Christine Smith Dumps the Libertarian Party
Christine Smith, who recently sought the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination, has left the party.
Following a very angry C-SPAN interview on the convention floor in Denver, which followed an angrier concession speech targeting Bob Barr, Christine Smith wrote the following:
Though some true libertarians will choose to remain in the LP, from the emails and phone calls I have received, I believe many will leave. Each true libertarian must make the choice that is right for him or her; my choice is to fight the battle for liberty in other ways. As for me, I want no part of an organization that could put Barr and Root as the 2008 Presidential/VP candidates. Their choice to do so is, in my opinion, a tragic mistake for the LP. The LP now stands for nothing different than the two major parties – it is a meaningless party as it has become what it always condemned; it no longer offers an alternative choice or voice for liberty at the highest level as should be represented in its presidential candidate. The resulting damage to the party as a means to advance liberty and to attract liberty-minded individuals has been done. No true libertarian would support (or defend) the selection of Bob Barr. (For those who choose to remain in the LP to try and repair it, it will take many years to even return to the place the party was a few days ago.) The hope and enormous potential the LP, as “The Party of Principle,” had in 2008 was enormous – now that has been destroyed. It was my devotion to libertarian philosophy that led me to join the LP, and it is the reason I must leave.
After a little over a year, Smith has left the LP because it is essentially not “libertarian enough.”
Smith will “remain a fighter” after leaving the Libertarian Party and will hopefully continue writing commentary such as her piece, “Needless Tsunami Deaths Expose Worldwide Vulnerability and Lack of US Intervention.”
May 28th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Speaking of US Intervention:
“While Barr seems, in some ways, to be among the more libertarian-leaning conservatives, he is not a libertarian on the most important issue of our time – foreign policy. I have yet to hear an unambiguous commitment to immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Unlike Paul, he also has not promised to remove our troops from the other 150 countries in which they are stationed. Barr’s campaign website uses the rhetoric of non-intervention, but a perusal of the articles available on that same website gives the lie to any idea that he opposes foreign intervention.
In these articles, Barr argues for intervention in both Iran and South America. He affirms the US as a “stakeholder” in Iranian political decisions, and supports sanctions. Regarding South America, he says that troops should be sent from Iraq to South America in order to stop the flow of illegal drugs. This demand makes sense on only two assumptions: that the war on drugs is right, and that the United States owns the world. He arrogantly refers to current American policy in the region as “benign neglect,” under which the citizens allegedly “chafe.” It is hard to know where to begin criticizing this claim – with the fact that benign neglect is a term applied to British imperial policy toward its colonies, that the colonies liked benign neglect and rebelled because it ended, or with the observation that, in fact, we already intervene plenty. ”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j28.html
May 28th, 2008 at 9:52 am
See ya. Way to show class at the convention. Now please go discuss your fantasy liber-topia with Ruwart while Barr does more for the party in one year than you did your whole time as a Libertarian.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Maybe she can form a coalition with Phillies and Hancock, maybe even be the VP candidate on Phillies Druid Party ticket.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Bob Barr is libertarian on the most important issue of our time: Foreign Policy.
The libertarian movement was founded out of the Barry Goldwater for President campaign in 1964. Libertarians have always been Strong on Defense, like Goldwater, and his followers – Dana Rohrabacher, Dr. Jack Wheeler, John Hospers, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand ect…
A Libertarian Defense Caucus existed in the LP for two decades to preserve the originalist libertarian position of Strong on National Security. Unfortunately, in the middle 1970s some Leftwing Anarchist infiltrators took over the LP, and largely turned it into an Isolationist Party, weak on Defense.
With Barr/Root we now have a chance to bring even the LP back to a sensible Middle-of-the-Road strong on defense position.
Of course, the Anarchist Leftwingers in the Party are not happy with this development. But we should keep in mind, that finally we have a shot of bringing back Pro-Defense Libertarians into the libertarian movement, who’ve been dissastisfied with the LP’s turn to the Left on foreign policy matters in the last few years.
