” said Penkowsi, of Wake County.

    First, he said that the convention body showed strong a strong focus on emerging challenges to liberty, such as National Security Agency surveillance.

    “The liberty movement is a global movement and the LP has an opportunity to provide global leadership,” Penkowski also noted.

    Penkowski’s third observation was that there are two divergent perspectives on what it means to be a successful political party and that divergence was evident in the election for national chair.

    “One believes that to be taken seriously as a political party, we need to meet the standards of what a political party does,” he said. “Even if the Democrats and Republicans are setting the rules, this group believes we should prove that we have the ability to meet those standards.”

    This view is reflected in the efforts to purchase a headquarters building and getting 50-state ballot access.

    “The other side takes a more contrarian approach,” Penkowski noted. “They want the Libertarian Party to be more relevant and accessible to the voters. They say we should ignore the traditional standards of what it means to be a political party and create a new, more appropriate model for electoral activism.”

    Those who support this view favor supporting candidates over ballot access and pushing more support downstream to state affiliates.

    “It should not come as a surprise to anyone that I strongly endorse the latter approach,” said Penkowski. “But the party as a whole is pretty evenly divided.”

    Aside from the “expected bickering about commas,” Penkowski said there were two significant changes to the party platform. The first was to the plank on privacy and the other dealt with the free market plank.

    The convention also adopted bylaws changes to use approval voting when electing at-large members of the Libertarian National Committee, and to allow state LPs to nominate fusion candidates.

    [p: IIRC the fusion plank did not pass]

    “The Libertarian Party is a conundrum. At times, we can’t seem to get out of our own way. But at other times, you see that what we are doing here is having a positive impact – not just on North Carolina or the U.S. but for people in every corner of the world. And that, I believe, makes liberty a thing worth fighting for.”

    Penkowsi said he as particularly impressed with one speaker, Vera Kichanova, the 23-year old founder of the Libertarian Party of Russia. Kichanova related how she helped organize the party as part of the general opposition to the state party run by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    She would tell her mother that she was going out to the disco, but instead she was meeting with her friends in basements reading books by Ludwig Van Mises and Murray Rothbard.

    “She kept referring to ‘the great and strong Libertarian Party of America,’” Penkowsi said. “It was humbling but also embarrassing in that I feel we have not lived up to the respect that the LP gets from the rest of the world.”

    “I think that we have an obligation to live up to that perception,” he commented. “Today, America might lead the world in bombs dropped from drones or global currency manipulation. But I think it would be better to be known as the country that leads the world in liberty.”

    Penkowski concluded by saying he believes the Libertarian Party is a conundrum.

    “At times, we can’t seem to get out of our own way,” he said. “But at other times, you see that what we are doing here is having a positive impact – not just on North Carolina or the U.S. but for people in every corner of the world. And that, I believe, makes liberty a thing worth fighting for.”

  549. George Phillies

    Paulie wrote “I asked Wagner about this at the convention. If I understood him correctly, the attempt to make Burke the delegation chair failed. Did I misunderstand?”

    I inquired of the Convention and National Secretary. He reports that the three Reeves faction delegates marched up to him, claimed to have caucused and elected Tim Reeves as delegation head, and so the change should be made. After discussion, the convention Parliamentarian supported their claim, so the change was made. The Oregon State Committee then voted a Bylaws change that the State Chair (meaning Wes Wagner) is delegation head if he attends the National Convention.

    Tim Reeves according to the secretary wanted to make sure that Oregon did not join a Region.
    Wes Wagner was, I am told, of the same opinion.

  550. George Phillies

    IN other news ensuing, the LNC has been presented I gather by Dan Wiener with another resolution, namely

    1:13 PM (4 hours ago)
    I move to adopt the following resolution, and request co-sponsors for an email ballot:

    Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “delegates to a Regular Convention shall be selected by a method adopted by each affiliate party” (Article 11, 3 (b)), and

    Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “each state-level affiliate party shall, in accordance with its own Bylaws and these Bylaws, determine who shall be its delegates to all Regular Conventions.” (Article 6, 3), and

    Whereas, the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party state that “the autonomy of the affiliate and sub-affiliate parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party…” (Article 6, 5), and

    Whereas, a dispute over the Oregon delegation was placed before the Credentials Committee, which subsequently presented a report to the Libertarian Party National Convention on June 27, 2014 which did not describe the details of that dispute, and

    Whereas, a motion was made to amend the Credentials Committee report to include three individuals as delegates within the Oregon delegation, and

    Whereas, in response to a Point of Order the Chair of the National Convention ruled that the proposed amendment was in order, the Chair’s ruling was appealed, the Chair’s ruling was sustained by a vote of the assembly, and the assembly subsequently approved the amendment, and

    Whereas, the 11th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, which is the Parliamentary Authority for the Libertarian Party as stated in Article 16 of its Bylaws, states (p. 483) that “In any event, no action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see p. 577, II. 23-33).”, and

    Whereas, the Libertarian National Committee nevertheless regrets the situation wherein some delegates believe the above decision was incorrectly decided, therefore

    Be it resolved that it is the sense of the Libertarian National Committee that it wishes to convey those regrets to the Libertarian Party of Oregon. “

  551. George Phillies

    The new national committee is about to make a significant vote. The ballot on opening the LNC-Discuss list via the method used with the LNC-business list will close at 3AM – 1 second EST tomorrow morning, By my count, it appears that the motion may well pass, though it is still up in the air.

