Gary Johnson Campaign Announces that Plans are Underway for LP Debate on STOSSEL

Gary-Johnsonx-large-1From Governor Gary Johnson’s Tumblr account, original here.

February 16, 2016, Salt Lake City, UT – In a statement released today, the Gary Johnson 2016 campaign confirmed that plans are underway to schedule a nationally-televised Libertarian Party presidential debate on the popular “Stossel” show on the Fox Business Network. While details are pending, Gov. Johnson’s campaign indicated that dates in March are being discussed.

A statement from the campaign stated, “The Gary Johnson 2016 campaign has confirmed with Fox Business’s Stossel that Gov. Johnson will be delighted to participate in a televised debate among Libertarian Party presidential candidates, hopefully in March. We will of course leave the formal announcement of the debate details and date to the Stossel show, but want to express our gratitude to Mr. Stossel for working to find a date for this important event that will not disrupt any planned Libertarian Party activities and that is actually doable for all the candidates who are involved.”

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party and tagged , on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee and is a candidate for LNC Secretary at the 2018 Libertarian Party Convention. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

76 thoughts on “Gary Johnson Campaign Announces that Plans are Underway for LP Debate on STOSSEL

  1. Chuck Moulton

    Great news if it comes to fruition!

    Too bad Johnson pissed away the opportunity to hold said debate in front of a studio audience of 1,000 – 2,000 young libertarians.

  2. Steven Wilson

    If the debate is not held with ALL declared candidates for the LP nomination, then the LP is as pathetic as the other major parties.

    The rules that give birth to a velvet rope are the words that destroy freedom of speech. If any LPer condones any form of filter, then they are a hypocrite if they denounce the D n R for the same practices.

  3. Jeremy

    I agree with Chuck on the potential lineup of candidates — those are the candidates with a realistic shot of winning, in my view.

  4. Joe Wendt

    McAfee, Feldman, Petersen, Johnson, and Perry should all be in the debate.

    I do find it odd that, after the Johnson-a-tons constantly bashed Petersen and McAfee for trying to get a debate going with Stossel, that they now want to promote a debate. Just like Hillary supporters, they change the narrative to suit them. #AnybodyButGary2016

  5. ATBAFT

    “If the debate is not held with ALL declared candidates for the LP nomination, then the LP is as pathetic as the other major parties.”

    I hear you, but surely some filter is appropriate; otherwise no debates will be held if, say, 100 candidates are going to declare. There’s enough LPers with big egos who would throw their hats in the ring just for an opportunity to bloviate on Stossel’s show. As for presidential debates, perhaps include all candidates on the ballot in states with enough electoral votes to matter. So, in regards to an LP debate, let the private owner of the debates (e.g. Fox) allow its representative (e.g. Stossel) to pick whom he thinks is
    worth having in the debate.

  6. Chuck Moulton

    Joe Wendt wrote:

    McAfee, Feldman, Petersen, Johnson, and Perry should all be in the debate.

    Feldman and Perry aren’t running real campaigns, due in part to their ridiculous contributions policies.

    Stossel can choose whatever criteria he wants to screen candidates. I happen to think Kerbel is a legitimate candidate, but others may draw their lines differently.

  7. Chuck Moulton

    Steven Wilson wrote:

    If the debate is not held with ALL declared candidates for the LP nomination, then the LP is as pathetic as the other major parties.

    I don’t want union Civil War uniform guy anywhere near a TV camera.

    Also, Perry already demonstrated in 2010 that he has no loyalty to the LP and will misuse microphone opportunities to bash the LP and promote his alternatives — perhaps the New Hampshire Liberty Party in this case.

  8. Thomas L. Knapp

    “after the Johnson-a-tons constantly bashed Petersen and McAfee for trying to get a debate going with Stossel”

    Well, yeah, except for the part where no such thing happened.

    Some Johnson supporters bashed Petersen for being a crybaby drama queen slimeball about the whole thing, and he deserved it.

    It was unfortunate that McAfee let Petersen drag him down into the sewer too.

    But that’s over. Feel free to stop taking a ball peen hammer to your own nads in public over it now.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp

    I confess to not understanding this “hypocrite” allegation concerning debates.

    Yes, Johnson is suing, on anti-trust grounds, to get access to the “big” debates for any candidate who is on enough ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning the election.

    I repeat: Anti-trust grounds. He is accusing the two “major parties” of colluding for the purpose of promoting their candidates and not others.

    If he was in invited to their debate and Jill Stein wasn’t, you bet your sweet ass he’d go. As he should.

    Who is colluding to keep e.g. Perry out of a Stossel debate? I’ve not heard that Johnson has imposed any such requirement.

  10. Stewart Flood

    I completely agree with Chuck. Perry is a loose cannon and will use the opportunity to do something rash, like promote another party.

