Johnson to Announce Switch to Libertarian Party on December 28th

Former two-term Governor and GOP Presidential candidate Gary Johnson is set to announce his plans to continue his run for President as a Libertarian on December 28th. Politico first reported the news, which coincides with information Independent Political Report had obtained but not published.

Calling news of the switch “the worst kept secret,” Libertarian Party Chairman Mark Hinkle said the Santa Fe event will include a press conference at which Johnson will switch his voter registration to Libertarian.

Johnson’s campaign has been talking to Libertarian officials for months, Hinkle said.

“It looks like it’s definitely going to come to fruition here,” he said.

Hinkle noted that Johnson remained a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party while serving as the Republican governor of New Mexico.

The article goes on to suggest party officials are still hoping for a candidacy from former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura and GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul. While Paul is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party, there have been no indications of Paul running for the Libertarian Party nomination in 2012.

 

70 thoughts on “Johnson to Announce Switch to Libertarian Party on December 28th

  1. Pingback: Gary Johnson Drops GOP Bid to run as Libertarian

  2. Rowan Wilson

    Damn, this may mean we SANE Nevadans actually may have to attend the national convention this year in Vegas despite the horrible timing around finals, crappy in-fighting from SoNev (that disaffiliation thing) and forget the regular school kids who still won’t be out of school May 3-6.

  3. Robert Capozzi

    While it’s speculative and early, that PPP includes GJ in that poll question and GJ does THAT well is very encouraging…

    Notice, though, Q13:

    If the candidates for President next year were
    Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt
    Romney, and independent Ron Paul, who
    would you vote for?
    Barack Obama 42%
    …………………………………………
    Mitt Romney 37%
    …………………………………………….
    Ron Paul
    17%

    This is a datapoint for why I think Paul/Johnson might be even stronger…

  4. Brian

    Maybe if the GOP would have let him participate in the debate his campaign would have naturally fizzled out after NH and he wouldn’t be posting the spoiler threat.

  5. ATBAFT

    #10 Brian, you are correct. And if they keep trashing Ron Paul, they’ll put the nail in their own coffin. Even if RP doesn’t go independent,
    a good percentage of his supporters will abandon the GOP. Time to accomodate the libertarians or sayonara GOP as a majority party.

  6. ctomp

    I thought the numbers for others potential independents like Sanders, Anderson and Bloomberg were also worth seeing.

  7. George Phillies

    @11 Alternatively, the Paul supporters will start doing what they needed to start doing earlier (they did get started in this state) and primarying out their opponents, either by beating them in primaries or by using scorched earth tactics adequate to ensure the target loses in the general election, perhaps because there is also a “conservative” or “Tea Party’ candidate in the race.

  8. Kleptocracy And You

    Ah, the ol “spoiler” tag. Starting even before Christmas to drop it into the coverage. They are worried a little more than usual. Not so much about GJ (no money, no media) but about Dr. Paul (Money and media!).

    Will bet the farm against your half mil that if GJ gets the LP nom he gets NO where near 9%. Better than Barr? Maybe, GJ =.05. Do you think I’m delusional about Dr.Paul? Go to Facebook and type in Ron Paul in the search window and click. It is unbelievable! So RP might get 9% don’t think GJ has the juice.

    Steven Gordan has already lashed on like the good TICK he is to GJ. I guess Gordan’s funds from the failed .004 Barr campaign are used up so he’s BACK to take more Libertarian money for another lousy losing effort. Gordan is one of the few humans who MAKES money off his “L” activities. A former recent state chairman and of coarse the state party is in SHAMBLES near death after he finished. Gordan is a PROVEN LOSER the LP and GJ would do well to not get in the same county with this guy much less the same bedroom. Harsh words!? You got that right, I don’t care for force or FRAUDS especially in alternative politics where the fund$ are already tight….

    “Ye shall know them by their fruits…”-Jesus Christ

  9. Kleptocracy And You

    Must be a glitch in the system. I sent this paragraph.

    Will bet the farm against your half mil that if GJ gets the LP nom he gets NO where near 9%. Better than Barr? Maybe,

    GJ<.008, RP=.05.

    Do you think I’m delusional about Dr.Paul? Go to Facebook and type in Ron Paul in the search window and click. It is unbelievable! So RP might get 9% don’t think GJ has the juice

  10. George Phillies

    How will Johnson do if he is the nominee? Tell me who Americans Elect nominates and whether Paul makes a separate independent bid.

