Gary Johnson: “Opposition to the drug war is perfectly consistent with true Republican Party values”

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson won’t be participating in CNN’s Republican presidential primary debate tonight in New Hampshire, which is a shame for many reasons, including the fact that it ruined the possibility of Johnson repeating this statement from an interview he just gave to TheFix.com:

In my view, in terms of individual liberties and fiscal responsibility, opposition to the drug war is perfectly consistent with true Republican Party values. Yet no other politicians are willing to touch this. I can’t think of any other area of public policy where there’s as big a disconnect between politicians and what the public actually thinks.

Read the whole interview here. Watch Johnson discuss politics with Reason.tv below.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • }||

    Unelectable.

  • GILMORE||

    Which is maybe why the current cast of GOP candidates is so lackluster. None are expected to win, so the whole exercise is a matter of putting some b-team ponies out in the field. No one with any serious ambitions seems to even want to bother.

    I dont know if this is a good or bad thing. It just is what it is. I will say that while I dig Gary Johnson as a candidate in the abstract, as far as future political leadership is concerned, I have pretty low expectations. I think my feelings about politics are the same as my feelings for the Knicks for the last decade = we're completely fucked, and its going to take a generation of failure before we rebuild something like a respectable cast of characters. One-offs like Johnson are nice, but he's going nowhere.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Ah, if only fiscal responsibility and individual liberties were the only Republican Party values. Unfortunately, there's also that third pile of stool called "Social Conservatism", which stipulates that preventing people from enjoying themselves (or others) is a legitimate function of government.

    Social Conservatives won't put an end to the War on Drugs because people should never be higher than Jesus.

  • ||

    Conservatives are almost as dysfunctional as liberals in regards to their coalition of diametrically opposing viewpoints.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You mean like "we must make everyone equal by empowering a massive bureaucracy of well-connected apparatchiks"?

  • Thank God||

    ALL viewpoints are thoroughly covered and respected in the two party system.

    There is nothing to see here, move along.

  • Ray Pew||

    Ah, if only fiscal responsibility and individual liberties were the only Republican Party values. Unfortunately, there's also that third pile of stool called "Social Conservatism", which stipulates that preventing people from enjoying themselves (or others) is a legitimate function of government.

    Social Conservatives won't put an end to the War on Drugs because people should never be higher than Jesus.

    Exactly. Republican/conservative values are at the basis nothing more than nostalgia directed at authority, tradition and religion. It has no consistent philosophical principles at its core.

  • .||

    Isn't that what conservatism has always meant politically?

  • ||

    Johnson has blown it completely pandering to the far right and the idiot Anti-Federal Reserve Rothchilds/Bilderberg Conspiracy Theorists.

    I had hope for him as a "sane Ron Paul" - sad outcome though.

  • ||

    The far right is not anti-federal reserve. That's reserved for the "God gave me guns to prevent gays from marrying, and sheep so I could have someone to sleep with"

  • shriek||

    THE HATCHET TOLD ME IT WAS SO. IT WAS THE HATCHET.

  • ||

    Well, that is the Far Right to me (but so are Neo-Nazis).

    I want a President who values free trade, civil liberties AND CONTRACEPTION RIGHTS, science/alt energy, STEM CELL RESEARCH/Trade UNDAUNTED by fundies, and capitalism/technology.

    Guess I will go with Obama.

    btw - I got a kick out of Michelle Bachmann's WSJ article on Saturday where she "reads Mises on the beach" ... it was a knee-slapper.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I guess know for certain that you're out of your fucking mind.

  • ||

    shriek is a sockpuppet. I suggest you ignore it.

  • ||

    Yeah - I hear that bullshit from low-life rednecks then I hear someone like Larry Fink who manages $3.6 TRILLION fucking bucks or Tepper or another big capitalist express admiration for Obama over some GOP nutcase -- and guess what?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....71978.html

    I don't give a fuck what you say.

  • Crony-Capitalist||

    FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FFINK! FINK! FINK! FINK!INK! FINK!

    FINK!!!!1!!

    He manages $3.6 TRILLION bucks!!!1!1!

    He knows all that is Capitalist AND all that is Crony. Bow down libertarian bitchez!

  • Obama||

    Since I'm a corporatist, this sounds like a match made in heaven!

  • ||

    shrike, you used to be way cooler when you were interesting-crazy. This limpdicked Gordon Gekko character that you've created for yourself is tired.

    Time for a reboot. Batman did it, so can you!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Ugh, then we just have to deal with a bunch of shrike-nerds arguing over whether the Kilmer-shrike was gayer than the Clooney-shrike.

  • ||

    Nobody will ever convince me that Keaton-shrike wasn't the best shrike EVAH!

  • sevo||

    shrike|6.13.11 @ 5:56PM|#
    "I want a President who values free trade, civil liberties.."
    OK,

    "AND CONTRACEPTION RIGHTS..."
    Uh, what "rights" would those be, and who opposes them?

    "science/alt energy, STEM CELL RESEARCH/..."
    So you want a president who only taxes and funds your faves? Oh, good.

    Trade UNDAUNTED by fundies, and capitalism/technology."
    How about trying the comment in English?

    "Guess I will go with Obama."
    Got it. This is TRIATHALON socking as Shrike? Or Shrike is actually TRIATHALON?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "free trade, civil liberties AND CONTRACEPTION RIGHTS, science/alt energy, STEM CELL RESEARCH/Trade UNDAUNTED by fundies, and capitalism/technology"

    You are a living paradox.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Johnson has blown it completely pandering to the far right and the idiot Anti-Federal Reserve...

    WRONG. Johnson's economic adviser is Jeffrey Miron, a "Chicago School" boy.

    KOCHTOPUS

  • A Serious Man||

    I'll watch tonight's debate out of morbid curiosity and because Ron Paul will be there, but have no illusions: this is not about issues as much as it will be about which candidate passes the GOP orthodoxy test.

