November 10, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
We’re here at the Tropicana in Las Vegas Nevada, waiting to start. I don’t know how much live-blogging I can do because there is so much ground to cover in a short time. Hopefully, other people can weigh in and report what’s going on.
Jill Pyeatt is a small-business owner and jewelry designer from Southern California. She currently serves on the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of CA. She can be found on Facebook and Twitter.
Comments are closed.
Glad to hear of the convenient location and plenty of prior notice.
I’m pleased to report that the new Ex Com of the LP CA has planned our next convention 6 months ahead of time!! (What a concept)!
It will be at the LAX Airport Hilton the weekend of April 1, 2 & 3 of 2016.
Details will follow. I’ll put up an actual article when I have confirmation of this.
I’m SOOO pleased to have it in So CA! I was looking forward to that last year, and then it was changed to LV. I hope my Region can help with the planning and set-up.
You may have a point there. Maybe they were clapping because regime change finally happened š
TEETH wrote: “Some scholars speculate that Aesop might have been a generic name applied to fables from many sources and authors.”.
We donāt need to know anything about Aesop to judge the merits of his works.”
So, it’s irrelevant that (1) Aesop plagiarized the works of many other authors and claimed credit
for it. OR possibly that some Greek authorities included Aesop’s work, in order to marginalize his work?
Jill P; “BDBT, the information you provided in the comment above is, for the most part, new info for me.
Hey Jill, WHO exactly is BDBT? Is he/she, in anyway related to BTDT?
L*nguini “If someone says something that is incorrect or inappropriate, why not respond to the comment, rather than resorting to knee-jerk ad hominem bullshit like, āWow, what a coward! “You must be too chicken to post under your name, so youāre obviously a trollā, blah, blah, blah”. Pure bullshit
1. RARELY has ANYONE ‘resorted’ to “knee-jerk ad hominem” attacks for simple “errors” but as a response to comments that are ad hominem attacks themselves or deliberately deceptive misrepresentations.
2. In THESE cases the strongest sort of denunciation is legitimate and deserved!!!.
I know you supported her, I didn’t say the effect was intentional; it’s just what several people told me the effect of asking that question then was.
Starchild; I am not sure it is fair to ascribe a motivation to their ovation.
Paulie wrote (June 3, 2015 at 5:16 pm), in response to the comment “Ms Kloss expected to come in, win the Chairās seat”,
“And probably would have done it if Starchild had not called peopleās attention to the fact that she was then rather new to the LPCA.
For the record, I supported Janine Kloss in her bid for Libertarian Party of California chair, and whatever I said regarding her being new to the party (I don’t now recall the details of my remarks) was not intended to hurt her chances. I had a good conversation with her when we met, and given the need for new leadership, was satisfied that her instincts on freedom and governance issues were strong enough for me to support her despite her short time in the movement.
Paulie’s question, “Why would someone people didnāt even know come close to beating a multi term incumbent unless there was widespread dissatisfaction?” was right on point.
The same was true last year when Dave Jones of Marin (now Sonoma?) county had a surprisingly strong showing in running for LNC rep. against Dan Wiener. I don’t recall the vote totals, but I remember being pleasantly surprised by how close he came to winning, given that most delegates probably didn’t know him and he wasn’t even there at the election to speak or vote on his own behalf, having left the convention early (reportedly he was feeling unwell).
I confess I was also a bit uncomfortable with the standing ovation for outgoing LPC chair Kevin Takenaga. Working to heal divisions and not holding grudges after an issue has been resolved is generally a good thing, and I would not have liked to see a bunch of people at the convention publicly dumping on Kevin after delegates enthusiastically voted in Ted Brown to replace him, but it didn’t feel right to me to stand up and clap as if we thought he’d done an outstanding job when that clearly wasn’t true. While I appreciate the desire of some who held a strong animus toward the LPC’s ex-chair seeking to strike a conciliatory tone — and I wish Kevin well and hope he continues to contribute to the cause of freedom — the send-off felt vaguely dishonest. Kind of like an employee who’s just been given the boot receiving a glowing letter of recommendation. I think we as a party should strive to maintain a higher level of authenticity in such matters, even when it’s a bit awkward.
On another unrelated topic in this thread, I strongly support the right of people to comment anonymously on IPR and other Internet forums, even though I’ve never posted here under an assumed name myself. While I agree that posting anonymously in order to make negative comments about others which you would not say under your own name entails a certain level of unbecoming cowardice, I also recognize that in the less-than-free society we live in, some people may have entirely legitimate reasons to refrain from posting under their own names in a public online forum. For better and worse, it is virtually impossible to know an individual’s motives for posting anonymously in any given case.
JP: “Most of us are grown-ups here and understand there are often consequences for
things we say. Sometimes we donāt want the consequence attached to the real person.
That’s the POINT Jill, If a person wants to be “snarky?”, that’s THEIR choice. On the other
hand they DON’T have an inherent right to do so anonymously ERGO, they DON’T belong
on a Libertarian list
Someone posting under a different name doesn’t bother me, especially if it’s someone like Langa who always uses that name, and that’s how I know him. I certainly have used a different name is the past.
In the case of someone who does it just so they can be snarky, they’re undoubtedly aware that others will see it as a bit of cowardice, but it’s worth it to them to stay anonymous. I don’t have a problem with that either. Most of us are grown-ups here and understand there are often consequences for things we say. Sometimes we don’t want the consequence attached to the real person.
Langa, it may not be “cowardice,” but it certainly appears to me to be a form of fear. Of course, if you believe your words in public endanger you, you COULD simply not post your views.
I would say your pseudonymity undermines the credibility of your words for most. It’s perfectly natural for the reader to say, “If s/he hides his/her identity, what ELSE is s/he hiding?”
Personally, I like that you post, and I don’t particularly care that you use a pseudonym. It’s good to have a pure plumbliner here, as I believe liberty’s prospects improve when plumblinery’s many weaknesses are examined for what they are.
The article you linked certainly gives a lot of good reasons to try to be anonymous to avoid being linked by the government with your controversial (and potentially āsubversiveā) opinions, but at the same time it also gives many reasons why this wonāt be very effective, given the range and power of their spying technolgy and the rate at which it is growing and evolving. Based on the information in that article, trying to remain anonymous from regime spies in the face of that technology is basically giving yourself a false sense of hope and freedom while painting a bigger target on yourself for them. That may be the learned helplessness the article discusses, but it does a poor job of fostering anything else. The authorās stated intentions are not well served by the evidence presented in great detail, with links, throughout most of the article, especially when that evidence is considered all at the same time. Nor does the promise of the title (how to not get caught) really get delivered.
My point in posting the article was not that I agree with every word of it. It was simply to show that there are many very good reasons for trying to remain as private as possible, that have absolutely nothing to do with cowardice.
As for the claim that protecting your privacy is impossible, in an absolute sense, that’s probably true, but as the article itself points out, the fact that no home security system is perfect doesn’t mean that you might as well just leave your front door wide open. Every little bit helps.
BTDT āfired shotsā at Janine first, saying negative things about her while choosing to remain anonymous. All she said in return was ābe brave, say who you areā and things of that nature.
Bullshit. If you’re going to dig your heels in and defend this garbage, then let’s have a look at exactly what she said, line by line:
Whoaā¦ talk about transparencyā¦ way to post under a non-name. Be brave and say who you are Been there, done that!
First, transparency is irrelevant. This is not a government-run website. It’s a privately-owned website that allows users the option of commenting anonymously. If she has a problem with that, she should take it up with the owner of the site, or else find somewhere else to rant. What she should not do is use it as an excuse to launch rude, illogical attacks on people who are operating well within the guidelines of IPR.
Second, she immediately makes the blatantly illogical and insulting assumption that if someone chooses to post anonymously, it must be because they are a coward. As I have pointed out, this is no different than saying that if someone owns a gun, it must be because they are a criminal.
I would caution that you consider the words that come out of your mouth (or computer, in this instance)ā¦
It is evidently too much of a bother for her to follow her own advice.
Speak to the source, consider your words, consider (even more) a humble/conservative approach to your attacks, and avoid fallacy.
This is pure hypocrisy, especially the part about avoiding fallacies, since, as RTAA points out above, attacking an argument on the basis of its authors anonymity is a form of ad hominem argumentation, and thus, is itself a logical fallacy.
Truth transcends internet trolls.
This is rather cryptic, but it does seem clear that, based on the preceding lines, it can be taken as an assertion that because BTDT is posting anonymously, he is therefore a troll. Either that, or it is just a completely bizarre non-sequitur.
Choosing anonymity is a choice, yes, and I think it should continue to be a choice here, but it also has social consequences when you choose to use that anonymity to attack others who are not anonymous ā if only to the degree that some others may be more likely to be skeptical of what you have to say and say things like ābe brave, say who you are.ā Thatās the price you pay for choosing an unequal playing field to attack the reputation of others while not putting your own reputation as a meatspace person on the line at the same time.
There’s nothing unequal about it. The allegations that BTDT made are either true or false. The identity of the person making them has no bearing on the facts. It is simply irrelevant. In fact, if anything, anonymity improves discourse, by preventing arguments from degenerating into mud-slinging contests.
BTDT, when pressed, offered no evidence for the charges against Janine Kloss, her employer, the newly elected chair of LPCA and various others, nor a very logical explanation of how what he or she said could even be true. Thereās only ātrust me, I know what I am talking aboutā and āI have multiple sources I trust but I wonāt name any of themā (paraphrased).
I’m not defending the substance of his arguments. I am saying that if he had made those same arguments under his “real” name, it wouldn’t have made a difference, except that perhaps it would have allowed her to drag his name through the mud. It would not have in any way made a difference as to whether what he was saying was true, credible, or believable. It’s almost like you’re saying that anonymity is bad because it prevents more ad hominem argumentation.
Once again, I am not arguing against the right to remain anonymous, nor against anonymity in general. Iām not even saying you donāt have the right to remain anonymous while attacking others who are not. But making that choice, while freeing you of some consequences, does impose some consequences of its own. There are both advantages and disadvantages to making that choice.
