Gary Johnson

Libertarians Still Arguing About Gary Johnson's 2016 Campaign

Jack Hunter slams GarJo and Charles Peralo defends, while L.P. officials scheme and Austin Petersen prepares for a "special announcement."

|

Guess not. ||| Reason
Reason

Gary Johnson's back! (To the political advocacy game, anyway.) So, are libertarians greeting the two-time former Libertarian Party nominee for president with open arms? Not unanimously, no.

Over at Rare, the always-interesting Jack Hunter, who is close to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), has a scathing piece headlined "Please, Gary Johnson, stay the hell away from politics." Excerpt:

[W]hen Reason reported on Thursday that Johnson was returning to politics, I did not rejoice–I recoiled.

Johnson had his chance, the biggest chance the Libertarian Party will likely ever have in our lifetimes, and his campaign did more to diminish liberty than promote it. Johnson's simple 2016 task was two-fold: First, present libertarianism coherently, and hopefully, attractively. Second, don't look like an idiot.

He failed on both.

Hunter mostly leans on the "Aleppo moment" and related flubs, and while those errors were almost all self-inflicted, highlighting the candidate's self-acknowledged limitations as a public speaker (a real hindrance when public speaking is about your only campaign weapon), I am convinced that even the most smooth-tongued of L.P. candidates (Larry Sharpe, anyone?) would have been excoriated as a gaffe-making weirdo or dunce in September 2016. Why? Because the presidential race was tightening (boy was it ever), debate season was imminent, Johnson's poll numbers at that point had failed to experience the usual third-party summertime fade, newspapers were starting the make their general election endorsements (including for the Libertarian), and the journalistic Left was throwing everything it could think of at a guy they feared was wooing too many impressionable young'uns.

Tom Steyer would have spilled tens of millions in swing states that autumn against any Libertarian candidate polling at 9 percent, and that money would have been converted into attack pieces on any John, Austin, or Darryl. (Speaking of which, do we really think that the L.P. alternatives would have polled or media-accessed anywhere near TeamGov?) Donald Trump had several more egregious foreign policy brainfarts than "Aleppo," and Hillary Clinton's actual (and unapologetic) policy record helped produce the very chaos that Johnson was being criticized for not understanding, but the media didn't care about any of that: September 2016 was Libertarian-killing season, and unfortunately Johnson offered the world a loaded gun.

That's not to say that Hunter's wrong about Johnson squandering the election overall; I still don't know how best to assess that question. (Check out the Brian Doherty/Matt Welch post-election co-production "Did the Libertarian Party Blow it in 2016?" for our most educated guesses.) As that piece states in the opening, and as the intervening months have only underlined, "Objectively speaking, 2016 was the Libertarian Party's best year ever. It was also a savage disappointment." Libertarians will be arguing about this stuff for years.

Live it. Love it. Learn it. ||| Austin Petersen
Austin Petersen

Speaking of intra-Libertarian arguments, Charles Peralo over at Being Libertarian has a long defense of the Johnson campaign against criticism that has been leveled against it from the John McAfee/Judd Weiss ticket. In the Orlando Sentinel, State L.P. Chair Marcos Miralles gives an interesting interview, mostly about local party-building stuff, that ends on a spectacularly optimistic note: "But what I can guarantee you is that whoever the Libertarian delegates pick in 2020, that candidate will have a better result than Gary Johnson had in 2016 and will have a real chance at unseating the current president." Meanwhile, 2016 L.P. presidential runner-up Austin Petersen has formed an exploratory committee to run for U.S. Senate from Missouri, and is promising a "special announcement" on July 4.

And in one of my favorite recent pieces of local journalism, The Free Press of Fernie, British Columbia, caught up with Gary Johnson in the middle of his epic Tour Divide bike race, spent several paragraphs detailing how he "may well be the fittest U.S. presidential candidate of all time," before plunging the knife in paragraph nine:

The man can clearly take care of himself. He is a self-made millionaire and ultra-fit, so of course he would run for a party that endorses the survival of the fittest. If you're wealthy and fit, Libertarianism works but if you are not, it doesn't.

Then follows a Guernica-style hellscape of local horrors that would be unleashed should Libertarians ever come close to smelling power ("Their plan to cut regulations in transportation, accommodation and other sectors to cause the sharing economy…to destroy traditional businesses. Hotels and taxi companies would go bust, thousands would be left unemployed," etc.). It's a reminder, one that Jack Hunter's old boss Rand Paul knows all too well, that for wide swaths of the public, libertarians will suffer from the Weird Man's Burden, probed relentlessly for every policy taboo, and held to a standard of conduct that standard Democrats and Republicans rarely have to answer for.

Below re-live my shaky-cam video of Johnson flipping out at a reporter asking about Aleppo, moments before the first presidential debate last September:

NEXT: Uber, Lyft Can Now Bring Jobs and Better Transportation to Alaska

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. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    1. None to you, probably, as you are most likely posting comments while driving and will soon meet a fiery death. Or a wet smothering death under the heaving might of your latest sexual conquest.

      1. I’m making over $7k 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… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

      2. I’m making over $7k 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… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

  2. They sure are.

    Come on, people, you aren’t meant to take things so seriously. It’s bad for the brain.

    1. WE’RE SO CLOSE TO WINNING, IF ONLY WE’D GET THIS GUY OUTTA THE WAY!!

      1. Because a no-name who was marginally better at public speaking but had basically no leadership experience at all would clearly have done so much better, and forced the election into the House of Representatives.

        1. Well, in fairness Trump basically had no leadership experience and is pretty terrible at public speaking, yet he won the whole thing.

          Sooo…yeah.

          1. The sad truth is that an LP candidate has way less room for error than an R or D. Even though the two major candidates were despised by the majority of the country, people prefer the familiar. They are far more eager to forgive a slip-up by a major party contender, because they already know what they bring to the table, despicable though it may be. They may latch on to an outsider briefly because it’s different and exciting, but when the finale comes, most people trudge back to the same camp they started in and assume the norm. I remember a brief quote from some random nobody in an article somewhere. The reporter asked a guy who he was voting for and why. He said that he was really interested in Johnson, but lost faith in him after his verbal blunder. He then proceeded to say how he was going with Trump instead. That blew me away. He was turned off by a slight gaffe by one candidate, so he decided to support another candidate who based his entire campaign on verbal abuse and an insane case of oral diarrhea based on personal ego and outright lies? That was the moment I knew the LP stood no chance, and probably never will.

            1. I can’t knock the result. Trump’s turning out to be the most libertarian POTUS of my lifetime (I’m 63), & most libertarians I know are pretty pleased w him. Anybody more libertarian would’ve been unelectable.

              And how can it be maintained that Trump’s a bad public speaker? In recent years his career has been more about public speaking, professionally on TV, than anything else. You think people who put together TV shows are idiots hiring someone like that? It’s obvious he brought in lots of sponsorship. People pay him big bucks to do a bad job publicly speaking? They could’ve picked plenty of other mouthpieces for those shows, but selected Trump. Granted he’s not quite as seasoned a pro as Reagan was, but how many are?