    Also, in 2008 the radicals made a big effort to keep people in the party. That reservoir of good will has been exhausted. If the LP runs another Republican, there will be negative outcomes.

  11. Kleptocracy And You

    As I attempted to type Johnson < (less than) .008 (that's less than 1%). The Paul people know an Indie run needs Bloomberg money not Ron Paul money(for ballot access). So it would take the LP or CP for Paul to go alternative (if they want any money left to run a campaign). Then of course there's the Rand Paul factor so Ron may not dare go alternative. (I want everyone to know I'm not a big fan of Paul, I just hate to see all that "l" support to stay in and around the Rs and not be utilised by the LP this year and beyond.)

    AmEl will be Bloomberg , etc.

    Yes the LP needs a balanced ticket taking into account all "wings" of the Party not just R Lite ! It takes TWO wings to fly! Building our local Party should be Goal One!

    If you don't mind Dr.Phillies would you answer your own questions? I would like to know your thoughts.

  12. George Phillies

    Q1 vast numbers of possibilities. AA 1% shot (that’s a large chance relative to others) is Someone well known as P and Bloomberg as VP.

    Well-known? Petraeus? Colin Powell? Huntsman?

    Q2 Will Paul be on the ballot in November? No. (Best guess, may be wrong).

  13. bruuno

    Keep in mind I said if Paul endorses him he would become a significant factor. Without it I think he could get 2-4% if all things fall into place. This would still be an improvement for the LP.

  14. ATBAFT

    OK, let’s stipulate that Gary Johnson is at the very edge of what positions are acceptable
    (to Libertarians) in an LP presidential candidate.
    And, some would say, if he gets the nomination then all remaining “radicals” will walk out.
    We also are told that GJ wouldn’t do much better than Barr, and would be lucky to break 1%.
    So, if the LP puts up the most moderate candidate that could get the nomination, and he ends up getting 1%, then can’t we draw the conclusion that less moderate candidates
    (Wrights, et al) would get even less of the vote?
    And, if the American voters are not even ready for a Libertarian candidate as “lite” as GJ, even with his proven executive experience as governor, then why are we continuing to waste
    any time trying to grow a political party?
    Won’t the voters have definitively said “no” to any Libertarian, no matter how moderate and
    qualified he is? I guess I’m saying that if the LP has tried principled no-bodies and tries libertarian-lite quality types and still can’t get 1% then the Party is over. There is no miracle candidate out there who is both radically principled, experienced, and a celebrity who can
    get more than a handful of votes.

  15. Brian

    I have to say, 2012 will be exciting. Could you imagine an Obama v. Mittens v. Hunstman/Bloomberg/other “moderate” v. Johnson v. Anderson? Those are some REAL choices.

  16. Kleptocracy And You

    I like to read the comments sections to get a feel for what people think. Here’s a couple on the above article on GJ.


    no sanctuary
    Party: NA
    Reply #20
    Dec. 21, 2011 – 1:09 AM EST

    If you’ve seen this guy in debates or interviews you know he’s even dumber than he looks.

    MM280
    Party: NA
    Reply #12
    Dec. 20, 2011 – 11:27 PM EST

    Do yourself and family a favor, stay in New Mexico, nobody else knows you or gives a damn!

    Lol-Put the Barr “team” in charge and WIN this one !!! You just know they are proven WINNERS !!!

    WithAllDueRespect when has an endorsement by anyone ever led to a “significant factor” ? With NO real money 2 to 4% is LA LA LAND thinking my friends!

  17. Kleptocracy And You

    @20 I too think GJ could actually make a better POTUS than we’ve had in decades on the fiscal side. A two-term former governor sounds good too, HOWEVER why should anyone think by switching parties he will suddenly CATCH fire and raise millions of $ and supporters? GJ is dead in the water and is only switching to hopefully be pulled out….. Now Dr. Paul has millions of $ and I think millions of supporters. A Paul/Johnson ticket (or a Paul/Ventura) could draw significant votes and new members to the LP.

    Best to keep your powder dry and let this thing play out a few more weeks. See what develops. A lot of gleeful people Dec.28 might not be that way Feb.28. Let’s see how GJ does in the LP before we anoint him.

