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.

My work is done here commie. hahahhaha suckers.

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

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

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.

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!”

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

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.

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.