              1. You are completely full of shit.

              2. Trump’s turning out to be the most libertarian POTUS of my lifetime

                Reagan klicks ass back to the stone age he came from. and many others beat Trump on a libertarian scale. For how long has your version of libertarianism explicitly told others to initiate violence.

                Trump did brag that he could commit murder, on Times Square, in broad daylight, with witnesses, and not lose a single supporter. He included you.

                He urges his followers to initiate violence, even offers to pay their legal bills, His recent tweet initiating violence against CNN, was a moral atrocity. He’s a BLATANT authoritarian and psychopathic liar, with total contempt for the Constitution and individual liberty.

            2. ToCa81
              “I remember a brief quote from some random nobody in an article somewhere.”

              At least your comments are better-sourced and authenticated than most screeds we get from the progtardian side, which require no more confirmation than generating in the sympathetic reader a vague sense that said screed is consistent with “The Narrative”.

            3. The sad truth is that an LP candidate has way less room for error than an R or D. Even though the two major candidates were despised by the majority of the country, people prefer the familiar.

              That was what I noticed. Hellary and Trumpkopf had way more bonehead moments, yet we get grief for a couple flubs. Heck, even my own in-laws gave me shit for sticking with Johnson when their own darling boy was parading around like a re-born Mussolini.

      2. Somebody explain the definition of winning and the law-changing leverage effect of spoiler votes to young Green here.

  3. OK, but do we still have to argue about him?

    1. You know what is even more insufferable than infamous commenter MJGreen? Welch trying to make “GarJo” a thing.

      1. Welch knows his preferred nickname is ‘Gay Jay’. As was decreed by the illustrious peanut gallery during the election.

        1. GayJay just rolled off the tongue so well. I say this as someone who liked and voted for him.

      2. I think GarJar, like JarJar Binks would have been better.

  4. Time for another round of the fight libertarians are most willing to engage in: punching other libertarians in the face.

    1. What was it that Welch said once? “Crab bucket politics” or something like that.

  5. when the Aleppo thing happened, I had never heard of it and one of my fb friends ran off about what an idiot he was for not knowing what Aleppo was. So, I asked him just for my own edification, what Aleppo was and he had no idea. I think he got speared for something that 9 out of 10 people couldn’t define. And yeah, Hillary helps to cause the mess and he gets speared for not knowing about it, while she is hailed as a great leader. Fuck tribal politics.

    1. And in fact, he did know about it. He was hijacked in the middle of a conversation about electoral strategies, and out of the blue he gets asked “if you get elected, what are you going to do about Aleppo?”

      The one and only thing about the interview that the mainstream media (on both Teams) cared about was the blank look on his face as he said “What is Aleppo?” The fact that he immediately recovered and stated his position on Aleppo was cut out of all coverage of the interview, and the discussion in all quarters was “how can the guy be president when he’s never even heard of Aleppo?”

      And it’s very appropriate that the video here is pretty much the only other moment in the campaign that got any attention: after months of being criticized for being too even-keeled and dispassionate, he finally indulges in a little ranting about actually horrible things our government is doing, and this one clip enters universal circulation as “OMG! LOOKING AT THE CRAZY LIBERTARIAN YELLING AND WAIVING HIS ARMS! CRAZY PERSON! CRAZY PERSON!”

      1. If he were a REAL libertarian, his automatic, default answer should have been “nothing”. Knowing something about it isn’t required.

        1. You’re wrong about that. Non-intervention can never be based on ignorance. If you want ignorant, then you’re gonna get Donald Trump or worse and if elected he will get coopted on foreign policy by all the careerists who spend their lives ‘knowing something’ and using that as a justification to intervene.

          If you want nonintervention, then you need someone who knows enough to know why non-intervention is the better option in that particular circumstance. It actually requires as much or more knowledge than ‘keep doing whatever we’re doing’.

          If you want isolationism/pacifism, then knowledge isn’t required. But you better have the stones to be able to resist the epithets that will be thrown.

      2. And in fact, he did know about it.

        He didn’t know about Aleppo. Once the host explained to him that it was in Syria, he stammered off some vague things he’d heard about the Syrian conflict, probably from others. But the Aleppo situation specifically he did not seem to know anything about.

    2. If you are going to be President you should know things about major cities, major issues and major hot spots.

      Sorry that you did not know where Aleppo is or why it was relevant, but it reflects badly on people to be stupid.

      You cannot be a global player if you do not act like you know anything about the World.

  6. How did La R?publique en Marche in France manage to go from inception to presidential and parliamentary power in 14 months? That’s a more interesting question.

    1. At least some of it is parliamentary politics seems to function quite differently than what we have.

    2. They had a cooler name.

    3. That really should be the object lesson for LP:

      Strong grassroots organizing (to bypass mass media and existing party structures)

      Big-tent rather than pure church ideology screening

      Small districts in the French Assembly (100,000 peeps/critter) – makes it easier to candidates to get over the name recognition hurdle

      LP could do the first two as is. The last is tough – but ‘expanding the House by 7x’ makes for a timely campaign issue from now thru 2020.

      1. Partly because in France unlike the US there is not the institutional acceptance of a two party system. Students in a civics class in France are not told there are only two parties and only two worth considering; all others are not serious. Same with the media. Therefore people are less deterred from voting for other parties.

    4. The incumbent Socialists were extremely unpopular, the other establishment party nominated a scandal-ridden candidate in Fillion, and LePen is beloved by a large minority but despised by everyone else.

      Had Fillion finished second instead of LePen, things may have gone differently.

      In the US this would have been harder due to the FPTP/WTA awarding of EVs. The US system is more conducive to sectional candidates rather than partisan ones.

  7. a.) Johnson’s wounds were only “self-inflicted” is you consider ‘going on MSNBC’ a self-inflicted wound.

    EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS ‘GAFFES’ was a total nothingburger that happened on MSNBC, was misrepresented by MSNBC, and pushed by MSNBC.

    A good example of how obvious and yet effective this smear campaign was can be found in this article – not a critical article, on a Libertarian website – that conflates his momentary confusion over a jarring and context-free subject change with a lack of understanding about Syria. This, despite the fact that he gave a perfectly informed answer about Syria the very moment the interviewer clarified his question.

    Even Libertarians are still repeating pure nonsense that was pushed by the Clinton campaign, so it’s hard to call that ‘self-inflicted’.

    1. b.) 2016 was not, as has been often asserted, the “best opportunity ever for Libertarians”. In the week before voting, FAR AND AWAY the number one response I got when asking people who were considering Johnson what they would do was “I love the guy, and would happily vote for him…but we HAVE to stop _______.”

