Christine Smith addresses child porn, anarchy and more
Christine Smith discusses child pornography, the FBI, anarchism, rule of law, the future of the LP, and more. She defended Shane Cory, stating that he didn’t overstep his bounds. She also defined her view about the proper role of government and accuses Mary Ruwart of living in a fantasy world. She called Wayne Allyn Root a neocon and challenged his support of John McCain and Joe Lieberman. She mentioned Greens running under the Libertarian banner.
Listen here.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
For Christine Smith to accuse anyone else of living in a fantasy world is incredibly rich. She’s the LP’s Walter Mitty in spades.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Smith’s words against both Ruwart and Root seem harsh. Not respectful disagreement, but harsh.
One can survive by respectfully disagreeing with all opponents. Or by digging harshly into one faction. But by attacking both key factions, Smith will offend nearly everyone.
If she expects to win the nomination (and she has called herself the frontrunner on several occasions), she truly is living in a fantasy world.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Well, if she thinks that Cory didn’t overstep his bounds, then how would she react if the LPED issued a press release that attacked her?
Yup, that’s right, she wouldn’t like it and start shooting from the lip again.
Uh, Christine, what part of unethical and conflict of interest don’t you understand?
May 8th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Everything I have seen of Christine so far IS harsh. She reminds me of a rattlesnake.
Also, her accent is decidely not from Colorado. Having spent so much of my life there, to me it sounds Southern or perhaps Ozarks. Also, I was an activist in Colorado from late 2000 until late 2003. I’ll grant that some of the people now at the helm there were just hitting their stride in 2002-3. However we’ve kept up with the LPCO over the years and the name just hasn’t come up. What year did she join?
Hmmm, a question for Smith: in what year did the LPCO motto of “Personal Freedom, Individual Responsibility. Limited Government” first start?
May 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I think Smith joined the LP last year, about when she decided to run for president. I’ve long been calling Smith and Root “newbies.”
Eric Dondero insists that Root is no newbie, but no one’s contradicted my claim that Smith is a newbie.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Root has been calling himself small-l libertarian for a few years longer than he has been an LP member, thus the possible confusion over when he joined.
Christine Smith has thus far refused to say when she joined, perhaps to avoid embarassing all the people who assume she is a recent convert
May 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I’ve got more of a Colorado accent than Christine Smith and I haven’t lived in Colorado in over 8 years. Christine Smith is psychotic. At Heartland Conference she was threatened by Mary’s presence.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Christine Smith is a fraud, her activism is a fraud and even her “awards” are frauds. She is not from Colorado, she is not a libertarian and she is clearly delusional. We tolerated her until she engaged in this ignorant and unprincipled attack on Dr. Ruwart. Now, Smith has become a bore and an embarrassment to us all. Also, I do hope she will be wearing something besides that goofy red sack dress of hers. Yuck!
May 8th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
To be fair, Christine does make a good point that the LP needs to do a better job of outreach to the poor and minorities.
I just don’t think she has the gravitas to do it.
Ironic how she says she loves Mary’s book, but then proceeds to condemn what it says.
She will be a laughingstock until she gets some speech lessons.
And libertarian lessons. I don’t appreciate her telling me I’m not a real Libertarian.
PEACE
Steve
May 8th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Steven,
She was saying that we needed more minorities in the party AFTER I had declared my run for the VP Nomination. My original press release explicitly said that we need to bring more minorities, younger people and women into our homogeneous party. As an African-American, I would love to see more minorities that’s why I pressed so hard to get a committee going via LNC to do such outreach.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Her ass is flat.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Yank’s favorite song is “Baby Got Back” by Sir-Mix-A-LOT.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
What do y’all have against Southern accents?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I live in Denver and have never met her at a Libertarian event (not that I go to all of them, but I do hit a few). In any case, even though I agree with many of her positions, I dislike her delivery. I would be more impressed if instead of slamming other candidates, if she had simply promoted her own positions.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
This post should get a lot of traffic, since it has both “Christine Smith” and “porn” in the title.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Mary Ruwart’s world would be a fantasy world if you happen to be a pedophile perv. You could tell the market court that the kid wanted it.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I’ve been hearing Libertarians say that we need more women, minorities, and youth in the party for over thirty years.
