Marvin Bush, youngest son of President Bush: “I’m voting Libertarian.”

marvin bush Marvin Pierce Bush, youngest son of President George H. W. Bush, younger brother of  both President George W. Bush, and Governor Jeb Bush, endorsed the Libertarian ticket of Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld earlier today.

Appearing on Washington, DC’s WJFK-FM radio’s (106.7 The Fan) sports talk show The Sports Junkies, Marvin Bush said:

“I’m voting Libertarian. A hundred percent . . . Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were each successful two-term governors who balanced their budgets, so they’re fiscally conservative, and their essential message is ‘get bureaucracy off our backs,’ which used to be a part of what the Republicans believed.”

The entire interview can be found HERE.  (The “That’s why I am voting Libertarian” quote is at about 9:00 minutes in on the audio file. Governor Johnson is also endorsed by one of the two show co-hosts (at about 10:00 minutes in.)

120 thoughts on “Marvin Bush, youngest son of President Bush: “I’m voting Libertarian.”

  1. Tony From Long Island

    I’m just waiting for the regulars on here to bemoan this as a terrible thing . . . God forbid the LP gets actual VOTES! 🙂

  2. Tony From Long Island

    . . . and that is interesting how? Because it has the same initials as a former President? It’s an All-Sports station. How is that interesting? I find the endorsement more interesting.

  3. robert capozzi

    This feels like the Bush family is orchestrating this. First Marvin, watch the reaction. Then maybe Jeb, despite the pledge. Then maybe even W and/or HW.

    Even if you loathe the Bushes, this is great news for Team J/W. More hard news, more publicity. More cover for NeverTrump R’s to back the Ls.

  4. robert capozzi

    When I lived in DC, Sports Junkies were quite popular. Probably heard by perhaps hundreds of thousands.

    Good stuff.

  5. Tony From Long Island

    I would be SHOCKED if W endorsed Johnson. HM won’t weigh in at all. He’s quite frail.

    Jeb is different. He’s not a former president. He has a personal axe to grind with Trump and rightfully so.

  6. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Because of the initials. Wondering if KLBJ will be next. And yes, I find the endorsement itself, and the subtlety of calling into a nominal sports talk show . . . fascinating.

  7. Tony From Long Island

    What about WFDR and WRWR . . . maybe KWJC or WJEC . . . the list is endless. . . well not really endless . . But I think I would like to hear The Stephanie Miller Show on WBHO!

  8. Andy

    Marvin Bush is a criminal and a hardcore statistist. This shows how far gone the LP ticket is this year to attract scum like this.

  9. Andy

    This is terrible publicity for the Libertarian Party. This is an example of the kind of people we do NOT want. I guarantee you that the motives of the Bush family are not good.

  10. Tony From Long Island

    As predicted . . . the doom and gloom of good news . . . . everyone’s a statist . . .

  11. robert capozzi

    more…

    And how is Marvin a “criminal” and a “statist”? What do you know about him other than the fact he’s a Bush?

  12. Tony From Long Island

    What crime has Marvin Bush been convicted of? “Scum?” Classy!!

  13. Andy

    Well, for one, Marvin Bush was on the board of the companies that ran security at the World Trade Center, and that insured the World Trade Center. He got security to “look the other way” while the Israeli Mossaf agents wired the WTC buildings with explosives (note that there were Israeli “art students” who had office space in the WTC, and it has been confirmed that these “art students” were part of a Mossad spy ring), and hardcore Zionist Larry Silverstein, who had recently obtained the lease on the WTC from the Rockafeller family (who are of course tied in with the banks and oil companies), received a fat pay day from the insurance company after the WTC went down on 9/11.

    A woman who worked as a baby sitter for Marvin Bush died under mysterious circumstances when she got run over by her own car in Marvin Bush’s driveway. Did she overhear or read something that she was not supposed to know?

  14. Andy

    Tony, would you prefer it if I called him and his family pieces of shit? That is what I think of them.

  15. Tony From Long Island

    I should have known . . . not only are the mass shootings a hoax . . . so was 9/11 (which I saw with my very eyes). Truly despicable . . . You really are an embarrassing example of an American . . . I sorta feel sorry for you

  16. Andy

    Their motives? Destroy the message of the Libertarian Party. They also likely would prefer it if Hillary Clinton is elected instead of Donald Trump.

  17. Andy

    What is your opinion of the Bush family, Tony? Do you think that they are fine public servants, and wonderful people who really care about individual liberty?

  18. Tony From Long Island

    yeah . . . those people on the plane I personally watched fly into a building were “Actors” right? I’m trying to find the right adjectives for you . . . thankfully , my work day is over and I can go home in a few minutes

  19. Darcy G Richardson

    Is Marvin the one who had dyslexia? Oh, no, my bad. That was Neil. Of course, it was long rumored that Dubya also suffered from it. Maybe it runs in the family.

    Regardless of their learning disabilities, they’ve always been hardcore libertarians.

  20. Tony From Long Island

    My opinion? GW was by far the worst president of my lifetime. And I was born during the last month of Nixon.
    I don’t however, throw around the kind of crap that Republicans do about Obama, such as “he hates America!!” I just think he was a very poor president in way over his head.

    Different people care about “individual liberty” in different way. Your interpretation of the Constitution is neither right or wrong. The words are wonderfully ambiguous. . . . . til. tomorrow . . .

