Gary Johnson

Chicago Tribune Becomes 6th and Largest Newspaper to Endorse Gary Johnson (UPDATED)

"Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," declares World's Greatest Newspaper, as endorsement count moves to 13-6-1* for Clinton-Johnson-Trump


Can the most successful Libertarian presidential run also be its most squandered opportunity? These are the questions…. ||| Reason

The Chicago Tribune, which for more than a century was one of the Republican Party's great kingmakers, has for the first time in its storied history endorsed a Libertarian for president, Gary Johnson.

In a 1,680-word editorial, the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper," whose only prior Democratic endorsements had been for Chicagoan Barack Obama, had harsh words for America's two largest political tribes:

How could the Democratic and Republican parties stagger so far from this nation's political mainstream? […]

This is the moment to look at the candidates on this year's ballot. This is the moment to see this election as not so much about them as about the American people and where their country is heading. And this is the moment to rebuke the Republican and Democratic parties.

Though the paper clearly preferences Hillary Clinton in a two-candidate matchup ("Any American who lists their respective shortcomings should be more apoplectic about the litany under his name than the one under hers"), it nonetheless makes a compelling case against the Illinois native for her "up-to-the-present history of egregiously erasing the truth," her corner-cutting ambition, and her policies. Excerpt:

Clinton's vision of ever-expanding government is in such denial of our national debt crisis as to be fanciful. Rather than run as a practical-minded Democrat as in 2008, this year she lurched left, pandering to match the Free Stuff agenda of then-rival Bernie Sanders. She has positioned herself so far to the left on spending that her presidency would extend the political schism that has divided America for some 24 years. That is, since the middle of a relatively moderate Clinton presidency. Today's Hillary Clinton, unlike yesteryear's, renounces many of Bill Clinton's priorities — freer trade, spending discipline, light regulation and private sector growth to generate jobs and tax revenues.

Hillary Clinton calls for a vast expansion of federal spending, supported by the kinds of tax hikes that were comically impossible even in the years when President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats dominated both houses of Congress.

Somebody got the memo. ||| Reason

So what about the Libertarians?

Gary Johnson of New Mexico and running mate William Weld of Massachusetts are agile, practical and, unlike the major-party candidates, experienced at managing governments. They offer an agenda that appeals not only to the Tribune's principles but to those of the many Americans who say they are socially tolerant but fiscally responsible. […]

Theirs is small-L libertarianism, built on individual freedom and convinced that, at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, official Washington is clumsy, expensive and demonstrably unable to solve this nation's problems. They speak of reunifying an America now balkanized into identity and economic groups — and of avoiding their opponents' bullying behavior and sanctimonious lectures. Johnson and Weld are even-keeled — provided they aren't discussing the injustice of trapping young black children in this nation's worst-performing schools. On that and other galling injustices, they're animated.

The paper dings Johnson for being "too reluctant to support what we view as necessary interventions overseas," but concludes that "unless the United States tames a national debt that's rapidly approaching $20 trillion-with-a-T, Americans face ever tighter constrictions on what this country can afford, at home or overseas." TrSanta Barbara ump and Clinton are too "cowardly" to face up to this harsh truth. Kicker: "Every American who casts a vote for [Johnson] is standing for principles — and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

The Tribune, which has urged several times previously for Johnson and Weld to be given a fair hearing at the presidential debates, thus becomes the sixth and largest American newspaper to endorse the Libertarian ticket, according to this running (and admittedly incomplete) list over at Wikipedia. The Detroit News threw its support behind Johnson earlier this week, writing that "[T]his is an endorsement of conscience, reflecting our confidence that Johnson would be a competent and capable president and an honorable one."

So how many daily newspapers have endorsed Republican nominee Donald Trump? As far as I can tell, zero* (SEE UPDATE BELOW). The Wikipedia page has the count at 13-6-0, Clinton over Johnson over Trump. Six of Clinton's editorial-board backers had endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012; of those, none of the editorials even mention Gary Johnson. (Though I could not locate one of the editorials in question, from Florida's Sun-Sentinel.)

In addition, USA Today this week issued an editorial page judgment on the presidential race for the first time in its history, urging readers to not vote for Trump. (Last month Tulsa World, a traditionally Republican-leaning page that endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012, opted for none of the above.)

If these early trend lines hold up, Donald Trump will be the least-endorsed major-party presidential nominee in at least post-war history, and I would guess ever. The fact that roughly two in five American voters seem poised to vote for a candidate that 0* of 20 newspaper editorial boards can stomach says a lot of potentially interesting things about both Trump and the distance between newsroom and main street values. It would be an embarrassing reveal indeed if all the combined might of the nation's unsigned editorials fail to deliver the desired result on Election Day.

Previous endorsement-blogging here and here.

