[Lnc-business] Screening Presidential candidates

Tue Feb 9 14:32:05 EST 2016

While I sympathize with Mr. Bittner's point and often do agree with his
positions on these matters, I do want to argue personal difference I have.

> "... removing any candidates from the website without information of
their withdrawal from the race could be viewed as unfair"

I believe that Brett is right; it would be seen as unfair.  The point I
would like to argue however is this: who the hell cares?  [Brett this is no
commentary towards you btw]: I'm frankly sick to death that the Libertarian
party -- of ALL parties that could exist -- is so concerned with fairness.
Life isn't fair.  We scream from pulpits that the guy who was born without
legs should just have to work harder to compete in the marketplace because
god forbid he get a handout from any of us.   But then we turn around and
say it's "unfair" for me to suggest we remove a guy who by any statistical
account has a 0% chance of winning the nomination, has a headshot that more
resembles a mugshot, contributes nothing to the betterment of the LP, and
dresses in costume on the absurdity he calls a website just to boot?  Give
me a break.

I've honestly never found as much hypocrisy and contradiction in a group of
people as I have found in the LP.  So let me state some facts: The
Libertarian Party is a PRIVATE organization.  It could literally say that
only people with blue eyes are entitled to be represented if is saw fit.
I'm not saying crafting crazy, restrictive criteria should be considered,
but could we not use **some** level of common sense to handle our affairs?
Yes, removing people like him would be seen as unfair.  Just as every other
facet of life in the private world is unfair.  He's welcome to continue his
candidacy.  He's welcome to seek another nomination.  He's welcome to run
as an independent.  And we, as the privately held, privately funded
Libertarian party, are free to kick people off who, at their very best,
make a mockery of what we work for and what our donors pay for.

I truly find the notion that we concern ourselves with "fairness" to be
mind-boggling within the Libertarian Party.  I've worked with many, many
lawyers.  I've been involved in many lawsuits.  Any lawyer will tell you
the exact same line when it comes to whether or not you can get away with
something: "If a reasonable person would object to it, then you probably
can't do it".  The key part is "reasonable".

If we started removing people for unpopular ideas, most reasonable people
would say that's censorship.  They would be right.  If we started removing
people we just didn't like, most people would say that's favoritism.  They
would also be right.  But if we removed people who simply refused to
participate in the very system that they are seeking the help of while
offering absolutely nothing to it, I believe most reasonable people would
say that their removal is in fact, entirely reasonable and just.

Again, none of this is directed at Brett's comments.  His line just spurred
the thought.

-Kevin

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Brett Bittner <brett at brettbittner.com>
wrote:

