0 responses so far ↓

• 1 chuckmoulton // Dec 6, 2008 at 4:08 pm

  Thanks to all who are Twittering/webcasting the meeting! I haven’t checked out the live feed yet because that makes multitasking less plausible, but I’ve been very impressed by the Twitter coverage.

• 2 chuckmoulton // Dec 6, 2008 at 4:10 pm

  I’ll echo my comment from Last Free Voice regarding what to me is the big issue so far…

  Susan Hogarth wrote:

  Barr/Verney apparently are refusing to share their names until their (massive) debt is paid off.

  It’s my understanding that from a legal and FEC standpoint the presidential campaign and the vice-presidential campaign are merged.

  I think the LNC should consult Bill Hall about whether the LNC could contract to get the list from Root, then fund a Root lawsuit against Barr/Verney for access to the list. It may be a cheaper way than $250,000 to achieve the desired result.

• 3 chuckmoulton // Dec 6, 2008 at 4:13 pm

  I’m not going to live update the roll call vote table, but I’ll try my best to piece together preliminary information on Monday to be updated once the minutes come out.

  http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2010/voting/

• 4 VirtualGalt // Dec 6, 2008 at 4:16 pm

  Hmm. What value is a list that raised a million, if the LP already has a large proportion of the names? Aren’t there cheaper ways to add to a database than paying off a $250k debt or resorting to litigation?

  (Or am I missing a/the bigger issue.)

• 5 Peter Orvetti // Dec 6, 2008 at 4:44 pm

  I think getting a list of Barr donors who weren’t already LP supporters in some form is not worth $250,000 — most, I assume, will be conservatives who didn’t like McCain, not libertarians in gestation. If it came free, or for say $50, it might be worth it.

• 6 chuckmoulton // Dec 6, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  Paulie Cannoli wrote:

  Case in point. Chuck, where is Keaton’s twit feed from Sept. meet?

  It is AntiWar2. She renamed it.

  http://twitter.com/Antiwar2?page=35

• 7 paulie cannoli // Dec 6, 2008 at 4:50 pm

  Thanks.

• 8 Peter Orvetti // Dec 6, 2008 at 4:52 pm

  BTW, the only thing on angelakeaton.com right now is a YouTube video of Peter Gabriel’s “Solsbury Hill”. Cryptic…

  http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/petergabriel/solsburyhill.html

• 9 chuckmoulton // Dec 6, 2008 at 5:00 pm

  Brain Holtz wrote:

  Posting information about LNC fundraising is being defined as “aggression”. We in the Transparency Caucus disagree.

  I don’t see why LP members should have an expectation of knowing how much each LNC member raised and donated in the absence of any Bylaw even listing that as a LNC duty.

  The main problems were lack of an opt-out and the place it was displayed. Previously this information was listed on the lp.org page listing LNC contact information with a prominence which gave the clear implication that this was the main LNC duty (an implication that is not supported by our Bylaws).

  If the Treasurer wants to list in his reports how much people raised and gave with the permission of each of the people, I have no problem with that. And when I was on the LNC I had no problem sharing that information about myself. (I did have a problem with the Treasurer habitually inflating my “goal” despite repeated corrections, but that was eventually fixed.)

  And certainly if LNC members want to campaign in future LNC elections by promoting their donations and fundraising, that’s great.

  If people want fundraising to be the #1 duty of LNC members with reports made available by requirement, propose a Bylaws change.

• 10 paulie cannoli // Dec 6, 2008 at 5:04 pm

  which gave the clear implication that this was the main LNC duty (an implication that is not supported by our Bylaws).

  It also explicitly said so as well.

• 11 chuckmoulton // Dec 6, 2008 at 8:14 pm

  TeamSeebeckM wrote:

  Jingo: wants a resolution to committee offline to discuss it away from the meeting if Keaton agrees to stop the behavior. Called sub motion

  What was the substitute motion? I’m unclear on that.

• 12 cbennett // Dec 6, 2008 at 8:30 pm

  Now I would advise every party member within the region in which Flood is their representative, they need to call or write their State Chairs and ask them to call a vote for a swift and immediate removal of Stewart Flood before the next meeting. He didn’t get Angela but who will he go after next?

• 13 Peter Orvetti // Dec 6, 2008 at 8:34 pm

  My joking suggestion that they just keep punting the matter until AK’s term runs out may turn out to be more serious than I intended…

• 14 paulie cannoli // Dec 6, 2008 at 8:35 pm

  Punt to committee to study and report to next meeting.

