Bill Weld

William Weld Responds to Libertarian Party Member Concerns

Weld speaks out on gun control, support of Kasich, and abandoning the party in New York's 2006 governor race.

|

It is almost certainly the case that when former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson (R) chose former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld (R) as his running mate choice in his bid for the Libertarian Party's mantle in 2016, he was mostly thinking about presenting an unassailably serious full ticket for the average disenchanted Republican, Independent, or Democrat in November, as I wrote the other day.

Weld Facebook

Still, before the Johnson-Weld team can face Clinton and Trump in the general election, they have to convince at least around 500 or so Libertarian Party delegates to pick them. To pick both of them, in separate presidential and vice presidential nominating votes at their National Convention being held Memorial Day weekend in Orlando.

Thus, Weld took to his Facebook page today with an interesting message to the Libertarian Party and its members and delegates, tackling head on some of the issues he has already detected they might have with him.

Highlights, after summing up his career before becoming governor of Massachusetts in 1991 as  U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts and as head of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department:

much of my career prior to serving as Governor was devoted to fighting corruption, protecting taxpayers and ending abuses by financial institutions. Those experiences make it even more infuriating to me as I watch corruption and abuse continue today…

Then Weld addresses the controversy over his previous gun control positions:

I am a lifelong hunter and gun owner. In 1993, however, as Governor of Massachusetts, I went along with some modest restrictions on certain types of firearms. I was deeply concerned about gun violence, and frankly, the people I represented were demanding action. Sometimes, governing involves tough choices, and I had to make more than a few.

Today, almost 25 years later, I would make some different choices. Restricting Americans' gun rights doesn't make us safer, and threatens our constitutional freedoms. I was pleased by and support the Supreme Court's decision in the District of Columbia vs. Heller—a decision that embraced the notion that our Second Amendment rights are individual rights, not to be abridged by the government.

He also knows some Libertarians were peeved that he endorsed John Kasich in the Republican presidential race, who is not only not very libertarian but a particular enemy of the L.P. in ballot access fights in Ohio:

When Governor Kasich was in Congress, serving as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, I worked with him to stop deficit spending and balance the federal budget. He succeeded, as no one has done since. I was asked to help because I had done the same in Massachusetts, a heavily Democratic state.

Based on that work with Governor Kasich, I believed him to be the best choice among the many candidates for the Republican nomination.

At the same time, I am now aware that Gov. Kasich has taken actions to make ballot access in Ohio much more difficult and costly for Libertarians. At no point did I have any knowledge about efforts to restrict ballot access. Of course, we all need to fight for ballot access in every state, including helping to raise the funds necessary for that effort. You have my word that I will help ensure ballot access—and I'm a pretty good fighter.

Libertarians are also, some of them, peeved that in 2006 Weld jilted them at the altar after promising to run a "fusion" ticket for governor of New York along with the Republicans:

New York has a unique system in which candidates often assemble "fusion" tickets in order to achieve a winning coalition. As part of such an effort, I was honored in 2006 to earn the Libertarian nomination for Governor. Unfortunately, the larger effort failed, and we were not successful in making the Libertarian ballot "line" part of a coalition that could win. I am grateful to the Libertarian Party for the work we did, and disappointed that the strategy simply couldn't be executed.

Weld wants Libertarians to know that "since law school, my bibles have always been The Constitution of Liberty, and The Road to Serfdom, by Friedrich Hayek" and that if the L.P. sees fit to choose Johnson/Weld, that:

of the three tickets who will be on the ballot in all 50 states in November, the Libertarian Party has the potential to have candidates whose experience and proven leadership exceeds that of the two other parties combined. That credibility and leadership, matched by a firm commitment to the principles of Liberty, will be a powerful combination.

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.

132 responses to “William Weld Responds to Libertarian Party Member Concerns

  1. “His lips are moving.”

    1. “His youthful, blonde locks are billowing in the breeze.”

