Gary Johnson Goes Full Libertarian: "I am excited. I am liberated. And I am committed to shaking the system as it has never been shaken before."

Former two-term governor of New Mexico and former GOP presidential candidate Gary Johnson has sent out his first email blast as a contender for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. At 10 a.m. MST today he'll hold a presser in New Mexico. Read the full email below: 

Dear Friends,

By now, you have probably heard the news.

This morning, I stepped before the microphones at a news conference in the New Mexico capitol and announced that I am seeking the Libertarian nomination for President of the United States. The Libertarian Party nominee will be on the ballot in all 50 states – as was the case in 2008.

It was both a difficult decision – and an easy one. It was difficult because I have a lot of Republican history, and a lot of Republican supporters. But in the final analysis, as many, many commentators have said since watching how I governed in New Mexico, I am a Libertarian - that is, someone who is fiscally very conservative but holds freedom-based positions on many social issues.

Frankly, I have been deeply disappointed by the treatment I received in the Republican nomination process. Other candidates with no national name identification like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman were allowed to participate in the debates.

Incredibly candidates with no executive experience like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum were allowed to participate while I, a successful two-term governor with a solid record of job creation, was arbitrarily excluded by elitist media organizations in New York. My appeals to the Republican National Chairman for basic fairness were ignored.

I had hoped to lay out a full libertarian message on all the issues in the Republican contest. I think this election needs a libertarian voice. While Ron Paul is a good man and a libertarian who I proudly endorsed for president in 2008, there is no guarantee he will be the Republican nominee.

When I announced that I was running for president, I promised you I would be a voice for bold ideas to bring government and its spending under control. I promised I would put my record as the ‘most fiscally conservative’ governor in the nation in front of the voters. And I said that, unlike too many Republican politicians, I think Americans’ government should be smaller and less intrusive and let people make decisions for themselves.

My Agenda for America is clear:

- I want to end deficit spending and cut federal spending by 43%.

- I want to enact the Fair Tax to stimulate real economic growth and jobs.

- I want to end the manipulation of our money by the Federal Reserve.

- I support the Second Amendment and oppose gun control.

- I oppose expensive foreign wars in places like Libya and Afghanistan.

- I support a woman's right to choose.

- I support marriage equality for gay Americans as required by the Constitution.

- I support legalization of marijuana, which will save us billions and do no harm.

- I support returning strict adherence to Constitutional principles to our government.

It is clear that the elite national media and the political “ruling class” don’t want this message heard. It frightens them. It frightens them because they know our message is one that actually reflects the true beliefs of millions of Americans – and they don’t want those millions of people to know there really is a candidate for president who represents them, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, Independents or Libertarians.

Sadly neither the Republicans nor Democrats will offer this agenda to the American people.

They can’t handle the notion of a successful two-term governor, elected and reelected as a Republican in a Democrat state, who could veto 750 spending bills to shrink government -- while refusing to play the special interest game or impose a social agenda on people who prefer to make their own judgments about “values”.

In other words, there is no room in the national two-party club for a candidate who actually proved that governing as a libertarian works – and whose platform on every issue is clearly supported by a majority of the American people.

Sometimes the best answer is the simplest. I’m a Libertarian in belief. I successfully governed as a Libertarian in everything but the name, and I am running for president as a Libertarian.

Even before I announced my decision, polls are showing that I would today gain more votes than any Libertarian presidential candidate in history – and have a very real impact on the election nationwide. And that is before our campaign even begins.

If I earn the Libertarian nomination, I will be on the ballot in all 50 states. I will not be held hostage to a system rigged for the wealthiest and best-known candidates in a handful of states who happen to have early primaries. And most important, we will offer a political “home” for millions of Americans who are not finding one in the current political establishment or its candidates.

I am excited. I am liberated. And I am committed to shaking the system as it has never been shaken before. Just the speculation that I might run as a Libertarian has garnered more national media attention than I ever received as a Republican candidate whose voice they didn’t’ want to hear.

Depending on which poll you read, at least 40% of Republicans are not satisfied with the “field” of candidates the media has produced for them. At least 1 in 4 Democrats is having real second thoughts about Barack Obama. Do the math, and it confirms what I have seen for months on the campaign trail: The only political majority in America today is the one made up of voters who are looking for leadership they haven’t found yet. America is ready for a President who will restore common sense to our fiscal and foreign policies and get government out of the boardroom and the bedroom.

A credible Libertarian candidate for president is the real path to liberty, opportunity, and a government that is put into its proper and limited role.

In a recent national poll 63% of Americans said they wished there was a third choice for 2012. There is, and I intend to educate the voters about what we offer America.

Together, you and I are going to offer that majority a choice. They will see that Your support in the past few months has created this amazing opportunity. I may be the messenger, but this isn’t about me. It is about seizing a moment in history and bringing America back from the brink.

