William Weld wins Libertarian Party vice presidential nomination on second ballot (both ballot results listed below, from Wikipedia:
| Libertarian National Convention Vice Presidential vote, 2016 – 1st Ballot[7] | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | First Ballot | Percentage |
| William Weld | 426 | 49.022% |
| Larry Sharpe | 264 | 30.380% |
| William Coley | 93 | 10.702% |
| Derrick Grayson | 48 | 5.524% |
| Alicia Dearn | 29 | 3.337% |
| None of the above | 6 | 0.690% |
| Daniel Hogan (Write-in) | 1 | 0.115% |
| Austin Petersen (Write-in) | 1 | 0.115% |
| Gary Johnson (Write-in) | 1 | 0.115% |
| Totals | 869 | 100% |
No candidate achieved the majority on the first ballot, so there was a second ballot vote. Due to finishing last of the five nominated candidates, Dearn was excluded from the second ballot. Dearn then endorsed Weld. Additionally, both Coley and Grayson withdrew their names and endorsed Sharpe, though due to the late nature of Grayson’s withdrawal, his name will remain on the ballot as a valid candidate.
| Libertarian National Convention Vice Presidential vote, 2016 – 2nd Ballot[8] | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Second Ballot | Percentage |
 William Weld | 441 | 50.573% |
| Larry Sharpe | 409 | 46.904% |
| None of the above | 12 | 1.376% |
| Derrick Grayson | 9 | 1.032% |
| Mark Stewart (Write-in) | 1 | 0.115% |
| Totals | 872 | 100% |
The Libertarian, free market position on insurance and health care is easy.
Mutual Insurance, a membership approach which provides the kind of coverage and benefits members want. Members are the ones who pay for it and there is no profit. The insurance spreads risk. That was the original idea, applied to fire insurance, by Benjamin Franklin. Insurance was corporatized away from this benevolent model which really is Private, in the 70s and 80s.
Health Care
We are not allowed to choose what works best and is least expensive. These are treated as criminal enterprises today. The legalization of marijuana has helped to some small degree, but each of us should be free to exercise our right to choose for ourselves.
No group of practitioners, for instance medical doctors, should ever have been granted preference over other approaches. The free market was not allowed to operate and today the results are obvious.
As an adjunct to medicine pharmaceutical companies force us to use their products and refuse to take responsibility when, all too often, these harm or kill us. Again, they are protected by government.
It is likely that no one in this group realized Veterans are routinely used as lab rats for new procedures and drugs. Turning this at risk population over to corporations would not increase their life expectancy.
first, take care of the presenting problem, the present medical establishment.
Let me provide just one example of the limits of western medicine.
In 1998 I had my second heart attack. Since three of my siblings had died of heart attacks at ages 36, 59 and 62, this was an urgent problem. At the same time I was suffering from intense migraines which immobilized me. I could not drive. I was forced to care for my disabled son by crawling to his room. Arthur had shot himself through the brain after his father rejected him in the wake of his first TBI, six months earlier.
My physician, and I had the best, could not use medications because everything he tried made the migraines worse. So, having completely exhausted the options he sent me to his Acupuncturist. She worked on both the migraines and on my heart which was very irregular.
In a month my heart was less irregular and my migraines were still present but less intense. After 18 months there was no irregularity. Since this is what he expected my cardiologist made no comment when I went in for an exam. That was my last.
fI could provide dozens of examples from others, but the principle does not change. Let people decide for themselves.
The clear position is to end the special protection afforded to the medical establishment and trust the free market to operate. Since the alternatives are well proven this should happen first.
Visit http://www.justice-integrity.org/ and sign up for Andrew’s newsletter in regards to conspiracy theories. Andrew Kreig wrote Presidential Puppetry, http://www.presidentialpuppetry.com/ which swept through the thinking Liberals on the issue of multiple ‘conspiracy theories.’ It is a dense book. Andrew wrote Spiked, the book about the take over of the media by corporations around 30 years ago.
He also nailed the Bushes and other members of Greedville (Corporate Elite, Multi-National Military Complex)
By the way, according to Jerry Day (Jerry is the Hollywood Emmy winning Director who did the Fair coverage for Ron Paul in 2007 and started the Anti-Smart Meter Movement jerryday.com) the alternative media is now past 2/3 the size of the MSM, and gaining rapidly. There are many reasons Johnson could be elected of which is most likely unaware.
Of course it was a conspiracy. Read the definition of the word. The Left is way ahead on this issue – they left denial with Andrew’s book and the growing, objective and well documented, evidence.
Andrew is also an attorney, very well connected in DC, and knows lots of the movers and shakers. But he is determined to stop them.
