Austin Petersen

Austin Petersen Catches More Endorsements from the Media Right for His Presidential Campaign

Mary Matalin and Erick Erickson on board for the Libertarian who thinks he can best sell the Party to conservatives.

|

Austin Petersen, former Fox Business Network producer with Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch and founder of the Libertarian Republic website, has long been positioning himself as the Libertarians' best choice to capture wayward Republicans who still love freedom and still hate Trump. (Part of it is he's pro-life, part of it is his general image and Missouri farming background and calls upon the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.)

AP for President Facebook

That stance got Petersen two public endorsements from the world of formerly Republican political consultants and media figures this week.

Mary Matalin, longtime GOP consultant and famously part of America's Favorite Cross-Partisan Marriage with Democratic grumpus James Carville, officially left the Republican Party for the Libertarians and now is behind Petersen for the L.P.'s presidential nomination, which will be decided this weekend at the Party's National Convention in Orlando. As Washington Times reports:

"In these tumultuous times of domestic and global uncertainty, the country would be well served with Austin Petersen on the national ballot along with the two established party candidates. The times call for, and Americans deserve, a full-throated, clear, coherent call for the restoration of those principles our founders divined and their progeny refined. Austin Petersen is a courageous adherent of and best represents Jefferson's inviolate first principle: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," noted Ms. Matalin on Tuesday.

Petersen tells me that while he did not communicate directly with Matalin, his communications director told him "she agrees with your ideas, likes that you articulate them well to an uninformed populace, and finds your career in spreading these ideas compelling."

Erick Erickson, former chieftain at conservative site Red State and now a right-wing radio guy in Atlanta, who has long been loudly anti-Trump, says that Gary Johnson's pick of William Weld as his running mate shows he is "tone deaf" (Weld has been seen as insufficiently libertarian or even conservative by many) and disqualifies him from serious consideration. He  today writes about Petersen:

Petersen has his flaws. He has some views outside the mainstream, but then what Libertarian doesn't? He would certainly be a candidate more likely to be build bridges to disgruntled voters than the perennial candidate Gary Johnson. Johnson, having flamed out in the Republican primary last go round then flamed out as the libertarian nominee. He just keeps running without learning any lessons.

Austin Petersen would be a fresh start and a lot of Republicans would potentially take a fresh look at Petersen. Couple him with a very strong, credible vice presidential candidate and the Libertarians might finally be the third party America needs for disruptive competition.

And while Glenn Beck's people insist it was technically no endorsement, as I reported last week Beck did say to Petersen during a 16-minute segment on Beck's radio show that Petersen is "making my heart skip" and "giving me hope there is someone I can pull the lever for" and is "saying all the right things."

NEXT: If and When New Hampshire Becomes Its Own Nation, Blame Carla Gericke

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I can’t tell from that tiny picture how good his hair is, so I can’t really judge his viability as a candidate.

    1. He has very cummable hair. The kind you just want to shoot into and muss it about.

      1. These euphemisms are getting very lazy.

          1. Oh fuck, now this is back.

            … *opens in incognito window*

      2. I’m not witty enough for euphemisms, entendre, or puns. So I just go for the vulgar.

  2. Johnson, having flamed out in the Republican primary last go round then flamed out as the libertarian nominee.

    Yeah, what a loser, failing to win the presidency as the Libertarian nominee. Is that really the kind of guy the LP wants to nominate???

    Whatever. I’m totally neutral. For each candidate, my heart says “maybe.”

    1. I’ll probably end up voting for the LP nominee regardless of who it is. Either that or just say home, which is what I’ve done in 3 out of the 5 presidential elections I’ve been eligible to vote in.

      In ’08 I voted for McCain (and threw up in my mouth) for the simple reason that I was working on NASA’s Orion program at the time and Obama had specifically said he wanted to cancel it, so I was really just voting to try and keep my phony baloney job (harumph!). Then in 2012 I voted for Johnson because I didn’t really want to have to stifle my gag reflex a 2nd time. I didn’t bother voting in the 3 before that.

      1. I also threw up in my mouth and voted for McCain, mostly because I knew how shitty Obama would be, especially with a dem controlled house and senate. It made me so sick to pick what I perceived to be the lesser of two evils that I started looking around, found Reason, and realized that there were people out there even sicker then I was (shudders as I remember some of SugarFree’s…colorful Pelosi stories).

      2. You didn’t want to vote for candidates for any of the other offices on the ballot in those elections either?

  3. Mary Matlin, Erick Erickson, and Glenn Beck? Impressive.

    1. Mary Matalin seems like a nice lady. And she came around. I have a hard time flipping her shit.

      1. she’s still about two inches away from irrelevance. and Eric Erickson is just a whiny d-bag who expects us all to choke down Mitt Romney again rather than support Trump, so he can screw off out of the LP’s business forever, as far as I am concerned.

