In the Fox News Poll released today, Gov. Gary Johnson at 12%, a new high for a national poll and up two points from the same poll three weeks prior. The poll also shows the Libertarian nominee taking 23% of independents, beating Hillary Clinton at 22%. Among voters under age 35, Johnson takes 18%.
Govs. Johnson and Weld will also be appearing on tonight’s episode of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
All Libertarian Party candidates should inspire as many people as possible to become libertarians and join the Libertarian Party.
L: So, when Johnson claims that “libertarianism” is a philosophy that combines the “best” aspects of the Ds and Rs, he is either lying, or else he is talking about some kind of “libertarianism” that is much different from that found in the LP platform.
Me: OK. Let’s see. If a 20 year old poli-sci major read the LP’s platform, s/he may well say something like: Sometimes this sounds conservative and sometimes liberal.
This should be no surprise to you, as it’s a common, general observation. Perhaps you are being literalistic when metaphor is called for.
L: centrism appeals to people who are basically happy with the status quo, and just want to see some minor tweaks. These people are highly unlikely to ever become libertarians, so courting them is a waste of time.
Me: Premise-check time. It sounds as if you believe the L candidate should be the LP’s recruiter in chief, gathering members. To me, that sounds like a membership director’s job. It seems obvious that a L prez’s job is to communicate a message that inspires votes or at least interest in the cause of liberty.
I would say that minor tweaks is what happens in politics almost always. If one wants to do politics, one should recognize this.
If one wants to do philosophy, one should not expect wholesale acceptance of a philosophical school, and adoption of the tenets of said philosophy.
And, no, it’s not necessarily a “waste of time.” We might view the L nominee in terms:
REACH, or how many impressions, how many people, heard his message and more or less got the idea.
INTEREST, or how many of those reached liked what they heard, and did more research
VOTES, how many voted either for the candidate as the best choice or as a protest vehicle.
Johnson/Weld is probably already set records for REACH. INTEREST is impossible to quantify, though I’ve seen data that Google searches for GJ and the LP have spiked.
VOTES obviously we’ll see.
As for conversions, that’s a function of REACH first and foremost. If there’s a 10-fold increase in seeds being spread, it’s likely that many more seeds will sprout. Some of those seedlings might gravitate to FANL/LvMI, others will find the Beltarian approach is their cup of tea, others might experiment with various forms of fusionism.
Sometimes, it might take many years of reflection for a shift to take hold in one’s political soul. But if people never hear the message, they will NEVER experience any shift.
This is a numbers game. More interest. More buzz. Like markets, it’s not a tidy process.
I don’t recall the LP platform providing a DEFINITION per se. The SoP kinda does. That’s the definition established by 89 20-somethings. You might see that as the King James Version, but I don’t. Hence, my definition and yours works just fine. No one has a monopoly on the definition of L, or any other word, for that matter.
Scroll back up and reread what I wrote. I’m not talking about the SOP, or the pledge. I’m talking about the actual planks in the LP platform. They spell out the LP’s positions on various issues. Virtually none of those positions are even reasonably similar, let alone identical, to the positions taken on those same issues by the Democrats or Republicans. So, when Johnson claims that “libertarianism” is a philosophy that combines the “best” aspects of the Ds and Rs, he is either lying, or else he is talking about some kind of “libertarianism” that is much different from that found in the LP platform. Either way, he is seriously misrepresenting the positions of the party he is supposed to be trying to promote.
…it’s the hater element of Old Right ideas that I find dysfunctional and damaging to the cause of maximizing liberty in 2016. For ex., racism. You oppose centrist L-ism as much as I find racism as something to shun?
I find it just as damaging to the goal of spreading libertarianism, precisely because it draws in the wrong kind of people (which is the same reason appealing to racism, or any other kind of identity politics, is a poor strategy — people who see the world in terms of groups are unlikely to ever be libertarians). Milquetoast centrism appeals to people who are basically happy with the status quo, and just want to see some minor tweaks. These people are highly unlikely to ever become libertarians, so courting them is a waste of time. And contra your straw man, there is a middle ground between immediate abolition of the state and minor tinkering around the edges. I want to see the LP advocating policies that are much different than those advocated by the two major parties. So far, I have seen very little of that.