Also read Mary’s Mosaic. http://www.marysmosaic.net/ Author Peter Janney was the son of one of the CIA high level management who planned the JFK assassination and then arranged to have Mary Pinchot Meyer killed to shut her up. He knew Mary when he was a boy and Mary’s son was a friend of his.
It may not make sense to you or to me, but militarism is not on the toxic list.
As I said, Gaffney is no ordinary warmonger. Some of the ideas that he has promoted include:
–Grover Norquist and Huma Abedin (one of Hillary’s advisers) are secret agents of the Muslim Brotherhood.
–The “Birther Theory” that Obama was born in Kenya.
–The claim that the logo of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency is a hidden symbol that represents Obama’s “submission” to Sharia.
This is only a partial list. Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney#Conspiracy_theories
You have frequently claimed that libertarians and especially LP candidates should avoid being “associated” with people who hold “fringe” or “extremist” ideas. Does Gaffney not fit that bill?
You are correct that there is no large movement to abolish state sanctioned marriage. Most people do know there is a problem, they don’t know that state marriage is a relatively new idea, and it hasn’t occured to them what to do.
That gives us an opportunity to lead.
First, layout and define the problem, get the heads nodding that the problem exists.
Second, explain the history of how we got here, with the State creating the problem.
Third, lay out the benefits of liberty on solving each of the issues and problems that come from the one-size-hurts-all State contract.
Finally, propose the solution.
This series of steps can be used to explain any number of problems and to lead the public to a principled Libertarian solution. Presenting the steps to the general public is best done over an extended period of time in an orchestrated campaign and not all at once, so that their heads don’t explode from too much input. They need time to digest each step before moving on.
br: Most people in America have the feeling that there is something wrong with the way we handle marriage.
me: I’ve seen no evidence for this, but I am open minded. I’ve seen no movement toward abolishing state-sanctioned marriage…none. One only hears this in L circles, but, again…open-minded.
Any sources to back your claim?
L: “neoconfederates” and so forth, but they don’t seem the least bit concerned by the LP nominating two candidates who are “associated” with neocon warmongers
me: I’ll elaborate, then. In the vast middle, there are some issues, positions, and associations that are completely toxic. Being a racist would be such an issue. Sexism would be another.
It may not make sense to you or to me, but militarism is not on the toxic list.
Really, haven’t you noticed?
“Unless the Libertarian campaign of Johnson – Weld takes significant votes from the Blue side we are electing Hillary. Not a good outcome.
Winning the White House and preventing this and a Trump presidency means winning. Winning has never before been even a remote possibility. Now, it is.
This requires the same strategy, go Blue with action and words. Hammer the NeoCons with their wars, their murder of millions, and the fortunes they have reaped at the same time we show both major parties are corporate tools. ” – Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
I agree with this totally.
Johnson/Weld need to focus on the “personal liberty” side of the Nolan chart. Run on the “blue” side, run hard to take votes from Hillary.
Taking votes from Hillary is key. That will allow the voters who hate Trump to dump him and still stop Hillary.
Regionally, we should first target the 6 New England states: ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT; New Mexico; and the West Coast: WA, OR, CA.
Getting the State out of marriage entirely is the correct answer … And yes, RC, it CAN be sold. Most people in America have the feeling that there is something wrong with the way we handle marriage.
Individuals who have been dragged through the legal system, paid for lawyers, and had family relationships destroyed that cuold have been maintained on a civil basis, because of the marriage and divorce laws are already ahead of the LP on this issue. They’re mad as hell and waiting for a solution.
Many individuals who have been denied their right to marry, while seeking approval through state sanction, can see that the State is not the answer either. Another group ripe to join in the repeal of marriage and divorce laws.
Many individuals who do NOT want to accept marriages involving combinations they disapprove of morally will see the benefit of being able to continue to deny reality on the basis of their morality or religion, so they will join in this change as well.
Individuals who look at the murder-suicide epidemic caused by the marriage and divorce laws and want to eliminate or at least reduce this problem will also join in a rational change to private marriage contracts. We must end the tragedy of parents killing ex-spouses or divorcing spouces and their children out of desperation due to the disaster that the legal system imposes on them.
This is a good issue, it’s ripe, it’s edgy and enough of the public is ready for change to embrace the Libertarian solution.
“I thought “associating” with “conspiracy theorists” made the LP look like “nuts” and “cranks” — where is the Libertarian Skeptics Caucus to denounce Johnson and Weld for their ties with Gaffney? — langa
They’re too busy congratulating Johnson for adding a Rockefeller Republican to their “dream ticket.”
I must admit that I found the timing of the announcement that Romney was giving up looking for an independent candidate suspicious. Why? He made that announcement the day after Gary announced Weld as his running mate. I think it’s entirely possible that Romney or others in the GOP called up Gary to discuss the situation. I don’t care if that makes me a “conspiracy theorist”. I think it was a possibility.
