From the LNC Public List:
Harlos: I move to rescind the Joint Fundraising Campaign due to changed circumstances of RFK, Jr. endorsing Trump so that inevitably even in states he has not withdrawn from monies raised will go to support the duopoly we oppose and its character is thus fundamentally different from what was passed.
McArdle: This is out of order and dilatory.
Harlos: Respectfully this is a motion I’m entitled to make. I guess I now ask for co-sponsors to appeal the ruling of the chair.
McArdle: This motion is the same as the last one. This has been moved and lost more than once. Continuing to move the same losing motion is dilatory. Furthermore, we’ve had a JC appeal on the matter and the JC decided in favor of the LNC. We need to move on from this issue and not spend so much time on procedural battles. Let’s please focus on fundraising and candidate support.
Harlos: It is not the same as circumstances changed drastically. It is in order respectfully and I ask for sponsors for an appeal. I’ve asked people to give and this apparent Trump support is the number one reason I’m given not to. So this IS to support regaining membership and boosting those numbers. PS: it never lost more than once. Even though circumstances differ.
Keith Thompson: Caryn Ann,
Your evidence that the Kennedy campaign, who we are assisting, is directly supporting former President Trump is confusing. Are you suggesting that running a joint fundraiser for our direct political opponents against the wishes of our Presidential campaign is somehow a bad thing?? Next you’ll be saying that we should fully support our own nominee in red states! What are you, a Libertarian??
Keith Thompson
Region 3 Alternate
I suppose I shouldn’t neglect to also mention Carroll’s other queen, in Through the Looking Glass, for purposes of analogy under development.
What other fictional queens come to mind – Snow White? Perhaps, someone here shall propose more suggestions, if the question is allowed?
Is the chair in charge of deciding whether it’s in order, and whether an appeal of the ruling of the chair is in order? If you’ve read Alice in Wonderland, they’re playing the Queen’s game, in which the Queen makes the rules as she goes. An appeal of any rulings of the chair isnt in one’s self interest in such a game, nor is displeasing her royal highness to begin with.
We should at this point back up and ask what purpose one might hope to achieve by serving on such a board. The people there are either entirely in agreement with their queen, reading the room and looking for opportunities to marginally mitigate the damage if and when such opportunities present themselves, or showboating (for attention, tidbits of extremely minor fame, resulting personal opportunities, and name recognition for future internal campaigns).
They could also resign to signal their displeasure, but wouldn’t anyone with such inclination done so well before this? And, what purpose would it serve, other than to give the remaining members some more make work vacancy filling duties, thus further solidifying the Queen’s iron grasp on the iron throne, to slightly adjust fictional metaphors?
I’ll not spoil the endings, but for those familiar with both fictional accounts, the ultimate fate of the iron throne, and some more other things I was going to say days ago when I started composing this and forgot.
I agree with what George says. Has not the world changed. Robert Kennedy Jr has suspended his campaign and endorsed another candidate of another political party so what is the purpose of this combined fundraiser?
EXACTLY! This is totally in order but Kween McArdle and her simps are silent.
The McArdle position is totally absurd. Any LNC member other than Harlos or McArdle who fails to object, vigorously, to the situation has clearly shown his unfitness to serve and should be removed from office as swiftly as possible. This description currently applies to all but one current member of the LNC.
And if you are declining to object because you are sure the motion would lose, so you do not want to rock the boat, your presence on the LNC is of negative value to the party, and you should resign. Immediately.
The fact that no one else has objected is damned cowardice. Yes it will lose but show who has actual courage!
McArdle is claiming it’s dilatory based on RONR 39:1: “A motion is dilatory if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation.”
However, the full LNC has never voted on the JFC (which clearly violates the Bylaws, see the JC dissent), so the will of the assembly (the LNC) has never been established. Only the EC voted on it, and the EC is not the full LNC.
Therefore the motion is NOT dilatory and NOT out of order.
Plus, other business related to the original JFC has occurred (RFK’s partial dropout and endorsement of Trump), so that also removes any case of being dilatory.
Further, a motion to Rescind, also known as a Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (by striking all of it), is fully in order. The JFC has not been moved to be reconsidered and failed, and a rescission would end the JFC as it stands without affecting all the laundering that has already been done.
One of these days the McArdle may actually learn how to properly do parliamentary procedure instead of trying to harpy-strongarm a Registered Parliamentarian who actually does.
Is a motion to vacate the Chair in order?
This sounds like something right out of Seinfeld!