Sorry, yer right. My bad. I simply meant one-to-one correspondence, not written-as-civilian correspondence

You write:

“the private correspondence was Party business.”

Er … I see. We’re using the words in different ways.

I’m using “private” to mean “personal, rather than in one’s capacity as a party employee or official.”

You seem to have intended it to mean “presumably confidential.” Now I understand.

As Outreach Director, I should hope I’d never be so stupid as to send someone that sort of message. It’s ammunition, for one thing – and indeed it did wind up on some public forum where it made the LP look ridiculous. But beyond that, it’s just … unprofessional.

When I run for political office or speak for any subdivision of the LP, I try to keep my public use of the f-word and such to a minimum (that minimum being zero).

However, you identified the email you quoted as “private.” I don’t concern myself with the private behavior of LP employees or officials, or for the most part with the use of, um, “candid” language in any case.

Remind me to call for your dismissal should you ever write so vulgarly while working as a paid staffer for any organization we are both in. Thanks!

;-)

Since this announcement, another LPNC activist has announced as a Republican candidate. After several years of collecting signatures to get nearly 100,000, and with the end in sight needing only a few more thousand signatures, LPNC activists are deciding to run as Republicans.

I can’t say I blame them when they see the reception Libertarian candidates get form the national political director, and when they see the state political director’s ‘leadership’ in running as a Republican.

I am very discouraged.

Actually, the sentiment expressed in that last email is something I could have written myself (and, in fact, more or less have, both privately and publicly).

Thing is, Mr. Haugh’s Vegas remarks weren’t “the right thing.” They were very much the wrong thing.

What Mr. Haugh does in the voting booth is his business. What he does as political director of the LP is the business of every LP member who pays his salary, buys his plane tickets, and rents his hotel rooms.

I don’t know if there’s a specific clause in the policy manual stating “the political director shall not fly to Las Vegas, publicly endorse a Republican candidate over a Libertarian candidate, then brag about it.” Some things are so obvious that they shouldn’t have to be spelled out in minute detail, and there’s certainly an analogous provision in the party’s bylaws: Under those bylaws, a state party could be disaffiliated for doing as an organization what Mr. Haugh did as a party employee.

Haugh has a history of unprofessional outbursts. While serving as the (paid) Executive Director of the LPNC as recently as 2005, he wrote the following in a private email which (naturally) showed up later in a public forum:

> Connie, you’re right I probably never will be a success in politics
because I believe it’s about doing the right thing, not sucking the right dick. A lot of fucking gall to speak of principle while breaking a promise.

This is not the sort of correspondence I want to see the LP’s paid staff engaged in. We all make mistakes, but most of us learn to apologize for – rather than brag about – our mistakes.

After 50 messages, someone finally asks! I confess myself to be very curious about the answer.

Eric Sundwall writes:
Sean Haugh has a long track record of decency and integrity within the LP, the ‘fact’ that he may have said such a thing should raise some warning flags and the idea of context is relevant. As Mr, Haugh seemingly indicates, it was taken out of greater and simple context.

Eric, Thomas is quoting Haugh himself bragging publicly about his ‘funny story’. He includes a link to the entire discussion. The ‘context’ it came up in was that I evinced concern that the LPNC’s state political director was filing for office as a Republican, and Haugh felt it was a good time to trot out his ‘funny story’ about his public trashing of an LP activist and candidate from Las Vegas.

Frankly, that Haugh makes his public declaration of voting Republican over Libertarian in my case into an exception should be seen not as a mitigating factor, but as a symptom of his unprofessionalism (and, as Knapp points out, of the Republican trend with National staff in general). He’s using his paid position within the LP (which, as a monthly pledger, I help fund) as a platform to spew personal venom in some childish game of I’m-more-popular-than-you.

As further evidence of Haugh’s unprofessionalism, his response to my rather mild (considering the provocation) rebuke was the following. Notice that in the first line he conflates the ideas of professionalism (which is what is to be expected of the LP’s paid political director, and which is what I accused him of not being) and Christianity (which I couldn’t give a flip about). Haugh writes:

While it is true I could be more Christian about it, it’s not my fault that people found my remarks so amusing, nor that no one faults me for making public fun at your expense. Maybe you should ask yourself why you have become at best a laughingstock within the party nationally. After all, if anyone still respected you I wouldn’t have received such a reaction.

Really, folks, the entire LPNC is a national joke because we still coddle destructive personalities like Susan Hogarth and Carl Milsted. I’m really getting tired of fielding the question, “what the hell is wrong with you people?” when I travel to Libertarian events outside our state.

To that end, I am considering moving at the state convention (where I still do get to be a delegate) that we bar any active member (past or present) of the Reform or Radical caucuses from representing our state as a delegate to the national convention. It’s time we took out our own trash.

I don’t think this is the sort of behavior a professional working for the LP membership should be displaying, and I am awaiting a public apology from Haugh and/or a rebuke from his immediate supervisors. But don’t worry about my health, because I am not holding my breath :-/

I find the comments of another LPNC member and longtime activist to be the best response:

As to “what the hell is wrong with [us] people,” I answer that a good part of our problem is that people claiming to be leaders in our movement make posts like the one above. If you are tired of the question, you have options. Quitting is one; holding yourself as an example of high standards of decorum and professionalism is a better one, though much harder.

“LP Libertarians just make it a sport to bash Republicans. And they will NEVER acknowledge anything good a Republican does outside of Ron Paul (and occasionally Tom McClintock.)”

Your problem here is revealed in your wording—to you, politics is “sport.” To LP Libertarians it is a serious matter. De Gaulle didn’t play footsie with the Vichy regime, and LP Libertarians shouldn’t coddle Republican collaborators. If necessary, we should fight you until hell freezes over, and then fight you some more on the ice.

Eric, Sean and the Knappster duking it out. That’s manly. I respect that.

Kris Overstreet, a little weird. That’s ok. We accept that.

What I wrote meant precisely what my words plainly said. The relevant issue is whether or not the political director of the LP publicly announced that he’d vote for a Republican over a Libertarian, period.

Whether or not that political director was being realistic in assessing the chance that he’d have the opportunity to do so is a separate issue (one which doesn’t reflect well on his intelligence, but that has little to do with his understanding of the constraints of his job).

Whether or not that political director was making a strictly political statement or just playing the dozens with someone he doesn’t like is also a separate issue.

The political director of the LP publicly announced his intention to vote for a Republican over a Libertarian. Which part of “that is WAY fucked up” do you not understand?

As to whether or not I write what I mean, well, let’s put you to the same test. You implicitly accuse me of a) lying about you and b) slandering you. Do you mean that? If so, are you willing to provide examples or present evidence?

If you think Augustus Cho, BJ Lawson’s primary opponent, has some great chance of winning the primary you are quite mistaken. Cho has no money, no organization, no staff and very little support. Some of the party elites may support him, but not all, and the average voter does not know who he even is…

BJ Lawson, on the other hand, has a staff, money and an active organization. The word is getting out about his campaign and he’s getting new supporters everyday. Cho is not. BJ Lawson is reaching out to voters. Cho is not.

Anyway, my hope is that Libertarians will take an honest look at BJ Lawson and his views on issues and then make their decision on who to support based on that and not write off BJ simply because he doesn’t have an “L” beside his name.

It’s about liberty and advancing it, not about party. I understand this and I think the majority of the LP understands this, but sadly not all. I wish more did.