To the representatives of the LNC Inc,
(cc: State Chairs)
After some sincere and thorough discussion we have decided that it is in the interests of the entire Libertarian community to make our thoughts and concerns about your consideration of appointing Alicia Mattson to the vacant Secretary position known.
I doubt it would come as a surprise to anyone that we would oppose such an action, but since she is actually receiving votes in the affirmative it has become apparent that a reminder as to why is in order.
As you should be aware, Ms. Mattson was a central figure in the attempted coup in Oregon spanning November 2010 through present. Through the course of legal discovery (which has not been easy since the plaintiffs have appeared to have engaged in spoliation of evidence) we recovered sufficient documents from third parties that I am confident in asserting what was previously a theory as fact.
The reason for the votes on administrative disaffiliation occurred in 2011 (later reversed by the judicial committee) is because Ms. Mattson, along with other co-conspirators, had a plan with Mr. Burke to use the artificial crisis they created to impose a new set of bylaws upon the Libertarians of Oregon without seeking their consent. They believed that by adopting said bylaws while under the status of disaffiliation, would somehow be legal, and that when they applied for reaffiliation (using the updated form courtesy of Mr. Karlan) this attempt at parliamentary sleight of hand would somehow bless and cleanse this act of naked aggression on the Libertarians of Oregon. This wanton disrespect for the laws and sovereignty of Oregon and our members is an act which is so imperialistic and statist that we can only infer that anyone who overlooks the gravity of it and has voted for Ms. Mattson is either woefully ignorant of what occurred or a traitor.
There are some people who might want to play this off as politics as usual, but I can assure you that if you were the victims of such naked political aggression to the detriment of everything you are attempting to build, you would not be so dismissive. In spite of these acts of war against us by the LNC Inc, which were originally spearheaded by Ms. Mattson and Mr. Hinkle, we have been by any objective measures, one of the most successful state Libertarian parties who are currently affiliated with the LNC Inc. We fielded a record number of partisan candidates in 2012 and our membership has grown from 13,000 to over 15,500 in less than 12 months. Our meetings are well attended and we have new groups forming throughout the state.
We have done all of this in spite of being targeted by Mr. Hinkle and Ms. Mattson, their having convinced the LNC Inc to go to war with us, our delegation being refused in Las Vegas, and the LNC Inc. and Mr. Starr bootstrapping and co-funding a lawsuit against us which has caused litigation expenses in excess of $100,000. Further the attorney they hired is the son of the Oregon GOP vice-chair who may or may not have motivations of his own, and currently represents the Oregon GOP.
To these points, I am going to be very direct.
When an inquiry was made at our meeting last night of everyone in attendance (including nearly as many observers as we had board members) for someone to advance one act that the LNC Inc has done in the past several years that was of tangible benefit to the average registered Libertarian in the State of Oregon, after an extremely pregnant pause, the best anyone could come up with was, “they put our website link back up after having taken it down.”
You should ask yourselves a really hard question. Why would anyone continue in such an abusive relationship with you if they were rational?
Could any actual Libertarian in good conscience vote for Ms. Mattson given her past deeds?
You will not survive if you continue down the paths you have been choosing. The successful Libertarian state parties will continue on just fine without you. Most of us already have or are ignoring you, but you are about to take a couple steps too far, where secession and open revolt are reasonable options which an objective and rational person would conclude, because the costs of not doing so, and risking more imperialistic wars against affiliates, are greater than the costs of doing so. You are currently considering placing an individual back on the board that was soundly rejected by your membership. Actions like that are they type an organization chooses when they are deciding on purchasing their memorial mausoleum rather than office building.
Your organization is riddled with statists, sociopaths and narcissists. You have been unable to reform yourselves in spite of multiple attempts. If you have any questions who they are, just look at the voting roster for this election. You have approached the point in time where you must make a moral decision, to clean house of these people and to cease perpetuating the organization only for the sake of perpetuation.
You were ostensibly elected to be better than the people we fight against in Washington D.C. – it is time to act on it and show that ethics and principle are more important that loyalty to faction and rationalized “pragmatism”.
If you do fail, however, I wish to offer up an official slogan for the next national confederation of Libertarian parties, which I believe the fine people from Virginia could appreciate:
“sic semper imperia”
Sincerely,
Wes Wagner
Chairperson, Libertarian Party of Oregon
OBO/the Libertarian Party of Oregon
Dave Terry 184,
You’ve already admitted that you can’t remember. Michael Wilson and I do remember. But now that the key words have sunk in, here we go.
There was nothing preventing a state party from making UMP dollars available to county parties in a continuing of the trickling down closer to where the dues paying member were – in their respective counties. That’s why this proposal was made. No one is talking about welfare except you.
Funny thing about all of this is that it was YOU and your friends like Burke who wanted money without having to work for it when you advocated for UMP. There were quite a few Oregonians who were members of National but who for whatever reasons refused to join the state party. By adopting UMP, State committees got access to roughly half of the dues money those National-only members sent to National HQ. You didn’t have to work for it. You simply wanted it. And then you bastards had the nerve to act like you earned it. Talk about welfare!
The proposal we are discussing was one that, after the fact of UMP, would have arranged for a little trickling of some pennies of that money to be sent to active county chapters based on the number of dues-paying members of the LPO were in those respective counties. It was just a trickle, and of course those county parties would continue to have their own fundraisers if they wanted (Mult Co did this often).
But your inner thug came out again and you wanted county parties to jump through all kinds of hoops like little pigs in the middle ring in a three-ring circus. While getting shot at. Believe me, National had no real strings on the money that went to the state committees. You say oh gee, they weren’t allowed to collect separate dues. Big Deal! It was all easy money for you guys. That was no string! You all got lazy after that.
So no, I’m not lying. How ’bout you?
Bob Tiernan
Vice Chair
Dave Terry Lies, Too
BT (183) I don’t believe that Mr. Tiernan suffers from early onset of alzheimer’s or dementia. I can only conclude that he is either LYING or confusing the normal “strings” on A.C.P.’s activities that may conflict with the State Parties. (I believe this policy is universal among the various State Parties)
He also apparently overlooks the fact that in exchange for sharing the total UMP income of National the State Affiliate must forgo charging dues of their own, and the normal expenses of a State Party have to be met first first.
Also there is no prohibition that ACP’s could also solicit contributions from individuals. It would appear that Mr. Tiernan, et al are like welfare recipients complaining that their monthly welfare checks aren’t sufficient.
Terry, the chains were the usual strings attached to the pennies the state party would “allow” to trickle down to the county parties, while no strings were involved at all in the UMPs NatHQ-to-state party transfers. Your natural tendency is to so something like re-arrange a blind person’s furniture so you can control them.
Bob Tiernan
What the hell are you talking about Terry?
The ghost of Joseph Sobran got you in twist?
@174: Don’t know of her.
BT (178) Mr. Tiernan is either drunk, loaded or pathological. What “chains” are you talking about?
You seem to forget that this would negatively impact my own Yamhill County. WHY would I do that. I don’t recall how the vote went or who opposed it, but I certainly supported it!
It seems that both you AND Mr. Wilson are seeing “ghosts”.
I recall being told that the county parties should not be given any funds because that would be welfare. It was okay for the state party to get UMP money though. Kinda odd.
And to think I just finished getting out another news letter. Four years of doing those things from writing to labels. Is that a record?
Dave T 177,
Did you see the key words: “…[you] wanted chains on every stinkin’ penny that then trickled down to county parties.” Michael Wilson was more trusting of county parties – as many strings as National had on the states, which was zero.
You showed very unlibertarian instincts on that one, as usual. Interesting that I put in those very clear key words and you still didn’t grasp the obvious. Which is why I’m Co-chair of Dave Terry’s a Jerk, Too.
B. Tiernan
BT (176)
Bob, your long term memory loss is more pronounced with every post you make. You have obviously forgotten that it was Mike Wilson and I
who authored the proposal to share UMP with the county parties; based on a percentage of dues paying members in that county.
Clearly I am guilty until proven innocent.
Terry 175:
“It is NOT the purpose of the Libertarian Party to create a “perfect” state, but a better, more liberty oriented state.”
That can happen, provided you are not one of the elected officials. Many of us recall how in the late 90s you championed having no strings on UMP money sent back to Oregon but wanted chains on every stinkin’ penny that then trickled down to county parties under someone’s state committee proposal for brining UMP dollars further down the pecking order. You pathetic jack-booted thug. You often spewed authoritarian nonsense.
Bob Tiernan
Co-Chair, Dave Terry’s a Jerk, Too
BR (147)
You SAY: you “have never had any trouble in defending myself against individual
perpetrators of criminal activity.” Do you seriously believe that the ONLY crimes that effect your well being are those that at directed against you personally. Would you allow then that the only harm done to you by government are those actions directed at you personally
OBVIOUSLY, neither is the case. In fact, your
comment; “The monster is growing, its power and strength continues unabated, and ‘we the People’ continue to be its victims”, answers that question completely
I have NEVER argued that ““we the People,”
have done a adequate or satisfactory job in controlling the predatory acts of government.
We clearly haven’t and there a lot that we can still do. But I MUST argue with your extreme absolutist view that government is the root of ALL evil.
We are not choosing between “statism”, as you so loosely remark, and anarchism. Your visceral reaction to any mention of’government’ betrays your chronic obsessive compusive disorder. Paranoia is NOT rational!
NOR is ‘perfectionism’. Someone earlier made a
comment about the PERFECT being the enemy of the GOOD. In a political context, that is an
absolutely true statement.
It is NOT the purpose of the Libertarian Party to create a “perfect” state, but a better, more liberty oriented state. This can ONLY be done,
one step at a time. Every member of this party who is actively engaged in eliminating ALL government cannot be functionally capable of
focusing on the specific means of eliminating specific excesses and violations of our civil liberties.
@173 Also Kaneshiki.
FWIW, when there are strong women in the LP, they do tend to get treated badly by certain factions, harassed and eventually driven away. Here’s some examples:
Keaton (driven out)
Shinghal (left)
Hawkridge (driven out)
There are many others: Dedmon, Fox, Scott, Wilson, Ruwart, Ryan, for some names, who are either still around or on the fringes but have also gotten that treatment. Smart and strong women all.
