Gary Johnson

The Rebranding of Gary Johnson Continues

|

The big takeaway from Gary Johnson's glitch-riddled Internet townhall last night (it took him 15 minutes or so to figure out that he had to unmute questioners) is that the former two-term New Mexico governor will likely make the repeal of marijuana prohibition a pillar of his campaign going forward. 

Yes, Johnson has been talking drug law reform since declaring his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination in April 2011, but his banner issue for the last nine months was cutting government spending by 43 percent. He said it in the first televised GOP debate in South Carolina, at the National Press Club, and on conference calls with reporters. Every other issue was a subsidiary (Iraq and Afghanistan, entitlements) or tertiary (drug war, abortion, Mexico) to that one. It wasn't the catchiest plank on his platform, and I frequently got the sense that Johnson touted spending cuts above all else because it was more in keeping with the GOP zeitgeist than, say, reproductive health rights, gay rights, or drug law reform. To be fair, he's still talking about cutting the budget by 43 percent (he said it last night, in fact, to a big government drug reformer). But it's also telling that his first town hall since declaring his LP run was a two-hour live chat with the Marijuana Policy Project's Rob Kampia.

If last night was an indication of things to come, repealing marijuana prohibition will be the secret weapon Johnson uses to pull votes from Romney (or the anti-Romney), and Obama, whose trail of broken promises on medical marijuana has pot proponents threatening to vote for someone else.

Some evidentiary quotes for the thesis that Johnson's going to fly a pot flag from now until November:

"Fifty percent of Americans want marijuana legalized. Being on the ballot on all 50 states, I think marijuana could play a huge role in this election. It's an issue that advances." 

"If I'm elected president of the united states, that's the American people shouting they want marijuana legalized."

Last night was also the first time I heard Johnson voluntarily (albeit, obliquely) talk about his own drug use:

"In my own experience, and in every sense, marijuana is safer than alcohol."

(Prior admissions of drug use after his hang-gliding accident were mostly in response to questions from reporters.)

Johnson also spent some time talking specific drug policy with assistance from Kampia:

"I don't want to put any policies or restrictions on growers. Within the context of the 50 state model I think you'll see these kinds of restrictions. I think it should be an open market, and that we will all benefit as a result of that." 

"Smoking marijuana and getting behind the wheel of a car is always going to be criminal. What's going to be interesting is applying impairment standards.

"Descheduling marijuana is within the power of the president, because Health and human services is responsible for scheduling."  

Again, he's said some of this stuff before, along with promising to pardon federal pot convictions, but I think the bit about impairment standards is new (feel free to correct me in the comments if I'm wrong!), and reflects serious study. Pretty soon, Johnson might be able to get deep in the weeds. Good thing, too, as conventional wisdom holds that the best any third party candidate can hope to do is bring attention to issues the lamestreamers would rather ignore. That means Johnson has to be able to talk specifics, a la Rep. Paul Ryan and entitlement reform, if he's going to move the needle on the drug war. With help from the pot lobbies, some good advertising, and fewer glitchy townhalls, I bet he could put out some high-grade fine print on federal-level drug law reform. 

Still more evidence of rebranding: Johnson's stance on gay marriage. He's been a supporter of civil unions for years, but on Dec. 1, 2011, he came out in support of the whole shebang:

"As a believer in individual freedom and keeping government out of personal lives, I simply cannot find a legitimate justification for federal laws, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, which 'define' marriage.  That definition should be left to religions and individuals – not government.  Government's role when it comes to marriage is one of granting benefits and rights to couples who choose to enter into a marriage 'contract'.  As I have examined this issue, consulted with folks on all sides, and viewed it through the lens of individual freedom and equal rights, it has become clear to me that denying those rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple." 

Yesterday, he attacked both Rick Santorum and Obama for their stances on gay marriage

"By any fair measure, equal access to marriage for all Americans is a right — guaranteed by the Constitution. Senator Santorum's claim that legally recognizing gay marriage would be no different than legalizing polygamy, child molestation or bestiality is repugnant and insulting to millions of gay Americans."

