Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson's Response to a #NeverHillary Bernie Bro Was His Best Townhall Moment Ever

Johnson / Weld's Libertarian Party is a centrist movement that courts moderates on both sides.

|

Johnson
Screenshot via CNN

Libertarian presidential candidate and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson stepped up his CNN townhall game last night, vastly improving on his disastrous previous performance.

This may come as something of a surprise, but his best answer was undoubtedly his response to a disaffected Bernie Sanders supporter who refuses to vote for Hillary Clinton but doesn't know whether she likes the libertarian philosophy.

Johnson said that he agreed with Sanders on about 70 percent of issues. That may seem like far too much ostensible overlap between libertarianism and socialism, but Johnson sold his point. Like Sanders, he supports gay marriage, abortion rights, drug legalization, and an end to military intervention, he said.

He acknowledged that he has a different economic philosophy than Sanders: in Johnson's worldview, trade and capitalism are good things. But he skillfully drew a distinction between free market, equal-opportunity capitalism and the toxic brand of corporate cronyism peddled by the Hillary Clintons and Donald Trumps of the world. I don't know whether Johnson will capture the vote of the person who answered the question, but it's no surprise that the Libertarian ticket seems to be pulling in more people from the left than from the right, given answers like this one.

Indeed, throughout the townhall, both Johnson and his running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, seemed far more comfortable courting anti-Clinton lefties than #NeverTrump Republicans—which is ironic, given that both men are former Republicans themselves. In particular, Johnson and Weld refused to throw any bones to social conservatives: they oppose religious freedom protections, a notable departure from libertarian doctrine.

The Johnson/Weld Libertarian Party is one that ignores the hardcore libertarian position to the extent that the hardcore libertarian position might alienate moderate voters—on prostitution, discrimination, and domestic terrorism, for example. They are recasting libertarianism as a centrist philosophy that rejects the extremism of both parties in favor of something that they believe is broadly popular with the American public: social tolerance and fiscal responsibility.

It's an interesting strategy, and one that may leave Johnson/Weld as the most appealing option to a vast cross-section of American voters who can't stomach Clinton or Trump. But I think the Libertarian candidates should go after #NeverTrump Republicans with greater fervor than they did tonight. The Republican Party failed to nominate a candidate who represents its values in any sense whatsoever. Johnson and Weld are welcome to preach their socially-liberal bona fides to the left, but they should also make a concerted effort to remind frustrated conservatives that there is a Republican on the ballot. He just doesn't have an (R) next to his name anymore.

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.

181 responses to “Gary Johnson's Response to a #NeverHillary Bernie Bro Was His Best Townhall Moment Ever

  1. Correction: New Mexico former governor, not Arizona.

    1. Of course, thanks

      1. All those desert states are the same to you, aren’t they!

        1. The race is a dry heat.

          1. Oh my god. Thank you

          2. Dry heave is more like it.

      2. Do you even libertarian, brah?

    2. I’m making over $16k 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,… Copy This Link inYour Browser…. http://www.Trends88.Com

    3. I’m making over $16k 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,… Copy This Link inYour Browser…. http://www.Trends88.Com

  2. To me it’s simple: never trump cons are so cons and neoconservatives. Neither like peace and social tolerance. Screw em.

    1. So is opposing religious freedom social tolerance?

      1. Can’t win them all.

      2. I have a hard time seeing how they can be categorically reconciled.

    2. Sorry, but that’s BS. I guess you’ve never heard of fiscal conservatism.
      Don’t be so quick to “screw em” when you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

    3. I’m “never trump” and I love peace… through the strength of the most fearsome military possible that I hope must never step foot on foreign soil.

      I also believe The First Amendment protects religious freedom, so much so that so-called “social tolerance” sometimes must take a back seat.

      I’m open to a reasonable discussion. But if you’re going to lambaste with such a broad generalization, and then make such a cynical statement as “screw em,” then I’m not sure there’s one to be had.

  3. John’s theme park is selling tickets and they drip the blood of old records and ravens living in basements tap dancing on the chest of their dead peoples… I know this because I saw a dimple of hope shimmering beside a rusty child-forsaken idea of john and agile ran toward this ever so slight beam and stepped steeply into a cloud of mystery where all my elbows grew rocket ships and my goddamn brain got blurry and blizzard head….

    1. To run the stream down was a noble aim, as it twisted and writhed heavy with the most recent fall, but there was no nobility about him beyond title and lineage, so he swagger ed down the angry bank to eat the fruit and sap the juice instead.

      1. the rust arms of the gods
        spent their fuel and rested helpless on
        the prayers of the children
        waiting gently until the comet foxes
        ran unto the dream fears of the Spencer family
        and so the tall trees collapsed and the moon and sun
        shed tears for the knowing falling of spencer diomes
        and so it begins and the pale drums fall and the weak
        trees fall and the ghastly whited nightmares become released
        into thee lightning goddamn motherfucking sandman of hell
        that is the flame hell of power ….

        fukya

        1. And having supped and sucked and stupored beyond the squirrelled banks and into the white rushing anger, the cyborg thought, for softened moment, of going under to take deeply the bland life rage to his burning lungs. Instead he stood, pumpkin flesh and liquid, with his convictions between the rages and natural expectations. He smelled the eagle earth and tasted of feathers on the other side.

          1. The Old King dropped into a familiar field.
            It was the place where he had died and given birth. To himself.
            But he was the Old King now, no more renewals awaited him.

            Save one.

