Gary Johnson: Should He Run for the LP Nomination for President?

Former two-term Gov. Gary Johnson (R-N.M.) tells the Santa Fe New Mexican that he feels "abandoned" by a Republican Party that shut him out of all but two of GOP presidential debates so far. As a result, he's mulling over the idea of running for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination.

"If I'd have been included in 16 of the last debates we wouldn't even be having this conversation," Johnson said. 

Johnson said there have been "overtures made" by the Libertarian Party. While there's no guarantee he'd win the nomination, Johnson believes he'd have a fair chance....

In early polls, Johnson's percentages were in the low single digits. In late August, a CNN poll showed Johnson ahead of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and tied with businessman Herman Cain. Huntsman, Santorum and Cain have been invited to all the debates. However, since that time, CNN's polls haven't included Johnson — which is the case with other polling organizations in recent weeks. 

It's hard to get good poll numbers if your name isn't on the poll, Johnson pointed out. 

 More here.

There's little doubt that Johnson - who unambiguously supports an end to the drug war, a non-interventionist foreign policy, reproductive rights, liberalized immigration policy, free trade, and many other libertarian position - would be the highest-profile LP candidate at least since Ron Paul hit the hustings back in 1988. As a pol who won election twice in a Democratic-heavy state and governed to bipartisan acclaim, he'd also be the first one who could point to administrative experience and success, which would surely help with publicity for the LP's existence and positions.

What say you, Hit & Run readers? Should Gary Johnson dump a GOP that just isn't that in to him and go full-frontal Libertarian?

Reason on Gary Johnson.

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.

  • ||

    Maybe if Ron Paul goes third party (indy?) he could run with Johnson. Because there is no way I'd vote for Obama and if the nominee is Gingrich or Romney you can forget it. I'd vote for Cain or Bachmann just for the lulz.

  • ||

    Don't you know that voting is for suckers?

  • ||

    Most of the time I write in some smart ass name for the offices. But there are also initiatives on most of the ballots that I want a say in. For example, we got the state of WA out of the liquor selling business this year. So I don't agree necessarily that voting is for suckers. It's one tool in a large toolbox for affecting change.

  • ||

    Voting is merely participating in a rigged, bullshit game where you have no statistical effect but when you participate you give it legitimacy. Fuck that.

  • ||

    To each his or her own, I guess. At least we're not Austrailia where voting is compulsory.

  • BakedPenguin||

    +2 sage

  • ||

    Thanks, BP. Didn't look like typitroll. I guess I need to be more discriminating.

  • -||

    Who says there are no real superheroes?

  • ||

    They just aren't in the public sector.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That said, even if it is the typitroll, the point is a valid one.

    I only place a vote if there is someone I WANT to vote for. I no longer vote against particular candidates or the lesser of two evils because that DOES legitimize a rigged game. If there is ANY 3rd party they get my vote (even the communist party of America). If not, I go and turn in a blank ballot.

  • Do Not Click||

    Voting is merely participating in a rigged, bullshit game where you have no statistical effect but when you participate you give it legitimacy. Fuck that.

    Fucking trolls.

  • ||

    You must be one of the two wolves deciding what's for lunch.

  • protefeed||

    I vote for whatever few LP candidates make it on the ballot. I've given up on the lesser of two evils thing. Fuck it, if there isn't anyone running who is within striking distance of thinking "taxation is theft" -- and virtually no R or D thinks like that except for a few outliers like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and Jeff Flake -- I blank-ballot that race.

    If I have to turn in a ballot with all the races blank-balloted, so be it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    No prob, sage. I got caught once when it sounded like someone was dragging out the purity test.

  • ||

    BakedPenguin: BlogWhore Thread Cop!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Me +1

  • ||

    Promote BP to sergeant!

  • Debbie The Bloop||

    Bloop!

  • subtext? cypher? subliminalia?||

    It's one tool in a large toolbox for affecting change.

  • ||

    Actually, that bold "a" should be an "e." Methinks that "affecting change" isn't what the original writer meant.

  • jt||

    they take your tax dollars and write laws for you regardless. not executing rights as citizenry to vote would be a real sucker. by the same logic, you pay taxes, but you should stop using public roads and post office and everything else, because that makes you 'submit' somehow and makes you a sucker. you should be off living in the woods somewhere. my bet is tho, if 99% of the people didn't vote, you would be saying 'not voting makes you a sucker' instead. warped sense of existential identity seeking.

  • Juice||

    If you push button A you vote for a punch in the face. If you push button B you vote for a punch in the gut. One or the other is going to happen, even if you don't push either button. So I guess the people who don't push either button are the suckers?

  • ||

    Also, I have yet to hear an endorsement from The Jacket. What say you, Gillespie?

  • Nicks Confidant||

    Nick never participates in the chat room "dialogue," as you are well aware, but he would like you to know that "The Jacket" meme is tiresome, and would you please move on?

  • ||

    +1 me

  • Windypundit||

    Thanks for the tip. If Gillespie is getting tired of all the Jacket references, I think that means we've got to keep it up for at least another five years. Hmmm...on the other hand...Nick Gillespie on some talk show in a suit and tie? That would be creepy...

  • ||

    Turtlenecks. He should switch to Steve Jobs-style turtlenecks.

  • BakedPenguin||

    He could be the first to recognize it's value as a pundit-ing garment.

  • Mensan||

    I can't be the only one who read this as an Archer reference.

  • wtp||

    +1

  • ||

    Nice! Love it.

  • Suki||

    The Steve Jobs turtleneck is indistinguishable from the Mussolini turtleneck. Just sayin'.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Except that Steve Jobs was a capitalist genius and Mussolini a murderous tyrant.

  • Witty Guy||

    He made the iPods run on time.

  • ||

    I think the Pirate Shirt's time has come.

    (I was going to say "I think Nick could pull off the Pirate Shirt", but that just sounded all wrong.)

  • B. Lamb||

    If Gillespie is getting tired of all the Jacket references...

    Not "if." Watch his C-SPAN interview.
    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/300260-1

  • ||

    Dude, that interview is 56 minutes long. Can you give us a more precise location?

  • ||

    That question about the jacket came in at about 4:30.

  • ||

    Well, that's embarrassing!

    But...

    If he hates us...that means...he loves us!

  • Amakudari||

    Good. So The Jacket from now on.

  • ||

    And I'm looking for a younger symbiont to attract the babes in the tight, leather pants.

  • ||

    C-

  • ||

    He would have my vote. (But I've just got to question how long one guy can tilt at windmills before he gets winded.)

  • Jon||

    It would be another flavor of the week for the LP. Johnson might get us into 1%, but would he be committed to the party? I would support a guy like R.Lee Wrights over Johnson if Johnson was simply going to re-register as a Republican after the election.

  • Dave||

    R. Lee Wrights is great, but doesn't have the governing experience.

    My chief criteria in this cycle would be whether there is any decent alternative from the other parties. If Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, I'd say Johnson should lay low until 2012. If not, then Johnson and the libertarian cause would probably be well served if he ran as a Libertarian.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    If not, then Johnson and the libertarian cause would probably be well served if he ran as a Libertarian.

    Yes - mostly because if Johnson ran as a Libertarian, he'd never be heard from again...

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    You mean till *after* 2012, right?

  • Apatheist||

    Are you kidding? This is no different than TEAM RED TEAM BLUE bullshit where loyalty to the party is more important than the candidate themselves.

  • a penny a day keeps Obama away||

    YES!

  • CalebT||

    If he officially runs as a libertarian, what will voters think of his complaints to the FEC and FCC about exclusion from the debates?

  • ||

    He should just stat stumping for Ron Paul. I want to see Paul/Johnson running against Obama/Biden.

  • ||

    Well I wouldn't suggest that. Johnson is the better candidate. He has real executive experience, both as a businessman and a governor. This is stuff that shows how liberty works in theory and in practice.

  • ||

    Agreed, but since Johnson has an even slimmer chance of getting the nomination than Paul does, I'll take this as Plan B.

  • ||

    I think having somebody who has actually been elected to an executive office and who served ably in that position while also agreeing with (and enthustiastically defending) pretty much every plank in the party platform would be a slam dunk for the party. The party should be actively courting him.

  • ||

    No, he shouldn't. The Libertarian Party is a dysfunctional organization and the libertarian movement is better off the more it is marginalized. He had nothing to gain from association with it.

  • Maxxx||

    No shit.

    It'd be better for him to be another libertarian Senator. Which he could be.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Both of the above make good points. Fuck the LP.

  • Lon||

    Actually, Johnson has specifically said that he will not run for congress nor the senate on the grounds that those offices require a completely different skill set than he has (which is part of the reason that Mr Obama has been as unsuccessful as he has; he's a legislator trying to be an executive)

  • Fred B||

    No. The reelection of Barack Obama would be a disaster for economic freedom and civil discourse, no matter who the GOP nominee is.

  • ||

    The one Republican candidate I'd never vote for is Romney. I'd even take Perry over Obama, but Romney's not an option. I'd have to self-mutilate like that monk in The Da Vinci Code for the rest of my life to feel clean or right ever again if I voted for Romney.

  • ||

    To clarify, that means I just wouldn't vote -- because I'd sooner castrate myself with a spoon than vote for anybody of Obama's ilk.

  • Ice Nine||

    Get over yourself, Res - I say with respect, not disdain. It is not about you - or me, both of whom are Obama haters and both of whom would love to see a Paul/Johnson Repub ticket (dream on). It is all about ending the Obama reign of destruction at all costs, even voting for Romney if we must. All of this "I would never vote for Romney (Gingrich, et al)" and "I just won't vote" stuff is fatally pernicious mental masturbation that can only benefit Obama.

  • ||

    OTOH, an Obama reelection would put the last nail into the GOPs coffin and hopefully pave the way for an actual alternative to the big government parties we have running the show right now.

  • Ice Nine||

    I have two words for you:
    supreme
    court

  • BakedPenguin||

    Who would Romney pick as his Souter?

  • Ice Nine||

    Who knows. No one as bad as Soto or Kagan anyway.

  • ||

    I guess the bottom line is that no matter who wins, the people lose.

  • ||

    I'd take the risk of a Souter over the certainty of a Kagan.

    And don't forget the same guy who screwed up on Souter appointed the most libertarian justice since the 1920s.

  • MNG||

    "And don't forget the same guy who screwed up on Souter appointed the most libertarian justice since the 1920s."

    Would that be the guy who thought it was A-OK for a school official to strip search a 13 year old girl?

    Far be it for me to be the one to inform you, but if that is your most libertarian justice since the 1920's then you've got a funny libertarianism there...

  • Elder Scrolls Enthusiast AuH20||

    I think it's a case of perfect not being the enemy of good. I think that the only arguables against Thomas are Reinquist and Sandra Day O'Conner. O'Conner was pretty cool with government power when it came to things like campaign finance, Rehnquest (along with Thomas) bad on gay rights.

    I mean, MNG, can you name one justice who has been more consistent on limiting government power since the 1920s than Thomas?

  • MNG||

    Sorry, but Thomas, apart from being terrible in favoring police/prosecutors over the accused, argued for unlimited executive detainment powers, strict requirements to get past qualified immunity defenses for government officials, against the right of privacy and thinks the establishment clause should not apply to the states! Being the solo dissent in the 13 year old search case was not some aberration. Far from being the "best of the worst" on the SCOTUS I'd argue he is the worst. And that's using libertarianism as the metric...

  • MNG||

    The best a libertarian can say about Thomas is that he sometimes can be counted on to rule against regulatory agencies (but see where he landed on the euthansia cases where the Bushies used regulation to put the euthansia drugs used in Oregon under the CSA), voted to protect a home from thermal imaging (it was critical for him it was a home, Thomas and Scalia want to return to the old "trespass" analysis of searches vs. the "expectation of privacy" analysis, it's certainly not obvious the former would be a liberty plus) and he wanted to end federal drug enforcement of purely interstate drug production/possession (but given every state has its own laws in those areas, what's the big deal?).

  • MNG||

    And you can't give him much credit on the First Amendment either. Even if you are glad to see him back corporate and commercial speech, you have to note his rulings in, say, the cross-burning case (Virginia v. Black) or some of the COPA cases.

    In short, where he's good it's pretty qualified, and where he's bad (gutting habeas corpus, which might be the 'original' libertarian law in the Anglo-American tradition; finding a strip search of a 13 year old girl reasonable, etc) he's an egregious government toady.

  • MNG||

    "MNG, can you name one justice who has been more consistent on limiting government power since the 1920s than Thomas?"

    What about William O Douglas? He's known as perhaps the strongest proponent of the First Amendment* (establishment cases, speech and religion, before it was cool too), good on the rights of the accused, and led the way in creating the right to privacy.

    *"No justice in Supreme Court history has ever showed a stronger commitment to freedom of speech than William O. Douglas, who served on the Court for a record 36-plus years."

    http://www.firstamendmentcente.....t-defender

  • juris imprudent||

    Good ol' "penumbras and emanations" Douglas?

    I prefer someone who can actually read the words to one who gets his context from the white spaces.

  • protefeed||

    Far be it for me to be the one to inform you, but if that is your most libertarian justice since the 1920's then you've got a funny libertarianism there...

    No, it means there haven't been * excessively * libertarian justices appointed by a Republicat president and confirmed by a Republicat congress since the 1920s or so, and thus Clarence Thomas is the best of a very bad lot.

  • Tony||

    What specifically has Obama done that you object to, and that Romney would be superior on?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I can answer that:

    Obama exists.

    Romney... well, fuck Romney. He sucks, too.

  • ||

    Nuthin' it's just like all of those Bush haters that though that once we got rid of him things would be hunky-dory. Things actually got worse though, because the man at the top isn't the entire system; he's just a symbol.

    So you vote for Romney, what have you fucking changed? Have you gotten rid of the thousands of lesser Napoleons that populate the elected offices of our country? What about the millions of petty, power hungry bureaucrats that drain our economy and infringe on our rights? Wait, wait, how about the tens of millions of voting busybodies that think they can run your life better than you can, have they disappeared? Obama will be gone from office but the disease remains.

    Fuck the GOP and fuck the people who vote for them. Fuck the democrats and fuck the people who vote for them.

  • Tony||

    How have things gotten worse?

    I think the choice of president does matter significantly, just not to the extent of satisfying anyone's purist demands (liberal or libertarian).

    On the economy, employment, torture, warmongering, almost anything you can think of, things have actually gotten better since the last days of Bush. Just not perfect.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wow. What a benchmark.

    Now, let's shoot for "better than Obama".

  • Tony||

    Obama plus a Democratic congress.

    Just a wild guess here, the Republicans in congress are mostly blameless for the state of the country?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Obama plus a Democratic congress"

    So, you want one-party rule.

    How much have Democrats spent/ruined the country since Bush left town?

    I know, I know... you consider your Team to be golden. So, you won't answer that question honestly. It's still fun to ask it, though.

  • ||

    Yep things are going great for the stockholders in the warfare industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, the giant insurance companies, the large investment banks, and the corporations that gave money to the Obama campaign,but for everyone else things pretty much suck.

    So please take your bullshit somewhere else you warmongering, sockpuppeting, corporate whore.

  • Tony||

    I'm not claiming my hands are clean, but I am saying that yours aren't either. Any choice you make in an election benefits either a Republican or a Democrat. Making others do the dirty work of voting doesn't absolve you. It's your government whether you like it or not. Doing literally the least you can do to change it doesn't earn you cosmic brownie points.

  • ||

    Dishonest Tony is dishonest, what a surprise.

  • protefeed||

    It's your government whether you like it or not.

    It is not, any more than the local mafiosa would be "my" mafia.

    Let me repeat -- the gang of thugs and thieves who steal my money and my freedom and not MY gang of thugs and thieves. The deficits they run up are not my deficits. Their many screwups are not my screwups.

  • JT||

    torture, that's it. He stopped torturing at Gitmo. Or actually, it had already stopped, and he ended it officially. Where could you possibly be getting employment getting better?

  • Tony||

    Jobs were being lost at an enormous rate at the end of the Bush term, and now they are growing (albeit very anemically). Link

  • thirtyandseven||

    LOL this is great. "See! Obama found rock bottom, and got a minuscule rebound from the sheer force of hitting it so damn hard! Thus, his policies are better."

  • Maxxx||

    He stopped torturing at Gitmo. Or actually, it had already stopped, and he ended it officially.

    Until the next big terrorist attack.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    On the economy, employment, torture, warmongering, almost anything you can think of, things have actually gotten better since the last days of Bush. Just not perfect.

    Okay, I think we can safely say that Tony is a sockpuppet.

  • Bill||

    Unemployment is about the same. It got worse and now slightly better in the last few weeks.

    Pretty much the same on warmongering, worse if you count Libya. Bush never said he could assassinate anyone he wanted. I guess we have a different definition of better. But Bush sure did suck too.

  • Butchered Libyan Babies||

    Pretty much the same on warmongering, worse if you count Libya.

    That would be thoughtful of you, yes.

  • ||

    You have to be fucking kidding me Tony. Seriously. Obama assassinated an American citizen on foreign soil, started a third fucking war, employment is still in the 9's, the economy is shit and he had a democratic house and a filibuster proof senate for two years. You can cry all you fucking want but they had plenty of time to try and fix shit and instead they focused on obamacare. Fuck you, you hack.

