Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson Endorses* Kmele Foster for 2020: The Fifth Column Goes Presidential

Libertarian nominee drops by to talk Aleppo, Black Lives Matter, Boston Globe, and whether he'll be veep under President Foster

|

Name a more iconic duo. I'll wait. ||| Matt Welch
Matt Welch

Since Michael C. Moynihan's "train didn't work," The Fifth Column, your very favorite libertarian-friendly podcast, found itself down a man for the first half of this week's show. Then we saw this guy (pictured) muttering to himself near Times Square…and the rest is political/broadcast history!

Among the topics you may expect: Kmele challenged Johnson's emphasis on the racial disparities of crime statistics, I asked him whether there was any truth to the Boston Globe's disputed reporting that he angrily rebuffed attempts by Weld strategists to see whether the L.P. ticket could be flipped (answer: no), and we managed to channel Moynihan enough to talk about the potentially worrisome mix between foreign-policy ignorance and the imperatives of the presidency. Among the topics you may not expect was whether Kmele should run for president in 2020, and would Johnson agree to be his vice president?

Moynihan joins for the second half of the show, and many idiots are shamed. Listen to the whole thing here:

Here are the places where you can download, interact with, recommend to your friends about, and write glowing reviews of, The Fifth Column: iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, wethefifth.com, @wethefifth, and Facebook.

* Bonus quiz: Which will be the "news" outlet to run with this endorsement as evidence of further "tension in the L.P. ticket"? And how long will it take?

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.

112 responses to “Gary Johnson Endorses* Kmele Foster for 2020: The Fifth Column Goes Presidential

  1. NICE GOTCHA RIGHT OFF THE BAT, WETHEFIFTH. You got Governor Johnson to admit he can’t name anyone running against him. #disqualified

  2. A bigger johnson at the top of the ticket couldn’t hurt.

    1. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, it’ll hurt only if you’re doing it right.

  3. Finally, America can have its REAL first black president.

    1. It’s funny because it’s true. Well, except the part about Foster being president.

      1. I haven’t listened to the ‘cast, but I haven’t detected anything that indicates president of what.

      2. That got a laugh/cough from me.

      3. I thought it was true except for the part about Kmele being black.

        1. To be honest, until they do a show in Blackcent, the jury’s still out. And I suspect if they do a show in Blackcent, Moynihan may be the blackest of them all.

        2. +1 Uncle Tom

          Watching the left lose their shit over the prospect of a black Libertarian candidate would be fun though.

  4. Since Michael C. Moynihan’s “train didn’t work,”

    It’ll give Moynihan a chance to wax eloquent on trains running on time.

    1. Well, there was that other Moynihan whose train station doesn’t even work (because it still hasn’t been built).

      1. +1 Big Dig.

  5. I already told you Matt. Foster/Moynihan and I’ll donate time and money. I voted Johnson in 2012 and will again this year, but 2020 calls for fresh blood.

    1. And Moynihan knows where to get fresh blood.

      1. When will the vampire jokes end?!? Personally I hope never.

      1. But it’s necessary.

        1. I’m chasin’ bitches like Tom chased Jerry…

  6. Among the topics you may not expect was whether Kmele should run for president in 2020

    Yeezy’s for everyone!

  7. Kmele for 2020? We don’t need another white male president.

  8. My answer to Matt’s alt text.

    http://starcasm.net/archives/14922

    1. I upvote your response and name.

    2. I really hope the new MST3K does that one.

  9. Gary and Kmele are the Salt ‘n Pepa of the political world.

    1. Does that make Matt Spinderella?

      Will the timeless Salt-N-Pepa classic Whatta Man be Kmele’s campaign song?

      “A body like Arnold with a Denzel face, he’s smart like a doctor with a real good rep.”*

      *I did not have to look up the lyric, and that is not something I’m proud of.

      1. It’s catchy. Don’t be embarrassed.

  10. Huh:

    The Washington State Gambling Commission’s action is the first time a U.S. regulator has attempted to crack down on a multibillion-dollar online gambling market that uses virtual items earned in video games as currency.

    So… not only does your money belong to the IRS, so does your level 18 Cloak of Invisibility.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/bu…..-gambling/

    1. ::Dons cloak::

      Hah! They’ll have to find me first!

