Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson on Fox News Sunday: 'Game Over' If Not in Presidential Debates

"Optimistic that we're going to actually get into the debates," at 16 percent in five key states.

|

Fox News Sunday promo

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning and was interviewed by Chris Wallace on topics ranging from his attempt to reach 15 percent in the five national polls that will get him on the stage for the presidential debates to his views on ISIS to his pledge to cut 20 percent of federal spending in his first budget.

Johnson said that he's averaging 10 percent in the polls the Commission on Presidential Debates will be using to set the roster for its debates. That's up sharply from a few weeks back, he said, "So we're optimistic that we're going to actually get into the debates. We're spending money right now in many states. In five states right now, I'm at 16 percent. So I'm just really optimistic."

The former two-term governor of New Mexico said that if he doesn't get in the debates, its "game over" in terms of "winning the election." Johnson laid out a scenario in which he and his running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, make it into the debates and create a situation in which the country rallies around them:

The object is to win outright. And it's not impossible that if we go into the presidential debates with the polarization of Clinton and Trump that we might actually run the table on all this. And I'm talking about me and Bill Weld, two former Republican governors re-elected in heavily Democrat states…. I don't think there's any arguing that we did make differences in our state being fiscally conservative, socially inclusive. I'll add to that, that we're really skeptical about intervening militarily to achieve regime change that I think has resulted in a less-safe world. So I think that we represent about 60 percent of Americans with that philosophical belief.

That is fanciful, to say the least, but then again, who would have thought that Donald Trump had a real shot at being the GOP nominee or that an independent socialist such as Bernie Sanders would give the anointed Democrat, Hillary Clinton, the run he gave her?

Wallace did a "lightning round" with Johnson on key issues because, as Wallace put it, "You say the key to your candidacy is if people sit down and compare you to Clinton and Trump on the issues, they're going to pick you."

Here's a summary of the Libertarian's responses:

International trade

JOHNSON: Free trade. Supporting [T]PP. It's a good thing. Free trade. The—more jobs… We're the only ones that support it.

Immigration

JOHNSON: Make it as easy as possible to come into this country and work. To be able to get a work visa. A work visa should entail a background check and a Social Security card. Don't build a wall across the border. These are hard-working individuals that are taking jobs that U.S. citizens don't want….[For illegals already here,] they could…get a work visa, as long as they've been law abiding. With regard to citizenship, there needs to be a pathway to citizenship…. That's part of comprehensive immigration reform that Bill Weld and I think we can bring Democrats and Republicans to the table over.

Spending

Johnson has repeatedly proposed cutting the federal budget by 20 percent in his first year and eliminating departments of education, commerce, and homeland security, among others.

WALLACE: You don't think any of those agencies do any good?

JOHNSON: Well, in the case of Education, in the case of Commerce, and there are some vital functions in these agencies, but do they require an entire agency? I don't think so. But Education, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Homeland Security. Why…is Homeland Security an agency unto itself? Shouldn't it be a part of the FBI? Those are the ones that I am advocating out of the chute.

Taxes

JOHNSON: If I could wave a magic wand, I would eliminate income tax, corporate tax. I would replace it with one federal consumption tax. I put up the fair tax as the template for how you accomplish one federal consumption tax. You're right about a consumption tax being regressive. The way that the fair tax deals with that is it issues everyone a "prebate" check of $200 a month that allows everyone to pay the consumption tax up to the point of the poverty level… Zero corporate tax, which you and I paid for, I maintain that that would create tens of millions of jobs and that it would also issue pink slips to 80 percent of Washington lobbyists.

