This morning the Libertarian National Convention delegates voted, by about 60% to 40%, to accept the Credentials Committee recommendation to seat the Oregon delegation submitted by Tim Reeves, over that submitted by Wes Wagner. Credentials Committee Chair Emily Salvette had reported that the Reeves group had offered that any Wagner delegate could take a vacant slot in the LPOR delegation, and that two had already accepted.
The delegates also voted down a motion to add to the credentials report any delegate who would otherwise be qualified but who had refused to pay the $94 registration fee that the LP Judicial Committee recently upheld. The motion by Nick Sarwark was ruled out of order by Chair Mark Hinkle, and the delegates sustained his ruling by a vote of about 60%-40%.
Kane: “Yes I will bet you that the Ron Paul rally drew more people.”
Did you read what I wrote? I said I DON’T doubt that’s true. It’s not surprising at all. If you’re surprised by that, then you haven’t been involved in the libertarian movement long.
Kane: “GJ has said that he supports the fair tax because it has multiple millions of followers. If that’s not tailoring a message then what is.”
I’ve heard him say he supports it & I’ve heard him say it has many supporters, but I’ve never heard him say he supports it BECA– USE of that. Do you think that GJ really doesn’t believe that it’s a better alternative to what we have now?
Yes I will bet you that the Ron Paul rally drew more people. There was a line over a 1/4 mile long when the place was at capacity (1700). How many delegates are there at the convention, 700 max? Say another 300 non delegate attendees. So 1000 maximum (and this is a huge stretch). Granted, it has to do with transportation and opportunity costs, traveling to vegas and such. But still.
GJ has said that he supports the fair tax because it has multiple millions of followers. If that’s not tailoring a message then what is.
Knapp: “One of the problems is that public policies are not easily unitized for calculation purposes. Another is that even if they could be, valuation would be subjective.”
Well, it’s true that it can be difficult to discern whether the sum of a particular candidate’s positions is moving public policy in a libertarian direction overall. And if by “valuation” you mean that individual libertarians place a greater value on some issues than others, that’s true also. Such things can’t be quantified.
But I don’t think that necessarily means that a candidate who doesn’t take a “get government out” approach to every issue–or who even advocates more government involvement than the status quo in a couple of areas–can’t be determined to be moving public policy in a libertarian direction overall. I’ve heard GJ run down a long list of proposals, each calling for dramatically less government. I’ve only heard a couple on which his proposals mean more than the status quo, and one is arguable. I don’t see how any fair-minded observer could conclude that Johnson wouldn’t substantially move public policy in a libertarian direction in general. I can potentially see that on a given issue though.
Knapp: “The most likely outcome is somewhere in between, of course.”
I think the most likely outcome as far as public attention to a Libertarian candidate for President is that GJ is viewed, generally speaking, as an economic conservative & social liberal. And clearly more so than either Romney or Obama.
Kane: “Ron Paul draws 1000?s of young people to each of his events.”
That’s a good thing. I like RP & think he’s the best member of Congress by a mile from a general libertarian perspective. He definitely has the greatest amount of support from Americans under age 30 of all the Republican candidates who were in the nomination race.
Kane: “I know for a fact he drew more people at an event here in Northern VA than the LP National Convention did this year.”
I don’t doubt that’s true. However, if you’re inferring that the cause of that is that he delivers a pure libertarian message, then that’s not a logical conclusion.
Kane: “Ron Paul doesn’t waver, doesn’t say certain things or tailor his campaign messages to gain votes.”
I don’t know that he makes any statements just to gain votes as opposed to saying what he honestly believes. But I don’t know that GJ does that either. Absent evidence of the former, I go with the latter.
70 mk, thank you, I should have said something like “potentially, intuitively popular.” Obviously GJ’s message has not been widely heard for a variety of reasons. Paul was a pretty obscure figure until the 08 debates, and it took him DECADES to attain some level of national prominence. Obviously Romney and Obama have all sorts of institutional inertia.
71 tk, true, there are different kinds of voters. I would say his message will appeal to fiscal conservative, socially tolerant (i.e., L leaning) voters.
RC@69,
“Surely you don’t believe that voters are going to hear GJ giving his message in this way, right?”
Which voters?
There are different kinds of voters.
