Sam Sloan Charged with Disloyalty to the Libertarian Party
samsloan
the letter from Eric Sundwall, the Twice Party Chairman of the
Libertarian Party of the State of New York.
Since my name is mentioned, I feel I must respond on a point that many
on these lists seem to have forgotten. Back on January 2, 2010, it was
revealed that Eric Sundwall was in contact with several prominent
Libertarians and members of the State Committee seeking to close down
the nomination process by no later than February 1, 2010 so that the
candidate he was backing, Warren Redlish, who had not yet declared for
the office, could run unopposed if he decided to run.
Eric Sundwall made the point that Warren Redlich has a life too
(unlike most of us?) and he did not want to have to go to the trouble
of running for our nomination unless he was assured that there would
be no opposition and that therefore he was guaranteed to receive our
nomination.
I was immediately thereafter contacted by several Libertarian Party
members, some of whom had not favored me in the past, who were upset
by this effort by a Former Chairman to lock up the nomination in favor
of a person who was not even a Libertarian, and was not even a member
of our party, (He did not pay his dues and join until immediately
before the convention on April 24, 2010). They asked me to run just so
that there would be opposition and therefore there would be no
guarantee that Warren Redlich would be our candidate.
Truthfully, had I not been contacted by those asking me to run in
opposition to this DRAFT WARREN REDLICH campaign, I would not have
run, frankly because I felt I had no chance.
Previously, Eric Sundwall had written privately to State Committee
members the following:
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:20 AM, eric_sundwall
<eric_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"I've sent an email to all current members of the State Committee with
a note from Warren. Please review. I did not post to here, as I did
not know if Warren wanted it publicly distributed. Observers or
members here are encouraged to contact their local, at-large or
officer for specific information. This note is simply an effort in
transparency and regard for individual privacy/security.
"Thanks - Eric"
Although he wrote above of "regard for individual privacy/security",
what was really going on here is that Eric Sundwall was trying to make
a secret deal with the party insiders to guarantee that there would be
no effective opposition to the nomination of Warren Redlich for
Governor.
Subsequently, Warren Redlich stated in media interviews that he had
been "assured" of the nomination for Governor by the Libertarian Party
and therefore he had not attended events that had been arranged for
him to meet with the party membership, such as the meet-up scheduled
for April 11 and the candidates debates scheduled for April 12. He
felt that his time was better spent attending Tea Party events because
he already had the Libertarian Party nomination in the bag.
It is surprising that any candidate for any political office would
totally neglect the constituency he needs to get the nomination. Other
than one meeting of the Manhattan Libertarian Party, Warren Redlich
attended no party meetings or events. In addition, he has continued to
neglect us even after he got our nomination. Warren Redlich did not
attend the fund raising dinner held on the evening of April 24, 2010
just after he received our nomination, even though the purpose of the
dinner was to raise funds for his own campaign. Have you ever heard of
a candidate who did not a fund raising dinner held to fund his own
campaign?
However, after the dinner, he did come in and he gave a speech to us
in which he stated that he wants to abolish the laws against speeding
and that the traffic police should stop issuing speeding tickets.
I realize that many if not most Libertarians are against traffic
regulations entirely. However, it would have been better if Warren
Redlich had disclosed his opposition to speeding tickets before he was
nominated as our candidate, rather than after.
In addition, he did not attend any part of the Libertarian Party State
Convention in Albany except during the part that directly concerned
his nomination. In the morning, he came in to give a scheduled speech
and then left the room immediately, as soon as he had finished
speaking. In the afternoon, he came to the convention late and then a
special motion was made and passed to make him a voting member of the
New York State Libertarian Party, as he had not been a member until
just before that moment.
Then, as soon as he received the nomination, Warren Relich immediately
left the convention. He was not present during the other nominations,
speeches and votes for our candidates for Lieutenant Governor, US
Senate, Attorney General and Comptroller. One would think that any
candidate for Governor would want to have some input into who was
going to be his running mate. Warren Redlich did not hang around long
enough to find out that Alden Link is his running mate as our
candidate for Lieutenant Governor.
What our candidates should all be doing now is organizing our petition
drive. Our candidates are expected to lead or at least to participate
in the drive to collect at least 15,000 signatures to get us on the
ballot. Judging by the fact that Warren Redlich left the convention
the moment he got the nomination, it seems unlikely that he is going
to make any significant contribution to our petition drive.
