Gary Johnson for Ron Paul

David Weigel | January 21, 2008

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson (a perennial dream candidate for the LP) has endorsed Ron Paul.

I am endorsing Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President because of his commitment to less government, greater liberty, and lasting prosperity for America. We are at a point in this country where we need to reduce our dependency on government and regain control of our future. To this end, Ron Paul will bring back troops, end the War in Iraq, and will strengthen the U.S. dollar and the economy. For these reasons and more, Ron Paul has my support, respect, and vote.

Last year I talked to Johnson about Orange Line Mafia chatter that Bill Richardson, his successor in the big chair, might be a Libertarian Democrat.

I don’t think Bill Richardson has got much to offer libertarians. He plays up the fact that he cuts taxes when, if you add up all the fees he’s approved, there’s been a net tax increase. It’s an indictment of Cato and the Club for Growth that they’d consider him a tax cutter... It makes me a little less impressed by the good grades Cato gave me.

Michael Lynch's seminal interview with Johnson is here.

Comments

lunchstealer|1.21.08 @ 2:45PM|#

I don't think Bill Richardson has got much to offer libertarians. He plays up the fact that he cuts taxes when, if you add up all the fees he's approved, there's been a net tax increase. It's an indictment of Cato and the Club for Growth that they'd consider him a tax cutter... It makes me a little less impressed by the good grades Cato gave me.

They could be grading on the curve. So if you're a Democrat, even making a show of cutting taxes is a good thing.

Also fees are fee-for-use type taxes, which are not the worst kind of taxes, from some perspectives.

Tom Walls|1.21.08 @ 2:46PM|#

'Bout damn time!

I hereby nominate Johnson to carry the rLOVEution torch.

|1.21.08 @ 2:48PM|#

You know who's awesomer than Gary Johnson?

That's right, NO ONE.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.08 @ 2:54PM|#

Thanks Mr Weigel.

Lunch, I like fee-for-use taxes except in the end it's like a bit like Indian gaming which perversely made it all the less likely that gambling will ever be legalized.

What happens in practice is that fee-for-use allows regular tax revenue to be shifted elsewhere. Your taxes don't go down to reflect user fees, they keep going up. For example, we now pay for our own trash collection but my property taxes didn't go down to reflect the cost savings to the county of privatizing trash collection.

svf|1.21.08 @ 2:54PM|#

GJ for RP's VP. (or vice versa. whatever.)

thoreau|1.21.08 @ 2:54PM|#

Thank God for this thread. I've heard so little about Ron Paul on this forum lately....

;)

|1.21.08 @ 2:57PM|#

Oh, doc, I am so with you. Suffering from a bit of RP fatigue... or perhaps more accurately RP partisan fatigue.

|1.21.08 @ 2:59PM|#

Great news. Ron Paul is gaining momentum!

If you want your future articles to be seen by even more Ron Paul supporters and others following the Ron Paul message you yourself can easily post a link to your articles at www.WhatTheySayAboutRonPaul.com.

Jesse Walker|1.21.08 @ 3:00PM|#

Among other things, this clears up something I've been wondering about for a while: Gary Johnson's domestic views are way better than the average politician's, but what does he think about foreign policy? I'm happy to hear him specifically support Paul's call to "bring back troops [and] end the War in Iraq."

lunchstealer|1.21.08 @ 3:03PM|#

TWC,

True dat in the general sense, but in the specific case of Richardson*, he did in fact cut taxes. He didn't cut them as much as he could have, but he cut them.

* Disclaimer - I have not studied Richardson's tax plans at all. I'm just going exclusively off of Johnson's one-paragraph quote, which is hardly a detailed policy analysis. Your reality may vary.

charlie|1.21.08 @ 3:04PM|#

Eric Dondero | January 9, 2008, 9:03pm | #

Can someone please explain to me why the Libertarian Party isn't going down to New Mexico, and begging Gary Johnson on their hands and knees to run as a Libertarian for President?

He's unite the entire libertarian movement. [sic -- of course the poor grammar was Dondero's alone]

Any bets on when Dondero will be back around these parts to tell us why Gary Johnson is no longer a "Mainstream Libertarian"?

|1.21.08 @ 3:06PM|#

lunchstealer - good points. Strictly speaking, Richardson WAS a tax-cutter, he just seems to have shifted the costs directly to the user.

TWC - that sucks, brotha. Did anything good come out of that, then?