For every Leftwinger Pacifist the LP loses like Christine Smith, the Party will gain 2 to 3 more among Pro-Defense Libertarians who had left the Party in the early 2000s for not being strong enough on Military matters.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Anyone have a video of this “angry” video/speech that I keep hearing about? I didn’t catch that.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Christine Smith was a true Libertarian.
Bob Barr is a neo-con who wanted ballot access.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Like turn the party into another Republican party?
May 28th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Okay, Christine Smith. You can leave the Libertarian Party. But then where will you go to find your perfect “freedom” party? Most non-major parties belivee in collectivism in some for or another, from the left to te right. So that door is closed. The Greens? Well maybe. But I think the environmentalists might have a problem allowing all those home-based meth labs and the uber-feminists might have problem turning little girls into sex objects for the budding kiddie porn industry. So the Greens it isn’t. The Reform Party or the Natural Law Party might have been potential places of refuge. The only problem is, neither of them exist anymore! So here are the Radical LPers, wanting to bolt the party in a blaze of glory only to find themselves in the cold and the dark, huddling together for warmth because nobody wants to invite them in their warm house. They are truly anarchy’s children of the damned
May 28th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, Christine.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Don’t leave Christine, that is what the retard “unity” caucus wants. Stay and fight. Barf will be history in 6 months and Libertarians can have there party back at that time.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:36 am
there = their
May 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Dondero: A strong natinal defense does not have to include nation building, billions in foreign aid to any and all countries we currently see fit, occupation of foreign lands, and EMPIRE.
A strong national defense means protecting our nation, not propping up “like-minded” nations or trying to spread democracy by the barrel of a gun.
Barr even makes attempts to sound non-interventionist at times, when with the right crowd, and all the candidates at the LP debate endorsed a non-interventionist foreign policy that’s not focused on policing the world.
But most of all, libertarians believe in smaller government, less taxation and, and more freedom, so i CANNOT see how funding Empire is a libertarian goal.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:42 am
woops: a strong NATIONAL defense, that is…
May 28th, 2008 at 10:47 am
The LRC’ers will attempt to portray this as more ‘anarchist’—by which they apparently mean anyone who disagrees with them—sour grapes, along with attacks on previous candidates such as Badnarik, etc.
However, Smith attacked the anarchists as did Badnarik, who at the time was the conservative’s darling. Barr has gone on record as saying anarchism is just fine as properly defined.
This all looks like the usual old okey-doke to me—conservatives creating a false opposition between conservative Barr and self-proclaimed ‘ras dical’ Smith.
And BTW, the LP was voluntaryist at its founding, and remains under the dallas Accord an alliance of Liberals who want to diminish government and voluntaryists who want to put it on a voluntary basis.
I have a friend who will be posting the tape of Smith soon…along with one of Barr urging LRC operatives to ‘keep padding’ the votes. Joke or reality? Hmmm.But plenty of reason for people to go ballistic at the Convention, along with his busing down his 50 man margin of victory as his campaign manager has admitted.
BTW, I have no problem with Barr as a candidate, but he’s surrounding himself with apparent LRC crooks who will I fear betray and destroy him in the end if they can. And be denouncing him, after they change into something else, as an anarchist a few years from now,eh?
Rand a follower of Goldwater? This Dondero regularly distorts Libertarian history.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Taxation is Theft, unless of course you’re stealing from me to provide tsunami warning to the third world while they’re busy stealing our jobs. I thought all that stuff was supposed to be funded with private contributions. Give me a break.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I saw that on C-SPAN too! I thought I had mis-heard what he said and dismissed it.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Does this dumb b*tch think anyone will miss her? She couldn’t even get 1% at the Convention.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Christine,
Thank you for being a candidate for our Presidential nomination. I am sorry you are leaving the Libertarian Party. However, I will be happy to welcome you back whenever you want to return.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Dumbdero wrote “Libertarians have always been Strong on Defense, like Goldwater, and his followers – Dana Rohrabacher, Dr. Jack Wheeler, John Hospers, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand”.
He should read “The Roots of War” by Ayn Rand, published in T”The Objectivist” magazine in June 1966. Here’s an excerpt.