In his morning speech before the business meeting, Warren Redlich
stated that he did not want to hear or to receive any complaints or
criticisms of his campaign and he did not want to be our candidate
unless we support him (with our money).
I fully agree that we should unite behind our candidate, even those of
us who may have opposed his nomination. However, in order to unite
behind our leader, he has to lead us. Warren Redlich was nominated as
our candidate nearly two weeks ago and we have yet to hear a single
word from him since.
Instead of hearing from our candidate, what we have just received is a
letter from Eric Sundwall stating that neither he nor Warren Redlich
will be attending the Libertarian Party National Convention later this
month. Eric Sundwall also states:
"It is my hope that this burden to the party is dropped as soon as
possible in the spirit of reconciliation and unification as seemingly
promised to Warren and the membership on April 24th by the same
individual who attempted to hold Mr. Weld to a similar promise/
standard in 2006."
What this 'burden" refers to is the fact that the Chairman of New York
State Libertarian Party disobeyed a court order issued by a Manhattan
Supreme Court Judge in his conduct of the convention on April 24. It
is this disobedience of a valid court order that creates a "burden". I
realize that many Libertarians feel that the courts have no business
interfering in the election process and that therefore we should
ignore court orders. However, if we want to get our candidates
elected, we need to learn the rules and to play by them. The courts
should be our friend, not our enemy. Right now, we want to initiate
court proceedings to hold the New York Board Elections in contempt for
not allowing voters to register as Libertarians. How can we ask the
courts to hold them in contempt when our own leadership has disobeyed
court orders too?
The last part of the above quote by Eric Sundwall refers to the fact
that I am the person who at our 2006 convention who asked our
candidate William Weld if he would continue as our candidate even if
he did not get the Republican Party nomination.
That question is posted on youtube.com by Eric Sundwall and anybody
who can recognize my voice will know that this was me speaking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaeq9-f_s8&feature=related
The quote above by Eric Sundwall about "the same individual who
attempted to hold Mr. Weld to a similar promise/standard in 2006" does
refer to me and I did in fact attempt to hold William Weld to his
promise to run for office as our candidate for Governor after he
dropped out of the election race only two weeks after he had promised
not to do so,
Sam Sloan
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 9:12 AM, eric_sundwall
<eric_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Warren is simply asking members of the Committee to respond to his
offer to run. If there's a better idea or candidate out there, they
have every opportunity to come forward, declare, run, coalesce support
etc.
If the 'process' can't handle a commitment or non-commitment of
the State committee perhaps that should be revisited. In my estimation
there really is little incentive for quality candidates to seek and
run on the LPNY line. We have no money, no members and a high capacity
to infight and bicker. Few successful people will willingly engage in
such an environment and hope to replicate their success electorally.
Don't blame Warren for not being able to herd cats.
Trundling along until April not knowing who really might be our
candidate and fussing about picayune issues is the reason that we
can't get 50,000 votes. That recipe has never worked in the past and
only threatens to render itself again without a clear decision from
committee members. If Warren were to walk away because he felt that
support was lukewarm or negative, nobody could blame him.
Dr. Stevens is slighting Warren for supposedly snubbing the Queens
chapter for a speaking engagement. While it might be nice to address
the dozen or so participants that attend such an event, Warren will be
in Manhattan two weeks prior and last I checked, it's about a 10-15
minute ride on the subway. It takes us upstaters about three hours
(one way) to make it to Gotham and consumes the entire day. Warren
hasn't ruled out a future visit, but the reality is that he has a life
and hasn't declared yet. I'd be reticent to visit them also if that
were the response I got. A little flexibility and courtesy goes a long
way. I hope the Queens chapter takes notice of such slights when
considering their next representative.
Eric
--- In lpny_co...@yahoogroups.com, Richard Cooper
<lpnymedia@...> wrote:
>
>
> I agree with Tom to the extent that there is no reason to close
down the process early. I would hope that candidates declare early
enough that we know who they are before they come to the convention.
Members should have as much time as possible to evaluate, question and
compare candidates. April seems to me too late to declare and afford
the opportunity for such evaluation that LPNY members deserve.
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> To: lpny_co...@yahoogroups.com;
> From: DrTomStevens@...
> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 23:14:26 -0500
> Subject: [LPNY_COMMITTEE] Closing Down The Process Early
>
> There is an attempt underway to close down the process of
searching for a gubernatorial candidate that will give us a reasonable
shot of getting 50,000 votes, significant press, increased membership
and good fundraising potential.
