Wrights Not Naked Until LNC Votes To Say He Wears No Clothes

Tom, I can tell when you're tired, because you argue by merely assuming what you're arguing for.  This is beneath someone of your polemical talent.  Get some rest, acquaint yourself with the basic facts of this case, and try again.  In particular, see http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/lnc-memo-wrights-was-not-member-when-elected/ where I wrote "the memo says that when elected Vice Chair of the LNC in May 2004, Wrights had been lapsed for nearly three months."  Yours was the very first comment there.  Perhaps your theory is that Lee is not naked until the LNC votes to say he has no clothes on. :-)

George and Marc, the fundamental question remains: should a bare plurality be able to override any and all rules -- even those protecting a minority -- in the passion of the moment merely through its power as a mob?  As a small-R republican, I trust a bare plurality to pick a Chair with enduring integrity much more than I trust the mob -- even a mob of only 17 -- to control its passions in each and every instance.  And to apply Erik's favorite point: if it's so clear that the Chair chosen by the convention is a tyrant, then 2/3 of the LNC can vote to remove him for cause and appoint a new Chair.

This whole affair remains a tempest in a teapot.  The moment Wrights disavowed the report that he said the LP is not to be contributed to, there was no longer any question whether he would end up not on the LNC. At that point, this episode was reduced merely to grist for 1) Bylaws wonks and 2) conspiracy theorists -- the perfect combination for generating comment traffic at IPR.