            He cocked the pistol, fastened it in his mouth, and had his last supper

    2. I saw the best minds of the commentariat, destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical, naked,,,

      1. Commie

      2. It always tickles me when I think of all the different political philosophies the Beats had. Allen Ginsberg was total communist (obviously, Karlo Marx), Burroughs was a complete libertarian, and Kerouac was an Eisenhower Republican.

        Artists today only accept propaganda as art.

        1. I can still enjoy Ginsberg’s work even with his politics, a lot harder with today’s writers.

  4. Here are the headings on Bernie Sanders’ issues page, where’s the 70% which Johnson agrees with?

    INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY
    IT’S TIME TO MAKE COLLEGE TUITION FREE AND DEBT FREE
    GETTING BIG MONEY OUT OF POLITICS AND RESTORING DEMOCRACY
    CREATING DECENT PAYING JOBS
    A LIVING WAGE
    COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE TO SAVE THE PLANET
    A FAIR AND HUMANE IMMIGRATION POLICY
    RACIAL JUSTICE
    FIGHTING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
    FIGHTING FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS
    WORKING TO CREATE AN AIDS AND HIV-FREE GENERATION
    FIGHTING FOR LGBT EQUALITY
    EMPOWERING TRIBAL NATIONS
    CARING FOR OUR VETERANS
    MEDICARE FOR ALL
    STRENGTHEN AND EXPAND SOCIAL SECURITY
    FIGHTING TO LOWER PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES
    FIGHTING FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS
    SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS’ PLAN FOR PUERTO RICO
    STANDING WITH GUAM
    PREVENTING A GLOBAL RACE TO THE BOTTOM IN THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY
    GENERAL ELECTRIC MUST PAY TO RESTORE THE HUDSON RIVER
    CONSTITUTION PIPELINE MUST BE DEFEATED
    SUPPORTING HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
    ENDING THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM
    FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHTS OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS
    IMPROVING THE RURAL ECONOMY
    FIGHTING FOR NURSES
    REFORMING WALL STREET
    REAL FAMILY VALUES
    WAR AND PEACE
    WAR SHOULD BE THE LAST OPTION: WHY I SUPPORT THE IRAN DEAL
    MAKING THE WEALTHY, WALL STREET, AND LARGE CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE
    HOW BERNIE PAYS FOR HIS PROPOSALS

    1. He’s referencing his score on isidewith.com

      1. Take a drink every time he mentions that dumb website.

    2. fuck ton of capitals. lovely creature
      but that capital man is sort of inconsequential…
      and so off and so? my eyes cannot even focus on the tons of hearts of your capital screams…
      peace

    3. “Standing with Guam”? “Fighting for nurses”?

      As opposed to “Fighting for Guam” and “Standing with nurses”?

      1. I’d rather lay down with them.

      2. Fighting Guam. Standing on nurses.

    4. STANDING WITH GUAM

      Until it tips over.

    5. You get the big money out of politics by stripping officials enough power to render them not worth paying for.

    6. Standing with Guam, obviously. Neither of them wants it to tip over.

    7. If you just take the headings at face value and forget that Sanders is an unrepentant socialist, you can get >70% agreement. For example,

      MAKING THE WEALTHY, WALL STREET, AND LARGE CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE

      … by lowering the tax burden which unfairly has more than 80% of the income taxes paid by less than 20% of the people.

      That’s not what Bernie means, of course, but it would follow from a literal interpretation of “fair share”.

      1. Note that this is of course just rhetorical judo and would require some substantial additional arguments to have any chance at convincing somebody who thinks Bernie is right.

      2. Define “fair share.” Some people out there seem to think it’s unfair for anyone to have a crying dollar more than they themselves do.

    8. I went to isidewith.com and got about 60% or 70% with Bernie Sanders. I had over 90% with GayJo I think. Donald Trump was fairly close to Bernie Sanders but a little lower if I remember correctly.

      1. Candidates you side with…
        94% Gary Johnson

        79% Donald Trump

        75% Darrell Castle

        60% Jill Stein

        44% Hillary Clinton

  5. Gary Johnson is a deep valley still
    boiling the dreams of illegal goddamn
    shady liquor on the desert plains and
    rippling hills of goddamn rock river fucking
    town hall spaceships and GJ finger
    times shredding the invisible hills, nigga

  6. they oppose religious freedom protections, a notable departure from libertarian doctrine.

    The LP is rejecting a key part of libertarian doctrine. Libertarian Moment

    Also is opposition to religious freedom a definition of “social liberalism”?

    They are recasting libertarianism as a centrist philosophy that rejects the extremism of both parties in favor of something that they believe is broadly popular with the American public: social tolerance and fiscal responsibility.

    How exactly is “social tolerance and fiscal responsibility” rejecting the “extremes”? For one thing I thought “anti-government” sentiment is something the Republicans are “extreme” at?

    So basically Libertarians will be moralist busybodies who will spend less than the Democrats want. Libertarian Moment!

    1. They are doing a soft shoe routine around issues they won’t be able to impact from the Oval Office anyway. They are turning down the crazy to get quantity voter overy quality this time. It’s working.

      1. I still wonder how they intend to cut spending and regulations. Even the mildest spending cuts and deregulation have been viciously attacked as no different than genocidal and they want to be “pragmatic centrists” so…

      2. How is it working when they are getting at most 12% in the polls against the worst two candidates in American history. Johnson was at 8% at this point in 2012.

        If they wanted to downplay the more “extreme” LP issues to get quantity they would go after the #NeverTrump vote, which should be easier and has a higher ceiling, compared to trying to skim off Bernie voters from Hillary. (Not that they’re competent at that either, but it seems to be what they’re trying to do.) One can be forgiven for thinking they just prefer the company of liberals to that of conservatives.