I want you to be with me as we launch this great endeavor. I ask for your continued support. I ask for your advice. And I am asking for your contribution today to provide the spark for the movement we are igniting.

You are one of my most generous supporters, and I must depend on you to be as generous as you can once again. Please send your contribution of $2,000, $1,000, $500, or $250. It will be used wisely to take our message to every corner of this great country, and to provide a voice that will otherwise never be heard in 2012. Go to: Gary Johnson 2012.com.

As a candidate for the Libertarian Party nomination my campaign will be eligible for Federal Matching funds -- which means whatever you send will ultimately be matched. A $100 contribution is worth $200. A $250 contribution is worth $500. Please send your maximum contribution today.

Thank you for your support and your friendship. It means more to me than you will ever know.

Sincerely,

Gary

P.S. For those who say my decision to run as the Libertarian Party candidate will only draw votes from the Republicans and re-elect President Obama let me predict that, as my full platform based on freedom becomes known, my candidacy will draw votes from both the Republicans and Democrats and many, many independents.

More 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.

  • Gimlet||

    tl;dr

  • ||

    Run, Gary, run!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Win, Gary, win!

  • ||

    yep!

  • hazeeran||

    here here!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'm excited, too. He might actually pull 3%, at least in New Mexico.
    (And at least one vote, that I know of, in Ohio.)

  • Joe M||

    Public Policy Polling showed him at 22% in a three way race against Romney and Obama just a week or two ago.

  • Joe M||

    In New Mexico, that is.

  • ||

    Heck, he might get a plurality in New Mexico according to a recent poll.

  • Joe M||

    I just remembered a dream I had in which a third party candidate did win one state. A premonition?

  • ||

    this, this is what you dream of. sheesh.

    (if that dream occurred between the orgy-dream and the destroying-hordes-of-zombies-dream, then I retract my comment.)

  • Joe M||

    That goes without saying.

  • ||

    "Standard Libertarian Dream Disclosure"

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And I guess I'll have to send some money to the stupid bastard.
    Jesus, save me from these tiny, painful shards of optimism and the festering wounds they always create.
    Amen.

  • ||

    Just wait. Lew Rockwell will be around in a moment to tell you that Gary Johnson is not a libertarian, but instead a demonic Hamiltonian. Then you can save your money.

  • Montgomery Burns||

    Hold it Tom Mix, there's a NEW Mexico?

  • ||

    actually a piece of the old mexico, just like canada was.

  • robc||

    If Paul doesnt win the GOP nomination, he has my vote.

    If Paul does win it, the LP better pull their damn candidate, whoever it is. Ron is still a lifetime member in the LP.

  • SIV||

    The LP would be totally insane not to endorse Paul if he gets the GOP nom.

  • robc||

    Considering this is the LP we are talking about....

    Sure, more sane than the GOP or Dems, but still pretty damn crazy.

  • protefeed||

    The LP would be totally insane not to endorse Paul if he gets the GOP nom.

    The Libertarian Party is a political party. Their by-laws prohibit endorsing candidates from other parties. It would be an abdication of common sense and their sworn duties as officers of the party for them to publicly endorse Ron Paul, however much their members might privately like and choose to vote for Paul.

  • Dan Patrick||

    And here I thought they were committed to achieving liberty as their highest value.

    Oh, wait, these are the people that ran Bob Barr, the guy that just endorsed Newt "War All The Time" Gingrich. Yeah, they're real proponents of liberty.

  • protefeed||

    It came down to the wire with Barr, just a handful of votes at the convention between him and IIRC Ruwart.

    Associating slightly more than half of the tiny fraction of Libertarians who bothered to show up for the convention as being what all libertarians stand for makes about as much sense as blaming Paul supporters if Romney gets nominated.

    If you're so committed, show up at the LP convention as a delegate, otherwise don't bitch.

  • ||

    What about in states like NY with Fusion Voting? Here one candidate can be nominated by any and all Parties! In 2000 the Reform Party had different nominees in different states!

    I like Johnson, and if Paul doesn't get the nomination I'll be voting Libertarian (again), but he is DEAD WRONG on "marriage equality" for gays being required by the Constitution! There is NO MARRIAGE in the Constitution AT ALL!!! I am totally against government-sanctioned "marriage" of any kind AT ALL!!! If the government insists on clumping Individuals into "legal groups" to "protect" their Constitutional Right to share their benefits and whatnot (absurd notion - that's what Contract Law is for), then it should only recognize "Civil Unions" between any two or more humans who wish to enter into such a government-sactioned contract.

  • Shawn Levasseur||

    The bylaws of the LP prohibit the endorsement of another party's nominee.

    BUT…

    "None of the Above" is always an option according to the LP bylaws. If RP has the GOP nomination locked up by May, I wouldn't be suprised to see an active campaign for "NOTA" at the LP convention.

  • Maxxx||

    What is this going to accomplish?

