Gary Johnson

Will the LP Please Nominate Gary Johnson Already & Crack Double Digits in 2016?

The former governor of New Mexico is the real deal and could pull great numbers in November.

|

Reason

In a recent Monmouth University poll that asked people who'd they vote for in a three-way race among Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and the Libertarian Party (LP) candidate from 2012, 11 percent said they'd flip the switch for Gary Johnson (42 percent went for Clinton and 34 percent for Trump).

That poll might have been a fluke—or it might just demonstrate the depth of anti-Clinton and anti-Trump sentiments. But Gary Johnson, who served two terms as the Republican governor of New Mexico, also got 1.2 million votes (around 1 percent of the total) in the last presidential race.

He's well-spoken, has a track record, and an interesting life story. Among other highlights, he's climbed the highest peak on seven continents, does long-form triathlons, and is refreshingly open about his pot smoking; he's about the only baby boomer I'd ever vote for.

In a new Daily Beast column, I argue that Johnson may also be the only thing between us and a real-life reenactment of the infamous 2004 South Park episode,  "Douche and Turd," in which the show's kids are forced to pick between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich as a new school mascot.

Johnson has his problems, to be sure. As John Stossel has noted, he can be, well, a little sleepy, "as if he is high on weed." On his eponymous Fox Business show last week, Stossel aired the first half of a Libertarian Party candidates' debate, in which Johnson squared off against anti-virus software guru and man-of-international-intrigue John McAfee and activist Austin Petersen. The gov basically finished third, and stumbled with answers to questions like the old chestnut, "Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a Nazi wedding cake?" Earlier this year, when announcing his run for the LP nom, he told Reason he would ban the burqa and other Islamic face coverings before quickly walking it back. Derp.

And yet…I followed him around the campaign trail in 2012 and even saw him bring a crowd of 500 or so at the University of Cincinnati to their feet near the end of the election season. When he's on, he can sell the libertarian alternative like few others. I'm not a member of the LP, though I've voted for its candidate in every presidential election since 1988. Here's some free advice from an interested observer (and needless to say, my views don't represent those of Reason Foundation or any other writers who appear at Reason.com):

This much seems certain: The Libertarian Party will go the farthest in 2016 with Gary Johnson at the top of its ticket. If this is the winter of our electoral discontent, American voters still aren't so pissed off that novices such as McAfee, whose gnomic invocations of libertarian dogma and piercing eyes can be quite beguiling, or Petersen, no matter how much "pussy" he's swimming in, are capable of reaching anything like the 11 percent that Johnson has already registered.

The LP meets in Orlando in May to pick its presidential candidate and, even assuming Johnson regains the form that earned him 1.2 million votes in 2012, there's still a non-trivial chance that the party faithful may dump him in favor of somebody less capable. In the past, after all, the LP has chosen candidates who eschew driver's licenses and any possibility of electoral success.

But if the party does back Johnson, and he does get his act together, and Hillary and The Donald go after each other like Adams and Jefferson once did…well, let's just say it will be the most entertaining election this side of South Park. Except that this time, there will be an actual third choice that might actually represent the plurality of American voters who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Read more here.

The second half of the Stossel debate with Johnson, McAfee, and Petersen airs this Friday at 9 P.M. Eastern time. Check out highlights from the first part here.

Reason TV caught up with Johnson last summer at FreedomFest, the annual mega-meeting of libertarians in Vegas. Watch that convo now:

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.

177 responses to “Will the LP Please Nominate Gary Johnson Already & Crack Double Digits in 2016?

  1. “The gov basically finished third, and stumbled with answers to questions like the old chestnut, ‘Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a Nazi wedding cake?'”

    A libertarian stumbled on that? Not a good sign.

    1. The answer is “YAAAAAAASSSSSSSSS”.

      1. I hear that’s been appropriated from drag culture though.

        1. No, it has been appropriated from vampire culture.

          1. Consider it appropriated by chipper culture.

  2. There goes Nick, waving his Johnson around again.

    1. Sound’s America is ready to feel the Libertarian Johnson.

  3. Maybe a little speed to counteract the weed? Do they still make black beauties?

    1. +4 christmas trees

  4. Who is this “Crack Digits” they’re proposing as VP?

    1. While we’re at it, who’s this “Gary Already”?

    2. Please, it’s Crack Double-Digits. Hyphenated.

      1. Son of Deeznuts Double and Shaynaynay Digits

      2. Libertarians won’t get much more than 1% of the vote. Why worry about a hyphen that won’t be needed?

        1. Because #HyphenLivesMatter, Nihil.

  5. “The gov basically finished third, and stumbled with answers to questions like the old chestnut, “Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a Nazi wedding cake?””

    This is pretty much the easiest question of all time. There is not a human being on planet Earth who would have a problem if you said ‘no.’

    Other than maybe Nazis.

    1. The Nazi would have said ‘no’ as well. They’d have taken the bakery away from the Jew.

    2. Considering that Shackelford finds an excuse to oppose every state law that prevents that , I am not sure Johnson was departing from the reason party line there.

      1. Weird, I didn’t know Nazis were a protected class.

        Of course, if a Nazi baker tried to refuse to bake a Jewish wedding cake, it’s a whole other story. Because god.

        1. Its called the 1st Amendment Nikki. Religion really is protected. I know that sucks and the founders were evil people for doing it, but it is there. Some day we will repeal it and replace it with a universal right to be free of religious propaganda or something.

