Christine Smith publishes interview responses online before publication date

LP News has been interviewing each of the Libertarian presidential candidates for the last issue before the Libertarian National Convention. You won’t have to wait for the print edition to see Christine Smith’s responses, though. Here’s a sample:

During your campaign for the nomination, do you feel you have helped the party with its recent growth? If so, how?

Absolutely! My campaign has received more media coverage (as of March 31, 2008) than any other candidate seeking the LP nomination; I have appeared on numerous AM-Radio talk shows…

In the event that you do not win the presidential nomination, will you assist the presidential nominee and other Libertarian candidates around the nation? If so, how?

I will always focus on doing activities which I feel best promote liberty in this nation. Taking a look at the other current LP presidential candidates, no, I’m not going to be involved in such a campaign. I believe I am the superior candidate to be the spokesperson for the Libertarian Party in 2008, if I did not believe this I would not be running…

Given that the vice presidential nominee is selected independently, after the presidential nominee is named, do you intend to seek the vice presidential nomination in the event that you do not win your bid for the presidential nomination?

No. I will not be the VP to any of the other candidates currently seeking the LP presidential nomination. My goal is advancing liberty: I think I would be able to much more effectively work for liberty through my own political activism (and joining with others who share the same goal) than sacrificing those months serving as a LP VP candidate…

Do you feel that you would be able to attract significant media coverage as our nominee? What coverage has your campaign generated thus far?

I think I will attract far more media coverage than any of the other LP presidential candidates because I’m passionate about my politics. I sincerely love communicating libertarian solutions clearly and boldly. My campaign has already generated greater media coverage (as of March 31, 2008) than all of the other LP presidential candidates combined…

39 Responses to “Christine Smith publishes interview responses online before publication date”

  1. Mark Smith Says:

    Delusional.

  2. Tom Bryant Says:

    More media than Barr or Root? She’s clueless.

    Not being willing to support another candidate clearly shows that’s she in the race purely for her ego (maybe to revitilize her modeling career?).

    She had a lot of appeal last year before she started talking.

  3. Roscoe Says:

    What is she going to do in 3 months that will be more effective and news worthy than serving as the VP candidate?

  4. Geofrey the Liberator Says:

    Very delusional—Google Media Search (TPW excluded) = 8 Hits, now repeat for each candidate. She is clearly at the bottom—not the top of the list. I may be a dump Brit on his second afternoon double malt scotch, but even I can’t be fooled this easily.

    The real question should be, is media and growth of your party more important (and perhaps your party’s survival), or is it better to be narrowly focused, less tolerant of people with different views, and remain the little club you already are? In the UK we aim to rapidly grow the party to be a force and to influence policy by electing Libertarians to office, whether that be at the local or national level.

    Funny that Libertarians throughout the world are usually considered more tolerant of others—yet you Yanks insist on spending all of your time and efforts bulling on each other. Lord knows if you spent half of that instead on the other two major parties, they’d get what they deserve!

  5. Greg Says:

    She would be much better off making valid points about why she would be the best nominee, instead of trying to make assertions that everyone knows simply aren’t true. I’m sure there are plenty in the Party who understand that a lot of media is worthless – counterproductive even – if the messenger fails to strongly uphold Libertarian principles.

  6. George Phillies Says:

    In fairness to Christine, LP News asked for candidates to answer a fixed set of questions in Q&A format. And here are the really important questions for choosing our Presidential nominee:

    – What would you hope to accomplish as the Libertarian presidential nominee? Could you break the million vote barrier?
    – During your campaign for the nomination, do you feel you have helped the party with its recent growth? If so, how?
    – In the event that you do not win the presidential nomination, will you
    assist the presidential nominee and other Libertarian candidates around the
    nation? If so, how?
    – Given that the vice presidential nominee is selected independently, after
    the presidential nominee is named, do you intend to seek the vice
    presidential nomination in the event that you do not win your bid for the
    presidential nomination?
    – With the exception of one presidential cycle, the Libertarian Party has
    enjoyed significant growth during presidential election years. Are you
    confident that you can continue this trend if chosen as the presidential
    nominee? Do you believe it is reasonable goal for the LP to reach its
    all-time membership record as a result of your campaign efforts?
    – Do you feel that you would be able to attract significant media coverage
    as our nominee? What coverage has your campaign generated thus far?
    – Five years from now, what role do you see yourself having in the
    Libertarian Party?

  7. G.E. Says:

    Christine had a chance of walking away with the nomination, after the Ruwart smear. But when she jumped in, she lost all chance. She’s as irrelevant as Robert Milnes now.