And which ones need to be appealed to is a function of goal.
if his L message was so popular, why hasn’t he raised Romney/Obama/Paul money
66 tk: He’s just calling for a universal federal welfare entitlement, conscription of every employer in the United States as an unpaid ICE agent, and so forth.
me: Surely you don’t believe that voters are going to hear GJ giving his message in this way, right? It’s your spin on his positions.
What they likely will hear is his bit about the best of the Rs and the best of the Ds. They’ll hear about big cuts in spending. Gay marriage. Pot legalization. Fiscal conservative, socially tolerant.
Wonkish voters may read deep into GJ’s positions, but those are few. Most deal with narrative and the personality of the pol, and assess whether they resonate with the pol or not. They may associate with GJ and the LP, or not.
I think GJ’s contention is correct: That his L message is quite popular, put the way he puts it.
had been advocating in the early 1990’s **
@ JT 65
we can argue about whether or not the Fair Tax is better or worse from a libertarian perspective than a Progressive Income Tax, both of which I disdain. It’s unfortunate the Johnson has even raised this argument by advancing the Fair Tax proposal. However, his other economic & social policies would undeniably move America in a libertarian direction. His foreign policy, while leaving much to be desired, would still be better than the status quo in my view.
The issue is that it may be confusing to non libertarians.
I heard a speaker at the LP PA Convention a few weeks back say he wouldn’t be a libertarian today if Harry Browne was advocating a new federal sales tax and military alliances globally.
And I think he’s 100% right.
Ron Paul draws 1000’s of young people to each of his events.
I know for a fact he drew more people at an event here in Northern VA than the LP National Convention did this year.
Ron Paul doesn’t waver, doesn’t say certain things or tailor his campaign messages to gain votes.
JT,
Well, that’s the thing:
Reasonable people can disagree on whether Candidate X’s positions, demeanor, media skills, reputation, etc. will tend to move public policy in a libertarian direction or not.
One of the problems is that public policies are not easily unitized for calculation purposes. Another is that even if they could be, valuation would be subjective.
I suspect that most libertarians would reject a candidate whose platform included legalization of marijuana on one hand, and summary execution of those caught with unregistered handguns on the other. They’d place a higher negative value on the latter than the positive value they place on the former, and conclude that no, this guy’s schtick would not have the overall effect of moving public policy in a libertarian direction, either as a candidate or as a victorious elected official.
Johnson is obviously not quite as bad. He’s not calling for summary executions for gun owners. He’s just calling for a universal federal welfare entitlement, conscription of every employer in the United States as an unpaid ICE agent, and so forth.
In my opinion, those negatives still far more than out-balance his positives, because it’s a no-win situation for the LP.
If all the attention he gets is positive because he supports marijuana legalization, then the party is internally weakened in its stand against running future candidates with those bad positions, and it is to that degree diverted from its purposes.
If all the attention he gets is negative because of his bad positions, then the party gets known for those bad positions instead of its good ones, and basically wastes yet another election cycle explaining to people “yeah, we fucked up, we’re not really like that.”
The most likely outcome is somewhere in between, of course. But I don’t see any way that it advances the LP in achieving its purposes.
Knapp: “How that would all wash out in terms of gains versus losses is an interesting question, but in considering his prospective candidacy’s effect on the LP’s long-term prospects, we should keep in mind that he has about as much chance of being elected as I do of flying to the moon by wiggling my ears real hard.”
I agree completely that there’s no chance of Johnson, or any Libertarian candidate for President, getting elected. I think it’s absurd when any Libertarian claims that’s a significant possibility.
But if one of the goals of the party (as stated in the bylaws) is to move public policy in a libertarian direction, then it logically follows that any Libertarian candidate who overall wants to move public policy in a libertarian direction is indeed pursuing a goal of the party. That’s my only point.
Regarding the word “overall” in the paragraph above, we can argue about whether or not the Fair Tax is better or worse from a libertarian perspective than a Progressive Income Tax, both of which I disdain. It’s unfortunate the Johnson has even raised this argument by advancing the Fair Tax proposal. However, his other economic & social policies would undeniably move America in a libertarian direction. His foreign policy, while leaving much to be desired, would still be better than the status quo in my view.
59 tk: The LP could “win” all day long by just co-nominating the most popular major party candidates in fusion states, and endorsing in others.
me: Yes, I agree with you. For me, this dialog is about attitude and intention. My attitude is that I do my best to share my ideas, knowing that sometimes I could be “wrong” on the facts or missing some very important aspect of what’s being discussed. If I know anything, I know that I don’t have a monopoly on truth. Or “rightness.”