    I’ve watched a few of his speeches, and I believe that Civil War guy would give long drawn out answers, explaining exactly how he is the smartest guy in the room and has all the answers. (He’s probably not, certainly doesn’t and would kill too much time)

    A three or four person debate would work. And while Johnson did lose the opportunity to have it in front of a “live audience”, we also risk the students, who are not necessarily familiar with all aspects of libertarian philosophy, booing. It is possible that some things that we consider to be basic beliefs may get cat calls from them.

    A debate on the air with no audience is “safer” for public viewing.

  11. Chuck Moulton

    Stewart Flood wrote:

    And while Johnson did lose the opportunity to have it in front of a “live audience”, we also risk the students, who are not necessarily familiar with all aspects of libertarian philosophy, booing. It is possible that some things that we consider to be basic beliefs may get cat calls from them.

    That’s not a real problem. The Students for Liberty students are pretty well versed in libertarian philosophy and issues. If you look at the previous Stossel episodes shot at the Students for Liberty conference, the students were all cheering at the libertarian points and booing conservative guests such as Ann Coulter and John Bolton.

  12. Thomas L. Knapp

    Stewart,

    The particular studio audience in question was a Students For Liberty conference. Chances are that if you picked any random kid from that conference, he or she would know more about any and all aspects of libertarian philosophy than Johnson, McAfee and Petersen combined.

  13. Darcy G Richardson

    This is a very positive development. Glad to hear it. I think it’ll be pretty cool to watch a nationally-televised debate featuring the country’s largest third-party while the candidates of the two major parties are still fighting it out. If and when it materializes, I hope the LP and the various presidential campaigns involved promote the hell out of it.

  14. Stewart Flood

    I said “possible”. I have never been to one of their events, so I don’t know how hard-core “l” the kids to go are.

    Ok, so we’d have a room full of cheering students. Not having that is certainly a loss, but not a deal killer. The debate is still a good idea.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    Frankly, I’ve never seen why a Libertarian Party presidential candidate needs to have dual doctorates in philosophy and economics to be satisfactory.

    The job of a presidential candidate isn’t to bring the American electorate to the One True Faith[TM].

    If that’s anyone’s job, it’s the party’s job.

    The presidential candidate’s job is to get the American electorate interested and attracted by presenting policy solutions that make sense and being able to explain WHY they make sense in 30 seconds or so and in a way that the average voter can understand.

    The non-average voter who wants to know more than that will come to the party looking for more information.

    The average voter who gets bombarded with Lockean provisos and Pareto optimalities and public goods versus club goods and Plato’s cave and so forth is not only not going to come to the party for more, he’s going to start channel-surfing to see if there are any WWE Monday Night RAW re-runs on.

  16. Chuck Moulton

    Darcy G Richardson wrote:

    This is a very positive development. Glad to hear it. I think it’ll be pretty cool to watch a nationally-televised debate featuring the country’s largest third-party while the candidates of the two major parties are still fighting it out. If and when it materializes, I hope the LP and the various presidential campaigns involved promote the hell out of it.

    Yes, I hope so too!

    Stewart Flood wrote:

    Ok, so we’d have a room full of cheering students. Not having that is certainly a loss, but not a deal killer. The debate is still a good idea.

    Yes, it’s still a wonderful step forward for the LP!

  17. Chuck Moulton

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    Frankly, I’ve never seen why a Libertarian Party presidential candidate needs to have dual doctorates in philosophy and economics to be satisfactory.

    The job of a presidential candidate isn’t to bring the American electorate to the One True Faith[TM].

    If that’s anyone’s job, it’s the party’s job.

    The presidential candidate’s job is to get the American electorate interested and attracted by presenting policy solutions that make sense and being able to explain WHY they make sense in 30 seconds or so and in a way that the average voter can understand.

    I completely agree. It helps if the presidential candidate understands economics and philosophy though in case a journalist asks a question about it that goes beyond 30 second soundbites.

  18. NewFederalist

    “It helps if the presidential candidate understands economics and philosophy though in case a journalist asks a question about it that goes beyond 30 second soundbites.” – Chuck Moulton

    Most talking heads are ignorant but beautiful but John Stossel is neither. He will probably be the most libertarian person involved with the debate. I wish HE were the candidate.

  19. Losty

    The Confederate Grey Civil War Guy?

    Think He’d be a great addition to the debate, May even take voters from Trump?
    Imagine, Someone wearing the Uniform and Trump doesn’t have the guts to do that…

    Then again, Some of Trump’s speeches sound better in the original German anyhow…

  20. Stewart Flood

    Actually we joke about it being a Civil War uniform. It is actually a 7th Calvary uniform from the latter half of the 19th century. He gives a good list of reasons why he shows himself in one, but at first glance it makes him look like a fringe candidate. You have to listen to his speeches to realize that he really is.

  21. Chuck Moulton

    NewFederalist wrote:

    Most talking heads are ignorant but beautiful but John Stossel is neither. He will probably be the most libertarian person involved with the debate. I wish HE were the candidate.

    Amen.

  22. Stewart Flood

    I had the opportunity to talk to him personally for several minutes at an event in Charleston a few years ago. He is certainly not ignorant. He is trying to help as much as he can, within the limits that his network imposes.

