[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