Steve G.

A message from Angela Keaton

In Civil Liberties, Constitutional Rights, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics on September 8, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Comrades:

After my first night of more than four hours of sleep, I have a little, a wee little, clarity. I’m also more objective now that I have a little distance and some protein. In the meantime, I have agreed to nothing but to listen and contemplate the advice of others.

That said, I have much fondness and appreciation for all of you. Each of you should do what is best for your activism. You were included on this thread because you are champions of anything peaceful. I will be fine. We should be laughing. Our detractors are clowns. As I am fond of saying, getting kicked out of the LP is like fired from a titty bar. It doesn’t go on your permanent record. No one in the outside world cares.

Mush over, now back to matters at hand:

Everyone needs to take a step back and evaluate the whys as much as the what. We are in an ideological and structural meltdown. While it is fun to speculate which mommy issues M Carling might be laboring under or what went so wrong in Aaron Starr’s potty training, this is about whether we are part of the libertarian movement or merely an adjunct to the GOP death machine.

We will never have peace from those who wage war. When my support is coming from unexpected places like Admiral Colley who said he wanted a resolution like Hogarth’s since Atlanta, we need to be reminded what is at stake. Among my high crimes is my refusal to raise money for a ticket which includes a mildly repentant war monger, initials Wayne Root.

As to the events of yesterday:

Have not been able to keep up with volume of emails and blog post generated by the LNC meeting. Everyone has a version of events, usually self interested or representing a collective concern. Particularly among those who are now eyeing what may be empty seats on the LNC. No plans to respond to every claim of “factual error” since the level of posturing and feigning “fairness” is getting silly even with my taste for the absurd. People can see that for what it is. Further, I was not allowed to see the last set of proceedings so I have nothing to go on but my impressions of the credibility of those reporting. Still quite unclear about much of it.

After the meeting adjourned, agreed to listen to Ruwart, Hawkridge, Wrights and Fox in a private lunch yesterday. They have certain concerns, not the least of which is losing my vote on the LNC. This is serious since Haugh (who has been very fair to me) pointed out that if I leave, Mattson is likely my replacement. That weighs heavily on me. Mattson is a conservative with all the baggage that term carries as suggested by Rockwell’s brilliant speech at the Rally for the Republic. (I’m dropping the term “Christian Right.” It’s offensive to our many libertarian Christian brethren.)

While this is not confirmed, Mattson is the sixth place finisher and I am the “weak link.” It would be nearly impossible to knock Ruwart off the LNC without a mass exodus from the LP. If I’m gone, they have gotten rid of one pesky anarchist without alienating authentic libertarians who will hold their noses and vote for the ticket.

Now, I will only be allowed to stay if I tender an apology on the narrow action of writing about Carling and Redpath’s statements during the executive session with a promise that I never reveal anything said in executive session again. I violated a rule that I think is unjust. I don’t know how sincere I can be but if Wrights, Ruwart and Hawkridge need me in a plan to return the party to the movement, I will consider taking one for the “libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party.” Besides, as party stalwarts like Gene Hawkridge and Ernie Hancock have said, the best one can do is object to executive session before the session and on the record.

Also, Hawkridge asked that I write a detailed but non inflammatory statement about the various forms of harassment sexual and bullying from Carling and Starr. Need to run this by Doherty, my mother and our lawyer first.

Now for the “shocker.” Cory has a very different version of his conversation with Carling as well as his take on charges by Starr and Carling that Cory and the Barr campaign have not cooperated with the LP. There is a dispute between what is the former Root campaign and the Barr camp over donor lists and access. I’m merely a prop in this drama. Very likely, Cory and I will speak man to man this week in DC. If he did not make those statements to Carling, Cory is the one who deserves the apology from me for not extending the courtesy of at least asking him whether he made such statements.

Meanwhile, don’t let the minor differences amongst us to divide us. Sullentrup has not only slandered Knapp repeatedly but is actively encouraging a schism. Don’t allow such a little man a great victory.

Peace,

Keaton

  1. […] 3:30: I may have underestimated her: We should be laughing. Our detractors are clowns. As I am fond of saying, getting kicked out of the […]

  2. […] — Spangler’s the asshole in February. By September, things started looking different, didn’t they? Share […]

  3. Angela, at first I was thinking you should not apologize.

    Then, I was thinking about how Aaron Starr tried to keep Starchild out of the Portland convention, but it all mushroomed out of control and Nevada lent Starchild a hand and Starr just ended up looking like a bully and lots more people didn’t like him after that than even before. The net result was that if Starr

    –hold on–I just realized the similarities between Starr and Starchild–don’t tell me–

    In any case, Starr’s actions backfired.