    After all Fox is not exactly libertarian. 🙂

  23. Joe Wendt

    To Caryn & Tom, I was referring to the people who praised Gary on facebook for keeping his “commitments” in not agreeing to the original Stossel debate, while inferring that Petersen and McAfee were skipping the events in Biloxi. Call me crazy, that sounds like a passive aggressive way to bash other candidates to me.

    On another note, since Gary clearly wants a nationally televised debate in March, wouldn’t that also possibly interfere with the one numerous state conventions in March that Gary has already committed to attending? Why is it alright to possibly cancel a State Convention commitment in March, but not February?

  24. Stewart Flood

    All the conventions are on the weekend. I’m sure they can find a day of the week to do it that isn’t on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

  25. Andy

    Stossel is good for the most part, but he is not a perfect libertarian. One example is that he came out in favor of NSA spying.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    Any debate would be cool. But even cooler would be just devoting one or two shows to talking with the most likely nominees at length. McAfee one week, then maybe Johnson if there’s time and he hasn’t dropped out yet.

  27. George Phillies

    Meanwhile, the LNC at its next meeting will consider a motion of censure against the chair.

  28. Andy

    Pretty pathetic state of affairs for the LP if Johnson and McAfee are the leading contenders for the nomination.

  29. Shane

    George, that’s exactly why we need a clean sweep. The LNC keeps itself busy with nonsense because they don’t know how to do anything else.

    To the guy who suggested we include ALL candidates: why not! If that happens, I’ll declare just to get some airtime. I’d need to discuss the threat of the Peruvian Dwarf Hamster on Stossel. These evil little fuckers look cute and cuddly, then, wham! They nibble through the soft skulls of Peruvian children . . . and they are migrating North! A wall won’t stop them (they have superior climbing skills) so we must arm our children with BB Guns and post them at the border now! You think ISIS is a threat? Their beheadings are tame compared to the carnage of these furry demons!

    So yeah, please get all of the LP candidates on television. It’s only fair, right?

  30. George Phillies

    The motion is in the Agenda of the next meeting, now out, described as

    A Resolution of Appreciation for Senator Rand Paul (Feldman) 5 minutes

    That’s the motion to censure the Chair. A betting pool on how many hours this will consume would be amusing, but there could be an outburst of IQ points on the committee.

    It’s over the letter Nick Sarwark sent to Rand Paul.

  31. George Phillies

    There is also a rumor that the Judicial Committee may be coming to a conclusion on the latest Epstein appeal.

  32. Joe Wendt

    Feldman has the right to present a censure motion. Does Sarwark’s actions warrant a censure… maybe, maybe not. Maybe Feldman might run for Chair.

  33. Nicholas Sarwark

    The motion I was asked to place on the agenda is essentially adopting the language of my note. This is a change from the initial suggestion of a censure motion (which I would have also placed on the agenda). I don’t know whether the mover will or will not speak against his own motion.

    Nobody has requested any time on the agenda for any topics related to Oregon.

  34. Stewart Flood

    Censor the chair for that note? That’s about the stupidest thing I’ve seen this term.

    Feldman has a huge conflict of interest. He is a candidate seeking our nomination and he sits on the national committee. He should have stepped down when he announced. Now he is proposing this?

    Feldman should be removed from the LNC — immediately!

  35. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    It is ridiculous and a naked power grab for the Chair IMHO. I said this a while ago.

    This is patently transparent.

  36. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Yes Jill.

    And I would say his own identity politics would hoist him on his own petard.

    If he thinks the Chair should change, by his own agenda, it should be a woman or a minority.

    (I don’t buy that BTW)

  37. George Phillies

    The LNC member with whom I spoke thought this was a censure motion, which Nick Sarwark also mentioned in those terms in another thread. Perhaps the LNC member was out of date.

  38. George Phillies

    With respect to Oregano, a fine Italian herb used in cooking, and the related state: I am advised that there has been no action within the Judicial Committee. I have a contrary rumor that a decision is approaching and may reach the LNC at this meeting.

  39. George Phillies

    If Feldman had been a Presidential candidate when he ran for LNC, I would have no complaint. That did not occur. However, the point of identifying conflicts of interest is to know what they are. They are allowable, but must be managed. I see no management here. On the other hand,it could be said that Feldman’s campaign finance approach makes his campaign an extended joke, not a real campaign. YMMV

  40. George Phillies

    Here is the Sarwark Statement, from the thread on his letter
    Nicholas Sarwark
    February 13, 2016 at 18:48

    I imagine I’ll get redesigned cards sometime, but I’d rather use up the ones I already have. I saw a picture of the redesigned membership cards today and they look very nice.

    In other news, there will apparently be a motion to censure me for writing that note submitted by the regional representative from Ohio.

  41. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    MF alluded to this on his FB page. If he is not pursuing it, that is another angle.