If you’re claiming that refusing to disclose your name is legitimate grounds for being called a coward, then just how much information does a person have an obligation to disclose to avoid accusations of cowardice? Do you have to also give out your home address? Phone number? Email address? Occupation? Employer? Income? Medical records? Where does it end? Or does it? Perhaps any desire for privacy whatsoever is an indication of cowardice.
“paulie
June 5, 2015 at 6:16 am
BTDT āfired shotsā at Janine first, saying negative things about her while choosing to remain anonymous. All she said in return was ābe brave, say who you areā and things of that nature. Choosing anonymity is a choice, yes, and I think it should continue to be a choice here, but it also has social consequences when you choose to use that anonymity to attack others who are not anonymous ā if only to the degree that some others may be more likely to be skeptical of what you have to say and say things like ābe brave, say who you are.ā Thatās the price you pay for choosing an unequal playing field to attack the reputation of others while not putting your own reputation as a meatspace person on the line at the same time. If you use a consistent pseudonym, that also builds a reputation over time, and that reputation can likewise give weight to what you have to say as well as suffer based on what you may choose to say about others.”
I can understand why a person would want to remain anonymous, but what I really do not like is when people engage in personal attacks, and especially when they make false criminal accusations, and/or pretend to be posting as an actual real person, and making false statements, and even saying things that are criminal, while falsely using a real person’s identity.
If you want to attack somebody, then have the balls to do it under your real name, especially if you are going to accuse somebody of engaging in criminal behavior, and posting under another person’s identity should absolutely not be tolerated.
I don’t often read IPR, since I’m not interested in all of the clueless and counterproductive invective, and I comment here even more rarely. But I think that the LPC accomplished its primary purpose at last week’s convention of electing a good slate of officers and ExCom members, who I believe will work hard to make the state party more successful.
I’ve known Ted Brown for over thirty five years, and he is a man of integrity and a very hard worker. Prior to California’s Top Two system, which drastically throttled the number of LP candidates, Ted was personally responsible for recruiting many hundreds of libertarians to run for public office. He’s experienced, and I expect him to be an excellent Chair.
I know less about the other officers who were elected, but they all are eager and presented themselves well, so I have high hopes. And we are fortunate to be getting Janine Kloss as our Executive Director, who has already proven her competence and activism in Sacramento. As far as fundraising is concerned, I’m very happy and grateful for whatever contributions Chris Rufer is willing to make. But he likely won’t be the only big donor. Mark Hinkle is now on the ExCom and has committed to raising money for the LPC, and he has a track record of being able to do so in large chunks. There are huge opportunities for the LP in California, given the activists and necessary resources to exploit them.
An active, growing LPC will also help the Libertarian Party nationally. There are a lot of potential synergies between the national LP and its largest state affiliate. I will certainly do whatever I can to make that happen.
I agree that Gale Morgan doesn’t point out his accomplishments enough enough. I was a bit surprised that Thiemer won, mainly because of the bylaws brouhaha, which I’m not sure he was entirely responsible for, but frankly, I was a bit surprised that he ran, frankly, after wasting so much time on the bylaws committee and encountering so many unpleasant personalities there.
My feeling is that most people at the convention wanted a whole regime change. A few people were relected, who were on the previous Ex Com, but I think it’s because either no one ran against him, or there weren’t any suitable substitutes.
And where did the insult about LA County come from? When has anyone left “cursing the libertarians in the room”?.
Steven Peters said: “but, I am surprised that you were unaware of the the efforts in Sacramento.”
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Efforts to re-elect Kevin? Efforts to acknowledge his work?
some anonymous asshole wrote: “But Iām not seeking your trust or respect. I care not at all what you think of me.”
Congratulations, you have succeeded in marginalizing yourself, but we already knew that.
You deserve the kind of respect I gave to that other anonymous asshole who keyed my car
at LAX.
Do you still spray paint obscenities on the walls of public buildings?
teeth: Ideas and arguments can stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of who wrote them.
me: Sounds about right, but is it true? If say we are presented with an anonymous sentence from Hitler or Santorum or O’Malley that we agree with, but we later find out who the author is, does that not tend to undermine the credibility of the sentence for most? I’d submit yes.
Certainly I have engaged with anonymous posters on the merits of his/her words. But I would prefer that he or she had the courage to use his or her own name, for credibility reasons. I have compassion for the anonymous, though, as being in a fearful state is a painful place.
Really? Because one of the things real political parties do is run people up and down the ballot for all sorts of offices, with their party label displayed on the ballot, addressing all manner and sort of public policy issues. Has LPCA started doing more or less of that in the last few years?
Please provide evidence for this oft-repeated claim that does not come from establishment parties. The LP has had hundreds of elected and appointed public officials at a time for decades, mostly in local nonpartisan office (and that’s just the ones we know of). Thousands of people all told, all over the country. How many have moved up to higher level office without joining the establishment parties? How about other alt parties…any of their farm team candidates moving up the ranks?
I hope you continue your efforts for winnable races too. However, I hope you stop setting up a false dichotomy and discouraging all the many benefits the LP, the movement, and the public at large gets from libertarians running in all sorts of races regardless of how winnable they are. Electing nonpartisan local candidates is nice, and maybe some day it will help them move up, but it doesn’t address many public policy issues that people care about which have little to do with local government, doesn’t do much to promote the LP brand, doesn’t require the LP to exist at all to even happen (a PAC, 527, taxpayers union, etc could be more effective at it), doesn’t give most people a Libertarian choice on their ballots, etc., etc., etc.
That being said, there are lots of good reasons to elect local nonpartisan folks who are LP members, and we should try to do more of it. Just not as an exclusive strategy.
My hope is that the party will continue the efforts for winnable races. We have 2 in Riverside County and there is 1 in Mtn. View and some along the central coast. In the past 4 years it seems to me that the party started acting more like a political party. If this ‘farm team’ can be expanded we can get someone elected to Sacramento.
I also think there is something in the water up north. J Kloss was the one who spearheaded the removal of the N V Chair in favor of someone who has not proven himself (per people from Sacramento County). Mr Thiemer could not got a bylaws committee report out; but, Mr Morgan produced committee reports in S Lake Tahoe and Sacramento.
I also understand that he was the leader of the Platform committee last year and they had a report – That could use some verifying, but I know he presented the report.
It seems to me that Mr Morgan does not toot his own horn as much as he should. It was surprising to some that he did not just walk out on the convention after being disregarded so. If some in LA were treated the same they would have left cursing the libertarians in the room.
The article you linked certainly gives a lot of good reasons to try to be anonymous to avoid being linked by the government with your controversial (and potentially “subversive”) opinions, but at the same time it also gives many reasons why this won’t be very effective, given the range and power of their spying technolgy and the rate at which it is growing and evolving. Based on the information in that article, trying to remain anonymous from regime spies in the face of that technology is basically giving yourself a false sense of hope and freedom while painting a bigger target on yourself for them. That may be the learned helplessness the article discusses, but it does a poor job of fostering anything else. The author’s stated intentions are not well served by the evidence presented in great detail, with links, throughout most of the article, especially when that evidence is considered all at the same time. Nor does the promise of the title (how to not get caught) really get delivered.
BTDT “fired shots” at Janine first, saying negative things about her while choosing to remain anonymous. All she said in return was “be brave, say who you are” and things of that nature. Choosing anonymity is a choice, yes, and I think it should continue to be a choice here, but it also has social consequences when you choose to use that anonymity to attack others who are not anonymous – if only to the degree that some others may be more likely to be skeptical of what you have to say and say things like “be brave, say who you are.” That’s the price you pay for choosing an unequal playing field to attack the reputation of others while not putting your own reputation as a meatspace person on the line at the same time. If you use a consistent pseudonym, that also builds a reputation over time, and that reputation can likewise give weight to what you have to say as well as suffer based on what you may choose to say about others.
BTDT, when pressed, offered no evidence for the charges against Janine Kloss, her employer, the newly elected chair of LPCA and various others, nor a very logical explanation of how what he or she said could even be true. There’s only “trust me, I know what I am talking about” and “I have multiple sources I trust but I won’t name any of them” (paraphrased). All while trying to avoid the consequences of reciprocally putting his or her own reputation on the line. Which of them is engaging in …negative assumptions… pure, ad hominem cheap shot….rude, illogical, and far too common here at IPR methods of attack, the person that makes accusations against several non-anonymous individuals while choosing anonymity for themselves, or one of the people being attacked responding along the lines of “be brave, say who you are”?
Once again, I am not arguing against the right to remain anonymous, nor against anonymity in general. I’m not even saying you don’t have the right to remain anonymous while attacking others who are not. But making that choice, while freeing you of some consequences, does impose some consequences of its own. There are both advantages and disadvantages to making that choice.
Jill, “This was short and sweet, and deserving of a standing ovation, IMHO.” I totally agree with you on this; but, I am surprised that you were unaware of the the efforts in Sacramento. Even I heard about them.
Jose, – Sour grapes, at best.
Ideas and arguments can stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of who wrote them.
Exactly!
Iām sure you are also familiar with the term clocksucker too!
I certainly am. In fact, I was just thinking that if you change your mind about anonymity, you could use that as your new pseudonym!
For that matter, Janine never said that all anonymous commenters are trolls, either.
A semantic distinction, at best. Go back and reread the first paragraph of her comment (https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/05/open-thread-for-libertarian-party-of-california-convention/#comment-1185298). She clearly made negative assumptions about BTDT, based strictly on his anonymity, even though it had no bearing on the comment he had made. It’s really no different than, for example, making negative assumptions about someone on the basis of their religion. It’s just a pure, ad hominem cheap shot, plain and simple. These sorts of attacks on anonymous posters are rude, illogical, and far too common here at IPR.
[email protected]: “It is difficult to either trust or respect a person who refuses to own his own words and ideas!”
But I’m not seeking your trust or respect. I care not at all what you think of me.
I’m putting ideas and arguments out there. Ideas and arguments can stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of who wrote them.
We have no idea who Aesop was — or if he even existed. Some scholars speculate that Aesop might have been a generic name applied to fables from many sources and authors.
We don’t need to know anything about Aesop to judge the merits of his works.