And they’re right. We do. But it’s nothing new to say so. The amazing thing will be when someone finds a solution to doing it.
(And by a “solution,” I don’t mean pointing fingers at which other faction is “driving away” women, minorities, and youth. Every lib says we need them, and almost every lib accuses other libs of “driving them away.”)
May 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
We are disappointed in Ms. Smith. While we likes her attacks on her opponents (very Libertarian!), her backing down from principle is most disappointing. She has allowed reality to pull her down from the noumenal realm of true freedom. We demand she read more Kant.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I do have solutions…..and will be working on compiling those solutions with the Women and Minority Caucus. And I don’t blame other libs for the lack of these groups in our party.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Christine Smith is not only psychotic and delusion, but stupid. If she were politically savvy, she would have come to the defense of Mary while still stating her difference of opinion. If Mary were defeated in the uproar over this, losing some supporters, then Smith could have stepped in and taken the nomination.
Now, she’s as relevant as Robert Milnes.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“Now, she’s as relevant as Robert Milnes.”
Is that even possible?
May 8th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Yes, Chris I prefer a woman with full rounded jutting buttocks. Christine’s deflated before my eyes today.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Mary’s got ASS
May 8th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I understand that I am not allowed to touch either Seebecks bottom via court order.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Thomas, you’re not the only one saying that, trust me.
When Lidia and I were in LPEP in CO we were probably one of if not the most family-oriented county parties in the country. Of the core group we had 5-7 couples with 8-13 kids between us.
The trick for the LP is make it a family thing. It works. It was only when the families spread out (we to CA, another to MO, and everyone had family issues become a priority) that LPEP died, which was unfortunate.
Single women? Appealing to them is more difficult, but it can be done. The LP Women’s Caucus is one way. I’ll defer anything else on that to Lidia and other LP women.
LP Kids’ Caucus? That would take some thought, but it could be done…
May 8th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
No, Yank, not a court order. More like a private death sentence, as unlibertarian as that may sound.
If you want ass, I suggest a mule farm. Or a certain troll’s house. But I repeat myself…
May 8th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I’m only about 15 minutes into the clip (and probably won’t finish because I’m losing interest)... but I haven’t found anything particularly “venomous” yet. Her assessment of the Shane Cory situation was pretty much spot-on… the guy was doing damage control to prevent the LP being linked to kiddie porn, and got sacked because a very popular candidate is at the center of that controversy.
She’s certainly not treating Ruwart with kid gloves, but some of you guys arguing that she should “come to Ruwart’s aid” are just being silly. The person is in the middle of a political campaign competing against Ruwart… such suggestions are wishful thinking and spin from Ruwart supporters who would prefer everyone lay down and give Mary the nomination.
All in all, based on the first 20-30% of the interview, Smith could definitely be more eloquent and articulate… but this is pretty much how all normal and non-crazy people sound when “debating” the issue of child consent to sexual exploitation. It’s not even a debatable issue.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
The field of credible candidates keeps shrinking. Smith has just joined Root as unacceptable (in my book) so we are down to Ruwart, Kubby, Barr and Phillies. The rest are all either too weird, too nasty, or too un-Libertarian.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
No, Steve, Cory’s damage control should have been, “That’s for the candidates and delegates to sort out, and we will stay out of it.” He was sacked for advocating bigger government and more police state—both completely un-libertarian positions. It had nothing to do with any specific candidate, but rather that Cory stuck the LPHQ’s nose in where it should not have and did not need to go. In doing so he created the impression of the LPHQ taking sides in the nomination debate, and that’s a conflict of interest.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Any Libertarian lady who wants to grow the Party with more women—please see Angela Keaton, who is the organizer of the LP Women’s Caucus…
As for a Kid’s Caucus I’m not too hot on that but expand the concept to a Family Caucus and you’ve got something there.
