Amity Shlaes for Senate?

[erowe1]

I'm not sure if anybody has talked about this here yet. But apparently there's already a draft effort underway for Amity Shlaes for U.S. Senate from NY.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/07/amity-sclaes-for-n-y-senate-the-draft-effort-begins-online/

IIRC, New York is one of the states where we were looking for someone we might get behind.

Any thoughts on this from anyone here?

Everything I've read from Shlaes has been great, albeit only related to domestic fiscal policy for the most part.

 

[CaseyJones]

interesting

 

[Cowlesy]

She's good on a lot of things, but I am sure it'll only take a few more posts to start making hay about the fact she's a Sr. Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Plus, it's New York...

 

[Nathan Hale]

Plus, it's New York...

Exactly. Might as well start a fire with our money while we're at it.

 

[erowe1]

Her latest column about Greenspan and Atlas Shrugged shows some peaks into Shlaes's philosophy, including an apparent distaste for fiat currency. And she also mentions Robert Higgs at the end and implies that she'd read quite a bit of his writings.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...stimulus-that-works-with-ayn-rand-s-help.html

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

She's in the periphery of the Austrian school and she's probably our only realistic shot at getting someone pseudo-libertarian elected to that Senate seat. I'd support her. I think Adam Brickley and the Dogcatcher Project are heading up that draft effort.

 

[erowe1]

She's in the periphery of the Austrian school and she's probably our only realistic shot at getting someone pseudo-libertarian elected to that Senate seat. I'd support her. I think Adam Brickley and the Dogcatcher Project are heading up that draft effort.

I'd say Gary Johnson and Jeff Flake both have considerably better odds.

But I'm for trying to fill as many ballot slots as possible. Anything our opponents have to spend to fight us in one state is something they can't spend to fight us in another.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I'd say Gary Johnson and Jeff Flake both have considerably better odds.

But I'm for trying to fill as many ballot slots as possible. Anything our opponents have to spend to fight us in one state is something they can't spend to fight us in another.

I disagree with the "engage everywhere" strategy. We have limited core activist dollars in this movement, and we should concentrate them on winnable races. NY Senate is a waste of time b/c even if we win the primary, we lose the general. The only Republicans who have a chance of unseating Gillibrand are Giuliani or Pataki. There are many great opportunities in 2012 Senate races, let's focus on sending our dollars and activist hours there.

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

I disagree with the "engage everywhere" strategy. We have limited core activist dollars in this movement, and we should concentrate them on winnable races. NY Senate is a waste of time b/c even if we win the primary, we lose the general. The only Republicans who have a chance of unseating Gillibrand are Giuliani or Pataki. There are many great opportunities in 2012 Senate races, let's focus on sending our dollars and activist hours there.

I don't think we need to "engage everywhere", but we do need to have a quality liberty candidate on the ballot in every state, because we never know who could catch fire. It's a good thing we had Mike Lee on the ballot in Utah, even though it might have initially seemed like a pipe dream to think he could succeed in toppling a sitting Senator in the primary.

 

[axiomata]

If we get her nominated as the Republican nominee, we can let the Republican machine take over the financing from there. We should contest every primary that we can. Primaries are comparably cheap.

 

[erowe1]

I disagree with the "engage everywhere" strategy. We have limited core activist dollars in this movement, and we should concentrate them on winnable races. NY Senate is a waste of time b/c even if we win the primary, we lose the general. The only Republicans who have a chance of unseating Gillibrand are Giuliani or Pataki. There are many great opportunities in 2012 Senate races, let's focus on sending our dollars and activist hours there.

People will send their dollars and volunteer hours where they want. But getting the maximum number of candidates who are as good as possible on policy is a good thing. You never know when somebody who looks entrenched is going to retire or get caught in a scandal or something, and the only way to take advantage of it is to have someone on deck before it happens. We need to figure on losing a dozen races for every one we win. I don't know enough about Shlaes to know for sure if I want to help the draft movement. But the fact that she faces long odds doesn't strike me as a reason not to.

 

[erowe1]

If we get her nominated as the Republican nominee, we can let the Republican machine take over the financing from there. We should contest every primary that we can. Primaries are comparably cheap.

+1

 

[Nathan Hale]

I don't think we need to "engage everywhere", but we do need to have a quality liberty candidate on the ballot in every state, because we never know who could catch fire. It's a good thing we had Mike Lee on the ballot in Utah, even though it might have initially seemed like a pipe dream to think he could succeed in toppling a sitting Senator in the primary.

Yes, a quality liberty candidate in each state is a laudable goal, and it's possible to field a quality liberty candidate in a winnable race....for US House. There are many bad US Reps in upstate New York, where liberty candidates stand a chance of winning.

 

[Nathan Hale]

People will send their dollars and volunteer hours where they want.

Yes, nor am I suggesting otherwise. But it is valid to debate the merits of that and we DO have the responsibility to socially influence that. This is, after all, a movement - that requires some degree of cohesion, uniformity, and teamwork. "Every do their own thing and it'll all turn out okay" doesn't work.

"But getting the maximum number of candidates who are as good as possible on policy is a good thing. You never know when somebody who looks entrenched is going to retire or get caught in a scandal or something, and the only way to take advantage of it is to have someone on deck before it happens."

Not necessarily, and it's not a good strategy to prep candidates for the off chance of some scandal or surprise retirement, as they rarely occur. Better to position candidates in as many *winnable* races as possible, of which there are *many*.

We need to figure on losing a dozen races for every one we win.

I totally disagree, especially at this stage in the game.

I don't know enough about Shlaes to know for sure if I want to help the draft movement. But the fact that she faces long odds doesn't strike me as a reason not to.

Because it would be a waste of time considering the odds of success and considering the alternative methods by which you could exert effort or spend dollars in the name of the movement.

 

[QuinnR]

I'd say Gary Johnson and Jeff Flake both have considerably better odds.

But I'm for trying to fill as many ballot slots as possible. Anything our opponents have to spend to fight us in one state is something they can't spend to fight us in another.

Agreed. This would be a waste of our resources. It would be too expensive, and even if we raised the necessary funds, New York is too much of a (D) state to get her elected.

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Agreed. This would be a waste of our resources. It would be too expensive, and even if we raised the necessary funds, New York is too much of a (D) state to get her elected.

Like the other fellow said before, if we helped get her nominated, we could just let the Republican money machine takeover. Primaries aren't that expensive.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Like the other fellow said before, if we helped get her nominated, we could just let the Republican money machine takeover. Primaries aren't that expensive.

The "Republican money machine" is not going to support a quixotic run. Perhaps if the candidate was Pataki or Giuliani, but not for Amity Shlaes. If we insist on running liberty candidates in NY, let's focus on winnable upstate congressional races, not on sacrificial Senate campaigns.

 

[Deborah K]

She's good on a lot of things, but I am sure it'll only take a few more posts to start making hay about the fact she's a Sr. Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

That bothers me a great deal, and here's why:

The CFR advocates merging Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. economically and politically
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-...pendent-task-force-future-north-america/p8138
http://www.cfr.org/world/trinational-call-north-american-economic-security-community-2010/p7914