Yes, the bylaws have some codified purposes, which address different aspects of “why do L politics?” Looked at in their totality, my takeaway for the fundamental intent in L politics (or commenting on it!) boils down to: Does this advance liberty?
My answer to nominating the fusion candidate who is most popular, is, No, that doesn’t necessarily advance liberty. It could, depending on the circumstances, which is why I toyed with the Murkowski gambit. Perhaps if she was somewhere between where she is on the issues and say GJ I might have come down differently on that one….
It seems so obvious that delegates must be allowed on the convention floor to transact the Party’s business without paying any sort of fee that could exclude them from accomplishing their duties that it is mysterious to me how anyone could honestly conceive otherwise.
The convention floor itself, the space for transacting business is a cost the should be borne by the Party. However, since this is a convention where hundreds of people attend, it is quite easy to set up speakers, luncheons, dinners and events that can charge fees that will not only cover the direct costs of the extra events, but will generate enough additional revenue to cover all associated convention costs. In fact, the convention should generate enough revenues to return a surplus to the Party to be used for other Party activities such as ballot drives.
I have accomplished this when organizing numerous local meetings, county conventions and state Party conventions. Having a larger attendance only makes it easier to plan events that will run a surplus while allowing free attendance at business meetings.
Having a floor fee of any kind shows that the planners are not only arrogantly disregarding the rights of the members and delegates, desperate and out of ideas, but incompetent in business and financial matters.
The Party Bi-laws should be altered to disallow access fees to the floor for delegates to transact the Party’s business.
The current LNC members and Judicial Committee members who directed and allowed this fiasco should be removed.
Also, I ‘m told there will be Internet set up for the ” Press” today , so I think Paulie and I will be providing info here later on.
The resolution to suspend floor fees just failed.
JT @ 58,
“I agree that ”Getting someone elected first’ is worthless if the candidate elected will not, in office, pursue the LP’s actual goals.” One of the goals of the party is to move public policy in a libertarian direction. Johnson & others like him would certainly do that.”
For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that, if elected, Johnson would move public policy in a libertarian direction on some issues.
He’s also flatly stated, and maintained that stand when questioned, that he would try to move policy in an anti-libertarian direction on other issues (e.g. a universal monthly federal welfare entitlement for every warm body in the US).
How that would all wash out in terms of gains versus losses is an interesting question, but in considering his prospective candidacy’s effect on the LP’s long-term prospects, we should keep in mind that he has about as much chance of being elected as I do of flying to the moon by wiggling my ears real hard.
I’ve been trying to come up with an analogy, and the best I can come up with is a little long-winded. Please bear with:
You are in Tunica, Mississippi.
You want to go to Dallas Texas.
If you head due west from Tunica by car, you’re not going to get to Dallas. You’re going to run smack into the Mississippi River, and that’s where you’re going to be stuck unless you backtrack and find another route.
In order to get to Dallas, you’re going to have to first either go south and cross the Natchez, Mississippi / Helena, Arkansas bridge, or go north to Memphis and cross over into West Memphis via bridge, etc.
Nominating someone who doesn’t really represent your actual ideas that well, just because he’s well-known enough that he might very quickly get you to one million of the 60 million votes or so you need is like driving due west. Sure, maybe you got a million votes.
And that’s right where you’re stuck, because four years from now people will still remember that guy’s ideas instead of your party’s, and you’ll have to start all over again with trying to show them why they should bother voting for your guy.
Nominating someone who DOES represent your ideas well, but isn’t going to get a million votes, is like driving down to Natchez. You may not seem any closer to Dallas than you were, but actually you are, because there’s an open road ahead of you instead of a mile-wide river. More people now know what you ACTUALLY stand for, instead of some other thing that one guy stood for once.
RC@56,
“Was Clay ‘right,’ or was he sharing his opinion?”
Whether or not he was right is of little importance to US.
Whether or not he was right was of importance to him. He wanted to be president for actual PURPOSES, not just to be president to be president.
Whether or not he was being sanctimonious rather than accurate as to his own sentiments (maybe he knew he wasn’t going to win anyway and was just exercising some self-justifying sour grapes), his statement still makes a reasonably good point.
Similarly, the Libertarian National Committee has specific PURPOSES, which it has codified in its bylaws, and which its affiliate state parties presumably support (or they would not have affiliated and then ratified those purposes multiple times).