Mike’s right about LPEP, it was the balanced activism of husband and wife teams that really made LPEP work. How often have we set aside, say, analyzing a piece of legislation because of something going on with the kids? (guilty). Back in LPEP that wasn’t nearly so much of a problem as the wives regularly got together to help watch kids when filings or other political work got intense. A lot more could get done. Also, husband and wife teams means that there is a failsafe “assistant” if things get crazy. I know I fielded many calls from reporters when Mike was doing state-level media in CO—he wasn’t always at his work phone and so I was the backup. It wasn’t uncommon that I could answer their questions anyhow, and this freed Mike to deal with the more sensitive or complex calls. Plus, a spouse in the Party means you always have someone to bounce ideas off of.
OTOH, it does mean that you sometimes have some fairly weird dinner table discussion. And it can get gnarly when you disagree on an issue…. but hey, that’s marriage for ya.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Except that he didn’t advocate anything that would make the government bigger. He advocated a position that would make government smaller, just not small enough (i.e. zero) to please everybody in the party. He said that the FBI should communicate with state authorities, rather than hire more agents and increase the Federal budget over a state matter. This is no different than making a shrewd argument for medical marijuana in California, rather than a quixotic argument for legalization of all drugs nationwide as of tomorrow morning.
The rest of your argument is more on-point… he interjected the LPHQ in a dispute between two candidates actively campaigning for the nomination. However, whether you find this out of line or not depends on your view of child pornography, and the risk of the LP being linked to it. For some people, this is okay because deliberately making yourself ostracized is part of the fun of third-party politics. For others, it’s absolutely abhorrent and destroys any opportunity of making an impact on any other issue. The former were shaking their heads over the press release, the latter are shaking their heads over the sacking. Each side feels like the other side doesn’t “get it”, because each side’s vision and purpose for being involved with the LP is so completely different.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
No, Steve, you need to reread the release and understand the implications. Calling on government law enforcement agencies to coordinate and communicate ALWAYS means the agencies will grow to accomodate that idea—look at DHS as a clear example. So, yes, the release did call for bigger government.
And whether the LPHQ interjecting itself into the fray depending on child porn or not is utter garbage. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE ISSUE IS. Until a nomination is decided, the leadership body of the party has the ethical responsibility to stay out of the issue. Their job is party operations, not voluntarily getting mixed up in campaign squabbles.
I had to deal with this firsthand in 2002 as the CO Media Director (what Lidia alluded to above). Our Senate candidate was off his rocker and made what could best be described as outlandish statements. At worst, he was advocating street-mob violence against the incumbent sitting U.S. Senator. As Media Director I had the job of distancing the LPCO from this spew and making sure that it was understood that it was the candidate speaking and not the party. That candidate almost lost his ballot slot. He wound up being censured, and later left the party and wound up in jail for threatening a judge in a similar manner. All of that happened after he had won a contested nomination (which he should not have won, but that’s a different story). Prior to the nomination being decided, the LPCO Board of Directors stayed completely out of the campaign fray, as they should have.
Why do you think so many Ron Paul supporters are PO’ed at the GOP leadership over their treatment of McCain as the nominee when he isn’t such yet? The same reason, because they are seen as playing favorites, and they have taken it to the next level by manipulating party process and conventions in that predecided direction instead of really doing their jobs and letting it play out in the delegates. Contrast that with the DNC where Dean has told them to stay out of it and focus on party operations. Those two illustrate the point clearly that it’s best to stay out of it.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Thank FSM this cunt won’t be the nominee.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
A kids’ caucus would be a hard sell, I think, since many Libertarians won’t want to impose their own views on their children. If my sons choose to be Libertarians when they’re old enough to know what that means—they can’t even say it now—then great, but I’m not going to sign them up, just like I’m trying not to impose my religious views on them.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Peter, that’s not quite what I was thinking, but I appreciate the point.
What I was more getting at (and admittedly, “caucus” is probably not the best word) was a means to promote more families to be involved. A lot of meetings I’ve seen where kids attend they get BORED. Keeping them active and busy in a subtly-themed libertarian manner while that is happening would be a big help. The idea is to be more family-friendly, and the means to that end is to be kid-friendly.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
“The rest of your argument is more on-point… he interjected the LPHQ in a dispute between two candidates actively campaigning for the nomination. However, whether you find this out of line or not depends on your view of child pornography, and the risk of the LP being linked to it.”
