Hit & Run

Gary Johnson Lands Newspaper Endorsement in Virginia

The Richmond Times-Dispatch breaks from decades of Republican candidate support.


Gary Johnson

The editorial board of Virginia's second-largest newspaper declared in a weekend commentary that they are breaking with a lengthy tradition of endorsing Republican candidates for president and throwing their support toward the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch serves Virginia's capital and boasts a daily circulation of about 90,000. The endorsement was posted yesterday evening, and is already being widely shared on social media. The endorsement came at the end of the week after Johnson met with their editorial board. They conclude:

These are unsettling times. Americans across the political spectrum worry that our once-great institutions no longer work in the interests of the people — and sometimes don't work at all. Why not take this chance to reject the binary choice between Clinton and Trump that was created by our two-party system? We strongly urge the debate commission to invite Johnson onto the stage to give voters an opportunity to hear his positions, to evaluate his temperament, and, perhaps most important, to compare him with the candidates nominated by the two traditional parties.

We are confident that, if given the opportunity to make his case, Gary Johnson will persuade millions of Americans that he is the most capable and ethical candidate running this year. We endorse him and look forward to a rejuvenating surprise in November — a new birth of freedom.

They also analyzed Johnson's positions and compared them with the editorial creed of their board, which spells out the ideals that drive the stances that they take. They compare the positions of Johnson, Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton (the Green Party's Jill Stein is a total non-starter for them) to explain how Johnson won their support. Read those comparisons here.

It's also worth noting that the columns of A. Barton Hinkle, a member of the Times-Dispatch's editorial board, run regularly here at Reason. It's probably safe to say that while they may be diving into new waters by endorsing a Libertarian Party candidate, the ideals of libertarian philosophy are not new to them.

NEXT: Where Did Trump Come From?

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. Women and SIV hardest hit.

      1. It's racist turtles all the way down in this thread.

  1. Establishment organ endorses establishment candidate running on the Libertarian ticket, because this cycle the Republican Party escaped from under the thumb of the establishment. Color me shocked, shocked, I tell you!


      1. "Warty|9.4.16 @ 11:58AM|#


        Awww, look, it thinks it's people.

    2. LOL. The establishment is ecstatic with Trump being the GOP nominee, because it guarantees a Hillary win.

      1. Jesus Christ Tulpa, why are you still here...


  2. The irony is that Johnson-Weld is not really a libertarian ticket, but a progressive ticket. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have abandoned traditional libertarian beliefs for progressive beliefs in areas like Obamacare, Supreme Court appointments, religious freedom, regulation of private employers, and the First Amendment.

    Bill Weld told NPR he opposes repealing Obamacare, and he has said that the most anti-free speech, pro-regulation Supreme Court justice, Stephen Breyer, is his model jurist, as well as saying that the pro-regulation judge Merrick Garland would make a great Supreme Court justice:


    Gary Johnson has peddled false Black Lives Matter talking points originated by a statist Black Lives Matter faction that supports more welfare, and has said that "religious freedom, as a category, is a black hole," and that small business owners should not be able to invoke religious freedom to protect their free speech and free association rights:

    Ironically, Donald Trump has provided a list of conservative and libertarian-leaning judges as his potential nominees to the Supreme Court, a list of judges who are pro-property rights, and pro-free speech:


    1. I had no idea Trump loved liberty - thank you so much for sharing this.

    2. Ah, here we go. Vote Trump for liberty.

    3. When William Weld was governor, his appointees supported campus speech codes, and Weld has said the federal government needs to create new jobs programs for young black men (even though federal jobs programs have a record of failure):


      Libertarians have historically supported broad rights to freely exercise religion, but ironically, Johnson, the Libertarian presidential nominee, does not, calling "religious freedom . . . a black hole."