Running candidates for office — win or lose — is only worthwhile if doing so somehow advances those PURPOSES. The more it does so, the more worthwhile it is. The less it does so, the less worthwhile it is.
Given a party of several thousand members, hundreds of activists, etc., it’s obvious that opinions will vary as to how much, if at all, a given candidacy DOES advance the party’s purposes, but that’s still the relevant standard.
The LP could “win” all day long by just co-nominating the most popular major party candidates in fusion states, and endorsing in others. But, for good reason, few people seem to think that that would accomplish anything worthwhile with respect to the party’s purposes.
Knapp: “The obvious consequence of upholding the ?subsidize our luxury vacations and circus sideshows or else? fee is that delegates who attempt to take their seats without paying it will be forcibly removed from the place their selection as delegates entitles them to occupy, and forcibly prevented from participating in the activities to which their selection as delegates entitles them to participate.”
Ignoring the inflammatory description of the fee, you’re saying that if someone is contractually entitled to something (assuming for the sake of argument that’s true in this case per the bylaws) but then has to pay a fee to get it, then that’s a tax. Interesting point. I maintain that taxing is an action that applies only to a government. I’ve never heard of it applied to any private organization, nor is it defined anywhere as such.
Regardless, I agree with Holtz’s logic here:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/03/moulton-open-letter-to-lnc-regarding-floor-fees/
Good post 49, Tom. I agree that “?Getting someone elected first? is worthless if the candidate elected will not, in office, pursue the LP?s actual goals.” One of the goals of the party is to move public policy in a libertarian direction. Johnson & others like him would certainly do that.
I am from Oregon. I am not from either faction. According to the bylaws that the Reeves faction supports, I am a member of the state committee. According to the bylaws that the Wagner faction supports, I am not a member of the state committee. I applied to be a delegate by following the instructions on the LPO website. The LPO voted in everyone on the original ballot and then added anyone who applied on a first come first served basis.
I learned, two days before the convention, that there was a second delegation being sent by the Reeves faction. I asked to be added to their delegate list as soon as I heard. I have no idea how they determined who was placed on the list or how or when they decided (despite the fact that I am on the state committee –according to their version of the bylaws).
I am bothered by the issues we have in Oregon and are the mistakes we have made.
But I am more troubled by the national party determining who represents me and who has the best interests of the registered Libertarians of Oregon.
54 tk, true enough! Abstractions are “right,” but things get murky when we attempt to make the abstractions concrete. Was Clay “right,” or was he sharing his opinion? The former feels sanctimonious, the latter expansive. For me.
“Seebeck is essentially right about the death of the LP. It has been a stumbling zombie for quite a while, but meeting in Vegas to nominate another Republican as its candidate pretty much seals the tomb so that the undead monster will join the other ghosts of failed experiments.”
But at least we have a great view! : (
RC @51,
Because you think that love and peace are right.
@47: Watch the results of today’s session, you may be pleasantly surprised.
I would note that many of the commenters here bemoaning the results (or expected results) of the convention chose not to come and fight.
49 tk: …“right” is where it all starts.
me: For you. Love and peace is where it all starts for me.
This from http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/bootroot/ leaflets page PDF is an example of someone who puts a special interest (Israel) above the interests of the party. Someone SHOULD distribute 500 copies of this leaflet before the LNC elections. FRANKLY, given the shenanigans by all parties, I think we need a 100% BRAND NEW LNC…
3. BOOT ROOT FOR PROMOTING ISRAELI INTERESTS OVER AMERICAN LIBERTY
* August 2008 Root tells media he’s “as pro-Israel as any human being in the world can possibly be.”
* June 2010 Facebook debate with David Nolan: “The LP has made a big mistake and miscalculation on this issue for 39 years. Is it the most important issue? Absolutely not. It’s not even in my Top 10. But it is a very important issue to the biggest donors in American politics. And it is certainly a DISASTER to say negative, vicious,derogatory things about our ally Israel.”
* December 2010 revelation Root told libertarian: “…you realize we have to be in the Middle East to
protect Israel, right?” and “…you cannot talk bad about Israel and expect to get in the media.”
* May 2011: “If you are a thinking, fair-minded person,Christian or Jew, that supports Israel’s right to exist, you must be sickened and outraged by Obama’s demand for Israel to return to its 1967 borders…And while Jews make up only 2% of America’s population, they provide a majority of the donations to Democratic politicians.” (Note: i.e., “we stole it fair and square so take our $ and shut up.”