Well, no, it doesn’t. It isn’t LPHQ’s job to get into the middle of disputes between candidates for the LP’s presidential nomination. Ever. Period.
Furthermore, the press release greatly enhanced, rather than reducing, “the risk of the LP being linked to child pornography.”
Before the press release, the whole issue was a couple of stray comments below an unrelated topic on a mildly popular niche blog.
If LPHQ does press releases right (I wouldn’t count on it, but IF they do), then those press releases are blasted to every daily newspaper and other news organization of any significant size in the United States. If even ONE small-town newspaper had picked up that release, a couple of orders of magnitude more people would likely have “linked the LP to child pornography” than had done so from the stray blog comment.
Make no mistake about it: Whoever was responsible for that press release, and whoever in the Root campaign decided that this was the issue they could take an opponent out with, were not PROTECTING the LP from being “linked to child pornography.” They were ACTIVELY WORKING TO “link the LP to child pornography.” On the LPHQ level, that bespeaks abject unprofessionalism and a failure of due diligence in protecting the party’s interests. At the Root campaign level, it bespeaks a willingness, and perhaps even a desire, to sacrifice the party’s interests to Wayne Allyn Root’s interests.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
This dumb bitch can suck Shane Cory’s dick for a nickle.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I disagree with the logic that ROOT, not Ruwart, is responsible for Ruwart being linked to the age of consent issue. Ruwart wrote a book, for heavens sake. The Root guys pointed out a quote directly from the book. You can argue that they only pointed out selected excepts, “out of context”... but in all the aftermath since then with Ruwart explaining herself, she has pretty much stood by those quotes in exactly that context. Root didn’t put words in her mouth, or “spin” anything… his people directly quoted her, in a context that she has subsequently stood by.
The argument that Root, not Ruwart, exposed the LP to kiddie porn associations is basically saying, “We know this sounds nuts, but it was years ago and if Root hadn’t brought it back up nobody would have remembered”. Yet out of the other side of people’s mouths, they defend Ruwart’s ideas. Make up your mind, folks… either it’s a source of shame that Root should have left buried, or a source of pride that doesn’t need burial. You can’t have it both ways.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Christine Smith ( unless you are talking about the Playmate) is a nobody not even on Milnes’s level.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Steve, the original exposing was done by Phillies, not Root. Root just ran with it and made an ass of himself in the process. Phillies wisely backed away from it.
You expect Ruwart to NOT defend herself?
I would suggest you go read my take on this back on the hubballo thread. It explains all rather cleanly.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Ed Clark was asked about anarchy and he answered:
“The Libertarian Party is a classically liberal party, and a classically liberal party believes that people are basically good, that they can take care of themselves, and that the best way to create a better society is to have smaller government and lower taxes. So we would reduce taxes, we would reduce spending, we would reduce overseas military commitments, we’d take government completely out of the whole regulation of lifestyles. [...] The whole Libertarian Party is aiming toward very major cuts in government, a very much smaller government, and as a political movement I don’t think Libertarians envision no government as an immediate alternative. ”
Ed Clark – 1980
The candidates seeking the Libertarian Party nomination could learn alot from Ed Clark. Will they listen?
May 8th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
“And whether the LPHQ interjecting itself into the fray depending on child porn or not is utter garbage. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE ISSUE IS. Until a nomination is decided, the leadership body of the party has the ethical responsibility to stay out of the issue.”
I agree. But where were the Ruwart supporters when earlier in the campaign the National Committee endorsed Ron Paul? If the leadership of the Party should stay out of this controversy (and they should) then they should have stayed out and not endorsed Ron Paul.
The only candidate to speak out against this was George Phiilies. Their meddling was wrong then and it is wrong now. But those supporting Ruwart were silent.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
“I disagree with the logic that ROOT, not Ruwart, is responsible for Ruwart being linked to the age of consent issue. Ruwart wrote a book, for heavens sake. The Root guys pointed out a quote directly from the book. You can argue that they only pointed out selected excepts, ‘out of context’... but in all the aftermath since then with Ruwart explaining herself, she has pretty much stood by those quotes in exactly that context. Root didn’t put words in her mouth, or ‘spin’ anything… his people directly quoted her, in a context that she has subsequently stood by.”