  552. paulie

    My counts on current controversial motions are:

    Wiener semi-transparency motion:

    Ayes: Wiener, McLendon, Goldstein, Kirkland
    Nays: Lieberman (alt, superseded), Johnson, Feldman, McMahon,
    [currently ahead 4-3 in votes that count; most members have not yet voted on it]

    Sarwark transparency motion:

    Ayes: Katz (alt, not yet superseded), Johnson, Feldman, Estrada, Vohra, McMahon, Hagan, McLendon, Olsen
    Nays: Kirkland, Goldstein (changed vote), Lieberman (superseded), Wiener, Redpath, Mattson
    [currently ahead 9-5 in votes that count; Tomasso, Oates, Lark and Sarwark have not yet voted.]

    Sarwark Oregon:

    Ayes: None
    Nays: Johnson, Hayes (alt – not yet superseded), Lieberman (alt, superseded), Wiener, Goldstein, McLendon
    [currently behind 0-5 in votes that count. No one has yet to vote yes, altough it was issued on July 9]

    Kirkland has co-sponsored alternative Oregon motion from Wiener.

  553. paulie

    Jim Lark just voted on Oregon (nay) and Sarwark Transparency (aye), so that makes it 0-6 on Oregon and 10-5 on Transparency.

  554. paulie

    I may have this wrong but I think these need 2/3?

    Also, since the Wiener semi-transparency motion came out later than the Sarwark transparency motion, my understanding is that if both pass the Wiener motion becomes the new policy. Am I wrong?

  555. paulie

    In an unusual move, Dr. Lark has also voted well ahead of the deadline (which IIRC he almost never does) on Wiener semi-transparency (nay), making that one 4-4.

  556. paulie

    So, updated counts if I am correct:

    Sarwark transparency 10-5
    Sarwark Oregon 0-6
    Wiener semi-transparency 4-4

  557. George Phillies

    I imagine supporters of the Sarwark Oregon motion are waiting on the transparency motion. It’s not as though they are under time pressure yet.

  558. paulie

    Please explain why you think they need 2/3? They had advance notice…that’s in the bylaws.

    That was my recollection, but I could easily be wrong.

  559. paulie

    I imagine supporters of the Sarwark Oregon motion are waiting on the transparency motion. It’s not as though they are under time pressure yet.

    Maybe so. Why wait though? If transparency passes the arguments will be retroactively available beyond LNC.

  560. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote:

    I may have this wrong but I think these need 2/3?

    Even if Wiener’s motion is considered a motion to amend something previously adopted (which would require 2/3 of the vote or a majority of the entire membership without previous notice), the bylaws specify that email ballots constitute notice, so a simple majority vote is all that is required.

    Bylaws, Article 14 (last sentence):
    “Motions dispensed through electronic mail ballots satisfy the requirement of giving previous notice.”

  561. Mark Axinn

    >[p: IIRC the fusion plank did not pass]

    Correct, over the objection of those state chairs such as I where fusion is essential.

  562. Wes Wagner

    There are two competing outcomes in Oregon at the moment as a result of 4 years of abuses from the LNC and the national LP delegates.

    One is to disaffiliate.

    The other is to go Galt and refuse to produce until reparations have been made.

    In both circumstances we will not be alone and will be joined by states of good conscience.

  563. paulie

    The motion appears to have passed.

    I agree.

    Nick voted at the last minute, so my final count is 11-5.

    If I understood Chuck correctly, the Wiener semi-transparency motion will take precedence if it also passes, and only needs a simple majority to do so?

  564. paulie

    Unsurprisingly, Mattson voted no on Oregon, making it 0-7 by my count.

    Vohra has voted no on Wiener semi-transparency; my count on it is 4-5.

  565. paulie

    Correct, over the objection of those state chairs such as I where fusion is essential.

    I’m sure it will continue to be ignored by those states.

  566. paulie

    Wes W., there’s apparently a discrepancy in my understanding and Phillies’ as to whether the Burke-Reeves move to take over the chairmanship of your delegation succeeded or not. Did it?

  567. paulie

    Wiener semi-transparency could definitely still pass. For example, Guy McLendon voted yes on both transparency and semi-transparency. Rob Oates and Rich Tomasso did not vote on the Sarwark transparency motion, and have yet to vote on Wiener semi-transparency either.

    On Sarwark Oregon, at 0-7, my understanding is that two more no votes would kill it, if everyone votes and no one changes their vote.

    Wiener Oregon motion has one additional co-sponsor (Kirkland) and needs two more to come up for a vote.

  568. Wes Wagner

    Reeves, Burnett and Burke held a vote to elect Reeves delegation chair. I advised them that their motion was out of order because they were trying to vote on something that had already been considered and adopted. They chose to ignore me and my objections, went to the secretary’s table without us present, claimed to Blau that they invited us to the secretary table and we refused to come (fraud) and Blau advised the credentials committee to mark Reeves as the delegation chair.

  569. paulie

    I thought I asked you about that at the convention and that you said that move did not succeed. Now it sounds like you are saying it did.

