Will Sheehan Run As A Libertarian?

The word from Third Party Watch is that anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan may run as a Libertarian against Hillary Clinton.

Prominent anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan said last week she could not bring herself to vote for the re-election next year of US Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) unless HRC first publicly admits her vote for the Iraq war was a mistake. That subsequently prompted NY Libertarian Party State Chair John Clifton to issue a statement inviting Sheehan to seek the party’s US Senate nomination next year as a peace candidate. The Libertarian Party has already called for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Clifton was the LP’s US Senate nominee against Clinton in 2000.

Read full story.

Now I cannot support Cindy at this time because I don’t know her views on anything but Iraq. I am not going to make a public announcement for or against Ms. Sheehan at this time but it is an interesting bit of news.

What do you think, would Ms. Sheehan be a good or a bad choice for the Libertarian Party?

22 Comments
  1. She would be a excellent choice – if you ascribe to the big tent theory in the LP. If she came out for handgun control or other poisoned stuff, maybe not, but we dont know what she thinks on the broader issues.

    If the balance is not bad, the NYLP would be insane not to run her. Hopefully on the LP-Green fusion ticket – where she would be able to cut into Clinton’s left wing support.

  2. If she is able to stop Clinton from running for President in 2008 that would also be a huge success for the LP. I don’t mind supporting her if she believes in limited government but I agree if she supports gun control or a lot of big government it would be like when Ann Coulter wanted to run as a libertarian. A good thing they didn’t let her.

  3. The LP will always be marginalized if Cindy Sheehan and her socialist, leftist kind or for that matter, the facist rightist kind are all that the party can muster for candidates. As I have said as a libertarian (little l), I quit attending meetings in Colorado because the only candidates the Party could muster to run for office were from the lunatic fringe. You need true libertarians that do not have a personal hidden agenda and excess baggage to run for office. Until that happens, the LP is doomed. Keep blowing smoke up everyone’s … and get serious and get busy.

  4. Her status as a carpetbagger candidate would be quite apparent to NY voters, but that just puts her on equal footing with Hillary. If Cindy is libertarian on more issues than just the war, AND more importantly addresses those other issues in a professional manner that reflects well on the party, she might be a tempting candidate to run. Especially if she pricks Hillary’s hot air balloon for 2008. Still, I’m rather skeptical of her agenda in any matter other than the war. As it is, I’m skeptical that she is Senate material, and forget about her as a Presidential candidate. We need to run rational people with real creditials…not a hysteric Abby Hoffman type.

  5. Imagine this. Cindy Sheehan, a child of the 60’s hippie movement packing heat where everyone can see and protesting the war in Iraq. What a picture. That would be a real libertarian. Until that happens, she is nothing but an old, burned out hippie from the 60’s probably toting Mao’s little red book and spouting socialism and demanding bigger government. You will never convince me that she can be a viable candidate representing the Libertarian Party for any office anywhere.

  6. Fine for Hilary’s senate seat. She would spread the word about us libertarians. However, I agree that she wouldn’t be a good choice for president. I don’t think this would happen though. Great blog by the way.

    goldenliberty.blogspot.com

  7. She would be a disastrous choice. Not only would I not support her as an LP candidate, I would actively work against her.

    Although I’m not as antiwar as some in the LP, I don’t have a big problem w/ LP candidates talking about the war as long as it’s only one of their issues. But for the LP to allow a publicity hound to try and use our organization to further her own personal goals, when at best there’s only one issue she is known for and will talk about, and a large portion of libertarians don’t even agree with her on…

    I just think it would be a huge embarrasment to the party and I would want no part of it.

  8. This is a HORRIBLE idea! Howard Stern anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

    LP needs to stay away from polarizing and one issue “crackpot” candidates. This will bring nothing but rubber neckers and negative publicity to the LP.

    It is also fairly apparent this is about the only issue she would agree with the LP on. Her tactics are viewed as shrill, extreme and distastful by many from many viwpoints including me, a dedicated libertarian for many, many years.

  9. Okay, it’s time for some people within this party to grow up.

    In a real political party, you don’t take your ball and go home whenever a candidate you don’t like gets nominated. You fight the nomination, withhold support, and plan for next time, in that order. All of you people who will ‘immediately leave the Party’ might as well just do it now and save the rest of us having to hear your shrill threats every freaking election cycle.

    Yours truly,
    Mr. X

    …undecided on Cindy…

  10. There appears to be no evidence as to her positions on other issues, allowing that she has any of any note. There then appears to be no evidence that she is a socialist (by the way, where is she going to start: nationalizing the coal mines or the railroads?)

    George
    who remembers what socialism is.
    and who also notes that libertaian socialism is a significant part of the world libertarian movement, these being the people who think that Friedrich Hayek got things exactly, totally wrong.

  11. There’s a very high chance she’s a socialist or commie as some of us suspect… here’s an article where she’s tied to a group called “United For Peace and Justice,” ( http://www.truthout.org/cindy.shtml – scroll down to Friday Sept 23, 2005).

    And here’s the wikipedia article on UFPJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_for_Peace_and_Justice , where they are labeled as pro- “social justice” and “economic justice” – both code words on the left for equality of results (socialism).

    Hell, the Communist Party USA and the International Socialist Organization are members of UFPJ (see the wikipedia article linked above). So, no, I don’t think she’d be a good candidate as a libertarian, unless she stops touring with UFPJ & Co.

  12. The Modern American

    Thanks for the info. You do your homework and back up your points very well with documentation. More of us should do that instead of just shooting off our opinion or presenting information as factual as opposed to the presentation only being an opinion or a propaganda view point. Opinions or agendas should not be cloaked as facts to win an argument.

  13. I love it!! Cindy Sheehan transcends left and right, she operates on the spectrum of right and wrong. If she runs as a single issue candidate, well it’s a great Libertarian issue. Most all of people’s opinions about her, whether for or against, come from media hype, not Cindy herself. I think if Libertarians got to know her from her own words and actions, they’d embrace her. I know I have.

    Kudos to John Clifton for recognizing and seizing upon such an excellent opportunity for the party.

  14. Another mental picture for you:

    Cindy Sheehan runs for Senator from New York still tied to the White House gate except she is not at the White House. She has now unhinged the gate and is traveling all through New York giving socialist speeches still tied to the gate. She says as soon as she is elected or arrested, whichever comes first, she will return the gate to its rightful owner.

    This scenario is about as stupid as the idea that Cindy Sheehan should even be considered a Libertarian Party candidate. How ridiculous do you want us to look to the rest of the voters we are trying to woo? Let’s get serious and persuade real people that can win as a libertarian to become involved.

  15. I would like to hear more of her ideas before I decide but if she is not a libertarian, she is not a libertarian and should not run as one.

    Julian,

    “Let’s get serious and persuade real people that can win as a libertarian to become involved.”

    Do you have any ideas? Some of my ideas would include John Stossel, possibly Bob Barr (I would have to learn more about him) and perhaps Penn Jillette and a lot of other lesser known people.

  16. Dr. Phillies has some valid points about our lack of knowledge of Sheehan’s other positions. The Modern American accurately pointed out that Sheehan has ties to United For Peace and Justice. A bit is analysis might bring us closer to the truth on this issue.

    Let’s look at two things. All people who work with United For Peace and Justice don’t necessarily agree with each of their issues. For instance, Lew Rockwell recently spoke at one of their events. In this case, Rockwell made his points of disagreement with them clear. Likewise, I’ve participated and even helped organize several of their events. Again, we made it a point to differentiate ourselves from the left with captions like “Make money, not War.”

    Sheehan’s ties to United For Peace and Justice don’t make her a leftie anymore than Lew Rockwell’s or my ties make us lefties.

    Point two: Cindy began her serious writing about the war on a libertarian, and not a leftie, website. Should there be any doubt about this, check out her archive at http://www.lewrockwell.com/sheehan/sheehan-arch.html

    None of this proves conclusively that she is libertarian on other issues, but it certainly makes it seem more likely to be the case.

  17. Jake

    I believe John Stossel and Bob Barr both qualify as libertarians even though I don’t agree with them 100%. I would probably support either of them in a run for public office but still need additional information about their positions on some issues. I’ll have to do some homework on Penn Jillette

  18. The problem is getting someone like John Stossel to run… and what would he run for? If he goes big like for a senator or governor position, he’s likely to get trounced as he’s not an action star like the governator… and I would assume 60% of american’s don’t even know what a libertarian is, so that’s negative points as well.

    But despite my pessimism, I would gladly support him if he did take it on.

    Larry Elder is another one of my favorites, though I’ve heard he’s turned republican (I haven’t followed him in the last year or so)

  19. I do for the most part like Larry Elder’s ten point plan.
    http://www.larryelder.com/steps.html

    Many more people are hearing the name Libertarian. Last year I think I was the only one in my high school who knew what a libertarian was and now almost everyone knows. It is just freeing their mind from lies they have been taught. So a Stossel run could help that.