Sounds to me like rather than disagreeing with some particular logic, you disagree with logic, period. So let’s take this from the top:
– Nobody has said that Root, rather than Ruwart, is responsible for Ruwart’s writings. Obviously Ruwart is solely responsible for her writings.
– It’s not a matter of whether or not Ruwart’s writing was taken “out of context.” It’s a matter of whether or not Ruwart’s writing on this particular subject is in any way relevant to the presidential race. Did Ruwart make age of consent / child porn a centerpiece issue, or even an issue at all, in her presidential campaign? No, she did not. She posted no position paper on the subject on her campaign web site. She brought the issue up in not a single interview. She concentrated entirely on the issues that she believes are important in a presidential race (war, health care, economy), not on every issue she has ever addressed in many years of writing a column (and eventually a book) for libertarians on how to deal with questions about various issues.
– Wayne Root says that the age of consent / child porn issue is inherently damaging to the party. Maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong … but what did he do when he learned that Mary Ruwart had written a few paragraphs about it a decade ago in a non-campaign book? Why, he went right out, got in front of every microphone and keyboard he could find, and started yapping publicly about the age of consent / child porn issue vis a vis the LP. Mary Ruwart didn’t do that. Wayne Allyn Root did it. Period. If age of consent /child porn is now an issue for the LP in the presidential campaign, that’s Wayne Allyn Root’s doing (with an assist from LPHQ staff). It might be worth asking yourself why Root is so persistent in highlighting an issue that HE says damages the LP.
Ruwart’s ideas are defensible, and she has defended them … but she’s not the one who decided to actively use them to damage the LP. Root is.
Jose,
Ruwart was not a candidate for the LP’s nomination at the time that the LNC endorsed Ron Paul. As far as her supporters are concerned, I guess I could reasonably be described as one (although she’s second behind Kubby as my choice of nominee), and I publicly excoriated the LNC for the Paul endorsement. I don’t recall whether or not Lee Wrights, who is a principal Ruwart campaign staffer, made any public statement one way or another, but I do know for a fact that he was livid over the LNC’s betrayal of its responsibility to the party vis a vis endorsing Paul.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
With all due respect to Smith, Ruwart, Root, Phillies, Barr, Ventura, Gravel, Imperato, Milnes, Jingozian, Kubby, Hollist, and anyone else seeking or thinking about seeking the LP nomination, the LP should nominate Ron Paul.
If he turns it down, hold another convention, but let him know he is needed.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Thomas:
My personal opinion is that both Ruwart and Barr’s later entry to the race is that they both support Paul (Kubby also endorsed Paul, Hess was also actively involved, but he is running more for governorship in Arizona than LP nomination, Smith and Kwiatkowski also participated actively in the RP campaign) and waited to see what happens with him in the GOP primaries/caucuses and were “drafted” by “Ron Paul Libertarians” to run as they were not happy with the choice of candidates.
I agree that Root’s damage is to the LP itself. Also Smith seems to have overhastily jumped over to the LP and not thought through all the issues in detail, unlike Mary. Christine obviously saw Mary as an immediate “danger” being a fellow female competitor and try to score over Mary by attacking her, not realising she (Christine) is shooting herself in the foot. She is enthusiastic, but also too “aggressive”, and not thoughtful and lack the maturity of Mary.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:29 am
sorry all, a bit off topic. but i feel i need to let everyone know something. i’ve been picking aluminum cans out of peoples trash for three weeks just so i can donate the money i earn to mary’s campaign, god bless you mary, and god bless kiddie porn.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Stefan,
“My personal opinion is that both Ruwart and Barr’s later entry to the race is that they both support Paul … and waited to see what happens with him in the GOP primaries/caucuses and were ‘drafted’ by ‘Ron Paul Libertarians’ to run as they were not happy with the choice of candidates.”
That’s not personal opinion, it’s fact.
Both Ruwart and Barr’s PAC were Ron Paul campaign contributors.
Both Ruwart and Barr specifically waited until the results of Paul’s GOP campaign (and his congressional primary) were known before getting into the LP race themselves.