  4. Counterpoint: A Day in the Life.

    Like many others here, both successful and not, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Foster are united in their belief that they are living among the ruins of a lapsed golden age.

    1. “I read the news today, oh boy,
      About a lucky man who made the grade…”

  5. I’m interested – does anyone here want the LP to reach out to conservatives?

    If so, how do you think this can best be done?

    By nominating Gary “nazi cakes” Johnson and William “common sense gun control” Weld?

    Or taking a chance with someone who actually talks like a conservative?

    1. I’ll take the bait. I think it’s a potentially viable strategy.

      Everybody is libertarian about the things they want to do or not do. It’s just that, to my reckoning, conservatives are generally more sympathetic to letting that other asshole down the street do what he wants. In some cases it’s principle. In a lot more, it’s just that they’ve, for all intents and purposes, lost the Kultur War. But, whatever the reason, it means they’re more open to the principles of liberty, even if only for self-preservation.

      1. Not necessarily. Some people want they things they want to do to be mandatory or subsidized, or subject to their quality standards.

    2. Sadly, I am beginning to agree that Gary Johnson should not get the nomination.

      I have always believed the maxim that the guy who agrees with you 80% of the time is your ally, not a 20% traitor.

      I used to think that Johnson’s real political executive experience was enough to put him in the 80% category, and that the 20% wasn’t that bad. Then I watched the Fox debate. Then I went to the LPTexas debate.

      It’s depressing that the one year where the LP really has a shot getting its message across with a double-digit vote percentage, it can’t manage to get an articulate (not Johnson), sane (not McAfee), libertarian (not Johnson nor anti-NAP Peterson) candidate to run.

  6. I’m glad that we’re trying to re-create the problems that destroyed the GOP.

    “He’s 95% Libertarian, and he actually has a positive record as an executive” is supposed to be secondary to “He’s batshit crazy, just like Trump” and “He’s conservative enough to get Republican cast-offs”, for some reason.

    I just don’t see how letting the guys who were all-in for Cruz a month ago decide the future of our party, or going all-in on a guy who’s going to fight Trump for the 30% of the electorate who just want to watch it burn, is a good thing. Guess I’m naive.

    WE ARE NOT FUCKING CONSERVATIVES. “He’s not conservative enough” is, therefore, is a really fucking stupid mantra for who we’re supposedly duty-bound to nominate.

    1. In this particular situation, there’s no conflict between standing for liberty and reaching out to conservatives.

      If you don’t want to reach out to conservatives even if that simply means “letting bakers choose their customers” and “opposing gun control,” then I think there’s a problem.

      1. They like Petersen because he’s pro-life, and proudly denies the NAP – let’s be realistic here.

        Attempting to change the conversation to “you don’t want to reach out to conservatives” is sloppy and lazy. “Reaching out to conservatives” means trying to explain why our nominee is a good choice for them – not letting them choose our nominee for us, and officially moving the party to “Jr Republican” status.

        Why not let Rachel Maddow and Bernie Sanders pick our nominee? Should we not worry that Petersen isn’t liberal enough?

        1. “proudly denies the NAP”

          when and where? Not saying he didn’t, I’d just like to see where he did, and if so whether he denied it more than Johnson and Weld did.

          Now, not being a member of the LP, I would not presume to say who you should appeal to. If you don’t want to take an opportunity to (a) be faithful to your own presumed principles, (b) reject those who have betrayed those principles, and (c) appeal to disaffected conservatives, then you don’t have to.

          Of course, I’d be more likely to vote for you if you nominated an actual conservative who believes in liberty *and* tradition and whose ticket won’t end up being cited *ad infinitum* in the MSM as “responsible libertarians who support public accomodation laws and common-sense gun control.”

          I mean, in this case libertarian purism and pandering to the right would be pretty much the same thing.

          But as I said, you seem to have a horror of ritual contamination from conservatives.

          “Why not let Rachel Maddow and Bernie Sanders pick our nominee? Should we not worry that Petersen isn’t liberal enough?”

          Who do you think Maddow and Sanders prefer, Johnson or Petersen?

          1. I grew up conservative, in a conservative family, in a conservative state. It was conservatism that led me to Libertarianism. I have no problem with conservatives or conservatism. I identify with modern conservatives far more than modern liberals. Stop with your endless stupid strawmen – if you’re so scared of liberals, stop acting like one.

            WE ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES. Who do I think Maddow and Sanders support more? I. Don’t. Give. A. Fuck. They don’t make my decisions for me. You seem to have missed this point. Much like conservatives, liberals are welcome to vote for our nominee, as he will be a better representative of what they supposedly care about than their own will be. But they do not dictate to our party, and we will not prosper by catering to one party more than the other. There are 3 parties, not 2-plus-the GOP-minor-leagues.