  21. Andy

    The planes that are alleged to have hit those building were likely military drones. What happened to the allegedly hijacked planes? I do not know, but if there were real passengers on them they were likely killed.

    Real people did die on 9/11. I am not disputing that. I’m just disputing the official story, and saying that all of the evidence points to it having been an inside job. What was the motive? Power and money.

  22. robert capozzi

    aj: He got security to “look the other way” while the Israeli Mossaf agents wired the WTC buildings with explosives (note that there were Israeli “art students” who had office space in the WTC, and it has been confirmed that these “art students” were part of a Mossad spy ring), and hardcore Zionist Larry Silverstein, who had recently obtained the lease on the WTC from the Rockafeller family (who are of course tied in with the banks and oil companies), received a fat pay day from the insurance company after the WTC went down on 9/11.

    me: Yes, if this is true, this endorsement would be unhelpful indeed, possibly worse than being endorsed by David Duke. Of course, if it’s true, Marvin should be in the slam.

    And, so, AJ, there is the question of the veracity of this outrageous charge. Unfortunately, the Truther stuff I’ve looked at was unconvincing, so I’ll stick with my first take…this is a good thing for J/W.

  23. steve m

    RC,

    This is a good thing for J/W and the Libertarian Party. It is an indication that the Republican Party is splintering. I also just realized that Former Congressman Tom Campbell R CA (Silicon Valley) wrote an editorial Published in May 2016. Suggesting that Libertarian leaning Republicans should consider voting Libertarian.

    “The higher the Libertarians’ vote total, however, the more influential their message of small government, low taxes, individual freedom and careful foreign policy will be on whoever is elected president, looking toward picking up those votes for her or his re-election in 2020.”

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/libertarian-715844-republicans-trump.html

  24. robert capozzi

    steve, AJ may have a dossier on Campbell that suggests his article is agitprop, false-flag misdirection. 😉

  25. Matt Cholko

    Small correction – there are four hosts of the Sports Junkies show, not two (as stated above). I didn’t listen this morning, but I seriously doubt that only two of them were present. Even when they take vacation, only one host is off at a time.

    Also, the show is not “nominally” a sports talk show. In years past, it was more of a guy talk show, with occasional shock jock type stuff, with a loose focus on sports. But, since the station flipped to all sports several years ago, the format of their show changed to something that I consider straight up sports talk. There is very, very little political talk on the show. I’ve been a regular listener since 1998, and I can only tell you the political leanings of two of the four hosts. They do not lean the same way.

    I’ll have to give it a listen to see which one endorsed GJ.

  26. Matt Cholko

    For the record, it seems that all four Junkies were there, and the endorsement comes from Jason “Lurch” Bishop, after Bush states that he’ll be voting for the L ticket. Bush also said a lot more good stuff about libertarians in general, and GJ/WW in particular than the snippet above states.

  27. Andy

    Anyone who believes this line of crap from any member of the Bush family is naive.
    You people do not get it. There is no libertarian Libertarian Party presidential ticket this year. The ticket has been hijacked. William Weld is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This is why members of the Bush family and other NON-libertarians (or more accurately, ANTI-libertarians are all of a sudden interested in the Libertarian Party ticket. If we had real libertarians on the ticket, these people would not touch is with a ten foot pole.

  28. Andy

    William Weld enthusiastically endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 and in 2004, and he even raised $100,000 plus for him during at least one of those campaigns. Weld also supported the war in Iraq, and the Patriot Act, and he even signed a letter written by neo-con warmonger Frank Gaffney urging Congress to renew the sections of the Patriot Act that were set to expire in 2005.

  29. Andy

    William Weld endised Jeb Bush for President in September of 2015, and after Jeb Bush dropped out of the race in early 2016, he endorsed Kasich for President in February of 2016. Three months after this he showed up in the Libertarian Party claiming to be a libertarians, and 50.5% of the delegates in Orlando were either naive enough, or unprincipled enough, to give him our party’s vice presidential nomination.

  30. robert capozzi

    FWIW, I seriously considered voting for W in 2000. I was no fan of 41, but 43’s talk of a humbler f.p. and smaller government rhetoric almost broke my lifetime pattern of only voting L. In the end, I didn’t believe his rap, and it turns out I was correct to be skeptical of the rhetoric. I sat out 2000.

    GJ was a sitting R guv in 2000. He also voted for Bergland in 84, arguably the most deontological NAPster the LP has ever fielded. Indeed, I witnessed him telling a national TV reporter at the 83 convention that “yes, some Ls are anarchists, and some are minarchists.” While true, that was about as unwise a statement I’ve heard from an L candidate, aside from the northern VA congressional L candidate who suggested that there’s a right to private nukes, as reported by the Washington Post.

    Oy vey!

  31. robert capozzi

    aj, one way to look at it is that WW — a profoundly gifted, articulate pol — has finally come to his senses! He’s kind of a reverse Rothbard, who endorsed Pat Buchanan in his later years.

  32. Andy

    You think Weld has become a “born again” libertarian? Come on Robert, do you really believe this? I see no evidence to back this up. I doubt that you are really this naive, right? Am I giving you too much credit?

  33. robert capozzi

    AJ, I think WW is a lessarchist but not a NAPster. I find him to be wildly articulate and profoundly intelligent.

  34. Brad

    I wouldn’t doubt it if the Bushes voted for Johnson-Weld. Some of the millenials (ex: Jenna) in the Bush family might vote for HRC.