And both Ruwart and Barr have been the subject of “draft” efforts, although not necessarily just from Paul supporters.
Ruwart has been subjected to “draft” calls for at least as long as I’ve been in the party, which is since 1996; I was involved in one of those draft calls in 2006, which, if I remember correctly, was started by Peter Orvetti. People started urging Barr to run for President as soon as he publicly joined the the LP and took a seat on the LNC. So, there’s overlap between Paul supporters and Ruwart/Barr supporters, but that overlap is nowhere near total.
I suspect that some of the “draft Mary” fuel came from people who initially had high hopes for Smith.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Christine Smith is an uptight prude who obviously needs to get laid. Everyone knows that all REAL libertarians support the legalization of child porn. That is such a no brainer. Christine Smith must be one of those religious right extremists. How could she possibly object to child porn otherwise?
May 9th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I see most of the problem being this blog site ‘Third Party Watch’, which has been way too tolerant of anonymous posts, redundant posts, vulgar posts, sensationalism, threadjacking and character assassination.
Instead of going in circles in an LP Blame Game that has no end, I think that Steve Gordon should come up with some kind of ‘gentle’ moderation of the comments section of this blog site, lest the gob’ment impose reg’lashuns ‘pon our a$$.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
What we need to do is drop this “it’s wrong to impose your will on others at all times” stuff. We are the Libertarian Party, not the party of libertarianism. Big difference. We are a political movement and we have got to appeal to AMERICANS. Enough of this stupid bickering.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
In my opinion we should keep a tight grasp on LP leadership roles (delegates, candidates, state party chairs, etc) to the hardliners while appealing to ALL Americans and getting as many votes as possible.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Can’t someone ban, or at least moderate, the moronic trolls like “beer cans” and “pervy”.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I left the LP a while ago. I am glad I did, because I want no part of a party that condemns a candidate for daring to speak out against child pornography.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
May 9th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Can’t someone ban, or at least moderate, the moronic trolls like “beer cans” and “pervy”.
hey fuck you!
May 10th, 2008 at 6:55 am
I agree with the guy that said Christine Smith needs to get laid. In fact, I feel so strongly on this matter, that I shall attend to it personally.
You’re welcome.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I would like to fuck Christine Smith but she won’t respond to my emails
LOL
May 10th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I bet that woman knows how to move around in the bed heh
May 12th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Mr. C.:
I’ve often seen the claim made by anti-libertarians that libertarians view people as basically good. These anti-libertarian claim that libertarians are being utopian in assuming this.
Personally, I do not see people as “naturally good” or “naturally bad.” The whole question is moot, because either way, Liberty is what works. If people really are naturally bad, then we would desperately need Liberty all the more to protect us from the corrupting, destructive tendencies of man. Politicians, at the end of the day, are only men, and are no more or less virtuous than average people.
A commentor writes, “The field of credible candidates keeps shrinking. Smith has just joined Root as unacceptable (in my book) so we are down to Ruwart, Kubby, Barr and Phillies. The rest are all either too weird, too nasty, or too un-Libertarian.”
I haven’t listened to Smith’s new interview, and if I do, I might change my mind about her. But currently as it sits, I would far far far prefer her over Barr, who it seems to me is not actually a libertarian, despite his party affiliation. Hell, I’d prefer Root and Gravel over Barr.
Re: Statements made by Mr. Knapp on Ron Paul and the LNC:
Despite being a radical and a Ruwart supporter, I had no problem with the LNC asking for Dr. Paul to consider joining the LP to run for President.
A) If Dr. Paul had accepted, we’d have the most popular libertarian in America right now fronting our party.
B) If Dr. Paul had turned us down (which he did), at least we reached out to Ron Paul supporters from the two major parties who may not have heard much about the LP before but who now know that at least there is a party out there that agrees with Ron Paul on 95% of his issues. This can only help the LP.
In short, this was a win/win step.
I also have no problem with using Libertarian tools to help get calls out on behalf of Ron Paul since I’m in no way dedicated to party affiliation, and in every way dedicated to furthering my ideology.
Respectfully,
Alex Peak