I’ve seen no evidence that you are a racist, so you — and from what I know of the 89 — believe the NAP applies to all, regardless of race, national origin, or color.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that part of being a libertarian is having to like every group of people, or approve of every kind of lifestyle, or every kind of religion, and so forth (which is typically what the term “inclusive” implies). Even though I am personally not a fan of “preachy” libertarians (of either the left or right variety), as long as they do not use or advocate aggression, they are still just as libertarian as I am.
I feel you have jumped to a conclusion here, at least what I know of the shooter and his motives at this moment (ie, we know little yet).
From what I’ve heard, I’d say the “conclusions” I “jumped to” have turned out to be pretty accurate.
more…
Oh, I see there’s a gay group called Pink Pistols. I wonder if they are well known in the gay community.
more…
For ex., I see a former LNC staffer, Steve Gordon, has a post on FB where he says, “Second Amendment. Pink Pistols.”
I like SG, but this is insensitive on several levels. It makes light of a tragedy, it evokes images of the OK Corral, and it’s probably offensive to gays, suggesting that a pink pistol is what they’d want to tote if they wanted to tote.
I don’t see it as positive persuasion.
L: It’s not “my” definition or “your” definition. It’s the definition taken from the LP platform.
Me: I don’t recall the LP platform providing a DEFINITION per se. The SoP kinda does. That’s the definition established by 89 20-somethings. You might see that as the King James Version, but I don’t. Hence, my definition and yours works just fine. No one has a monopoly on the definition of L, or any other word, for that matter.
L: You don’t seem to get it. Just as you don’t want to see libertarianism being associated with “Old Right” ideas, I am just as opposed to seeing libertarianism being associated with milquetoast centrism.
Me: Clarifying…it’s not all Old Right ideas, it’s the hater element of Old Right ideas that I find dysfunctional and damaging to the cause of maximizing liberty in 2016. For ex., racism. You oppose centrist L-ism as much as I find racism as something to shun?
If so, I can see why for you the very existence of Johnson/Weld gives you agita, big time. You seem to believe that to be L is to be an extremist advocating utopian end states always, if I’m hearing you. An exacting standard, surely.
L: “Inclusivity” has nothing to do with libertarianism. Libertarianism is simply a theory about when the use of violence is legitimate.
Me: Disagree. Even if we used your plumbline 89 20-something definition, inclusivity would be perfectly appropriate UNLESS you felt that the NAP only applies to, say, white people. I’ve seen no evidence that you are a racist, so you — and from what I know of the 89 — believe the NAP applies to all, regardless of race, national origin, or color. Right?
L: We must stop embracing the dangerous doctrine of “identity politics” and the divisive worldview that it encourages. For too long, we have been conditioned to view ourselves and others not as individuals, but as members of groups, and as natural adversaries.
Me: Your statement is OK with me. Personally, I think GJ’s FB statement was preferable: “We must allow the authorities to do their jobs, understand how this attack came about, and then respond accordingly. It is not a time to either politicize or jump to conclusions.” I feel you have jumped to a conclusion here, at least what I know of the shooter and his motives at this moment (ie, we know little yet).
I thought you or AJ might have doubled down on Orlando, calling for everyone to tote always when in public. I can’t say I necessarily agree or disagree with that stance, but I would say in the aftermath of this event, I’d find it tin-eared.
I’m curious how Andy and Langa would handle politically the events in Orlando if they were to advise Team GJ.
I wouldn’t work with them. However, if I were asked by the LP to craft a press release, I’d probably say something like this:
“Obviously, the shooting in Orlando was a terrible tragedy, and must be condemned in the strongest of terms. However, it is equally obvious that any response to it must be based not on raw emotion, but on careful contemplation and sound logic. It is tempting for many to believe that tragedies such as this can be prevented by prohibiting or restricting the right to own guns. However, the flaw in this logic can be seen by looking at another sort of tragedy: deaths resulting from drunk driving. Would anyone suggest that the proper response to such deaths is prohibiting or restricting the right to own automobiles or the right to consume alcohol?