        1. Exaclty. No way they would be higher trying to out crazy the crazies. Sane and competent is a winning strategy.

          1. Bernie Bros are the crazies.

            1. Yeah, that’s what doesn’t make sense about Johnson’s strategy. The anti-Hillary lefties are mostly interested in economic socialism. Where they agree with libertarians, like with pot legalization, these policies are tertiary at best. Economics frankly is 90% of what matters anyway, so I’d preger a free market socon who is anti gay marriage than a socialist who supports it because frankly the economy is more important than gay marriage. Foreign policy is the only important thing on which libertarians may generally agree with sanders types, and that’s just not enough.

              1. Economics may be “90% of what matters” according to a utilitarian metric, but if utilitarian metrics were themselves “what mattered” then there would be no libertarianism ? no principled political philosophy of liberty. We’d all just be opposing the war on drugs because it doesn’t make economic sense.

                From a moral perspective, there’s no way your quantification is remotely correct for America today. The biggest moral issue on the economic side of things is the existence of income taxes. This is not insignificant, but it is certainly not 9 times more significant than the mass incarceration of violators of non-crime prohibitions.

                1. Also, a truly sophisticated and well-versed Reasonoid might argue that ultimately, *all* freedoms are economic freedoms, and vice versa.

                  Such a Reasonoid could be excused for prioritizing “economic issues” above all else. This same Reasonoid could not, however, be excused for incorrectly and arbitrarily excluding “pot legalization” from “economics”.

                  I detect quite a bit of personal interest bias going on here. While that is of course excusable for any libertarian, it doesn’t strengthen your positions at all.

                  1. Everyone is utilitarian when it comes to politics, they just disagree over which policies have greater utility.

                    For example, one could take the deontological position and say freedom of speech and freedom of religion are the big ‘sine qua nons’ and that Gary Johnson isn’t worth supporting because he opposes freedom of bakers not to bake cakes (and to my knowledge has not expressed an opinion on the Citizens United decision, pertaining to freedom of speech).

                    The truth is, not all rights are equally important. A law saying you can’t wear a brown baseball cap from 11:55-11:58PM on Tuesdays is not as big a problem as a law saying you can’t buy bread from anyone but the government. I would also note it is easier to avoid the repercussions of the illegality of pot (by not smoking pot) than it is to avoid the repercussions of socialist economic policies (you’d have to stop working or buying things to avoid those).

                    More over, plenty of on the fence Dems are either indifferent or opposed to drug legalization (I’m sure some would even refer to the their social politics to justify such an opposition). Most are fine with sending men to debtor’s prison for failing to pay child support, plenty would send people to prison for openly expressing disbelief in global warming or for catcalling or some other trivial offense. Over all, I think the overlap in principles between this audience (‘dissident’ Democrats who don’t like Clinton) and libertarians is smaller than often believed.

              2. There’s no such animal as a free market social conservative. Some talk it, but they don’t walk it.

          2. Sane and competent is a winning strategy.

            Citation please.

        2. Johnson goes from 8″ to 12″ just like in the ads in my inbox. Winning!

        3. How is it working when they are getting at most 12% in the polls against the worst two candidates in American history. Johnson was at 8% at this point in 2012.

          12% is more than 8% isn’t it?
          We also have to contend with the fact that Trump is so fucking horrible that many people are voting for Hillary because they think that Trump must be stopped. We have to convince them that Johnson’s not a spoiler for Hillary now.

          1. Isn’t the best way to do that to court republicans who hate both trump and Hillary, but maybe hate Hillary even more? By targeting democrats he is doing exactly what you say, positioning himself as a spoiler for Hillary.

        4. Democrats seem marginally but definitively more tribal than Republicans. Democrats will absolutely always fall in line, whereas it’s not unusual to see Republicans reject other Republicans for a variety of reasons.

          So, there’s much more likelihood of nabbing votes from the GOP than from the Dems.

  7. I don’t know whether Johnson will capture the vote of the person who answered the question…

    Well shit, I hope he get at least the one vote.

    1. Also, the person ASKED the question.

      Maybe The Hair was in his eyes.

  8. The candidates should not “go after” anyone. Enough strategizing. They just need to articulate basic libertarian principles and tie them to current issue. And then attract voters to their position. They should not be burdened with strategizing how to pick off voters from this party or that because frankly, they just aren’t smart enough and will only mess things up. Enough fucking strategery.

    1. This is the most competent thing I have read from you. Good job.

      1. *squints*

        If you are a true Scotsman, you can get me some IRN-Bru, right?

        yours aye,

        Swiss

  9. OK, so we need to spend on the War on Terror, I see that…and spend more jobs programs for African-Americans…and on the DEA to enforce the bans on those hard drugs Johnson says he won’t legalize…and on the EEOC to enforce an expanded Civil Rights Act with even more protected classes…

    Where does the fiscal conservatism and budget-cutting come in?

    1. Well they said they’d do a 20% budget cut across the board. Maybe that includes their new programs?

      1. I’m guessing these promises might bump up against each other…

      2. Increasing spending at a slower rate = draconian cut, according to the current lot in Washington, so not sure how 20% across the board could conceivably get through.

    2. No more Cowboy Poetry Festival funding?

      1. You must be one of those nihilist extremists.

    3. Johnson does have an actual history of vetoing a lot of spending bills. Although I feel like he has largely, if only rhetorically, separated himself from his gubernatorial past, and seems to be casting his Presidential campaign as more “contemporary middle of the road” than “what I’ve done in the past and will continue to do”.

    4. A’s and high B’s on fiscal policy from the Cato Institute should be pretty strong (for both Johnson and Weld as governors).

