Yeah, I cajoled Robb Cunningham into running for MO-1 again.

I live in the district, but wasn’t planning to run for office myself until our MO-2 candidate, Caleb Bartlett, had a family emergency and couldn’t make it down to file. Besides, I wouldn’t feel right running against Clay. He’s always been positively (and not just pro forma) responsive to the issues letters I’ve sent him, and unless something has changed he’s the “most libertarian” US congresscritter from Missouri (see here and here).

I’m much more comfortable running against Todd Akin.

I’m going to drop the SoS’s office a line to see if I can find out the reason for disqualification. My suspicion is that it will be due to his felony conviction, which will mean that the MOLP’s executive committee wasted 2 1/2 hours on Sunday convincing itself to take an action that was not only stupid and evil, but unnecessary.

One thing about the Paul showing in Missouri’s primary: He didn’t do all that better than usual in Jim Guest’s district, but he did win high percentages in places like Grundy County.

And the County Convention thing seems a bit more futile, since they won 33% of the seats, and they’re not going to get the rules changed without a majority.

Any update on the Chief Wana Dubie situation? I would imagine that Finkelstedt(?) could beat him in a primary

But Cunningham is the only guy running in MO-1 against Lacy Clay. The first time that the Republicans didn’t contest MO-1 since 1970.

“Former MO-LP candidates are filing as Pauline Republicans anyways. Langkraehr, for one.”

I bumped into Randy at the Secretary of State’s office yesterday. Begged him not to go over to the dark side, but no dice.

Here in Missouri (and possibly elsewhere), the Paulists managed to show in the GOP caucuses, and now some of them are running for office as Republicans to make themselves “credential challenge proof” in the hope of similarly swamping the state convention and national convention. They kind of remind me of the Knight At The Bridge in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Looks like the Glenn Miller Clause has been invoked on the Chief.

Former MO-LP candidates are filing as Pauline Republicans anyways. Langkraehr, for one. Hedrick is another one. Terrazas in MO-4 is a Paul supporter.

So the MO-LP is experiencing their members running as Republicans. And they’re more concerned about trying to kick off CWD at the last minute.

With an hour left to file, there are 20 Libertarians filed in Missouri for 194 offices. Back in 2006, the total was 24 for 191 offices. 13 filed for the state house in 06, 8 in 2008.

The MO-LP obviously doesn’t hold a high opinion of their membership base if they think that a guy named Chief Wana Dubie would win their primary.

I’ve been dealing with this matter for so long that I sometimes forget how complicated it can be from outside.

You write: “If the party wants Mr. Dubie, that’s fine.”

True enough—but in Missouri, “the party,” for purposes of ballot access, is defined as those voters who pick up a Libertarian Party primary ballot in August.

“I also find nothing wrong with free individuals suggesting to other free individuals that they drop out of races, even if those free individuals happen to be members of some executive board.”

These were not individuals who “happen to be members of some executive board,” they were individuals acting in their capacity as members of some board.

That board was created under certain rules, and had some prerogatives given to it and others specifically, and after long discussion, withheld from it by its creating authority.

One of the prerogatives withheld from the executive committee was disavowal of party members. If returning a member’s contribution and saying “we don’t want you on the party’s ballot” isn’t a disavowal, I can’t imagine what would be.

Furthermore, that board’s superior board specifically voted “no” on a resolution to return Wana Dubie’s filing fee at the last state convention.

The executive committee acted both in excess of its authority and in blatant disregard of contrary instructions from the authority it answers to.

As far as law enforcement is concerned, I agree—I’d rather the state didn’t enforce that law. However, the question isn’t whether the state should enforce it, it’s whether the MOLP executive committee should enforce it as the state’s proxy. I can’t see any circumstances under which the answer to that would be anything but “no.” Neither Missouri law nor the party’s bylaws contemplate any such role for the executive committee.