  570. Fritz Sands

    Yes — in those states where fusion is essential, the national ban on endorsing such candidates will continue to be ignored. Because, fundamentally, what is the national party going to do about state parties ignoring the mandate? And then there are “Top Two” states where candidates pick which party or combination of parties they prefer and parties decide which (if any) candidates to endorse.

  571. Thomas L. Knapp

    “in those states where fusion is essential, the national ban on endorsing such candidates will continue to be ignored”

    Which is why the ban should have either been repealed or should, in the future, be enforced.

  572. paulie

    Vohra voted no on semi-transparency. There are currently 5 no votes and 4 yes votes that count – see details on who voted which way above. There are currently 17 full members of LNC (18 last term but the regions went from 9 to 8), so if everyone votes, it will take 4 more no votes to kill it by my count.

  573. Wes Wagner

    paulie

    At the time the credentials committee said they would respect our sovereignty. Blau changed their mind with a little parliamentary voodoo saying that the since the delegates put them in our delegation and they were a majority they could caucus without us and that the national LP had to accept it.

    I think discerning people will understand why what is going to happen over the next 2 years is going to happen, why, and why the LP deserves it.

  574. paulie

    Or I will just re-compile:

    Semi-transparency

    Ayes: Wiener, McLendon, Goldstein, Kirkland
    Nays: Lieberman (alt, superseded), Johnson, Feldman, McMahon, Lark, Vohra

    Not yet voted, voted yes on Sarwark transparency:
    Sarwark, Estrada, Olsen, Hagan [Katz, alt]
    Not yet voted, voted no on Sarwark transparency:
    Redpath, Mattson
    Not yet voted, did not vote on Sarwark transparency:
    Oates, Tomasso

    However, we should not assume that everyone who voted yes on the first motion will vote no on the second or vice versa.

    So far, McLendon voted yes on both motions; Lieberman voted no on both, but was superseded both times.

  575. Stewart Flood

    I was near the secretary’s table when Burke came up to say that they’d elected a new delegation chair. He looked over and saw me and started acting like he didn’t want me to hear what he was saying so I walked away.

    I only saw Burke up there. If there was anyone else with him, he/she/they where standing back far enough that I didn’t pick up that they were with Burke.

    The secretary looked a bit upset when Burke came up, so I don’t think that he did it voluntarily. My guess is that he was told by someone else what would happen to him if he didn’t accept Oregon’s change of delegation chair. That’s only a guess. Maybe they didn’t use force and only used fraud alone.

  576. Joshua Katz

    1. Attempts to apply consistent thinking to email ballots generally fail. Robert’s defines a deliberative assembly as a group of people able to see and hear each other. Asynchronous voting produces odd results. If not for the bylaw (wisely adopted) that email ballots constitute previous notice, the vote required for the 2nd transparency motion would, I think, depend on the results of the first. This is not a good situation, hence it’s a good thing we have that rule. In any case, that’s assuming that we try to apply Robert’s, which is a losing task.
    2. Wes – do you have a copy of the rules you sent to the Credentials Committee regarding the choosing of your delegates and delegation chair? Unless the affiliate provides otherwise, the delegation chair is the party chair.

  577. paulie

    Rob Oates has now voted No on both the Oregon and Semi-transparency motions. Those motions are now both behind, by 0-8 and 4-6 respectively.

  578. Joshua Katz

    As far as effect, if both transparency motions passed, or if only the second one passed, I believe the impact would be the same. So there are 3 possible outcomes: first motion passes, second doesn’t; both or second only passes; none pass.

  579. paulie

    With the vote being 11-5 in favor and the voting period closed, the first would appear to have already passed. So there are only two outcomes I can think of at this point: the second motion passes and takes precedence because it was voted on after the first one, or the second one fails and the first one takes effect. If that is not correct please let me know.

  580. Wes Wagner

    Katz,

    After the shenanigans had already take place, I was able to run an email ballot back home which produced the following policy:

    “That if the Chairperson of the LPO is present at any LP National convention, he/she will serve as delegation chair for the duration of the convention. The order of succession in the absence of the chair shall be: vice chairperson, secretary, any member of the board selected by majority vote, any member of the delegation selected by majority vote.”

    The credentials committee and secretary were still unwilling to adjust their idea of who the delegation chair was.

  581. George Phillies

    Wes,

    Majority vote *of whom*? Your rule appears to need a little tuning. The state committee or the delegation?

    When did you tell people about the new rule? As you were all seated, Credentials Committee may not have had it in their remit.

    George

  582. Joshua Katz

    Wes, I wouldn’t have accepted that either, since it was passed during the convention and is unclear. However, assuming you had no provision before, the replacement of the delegation chair remains, in my opinion, unjustified, since the convention rules specify that the chair of the party is the delegation chair, and the chairmanship was unchallenged in the Credentials Committee report that was approved, even after amendment.

    I’ve seen one argument for it being justified, which I believe is premised on the idea that, rather than adding 3 members, the body actually replaced the entire delegation (since the final slate, once amended, was identical to that submitted by the entity that is not the LP of Oregon.) This is then taken as implicitly accepting that other entity as the affiliate. If I am misrepresenting this argument, that is just another argument in favor of making LNC-discuss transparent.

