Request for time on August agenda - Resolution Against the Kennedy Victory Fund

Jessi Cowart said:
I don't think I said that, but your point is well taken :) Other options might include a statement or blog post (a la the Trump one), though I would hate to burden an already-busy Staff in crafting such a message when we already have one ready to workshop.

And to answer your question, I state again that the practical effect of this resolution is two-fold:

1) LPTexas is on the record in opposition of the Kennedy Victory Fund in the hope that other affiliates will follow our lead with similar resolutions/statements (and hope, though extremely unlikely, that the LNC will take heed)
2) More importantly, demonstrate to our own members and donors that we in Texas do not condone bylaws violations nor support entering into financial agreements with opposition candidates.
Click to expand...
And it has more force than simply staff or officers of LPTexas. It is Texas, period. We reject this approach. Texas is the 2nd largest state affiliate and contains the 2nd largest county affiliate. Harris alone is bigger than 26 states. Add in the rest of Texas, and you have a huge portion of population. If we can get past the academics of resolution vs. censure vs. whatever, we have an opportunity that could show the rest of the US that we are actually trying to get our brand under control. Most of us have several roles in the Party and the broader movement, at local, state and national levels. The Texas level feels like the right place to insert ourselves into the conversation (at least to me). There are other switches to throw, but they don't feel like the right ones particularly with CO, FL and others, who are quite embarrassing to the brand at this point.
 
The first thing that happened after I recommended we treat this as an exercise in consensus building is that Kyle offered to drop all of the named censurees (if that's a word) but the national Chair, who appears to have been the spearhead here. Thank you for that, Kyle!

Here's a pep talk for the rest of this thread's conversation and our meeting on Saturday:

We live in a polarized, moralizing culture driven mostly by fear. The bad news is it's in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the media we give our attention to—it's everywhere, and it affects us too, as much as we let it. We've got to rise above it as individuals if we're going to accomplish our mission here.

A lot of the conversation above treats this matter as a no/no-go decision, which it is not. Much of the convo also frames this as an objectively right or wrong move, which it is not. It's a judgment call with a fair amount of nuance available to us, that we have to make collectively, recognizing that resolute silence is just as much of a 'statement' as anything we might actually write up about this situation. Let's work together as colleagues to find the consensus that most of the body thinks is good enough and then let's let it go and keep moving forward.
 
Last edited:
Amanda Gibbs said:
I am not stating I am against this resolution. What I am against is knowing the time we are going to spend arguing over this when we have other work to be done. Nonetheless I will read the room and y’all do your thing and I’ll vote my conscience when the time comes.
Click to expand...
Same
 
We're going to have a full day on Saturday, and while this is scheduled for a floor vote and we anticipate some debate, there's nothing keeping y'all from continuing the discussion here to get as close as possible to an easy-to-pass motion. I don't remember anyone's responding formally to Kyle's offer to take out the censurees other than Angela if that would help more people support it, but the more y'all can workshop this here the less time we'll spend wrangling at the meeting.
 
Be careful Ted some think we are scared to use the word censure for simply disagreeing with what the original poster is trying to do.
And to answer to what Andrew said- no one responded to Kyle’s recommendation of only including the LNC Chair so here’s my response- I would be open to just her on it. I still think the way it’s worded so far it’s pretty clear who it’s directed at but if you want to @ them for good measure I guess that’s what appears to be the popular consensus here.
I also agree with Andrew that the more we hash it out here the less we have to debate on Saturday and can just vote this up or down.
 
I have and LNC E-Meeting in an hour and a Judicial Committee meeting tomorrow I plan to attend. The Judicial committee meeting directly addresses some of this matter and the LNC may indirectly touch on some parts. I already have a draft LNC report but I have been with holding posting it until I could add what occurs at those meetings.
 