More evidence of Johnson’s connections with “conspiracy theorist” Gaffney:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/03/thomas-l-knapp-the-ted-cruz-gary-johnson-connection-and-it-aint-pretty/
You know, I think it’s very telling that many (L)ibertarians, including some here at IPR (e.g. Gene Berkman, Robert Capozzi, Andy Craig, etc.) are so worried about certain libertarians being “associated” with “neoconfederates” and so forth, but they don’t seem the least bit concerned by the LP nominating two candidates who are “associated” with neocon warmongers — and not just any run-of-the-mill neocon warmongers, but truly deranged neocon warmongers like Frank Gaffney, whose virulent Islamophobia is reminiscent of McCarthyism.
In fact, Gaffney is even a dreaded “conspiracy theorist”* — yet we see no sign of Andy Craig and Co. freaking out over Johnson and Weld being connected to him. What gives? I thought “associating” with “conspiracy theorists” made the LP look like “nuts” and “cranks” — where is the Libertarian Skeptics Caucus to denounce Johnson and Weld for their ties with Gaffney?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney#Conspiracy_theories
I would not have chosen Weld as the vp candidate. I’m actually quite concerned about his membership in the CFR, and actually plan to write to him to ask him to discontinue associating with them for the duration of the campaign ( a girl can hope, right?)
But, I will support Johnson, He is our candidate, and there’s nothing we can do about it at this time.
As for the tinfoil-hatted fools complaining about Weld, what have YOUR asses done for freedom lately?
Ah, the ever reliable argument by ad hominem! Whatever I may or may not have done doesn’t make Weld’s support for gun control, war, Bush, Obama, the Patriot Act, and so forth, even one iota more libertarian. Try again, you ass-kissing sycophant. (See, I can use ad hominem arguments, too!)
Unless the Libertarian campaign of Johnson – Weld takes significant votes from the Blue side we are electing Hillary. Not a good outcome.
Winning the White House and preventing this and a Trump presidency means winning. Winning has never before been even a remote possibility. Now, it is.
This requires the same strategy, go Blue with action and words. Hammer the NeoCons with their wars, their murder of millions, and the fortunes they have reaped at the same time we show both major parties are corporate tools.
Of course, this is dangerous. But it is worth the risk.
It is time to stop being an adjunct to the Republican Party.
RC: As previously stated, when it comes to POLITICS (vs. political theory), my first question about any theory is: Can it be sold? In theory, I’m with you…get the government out of marriage. In practice, my assessment is such a position is unsellable, and is therefore a non-starter.
Feeling like you are selling something to make people feel good while the chains are tightened down is counter productive to say the least. In 2006 the cost of divorces in America was $650 for every family, whether or not they were getting a divorce. The family home is most often sold to pay part of the cost of divorce. In this three cornered contact the innocent party is always the one who loses. Verdicts are now routinely sold. The legal profession is growing rich off what is criminal corruption.
The solution is private contracts, entirely legal now.
Your argument provides no benefit to offset the cost of losing an essential freedom, if it can ever be appropriate to trade freedom for slavery. How sad to see such an argument accepted as valid by a Libertarian.
It really is time to finish Shays Rebellion.
po: Will Bill Weld drop out if he doesn’t also get the Republican vice presidential nomination?
pf: NY 2006 makes this a legitimate question.
me: Tell us more. Has WW been mentioned for the short list for the R VP slot? I didn’t think so….
mpf: The correct fix is to take the State out of marriage entirely, making it by private contract.
me: As previously stated, when it comes to POLITICS (vs. political theory), my first question about any theory is: Can it be sold? In theory, I’m with you…get the government out of marriage. In practice, my assessment is such a position is unsellable, and is therefore a non-starter.
In the meantime, equal protection under the law has a nice, sellable ring to it. In fact, the sale’s been made!
What if I told you . . . He is Weld
@ From der Sidelines
Me personally?
Active with my local and state party. Supporting national, state and my local party with financial contributions. Gathered petition signatures for candidates. Mailing all registered Libertarians in my precinct invites to local meetings and Johnson & LP bumper stickers in 2012 and general promotion of liberty and the LP on a regular basis to anyone who will listen…and occasionally to GOP, Democratic & GP petitioners that knock at my door and gather in front of the library.
More than you and Weld I assume.
Robert Capozzi said, “I note your sleight of hand re: LGBT activists. You might be right there. My point is that rapidly growing percentages of the population are for gay rights and marriage equality. To be for gay rights is not associated with socialism that I can see.”