  • BakedPenguin||

    It will give people a choice if Romney is the R candidate.

  • Maxxx||

    And I'll probably vote for him for the masturbatory self satisfaction.

    Then?

    He should have run or senate from NM, where he could have advanced libertarian policies.

    This decision of his is nothing but a pathetic ego trip.

  • Sandman||

    Agreed Maxxx. In the senate, a few votes can make a ton of difference. Gary Johnson and Rand Paul could have been the beginning of a nice libertarian caucus that would actually accomplish something.

  • Hank||

    Can't he still? Or do you think he'll be too busy President-ing?

  • Tim||

    He's like an electron about to cross the Event Horizon.

  • Anonymous||

    Here's hoping that if Ron Paul gets dogpiled by the Republican establishment (which will probably happen after he wins Iowa) he throws his support fully behind Johnson so they can take a bite out of the Republican nominee.

    Honestly, I don't even care if it results in Obama's re-election. Romney and/or Gingrich would be even worse because they espouse the same policies as Obama under the flag of "small government," so they shit up the country and discredit minarchism as hypocrisy.

  • Joe M||

    It's quite possible that Obama could win re-election, while the GOP loses some seats in the House while gaining a majority in the Senate. That's about the best non-libertarian result we can hope for.

  • ||

    Probably so. As awful as Obama's foreign policy has been, compared to Newt or Bachmann he's basically Gandhi.

  • adam||

    He's already getting dogpiled by the media. I can't believe how many news stories I've seen on the Iowa primaries that neglect to even mention his name, even though he's polling #1. The bias of the media has never been on sharper display than in this Republican primary season.

  • Pastafarian||

    No doubt the Jews are behind it. Or the Illuminati. Or Jewish Illuminati.

  • Jewish Illuminati||

    Job 38:11

  • The Jews Behind It||

  • Jose||

    Gingrich | Romney = Obama + more unnecessary foreign war

  • ||

    I never even really thought about it like that.

    www.privacy-works.tk

  • KP||

    Gary should have just endorsed Ron and ran again in 2016. The amount of attention from the press conference would at least match whatever coverage he receives now.

  • ||

    And when Ron Paul loses, who will the LP run? Wayne Allan Root? Great.

  • KP||

    Gary will have an even harder time getting back in the party, when he and Paul both lose. Better to save face and bow out gracefully.
    The Libertarian Party should at least try and be libertarian instead of pushing light-Republican rejects.

  • ||

    Gary should have just endorsed Ron

    Just to see the Abottandcostello-esque response from the media.

    "Who's endorsing what on first?"

  • KP||

    At the very least it'll be entertaining!

  • robc||

    Im disappointed, I was hoping for a Paul/Johnson ticket, but this makes it impossible.

  • SIV||

    Paul/Palin 2012!

  • Jose||

    How does Johnson/Paul grab you?

  • robc||

    I was hoping for that in 2016, I figured Ron would only serve 1 term as prez, then Gary could step up from Veep into top spot and bring on Rand.

  • ||

    Is there anything legally making it impossible? In the tiny chance Paul actually gets the nomination, why couldn't Johnson join Paul's ticket and the LP can run some aged codger on his deathbed and tell everyone not to vote for him (for ballot access)?

  • kbolino||

    Goldwater/Reagan 2012

  • PIRS||

    What do you think? Will the Libertarian Party nominate an actual libertarian this year or will they nominate Bob Barr again?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    What do you think? Will the Libertarian Party nominate an actual libertarian this year or will they nominate Bob Barr again?

    Let me guess - anything short of the Anarchrist or the Ghost of Murray Rothbard means they "sold out" to the man?

    That said, my support of Barr is a shameful period in my life.

  • ||

    It was for us all...his endorsement of Newt had me sighing in disbelief. There were TWO actual libertarians running. And he picks the most statist and corrupt of all the GOP candidates?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Don't forget Babar's trying to help a real scumbag pol get stolen money back.

  • ||

    Think of it as voting for L ballot access.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Exactly.

  • PIRS||

    I don't think Ron Paul has sold out. This year I am supporting Ron Paul.

  • Anonymous||

    Gary Johnson is different from Bob Barr. Barr was actively anti-libertarian as a Congressman and then flip-flopped when he wanted to appeal to the LP. Johnson has always been a moderate libertarian, both when he was Governor and now.

    No, Gary Johnson doesn't support the immediate legalization of heroin. But that doesn't make him Bob Barr.

  • rst||

    Haven't you been following Ron Paul? Ya never go full libtard.

  • sarcasmic||

    aye

  • jackrungh||

    Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, it's forgiveable to go full libtard.

  • Butler Reynolds||

    Well, not in public.

  • ||

    While I'm so happy my favorite candidate will likely be on the ballot in November, I hope he goes beyond merely seeking the LP nomination. Why not go for the Reform Party nomination as well? Unite the LP and Reform Parties to build a bigger coalition of support. Otherwise, my excitement is tempered by the knowledge that the LP is a fast road to obscurity.