  8. The Democratic Republican Says:

    Geofrey:

    The reason there is so much infighting is that the LP was so small for so long that a small group of people decided that you had to believe particular things to be a “real” Libertarian. In other words, they were fundamentalists.

    What the fundamentalists don’t realize is that if they don’t compromise a little—not just in membership, but in leadership—they will leave thousands and thousands of people politically homeless. These are people who believe in limited government and personal freedom, but the fundamentalists say “That’s fine, you can join, but don’t expect to represent the LP.” It’s the same kind of apartheid that the Republican Party has used on libertarians for decades.

  9. Tom Bryant Says:

    Who is Robert Milnes?

  10. The Democratic Republican Says:

    Geofrey: What role do you play in the LP UK?

  11. Joseph Marzullo Says:

    I like her..but why is she saying stupid things? She has received hardly any media attention!

  12. Peter Orvetti Says:

    A touch of humility would go a long way for this otherwise-appealing candidate.

  13. Alex Peak Says:

    “More media than Barr or Root? She’s clueless.”

    Barr is not a candidate yet, so all she means by her statement is that she believes she can attract more media attention than Kubby, Root, Philies, Ruwart, or any of the other people who are officially candidates.

    Barr would get more media attention, but as long as he’s still saying unlibertarian things (which he is), it will just be bad attention which serves to undermine libertarian interests.

    I will have no problem voting for Kubby, Root, Philies, Ruwart, Jingozian, or Smith. I watched the Heartland debate, and thought each candidate did better than I expected. Although I believe each of the six candidates I mentioned is flawed, they are libertarian enough to vote for.

    “She had a lot of appeal last year before she started talking.”

    I think she gives very strong answers to questions. Her speaking ability has improved massively since last year. She’d make a good candidate.

    “Christine had a chance of walking away with the nomination, after the Ruwart smear. But when she jumped in, she lost all chance. She’s as irrelevant as Robert Milnes now.”

    She is still a great candidate, even if her opinion on whether or not the FBI should exist is the wrong opinion.

    She mentioned on Mr. Keaton’s show that she was a fan of Harry Browne. Perhaps simply reminding her that Browne opposed the FBI’s existence will be enough to sway her to the correct position on that matter.

    Sincerely,
    Alex Peak

  14. Libertarian Joseph Says:

    Make a good candidate inside our little choir..yes. build the party? not at all.

  15. G.E. Says:

    Tom Bryant – He’s this lazy, poverty-stricken ex-con / sexual stalker who has a “secret plan” to get elected.

    Or maybe he’s just a figment of my imagination. I’m not sure.

  16. Teddy Fleck Says:

    You hit the nail on the head. Democratic republican.

  17. Chris Moore Says:

    ... so all she means by her statement is that she believes she can attract more media attention than Kubby, Root, Philies, Ruwart, or any of the other people who are officially candidates.

    No. She said, and I quote: “My campaign has received more media coverage than any other candidate seeking the LP nomination.” She said this twice in the same interview. She has said the same thing many times before.

    What you suggest is that she said: “I believe my campaign could receive more media coverage than any other candidate seeking the LP nomination.”

    She has made a statement supposedly based on facts. However, her statements are not actually factual based on any metric I know. Maybe she has some other metric on which she bases media coverage? Maybe when she says “has”, she means that she has received more coverage on a specific date during a specific hour?

    Otherwsie, she is lying. So far, I have seen a lot of puffery from Root; however, I have yet to see him outright lie during an interview. Ruwart, Phillies and Kubby have neither lied nor puffed that I have witnessed.

  18. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Each candidate has some niche, however small in attracting media. However, I would put Christine Smith near the bottom of the list in the amount of media exposure she HAS gotten, as well as what she is likely TO get.

    I also don’t believe that she was at any time, or is anywhere near to “walking away with this nomination”. I don’t think this nomination is gong to be determined on a lower a ballot than third. NOBODY is going to walk away with it.

  19. Michael Seebeck Says:

    I’m going through the Heartland YouTubes (all 19 of them!) and from what I’ve seen so far Smith is trying to sell herself too hard, and her speaking style shows it. Plus I’m not to thrilled with her support of the Cory blather of late and the Flood resolution.

    She needs to do better, much better. She comes across as angry, not assertive.

  20. Roscoe Says:

    DR, the question is how big does one make the tent and still ensure that the Party is libertarian (however broad one may define it)? Certainly any political party that aspires to win elections has to be broader than,say,
    Rothbardians or minarchists. The temption is always to keep moving the pegs outward until the tent encompasses enough people to win elections – rather than convincing more people to step inside the tent you’ve already staked out. But soon you start losing many who thought they were joining a tent that was the “perfect” size for them. I think we have to set up our tent a decent distance from the other parties, but not way out on the fringes of the field. And if that isn’t pure enough or watered down enough for some members, then let them srart their own libertarian party.

