Christine Smith put out a
somewhat controversial essay which said that, unlike some other libertarians, she would not compromise principle.
The first time I saw it was on the LP Radicals yahoo group, and given that I have recently volunteered to help the caucus members make more informed decisions about the various LP Presidential candidates, I thought of a few questions to ask.
They have been up for several days, and I also since posted them on several other yahoo groups on which Christine Smith posted the same message. I am hoping that the candidate sees the questions and responds to them. Several people have said that she is not very good about getting back to people, but this is the first time I have personally tried to get a hold of her, so for now I will keep an open mind.
I’m guessing she’s just been busy, so I hope maybe posting them here will help bring these questions to her attention.
OK, here they are:
I have gathered there are no issues on which you think the 2004
platform was too extreme. Is my understanding correct? If not, what do
you think may have been too extreme?
Are there any issues on which you think the 2004 platform was not
libertarian enough? If so, what issues, and what was inadequate about
them?
Do you think the platform should be about the length of the 2004
platform or that of the 2006 platform? Somewhere in between? Longer
than both? Shorter than both?
What issues, if any, do you think are the most glaring omissions?
When did you join the Libertarian Party?
Prior to running for President, in what ways were you involved in the
Libertarian Party or libertarian movement? What other libertarian
movement groups have you been involved with, and what was the extent
of your involvement?
In what ways do you plan to be involved if you do not get the
Presidential nomination?
If you lose the Presidential nomination and are offered the VP
nomination, would you consider it?
Have you ever run for office with another party or as an independent
candidate? If so, where and when, and for what office?
Have your views changed during this campaign? If so, on what issues
and why?
Do you plan to share all contacts your campaign generates with the
national party? Would you characterize your present working
relationship with LPHQ and/or LNC to be friendly or somewhat adversarial?
Do you have any significant involvement in issue organizations or
political coalitions which intersect with libertarianism but also
include significant numbers of non-libertarians? (for instance, Steve
Kubby has been active in medical marijuana legalization and the drug
policy reform movement; George Phillies is active with his local ACLU
chapter; Wayne Root claims he can reach out to internet gamblers on a
large scale).
Steve Gordon has criticized your position on the middle east wars,
claiming that you said that you would evacuate the troops and leave
their equipment behind. Is that an accurate description of your position?
Do you believe the national party platform (past or present) would be
adequate to serve as your campaign platform, or do you plan to have a
separate campaign platform if you are nominated?
Are there any innovative ways in which you hope your campaign will
work to surpass all previous LP Presidential results, and what do you
think your chances are of doing that?
How much of an emphasis do you plan to put on working with local
candidates and building state and local LPs? Ballot access? Youth and
college outreach?
Have you spoken to large crowds not just of
libertarians? (For example, Steve Kubby spoke at Hempfest, estimated
attendance 50,000, and I believe George Phillies said he spoke at
MassCann, which is also a large legalization event).
Also: have you played a significant role in passing any legislation
that actually made people more free? (Steve Kubby helped write and
pass prop 215, California’s medical marijuana law).
UPDATE:
As I mentioned, Steve Gordon also has
some questions for Ms. Smith which he has been trying to get her to answer through several phone and email attempts for several days.
Steve Kubby has some concerns, too.
Hopefully we’ll hear back!
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Todd Andrew Barnett
Christine Smith has declined to be interviewed by Steve Gordon, hasn’t responded to Kubby/Knapp, and has also ignored attempts to contact her by Austin Cassidy of Third Party Watch.
I wonder if she thinks that mainstream media will be less tough on her if she is the LP nominee?
If she can’t take the heat….
I’m wondering if we should be concerned if Ms. Smith is missing.
She may have been abducted by aliens or a victim of CIA rendition.
Of course, maybe she is just on an extended vacation in Aruba.
It might help, Paulie, if you made a questionnaire and sent it to all the candidates. As a partisan of the Kubby campaign, this looks less like an attempt to get information for your fellow radicals than a justification for asking questions you think are pointed.
OK, here’s the generic version.
Didn’t really have to change that much.
I’ll forward it to George and Steve also, and other candidates if anyone here thinks we should consider them as well, but I’ll give other people on the list a chance to include additional questions also first. I’ll even explain why I think these questions I have already asked should be asked.
If you think that I am NOT including some questions because they would not be good for the candidate I am currently supporting, that is not so. These are simply the questions I have thought of so far and would love to hear what else folks here want to know of all the candidates!
—IDEOLOGY—
DEGREE OF DESIRED PLATFORM RADICALNESS
Are there any issues on which you think the 2004 platform was too extreme. If so, what do you think may have been too extreme?