Rather, to find the solution to preventing tragedies such as the Orlando shooting, we must look not to legislation, but to society itself. We must stop embracing the dangerous doctrine of “identity politics” and the divisive worldview that it encourages. For too long, we have been conditioned to view ourselves and others not as individuals, but as members of groups, and as natural adversaries. We have been taught to see the world as a struggle between these groups: black vs. white, gay vs. straight, men vs. women, Muslims vs. Christians, and so forth. Such a tribalistic mindset invariably fuels hatred and makes violence inevitable. We should abandon this paradigm and realize that there are really only two groups of people: those who view violence as an acceptable way to solve problems, and those who do not. The Orlando shooter clearly is in the first group. We in the LP invite you to join us in the second.”
Both GJ and WW have made provocative statements, like WW’s likening DJT’s roundup as tantamount to an American “kristallnacht,” and comparing Trump’s wall to the Berlin Wall. These are incisive statements that grab people’s attention, and are so true that he doesn’t sound like a wacko when he says them, and he says them with great authority.
These are just mainstream talking points, made frequently by both Democrats and neocons. There’s nothing “provocative” about them.
Yes, using your definition, you are correct. According to mine, you are not.
It’s not “my” definition or “your” definition. It’s the definition taken from the LP platform.
Regardless, SURELY you must see that the L word itself is getting EXPONENTIAL play vs previous cycles.
You don’t seem to get it. Just as you don’t want to see libertarianism being associated with “Old Right” ideas, I am just as opposed to seeing libertarianism being associated with milquetoast centrism.
…fiscal con/social lib (which I suggest he change to “inclusive.”)
“Inclusivity” has nothing to do with libertarianism. Libertarianism is simply a theory about when the use of violence is legitimate.
I’d advise the ticket to resign and start over with a new ticket with solid libertarians and a solid libertarian campaign staff.
We have a freaking CFR member on our ticket. The CFR IS the establishment.
I’m curious how Andy and Langa would handle politically the events in Orlando if they were to advise Team GJ.
From The Hill:
The Libertarian Party has seen a sustained surge of new members joining, with first-time registrants in May on pace to increase 20-fold over the same period from last year. New data obtained by The Hill shows that the Libertarian National Committee averaged around 100 new members a month last year, bottoming out with just 74 first-time registrants last May.
But beginning in early 2016, as the contours of the Republican and Democratic races began took shape, new membership began creeping upward to 148 in January, 323 in February, 546 in March, 706 in April, and now 1,292 in the first three weeks of May alone.
Now that Johnson and Weld are running, we should keep track of these numbers. Could be the largest membership increase ever, surpassing the Clark totals.
No, Andy,
The current LP ticket is made up of two men who control their own destiny. They campaigned and won the LP nomination because a majority of the delegates believed they were the best choice to represent us. You don’t agree, and you may be correct, or the delegates may be correct – time will tell. They are not part of any conspiracy or cabal, beyond being representatives of our party – the Libertarian Party – which has an agenda that is fairly well known. Their campaign is actually quite a challenge to the establishment, and were they to win, there would be a lot of worry by much of “the establishment” about the radical changes that Johnson and Weld would be proposing.
You claim to be a Libertarian, yet you are unwilling to accept the free choices of others in a voluntary association – how does that make you a libertarian?
Many NAP supporting, radical Libertarians see Johnson and Weld as fully Libertarian leaders able to bring the growth we need – read Robert’s well thought out rant above. The LP today is a real Libertarian organization – although it is not, as you would like, a Borg collective that follows your wrong-headed view of what a libertarian is or what the NAP means.
Andy, you claim to believe, devoutly, religiously, in many non-existent conspiracies, and while you are and should be free to do so, these things are not real, so I hope you will seek some help to try to understand where reality ends and fantasy begins.
No, Andy,
The current LP ticket is made up of two men who control their own destiny. They campaigned and won the LP nomination because a majority of the delegates believed they were the best choice to represent us. You don’t agree, and you may be correct, or the delegates may be correct – time will tell. They are not part of any conspiracy or cabal, beyond being representatives of our party – the Libertarian Party – which has an agenda that is fairly well known. Their campaign is actually quite a challenge to the establishment, and were they to win, there would be a lot of worry by much of “the establishment” about the radical changes that Johnson and Weld would be proposing.