  42. Marc Allan Feldman

    I think that personal disagreements among the Libertarian Party leadership should not be spread widely in public, but discussed privately, where only a very few interested people are likely to read it. So IPR is a perfect place.
    I would like to introduce George Phillies to a journalistic technique known as “contacting the source.”
    You can contact me on Facebook the same way you did when you asked me to participate in the LPMA debate.
    Rand Paul has suspended his campaign, but he remains a candidate for the Republican nomination for President. He did not withdraw his filing with the FEC, he will appear on the ballot in Ohio and other states, and he is still accepting campaign contributions. If there were a shift in opinion of the Republican voters, Rand would resume his campaign with vigor.
    Nick has always done a very good job staying neutral with candidates for the Libertarian nomination. I was surprised and disappointed to read what looks like an official Libertarian Party endorsement of Rand Paul as the best candidate for the Republican nomination.
    I would have no problem if the note were a personal communication instead of an official one.
    I would have no problem if the primary were over.
    I would have no problem if Rand Paul was officially no longer a candidate.
    I would have no problem if the LNC expressed a consensus in support of the note.
    I considered a motion for censure – if I thought there would be a consensus in the LNC for it. Otherwise I would not waste time on it.
    My impression is that those on the LNC who disagree with the note, nevertheless do not believe it reaches a level to censure.
    I decided to do what I think Nick should have done in the first place, raise the issue with the LNC to determine the level of support or opposition. I will offer the following motion:

    “The Libertarian National Committee expresses its thanks to Senator
    Rand Paul for all his efforts to inject libertarian ideas into the
    Republican Presidential race. We still believe Senator Paul was the
    best candidate the Republican Party had to offer in the 2016
    election.”

    I plan to vote “No”
    My reading of Robert’s is that I can make the motion and vote against it, but it would be out of order for me to speak against it, which is fine with me. I don’t want to hash this out at the meeting. I just want to find out where people stand officially, so I know what to say when people ask me if this is really the position of the LIbertarian Party. Being the spokesman means that Nick can speak for the party, but he should not think for the party.

  43. langa

    Frankly, I’ve never seen why a Libertarian Party presidential candidate needs to have dual doctorates in philosophy and economics to be satisfactory.

    I agree that candidates should try to keep things simple. However, I do think it’s a plus if they are well-versed enough to handle tough questions without making a fool of themselves (like Johnson did in 2012 on Robert Wenzel’s podcast, when he repeatedly struggled to answer questions that were only slightly more challenging than the proverbial softball).

    If a candidate does enough interviews and/or debates, they will inevitably be confronted with a few situations that they weren’t expecting to encounter. In situations like that, you can really see the difference between guys like Harry Browne or Ron Paul, who know libertarianism inside and out, and are therefore never at a loss for words, versus dilettantes like Johnson, who get the “oh shit” look on their face, and proceed to try and BS their way through it, like a kid in the principal’s office.

  44. Shane

    Feldman, you’re a fucking moron.

    Who gave this guy a seat on the LNC? They need to start working to remove him asap.

  45. Marc Allan Feldman

    Shane wrote:
    “Feldman, you’re a fucking moron.”

    Does this mean “Feldman, I disagree with you strongly but I have no logical arguments or evidence and I am afraid that you might be right. So I will use foul language and insult your intelligence, your integrity, and your credibility and I hope nobody notices.”

  46. Stewart Flood

    You have a serious conflict of interest. As pointed out by myself and others (recently clarified above by Dr Phillies), it would be a different and possibly debatable issue if you had already filed as a candidate before being elected to the LNC. But a current LNC member filing for the ONE OFFICE that the LNC is responsible for helping select is a clear and undeniable conflict.

    Wasting the LNC’s time and money on a self-serving motion is irresponsible. It also highlights your conflict of interest, since it is obviously an attempt to promote yourself and your campaign.

    You should resign immediately. It is the only ethical option.

    You should take a moment and write a note to your region offering your resignation, effective immediately, in the interest of helping to restore ethics and civility to the LNC. Do it now, then halt your idiotic campaign for president.

    Was that clear enough?

  47. Marc Allan Feldman

    Stewart Flood: You are very clear. Clearly wrong. An LNC member running for national office is no conflict of interest. In fact it is specifically allowed in our Bylaws.

    LP Bylaws article 8:4
    A National Committee member shall be a sustaining member of the Party, and shall not be the
    candidate of any party except the Party or an affiliate.

  48. Pingback: A Word of Advice: Libertarian Debate Edition - The Libertarian Wing Media

  49. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I agree that candidates should try to keep things simple. However, I do think it’s a plus if they are well-versed enough to handle tough questions without making a fool of themselves”

    Experience says the LP disagrees with you.

    In 2008, the candidate who had, a long time previously, given a tough question (child pornography) serious consideration and thoughtful treatment got slammed for it, while the candidate who, in between bouts of eating whipped cream off strippers’ tits in public, had authored a column for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in which he asserted offhandedly that the state of Georgia was obligated to provide child pornography to its citizens on demand, was nominated.

  50. Stewart Flood

    Nope. Not wrong. There are LNC members who are candidates and the local and state level all the time. Redpath, for example, has run for the Senate while seated on the LNC.