  18. bruuno

    What strikes me about some of the folks on this board is that they seem to think that the LP will never achieve any gain in the presidential vote and will never achieve any real status. This really strikes me as a very depressing attitude and makes me wonder why you even get involved.

  19. Joe Schmo

    http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/12/21/public-policy-poll-results-for-seven-theoretical-3-way-presidential-races/

    The seven “other” candidates tested, and their percentages, were: Donald Trump 19%, Ron Paul 17%, Jon Huntsman 11%, Gary Johnson 9%, Mike Bloomberg 8%, Bernie Sanders 7%, and Rocky Anderson 4%.

    Maybe Trump will run as Americans Elect. He’s rich (not as rich as Bloomberg but still very rich) and polls better.

    It would be especially interesting if Trump runs as AE and Paul runs as Libertarian.

  20. Joe Schmo

    @20

    If history is any guide, whether the LP nominates Johnson or Wrights will maybe make a difference between 0.3% to 0.5% of the vote at most.

    The purpose of the presidential race is not to win, or even place or show, it’s to spread knowledge of the LP existence and stances, draw in new dues paying members and activists, and help get media which in turn helps down-ticket races and future races.

    The LP needs to nominate someone who understands it, regardless of whether that is Johnson or Wrights or someone else. And LP delegates should understand this when they decide on a candidate.

  21. ATBAFT

    So which candidate do you think will draw more media when he comes to town in support of a local candidate, Johnson or Wrights?

  22. Common Tater

    Johnson.

    But neither will draw very much.

    And it’s not necessarily clear that the minor difference in media coverage is worth the support for the national sales tax scam, Gitmo, “humanitarian” wars, etc.

    It may or may not be.

    Whether it is bears some careful examination, not a dismissive attitude (on either side).

  23. Andy

    Watch all of the same fools who naively believed that Bob Barr was a libertarian and that he was going to lead the Libertarian Party to the promised go gaga for Gary “Fair Tax” Johnson.

  24. Andy

    “And it’s not necessarily clear that the minor difference in media coverage is worth the support for the national sales tax scam, Gitmo, ‘humanitarian’ wars, etc.”

    I agree. Nobody gave a rat’s ass about Gary Johnson’s run for the GOP nomination. What makes anyone think that they’ll give a damn about him running as a Libertarian?

  25. bruuno

    So you folks would rather nominate someone who will get absolutely zero press (no offense to Mr. Wrights, he seems like a good and intelligent man) over someone who will at least get some and potentially significantly more? The press isn’t going to continue to ignore him if he continues to get the same polling numbers he got this week in NM and country as a whole. Mr. Wrights will never even be asked about in polls since he would be lucky to have more than a 2% name recognition. I am starting to see why the LP has had so much trouble growing.

  26. Marc Montoni

    Joe Schmo @ 20 said:

    If history is any guide, whether the LP nominates Johnson or Wrights will maybe make a difference between 0.3% to 0.5% of the vote at most… The purpose of the presidential race is not to win, or even place or show, it’s to spread knowledge of the LP existence and stances, draw in new dues paying members and activists, and help get media which in turn helps down-ticket races and future races… The LP needs to nominate someone who understands it, regardless of whether that is Johnson or Wrights or someone else. And LP delegates should understand this when they decide on a candidate.

    You got it, Schmo. 100% on target.

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    bruuno,

    It’s extremely unlikely that Wrights would get “absolutely zero press” or anything close to no press as a Libertarian presidential nominee. If he did, he would be the first Libertarian presidential nominee, ever, to turn in such a performance.

    But if you want to make quantity of press the standard, let’s go reductio: Why doesn’t the Libertarian Party nominate Charles Manson? He’d almost certainly get more press than Johnson.

    The obvious answer is that the press Manson would get would not build the LP or help the LP achieve its policy goals. That’s LESS true of Johnson, but probably not completely UNtrue.

  28. Andy

    brunno said: “So you folks would rather nominate someone who will get absolutely zero press”

    The Gary Johnson campaign hasn’t exactly been setting the world on fire. Most of the public has no idea who Gary Johnson is.