      I bought in like everyone else – I assumed the high negatives for Trump and Clinton would provide a huge opportunity. At the end of the day, though, they provided a solid wall that no third-party candidate had ANY chance to scale.

      c.) Austin Peterson – I will do whatever I can to ensure this smarmy, lying little cocksucker is never anywhere near our nomination. If he gets our nomination, I will actively campaign against him. He is a piece of shit, and will betray the movement the first chance he gets.

      1. ^ This.

        Couldn’t have said it better myself (although I tried).

      2. b is right on. Negative campaigning works. That’s why it is done once a campaign realizes that ‘outreach’ phase is over. Go negative, turn fencesitters and undecideds into non-voters, turn the election into TEOTWAWKI and your base gets energized

      3. Because, of course, Johnson never betrayed the movement.

        1. Indeed. Because LIbertarianism can be defined as “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” without reference to actual liberties. And when asked about actual liberties such as freedom of conscience? “Well, those are icky people so of course I’m against it.”

          The Libertarian Party did have an opportunity this cycle. But some of us who otherwise left the ballot blank would have voted for a Libertarian who would actually promote and defend Liberty.

        2. I get the sarc. But didn’t weld say in an interview something along the lines of “Hillary is the most qualified to be president” instead of HIS OWN running mate?

          And Gary Johnson didn’t concisely answer about Aleppo after clarification, he yammered about human rights and the Syria crisis without ever mentioning anything specific. It wasn’t not knowing about Aleppo that embarrassed him, it was his dimwit response.

    2. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS ‘GAFFES’ was a total nothingburger that happened on MSNBC, was misrepresented by MSNBC, and pushed by MSNBC.

      Right. Next thing you’re going to tell me is those protests in Venezuela aren’t about Donald Trump.

    3. Hey mate, I do actually considering going onto MSNBC a self inflicted wound. They aren’t a news organization, they are a mouthpiece for the DNC. So going on their network as a Libertarian was bound to be a pretty fucking bad idea considering they were fully 5000% in the bag for Hillary, and were always going to try and crush the skull of anyone that wasn’t Herself. I mean, look what they did to Sanders and he was a Democrat.

      I get he was angling for some leftist votes, considering Libertarianism does have some points they might get behind, but that forgets that the DNC is a group of political assassins. Good luck with that. He would have better luck with HuffPo, Salon, or VOX than MSNBC.

  8. He lost me in the Libertarian debates when he took several positions that were not the least bit libertarian. The stupid cake thing was the clincher.

    1. Well thank goodness he didn’t win. We would have missed out on Trumptopia and would all be baking Nazi cakes at the point of a gun.

      1. He wasn’t going to win regardless.

  9. Gary Johnson is a nice guy but the only reason he got my vote is because Rand Paul dropped out of the primary before I could vote for him. Well, that and the only other options were a Witch or an Oompa-loompa.

    Did I root for Gary, hoping for him to break 5%? Absolutely. Did it happen? Obviously not. So why keep rerunning a candidate who we all know is going to lose, and who can’t even get us access to the debates?

    Einstein had a definition for insanity that would seem to fit the bill. Gay Jay would be a great Vice Presidential pick, but not a great Presidential pick. I say that as a guy who genuinely likes him, but it’s the god damn truth. He isn’t eloquent. He isn’t persuasive. He doesn’t even sell the underlying philosophy of the party very well.

    That’s before you even recognize that he’s actually a pretty shitty speaker and doesn’t appear lucid on Libertarian basics.

    So lets not hate on a guy who honestly doesn’t deserve hate, but lets stop picking him to represent the party yeah?

    1. Seems reasonable.

      Einstein had a definition for insanity that would seem to fit the bill.

      I’m sure you know this, but goddamnit, that’s an example, not a definition.

      1. It can function as either, but I concede example fits better than definition. At least I didn’t say it’s the definition. ^_-

    2. He isn’t eloquent. He isn’t persuasive. He doesn’t even sell the underlying philosophy of the party very well.

      ^ This.

      I supported him in no small part because on ISideWith.com I scored something like 97% agreement with him, but he seriously lacks the eloquence and charisma of McAfee, for example.

      I knew from early on that publicity was going to be his enemy, and that the mainstream media would find it trivially simple to take his tendency to state his positions in nuanced ways that are open to challenge and disagreement and portray him as being wishy-washy and befuddled. Which is what they did, and it worked.

      Unfortunately, he’s the best candidate the LP has produced in decades, and so I agree that Rand Paul is probably our best actual chance, even though he’s not really a libertarian.

      1. What I wonder is if McAfee is only eloquent and charismatic to those of us who have already drank the Kool-Aid. The people I know outside of libertarian circles who were aware of him seemed to find him pretty crazy.

      2. He lacks the eloquence and charisma of pretty much anyone else you care to point at in whatever room you happen to be standing in.

        He’s bumbling. Strange, even. And not just because of things like Aleppo, which was a ‘gotcha’ moment the Press sized on. But what about the tongue thing? Or the fact he was CEO of a pot company? Or that he wears tennis shoes with a suit? Sure, we might think that’s cool but there are several more million people that think it’s evil, immoral, silly, stupid, or whatever.

        He’s deeply flawed regardless of his policy positions according to most people’s perception of what is presidential. Personally I absolutely agree those matter more, but that’s a massive minority considering his vote pull. And not just from this election, but the one’s prior as well.

        He just doesn’t resonate with most of America, and that mean’s he is doomed to fail. Maybe he’ll help sell the party in some other capacity, but as the candidate for President I don’t see him ever getting enough votes to even get us into the debates. Not ever.

        The terrible thing? I think he was still the best option out of the limited LP field. That’s…saying something.

        1. Oh, and for the record most of the classical liberals I know refused to vote for Johnson because of his stupid campaign slogan. Yeah, and those are the educated one’s I know. In fairness, ‘Feel the Johnson’…really?

        2. Yeah – in general I agree. While I like him, and think he was treated unfairly by the media, I don’t he lost just because of poor exposure. He is, as you say, generally awkward and kind of weird, and wasn’t going to ever achieve mass appeal. The comparison that keeps coming to me is Jimmy Carter.

          And softballing the libertarianism wasn’t a good strategy in the end, as a lot of my progressive friends saw it as Trojan-horsing, and wound up disliking him for not being straight about all of this beliefs.

        3. He wore tennis shoes because he got frostbite on his toes from climbing mt fucking everest.
          Yes, he’s a bit goofy, but in an everyman sort of way.
          I hope the LP finds a better candidate next time (got any more 2-term governors on the bench?), but I’m glad I had the option to vote for him over the heinous alternatives.

          1. I’m glad I had the option to vote for him over the heinous alternatives

            ^ This x 1000.

            We were blessed this year with three Libertarian primary candidates who were, for the most part, actually Libertarians (I’m looking at you, Bob Barr), if we didn’t all agree on finer points of doctrine.