* UPDATE: We have located a Trump-endorsing newspaper! It's the Santa Barbara News-Press, a controversial-within-the-industry paper that distinguished itself in 2010 for being the largest-circulation California daily to endorse Prop. 19.

NEXT: Poll: Active Military Members Have Had Quite Enough of Nation Building, Regime Change

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.



    1. That this is happening even after the two recent foreign-policy “moments…”

      The howls of progs will sustain us through these dark times.

      1. It’s happening on Facebook. Lack of a favorite clearly means terrible things

        1. Next thing ya know we’ll find out Gary doesn’t even have a favorite government agency.

        2. According to my Facebook friends, a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary/Trump (depending on their agenda). The don’t understand that I don’t care which clown is elected.

      2. That kind of wind power shouldn’t go to waste, we need windmills stat!

      3. The fact that the paper previously endorsed Obama must be particularly irritating for them.

    2. It’s cheaper than Purina.

      1. Susan beat me to it!

        1. Woot! I win the intertubez!!1!

  2. “Any American who lists their respective shortcomings should be more apoplectic about the litany under his name than the one under hers”

    You know, except for all the shit she hasactually done while in office. For Christ’s sake.

    1. She has the blood of a lot of people on her hands, he called some fat broad fat. She’s totally better.

  3. I read some of the comments on the Tribune page. A lot of butthurt R’s& D’s.

    1. Voting for a third party candidate in this election is the worst thing you can do for American democracy.

      1. Obama has actually said out loud that every person who either doesn’t vote or votes third party is voting for Trump.

        1. And that they’re a personal disappointment to him.

          1. That’s even more reason for me to vote for Gary.

            1. Dangerous move- he might send the Night Wookie after you as you sleep. Worse than clowns.

            2. I must admit, that is one of the better ones.

          2. Oh noez, I wouldn’t want the God-King Obama The Magnificent to be disappointed in me, I guess I better go vote Her High Exalted Cankleness, Queef Shrillary! /sarc

            Seriously, that’s the best reason yet to vote for Johnson.

        2. After the ’12 election he said anyone that didn’t vote, essentially voted for him.

          This is why I vote; I don’t want Obama interpreting my non-vote.

          1. He does a lot of speaking for others. He also has the authority on what true Islam is.

      2. We’re not laughing with you. We’re laughing at you.

    2. Some of them are like “How DARE you put a vote-splitter in the spotlight endorse someone who won’t win… you should’ve just went with NO ENDORSEMENT!”

      Pick no one instead of someone not in the Big Two. Logic straight outta Bizarro World.

  4. I don’t know why the papers even bother with this anymore. Back in the day people respected their opinions and it may have swayed a few voters but now nobody gives a damn what half a dozen suits on an editorial board think. If anything it hurts their (already shrinking) circulation by pissing off potential customers.

    1. I don’t know why the papers even bother with this anymore.

      They need the occasional rituals to remind people that their opinions are special and more important than that of, say, “bloggers”

      1. that, and it’s click bait for their revenue stream

    2. The scummy, lowlife vermin in the JournoList are too fucking stupid and disconnected to realize that their opinion is probably more likely to sway people in the OPPOSITE direction nowadays. The majority now holds the media in even more contempt than the politicians.

      1. So your theory is that JournoList is pro-Gary Johnson?

  5. If these early trend lines hold up, Donald Trump will be the least-endorsed major-party presidential nominee in at least post-war history, and I would guess ever.

    Loolzzzzzzz I can’t wait for those America-hating lamestream media thinktards to have blow up heads whan teh silent morlock majority vote to Maek America Greet Again.


      1. Would it not be “WHEREGONE MY ENDORSEMENT GO TO?!”

        1. +INTERCAL

    2. Ah, it looks like I left out the part about Wiegel scumbags. Next time.

  6. If Hillary becomes President and the Democrats take control of the Senate, then I think two things will happen.

    1) We will have single payer.

    Hillary won’t sign anything less than single payer, and the Republicans won’t have the votes to override her veto.

    2) Our Second Amendment rights may be forfeit.

    Hillary will pick candidates specifically because they’re hostile to the Second Amendment, and the Senate will confirm them.

    The best outcome is that Johnson wins.

    The second best outcome is that Trump wins and Johnson does extremely well.

    If Hillary wins, I’m not sure Rand Paul winning the White House in 2020 will be enough to undo the damage to our country and our rights.

    If Hillary wins, we better hope that the Republicans maintain control of the Senate.

    1. Should read: “Hillary will pick [Supreme Court nominees] specifically because they’re hostile to the Second Amendment, and the Senate will confirm them.”

      . . . but you probably already knew that.

      1. First Amendment, too.

        1. Yeah. 2nd amendment is the least our worries. Prepare to see state right to work laws, pension reforms, failure to adequately implement Hilarycare, etc. ruled unconstitutional.

          With 5 hardcore lefties on the court, you don’t even need congress to do a lot of damage.