"The New York Times reports that while President Obama gives lip service to gay equality, the President will not support gay marriage before the election because of the opposition of African Americans, as reflected in his polling, and the need to assure maximum support from African American voters in November. Instead the President sends out surrogates to imply that he will support gay marriage in a second term."

"I, for one, am tired of seeing candidates for president – including the President himself, play political games with people's lives and happiness. Perhaps it's time for a president who leads based upon principle instead of polls." 

More Reason on Gary Johnson, including me on his first speech as a Libertarian Party candidate

NEXT: Gene Healy on Obama's Illegal Appointment of Richard Cordray

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. OT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

    On-T: Johnson doesn’t interest me — I’m a Paul guy this election season

    1. I’m afraid Paul is already happily married, but Johnson seems like the type who would swing.

      Either way, I support you lifestyle choice.

      1. Two heterosexual people making gay jokes on the Internet constitutes racism and sexism and grandmother dead on the sidewalk, you heartless pig. Off to the gulag with the libertards!11!!11

        /Tony

        1. Your logic has convinced me and I now intend to vote the straight-ticket Democrat.

          OMG, I said “straight” ticket, I microaggressed and othered somebody!

          1. I am offended by the term “ticket.”

            1. If it’s any consolation, I sent that quote from the Chinese guy in the elevator to my wife, who is from Hong Kong. She called him a useless POS.

              1. It wasn’t “aggression-aggression.”

            2. I am offended at your offense, you insensitive bastard.

              1. Some gays like a good fag joke. But it has to be witty. And it helps if you’re pretty.

        2. You’re looking for the microaggresion.com thread.

    2. WTF was that video?!?

      It is magnificently insane!

      1. Japan, that’s the fuck what.

        Mind = blown.

    3. If Ron Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination he won’t be running for President. Gary Johnson IS running for President. If Ron Paul is not running after the GOP convention and Gary Johson IS running, will you be voting for Gary Johnson?

      1. My plot is to join Gary’s campaign, take away his pot, and sprinkle his cereal with cocaine everyday. Then he will be a great campaigner.

      2. My plot is to join Gary’s campaign, take away his pot, and sprinkle his cereal with cocaine everyday. Then he will be a great campaigner.

  2. Pretty soon, Johnson might be able to get deep in the weeds.

    I see what you did there.

  3. The drug wars are bad! But Obama’s wars are cool!

  4. It’s amazing how…jarring…it is to hear a politician say clear, logical, reasonable, liberty-minded things with no prevaricating or fudging.

    Which tells you a lot about the state of our politics.

    1. Clear, logical, reasonable, liberty-minded things like, “If the President wants to go to war in Libya without Congressional approval, that’s just, like, his prerogative, man!”

      GARY 2012

        1. Hey, there’s a lot more where that came from! There’s only room for one libertarian in this election cycle (although I hesitate to use the word libertarian to describe a beltway Koch lover like Johnson). We need to make sure he doesn’t take any support away from the honorable doctor. If we have to make shit up to do, that is the price for freedom.

          1. And what happens with Congressman Paul loses in the GOP primary? You are SOL. Better to have the experience of Governor Johnson on the ballot as a Libertarian so we all have someone to vote for in November.

      1. [citation needed]

      2. http://static.fjcdn.com/large/…..143127.jpg

        Is that you? I know you’re frustrated, man, and I’m no Johnson fan either, but come on! Disingenuous much?

  5. This is a little disappointing because it makes the LP look like a single issue party. They need to have a cohesive multi issue message and GJ can talk about those. The LP needs to be recognized as more then the “pro pot” party if they want mainstream respect and recognition

    1. I’ve slowly come around to wondering if “mainstream respect” is something that I should care about, since the “mainstream” consensus is always for more government and harsher repression.

    2. Who gives a shit about “mainstream” respect? If the pro-pot message speaks to a lot of people, why shouldn’t he do that?