You claim to be a Libertarian, yet you are unwilling to accept the free choices of others in a voluntary association – how does that make you a libertarian?
Many NAP supporting, radical Libertarians see Johnson and Weld as fully Libertarian leaders able to bring the growth we need – read Robert’s well thought out rant above. The LP today is a real Libertarian organization – although it is not, as you would like, a Borg collective that follows your wrong-headed view of what a libertarian is or what the NAP means.
Andy, you claim to believe, devoutly, religiously, in many non-existent conspiracies, and while you are and should be free to do so, these things are not real, so I hope you will seek some help to try to understand where reality ends and fantasy begins.
Saturn is correct. The current LP presidential ticket is not a threat to the establishment at all, because it has been hijacked and co-opted by the establishment. It is controlled opposition.
“This L ticket is also a threat to the Establishment by virtue of its very existence, combined with its obvious credibility.”
No. This L ticket is the Establishment. The Republican presumptive nominee is the quintessential anti-establishment presidential candidate. The lesser evil is quite clear to me.
Old geezer rant:
These comments give me a pain. Both Johnson and Weld were supported by the purists. They’re completely in-line with LP strategy. In fact, USLP’s a bit ahead of the purist strategic plan to have 2 GOP high officials running for Prez/VEEP. Let’s see if the plan continues with GOP/DEM or DEM tickets in future years. This is all while stronger Libertarians are being created as a farm team by Libertarian Program and the LNCC PAC. The results of that are a generation or two away.
The right-wing is now pretending none of this is true. It says the purists oppose their own candidate! The usual.
For newbies, what was the alternative? Nothing. The other candidates were either anti-pledge (Petersen), ignoramus drama-queens (McAfee) or lacked an understanding of how the current law works, public official experience, or even Libertarianism (confusing it with crackpot pseudo-anarchism or conservatism).
The purists want the USLP to be a libertarian-direction gateway (i.e. preaching lessertarianism and localism/federalism with plenty of libertarian-leaning voters, while using conventions, public-info tools like websites, etc. getting people familiar with the NAP, RROR, and Libertarianish organizations), and putting in candidates that have taken the NAP. Period. They want to see something like the USLP in every country bring a world of Floridas with direct democracy, federalism, tolerance, no income/small home real estate tax, and gradual legalization of model Libertarian eco-homes and eco-villages. Period. They want 3 libertarian spectrum parties/political groups per country. Period. The LP helps build the economically conservative, socially progressive center, and send past LP’ers into every party. Period.
There is nothing to debate. That’s what the LP does. The fricking vision-mission statement is at the bottom of the http://www.lp.org website for all to see. Nothing has changed since they started the modern project in 1964 and the world platform in 1969, and decided to try out libertarian-direction/liberal parties.
As far as I can see the http://www.LP.org is doing its directional job. It’s getting candidates out there who took the NAP. It links to libertarianish groups of all kinds. People are getting in public office all over the place for decades. It has conventions I’m now to old to attend, but judging from what I saw on TV this time, they’re terrific and bring together a wide range of people on a common mission. They’ve started a world group for libertarian-direction parties with the Spaniards, the http://www.IALP.com which is getting people in office as well. It serves as a place where people meet so the XXIst century was created with discussion on ending communism, internet, cloning, space colonization, alternate communities, etc. It can reliably be counted on to challenge any cultish policies with appeals to rights, choice, federalism. It’s being run by people like Sarwark who grew up in Libertarian homes now who have the mission in their bones.
You want a better LP candidate, subscribe to Governing magazine and RPPI, hand out 10 quizzes a week then get in a modest local public office and learn something. If this libertarian life extension stuff happens and I live long enough, I’ll see you on TV as a Libertarian Party Governor in 2046.
Independents are rushing to support Gary Johnson, Hillary falls to third place:
“The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee took a beating from independent voters in the latest Fox News poll, finishing third behind relatively unknown Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
GOP candidate Donald Trump led among independents with 32 percent of the vote, followed by Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, who got 23 percent.
Clinton pulled in just 22 percent of the independents — a sign many voters are skeptical of the scandal-scarred former first lady and ex-secretary of state.”
http://nypost.com/2016/06/11/hillary-sinks-to-third-place-among-independent-voters-poll/amp/
more…
btw, NAPsters are not giving GJ credit for often spouting a version of the NAP in his schpiel. I’d have to go thru the recent vids, but he often says something like to be L is to respect individual choices, so long as those choices don’t infringe on the rights of others.