            And the one who actually ran can appeal to the average American who looks more closely at him, even if it turns out that that look has to be in retrospect as the country sits and ponders its regrets about 2016.

            In my happy dreams, this mean “Libertarianism” no longer sounds unacceptably insane in 2020 and 2024, as the two dominant parties will spend the next 3 years screaming inanities at each other.

      3. Rand Paul is a stalking horse. The Pauls only effective function in politics is to kill off the LP (ooh – those are the guys who are even more whacked out) so that libertarians can vote for and then be killed off inside the GOP.

        1. While I think that’s the role Bernie played for the Dems, I don’t think that’s what’s going with the Pauls – Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate in 1988, and refused to even endorse, let alone campaign for, McCain or Romney.

          If Rand really were a “stalking horse” he would have played pied piper to the libertarians the way Bernie and Robert Reich did with progressive millennials, and I’m just not seeing evidence of that kind of thing with Rand.

          1. I don’t question their honesty and sincerity. But the reality is that the LP (and any third party) only has a chance to break out if it is campaigning during the duopoly’s primary season. That’s the only time the entire contest and media attention is about appealing to political junkies/organizers. And while most of them are obviously D/R – there are some who are independent or D/R dropouts or who drop out of the duopoly during that primary or who come into the D/R tent then. But that is the only window to get those folks. And those are the folks who can organize locally.

            Once the primaries are over, the window closes and it is all wholesale politics from then on (big money, ad campaigns, polls/messaging, debate, etc). That is all closed for the LP – unless/until the third party becomes a direct threat to the duopoly even conducting a wholesale level campaign. Example is Perot in 1992. They didn’t let him in the debates to be nice. They let him in because he was polling 25-35% in March through June – and was leading BOTH D/R. They let him into debates on condition he suspend his campaign (which he did in early July)

            And for the past three cycles, the Pauls have dicked around in the GOP primaries sucking up any possible libertarian oxygen – for completely quixotic purposes

            1. I think I see what you’re saying, and mostly agree.

              You make an excellent point that really all of the “third parties” make a huge mistake in waiting for the general election when the market for their ideas is, as you say, back in the early primary season when only the wonks are paying attention.

              I think this is why the Pauls abandoned the LP and primaried as Republicans, seeing it as a choice between influencing the Republicans and having no influence at all.

              But I think your last point, that “the Pauls have dicked around in the GOP primaries sucking up any possible libertarian oxygen” misses your first point that the LP isn’t even participating at that stage, such that the Pauls arguably called attention to libertarianism in ways that no one has yet been able to.

              While I see your point in calling them unintentional stalking horses, in that they perpetuate the illusion that the RP has any interest in libertarianism, I would personally reserve the term for the type of deliberate thing that Sanders and Reich have been doing, which seems more cynical and calculated to neutralize the “Occupy Left.”

              1. The real truth of the matter, the Libertarian party is a stalking horse for people who think ‘libertarian’.

                Also ‘libertarian’ is fucking terrible, it’s sounds like a shitty replacement name after losing the actual definition of liberal to the prog hive-mind.

                We’re seriously overdue for a rebrand.

                1. You and Hayek are exactly right re the word ‘libertarian’. I disagree though that the LP is a stalking horse for anything. It has simply failed to come to grips with what its mission is.

                  Is it a political party? If so, then goddamnit model/organize it along those lines. Philosophically like similar parties elsewhere (FDP.Liberals in Switzerland; VVD in Netherlands; Venstre in Denmark; FDP in Germany; Reform Party in Estonia;etc) – organizationally like the D’s/R’s (who organize to win elections and win over voters).

                  Is it a church? Then stop wasting money/effort on ballot access and spend money instead on public preaching and evangelizing.

                2. Also ‘libertarian’ is fucking terrible, it’s sounds like a shitty replacement name after losing the actual definition of liberal to the prog hive-mind.

                  Ohh, like seminarian? (lol)

                  Or librarian, Rotarian, veterinarian and hundreds of others — as suffix from the ancient Latin?

                  libertarian is a PERSON who follows or adheres to liberty.

                  We’re seriously overdue for a rebrand.

                  “We” sounds more like the American Taliban, the exact opposite of libertarian — just like progressives are the exaxt opposite.

        2. The Pauls only effective function in politics is to kill off the LP (ooh – those are the guys who are even more whacked out) so that libertarians can vote for and then be killed off inside the GOP.

          Oh come on. The LP had been failing miserably for nearly four decades before Ron Paul had any political visibility outside his district and five decades before Rand Paul was doing anything other than glaucoma exams.

    3. He isn’t eloquent. He isn’t persuasive. He doesn’t even sell the underlying philosophy of the party very well.

      Well maybe this attitude is the real problem. Why is the LP looking for a Moses figure on a white horse to convert the population and lead us to the promised land? Isn’t that what authoritarians look for? Isn’t that the exact fucking problem of an imperial presidency over the last century – charismatic manipulative sociopaths?

      On job skills – Johnson/Weld were highly qualified. They probably could’ve used an advisory panel of media speakers for the detailed weeds/wonk stuff but that’s pretty minor.

      No the real problem is that the LP sends its Prez candidates out on what can only be called a suicide mission. Very few lower candidates who do anything local or even pass a weirdo smell test (ie would you let this person in your house to talk). No yard signs or other neighborhood indicators that hey there’s another choice. LP and libertarians sit on their butts – expecting a free lunch from an national election.

      1. ^ This.

        The LP is quite simply disorganized and can’t run campaigns the way the two major parties can.

        1. It’s a real shame. Because the LP organizes phenomenally to get the signatures to get on the ballot. That is a seriously huge hurdle. But it then kind of stops and most years in most states doesn’t even get the number of votes that they previously got signatures. Like entering a marathon and running 10 miles and then going home.

          1. But it then kind of stops and most years in most states doesn’t even get the number of votes that they previously got signatures.

            That’s not surprising. Voters can sign as many ballot petitions as they want, but they only get one vote.

      2. Why is the LP looking for a Moses figure on a white horse to convert the population and lead us to the promised land?

        That is quite the strawman. Reality is, if you picked an H+R commenter at random, they would almost certainly do a better job in media appearances than GJ did. He was just awful. And he betrayed the libertarian philosophy, which again, most H+R commenters would not do. That’s a low fucking bar (no offense to H+R commenters), not a demand for a messiah.

        Johnson/Weld were highly qualified.

        What makes you say that? Because they held offices very different from the presidency in the distant past? It’s surprising to see libertarians give so much weight to being a former government official.

        1. He was awful in 2011-12 too. I’m surprised more people didn’t bring that up. Do you remember how he was, campaigning for the GOP nomination?

      3. You’re completely missing reality. In order to win a presidential election a candidate must appeal to people outside their niche/party.

        Were not looking for some Moses. Were looking for a competent, intelligent, and well spoken candidate. Not to “educate”, but to effectively communicate.