What is the rationale here? If the State is oppressing and controlling one group every other group should also be equally oppressed? Why would anyone want to State writing their marriage contract for them? Only actions which are otherwise illegal were appropriately licensed – why do you want to encourage State licensing of actions which should be outside of State control?
Would you like to have the State write any other partnership agreement for you? And the policy active today is for No Fault Marriage. So, if your partner empties all of your bank accounts, steals your personal possessions and sells them and commits other violations of your rights of ownership this is alright?
Additionally, the law can change by legislative action and you won’t even know about it.
The correct fix is to take the State out of marriage entirely, making it by private contract. Couples who do this, and they are out there, have more stable relationships because they can be held to their mutual obligations. They are accountable, just like all of us should be in any other part of our lives.
Why would Libertarians support this atrocity?
Now that I think about it the local paper called me up in 1996 and asked for a statement on gay marriage. I told them Gays should be sure to inform the State of their partnership but that they did not need laws to affirm a relationship since the State has no standing to be involved. But, I added, the couple should make sure their union was memorialized by the church, or what or whoever, performed the ceremony and the calligraphy should be in an appropriate font. White or cream colored paper only, please!
Now, I understand that the State asserts the right to limit benefits if couples do not consent to be licensed. This is wrong and should be stopped. But, as I said before, the correct strategy is to bifurcate these issues and free all of us from the oppressive actions of government.
Centralized control by the State is socialism, unless you want to call it fascism, which also works.
I guess the liberty movement is now fairly well divided into exactly two camps: Those with tinfoil hats, who think some evil terrorists who hate our freedom carried out 911 to enact tyranny in the homeland, who also believe the media is part of that same close knit group of evil ones, who also believe front groups like the CFR are meeting grounds and breeding grounds where these evil ones comingle – then you have those with tinfoil blinders who think “the government” is bad in the abstract, but purely because of incompetence and stupidity, not because of a coordinated effort, who believe that career politicians with extensive ties to the evil ones can just change their minds like some ignoramous who just read Harry Browne or Mises and now has a new perspective. I’ll take the tinfoil hat types. At least with them, even if they are wrong, they are fighting the right people. Those with tin foil blinders are welcoming the foxes into the henhouse and declaring victory before setlling in for their last night of slumber.
“As for the tinfoil-hatted fools complaining about Weld, what have YOUR asses done for freedom lately?”
Far more than your snarky dumb ass has.
I doubt that Wall Street will be doing anything today as the markets are closed for the holiday, you idiots.
As for the tinfoil-hatted fools complaining about Weld, what have YOUR asses done for freedom lately?
*Crickets*
So, it turns out that, in 2005, Weld signed a letter (written by unhinged warmonger Frank Gaffney) urging the renewal of the Patriot Act, and explicitly defending the part of the law used to authorize NSA spying.
http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/william-weld-signed-letter-supporting-patriot-act/
Notice how supporters of Weld can’t talk about anything other than media coverage and the mysterious money that will be flowing into LP coffers now?
They won’t even make the slightest attempt to defend Weld’s stances or past endorsements. I get the feeling many of his supporters probably also supported Barr in ’08 for the same reasons.
Bring up Weld’s opposition to the Second Amendment…crickets.
Bring up Weld’s past lauding the foreign policy of George W. Bush…crickets.
Bring up his support of eminent domain…crickets.
Bring up his support of the fiercely anti-LP John Kasich…crickets.
All because of publicity, funding and votes that will probably never materialize in the ways they think it will.
NY 2006 makes this a legitimate question.
Will Bill Weld drop out if he doesn’t also get the Republican vice presidential nomination?
L, ludicrous…for you. I respect that. Objectively ludicrous? No such thing, I submit. Ludicrous for most? I see no evidence of that. I see much evidence to the contrary.
I note your sleight of hand re: LGBT activists. You might be right there. My point is that rapidly growing percentages of the population are for gay rights and marriage equality. To be for gay rights is not associated with socialism that I can see.
Being for gun rights might somewhat associate with being for a strong national defense, but I don’t think that means that Ls should drop its gun rights stance. Adventurism? Less so. (I do think it should drop its stance on toting bazookas in public, though!)
As previously discussed, NAP syllogisms don’t work in politics, but while it might be nice to apply simplistic logic formulas to complex questions about changing the direction of civil society, as Tommy said, “You’d laugh and say ‘nothing’s that simple’. ”
You’ve given no indication that you get that. But I am hopeful! 😉
Here’s a great question that should be frequently asked in politics: Can we sell it? If it can’t be sold, I suggest wait for the day that it can, and make change in the here and now that might set up such a day down the road.
RC, if you don’t think the vast majority of LGBT activists are left-authoritarians, you haven’t been paying attention. The folks in Outright Libertarians, unfortunately, are a rare breed. If you doubt that, look at the overwhelming support in the gay community for Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist.
In fact, I would guess that if you polled all the people who describe themselves as gay rights activists, at least 95% (and probably closer to 99%) would support using government force to compel bakers to bake gay wedding cakes, force businesses to hire gay employees, and so forth.
And this is just one example. To take another example, there is “great overlap” between people who support the right to bear arms and those who support an interventionist foreign policy. Should the LP abandon its opposition to gun control, for fear of being “associated” with warmongers?
I could keep giving these kinds of examples all day. Your stance — that one should avoid taking any position, simply to avoid “being associated with” other people who take that position — is ludicrous.
I listen to and watch plenty of anti-Johnson and anti-Weld material. I’ve taken 15 minutes to listen to Gary Johnson and William Weld. They don’t sound half bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osxwtgodHdg (with Johnson)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqqefZhiQuM ( William Weld on Why Libertarians Can Trust Him as Vice President)
L: Libertarians should take the correct position on every issue,
me: If there is such a thing as “the correct position,” I see your point. However, I don’t believe that the Spooner position is “correct.” I don’t hold that position, after all! 😉 The Spooner position is not without merit, either, but I don’t buy it.
Optically and perhaps unfairly so, the hater factor among Neo-Confederates is extremely high, is my sense of the public’s mind. This is not the case among those who advocate LGBT rights and authoritarian socialism. I see little association there, at least not in the public’s mind.
LGBT rights is on the march. The cool kids support the idea. They don’t support Spoonerism on the Confederate Elite Insurrection.
This doesn’t mean Ls should always take the cool kids’s position on all issues, but POLITICS involve positioning, pulling together large numbers of people and shaping messages that attract them, while bending public opinion in the direction we seek.
This is in contrast to the Rothbardian model of holding high an unworkable extremist construct, and attacking those who don’t buy into the morality and universality of the NAP in all matters of politics.
“dgr: There will be a lot of smiles — and snickering — on Wall Street this morning.
me: Evidence? My sense is that Wall Street doesn’t pay attention to third-party machinations.” — Robert Capozzi
This is no ordinary year, Robert. They were definitely paying attention this weekend, but they can now breathe a sigh of relief knowing that any genuine third-party threat to the ruling elite has been completely neutralized.
L, taking the Spooner position on the Confederate Elite Insurrection does NOT “constitute” bigotry. It does, however, “associate” with bigots, since there is a great overlap between Civil War revisionists and bigotry.
Politics — versus the study of history or the meaning of the Constitution — is a game of optics. The optics of Ls who rationalize the CSA’s secession are poor, since it associates Ls with bigots, even if the Ls who do so are not bigots themselves.
This is an exceedingly poor argument, even by your standards. Libertarians should take the correct position on every issue, even if other supporters of the same position happen to be wrong about other issues. This is so obvious it shouldn’t even need to be stated.
For example, to use your confused logic, there is “great overlap” between those who support LGBT rights and those who support authoritarian socialism, or even outright communism. So, according to your logic, the LP shouldn’t support equal rights for LGBT individuals, because by doing so, we would be “associating” with communists. Surely you see the absurd path you are heading down.
The bottom line is that if you want to criticize Rockwell and Co. for their immigrant bashing, I’m right there with you. I won’t even object if you want to go after them on abortion. (Even though I am strongly pro-life, I recognize this is a major point of contention among libertarians, and I’m not going to waste time trying to change people’s minds on that issue.)
But this “neoconfederate” crap is just a pure smear — no more, and no less. It’s designed to bully libertarians into going along with the PC, establishment fairy tale that exalts Lincoln (the “Great Emancipator”) as some sort of libertarian hero. In reality, from a libertarian perspective, Lincoln was quite possibly the worst President ever, and indisputably one of the three worst ever (alongside Wilson and FDR). The fact that some self-styled “libertarians” seem so invested in whitewashing the crimes of such a brutal tyrant is not only absurd, it’s an embarrassment.
Robert:
“It’s most unfortunate that many Ls seem to want to re-litigate history in a POLITICAL context. ”
That’s because the LP chose a conservative to moderate the debate who proceeded to use the event as means to regurgitate the typical con/proggie boilerplate objections to libertarianism. The candidate responses were further straight-jacketed by the 30 second sound bite duration. Whatever money they spent on Larry Elder, they overpaid. They simply could requested Think Progress and National Review USPS their debate questions over to the convention, and a mere 9.99 paper weight would have given Elder a run for the money in terms of demonstrating signs of a human pulse.
dgr: There will be a lot of smiles — and snickering — on Wall Street this morning.
me: Evidence? My sense is that Wall Street doesn’t pay attention to third-party machinations.
oops…dropped sentences…last part should be….