Go back and listen. You’ll hear it. I’m highly confident he ticks your box quite frequently, although less frequently than fiscal con/social lib (which I suggest he change to “inclusive.”)
L: JBS, because the vast majority of voters nowadays probably know little to nothing about it, other than maybe that it’s an old conservative group.
me: True, but…
L: The reason Romney would never support an LP ticket with Ron Paul on it is because he (rightly) views RP as a threat to the Establishment — as a guy who is willing to “rock the boat” in a way that Weld never would.
me: Also true. The point was about why ROMNEY, not voters, would steer clear of RP1 if he were hypothetically on the L ticket. Your shifting the basis of analysis. RP1 is associated with JBS, paleo-haters, and other Old Right issues that people like MR steer clear of. It’s true that RP1’s issues are much further from the Public Square than WW’s — easily stipulated.
This L ticket is also a threat to the Establishment by virtue of its very existence, combined with its obvious credibility.
Both GJ and WW have made provocative statements, like WW’s likening DJT’s roundup as tantamount to an American “kristallnacht,” and comparing Trump’s wall to the Berlin Wall. These are incisive statements that grab people’s attention, and are so true that he doesn’t sound like a wacko when he says them, and he says them with great authority.
L: Second, people keep talking about how Johnson/Weld are “exposing” so many people to libertarianism, but that’s wrong. They are actually exposing people to a moderate, middle-of-the-road centrism that has almost nothing in common with genuine libertarianism.
me: Yes, using your definition, you are correct. According to mine, you are not. Regardless, SURELY you must see that the L word itself is getting EXPONENTIAL play vs previous cycles.
NAPsters such as you should be shouting your Hosannas! As some enter the L tent, they may stop by the Plumbline Sideshow to sample your schtick. A percentage will stay and eventually be able to replicate Rothbardian syllogisms with the best of you.
First, it doesn’t really matter much whether RP has ever been in the JBS, because the vast majority of voters nowadays probably know little to nothing about it, other than maybe that it’s an old conservative group. The reason Romney would never support an LP ticket with Ron Paul on it is because he (rightly) views RP as a threat to the Establishment — as a guy who is willing to “rock the boat” in a way that Weld never would.
Second, people keep talking about how Johnson/Weld are “exposing” so many people to libertarianism, but that’s wrong. They are actually exposing people to a moderate, middle-of-the-road centrism that has almost nothing in common with genuine libertarianism. Take Johnson’s claim that libertarianism combines the “best” aspects of the two major parties. Now, look at the LP platform and compare it to that of the Democrats and Republicans. On the vast majority of issues, the correct libertarian stance (as defined by the LP platform, not by Johnson’s milquetoast centrism) is not even close to that of either of the major parties.
gb: On the night before John Hinckley shot President Reagan, Vice-President Bush and Barbara Bush had dinner in Dallas with John Hinckley’s parents.
me: Source? The only thing I’m finding is the GHWB’s brother Neil was SCHEDULED to dine with Hinckley’s brother Scott. It was apparently canceled.
Andy, you lost the battle about who the Libertarian Party nominated for VP. The convention said Weld is Libertarian enough. Get over it.
make that: clarify and amplify
aj: Robert Capozzi, perhaps a better way to say it is that Weld is not INSPIRING people to become libertarians.
me: Circling back to this point, that’s generally not the VP candidate’s role. His job is to support GJ, and unlike the Rs and Ds, I would say that so far, WW is supporting GJ more than most VP candidates. They are doing many joint media appearances, and WW’s role is to clarify and some of GJ’s points. AND he’s there to add gravitas, to say FU the to majors, I’m no Admiral Stockdale, I used to be one of you, and I’m disgusted especially with the Rs. WW is light years more qualified to be prez than DJT. I’m smarter than HRC. And I think my guy, GJ, would make a FAR better prez than these two megalomaniacs.
He’s, in a sense, the anti-Palin, the MILF who failed geography but got by on her looks. He’s the yin to GJ’s yang, the patrician genius to GJ’s aw shucks man of action.