    Now I’m thinking about your situation. Can you make it backfire? I think so. I can imagine a wonderfully colorful five-page apology that’s funny, insulting, full of accusations, legitimately lists a pattern of pressure and insults you’ve been subjected to, etc. But please, make it funny at least in parts. Technically you’ll be complying with their demand. Who knows, they might even hold more hearing to determine whether or not your apology is an apology or not. Then they’d have to decide if they should let you try to apologize again.

    That’ll show ’em. G.E., Paulie, want to start a first draft here?

  4. I’m going to be contacting some people. We need some sort of activist site/blog/caucus…something, to rally folks around the idea that we need to win our party back in 2 years. This has gone on long enough.

  5. Message to AK:

    BTP is the place for you
    Then you don’t have to put up with this poo

    Join the BTP like I did
    And you’ll no longer be an LNC pig!

    So just go and quit, why deal with the LP stress?
    Come to our meetings and you don’t even have to wear a dress!

    No secret meetings, hidden adgendas & other crud
    And no one gonna complain if you call them a stud!

  6. Dear LNC,

    I’m sorry that I prefer truth and justice over secrecy and chicanery. After all, we are not a debating society.

    I’m sorry that I think some staff are hot and say these things where most men would dare not tread in an age of politically correct evisceration.

    Executive Session is very important if transaction is valued above transparency. What recourse could we possibly aspire to in an age of litigation and personalized dispute ? That bar is too high for anyone but the devout.

    I’m sorry that I’ve made fun of the top of the ticket. I know how important it is for some to labor under the possibility of credability. Hope is just a different variant of the Absurd. Mea culpa this gestalt.

    Perhaps as a gesture of hope and late summer madness, I can offer my heartfelt apologies to those who require the state (or its tactics) in their life of wars and hate. Mine is just a simple existence with no quarter given to those submissions.

    Yours,

    Alice in Kinderland (aka, AK)

  7. That’ll show ‘em. G.E., Paulie, want to start a first draft here?

    Not me. Ms. Keaton does not speak to me anymore.

    Apparently, she has gazed into Sean Haugh’s eyes and seen his soul, or something like that.

    Last communication from her was that I owe Sean an apology. For what, I’m not too sure. There were supposed to be some files involved. I gather it may have been the files Mr. Knight was sending out. I think you may have received them as well.

    The files contained nothing new, and no justification whatsoever for the national political director of the LP directing a state officer to destroy over 2,000 high validity signatures which Dr. Phillies paid for with his own money.

    They concerned a well-known and hashed out to death situation which took place a decade ago, and for which Bill Redpath ended up paying Gary Fincher retroactively last year upon advice from Richard Winger that the registrations counted, even with phony SS numbers.

    Apparently, my crimes involved saying that I have never seen Gary do bad work (I was asked to testify to this), and asking for proof of allegations she made publicly and in print that he has a criminal history of violence against women. That is a serious allegation and naturally I would want to see proof.

    There is much more, but I’m trying to keep this comment from ballooning to Andy/Jake lengths. Suffice it to say that Angela lost my admiration and respect when she blew up at me, and that the desire to no longer associate with her is now mutual.

  8. As for Mr. Haugh, next to last communication was that I had lied about him in some way on the internet (I asked about what, and he could not say), and that I had put some controversies over petition drive management and other party operations into the blogosphere (not true – the record shows I only commented on things written by others, usually at Andy’s request). And why would shedding sunlight on these issues be a bad thing if in fact I had done it?

    Last communication (after intervention from several people, I am told) was that I was OK to work on LP petition drives as long as Sean does not have to deal with me himself. Another mutually acceptable deal.

  9. I would urge Angela not to apologize for her objections to the abuse of executive session as a way to keep material actions of the LNC from the dues paying members they purport to represent. She should not be sorry for bringing openness (glasnost!) to the LP. She should not apologize for doing what she believes is right.