“Just as [Woodrow] Wilson, a “liberal” reformer, led the United States into World War I “to make the world safe for democracy”—so Franklin D. Roosevelt, another “liberal” reformer, led it into World War II, in the name of the “Four Freedoms.” In both cases the “conservatives”—and the big business interests—were overwhelmingly opposed to war but were silenced. In the case of World War II they were smeared as “isolationists,” “reactionaries,” and “America-First’ers.”
“World War I led, not to “democracy,” but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War II led, not to “Four Freedoms,” but to the surrender of one-third of the world’s population into communist slavery.”
Yet again, Dondero Rittberg shows that he knows fuck all about libertarianism.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
More from the “ROOTS OF WAR” (appropriate title at this time)
“If men want to oppose war, it is statism that they must oppose. So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged “good” can justify it—there can be no peace within a nation and no peace among nations.”
The Radical Caucus could not put have it better.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Anyone else get a “Squeaky Fromme” vibe from this girl? The thought of her malvolence loose with her .40 gives me the chills.
I sincerely hope the radicals remain and we all work together.
But she can go.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Many people re-write history for their own purposes to further their personal views. They will use their own PERCEPTION of history to validate their claims as it applies to CURRENT issues…
Dondero is a polemicist first, “libertarian” second.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:18 am
malevolence
May 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am
My advice to the radicals, like Christine Smith, in the LP is “don’t get angry, get even!” If you don’t like the Barr-Root ticket, do not campaign for or donate to it. Instead, work for radical candidates that you support. Recruit and educate new radical members so that the next ticket is to your liking. Leaving only plays into the hands of the conservative entryists.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:51 am
World War II led, not to “Four Freedoms,” but to the surrender of one-third of the world’s population into communist slavery.”
You were right about WWI, but WWII stopped actually stopped the Soviets. If we had not intervened, do you think the Soviets would have just stopped at Germany?
And our intervention in WWII was not only needed, but the right thing to do. We helped rebuild post-war Germany with the Marshall Plan, and keeping West Berlin a beacon for freedom would eventually help cause the collapse of the Wall.
Non-intervention is definitely the way to go, but there are points at which one must become involved. There is a difference between how things work in your head and how it actually works in the world
May 28th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Christine: Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya
May 28th, 2008 at 11:55 am
And he is an avid supporter of Barr/Root. That should tell you something.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Spoken like a true Barfer.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Eric:
Who’s deluding who? Barr is to the left of Obama on foreign policy. Unlike Obama, he wants to bring to the troops home. That’s why I support him.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Bullshit.
“I have yet to hear an unambiguous commitment to immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Unlike Paul, he also has not promised to remove our troops from the other 150 countries in which they are stationed.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j28.html
May 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
The United States did not “intervene” in World War II. Germany declared war on the U.S. before we declared war on Germany. We also did not declare war on Italy until after Italy had declared war on us.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
“I doubt any 60 year-old man who says that he has radically shifted his views in the past couple of years…especially a man who worked in politics for 20 years. It just doesn’t add up. Do yourself a favor and don’t even bother with Bob Barr…he is no champion for the libertarian agenda.”
http://www.theprometheusinstitute.org/politics/blogarchive/94-blog/658-bob-barr-libertarian-presidential-candidateis-this-a-joke
May 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
If you write in a protest vote, the only people who will notice will be the poll workers logging the results. The national media will not mention the write ins. They never do.
If you want to make a difference, work to get Barr the kind of numbers that make national headlines. This will bring in new members who you can then attempt to persuade to your brand of libertarianism.
If you believe in your brand of libertarianism, then you must believe you can win in the marketplace of ideas.
Or why be in politics at all?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I am amazed at how many are so incongruent in the LP. But I assume it is because there are so many people in today’s world who are so indoctrinated into Orwellian Newspeak.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN OR ADVOCATE THE INITIATION OF FORCE AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING POLITICAL OR SOCIAL GOALS
Invasion of a sovereign nation is now Liberation; Unsettling a country to the brink of civil war is Spreading Democracy; The Conservative GOP with record spending and debit is an oxymoron.
I guess the LP is becoming the New Right while the GOP is turning to either fascism or mercantilism. Hey, maybe the Democrats will turn to “classical liberalism”
May 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“Anyone have a video of this “angry” video/speech that I keep hearing about? I didn’t catch that.”