  • ||

    Fuck the GOP and fuck the people who vote for them. Fuck the democrats and fuck the people who vote for them.

    So the only people you approve of are the ones who sit on the sidelines and complain. Very telling, young L.

  • ||

    That you see people that don't vote for team red or blue as sitting on the sidelines is very telling as well.

    And the idea that all you have to do is sit on your fat ass for four years and vote for some shithead wearing an American flag lapel pin that's just like the other shithead wearing an American flag lapel pin to change things is fucking laughable.

    Let me clue you in on something, asshole, when you go into that booth and pull the lever for Romney(like we all know that you're going to do) YOU'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING.

  • veemee sashimi||

    "So the only people you approve of are the ones who sit on the sidelines and complain."

    That's damned well not what he said and you know it. It ain't a yes/no initiative. Just because third parties are generally screwed by the system, doesn't mean you can't actually vote for them. Also, occasionally one breaks through and does some damage (like Perot nationally, or Ventura in Minnesota).

    I'm actually more sympathetic to "lesser of two evils" and other types of "strategic voting" than most on here, but it's hard to blame someone who looks at what the two parties are likely to offer this time around and pass on both of them.

  • protefeed||

    Fuck the GOP and fuck the people who vote for them. Fuck the democrats and fuck the people who vote for them.

    So the only people you approve of are the ones who sit on the sidelines and complain. Very telling, young L.

    Voting for the non-R and non-D candidates on the ballot is not fucking "sitting on the sidelines".

    That is all.

  • ||

    So you vote for Romney, what have you fucking changed? Have you gotten rid of the thousands of lesser Napoleons that populate the elected offices of our country? What about the millions of petty, power hungry bureaucrats that drain our economy and infringe on our rights? Wait, wait, how about the tens of millions of voting busybodies that think they can run your life better than you can, have they disappeared? Obama will be gone from office but the disease remains.

    Well, if we're going to be totally blunt about everything, there's the fact that we're all going to get old and die anyway so nothing really matters. Thus a person who was truly rational and didn't do things that didn't matter would simply curl up on the floor and die of thirst.

  • ||

    Are you stupid, or something?

    Here I'll explain it to you since you need someone to point out this simple shit to you:

    1.) If you are for a smaller more restricted government then voting for a Republican(save two that I can think of) isn't going to help.

    2.)Voting alone won't change the systemic statism that has become endemic in our country. It's going to take a lot of hard work changing people's minds from the bottom up.

    3.) Voting for a state-friendly republican not only won't get us any closer to the goal of limited government, but is actually harmful to that goal by legitimatizing statist/statist, RED/BLUE dichotomy that our system currently operates under.

  • ||

    As usual, things that people think are obvious, and feel the need to insult those who disagree, are not obvious at all.

    1. Voting GOP will make govt smaller than it would be if the Dems continue to call the shots. True, it might not make it decrease in size from where it currently is, but a smaller increase is better than a bigger increase. You have to accept the fact that, whatever the Reason-Dupe polls say, the majority likes the effects of bigger govt even if they claim not to like the idea of it. It is what it is.

    2. Yes, but voting doesn't prevent you from working to change people's minds. We should do both, not pick one or the other.

    3. The govt's perceived legitimacy doesn't depend on whether or not any particular person, or even a fairly large group of people, vote. If you could get turnout down to 1% then that might have an impact, but that's not happening.

    It seems to me that a lot of "principled nonvoters" are just trying to dodge some sort of imagined "responsibility" for the bad actions of the winner of the election. Which strikes me as a starkly childish attitude.

  • ||

    1.) Prove it.

    2.)Sure it does. Electing big government fuck ups under the guise of limited government hurts the cause more than helps.

    3.)Please read what I wrote again.

    I don't understand people's problems with nonvoters. If someone doesn't have a candidate that they wish to vote for why should they waste their time?

    I usually vote, but only for a candidate that I'd like to see be president.

  • Old Man With Candy||

    Voting Replican for president helps when congress is Democrat. Voting Democrat for president helps when congress is Republican. That's my strategy until the LP pulls its head out of its ass and nominates someone who can get massive fawning press coverage instead of opportunistic slugs like Barr.

  • ||

    Gridlock means status quo. There are worse alternatives, but it's not something to strive for.

    It's too late to put bars in the windows -- Freddy's already in the house, to use a horror metaphor.

  • ||

    Prove it? You prove your shit first, or are you Jesus or something that your statements are automatic truth.

    Arguing with you guys is one hell of a waste of time.

  • Tony||

    The only thing missing from your argument Tulpa is the fact that Republicans have always proven themselves to be the bigger government party, despite rhetoric, if you define it as spending. If what you really care about is putting more vulnerable people out on the streets, the GOP will do more for "small government" than you give them credit for.

  • johnl||

    BHO is a much better president than GWB. GWB created a bipartisan socialist consensus, and BHO destroyed that. GWB destroyed a a GOP majority in Congress and BHO repaired it. GWB smothered GOP economic conservatives and BHO fanned a conservative revolt in the GOP. BHO made Paul Ryan a household name and elected Rand Paul.

  • protefeed||

    What specifically has Obama done that you object to, and that Romney would be superior on?

    Obama has yet to run a budget deficit of under a trillion years a year, IIRC, and as bad as Romney is, I think he'd be more Bush Jr. levels of bad on that, sub-trillion levels of bad.

    I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe Romney could be fiscally worse than fucking Obama.

  • Maxxx||

    What specifically has Obama done that you object to, and that Romney would be superior on?

    I fucking hate Romney, but he absolutely would not be as anti business in his rhetoric or appointments to regulatory agencies.

    The real threat that Romney poses is that he will cut back some of what Obama has done and not push things further. The economy will rebound to some extent and the Obama policies that Romney did not rollback will become centrist as a result. Setting the stage for the next democrat president to push for more socialism.

    So, in the short term the economy will be better under Romney but long term his election will be worse than a 2nd Obama administration.

  • Name Nomad||

    Uh oh. I think this is dangerously close to the first play of the "this is the most important election since..." card.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The really pernicious attitude is that we must replace Obama with Whiter Obama. It's stupid and will lead to a catastrophic 'choice' in 2016.

  • Apatheist||

    Fuck you Ice Nine. I won't vote for Romney or Gingrich just like I didn't vote for McCain. I'm not on your TEAM and there are more than two choices. If the GOP wants my vote they can't nominate someone who isn't a statist fuck.

  • ||

    But voting for anybody but the Republican or Democratic candidates won't get you anywhere. I'd still rather not vote for Romney, but if I had to, I'd take him over Obama, obviously.

    Like I said, shitty choices are shitty choices. What the fuck can we do?

  • Apatheist||

    It's not obvious to me that Romney is better than Obama. Maybe Gingrich but not enough.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Sorry, Apatheist, but putting social cons in charge isn't an upgrade.

  • Apatheist||

    What? I'm saying that Republicans aren't necessarily upgrades? Are you saying we should vote for Romney because the alternative is putting the socons in charge?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I would begrudgingly take socons over hard-left liberals, but the difference between the two is less than a pubic hair.

  • protefeed||

    Like I said, shitty choices are shitty choices. What the fuck can we do?

    Quit making shitty choices, and vote for the LP candidate who actually somewhat represents your political beliefs.

  • ||

    Would it help if I covertly admitted I'd vote for Romney over Obama, if we're really getting down to total reality?

    *Covertly admits it*

    I guess my hope was more that we WOULDN'T have to face that choice, but I see your point completely, and I agree.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    It is all about ending the Obama reign of destruction at all costs

    ThreadWin.

    SanityWin.

    AwarenessWin.

  • alienrants||

    +1 all remaining points.

  • ||

    Ice Nine|11.26.11 @ 12:17PM|#
    Get over yourself, Res

  • BakedPenguin||

    +1 RPA

  • ||

    Promote BP to lieutenant!

  • ||

    Romney is a fucking phony. Gingrich is a dung pile. I won't vote for either of them.

  • ||

    I hope to whatever God there may be in the clouds that the universe doesn't give us such a cruel choice (Obama or Romney/Gingrich). I'll lose all faith in luck at that point.

  • ||

    The lesser of two evils is the greater of two evils.

  • ||

    The Libertarian Party gets absolutely nowhere every time. If I were him, I'd go for being Paul's vice-president.

  • ||

    This ^

  • ||

    Maybe Romney could reach out a bit and pick Johnson as VP....

  • mad libertarian guy||

    He should run as the (L) candidate only if Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination.

  • Mike E||

    Then at least I know I could vote for someone who isn't evil in the general election.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Pretty much what I was thinking. Romney vs. Obama is a joke, not a choice. I'd vote LP as a protest vote - the actual person running wouldn't matter.

    Of course, I'll do that anyway unless the R candidate is Johnson or Paul.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    ^^THIS^^

    I'll vote for ANY 3rd party (even the Communist Party) unless Paul or Johnson wins the nomination.

  • ||

    Above, I was spewing hyperbole, but that's just the tipping point -- I really WOULD rather castrate myself with a spoon than vote for those red mother-fuckers. Fuck the Communist Party to the seventh plane of Hell.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I've never voted for the commie party. BUt given the choice between Obama, Romney/Gingrich/some other Team REDtard, and the Commie party, it's the commie party all the way.

    It's a protest vote all the way, and further encourages 3rd parties to enter the fray.

    I voted for Barr in 08. I voted for Rand Paul last year, and turned in an empty ballot for the rest.

  • Ice Nine||

    I'd vote LP as a protest vote - the actual person running wouldn't matter.

    Like I said, mental masturbation. It feels good; it doesn't affect a damn thing; and no one knows what you did nor do they give a shit if they did.

  • ||

    I'd say that voting for a minor party would have a larger effect than voting for the winner or loser among a D/R.

    It seems to me that increasing the amount of a smaller number of votes by one would be more significant than increasing or decreasing the winning/losing margin of the major party candidate.

    One vote isn't going to turn the election so voting is just a form of political speech and contributing to a larger vote total might give the eventual winner something to think about.

  • Ice Nine||

    Tell it to Al Gore.

  • El Duderino||

    The problem with the LP is that their positions, no matter how good and agreeable to many libertarians, do not fit onto a bumper sticker very easily. Sure, you could put the word "liberty" on a bumper sticker, but we all know that our current political environment has trained people to expect government policy and unfortunately, "liberty" is not easily translated into a legislative policy, mostly because liberty, more often than not emerges from the absence of legislation.

  • ||

    Most people don't look for reliable, static governments that are structured to execute a small collection of legitimate powers with as little expansion as possible, but for fluid, one-man-leads-us/one-small-group-of-people-leads-us sort of efficiency-based entities that steamroll through legislation and grow large enough to do everything.

  • ||

    In general, people don't want leaders for themselves. They want leaders for their neighbors.

  • ||

    Yeah, the idea of "I'm an exception to the universal rule of people are dumb as shit and require constant rulers" statists hold so dear is something I hope we can push back at some point.

  • El Duderino||

    The power to make laws is the most corrupting power of all. It should be next to impossible, if not totally impossible to create law. In fact, it should be easier to create restrictions on state power than it is for the state to take power (by making law). Lawmakers are the only stupid people we should worry about.

  • El Duderino||

    New congressional pay system:

    Base: $10 an hour

    Stay home and don't vote: $200 an hour

    Vote on new legislation: Fine of $1000 per page of legislation.

    Propose new legislation: Fine of $10,000 per page.

    And when your out of office at the end of your legally allowed one year term, you cannot be employed by or receive benefiet of any kind from any entity that may have benefited from any legislation passed in the last decade.

  • ||

    And your point's very demonstrable; here's the LP's position of economic policy:

    "Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic
    success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each
    person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of
    government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a
    legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute
    wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society."

    There's no grand legislative program to FIX THE UNIVERSE, so it won't foment revolutionary fervor as much as a leftist's FAIRNESS TO ALL bullshit might.

  • El Duderino||

    And that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

  • ||

    NO GROPING AND NO GRABBING!

    COPS AND SOLDIERS ARE BANKRUPTING US!

    YOU WANT MY GUNS? COME AND GET THEM!

    PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ARE PARASITES!

    TAXATION IS THEFT!

  • El Duderino||

    Fair enough.

  • ||

    I thought of numbers 1-4 in about three minutes. Number 5, of course has been around a long time.

  • veemee sashimi||

    I don'tthink that's the problem with the LP. The problems as I see it:

    1) It's not particularly well run or organized.

    2) They are horrible at the "politics" side of political activism.

  • El Duderino||

    I guess it's fair to say that the LP is not very good at politics, but since libertarianism strives for a smaller less involved (or not at all involved) state then political maneuvering and the ambition for power are likely going to be character traits missing from most LP candidates. The problem is that our political system rewards political ambition (the desire to use legislation to "fix" society) because it's easy to point out a "problem" and make up "solution" that requires new legislation than it is to allow the natural consequences of life sort out the "problems". Everybody has been conditioned to expect legislative solutions, so those promising to avoid legislation seem indifferent to or worse, complicit in causing the "problem".

    Candidates are given thirty seconds to explain their solution to a problem so it's easier to say "If elected, I'll strengthen our national drug enforcement laws so that our boys in blue have the tools they need to bring these scoundrels to justice" than it is to say, "I would abolish our drug laws because it is a matter of individual choice whether or not a person wants to smoke pot or shoot heroine. . . " and that's when the sound bite ends, but really we all know there is more to that sound bite but we won't be listening, because our LP candidate has used his allotted time up already. We won't get to have a conversation about individual liberty, about the natural consequences of choice or the consequences (nevermind the irony) of the use of force to keep the peace. No, instead, we will have the only candidate who according to the "press" wants everyone in America to become addicted to smack by the end of his term.

    I have hope that 24 hour media and the Internet will give us the means to have a real rational conversation, but the technology is still too new. We as a race have just begun to adapt to digital media. In the industrial era, we feared that skilled workers, like gunsmiths would disappear and they did and it seemed like we were all becoming stupid automatons and we were, but eventually people gave up trying to be skilled at gun smithery and learned how to build better assembly lines or came up with new inventions, which would have never made it to market without the economies of the assembly line. Twenty four hour news and twitter are the early versions of the assembly line, they seem to be making people dumber, but in the long run, we will learn how to use these tools to more effectively communicate. And no I don't consider arranging a protest march via twitter a sign that we have adapted. Paul Revere started a revolution on horseback, twitter may be a bit faster than that, but it's still pretty much the same thing and the revolution would have happened regardless. Twitter didn't set the middle east on fire, the desire for freedom (and probably some dickheads in the Muslim brotherhood) did.

    When the communication of ideas becomes powerful enough to actually break down the cognitive dissonance put in place and reinforced by our current duopoly, then we will have adapted enough for the new media to truely enhance the saring of knowledge. And when people begin to see liberty through an unmuddied lense, the LP will have no problem getting organized or winning elections.

  • Jaunty Killer Barry||

    ...has, by way of NATO helicopter attacks, killed more Pakistani troops in Pakistan. This while OWS, Black Friday and the wrecked banking system provides distraction for the Nobel Peace Laureate to attempt yet another regime change -- in a nuclear-bomb-equipped country. WHEEEE!

    All this while out on the back nine.

  • ||

  • ||

    Going for 8 in a row against scUM.

    O-H...

  • ||

    Yes!!!!!! 7-0. But Braxton Miller still sucks.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    Wow, you're not kidding. I'm a Michigan fan and even I feel bad about how bad he is. Takes a special level of suckitude to miss all those wide open TD passes.

  • No way Woody beats Bo||

  • ||

    National Championships:
    Woody - 5
    Bo - 0

    Rose Bowl Wins:
    Woody - 4
    Bo - 2

    National Coach of the Year:
    Woody - 2
    Bo - 1

  • ||

    Left coaching ignominiously:

    Woody - 1
    Bo - 0

  • ||

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

  • Bo beats Woody today||

    40-34, hail to the victors valiant and all that.

  • ||

    Sloopy, does the name of Charlie Bauman mean anythng to you?

  • ||

    Sloopy, does the name of Charlie Bauman mean anythng to you?

    Wasn't that the character whose penalty got stopped by Stallone in "Victory"?

  • ||

    **pops cork on bottle of Cristal, '93**

    The Fickell Era is over! The reign of Saint Urban I begins.

  • ||

    No dog in the Buckeye / Big Blue rivalry, but I just wanted to balance out the scoreboard.

    I think that you are younger than me and might not remember Woody's last game. I do.

  • ||

    I know Charlie Bauman, and I remember the play (I was 8 when it happened). IIRC, the best part of it was Keith Jackson's call. He's watching a slo-mo replay of the uppercut, and says something like, "I can't tell what's happening. There may be a scuffle."
    The man was speechless.

    I can remember my dad looking at the TV and saying, "Well, that oughta do it for Woody," and turning the TV off.

  • Uh,||

    All I know is that I went to Michigan Stadium way back when with a 105,000 strong standing-room-only crowd. After Go Blue won the game I somehow found myself with the crowd rushing onto the field and hanging onto the goalpost crossbar while it came down.....

  • ||

    I briefly met Johnson back when he was the gov and I lived in NM. He seems like a cool guy but I think a good part of the blame for his anonymity has to rest on his shoulders. Of course the media is going out of it's way to ignore him but if he was really serious about this he'd be busting his ass campaigning and he doesn't seem to be doing that. Or maybe he is and I'm not aware of it.

