Gary Johnson

Fox News: '2016 the best chance yet for a libertarian candidate?'

Red Eye panel feels the Johnson and is bullish on the LP, because "a lot of people are libertarians without realizing it"

|

Great moments in cable television. ||| Fox News
Fox News

At the end of last week I participated in a Red Eye w/ Tom Shillue episode on Fox News that included a discussion about the prospects of presidential aspirant Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party in this year's election. Move past the MacGuffin of Johnson's toes (sorry, GarJo!), and focus instead not just on your narrator's assertion that "eight months of Hillary versus Trump" is going to be "awful" and "make us feel bad to wake up every morning as Americans," but rather on the robust support for libertarianism on the panel. Actor Matt Walton claims that "a lot of Americans identify with libertarian policies," and thinks that the LP could stand a fighting chance within a couple of election cycles. And Joanne Nosuchinsky says "I do think that a lot of people are libertarians without realizing it."

Watch part of the segment below:

NEXT: American Association of University Professors Comes Out Swinging Against Title IX Inquisition

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. “Red Eye panel feels the Johnson”

    Really? I mean, seriously?

    1. Offended, Eddie?

      1. Not in the same way I would be offended to see it in the ol’ church bulletin.

        Certainly not surprised.

        A bit disappointed.

        Maybe a little jealous I didn’t think of it first.

        1. Kennedy (I think) thought of it first, or at least publicized it hardest. The campaign (or people friendly to it) have designed things using it.

  2. So now a moment is 8 months?

  3. Awesome screencap. From the expression on her face, it looks like Welch is announcing, with some pride, that he just sharted.

    1. I don’t know, that expression is more of a Welch saying “I think Crystal Skull is the best Indiana Jones movie” type of look.

      1. She literally can’t even.

        1. “Grody to the max!!!”

      2. It does look like he’s introducing an opinion he knows no one will agree with right off the bat.

  4. The question to ask is who in the GOP is being alienated by the Trump movement and who in the Democratic Party are loath to vote for Hillary. That might be a sizable group of voters looking for a home. I don’t think many or any of them are Libertarians on anything but open borders however, unless you think socialism and foreign intervention are “libertarian”.

    1. “The question to ask is who in the GOP is being alienated by the Trump movement”

      Fiscal Conservatives/Limited Government conservatives, establishment conservatives and some social conservatives

      Only the first group would be interested in voting Libertarian. Now I have heard some talk of trying to get a more mainstream Republican to run on the libertarian ticket, someone like a Rick Perry or a Mitch Daniels. I would vote for both in a heart beat. I doubt though that either have an interest in running, or that the Libertarian Party would be interested in nominating a “mainstream Republican” (Yeah I know about Bob Barr, but even he was too “libertarian” for mainstream Republicans)

      “who in the Democratic Party are loath to vote for Hillary.”
      The small group of civil libertarians and anti-war liberals who actually care about those issues over other progressive causes. Outside of that portion everyone else will vote Green, stay home or convince themselves that Trump is so evil “They must vote for Hillary.”

      1. So you’re one of the 1% who backed Rick Perry.

    1. What do you need him for, Dude?

  5. Move past the MacGuffin of Johnson’s toes (sorry, GarJo!), and focus instead not just on your narrator’s…

    Tie? Haircut? Glasses?

    1. I think his tie is a fun and effortless choice, but I am of mixed opinion on the loss of the fauxhawk.

  6. I bet this isn’t the first time Welch has gotten that look from a pretty young woman.

    1. “It’s forked!!!”

      1. “I left when he said that he wanted me to roleplay as Dagny Taggart. He wouldn’t stop screaming WHO IS JOHN GALT and making jokes about train tunnels.”