The demographic gap is not helped by the male side being very much more single and looking than married or stable.
Maybe the real answer is to make the LP more family-friendly. It certainly helps on the well-known 18-year plan…
@164: You described Terry as being biploar manic psychotic.
That’s a pretty accurate description for you to give your “friend”…
@152:
Afraid? Nope.
When it comes to man parts and fear, you only project that which is yours onto others. Or in the case of the former, what you lack. 😛
Chrystal @153,
You’re quite welcome. 🙂
@ 168.
Visit an Ohio LP state event, conference, State Executive meeting, etc. Watch the young professionals that are coming into the LP Ohio take the party to the next level–a higher one. Groundwork and foundation is now set–only took about 5 to 6 years to get here. I will be bowing out in next year or two and the LP Ohio is in good shape. It was worth all my time, energy, and $$. Proud of them.
To Mr. Knedler…..YES!…showing something positive would be good for LP. Make some popcorn (or have a stiff drink) and see if some of the negativity turns positive. The LP is shooting itself lately. I hope it changes or it cannot challenge the R’s and D’s.
RPB @ 164. No, thank you.
Round 2 ? Or, are we on Round 12? Punch and counter-punch and no one is going down. Amazing.
Why not focus on some positives for a while. Focus on the states that have it together.
All this focus on the negatives. It’s poisonous.
Jill @ 162,
Read my post again regarding David Terry.
Richard P. Burke
RPB: BTW, I never remeber you being abusive to anyone here, even though we beat you up fairly regularly. I believe most of the conversation in the above thread has been for Mr. Terry.
RPB @ 159: “I would think that had I been truly abusive to anyone, male or female, I would get a warning from the moderators or even get blacklisted.”–It’s very unlikely this will happen.
“… do you really think it’s a good idea to play the victim feminist card?” Puh-leez, Richard, and women on IPR do this…where?
Gee, and with all the problems in PA, Oregon and now (maybe) in Nevada the LP is having gender problems. Go figure. I again state the Green Party and even the CP have their act together. The LP, Hmm….not so sure.
Chrystal,
Your post at 158 made much more sense.
Richard P. Burke
Chrystal @ 154,
I would encourage you to read your own post.
Wow.
With regard to myself, I don’t know who I was allegedly verbally abusive to on this list, male or female, nor has it been pointed out what it was I allegedly said that was abusive. I would think that had I been truly abusive to anyone, male or female, I would get a warning from the moderators or even get blacklisted. Had it happened during the campaign, I should have heard about the complaint from higher up. But nothing ever happened along these lines.
And far from feeling “emasculated” by bright women, quite the opposite is true. In my opinion, bright and independent women are the only interesting ones. Come to think about it, the same is true of people in general no matter what kind of relationship one is talking about. That’s just silly.
And, I will say again, I don’t know what the whole “gonad” thing was about.
I do recall a conversation with a campaign volunteer who was given a lot of responsibility. In this conversation, as were getting acquainted. We talked about jobs and politics. When the discussion turned to family and kids, and I was asked whether I had any, I replied that I had a stepdaughter but because of a childhood illness I cannot have kids.
Perhaps this morphed into a discussion of “gonads” through second and third hand accounts among people who don’t like me very much. That’s my guess. If this was not the incident referred to, then I have no idea what is being spoken about. But in any case, I was never abusive. And that’s all I have to say about that.
Now let’s talk about my good friend David Terry. David would be the first to admit that he loses his temper on occasion and occasionally issues four-letter words in a loud voice (or in ALL CAPS) when upset. Not a good thing. It is good to keep one’s cool, even if one feels provoked.
But on such occasions I see no difference between what David says to males or females or how he says it to them (although I have never seen David be willing to physically fight a female). Can anyone else here site examples of David’s temper being differently dispensed between males and females?
What’s more interesting here is how males and females (at least on this list) have responded to David’s temper. The male recipients of David’s temper typically just label him a jerk, an idiot, or some version of that. In contrast, the women (at least those active on this thread) are effectively accusing him of misogyny. Wow. After all we have been through as a culture, have we come no further than that – especially in the Libertarian Party?
I can’t defend David’s explosions of temper regardless of his chosen target, but his anger is certainly “equal opportunity” for men and women alike. I had hoped that women properly demanding to be treated with equality are willing to take the bad with the good without taking refuge in politically correct dogma when convenient.
When David is his normal self, he is a very kind man. I note that he treats men and women equally well. If anything, he is more deferential to females, opening doors and such, and never have I seen a woman complain. Is this misogyny too?
So, ladies, if you expected to be respected at parity with men, which is absolutely your right, do you really think it’s a good idea to play the victim feminist card? In the Feminist Studies class I took at Portland State while an undergrad, I learned that the tactic disempowers women in the long run and demeans men and women alike.
It might be better to stop acting like Democrats and simply call David a jerk when he loses his temper (just like the men do) and leave it at that.
Richard P. Burke
I want to be clear, however, that the road goes both ways. I have seen women in the movement with great intelligence destroy a male counterpart’s argument and then proceed to gloat about it. I was also introduced to a woman in her late 40s that was a Creepertarian with youngsters (male and female) in the movement. WE all should be diligent to weed out this behavior. Out the individuals that act inappropriately and call them on their behavior when we see/hear it happening. That is the only way we can affect our movement positively and create a more supportive environment for new comers and old timers, male and female, all races and all sexual orientations.
Rant done. Back to work… 🙂
CG @ 153: “I believe that it is because when strong women speak their minds, men like DT and RB become verbally abusive and attack us based on the fear of emasculation through being bested by a woman’s mind.”
Thank you Chrystal! You hit the nail right on the head.
Mt. Terry never did explain his bizarre comment about his drill sergeant. All he did is change the subject.
154 Bingo!
THIS ^^^^
I want to address the DT comment regarding the language of the women here. I believe only LG resorted to profanity. The rest of us, while getting testy and irritated have kept our tongues and made strong statements without profanity. Even the comments regarding RB’s testicles began with the word “gonads”. LG was pushed to the language she used because DT and RB seem to only understand abusive language as a means of making a point.
Why is there a lack of female voices in the Libertarian movement? WW, we had a thread on FB regarding this topic. I believe that it is because when strong women speak their minds, men like DT and RB become verbally abusive and attack us based on the fear of emasculation through being bested by a woman’s mind. It is a lack of trust and respect for women in general that causes that kind of reaction to rational female arguments. Which, btw, we (women) prefer to call simply “arguments”. The matter of our gender is secondary to the strength of our minds. Until men such as DT and RB come around to accepting and respecting strong intelligent women, we will continue to see low numbers of women in the Libertarian movement. This is an issue that women like LG and myself are working diligently to correct.
FDS @ 146
THANK YOU! I was wondering why the Hades the thread took the route it did.
I plan to use your metaphor of the grocery store in the future. It makes sense to me AND it’s an example that my teenage daughter and her friends will “get”.
FDS leaves no doubt that he is afraid to connect his identity to his own views and does not have the nads to risk being considered an ass, except as an anonymous entity.
His sense of self-worth is totally second-handed.
I can’t imagine living in such a paranoid state. He needs our prayers, even though he doesn’t deserve them.
FDS @123: “The first rule of cyber-etiquette is to not make an ass of oneself using their own name.”
FDS @146: “I choose to use not my own name PRECISELY so I can say what I want.”
My email is
[email protected]
Jeeze Burke, did you have to let that information out? Now Tiernan and company will be sending missionaries to Messier-31 to stir up the natives.
Fred Jabin,
What is your current email address? I tried to send you an email and it bounced. Please send me an email to [email protected].
Thanks,
Richard
PS: Bob Tiernan is clearly nuts, but amusing. My request of him is that, when he calls me a prick, that he spells it “prique”, which implies a bit of class.
I cannot help but be flattered that I justify a “galactic” hate organization, of which he appoints himself “chair”. I can now look to the skies and know I am hated everywhere I look, except perhaps at the Andromeda galaxy, where Mr. Tieranan’s domain does not include. 😉
@144 You have gone off the deep end in your attempt to defend statism.
I have never had any trouble in defending myself against individual perpetrators of criminal activity. On rare occasion, the assistance of a few friendly individuals has been sufficient.
OTOH, the track record of “we the People,” as your reference puts it, in controlling the predatory acts of our government, shows that things haven’t been working out so well …
The monster is growing, its power and strength continues unabated, and “we the People” continue to be its victims.
Obviously people fail reading comprehension around here.
To unnecessarily repeat myself:
” If you want a libertarian society example, just look at the personal interactions in your average grocery store.”
Note that I said personal interactions. I didn’t say a thing about product placement, security cameras, applied government regulations, and all that schlock. Instead these simpletons go off on a tangent about shoplifting which has little to zero to do with what I wrote. Mr> Terry’s low opinion of people illustrates more about his own sourpussed jackassery than anyone else.
I said personal interactions. For the slow-to-comprehend types here, that means how people in the store interact with each other, In your typical store, people are not required to drive their carts on the right side of the aisle, not required to use turn signals or stop at the end of aisles, or use similar traffic control rules. People drive their carts all over the place, stop anywhere and everywhere at random, wait patiently in line, generally without complaint, and even help each other on occasion when it is warranted, like when a person in an electric shopping cart can’t reach a high-shelf item. IOW, people interact civilly without any rules except self-imposed courtesy and simple patience. IOW, self-regulated self-governance in action–not because of security cameras or theft laws, but because everyone there who is a law-abiding and honest person are all doing exactly the same thing and recognize it in themselves and each other at the very least on an instinctual and unconscious level.
Really, I shouldn’t have to explain this rather obvious point to people, but apparently they are so lacking in reading comprehension and critical thinking skills that I have to explain the meaning behind the terminology so they can understand it, and here we are.
BTW, for Mr. Webster @136: You claim irony yet you miss the point that I choose to use not my own name PRECISELY so I can say what I want. I even wrote so, but that point was apparently lost on clueless you.
As a member of the Libertarian Party of Oregon since 1980, I voted for and support the LPO Board’s February 4 resolution opposing Ms Mattson’s appointment to the LNC.
