Media

Gary Johnson Can't Get No Respect

|

Gary Johnson at Freedom Fest, Las Vegas. CRAPPY PHOTO BY MATT WELCH.

The Washington Times has one of those deadly (though not necessarily fatal) "Presidential hopeful struggles" profiles of the libertarian-bent GOP presidential candidate Gary Johnson. Opening bit:

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is the Rodney Dangerfield of this year's GOP presidential field — he gets no respect, despite a strong conservative record, a stint as governor of a key state, and a colorful background in the public and private sectors.

In a year when voters seem tired of what is seen as wasteful spending and regulatory overreach in Washington, Mr. Johnson said he is surprised he is not getting the attention of other governors who have served fewer years, or whose campaigns are sputtering, or who aren't even in the race.

"I really would have thought that there would be more focus on just me being in the race and being credible because I do have a resume that suggests that I am very credible," Mr. Johnson said in an interview with The Washington Times[.]

Those Conditional II verb tenses are never a good sign.

Ouch

Link via the Twitter feed of Lew Rockwell, who comments: "Is Gary Johnson the Rodney Dangerfield of GOP Candidates?: Of course not! Rodney was funny."

Random data point: In this deeply flawed Andrew Hacker New York Review of Books essay, which Jacob Weisberg declares is "the best thing I've read on American politics lately," here's how the GOP field is defined:

At this writing, I count nine candidates who have announced or aren't objecting if their names are raised: Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

Well, at least Johnson will always have British pol Daniel Hannan! Who exhorts his countrymen to "Meet Gary Johnson, the most libertarian [GOP] candidate ever to seek the US presidency."

Brian Doherty's primer on Gary Johnson here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: Jackie O Believed LBJ Killed JFK, AIG Goes After BoA, Fullerton Residents Call for Police Chief to Resign

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.

  1. Sarah Palin is a pussy. Fuck you Sarah Palin. I hope your children die. I hope you get AIDS and die. Fuck you Sarah Palin. Fuck you!

    1. Okay, I have had my sugar, and I’ve come out of my shock.

      Man, diabetes is a hell of a disease.

      1. Nobody cares.

  2. New Mexico is a “key state”? If GOP voters want a governor of a southwest state with 3rd World, race-to-the-bottom standards to be their nominee, they might as well go with Texas.

    1. race to the bottom standards of what?

      1. 3rd World, like jobs. In the 1st World, like California, they’ve moved beyond jobs. Now its all transfer payments to all, that are then taxed to pay for transfer payments.

        The Circle of Dependency is glorious!

        1. You have a good point. Those poor misguided Mexicans are moving from California back to Mexico because they are better able to find jobs there. Those poor misguided Mexicans think productive employment is more dignified than living on transfer payments.

    2. It’s so bad down in Texas that only 4.3 million more people decided to move there last year.

      1. last year = last 10 years.

        1. Oh come on, 2010 wasn’t that bad.

          1. I’m just using the census numbers. Texas pop in 2010 was 4.3 million more than in 2000. Seems like people really want to move there–no doubt because of the 3rd world vibe.

            1. Some of the influx brings the 3rd world vibe with them. Or is that racist?

              1. Now, now. Once those Californians are in Texas, most is forgiven. Even if they don’t work one quarter as hard or drive half as well as the Mexicans.

            2. If Texas had California’s weather, I would consider it. Otherwise – not a chance in hell.

              1. Texas has California-like weather – if you live in Barstow.

    3. I really, really, really want to like Bill Richardson. Can’t get past my disgust for him though.

      1. Completely seriously, why do you want to like him? His record is lackluster even with a charitable interpretation.

    4. It’s even more ironic because New Mexico is basically one big welfare state, no matter who runs it. Oh, there’s a viable energy production industry, but if you closed down the military bases there, it would revert back into its 19th century form as a huge territorial sheep ranch.

      1. Kind of sad that its claim to fame is being a place no one really cared about exploding nuclear bombs on top of or crashing spaceships into.

  3. Hannan’s a gadfly and an MEP.

    His endorsement is roughly equivalent to Pat Boone’s.

