[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

Ken Moellman ken.moellman at lpky.org
Sun Oct 30 20:01:22 EDT 2016


If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our 
L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their 
constituency, then we are a doomed organization.

If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, 
then I apologize.

Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Ken

On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> Ken,
>
> I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly 
> because that is how you treated it.  If you didn't wish to be seen 
> that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical 
> flourishes as asking about "spankings."
>
> You further mischaracterized a statement of mine.  I did not defend 
> the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I 
> countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of 
> consideration by stating there was certainly that.  The consideration 
> may have been dead wrong, but it was there.  Please do not miscast my 
> statements.
>
> And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his 
> constituents?  Yes.  When it is committing state aggression and 
> expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from 
> people to fund a private interest? *Absolutely and utterly and a 
> million times yes.*  With all due respect, I find your support for 
> your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of 
> justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if 
> consistently applied.  I am glad to stand against.
>
> The comparison to Oregon is ill placed.  Some members of Oregon asked 
> us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is 
> absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact 
> that WE gave money.  This has been made clear many times. And as to 
> your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in 
> any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members.  The assertion of 
> the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there 
> are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow.  That 
> is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be 
> used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous 
> characteristics definitional.  A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. 
> According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy 
> on its head.  Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who 
> knew?
>
> As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members.  That 
> is all we should care about.  I am not part of them (they not my 
> biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to 
> be heard.
>
> -- 
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, 
> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) 
> - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado 
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus 
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org 
> <mailto:ken.moellman at lpky.org>> wrote:
>
>     Fellow colleagues,
>
>     I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only
>     interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my
>     message.
>
>     It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly".
>     That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this
>     matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.
>
>     I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the
>     sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with
>     some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge
>     my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter
>     from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence.
>     All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly.
>
>     With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary
>     Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he
>     desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.
>
>     Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually
>     was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what
>     it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one
>     could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you
>     believe that the local entities should have control of their own
>     local area.
>
>     I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax",
>     though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make
>     the situation a bit more clear.
>
>     I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure.
>     LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously
>     voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the
>     stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely
>     cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by
>     Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of
>     his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that
>     failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the
>     outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in
>     exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would
>     have made him a political target within his own district, however,
>     as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the
>     project.  (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his
>     district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.)
>
>     Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said
>     "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the
>     principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo
>     decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005.
>
>     Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind
>     on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate
>     the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2
>     weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our
>     members.
>
>     Should we take our failings public in a very visible way?  Are we
>     telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"?  What are the
>     optics here?
>
>       * Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate
>         for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be
>         beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other
>         elected officials to flip to the LP?
>
>       * Should we send a public message that, if elected, the
>         Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of
>         those we're supposed to be representing?
>
>
>     In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who
>     are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there
>     was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that
>     really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged
>     in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course
>     he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and
>     didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being.
>
>     We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.
>
>       * In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial
>         support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed
>         solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP.
>         That was my math, anyway.
>
>       * In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these
>         bills.
>
>
>     We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the
>     members of this body are doing math again. But does that math
>     result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and
>     would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long
>     term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or
>     revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is
>     this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own
>     members, or to accomplish something positive?
>
>     Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will
>     be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh
>     the harm?
>
>     Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this
>     motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then
>     why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson
>     has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not
>     Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we
>     are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role
>     within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to
>     donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out?
>     And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up
>     to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and
>     cripples this party?
>
>     So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find
>     it downright scary.
>
>     What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to
>     publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our
>     organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be
>     focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this
>     motion even accomplish?
>
>     Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an
>     official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of
>     the party have made this request.  Once upon a time, some members
>     of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That
>     didn't turn out so well.
>
>
>     So, in sum, I find as follows:
>
>       * I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote.
>       * I believe we need to do everything we can to politically
>         support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good
>         votes.
>       * I believe that the optics of a public censure are good
>         internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party.
>       * I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good
>         rather than accomplishing something positive.
>       * I believe we should we note what's happened, and take
>         corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the
>         future.
>       * I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not
>         warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement.
>       * Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is
>         dangerous to the long-term health of this organization.
>
>     *
>     Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay.
>
>     *If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I
>     encourage you to go back to the beginning.
>
>     ---
>
>     Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
>     LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
>     LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>     On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote:
>
>>     We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>
>>     *_Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at
>>     11:59:59pm Pacific time.
>>     _*
>>     _Co-Sponsors:_  Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild,
>>     Goldstein, Redpath
>>
>>     _Motion:_
>>
>>     Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in
>>     January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office,
>>     has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of
>>     as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote
>>     to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of
>>     Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a
>>     vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a
>>     billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others,
>>     indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and
>>
>>     Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in
>>     Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for
>>     these egregious votes; and
>>
>>     Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that
>>     while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or
>>     Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as
>>     an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as
>>     members of our party, to continue voting and acting like
>>     Republicans or Democrats;
>>
>>     Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee
>>     hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support
>>     of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign
>>     contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and
>>     admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values
>>     held by members of the political party with which he has chosen
>>     to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.
>>
>>
>>     -Alicia
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Lnc-business mailing list
>>     Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>     http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>     <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lnc-business mailing list
>     Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>     http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>     <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, 
> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) 
> - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado 
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus 
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161030/ec166a11/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list