    2. I’ve been avoiding facederp just so I don’t have to see the retarded “voting 3rd party is wasting your vote!” crap from my friends and relatives.

      Every time I see that phrase it makes me want to go into a berserker rage and just start yelling obscenities and throwing chairs, etc.

      1. I’ve been avoiding it since mid 2012 because of political shit. It never ends.

        1. Me too, since I graduated college. It makes me actually miss the days when people just used social media to talk about what they just ate or their latest BM.

      2. My Facebook is an apocalypse of annoyance this week. It is probably half election shit thanks to a few individuals who I actually like well enough to keep around but am seriously considering permanently giving them the “girl whose personal Facebook suddenly became a makeup sales spammer” mute treatment. Hitting from all sides, even the pro-Johnson side (which doesn’t make it any better).

        Repeat: 5 weeks until the election, and what’s taking up half the brainspace of my entire social group is “election shit”.

        *slowly inserts gun to mouth*

        1. Luckily most of my feed is family stuff.

          I like to keep my lefty friends just to see how stupid they can be. (Pretty much all of my conservative friends avoid talking politics on FB, thank god.)

          I had to drop the hammer on one of my good friends a few years ago after one of the “mass shootings” when she straight up said that everyone that supports gun rights is a racist who deserves to die.

      3. Ditto here! Other than liking cute photos of my friends’ kids and posting a few of my own, most of the stuff they say makes my blood boil. A couple of them are supporting GJ, one at least is for Trump, and the others are all in for Hilldog. The GJ supporters get shit thrown at them every day way worse than the Trumpkin.

      4. I don’t even have a derpbook page and won’t get one until after the election is over. And even then, I’m going to make it clear to everyone that I’m “friends” with that posting political crap on my feed or wall or talking about that shit in the comments or whatever the fuck will get them unfriended and blocked. No exceptions, even if I agree with the shit being posted.

    3. I’m not so sure about #1.

      Hillary won’t sign anything less than single payer, and the Republicans won’t have the votes to override her veto.

      That’s not quite sufficient to get there. I don’t see the US going single payer. More likely we’d end up with something like they have in Germany or France, but stupider.

      1. If she has control of either house, you can guarantee it will be completely retarded.

      2. “Single Payer” is a loaded term, so the people who want it use other terms like “public option”.

        A third of the country now only has one insurer to choose on the exchange. The insurers elsewhere are all demanding double digit premium increases to stay on the exchanges, etc., etc.

        They’d have fixed it already if so many people in Congress weren’t running for reelection. No congressperson is about to take a stand on a controversial issue in a campaign year.

        If and when Hillary wins, she won’t propose “Single Payer 5000”.

        She’ll just insist on a public option.

        “Hillary will stand up to Republican-led attacks on this landmark law?and build on its success to bring the promise of affordable health care to more people and make a “public option” possible. She will also support letting people over 55 years old buy into Medicare.”

        That’s from her campaign website.

        She’s running on it.

        It’s a promise.

        1. “Single Payer” is a loaded term, so the people who want it use other terms like “public option”.

          I do hear people talking positively about “single payer” quite a bit.

          A promise worth as much as any campaign promise. I would expect to see the insurance companies propped up somehow. Probably through higher subsidies and more rules to keep them from dropping out of exchanges.

          1. “A promise worth as much as any campaign promise.”

            ObamaCare is crashing down on their heads.

            The options aren’t

            1) Do nothing
            2) Plan A
            3) Some other plan

            There’s no do nothing option.

            It’s either Plan A or some other plan.

            Plan A is single payer (by any other name), and if Hillary has both the veto pen and the Senate, then it’s unreasonable to assume that we’d end up with anything but single payer.

            If Trump wins, we probably don’t end up with single payer. If Trump wins and the Republicans maintain control of the Senate, then we almost certainly don’t end up with single payer.

            Just because neither candidate is desirable from a libertarian standpoint doesn’t mean that the consequences of one of them winning aren’t worse than the consequences of the other one winning.

            1. Dems aren’t going to take the 60 senate seats needed. It isn’t enough to have 51. You can relax some.

              1. Filibuster would be nuked, and the “reconciliation maneuver” like with Lightbringercare would be used. 51 is enough to do anything….thanks Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi!

              2. The Dems are not going to take the Senate at all. And the numbers are way against them in 2018.

                1. They can really f up plenty of stuff in two years John if they do take the senate, and I think they might very well pull it off.

              3. 60 senate seats for what?

                Point is that the Democrat controlled Senate passes a “public option” plan.

                Hillary supports the plan and says she wants to sign it.

                How long do the Republicans in the House hold out?

                It’s not a question of if they cave but when. . . . meanwhile, the exchanges continue to crater with no alternative sight?

                If both houses are still controlled by Republicans, that narrative changes. It’s Hillary vetoing a plan that doesn’t include a public option. She’ll have more pressure on her to sign something if the Democrats don’t have the Senate.