  4. “I really would have thought that there would be more focus on just me being in the race and being credible because I do have a resume that suggests that I am very credible,”

    Jesus Fucking Christ what a loser.

  5. He’s pro-choice, wears his drug legalization position on his sleeve, and uses the few opportunities he has to speak publicly to rail against conservatives. What the fuck does he expect?

    1. At least the “novelty” coverage Ron Paul got last time?

      1. We’ll see if he manages to raise $1M in a single day, he’ll be viable. I think he’s trying to do that this week. Something about doubling every day until the got to $1M. I know they made their $8000/day goal. I didn’t get any emails from them this weekend.

    2. John McCain also railed against conservatives and he managed to get the Republican nomination.

      And McCain wasn’t even born in the USA.

    3. On the contrary, what the fuck does the GOP expect if they continue marginalizing candidates like Gary Johnson? GOPers have no right to claim they’re anything but a party of fundies and socons after this.

  6. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is the Rodney Dangerfield of this year’s GOP presidential field ? he gets no respect, despite a strong conservative record, a stint as governor of a key state, and a colorful background in the public and private sectors.

    Really? Dangerfield was funny, at least.

    The “I am more libertarian than Paul” guy? he ain’t funny. The word that comes to mind is “pathetic.”

    Sorry, Reason – I know he was your boy… Paraphrasing Pat Buchanan.

    1. Dude, you got scooped by Lew Rockwell with that joke. How’s that feel?

      1. I don’t think he was scooped. He probably read it there and is just repeating it here.

        1. Yeah, but the joke is in the post. Which means he either a) didn’t bother to read the post or b) read it and really thought it would be original to repeat the same fucking joke.

          Either way, people who live in pathetic houses shouldn’t throw stones.

          1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

            Either way, people who live in pathetic houses shouldn’t throw stones.

            I am not the one pretending to be running for president and then crying about not getting any coverage.

            1. “I really would have thought that there would be more focus on just me being in the race and being credible because I do have a resume that suggests that I am very credible,”

              Only someone with an axe to grind would call that “crying”.

              If you cannot come up with a credible criticism, I can only assume that you are some Paultard homer who cannot see the good in having two liberty-minded candidates in the primaries.

              1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                Only someone with an axe to grind would call that “crying”.

                “With an axe to grind…”

                Sure, I must hate the guy or something. Never mind the fact he has said very little about monetary policy, is not really anti-war and is not really anti-tax:

                “The former governor is less antiwar than Paul, leaving the door open to unspecified humanitarian interventions in an interview with the Weekly Standard. Johnson is also less anti-Federal Reserve [emphasis mine]: he joins Paul in calling for an audit of the central bank but not in proposing its abolition. For many libertarians and constitutional conservatives drawn to Paul, war and the Fed are the preeminent political issues of our time. Johnson has advocated a Steve Forbes-style flat tax, while Paul has joked he would go along if the tax rate was zero. Johnson said in April that he wouldn’t close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.”

                How about them apples, BM?

                1. “How about them apples”
                  Not bad, considering the alternatives. I guess you’ll just wait until John Galt runs?

                  1. Re: sevo,

                    Not bad, considering the alternatives.

                    Indeed, just don’t cry about not having enough coverage. Get into the game, be more convincing. It took Paul MANY FUCKING YEARS to be taken seriously, and you want to be the same overnight? Get serious!

                    I guess you’ll just wait until John Galt runs?

                    Who cares?

                    1. Who is John Galt ?

                2. Yep, axe to grind.

                  Not antiwar enough? He’s been against all the wars since the start and constantly speaks out against them.

                  Less anti-fed? He says he’d abolish it. He’s mentioned it in multiple interviews on Fox and elsewhere. What more do you want? He does caution that just abolishing it won’t stop the printing of the money since congress can have the US Treasury keep printing it.

                  Johnson prefers the FairTax to the FlatTax. Paul has said he’d sign the FairTax or FlatTax if it was passed as law. No difference there.