    Needless to say, I find that entire argument problematic.

  583. Joshua Katz

    By the way, in reference to the above, the national bylaw prohibiting fusion candidates is not ignored. There is no such bylaw, and never has been. There is a bylaw prohibiting affiliates from nominating candidates who are members of another political party. As this is left undefined, the most reasonable understanding would not be banning all cross-endorsed candidates, nor would it be defining member as a person registered to vote in a party – it would be membership similar to membership as used throughout the bylaws. Thus, a state affiliate may not nominate for office a person who is a member of another party – but most candidates of those parties are not members in that sense – the LP bylaws, for instance, make no such requirement at the national level, although an affiliate could. If some other party decided to require that its candidates be members in the strict sense, then, if this were done nationally, no affiliate could cross-endorse with that specific party, and if it were done only in a specific state, that state’s affiliate could not cross-endorse. That is the only thing close to a ban on cross-endorsements we have. The proposal at the convention, in its explanation, said only that our current bylaw could be taken to prohibit cross-endorsements, not that taking it this way is correct.

    In addition, even if LPUS did have such a bylaw, not all states have in their bylaws a provision for following applicable national bylaws, so it would still be in order to propose to cross-endorse at that state’s convention. National could take action – i.e. disaffiliation, but that’s about all that could be done. There would be no prior restraint possible.

  584. Wes Wagner

    Joshua Katz

    Either way the entire incident is yet another casus belli for war.

  585. George Phillies

    Josh,

    Where did you see the proposal that the convention in voting to add these delegates to Oregon the convention actually replaced the entire delegation. To my ears this claim sounds less like LNC and more like LSD.

    George

  586. Joshua Katz

    I’m not aware of any parties that don’t have membership in our sense. Can you name a few? In any case, so what? If no other parties had membership in our sense, we’d have no restrictions at all on cross-endorsement under our current bylaw.

    The argument I presented is a summary of one of the arguments I’ve seen offered on LNC-discuss. Again, I might not be getting it right, which is why lnc-discuss should be transparent.

  587. George Phillies

    Democrats and Republicans. Yes, there are states where you can register D or R, but there are others where you cannot, including the one that does not have party registration at all.

  588. paulie

    The results of the Sarwark transparency motion are now official, matching my count:

    Voting has ended for the email ballot shown below.

    Voting “aye”: Estrada, Feldman, Hagan, Johnson, Katz, Lark, McLendon, McMahon, Olsen, Sarwark, Vohra

    Voting “nay”: Goldstein, Kirkland, Mattson, Redpath, Wiener

    With a final vote tally of 11-5, the motion PASSES.

    Alicia Mattson
    LNC Secretary

  589. paulie

    The Wiener Oregon motion has gained a third co-sponsor, and needs one more to come up for a vote:

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com

    10:48 PM (2 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business

    I will co-sponsor this motion. It addresses some concerns I have with the original motion. The original motion can be extrapolated to conflict with action of the convention delegates, since the delegates sustained the ruling of the Chair.

    Tim Hagan

  590. Joshua Katz

    George – if there is no way to be a ‘member’ of those parties, my point is strengthened, not weakened. It essentially means that the bylaw means nothing.

  591. Stewart Flood

    In our State, membership in a party is defined by showing up at precinct reorganization and/or a county party convention, a state convention, or VOTING IN A PRIMARY.

    So…someone who votes in another party’s primary, as some (not all) Libertarians do, makes you a member of that other party by our state election laws.

    Assuming that a candidate filed as both a Libertarian and…let’s say…a Democrat, if he or she voted in the Democratic Party Primary (or in the Republican Party Primary as some Democrats do to mess with them), then the ByLaw would apply in our state.

    Either way, if we have an opportunity to win an election by cross filing in another party where there is no candidate I will encourage our candidates to do it. The ByLaw is wrong and hurts states like South Carolina and New York.

  592. Thomas L. Knapp

    There are lots of ways that a party might reasonably define membership, but the one thing to remember is that the LNC and its membership program isn’t one of those ways. The Libertarian Party is the organization in each state which goes by that name; the LNC just happens to be the mechanism with which those parties (all of them most of the time and most of them all of the time, anyway) mutually affiliate, mostly for the purpose of nominating a presidential ticket.

    And while there are lots of ways that a party might reasonably define membership, there’s one obviously unreasonable way in which a party might define non-membership. That is to say that trying to pretend that the nominee of a party for office is not a member of that party is obviously incorrect.

    Therefore, “fusion” is by definition the nomination of a member of another party, and is therefore a violation of the bylaws as they relate to the actions of affiliate parties. That’s why the motion to allow “fusion” was put forward.

  593. George Phillies

    Given that membership is defined for us in the LNC Bylaws, it is reasonable to apply that definition uniformly. You can indeed belong to the national party.

    The fusion effort needed a somewhat better wording and a lot more delegate preparation.

  594. Thomas L. Knapp

    “You can indeed belong to the national party.”

    To the extent that there is a “national party,” the “members” of that party are the state parties. The Libertarian National Committee is not the Libertarian Party, nor are subscribers to its newsletter “members” of the Libertarian Party by virtue of said subscription. Those bylaws provisions (along with the fraudulent trademark registration) basically constitute an attempted coup/takeover of the actual Libertarian Party/parties.

