Statement from Governors Johnson and Weld to All Republicans

gj

STATEMENT FROM GOVS. JOHNSON & WELD TO ALL REPUBLICANS

Oct. 8, 2016, Salt Lake City, UT — Govs. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld released the follow statement today addressed “to all Republicans:”

“Time to vote your conscience.

Having served as Republican Governors, we understand the sensitivities and obligations elected officials and party leaders feel toward supporting their party’s nominee for President. We’ve been there, and frankly, have experienced the discomfort of defending a President or candidate when we didn’t feel like doing so. For each of us, that is part of the liberation we feel today as we take an independent message to America’s voters.

Today, as we watch Republicans across the nation struggle with the disclosure of Donald Trump’s indefensible and embarrassing words, and the attitude toward women displayed by those words, we respect the difficult spot those Republicans are in. It can’t be easy.

At the same time, character and trust are important. It shouldn’t matter whether a microphone is turned on or not. The conversation we have all now heard isn’t any more appropriate in a locker room than it is on national TV. America deserves better. Women certainly deserve better. And Republicans deserve better.

We speak often of reaching across party lines if elected to get things done for America. Today, we would like to reach across party lines to invite our Republican friends to join our campaign. There is a presidential ticket with two candidates who served honorably and effectively as Republican Governors, and we are it.

Our nation and our challenges are much greater than the character or behavior of one man. Join us, and we pledge to present voters with a real alternative to what has become an embarrassing side show.”

226 thoughts on “Statement from Governors Johnson and Weld to All Republicans

  1. Thomas Knapp

    There they go with the “independent” stuff again.

    Q: If they wanted to run an “independent” campaign why didn’t they just do that?

    A: Ballot access — easier to fool the LP into giving them its ballot line than to do the work of getting their own.

  2. Be Rational

    Be Rational
    October 8, 2016 at 13:25

    Campaign strategy: Time for the pivot: (It’s too bad we didn’t lay the advertising groundwork first.)

    The Johnson campaign should take the recent Trump revelations into account, with a recast approach to the race, it’s time to pivot:

    The GJ campaign should treat this race now as a two-way race between Johnson and Clinton. Trump cannot be considered for POTUS by women, nor anyone who respects women, nor by minorities, nor by anyone who respects minorities, nor by the LGBT community, nor by anyone who respects indivudual rights. Trump cannot win and he is out of the race for all practical purposes.

    Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson are the only candidates on the ballot who are qualified on paper to be President of the United States.

    Johnson is fiscally responsible; inernationally a non-interventionist, protecting America and our interests by ending our role as policeman of the world; socially, he respects the rights of all Americans to make their own personal choices. On every one of these issues, Gary Johnson is far better than Hillary Clinton, so Gary Johnson is the best choice in this two-person race going forward.

    *

    The 2016 election begins again today. Trump is now, finally, finished.

    The choice in November is between Johnson and Clinton.

    Gary Johnson would be the first President Johnson who became President by being elected; the first Johnson who didn’t get into office as a VP assuming the Presidency after the assassination of the sitting President.

  3. Andy

    It should be clearly apparent to all that Johnson and Weld do not really give a shit about the Libertarian Party and movement.

  4. Joseph Buchman

    Don’t vote for those Republicans (well, Republican “nominees” (meaning in name only)) over there!

    Vote for these Republicans OVER HERE!!!

    (AKA: “The True Republicans.” The new Libertarian brand.)

    Effective for maximizing votes next month? Perhaps.

    Destructive to the long-term fight for Liberty? Certainly.

    Discuss.

  5. Andy

    “Johnson is fiscally responsible”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    Johnson ran up a big campaign debt in 2012 which he never paid off.

    Johnson’s campaign was not transparent, and lots of money was wasted on over-paid Republican consultants.

    Johnson INCREASED state government debt as Governor of New Mexico from $1.6 billion to $4.8 billion.

    Johnson INCREASED government spending as Governor of New Mexico.

    How in the hell is Johnson fiscally responsible?

  6. Joseph Buchman

    “Sorry, sir,” says the clerk. The campaign credit card has been declined.

    “Aw, shit,” says Gary. And tells him to put everything on his own Visa. Then the clerk gives him a coupon for a free Econo-Lodge breakfast in the morning. “Well, that’s very nice of you. I appreciate that.”

    . . .

    Gary gets out to pump the gas. But the campaign credit card gets denied. Again. “Let’s try $50 instead of $100,” says Gary. Nope. “This is just painful.”

    See, fiscally conservative!

    🙂

    From the 2012 GQ article: http://www.gq.com/story/gary-johnson-republican-candidate-debate-interview

    Worth rereading.

  7. Deran

    You “maoist” “libertarians” are utter sad sacks. Trump crashing and burning opens up many many avenues of additional voters for the LP ticket. I swear, you all are nutty as the maoists on the Left — better to maintain an imaginary pure correct line then to actually make some headway. Lucky for the LP no one pays any attention to you.

    It would seem to me much more useful to be fighting the fact that the mainstream media is still predominantly refusing to mention that the LP candidates are both former governors.

  8. Andy

    Deran, yeah, it is a shame that the Libertarian Party did not nominate a real libertarian presidential ticket instead of nominating a couple of Republican con-artists.

  9. Be Rational

    Note to Gary Johnson:

    Stop saying, “… dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s … ” Enough already. It’s cloying now.

    “The Presidency is about issues, policies and principles. It’s not a quiz show. It’s not a spelling bee. We need to elect leaders who understand the problems, leaders who care, leaders who can move us in a positive direction.”

  10. ATBAFT

    “predominantly refusing to mention that the LP candidates are both former governors.”

    Or claiming, as Kennedy did on her show this week, that Ron Paul had endorsed Jill Stein. I swear, even our so-called libertarian media persons can’t help but mis-characterize virtually all aspects of all the candidates for President.

  11. Anthony Dlugos

    Some of you are being deliberately obtuse, or truly have no clue about politics. I can’t tell which it is.

  12. Anthony Dlugos

    “Johnson INCREASED state government debt as Governor of New Mexico from $1.6 billion to $4.8 billion.”

    Flat wrong. Not the least of which reasons is that he was GOVERNOR of New Mexico, not Emperor with plenary powers. This idea is lost on Losertarians who think people are elected into public executive office positions with blank slates and get to bark orders than everyone must follow.

  13. Andy

    Gary Johnson fanboy Anthony Dlugos can’t accept reality. I have got to wonder if Johnson or somebody else is paying him to post his delusional bullshit online.

  14. Thomas Knapp

    Quoth Deran,

    “better to maintain an imaginary pure correct line then to actually make some headway.”

    Well, you said it yourself — imaginary. This “it’s the PURISTS holding us BACK” crap is entirely a figment of your imagination.

    The libertarians in the LP keep telling y’all that if you do X, it will result in Y.

    The “pragamatists” insist that no, doing X will result in -Y.

    Then when X results in Y, the “pragmatists” whine that it wasn’t that the “purists” were right and they were wrong, it was that they were right and that the “purists” saying they weren’t right was responsible for the “pragamatist” failure.

  15. Darcy G Richardson

    This would have been a perfect opportunity for the LP had Johnson, who is now widely mocked and ridiculed by almost the entire mainstream media, not totally discredited himself with a series of never-ending gaffes and missteps over the course of the past four or five weeks, if not longer.

    Few, if any, prominent Republicans who want to be taken seriously will endorse the Libertarian ticket at this point.

    I mean, what would be the point of dumping one “embarrassing side show” for another?

  16. Anthony Dlugos

    “…who is now widely mocked and ridiculed by almost the entire mainstream media…”

    Bullsh*t hyperbole. He has multiple newspaper endorsements, and is only mocked and ridiculed by partisan liberals, partisan conservatives, and Losertarians.

    “…totally discredited himself with a series of never-ending gaffes and missteps”

    Any presidential candidate has gaffes during a presidential campaign. Only the aforementioned partisans and Losertarian would suggest Johnson’s gaffes are worse than Hillary’s e-mail saga, and I don’t even have to go back more than 24 hours with Trump to find a more problematic gaffe, as I am sure everyone here is aware.

    “Few, if any, prominent Republicans who want to be taken seriously will endorse the Libertarian ticket at this point.”

    It’s likely prominent Republicans won’t endorse Johnson; it’s foolish to suggest that’s because they’re afraid they won’t be taken seriously. It would be more accurate to suggest that they’re just plain afraid.

    in any event, I like to compare our current candidate and his mistakes with the ACTUAL options we had available in Orlando: an angry anarchist with no elective office experience, a nice doctor also with no record to run on, a drug-addled murder suspect who faked a heart attack to avoid extradition and who is now implicated in a pump and dump stock scheme, and a 35-year old asshat blogger.

    Now, which one of those would have resulted in LESS ridicule than our current candidate? I mean, outside of the reality that they all would have been completely ignored.

  17. Bondurant

    The GOP has zero incentive to back the Johnson/Weld ticket. Their candidate is Hillary because it will be duopoly business as usual which the GOP needs for practical and political purposes. Practical because they all win behind the scenes with a corporate candidate and politically because it will be better for their candidates in ’20.

  18. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    “…who is now widely mocked and ridiculed by almost the entire mainstream media…”

    I would hope people reading this blog would be sophisticated enough to know these gaffes were played up by the media to make Johnson look bad. Duh. Just like the media refused to say anything positive about Trump. Hillary is clearly the CHOSEN ONE. Barring another fiasco regarding her health, she will be the next president. The Democrats were prepared to commit voter fraud to ensure it, but now they’re not gonna have to try so hard.

    This country is so screwed.

  19. George Whitfield

    I mailed my absentee ballot back to Florida last week voting for Libertarians Gary Johnson and William Weld for President and Vice-president and Paul Stanton for US Senator.

  20. George Phillies

    There is actual polling data on the effect of the first debate. The debate moved 6% of the voters from Trump to Clinton and 3% of the voters from Clinton to Trump.

    The most important polling datum is that Clinton is in the low 40s, Trump is at about 40, something around 10% are undecided, and modestly under 10% support one of the third party candidate but 70% of that group say they could change their minds. If the undecided and changeables break one way or the other, we could see something like Reagan-Mondale or Johnson-Goldwater.

    I would not be surprised to learn that the latest Trump exposure moved a lot more than a thousand votes.

  21. Darcy G Richardson

    “I would hope people reading this blog would be sophisticated enough to know these gaffes were played up by the media to make Johnson look bad.” — Jill Pyeatt

    True, Jill, but the gaffes originated with Gary Johnson himself. He gave the mainstream media all the ammunition they needed.

    The former governor had four years to prepare for this race — a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a candidate running outside the duopoly, as it turns out — but apparently couldn’t be bothered.

  22. George Phillies

    However, perhaps less than some anti-Trump Democrats are hoping. I have asked a variety of friends if the debate or whatever — pre tape — changed their votes, and the answer was always in the negative.

  23. Just Some Random Guy

    The libertarians in the LP keep telling y’all that if you do X, it will result in Y.

    The “pragamatists” insist that no, doing X will result in -Y.

    Then when X results in Y, the “pragmatists” whine that it wasn’t that the “purists” were right and they were wrong, it was that they were right and that the “purists” saying they weren’t right was responsible for the “pragamatist” failure.

    Examples would be nice.

  24. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I agree with Thomas Knapp. Trump people know he’s a jerk, but they hate Hillary so much they’re willing to pretend he’s something that he’s not. They’ll still vote for him.

    There’s outrage today by those who have to gain politically by calling him out, but many will still support him anyway. The is an election for totally non-thinking people. And those of us who are paying attention are too few to make a difference.

  25. Jim

    You can almost count 1,000 unendorsements by active members of the Republican party with google. Some of them are going to Johnson. The executive committee of the federation of New Mexico College Republicans are the only ones I’ve found who have made that public so far.

    https://twitter.com/RussContreras/status/784867370418311169

    But Johnson says there are more:

    “Johnson told Action 7 News that he’s received an overwhelming amount of support from dozens of GOP officials since the video was released.”

    “It’s such a massive amount that the campaign can’t even begin to deal with it at the moment,” Johnson said. “They’re wanting to know how they can lend their support, and what’s the best way they can communicate their support because they’re done.”

    http://www.koat.com/news/gary-johnson-gop-officials-pledge-support-after-trump-gaffe/42026694

  26. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt said: ” The is an election for totally non-thinking people. And those of us who are paying attention are too few to make a difference.”

    I agree, but I would include those voting for Johnson/Weld in with the non-thinking people.

  27. dL

    “Love the Losertarian Caucus sheer panic.”

    The Losertarians are the ones who make electoral success a priority but can only manage 3% in race w/ Clinton and Trump. The standard for success apparently is ONLY being lapped 15 times in a race. The participation trophy award standard. Talk about fucking losers. Pathetic.

    Knapp is probably correct about the latest Trump affront. Crude is the guy’s schtick. To me, there are thousand things he has contemporaneously said in public that should disqualify him from high public office. I don’t need to go back a decade to recorded conversation for something i consider far less worse. If people weren’t previously turned off by his schtick, this isn’t going to turn them in any statistical significant sense.

  28. dL

    “The GJ campaign should treat this race now as a two-way race between Johnson and Clinton.”

    That’s an exercise in self-delusion. Also a strategic compliment blunder to what gives rise to particular noxious candidates succeeding. The establishment on high–a corrupt thing that no one privately gives any respect to–declaring who and who isn’t a consciously acceptable candidate. Piling on to the Democratic party and media response and then gifting yourself the Trump vote(i.e, the GOP voting block) by decree guarantees you will get 0% of it.

  29. langa

    [Johnson] is only mocked and ridiculed by partisan liberals, partisan conservatives, and Losertarians.

    In other words, everyone except his faux-libertarian fanboys.

    And no, I don’t think Trump’s latest sin against Political Correctness will make much of a difference. There aren’t many things Trump has said during this campaign that I would put much credence in, but his claim that Bill Clinton has said far worse would be an exception. Is there anyone out there (aside from extreme Hillary fanatics) who actually thinks Trump is more of a sexist/chauvinist than Slick Willie? If so, I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in…

  30. Darcy G Richardson

    Astute observations by Andy, dL and langa.

    Johnson has become a laughingstock, the object of almost universal derision, yet his diehard supporters — like the candidate himself — remain oblivious to reality.

  31. Darcy G Richardson

    “Johnson told Action 7 News that he’s received an overwhelming amount of support from dozens of GOP officials since the video was released.

    “‘It’s such a massive amount that the campaign can’t even begin to deal with it at the moment,’ Johnson said. ‘They’re wanting to know how they can lend their support, and what’s the best way they can communicate their support because they’re done.’”

    Given the exorbitant amount Gary Johnson is paying Ron Nielson’s “Liberty Consulting Services” — $445,000 and $550,000, respectively, in July and August alone — one would think his campaign would be adequately staffed to keep up with these “dozens” of GOP officials suddenly contacting his campaign.

    They don’t realize it, but the joke is on Gary’s supporters.

  32. George Dance

    Darcy – “Astute observations by Andy, dL and langa.
    “Johnson has become a laughingstock, the object of almost universal derision, yet his diehard supporters — like the candidate himself — remain oblivious to reality.”

    The reality here is that, here, all the “derision” is coming the same half-dozen Johnson-bashers who’ve been saying the same things since May, in virtually every comment thread. The reality is that beyond that small group, parroting themselves and patting themselves on the back, no one else is paying attention to their message anymore.

  33. George Dance

    Thane Eichenauer
    “I agree with Thomas Knapp’s estimate of about 1,000 votes affected. It should surprise nobody that I believe this due to reading many Scott Adams articles on this election. He covers this latest blip:
    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151504993671/why-does-this-happen-on-my-vacation-the-trump

    I assume you read the whole thing; so I’m surprised you didn’t mention his point #12:

    ‘I hereby change my endorsement from Trump to Gary Johnson, just to get out of the blast zone. Others will be “parking” their vote with Johnson the same way. The “shy Trump supporter” demographic just tripled.’

