Gary Johnson

Washington Post, in Dishonest Editorial, Calls Gary Johnson 'honest but defective'

Editorial board dings Libertarian ticket for "wishful thinking" that libertarian policies could "solve a range of complicated social problems," even though candidates said no such thing

|

Edifice complex. ||| Washington Post
Washington Post

The Washington Post editorial board, one of the prime caretakers of establishmentarian consensus about national politics, has a curious editorial today titled "Gary Johnson is an honest but defective candidate." The piece is curious not simply because it invites snarky retorts—so, you prefer dishonest but effective candidates, eh? No, it is curious—and instructive about the collision between default libertarianism and Washington managerialism—because some of the key negative characterizations it makes about the Libertarian Party ticket is not borne out by the transcript of the interview upon which the editorial was based.

For instance, after dinging Johnson for allegedly not knowing what the nuclear triad is (I say "allegedly" because the transcript is not conclusive to me on that point) and for not attaching a precise ideal number on the federal government's percentage spending of GDP, the ed board gets to its real, world-weary objection.

More disturbing for anyone inclined to take this candidacy seriously was Mr. Johnson's habit of resorting to wishful thinking whenever reality collided with libertarian ideology. Getting the government out of the way, he claimed, would solve a range of complicated social problems. Police shootings and various racial disparities have been results of the war on drugs, he argued, as if racism and police brutality would not exist if marijuana were legal. Climate change is real but regulations to cope with it aren't needed, because consumers will demand clean energy, as if transforming the energy system were as simple as buying fair-trade coffee.

The Islamic State is a danger, he acknowledged, but he suggested it will work its own way into oblivion; no need for U.S. troops to help in that process.

Johnson's words back up none of the four phrases bolded above.

1) "Getting the government out of the way, he claimed, would solve a range of complicated social problems."

The Post uses the phrase "solve" twice in its editorial, which is two more times than Johnson or Weld do in the interview. To the contrary, they go out of their way to stress that they don't have all the answers, or even all the knowledge required to get at the right answers. (Sample Johnson quote: "I'm no expert here on anything.") In fact, such is their reticence to pronounce sweeping policy solutions that editorial board members became audibly frustrated:

Q: A lot of the response is, "Well, I need to find out about this. I don't know." So, why should people vote for you for president? Aren't we taking an awful lot on faith?

JOHNSON: You do have two former governors here, Republican governors serving in heavily Democrat states, that were really successful, getting reelected, I think speaks to being successful. Being fiscally conservative and socially accepting, tolerant—that's the mix here. Are you taking a lot on faith? Well, you've got to look at the résumés and you've got to consider that, in my opinion, these are two people that are really very thoughtful, and that there is a process, and that it's a transparent process, and that it's about honesty and telling the truth. And that's history, that's résumé, that's prior work history.

It's the Washington Post editorial board here demanding thought-out solutions to questions like D.C. statehood, while the Libertarian Party ticket stresses modesty of knowledge, local experimentation, and a process-based approach rooted in principles ranging from non-aggression to zero-based budgeting.

2) "as if racism and police brutality would not exist if marijuana were legal."

Did Gary Johnson say anything like that, or claim that the one-stop solution for racism and police brutality was ending the drug war? No, he did not. Here's what he did suggest policy-wise:

[F]rom a national standpoint: What's working? What's not working? What big communities in this country have the best incidence of police–the least incidence of police brutality, shooting, and what are they doing that others aren't? What's the consistency or what are the common threads in areas with the most shootings?

And later, William Weld enthsued that the Justice Department should get involved in federal civil rights investigations of local police misconduct. What Johnson did stress, and which I think is more correct than not, is that the war on drugs is the "root issue" of violent confrontation between police and disfavored minority groups:

[T]he notion of "shoot first," that it's drug-related, that doors get broken down, that everybody's a drug dealer or everybody's a criminal. That's where I believe that this all started. I don't have all the answers for what happened [in Minnesota].

The Washington Post editorial board thinks it's hunky dory for the federal government to prosecute a woman growing her own medicinal marijuana for personal consumption, yet Gary Johnson is the weirdo for pointing out that the drug war has escalated police-community tensions? No wonder they needed to construct a straw man to make him look goofy.