    But that is a far different situation from an LNC member seeking the party’s presidential nomination.

    I’m not wrong, and you should resign from the LNC. The Chair sending a note to Dr Paul is completely different from the LNC actually passing a resolution. That would be a serious mistake, which you know quite well and are attempting to use to your advantage leading up to Orlando.

  51. Stewart Flood

    Yeah…Petersen’s latest email says “Petersen, McAfee and other…” several times. He won’t even repeat Johnson’s name! And it is clearly Johnson who is setting it up, since we all know that the debate would not happen without him. Stossel has made it very clear through his comments when interviewing the candidates that he believes Johnson is the lead contender. He would not hold a debate without him.

    Unfortunately, Petersen’s campaign appears to have fallen down the same sewer hole that Feldman and others have stepped in.

  52. langa

    Experience says the LP disagrees with you.

    Unfortunately, that’s true. I thought the way Ruwart was treated was deplorable, and I don’t blame her for refusing to run again (although I wish she would, as she’s way ahead of any of this year’s top contenders).

    By the way, I don’t really remember anything about Barr advocating that the government provide child pornography. I do, however, remember him making the asinine argument that a teenage boy should be given a long jail sentence for the “crime” of getting a blowjob from his girlfriend.

  53. Thomas L. Knapp

    langa,

    Same case. The evidence of “statutory rape” in that case consisted of cell phone video and/or photos. As admitted evidence in a trial, it was a public record and Barr claimed the state was therefore legally obligated to provide copies of it on demand (he was writing in support of reporters who had, as per the usual, requested access to the the public records in the case).

    Do I disagree with Barr? Not really. It’s hard to refute his legal opinion on the matter, and in fact I think there’s good reason to believe he was goading the legislature to repair a flaw in the public records law by demanding that that flaw be honored while it existed.

    But the fact remains that the statement as written was objectively far more “pro-child-porn” than Ruwart’s philosophical examination, and that it was made far closer in time to the nomination (within months), and that it was made in a far more public forum, and that it was made at a time when he was either a formally announced candidate for president or about to announce.

    But when Ruwart’s philosophical arguments from the distant past were discovered, some Libertarians did rend their garments and wail woe, woe and gnash their teeth and predict that Vox Populi would strike the party with lightning if we nominated her; while when I mentioned Barr’s political arguments from the immediate present, it was almost unanimously crickets, interspersed with a couple of curt dismissals of the idea that it was important — from the same garment renderers/wailers/gnashers/prophets of Ruwartian doom.

  54. Robert Capozzi

    tk, consider the possibility that Barr’s was a legalistic, technical analysis and Ruwart’s was a more fundamental, “principled” stance.

    There’s a big difference.

    A technical analysis is isolated to the facts in the case, and the interpretation of existing law. Ruwart’s philosophical stance could lead to all sorts of extremely credibility-damaging pronouncements.

  55. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    A month ago, Gary Johnson said that he would sign legislation to ban burqas.

    Suppose hypothetically that ten years ago, John McAfee had mused that Islamism could conceivably be a threat to American freedom.

    Which of those two statements would you consider more “extremely credibility-damaging?”

  56. Robert capozzi

    TK, all else equal, GJ’s. He retracted it. I found his first statement unsupportable, and give me pause about whether I will vote for him or not, if nominated.

    If asked, I would like to hear what JMc would say.

    MR stood by her old statement publicly, at least at first, it was emblematic of a dogmatic approach that I find somewhat charming but also unsupportable.

  57. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    You seem to not be getting my point.

    In order to find Ruwart’s writings on child porn, her opponents had to contact a niche book seller and rush order a copy of a general work on libertarian ideas, in order to discover that years before she had engaged with the issue of child porn and given it extended, thoughtful treatment. Agree or disagree with her conclusion, it was a huge stretch to make it a campaign issue. Yet they did.

    In order to find Barr’s writings on child porn, all his opponent — me — had to do was read his column, written during or immediately prior to his campaign and published in a venue that ranks in the top 25 newspapers in the US by circulation, in which he offhandedly suggests that the government is legally required to provide child porn on demand. It was not a stretch to make that an issue. Yet nobody seemed to be especially interested in doing so.

    Which goes to what I was saying in response to Langa: The LP’s national convention delegates not only seem to not give a shit whether or not a candidate is well-versed enough in libertarian theory to not make embarrassing public statements, they actually treat such embarrassing public statements as unimportant, while being fine with penalizing a candidate for having ever, even years ago, seriously engaged libertarian theory.

    There are other reasonable theories as to why the issue might have played out that way.

    One of them is that a double standard was in play with respect to candidates’ sex. Barr, being a man, could only be expected to call for government distribution of child porn on demand when he had time to do so between bouts of licking whipped cream off strippers’ tits in public, while Ruwart, being a woman, should have known better than to actually think or write about a taboo topic.

    I don’t find that particular theory persuasive, in part because I don’t think all men are or should be misogynist beasts nor do I think all women are or should be puritan saints.