    The only question is: how many will be ‘parking’ their votes with Johnson. If it’s enough to triple his support in the polls (as Adams is suggesting) that would indeed be a game-changer. That depends on (1) how big is this demographic, and (2) how many choose to ‘park’ their votes with Evan McMullin.

  34. robert capozzi

    gd, I’m not so sure that’s the case, though I wish it were so. RP1 is a basher of a sort, too, and his comments about GJ have probably hurt the ticket’s potential. His critique is similar in many ways to the Bashing 6…GJ lacks the NAPster bona fides. The Seacoast Ls represent an impediment. There has been action on the NatCom that was iirc designed to rein in the ticket toward the plumbline.

  35. Darcy G Richardson

    “The reality is that beyond that small group, parroting themselves and patting themselves on the back, no one else is paying attention to their message anymore.” — George Dance

    That may be somewhat true here on IPR, George, but you ought to expand your horizons and look at what people across the country are saying on hundreds and hundreds of other blogs and news sites. Tom Knapp, George Phillies, langa, dL and Andy, to mention but a few, had Johnson accurately pegged from the beginning.

    His candidacy was a disaster waiting to happen.

    The aforementioned not only had the ability to look ahead, but also to see around corners, when most of Johnson’s supporters still hadn’t even figured out how to use a rearview mirror.

    Your boy Gary Johnson is being lampooned like no other third-party presidential candidate in recent memory — and giving those outside the duopoly a horrible rap in the process.

  36. robert capozzi

    dgr, yes, GJ is being lampooned because he’s the new Ralph Nader 2000. Hard for progressives to lampoon one of their saints! Perot was lampooned, too, for resigning and un-resigning.

    Now that the debates have started, the lampooning seems to be abating, as the GJ threat to an HRC victory is somewhat dying down.

    As Scott Adams suggests, now Trump will completely take off the gloves about the Clintons own private sex lives. (Where is Huma Abedin?) We are going to see that for the next few weeks. Whether that creates another opening for GJ…we’ll see. Based on his interview with Couric, he seems to’ve gotten his act more together. He’s still no wonk, but he might be possibly good enough to possibly even win states like NM and UT.

  37. Darcy G Richardson

    “The only question is: how many will be ‘parking’ their votes with Johnson.” — George Dance

    There aren’t enough “handicapped” parking spots in the country to make a difference.

  38. Darcy G Richardson

    “Based on his interview with Couric, he seems to’ve gotten his act more together. He’s still no wonk, but he might be possibly good enough to possibly even win states like NM and UT.” — Robert Capozzi

    I respect your opinion, Bob, and it would be really cool to see an independent or third-party candidate for the presidency actually carry a state. I think Evan McMullin has a genuine opportunity in Utah, but I can’t see Gary Johnson carrying or even coming close in New Mexico — a state that gave their former governor a rather pathetic 3.4 percent of the vote four years ago.

  39. Darcy G Richardson

    Then again — as we discussed several months ago — maybe this is Chauncey’s year. The American garden certainly needs some attention.

  40. George Dance

    Darcy: “George, but you ought to expand your horizons and look at what people across the country are saying on hundreds and hundreds of other blogs and news sites.”

    So Clinton’s party has “hundreds and hundreds” of supporters all propagandizing on blogs and news sites? And so does Trump’s? And they’re all attacking Johnson and the Libertarians? Gosh! Who’d’ve thunk?

    In fact, I predicted that. Not that I can take much credit for it. “First they ignore you; then they attack you” is a maxim dating at least from Gandhi’s time. Both Johnson and the Libertarian Party are being defined by anti-Libertarians now.

    “Tom Knapp, George Phillies, langa, dL and Andy, to mention but a few, had Johnson accurately pegged from the beginning.”

    What you 6 think of Johnson may or may not be accurate; but it’s certainly not relevant. If any other Libertarian had got the nomination and then cracked double-digits in the polls, he’d be the “universal laughingstock” now. Hell, if you’d won the Reform nomination, and then gone on to crack double digits in the polls, you’d be the “universal laughingstock” right now.

  41. George Dance

    “The only question is: how many will be ‘parking’ their votes with Johnson.” — George Dance

    Darcy – “There aren’t enough “handicapped” parking spots in the country to make a difference.”

    Indeed, as long as the Libertarians oppose closing the borders to make America white again, and punishing women who have abortions, the amount of Republicans who’ll park their votes with them is limited. That’s why we have the likes of Evan McMullin in the first place.

    So the hope that Pussygate will put Johnson over the coveted 15%, in time for the last debate, is admittedly a longshot. But it’s the best available shot right now.

  42. Thomas Knapp

    “TK, seems profoundly low to me. Why do you suggest that number?”

    Because in this particular election cycle, all the “polarization” we’ve been hearing about for decades is actually real.

    There aren’t nearly as many undecideds as usual. People have actually made up their minds fairly early.

    More people than usual are voting against who they hate instead of for who they love. Which means that no matter how bad Trump fucks up, the people who are just voting against Clinton won’t change their minds.

    Any movement in this election is not going to come from additional evidence that Trump is what everyone already knew Trump was.

    I was getting “here’s all the nasty shit Trump has said about women” mailers from the Democratic Party before it was revealed that Trump had said this particular nasty shit about women. In fact, I got one in the mail yesterday that was obviously en route when this disclosure hit. To the extent that that kind of disclosure is effective, the effect has already been felt and any additional stuff just helps keep votes nailed down where they are.

    I’ll be interested to see if the disclosure of Clinton’s speech transcripts (which the sudden “hey, look, here’s something from 10 years ago about Trump” story was clearly intended to overshadow) will affect her numbers any. I’m guessing not much if at all.

  43. Robert Capozzi

    Tk, when was the last time R or D pols didn’t endorse their prez in droves? Isn’t this one extraordinary? There may be 1k R pols not voting DJT alone, so a segment of the rank and file must be at least considering it.

  44. Anthony Dlugos

    “Your boy Gary Johnson is being lampooned like no other third-party presidential candidate in recent memory — and giving those outside the duopoly a horrible rap in the process.”

    That doesn’t make a lick of sense. Not a lick.

    Third party candidates are typically IGNORED, not lampooned. Being lampooned by national media, being attacked by major party surrogates, is a measure of success on the presidential scene, not failure.

    I think we have some Losertarians who live in a fantasyland where a radical/purist, without political experience, would win the nomination, be greeted by the entire country with shouts of Hosanna! be universally praised for his/her exacting “principles,” be ushered into the White House amid waving palms, then be genuflected by every living soul in the USA as we were ushered into the Utopia Anarchist Society.

    Is there anyone sober who actually believes any of our other options would have been anything but totally ignored this campaign? That no level of disgust with the Duopoly party candidates would have compelled normal people to look to McAfee, Perry, Feldman (r.i.p), or Petersen, and say, “I’m voting for that guy.” The fact that they would not even have known who That Guy is notwithstanding.

    Come on, that’s too dumb for words.

  45. George Phillies

    No, the problem is that we have a problem with LINOtarian jackasses who want to claim that the current polling output is a consequence of our candidate –who finally did start spending money on advertising–is doing well for a reason other than the totally losing nature of the D and R candidates.

    The rest of your claims are equally silly.

    And, by the way, I am not a radical.

  46. Thane Eichenauer

    George Dance,
    I did read the full article but given that Scott Adams’ reasoning for endorsing Clinton and Trump in the past he seemed at the time either a flip flopper or a endorsement de jure certain to be reendorsed to another candidate next week.
    Or it could be that my oracular sense told me he was planning on writing a followup article on the specific reasons he is endorsing Gary Johnson. Or I could be a programmable meat puppet that Scott Adams is tele-operating for maximum jester effect.
    In any case he did write a follow-up article titled “Why I Endorse Gary Johnson (this week)”

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151552548531/why-i-endorse-gary-johnson-this-week

    The JohnsonWeld campaign doesn’t seem to have any reluctance to claim his endorsement. It may be seen at:
    https://www.johnsonweld.com/endorsements

  47. Anthony Dlugos

    Mr. Phillies,

    I’m willing to grant you that some of Johnson-Weld’s polling output is due to the unprecedented level of unpopularity of the duopoly party candidates.

    However, silliness finds a whole new meaning if you are seriously trying to argue that that polling success has NOTHING to do with our candidates. That we could have nominated ANYONE in Orlando and the polling results would have been the same.

    Come on, man. That doesn’t even pass the smell test.

    If you want to have a discussion about how we apportion the polling results, let’s have it.

    If you want to argue Perry, McAfee, or AWP would have had the same polling numbers, I’m gonna tell you to stay off the psychotropics. All 3 of them are less qualified than Stein, if for no other reason than the fact that at least she has an advanced degree.

  48. George Dance

    Thane Eichenauer

    George Dance,
    “I did read the full article but given that Scott Adams’ reasoning for endorsing Clinton and Trump in the past he seemed at the time either a flip flopper or a endorsement de jure certain to be reendorsed to another candidate next week.
    “Or it could be that my oracular sense told me he was planning on writing a followup article on the specific reasons he is endorsing Gary Johnson. Or I could be a programmable meat puppet that Scott Adams is tele-operating for maximum jester effect.”

    Those options are not mutually exclusive.

    “In any case he did write a follow-up article titled “Why I Endorse Gary Johnson (this week)””

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151552548531/why-i-endorse-gary-johnson-this-week

    Excellent. I’m with you that Adams will probably be flipping his endorsement again before election day. If he doesn’t, that will be a bonus; but I don’t expect it. All I hope is for Adams and his many followers to endorse Johnson now, and to tell the pollsters that through the next polling cycle.

  49. Chuck Moulton

    I don’t get how several commenters think “the other candidates had poor credentials” is an adequate response to “Gary Johnson is a gaffe machine”. We should have the Johnson credentials without the gaffe machine — and we would have if Gary Johnson had done any preparation whatsoever in the 4 years between elections, such as: studying policy from Cato etc., reading books, following the news, practicing his public speaking (e.g., Toastmasters). Instead, Johnson climbed mountains, skied, ran races, ate pot edibles, and sat around staring blankly into space.

    There is no excuse whatsoever for that lack of preparation. “Wah wah wah, the other choices were worse because they don’t have a shiny badge.” doesn’t cut it. Neither is Johnson’s flushing donor money down the toilet to overpaid incompetent conservative Republican consultants excused by “Wah wah wah, the other choices were worse because they don’t have a shiny badge.”

    Your response to every legitimate Johnson constructive criticism is “Look: a DISTRACTION!!” or “We could have done worse with someone different…” Man up and admit your guy keeps fucking up over and over and over again. The LP deserves better than someone who phones it in and wastes donor money. I hope in the future we’ll have better choices.

    Notice I didn’t mention him going off the ideological reservation or running from the Libertarian brand at all… he gets plenty of demerits from stupidity without even touching those more legitimately controversial topics.

    Commenters here would have a lot more credibility if they recognized and mentioned both the good and the bad of the Gary Johnson campaign rather than putting lipstick on a pig or treating him like a leper all the time. I myself am excited by all the media coverage and the surge in volunteers even though I cringe at least 25% of the time Johnson opens his mouth.

  50. Thomas Knapp

    Quoth Chuck (apparently, although not formally, to Anthony):

    “Man up and admit your guy keeps fucking up over and over and over again.”

    He probably can’t. I’m pretty sure he’s a campaign volunteer, and I’m told the campaign required its volunteers to sign non-disparagement clauses. They’re only allowed to cheerlead, not to actually discuss stuff.

  51. Andy

    “Chuck Moulton
    October 9, 2016 at 16:47
    I don’t get how several commenters think “the other candidates had poor credentials” is an adequate response to “Gary Johnson is a gaffe machine”. We should have the Johnson credentials without the gaffe machine — and we would have if Gary Johnson had done any preparation whatsoever in the 4 years between elections, such as: studying policy from Cato etc., reading books, following the news, practicing his public speaking (e.g., Toastmasters). Instead, Johnson climbed mountains, skied, ran races, ate pot edibles, and sat around staring blankly into space.”

    I agree, a big part of being a candidate is being prepared, and Gary Johnson is definitely lacking in this department.

    The bigger issue to me is that Gary Johnson is not a real libertarian, and neither is his running mate, Bill Weld. So even if he was better prepared, he’d still be a lousy candidate for the Libertarian Party.

    “I myself am excited by all the media coverage and the surge in volunteers even though I cringe at least 25% of the time Johnson opens his mouth.”

    I am not excited by the media coverage because Johnson/Weld are not running something resembling an actual libertarian campaign. Their messaging sucks, as does their delivery.

    Also, a big part of the reason for this coverage is because Johnson/Weld are establishment shills who are being used by the establishment to influence the result of the election, and to misrepresent libertarianism to millions of people, to help squash a real libertarian uprising from happening in this country.

    I am also leery of new people coming in as a result of Johnson/Weld. I’ve got to wonder how many of them are, or will end up being, legitimate libertarians, and how many of them are just “Never Trump” Republicans who will either abandon the party after the election, or stick around the party and do long term damage to it.

  52. Anthony Dlugos

    “I am also leery of new people coming in as a result of Johnson/Weld.”

    Andy, leeriness is your default setting. You’re leery of a guy like Johnson, you’re leering of the media coverage, you’re leery of new libertarians, you’re leery of Cato, you’re leery of anyone who has had success in the political world. (Save, probably, Ron Paul, as is usual for the puritans).

    Even the post I pulled that quote from is one long demon-haunted screed;. Your Libertarian Party would be a dark, disturbing dystopia. a non-stop witch hunt for apostates, an endless series of accusations from one faction to another, each attempting to claim the mantle of “true libertarian.” No one wants to be a part of such an unreservedly unhappy organization.

    BE A HAPPY PERSON!!!

  53. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    October 9, 2016 at 17:39
    “I am also leery of new people coming in as a result of Johnson/Weld.”

    Andy, leeriness is your default setting. You’re leery of a guy like Johnson, you’re leering of the media coverage, you’re leery of new libertarians, you’re leery of Cato, you’re leery of anyone who has had success in the political world. (Save, probably, Ron Paul, as is usual for the puritans).”

    Not true. While it is good to always question people and things, there are plenty of people in the Libertarian Party and movement that I do accept and welcome.

    You are once again making excuses for Johnson/Weld by painting a picture of me that is not reality.

  54. Anthony Dlugos

    Chuck,

    Personally, I have acknowledge on several occasions that Governor Johnson has disappointed me this campaign cycle. As Mr. Knapp can attest, I have a standing offer to commiserate with anyone that we did not have a better candidate to nominate in Orlando.

    “We should have the Johnson credentials without the gaffe machine…”

    Maybe this is just a personality thing. That is, the person you described does not exist, so I just tend to move on. I take Johnson with his warts and all, and argue that even this flawed candidate and his unprecedented media attention can create ten thousand brush fires…BETTER brush fires…for Liberty.

    I’ll put in this way: if Gary Johnson is the best the LP is ever gonna do, we’re screwed and I am going to be seriously disappointed in the future.

  55. Bondurant

    I’m still struggling to grasp why some think having a libertarian candidate on the Libertarian Party ticket is a bad thing. How low is the LP when our current candidate is being touted as the lesser-of-three-evils and so called libertarians actually seem proud of this.

    To me the point of having a Libertarian Party is to promote libertarian ideals and run libertarian candidates for office. Spreading the message is more important to me that winning an office with a GOP Lite candidate.

    If a genuine libertarian does not appeal to the masses of American voting dolts, that’s their problem. Not mine.