    So pretty much all the punditry will be about how Pawlenty, Newt, et al bash Romney for Romneycare rather than anything else is said about the drug war, civil liberties, and other idiotic crap that no one is presently interested in.

  • ||

    i will read the morning commentary from my appointed cliffnotes takers, the Reason staff.

  • ||

    Agreed. The Canucks-Bruins game is on tonight; I'd rather watch that than the cringeworthy GOP debates.

  • ||

    The Canadians are taking home the trophy.

    I'm talking about the debates, not hockey. The Canadians win whenever we lose. And the likelihood is that the dumbest of those debating tonight will be the next president. Not Romney--he's already toast.

    I also think the Canucks are winning it all in hockey, but that's another discussion for another time.

  • ||

    I don't know, dude. How do you lose 8-1 in hockey? They may have come back, but damn, dude.

  • ||

    I think the Canucks just played down to the opposition a bit. It's not like Boston is an offensive powerhouse.

    And I'm not insulting Boston, which is a good team. But their strength is much more on the defensive side of the ice.

  • ||

    I have this feeling that the Canucks are going to choke. It's totally just a gut feeling and I'll probably be wrong, but they have just seemed choketastic to me.

  • ||

    Given what they did during the regular season, I figured either Tampa or Boston would be out in five. But they aren't playing at that level. Not consistently, anyway.

  • ||

    Watch them both even with one TV device. Just stream the debate if you can stand it.

    Without Trump and Palin the debate will be limp. I will pay attention to RP but the others are all the same.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It's a tough call as to which is a more soul-draining endurance challenge: a bunch of men trying to outdo each other in a banal generalities competition, or Canadian ice-soccer.

  • ||

    [Beats Hugh with a hockey stick.]

  • cks||

    ...You want this tooth?...

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I'm stuck in a hotel in Los Angeles and don't give a flying fuck about watching sports on TV, so I probably will inflict the debate upon myself, given nothing better to do.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    I'm sure you can find a Simpsons re-run you've seen 4 times already. Even that would qualify as something better to do than watch the debate.

  • Tolly||

    Yep. As weak and corrupt as Obama's administration can be accurately be painted - more wars, high unemployment, PPACA, huge deficits/budgets - the GOP seems to be doing a goddamn perfect job shooting themselves in the face instead of mounting a serious challenge from a competent candidate.

    I don't know if it's because both parties are just the same damn flavor of rotten or if they just need to bring out the circus freaks to get any media attention, but they'll defeat themselves by never once questioning the prez on his rotten record and failed programs. Instead I get to hear GOP cheerleaders talk about one moronic candidate after another - Palin, Trump, Romney, GINGRICH?

    So long prosperity and liberty, it was nice knowing you while you were around.

  • ||

    I think Obama has virtually no chance of winning, which means this race among dwarfs (Paul and Johnson excepted, of course) is very likely important.

  • ||

    DO not underestimate Obama's chances of winning, ProL. TEAM BLUE may be annoyed with him, but all that matters in the end is TEAM BLUE and winning.

  • ||

    Nah, he's toast.

  • NadePaulKuciGravMcKi||

    ZNN censors Gary Johnson

    the red/blue party is in pure chaos
    they can't find anyone that will beat Dr Ron
    so they keep rolling out new puppets every few days

    ZNN censors Gary Johnson

  • Amakudari||

    Disagree. It's pretty hard to unseat an incumbent. The last time one lost

  • Amakudari||

    Didn't mean to submit this.

    I meant to ask which form of meter the above poet employed.

  • MFawful||

    The Republican candidates (with the exceptions of Ron Paul and, to a lesser extent Gary Johnson).

    Mitt Romney is a smart man, probably a competent leader, but he is totally unprincipled. If elected he will be Bush part 3. (Obama was Bush part 2)

  • MFawful||

    Gah. Meant to say:

    The Republican candidates are pathetic(with the exceptions of Ron Paul and, to a lesser extent Gary Johnson).

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Speaking of the war on individual liberties, a NY Dem Assemblyman wants to pass a state law to outlaw smoking in cars if children under 14 are in the car.

  • AC in CA||

    California just passed a law that outlaws smoking in cars if children under 18 are present... we are so very progressive here.

  • ||

    Wait, the Republican Party has values?!?

    I thought they were career politicians who were bought off by lobbyists, not unlike the Democrats.

  • GILMORE||

    +1

  • ||

    beat me to it

  • Anonymous Coward||

    In my view, in terms of individual liberties and fiscal responsibility, opposition to the drug war is perfectly consistent with true Republican Party values. Yet no other politicians are willing to touch this.

    Gary Johnson (as will be portrayed by the Corporate Media):

    Soft on Crime
    Anti-Police
    Pro-Drug Using Hippies
    Hates Children
    Wants the Terrorists to Win (Taliban sells opium don't you know?)

  • Zuo||

    Hates Old Farts
    Hates Minorities
    Really Hates the Poor
    Wants to Turn All =/= Gary Johnson into his Personal Slaves

  • Zuo||

    Hates Nature
    Wants to Lose the Future

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Sort of ironic, considering that he ran on a law and order and prison reform platform as NM's governor.

  • ||

    being pro law and order and being anti-drug war are not really inconsistent

    i am very pro law and order. but that is referring to actual CRIMES. what people choose to ingest, smoke, inject, whatever... is their own fucking business.

    if and when they victimize others, i don't have a lot of sympathy

  • sevo||

    "Hates Children"

    Naah.
    They'll claim he loves children, well-done with A-1 sauce.

  • Jonathan Swift||

    That sounds like a modest proposal.

  • CE||

    Ron Paul (as portrayed by the Corporate Media):

    Front-runner Mitt Romney will be attacked by heavy-hitter Michelle Bachmann and top-tier Tim Pawlenty in the debate. Newt Gingrich will try to revive his campaign with a strong performance before eventual nominee Rick Perry enters the fray. Little-known Rick Santorum will try to stand out from other fringe candidates like pizza delivery man Herman Cain and perennial candidate Ron Paul, who will also be on the stage.