* September 2011 writes: “Jewish voters are outraged at how Obama has treated Israel; disgusted with Obama’s support of the Palestinians, led by terror groups; and shocked by the support of both Obama and the losing Democratic Congressional candidate for the Mosque at Ground Zero…”
*December 2012 Root writes about recruiting Gary Johnson for president saying Johnson is “A
Libertarian in every way…yet still a huge supporter of Israel.”
(In other words, see, not ALL libertarians are antisemites.)
As for who are the military contractors, one can always look at FEC reports to find out… Or Conflict of Interest reports in LNC minutes?
BW@48,
“We libertarians seem to spend a lot of effort and time on in fighting about how much to cut taxes , how much to cut government etc wouldn’t it be better if we first work on getting someone elected first?”
Think of the LP in terms of purpose and synergy.
“Getting someone elected first” is worthless if the candidate elected will not, in office, pursue the LP’s actual goals.
Even running someone who ISN’T going to win is worthless if that candidate’s campaign doesn’t reflect what the LP is about.
Henry Clay is famously remembered as saying “I’d rather be right than be president.”
Obviously it’s better to be both, but if the LP can only be one or the other at any given moment, “right” is where it all starts.
Carol, why would special interest groups of any type want to push the LP in their direction? I understand if there were some Libertarians in Office like Congress or White House, State Rep etc. Right now the LP has no power to dictate anything, and we seem to be light years away from that.
We libertarians seem to spend a lot of effort and time on in fighting about how much to cut taxes , how much to cut government etc wouldn’t it be better if we first work on getting someone elected first?
Hey, is anyone going to introduce a bylaw vs. any future floor fee????
Not ALL water-downers are just trying to get votes. Some ARE representatives of special interests, not just the Israel Lobby I yell about but also government contractor types, especially “defense” contractor types who say they are for “defense” but a military policy based on self-defense would NOT need their services OR would need only 10% as much, cutting their jobs and/or profits. When I see that the LNCC gets $25,000 from someone making big bucks doing war contracting for the US military in Afghanistan, I have to wonder. (He was doing it pre-Root and maybe he is a good libertarian – except for his war contracting, but one has to wonder.)
perlgerl@44,
“If the LP nominee doesn’t get on the OR ballot, it will be on Wagner, not the convention.”
It will be “on” both the convention and the Oregon LP, aka “the Wagner Faction” … and I’m puzzled as to why everyone refers to the possibility as if it were a threat to uncork WMD.
There is one, and only one, LNC affiliate in Oregon.
If the credentials committee and/or the delegates in Las Vegas were interested in ballot access for their presidential ticket — or even in basic honesty and sound process — the delegation from that affiliate would have been seated.
Since the credentials committee and the delegates chose instead to seat a “delegation” which does not represent the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon, it’s obvious they’re not interested in ballot access there.
So why bellyache about it if the Oregon LP nominates separately instead of pretending to be bound by the results of a convention at which it went forcibly and fraudulently unrepresented?
Bought the bronze package (gold and silver sold out); voted to overturn the chair’s ruling on Sarwark’s motion.
Re: Oregon–anyone who wanted to be seated, could have been. I heard a convincing argument that both sides have dirty hands. If the LP nominee doesn’t get on the OR ballot, it will be on Wagner, not the convention.
“JT // May 4, 2012 at 3:19 am
I think you meant precedent, not president, Andy.
But since you’re opposed to Johnson, you probably mean that as well.”
Whoops, I type fast and generally don’t proof read, so sometimes mistakes go through, and this is one of them.
I think you meant precedent, not president, Andy.
But since you’re opposed to Johnson, you probably mean that as well.
Thomas Knapp said: “The Libertarian National Convention ‘subsidize our luxury vacations and circus sideshows or else’ fee is a payment enforced by physical compulsion, or at least the threat of physical compulsion.”
I’m not really opposed to contributing money to help pay for things, however, on the flip side, this does set a bad president, because if a person who is already a party member has to pay money to vote on party business, then who is to say that the fee is going to be limited to $94? Let’s say that some super rich people were to get on the LNC, and then book the convention at some super rich resort somewhere, and then charge a $5,000 floor fee, or a $10,000 floor fee.
I’ve always thought that the party should work to attract more people to participate, and charging fees like this is a good way to turn people away.