3) "Climate change is real but regulations to cope with it aren't needed, because consumers will demand clean energy"

Johnson didn't say regulations "aren't needed," he said "I would not be supporting government regulation that ends up with us losing jobs," and that he's against a carbon tax, because "I'm so indelibly a no-new-taxes guy." Now, maybe the editorial board believes that federal environmental regulation inevitably costs jobs, but Gary Johnson does not, singling out the Environmental Protection Agency in the L.P. debate on Stossel as a federal department he would keep.

Also, William Weld went on in the interview to praise the U.S. involvement in the Paris Agreement on climate change, and to support cap-and-trade carbon schemes, though it's unclear whether Johnson agrees.

4) "The Islamic State is a danger, he acknowledged, but he suggested it will work its own way into oblivion; no need for U.S. troops to help in that process."

No, what Gary Johnson said here is actually more realistic, and hence radical to the ears of the Washington establishment. He said that Islamic radicalism will be there whether or not American troops are on foreign soil, and that our presence often makes things worse. Sample:

I would get the troops out—that the consequence of getting the troops out, as horrible as that's going to be–and I think that there has been precedent for, OK, we're going to pull out of Afghanistan, how many Afghanis need citizenship within the United States because you're going to lose your life having been allied with the United States? I mean, I think there are precautions here [so] that there's not a bloodbath. But as horrible as that's going to be doing it in 2017, it's going to be the same situation 20 years from now.

The Post's Jackson Diehl then begins sputtering:

DIEHL: Wait a minute, if the Islamic State—you're prepared to have them consolidate power rather than leave U.S. troops there?

JOHNSON: Well this is a question that gets constantly asked. Let me ask you: How long should we be there? Forever?

WELD: You mean Afghanistan?

JOHNSON: Afghanistan.

DIEHL: No, I'm talking about Iraq and Syria.

JOHNSON: Same, all of the above. I mean, libertarians—I reject the fact that libertarians are isolationist. We're just noninterventionist. The fact that when you get involved in other countries' affairs, you end up with the unintended consequence—without exception, and please point out an exception—you have the unintended consequence of making things worse, not better.

It is still politically shocking at this late date in Washington's disastrous 15-year response to 9/11 to suggest that the whole solving-the-problem-with-American-troops approach is counter-productive, or that the very notion of "solving" anything reflects an arrogance and unconscious ideology that have made so much of 21st century governance a disaster. That says a lot more about the establishment than it does the Libertarians.

NEXT: Georgia appellate court overturns custody order that barred both parents from commenting about the case

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. This just means Johnson is taking more Democratic votes than Republican ones and is hurting Hillary. If he were taking Republican votes and hurting Trump, the Post would be writing about what a great guy he is and how he is an honorable choice for Republicans who just can’t tolerate the evil Trump.

    1. The RCP polling average supports your speculation. Johnson is drawing slightly more from Hilldog than from Trump.

      1. He’s drawing more from Clinton because she’s the epitome of establishmentarian. He’s not taking as much from the populist crowd orbiting about Trump. No surprise here.

      2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Friday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $100 per hour. I work through this website. Go Here…. http://www.trends88.com

    2. I’m curious if they’re going to do the same thing to Jill Stein then. She’ll be “stealing” even more votes from Shrillary than Johnson will.

      1. Yes. I don’t think she is taking many votes right now. But if it becomes apparent that she might take a significant number, Jill will be kicked out of the party and the Post will suddenly find all of these issues with her.

    3. I’m making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
      This is what I do_________ http://www.trends88.com

  2. So then Hillary is the only adult in the room?

    1. Clearly. She is merely “extremely careless,” but apparently that’s not as great a disqualifier as being a libertarian.

      After all, look at her many achievements. Libya is the height of non-defectiveness.

    2. Hillary is Urkel. Benghazi: Did I do thaaaaat? E-mail: Did I do thaaaaat? Campaign finance fraud: Did I do thaaaaat?

      Doesn’t seem terribly adult to me. Adults take responsibility for their actions.

      1. No, honorable people do that. Power-hungry narcissists like Hillary are shining heroes who ruin everything they touch but are surrounded by people to take the fall for them (some willingly, others less so).