    2. “In Washington, and everywhere in the United States, skins betting on sports remains a large, unregulated black market for gambling,” Commissioner Chris Stearns said in a statement. “And that carries great risk for the players who remain wholly unprotected in an unregulated environment.”

      OH NOEZ! NOT UNREGULATED ACTIVITY! *feints*

      Valve did not respond to a request for comment. It has until Oct. 14 to respond to the gaming commission’s letter.

      If the response is anything other than a photo-copied middle finger I’m gonna be disappointed.

  11. Since Michael C. Moynihan’s “train didn’t work,”

    That’s, uh, quite a euphemism.

    1. He had to get out and pull it IYKWIM.

  12. I think it is safe to say that reason is not going to mention Hillary’s desire to have Julian Assange murdered. I am not surprised.

    What are the chances they say anything about CATO’s repudiation of its support for gun rights? Will that also be a truth that reason doesn’t think its readers can handle?

    1. Look, if Hillary wants a drone strike on London, who are we to stop her?

      1. She was just showing what a rebel she is. “Why can’t we just drone strike him” was her showing how she is a woman who wants to get things done.

        1. Unfortunately, John, while I love to take a flamethrower to the Hillary campaign, this is thin stuff.

          There are unverified sources that reported she may have “jokingly” said she’d drone strike the guy. From there, there’s a lot of secondary speculation from other memos that raise eyebrows (such as a memo which talked about doing legal and ‘non-legal’ stuff), but don’t amount to any smoking… drones.

          Criticizing Reason for not running with this partially deflated football isn’t really fair.

          Especially when there are other real and glaring things that Hillary has done and said.

          1. Criticizing Reason for not running with this partially deflated football isn’t really fair.

            Because reason never would do such with Trump. Come on. Are you going to tell me if that story were about Trump, reason wouldn’t be shitting their pants over it with 8 posts a day?

            Trump made one statement about the need to get rid of the special treatment of public figures in libel law and reason went insane over it for weeks. What the hell would they have done over this?

            So yeah going after reason for having the exact same double standard the rest of the media has and for showing their “pox on both houses we are independent” claims to be the bullshit that they are is totally fair.

            I don’t care what you and the rest of the fanboys on here think. This is bullshit.

            1. See this Katherine Mangu-Ward and Matt Welch!!!!!!

              I warned you how badly your decision to heavily cover this relatively inconsequential presidential electionw as going to turn out.

              Once you stop reporting news and instead sink to publishing gossip about celebrities, it creates huge problems.

              1) Of course there are the important news stories that go unreported. I’ve pounded that to death and I won’t do it here.

              2) But, it also changes your reader base. Regulars have announced they won’t return until after the election. People are set at each others’ throats as they invariably get pushed into competing cliques by the vapidness of the coverage. The good are driven away or turned bad. Only people who are emotionally stunted and think like 12 – 15 year olds find the articles edifying.

              For the love of all that is good, could you please just walk away from the election for a few days? There is so much going on in the world that is interesting and worthy of reporting! Don’t waste it on gossip!

              1. yes Tarran, if you are going to shit your pants and go insane over every bullshit story about one candidate, you had better be prepared to do the same about every candidate.

                Of course they are not going to do that. And my answer to that is tough shit. They should have thought about that when they were going along with the mob having heart attacks about Trump. No one made them do that. And if they hadn’t, then walking away from things like this would not be an issue.

                1. I don’t think your point is invalid. My respect for truth is such that I have found myself defending Trump against some of Suderman’s allegations, even though I think Trump is a fascist who will stick a stake through the rule of law if he is allowed to.*

                  The decision to throw in with the LP this election was, IMHO, a very dumb one. They got excited at the prospect of an election where the LP was going to matter and impact the outcome. Their greed caused them to become reckless and now they are reaping what they sowed.

                  * Hillary is an even more dangerous fascist. She *likes* whacking people, and has done more to kill the rule of law in the U.S. than any other individual I can think of with the possible exception of FDR.

                  1. And as far as the LP goes, it would be a bit of karmic justice if Johnson ends up taking more votes from Hillary and getting Trump elected. Yeah, maybe deciding to shill for the LP rather than being a truly non partisan issues driven publication wasn’t such a great idea after all.

              2. The good are driven away or turned bad.

                THAT’S WHY I’M STILL HERE!