  56. George Phillies

    Dlugos: I see you are skipping over Dr. Feldman. If you think running a gungrabber like Weld is advantageous, or a candidate who cannot give concrete answers without having his running mate tell him what they are is advantageous, that is your privilege.

  57. George Dance

    Bondurant – “I’m still struggling to grasp why some think having a libertarian candidate on the Libertarian Party ticket is a bad thing. ”

    Why are you even imagining that anyone thinks that? What has been said is that having a presidential candidate whose *only* qualification is that he calls himself a “libertarian Libertarian” would be a bad thing: not because he’s a libertarian, but because he has no other qualifications. This year not one POTUS candidate besides Johnson had ever won, or even run in, an election; that’s why the delegates rightly rejected all of them.

    “How low is the LP when our current candidate is being touted as the lesser-of-three-evils and so called libertarians actually seem proud of this.
    “To me the point of having a Libertarian Party is to promote libertarian ideals and run libertarian candidates for office. Spreading the message is more important to me that winning an office with a GOP Lite candidate.”

    Well, to me the point of being in a Libertarian Party is not just to believe and talk about liberty, but to do something to achieve a free society. From 1984 through 2006 the LP tried “promoting libertarian ideals”, “spreading the message” and all that; but it achieved nothing. I’m in my 60’s now; I can’t afford to wait another 40 years of “message spreading” before the Party thinks it’s spread it enough and it’s time to accomplish something. And judging by the results of the last 3 conventions, I don’t think I’m the only one who thinks like that.

    “If a genuine libertarian does not appeal to the masses of American voting dolts, that’s their problem. Not mine.”

    No, if the Libertarian Party stays mired in the under-1% range, completely irrelevant to what’s going on politically, that’s the Libertarian Party’s problem.

  58. Thane Eichenauer

    George Dance> All I hope is for Adams and his many followers to endorse Johnson now, and to tell the pollsters that through the next polling cycle.

    People aren’t honest to pollsters for a similar reason to why Scott Adams endorsed Hillary Clinton (for his safety). It is better to show people why polls should be discounted as unreliable. I don’t trust the results. The results are fiddled with.

    “My Endorsement for President of the United States” (June 5th)
    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for-president-of-the-united-states

  59. Andy

    George Dance, Darryl Perry and Marc Feldman had both run for political office prior to running for the LP’s presidential nomination.

    So going by your criteria, Perry and Feldman were more qualified than Donald Trump, considering that Trump had ever run for office before running for President.

  60. Anthony Dlugos

    “To me the point of having a Libertarian Party is to promote libertarian ideals and run libertarian candidates for office. Spreading the message is more important to me that winning an office with a GOP Lite candidate.”

    Running candidates to “promote Libertarian ideals” and “spread the message” is like operating an NFL team to promote health and fitness, with winning being secondary.

    Libertarianism can be promoted in any number of ways; there are media avenues, there are think tanks, there are activist organization. For organizations like that, strident reliance on principle can be a rewarding strategy. Not in politics. There’s no reason to have a political party other than to win elections, and there is no independent way to judge success other than to win elections.

    I’m not sure what the best way to promote the libertarian message is, what the proper mix of policy positions is, what things to emphasize and what things to de-emphasize. I can’t even be certain that anarchism is a losing message. Perhaps in the hands of the right candidate, its a winning message.

    What I do know is, if you choose to enter the world of politics in order to promote libertarianism, the only standard I have to judge you by is success in winning elections, and then success while in office.

  61. Anthony Dlugos

    “So going by your criteria, Perry and Feldman were more qualified than Donald Trump, considering that Trump had ever run for office before running for President.”

    Absurd. The Trump Organization is a billion dollar conglomerate with 34,000 employees.

    This is to say nothing of his essential 100% name recognition

  62. Anthony Dlugos

    A) They had a better chance of winning than anyone else in Orlando. They also had a higher ceiling at message spreading, and specifically because of their previous elective office experience.

    B) Both actually HAD won elections before, and significant ones, especially considering how many governors have become president. Furthermore, since no one else in Orlando had actually won election as a Libertarian, we had no other standard to judge them by. I relish the day we have a dais FILLED with Libertarians who have held office before AS Libertarians. But we did not have that fantasy option in May. So we make the best choice we can. Not spend extended acid trips in Libertopia where an anarchist gets anything close to the platform Johnson-Weld has received.

  63. George Phillies

    The most important evidence related to Mr. Dlugos’s claims seems to be overlooked by everyone.

    This is the *second* time that Johnson ran for office. Last time, he also ran with a public official. To the extent ‘elected public official’ matters, it mattered last time, and we can see what that number is worth. It’s worth about a half a percent of the vote. Yes he got 1%, but the other half percent is what a reasonable Libertarian candidate would get. the rest of the vote total is Trump.

  64. Andy

    The difference in chance of Johnson/Weld winning as compared to the other candidates in Orlando was negligible, or nonexistent, and the message that Johnson/Weld have been spreading is garbage.

  65. George Dance

    Andy: “George Dance, Darryl Perry and Marc Feldman had both run for political office prior to running for the LP’s presidential nomination.”

    Oh, did they? Neither of them have that in their bios. Obviously, neither of them won anything. Were they even serious attempts to win? (I doubt it, considering that their Presidential campaigns were not; neither of them had a staff, or even a campaign budget. Both of them, in fact, went out of their way to discourage donations, as if that were a plus.)

    “So going by your criteria, Perry and Feldman were more qualified than Donald Trump, considering that Trump had ever run for office before running for President.”

    Of course Trump’s not qualified to be President; but that certainly doesn’t mean that either Darryl or Marc were qualified.

    If you want someone qualified to be President, look at Senators and Governors. You might find someone with equivalent experience in the private sector; the CEO of a large enough public corporation, for instance; but even that’s a stretch.

  66. Andy

    Darryl W. Perry and the late Dr. Marc Allan Feldman are more qualified to be President than anyone in the race.

  67. langa

    Here’s a question for you guys who are so impressed by “credentials” and “qualifications” and so forth: If the field in Orlando had been exactly the same, except Johnson wasn’t there, and Mitt Romney was instead, would you guys have supported Romney, since he would have been by far the most “qualified” candidate?

  68. Jim

    George Phillies “No, the problem is that we have a problem with LINOtarian jackasses who want to claim that the current polling output is a consequence of our candidate –who finally did start spending money on advertising–is doing well for a reason other than the totally losing nature of the D and R candidates.”

    “The most important evidence related to Mr. Dlugos’s claims seems to be overlooked by everyone. This is the *second* time that Johnson ran for office. Last time, he also ran with a public official. To the extent ‘elected public official’ matters, it mattered last time, and we can see what that number is worth. It’s worth about a half a percent of the vote. Yes he got 1%, but the other half percent is what a reasonable Libertarian candidate would get. the rest of the vote total is Trump.”

    1. Polls show Johnson is pulling slightly more from Hillary than Trump. His support is not just disgusted R’s. The vast majority of Johnson’s support comes from those who claim to be moderate independent’s.

    2. You are not accounting for the disparity in polling between Johnson and Stein.

    3. There was a 4-way poll which asked about Clinton, Trump, and “3rd Party” (46% C, 36% T, 12% 3rd Party, 6% Don’t Know/Refused.) It then asked about Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein (45% C, 36% T, 11% J, 3% S, 5% Other/Don’t Know/Refused.) It then asked about Hillary, Trump, Hedges (Prohibition Party), and Moorehead (Workers World Party). (47% C, 35% T, 4% H, 3% M, 12% Other/Don’t Know/Refused).

    That suggests around two thirds of Johnson’s support is not simply anti-Clump.

    http://view2.fdu.edu/publicmind/2016/161005/

    Now, Andy likes to blame that all on Ron Paul. But Ron Paul doesn’t like Johnson. It is yet to be explained how Ron Paul is influential enough to convince many more people to vote for a Libertarian candidate than he himself got running as a Republican, but somehow simultaneously lacks the influence to stop people from supporting this particular Libertarian candidate.

    The only explanation that seems to make sense is that Johnson did get an extra look by the media this year over what he got in 2012 because Trump and Hillary were so disliked. Johnson got more of that extra look than Stein because he and Weld were former Governors. And his polling stuck because people liked what they were hearing.

    The other LP candidates would not have gotten that extra look over Stein and would likely have success on par with what Stein is achieving.

  69. Jim

    langa “Here’s a question for you guys who are so impressed by “credentials” and “qualifications” and so forth: If the field in Orlando had been exactly the same, except Johnson wasn’t there, and Mitt Romney was instead, would you guys have supported Romney, since he would have been by far the most “qualified” candidate?”

    The line in the sand for me is that a candidate must support a net reduction in government. Romney fails that test.

    After that first test I look at what reductions they’re pushing for, how much of a reduction they’re pushing for, how much influence they could have towards achieving those cuts (which includes popularizing the issue for future elections), and other things. So Perry’s 100% cuts with 0.25% influence has to be weighed against Johnson’s 20% cuts with 8% influence.

  70. Thomas Knapp

    Quoth Anthony:

    “They had a better chance of winning than anyone else in Orlando.”

    True. They had perhaps a 0.00000000000002% chance of winning versus the others’ 0.00000000000001% chance of winning. That’s just a random number pick, but the point is that if the criteria was “likelihood of winning the election,” the difference in likelihood was so negligible as to not really be worth treating as a factor.

    Which leaves:

    “They also had a higher ceiling at message spreading”

    You might have something there — IF they had made use of that higher ceiling to do “message spreading” that made the Libertarian Party look good and gave it something to build on in subsequent elections. Instead they’ve done “message spreading” that makes the Libertarian Party look like a bunch of idiots. And for the most part, the reason WHY they’ve done it that way seems to be tied to the fuck-silly idea that their chance of winning the election is greater than 0.00000000000002% and that therefore they have to put their efforts into bumbling attempts to ape respectability politics.

  71. robert capozzi

    tk, I disagree with the characterization that the attempt has overall be “bumbling.” Yes, there have been gaffes, but my sense is that millions have a positive overall perception of the L ticket. Many non-Ls — especially younger folks — have been exposed to the LP and L-ism in a most basic way. No, the ticket did not school the electorate on IP or other rarefied subjects BECAUSE that would not be an appropriate use of the bandwidth known as a “presidential election.” It instead offered a third way, where “regime change” is characterized as a failure; where drug laws have been exposed as counter-productive; where a $20T debt is a “fiscal cliff”; etc.

    A campaign is advertising for a cause. It’s not the owner’s manual. It doesn’t include all the fine print, and sometimes advertising suggests/implies things that a product doesn’t quite deliver. It’s aspirational rather than tangible. It captures a feeling and a mood.

  72. Thomas Knapp

    “No, the ticket did not school the electorate on IP or other rarefied subjects BECAUSE that would not be an appropriate use of the bandwidth known as a ‘presidential election.'”

    Taking the libertarian position instead of the anti-libertarian position on major election issues isn’t an appropriate use of the bandwidth?

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership — in which anti-libertarian IP rules loom large — is an issue in this election. Yet of the five leading candidates, the only one who DOESN’T take the libertarian position on it is the Libertarian candidate.

    That’s not just sick and wrong, it’s bad politics.

  73. Robert Capozzi

    TK, I reject the premise. B/W, L/anti-L doesn’t exist. And I don’t see TPP as a litmus test for the plumbline.

  74. Thomas Knapp

    “B/W, L/anti-L doesn’t exist”

    I forgot that you’re one of those “reality is whatever I feel like it being” types.

    “And I don’t see TPP as a litmus test for the plumbline.”

    Neither does anyone else since this “‘NAP-solutists’ have a ‘plumbline'” crap is mostly a figment of your imagination.

  75. Tony From Long Island

    Andy ” . . . . . Deran, yeah, it is a shame that the Libertarian Party did not nominate a real libertarian presidential ticket instead of nominating a couple of Republican con-artists. . . . . ”

    What Andy meant to say is that it’s a shame they didn’t nominate a ticket that would receive .5% of the vote and get no media coverage so the LP brand would be as irrelevant as it has been since 1972. . . . yeah…a shame

  76. Thomas L. Knapp

    “What Andy meant to say is that it’s a shame they didn’t nominate a ticket that would receive .5% of the vote and get no media coverage”

    That would have been impossible to do.

    If the Libertarian Party had nominated a chihuahua and an ear of corn this year, that ticket would still have received more media coverage, and more votes, than any past LP presidential ticket — because it’s not the Libertarian ticket that’s driving the coverage or the vote totals, it’s the Republican and Democratic tickets.

    The difference is that the chihuahua and the ear of corn wouldn’t have abandoned the Libertarian brand and run against the Libertarian Party’s platform in a vain attempt to grab the non-available respectability politics vote.

  77. George

    FIVE reasons why a 50-year-old non cannabis using white man is voting for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.
    ONE: Fiscally conservative.
    Gene Dodaro, the comptroller general for the Government Accountability Office, testified at the Senate Budget Committee on the government’s financial books. “We’re very heavily leveraged in debt, the historical average post-World War II of how much debt we held as a percent of gross domestic product was 43 percent on average; right now we’re at 74 percent.”
    We must be more fiscally responsible.

    TWO: Socially tolerant.
    Do what you want as long as you don’t hurt me, hurt others, hurt yourself or cost me money.

    THREE: Best Choice.
    The presidential race between the two tradition candidates is just mean. Two polarizing candidates. The Johnson/Weld ticket is a moderate choice.

    FOUR: Experience.
    Both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld served as Republicans Governors in states where the legislature was controlled by a Democratic majority.

    Five: Veterans:
    Gary Johnson supports our veterans and leads in polls for veterans. He is the only candidate that participated the 22 push up challenge.
    The #22PushupChallenge was started by the veteran empowerment group Honor Courage Commitment. The movement works to build a community of support for veterans and raise awareness for mental health challenges faced by veterans.

    The wasted vote is the vote not cast for your conscience.

  78. Robert Capozzi

    TK, actually the assumption is that there is ONE reality…the noumenon. We perceive phenomenon, often disagreeing.

  79. dL

    “Yes, there have been gaffes, but my sense is that millions have a positive overall perception of the L ticket. Many non-Ls — especially younger folks — have been exposed to the LP and L-ism in a most basic way.”

    Moving the goal posts. Which is it: win elections(or be competitive in elections) or run a PR/education campaign?

    If (1), then TeamGov results are an objective failure. Trying to proclaim victory now by claiming it was an effective education campaign is bullshit. You are merely free riding off long standing efforts that have clearly articulated the meaning of libertarianism. Too many of these carpetbagging Republican education efforts back to back, and the public will identify libertarianism w/ Sam fucking Waterston.

    Btw, I seriously doubt Robert Capozzi has any clue what the “younger folks” are thinking.

  80. dL

    “If the Libertarian Party had nominated a chihuahua and an ear of corn this year, that ticket would still have received more media coverage, and more votes, than any past LP presidential ticket — because it’s not the Libertarian ticket that’s driving the coverage or the vote totals, it’s the Republican and Democratic tickets.”

    Yeah, “killer asteroid” hit 15% in polling when included as third option in a hypothetical 3 way race w/ Clinton and Trump.

  81. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Gary Johnson supports our veterans”

    I was going to ask what the hell that was even supposed to mean, but I see that it’s actually addressed on the Johnson/Weld campaign site.

    What it means is “I can do 22 pushups and I support keeping the welfare state for former government employees and making it ‘more efficient.'”

  82. George Dance

    Tom Knapp: ““If the Libertarian Party had nominated a chihuahua and an ear of corn this year, that ticket would still have received more media coverage, and more votes, than any past LP presidential ticket — because it’s not the Libertarian ticket that’s driving the coverage or the vote totals, it’s the Republican and Democratic tickets.”

    Oh, sure: As evidence just look at the way the Green, Constitution, and Reform parties are all surging in media coverage and in the polls. (But look very hard, or you might miss it.)