  3. HE MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE HE SPOILZ IT FER HILLARY!

    /WaPo

  4. You have to understand that the Washington Post loves the idea of TOP. MEN. to sort out all of life’s complex problems. Because why let people attempt to solve their own problems? Only an Enlightened do-gooding prog like Clinton or Obama knows what’s best for you.

    1. Seen the recent article about how we should change to the “correct” form of democracy, that we’re doing it wrong? The author posited that a random selection of people should be drawn by lots, then educated until it was certain that they were fully knowledgeable on the issues at hand, enough that a reasonable, intelligent decision could be reached, and then have them make all the decisions for us as our representatives. No voting, no ballots, no referendums, etc. Just the opinions and decisions of the highly educated preselected members of society. Democracy? Na, I think there’s another word for that system of government.

    2. If we don’t need the government, we don’t need Washington. If we don’t have Washington, Post subscriptions drop way lower.

  5. It’s the same funny result you always get when someone who despises libertarians and knows absolutely nothing about libertarianism pretends to be an expert on the subject and “analyzes” libertarian positions.

    What are the odds that this wanker has ever even heard of Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises?

    1. Look ,just because someone has never read a libertarian theorist or a libertarian publication or even spoken to a libertarian doesn’t mean they’re ignorant or something. They read Salon and Vox, so they know what’s up.

      1. So they have read from disaffected libertarians, then. Practically experts.

    2. Oh, Sammie, you assume those WaPo editorial writers are ill-informed, rather than knowingly dishonest. THat’s so cute. Remember that WaPo is the local paper in a town where big government is the only industry.

  6. “Editorial board dings Libertarian ticket for “wishful thinking” that libertarian policies could “solve a range of complicated social problems,” even though candidates said no such thing”

    Sounds like ENP, Hazel, and Tony got together and wrote an article about Trump.

    In Johnson’s case, this is actually a good thing–at least they’re paying attention to him.

  7. To borrow from Thomas Sowell, people like the Post editorial board are all about Solutions – what can the government do to Solve this?

    Those with a more “constrained vision” (Sowell again) – even libertarians-lite such as Johnson – focus on “what are the tradeoffs?” and don’t think in terms of the government Solving things.

    The WaPo perhaps thinks everyone else is like them – thinking up Solutions to implement, by which the government Solves problems rather than managing them and doing as much good, or as little harm, as possible.

    1. You know who else believed in government solutions?

      1. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho?

    2. This.

      I’m not speaking with any certainty but I interpret Johnson’s actions and responses as an attempt to be pragmatic. I don’t think any libertarian is calling for an overnight, nation wide conversion to Libertopia Ancapitstan, and Johnson certainly isn’t. It seems like he’s trying to find a way of saying “I can’t promise to fix problems but I’ll do what I know works from experience.”

  8. I wish WaPo applied the same analytical rigor regarding “wishful thinking” to Hillary’s policies.

    1. What are you talking about? There’s nothing wishful about FREE COLLIJ FER EVRYWUN!!!!

    2. If you can find a flaw in the “free college for everyone” plan I’d like to hear it.

      1. If the plan is to require all college personnel to work for free, it seems legit to me.

  9. I reject the fact that libertarians are isolationist. We’re just noninterventionist. The fact that when you get involved in other countries’ affairs, you end up with the unintended consequence?without exception, and please point out an exception?you have the unintended consequence of making things worse, not better.

    More of this, please.

    1. ^This. Or:
      “There are a lot of ways to interact with other countries without breaking things and killing people.”

    2. I reject the fact that libertarians are isolationist.

      Sigh. Then it’s not a fact, it’s a charge.

      1. You are assuming facts can only be true.

        I think of a fact as a type of statement that can either be true or false (or possibly indeterminate).

        As opposed to opinions, in which mine are right and everyone else’s is wrong.

    3. Johnson is on record-in this campaign as supporting widespread “humanitarian interventions” not in the interest of the United States. He’s a center left-Republican Samantha Power.