                If Donald Trump is in the White House, he’s not going out of his way to sign single payer. He’s not going to the wall against it, but he’s not actively fighting for it either. He’s certainly not going to veto something just because it doesn’t include single payer.

              4. Dems aren’t going to take the 60 senate seats needed.

                They didn’t need 60 seats to pass Obamacare. They attached the entire bill to a spending bill so that they’d only 51 votes. They’ll do something like that again if they have to.

                1. Doubtful. Obama came into office with a mandate to reform Healthcare. Hillary will have no such mandate and will govern moderately so she can try to contact America into another four years.

                  1. Obama had no such mandate about healthcare when he came in. It was deep in the recession and the #1 concern was JOBS. His initial 65% approval tanked as soon as he started talking about healthcare and hasn’t yet fully recovered.

                2. The Democrats are not getting the Senate. Even 538 is admitting their chances are pretty slim.

                  1. Depends on how many blue zombies turn out to vote against Trump and vote D down ticket. Last time I checked, PA, IL, and NH could easily flip, possibly NC too.

        2. “She will also support letting people over 55 years old buy into Medicare.”
          I’m not old enough to understand Medicare, but old enough that I’ve stop looking forward to the arrival of such milestone birthdays. I thought it’s harder to find a doctor who will take new Medicare patients.
          Is being able to buy into Medicare supposed to be a good thing?

          1. People are afraid of you taking it away because they don’t have any other options at that age.

            But nobody really wants to be on Medicare unless they don’t have any other affordable options.

            Generally speaking, being 55+ is fairly expensive.

    4. And how will the Democrats pass single payer without control of the House?

  7. How could the Democratic and Republican parties stagger so far from this nation’s political mainstream?

    Given the fact that the majority of voters are prepared to vote for these two parties’ nominees, I’d suggest you might want to examine the presumption that you know where the political mainstream runs and how far the candidates are from it. As horrifying as the thought may be and as much as you may not want to consider it, it may be that the majority of your fellow citizens are no more fit to rule themselves than a retarded magpie and are just smart enough to know it.

    1. To be fair, based off those emails WikiLeaks revealed, the Democrat base didn’t necessarily nominate Clinton.

      1. Yeah, they wanted to nominate an old commie instead.

    2. “How could the Democratic and Republican parties stagger so far from this nation’s political mainstream?”

      I might add that Donald Trump is hardly representative of the Republican Party.

      He won despite the objections of the Tea Party.

      He won despite the objections of the establishment GOP.

      Donald Trump won the nomination because of an influx from white, blue collar workers that have traditionally voted for Democrats.

      If it weren’t for states with open primaries, Donald Trump wouldn’t be the nominee.

      1. I’ve heard this from many sources but never seen any stats to back it up. Anyone have comparisons between how Trump did in open primary vs. closed primary states?

        1. “In those open primaries, Trump has come out ahead in 13 out of 16 states. In states with closed primaries, Trump won only six out of 14 states. Overall, Trump has won closed states about half as often as he’s won those open states. “


          Look at the graph on that page.

          That was before the primaries were over, too. Other open primary states went big for Trump after that, too.

          But at that point, he was winning open primaries 80% of the time. Closed primaries less than 50%.

          Then there’s this article at the New York Times:

          “Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat”

          1. From the NYT article:

            “Donald Trump holds a dominant position in national polls in the Republican race in no small part because he is extremely strong among people on the periphery of the G.O.P. coalition.

            He is strongest among Republicans who are less affluent, less educated and less likely to turn out to vote. His very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats. It’s a coalition that’s concentrated in the South, Appalachia and the industrial North, according to data provided to The Upshot by Civis Analytics, a Democratic data firm.”

            When these democrats voted for Reagan, they called them Reagan Democrats.

            If Trump wins, they’ll call them Trump Democrats. If Trump loses, the press will pretend like they never existed and the Democratic Party has the full support of white, blue collar workers everywhere.

          2. He got literally every delegate in my state’s closed primary, so…

      2. I wonder how many proggies voted for Trump in open primaries to handicap the opposition? Turnout in the dem primaries was way down, something like 20%, compared with 2008, even accounting for the Berniebots.

        1. I think that assumes a level of sophistication and nuance of which very few progressives are capable.

          On an individual basis, crowds of progressives in more than a dozen states passed up the chance to choose between St. Bernie and Hillary–just to make the Republicans choose Trump?

          Also remember that Trump was unusual in courting traditional blue collar Democrats. Anti-free trade?!

          Trump ran to the left of Bill Clinton on economic issues. These are people who wish they were in the UAW and believe all things the UAW tells them about how the economy works–it might be surprising to see them vote for Trump if Trump weren’t actively free trade.

          But they flocked to the Democratic candidate in the Republican Party because the progressives in the Democratic Party leadership have abused them so. The progressives have demonized the white, blue collar, middle class for being racist, stupid (on global warming), and selfish (for being middle class). It shouldn’t be indicative of a conspiracy to see them flock to the Republicans in droves. They’re being chased out of the Democratic Party by social justice warriors.

          1. “It might be surprising to see them vote for Trump if Trump weren’t actively [anti-] free trade”.

            Fixed the omission!

        2. The Democrats have become so obsessed with identity politics; they’re the party of feminists, black lives matter, illegal aliens, Muslims, environmentalists, LGBTQI, etc., and they demonize everyone in their way. But if you’re a registered Democrat who isn’t a feminist, isn’t black lives matter, isn’t an illegal alien, isn’t Muslim, or environmentalist, or one of the alphabet people, then why should you support the Democrats? They’re sick of being demonized by their own leaders.

          Trump just offered them a way out and stayed true to their economic beliefs.

          1. I was kind of joking, but thanks Ken! I agree about the identity politics driving out the old lunch bucket dems. I wonder how much further the SJWs can parse the population into different aggrieved groups who all think they are owed something? One big problem I see is that the progressive politicians and big shots are almost all exclusively white and superrich, so eventually the SJWs will come for them.

      3. Trump win more because the field was too crowded. If there were only 3 or 4 people in the race to begin with and down to 2 soon enough like the dems, Trump would at best be the Republican Bernie Samders.

        This is why we need runoff elections.

    3. Everyone is fit to rule themselves. What they aren’t fit for is deciding who is going to rule other people.

      And I think most voters care about personality and stupid platitudes that have nothing to do with what a president can actually do than anything else. What a candidate is actually likely to do is mostly irrelevant to most voters.

      1. Most voters don’t pay that much attention to politics. They don’t vote on the things you list. What you have to remember is most people don’t have some detailed understanding of politics and budget and the various issues facing the country. So what they mostly vote on is someone they feel like is reasonable, wants to make things better and seems willing to work with the other side to do so. People love the idea that we could solve our problems if only politicians would be reasonable and try to do it.

        This is why the media does so much damage. The media by being completely slanted to the left, forever makes every candidate who isn’t look unreasonable and extreme and every left wing candidate seem centrist and pragmatic. If the media actually told the truth and Democrats actually had to be reasonable to appear that way to the public, we would not be in near the mess we are in.

        1. So what they mostly vote on is someone they feel like is reasonable, wants to make things better and seems willing to work with the other side to do so.

          That’s mostly what I meant by “personality and stupid platitudes”.

          1. It is not really a stupid platitude. The entire political system is built around the idea of varying interests being reasonable and compromising. The public seems to understand that when no one in politics or the media does.

      2. “Everyone is fit to rule themselves”
        Perhaps, but it is pretty easy to show that many aren’t. Ted Kennedy, a Top Man, for instance.

        1. Well, as fit as they are going to be.

    4. I’d suggest you might want to examine the presumption that you know where the political mainstream runs

      That’s fair, but I really don’t think you can use popular vote totals to gauge where the mainstream is, either. To the extent that there is a single “mainstream” set of policies, the two party system splits it into two branches.

      I really do think that the following is a good description of where “mainstream” voters lie:

      1) A military that defends “American values” but does it effectively and without significant cost
      2) A simplified tax code that is still pretty heavily progressive
      3) Regulations that keep consumers safe but still allow for entrepreneurial success
      4) A robust welfare program that also holds individuals accountable
      5) Laws that allow the “right people” to own guns while keeping them out of the hands of bad guys
      6) Policies that will address climate change but which won’t significantly impact standards of living
      7) Reforms that allow immigrants into the country but not in a way that impacts culture or existing jobs
      8) A President who can heal the country’s wounds on race, sexual orientation, religion, and gender

      In other words, the mainstream wants unicorns. But since no one promises *all* the unicorns, they vote R or D based on their cultural affiliations.

  8. I endorse Gary Johnson.

    The Me Gazette.

      1. Done.

        /silently looks over to Matt.

    1. The Me Gazette

      Can I pick that up at the newspaper stand near the train station?


    USA Today’s cry de coer this morning is hilarious. It isn’t an unreasonable or funny essay until you realize they are telling you to vote for Hillary. Then it becomes one of the most tragic comic opeds of all time.

    1. “The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.”

      I imagine this was written with an extra helping of bitterness for those on the board who refuse to fall perfectly in line.

    2. I just caught the headline, so it’s and undorsement?

      1. They can’t bring themselves to tell you to vote for Clinton directly, but they can say “do anything to stop Trump”, which in practice mans vote for Clinton. The whole thing is just comical.

    3. “…Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.”


      1. Oh, I see…they’re not specifically endorsing Hillary. In fact, I bet their counterpart anti-Hillary editorial is coming right up!

        1. Maybe Hillary is going to win. When your own supporters can’t bring themselves to endorse you directly, that doesn’t bode well for your chances. A lot of people hate Trump but there is no denying that a lot of people love him. In contrast, is there anyone not on her payroll who loves Hillary? Anyone?

      2. OK, so give examples of Hillary’s lack of knowledge and honesty and not just made-up sexist conservative examples! (p.s. any and all examples are sexist and made-up)

        1. Wait, that was sarcasm, I was almost fooled.

    4. “” It isn’t an unreasonable or funny essay until you realize they are telling you to vote for Hillary.””

      Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.

      Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.

      That seems sort of unambiguous, john

      1. The reality is either Trump or Hillary are going to be President. So telling people not to vote for Trump, is most certainly endorsing Hillary, especially when you are not endorsing Johnson or Stein directly.

        1. As always, and like Obama said, a vote for anyone but the right candidate is a vote for the wrong candidate. If you don’t vote R, you’re voting D.

          1. They didn’t endorse Johnson or Stein. So telling people “don’t vote Trump” but then not telling them who to vote for, is in practice an endorsement of Hillary.

          2. Yeah.

            But can you please not use John as an excuse to claim “everyone here keeps saying that”.

            1. Except I didn’t say that. Which part of “especially when you don’t endorse Johnson or Stein” do you guys find so hard to understand?

              I don’t mind when people disagree with me, but I wish they would at least understand what I am saying before they do.

            2. Don’t get your ass chapped, I never actually said “everyone here keeps saying that” nor would I.

              1. “”nor would I””

                maybe i’m confusing you with someone else.

      2. An non-endorsement for Johnson is an endorsement for Clinton.

        1. A page long rant telling people not to vote for Johnson, very well could be an endorsement for Clinton, if it was the case that people not voting for Johnson helped her. What do you think the Clinton media is doing when it started attacking Johnson? They only started that after they realized Johnson was hurting Clinton.

          You really are kind of dense aren’t you?

  10. My king-making newsletter will be endorsing Gary Johnson as well. Just FYI.

  11. So how many daily newspapers have endorsed Republican nominee Donald Trump? As far as I can tell, zero. The Wikipedia page has the count at 13-6-0, Clinton over Johnson over Trump.

    Since USA Today’s editorial is anti-Trump but not pro-anyone else, we should really score that 13 to 6 to -1

  12. So how many daily newspapers have endorsed Republican nominee Donald Trump? As far as I can tell, zero. The Wikipedia page has the count at 13-6-0, Clinton over Johnson over Trump.

    Considering how low regard the public holds the media, isn’t that a positive for Trump?

    1. For me, the fact that the Weigelian scum hate him this much is by far his biggest asset and most positive attribute.

      1. That is the only thing that sold me on him. No one that scumbag weasels like Weigal hate that much can be that bad. I am sorry but I just don’t buy it. He may not be great but the fact that the media thinks he is Satan means he can’t be bad.

        1. So your opinion of Trump is based on the opinion of other people that you don’t like?

          1. Partially yes. Your opinion of everyone in politics is likely based on something similar. It is not like you know any of these people personally. Worse still, everyone in the media and politics has their own agenda and is going to spin or lie to further it. So you can’t take any of them strictly at their word.

            How do you judge these people? Mostly you judge them by who their enemies are and who their friends are. That tells you whose interests they are furthering and whose interests they are harming.

            The thing about Trump is not that he is disliked by the media and the establishment, it is that their dislike is so emotional and irrational. Understand up front, that none of them give a shit about the country or anything but themselves. So all of their talk about his being dangerous to the country is just bullshit. They don’t care about the country and thus wouldn’t see or care about a danger to it if they saw one. They have gone insane over him because he is apparently an enormous threat to their power and influence. And that is by any measure a very good thing.

            1. Mostly you judge them by who their enemies are and who their friends are.

              That’s honestly not true in my case. I’m voting for Johnson because I agree with most of his policies.

              Understand up front, that none of them give a shit about the country or anything but themselves

              I honestly don’t think that is true, either. Don’t misunderstand – I agree that there are plenty of people who are in it only to enrich themselves. But I think a large number of people on the right and left, especially in the media, honestly and truly believe they are doing the right thing. They have a different set of values than I do (and at any rate, even judging by their own values I think they are misguided).

              But me disagreeing with them doesn’t mean that *any* alternative is de facto good. That’s binary thinking at it’s worst.

              1. I was speaking about the media and most but not all politicians. And I would vote for Johnson except that I don’t agree with him about immigration. That is a huge issue for me. I am not voting for an open borders candidate, end of story. Trump is the only candidate who is not an open borders candidate. So that kind of narrows it down

                1. While I readily admit that Johnson’s website is short on details,

                  we should focus on creating a more efficient system of providing work visas, conducting background checks, and incentivizing non-citizens to pay their taxes, obtain proof of employment, and otherwise assimilate with our diverse society

                  hardly seems like open borders to me. But, then, I don’t really know what the term means anymore.

                  1. Some people seem to think that “open borders” means anything that doesn’t keep out the vast majority of poor immigrants.

                    I say it means that anyone who comes to the border gets to enter the country. It’ the extreme case that no one but anarchists actually propose to implement, the opposite of closed borders.

                  2. What is a more efficient system for getting VISAS other than one that lets more people get them more quickly? Background checks are to immigration what “fraud waste and abuse” are to spending. They are always the thing that is going to get done but never is. Incentivizing non citizens to pay taxes and assimilate is otherwise known as amnesty.

                    Johnson plans to let more people in with less scrutiny while doing nothing about those who are already here except legalizing them. That sounds pretty open borders to me.

                    If you support that, fine. I don’t. But please stop pissing down my leg and telling me its raining by claiming Johnson isn’t really that radical on immigration. He sure as hell is. You are Zeb are trying to tell me that because he isn’t a flat out anarchist who wont’ even pretend to control the border, I am just some crazy for not supporting him. Sorry, Johnson is as I say below to the left of Hillary on immigration. And I am not voting for someone who is that.

                    1. You may not like Johnson’s position, but you can’t argue that it is open borders for any meaningful definition of the term. And throwing it around to describe an immigration system that isn’t as controlled as you would like is disingenuous. You do the same thing with the term “amnesty”.

                      And that is really all Zeb and I were saying. Don’t confuse your persecution complex for our words.

                2. You may disagree with him on immigration. But “open borders” hardly describes his position on the subject.

                  1. Really Zeb? I have yet to hear Johnson say anything that would cause me to conclude he would refuse to let anyone in. He has never had anything but praise for Obama’s border policies which have virtually stopped deportation of even criminals unless they are turned away at the border. He is completely against making any kind of vetting for Muslim immigrants. Short of them wearing a sign that says “ISIS Operative”, I can’t see any reason why Johnson would refuse them entry. Johnson on immigration is to the left of Hillary even.

                    It is what it is. It is not like he isn’t honest about it. I just think it is insane and would never want him to be President because of it.

  13. Clown attack forces schools in Reading to cancel Friday’s classes

    Here’s Reason talking about this shit but not covering the clown attack. Where’s the clown attack article, Treason? In the bag for Big Clown? Huh?

    1. The media has been downplaying the dangers of Big Clown going back to the Eisenhower Administration. Someone very high up somewhere has made it very clear that the public is to remain ignorant of the dangers of Big Clown.

      1. The media has been downplaying the dangers of Big Clown going back to the Eisenhower Administration.

        This even despite his warning about the clown-industrial complex.

        1. Ike knew the score.

      2. Someone very high up somewhere has made it very clear that the public is to remain ignorant of the dangers of Big Clown.

        The Ringling Brothers are very, very powerful. The Koch’s are pikers next to them. /sarc

    2. Have you ever seen the Koch brothers and Bozo the Clown together in the same room?

      Think about it.

      1. Now I kinda want someone to create a bot that goes around posting on Salon and Huffpo and linking every negative story to the Kochs with this type of logic, and see how seriously they take it.

    3. In the bag for Big Clown? Huh?

      I dunno, they seem to be pretty adamantly anti-Trump.

      Maybe because Pennywise is pulling the strings, so to speak.

      1. A friend of mine, who is a big Democrat by the way, and I were talking about the idea that Trump is stupid. She being a UPenn Alum made a point I had not thought of; Trump went to Wharton. Time and again politicians are held up as being intelligent because they went to Harvard Law. The thing about Harvard Law is that no one ever flunks out. If you buy your way in, you are going to graduate. That is not true about a place like Wharton. They grade on an actual curve there. Those classes involve actual math and technical knowledge and people often do flunk out. So being a rich kid most certainly could have gotten Trump into Wharton, but unlike Harvard Law or any big name undergraduate school, being rich didn’t get him the degree. Anyone who graduates from Wharton is not stupid.

        Megan McArdle tries her best to bet he exception to that rule, but I am convinced she just plays stupid because her audience at the Atlantic is so stupid.

        1. Are you saying smart people can’t be clowns? Are you calling clowns STUPID?!?!? You’d better not plan any trips down south, mister.

          1. I am already on Big Clown’s enemies’ list. So I have nothing to lose.

        2. If he’s so smart, he should release his grades to show us how smart he is, and demand that Hillary do the same. Every time she says ‘show me your tax returns’ he could reply with ‘show me your grades’

          1. You miss the point. It doesn’t matter what his grades were. He graduated. That itself tells you that he is smart. They don’t just pass everyone who gets in at Wharton the way the do at top law schools.

            And I would imagine his grades were fine, but not inflated the way they are at top law schools. At Wharton a B actually means something.