      1. Along with his finger

      2. Kevin Sorbo’s Manful Locks approves this message.

        1. + 1 Demigod

      1. Yeah, that was posted a few times today. Love it. Needs MOAR woodchipper though.

        1. Just making sure more people see it 🙂

  2. No mention of Firefly or The Simpsons? Why even bother?

    Johnson/Weld will be taken more seriously than McAfee and Sergeant Social Media, but they aren’t really libertarian. Will being respectable libertarian light get them in on a national debate, and if they are in a national debate do they possess the ability to succinctly explain a libertarian position?

    1. A valid concern indeed.

      1. Thank you. I thought about it while bathing.

        1. Is it Saturday already?

          1. For CJ, it was probably the full moon.

    2. Baby steps?

    3. Less snarkily, I would like to believe that having libertarianish candidates in the Trump vs Clinton “debates” will only help.

      1. Yes. I think they have a chance to poll high enough to get in on a debate, so there is that.

    4. Both major parties would work like hell to exclude them from the debates. The press doesn’t even really know what Libertarians are. I don’t see them getting into a national debate and, if they do, they’ll put the audience to sleep. We need a communicator-someone who can effectively the message with passion.

      1. The threshold is 15 percent. Johnson is already at 10 and 11 percent in 2 national polls.
        Libertarians are so used to losing they don’t even see it when they might win.
        It’s sort of the opposite of what Trump promises, where you get so used to winning that you get tired of it.

    5. That’s just it. I don’t have much trust in Johnson being able to sell libertarianism AND he isn’t sufficiently libertarian. He has 0 chance of winning because we just don’t live in a place and time where that’s a thing, he is not great at selling the message, has a huge deficit of charisma and isn’t even libertarian enough that I could support him out of “go team!” Feeling. Despite all of that, I could somehow talk myself into some sort of support if he had a partner who was *at least* as libertarian as him and who papered over some of his shortcomings. But that’s also out. They are not winning, they are not effectively evangelizing, and even if they somehow made the debates, they can’t sell something they’re not really a part of. Wtf is the point?

      1. If it wasn’t for the possible murderer thing, I’d think McAfee should get the nod. Peterson talks a good game but he looks like Seth Macfarlane, only more smug if that’s possible. I guess we’re just stuck with these guys but I’m not thrilled about it.

        1. Murder rap isnt hurting Clinton any.

          1. Nothing hurts them. It’s unbelievable.

            1. And they called Reagan the “Teflon President”

      2. In a typical election year, the Libertarian candidate would have zero chance even if he (or she) were in the debates. This year isn’t typical. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both have very high negative ratings, and most people would like someone else (even though Trump, in particular, was selected from a very large (yuge?) number of potential nominees). Gary Johnson is already polling 10% in a (hypothetical for now) three-way race with Trump and Clinton. After televised three-way debates, his numbers will only increase. He will be seen as something Libertarians (big L or small) rarely are, the voice of reason (small r <g), and simply a likeable guy. He would have a real chance of denying either major-party candidate an electoral-college majority. McAfee, not so much.

        1. No third party is going to accomplish anything other than getting Hillary elected. And if she is, there’ll never be another Republican President, let alone this libertarian pipe dream.

  3. Weld is the final nail in the coffin of Johnson’s Republican carpetbagger campaign.

    1. They’d make a pretty good Republican reformist ticket.

      1. Maybe that’s the future of the LP

        1. You just may be right. There are a lot more disaffected Reps (and Dems) than there are Libertarians.

          1. Given the current culture and electorate, the LP can’t be viable and as pure as most of us would prefer. The two are mutually exclusive. But if a large fraction of Republicans and Libertarians could meet in the middle on issues like the drug war, welfare reform, and foreign adventurism, and really unite behind a simplified tax code and regulatory system, that would be a very good thing. And a future iteration of the LP could continue trying to steer the conversation in a more radical direction.

            If we had a system of proportional representation then things would be different. Alas, we don’t, and probably never will. The best a fringe movement can hope for in our current system is to be absorbed by something more mainstream while in the process tugging the mainstream more in our direction.

            Or we just give up on making any kind of progress within the political system.