          1. Its called the 1st Amendment Nikki. Religion really is protected.

            From the state, John. Not from private actors.

            1. I don’t like public accommodation laws either. But many Libertarians have decided they are fabulous because GAYS!!

              1. You lost that war, broheim. You are supposed to freak out about transgenders now.

                1. John: “Excuse me, but you’re not one of those silly men who dresses up like a lady, are you?”
                  Hooker: “No, baby, i’m all wom-”
                  John: [peels out]

        2. Nazis are protected. We just call them ‘progressives’ now.

      2. Given that Shackford has also consistently opposed laws forcing people to bake cakes for homosexuals I’d say you’re wrong.

        “What frequently gets ignored in these political battles?aside from the concept that people should have the right to associate (or not associate) with whomever they choose?is whether the law is the best tool to resolve these conflicts. Many wedding businesses are falling all over themselves to compete in this new and potentially profitable market. There is little indication that gay couples actually need the government to force resistant religious bakers to fire up their mixers in order to have the wedding of their dreams.”

        1. He is wonderful at talking a good game and token opposition. Yes. But as we have seen with North Carolina and Georgia, when someone actually steps up to pass a law to keep that from happening, as opposed to passing a law to make it happen, Scott suddenly finds a way to oppose it.

          Scott is real sorry and all for people getting sued. And he certainly wishes it didn’t happen. But, he would never consider making any effort to stop it from happening or maybe walk back on anything he wants if it results in people getting sued.

          I guess token opposition is better than nothing but not by much.

          1. Re: North Carolina

            Shackford said:

            “It’s frustrating to attempt to look at this issue from a libertarian perspective because it doesn’t really seem like either side in this particular culture war has any interest in separating government accommodation of individuals and the private sector. It ends up being all or nothing. Transgender and gay people should expect that the government accommodate their gender expression and sexual orientation and treat them the same under the law, particularly in areas like schools where attendance is mandatory. If you’re going to force transgender teens to go to your institutions, and you’re going to take money from their parents to fund it, you can very well deal with it. In the private sector, though, there’s no reason why cultural negotiation won’t work just fine to deal with the situation, particularly since in all likelihood, people aren’t even going to know when they’re sharing a bathroom with a transgender person anyway.”

            1. “And while I don’t believe that it’s necessary to expand public accommodation discrimination protection laws (mostly because so much of the public has come to accommodate LGBT voluntarily on their own), it should be a concern when a state tells individual cities what sort of laws it can and cannot pass. You don’t have to agree with Charlotte’s law to worry about what it means for the ability of citizens in a municipality have their local control of decision-making thwarted by the political power of representatives of other communities. If the citizens of Charlotte object to what their city leadership has done, it should be up to them locally to correct it, which is what happened in Houston”

              ^^ You seem to have imputed meaning into these two paragraphs that isn’t actually there.

              1. (mostly because so much of the public has come to accommodate LGBT voluntarily on their own

                Thanks for doing my work for me Irish. Scott gives away the game there. He opposes these laws because gays don’t need them not because he has any real problem with them in principle. He doesn’t oppose public accommodation laws, He just doesn’t see the need to push for them. If that ever changed, he would be all for them.

                Basically Scott doesn’t see the need to use the power of the gun to get what he wants because the public is voluntarily doing it. In Scott’s view the public has a right to do what they like, so long as it is what he wants. If they don’t, then Scott is going to put a boot on someone’s face.

                1. Thanks for doing my work for me Irish. Scott gives away the game there. He opposes these laws because gays don’t need them not because he has any real problem with them in principle. He doesn’t oppose public accommodation laws, He just doesn’t see the need to push for them. If that ever changed, he would be all for them.

                  Isn’t this exactly the argument you’ve used in defense of the 1964 CRA? That the south was too racist to allow private discrimination?

                  1. Isn’t this exactly the argument you’ve used in defense of the 1964 CRA? That the south was too racist to allow private discrimination?

                    Yes, it is.

                  2. sn’t this exactly the argument you’ve used in defense of the 1964 CRA? That the south was too racist to allow private discrimination?

                    Sure. But I don’t claim to be a libertarian. Moreover, I go back and forth about whether those arguments are valid. Thomas Sowell would say they are not. And I am not sure he is wrong.

                    Regardless, to the extent I have made those arguments, it is fair to say I don’t oppose public accommodation laws out of principle. The same is true of Scott. He really doesn’t. He just wants his pony. If people getting sued out of business and the religious beliefs of millions of people being made illegal are necessary to ensure gays get what they want, Scott is okay with that. He may not think it is ideal, but ultimately in Scott’s mind gays should get what the want and it is up to everyone else to fall in line.

                    1. it is fair to say I don’t oppose public accommodation laws out of principle.

                      Well that’s it, were officially done here.

                    2. Scott gives away the game there. He opposes these laws because gays don’t need them not because he has any real problem with them in principle. He doesn’t oppose public accommodation laws, He just doesn’t see the need to push for them. If that ever changed, he would be all for them.

                      Basically Scott doesn’t see the need to use the power of the gun to get what he wants because the public is voluntarily doing it. In Scott’s view the public has a right to do what they like, so long as it is what he wants. If they don’t, then Scott is going to put a boot on someone’s face.