Money is important, and it’s great to attract people who can afford to be major donors, but let’s not shut people out who don’t have a lot of money either.
If this fiasco with the Oregon delegation results in the party having to do a petition drive in Oregon to ensure that the Presidential ticket is on the ballot in that state it is going to be a large waste of party resources which would not be necessary if they just recognized the faction that has control of ballot access. I believe that Oregon requires 18,000 and some odd signatures to get on the ballot. The cost of conducting a petition drive of this size could easily exceed $30,000 (this cost is a lower end estimate). It would also draw energy and resources away from ballot access drives in other states, which could lead to a ripple effect and put petition drives in other states at a greater risk of failing.
This would be a good thing for people in the petition business, because it would give them a chance to make more money, but it wouldn’t really be good for the Libertarian Party because it would be an unnecessary use of resources.
Joe @36: “I remain concerned by the likely dominance of the LNC by those who do not fully defend liberty based on non-aggression and self-ownership — those who water down the principles for votes, or those who abandon the tough-sell issues”
Actually, I think this is the story of the 2012 convention, rather than the nominations for election.
Staying Alive? They’re really playing Staying Alive?!?! I’m going to have to take my ThinkPad and go somewhere else to work (grading papers for my two online classes now . . .). Really? It’s alright. It’s okay. And you may look the other way. We can try to understand
The New York Times’ effect on man. Whether you’re a brother Or whether you’re a mother,
You’re stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive.
I take it back, there is no hope.
I wrote:
“those who water down the principles for votes”
What I meant to say here was:
“those who water down principles with the unproven claim it will attract more votes (and when that’s repeatedly shown to be false).
Just heard Gary Johnson speak at his fundraising party (through the wall, I am, for full disclosure doing some data base management for them in the adjacent room.
Wayne Root gave the rousing, passionate, humorous introduction (all criticism of President Obama though, I don’t believe Romney was mentioned either favorably or dis-favorably) but Wayne, with a slightly horse voice did a terrific job exciting the crowd.
Gary gave an excellent, libertarian principled-based speech, but where I, at least, got really excited was when Jim Gray did an even better job, IMO, of defending liberty and articulating the single issue of the campaign — restoring LIBERTY to AMERICA.
This will not be the son of Barr/Root or Barr/Root II, IMO.
I remain concerned by the likely dominance of the LNC by those who do not fully defend liberty based on non-aggression and self-ownership — those who water down the principles for votes, or those who abandon the tough-sell issues . . . while accusing those who disagree of lacking common sense or of being a debating club and not a political party —
but based on what I just heard through the wall (not counting the 1980s music that’s blasting now) . . . I have some hope.
Joe
Brian Irving wrote:
During Richard Nixon’s presidency, the Vietnam war, crackdowns on civil liberties and increasing restrictions on economic freedom led Nolan and other libertarians to became increasingly convinced that the Republican Party held no promise for freedom lovers. The break came when Nixon announced he was taking the nation off the gold standard and imposed a freeze on wages and prices, which Nolan denounced as “economic fascism.”
Operative Words:
“…increasingly convinced that the Republican Party held no promise for freedom lovers.”
The LP is dead, from self-inflicted apathy and organizational stupidity.
Don’t forget abandonment of fundamental principles in favor of right-wing statism, among other reasons.
Seebeck is essentially right about the death of the LP. It has been a stumbling zombie for quite a while, but meeting in Vegas to nominate another Republican as its candidate pretty much seals the tomb so that the undead monster will join the other ghosts of failed experiments.
Politics is ugly. Government is ugly. If you are serious about freedom, it’s time to pursue a new way of social interaction.
Knapp: “It would be a neat trick for the LP to have been founded in response to Nixon’s closing of the gold window, however, since David Nolan proposed formation of the party in an article published a month before that happened.”
Proposing it and actually founding it are 2 different things. The idea was being seriously considered before the gold standard was abandoned. However, Nolan said that getting rid of the gold standard was indeed the final straw that led to the formation of the party.
In my suite at 8:15 local time. perhaps some other candidates will appear. It should be up on youtube in less than a day.
Bill,@30,
But seriously, my impression is that MOST of the LP’s founders may well have been former Republicans who didn’t like Nixon (I think the first reason was the war, and that his gold brain fart, wage and price controls, etc. just confirmed it later for them).