  35. langa

    …I witnessed him telling a national TV reporter at the 83 convention that “yes, some Ls are anarchists, and some are minarchists.” While true, that was about as unwise a statement I’ve heard from an L candidate…

    It was only “unwise” if his goal was to trick people who disagree with him into voting for him.

  36. langa

    I find [Weld] to be wildly articulate and profoundly intelligent.

    Many people who knew Ted Bundy described him the same way.

  37. steve m

    must really gall Andy to be so out of step with the Libertarian Party.

    My sympathies

  38. Andy

    I am not out of step with the Libertarian Party. Some (fortunately not all) members of the party are out of step with liberty.

    If the article above is what the Libertarian Party is turning into, then perhaps it is time to shut the party down, or at least be honest and start calling it the LINO (Libertarian In Name Only) Party.

  39. Andy

    Robert, you thought about voting for George W. Bush in 2000, but you had the good sense to not do it.

    Gary Johnson was already a self professed libertarian for years by the time of the 2000 election. He should have known better than endorsing Bush. He was not running for reelection, so there was no political reason to do this. Him having endorsed Bush tells me that he either has poor judgment, or he is not really that committed to liberty.

    I could see if Gary Johnson had not had his libertarian “awakening” yet, but Johnson had already been a self professed libertarian for years before this, so I do not see an excuse here, other than bad judgment or lack of principles.

  40. dL

    “Regardless of their learning disabilities, they’ve always been hardcore libertarians.”

    in the same exact way the Clintons have always been hardcore democratic socialists…

  41. robert capozzi

    aj: He was not running for reelection, so there was no political reason to do this.

    me: He was doing what R guvs do, esp one who was thinking one day, he might run for prez. So, no, I disagree…he had lots of political reasons to do so.

  42. Andy

    Gary Johnson could have kept his mouth shut and not endorsed anybody, or he could have endorsed somebody else.

    It appears that he did not have any immediate plan to run for office, as he did not run again until 2012.

  43. robert capozzi

    Yes, he could have not endorsed or endorsed otherwise…true.

    No, unless you are a mind reader, we don’t know what he was considering.

    Yes, he didn’t run again until 12.

  44. robert capozzi

    Hard to say, AJ. We could ask him.

    I can say I did not vote for HB. I sat that election out. I found his positions far too whacko, frankly…unserious…something about abortions and men…fringy stuff. Why would anyone want to encourage crazy talk?

  45. George Dance

    If endorsing George W. Bush is the litmus test of being a LINO, then the Libertarian Party began nominating LINOs with John Hospers.

  46. Gene Berkman

    George – you are correct. John Hospers endorsed the reelection of President George W Bush in 2004 – worse than supporting the challenger Bush in 2000, when his crimes were in the future.

    Just as a matter of historical trivia – in 1976 Roger MacBride ran the first serious Libertarian campaign for President, on the ballot in 32 states. He was a pilot and he bought a larger plane for the campaign, so that he could fly staff and press people to his campaign stops. He spent at least a half million dollars of his own money on the campaign, and impressed Gene McCarthy enough that McCarthy became a speaker at the 1977 Libertarian National Convention and again in 1979.

    Roger MacBride had served one term as a Republican state legislator in Vermont, 1962 to 1964. In 1964 he campaigned for Sen. Goldwater, and he ran in the Republican primary for Governor of Vermont. In 1972 he was a Republican elector in Virginia, and he cast his electoral vote for John Hospers. So from the beginning, the strategy of The Libertarian Party was to recruit active Republicans who supported freedom and limited government.

    In 1978, Dick Randolph was elected as a Libertarian to the Alaska legislature. He had previously been elected as a Republican several times. In 1982 he ran for Governor of Alaska and received almost 15% of the vote. Also in 1982, Sam Steiger received 5% of the vote for Governor of Arizona, establishing ongoing ballot status for the Arizona Libertarian Party (at least for a time). Sam Steiger had previously been elected to the State Senate and U.S. Congress as a Republican, multiple times. He had run for U.S. Senate in the Republican primary in 1976, with support from Barry Goldwater; he lost to a Christian conservative who benefited from anti-semetic themes pushed by his supporters.

    Obviously, we need to recruit people who have never been Republicans as well. But it is ridiculous to constantly complain about former Republicans who have joined The Libertarian Party. We should welcome people, and hope they use their talents and experience to make The Libertarian Party an effective vehicle for the defense of freedom. Former officeholders have political communication skills that most Libertarians apparently lack.

  47. langa

    Sure, former Republicans should be welcome in the LP — as long as they are willing to repudiate their non-libertarian positions, or at the very least, stay quiet about them. What should not be tolerated is allowing former Republicans (or anyone else) to use the LP ballot line as a soapbox to promote their blatantly statist positions — unless you think the LP is simply a home for disgruntled conservatives.

    And by the way, Hospers should not be used as any sort of model for LP candidates, as he was less of a libertarian, and more of a conservatarian. For example, during his ’72 campaign, he not only supported fighting against the “illicit drug trade” — he even supported increasing electronic surveillance to do so!

    Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20060706204809/https://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1972/1972_12.pdf

  48. robert capozzi

    L: What should not be tolerated…

    me: And so what do you suggest to maintain the intolerance you demand?

  49. Election Addict

    “Some of the millenials (ex: Jenna) in the Bush family might vote for HRC.”

    Hm, the Bush gene doesn’t seem to be correcting itself.

  50. Bondurant

    @Tony From Long Island

    Being a witness to the 9/11 attacks is not relevant to the attacks being orchestrated by government agents (domestic or foreign) or terrorists.