    Also, Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin and prostitutes, and allow brothel owners to exclude customers based on race.

  • .||

    Perry may very well end up as the eventual Republican nominee, with Bachmann in the VP slot. Think about it - Perry embodies the Republican establishment and Bachmann appeals to the Tea Party, which is pretty much non- establishment. The Republicans could win with that combination. It would not surprise me at all.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Also, Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin and prostitutes, and allow brothel owners to exclude customers based on race.

    I don't see why he would want to exclude anyone from a whorehouse based on race. After all, all p***y is pink and all dollars are green.

  • SIV||

    Senator David Vitter's name keeps coming up. He has incredible name recognition on the left. Maybe he should run for the GOP nomination

  • CE||

    Where? I've never seen it before.

  • .||

    Who?

  • rather||

    Didn't he take Tarp money to balance NM's state budget?

  • Zuo||

    Yeah seeing as how he left office in 2003 (three).

  • sevo||

    Gary Johnson, NM governor 1995-2003.
    TARP, signed into law 2008.
    Have a little trouble reading calendars?

  • rather||

    I wasn't sure what money it was, ergo the question mark.

    On Fox, I heard him say he took federal money to balance the budget, and when asked, he replied along the words of: they are dumb enough to give it

  • sevo||

    "On Fox, I heard him say he took federal money to balance the budget, and when asked, he replied along the words of: they are dumb enough to give it"

    Right.
    Why I remember someone making some comment on some TV "news" program or other and thought she meant and therefore.....

  • rather||

    ?
    Was it someone else? I can't tell the difference between Johnson, and some of the other lesser knowns.

  • sevo||

    rather|6.13.11 @ 8:25PM|#
    "?
    Was it someone else? I can't tell the difference between Johnson, and some of the other lesser knowns."

    And yet you posted:
    "Didn't he take Tarp money to balance NM's state budget?"

    So the obvious conclusion is that you're an ignoramus whose posts can be ignored.
    Thank you for the clarification.

  • rather||

    Please ignore me because I will never reach your standards of perfection. I make mistakes all the time

  • sevo||

    rather|6.13.11 @ 9:09PM|#
    "Please ignore me because I will never reach your standards of perfection..."

    Ah, yes.
    Meeting "standards of perfection" like actually having some slight knowledge of what you post about? That sort of "perfection"?
    "Perfection" isn't being asked; some minuscule level of honesty is. And isn't being met.

  • rather||

    What the fuck more do you want? I told you I wasn't sure who said it. Fuck off

  • sevo||

    rather|6.13.11 @ 9:44PM|#
    "What the fuck more do you want"

    For brain-dead ignoramuses to STFU.
    Oh, and fuck off, shit head.

  • rather||

    I don't even know what to say

  • sevo||

    "I don't even know what to say"

    Obviously.
    Which is a good reason to shut up.

  • rather||

    just incif me, thank you

  • sevo||

    go away

  • .||

    Why the fuck does everyone here always pick on Rather?

  • ||

    he's partially right. opposition to the drug war IS consisten with (true) republican values, as well as true libertarian values.

    however, asd to say, the public is not on board. let's remember, merely legalizing MARIJUANA couldn't even pass in frigging nevada of all places.

    i do think opposition to the WOD, specifically MJ is getting stronger, though.

    but as somebody who attends community meetings and talks to a lot of "average joes/janes" in my travels, there is a LOT of opposition to drugs vs. the drug war.

    sure, when it's THEIR kid, parents are sometimes more amenable to the treatment vs. punishment route, but i've even had (former) addicts tell me getting arrested was the best thing to ever happen to them

    that's just reality.

  • Mr Whipple||

    but i've even had (former) addicts tell me getting arrested was the best thing to ever happen to them

    Probably because they had too many fucking enablers in their lives, and it took getting arrested for them to hit bottom. They don't realize it, yet, but their lives are totally fucked with a felony on their record. Getting arrested is the worst thing that could happen to an addict. I've been locked up, and I have a felony on my record, and I'll tell you it's not something I would wish on my worst enemy. The next time someone tells you that, tell them they are a dumb fucking fuck, and if they would like to be fucked in the ass again.

  • sevo||

    "Probably because they had too many fucking enablers in their lives, and it took getting arrested for them to hit bottom."
    Aside from that, the fact that X people have "benefited" from the WODs is totally irrelevant.
    Many people "benefit" from scamming food stamps; so?

  • ||

    again, i'm just speaking some uncomfortable truths

    1) outside the rarefied climes of reason, etc. there is still a LOT of support for the WOD (although significantly less support for the WO MJ)

    2) the only crimes (and i have had this happen several times) where it's relatively common for people to thank me for arresting them are DUI's and drug stuff.

    heck, iirc even Robert Downey Jr. said that the only thing that finally got him off the addict track thang was going to jail.

    again, that's tangential to some other issues, but it is simply false to believe there is widespread support for dismantling the WOD .

    realizing that reality, the best tactic for libertarians imo is incrementalism - specifically in regards to MJ etc.

    personally, if somebody wants to come home from work and pop a roxycodone instead of a post work martini, i could not give a flying fuck, but that's MY opinion, and i am speaking about society at large

  • sevo||

    dunphy|6.13.11 @ 8:28PM|#
    "again, i'm just speaking some uncomfortable truths..."

    Yes, there are a lot of folks who benefit from the WODs, either supposedly directly (like Downey, who's career is threatened) or indirectly, thinking they're "helping".
    And, yes, all those folks will vote for the WODs, but I'm not about to support those folks.