  • Ice Nine||

    Yep. And shouldn't he be suing someone to get his deserved spot in those debates? The dude's problem is that he is pathologically phlegmatic. That alone would hurt him even if he were the Repub prez candidate.

  • ||

    I'm sort of on the fence about that. It's like the supposed abomination Ayn Rand taking social security but, yeah, it isn't very ethically consistent and wasn't a very smart political move.

  • Mensan||

    Good job, Ice Nine. You made me look up a word.

  • Ice Nine||

    A crushing blow to a Mensan, I'm sure.

  • Mensan||

    Not at all. My commendation was sincere. I enjoy learning new things.

  • Ice Nine||

    Understood. Me too. Hell, I had to look up "Mensan". (jk)

  • Neu Mejican||

    I briefly met Johnson back when he was the gov and I lived in NM. He seems like a cool guy but I think a good part of the blame for his anonymity has to rest on his shoulders.

    He's a cool enough guy. He isn't a particularly good politician and he is not a good manager...at least in terms of anything that requires attention to detail. He didn't get many of his proposals implemented and the ones he did get implemented were not implemented well (c.f., the riots/murders in his privatized prisons...he just dropped the ball on that. Assumed that "privatizing" was all it would take...didn't seem to care if the private company had the resources, skills, or approach that would give the results desired).

    If he were to win, given that the current Congress can't get anything done anyway, Johnson's veto pen would just make sure that nothing significant changes while he is in office. He is certainly getting the short end of the stick from the media...but he is from NM, it is to be expected.

  • Otter||

    "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part."

    (I keed, I keed. I like Gary Johnson, and have no quarrel if he wants to run as a Libertarian. Eff Romney.)

  • Croesus||

    No, he should stay GOP and run for Senator for NM. Running for President on the LP ticket will get him nothing more than a footnote in a history book, while being a senator will allow him to actually promote his ideas and give him a national platform from which to try again in 2016 if he wishes.

  • ||

    I like Johnson a lot better than Ron Paul.

    I'd stick to principled non-voting rather than vote for Ron Paul, but if Johnson were on the LP ticket, it might entice me to cast a protest vote.

  • Tony||

    What principle are you expressing, exactly?

    Because seems like the only thing in the universe that gains any benefit from your "principled" action is your own ego. Why should that matter to anybody?

  • ||

    It's Tony. Hey everybody, Tony's here. How ya doin', Tony?

  • Ray||

    I lurk here quite often, occasionally leave a comment, but from watching you defend your positions, Tony I've gathered that nothing you say, absolutely nothing, is worth any value, simply because you, and those like you, believe in force to achieve your goals. It all comes down to force with you and your brethren, Tony.

  • Tony||

    So if someone trespasses on your property, you must let them come and take whatever they want? Or do you want a man with a gun to shoot them in the face? Spare me. You think the ONLY thing government should do is shoot people in the face, and you lecture me about force?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "must let them come and take whatever they want" is Wh... Ind...-speak, Tony.

    "shoot people in the face" is just plain crazy talk, and why you chose that particular phrase shows how intellectually uncurious you are about libertarianism, or any derivation thereof.

  • Tony||

    Libertarianism is apparently against government force, except the force of shooting people in the face for trespassing on your lawn or invading the country.

    Government is force, so unless you're an anarchist (in which case trespassing has no meaning), then you're in fact only for government doing the most forceful things in its power.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "in the face"

    Honestly, Tony, this is beneath even your usual low standards.

    Why you gripe about the use of force, while being a Democrat simultaneously...

  • Tony||

    I'm griping about rank hypocrisy. Of course I'm for the use of force in certain instances. Just like you.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What YOU want force used on, is disgusting:

    Force people in certain income brackets to pay a ridiculous amount in taxes

    Force everyone to buy health insurance

    Force people to change their diets and driving habits


    ...and that's just a few.

  • Tony||

    None of which is quite as bad as shooting someone in the face, the type of force you're totally in favor of.

    Also, there's nothing ridiculous about the tax rates I favor. You'd say that no matter how low they were or how little they'd increase. You'd throw a fit every single time any tax is raised one cent. I am not the dogmatist here.

    And fat people with no health insurance who drive recklessly are a threat and a cost to other people. It's another form of force, just one people don't get to vote for.

  • Like killing Afgan children?||

    In the name Obama's National Security.

  • Sevo||

    "Libertarianism is apparently against government force, except the force of shooting people in the face for trespassing on your lawn or invading the country"

    You sleazy, lying shithead.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Where the fuck did you get this "shoot in the face" thing, Tony? I've read the LP platform twice just now, and can't find it anywhere.

    Perhaps you made it up.

  • Tony||

    You're for armed defense and police power to keep people off your property. Among the only things you think government should do is literally shoot people. But a tax penalty for not having health insurance is too much force.

  • Britt||

    Except what happens if you don't pay your taxes?

    Well they send a notice to appear in court.

    What happens if you refuse?

    Men with guns will drag you in front of a court.

    What happens if you resist this kidnapping?

    Well, in your words, you'll get shot in face.

    The fact is Tony, all governmental force is lethal force, because the government always reserves the power to kill to itself to force compliance. If you do not comply it will steal, then kidnap you, then kill you.

    You applaud yourself because in the your fantasy world, the velvet glove replaces the mailed fist. The fist is still there Tony, even though you're too stupid to see it.

  • Tony||

    You're right Britt, government "enforces" law and order. It's against the law not to pay taxes. I'm not disputing there's force (or the threat thereof) involved. That's how it works and if you have a better idea how to get people off your lawn I'd like to hear it.

  • Britt||

    Fences?

  • ||

    Some of us here will never give our consent to any mob acting under the color of law to shoot anybody.

    Tony, the use of force is only acceptable to defend one's life or physical well being or the the lives of others and their physical well being against the aggression of others.

  • Sevo||

    "You're for armed defense and police power to keep people off your property."

    Yes, shithead, I prefer a police force to prevent theft.
    You, shithead, prefer armed force to enforce theft.

  • lurker||

    You're for armed defense and police power to keep people off your property. Among the only things you think government should do is literally shoot people.

    I'm sure you know this and are just being disingenuous, but just like in current society, shooting people should be the last resort of police force. Ever noticed any of the Reason articles about cops busting in on the wrong house and shooting a dog or an old lady or traumatizing a kid? How about the articles about someone getting attacked by police at an Occupy Wall Street protest? Or the ones about beating a guy near to death after he was already detained? Or basically anything written by Radley Balko before he left?

    None of them are sympathetic to the idea of police using more force than what's necessary. But hey, maybe you missed every one of these articles. Somehow. Maybe you're innocent and misunderstood. You're willing to try to understand libertarians to the best of your ability and just happened to not see any of the dozens of articles about police brutality this year. Somehow. They were posted at the wrong time of day, or something. Yeah, that's it. You never see any of the ensuing police-hating comments that have dunphy playing defense every day.

    Whatever the case, lethal force against civilians by police is justified if and only if those civilians demonstrate their own willingness to use lethal force against somebody else, like firing their own guns into a crowd. Everything else should be handled with handcuffs and occasionally tear gas.

  • ||

    lethal force is EXCEPTIONALLY rarely used by cops.

    as i noted (with actual stats) for those ragging on UOF's with Seattle PD, Seattle PD has a much lower rate of UOF (both lethal and non-lethal) than the national average too. about 1/3

    the legal justification for legal force whether against civilians by police, or by civilians against others, is imo just about right.

    if somebody breaks into your home, you shouldn't have to wait for them to "demonstrate their willingness to use lethal force" nor under my state's law do you have to.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Depends how HOW and WHY someone is on my property.

    If it's accidental, or if there is no ill intent, I give half a shit if someone is on my doorstep or in my yard.

    If, however, someone is, say... slashing my tires or in my car to steal stuff out of it... or trying to break in/already in my home... THEN, it's kosher to shoot.

    Duh.

  • ||

    you seriously think it SHOULD be justified to use deadly force against somebody breaking into your car (i assume you are referring to your unoccupied car), or slashing your tires?

    seriously?

    i find it kind of ironic fwiw, that while many of the reasonoids think cops have way too much authoritah to use force (in general), let alone deadly force, that many here think people should be allowed to use deadly force for nonviolent misdemeanors if it occurs against their sacred property

    quite a bizarre disconnect, or dare i say it - double standard.

    i will agree with you on breaking into your home (occupied). but that's already kosher under the law, at least in my state

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shit, dunphy, we used to shoot looters. Stopped that shit cold, back in the day.

    But, seriously? No, I wouldn't shoot someone for slashing my tires... not in the head, anyway.

    Not big on the sarcasm of "sacred property", though. That kind of shit is, well, shit.

  • ||

    tennessee v. garner put a stop to the shootin' the fleeing felon thang (assuming a nonviolent felony)...

    thank god.

    granted, the crimes mentioned (slashing tires and breaking into a car) are usually misdemeanors where i work, and they don't even involve fleein'

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It just amazes me, how many people view property destruction as "meh, no big deal".

    Earlier this year, a Muslim worship center was spray-painted and had some windows broken. The local liberals went apeshit - the same liberals who like to say "meh, no big deal" when, say, the local Republican HQ got vandalized - and the same liberals who threw a shit-fit when their HQ got vandalized.

  • ||

    I love how you conveniently forget, the trespassers forcefully violated the property owner's rights first........douchebag.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Libertarianism is apparently

    All this time, trolling here, and he still doesn't know.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    All this time, trolling here, and he still doesn't know.

    He knows perfectly well.He's just being a douchebag by baiting the rest of us.

  • ||

    "Libertarianism is apparently against government force, except the force of shooting people in the face for trespassing on your lawn or invading the country."

    This libertarians holds that the only justification for the use of government force is when it's being used to protect someone's rights.

    If you have a case to make that a particular use of government force is justified because it's protecting someone's rights, you should make your case in those terms.

    If you want to defend ObamaCare sicing the IRS on people who are too poor to afford health insurance--because you imagine that's somehow justified because it's protecting someone else's right to free or cheap healthcare?

    You won't find a lot of libertarians who are gonna sympathize with that argument, but that's the way you need to frame your argument if you want to persuade libertarians.

    Seriously, "libertarians" are people who believe in defending our liberties. That many of us will support the use of government force--but only in defense of someone's liberty--shouldn't come as surprise to anyone.

    There's no contradiction there anywhere.

  • ||

    there is a serious contradiction for those that think deadly force is authorized because somebody broke into your car, or slashed your tires.

    i strongly doubt they would support a cop shooting somebody for breaking into somebody's car or slashing tires, and of course that would be ipso facto a bad shoot.

    similarly it would be a bad shoot for anybody else to do it.

  • ||

    Good point!

    Even when government force is justified against someone, that someone still has rights.

    Still, you need to--at least--be threatening someone's rights in order for the government to be justified in using force. I didn't say any threat no matter how small to anyone's rights necessarily justifies the government killing someone.

    Just that if Tony wants the government to use force against somebody, he needs to show that this somebody is threatening someone else's liberty. ...if he wants to persuade libertarians.

    Just that there's a justification for libertarians supporting government force against people--beyond just the arbitrariness Tony seems to be implying.

  • Tony||

    It is pretty arbitrary. Property, and the men with guns who defend its claim, is a wholly invented right, presumably in service of some social goal, and it costs taxpayers money. That's no more justifiable than using taxpayer money to pay for a right to healthcare. If anything, healthcare is more essential to the right to life than property.

    You're entitled to draw the line at a different place than me, but you're not entitled to say you're against government force to achieve your social goals.

  • Nat||

    Ever heard of the tragedy of the commons?

  • El Duderino||

    Property is something someone acquired through their own labor. A person buys a car or a house from sombody else and somewhere down the line sombody made that house, sombody built that car. And even further down the line, sombody cut down the wood or mined and refined the steel that built the house or the car. All of those people get compensated when sombody buys the house or car. And in order to buy a house or a car, you have to have money and money is earned through labor. If there were no property rights, then we would all be slaves.

    "Healthcare" is what you receive when you go to a doctor or hospital. Doctors swear an oath to take care of the sick. Nobody EVER gets turned away for healthcare because doctors VOLUNTARILY provide their services to the needy. Healthcare costs money. Just like a house or a car, MRI machines, drugs, hospitals, doctors, nurses, tongue dEpressors, cotton balls, gauze, that paper they roll out onto the table, scalpels, defibrillators, ambulances, hospital janitors, and on and on costs money because sombody has to get the rare metals, the wood, the steel and the cotton to make all this shit and they don't do it for free. The last time we had people picking cotton for free, we had to have a civil war to end it. That is why it costs money to go to the doctor. Health insurance, which is what Obamacare is seeking to provide for free is not a right because sombody else has to pay for it. Taking tax dollars from one person to pay for sombody else's health insurance is theft. Its like there is this homeless guy on the street and there is a cop next to him who pulls out his gun and forces passers by to put a dollar in his cup. Health insurance is a product. The insurance company risks it's own money on the possibility that you will stay healthy, that's awfully thoughtfully of them, but they cannot do it for free and they cannot offer it to everybody.

    Owning health insurance is no more a right than owning a car or a house is. You have to pay for it, that's how it works. If you pay for it then it is by right yours so if sombody takes it away from you or if the insurance company breaks their contract, then your rights as an owner of health insurance should be protected.

  • ||

    Also, please note how well the government's promotion of the "right to own a house" has worked.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shit, Tony... tell us where you live, and we'll see how much you care about your property.

    Oh, we won't destroy it... but we'll sit on your couch and mess it up with spinach dip.

    You DO have spinach dip in your fridge, right? Well, we're entitled to it, and if it isn't there... fix some, chop chop, bitch.

  • El Duderino||

    I'd prefer a nice onion dip.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    He should provide that, too. Because we're entitled to it.

    Tony and Wh... Ind... say so.

  • ||

    Holy shit! All this time Epi was saying that WI was rather, it was you, wasn't it Tony?

  • Joe R.||

    It's not about using force. It's about initiating it. You have no problems initiating it for whatever reason tickles your fancy.

  • ||

    Just because we get to pick our own masters doesn't mean we aren't slaves.

    Elections don't legitimize the injustices our government perpetrates against us--and I won't let anyone use my participation in an election as a justification for perpetrating those injustices against me.

  • Tony||

    I'm sure that will convince them.

  • ||

    1) Like in a lot of things, Tony, just because my actions, being one lone person, may not solve the problem?

    That doesn't mean my I have to contribute to the problem.

    It's a moral thing to some extent.

    2) There's also a desire not to be hypocritical.

    It's really hard to tell people that politicians aren't the solution to our problems, out of one side of my mouth--and then tell people who they should vote for? Who I'm voting for?

    3) You should keep in mind that your one vote isn't about to put one candidate or the other over the top in a presidential race either.

    If me withholding my one vote is as inconsequential as you say, then isn't you casting your one little ballot likewise inconsequential?

    It's not like one is more effective than the other.

  • Tony||

    Your one vote is inconsequential, but the collective votes of, say, libertarians could be. I have this same conversation with liberals, and they piss me off way more than you guys, who don't have so clear a choice.

    It's a philosophical sticking point with me though--being concerned with what's going on inside one's own head (the the exclusion of real-world effects) is the preoccupation of people who believe that invisible men in the sky read their thoughts. Otherwise it's worth nothing. I guess if it helps you sleep better at night, that's not nothing.

    Liberals piss me off more because they actually think that making this country suffer through 4 more years of Republicans is tolerable just to teach Democrats a lesson. They fail to realize that the lesson seems to be, don't count on liberals to be a useful political force. I think the same could be said with respect to libertarians in their own way.

  • ||

    "Liberals piss me off more because they actually think that making this country suffer through 4 more years of Republicans is tolerable just to teach Democrats a lesson."

    It will always be like that though.

    That's what the Republicans used to say about George W. Bush when he was running against Kerry.

    Sure, they'd say, Bush may have betrayed us on any number of issues--but Kerry would be worse!

    That used to be a standard joke around here. Every time Bush would do something horrible, there would be a ton of comments, "Kerry would be worse!"

    We were making fun of Republican who really believed that. The fact is that Kerry probably would have done a lot of the same horrible stuff. The fact is that Obama has done a lot of the same horrible stuff that Bush did.

    Non-voting is consistent with what I see as the problem in our country too. If the wheels are falling off of the bus, and the steering doesn't work anymore, and the brakes don't work anymore--and accelerator pedal is stuck to the floor...

    Then the solution isn't to change the bus driver!

    The problem is how much power our government has--power that should go to the people. Part of the reason our government has so much power is because my fellow Americans imagine that various politicians are the solution to their problems.

    They're not! It doesn't matter who our politicians are--not so much as it matters that my fellow Americans stop thinking that politicians are the solution to our problems. Power to the people through freedom to make our own choices--that's the solution to our problems. Me voting for a president like it makes a difference? That's just another part of the problem.

  • Tony||

    I think it's a fallacy to assume anyone in office would be equally bad. Republican politicians and Democratic politicians are informed by very, pretty much diametrically opposed, ways of thinking. They can't always be equal, unless your standard is total purity, in which case all presidents fail equally. That's where the problem comes in. Nothing has ever gotten accomplished in this country except by incremental means, so your only option is to do what little you can to make sure things are moving incrementally in the right direction. This is a feature of democracy rather than a bug in normal times.