        And the LP needs to drop this “socially liberal” shit. When it comes to peoples rights, yes i agree. But far too many “libertarians” and liberals take that as “we like social and welfare programs, and all the costs associated!”

        Just stick to “limited government”, and stop twisting words in our slogan to try and trick dumbass liberals into thinking we mean “social programs” so they’ll vote for us. It’s not working and it bastardizes the party’s true intent of limiting government.

  10. , I am convinced that even the most smooth-tongued of L.P. candidates (Larry Sharpe, anyone?) would have been excoriated as a gaffe-making weirdo or dunce in September 2016.

    I completely agree, however, I also think he did a poor job overall in selling both himself and the libertarian message.

    Also, why do you maniacs still care about this?

    1. I also think he did a poor job overall in selling both himself and the libertarian message.

      He did the opposite of McAfee – instead of portraying libertarianism as extremely different from other philosophies, he tried to package it as a centrist compromise. It made he and Weld seem more palatable to the “average American,” but made them seem intellectually inconsistent on things like drug prohibition, since they weren’t willing to stand behind the libertarian position without seeming apologetic about it. Thus, they were sort of a curiosity, but nothing for most people to get excited about.

      1. he tried to package it as a centrist compromise.

        Agreed.

        1. Also agree

      2. Every compromise they made favored leftists. Gun control, coercive cake, bathroom policy. That pissed off libertarian-leaning conservatives, a group that contained far more potential LP voters than the left does.

        1. Jenga! A libertarian literally wouldn’t have had many of the positions Johnson and weld did. It was that simple.

          Weld also said “Hillary is the most qualified” in a national interview, instead of his own running mate. That doesn’t do us any good either. Saying the war hungry, RBF’d, lieing, corrupt sack of of a woman your running against is the best isn’t how you win.

    2. Also, why do you maniacs still care about this?

      Because he’s coming back in 2020. He wants to be the LP’s Ralph Nader/Ross Perot.

  11. I had several friends and acquaintances – none of whom I suspected to being Libertarians – tell me they were voting for Johnson because the LP had finally found candidates who did something special in the real world and were not ideological and unrealistic. I too have sharp disagreements with Gary Johnson but I think he has opened the door for non-Libertarians to start considering, in the future, our more well reasoned and practical policies. The LP will never achieve electoral success by pushing every plank of its platform. And, if electoral success isn’t what LP members desire, then it is time to convert the LP into an intellectual activist group that pushes issues and policies and hopes that Republicans and Democrats pick up on them.

    1. I think he has opened the door for non-Libertarians to start considering, in the future, our more well reasoned and practical policies.

      That’s an excellent point. Despite not having achieved much directly, I know a lot of people who a few years ago would have imagined “libertarian” as Idaho white supremacists, but who now see a connection between “libertarianism” and “liberalism,” even if they do see the former as misguided ideological extremism. They no longer see it purely as a tool of Evil, but as a legitimate stance to engage.

    2. This is exactly what Gary Johnson succeeded at. But it won’t mean anything if LP at the local level doesn’t pull those folks into a local entity that can actually organize around achieving something.

      LP talks about markets – but doesn’t exhibit much skill in how actual markets work. Wanna expand your appeal to customers? Better understand marketing – and in particular better understand psychographic segmentation. Using the VALS system, platform debates and policy wonkery will appeal to, at most, 11% of the population – and still has to compete with the PBS/etc worldview even for that segment. Not a good way to win elections.

      1. But it won’t mean anything if LP at the local level doesn’t pull those folks into a local entity that can actually organize around achieving something.

        ^ This.

        This was the most stinging arrow during the campaign – the LP doesn’t have a Governor or Senator, even a damned Congressperson, but you want the Presidency? Come back when you’re a real party.

        But as libertarians we tend to find politics revolting and be attracted to private enterprise. I’ve seriously considered running for local office or CA Legislature, but I just can’t bring myself to have to be involved in that, and my confidence that I could affect the system in any way rather than be corrupted by it is not absolute.

        It’s similar to the reason I couldn’t be a college professor – I’m just not an authoritarian and I couldn’t accept the premises of the institution.

        Sometimes I think that, like good little Marxists, we need to patiently wait for the Revolutionary State to wither on its own vine so we can have our Free Market Utopia.

        *sits waiting patiently*

    3. had several friends and acquaintances – none of whom I suspected to being Libertarians – tell me they were voting for Johnson because the LP had finally found candidates who did something special in the real world and were not ideological and unrealistic.

      Johnson was the LP candidate in 2012 as well. Did they vote for him then?

      1. He got more votes in 2012 than any previous L candidate ever got.

    4. he LP will never achieve electoral success by pushing every plank of its platform.

      They’re never going to achieve success with watered-down center-left bullshit that GJ and Weld were peddling, either.

      1. What does that leave? Prune the platform of all but a few planks, & don’t water them down?

        1. Cut regulations, taxes, budgets, and bureaucracy. Reschedule weed. Pull back some of the military. Pay off debt and Increase interest rates so we can retire on something other than market based investments (fuck cheap debt, aka low interest rates, i want my money in a high yield CD like like my grandma!)

          That’s pretty much it with a few tweaks, and, not ironically its a lot of what trump campaigned on. Whether he does it all is yet to be seen, but be clearly had as much or more appeal to libertarians than garjo.

  12. Johnson candidacy was justified for being the experienced campaigner who knew how to handle a hostile media. Him being consistently wrongfooted on what was supposed to be his strength makes one wonder if he was worth his weaknesses. Would one of tje other candates really have made that much more of a hash of media relations?

    1. None of the other candidates would have ever seen the media.

      Gary Johnson, and his considerable real-world success, is the ONLY reason Jill Stein wasn’t option # 3 for America in 2016. It’s sad how many Libertarians completely ignore this.

      1. None of the other candidates would have ever seen the media.

        Oh, I think McAfee would have seen plenty of media, but it wouldn’t have been pretty. Hell, they can’t ignore him even though he wasn’t actually nominated.

        I’m of the camp that thinks nominating McAfee would have been way worse – rather than make him look wishy-washy and uninformed, they would make him look like a completely unhinged spoiled rich guy, and the LP would be the party of coked-out murderers for decades to come.

      2. None of the other candidates would have ever seen the media.

        That would be preferable to an incompetent candidate seeing the media, and providing evidence for the perception that libertarians are unserious kooky potheads who simply don’t understand what’s going on in the world around them.

        The fact that the MSM wanted to make GJ the face of libertarianism should have worried you in the first place. They’re not trying to help us.

      3. the ONLY reason Jill Stein wasn’t option # 3 for America in 2016.

        1. Difference between finishing third vs. fourth is miniscule compared to the damage Johnson-Weld did among libertarian-leaning conservatives.
        2. Another LP candidate would probably have finished ahead of Stein anyway, and of course there was McMullin as well.