        1. Winston train tunnel in front, Galt’s Gulch in the back.

  7. I miss Greg on Red Eye. Don’t hate Tom, but liked it a lot better with Greg. Don’t watch much anymore.

    1. You know who else doesn’t watch much anymore?

      1. Helen Keller?

        1. *unable to narrow gaze effectively*

          1. *turns blind eye*

  8. What kind of third party ticket could really win? How about Bloomberg Romney? Wouldn’t that pick up all of the voters from both parties who refuse to vote for Trump or Hillary? The never Trump crowd seem to think Romney is the most honest and noble man ever. I would think the Bernie Bros could tolerate Romney if he came with a side of Nanny Bloomberg.

    1. “The never Trump crowd seem to think Romney is the most honest and noble man ever.”

      Some regard Romney as an opportunist who is humping the anti-Trump movement like a horny Saint Bernard.

      1. That is what he is. I, however, haven’t seen much of that sentiment. Mostly, it is all about how wonderful and upstanding he is.

        1. I don’t think enthusiastic Cruz supporters would be very enthusiastic about Romney. But people who like Kasich seem like the sort of people who would be comfortable with Romney. I don’t know any real data about this though.

          1. The enthusiastic Cruz supporters would mostly vote for Trump if he were the nominee. The real hard core “Never Trump” crowd tend to be Kaisch and Rubio leftovers. And they would be happy with Romney.

            1. Maybe, in my experience with National Review commenters, the people who are anti-Trump argue for Cruz. Of course, that’s only among people who comment on National Review. I don’t know any reliable data on the topic.

              A lot of Cruz supporters don’t like Trump because they don’t trust him–supporting the idea of single payer, praising Democrats, supporting TARP and the stimulus, etc. So there seem to be very conservative voters who naturally like Cruz and don’t like Trump. Again, reliable data would make this clearer.

              1. I am one of those regular NR commenters who is for Cruz and absolutely not vote for Trump. I don’t trust him, don’t like him, and I am pretty sure he is an idiot. Ditto for Kasich.

              2. Glenn Beck and his minions also tend to be pro-Cruz and anti-Trump. I think it was a worthy distinction eight months ago – but Cruz has shifted his positions to match Trump on several things that were points of differentiation a few months ago (immigration, NSA, Apple, etc) so I think “small government conservatives” for Cruz are, to some extent, either likely Trump converts or fooling themselves..

    2. I doubt any third party ticket could win, but this does seem like an opportunity to for the LP to enter the conversation as a real alternative. That would be hugely valuable.

    3. Bernie voters don’t like Romney, for obvious reasons.

      Time to dust off Ron Paul.

  9. Let’s be blunt* – the LP could benefit this cycle from restrictive ballot-access laws.

    The LP has worked hard to meet the ballot-access requirements in the various states. Sometimes it files a challenge and gets the requirements made somewhat less restrictive, but they remain fairly restrictive even today.

    They’re especially restrictive toward candidates and parties which want to organize at the last minute in response to last-minute political developments.

    In 1948, when the Democrats nominated Truman and spurned the com-symps and racists, the com-symps and racists promptly organized their own parties – the Progressive Party and the Dixiecrats respectively.

    So when the voters gave the com-symps and racists a good spanking in the general election, they couldn’t blame ballot-access laws.

    Now, if Trump’s supporters or opponents are disappointed by the result of the Republican nomination (because it either did or didn’t result in Trump), how much time would they have to get together behind a new party or an independent candidacy? They’d have to back an existing third party – which would mean the LP because no other third party has the same consistent ballot presence across all the states.

    *huh-huh, I said “bllunt”

    1. The problem is few of the Republicans pissed off over Trump are libertarians. Mostly they are conservatives pissed of that Trump is not kissing their ass. I can’t see many of them voting L. They will just stay home.

      1. Yeah, the point I was struggling to articulate is that the LP isn’t a good fit for them, and if they could set up their own party it would probaby be a Bloomberg kind of deal

        1. But half of life is showing up, so the LP being on the ballot will be a temptation to alienated Reps who otherwise wouldn’t give Johnson the time of day.

      2. *scratches head*

        Are you saying that the libertarians in the Republican tent are OK with Trump?

        Because I sure as hell ain’t.