• 15 paulie cannoli // Dec 6, 2008 at 8:36 pm

  BTW Chuck in case you missed it

  Antiwar2

  @paulie, all twits will be removed after the meeting since this is the Antiwar2 twitter feed,

• 16 Nicholas Sarwark // Dec 6, 2008 at 8:40 pm

  Has there been a determination of who will sit on this committee? Will Flood be getting another bite at the apple?

• 17 chuckmoulton // Dec 6, 2008 at 8:51 pm

  Yeh, I saw.

• 18 chuckmoulton // Dec 6, 2008 at 10:22 pm

  TeamSeebeckM wrote:

  Karlan motions for something, mail ballting, passed unanimously. I think it was on more info on recording mail balloting.

  That was probably the Policy Manual amendment to actually get mail ballots on the record by requiring the Secretary to include all mail ballots since the last meeting in the meeting minutes.

  My question though is whether the amendment required the mail ballots to be listed as roll call votes or just pass/fail. If anyone knows, enlighten me. Otherwise I’ll just wait for the minutes to find out.

• 19 JimDavidson // Dec 6, 2008 at 11:45 pm

  @9 I don’t see why LP members should not know how much was raised and spent by the LNC, including how much was raised by each LNC member, in the absence of a bylaw preventing them from knowing such details.

  If the Treasurer refuses to list in his reports how much people raised and gave how are the LP members to evaluate performance of the LNC members in raising funds? In the absence of objective criteria of performance, what criteria may be used to evaluate LNC members? Or should the LP membership just trust the LNC members to do their jobs? I think what you are saying is that LP members shouldn’t worry their pretty little heads, Chuck, while the big kids take care of them. That seems both arrogant and patronising.

  But maybe there’s another way of interpreting your comment.

• 20 songster7 // Dec 7, 2008 at 1:00 am

  Frankly, I could give a crap about how much an LNC member donates to the party. The expense of just doing the frickin’ job (attending the meetings) is more than enough donation IMO. (And in my case, it involved many hours of fundraising, as well as some of my own money, to make ends meet. The good news was, my contacts on the LNC may have led in part to a few paying gigs later on … ) )

  As for the Barr list, I predict it to be of less value to the LP than the paper it is printed out on

• 21 JimDavidson // Dec 7, 2008 at 1:53 am

  @20 I’m vaguely interested in performance criteria, such as how much a given LNC member raises for the party, if that is in fact a relevant criterion.

  I think the $250K price tag of the Barr list is a very high price to pay for a list of very little value. However, it does nicely motivate the LNC to work out some sort of deal with, say, Root, to sue to obtain the list. I mean, for $250K one could tie the Barr campaign up in court for years. Which might be worth doing all by itself.

• 22 Catholic Trotskyist // Dec 7, 2008 at 2:39 am

  All of you should focus on celebrating Advent and praying the liturgy of the hours, rather than any of this nonsense.

• 23 Michael H. Wilson // Dec 7, 2008 at 2:53 am

  @ 19 jim Davidson writes: “If the Treasurer refuses to list in his reports how much people raised and gave how are the LP members to evaluate performance of the LNC members in raising funds? ”

  How much money an LNC member raises is just one of many things they should be doing. And from my perspective one of the lesser. Much more important is putting into place a system for fund raising that last long after these individual members are long gone from the committee. I would much rather see that tool developed than any particular member raising money. $10,000 from one person may be impressive to some, but I would much rather have ten dollars each from a 1000 people once a month.

  MHW

• 24 JimDavidson // Dec 7, 2008 at 6:41 am

  @23 That’s nice Michael. LNC members are expected to raise money. It is asinine to have a numerical measure of their results and not use it to judge them. Good luck finding a thousand people who want to donate $10 a month for the 25 months it is going to take to have those thousand people pay off Barr’s campaign debt.

• 25 paulie cannoli // Dec 7, 2008 at 6:55 am

  Sue for Barr’s list? I’m no attorney, but that sounds like a non-starter to me. Campaigns own their lists and they can choose to share them or not.

  I predict Barr will be back to future LNC meetings to ask the party to pay off big chunks of the debt, and also that the list will be sold and passed around like a tijuana hooker.

• 26 paulie cannoli // Dec 7, 2008 at 8:00 am

  I may have been wrong. Chuck is an attorney. He says on another site

  It’s my understanding that from a legal and FEC standpoint the presidential campaign and the vice-presidential campaign are merged.

