<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>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.<br><br>> "... removing any candidates from the website without information of their withdrawal from the race could be viewed as unfair"<br><br></div>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.<br><br></div>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.<br><br></div>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".<br><br></div>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.<br><br></div><div>Again, none of this is directed at Brett's comments. His line just spurred the thought.<br></div><div><br></div>-Kevin<br><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Brett Bittner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brett@brettbittner.com" target="_blank">brett@brettbittner.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I guess it's time for me to wade into this issue with my thoughts.<div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>If we, as the LNC, are to set defined guidelines for inclusion, it should not be done "midstream" in the 2016 cycle. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>Then, when someone decides to seek the LP nomination, they are implicitly agreeing to those guidelines.</div><div><br></div><div>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." </div><div><br></div><div>Just my two cents,</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div>Brett C. Bittner<div><br></div><div><a href="mailto:brett@brettbittner.com" target="_blank">brett@brettbittner.com</a></div><div><a href="tel:404.492.6524" value="+14044926524" target="_blank">404.492.6524</a></div><div><div><br></div><div>"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson</div></div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Joshua Katz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:planning4liberty@gmail.com" target="_blank">planning4liberty@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">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. <div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>That said, if a compromise is sought, something along the lines of Mr. Wiener's suggestion seems to be the most viable path.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div>Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)</div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Daniel Wiener <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wiener@alum.mit.edu" target="_blank">wiener@alum.mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div>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 <u>something</u> to distinguish serious candidates from frivolous ones.</div><div><br></div><div>However, back in 2011 I did succeed in adding the following provision to the Policy Manual:</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><strong style="font-size:12.8px">Section 2.06 PARTY <span>COMMUNICATIONS</span></strong></div><div><strong style="font-size:12.8px">5) <span>Assuring</span> <span>Quality</span> <span>Communications</span></strong></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">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.</span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Dan Wiener</div><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Daniel Wiener</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wiener@alum.mit.edu" target="_blank">wiener@alum.mit.edu</a>></span><br>Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:14 AM<br>Subject: Policy Manual motion on Presidential candidates<br>To: LNC Discussion <<a href="mailto:lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org</a>><br><br>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.<br>
<br>Daniel Wiener<br><div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right:0px">
<div><div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri"><b>Section 2.08(2) Limitations on Party Support for Public Office</b></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri"><b></b></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri"><b>Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services <u><font color="#3333ff">or promotional material</font></u> for any candidate for public office prior to the nomination unless:</b></font></span></p>
</div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><b><span style="line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri"> </font></span><span style="line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri">• such information or services <u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><font color="#3333ff">or promotional material facilities</font></span></u> are available and announced on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking the nomination for President or Vice-President, <u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><font color="#3333ff">providing that a candidate is qualified according to the following criteria:</font></span></u></font></span></b></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><b><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;font-style:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-variant:normal"> </span></span></span><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri" color="#3333ff">The candidate is a sustaining member of the national party; and</font></span></u></b></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><b><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri" color="#3333ff"><br></font></span></u></b></p>
</div>
</div><p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt 0.5in"><b><font color="#3333ff"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;font-style:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-variant:normal"> </span></span></span></font><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri" color="#3333ff">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</font></span></u></b></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt 0.5in"><b><font color="#3333ff"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;font-style:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-variant:normal"> </span></span></span></font><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri" color="#3333ff">The
candidate has raised at least $5,000 in campaign contributions from donors other than the candidate or the candidate's immediate family.<br></font></span></u></b></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt 0.5in"><b><font color="#3333ff"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;font-style:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-variant:normal"> </span></span></span></font><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri" color="#3333ff">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 </font></span></u></b><b><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri" color="#3333ff">shall have exceeded $10,000</font></span></u></b><b><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri" color="#3333ff"> </font></span></u></b><b><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri" color="#3333ff">(from donors other than the </font></span></u></b><b><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri" color="#3333ff">candidate or the candidate's immediate family)</font></span></u></b><b><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri" color="#3333ff">.</font></span></u></b></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt 0.5in"><b><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri" color="#3333ff"></font></span></u></b></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri"><b></b></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri"><b>• <u><font color="#3333ff">or,</font></u> such information or services are generally available and announced to all party members</b></font></span><span style="line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri"><b> <font color="#3333ff"><u>in the case of non-national candidates</u>.</font></b></font></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri"><b></b></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri"><b>• or, the service or candidate has been approved by the state chair <font color="#3333ff"><u>in the case of non-national candidates</u>.</font></b></font></span></p>
</div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><b><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#3333ff">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 </font><a href="http://www.lp.org/" target="_blank"><font color="#3333ff">www.lp.org</font></a><font color="#3333ff">
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. <br></font></font></span></u></b></p><div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri"><b></b></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><u><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><font face="Calibri" color="#3333ff"><b>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.<span> </span>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.</b></font></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><u><span style="font-size:8pt;color:rgb(31,73,125);line-height:115%"><span style="text-decoration:none"><font face="Calibri"><b></b></font></span></span></u></p></div></div></blockquote>
<div> </div></div></div>
</div>
<br></div></div><span>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>========================================================<br>Kevin Ludlow<br>512-773-3968<br></div><div><a href="http://www.kevinludlow.com" target="_blank">http://www.kevinludlow.com</a><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>