“Central committees are not created or overseen by the LP of California. They weren’t invented there. They were invented by election law, and the LP of California bylaws concerning them are are in reaction to the existing law.”

I never said otherwise. I’d already said, at least twice, that central committee are state-created.

“I ask you to name one Central Committee in the history of the LP of California which ever did a damn thing right. Just name one.”

When did I ever claim that they’d done anything “right?” When?

You’re not paying attention to anything I’m saying. You’re blood pressure is so high, you’re screaming with yourself.

It really is beside the point. I ask you to name one Central Committee in the history of the LP of California which ever did a damn thing right. Just name one.

Those are the rules we’ve adopted. If you join the LPC, you’re automatically a central committee member.

First, the LP of California qualified for the ballot using the Peace and Freedom Party “model”. That is, the two majors didn’t want a new party then anymore than they do today. The Peace and Freedom Party had become a party in California in 1968.

When the LP qualified it was by the 1978 gubernatorial election (Ed Clark, future LP presidential nominee) ran and got enough votes to “qualify” the LP as a party under California law. However, the then Calif. Secty of State refused to recognize the LP as a party.

Essentially, the LP either could sue the state of California (expensive and dubious) or it could “qualify” in another way…and that was to get X number of voter registrants who would write Libertarian onto the space on voter registration cards, rather than enlist under one of the other parties.

The LP succeeded in that effort and so adopted rules similar to what the State had required of the Peace and Freedom Party and which were (and are) part of the election code. County central committees are one feature of party requirements under the election code.

I’m sure you won’t have any trouble understanding that some of us don’t see any real purpose for county central committees, since they exist solely as creatures of the state (or, can you name me one time one of them, in California, as proven to be indispensable to the cause of liberty?)

In California, the LP cannot stop someone from being on a central committee if that person runs for the office by putting their name on the primary ballot and if they get votes in their county (California party bylaws at one time allowed anyone in California to switch “residence” to any other county in the state, for purposes of LP needs…this was done by the California LP so as to provide a protection against someone like Lyndon LaRouche or David Duke invading the LP at the county central committee level (much in the way those two, and others, essentially have conducted raids on the 2 major parties, by jamming their central committees).

Ask yourself “why” does one need a central committee at the county level. There is NO reason. Just as there is no reason for an LNC, except that each is required by law.

Going, logically, beyond that you should ask yourself why a party is necessary for political action. Again, you’ll find that logically there is no reason, except, of course, for practical reasons which exist ONLY because of laws which forbid and/or restrict political activivities which do not conform to the election code (an example is campaign finance law, which typically has allowed parties to accept larger campaign contributions than candidates, and to redistribute some of that loot to individual candidates).

Parties, which are creatures of the State, and central committees (“subcreatures”, if you will) serve no legitimate, logical function.

First, I made it clear that central committees are “state-created.”

Second, you join the party, you become a central committee member. That’s how it currently is.

Los Angeles County LP chair Bruce Dovner is planning to write a page for the L.A. County LP website, telling people how they can become central committee members by joining the party.

I cannot give one damn bit of care to someone who never has formed ANY group, ANYWHERE, to do ANYTHING, and who asks me to give a crap about what the LNC does to her.

Now, that being said, I think she probably is a pretty good person. I like the tone of her comments.

It needs to be stated. She’s accomplished absolutely NOTHING as an LP “activist”.

She HAS sought grand title. That makes me think of her as not much different than Redpath.

The county central committees are a requirement of the state election laws.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Moreover, being a party member has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with being a central committee member.

“central committee” as defined in the law. The LP’s bylaws ARE NOT the law.

The central committee structure of the LP of California was/is determined by the ballot access history of the Peace and Freedom Party.

I know, I was here then, active in the LP then.

Also, I served on Central Committee (joke) time.

ONLY an idiot sees value in committees.

No self-respecting libertarian ever could.

I thought the disaffected conservatives that Barr is trying to win over are more the Ron Paul contingent.

First of all, as previously stated by me and others, Barr is a very poor substitute for Ron Paul.

Secondly, Paul’s appeal is with people from all over the political spectrum, including leftists, anti-war activists, libertarians and conservatives, among other “groups”.

Barr’s appeal is vastly geared toward disaffected conservative Republicans.

You’re wrong about “anyone can win” a spot on the LNC. Every time I went to a convention, more people ran than won.

Angela is doing good work on the LNC. I hope she won’t get discouraged.

