She has a history of violent and corrupt behavior. She’s apparently so self-important that she felt entitled to bypass security while entering a Congressional office building. Yet after physically assaulting the Capitol Hill police officer “who failed to recognize her” because she had no identification, she sued for discrimination.
http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/jackson/cynthia-mckinney-from-racial-scapegoat-to-political-spoiler

She has had to publicly apologize and pay back the $1000 of taypayer’s money she spent to fly in celebrity Isaac Hayes — just to show how important and well-connected she is.

Even if she hit 100 on the Ron Paul-O-Meter, she’s a publicity-hungry, unstable sociopath who has no business being in any position of decision-making or authority.

Slowly but surely, we’re seeing our third parties disintegrate — first CIA/DEA supporter all-talk-no-action Bob Barr infiltrates the Libertarian Party, and now the embarrassment of Cynthia McKinney chosen to head up the Green Party.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/dissonance/green-party-rip/17889/

Remember, we’re measuring how closely a candidate’s views matches Ron Paul’s views. McKinney was very close to Ron Paul on the issue of drugs, but McKinney’s approach was, in some instances, to use the power of the federal government to “legalize” drugs, and use federal funds to pay for detoxification & rehabilitation programs. Never have we seen her say “the federal government has no say on this issue” or “this is a state issue” or “this issue falls under the purview of the 9th and 10th amendments and should left up to the states”. So we couldn’t give her a 5.

> Secondly, although McKinney’s position on
> currency is indeed the “opposite” of Paul’s,
> they are more like two sides of the same coin
> than a different coin altogether — such as
> the Fed. The “nationalization” plan, though
> I think it would result in an even worse system
> than the current one, is still anti-Fed. I don’t
> think her position is that much different from
> Chuck Baldwin’s or Aaron Russo’s. I’d give her
> at least 1, probably 2 on that issue.

Our thinking on this:
She doesn’t want to abolish the Fed, she wants to nationalize it (opposite of Ron Paul). e.g. More federal power, not less. Not “leave it to the free market” as Ron Paul believes. Also, she makes no mention of supporting the idea of competing currencies. Overall, McKinney’s ideas are most often toward more and more unconstitutional acts to “remedy” a situation (again, the opposite of Ron Paul). We didn’t feel we could give her any points at all here.

We appreciate your thoughts and encourage you to submit your own ratings for McKinney and other candidates at http://libertymaven.com/paul-o-meter/.

Take care,

–Mike Miller

That surprises me very much.

I would give her 2-3 more points. For one, Ron Paul is against Prohibition, period. He doesn’t want the states regulating drugs, he just recognizes it is their “right” under the Constitution. Unless McKinney is advocating a federal ban on state-level Prohibition, then she should get a full 5 on that issue.

Secondly, although McKinney’s position on currency is indeed the “opposite” of Paul’s, they are more like two sides of the same coin than a different coin altogether — such as the Fed. The “nationalization” plan, though I think it would result in an even worse system than the current one, is still anti-Fed. I don’t think her position is that much different from Chuck Baldwin’s or Aaron Russo’s. I’d give her at least 1, probably 2 on that issue.

Bob Barr for President, http://www.bobbarr2008.com
Vote Libertarian for liberty
David Macko