“Internet troll n Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
The anonymity is only strange because we know this person and they are choosing to post under a different name in order to purposely not reap the rewards of their lies/insults. I’ve worked hard on behalf of the party and I’ve tried to do everything I can in order to make forward progress. If I haven’t proven myself to you all yet, I doubt I ever will. General dissatisfaction regardless of action is not my concern. If I can do better, please share with me how. If your goals are different than mine… no worries, let’s all do what we feel passionately about… no reason to tear others down in order to prop oneself up.
I responded to the comments I caught throughout the thread… I’m not actually sure what I was supposed to “refute” vs. “address” o.0 I simply stated the truth about the topics in the previous comments that had to do with me. Many of you have met me, and while I don’t go around trumpeting every action I take on behalf of the party, it should be pretty clear by now that my intentions are credible and that I’ve put in my time to be considered someone of substance in the party. If you don’t feel that way, many apologies… I will continue on and wish you well in your endeavors.
Kindly, keep my name out of your mouth unless you’d like to speak with me directly. Many misconceptions/miscommunications can be avoided by simply addressing issues one on one with the person(s) it involves. In addition, if any of you who are curious about Chris Rufer or have questions for him would like to contact me, I can get you in touch with him so you can have your questions answered directly so as to dispel any myths out there regarding why he’s participating in the LP. He’s a very busy person, but generally takes the time to talk with liberty/libertarian minded people who reach out to him with questions/requests/information.
No one is perfect. I’m not perfect. However, we are a small community and it might be beneficial for each of us to consider our words. This is not an anonymous site as many of us end up meeting in real life over the years. Talking about people as if they are some far-off mythical creature and taking little to no care about how people are characterized is problematic long-term. The LP is notorious for their lengthy feuds. What we really need is more time spent working on behalf of the party and less destructive criticism, imo.
We should run people for all kinds of offices, winnable as well as (practically speaking) unwinnable. They all help the party in different ways.
I agree. However, the LP is still one of the major ways people come into the movement in the first place, although most of them don’t stick with the LP, or scale back their involvement with the LP and become more active with other movement organizations as they learn of them even if they don’t drop their LP membership.
“…we even had one office holder in Riverside County who never opposed tax hikes in office, but would give speeches @ LPC conventions taking credit for opposing tax hikes.”
There’s one office holder right now in Riverside County who has voted *twice* to ban plastic grocery bags, as recently as a couple weeks ago… about as far away from a Libertarian position as you can imagine.
“Gene Berkman
June 4, 2015 at 6:05 pm
RC ā I have not lived in Alaska, but I do understand that Dick Randolph, Ken Fanning and Andre Marrou all had some effect when they were in the state legislature.
I was referring to how ineffective a libertarian elected to a city council is likely to be, precisely because cities and counties already are subject to so much decision making at the state and federal level.”
Another reason that Libertarians who are elected to local councils/boards are not very effective is that they are generally the only Libertarian on their local council/board, which means they typically get outvoted by Democrats or Republicans. Few people pay attention to most of these local offices as well, so it is not like they inspire lots of people to become libertarian activists.
I am not saying that Libertarians should not run for local offices, but rather to illustrate to those in the party who tend to spout the “Libertarians should focus on running for local office” line that running for local offices, especially in the unintelligent “shotgun” approach that they tend to run in most of the time, is not some kind of “magic bullet” that is going to save us, or bring in lots of new people to the Libertarian Party and/or movement.
RC – I have not lived in Alaska, but I do understand that Dick Randolph, Ken Fanning and Andre Marrou all had some effect when they were in the state legislature.
I was referring to how ineffective a libertarian elected to a city council is likely to be, precisely because cities and counties already are subject to so much decision making at the state and federal level.
In California, as much as 85% of the budget of a county is already determined by state and federal law. Local authorities basically function to enforce the decisions of the state and federal governments, so that is where we have to elect people in order to change things. Local officials are basically little more than bureaucrats in the welfare state.
Langa>: “And by the way, ā[email protected]ā (thereās a ārealā name for you), no, Iām not familiar with the āKluā Klux Klan. I am familiar, however with the Ku Klux Klan.
atta booooy! I’m sure you are also familiar with the term clocksucker too!.
GB, strikes me that Randolph, Marrou, and Fanning were pretty effective in AK, as I recall.
It is true that nobody will vote for you if they don’t have some idea who you are. Being elected to local offices is not the only way to get name recognition in your community. Being active in local community groups, issue organizations such as NORML or taxpayers groups, and being a successful professional or business owner can all raise your profile in your community.
I have seen Libertarian Party members elected to local offices over the years, and they have rarely used their official position to either promote The Libertarian Party or even to take public stands on issues, except for opposing tax hikes. And we even had one office holder in Riverside County who never opposed tax hikes in office, but would give speeches @ LPC conventions taking credit for opposing tax hikes.
I have come to believe that we need to rely more on cultural changes, education, and activities outside direct electoral politics to build a Libertarian Movement strong enough to be a factor in elections.
You are, if you were responding to my comments. For that matter, Janine never said that all anonymous commenters are trolls, either.
I generally avoid reading his comments, and encourage others not to read them either, and certainly not to respond to them.
Dave Terry mixed up the name and email fields in the comment form. That doesn’t make him anonymous.
BTW, for those who don’t have a Klu, the Ku Klux Klan derives Ku Klux from Cyclos, which means circle.
No, I clearly said some anonymous commenters, not all. And I wasn’t really discussing trolling, but rather simply attacking people while avoiding social consequences. It could be the anonymous person’s genuine views, though, so it’s not necessarily trolling, but it shares a lot of the same psychology.
I have nothing against this, but you still assume the ultimate and perhaps only goal is to get elected. It’s not (moving public policy is). In fact, not everyone really wants to get elected; they may just be running to give the voters a choice to vote dissent, to help other LP candidates by making the ballot more full of LP candidates (LP candidates tend to al do better when that happens, so it makes more races winnable), or perhaps to get in debates and news articles, help spread the liberty message and grow the party and/or movement. They may have no interest in spending time serving on a local board; perhaps those issues aren’t the ones that interest them. Furthermore, we’ve already elected/appointed quite a few LP members to local and county boards over the course of many years. Not as many as we should. But when will they start moving up to state and federal office?
Some LP members are more suited for the winnable office path. Others may be more suited for grandstanding in (practically) unwinnable races. They should all be free to pursue the path that works best for them, rather than driven away from running at all under the assumption that one path is the only way forward for us.
By the way, all you fucking idiots who think “privacy” is just for “cowards” should read this:
https://bananas.liberty.me/youre-a-criminal-in-a-mass-surveillance-world-how-to-not-get-caught/
Paulie, since you think I’m making up “red herrings” of some sort, check out the idiot above, you thinks using an online pseudonym makes one equivalent to a Klansmen.
And by the way, “[email protected]” (there’s a “real” name for you), no, I’m not familiar with the “Klu” Klux Klan. I am familiar, however with the Ku Klux Klan.
Some people are so stupid I doubt they can introduce themselves without checking the name on their own driver’s license.
Here’s the resolution that was passed, thanking Kevin:
“Whereas he has served this party with vigor and great personal expense for more than ten years, let it be resolved that the LPC does gratefully thank Kevin Takenaga for his dedication and service.”
This was short and sweet, and deserving of a standing ovation, IMHO.
Langa; “For the life of me, I canāt understand why so many libertarians seem to despise anonymity”
Not familiar with the Klu Klux Klan?
It is difficult to either trust or respect a person who refuses to own his own words and ideas!
Not sure who you are quoting, but it certainly isnāt me. Iāve posted plenty of anonymous comments, and for years did not allow my real last name to be posted here.
Well, I wasn’t technically quoting anyone, but I was paraphrasing comments made by many people here over the years, including Janine Kloss (on this very thread), Andy Jacobs (on too many threads to count), and several others. It’s certainly not like this is the first time anyone has made these idiotic comments about anonymous posters.
Are you trying to claim that the widely observed phenomenon of some people feeling free to let their nasty side come out when they think people donāt know who is doing it is a mirage or myth of some sort?
I’m trying to claim that automatically assuming someone is a troll, simply because they choose to post anonymously, is every bit as rude and illogical as automatically assuming that someone is a criminal, simply because they own a gun.
I never said, implied or meant that all people who post anonymously do this, nor that it warrants any restriction on the right to post anonymously.
I guess I misunderstood your comment. It seemed to me that you were saying that the fact that some trolls post anonymously makes it reasonable to assume that all anonymous posters are trolls, at least until proven otherwise.
Sorry for the typo. It should say ‘which requires write-in candidates to…’
The sometimes winnable are few & far between. I get your point. And thus the LPC opposition to AB372, which requires write-in candid in the primary to pay a filing fee if they move on to the general election (authored, btw, by Frank Bigelow who found himself in the general election facing a write-in libertarian candidate).
However, the reasons I don’t agree with you are because people won’t vote for you if they don’t know who you are. So, start locally. Get appointed to a county board. It’s easy. Meet people, get your face & name out there. Then City Council, then BOS, then a state or federal office. And unlike most candidates out there, we, the REAL people, have jobs & families. There aren’t endless amounts of time & money to run a large campaign. That’s where I’m coming from. Start local, earn your chops, pad the resumĆ©. It can be done.
I don’t know that red or blue state has much to do with anything. There have been times when LPCA was much stronger, relatively. Jose mentioned a few of the past stats above, among other threads where they have been discussed. We’ve had strong and weak LPs in red, blue and purple states. Many state LPs of all the “colors” have gone thru stronger and weaker phases. I don’t see evidence for the argument that red states are more predisposed to have strong LP organizations.
No idea, just speculating is fine; but logic would indicate that my explanation seems more plausible.
I’m not sure why you would not agree with my other reasons. I don’t want to spend a lot of time discussing them (been there, done that indeed) but I’ve seen plenty of evidence for all of them.
There are other reasons too.
For example, sometimes you will find yourself in a race that unexpectedly becomes winnable because the other parties screw up. But, if you don’t run, you can’t be in a position to take advantage of those unexpected breaks. The more candidates you have, the better the chances of getting lucky like that.