BakedPenguin|1.21.08 @ 3:24PM|#

Any bets on when Dondero will be back around these parts to tell us why Gary Johnson is no longer a "Mainstream Libertarian"?

He'll probably show up to announce that he heard Johnson was a true, blue-blooded, Islamofascist hatin' guy on the libertarian_smegma blog or somewhere, and now that he knows it isn't true, we should all elect a real libertarian, like Mitt Romney.

Derek|1.21.08 @ 4:05PM|#

"He'll probably show up to announce that he heard Johnson was a true, blue-blooded, Islamofascist hatin' guy on the libertarian_smegma blog or somewhere, and now that he knows it isn't true, we should all elect a real libertarian, like Mitt Romney."

---------------------

Also, that Johnson has written truly vile, hateful stuff in obscure books or said racist, homophobic things 15 or 20 years ago, and plus, that's only "the tip of the iceberg."

|1.21.08 @ 4:08PM|#

I'd vote for Gary Johnson if he ran.

robc|1.21.08 @ 4:17PM|#

charlie,

In that same thread, I asked EDR why the GOP isnt begging Johnson to run for Prez. He never answered me, but maybe because I havent given enough of my name (he wouldnt answer you either, you've given even less).

robc|1.21.08 @ 4:18PM|#

Johnson snorted cocaine and enjoyed it. It wasnt experimentation. Just some info so some of you have something to hate.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.08 @ 4:23PM|#

TWC - that sucks, brotha. Did anything good come out of that, then?

I think in the general sense it is always better to tie fees to use, just commenting that it doesn't necessarily translate into less tax although sometimes the service gets better.

One specific good thing:

Sunkist donated an old grove to the state that is now called Citrus Park. When the state began charging a really modest fee ($3.00 per carload) to get into the park, the riff raff became noticeably scarce.

Also nice that Park Service fees get to stay at the local park.

OTOH, launch fees and user at Lake Mojave haven't cut usage and haven't translated into better services.

|1.21.08 @ 4:33PM|#

Hmm, I never heard much about him. I think I came across his name in a list of endorsements by the RLC, glad to see he is endorsing Ron Paul! Glad to see Ron Paul isn't the only one, too! Gives me hope! :) I want to see more people like him and Paul and Sanford (I heard he's a good guy) in office.

Roger|1.21.08 @ 4:33PM|#

RP has a shot of taking NM then.

|1.21.08 @ 4:34PM|#

...too little...too late...comes to mind.

meh, I could live with a McCain presidency, Giuliani is what drove me into Paul's spindly arms like a frightened child. now that that nightmare has passed, we can go about our daily lives only slightly less grumbly.

lunchstealer|1.21.08 @ 4:38PM|#

Sanford's been surprisingly good, but I still fear religious-rightery.

I just wish Lindsey Graham would keep actually walk the walk. He talks a good civil liberties game, but ends up basically coming up with 'compromise' solutions that mostly involve the Bush administration having to change the name of extraordinary rendition to 'humane repatriation'.

|1.21.08 @ 4:47PM|#

Johnson snorted cocaine and enjoyed it. It wasnt experimentation. Just some info so some of you have something to hate.

I'm as baffled between the supposed moral distinction between "experimenting" and "using" as I am when people try to tease out whether a sociopath is evil or mentally ill.

Is it simply that "experimentation" implies a correct conclusion? That drug use is okay when it is only to the ends of proving to oneself the adamantine truth that drugs are bad?

Or is it the extension of that execrable Boomer cliché that "times were different then," or perhaps even that "being young was different then"? If one "experimented" at some time in the distant past, it's to be forgiven since everybody was doing it and it was acceptable then, whereas now it is a completely justified taboo shared by all duly-informed people.

Is quitting a thing that one enjoys any less moral than quitting something that one tried and detested? If anything, it ought to be more moral to have enjoyed drug use and quit it anyway - if we accept the premise that drug use were immoral to begin with.

Is this the cosmotarian equivalent of equivocating about racism? Someone enlighten me.

Corey Cagle|1.21.08 @ 4:54PM|#

I've heard it said that Ron Paul may not win, but that he could set the stage for a future libertarian candidate, much in the way that Barry Goldwater set the stage for Ronald Reagan. Could Gary Johnson be Reagan to Paul's Goldwater?

