Video: Gary Johnson at CPAC 2016


See also articles about Johnson’s appearance here, here, and here.

50 thoughts on “Video: Gary Johnson at CPAC 2016

  1. Joe Wendt

    He wants to defend civil liberties, but has been on the record being extremely Islamophobic and is clearly against a person’s right to live according to their faith. He wants to eliminate taxes for corporations, but supports a national sales tax on people. To top it all off, he’s a bland and sounds like that high school nerd trying way too hard to impress people with his accomplishments.

  2. Joseph Buchman

    Thanks for posting this Andy. It is, perhaps, the best I’ve seen. He looks better, is dressed better (not sure about the shoes though), is less wrinkled and seems better prepared than . . . anything else I can remember.

    That said, he is running in 2016 with a massive boulder from 2012 of debt, deceit (multiple FEC filings/debt collectors) and disloyalty among his former senior staff (Chris Thrasher is managing McAfee’s campaign?!?), that will make this a much tougher run for the nomination than in 2012.

    Apparently his campaign is paying to bus delegates into Orlando. I don’t think that happened in 2012.

  3. AMcCarrick

    Joe… you’re clueless. Assuming your a Petersen or Perry supporter? Cleary haven’t heard a Damn thing he’s actually said.

  4. Robert Capozzi

    B/B-

    This was a very careful, no risk speech, in a time when risk is called for. GJ’s resume is impressive, but the rote recitation wasted valuable time. What he could have done was to aggressively make the case for him and the LP.

    A speech needs to grab people’s attention from the get go. Why not grab them with something like: I don’t know about you, but as of right now, the likely R and D nominees are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This is, ladies and gentlemen, frightening. Both Trump and Clinton are extremely weak candidates, and the prospect of either being president will make us long for the days when Obama was president, and he has been an unmitigated disaster.

    All hope is not lost, however. More and more people are talking about the need for a 3rd choice, and I would like to be that third choice. I and the LP offer the real solution to what ails us. We offer what the Founding Fathers offered us in 1776. What we need now more than ever is, in a word, LIBERTY.

    He can talk about his resume later.

    Balancing the budget and abolishing the IRS feels very dated. There are more immediate concerns. We need fresh eyes to right the ship, and my experience as Guv of NM shows it can be done.

    Of course, while if falls on deaf ears, lose the FAIR tax.

    Delivery still blase. More gesturing. More emphatic messaging. Perhaps more rhetorical questions, e.g.: Do you really believe that Trump or Clinton will put this country on the road to fiscal sanity?

    fwiw.

  5. Stewart Flood

    Agreed. It was boring. It was five times longer than he needed for that little amount of information.

    Johnson may be our most “credentialed” candidate, but he is far from the most charismatic. The speech was badly written. It should have challenged the old parties.

    He’s now permanently lost my vote at the convention. NOTA or possibly one of the others, but I can’t see him working up enough energy to run an effective national campaign. He’s a nice guy, but he comes across as a nice guy and nothing else.

  6. Joseph Buchman

    Stewart Flood @ March 4, 2016 at 14:04 wrote:

    “Johnson may be our most “credentialed” candidate, but he is far from the most charismatic. The speech was badly written. ”

    Joe Hunter is a Romney-loyalist Republican (or was); that’s why it reads as it does. His is zero risk, don’t offend the Republicans, and once served as Republican Representative from Utah Chris Cannon’s Chief of Staff.

    “He’s now permanently lost my vote at the convention. NOTA or possibly one of the others, but I can’t see him working up enough energy to run an effective national campaign. He’s a nice guy, but he comes across as a nice guy and nothing else.”

    This was better, IMO, than his nice-guy-looking-disheveled presentation of the past.

    I am concerned that should the CPD allow the LP candidate in (IMO there is no hope whatsoever of a court ordering this and the lawsuit was/is a waste of time/money for anything other than its (now mostly lost it seems) PR value) — should Governor Johnson represent the LP in a debate with the R and D nominees, it will do far more damage than good to the LP in 2020. He seems to have negative gravitas, and relishes in being ill-prepared/”in the moment.” That’s why I thought this was among his best presentations. Apparently he is taking some steps toward appearing more “presidential.”