And so on.
Like I said, Paulie. No idea. Just speculating. There are other state LP affiliates with more elected officials, bigger budgets, etc. One would wonder what would be the point in our crazy, blue state. I would very much like to see $ come back to the LPC and for the good work that was done, already, to grow & increase. It’s just hard not to be cynical.
I also said that the campaigns are good for training, that I learned some things that way also. I just don’t happen to agree with you on the rest of it.
A sincere desire to make the LP more effective, well-organized, larger, and better equipped to help move public policy in a libertarian direction?
Certainly seems to be more plausible than some Machiavellian plot to control a state party with less than a hundred people at annual conventions for the last several years, 800 dues paying members, only a tiny handful of candidates for public office in the nation’s most populous state, an office cubicle that sits empty most of the time, and an annual budget that may well be less than a day’s income for him.
Certainly he can’t seriously believe that controlling such a fearsome organization would propel him to the big political power player leagues alongside Koch, Soros, Adelson et al. Anyone that delusional would be highly unlikely to have the mental clarity to build a large, successful business from the ground up.
I agree, but that doesn’t address my points, which list only a few of the many ways LP campaigns can be useful regardless of whether they win or even come close to winning.
Well, it appears we may just have to agree to disagree on the campaigns. I will agree that they do serve as training grounds for volunteers, as I’ve done it & learned, as well.
But candidates can’t seriously expect to win, or be effective when they haven’t bothered to do the groundwork in their own backyards.
Yesterday, I saw a slogan that said, “Effectivism: Activism That Works.” The work has to be done to be effective.
Why would Rufer waste his time? No idea. The desire to be a Koch brother? George Soros? Sheldon Adelson? Who knows. But if he didn’t want something, what does he stand to gain by donating to the state or county parties? Or by having his employees in position at the state & local levels?
Again, I’m not sure how she can refute what seems to be a non-fasifiable claim by unnamed sources. I don’t believe burden of proof works that way. I did observe that, logically, Rufer does not need the LPCA to do anything you claimed he is trying to do, so why would he waste his time?
Some people did, but not everyone; I recall reading here that pointing that out just before the vote likely cost her some votes and may have made the difference in the outcome.
My understanding was that this was in large part because he moved to Washington State, and that he has finished his terms there.
The LP has also had candidates in winnable races, and has won many of them, going back decades. It hasn’t served to create a pipeline to higher level offices. Thinking that this alone will get us into higher level offices is cargo cult thinking. Establishment parties have to do a lot more than just elect people to low level offices to move them up the ranks.
I disagree with the “exercise in futility” argument. LP campaigns for non-winnable office are still one of the major ways that people learn of and come in to the larger libertarian movement. They are an important part of building a party apparatus that can help identify, recruit and provide support for future candidates, including those who run for winnable office. They give voters a choice to express a viewpoint that they don’t otherwise have. They send a message to establishment politicians. They serve as a training ground for campaign staff, volunteers and candidates. They can even influence the candidates they run against to change on some issues. There are numerous ways that LP campaigns are useful regardless of whether they have much of a chance to win.
Of course not. Why the red herrings, though? I never said, implied or meant that all people who post anonymously do this, nor that it warrants any restriction on the right to post anonymously.
Not sure who you are quoting, but it certainly isn’t me. I’ve posted plenty of anonymous comments, and for years did not allow my real last name to be posted here.
I already stipulated that there many good reasons for anonymity, so what are you arguing with? Are you trying to claim that the widely observed phenomenon of some people feeling free to let their nasty side come out when they think people don’t know who is doing it is a mirage or myth of some sort? I’ve seen it many times. And yet, I still agree with you about anonymity rights.
…some people love to post hateful things under pseudonyms that they would never post under their real name. … itās a fact…
It’s also a fact that some people use guns to commit crimes. Does that make it reasonable to assume that anyone who owns a gun is a criminal?
Mrs Pyeatt, I appreciate that. Most CA libertarians know each other. I hope for the best, too. But you know the adage, “Hope for the best, expect the worst.”
I donāt despise anonymity, and itās true that some people can be very nasty under their own name and that not all people who choose to post under a pseudonym are trolls or hate-filled asshats, but itās also true that some people love to post hateful things under pseudonyms that they would never post under their real name. I still believe that on balance we do need the right for people to post anonymously, for a wide variety of reasons, but itās a fact nevertheless.
Likewise itās also true that some people can be very nasty and rude face to face, but generally, people tend to let their anger spill uncontrolled from behind a computer screen far more than they do in person, even if they are not commenting anonymously, but especially if they are. Thatās not an argument against discussing issues online, nor is it an argument against anonymity rights, itās just a fact that I have observed many times over the years.
If someone says something that is incorrect or inappropriate, why not respond to the comment, rather than resorting to knee-jerk ad hominem bullshit like, “Wow, what a coward! You must be too chicken to post under your name, so you’re obviously a troll”, blah, blah, blah. Pure bullshit.
You would think libertarians, of all people, would understand that there are legitimate reasons for anonymity, or did I just imagine all that stuff about NSA spying that’s been in the news lately?
BTDT, I don’t have a problem with you posting anonymously. I believe you’ve been using that as your name for a while, haven’t you?
Of course, I’m curious who you are, but not overly curiously. I suspect you were at the convention because you posted that Thiemer had won before I did. It also seems like you might be on the past Ex Com, since you have so much knowledge of who is who, and so on. I also find your comments worthwhile. However, I admit that you haven’t convinced me that Chris Rufer is a bad guy. You keep alluding to these acts as if he’s already done harm, yet you don’t tell us what those awful acts were. At this point, I’ll keep my eyes open and ears to the ground, but I’m going to give this new administration a chance to improve things.
Paulie, refuting & addressing are not the same thing. But that’s just my interpretation.
Starchild does indeed have a knack for pointing things out, but we all already knew that Ms Kloss was a newcomer.
Michael Pickens didn’t serve out his LPC term(s) or deliver anything significant.
I learned, a long time ago, that the other parties already have their political pipelines running. They already know who’s running for what in the next 2-3 (or more) election cycles. And how did they do that? By starting those candidates in winnable races. The LP does not, nor has taken the steps to do so. Thus, it becomes an exercise in futility (IMO), to trot out candidates who will not only be beaten soundly, but provide more hypercritical fodder to be spread around in mockery.
In those ways, and others, the tactics of the other parties do, indeed, apply.
What would count as refutation to you? As far as I can tell she addressed your points.
And probably would have done it if Starchild had not called people’s attention to the fact that she was then rather new to the LPCA. Why would someone people didn’t even know come close to beating a multi term incumbent unless there was widespread dissatisfaction?
I believe he just completed a full term as state chair of LPWA, and before that as executive director there. Is that not correct?
I disagree. There are many good reasons for the LP to have partisan candidates on the ballot aside from winning outright, as I have discussed in many past threads. The other things you mention could all be done by organizations other than the Libertarian Party, and most likely done better. There’s only one thing that only the LP can do, and that is run partisan LP candidates.
And as LPWA demonstrated, it’s possible to run multiple candidates in a top two only system, so while we can certainly decry that unjust setup, it’s not the only factor in the lack of candidates, membership, attendance, etc., relative to past decades in LPCA.
Many of the ways they organize are not very applicable to us. Some are.
Mrs Pyeatt, I just gave you the rundown of the last few years. It is unfortunate that most of those things couldn’t be broadcast publicly, but as I said, it was for the benefit of those legislators & interns. Doing so would not have benefited the party.
I choose to post anonymously because I can. Unlike most, I tend to pause, read and re-read what I say before hitting send. I know full well that most won’t agree with me, and I’m ok with it. But since my identity is mine, alone, I choose when & where people get to know the personal me.
I don’t despise anonymity, and it’s true that some people can be very nasty under their own name and that not all people who choose to post under a pseudonym are trolls or hate-filled asshats, but it’s also true that some people love to post hateful things under pseudonyms that they would never post under their real name. I still believe that on balance we do need the right for people to post anonymously, for a wide variety of reasons, but it’s a fact nevertheless.
Likewise it’s also true that some people can be very nasty and rude face to face, but generally, people tend to let their anger spill uncontrolled from behind a computer screen far more than they do in person, even if they are not commenting anonymously, but especially if they are. That’s not an argument against discussing issues online, nor is it an argument against anonymity rights, it’s just a fact that I have observed many times over the years.
Mark, even though just about everyone agreed it was time for a change, I don’t think most of us had a lack of gratitude for Kevin’s work. He did very well for a long time. I don’t know what happened the last few years.
As a matter of fact, I’ll try to track down the resolution thanking Kevin and try to post it here.
It’s not in any way unique to this site. That’s pretty universally true of websites that allow anonymous comments, have been around a while, have an active commenting community, and mostly unmoderated comments. It doesn’t matter whether the subject is sports, politics, entertainment…this is a fact all over the web wherever discussions are held.
I know Kevin slightly; many of you know him much better than I.
But I do know a thing or two about being a state chair for several years in a row in a large state with multiple chapters and many diverse personalities.
Kudos to Kevin for having the patience and tenacity for staying your Chair for so long and all best wishes to Ted and the new team for great things they will accomplish in California.
People’s lack of gratitude is appalling.
Jill–
I would say the problem causing the negativity is something in the water out there, but I understand that’s a touchy subject too.
BDBT, the information you provided in the comment above is, for the most part, new info for me. This is a shame because I keep up as well as I can, mainly to report here what’s going on. I wish the LP Ex Com had promoted their work a bit more. Boasting about accomplishments is appropriate in a political arena.
I’m hoping we can move forward from this point. L A County does indeed have issues, and we’ll be working on them. My Region has issues, and we’ll be working on them. Thanks for the info you’ve provided.
IPR seems to be the place where people seem to be more comfortable saying certain things than they would in an actual public venue, face to face. For many years, I held my tongue about many things. Some to spare others and some because it wasn’t the right time or place.
My comments are not about sour grapes. They are truth. In all of Ms Kloss’ comments. there wasn’t any refutation regarding what I said. And I stand by it.