Consider this: after looking at the exit data from the primaries and caucuses this far, it is becoming increasingly likely that the Democrats will win the White House this year, and that they will likely increase their majority in Congress. This will put the Republicans firmly back in the minority, which is where the Republicans really shine. Four or eight years of a Republican minority will, I hope, cause them to regain the anti-government mentality that gave them the Congressional majority in 1994. A devastating loss in the 2008 elections and a few years of Democratic rule is probably good, although bitter, medicine for the GOP at this point, and I think the dialectic of American politics could very well push us in the right direction to have a libertarian win the Republican nomination and the presidency in 2012 or 2016.

kinnath|1.21.08 @ 5:02PM|#

Ralph thought it would be good for the Democrats in the long run to have Al lose to George. I'm still waiting for that to pay off.

|1.21.08 @ 5:02PM|#

Cory,

If you hold your breath that long, you'll suffocate long before a libertarian gets into the Senate...let alone the presidency. No, there will be a slight resurgance of the libertarian/conservative alliance, but with more caution hopefully (seeing how badly we got fucked on that last one)

|1.21.08 @ 5:18PM|#

Bill Richardson would have got my vote in the primaries, and I hope I will see him as a VP choice now that he's dropped out. He has a great CV, and his plan for ending the Iraq war shows that he had given it a lot more thought than, say Ron Paul.

Ron Paul could have defended himself from his pro-war attackers in the debates, if he had given more answers in line with Richardson's website. I could see Richardson as a Libertarian Democrat.

Corey Cagle|1.21.08 @ 5:33PM|#

kinnath, I hope you just forgot your /sarcasm tag at the end there. Can anyone seriously say that the Democrats haven't benefited enormously from Bush's presidency?

LIT, I intend not to hold my breath, but to shout liberty from the mountaintops and city walks at every opportunity. I fully expect that, in the wake of Paul's candidacy and a likely Democratic victory, we'll see a resurgence of libertarian-leaning GOP candidates in the near future. Many Ron Paul Revolutionaries have expressed an interest in running for office, and I may do so myself after I finish law school and make the FSP-pilgrimage to New Hampshire. Obviously my long-term prospects for liberty are optimistic, and in the interest of not seeming completely unrealistic, there are at least two serious problems with my scenario:

1) Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and names Obama as her running mate. Barring any serious malfeasance by Clinton, this would position Obama perfectly for a presidential bid to succeed Clinton, and with the Dems' infantile obsession with identity politics, this could pose a serious problem for any GOP nominee. After four or eight years as VP, Obama would no longer be the inexperienced candidate he is today, and he'd still have the "first viable black candidate" appeal.

2) The GOP's identity crisis could very well lead to a very non-libertarian outcome. A lot of high-level Republican operatives (mostly from the Bush administration) are pushing a sort of compassionate-conservatism-on-steroids as the cure for the coming GOP malaise. These guys (David Frum and Michael Gerson in particular) are a threat that must be addressed, but I really think that, given the nature of partisan politics, the more the Democrats abuse and increase the power of the government, the more libertarian the GOP will become. Oh, and it's CorEy, not Cory. :-)

NoStar|1.21.08 @ 5:43PM|#

On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Norma Leah McCorvey (Jane Roe) is meeting with Dr. Paul for a press conference.

Might another endorsement be gestating?

http://www.pr-inside.com/ron-paul-to-hold-news-conference-r397373.htm

cut& paste or click on my name.

|1.21.08 @ 5:45PM|#

The GOP's identity crisis could very well lead to a very non-libertarian outcome. A lot of high-level Republican operatives (mostly from the Bush administration) are pushing a sort of compassionate-conservatism-on-steroids as the cure for the coming GOP malaise.

I'm a bit worried about this prospect too. I'm afraid that the lesson the GOP takes from their current predicament will be that "populism" is the new Zeitgeist and that the winning formula is now "one part jingoism, two parts religion, stir in a half-cup of the nanny-state and serve." The irony is that this prescription wouldn't fall far from the ones offered up by such "liberal" outfits as The New Republic.

Even more worrisome, however, is the possibility that the GOP apparatus have become addicted to state privilege and are now too corrupt to live without their gravy-boat or to seriously consider doing so. We'll get offered a load of libertarian-friendly promises during the campaigns, all of which will be abandoned the moment there are points to be scored with more "serious" interests (most often these will be "cartelized" business interests that wouldn't benefit in the short run from free market reforms).