            1. Like I said, I can’t and don’t want to dictate the LP nominee, I’m not in the Party, I just like Petersen better – so far, until he has some kind of bovine-related scandal.

              1. But how often do you get the chance to be purists and panderers at the same time?

                The Left doesn’t offer you that chance, the disaffected conservatives do.

                1. Come to think of it, a Johnson/Weld nomination would greatly increase my opportunities to argue with y’all, and would take away the temptation of being in boring agreement with other commenters.

            2. “WE ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES.”

              Gary Johnson isn’t a Libertarian.

              If he were philosophically pure, and Petersen were outright pandering, this line of reasoning would make sense. But Johnson-Weld’s compromises violate the NAP and alienate conservatives, which is very stupid in this election cycle.

          2. Who do you think Maddow and Sanders prefer, Johnson or Petersen?

            Neither. Johnson isn’t fiscally progressive (e.g. “socialist”) enough for them.

          3. Also, y’all can quit lying about the guns thing. Gary Johnson has repeatedly said that he completely supports the 2nd Amendment. He has also said that IF there were legislation presented to him that would protect this right while still managing to keep guns out of the hands of the violently mentally ill, he would be open to that. He has clearly stated REPEATEDLY that he would be open to considering legislation that meets those standards, while also stating that he has seen no piece of legislation or policy that comes close to meeting those requirements.

            I’m far more concrete on the 2nd Amendment – I don’t believe in any restrictions on any weapons of any kind – but he isn’t anti-guns or anti-2nd Amendment. That’s just a straight up lie. When you have to tell straight up lies to make your case appear stronger, your case is shit.

            The biggest divergence between myself as a doctrinaire Libertarian built on the NAP is that GJ says he would honor public accommodation laws that I disagree with, something that will NEVER be relevant to him as President. It is no betrayal of Libertarian philosophy to vote for someone you hold 95% agreement with, the hollow protestations of Republicans and my-way-or-the-highway Libertarians notwithstanding.

            If you want to shit on Weld, go ahead. There are plenty of issues there. But this exaggerating and misrepresenting that has gone crazy in the LP over the last month as the GOP attempts to take over is beyond tedious already.

            1. I agree, while at the same time I think Johnson sucks as a candidate and he puts me to sleep.

              That said, he’s the best of the three.

                  1. As a candidate for a potential reality show, maybe.

            2. Well, you can just take your accusation of lying and shove it right where the sun doesn’t shine.

              I criticized Weld (not Johnson, so *you’re* the liar) for his support of “common sense” gun regulation – assault weapons ban, limits on purchases, background checks, etc.

              So wash your mouth out with soap. I probably have to explain the concept of soap to you, too.

              1. I criticized Weld (not Johnson, so *you’re* the liar)

                You might want to go back and re-read your previous posts dude, you never specified if you were talking about Johnson or Weld. I thought you were talking about Johnson too, I just chose not to call you out on it because I figured I’d just let you make an ass of yourself.

                1. Actually since re-reading your own posts is for FAGZ and shifting goal posts while hoping nobody notices is apparently TEH AWESOME, here:

                  Notorious UGCC|5.25.16 @ 10:51AM|#

                  In this particular situation, there’s no conflict between standing for liberty and reaching out to conservatives.

                  If you don’t want to reach out to conservatives even if that simply means “letting bakers choose their customers” and “opposing gun control,” then I think there’s a problem.

                  Didn’t specify Johnson or Weld here.

                  Notorious UGCC|5.25.16 @ 11:07AM|#

                  Now, not being a member of the LP, I would not presume to say who you should appeal to. If you don’t want to take an opportunity to (a) be faithful to your own presumed principles, (b) reject those who have betrayed those principles, and (c) appeal to disaffected conservatives, then you don’t have to.

                  Of course, I’d be more likely to vote for you if you nominated an actual conservative who believes in liberty *and* tradition and whose ticket won’t end up being cited *ad infinitum* in the MSM as “responsible libertarians who support public accomodation laws and common-sense gun control.”

                  Or here.

                  1. Did you miss the part where Johnson endorsed Weld for vice-president and wants to run on the same ticket with him, you silly person?

                    1. Wow, in the very post of mine which you quoted, I refer to a “ticket” (you know, a Pres and VP candidate), and said that this ticket would be cited in the MSM as “responsible libertarians” [plural].

                      Your poor reading skills don’t make *me* a liar, you poltroon.

                    2. Wow, in the very post of mine which you quoted, I refer to a “ticket” (you know, a Pres and VP candidate), and said that this ticket would be cited in the MSM as “responsible libertarians” [plural].