Foreign policy

JOHNSON: I do believe that if you want to look at ISIS, that they are regionally contained…. A poll among active military personnel two weeks ago, who do they favor for president of the United States? Me. So what are they saying? What are—what they're saying is judicious use of the military. If we're attacked, we're going to attack back. But the fact that we involve ourselves in regime change has resulted in the unintended consequence of making things worse, not better, and nobody's standing up to this. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, not intentional. They go in. They support the opposition in Libya and Syria. The oppositions aligned with ISIS. We arm the opposition. Now those arms are in ISIS' hands. This is the unintended consequence of our foreign policy…. [We're] going to continue to stay engaged in [battling ISIS], but there will be a void when that gets eliminated. We didn't even hear about ISIS until two years ago. This was al Qaeda until it became ISIS. And wipe out ISIS and it will be something else. Look, the biggest threat in the world right now is North Korea. We need to deal with the civil war in Syria. That's joining hands with Russia diplomatically to see that through. Biggest threat in the world, North Korea. We need to join arms—join hands with China to deal with that diplomatic…

Marijuana Policy (and heading up a company involved in certifying pot products)

JOHNSON: Marijuana products, which directly compete with legal prescription drugs on the medical front, don't kill anybody…. There needs to be research and development in this area that can't currently happen because marijuana is listed as a class one narcotic. As president of the United States, I would delist marijuana as a class one narcotic. This is going to be an issue that is left up to the states, just like alcohol. And then on the recreational side of this, Chris, I have always believed that legalizing marijuana will lead to less overall substance abuse because it's so much safer than everything else that's out this, starting with alcohol.

Wallace pushed Johnson on a number of answers—rightly, in my view. For instance, Johnson trotted out his regular line that he is not being elected dictator, so you need to take his policy preferences as hypothetical. To which Wallace answered:

WALLACE: When you say we're not going to be elected dictator, you're saying, don't take my policies seriously because they won't get through.

JOHNSON: Take them very seriously, but count on certainty that we're going to always support taxes going lower. We're going to always support being in business being easier. Rules and regulations not getting worse, getting better.

Johnson also pressed on another theme he hit heavily on Friday's Libertarian town hall on Fox Business' Stossel: That a Johnson/Weld administration would be in the best position to de-polarize Congress and force centrist-yet-libertarian solutions to pressing concerns such as immigration, entitlement reform, and foreign policy. Said Johnson:

Look, Hillary or Trump, isn't the polarization in Congress going to be greater than ever? Does anybody believe that anything is going to get better in Congress? Our pitch is the third alternative, which is a couple of libertarians in the middle, hiring a bipartisan administration. Everybody libertarian leaning. But I think you could make a case that that third scenario might work.

This last scenario, like the hopes of getting into the debates, is intriguing but seriously long-odds. Johnson was energetic in his appearance but seemed at moments unsure about his own positions (the governor stumbled when Wallace listed a series of government agencies and departments he said Johnson had pledged to cut and he seemed tentative in his knowledge of "ISIS-inspired" attacks in Europe). Wallace was right to call him out on the "I'm not being elected dictator" line, which seems a way to have things both ways: Here are my ideas but don't hold me to them.

If this is an election about changing things in a direction different from Donald Trump's mix of bullying nativsim and nationalism or Hillary Clinton's self-styled continuation of Barack Obama's policies, there's certainly room for a perspective that, as Johnson notes, roughly accords with large pluralities and majorities that support free trade, legal immigration (and a path to legalization for current illegals), broad reductions in federal government spending and regulations, and a foreign policy that is less adventurous. Johnson lays most or all of that out but also often misses opportunities to explain why and how these policies reflect a libertarian worldview that is particularly in synch with a 21st-century world.

If Johnson's success rests upon convincing sympathetic observers who aren't fully convinced that he's got the gravitas to be commander-in-chief and a force to be reckoned with on domestic policy, he still has a ways to go.

Full Fox News Sunday transcript here.

Here's an interview Reason TV with Johnson and Weld in July at FreedomFest, the largest annual gathering of libertarian-minded folks (for more on that, go here).

NEXT: Is 49ers' QB Colin Kaepernick Right To Sit During the National Anthem?

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. Given his prior performances I’m not so sure actually being in the debates helps him much. Trump ain’t the only one to benefit from a little STFU. Hopefully someone’s prepping him this time…

    1. Yeah, he won’t exactly radiate that he’s the sole sane candidate on the podium.

    2. 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. Go this website and go toTech tab for more work details…Now this Website… http://goo.gl/zO9Jnm

  2. “Optimistic that we’re going to actually get into the debates,” at 16 percent in five key states.