                1. You and me both Paul. You and me both.

      2. And I am sure if Trump had said something like that, Reason would have ignored it as well. After a year of Trumpapolza and reason shitting its pants over one Trump statement after another Reason’s silence over Hillary either joking or more likely seriously advocating about the murder of Assange is rather striking to say the least.

        1. And I am sure if Trump had said something like that, Reason would have ignored it as well

          Maybe. But why does Reason have to lower itself by becoming CNN (and everyone else) and breathlessly reporting that Giuliani said “Trump better than a woman”.

          1. Maybe?

            Come on Paul, who the fuck are you kidding here? How can you say that. Reason has spent months going insane over one half assed “outrage” after another. If your position is that reason might not have ran with that, you are really saying “I refuse to ever believe anything bad about reason or not given them every possible benefit of the doubt regardless of the evidence”. If that is your position, so be it but I don’t think many people outside of the reason fan club are going to find it very convincing.

            1. The only writer here who’s suffering from actual TDS is Dalmia.

              I don’t need (and I think others don’t either) to be convinced that Hillary might be an oily politician by blaring unconfirmed hearsay. Yes, I wish Reason would have concentrated more on the wonky legal aspect of Hillary’s email scam, and even more on her shady foundation dealings, but this is thin gruel.

              1. My point is not that it isn’t thin gruel, though I think it is a bit more than you make it. My point is that they set the standard for thin gruel in one Trump bullshit story after another over the last year. For them to now ignore this, which is right in their wheelhouse (I am pretty sure government use of drones is a big deal to them), makes them look like leftist hacks. Like I tell Tarran above, if they hadn’t set the standard so low for Trump, ignoring this would not be an issue. But they did and now they deserve to be called out for it.

              2. Yes, I wish Reason would have concentrated more on the wonky legal aspect of Hillary’s email scam, and even more on her shady foundation dealings

                GO START YOUR OWN BLOG THEN.

        2. Wikileaks said that Hillary Clinton wanted to drone Julian Assange!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          1. Yes and no one has denied that she said it. The claim is that she was “joking”, as if the DOS joking about the murder of someone in an official meeting is just totally okay. It makes it all better.

            1. Clinton: I don’t recall joking about droning Julian Assange

              responding to unconfirmed allegations circulating on right-wing websites, Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that she does not remember ever joking about targeting the founder of WikiLeaks in a drone strike.

              The conservative website True Pundit cited anonymous “State Department sources” in a report on Sunday to claim that Clinton in 2010 suggested to some staff members that the U.S. “drone” Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, whose website had embarrassed the U.S. when it published diplomatic cables, among other documents.

              “Can’t we just drone this guy?” the website claimed Clinton had said.

              WikiLeaks, an anti-secrecy organization that publishes documents from governments, corporations and other sources, tweeted out the quote from the True Pundit report on Monday. No mainstream news outlets have confirmed the claim.

              “I don’t recall any joke,” Clinton said, when asked about the allegations at a press conference in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday. “It would have been a joke, if it had been said, but I don’t recall that.”

              Reason is supposed to report that True Pundit wrote that anonymous sources said that Clinton joked she wanted to murder-drone a guy who doesn’t go outdoors?

              1. She doesn’t recall? And she didn’t just say “no” why?

                If she hadn’t said it, I am pretty sure she would say so. I don’t know about you but I have never joked about murdering anyone at work and if I did I would remember doing so. So, her saying “I don’t recall” is just her saying “I said it but you don’t’ have me on tape”

                Jesus Christ you are so fucking in love with reason you are willing to now believe Hillary Clinton and give her the benefit of the doubt. Wow.

                1. Start your own fucking blog, John. Show them that there is a real market niche out there for another Breitbart clone pretending to be a libertarian so it can shill for Trump.

                  1. Do you need a hug Sugar Free? I am sorry Hillary joked about drone striking someone. That is probably a bit triggering for you.

                    1. SugarFree is right, John. Whenever a blog posts content, one can either leave an approving comment or start a new blog. Those are the only choices.

                    2. They can put up whatever they like. And I can criticize them for it. That is how it works. Do you guys think they should be above criticism? I don’t.

                    3. Because this is the very first time John has complained about Reason not covering stories exactly how it would suit John to have them covered.

                2. Because if there’s no proof that she said it, then yeah, “she doesn’t recall” is the best you’re going to get. Yes, I believe she probably said it, but turning it into front-page blaring news is weak sauce. And I say again, just as weak sauce as every headline in every major daily blaring that Giuliani said “Trump better than a woman”. Which yes, he said, but was entirely in the context of Hillary Clinton specifically.