  • ||

    well, among other things, for most drug arrests ime the first arrest will NOT result in a felony record around here, since it's an AUTOMATIC diversion to misdemeanor, even for meth, coke, etc.

    again, your experience is different from many others i've talked to. many say that getting arrested was a good thing. others, it was a bad thing

  • ||

    Okay, somebody help me with this. No realistic, liberty devotee believes that anything significant can or will change through politics. Nothing will stop the encroachment of the predator state or the relentless, incremental march toward fascism or will turn back the corruption which lays at the core of western civilization. At the same time everyone bends over backward to disavow any talk of significant, direct action. So what is the plan then? It is to wait for the inevitable collapse of the empire under its own wait and hope that lovers of liberty will take the wheel - which seems implausible in as much as the power elite have put in place safeguards to ensure they maintain their positions as the power elite come what may. So, I'm not seeing any options here for ever achieving a free society with liberty and justice for all. Are you? That being the case, well then, hell, bring on the Ipads and PS3's and the Dancing with the Stars and American Idol and let's all gorge ourselves on Whoppers and fries and say the hell with it. 'Cause I'm not seeing much point in doing otherwise.

  • ||

    that's utter rubbish. LOTS of significant liberty changes have happened through politics.

    DADT - politics (thanks, log cabin republicans)

    and numerous other examples. the problem is people who refuse to acknowledge that incrementalism and winning a LONGTERM war with many battles is the path, not this purity test where it's all or nothing. that's funhouse mirror libertarianism. politics is about pragmatism and the longterm battle

    stuff like yours is great for pimply teenagers in their mama's basement, but it doesn't help anything

  • ||

    own weight, not own wait - duh.

  • Adamson||

    How about interviewing some actual Libertarians running for the Libertarian nomination, instead of turncoats running for another party's nomination they'll never get?

  • ||

    Johnson wants to turn the "war on drugs", into a "war on addiction", but treating addiction as a public health issue.

    The nature of government being what it is, addicts will be convinced they are "victims", therefor becoming absolved of any personal responsibility over their individual behavior. In American politics, every class of victims needs their own brand of social safety net.

    Taking a public health approach on the drug issue, is a road to greater government. If Johnson believes we should end the WOD, great. What we don't need, is other forms of government intervention to protect us from ourselves.

  • ||

    "but treating addiction as a public health issue." should read as "by treating addiction as a public health issue."

  • sevo||

    * reason.org
    * reason.com
    * reason.tv
    * donate
    *
    *
    *
    *
    *

    previous link

    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Veronique de Rugy: The Facts about the Government's Medicare… (6.3)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Universidad Francisco Marroquin (aka University of Free… (6.2)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:MSNBC vs Sarah Palin vs The Flag vs Sanctimonious BS (6.1)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Wed, 6/15!: Ask a Libertarian w Nick Gillespie & Matt Welch! (6.13)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Free or Equal?: Johan Norberg Updates Milton & Rose Friedman's… (6.13)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Veronique de Rugy: The Facts about the Alternative Minimum Tax (6.10)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:The Big Scrum: How Teddy Roosevelt Saved Football - Q&A with… (6.9)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:3 Reasons Not to Fund Art with Taxes (& Yes, There's a Weiner… (6.8)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:How Cultural Innovation Happens: Q&A with Anthropologist Grant… (6.7)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Jefferson Memorial Dance Dance Revolution - 6/4/2011 (6.4)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Veronique de Rugy: The Facts about the Government's Medicare… (6.3)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Universidad Francisco Marroquin (aka University of Free… (6.2)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:MSNBC vs Sarah Palin vs The Flag vs Sanctimonious BS (6.1)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Wed, 6/15!: Ask a Libertarian w Nick Gillespie & Matt Welch! (6.13)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Free or Equal?: Johan Norberg Updates Milton & Rose Friedman's… (6.13)
    * REASON.TV VIDEO:Veronique de Rugy: The Facts about the Alternative Minimum Tax (6.10)

    next link

    Loading...

    *
    *
    *
    more sharing
    o StumbleUpon
    o Digg
    o Reddit
    *

    close video

    * Subscribe
    o Print
    o E-Reader
    o Android App
    o iPhone App
    o Reason E-Mail Lists
    o Reason Stuff
    o Subscriber Services
    * Share
    o Reason on Facebook
    o Reason on Twitter
    o Reason on Youtube
    o Reason RSS
    * About
    o About
    o Contact
    o Privacy
    o Reason Foundation
    * Staff
    o Staff
    o Contributors
    * Archives
    o Archives
    o Print Issues
    o Cover Gallery
    o Hit & Run Blog
    o Brickbats
    * Topics
    * Poll
    * Feeds
    o Podcasts
    o RSS
    * Events
    * Advertise
    * Donate

    Print|Email
    Gary Johnson: “Opposition to the drug war is perfectly consistent with true Republican Party values”

    Damon W. Root | June 13, 2011

    Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson won’t be participating in CNN’s Republican presidential primary debate tonight in New Hampshire, which is a shame for many reasons, including the fact that it ruined the possibility of Johnson repeating this statement from an interview he just gave to TheFix.com:

    In my view, in terms of individual liberties and fiscal responsibility, opposition to the drug war is perfectly consistent with true Republican Party values. Yet no other politicians are willing to touch this. I can’t think of any other area of public policy where there’s as big a disconnect between politicians and what the public actually thinks.

    Read the whole interview here. Watch Johnson discuss politics with Reason.tv below.

    Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

    *
    *
    *
    more sharing
    o StumbleUpon
    o Digg
    o Reddit
    *

    Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
    ← State Hires Former Medicaid Bureaucrat to… | Main | Congrats to Matt Stone and Trey… →
    See all 87 comments | Leave a comment

    Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
    }|6.13.11 @ 5:39PM|#

    Unelectable.
    reply to this
    GILMORE|6.13.11 @ 9:39PM|#

    Which is maybe why the current cast of GOP candidates is so lackluster. None are expected to win, so the whole exercise is a matter of putting some b-team ponies out in the field. No one with any serious ambitions seems to even want to bother.