                  Johnson was original calling for the immediate closing, he changed his position after some libertarians he respected changed his mind about the immediate closing. So he supports giving them all a fair trial immediately and then we can close GitMo once all the prisoners are taken care of.

                  Troll deeper.

                  1. Re: Hardy,

                    Not antiwar enough? He’s been against all the wars since the start and constantly speaks out against them.

                    Being against some wars does NOT make him anti-war:

                    “‘If there’s a clear genocide somewhere, don’t we really want to positively impact that kind of a situation?’ he says.”

                    Less anti-fed? He says he’d abolish it. He’s mentioned it in multiple interviews on Fox and elsewhere. What more do you want? He does caution that just abolishing it won’t stop the printing of the money since congress can have the US Treasury keep printing it.

                    *slaps forehead*

                    What an idiot you are. Why mention one thing and then say “but it won’t do no good!”???

                    Johnson prefers the FairTax to the FlatTax. Paul has said he’d sign the FairTax or FlatTax if it was passed as law. No difference there.

                    YES, BIG difference there. There’s a difference between SUPPORTING one or the other, and saying “well, if it’s passed by the Congress, I guess I would sign it.” Even if it were true.

                    Johnson was original calling for the immediate closing, he changed his position after some libertarians he respected changed his mind about the immediate closing.

                    So much for principles.

    2. You don’t seem that sorry to me. For such a “hardcore” wannabe, you would think you would be happy that another libertarian was a nominee in a major party.

      I expect one of your incomprehensible diatribes against me shortly.

      1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

        For such a “hardcore” wannabe, you would think you would be happy that another libertarian was a nominee in a major party.

        “No true Scotsman,” BM?

    3. I am glad there are two libertarian candidates. It could be interesting if no candidate gets a majority of the delegates to the convention. This has happened before …

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1…..Convention

      1. The current primary system is setup to avoid exactly that. The parties want the convention to be a big PR fest, not a knockdown brawl for the nomination. We’ll never see another divided convention unless the rules change.

        1. I agree it is unlikely, but it is still technically possible.

          Some states are set up so it is possible to give more than one candidate some of the nominees.

          For a brief period in 2008 there was even talk of forcing a brokered convention on the Republican side from the “Anybody but McCain” Republicans.

          1. “Some states are set up so it is possible to give more than one candidate some of the nominees”

            make that “some of the delegates”

            1. Yeah, and the RNC is pushing that for some reason. There was an issue with how Texas assigns delegates. TX does it by congressional district. Whoever wins the district gets the reps for that district. The RNC wants statewide proportional instead. I think the state exec committee caved because the RNC threatened to take half the state’s convention delegates.

    4. What’s pathetic about him? Especially compared to the other GOP nominees? Sure, he doesn’t get much coverage, but the fact that a bunch of blue-team media types don’t like him doesn’t make me like him less.

      1. Re: Ataranjuat,

        What’s pathetic about him?

        Really, A?

        “I really would have thought that there would be more focus on just me being in the race and being credible because I do have a resume that suggests that I am very credible,” Mr. Johnson said in an interview with The Washington Times[.]

        Why doesn’t anybody love meeeeeee????

        1. That only sounds like crying to those who have been drinking the anti-Johnson koolaid from Ron Paul’s blog.

          1. Re: Blue Moon,

            That only sounds like crying to those who have been drinking the anti-Johnson koolaid from Ron Paul’s blog.

            BM, it took Paul MANY HARD YEARS to be taken seriously. Johnson, I feel, just wants to ride on Paul’s coattails. I am GLAD there’s another libertarian out there and I am glad Johnson has a resume – I just do NOT subscribe to his utilitarianism/consequentialism; I am ALWAYS suspect of such ethics and am wary about him.

            1. “Johnson, I feel, just wants to ride on Paul’s coattails.”

              So you’d prefer no other libertarian-leaning candidates?
              Sorry, Paul not only spent time making himself visible, he also made the concepts something that deserve attention.
              I’d be thrilled if 30 candidates ‘rode his coattails’.

              1. +1 to that, sevo.

                “Johnson, I feel, just wants to ride on Paul’s coattails.”