                      He just wants his pony. If people getting sued out of business and the religious beliefs of millions of people being made illegal are necessary to ensure gays get what they want, Scott is okay with that. He may not think it is ideal, but ultimately in Scott’s mind gays should get what the want and it is up to everyone else to fall in line.

                      So, what is your Origin Story? Did you get cursed by a gypsy or something? Is that where you got your mind reading powers from? Or do have special sunglasses that allow you to see what reason writers are really saying? I’m just curious.

                    3. So we’re supposed to be mad that Scott is as shitty a person as you are? OK, I guess you convinced me…

                2. Only someone looking for disagreement would care too much a bout WHY he opposes forced accommodation laws. The laws are immoral AND unnecessary, and I frankly don’t care whether you oppose them on immorality or unnecessary grounds.

                  1. The laws are immoral AND unnecessary, and I frankly don’t care whether you oppose them on immorality or unnecessary grounds.

                    So principle doesn’t matter? I think it does. What it means is that Scott doesn’t oppose the laws and will support them the moment he feels they are necessary. Like I said, Scott is fine with freedom as long as people do what he wants them to.

                    1. So principle doesn’t matter? I think it does.

                      it is fair to say I don’t oppose public accommodation laws out of principle.

                    2. it is fair to say I don’t oppose public accommodation laws out of principle.

                      I don’t claim to be a Libertarian. Scott does. You tell me how you square being a Libertarian with supporting public accommodation laws. And also, my opinion has changed on that. I think Sowell probably is right that the problem would have solved itself.

                      That is the thing about thinking about issues rather than emoting and social signaling. Sometimes your opinion changes. That is likely a process you have a hard time understanding.

                      And Scott has never once made that case for the CRA. I guess if it is black people getting screwed, Scott is all about freedom. When gays get screwed that is different apparently.

                  2. Only someone looking for disagreement…

                    Well, he is a fucking lawyer. That’s pretty much the definition of lawyer.

                    1. That’s not true, Loki. I’m a lawyer and I would kill for some agreement today. Like, any. ANY agreement.

                      (checks bottom desk drawer for bottle of Buffalo Trace)

                    2. …something about “exception that proves the rule”…

            2. Yes, he opposes a law that prevents people from being sued because it means that trans might night be able to sue themselves. When it comes down to it, he is happy to let people he doesn’t like get sued if preventing that means people he does like giving up anything. All things being equal, he is against these sorts of things. But if the political reality means that gays or trans have to suffer even the slighest burden to prevent other people from being sued out of business, Scott is like well that is just too bad for them.

              Scott has no problem with non gays getting fucked as a necessary consequence of gays getting something.

              1. “It’s frustrating to attempt to look at this issue from a libertarian perspective because it doesn’t really seem like either side in this particular culture war has any interest in separating government accommodation of individuals and the private sector. It ends up being all or nothing. ”

                Here he is saying that the *government* should accommodate trans people but private actors shouldn’t be forced by the state to do anything. He’s arguing we should separate government from private actors when crafting laws regarding bathroom accommodations.

                1. John doesn’t care about the government discrimination part of the bill, he just completely ignores it and handwaves it away or makes some nonsequitor about how its bad because it will require the government to build a bunch of new bathrooms (which is nonsense).

          2. Have you ever considered making any effort to stop people from being sued for discriminating against religious people in private circumstances?

            1. I have. I donate to several legal funds who defend them. I also volunteer my time to them. I think these suits are horrible and unAmerican. And I have put my money and efforts behind that.

              I doubt Scott ever will because ultimately he doesn’t see them as being much of a problem. Sure they are kinda sorta bad in theory. But really, who are these people when compared to the gays? Nobodies whose rights and views don’t amount to anything compared to gays.

              1. I donate to several legal funds who defend them.

                Which legal funds are specifically fighting to stop people from being sued for discriminating against religious people? I might consider donating.

                1. Which legal funds are specifically fighting to stop people from being sued for discriminating against religious people? I might consider donating.

                  Same. And have they had any success stories?

                2. The two I have donated to are The Becket Fund and the Alliance Defending Freedom. The Becket Fund is a good one. It is all denominations. So donating might not get you kicked out of the Libertarian club. The Alliance Defending Freedom is a Christian based one and will definitely get you kicked out of the Libertarian club. But they are always on the SPLC lists of hate groups. So there is that.

                  1. No John, we’re looking for funds defending the right to discriminate against religious people, not defending the right of religious people to discriminate, there are plenty of those.

                    The Becket Fund is solid though for that purpose. ADF are garbage.

              2. Then why support North Carolina?? It doesn’t protect religious people with religious objections, it only protects those with religious objections who happen to accept the American, Christian definition of marriage. It doesn’t do JACK SHIT if a gay person wants to sue a Jewish man who believes marriage “is between one man and many women” if that Jewish man refuses to bake a gay wedding cake.

                The right of objection on religious grounds should go to everyone, NC is an attempt to grant ONLY Christians that right. And believe me, once /Christians/ have that right, no one’s going to care to extend it to anyone else.

                1. Then why support North Carolina?? It doesn’t protect religious people with religious objections, it only protects those with religious objections who happen to accept the American, Christian definition of marriage. It doesn’t do JACK SHIT if a gay person wants to sue a Jewish man who believes marriage “is between one man and many women” if that Jewish man refuses to bake a gay wedding cake.

                  Yes it does. Why do you think it doesn’t? And even if by some chance it didn’t say that explicitly, no way in hell would any court not read it to protect all religious objections.