    Rather, the LNC members who have voted for executive session on matters not relating to, say, the specific conduct of an employee of the staff being reprimanded or reviewed, should apologize to the rest of the members of the LP and all prospective members. Secrecy is a great way to hide corruption and bad behavior, it is no way to run a party of liberty.

    On the whole, I agree with Bubbu Blanco. The Boston Tea Party has this issue firmly in hand. The deliberations of its national committee are public. And that’s how it ought to be.

  10. That’ll show ‘em. G.E., Paulie, want to start a first draft here?

    But don’t let my personal conflict of interest keep you from starting it. Sounds like a good idea.

  11. Last communication (after intervention from several people, I am told) was that I was OK to work on LP petition drives as long as Sean does not have to deal with me himself.

    Err, wait. Our staff need to have buffers between themselves and contractors they don’t happen to care for at a particular moment?

    Oh, sure, _that’s_ professional.

  12. She should not be sorry for bringing openness (glasnost!) to the LP.

    Ironic that she sides with certain party employees who do not want any openness about the management of certain party operations.

    But then, as Angela says herself

    Why the hell do I trust all the wrong people? These bastards play me like a violin. about 19 hours ago from web

  13. I would pay to see Angela played like a violin by bastards, bitches, or whomever.

    It sounds to me like Angela is friends with Sean. If that means she is taking his side on ballot access management issues, I wonder how so?

  14. Well, she says that I owe him an apology and is no longer speaking to me.

  15. At this point I really have ceased to care if there are good people left on the LNC, because said committee has ceased to work in favor of State and local libertarian movements, has ceased to see itself (if it ever did) as a leadership and support organization for those movements, and has become a squatting ground for careerists, pontificators, and M Carling (whoever the hell he is, and why ever we need a parliamentarian)….

    So let’s do away with it and start something completely different in structure, but let’s not let them get away with the theft of the word Libertarian….

    http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/09/imagine-theres-no-lnc-its-easy-if-you.html

  16. I’m not opposed to an alternative structure. Can this structure be started and given a chance to prove itself first, or do we have to do away with the LNC first before it can start?

  17. can we organize first then try to elect an LNC majority and then if that fails go the schism route?

  18. I don’t know the by-laws; is there a provision for recall?

  19. getting a majority on the LNC will take a lot of organizing. Maybe we should focus on 2010 while pushing sympathetic current reps to resist any more nonsense.

  20. Angela sexually harrassed me at national in Denver. I was unsure what to think exactly when she pressed her lips to mine; I mean she’s been in the party so long and I really wanted to please her but I’m a married woman.

    Just kidding about parts of that…

    No apologies, Angela. Not unless it’s one crafted as Wes suggested.

  21. Angela sexually harrassed me at national in Denver. I was unsure what to think exactly when she pressed her lips to mine; I mean she’s been in the party so long and I really wanted to please her but I’m a married woman.

    Just kidding about parts of that…

    No apologies, Angela. Not unless it’s one crafted as Wes suggested.

    /hums I kissed a girl and I liked it….

  22. Angela sexually harrassed me at national in Denver. I was unsure what to think exactly when she pressed her lips to mine; I mean she’s been in the party so long and I really wanted to please her but I’m a married woman.

    Just kidding about parts of that…

    No apologies, Angela. Not unless it’s one crafted as Wes suggested.

    /walks off humming “i kissed a girl and I liked it…”

  23. So, P Funk, what did you do or say to Sean Haugh for which you think she wants you to apologize? Did she say?

    Personally, I don’t know anything about him. But, I have heard disturbing rumors of him insisting that ballot access petitions be burned, which seems very wrong.

  24. Re: #23 – no rumours – FACT… It was the LPMA Political Facilitator that got the call… Far as I’m concerned the guy’s name is “Firebug” Haugh from here on out…

    In terms of apologies, I leave that up to Angela, but IMHO she needs none.

    ART

  25. So, P Funk, what did you do or say to Sean Haugh for which you think she wants you to apologize? Did she say?

    Not specifically.

    It was very brief and out of context, referring to files I did not see until much later, as if I had any idea what she was talking about. When I did see them, they did not contain anything about anything that happened this decade, and thus I am at a loss as to what possible connection they could have to trying to justify demands that over 2,000 voters’ signatures be illegally destroyed, among other things.

    Personally, I don’t know anything about him. But, I have heard disturbing rumors of him insisting that ballot access petitions be burned, which seems very wrong.