In 2012, Ms Kloss expected to come in, win the Chair’s seat and seemed, unfortunately, to be under the spell of Michael Pickens, who was never anything but contentious, nor did he actually serve out any term to which he was elected. In the meantime, however, she got a great gig working for Chris Rufer and did not, from my POV, seem to have much interest in the actual secretarial duties. Again, that’s from my POV.
Let me share with you all some things that happened under Kevin’s administration:
1. 3 libertarians were placed in the offices of legislators in Sacramento, as interns. One of them has gone on to be come a legislative analyst and is there still. Why did you not know about them? Because outing them, publicly, would have cost that legislator and cancelled out any opportunities the LPC would have had to see legislation before it hit the committees and floor.
2. Libertarians finally had a voice in Sacramento. The Republicans decided to not close their office there, after we moved in.
3. In having the voice in Sacramento, Libertarians were instrumental in the passage of AB351 (2012), AB1425 (2014), AB1828 (2014), AB1102 (2014) and this year, opposed AB372. Relationships have been established in Sacramento with many legislators and that never happened before.
4. Gale Morgan activated 3 counties. That meant new members. Those counties are flourishing. Gale Morgan also worked closely with those legislators in Sacramento, met with them publicly and privately, and attended committee meetings and floor votes. That also, had never happened before.
To move on further: Mr. Casteneda: What have YOU done in the last 8 years? I don’t see LPLAC has the powerhouse it once was under Carlos Rodriguez or Nancy Zardeneta. You were an alternate to the EC. How many meetings did you attend? Please tell me the # of times, with dates, that the EC held Executive Sessions. How many times did you ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE anything to the state party activities? Did you attend any fundraisers? Did you reach out to the other county chairs? Did you participate in the California County Chairs Association when it was being run by Rich Vanier and Ray Fostore? Or afterward, by Brian Thiemer? No. You did not. You never returned phone calls or emails and yet you seem to be perfectly content to point your finger at everyone else.
And for all the complaining about the lack of candidates, there were 3 libertarians who ran, and WON, without saying one word the LPC. Also, having the libertarian label on the ballot does no good when the losses are nearly constant. One thing the LP does, everywhere, is celebrate the losses and console each other all too well.
If anyone bothered to pay attention to how the other parties organize, outreach and move, many things would actually change. Those attempts have been made with little to no support from the membership.
To be truly honest with yourselves and your dissatisfaction with the direction of the party, perhaps a good look in the mirror might be helpful. There’s A LOT of talk. With nothing to back it up.
Let me urge the LPCA to emulate Massachusetts Libertarians and publish a monthly newsletter filled with news. That requires a vigorous pro-active editor who will search out news were none had previously been known.
Perhaps all that’s true, Jose, but Kevin has been replaced and there’s no reason to dwell on negatives. We all have an opportunity now to help the CA LP regain some of her prior glory, and more!
ā¦though I personally believe Kevin wasnāt as bad as some here like to paint him out to be.
We regularly had 100+ candidates in the 80ās, 90ās, and early 2000ās but last year we only had 10 candidates. This occurred under Kevinās watch. Attendances at conventions were regularly over 100. Last year we had attendance of only 47 and this year attendance was about 70. This occurred under Kevinās watch. Membership dropped from 5,848 to about 800. This is a drop of 86%. This happened under Kevinās watch. Last year we had only one candidate for state wide office when we regularly had five. This happened under Kevinās watch. The last LP Presidential nominating convention had a record attendance of California delegates. This is good yet the office manager handpicked by Kevin instead of seeing the positive in this complained that because of the number of delegates it was too much work for him. (Not everyone is cut out to be management material. These figures show management is not Kevinās calling.) I do not see how anyone can look at these figures and see success. Maybe I am missing something.
Thereās something about this site that brings unpleasantness from anonymous posters sometimes.
It’s not just anonymous posters that are unpleasant, Jill. Based on your interactions with Don Grundmann (who is “brave enough” to post under his own name), I’d think you’d know that!
For the life of me, I can’t understand why so many libertarians seem to despise anonymity.
I’m also doing what I can to help. We’ve started a newsletter/blog for Los Angeles County that’s open to everyone. Now that I’m back, I plan to work hard to get it going.
I agree, Jill, communication has not been the LPCA’s forte in quite some time. In fact, I’d broaden that out further and note that the entire LP has issues with that in various degrees or another.
Hopefully the new crew finds ways to get and keep people informed. We’ll definitely be keeping an eye on what goes on over there from Nevada – a healthy neighbor is vastly preferable to the alternative.
My comment from 1:05 on May 31 was NOT a wisecrack:
“BTW, my troll/attacker has NOT shown up. This is excellent news for all of us!”
It was reporting.
David, I’ve known Gale Morgan for years, and I know he’s a good worker for the LP CA. The main complaint we’ve had about the past few years of Takenanga’s leadership is that we had no idea of what was going on. Since we never heard anything, we all assumed nothing was being done. I did see a post recently about Gale being instrumental in El Dorado County going live. That’s great wonderful stuff–but if people don’t follow FB daily like I do, no one knew about it.
Quite a bit, actually. He was pretty busy affiliating counties up north and trying to get something going, even in the face of lukewarm support from those around him that didn’t view his association with Kevin favorably. I personally worked with him in S Lake Tahoe – anyone that thinks he wasn’t working hard and getting results wasn’t paying attention.
He really was the one indisputable bright spot in that Ex Comm, though I personally believe Kevin wasn’t as bad as some here like to paint him out to be. Time will tell if Ted’s better able to manage the cat rodeo in California – I genuinely hope he is and hope Kevin’s failures weren’t emblematic of some serious structural and factional issues within the LPCA. That said, I wouldn’t bet the farm on that just yet.
There’s something about this site that brings unpleasantness from anonymous posters sometimes. Try not to take it personally, Janine. You’re welcome here any time.
Steven says:
Chair ā Why a 10 minute speech if no one opposes you?
Ted said more in ten minutes than Kevin said in eight years. Eight years of failure and defeat I might add.
S Vice chair I hope Jonathan does more in the next 2 years than the last year.
At least he will do more than the previous Chair, Secretary, N. Vice-Chair, and Treasurer did the last eight years.
N Vice chair ā That didnāt make sense ā see the comments above -I wont repeat, but agree it sounds like they threw out the only guy worth saving from the old regime and I hear that it was his first term too.
The only guy worth saving? The N. Vice-Chair was part of the problem. What did he accomplish the last two years? And why do we keep applauding failure? I am glad he is gone.
Secretary ā Of course the guy who is there wins over the guy who isnāt.
In 1860 a lawyer from Illinois received the nomination for President for the Republican Party. And he was not at the Republican Party convention. I guess Abraham Lincoln made a mistake by not being at the convention.
Treasurer ā no one wanted that job then Emily offered to do the reporting for some counties ā dangerous step I think.
She is a good choice. I would have voted for her. She will do better than the previous Treasurer (that should not be to hard) who was part of the problem. He hated discussing the budget in public so he threatened to resign unless the budget was discussed in closed session. I am glad he is gone.
I agree with Jill in a lot of things but I disagree with this:
Mark Axinn, we passed a resolution thanking Kevin for his service. He received a sincere standing ovation. He did many things for the LP CA, and that wonāt be forgotten.
I disagree with this. I would have applauded Kevin (as a human being) for being Chair but giving a standing ovation to Kevin. He did not even run the convention correctly. And why did the convention start so late? Isn’t Kevin responsible for the convention starting very late? I would not have given Kevin a standing ovation. What did he do in eight years to deserve a standing ovation? I would not have caused a scene because that does not accomplish much. But giving Kevin a standing ovation for eight years of failure. Why?
^^ it must be so nice to stand in judgement of people you’ve never taken the time to get to know. Good luck to you all. I’ll be focusing on the positive people who’d like to make forward progress now. Given the comments spewed my way, I think I’ve been rather polite, but to each his own, I suppose.
Emily,
I am sorry for the mischaracterization. I went on what I heard.
Jill,
Your friend Janine sounds a bit arrogant.
Not saying she is, just sounds that way.
Maybe the folks up north are like that, especially around the capital.
oops – hit “return” too soon – The Mayor here in Palm Springs has had complaints filed against him with the FPPC re his outside income as a “consultant” and some shady land deals which went through the city council at much lower than usual assessed value.
FPPC – The California “Fair Political Practices Commission”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Fair_Political_Practices_Commission
The Mayor here in Palm Springs has had complaints filed against him with the FPPC
Janine @ 4:40 pm
Thanks; your comment basically confirms my guesses about the situation as an outside observer, although I still don’t know what FPPC is. BTDT’s comments seem more and more like sour grapes and rumor mongering, which they did from the start. I could of course be wrong, but as noted earlier, they don’t even make sense in thinking them through logically, above and beyond whether one believes the (alledged, unnamed) source(s).
Yes.
I’ll send you an email about it, Paulie.
“I wonāt be visiting San Bernardino anymore”
Did something happen to cause that?
Well, I won’t be visiting San Bernardino anymore, but I’m sure I’ll meet you sometime!
“Robert, I know many of the people in San Bernardino. Iāve probably met you somewhere. Iām looking forward to working with you.”
I doubt we’ve met – I’ve only been back in CA (Palm Springs) since March. But I’m planning on coming to the SB meeting in a couple weekends’ time.
I hope that the new team in the LP of California leadership is able to re-vitalize the Libertarian Party of California.
Re: Steven Peters
Hello Steven! To clarify, I did not offer to do reporting for the counties. I agree that choice would be unwise, legally it needs to be done by the county treasurers. Rather, what I offered was support in helping counties understand the various regulations. I donāt want counties to be intimidated by the process and Iām happy to share what Iāve learned from hundreds of hours of study. Hope that helps clarify my intention!
Emily Tilford
A note to new readers and commenters on IPR: your first comment will be held as pending for one of us writers to confirm you are a person and not a spammer. Once you’ve been approved, which usually happens fairly soon, you can post comments which will show up right away.