                  Where do you get the idea that it doesn’t?

                  1. I think Eternal is mixing up the Alabama and North Carolina bills. The Alabama bill is very specific like he said. The North Carolina bill is general but also contains mandated government discrimination.

                    The more libertarian bill, in my mind, would be the portion of the North Carolina bill dealing with private entities.

                    Of course the better bill would abolish all public accommodation laws in the state. Can’t do anything about the federal laws but its a start. They’ll never do it though because this isn’t about freedom of association to them.

          3. He is wonderful at talking a good game and token opposition. Yes.

            You’ve got him all figured out.

            1. He has mind reading super powers. He got them when, as a child at an amusement park, he tripped and fell into a radioactive fortune telling machine, causing the machine’s abilities to transfer to him.. Every since that day he’s been known as the Amazing John-O, with the powers to discern the real, hidden agenda of any writer.

          4. You just largely described most of the writers, and commenters here, John.

      3. Oh, for fuck’s sake, I thought we were done with this. Public accommodation laws suck and they aren’t going away, no matter how often libertarians make the point. Neither major party has any interest in removing them except in special cases.

        1. Ok. I’d accept that from Gary Johnson. But he won’t even say that.

    3. I imagine a lot of liberals would see where that was headed re dickish / litigious gays and Christian bakers, and stumble around finding a non answer too.

    4. Why would a Nazi want a Jew cake? Man, stupid question.

      1. Yes, it was very stupid. Especially since they started out talking about gay marriage and then segued into “Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a Nazi cake?” as some kind of bizarre stand-in for “Should a Christian baker be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding?”

        While Johnson’s answer was certainly not good from a libertarian perspective, the sad fact of the matter is that most people couldn’t give two shits about freedom of association. All most people care about is which person they despise the most. So in the Jewish baker/ Nazi question most people would answer “of course a Jew shouldn’t be forced to bake a cake for Nazis, because Nazis are icky.” while on the Christian baker/ gay wedding question most people would answer “hell yes, force those icky gross Christians to bake a gay wedding cake” because “bigots.” Principals over principles.

        I guess my point is, if I have one at all, is that while it would be nice if the LP nominates someone who defends freedom of association, the sad fact of the matter is that the majority of voters will simply hear “gay hating bigot dog whistle” and tune out. So, the question for the LP is: is it better to be principled and get stomped on by (possibly) the two worst major party candidates of all time, or be pragmatic and get still stomped on but not as badly? It’s a tough question. I guess we’ll see which way the party prefers to go by who they nominate in May.

        1. Oh, I think there may be a vote or two to be gained from defending the Christian bakers.

          There are plenty of voters – call them muddled and inconsistent if you want – who will say, “sure, use force to *racially* integrate the restaurants and other businesses, but don’t use force to tell people to make gay cakes, especially if their religious views forbid it.”

          And bear in mind that there’s a strong possibility the Republican nominee will make a thing out of this issue, supporting the bakers.

          What’s Johnson going to say – “the Republicans are a bunch of radical libertarians who go too far?”

          And incidentally, the nazi thing isn’t going to get him a lot of support from voters either.

          1. What if it was a gay nazi?

            Asking for a friend.

            1. Okay, enough. Made me snort beer out of my nose.

          2. Did anyone note Petersen’s answer to the baker question (he actually posed the Nazi/Jew question, before the Stoss restated, in a retort to the Gay/Christ cake)?In fact, he pointed out GJs anti liberal position on the cake. He had a squared away liberty answer based on a sound understanding of Mises. This is a question of the operation of a truly free market and of a free society. Dude has his ducks in a row, just listen to him speak of classical liberalism, free market/Austrian econ, and history and you can see for yourself.

        2. is it better to be principled and get stomped on by (possibly) the two worst major party candidates of all time, or be pragmatic and get still stomped on but not as badly?

          Protest candidates should be principled to a fault, or else it defeats the purpose. If I wanted to make a Faustian bargain and vote for somebody who doesn’t share my principles because he might do better in the general election, why on earth would I not just pick one of the two major parties?

      2. Well, if it was made using Jewish babies, cooked in special ovens…….

  6. Johnson is the real deal. Ignore the fact that he wasn’t even a blip on the radar last time to the electorate.

  7. he’s climbed the highest peak on seven continents, does long-form triathlons

    Weirdo.

    1. What passes for cool at reason always puzzles me.

      1. I don’t know if “cool” is the word, but it’s damn impressive.

      2. I mean, it’s cool that he can do that, but what the fuck does it have to do with being an executive? Obsessive/compulsive behavior as a selling point?

        1. You don’t take it as supposed evidence that he can work very hard over long time horizons to achieve a large goal?

          1. You don’t know too many triathletes, do you?

            Nope, sorry. Some of the best executives I know are the exact opposite of the hard-charging mountain climbing spandex jockeys. They don’t do xtreme sports, but you know what? They can articulate a vision and sell others on it. They motivate and manage. They set a tone.

            Johnson has done these things as governor, presumably. How about some more on that?

            1. Why can’t you be both? You have something against physical fitness?

              1. Of course it can be both! All I hear about Johnson, though, is his fucking mountain climbing, whitewater rafting and tris. It has fuckall to do with the job, though.

                You have something against physical fitness?

                No. If it were up to me, presidential candidates would have to deadlift 500 pounds to be on the ballot.