It was a fight for the Europeans. WWII, however, involved the US being attacked by Japan, and Germany declared war.
I’m a believer in a strong national defense. I also believe that the US has gone past just defending the US. We have become policeman for the world, and that role is a BIG mistake. The role as global cop is counter-productive, and far too expensive in terms of blood and treasure. Just look at the mess that the US has made with the Iraq War, a profound mistake in my view.
L, taking the Spooner position on the Confederate Elite Insurrection does NOT “constitute” bigotry. It does, however, “associate” with bigots, since there is a great overlap between Civil War revisionists and bigotry.
Politics — versus the study of history or the meaning of the Constitution — is a game of optics. The optics of Ls who rationalize the CSA’s secession are poor, since it associates Ls with bigots, even if the Ls who do so are not bigots themselves.
Which reminds me: One of the Sunday talk shows (I think ABC’s THIS WEEK) showed a clip of GJ in debate in Orlando being asked if the interventions of WWI and II were justified. GJ answered “I don’t know,” as a joke answer. It’s most unfortunate that many Ls seem to want to re-litigate history in a POLITICAL context. This penchant does not serve the cause of liberty. Why waste time IN A CAMPAIGN on an historical matter? Understandable in an academic setting. But in political setting, it’s a waste of time.
I’d suggest GJ’s answer could be something like:
I’m not sure why this question is being asked. Reliving the distant past might be helpful as an academic exercise, but the world has changed so much from those events. But my short answer is that US involvement in WWI was ill advised. It was a fight for the Europeans. WWII, however, involved the US being attacked by Japan, and Germany declared war. Such a role is counter-productive, and far too expensive in terms of blood and treasure.
“So here’s the progression: Unity ’08 failed, Americans Elect failed, third time’s a charm:
Weld/Johnson, a third way! The globalist, establishment “centrists” have the ticket they’ve wanted for almost a decade.” — William Saturn
Great observation, William. Forty-five years of toil by freedom-loving activists conveniently snatched by the Establishment just when the country was ready to embrace such an alternative.
There will be a lot of smiles — and snickering — on Wall Street this morning.
Just as I feared, the gullibility of many LP members knows no bounds.
Oh, and Gene, knock off the “neoconfederate” bullshit, unless you can explain to us how taking the exact same position on the Civil War that Lysander Spooner took somehow constitutes bigotry.
@ Phil Gerber
I’m right there with you. A confidant of Mitt Romney, the same Mitt Romney that was rumored to be leading an alternative option to Trump, just materializes out of thin air in the LP when it became apparent the Trump secured the GOP nomination? The meeting of Johnson & Weld was not organic. I’m flabbergasted that the majority of delegates can’t see this for what it is.
“membership in the CFR bothers the shit out of me.”
Me too. Between being friends with Willard Romney and the Clintons, and with William Kristol gloating about the results of this weekend, I don’t see how any Libertarian can be so blind and stupid as to think Weld as a good thing. The promised tens of millions in fundraising – if they ever materialize – will come from the same political and donor classes the American electorate are revolting against. Johnson/Weld might be the toast of the #NeverTrump punditocracy and the neocons, but they will be despised by the tens of millions of voters who have lined up behind Trump and Sanders because they are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as “anti-establishment”. 50%+4 of the delegates this year want to climb into bed with the same oligarchical elite many (most?) Americans are trying to dump, all for promises of money and respectability – apparently not realizing that both are an albatross this year. It was principles and the hard work of activists, not money, that got the Party of Principle where it is – sadly, a viable political party that got hijacked as soon as it became opportune for Them to do so.
I voted for Johnson in 2012. I wasn’t overly enthusiastic about him, but I thought him certainly an improvement over the 2008 candidate whose name shall not be mentioned. I probably still would’ve voted for him if he’d had someone else in the Veep slot. But Weld is just such an obvious plant I’m still shaking my head over how the delegates let him get shoved down our throats.
Where was Weld when Kasich was spending taxpayer funds to keep the LP off the ballot in Ohio? That’s right, supporting Kasich.
I should also add too corrupt to the list of possibilities.
Jim, Weld’s membership in the CFR bothers the shit out of me. Apparently a majority of LP delegates were either too ignorant, too naive, or too stupid to care about this, so they nominated him anyway.
The LP has nominated Republitarians the last eight years:
2008: Barr/Root
2012: Johnson/Gray
2016: Johnson/Weld
2020: Republican/Another Republican??