Also, as far as the question as to why the unopposed people gave a speech, I don’t recall if anyone answered that yet, but it’s because our old comrade NOTA (None of the Above) is always a possibility. Plus, not everyone knew Ted, Jonathan and Emily, so it was appropriate for them to share the speech they had prepared.
That’s my take, anyway.
Thank you for your input, Janine!
I imagined many scenarios for the convention, and as much as a week prior, I didn’t want to go. People have been so contentious, and there was so much whispering among the various groups that I figured we’d have a slugfest of sorts. In fact, my husband Alan told his son in Texas that we were going to Las Vegas for a fight! I never imagined, however, a scene as pleasant as the one we had past weekend. Most people were talking to each other (admittedly, a few people weren’t happy to see me, most likely because of my work here at IPR), and the social events in the evenings went well.
I enjoyed seeing my friend Janine, since Sacramento is quite a distance from Los Angeles and we don’t see her often.
I had been taking a leave of absence from being Region Chair because of all the acrimony. I’m happy to be back and, check this out folks, the state chair of the LP is in MY region!! We have a good, active region anyway, but now we’ll be hot, hot, hot!
^^Please excuse the typo as I don’t know how to edit my comment =)
Whoa… talk about transparency… way to post under a non-name. Be brave and say who you are Been there, done that! LOL Also, I would caution that you consider the words that come out of your mouth (or computer, in this instance)… Speak to the source, consider your words, consider (even more) a humble/conservative approach to your attacks, and avoid fallacy. Truth transcends internet trolls.
To begin: our donors have the right to place their money where they see fit. No one is obligated to fund a program. At all. Ever. No matter how much you think they should. The donations were pulled from the state party because the chairman refused to meet with the donor on a prior occasion and the program wasn’t presented well at a later date. Despite that, we were lucky enough to host a program in Sac County based on hard work and determination (with the specific intention of finding and developing the best practices that will allow the LP to rise up from obscurity). Sorry if that upsets you. We chose to sponsor county grants so that the counties wouldn’t suffer the loss the State Party incurred. Not very many counties participated, even after much prodding (those counties need new leadership, imho). That program has been redesigned and will roll out Jan 1, 2016. Yes, we do have requirements. Again, if you don’t like it, don’t apply. Some people work very hard for their money and throwing it away on programs they don’t believe in is not going to happen. This is not an entitlement, after all.
The FPPC was called by Mr. Rufer’s staff to verify their reporting procedures (they have to report as large donors). The lady at FPPC (who I’ve spoken with personally since) noticed that none of the recipients had FPPC #’s. It was brought to our attention that we needed to file in arrears in December (a question I had asked both the SOS and the exiting county party leadership at the beginning of my term as Chairman (both said no)) and we were fined for the 6-month period prior. We negotiated those fines down and have made great efforts to learn and master the FPPC requirements ever since (even though they are ridiculous). None of the existing LPSac funds have been touched. The complete program we’ve run since 4/19/2013 (the date I was elected) has been on funding I’ve personally negotiated with Mr. Rufer. If we turned over the program today, it would retain all dollars existing in the account prior to my tenure. The fines didn’t “cost” LPSac… they costed Mr. Rufer and he kindly ensured that the chairman and treasurer weren’t held personally liable. I feel like the party leadership in place should have been well aware of this (and I know Kevin T was because he personally urged all the other counties and the state party excom to file). We have rectified a situation that gave us the institutional knowledge in order to receive funding in the future.
The LPC needed new leadership. There was a resounding move towards that this year with a final delegate count of 74, even though the convention was held out of state (and not in Sacramento where it should have been held). With little to no opposition was shown, many positions changed hands. All factions seemed content with the new leadership and the diversity of the board is a promising start. No one group “took over” or “hijacked” the board. If the new leadership would like the assistance of myself and/or the two colleagues I work with, they will get that assistance. If they would like to request donations, they will likely get donations in dollar amounts that are supported by a good proposal. Mr. Rufer has single-handedly kept the LP alive for more years than I can even imagine. His generosity is noteworthy and the folks who don’t see that are misled or bitter. As a business man who has reimagined what it means to be successful, he has every right to place his dollars as he sees fit and deserves much more influence than he requests. If you had half a brain, you would seek his counsel simply because it is beneficial and set aside your prejudice.
As far as the budget for LPC, I have not seen it. I would suggest lots of fundraising, membership drives, registration drives, candidates, a functioning/updated website, county support, etc. I think the current leadership will do well in those roles. I am currently employed by the Morning Star Company and do not need a salary in order to volunteer as executive director. It’s no conspiracy as I’ve committed time to Ted Brown already after seeing the composition of the new board. I will be happy to serve the party however I can as long as I’m not wasting my time. Again, I have the right to choose what I do with my time and energy. The party does not own me. You do not own me. I know it’s hard to understand, but that is important to remember.
Congrats to the newly elected and good luck to all the counties. We look forward to serving the State Party as well as Sac County Party with the free time we’ve got. If I can help with facilitating donations or services or even provide program guidance from the limited experience I have, please don’t hesitate to reach out. So many people in this party have a wealth of knowledge and I’d love to see us all spend time sharing that info and creating exponential growth over the next couple years!
jkloss “at” LPSac “dot” org
Robert, I know many of the people in San Bernardino. I’ve probably met you somewhere. I’m looking forward to working with you.
Mark Axinn, we passed a resolution thanking Kevin for his service. He received a sincere standing ovation. He did many things for the LP CA, and that won’t be forgotten.
I was a state chair for five years.
Generally if there were three Libertarians in a room, there were at least two and sometimes three or four factions! š
All the best for LPCA and its new leadership.
“…the reality is that every political party, movement, and ideology in history ā not to mention religions, and most other human institutions ā breaks into factions if they become large enough, or exist long enough. ”
Trust me, this I know… I was a member of the LP in Oregon.
Jill, I chose to affiliate with San Bernardino County.
The 2005 LPCA convention was held in a Los Angeles airport hotel. The LAX Marriott, I think.
The 2007 convention was just outside San Francisco. The 2008 convention was in San Diego.
So it hasn’t always been in places like Visalia. And I don’t think any of these big city conventions busted anyone’s budget. The most expensive (for members) convention was the 2006 cruise convention.
If the LPCA can afford to go on a cruise, it can afford to return to Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco.
Robert Hansen: when I re-activated my membership on the website this morning, there wasnāt an option to choose a faction.
Cute comment, but the reality is that every political party, movement, and ideology in history — not to mention religions, and most other human institutions — breaks into factions if they become large enough, or exist long enough. Factions are a universal feature of human politics. It’s in our nature.
I was amused by many of the comments. The convention was in Nevada to augment the LP Expo. It was stated by both state chairs and confirmed by members of the old executive committee. I now need to make some new friends on the executive committee. Here are my thoughts on the elections
Chair – Why a 10 minute speech if no one opposes you?
S Vice chair I hope Jonathan does more in the next 2 years than the last year.
N Vice chair – That didn’t make sense – see the comments above -I wont repeat, but agree it sounds like they threw out the only guy worth saving from the old regime and I hear that it was his first term too.
Secretary – Of course the guy who is there wins over the guy who isn’t.
Treasurer – no one wanted that job then Emily offered to do the reporting for some counties – dangerous step I think.
Robert said: “when I re-activated my membership on the website this morning, there wasnāt an option to choose a faction.”
Well, I suppose my comment might sound odd out of context, but it’s no secret that groups had organized to replace our long-time chairman. The fact that several of these different people will now be working together could be a very positive thing. It isn’t by county at all.
If we’re lucky, the factions will merge into one. This might take a while, but I believe this is the common goal. I believe every delegate in the room was there because they care about our state and our party, and they all have a desire to share our vision of liberty. If we’re lucky, you’ll never experience these factions.
BTW, what county are you in? I’m in Los Angeles County.
Jill, when I re-activated my membership on the website this morning, there wasn’t an option to choose a faction. Do I fill out the faction selection form at my first meeting, or did I do that by default when I chose my county affiliation? =)
Alan and I really enjoyed our little Las Vegas trip, but I think the expense for a one-day convention prohibited many people from attending. It was great to see many old friends, and also to meet some of my FB friends in person!
The compositiion of the new ex-com does include members of the various factions, but they are the more mellow personalities of those factions. Will we have unity in the state party? Probably not completely, but hopefully there will be enough communication and respect for each other that the state party can start to flourish.
By Indian casino, do you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Goa ? Maybe that’s far enough from California for LPCA to meet. As for meeting in a different nation, LPCA already did that; the cruise ship had to dock in, I believe, Mexico to make it meet international cruise rules, so passports were required, as well as the cruise fee.
” There is no need for the state convention to be held anywhere outside of California. ”
Oh heck, I was going to suggest an Indian casino so we could dive headfirst into the “meeting in a completely different nation” argument… even if it’s only the Republic of Slotsbekistan.
One might propose three “Metropolitan areas” not “three “cities.
“The same can be said for Los Angeles and San Francisco, and perhaps even San Diego. If direct flights are the issue, then all future LPCA conventions should be held in those three cities. No need to look to Vegas.”
I agree with you here. There are plenty of great places in California for the LP of California to have a convention. There is no need for the state convention to be held anywhere outside of California.
I hope that Ted Brown and whoever else was elected at this convention can successfully revitalize the Libertarian Party of California.
Sorry, Starchild–I had Debra’s new number but we were totally asleep by about 11:45. I hope you found someplace to stay.
Paulie writes:āBut heck, itās California ā people here drive an hour to get a Big Gulp.ā
Even when they could have walked there in five minutes!
Best laugh of the day, though that was Boston during the blizzards, and will be Boston during the Olympics if we do not stop them.
“Hey allā¦ anyone here have Nevada Debra Dās (Libertarian Girl)ās number? She gave me her new one earlier but I mustāve copied it down wrong and nobody hear seems to have it.”
I don’t think whatever I have is current. Please send me the new one if and when you get it.
“The accusations against Rufer come from an anonymous source, for example, a supporter of the California ancien regime who might she he it or they self not have the best interests of the California party at hand.”
One never knows. Rufer, in any case, is not anonymous, and puts his money where his mouth is, including helping other state LPs with major ballot access contributions, among other things.