    The full story was discussed here and at IPR in a great deal of detail over several threads. Type Fincher in the search site box if curious.

    Re: #23 – no rumours – FACT… It was the LPMA Political Facilitator that got the call…

    I was there when she did. He also confirmed it an email, which has been posted on one or more websites (including, I think, this one). That same email was CCed to the ballot access director, and also to the acting executive director of the LP. It read in part,

    “I am now going to call the LPMA and instruct
    them to burn (quite literally) any signatures collected by Gary, whether they paid for them or not. ”

    That is a direct quote.

  26. “getting a majority on the LNC will take a lot of organizing. Maybe we should focus on 2010 while pushing sympathetic current reps to resist any more nonsense.”

    A lot of organizing is correct. It would have to start immediately after the November elections. I’m not sure any potential reformers have the stomach/ stamina or organizational acumen for it.

    Starting in February 09, state conventions will be held that will determine the state party leadership that will be in place in 2010 when the national delegates will be chosen. State chair’s in 2009 and 2010 can elect/replace regional reps on the LNC prior to the 2010 national convention. They could concentrate on getting delegate on the bylaws and credentials committees.

    The key point in any national convention is immediately after the credentials report and before the adoption of the agenda. It is at this point that a simple majority of the delegates on the floor can amend/replace/reorganize and pass a new agenda. At this point there is no time limit on debate and the issue of LNC secrecy can be include in a debate on an amendment to move the selection of the new LNC before the platform and bylaws debates.

    The reformers would have to be very knowledgeable on Roberts rules so as not to be ruled out of order or to have their ability to debate and offer amendments restricted. They would also have to make sure ALL their delegates were at the convention and seated at the opening gavel.

  27. They could concentrate on getting delegate on the bylaws and credentials committees.

    Bylaws committee have already been selected.

  28. And the platform cmte will be selected at the December meeting I believe.

    It sounds like John F has the plan. I’m committed to working on this. Let’s all keep in touch.

  29. We could select our own platform, bylaws and credentials cmtes… ?

    That way we will have our own proposals ready. Assuming we get a majority of delegates, we can simply replace their agenda with ours and proceed, as John suggests.

  30. We could select alternative unofficial platform and bylaws committees, but our own credentials committee? How would that work?

    I’m for anarchy, but that sounds like chaos🙂

  31. Angela sexually harrassed me at national in Denver. I was unsure what to think exactly when she pressed her lips to mine; I mean she’s been in the party so long and I really wanted to please her but I’m a married woman.

    <>.

    Brings to mind that scene in “Hot Shots Part Deux” where Richard Crenna (RIP) is listening to Valeria Golino and Brenda Bakke talking about their “relations” in college, and when they paused, he said pruriently, “… Go on…”.

  32. Paulie

    If we have a majority of delegates and the official platform and bylaws cmtes’ proposals aren’t acceptable, and we don’t have alternatives, then what’s the point of having the majority?

    If we are going to work for a majority of delegates, let’s plan also to maximize the utility of that majority.

    Does that make sense? Sry I’m a bit rushed atm.

  33. The credentials committee determines who is and who is not a valid delegate.

    If we have two separate credentials committees one will say that some people are delegates and the other will say they aren’t, and vice versa. Who decides which votes count?

    We had this situation in Alabama a year or two before I got involved with the state party. ’96 I think. Every description I have heard of how the rival credential efforts worked out sounds like a Grade A Plus clusterfuck.

    On the other hand I can see how the bylaws and platform committees can have shadow committees. That is actually a really good idea.

  34. Paulie,

    Are there actually signed contracts between signature gatherers and the LNC on specific petitioning jobs? This seems like a no-brainer to me. This seems like the best way to protect both the LP and the gatherers. It looks to me like alot of these issues could be avoided in the future if both sides have rules to play by.

  35. And, no, we had no contracts this year, other than verbal.

    Jake tried to do one with the Barr campaign for WV, they promised they would send it to him, and never did.

  36. I will say that while I don’t necessarily feel that I have the knowledge to tell the professional petitioners how to do their job, it would seem to me that it wouldn’t be that big of a deal in most cases to adopt a policy of “no contract = no sigs”

    I’d expect a contract to cover
    1. How much per signature, or other payment terms
    2. Expected production, probably in “Min-max” terms, possibly on a per-day basis, certainly in terms of the entire drive…
    3. What expenses would / would not be covered, and / or what non-cash things would be provided instead of expenses – or if a per-diem, how much…
    4. Chain of command – who is in charge of the drive, who’s coordinating, who can give orders to the petitioner, etc…
    5. Relevant dates – when sigs are due, when payment is due, etc.