    A Bush endorsement isn’t anything to write home about but it’s not a shocker. Given that Hillary and Trump are the two worst candidates in our history, there’s likely to be more support across the board for the LP.

  51. Andy

    The Bush’s are every bit as bad as the major party candidates. A Bush endorsing an LP candidate just means that the LP sold out by nominating a LINO ticket.

  52. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    langa: What should not be tolerated…

    robert capozzi: And so what do you suggest to maintain the intolerance you demand?

    Capozzi, you love to take phrases out of context, to make them sound unreasonable. Here you try to make “intolerance” itself sound unreasonable.

    Do you really think the LP should tolerate everything?

    What if a candidate advocated ramping up the drug war, bringing back Jim Crow, and expanding NSA spying. Should the LP tolerate those positions as well?

  53. Robert Capozzi

    RTAA, I don’t have a strong view of how Langa’s eternal vigilance should be accomplished, and what standards might be applied. It makes sense to me that a party should have the power to disavow a candidate who espouses views that are SO far from its principles that the candidate undermines the broader party.

    I do think that a few, minor plumbliners violations should be overlooked.

  54. Jim

    Andy “The Bush’s are every bit as bad as the major party candidates. A Bush endorsing an LP candidate just means that the LP sold out by nominating a LINO ticket.”

    That’s a faulty analysis of the situation. The Bush’s despise Trump for his personal attacks. But they can’t bring themselves to support Hillary. Johnson and Weld, being former Republican Governors, are politically safer than other 3rd parties. Endorsing Johnson is an acceptable alternative to Trump and Hillary specifically, not to the Republican and Democratic parties in general.

  55. robert capozzi

    Jim, I’d hope it’s more than just the personal attacks!

    I think NAPsters are really afraid that Romney and the Bushs could lead to a massive influx of non-NAPsters into the LP, more as a convenience than a die-hard desire to challenge the (imaginary) cult of the omnipotent state. Perhaps they are sensing that this most longshot ticket COULD be poised to either win or at least make a serious run at the WH. Comey might come back with indictments, for ex., (a somewhat plausible theory I heard one of AJ’s favorites, Freedomainradio.) DJT’s taxes might actually be released, and there may be stuff in there that blows up in his face.

    It’s all still quite unlikely, but surely this is one unusual year.

    An influx of LINOs — unschooled in the massive tautology that IS the NAP — might start asking uncomfortable and unanswerable questions about the dogma, and they’ll find the Rothbardian deflections indefensible. It’s a nightmare, from the NAPster perspective.

  56. Andy

    Some of you people do not get it. This is not about NAPster purity. The Bush’s are not pro-liberty at all. They are not monarchist. They are the enemy.

    They are not endorsing Trump for one or two reasons, which are:

    1) Donald Trump may be a true maverick. He is wealthy and famous enough that he does not have to beg special interest groups for money, and the “powers that be” may fear that they can’t control him. This does not mean that Trump is really on our side either, but he may be somebody whom the establishment can’t control, and they do not want that.

    And/or,

    2) This election is a scam, and the establishment wants Hillary Clinton to be installed. The Bush’s are long time cronies of the Clinton’s, and for that matter, the Trump’s are also long time friends of the Clinton’s (I read recently that Ivanka Trump cites Chelsea Clinton as one of her best friends). It is possible that Donald Trump is in on the scam and is just working everybody.

    How does the Libertarian Party fall in with this? Hijack the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination and insert CFR member Bill Weld on the ticket (the Bush and Clinton families are also connected to the CFR), this way you can take control of the message of America’s most viable current alternative party, and you can water it down and send it off in non-libertarian directions, and you can also use the party to siphon votes away from Donald Trump to help elect Hillary. “They” can just rig the election, but they have to make it look good, as in they do not want it to look too obvious that they rigged the election to where even the average American idiot can figure out that they rigged it. This could also lead to a situation where it can be made to look like the Libertarian Party cost Trump the election, in which case the LP can be demonized for this for the next several years.

    I have got to hand it to our enemies for being so cunning.

  57. Andy

    Should read, “minarchists” above.

    I bet that the Bush family would support a monarchy if they thought they could get away with it.

  58. steve m

    Andy,

    “The Bush’s are long time cronies of the Clinton’s”

    Didn’t Bill Clinton run against George W Bush in 1992?

    Just what is your definition of crony?

  59. Andy

    Steve, do yourself and everyone else a favor and do a little homework before you post.

    Yes, the Bush family and the Clinton family are long time friends. They have even vacioted together.

    The Trump family are also long time friends of the Clinton family. Donald Trump invited them to his wedding and donated to their foundation. Ivanka Trump cites Chelsea Clinton as one of her best friend.

    Bill Weld is also a long time friend of the Clinton family and the Bush family.

    Smell a rat?

  60. William Saturn

    “This does not mean that Trump is really on our side either”

    Alex Jones, Walter Block, Justin Raimondo, Chris Cantwell, and many other libertarians believe he is. Wouldn’t it be great to have Andrew Napolitano on the Supreme Court? Trump proposes a non-interventionist foreign policy while Hillary, a proven warmonger, and Weld, a proven globalist, are both neocons.

    It’s an easy choice for me. You can never really know for sure, but for me the evidence is good that Trump’s on our side. I’m willing to take the small risk that he’s not on our side to avoid allowing a career criminal with hundreds of thousands of deaths on her hands to occupy the White House.