      1. Well I mean mainstream as in: being referred to as more then the “token candidate that’s pro-pot”. (no pun intended). He’s gotta nail many of the points RP does if he wants to pull from the other parties pool. If not he’ll just be written off

        1. He’ll just be written off anyway.

          1. I’m afraid he will. Right now he’s just the girl with a “nice personality”. He needs to look less “fringelike” and more presidential. How many ugly girls with nice personalities get asked out?

            1. How many ugly girls with nice personalities get asked out?

              Eventually, all of them, since they have pussies.

              1. How true. I went to an engineering school with a 6:1 M:F ratio. Not only do the ugly ones get asked out, they quickly develop attitude.

        2. oh, the token tokin’ candidate

    3. I’d prefer a single message like “Big government bad. Need less. Keep and make more money.”

      1. “Smoke lots of pot. Get high. Or don’t smoke it but let the other guy smoke it. Do your own thing, man.”

        1. Notice that I had absolutely no polysyllabic words in my statement.

          1. Other than “other,” no.

            1. If you were really stoned and pronounced “the other” as “thuh thur”, I suppose those would be de facto monosyllabbic words.

      2. PL – With a message like that, he could have come dangerously close to attracting attention in the Republican race.

        This way, Johnson can remain safely obscure.

        1. It’s where I think Paul should live, too. Avoid the trigger issues by making it clear that job one is slashing government and moving more towards a free market economy.

    4. This is a little disappointing because it makes the LP look like a single issue party.

      Gary Johnson is not the LP. He is not even guaranteed to be their presidential nominee. And if Johnson wants, over the course of a few days, to emphasis some issues over others, with the ability to change emphasis at any time, so what?

      What matters is that he is saying stuff that I entirely agree with, and which he seems to more or less believe.

      1. I entirely agree with him as well. The issue is how the press frames him. He has been, essentially, made the LP candidate by the press and bloggers. What he frames his campaign to be will be projected on to the party. Thats what the media does. Its a shitty fucking game, I know, it’s not fair. But the lesson the LP and independents need to learn is how to play the game.

        Sometimes its not selling out, its waking up.

        1. He has been, essentially, made the LP candidate by the press and bloggers.

          That will count for absolutely nothing if Johnson fails to win the nomination in May in Vegas.

    5. The “pro-pot” message gets my vote. If RP does not get the R nomination, then my vote goes to Gary. My decision is based entirely on his anti druw war stance.

  6. Johnson will be on the ballot. Paul probably won’t. Easy choice.

    1. The Libertarian Party hasn’t nominated anyone yet. They have ballot access in most stats. If GJ wants to run idependently of the LP, he will probably have to do so as an independent candidate. Apart from the LP, no other 3rd party would likely be interested in him – not the Greens, not the Constitution Party (prolife).

      And the LP has a history of being fairly stubborn about not automatically anointing particular candidates.

      1. Considering how they rolled over for Babar and WAR, stopping GJ from getting the nomination would be pitiful.

        1. Considering how they rolled over for Babar and WAR, stopping GJ from getting the nomination would be pitiful.

          Ironically, if GJ doesn’t get nominated, it will be due in large part to the purists who are pissed off at the Babar thing and vote for a purer libertarian than Johnson.

          1. Nooooo! We can’t nominate Johnson! He’s not an anarchist!!1! We must only nominate those to the far left/right of Rothbard!! No nominee who isn’t off the chart! (Unless it’s Paul)! No Johnson! Good is the enemy of the perfect! Aaargh!!11!

            1. There are minarchists, like Lee Wrights, who are seeking the LP nomination who hold purer positions, such as NOT supporting the “Fair Theft” proposal Johnson is pushing.

              If Paul loses, I’m casting a protest vote for whoever wins the LP nomination.

      2. No, but Johnson is like Tim Tebow [Insert the singing of angels] compared to Babar. Who somehow did win the nomination.

      3. Is Chuck Baldwin available?

        1. Or Adam Baldwin, for that matter.

          1. The Hero of Canton!

            1. And a self-described libertarian.

              1. He’s good on free speech, amazing on gun rights, and a definite proponent of limited government and free market opportunities.

          2. Delicious as Adam is, from My Bodyguard to Firefly, he is a conservative and writes for BigHollywood.

            1. Trivia tidbit: Adam Baldwin went to Northwestern with NPR’s Scott Simon, who is jealous that Baldwin does not look like he is over 50.