— Bruce Alexander Knight
Secretary, Libertarian Party of Oregon
2012 LPO Secretary of State nominee
former LPO Chairperson, Secretary, and Judicial Committee member
1996, 1998, 2000 LPO US House nominee
libertarian since 1969
DT (143) “The SECOND fallacy is assuming that ALL gov’t spending is (a) theft or (b) unnecessary.”
I should have added that (a) MOST of government spending is theft and (b) MOST of government spending is unnecessary.
The point STILL remains that “we the people”
still have the power to curtail acts of gov’t, BUT
we (as individuals) have MUCH less power to stop private criminal actions. THAT clearly takes collective, DEFENSIVE and “forceful” collective actions on the part of our necessary agent – the government!
BR (140) You are comparing oranges with pineapples. One can be peeled with your bare hands and other requires a knife, (aka weapon).
The FIRST fallacy is assuming that ALL private crime is 1.5 %. Shoplifting and “petty” theft is a small percentage of the cost of “private” crime.
The SECOND fallacy is assuming that ALL gov’t spending is (a) theft or (b) unnecessary.
Your third sentence is not a fallacy, it is lunacy!
The mafioso protected NO ONE, except themselves!
@141 You are no doubt correct. I only used 50% as a rough, round number to show the order of magnitude of the problem.
BR @140
Arguably government steals more than 50%.
If you consider that GDP is overstated because they include top line sales for products manufactured outside our borders, and count all deficit spending as a tax because they intend to collect it from you in the future at some rate of interest that the current NPV would be equal to the deficit as it is stated today…
Well, you start to get to numbers much higher than 50%.
Shoplifters steal 1.5%.
Government steals 50%.
The mafia, in its heyday, ran a cheaper and more effective protection racket.
MHW (138) Basically correct Michael, although I might question your percentages. Basically, people are honest, be it 2% or 5% or even 10% that are dishonest.
Thus government exists to protect us from that small percentage who are NOT honest.
@133
Nothing against grocery stores, but you can also see evidence of government regulations all over the grocery store. None the less, if you are trying to promote the idea that libertarianism will give people a better life–it might be a good idea to conduct your self in a manner that would show it.
we seem to be one of the best arguments against our own philosophy.
DT @ 136. I have spent the better part of 30 years in retail and for two of the best companies in the U.S.
I worked as a purchasing agent, buyer and in inventory control. About 2% of the people coming into a store are intent on stealing. 98% are honest. Much of the shrinkage as it is known is due to faulty inventory management but not all of it.
People are fairly honest to say the least.
Thinking himself anonymous, From Der Sidelines writes: “The first rule of cyber-etiquette is to not make an ass of oneself using their own name.”
irony n. incongruity between a situation and an accompanying statement that is understood by the audience but not by the speaker
(132) Benchwarmer wrote: “If you want a libertarian society example, just look at the personal interactions in your average grocery store.
L.O.L. Sorry to ruin you quaint little fairytale, but look at the ceiling. See those little black glass gismos placed strategically throughout the store? Those are CAMERAs.
Someone, OTHER THAN BIG BROTHER, is watching.
In 2010, Shoplifters cost U.S. retailers about $40 billion in stolen goods, or 1.5% of the nation’s total retail sales. That equates to $433 in added costs to every American family due to higher prices.
In 2010, U.S. retailers lost about $40 billion in stolen goods, or 1.5% of the nation’s total retail sales.
FJ @131
I have not stated that suing to resolve a difference of opinion is inappropriate – so the same points are not being made.
We will state that we do not believe that the plaintiffs have a valid case.
Burke: “The LPO has no army or police force.”
Yeah, but you took care of that in 1996 when you and your criminal friends hired security guards to watch your opposition, calling it “ballot security” even though they never got near the ballot boxes.
B. Tiernan
@132: If you want a libertarian society example, just look at the personal interactions in your average grocery store.
The problem is not that we need to present an example. The problem is getting people to recognize that they interact in it every day without realizing it.
With apologies to Mark Axinn, who is right in suggesting that this has turned away from a debate about Mattson’s qualifications.
We are losing.
The criticisms that I hear most often about Libertarians are
1. Their ideas are adolescent and the way they act is also adolescent. This is especially prevalent about how we are viewed in online forums.
2. Their view are unrealistic. We need the authority of the state to get things done and without it we would have chaos.
I disagree with both of those criticisms but when I look at how we treat each other, its hard to combat their views.
There are a lot of different views on how we can promote libertarian ideals–some very pragmatic and some very idealistic. We don’t all have to use the same tactics to be successful. but we do have to do one thing. Spend our time, energy, and resources reaching out to others.
But unfortunately this current situation in the LPO has created a perpetual system of utilizing our resources fighting each other.
A large part of our philosophy relies on the idea that we would be better off if could work with others voluntarily for the benefit of each other and we don’t need force to make this happen.
We will get people to understand, and adopt, this philosophy IF we show them an example of how our voluntary society will work.
Unfortunately, we are too invested in hanging on to our egos and fighting each other for a little bit of power, to learn to work together.
We can keep bickering about right or wrong and spending thousands of dollars to get to determine who is in power, or we can do something that will provide positive results for liberty.
JT–
with respect, I suggest that the truth isn’t a matter of a simple this or that– in this case.
There were a variety of problems that were associated with the parties bylaws and the way they had been created, adopted, and changed over years of the party infighting.
Some of the issues were due to bad membership records, inaccurate minutes, and even potential violations of Oregon election laws.
This left a situation where probably any action that was taken would leave either to destruction of the party or a violation of our rules.
Only a few years before this happened it was Wagner who was suing the party and Burke who was claiming that to use the force of the state was an un libertarian action. Now the tables are turned and they same points are being made, but by the opposite sides.
The party has been in dismal shape for years because of this infighting, but if you want a simple who is right and who is wrong answer–you will probably be disappointed.
George Phillies (125)
No, if I wanted to drive anyone out of the LP it would be arrogant bastards such as yourself.
How do you get dressed in the morning without help? You are the most ignorant egotist I have yet to encounter.
So WHAT do you have against Blacks, Latinos and Women, Mr Phillies?
And WHERE are the accusations of misogynism
CvS 6 “Wagner wanted to change the bylaws to inflate the membership from dues-payers/pledge-signers to all the thousands of Oregonians who are registered Libertarian (even if they’ve never paid dues or signed the pledge).”
Yeah, so? There’s always been a view held by at least some members that any state LP would be wise to consider all registered Libertarians (in any state that has such an option on their voter registration cards) to be members of the party so that they could participate in choosing their candidates. No one would be seeking their money beyond asking for donations from timne to time.
Compare that to what our resident sociopathic liar RPB preferred in 1999 with his support for UMP — literally drafting into the LPO those Oregonians who were National LP members only, thus getting half of their money which had up to that time been going to NLP only, perhaps which is all they wanted to do. Burke was after the money and nothing else. He never did anything for those people afterwards. As usual, UMP was sold by inflating its benefits (“We’ll need to hire a membership person just to handle all of the new members”). Where is UMP now? It’s where Burke ought to be.
B. Tiernan
CvS 8
“The revolutionary war succeeded because brave Americans pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.”
Garsh, I hope you’re not implying that Burke is in THAT category! Had Burke been around during that early period he would have missed the entire Revolution because he would have spent the whole time in a Colonial strip club, in a private booth. Than the little prick would have emerged and claimed he deserved to be the new leader.
Bob Tiernan
Burke: “I did not write #8. I always sign my posts with my real name.”
Except when you don’t.
Saying that you “always” sign your own name is like you saying that you never lie.
B. Tiernan
Yes, an excellent letter to support.
Bob Tiernan
Chair, The Intergalactic Burke-Hating Society
@123 I see. And your mission is to drive out the whites and the males?
The first rule of cyber-etiquette is to not make an ass of oneself using their own name. Meester Terry seems to have forgotten that, and as a result, he makes an ass of himself on here every time he types, and doesn’t know when to quit when he’s WAAAAYYY behind, as he usually is. It’s quite good for the humor, really, but not much else.
As for me, I use a nom-de-web because it allows me to say what I want and tell it like it is without worrying about the online psychopaths like Meester Terry, etc. The few people that know my real identity know my LP resume, and Meester Terry can’t hold an unlit candle to it. Being relatively anonymous is quite liberating, actually, because I can leave my tact with my real persona and vent however I want.
The advantage I hold is very simple, and that’s the knowledge that I can walk away from this “circle jerk,” as Meester Terry calls it rather condescendingly (if so, why is he here and what does that say about him?), at any time and do so laughing, because like Rhett Butler, I really don’t give a damn what insignificant has-beens like him think. I only respond to him because he asks for it like some sort of sadist addict needing an insult fix. IPR itself is a very good resource for goings on outside the major party real circle jerks, too, which is why I read it.
In the meantime I simply call it like I see it without reservation and if you don’t like it, look in the mirror and ask yourself why you react that way, since only you are responsible for your own reactions. That too is at the heart of libertarianism.
DT (52) Feb 6, 2013
“IF, by “a broader base”, you mean PEOPLE, I agree 100%. The LP is TOO WHITE & TOO MALE . We really need to reach out to the latino and black communities and bring more women into leadership roles at the state level.”
So where does this misogynism, bull shit come from? The next time “BR” sticks his head in his anus, he should take a flashlight with him to see what kind of crap he is extracting!
117 Dave Terry // Feb 8, 2013 at 11:25 pm
“As to the thread about why we have no women in the LP, apparently some of the one’s we DO attract talk like my last Drill Sergeant!
Where was that thread about why we have no women in the party?” – DT
It appears that Richard Burke has company in the misogynistic LPO take-over cabal.
Is it a requirement to be a misogynist to join?
I still don’t get your comment about talking like a drill sergeant, but, oh well.
Mr. Terry, if you go to the top of this site and click “About”, you’ll see I’m only one of a couple dozen writers. I just happen to have been fairly active lately.
I have an art degree, and I make my living selling insurance. I have no training at writing or blogging, but I do it to get info out there. I don’t moderate at all, with the exception of correcting another writer’s spelling occassionally.
Perhaps I should be flattered. Trent Hill is the manager of the site, and Warren Redlich has recently bought us.
As far as the CA chair telling me to be quiet–I wasn’t, at all, and ended up not running again to be on the Ex Com.