    The Democrats learned this the hard way in both 1860 and 1948 when several Democratic Parties decided to affiliate with other national mechanisms for presidential candidate nomination. The Libertarians should also know it, since Arizona did likewise in 2000 after the national committee disaffiliated its Libertarian Party and then, as they were warned would happen, lost the Libertarian ballot line in that state.

  595. George Phillies

    To the contrary: The dues paying national party members do not have a right to a newsletter, though they will get issues if one is published. They can call special conventions, send matters to a judicial committee,… In addition, if the individual members stopped sending National money, the national party would swiftly croak.

  596. paulie

    The Wiener semi-transparency motion is now down 4-10, which means it will fail unless some people switch votes.

  597. Fritz Sands

    “Member of another party” can be defined in many ways. Some states (WA is one of them) do not have the concept of registering by political party at all. I know of dues-paying LP members who are in political office as Republicans. And in Washington, parties do not nominate candidates — candidates choose to say what party, if any, he or she prefers. And, yes, a candidate can perfectly well put on the ballot “Prefers Libertarian and Republican Parties”. Or “Prefers All Night Party”. Anything he or she wants.

    Furthermore, what is the national LP going to do about a state party endorsing fusion candidates? What would be the consequences to a state party for telling national to sod off and mind their own business?

  598. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Furthermore, what is the [Libertarian National Committee] going to do about a state party endorsing fusion candidates? What would be the consequences to a state party for telling [the LNC] to sod off and mind their own business?”

    Disaffiliation is the only remedy available in the bylaws.

    Personally I support the bylaws allowing “fusion,” and was surprised that the national convention rejected the amendment. But rejecting the amendment is the same as re-affirming the prohibition.

  599. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote:

    The Wiener semi-transparency motion is now down 4-10, which means it will fail unless some people switch votes.

    Evan voted twice (no both times) on the Wiener motion, so I don’t think your count is correct (I didn’t bother to re-count everything, but my running count was 1 off from yours). You’re right that it will probably fail.

  600. paulie

    Oops, you are correct. Good catch, I was not screening for duplicate votes. 4-9 is the correct count. That would still be enough to kill it if no votes switch; if the remaining full members all vote and all vote yes it would go down by 9-8.

  601. Fritz Sands

    “Disaffiliation is the only remedy available in the bylaws.”

    Indeed. And the practical consequence of this to a state party is pretty close to zero. And we in WA state modified our bylaws to allow cross-endorsements.

    This could have come up in WA state this year — there are some libertarians running as Republicans in races and the state convention could have chosen to endorse them. Which is as close to fusion as WA election law sets out. It certainly may happen in 2016.

  602. Thomas L. Knapp

    Fritz,

    I can think of two actual and one previously existing and future hypothetical practical consequences of disaffiliation of a state Libertarian Party:

    1) No voice in the selection of the Libertarian National Committee’s presidential slate (although that state LP could, if it wanted, nominate the same slate as the other state LPs did in the national convention at which that state LP went unrepresented; and more than one state LP not affiliated with the LNC might set up their own affiliation/presidential ticket selection mechanism);

    2) No Libertarian National Committee assistance for ballot access (not all states have needed, now need or will ever need such assistance, and ideally none of them would, but some have, do or will need it); and

    3) If the “Unified Membership Program” or something similar was resurrected, some money from the LNC based on contributions to the LNC’s “membership” program.

    Whether or not those practical consequences are significant, and if so HOW significant, is of course a matter of opinion.

    Like I said, I think that the LNC’s bylaws should allow for its state affiliates to engage in fusion.

    But they don’t do so. And they were just reaffirmed in national convention as not doing so.

    It’s not a good idea to have a rule, to reaffirm that rule and to then not enforce that rule if for no other reason than that tends to reinforce the LNC’s tendency (more and more pronounced in recent years) to simply do whatever the hell its majority feels like and then creatively reinterpret the bylaws to allow it when challenged.

  603. paulie

    There’s not much time to debate and familiarize delegates with the issues involved with bylaws change proposals. Most of the delegates understand little of the issues involved when being asked to vote. I don’t know how we would fix that. Even if the party mailed out bylaws and platform committee reports to all potential delegates ahead of time, few would read the arguments.

  604. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Most of the delegates understand little of the issues involved when being asked to vote.”

    One reason for that, in my opinion, is that delegate allocation (set by bylaws to produce approximately 1000 delegate seats) is waaaaaaaay out of phase with the number of actual, involved Libertarian Party activists.

    There are never as many people interested in being delegates as there are available delegate slots.

    Every two years, most of the states other than the convention state and those located very close to it are pretty much forced to beg people to be delegates.

    It should be the other way around — there should be few enough delegate slots that the state parties have to pick and choose their delegates instead of taking all comers and begging for more.

    Personally I think a good start would be to set the number of delegate seats at 538 and to apportion them according to a state’s electoral votes instead of on the basis of how many people in each state have sent $25 to the LNC and how many people voted for the last LP presidential slate.