                1. I hear about him being a successful businessman and governor plenty as well.

                2. Fair enough. You make a good point.

                3. So you’re voting for Warty?

                4. Warty for president?

                  Naah…that’s squats, not deadlifts.

                  1. Warty is well past 500 lbs on the DL. He is running with Almanian and absolutely has my vote.

                    Because elections have consequences.

              2. Sure, it’s okay to be physically fit … just don’t blather about it in the two minutes that you have to lay out the libertarian idea and why you’re the right guy to advocate it as presidential nominee.

                Johnson’s intro was pathetic.

            2. You don’t know too many triathletes, do you?

              Yeah, I do. And I certainly don’t think of tris as an extreme sport.

      3. They’re, like, literally super cool and all the Millennials love them for the way they text emojis and say things like “bae.”

      4. When Jack Kemp was running for the GOP nomination, I don’t recall him blathering about his football career. If one was a football enthusiast, one already knew about it. If one was not a football enthusiast, Kemp’s football career was irrelevant.

        1. It proves that he is not the stereotypical stoner sitting around eating Doritos like Chris Chritie. Shit, the fact that he’s successful enough to have the time and money to even attempt that goal says a lot.

          1. Take that back! It is well known that Gov. Christie does NOT sit around eating Doritos! It is well established that he chases small children around in a maze he had the state of New Jersey construct. Until he catches them, at which point they are devoured while still alive.

  8. In a recent Monmouth University poll that asked people who’d they vote for in a three-way race among Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and the Libertarian Party (LP) candidate from 2012, 11 percent said they’d flip the switch for Gary Johnson (42 percent went for Clinton and 34 percent for Trump).

    In other useless polling data news….

  9. I was watching some late night show a while back that had Jesse Ventura as a guest. The Body seemed to think that he was going to be able to make a late entry and sweep up the LP nomination.

    It would be interesting to go to the convention but I haven’t been an LP member since the Harry Browne episode back in 2000.

    1. Just imagine what it will be like if Trump wins the Republican nomination and you get all of the refugees from national review and the Weekly Standard. Good luck with that.

      1. I doubt that. Too many peaceniks in the LP. Although there is the Randy Barnett faction.

  10. Sorry but Johnson channels too much of this guy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAE4AOP6xKs

    No one can take him seriously.

    1. Also he wears gay tshirts with fucking peace signs on them.

      1. You and your Brooks Brothers obsession. Give the guy a break, huh?

      2. On the right person, the t-shit/sport coat thing works (or so I like to believe as that was my style for a long time). But how about a Gadsden flag shirt or something?

      3. You are looking for a spiffy bow tie, aren’t you?

  11. So go ahead and throw away your vote.

    Or, let your voice be heard in the election that actually matters.

  12. They need to nominate someone so Reason Mag can then work hard showing that the person is no true libertarian.

    1. While making the Libertarian case for Bernie. You know, there is lots to cheer about the rise of a National Socialist in presidential politics.

      1. And they are really cheering for Bernie. Just look at all of the glowing, positive articles: https://reason.com/tags/bernie-sanders.

        1. Matt Welch finds lots to cheer about his rise. Sure he believes in some kooky things but its not like he is Rick Santorum or something.

          1. To the extent he dirties up Hillary we should all be cheering his rise. Hell, even better if he can drag her to a contested convention where she has to rely on super-delegates to win (it is actually pretty possible at this point that Hillary won’t get a majority with pledged delegates alone). Then we can watch the berniebots implode around the internet.

          2. ^ the guy who cheers Trump’s rise

            1. Bernie is a lot worse. But even if he isn’t, how does that justify a Libertarian saying he is happy about Bernie doing so well?

              1. Matt cheers Bernie for the same reason Nick cheers Trump, which you say is the same reason you cheer Trump.

                I know you may not like it, but this is one area where Reason does not disagree with you.

            2. That’s different, we should all respect the angry salt of the earth working class white-folk who are directing that angry energy into supporting a clownish authoritarian dickbag, but we should point and laugh at the angry pussified millennials directing that angry energy into supporting a different clownish authoritarian dickbag.

              1. That is right. It is totally different when cool nice prog college students support a no shit facist and former communist. They mean well. Its not like they are those fucking white trash bastards supporting Trump.

                I know Aptheist, you are one of the right kind of people. You are not one of them.

                1. You’re the hypocrite here John, I think we should deride both of them and both of their supporters.

          3. Yeah, I’m not seeing it. There are many articles about why all of his ideas are terrible. The latest issue of the magazine has him on the cover looking like some Soviet propaganda poster.

          4. Matt Welch finds lots to cheer about his rise.

            The first thing Matt mentioned is that Berine was impeding Hillary from getting an easy nomination. He then mentioned the Patriot Act, the NSA, militarism and policing, the Iraq War, federal marijuana laws, and an eminent domain case. Then he lists 10 major ideas that Bernie is advocating which are terrible.

            Link: https://reason.com/archives/201…..-bad-ideas

            What ideas can we cheer from Rick Santorum?

            1. Sweater vests?

    2. It’s true. Nick and Co. will probably work as hard to get that person elected president as they did to help get Rand Paul the GOP nomination.