I’ve been looking for that too. Anyone know where we can see it or Ruwarts speech?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Kenny, go back and do some more research on WW I and WW II.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
A great saying,wish more people followed it.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
While I’m a libertarian leaning conservative who would have little problem supporting Barr (though I prefer Baldwin), I understand those Libertarians who share Christine Smith’s sentiments (and there are many of them). But I think we need to accept that our political system is ripe for a realignment. The fiscal liberalism of the GOP has reached a critical mass to where more and more of that party’s small government contingent will be driven to leave, and the LP is a logical place for them. I think we’ll see a phase where the right wing of the LP grows (and with it the LP as a whole) while the left wing of the LP gradually leaks out and reemerges as another purist libertarian party. After this happens there will be a natural alliance formed between the conservative LP and the CP, which will become the most powerful 3rd party in a long time and struggle to usurp the GOP once and for all as the only serious conservative political party. The GOP will either reform and welcome that movement back in or it will disappear. Then we’ll be back to a place where there will be one main liberal party (the Dems), one main conservative party (either the CP/right-wing LP alliance or a reformed GOP) and a genuine Libertarian party (formed by the libertarian purists who leave the LP).
May 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Will everyone on this board stop talking about worthless dumbsh*t that doesn’t matter? Dondero, no one gives a sh*t about you and your opinion holds no weight to the outside world. The same goes for everyone else in this thread.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Something tells me she is likely to be back in mid November.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“Invasion of a sovereign nation is now Liberation; Unsettling a country to the brink of civil war is Spreading Democracy; The Conservative GOP with record spending and debit is an oxymoron.”
This is why I left the GOP. 6 years of a GOP President and a GOP congress produced a bigger and more intrusive Federal government than we had ever seen. I had hoped Ron Paul could steer the GOP back in the right direction, but we all saw how that turned out. So I’ve joined the only party that seems serious about shrinking government. Hopefully, the LP can draw in more people like myself who would like to see less government.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Non-intervention is definitely the way to go, but there are points at which one must become involved.
Spoken like a true Barfer.
You keep sitting around debating about your fantasy anarchic world, while I live in reality with the way things actually work.
The best thing about Barr being nominated is morons like you will actually leave the party. Are you sure you don’t want to follow Smith on the way out?
May 28th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I have a question for all of the LP “purists” or “radical caucus” or whatever you want to call yourselves …
Have you ever done things you regret and try to make corrections for them later?
How is that any different from what Bob Barr is doing?
How is a party that claims to be based on principles of TOLERANCE so vindictive and judgmental of someone willing to fight for your cause, even though he was on the wrong side before?
Don’t shoot the messenger!
Bob Barr, while not the ideal libertarian (who is?), may have the BEST chance of spreading the MESSAGE!
We have to take baby steps before we try to run
May 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Read what Mr. Kubby wrote, then reread what Ms. Smith wrote. The votes at the convention speak for themselves about how the delegates regarded the two candidates.
Sorry for your anger Ms. Smith – please take a chill pill.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Adam, you misunderstand Dondero. For him a strong national defense means indiscriminately killing Muslims.
Richard, you are correct about the order of who declared war. But FDR deliberately antagonized the Japanese in order to provoke them because he wanted to drag us into a war the public was against us entering. His strategy succeeded brilliantly. No antagonizing of Japan, no entry of America into WWII.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“Bob Barr, while not the ideal libertarian (who is?), may have the BEST chance of spreading the MESSAGE!
We have to take baby steps before we try to run”
My thoughts exactly.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Richard, you are correct about the order of who declared war. But FDR deliberately antagonized the Japanese in order to provoke them because he wanted to drag us into a war the public was against us entering. His strategy succeeded brilliantly. No antagonizing of Japan, no entry of America into WWII.
Has anything in this world ever happened that wasn’t our fault?