JP (115) “I don’t “allow” anyone to use anonymity. If that’s how they post, why is it my business to out them?
I have been under the impression that YOU are the moderator of this circle jerk. Ir, that is NOT true, than please accept my apology. However , IF it is true than it IS your business to assure that posters to not abuse the common rules of cyber-etiquette.
” I did for a while, especially when I was on the CA Executive Committee, and the chair didn’t want me to post here at all.”
THAT is a deplorable confession. What bylaw gave the Chair the right or authority to tell you what lists you could post to. You should have told him (or her) to kiss you patooty.
So are you a moderator OR are you NOT?
DT @ 117: “As to the thread about why we have no women in the LP, apparently some of the one’s we DO attract talk like my last Drill Sergeant!”
Another bizarre comment. Who talks like a drill sergeant?
WW (107)
I had nada to do with ’emasculating” the bench warmer. That was done long before I came on the scene. Hell, he probably did it himself, so know one would figure out who he is. (talk about paranoia!)
As to the thread about why we have no women in the LP, apparently some of the one’s we DO attract talk like my last Drill Sergeant!
Where was that thread about why we have no women in the party?
Thank you for your discretion, Jill. You are class.
DT @ 105: “So, how long do to propose to hide behind Jill’s skirts?”
What a strange, bizarre comment.
I don’t “allow” anyone to use anonymity. If that’s how they post, why is it my business to out them? There are lots of reasons for people to use anonymous names. I did for a while, especially when I was on the CA Executive Committee, and the chair didn’t want me to post here at all.
I know who FdS is, mainly because he didn’t cover his tracks when he first started using that name, and he has a uniques style. Big deal.
MA @113
Goodnight … from the state that will never be called “California’s Hat” again 😉
Things happen. 🙂
Have a good night.
MA @110
That is right, I forgot about that. You were not in Vegas and you had specifically left direction to NOT do what was decided.
Well, I do know Ms. Pyeatt and she’s a fine lady, but I think her husband is the only one besides her dealing with her skirts. But she’s far above Terry’s league. Then again, so are most women… 😛
Whole ‘nother topic.
As some may recall, I was not in LV and there was much internal dissention over whether to leave 5N where we had been for quite a long time (and where Oregon was until 2012).
The situation may change in 2014 or it may not–much too soon to tell.
MA @108
Sounds like you chose your region poorly 😉
Wes–
LOL.
I don’t even know Mr. Burke nor what he did or was accused of doing, but it all seems to have very little with whether Alicia Mattson is the appropriate choice at this time for LNC Secretary.
For the record, I spoke with my regional rep. quite recently in my capacity as New York State Chair, and asked him to vote for Dave Blau on round two.
I am, however, just one of five state chairs in Region 4 and the majority supported Alicia on the last round.
So DT is trying to emasculate FDS by claiming he is hiding behind Jill’s skirts (a misogynist comment vs women…) and Mark Axinn is equating accusations of sexual harassment to a “fascinating discussion of one of the warring factions in Oregon’s sex life”
Where was that thread about why we have no women in the party?
NS@101–
Thanks for the update.
Sorry to interrupt everyone else’s fascinating discussion of one of the warring factions in Oregon’s sex life with something mundane like the subject matter of this thread!
MHW (102) At least, he HAS a reputation.
Feminine Deodorant Spray (103) Like all the other limpy wimpy voyeurs in the crowd, you haven’t got the ‘nads OR the talent to get in the game. At least the other spectators bought a ticket.
So, how long do to propose to hide behind Jill’s skirts?
So Jill, how often does a cybercreep have to identify himself to gain your good offices? He has never identified himself in the time I’ve been on this list, so for me, he is STILL a ‘sniper’
Just out of curiosity, why would you allow certain individuals the privilege of anonymity so as to bushwack fellow libertarians with impunity?
Yeah, when did I ID myself? Not as far as I know, and I intend to keep it that way.
As for Terry, he’s just a bitter and jealous old man who has nothing but namecalling and is not fit to carry my water bucket.
I see that Burke’s reputation is getting around. Good work Richard.
@96: Results of the first ballot:
Mattson – 6
Blau – 5
Moulton – 4
Johnson – 2
Next ballot will only be Mattson, Blau, and Moulton.
LG @ 98 The term you are looking for is “Creepertarian” A person who uses the ideas of Liberty and Personal Freedom to coerce others into sexual acts.
Jill- I guess I missed it… when did “From Der Sidelines” identify himself?
for fucks sake i thought everybody knew i was debra dedmon. The gonads comment was in the following context; RB told a young GJ/LP activist traveling the country for the campaign. She has no reason to lie and Id reveal her name except this is somewhat embarrassing and knowing her , this isnt a forum shed likely devote any time to anyways.
RB thought it was appropriate to tell her his balls didnt work …..she wondered outloud “why would he tell me this?”
being older I theorized it was the age old swindle to get to have sex w/o a condom….which assumes the sex act might actually take place , further evidence of self delusions.
I also heard many other stories about him , his promiscuity( pukes in mouth) and relentlessness in creeping women out- yes 2 unrelated newbie women told me the same thing.
RB knows whom I speak of and for future reference should be more aware how his pathetic attempts to get laid really are turning people off. Can you inmagine how new female activists would react to such behavior??
DT: LG and From der Sidelines have both identified themselves here.
My understanding was that there is not sufficient support (or to put it differently, there is sufficient antipathy) on the LNC for Ms. Mattson to be elected to fill the vacancy.
Do we have an updated vote to report yet?
LG has identified herself many times.
RPB (93)
The “gonad” thing refers to a comment that you ALLEGEDLY made to an unknown associate of an anonymous poster on this list.
I suppose if “Libertarian Girl” HAD gonads, SHE, like our old friend “Hiding on the Sidelines, would actually identify herself and document her hearsay.
Wes@92,
You’re taking a lot for granted here. How do you know if we haven’t found new members and leaders? (we have)
Don’t know what the “gonad” thing is all about, but whatever. Those I worked with on the Johnson campaign did a fine job and I have nothing but good things to say about them. We got accolades on the earned media coverage, had a successful rally, and got out hundreds of signs.
Still, it is worth noting that I repeatedly offered to resign as Johnson’s Oregon campaign director when the Oregon dispute bled into the campaign and the repeatedly refused to take me up on it. While I may not have done as much as I would have liked as a volunteer, they must not have had a lot of confidence in the available alternatives.
Richard P. Burke.
Generally speaking, you might have some problems when after almost 2 years of trying to rally support for your cause you don’t have any new members/leaders and the outsiders who have met you are discussing your propensity to discuss the functional status of your gonads — and otherwise have no redeeming comments they offered.
yep seems to me… not quite as dangerous as when i actually think, that the people who want to be in control of an organization…. national, state even down to the county are more interested in control, in power… then they are interested in the goals that motivate the membership. There are some exceptions to this. The exceptions would be the ones who work to create rules that allow them to be easily replaced. Those that write their organizational rules that make it difficult or impossible to replace them are the obvious control personalities.
and speaking on OR. I recently travelled there and met old school folks and some new ones. Here is what I learned. New folk introduced to LPO members via the Johnson campaign were almost universally creeped out by Richard Burke if they were women. One young lady felt extrememly uncomfortable with the fact Mr. Burke felt it appropriate to share facts about the workability of his gonads. ?? WTF?
He just doesnt have the personal communication skills necessary to make newbies comfortable and willing to come back.
The other lady told me Wagner was just the opposite. That he discouraged her from realizing her ideas via the LPO saying that would only tie her hands and i hibit her success. He told he to run with her ideas and they would help her how they could.
I love this approach and it puts the energy of the activist in the best position to realize her ideas instead of killing it thru micro managemnt and inner party crap.
I trult believe that Wes is doing what he is doing not to retain control w/in the LPO but to make sure LPO does not have any
**comes to mind …..ends my reprint , everything following is spoken now
Im reposting an article I wrote after my first encounter with Alicia , I feel its relevant because it was an event that quite literally shattered my rose colored glasses of the LP and introduced me to factional maneuvering , at least I felt it did.
***Vegas was my first national meeting and one thing more than any other bothered me and really disappointed the ideals Ive had concerning the way Libs are supposed to act.
Now I dont know all the ins and outs and who’s who of the Platform Committee and I REALLY DONT CARE but as a outsider looking in it seemed to me the spirit of Liberty was not in the room when they decided to not seat two alternates.
COUPLE POINTS OF OBSERVATION
1. 2 others were absent , but 2 members who paid to be there were ready , willing and able .
2 . One of the missing members is a registered Republican ( I never imagined it possible to hold a position of extreme importance and be a member of another Party) . Silly , naive me.
3.I sat thru the meeting and understand the minutia-rules they grandstanded to oppose seating them , but I was curious why the fact that it had always been assumed and allowed that alternates be seated wasnt a bigger factor.
Several people spoke of members and alternates freely sitting in for eachother and in a court of law precedence carries much weight but in this meeting at this time , some decided it was time to demand perfect adherence to the letter of the bylaws , which was open to intrpretation anyhow.
3.I have never seen L.P people act like rule police before so this was quite an eyeopener and abruptly killed this fantasy Ive held that all L.P members are fair , inclusive and would never utilize tactics we abhorr in others to keep out good and honest people .
Even without knowing all the behind the scenes politicing and reasoning I couldnt help but ask myself what greater good this was serving . None of us got to be Libertarians by obeying all the rules just because they’re so. If there was even room for debate , and there was , it seemed to me the LP default should be not in adhering stringintly to Roberts Rules but to include and allow .Last time I checked Robert or his rules didnt give a crap about restoring liberty.
I geuss when debates have voter quotas we should just accept our exclusion because the “rules” say we don’t qualify.Or maybe we should accept free-speech zones without protest , unfair laws withoutout outrage and quietly try to push our agenda through politely sitting thru city-council meetings , waiting our turn and hoping we can acheive our ends thru obeying the means they provide us.
its ludicrous , my only point is that we have NEVER been focused on such things so I was left to conclude that standing on the rule was a smokescreen and it wasnt really the rules they cared about but not seating the alternates was their purpose.
Now I met both alternates and they didnt seem like complete ass%^&* to me so the only conclusion I could come to was that they would have voted differently on things and upset some balance the excluders were and are relying on .