            1. “Or we just give up on making any kind of progress within the political system”,

              I’m personally nearly there.

              1. I can totally understand that. But I do think it’s a mistake.

            2. 1. My participation in the political process has no effect on the state of government; I am powerless.
              2. Even if it did, there’s no way to predict what candidates will do in office based on how they campaign; political participation is meaningless
              3. There are no moral or legal limits to what politicians do beyond pure political will; politics is normless
              4. My political opinions are neither respected nor even really tolerated by the community at large; I am politically isolated

              1. Not really tolerated? Someone light a cross on your grass?

            3. But if a large fraction of Republicans and Libertarians could meet in the middle on issues like the drug war, welfare reform, and foreign adventurism, and really unite behind a simplified tax code and regulatory system, that would be a very good thing.

              Wait…that’s Donald J. Trump!

      2. I think we all wish they were the Republican candidates instead of the likely libertarian ones.

      3. Maybe if they was running against Pappy O’Daniel.

        1. Homer Stokes: And I say to you that the great state a Mississippi cannot afford four more years a Pappy O’Daniel – four more years a cronyism, nepotism, racialism and service to the Innarests! The choice, she’s a clear ‘un: Pappy O’Daniel, slave a the Innarests; Homer Stokes, servant a the little man! Ain’t that right, little fella?

          Midget: He aint’ lyin’!

          1. Looks like Homer Stokes is the type of fella that wants to cast the first stone!

  4. Something funny that has occurred to me is that, at this moment in time – and maybe for he first time ever – libertarians are the most natural allies of religious conservatives/evangelicals of all kinds. For the obvious reason that they have lost the cultural and political battle so completely that only people who believe on freedom of association *on principle* will stand beside them. And who is the leading contender for the libertarian nomination? Someone who doesn’t give a single fuck about freedom of association. Figures.

    1. GayJay doesn’t support the FREEDOM TO HATE. His beloved United Nations specifically forbids wrongthink of any kind.

      1. If you don’t support the freedom to hate, you hate freedom.

        1. Seriously, though. The most annoying part of being in the libertarian quadrant has to be that you’re continuously defending people with habits or believes that leave you flabbergasted on a good day and disgusted the rest of the time. And that you know in your heart of hearts would never defend you if the tables were turned. But what else are you going to do? Someone has to.

          1. I don’t find it annoying at all, but then I guess I’m pretty good at compartmentalizing. I just don’t understand the reasoning behind “this person hurt my feelings, so they owe me their time and money” – that manipulative crap is how freedom is really chipped away, no matter how much the manipulators try to convince us that they are the ones being oppressed. Their rhetoric may be heartfelt and their tears may seem genuine, but their actions show they’re out for blood.

            1. Yeah, you’re fantastic at compartmentalization. Defending freedom of association means being an atheist defending theists and being multiracial yet defending the rights of neo Nazis and other bigots. And knowing that most of them would be pleased as punch if your rights were the ones in question instead because you’re not part of their ingroup. Yup, it’s annoying.

    2. “…libertarians are the most natural allies of religious conservatives/evangelicals of all kinds…”

      So lib’t’ns want to outlaw stuff people do in bedrooms? You might just as well claim lib’t’ns are ‘natural allies’ of proggies.

      1. You may notice that the statement is heavily qualified. Religious Conservatives have basically lost the fight, culturally and politically. Gays are getting married and adopting children, hold hands, kiss in public, and are culturally important way beyond their numbers. Porn? The internet is nothing but a porn and cat video delivery device. Abortion? The law of the land and is not going away any time soon. Drugs? Yeah, they still have that one. But so do liberals. By and large (with the exception of marijuana) we are completely alone on that one. This age must be absolutely horrible to very conservative people, and I am mostly happy with that. They have lost. I thought my statement was obviously about freedom of association, but maybe it wasn’t clear, so I’ll try it again: they are fighting a rearguard battle, and are basically at the “shit, we should at least be able to associate with whoever we want!” Point of the fight. Who else agrees with them on that? I’ll give you three guesses.