Are there any issues on which you think the 2004 platform was not
libertarian enough? If so, what issues, and what was inadequate about
them?
(Explanation: naturally I expect Radical caucus members will want to know the answer to this question.)
DEGREE OF DESIRED PLATFORM DETAIL
Do you think the platform should be about the length of the 2004
platform or that of the 2006 platform? Somewhere in between? Longer
than both? Shorter than both?
What issues, if any, do you think are the most glaring omissions?
(Ditto).
GENERIC IDEOLOGY
Do you believe the national party platform (past or present) would be
adequate to serve as your campaign platform, or do you plan to have a
separate campaign platform if you are nominated?
Have your views changed during this campaign? If so, on what issues
and why?
(If a candidate plans to have a campaign platform different from the party platform or not is something I think we should take into account. If their views are evolving, that does not have to be a bad thing, but I am curious as to the thought process involved and what it might help us learn).
—CANDIDATE HISTORY—-
When did you join the Libertarian Party?
Prior to running for President, in what ways were you involved in the
Libertarian Party or libertarian movement? What other libertarian
movement groups have you been involved with, and what was the extent
of your involvement?
Have you ever run for office with the LP before? If so, where and when, and for what office?
Have you ever run for office with another party or as an independent
candidate? If so, where and when, and for what office?
Do you have any significant involvement in issue organizations or
political coalitions which intersect with libertarianism but also
include significant numbers of non-libertarians?
Have you spoken to large crowds not just of libertarians?
Have you played a significant role in passing any legislation
that actually made people more free?
(I’m thinking this series of questions will help us determine if the prospective candidate has a track record as a party member, ideological libertarian, political activist, coalition builder and/or as a candidate for office, and help weed out opportunist/ego candidates. That does not mean that someone who is new to the party and the movement and has never run for any office is necessarily an opportunist or can’t be a good candidate, but we should take those factors into account.
I can see where Susan might think that the last question is promoting Kubby, since he has trumpeted his role in helping in the passing of freedom legislation. But I don’t know that Smith, Phillies et al have NOT done so, only that I am not aware of them having done so, and doesn’t it make sense that if a candidate has actually already done something that has already made us more free in the real world rather than just talk about what they would like to do that we should take that into account? For all I know Smith or Phillies HAS played a major role in passing freedom legislation, in which case I would love to learn something I did not know before!)
—PARTY COMMITMENT ISSUES—
In what ways do you plan to be involved if you do not get the
Presidential nomination?
If you lose the Presidential nomination and are offered the VP
nomination, would you consider it?
Do you plan to share all contacts your campaign generates with the
national party? Would you characterize your present working
relationship with LPHQ and/or LNC to be friendly or somewhat adversarial?
(This series of questions also will help folks determine if a prospective candidate is a party “team player” or might perhaps be an ego candidate or opportunist. It does not mean that if they answer in a particular way that they necessarily are or are not. For that matter some people here may prefer a candidate who is somewhat adversarial with the present LNC/LPHQ).
—STRATEGY, OUTREACH—-
Are there any innovative ways in which you hope your campaign will
work to surpass all previous LP Presidential results, and what do you
think your chances are of doing that?
How much of an emphasis do you plan to put on working with local
candidates and building state and local LPs? Ballot access? Youth and
college outreach?
(I think ideology, past history and party commitment are important issues. But so is campaign strategy.)
p) ====> OK. Version 1.0 done.
I’d like to give it a few days for other people to suggest questions for inclusion or give their reasons for why any of these questions should NOT be asked.
-P
They’re not. They are an honest attempt to learn more about her and
her campaign. They are also issues on which I think many people here
might be able to better judge her candidacy. As you can see from “generic version” they are also questions I want to ask of the other candidates.
I know more about the other candidates that caucus members have been supporting, and have had a lot more opportunity to interact with them, so yes, I was especially interested in asking Christine Smith, particularly given a recent increase in interest in her campaign which I have observed.
What would lead you to think they are “pointed”?
Yes, they are issues of concern – but I don’t know the answers. It is entirely possible that the answers could change my mind, including about who I am supporting, for that matter.
I’ll ask those same questions of the other candidates. In fact – other
than the specific question about Steve Gordon’s assessment of her
mideast withdrawal plan, which I did NOT hear her say and therefore am
genuinely curious – the same questions should be put to the other
candidates, which I also plan on doing.
Christine has not answered the question, but ENM has stuck a fork in her; she’s done.
http://elfninosmom.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/christine-smith-may-bow-out-of-lp-presidential-race/