                      And when called on it, you claimed to be criticizing Weld, not Johnson. When it’s pointed out that you didn’t specify which one you were referring to you move the goal posts again. “Actually I was talking about the ticket, blah blah blah”

                      Your poor reading skills don’t make *me* a liar, you poltroon.

                      And then resort to ad-homs like a retarded prog. What makes you a liar is your tendency to lie, or at least spew half-truths, and then move the goal posts and prevaricate when called on it. Since you like ad-hom’s so much: fuck off and die in a fire, you mendacious, retarded piece of monkey shit.

                    3. Kevin47 schooled you so effectively, there isn’t enough of you left for me to refute, you pathetic shit.

                      Don’t lie about me, and I won’t insult you by telling the truth about you.

                    4. Just to sum up, you LIED at 11:54 AM when you said “you never specified if you were talking about Johnson or Weld.”

                      I specifically said, at 10:45: “…Gary “nazi cakes” Johnson and William “common sense gun control” Weld…”

                      You fell flat on your face, your lie is all over the screen for all to see.

                  2. “By nominating Gary “nazi cakes” Johnson and William “common sense gun control” Weld?”

                    I don’t know how he could be more clear. He literally put “common sense gun control” in quotes in the middle of William Weld’s name.

                    1. “By nominating Gary “nazi cakes” Johnson and William “common sense gun control” Weld?”

                      I don’t know how he could be more clear. He literally put “common sense gun control” in quotes in the middle of William Weld’s name.

                      That’s not the comment(s) he was being criticized for.

                    2. “That’s not the comment(s) he was being criticized for.”

                      Right, but if he was clear in another comment, it seems silly to criticize him for not repeating himself.

            3. by the way, where’s the evidence of Petersen’s hostility to the NAP? For some reason, I suspect Reason would have harped on that if true, but maybe I missed it.

              1. “by the way, where’s the evidence of Petersen’s hostility to the NAP?”

                I suspect it’s his pro-life stance.

              2. He was on the Tom Woods show a while back. He laid out his nonsensical opposition to the NAP pretty clearly… Give it a listen…

          4. “‘proudly denies the NAP’

            when and where? Not saying he didn’t, I’d just like to see where he did, and if so whether he denied it more than Johnson and Weld did.”

            Apologies if these have already been linked.

            http://tinyurl.com/zjnx7q6
            http://tinyurl.com/jswfmmp

        2. I’m pro-choice. But, I think it’s kind of asinine to say that people who are pro-life are denying the NAP. They believe the fetus is a person. In that, I think they’re wrong. But, if I accepted that premise, I’d be hard-pressed to pretend that taking the life of a fetus is anything other than the initiation of force.

          There are plenty of very solid libertarians who are pro-life. There are plenty who are pro-choice.

          There’s nothing in libertarianism that answers the metaphysical question of when life begins.

          1. I think it’s kind of asinine to say that people who are pro-life are denying the NAP.

            That’s not what the “denies the NAP” thing is about. I can’t find it now, but apparently Petersen has said on the record that he doesn’t agree entirely with the NAP. I’ll see if I can find it. It was in a link in the comments to an earlier LP related post a couple of days ago (vague, I know).

              1. Bennett’s (2012) 2nd argument is a little too cutesy for my tastes:

                The NAR is in effect ex ante, that is, before any aggression even takes place, and all persons live under pain of retaliatory oercion if you transgress. If you do transgress, we can claim that we aren’t actually initiating aggression, only engaging in post facto justified retaliation. The system, as you can see, is rigged in our favor. Examine what is occurring: A sphere of acceptable actions is being predefined, and if one steps outside these narrow bounds, entities will emerge from the walls and rain down force upon transgressors. I submit that this is precisely what the initiation of aggression is.

            1. All I’ve been able to find.

              5. Candidate for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination Austin Wade Petersen has openly repudiated the non-aggression principle as stated specifically within the Statement of Principles and declared this principle to be “non-libertarian” and intellectually bankrupt using various insults and thus has clearly illustrated that he is philosophically opposed to essential first-principles of the Libertarian Party which the Colorado governing documents hold in primacy as the minimal bar by which everything is measured.

              Still vague. I wish I could find exactly what he said in his own words.

                1. Noted. I’ll check it out later, if I decide I want my browser to slow to a crawl and/ or stop completely from clicking on the poorly scripted, malware infested “libertarian buzzzfeed.” /sarc

          2. I don’t care whether a fetus is a person or not. Makes no difference to my position on abortions. I just think there are some things (which may include persons in some cases) that it’s OK to kill, & others (whether they’re persons or not) that it’s not OK to kill. I maintain that if nobody who has a legit interest cares whether something is killed, including the thing itself, then it’s OK to kill it. I don’t think fetuses care. (I think there are very few living things that do care whether they live.) The person carrying the fetus will almost always care, so nobody else should be allowed to kill it w/o that person’s say-so.