        1. No. I am saying there are not many libertarians in the Republican tent.

      3. It would be pretty easy to take over the LP though and nominate a conservative. Heck, Bob Barr supporters did it once.

  10. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail. +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.ReportMax90.com

  11. Okay, everyone on the panel is wrong. Berniebots are full-on socialists. That’s not libertarianism. Trump is a pure cult of personality. Policies don’t matter so whether people are more libertarian than they realize, it won’t matter at the polls (as it never does).

    One might think that the news media holding the debates might see putting GaJo onstage would be a way of sticking it to Trump and helping out Hillary. I could see it.

    1. The Trump people are not a cult of personality. I don’t know why people think that. Trump is pure class based populism and nationalism. I think the people in Washington wish it were a cult of personality. That would go away with Trump. The things that are driving Trump’s campaign are not going to go away even if Trump doesn’t win the Presidency.

      1. I can’t imagine many others spouting his mindless populism and getting that juggernaut momentum, but I admit my lack of imagination isn’t proof. In any case I see him as the blank slate that Candidate Obama was. Policy proposals (as much as either of them had/have them) don’t even enter into the equation. When a candidate admits (likely correctly) that he could shoot someone and not lose support, that’s cult of personality.

        1. He is not a blank slate. He speaks to a particular group of supporters and has a particular message. The people who think he is a blank slate are Washington dorks who think politics is about detailed policy papers that no one but other dorks read.

          1. He’s not a blank slate, but he’s not the Rosetta Stone, either. What exactly Trump will do remains largely a mystery even if you can categorically state some things that he definitely won’t do.

            1. His supporters don’t support him for what he will or will not do. They support him because he doesn’t hold them in contempt the way every other politician does.

              1. Hence, cult of personality.

          2. Trump supporters are projecting a lot of wishful thinking on Trump, and trusting his current words over his past actions and past words. But I guess that’s true for every candidate.

      2. The Trump people are not a cult of personality. I don’t know why people think that. Trump is pure class based populism and nationalism.

        I see it as both.

        1. Trump is pure class based populism

          That is just about a textbook definition of ‘cult of personality’.

          1. Pretty much. But John likes Trump too much to see that.

        2. Yeah, Trump is riding the wave of populism and nationalism, which ain’t going away. But he’s riding the wave because he has built a cult of personality.

      3. The Trump people are not a cult of personality.

        There’s somewhat of a cult of personality I think. At least in one aspect, people talk about how Trump can make deals and win and get things done by being Trump. That fits into a form of cult of personality in my opinion. It was similar to Obama.

        1. Well, it’s good that we elected a president dedicated to stopping doing stupid shit. Now everything in Washington is running smoothly.

      4. “Trump is pure class” – John

        1. NEVER FORGET

        2. That is not what I said. I am confused by what you are doing here?

          1. “I am confused.” – John

      5. No, Trump is a cult of personality. When supporters are willing to take opposite positions based on his stance on the issue, it’s a cult of personality. He didn’t comment that he could kill a man on 5th Avenue and still get their support for nothing.

        1. Trump is a cult of personality. When supporters are willing to take opposite positions based on his stance on the issue, it’s a cult of personality.

          No it is not Bill. You just assume that people support candidates for either their positions or their personalities. There is a third option; they support candidates who claim to represent their group and take on other groups that hate them. This is what Trump is. His supporters don’t care about his positions because that is not the point. And it is not a cult of personality because Trump could die tomorrow and they would go and find someone else who represents them and sticks it to their enemies.

      6. “The Trump people are not a cult of personality.”

        It’s hard to believe this when many Trump supporters are acting exactly how Obama zombies treated Obama 8 years ago.

    2. “Berniebots are full-on socialists. That’s not libertarianism.”

      I read some douche on Facederp Saturday (on the Libertarianism and Reason posts) consistently trying to argue that Libertarian Socialism is a real thing.

      1. consistently trying to argue that Libertarian Socialism is a real thing.