  83. Thomas L. Knapp

    George,

    I was very specific. I said the LIBERTARIAN PARTY could have nominated a chihuahua and an ear of corn and got what it got, not that some other party could have.

    One of those other parties has never had any significant footprint in national electoral politics. The other two haven’t had a significant footprint for more than a decade. If the LP hadn’t nominated AT ALL, one of those others would have benefited. But as long as the LP nominated, it was the only party in a position to do so.

  84. George Dance

    “Here’s a question for you guys who are so impressed by ‘credentials’ and ‘qualifications’ and so forth: If the field in Orlando had been exactly the same, except Johnson wasn’t there, and Mitt Romney was instead, would you guys have supported Romney, since he would have been by far the most ‘qualified’ candidate?”

    Suppose it happens in 2020: Romney registers Libertarian, signs the non-aggression pledge,* and does a “Bob Barr” or “Bill Weld” for the next 5 months, repudiating all those nasty things he did as Governor.

    Yes, I think I’d support him.

    *If he didn’t do that, he wouldn’t be eligible to run, of course.

  85. George Dance

    Tom Knapp: “I was very specific. I said the LIBERTARIAN PARTY could have nominated a chihuahua and an ear of corn and got what it got, not that some other party could have.”

    Yes, you did. However, that specificity belies your conclusion: that where the Libertarian ticket is in the polls has nothing to do with who that ticket is, or what they’re saying or doing; that it’s solely a function of Clinton’s and Trump’s unpopularity.

    “One of those other parties has never had any significant footprint in national electoral politics. The other two haven’t had a significant footprint for more than a decade.”

    And the Libertarian Party had a ‘significant footprint’? I in no way want to disparage what the party has achieved in the past 40 years – as you know, I was a “cheerleader” for all of it – but the fact remains that the vast majority of voters had never heard (or didn’t remember ever hearing) anything about the Libertarian Party before May.

    “If the LP hadn’t nominated AT ALL, one of those others would have benefited. But as long as the LP nominated, it was the only party in a position to do so.”

    Well, the LP has had such windows of opportunity (if maybe smaller ones) before, when both the R’s and D’s reviled, disparaged candidates. I remember 3 elections in my lifetime: Reagan v. Carter, Bush I v. Clinton, Bush II v. Gore. You know what happened every time; a third candidate emerged to take advantage, and it was never the LP one.

    Similarly, if the LP had nominated an internet talk radio host, running on a campaign to abolish the federal government (though only after using its power to ban state and local taxes, victimless crimes, and education vouchers), there’s no reason to think he’d have been the “only” candidate in a position to benefit.

    More likely, I think, there’d have been no candidate in a position to benefit, and the vacuum would have attracted one – maybe Romney, maybe Huntsman; in any case, someone better than Egg McMuffin – back in June.

  86. Andy

    George Dance just said that he would vote for Mitt Romney to be the Libertarian Party’s nominee for President in 2020. Libertarians should make note of this, and BLOCK George Dance from being a delegate at future Libertarian Party conventions.

  87. Andy

    Darryl W. Perry is not just an internet talk radio host. He is one of the co-hosts of Free Talk Live that is heard on around 150 radio stations.

  88. Tony From Long Island

    Anyone who thinks that if the LP nominated anyone else on that stage in Orlando that they would be at the level Gov. Johnson is at is just delusional.

    Take the “coverage” that Jill Stein has gotten (which is very very little) and divide that in half. That’s what any other LP candidate would have gotten.

    The POTUS candidate should serve to expand LP name recognition. That’s exactly what Johnson / Weld have done.

    Run your other candidates for local and other offices.

    Cue Andy blowing his top . . . and getting singed hairs from the Tin Foil hat

  89. Anthony Dlugos

    George is right.

    As many of you might suspect, I have been presented this “if Qualified Politician Y were to have shown up in Orlando to compete for the nomination, would you have supported that…sinner. I mean statist?” regularly starting before Orlando, at Orlando, and right through to present day, at this website and others.

    It is illuminating that these Purists invariably overlook the part where the erstwhile statist switched parties in order to run for the LP nomination.

    Let’s leave aside the realization that, given the relative size and strength of the LP vs. the duopoly parties, any switch by a previously elected official would almost certainly be genuine at some level. The real irony is that the people who present this hypothetical to me repeatedly swear they have no intention of turning the LP into a never-ending witch hunt. Yet what other standard do we have other than a party switch?

    I’ll tell you what that other standard is: a quadrennial witch hunt with 900 delegates throwing accusations at each other as to which candidate is…arbitrarily speaking…libertarian enough.

    Anyone who asks me that hypothetical is frankly not cut out do politics. They don’t understand the dark, demented party their vision would create.

  90. Andy

    The coverage is irrelavent if the candidates are doing a lousy job at presenting the Libertarian Party’s message. If anything, the coverage that Johnson/Weld are getting is actually destructive to the Libertarian Party and movement.

  91. George Dance

    Andy: “it is a shame that the Libertarian Party did not nominate a real libertarian presidential ticket instead of nominating a couple of Republican con-artists. . . . . ”

    Well, there’s always Trump. He wants to close the border, to both people and goods, and to punish women who have abortions: and those are all “real Libertarian” positions, as your boy Darrell has told us (and you’ve defended him for).

    True, he hasn’t called for a constitutional amendment to abolish IP yet, but
    at least he hasn’t made any “antilibertarian” statements in favour of IP yet.

  92. Mr. Brown

    So to make it clear, if Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush seeks the LP nomination in 2020, disingenuously signs the pledge that people don’t agree on the meaning of, and does NOT change any of his current views/positions and does NOT in any way run away from his record in office and as a Republican candidate in past elections, some of you here would support him?

    So all it would take to get your support is a $25 contribution from a multi-millionaire and a pledge that they may interpret to mean that they won’t start a revolution against the current government or as just some meaningless thing they need to sign to get on the ballot in every state at little or no cost?

  93. Tony From Long Island

    I can say with almost certainty that this year is the last year I vote for the LP POTUS candidate (if I even do) regardless of who the candidate is in 2020.

  94. Thomas L. Knapp

    “the vast majority of voters had never heard (or didn’t remember ever hearing) anything about the Libertarian Party before May”

    That statement is probably the most unbelievably stupid thing I’ve read this year.

  95. George Dance

    Andy Jacobs: “George Dance just said that he would vote for Mitt Romney to be the Libertarian Party’s nominee for President in 2020.”

    Actually, George Dance said he’d support Mitt Romney IF Romney signed the non-aggression pledge and repudiated (some of) his record as Governor; and IF the only alternatives were the same crew that ran in 2016. Perhaps those are subtle nuances, but they shouldn’t be forgotten; otherwise, Andy’s reporting might give rise to silly misrepresentations. (That sort of thing does happen: witness “X didn’t know where Aleppo was” or “X couldn’t name one foreign leader,” stuff like that).

    “Libertarians should make note of this, and BLOCK George Dance from being a delegate at future Libertarian Party conventions.”

    Actually, George Dance already is blocked from being a delegate at U.S. LP conventions. However, he is chairing an LP convention, in his home country, this month – so he’ll be sure that gets discussed. In fact, he may post something onto that party’s facebook page today.

  96. Mr. Brown

    “Actually, George Dance said he’d support Mitt Romney IF Romney signed the non-aggression pledge and repudiated (some of) his record as Governor; ”

    The pledge is various interpreted as anything from a commitment to avoid armed revolution against the current government to an absolute ironclad anarchist pledge, but it has no enforcement clause, so to someone like Mitt or Jeb it means literally nothing whatsoever, just more meaningless words on paper. If you were Mitt or Jeb would you pay 25 (or 1500) dollars and sign a meaningless paper to save several million in ballot access costs? Of course you would.

    As for repudiating his record, what exactly has Weld repudiated?

  97. Tony From Long Island

    TK: ” . . . (quoting George Dance) . . “the vast majority of voters had never heard (or didn’t remember ever hearing) anything about the Libertarian Party before May” . . . . “That statement is probably the most unbelievably stupid thing I’ve read this year. . .

    Really? What voters are you talking to? Only the ones who listen to you (admittedly enjoyable) pod cast thingie?

    Johnson / Weld have very low name recognition in polls. Their “favorable / unfavorable:” can’t even accurately be polled because they are relatively unknown.

    I would go further than Mr. Disco and say that even today most average voters have only a vague notion of maybe sorta hearing the words “Libertarian Party.” Sad but true.

  98. Robert Capozzi

    DL: Which is it: win elections(or be competitive in elections) or run a PR/education campaign?

    Me: what makes you think these are mutually exclusive? We are always teaching by example.

    If someone wants to RUN for prez, it strikes me that the best way is to offer workable, aspirational messages. Fringe messaging is better for street theater, imo.

  99. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    I’ll be interested to know if there’s any name recognition polling on the Libertarian Party.

    My guess is that 90-95% of polled voters would know that it exists.

  100. Andy

    Darrell Castle is far more libertarian than Johnson and Weld. He’s strongly pro-gun rights, anti-Federal Reserve System, anti-United Nations, anti-TPP, anti-War on Drugs (more so than Johnson/Weld, who only want to tax and regulate marijuana, and who want to keep the drug war going against other drugs), anti-interventionist foreign policy (Johnson supports “humanitarian” wars), he wants to end the income tax and replace it with nothing (unlike Johnson, who wants to replace the income tax with the Fair Tax, which is just as bad or worse than the income tax, and unlike Bill Weld, who wants to keep the income tax as is), and he rightly points out that private business owners should be able to refuse to do business with whoever they want (unlike Gary Johnson, who thinks that private bake shop owners should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings), to cite just a few examples of how Darrell Castle is more libertarian than Johnson and Weld.

  101. Tony From Long Island

    I’d be curious to know also, but I would guess the number would be quite a bit lower than your estimate.

  102. Tony From Long Island

    Ahhh the Nazi cakes again . . .

    Anti TPP? I thought libertarians were free traders. . . . oh you want free trade without the government encouraging it . . .

    OK . . . . go ahead and replace the income tax with nothing . . see how that works . . A to B . . . not A to Z

  103. Mr. Brown

    “Ahhh the Nazi cakes again . . .”

    Yes, Johnson still stands by government forced association there.

    “Anti TPP? I thought libertarians were free traders. . .”

    TPP most definitely =/= free trade. It is an international managed trade agreement.

    “OK . . . . go ahead and replace the income tax with nothing . . see how that works . .”

    It worked great from 1776 to 1913.

  104. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Anti TPP? I thought libertarians were free traders.”

    We are. Which is why we oppose the thousands of pages of anti-free-trade government regulation called the TPP.

    If the income tax was eliminated and replaced with nothing today, federal revenues would plunge to circa-2004 levels. I’m sure you’ll remember how small and powerless the federal government was in 2004, and how people were starving in the streets for lack of sufficiently large government.

  105. Anthony Dlugos

    “The coverage is irrelavent if the candidates are doing a lousy job at presenting the Libertarian Party’s message.”

    The message is irrelevant if the only people you are speaking to is the already converted.

    In my younger years, I went to film school in Central Florida and spent a little time in the City of Angels. There, I happened to gain some knowledge of the infotainment news industry.

    I don’t know how I can stress this strongly enough: were we to have nominated ANYONE other than Johnson in Orlando, the 2016 LP campaign would have been OVER immediately. Full stop.

    Oh, sure, there would have been some articles buzzing around the interwebs, with some version of “SHOCKER” as part of the headline, detailing Johnson’s upset loss. Purists and radicals would have squealed with delight at the victory of principle over “compromise.” They would have pointed at the coverage the upset got as proof that a principled message could draw attention.

    Then, buried in the article, would have been a couple sentences about the lack of elected office experience for our candidate.

    Also buried in the article would be a description of mcafee faking a heart attack to avoid extradition on a murder rap. Or Dr. Feldman’s Saturday night crazy rap, Or AWP’s age. Or Perry’s…well, you get the picture. Pick your poison with him.

    By Tuesday morning, June 1, every legitimate news organization, every program director for any tv program with a larger audience than a local public access channel, would be aware of the catastrophically unqualified candidate we nominated. Outside of 3am jokey shows like Fox Red Eye, no one who wanted to keep their job in the industry would dare go to their supervisor and suggest booking a CNN Town Hall with Perry or a drug addled murder suspect. The talking heads who host these shows love the adulation and power to f*ck women (or men) their popularity gives them. If you think they are going to endanger that by embarrassing themselves giving a guy like Perry airtime because they believe in the right of the people to hear all messages, you’re out of your goddamn mind.

    At that point, the situation that DID occur…of Johnson’s PROFESSIONAL staff being contacted by 60 minutes, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post to book time for interviews/town halls, would have morphed into a pathetic display of a volunteer staff fruitlessly leaving messages/emails with program managers who wouldn’t waste two seconds of their time returning the call.

    Eventually, our campaign…such as it would be…would be stuck trying to carry on a national campaign via podcasts 100 people listen to, 5000 watt radio stations in East Bumf*ck, Texas, and endless Libertarian Republican articles if we were drunk enough to nominate AWP.

    No message would be heard by ANYONE. Trying to carry on a national campaign under those circumstances Iwould be like trying to fill the basin of the Atlantic Ocean up to its current depth in 6 months.. with a teaspoon.

    This reality is going to face us EVERY 4 years when deciding on a presidential nominee, like it or not.

  106. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I don’t know how I can fantasize this vividly enough: were we to have nominated ANYONE other than Johnson in Orlando, the 2016 LP campaign would have been OVER immediately.”

    Fixed, no charge.

  107. Anthony Dlugos

    I stand corrected. It’s possible Dr. Feldman would have garnered a tiny bit of coverage, but it would have been about the oddity of a doctor with no political office experience running for President. It wouldn’t have been treated legitimately.

    As an aside, that’s why my order in Orlando was:

    1. Johnson
    2. Feldman
    3. NOTA

  108. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I stand corrected.”

    Apparently not.

    And of course you are leaving aside the fact that once we DID nominate Johnson/Weld, being ignored by the media became the best possible outcome in any case.

  109. George Dance

    Andy: “Darrell Castle is far more libertarian than Johnson and Weld. He’s strongly pro-gun rights”

    Is he? Does he want to abolish the existing prohibition on the mentally ill owning guns (the one “anti-gun” stance that Johnson’s been pilloried for)? Or the prohibition on “illegal immigrants” owning guns? (We do know he wants to turn all would-be immigrants into “illegal immigrants,” so that’s a special concern.) I’ve not heard a peep from him about those topics.

    “anti-Federal Reserve System”

    and replace it with what? Free banking, or government-issued fiat currency? He doesn’t say. Just being anti-fed is not the same as being “libertarian”.

    “anti-United Nations,”

    I don’t care for the UN myself; but, again, just being anti-UN or “anti-globalist” in general is not being “libertarian”.

    “anti-TPP”

    The TPP, as I’ve said, gives more than 500 million people the opportunity to trade freely with each other. In addition, it provides those who do trade with some protection (dispute resolution panels) against arbitrary national government interference with their business. That’s exactly why Castle opposes it – because he loves tariffs, and U.S. government “sovereignty” to interfere with the economy. Some “libertarian”!

    “anti-War on Drugs (more so than Johnson/Weld, who only want to tax and regulate marijuana, and who want to keep the drug war going against other drugs)”

    Johnson and Weld want to treat marijuana like any other business; and to decriminalize the use of other drugs (including heroin). Castle (like Ron Paul) is just fine with criminal sanctions, police militarization and raids, and imprisoning and even shooting drug buyers and sellers, as long as it’s done on the state and local level. It’s only by changing the meaning of “War on Drugs” that you guys can make claims like that.