            1. Perhaps he received nothing but D’s the entire time he was there. Smart enough to not flunk out, sure. But that’s all we know.

              1. If they are really grading on a curve, Ds aren’t necessarily terrible.

          2. Every time she says ‘show me your tax returns’ he could reply with ‘show me your grades tits’

            Have some nightmare fuel.

    4. This might just be me, but I think this wave of clown terrorism is a perfect sign of the times.

      1. The Germans were onto something with zeitgeist.

        1. You know who else thought Germans were onto something?

          1. The American Medical Association?

          2. FDR?

          3. John Blutarsky?

      2. Mass hysteria, inflamed by a few pranksters.

    5. How about those clowns down on Capitol Hill?

      1. Also, what’s the deal with airline food?

      2. Robot DJ: “It looks like those clowns in congress have done it again. What a bunch of clowns”.

        Actual DJ: “How does it keep up with the news like that?!”

    6. The woman told police the clown told her: “I should just kill you now” and “students and teachers (will) wish they were never born at the junior and senior high school today.”

      Grammar clown and his misplaced modifiers.

      1. Grammar clown and grammar nazi walk into a bar. They both order beers then grammar clown says “I think I’ll take my drink in the back”. Grammar nazi covers his eyes and says “Oh no, not again”.

    7. First, it’s not “Big Clown.” It’s Frenchy the Clown from “Evil Clown Comics.”

      Second, as flawed as Johnson is, he’s really the best candidate by quite a bit. Not just from the libertarian perspective, either. Chew on that tidbit for awhile.

      1. I see your subtle reference to the munchies there.

    8. Jerez the Clown
      ….from the Museum of Bad Art. Great cultural relevance in art is often recognized too late.


    Online polls are of course for entertainment value only. But this is funny. The poor Progs at buzzfeed. Those Trumpkin assholes just have no respect for anything.

    1. This election makes me feel bad for the writers of the Onion. Nothing they invent about the presidential race could possibly surpass real life in ridiculousness.

      1. They only made it worse by pulling the poll. Most people probably didn’t notice or care about it. Pulling it and acting all butt hurt about it just gave it attention it would not have otherwise received.

    2. This is gold. Comedy. Gold.

  15. So newspapers are still a thing then?

    1. I don’t see how you can housebreak pets, or paint furniture otherwise.

      1. They make big rolls of paper you can buy at the hardware store for that now.

      2. Or starting fires. If I didn’t still get the free local weekly in the mail, I don’t know what I’d do.

  16. I heard an interview on NPR (*it was someone else’s car) the other day with the author of a new book on the Koch brothers.

    “Sons of Wichita”, or something, if i recall. By a Mother Jones journalist.

    I thought it would be interesting to hear what the latest leftist Pinata-bashing techniques were.

    The funny part of the interview was how i completely expected the journo to hyper-exaggerate every reported detail in a desperate attempt to smear them…. but the opposite was actually the case.

    It was the NPR *interviewer* who kept insisting “But they’re completely right-wing fanatics, right?!”… and the writer was like, “erm, Not really, actually….” explaining that they’ve always been socially liberal, against wars as far back as Vietnam, have helped evict Republican pols from office on purely fiscal matters… etc.

    Basically, it was a hilarious inversion of what i’d normally expect = where the Mother Jones writer spent a half-hour mostly *defending* the Koch brothers from the uninformed biases of the lefty media, correcting them on basic facts, and insisting that things were more nuanced than people had mostly come to believe.

    1. I bet the NPR hack was pissed. That poor guy is never getting his book plugged on NPR again.

      1. No, i think it probably made sense in the minds of most NPR listeners.

        The point would be… that listeners are already starting from a base-POV which assumes these guys to be “Extreme Right Wingers”

        so, this journalist is providing the ‘balancing view’, which affirms their perception of NPR & MoJo as “unbiased sources”.

        Its a win-win all around. I just thought it was funny hearing him struggle with the admissions that “libertarians” aren’t quite the right-wing caricature that maybe Harry Reid et al might have left the impression of.

  17. So if Gary is elected I guess the Tribune will have a lot of pull with Johnson?

  18. If only _Gary_Johnson_ was principled….

  19. Browne 1.0, Browne 2.0, Badnarik, Barr (shudder), Gary 1.0…. I even ran for state rep as a Lib back in the day, Dems kicked my ass off the ballot… been there, done that. Proud member of the under 1% club. Now Gary 2.0 is endorsed by Chicago Tribune and more, under siege by Clinton and Co., and yet still polling at +/- 10% in spite of all the AleppoGates? For fuck’s sake, can we for once not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with all the “OMG he ain’t a REAL Liberarian” bullshit? Can y’all not see the big ass picture (up and until the earth is encompassed by the sun, that is?) Day drinking on Friday, recommended. Cheers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.