    “(no offense to Mr. Wrights, he seems like a good and intelligent man)”

    Wrights is a jabronie, a bum, and an irrational backstabbing two-faced lying chickenshit weasel. He’s a moocher and a loser. Anyone who thinks that he should be taken seriously as a candidate for President (or anything else) is a damn fool.

    “over someone who will at least get some and potentially significantly more?”

    If the choice is Johnson or Wrights the LP is better off with None of the Above.

  29. Andy

    Wow, the Libertarian Party has really gotten pathetic when the choices for the Presidential nomination are Gary Johnson and Lee Wrights. How far the party has fallen when the choices are a Republican Lite vs. a Losertarian jabronie. Mr. Boring FairTaxer Johnson vs. Mr. Loser Moocher No Charisma Backstabber Liar Fool Wrights.

  30. Marc Montoni

    bruuno @ 32 said:

    So you folks would rather nominate someone who will get absolutely zero press (no offense to Mr. Wrights, he seems like a good and intelligent man) over someone who will at least get some and potentially significantly more? The press isn’t going to continue to ignore him if he continues to get the same polling numbers he got this week in NM and country as a whole. Mr. Wrights will never even be asked about in polls since he would be lucky to have more than a 2% name recognition. I am starting to see why the LP has had so much trouble growing.

    Actually you’re seeing very little.

    First, we win nothing of lasting value if the LP candidate doesn’t market bold, consistent libertarianism. Barr was proof. If you’re not pushing a clear, exciting new vision, you’re not going to get anyone up off the couch.

    Second, I agree with Schmo: if we nominate Wrights or Roger Gary, it is likely that their vote totals would be fairly close to whatever someone like Gary Johnson would get.

    They’re not going to win, and they’re not going to break 1%.

    This year’s spoiler will be Americans Elect, which has some really well-heeled (and secret) backers — all of them establishment insiders. No matter what we do, it will be John Anderson / Ross Perot all over again.

    To try to overcome that tide is sheer foolishness.

    Instead, the campaign should be used strictly as a way to find the libertarians who are already out there, recruit them into the LP, and get them organized and active for the NEXT campaign season.

    Historically most of our presidential candidates have been very good at getting large numbers of new people to contact us and join (Barr & Badnarik broke the mold, however). Our down-ticket candidates have almost universally sucked at it.

    So whoever our presidential candidate is, will need to understand that vote totals are almost irrelevant to our future success. Inspiring more people to join is the ONLY thing the LP gets from the presidential campaign every four years.

    If our presidential candidate gets 200,000 votes but 15,000 new people become members of the Party between 12/31/2011 – 12/31/2012, then I’d rate that as a big success. If we get 750,000 votes, but membership continues to dive between 12/31/2011 – 12/31/2012 (as it has been since 2000), well, a few more “successes” like that and we’re history.

  31. bruuno

    Mr. Knapp- come on. Could you come up with a more ridiculous example?
    Mr. Marconi- you make some very good points and think you are pretty much right on. If Gov. Johnson does not demonstrate an effort to grow the Party between now and May then I think it would be reasonable to voice objections to his nomination.
    As far as I can see though there are many here who need to think about the phrase “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth”. Gov. Johnson’s defection is a very good thing for the LP. Don’t let Barr’s experience ruin it. You have a real shot at making some serious progress this coming year with the rise of libertarianism as an ideology as well as the attention Ron Paul is bringing to it. Don’t blow it by nominating someone no one is ever going to take remotely seriously and won’t get any press beyond the obligatory interview CNN feels they are supposed to do for the LP candidate no matter who it is.

  32. Tom Blanton

    So, if the LP puts up the most moderate candidate that could get the nomination, and he ends up getting 1%, then can’t we draw the conclusion that less moderate candidates (Wrights, et al) would get even less of the vote?

    And, if the American voters are not even ready for a Libertarian candidate as “lite” as GJ, even with his proven executive experience as governor, then why are we continuing to waste
    any time trying to grow a political party?

    Maybe American non-voters are ready for a radical choice. It could be that some voters might be ready to vote FOR something than voting against the most evil candidate. There’s the possibility that all of the so-called political analysts in the media are full of shit and are totally clueless as to what Americans want.

    All of the libertarians that have claimed to know what the public wants over the last few decades have certainly been full of shit. Hell, it could be that they have been supported by interests that would like to see libertarianism fail.