    I'm also glad he's clearly avoiding burning bridges with the Paul camp. His withdrawal from the GOP race should help Paul, as the Iowa race is within the margin of error in the most recent polls.

    If Paul goes down, forever branded a crypto-racist by the media, his crowd will have to look elsewhere. I actually kind of hope Paul doesn't run as an LP candidate or independent if he loses the GOP race and passes the torch to Johnson, who has less baggage and is more electable.

  • SIV||

    lol

    "more electable"? He can't poll 1% in the GOP primary!

  • ||

    Of course he's not going to win over Paul's true believers in a race between the two. Paul already had the organization, name recognition, etc. Johnson got in first and had assumed that that movement would come to him if Paul hadn't entered.

    This fact does not preclude the notion that Johnson is more electable. All cards (and newsletters) on the table, Paul is looking pretty bad. He might pull a committed 25% of the GOP vote (or around 12-15% of the public, optimistically), but once the other candidates start accepting Romney cabinet positions, they'll fall in line to keep Paul from getting the nomination via plurality. And the media will now be entirely unforgiving and brutal.

    Johnson's pitfall is that he's mostly unknown and he's competing for the constituency of the candidate with the most committed following in US politics. Assuming Paul doesn't go LP, Johnson would again be a natural outlet for his supporters, which could be enough to get him into the debates. And his executive experience and comparative lack of known skeletons and weird associations makes him as good of a candidate as a libertarian can expect.

  • ||

    I have to give Gary credit for having a basically perfect platform. Good luck to him; he's going to need it.

  • SIV||

    The "Fair Tax" is the perfect platform?
    Did you like Huckabee in 2008?

    "libertarian-lite" + Fair Tax is a fucked up "perfect platform" for a self-professed an-capper.

  • ||

    Incrementalism is a virtue. Sorry, but even ancaps need to admit that you have to start somewhere.

    FairTax is preferable to the current tax system, and therefore better than maintaining the status quo. Not perfect, not even ideal, but better.

  • protefeed||

    I have to give Gary credit for having a basically perfect platform. Good luck to him; he's going to need it.

    How exactly is that a "basically perfect" platform? I'll go with "not bad for a minarchist lite" or "better than any of the R or D candidates than Paul", but perfect? Advocating somewhat less theft by taxation than the status quo, said by a fellow anarcho-libertarian?

  • protefeed||

    Whoops, should have read "better than any of the R or D candidates including Paul"

  • shamalamadingdong||

    If Paul gets the R nomination, he gets my vote, if not then Gary gets my vote.

  • protefeed||

    You're assuming Johnson is going to win the LP presidential nomination. That is anything but a done deal. That nomination is decided by a couple of hundred or so fervent libertarians who bother to show up for the May convention in Vegas as delegates, many of whom are gonna want a more purist candidate after the Barr thing.

  • smz||

    yeah, the libertarian Fair Tax!!

  • ||

    The perfect is ever the enemy of the good.

  • ||

    Ironically, that will likely be the reason why the LP would sabotage the best and most experienced candidate they've ever had. Barr was experienced but not really a libertarian.

    Johnson's pragmatism is what the LP has always needed. Rome wasn't built in a day. The Socialist Party of the 1930s did not get all their platform enacted overnight. The all or nothing approach has to end or we might as well give up on a libertarian political movement.

  • Tim||

    My money's on Donald Trump to be the ego driven spoiler of 2012 that get's Obama re-elected.

  • ||

    People that vote for the Donald should really get their head checked.

  • Ska||

    Are there really people that retarded out there?

    Don't answer that, I already know the depressing truth. *facepalm*

  • ||

    If I bother to vote after TEAM RED defeats Ron Paul, it'll be for him.

  • SIV||

    I'll vote for Ron Paul if he gets the nom. If he doesn't but can force a major concession in a brokered convention I might vote for another GOP nominee. It would have to be someone not competing in the current primary process. Barring either of thos outcomes I might vote LP or just leave that line blank like I did in 2004 when there was no acceptable candidate on the ballot.

  • ||

    This is the best of times. This is the worst of times.

    With Ron Paul's candidacy gaining momentum, and the LP on the ballot in all fifty states, the MSM and Duopoly can't ignore the libertarian message.

    If RP get's the GOP nomination, Obama will sail to re-election as the libertarian-leaning(*) voters split between RP and GJ.

    If Mittens gets the nod, then Obama will win in a three-way squeaker: Obama 40.1%, Mittens 39.9%, Johnson 20%.

    We won't win in 2012, but our voice will be heard.

  • ||

    20% is incredibly optimistic. If he gets above 5% I'll call it a libertarian win.

  • SIV||

    What are you smoking? The best the LP has done in a presidential election is once getting 1%. Tying that would be a "win" for them.