      The New Mexico judiciary, including liberal judges appointed by Gary Johnson, rejected a free-speech claim by a wedding photographer forced to photograph a non-marital lesbian commitment ceremony, which occurred after a lesbian couple filed a discrimination complaint against the photographer under state law. Libertarian legal scholars criticized the state judiciary's rejection of her free-speech claim, noting that photography is recognized as protected speech under the First Amendment, in briefs submitted on behalf of the libertarian Cato Institute. But Johnson has defended this result, claiming a century-old federal law required this result (even though the ruling was based entirely on state law, not federal law, and federal law does not ban sexual orientation discrimination against customers).


      1. Bill Weld has also endorsed costly bureaucratic mandates imposed on private employers, like the Family and Medical Leave Act (which he touted AFTER being nominated by the LP as its Vice Presidential nominee).

        Trump may be less fiscally responsible than Johnson-Weld (he and Hillary are both big deficit spenders, judging by their campaign proposals), but he is actually more pro-free-market (and thus more pro-libertarian) than Johnson-Weld on judicial nominations, and better than Johnson-Weld on the issue of certain government regulations (he has supported curbing federal regulations of the energy sector, whereas Johnson endorsed a carbon-tax, before reversing position).

        As a libertarian-conservative lawyer put it,
        "Trump's list of potential Supreme Court picks consists of experienced, well-respected appellate judges who support free speech and property rights, and who are highly-rated by Libertarian and conservative legal scholars. Since Trump has always been passionately anti-crime, even many years ago, he is likely to nominate anti-crime judges. Anti-crime judges tend to be more conservative than judges who are soft on crime, so Trump is more likely to nominate conservative judges than Hillary Clinton, just due to his stance on crime. (Anti-crime judges are also less likely to engage in left-wing judicial activism, less likely to permit abusive lawsuits, and more supportive of free speech, property rights, and freedom of association, than judges who are soft on crime.)."

        1. Finally my eyes have been opened!

        2. What "libertarian-conservative lawyer" actually said this? =

          Anti-crime judges tend to be more conservative than judges who are soft on crime, so Trump is more likely to nominate conservative judges than Hillary Clinton, just due to his stance on crime.

          and do they operate out of a strip-mall?

          1. Jerome Woehrle at Liberty Unyielding (the blog managed by Howard Portnoy, formerly the Manhattan Libertarian columnist for The Examiner): goo.gl/cYhtrF

            1. Do you have a link to his legal practice? I may have some work for him.

              1. "Tough on crime" conservative judges also tend to have eyes that glaze over when reading things like the Fourth Amendment, and give too much"deference" to state when they violate people's rights. Too much Amendment 10 and not enough of #9.

    4. VOTE TRUMP!

      Cuz the Libertarian candidate isn't principled enough!

      1. Not voting for Trump. I'm leaving the president spot blank because GJ is not only unprincipled but stupid.

        If you're going to go out of your way spit in my face on issues I care about, you better at least be able to win the election and stop the greater evil from winning.

        1. Who cares what YOU are going to do, Tulpa? You're a lying immoral piece of garbage.

    5. For those that don't know, FreeSpeechMatters and Nativist are the resident moron Stormfront representatives.

      1. Everything you post is an indictment of your intellect. You're so woefully moronic, that you don't even realize your posts are a giant sign that says "My parents are brother and sister"

        1. Am I supposed to know who you are?

          1. He sounds familiar.

  3. You know you're in trouble when "Editorial-Cartoon Version" of your face is less-goofy than the real one.

  4. The Richmond Times-Dispatch has to cherry pick GayJay's conflicting statements and positions, while making believe Weld doesn't exist, to force-fit the candidate into compliance with their "editorial creed". Johnson's Hillary-supporting Billionaire donors must've bought a big chunk of the paper's dead tree circulation to secure that endorsement.

    1. Weld doesn't exist.

      First off, the VP is powerless; the only thing that could make VP Weld relevant is if the President would die in office. Second, Weld can only become the VP if he gets more EVs than one of the major party VP candidates, which is not going to happen.

      On the other hand, Johnson needs just one EV (which can come from an unfaithful elector or a bare plurality in just one state) and neither major candidate getting more than 269 EVs. Then he can become President as a compromise candidate in an election-in-the-House scenario among the top 3 EV-getters. That's pretty damn unlikely, however small, still at least a thousand times more likely than Weld becoming VP, which would require Libertarians get more than a third (and more likely nearer 40%) of the vote in something like at least a dozen states.