        3. Eh, all three of the leading LP candidates have pretty much dismissed the NAP, for various reasons. Mostly because it’s not a practical axiom for policy.

          And the nominee is chosen by LP delegates… I’m sure a few ex-Cruz people have gotten into delegate slots, but mostly the delegates ARE pretty libertarian. Personally, I’d be happy to see the libertarian movement expand and pull in disenfranchised conservatives (and liberals), but I understand the thought process that we should have high barriers to entry in order to avoid dilution.

          1. The NAP is not a practical axiom for policy, because virtually everyone assents to it. They just have different ideas about what constitutes aggression in various cases. So NAP is a truism, boring & vapid.

      2. Fuck off, you abortion obsessed cunt.

        1. Me? Abortion is waaaaaay down on my list of concerns.

          1. Not you.

        2. Don’t get your Doomcock all tangled, Sugarfree, there are issues besides abortion, such as freedom of association and the Second Amendment.

          1. There are also issues besides freedom of association and the second amendment.

            Now lets see between Johnson, Stein, Trump, and Clinton who do you think is going to present the MOST libertarian view of the freedom of association, even when it comes to gay wedding cakes? Their policies on the issue are utterly irrelevant because even if a libertarian did get elected and had a desire to overturn all federal anti discrimination law it would be an incredibly stupid thing for them to do because they are unlikely to succeed and even if they did it would burn up the bulk of their political capital which would be far better served being spent elsewhere.

            Similarly on guns, Weld isn’t even running for President, just veep but even with his impurities on the 2nd amendment do you honestly think any of the other candidates would be better than Weld on guns?

              1. They still exist?

                Yeah sorry in a nation where religious belief is plummeting a party of Christian Dominionists is not something that needs to be taken seriously, even most Christians don’t support them.

            1. I think Trump and whomever he selects as Veep will be better than Weld on guns.

              I really don’t consider hostility to the 1st amendment (Johnson) and the 2nd amendment (Weld) to be impurities.

          2. Second Amendment?

            Supports gun ownership rights. (Aug 2012)
            Laws regarding guns are ineffective. (May 2011)

            Johnson position on Gun Control

            The Second Amendment: Individual or Collective Right?

            “I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.”
            April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine

            Legislations

            “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The first people who are going to be in line to turn in their guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are going to be left with guns. I believe that concealed carry is a way of reducing gun violence.”
            12 Nov, 2000, An Interview with Playboy magazine.

            1. Johnson specifically recommended William Weld for vice president.

              From this link, we get a quote from the New York Times in 1993:

              “Mr. Weld, a Republican who will run for re-election next year, called for a statewide ban on assault weapons ? a proposal he opposed during his 1990 campaign ? as well as a waiting period for buying handguns and a prohibition on handgun ownership by anyone under 21. His proposed legislation would also limit the number of handguns an individual could buy and would impose tough penalties for illegal gun sales and gun-related crimes.

              “”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,” the Governor said.”

              1. Who fucking cares about Weld?

                The only time Weld even enters into the equation is IF Johnson gets elected and IF Johnson dies in office.

                If you think I support the LP because I think they can win, you are a retard.

                1. Or if the Senate is 50/50, or when he helps to craft policy. And presidents can die. Weld would make a really bad president.

                  It was a stupid pick, and Johnson has made a lot of stupid moves.

                  1. I agree. Weld is/was a stupid choice.

                    But Johnson, is never going to be elected president. So it makes no difference.

                    This is about steering disaffected Republicans towards thinking about liberty. Nothing more.

                    1. I’m guessing that’s the strategy. I don’t think it works. If Republicans want to vote for an East Coast progressive masquerading as a conservative, they’ve already got their man.

                      And I understand that freedom of association and religious liberty aren’t high on the LP food chain, but they are very much so to the people the party would like to persuade.

                      I’ll vote for Gary Johnson, but he’s going to be a hard sell to my #nevertrump friends.

    2. I just don’t see how letting the guys who were all-in for Cruz a month ago decide the future of our party, or going all-in on a guy who’s going to fight Trump for the 30% of the electorate who just want to watch it burn, is a good thing.

      ^^This guy knows what’s going on^^

    3. GayJay isn’t even 50% libertarian.

      1. Trump will save you.

      2. How do you scale that percentage? I’d define the median as 50% libertarian. You saying he’s more authoritarian than the avg. person in the world? In the country? Among politicians? Among candidates for prez?