    Not participating means other people get to make all the choices, and the people most actively voting in this country aren't necessarily the people with the best ideas or motivations.

  • ||

    "Republican politicians and Democratic politicians are informed by very, pretty much diametrically opposed, ways of thinking."

    They may accentuate different aspects of too much power, but the too much power part is the same in both cases.

    In the case of the Bush/Obama, I despised Bush for a lot of reasons. Some of them had to do with his foreign policy, his surveillance of the American people, his irresponsible expansion of Medicare, his establishment and distribution of TARP, etc., etc.

    What do I despise about Obama? Well, I don't think much of his foreign policy (sans Libya, which I supported); I don't think much of his support of state surveillance of the American people; I don't think much of his expansion of Medicaid; I don't like his TARP distributions; etc., etc...

    In other words, the things I don't like about Obama are many of the same things I didn't like about Bush. Hopey McChange may speak with a different accent, but in then end, he's doing all the same things.

    And that's almost certainly the way it will be with the next guy too! And if we do get lucky every 50 years and get a president that isn't entirely horrible? Then you can bet on the fact that the few before him and after him will be just as bad as Bush Jr. and Obama were...

    Because the problem isn't who's sitting in the White House (or Congress). It's all the power the White House and Congress have. If we take that power away from them and give it back to people so they can start solving their own problems--that's when things will start getting better.

    So, that's what I mean when I don't vote for anybody. A vote for nobody is a vote for myself to solve my own problems.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    A vote for nobody is a vote for myself to solve my own problems.

    That's not how it is interpreted. Unless you're voting third party they are simply going to consider you apathetic.

  • ||

    "That's not how it is interpreted. Unless you're voting third party they are simply going to consider you apathetic."

    Then I'd rather try to get people to interpret me differently--rather than try to get them to vote for one candidate over another.

    The way they interpret voting for third parties is that I don't think the problem is all the power in Washington--it's that I think the problem is that my favorite flavor isn't the one sitting on the emperor's throne.

    I'd rather have them misinterpret me as apathetic--rather than misinterpret me as sanctioning the power of the president.

  • ||

    Although, like I said, I could be persuaded to vote for a protest candidate in a presidential election.

    The more I think about it, the less likely that gets though.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That mode of thought presupposes that all politicians will act in a positive manner rather than a negative one. That all politicians will affect change by DOING something (more) than by NOT.

    How is it not more helpful if politician A makes government significantly smaller, whereas politician B grows it? How are they not different?

    There are positive actions and negative ones (not morally speaking). Your theory presupposes that all politicians will try and affect change through positive action.

  • Britt||

    Republican politicians and Democratic politicians are informed by very, pretty much diametrically opposed, ways of thinking.

    _____________

    Hi, I'm _________!

    During my term in office, the follow things happened:

    1. Deficits and the national debt both shot to unprecedented highs.
    2. Congress created an expensive new entitlement scheme.
    3. The government asserted that powers previously never exercised in American history were in fact obviously constitutional.
    4. Innocent Americans were searched without probable cause on a daily basis.
    5. Americans went to jail for possessing certain chemical substances deemed to be hazardous.
    6. Hardworking people were forcibly separated from their families due to the violation of immigration laws, also hurting American businesses by depriving them of needed labor.
    7. Every American had their hard earned money confiscated with the threat of violence in order to fund the State which often works against the interests of the people it steals from.
    8. Tax dollars were expended to prop up the decrepit and failing businesses which had caused the housing bubble with their poor investment decisions.

    Fill in the blank with the best answer

    A:Bush
    B:Obama
    C:All of the Above

  • ||

    whatever one thinks about this (and i don't agree with you on it, but...) presidents appoint supreme court justices. and they have a SUBSTANTIAL influence on liberty, and they are not at all the same to the extent the dems and repubs are.

    look at all the critical decisions that have come down 5:4

    then consider how many justices are old as fuck

    that alone should incentivize you to vote in a presidential election.

  • ||

    I don't know how to pick presidents based on who they'll appoint to the SC or how those justices will rule once they get there.

    If Dubya had his way, how would my right not to be wiretapped without a warrant hold up? 'cause what I'm really hoping for from him is somebody that's gonna defend my property rights and 2nd Amendment rights?

    How will my property rights and gun right fare under some liberal president I vote for--because I don't want to be subject to warrantless wiretapping?

    I don't know how you predict who which candidate will nominate for the SC, and even once that nominee gets on the Court?

    Supreme Court justices are like a box of chocolates...

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Not that I'm disagreeing with your initial point about voting (I would say that voting third party sends a much stronger message than not voting at all), but...

    Liberals piss me off more because they actually think that making this country suffer through 4 more years of Republicans is tolerable just to teach Democrats a lesson. They fail to realize that the lesson seems to be, don't count on liberals to be a useful political force.

    Are you really saying that mindlessly voting for the same people regardless of their actions is going to convince them to listen to your demands better than refusing to vote for them if they don't do what you want?

  • Tony||

    Being a reliable voting bloc means you get proportionate influence in the party, by definition. The closer you are to the party, the more say you have in who the nominee will be, thus the closer he will be to you.

    The problem is being involved because you expect perfection, or are constantly disappointed because perfection never comes, then becoming apathetic, which creates a vicious cycle of disappointment as the motivated people who've chosen a team get what they want.

    Nader 2000 really pissed me off and I'd rather talk to a libertarian than a Nader voter. Nobody doesn't have blood on his hands, but they have more than real Democrats.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    "Nobody doesn't have blood on his hands," seems like an attempt to excuse those who actually have blood on their hands.

  • Maxxx||

    Being a reliable voting bloc means you get proportionate influence in the party, by definition.

    Bullshit

    Reliable voting blocks earn contempt and condescension from those that they mindlessly support.

    See "Blacks" and "SoCons" for evidence.

  • Maxxx||

    Cut off too soon.

    The alternative is to support candidates from either major party at any given time that will advance your agenda.

    See Crony Capitalists (Wall Street Banksters) for evidence.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Awww... did Ralph Nader steal votes from your Team?

    Cry me a fuckin' river.

  • jtuf||

    Ken,

    So write yourself in on election day. I've done that once or twice for town council.

  • ||

    I'm seeing people put each other's rights on ballots where I live, like our rights are a popularity contest or something?

    I'm against the process at this point. I'm preachin' personal autonomy as a superior alternative to democratic tyranny. It's a little hypocritical to say one thing and do another...

    How do I express my belief that my opinion of other people's rights shouldn't matter--by casting a ballot?

    I've heard an old army saying that goes something like, "You don't salute the officer, you salute the uniform." I guess I'm saying something like that in reverse when I don't vote. I'm not voting against a politician--I'm voting against the office.

    Voting for myself isn't really doin' it for me either. The problem isn't that I'm not the one in office. It's the office.

  • lurker||

    seems like the only thing in the universe that gains any benefit from your "principled" action is your own ego.

    Not voting: no active benefit to others
    Voting for the lesser of two evils: active harm to others

    Looks like your position is the one that needs defending.

  • ||

    Ken Shultz|11.26.11 @ 12:25PM|#|show direct|ignore
    I like Johnson a lot better than Ron Paul.

    I've heard Paul calls people he doesn't like "cunts" all the time, too.

  • ||

    I doubt Ron Paul uses that word, and if he did? I bet he'd be ashamed of it.

    Anybody who does use that word in public should be ashamed of themselves.

    Certainly, if Paul pointed out that using that word makes you look stupid, I don't think anyone should fault him for being against free speech.

    I think everyone should be free to make themselves look stupid. I also think I'm free to point out the stupid things other people say--without infringing on their right to free speech.

    P.S. Using the c-word makes you look stupid.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Bill Maher likes that word...

  • Coeus||

    P.S.S

    Using "the c-word" makes you look like you're five years old.

  • Coeus||

    Dammit. P.P.S.

    Was that joez law?

  • ||

    But what if it's me saying that Luke Fickell is a gutless cunt for not using hit timeouts at the end of the first half when he had a good chance to get the Buckeyes the ball back.

    Gutless. Cunt.

  • ||

    Like I said in the other thread, I think the way you used is better than a lot of other uses.

    I think the c-word has almost come to mean to women what the n-word means to people of African ancestry. It's not quite that bad, but it's close.

    I think using the c-word to refer to a woman means one loses the argument. Not only that? It means one loses a ton of credibility with bystanders. And gaining credibility with bystanders is what Reason and Hit & Run are all about for me.

    I see Welch, Gillespie and whoever else on the airwaves spreading the libertarian gospel, and it makes me want to send more money to Reason.

    I see non-libertarians who disagree with us exposed to stupid, unnecessary stuff here at Hit & Run in the name of libertarianism? And it makes me think we're sabotaging what Welch, Gillespie, et. al. are doing.

    It's hard enough for libertarians to make progress in the wider culture--without us shooting ourselves in the foot with unnecessary stupid shit.

    That's all I got to say about this for now.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You racist/sexist bastard! Why do you think blacks have a problem with nutella and women can't deal with cheetos?

  • ||

    Ken, upon what empirical evidence do you predicate your thought that "using the c-word has almost come to mean what the n-word means to people of African ancestry"?

    Would you stand by your assertion, on an absolute basis, that mere use of the c-word in reference to any woman, anywhere, under any circumstances, "means one loses the argument"?

  • Maxxx||

    What did you say?

  • ||

    Ken, upon what empirical evidence do you predicate your thought that "using the c-word has almost come to mean what the n-word means to people of African ancestry"?

    Would you stand by your assertion, on an absolute basis, that mere use of the c-word in reference to any woman, anywhere, under any circumstances, "means one loses the argument"?

  • Maxxx||

    You can say that again.

  • ||

    Ken, upon what empirical evidence do you predicate your thought that "using the c-word has almost come to mean what the n-word means to people of African ancestry"?

    Would you stand by your assertion, on an absolute basis, that mere use of the c-word in reference to any woman, anywhere, under any circumstances, "means one loses the argument"?

  • ||

    You have a history of stepping in epithet poop yourself, LM.

  • ||

    Don't we all?

    Do I have a propensity to use more or less profanity than the average poster here?

    Referring to Obama as the "brown Bolzhevik" is not an epithet.

  • ||

    I can call a man a "cunt," and it still has meaning. Call a white (or yellow) guy a "nigger," and it's just stoopid.

    That's the difference in "cunt" and "nigger," Ken. So no, they are nowhere near the same.

  • ||

    Maybe he meant "negro".

  • Mensan||

    A guy called me "nigger" once. I didn't feel insulted so much as perplexed.

  • ||

    Of course it's an epithet. The fact that you immediately gravitate toward "brown" or "negro" in your derogatory comments rather than "tall" or "short haired" or "lanky" or some other physical characteristic descriptor of the man indicates you think "brown" is a bad thing to be.

  • ||

    this should be qualified with "in the united states"

    the "c" word has a much more benign meaning when a brit says it than an american

  • Moob||

    I'd like to see more use of the "g" word. Like, "She's a real gunt" for a woman with a large belly overhang and an attitude to match. Or "He's such a shitty gock" for a male with similar attributes to the female.

  • ||

    Tulpa, that is absolute rubbish.

    Genuflecting at the altar of political correctness is not an attractive attribute.

    Referring to a collectivist, racist negro as a "brwon bolzhevik" is ACCURATE.

    People who are groupthink oriented like Obama have no room within which to call foul when another accurately describes him as a "brown bolzhevik".

    Obama is the one who supports affirmative action. He is the one who has benefitted from affirmative action. He loves set asides and quotas and being chummy with other black folk who want all black folk on the big government, communist, welfare train group think plantation.

  • ||

    Why not? He couldn't be any worse than Bob Barr was in 2008.

  • Mike E||

    I was shocked to see my hometown paper, the Star Tribune, ran an article on Ron Paul getting more contributions from Federal government workers than any other Republican running. It didn't even come with the normal warnings of "no chance of winning," or "libertarian."

    But yes, if Johnson ran for the LP I would vote for him, assuming Paul didn't get the nomination.

  • Yeyanothertom||

    The LP should just nominate people who are persuasive writers and speakers as official spokespeople during election cycles.
    I prefer the "independent" label for small government types looking to win actual votes.

  • Applederry||

    "There's little doubt that Johnson - who unambiguously supports an end to the drug war"

    I dunno, it seems a little ambiguous to me. I know he wants to legalize marijuana, but I know I've heard him put forth the "public health issue, not criminal issue" line, in other words, continue to arrest people except throw them in rehab instead of jail, which is often what many liberals resort to when asked about the drug war.

    Maybe he doesn't mean it in the same way they do, but it does make me suspicious about how much he really desires to see the harder drugs legalized.

  • ||

    Yeah, this is one of the reasons why Old Mexican decries him as consequentialist.

    But I really don't see Johnson turning into a drug warrior if he were to actually be elected. I see his drug stance as conserving political capital but I guess I'm also a consequentialist.

  • Applederry||

    Oh, I can understand switching up your stance based on your audience, I just think we should be at least be honest with ourselves about where he stands, lest we become like the liberals and indies in 2008 and project our values onto him.

    Also, I would point out that Obama isn't really a drug warrior either, but he's such a pathetic and/or lazy leader the Justice Department just does what it wants.

    It's really more about who you put in charge, which is why I think asking candidates about who they would appoint to cabinet and other top-level positions is more important than their personal position, but I know we'd never get straight answers from them.

  • Tony||

    You want the president to override Justice because of how he feels about a particular law of Congress?

    The cult of the presidency goes both ways--in almost all cases Congress is the appropriate place to direct your scorn. They make the policies.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Give Barry 1/3 of a chance, and he'd "override Justice" all day long.

    We've had four bullshit, useless presidents in a row... at least. The next one likely won't be any better, either.

  • Applederry||

    I assure you, I am not, in any way, lacking in scorn for Congress.

    Despite the word being in its name, what the Justice Department does is not always just and since the president, being the Chief Executive, is in charge of the department's head, yes he absolutely should override him for repeated unjust actions.

  • Tony||

    Libertarians for unilateral executive action?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Team Red and Team Blue think about unilateral executive action in an autoerotic fashion, Tony. Bush alluded to it, and Obama would do it too.

  • Tony||

    Yeah, ironically, Republicans' increasingly dogmatic anti-Obama position will only force him to act independently more often, when in a normal situation he'd apparently be more than willing to meet them at least halfway if they wanted to act in good faith at all.

    People don't stop needing government and wanting it to act just because legislatures become dysfunctional. If people want small government the last thing they should do is make the executive the only branch with the ability to do anything, don't you think?

  • Applederry||

    "If people want small government the last thing they should do is make the executive the only branch with the ability to do anything, don't you think?"

    Absolutely. I don't think anything I said before contradicts such a stance.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If/when the day comes where Team Red has all the power - House, Senate, White House hood ornament - Team Blue can and will obstruct and use every tactic to discredit/slow down Team Red.

    Don't act like it wouldn't happen, Tony.

  • Applederry||

    Presidential appointments are still subject to congressional approval, but it is well within the range of presidential authority to give cabinet members instructions and to remove those members if they do not do so. If you think that constitutes some sort of "gotcha" moment then by all means, flatter yourself.

  • Tony||

    As an Obama supporter and strong believer in drug law liberalization, the temptation to dream about unilateral executive action in this instance is certainly there. But I feel we should consult the entire scope of reality. One, the president doesn't dictate the actions of the justice department. Two, it's enforcing laws of Congress for which there are no serious constitution questions at the moment. Third, if Obama took this action it would be the end of his presidency as he would be relentlessly attacked for it. That leads me to one place: stop blaming the president for things beyond his control and do the traditional work of changing policy, convince members of Congress their jobs depend on it. The industries that back the drug war have succeeded at that, so it will take work to counter them. What won't matter is who is in the oval office at a particular time, if nothing else changes.

  • Applederry||

    If I gave you the impression that I think getting a drug-friendly president in office would solve everything, then I apologize, I certainly don't think that. I recognize the long term problem can only be solved by Congress (it started with them after all), but people are being hurt and their livelihoods destroyed today. I don't think it's wrong to desire a president that will try to get the Justice Department and its dependent agencies to cool down or even look the other way for a time.

    The agencies have to enforce the law, but they do have discretion. Militarized SWAT raids on dispensaries and homes are entirely their decision.

    As for Obama, this was one area I actually had hope he would do some good in, but he has failed miserably. And since it was one of his many campaign promises, it's perfectly reasonable to hate on him as well as Congress.

  • MNG||

    Wrong Tony: at the very least Obama could have lived up to his campaign promise to direct Justice to not move against people who were obeying state laws regarding marijuana. That kind of thing falls within the discretion of the executive at least as much as his recent directive to focus resources on deporting immigrants with serious records while ignoring ones without.

  • Joe R.||

    Obama (or any president) could absolutely make a difference by pardoning any non-violent drug offender, which would be within his constitutional powers. Yes, it would eventually be the end of his presidency, but making that claim is the same as "I was just following orders."

    Oh, yes, I realize, DRINK. And I'm having one. But I stand by my point.

  • ||

    Libertarians for unilateral executive action?

    Typically disingenuous bullshit. Unilateral executive actions to assume new powers that one does not have is unconstitutional. Unilateral executive actions to de-enforce unconstitutional laws is perfectly acceptable, because the President swears to uphold the Constitution, not to respect existing law. The president is the chief enforcer and whether or not to enforce is his discretion.