“But heck, itās California ā people here drive an hour to get a Big Gulp.”
Even when they could have walked there in five minutes!
“Hence why conventions keep happening in Visalia.”
I can probably find some great room rates here in Palm Springs… well, in July or August after the snowbirds leave! A little 114-degree heat never killed anyone. Well, unless you go hiking in the mountains without water like a few numbskulls always seem to do… and then the government will come pluck you off the mountain so there’s no harm no foul (except to the taxpayer).
Southwest doesn’t fly here tho… gotta fly into ONT and drive an hour. But heck, it’s California – people here drive an hour to get a Big Gulp.
When I return from Italy in July I will volunteer my services to build lpca a more informative and functional website at lpca.info which I feel is long overdue. The site will be built much like lplac.info, strictly for party business. I will service it with updates and input from lpca leadership. Hopefully, this will allow everyone to know what is going on by going to a well maintained site.
Thank you for the report Jill but not your stupid troll comment. Too bad Jose didn’t win. Unfortunately, I don’t travel to support those who don’t stand up for free speech. Congrats to Ted Brown, I think he has potential and I will actively support his efforts. Rufer is free to spend as he wishes, no MAJOR issue there however I do support a Constitutional Amendment ending the undue influence of money in politics. No Vegas and not 1 dime or second lost! Good news, Bo Cain is OUT of Business! Need official results for lplac.info update.
The accusations against Rufer come from an anonymous source, for example, a supporter of the California ancien regime who might she he it or they self not have the best interests of the California party at hand.
If so, could you call me with it? I’m at 415-625-FREE (3733).
Hey all… anyone here have Nevada Debra D’s (Libertarian Girl)’s number? She gave me her new one earlier but I must’ve copied it down wrong and nobody hear seems to have it.
The issue with CA, as I understand it, is that the places with direct flights aren’t the places with affordable convention or room rates, and the places with affordable room rates and convention space aren’t the places with direct flights.
Hence why conventions keep happening in Visalia.
re: the CA convention being in NV, WI and MN have had a combined convention before. I know other states have done that at times as a cost-saving measure and to have a combined greater turnout. It is, granted, less-than-ideal and not generally anybody’s first choice, but it’s hardly outrageous or insane. I understand that’s not exactly what’s going on here, but let’s not act like it’s unprecedented for a state LP to have an out-of-state convention.
David Colborne: “Having the LPCA convention in Las Vegas isnāt completely insane. Bear in mind that convention space in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, or any other major urban area in California is fiendishly expensive,
California is huge and LPCA conventions are small. I’m sure this vast state has many low-budget venues that would fit the LPCA’s modest needs.
Las Vegas has direct flights from every major metropolitan area in California, along with several smaller ones.
The same can be said for Los Angeles and San Francisco, and perhaps even San Diego. If direct flights are the issue, then all future LPCA conventions should be held in those three cities. No need to look to Vegas.
Colborne, it may surprise you to know this, but California actually does have airports and flights between various cities, so driving the entire length of the state is not quite the only option.
Steven Nielson is the new Chair in Washington. The convention was excellent, except for a low spot in the speaker schedule right before dinner on Saturday. š
I asked a blogger friend at the convention today to write something up about the day’s events. I’ll post it when he sends it to me, most likely Tuesday or so.
I saw a status from Michael Pickens that he is no longer chair.
Washington State was also this weekend. Haven’t heard any report yet.
Whether or not the conjecture/rumor/purported fact is true is only one of my three basic questions. For the sake of the other two I can stipulate it’s true, but that would still leave
A) What Rufer stands to gain and why he needs the LPCA to do it
and
B) What is bad about his goals….why should we be concerned?
Seems logical. He wasn’t happy with the direction or lack thereof at the state level and decided his donations may be more useful at the local level. What’s wrong with that?
If I’m not mistaken, it’s also where he lives, so it would seem logical that he would give his largest donation to his own county. What’s nefarious about that?
Also, my (rather vague) recollection is that his condition for counties to receive money was to present him with a plan on how they would use it, and that few counties even bothered to try doing that.
Sorry, I don’t know what FPPC stands for. When you say self preservation mode I’m a bit lost as to what that means. Rufer’s in trouble, personally or financially, and LPCA is in a position to bail him out? None of that is at all true to my knowledge. And also to my knowledge Sac County received a substantial contribution that it would not have received otherwise. If Ms. Kloss or anyone else wants to explain what that cost them, they are free to do so just as you are.
There’s nothing unusual about directed contributions. If I was in a position to make large donations I might also wish to direct them towards specific projects, or at least hear a good plan for how my money would be used. What’s the alternative – to imagine that the money somehow belongs to the LPCA, unconditionally? I don’t think so, and I hope you don’t either. That it would be better off without the money? Maybe, but I’d have to see some reasons to see why. It’s his money, and he’s free to decide under what conditions he would part with it; a pretty standard way to do things.
Wield power over what and to what end?
Maybe it would make more sense to surmise that he wants the LPCA to become more effective and successful?
I am sorry I cannot provide more than what I know to be true. You would have to ask Janine. And I know she won’t tell you.
I personally don’t buy conspiracy theories, and thus, I don’t expect you to believe me. But Rufer has that ego. When he pulled his State support in 2012, that money went to individual counties. However, no county received more money than Sacramento County, while Janine was Chair. The LP never received any attention from the FPPC until then and only because Rufer, in self-preservation mode, wanted to make sure we all carried the weight of his “generosity.” Ask Janine how much that cost SacCounty. Along with the $ that counties receid, there was a letter instructing each on how/where to spend it. Some donation, eh?
If that isn’t trying to wield power, I don’t know what is.
That was me. Meant to do it earlier but I’ve been distracted and frazzle brained and pulled in too many directions. I’m having a lot of problems concentrating lately.
I’ve received a few updates from the Nevada convention. Should we include them in this thread?
Also looking for other updates from LPEX; photos, videos, news accounts, social media, you name it. Should we put those in this thread if/when we get them?
And thanks to whoever posted the CA LP logo. Much of what I did today was on a phone.
BTDT: you’re telling me things as if Rufer is Hitler (yes, I know, Godwin’s law). Can we at least start this new term with hope? Anything will be better than the non-action we’ve had the past couple years.
If it is more than just a rumor, what is the evidence? So far we have “The information came from two separate channels.” That’s not evidence; it’s pretty much the textbook definition of a rumor.
I’m also still struggling to understand what Rufer stands to gain. The man is a multi-millionaire. If he wants to start a libertarian lobbying firm, why does he need the LPCA to do it? If he wants to hire Janine Kloss, or start a new company, he can easily do either or both, without any help from the LPCA. And why would starting a libertarian lobbying firm be a bad thing, if that is what he wants to do? Would it make us more free or less free if he does that? How would he gain more power and money from it – would it be in any way that is contrary to libertarian goals of getting government power over our lives reduced? And why does he need the LPCA for any of it?
In recent years the LPCA has become a party that draws less than a hundred people to annual conventions, has what, maybe a thousand dues paying members? An annual budget that is probably a few hours income for Mr. Rufer, an office cubicle that if I have been informed correctly sits empty most of the time, and hardly ever runs any candidates for office anymore. Why and how exactly will Rufer benefit from taking control of this grand institution? How will its mighty work for liberty suffer if he gives it more money and a (hopefully) full time executive director who, if I am not mistaken, has done good work as a volunteer to build her county party?
On the surface, this conspiracy conjecture doesn’t add up as far as I can tell. Perhaps you can explain better why it would make sense logically, why we should be concerned even if it is true, or why we should believe that it is true at all.
In any case, congratulations, condolences and good luck to the new exec comm, outgoing exec comm, and candidates for exec comm who didn’t make it, and thanks to Jill for the updates.
So, it’s already in the works. And where do you think that money comes from? And that’s ok with you. She brings the money, she gets the job, she runs for office. Please explain to me how it benefits the party. Please explain to me how that’s a win for anyone but her & Rufer. They will run the show. Ted will become nothing more than a puppet figurehead.
That’s unfortunate if Ted is truly all you say he is, or can be, as Chair.
Merced was so forgettable, I forgot I wrote it the first time.
You have to admit, it’s no Modesto.
Thanks, Jill! Do you know what Aaron’s bylaw changes were about?
Yes, I believe Janine will work as executive director. I believe that’s already in the works.
Dave Terry, I *know* I’m not in Oregon! Thank gawd. LPO has had drama going all the way back to 1981 when the (male) State Chair ran off with the (female) treasurer *and* the funds for the convention, and Mr. Vice Chair here was left holding the phone receiver in the old office on Barbur Blvd making emergency phone calls to raise money for a convention. I’ll take calmer waters any day.
Mrs Pyeatt, most people don’t hear these things because they, obviously, are not for public consumption. However, things do get done, or attempted, behind the scenes. I would urge you, and others, to keep an eye on the LPC budget. During the last 4 yrs, only one person attempted to raise money for the party.
The information came from two separate channels. I hope that the membership will not be led astray by the allure of money or where it could potentially lead. Good work is good work and is important. But also equally important are those who lead: in word and deed.
Look for Janine to be hired as the new Executive Director for the LPC when those funds come in.
This could have been a very unpleasant day, but it wasn’t. Those who needed to be removed knew it, and went down graciously. A couple people who wanted to be elected into office weren’t, so there will be some hurt feelings, but that’s always going to happen. I’m looking forward to some big steps forward soon.
BTDT: I’ve been region chair in LA County for more than 4 years. I’ve never seen or heard that Rufer has tried to buy anything. Thanks for the warning, though. I can assure you that I’m not easily manipulated.
Robert, we only had one day, and by far the most urgent need was to elect officers. That’s why orders of the day were amended to do that first.
correction: I mean (you’re) in Oregon!
>”There are also feeder flights from just about anywhere ā San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Eureka, Merced, Fresno, Redding, Mercedā¦ the list goes on. You can see where Iām getting this from here:
It LOOKS like you are going in circles! WHY would ANYONE want to go to Merced TWICE!!!
At least its better than going to Fresno twice! :>(
Sorry about the misfire, there.