I don’t see why she should care if she’s censured. Does it come with any penalties or loss of power?

If not, she should just say, “Sure, great. I accept your censure. Censure me every day, if you like. But now, getting back to business…”

State election laws (and some national laws, arguably) require a certain, somewhat specific structure for a political party.

There is NO logical reason for, say, a county central committee. There obviously, painfully obviously, is absolutely NO reason for anything like the LNC. Except, of yes, the State requires it.

Why is it that so many, many Libertarians keep giving their time and efforts to the very structure we oppose?

Supporting ANYTHING proposed by the LNC is to support the State. It should be obvious.

Then, again, some people really get off on their titles.

There NEVER has been an effective or honest LNC. No sitting body of the LNC EVER has had a majority of honest people on it.

The LP, historically, is controlled by people like Moulton, absolutely, completely without ANY competence, except in being the one person to stand up and say: “yes, I want to run things”.

Angela Keaton would do well, for herself, to understand that decent people don’t give a hoot about her current travails.

Decent people wouldn ‘t willingly associate themselves with the kind of folk who populate the typical LNC meeting.

The only logical thing for any actual LP supporter to do has been obvious long, long before Angela Keaton stopped stripping and long, long before Angela Keaton began her career as an LNC aspirant.

It is to strongly oppose the LP, to oppose it’s national structure.

Keaton was magnificently wrong to try and join it. So was Phillies.

I see hope because from his comments above, I think some of the people in MA might now understand that the hope for the LP lies in opposing the nitwits at National.

Anyone doubting this ought to ask himself/herself why it is that basically, there is no problem for any idiot getting elected to high office within the LP structure.

Hell, usually you NEVER are opposed. No one runs, so IF, like Ms. Keaton, who put your hat in the ring, you win!

Why, why do obviously intelligent people like Ms. Keaton think they are winning anything of value?

The answer to that lies with those people who value themselves by the titles they hold.

None of that has anything to do with holding actual libertarian values.

This may or may not make sense to anyone, but it is so.

Barr/Root do not appeal to many Ron Paul supporters. And of those who will vote for Barr/Root, many will do without enthusiasm.

Looks matter. People vote for someone they like and trust. This is Obama’s and Palin’s strong points. Many Americans see them as attractive and charismatic.

Ron Paul looks genuine, authentic, avuncular, idealistic.

With that mustache, Barr looks like a villain from a 1970s TV show.

With those glassy, staring eyes, Root looks like some oily land developer on a 1970s TV show.

Both Barr and Root look like 1970s TV villains to me. The sort that the Bionic Woman or Barnaby Jones or Charlie’s Angels might find themselves up against.

*fondly recall.

The FEC knows.

I thought the disaffected conservatives that Barr is trying to win over are more the Ron Paul contingent.

No. Maybe some of them, but a lot of those are trending towards either Chuck Baldwin or a Ron Paul write in that in most states will not even be reported as part of the official count. The other Ron Paul supporters – those who supported him primarily over peace and civil liberties issues – are not being appealed to much if at all. They may end up doing the write-in thing, not voting, or voting for Obama, Nader or McKinney.

With comments like this, are they really trying to appeal to Ron Paul supporters?

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/09/lp-touts-free-registration-to-conservative-leadership-conference/

In an email sent to its membership, the Libertarian Party is promoting free registration to the Conservative Leadership Conference to be held September 18-21 in Las Vegas. Saying the overriding question of the conference will be “Should conservatives and libertarians vote for the presidential candidate most ideologically similar to themselves…or for the candidate polling says is most likely to defeat Barack Obama?”, the LP release submits details on the “three third-party conservative candidates” scheduled to speak at the event:

* Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr – with impeccable conservative credentials while in office representing Georgia – left the GOP and has secured the Libertarian Party nomination. Barr is the LP’s most credible candidate since Ron Paul back in 1988.

* Conservative talk-show host and columnist Chuck Baldwin, highly regarded by both social conservatives and constitutionalists. Baldwin is the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee this cycle.

* And former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes – who ran against Barack Obama for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat in 2004 – is now running an independent presidential campaign in a handful of states, as well as appearing on the ballot in California as the presidential nominee of the American Independent Party.

People who recall “Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr – with impeccable conservative credentials while in office representing Georgia” are not the same set of people as Ron Paul supporters.

The campaign’s goal was never just to go after only the votes and support of Ron Paul supporters, but those of Republicans too conservative for McCain in general.

Palin has cut them off at the pass.