> I guess it's time for me to wade into this issue with my thoughts.
>
> We are DEEP into the 2016 Presidential cycle by nearly all accounts, so I
> believe that any changes regarding inclusion on the website or other media
> be made with 2020 in mind.
>
> If we, as the LNC, are to set defined guidelines for inclusion, it should
> not be done "midstream" in the 2016 cycle.
>
> Instead, we should be looking to define guidelines for future campaign's
> inclusion (should we decide that it's the role of the Party to provide a
> medium for listing Presidential contenders) to provide anyone considering
> our nomination and the campaigning necessary to seek it with the criteria
> before they announce and feel excluded. The reality is that if we make a
> change in Phoenix with regard to who should and shouldn't be included, we
> are singling out individuals with our biases against the current crop of
> candidates, even if it's subconsciously. If we create guidelines that are
> defined far enough in advance for the next cycle, we can point to the
> decision being made before it affects anyone's 2020 bid.
>
> I don't know that I have a set of guidelines in mind, but it's like
> pornography, in that I'll know what it is when I see it. I DO KNOW that
> removing any candidates from the website without information of their
> withdrawal from the race could be viewed as unfair. It would be the same as
> changing the rules of the NFL during Beyonce's performance at the Super
> Bowl. We have set criteria for inclusion. We should stick to that criteria
> for the current cycle. We do have the opportunity to define guidelines
> going forward, so as not to affect the next cycle and the "fairness"
> question.
>
> Then, when someone decides to seek the LP nomination, they are implicitly
> agreeing to those guidelines.
>
> Personally, when I examine the "viability" component of my decision-making
> about my vote as a delegate, I want to know a candidate's effectiveness at
> creating their own "buzz" and building their own organization that can work
> with the Party to grow both. I think that relying on Party resources to
> build their name ID is a negative when it comes to their "viability."
>
> Just my two cents,
>
>
>
> Brett C. Bittner
>
> brett at brettbittner.com
> 404.492.6524
>
> "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
> liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Mr. Wiener that publicizing is the place to look to make
>> this distinction.  I have some concerns with the items adopted, though.  By
>> this criteria, it's possible (I haven't looked at his FEC filings) that
>> Donald Trump wouldn't be considered a viable candidate for the Republican
>> nomination.  That said, I like this idea, and would be inclined to support
>> it, perhaps with some tweaking.  I understand the concerns about staff, for
>> instance, in a busy petitioning time, checking hundreds of names to ensure
>> that they are sustaining members.
>>
>> I stand by my previous suggestion that we, as the LNC, just get out of
>> this game and keep our thumbs off the scale, without the problems Mr.
>> Ludlow talked about, by simply not publicizing or linking to any
>> candidates.  I've already noted that this isn't a far out idea - our two
>> largest opponents don't do it, so it's not like all parties are doing it.
>>
>> That said, if a compromise is sought, something along the lines of Mr.
>> Wiener's suggestion seems to be the most viable path.
>>
>> I would also point out that this falls under the general heading of a
>> comprehensive messaging strategy.  Such a strategy, when adopted in a
>> midterm to Presidential convention term such as this one, would ask not
>> only the what and who, but the why.  Why do we list candidates?  Why do we
>> point to their websites?  Why do we include some, but not all, of those who
>> have announced they are seeking our nomination?  How do we make the
>> selection - in a manner in keeping without the rest of our strategy?  We
>> can answer the how part by coming up with rules (and rules currently exist,
>> they just came from the chair, not the LNC), but not the second clause.  We
>> can't reference the selection to a comprehensive messaging strategy because
>> we don't have one.  That explains why we're hearing a lot of good ideas on
>> this, but all seem to revolve around actions with no pre-existing core.  I
>> agree that adopting such rules - if we think we need to publicize any of
>> our candidates - is a governance function, but it would be a lot easier to
>> do if it were part of a larger strategy.
>>
>> Furthermore, I would say that concerns about being taken seriously reach
>> much further than the listing of candidates.  Indeed, if we don't believe
>> that our candidates could get their names out (not all, but some) without
>> our help - and, let's be honest, it's not like we pour millions into the
>> effort - that's an underlying issue that keeps us from being credible.  If
>> we think that and yet focus on the Presidential race, that's a credibility
>> issue.
>>
>> Why do we lack credibility?  We lack serious candidates for many, many
>> races.  We lack elected officials.  We lack a widespread perception that we
>> can govern.  We run people for high office who have little in their
>> backgrounds that suggests they are prepared for that office.  We run people
>> for office with little expectation of success - for instance, I've had
>> people chuckle at my suggestion that a minimal qualification for a
>> candidate be that they plan to remain a resident of the relevant district
>> during the term.  (Of course, things happen, and people resign from office,
>> I fully understand that.  If you win office and need to move, I have no
>> complaint.  But who runs for office expecting to resign?  If you have a
>> fixed plan in mind to move in year 1 of what would be a 6 year Senate term,
>> it doesn't seem to me that you're a totally serious candidate for Senate.)
>>  Our problem is not what's present, it's what is not present - and if we
>> can address that, if we can build a serious bench of hard-working public
>> servants, governing in a reliably libertarian manner, if we can then have
>> credible, serious candidates moving up from that bench, I think a lot of