                I wonder if Democrats ever said the same thing about Dick Gephart’s competitors for the nomination. Or Obama, wasn’t he just “riding Hillary Clinton’s coattails?”

                Just because someone is an ideological leader doesn’t entitle him to the presidency. I admire Ron Paul too but more libertarian voices in the GOP is not a bad thing. Do you honestly prefer seeing Newt Gingerich or Rick Santorum (who are both on life support politically) up there to seeing Gary Johnson?

              2. Re: sevo,

                So you’d prefer no other libertarian-leaning candidates?

                I already made clear my preference. I prefer a candidate that has been consistent and principled, not one that changes his positions as expediency (or consequentialism) dictates.

                I’d be thrilled if 30 candidates ‘rode his coattails’.

                I would, too. Just not Reason’s horse.

  7. “Every election,” Sabato reminds us, “is determined by the people who show up.”

    ts*;dr

    *stupid

  8. RACE TO THE BOTTOM

    What else would STEVE SMITH obsess about?

  9. Link via the Twitter feed of Lew Rockwell

    The combination of Lew Rockwell and Twitter will create a singularity of stupid so massive that it will swallow everything but Thomas DiLorenzo’s credibility problems.

    1. Since you seem to be an expert on both Lew Rockwell and Thomas DiLorenzo perhaps you could enlighten us on these “credibility problems”.

      1. There is this thing called Google. You should try it.

        1. I did. But this is not an answer to my question. You specifically claimed he had credibility problems without even hinting at what you think they are.

          1. Re: PIRS,

            I believe Blue Moon does not subscribe to the idea that Lincoln was a Constitution-shredding, expedient and amoral murderer of Americans… which he was.

            1. Ahhh, but were those things an acceptable tradeoff for the end of slavery?

              Though I acknowledge that the end of slavery was not Lincoln’s primary goal.

              1. If you acknowledge that the end of slavery was not Lincoln’s primary goal; why does it matter (when judging Lincoln as a man) if those things were an acceptable tradeoff for the end of slavery?

        2. Are you going to answer PIRS question, or is your silence an admission that you are talking out of your ass?

  10. I’ve been with this whole libertarian gig for about 15 years and I still don’t know what a Lew Rockwell is.

    It’s either a gay movie star from the 50s or a sort of rash that pops up around the fringes of any legitimate libertarian discussion a few pussy hairs away from LaRouche.

      1. And, he is no Larouchite.

    1. It’s either a gay movie star from the 50s or a sort of rash that pops up around the fringes of any legitimate libertarian discussion a few pussy hairs away from LaRouche.

      Why can’t it be both?

  11. Smells like a Rothbardian to me.

    1. Lew Rockwell does respect Murray Rothbard – as do I.

      1. Good. I was right to ignore its churlish opinions on the “legitimacy” of a candidate, then…seeing as anarcho-capitalism ranks somewhere between pure Marxism and total animal liberation in the feasibility department.

        I suppose Gary Johnsons true crime was being aN actual candidate in an actual election that people would have to go to a public school gymnasium to vote in or something.

        1. Re: Beezard,

          I was right to ignore its churlish opinions on the “legitimacy” of a candidate, then…seeing as anarcho-capitalism ranks somewhere between pure Marxism and total animal liberation in the feasibility department.

          Right, considering the fact that Marxism and total animal liberation are two ends of a totally fantastic spectrum: Marxists advocating total slavery and animals engaging in trade and exchange as a matter of routine…

          Where do these people come from, anyway?

          1. My intent was not to invoke a left-right political spectrum, but a heirarchy of infeasible political archetypes. Marxism is slightly more feasible than anarcho-capitalism because at some point they at least acknowlege at some stage you have to -force- people to go along with things that are totally against their own interests.

            Anarcho-capitalism is slightly more feasible than total animal liberation, because canaries refuse to admit there is a market at all, let alone whether or not it can be centrally planned.

            1. Re: Beezard,

              Marxism is slightly more feasible than anarcho-capitalism because at some point they at least acknowlege at some stage you have to -force- people to go along with things that are totally against their own interests.