  61. robert capozzi

    AJ, it’s not to say that we should never question motives, BUT, on its face, if prominent Rs like the Bushes and Romney do endorse GJ, that is helpful. It raises exposure. It’s hard news. It’s shocking for some, in a good way.

    Recall when Colin Powell endorsed BHO. Powell is an R, and generally of the highest repute. Yet he endorsed a D. Made the news. Helped Obama.

    Would you like to see GJ say, “I don’t want Romney or Jeb’s endorsement. I don’t even want their votes. They are evil statists.”

    Doing this would be political malpractice of the highest order, IMO.

  62. Andy

    When David Duke endorsed, or even talked about endorsing, Donald Trump, lots of people threw a fit, and Donald was repeatedly asked to repudiate Duke’s endorsement, which he did.

    Getting endorsed by a member of the Bush family is just as bad, and maybe even worse. Where is the outrage? Why no calls to repudiate the Bush endorsement?

    This endorsement would not have happened if the Libertarian Party had nominated a real libertarian ticket. Could you imagine a member of the Bush family endorsing say Darryl W. Perry? I would bet money that that would not happen.

  63. Thane Eichenauer

    Andy > Why no calls to repudiate the Bush endorsement?

    Probably two reasons. One is Marvin Bush was never known as an advocacy of the tribe of white people. Two is that modern day commercial media (run by modern day leftists by and large) will not mention anything having to do with Gary Johnson if it can be avoided.

    Andy > Could you imagine a member of the Bush family endorsing say Darryl W. Perry?
    I could. I don’t see it as being all that less likely that a Bush endorsing Johnson. Your imagination may be more practical than mine.

  64. Andy

    Thane, I would say the bigger reason is because the mass media is controlled and is in bed with the state. Marvin Bush is a member of one of this country’s most prominent ruling families, so of course they won’t dare say anything bad about it.

  65. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Robert Capozzi: “a party should have the power to disavow a candidate who espouses views that are SO far from its principles that the candidate undermines the broader party. … a few, minor plumbliners violations should be overlooked.

    That’s not a very helpful guide to assessing a candidate. What’s a “minor plumbline violation” to you might be a significant departure from principle to someone else.

    I doubt that most libertarian critics of Johnson/Weld regard their deviations as “a few, minor plumbliners violations.”

    By that same token, many mainstream, establishment Republicans and conservatives likely regard themselves as “basically a libertarian” apart from “a few, minor plumbliners violations.” I’ve heard both Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly call themselves a libertarian. I think Ann Coulter might also have done so. Many Republican and conservatives hijack the label for themselves, lumping it into the rest of their ideological baggage.

  66. langa

    I doubt that most libertarian critics of Johnson/Weld regard their deviations as “a few, minor plumbliners violations.”

    That’s an understatement. In fact, the LP ticket is apparently too moderate even for the Cato Institute (which is basically the archetype of “moderate” libertarianism):

    http://www.cato.org/blog/johnson-weld-libertarian-ticket

    (Note Weld’s ideal examples of Supreme Court justices.)

  67. Andy

    Ann Counter attempted to capture the Libertarian Party of Connecticut’s US Senate nomination several years back. Fortunately, the LP of CT had the good sense to reject her as a candidate.

    I am not so confident that a majority of the delegation that was present at the Libertarian National Convention in Orlando would have had the good sense to do the same.

  68. Robert Capozzi

    AJ: Getting endorsed by a member of the Bush family is just as bad, and maybe even worse.

    me: I respect that that’s YOUR perspective. From mine and probably 90+% of the pop, family members of two former presidents vs Duke, Duke would be far, far worse…an endorsement that should be immediately repudiated. You at least recognize that, yes?

  69. George Dance

    “Thane, I would say the bigger reason is because the mass media is controlled and is in bed with the state. Marvin Bush is a member of one of this country’s most prominent ruling families, so of course they won’t dare say anything bad about it.”

    There was never a bad word in the mass media about George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush, during their Presidencies? I’ve heard that implied on Obamapologist sites, but I had no idea the “libertarian Libertarians” believed it, too.

  70. Jim

    William Saturn “Alex Jones, Walter Block, Justin Raimondo, Chris Cantwell, and many other libertarians believe he is.”

    Block fell for the thoroughly disproven “Trump is a non-interventionist” propaganda and he now only says to vote for Trump in swing states, vote Johnson everywhere else, in order to prevent WW3-Hillary from getting elected. I’ve heard Raimondo was an Obama supporter in both 2008 and 2012. Raimondo does NOT support Trump because he is suspicious of Trump’s call for more domestic surveillance, calls for torture of alleged terrorists and the murder of their families, and he is suspicious that Trump will start more wars. Raimondo likes Trump’s movement – not Trump himself – because he believes it is creating fertile ground for libertarians.

    William Saturn “Wouldn’t it be great to have Andrew Napolitano on the Supreme Court?”

    Wow. You and Lew Rockwell must be the only two people left in the country that are still eating up the frothy horse shit that Roger Stone has been defecating all over the place for the last year.

  71. William Saturn

    “You and Lew Rockwell must be the only two people left in the country that are still eating up the frothy horse shit that Roger Stone has been defecating all over the place for the last year.”

    Roger Stone is a close insider of Trump so I see no reason why he wouldn’t have such insight. Even if it’s not true, anyone Trump nominates will be better than Merrick Garland or any other statist Hillary wants to nominate.