  • Tony||

    While MNG is right that Obama is probably capable of being less dickish on the drug war, it really isn't up to the president to decide constitutionality, and I don't see why a libertarian should endorse that kind of unitary action. I don't want a douchebag rightwing president deciding social security is unconstitutional, so I shouldn't want a liberal president deciding Congress's drug laws are.

  • KPres||

    I'd love for a douchebag rightwing president to decide social security was unconstitutional. I'd also love if a douchebag liberal president decided drug laws were unconstitutional. Constitutionalism is like democracy and federalism. I'm only on their side when they promote liberty. Otherwise, ignore them.

  • Tony||

    I'll eat my hat if alleged libertarian purism extends to deliberately spoiling the race and letting Obama win.

    The libertarian superego can't compete with the Limbaughian id.

  • ||

    I'll take that bet if you let me shit in the hat first.

  • ||

    Also, you sound like you tremble at the power of the indpendent vote, and also you seem pretty confident that Obama will LOSE. Telling, that.

  • Tony||

    I have no confidence one way or the other. But a libertarian candidate will take from the Republican, who will inevitably be insufficiently pure.

    Just wondering if the overriding concern you guys have for being correct in your thoughts (as if that matters to anyone) will trump the Obama derangement that is the most common political stance here.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And in that vein, I hope Nader and other liberals run against Obama.

    Why should we like Obama, again?

  • Tony||

    The question is why should you like Romney, because it's gonna be one of the two, and I'll bet a substantial amount of money on that.

    Your job as an interest group is to pick one of the two political parties that has any possibility of winning and incentivizing them to listen to you. Vote Republican for all I care, but do it because you want them to listen to your policy ideas, not because your single policy idea is "get Obama out" like a common Limbaugh sheep. It's admirably pragmatic in a way, but it indicates that you don't actually care who is tortured, which countries are bombed, and whose freedom is trampled in the name of Jesus, because by God millionaires won't see their taxes raised. At which point your celebrated philosophical purity seems like a big fat lie.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I figured I'd made it clear, but since I answered these posts in somewhat-reverse order:

    I despise Romney, as well.

    I reminded you long ago that I despise Limbaugh, but apparently you forgot.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "pick one of the two political parties that has any possibility of winning and incentivizing them to listen to you"

    That's cute. Like presidents listen to common people... unless it helps their poll numbers.

  • Tony||

    unless it helps their poll numbers.

    Uh yeah, that's the entire point. Make politicians think they'll lose the election if they don't do what you want.

    If you're too small to be influential, convince other people to join you. Can't do that? Spend all your time bitching on the internet I guess.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Like joining the Occutards?

    No, thanks. I'd rather scoop out my eyes with a melon baller.

  • Sevo||

    "I reminded you long ago that I despise Limbaugh, but apparently you forgot"

    No, shithead didn't 'forget'. Shithead makes up lies all day long and is beyond shame.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    True.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I am leaning towards it being Gingrich...oh the horror. Romney has better chance of beating Obama, of course, but the Romney hate may keep him from getting the nom.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck Gingrich, Romney, Bachmann, et cetera. And Obama.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    "Obama derangement": because it's not like he's escalated the WoT, WoD, OKed assassinations of US citizens, and a whole host of other shit.

    Yeah. We're the deranged ones.

  • don't forget the children||

    that Obomba has drone-slaughtered in Asia and Africa along with a myriad of adult civilians and non-civilians in places where he has no business.

    ...it's not only Americans that he's fucking over....

    Maybe some that voted for him had high hopes, but only the willfully blind continue to apologize for him. "Barack, as long as you pay my college loan and give me freebies paid for by my next-door neighbor, I'll give you a pass on your ultra-violent foreign policy, civil-rights-busting domestic 'anti-terror' policies and corporate bailouts (blame someone else)". And like the Republicans last time around, it is Democratic Obama that doesn't deserve reelection.

    The ugliest of the Republicans would be indistinguishable from Obama, and the best (Paul) would result in an attempt to reverse the [fascist] corporatist, welfare-state-is-god militarists that have been in there in the post 9/11 era.

    No wonder Ron Paul is despised and feared by the Neo-Cons and Neo-Progressives alike.

    By the way, will Obama try regime change in Syria, Pakistan or maybe Iran next -- gosh maybe Somalia. He's a busy boy with the folks distracted by his wrecked domestic economy.

  • JT||

    Who are we going to vote for? The Republican is just going to be another
    Bush. Between Bush and Obama, I don't really care.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Look what I found:

    http://www.williamkwolfrum.com.....f-thought/

    What an idiot.

  • Mr. Arf?||

    He forgot to tag it "satire."

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The author presented it as satire, which is a huge leap when using that word.

  • ||

    I didn't know Commander Riker had a retarded twin.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Good call, sloopy.

  • adam s.||

    If the LP is still garnering less than one percent at the polls, wouldn't your time and money be better spent fighting for smaller gov in other ways?

  • ||

    If there were One Guaranteed Path To Liberty(tm), we'd all be foolish for not putting all our resources behind it.

    However, different folks respond to different messages through different channels.

    Political campaigns bring one audience. Some will hear of libertarianism there for the first time.

    Political parties also have some advantages in that the state (I mean the sub-units of the US of A, not the STATE) subsidizes some activity like keeping track of registered voters, etc. That's a resource made available because you're an "official" party.

    The Party has its place, along with small-L libertarian demopublicans.

  • BunkerBill||

    All the intelligent people will vote for him, but I don't think that that will be enough.

  • squishua||

    Johnson - who unambiguously supports an end to the drug war,


    Translation: says he will sign an executive order removing marijuana from Schedule I, but as far as what he thinks about OTHER drugs or their status, well, it's very ambiguous.

    a non-interventionist foreign policy,


    Unless you count his support of "humanitarian wars"...

    free trade


    ...in the sense of heavily regulated "free trade [sic] AGREEMENTS" that are about free trade as much as the PATRIOT act is about patriotism.

    And let's not ignore the obvious here: if Johnson worms his way into getting the LP nomination before the Republican primary, it will work to prevent Ron Paul from seeking the LP nomination, a very reasonable "Plan B" if he does not get the Republican nomination. A Ron Paul 3rd party run could swing the election either way and the pundits and wannabe insiders are terrified of that. They want a nice, safe 3rd party candidate who won't pull more than a percent in the general and whose philosophy (what little of it can be divined) doesn't actually represent any major challenge to the status quo.

  • ||

    How would a Ron Paul third party run do anything but save Obama from certain defeat? You don't think lefties are going to vote for Paul do you? They care about economic policy a lot more than they care about civil rights or foreign policy.

  • squishua||

    Thanks for proving my point, John.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And your point was? Thank you for proving my hypothesis that RP's biggest liability is his fan boys. And the weird racist stuff from before.

  • ||

    What a big heaping pile of disguised defecation.

    RP's biggest liability is "the weird racist stuff from before"?

    That dog won't hunt. Most people, including the great masses of sheople who are facing foreclosure or have already lost their homes and / or their jobs or have been forced to tell their kids that daddy and mommy can't pay for college, will not be in the mood to hear whiny appeals to polictically correct racism.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Most people are idiots and this stuff will hurt him in an election. You don't like it and neither do I but that doesn't change a damn thing.

  • ||

    The deteriorating condition of life here, in general, and the economy, in particular, are game changers.

    Don't you think that there will be beaucoup people who will be thinking survival first? I agree that many of the same people in more placid and prosperous times would be easy to turn against RP - but these ain't them times.

  • Cytotoxic||

    We shouldn't assume that a shitty economy = automatic incumbent KO. Argentina has a shitty economy and re-elected Kirchner. FDR got re-elected. An incumbent can take a shitty situation and be seen as the only guarantor of it not getting worse ie champion of 99-week benefits. It can totally happen.

  • ||

    The old "devil-you-know" syndrome. If it's widely believed that Obama stopped the bleeding and Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional well before the election, he'll win re-election. If the economy continues to crater, unemployment goes to double digits thanks to Europe and overturning Obamacare is still the primary tool for victory by the GOP nominee, he'll likely lose (assuming Romney is the nominee).

  • ||

    The old "devil-you-know" syndrome. If it's widely believed that Obama stopped the bleeding and Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional well before the election, he'll win re-election. If the economy continues to crater, unemployment goes to double digits thanks to Europe and overturning Obamacare is still the primary tool for victory by the GOP nominee, he'll likely lose (assuming Romney is the nominee).

  • ||

    The old "devil-you-know" syndrome. If it's widely believed that Obama stopped the bleeding and Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional well before the election, he'll win re-election. If the economy continues to crater, unemployment goes to double digits thanks to Europe and overturning Obamacare is still the primary tool for victory by the GOP nominee, he'll likely lose (assuming Romney is the nominee).

  • ||

    Stupid squirrels.

  • ||

    I don't think it's automatic either way, but you're being fairly rosy about Obama's prospects here.

    The economy is going to drag him down and he really doesn't have much "stopping the bleeding" to point to. FDR is a different story because he had done a bunch of stuff that really was new at the time and could plausibly say it would take time to work.

    Other than ripping his opponent, BO's basically going to be running on his "foreign policy successes" of killing bin Laden and "freeing" Libya. Which is a friggin joke in view of his foreign policy stances back in 2008.

    The GOP basically has to screw up really badly at this point to lose. Which we know they're fully capable of.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'm not so sure anymore.

    I read a piece on Paul in the NYT today, which was about as expected; polite and respectful yet swift to show him as some quirky old man.

    I then proceeded to the comments, because I like to have my IQ lower later in the day, and was very surprised at how many liberals expressed support for Paul.

    They didn't agree with his policies about how he would shape America, but they did agree that .gov is fucked up, and that he would be the right person to tear it down (later to be built up by someone more to their political liking). They also like his "We need to quit these fucking wars" (on both drugs and terror) stance.

    At this point, that sentiment isn't unreasonable regardless of what we'd like to see our society be.

  • ||

    There's a LOT more material for the Obama campaign to dredge up against Paul than there is to bring up against Romney, for instance.

    Against Romney they'd basically have to focus on the flipflopping etc., which is going to be tough because the positions that got flipped used to be similar to Obama's. They can't really rip on the Masscare because they have to defend Obamacare, they can't rip on him previously being pro-choice because Obama is, etc.

    Basically, the things that conservatives and libertarians don't like Romney for are things that liberals can't plausibly criticize him for.

  • Apatheist||

    There is no need to dredge up anything about Romney because he's already fucking terrible.

  • ||

    The good thing for Democrats is that they don't have to dig up dirt on Romney because they know a good 20% of Republicans will likely stay home if he's the nominee. Then again, the same is probably true if Paul were the nominee.

  • ||

    Bull. GOP voters would crawl a mile across broken glass to vote against Obama at this point.

    Just like the liberals supposedly for Ron Paul, the anti-Mitt Republicans are just venting if they claim that.

  • ||

    Liberals are NOT going to vote for Paul in anything approaching significant numbers. They might say otherwise now (though most of them aren't) just to appear less impotent when venting frustrations at Obama, but when the rubber meets the road they'll support BO again.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Exactly. They're just having a sort of fantasy experiment.
    Liberals:'Oh wow wouldn't voting for RP be rad? Ha yeah. But no I'm not serious go BO go!'

  • Maxxx||

    Yep,

    Those were the same liberals that said they could vote for a maverick republican like McCain in 07&08;.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That's the thing.

    In this election, Paul won't NEED significant numbers of liberals voting for him. Anyone not named Obama will likely get much/most of the swing vote. Even just a small portion of liberals (1-2%) voting for Paul would make it a landslide victory.

  • ||

    There's a LOT more material for the Obama campaign to dredge up against Paul than there is to bring up against Romney, for instance.

    Against Romney they'd basically have to focus on the flipflopping etc., which is going to be tough because the positions that got flipped used to be similar to Obama's. They can't really rip on the Masscare because they have to defend Obamacare, they can't rip on him previously being pro-choice because Obama is, etc.

    Basically, the things that conservatives and libertarians don't like Romney for are things that liberals can't plausibly criticize him for.

  • ||

    i also don't see the evangelicals etc. voting for paul at all. i see them, in large #'s , staying home.

    granted, i'm still not sure they'd accept a mormon either

  • Maxxx||

    They'll take a Mormon over a crypto muslim socialist any day.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Obama can hammer on the fact that Romney wants to repeal something at the federal level he imposed at the state level. There's a difference but the voter won't care they'll just see Mitt Romney have to babble out something to appeal to his base. Or betray that base.

  • ||

    But the problem is he needs to say what that something is to launch the attack. And that something is something most voters want repealed.

  • Neu Mejican||

    You don't think lefties are going to vote for Paul do you? They care about economic policy a lot more than they care about civil rights or foreign policy.

    This is incorrect.

  • Neu Mejican||

    John disagrees more strongly with liberal views on the economy, so he thinks THEY care more about economic issues, when it is actually HIM that cares more. Indeed, in the US, you could accurately predict liberal/not-liberal based on the degree of concern/attention to economic issues.

  • Colin||

    You have a lot of nerve attacking Johnson's view of free trade when you're own boy is the biggest protectionist there is.

    Paul's view on free trade is effectively the same as Buchanan's.

    He's just a Joooo-hating phoney.

  • squishua||

    Wow, three sentences and not a single true thing said. Welcome to my ignore file, troll boy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    ...in the sense of heavily regulated "free trade [sic] AGREEMENTS" that are about free trade as much as the PATRIOT act is about patriotism.

    Oh not this bullshit. We all want total unilateral free trade. FTAs are the next best thing and they are the best we're gonna get for some time. Deal with it.

  • Fake Jacket||

    This is like the worst chat room ever.

  • Colin||

    It's a great idea.

    He'll have my vote.

  • 9 Year Old OWS Protester ||

    What's in your bag that is more important than my education?

  • Fake Jacket||

    My testicles.

  • Stranger Danger!||

  • Origin of Zero Sum ||

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=what's in your bag that is more important than my education?&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2011/11/26/occupy_protests_discourage_black_friday_shopping/&ei=yzXRTo-MLITn-gbq4umaAg&usg=AFQjCNHZaeMWmrZ56TimKx4WGudHpRZonw&cad=rja

  • Poopy Head Squirrels!||

  • Nelson||

    Ha ha!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You not being educated in statist factories on my dime.

  • ||

    Screw the LP. The Democrats should adopt him.

  • My testicles||

    Frum, the democrats ought to adopt you.

  • ||

    You don't think lefties are going to vote for Paul do you?

    John, as usual, your blind hatred for Team Blue is clouding your otherwise sound judgement. You would be surprised by how many leftists there are that consider themselves such solely based on civil liberties and anti-war. According to Paul's campaign, many of the polls are not counting independents and disenfranchised Dems. When you account for both, Paul is doing surprisingly well in the Primaries, let alone how well he would do in the General election. You also have to consider who would get the Republican nomination (if not Paul). Paul has a far better chance at a third Party run if Romney gets the Republican nomination than if Newclear Titties does.

  • Nelson||

    -1 for "Newclear Titties."

    Ha ha!

  • ||

    Goddammit

  • Nelson||

    He does hate him some Team Blue, but I admire his loyalty to the Republic over anything else. Four more years of Obama would be detrimental to our national interest, on the other hand, would be the best thing that could happen to the GOP.

  • Nelson||

    Unless the GOP screws it up by being ran by Bush loyalist like Gerson than a third party will have its best shot since Perot.

  • Nelson||

    Sheesh, somebody is spoofing my Nelson spoof? That's...well...

    Ha ha!

  • Nelson||

    I'm spoofing the Nelson from Hollywood Squares not the one from The Simpsons, silly pumpkin. Just scrolled up, and noticed your entries. My bad!

  • Cytotoxic||

    You would be surprised by how many leftists there are that consider themselves such solely based on civil liberties and anti-war.

    HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT AHAHAHAHAHAHA OH MY SIDES

  • BakedPenguin||

    Banjos is a "she", and I've heard from a few lefty people that they will vote, or they are considering voting for, Paul. The wars play a large part in that.

  • ||

    I hope that's a real trend but needless to say, I'm extremely, extremely skeptical.

    How familiar are these potential Paul voters with Paul? Do they know about his positions on cutting govt in any specific sense?

  • ||

    from what i see in DU etc. - libs give paul grudging credit for his stance on foreign wars.

    but they always "yea, but' with the horrors of his social/internal stances vis a vis ... pretty much everything (except the WOD).

    i think liberals love of social programs trumps their hate of WARZ.

    as proof of that , look at the relatively weak response to obama's libya intervention, etc.

    otoh, if obama had started doing the kind of internal stuff that ron paul proposes, they would be apoplectic.

    again, libs love their social programs way more than they hate the warz. heck, given a democratic president , they are mostly willing to ignore even blatant abuses of the WPA

  • ||

    The only time I've seen the liberals in the media and in my own personal life get angry was when he (a) agreed to let go of the public option in Obamacare, and (b) said he'd support renewing the Bush tax cuts.

  • ||

    good examples

  • Tony||

    Liberals were the only ones protesting the Bush wars, and were getting spat on or ignored most of the time. Libya was a comparative stubbed toe to the horrors of Bush's wars, so I don't know why you expect liberals to throw up their hands and start helping Republicans win over it.