    5. The Fusionist|8.3.16 @ 11:45PM|#

      OK, so we need to spend on the War on Terror, I see that…and spend more jobs programs for African-Americans…and on the DEA to enforce the bans on those hard drugs Johnson says he won’t legalize…and on the EEOC to enforce an expanded Civil Rights Act with even more protected classes…

      Where does the fiscal conservatism and budget-cutting come in?

      Where does the libertarianism come in?

  10. Alt-text: “Feels bad man”.

  11. if your eyes bleed angels
    your lines should kiss the lips of comets
    if your fingers bleed suicides
    your lines should kiss the cape of deep scythe…

  12. swinging forever vanes and odd perceptions
    rife into the lost elbows and swinging disturbs
    of wall echoes smashed behind lines and dreams
    seeking to kill us in dog brains but let us not be dead
    bleeding the odd nature o f bullshit hells and goddamn
    scream lines and hells

      1. Cat video

        (I don’t know if it’s NSFW because I don’t understand the words)

  13. “I get why people would think she’s a liar.” The poor guy is constantly in fear that everyone is laughing at him.

  14. Johnson is a ramp of goddamn driab swift. Triple swift clock sun down chased doublers…..
    all thise nite fill very deeo
    ;sp tigfe

  15. This advice is sincerely meant…why can’t Johnson send Weld on a fact-finding mission in a deep underground cave without Internet or media access?

    Weld can come to the surface and report back on, say, November 9.

    1. I think the average independent voter watching the CNN town hall would wonder why Weld wasn’t at the top of the ticket. He definitely appealed more to the traditional middle-of-the-road politics voter.

  16. all thos lighting have to lost bord underdlesh…

  17. Other than 100 new FBI agents, they didn’t promise massive new spending or infrastructure programs or multi billion dollar projects. I just wish they’d say that explicitly. Of course you’ll lose the votes of the people who depend on these programs. But you’ll win more from the people who have to pay for it. And people are not as self-centered as they want you to think. They are trying so hard just to be liked. I really have a hard time imagining Johnson vetoing anything. “Are you sure I can veto this? Will your feelings be hurt? Will you still like me?”

    1. He’s vetoed lots of stuff before…was he always this sensitive?

      1. Keep in mind that when Gary Johnson was governor of NM, Bill Clinton was saying that the era of big government was over, Newt Gingrich was shutting down the government, and Donald Trump was married to Marla Maples.

        So the LP shills saying he’s going to be like he was 20 years ago are hard to believe. Not that it matters since he has no chance of winning.

        1. It’d probably be better to say “Gary Johnson” shills rather than “LP shills” since many people in the LP don’t like Gary Johnson.

          1. Gary Johnson is the libertarian party. He appeals to the base because he was elected to represent them. Same rules apply as in the case of trump.

  18. I assume his “best response ever” to progressives also included a reference to Soave’s coiff in order to get that title in the article…. because he is starting to move increasingly away from some pretty fundamental libertarian values in order to draw mindless progressives to his cause. I suspect he’ll start losing a libertarian vote for every progressive vote he gains… on the upside true libertarians would likey vote for him anyway, given the alternatives… He migbt even get to Ross Perot levels of voters. yay

    1. I suspect he’ll start losing a libertarian vote for every progressive vote he gains

      HAHAHAHA!

      Up to all 15 of us.

  19. Gary Johnson’s Response to a #NeverHillary Bernie Bro Was His Best Townhall Moment Ever

    It was a woman.

    1. Don’t you oppress xer!

    2. Bernie Ho.

  20. “…Johnson and Weld are welcome to preach their socially-liberal bona fides to the left, but they should also make a concerted effort to remind frustrated conservatives that there is a Republican on the ballot. He just doesn’t have an (R) next to his name anymore.”

    Not sure they are a Republican; GOPers seem more interested in who is sticking what in someone’s something.
    Last cite for, oh, cutting spending? I’m waiting.

    1. The Tea Party protested against wasteful spending so at least up until 2014. And considering that the current GOP candidate is is a serial adulterer on his third marriage, yet plenty of the base is OK it seems like people are OK with people putting their whatevers into whatevers. Even a lot of Socons seem to at least acknowledge that gay marriage isn’t a winning fight.

      OTOH, most of Trump’s fights arguments are about immigration, terrorism, the economy and PC culture. Socon arguments are really a small part of it, outside of the stupid bathroom arguments.

  21. they oppose religious freedom protections, a notable departure from libertarian doctrine.

    yeah, it really stands out from all their other departures from libertarian ‘doctrine’

    also – how ‘doctrine’ is it, really?

    Last i checked, many writers here have been all over the map on the topic.

    the closest to any consensus being, “we like the idea of it, but we tend to have problems when it actually comes time to put it to any serious test

    1. Yeah, the “religeous freedom protection” laws are a real tar baby of a trap. The intent of many of their supporters is clearly to forward some strange anti-gay discrimination agenda, more than protecting any liberty. So if you jump in on their side you get tarred with all of their baggage. And those opposing this sort of protection are dominated by political hacks and permanently-aggrevied activist class twits. So it is tough to come down on their side, since no amount of compromise wins anything.

      They will just move on to the next greivance…… witness the very existence of this stupid food-for-gay-weddings issue. After winning on gay marriage, the permanently aggreived immediately went out seeking anyone they could pillorie for having qualms about participating in a gay marriage.

      You can never be “right” on this issue – even though a true libertarian stance across the board would be the correct stance. Both sides of the argument are going to be pissed by that answer, losing you way more than it gains you.