  I think the LNC should consult Bill Hall about whether the LNC could contract to get the list from Root, then fund a Root lawsuit against Barr/Verney for access to the list. It may be a cheaper way than $250,000 to achieve the desired result.

• 27 paulie cannoli // Dec 7, 2008 at 8:09 am

  Lidia Seebeck:

  Today has been SO frustrating. I was seriously stressing out up here.

  I’m seriously debating leaving the LP. If I do, I will not join the BTP. I might maintain an L voter registration, or I might revert to a DTS status.

  If any LNC members actually read this. Listen up.

  Today’s debacle post-lunch was heinous. Over an hour, and you couldn’t even make a decent decision. Meanwhile we have top-two laws threateing our ballot access, and this points out a need to quickly establish legislative analysis as a priority in all states and federally. Meanwhile infrastructure is crumbling, the economy is shattering, property and privacy laws, and the Obama administration is already showing socialist colors which bodes just really badly for the Torch of Liberty.

  Other than the call for “lobbying” (and how can you effectively lobby that which you have not analyzed completely and carefully?) today was a bunch of internal blather, very little of which was truly necessary.

  From a perspective of a Rad who is decidedly a prog-libertarian by alignment, I feel sidelined. I feel like all these discussions are actively preventing people from being effective in ACTION. Having to spend time on this matter is keeping me away from the budget discussion in Sacto, and believe me when I say that I’d actually rather be listening to the California Channel right now. Yep, you guys are even less mature and less capable than the pols in Sacto. Yes, that’s a b****slap. Yes, I’m swearing a little. I’m that mad.

  Spread this around. You’re in danger of losing two activists and two precious legislative analysts if you persevere in petty internal manure rather than getting back on track to move policy in a libertarian direction. You only do THAT via action.

• 28 chuckmoulton // Dec 7, 2008 at 9:24 am

  I am an attorney, but I haven’t investigated whether this is possible. I just think it’s one route that might merit exploration from my rudimentary knowledge of how presidential campaigns are treated as legal entities.

  I’m under the impression that the vice presidential candidate does not file with the FEC because the presidential campaign and the vice presidential campaign are merged. The candidate should always have access to his own list, and if the vice presidential candidate is a candidate of the presidential campaign then I would think he could get access to the list.

• 29 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 7, 2008 at 10:21 am

  State parties can’t “secede” that’s ludicrous. Can the NJ branch of the ACLU secede? um, no. It’s apart of a top-down PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.

  You paleocons take that “states’ rights” thing to obscene levels. ha ha ha

• 30 mdh // Dec 7, 2008 at 11:09 am

  Chuck, to clarify a bit…

  The presidential and vice-presidential campaigns are not exactly “merged”. The case is that there is a single committee formed for the general election in most cases. It is a committee to elect the president, since the vice president is not elected seperately any longer (I believe it was the 12th amendment that changed this.)

  If a candidacy for elected office has a committee, then the treasurer of the committee files with the FEC. This is almost always the case. The reporting threshhold for the FEC for PACs is $1000 per calendar year. I don’t know the specifics for a candidate for public office committee, and it is different from that of a PAC, but I would say it’s generally going to be safe to assume that by the time a candidacy has raised or spent enough money to cross the threshhold, a committee with a treasurer probably exists by that point. Not always true, but usually. If a committee with a treasurer does not exist, the candidate may file for themselves.

  Root’s access to/right to sell the Barr campaign’s list would be governed solely by contracts between Root and the Barr campaign. If the Barr campaign gave Wayne Root unfettered access to their lists without having a contract to govern what he may and may not do with such lists, then… well, that’s the case, and he can most likely do virtually whatever he wants with them.

  That kind of seems unlikely, but even if he was under contract not to release/sell them and gave them to the LNC anyway, the liability would rest with Root himself if he were to breach that contract. Now, there could be some whacky legal wrangling in terms of IP law – going into trade secrets and whatnot, however I’m just not familiar with the case law (if there is any) on that subject, so someone else will have to research it if that becomes an issue. It’d be interesting to see, though, since I have a passing interest in IP law as well.

• 31 mdh // Dec 7, 2008 at 11:12 am

  Going a little further, I would imagine from what I’ve gathered that Barr’s fundraising lists have little value to the LP. It’s hard to say for certain, but I would imagine that most of the individuals on it who would be receptive to the LP message are people who are already in touch with the LP and on internal lists anyway.