  13. Beyond Aleppo, the nature of the LP should be that we hold our own to higher standards than we hold the Stupid Party and the Evil and Stupid Party. What stood out far more than Aleppo was the Vicente Fox gaffe. I think it should be a reflexive answer for a libertarian that we don’t idolize politicians the way the other parties do. Instead it was yet another case of him looking goofy

    And of course the Hillary stuff. If they liked her on a personal level, sure they can say that (even though it’s one of the most annoying tendencies in DC politics, a poor attempt to be civilized and not incur the other side’s wrath). But she’s the antithesis of what we believe and that should have been hammered home whenever they were asked

    1. I think it should be a reflexive answer for a libertarian that we don’t idolize politicians the way the other parties do.

      And this is exactly where McAfee would have answered better, and Johnson’s drive to “appeal to the center” backfired on him.

      But I think McAfee would have said something to the effect of “You’re asking me to praise thieving tyrants and my principles won’t allow me to do that,” which would have been spun as “CRAZY RACIST ANARCHIST HATES GOVERNMENT AND WANTS CHILDREN TO DIE!”

  14. I wonder if the comments on the Johnson thread yesterday helped inspire this post today.

  15. Johnson wasn’t and isn’t a rock star. He’s visibly an ordinary guy (but much fitter) who’s willing to admit he doesn’t know everything and have all the answers pre-canned. IMO, that makes him exceptionally well qualified.

    I’m less impressed with his thoroughly non-libertarian positions, eg on forcing bakers to supply gay weddings. Still, he would be at least 40dB better than any other imaginable president from our list of contemporaries.


    1. …would be at least 40dB better…

      Douche-a-bells?

  16. So how well would Gary Johnson have done had he run a flub-free campaign, and appeared to have a clear handle on all the issues? I’m thinking about exactly the same as he did. Ultimately, all the quasi-libertarians who said they would support him when he was polling at 8 to 10 percent decided that stopping Clinton or stopping Trump was more important to them. Johnson still did 3 times as well as any previous LP candidate, and 6 times as well as most of them.

    1. Ultimately, all the quasi-libertarians who said they would support him when he was polling at 8 to 10 percent decided that stopping Clinton or stopping Trump was more important to them.

      You act as if that was inevitable regardless of what the LP ticket did. But not necessarily. Weld’s praising of gun control and HRC and Johnson’s shitting on freedom of association, along with the usual open borders shit, pissed off the Ron Paul wing of libertarianism to no end. There’s no point casting a “protest vote” for a ticket that you didn’t agree with on major issues currently in play in the political candidate.

      I can understand voting for a candidate you agree with even though they have no chance of winning.
      I can understand voting for a candidate with a chance of winning even though you don’t agree with them.
      I can’t understand voting for a candidate you don’t agree with and who has no chance of winning.

      1. pissed off the Ron Paul wing of libertarianism

        The Great White Whale surfaces.

  17. I’d prefer that Johnson goes away, not because of his flub with ‘Aleppo’, but because he’s virtually a Rockefeller Republican (beyond the marijuana legalization position). If they’re going to ask unfair questions of the Libertarian candidate, regardless of the nominee, then why not get one who’s less squishy in his positions and can actually defend the philosophy? Gary folded every single time he was pressed to explain a position. Anyone remember his burka ban suggestion?

  18. The LP is a cornucopia of dimwits, most of whom rabbit from principled and controversial positions. The party’s main objective is to get enough votes to maintain ballot access in the next election.

  19. The LP really fucked up in not nominating McAfee.It was the year of the outrageous, controversial, exciting outsider.

    I predict they’ll”double down”on their mistake and nominate Egg McMuffin in 2020.

    1. I really wish we could re-run history and see what would have happened with McAfee.

      1. The only candidate more revilled than Trump or Hillary?
        Would have shifted the protest votes to Stein.
        The goober vote is kinda tiny.

  20. Johnson deliberately fucked the LP. He foisted Weld on us who started pimping for HRC from day one. Fuck GJ up the ass with a Saguaro. The wood chipper is too good for him.

  21. “Tom Steyer would have spilled tens of millions in swing states that autumn against any Libertarian candidate polling at 9 percent, and that money would have been converted into attack pieces on any John, Austin, or Darryl.”

    You say that as though it were a bug. It is a feature. Had we compelled Team Blue to areal bomb us, it would have mad us a player. We have endured though forty years of obscurity. Being the focus of major party attacks could only benefit us.

    Johnson fucked us. And the way he brought in Weld at the last minute, and the way Weld started pimping for HRC practically from the jump, I don’t know he didn’t do it deliberately.

    1. This.

      Whoever the L candidate was going to be, he didn’t have even a long shot chance of winning. What he did get was a gigantic soapbox to communicate libertarian thought to the country.

      Johnson/Weld (Weld!!!????!@!!) was a fucking unmitigated disaster on that account.

      1. Winning means changing the laws. For example, when the Hospers-Nathan ticket earned a single electoral vote in 1972, the Supreme Court copied the Libertarian platform plank on abortion and pasted it into Roe v. Wade. Just last summer they made another decision designed to reduce incentives for gay voters to pull the LP lever. Winning is changing the laws to increase freedom, not getting a hand in the till or a government sinecure.

        1. Winning is changing the laws to increase freedom, not getting a hand in the till or a government sinecure.Hank would have an LP government ban gay marriage — so more gays will pull the LP lever.

  22. Of course Welch doesn’t even mention GayJay’s unlibertarian shitting on freedom of association. To paraphrase Mark Twain, the main problem was not the questions he didn’t have an answer for, but the questions he did answer.

    highlighting the candidate’s self-acknowledged limitations as a public speaker (a real hindrance when public speaking is about your only campaign weapon)

    WTF? What campaign weapons did Trump, for example, have that did not involve public speaking?

    1. Of course Welch doesn’t even mention GayJay’s unlibertarian shitting on freedom of association.

      Anyone who swallows your shit is beyond help. And GayJay tags you as a bigot.

      Hysterical how you folks CLAIM to defend Liberty and Equality … while wanting the law to bestow special rights for ONLY the Christian Taliban. Typical of rightwing despots

  23. Lol, what if Gary Johnson and his Hillary endorsing VP won the presidency. You think the Donald Trump treatment was bad? Gary would have no allies and would be painted as an evil Hitlerian monster that wants to starve old people, children and the sick! Gary would lose it and go absolutely insane. A reporter bush-wacked the guy and he was done. That was far too easy. Trump won because he is pure Teflon. The Libertarians leaders talk a good game, but they just don’t understand what they are up against. They don’t understand how low the media will go, but they will learn if they get elected. I truly think they are happy sniping from the balcony rather than taking center stage.

    1. Lol, what if Gary Johnson and his Hillary endorsing VP won the presidency

      lol, you’d be safe. Libertarians don’t believe in neutering the mentally feeble.

      The Libertarians leaders talk a good game, but they just don’t understand what they are up against.

