Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson Holds A Rally In A Waco Parking Lot

|

Waco – Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson spoke to a crowd of about 40 people in a hot parking lot near the beginning of the Heritage Square section of this midsized Texas city.

Johnson, along with the LP candidate for US Senate in Texas John Jay Myers, spoke without the aid of a stage or PA system, for about 15 minutes each as the sun beat down. The only reporter (other than me) in attendance was a writer for the pay-per-click site Examiner.com. Young people, many clad in Ron Paul shirts, made up the bulk of the crowd.  

In his stump speech Johnson, dressed in black slacks and an un-tucked olive green shirt, emphasized how he is different from President Obama and Mitt Romney while mentioning that he would work to audit and, eventually, eliminate the Federal Reserve.

Myers spent little time talking about his two opponents, Tea Party-favored Republican Ted Cruz and former Democratic state representative Paul Sadler. He did, though, go after Cruz's social conservatism.

"I am not a social conservative. I am a conservative when it comes to spending but I am not a conservative when it comes to what you should be able to do with your life," he said.

Myers, taking note of the sizable Paul presence in the crowd, said that Paul's confrontation in with former New York Mayor Rudy Guliani during a 2007 Republican presidential debate encouraged him to get involved in politics.

Johnson and Myers hung around for about a half-hour after the event ended before departing for Austin. At one point a local college student asked Johnson to sign her copy of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. After that the former New Mexico governor eventually found himself in a familiar place: defending and explaining his position on the Fair Tax to a handful of college students.

Before Johnson left another student asked what he would do if he lost. Without missing a beat Johnson said that he would run again in 2016. 

NEXT: Syria VP May Be Out

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. While I will probably be voting for Gary in the general, I am pretty annoyed that he’s wasting his time running for president when he could have been a Senator from New Mexico, a state where he is genuinely popular. The LP was contaminated after the Bob Barr debacle and Johnson at least rehabilitates that, but all the same imagine what could have been done with two libertarians in the Senate instead of just one.

    1. Now they just need someone to rehabilitate from the previous 30 years of unelectable nutcase candidates.

    2. Ditto that. I sure hope he drops his stupid idea to do this again in 2016 and gets to good part ie the senate.

    3. I think you’re spot-on here. Can you imagine Rand Paul and Gary Johnson teaming up in that cesspit of log-rolling oafs?

    4. Ron Paul went back to Congress as a Republican after his run for President as a Libertarian in ’88. Johnson could probably do something similar in the future with a Senate run.

  2. I’m sure BO and Romney are shaking in their booties. 40 people, wow.

  3. The Fair Tax is a perfectly reasonable and good idea I’m tired of people of people bitching about it. It would be a huge improvement.

    “Run again in 2016” -ugh how stupid. Just get in the senate already. Run in NM.

    1. The Fair Tax would become just as much of a social engineering nightmare as the income tax is.

      You have to exempt some amount of expenditure from it to prevent it from becoming horribly regressive, and that opens the door to tweaking (and then rate increases to make up for the tweaking).

      1. Exactly. It would be a national sales tax, and like every sales tax there would be people pushing to have certain “essential” items exempt.
        For example where I live food is exempt from the sales tax, but candy isn’t.
        How do you distinguish between food and candy?
        Flour.
        A Twix bar is exempt from the sales tax while a Snickers is not.
        Inanity.

        1. In Canada we’ve had the GST since the very early 90s and there are few exemptions none made recently. They are just not as politically profitable.

          Define ‘regressive’. Making people of all incomes pay for their Leviathan is not regressive and is a paradigm shift against statism in Canada.

          1. A high income person who has money to save and invest will pay a smaller percentage of their income in sales tax than someone living paycheck to paycheck.
            Thus sales taxes are regressive.

            1. So? That savings becomes investment, a good thing.

              1. Right, but the problem then is that the poorest end up feeling the tax the most.

                A $1 tax is no big deal if you’ve got $100.

                It’s a pretty big fucking deal if you’ve only got $2.

                1. If you make a “prefund” of the first $X of purchases, CG, the poor never feel it at all.

                  IOW, if the first $10,000 per person of purchases are exempted from a 15% tax and there are four persons in a household, the Treasury mails a check on January 1 to that household in the mount of $6,000 to offset the presumed first $40,000 in purchases that will be made that year. Beyond that, it’s the household’s responsibility to pay.

                  (BTW, my numbers are for illustration only)

                2. Right, but the problem then is that the poorest end up feeling the tax the most.

                  Yeah…so?

                  1. So an ideal tax situation doesn’t strip people of such a large portion of their income as to make it nigh impossible for them to succeed.

        2. I can’t imagine it would be worse than the current lobbying in Washington that is centered on the tax code.

          With one tax and one tax rate it becomes more difficult to hide exemptions and credits. Unlike our current system which hides thousands of exemptions and credits among layers of obfuscation, tax rates, and laws.

          Being harder to hide makes it easier to hold people accountable.

          1. And people trust the system more because it’s transparent. People, rightly, don’t trust it today because it’s as opaque as a brick wall.

        3. You don’t make items exempt, you make the first $X of spending per person exempt.

          1. I understand the fair tax how it is written. That doesn’t mean it will stay that way.

            1. By giving a flat $X/year exemption and a single sales tax rate, it is hard to fiddle with it without it being glarinly obvious. For me, I’d like an amendement written that would repeal all excises, income, payroll and other taxes while implementing a single-rate sales tax and per-person exemption (rate and exemption TBD by Congress by statute).

        4. It would be a national sales tax, and like every sales tax there would be people pushing to have certain “essential” items exempt.

          It would still be an improvement on the income tax.

          For example, CA’s sales tax is riddled with exemptions and special treatment. The publication explaining it all is around 5,000 pages. Which is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of pages that would be required to explain all the ins and outs of the income tax.

          Not to mention the negative incentives that come with taxing income. Or the intrusive and draconian enforcement measures required to enforce it.

      2. The FairTax (HR25/S.13) already does this by providing a monthly “prebate” of the cost of the tax on all spending on new goods and services up to the poverty limit. Under the FairTax, you don’t pay anything in tax unless and until you spend more than the standard deduction.

        The FairTax replaces income, capital gains, AND payroll taxes which means that someone earning minimum wage will see their net take-home go up by AT LEAST 7% and their employer will be able to increase staffing by 7.65% without affecting their payroll.

  4. And for all you Dunphy haters out there, Swedish cops show the proper way to arrest a belligerent asshole.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c64_1345263057

    1. ???

      Your assertion is a non-sequitur. This video showing a couple of Keystone Kops isn’t an indictment on restraint in the area of UOF, but a clear example of how ineffective these to particular officers are at their job.

      1. I don’t see any dead dog bodies so I say they came out ahead of America’s finest in blue.

  5. Right, but the problem then is that the poorest end up feeling the tax the most.

    Feature, not a bug. People who feel the government is taking a huge chunk of their scarce earnings are marginally less likely to try to vote themselves free shit stolen from others.

    1. I would say just the opposite could occur. People who have half their income stolen by government are going to demand they see some goodies in return.

  6. here’s a picture of Cal Rodgers flying the Vin Fiz by the same building 101 years ago on the first cross country flight: http://havredegrace.patch.com/…..to-7893751

  7. “Young people, many clad in Ron Paul shirts, made up the bulk of the crowd.

    Did they chant ‘Oh well, We guess we’ll vote for you’ as well? Did they sell t-shirts with ‘Gary Johnson, Consolation Candidate’ on them?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.