  58. Robert Capozzi

    tk: One of them is that a double standard was in play with respect to candidates’ sex.

    me: Yeah, I’m not buying it, either. Were Barr a dudette and Ruwart a dude, I suspect the outcomes woulda been more or less been the same. Tones of attack might have been slightly different, at most.

  59. Chuck Moulton

    Marc Allan Feldman wrote:

    Stewart Flood: You are very clear. Clearly wrong. An LNC member running for national office is no conflict of interest. In fact it is specifically allowed in our Bylaws.

    Just because the bylaws don’t disqualify a person from serving does not mean he doesn’t have a serious of conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is essentially serving two masters: when the interests of another master may conflict with the interests of the organization.

    Running for President while serving on the LNC is a clear conflict of interest — even when the presidential campaign is a joke, as here. Can that potential conflict of interest be managed? Maybe.

    At a minimum Feldman should abstain from all ballot access votes, all votes about listing the presidential candidates on the website, all convention related votes, and all votes about other presidential candidates.

    Proposing a motion regarding another presidential candidate is a demonstration that the conflict of interest is not being managed. The LNC position is being exploited for the presidential campaign. Feldman ought to resign immediately after demonstrating he lacks the maturity and awareness necessary for managing a conflict of interest.

    Btw, I have the same opinion of those who have held high positions in the Gary Johnson campaign, such as Guy McLendon.

  60. Derrick Michael Reid

    Austin Petersen ?@AP4LP Feb 16

    Liberty is a brotherhood.
    Liberty is a sisterhood.
    Liberty is a family.

    Come home to the @LPNational. You are all welcome at our table.
    34 retweets 56 likes
    Derrick Michael Reid ?@DerrickMReid 2m2 minutes ago

    @AP4LP @alllibertynews @LPNational HUGE Ls, BIG Ls, MEDIUM Ls, SMALL Ls, TINY Ls, they are all welcome? Are you sure Austin?
    ==============
    Apparently, the titular head did not get the memo, and neither did many who regularly attend LP meetings. If the Big Ls could possibly not be so intolerant, insisting on ONLY BIG LS, to embrace huge, medium, small and tiny Ls, and Ls could join, and sweep the prez election, and actually deliver results. That’s the plan.

    Constitutional Libertarianism

    The US Constitution does not speak to Democrat party liberalism. The US Constitution does not speak to Republican party Conservatism. The US Constitution does speak to liberty and freedom of the Libertarian party of minimum government and maximum freedom.

    Through political appointment and competitive rancor between the DEMs and REPs, the US Supreme court has been politicized into the Supreme Political Machine, bastardizing the US Constitution, rather than upholding the Constitution according to their oaths, through Judicial Fiat flowing from the political persuasions and orientations of the justices, engaging in regular high crimes against the United States, destroying the Rule of Law, so that, totalitarian socialistic fascist political power and unsustainable socialist spending programs have migrated to the DC totalitarian socialistic fascist level, thereby enabling the two pandering political machines, on the same totalitarian team as the Proposer and the Enabler parties, to pander votes, cementing divisive pandering political power, creating public rancor and divisiveness, sowing the seeds of social strife, chaos and anger, bankrupting the country and creating a myriad of overwhelming systemic problems across the country. Only the Liberty and Freedom Libertarian Party can break the national devastating dead lock, and restore the Constitution, Republic, and Rule of Law.

    The Libertarian Party represents liberty and freedom of all the citizens, supporting and upholding the US Constitution of liberty and freedoms from government, and thus, the Libertarian Party is the only true American political party, seeking to serve all citizens with responsible government along the lines of the US Constitution, Republic and Rule of Law.

  61. Derrick Michael Reid

    Libertarian Party Nominee

    A tradition in American politics of political parties is that, the last presidential nominee, who lost the last election, does not run again, for many good reasons. Recent examples are GORE, MCCAIN, KERRY and ROMNEY. Recent past nominees enjoy party notoriety and member affections, but must not doom the party to stagnation and repeated failures. Political parties must evolve and necessarily over time present new approaches, emphasis and ideas, so that losing campaign approaches, failing electioneering rhetoric, and narrow ideas are set aside, opening up the party, for reinvigorating and revitalizing the political party with renewed opportunities for capturing the presidency, the ultimate goal of any political party. In so doing, the party can attract new members and move toward ultimate success.

    Of particular interest is the Libertarian Party, where membership has been stagnant and the ideology has been limited to attract the vast majority of the American electorate. Libertarians of the Libertarian party actually comprise a spectrum of liberty and freedom views, from extreme anarchists wanting to abolish all government, to passionate sovereigns wanting expansive natural rights, to liberty moderates wanting increased federal and states liberties and freedoms, and to federalists wanting increased liberties from government, including for examples Tea Partiers against federal oppressive taxes and Occupiers against bankster control over the federal government. When a political party focuses on only one segment of its natural base, it tends to alienate other segments of the base as well as alienating the general electorate as a whole. A successful libertarian party presidential candidate should appeal to all liberty minded segments of the Libertarian Party political base as well as to a super majority of the general electorate.