              Anything is “feasible” at the point of a bayonet, Beezard. That doesn’t make it right, which is what’s at the heart of an-cap ethics.

              Also, your assertion reeks of a perfunctory contradiction: Are you really arguing that most things YOU DO required previous force from above? If that’s the case, I would not trust you at all, instead would consider you INSANE, or a small child.

              1. Don’t shoot the messenger.

                The ancap fatal conceit is that anyone actual wants to devolve their governments and societies to the neighborhood level, that they want their social security blanket (no matter how illusory) to disappear, that they don’t want a police force or a kick ass army, that they want to trust their rape or murder case to a private court that will find some uncoersive way to get money from the defendent.

                “Right” has nothing the fuck to do with it. It’s just the reality of the human Condition. Those of us who want to change that are probably going to have to get used to the idea of social security, let alone nations.

                Until the train of liberty gets somewhere near the constitution, maybe the onous should be on ancaps to sit down, shut up, and keep their hands in the vehicle.

                That’s no more childish than forsaking reality for libertopia.

            2. “at some stage you have to -force- people to go along with things that are totally against their own interests.”

              Your premise here, do you have any actual evidence to back it up?

              1. Yes. The non-existence of any form of stateless government.

        2. I have nothing against Gary Johnson but your post was not a defense of Gary Johnson but rather an attack on Lew Rockwell.

          How much do you know about the history of Iceland?

          http://mises.org/daily/1121

          1. Isn’t the better question how much I care about medieval Icelandic history (as depicted in an undergrad’s work)?

          2. icelandic society was based on the non- aggression principle?

            1. Medieval Icelandic society is an example of a successful society (by the standards of that period) that had no central monopolistic government.

              1. It had no executive branch. What it did have was social heiarchy and blood feuds. And it didn’t last as soon as the land ran out. By that logic, the American west was anarcho capitalist. Of course it wasn’t. Neither was Iceland. It was decentralized until violence forced it to be otherwise, and then a larger nation took interest…it’s not a great advertisement for your argument.

          3. And if a Lew Rockwell doesn’t want to be attacked a Lew Rockwell shouldn’t cruise for it. Especially when the subject is “legitimacy” or “respect”.

            1. I don’t know what he does or does not. It may be he thinks that being attacked with vacant arguments strengthens his position.

      2. I couldn’t possibly respect Murray Rothbard or his racist buddy Lew Rockwell any less. It’s not particularly difficult to find evidence of bigotry, neo-Confederate revisionism, conspiracy theories and outright support for dictators and terrorists among the “paleo” crowd. Whatever positive qualities Rothbard may have had, he threw it all away by allying with and promoting some of the most disgusting, un-libertarian human beings and ideas on the planet. The idea that these people are “tireless defenders of liberty” is simply hysterical given the mountain of evidence that shows otherwise. It’s also disappointing that a mostly-credible publication like Reason still refuses to distance itself from the crazies. Reasonoids and Cato scholars are even regular guests on 9-11 Truther and Alex Jones fan Andrew Napolitano’s television show. And doesn’t Doherty’s wife work for Justin Raimondo?

        1. Ah, is the little cosmotarian mad that we are embarrassing him and making it so you are not being invited to cocktail parties? Sorry we are making you look uncool around your statist friends.

        2. Come on guys let’s stop the stupid paleo/anarcho-capitalist vs “DC libertarian” pissing contests. Please?!? I’m sick of this crap. It destroyed the Libertarian party 30 years ago and it’s still continuing today.

          Look, I don’t like Rockwell’s occasional forays into racial topics any more than the next guy but you can do a WHOLE lot worse. The guy just strikes me as someone who feels that the government is practicing reverse discrimination or encouraging welfare dependency in the inner cities. I do think some of the blog posts get carried away and obviously if he wrote the Ron Paul newsletters then those were inexcusable. But I have certainly seen him stick up for blacks on his blog who are victimized by the state. And he seems to be very friendly with black economists like Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams.