  • ||

    libya was a much smaller war. it was also a blatant violation of the WPA, which iraq and afghanistan weren't

    libs got all up in arms about unitary executive shit that bush did

    then, when obama completely ignored the WPA they were nearly silent...

    kind of like libs were unifomly "sexual harassment is bad, mmmkay"... except when it was clinton ... then paula jones was just a trailer trash slut

  • ||

    Liberals were the only ones protesting the Bush wars

    and as soon as the Bush wars became Obama wars the antiwar movement dwindled back below the levels it held in 2003 and early 2004, back when they were actually getting ripped in the media. Their heyday was from late 2004 to 2008, which oddly coincides with the war being a useful tool for Dems to beat up on the GOP with.

  • Tony||

    Are you suggesting the GOP didn't deserve beating up on?

    Iraq is coming to a definitive end, and that was the main focus of protests. Indict liberals for not being totally devoted to ending all warmaking, but you're doing it from the sidelines. I personally think a good measure of how bad a president is at war is body count. In those terms the level of protest seems about proportionate.

  • KPres||

    Body count? Then FDR was the worst. Is that what you really think, Tony? I doubt it.

    The biggest problem with the Iraq war was the cost. In dollars, not bodies. 45,000 people die on the roads every year. We don't stop driving because of the $$.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No, Tony, we beat up on the GOP quite often. It's you Team Blue cheerleaders who don't have the gumption to beat up on your own party, unless it's when you think it doesn't lean left enough.

  • Tony||

    If it leaned more left it wouldn't be so into war. It barely leans left at all, and for that very reason liberals are hardly in love with the Democrats.

    I just know what they and so many others inexplicably can't get through their skulls: the next election will produce a Democrat or a Republican, and do you really want another Republican?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "barely"

    You are such a card, Tony.

    Oh, and I don't want either. I'm not sure I'd even be happy with a Ron Paul in office, at this point.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The key for Pau isn't winning in the general election; it's winning the GOP nomination.

    I think enough lefties would vote for him to make the election "not even close". You know that any Team RED voter will vote for whoever is on the Team RED ticket, especially this election against Obama.

  • ||

    Are you smoking something? If it's close they're going to vote for Obama rather than allow the GOP to win. They don't share the aversion to lesser-of-evils thinking that libertarians seem to.

    If it's not close RP might be irrelevant, but it's probably going to be close.

  • ||

    Agreed. And what a lot of "fuck team blue" enthusiasts don't want to admit or refuse to recognize, is that self-identified liberals could be the deciding factor in getting him the nomination. FTR, I am saying this as someone who was raised in a conservative household. My natural prejudices should align with Team Red and not Team Blue (and they typically do).

  • Cytotoxic||

    No not going to happen period end of story. Liberals will NOT support RP ever. If RP were to ever get the nom every Liberal you meet will be a sudden (or not sudden) supporter of America's humanitarian wars and Responsibility to Protect.

  • jacob||

    Liberals will NOT support RP ever. If RP were to ever get the nom every Liberal you meet will be a sudden (or not sudden) supporter of America's humanitarian wars and Responsibility to Protect.

    Horeshit. RP is the ONLY GOP candidate that has a remote chance of drawing liberals (albeit a small number) away from Obama. Which current nominee do you seriously think that liberals would support over Obama?

    Romney? Cain? Perry? Gingrich?

  • Cytotoxic||

    The correct answer is none of them although the thought of President Ron Paul would drive them apopleptic. The Liberals ONLY like Paul as a sort of political eccentricity, an oddity safely observed and then ignored. You're angry because deep down you know it's true.

  • ||

    Moderates and politically uncommitted voters are going to freak over the newsletters and even more over his position on legalizing drugs. That's before we even get to the substantive opinions on economics.

    Remember, the GOP nominee is going to be the target of a $2B character assassination machine next summer. RP has done and said many many things that I agree with but the average voter is going to consider loony as hell.

    Whatever you gain in liberals (don't hold your breath) you'll lose in independents.

  • ||

    All the O'Reilly-watching Baby Boomer assclown moderates who bankrupted this country already hate him and are already attacking him. The question then becomes, does their reactionary hatred for Obama beat their inclination for statism just enough so they will hold their nose to vote for Paul? Keep in mind that these people are not like us. They WILL vote for the lesser of two evils.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It wasn't just "O'Reilly-watching Baby Boomer assclown moderates" who bankrupted this country... people who watch Lawrence O'Donnell had a hand in it, too.

  • ||

    Well, yes. But they are small in numbers in comparison and inconsequential.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shit, Banjos, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Democrat. Hardly inconsequential.

  • ||

    There is a difference between a self-identified Democrat and a Lawrence O'Donnell viewer. Although more people are registered as Dems than Repubs, Fox news gets twice, three times, and sometimes four times the viewership that MSNBC gets. Many self-identified Dems are not in the socialist camp.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    They have socialist sympathies, though. Show me a pro-growth, low-tax Democrat.

  • ||

    Hence, O'Reilly-watching Moderates. O'Reilly is not even a conservative. He calls himself a "Traditionalist". Neocons and socialist-lite Dems love the dip shit. He draws in both crowds and has the largest audience of all cable news programs. Conservatives clutch their pearls over silly socialist kids, socialistic kids clutch their pearls over the socons, when it is the moderate dip shits that are the real concern. There is not a war (foreign or domestic) that they don't embrace, not a social program that they don't love, xenophobic, nationalistic, Keynesian, social engineering, politician cock-sucking moderates.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I cop to watching the Dennis Miller segments, though I abstain from watching the other 99.something% of O'Reilly's show.

    I really don't see the appeal to him or [insert any MSNBC show].

  • ||

    You, like cytotoxic, are going way overboard. "Moderates and politically uncommitted voters are going to FREAK [emphasis added] over the newsletters and even more over his position on legalizing drugs".

    Upon what do you premise the above? Even the great masses of sheople, facing foreclosure or already having lost a home and their job, will be in no mood for whiny, politically correct race baiting.

    You guys just don't get it.

  • jacob||

    +1 to Libertymike

    It's silly to think that the newsletters are going to have a discernible effect on independents. Did the "freak" out over Jeremiah Wright?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The newsletters are old news. They've been common knowledge for years.

    Some people still think Paul wrote every word in them, though.

  • ||

    If you go out and poll people on the street about the RPSR newsletters, at least 95% will not have heard of them. Probably more.

    They're old news to people who've been paying attention to Ron Paul, which is a tiny percentage of the population.

  • ||

    Jeremiah Wright wasn't speaking in Obama's name and the stuff in the RPSR is a lot worse.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No, you don't get it. You don't understand how stupid people are. They could've elected Goldwater but no they'd rather put an asshole in charge. The electorate is not much smarter now although the economy is a lot worse. RP might win but he'd have a hell of a time and absolutely no help from liberals.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The stuff in the RPSR that he didn't write, you mean? Or all of it?

  • Mike E||

    I think that you could get some lefties to vote for Paul in the primaries. Will they vote for him in the general? Nope. But that is fine, if Paul has the nomination all of the Team Red people will vote for him. They won't enjoy it, but they will do it.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Moderates and politically uncommitted voters are going to freak over the newsletters

    Nah.

    and even more over his position on legalizing drugs.

    Are you high? Independents and moderates are not drug warriors, for the most part.

    They will "freak" on his "immoderate" positions, not on his moderate ones.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why not have prejudices for both Teams, Banjos? There's plenty to hate on both sides.

  • ||

    Oh, don't get me wrong. I have plenty of hate for both teams. Most libertarians were pulled in from either Team Blue or Team Red and naturally have a prejudice for one side or the other. I recognize my own personal prejudice and try to account for it before forming an opinion.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I hate socons and Lawrence O'Donnell-type liberals. But, given the choice between Rick Santorum or Bernie Sanders? That's a tough one.

  • ||

    Ouch, worse sloopy's choice evah.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I know. It's like "you get to choose between having your genitals deep-fried, or sticking your hand in the garbage disposal".

  • Yonemoto ||

    Yes if only because it makes him eligible to be ron Paul's veep through Americans Elect.

  • Hirai||

    I wouldn't mind if he joined the LP, but he shouldn't run for the nomination. The LP candidate should be an actual libertarian. He shouldn't be a person who supports the Fair Tax and public smoking bans and thinks that we should just block grant Medicare to the states.

  • Yonemoto ||

    Would it help if I told you Johnson was a nice Scotch name?

  • ||

    Scotch is a drink...a Scot is one who hails from Scotland.

  • Yonemoto ||

    I stand corrected. Should have used Scots.

  • Nelson||

    I admire your work, Josh, but even some of the most erudite say "Scotch" instead of "Scots."

    Do you drink "Scots" Whisky?

    Ha ha!

  • ||

    There's little doubt that Johnson ... would be the highest-profile LP candidate at least since Ron Paul hit the hustings back in 1988.

    Not only is there much doubt for that statement, there is certainty that it is false. Like him or not, Bob Barr is and was much more high profile than Johnson.

  • Yonemoto ||

    Sad but true.

  • ||

    As a pol who won election twice in a Democratic-heavy state

    Afraid not.

    Did Nick just copy-paste a press release from the Johnson campaign without reading it here?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Be that as it may, it's still 2:1 democrat:republican.

  • ||

    The registration numbers are a joke. Nationwide the Dems have a pretty sizeable advantage in those and have for decades, but when we actually have national elections they don't win handily.

    Bush won NM in 2004 and lost by half a percent in 2000.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Tulpa is right on this one.
    NM votes very purple.
    Razor-thin margins for quite awhile now.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    As a pol who won election twice in a Democratic-heavy state

    So did Romney. What I'd really like to know is why winning in a Democrat-heavy state considered a plus? That would kinda indicate he's a RINO, no?

    If it comes down to a Battle of the RINO's, my money is on Romney.

  • MNG||

    "As a pol who won election twice in a Democratic-heavy state

    So did Romney."

    I don't think so, iirc Romney only won the mass statehouse once.

  • ||

    Yes, but MA is actually a Dem state, unlike NM which is a swinger.

  • MNG||

    I guess it depends on what you mean. When it comes to the State house Mass has had several GOPers in recent memory.

  • MNG||

    Looks like 4 of the last 5 Govs in Mass have been GOPers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....sachusetts

  • ||

    A couple of those were two-years-and-out governors who resigned to become ambassadors, so that's stacking the deck.

    Look at MA's legislature and Congressional representation historically.

  • MNG||

    Tulpa, I know you are on the Romney bandwagon but even you are going to have trouble spinning a state where 4 of the last 5 governors were GOPers as being exclusively Blue.

  • ||

    You're disputing that MA is a blue state?

    I just want you to be clear on this.

  • MNG||

    It's Blue in Presidential votes, but clearly not in most other state-wide elections.

  • ||

    To da wiki

    Atty General has been a Dem since 1968. Treasurer since 1998. Kerry's Senate seat has been Democratic since 1979. Brown's seat was Democratic from 1952-2009.

    That pretty much exhausts the major statewide offices; if you care about the auditor general and secretary of commerce, those have been D's for decades too.

  • ||

    MA does have a history of electing (relatively moderate) republican governors, though. not just romney. bill weld comes to mind.

    it would be much harder in MA to get elected as a national senator, being a republican, than a governor.

  • ||

    For a long time Teddy was blocking one seat and Kerry has become another larger than life Liar Of The Senate figure.

  • ||

    yea, and when what's his name, the repub (and a relatively moderate prochoice repub iirc) won the KENNEDY SEAT, the cries of the DUers were very satisfying...

    OMG they elected a republican... TO THE KENNEDY SEAT!!!!

  • ||

    "The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired
    property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by
    any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment
    to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.
    We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the
    ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition."

    When's the last time any significant party/politician was THIS absolute upon principle?

    Had it gained sufficient power and prominence, the LP might have floundered, too, and it probably would have -- politics, eh?

  • ||

    Not to interrupt the mudfest, but hell yes he should seek the LP nomination.

  • ||

    But how will that help anybody in any way? Wouldn't he be better utilized in a pairing with Paul as the Republican duo for the nomination?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    But how will that help anybody in any way?

    It helps those of us who don't like cosmotarians by being a career-ending move. That's how.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It doesn't help people who actually want to expand freedom in America.

  • ||

    Wouldn't he be better utilized in a pairing with Paul as the Republican duo for the nomination?

    Or even better, he could be Donald Duck's running mate in the Pink Unicorn Party.

    Only if

  • Juice||

    Sorry, but running for the Pink Unicorn Party nomination would be stupid. It's been hemorrhaging supporters to the Standing at the Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party for years.

  • Rabbler||

    I am beyond appalled today.
    I just witnessed someone abusing their able body privilege by entering a building that had no wheel-chair access.

  • nice try||

    But I don't think anyone gives a shit

  • Holy Cow||

    I haven't read all the comments, as I have a full day of being milked (thanks to the taxman! among others) ahead of me.

    However... (clears throat) I apologize if I'm repeating the previously stated, but....

    The mainstream media is only 'nice' to Rs when they have no (NO!) chance of winning an election against a liberal Dem.

    See: Tom McClintock vs. Ahnold Schwarzengroper in CA's R goobernatorial race a few years back.

    Or: Why do Libs/the Media hate S. Palin so much? They even turned on the Clintons during the 2008 primaries.

    If RP or Gary Johnson or Art Olivier or Mary Ruart or some random Reason commenter ever had a chance in an election v. a liberal Dem, you'd know it about...good and hard.

  • ||

    RP wants to drink the blood of homosexual black children with pre-existing medical conditions.

  • WWNGD?||

    While listening to NAZI Germany national anthem.

  • Holy Cow||

    RP would be portrayed as a creepy old conservative Christian who thinks honoring the ideas in ancient economic tomes (Friedman, Hayek etc.) are more important than helping starving families in 2012 America.

  • Southerner||

    No, they would just run a video of him blaming America for 9/11, and then put one of the many supporters at Stormfront he has on to defend him against one of his more popular detractors (one from the right, if that can be arranged), and that would be the end of him. They wouldn't even have to slant the facts very much, although getting a guy from Stormfront to defend him would definitely be over the top. (Stormfront and 9/11 Truthers aren't the only known anti-semites and blame-America-firsters who are known to support him in vast numbers.)

    He's never had the sense to put any distance between himself and these nutjobs, so just reminding everyone what kind of company he keeps would be enough to doom his candidacy on the spot. It would be kind of like a national version of that Louisiana election where the winning slogan was "Vote for the crook; it's important." The reason that was the winning slogan is that the "other guy" in that election was David Duke. How hard could it be to destroy in the polls anyone who wouldn't even try to distance himself from David Duke's endorsement (which he most certainly would give)?

  • Cytotoxic||

    ^^THIS^^ RP deserves a rip too for those 9/11 comments. He has had rather bad judgement between the company he keeps and the newsletters. Tulpa also wrote before about dodgy campaign finance stuffs.

  • ||

    Uh, there's a difference between being a Klansman and "not distancing yourself from the endorsement of" a Klansman, whatever that means. So the comparison to David Duke is unjustified.

    Regarding Stormfront & Prison Planet etc, RP has been out on the fringe so long that he talks to anyone who would listen to him. I don't fault him for that. He's always made plainly clear that he doesn't accept either group's pet issues.

    The newsletters are a bigger problem because his name is all over them and he was paid well by whoever was publishing them, knowing that they were using his name. It's hard to explain that away as anything less than a massive error in judgement.

  • ||

    Your first link doesn't go into any detail about what he actually said, so I'll assume it's the usual neocon confusion between noting that foreign policy actions have blowback potential, and "blaming America".

  • Southerner||

    Appealing to a bogus distinction between the "blowback" contention and the blame-America-first mentality only wins you points with the moderators in a debate when a Republican is President. The rest of the time (e.g. now), they know it's bogus and call you on it.

    Saying we shouldn't punish our enemies for their atrocities against us because it might make them mad doesn't pass the sniff test with the American public in any case. It amounts to saying "Well yes, officer, that guy did personally rape and butcher a dozen ladies and feed their remains to his dog, but your brutality against serial killers is only inspiring blowback which will breed more serial killers. It's not as if you knew any of those gals. It's none of your business. You got us into this whole quagmire of a case, now get us out! Just drop the charges already. What, are you one of those crypto-fascist neocons or something?"

    I should also point out this "blowback" nonsense amounts to saying people (or nations) aren't responsible for their actions, which directly contradicts the very foundations of libertarianism. Any reasonably prepared detractor can tear this "blowback" nonsense to shreds in minutes in the TV debate format.

  • ||

    "Saying we shouldn't punish our enemies for their atrocities against us because it might make them mad doesn't pass the sniff test with the American public in any case."

    Who's saying that? That isn't the blowback argument! That's what the loudmouths on Fox News say about the blowback argument.

    Saying that the reaction we get from terrorists may have something to do with our foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere--isn't saying that we shouldn't defend ourselves against terrorism.

    What is this, 2004 all over again?!

    Blowback was about our support for vicious dictatorships like Mubarak's and the one in Saudi Arabia. It wasn't that we shouldn't engage in war against the terrorists who attacked us.

    And if what we got was in part a reaction to what we were doing, then are we supposed to ignore that fact--just because it puts some of the blame on American foreign policy?