Does Weld’s CFR connections bother anyone else? Forget his “impure” positions. What about his loyalties and membership in a foreign organization aimed at subverting the soverignty of our nation? Libertarians need to wake the fuck up to real politic if they expect to actually Live Free.
http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?495942-Johnson-s-running-mate-Weld-is-CFR-scum
This is great news. Thank you to the delegates at the National Convention for choosing wisely. I look forward to voting for Libertarians Gary Johnson and William Weld in November.
Bondurant: GOP Lite Party born on this day 29 May 2016.
No, actually it was born during the LP’s 2008 national convention. Barr/Root led to Johnson/Weld.
The LP hasn’t actually ran a libertarian candidate for president since 2004.
Gene Berkman had the perfect take at 17:43. Perfectly summed up my issues with folks who worship Ron Paul and then criticize these guys for errors that are no worse (IMHO).
Also, the fact that Donald Trump called Weld an alcoholic is a GOOD sign. Remember what McCain said about Barr and what Romney said about Johnson?
Larry seems like a good guy. Hope we do see more of him. And Alicia Dearn, IMHO.
Do you guys see how well my friend Larry Sharpe did on the second ballot?
Congrats Larry, a true new rising star in the LP.
Now, it’s time to work to get Johnson/Weld on the ballot in all 51 states (with DC) and lots of votes.
These two Ex Governors have a chance to make a more significant impact on the National Presidential Election than either Ross Perot or John Anderson. Good luck, we need another voice to represent the Middle Class!
Today libertarians voted for two liberal Republicans to represent the LP as our President/VP ticket in 2016.
Liberal Republican does not = libertarian. They will offer middle of the road libertarianism so it’s more palatable to the American voter…let the moderation begin, so disappointed.
Well, the best scenario is they get 3 million, we get a bunch more people who become libertarian quick, and then we start with some LP candidates who’ve been elected as libs to statehouses or whereever 2020. But they are taken more seriously. Assuming we haven’t had nuclear war AND/OR the govt hasn’t collapsed into 150 different independent entities by then.
So here’s the progression: Unity ’08 failed, Americans Elect failed, third time’s a charm:
Weld/Johnson, a third way! The globalist, establishment “centrists” have the ticket they’ve wanted for almost a decade.
My congratulations to Governor Weld on your nomination.
I’m hopeful that you will represent our Libertarian Party well and confident that you will do your best to make this our best year ever, with media, fundraising and building us into a serious major party.
However, I urge you and Governor Johnson to read, “For a New Liberty” by Murray Rothbard. Please understand that this is an example of where the pure Libertarians are coming from. You both have agreed to represent all of us in 2016 – admittedly and impossible task – but you need to understand and stay as true to our principles as possible.
You both need a good economic advisor as well, to understand by repeal of all taxes on income and property, elimination of social security etc. are essential to liberty and prosperity – perhaps Tom Woods will assist the campaign. (other suggestions welcome)
Good luck in the campaign.
You have my optimistic support.
Good tweet from Dave Weigel: https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/737046702453084161?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^news|twgr^tweet
daveweigel Verified account
?@daveweigel
Asked Johnson to respond to Trump calling Weld an alcoholic.
JOHNSON: “Maybe I’ll have my first drink in 29 years.”
WELD: “Don’t!”
First, libertarians must demand Johnson and especially Weld hire at least one hard core libertarian to constantly advise them on policy.
Second, Trump already has been yelling about Weld being an alcoholic, tweeting https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/05/29/response-kristallnacht-comparison. There’s evidence of that of that in other older articles.
However, there’s also evidence he’s recovering. I found this from 2015. “Weld touts app for recovering alcoholics” https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/16/weld-touts-app-for-recovering-alcoholics/pi2iThTADVdpARH29oR49H/story.html So hopefully if true he’s going to AA regularly. It works!
But people should feel free NOT to offer him booze and encourage him to take it ONE DAY AT A TIME.
Well, I will be voting in 2016!
Congrats to Johnson/Weld, as good a potential noise machine that I can imagine.
Onward to 15%!
I have long been a fan of Ron Paul, campaigned for him in 1988 and 2008, and he endorsed me when I ran for Congress in 1992. But William Weld has a better stand on abortion than does Ron Paul.
More importantly, Ron Paul has associated with people who often conflate libertarianism with social conservatism and fear mongering about illegal immigrants, as well as with too many neo-confederates.
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld clearly have no connection with neo-confederates, and Gary Johnson’s record on immigration issues got him the vote in 2012 of Gustavo Arrellano, editor of the Orange County Weekly and author of the “Ask a Mexican” syndicated column.
Drawing a clear line separating Libertarians from neo-confederates and anti-immigrant scaremongers is a real benefit. And having experience and credentials with fiscal issues is also a benefit. And plenty of long-term Libertarian activists agree with me that the Johnson-Weld ticket is the best possibility for making a publicity breakthrough – in fact, it already has.