  21. The Democratic Republican Says:

    Roscoe:

    Yes, I think you’ve hit it right on the head. And that’s the reason so much ink is being spilled on all of this, because this Barr v. Ruwart thing is as much about the LP’s identity as it is about those two people.

    I guess I’m one of those who feels that the 2006 platform was a good start. It left us with a solid statement of principles but also with some flexibility for elected officials. People who have served in elected or appointed office know that not everything can be reduced to a more or less government decision. There are ambiguities and judgment calls.

    The other demographic issue is this: thousands of people like Barr who love liberty and feel abandoned by the two party system, but who just don’t care about all of the philosophical disputes or the concern for purity that some have. Do we leave those people politically homeless? Or do we transform the LP into a major party?

  22. Susan Hogarth Says:

    The temptation is always to keep moving the pegs outward until the tent encompasses enough people to win elections – rather than convincing more people to step inside the tent you’ve already staked out.

    Exactly so. And the problem with this approach – besides the one Roscoe mentioned of alienating the ‘base’ – is that a two-party political system doesn’t work in this way. Moving the tentpegs out will just run the tent into the HUGE tents of the mainstream power parties. And people in those tents will have no incentive to leave their powerful tent for the same promises from a much-less-powerful political party.

  23. The Democratic Republican Says:

    20% of America is registered with no party. Many of them can find a home in the LP, but not if it means being told that they aren’t libertarian enough. That’s what all of this is really about: making room for people who want limited government but don’t want to be made to adhere to some catechism.

  24. Robert Milnes Says:

    G.E., my plan to get elected is no secret. It is to try to duplicate the most successful third party/independent campaign in the past 100 years: The splitting from the GOP & forming the Progressive party in the election of 1912. He came in a fairly close second, but I think that could be improved. I think the potential progressive vote, which the libertarian vote is an important part, is about 34-40%. That is VERY competitive in a three way race. Maybe you are lazy in not figuring this out or trying it.

  25. Susan Hogarth Says:

    20% of America is registered with no party.

    Many of them because they reject the idea of political parties entirely. Of the remainder, some will be more-or-less libertarian, yes.

    Many of them can find a home in the LP, but not if it means being told that they aren’t libertarian enough.

    Do you hear anyone in the LP saying that?

    But do keep in mind that if we mouth vague and unexciting platitudes like the major parties, we will offer nothing to that 20% that they can’t get elsewhere – in a more powerful party.

    What we need to offer is inspiring ideas and ideals. Bold principles. Not a struggle (because third-party work is a struggle) for ‘more freedom’ but a glorious struggle for freedom.

  26. Greg Says:

    20% of America is registered with no party.

  27. Greg Says:

    The LP is better off going after the 50% who aren’t registered at all, IMO.

  28. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Robert, what are your thoughts on my strategy, the Fringe Alliance Strategy? Why do you feel that the Progressive Alliance Strategy is better than the Fringe Alliance Strategy?

    I agree with Christine Smith’s position. Hopefully, however, the Libertarians will decide to either not have a presidential candidate and endorse the Fringe Allaince Strategy or Barack Obama, or nominate Barr/Gravel.

    By the way, where’s Dave Williams? He was one of the best posters on here.

  29. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. LaBianca writes, “Each candidate has some niche, however small in attracting media. However, I would put Christine Smith near the bottom of the list in the amount of media exposure she HAS gotten, as well as what she is likely TO get.”

    She’s certainly not going to get less than Badnarik, and given her gender, she’s likely to get more than Badnarik because—infortunately—the media still sees the nomination of a woman as a novelty.

    Mr. Seebeck writes, “She needs to do better, much better. She comes across as angry, not assertive.”

    I also thought she came off a little too angry. Whether she can play that to her advantage, I don’t know. “The angry libertarian woman”? Although it might be good, especially when the media first latches on to her (assuming she gets the nomination), she’d probably want to tone it down rather quickly. Maybe.

    Democratic Republican writes, “It left us with a solid statement of principles but also with some flexibility for elected officials.”

    Our elected officials have always has flexibility. It’s the LNC that should be binded to our platform, not our candidates. :)

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  30. The Democratic Republican Says:

    “Our elected officials have always has flexibility. It’s the LNC that should be binded to our platform, not our candidates. ”

    Alex—I will take some time to think over this. But I think your argument breaks down in the current situation where Barr is being hammered for not coming out like every other LP candidate and saying “legalize everything! all the time! everywhere!”