  7. “By any fair measure, equal access to marriage for all Americans is a right ? guaranteed by the Constitution. Senator Santorum’s claim that legally recognizing gay marriage would be no different than legalizing polygamy, child molestation or bestiality is repugnant and insulting to millions of gay Americans.”

    Why is polygamy in there? I really hope he didn’t mean to imply that it was repugnant too.

    1. I should hope the idea of being married to multiple women is repugnant to gay guys. If it isn’t, they aren’t very good at being gay.

      1. Okay? He should have thrown down mainstream marriage too if that’s his angle. And still making exceptions for 2+ male marriages.

      2. Maybe you could teach them? Oh wait, it’s being a douchebag that you’re good at, not being gay.

        1. If they want to learn to be gay, I’m sure there’s some sort of internship program you could run with your prolapse.

          1. That thing’s all booked up. No time for internship programs, but I hear your mom is available. Her prolapse has some openings (wink wink).

            1. I hear she has been dead for a decade, but if necrophilia is your bag, far be it for me to judge you — you sick fuck. =)

              /standard comeback for “yo momma is a ho” comments

        2. You’re right about that. I’m a horrible gay.

          1. Maybe you could take a night class or something.

            1. I’d like to, my multiple wives keep me really busy though. Maybe there is a weekend thing I could sign up for.

              1. I am sure someone could pencil you in.

                1. Not to needle you about it.

                2. Or put their “pencil” in.

          2. I was actually insulting NutraSweet, you douchebag!

            1. As you can see, it was definitely applicable to myself though.

              1. Just ignore, Epi. He creates a hostile atmo around here that ruins it for everyone else.

                1. Stop microaggressing against my macroaggression!

                2. He creates a hostile atmo around here that ruins it for everyone else.

                  His posts often lack substance, and besides, he makes less than us.

                3. Speak for yourself. I rather enjoy Epi’s going-off-his-meds-and-temporary-Tourette’s-syndrome style rants.

                  1. You libertarians and your othering!

                  2. I rather enjoy Epi’s

                    You make me want to retch.

                    1. It’s spelled “wretch”. And you forgot the “be a” that precedes it.

                      But I accept your groveling. =)

                    2. No, Prote, Sug is correct, as usual.

                      Retch is a verb which means to vomit or try to.

                      Wretch is a noun describing a person in an impoverished, ie wretched, condition.

                      I retched at Prote’s wretched usage.

                    3. And you forgot the “be a” that precedes it.

                      You probably should have finished reading that line before commenting, Tonio.

      3. Maybe some gay guys want to have different looking beards as fashion accessories.

        1. The whole thing about girls as “beards” is really offensive to bears. I feel microaggressed against.

          1. You’re not onboard for the war against bears? Those beasts are obviously an existential threat to our way of life!

            1. I was for it until I saw the new Bear Patrol tax.

              I’m told Lisa has a rock which repels tigers, if you’d like to buy it.

        2. I’d like you to be my merkin on Halloween.

      4. Might not be repugnant to some lesbians, though I don’t know I have ever seen a polyamorous, as opposed to adulterous, lesbian group.

      5. Might not be repugnant to some lesbians, though I don’t know I have ever seen a polyamorous, as opposed to adulterous, lesbian group.

    2. I think it’s that Santorum’s claim is repugnant.

      And, you know what? I am willing to say that 90% of polygamy as-practiced is repugnant and the other 10% is just stupid and unstable.

      Go talk to some poly folks sometime and you will get the most dysfunctional and convoluted relationship strangeness you have ever heard.

      1. Santorum should clip and save these anti-polygamy remarks and tweak one or two words to make it suit his message!

        1. I am anti-polygamy because, like I said, 90% of it is practiced by weird backwater religious fundies and 10% is practiced by 23-year-old ueber-urban goofballs.

          1. I used to know some libertarian Mormon airline stewardess and pilot couple who seemed to basically have an intercontinental pool of lovers and an open relationship. They were hot too.