I think the second is honestly more likely, if only because I don't think you can ever lose by betting on the corruption of US politics. However, The National Review and others like them have spent a lot of time ridiculing libertarianism in the past few years and given the contempt a lot of them hold us in, I'm not sure they'd bother recanting just to win what they obviously consider to be a paltry bloc.

|1.21.08 @ 6:15PM|#

Take a look at this video: http://www.spymac.com/details/?2331213

Corey Cagle|1.21.08 @ 6:23PM|#

hale,

I agree, the "one part jingoism, two parts religion, stir in a half-cup of the nanny-state and serve" recipe--call it the Huckabee model--is a real threat, in the same way that the neoconservative foreign policy of the National Review and the Weekly Standard is a real threat to libertarianism. It is my sincere hope that the Huckabee model is a temporary phase among a portion of the GOP. There are a lot of Republicans who do not like Huckabee precisely for his populism, and if not for his personal charisma and evangelical credentials, I don't think his message would be going anywhere.

Don't forget the overwhelming percentage of young people attracted to the Paul campaign. A lot of kids who either can't yet vote or are just voting for the first time are having the seeds of liberty planted in their minds. As a relatively young (just shy of 30) person myself, I never expected to see legions of college kids cheering loudly for criticism of the Federal Reserve. The fact that Ron Paul has energized so many young people makes me incredibly optimistic about the future of liberty in this country.

Robert|1.21.08 @ 6:28PM|#

I've heard it said that Ron Paul may not win, but that he could set the stage for a future libertarian candidate, much in the way that Barry Goldwater set the stage for Ronald Reagan. Could Gary Johnson be Reagan to Paul's Goldwater?

Only if Ron Paul wins the nomination and loses the election.

|1.21.08 @ 6:30PM|#

Corey Cagle,

I agree. It is my fond hope that we can look back at Dr. Paul's as the campaign that launched ten thousand campaigns.

First Little Pig|1.21.08 @ 6:47PM|#

Having lived in New Mexico under Johnson and Richardson I have been somewhat miffed every time the words "Richardson" and "Libertarian" have been used in same sentence when we had an actual-ish "libertarian" in office so recently. Richardson is no libertarian.

The last time I saw Gary Johnson was about 2 years ago (maybe a bit less) when he was making the introductions for the book "Refer Madness" at a book signing in downtown Albuquerque. Condemning the Drug War as usual, and speaking in a completely frank manner, with stats to back his argument up, he is a breath of fresh air.

I doubt he will ever run for public office again: he was treated rather badly by the establishment here IMO.

alisa|1.21.08 @ 6:56PM|#

Never knew about Johnson before today, and I'm incredibly impressed. I didn't know people like that actually got elected.

Derrick|1.21.08 @ 6:59PM|#

So, what's it take to get this guy to run? Do I have to send my cousin Louie to "pay him a visit?"

adrian|1.21.08 @ 6:59PM|#

gary johnson is a racist!
gary johnson associates with racists!
gary johnson associates with people who associate with racists!
gary johnson associates with people who are thought to associate with racists!

gary johnson is going to set the LP party back .25%!

any takers?

|1.21.08 @ 7:08PM|#

Is he, does he, really?

Ben Masel|1.21.08 @ 7:15PM|#

Anyone see a remote possibility of a Johnson nomination out of a brokered Republican Convention?

Dodsworth|1.21.08 @ 7:17PM|#

Hey Dondero:

The guy you endorsed here (Gary Johnson) has endorsed your nemesis Ron Paul. Your old hero Rudy, of course, is in fading fast. LOL!

|1.21.08 @ 7:36PM|#

Esteban,

Fuck off

LevStrauss|1.21.08 @ 7:56PM|#

Yeah, the Huckabee model is scary. Pretend to be a preacher and they forgive all your mortal sins of policy. If he catches on we have to break it to his base that Jesus doesn't exist. If he believed in the Old Testament then I don't know who he was talking to but he wasn't talking to God. And that means Mohammed didn't know what the hell he was talking about either. Just as with a fourteen year old kid waiting for Santa, when the fib gets out of hand and outlives its usefulness you just have to break it to them. But for all those that believe in Christ or Mohammed as a vehicle for tolerance and not a substitute for lack of knowledge, disregard my earlier comments, I am not talking to you. And for all those who may be offended, blame Maimonides not me.

kinnath|1.21.08 @ 8:33PM|#

kinnath, I hope you just forgot your /sarcasm tag at the end there.

On the off chance that Corey is still hanging out . . .

I am of the school of thought that it is a major crime to explain your own jokes, so I never, use a /sarcasm tag.