      1. Exactly. Johnson is wisely avoiding getting into an argument about gay cake that cannot possibly gain him anything and will only distract from economic issues which is where he really can draw a contrast with both Trump and Hillary.

        They are trying to present this picture of “socially liberal, fiscally conservative”. It’s a simple, straightforward message. You don’t want to complicate it by getting into a complex discussion of anti-discrimination law.

        They need to emphasize that they are the only fiscal conservatives on the stage from this point forward.
        They need to spend as much time as possible talking about economic issues. They’ve got the socially liberal bona-fides out there. They need to change the subject to economics.

        1. Loses the reason vote.

    1. I imagine they’ll do anything team clinton tells them to do.

      They’re already scheduling the debates at times when the DNC prefers – and aims to get least coverage.

      if they think having more bodies on stage makes her look better, and provides more arguments against trump that *she* doesn’t have to make, they might see that as a win-win.

      Everyone knows the more she talks, the less people like her. she probably thinks letting JohnsonStein on 1 or 2 might take heat off her.

      1. But consider the historical significance – it’s the first time a Johnson was on stage in prime time since Dan Rather’s unfortunate “wardrobe malfunction” in 1985!

        1. And before that it was the Tricky Dick moment in ’71!

          1. LBJ was never “on stage in primetime”? Man, if there was ever a prez whose last name matched his character….

      2. The debate schedule was finalized last September, when Trump had just declared and was taken seriously by almost noone. and the CPD is half Republican.

        1. here

          a Democratic 2016 campaign adviser who spoke to Business Insider said they believe the Democratic National Committee’s debate schedule was “worked out” to benefit Hillary Clinton and hurt her opponents.

          The adviser, who requested anonymity in order to speak frankly about the party’s campaign arm, suggested the DNC is hosting a small number of debates in an attempt to give Clinton’s more low profile rivals “less screen time.” They also suggested the relatively late schedule of the debates will make it harder for Clinton’s lesser known opponents to introduce themselves to voters.

          “Six is less than a bare minimum,” the adviser said.

          The DNC announced its debate plans on Tuesday. It will sanction six debates beginning in the fall. and will bar candidates who participate from entering debates sponsored by other groups. According to the adviser, at least one of Clinton’s opponents asked for there to be more than six debates.

          “While a six sanctioned debate schedule is consistent with the precedent set by the DNC during the 2004 and 2008 cycles, this year the DNC will further manage the process by implementing an exclusivity requirement,”…”Any candidate or debate sponsor wishing to participate in DNC debates, must agree to participate exclusively in the DNC-sanctioned process.”

          1. said they believe the Democratic National Committee’s debate schedule was “worked out” t

            DNC != CPD

            That article is about the Dem primary debates, not the general election.

              1. I don’t think you can get away with “oops” after being a total assface in the comment below.

        2. Your claim ends up being about 20% accurate on the technical details, but still completely wrong on the issue of “why was it done this way”.

          Which is an improvement from your prior comment about gay-jay’s polling.

          You’re developing a buttplug-esque track-record. That you, shreeky?

          1. I didn’t even make a claim about why it was done this way.

            The selection of the debate schedule may have been intended to get fewer viewers, but the Clinton campaign could not have done it without GOP agreement.

            1. Yes. So what you’re saying is, remove “when the DNC prefers” from my above comment, and there’s no substantial difference.

  22. The Republican Party failed to nominate a candidate who represents its values in any sense whatsoever.

    (Emphasis added.)

    The Trump Derangement Syndrome around here continues. I guess the Second Amendment, fewer government regulations, and ending Obamacare don’t represent Republican values? Or supporting judges who believe in the Constitution? Or standing up to political correctness? Or opposing mass immigration by people who want bigger government, if not sharia law?

    Of course Trump has many flaws, from a GOP or libertarian perspective, but let’s not go overboard, Robby.

    1. Donald Trump represents Donald Trump’s personal values. They may or may not be in alignment with those of any political party.

      1. His values are the best anyways. Not like all the losers.

    2. Or opposing mass immigration by people who want bigger government, if not sharia law?

      This is the only thing I believe Donald Trump will actually, consistently, uphold. I predict he will, if elected, not follow through on any of the other things. We will probably get a new assault weapons ban after some horrific shooting, we will probably get an increased minimum wage, the ACA will be left mostly intact, and half the judges he appoints will make John Roberts look like an arch-conservative. And the degree to which he “stands up to political correctness” will be matched by the degree to which he is perpetually offended.

      … and yet he will still be miles better than Hillary. That is his only real selling point, and he needs to do better at selling it.

      1. Fortunately, he has pissed off enough republicans that congress won’t roll over for him on such things.

    3. Judges? He doesn’t seem like he gives a shit and therefore would give the Senate GOP whoever they wanted (which could either be a good thing or a bad thing from a libertarian perspective).

      The Second Amendment he’s not gonna do anything on unless the Left is able to mobilize enough public support for their position on removing people’s 2nd Amendment rights for being on the “NO-Fly” list. Trump has already indicated he favors this, but I doubt he’d actually push this because it would divide the GOP.

      Fewer Government Regulations? Fewer than Clinton, definitely! Deregulating though? I’m less certain. His call for punishing companies who “move jobs” overseas makes me skeptical that he’ll restrain government intervention in the economy.

      Ending Obamacare? Yeah except he said he’d replace it with Universal Healthcare and promised that “We’re gonna take care of everybody.” He also promised to not go after Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defended Planned Parenthood against budget cuts in a REPUBLICAN Debate.