Someone made a great point , they said that some people would be so put off by their tactics that what thay said after would fall on deaf ears , even if it was a good idea. They couldnt have been more right .
I know nothing of the in-fighting on a national level and I dont care. This was my first big meeting and I so disliked the way things were handled that Ive found myself on a particular side and disliking the “other side” when I can honestly say I have no idea what direction the Plat Comms heading in , what proposals are being looked at or if Alicia and the other excluders are actually nice people ( and im sure they are).
What I know is that at my first national meeting I saw something go down that shattered my naive perception of Libertarians. I now find myself in opposition to others when that was never my intention. These tactics keep us all from uniting and focusing against the real enemy. I heard someone say , after denying the seating , that “the enemy is not in this room” .
Theyre right the enemy isnt with-in our walls but how can we unite to even begin to defeat our enemies when we deny our ‘friends’ a seat at the table.
divided and conquered comes to mind
I would like it known that my feelings are nothing personal and I like Alicia just fine. Id be thrilled if LPNevada got its head screwed back on and Alicia took a larger role here at home.
I only bringthis up because I cannot possibly be alone in my profound disappointment at learning maneuvering , factionalism and procedure were alive and well and being utilized quite well to marginalize those with a different vision. It shattered the idealistic vision I held of both the party and the people in it.
I stuck around because for me , you all are family and the Party stands for the most awesome ,incredible truth Ive ever come across. But how many idealistic , energetic activists have been permanently turned off and left in disgust over the petty bullshit and procedure that replaced their dreams of liberty and changing the world via the LP? ALOT THATS HOW MANY , A WHOLE FUCKING LOT! both stateside and nationally.
for this reason alone when Tim asked me my opinion I gave it. Chuck Moulton is the best option. He is in a very small group of people , one my loud and passionate tendencies exclude me from. He is a Tim Hagan , a Dr. Lark , a rare LP bird who judges every vote logically , autonomous of influence and w/o regard for posturing to ensure a future seat.
Its the one character asset more important than any other in quashing the bullshit
@84 well said!
Me personally , Id have a hard time even trying for a spot Id been clearly rejected from ……
The last few years I have grown to respect and like Alicia and her qualifications and ability are w/o question , however her bottom line loyalty is unwavering as well and altho she follows rules she is beyond astute at using them to obtain a certain outcome. my first meeting with her was the platform comm. where she was able to not seat an alternet who was present……anyone got numbers on how often she voted opposite of say AAron ??
Re: “Vote Count on the LNC” @45 and “Calling Starchild” @57:
For the record, I voted last night for Chuck Moulton for LP secretary. Brett Pojunis voted for Alicia Mattson. Rich Tomasso and Jim Lark each voted for David Blau.
It is also correct that I accidentally missed a recent vote on a second motion by Mark Hinkle to loosen the financial requirements for buying a new headquarters building in the greater Washington D.C. area, and put the decision solely in the hands of the Executive Committee, rather than the full Libertarian National Committee.
I regret to say that the motion passed, although it did so by a substantial majority and the “no” vote I intended to cast would not have affected the outcome. The reason I missed the vote was because I got confused and thought I had already voted, but the motion I voted on was a previous Hinkle motion to more or less the same effect, which he re-introduced due to a mistake in the wording which was pointed out to him by another LNC member after voting had commenced. I voted no on that previous motion.
LP members who are interested in more details of these and other LNC matters are welcome and encouraged to subscribe to the reflector list to which I post email messages from the LNC-business list, where votes are posted, and from the high-traffic LNC-Discuss list, where committee members engage in general discussion. The address for the reflector list is LNCDiscussPublic[at]yahoogroups.com.
There is another secret LNC list run by regional rep. Dan Wiener, who restricts membership to those LNC members who agree not to forward messages posted on that list to anyone not on the LNC. Since I did not wish to agree to that condition, I am not on that list and not privy to what is posted there, so I cannot tell you what those LNC members who are on it (I believe the majority of the committee) may be discussing.
Those who feel it is inappropriate for Dan Wiener, as an elected Libertarian representative, to be running a secret LNC list not viewable by LP members, are certainly welcome to contact him and let him know how you feel about it. He can be reached via the page on the national Libertarian Party website where LNC members are listed, http://www.lp.org/leadership .
One of the reasons I’m supporting Chuck Moulton for secretary is because he has been a strong proponent of openness and transparency, which I have come to see as a critical issue in our party’s governance, as well as in government generally.
Without transparency, people at the grassroots level won’t know what their elected representatives are talking about and doing. If you don’t know what your representatives are talking about and doing, you can hardly hold those representatives accountable. And any organization lacking in bottom-up accountability is ripe for top-down tyranny.
Libertarians tend to understand this quite well when it comes to governments in the “real world”, but I think there has often been less awareness that the same general dynamic applies to governance within the LP, which as a political party is subject to significant pressure to water down libertarian principles and make other ethical compromises in order to seek money and votes.
Of course none of this is to gloss over the crucial distinction between top-down tyranny in a voluntary association such as a political party or other non-governmental organization, and top-down tyranny in an actual government which has the power to compel individual behavior via the law and punish those who disobey with fines, incarceration, or even in some cases torture or death.
If the Libertarian Party were to become a strongly top-down organization run by a relatively small group of leaders not accountable in any real sense to its grassroots members and supporters, it would not mean the LP would be in danger of creating its own gulag, or even that it would become an un-libertarian group overnight.
However I think the result over time would be to gradually transform our party into an organization more closely resembling the Republican and Democrat parties, namely an organization run by people mainly concerned with maintaining their money and power, and to that end favoring policies much more statist than those espoused by the LP at present.
So for the good of our party and the libertarian movement and Non-Aggression Principle for which it stands, I encourage LP members to pay attention to what myself and other members of the party’s national leadership are doing, and seek to ensure we’re held accountable!
Dave Terry the bylaws and Robert’s Rule have been abused and misused for years in the LPO. You and Burke are not innocent in that matter.
T @ 81: “Truth will ultimately triumph!”
Finally, something we can agree on.
JP (77) – RPB (78)
Proving once again, what a duplicitous, devious
and disingenuous scam artists, we are dealing with.
Truth will ultimately triumph!
RPB (76) ” If anything, he proves our case in that he and his group attempted to coopt the force of government to achieve their political goals when they misapplied Oregon statute to justify their coup.”
HOW IRONIC! That was precisely the SAME point I made just an instant before the infamous confrontation between Mr. Vetanen and myself
occurred.
I accused him (and Wagner) of doing the exact thing that they had previously claimed Mr. Burke of doing.
Clearly, the truth HURT and Vetanen LOST IT!
That is when HE “assaulted” ME! If you think I’m lying, replay the video and listen to Vetanen
explain to Wagner what just happened and when
Vetanen finished repeating what I had said, a voice from off-camera can clearly be heard to say; “Well, you are!”
I don’t know WHOSE voice it is, but for all I know is might be Vox Dei!
Thanks for the answer, Richard.
Jill @ 77,
At the time, because we did not control the LPO’s PAC, we were told that we could not take contributions since we could have no way of legally reporting them and that attempting to do so would violate election laws. In this case, state law seemed to supersede our bylaws.
When we solicited money to help our legal effort, Mr. Wagner filed a legal complaint against us on those grounds. The Sec. of State told them to get bent since we were not spending them on political activity. So we tried to collect LPO dues again. Again Wagner complained on similar grounds. And, again, the Sec. of State told them to get bent. Apparently, Wagner thought we could not properly collect dues, but paradoxically accused us of not being members because we had not paid dues. A disingenuous Catch 22.
But with Mr. Wagner’s complaints rebuffed, the State Committee has chosen to resume enforcement of LPO Bylaws, and a notice saying so went out to all LPO members with the convention notice.
Richard P. Burke
Richard, I understand that the officers elected by the Reeves group had all allowed their memberships to expire. Can you tell me why that is not an important fact?
All,
The problem with Mr. Vetanen’s comment @ 74 is that he is talking about a tyrannical kingdom imposing force to achieve it’s goals (in the case of 74).
He does the same thing in the case of 75 where he more generically talks the laws which are passed by governments typically backed by force.
His problem is that the Libertarian Party of Oregon is neither a kingdom or government backed by force under which people live. The LPO has no army or police force. It cannot pass laws to which people are subject without their consent. Membership is voluntary. It’s bylaws (not laws) are adopted voluntarily. People who don’t like the organization can work to change it legitimately or simply quit without a soldier or policeman kicking down one’s door in the dead of night.
Mr. Vetanen’s analogies simply don’t hold water. If anything, he proves our case in that he and his group attempted to coopt the force of government to achieve their political goals when they misapplied Oregon statute to justify their coup.
Richard P. Burke
As for Laws, or my philosophy about them, is that LAWS should be created and used to help us work together, to facilitate commerce and communicate.
Laws that only create profit for the few, and disadvantage the rest of us should be abandoned.
Laws that stop commerce should be abandoned
Laws that impede communication should be abandoned.
Yes, I do think that laws can become out a hindrance and out dated as the climate and situation where those laws where created in has long dissipated. In short, we should have a revolution every few years to weed out the ones that are totally junk and of course to delete the ones that only profit the few and create disadvantages to the rest of us.
If Mr. Burke had been in pre-revolutionary America, when the founding fathers where drafting the declaration of independence, here is how is argument perhaps might then sound back then:
The question HERE is whether the ends justify the means, whether the desire for particular reforms justify a coup that violates the Kings Laws of the Colonies, that you voluntarily agreed to when you came here.
If the answer is “YES”, that the ends justify the means, and we believe we may throw out the Kings Laws when we think that legitimately changing the rules might be too difficult, then the next group coming along with passionately held views will feel justified in doing the same. In any case, if we cannot follow the kings Laws, I don’t see how the colonist can trust us to abide faithfully by the colonial laws the crown has given us.
I have no doubt that if my friends and I had tried such a coup against the Crown to implement changes I feel strongly about at a colony meeting, Mr. Wagner and his supporters would be screaming bloody murder.
All,
Mr. Schmitz @ 72 brings up an important point.
He supports Mr. Wagner’s vision of allowing all registered LP voters to vote on internal party business and denying membership to those who do not reside in Oregon.