I supposed if you had to ask, it means that I did not pull the joke off.

Roger|1.21.08 @ 9:28PM|#

That's cute that you think you will be waltzing into the politically-astute establishment in NH after you get your "law degree" and just move through the ranks quickly after being a recent and obvious transplant. Unfortunately the GOP there requires the tempering and much courting, which helps one to understand why McCain does so well there going on more than 8 years. The busybodies driving the GOP machine here will sully your reputation in a New York minute if they think you're going for a power grab without their "consent" by spreading rumours about you being a drunk or fraternising with "undesirables". The Free State Project has made the mistake of assuming that "libertarian" laws on the books will give activists relative carte blanche to the reigns of a government largely controlled by anti-tax retirees and real estate agents. The power mechanism up on capitol hill currently is a fluke unique to over eighty years of GOP dominance, and they would have been much better served choosing Montana or Alaska.

|1.21.08 @ 9:29PM|#

Move West young, righteous and Freedom-loving.
The Belway Millionaire-aires and flip-floppers haven't a clue what lies in the soul of the true American in the promised land.
Wait 'til McCain re-institutes the draft, Hitlery takes your mule and 40 acres, and Huckster carpetbags your well of pride.

Jacob|1.21.08 @ 11:09PM|#

That racist.

Jacob|1.21.08 @ 11:50PM|#

New Hampshire has a great, hands-on political culture and a libertarian streak a mile-long. It is home to the third largest legislative body in the world, despite being a lightly-populated state. Medical marijuana referenda get over 40% of the vote. And its first-in-the-nation primary gives it disproportionate influence over national politics.

What's not to like?

The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 12:01AM|#

What's not to like?

NH is colder than a well digger's backside in the Klondike for a number of months each year.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 12:03AM|#

Okay Esteban, but you better nominate me for Best Wine Blog.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|1.22.08 @ 1:51AM|#

I've heard it said that Ron Paul may not win, but that he could set the stage for a future libertarian candidate, much in the way that Barry Goldwater set the stage for Ronald Reagan.

But this is clearly not true. Ron Paul set the stage for libertarians to prove that they'd rather bicker with each other over petty shit than anything else, than anything else they might have done.

None is pure enough to be A Libertarian Candidate. None shall ever exist that is not a "disappointment" and, in some manner, "does not deserve to be POTUS".

Nah, we'll let the Democrats and Republicans take the high ground. Until we get somebody pure enough (and Jesus is coming soon and Santa Clause too, don't forget).

And what's this crap about Reagan? We know he wasn't even close to being pure enough to count in the Liber-verse.

There must have been something wrong with Goldwater as well, but I forget now what.

|1.22.08 @ 3:01AM|#

There's nothing wrong with Ron Paul's campaign that delivering a celebrity baby couldn't cure.

miche|1.22.08 @ 3:18AM|#

A (wee) bit off topic: After watching some of the D Party debate tonight, I'm terrified of Obama. I disagree with him on nearly everything and yet, he's so damn likable. In an election of him v. any R candidate, including Ron Paul, I think he'll win. (Of course, judging from the BS race questions in the debate, this country* isn't capable of imagining a president of color.

*Poster excluded. Poster has slept with people of color, married people of color, socializes with people of color, daughter dates a person of color and whatever anti-racism anecdote is needed these days for white, supporting Ron Paul for R Party nom., but still libertarian women.

Tom Walls|1.22.08 @ 10:09AM|#

Nothing was wrong with Barry. It's just that JFK got popped. The nation mourned and the Dems got the sympathy - not on their own merits, however. And then LBJ made people think Barry was going to blow up the world.



"There must have been something wrong with Goldwater as well, but I forget now what."

|1.22.08 @ 11:07AM|#

I don't know Miche. I think President Palmer kind of blew off the mindset that the country can't imagine a president of color. I know it was fiction, but I think it still performed that task.

Now, I think the name Barack Obama (even without the Hussein part), will scare some people away. My mother-in-law thinks he has some secret agenda, and it's not because he's black. She's very much your typical identity voter.

Whade Tufts|1.23.08 @ 12:31AM|#

Please don't forget to ask Gary who in the world he sees on the horizon for us cousins & our babies up here watching all suspenseful from Red Canada. We have no Ron Paul, though perhaps we should be allowed to vote, as likely he will benefit us more than our pinko commie NWO poppa-boys here in Moscowa.