    I dont know if this is a good or bad thing. It just is what it is. I will say that while I dig Gary Johnson as a candidate in the abstract, as far as future political leadership is concerned, I have pretty low expectations. I think my feelings about politics are the same as my feelings for the Knicks for the last decade = we're completely fucked, and its going to take a generation of failure before we rebuild something like a respectable cast of characters. One-offs like Johnson are nice, but he's going nowhere.
    reply to this
    Hugh Akston|6.13.11 @ 5:42PM|#

    Ah, if only fiscal responsibility and individual liberties were the only Republican Party values. Unfortunately, there's also that third pile of stool called "Social Conservatism", which stipulates that preventing people from enjoying themselves (or others) is a legitimate function of government.

    Social Conservatives won't put an end to the War on Drugs because people should never be higher than Jesus.
    reply to this
    Lost_In_Translation|6.13.11 @ 5:45PM|#

    Conservatives are almost as dysfunctional as liberals in regards to their coalition of diametrically opposing viewpoints.
    reply to this
    Hugh Akston|6.13.11 @ 5:49PM|#

    You mean like "we must make everyone equal by empowering a massive bureaucracy of well-connected apparatchiks"?
    reply to this
    Thank God|6.13.11 @ 5:57PM|#

    ALL viewpoints are thoroughly covered and respected in the two party system.

    There is nothing to see here, move along.
    reply to this
    Ray Pew|6.13.11 @ 7:28PM|#

    Ah, if only fiscal responsibility and individual liberties were the only Republican Party values. Unfortunately, there's also that third pile of stool called "Social Conservatism", which stipulates that preventing people from enjoying themselves (or others) is a legitimate function of government.

    Social Conservatives won't put an end to the War on Drugs because people should never be higher than Jesus.

    Exactly. Republican/conservative values are at the basis nothing more than nostalgia directed at authority, tradition and religion. It has no consistent philosophical principles at its core.
    reply to this
    .|6.13.11 @ 7:37PM|#

    Isn't that what conservatism has always meant politically?
    reply to this
    shrike|6.13.11 @ 5:43PM|#

    Johnson has blown it completely pandering to the far right and the idiot Anti-Federal Reserve Rothchilds/Bilderberg Conspiracy Theorists.

    I had hope for him as a "sane Ron Paul" - sad outcome though.
    reply to this
    Lost_In_Translation|6.13.11 @ 5:47PM|#

    The far right is not anti-federal reserve. That's reserved for the "God gave me guns to prevent gays from marrying, and sheep so I could have someone to sleep with"
    reply to this
    shriek|6.13.11 @ 5:50PM|#

    THE HATCHET TOLD ME IT WAS SO. IT WAS THE HATCHET.
    reply to this
    shrike|6.13.11 @ 5:56PM|#

    Well, that is the Far Right to me (but so are Neo-Nazis).

    I want a President who values free trade, civil liberties AND CONTRACEPTION RIGHTS, science/alt energy, STEM CELL RESEARCH/Trade UNDAUNTED by fundies, and capitalism/technology.

    Guess I will go with Obama.

    btw - I got a kick out of Michelle Bachmann's WSJ article on Saturday where she "reads Mises on the beach" ... it was a knee-slapper.
    reply to this
    Cytotoxic|6.13.11 @ 5:58PM|#

    I guess know for certain that you're out of your fucking mind.
    reply to this
    Episiarch|6.13.11 @ 6:03PM|#

    shriek is a sockpuppet. I suggest you ignore it.
    reply to this
    shrike|6.13.11 @ 6:10PM|#

    Yeah - I hear that bullshit from low-life rednecks then I hear someone like Larry Fink who manages $3.6 TRILLION fucking bucks or Tepper or another big capitalist express admiration for Obama over some GOP nutcase -- and guess what?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....71978.html

    I don't give a fuck what you say.
    reply to this
    Crony-Capitalist|6.13.11 @ 6:16PM|#

    FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FINK! FFINK! FINK! FINK! FINK!INK! FINK!

    FINK!!!!1!!

    He manages $3.6 TRILLION bucks!!!1!1!

    He knows all that is Capitalist AND all that is Crony. Bow down libertarian bitchez!
    reply to this
    Obama|6.13.11 @ 6:24PM|#

    Since I'm a corporatist, this sounds like a match made in heaven!
    reply to this
    capitol l |6.13.11 @ 6:41PM|#

    shrike, you used to be way cooler when you were interesting-crazy. This limpdicked Gordon Gekko character that you've created for yourself is tired.

    Time for a reboot. Batman did it, so can you!
    reply to this
    Hugh Akston|6.13.11 @ 7:21PM|#

    Ugh, then we just have to deal with a bunch of shrike-nerds arguing over whether the Kilmer-shrike was gayer than the Clooney-shrike.
    reply to this
    capitol l |6.13.11 @ 7:29PM|#

    Nobody will ever convince me that Keaton-shrike wasn't the best shrike EVAH!
    reply to this
    sevo|6.13.11 @ 6:58PM|#

    shrike|6.13.11 @ 5:56PM|#
    "I want a President who values free trade, civil liberties.."
    OK,

    "AND CONTRACEPTION RIGHTS..."
    Uh, what "rights" would those be, and who opposes them?

    "science/alt energy, STEM CELL RESEARCH/..."
    So you want a president who only taxes and funds your faves? Oh, good.

    Trade UNDAUNTED by fundies, and capitalism/technology."
    How about trying the comment in English?

    "Guess I will go with Obama."
    Got it. This is TRIATHALON socking as Shrike? Or Shrike is actually TRIATHALON?
    reply to this
    Colonel_Angus|6.13.11 @ 7:37PM|#

    "free trade, civil liberties AND CONTRACEPTION RIGHTS, science/alt energy, STEM CELL RESEARCH/Trade UNDAUNTED by fundies, and capitalism/technology"

    You are a living paradox.
    reply to this
    Mr Whipple|6.13.11 @ 7:25PM|#

    Johnson has blown it completely pandering to the far right and the idiot Anti-Federal Reserve...

    WRONG. Johnson's economic adviser is Jeffrey Miron, a "Chicago School" boy.