I don’t agree with Mr. Schmitz’s views, but I have no problem with the idea of him advocating them or joining Mr. Wagner in doing so. To be sure, there are things in the legitimate LPO governing documents I would like to change.
But none of this is at the heart of what is going on here. In this particular dispute, the matter is irrelevant.
The question HERE is whether the ends justify the means, whether the desire for particular reforms justify a coup that violates the voluntarily adopted governing documents of the LPO, an organization to which membership is also voluntary.
If the answer is “YES”, that the ends justify the means, and we believe we may throw out the rulebook when we think that legitimately changing the rules might be too difficult, then the next group coming along with passionately held views will feel justified in doing the same. In any case, if we cannot follow our own rules, I don’t see how voters can trust us to abide faithfully by the US Constitution.
I have no doubt that if my friends and I had tried such a coup to implement changes I feel strongly about at a state committee meeting, Mr. Wagner and his supporters would be screaming bloody murder.
Richard P. Burke
I support Wes Wagner, his vision of allowing all registered as Libertarian to vote, disallowing membership to those who don’t reside in our state, and I fully support this letter.
I think it is disingenuous to to bring up “conversion” of Republicans, when those that have been “converted” attempt to “reform” the Libertarian Party to the precepts of the Republican Party. I stopped paying dues, gave up my membership on the state council and closed my county chapter, when those “converted Republicans” voted to allow our Presidential Candidate to be Bob Barr, a despicable creature who wrote the legislation to vacate the vote in DC for legal marijuana and co-wrote DOMA. We should not sacrifice our principles just to grow membership.
This has been bugging me for a long time in this endless discussion of who did what:
Assault is the threat. Battery is the action.
Assault is subjective, battery is not.
With all the frick’n lawyered up people in this thread, can’t ANY OF YOU GET IT RIGHT???
JT @69
I believe our pleadings reflect where we disagree with Mr Burke and his crew in their mistatements of facts and laws and are a matter of public record.
Wagner: “See
WW@20
Compare that to the unilateral bylaw swap Burke, Mattson, et.al. were planning without any such plebiscite.”
I don’t need to compare it to anything after the fact. The only question of relevance is if the claims Burke makes in this case are true or not. That’s it. If they are, then those actions are clearly wrong. If they aren’t, then you should say so because you’re being falsely accused.
Wilson: “Some years ago there was an LPO convention at Newport, Oregon. It took about six months to get the new bylaws after that convention and I don’t think the minutes were ever made available. But when I saw the new bylaws I was struck by changes that I did not recall the membership making at the time of the convention.”
I don’t know anything about this, including when this allegedly happened. When was it?
Regardless, two things: 1) If you didn’t see the new bylaws until months after that convention & you “did not recall” some changes made to said bylaws, that doesn’t even compare to the facts in this case, and 2) even if the facts were the same, 2 wrongs don’t make a right, do they?
I will ask counsel to compel DT to reconcile his false statements about the assault above at trial vs the multiple witness testimony, many of whom are 3rd parties to the case.
That is pretty much all that needs to be said about that.
Jill Pius (61) “Then, the viewer is shocked by the sudden assault by Mr. Terry. …It is a video, after all.
Please tell us, oh omniscient one, EXACTLY what transpired. Did I “push” him? Did I strike him with my fist? (If so, which hand did I use?)
Did I head butt him?
Where exactly was he assaulted? In the face?
The side of the head? The gut? The chest?
How many stitches did he receive and where?
From MY perspective, Mr. Vetanen screamed in my face. I stepped forward. He stepped back, tripped over a chair and fell on his ass!
Can’t YOU see that? “It is a video, after all.”
Unfortunately the feeble minded see exactly what they are TOLD to see.
JT @63
See
WW@20
Compare that to the unilateral bylaw swap Burke, Mattson, et.al. were planning without any such plebiscite.
Some years ago there was an LPO convention at Newport, Oregon. It took about six months to get the new bylaws after that convention and I don’t think the minutes were ever made available. But when I saw the new bylaws I was struck by changes that I did not recall the membership making at the time of the convention.
Burke: “Mr. Von Stauffenberg is quite right. Mr. Wagner and his group are guilty of what they accuse us of.”
I was just thinking the same thing after reading that letter. Complaining about someone imposing a new set of bylaws without consent is the height of irony if, as Burke says:
“Mr. Wagner’s group are the ones who: 1) Purportedly changed the bylaws outside of convention without notice to the membership, 2) Purportedly elected themselves to full terms of office under the purportedly new bylaws and, 3) Attempted to cancel a duly called session of the legal LPO Annual Business Convention, which Wagner himself called for.”
If these facts are true (and I don’t believe they’ve been denied), then this is gross misconduct on the behalf of Wagner, et. al. If LNC officers had done this, some commenters here would be screaming bloody murder & demanding the ouster of those officers (and perhaps the disbanding of the entire body). But we’re talking about the LNC & the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
JP @61
The jury will probably have 3-4 days of evidence and testimony as context for said comments in said videos and the ability to observe direct examination of witnesses.
A bit more attention than even astute IPR readers have put into it.
Very well sid, FDS @ 59.
CVS: To an outsider (me), the video that you think is your smoking gun has Wagner’s comment as being rather off-hand and out of context. Then, the viewer is shocked by the sudden assault by Mr. Terry. Trust me on this, it does NOT prove your point. It proves the point that the Reeve group has at least one person in it who flies off the handle inapporopriately. It is a video, after all.
Again, I hope you have somtething else for the jury in July.
I agree with @58.
I support the letter from Wes Wagner.
NatCom, Please say “NO!” to Mattson.
I find it remarkable that Terry and Stauffenberg have such a distorted view of reality.
The fact of the matter is this: The old LPO Bylaws were a mess. I’ve read them, and they were simply unworkable and needed full junking and a restart. So they had a convention to try to get them straightened out. If you recall, that was filmed by Mrs. Hawkridge in her official capacity at the time as LNC Regional Rep (before she was run out of the Party by the Starr Chamber). That convention was crashed by the aforementioned Starr Chamber and improperly broken up. They claimed no quorum, ignoring both the Bylaws at the time and RRONR. That started this whole mess: non-LPO people interfering with LPO affairs where they did not belong, in an attempt to take over a state party (like they did in Nevada) for their own purposes–having lost influence by direct election on the LNC since their colossoal blunders in their persecution of the Radicals faction, they changed gears and decided to work the state angle to re-establish influence and control through the regional reps. Visek was the first. Mr. Flood may or may not be able to verify that strategy shift, but the pattern is there. Note on the voting list above that Dr. Phillies has provided above that the Starr Chamber votes for Mattson that are regional reps have been left alone and secure in place–for example, hence no effort by the Starr Chamber to play that game in California, plus their Bylaws are very tight to prevent what happened in LPO.
Back to Oregon, the Starr Chamber has done exactly what Mr. Wagner has said, and the mountain of evidence bears that out. The Burke/Reeves front has produced zero to support their case and simply has been relying on the Big Lie to try to keep people thinking (and failing badly) that they are legitimate. Nobody inside or outside Oregon is buying it except the Starr Chamber members on the LNC and its various good-old-boy committees, from the Secretary of State on down to the regular member–and their lack of results show.
Was this a coup by Mr. Wagner? More like a counter-coup. Certainly the Starr Chamber would think in their own twisted and warped view that it was a coup against them, but by that reasoning so was tossing out Starr on his head by a 70-30 vote in St. Louis and Mattson in Las Vegas. It’s all about them, see, and not the membership or the party as a whole. Such is their hubris.
Bottom line to the LNC is this: The Starr Chamber is trying to subtly seduce you out of your shorts and you’re not only letting it happen, but are not even aware of their manipulations! They did it by reinstating Hinkle to the LNC after he was removed by the membership, and they’re trying it again now with Mattson. Frankly, if Mattson gets back on after being thrown off by the members, why should any member in any state take the LNC seriously, or ever have anything to do with the LNC ever again, since it would be relatively obvious that the LNC doesn’t give a damn about the members?
That’s the decision you face: select Mattson and lose the membership, or elect someone else and not.
Choose the latter wisely.
The LNC should pay attention to the letter, but it won’t.
Earth to Starchild. Come in Starchild. Why haven’t you voted yet? Doesn’t the vote end today? And didn’t you miss voting on another motion recently? Don’t flake out again. Team Moulton needs your vote.
@ 52: The BIGGEST problem we Libertarians have is “Babelism”, as in ‘Leaning Tower of’
I think you’re confusing the Tower of Babel with the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
I support this letter as well. The national party should stay out of our Oregon disagreements. It does not help us and it hurts the national party.
I support this letter.
I gladly support this letter.
Suwana Wierba
CG (39) “Of course we need a broader base! We need new and fresh ideas and people and youth and age and wisdom and diversity!
IF, by “a broader base”, you mean PEOPLE, I agree 100%. The LP is TOO WHITE & TOO MALE . We really need to reach out to the latin and black communities and bring more women into leadership roles at the state level.
IF you mean “new and fresh ideas” YOU ARE WRONG! There are no ideas fresher than those proposed than our founders. Political Principles are NOT the same as a new car, the latest sound of the top 40 or the latest fashion from Paris.
The same ‘radical’ ideas that turned me onto libertarianism in the 1970 are the same as those ideas we promote today. The applications MAY vary slightly, but the principles are ageless.
The BIGGEST problem we Libertarians have is
“Babelism”, as in ‘Leaning Tower of’
I’m very much a Libertarian but have voted in republican primaries several times…. If there is no reason to vote in the LPO primary, then why not go vote in GOP primary? I was proud to vote for Ron Paul in primaries twice. 🙂
Odd the record request was pulled around 7/20/12 which still showed David Terry as a republican… quite more than the three days mentioned.
One also has to question someone who feels the need to re-register as a republican to vote in a republican party is exactly someone who should be giving lessons on umm… (cough) spiritual conversions.
WW (42) David Terry – was registered Libertarian until 3/21/12, when he registered Republican.
That is correct, and three days AFTER the GOP primary, I re-registered again as a Libertarian. During that hiatus, I networked closely with a number of Ron Paul Republicans and have subsequently convince a number of them to join the LP, in addition to supporting Johnson in the General Election
How many Republicans have YOU converted Wes?