What I had intended to say was this:
Right, Mr Colbourne. Because buying off political parties for influence & power is certainly the traditional way to go about politics. Especially when that particular party eschews such things. Perfect!
> “Hear Hear! Everybody had to drive all the way to Las Vegas just to elect officers? No committee reports? No speakers? No resolutions? Did anything else happen?”
Hey! you all THINK that your in Oregon????
Right,
Gentle reminder: I live in Nevada, so my opinion may be a bit biased.
With that in mind…
Having the LPCA convention in Las Vegas isn’t completely insane. Bear in mind that convention space in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, or any other major urban area in California is fiendishly expensive, like most things over there. Las Vegas convention space (Nevada in general, actually) is considerably more affordable, as are the accompanying hotel rooms. On top of that, most of California (like, say, Visalia) is rather challenging to get to – it’s a six hour drive from Sacramento to Los Angeles, for example, and if you look at a map, you’ll notice that there’s still another 3-4 hours of California north of Sacramento.
By comparison, meanwhile, Las Vegas has direct flights from every major metropolitan area in California, along with several smaller ones. There are direct flights from Sacramento, SFO/Oakland, LAX/Burbank/Ontario/Long Beach and San Diego. There are also feeder flights from just about anywhere – San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Eureka, Merced, Fresno, Redding, Merced… the list goes on. You can see where I’m getting this from here:
https://goo.gl/cfZzSG
Plus, it’s a shorter drive from Los Angeles or San Diego than anywhere anybody in Southern California would want to go to.
So, if you think about it, it’s not completely insane.
Hear Hear! Everybody had to drive all the way to Las Vegas just to elect officers? No committee reports? No speakers? No resolutions? Did anything else happen?
Jill–
Great job as IPR reporter on the scene!
Here’s a crazy idea:
Next year hold the California State Convention in the State of…….
California!!!
Now is that extreme or what?
Oh no! Not a libertarian lobbying firm! They’ll take over our political system and then make it leave us alone!
Seriously, if someone in CA wants to give the LPCA a bunch of money to give Kevin a long-deserved vacation, I don’t see the downside.
NO!!!!!!!!!! Stay the hell OUT of the State of Jefferson!!!!!!
Ted Brown is a good man. But even the best can be manipulated. Janine Kloss promised Rufer’s money into the State Party coffers for a candidate who could defeat Takenaga. At the Sacramento convention in 2012, Rufer pulled his support after Kevin was re-elected and Janine lost. She’ll never admit it, but she talks too much.
Rufer thinks he can control the party HIS way and that he knows better than anyone else. He and some others are planning to use the party as a platform to launch a Libertarian lobbying firm. More money, more power. That’s it.
It would make sense to Hold the LPCA convention in Nevada if the LPCA was intending to make Nevada part of California. But Nevada has no water resources and so incorporating Nevada into California makes no sense.
Perhaps the LPCA convention should have been held in Grants Pass Oregon?
I don’t know much about Chris Rufer, but this article makes him sound like a pretty solid libertarian (although the bit about him giving money to Ted Cruz is somewhat disturbing).
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/city-arena/article2590784.html
And we are adjourned!
We have passed a resolution to thank Kevin Takenaga. He graciously thanked us.
Ted Brown has been on the Judicial Committee. He has resigned, so we need to fill his spot.
A young lady from our new region, El Dorado County, was elected to be on the Judicial County in Ted’s spot.
(Disclaimer: I’m also on the Judicial Committee.)
No outlets?
Two alternate At-Large reps: Dave Bowers and Gale Morgan.
About to run out of battery soon.
Now, we’ll elect 2 alternate At-large reps.
So what’s the problem with Rufer? I know of him, but I don’t know him.
BTDT
1) What’s the evidence for your allegation if any?
2) Supposing it’s true, what do you think Rufer wants? Is there something sinister about his agenda? Is he seeking some unlibertarian political direction from the party (if so, in what ways)? Jobs for friends and family (I doubt it…he’s in a much better position to provide jobs than the LP is)? Favors for his business from elected Libertarians (also seems unlikely; logic would seem to dictate that giving to Democrats and Republicans would be more likely to produce such results). Or what?
And the winners are; Vaugns, Wu and Tilford
BTDT: I know what group each person is affiliated with. I’ve known Ted for more than 20 years. I know he knows Chris Rufer, but taking money from him? C’mon. Ted won because of his long-time activism and Takenaga’s bad leadership.
Also, Emily Tilford ran unopposed.
Mark Hinkle is also part of The Rufer Machine.
Nest we’ll vote for 3 1-year term At large reps. Wiener nominated the 8 non-winners from the prior vote. We Also have 2 new candidates: Jason Wu and Bill Haidju.
George, those of us working on Ted’s campaign had suggested At-large members to vote for. About half were on it.
Winners: Boomer Shannon, Mark Hinkle, Mike Cerdic, Ray Fostore, Jeff Hewitt
It isn’t a rumor. Rufer’s puppets are there and everyone knows that Rufer promised to back whomever would be elected Chair, as long as it wasn’t Takenaga.
Tillford also comes from the same group, as well as Sertic. If folks don’t know the candidates or do their homework, then those moving the strings will have a much easier time fooling and controlling the rest of you.
Gee, I MIGHT have couple of old “IF IT’S BROWN FLUSH IT” stickers which I had made in honor of Edmond G (Pat) Brown (Jerry’s Dad) circa 1963
Are the folks with Brown stickers lined up as to which 5 they will support?
Congratulations to IPR for this good journalism.
We’ll vote for 5 people from the above for the 5 open At-Large positions.
What are you going to do for voting?
We will not do Approval Voting. Nominees for 2 Year Term: Kelly Barnes, Mark Hinkle, Jose Castaneda, Gale Morgan, Ray Fostore, Eric Vaugn, Bill Lopez, Brian Andresen, Jarrett Tilford, Boomer Shannon, Mark Sertic, Jeff Hewitt, Marc Lasky
The next order of business will be At-Large Reps. Aaron Starr is recommending Approval voting, but Starchild is speaking against it.
Emily is elected as Treasurer via a voice vote. She has been active in Sacramento County.
The incumbent, Brian Darby, will not run for Treasurer today. One candidate nominated: Emily Tilford.
Kevin Duewel is the new secretary.
Congrats to Ted, whom I don’t know, and also to Kevin on his longevity as a state chair in a large, populous state, which is a very difficult thing to do.
Two candidates for secretary: Jose Castaneda, Currently chair of LP Los Angeles County, and Kevin Duewel, Currently an At-Large Rep
No, Ted hasn’t taken money from Chris Rufer. That’s some weird rumor put out by the outgoing Ex Com. Besides, no one ran against Ted.
Congratulations Ted Brown and Brian Thiemer! Change is good!
I have met Dr Marc Feldman, who is here for LPEX, and I found my buddy, Libertarian Girl. The NV LP convention starts at 1:30.
Brian Thiemer will be the new Northern Vice Chair, the incumbent Southern Vice-chair Jonathan Jaech was reelecteded by acclimation, and we’re on a lunch break until 1:30.
Well, congrats CA. Your new northern vice chair is a guy who couldn’t Chair the Bylaws Committee within the scope of the Bylaws. While the guy who activated 3 counties in 2 yrs and brought in new members was cast aside. Pure genius.
Ted, as nice a guy as he is, was bought off with Chris Rufer’s money and will be his puppet. Yet more ingenious.
There are two candidates for Northern Vice- Chair: Gale Morgan (incumbent) and Brian Thiemer, who is now an At-Large rep.
I’m losing power already.
Congratulations to Ted Brown!
Ted Brown has been voted in as the new Chairman of the CA LP!
BTW, my troll/attacker has NOT shown up. This is excellent news for all of us!
Ted Brown is also an Ex-Chair (27 years ago). The group is quite receptive.
Boomer Shannon gave a nominating speech, Mark Hinkle is now giving Ted a nomination speech.
Gail Lightfoot is in attendance She’s a past chair, a woman in her 70’s. She’s very vocal today–
Only one person nominated for Chair–Ted Brown! Takenaga is not running (smart man).
Yada, yada Aaron Starr.
Motion has carried. We will be doing officer elections NOW (instead of squeezing them in at the end).
Aaron Starr is upset, since he had a bylaw change to propose. The convention body clearly wants to get to elections.
Motion to suspend the rules carried.
As rumored, Jonathan Jaech moved to suspend the rules to elect officers.
Credentials report: 72 delegates in attendance.
He is talking about why we have no bylaw report. There was a lengthy bylaws report prepared, but it hadn’t been posted 70 days prior to the convention, as required by current bylaws.
Called to order at 10:41.
Correction: We have NOT been called to order. Starchild is talking .
I moved back to CA a couple months ago and would have liked to have gone to the convention; I e-mailed the office, then I called and left a message @ the office to see if I could re-activate my old membership so I could go, but I got no response. I’m looking forward to hearing news from the LP CA-in-NV convention.
First up : Brett Pojunis (Chairman of Nevada LP).
He has said there will be LPEX next year.
I’m not quite sure what’s going on because I was setting up. Aaron Starr proposed something before we were called to order, and the complaining has already started.
We’ve just been called to order.
Some of the people in attendance: Dan Wiener, Aaron Starr, Alicia Mattson, Mark Hinkle, Brian Holtz, Matt Barnes, Ted and Laura Brown,Scott Lieberman.
We still haven’t officially started. We were put into the furtherest possible room, with only 60 seats in it. We had to move because so many people showed up (to vote in new leadership). Let the games begin!
Perhaps it has something to do with the new alignment between Northern Calivada
and Southern Calivada with their new state capitols of Las Vegas and Reno??????
It is not logical, Mr. Knapp, but it is true.
The thread title says this is the California LP convention.
The thread body seems to indicate that the event is taking place in Nevada.
Does not compute.
I second GPs comment.
Jill,
Great to hear that you went after all.
Good luck to all California Libertarians.
George
There are many, many of us with yellow, round stickers on that say “Ted Brown for Chair”. Definitely at least half the people in the room have them. We seem to be sitting on the right side of the room, while all the incumbents are on the left. Definitely some nervousness from some people.