  10. The black-and-white extremism on climate change is among the most idiotic. Even granting for the sake of argument that it’s a serious issue, the alarmists are unwilling to even consider such factors as economic loss or the alleviation of third-world poverty through industrialization.

    1. That’s because for every useful idiot who honestly believes in CAGW there is one anti-human control freak who wants to take us back to the bronze age. Remember that the emissions-capping people are the reasonable ones here. Many of those people really want to take the world down to a total population of one billion, or lower.

      1. I think it’s telling that most of them are also opposed to GMOs, which offer the possibility of feeding an increasing number of people using less space and fewer resources.

        1. BUT THAT’S UNSUSTAINABLE!

          Unlike the forms of agriculture that preceded it, which were going to kill us all from Malthusian collapse.

      2. Of course they also believe that they will be part of that 1 billion.

  11. I slogged through the entire transcript, and while there’s plenty of the usual Gary ramblings and stumblings, I can’t imagine Hillary or Trump coming close to the coherence and relative thoughtfulness of Johnson/Weld’s responses under the same line of questioning. Jesus.

  12. Imagine any news outlet calling Obama “honest but defective.”

    Racist!!!

  13. “Here’s what he did suggest policy-wise:

    [F]rom a national standpoint: What’s working? What’s not working? What big communities in this country have the best incidence of police?the least incidence of police brutality, shooting, and what are they doing that others aren’t? What’s the consistency or what are the common threads in areas with the most shootings?”

    That’s a policy?

    1. It’s a way of proceeding, so why not call it a policy?

    2. It sure is a better one that beating your chest about the injustice of it all, and your feelz.

    3. Oh, yikes. He wants to exile blacks to Liberia? The Lincoln solution?

  14. You really should stop crying about it, Matt. You want the Libertarian ticket to be taken seriously, and they were. The interviewers gave them every opportunity to explain themselves on a few issues, and they did fine. It’s not as if the Post doesn’t come to critical conclusions about any of the other candidates. Let’s hope Jill Stein gets the chance libertarians got.

    By the way, as far as climate change, good to see Johnson say it’s real and caused by humans. Many here could learn that lesson…commenters and writers.

    1. learn that lesson

      It’s not a lesson. It is, at absolute best, a “fact” but otherwise, a conjecture. “I think you have red hair!” is not a lesson, whether or not you do actually have red hair.

      Moron.

      1. Speaking of commenters who could learn that lesson, how goes it Kbo? Glad you’re still following me around.

        1. I already commented in this thread and many others that weren’t smeared by your presence, you lickspittle imbecile.

          1. Now don’t go away angry, Kbo.

            1. Deal. Now if you would just go away, joe….

              1. If I was you, I wouldn’t read my comments. Heck, you can’t even get who I am correct!

                See you again, I’m sure!

      2. Don’t feed it, k-bol.

        1. grumble

    2. Totes not crying. Pointing out that the Post’s characterizations of Johnson are belied by his own words to them. Which in turn tells us something meaningful about the governing D.C. ideology that dare not speak its own name.

      1. Strasserism?

      2. Don’t feed the trolls Matt. Totes.

      3. In my opinion, you should welcome that criticism, no matter how invalid in your eyes. Dems say the same when the Post criticizes Clinton. And they think unfairly. Get over it.

        At least Johnson and Weld were taken seriously, and given a chance. I agree with the Post on climate change. Johnson is living in a fantasy if he thinks all the improvements have come from the market. Quite honestly, Weld did his best to correct him on that.

        1. Not really.

          You just enjoy taking every opportunity to call anyone who disagrees with you a bitchy whiner.

          As if you’re some kind of paragon for stoic virtue.

          1. Have a great weekend, Brian.

    3. Let’s hope Jill Stein gets the chance libertarians got.

      Jill Stein isn’t even a blip in the polls – I wouldn’t get your hopes up. When she starts polling at 10%, people will start paying attention to her.

      good to see Johnson say it’s real and caused by humans. Many here could learn that lesson…commenters and writers

      Put your goalposts down and leave them there. You’ve been here for months (years?) chastising us for not supporting the US gov/UN-mandated solutions. If you wanted to have a talk about what’s actually going on in the real world, you haven’t ever gone there.