                  1. Because if there’s no proof that she said it, then yeah, “she doesn’t recall” is the best you’re going to get. Yes, I believe she probably said it, but turning it into front-page blaring news is weak sauce.

                    So the fact that Hillary probably did this is “weak sauce” but Trump expecting a beauty queen to not get fat warrants an entire article.

                    Give me a break. Just admit it that you will defend reason for anything. If you will claim that reason would have left this story alone had it been Trump, there is nothing you won’t say to defend them.

              2. I, for one, believe everything Hillary Clinton says.

                1. The way she couches her statements she almost never lies outright.

                2. I too believe everything Hillary Clinton says. I’m with Her.

                  1. You seem to be Crusty. If not, why are you taking her word here?

                    1. When did I say I’m taking her word? Can you be any more of a mewling contrarian? It’s so stupid.

                    2. Do you think she said it or don’t you? I think she certainly did.

                    3. I think whether or not she said she wanted to murder-drone Julian Assange is what is going to tip the scale in Trump’s favor. I mean, if she said that then I would definitely vote for Trump. I would have to.

                    4. Of course not. That is not my point. My point is that reason ought to apply the same standards to Hillary that they apply to Trump. If they are going to go ape shit over beauty queens when it comes to Trump, they ought to say something about this.

              3. The cable leak was before he holed up in the embassy, right? And, if we’re being cynical, the reason for it, assuming the rape charges were fabricated by people pissed off about those cable leaks.

        3. They’ve already drone-murdered at least two American citizens, so that train left the station a long time ago…

          1. True that. That is of course makes her claim that “it was just a joke” ring a bit hollow doesn’t it.

            But hey Paul assures us that top government officials joking about murdering people is just “weak sauce”. It is not like they would ever do it or anything.

            1. What’s really funny is how when Donald Trump says something comparable John becomes a master of nuance and context.

    2. This? http://www.cato.org/policy-rep…..compromise

      It’s not what I’d really like to hear. But I’m not sure I’d go so far as to call it a repudiation of support for gun rights.

      1. It is a repudiation Zeb. It is saying there is no right to own a gun unless there is a “common lawful purpose” for doing so. If they said you had a right to free speech as long as the speech was “reasonable” in the government’s view, wouldn’t you say they had repudiated free speech? I would. That is what they are doing here.

        And what do you mean “not what you would like to hear”? Do you agree with it? Are you offended by it? Or do you just view gun rights as one of those pain in the ass things that deplorable knuckle draggers like me value and that keep you from looking reasonable and being able to make some real progress with leftists? That seems to be the view of CATO.

        1. Maybe you should think about taking some time out from internet commenting to learn how to read.

          1. I read just fine. Maybe you should try and learn how to think. It is probably too late for you to do so, but it can’t hurt to try.

        2. I like how you switch out “lawful” for “reasonable” to make a false comparison.

          And there already is such a thing as unlawful speech. Telling someone you’ll give them 10 grand if they murder your spouse is unlawful speech.

    3. John can you provide a link to CATO’s “repudiation of its support for gun rights?” I can’t seem to find anything where they’ve done that.

      1. Zeb provided above. Yeah that’s disturbing. Levy coming out and saying that is pretty serious.

        1. It is very disturbing. Zeb and no doubt CATO and the entire reason staff views it with a shrug. But anyone who considers the issue important should not.

        2. I finally got around to reading it.

          Cato can go fuck themselves. As long as Robert Levy is an officer of the organization or employed by them, they won’t get a fucking thin dime from me.

          1. You really can’t exaggerate how awful it is. It buys into every bullshit Prog assumption about guns. The message CATO is sending to gun owners is “if you dumb red necks want to keep these nasty things, fine, you can keep a few of them as long as your betters don’t think they are too icky, but you are not keeping any guns we don’t think you need”.

            CATO love them or hate them is a big deal. And Levy is the director. This isn’t some intern going off the reservation. This is the director. He wrote that piece for a reason. And the reason is to tell the world that CATO no longer considers gun rights to be important and by implication neither does a significant and important segment of the Libertarian community.