    I think John Stossel said it best at the Nixon Library in 2012.

    https://youtu.be/edu-3PPOvow?t=26m48s

    “Gary Johnson, most of you probably haven’t heard of him. I don’t see why he doesn’t get traction . . . He is a two-term Governor of New Mexico. It is a Democratic state; he got elected as a Republican. He left a balanced budget. He is a good guy; he just can’t get traction. I think he is just too laid-back. He looks like he is high on weed, although he says he does not partake.”

  7. Andy

    “Stewart Flood
    March 4, 2016 at 14:04

    Agreed. It was boring. It was five times longer than he needed for that little amount of information.

    Johnson may be our most ‘credentialed’ candidate, but he is far from the most charismatic.”

    I’m not a Johnson supporter, but I would not say that he’s that bad in the charisma department. Sure, he’s not the most charismatic candidate around, but I would not go so far as saying that he’s got zero charisma either. I’d say that he’s got more charisma than Bob Barr had.

  8. Andy

    “Joseph Buchman
    March 4, 2016 at 15:19

    Stewart Flood @ March 4, 2016 at 14:04 wrote:

    ‘Johnson may be our most ‘credentialed’ candidate, but he is far from the most charismatic. The speech was badly written. ‘

    Joe Hunter is a Romney-loyalist Republican (or was); that’s why it reads as it does. His is zero risk, don’t offend the Republicans, and once served as Republican Representative from Utah Chris Cannon’s Chief of Staff.”

    This is yet another example of something that I have been harping on for years, and that is that Libertarians should hire ACTUAL LIBERTARIANS to work on Libertarian campaigns, or anything else that the Libertarian Party does.

    Hiring some Republican who is a Mitt Romney supporter to work on a Libertarian Party candidate for President’s campaign stuff is bullshit. Why not hire an actual Libertarian for that job? If they claim that they can’t find a Libertarian to do that job, I say bullshit to that.

    This is like when the Libertarian Party shells out a bunch of money for ballot access drives, and it turns out that none of the people that most of, or none of, the people that the Libertarian Party is sending out to the streets to talk to the public about signing Libertarian Party petition and/or registering to vote as Libertarians, are actually Libertarians themselves, and many of these people do a substandard job, and little to no actual Libertarian outreach takes place.

    This may sound like a “radical’ concept to some people, but Libertarians should hire other Libertarians to do all of these jobs, from ballot access drive to working as presidential campaign staffers to anything else the party has to do. The party ought to be focusing on RECRUITING and TRAINING as many Libertarians as possible to do all of the jobs that make a political party function instead of constantly farming work out to non-libertarian mercenaries. I could see if the hiring of non-libertarian mercenaries was just a once in a while thing, but the fact of the matter is that the Libertarian Party has an unnecessary over-reliance on non-libertarian mercenaries, and what Joseph Buchman posted above is just another example of it.

  9. Stewart Flood

    I wasn’t trying to compare him to Barr or any other past nominee. I can compare him to his run in 2012, and he was better four years ago.

    The speech was clearly written by a republican. It reeks of it. They did not let him swing for the fences. Once again he is hiring non-libertarians (last time it was Stone!) to work his campaign.

    Our state party has had little or no contact from his campaign. One of the campaigns, Petersen’s, has already gotten some of their supporters interested in organizing two counties. That’s two more than Johnson got for us, even after getting the nomination in 2012.

    I’m not saying that I’m supporting Petersen, but others in the state party are hearing from his supporters, as well as outsiders who say they’ve heard of him. Some of our delegates to the national convention have asked me about him (they were selected before he really started campaigning).

    I’m hearing nothing new about Johnson, very little about McAfee, and total silence about other candidates.

    Johnson was not exciting during the debate. His speech was boring. What will we see on April Fools Day?