FDR was not trying to provoke Japan. He was responding to Japanese aggression in Asia. You know those innocent Japanese who were going through rapping and killing everything in China. Economic embargos are a legitimate action to take against another state. Japan felt it was right to attack us in response to those sanctions.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I agree with her about the LP going in the wrong direction and this nomination being the last nail in the coffin. But it was hard to take her very seriously before the convention, and I don’t think she made many friends with her blow up. If it had been me, I would have ran for the judicial committee along with Mary Ruwart, David Nolan, and Ruth Bennett and other longtime LP players who probably fall into the LP radical side of the house.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
DrGonzo, it is a widely recognized historical fact that FDR was intentionally trying to provoke the Japanese. In fact, many neoconservatives admire his Machiavellian maneuvering. Yes, Japan was brutalizing the Chinese, but it was not our war, because we can not be the world’s policeman.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
FormerLPMember: The oath you quoted can be interpreted two ways. David Nolan, a purist, indicated that it simply means no terrorists allowed in the party. Newspeak is spoken by both sides.
If ye purists want to enforce the oath, go for it. Challenge the membership of those who interpreted the oath “incorrectly.” Return the membership dues of those who joined under false pretenses. Do so and you won’t have to deal with reformers ever again.
Your donor base will drop below 10,000 and you may have problems getting C-SPAN to cover your conventions, but you’ll have a good time playing dress-up and damn-the-state.
Question to purists: why do purists tolerate, nay support, the Advocates for Self-Government? The Advocates pushes a very broad definition of the word “libertarian.” Why do I see purists getting “Lights of Liberty” awards?
Newspeak indeed!
May 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I ain’t going anywhere. I will NOT be supporting a neocon like Barf though. I will vote for any real libertarian that happens to be on the ballot.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
The Barfers regret nominating Barf now?
May 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
DrGonzo, it is a widely recognized historical fact that FDR was intentionally trying to provoke the Japanese. In fact, many neoconservatives admire his Machiavellian maneuvering. Yes, Japan was brutalizing the Chinese, but it was not our war, because we can not be the world’s policeman.
Thats not really a widely held historical fact at all. Its a conspiracy theory with very little proof behind it.
The US and Britain freezed Japan’s assets because they seized control of parts of Indochina. You are right it wasn’t our war. That is why we froze assets instead of attacking which is a legitimate action to take.
You are right it wasn’t our war. That is why we placed embargos.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The US and Britain freezed Japan’s assets because they seized control of parts of Indochina. You are right it wasn’t our war. That is why we froze assets instead of attacking which is a legitimate action to take.
You are right it wasn’t our war. That is why we placed embargos.
Please cite the clause in the Constitution giving the President or the Congress the authority to take either of those actions.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Dr Gonzo and Mr U-Boat Kaptain should note that I was quoting Ayn Rand and pointing out that she was not was the defense that Dumbdero thought. Nice to see that a Nazi showed his ignorance and true colors – just like Dumbdero. Fuck the WAR-mongers!
May 28th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
If FDR was simply looking for an incident to start a War with Japan, the Japanese attack on the USS Panay in 1937 would have done fine.
Pearl Harbor could have had the effect of directing our resources AWAY from Europe had Hitler played his cards right.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
There’s lots of convention video archived at cspan.org/
I don’t know if Christine Smith’s speech is included. I’m looking.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Bye, Don’t let the door hit you in the A$$
May 28th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
John S, sod off asshole.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Really?
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_26788.shtml
May 28th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
LP nOOb is right and as an officer of the Arizona LP and participant in the LP Convention over the weekend, I will give Barr-Root a chance. I read somewhere that somene, possibly Tom Knapp, said he knew and communicated with Wayne Root and he has been receptive to feedback.
I also recall Steve Dasbach, who is involved in the Barr campaign, was recpetive to feedback from me and other activists when Dasbach managed Gary Nolan’s campaign.
As an LP Radical I look forward to interacting and (possibly) radicalizing these 2 gentlemen.
However, if they don’t do what they say on the campaign trail or are not willing to learn, I will not think twice about distancing myself from the ticket.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
The day I use axisoflogic.com as a historical reference is the day I will throw my history degree in the garbage.
FDR was in no way trying to provoke Japan. He was responding to Japanese aggression in Asia. Don’t let historical facts get in the way of your tin foil hat though.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
The day I rely on some nit-wit that has been indoctrinated by some state institution on its version of history is the day I will throw my common sense in the garbage.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
The day I rely on some nit-wit that has been indoctrinated by some state institution on its version of history is the day I will throw my common sense in the garbage.