            1. a significant and important segment

              Well that’s a bit much.

              policy think tanks aren’t exactly political-advocacy orgs. They’re just an arbitrary conglomeration of libertarianish academics, which produces occasionally-read white-papers. They have zero influence over the millions of people in America who already have libertarian views; at best, they’re occasionally cited when libertarians want to make an argument about a certain policy. All this means is that Cato might be cited less when libertarians want to talk about gun-policy – but even that depends on whether or not other academics under their roof happen to publish similar or different arguments to Levy. I’m pretty sure they’ve still got a backlog of research which is still very pro-gun-rights, even if this latest thing is pretty grossly squishy.

              1. This is a bigger deal than you think. CATO is very much representative of the Libertarian brand. Anti Gun people will hold this piece up and use it against gun rights advocates by pointing to it and saying “even Libertarian thinkers think you are extreme” and that can be very persuasive to people in the middle of this debate. CATO does real damage to the cause of gun rights by writing this shit. And they have to know that and mean for that to be the effect.

                1. CATO is very much representative of the Libertarian brand

                  among DC policy wonks.

                  regular people think it was OJ Simpson’s pool-boy, or something.

                  1. Gilmore,

                    If your position is that nothing any of these places say matters at all, you may be right. I disagree but that doesn’t mean I am right.

                    To the extent CATO matters at all, whatever you think that is, this also matters. And when people on the right, no matter who they are, write things like this it very much hurts the entire right on the issue because it allows the left to paint any position to the right of it as “extremist” and use the CATO paper as evidence of that.

                    Screw CATO.

            2. Wasn’t Levy the Koch’s hand-picked successor to the former director?

              1. Is it possible the left is right about the Kochs but just for the wrong reasons?

                1. You mean the Kuch brothers? /SIV

                2. Jeez you really are desperate for the end of the world aren’t you John. Seventh Day Adventists don’t see ‘disturbing signs that the end is nigh’ the way you do.

    4. What is this about CATO and gun rights?

      1. See Zeb’s link above.

      2. Someone at Cato gave a lukewarm sort of approval of bans on certain types of automatic rifles and extended magazine, and now John’s depends are full.

  13. Great rant by Matt on the tendency of journalists to twist politicians words to fit their narrative.

    Lack of self awareness noted.

    1. *this is the sort of stuff that seems to be construed as “trump support” around here.

  14. Moynihan on the phone makes show better. You can get him to shut up. And I love Moynihan. Also Kmele. And to a lesser extent Welch. Sorry Mr. Welch.

    1. Man, Welch is top notch. You don’t have to agree 100% with someone to recognize their talent and honesty. Welch is a true journalism with deep experience, and there are few more honest than he. Seriously.

      1. He is a true journalism with deep experience!

        1. And Welch has an edit button, and a pen and a phone.

      2. +1 Nice work, Matt

      3. I said I love him

      4. I have my issues with Welch, but I think calling him a journalist is going too far. Journalist is an insult that very few people deserve. Welch is not perfect but he sure as hell is above a journalist.

        1. No, he’s a journalist, just a very good one. There’s nothing wrong with being a journalist. It’s when they’re dishonest that they’re no longer journalists, but partisan hacks regurgitating talking points.

          1. The rest of the profession gives journalism a bad name.

          2. The 99% of journalists who are lying ignorant scumbags give the 1% who are marginally literate and occasionally honest a bad name. Tough luck that.

      5. Welch is a true journalism with deep experience

        All your journalism are belong to us!

  15. OT: Russians go trolling.

    CSKA Moscow won the European basketball title back in May. They plan to issue medals to any fan who can prove they attended the game which was played in May. However, the medal which is called “For the Capture of Berlin” shares its name with, and bears a striking resemblance to, the campaign medal given to troops who took part in the capture of the German capital between 22 April and 2 May 1945.

    1. If the day ever comes that the Germans finally demolish that giant war memorial the Soviets put in the Tier Garten in Berlin, we will know that German nationalism is back.

      1. The Hungarians got rid of theirs fairly quickly. I was in Budapest in 1991 and it was still there. One of the locals told me that its official name as the Liberation Monument but Hungarians called it the Reoccupation Monument.

        1. Oops, my bad. The Hungarians didn’t pull it down, they changed the inscription.

    2. cute.

      Given that they beat the Turks in the actual game, i wonder if there was also Crimean-War-related smack-talk.

      Seems a little silly, tho, to go bragging about your basketball game by reminding people that you lost the vast majority of your soviet empire in the ensuing years.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.