Paul Darr said:
I have and LNC E-Meeting in an hour and a Judicial Committee meeting tomorrow I plan to attend. The Judicial committee meeting directly addresses some of this matter and the LNC may indirectly touch on some parts. I already have a draft LNC report but I have been with holding posting it until I could add what occurs at those meetings.
Click to expand...
Thank you sir
 
Ryan RJ Pase said:
Be careful Ted some think we are scared to use the word censure for simply disagreeing with what the original poster is trying to do.
And to answer to what Andrew said- no one responded to Kyle’s recommendation of only including the LNC Chair so here’s my response- I would be open to just her on it. I still think the way it’s worded so far it’s pretty clear who it’s directed at but if you want to @ them for good measure I guess that’s what appears to be the popular consensus here.
I also agree with Andrew that the more we hash it out here the less we have to debate on Saturday and can just vote this up or down.
Click to expand...
I firmly believe we should directly call out those who voted for the motion to accept the agreement, they are directly the reason violations occurred in the first place and although I may not agree with all bylaws violations presented in the resolution, I will be voting for whichever are presented for the reasons I previously mentioned. As an affiliate of National, we are in the prime position to express how we feel about the agreement. Censure is a strong word but it’s a powerful tool that bodies have to express themselves when they don’t agree with actions or words from someone or something.
 
I think many who follow LPGuadalupe's page may already know that we officially denounced the Kennedy partnership as well as the LNC Chair (due to her recent social media posts). Since Guadalupe is a staunchly red county, we had a feeling that both would be ammo against Chase (who we have been promoting since his nomination to where we had him as our focus with our recent 4th of July float).

The one thing I was not impressed with the announcement of the Kennedy partnership was the promotion to contact state affiliates as if we supported it or something along those lines.

Either we use the term censure, denounce, or any other term like those, I strongly feel that we need to let it be known that we are not for this deal with the Kennedy campaign. Either if you like Chase or not, he is our candidate, and he's on our ballot as our candidate. Nothing else can change that.
 
I made a statement on the zoom call with Angela after the Trump announcement, about us not controlling the narrative and relying on the media to be our voice to the tens of thousands of voters who vote libertarian but don't come to our happy hours or conventions. Between Trump and RFK speaking at national convention, and partnerships like this our constituents are going to be confused on who we are. That alone is unacceptable. I am proudly that libertarian, and I don't want anyone confusing me for a Republican or an independent because they came to us for attention or money. We have to defend our brand full stop.
 
I have a question for those who have been here longer than me/know more of party history.

Has the party (national or state) ever done something similar where we partnered/made coalition with the Green Party to help ballot access without promoting their candidates and just ours?

I ask because we must remember Kennedy is running as an independent. Rumors he could still end up Dem nominee but we shall see.
I’ve seen arguments from both sides and those who support it mention that we aren’t “promoting our people or others to donate to RFK” they are already RFK supporters who want to contribute more and then LNC gets a cut.

Like I said in my very first post on this thread, I feel like overall our nominee has been tossed to the side so 100% understand the frustrations but we need to look at this as objectively as possible and consider all factors.

At this moment I consider myself undecided and I might pull a Carol and abstain but will likely do what Amanda had mentioned already and I said same to: weigh my options and vote which way I feel is best when it comes to that.
 
Ryan RJ Pase said:
Has the party (national or state) ever done something similar where we partnered/made coalition with the Green Party to help ballot access without promoting their candidates and just ours?
Click to expand...
LPTexas has not partnered with, made a coalition with, or the like with another political party or their candidates for any campaign purpose since 2012 (this is not to imply that it happened before then, just that 2012 is the earliest time I have first hand knowledge of).

In fact, if we were to create a partnership with another political party or promote another party's candidates, it would stand to jeopardize our affiliation with National which, while we don't need their support, would make it so that Texas didn't get a say in our Presidential nomination, which was part of the reasoning for taking a stand when a candidate endorsed their opponent and thereby distancing ourselves from that action.
 
So that opens a deeper hole- do we even need national and is sticking around to help choose a candidate even worth it? With how polarizing presidential races have been as of late I must admit I find myself wondering if we even nominate one. I find myself more times than not saying yes we should stick around to nominate but every now and then the collaspatarian in me wants it to burn down and we try to elect people in state wide, county, local races. Build it ground up rather than hope our presidential candidate will be a media darling and we get traction that way.
 
There are huge swaths of the country that wouldn't have a Libertarian on their ballot if we didn't have a presidential nominee. It's the same reason that we can't abandon the idea of running up ballot candidates because if all we run are local candidates, we're going to disappear to huge amounts of the state.

We're also not taken seriously as it is. If we "couldn't" put up a presidential nominee, we'd have a much harder time (as counter intuitive as that is, and as much money as it costs to have that placeholder)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top