    “, anti-interventionist foreign policy (Johnson supports “humanitarian” wars)”

    Actually, Johnson says he would go to war only to protect “clear U.S. interests” (which he defines as Americans’ lives, liberty, and property). But, no, he doesn’t argue, like “noninterventionist” libertarians, that Americans have a moral obligation to let foreign governments slaughter their citizens. Does Castle?

    “, he wants to end the income tax and replace it with nothing (unlike Johnson, who wants to replace the income tax with the Fair Tax”

    And how does Castle plan to finance the U.S. government (including the welfare state, which he and his supporters invoke to justify their immigration ban?). Not with “nothing” – he’d replace it with tariffs (maybe Trump’s 50% tariff, but probably higher), the worst form of tax there is.

    “, which is just as bad or worse than the income tax”

    Are you nuts? The income tax violates the prohibition on self-incrimination; and it allows the government to audit anyone at will, for any reason. That’s at least 2 ways the Fair Tax would be more libertarian. In the abstract, a sales tax could be administered without any coercion – and, for old-school guys like me, wanting to end coercion (not all this other stuff) is what being “libertarian” means.

    “unlike Bill Weld, who wants to keep the income tax as is)”

    Actually, Weld’s said he wants a Flat Tax. Even that small step of ending progressivity would be more libertarian than the status quo.

    “, and he rightly points out that private business owners should be able to refuse to do business with whoever they want (unlike Gary Johnson, who thinks that private bake shop owners should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings)”

    Oh, yes, the big one. Castle, like Austin Petersen, is for “religious liberty”: meaning he wants to give Christians (not atheists like me; and certainly not Moslems; just his constituency of fundamentalist Christians) a special exemption from anti-discrimination laws. And (like the 10th Amendment lover he is), he wants the President to bring in legislation to force all the states to give them that exemption. And this is the new “libertarianism”, too.

    “to cite just a few examples of how Darrell Castle is more libertarian than Johnson and Weld.”

    Some might call those actual positions of Castle’s “paleolibertarian” – I’d be more inclined to call them “pseudolibertarian” or “phony libertarian” or “faux-libertarian” – but for someone to label them “libertarian” indicates to me only that that someone doesn’t know, or doesn’t want anyone else to know, what “libertarian” means and what “libertarians” actually stand for.

  110. Anthony Dlugos

    Yes, I want some of the drugs that induces a hallucination where Perry/Coley gets a 60 Minutes segment, 3 hour-long Town Halls, repeated coverage by the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street journal, , a Chicago Tribune endorsement, and several other newspapers endorsements.

  111. Andy

    Castle did not call for a Flat Tax. He said that the federal government could do an apportionment tax to the states, as in each state would pay the federal government in proportion to the census, as prescribed in the Constitution.

    Castle’s tax plan is much better than that of Johnson or Weld.

  112. Andy

    All of the coverage that Johnson/Weld have received has been been a complete waste, and the Libertarian Party and movement would be better off right now if John/Weld were paper candidates who got zero coverage.

  113. Marc Montoni

    What’s really wrong with the LP is the number of amateurs who infest it and think “it’s all about winning elections” when they haven’t worn out even one pair of shoes doorhanging their own fucking precinct.

    Geniuses.

  114. dL

    “Me: what makes you think these are mutually exclusive? We are always teaching by example.”

    They may not be mutually exclusive, but if you are running to win, “voter education” is not any consolation barometer. You either a winner or a loser. And losers are not tolerated much in a political party as any type of standard bearer.

    “If someone wants to RUN for prez, it strikes me that the best way is to offer workable, aspirational messages. Fringe messaging is better for street theater, imo.”

    Your opinion is an amateur one, indicative of a dupe who listens to too much jive bullshit from satellite news pundits. You win by controlling the narrative, sharp differentiation on the issues and defining your opponent according to your terms. You absolutely feed your opponents through the grill of opposition research. Depending on the type of contest, voter turnout organization may also be a primary key. Now the LP simply doesn’t have the resources to do that. And the dynamic of a competitive 3-way race is a bit different. But competitive politics is not a song ballad or a tony robbins infomercial. It is a contact sport. And it is not a fair one, either.

    Pragmaticratic respectability politics is not about winning or being competitive. It’s about–as much as I can ascertain–little more than people who read from teleprompters saying nice things about you. That appears to be the primary objective.

  115. Be Rational

    Marc Montoni
    October 10, 2016 at 14:18

    What’s really wrong with the LP is the number of ablebodied amateurs who … spend all day on the Internet debating a nomination that was settled long ago in Orlando – no matter who they supported, even Johnson … when they haven’t worn out even one pair of shoes doorhanging their own fucking precinct … for all LP candidates on the ballot there.

    corrected. no charge

  116. dL

    “The TPP, as I’ve said, gives more than 500 million people the opportunity to trade freely with each other. In addition, it provides those who do trade with some protection (dispute resolution panels) against arbitrary national government interference with their business. That’s exactly why Castle opposes it – because he loves tariffs, and U.S. government “sovereignty” to interfere with the economy. Some “libertarian”!”

    George, you admitted here:
    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/10/a-libertarian-response-to-georgetakei-whowouldinternyou/#comment-1445462

    you haven’t read the TPP document nor plan to. You are talking out of your ass. You have no clue what it means. When that rent-to-own installment plan you signed finally expires re: your brain, YOUR OPINION may have some merit. Until then, it merely a regurgitation of second-hand gas.

  117. Mr. Brown

    dL,

    On the one hand, you are correct about TPP in particular; on the other, George Dance is correct that Castle and his CP love tariffs and U.S. government “sovereignty” to interfere with the economy.

  118. Robert Capozzi

    DL: Your opinion is an amateur one, indicative of a dupe who listens to too much jive bullshit from satellite news pundits.

    ME: my, my, you are a REAL charmer! And, apparently, a professional! Are you Rove, Axelrod, or perhaps Rollins?

    And it seems clear you misunderstand me. I believe that IF the L candidates wants to run for office, the first thing to do is position the candidate and his positions in a plausible zone. Implausible positions assure a non-serious candidacy that will have no coverage and will attract very little fundraising support. (Wacko positioning like Invictus might be an exception, but his may prove that some negative press actually IS bad press!.)

    Differentiation is different from extremism.

  119. Andy

    Actually, Castle said that he is not a big fam of protectionism.

    Also, I prefer US sovereignty over international bodies that are worse.

  120. Mr. Brown

    “Actually, Castle said that he is not a big fan of protectionism.”

    When and where?

    “Also, I prefer US sovereignty over international bodies that are worse.”

    Perhaps in the abstract, but it’s a fact that most supporters of “national sovereignty” nowadays are also fans of tariffs, protectionism, border walls, roundups, mass deportations and further restrictions on immigration over and above what we have now – in other words, making the movements of goods and people across borders less free. Likewise, it’s also a fact that many of those who wax(ed) philosophical about states rights are in fact racial segregationists and/or fans of mixing church and state at the state and local levels who see federal interference as an impediment to these authoritarian policies. This is all true even if we assume that localizing government is a good general principle in the abstract as an incremental move towards individual sovereignty, which may or may not be true.

  121. Andy

    Castle said the thing about tariffs in a recent interview. He supports tariffs as a constitutional means of taxation, but he is not wild about the idea of jacking tariffs up to high rates.

  122. Thomas L. Knapp

    Kareem Caliente is Nathan Norman, who asked something on my web site, got an answer, and got banned (my answer was: “Nathan, Thanks for asking — I’ve always wanted to ban you but couldn’t until you actually commented here!”)

  123. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’m not lying. You asked about Darryl Perry, and the answer I gave you was “Nathan, Thanks for asking — I’ve always wanted to ban you but couldn’t until you actually commented here!”

    That’s a fact. You don’t have to like it. It’s a fact whether you like it or not.

  124. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Yes, Thomas, I deleted it just because I’m trying to train the spam filter to filter him out. Would you prefer I leave his comment if someone responds? I think that just encourages him, but I realize your comment alone looks strange.

  125. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth “Lester Fulcrum,” aka Nathan Norman:

    “Get ready for the exposee ‘Corruption of Thomas L. Knapp’ at the Grand Inquirer.”

    Cool. Let me know if you need a photo of my penis so I can go buy a wide-angle lens.

  126. dL

    “ME: my, my, you are a REAL charmer! ”

    Well, you are not my type, Robert.

    “And, apparently, a professional! Are you Rove, Axelrod, or perhaps Rollins?”

    No…i’m just not an idiot.

    “And it seems clear you misunderstand me. I believe that IF the L candidates wants to run for office, the first thing to do is position the candidate and his positions in a plausible zone. Implausible positions assure a non-serious candidacy that will have no coverage and will attract very little fundraising support. (Wacko positioning like Invictus might be an exception, but his may prove that some negative press actually IS bad press!.)”

    Positioning candidates in a “plausibility zone” is the stuff of SNL satire. The kind of stuff that is responsible for politicians being mocked. Avoiding being viewed as being positioned in a plausibility zone is typically a high candidate priority and being saddled with that perception is exhibit A of NOT controlling the narrative.
    LOL

  127. Matt

    “Get ready for the exposee ‘Corruption of Thomas L. Knapp’ at the Grand Inquirer.”

    I love reading fiction/fantasy so this should be a fun one.

  128. George Dance

    Carpozzi: “I believe that IF the L candidates wants to run for office, the first thing to do is position the candidate and his positions in a plausible zone. Implausible positions assure a non-serious candidacy that will have no coverage and will attract very little fundraising support. (Wacko positioning like Invictus might be an exception, but his may prove that some negative press actually IS bad press!.)”

    dL – “Positioning candidates in a ‘plausibility zone’ is the stuff of SNL satire. The kind of stuff that is responsible for politicians being mocked. Avoiding being viewed as being positioned in a plausibility zone is typically a high candidate priority and being saddled with that perception is exhibit A of NOT controlling the narrative.”

    Actually, the ‘Overton Window’ (as it’s called) is taken a bit more seriously than that. Here’s a link, in case you may want to broaden your political learning beyond SNL.
    https://www.mackinac.org/7504

  129. George Dance

    Mr. Brown: “it’s a fact that most supporters of “national sovereignty” nowadays are also fans of tariffs, protectionism, border walls, roundups, mass deportations and further restrictions on immigration over and above what we have now – in other words, making the movements of goods and people across borders less free. Likewise, it’s also a fact that many of those who wax(ed) philosophical about states rights are in fact racial segregationists and/or fans of mixing church and state at the state and local levels who see federal interference as an impediment to these authoritarian policies. This is all true even if we assume that localizing government is a good general principle in the abstract as an incremental move towards individual sovereignty, which may or may not be true.”

    The only problem with your analysis is that you concede too much at the end. If a theory like “localizing government is … an incremental move towards individual sovereignty” has as many counterfactuals as you rightly point out it has, then it has to be rejected.

    The principle of localizing government really has nothing to do with the principle of respecting individual liberty, no matter how much self-described “libertarian Libertarians” like Andy try to equate the two. It’s a different agenda, either explicitly added on or implicitly smuggled in. That’s why I have no qualms about calling their beliefs ‘pseudolibertarianism’ or ‘phony libertarianism’.

  130. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The principle of localizing government really has nothing to do with the principle of respecting individual liberty”

    Very true. In fact, the more local the government, the easier it is for that government to take a particularized interest in what you’re doing and attempt to stop you from doing it, regulate how you do it, etc.

    Ask anyone who’s had to bow and scrape for a zoning variance, or who has lived in one of the little towns that has more pages of ordinances than it has people (the town of 300 households we lived in had an ordinance prescribing the number of holes per square inch window screens had to have).

    The federal government doesn’t give a damn if your roof is missing a shingle or your grass is 6 1/8″ tall instead of only 5 7/8″ tall. The local omnipotent state cultists will get right to work writing citations, demanding fines, etc.

  131. George Dance

    dL – “George, you admitted here:
    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/10/a-libertarian-response-to-georgetakei-whowouldinternyou/#comment-1445462

    you haven’t read the TPP document nor plan to. You are talking out of your ass. You have no clue what it means.”

    Since the enabling legislation runs to 5,000+ pages, I doubt you’ve read it either. So it looks like you’ve been “talking out of our ass,” too.

    With that in mind, do you have any actual rebuttal to my claims – that (1) the TPP establishes a massive free-trade area of over 500 million people (not counting the U.S. population); (2) it gives businesses operating in that area an appeal procedure against arbitrary government interferences; and (3) those are both steps toward economic liberty.

    Or would you rather try to brush those off with another foolish ad hom?

    When that rent-to-own installment plan you signed finally expires re: your brain, YOUR OPINION may have some merit. Until then, it merely a regurgitation of second-hand gas.

  132. langa

    Suppose it happens in 2020: Romney registers Libertarian, signs the non-aggression pledge,* and does a “Bob Barr” or “Bill Weld” for the next 5 months, repudiating all those nasty things he did as Governor.

    Yes, I think I’d support him.

    And this is why you should get the word “gullible” tattooed on your forehead.

  133. George Dance

    Andy – “Castle did not call for a Flat Tax.”

    I didn’t say he did. I said that Weld did, and called it a step toward liberty.

    “He said that the federal government could do an apportionment tax to the states, as in each state would pay the federal government in proportion to the census, as prescribed in the Constitution.”

    Leaving the states free to tax by any mode or means. That might be very Constitutional (as per Ron Paul), but there’s no reason to think it would even lower taxes on net, much less abolish them. It takes some kind of mental contortion to see it as even a step toward liberty.

  134. langa

    Let’s leave aside the realization that, given the relative size and strength of the LP vs. the duopoly parties, any switch by a previously elected official would almost certainly be genuine at some level.

    So, you believe Barr’s switch was “genuine”? If so, I suggest you accompany George Dance to that tattoo parlor I just mentioned.

    The real irony is that the people who present this hypothetical to me repeatedly swear they have no intention of turning the LP into a never-ending witch hunt. Yet what other standard do we have other than a party switch?

    Oh, I don’t know. How about joining the party for a few years, maybe running for some smaller offices, and demonstrating that you actually care about its principles instead of immediately demanding to be made the public representative of it. Joining a political party and then, just days later, asking to be its VP nominee, like Weld did, is like proposing marriage at the end of the first date. It’s beyond absurd, and makes any reasonable person suspect that you are either insane, or are harboring ulterior motives.

  135. langa

    Actually, George Dance already is blocked from being a delegate at U.S. LP conventions. However, he is chairing an LP convention, in his home country, this month – so he’ll be sure that gets discussed. In fact, he may post something onto that party’s facebook page today.

    Planning to start a “Libertarians for Mitt” organization, eh? I’m not sure if that’s more or less crazy than Block’s “Libertarians for Trump” group.

  136. Andy

    George Dance said: “The principle of localizing government really has nothing to do with the principle of respecting individual liberty, no matter how much self-described “libertarian Libertarians” like Andy try to equate the two. It’s a different agenda, either explicitly added on or implicitly smuggled in. That’s why I have no qualms about calling their beliefs ‘pseudolibertarianism’ or ‘phony libertarianism’.”

    Funny how George Dance likes to dance to conclusions and put words in my mouth. I am well aware of localized tyranny, and I oppose it. I am ultimately for individual sovereignty.

    I support states rights only to the extent that it supplants federal (ie-national) tyranny. I support the US Constitution over the UN Charter.

    I am distrustful of anyone who supports the United Nations or any globalist organization that wants to supplant the US Constitution with socialism or fascism.

    Replace the US Constitution with voluntaryism / anarcho-capitalism? Yeah, I’d be for that, but of course that is much easier said than done.

  137. Andy

    langa said: ” Joining a political party and then, just days later, asking to be its VP nominee, like Weld did, is like proposing marriage at the end of the first date. It’s beyond absurd, and makes any reasonable person suspect that you are either insane, or are harboring ulterior motives.”