      1. That’s years of complaining about opposition to US/ UN mandated regulations in a totally non-whiney matter, bub.

        1. It has been years, hasn’t it?

          Man, I’m getting old.

          1. Decades technically. At least more than 10 years.

      2. I’ll wait to hear you start whining when Johnson doesn’t get to 15% so he can take part in the debates. Then you’ll be apoectic that percentages squelch important ideas from the minority.

        See you then!

        1. *apoplectic

        2. I’ll wait to hear you start whining when Johnson doesn’t get to 15% so he can take part in the debates.

          Based on what? All the whining about percentages I do here all the time?

          What is your actual point?

          1. It was made. Try again.

            1. So I am correct in assuming that your point is that world is being unfair to Jill Stein and that Gary Johnson is somehow getting favorable treatment and that we should be happy about that?

              Or is your point that you are confident that I will go into an apoplectic whining fit when Gary doesn’t get into the debates, because you know me oh so well and because that’s such an interesting and relevant point to make?

              Why do you come here?

              1. Certainly not to have a dialog with you, that’s for sure. But since you asked, let me make my point just one more time.

                Don’t complain (Matt) about conclusions drawn by the media over the candidate you prefer. Reason draws what are in my opinion incorrect AND dishonest conclusions about candidates I like. You will complain when the media ignores you in the debates.

                Jill Stein? I’m looking forward to the Post interviewing her. But hey, I’m not counting on it. It’s not like they are her only outlet.

                So no, you aren’t correct…but that’s a theme for you.

                Now you’re on your own. Enjoy your weekend!

                1. ” Reason draws what are in my opinion incorrect AND dishonest conclusions about candidates I like.”

                  And your response is quiet contemplation, as it should be.

                  1. Om!

                    1. I just think it’s funny you’re complaining about someone finding fault in something they read online, and writing about it.

                      You know: since that’s your hobby here.

    4. Climate change is real, and has been happening for billions of years…

  15. Every criticism they have for Johnson could be applied ten fold to Trump, and most of them can be applied to Hillary too. In this election, I think the “honest” part is also more important than any election in the past.

  16. Jesus. Libertarians don’t promise to solve your problems. They promise to let you solve them yourself. That is why lefties love to talk about “social problems” which are somehow intractable without the government’s loving hand.

    1. ^^^This

      The whole idea of having people in the government charged with “solving your problems” lets those same people define what those “problems” are.

      I wouldn’t call things like “gun violence” or “illegal immigration” major “problems” like the Dems/Repubs would. They will define anything as a problem so long as it lets them hold more dominion over your life.

      1. The whole idea of having people in the government charged with “solving your problems” lets those same people define what those “problems” are.

        Not just what those problems are, but what the solutions are, as well.

        1. Indeed.

    2. True, but if you’re a confirmed statist and a slavish believer in TOP.MEN., the very idea of ordinary people being empowered to solve their own problems without obtaining their marching orders at gunpoint from elitist intellectuals is simply unthinkable.

      To someone like Diehl, that idea is even scarier than a Trump presidency. I think they would never admit it, but part of the reason libertarianism scares these people so much is that, if it were actually tried, things might start showing substantial improvement across the board. And if that happened, that would then weaken their position going forward and might start reversing the century of gains Progressives have made since Wilson was president.

  17. End the drug war and bring the troops home? What naive foolishness.

    Now, when will libertarians get behind a $15 minimum wage, bathroom stall trans-gender equality, and free college for everyone?

    1. They hate progress!1!!11!!! Rong side of history herstory xerstory.

  18. that was a great interview and i’m now firmly back in the Johnson camp. which is a euphemism for dirty sanchez.

    1. I thought it was a euphemism for a Cleveland steamer?

    2. Yeah, I just can’t stay mad at this guy. Weld on the other hand not so much.

  19. This is nothing. You should see the way the media lies about Trump.

    1. When Trump gets his ass handed to him in November by a woman that everyone knows is a crook, it won’t be because of how the media portrayed him.

      1. It will be because VAGINA.

        We are so gonna wish Ted Cruz was in the race.