            1. Pretty sure that was a novel by Heinlein.

              1. Nope. Met them during the Ed Clark campaign.

          2. you say you are anti-polygamy but are you for the use of force to prevent such associations?

            1. No I am not for the use of force.

          3. Hippies. Fat old hippies. The local polyamory people have a booth every year at the local gay pride fest. They are are old, fat, long gray haired, and wear tie-dye.

            I support them in their right to pursue a consensual lifestyle, but condemn their hippiedom.

            1. Just like most naturist. Only when you have let it all go do you seem to be willing to let it all go.

      2. The problem is people in general are too stupid to make the distinction between “icky” or even something as mild as “probably not a good idea” and “should be prohibited.” Of Santorum’s list polygamy is probably the two former, and while libertarians don’t think it should be the latter, most people do. To most people making the distinction between polygamy and child molesting is probably a quibble, but most people don’t seem to have much concern for that whole principled defense of individual liberty thing going on.

        1. I’m not really seeing where the “probably not a good idea” thing is true. Now, a man bringing up to a woman he is dating that he is into polygamy is a terrible idea, in that that is almost 100% guaranteed to turn her off unless she was one to bring it up and make favorable comments about it, which would be an exceedingly rare woman indeed.

          1. which would be an exceedingly rare woman indeed.

            Er, which makes it probably not a good idea, “probably” being a statement of probability and all.

            1. Er, which makes it probably not a good idea, “probably” being a statement of probability and all.

              Well, no. Dagny’s phrasing seemed to be saying that already being in a polygamous relationship is probably a bad idea for a man. Probability doesn’t apply when possible options have all collapsed, due to choices you have made, into a single reality that has a 100% chance of existing.

              1. Determinated, Bitches!

          2. That is, a man (or, much more rarely, a woman) with 2+ spouses is probably happier than a monogamous person — check out the incredibly happy guy in the TV documentary series “Sister Wives”. The hazardous and tricky part is finding the rare souls who will want to be part of the 2+ spouses.

            1. I suspect that if they weren’t happy, they wouldn’t be in the documentary.

              1. I will agree that it is hard to draw an accurate curve from a single data point.

                Or to have a representative data set when most of the people one is trying to count are doing their damndest to stay off the radar entirely.

        2. Hey Dagny, you seem to have a lot of men who were your highest value, like your mom. Too bad they weren’t bi and polyamorous.

      3. I resemble this remark!

        I would like to state, for the record, that my polyamorous ladypartner and I have a very healthy relationship, all things considered. It might not be for most people, and as you say some people seem to make dysfunctional messes out of poly relationships. But it seems to me that 90% of humans make dysfunctional messes out of sexual relationships anyways.

        1. …90% of humans make dysfunctional messes out of sexual relationships anyways everything.

          FIFY

    3. Repugugugnant? funny you didn’t say that last nite sweeeeeeeeeeetie

    4. Read the sentence again – what he’s saying is repugnant is Santorum’s claim. Which I suppose implies that polygamy also is…

  8. But Santorum’s claim threw polygamy in there

    “And, you know what? I am willing to say that 90% of polygamy as-practiced is repugnant and the other 10% is just stupid and unstable.”

    This is basically the same nonsense that they use to hammer homosexual marriages.

    1. I can only assume that you are uneducated or lack experience around “poly” people. Ask yourself why 99.99% of any poly relationship contains people who are called “my primary” and then get back to me.

      1. Prove that statement, then get back to me.

        1. Not interested in “proving” it. It comes from personal experience. I suppose I could put up a false paper or some other such thing and then “cite” to it. While I admit I am being inflammatory here, most polygamous relationships wind up with hurt feelings and someone or more than one someones being seriously emotionally damaged.

          1. Most relationships wind up with hurt feelings – Repugnant! – your experience is incredibly and probably best kept to yourself. (Or at least out of polity!)

            1. *incredibly narrow

            2. Most relationships wind up with hurt feelings

              And everyone winds up dead. That doesn’t mean you should swallow poison.

              I would be more than glad to further flesh out my bigotry against polyamorousness, but it seems to me that you need to go do some reading first. Start with some psychology journals.