        OTOH you could use an absolute scale. On that just about everyone is easily 90% libertarian, because the vast majority of choices people make every day are things nobody even thinks about controlling anybody else on.

  7. Wow, Mary Matlin. Blast from the past.

  8. I do agree with him on more things than Gary Johnson, but he comes across as just too smarmy and annoying. He’ll never attract outsiders with that.

    1. And Gary comes across as sluggish and cartoonish. There isn’t a good candidate this year.

      1. There isn’t a good candidate this year.

        Is there ever?

        1. A candidate like Harry Browne would get double digits this year.

  9. Funny how Erickson (rightly) calls into question Johnson’s pick of Weld whereas libertarian icon (?) David Boaz thinks Weld cements a ticket ‘Sane Republicans can Get Behind’

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..ehind.html

    1. Meh, I give more credence to the guy who founded RedState.

  10. Mary Matalin and Erick Erickson on board for the Libertarian who thinks he can best sell the Party to conservatives.

    He may have a point, considering he pretty much is a conservative.

  11. Petersen has been doing the rounds with the conservative talking head and radio types building his profile. And he doesn’t support forced association.

    Johnson is the least libertarian of the three candidates running. And he’s milquetoast. If McAfee is too insane, I’d take Petersen next. I don’t think you’d lose anything.

    1. The candidates are pretty terrible. Petersen is a scumbag, but not as crazy as McAfee

      1. I haven’t put much research into it. I’ve only heard Petersen speak a few times. I’m not big into the circle jerk of picking a libertarian candidate and I’m not buying that they’ll draw in significant votes here. At least no more than the Green Party in 2000. But why do you call Petersen a scumbag? Curious.

        1. If Eddie is a fan, there is a 100% certainty in my mind that Petersen is shitcock.

        2. He runs a clickbait website where he invents sockpuppet writers with the express goal of writing things that offend people so he’ll get outrage clicks. He ran one article about how all AnCap men are creepy would-be rapists. It ran under a woman’s byline, but pretty much everyone knows it was a sockpuppet, probably Austin himself.

          I don’t personally care about dumbass libertarian e-drama, but he’s basically running libertarian Buzzfeed and he’s little more than an internet troll

          1. “Libertarian Buzzfeed” is how you drive traffic and profits. Personally not a big fan of his site, but he’s a savvy businessman who understands internet traffic and what drives media in the internet age.

            Outrage clicks are annoying as eff, but there’s a reason they’re ubiquitous. They work.

          2. Aren’t all websites clickbait websites these days?

            1. You Won’t Believe AlmightyJB’s Gross Generalization
              Hint: It’s not okay.

        3. I’m not big into the circle jerk of picking a libertarian candidate and I’m not buying that they’ll draw in significant votes here.

          it took me a long time to get to this point, but this is exactly how I feel as well.

    2. I don’t think you’d lose anything

      .

      Except the 10 or 11% that Johnson starts out with.

      Again, what’s your goal?

      If your goal is to appease the “already libertarian” crowd, certainly McAfee or Petersen is your guy.

      If your goal is to get disaffected Republicans to start thinking about liberty, Johnson is the correct choice.

      But let’s be clear. This isn’t about winning an election. It’s about wining minds and hearts.

      1. The problem with Johnson is that he reinforces the perception that all libertarians care about is weed and the celebration of butt sex.

        Seriously, Johnson’s weed business doesn’t just advocate the libertarian concept of the individual’s right to the pursuit of happiness; it promotes consumption of substances that many think (with good reason) to be harmful. Everybody knows that the business about forcing the kosher bakery to bake a Nazi cake is really about forcing people in business to celebrate LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ . Not merely to tolerate, but to celebrate stuff they find disturbing or disgusting.

        I don’t have any problem with Johnson’s weed business since it does not violate libertarian principles. I don’t have much of a problem with his advocacy of gay marriage, though state licenses do violate libertarian principles. I have a very big problem with forcing people to celebrate gay marriage. Not only is it a gross violation of libertarian principles, but even worse it is politically stupid.

  12. The “socially liberal” influence in the libertarian movement has gotten worse than even I anticipated in my numerous jeremiads.

    We’ve gotten leading LP candidates who have supported (a) gun control and (b) limitations on freedom of association in the name of “anti-discrimination.”

    I had warned that libertarians were flirting with statism with their naivete about social liberalism and their ritual horror of being associated with conservatives.

    Now it’s gone beyond anything even I would have predicted, with actual LP candidates declaring war on liberty in the name of fashionable social liberal causes.

    1. The only reason I hesitate to say “I told you so” is that my predictions weren’t pessimistic *enough.*

    2. Well, I don’t know if I’d go as far as you. I think Johnson is just a soft libertarian at best. He came from the GOP.

      But the Canadian version of the libertarian party seems to have gone pretty full on for social justice and all that entails. I think any libertarian who thinks they have more in common or as much in common with the left compared to the right is fooling themselves.