I did not mean to imply support or opposition to the bylaws of the Missouri Libertarian Party. If the party wants Mr. Dubie, that’s fine. I also find nothing wrong with free individuals suggesting to other free individuals that they drop out of races, even if those free individuals happen to be members of some executive board.

You write, “it is the job of the state, not of the Missouri LP’s executive committee, to enforce state law.” I do not want the state enforcing statutory law. It should be up to the party, and not the state, to decide which candidates it wishes to run and to not run.

As for Mr. Dubie’s acts of non-violent civil disobedience (i.e. the public planting), I find them highly admirable. But I fail to see how the Missouri Libertarian Party was aiding, abetting, or sanctioning the actions of the state.

Again, I will take no stance on which candidate, Mr. Dubie or Mr. Finkenstadt, is better, as I know nothing about either candidate other than their names and, in the case of the former, his appearance.

Yours,
Alex Peak

Chief Wana Dubie’s real name is Chief Wana Dubie. He had it legally changed to that a number of years ago.

FWIW, I am not defending Wana Dubie per se, although he seems like a decent enough guy and made a pretty stirring argument regarding his reasons for running when the Missouri LP’s executive committee brought him in on its conference call in order to “invite” him to withdraw.

What I am defending is the Missouri Libertarian Party:

– The party’s state committee explicitly voted AGAINST refusing Wana Dubie’s filing fee at its convention last summer. The executive committee is subordinate to the state committee, and has no legitimate authority to ovverrule the state committee’s decisions.
– The party’s executive committee is only allowed to undertake actions which the state committee could take on a majority vote. Refusing a filing fee for the purpose of keeping a candidate off the ballot would logically constitute a “disavowal” of that candidate—an action which requires a 3/4 vote of the state committee, and which is therefore beyond the executive committee’s authority.

The executive committee’s actions vis a vis Wana Dubie constitute a revolt against—or perhaps more appropriately, a coup d’etat within—the Missouri Libertarian Party.

Furthermore, it is the job of the state, not of the Missouri LP’s executive committee, to enforce state law. If Wana Dubie is ineligible, the Secretary of State can invalidate his filing. Not. Our. Friggin’. Job.

Finally, I find it repugnant that the Missouri LP’s executive committee would use, as its excuse for excluding a candidate, the fact that he was convicted of a felony and sent to prison for five years for an act of civil disobedience against laws we claim to abhor (his conviction was over his public planting of some cannabis plants to protest the marijuana laws). It might or might not be our duty to expend resources defending his right to run for office after such an act, but we certainly shouldn’t be aiding, abetting and sanctioning the actions of his persecutors in preventing him from doing so.

A newspaper actually wrote “their”?

And it seems the proper way to oppose Wana Dubie is to recruit candidates to run against him. Otherwise they should shut up and stop complaining because at least this guy wants to do something.

My libertine side tells me not to care, let the guy do whatever he wants so long as he doesn’t hurt anyone.

My pragmatic radical side tells me that “Chief Wana Dubie” is not a name we want on the ballot under our moniker: Libertarian.

If he’d run under his real name (and assuming he’s not a horrible speaker), I’d say that we should ignore his unconventional appearance and let him take a shot at it in his own, creative way under our moniker. But no matter how much I wish society was inclined to not care what a candidate calls himself or looks like, I know that’s not the society in which we live, and don’t believe it will necessarily behoove us to have Chief Wana Dubie on the ballot as our candidate…unless perhaps he is one HELL of a public speaker—and even that is a stretch. As much as I’m a libertine, I’m one grounded in libertarian ethics, and hold therefore that the Libertarian Party, being a private organisation, holds no innate obligation to allow just anyone who wants to to use the Libertarian moniker. Just as Mr. Bickell can do whatever he wants so long as he doesn’t aggress against anyone, so too is the case with the Libertarian Party.

With all that said, I will take no stance on which candidate, Mr. Bickell or Mr. Finkenstadt, is better, as I know nothing about either candidate other than their names and, in the case of the former, his appearance.