    People who are politically passionate tend to lock in their thinking processes, to only absorb information consistent with their specific view, to only associate with others having identical views, and to only champion presidential candidates with absolutely identical views, collectively having a narrow political profile thus failing to attract the general electorate. The politically passionate become rigid in thinking, espousing absolutism, inflexible in compromise, exhibiting a my-way-or-the-highway intercourse, become conspicuously intolerant, mean spirited, and disrespectful of others and other points of view, even within the libertarian party base having a plurality of liberty and freedom segments, all having a common view toward increasing liberties and freedoms, a common thread binding all libertarians together under the libertarian banner. The Libertarian Party Chair, in an October 17 2015 keynote address, at the Worcester Massachusetts Libertarian Party Presidential debate, though not explaining the reasons why, requested that libertarians be nice to others. Unfortunately, It had to be said. This may have been in response to stagnant membership of the Libertarian Party. It obviously could have been in response to some feedback of intolerant, mean, and disrespecting libertarians towards possible new members of the party. Many state libertarians chairs have expressed the concern over stagnant growth in membership of the party. The answer is clear, it is because of a narrow focused view of libertarianism, centered upon rigid-thinking passionate views of only one core segment of the much broader libertarian party base. A narrow focused and last nominee candidate, appealing only to a narrow but passionate segment of the party base, and not appealing to the vast majority of the electorate, is doomed to fail yet again, stagnant the membership of the party in perpetuity, and does the party a great disservice, despite having significant residual good will, admiration, and affections from the entire political base. Such a last nominee, for the good of the party, for increasing party membership, and for actually advancing increased liberties and freedoms across the nation, should not attempt to exploit that good will, admiration, and affections for no actual real good, resulting in continued harm, save only self glorification.

    As a liberty moderate and Christian social conservative of the Libertarian Party, seeking actual significant increases in liberties and freedoms from government, I offer the libertarian party renewed hope, with fresh ideas, a concrete plan to sweep the nation for the libertarian party, to propel the libertarian party membership to new highs, to cement the Libertarian party as a perennial competitive nationwide political party, offering the general electorate a real third choice in the voting booth, with a specific articulate plan to solve the many major systemic problems facing the US, so as to save the country from social chaos and economic ruination. In this election year of 2016, with kind due respect, admiration, and sincere affections, I call upon Gary Johnson, who I look forward to meeting in Virginia on March 5th, to withdraw.

    From Politics and Portal Web Page: “There were audible sighs of resignation from a significant number of libertarians following Gary Johnson’s underwhelming third-place finish in the 2012 presidential election. For so long, the prevailing argument was that the party needed a high-profile and nationally recognized presidential candidate to elevate the brand and ideology into mainstream American politics, and capture the attention of the public. And in Gary Johnson, many believed that they had found such a nominee. After all, his record as Governor of New Mexico can withstand the toughest scrutiny, and his campaign is without doubt the most organized, expansive and well-funded in the Libertarian Party history – all this without factoring the effect of the ostensibly disenfranchised Ron Paul Republicans. So, perhaps his not quite 1% share of the total popular vote could be viewed as a disappointment.

    On the other hand, however, an even larger majority believes that the Libertarian Party is on the cusps of breaking through the two-party hegemony. The flourishing grassroots movement, comprising primarily of the younger demographic, along with the emergence of a blossoming national-level election machinery, will accord future libertarian candidates with some sorely needed organizational support, and perhaps, eliminate the perennial issue of ballot access.

    The key now is to maintain the momentum, and leverage the inroads made in 2012 for the 2016 presidential election. And thus, the search now commences for the individual to take the party to the next level; a presidential candidate that will bear the huge responsibility of capturing the imagination of the American public, and achieve something that has never been done since 1912 – building a nationally competitive third party.”

    In effect, most American want more liberty and freedom, innately, suitable for winning the White House by the Libertarian Party and actually deliver increases in liberties and freedoms. A narrow vision of “liberty” placing with a BIG L does not appeal to the overwhelming percentage over voters having a LITTLE L. All liberty minded voters, nearly all, should be welcome into the Libertarian Party with tolerance, forming a big tent party.

    Libertarian Big Tent Party

    The Libertarian Party has the opportunity this year to take the White House and actually deliver increases in liberties and freedom. Most Americans have deep seated desired for increase liberties and freedoms, and this huge voting block can be attracted to the Libertarian Party banner. The Libertarian Party can become a big tent party have many voting segments.

