No trap, just hoping for an overview from somebody with a reputation for
reality-based reporting of the available facts. Information about ES is
indeed inherently limited, and I haven't followed the LNC dramas very
closely, but I doubt you'd be writing about it except for one particular
incident. That, of course, is Angela's report that the Barr campaign
allegedly limited its formal data-sharing with LNC because of alleged
fears about what Angela might do with the data. On its face, the LNC's
use of ES in this case didn't seem abusive, but rather seemed like an
arguably reasonable effort to avoid needlessly embarrassing Angela, the
LNC, and the Barr campaign. Of course, since Angela was sitting right
there in the room, the information probably didn't feel very non-public
to her, and she apparently had reasons for wanting it to be completely
public. Absent that incident and its sequelae, I just don't know of any
persistent fire underneath all this executive-session-concern smoke.
That's why my question was directed to you (and others raising
"concerns"), and not to the LNC targets of those concerns.
Critics of the LP's leadership obviously have an interest in creating
the impression that LNC abuses executive session, and we each have our
own standards for what kind of evidence we require before doing things
that might strengthen that impression. My approach is to give fellow
Libertarians -- Angela, the rest of LNC, Mr. Montoni, etc. -- the
benefit of the doubt. I don't know of any Libertarian activists who I'd
consider irredeemable or evil -- even the ones who publicly say that I
or LNC are irredeemable and evil. You go to war against the Nanny State
with the comrades you have, not with the comrades you wish you had. The
only enemy in this room is the idea that there is an enemy in this room.