      So I’ll say that you’re right. He doesn’t break away too much from Republican Values in the sense that he’s no different from their last two nominees and the last Republican President. He’s a Big Government “compassionate conservative” who plans on giving us bigger government. It just seems new because this time he’s adding in Trade and listening to his party’s base on immigration.

      1. I just want justices who will follow the Constitution without the urge to reinterpret it into oblivion.

    4. fewer government regulations

      citation needed

      1. Schicklgruber, Liebknecht, and Smith, 1987, Journal of Applied Studies.

  23. Who is pro domestic terrorism? Johnson or Hard core Libertarians?

  24. I think there’s hay to be made with left-populists by making the completely libertarian promise to go after crony capitalism, rent-seeking, and regulatory regimes designed to favor incumbents and large corporations.

    If Sanders had his way, he’d actively be hamstringing corporations and replacing their function with more government – but I think there are a number of his supporters that would be happy with merely removing corporate subsidies, unshackling smaller businesses, and punching rent-seekers in the mouth, as long as you disguise it as campaigning for fairness and equality rather than small government.

    1. think there’s hay to be made with left-populists by making the completely libertarian promise to go after crony capitalism, rent-seeking, and regulatory regimes designed to favor incumbents and large corporations.

      No, there isn’t. The left-populists really don’t care about crony capitalism and they are regulatory fanatics. They will see right through that and yell “deregulation! capitalism!”

      That stuff is there only to soften the message for the sake of center-left liberals who aren’t committed anti-free-market types. it’s the “market liberal” who doesn’t want to come out in favor of unbridled capitalism who is the audience, not the left-populist.

      1. You just gotta package it right. Talk up the women who want to make money braiding hair without having to spend thousands on licenses and beauty college tuition. Or defending Uber/Lyft/Airbnb and all the jobs they’re providing for people who need the money.

  25. I don’t think Johnson is going to have to try to pull the Never Trumpers by the end of it. Trump will do that himself. He needs to get Dems in order to swing a state to himself or Trump and keep her from hitting 270.

    1. Ignore the conservatives, and appeal to the progressives. Classic LP move.

      1. Conservatives are never going to embrace a party that wants to legalize drugs and prostitution.
        You want to appeal to centrists of all stripes.

        1. +1 William F. Buckley.

        2. If libertarians like Gary can keep mute their commitment to free market policies to appease the left, they can hold their tongue on prostitution a bit. With the right marketing, disenfranchised conservatives could be a real voting block for the LP.

        3. I disagree. Hardline socons are not the bulk of the GOP voters. Most are like my father: they want lower taxes and smaller government. Their social illiberalism even largely boils down to a disgust at seeing a bunch of men in jean skirts fondling each other during pride parades. Many however are divorcees who grew up in the 60s and smoked pot (like my dad). The evangelicals will shit their pants, but your garden variety republican will likely overlook pot and prostitution legalization, if their wives don’t give them hell for it. Conservative culture tolerated prostitution in many countries for centuries. I don’t think it’s as big of a deal breaker for the rank and file as evangelicals would like us to believe.

    2. I have news. Congress is not going to pick Johnson for President.

  26. I don’t know whether Johnson will capture the vote of the person who answered the question, but it’s no surprise that the Libertarian ticket seems to be pulling in more people from the left than from the right, given answers like this one.

    Seriously, this is just pure bullshit, and only a Robby like faux libertarian Fruit Sushi eating little shit would be push it.

  27. but it’s no surprise that the Libertarian ticket seems to be pulling in more people from the left than from the right

    I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if it is that will upset Republicans. After all, if Trump loses their strategy of blaming libertarians will be even more ludicrous than it usually is.

  28. Johnson said that he agreed with Sanders on about 70 percent of issues.

    Probably the most completely honest thing he has ever said in his life.

  29. If at the end of the day the issue (false imho) of religious liberty vs public accomodation laws keep the #nevertrumps from voting for Johnson, so be it.

    As to J/W not being libertarian enough, ok there too. Which would you rather have, a “L” get 1% or a “l” pull 15 or 20%? This is more than a 2016 battle for the WH. This is a battle to change broad swaths of American political views. There will be others in the future that can build on the ground work being built today. First and foremost has to be to get the majority of people to at least consider your party’s ideas and J/W are doing that.

    1. ^^^ This person gets it. Even on a “diluted” platform, this is by far the most seriously a Libertarian ticket has even been taken. Reagan ran under a pro-immigrant Big Tent banner and look what happened for him.

      We can all sit around all day shouting TAXATION IS THEFT and quoting Mises and linking to Cato, but at some point, someone has to put on their pants and walk to the door of their studio apartment in DC, look at the White House and say “…how do we get there from here.”

    2. ^^^ This person gets it. Even on a “diluted” platform, this is by far the most seriously a Libertarian ticket has even been taken. Reagan ran under a pro-immigrant Big Tent banner and look what happened for him.

      We can all sit around all day shouting TAXATION IS THEFT and quoting Mises and linking to Cato, but at some point, someone has to put on their pants and walk to the door of their studio apartment in DC, look at the White House and say “…how do we get there from here.”

      1. A valid point and I mostly agree, but part of me suspects that in the end you’d have to give up everything that matters to get there.

        If Johnson actually ever wins, I think between the concessions he’ll have to make and the constraints imposed by congress, he’d end up getting pot more legalized, and not much else. Spending will go up slightly less than usual maybe? But it won’t be the great victory we seek.

        1. Maybe they don’t win the white house, but maybe they can shift the debate.

        2. That’s the mistake so many people make regard to politics. There are very very rarely any “great victories” and even those often turn out to be not so great. You take what you can get.