    3. “that only people who believe on freedom of association *on principle* will stand beside them. ”

      but only if you read freedom of association the way they want you to. i completely support the minister, the photographer, the caterer…. anyone whose job demands direct participation in the event. these also tend to be jobs that ore more expressly individually contracted jobs.

      but those who open a public storefront, and sell standardized products (baker, florist)… I’m sorry…. they made their choice on freedom of association when they opened the public storefront. if you are ringing the sale up, and find out the guy is gay, you can’t shoot them in the face for trespassing. they are in the store legally, purchasing items at publicly available (if not explicitly advertised) prices. you invited the public in the store to buy items at your set prices… you made your choice to associate with the public. unless they are doing something to disrupt your business (bounced checks, bad odor, no shirt, etc.), you have no grounds to withdraw the public invitation you provided in opening the store.

      1. Sorry, but as distasteful as it is, a business has the right to tell anyone to get out for any reason whatsoever including “I hate fagz” and “wait, I just realized it’s Wednesday”. I don’t see how anyone gets to tell anyone else who they must do business with, no matter how bigoted that person may be.

        1. for every choice you make, there are limits, and there are consequences.

          would it be acceptable to say, “oh, your gay?” and shoot them in the face for trespassing? no, because they legally walked into your public business, and legitimately attempted to purchase your publicly advertised items.

          can you still refuse to sell to them… sure… but there may be consequences. if the next baker is 50 miles away… if the other store is more expensive…. if you are a gas station, and they run out of gas before the next one… even if it is just the time and money wasted for them to come to your store…. if your refusal causes them harm…. they can seek restitution for the harm you caused.

          this is why the laws on this are so wrong, IMHO. they are not about ensuring freedom of association (this always exists), they are about the removal of responsibility for your actions. the baker can refuse to sell the cake, and the gay couple can sue if that action causes unreasonable harm.

          freedom of association does not mean freedom from the consequences of your decisions. they chose to operate as public storefronts, with standardized public pricing. they chose to deny a sale for what they knew were unreasonable reasons. (and before you chime in with their religious sensibilities, the guy did bake wedding cakes for dogs)

  5. I guess Civil War is out, and it sounds… pretty dumb.

    1. The Marvel movie? I thought it was great.

      1. Maybe the premise was badly explained, then. It just seems out of keeping for Capitan Americano to be against the superhero UN and Stark for it.

        1. Isolated from the rest of the Marvel movies, yes, but it seemed like a natural evolution for both characters within this universe. And while you would never call the movie “deep”, it did more than just pay lip service to different philosophies of each character.

        2. Basically when I was watching it, my feeling was

          Stark: “We sign on or they fuck us over” Not said: And of course, if I really dislike it, I’ll work around it, because I’m Tony Stark and I can hide what I’m doing, or fool people if they find out.

          Cap: “I’d like to sign but I can’t trust that people in charge won’t change.” Not said: I’m Captain America. If I sign, I’ll stick to it whether they monitor me or not.

  6. he was mostly thinking about presenting an unassailably-serious full ticket for the average disenchanted Republican, Independent, or Democrat

    IOW, everyone but libertarians. Sounds legit.

    fighting corruption, protecting taxpayers and ending abuses by financial institutions.

    Noted = this is exactly the same language Obama has used in imposing massive new regulations of the financial services industry which do NOTHING to actually “help consumers”, and simply impose new-taxes on certain kinds of transactions, adding needless costs & regulatory risk to any new-market opportunity, complicate what are already needlessly complex businesses, etc.

    One man’s “Abuses” is another person’s freedom-of-choice. Much of the restrictions imposed on FS are done in the name of ‘consumer protection’, but the actual impact is reduction of flexibility & consumer choice.

    I can’t think of a single “Consumer protection” in the FS industry which actually ‘helps consumers’. how many of you read “Disclosures” and actually understand what’s significant vs. what’s boilerplate?

    frankly, the people I represented were demanding action

    Ah, yes. Principals.

    Weld 2016 = “This time I’ll be different”

    1. re: “consumer protections”… 2 things that came to mind in particular was the proposal to make all brokers/advisers into Fiduciaries … and another one from earlier this year which would have played hell with the ETF industry – basically limiting the suitability of 401k/IRAs to certain kinds of qualified funds – which would have forced people to sell/divest any products which didn’t meet certain cap-weight/maturity/liquidity standards….

      and BTW – the people proposing a lot of these “protections”? (like Obama & Hillary) are doing so at the behest of a lot of institutional asset managers, who know that these restrictions would destroy smaller competitors and give tremendous advantage to the largest Fund Companies.

      Basically, trillions would flow out of smaller /younger / leveraged/alternative ETFs into big, dumb index funds. Which would be like fucking permanent Christmas for companies like State Street, Blackrock, Vanguard, etc. And while those co’s do often offer lower fee-weights on their products – so what? You’re being forced to buy them, basically.

      Its regulatory capture at its grossest.

      1. G,
        Yes, he’s willing to ‘fight corruption and cut the fat’, along with pandering to the audience at hand.
        What a guy!

  7. I haven’t been in LP for yrs. (decided the party’d been a mistake?see essays linked from the bottom of http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/political.html ), but if I were, no way would I go for Johnson for prez. He impressed me in GOP debates from 2012 as singularly boring. As to the bakery issue, I would’ve been sympathetic had he argued:

    In this sound-bite world with major media being as they are, radical libertarians are at pains to distinguish themselves from traditionalist “conservatives”. If we say we wouldn’t require the gay wedding cake, the fine points of the issue as re freedom of ass’n, expression, & religion would elude most people, & they’d just think we were anti-gay. So we have to take the “wrong” side on this one. Then just to show we’re not on the “left”, we have to say the same re the Nazi cake. We can afford this, because these issues are extremely rare. We don’t rule anyway, so we need to sacrifice this interest to get us serious att’n.

    But no, it seems Johnson believed what he said, and if he’d go that far?ridiculously far when you consider that all this is doing is enabling certain spiteful people to stick it to those whose religious beliefs they dislike?without some excuse, it means he doesn’t have much concept of individual, negative, propertarian liberty, and has just been going by some rote to approximate it. So who needs a representative like that, even if he’s been a governor, if he’s too boring to be competitive outside NM?

    1. Meanwhile outside the circles in which libertarian activists communicate, everyone who’s paying att’n just assumes Johnson & Weld are “the libertarian candidates”. A Republican district leader in the Bronx just announced his support for “the libertarian candidate” for prez, Johnson.

      So the argument could be made that nominating anyone else would be throwing away the media att’n (& other att’n outside libertarian circles) that’s been gotten already…if you want to be led around by the nose by Establishment types. As I’ve written before, it’d be very satisfying to me to upset the “experts” by proving them wrong about the LP nomination as they were about the GOP’s. Now the Dems just need to lose Hillary (as I’m sure they will by Nat’l convention time), and it’ll be the trifecta.

      1. The Ravenal for prez backers in 1983 were like this too, saying he was & would continue to be getting respect from Establishment media etc. And then he pretended to be sort-of libertarian too when that appeared to be a demanded criterion. So LP’s been thru this before. Barr in 2008 was much more libertarian than Ravenal, & surely more so than Weld.

      2. “If we say we wouldn’t require the gay wedding cake, the fine points of the issue as re freedom of ass’n, expression, & religion would elude most people, & they’d just think we were anti-gay.”

        A similar rationale would support the LP coming out in favor of the war on drugs, lest the public think they’re pro-drug-addiction.

        1. Yes, but at least it is a rationale. You might not think the trade-off to be worth it, but at least it could be acknowledged as such. But Johnson doesn’t think this is a trade, he thinks it’s win-win, it seems.

  8. This article and comment thread is the political version of a little league baseball team fantasizing about playing in the major leagues.

    1. For those who think politics is a game, and that backing the right team is what’s important.

      Are you one of those people?