  13. He’s well-spoken…

    No, he is not. His performance Friday night was awful from the beginning. His blathering about how great his kids and girlfriend are, his mountain-climbing adventure tourism (did you know that he plans an exciting whitewater rafting tour after he loses the election?), and other irrelevancies was off-putting. The intro should always be about the libertarian idea and why he is the right guy to advance it; Johnson did neither. His advocacy of forcing people to provide services at the gunpoint of state agents was reprehensible.

    Still, he’s big-L Libertarianism’s best shot. I’ma goin’ to have to go with Reagan’s old maxim that “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”

    1. The adventure tourism stuff is a good example of why Libertarianism continues to fall flat with the public. It is not that there is anything wrong with it. It is his money and time and he can do what he likes. It is that bragging about it in a political campaign for President of a country with the kind of structural unemployment and economic problems this country has is tone deaf to say the least.

      Suppose some non believer tuned into that debate. Why on earth would they think a guy who is up there bragging about how much money he has and how cool and exotic his hobbies and vacations are gives a shit about them? Johnson was just social signaling. He wasn’t bragging about his bowling score or his golf handicap or his prowess at fantasy football or doing anything average people do in this country. No his was setting forth his credentials to be part of the upper class. And of course that appealed to a large part of his libertarian audience. It doesn’t appeal to many other people. But it makes Libertarians feel good. So there is that.

      1. Why on earth would they think a guy who is up there bragging about how much money he has and how cool and exotic his hobbies and vacations are gives a shit about them?

        Maybe he’s after the Trump vote

        1. It is not the money that is the issue. It is the social posing. And that was all Johnson was doing. And sadly the same thing most Libertarians do. And this is one of the reasons they don’t get anywhere. They are constantly social posing and trying to appeal to the cultural elite, who are generally progs and hate them.

          1. I wouldn’t say that Texas Libertarians think or behave that way. Beltway Libertarians and California Libertarians may have that tendency, but not the Libertarians I’ve met here in Texas. That even goes for small-l libertarians here in Texas.

          2. Do what I do. Immediately jump to all the things that people are not ready to hear, and then antagonize everybody and be a total asshole.

      2. Agree. It was even worse in that regard than a John Kerry wind-surfing photo shoot.

        I’ve been a big-L Libertarian for over two decades. Before the Friday debate, I supported Gary Johnson’s re-nomination since McAfee is a weirdo with waaaaay too much baggage and Peterson is, what, 12-years-old. Afterwards, I doubted my earlier support of Johnson. McAfee was a much, much better advocate of pragmatic libertarianism. Peterson, despite his rejection of the NAP, was a better advocate of the libertarian idea. Johnson was just pathetic, so bad that he sounded like a generic politician suffering from charisma-deficit disorder. Even worse: he advocated state coercion of private individuals.

  14. “and a real-life reenactment of the infamous 2004 South Park episode, ‘Douche and Turd,’ in which the show’s kids are forced to pick between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich as a new school mascot.”

    You know that the POINT of that episode is that EVERY enactment is a real-life version of that episode, right??

  15. Not interested. Libertarians need to take over the Republican party. A lot of us Republicans are already moving that way. The reason there has never been a viable 3rd party and never can be is because of the battle for 51%. Dual-party system is built into our winner take all election system in the US where we elect representatives directly instead of voting for a party and letting the party pick the representatives (UK, Canada, etc.) Under our system, the political parties continue to change from year to year and decade to decade to get 51% of the vote. It’s why JFK’s policies sound like he’d be a great Republican today, the two parties morphed over time to get 51%. Also, the 1968 Gun Control Act? It passed because the Republicans pushed it even though the Democrats oppposed it. There’s another 180 change for ya. So anyway, don’t vote 3rd party, it’s stupid. Change one of the parties. It’s the only way to get Libertarianism mainstream.

    1. Dual-party system is built into our winner take all election system in the US where we elect representatives directly instead of voting for a party and letting the party pick the representatives (UK, Canada, etc.)

      It’s hilarious that you picked out the two major parliamantary systems that use “first past the post” just like we do.

      1. … we elect representatives directly instead of voting for a party and letting the party pick the representatives

        This was said with a refreshing lack of irony.

        1. An a refreshing amount of ignorance.

      2. Dual-party system is built into our winner take all election system in the US where we elect representatives directly instead of voting for a party and letting the party pick the representatives (UK, Canada, etc.)

        It’s hilarious that you picked out the two major parliamentary systems that use “first past the post” just like we do.

        Not only that but ‘first past the post’ elections that routinely see third and forth parties elected.

        I am amazed how many people in the US, who believe themselves to be well educated, believe incorrectly that the UK and Canada use proportional representation to elect their parliament.

    2. Meh. That’s why were are just fucked and nothing will ever get significantly better.

    3. I agree generally speaking, but it’s a little hard to be optimistic about that approach when this year’s polling has demonstrated that 40% of the party we’d have to win are anti-trade, nationalistic populists and we already knew that at least 20% voted purely on Christian values and think even Rand Paul is a flaming liberal.

      Don’t get me wrong, getting libertarian Republicans elected is going to be my prime directive with my vote, but it’s quite an uphill battle.

    4. The GOP has already been pretty explicit about its expectations of libertarians in the Republican Party. Look at how leadership treated the enthusiastic support and political activism of Ron Paul supporters. They’re supposed to shut up and take whatever its leaders dish out. GOP leadership actually loathes everything libertarian as much as the Democrats.

  16. Will the LP Please Nominate Gary Johnson Already

    This is not Nam, Nick; there are rules.