          1. Meh, I don’t know that anything can be gotten right now. Truth be told I think Johnson’s mainly just benefiting from the fall out from the two main candidates being unprecedentedly reprehensible, and being the most recognizable third party candidate. It’s more of a fluke than a trend. Maybe some use can be made of it, but I have my doubts.

        3. Of course. In the end everybody gives up everything that matters to get there. That’s exactly how we spent the last hundred or so years getting to this point.

    3. True dat. Let’s get people associating libertarianism with good things that aren’t too far from what they’re used to now, positions that we used to refer to as “centrist” or “moderate” before those words meant just slightly to the right of Mao. Right now people talk about far left Democrats or moderate Republicans or old-school Democrats vs. Progressive Democrats, “liberal” Republicans vs. “conservative” Republicans, but nobody but actual libertarians see libertarianism as anything other than a weird subtype of far right Republicans. That’s not gonna work.

      We’ve got to get people thinking about libertarianism as a discrete political ideology, with its own sub-groups (Paleo vs Cosmo, An-cap vs “Nightwatchman” vs minarchist, etc.) that share certain common assumptions and beliefs. You can’t do that if you have every libertarian believing they’re the only “true” libertarian. It’s like a bunch of people trying to explain the concept of a sailboat to someone and getting into arguments about a boat vs a ship vs a vessel, differences in rigging, numbers of masts, etc.

  30. “they should also make a concerted effort to remind frustrated conservatives that there is a Republican on the ballot”

    They did this openly in 2008 and 2012. Johnson even ran in the Republican primary. They were alternative laughed at and patted on the head, as though they were children. Republicans have always regarded libertarians as the dopey/naive hangers-on of the republican party. Screw ’em.

    1. I just don’t understand why the nevertrumpers won’t vote LP. It’s a complete mystery.

      1. Because they are arrogant fuckwads who are convinced their vote is all that stands between Trump and the white house.

        1. Don’t blow us off so quickly. There are many millenials like myself who find a home in the R’s in our youth because it is the only option to see our philosophy maybe reach impact. Look to a few senators and congressman who arrived with the tea party. We held our breath and voted R to make it count even though we were truly libertarians always. We’ve watched utter failure of R’s in the past 5 years and then the most dispicable human being captured the nomination when Paul, Walker and Cruz were on the same stage. Millenial R’s are almost all libertarians (look at polling reflecting this), because we don’t give a shit about “social issues” and reject out right militarism with any cursory thinking on the issue. I’m a #nevertrumper who is a libertarian. Gary just needs to get way way more vocal about guns and free speech, mostly guns.

  31. Again, Gary Johnson needs to do a series of well-written, well-staged policy speeches, to make him look more presidential, but also to give him better interview/stump speech/talking points material.

    Johnson is still an awful talker. For example, he keeps using the confusing line ‘cronyism is alive and well’, as if it’s a good thing. Or make a mess of the ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ cliche. He does come across like someone who smoke too much weed.

    He needs to sit down with writers and translate his positions into logically transparent language.

    1. Today’s ” philosophy” is grounded only in the principles of social justice and political correctness. Libertarians can’t grow debating the finer points of their philosophy to an ignorant and unfocused populace. Any “coaching” that must be done needs to focus on real concrete examples of both excesses of government and successful corrections whomever makes them. A new “free to choose” for today’s populace is the only hope to break through.

      What kind of Justice do you want?
      Shall we rehash the awfulness of Weld’s answer…
      Instead…I want a justice who follows the constitution. Sotomeyer made the correct choice in….when…..; Kennedy made the right decision in….when….

      Members of congress?
      Maybe even more awful statement again by Weld
      Instead I can work with Booker and Paul on criminal justice, with Ron wydan on privacy and freedom of speech, etc etc citing examples

      Libertarian principles are winners but they must be applied to concrete exanples that interest both left and right.

      Someone really must do a “free to choose” series for my generation

  32. So part of the problem is Johnson and Weld, and part of the problem is libertarians.

    Johnson and Weld both have experience and have been Republicans, which shows that they’re people who are familiar not only with how to govern but also how the political system works in the big leagues. That’s not peanuts. Johnson’s positions are very approachable for non-libertarians, and that’s also a strength. But the problem is that Weld, for whatever he might add in terms of being a recognizable name for Republicans, detracts from the ticket by being so far out of sync with libertarian values in the past, and presumably in the present based on his admiration of Breyer. And Johnson, bless his heart, looks and sounds like a kook. He isn’t a good public speaker, and he always seems like he’s not really interested in campaigning, which, while I can relate and even appreciate, is a definite weakness during a presidential campaign.

    1. But, to be fair, we as libertarians also suck. Soave talks about libertarian doctrine as if that’s some definite thing that’s set in stone, but we can’t even agree on what the NAP means. Shit, there are libertarians who believe any form of government is a violation of the NAP, there are ancaps who believe that they’re the only real libertarians, there are libertarians who believe open borders violate the NAP and libertarians who believe any immigration regulations violate the NAP. So every time a libertarian hits the stage 3/4 of the crowd is booing him off because he isn’t 100% inline with their vision of what it means to be a libertarian.

      And then we’re all like, “Waaa! Where’s our libertarian moment?” when we can’t even agree on what it would like if it were here.

      1. What about if you stopped obsessing over doctrine and started caring about what does actual good for actual human beings?

        1. What about if you stopped being a retard.

        2. Which actual human beings? Human cockroaches don’t count.

        3. But you hate free markets.

        4. Like forced labor and prison camps for dissidents and a months wages for a loaf of bread? Move to Venezuela already.

    2. Well, look who they are running against.

      A mentally ill fascist, who looks and sounds like a buffoon every time he opens his mouth, vs. a corrupt establishment hack.

      A slightly goofy moderate libertarian is not the wierdest person on the stage.

      1. The buffoon with the crappy comb-over isn’t the only mentally ill fascist in the running.

        1. Hillary is an international socialist, not a national socialist.

          1. I think she’s halfway between the two.

  33. This is Realpolitik, and I like it. They will accomplish far more good if they can actually get independents supporting this ticket than if they stick to the exact libertarian platform and never get votes beyond the base.

  34. I don’t know whether Johnson will capture the vote of the person who answered the question

    I would certainly hope so, considering he’s the one who answered it.

    Although I’m sure one of our resident Full Trumptards will be along shortly to explain how he’s not even gonna vote for himself because he’s “ready for Hillary” or some shit.

  35. Just so I have clarity: they support government sanctioned gay marriage but oppose artistic free speech. They believe photographers should be compelled by force of fine and imprisonment to perform their art for gay marriage. They support coercing and punishing a cake artist in Colorado without a thought to his free speech rights.

    Their god is compassion. Libertarians they are not. Another reason not to vote for them. So far it is, “None of the Above.”

    Get some meat on that bony platform.

    1. When Johnson loses, it won’t matter what he actually said or believed. It will matter how many people voted for “libertarianism” whatever that means.

      I think there is an upside to making that number larger.

  36. They are recasting libertarianism as a centrist philosophy that rejects the extremism of both parties in favor of something that they believe is broadly popular with the American public: social tolerance and fiscal responsibility.

    They’re pretty much just ignoring libertarian philosophy altogether. Which is fine. They used the LP for its ballot access, and gave American voters a better choice than Trump or Clinton.

  37. The one thing that this debate did for Johnson/Weld is make them sane and humble in comparison to their R/D counterparts.

    However, I will agree with the overall tenor of this article. They missed multiple opportunities to clarify positions and make the case for why limited government is a better approach. A case in point is when Johnson trotted out his line that he agrees 75% with Sanders. The thing with Gary Johnson is that he does a fairly poor job of finishing his thoughts and making the clear case for limited government in a single thought. You have to keep following him for his clarifications so that you don’t fall prey to taking things out of context. When Gary Johnson says he agrees with Bernie 75% of the time, he means that he absolutely agrees that we have a problem with crony capitalism. The understanding of the symptoms are easy enough to agree upon. The vast and wild difference between the two is their understanding of the antidote. For a libertarian, too much government is in fact the cause of these malevolent forces, and rolling back the scale of it is the cure. To the socialist, more government is the cure. These two things are antithetical, and I wish Johnson made that more clear when he throws this line out there. It is truly the difference between recognizing a cough as a problem and telling the patient to go home and rest and deciding that they need a bloodletting.

  38. They really need to explain how they support the Second Amendment – they kind of nominally do, but not in any convincing way and without any passion. Johnson’s response on AR15’s last night was weak. They don’t seem to understand that A LOT of Americans own guns, want all of their rights, and are rightly disturbed by the media and Clinton’s distortions and outright lies. Both these guys at various times seem to cling to the dumb outdated stereotype of redneck gun owners or whatever. It’s outdated and just factually wrong.

    1. Hmmm. Maybe his proximity to Arizona made an indelible impression on him of the redneck gun owner.

    2. Has either one every given any hint that they even understand what the 2A is for?

      1. Weld understands that some guns are bad! He also knows the government is great at creating and running a system that “keeps guns out of the wrong hands”

        Looking at that 2 year old on the no fly list obviously

        You wanna attract support…the “gun nuts” don’t have a home this election. These nuts always vote too

  39. Agreed and do the best they can on the religious freedom arguments that are used against them. There is some concern if you take johnsons position to literally there eventually will not be any freedom of religion

    1. It’d be nice if dog whistles were actually a real thing in politics to a serious extent and he could let us know he really does favor freedom of association, but has to make compromises to have a shot. That way we’d at least know he wouldn’t exacerbate the problem, as someon who sincerely opposes the bill of rights might.

  40. i get Paid Over ?80 per hour working from home with 2 kids at house. I never thought I would be able to do it but my best friend earns over ?9185 a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

    Heres what I’ve been doing,……… http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  41. Like Sanders, he supports gay marriage, abortion rights, drug legalization, and an end to military intervention

    And #blacklivesmatters, who are now demanding reparations (among other entitlement bullshit). Johnson/Weld is nothing more than Progressive Lite.

  42. …there is a Republican on the ballot. He just doesn’t have an (R) next to his name anymore.

    But…but he’s not advocating war and opposing gay marriage. That’s the only Republican Party that I’ve ever known.

  43. If you have started your search for the best travel agent to get you to your business engagement with first class service, you have probably come across hundreds of corporate travel companies that claim to offer exactly that.
    imo for windows phone
    imo free video call

  44. First, I’m voting L. Given the choices, this is a no brainer.

    My biggest issue with the GJ/WW campaign is not their strategy for getting votes, but their miserable education of the body politic. I’m not too happy about the L party getting on the biggest stage they have ever had the opportunity to be on, only to deliver a message that is decidedly not libertarian on many issues.

    The moral science of praxeology and the Austrian economic system are superior to all other systems for specific reasons and by specific arguments. Why you would not lean on this truth and logic?!? The more people that understand the truth of praxeology and become conversant in the reasoning, the more converts we will compile. The ideology is being forsaken. The free market and it’s consequences hold all the answers we seek via politics, but never find.

  45. I sure hope Gary Johnson doesn’t take too many votes away from Hillary Clinton, because this country can’t afford a Trump presidency. This world can’t either.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.