    I don’t think the LP has even come to grips with the fact that most hardcore libertarians have nothing to do with the LP. That ought to wake up LP members, but they’ve been too busy trying to convince disgruntled Republicans that libertarians are the “true conservatives”.

    The LP should try going full tilt radical libertarian and forget all the right-wing talking points and quit running candidates that attempt to mimic major party candidates. At this point, the LP has little to lose.

    Forget the Wayne Root platform of cutting government 10% and the Ron Paul platform of cutting 25% – run a candidate whose platform is to set a goal of cutting the federal government by 90% as soon as humanly possible!

  33. Andy

    Tom Blanton said: “Maybe American non-voters are ready for a radical choice. It could be that some voters might be ready to vote FOR something than voting against the most evil candidate. There’s the possibility that all of the so-called political analysts in the media are full of shit and are totally clueless as to what Americans want.”

    BINGO!

  34. Thomas L. Knapp

    bruuno@38,

    “Could you come up with a more ridiculous example?”

    No, I couldn’t. The point of reductio is to take the most ridiculous example possible to illustrate a point.

    The point, in case you missed it, is that quantity of press is not the only reasonable criterion in choosing a candidate. Quality of press is also a perfectly valid consideration.

    There will be some Libertarians who consider Johnson’s likely quantity of press to be offset to an unacceptably high degree by likely quality issues such as his advocacy of the “Fair” Tax, his position on military tribunals, notional approval of “humanitarian wars,” his long identification with another party, etc.

    While your mileage may vary when it comes to weighing those factors, I suspect that you can recognize that said weighing is not facially unreasonable.

  35. Marc Montoni

    Sorry I meant to write Montoni not Marconi. My apologies.

    Accepted, with thanks. Most people who do that aren’t so polite.

    I’m used to it. A frequent commenter here — whose initials are GP — calls me that on occasion, too. I don’t think he does it intentionally, but he certainly should know better.

  36. Marc Montoni

    Tom Blanton @ 40 said:

    … run a candidate whose platform is to set a goal of cutting the federal government by 90% as soon as humanly possible!

    Gosh, Tom — I thought you were a radical. In 2010 the feds spent $3.721 trillion. 10% of $3.721 trillion is $372.1 billion.

    To find a federal spending of a similar amount, we’d only have to go back to about 1976. Are you saying government was small enough then? If that was the case why was the LP working to make it smaller even then?

    $300 billion would still pay for a lot of government employees and rent-seeking activity. You sure you want to leave that much in their pockets?

  37. Tom Blanton

    Baby steps, Marc, baby steps in the right direction. Cut another 90% the next year, another 90% the following year, and real progress could be made.

  38. Ross

    I hope the comments of IPR aren’t representative of the LP as a whole. Hopefully with a candidate that has governing experience like Johnson, someone who is a very likeable candidate and doesn’t seem so far from the LP’s views as Bob Barr, someone who has polled 9% nationally and as high as 30% in his home state, someone who has appeal across the political spectrum/square/sphere/whatever…hopefully Johnson won’t be dismissed offhand because of cynicism.

    It looks like you guys have an opportunity here. Given Johnson’s clear desire to be in the spotlight and contend for the presidency and given the party’s righteous skepticism of people recently departing the major parties (a la Barr and Gravel who then went on to NOT build the party after their respective runs), it seems you as a group might have some leverage over Johnson. It seems like, from my point of view outside the party, and if this is done well, you could end up with Johnson molding his own campaign platform to be more representative of the party, even if that only lasts for the duration of the campaign season. You could also make clear that you want his campaign (and beyond) to build the party, not just his own brand. Then you would have a candidate who has much broader appeal, IMHO, than just Republican-lite (not to mention, the chance of maybe some electoral votes in New Mexico or at the least some higher than normal percentages of the vote in certain areas), while getting some key compromises on his part so that he doesn’t disappoint the Libertarian Party as a long-term organization.

  39. Trent Hill

    Ross is dead on.

    Ross–I wouldn’t worry about it too much. The comments here aren’t necessarily representative of the delegates at the LP Convention. Going by comments here at IPR, you’d have thought that Barr was going to get his ass kicked in the voting and Root was going to get his ass kicked literally. Neither happened.

  40. Kleptocracy And You

    I have a sneakin suspicion that Mr. Wrights and Mr. Andy have had a falling out along their journeys !?