Yeah I can see how some random no-name website on the internet is more reliable than books and a degree from a college institution.
You make sure you keep learning those facts from the internet. Everything on here is true.
Reading your posts has made me completely change my stance on abortion. I am now very much pro-choice.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass
May 28th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
lots of people get pissed and leave after they lose. Look at Eric Dondero. We can’t get rid of him.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I have a Bachelors. I know exactly what is taught. You evidently weren’t bright enough to see through the bulllshit.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
You make sure to keep learning those facts from state funded institutions. Everything they tell you to learn is true.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Barr is a Fraud. Barr is no friend of liberty. He is waste of time and effort. He will have NO impact on the election.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I have a Bachelors. I know exactly what is taught. You evidently weren’t bright enough to see through the bulllshit
Hopefully you don’t embarass them by saying the universities name. Nobody would take credit for you.
You make sure to keep learning those facts from state funded institutions. Everything they tell you to learn is true.
I have to quetsion if you actually went to college since you believe the professors teach the state version of everything. Everyone knows college professors on teh whole (especially in political science, and history) are far from the traditional teachings.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I’D SCROG HER. SPREAD, TIED AND TAKEN. SHE’S A FIERY LITTLE TRAILER TRASH TWAT AND THAT’S WHAT CRANKS MY ENGINE.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I agree with Evil Dick, I’d do her. She is nuts though
May 28th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
May 28th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, Christine.
********
PLEASE BY ALL MEANS DO LET THE DOOR HIT YOUR ASS ON THE WAY OUT! I LOVE THE SOUND OF A GOOD ASS CHEEK WHACK! IT HELPS CRANK MY ENGINE.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Realistically, I can’t imagine, Smith, Kubby, Jingozian, Ruwart or any of the other LP candidates, with the exception of Barr, on the beltway battlefronts.
After seeing Smith at the Heartland Libertarian debate, one can only feel sorry for this delusional “purist.” I couldn’t tell if she was rehearsing lines for a seventies like porn film, where she has the leading role as a dominatrix, or if she was running for a local utilities board. Can you imagine how the old political warriors in D.C. would steamroll over Christine, while she remains clueless? Winks, nods, chuckles and raised eyebrows would generate enough electricity to power the D.C. grid.
Ruwart, while very knowledge, seems to be a bit mousy. Seasoned Reps and Senators would stop her dead in her tracks with the, “stare.” She has many good ideas, (child porn is not one of them)and should stay where she is, as a writer for the advancement of libertarianism.
Kubby? Please! After many trips to the bathroom for a toke, when confronted with real life issues; do you think the press corps will catch on?
How many posters here would (or did) vote for Barry Goldwater? The way I see it, in real world situations, Goldwater had the political savvy to not only get things done, but survive the dog eat dog world of Washington D.C. In other words, he was an experienced pro.
Goldwater was probably the most credible, libertarian candidate ever. Wayne Root says he has the same values as Goldwater… and that ain’t so bad! Barr’s take on the issues seems in line with Goldwater as well. Think hypothetically, how any of the other LP candidates would conduct themselves in the White House. Pragmatically speaking, Barr is the only person from the LP, with experience to navigate around the capitol. If Root could keep his high octane mouth shut, he could learn something along the way about how the real world works, and actually do something for the advancement of libertarian thinking.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I have a question.
Did Christine Smith turn her views around? In the speeches before vote for LP POTUS nominee, she sounded like a typical libertarian.
Rewind a couple months. Go on her website, and she says that as far as she knows, she has 0 policy differences with Ron Paul.
Fast-forward. She cited the LP as the party of free immigration, and sounded like a radical LP’er.
When did this conversion happen? Or are my thoughts misfounded?
May 28th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I get so fatigued by accusations that A or B is not a “true” libertarian or that “C” or “D” is not a true conservative or whatever.
The last time I looked, each political philosophy composed an entire quadrant of the chart, not just the top pinnacle or the most eastward westward points.