  31. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Our elected officials have always has flexibility. It’s the LNC that should be binded to our platform, not our candidates.

    Because the true duties of the LNC are administrative, the LNC shouldn’t need to be binded to the platform.

  32. G.E. Says:

    Robert Milnes – Yes, but you’re not a former president, nor are you sponsored by the forerunners of the Federal Reserve System. You are in fact a depressed and lazy ex-con / sexual predator who will soon be living in a cardboard box. Thus, your plan is not a good one.

  33. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. Democratic Republican, “Alex—I will take some time to think over this. But I think your argument breaks down in the current situation where Barr is being hammered for not coming out like every other LP candidate and saying ‘legalize everything! all the time! everywhere!’”

    I’ve made my objections to Barr here. I don’t demand that our presidential candidates be 100% on everything. Ron Paul, for example, is only about 90-95% pure. His position on abortion and immigration are contrary to 100% purism, but I would happily endorse Ron Paul if he wanted our nomination. Barr, on the other hand, is around 60%. I fear that his statements and positions would hurt us, and his deviation on so many issues is disturbing to me.

    To my knowledge, we have never had a candidate 100% purist as our presidential candidate, and I’m fine with that.

    I think you bring up elsewhere the question of a candidate who only advocates doing away with the federal war on drugs. Technically, that’s the position of every Libertarian presidential candidate, since the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to force states to decriminalise. It’s one thing to say we need to end the federal war on drugs. It’s another thing altogether to say that states would be crazy to also decriminalise drugs—but this is essentially what Mr. Barr said to Hannity.

    In my humble opinion, it’s not pragmatic to nominate a presidential candidate that isn’t at least as good on issues as Ron Paul. And for state and local candidates, more flexibility is acceptable, according to my pragmatism.

    Somewhere else on this site, I think in response to Mr. Holtz, I explained in more detail why I consider this approach to be the most pragmatic, and why I consider a Barr/Gravel/Imperato nomination to be non-pragmatic. I made this within the past few days, but do not at this time recall precisely where.

    Mr. Wartman writes, “Because the true duties of the LNC are administrative, the LNC shouldn’t need to be binded to the platform.”

    By what I said, I mean that the LNC should not officially endorse, as a body, positions contrary to the platform. Individuals on the LNC can advocate whatever they want, as long as it is in keeping with the pledge.

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  34. G.E. Says:

    Alex – I think Ron Paul’s position on abortion is both constitutional and libertarian. His immigration position falls short of Rothbardianism, which says you can’t put ordered preference on libertarian goals (i.e. free immigration once we get rid of the welfare state), but this is due to his more “moderate” nature—he wants to preserve the nation, rather than let it fall into economic calamity. Contrarily, one could argue for open immigration as a means of collapsing the welfare state.

  35. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. G.E.,

    I did not mean to imply that his position on abortion was unlibertarian, but rather that it does not fall in line with the typical “purist” view on the matter. I would agree with you that there is nothing unlibertarian about the manner in which I’ve seen him argue his case.

    “Contrarily, one could argue for open immigration as a means of collapsing the welfare state.”

    :D

    That’s one of the reasons I do call for open immigration. I’m glad I’m not the only person who’s noticed this.

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  36. Dave Williams Says:

    By the way, where’s Dave Williams? He was one of the best posters on here.

    My work is done here commie. hahahhaha suckers.

  37. ElfNinosMom Says:

    Of course what she is saying about coverage is untrue. However, Christine Smith is known to prevaricate in order to make herself appear far more important than she really is, so it doesn’t surprise me. She has done this even on her own website, where it is obvious that she is prevaricating if you check the sources.

    For example, her “Outstanding American Award” came from a guy convicted of a massive government contract fraud, but you won’t know that unless you click on the link to see it, and do the homework on the guy who signed it. Her “Peace Prize” is in reality only a strangely-worded certificate from some obscure female empowerment group, but you won’t know that unless you click on a link either.

    On her original website, she talks about how she wants to be a model. Then, she posts what appear to be portfolio photos, proving only that she is not at all photogenic and therefore she cannot reasonably expect to gain employment as a model.

    Frankly, in my opinion, Christine Smith is every bit as delusional as Imperato, if not more so, and thus should never be taken seriously by anyone.

  38. G.E. Says:

    RE: Imperato… I was thinking: What if this guy is playing a big trick on everyone? It would make for an awesome and hilarious documentary, wouldn’t it?

  39. tomusa Says:

    are england land this student water tree steven kitchen house day house

Leave a Reply