  • ||

    Yes, 20% is incredibly optimistic. John Anderson, the most successful non-team presidential candidate, got 6.6% in 1980.

    I'd be happy with 5% for Johnson, but wouldn't call it a win.

  • ||

    Shit, forgot about Perot's 19%. So 20% could happen.

  • BakedPenguin||

    John Anderson, the most successful non-team presidential candidate, got 6.6% in 1980.

    Nope. Sorry.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Ah, never mind the last one.

  • ||

    Wouldn't that be Teddy Roosevelt, with the Bull Moose party?

  • protefeed||

    20% is incredibly optimistic. If he gets above 5% I'll call it a libertarian win.

    Knock a zero off that and make it 2%, and I'd say you're back in touch with objective reality.

    And about half of that 1% are people who wouldn't vote for Mittens or Gingrich or Obama no matter what.

  • GW||

    Uhh, don't you actually have to have a majority to win a presidential election?

  • ||

    If you mean a majority of the popular vote, no. You simply have to have the most votes, aka a plurality.

    But since the presidential election is actually decided by the electoral college, I believe it's possible to win the popular vote but still lose the election, even if the electors all vote as they're supposed to.

  • GW||

    The popular vote is irrelevant. I'm talking about electoral votes. I think you have to have a majority of electoral votes to win.

  • GW||

    And I'm right. If you don't pull 270 electoral votes, the House decides...

    http://www.archives.gov/federa.....q.html#270

  • protefeed||

    The winner-take-all nature of the electoral college makes it highly unlikely that an LP candidate will win any EC votes at all.

    Where it might matter is at the margins in a swing state, where disaffected voters vote "none of the above" by going LP.

  • ||

    Let's just pray for a NM plurality.

  • GW||

    Yeah, the electoral college bloze. Gotta love a system where you can win the popular vote but lose the election, or one where a Ross Perot can get almost 20% of the popular vote and get NO electoral votes.

    It's sometimes said that the electoral college gives small population states more of a say, but I don't see how that's the case. It seems like a handful of populous states are the ones who decide for the whole country.

  • robc||

    Clinton 42, Bush 39, Perot 19.

    Does that answer your question. (All numbers + or - 1, did it off the top of my head, it may have been 43/38/19)/

  • ||

    According to Wikipedia, Perot got 18.9% popular, so you're close enough.

  • robc||

    I was rounding, I knew Perot got 19, I just cant remember Clinton/Bush off the top of my head.

  • Maxxx||

    With Ron Paul's candidacy gaining momentum, and the LP on the ballot in all fifty states, the MSM and Duopoly can't ignore the libertarian message.

    Wanna bet?

  • ||

    They won't ignore it. They'll mock it, belittle it, insult it, and associate it with insanity, violence, racism, and crony capitalism.

  • ||

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you...

  • Citizen Nothing||

    ...then they dig up your old newsletters.

  • ||

    Which Johnson has none of. And the message of libertariansism will have a better pulpit than we've ever had.

  • veemee sashimi||

    ...and then you lose. Again.

  • LC||

    You have to imagine that if Paul gets the GOP nomination, GJ would pull out. Right?

  • ||

    Some of my LP e-mails seem to hint at that possibility, though they do deny that they'll do that.

  • SIV||

    Gary hasn't got the LP nomination yet.
    Does he have plans to run if he doesn't get it?

  • ||

    The LP would be stupid to not give their nom to Johnson (barring RP asking for it), he's the most visible and experienced.

  • ||

    I think he's a shoe-in.

  • protefeed||

    I think you're unfamiliar with how the LP presidential nominating process works, or with how many of the people who show up at that convention are purists who remember Barr.

    It is not a done deal. At all. It depends on who actually shows up in Vegas.

  • ||

    Oh, I know there will be dissension within the ranks. If Jesus the Libertarian Messiah came to Earth to run for office and save us all, there would be a huge fight within the party.

    That all said, Johnson is a much more reasonable (and viable) Libertarian candidate than Barr, who could've run on the motto, "My candidacy is incongruous."

  • protefeed||

    Being a purer libertarian than Barr is not a hard bar to clear.

    I like Johnson more than any of the R candidates, including Paul. I'm not sure if I like Johnson more than any of the LP candidates -- I've met Lee Wrights in person, and like him a lot.

    I guess it will boil down for me to meeting Johnson at the LP convention and asking him some tough questions about his support of Fair Theft and whatnot.

  • CatoTheElder||

    ... Barr, who could've run on the motto, "My candidacy is incongruous."

    I think that's what Barr meant when he said, "This is not your father's Libertarian Party."

  • ||

    If Ron Paul gets the nomination, I'd be surprised if he doesn't consider Johnson as his VP and merge the campaigns. Unfortunately due to ballot access law, the LP will have to run somebody.