    I wish that we had more reasonable people who were delegates at the Libertarian National Convention in Orlando.

  138. langa

    The only problem with your analysis is that you concede too much at the end. If a theory like “localizing government is … an incremental move towards individual sovereignty” has as many counterfactuals as you rightly point out it has, then it has to be rejected.

    The only problem is that these “counterfactuals” are nothing of the sort. The fact that decentralization can be used for nefarious purposes in no way proves it’s a bad principle. After all, free speech has often been used to promote bad ideas. Does that mean it’s a bad principle? Guns have often been used to commit acts of aggression. Does that mean libertarians should abandon their support for gun rights?

    The principle of localizing government really has nothing to do with the principle of respecting individual liberty…

    True, decentralization doesn’t create a libertarian utopia. The again, I don’t know anybody who claims it does. What I, and others, claim is that decentralization makes it easier to flee or overthrow tyrannical governments. Or perhaps you think a world government would somehow be conducive to liberty, as it would “check the abuses” of national governments. And who would check its own abuses?

  139. Thomas L. Knapp

    “do you have any actual rebuttal to my claims – that (1) the TPP establishes a massive free-trade area of over 500 million people (not counting the U.S. population)”

    The rebuttal is in the definition. 5000 pages of regulations on trade do not establish a free-trade area, massive or otherwise.

  140. robert capozzi

    dL: Avoiding being viewed as being positioned in a plausibility zone is typically a high candidate priority and being saddled with that perception is exhibit A of NOT controlling the narrative.

    me: Definitely watching a VERY different movie, you and I. Aside from Trump, I don’t see ANY pols who are taken seriously who purposely position themselves outside the Overton Window or plausibility zone.

    Can the window be moved? Yes, over time, of course it can and does. Think tanks can facilitate the shifting over time.

    SNL generally mocks people’s style and foibles, in my experience.

    So, dL, who are the pols being taken seriously who are taking outside-the-mainstream positions?

    As I understand it, “controlling the narrative” is mostly about rhetoric and positioning, not so much about extremism vs. centrism. Trump is the only exception I can think of, where his campaign has always been an extremist one, saying Mexicans are rapists, Muslims should be banned, etc. I wouldn’t even say that Sanders had many extremist positions…free college is just extending free public education 4 years, after all. It’s a bit edgy, but not fringy.

    RP1 did have some extremist moments, when he said in a debate he wanted to legalize heroin. But, for the most part, the thrust of the RP1 message was “return to the Constitution,” which is rhetorically quite mainstream-sounding.

  141. Andy

    “George Dance
    October 11, 2016 at 04:31
    Andy – ‘Castle did not call for a Flat Tax.’

    I didn’t say he did. I said that Weld did, and called it a step toward liberty.”

    During one of the CNN Town Halls, Bill Weld said that he favors keeping the IRS, and just give people the vague promise that their taxes are not going to go up. Yeah, I’m sure that this will work….NOT!

    ‘He said that the federal government could do an apportionment tax to the states, as in each state would pay the federal government in proportion to the census, as prescribed in the Constitution.’

    Leaving the states free to tax by any mode or means. That might be very Constitutional (as per Ron Paul), but there’s no reason to think it would even lower taxes on net, much less abolish them. It takes some kind of mental contortion to see it as even a step toward liberty.”

    Yes, at least what Castle is offering is actually constitutional, unlike the tax proposals put forth by Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, and yes, Castle’s plan is more pro-liberty as well. Castle is offering much larger cuts in the size of government as compared to Johnson/Weld, and it would be a lot more difficult for the federal government to collect taxes if it had to go to the states begging for money.

    The tax plans put forth by Johnson/Weld are horrible from a libertarian perspective, and this alone should have been enough to disqualify them from being nominated.

  142. Thane Eichenauer

    George Dance> Suppose it happens in 2020: Romney registers Libertarian, signs the non-aggression pledge,* and does a “Bob Barr” or “Bill Weld” for the next 5 months, repudiating all those nasty things he did as Governor.

    Repudiation is an interesting point here. Bob Barr did a bit of repudiation (probably not enough). Bill Weld has done less than that (in my opinion/observation).

  143. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Bob Barr did a bit of repudiation (probably not enough)”

    Well, he did some before he ran for the LP’s presidential nomination, working with the ACLU on privacy issues and such.

    WHEN he ran for the LP’s presidential nomination he pretty much ignored his differences with the party on some issues (for example, during his campaign, he wrote an op-ed supporting continuation of the “Plan Colombia” drug war operation), while formally repudiating e.g. DOMA at the convention … and then going out as soon as he had the nomination and repudiating his repudiation (less than a week after the nomination he went on Fox or CNN — I think the latter — characterizing DOMA as “states rights” and “states rights” as “the essence of libertarianism”).

  144. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Tony from Long Island:

    “The POTUS candidate should serve to expand LP name recognition. That’s exactly what Johnson / Weld have done.”

    Both of those statements are true.

    But there are different kinds of expansion of name recognition.

    In 1982, the Tylenol brand got a HUGE boost in name recognition — because someone killed seven people by lacing bottles of it with cyanide.

  145. dL

    “Since the enabling legislation runs to 5,000+ pages, I doubt you’ve read it either. So it looks like you’ve been “talking out of our ass,” too.”

    Read the Electronic commerce and IP chapters directly.

    You know what they say about about assumptions and asses. In your case, the wrong end keeps doing the talking.

  146. Robert Capozzi

    TK, true. The fallacy, however, is that cyanide is necessarily poisonous, iirc. J/W are not. Many longtime Ls find the ticket strongly positive. Some NAPSTERS do as well.

    You find them poisonous to the L brand FOR YOU. And that’s valid FOR YOU. It’s also valid for you to attempt to convince other Ls of your view. It’s NOT valid for you to impose your interpretation on others.

    I sure you find this TP be true. If it isn’t, please present evidence of your authority to dictate your view to others.

  147. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I’m not sure how the hell you think I would impose my interpretation on others. And I don’t want to know, as such power might be tempting.

    My view:

    A lot of people became maximally aware of Tylenol because of the cyanide problem. Cyanide is not only not essential to Tylenol, it’s a very bad thing to mix with Tylenol.

    A lot of people are becoming maximally aware of the Libertarian Party because of the Johnson/Weld problem. Johnson/Weld are not only not essential to the Libertarian Party, they’re a very bad thing to mix with the Libertarian Party.

  148. Anthony Dlugos

    langa,

    “So, you believe Barr’s switch was “genuine”? If so, I suggest you accompany George Dance to that tattoo parlor I just mentioned.”

    As you can see from my post, I said that it was AT SOME LEVEL genuine. He made some minimal concessions to libertarian philosophy.

    Unlike Losertarians like yourself, I don’t look at our candidates’ philosophical/policy positions in a vacuum. I realize there is an ACTUAL job at stake on the other end of the election, and however weak Barr’s policy positions were, they pales in comparison to the COMPLETE lack of experience in his competitors for the 2008 nomination, outside of Gravel, who’s policy positions were WORSE.

    Do you see how this is a balancing act between policy positions and resume? Not a simpleton’s mission of finding the parrot who yaps Rothbard perfectly, yet wouldn’t get an “executive” job at 10-employee ice cream stand?

    “How about joining the party for a few years, maybe running for some smaller offices, and demonstrating that you actually care about its principles instead of immediately demanding to be made the public representative of it. Joining a political party and then, just days later, asking to be its VP nominee, like Weld did, is like proposing marriage at the end of the first date.”

    So, if Google or General Motors needs a new CEO, qualified candidates must start in the mailroom and work their way up, in order to ensure that this ALREADY QUALIFIED candidate for the position “cares” about the company principles?

    This is the patently absurd dark alleys Purists wind up in when they implicitly argue that elective offices should be treated as educational outreach of libertarianism rather than the ACTUAL JOBS that those offices are.

    Why in god’s name should men with executive experience at the governorship level go run for offices they are OVERqualified for whilst our party nominates the catastrophically UNDERqualified for the office of president?

    Does this make a lick of sense?

  149. Thomas L. Knapp

    “however weak Barr’s policy positions were, they pales in comparison to the COMPLETE lack of experience in his competitors for the 2008 nomination, outside of Gravel, who’s policy positions were WORSE.”

    Please explain that claim.

  150. Mr. Brown

    Mr. Brown: “This is all true even if we assume that localizing government is a good general principle in the abstract as an incremental move towards individual sovereignty, which may or may not be true.”

    Mr. Dance: “The only problem with your analysis is that you concede too much at the end.”

    Mr. Brown, redux: I concede nothing at the end. A conditional statement is not a concession.

  151. dL

    “Actually, the ‘Overton Window’ (as it’s called) is taken a bit more seriously than that. Here’s a link, in case you may want to broaden your political learning beyond SNL.”

    Overton window: 3rd rate political thriller or an informal, anachronistic political science concept chirped by people who have no or very little knowledge of political science. People like you.

    Would oral sex, pussy grabbing now be included in the acceptable range of political dialog? When did that happen? At best “Overton window” refers to a bygone era when broadcast TV had a monopoly on the political dialog. No longer. Candidates can change the narrative. A LP candidate absolutely would have to define and/or change the parameters of the narrative/political dialog. Anyone who was claims that you have to operate within the parameters defined by political opponents or cable satellite TV pundits has already lost. The political advice of those types should absolutely be dismissed as know-nothing respectability politics.

  152. Matt

    “Where’s that brown paper sack of cash you owe me for fixing that thing in the place with the candidate?”

    Freakin’ fuggedaboutit.

  153. Anthony Dlugos

    Mr. Knapp,

    Two people at the 2008 convention had elective office experience, Barr and Gravel. While I prefer buck-stops-here executive positions (governor, mayor, etc), we did not have that option in 2008, as you know.

    The rest of the candidates should have been shot on stage, their carcasses left to be picked over by the vultures as a warning to future con men who have the unmitigated gall to attempt to sell me the idea that they are ready for the actual job, without anything on their resume demonstrating that.

    So, yes, if Mitt Romney shows up at the 2020 Convention and switches parties that day, he goes to the top of my list.

  154. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anthony,

    I’m sorry, that I wasn’t specific enough in what I was asking. So I’ll try again:

    You claim that Barr’s policy positions were WORSE (emphasis yours) than Gravel’s.

    Please explain that claim.

  155. Matt

    “So, yes, if Mitt Romney shows up at the 2020 Convention and switches parties that day, he goes to the top of my list.”

    Then why don’t you just join the Republican or Democratic parties? They are already winning elections. Is there something about the sound of the word “Libertarian” that appeals to you? There is a reason why there is a separate Libertarian Party and that is based on a core of beliefs. It’s not just some corporate organization where an executive from Pepsi can become an executive at Coke on a moment’s notice. This would be more like the Anglican Archbishop of England converting to Catholicism. Sure, he should have the right to do that, but he should not expect to be Catholic Cardinal any time soon, even if his previous experience makes him more qualified for the job. The first step is to prove that the conversion is genuine.

  156. Anthony Dlugos

    Mr. Knapp,

    I didn’t like his universal health care idea, plus I thought he came off a little scatterbrained. Plus, wasn’t there some 9/11 Troofer stuff in his background?

    But, believe you me, I would have been okay with Gravel.

    I was:

    1. Barr
    2. Gravel
    3. NOTA

    And I only decided for Barr at the convention.

  157. Andy

    I agree that Mike Gravel should not have been a candidate for the Libertarian Party, and I say this because he was not what I would call a real libertarian, but I am not sure that he would have been any worse than Bob Barr, and he may have actually been better. Gravel’s bold stand for 9/11 Truth was better than any stand that Bob Barr took.

    It appears that Anthony is the ultimate “shiny badge”/title worshiper. If a candidate can wave around a fancy title, Anthony will “drop his panties” for them faster than a drunk slut.

  158. Anthony Dlugos

    Matt,

    “Then why don’t you just join the Republican or Democratic parties?”

    What if I suggested to you that that is what most libertarian-leaning politicians do in fact do, and that much of the blame for that lies with us and our tendency to search out any apostasy and then label the person…”not a libertarian.”

    My concern is your very last sentence:

    “The first step is to prove that the conversion is genuine.”

    Just how do you intend to do that? Are we gonna bring back the rack and start the libertarian inquisition?

    There is a risk in using a simple switch in parties to conclude the conversion is genuine. If there is a better idea, I’m all ears. But I sure hope it doesn’t involve some version of “libertarian seniority,” a quiet odd position for a party professing fealty to open competition.

  159. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anthony,

    Mr. Knapp is my dad.

    OK, the health care thing I can understand, although frankly I think single payer would be better than the form of socialized healthcare that exists now, or the form that existed in 2008, and I don’t recall Barr making any proposals either as a congressman or as a presidential candidate to move toward a free market system.

    I don’t recall Gravel being a truther in general, or especially an “inside job” type.

    I’m something of a “by their fruits you shall know them” type.

    Gravel’s claims to fame when he was in office were things like sponsoring legislation to end the draft, reading the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record, trying to get the feds to stop subsidizing nuclear energy, that kind of stuff.

    Barr’s claims to fame when he was in office ran more to inveighing against religious freedom among military personnel, working to stop people from getting married, making sure sick patients couldn’t get medicines that Big Pharma didn’t hold patents on, etc.

    I supported Kubby until he was eliminated, then Ruwart, but Phillies and Gravel were also both clearly superior alternatives to Barr and/or Root.

  160. Mr. Brown

    Anthony Dlugos,

    “The first step is to prove that the conversion is genuine.”

    Just how do you intend to do that? Are we gonna bring back the rack and start the libertarian inquisition?

    Why do you presume that as your first guess? Peer review may be in order. Or any system that is used elsewhere to see whether a full grown person who had engaged in a lifetime of behavior had suddenly changed.

    Switching from an establishment party to an ideologically based smaller party isn’t like transitioning from one corporate job to another. It implies an ideological shift or conversion, one that may be genuine or may be feigned for the purpose of short term political advantage. Likewise, for example, a prisoner seeking parole may be genuinely reformed, or may simply feign being reformed in order to get out of prison sooner. There are established ways to help determine whether the change is genuine, and while they are not foolproof, they are better than nothing. None of them involve the use of the rack, burning at the stake, or any other such horrors.

  161. Mr. Brown

    Furthermore:

    ” what most libertarian-leaning politicians do in fact do,”

    Am I correct in inferring that this means you believe that there are some politicians who are not in fact libertarian leaning? Would you say that Mitt Romney is one of them? How about Jeb Bush? Donald Trump? Hillary Clinton? George W. Bush? Bernie Sanders? Just to take a few examples.

    Suppose that I am correct in inferring that you believe that some politicians are not libertarian leaning. Do you agree that it is at least in theory possible that they could at some point decide that seeking the LP nomination is to their short term advantage, as they are unable to secure the Republican or Democratic nomination and don’t wish to spend extra millions on ballot access. Are there any of them that you would try to keep from getting the LP nomination on the basis that they are not libertarian-leaning? And if so, how exactly would you do that?

  162. Andy

    Mike Gravel was (is) a 9/11 Truther. He started a group that was going to place an initiative on the ballot in states that have the initiative process via petition, to re-open the 9/11 investigation at the state level. I spoke to him and other members of the group on several occasions about putting this on the ballot in various states. They even filed it as an actual initiative in Massachusetts in 2011. The group raised about $60,000, but this was not even close to what they would have needed to have stood a realistic chance of qualifying for the Massachusetts ballot, so they ended up pulling the plug on it. They were going to continue to raise money and try to get it on the ballot somewhere, but unfortunately the group became mired in internal dysfunction (infighting), which led to Gravel leaving the group, and shortly after Gravel left the group collapsed.

    I appreciated some of Gravel’s stances, such as ending the military draft, releasing the Pentagon Papers, and re-opening the 9/11 investigation, but even so, he was bad on a bunch of other issues from a libertarian perspective, and therefore would have been a poor choice to be a candidate for the Libertarian Party.