>
> I RESIST THIS EFFORT!
>
> I ask all good LPNY members to reflect on what I have been
saying.
>
> Think of all the "puffing", the claims of how viable Redlich is,
how much fundraising he can do and how he gives us "a good chance" of
obtaining 50,000 votes. Add to that the attempts by some to put a
February 1st deadline on potential candidates, almost 3 months in
advance of our convention and now Redlich's request that people
declare now.
>
> RESIST THIS COORDINATED EFFORT!
>
> Redlich has little chance of raising funds, little chance of
helping us obtain 50,000 votes and even less chance of helping us
recruit new members. There will be no "Ron Paul" press by his running
in the Republican Primary because he will make no mark there. Ron Paul
supporters will not follow him and carry petitions for him as our
nominee.
>
> WE NEED TO CONTINUE OUR SEARCH FOR A VIABLE CANDIDATE or else,
mark my words, we will get another 15,000 votes and have to suffer
another 4 years of obscurity with no UP SIDE at all to our having
backed this Republican.
>
> In Liberty,
>
> Dr. Tom Stevens
> LPQC State Representative
>
> In light of Warren Redlich's request that people decide to
support him or not within a reasonable time and the request of his
supporters that opponents declare by February 1, 2010, I have decided
not to support his candidacy especially in light of his decision to
snub the Queens LP through his rejection of our invitation to speak.
He should assume that many Queens LP members feel the same way.
>
> I also think that all possible candidates should declare by
April 1, 2010, not February 1, 2010. This process should not be
allowed to be closed down early by the supporters of one candidate.
>
> In Liberty,
>
> Dr. Tom Stevens
> LPQC State Representative
>
> Dear All:
>
> I had the chance to chat with Warren briefly yesterday.
>
> He asked that as many of us as possible decide whether to
support him or not within some reasonable time, which makes sense to
me for all the reasons he articulates below. I'm not certain what
reasonable means but in my case it will be by the time of the
Manhattan Convention on January 30, if not before.
>
> I've added a few more people to this email string so they are in
the loop on this issue too.
>
> Best for 2010 to all of you!
>
> Mark
> markaxinn@...
David Ames
>
> >
> >
> > I agree with Tom to the extent that there is no reason to close
> down the process early. I would hope that candidates declare early
> enough that we know who they are before they come to the convention.
> Members should have as much time as possible to evaluate, question and
> compare candidates. April seems to me too late to declare and afford
> the opportunity for such evaluation that LPNY members deserve.
> >
> >
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
> >
I found this in rec.games.chess.politics so please excuse my not
mentioning chess in this response. William Weld, formerly governor of
Massachusetts, was interested in running for governor of New York, He
found that in New York, it is necessary to do a certain amount of ring
kissing in order to stand for office on a party ticket. He found that
the influence of certain people could raise or doom the prospects of
running on a party ticket. Without reading most of Sam Sloan's
experience at attempting to run for governor in New York, I will infer
that his experience runs parallel to the experience of William Weld.
David Ames
samsloan
> I found this in rec.games.chess.politics so please excuse my not
> mentioning chess in this response. William Weld, formerly governor of
> Massachusetts, was interested in running for governor of New York, He
> found that in New York, it is necessary to do a certain amount of ring
> kissing in order to stand for office on a party ticket. He found that
> the influence of certain people could raise or doom the prospects of
> running on a party ticket. Without reading most of Sam Sloan's
> experience at attempting to run for governor in New York, I will infer
> that his experience runs parallel to the experience of William Weld.
>
> David Ames
Thank you for this observation.
I think that William Weld's career in politics is over. He resigned as
Governor of Massachusetts half way through his second term .
Then, he announced that he was running for Governor of New York. He
got the Libertarian Party nomination, but then quit two weeks later.
He had a million dollar war chest and thought he would use that to run
for some other office, but I do not think any party would accept him
as a candidate for anything any more.
He could no longer get elected as the proverbial dog catcher.
Sam Sloan
David Ames
William Weld, formerly United States Attorney for the District of
Massachusetts, has written a couple of works of fiction since leaving
politics. I picked up of them on the dollar table at a second-hand
bookstore. I think James Roosevelt, surely, and [Mary] Margaret
Trumen, proibably, are better at the craft. [The first] Mrs. Weld is
a scholar of Chinese law, but she is no longer mentioned in the press
since the Mister left the public eye..
David Ames