>> this concern will just fade away.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin, I agree with you that I don't like our party being embarrassed by
>>> fringe candidates.  I have urged for a long time that we create more
>>> stringent criteria for officially acknowledging those individuals who've
>>> decided to run for the LP's Presidential nomination.  (Not to stop them
>>> from running, just not publicizing them.)  Four years ago I proposed a
>>> Policy Manual amendment to do just that (see the email below), but it went
>>> nowhere.  Who knows, perhaps the LNC may have more interest now than it did
>>> then in coming up with *something* to distinguish serious candidates
>>> from frivolous ones.
>>>
>>> However, back in 2011 I did succeed in adding the following provision to
>>> the Policy Manual:
>>>
>>> *Section 2.06 PARTY COMMUNICATIONS*
>>> *5) Assuring Quality Communications*
>>> If a majority of all LNC members notify the Secretary of their belief
>>> that a proposed or actual public communication is detrimental to the image
>>> of the Party, such notification to occur no later than 72 hours after the
>>> public communication is published, the Secretary shall inform the Executive
>>> Director and Chair of this finding, and such communication shall not be
>>> further disseminated, and to the extent possible, already-disseminated
>>> material shall be promptly removed from the public sphere.
>>>
>>>
>>> You should keep this provision in mind for any future instances in which
>>> you've spotted something which you think is "detrimental to the image of
>>> the Party".  Whether it's something new on the LP web site or Facebook page
>>> or whatever, you should immediately email the LNC with your objection.  If
>>> a majority agree with you and act fast, it can be quickly deleted.  Failing
>>> that, four LNC members can sponsor a motion to delete it, although the
>>> voting on such a motion will take a lot longer.
>>>
>>> As a member of the Advertising & Publication Review Committee, I should
>>> also mention that the APRC does look at all LP communications.  However,
>>> its role is officially limited to assuring that the Platform, Bylaws, and
>>> Policy Manual are not violated, and its deliberations are required to be
>>> confidential.  So when issues arise from time to time, no one outside the
>>> APRC sees what things are prevented from being published, nor does anyone
>>> else hear the concerns and arguments (and disagreements) which are
>>> expressed within the committee.  That can often be frustrating for those of
>>> us on the committee, but those are the limitations we have to abide by.
>>>
>>> Dan Wiener
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>
>>> Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:14 AM
>>> Subject: Policy Manual motion on Presidential candidates
>>> To: LNC Discussion <lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org>
>>>
>>> I haven't seen any further suggested modifications for the last five
>>> days, so at this time I am proposing a motion to make the following changes
>>> (underlined in blue) to Section 2.08(2) of the Policy Manual, and I am
>>> asking for co-sponsors.
>>>
>>> Daniel Wiener
>>>
>>> *Section 2.08(2) Limitations on Party Support for Public Office*
>>>
>>> *Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services or
>>> promotional material for any candidate for public office prior to the
>>> nomination unless:*
>>>
>>> * • such information or services or promotional material facilities are
>>> available and announced on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have
>>> declared they are seeking the nomination for President or Vice-President,
>>> providing that a candidate is qualified according to the following
>>> criteria:*
>>>
>>> *·      The candidate is a sustaining member of the national party; and*
>>>
>>>
>>> *·      The candidate supplies a list of at least 100 sustaining members
>>> of the national party who have declared that they consider the candidate to
>>> be "acceptable"; and*
>>>
>>>
>>> *·      The candidate has raised at least $5,000 in campaign
>>> contributions from donors other than the candidate or the candidate's
>>> immediate family.*
>>>
>>> *·      During the month immediately prior to the national nomination
>>> convention, an additional criterion is that the total money which the
>>> campaign has raised since the candidate announced **shall have exceeded
>>> $10,000* *(from donors other than the **candidate or the candidate's
>>> immediate family)**.*
>>>
>>> *• or, such information or services are generally available and
>>> announced to all party members** in the case of non-national
>>> candidates.*
>>>
>>> *• or, the service or candidate has been approved by the state chair in
>>> the case of non-national candidates.*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Qualified Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates may, with the
>>> assistance of any LNC member, post promotional material to the LP Blog, but
>>> the total number of such posts shall be limited to the number of 30-day
>>> periods prior to the nomination convention (rounded up) from when a
>>> candidate first became qualified.  A list of qualified candidates along
>>> with links to their web pages shall be featured on the www.lp.org
>>> <http://www.lp.org/> web site and in LP News, and may be included in
>>> appropriate publications and mass emailings to members.  In each case there
>>> shall be a disclaimer stating that the party does not necessarily endorse
>>> or agree with the candidates or the contents of their web pages. *
>>>
>>> *The above restrictions do not apply to the dissemination of newsworthy
>>> information about candidates and their campaign activities, where the
>>> source or the object of the information involves significant media outlets
>>> which are not affiliated with the candidate.  Contemporaneous newsworthy
>>> information about a candidate shall be aggregated to the maximum extent
>>> practical. The APRC shall be authorized to resolve any uncertainties by
>>> majority vote.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>

-- 
========================================================
Kevin Ludlow
512-773-3968
http://www.kevinludlow.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160209/c689c5be/attachment-0002.html>