              1. It seems to you? You who only speaks from experience?
                Why should I take any of your advice seriously? You’ve haven’t shown one utterance of objectivity at this point.

                1. Why should I take any of your advice seriously? You’ve haven’t shown one utterance of objectivity at this point.

                  You know, when my dad gave me life advice about women, or interpersonal relationships, or whatever, I didn’t get in his face and ask him for a citation.

                  I don’t have to be objective, you dumbass – it’s an opinion an opinion I have made abundantly clear is based on personal experience. In what way could I meet your standard of “objective”?

                  1. Thanks dad!

                    No shit it’s your opinion, I’ve already stated as much above.

                    Provide something that substantiates your statistics. Like a study.

                    1. Provide something that substantiates your statistics. Like a study.

                      What statistics? Fine, here’s my cite:

                      “99% of polyamorous relationships contain individuals called ‘primaries'”
                      – Rev. Blue Moon’s Life Experience, 19XX-2011

                    2. What methods were used to get that stat?

                    3. Oh, you’re right. Sorry.

                      “99% 100% of polyamorous relationships have individuals labeled ‘primaries'”

                      RBM Experience 19XX-2012

                      Methodology: Actually witnessing polyamorous relationships.

                    4. Fascinating! You must be mighty old to witness thousands of years of marriages. Also omniscient, or at least really, really fast.

                      Sorry for thinking that you were full of shit.

                    5. I didn’t know I needed to have thousands of years of experience to have an observation on my personal encounters.

                    6. You are going to have to work on your writing then, as “100% of” isn’t quite the same as “100% of what I’ve seen.”

                      Maybe you can blame the editor.

                    7. Isn’t Blue Moon TAO? Iirc TAO was a self-styled objectivist from a traditional, military family. It usually didn’t take much scraping to get him to return to his roots.

                    8. Isn’t Blue Moon TAO? Iirc TAO was a self-styled objectivist from a traditional, military family. It usually didn’t take much scraping to get him to return to his roots.

                      Why are microaggressing against my culture? I feel othered and marginalized now.

                    9. Oh, and another cite:

                      “A ‘primary’ in poly terminology is the partner that the individual who wishes to engage in polyamority met first. The ‘primary’ label is really just a stand-in term for ‘I don’t have the balls to dump you for someone hotter strange, so we’ll do “polygamy” and then we’ll have a different “lifestyle”!

                      – Rev. Blue Moon’s Opinion, January 10th 2012.

              2. Nice appeal to authority there! I don’t know why you have such an axe to grind.

                Telling people you think the way they are choosing to live their lives is a bad choice is probably not going to change their minds.

                1. Telling people you think the way they are choosing to live their lives is a bad choice is probably not going to change their minds.

                  That doesn’t make me wrong. And are you not implicitly telling me how to live my life by encouraging tolerance or acceptance or whatever somesuch nonsense?

                  I don’t have any patience for faecophilia either. That is not objective or even unemotional.

                  1. Not to defend the Rev (personally I couldn’t give two shits who you like to have an orgy…I mean polyamorous relationship with), but this is exactly the type of discourse that libertarians in general support instead of banning everything under the sun because double penetration is scary.

                    1. instead of banning everything under the sun because double penetration is scary.

                      It’s only scary if the peens touch.

                    2. It’s only scary if they don’t touch.

                    3. By the way hets, google “docking.”

                    4. By the way hets, google “docking.”

                      Dude, this is H&R. We’ve been reading about docking for years in SugarFree’s political slashfic.

                    5. Then why do people keep draggin me into the bathroom at Reason happy hours and asking me to demonstrate?

                  2. I’m not telling you to tolerate or accept anything. My suggestion was related to effectiveness in communication. I guess you are just 100% right, and you know it. Good for you!

                    1. I guess you are just 100% right, and you know it. Good for you!

                      If I wasn’t right, I would change my opinion.

          2. most polygamous relationships wind up with hurt feelings and someone or more than one someones being seriously emotionally damaged.

            Sounds like half of all monogamous marriages.