• 32 paulie cannoli // Dec 7, 2008 at 11:23 am

  The candidate should always have access to his own list, and if the vice presidential candidate is a candidate of the presidential campaign then I would think he could get access to the list.

  I doubt very much the Barr campaign shared their list with Root. He says they did not allow him to do fund raising – that should tell you something. They kept Root at arms length – he generated his own media and speaking opportunities, and they still owe him for the travel (possibly all, but at least part).

  Going a little further, I would imagine from what I’ve gathered that Barr’s fundraising lists have little value to the LP. It’s hard to say for certain, but I would imagine that most of the individuals on it who would be receptive to the LP message are people who are already in touch with the LP and on internal lists anyway.

  I wouldn’t go that far. Like any LP presidential campaign, Barr generated inquiries – some of those being libertarian, some conservative, as he was running a fusion campaign. Some of those libertarians were already in touch with the LP, and some were not. That list is sure to be worth something, but the LP will probably end up paying way too much for it, and it will be decreased in value because it will be spread around the New Right like a good looking female prison guard during a riot.

• 33 VirtualGalt // Dec 7, 2008 at 11:51 am

  I think it’s OK for the LNC to publish the extent of a committee member’s fundraising, provided they also publish a summary of the member’s other activities on behalf of liberty/LP/etc. Examples:

  How many state party meetings in their region did they attend?
  How many lobbying contacts with state/federal legislatures?
  Accessibility to membership — do they have a blog or other means of getting membership input?
  How many LNC meetings did they attend?
  How many articles/LTEs published identifying them as LNC member?

• 34 chuckmoulton // Dec 7, 2008 at 6:04 pm

  I’ve updated the roll call votes chart.

  If anyone could tell me which LNC alternates attended the meeting, I’d appreciate it.

  http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2010/voting/

• 35 paulie cannoli // Dec 7, 2008 at 6:06 pm

  Thanks Chuck/

• 36 paulie cannoli // Dec 7, 2008 at 6:06 pm

  Michael H. Wilson:

  Lidia writes: “Today has been SO frustrating. I was seriously stressing out up here.”

  I wanted no part of this yesterday so I took my wife to visit a friend on the coast. Today I’ll find somthing else to do. Maybe I’ll do something constructive. Maybe not.

  Regardless I cannot agree more. There is so much to do and so little getting done. The top two fight. The poor literature package we have. The lack of timely and thoughtful news releases. The now slimmed down LP News. One could go on and on. Instead we have these games being played by a couple of boys on the LNC claiming to prove that they are the moral leadership of the committee, or something like that.

  A couple of them need to apologize to the others for wasting their time and money on this nonsense. Then they need to apologize to the rest of us.

  Quite frankly this is an insult to the many hardworking people in this party and there are some on the committee who put time and money into getting the word out. Does one laugh, or cry at this point?

• 37 paulie cannoli // Dec 7, 2008 at 6:07 pm

  Angela padlocked her twits but some of them are archived in the long thread.

• 38 chuckmoulton // Dec 7, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  Paulie Cannoli wrote:

  Angela padlocked her twits

  Kinky…

• 39 paulie cannoli // Dec 7, 2008 at 6:19 pm

  http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/video-montage-for-lnc-in-sandy-eggo/

• 40 G.E. // Dec 7, 2008 at 7:37 pm

  Is someone going to do a write-up about the whole meeting? That’d be nice.

• 41 paulie cannoli // Dec 7, 2008 at 7:39 pm

  There are several up and I will be doing a post linking and excerpting several of them. More will be written in the next few days, I’m sure.

  I’m not feeling very well (asthma attack) so it would be good if people helped me out.

• 42 paulie cannoli // Dec 7, 2008 at 7:40 pm

  Also, I will have video posted here. In the meantime it is at

  http://www.justin.tv/tannim123/all

• 43 JimDavidson // Dec 7, 2008 at 9:33 pm

  @29 Libertarian Joseph isn’t libertarian. He doesn’t believe in the sovereign self-determination of anyone. State groups can and have seceded. Centralisation is for queen bees. Humans are not insects. Well, most of them.

• 44 G.E. // Dec 7, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  Okay, so what happened with Angela?

• 45 paulie cannoli // Dec 7, 2008 at 9:39 pm

  Punted to committee. See the long thread for details and links to various article that are up about it already.

  Or wait for my write ups

• 46 JimDavidson // Dec 7, 2008 at 9:41 pm

  @31 Concur. Anyone who supported Barr out of party loyalty is able to contact the LP, and the LP can probably contact them. Anyone who supported Barr out of agreement with his notorious racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, war mongering, anti-privacy record, is unlikely to support any liberty activities.