    Expect the debate sponsors to change the requirements for participation.

    1. meh. I’ve seen some signals from the Clinton camp that they’d prob welcome some other “anti-trump” forces on stage.

      1. The more people in the debate, the less attention paid to Hillary. And boy does she need attention directed away from her.

        1. “The more people in the debate, the less attention paid to Hillary. And boy does she need attention directed away from her.”

          I’ve seen no mention of this:
          “Clinton Foundation Official Requests State Lunch Invitation, Special Seating for Foundation Allies, Emails Show”
          […]
          “In one December 2010 email chain with Clinton’s closest aide Huma Abedin, then-top Clinton Foundation official Doug Band offers names for a State Department lunch with Chinese President Hu Jintao scheduled for January 2011.
          On the list were three executives from organizations that have donated millions to the Clinton Foundation: Bob McCann, the then-president of wealth management at UBS; Dr. Judith Rodin, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation; and Hikmet Ersek, the CEO of Western Union.”
          (sorry, ABC makes sure you can’t link it. Search “abc news clinton foundation)

          If that ain’t pay for play, I’m not sure what would qualify outside of Slick Willie’s defence of renting out the Lincoln bedroom (‘We’ll leave the light on for ya’)

        2. No kidding. She would be better off spending the whole debate in the bathroom this time.

      2. Maybe he will get on stage in the end, I don’t know. I just naturally expect shenanigans.

    2. He’s not even close to satisfying the normal requirement of 15% in national polls, so no need. Nick is cherry-picking with the reference in “five key states” without a cite or even identifying the states so the reader can judge for himself.

  3. OK I’m really starting to like this Johnson fellow.

    Jill Stein does not endorse this message.

  4. I like that he got angry about stuff. Makes him look less looney. Makes it seem more plausible that he could actually veto a bill.

  5. GayJay admits he can’t win. At least he’s less delusional than the scrubs of TEAM JOHNSON.

    1. You can’t win either. But hey, don’t let that stop you:

  6. Are there any poll numbers on how GayJay is doing with voters who identify as “libertarian”?
    It has to be less than 50%, I wonder how unpopular the Libertarian Party candidate is with actual libertarians.

    1. Fuck you and your tired bullshit.

      1. If anyone is peddling tired bullshit it’s Reason polishing the Johnson/Weld turd.

        1. Did you even bother to read the article?

          1. Yes. Did you? It’s pretty fucking glowing.

            1. Johnson laid out a scenario in which he and his running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, make it into the debates and create a situation in which the country rallies around them…

              That is fanciful, to say the least…

              Wallace pushed Johnson on a number of answers?rightly, in my view. …

              Johnson also pressed on another theme… That a Johnson/Weld administration would be in the best position to de-polarize Congress and force centrist-yet-libertarian solutions…

              This last scenario, like the hopes of getting into the debates, is intriguing but seriously long-odds. Johnson was energetic in his appearance but seemed at moments unsure about his own positions (the governor stumbled… and he seemed tentative… Wallace was right to call him out on the “I’m not being elected dictator” line, which seems a way to have things both ways: Here are my ideas but don’t hold me to them. …

              If Johnson’s success rests upon convincing sympathetic observers who aren’t fully convinced that he’s got the gravitas to be commander-in-chief and a force to be reckoned with on domestic policy, he still has a ways to go.

              Hardly glowing.

              1. Nice snipping. Particularly the “fanciful” remark getting snipped before Nick’s reminder that Gary Johnson Still Can Win.

                Johnson’s terrible performance is treated with a little light criticism and a lot of damage control… it’s glowing.

            2. “Yes. Did you? It’s pretty fucking glowing.”

              You’re just angry they didn’t give your guy Trump more ink.

              1. I’m not drinking the Johnson Kool Aid, therefore I must be a Trump supporter. Excellent logic.

    2. I haven’t seen the actual polls, but rumor has it he’s in the neighborhood of 37% w/ military voters. Huge considering how hawkish the other two clowns are…or the military is just as tired of foreign entanglements as the LP is.