David Nolan in particular had been head of a Young Americans for Freedom or Young Republicans or College Republicans or something like that at one point, and usually he’s the guy who gets named as “founder” (he proposed forming the party in Individualist magazine, and the first meetings were held at his apartment).
Thanks TK! We get so much Bull crap here we never know what is real.
BW@28,
The LP was founded by a number of people, who opposed a number of things.
It would be a neat trick for the LP to have been founded in response to Nixon’s closing of the gold window, however, since David Nolan proposed formation of the party in an article published a month before that happened.
Wait a tick, wasn’t the LP formed by Republicans who opposed Nixon taking the United States off of the gold standard?
@20
There is only one Robert Milnes and he will never be replaced (I hope). Additionally Carol Moore has yet to mention that off-topic topic which should never be mentioned in print save on a post for which that topic would be appropriate.
@25… cheer up. The LP died after the 1980 election.
The LP is dead, from self-inflicted apathy and organizational stupidity.
Nolan has died in vain.
I’m glad I didn’t waste my money and time going to Vegas.
As for the cast of culprits, in no particular order: Hinkle, Root, Carling, Starr, Mattson, Reeves, Burke, Holtz, Weiner, Lieberman, Flood, Rutherford, Cohen, Sullentrop, Lark, Redpath, Visek, and similar ilk, just do us all a big favor and go back to the GOP where your statist ineptitude is more welcome and normal. Your mission of destroying the LP to the point of irrelevance and laughingstock has succeeded.
JT@19,
“Only governments can levy taxes, which are payments enforced by physical compulsion.”
The Libertarian National Convention “subsidize our luxury vacations and circus sideshows or else” fee is a payment enforced by physical compulsion, or at least the threat of physical compulsion.
Any person who has been selected by his or her state LP as a delegate is entitled to enter the hall, sit down at his or her delegation’s appointed space, and transact the party’s business.
The obvious consequence of upholding the “subsidize our luxury vacations and circus sideshows or else” fee is that delegates who attempt to take their seats without paying it will be forcibly removed from the place their selection as delegates entitles them to occupy, and forcibly prevented from participating in the activities to which their selection as delegates entitles them to participate.
The persons making that threat and/or carrying out are either a criminal extortion gang or a tax-levying government. But I repeat myself.
http://www.lp.org/2012-ballot-access 29 states already on the ballot. The rest have to keep on working on it evidently.
@20, I do recognize that IPR tends to attract Radicals, rather than the Reformers.
It seems to me Robert’s posts were IRRELEVANT to the threads under discussion. I think the guy who keeps screaming antisemite on the Libs 4 Press release article has won that award.
TANSTAAFS – There ain’t no such thing as a free (ballot access) signature??
Nick@1 The Convention Organizing Committee is a subcommittee of the LNC, but the Credentials Committee is a convention committee. It works only at convention time and answers only to the convention, and is not bound by JudCom decisions in quite the way that the LNC and its subcommittees are bound between conventions. Robert’s Rules describes in detail how contested delegations are to be handled in the CredCom report, but are silent on the notion that the CredCom report may be amended as a way to change the registration rules.
Since the threshold for overturning the ruling of the Chair is the same for passing the amendment that he ruled out of order, the expedient thing for Hinkle would have been to allow a vote on the amendment (to seat the registration-fee holdouts). Thus I respect that he stood up for his understanding of the rules. There is a threshold at which an amendment to the CredCom list becomes an attempt to change or suspend the rules, and your amendment seemed to cross that line by its own admission. (Similarly, there is a threshold at which a registration fee moves from cost-sharing to exclusionary, or at which an exercise in affiliate credentialing becomes constructive disaffiliation.)
Trent@5, correct. Earlier you said it seemed that the Wagner faction had wide support. Remember that the commentariat on IPR is a very narrow and self-selected slice of the LP. Discount comments here accordingly, especially when they come from those who stay home or have outright quit.
@3 @9 @11 @14 @16 It seems Carol Moore now occupies the Robert Milnes Memorial Chair For Trolling Science…
Knapp: ““Poll tax” may not be the most accurate description, but it’s reasonably accurate and more polite than others.”
It’s not accurate at all. Only governments can levy taxes, which are payments enforced by physical compulsion.
Anyway, kudos to the convention delegates for their decisions.
@10 And you didn’t rent it, and the desired outcome took place.
There are some outcomes of the Oregon credentials issue.
Wes Wagner has withdrawn and will not be running for Chair.
Jeff Weston has withdrawn and will not be running for Secretary.