The problem with Johnson is not that he’s an ex-Republican. It’s that he is stupefyingly dull, and arguably less libertarian than the Constitution Party candidate (Darrell Castle). In the debate last night, he implied that we should attack North Korea and get China in on it. Even Donald Trump is better on that particular issue. http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36318752
Many of us saw the invasion of the Kochs in 1979 as the death of the LP. Operationally, the LP was, for a time, controlled by the Kochs through Ed Crane and his cadre. Crane centralized control of the LP, actively discouraging local activism in multiple ways. We took it back, beginning with the election of Alicia Clark as National Chair, in 1983 but the Kochs did not stop. After their walk-out when they failed to nominate their candidate they began a campaign to destroy the LP by persuading critical activists to leave the LP and re-register Republican.
The point of the Johnson-Weld Campaign is to be elected to the offices to which they have been nominated. This year that is possible, as it never has been before.
The point of the LP is to serve as a tool for enacting freedom. It has previously been a sad, sorry, tool but this year it may be able to redeem itself. No other candidates who offered themselves as nominees would have been taken seriously. Johnson-Weld are being taken seriously. They are what voters expect candidates to be, which takes us past a barrier we have never managed to cross before.
Will this work? They are former governors from blue states, providing positioning which allows us to fulfill the original positioning we intended for the Libertarian Party. That is full spectrum freedom that acknowledges the many previous failures of the LP to take principled stands on issues of accountability and individual freedom and provide solutions while allowing the people to manage their own communities, decentralizing the power of government.
That you called them ‘GOP lite’ points to one of the problems long ignored. The LP has become an adjunct to the GOP, forgetting the reasons it came to be. We do not threaten or represent the positions on the Left for individual freedom or accountability.
Most of us were Goldwater supporters revolted by the actions of Richard Nixon.
What did Barry stand for?
1. What policy should be followed on gays serving in the military?
“You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.” – Barry Goldwater
2. If elected, would you support a woman’s right to have an abortion?
“Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.” ~Barry Goldwater
When Goldwater observed the right trying to use government to enforce private morality he spoke up for women’s right to abortion and gay rights. – The Political Legacies of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern: Shifting … By Jeffrey J. Volle
Goldwater and his wife were founding members of Planned Parenthood in Arizona.
3. Do you support legalization of marijuana?
Goldwater endorsed an Arizona initiative to legalize medical marijuana.
4. Will you support an investigation on the Federal Reserve?
“The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates
outside the control of Congress, and manipulates the credit of the United States, and for that matter, the credit of the entire world.” Warning by Senator Barry Goldwater:
5. What is your position on damage to private property and health resulting from oil spills?
Position on damage to private property and health resulting from oil spills and fracking
– “While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am
an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free
environment.” ~Barry Goldwater
@ Gene Berkman
The difference being that Nolan was and Paul is philosophically sound. Weld is not. He simply is not a libertarian in any way, shape or form. He’s no less a disaster than Barr. At least he’s not on the top of the ticket.
Maybe I’ll settle after a few days and telling myself Weld is just a place holder to get money and more exposure but I vote on principle, not on party affiliation. I won’t vote for someone just because they claim to be libertarian.
I am stunned. This has been the most exciting, invigorating, disappointing and disgusting convention.
All at the same time.
The Libertarian Party would not exist without Republican defectors.
David Nolan founded The Committee to Organize a Libertarian Party in late 1971, after losing an election for Vice-President of The Young Republican National Federation.
Roger MacBride, candidate for President in 1976 on 32 state ballots was a former State Representative from Vermont, who ran for Governor in 1964 in the Republican primary as a Goldwater supporter.
Ron Paul was the candidate in 1988, on 47 state ballots, reviving The Libertarian Party after the Koch pullout of 1981 and the obscure David Bergland campaign.
Gary Johnson and William Weld are distinct from some of the other defectors, especially Bob Barr, in that both former Governors emphasize liberal stands on the social issues. And both were elected Governors in states where Republicans are minorities, proving they can take votes from Democrats and Independents as well as Republicans.
Both Governors have experience with fiscal issues – and taxes, spending and government debt are the most important issues facing America. So for concerned voters facing the disastrous choice of Clinton or Trump, the Libertarian Party just nominated an alternative ticket that has plausible credentials to face the main problem facing America.
And if you not satisfied with the Johnson-Weld ticket, find some other way to advance freedom. Libertarians are Pro-Choice on everything.
This sucks.
The delegates that attempted to stave of the GOP infiltration are to be commended. You didn’t go down without a fight.
RIP Libertarian Party
1971-2016
GOP Lite Party born on this day 29 May 2016.