      1. Perhaps the concept of “analogy” eludes you.

    2. Which makes you our Timmy Lupus. Awww.

    3. In most years, yes. But this is the year of Trump-Clinton. People want a viable third option.

  9. So he didn’t try to disavow this (maybe he’s hoping libertarians won’t notice):

    “Weld also talks up government’s role in “redistributive justice,” applying it first to education, where he thinks it’s wrong for richer localities to have more money for schools than poorer ones.

    “He was proud his administration in Massachusetts:

    “”already put in a statutory scheme of spreading the wealth around with a redistributive formula for financing education that went as far as was politically feasible: You have to get the votes in the Legislature. My Secretary of Education at the time was a woman, a native Cuban, who had been in the hills of Cuba with Fidel and Che in 1958. The joke around the statehouse was that this was the most Communist piece of legislation sponsored by a Republican administration in a long time.””

    1. No, but he could say, as long as the schools are tax funded anyway, why do you care what the formula is? I was appealing to people who did care about such things, but you shouldn’t.

  10. Even Trump knew you don’t move to the middle until after you’ve sewn up the nomination.

    Now we’re gonna snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    We have a unique opportunity to present ourselves as the only serious alternative–compared to the blowhard and the crook–and we’re gonna give ’em the only guy we can find who’s crazier than Trump or Hillary?

    It’s been downhill for the LP in terms of how seriously they’re taken since Clark got the nomination–except for Johnson. Every cycle we put up somebody that makes us look ridiculous all over again.

    We’ve got one chance to make ourselves look serious compared to the other jokers–let’s not wrap our heads in tin foil. Libertopia happens when people start taking us seriously. As Gandhi famously said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win”. We’ll never get past the “laugh at you” stage if we don’t even take ourselves seriously. And how can anybody take that weirdo seriously?

    You know the weirdo I’m talkin’ about.

    1. No, I don’t. You’ll have to narrow it down a bit.

      1. “My ‘double’, carrying a North Korean passport under my name, was in fact detained in Mexico for pre-planned misbehaviour,” Mr McAfee wrote. “But due to indifference on the part of authorities was evicted from the jail and was unable to serve his intended purpose in our exit plan.”

        http://tinyurl.com/h5djkl4

        1. Oh, I thought you meant that “spreading the wealth around” guy.

          /sarc

        2. Oh, I thought you meant that “spreading the wealth around” guy.

          /sarc

        3. Fuck Realism and Idealism. I want to find out how Surrealism works out as a foreign policy.

          1. The Agile Cyborg political platform?

            1. In the heart of his Samoan lawyer, you know he’s right.

    2. Even Trump knew you don’t move to the middle until after you’ve sewn up the nomination.

      Rand Paul didn’t know it and it tanked his campaign.

      1. He had to move to the middle to even be considered a Republican.

        1. He ceded the far right in-the party-outside-the -establishment lane to Ted Cruz.

    1. Take #2, this time with the correct link.

      But the other link is pretty hilarious.

        1. “We thought that sending Mr. Sulu to the Beach Volleyball Penal Planet would break his will, but so far no luck.”

          1. Did they get a new Sulu? It didn’t look like it was the Harold and Kumar go to White Castle guy anymore.

      1. I think we have a new neologism that combines almost SugarFree’ing the link with a John-esque malaprop.

        Let’s call it “moffing”.

      2. While it looks terrible, it still looks miles better than Into the Darkness, as it’s at least terrible on its own terms.

  11. Who gives a shit about his previous fuckups? I mean, really. This guy’s job is to continue to have a pulse for a few months while Gary Johnson continues to not be Donald Trump or Hillary fucking Clinton. As long as he’s not too embarrassing, he’ll be adequate enough.

    1. Johnson/Weld 2016
      Adequate Enough

      1. How about “the only party nominating two candidates who both have elected executive leadership experience”.

        Almost as boring, but certainly makes the LP look like a more reasonable option to the average joe this time than just tossing Howard Stern out there.

        1. certainly makes the LP look like a more reasonable option to the average joe this time

          I can’t wait till Johnson shares his “executive experience” of running a Cannabis company, and Weld fields questions about whether he’s ever entirely sobered up

          1. As opposed to Trump and Clinton?

            1. I’m not sure what your question is.

              If you want to vote for a third party for purely symbolic reasons, feel free. If that’s the point, it doesn’t really matter who they are. (*this tends to be my reason for voting DEEZ NUTS; tho he also makes a better campaign T than “johnson”)

              If you want to vote for a third party because they might ‘”move other parties in the direction of “Greater Liberty”… well, i suppose you’d want candidates who *take that position* in the first place – who are out there making a very strong, principled case for a change in policy direction across the board…

              I don’t see johnson & weld doing much of the latter. Both are so squishy on principles that at best they’re “Republican Lite”. Not exactly shooting for the “principled vote”, so much.

              i don’t really have a strong case for any particular choice. maybe, at best, I’d say the best-use of one’s vote is to prevent Clinton from getting the opportunity to stack the courts. But that’s a purely tactical choice

              1. I don’t think Weld is a good choice, but I understand it. His (GJ’s) plan is to look respectable when compared to Trump/Clinton. If the only detractors are pot and booze they are light years ahead of the Team clowns.

                Both are so squishy on principles that at best they’re “Republican Lite”.

                I keep hearing this. It may be true for Weld, but it’s not for Johnson. As far as I’m aware, Johnson strays from libertarian principle in only one area, and that’s public accommodation law. Can you or anyone name another?

                If so, I think we can prolly let the man slide on one issue, no?

                This isn’t a protest vote. The goal is to educate and attract folks to libertarian thought. Given the current Team positions, there is more of an opportunity to do that this cycle. Giving the disheartened Rs a respectable alternative is more likely to attract them than the most interesting man in the world will. Rs will see McAfee as a crackpot.

                1. Johnson’s against legalizing any drug but marijuana and he supports a tax plan that is, in theory and at best, revenue neutral. He also thinks we should continue our role in the U.N. and won’t rule out foreign intervention not in the direct interest of the United States. Except for a little rhetoric he’s not really “libertarian” at all.

                  1. Johnson’s against legalizing any drug but marijuana

                    I don’t see that. Got a cite?

                    States are finally seeing the failure of the War on Drugs. (Jan 2016)
                    Why do we tell adults what they can put in their bodies? (Jan 2016)

                    He also thinks we should continue our role in the U.N.

                    Nope.

                    On Defense: We shouldn’t have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan. But should we have 100,000 troops on the ground in Europe? Because America has been willing to be the world’s policeman, other nations can afford infrastructure projects that the US cannot. That doesn’t make sense. The alternative is for the US economy to slide to 3rd-world status. And the danger of a fundamental collapse is real.

                    won’t rule out foreign intervention not in the direct interest of the United States

                    That’s not an unlibertarian position. Coming to the aid of another is certainly permissible.

                    His tax plan is simply a national sales tax (fair tax) which is about as libertarian as you can get, as it at least allows the opportunity to opt out by not spending.

                2. From 2012 what I remember was that Johnson gave the impression that to favor the rights of persons to do (or be) unpopular things, what one had to do was favor their doing (or being) those unpopular things. Not just that they should have the right, but that they are right. He may never have come out & said it, but that was the vibe I got.

              2. Not exactly shooting for the “principled vote”, so much

                Got to be a hell of a marksman to hit the true principled libertarian vote. I’m pretty sure that voter only comes out of the ground every 17 elections – for ten seconds – and then whoosh gone for a few more decades.

        2. I think Howard Stern has executive experience in the radio industry.

          1. Did I have to spell out ‘executive branch of government at major level’ experience? Two governors, not a guy with a great radio gig, or even the candidates’ side issues. You’ve got two candidates who both did a decent job as governors, usually considered the best experience/qualification to be President. Even if Hillary and Trump add a governor to their respective tickets, they still can’t match that.

            1. What if they recruit Sarah Palin?

                1. Sarah Palin would add, by far, more small-l credibility than Weld, or even Johnson.

      2. Well, they are the only adequate ticket, so it works. If nothing else, it’s a big improvement over “be libertarian with me”.

  12. Wikipedia is fun:

    McAfee was born in the United Kingdom on September 18, 1945

    Truthers reassemble!

    McAfee was employed as a programmer by NASA’s Institute for Space Studies in New York City from 1968 to 1970.

    What’s that?

    The institute is housed at the corner of West 112th St. and Broadway in New York City in Columbia University’s Armstrong Hall. The building houses Tom’s Restaurant, which was the exterior for the restaurant in Seinfeld and the subject of the Suzanne Vega song Tom’s Diner.

    Whoa.

    1. On an army base.

      1. Oh sure, that’s what they want you to believe.

  13. Excuse me if I’m a tad skeptical.

    At least he can Godwin:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05……html?_r=0

    1. But seriously

      “I am a lifelong hunter and gun owner.”

      That makes it even more the worst that you would support a law that outlaws guns based on cosmetic features that have no impact on how lethal they are, not to mention are responsible for a minuscule percentage of all gun crimes. Basically what your saying is that you’re stupid or you like to pander to stupid people or you’re a liar. How else is one to interpret that?

      1. Wow, this guy wants to be a Libertarian Party candidate:

        “The purpose of this common sense legislation is to remove deadly guns from our streets and to take weapons out of the hands of many teens who themselves are becoming deadly killers”

        And speaking of Godwinning or its equivalent, we all know who the Governor meant by “teens,” right?

        Why not get a candidate who can speak about the racist history of gun-control laws.

        And don’t forget Justice Taney’s infamous line in Dred Scott that black people can’t be citizens, because if they were they’d have the right to bear arms!

        1. Why do you think black people lost Reconstruction?

          My guesses:

          (a) They didn’t have enough guns and

          (b) They didn’t have enough training in the use of those guns, in contrast to the white Democrats who had experience in the Confederate army, state militia, and slave patrols.

    2. Godwin? He Goddestroys.

      I look forward to the near-future when post-millenials will be so historically illiterate that references to “Kristallnacht” will have less significance than the more-recent racist “bad old days” when sports teams were named after indians and transpeople couldn’t choose whichever bathroom they wanted.

      1. Well once we they destroy all cultural references to indians no one will remember them anymore which will be sad.

  14. I like Peterson but then Glenn Beck had to ruin that by endorsing him

    1. I think Glenn Beck wears pants, too.

      1. I think Glenn Beck wears pants, too.

        Dammit, now you have to make me question whether I should wear pants again.

        And I’ve always been something of a pants fan, which I understand is considered a good thing on this discussion board, some people here even get a peerage for doing so.

        Thank goodness Beck probably never wears shorts.

        1. Utilikilt for the win!

    2. I like all three of them. Gladly vote for any.

      But I’m already a libertarian.

      And fuck Beck.

  15. Heh, that wasn’t a very reassuring way of addressing complaints Weld goes against liberty too much. He basically said “yep, I did! Circumstances called for it. But I do like liberty guys!”

  16. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  17. re: “after promising to run a ‘fusion’ ticket for governor of New York along with the Republicans”

    No, he promised the LPNY convention that he would stay in the race as a Libertarian *even if* he didn’t get the GOP nomination. That is an important distinction. That specific question was asked and answered. There is video of it. Libertarians shouldn’t trust his word.

  18. Restricting American’s gun rights doesn’t make sense now, and it didn’t make sense then. Sorry you have to cave to whiny ass Massachusetts liberals, but that’s what you did. America’s gun owners don’t forget. And the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, you twit.

  19. As I’ve always said, Libertarians are little more than democrats with gun rights. Now it appears they’re just democrats.

  20. Now, coming to the Showbox app, this is another superb app developed for movie lovers who want to get a better experience of watching movies and tv show on a bigger screen with more detailings.

  21. And one of those applications is Showbox apk app. It is one of the best online streaming application for watching Movies and TV Shows. In the starting, this application has been released for only a few of the mobiles and allows users to watch shows online.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.