    Glad you guys got the 90% in while Capozzi is away. Maybe he will miss it so we won’t have to hear (read) a lecture…….

    I ran on a similar plank many moons ago, I think it was 75%, then 75%, etc. we’d got it down to private local police and a Swiss style national defense pretty quick…..LOL (btw-I still hold the LP state record for a 3-way race for that office using that strategy! Not a good % but heck that was Dixie twenty years ago.) Shake the bastards up, the other way hasn’t worked!

  41. Pingback: Johnson to Announce Switch to Libertarian Party on December 28th | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  42. Robert Capozzi

    43 tk: Quality of press is also a perfectly valid consideration.

    me: Sho nuff. And “quality” is subjective, based on perceptions. It is also a function of the PERCEIVER.

    So, for ex., a statelessist L who is steeped in theory will listen VERY closely to the policy specifics. Most people, OTOH, are probably (recall I don’t read minds!) looking at a variety of cues: How does he look? Does he look presidential? Does he sound commanding yet compassionate? What’s he done with his life? Is he qualified? What does he believe? Do I understand what he believes? Do I agree with what he believes? Do I trust him?

    On these counts, GJ gets close to an ideal LP prez candidate. A lot of people are going to resonate with the socially liberal/economically conservative. A lot of people are going to resonate with a “The Rs and Ds are just too corrupt, time for a real choice.” He ticks off the qualified list as former guv. His humble beginning is a HUGE positive…self-made man, climbed Mt Everest.

    As I’ve indicated previously, he needs a crash course on telegenics. His eyes are way too shifty, shiftier than Bob Dole’s! This is huge on the trust factor, but can be taught. Watch Sarah Palin sometime. Watch her eyes.

    I’d also say that to the extent he violates plumbline positions, rhetoric can be developed to minimize the (apparently) fragile sensibilities of our “radical” brethren. He can walk back some on the FAIR Tax, while emphasizing the positives of the idea: Tax system broken, onerous, etc. We need a new way to fund a much smaller government.

    As for humanitarian wars, I’d say we would not be having this conversation if the only war the US engaged in since WWII was Grenada. A prez campaign is not the place to work out the theory; rather, it’s a place to express a desired direction, in this case, for the US to end the practice of policeperson of the world.

  43. Here's a radical idea

    @ 40
    Let’s cut that government by 90%.
    Just have a plan on what to do with your retired parents or grandparents, all the people on disability (true or bogus), and the criminals that will run the streets. Also address where the everyday common citizen, with spouse, kids, a job, and a home mortgate will go hide from the riots and carnage. Nothing like a good dose of anarchy. How will 300+ million people handle the complete breakdown of the Federal Government.

  44. Sane LP member

    I think somebody is reading too many philosophical books in the library. That’s a place where you can have a libertarian utopia. Maybe a society or remote group of less than 50 people.

  45. Eric Sundwall

    @54

    “How will 300+ million people handle the complete breakdown of the Federal Government.”

    We may soon find out and it has nothing to do with anarchy. Rather, it will be the complete dysfunction of statism at the Federal level that applies in that scenario.

    Adherence to standard public goods theory could easily envision a system that provides for the outlined public goods without the Federal governments involvement, including police and courts. Your anti-anarchist brush is splattering unnecessarily.

  46. Marc Montoni

    An anonymous drive-by commenter with a screen name of “Here’s a radical idea” @ 54 said:

    Let’s cut that government by 90%… Just have a plan on what to do with your retired parents or grandparents, all the people on disability (true or bogus), and the criminals that will run the streets. Also address where the everyday common citizen, with spouse, kids, a job, and a home mortgate will go hide from the riots and carnage. Nothing like a good dose of anarchy. How will 300+ million people handle the complete breakdown of the Federal Government.

    Maybe you should visit Greece, where the “government” is still in charge, cops are still in the streets, courts are still running — and all of the things you mention are coming to pass. The people of Greece are “wondering what to do with their retired parents or grandparents, all the people on disability (true or bogus), the criminals running the streets, and where the everyday common citizen, with spouse, kids, a job, and a home mortgate will go hide from the riots and carnage.”

    Wisconsin almost became a carbon copy.

    And these breakdowns are not really over reducing government spending, but rather simply not being able to continue unsustainable increases.