      1. If you’re talking about the Doctrine Man poll, that was a completely unscientific poll.

      2. Taking the candidates at their word, Trump is the 2nd least interventionist after Jill Stein. GayJay’s foreign/military policy is more like Hillary’s or “neocon-lite”.

        1. Taking candidates at their word, SIV keeps licking Trumps ass.

        2. Totally true, remember when Gary said “we’re going to bomb the SHIT out of them!”

          …oh wait

    3. Keep sucking that dick, SIV. Daddy promised he won’t jizz in your eyes this time.

    4. I heard Trump’s chances of winning the election have gone from 11% to 19%. So feel free to jack off on your closet Trump shrine over that bit of news.

      1. You know the number for Johnson’s chances?

  7. Watched the show, the 9am broadcast over the Hartford CT Fox station. There was a Johnson ad during a commercial break! A paid ad! I expect that was a local, not a national buy. Has anybody else seen one? Please note if you think it was a local cable drop-in, like you’d see if you were watching Fox News Channel, in-between the ads for local home improvement firms and other such obviously local stuff.

    1. It was no fluke. One of the Johnson PACs spent $1 million to run25 ads over the weekend on Fox, and another 25 on CNN.

  8. I didn’t like that he said ‘arm in arm with China against NK’ and ‘arm in arm with Russia on Syria’. Because Russia and China are interested only in perpetuating their puppet regimes to harass and instigate us. But, he pointed out that ‘utterly destroying ISIS’ only creates a vacuum for other terrorist groups to flourish. So that’s a vast improvement over his competition. I think this is something I can work with.

    Jill Stein is starting to get nervous.

    1. They desperately need a better thought out foreign policy/national security vision. It sounds like so far they have been making it up on the spot. Non-interventionism, OK. Then what?

      Are there really no libertarian foreign policy think tanks or specialists that can write a coherent libertarian national security vision paper and advise Johnson/Weld? Give us a sense that they are actually ready to govern, have a team of substantial people behind them?

  9. Wallace was right to call him out on the “I’m not being elected dictator” line, which seems a way to have things both ways: Here are my ideas but don’t hold me to them.

    Man, I sure would like to think the “I’m not being elected dictator” line is an indication that he recognizes there are limits to what the President can do and, whatever policies he may support, it’s up to Congress to actually make it happen.

    I’m sure there are plenty of candidates who, if you pointed out to them their promises as to what they’re going to do are contingent upon a majority in Congress voting for them, would suggest you’re being a bit pedantic and that “of course everybody knows” their promises as to what they’re going to do are really only promises as to what they intend to try to do.

    I’m also sure Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are not two such candidates. When they tell you what they plan to do, that’s exactly what they mean – neither one gives a shit what Congress or the Constitution has to say about their authority to do so. Trump’s gonna build a wall whether or not Congress votes for it or appropriates the money, Hillary’s gonna thrust an engorged government into every damn orifice of the body politic whether or not Congress votes for it or appropriates the money. What the hell’s a pen and a phone for if not for a President to get the things done Congress refuses to give them permision (or actually forbids them) to do?

    1. Yeah, but that’s not what GayJay was saying. I watched, and when Wallace started questioning him on how some of his policies would actually work, or how regressive a national consumption tax would be, he didn’t say “you’re wrong, the policy would work”, he said ” well I’m not being elected dictator” meaning “well, it’ll never pass Congress, so don’t pay attention to my policies because they’ll never be enacted”.

      1. That’s not really what I took from his performance. He made clear that the Fair Tax proposal he was backing had a prebate to offset the regressivity.

        I took the “not elected dictator” comment to mean, if there are kinks in his proposal, he’s open to alternative solutions or reworking of the proposal. It’s an admission of fallibility and openness to alternate solutions. Generally, that’s a good thing, if not something that endears political candidates to people.