  17. If he only cracks double digits, it means he loses badly, and his running does not really matter. If he does not take more votes away from one or the other of the competitive candidates enough to effect the outcome, then Johnson’s candidacy does not really matter.

    1. And even if it was the difference, so what? That would mean the losing party would reach out to libertarian voters and try to build a coalition. That sounds nice, but reason has shown no willingness to compromise with the major parties.

      1. Reason is a political party now?

        I don’t want an opinion magazine to compromise with anyone. I want to read what the various authors have to say about things.

        Politics is pure poison bullshit and violence and the only way to make anything better is to convince more people to stop expecting problems to be solved through the political process.

        1. If Reason is above politics, why does it care how many votes the LP actually wins?

          1. Damned if I know.

            Point is, why should they compromise with a major party? They are a POV publication (and one with many writers with diverse points of view), not a political activist organization.

          2. Because each LP spoiler vote is worth ten times its weight in repealed laws and elimination of taxes. That’s the case for voting libertarian, not looter…

        2. Politics is pure poison bullshit and violence and the only way to make anything better is to convince more people to stop expecting problems to be solved through the political process.

          I really liked that.

          1. Seconded. Definitely that.

            Good luck convincing people of that though. Most people just want a politician who caters to their biases and promises to turn the leviathan on the people they hate. That’s the main problem with identity politics. It’s where we’re at as a country now.

          2. +1 “Get busy livin’, or, get busy dyin’.”

  18. and stumbled with answers to questions like the old chestnut, “Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a Nazi wedding cake?”

    I watched a rerun of the debate on YouTube. “Stumbled” seems like a rather polite way of saying “doesn’t believe in free association”.

    this was his response:

    That would be my contention, yes. And the example I cited was, how about, the example I cited was how about the utility, the utility that is privately owned, and because it’s the only market that I have to buy my electricity, they’re going to cut me off for religious reasons.

    That sounds like an argument a prog would make “but here’s a situation that you would find sympathetic!” Fuck no, sorry. You don’t own someone’s labor. Period. The problem in his scenario is that it’s a monopoly. Progressives believe businesses are run by racists and the government needs to save us from their evil clutches. People who value liberty know that if you allow it, there will always be someone who will take your money for what you need. At the very least, you should be able to start that business model yourself. Gary Johnson’s answer was very disappointing and anti-liberty.

    1. That is a bullshit answer and he knows it. He just doesn’t have the honesty to come out and say “yes people should be forced to associate with and do business with gays”. So he invents a complete fantasy situation and stumbles through.

      1. That’s what I meant when I said Johnson sounded like a generic politician with charisma-deficit disorder.

        This is one topic where he needs an exceptionally well-crafted soundbite answer from which he will not deviate under any circumstances. And even if he is asked to expound on the topic, he needs to repeat the soundbite answer verbatim, Marco Rubio style, since he’s demonstrably incompetent to do otherwise. Nothing could possibly be worse than Gary Johnson’s response to the gay wedding cake question. He’d have been much better off to have responded Trump-style; as in, “You’re darn right that any business that provides services to the general public cannot be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation. That’s not a violation of individual freedom of association; it’s a condition of doing business in America, and it is an genuinely American requirement through and through. And, if you don’t agree, then fuck you, you’re not a real patriotic American.” It’s a bullshit rationale, but at least it’s a blustery Trump-like rationale.

      2. Concur! There are many good things about GJ, this is not one of them.

    2. Yeah, it was a pretty galling argument. I think the strawman in Johnson’s example is an asshole, but I am very much against a mandate against private citizens being assholes unless it involves harm to life, liberty or property.

    3. This. I don’t want to have a purity test, but this one’s kind of central to libertarianism.
      Hopefully he figures out why he was incorrect

  19. And some libertarians thought Barr wasn’t a pure enough libertarian.

    With Johnson, we’ll probably have a situation where the Republican nominee is *more* libertarian than the Libertarian. “Unlike this so-called libertarian, I’m against suing bakers over gay cakes.”

    Followed by the concern trolling in the lamestream media about the Republican has Gone Too Far, since even the Libertarian candidate is more socially responsible!

    1. And kiss goodbye to the evangelical vote, if you’re talking in terms of outreach.

      1. Good riddance… and good riddance to the Klan, Prohibition, Invade and Bomb and bully pregnant girls vote. Some Texas cops might vote for God’s Own Prohibitionists on the strength of added opportunities to brutalize 12-year-old girls, but votes wasted on looters are worthless. A libertarian vote repeals ten times the number of idiot laws as a vote wasted on looters.

        1. And here we go again. Same old ranting in almost every comment.

  20. “No one’s labor can be forced by the state. If a business is discriminating, or otherwise offending the community, the people can and should protest and boycott.”

  21. Johnson’s not the weakest candidate in the Libertarian Party field — there is that one guy who has his picture taken in an 1870s cavalry uniform and thinks we should force 10-year-olds to witness public hangings so they learn not to be criminals — but he’s far and away the weakest of the four even remotely likely choices, if for no other reason than that his 2012 campaign couldn’t balance its checkbook and came out $1.4 million in debt even after a $550k FEC “matching funds” welfare check.

    Darryl W. Perry, John McAfee or even Austin Petersen would likely knock down as many votes in November as Johnson could hope to. That 11% poll result was pretty much for “generic third party candidate whose name you think you MAY have heard somewhere.” And it will likely diminish to the sub-5% level between now and November regardless of whom the LP nominates or how well the nominee campaigns.

    1. we should force 10-year-olds to witness public hangings so they learn not to be criminals

      Witnessing public executions should be voluntary. Make it an optional field trip. With free pizza.

  22. I have gone from liking Gary Johnson in 2012 (and even voting for him) to viewing him as a danger to libertarianism. He is emblematic of the “socially liberal, economically conservative” type that lacks the core understanding of libertarian philosophy.

    1. That should’ve already been clear in 2012, when he said similar things. Plus, he was lousy in the Republican debate in 2011. Why does anyone think he’s a good candidate nationally?

  23. Gary could try reading a few LP platforms at least once. Even Trump The Don reads the Republican party platform before spouting off about “the wall” (in there) and bullying and coercing pregnant women (see God’s Only Platform 2012).

  24. During the Mississippi debate, Petersen said something that resonated and deserves at least consideration by this commentariat. He stated (paraphrase) that he is the one candidate that can build a coalition with conservatives of different flavors because of his pro-life position. I’ve reflected on this and it seems at least possible, if not likely, that if Trump causes defections from R then these conservatives could lend support to Petersen. Perhaps in large enough numbers to support his inclusion in the presidential debates. If this could happen then it would be a watershed moment for the liberty movement. To gain a place on that stage, and the anticipated liberty a$$ whooping he would deliver to whomever he stood across from him, would do more for liberty in that one hour than all of the shouting at the stars we have been doing for decades. Thoughts?

    1. I am pro life and anti abortion but do really want a female loved one who doesn’t agree with you to die in some backroom while getting an abortion with a coat hanger. Better option is making a 20 week limit on abortions or putting contraceptives over the counter.

      1. Got it, and I couldn’t agree more. The L abortion debate will not be settled here, but most would agree that in no way should the state sanction/fund or prohibit free choice. So as to allow those who do make that fateful and very serious decision the best care possible through the free market. This is Petersen’s (my candidate) weak spot. he Seems to keep the door open to coercion on this topic 🙁
        What about the possibility that Petersen is palatable to a large # of conservatives due to this position and the possible implication of the L party getting exposure. I’ll openly admit that after more than 2 decades of wishing to see the L actually relevant, I have begun to see the utility and necessity of taking victories for liberty wherever we can, and being less ideologically pure and more focused on results. Progs have done this for years and are slaying us because of it. I’m not so ashamed of the hypocrite label when what I’m headed toward is more liberty.

    2. the pro-life thing is a liability. those who are narrow minded enough to make this their single issue to vote on, are not all that likely to leave their favored team. it also is a “red” flag to those on team blue who might vote libertarian. Petersen comes off more like a tea party republican on this, and a couple other issues. he would be very limited in his ability to appeal o those who lean left. (he could never be more than a spoiler for the GOP). while i still think it’s beyond hope for a libertarian to actually win, i don’t think that means we should nominate someone we know can’t win.

  25. First I have doubts Johnson is a true Libertarian. The closest on the stage was McAfee. If you listened to McAfee without any pre conceived notions his theme appears to be having total personal liberty while accepting accountability for your actions. The reason why he is my pick is because after 69 years on this planet I am sick of others thinking they know best what is good for me. Unless your are in the elite group can you name one law you have ever got to vote on. I didn’t think so. Some laws are good but most are created to control you or to separate from your money. Anyway I will vote Libertarian or I will just stay home.

    1. McAffe did come off the best, in my opinion. I’m not sure how his philosophical approach would play with the masses, but i liked it. i was surprised, and pleased, and i could easily get behind him, if he got the nomination.

      that said, i still have to go for Johnson. those issues where he comes off as not “pure” or “true” libertarian, are some of his best points. he stands a chance with those that lean left, where a purist, who defends people using religion as an excuse to discriminate, does not.

      Petersen is the one who might do best with the right wing discontents (with trump), but would be absolutely terrible with middle, and left. he could only achieve spoiler status for the GOP.

  26. Want to earn from home by working basic work using your laptop for 2 to 4 h on daily basis, get paid 62 bucks fifty-eight minute ZA and get a paycheck every week and choose yourself your working time?Its original site…BNH009

    http://www.payability70.com

  27. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  28. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/X6JhyG

  29. But the BURNING question is – will take take votes away from Democrats or Republicans?

  30. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    http://www.MaxPost30.com

  31. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  32. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  33. Yes, libertarians have a huge opportunity to win against Sanders/Clinton and Trump/Cruz, but not with this whiny-voiced guy with the cannabis company, confirming all the prejudices of libertarians as one-issue weirdos.

    Are there really no more viable/credible libertarians in America?

    Rand Paul could do well in a national election – better than in a Republican primary dominated by Donald Trump. But he is not libertarian enough for “the libertarian base” that only cares about cannabis, radical pacifism, Ayn Rand and 9/11 conspiracies.

    Libertarianism is classical liberalism; individual liberty, limited government, free enterprise, equal opportunity under rule of law, the principles of the US Constitution. It should be the mainstream of American politics. Why do libertarians want to stay stuck on the fringe?

    1. my step-mum just bought a new cream Toyota Highlander only from working off a pc… browse around this website

      ??????www.paypost50.com

  34. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  35. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  36. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  37. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.