• 47 JimDavidson // Dec 7, 2008 at 9:44 pm

  @38 Very kinky. Good one, Chuck.

• 48 paulie cannoli // Dec 7, 2008 at 10:30 pm

  Anyone who supported Barr out of party loyalty is able to contact the LP,
  

  Can, but most likely won’t. Not so much party loyalty as liking the pro-freedom aspects of his message.

  
  and the LP can probably contact them.
  

  Some yes, others no. There are many more libertaruans who are not on LP lists than those who are on LP lists. Some of them contacted the Barr campaign, and unless Barr passes those contacts to the LP, the LP will not have them.

• 49 Michael Seebeck // Dec 8, 2008 at 12:50 am

  http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/michael-seebeck-broadcasting-from-lnc-in-san-diego/#comment-28603

  http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/michael-seebeck-broadcasting-from-lnc-in-san-diego/#comment-28604

• 50 JimDavidson // Dec 8, 2008 at 2:18 am

  @48 That is probably true, Paulie, but the price seems very high.

  If we assume Barr’s list is 1.3M divided by $125 per donor (or whatever Ron Paul’s average donation was) we get 10,400 names. Yes? Any reason to think he has more?

  Kill the duplicates already known to the LP, and figure you are buying 7,500 useful new names. At $250K for the list, the LP would be paying $33 per name. Figure other mailing lists are available with libertarians on them for $2 or less per name.

  Even though we now know the LP hasn’t $250K, if some anonymous donor with that kind of scratch were to step forward, they could provide 500,000 names, or more likely several million names, with contact info. So why bother?

• 51 paulie cannoli // Dec 8, 2008 at 2:39 am

  I very highly doubt that the LP will pay anything like $250k for the list.

  It is much more likely that the LP will buy the list, after numerous “conservative” New Right groups take first (and second, third, ETC ad nauseum and well beyond) crack at it and most of the Barr debt is already paid through other means, and the LP will get the sloppy dregs of what remains of the list for a fraction of the price as the absolute dead end of what is left of the Barr list after it is gang banged by the Viguerie movement most of the way to death.

  The LP will be its last stop, and the LP will almost certainly pay far more than it will be worth at that point – think of a john who pays escort rates for a street hooker with late stage AIDS.

• 52 FreeMarketeer // Dec 8, 2008 at 5:11 am

  Ok, here are my preliminary thoughts regarding the LNC that transpired on December 6 and December 7. I will be blogging about the events that took place during the day. If anyone cares to send me a rough summary of what happened on December 6 and December 7, that’s fine. If not, I’ll just use the comments here and Mike Seebeck’s Twitter comments as sources of information for providing more coverage on the Freeman Chronicles and possibly Next Free Voice. But, nonetheless, here are my thoughts as they are, so please take them in the spirit they are provided (if you don’t, that’s fine; that’s your call, not mine):

  The Angela Keaton resolution of discipline for Angela was ludicrous, moronic, pathetic, and laughable on its face. Flood’s presentation of the “charges” (which weren’t really charges, considering all that nonsense was trumped-up b.s. in the form of a personal vendetta against Angela because he wasn’t going to kowtow to her way of thinking) were absurd and horrendous. My first impression is that no one took his claims seriously at the meeting. As a matter of fact, according to several sources (and I believe the video clips that Mike recorded and made during the live broadcast of the meeting referenced it), there were some chuckles in the background while Flood was taking his potshots at her. Everyone deep down inside is not willing to admit this, but I believe that they think he is an embarrassment to the Party and to the membership, considering his credibility is anything but respectable, honorable, and filled with dignity.

  The LP and its member base should be lucky that the Party did not crash and burn this weekend, despite the fact that it is in very god awful shape. Not that I care about the state of the LP (as I am no longer a member and I am commenting on this event purely as an observer), but the membership must be thanking its lucky stars that things didn’t turn out the way so many Rads thought it would. After all, if Keaton can be subject to sanctions by her own political board, then it’s highly likely that the membership can be attacked and thrusted into various Starr chamber proceedings at any time and any place, with or without cause of any kind. If the Party, as an organization, wants to avoid that, then it needs to get its act together and the membership needs to take control of the Party. The members need to do more than just demand change (although that is a good first step); they need to grab the bull by the horns and be proactive players in the Party. Being reactive and thinking that the Party will just turn itself around are nothing but signs of wishful thinking.