  10. Not liking the poll results. People are sheep. They don’t understand what these answers really mean.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer……le/2600319

  11. “The former two-term governor of New Mexico said that if he doesn’t get in the debates, its “game over” in terms of “winning the election”.

    In other words his only shot is for his opponents to give him free publicity by allowing him in their joint press conference?

    I think there is a serious flaw to Johnson’s strategic thinking.

    1. Put another way, if he doesn’t make it into the debates, it solidifies for the ave voter that this is still only a 2 horse race. I think breaking into the debates is a huge symbolic victory if nothing else, one that gives a whole lot more legitimacy to the most viable 3rd party candidate in a time where the other two are some of the most despised in history. All the strategy in the world counts for nothing if you’re just an perennial outsider/spoiler vice alternative.

      1. And what does he say at the debates? The same center-left tripe he’s been saying in his media appearances so far? How does that help libertarianism?

        1. You’re absolutely right Seth.

          Since Johnson isn’t perfect he should just drop out of the race and libertarians should just go around and try again and again to find their True Scotsman – all the while leaving the field to *completely* statist fucks.

          Because one day, oh glorious day, when we finally find our messiah, the whole country will be delivered in one fell swoop rather than this ‘incrementally rolling back authoritarian advances’ back and forth shit.

          All we need to have is *faith*.

          1. Agreed. Why, that guy Johnson is so bad, ol’ Seth here is gonna jump in Trump’s back pocket!
            Oh, wait! He’s already there.

          2. Johnson’s libertarian discrepancies don’t come on picayune, irrelevant issues like privatizing the roads or legalizing ferrets. They come on major issues that are still in play politically like freedom of association and gun rights. This is hardly a “no true Scotsman” complaint.

            If the point of this campaign is to prevent the statists from winning, it’s already game over because Hillary is going to win. Johnson is powerless to prevent this.

            If the point of this campaign is to promote libertarianism, it’s also not happening because Johnson and Weld are not doing that either. Their positions are an incoherent mixed bag from left and right (mostly left). Is that the impression we want the public to have of libertarianism?

            So tell me what’s the point of this campaign? Getting in the debates is a means, not an end.

            1. So, what are Trump and Clinton’s stance on those major issues? Hint: A fuck sight further out along the authoritarian axis than Johnson’s.

              On. Every. Single. Issue. That. You. Consider. Important. Trump. And. Clinton. Are. Orders. Of. Magnitude. Worse.

              But hey, let’s forget that and bitch that Johnson is a waste of time.

              I get that he’s not exciting – but exciting candidates have a *vision*, and ‘having a vision* is what has driven this country into the arms of ever increasing state power. I know that he’s a poor libertarian – but no worse than a goodly number of posters on this very board (let alone contributors to the mag) – but he’s a damn sight better libertarian than anyone else in the race.

              Don’t want to sully yourself by voting for the lesser evil? Fine. I just don’t get why you’re bitching that the lesser evil has had the temerity to offer himself as an option.

              1. If Johnson had a chance of winning, and preventing Clinton or Trump from becoming prez, I would vote for him.

                If Johnson was advocating a set of positions I agree with, I would vote for him.

                But what is the point of voting for someone who you disagree with and has no chance of winning?

                The turd sandwich/giant douche game only works if you’re one of the two major players.

                1. To prevent the winning candidate from breaking 50% of the popular vote?

              2. Ironically, Johnson could have pursued a strategy that would have stayed more consistent with libertarian principle AND increased his poll numbers: go after the limited govt nerve endings in the GOP that are uncomfortable with Trump and criticize the Obama administration’s overreach and Hillary’s scandalous behavior. That would resonate with independents and NeverTrumpers in the GOP… way more than 10% of the electorate, which Johnson seems proud of despite being a pathetic showing given the hate for the major party candidates.

                Instead he’s trying to cozy up to media elites with this policy grab bag which changes from appearance to appearance, which doesn’t really attract any voters other than those who are just looking for a name besides Trump or Clinton.

            2. If the point of this campaign is to prevent the statists from winning, it’s already game over because Hillary is going to win. Johnson is powerless to prevent this.

              Then so is Trump. The question, in my mind, is, if you accept this, what becomes the future of the GOP. A strong Johnson showing (i.e. enough to cover the spread between Clinton and Trump) means that the GOP will almost certainly move in a more libertarian direction.

              So, for me, the Johnson vote is a no brainer. He’s not where I want him to be on a lot of issues. But, he’s a hell of a lot closer on a myriad of issues than Clinton or Trump. So, I’d rather him in the White House than either of them. But, even if he loses, a strong showing on his part means a lot more credibility for libertarians in the Republican party. And there I’m likely to get someone closer to my thinking still.

              1. Then so is Trump.

                No shit. What does this have to do with anything I said?

                A strong Johnson showing (i.e. enough to cover the spread between Clinton and Trump) means that the GOP will almost certainly move in a more libertarian direction.

                Does not follow, for several reasons. If the results are Clinton 50%, Trump 42%, Johnson 8%, why in the world would the GOP move to try to pick up the relatively small Johnson vote at the risk of losing the Trump vote? And given the way Johnson has conducted the campaign, that 8% could hardly be seen as a vote for libertarianism, as opposed to the center-left muddle that he and Weld are pushing.

                That’s not going to happen anyway, since Clinton is going to demolish Trump and Johnson is headed to the low single digits at best.

      2. If your victory is dependent on your opponents doing something nice for you that they are not obligated to do for their own strategic purposes, then they have too much power over your success and you do not have any hope of winning anyway .

  12. Again, Johnson urgently needs to start giving well-written, well-staged Major Policy Speeches; national security, economic policy, etc. His stock answers to key qyestions are just awful – “less safe as opposed to” etc.

    Major Policy Speeches would present Johnson in a more presidential way and provide him with better talking points material for interviews, stump speeches and, hopefully, the debates.

  13. So Johnson thinks if he gets in on the CPD “debate” he has a chance of winning, but if not, not.

    If the CPD agrees, it will exclude him.

    That’s because the CPD is a tentacle of the duopoly.

    Don’t play their retarded game.

    I suppose it’s possible that the public will tune out Johnson unless he’s allowed into a joint press conference sponsored by the two major parties.

    But if that’s the way the public thinks, Johnson is screwed, because as I said, the CPD wouldn’t have him participate if they thought he’d win.

    So undercut, undermine, burrow around, discredit, mock, delegitimize the CPD.

    Hold your own debates and invite Donald and Hillary to show up. If they don’t, have some celebrities to serve as stand-ins for Hillary and Trump. Celebrities who need exposure, so they won’t be able to resist the temptation no matter how many calls they get from duopoly operatives telling them not to legitimize Gary Johnson.

    The CPD can shove their ridiculous joint press conferences where the sun don’t shine.

  14. Also, Nick Gillespie failed to post photo of Bill Paxton in “Aliens” here.
    smdh

    not cool man

  15. As I see it, the only way Johnson could win is to get enough states to throw the election into the House, and then the House will be deadlocked between Hillary and Donald and settle on Johnson as a compromise.

    And Weld will be out of the picture (thank God) because the Senate will only be choosing between Pence and Kaine.

    So focus on key target states, do the debating strategy I outlined, and I guarantee that…something will happen.

    If I could *guarantee* results I’d charge fees, wouldn’t I?

    Oh, wait, I wouldn’t guarantee results even then, suckers.

    1. As I see it, the only way Johnson could win is to get enough states to throw the election into the House, and then the House will be deadlocked between Hillary and Donald and settle on Johnson as a compromise.

      The House can only vote between the top 2 vote getters in the EC, so that is impossible.

      1. “The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding *three* on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President….

        “The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the *two* highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President…”

        From the Twelfth Amendment (emphasis added)

        “Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then votest thou for the Johnson.”

        1. I stand corrected. However, the way Johnson’s going now he’s not getting a single EV. So it matters little.

          1. John Hospers could tell you about faithless electors.

            1. If you’re hoping for faithless electors then the whole campaign is pointless.

  16. There was never any way that Johnson could beat Hillary on election day. That’s pure fantasy.

    There was a longshot strategy for the LP winning, though: beat Trump and keep Hillary from getting a majority in the electoral college, and get voted in by the incoming GOP House. That could be done by stealing a big chunk of the GOP vote and winning over independents. A long shot, yes, but there is a path to victory there.

    But Johnson and Weld aren’t doing any of that; indeed they seem to be more interested in winning over the MSM than any actual voters. Snuggling up with the MSM might get them more coverage, but it also alienates the GOP voters they need.

    1. There is no way that Trump can beat Hillary at this point.

      If Johnson/Weld want to have a chance, they have to steal votes from the left as well as the right.

      Rand Paul tried to be libertarianish with a big chunk of the GOP + independents; conservatives preferred an orange small-handed New York billionaire reality tv con man.

      1. There is no way that Trump can beat Hillary at this point.

        No disagreement there. So?

        If Johnson/Weld want to have a chance, they have to steal votes from the left as well as the right.

        They would have to dump libertarianism en masse to get votes from the left. While the GOP is hardly libertarian, the limited government nerve endings are at least there.

        Rand Paul tried to be libertarianish with a big chunk of the GOP + independents; conservatives preferred an orange small-handed New York billionaire reality tv con man.

        That’s why Trump lost all the closed primaries and caucuses, right? Newsflash: Trump got the nomination because Dems crossed party lines in open primary states to vote for the weakest candidate.

        1. Trump didn’t lose the closed primary in my state; in fact, I think that he got all of the delegates.

  17. TPP isn’t free trade, it’s 5,000 pages of special deals. “Top Secret” while it was being written, IIRC, so those insiders could get an inside edge on the action.

    “taking jobs that U.S. citizens don’t want”

    Very few people “want” a job if they don’t need the money, so that should be rephrased as “lowering pay to less than U.S. citizens will accept unless they want to have 3 families living in one house.”

  18. RIP Rudy Van Gelder

    Probably one of the most important people in 20th century American music. Not quite the polymath/influence that Tom Dowd was, but his choices about “who/what got recorded” effectively defined “Jazz” from the 1950s-1970s. His fingerprints are on every Blue Note and CTI recording. Back in his era, engineers were far far more than just button-pushers; they were more like ‘Directors’ that chose the arrangers, backing personnel for recordings, controlled almost everything about how the finished product sounded. And that sound was on a shitload of stuff.

      1. Everyone loves Bob James breakbeats

        but i’d have chosen something from the late-50s/early-60s Blue Note catalogue as a ‘tribute’ to RVG. he was never crazy about electric instruments so the later CTI stuff doesn’t really speak to his stylistic contributions as much.

        I always thought this record was sort of the unrecognized ‘Part II’ to Kind of Blue – which i think many people think of as “the best” record BN ever released (*acknowledging that there are many contenders)

        Another one which i think captures his mastery of the form is Coltrane’s “Ballads“;

        both of the above are the kind of records audiophiles often use as “tests” for absurdly hi-fi equipment. The quality of the recordings is just amazing.

        1. Even though I’ve been listening to A Love Supreme and Ascension a lot lately this is my favorite off that list of recordings at RVG’s studio.

          1. Yep. i’ve mentioned i’m not a free-jazz fan, but that’s another good example of the RVG recording-style and the kinds of virtuoso performances he got out of people. everything he did can always be appreciated purely as “recording-art”.

            1. I love free jazz more than any other of the post-microgroove recording era jazz. While rock is derived from blues and country, much psych/garage rock would’ve never been the same w/o the influence of free jazz.

  19. North Korea biggest thread comment was WTF retarded.

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

  21. With regard to citizenship, there needs to be a pathway to citizenship….

    There already is a pathway to citizenship. Thousand of immigrants become citizens every year. All someone here illegally needs to do is to apply and wait the 10 years everyone else does.

  22. 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.earnmax6.com/

  23. Has anybody else seen one? Please note if you think it was a local cable drop-in, like you’d see if you were watching Fox News Channel!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.