This, actually, could not have been scripted much better.
I’m so sorry that you are just not getting it, because this is one fucking awesome show unfolding before us. Perfect? No, but even orgasms could be better! 😉
The right to keep and bear arms is core libertarian issue. I’d say that it is in the top 4 issues, maybe #1. This is a litmus test issue as to whether or not a person is a libertarian. Bill Weld failed this litmus test.
Gene Berkman, thank you for your informative comments.
Andy, you were right that Ron Paul first ran for Congress in 1974, not 1984; I used my admin access to edit my comment to make it right.
RC – I saw Ron Paul speak to a John Birch Society Council Dinner in 1995, in Anaheim. I spoke with him afterward, and he told me that “these people” (meaning JBS members) are not libertarians like us, but they are allies against big government. He has written for The New American, published by The JBS, appeared in videos produced by The JBS, and he aligns with them on ending the income tax, getting out of the United Nations, and defending free enterprise – but these are all in the original platform of The Libertarian Party.
Andy – there are few rewards for running as a Libertarian candidate, and it does involve work, as well as ego hurt when you find out the vote totals. Perhaps the establishment is so afraid of Libertarians that they send agents in to disrupt the party, but the members are plenty disruptive on their own, and until this year The Libertarian Party posed no threat to anyone. If you want to fear infiltrators, go ahead.
In 1970 I was at a state convention of The Peace & Freedom Party, and had to visit the men’s room. While I was there I had to listen to some old Communist tell me about how Libertarians were infiltrating The Peace & Freedom Party and, he assured me, “libertarians are a national movement financed by the Central Intelligence Agency.” I have heard it before.
Yes, Bill Weld did things in the Reagan Justice Department, but as Governor he did sign the first medical marijuana law in the nation, five years before California and Arizona passed medical marijuana laws by means of referendum.
As for guns, I oppose gun control on principle. But guns are not like any other product sold in the free market – the only purpose of a gun is to hurt, maim, or kill. After years of gun violence including mass shootings occurring all too often, Bill Weld is not the first to decide that guns are different from other products sold on the free market. The cause of gun owners is not served when every time there is a mass shooting, supporters of gun rights say “now is not the time” to talk about the danger guns pose.
Gun Owner’s groups all too often not only ignore the desire for freedom of people who have other issues than guns; many gun owner’s groups, including the NRA, advocate drug laws and strengthening the police, taking away many other freedoms as they declare the right to bear arms a sacred right. So I just don’t care for those people anymore. Call me a deviationist, and don’t vote for Bill Weld, if you want, but I just can’t get excited about defending the rights of people who support taking away my rights.
Weld was often referred to as a libertarian by himself, the media, LP members and activists, and critics, while he was in office.
Ron Paul was elected to Congress before Bill Weld was Governor, and Weld has never been a libertarian.
Nice summation, Gene Berkman.
Under letter (a) discussing Ron Paul. Ron Paul was in Congress in the late 70s, so your part about 1984 seems confusing. Perhaps you meant 1974 with he ran for the first time but lost.
I discussed possibility and encouraged Ron to for President on the next LP ticket – that was at a private meeting we had in DC in late 1984 while Ron was in Congress.
Ron Paul has worked in conjunction with people in the John Birch Society, but Ron Paul has never been a member of the John Birch Society.
Gene, you must have meant 1974 or some other time in the 1970’s in regard to Ron Paul.
How do you know that Barr and Weld did not intend to hijack the LP? It has been an admitted fact via FOIA requests that there were government plants infiltrating the LP in the ’70’s, ’80’s, and ’90’s, and i would bet money that they still walk among us today. The government has an entire operation going against liberty activism in this country, and the LP is not immune from it. Bob Barr was in the CIA (and probably still is). William Weld is an active member of the Council on Foreign relations.
Oh, and as for Weld being for marijuana legalization, he was a drug warrior in Ronald Reagan’s Justice department. How many non-violent drug offenders did he pardon as Governor?
If Weld is so concerned about constitutionally enumerated rights, why did he back several gun control laws? Why did he sign a letter urging Congress to renew parts of the PATRIOT Act that were set to expire? Why did he support the use of eminent domain for corporate interests?