  The GOP is in turmoil over their election losses, despite promises by many of its party insiders that it will rebuild itself by redefining its principles. But that’s wishful thinking, because that party has no definition of what its own princples stand for. The same disease has infected the LP. It needs to grow a pair. Better than that, it needs to establish a set of uncompromising principles if it wants to regain the trust of its core members, the movement (and that’s another story by itself), and the electorate as well.

  LNC Vice Chair Mike Jingozian opted to move for a new committee to handle the Keaton matter, provided that Angela agrees to keep her behavior in check. Angela wouldn’t accept the new commission, and yet the LNC voted in favor of this new board unanimously. But new questions about this new panel ought to be asked, such as:

  1.) Under which and what guidelines will this new group operate?

  2.) Will this newly-commissioned board open itself to the membership? Will it be transparent?

  3.) Will it rule fairly on the matter? Will it rule in favor of the accused or against her?

  4.) What should the membership expect when the findings of the committee become public knowledge? Will these findings be made available at all?

  5.) Will the committee deal with this affair or will it sweep the matter under the rug? Will the committee make any fair and unbiased recommendations to the LNC at all? How and in what way will these recommendations serve the interests of the membership and the LNC?

  6.) Will the LNC accept the recommendations of the committee, or will it just sweep them under the rug? How will and should the LNC officers handle these recommendations?

  and finally

  7.) Was the dog-and-pony show orchestrated by Stewart Flood at the December 6 meeting really worth it in the end? Because of his actions, should he resign in shame for launching a smear campaign and nearly igniting an internal civil war within the Party because of his now-apparent hatred of Angela? Should and will the LP member base call for his removal from the board?

  These are valid questions (and I’m sure there are plenty of more of them coming on the way) that can, should, and need to be taken into account. Sooner or later, the internal fractionalization within the Party must be deal with and resolved, or the Party will not make it to the 2010 election or the 2012 presidential election.

  I must confess that I am feeling ambivalent about Jingozian’s move to set up a committee that would deal with this mess rather than the LNC coming to grips with it immediately. On one hand, it was a ballsy move and a good one at that, and the right thing to do, given the intensity of the moods expressed by the membership and the officers of the national party. On the other, it seems ridiculous that a new committee is somehow going to review and resolve the crisis, even if there is some indirect oversight from the LNC (which I’m not convinced that there is at this point). I think the Keaton affair will fizzle and be tossed into the dust bin of history, but perhaps the assigned members of the committee are convinced that it will be addressed satisfactorily. I’m not convinced that is the case now and in the forseeable future.

  I will provide more comments on this, and hopefully Paulie, G.E., and a few others will update the blog post about this comment section and post what I said on there. Otherwise, it’s not a huge concern at all.

  Yours in Liberty,

  Todd Andrew Barnett

• 53 George Phillies // Dec 8, 2008 at 2:25 pm

  The votes against the budget were Keaton, Wrights, Ruwart, Lark, Fox, and Hawkridge.

• 54 chuckmoulton // Dec 8, 2008 at 2:47 pm

  Okay, I had Karlan down as voting against the budget. I’ll ask him about it.

  http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/michael-seebeck-broadcasting-from-lnc-in-san-diego/#comment-28475

• 55 VirtualGalt // Dec 8, 2008 at 2:52 pm

  The LNC is hardly in a financial position to pay anything, let alone $250k, for the Barr list.

  At this point, I can’t wait to go to St Louis in 2010 and vote against every single one of them I can. My own personal Operation Clean Sweep.

• 56 Michael Seebeck // Dec 8, 2008 at 3:49 pm

  I might have had that budget vote off. I was typing as fast as I could. mea culpa if I got it wrong.

• 57 chuckmoulton // Dec 8, 2008 at 7:48 pm

  George is right. I asked Dan. I’m fixing my charts now.

• 58 chuckmoulton // Dec 8, 2008 at 7:49 pm

  No problem, Mike.

  I realize there is a speed/accuracy tradeoff. As long as things like that can get corrected later (like we just did here), it’s no big deal.

• 59 Michael Seebeck // Dec 9, 2008 at 12:23 am

  that’s why it’s better if there are two or more tweeters.

• 60 StoliLodslowl // Jan 21, 2009 at 11:11 pm

  Nothing seems to be easier than seeing someone whom you can help but not helping.
  I suggest we start giving it a try. Give love to the ones that need it.
  God will appreciate it.

Leave a Comment