    The world where America remains blameless--no matter what--is full of unicorns. ...where candy canes grow on trees.

  • Nelson (Typical RP Supporter)||

    Ah you kunty AIPAC whores.

    What more can anyone say?

    Just what runs through someone as degenerate ate AIPAC whores that'd make them so susceptible to your own propaganda, that you eventually forget that you've been LYING to others all these years, that you can't help but end up believing in your own bullsh*t?

    Just curious, was Josef Goebbels a calculating sociopathic Likudnik Israeli?

    It's really hard to distinguish for any student of history & human behavior.

    Why don't you maggots just out yourself, you see a map of Iowa, you delude Tel Aviv!

    You see a map of Florida, it's Hebron!

    Oh right, no, those cities AREN'T in US.

    So AIPAC-whore, BE PRO-AMERICA Firsters, otherwise, for F*CK-SAKES STFU ya chickensh*t Momma's Boy neurotic PANSIES!

  • Jack (another RP supporter)||

  • Steven (Yet another Rontard)||

    We can ill afford to start bombing Iran and have oil go to 300$ a barrel. Iran can't hurt us. We have no buisness a half a world away. Just admit it. We're there for Israel. If it were up to you Mr. Goldstein, we'd fight her wars to our last American. Cowards like yourself and our like minded congress should go there yourselves. Or better yet, send YOUR kids! 70% of us true Americans got you number. You and your ilk blew your load on Iraq. NEVER AGAIN.

    Have a great day!

  • Patrick (Yet ANOTHER Rontard)||

    Anybody else notice how these message boards are COMPLETELY DOMINATED by "paulites" or whatever you want to call us. In fact, if you tally up all the people who agree with this ridiculous article it amounts to 2: Chuck and Dr. Right. As opposed to dozens of free-thinking INDIVIDUALS. This has been recurring on many message boards and I would not be surprised if these publications have realized that their carefully mediated articles are being undermined by free-thinkers and are taking counter-measures.

    Iran got its nuke technology from Haliburton.

    http://www.facebook.com/l.php?.....FsebJ7PGbw

    How's that for a "flawed policy". Of course we all remember our favorite Neo-Con Cheney and his ties to Haliburton.

    So we can open our eyes and seek the facts for ourselves (and vote accordingly).....Or, we can make our decision based on the corporate media and the ADL.

  • ||

    I'm not removing any responsibility from the 9/11 hijackers. Far from it.

    If I walk through Harlem at 3 AM shouting "I hate you fucking niggers!" at the top of my lungs, the people who come out and stab and/or beat the shit out of me do bear moral responsibility for assaulting me.

    However, I was also stupid for doing this in the first place, and it's very much out of place for me to complain to someone who informs me of that fact that they're blaming me.

  • ||

    ^This
    I hate when people scream "don't blame the victim" at you when you are merely calmly stating common sense. I would love to live in a world where I could dress up like a hooker and walk through a dark alley downtown by myself or walk through the Alaskan wilderness without a gun. But unfortunately, we live in reality. Rapist exist, bears will eat you, and pissed off arabs will try to suicide bomb your ass if you have a military presence on their land.

  • jacob||

    pissed off arabs will try to suicide bomb your ass if you have a military presence on their land.

    In the world of folks like Southerner, this last part apparently means that you are an anti-semite and you blame America.

  • Southerner||

    So basically, according to this absurd "blowback" argument, we shouldn't punish our enemies because to do so requires invasion (and therefore military occupation) of their lands and military occupation of their lands provokes their terrorist acts. Therefore, we shouldn't defend ourselves. Congratulations: you just confirmed there is no functional distinction between blame-America-first and the blowback hypothesis. I should point out, moreover, that Ron Paul isn't just saying this is the terrorists' reaction, he's saying they're right to react this way and that we should be coddling rather than exterminating them. Good luck selling that one to anyone who doesn't hate America as rabidly as his devotees apparently do.

    As to the anti-semitism, what I'm seeing here is not causation, but rather correlation: whenever anyone points out the sheer absurdity of Ron Paul's anti-American positions, his rabid followers proceed to sling anti-semitic epithets at the detractors and spout wild conspiracy theories about--among other things--Fox News, 9/11, Bilderberger, AIPAC, Israel, and--yes--Jews. While not exactly a logical argument against any of their positions, it's rather telling in the eyes of spectators that Ron Paul's stated positions seem to be such a magnet for racists, conspiracy theorists, and other nutjobs. As I believe one of Buckley's characters pointed out in Thank You For Smoking, debates on TV aren't about persuading your opponent of anything; they're about persuading the audience. Ron Paul is doomed because his defenders are very good at persuading the audience that his opponents are right and their portrayal of him is accurate.

    The world I live in is the real one, where Islamists are a credible threat to both our nation and to civilization in general, pacifism has never brought anyone any peace, and war is no longer a tidy affair of declared intentions between nations. It's also a world in which you cannot blame your nation for atrocities committed against it and still be thought a credible patriot. The reason the anti-semites and conspiracy theorists gravitate to Ron Paul is because they're pretty sure he's one of them and he's certainly done nothing to discredit this belief. At the same time, this is the reason the rest of us want nothing to do with him, and will not vote for him. Your dissembling about his anti-American positions (and Schultz's bashing of Fox News, as if that had anything to do with anything) serves only to confirm the absurdity and disingenuity of his positions.

  • AlmightyJB||

    ssdd

  • WWNGD?||

    Should He Run for the LP Nomination for President?

    Yes, I was going to vote for Robert "Naked Cowboy" Burck, but would prefer Paul or Johnson.

  • ||

    Robert "Naked Cowboy" Burck

    Badnarick, Barr, Burck...

    Yes Johnson should run if only to break the "B" name trend.

  • Juice||

    Don't forget Harry Brown!

  • Apatheist||

    Nice to see the "if you don't vote TEAM RED you are voting for TEAM BLUE" assholes are starting to ramp up the pressure already.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Happens every two years, Apatheist. DU and Freeperville are full of 'em.

  • ||

    "if you don't vote TEAM RED you are voting for TEAM BLUE"

    Wait...are you talking about Tony?

    Cuz I think his intention is different then what you think it is.

  • Pissy||

    Teams Voting is for suckers!

  • Apatheist||

    No I'm not talking about Tony, I'm talking about Tulpa et al.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There's a lot of that "don't waste your vote" bullshit on Tony's Team, too.

    Remember how they continue to treat Ralph Nader, and he's as Blue as you can get.

  • Amakudari||

    Your vote has a much larger impact if you vote for the winner or the runner-up, you see.

  • ||

    Absolutely.

  • MNG||

    Nice debates, but the simplest answer to the question asked is yes he should seek that nomination.

    The libertarians have tried flirting with the GOP for decades and gotten little more than the back of the hand whenever the GOP has been in power. I'm not going to sell that the Dems would be into libertarianism either, but Tulpa is wrong that there are not a significant number of liberals who base their liberalism less on government expenditure than they do on "lifestyle liberalism." Paul could sell to those people because he would give them an actual choice on many issues they currently don't have a choice on (WOD, WOT). However, that would solely be based on Paul's stances re: the federal government; iirc he would let the states do some pretty worrisome shit for liberals (and libertarians alike).

    I have to wonder, if Paul didn't have some of his stances that tend to distinguish him from the LP, like immigration, abortion and some of his religious right stuff, I think he would have about as much of a following in the GOP as Johnson...

  • Pissy||

    I disagree.

    Discuss.

  • Britt||

    The lifestyle liberals are worse then the religous right.

    Baptists are honest: ban booze, ban drugs, ban abortion, ban gay marriage, ban any kind of sex industry, etc. They're against it all, and they'll tell you so to your face.

    Lifestyle liberals are cool with stuff, until their masters tell them not to be. Try lighting a cigar in front of a health nazi, or telling a raunchy joke in front of a feminist, or eating a burger near a militant vegan. Or turning on a normal fucking lightbulb next to a fucking Green.

    Give me a scolding sourpuss anyday. At least I know where they stand on the fun stuff in life. Your so called free thinking lifestyle liberals are anything but. They seek a different set of controls, that's all.

  • MNG||

    There are liberals who would react that way, but they are'nt lifestyle liberals. I for one detest public health nannyism for example, think speech should trump feminism, etc.

    I would say that if you are "lighting a cigar in front of a health nazi" in a public place or the nazi's property then I think they have cause to be upset, and the militant vegetarian feels about that burger the way the religious right does about an embryo.

  • ||

    There are liberals who would react that way, but they are'nt lifestyle liberals.

    These lifestyle liberals are getting to be a smaller and smaller group with every response. How many of these lifestyle liberals are OK with shall-issue concealed carry?

  • MNG||

    Very smartly imo the NRA has made HUGE inroads within the Democratic Party.

  • ||

    Among mountain west and southern Dems and probably union members. Not lifestyle liberals.

  • Britt||

    There are liberals who would react that way, but they are'nt lifestyle liberals.
    ____________

    But are they true Scotsmen?

  • MNG||

    I'm not sure you get how the "true scotsman" thing works man.

  • Britt||

    Well one of us doesn't understand it, that's for sure.

    It's cute when people try to make the "well actually $MYTEAM is more libertarian then the libertarians because $BULLSHIT RATIONALIZATION.

  • MNG||

    Like I said above " I'm not going to sell that the Dems would be into libertarianism either"

    I think there are probably more people who consider themselves liberal for whom opposition to the WOD is more important than collective bargaining rights for public employees than someone like Tulpa might think, that's all.

  • Britt||

    You're not getting it.

    The alleged Democrat love of civil liberties and personal freedom is just that: an alleged one. They held the House and Senate for two years. Why didn't they repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, why didn't they repeal the Patriot Act, why didn't they end the War on Drugs?

    Because it's all lip service. The Democrats believe in personal freedom until they actually have the chance to make a positive change in the amount of it Americans have, and then they adopt new restrictions with absolute glee.

    Lifestyle liberals are a myth. They always have exceptions to their supposed live and let live beliefs, and they will use the State to make you live the way they want you to.

    Now go wash your clothes in cold water and read Krugman under the forty watt florescent tube you're allowed to run for no more then 3 hours per day.

  • ||

    Collective bargaining rights for public employees = loss for liberty as well as bankruptcy.

  • ||

    The Democrats believe in personal freedom until they actually have the chance to make a positive change in the amount of it Americans have, and then they adopt new restrictions with absolute glee.

    Exhibit A: What was the first thing the Democrats did when the controlled both houses and the white house for the frist time in 40 years?
    Repeal the Patriot Act? Close Guantanamo? End the Drug War? End Don't Ask Don't Tell? Legalize Gay Marriage?

    No. They mandated that everyone buy health insurance.

  • MNG||

    That's demonstrably false, iirc the first major law they passed was the Ledbetter thing.

  • MNG||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....ct_of_2009

    "The bill was then brought to the attention of the President and became the first act of congress signed by the new President Obama since his assumption of office on January 20."

  • Britt||

    That's the bill that lets someone collect a paycheck for years without complaining, then file suit right when they plan to retire and collect a nice payout?

    I wonder if that's going to lead to more or fewer people being hired?

  • ||

    Maybe I should say "first non-symbolic non-fluff" piece of legislation.

    Congress passes trivial bits of legislation with regularity that neither side actually gives a crap about.

    Technically ARRA was the first thing they did there was any sort of fight over, but I decided to leave out budgetary spending measures, and focus on significant legislative acts.

  • ||

    than someone like Tulpa might think, that's all.

    Not a very high bar, if you can find one that would satisfy it.

  • MNG||

    Hi Tulpa, nice to meet you, I'm MNG and I'm a liberal that cares a lot about lifestyle liberty and little about government expenditures.

    There's your one.

  • ||

    Excellent. Together we will put an end to this pointless democracy and rule the world as father and son.

  • ||

    The libertarians have tried flirting with the GOP for decades and gotten little more than the back of the hand whenever the GOP has been in power.

    Libertarians are going to get the back of the hand from anyone in power until they're a significant voting bloc. (remember the liberaltarian alliance of 2006) It certainly doesn't help that so many puff themselves up about how superior they are for not voting.

    I do agree that wedding yourself to a single party in which you are a minority of votes and campaign dollars is a losing strategy in the long run, but the Dems are terrible on nearly every single issue from a liberty perspective. And shut up about the WOD and WOT while they're swallowing Obama's essence at every opportunity.

  • MNG||

    I think the most significant development for liberty in the past 50 years has been the incorporation of the bill of rights to the states and the growing right to privacy which the federal courts have imposed on the states, both of which are kind of liberal accomplishments (conservatives wailed and gnashed their teeth over both).

    I'll grant that Heller has opened the door for developments that will likely redound to conservatives credit, but notice how tepid negative response to Heller has been from national Democratic pols. Iirc Obama hasn't said much about it at all...

  • ||

    The most significant development for liberty has been the Internet, cell phone proliferation, etc. By far.

    If you're talking about govt actions that promote liberty (what an oxymoron that is) then the civil liberty stuff is decent, though that was done decades ago and current liberal politicians are doing their utmost to roll those rights back unless they involve pelvic activity. The proliferation of shall-issue and right-to-work laws an deregulation of airlines and trucking has been good for liberty too, which is a conservative/libertarian thing.

  • MNG||

    Technically right-to-work laws bar an employer and the union he bargains with from making hiring exclusively among union workers a term of their CBA, so that's not much of a victory for liberty.

  • ||

    Are you serious?

    Liberty is always better served when an individual gets to bargain the terms and conditions of his employ and not have rules imposed on him by union goons and NLRB types.

    It is just horrible logic to argue that liberty is better served by collectivism.

  • ||

    This is an interesting and valid point. Liberals like to speak of the coercive power of non-state entities in the market, such as corporations, and how the government is necessary to restrain such entities.

    But for some reason, they do not include the coercive power of unions in forcing people to join the union and creating closed shops.

    If non-state entities like corporations are capable of exerting coercive power over individuals, why are corporations that sell labor not included in these criticisms?

    Isn't the closed union shop actually a perfect example of how non-state entities can wield coercive power in the market?

  • Maxxx||

    You can say that again.

  • ||

    This is an interesting and valid point. Liberals like to speak of the coercive power of non-state entities in the market, such as corporations, and how the government is necessary to restrain such entities.

    But for some reason, they do not include the coercive power of unions in forcing people to join the union and creating closed shops.

    If non-state entities like corporations are capable of exerting coercive power over individuals, why are corporations that sell labor not included in these criticisms?

    Isn't the closed union shop actually a perfect example of how non-state entities can wield coercive power in the market?

  • MNG||

    Yes, but of course this cuts both ways, as you recognize that this wouldn't fall under the libertarian definition of coercion...You know, "you don't have a right to a job" so you don't have a right to a job where the employer and union have signed a contract saying you must join the union to work there...

  • ||

    I happen to agree with Tulpa, though. The unions wouldn't be able to wield the power to force closed shops if the NLRA didn't force employers to negotiate with them.

    I'm merely pointing out that it is hypocritical of liberals to complain about the coercive power of corporations in (whatever it is that liberals thing corporations are coercing), but not the coerceive nature of a closed union shop.

  • ||

    Terminology alert: "closed shop" refers to a workplace where only current union members can be hired. These are illegal under the 1947 NLRA (which the unions were trying to repeal in 2009). One major problem with closed shops was that the only way to get a job there was to bribe union officials.

    The workplaces in question are "union shops" where management can hire anyone they want, but new employees must join the union within some short period of time (30 days iirc) or they lose the job. Thus hiring is not subject to union approval, so the bribery issues aren't as bad. It is these which are allowed by NLRA but prohibited by RTW laws.

  • ||

    Amended: By "closed shop" what I meant was "union shop".

  • ||

    But the employer was coerced to sign that contract.

  • StatistMike||

    The government should stay out of private relationships, unless it involves union-busting.

  • Tony||

    Liberty is served by government forcing private parties not to draw a certain type of contract?

    Get your government goons off our union goons.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Goons are goons, Tony. Some break your thumbs, and some just drag your ass to prison.

  • ||

    That would be so if the RTW laws existed in a vacuum. However the NLRA forces employers to negotiate with unions they don't want to negotiate with, and RTW represents a counterbalance to this coercive regime.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You don't balance wrongs with more wrongs. Or at least you shouldn't.

  • ||

    That's rich coming from a war hawk like you.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I understand things like the moral right to self-defence and who has and when. I don't hyperventilate "America...the guns...so evil".

    Thought>feeling

  • ||

    You have expressed several times a belief that the US can kill as many innocent people in foreign countries as it takes to "make them more free".

    That doesn't have shit to do with self-defense, so keep trying.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I said 'things like...' because I was lazy. I was referring to the more general moral framework. But we digress.

  • ||

    Oh, and I like your sliding spectrum scale as always. Privacy rights are credited to liberals because 1950s conservatives opposed them, but gun rights aren't really conservative because, even though 1970s-1980s liberals kicked up a shitstorm about them, BO hasn't talked about it in a wile.

  • MNG||

    Privacy rights are still not all that popular with the right, especially if you are talking about Roe or Lawrence. Most pols and nominees have made peace with Griswold, but most conservative theorists will still tell you they hate that decision.

    Look, I'm happy about Heller. I just think that post-1994 the majority of Dems are not going to push back against something like Heller the way conservatives are pushing against Roe.