  • Me Myself and I||

    I now want Mittens to get the nomination and lose because Johnson siphoned off 8% of the vote.

  • ||

    Why do people think that there is a siphoning effect? It's more likely that the addition of a third candidate just gets more voters to vote than normally would and just lowers the percentage of both candidates so instead of Obama winning 52-48, he wins 48-46

  • protefeed||

    I think you are mistaking "siphoning off" for "would have stayed home and not voted for Mittens, but decided to cast a protest vote for the LP candidate to make their non-preference for the R and D candidates known".

  • ||

    Moreover, I'm pretty sure even compared to Ron Paul, Gary Johnson will appeal far more to the Left. Anti-war, pro-gay marriage, "not racist", pro-pot, pro-choice...

  • MJ||

    You are assuming the Left is anti-war and pro-pot. Obama's behavior with Libya and the drug war make that a questionable premise. Also, it is unlikely that pro-gay "marriage" is a deciding issue for anyone but hardcore homosexual activists, and since I expect Johnson would be against subsidizing abortion, he is not pro-choice enough for the Left.

  • Steve Reed||

    "Full Libertarian," eh? Johnson almost proudly notes he is "eligible for Federal matching funds [...]"

    I once worked in an LP that had candidates and nominees who remembered the old aphorism, "Those who take the King's shilling become the King's men."

    And who spurned the seduction of tax-extorted matching funds as the abomination to libertarian principle that they are.

    Apparently principles are yet again coming up short in the "Party of Principle." Not that any other party has even visible hands, let alone clean ones, o'course.

  • ||

    Great, the cycle of perfect being the enemy of the good starts anew.

  • robc||

    Not taking matching funds is a perfect v evil matchup, not perfect v good.

  • ||

    *sigh* if you insist...

  • ||

    Nope, started at 11:33 AM, above. LOL.

  • SIV||

    The LP can do better than this Gary whatsisname.

  • Joe M||

    Gary Johnson would be a huge improvement over Bob "reformed drug warrior" Barr.

  • SIV||

    You like VAT taxes?

  • ||

    You can do better. Nominate Badnarik, not the squishy, popular two term governor guy.

  • ||

    Also, let me know when Johnson goes full Braveheart. He'd look good in blue.

  • ||

    he will only hurt in the defeat of Obama. No candidate is perfect but you pick the best one out of the ones you have. We as Liberatarians, Independents, and Republicans need to ban together and defeat Obama. Gov. Johnson should run for the US Senate from New Mexico, he could win that race and really make an impact in Washington Dc.

  • SIV||

    A seious US Senate campaign is hard work. Not easy like "running" a vanity campaign for president.

  • Destrudo||

    So I should support being raped by dick #1 because dick #2 is even more loathsome? I might get fucked in the ass anyway, but I'm not going to cowardly submit to it. This type of thinking is exactly why we have a two party duopoly. Moronic.

  • ||

    We as Liberatarians, Independents, and Republicans need to...

    Funny, I feel no such compunction. Project much?

  • Apatheist||

    No candidate is perfect but you pick the best one out of the ones you have.

    Good point, that's why I'll be voting for Johnson if Romney is the GOP nominee. He'll be the best one out of the ones I have.

  • ||

    Obama is the root of all evil and the only guys that can save us want to nuke Iran, punish gays, deport millions, bring back torture and suspend habeas corpus. Yeah...

  • Jeremy||

    Obama is better than Newt, and equal to Romney. Fuck the GOP.

  • ||

    If Paul isn't nominated and Johnson is the LP nominee (pretty likely that he will be), I'm voting Johnson.

  • George Phillies||

    The Libertarian Party already has real Libertarian Party Presidential candidates such as Lee Wrights.

    "The Libertarian Party nominee will be on the ballot in all 50 states – as was the case in 2008."

    Is that what your Libertarian Party advisors told you, Gary? Have a virtual lollipop, for free.

    By the way, while a Libertarian Presidential candidate can take Federal Matching Funds, if you do not break their vote limit, you get to pay them back, and, by the way, there are personal financial hazards involved.

    Why a Libertarian would endorse an admitted Christian dominionist like Ron Paul -- see his interview on TheAmericanView.com -- is unclear to me, but other people have other opinions.

    It does appear, though, that once again the Libertarian Party is going to be invaded by a Republican carpetbagger, this time by someone whose near-admitted motivation is revenge and who may be expected to leave the LP again so soon as he fails to get the nomination or loses the election.

  • Anonymous||

    What makes someone a "real" Libertarian candidate? Exactly how much is one allowed to deviate from anarcho-capitalism before they become persona non grata?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    To be a real Libertarian, you must be unable to get more than 2% of the vote.
    Or write crappy sci-fi. Or, in an ideal world, both.

  • CatoTheElder||

    To be a real libertarian, one has to be unwilling to be president.

    Nobody who would aspire to be president could possibly be a real libertarian.

  • ||

    Och, aye, Laddie; he's no a true scotsman.

    Fuck off, George.

  • ||

    Hi George,

    In my opinion Gary governed using libertarian principles. Based on this I would not call him a carpetbagger. He can do more to make the LP relevant than anyone else who has come forward in 2011. If he chooses to run in 2016 as a Republican, so be it. All I care about is persuading more Americans as soon as possible that liberty works. Gary can do a great job of that.

    Please let the sour grapes go. Lee Wrights is a great guy, but Gary is true presidential material which is a rarity for the LP. This is a historic opportunity to start the serious task of straightening out this country.

  • ||

    Johnson is likely the best candidate the LP will have ever had. He might help make the party a little more mainstream without sacrificing the principles of limited government.

    And he's no Babar.

  • protefeed||

    I think George Phillies has articulated the POV of a bunch of the people who will show up for the convention in Vegas. Whether that will translate to 51% for Lee Wrights is in doubt.

    But, I'm the Chair of the Hawaii LP, and Lee Wrights showed up and spoke to us at our state convention, and I know that several of the Hawaii delegates are gonna vote for Lee Wrights.

    I haven't decided yet who I'm gonna vote for.

  • ||

    Let 'em fight for your vote.

  • protefeed||

    That's exactly what I intend to do.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Harry Browne was an excellent candidate: intelligent, articulate, and a true libertarian. Gary Johnson isn't nearly as articulate, but he has actually held executive office, which is a huge advantage.

    We all know that Ron Paul is unlikely to get the Republican nomination. I just hope he continues to make a good showing, and will manage to make highly publicized endorsement of Johnson that convinces his supporters to show up to the polls in November. It's a fantasy, however, to hope that the Commission on Presidential Debates would admit a Libertarian to the debates.

    Plus, the time is right for libertarians, Democrats who actually value civil liberties, Republicans who actual believe in limited government, anybody who genuinely objects to the warfare state, or anybody who really thinks that the Fed/Treasury/Bankster elites are screwing the 99% to vote Libertarian. Who knows, maybe the LP could get double digits if this fantasy materialized.

  • Apatheist||

    So what's the Team color of the LP because this is the same ol partisan bullshit we see all the time from TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE types.

  • ||

    Sheesh. The LP should find someone more qualified, like a sci-fi writing physics professor who has never won elected office. He just might be the right man for the job.

    The LP is truly full of fools if they don't nominate Johnson. If they don't, we need to start a new libertarian party because just about everything the LP has ever done has sabotaged any progress in the libertarian direction.

  • Media||

    lalalallalalalallalalall

  • GW||

    If Paul doesn't get the nomination, Johnson has my vote.

  • horsewithnonick||

    Johnson is incorrect in claiming that the LP Presidential candidate was on the ballot in all 50 states - my only options for President in 2008 were McCain or Obama - OK doesn't even permit write-ins.

    Best I could do was to leave the ballot blank.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    For a third-party candidate, 50-state access requires a lot of resources for limited returns. I think the LP has been wise settling for 45 or 48 or whatever they've been getting. Of course, if the Johnson run results in more resources, that equation could change.

  • protefeed||

    I don't think it is a case of "settling" for 45 or 48, it is a case of "each state LP tried their damndest to get ballot access, with a little help from the national LP, and a few fell short in their efforts".

    I'm responsible as the state Chair for making sure that Hawaii's ballot access gets renewed, which in our state is just a matter of determination and putting the time in -- get about 700 signatures on the ballot access petition.

  • ||

    And it is possible to win the presidency without being on the ballot in all fifty states. Particularly if those states are electorally small like OK.

  • ||

    Paul's days of being merely marginalized seem to be passing. I've noticed on BuzzFeed of all places that they're regularly posting on how crazy (he thinks a lot of things are unconstitutional!), racist, etc. he is. Didn't bother at all before he surged in the polls.

    I find it quite odd the number of culture and humor sites that venture as much as they do into leftish politics. Especially considering that politics aren't overtly part of their mission. Weird.

  • ||

    I wanted to follow Buzzfeed but I noticed the same. With Reddit you can filter out the left snark by not subscribing to /r/news and /r/politics. Reddit has gotten better; I don't know if it is the reality of a Democratic president or better moderators.

  • ||

    I just ignore it. There's a lot of GOP-bashing there, but it doesn't constitute the majority of the posts. And, of course, as a libertarian, I agree with some of the jibes.

  • rhofulster||

    I don't think GJ would advocate a 180 turn in federal policy, but I'll settle for 150. I do wish he'd consider running for Senate instead.

  • GILMORE||


    - I oppose expensive foreign wars in places like Libya and Afghanistan.

    - I support a woman's right to choose.

    - I support marriage equality for gay Americans

    - I support legalization of marijuana

    Republican DEAL BREAKERS, all...

  • ||

    I wish Gary Johnson - and other libertarian candidates - success, but I have to ask: if the media ignored Gary Johnson in the GOP debates, and has consistently ignored the LP for decades (I should know, having been a former Chair of the LP in both Pittsburgh, PA and in Orange County, CA), what are the odds that they'll now pay attention to Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for President?

  • Tonio||

    Time will tell. I suspect the media will play it for lulz - bash him about his WoD stance. And then they'll figure out that his position resonates with the mainstream far more than they had imagined, and won't be able to not cover him.

    I know this is optimistic, but it could happen.

  • voter||

    Johnson says he's for legalizing marijuana. He said that as governor. But he never pardoned anyone. So, can we assume President Johnson wouldn't pardon nonviolent drug offenders, either?

    Would he stop the feds from shutting down legal state-sanctioned medical marijuana dispensaries? Or would he tak the same "hands-off" approach he does on pardons and wait for permission from Congress?

    Since Roemer may be on the the ballot as a third-party choice as well; I'd really like to hear more from Johnson on what he would ACTUALLY DO about the marijuana issue. If the answer remains "nothing," I don't see a compelling reason not to choose Roemer over Johnson.

  • Tonio||

    Hey, thanks for sowing doubt and discord. Yes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

    Now fuck off.

  • ||

    Remember to put the work-visa and immigration reform ideas onto your agenda!! Those are MUCHOS IMPORTANTO

  • Jared||

    Good for him; the GOP has too many problems. I hope he comes back to New Hampshire in January.

    For GJ fans, see the following for some GJ videos: http://lucidicus.org/videos.php

  • Chris Baker||

    Dear Gary Johnson,

    I'm sorry to hear that you have decided to end your political career. This decision can only guarantee that you will never hold public office again. You could have run for the US Senate seat or something else maybe.

    You also have no idea just how stupid these people are--the LP leadership. Trust me when I say you will soon find out.

  • ||

    Yes, for instance, Ron Paul never held office again after running in 1988.

  • ||

    That said I agree 100% on the fools in the LP leadership.

  • ||

    I don't think it will end his career, but it's largely a waste of his time. Guess it can be seen as a chance to practice his campaigning skills.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This...is a bad move. If the LP, in their insanity, reject him for a True Believer, it will be doing Johnson a big favor. He needs to forget about this 2012 nom contest crap, get into the senate, stay there for a while, and wait for the right time to pounce for the presidency-which might be never but it's a better bet than this.

  • protefeed||

    I said as much about the open NM Senate in an email to one of Johnson's people when they sent me an email maybe a week before the announcement, I think testing to see where the winds were blowing.

    They sent me back a reply indicating that Johnson actually had a chance of getting elected president running LP, which is either out of touch with objective reality or them knowingly spouting bullshit they know isn't real. So =P to that.

  • diehli||

    Re: his PS, isn't it a good thing to take votes away from whomever the GOP nom is, even if there's no commensurate take-away from Obama? Wouldn't that serve the democratic part of the "constitutional democratic republic" & illustrate the disconnect between statists in both parties and, to borrow an abused turn of phrase, "true Americans"? It would certainly be a shot into the bow of the GOP: don't support hacks like Romney & Gingrich. Further, wouldn't reelecting Obama simply by default (known crap quantity v. unknown but seemingly dastardly, crap GOP quantities) & letting him drive things further down the road to hell make a 2016 election of a pro-liberty candidate more likely?

  • ||

    I wish Gary well, but the Libertarians will do about as well as they always do. It would be nice to think that Gary might guide them somewhere back in the direction of actual libertarianism. But what can you say about "Libertarian" party that has Bob Barr as their candidate?

  • ||

    ProtoFeed
    Love your comments.

    Yes, show up at the LP national convention and get involved. About 800 other souls will be doing this.

  • ||

    Wasting a vote? Keep voting for the two major parties that have ruined this country and put us over the cliff in debt.
    And as for helping the DEMs... Why would I want to help the GOP? They are just as BAD darn it. Look what the GOP did to our national debt with Ronald Reagan and Look again what they did when nearly totally in charge from 1995 to 2006. Doubled the national debt again!!!!! Either way, a vote for a major party is sure to put us over the cliff. Either way, you die. And I am not sure the Dem's take us over the cliff sooner. The GOP continues to want to cut taxes but NOT spending, which only serves to drive us into debt MORE quickly. Look it up on the national debt. GOP has horrible rating on national debt.

  • ||

    Why is it that the detractors of the third party idea seem to think that it has never happened before? This country did not start with democrats & republicans.

    Here, follow this link and LEARN:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....ted_States

  • Hey, you||

    It would be awesome if him and Ron Paul debate Obama on the same stage.

  • ||

    I'd love to see Gary just focus on NM, CA, CO and a few other states. Win those and the election goes to the House. We could end up with someone slightly less bad than all the non-Pauls. And it would be a fun civics lesson to watch.

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