CG (34) No, THAT was why I mentioned in my response to Starchild that contribution in KIND is a legitimate form of dues.
What I am objecting to is the the radical practice adopted by Wagner & Co to simply turn the party over to anyone who has checked the L. box on their voter registration form.
If you are a registered Libertarian and you are active in your county affiliate OR the State Party and have signed the NAP statement, I’d gladly accept your membership in the L.P.O.
But if you simply are a registered Libertarian:
and as I have discovered over the years, many of which don’t have a clue what we ‘supposedly’
stand for: I don’t want you determining our platform or bylaws.
Jeeze Illinois get Diana off the LNC already!!!
I’m new to Oregon (Long time, and still standing, LP of Illinois member) actually really glad to see this fight on this forum. For now I feel I’ve chosen the right side. I do not think there should be ANY fees to join the LP, PERIOD. How will we ever advance our ideas if we charge people to participate! Money is tight in these times, and once people get involved they can decide if and how much to donate. Personally I’m still waiting to donate to be sure my money will be put to good use (and at this point I think it would be better put elsewhere….).
I also believe we need a broader group, not only dues paying members. And where will that come from, college students. People my own age and younger. People that are underwater in student loans and raman noodles. They won’t have money to give us, but they will have PASSION. Passion this party desperately needs. Passion that currently is going to groups like OWS becuase we are wasting time and money FIGHTING instead of being out talking with them!
I do understand why people would want to be members from out of state, as I want to stay involved in my home state of Illinois, but I see how that can get dicey and I’d prefer to ere on the side of caution and limit membership to the home state only to keep those who are intent on running the party with their little crew, from infiltrating several states.
George Phillies writes:
Neale – Blau
Wrights – Johnson
Hagan – Moulton
Redpath – Mattson
Cloud – Johnson
Hinkle – Blau
Vohra – Moulton
Myers- Moulton Frankel-Moulton
Kirkland – Blau
Visek – Mattson
Olsen – Mattson
Mack – Mattson Goldstein – Mattson
Wiener – Mattson Lieberman- Mattson
Missing are Starchild, Pojunis, Tomasso, and Lark. The votes, recalling Lieberman is the second Alternate and the Rep and 1st Alternate have not voted, are
Mattson – 6
Moulton, Blau – 3
Johnson – 2
Mattson would need Lark, Tomasso, and Starchild to win.
Starchild seems to be a bit of a stretch, unless he decides that the Starr clique needs another rep on the LNC for some reason.
@30 John Jay, can you update that list with any more names?
I strongly support this letter.
T.J. C Foltz
Libertarian Party of Oregon
student, citizen, and voter
The ghost of Joseph Sobran is calling from the past and looking for the person who plagiarized him during his period on the soil.
David Terry can you tell us who that might be?
Last time we pulled David Terry’s registration status he was with the GOP.
I am sure he will have a great excuse of how he has retained an iron grip on Yamhill County for a decade by not having meetings or conventions.
Timothy Lynn Reeves – was registered Libertarian except between 04/24/12 and 06/05/12 when he was registered Republican.
Eric Saub – was registered Republican from 04/12/04 to 05/23/11, Libertarian from 05/23/11 to 06/07/11, Republican from 06/07/11 to 10/04/11, and Libertarian from 10/04/11 to current date.
Greg Burnett – was registered Republican from 10/4/04 to 4/23/10, Independent from 4/23/10 to 5/26/11, and Libertarian from 5/26/11 to current date.
David Terry – was registered Libertarian until 3/21/12, when he registered Republican.
Sorry, I’m on my mobile and can’t proof read before I hit submit. So pardon my mistakes, please.
Thanks for saying that calmly, JP @39! Very, very well stated.
Of course we need a broader base! We need new and fresh ideas and people and youth and age and wisdom and diversity! We need to engage more people in Liberty and build up those that show an ability to affect change in our state by way of holding office! We need to be open minded and accepting of people and guide them in Liberty.
How dare you try to keep Liberty for yourself in some quiet tucked away tower that only a chosen few can hope to attain! LIBERTY IS FOR EVERYONE!
I’m done talking to anyone that speakers of Freedoms and Libertarianism as though its a special club that you have to pay to be a part of.
DT @ 31 “This is a fundamental principle. There can be NO equality among people who have invested NOTHING and risked NOTHING to those who have worked and contributed to make the Party viable”.
This says to me that you think the people in charge must only be those who have been around forever, paid their dues in time and effort, and are therefore rewarded by positions in the party. This is NOT a fundamental principle, nor is it realistic. The reality is that sometimes new or young people show up with great ideas and lots of talent and/or enthusiasm. The reality is that they might do a better job than the tried-and-true folks. A good manager/chairman/boss knows how to maximize everyone’s ability and use their respective talents to their highest potential. Seniority really has nothing to do with it.
If you want the LP of Oregon to succeed, then look to those with the greatest talent, and those people with the best ability to produce good results. In some cases, it might not be the good-old-boys.
Correction on 36 *state
DT @33, Oh, so if I move to Vancouver, WA and register to vote in that star, I should retain my iron grip on the LPO (if I have one)?! No. You leave the state you give those things up. Just as you change your voter registration card to vote in your new state, so should you change your state party affiliation. When you return to reside again in the state, you can get your stays as a voting member back. But if you choose to leave you choose to give up that spot.
@30 especially if Miss Mattson attains re-election to the LNC as a result of the current ballot series.
Has anyone on the LNC read FEC or Treasurer reports enough to notice either how little money the LNC raised in December (under $78,000) or what Gary Johnson’s new reported debt is (suddenly it is over $1.1 million, and that after paying off $200,000+ of it in the last report).
DT @31, Then by that standard, I, who works full time to support a family of three while my partner is looking for work would have no say in what happens in the LPO because I can’t affford the fees! So now I’m a freeloader because all my personal resources are tied up in keeping my family afloat? Hogwash. THAT is the type of elitist attitude we should try to avoid as Libertarians, NOT push for.
CG (23) I see that as an attempt to reach a broader base.
The LAST thing the LIBERTARIAN Party needs is a “broader base” We need to reach our CORE of
those voters who support pro-liberty positions in both economic and civil liberties.
We already HAVE a TEA PARTY. We Don’t need another one.
(CG) “I pay the National dues. Why the need to double dip?
We HAD a dual membership system, but some
petty individuals destroyed that!
(CG) ” Should a resident of Clark County, WA be a voting voice in Oregon policies? There is a LPWA. They can join there where their voice has substance.
1. You clearly, don’t understand how mobile our economy is. Many people move across State Lines to work and live by their families and their property and their special interests remain@ the old address. AND they plan on returning!
2. Most of the people who vote from other states are “LIFE MEMBERS” To deprive them of what they have paid for is FRAUD! I realize
the the hardcore radical egalitarians don’t give a crap about “equity” OR property rights, but a
true libertarian DOES!
Starchild
People intent to do malice and harm the Party will sign any pledge if it will get them close to the structures of power and where they will corrupt them with poison and turn it to their own schemes.
Merit is what people should look at when a person wants to step in to the leadership. What have they done and what was the results of their work.
This political party has for most of its existence got stuck on people who promised them the moon but only delivered a swift kick in the ass. yet somehow we keep going back to these people believing their lies and never actually looking at what the person actually has done or the results of their work. In many ways, we are just as bad as “Joe Sixpack” when it comes to voting, a slang I hear from Libertarians talking about the common voter who is ignorant, but I think we are worse than the common voter in that we let these people kick us around, crap on us, be callous to our feelings and then when we do speak up they threaten us with abandonment or worse, want to kick us out.
So I am done with them. What about you? Going to let them crap on you some more? Going to let them be rude and callous to your face? going to cower down when they threaten you?
How about we change the name of this party from Libertarian party to Bullitarian Party, because it is full of bullies who would not be elected dog catcher in any open and fair race. Only though corruption and fear is how they climb upwards up the dung heap. reminds me of how organized crime is run.
I said that the LNC is a sham in Vegas and nothing has changed to alter my views.
Starchild (29)I agree with Chrystal @23 that members having to pay a fee to be able to vote is not good.
So, you’d rather have a party of entitled freeloaders?
How about contribution ‘in kind’?
This is a fundamental principle. There can be NO equality among people who have invested NOTHING and risked NOTHING to those who have worked and contributed to make the Party viable.
Those who support Miss Mattson after her rejection at the convention will be a telling experience.
I would encourage everyone who is involved with the LP to pay special attention to this election. Then plan in advance to take the proper actions at the next convention.
There are at least two other candidates entirely qualified for the position who have no such skeletons in their closet and are not in any way divisive.
I agree with Chrystal @23 that members having to pay a fee to be able to vote is not good.
Having members sign the pledge in order to participate in setting the Libertarian Party’s platform and policies or representing the LP as a candidate is important though. It’s one of the things that sets a tone that will help keep our party libertarian.
So I hope the Oregon LP will retain the pledge requirement. Given the statements I’ve seen previously about the GOP connections of several people in the opposing Burke faction, I would think it would be seen as desirable to have something in writing whereby members certify that they oppose the initiation of force (i.e. are pro-freedom on civil liberties, not only for less taxes and regulation).
DT @ 27: My reason is in # 26. Can you tell me how those Reeves people could have been officers if they weren’t current on their dues?
JP (11) I don’t believe Wes was the outgoing chair. Also, I’ve seen the video you’ve referred to in comment 7. I do not believe it proves the point you think it does.
This, of course, is because for “true believers” such as yourself, no explanation is necessary. For open minded non-believers, no explanation is possible.
CVS @ 25: It doesn’t convince me that this was a huge plot on Wagner’s side, especially when there’s so much evidence that we’ve posted here on IPR that the Reeves group DID have a plot.
I don’t think the Reeves group has any standing at all because the “officers” weren’t current on their dues, and therefore not eligible. I think the case is that simple.
JP @21: It’s a video. Are you disputing that Wagner said the line about “royal scepter”? Even Wagner doesn’t dispute that he said it, and that it’s about the 2/3 requirement needed to change the bylaws.