  • ||

    Remember, Jesus never condemned homosexuality. There are some really strained positions on the other side, of course. The problem for the other side is that there is no verse in the gospels in which Jesus affirmatively and unequivocally condemns homosexuality.

    Yes, I do recognize that there are millions of evangelicals who will not let the words of Jesus himself get in the way of their narrative or, more accurately, the narrative of their preacher, their teachers, their parents, etc.

  • ||

    Thus, evangelicals should approve of Lawrence, if not doing handstands.

  • ||

    Jesus never condemned embezzlement either. In fact one of his parables speaks well of an embezzler (remember the faithless steward?).

    I'm no fan of evangelicals in general, but they do have a point about their scriptures condemning homosexuality. The OT and the letter of Jude are part of the Bible too.

  • ||

    It also bans the destruction of fruit trees and killing the mothers of newly-born birds, and allows both slavery and the death penalty for conversion from Judaism. I never get why supposedly the Bible is the unquestionable will of God, yet biblical law is selectively followed based upon personal biases.

  • Libertymike (shorter)||

    [bullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshit]

  • pblumel||

    I wouldn't recommend it for his own sake. In a post-Ron Paul environment he is a de facto leader of the libertarian Republican faction and could do something more practical with that role. But he is pissed and I certainly understand that. If he does run LP, I will vote for him.

  • ||

    Pro-abortion + pro-SSM = not a leader of any significant GOP faction.

  • ||

    don't conflate pro-choice with pro abortion.

    pro choice =/- pro abortion

  • ||

    Don't conflate pro-[abortion being legal] with pro-choice then. Unless you're asking the fetus' permission to be dismembered now.

  • MNG||

    Er, even if the fetus were a "full person" we wouldn't ask it's permission for any medical procedure, would we?

    It's proper for the other side to call itself pro-choice since it is all about preserving choices for the only classes of people who could make them.

  • ||

    i think "pro-choice" is a stupid term. i prefer pro abortion rights or something

    my point is that it is a canard that being pro abortion rights makes on pro abortion

    just like being pro RKBA doesn't mean one is for "arming everybody" (as anti-gunners like to spout) or even pro gun.

    i know people who are pro RKBA who hate gunz, and don't carry or own one

    similarly, many who are pro abortion rights, would never have one themself, and think they are morally suspect. they just don;'t think (for example first trimester) abortion should be illegal

  • ||

    So Bill Kristol was never pro-war, because he didn't join the Army and go to Iraq.

  • ||

    bill kriston was pro-war because he advocated OTHERs starting war, and others to go fight it.

    a pro-choicer who advocated others to HAVE abortions is not the same as somebody who advocates others should have a CHOICE to have an abortion

    grok the distinction?

  • ||

    If the medical procedure involved tearing said person limb from limb, I think we'd have to ask.

    If you find an unconscious man lying on the street with his heart stopped, you don't have to ask before performing CPR (assuming you know what you're doing etc). This is because we assume that people want to remain alive, and CPR helps someone remain alive.

    On the other hand, you can't cut off his testicles, even though you could do this if he were conscious and gave you permission.

  • MNG||

    "grok the distinction?"

    Obviously he didn't because he's right back to "TEH BABIES!!!"

  • MNG||

    My bad, I thought you were answering dunphy's point right above your post, but you were answering mine, apologies.

    My point was that we never ask a child's consent on medical procedures but their parents. The reason why you don't like my analogy is you think abortion murders a person, people who are pro-choice don't think that.

    Think of it this way, if there were a faction wanting to have contract hits legal and a faction against it, I'm not sure the former could not rightly call itself "pro-choice" since the latter would want to take the choice off the table while the former would leave it on the table. I guess you'd say "but what about the choice of the target?" but of course this gets us back to the crux with abortion: you either think an embryo is a human person with full human rights or you don't. If the former then of course abortion should be illegal, if the latter no big deal.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Fetus's, being unpersons, are incapable of giving consent or having rights.

  • ||

    crimethinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc

  • ||

    Unconscious people are incapable of giving consent either.

    Requirements for "having rights" is, well, open to debate.

  • MNG||

    I'll defend Tulpa here. I'm not sure it is unfair to refer to people who want to keep abortion legal as "pro-abortion" since they are arguing for a position that ultimately allows (at least more) abortion than their opponents. I also respect the other side's "pro-choice" designation since that side doesn't want to force anyone to have an abortion but just wants to resist taking the option away. It's odd that the two sides argue that their side's preferred name is correct and the other's is deceptive, imo they are both pretty correct descriptions of what the two sides want.

  • ||

    imo both pro-choice and pro-life are stupid terms.

    and i fit in the former camp

    considering so many "pro-choice" people are against choice in almost every other area, it's very ironic.

  • anti-dunphy||

    Nothing ironic about it. If you're dead, you can't make any choices, can you? Pro-abortion scum are therefore devoted by their very definition to the next generation of any choice whatsoever by making sure it doesn't live long enough to have any decisions to make.

  • anti-dunphy||

    Nothing ironic about it. If you're dead, you can't make any choices, can you? Pro-abortion scum are therefore devoted by their very definition to robbing the next generation of any choice whatsoever by making sure it doesn't live long enough to have any decisions to make.

  • Sevo||

    "...people who want to keep abortion legal as "pro-abortion" since they are arguing for a position that ultimately allows (at least more) abortion than their opponents."

    Sure about that?
    Their position allows more legal abortions, but may not affect the actual total.

  • ||

    If you stop punishing something, you get more of it.

  • anti-dunphy||

    "pro-choice" = pro-abortion

    Anyone who says differently is a baby murdering scumbag trying to swindle a pro-lifer into voting for pro-abortion politicians.

    Now fuck off and die, dunphy.

  • ||

    Oooooh I think I know who this is. How far along are you in the Family Ties DVDs?

  • ||

    who has more trolling devoted to them? i used to think it was epi, but i think i might be surpassing him at this point.

  • anti-dunphy||

    Fuck off and die, dunphy.

  • Roundup||

    Tulpa said, and then dunphy retorted, and then MNG countered, and then the troll chimed in...

  • ||

    Yeah, but what about The Angry Optimist?

    Or White Indidan?

    Or Joe from Lowell?

  • ||

    Enough listing of your aliases.

  • Debbie The Bloop||

    Bloop!

  • Maxxx||

    don't conflate pro-choice with pro abortion.

    pro choice =/- pro abortion

    Absolutely.

    I'm not in favor of people killing their spouses.

    I just think that they should have the choice to legally do so.

  • ||

    i'm not in favor of people doing (insert drug here...)

    i am in favor of them having the choice to do so...

    that doesn't make me "pro drugs"

    i am NOT pro MJ btw. i think it's lame, the MJ culture is lame etc.

    i wouldn't smoke it if it was legal

    but i believe people should have the choice to do so

    that does NOT make me pro drugs.

  • Maxxx||

    I was pointing out the underlying fallacy in your distinction.

    To simplify:

    Killing a spouse is always wrong because it deprives another person of life and hence it should be illegal.

    Taking drugs is not morally wrong, it does not impact anyone other than the imbiber and should not be illegal.

    Abortion is ???? morally wrong and hence should have ???? legal status.

    Saying that you are in favor of someone else having the choice to do X without endorsing X is a moral dodge. Either X is morally wrong or it is not.

    Now you could also say that X is morally wrong but given human weaknesses prohibiting X would be on net more destructive than not prohibiting it. Which is my position on abortion, but I don't read that as yours.

  • Moob||

    I'm pro-caps to begin sentences, you scumbaggin', small capppin', mechanics challenged....whoo, trollin' is leaving me out of breath.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If Spouse A were to attack Spouse B, would killing Spouse A in self-defense not be okay?

  • ||

    If I were he, I would first talk to the Ron Paul campaign about being his VP, in whichever party Paul winds up representing. (If libertarians have any chance, having the two of them running against each other in the general election would ruin it.)

    But if someone other than those two gets the GOP nomination, and Paul keeps his promise not to seek the LP nomination, then Johnson should do it.

  • Peter Orvetti||

    Johnson seems to realize that he would not necessarily get the nomination, which is smart of him. It took Bob Barr six ballots, and Mike Gravel didn't even come close. (Gravel wasn't particularly libertarian in his candidacy, however.) I expect Johnson would pull it off over the other contenders, but it would be no sure thing.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Sure, why not. On the other hand, hell no! The bastard might steal votes from Ron Paul!!

  • jtuf||

    I would be happy to see Gary Johnson on the LP presidential ticket in 2016, but not 2012. The LP shouldn't hand over the top 2012 spot to someone who hasn't even joined the party yet. We need to be more than the plan B for politicians from the major parties.

  • ||

    I agree. Johnson is welcome, but he needs to switch to LP well before becoming the nominee.

  • libtarian jerk-off coxswsain||

    Remember guys, grab, stroke and pull, but pull gently!

  • ||

    Is that how Jerry did it?

  • ||

    I don't see how it would serve any useful purpose. It would alienate Johnson from the Republican Party at a time when the GOP needs more libertarians, and actually has a growing number of them, for once. At best it would just steal a few libertarian votes from the Republican candidate (and not many of them).

    A Paul/Johnson ticket might work as a spoiler for the 2012 election. Johnson by himself would just be an empty gesture. A symbolic act of self-immolation in which Johnson torches his bridge to the Republican Party while standing on it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I agree. Gary should go into the senate. That would be his zenith position.

  • ||

    Well, he's got plenty of time. He could go into the Senate, wait four, or twelve years, and then run for President again.

  • Maxxx||

    Yep.

    At this point in time, a libertarian will not get elected president. But they can get elected to the Senate, House, and statewide offices where they can roll back government intervention, and advocate for even smaller government in the future.

    The concept of a libertarian revolution is a fantasy.

  • FTFY||

    The concept of a libertarian revolution is a fantasy ...

    ... and always will be. Jerk-offs.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes. We can use The Left's 'Long March Through the Institutions' for ourselves. We will become a more and more credible force as we settle those institutions, which will help us get more people in there. We just have to make sure the institutions don't settle Our People.

  • ||

    Settle those institutions? Actual libertarians want to abolish those institutions. Reason/LP "libertarians" just want their kind of efficient and sensible people in charge of the institutions.

  • Anacreon||

    Damn, you are correct. You, sir, are better than all of us.

  • Mensan||

    But what do true Scotsmen want to do with the institutions?

  • Cytotoxic||

    I was talking about Congress and the like, but if we get people into institutions like FM or the Fed Reserve before we are able to abolish them, then we should do it. Unless they are Alan Greenspan.

  • ||

    I would seriously consider Johnson as an LP candidate. If the GOP spurns him, that's their loss and potentially the LP's gain. I am amazed that a former governor who did well in office has been effectively frozen out of this year's GOP Presidential debates. If the Republicans are that stupid, then why shouldn't Mr. Johnson jump over to the LP? My only question: Is there enough time for him to register as a Libertarian before the LP decision must be made?

  • ||

    Gary Johnson ( bless his heart ) comes on a little goofy for a serious presidential candidate. I am presonally convinced that he would do fine if we gave him the chance. Alas, most people hav not gotten past that first impression and he has no chance to win. That is a rotten shame, but the damage is already done.

    If he wanted to be the LIbertarian nominee and make some noise, they will not find a better spokesman.

  • ||

    I don't think he's goofy. But he's inexperienced at this game. In the debates he is in, he doesn't make good use of what little airtime he gets.

    The game is to stretch out your air time by taking a REALLY long time answering every question, hitting as many bases at once.

    You should NEVER answer any debate question with one line. You blab and blab until the moderator shuts you up. That's what Romney and Perry do.

  • ||

    As I've said before, GJ should build a coalition run between the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, the Constitution Party and the Pot Party. Get the nominations of all of these third parties, which will help with ballot access.

    Ron Paul then can run and make a lot of noise as the runner up in the GOP race. Then when Romney inevitably locks up the nomination, he can join Johnson's ticket as the VP, sidestepping sore loser laws in multiple states that won't allow a candidate to run for the same position in a different party after losing the primary. This will generate enough support to get both Paul and Johnson in the debates. They then attack Obama from the Left and Romney from the Right. I'm not sure if they can get a plurality, but they would likely change the state of American politics forever, which needs to happen. And they have the core of a new reformist-libertarian third party that can be a contender.

  • ||

    That said, if Ron Paul is not interested and Gary's just going to go for the LP nomination, he'd be better served running for NM Senate as a Republican. Bob Barr already proved that experienced politicians as LP nominee doesn't work. I say build a new, bigger coalition or let the LP rot on the vine and stop pretending it's anything but a protest vote.

    A senate run would set up a great ticket for 2016 with Rand Paul/Gary Johnson or vice versa.

  • Concerned libertarian||

    Johnson, one of only two sane people running for president in the republican party. The other one is polling almost in the single digits too. Definitely the party to hitch our fortunes to. Yeehaw.

  • ||

    It depends. Would David Koch run as his VP?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "the fact that Republicans have always proven themselves to be the bigger government party, despite rhetoric"

    BWAHAHAHA

    Sure, if you *only* count spending...

  • ||

    Sure, Gary. Hop on the fast sled to oblivion.

  • Brandin||

    I feel he should run for the Libertarian nomination but should only run if Ron Paul fails to secure the Republican nomination. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination then Gary Johnson should endorse him.

  • ||

    Gary Johnson and Ron Paul should leave the Republican Party together and form their own third party right now, and get endorsements from the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, etc., kind of like Proprietist said up above. They shouldn't JOIN a third party, they should FORM a third party. Many disaffected Democrats would give them a look, without having to commit apostasy and vote for a Republican or one of the other third parties they've come to hate and/or fear. Many Republicans would vote for them, and be relieved to do so, to avoid voting for whomever their party actually nominates. And pretty much all of the independents, tea partiers, constitutionalists, and libertarians (big and small "L") would be thrilled to vote for them, given the option. I think they could pull a Jesse Ventura on the whole country. But it has to be both of them, and it has to be their own party. It won't work otherwise.

    They won't do it, of course. Maybe Gary Johnson/Rand Paul in 2016?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You know, successful third parties are formed around particular candidates (George Wallace, Ross Perot, Teddy Roosevelt). Maybe this is a good idea.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    (successful is a comparative term, of course - successful in affecting the behavior of at least one major party)

  • Douglas Adams||

    "I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."

    "It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

    "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

    "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

    "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

    "I did," said ford. "It is."

    "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

    "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

    "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

    "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

    "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

    "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

    "What?"

    "I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"

    "I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."

    Ford shrugged again.

    "Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

  • ||

    The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are
    several - one of the many major problems with governing people is
    that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get
    people to let them do it to them.

    To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most
    want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
    To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting
    themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do
    the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a
    problem.

    Douglas Adams

  • ||

    I'm still in the Ron Paul camp so long as he even has a slight chance of winning the GOP nomination. Since I find the other GOP contenders unnacceptable alternatives to Obama, Gary Johnson would make a good 2nd choice for me. 3rd choice if Wayne Allyn Root decides to enter the Libertarian race also.

  • Robert||

    No.

    As an LP member, I don't want the party to go down the old Bob Barr road of picking someone from another party who crashed and burned in their election process.

  • WWNGD?||

    What kind of jar?

  • ||

    I'd vote LP for the first time in my life. GJ doesn't deserve the treatment he's gotten.

  • Robert||

    Answer: No, and neither should anybody else, nor for any other office. 40 years have proven the LP to be a waste of good libertarians. Divided we stand, united we fall; radical libertarian activists are bad company for each other.

  • a||

    who unambiguously supports ... a non-interventionist foreign policy

    Jesus, Gillespie. Johnson supported the stupid war in Libya. That's "unambiguous"?

  • Old Mexican||

    There's little doubt that Johnson - who unambiguously supports [...] a non-interventionist foreign policy[...]


    Say whaaaaaat???

    http://original.antiwar.com/ju.....at-emptor/

  • ||

    As tempting as the libertarian party is, a third party does not work (in elections) within a two party system. Now, I think Gary Johnson would do an excellent job of spreading the message of liberty as head of the Libertarian Party, if that is his goal.

  • Brian Irving||

    The Libertarian Party does not need another whining Republican who quits his party because he "don't get no respect." While it is clear that Gary Johnson is a libertarian philosophically, he has chosen to put aside his principles to play on the corrupt Republican team. Why should Libertarians fall over themselves to draft someone who has made such a choice when there are libertarians who have stuck to their principles, and the party for years, in good times and in bad.

  • ||

    What he should do is become a member of the party and wait until 2016 when he has shown his interest in the Libertarian Party is not a just a drive by flirtation just to get nominated.

  • ||

    Absolutely! Gary should hop on the LP ticket and help us tear the facade of the two-party system to pieces!

  • titlemike||

    think Gary Johnson should run as a Libertarian. He has a message that needs to be heard. If he campaigned hard in the following eleven states CA. NY. NJ. FL. MI. NC. TX. PA. IL. OH. and GA. he could become the next president. All he needs is one third of the republicans and democrats. He would get support from the pot smokers and online poker players. I would love to run his campaign behind the scenes. He now has the support of The Mootsa Gootsa Society, google it for details, it will take you to my site or just click my name above.

  • ||

    No. If Gary ran on the LP line he could wind up splitting the anti-Obama vote and reelecting the President.

    Gary should run for the House or Senate in NM and use that as a base for a future run for President.

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