I know of several who got disgusted and just didn’t go because of the fee. They could have afforded it.
TANSTAAFS There ain’t no such thing as a free (ballot access) signature (??)
How many delegates have actually come to the convention site and are waiting outside unable to get on the floor because they haven’t paid the fee?
They voted to uphold chairs motion that the proposal was out of order.
TANSTAAFS There ain’t no such thing as a free (ballot access) signature (??)
So theye have not actually voted on the floor fee?
Trent @7,
—-
“Poll tax”? This isn’t a “right to vote”, it’s attendance and voting rights at a national convention.
—–
The delegates already have those voting rights absent payment of the fee, per the LNC’s bylaws.
The “floor fee” is an extorted additional subsidy against which those rights are being held hostage.
“Poll tax” may not be the most accurate description, but it’s reasonably accurate and more polite than others.
from going TO THE CONVENTION…at all.
Start raising that money root to get your low quality libertarian former volunteers to now get paid for collecting those signatures. TANSTAAF-signature…
Trent,
There’s an old saying in theatre: If there’s a gun hanging on the wall at the beginning the first act, it must be fired by the end of the second.
In politics, it’s often the opposite.
When they pulled this shit in 2010, I found a venue for an alternate convention, and would have gone ahead and rented it if some people who go out of their way to bend over backward and get along (in this case, George Phillies in particular) hadn’t said “no, let’s not just yet.”
But I made sure that a person or two on the LNC knew that gun was hanging on the fucking wall, and they backed down.
Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
This year, nobody bothered to hang the gun on the wall and point to it … so now the choice is to fire it or just to accept that the LNC will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, regardless of the rules — in which case the results will be worse than firing the damn gun.
Re: floor fee: “The motion by Nick Sarwark was ruled out of order by Chair Mark Hinkle, and the delegates sustained his ruling by a vote of about 60%-40%.” More likely they voted to not have another vote cause things running late. Also the floor fee worked in keeping a lot of more hard core and disgusted libertarians from going home at all. Of course, these same libertarians probably would have voluntarily collected at least 10,000 signatures among them. Now the LP’s going to have to pay $2-4 bucks each. I’ll do it for $5. TANSTAAFL when it comes to getting signatures to get candidates on the ballot.
The fees are a crock, elitist, and definitely against a freedom supporting mindset. Enjoy your elitist shindig by all means, and delude yourself that you will come anywhere near Ed Clark’s vote total (who, along with Tonie Nathan I would have loved for my daughters to have been able to meet this weekend, but some of us just have principles against an extortionist convention, so had to pass).
“Poll tax”? This isn’t a “right to vote”, it’s attendance and voting rights at a national convention.
Again, what you’re talking about is forming a new third party (with around…250 delegates) and waging a lawsuit campaign (because that’s what it would take to take cntrol of the offices and bank accounts, etc) over a simple registration fee to the National Convention, which is quite standard, even amongst poor third parties, and which the majority of the convention has approved.
Trent@5,
I wasn’t referring to the Oregon dispute, I was referring to the luxury vacation / circus sideshow subsidy extortion racket.
Those who reject the notion that duly selected delegates who refuse to pay the poll tax can rightfully be excluded from doing the party’s business in contravention of the LNC’s bylaws should convene a business meeting with no such exclusion — all duly selected delegates welcome — select temporary officers to administer the meeting, and do the party’s business per the already published agenda (with such modifications as the rules allow for).
In other words, have a legitimate convention in place of the illegitimate one.
Knapp–that’s the “smart” thing to do, you think? Trying to masquerade as your own national party when all you have is 12 delegates?
Sounds like the nonsense the Boston Tea Party participated in. Such thinking is why third parties continue to fracture over and over again. The delegates ought to work with the other OR faction to reach some sort of compromise.
CM@3,
“What are nonpayers doing??”
If they’re smart, convening as the legitimate Libertarian National Convention and doing the party’s business.
Hinkle is definitely on my sh*t list now… Thank heavens I’m organizing libertarian secession worldwide, or I’d be REAL depressed about this. So is there rioting in the hall way? Are non payers even allowed at the booths?? What are nonpayers doing??
Well, it looks like the LP Presidential nominee may not be on the Oregon ballot!
It’s interesting that the floor fee motion was ruled out of order because the Judicial Committee made a decision, but seating the Reeves delegation was not, even though the Judicial Committee had decided that issue.