          I’m not going to deny the guy is mostly a social con but he’s not even close to the league of an organization like Focus on the Family.

          And anyone who thinks that the issue of slavery might — just might — have been solved in other ways than a massively bloody Civil War is not a confederate revisionist.

          1. This is a libertarian site, and a comment board under a blog that specifically mentions that a Lew Rockwell said some snarky shit about an actual libertarian leaning candidate.

            If we can’t have that particular pissing contest here, then where?

        3. And on the other side, if the paleolibs/ancaps could put down some of their bloody red meat and stop viewing so called “DC libertarians” as sellouts, maybe we could accomplish a few things.

          Honestly what more does Reason have to do to satisfy the Rothbardians of the world? The Venn diagrams are 90% overlapping yet people want to concentrate on the 10% that is different.

        4. Re: shake,

          I couldn’t possibly respect Murray Rothbard or his racist buddy Lew Rockwell any less. It’s not particularly difficult to find evidence of bigotry, neo-Confederate revisionism, conspiracy theories and outright support for dictators and terrorists among the “paleo” crowd.

          Being against Affirmative Action and pro-property rights is construed by you as being “racist.”

          And, please, spare me. Rightwatch?

  12. All Johnson has to do is say something stupid and xenophobic and he’ll shoot to the top of the field.

    1. Hey! That was my strategy!

  13. What about actual libertarians who run for office? They don’t even get any respect on sites like Reason. If I remember correctly, the only time Reason ever mentioned Mary Ruwart was when that child pornography issue emerged.

    1. If you mean capital-L Libertarian Party members, it’s because their party is somehow worse at branding and publicity than Ross Perot and Ralph Nader combined.

    2. For some reason, whenever Ruwart speaks I feel like I’m being taught the Ten Commandments in third grade again.

  14. “[…] I do have a resume that suggests that I am very credible,”

    This is your quote? All you can say in defense of your Presidential campaign is “my resume suggests…”?

    Memo to Gov. Johnson: stop being a pussy.

    1. What more should he have said? Would you prefer a guy like Obama, who couldn’t even announce bin Laden’s death without saying the word “I” 8,000 times?

  15. Gary Johnson Excluded from Iowa Debate by @FoxNews http://t.co/iv3Yhnt

  16. If Johnson had put on a kick ass performance at that very first debate a few months ago, he’d probably be doing better. But the sad fact is, he bombed it, and wrecked what was his best chance to get his foot in the door. It’s a real shame, but I think a lot of people are realizing that Ron Paul is doing significantly better this time, and it might be wiser to rally around one candidate instead of fragmenting too much. Check this:

    Bachmann, Romney and Ron Paul Leading in Iowa

    1. Besides taking third place, the poll had other good news for Paul. Only 28 percent of those surveyed were certain of who they would vote for when the caucus rolls around in February — and Paul led those voters with 27 percent.

    2. it might be wiser to rally around one candidate instead of fragmenting too much.

      We could always vote for Obama – that’s even easier.

      Maybe the problem is that Johnson views things rationally, and is thus not in tune with generating a faux type-A kick ass persona to get attention.

      I’m personally all in favor of trying some rationality.

      1. Presidential politics in the electronic media age has become mostly a low-grade version of show business. Gary Johnson is playing the Steve Buscemi part, which rarely leads to the starring role.

      2. Wow, you’re comparing Ron Paul to Barack Obama?

  17. He isn’t getting the attention because we have a lack of pro freedom news media.

    1. One of the biggest reasons Ron Paul is doing as well as he is right now is his abortion stance. If he was solidly pro-choice like Johnson the socons would eat him alive. It’s hard enough getting socons to even consider giving up their irrational views about jingoism and war glorification. Ron has to give them that carrot of anti-abortion rhetoric so they’ll even think about voting for him. Plus nobody else in the field besides Santorum is really quite as anti-abortion as Paul.

  18. I would understand the press ignoring candidates like Gary Johnson if they weren’t also devoting tons of coverage to equally long shot candidates like Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty.

    Heck, I’ve seen more stories about Thaddeus McCotter than Gary Johnson.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.