    Anyone questioning where Raimondo stands or whether Trump is non-interventionist should read http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/07/21/trump-enrages-war-party/

  72. robert capozzi

    rtaa: That’s not a very helpful guide to assessing a candidate. What’s a “minor plumbline violation” to you might be a significant departure from principle to someone else.

    me: Sorry. It’s really not so much of a concern of mine, since I no longer challenge the cult of the omnipotent state. Strikes me that the LNConvention made their assessment, and found the J/W ticket at least sufficient ideologically, and potentially game-changing politically. Undoing the will of the convention is certainly something that MIGHT be indicated IF a candidate veered substantially away from what was presented in convention, and that veer was significantly more-archist.

    Having a code for plumbline violation in advance might well be useful, though I can think of better uses of time.

    Langa: In fact, the LP ticket is apparently too moderate even for the Cato Institute (which is basically the archetype of “moderate” libertarianism):

    me: That’s one Cato scholar on a few issues. Boaz and Palmer seem to be giving full-throated support to Team J/W, at least on Facebook.

    Consider the possibility that you are cherry-picking. Feels that way to me.

  73. robert capozzi

    ws: Wouldn’t it be great to have Andrew Napolitano on the Supreme Court?

    me: I dunno…maybe. Dude stopped judging in 1995, 21 years ago. And that was as a NJ Superior Ct judge, not a usual stepping stone for the Supremes. AN is probably unconfirmable.

    Seems like a half-baked idea….

  74. Andy

    Uuuuuggggggg! George Dance, I meant a bad word about a member of the Bush family endorsing the current LP ticket. There are no calls from anyone in the media to repudiate the endorsement, like there was with Trump to repudiate David Duke. The Bush family have been political insiders for a long time, and they have expanded the state, profiteered from the state, and gotten the country into unnecessary wars, yet there have been no calls for Johnson/Weld to repudiate this endorsement.

  75. robert capozzi

    aj, seems like YOU are advocating repudiation, yes? If so, your last sentence is false.

    Marvin has never been elected to anything. Are you assigning him guilt by family association? Seems kinda…umm…unlibertarian of you!

  76. Jim

    William Saturn “Roger Stone is a close insider of Trump so I see no reason why he wouldn’t have such insight.”

    Who are you going to believe, Roger Stone or Donald Trump? Because Donald Trump has already released the list of people he would consider for the Supreme Court. And you know who wasn’t on that list? Andrew Napolitano. So either Stone is full of shit or Trump is lying. One is as likely as the other.

    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-releases-list-of-names-of-potential-united-states-supreme-c

    William Saturn “Anyone questioning where Raimondo stands or whether Trump is non-interventionist should read http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/07/21/trump-enrages-war-party/

    Or you could read why Raimondo did not vote for Trump in the primary.
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/05/26/didnt-vote-trump/

  77. Jim

    William Saturn “Anyone questioning… whether Trump is non-interventionist should read http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/07/21/trump-enrages-war-party/”

    It’s not that Trump doesn’t occasionally say non-interventionist things. It’s that he says the exact opposite two days later. Neither you, nor Raimondo, nor anyone else – including Trump – has any idea what Trump is going to do, foreign policy wise, on a day to day basis.

    Example:

    Here’s what Trump said about Libya in 2011:

    “Gaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around we have soldiers all have the Middle East, and we’re not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage and that’s what it is: It’s a carnage. You talk about things that have happened in history; this could be one of the worst. Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives. This is absolutely nuts. We don’t want to get involved and you’re gonna end up with something like you’ve never seen before. But we have go in to save these lives; these people are being slaughtered like animals. It’s horrible what’s going on; it has to be stopped. We should do on a humanitarian basis, immediately go into Libya, knock this guy out very quickly, very surgically, very effectively, and save the lives.”

    And here is what Trump said in February, after Ted Cruz criticized him for the above statement:

    “I never discussed that subject. I was in favor of Libya? We would be so much better off if Gaddafi would be in charge right now.”

    And by June he was saying this:

    “I was for something, but I wasn’t for what we have right now. I wasn’t for what happened. Look at the way — I mean look at with Benghazi and all of the problems that we’ve had. It was handled horribly. … I was never for strong intervention. I could have seen surgical where you take out Qadhafi and his group.”

    Take Qaddafi out, we’d be better off with Qaddafi, take Qaddafi out…. If you choose to believe that Trump is a non-interventionist, you can cherry pick statements to back that up. But there are just as many statements where he says the exact opposite. You are going on faith alone that Trump is a non-interventionist. No one has any idea what he will do.

  78. William Saturn

    “So either Stone is full of shit or Trump is lying. One is as likely as the other.”

    Trump said the list was not exclusive.

    “It’s not that Trump doesn’t occasionally say non-interventionist things. It’s that he says the exact opposite two days later.”

    He’s not a politician so he probably did not analyze foreign policy as closely until recently. However, his view on not involving the US in globalist trade pacts like NAFTA has been consistent throughout his time in the media spotlight. Trade is an issue he understands well and articulated most clearly during the Republican debates. I’m thinking, and this is just my speculation, but I feel he has a non-interventionist impulse. The Iraq War is a good example. He told Howard Stern in 2002 that maybe something needed to be done. He was very non-committal and reluctant to take such a position because it likely went against his instincts. But it’s hard for someone who did not analyze the issues as closely as he does today to avoid saying that at a time when the pro-war propaganda was so intense. By 2003 he was against the war and has remained consistent with that position. I do not believe he was introduced to the alternative news movement and the anti-globalist rhetoric of those like Alex Jones, until very recently, perhaps when he started dabbling in birtherism in 2011. Based on his earlier views, this was something he found attractive. He’s becoming much more consistently non-interventionist. If you read the interview he did with the NY Times that Raimondo references in the article I linked, he seems to have solidified his views as non-interventionist. This interview caused an uproar among the neocons, but Trump has not wavered.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-interview.html?_r=1

  79. Be Rational

    “So either Stone is full of shit or Trump is lying. One is as likely as the other.”
    *********
    It’s not either / or …

    Stone is full of shit AND Trump is lying.

  80. natural born citizen

    A lot of narcissistic jackholes claim to have seen events, such as 9/11, that they didn’t actually see. They feel themselves more important when they say they have a connection to such a big event.

    The most recent example is an actor/comedian from the FX tv show, “The League.” He had maintained for years that he saw a plane crash into the WTC. Last year he admitted it was all a fraud.

  81. natural born citizen

    @capozzi 7-30 1538

    One can certainly recognize that the perspective of the blinkered, naive, duped, ill-informed, and ignorant exists.

    That doesn’t change the fact that a welcome endorsement by the Bush Crime Family is a very ominous sign for a Johnson-Weld administration. The willingness to associate with anti-American criminals such as the Bushes suggests that those people would never face justice and would continue to have a hand in the destruction of America.

  82. robert capozzi

    nbc: That doesn’t change the fact that a welcome endorsement by the Bush Crime Family…

    me: Has it been welcomed? Has Marvin been convicted?

    nbc: is a very ominous sign for a Johnson-Weld administration.

    me: First off, a J/W administration is still very much a long shot. Second, endorsements–welcomed or not–seem almost completely inconsequential to me. As a general proposition, I’d say contributions MIGHT be construed as ominous more than just words of endorsement. If you feel otherwise, build a case on how “endorsements” lead to governing malfunction.

    nbc: The willingness to associate with anti-American criminals such as the Bushes…

    me: You need to establish that Marvin in an “anti-American criminal” and that J/W are “associating” with Marvin due to his endorsement. Slow it down to build your case.

    nbc: …suggests that those people would never face justice and would continue to have a hand in the destruction of America.

    Me: You’re all over the map here. Define what you mean by “face justice,” for what, and who will face this justice? 41? 43? What are the charges? And how would “they” “destroy” America if “they” are not brought to “justice”?

    Conflated handwaving is not getting it done.

  83. Jim

    William Saturn “He’s not a politician so he probably did not analyze foreign policy as closely until recently. ”

    Nonsense. Trump considered running for President twice before (in 2000 and 2012.) In 2000 he lost the Reform Party nomination to Pat Buchanan. In 2012 he said he would only run if Mitt Romney failed to gain the Republican nomination. He’s also written three political books coinciding with each of the three times he considered running for President: The America We Deserve (2000), Time To Get Tough (2011), and Crippled America (2015).

    William Saturn “However, his view on not involving the US in globalist trade pacts like NAFTA has been consistent throughout his time in the media spotlight.”

    True.

    William Saturn “Trade is an issue he understands well and articulated most clearly during the Republican debates.”

    False. There are valid reasons to oppose trade agreements, including loss of sovereignty to unaccountable bureaucrats and corporate welfare. There are no valid reasons to oppose free trade. Trump goes beyond opposing trade agreements to actually opposing free trade. Trade is the issue that Trump understand the least, and that’s saying something.

    William Saturn “I’m thinking, and this is just my speculation, but I feel he has a non-interventionist impulse. The Iraq War is a good example. He told Howard Stern in 2002 that maybe something needed to be done. He was very non-committal and reluctant to take such a position because it likely went against his instincts. But it’s hard for someone who did not analyze the issues as closely as he does today to avoid saying that at a time when the pro-war propaganda was so intense.”

    True, Trump wasn’t particularly committed in the 2002 Stern interview. And maybe that was because he buckled under public pressure. He was somewhat more forceful about hitting Iraq in his 2000 book The America We Deserve, though. “After each pounding from U.S . warplanes, Iraq has dusted itself off and gone right back to work developing a nuclear arsenal. Six years of tough talk and U.S. fireworks in Baghdad have done little to slow Iraq’s crash program to become a nuclear power. They’ve got missiles capable of flying nine hundred kilometers—more than enough to reach Tel Aviv. They’ve got enriched uranium. All they need is the material for nuclear fission to complete the job, and, according to the [1998] Rumsfeld report, we don’t even know for sure if they’ve laid their hands on that yet. That’s what our last aerial assault on Iraq in 1999 was about. Saddam Hussein wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors examine certain sites where that material might be stored. The result when our bombing was over? We still don’t know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons. I’m no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don’t, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.”

    Trump also threatened to launch a first-strike attack against North Korea in The America We Deserve (In February 2016 he said he would have the Kim Jung Un assassinated.)

    Trump threatened to start a war with Iran in his 2011 book Time To Get Tough.

    In March 2016 he was talking about sending 30,000 ground troops to Syria.

    William Saturn “By 2003 he was against the war and has remained consistent with that position.”

    No, 2003 is when Trump today claims that he turned against the Iraq War. His public statements at the time are equivocal. There are no public statements from Trump that clearly put him against the Iraq War until August, 2004.