      Multiplying the relative chance of gaining office by the relative chance of relevance if the office was gained (about 1 in 5 by historical frequency), Weld is, statistically, at least five thousand times less important than Johnson when considering supporting the Libertarian ticket.

  5. (Disclaimer: For those libertarians who are on the political left - whether you call them left-libertarians, cosmotarians, liberaltarians or whatever - you could very well conclude Johnson is best, and far be it from me to say you shouldn't vote for him. I have my own preferences, however)

    (Disclaimer II: Johnson is better than Trump or Clinton or Stein, and he seems like a really nice guy.

    (Disclaimer III: I wouldn't call Weld a nice guy, but he published a very interesting novel)

    Well, those disclaimers took up some space, let me continue this post in a sec...

    1. Where was I? Oh, yes, the Times-Dispatch's editorial philosophy:

      ""Every individual is born with intrinsic moral worth and dignity no greater than or less than another's." Clinton and Johnson seem to have little quarrel with this notion. Trump, on the other hand, [sucks]"

      OK, agreed that Trump sucks, but what about Hillary and Johnson? Why are they given a pass on this?

      Oh, right, because it says everyone is *born* with intrinsic moral worth and dignity. When they're in the womb they have no rights which those holding power are required to respect.

      Now, if they'd said that everyone is created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights (to use Thomas Jefferson's theocratic Sky-Daddy language) then Hillary and Gary would fall short, because apparently if you're on the wrong side of the birth canal these politicians would deny you have any moral worth or dignity.

    2. You're just pissed they didn't endorse Darrell Castle.

      1. I'm interested in why they didn't *mention* him.

        I actually linked to an article which, albeit tendentiously, made The Case Against Darrell Castle. At least the author(s) of the article considered the issue.

        1. Maybe because one of the Constitution Party's ancestors was the American Independent Party of George Wallace, and reminds them too much of the Jim Crow Dixiecrats. The CP is a bit too Christian Dominionist for my taste, and in my activist years in local politics in Wisconsin, the only unapologetic anti-semites I ever met were at CP sponsored events. These people used expressions like "Jew bankers." Creepy.

          1. I hadn't known about that.

  6. Look, as much as it pains me to say it, Donald Trump is right: "What have you got to lose?"

    For years and years and years, blacks have voted Democrat and what has it gotten them? What have they got to lose by not voting Democrat this one time, just as an experiment to see what happens. How could things get any worse?

    And for everybody else - you've been voting Democrat or Republican for years and years and years and what has it gotten you? What have you got to lose by not voting Democrat or Republican this one time, just as an experiment to see what happens. How could things get any worse?

    Oh, I know - you've listened to those kooky libertarians and their kooky ideas for how to solve problems and you've decided they're too kooky for you. But I would call your attention to the fact that those non-kooky Democrats and Republicans and their non-kooky ideas for how to solve problems have spent decades and decades and trillions and trillions of dollars "solving" problems - and they ain't solved dick. Maybe it's true that libertarians can't solve problems, but at least they ain't gonna spend trillions of dollars not solving them.

    1. It's like the big corporations that pay some CEO the big bucks and he runs the company into the ground. Why'd you pay that guy $103 million to bankrupt your company when I would have been happy to bankrupt your company for a measly 5? And hell, I wouldn't even have had everybody working hard to bankrupt the company - I would have stayed home and watched Doctor Who re-runs and ate Cheeto's all day long and not demand that anybody lift a finger or break a sweat bankrupting the company.

    2. Look, whenever I vote LP I end up with foreign wars, unsustainable spending, oppressive taxes and regulation, etc.

      Of course, that happens whenever I vote Rep. It happened back in the days when I voted Dem.

      I'm fairly sure it will happen if I vote Constitution Party.

      I just like getting out and enjoying the civic ritual of voting. And bitching about it.

      As for making actual change...I wonder what that feels like?

  7. The bar is so low...

  8. I 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

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.