These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Thomas Sipos on LNC Bolshevism

Jim Davidson, it's simply illiterate to suggest I said LNC members shouldn't be amusing or hilarious.  Nor did I say LNC members can't be aggravating; I just said they have to not be so deliberately and egregiously aggravating as to make an elected supermajority of the LNC conclude that their work is being obstructed.  As for "loyalty", if you can't figure out the difference between the LP's 15,000 dues-payers and the 17 people they entrust with those dues, then you're too far 'round the bend for me to help you.  It's still a lie for you to claim that I've ever said that party members should never support a candidate of another party, or vote against an LP candidate, or quit the LP for another freedom party if they think the LP is unsalvageable.  You're simply obtuse if you can't tell the difference between jumping off the boat, and steering the boat for the rocks.

Thomas Sipos, I too might find it refreshing if a party leader made your little fantasy speech -- while resigning from the LNC, or maybe even while running for LNC.  It's just Orwellian to suggest that the pattern of behavior described in Flood's resolution constitutes "trying to fix" problems with the LP and is evidence of "integrity".  It's equally twisted to claim that LNC drawing a line against these behaviors constitutes a desire to "get votes by any means necessary".  Spare us your "slick B.S." about an "All-Perfect Vanguard of the Revolution thus beyond criticism", and just have the intellectual courage to say: "it's OK for a self-declared lame duck officer to advocate against joining or donating to the party, to make false statements against its duly nominated candidates, and to materially aid a candidate in a race against an LP opponent."  If you can't utter those words, you're not competently disagreeing with me.  Care to try?  Or are you just going to give us more "B.S." about "anal Bolshevism"?

It's laughable to say that because LNC members can resign, they should have to collectively "endure" any misbehavior that one member cares to engage in.  If you voted for Angela because she's "mouthy", then perhaps other delegates voted for other LNC members for their ability to distinguish mouthy criticism from deliberate sabotage.  The ability of LNC to suspend a saboteur is indeed one of your "checks and balances to keep them in line" -- or do you think that only one of the 17 LNC members gets to draw lines?

Paulie's post says that supporting evidence for Flood's resolution is going to be made available later this week.  Flood will have the burden of proving his charges that Angela knowingly published false claims against our nominee, materially supported another party's opposition to our nominees, deliberately misled major LP donors, and sabotaged a worthy LNC lawsuit. (The incendiary charge of verbally threatening him seems very hard to prove.)  We should examine the evidence with an open mind and a firm presumption of innocence -- but not with a prejudgment that any sabotage can be excused if you call it "self-criticism".

George Donnelly, last month you ran for BTP Chair, last week you were considering a run for LP Secretary, and today you're thinking of working inside the GOP.  I'm not sure what my writing is doing to make your activism so peripatetic, but I somehow doubt that anything I do will dampen the evident enthusiasm that you (and Jim and ex-LPers like him) have for fretting about the state of the LP.   :-)   Seriously, if the sober and earnest keyboard activity of a minor LP player like me can make you reconsider your LP involvement, then that's all the more reason to cast a critical eye on the over-the-top antics of our most famous LNC member.