    That would not only have the effect of making the delegate selection process more competitive (hopefully meaning that the state parties would choose people who demonstrate an acquaintance with the issues to be considered, etc.), but it would also remove some of the bias toward maintenance of the status quo (the states where more people voted for the LAST presidential ticket get a larger voice in selecting the NEXT presidential ticket, which tends toward offering more of the same, when perhaps doing something different might increase the vote in those other states).

  605. paulie

    Maybe.

    Or, having fewer delegate slots could lead to factional battles at state levels, so that the factions could control who gets to be delegates from those states.

  606. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Or, having fewer delegate slots could lead to factional battles at state levels, so that the factions could control who gets to be delegates from those states.”

    1) That already happens on occasion, and I expect it to happen more and more often regardless of how many or how few delegate seats are allocated.

    2) Factional battles are not necessarily a bad thing, and with respect to national convention delegate selection could in fact be a good thing. National convention rules forbid use of “unit rule” or “unit voting,” where all members of a state delegation can be required to vote in certain ways (other parties make use of that in e.g. their presidential nominating process), but I see no particular reason why, if a state party decides in convention or whatever on some particular goal, it couldn’t select delegates pledged to support that goal.

    It’s been ten or fifteen years so my recollection is probably faulty in detail, but one time in Missouri, something like this happened at a state convention where national delegate selection was up for consideration:

    An opponent of the LNC’s “pledge” (he opposed it for the same reason I support it) introduced a motion which would have required the delegation chair to introduce a motion at the national convention calling for repeal of the pledge requirement, and which would have required, as a condition of being selected as delegate, affirmation of support for/intention to vote for said motion at the national convention.

    That was the amended form of the motion — I objected to the original form, which would have violated the “unit rule/unit voting” national convention rule by requiring the delegates to actually vote as instructed.

    We defeated the motion (and instead passed a state resolution opposing the pledge, IIRC), but I don’t see that it was out of order for a state party to consider choosing only delegates who supported one of its goals. It just turned out that either that WASN’T one of our goals, or that we didn’t want to impose it on our delegates in any way.

    If NOTA 2016 gets any great traction, I fully expect that the dominant presidential campaign, and state party leaderships supporting that dominant presidential campaign, to attempt to block known or suspected NOTA supporters from getting delegate slots. That’s how politics works — you support your side, and you oppose the other side.

  607. paulie

    National convention rules forbid use of “unit rule” or “unit voting,” where all members of a state delegation can be required to vote in certain ways

    Maybe in theory. Not in practice. And even if they did, having fewer delegates could allow state parties to pre-select delegates who would pledge to vote as they are told.

    That already happens on occasion

    It will greatly increase if numbers of delegates are limited in a practical way.

  608. Thomas L. Knapp

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

    It’s not. Or at least it’s not NECESSARILY.

    Just for example, if delegate selection was competitive, presidential candidates would have an incentive to campaign heavily in the states prior to the national convention and get states to select delegates who support the candidates those state members support, instead of just rolling into the convention with plans to wow a random assemblage.

  609. Thomas L. Knapp

    Here’s the way “unit rule” works for presidential nominations in the “major parties” —

    – In some states, all delegates are required to vote on the first ballot for the winner of that state’s primary, unless that candidate releases them. In 1980, several state delegations asked Jimmy Carter to release them so that they could vote for Ted Kennedy on the first ballot. He refused. I’m not sure whether there were enough delegates involved in that revolt to have changed the outcome.

    – In some states, delegates are apportioned on the basis of which candidate they are pledged to based on percentages of primary or caucus results. They are committed to vote for the candidate they are pledged to on the first ballot unless that candidate releases them.

    I don’t think the “unit rule” in that form makes much sense for the LP. For one thing, a lot of states don’t have Libertarian presidential primaries or caucuses.

    But I see no reason why a state convention might not take a straw poll on who the presidential nominee should be, and then have a competitive delegate selection process in which the prospective delegates are asked whom they support for the presidential nomination, how they feel about this or that bylaws amendment proposal, etc. so that the state party can send delegates who REPRESENT IT, instead of just randomly packing off whomever happens to be willing to spring for a plane ticket and hotel bill.

  610. Wes Wagner

    I know in Oregon there is alot of support for the idea of running the presidential tickets on our primary and sending a bound delegation — but there are of course issues with that as Knapp points out.

    If we only had to send 7 delegates because states were given EV totals instead of today and could send a bound delegation, I can guarantee you that we would always have 7 people in presidential years and alot more interest in our election processes domestically.

  611. Mark Axinn

    >Furthermore, what is the national LP going to do about a state party endorsing fusion candidates?

    Zilcho, as it should. The by-law is a poor one and until removed, only an idiot would try to enforce it.

  612. Thomas L. Knapp

    The bylaw is a poor one.

    It should be removed.

    However, a national convention passed it originally, and a national convention just reaffirmed it.

    Any LNC that DOESN’T enforce it is doing exactly the opposite of what the national convention has now twice ordered it to do.

  613. paulie

    Wes,

    Do you plan to have a mail ballot primary to select what presidential ticket if any you will put on the ballot?

  614. Thomas L. Knapp

    Speaking of Oregon, Wes …

    While looking at presidential nomination procedures in Oregon law, I happened to notice this statute:

    “248.010 Use of party name. Each major political party and minor political party, its nominated candidates and its members and officers shall have the exclusive right to use the whole party name or any part of it.”

    On the one hand, I’m not big on the whole concept of “intellectual property.”

    On the other hand, given that the Reeves/Burke impostor group is clearly engaged in both fraud and violation of state law by claiming to be the Libertarian Party of Oregon, is the real LPO taking any legal action to stop/punish the fraud/statute violation?

  615. Wes Wagner

    Knapp

    I twice asked the national LP in the previous term to make an attempt to enforce their trademark claims since the Reeves group clearly does not have prior use — well… you can see what action they took. (none)

    Paulie,

    We would run it at the same time as our normal primary and it would just add that much more interest in our election.

  616. Thomas L. Knapp

    Wes,

    The LNC will never make an actual attempt to enforce their trademark claim. That claim is fraudulent and frivolous on its face. It’s only useful as a threat against people who don’t know any better. Trying to enforce it would forfeit even that usefulness.

  617. Wes Wagner

    Knapp

    Refusing to attempt to enforce it when confronted with a clear violation makes it all that more unenforceable.

  618. Thomas L. Knapp

    Wes,

    Well, it goes like this: Yes, if you fail to protect your trademark, that can weigh against you in future attempts to protect your trademark. And it can also encourage others to violate that trademark with presumed impunity.

    But this trademark IN PARTICULAR is completely unenforceable. It’s fraudulent from the word go. If the LNC ever went to court to try to enforce it, all they’d get is a dismissal and responsibility for the defendant’s legal costs, plus possibly some sanctions for malicious/frivolous litigation.

    Knowing this, they’ll never try it. If someone they don’t want using the name “Libertarian Party” uses the name “Libertarian Party,” they may rattle the litigation saber and hope the other party is uninformed enough to believe them, but they’ll never, ever, ever draw it — because once they’ve drawn it, they lose it.

  619. Mark Axinn

    Thomas Knapp wrote on fusion:
    >Any LNC that DOESN’T enforce it is doing exactly the opposite of what the national convention has now twice ordered it to do.

    Wanna place a bet on whether the National Libertarian Party will act to disaffiliate New York over this? I will even give you attractive odds against. How much money do you want to lose? I could use your money right now to help get my 15 LPNY candidates (some of whom are fusion) on the ballot.

  620. Wes Wagner

    Depending on the state, they would incur liability for SLAPP from either filing the legal threat, to just making the legal threat if their intent is to suppress participation and they really have no basis for their claims.

  621. Wes Wagner

    Mark

    Think the LNC will uphold the principles of the 14th amendment at the same time and simultaneously attempt disaffiliation against Oregon for our fusion nominations?

  622. Thomas L. Knapp

    Mark,

    No, I am not going to bet with you on whether or not the LNC will faithfully execute the bylaws rather than doing what it damn well pleases — if for no other reason than that based on prior performance the odds would be greatly in favor of your prediction that it will do the latter.

  623. George Phillies

    The conduct of parts of the LNC and their related friends seems to make little sense. First they disrupted the orthodox Oregon state convention that would have unified matters. Now they are supporting the faction that puts almost no one on the ballot. If the Reeves faction were running 50 people for state office, and the Wagner faction were running none, the LNC/NatCon behavior would at least be comprehensible, but that is the opposite of what is occurring. I anticipate that the LNC debate when revealed will be even more interesting.

  624. Mark Tuniewicz

    Folks,

    Just catching up on all the convention fun. Congrats to Nick.

    IMO the Oregon matter pales in comparison to some real state party disputes–with guns–like we had in AZ 10-15 years ago. Being seated in a room with those folks, performing shuttle diplomacy among the purportedly pure and less pure, for me back then, it really served as a reminder that factionalism comes with being part of the LP or any similar organization.

    The biggest problem with being involved in a political party is the politics. Some of it is dirty, a “battle without honor or humanity.” Let alone integrity.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P-c2k-HgRA&feature=kp

    With best wishes,

    Mark Tuniewicz

  625. Charlie Earl

    True, Mark. Unfortunately factionalism is rampant in our party of individual tolerance. It seems counter-intuitive for people who profess commitment to individual liberty to be so unyielding when encountering other positions. Bottom line should be: we disagree on nearly everything except for empowering the state to force compliance.On that principle we should have unanimity.

  626. Wes Wagner

    There are many factions in our party, but only one that has a habit of using fraud and deception to win and abuse the privileges of office. We learned in Oregon if you just purge that one faction, all the others can get along with each other just fine.

    (That is why we are so successful and are now able to have so many candidates – and they collaborate without acrimony)

  627. Mark Axinn

    Tom–

    Understood. I wouldn’t take my bet either!

    Wes–

    Now that the National Convention is over, we can all work on getting the voters to pull the Libertarian lever instead of focusing on eating our own . Best of luck with your many candidates in Oregon.

  628. paulie

    Awesome!

    Thanks Nick!

    BTW is there a way to get the original sender’s name lsted as the sender on the reflector as well? The emails all show the reflector as being the sender, so if the LNC member does not include their name in the body of the email it is hard to determine who said what.

  629. paulie

    Vicki Kirkland voted no on Oregon. By my count that is now 1-9 so the motion can’t pass unless someone changes a no vote to yes, and that’s if all full members vote on it.