          3. In this weeks Savage Love Dan Savage says you a wrong, that all the happy polyamorites are simply silent, as their live dare not sing its chorus.

            Maybe you should try it and see if you like it.

            1. My monogamous relationship with my iPad, and its very butch B&D editor makes me unhappy however. You will have to decode the above.

            2. Savage has gone full retard on polyamority, and it’s really annoying.

              1. Just call him “repugnant” already.

                1. His Obama worship is repugnant, though he said some nice things about Ron Paul, contrasting him with Satanum.

                2. Just call him “repugnant” already.

                  Awww, did I fail to validate your personal lifechoices? You poor dear.

                  Here, I encourage submission to

                  1. Nah, I don’t think life choices generally require validation.

                    Statistics do though.

                  2. I encourage submission to Whiner’s Anonymous

                  3. Rofl. I really don’t care about validation. More concerned with whether you have a nice ass.

      2. If I went poly, could I call my 3rd wife my “tertiary”? Or is that microaggressing against her?

        1. If you go poly, you have to be OK with your wive(s) loving and fucking other people. This is something a lot of people are not comfortable with.

          1. Wife? I assume you only use that for its legal meaning.

        2. Or would she be calling you her secondary?

      3. In gay male long term threesome couples they seem to just all live together.

    2. Tak do you think Sanitarium always uses the same hand? And only one? Or is even that cheating?

      1. He’s missing out if he does. Poor guy.

      2. I’ve been warned before that masturbation creates a harem in the mind and is therefore as bad as adultery. He probably believes this, at least in front of his wife.

        1. It sounds like Gary may as well.

          1. Gary has a girl friend who he sees in between mountain biking and campaign events.

  9. Fighting the Drug War is simply wrong son
    But we can stop it now that we got a Johnson
    You gotta fight for the right to party

  10. Really? I mean I’m for ending the drug war but why push that angle the year that everyone is focused on the economy and potential for future wars? Granted the LP has to stand apart from the GOP and DNC but the drug issue isn’t what’s going to draw this year. Oh well it’s not like I was going to vote for obama or Romney.

    1. It was a single town hall out of the dozens he’s done so far focused on the drug issue. Go watch all of his other town hall events.

      http://www.yowie.com/garyjohnsonlive

  11. Libertarian Party, where anarchists get stoned.

  12. When do we start talking about the NH primary goddamnit? It’s almost 9 PM here and I’m hitting a second bottle of chardonnay. God, I love you guys.

    1. good god man, where are you?

      1. Check the last two letters on his email addy. He’s in a socialist Euro-fag decadent athiest nation. With a bunch of hot chicks.

        1. It’s the decadence that really makes the difference. Although the hot chicks don’t hurt. But what’s the point of hot chicks without decadence?

    2. And where were our invites.

  13. Reason actually covered a candidate for the Libertarian nomination!!!

    Be still my beating heart – there’s hope for you guys yet.

  14. the former two-term New Mexico governor will likely make the repeal of marijuana prohibition a pillar of his campaign going forward.

    So IOW he’s got even less chance than Ron Paul of actually getting elected?

    1. If you think Ron Paul’s hard core supporters are bad for libertarianism just wait for Johnson’s. Single-issue marijuana advocates usually sound like brain-damaged hippie socialists.

      1. brain-damaged hippie socialists.

        but you repeat yourself.

      2. Aren’t single issue voters that bane of any party/candidate? The hardcore pro-life voters don’t help their candidate’s mass appeal either.

        1. Except half the country is now pro-life.
          Babies are a better single-issue than the preferred intoxicant of Mexican laborers and Negro jazz musicians.

      3. Google Cliff Kincaid’s piece in this week’s Canada Free Press on how all the Ron Paul supporters in NH are gay, drug addled, gun toting, Porc Festing, tattooed peacenickers. Libertarians Pete Eyre and Allison Gibb are featured.

    2. Johnson’s main issue is spending. We’ve done a dozen town halls. We’d always get viewers asking about marijuana so we had a single issue town hall just as we did for the gay marriage issue and FairTax issues.