    William Saturn “He’s becoming much more consistently non-interventionist. If you read the interview he did with the NY Times that Raimondo references in the article I linked, he seems to have solidified his views as non-interventionist. This interview caused an uproar among the neocons, but Trump has not wavered.”

    He changes from day to day, week to week, and month to month. Pointing to an interview he did 10 days ago and saying “Look! He hasn’t changed his position in 10 days!” is not an indication of solidified beliefs.

  84. Andy

    Marvin Bush, and some other members of his family, have not been convicted for the same reason that Bill and Hillary Clinton have not been convicted, and that is because we are living under a corrupt government where people who are connected to the establishment can get away with just about anything.

  85. Be Rational

    There is a lot of fear inside the Federal government that radical, NAP Libertarians might be able to reach out and recruit enough American voters who understand the logic and common sense of LP positions, so that the LP would be able to win elections and reduce the state to a minimum size.

    To prevent this possibility and discredit the LP, the government set up the Truther cult with trained agents spreading a lot of nonsense about a government conspiracy behind the 911 attacks.

    When the sane, common sense, Americans, the natural, anti-government libertarians that comprise a majority in our society hear the nutty Truthers and their ridiculous conspiracy theories, it makes this waiting Libertarian majority cringe. They can see that the Truthers are just wrong, and although they too are anti-government, the waiting LP majority does NOT want to associate with the off-the-rail Truthers.

    To continue and perfect the government’s attempt to discredit the LP, special agents – like Andy – were sent in to pose as hard-core Libertarians while spouting all the crazy conspiracy theories – especially the wacko Truther nonsense.

    Andy and Federal agents sponsored deep inside the Governmental Anti-Libertarian Taskforce have been quite effective in driving members, supporters and donors away from the LP.

  86. Andy

    “Be Rational,” the opposite of what you said is true in regard to government infiltration and sabotage of the liberty movement. The people who are damaging the movement and driving away the natural liberty base are the so called moderates, or lap do libertarian lites. Look at Ron Paul, as he was wildly successful and he ran on a pretty radical platform.

    Watering down the message too much as a way of trying to appeal to mainstream Democrats and Republicans is a losing strategy.

  87. robert capozzi

    aj: Look at Ron Paul, as he was wildly successful

    me: Depends on what you believe “success” is. How do you figure RP1 was “successful” in 08 and 12?

  88. Andy

    Ron Paul was successful in waking lots of people up, and giving the liberty movement a much needed kick start.

  89. Be Rational

    Agent Andy, you missed the point – as any good government agent would do, to misdirect the conversation.

    It’s not the NAP radicalism that’s the problem. Radical change in a libertarian direction could be supported by a large segment of the population.

    The infiltration and damage comes from having ANY LP member or spokesperson suggest any support, belief or credibility in the loony Truther conspiracy nonsense. For most people – and most libertarians – belief or support for the Truther conspiracy cult is a sign of mental illness and a complete disqualifier for any candidate for government office.

    This would make your positioning an ideal way for the government to disable the liberty movement.

  90. robert capozzi

    aj, that Jones article is embarrassing. That 41, Clinton, and W conferred from time to time is — ah — what prez’s do.

    If GJ somehow wins, I hope he has the good sense to call BHO from time to time. The only thing such communication proves is good judgment, to get nuance about the past to address challenges in the present.

    I sometimes talk to morearchists and NAPsters to get their perspective on things. Though we disagree, I figure it can’t hurt to do so.

    Do you feel otherwise?

  91. Joe

    One of the Bushs endorses Johnson/Weld, but not Ron Paul? If this was Ron Paul’s year running as the LP nominee, what would he be polling now, I wonder? He was 25 or so years ahead of his time.

    And aside from endorsing, why isn’t he a key part of the campaign? I think the issues revealed by that question explicate fairly clearly why Johnson/Weld hasn’t been polling over 20 percent for the past two months.

  92. Be Rational

    Yes Joe, if we could combine an LP nomination for a healthy, younger Ron Paul in 2016 with RP’s popularity in 2008 and 2012 and a camaign against Hillary and Trump as now, then RP would likely already be at 15% – 20% and would be included in the debates. Anything could happen.

    Timing changes everything.

  93. Andy

    Bill and Hillary Clinton do not just confer with members of the Bush family. They are buddies. They have gone on vacations together. Barbara Bush has said that Bill Clinton is like a son to her. Bill Clinton has referred to Barbara Bush as his second mother. It is a real lovefest between these two ruling class families.

  94. Andy

    Ron Paul would also do a much better job at conveying a pro-liberty message to the public than either Johnson or Weld.

  95. Joe

    Andy,

    Let’s hope they learned from their first CNN debacle. Someone needs to hire Ron Paul as a debate coach, if not before this second chance tomorrow night, then certainly before the debates (if they get in). Otherwise I fear more long-term damage to the LP than good from this campaign. As Gary himself has said, Mickey Mouse would be polling in double digits now, so exactly what are we getting from the absurd compensation paid to people like Joe Hunter ($25,000 for June according to the FEC filings?!?! (and past practice shows that number may well be revised upwards in later reports)).

  96. robert capozzi

    J: Ron Paul as a debate coach

    me: RP1 was a poor debater, roughly equal to GJ. Yes, he sometimes scored points in debates, but for the most part he’s a rambling, sometimes incoherent, debater. He’s a somewhat effective orator with the right crowd. RP2 is actually a good to very good debater. WW is a world-class debater.

    IMO.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *