Gary Johnson resigned today as CEO of Cannabis Sativa, Inc. “to pursue political opportunities” (hat tip — Bruce Majors). Which, of course, means he’s planning to go after the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination again.
As J. Wilson points out at ALibertarianFuture.com (in a mis-titled post implying that it’s “official” — it won’t be until and unless Johnson actually declares), Johnson has some real problems.
He drove his 2012 Republican presidential campaign six figures into debt, then hit up the Libertarian Party to get him a government “matching funds” welfare check. Then he drove his general election campaign seven figures into debt, where it remains as of now. Also, in a year-and-a-half as CEO of Cannabis Sativa, Inc., he managed to tank its stock price — down by about 93% from $10.75 a share to less than 70 cents a share.
Of course, his most likely “main” opponent, John McAfee, also managed to lose considerable money, going from a net worth of about $100 million (after selling his eponymous anti-virus software company) to $4 million or so in the 2008 financial collapse. On the other hand, McAfee’s latest project has already raised five times its goal on IndieGoGo, so he seems to be on the way back up, unlike Johnson.
I’m still with None Of The Above, with Darryl W. Perry as my second choice, but I think McAfee has great potential if he gets back to his earlier, more libertarian roots and away from some of the deviations in his campaign site boilerplate.
Johnson, not so much. He’s yesterday’s bad news. The LP should have nominated R. Lee Wrights last time and would be stump-stupid to make the same exact mistake twice in a row.
Despite the famous gaffes, Johnson got several times what the LP got in any of the 11 previous tries thanks to the added media attention. Had he gotten in the CoPD debates, even assuming he was trounced and made an even more widely known laughingstock in those debates, I suspect he would have ended up with several times as many votes as he actually ended up with.
We nominated Johnson.
On the bright side, he gave a conclusive demonstration as to why getting candidates into debates and long interviews is not always a winning idea. Sometimes is. Sometimes is not.
My guess is that use of the nickname “Anthony” was specifically meant to refer to Anthony Weiner, and that the story is made up. Probably by a person whom I know to have a penchant for making up stories about, among others, R. Lee Wrights.
“I also don’t see what such an odd comment had to do with this thread.”
My guess would be that Anthony (presumably not Anthony Wiener) meant that as reaction to Mr. Knapp’s comment that the LP should have nominated Mr. Wrights in 2012.
If true, sounds like RLW out-Weinered Weiner, so to speak!
I like Lee just fine, but I don’t personally wish to see any of the evidence.
I also don’t see what such an odd comment had to do with this thread.
On behalf of tree stumps everywhere, I protest Mr. Knapp’s insult to their intelligence.
This is a bit of a conundrum. I actually would prefer not to see the evidence for this even if you have any. Yet without evidence the statement is of very little if any value.
I saw nude pictures of Wrights that he e-sent to some woman without being prompted to send them. He’s insane.
For comparison:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/01/c-michael-pickens-assesses-the-race-for-the-libertarian-presidential-nomination-thus-far/