      Johnson’s has the best fiscal record and jobs creation record of any candidate in this race. For the author to try to belittle him based on his 12th or whatever town hall being an issue based town hall is very disappointing. I expect better of Reason.

      1. You must have read a different article than the one I did. Keep in mind, almost everyone here knows what GJ stands for, and if they vote, will probably vote for him in the general unless Paul gets nominated.

      2. I expect better of Reason.

        Like when they spiked the Hit&Run; story on Gary Johnson’s disastrous debut as a 2012 GOP candidate?

      3. It’s the Beltway virus. They don’t wear condoms when they read the New Republic.

  15. You are reading way much into last nights Yowie town all I think. (Maybe you can get a job at The New Republic.)

    I saw 3 of Johnson’s town halls when he was a GOP candidate and two of those were moderated by people from the two (gay) Republican groups. Does that mean when he was a GOP candidate his main issue was gay marriage? I don’t think so.

    I hope he does well and pulls equally from Dems and GOPsters, so that he doesn’t swing the election from where it would otherwise go.

  16. “the former two-term New Mexico governor will likely make the repeal of marijuana prohibition a pillar of his campaign going forward.”

    It’s the best possible wedge issue for libertarians. Hey conservatives, you say you don’t want big government, well look at the expansion of government in hunting down mary jane in every school locker and inner city home. Hey progressives, you say you want to help the black community (which is devastated by the WOD), allow “lifestyle liberalism” and have a new source of revenue. Then let’s legalize this.

    1. and he’ll get .5% of the vote.

      Go Red! Go Blue!

      1. and he’ll get .5% of the vote.

        I’ll take the “under” .43-.48%.

        1. You know what? I really don’t care how much of the vote GJ gets. I am just happy to have a candidate that I can vote for and not feel like I’m compromising myself, yet again.

          1. They’re ALL a compromise.

            1. MNG,

              I’m afraid that the Reds will simply say – “vote for us and fight the big-government socialistic potheads!”

              And the Blues will say, “vote for us and help the black community which is suffering from the scourge of drugs and racism! And rebuke those Republicans who call us soft on drugs!”

  17. FYI, the first 15 minutes wasn’t Johnson not unmuting people to hear them. Yowie doesn’t auto mute people on the host as it does on the viewers.

    It is a bug with Chrome/Adobe Flash Player/Windows/Headset interaction. It required restarting Chrome to allow Chrome to pick up the headset correctly.

    So it wasn’t Johnson not simply unmuting people, but was more technical in nature.

    1. It has happened in several of his yowies though. Or some tech difficulty.

  18. Hardy, welcome to the cacaphony which is H&R. Your guy, Gary Johnson, is well thought of here.

  19. Hardy, welcome to H&R. Your guy, Gary Johnson, enjoys a lot of support here. Wish him well.

  20. I still don’t get why polgamy should be illegal, and on what grounds?

    If the parties are consenting adults, it should be legal.

  21. his stances on mj etc sound awesome, but is there ANY branding that could make him a candidate with a chance of WINNING?

    1. No

      This election is made for the right 3rd Party candidate. A guy who failed so badly in the GOP primary that he was outpolled by Buddy Roemer isn’t the one. I expect GJ will fail at attaining the LP nom but if Bob Barr can pull it off I suppose it’s possible.

  22. If Johnson is the Libertarian nominee, I will almost certainly vote for him. But the focus on marijuana — even though he’s right on the issue — is bad strategery. He will be the only candidate who really defends civil liberties in the “War on Terror” era, and he should stress that.

  23. I’m sure that if, under pressure from the president, the sec’y of HHS told the att’y gen’l that marijuana has not enough potential for abuse to justify controls, that, as in the case in the 1980s when the Reagan DOT tried to loosen vehicle rules re passive restraints, someone would sue and claim the change was arbitrary and capricious. And then it would go to court, and that would be interesting, but no guarantee the admin. would win.

    1. I forgot to mention that the party that sued over the relaxation of the vehicle safety rules won. The more stringent rule was reinstated, the deregulation having been ruled arbitrary and capricious.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.