    3. Rending your garments about homophones having to make cakes for same-sex couples and/or their weddings will probably be about the same as rending your garments about racists having to make cakes for minorities and/or their weddings (even interracial ones!).

      Right now being gay is a pretty big issue with a large minority of the population, but that will probably steadily decrease in the decades to come. In 1958, only 4% of people approved of interracial marriages whereas 87% approve now (meaning that 13% still don’t, yet it is not an issue). In 2001, 57% of people opposed same-sex marriage whereas now in 2016 55% support it (and 37% oppose it).

      Just to be clear, I support individuals and businesses being able to discriminate however they want to, even if I disagree with it.

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/163…..hites.aspx

      http://www.pewforum.org/2016/0…..-marriage/

      1. Ha! “Homophones” instead of “homophobes.” By the way, if there’s a better word than “homophobes” I’ll use it since it is offensive for a lot of people. Or I could use a phrase like “people who are against homosexuality/same-sex marriage.” I’m open to suggestions.

      2. “Just to be clear, I support individuals and businesses being able to discriminate however they want to, even if I disagree with it.”

        No, I don’t think you do, judging from your willingness to vote for a candidate who opposes that right, and your willingness to contemptuously turn your back on family businesses who face crippling fines for conducting their business in accordance with their conscience, dismissing them as homophobes and the equivalent of white supremacists.

        Just a couple tweaks to your post, and you have a Salon article.

        And your argument boils down to the claim that only a small minority is having its rights violated, a minority you dislike, so it’s no big deal.

        The Libertarian Party is a small minority, too, by the way. Are you by any chance a member of the Libertarian Party? The LP gets fewer votes in polls and elections than the defense of true marriage.

        Do I get to sneer at libertarians whose ballot access is denied, on the grounds that you are an inconsequential and dwindling minority which is going against the current of history, so worrying about your rights is stupid?

        1. No, I don’t think you do

          Sorry, but wrong. I support racists and homophobes being able to pursue racist and homophobic practices with their business–it’s simply low enough on my priorities list that I care much more about other things in my support of a candidate such as bankrupting the country or not over entitlement and spending reform.

          It seems like much of your criticism of me could be turned back on you. I don’t see you going on crusades to give racists the right to discriminate based on their racist sensibilities, after all. How come it’s “no big deal” to you–it should matter even if they are “only a small minority.” My point is that families facing crippling fines for not serving gay customers or same-sex weddings will be about as non-existent as families facing fines for not serving minorities or interracial marriages. It is indeed sad for the families affected (just as it was/would be with racists), but there are much larger fish to fry, and within a few decades it should basically be non-existent as it is now with racists.

          …than the defense of true marriage.
          There you go talking about arranged marriages and polygamy again.

          1. There you go talking about arranged marriages and polygamy again.

            oh can you please link to that clever little infographic you all had going around again? Smug Atheists are always good for a laugh.

            1. No cop dick to suck today, Tulpa?

        2. No, I don’t think you do, judging from your willingness to vote for a candidate who opposes that right

          Fuck off Eddie, you one trick pony.

          I do support the right of private business to discriminate…I’m on record as saying Johnson is wrong on this. But I don’t piss away an opportunity to advance freedom, on the whole, because I’m a single issue voter.

          Furthermore, you are a mendacious cunt. You sit here and criticize Johnson for supporting private public accommodation when YOU ARE ON RECORD supporting the government discrimination of gays.

          You are a fucking proselytizing troll.

            1. And unless Eric Bana is a sock of yours, I wasn’t even criticizing you in the first place.

  13. Commenter Notorious UGCC is right. It is depressing that all of the LP candidates have taken progressive, statist positions on some issues.

    Bill Weld was a deep disappointment as governor of Massachusetts. He supported extreme regulations that even Massachusetts voters rejected (like the Big Green initiative).

    Weld appointed social justice warriors with an antipathy to free speech to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, and kept the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court left-wing. Weld is an avid supporter of government-mandated racial preferences and affirmative action.

    Gary Johnson failed to fix New Mexico’s awful, left-leaning judiciary, which spawns baseless lawsuits while keeping innocent people in jail (the state judiciary later unanimously, including Johnson appointees, ordered a wedding photographer to photograph a lesbian wedding. As law professor Eugene Volokh noted in the Washington Post, that violated free speech, since court rulings recognize photography as speech).

    Johnson falsely claims there is some century-old public accommodation law in this country that requires virtually every business to serve everyone — like a Jewish baker forced to serve Nazis — when there is no such thing. Blatantly false claim about the law, as any lawyer could attest.

