These opinions warrantied for the lifetime of your brain.

Loading Table of Contents...

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Susan Hogarth, Where's The Beef?

Brian Holtz // Jan 11, 2010 at 3:14 am

Given that abstention is an option for delegates during the Platform debate, I agree that it should have been an option in the survey. Still, keep in mind that these reccomendations will each get an up-or-down no-amendment vote.

Brian Holtz // Jan 11, 2010 at 3:03 pm

What, an actual comment about Platform content? Since when do Libertarians care about substance over procedural wrangling?

Good point, Austin. That, plus the shrill "wars throughout the globe" language, is why I'm betting this recommendation (which I opposed) won't pass in its present form.

Bob, the survey does say "Platform Committee Report 2010″ at the top. Of course, the survey contains everything that so far constitutes the Report, so that's not completely misleading. Note that the Bylaws say that the Chair "shall have up to two minutes to explain" each recommendation, so I don't have a problem with Alicia including in the survey a preview of the remarks she would be making during the Platform debate.

Mik, while it's true that the recommendations are subject to reconsideration (which is the whole point of the survey), these are not merely draft recommendations. They are our current formal recommendations.

Susan writes "Imagine my surprise when I realized I was responsible for a report I had nothing to do with." It's hard to have something to do with a report when you miss the meeting at which its payload — the 24 recommendations — were debated and voted on. :-) So where's the beef? With which of Alicia's explanatory remarks do you have a problem?

Brian Holtz // Jan 12, 2010 at 1:16 am

One of the duties of the Committee is to present a report to the Convention.

The duty of the Committee is to "prepare a report containing its recommendations". There is no requirement that the report contain anything other than the recommendations themselves. By contrast, there is the explicit requirement that "The Platform Committee Chair, or some other person designated by him or her, shall read the proposed recommendation and shall have up to two minutes to explain the recommendation."

The phrase "creating a sense of discord where none exists" broke my irony meter. That deafening silence you here is the sound of PlatCom members who were actually in the room in Vegas and are now accusing Alicia of writing inaccurate or tendentious explanations for any of our recommendations.

These attacks on Alicia continue a pattern established back when there were still platform wars in the LP. I guess old habits die hard.

Brian Holtz // Jan 13, 2010 at 4:15 pm

Wolfefan, this is not a "discussion [the LP] chooses to conduct in public". This thread should not be confused with an LP-hosted discussion, any more than a radio sports-talk show should be confused with the actual game in question.

The LP's actual 2010 platform discussion started on our private PlatCom forum, went public at our meeting in Vegas, and is now accepting public comments via the survey above. It will wrap up with the platform debate at our 2010 convention in St. Louis.

If our platform process sparks passionate public discussions like this, it may very well be because we in the "Party of Principle" are more passionate about our principles than other parties are. Indeed, we're the only significant party formed expressly to promote and implement a Bylaws-protected Statement of Principles.