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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

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> 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
> 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
>
>


-- 
*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 <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/eeffedfd/attachment-0002.html>