    KOCHTOPUS
    reply to this
    A Serious Man|6.13.11 @ 5:45PM|#

    I'll watch tonight's debate out of morbid curiosity and because Ron Paul will be there, but have no illusions: this is not about issues as much as it will be about which candidate passes the GOP orthodoxy test.

    So pretty much all the punditry will be about how Pawlenty, Newt, et al bash Romney for Romneycare rather than anything else is said about the drug war, civil liberties, and other idiotic crap that no one is presently interested in.
    reply to this
    Lost_In_Translation|6.13.11 @ 5:48PM|#

    i will read the morning commentary from my appointed cliffnotes takers, the Reason staff.
    reply to this
    Episiarch|6.13.11 @ 5:50PM|#

    Agreed. The Canucks-Bruins game is on tonight; I'd rather watch that than the cringeworthy GOP debates.
    reply to this
    Pro Libertate|6.13.11 @ 5:57PM|#

    The Canadians are taking home the trophy.

    I'm talking about the debates, not hockey. The Canadians win whenever we lose. And the likelihood is that the dumbest of those debating tonight will be the next president. Not Romney--he's already toast.

    I also think the Canucks are winning it all in hockey, but that's another discussion for another time.
    reply to this
    Episiarch|6.13.11 @ 6:04PM|#

    I don't know, dude. How do you lose 8-1 in hockey? They may have come back, but damn, dude.
    reply to this
    Pro Libertate|6.13.11 @ 6:07PM|#

    I think the Canucks just played down to the opposition a bit. It's not like Boston is an offensive powerhouse.

    And I'm not insulting Boston, which is a good team. But their strength is much more on the defensive side of the ice.
    reply to this
    Episiarch|6.13.11 @ 6:16PM|#

    I have this feeling that the Canucks are going to choke. It's totally just a gut feeling and I'll probably be wrong, but they have just seemed choketastic to me.
    reply to this
    Pro Libertate|6.13.11 @ 6:19PM|#

    Given what they did during the regular season, I figured either Tampa or Boston would be out in five. But they aren't playing at that level. Not consistently, anyway.
    reply to this
    shrike|6.13.11 @ 6:00PM|#

    Watch them both even with one TV device. Just stream the debate if you can stand it.

    Without Trump and Palin the debate will be limp. I will pay attention to RP but the others are all the same.
    reply to this
    Hugh Akston|6.13.11 @ 6:20PM|#

    It's a tough call as to which is a more soul-draining endurance challenge: a bunch of men trying to outdo each other in a banal generalities competition, or Canadian ice-soccer.
    reply to this
    Pro Libertate|6.13.11 @ 6:47PM|#

    [Beats Hugh with a hockey stick.]
    reply to this
    Barely Suppressed Rage|6.13.11 @ 6:21PM|#

    I'm stuck in a hotel in Los Angeles and don't give a flying fuck about watching sports on TV, so I probably will inflict the debate upon myself, given nothing better to do.
    reply to this
    Marty Feldman's Eyes|6.13.11 @ 8:03PM|#

    I'm sure you can find a Simpsons re-run you've seen 4 times already. Even that would qualify as something better to do than watch the debate.
    reply to this
    Tolly|6.13.11 @ 6:05PM|#

    Yep. As weak and corrupt as Obama's administration can be accurately be painted - more wars, high unemployment, PPACA, huge deficits/budgets - the GOP seems to be doing a goddamn perfect job shooting themselves in the face instead of mounting a serious challenge from a competent candidate.

    I don't know if it's because both parties are just the same damn flavor of rotten or if they just need to bring out the circus freaks to get any media attention, but they'll defeat themselves by never once questioning the prez on his rotten record and failed programs. Instead I get to hear GOP cheerleaders talk about one moronic candidate after another - Palin, Trump, Romney, GINGRICH?

    So long prosperity and liberty, it was nice knowing you while you were around.
    reply to this
    Pro Libertate|6.13.11 @ 6:21PM|#

    I think Obama has virtually no chance of winning, which means this race among dwarfs (Paul and Johnson excepted, of course) is very likely important.
    reply to this
    Episiarch|6.13.11 @ 6:37PM|#

    DO not underestimate Obama's chances of winning, ProL. TEAM BLUE may be annoyed with him, but all that matters in the end is TEAM BLUE and winning.
    reply to this
    Pro Libertate|6.13.11 @ 6:48PM|#

    Nah, he's toast.
    reply to this
    NadePaulKuciGravMcKi|6.13.11 @ 6:04PM|#

    ZNN censors Gary Johnson

    the red/blue party is in pure chaos
    they can't find anyone that will beat Dr Ron
    so they keep rolling out new puppets every few days

    ZNN censors Gary Johnson
    reply to this
    MFawful|6.13.11 @ 6:14PM|#

    The Republican candidates (with the exceptions of Ron Paul and, to a lesser extent Gary Johnson).

    Mitt Romney is a smart man, probably a competent leader, but he is totally unprincipled. If elected he will be Bush part 3. (Obama was Bush part 2)
    reply to this
    MFawful|6.13.11 @ 6:15PM|#

    Gah. Meant to say:

    The Republican candidates are pathetic(with the exceptions of Ron Paul and, to a lesser extent Gary Johnson).
    reply to this
    Barely Suppressed Rage|6.13.11 @ 6:18PM|#

    Speaking of the war on individual liberties, a NY Dem Assemblyman wants to pass a state law to outlaw smoking in cars if children under 14 are in the car.
    reply to this
    AC in CA|6.13.11 @ 7:13PM|#

    California just passed a law that outlaws smoking in cars if children under 18 are present... we are so very progressive here.
    reply to this
    Dan|6.13.11 @ 6:25PM|#

    Wait, the Republican Party has values?!?

    I thought they were career politicians who were bought off by lobbyists, not unlike the Democrats.
    reply to this
    GILMORE|6.13.11 @ 7:25PM|#

    +1
    reply to this
    me/dwc|6.13.11 @ 8:05PM|#

    beat me to it
    reply to this
    Anonymous Coward|6.13.11 @ 6:25PM|#

    In my view, in terms of individual liberties and fiscal responsibility, opposition to the drug war is perfectly consistent with true Republican Party values. Yet no other politicians are willing to touch this.