  163. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Mike Gravel was (is) a 9/11 Truther.”

    That term is a moving target even — perhaps especially — when you use it. Your sequence runs roughly as follows:

    Beginning (scornfully): Anyone who doesn’t believe 9/11 was an inside job is a FOOL.

    Middle (arrogantly): Back and forth arguments on whether or not it’s foolish to fail to wholeheartedly adopt a position for which, in 15 years, neither you nor anyone else has ever provided an iota of actual evidence to support.

    End (whinily): But … b-b-but … but [insert prominent person here] says there should be an investigation, which means he agrees with me!

    Personally, I have problems with certainly elements of the official narrative and have signed petitions calling for a new investigation. Does that make me a truther? I reject the title, because if I accept it, I will be identified with the “it was an inside job because I waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant it to have been an inside job” nutters.

    I’ve never seen any evidence that Gravel is a truther in that sense.

  164. Anthony Dlugos

    Mr. Brown,

    You make some fair points.

    I must admit, even as an atheist, I get little emotional when I read the parable of the Prodigal Son, especially when the son comes home after ruining his life and trashing his father’s name, and his father says, “Welcome home, son.”

  165. Mr. Brown

    Well, that could be, say, Dana Rohrabacher, who was once a hardcore libertarian activist, or William Everson, who went from LP Radical Caucus to Bush’s Iraq occupation regime. These other libertarian in name only for a moment’s convenience types are more reminiscent of the wolf in sheep’s closing or the Trojan horse than the prodigal son. Unless you mean when they return to their original establishment party.

  166. Andy

    I spoke to Mike Gravel on several occasions about 9/11. I would say that it is fair to call him a 9/11 Truther, and that is a good thing.

    I still would not have supported him for a Libertarian Party nomination because he is weak in other areas.

  167. Chuck Moulton

    I’m not sure why commenters think using loaded, misleading, false, ad hominem terms like “NAPSTER”, “purist”, and “losertarian” helps their case. None of those words are remotely persuasive to anyone on the fence. They just are a signal that the commenter has a very poor grasp of the English language and is so bad at articulating his opinions that he must spew random word garbage to distract from his lack of logic or a point. It’s pretty sad really.

  168. robert capozzi

    tk: [cyanide] a very bad thing to mix with Tylenol….Johnson/Weld …a very bad thing to mix with the Libertarian Party.

    me: Clever, but misleading. Cyanide is not JUST a very bad thing mixed with Tylenol, it was LETHAL in that case. Are you saying J/W are LETHAL for the LP? Or just a very bad thing?

  169. robert capozzi

    dL: Would oral sex, pussy grabbing now be included in the acceptable range of political dialog?

    me: I surely hope not, and my guess is probably not. DJT is an outlying one-off, who didn’t include “pussy grabbing” as part of his campaign on purpose, near as I can tell.

    dL: At best “Overton window” refers to a bygone era when broadcast TV had a monopoly on the political dialog. No longer. Candidates can change the narrative.

    me: Maybe. You’ve not been giving us your actual views since joining the commentariat here, so we have nothing to assess, other than listen to your glancing rhetorical blows. DJT has changed the narrative to the lowest form of fearmongering I’ve ever seen in American politics. It’s hard for a L to play that card, since most forms of L-ism are for peace and liberty, which are anti-fear, aspirational concepts.

    But if you have an approach whereby Ls could communicate in a manner that is effective in changing the narrative, I’d like to hear more about it.

  170. robert capozzi

    cm: I’m not sure why commenters think using loaded, misleading, false, ad hominem terms like “NAPSTER”…

    me: I use NAPster to differentiate Ls like you and me from those Ls believe the definition of L-ism is the NAP. I find it to be a true term with no sense of ad hominem about it. I don’t use purist or losertarian.

    If you have an alternative term, I’m open to adopting it, if it’s equally or more accurate and is less charged. Some suggest “radical,” but I find that INaccurate, since a true radical goes to the root of the matter, and I find NAPsterism to stop very short of the root.

  171. George Dance

    “Chuck Moulton “I’m not sure why commenters think using loaded, misleading, false, ad hominem terms like “NAPSTER”, “purist”, and “losertarian” helps their case.”

    Agreed. While it may be meant as turnabout for other commenters using loaded, misleading ad hominem terms like “opportunists”, “nonlibertarians”, and “fanbois” to describe them, it’ s counterproductive. It just buys into the notion of the anti-Johnson campaigners to claim the moral high ground, and define themselves as people standing up for libertarian “principles”.

    In fact, the oppositionists (hopefully a more neutral term) are all over the map, comprising some solid libertarians but a good deal more, everyone from Darrell Castle-type Constitutionalists to hardcore anarchists who believe the party should stand for eliminating the U.S. government, and everything in between.

    They remind me of Ed Crane’s description of the Coalition for a Party of Principle, the ragtag group that led the revolt to get the Cato Institute crowd out of the LP back in 1984: that they didn’t seem to share even one principle in common.

  172. George Dance

    dL “Overton window: 3rd rate political thriller or an informal, anachronistic political science concept chirped by people who have no or very little knowledge of political science. People like you.”

    People who don’t understand concepts, and are too stupid to try, often say things like that about them. Usually I encounter your kind on usenet, though; what made you think a political newsletter was a good place to troll?

    “Would oral sex, pussy grabbing now be included in the acceptable range of political dialog? When did that happen?”

    Who besides you thinks that oral sex and pussy grabbing are acceptable? Do you really think Donald Trump brought them up himself because he thought they’d be election-winning issues?

  173. George Dance

    dL – “At best “Overton window” refers to a bygone era when broadcast TV had a monopoly on the political dialog. No longer. Candidates can change the narrative.”

    Can you name one?

    I certainly hope you don’t mean Trump, since as a candidate he was entirely a creation of the media (mainly TV) – the same media that’s tearing him down now, precisely by defining him as outside the Window. If that’s your example, it illustrates only that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  174. George Dance

    gd – ““Since the enabling legislation runs to 5,000+ pages, I doubt you’ve read it either. So it looks like you’ve been “talking out of our ass,” too.”

    dL – “You know what they say about about assumptions and asses. In your case, the wrong end keeps doing the talking.”

    Non-denial noted.

  175. langa

    Do you see how this is a balancing act between policy positions and resume?

    What balancing act? Your insistence that the only acceptable candidates are previous high-level officeholders (Governors, Senators, etc.) automatically excludes 95% of potential candidates before any sort of “balancing” can take place. It’s the political equivalent of the old “No Irish Need Apply” signs.

    So, if Google or General Motors needs a new CEO, qualified candidates must start in the mailroom and work their way up, in order to ensure that this ALREADY QUALIFIED candidate for the position “cares” about the company principles?

    I was going to explain why this is a really poor analogy, but Matt and Mr. Brown beat me to the punch.

    Why in god’s name should men with executive experience at the governorship level go run for offices they are OVERqualified for whilst our party nominates the catastrophically UNDERqualified for the office of president?

    Because neither the “overqualified” candidates for lower offices, nor the “underqualified” candidates for higher offices have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected, so their “qualifications” are irrelevant. And no, those “qualifications” aren’t going to make potential libertarians more receptive to what they have to say, because people who are impressed by those sorts of “credentials” aren’t the kind of people who are likely to ever embrace a philosophy that sees career politicians as almost invariably corrupt and/or incompetent.

  176. dL

    gd – ““Since the enabling legislation runs to 5,000+ pages, I doubt you’ve read it either. So it looks like you’ve been “talking out of our ass,” too.”

    dL – “You know what they say about about assumptions and asses. In your case, the wrong end keeps doing the talking.”

    “Non-denial noted.”

    Since I wrote:

    “Read the Electronic commerce and IP chapters directly.”

    George Dance’s reading comprehension problem duly noted.

  177. dL

    “Can you name one?”

    Howard Dean, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump.

    “I certainly hope you don’t mean Trump, since as a candidate he was entirely a creation of the media (mainly TV).”

    Actually, Trump has been around forever. To the extent he is a media creation, he is the one directing it. Being a cypherpunk, I absolutely do subscribe to old Cult of the Dead Cow motto, “Global Domination through media saturation.” That is to say, controlling the narrative means using the media as your servant, not as your master.

    Overton window nonsense is rehashed David Boaz, someone I consider to be a groupie wannabe for the Hollywood for the Ugly.

  178. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “So, yes, if Mitt Romney shows up at the 2020 Convention and switches parties that day, he goes to the top of my list.”

    Everyone needs to remember this. Anthony Dlugos would support Mitt Romney for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination if Mitt shows up at the 2020 national convention as a candidate for the nomination. Remember this, and NEVER TAKE ANY POLITICAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL ADVICE FROM ANTHONY DLUGOS, AND NEVER SUPPORT ANTHONY DLUGOS AS A CANDIDATE FOR ANYTHING, AND BLOCK HIM FROM BEING A DELEGATE IN YOUR STATE DELEGATION.

    Dlugos is either an extremely naive person, to the point of being stupid and destructive to himself and to the rest of us, or he’s a government plant who is here to sabotage the party and movement. I don’t know which it is, but whatever the case may be, anyone who would support Mitt Romney for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination is a person who should have ZERO influence in the Libertarian Party.

  179. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “Personally, I have problems with certainly elements of the official narrative and have signed petitions calling for a new investigation. Does that make me a truther? I reject the title, because if I accept it, I will be identified with the ‘it was an inside job because I waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant it to have been an inside job’ nutters.”

    I don’t think that anybody “wants” 9/11 to have been an inside job. I, and I think I can speak for a lot of other people here as well, say that 9/11 was an inside job because that is where the evidence leads.

    I would say that anyone who doubts the official government story about 9/11 could be labeled as a 9/11 Truther. There are three categories that 9/11 Truthers could be put into:

    1) MIHOP – Made It Happen On Purpose (as in some people in the US government carried out the attack, or actively aided those who carried out the attack).

    2) LIHOP – Let It Happen On Purpose (as in some people in government knew that the attack was coming, but just sat back and allowed it to happen on purpose).

    3) The government screwed up and as a result, terrorists were able to penetrate US defense systems to carrying out 9/11, and people in government are just covering up for their own incompetence (This theory, which I would label as being stupid and/or naive, is pushed by Austin Petersen, and Petersen attacks the people in groups 1 and 2, which is one of my problems with Petersen).

    Anyone who has discussed this subject with me, or read any of my posts online about this subject knows that I am in the MIHOP camp, or people within government Made It Happen On Purpose. I think that people within the Bush administration, the CIA, and the Pentagon working in conjunction with the Israeli Mossad/Zionist Jews (some of whom were embedded within the US government), carried out the attack. There has been a lot of talk recently about the Saudis and the 28 pages, but I think that the Saudis were only bit players, as the only thing they did was supply the patsy hijackers. I do not even believe that the the supposedly hijacked planes hit any of the buildings, as I think that the evidence indicates that drones were used. The Rockefellers transferred the WTC to Zionist Jew Larry Silverstein. Marvin Bush got security to “look the other way” while Mossad agents wired the WTC with explosives for demolition. Dick Cheney got NORAD to stand down. Billions were made off of inside stock trading, the theft of gold from the WTC basement, and lucrative defense and other national security contracts as a result of 9/11. 9/11 also gave the government the excuse to launch wars of aggression and to pass more domestic police state legislation.

    The ruling establishment carried out 9/11. The New World Order, the Illuminati, “the powers that be”, whatever you want to call them.

    I have posted more than enough evidence on this website over the years for a criminal conviction if this were a fair trial in a court of law. Anyone who can’t see this is either willfully ignorant, fucking stupid, or a liar, and I don’t give a damn who I offend by saying this.

    If you can’t see that the official 9/11 story is a lie, and that it was staged by the same people who are robbing us of our freedom, then there is something wrong with you.

  180. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth RC:

    “Cyanide is not JUST a very bad thing mixed with Tylenol, it was LETHAL in that case. Are you saying J/W are LETHAL for the LP? Or just a very bad thing?”

    Hard to know for sure at this point. But the LD50 is probably 5%.

  181. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I, and I think I can speak for a lot of other people here as well, say that 9/11 was an inside job because that is where the evidence leads.”

    That would make sense — except that for more than 15 years now, you and those other people have been either unable or unwilling to provide any of the evidence you mention.

  182. robert capozzi

    dL: Howard Dean, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump.

    me: As narrative changers, this is a short list. Dean seems like an odd selection. I don’t recall what narrative he changed. Share if you would. I note that Dean was later DNC Chairman, and I don’t see how he changed the Ds. They seem to be pretty much the same anti-liberty force as they were in 04.

    RP1: kinda. Probably he made talk about the literal reading of the Constitution somewhat acceptable. And his anti-war message caught on SOMEWHAT. 8 years later, those wars rage on.

    Sanders, along with Trump, have made protectionism popular. As I said earlier, fear mongering can stoke up the the ignorant and the frightened. I see free college as an extension of “free” k-12.

    Trump has honed junior-high put-downs and fearmongering to an art form. He did so as an anti-politician when anyone with eyes to see can notice that our politics is broken, badly so. He did so as a well-known, celebrity media figure.

    But, yes, here I agree…he HAS changed the narrative, for the “much worse.”

    As GD notes, DJT gets TREMENDOUS levels of criticism for being OUTSIDE the Window. He did say a few things on foreign policy that for a moment sounded in an L direction, but then he reversed himself. If he’s your model for an L political approach, I can’t say I agree. I strongly disagree, in fact.

  183. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    Paul and Sanders both changed the narrative in similar ways. Ten years ago, neither “libertarian” nor “socialist” were especially prominent or positive words in the American electoral lexicon. They changed that.

    I wouldn’t say that Dean changed the NARRATIVE so much as he changed the PRACTICE, although he had his narrative moments (“the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” etc.). As a presidential candidate, he was the first to exploit the web effectually. As DNC chair, his 50-state strategy won Congress back for his party.

  184. robert capozzi

    GD to CM’s charge of ad hominem: Agreed. While it may be meant as turnabout for other commenters using loaded, misleading ad hominem terms like “opportunists”, “nonlibertarians”, and “fanbois” to describe them, it’ s counterproductive.

    me: Your list is too short, GD. L-lite, “Republicans,” namby-pamby, etc., are also used, generally by those I (I believe accurately, without malice) refer to as NAPster Ls. As a former NAPster myself, I understand the impulse to label non-NAPsters derogatorily. But it’s mostly a function of a thought system that severely oversimplifies the world.

  185. robert capozzi

    tk, yes, RP1 mainstreamed the L word more than any other pol. BS is a democratic socialist, but I’m not sure he made “socialism” acceptable as much as he inflamed have-nots to want free stuff. And he stoked hatred of managed trade for something worse…more trade restrictions.

    Both ran as sitting professional pols. I’d say the fruits of the rEVOLution have also severely tainted the LM with the association with haters. Narrative changing is extremely rare, and generally doesn’t stick, and if it does, it does so in a morearchist direction.

    Trump HAS changed the narrative, and I really hope he loses and is long forgotten 4 years from now. Trump-ism has some severe fascist overtones as I see it, and it needs to be soundly defeated, sealed, and buried deep in the ground.

    My sense is that peace and liberty ascend when the narrative matches the substance. Hateful Trump-like hysterics are not peaceful. J/W’s narrative is the peaceful one, non-threatening in tone, willing to listen, willing to discuss, willing (gasp!) to negotiate.

  186. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I’d say the fruits of the rEVOLution have also severely tainted the LM with the association with haters.”

    You’re not going to get any disagreement from me on that. I wasn’t rating the quality of Paul’s message, I was pointing out that he did in fact affect narrative in a big way. And I think time will show that Sanders did the same for “socialism,” or at least “democratic socialism.” People are going to be getting a lot less afraid of that word over the next few years.

    “J/W’s narrative is the peaceful one”

    Not even a little — between Johnson’s call for an all-encompassing federal welfare state and Weld’s call for de facto repeal of the 2nd and 5th Amendments, their message seems pretty dystopian for anyone to the right of Kim Jong Un.

  187. robert capozzi

    tk, I think my use of the word “narrative” is standard. A “narrative” is the “stories we tell that shape the impressions others have” about the substance of what (in this case) the policies that are being offered to voters. The J/W narrative goes something like this: “We’re 2 2-term R guvs from heavily blue states who were re-elected by larger margins than our first election. We are a 6-lane highway down the middle of the electorate, where ~50% of the voters are independent. We want to make America sane again. We would be able to govern in highly polarized DC because we are neither R nor D.”

    Yes, they violate the NAP on some issues, where on specific points, J/W seem to allow for less liberty (depending on how the issue is framed). Overall, though, it’s hard to interpret the THRUST of the substance of J/W’s policy positioning as morearchist. They clearly are overall lessarchists, wanting more peace and liberty.

    That’s why I strongly suggest their tone and narrative match the policies they advocate, all things considered. Yes, anyone can quibble with specific narrative statements (“Trump is a pussy”) or specific policy positions (FAIR tax). I disagreed with both, to be clear.

  188. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    “We can reach across the aisle” is not exactly an adventurous narrative.

    I’m not particularly concerned with whether or not Johnson and Weld position themselves contrary to the non-aggression principle. That would be an interesting thing to discuss if it was necessary to reach the issue. But it isn’t. The issue is:

    They’re running against the platform of the party which nominated them on several issues, and so far as I can tell they are not running entirely WITH the platform of the party which nominated them on any issue.

    If Coke hires a sales team and that sales team goes out and sells Pepsi, the only respect in which how well they sell Pepsi and how much Pepsi they sell is relevant is as a measurement of how much / how badly they damage Coke.

  189. robert capozzi

    tk, for me, the opening clause of the Preamble is most relevant:

    “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty;”

    From where I sit, J/W also seek a world of liberty.

    The platform — for those paying attention — is a mish-mash cobbled together to at least have a working platform. In 06, there was even a move to delete the entire thing, given that so many planks were deleted, thankfully so. In that context, from a big-picture perspective, it’s really, really hard to take the platform seriously.

    Of course, we should respect those who DO take it seriously, but as adults we learn that there are hard-and-fast, fundamentalist interpretations of rules and “scripture” if you will, and then there’s the latitude that most recognize is commonly understood. Virtually all cops don’t pull drivers over for going 56 in a 55 zone, for ex. Technically, 56 is a “violation,” but I’m pretty sure IF someone got pulled over for going 56 and they went to court, the judge would laugh at the hyper-vigilant cop and dismiss the charges.

  190. robert capozzi

    tk: “We can reach across the aisle” is not exactly an adventurous narrative.

    me: Right, it’s a peaceful statement. Do you have a problem with peace?

  191. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I don’t recall ever speaking of “violations.”

    Whether or not you or I like the platform or think it’s a good thing isn’t really important. The platform is what the organization claims to stand for.

    It’s generally accepted that a politician might differ from his or her party’s platform in some respects, but there’s clearly a point at which the difference is substantial enough that it’s not a good fit.

    There are significant areas in which Johnson and/or Weld don’t just fork from the party’s platform but run in opposition to that platform. That’s half of the equation. The other half:

    Can you, or anyone else, identify even a SINGLE plank of the platform that Johnson and Weld both support wholeheartedly? Surely it’s not too much to expect that a party’s presidential and vice-presidential candidate would agree with the party on SOMETHING?

  192. Robert Capozzi

    TK, as you may recall, I don’t read minds. Nor do I read hearts. My sense is that both seek a world of liberty, though. Both are lessarchists, so I plan to vote for the L ticket.

  193. Anthony Dlugos

    tk: “We can reach across the aisle” is not exactly an adventurous narrative.

    Adventurous narrative? Only survivalists stockpiling guns, RTE meals and gold filings are interested in adventurous narratives,

    The overwhelming majority of the voters we are trying to appeal to…date I say, educate, have one or mote of the following: job, business, 401(k), kid(s) in schools, mortgage, loans of some sort they have to pay back, money in a savings account…heck, even a concern for the continuity of this great land. The idea that these people are interested in hearing about…let alone vote for…an “adventurous narrative” is, well, not the best idea to come down the pike.

    We have a hard enough time dealing with the “wasted vote” syndrome. The “Election As Educational Opportunity” Caucus wants to make that syndrome an explicit campaign platform….”you are DEFINITELY wasting your vote on our candidate and wasting your time listening to him/her as they are patently unqualified educators,” and then expect them to listen.

  194. Thomas Knapp

    “The idea that these people are interested in hearing about … let alone vote for … an ‘adventurous narrative’ is, well, not the best idea to come down the pike.”

    Whether it’s the “best” or not is a sort of subjective question. That it is true is confirmed by history. Great Society, Silent Majority, Morning in America, Thousand Points of Light, Hope and Change. The last time a candidate aimed for the middle and won was probably Ike, and he would have won if he had been caught on film raping the neighbor’s dog.

  195. Anthony Dlugos

    Quoth Andy, newly appointed outreach director of the Witch Hunt Caucus:

    “Everyone needs to remember this. Anthony Dlugos would support Mitt Romney for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination if Mitt shows up at the 2020 national convention as a candidate for the nomination. Remember this, and NEVER TAKE ANY POLITICAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL ADVICE FROM ANTHONY DLUGOS, AND NEVER SUPPORT ANTHONY DLUGOS AS A CANDIDATE FOR ANYTHING, AND BLOCK HIM FROM BEING A DELEGATE IN YOUR STATE DELEGATION.”

    Well, equanimity was never one of Andy’s strong suits anyway.

    So much for Andy’s protestations that his LP wouldn’t be an endless series of inquisitions. Methinks what he meant to say is that his LP would be safe for the Inquisitors. As for the rest of us? BRING OUT THE RACK!! Welp, that could be a little painful. I’ll just think about the good times with Governor Weld as my limbs are torn away from my torso.

    Calm down, Troofer. I didn’t say I would definitely cast my vote for a converted Romney. I just said he would be at the top of my list of qualified candidates, due to his resume. He would still have to earn my vote. Although I must say, he’d have a leg up on a convicted felon with no elective office experience like your horse Kokesh. I think you’re gonna find out you’re in the minority there. Then again, you probably know that, hence the inquisition to extirpate the apostates.

  196. Matt

    So Anthony, does that mean that you believe that Romney is libertarian-leaning? If so, how so? While conceding there were some fair points above you never did answer the questions posed to you earlier, rather than treating them as merely rhetorical:

    Am I correct in inferring that this means you believe that there are some politicians who are not in fact libertarian leaning? Would you say that Mitt Romney is one of them? How about Jeb Bush? Donald Trump? Hillary Clinton? George W. Bush? Bernie Sanders? Just to take a few examples.

    Suppose that I am correct in inferring that you believe that some politicians are not libertarian leaning. Do you agree that it is at least in theory possible that they could at some point decide that seeking the LP nomination is to their short term advantage, as they are unable to secure the Republican or Democratic nomination and don’t wish to spend extra millions on ballot access. Are there any of them that you would try to keep from getting the LP nomination on the basis that they are not libertarian-leaning? And if so, how exactly would you do that?

    -Mr. Brown

    Please take those one at a time and answer them.

    As a bonus question, please explain whose rights Adam Kokesh violated to become a felon, and/or whether being a felon for violating victimless crime “laws” should be a disqualification.

  197. robert capozzi

    tk: Great Society, Silent Majority, Morning in America, Thousand Points of Light, Hope and Change.

    me: All those were aspirational messages from the middle, as I understood them, and I expect most did. None of these were radical changes to the social order, but rather rhetorical (and vague) devices to suggest a bend in history’s curve.

  198. Thomas Knapp

    Bob,

    They weren’t “aspirational messages,” they were narrative markers, designed EXPLICITLY to DIFFERENTIATE the candidates from their opponents.

    Milquetoast “reaching across the aisle” bullshit is a loser every time. If you don’t believe me, ask John McCain. And it doesn’t get any more compelling when it’s thrown into the mix by someone who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the election.

  199. robert capozzi

    tk, can’t say I buy your take. McCain’s been re-elected MANY times. Great Society was used in 64 against a widely perceived lunatic in Goldwater, who ran a differentiated from the far edges, who taunted and alienated not only Ds but Rockefeller Rs. Silent Majority was fairly effective in 68, but it was a centrist appeal. Morning in America was more about positivism in the wake of JC’s malaise comment. Hope and Change was mostly empty rhetoric to allay fears of the first African American prez.

    If your critique is about slogans, it’s fair. I’m not sure J/W has just one slogan, but been there/done that centrist competence is pretty good positioning vs inexperienced hater and a corrupt career pol.

  200. Thomas Knapp

    “Silent Majority was fairly effective in 68, but it was a centrist appeal.”

    In 1968, the center was left of JFK and moving fast toward Castro. Nixon’s appeal was a right-wing law and order appeal against that stampede.

  201. Thomas Knapp

    “McCain’s been re-elected MANY times.”

    He’s been nominated for president once and he lost. That’s not entirely his fault — the Republicans were due for a big spanking and it’s unlikely anyone would have won it — but “reaching across the aisle” has NEVER been a strong presidential talking point. In presidential elections, fortune goes to the bold, if anyone IS bold (in some elections, such as 1988, nobody really is).

  202. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “Well, equanimity was never one of Andy’s strong suits anyway.”

    How would you know this being that we’ve never met, and I’d never even heard of you until recently?

    “So much for Andy’s protestations that his LP wouldn’t be an endless series of inquisitions. Methinks what he meant to say is that his LP would be safe for the Inquisitors. As for the rest of us? BRING OUT THE RACK!! Welp, that could be a little painful. I’ll just think about the good times with Governor Weld as my limbs are torn away from my torso.”

    “Calm down, Troofer.”

    “Troofer” is a CIA concocted pejorative, much like “conspiracy theorist”. Do you just mindlessly repeat pejoratives put out by government spooks who are looking to discredit people who speak out against government, or are you on their payroll?

    “I didn’t say I would definitely cast my vote for a converted Romney. I just said he would be at the top of my list of qualified candidates, due to his resume. He would still have to earn my vote.”\

    Like I said above, you are either naive to the point of be stupid and destructive, or you are a plant of some variety who has been sent in to sabotage the Libertarian Party and movement. NOBODY who is any kind of legitimate libertarian would even entertain the idea of supporting Mitt Romney for President, especially as a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s nomination. I have been involved in the Libertarian Party and movement for over 20 years, and I have talked to numerous Libertarians and small “l” libertarians all across this country, and you saying that you’d consider Mitt Romney for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination is so far outside the norm that it makes you the weirdo. This is a RED FLAG, and it says that you should not be trusted.

    “Although I must say, he’d have a leg up on a convicted felon with no elective office experience like your horse Kokesh. I think you’re gonna find out you’re in the minority there. Then again, you probably know that, hence the inquisition to extirpate the apostates.”

    Adam Kokesh has 9 years as a hardcore libertarian activist under his belt. Mitt Romney has NEVER been a libertarian. Adam Kokesh was convicted for a victimless crime. Mitt Romney violated multiple libertarian principles as an elected office holder, and he advocated against libertarian principles as a candidate. Since Mitt Romney has already proven that he can’t be trusted to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, why should anyone believe that he’d uphold the Libertarian Party’s membership pledge and platform if he were to join the Libertarian Party and run for office as a Libertarian Party candidate? Why should we believe anything that Mitt Romney says when he’s a known liar and flip-flopper? Why would anyone who claims to be a Libertarian even entertain the idea of Mitt Romney as a Libertarian Party candidate?

    Funny how Dlugos’ function here seems to be to makes excuses for and promote non-libertarian Republicans running as Libertarian Party candidates, and to attack real Libertarian Party activists.

  203. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “So much for Andy’s protestations that his LP wouldn’t be an endless series of inquisitions. Methinks what he meant to say is that his LP would be safe for the Inquisitors.”

    How many Libertarian Party platform violations can a Libertarian Party candidate advocate before you think that it is a problem? How much disloyalty to the Libertarian Party and movement can a Libertarian Party candidate display before you think that it is a problem?

  204. Anthony Dlugos

    Matt,

    I don’t think Romney is libertarian-leaning at all. I think there is little chance he would show up at 2020 seeking the LP nomination. Obviously, we’d have a better chance of seeing someone like an Amash. Johnson and Weld being other examples of experienced politicians who had long-standing disagreements with policy positions of their party.

    That being said, remember who we’re dealing with: professional politicians. By their very nature they are unprincipled whores for votes. If we do manage to move our populace in a libertarian direction, their gonna be among the first ones to sense it, they’ll be in prime position to capitalize, and they’ll be the first ones the voters trust to make the changes the people are demanding.

    So, I think a lot of hard-core Libertarians, especially Purists/Radicals, would be quite surprised at the politicians who ended up joining our fight. Romney? Bush? Hillary? Maybe all three of them! And the about-face that they’d be doing on their “principles” would be jaw-dropping. Well, jaw-dropping to anyone who thinks professional politicians had principles to begin with. Which they don’t. What they have is an ability to get sh*t done. Bolster social security or partially privatize it, it makes no difference to them. It’s just chopping broccoli to stay elected. (of course, I’m speaking mostly at the margins here).

    So, do I agree that it’s possible some politicians will see the LP as a vehicle for short term gain. I’m kinda counting on it. I guess we’d have to take particular politicians and their pitch to our party as to how genuine they are, but it’s pointless to base that decision on what their positions are NOW. Let’s way and see what their pitches are after it becomes clear the country wants to move in a libertarian direction.

  205. robert capozzi

    tk: but “reaching across the aisle” has NEVER been a strong presidential talking point.

    me: Most prez-campaign talking points of any relevance are only two-sided. Most Rs and Ds need to secure their base, and then broaden it.

    J/W have no real base, because there is no L self-aware constituency. GJ is trying to create one out of Ls, indies, and revulsed Rs, mostly. It appears he has fallen short. However, they have created a kind of civil noise machine. Could it have been even better and more compelling? Sure.

    When I tell random folk I’m voting GJ, they usually say he’s not bad, but he can’t win. He’s known, and people generally get the L (in the lessarchist vs. NAPster sense) message. They’ve done their job reasonably well, as I see it.

    Aleppo was kind of unfortunate, but even that tended to raise his profile, and Ls along with him.

  206. Anthony Dlugos

    I guess I take that on a case by case basis, Andy. But I do realize it’s pretty common for candidates to disagree with, or not follow to a “T,” the platform of their party. I look at it as more of an aspirational mission statement. The hard thing to do is not the ability to rattle off platform planks like bible verses,, but figuring out how to tell 20,000 employees of the department of education that they no longer have a job.

  207. Mark Stewart

    First time here and you all (or all but one) seem thoughtful. I’d like to read more insight on LP campaigners espousing purity vs. moderating for electability. Goal line is eliminate all laws regulating drug sales to adults; should a candidate say “I’ll keep restricting heroin sales” and thereby get us a “field goal”?

    Any anecdotes about successful LP campaigns based on use or non-use of the extreme liberty position would be very welcome.

  208. Matt

    Interesting questions, and I have no ready answers, but in the meantime I do have a less interesting question overall, but one which has piqued my curiosity:

    “(or all but one)”

    Who might that be?

    On a more substantive note how do you define success? Only getting elected? Getting elected and not betraying campaign promises? Coming close to being elected? Any other measures of what you consider success?

Leave a Reply

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