    Marijuana Legalizers are those seeking freedom to smoke. Extreme Anarchists want no government, which is not obtainable, for once government is abolished, power will take its place, be it war lords or mob bosses. Border Sympathizers are those seeking an open border, which is adverse to the presidency serving citizens and the country, not aliens and foreign countries, and the harm done to wage rates, quality of life and neighborhoods. Immigration is great with control entry for time needed in the melting pot, for assimilating those who wish to become American. Passionate Sovereigns are those wanting to have complete control over them own actions. The problem is that people to not live and work in isolation, but rather in close proximity, necessitating rules of conduct. Freedom Lovers are moderate Libertarians seeking increased liberties and freedom from totalitarian socialistic fascist state governments and federal government. Specific Liberators are generally single issue libertarians seeking freedom in a specific area, for examples, Tea Party as tax opposers, Occupiers as banking-gov fascist opposers, Monetarists as fiat currency opposers, Latino as shadow opposers, Marketeers as intervention opposers, Prisoners as incareration opposers, Riflemen as gun confiscation opposers, capitalists as socialist opposers, debtors as debt opposers. The platform further appeals to safety net democrat, fiscal conservative republicans, seniors and students, et al.

    In all these groups, the common thread is a desire for increase in liberties and freedom, and thus the largest group are the freedom lovers. When the Libertarian Party focus primarily only on sovereignty, the field of sympathetic voters is very small, and a reason why the Libertarian Party fails at the national level, getting less than 1% of the vote. The Libertarian Party as led over the last 4 years by the last presidential nominee has stagnated appeal, decreasing membership, and no hope of being anything other than a side show, While all those with Liberty Values can pitch their values at the state level, competing with liberal and conservative value, the president must follow the constitution, and many of the sovereignty liberty issues can be solved by states right, largely not being a federal concern.

    As a Christian Social-Conservative Freedom-Lover Presidential Candidate, I would appeal to 90% of voters, excluding the far left National Socialists (Sanders) and the far right war mongers (HRC JEB RUBIO), and when nominated, win the White House, having the plans and skills to fix DC. Each State has its own LP platform for state electioneering, and that is what a republic is all about. At the national level, a broad liberty appeal coupled with restoring the Constitution, Republic, Liberty, Freedom, Peace, and Prosperity, is a winner, with ability to debase the DEM or REP pandering nominees for the Victory.

    Does the Libertarian Party, after 50 years of going NO WHERE, now stagnated, as a mere curiosity, want to squander yet another opportunity to actually achieve meaningful results of increases in liberties and freedoms, take the White House, and create in perpetuity, a third party providing a necessary Constitutional Liberty choice, against the liberal totalitarian and conservative totalitarian choices?

    =====
    Does Mr Johnson purposefully want to hold the LP back for self-glorification?
    You make the call.

  62. Derrick Michael Reid

    Mr Johnson is not delusional. He is correct, he has no chance to win the general election.
    Merely seeking to increase voter turn out, is such a low bar, that he offers the LP no hope, demoralizes the rank and file, with lost after lost, and keeps the LP as a minor political curiosity.

    100 man years of intellectual training was applied to the LP growth over the last 4 years. Over the last four years, with an apparent lack of leadership, to make the LP competitive nationally, losing members and interest, the question pondered is why, when nearly ALL Americans seek innately more liberty and freedom. From what I have personally seen with my own eyes, and reading political commentary, and such like, a plausible answer is an ostensible lack of comprehending the systemic problems in view of the US political complex, the intolerance of the BIG Ls, and no real PLAN to attract new members to the party. As the major problems and causes are apparently, if not OBVIOUSLY, not understood by others, how possibly can the LP offer serious SOLUTIONS that would concurrently provide more LIBERTY and FREEDOM, as a winning strategy?

    My best guess is that:

    1) The sovereign BIG L dominates the LP, is intolerant, if not viciously disrespecting, to small Ls, and engage in close nit association with only like minded persons, thereby inflexibly cementing narrow spectrum perspectives, limiting the reach of the LP, and directly alienating others;

    2) The last presidential nominee utterly failed as titular head to lead the LP to recognize that 90% of Americans are potential LP voters, but did not IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY modify the LP posture to attract more libertarians to the party and appeal generally to all Americans including the small Ls; and

    3) There has not been, until now, an LP presidential candidate who can A) fix DC attracting all Americans, B) fix DC in such a way as to increase liberties and freedoms attracting all Americans, C) address the many varied constituencies across the nation explaining exactly why the particular fix fit their main long term political orientations, and D) articulate why the fix must be had to avoid imminent systemic social chaos and economic ruination in a economic death spiral.

    Just one man’s opinion, I could be right. 🙂

    Offering Americans a comprehensive, integrated, sweeping SOLUTION SET to major systemic problems, which solutions will increase liberties and freedoms, was collectively personally recognized for its inherent potential synergy that will be a very powerful unstoppable magnet nationally, that will be fully exploited, to VICTORY in November.

    Very Truly Yours, in Liberty and Freedom,
    Derrick Michael Reid B.S.E.E., J.D.,
    2016 Presidential Candidate, Libertarian Party,
    Engineer, Patent Lawyer, Military Scientist,
    Market Analyst, and Geopolitical Analyst.
    PO Box 1584, Laguna Beach, CA 92652
    Contact Email: Libereens@yahoo.com
    Skype Account Name: derrickmichaelreid
    http://www.totalitariandemocracy.com/

Leave a Reply

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