    2. You mean Chapman?

  20. WaPo, like most media is predisposed to assuming that politicians are coming with plans to solve all the world’s problems. When a candidate instead comes forward with the proposition of doing the job according to the job description and then acts flip towards their confusion, this is how it is interpreted. Johnson needs to be more clear about the fact that the government can’t solve all your problems, so get to work on them yourself, now. Of course, WaPo wouldn’t take that as serious talk either.

  21. “It is still politically shocking at this late date in Washington’s disastrous 15-year response to 9/11 to suggest that the whole solving-the-problem-with-American-troops approach is counter-productive, or that the very notion of “solving” anything reflects an arrogance and unconscious ideology that have made so much of 21st century governance a disaster.”

    They just weren’t using Smart Power before.

    1. At it’s Best.

  22. So, I assume the Washington Post believes in intelligent design/creationism and that a secret cabal controls the world economy, probably with a series of levers.

    1. 8 levers. The Kochtopus pulls the levers.

  23. Standard fare for progs. Undermine the libertarian platform with deceit. Distort the truth into a grotesque caricature. Prop up strawmen that are easily defeated and proudly trumpet your “victory”. Do any possible thing to avoid tackling the argument being made because if you have to face those arguments honestly, then the bystanders may just start listening to what libertarians have to say. That must be avoided at all costs, because listening to a reasonable argument is the first step to accepting it.

    1. I think they just can’t get their heads around it. The idea that one should consider downstream effects of actions, and not just the intent.

      Hey, there’s that word again!

      1. Recognizing that unintended consequences, perverse incentives, and other counterintuitive issues that require lateral thinking to solve is what separates us from the rest.

        Prog: Drugs are terrible and wreck your health! My kid uses drugs and I want him to stop, so let’s make drugs illegal so they will no longer be available.

        The State: You’re totally right. We’ll put all the drug dealers in jail and kill the ones who resist.

        Prog: Sounds great! Let’s get started right away!

        – one year later –

        Prog: The police killed my son during a raid on a drug den! – or – My son died from using drugs cut with rat poison! – or – My son is in jail and going to lose a decade of his life due to a mandatory minimum sentence!

        The State: Well, he won’t be using drugs anymore, so you got what you wanted, right? He was a bad person anyway. No good person would go to a drug den and consort with criminals. He deserves everything he got from our boys in blue. Anyway, we wouldn’t have had to shoot anyone if our guys were the only ones with guns. It’s because drug dens often have guns in them that we have to shoot first and ask questions later.

        Prog: Oh my god! I had no idea that it was so bad! Let’s ban guns immediately so other parents don’t have to suffer as I do!

        1. Very nicely done. My vote for comment of the week.

      2. I think they just can’t get their heads around it.

        ^ This.

        If I can speak up for Episiarch, never underestimate the amount of denial and projection that operates in people’s political views.

        As Fred Zuccini hints above, the utopians at WaPo literally can’t hear what a libertarian is saying to them. They hear “this guy says he can bring about utopia by doing nothing! Like, if you just give up, utopia will just come about all by itself! These people are incomprehensibly stupid.”

        And then, as icing on the cake, the libertarian gets dismissed as a utopian idealist while the Progressive thinks of ximerself as the “pragmatic realist.”

        What gets completely missed, of course, is that the libertarian never mentioned utopia.

        1. the utopians at WaPo literally can’t hear what a libertarian is saying to them.

          Just like white men can’t hear Jimi Hendrix (and black people can’t hear George Jones).

          1. black people can’t hear George Jones

            RACIST!

  24. “They recently wrote a piece about the rap group, Public Enemy, in which they claimed the Public Enemy said that 9/11 was a joke(meaning the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001). The song they were referring to was “911 Is A Joke,” which came out in 1990 and referred to the 911 emergency phone number service. ”

    Old, but I think it illustrates that WaPo is full of morons.

    http://newsone.com/372642/the-…..is-a-joke/

    1. Is there a link to the actual WaPo story where that error was made?

      1. Here. Correction notice at the top.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01993.html

  25. HIATT: Let me ask about that. Of all the drugs that are illegal, the only you’re favoring legalizing is marijuana.

    JOHNSON: Yes.

    HIATT: Why is that?