    Gary Johnson (as will be portrayed by the Corporate Media):

    Soft on Crime
    Anti-Police
    Pro-Drug Using Hippies
    Hates Children
    Wants the Terrorists to Win (Taliban sells opium don't you know?)
    reply to this
    Zuo|6.13.11 @ 6:30PM|#

    Hates Old Farts
    Hates Minorities
    Really Hates the Poor
    Wants to Turn All =/= Gary Johnson into his Personal Slaves
    reply to this
    Zuo|6.13.11 @ 6:32PM|#

    Hates Nature
    Wants to Lose the Future
    reply to this
    The Immaculate Trouser|6.13.11 @ 6:57PM|#

    Sort of ironic, considering that he ran on a law and order and prison reform platform as NM's governor.
    reply to this
    dunphy|6.13.11 @ 7:42PM|#

    being pro law and order and being anti-drug war are not really inconsistent

    i am very pro law and order. but that is referring to actual CRIMES. what people choose to ingest, smoke, inject, whatever... is their own fucking business.

    if and when they victimize others, i don't have a lot of sympathy
    reply to this
    sevo|6.13.11 @ 7:15PM|#

    "Hates Children"

    Naah.
    They'll claim he loves children, well-done with A-1 sauce.
    reply to this
    Jonathan Swift|6.13.11 @ 7:22PM|#

    That sounds like a modest proposal.
    reply to this
    CE|6.13.11 @ 7:35PM|#

    Ron Paul (as portrayed by the Corporate Media):

    Front-runner Mitt Romney will be attacked by heavy-hitter Michelle Bachmann and top-tier Tim Pawlenty in the debate. Newt Gingrich will try to revive his campaign with a strong performance before eventual nominee Rick Perry enters the fray. Little-known Rick Santorum will try to stand out from other fringe candidates like pizza delivery man Herman Cain and perennial candidate Ron Paul, who will also be on the stage.

    Also, Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin and prostitutes, and allow brothel owners to exclude customers based on race.
    reply to this
    .|6.13.11 @ 7:56PM|#

    Perry may very well end up as the eventual Republican nominee, with Bachmann in the VP slot. Think about it - Perry embodies the Republican establishment and Bachmann appeals to the Tea Party, which is pretty much non- establishment. The Republicans could win with that combination. It would not surprise me at all.
    reply to this
    Anonymous Coward|6.13.11 @ 8:38PM|#

    Also, Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin and prostitutes, and allow brothel owners to exclude customers based on race.

    I don't see why he would want to exclude anyone from a whorehouse based on race. After all, all p***y is pink and all dollars are green.
    reply to this
    SIV|6.13.11 @ 6:36PM|#

    Senator David Vitter's name keeps coming up. He has incredible name recognition on the left. Maybe he should run for the GOP nomination
    reply to this
    CE|6.13.11 @ 7:36PM|#

    Where? I've never seen it before.
    reply to this
    .|6.13.11 @ 7:57PM|#

    Who?
    reply to this
    rather|6.13.11 @ 7:08PM|#

    Didn't he take Tarp money to balance NM's state budget?
    reply to this
    Zuo|6.13.11 @ 7:19PM|#

    Yeah seeing as how he left office in 2003 (three).
    reply to this
    sevo|6.13.11 @ 7:23PM|#

    Gary Johnson, NM governor 1995-2003.
    TARP, signed into law 2008.
    Have a little trouble reading calendars?
    reply to this
    rather|6.13.11 @ 7:40PM|#

    I wasn't sure what money it was, ergo the question mark.

    On Fox, I heard him say he took federal money to balance the budget, and when asked, he replied along the words of: they are dumb enough to give it
    reply to this
    sevo|6.13.11 @ 8:08PM|#

    "On Fox, I heard him say he took federal money to balance the budget, and when asked, he replied along the words of: they are dumb enough to give it"

    Right.
    Why I remember someone making some comment on some TV "news" program or other and thought she meant and therefore.....
    reply to this
    rather|6.13.11 @ 8:25PM|#

    ?
    Was it someone else? I can't tell the difference between Johnson, and some of the other lesser knowns.
    reply to this
    sevo|6.13.11 @ 8:47PM|#

    rather|6.13.11 @ 8:25PM|#
    "?
    Was it someone else? I can't tell the difference between Johnson, and some of the other lesser knowns."

    And yet you posted:
    "Didn't he take Tarp money to balance NM's state budget?"

    So the obvious conclusion is that you're an ignoramus whose posts can be ignored.
    Thank you for the clarification.
    reply to this
    rather|6.13.11 @ 9:09PM|#

    Please ignore me because I will never reach your standards of perfection. I make mistakes all the time
    reply to this
    sevo|6.13.11 @ 9:35PM|#

    rather|6.13.11 @ 9:09PM|#
    "Please ignore me because I will never reach your standards of perfection..."

    Ah, yes.
    Meeting "standards of perfection" like actually having some slight knowledge of what you post about? That sort of "perfection"?
    "Perfection" isn't being asked; some minuscule level of honesty is. And isn't being met.
    reply to this
    rather|6.13.11 @ 9:44PM|#

    What the fuck more do you want? I told you I wasn't sure who said it. Fuck off
    reply to this
    sevo|6.13.11 @ 9:56PM|#

    rather|6.13.11 @ 9:44PM|#
    "What the fuck more do you want"

    For brain-dead ignoramuses to STFU.
    Oh, and fuck off, shit head.
    reply to this
    rather|6.13.11 @ 10:11PM|#

    I don't even know what to say
    reply to this
    sevo|6.13.11 @ 10:17PM|#

    "I don't even know what to say"