  10. Andy

    “Stewart Flood
    March 4, 2016 at 20:32

    I wasn’t trying to compare him to Barr or any other past nominee. I can compare him to his run in 2012, and he was better four years ago.

    The speech was clearly written by a republican. It reeks of it. They did not let him swing for the fences. Once again he is hiring non-libertarians (last time it was Stone!) to work his campaign.”

    Hiring non-libertarian mercenaries has become par for the course for the Libertarian Party for too many functions, and this is part of what is wrong with the party and why it is not more successful.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    I keep looking for reasons to change my mind about Johnson, and not finding them. Running this guy in 2016 would be worse for the party than running no candidate at all.

  12. Krzysztof Lesiak

    “Get a job that you love. If you don’t have a job that you love, quit.”

    Except many people don’t have that luxury, at least in the earlier stages of their lives. If everyone left their despised job, no one would stock the shelves at Wal-Mart and there’d be no one to dish out fries and Big Macs at McDonald’s. Though I suppose in theory, it wouldn’t be a bad thing if large multinational corporations had a smaller footprint in this world, but I digress.

    “Get me in the presidential debates.”

    Since that will never happen, ever, what’s the point of harping on this point over and over again? If Johnson had that opportunity, he’d most surely squander it anyway, since he lacks charisma and always sticks to the same, worn talking points.

    We shall see if Johnson will have more energy and more original things to say in the Stossel debate. My guess is that McAfee is going to have the best performance in that debate.

  13. Darcy G Richardson

    All in all, a pretty boring presentation. Nothing original or different to say, just a monotonous repetition of everything we’ve heard before. And what was with his shoes? Talk about not looking presidential. WTF?

    For whatever reason, one really gets the impression at this point that Johnson is simply going through the motions…and that his heart really isn’t into running again.

  14. Election Addict

    I am not in line with his domestic policy, and I think his foreign policy could use education. He was also oddly quick in a debate to scare people about sharia law. It’s scary but its relevance to the U.S. is exaggerated compared to the real problem of U.S. intervention.

    But I found him impressive here. I heard it all from him before, of course, but then he was talking to conservatives.

  15. Election Addict

    And yeah, “just quit,” coming from a man who told us how lucky he’s been compared to most people.

  16. Darcy G Richardson

    I could be wrong, but I think Johnson’s handlers — hoping to hit pay dirt again — have pushed an otherwise reluctant candidate to enter the fray once again. I’m not really sure he’s totally committed to a 2016 candidacy. Otherwise, he would be demonstrating some originality — and passion — when it comes to the myriad of issues facing the country.

    He sort of strikes me as a fish out of water in this whole thing.

  17. Darcy G. Richardson

    “And yeah, ‘just quit,’ coming from a man who told us how lucky he’s been compared to most people.” — Election Addict

    That’s a great observation. Gary Johnson obviously doesn’t understand the struggle most Americans face living paycheck to paycheck. It would be sweet to just up and quit a job if you don’t like it.

    It must be nice to live in Gary’s world.

  18. Darcy G. Richardson

    Then again, he’s the same guy who called for an immediate $1.4 trillion cut in federal spending in 2012, a draconian measure that would have virtually destroyed the country’s social safety net, leaving millions of our most vulnerable citizens begging in the streets.

    Give me a serious candidate, somebody who actually lives in the real world. This country should probably move in a libertarian direction — and, yes, that would be a very positive thing — but it has to be done realistically and humanely, not with a meat cleaver that would pummel the poor and working-class Americans.

    The LP should nominate a left-libertarian…the result just might surprise everybody.

  19. Robert Capozzi

    dgr: an immediate $1.4 trillion cut in federal spending in 2012

    me: Yes, I thought GJ’s budget was fringy and unrealistic. However, many — possibly most — in the LP found his plan too tame. Many think the immediate cuts should be deeper, much deeper.

    People who believe there is a cult of the omnipotent state can and do believe in a LOT of (let’s call it) unrealistic things.

    Pity.

  20. Darcy G. Richardson

    I agree, Robert. The ideal of a libertarian society is certainly a worthwhile pursuit, but it will never be achieved by pandering to the kind of reactionary folks gathered at CPAC, or by advocating measures that will severely harm our most vulnerable citizens. That’s not what this country is about.

    Calling for an immediate across-the-board 43 percent, or $1.4 trillion, cut in federal spending — with all of its real word ramifications for millions of low-income Americans — is simply beyond the pale.

    Nobody can take such a proposal seriously, nor should they. The vast majority of the American people aren’t looking for austerity. They’re looking for some form of prosperity, something that will improve their dire economic circumstances. They’re not looking for somebody who wants to slash entitlement spending.

    That’s precisely what’s driving the Trump phenomenon in the GOP sweepstakes and the insurgent candidacy being waged by Vermont’s Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side. None of their supporters are calling for reductions in entitlement programs, whether it’s Social Security, Medicare, WIC, food stamp assistance, Medicaid, etc. That’s the truth.

    This would have been the perfect year for a more grounded and realistic Libertarian candidate…somebody with decent political instincts and capable of waging the kind of campaign similar to Ed Clark’s “low-tax liberal” effort in 1980.

    Tens of millions might have been open to such a candidacy.

    A pity, indeed.

  21. Robert Capozzi

    Ya know, DGR, I have some reason to believe that GJ is not entirely a Let-Them-Eat-Cake/Snidely Whiplash sort of L. If you noticed in his speech, he made a point that his company had profit-sharing. This runs counter to the dog-eat-dog ethic one sees all too often in L circles.

    The bit about “quitting your job” is standard fare in entrepreneurial circles, and I think Steve Jobs said something similar. I didn’t project the worst on that one.

    I think he could have been an Ed Clark/low-tax liberal sort of candidate.

    My sense is he made a big mistake with his handlers, who are fighting the last war and are probably right-wingers who kinda, sorta maybe have some social liberalish leanings or something. GJ obviously does. And the anti-war stuff, too, I think GJ is in the right place more or less, but it’s being handled out of his messaging, by and large.

    16 could be a perfect storm with Trump v Clinton, but the best candidate is being pulled away from a strong, compelling positioning by his handlers on the one hand, and extremist anarchist construct-mongers in the LP who are on a 200-year march toward a stateless utopia.

    It’s no wonder that GJ is exhausted already. Inner conflict like that is more draining than an Iron Man competition.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    I empathize with Johnson on the shoes thing, because I do that about 90% of the time too. Dress shoes are right up there with waterboarding and should be similarly condemned. We might want to consider putting it in the platform.

    The “turtleneck or t-shirt under the sport coat instead of shirt and tie, and hey, maybe even jeans” thing he usually does isn’t that bad, either.. I don’t think it works very well for Johnson, though. The idea is to make the candidate seem more relaxed/less uptight. Johnson just looks nervous in a t-shirt instead of nervous in a dress shirt. Also, Wesley Clark kind of ruined the tactic when he used it in an appearance for TEH YUTES in his 2004 campaign (MTV, I think).

    The whole framing of “austerity” talk bugs me. Government spending and debt are a less than zero sum game. For every dollar the state taxes and borrows/spends, the rest of us get MORE than $1 poorer, because they’re not just taking that money out of our pockets (with taxes) or our descendants’ pockets (with borrowing), they’re USING that dollar to skew the market such that things useful only to the state, and not to us, are purchased with it.

    Misallocation of capital/wealth/spending is the sole economic activity of government.

    To the extent that people believe some of these misallocations are worse than others, I suppose it might be possible to impose a formula on spending cuts that minimizes the problem.

    For example, the next president could tell Congress “I want a budget that cuts spending, but it has to be done a certain way. You can cut $1 from ‘entitlement spending’ for every $3 you either cut from ‘defense spending’ or eliminate from required debt service. We can revisit that formula once ‘defense’ and ‘debt service’ have both been reduced by 75%. Until then that’s the formula or your budgets get vetoed.”

  23. Robert Capozzi

    tk: Misallocation of capital/wealth/spending is the sole economic activity of government. To the extent that people believe some of these misallocations are worse than others, I suppose it might be possible to impose a formula on spending cuts that minimizes the problem.

    me: “Sole” doesn’t work for me, as it’s absolutist and I have no meaningful comparisons for modern civil societies. “Most” I can buy in theory, and possibly “sole” if a stateless modern society was demonstrably sustainable.

    But that’s not my primary feedback. Certainly government over-involvement in civil society has led to sub-optimal outcomes, and severe misallocations that have affected individuals and stratas of people differently. We can, for ex., speculate on what MIGHT have happened if SS had never been imposed on people. Most likely, savings rates would have been higher than they otherwise would have been. Pensions and other forms of retirement savings would have been shifted toward OVER TIME as the civil society’s wealth increased.

    Instead, however, incomes were FICA taxed, leaving less investable income than otherwise. This affected generations of people.

    Unless one buys into a particularly heartless and rigid form of “thin” L-ism, the fact that there’s an expectation that SS benefits will be a significant percentage of retirement income for large swathes of the population. I would maintain that correcting historical misallocations of capital and wealth should take into consideration precedent if not strictly contractual obligations.

    Abolition may cease misallocations, but abolition is not acceptable by and for most. Spending cuts need to be enacted, urgently so. Corporate welfare, dirigistic programs, and the world-policeman military strike me as the most reasonable place to start, ATC.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Proof that a stateless society would be sustainable is not necessary to the case that all state spending is mal-investment. Non-state entities are also capable of making bad decisions. I don’t have to prove that strychnine is safe just because I say that curare is a poison.

    My point here is that when people talk about “austerity,” they are generally talking about cuts to (or slowing the increase of) GOVERNMENT spending … and since all government spending necessarily comes either immediately or over time out of everyone else’s pockets, immediate “austerity” for government means immediate INCREASED income/wealth for the people whose pockets are now being picked less.

    I’m always happy to discuss Social Security.

    You are right: No presidential candidate is going to be elected on a platform of immediate abolition of Social Security.

    On the other hand, no Libertarian presidential candidate is going to be elected anyway, so the candidates’ positions on Social Security are irrelevant to that particular consideration.

    The real purpose of a Libertarian presidential campaign at this time is, as Gary Johnson likes to put it, “starting the conversation” about this and that, including Social Security.

    It is my opinion that a good presidential candidate WILL point out that the Social Security system cannot be “saved,” that it is eventually going to have to be replaced by something else, and that the longer we put off talking about how to get that done, the more senior citizens are eventually going to end up living in cardboard boxes and scavenging their meals from dumpsters.

    So far in this cycle, the only presidential candidate I’ve seen offer a detailed and at least nominally serious plan for Social Security has been Chris Christie. He wants to raise the retirement age to 70 over several years (moving it up one month per year, IIRC) and “means test” people at the higher end of non-Social-Security-dependent wealth/income. I could attack that plan vigorously from several angles. I’m not endorsing it. But at least it’s SOMETHING.

    George W. Bush pushed for letting Social Security taxpayers assign part of their tax payments to private retirement accounts and got shut down over that. Once again, I don’t necessarily endorse the plan, but it was an idea, anyway.

    That is the mainstream — ideas for “saving” Social Security.

    The “fringe,” as you like to put it, would be “if I’m elected president I will veto any future Social Security payments or tax collections — you’re on you own, geezers.”

    The “edge,” which is where you claim you like to play, is, in my opinion, talking about a long-term plan for moving from Social Security to non-government retirement with as few casualties as possible. Not “saving” it, but recognizing that it can’t be saved and figuring out what to do about that. It’s the “conversation” that needs to be started, and an LP presidential candidate is the ideal person to start it.

  25. steve m

    Election Addict,

    You don’t successfully climb the highest mountain on each continent with just luck. Gary Johnson has obviously worked hard and smart to achieve each one of his goals.

  26. Joseph Buchman

    Michael H. Wilson @ March 4, 2016 at 19:51 wrote:

    “I’ve tried to get in touch with his campaign but so far no luck.”

    13 minutes later — @ 20:04 he wrote:

    “I just became a liar. They have contacted me now.”

    Do you think they were reading IPR at the time?

    🙂

  27. George Phillies

    Given Johnson’s overtly Islamophobic rants at the wonderful Mississippi debate, I thought this editorial from the August 2010 Liberty for America was appropriate. I was referring in the Editorial to the Islamophobic bigotry voiced by Wayne Root and John Hospers, but the world does not change much to Republicans

    Editorial
    Islamophobia Is An
    Opposite of Libertarian

    Our National Party Platforms over the years have been quite clear on this matter. The 2010 Platform includes “We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant… We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.”

    There is of course a theme in American politics opposite to Libertarianism. It’s the modern Republican theme. 160 years ago, that theme was the Anti-Catholic position of the American Party, one of the forbearers of the modern Republican Party: In its bigoted view, Catholicism was the religion of the people then described as ‘the darker races of Europe’…the Irish and the Catholics. Two thirds of a century ago, a theme of bigotry was anti-Semitism, prejudice against the Jews, one of the Semitic peoples of the Middle East. Now a theme of conservative bigots is Islamophobia, prejudice against one of the other Semitic peoples of the Middle East. And on top of those themes, we must recall, was bigotry against African- Americans, Japanese, Chinese, Greeks, Hungarians, Poles…the list is long, and our newspaper only has so many pages.

    Recently, Islamophobia has reared its ugly head within the ranks of our Libertarian Party. New York Islamites propose to built the Cordoba House, a modest (relative to the buildings around it) 13-story Islamic community center on Park Place in downtown Manhattan. The proposal, like almost everything in New York City, was controversial. Republican bigots like Newt Gingrich came out against the building. That controversy spread to the front page of LP.org and IndependentPoliticalReport.com. An editorial drafted by Party interns came out in favor of the right of the supporters of this private project to proceed.

    And then several of our allegedly libertarian National Party leading lights decided to sound off on the matter.

    Wayne Root, posting at RootForAmerica.com, gave a long message reading in small part: “The answer is simple for a common sense American- I support religious freedom, as all Americans should. But this is not a case of religious freedom….This proposed building of a mosque on hallowed ground is an ATROSITY towards America. ..It is an offense to build a mosque in that location- an offense to all Americans (including Muslim Americans), all Christians and Jews, all relatives of 3000 dead heroes at the World Trade Center.

    Former Presidential candidate John Hospers, appearing on IndependentPoliticalReport.com “So, too, the building of a mosque at the attack site where thousands of our own perished in an act of war – must not be allowed.”

    To these two men I respond: Sorry, gentlemen, your positions are totally the opposite of Libertarian and everything our party represents. I’m sorry that you have so totally missed the point of the fundamental libertarian belief in personal liberty.

    …George Phillies

  28. Andy

    I am not a fan of Gary Johnson or Wayne Root, and I support a non-interventionist foreign policy, but having said this, are you aware of the huge increase in rapes that have taken place in Europe due to Muslim immigrants? These people come from a culture that does not respect the rights of women.

    Now if these European countries weren’t such a bunch of “politically correct” pansies, they’d repeal their nanny state gun control laws, and women in these countries could walk around with pistols, and starting putting bullets in the heads of these Muslim rapists, but unfortunately this is not what they are doing.

    A bunch of religious nut cases who do not respect the rights of women (or gays) is not fertile ground for maintaining any semblance of a free society.

    Paul Joseph Watson: The Rape of Europe

  29. Andy

    Stefan Molyneux & Paul Joseph Watson: Is The European Migrant Crisis Leading To War?

  30. Richard Winger

    People shouldn’t be so pessimistic about the two pending general election debate lawsuits. They are both strong legally. Furthermore, the political climate has never been better for advocates of more inclusive general election debates. And our recent procedural victory in federal court in Kentucky, over the 2014 debate, shows this. The judge gave us permission to depose officials of Kentucky Educational TV about why they changed the rules in 2014 for the US Senate general election debate. First they said 5% in the polls. So David Patterson met that. Then, they said, “oh, we mean 10%.”

  31. Robert Capozzi

    tk: immediate “austerity” for government means immediate INCREASED income/wealth for the people whose pockets are now being picked less.

    me: Yes, unless the dislocations were so pronounced that income and wealth were destroyed in the process.

    tk: The “edge,” which is where you claim you like to play, is, in my opinion, talking about a long-term plan for moving from Social Security to non-government retirement with as few casualties as possible.

    me: Sure that’s not bad positioning. Another might be to say that SS should remain as is, and that an L could advocate substantial cuts corporate welfare and counterproductive world policeman spending. Long term plans have no relevance that I can see for a 3rd party prez nominee.

  32. Gene Berkman

    From an individualist point of view, it is wrong to be prejudiced against someone because of their religious affiliation – Muslim, Christian, Jewish or whatever. But the fact is that Christianity and Islam both promote views on social organization or on individual morality that are repugnant to individualist libertarians, and these views must be opposed philosophically.

    Most libertarians see the threat to freedom from politically organized Christians, and are willing to oppose even Christians that might be our allies on other issues. Why is it “Islamaphobia” to philosophically oppose the anti-freedom elements in Islam and Sharia?

    Of course, the threat to freedom from Islam does not justify pre-emptive war, or military occupation of countries that have not attacked America. Gary Johnson is on record opposing the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, and no one has shown where he has proposed to abridge freedom based on an opposition to Sharia.

    A historical note – in the late 1960s King Mohammed Zahir Shah of Afghanistan banned the Burka, in what was seen as a major advance for women’s rights in Afghanistan. Certainly many rural Mullahs saw this as anti-Islamic, but urban Afghans appear to have supported this move.

  33. Election Addict

    steve m: “You don’t successfully climb the highest mountain on each continent with just luck. Gary Johnson has obviously worked hard and smart to achieve each one of his goals.”

    I agree, and climbing mountains was not what I referred to. I did call him impressive, and that part at least was not me being sarcastic.

  34. Election Addict

    I don’t personally think he wants to abridge freedom, by the way, just that he ought to take a look at priorities. Ultimately he is preferable to the top two.

  35. George Phillies

    Electing someone President because they climb mountains is deranged.

    For those of you who like my editorials, here is another one:

    Vote Republican?
    You Must Be Joking
    The Republicans launched an unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq. To justify their crimes against peace, they staged an unprecedented series of bald faced lies. When their occupation of Iraq was met with the staunch resistance of Iraqi patriots, they arranged for the city of Fallujah to be substantially razed to the ground, a crime against civilization whose obvious historical analog was the destruction of the city of Lidice. They then violated the Geneva conventions by imprisoning and torturing thousands of foreigners in secret prisons in Poland and elsewhere. On the home front, Republicans caused the National Security Agency to create massive wiretapping systems that intercepted most phone calls. That’s electronic warfare, warfare against the American people, warfare supported by almost every Republican in Congress. When Americans wage war on America, that’s the crime in the Constitution. Republicans deserve fair trials, not votes.

  36. Stewart Flood

    “Ultimately he is preferable to the top two.”

    Agreed. The discussion we’ve been having among the various party members and “political expatriates” of the LP who post on IPR is whether he is a) the best candidate for the party and b) libertarian “enough” to vote for.

    My complaints are with his handlers as much as with him. He’s a nice guy, he means well, and regardless of his level of interest and energy we perceive, I don’t believe he’s running for some unknown and nefarious reason.

    Some of his previous handlers, however, have track records that would indicate that possibility. The financial issues surrounding his campaign are not trivial. Unfortunately, his is not the first LP POTUS campaign to have financial issues.

    Having Roger Stone embedded in the campaign in 2012 was a bad idea. He brought in some really strange and creepy people. The campaign management and event planning stunk. Too much money was spent on the wrong thing, and while he did make a number of trips to states, very few of them were well coordinated.

    What will we get in 2016 if he’s the nominee? We can already see republican speech writers. He has the same campaign manager. Fortunately, Stone seems to be off genuflecting at the feet of Trump this time. He’s pretending not to be, but he still is.

    So will we suck it up and support Johnson if he’s the nominee? Hopefully. I won’t vote for him at the convention unless the alternative is down to Feldman, Kerbel, US Calvary Nut, or one of the clearly non-libertarian choices. But that won’t be likely to be the case.

    NOTA is an easy choice, but could I vote for McAfee over him? Possibly. Petersen? Possibly. I may require a lot of alcohol the night before, but anything is possible if you have a bad hangover.

  37. Robert Capozzi

    gp: Electing someone President because they climb mountains is deranged.

    me: Don’t disagree. This theme is — I’m guessing — part of the campaign to brand Trump a “pussy.”

    Not a fan of this tack….

  38. Joseph Buchman

    Stewart Flood @ March 5, 2016 at 17:40 wrote:

    “Having Roger Stone embedded in the campaign in 2012 was a bad idea.”

    My experience was that Stone inserted himself. As far as I know he was never paid. He was never on any of the conference calls or meetings that I was part of. I think this is a question that SHOULD be asked of the Governor and/or his staff, or of Roger Stone.

    The only visible role I saw Roger play was at the reception at WAR’s home where the announcement was made of a million dollar contribution (from Chris Rufer, I believe) to a PAC (run by a childhood friend of Ron Nielson).

    I believe Ron, and others around the campaign, were concerned about what role Roger Stone would ultimately play — including the possibility of him taking over the campaign. But as far as I know Governor Johnson did NOT want Roger Stone involved.

    Geoff Neale, however, when I spoke to him about Roger Stone said something along the lines of “The Libertarian Party has an open door to anyone willing to help.” I might even have that in an email somewhere. I remember feeling a bit chilled by that comment.

    There were other clear connections to people associated with Roger Stone though, including Dianne Thorne who managed Judge Grey’s travel, and her son who for awhile was the Governor’s personal travel aide, I believe.

  39. Stewart Flood

    And that creepy kid from New York that was hanging around.

    I am glad to hear that Johnson didn’t want Stone around, but he should have done something about it.

    Yes, we have an open door. But that applies to people who actually want to help. I don’t know what Stone was up to, but it may have been to see how easy the party would be to take over.

  40. Joseph Buchman

    Stewart Flood @ March 5, 2016 at 20:20 wrote:

    “I am glad to hear that Johnson didn’t want Stone around, but he should have done something about it.”

    There was fear he could do damage and direction to do nothing to intentionally upset him. Paulie concluded that comments made here on IPR in late October from a variety of new posters were all likely to have come from one account controlled by Roger Stone.

    _____________________________

    On 24 OCT 2012 I wrote:

    From: Joseph Buchman
    Date: Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:50 PM
    Subject: FYI — Attack at Independent Political Report.com
    To: Jim Gray , Alicia Dearn http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com by anti-Gary Johnson forces.

    Over the past 24 hours or so, according to Paulie, about a dozen new contributors showed up at IPR — some posting comments such as, “Ron Nielson will be in jail after this campaign” and that money has been embezzled, and the like.

    I’m not an attorney, but it sure looked like libel to me.

    Paul was able to track that to an IP address for each those new names to one previously associated with Roger Stone. Paul tells me that Roger has posted on IPR on several occasions over the past few years and would appear that he, or someone with access to his computer(s) is posting under a variety of fictitious names.

    It’s also apparently an IP address associated with the same one used in the email from an Eric Stevens that went out a few days ago.

    ______________________

Leave a Reply

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