    ART

  37. re/ credentials. oops didn’t mean to include that one. Please disregard.

  38. Art,

    That makes sense.

    The only problem is that LP can then find other petitioners who do not insist on a written contract.

  39. whatever you do Angela please don’t resign. give the boys there silly little apology . look at the tactics mattson used in keeping off good people and manipulating for those who would remove you when it came to the platform committee esp in vegas. she would of course do thier bidding in an unfair way on the lnc also

  40. The insistence on a contractual agreement would seem to be in the best interest of the employer (the lp) rather than the employee (the signature gatherers). Who holds what “liabilities” and what “responsibilities” are key ingredients to a successful business partnership whether it be signature gathering or building an addition on your house. Arthur’s previous post is a good start. Mabey a coalition of gatherers and LNC reps (along with Mr. Hall) could work on something that could be agreeable to all. Thus avoiding the present clusterfucks that have been going on. When I see the LNC concentrating on resolving issues like these instead of banning our most valuable activists or seeking to ban sitting members of the board, then I will start sending them some more money.

  41. Re: 41 – Paulie, I understand what you are saying about finding other petitioners to some degree, but I had gathered the impression that most of you that are in the business know each other…

    I would think that if there is a pretty good network among the pro-petitioners that you could do a “reverse blacklist” of sorts – post a warning that there appears to be a recurring pattern of payment problems w/ LP drives, particularly those involving particular candidates / individuals, etc… And suggesting that it would be a good idea to refuse to work for these problem drives without an enforceable written contract…

    I’m opposed to gov’t mandated union type setups, but I’d think some sort of voluntary “Petitioner’s Protective Association”, that avoided any mention of politics as such, but concentrated on the mechanics of the business might be beneficial… A bit of a boycott on the problem organizations might cause them to rapidly reconsider on offering contracts…

    (It distresses me that the LP would be on that list, but that’s a separate topic…)

    ART

  42. The insistence on a contractual agreement would seem to be in the best interest of the employer (the lp) rather than the employee (the signature gatherers).

    Unless they want to make things sound rosy to get people out to a drive and then change things for the worse after they are already there and “stuck,” or after the work is done if they want to pay less than expected.

    Re: 41 – Paulie, I understand what you are saying about finding other petitioners to some degree, but I had gathered the impression that most of you that are in the business know each other…

    Yes and no. It’s pretty much unlikely that any petitioners cartel would work since new petitioners can always be found (or even long time petitioners desperate for an immediate cash infusion). But word about bad clients does get around, so it would behoove the LP or any other client that has ongoing work to not facilitate getting itself a bad reputation.

    Of course, not all the LP’s contractors have had problems.

    Non-ideological petitioners get paid a higher rate, get better expense deals, are allowed to subcontract and receive additional fees for managing subcontractors, don’t get told to not work major cities, and go for big numbers while ignoring validity. And that is not even getting into whether they may be misrepresenting the party’s views to anyone who asks.

    In the meantime, libertarian activist petitioners get paid at a lower rate, with delays, are told to stay away from cities, are disallowed to subcontract, and don’t get any more pay for having much higher validity while getting blamed for the thus lower raw signature count. That is, except for certain neocon “libertarian republicans”.

    Then if/when we complain about it, we get banned altogether.

  43. The Bylaws of the LNC to fill a vacancy in the committee have nothing to do with who the votes taken at the convention.

    From the bylaws –
    9. The National Committee shall appoint new officers if vacancies occur, such officers to
    complete the term of the office vacated.

    Who comes first to mind that might want his position back should he lose the Presidential Election?

  44. It’s actually this line that applies to members at large, but still has nothing to do with the votes taken at the convention.

    6. The National Committee shall appoint new officers and members-at-large if vacancies occur, such officers and members-at-large to complete the term of the office vacated.

  45. […] Google? Should I be offended? It is not as if there isn’t one Antiwar.com employee on the LNC or any contributing writers on the Barr […]

  46. […] Google? Should I be offended? It is not as if there isn’t one Antiwar.com employee on the LNC or any contributing writers on the Barr […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: