My parents asked me yesterday what my take on the current crop of Libertarian Party Presidential candidates is. I started writing a simple email response, but realized that others might find some insight from my observations. So here is my current analysis of the race.
I tried to find the list of contenders on the National LP website, but strangely couldn't find it. Not a good sign for the LP.
- John Finan - I've never heard of him, but he seems a bit nutty.
- Barry Hess - No website means no candidacy. He's run before and not done too well.
- Dave Hollist - Single issue candidate. Interesting idea, but not enough to be worth supporting.
- Daniel Imperato - He's too new to the philosophy and is a Ross Perot type. He has a good website, and seems well organized. If he sticks around for 4 years, and learns and accepts libertarianism, he might be worth supporting then.
- Bob Jackson - Not enough support, his website is stale. He doesn't seem like a serious or viable candidate.
- Michael Jingozian - He doesn't seem to be really running, just promoting his "big idea".
- Steve Kubby - He has endorsed Ron Paul. If Ron Paul loses the Republican primary, Kubby might re-activate. Until then, he's not worth supporting.
- Alden Link - His campaign doesn't seem to be active.
- Robert Milnes - "I, personally, identify more with the Greens." = no chance of LP endorsement.
- George Phillies - He's not very charismatic. More like the anti-charisma. On a few issues, he's not quite libertarian, but mostly good. He's probably the best organized with the most active supporters.
- Wayne Allen Root - He seems "slick", but I don't really know much about him. His issue stances seem pretty good.
- Christine Smith - She seems OK. Her website could use some work.
So far the race seems to be between Phillies, Root, and Smith. None of them seem to be "good", but then with Ron Paul in the race, any credible Libertarian candidate would be smart to sit this election cycle out anyway.