Chrystal @ 23: “Please explain to me why there was a need to allow non Oregon residents to be voting members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. ”
That’s because he and others from the “Reform” caucus live in CA or elsewhere.
CVS,
#1: You stated “Wagner wanted to change the bylaws to inflate the membership from dues-payers/pledge-signers to all the thousands of Oregonians who are registered Libertarian (even if they’ve never paid dues or signed the pledge). ”
I see that as an attempt to reach a broader base. How many people, myself included, were turned off by the requirement to pay fees and sign pledge to the state party. I pay the National dues. Why the need to double dip? You want forced dues? Join a union. By eliminating dues, we can get more voices in this state. I see nothing but an attempt to make things exclusive to a few by requiring people to pay to be members.
#2: “The junta’s rewritten bylaws defined membership so as to expel all LPOR members not residing in Oregon…”
And why not? Should a resident of Clark County, WA be a voting voice in Oregon policies? There is a LPWA. They can join there where their voice has substance.
LPO/LPOR = Libertarian Party of Oregon. Not, “LPHYPUSMWCWYL” = Libertarian Party of Hey, You Paid Us Some Money. Who Cares Where You Live”
And, I’m serious here, CVS. Please explain to me why there was a need to allow non Oregon residents to be voting members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon. Is it just because they paid for that right to?? An individual that has registered with the National Libertarian Party and currently resides in Oregon should have priority and more influence than someone with a few bucks to throw around. This isn’t an “old boys club”. It’s a state run Political Party that should be run by residents of said state.
CVS @ 19: How do we know that voice on 19 wasn’t someone’s from the Reeves group?
I support this letter as a member of the Oregon Libertarian Party.
Although… the Libertarian party has too much baggage and affiliation with the Libertarian party is often used by crackjob right wingers which pollutes credibility. A new party should be started, called the “Rationaltarians” or something.
Question 1:
Shall the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon ratify the Constitution and Bylaws adopted by the LPO State Committee on March 31, 2011?
YES 725 (96.5%)
NO 26 (3.5%)
The video is a smoking gun:
Voice 1: This [bylaws rewrite] is a solution to the problem.
Voice 2: Then get 50 people in a room and vote on it.
Wes Wagner: You’ll never get those two thirds to give up their royal scepter and actually hand the power back to the members of the state.
Voice: I don’t see how the State Committee can act for the membership. All we can try to do is fix the [quorum?] problem.
For no particular reason, I am just going to leave this here.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/07/ca-lnc-alternate-rep-suggests-johnson-campaign-should-sacrifice-ballot-access-to-unseat-wagner/
CVS @ 16: Dude, I’ve tseen that video. It does NOT prove your point. I hope you have something else for the jury in July.
@12 At the Elmer’s Restaurant meeting where you made your videotaped complaint that you’ll “never get those 2/3” to vote for new bylaws, a vote to table the consideration of replacement bylaws failed by 4-5.
Wagner @ 9,
I did not write #8. I always sign my posts with my real name. But thank you for again demonstrating your habit of making an ungrounded assertion.
Richard P. Burke
Is agreeing with your own sock puppet SOP here now?
All,
Mr. Von Stauffenberg is quite right. Mr. Wagner and his group are guilty of what they accuse us of. Mr. Wagner’s group are the ones who: 1) Purportedly changed the bylaws outside of convention without notice to the membership, 2) Purportedly elected themselves to full terms of office under the purportedly new bylaws and, 3) Attempted to cancel a duly called session of the legal LPO Annual Business Convention, which Wagner himself called for.
THAT’S A COUP, and nobody has denied any of it. It’s on video. They seem almost proud of it. Mr. Wagner and his supporters all want us to forget about this, but we won’t. Certainly the courts are unlikely to. And few if anyone, even on THIS radical list has said that they would tolerate such actions if they took place on the LNC or in their state.
Regardless of what Mr. Wagner thinks he has in the way of “evidence”, neither Ms. Mattson nor any other member of the LNC ever attempted to exercise ANY authority over the LPO during LPO functions – Except Rachel Hawkridge, an LNC member at the time from Washington state, who was on Wagner’s side during the 2010 special convention which failed to achieve quorum by ruling of Jeff Weston.
At various times through this whole affair Ms. Mattson offered parliamentary opinions to members of the LPO, as did other professional parliamentarians, but that was all. These opinions simply centered around whether or not certain actions seemed to be consistent with our bylaws, and nobody to my knowledge ever disagreed with these opinions. Given the brazen coup attempt of Wagner and his friends, this comes as no surprise since they wouldn’t care what they bylaws said anyway.
AFTER Mr. Wagner attempted his coup, we looked at the possibility of disaffiliating the LPO and then re-affiliating with the LNC as a way to solve the problem in accordance with our party’s bylaws, but we abandoned this idea when it became clear that we would lose our registered voter base according to Oregon’s Secretary of State. Ms. Mattson wasn’t driving this effort either.
Mattson supported us in the LNC on the grounds that Wagner’s group did not follow the legitimate LPO governing documents, which they do not deny, but that is all. As I recall, she was in the majority which voted 12-5.
Judicial Committee said that they defer to the state (odd for any Libertarian party organ to say) and the state said that they would let the courts sort it out. So here we are.
I don’t know what information Mr. Wagner thinks he has, but his penchant for seeing black helicopters appears to know no bounds.
Neither does his penchant for inflating his group’s accomplishments. True, Libertarian voter registration went up from 13,000-15,000 during the last year, but it ALWAYS jumps during a presidential election year.
But consider… In April 2005, when the electorate was smaller, and when our side ran the LPO, Libertarian voter registration was 16,588. And that wasn’t during a presidential election year. So what have Wagner’s crew really accomplished?
Many of Wagner’s “partisan candidates” were actually registered to vote with other political parties. (The design of Wagner’s vote-by-mail primary was such that ANYONE could win by write-in vote without facing a convention). Nothing necessarily wrong with this (think Ron Paul), but he doesn’t tell you that.
Also, no Libertarian candidate for statewide office even published a statement in the Voter’s Pamphlet statement. In my version, only one true Libertarian candidate at any level offered a statement, and she didn’t even provide a picture. The vote percentages were abysmal. The LPO has become politically irrelevant in Oregon. No significant races were impacted, no systematic effort to recruit local candidates is underway, there is no LPO presence in the current Oregon legislative session, and so on. I expect they will support a marijuana legalization effort of some kind eventually. 😉
But that is neither here nor there. The Wagner group’s strategy of attrition and delay has failed, which is why so much money has been spent on this lawsuit, and a June trial is to be scheduled where this will be settled. One may love or hate the LPO as organized under governing documents adopted by members at convention, but one must stand up to a bully. That is what we are doing.
Given the makeup of the LNC, I don’t see how the appointment of Mattson or anyone else would make a big factional difference. I just hope the LNC ends up with somebody who knows what the heck they are doing and makes the trains run on time. I simply want the LNC to vote for the most skilled, competent, and proven person available.
Richard P. Burke
JP @11
You forgot that he inflated the vote totals for the opposition, which were 0, not 4.
CVS: I don’t believe Wes was the outgoing chair. Also, I’ve seen the video you’ve referred to in comment 7. I do not believe it proves the point you think it does.
“…You are currently considering placing an individual back on the board that was soundly rejected by your membership…”
*Another* individual. They have already done it once before, when Gary Johnson’s candidate for LNC bolted the party.
RPB @8
If I argued with everyone who had facts wrong on the internet, I would not get any sleep.
The main point, obviously, is that your opponents were not attempting a coup, but rather trying to stop one — yours. Thanks for not denying that, or any of the other facts @6.
The LPOR at the time of your coup was a voluntary association governed by bylaws. It was not a colony ruled by a monarch. (Ironically, your faction held the leadership offices at the time of your coup — you just didn’t have the votes to rewrite the bylaws the way you wanted.)
The revolutionary war succeeded because brave Americans pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Your coup has succeeded (so far) merely because as outgoing Chair you still had the keys and refused to hand them over to your successors.
CVS @6
So… your point?
You might as well accuse those uppity Americans of not enjoying being subjects of the monarchy.
Ms. Mattson was a central figure in the attempted coup in Oregon spanning November 2010 through present
Page 1 of the coup handbook is: accuse your opponents of attempting a coup.
As Major Remer said in Valkyrie: “We are the coup, you idiot! We’ve been duped!”
impose a new set of bylaws upon the Libertarians of Oregon without seeking their consent
Amending the LPOR bylaws was supposed to require a 2/3 vote in convention. Wagner wanted to change the bylaws to inflate the membership from dues-payers/pledge-signers to all the thousands of Oregonians who are registered Libertarian (even if they’ve never paid dues or signed the pledge).
There is a video of Wagner defending his coup-in-progress (that re-wrote the LPOR bylaws outside of convention) saying “you’ll never get those 2/3 to give up their royal scepter”.
our membership has grown from 13,000 to over 15,500 in less than 12 months
Wagner is too modest. When his coup rewrote the LPOR Bylaws outside of convention (after barely winning a 5-4 vote to proceed with the coup), his junta instantaneously increased the LPOR membership from ~150 to about 13,000.
There were casualties, however. The junta’s rewritten bylaws defined membership so as to expel all LPOR members not residing in Oregon — a category that conveniently included at least two of Wagner’s critics. (Wagner’s bylaws rewrite also conveniently disbanded the LPOR Judicial committee.)
The only bylaws change that Wagner’s opponents sought was just to adjust the convention quorum requirement, so that a convention could amend the bylaws properly. On the video of the coup you can hear someone make that suggestion, which is what prompted Wagner’s admission about wanting to rewrite the membership rules.
I removed Guy’s duplicate comment.
I support this letter.
Jeffrey J. Weston
Director, Past Chair, Past Secretary: Libertarian Party of Oregon
Vice-President, Past Secretary: Oregon Association of Parliamentarians
I support this letter.
I support this letter
I support this letter.
Mark Vetanen
Current Treasure, Past Judicial Committee Member: Libertarian Party of Oregon
Past Candidate for House district 28 and Senate District 14: Oregon
Past Meadow Park Middle school elected board member:Beaverton Oregon
Member of the Libertarian Party of Oregon since 1996
There are plenty of Libertarians in the state of Oregon that stand in support of Mr. Wagner’s letter.