      Followers crazy enough to think Weld endorsed Hlllary?

  24. I agree with two things, that Johnson-Weld was the LP’s best shot in 2016, and that Gary Johnson should be done as a national candidate.

    1. That just leads to the question of why the LP has such a terrible selection of candidates to choose from.

      I was only half joking when I brought up the possibility of selecting an H+R commenter to run for the LP nomination. Maybe even one of the gryllies or glibbies if they can behave.

  25. Is there any current or former “libertarian” more cucked than Jack Hunter?

    Honest to God, I can’t think of even one who’d rank as a contender.

    (I do not disagree with his opinion on GayJay)

  26. Should have gone with McAfee. He would have fit right in.

  27. The problem with the Libertarian Party is they keep running washed up Republicans for office. Although I am personally against any government, they need to run someone that has never been affiliated with either the Democrats or Republicans failed ideas. At present there is only one party in America and that is the Republocrats. They are the Statist, always war, Corporate welfare, Police state party and at present the only one you get to vote for.

    1. Do you think you can persuade Stossel to run?

  28. The Republican Party cried all the way to the popular vote count they might have had were it not for the LP. The Democratic-CPUSA keep-marijuana-illegal coalition cried all the way to Youtube, Twitter, Farcebook, Reditt and the Electoral College… Ha ha ha!

  29. RE: Libertarians Still Arguing About Gary Johnson’s 2016 Campaign
    Jack Hunter slams GarJo and Charles Peralo defends, while L.P. officials scheme and Austin Petersen prepares for a “special announcement.”

    Gary Johnson lost because he was a warmed over republican, could not get the Libertarian message out better than his opponents and had a personality of a clam.

  30. Don’t blame me, I voted for Gary’s Johnson.

    1. I voted for the libertarian party platform, and would vote for a yellow dog over any whining looters or murdering prohibitionists.

      1. Who do prohibitionists murder?

  31. The Aleppo moment didn’t hurt him as much as forced caking and Weld’s Hillary endorsement did.

    He was a terrible candidate all the way around in that he didn’t make any effort to appeal to any constituency, including Libertarians.

    1. Speaking of shills, sockpuppets, impostors, Aleppo-finders and agents-provocateurs… While fake-o Kevin was crying over Weld, Sarwark took those 4 million votes and laughed all the way back to party HQ! No more stinking petition drives, no more licking the blacking off of jackboots for the “privilege” of ballot access!

    2. The Aleppo moment didn’t hurt him as much as forced caking and Weld’s Hillary endorsement did

      Only among contards eager to be brainwashed.

      he didn’t make any effort to appeal to any constituency, including Libertarians.

      He ignore the majority of voters who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal by constantly mentioning him?

      What destroyed him is goobers, inside and outside the Party, who ridicule actual policy solutions as “compromising with statists” — and are actually authoritarians who could ONLY govern if they had a governing majority ,,, but the SCREAM that seeking a majority requires “compromising principles” — principles which REQUIRE that one NEVER tries to actually ACHIEVE any principles. But they are NOT bat-shit crazy!

  32. Stoner Gary is an idiot. His brain is fried. In an election where the votes that were up for grabs were those of moderate right-wing Republicans who were disappointed with Trump, he instead embarked to shift libertarianism to the left. Of course, many libertarian organizations are trying to do just that. But left-wing voters will never embrace libertarian policies (economic policies, that is, the only ones that really matter). A shift to the right was the move the party should have made. But they didn’t and they paidnthe price with a terrible election result and a VP candidate campaigning for HRC.

  33. I decided early on that I would not vote for either Trump or Clinton so I had to find a third option. I had voted Libertarian some years ago for local offices. If Johnson had said something like “The State interfering with nuns helping the elderly poor over birth control is stupid!” I would have voted for him (and I’m not even RC). Face it, if you can’t bring yourself to say that that is State overreach then you have no credibility as a Libertarian.

    1. if you can’t bring yourself to say that that is State overreach then you have no credibility as a Libertarian.

      If that makes any sense to you, then you have no credibility as a sentient human being.

  34. Gary Johnson couldn’t manage his own campaign finances, he ended millions in debt. Sure he is the Libertarian candidate that will balance the budget and save the US economy. Yah, I believe that. LOL

    1. Who does Liberty Lover (sic) endorse -Trump, Clinton or Stein?

      FUCK GARY JOHNSON for going into debt to get the message out! (lol)

      balance the budget and save the US economy. Yah, I believe that. LOL

      We know what he did in Arizona. Tell us what you’ve done. I’m sure it MUST be more than throwing rocks from beyond a tree (errrr, from behind a questionable alias)

  35. Who gives a damn what the shills for Ron/Rand Paul say – brainwashing their base again — mostly antii-gubmint goobers, a tribe as easily brainwashed as progressives, birthers, and the Christian Taliban.

    ABSOLUTE VIDEO PROOF … Rand Paul’s shameless Obamacare FRAUD …. so he can pull the strings of his witless puppets… even a Fox political hack, KENNEDY

    We PREACH that the private sector IS better — never that it WAS better .. because anti-gubmint goobers have NO CLUE how to do it any better the state — and actually REFUSE to RESTORE the private sector. When Rand Paul says JUST REPEAL MEDICAID — DO NOT shift the money back to private charity — do what HE wants with the savings, that’s AUTHORITARIAN …

    … in February. President Trump initially supported “Repeal and Replace, in the same day”. Proposed by … wait for it ….. RAND PAUL … the Liberty Hustler … on Kennedy

    FACTS (non-tribal): Kennedy knows Rand Paul has flip-flopped and sold out.. What if Hillary had?

    Transitioning ALL Medicaid funding back to private charity would FULLY RESTORE private charity care … and FULLY REPEAL Medicaid. Anti-gubmint goobers would repeal PART of Medicaid … just enough to offset tax cuts for the rich … while refusing coverage that AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS FREELY FINANCED.

    DISGRACE to liberty (and their witless puppets) ENABLERS to BernieCare. (shudder)

  36. Gary Johnson didn’t know how to talk to reporters, he didn’t know how to play the game with the media when they asked ridiculous questions. But what turned me off the most is when he didn’t know how to answer specific ideological questions that every libertarian should know and be able to answer. The libertarian party didn’t run a libertarian, they didn’t even run a libertarian for vice president.

    1. But what turned me off the most is when he didn’t know how to answer specific ideological questions that every libertarian should know and be able to answer.

      Which ones confused you?

      The libertarian party didn’t run a libertarian

      How would you know?

  37. I wonder if Jack Hunter is jealous of how Rand only received less than 8,500 votes in the Iowa caucuses, while Gary Johnson went on to earn around seven times as many votes in the same state for the general election. I can still recall a couple of “gaffes” Rand made during his campaign, such as his handling of the Civil Rights Act question (which anarchist Darryl Perry proceeded to knock out of the park at the 2016 LP convention), shushing a reporter, etc., but let’s forget about Rand’s pathetic 2016 run because GARY BLEW IT!!!

