Knappster,
A most excellent analysis of this prospective candidate for the Libertarian Nomination.
As a very frequent critic of yours, and more specifically Anti-War Libertarians in general, I guess I would be counted among the "Critics" of this lady. (I'm sorry I can't spell her name, let alone pronounce it?)
But I must say, I'm deeply impressed by her resume. Save Ron Paul, who was also an Air Force Flight Surgeon, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a more qualified LP Nominee of all the past Nominees.
Her Military Service counts a great deal with me. As a fellow Vet I heartily salute her. Her academic credentials are outstanding.
The Larouchie stuf? Ahh, unless something else surfaces, I'd say that's a dead issue.
The only real flaw I find with her, actually two, are as follows:
1. She doesn't seem to be a grass-roots oriented libertarian activist. I haven't seen anything to show that she has political campaigning savvy. If she had had one or two petition drives for ballot initiatives under her belt I'd be more comfortable with her.
2. I've seen absolutely nothing about her views on domestic issues. Is she Pro-Choice? I assume she supports drug legalization. How does she feel about seat belt laws? Drinking age laws? Legalization of Prostitution? Her economic views are far less suspect being a contributor to LewRockwell.com. One assumes she's an Austrian. But on social liberties, she's going to have to make some statements before she wins over skeptics such as myself.
Still, overall, I'd agree, next to Ed Thompson, she's probably the leading contender for the LP Nomination in 2008, and well-deserving of such a distinction.
Eric Dondero
1988 Travel Aide/Advance Man
Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1996 Campaign Coordinator
Ron Paul for Congress
Senior Aide, US Congressman Ron Paul
1997-2003
Dondero wrote: "She doesn't seem to be a grass-roots oriented libertarian activist.".
That might well be in her favor.
I'm a big fan of hers, and I agree with your analysis of her credentials.
With that said, I'm not sure she'd be an effective candidate due to her demeanor. From interviews I've seen and heard she appears not to be the most eloquent public speaker. She doesn't seem to present her position with confidence. I dunno, maybe I'm being selective with her past performances, but from a "gut" standpoint I can't see me voting for her.
Not that I wouldn't vote for her, but the "gut" criterion is used by a substantial portion of the electorate. Might as well acknowledge it. The LP should run candidates with not only credentials but charisma. It's frustrating for a party of principle to focus on that, but to do otherwise is to commit a giant waste of money and volunteer time. Besides, this race is more about marketing than principles by its very nature.
One main question the blog post didn't address: is she actually interested in the nomination?
She seems like a strong candidate, especially on the issue that concerns me most--war in the middle east.
Recently, however, I read a quote where she was explaining that perhaps Americans' major concern about potential war is jobs, with defense and aerospace being the only sectors where the good jobs haven't already exported.
This suggests a protectionist mindset.
Another matter has been her promoting the theory that one reason the U.S. attacked Iraq was because it was planning to price its oil in euros rather than dollars.
While one cannot dismiss the possibility that wrongheaded merchantilist ideas within the elite aren't influecing U.S. policy, my reading of her suggested that she believes that having oil priced in dollars is actually important to U.S. well being.
To sum up, I worry the her economic policy ideas may come more from the paranoid patriot right than from any version of libertarianism, either the hardcore purist approach of the Rothbardians or else what I prefer--something that sounds like Milton Friedman has agreed to serve as economic policy advisor.
In other words, damn--exactly the same problem as with Russo!
Commenting by HaloScan