    JOHNSON: Well, in my lifetime, I don’t think heroin is going to be legal, and I think there’s a real misunderstanding if you talk about “legal heroin.” Perhaps there’s not a misunderstanding if you talk about “harm reduction strategies” that do work, reducing death, disease, crime, corruption, things that people really care about. And you can look at Zurich as an example, you can look at Vancouver as an example, but it’s a segue into talking about the issue as a health issue as opposed to a criminal justice issue, and there’s only so much that people can digest at one time. I think that legalization of marijuana is going to happen. I think that California this fall will be the tipping point, that Californians will vote to legalize recreational marijuana. Of course it happened here [though] I realize it hasn’t happened in any meaningful way. But that’s going to be a quantum leap forward for the whole country when it comes to understanding the issues surrounding drugs.

    I assume this is Johnson’s well thought out talking point to legalizing drugs after his rambling response on the CNN town hall. Much improved.

    1. Agreed

  26. The problem is having ever expected an “honest hearing” from some outlet like the WaPo or NYT.

    The major news media are mouthpieces of the establishment and nothing more. They are experts in the field of intellectual dishonesty. Of course they’re going to straw-man the libertarian candidates; of course they’re going to put words in their mouths, inject things they didn’t say, elide things they do, and constantly paint any 3rd party candidates as “odd outsiders unfit to play in the Big Leagues”

    If Trump has any redeeming facet to him at all (and its debatable) its his apparent awareness of how the media works, and his disinterest in playing games on their terms. Instead he *uses them* as what they are: publicity outlets. He doesn’t rely on their honesty – just their coverage. And his contempt for their pretended authority is what makes him appealing to many.

  27. Well, so much for Johnson getting even close to 15%. With the MSM doing hatchet jobs like this, he’ll be lucky if he even tops his 2012 vote total. It’s nice that Welch did a good job of debunking The Wa Po’s attempt at character assassination, but how many will read the Wa Po article, and never see this rebuttal, and think “Well, gee, this Gary Johnson guy is a kook. Guess it’s either The Trumpken or the Cankle Queen. Oh well.”?

    I even knew this character assassination shit was going to happen, regardless of who the LP nominee was, but it’s still fucking irritating.

    1. MSM hatchet jobs are now a plus ie Trump.

    2. Any coverage is better than no coverage. No one makes up his or her mind because of what the Post or the Times says, but a lot of people ignore the things the Post and the Times don’t cover.

  28. Christ, the summary came from a whole different dimension than the actual interview.

    Johnson and Weld did a good job. Flawed at points, rambly at points, but on balance very good and thoughtful.

    That interview summary makes it sound like they spent half the interview playing Candy Crush on their phones to occasionally look up and mumble “I dunno, free markets? Less government?”

    It sounded like a Hillary Clinton interview as described by Bill O’Reilly, or a Donald Trump interview as described by Elizabeth Warren.

    1. Any candidate who thinks the epa is salvageable and whose running mate endorses the paris charade is fatally flawed.

  29. LWhen Trump gets his ass handed to him in November by a woman that everyone knows is a crook, it won’t be because of how the media portrayed him.

    Dude- NOT OKAY.

  30. Now this Crap Article is a total plus for Johnson for once.

  31. If commentors here are any indication, “defective” is the least of Johnson’s worries as a Libertarian.

    1. Troll score=1. Try again, dipshit.

  32. Woohoo shred ’em, Matt!

  33. RE: Washington Post, in Dishonest Editorial, Calls Gary Johnson ‘honest but defective’
    Editorial board dings Libertarian ticket for “wishful thinking” that libertarian policies could “solve a range of complicated social problems,” even though candidates said no such thing

    The Washington Post (WaPo) can do no wrong. It has always embraced the politically correct position of increasing The State’s power over the little people time and again. It has always approved of higher taxes, more government bureaucracies, and have never questioned or defamed Dear Leader. The WaPo correctly identified the LP ideals as “wishful thinking” because the masses in this country want just the opposite of what the LP preaches, ie. less government intrusion, personal responsibility, being left alone, following the archaic US Constitution and getting a lot of free shit from Uncle Sugar at the expense of others. Such editorials should be welcomed by all those who are wise enough to accept unquestionably the judicious polices of our socialist slave masters, their cronies, and the merry morons who are stupid enough to believe every word that comes out of their mouths as gospel. The LP must, for the sake of the Glorious People’s Revolution, must be ridiculed, mocked and discredited at every given opportunity if this great nation is to become a true socialist paradise.

  34. Legalizing weed would solve a lot of murders. Someone pisses me off, I want to kill them, I smoke a joint, then either looney tunes or the Three Stooges comes on and I forget that I’m pissed, as long as I have enough chips ahoy left to get me through.

    1. It would prevent a lot of murders too, because less drug gangs.

  35. This is not out of character for anyone operating in the political realm. “Libertarian” is a bizzarro-world handle that describes all things dystopian.

    Talk to a #BLM person and they’ll like as not have an impression of libertarians as members of a neo-nazi group. When you explain that Libertarians were fighting militarization of the police, the drug war, prosecutorial ass-covering, etc. long before many of them were born, you might as well be speaking in martian. “That shit doesn’t happen if you are white” comes up just before you are dismissed from the discussion.

    Or talk to a proggie about gay rights and you won’t make any progress trying to convince them that the Libertarian party was for gay rights and marriage equality long before Clinton I. They’ve already rewritten history and Obama gave us gay marriage and Hillary was with him fighting for it the whole time.

    Reality doesn’t enter into it. Team is everything. There is no set of facts, no smoking gun video tape, nothing on this earth that can penetrate the mental shield that is “team”.

    1. true dat

  36. Wapo just can’t get their heads around the “less is more” concept. Well written critique, wish it was as well distributed as the Waco garbage.

  37. WaPo’s ass clown chicken hawk fuck tard Jackson Diehl:

    Jackson Diehl: What the Iraq war taught me about Syria

    The 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq has prompted plenty of analysis of the mistakes made there, along with a few tendentious claims that “the same people” who supported war in Iraq are now pressing for U.S. intervention in Syria. I’m one of those people. So, to paraphrase the polemicists: Did I learn nothing from the last decade? Do I want to repeat the Iraq “fiasco”?

    Let’s start with the second question. Iraq was unquestionably costly and painful to the United States ? in dollars, in political comity and, above all, in lives, both of Iraqis and Americans. It hasn’t turned out, so far, as we war supporters hoped. Yet in the absence of U.S. intervention, Syria is looking like it could produce a much worse humanitarian disaster and a far more serious strategic reverse for the United States.

    http://tinyurl.com/hkvpu9f

    Fuck you Diehl – go sputter up your chicken hawk ass

  38. I see that other newspapers are reprinting the Washington Post article now and making it appear as if it was their own original insightful analysis. Keep the sheep moving along. Baaaaaa
    Thank you, Matt, for taking the time and effort to post the counter point.

  39. uptil I saw the receipt which was of $4452 , I accept …that…my mom in-law woz like truley bringing home money part time from their laptop. . there neighbour haz done this for only 9 months and resantly paid the loans on there condo and purchased a gorgeous Cadillac . go to this site …..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  40. I think they would never admit it, but part of the reason libertarianism scares these people so much is that, if it were actually tried, things might start showing substantial improvement across the board.

  41. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.ReportMax90.com

  42. I really wish, Gary Johnson would stop using the word “Well” every time he begins a statement.
    Making the same statement without preceding it with “well” is much more affirmative.

  43. Johnson mentioned that he knows Harrison Schmitt who was senator from his state but more importantly the only PhD geologist to walk on the Moon . Schmitt has tried to get thru to Johnson , as I did when we met in 2012 , what a pernicious scientific fraud the left’s AlGoreWarming attack on the building block of life , CO2 , is . It needs to be gotten thru to Johnson & Weld that eKoStatist war on CO2 is a horrendously destructive criminal fraud .

  44. 1. Getting the government out of the way might not solve a range of social problems, but it would be cheaper and at least as effective.

    2. Police forces were militarized largely due to the ineffective War on Drugs. Racism was there all along.

    3. Climate change is real, moderate, and beneficial to human flourishing.

    4. The Islamic State grew out of the chaos resulting from US military interventionism of the kind the Post adores.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.