    Obviously.
    Which is a good reason to shut up.
    reply to this
    rather|6.13.11 @ 10:18PM|#

    just incif me, thank you
    reply to this
    sevo|6.13.11 @ 10:28PM|#

    go away
    reply to this
    dunphy|6.13.11 @ 7:30PM|#

    he's partially right. opposition to the drug war IS consisten with (true) republican values, as well as true libertarian values.

    however, asd to say, the public is not on board. let's remember, merely legalizing MARIJUANA couldn't even pass in frigging nevada of all places.

    i do think opposition to the WOD, specifically MJ is getting stronger, though.

    but as somebody who attends community meetings and talks to a lot of "average joes/janes" in my travels, there is a LOT of opposition to drugs vs. the drug war.

    sure, when it's THEIR kid, parents are sometimes more amenable to the treatment vs. punishment route, but i've even had (former) addicts tell me getting arrested was the best thing to ever happen to them

    that's just reality.
    reply to this
    Mr Whipple|6.13.11 @ 7:47PM|#

    but i've even had (former) addicts tell me getting arrested was the best thing to ever happen to them

    Probably because they had too many fucking enablers in their lives, and it took getting arrested for them to hit bottom. They don't realize it, yet, but their lives are totally fucked with a felony on their record. Getting arrested is the worst thing that could happen to an addict. I've been locked up, and I have a felony on my record, and I'll tell you it's not something I would wish on my worst enemy. The next time someone tells you that, tell them they are a dumb fucking fuck, and if they would like to be fucked in the ass again.
    reply to this
    sevo|6.13.11 @ 8:02PM|#

    "Probably because they had too many fucking enablers in their lives, and it took getting arrested for them to hit bottom."
    Aside from that, the fact that X people have "benefited" from the WODs is totally irrelevant.
    Many people "benefit" from scamming food stamps; so?
    reply to this
    dunphy|6.13.11 @ 8:28PM|#

    again, i'm just speaking some uncomfortable truths

    1) outside the rarefied climes of reason, etc. there is still a LOT of support for the WOD (although significantly less support for the WO MJ)

    2) the only crimes (and i have had this happen several times) where it's relatively common for people to thank me for arresting them are DUI's and drug stuff.

    heck, iirc even Robert Downey Jr. said that the only thing that finally got him off the addict track thang was going to jail.

    again, that's tangential to some other issues, but it is simply false to believe there is widespread support for dismantling the WOD .

    realizing that reality, the best tactic for libertarians imo is incrementalism - specifically in regards to MJ etc.

    personally, if somebody wants to come home from work and pop a roxycodone instead of a post work martini, i could not give a flying fuck, but that's MY opinion, and i am speaking about society at large
    reply to this
    sevo|6.13.11 @ 10:27PM|#

    dunphy|6.13.11 @ 8:28PM|#
    "again, i'm just speaking some uncomfortable truths..."

    Yes, there are a lot of folks who benefit from the WODs, either supposedly directly (like Downey, who's career is threatened) or indirectly, thinking they're "helping".
    And, yes, all those folks will vote for the WODs, but I'm not about to support those folks.
    reply to this
    dunphy|6.13.11 @ 8:30PM|#

    well, among other things, for most drug arrests ime the first arrest will NOT result in a felony record around here, since it's an AUTOMATIC diversion to misdemeanor, even for meth, coke, etc.

    again, your experience is different from many others i've talked to. many say that getting arrested was a good thing. others, it was a bad thing
    reply to this
    me/dwc|6.13.11 @ 8:18PM|#

    Okay, somebody help me with this. No realistic, liberty devotee believes that anything significant can or will change through politics. Nothing will stop the encroachment of the predator state or the relentless, incremental march toward fascism or will turn back the corruption which lays at the core of western civilization. At the same time everyone bends over backward to disavow any talk of significant, direct action. So what is the plan then? It is to wait for the inevitable collapse of the empire under its own wait and hope that lovers of liberty will take the wheel - which seems implausible in as much as the power elite have put in place safeguards to ensure they maintain their positions as the power elite come what may. So, I'm not seeing any options here for ever achieving a free society with liberty and justice for all. Are you? That being the case, well then, hell, bring on the Ipads and PS3's and the Dancing with the Stars and American Idol and let's all gorge ourselves on Whoppers and fries and say the hell with it. 'Cause I'm not seeing much point in doing otherwise.
    reply to this
    dunphy|6.13.11 @ 8:34PM|#

    that's utter rubbish. LOTS of significant liberty changes have happened through politics.

    DADT - politics (thanks, log cabin republicans)

    and numerous other examples. the problem is people who refuse to acknowledge that incrementalism and winning a LONGTERM war with many battles is the path, not this purity test where it's all or nothing. that's funhouse mirror libertarianism. politics is about pragmatism and the longterm battle

    stuff like yours is great for pimply teenagers in their mama's basement, but it doesn't help anything
    reply to this
    me/dwc|6.13.11 @ 8:19PM|#

    own weight, not own wait - duh.
    reply to this
    Adamson|6.13.11 @ 8:56PM|#

    How about interviewing some actual Libertarians running for the Libertarian nomination, instead of turncoats running for another party's nomination they'll never get?
    reply to this
    free2booze|6.13.11 @ 10:27PM|#
    "Johnson wants to turn the "war on drugs", into a "war on addiction", but treating addiction as a public health issue...."

    Just asking: cite please?

  • sevo||

    Oh, shit!

  • .||

    Seconded.

  • PermaLurker||

    My God Sevo! What have you created?!

  • sevo||

    Dunno.
    I'm using Firefox, and unless I watch closely, it'll run up (and copy) the entire 'comments' section.
    Shame on me for not previewing the response, but in this case (a couple of words), I'll sometimes let that pass. And get bit. And since there's no edit function, I have to rely on the squirrels to correct it.
    My apologies.

  • ||

    "Listen carefully, Hit & Runners," sevo said. "Observe the comments within comments within comments."

  • Wind Rider||

    Wet cleanup on aisle 5. Wet cleanup, aisle 5.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement