Former Campaign Manager for the McAfee campaign, Christopher S. Thrasher, officially endorses Gary Johnson. From Facebook:
What I say tonight may shock many, but after a long, thoughtful deliberation, I have decided to support Gary Johnson.
I like John McAfee. I really like John McAfee. My decision is not meant to say anything negative about him. Working with, and getting to know him during this campaign has been very rewarding, and his candidacy has infused the race for our nomination with an excitement and vigor that would have otherwise not existed.
I sincerely hope that John will have a long future in the party, as I know we would all continue to benefit from his presence. I will always treasure my involvement with his campaign, and will look back with fond memories of what we were able to accomplish in a short amount of time. Despite our best efforts and a great team, I feel that we have simply run out of time.
As most of you know already, rapid developments across the political spectrum this week have created an opportunity for the Libertarian Party to be part of the national conversation in a way it never before has. For the first time in my lifetime, the Libertarian Party is aiming for more than just 2%.
As many of you know, Libertarians are held to a higher standard than candidates from the two-party duopoly.
That is why I believe we must ensure that our standard bearer has the qualifications and the resume to be given a serious look by the voting public at large.
Two-time Governor Gary Johnson fits that bill.
“[Y]ou are starting to sound a bit conspiratorial. You claim some shadowy figures have ‘near control.'”
Nice try — and pretty predictable. But of course, no, I’ve neither suggested any “conspiracy” nor referred to any “shadowy figures” on this point. It’s not a secret conspiracy damaging the LP intentionally, it’s an open faction continuously diverting the LP from pursuing its actual, stated goals through ignorance (to be nice) or stupidity (to be not so nice) or both.
Note that I said “pursuing,” not “achieving.” It’s entirely possible for the LP to actually pursue its goals, and to do everything perfectly in pursuit of those goals, and yet to not achieve those goals. I’d just like to see it pursue its goals instead of some other goals.
When there IS a plausible case for “conspiracy” (e.g. SMC and friends), I say so. I specifically did not say so in this case. So far as I can tell, the SMC cabal isn’t a GOP operation. Some of their minions (e.g. Burke) do appear to have an agenda of ensuring the LP never competes with the GOP, but that seems to to be coincidence. The whole thing looks more like a small-time power for the sake of power deal.
tk, I’ve got no particular dog in this fight, but you are starting to sound a bit conspiratorial. You claim some shadowy figures have “near control.” Are you referring to SMC? My impression is they weren’t the ones pushing for Barr in 08.
To my knowledge, no one ever expected any shift in approach would pay instant dividends. And from I can see as a non-member L voter, the LP is pretty much the same as it’s ever been…a muddled mess of competing factions battling mostly over administrivia.
Still, I definitely could imagine that 16 might stumble into a kind of tipping point. I do say might. It might even overcome the Founder’s booby traps, mostly by just ignoring the crazy talk.
RC,
There’s a name for changing what I said and then disagreeing with it. The name is “straw man.”
Also, the chairmanship of the LNC is, for the most part, far from an ideological, or even strategic, position. It tends to be more administrative in terms of running meetings and so forth.
That said, Nick has done a good job over the last two years of turning the chairmanship into a bully pulpit from which to make public statements that reflect actual libertarian principles/policy positions in line with the party’s platform. So presumably the wreckers will want to seize that pulpit, to either shut it down or re-purpose it.
tk: [The Republican lite] faction has enjoyed near total control of the LP for a decade now.
me: I thought you were a supporter of Chairman Sarwark. Not sure about Neale, but I always got the impression that Hinkle was at least close to a plumbliner.
The SoP remains unscathed, embarrassingly so.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “near total control.”
Caryn,
Then why won’t you run away with me to the Casbah? 🙂
Tom, you nailed it. Have I mentioned today that I love you?
The “let’s just act as an overflow area for people who claim to be dissatisfied with the GOP but want the LP to become everything they say they hate about the GOP” faction has enjoyed near total control of the LP for a decade now.
They had their way with the party’s platform.
We’ve given our presidential nomination to Republicans who once held office at their demand, and in the hope of attracting more like them. twice in a row.
They’ve produced SLIGHTLY elevated presidential vote totals, but nothing dramatically outside the previous operating range.
Really all they seem to be very good at is blaming everyone but themselves for their lack of results and yelling that the only way we can get out of the hole we’re in is by continuing to dig (most of them don’t seem inclined to actually pick up shovels themselves, of course; not only are their ideas bad but their work ethic leaves a lot to be desired).
Would a libertarian Libertarian Party do any better? Realistically, not much better if any on metrics like vote totals, because systemic rigging in favor of the establishment doesn’t care one way or the other about ideology. But at least we’d be doing what we’re doing FOR A REASON instead of it just being pointless public masturbation.
Specifically:
“the ridiculous “libertarian purity test” done by delusional anarchists is what has kept the LP at the miniscule level it is at. I long ago stopped trying to reason with them. Now I just hope they get drowned out by reasonable libertarian-minded voices who actually want to get libertarians ELECTED.”
Well said!
Gotta agree with Tony.
It’s not really about a “libertarian purity test,” it’s about basic honesty and responsibility. Johnson seems to be unable to balance a checkbook and unwilling to be truthful with the LP. Spendthrift con men aren’t “credible candidates,” at least to those of us who prefer facing hard facts to indulging in self-satisfying fantasies.
A vote for Johnson is a vote against a credible and successful LP.
The petty crap in these comments (especially from this DARCY guy) are exactly why I left the LP (along with the gun issue) and returned to the DP. Gary Johnson is BY FAR the most qualified LP candidate in the party’s history. Just like in any party, there are those who do not care for him. but the ridiculous “libertarian purity test” done by delusional anarchists is what has kept the LP at the miniscule level it is at. I long ago stopped trying to reason with them. Now I just hope they get drowned out by reasonable libertarian-minded voices who actually want to get libertarians ELECTED.
I think Gary is a great candidate IF you want someone who says things like “Ban the Burkas” or “Bake the Nazi Cake”. Sure he got re-elected in New Mexico in 1998, who couldn’t when they had an entire prison industry backing him. Gary is spending his money now buying the nomination because it makes perfect financial sense, he owes and he knows elections bring in cash. He wasted most of that cash in his 2012 bid. Gary is bad news and I’m sorry but you Gary Johnson fans are nothing but followers who are ignoring the hard truth about this guy. His tax plan, his prison policy, his statements, his poor use of scarce campaign funds, his switching from rebloodlican to Libertarian mid election 2012, his failure to pardon, his expenditures to get delegates, his vp consideration promises LP POTUS candidates, his statement that “NO one on Wall Street did anything wrong” to his statement that “we the people own the Fed” and on and on. I think the fact that Mc Afee wouldn’t support him is very telling. Gary is a bad man looking for another free ride on you and me.
The Kochs are not going to support the LP. That ship sailed in 1983 and it’s not coming back.
One of the fatal flaws in this country is the lack of a clause or amendment to the Constitution to prohibit government employees and contractors, and anyone who receives government hand outs, from voting, or from lobbying or donating to political campaigns.
If a provision like this existed, I bet we would have a lot more freedom right now.
Great. Hope the Kochs support him this time.
By the way, the Koch brothers, whose subsidiary was awarded a $323 million highway widening contract despite having never bid on a highway construction project of that magnitude, were major donors to Johnson’s gubernatorial campaigns.
In addition to direct contributions to Johnson’s 1998 re-election campaign — the same year they were awarded the exorbitant highway construction contract — Charles and David had given an additional $677,000 to the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC), which, in turn, helped fund Johnson’s campaign to the tune of $160,000. The RNSEC, awash in Koch money, had also contributed $75,000 to Johnson’s 1994 campaign.
“Carol Miller, long-time Green and independent political activist in New Mexico, and one of the Green Party’s most successful US House candidates in the party’s national history, has told me that she really likes Gary.” — Richard Winger
That’s nice, Richard. I’m glad Carol Moore likes Gary Johnson, but most New Mexico Greens were rather critical of Johnson’s tenure as governor, beginning early in his administration when they organized a demonstration at the State Capitol in Santa Fe to protest his meeting with the state’s leading militia groups in late April of 1995 — a meeting, incidentally, that took place while bodies were still being removed from the rubble of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Along with the ACLU and several other local groups, Green Party activists in the Land of Enchantment sharply condemned Johnson’s meeting with his state’s right-wing paramilitary organizations, particularly since several militia groups around the country — including at least one in New Mexico — had known ties to neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups at the time.
The controversial meeting, in which Johnson praised the state’s militia groups as “patriotic,” was widely covered by New Mexico newspapers, radio and television stations at the time, but you’ll never find any mention of it in the ex-governor’s bio.
The Greens were subsequently highly critical of a number of Johnson’s other actions and priorities, most notably his push for private prisons — a windfall for the Wackenhut Corporation, a major contributor to the governor’s 1998 re-election campaign — his inordinately expensive Koch brothers-inspired highway expansion program and his mean-spirited, systematic removal of thousands of New Mexico’s poorest citizens from the state’s welfare rolls.
TK,
which is why I want to see the numbers. I like real data not what I might believe.
Andy,
Well, you’re referencing “party leaders” when you mention Romney. And I agree, most of them don’t like him for reasons that are not ours.
But among the rank and file there are presumably lots of people with lots of different reasons.
I don’t think we should cater to anti-libertarian anti-Trumpers by any means. But if they want to vote for our candidates, that doesn’t bother me a bit whether their reasons are good or bad.
Look at one of the candidates the anti-Trump crowd in the Republican Party was trying to get to run: Mitt Romney.
This should tell you something, and it is not something good.
I’d wager that the bulk of the anti-Trump crowd in the Republican Party are as bad or worse than Trump.
Andy,
There are lots of reasons why a Republican might dislike Trump. If there are any libertarians still remaining in the GOP, presumably they would be among those who don’t like Trump.
If nothing else, they might be good for the sugar high of some extra one-time votes. I agree with you that they shouldn’t be humored in any attempt to turn the LP into the same kind of authoritarian hell-hole they’re fleeing.
The Republicans who do not like Trump, do not like him for the wrong reasons. These people are not libertarians, so I do not expect anything from them that will be beneficial to the LP.
Andy,
I agree that all of the candidates have down sides.
My calculation here is that Johnson’s down sides are worse, and his up sides not as good, as his supporters want us to believe (in fact, have presumably talked themselves into believing).
Also, I think two election cycles in a row is enough (actually, two election cycles too many, except to the extent that they provide evidence) to conclude that nominating GOP castoffs and convincing ourselves that THIS time a miracle is in the offing is not an effective approach either in terms of short-term electoral performance or long-term party-building.
As I’ve said before, it might be a mistake to nominate someone other than Johnson, but it would also be a mistake to nominate Johnson … and the possibility of making a NEW mistake is better than the actuality of continuing to make the same mistake over and over.
If we nominate Johnson — I don’t think we will, but I have a history of over-estimating the collective intelligence of the LP, so it’s certainly possible — we nominate Johnson and I will either support him or try to rein myself in and shut the fuck up about him for six months.
Steve,
I think there’s a non-trivial possibility of an uptick in campaign donations over the last few weeks. I assume that Johnson would be the prime beneficiary of such an uptick, with Petersen a distant second. Neither Perry nor Feldman are emphasizing fundraising in a traditional sense, and whether or not the McAfee campaign has stopped being a hot mess and started raising real money isn’t something I can tell from outside, although it’s to be devoutly hoped for.
I suspect the BIG money, if any shows up, will be raised and spent by Republican “NeverTrump” PACs, not by any of the presidential campaigns, for various reasons. One is that they’ll want control of the message instead of leaving it to the candidate/campaign. Another is that if Johnson is the nominee, major donors/bundlers aren’t going to be prone to throw big money down what has established itself beyond any shadow of a doubt as a financial rathole.
The summary info I would take with a heavy amount of salt. I want to know if there has been a significant uptick in donations. And from whom.
Tom, another problem that I see in addition to the problem of hitting a lot of delegates with too much information at once is that there really are no strong candidates. I see problems with each of them.
Perry is the most solid libertarian, but I see strategy and organizational problems with him.
McAfee is new to the party, and he is already skipping debates and showing a lack of long term commitment to the party by saying he is quitting if Johnson gets nominated (he could at least support our down ticket candidates if he does not like Johnson).
There really are no strong choices this year.
Andy,
I am not the only one working to save the LP from another Johnson nomination. I’m doing what I can to reach delegates before the convention, and so are others, in different ways. We’re loosely cooperating. Most of what I do is online, but there are other approaches rolling out as we speak.
AT the convention, I think we have a pretty good plan for reaching the delegates with brief, bullet-pointed information that they won’t be able to resist checking out, and in such a way that the factual case against Johnson can be checked for accuracy and honesty.
The big question, of course, will be whether or not the delegates are interested in the facts. The only way to keep those facts from being AVAILABLE to them would be e.g. theft, physical force and that kind of thing. As low as my opinion is of the JOTSS (Johnson Online Truth Suppression Squad), it’s not low enough for me to assume that they’ll pull that kind of shit. And if by chance they do, well, I’m an old school street protester. I’ve faced down police lines for the LP, so a few convention trolls don’t scare me.
Tom, you mentioned in another thread about hitting delegates with this type of information at the convention. This is a lot of information to digest, so it is a lot to hit people with in a short time frame, especially when delegates will be getting hit with lots of other information, and when they will be busy socializing and going to different convention events.
If you want to inform delegates about this stuff, it would be better to get the information to them before the convention.
Steve,
Interesting, but perhaps not informative. Remember, in the final FEC campaign finance report before the LP nominating convention in 2012, the Johnson campaign just lied its ass off and left the lie in place until well after the general election was over.
Presumably they thought that admitting that would bring the scam to an end and have been overjoyed to learn that many Libertarians simply don’t have the psychological fortitude to admit that they were gullible and got ripped off, then let that fact guide their future actions. Better to just pretend it never happened, like the rape victim who convinces herself not just to not call the police, but that her rapist is really a friend, because those things don’t hurt as badly as facing the truth and doing something about it.
As far as Johnson’s financials…. it will be interesting looking at his April results which should be available on the FEC website sometime around May 20th
Steve,
Touche. Although at this point I feel more like I’m crawling!
Had to give a short stump speech yesterday by surprise (LPF regional gathering in the sound end of my district, and someone didn’t show up so I got grabbed to speak) and wasn’t very happy with my own performance. I need to get my 3-minute and 10-minute tuned up and rehearsed. Gonna work on that while I’m traveling later this week.
TK,
You don’t fool me. I know better.
You are not running for office!
You are biking for it. 😉
Lets consider some other bits on Johnson
from my FREE book Surely We Can Do Better?
Chapter: Bullet points
Lack of Timely Disclosure Our 2012 National Convention delegates were misled as to the state of Johnson 2012’s campaign finances.
Johnson’s Republican Campaign Johnson’s 2011 campaign spent six dollars out of seven on staff and one dollar out of seven on outreach.
Presidential Matching Funds Counting a debt to the U.S. Treasury, Johnson 2012 lost money by taking Federal matching funds.
Abandoning Its Debt The Johnson 2012 campaign finished its run 1.5 million dollars in debt. It offered some creditors nothing, and other creditors an object that it admitted was worth much less than claimed.
A Historical Sequence How the truth came out, a small bit at a time.
What Did We Get for Our Money? How were campaign donations spent?
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/629941
For starters:
Timely Disclosure: 2012 National Convention delegates could read the FEC financial disclosures available before the convention. Those delegates are the people who chose our 2012 Presidential candidate. Those disclosures were untrue. 2012 National Convention delegates could read that Johnson’s campaign, at the end of March, was in debt for $152,373. The actual debt as of March 31, 2012 was $1,078,371, seven times as much. Johnson only revealed his true debt in February 2013, after the election was over. Worse, Johnson had made a secret deal with his campaign management. If Johnson won the nomination, his campaign firm got a $300,000 win bonus, which took his campaign debt instantly to $1,378,371.
Richard,
I haven’t had time to watch it yet (been out and about and watching videos is hard under those circumstances), but it is on my to do list. Thanks for the link. Of course, I’d prefer not to spend too much time trying to find something good to say about a bad candidate. I’ve defended Johnson more times in this cycle than is comfortable already.
Tom, did you watch that 1998 general election New Mexico gubernatorial debate yet? I posted the link in my comment above in this chain.
“If you think the Libertarian Party needs more radical, or better candidates, run somebody for Congress with the same energy you put into attacking Governor Johnson.”
I’m on my sixth run for public office and I’ve put orders of magnitude into each of them than I have into attacking Gary Johnson.
“Or do something else to make the Libertarian viewpoint more visible.”
Like what?
Like writing three libertarian op-eds a week and getting them placed in mainstream and non-libertarian political media more than 500 times last year and on track for 750 this year? Or working for about 20 years — the last 13 1/2 as publisher — on the longest-surviving daily libertarian news and commentary roundup on the Internet? Stuff like that there?
“But it is pretty clear that none of the other candidates for the Libertarian nomination is likely to get the coverage, or the consideration from independent and Republican voters that Gary Johnson will.”
It is pretty clear that in this particular year, whoever the LP nominates will get pretty good coverage.
More of it if the LP nominates someone OTHER than the person the media expects us to nominate, and better for our purposes if the candidate is among the best we can find.
One thing we should always do is run AS IF to win. Among other things, that includes not nominating the candidate who, of the three or four leading candidates, is the least mediagenic, least eloquent, least apparently familiar with libertarian ideas or able to defend them, and most likely to fall apart when challenged or asked a hard question. If we nominate Johnson we had better hope like hell he doesn’t make that 15% mark and get in the big debate. Where any of the other three leading candidates seem prone and prepared to do a reasonably good job most of the time.
SkipChick: “Looks like Christopher took the $4,000 the Johnson campaign offered him.”
Is there any evidence of a pay arrangement or is someone just spouting hot air?
Well, my father in law saw Johnson on ABC This Week and didn’t say anything about what a nut or buffoon he is, and he’s not at all shy in offering up that sort of assessment. On the other hand I’m not sure if he ever heard of Johnson before. Probably not.
Question: What does Chris Thrasher do to earn a living when he is not working on a presidential campaign?
I know that Thrasher worked for Free and Equal for a time, but he left Free and Equal awhile ago. Working on a campaign for a Libertarian Party candidate for President can’t be enough money to sustain oneself for a long period of time, so he has got to have other sources of money.
Jill brought up a great point. Those of us who follow this stuff closely tend to scrutinize the candidates more than a lot of people, some would even accuse us of nitpicking (I call it vetting candidates, but this is another issue).
None of the candidates in the race for the nomination are even close to my ideal, but even so, the party is going to nominate somebody as its presidential candidate in Orlando later this month, so maybe we should just hope that the general public does not notice their flaws.
Everyone I know who is aware of my involvement in third party politics, who are not involved themselves, has emailed or called me about Gary Johnson. They are always surprised when I tell them that Gary isn’t the nominee yet. When I told my brother that last night, he said then “that the Libertarians were late”, which irked me, of course, because neither of the big parties, nor the Green party, have had their conventions yet.
It is very clear to me that Johnson is way ahead of our other candidates in the public’s perception. I also think their perception of Gary is not negative.
TK thinks Gary Johnson will not get more media coverage than any of the other candidates running for the nomination.
I have a google news feed, and Gary Johnson has already gotten more coverage this far in advance of the election than any other Libertarian Party candidate in history, including Ed Clark in 1980 or Ron Paulin 1988.
The New York Times. The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Mother Jones, The Nation, and numerous news websites have all profiled Gary Johnson, usually in the context of “a choice for anti-Trump Republicans” but it is still publicity.
And there is also the fact that in 2012 Gary Johnson received the largest vote ever cast for a candidate on The Libertarian Party ticket.
If you think the Libertarian Party needs more radical, or better candidates, run somebody for Congress with the same energy you put into attacking Governor Johnson. Or do something else to make the Libertarian viewpoint more visible. But it is pretty clear that none of the other candidates for the Libertarian nomination is likely to get the coverage, or the consideration from independent and Republican voters that Gary Johnson will.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?112644-1/new-mexico-gubernatorial-debate
I just watched this 90 minute debate from 1998 between Gary Johnson and his Democratic opponent, Martin Chavez. If anyone else watches it, you can skip the middle between minutes 39 and 51 because that is statements from the Lieutenant Governor candidates and advertising for upcoming C-SPAN broadcasts. Gary Johnson was attacked by his opponent in the very end, because Gary Johnson said if an eleven-year-old doesn’t want to be in school, then he or she should not be forced to be in school. That shows Johnson’s true libertarian self. The overarching theme in the debate is taxes. Johnson talked with pride about bring New Mexico from the 2nd most heavily taxed state at the beginning of his first term, to the 8th most heavily taxed as of the end of his first term. It was worth watching.
Sometimes, knowing the truth is quite a burden.
“John did not say he was leaving the party. He said that he would support anyone but Johnson and has repeatedly given those reasons.”
Actually, McAfee has not given any reasons for that comment. He’s let minions float the hearsay stories of Johnson bribing delegates, renting all (possibly, ‘both’) the available hotel rooms at the conference center, etc., but he has made it clear that whatever reasons he had for his comment have “‘nothing whatsoever to do with the issues [his campaign] has bought up’ and are ‘completely different’ and ‘issues that have not yet been publicly brought up by anyone ever'” (including him). http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/21/libertarian-party-presidential-campaign
Yes, sadly still ducking and clucking.
BW,
Oh, OK — I hadn’t seen any mention of a separate event. Over on Facebook, the way the Penn thing was presented by people arguing, they seemed to be the same events. But I was also traveling yesterday and not following as closely as I usually do. Thanks for letting me know.
So Johnson is still in “whatever you do, don’t engage your opponents any more because every time you do you lose delegates” mode, eh?
The RT debate is May 12. The Las Vegas event is May 16.
BW,
I thought the Vegas event with Penn WAS the RT debate.
Those videos can be made at:
http://captiongenerator.com/make-a-hitler-reacts-video
I just whipped that one up in maybe five minutes, but if anyone wants to do a better job, it would be great. I’ve got different kinds of convention agit-prop planned 😉
RC,
My problem with Johnson from a media perspective isn’t really with his issues positions. It’s with his lackluster presentation, complete inability to maintain his composure when challenged, lack of acumen for being quick on his feet when things don’t go according to the script in his head, etc. He’s pretty much Admiral Stockdale with Tourette’s.
[video deleted because I couldn't figure out how to turn off auto-play, and also because material facts have changed, e.g. Johnson announcing that he will be in the RT debate after all, and finally because it was pretty mean-spirited - TLK]
Did Johnson say he would be in the RT debate? I saw an announcement that he would be in the Las Vegas event with Penn Jillette but nothing about RT. I think the video was both funny and accurate, so I hope there’s a way to link it without embedding it. One other minor criticism of the video is that the text is at times too fast to read without pausing. Personally I would love to see it played on a loop on TV monitors right outside the entrance to the convention hall, like Holtz’s Matrix videos in 2008. Maybe with a banner about Jews and nazi cakes?
TK, quantity is IMO more important, AEE. Marketing theory tells us that repetition is the key to effectiveness. No question that his quality of presentation could stand improvement.
Since GJ isn’t an anarchist or even a NAP fundamentalist may well be disqualifying from your perspective. Perhaps that could be appeal led to the JC or something. Perhaps all the candidates save Perry and NOTA could be disqualified in this manner….
Ralph,
Sorry about that. I removed the video embed, since I couldn’t find the autoplay hook in the code. I found the autoplay annoying, too.
“Looks like Christopher took the $4,000 the Johnson campaign offered him.”
That sounds more specific than anything I have heard before. Is there evidence that this happened?
Os there any way to keep the audio of the Downfall clip from playing every time this article is reloaded? I think it was funny and spot on in this particular iteration, but at this point I am tired of hearing it over and over again.
RC,
“None of the choices stands a chance to get anything more than also-ran coverage”
There, fixed that for ya.
Might Gary get a LITTLE bit more media coverage than some of the other choices? I doubt it*, but sure, maybe.
QUALITY of coverage — specifically including the candidate’s ability to turn questions to his or her self-promotional advantage — is as important as QUANTITY of media.
Johnson is way back in the pack when it comes to general speaking ability, ability to handle questions that aren’t actual questions instead of softballs intended to let him make a point, quickness on his feet when confronted with something he wasn’t expecting, etc.
Johnson also has a political record. Can that be an advantage? Yes. Can it be a disadvantage? Yes. For obvious reasons, he, his campaign and his supporters would prefer to think only about the former and not the latter, but that’s irrational.
A whole lot of the argument in favor of Gary Johnson is the notion that he could poll well enough to get in a debate with Trump and Clinton. He almost certainly couldn’t, but the people who believe he could need to also think about what it would be like if he DID. It would be ugly and would reflect well on neither candidate nor party.
As far as coaching to not be so publicly/verbally inept is concerned, there’s been plenty of time for it. If it’s been tried, it obviously hasn’t worked.
* Want media coverage? Surprise the media. Nominating Gary Johnson again is about as far as surprising the media as it’s possible to get.
dgr: the former two-term New Mexico governor makes Donald J. Trump seem like some sort of well-informed, politically-astute deep thinker.
me: This may well be your perception, but I certainly don’t share it. DJT is assertive, certainly, but he does not come across as more astute that GJ.
Dan Quayle…that’s more on target for me.
Best case is GJ can be coached to be a Jimmy Stewart figure. None of the other choices stands a chance to get anything more than also-ran coverage, in my view. In 16, GJ might get a serious, semi-Perot look. He’s got to go to soundbite boot camp if he wants to play on the big stage.
“Gary Johnson was re-elected Governor of New Mexico in November 1998. Gary defeated his 1998 Democratic opponent, who had been Mayor of Albuquerque 1993-1997, by 55% to 45%. The Democratic nominee, Martin J. Chavez, was also a good politician, being elected Mayor of Albuquerque again in 2001 and 2005.” — Richard Winger
That’s true, but what does the fact that Johnson was re-elected by a ten-point margin almost twenty years ago have to do with the topic of this thread?
It’s kind of sad to see so many of the LP’s self-appointed gatekeepers — the party’s establishment, so to speak — circling the wagons for their embarrassingly clueless and heavily-indebted frontrunner, particularly in a year when so many Americans across the political spectrum are clamoring for something different.
The last thing they want is another “successful” politician — and the last thing the Libertarian Party needs is a bunch of party leaders playing the part of Debbie Wasserman Schultz-like sentries on behalf of Gary Johnson’s unimaginative, gaffe-ridden and yawn-inducing campaign.
But he’s a former governor, they say over and over again, blissfully ignoring the fact that more times than not the former two-term New Mexico governor makes Donald J. Trump seem like some sort of well-informed, politically-astute deep thinker.
That’s something that will become painfully obvious to the LP faithful if Johnson is nominated in Orlando later this month and — unlike the 2012 campaign when his poorly-managed candidacy was largely viewed as a convenient “protest vote” — begins to receive serious scrutiny.
For those who have followed his political career closely, remember how he didn’t know what a “colonia” was while running for governor in 1994, despite the fact that New Mexico had more of them than any state in the country with the sole exception of the Lone Star State. He was deservedly mocked and ridiculed by local reporters and pundits at the time.
Gary Johnson will be the new Dan Quayle — and he’ll be eaten alive.
Looks like Christopher took the $4,000 the Johnson campaign offered him.
As for Thrasher, why would anyone be surprised? He came into the LP supporting a non-libertarian with a bunch of fancy “credentials” and not much else. Now, he’s decided to deliver an encore. If we’re lucky, his support of Johnson this year will be just as worthless as his support of Gravel was in ’08.
I usually don’t delve into the comments here…
We should probably be grateful for that, given the quality of the comment that remark prefaced (essentially a bunch of ad hominem garbage directed at Darcy, with no attempt to refute the substantive criticisms that he made of Johnson). Of course, I’ve come to expect these sorts of non-arguments from Johnson groupies.
What was he right about?
#AustinPetersenWasRight
(even a broken clock is right twice a day)
Gary Johnson was re-elected Governor of New Mexico in November 1998. Gary defeated his 1998 Democratic opponent, who had been Mayor of Albuquerque 1993-1997, by 55% to 45%. The Democratic nominee, Martin J. Chavez, was also a good politician, being elected Mayor of Albuquerque again in 2001 and 2005.
1998 was not a very good year for the Republican Party. That year, the Republicans declined in the US House, lost one governorship, and stayed the same in the US Senate. To me it is very significant that Johnson was re-elected with a much better margin than he had had in 1994, his first election.
Carol Miller, long-time Green and independent political activist in New Mexico, and one of the Green Party’s most successful US House candidates in the party’s national history, has told me that she really likes Gary.
“I am pretty sure that John McAfee did say that he would quit the LP nominates Johnso again. This statement does not show a lot of dedication to the party.”
But still more dedication to the party than nominating Johnson again would show.
Should read, “would quit if…”
I am pretty sure that John McAfee did say that he would quit the LP nominates Johnso again. This statement does not show a lot of dedication to the party.
Thomas L. Knapp truly nails it at 07:59 and 08:37. Darcy G. Richardson’s comments are also spot on. From now on “ChrishTrasher” will have a definition similar to Quisling.
John did not say he was leaving the party. He said that he would support anyone but Johnson and has repeatedly given those reasons. His point was: HOW CAN I HELP A PARTY THAT RETURNS GARY JOHNSON AFTER THE LAST FOUR YEARS OF HIS LEADERSHIP.
I’m a McAfee campaign volunteer. From what I understand, we didn’t really have a campaign for months. Mid-April, CEO of d10e.org, a disruptive tech conference, was brought on to replace Thrasher. I don’t know if she sleeps, but since I have been on the team, we have developed a passionate community of volunteers from student organizations to technolibertarians to party members all rallying to John. Madison may be the most competent manager I’ve ever worked for and John is genuinely dedicated to creating solutions, not talking about it.
I applied twice to volunteer, both times as a delegate, and received no response from Thrasher. The story is the same for the several dozens of enthusiastic volunteers I am now working with 20+ hours per day. We are bringing the startup spirit to the campaign and helping people in the process. I understand this was John McAfee’s idea and he was willing to divert resources (all volunteer) from his campaign to help us develop meaningful infrastructure that party members and candidates are saying are missing.
As I saw Tiffany Madison write on a Facebook thread, “Our team of libertarians are already building, executing, and helping based on the feedback from the grassroots. We’re not going anywhere. We can also do more for the LP when we’re the nominee, rather than more of the same.” You can check out what we built here:
1) First searchable database for Libertarian candidates (if you’re a candidate, please search and let us know if the info is wrong! http://www.votedifferent.us/phase-1
2) A national survey that goes live on Monday. We need to know what we should be asking. The whole survey has been shaped by party members and candidates and when it goes live Monday, we’ll announce the first round of data we’ve gathered from the 120 people that have already taken it.
We are not going anywhere. As Tiffany said in our morning meeting, we are just getting started. Imagine what we can do when we’re the nominee, rather than more of the same.
Meanwhile, back at Johnson HQ:
[video deleted because I couldn't figure out how to turn off auto-play, and also because material facts have changed, e.g. Johnson announcing that he will be in the RT debate after all, and finally because it was pretty mean-spirited - TLK]
EXCLUSIVE!
Earlier this morning, I interviewed Chris Thrasher on how he came to turn from supporting John McAfee to endorsing Gary Johnson:
“[Thrasher is] a classic 3rd party opportunist.”
On the one hand, throwing in against the LP with Johnson does make it look a lot like that.
On the other hand, I have to think there’s more to it than that.
I think Thrasher’s mealy-mouthed confession will be the standard for the LP “success” minions this round. He’s a classic 3rd party opportunist. Watch Petersen vie for VP (ala W.A.R.) as his dingy starts to take on just a little water. Feldman is dropped after first round of voting. Perry to follow. I’ll be checking CSPAN at the hotel in Boston that weekend in case a surprise walk-on emerges . Good Luck, have fun, all.
Redlich 2024.
Quoth Christopher Thrasher:
“For the first time in my lifetime, the Libertarian Party is aiming for more than just 2%.”
Oh, bullshit. I know for a FACT that you are more than four years old.
“Shit, maybe the Libertarians just ought to nominate you!” – Third Party Observer
Thanks, but I’m not a washed up Republican. Besides, I’m too libertarian for them, and never in my entire life would have ever thought about building prisons for profit — using a sketchy company that specialized in deportations to build and run those prisons, no less — banning burqas, forcing Jewish bakers to bake wedding cakes for Nazis, or advocating the death penalty for anyone, let alone kids as young as thirteen.
You , Mr. Thrasher, sir give turncoats and traitors a bad name. At least we have done it for what we considered noble reasons. I believe you did it for the money. Or maybe Mr. Johnson is very persuasive when he is on his knees.
I’ve found John McAfee to be surprisingly articulate and charismatic during some of the debates, and I actually appreciate his gonzo sense of humor, so if I was to base things solely on first impressions (somehow divorced from any notoriety he has gained from allegations about his recent activities) I would say he actually makes for a better debater and face for the LP than the other viable candidates in this race.
HOWEVER the issues of his lack of previous activism for the LP (and it being very questionable whether he would continue any beyond this campaign), and his focus towards cyber-security (almost to the point of fear mongering with it as well blindness towards equally if not greater issues that threaten security, such as national debt) – to which he has a disturbingly statist solution (the creation of yet another agency for the Federal gov), as well as other quibbles – make me hesitant towards giving him support over the other candidates.
BUT if there is any absolute deal breaker as to whether McAfee would be the best candidate is the fact that he has declined to go on RT for a nationally televised debate – stating (in a rather humorous Facebook post) having lost patience with sitting through the other candidates schpiels once again- as well as other evidence (such as a recent mainstream media articles noting his fatigue after the NY debate, as well as his declining to attend the last couple of State conventions that are scheduled for this month) that he simply is not that all that committed to doing the tedious arduous and indeed very repetitious long hours doing the slagging out work necessary for a third party campaign that achieves anything even remotely above 500,000 votes.
You pretty much have it right, Third Party Observer, except that I was never involved with Americans Elect.
You can have your former governor and his lingering $1,538,000 campaign debt. Oh, and don’t forget the $332,191 that your deadbeat candidate still owes the U.S. Treasury in federal matching funds that were improperly spent on non-qualified expenses during his 2012 presidential campaign.
As you probably know — or should know — that’s in addition to the outstanding $1.5 million that Gary Johnson owed his creditors at the conclusion of his last campaign. It’s not exactly an insignificant sum for a third-party candidate. In fact, it’s more than the $278,000 that the presumed Libertarian frontrunner raised in the first three months of his current campaign. That repayment to the American taxpayers, incidentally, was due this past week.
This is just a personal observation, but it’s kind of difficult to have much respect for somebody, particularly a campaign staffer, who changes loyalties at this late stage in a campaign. It almost borders on betrayal.
Maybe McAfee was right in suggesting that Gary Johnson was trying to poach some of his key staffers.
I usually don’t delve into the comments here, but I just have to say that Darcy Richardson’s above comments are hilarious. I’d take a former Governor with campaign debt any day over, say, a deluded historian who was involved in the Consumer Party, the later runs of Gene McCarthy in the late 80’s and early 90’s, a failed bid for Lt. Governor in Florida (in which fraudster Daniel Imperato out-performed your ticket), and a failed attempt to primary Obama, draft Robert Reich, and win the Americans Elect (that whole “party” was just cringe inducing) before dropping out and endorsing Buddy Roemer, entering again as a Reform Party candidate, and then finally losing to Andre Barnett-whoever the hell he is.
Shit, maybe the Libertarians just ought to nominate you!
The remarkably spirited campaign waged by pesky Vermonter Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side, and the fact that somebody like presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump was able to sweep through the crowded Republican field, vanquishing no fewer than nine governors or former governors in the process, tells us — rather loud and clear — that a large segment of the American electorate is looking for something completely different in 2016.
A mediocre two-term ex-Republican governor, particularly one who habitually runs up staggering debts — ranging from a breathtaking $2.78 billion long-term debt accrued during his eight years as governor of New Mexico to a massive $1.5 million campaign debt in 2012 — doesn’t quite fit that bill.
A solid and accurate assessment.