It might just be useful for the party that Bob Barr is not yet upper pinnacle libertarian. Many people are looking at us for the first time because of him (and more so because of Ron Paul). Give these folks time to connect the dots. In the meantime, this sore loser stuff is unbecoming.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
It sounds like she flip-flops almost as much as Barf.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Adam, please explain how it is we can have limited government when Radical Islamists are hellbent on taking over the world, including the United States, and enforcing their Sharia Law on our country?
How is Sharia Law consistent with limited government values?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Adam, please explain how it is we can have limited government when Radical Islamists are hellbent on taking over the world, including the United States, and enforcing their Sharia Law on our country?
How is Sharia Law consistent with limited government values?
Wow. Ever think for yourself? You just spouted the Republican talking point to a T.
Radical Muslims aren’t hellbent on taking over the world. Its a good idea for the neo-cons to garner support for illegitimate wars though.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Eric- I wouldn’t think that Sharia Law is consistent with limited government values, mostly due to the liberties it takes away from it’s followers—-
but that is not what I am advocating.
Islam is thousands of years old, which I hope you realize. This is not the first or last time there will be religious conflict…
but you are advocating not only destroying an entire culture based on the notion that they are ALL evil-doers, but you want to bankrupt us at the same time, and destroy our military might…
i dont see much libertarianism in that…
May 29th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Dr Gonzo—- spouting GOP talking points, disguised as a libertarian, is what Eric does best [for some strange,misguided reason]
May 29th, 2008 at 3:33 am
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=12576
“As we have seen in the [Gallup] data, resentment against the West comes from what Muslims perceive as the West’s hatred and denigration of Islam; the Western belief that Arabs and Muslim are inferior; and their [Muslims’] fear of Western intervention, domination, or occupation”
“[The Gallup data shows that] contrary to what the ‘They Hate Our Freedom’ thesis might predict, Muslims do not recommend or insist upon changes to Western culture or social norms as the path to better [Western-Muslim] relations. … Rather they call on the West to show greater respect for Islam, and they emphasize policy-related issues [U.S. interventionism; unqualified support for Israel; and protection for authoritarian Arab regimes]”
“As our [Gallup’s] data has demonstrated, the primary cause of broad-based anger and anti-Americanism is NOT a clash of civilizations but the perceived effect of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Muslim world”
nice timely article.
Stop Empire.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I’ve been following Smith’s campaign and I’ve spoken with her personally and I believe Christine Smith would have left the party if we nominated anyone other than Christine Smith.
“Ruwart and Kubby are anarchists.”
“Barr and Root are neocons.”
George Phillies is too quick to compromise.”
Only Christine Smith knows the true path to liberty. Well, good luck and good riddance!
May 29th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Dumbedero wrote:
Eric, please explain how the Radical Islamists are capable of taking over the world, including the United States, and enforcing their Sharia Law on our country?
May 29th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
It seems, what happened to the LP, with the selection of BARR- is exactly what almost happened to the CONSTITUTION PARTY! Alan Keyes came to the CP expecting to be ‘crowned’ in the process and, have the CP bow at his feet, because of his so-called ‘household name stardom’. In reality, the majority of the CP delegates ( my wife Rebecca and myself included) voted for CHUCK BALDWIN (CP loyalist) instead, as real “principle over politics”. I consider BARR just another KEYES opportunist, my opinion.
Has the LP sold their soul for MAYBE more media attention? Time will tell.
In the meantime, I and many other CP loyalists feel we did the only right thing by voting for Chuck Baldwin at the Kansas City CP convention.
-Larry Breazeale, Msgt.(ret.)USAF
NATIONAL VETERANS COALITION
Constitution party…..www.nvets.org
May 29th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I don’t regard this as a “radical” walkout… Christine Smith was pissing off radicals just a few weeks ago by talking up the Ruwart child porn thing on the radio. This is a desperate cry for attention by someone REALLY pissed that they got 6 votes from a crowd of over 600.
The next time you run for the top spot in any group, try doing it without pissing off every single faction in the group along the way.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Smith’s “angry” interview was on the CSPAN highlight reel of the convention late Sunday night.
Her loss is not much. She got 6 delegates in voting. That’s 30 less than the tokens she scraped up for the debate. She had little to no impact.
So let’s move on, shall we?