    If you want chaos in the streets, leave it to government to arrange it.

    If you want a chance to avert a crisis, then whole sections of government need to be lopped off cold-turkey, and quickly. The more entrenched and numerous the rent-seekers are, the worse the unrest will be when (not “if”) things do collapse.

  47. MarcMontoni

    Another anonymous drive-by commenter with a screen name of “Sane LP member” @ 55 said:

    I think somebody is reading too many philosophical books in the library. That’s a place where you can have a libertarian utopia. Maybe a society or remote group of less than 50 people.

    Well, gee. You and your brother obviously think $370 billion is too little; so at what point is the federal budget small enough for you?

    What are you after, a reduction from 3.7 trillion, to, what? 3.65 trillion? 3 trillion? 2 trillion? No reduction, just a spending freeze at current levels?

    Once you implement your half-billion in cuts, how many centuries are allowed in your fiscal plan to return the USG to at least its constitutional limits?

    The fact is that government, if not cut back in a truly radical manner, will eventually collapse under its own weight. When that happens, then you will have the chaos you envision.

    But by all means, keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

  48. 99%er

    Watch Sarah Palin sometime. Watch her eyes.

    I am getting sleepy. Very, very sleepy. Kinda horny but mostly sleepy. I am walking. Sleepy, very sleepy. I pick up a knife. Red rum 781….

  49. 99%er

    i think wrights is very presidential in not responding to such mean words andy:)

    Maybe he has better things to do?

  50. Common Tater

    If the choice is Johnson or Wrights the LP is better off with None of the Above.

    There’s also RJ Harris.

    Or, maybe you’d like to run yourself?

  51. Tom Blanton

    Let’s cut that government by 90%.
    Just have a plan on what to do with your retired parents or grandparents, all the people on disability (true or bogus), and the criminals that will run the streets. Also address where the everyday common citizen, with spouse, kids, a job, and a home mortgate will go hide from the riots and carnage. Nothing like a good dose of anarchy. How will 300+ million people handle the complete breakdown of the Federal Government.

    Just have a plan? Why not have lots of plans. Plans which suit the actual needs of different individuals. The idea of a powerful centralized one-size-fits-all government hasn’t been working too well. Why would anyone insist upon keeping an organization that is a proven failure and bankrupt too?

    As for the carnage in the streets, where I live there are no federal troops in the streets now maintaining order. It just doesn’t follow that even eliminating the federal government would result in chaos in the streets.

    As for the libertarian utopia that is always invoked by statists when confronted by anarchy or even minarchy, it is a straw man. Nobody is promising anything like a utopia other than the statist politicians with their empty promises.

    My position is that we’d be better off with no federal government than we are with the government we’ve had for over 100 years. The political process can’t fix it because the political process is the main problem. Considering that we are on the verge of dystopia, eliminating the source of so many problems could only make things better.

  52. Robert Capozzi

    62 tb: …verge of dystopia…

    Me: Yes, if that’s one’s assumption, impending chaos > paranoia > grandiose Chicken Little-esque pronouncements. If the dystopia doesn’t materialize “soon,” risk being positioned as an alarmist and damage one’s credibility, possibly irreplably.

    If it IS all going down – no doubt – then thanks for the heads up, but it doesn’t appear you’ve converted enough to avert the Doom.

  53. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi, I’m sure the world looks rosy from the tony burbs of the imperial city, but for people paying attention to what’s going on in the rest of the nation, things aren’t so dandy. The dystopia has already materialized for many.

    You really should read more. “They Thought They Were Free,” by Milton Mayer might be a good start for you.

  54. Tom Blanton

    I just thought of a great practical joke to play on Gary Johnson. Once he defects to the LP and starts his campaign for the nomination, hold some debates and invite all the candidates – except Johnson!

  55. Robert Capozzi

    66 tb, perhaps we have a different take on what is a dystopia. I’m thinking Mad Max, Lord of the Flies, etc. At least huge bread lines. Massive crime rates. Rampant homelessness.

    We may well have a different sense of proportion…

  56. Tom Blanton

    66 tb, perhaps we have a different take on what is a dystopia.

    Of course we do.

    Perhaps we have a different take on what is reality and what is fiction.

    This is why I should never be allowed to use the force of a government against you to impose my will on you. That wouldn’t be just.

Leave a Reply

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