    I appreciate much of what libertarian-leaning U.S. Congressmen have done / continue doing, but the Libertarian Party needs to put less effort into earning their favor because it’s almost always a waste of time. The Pauls are never going to endorse the Libertarian Party, and neither major party will respect the LP until it finally earns a few seats in Congress.

    1. “Stranded” might want to explain howcum the Supreme Court copied the 1972 LP platform plank on abortion and pasted it into the Roe v. Wade decision. We don’ need no steenkin respect from those slimy looter parties, menh! What we are enjoying is their FEAR of the law-changing clout of our platforms and spoiler votes. The fat asses that warm those seats in Congress are painfully aware of how many fewer calories they will be able to afford when we cover the vote gap between them and some other looter lardass. Think of it as evolution in action–climbing the slope of Mount Improbable one spoiler vote at a time while the looters frantically repeal crappy laws in an effort to steal our thunder and keep those seats.

      1. “Stranded” might want to explain howcum the Supreme Court copied the 1972 LP platform plank on abortion and pasted it into the Roe v. Wade decision.

        Umm, it’s called unalenable rights. and the Ninth Amendment
        The current platform ALSO jams it up the asses of the Christian Taliban, by honoring the Ninth Amendment.

    2. neither major party will respect the LP until it finally earns a few seats in Congress.

      I disagree but only a bit. The LP needs to set itself up to compete with the D/R. But it needs to do so at the build-the-bench level – not the national level. Most elected (and appointed) local positions are actually non-partisan – parks commission, school board, city council, transport study groups, police oversight groups, zoning commission, etc. The D/R’s pull those people into their party when they decide to get elected to a bigger position. the D/R’s are able to screen those people, pick the better ones who can help achieve the party’s goal – and in return offer the organizational structure to win elections. That’s the only real purpose/value of a political party.

      Once L’s are able to do that in even some places – then D/R will be forced to respect the LP because the L’s will be doing the build-the-bench stuff that both the D/R’s have been able to neglect for decades now. the D/R have neglected it because in truth, they don’t compete in elections. They divide up the country into non-competitive districts – and use their big money top-down approach to simply buy elections. THAT’s the system that the L’s can break.

      1. Having just ONE policy solution might help.

        Most elected (and appointed) local positions are actually non-partisan

        Nobody knows that but you? You don’t know there are 40,000-50,000 libertarians already serving in those offices, active in their communities, with 200,000-300,000 activist supporters and many more passive followers?

        They’ve been moving all of America in a pro-liberty direction for the past few decades.
        But Cato says 91% of them REJECT the libertarian label.

        Who gives a flying fuck what the “D/Rs” think — already a minority of Americans, and still shrinking.
        Better that the “libertarian movement” simply catch up with those actually living libertarian values.

        THAT’s the system that the L’s can break.

        Only if the L’s follow the lead of the 1000% larger l’s.

    3. Rand made the most astounding election fuckup in history, and proved how phony his dad’s “liberty coalition” is.
      One kind of moron thinks he can combine social liberalism with the Christian Taliban? Rand thought so!
      He goes to Berkeley, talks civil liberties and nonintervention to a standing ovation. Fine. THEN …
      Less than a week later, he calls for hundreds of religious tent revivals nationwide, to fight the sever threat of … marriage equality!

      He’s a fucking psycho fascist like hid dad, lying about the Constitution, shitting on unalienable rights, sucking up to the worst bigots in America, pissing on federalism, defending states rights (KKK version) and a disgrace to individual liberty.

  38. Non-idiots are marvelling at how the LP managed to increase its ballot share by 328% while elbowing aside infiltrating impostors from the coathanger-abortion wing of the Republican Party and the bomb-throwing anarchist wing of the communist party. Sarwark, not Gary, is the man behind the miracle. To double this 4-million vote count and get the looters to again dismiss “spoilers” as uneasily as they pretended to ignore the original Tea Party–George Wallace–all we need is for that other Gary Johnson from Austin to accept the candidacy. The Suprema Corte and GO-Pee urinanalysts are copying libertarian planks into law and jurisprudence in desperation to keep their hands in the till. The Prohibition, Tea and Consta2shun parties–losers in the contest for law-changing clout of spoiler votes–are all coloring their vowels to imitate the look-and-feel of the Libertarian Party they (and Nixon’s IRS) wish voters would ignore.

    1. Non-idiots are marvelling at how the LP managed to increase its ballot share by 328%

      While the REAL idiots think those were NOT votes AGAINST the two most reviled major candidates in the past century.

      Sarwark, not Gary, is the man behind the miracle

      Repeat above, re idiots (your word)

      By the numbers

      6% of voters label themselves libertarian. To that add
      + anti-Hillary votes
      + anti-Trump votes
      = 3.6% (laughing)

      There’s more folks eager to be brainwashed than progresives, birthers and the American Taliban.
      Elementary math?

  39. Interesting that the article doesn’t get into this:

    http://tomwoods.com/ep-906-jud…..ot-pretty/

    http://thelibertarianrepublic……nson-2016/

    1. What did Alex Jones and Breibart have to say?

  40. All these people thinking Gary Johnson was the worst LP candidate ever. Fine, you tell me which LP candidate ever did better? Sure he ran a lousy campaign. ALL LP CANDIDATES RUN LOUSY CAMPAIGNS! That’s what it means to be an LP candidate!

    Even if you know you’re going to lose (because you’re a third party) you run like you want to shake things up. At least Gary Johnson got his face on television. He might not have won a game of foreign policy Trivial Pursuits, but that just means he wasn’t from the professional politico-wonker class. That’s a good thing. His sincerity showed, and people saw it. He didn’t get a higher total because he was a bad candidate, but because the voters have been trained not to vote outside the duopoly.

  41. If the LP would stop putting up candidates, for President, that have never held an elected office, or have never shaved, they might have a better shot.
    Petersen needs to stop speaking in bumper stickers – that’s all he had, no meat or ‘taters’
    McAffee needs to stop looking like he’s stoned all the time.
    That’s why the LP party can’t get traction, they never never put up anyone serious.
    GJ was the first practical choice we had.
    Going forward, LP should stop with Presidential runs, and focus on Congressional, and Local elections – money better spent. Get in there, prove you’re not a lunatic, make a name for yourself and the LP, then move forward.

  42. Gary Johnson didn’t squander the 2016 election. He didn’t have to. Most Americans are morons who treat politics like a sport – they want their team to win and they don’t care if their team skins babies alive for fun. If their team wins then they can pretend they’re winners too. They’re idiots.

  43. Reason is giving Bowlcut Peralo a lot of press…

  44. When we downloading an app sometime there is a problem or error while downloading which makes me frustrated but one site http://supportnumbers.net/ who help me to resolve that problem, you can also visit this site.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.