tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6756434140794129886.post7979535184591417094..comments2007-12-07T16:18:52.907-08:00Brian Holtzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18284822676116941984noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6756434140794129886.post-61878765909284983632007-12-07T16:18:00.000-08:002007-12-07T16:18:00.000-08:002007-12-07T16:18:00.000-08:00Hey Brian,<BR/><BR/>I take keyboard in hand, to respond to your post here, in which I am accused of being "contrarian" and a believer in a "nefarious plot", regarding the EC decision in 2006 (and now in 2007/8) to oppose the holding of State supported LPCA County Central Committee elections. Neither phrase applies.<BR/><BR/>First, calling me "contrarian" regarding the actions of the EC is a misuse of the word, along the lines of calling that homeowner who takes steps to prevent erosion of a hillside on his property "contrarian" as regards the effects of water. It implies a perception of rain as having some sort of consistent intent and plan, as well as the ability to carry out such plan. Rain of course does not have those qualities; neither does the EC. Each just sort of does what it does, because that is its nature. Probably there is in fact no category within which my interactions with the EC can be modeled. A better approach would be to start from my perception of the _formal_ LPCA (as contrasted against its registrants): an apolitical, comically mismanaged fraud.<BR/><BR/>As for "nefarious plot": "Nefarious" (which I had to look up) seems to mean "aggressively evil". I do not view the EC as evil, merely foolish. And as for "plot", my past and current experience with the EC says to me that the EC could not "plot" its way through an episode of the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the 14-1 vote by the EC at its 12/1 meeting, to once more suppress State supported LPCA County Central Committee elections, I agree with some of your analysis:<BR/><BR/>1) The argument that it "redirects members' ballot-access efforts toward actually running for office" is overcome by the idea that membership in the Central Committee is more valuable if it is worked for rather than simply purchased.<BR/><BR/>2) The argument that it "closes the door on a way to withhold party dues" is clearly an abhorrent one, unless we are to concede up front that it is proper for the LPCA to support the manipulation of state law in an attempt to balance its books.<BR/><BR/>3) But your argument that it's okay to apply this restriction because the LPCA "shouldn't associate [itself] with them [the P&F Party] any more closely than is strictly necessary for getting and using ballot access" makes no sense at all. First, as you concede, it was the LPCA's decision, not that of P&F, to "CHOOSE {emphasis mine) to be governed by the P&F section of the elections code." Second, I checked with P&F (Kevin Akin, Southern Vice Chair): The P&F section of the Code was changed AGAINST that Party's will; in response they now have a standing rule, that _their_ Chair will ALWAYS authorize state run Central Committee elections.<BR/><BR/>This puts the LPCA in the position of, for a perceived benefit to itself, having either directly motivated a change to the Election Code, or having coasted upon some legislator's desire to make the change. So much for maintaining a distance from government control.<BR/><BR/>In either case, since the EC is so proudly taking this step, I trust there will soon be a press release bragging about it. Seeing none within a week or so, WGLA, working from its standing as a formal libertarian PAC, will issue one. This may be less than complimentary.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Allen RiceAllenRicehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12479666794225136661noreply@blogger.com