  630. paulie

    Nick replied on LPrads facebook:

    Nicholas Sarwark I don’t think so with how it’s been implemented. Sorry.

  631. Stewart Flood

    There is always a way. It will probably take a little bit of configuration tweaking of the reflector, or possibly a pre-processor script to pull the original sender from the headers and insert it into the body.

    That should be suggested as a quick project for whoever ends up on the IT committee to look into.

  632. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote:

    Awesome!

    Thanks Nick!

    BTW is there a way to get the original sender’s name lsted as the sender on the reflector as well? The emails all show the reflector as being the sender, so if the LNC member does not include their name in the body of the email it is hard to determine who said what.

    Wow. This is implemented really, really, really poorly.

    The implementation suggests that they want to be able to take down an email from the public while leaving it to the LNC. It seems designed with the Wiener motion in mind.

    They could have just flipped the public archive flag on for the LNC-discuss list (as was done for the LNC-business list). Instead they created a whole new list to which they apparently sometimes plan to send LNC discuss emails.

    Because we are seeing forwards from the list rather than the messages themselves, it’s impossible to tell when the original messages were sent, what order they were sent in, and who sent them (unless they identify themselves in the emails). That makes determining context and searching very difficult.

  633. Losty

    So Oregon motion failed.

    Not Surprising, but Scary.

    Wes, Hopefully you’ll stick around. It was good to put a face to the text.

  634. Wes Wagner

    The national LP will have to live with that decision … and it will be painful.

  635. paulie

    Archives for LNC-discuss: http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-reflector_hq.lp.org/

    appears to answer your question.

    It does not show who sent which message, unless they identify themselves in the body of the email.

    So Oregon motion failed.

    It hasn’t officially failed yet, but at 1-9 it is certain to fail unless one or more people switch no votes to yes so I would say the writing is on the wall.

  636. Stewart Flood

    The 1-9 vote seems strange to me. I would have thought that there would be quite a few than that voting yes, and I would not have expected them to wait until the end of the voting period to vote.

  637. George Phillies

    On one hand, many LNC members have been annoyed by the Oregon State Chair’s debating methods, somewhat as the bull is annoyed by the red cloth. This annoyance spurs them to vote no. On the other hand, sitting and waiting clarifies who actually is strongly inclined to vote against. There seem to be a few people historically who have been on the LNc who liked to vote with the majority, and those votes are perhaps visible.

    The proposal that almost but not quite said that the convention recognized Reeves as Oregon Chair was also noteworthy. We shall have to see if there is an appeal to the Judicial Committee coming out of this.

  638. Wes Wagner

    Alicia continues her fraud on the LNC list, posting documents that have facts in them that have already been proven wrong during depositions — and continuing the baseless arguments.

  639. Wes Wagner

    The new transparency of the LNC Discuss has made me aware of events that has caused the following letter to be sent to Arvin for distribution to the LNC:

    Dear LNC,

    It has come to my attention that the LP Secretary has been posting documents in defense of her assertion that the proper chairperson of the Libertarian Party of Oregon is Tim Reeves.

    The documents she uses to back her claims have facts in them that have already been proven wrong in depositions and objectively refuted in legal briefs as well. Even the Republican Party General Counsel who was recommended by Mr Starr (and paid with unauthorized funds) wrote false opinions to the 2010-2012 LNC that were materially incorrect when compared to the actual letters sent by Mr. Trout from the Oregon Secretary of State.

    While the LNC lacks the capacity to discern fact from fiction in Oregon because you do not have the time nor energy to invest in such matters (nor should you have even involved yourselves for a moment in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 or 2014), the willingness to act on false information has left one very hostile faction in the position of using your organization to attempt an act of political aggression against our State for over 4 years now; in opposition to the desires of 97% of our registered libertarian voters; subverting the will of all but a tiny handful of dissidents who have conflicted loyalties and known past crimes against the cause; and working for the purposes of political capture of our organization in order to render it incapable of effective political action and used its husk for the furtherance of their aggression against the national LP.

    In short you have been used and lied to for an extremely long time and have violated your own principles on multiple occasions in the furtherance of their schemes. You have been previously fooled, and I expect you will be fooled again. I have found a dearth of morality in the national party for many years now and that is a core reason why you have failed to prosper.

    The events in Ohio and since lead me to believe little to nothing has changed. I do hope that I am wrong.

    I any event, you have been advised that you are being lied to. If you choose to act on false information, it is your own fault and you deserve all consequences that come of it.

    As far as Ms. Mattson is concerned, it is my personal opinion that she knows she is/has been/and continues to promulgate lies, does not care, and will commit nearly any act of intellectual perversion necessary for the advancement of the agenda of her handler. I personally consider that fraud. Your chair of your judicial committee does not fall far from that tree.

    Sincerely,
    Wes Wagner
    Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon
    PS: The people of Oregon will never be sorry for the flaming middle finger – it was well earned and it was a unanimous vote of the board at the time, not the act of a single person. Hopefully the record is straight on that now. The day you can come to accept that it was well-earned is the first step towards reconciliation, show that you have learned the humility necessary to serve your state affiliates, rather than attempting to rule over them and press them into va