        It’s possible. If you want to form a non-violent and non-coercive commune, and convince others to join you, and not coerce anyone else outside the commune, have at it — until it inevitably collapses.

        Doubt that’s what the person you talked about was saying, but it has actually been tried.

        1. That is never what those kind of dick heads are talking about.

        2. There’s a sanctuary for Buddhists near my parents house. Socialism works inside libertarian thought. Libertarians can’t live in socialist thought.

      2. Slavery is freedom!

        I think I read a book about that once.

  12. I imagine somebody who campaigned on things like a restrained foreign policy and a commitment to an average 1% annual increase in government spending to eventually balance the budget while downplaying social issues and taking a middle of the road approach to immigration would be popular with a significant portion of the electorate. Is that such a crazy idea? Is that first sentence cohesive?

    1. I can’t see that person being popular with Libertarians. Middle of the road on immigration is not going to make you very popular with Libertarians.

      1. I’m thinking of small “l” libertarians and the portion of the electorate who states preferences against big government and hawkish foreign policy.

        For “middle of the road” on immigration I mean basically keep things as they are except maybe increase some caps on certain work visas and/or allow for new visa programs. Also maybe have something like a path to residency after paying fines and doing paperwork for people who are currently here illegally. Also not keeping border security as is and not building a wall.

        1. Whoops, meant not increasing border security.

    2. Apparently not. That’s pretty much Rand Paul’s platform, and he got 10% in Iowa and less in New Hampshire.

    3. Depends how it’s packaged. CE is right that Rand Paul wasn’t far off that, he just packaged it like crap. Hell, Jeb Bush probably came reasonably close to three of the four things you listed, and he was a laughingstock because of his packaging.

    1. LIBERTARIAN MOOOOOOMMMMMEEEEEEEEENT!!!!!!!!!!

      1. She had some spelling errors and I hate the appeal to sympathy for he being a single mother. Otherswise, Good job.

      2. “Ideological Leader for Youth Generation”

        All Our Base, Are Belong to Her?

    2. That is actually really awesome though. I don’t want to get my hopes up too much yet, though.

  13. “I do think that a lot of people are libertarians without realizing it.”

    I think reality is the exact opposite of this. I think there are a lot of people think they’re libertarians without realizing they are not.

    1. Yeah. People might state a preference for having a smaller government with fewer programs/services and fewer taxes, but when you get to the specifics…

    2. Everybody wants less tax and regulation on themselves. Other people, not so much.

      1. That’s pretty much what socially liberal, fiscally conservative means to most people.

        1. Here’s how many people define the terms:

          fiscally conservative = balance the budget with a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes

          socially liberal = protect gays against homophobic bakers

          1. I think its more like:

            fiscally conservative = balance the budget with a combination of spending cuts for other people and tax hikes on other people

        2. A lot of people think they’re libertarians because they don’t like to pay their taxes but like to smoke a joint on the weekend.

  14. I agree with the statement that most are libertarians without realizing it. Sadly, this only applies to themselves. To others, they are not libertarian which is where it is most crucial.

  15. So you’re sayin’ there’s a chance….

    I predict a surge in Team L votes – probably approaching 2% instead of the normal 1%.

    1. You beat me to that. I was going to say 1.6%

  16. He’s got my vote!

    what’s that make, 40 of us?

  17. The polls are backing up the idea of a strong showing for an LP or other third party candidate.
    37% of Republican voters say they will consider a 3rd party candidate.
    11% of all respondents picked Gary Johnson in a 3-way race with Trump-Clinton, even though only 9% had a favorable opinion of him.

    1. “37% of Republican voters say they will consider a 3rd party candidate.”

      Yeah, they say that now, with November still months away. Come Election Day, they’ll have been hammered with “But Hillary” so much, most, if not all, will be good little drones and vote Team Red, since Team Blue is worse because, um, she doesn’t have an R next to her name.

  18. Gary Johnson 2016: Because Libertarians deserve a terrible candidate too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.