    1. Listening to Johnson talk, I just think he may not be that bright. I mean, it’s not like he really has to pander to the masses at a libertarian debate.

      1. Agreed. Johnson comes across as sluggish intellectually. I also am surprised more people havent’ been bothered by his constant chatter over his hobby (which just happens to be wildly expensive and elitist).

        Nor does he seem to have much intellectual consistency or grounding in libertarian philosophy. I think the LP is more a vehicle for him.

        1. I haven’t watched much of the debates that have happened because I want to avoid feeling very disappointed. But from what I remember of Gary J., it didn’t seem he was that great or convincing of a speaker.

        2. “I think the LP is more a vehicle for him.”

          This. Also, am I just supposed to pretend he didn’t casually opine that banning Burqas would be a good idea?

          1. But at least on that issue there’s the excuse-belief that nobody would wear it voluntarily, so this was a matter of liberating women from the threat of being physically beaten by their co-religionists for not wearing it. It’s factually incorrect, but at least it shows good will.

        3. A better way of looking at it: Is he libertarian enough? General election voters are not interested in a purity test. If he passes the threshold test and is the most attractive candidate to the wider non-L party voters, then he’s the guy.

      2. Against the advice of every drug dealer ever, he obviously uses his own stuff.

    1. On Huma? Yes. To jail? No way.

      1. Shush. Rich has been jelquing to the idea of Hillary being indicted for months now. Don’t mess with his flow.

        1. shouldn’t everyone want to see her indicted?

        2. That’s not true, Hugh! I’m saving myself for the actual indictment!

          1. That’s what the jelquing is for dude. You’re strengthening and lengthening so you can last the whole congressional hearing that, sadly, will never happen.

            1. I agree with you and SugarFree that she will not face the music like, um, a normal person would.

              However, “her shenanigans will cost her the election”.

    2. I don’t really comprehend how you can break the rules put into place for compliance with pubic record keeping laws, but not have violated those laws. I mean, I’m sure there could be some technical instance of that – but it seems nonsensical when she violated every aspect of it. The report here is coming out as damning to her, but it still seems to have sugarcoated the situation and tied in Powell to paint it as a broader issue with the State Department.

      It’s also comical to me that the State Department had previously issued a claim that Hillary did not break any rules related to the Federal Records Act. Non-partisan technocrats, obviously.

      1. The State Department should be shut down “until we find out what is going on”.

      2. She didn’t violate laws, but internal “guidelines”. In other words, she didn’t break any rules that came from Congress, but internal Executive regulations.

    3. Yawn. Is she going to jail? No? Then nobody cares, nothing to see.

  14. (Weld has been seen as insufficiently libertarian or even conservative by many)

    This apple is mushy and also it tastes nothing like a steak.

  15. Does anyone know who determines the Libertarian Party’s platform? Even if the candidates aren’t terribly impressive I’m more inclined to support the eventual nominee if there’s a solid platform of good ideas I can support to point to.

    1. The LP platform is debated by delegates at every convention. If you’re interested, it’s really easy to become a delegate in the LP. You pretty much just have to show up to county convention on primary day, say you want to be a delegate to the state convention, show up for the state convention, say you want to be a delegate for the national, and show up for the national convention. Do it often enough, and you can get on the platform committee. In the meantime, you’d have a vote on every platform change.

  16. Petersen is the worst.

    On a side note, this is going to make it even more awkward when Mary Matalin throws in the towel and goes back to the Republican Party sometime around August.

  17. I quit my office job and now I am getting paid 95 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! .2A.Check it out what i do…

    ——– http://www.careers-report.com

  18. So help me Gerd, if the Libertarian Party becomes the new pro-life party, I’m moving to Canada!

  19. Hmmm. I had though Petersen looked like the best choice for LP nominee, but now that Erik Erikson is endorsing him, I may have to reconsider that position.

  20. Be perfectly clear about one thing: Eriksons idea of “freedom” and any libertarian’s are very, very different. Erikson did not meet a social con position he wasn’t more than happy to shove down your throat. And then has a hissy fit when the favor is returned. Erikson has always been out front on continuing, if not adding to, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    That said, sure I hope they vote Libertarian. I just hope it is not Petersen who seems nothing more than a sound bite machine fixated on a pro-life agenda.

  21. The directions each candidate offers the LP

    Johnson- a Liberal “centrist” party, probably similar to the UK’s Liberal Democrats. Could be a legit Party winning the occasionally in currently 1 party areas.

    McAfee- Techno futurists/singularity true believers mixed with anarchists. Has the potential to be a real movement that could redefine society, unless no one takes it seriously.

    Petersen-The LP remains irrelevant as they continue to preach to the choir.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.