GB, are you sure RP1 has never been in the JBS?
I definitely recall news stories linking them. IIRC, he has tried to laugh the association off, but I recall he did not actually deny it.
A number of factual matters.
(a) The only time Ron Paul has endorsed the Republican nominee for President was in 1980, when he supported Ronald Reagan for the nomination and in the general election. He got into politics because of Nixon’s imposition of wage & price controls – the same issue which led to the creation of The Libertarian Party. His plan in 1974 was to run for Congress as an Independent, and the local Republicans approached him because they did not have a candidate – and the rest is history.
In 1987 Ron Paul told the audience at a California LP function that he voted for Ed Clark in 1980 – which is possible, or he could have misremembered, or he could have been dishonestly pandering – no way to know.
(b) Ron Paul is not a member of The John Birch Society, but he sees them as allies in the fight for limited government. He has influenced many JBS activists to become more libertarian over time, including on the drug issue.
(b) Neither William Weld nor Bob Barr had a desire to “hijack” The Libertarian Party. As far as I can tell, Steve Gordon talked Bob Barr into running, and Barr did it to help build The Libertarian Party. He did not do as well as he hoped, and he still is young enough to want to hold office, so he went back to The Republican Party. Apparently Gary Johnson talked Weld into running on the LP ticket, and given the few rewards for doing so, Weld is clearly doing it in order to build The Libertarian Party. Weld is 70 years old and presumably will not run for anything again, so he has no reason to go back to the Republican Party.
(c) Weld is also alienated from the Republicans over social issues – abortion, gay rights, and less so now, marijuana, since so many Republicans are accepting marijuana legalization. Ron Paul and Bob Barr are both anti-abortion, thus more welcome in Republican circles.
(d) “Libertarianism” is a spectrum, or a quandrant on the Nolan chart. Bill Weld ran for Governor in 1990 on a platform of cutting taxes and spending, defending personal liberty, and he even opposed gun control at the time. As Governor he did cut spending, which in later years rose, but never to the level it was at before he took office. He promoted tax cuts, and tax rates never went back up while he was Governor. A libertarian in office will have less ability to cut government than an ideologue out of office (including me) has the ability to advocate cutting government.
(e) When Gary Johnson calls Bill Weld “the original libertarian” he means that Weld preceded him in office, and Weld was the closest thing to a libertarian elected as Governor before Gary himself took office. Apparently as a Republican Governor committed to cutting government, Johnson looked to Weld as an inspiration.
(f) about the Council on Foreign Relations: yes, the CFR promotes many bad ideas, as pretty much a think tank with a large list of prominent supporters. The first President of the CFR was John W Davis, who shortly thereafter was the Democrat nominee for President in 1924. In 1934 John W Davis joined with Al Smith and John J Raskob to form The Liberty League, in opposition of Franklin D Roosevelt and The New Deal. Raskob, who had funded The Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, and favored ending the Income Tax, was probably the original libertarian in American politics.
(g) It would be hard to prove that George H W Bush was behind the assassination attempt on President Reagan, but he was the second Vice-President from Texas to hold office at a time when the President was either assassinated or the subject of an attempt. On the night before John Hinckley shot President Reagan, Vice-President Bush and Barbara Bush had dinner in Dallas with John Hinckley’s parents. Not proof, but suggestive enough that one can be glad that Bill Weld is not a Texan.
(h) Odd that if Bill Weld’s goal is to undermine The Libertarian Party, it is actually people who don’t like Gov. Weld that spend a great deal of time attacking The Libertarian Party and the candidates nominated at its convention.
(I) “Don’t hurt people and Don’t take their stuff” is a good summary of the libertarian viewpoint – Matt Kibbe of Freedom Works has written a book with that title. Kibbe has also formed a superpac which will raise money and spend it on advertising in support of Gary Johnson for President.
(j) I have been a libertarian since about 1964, involved in the Libertarian Movement since 1969 and in The Libertarian Party since attending the Denver Convention in 1972. It was after The Libertarian Party was founded that I started hearing libertarians described as “economic conservatives and social liberals” but there were similar phrases used for several years before that.
(j) Most importantly, the candidates for President and Vice-President are not the entire Libertarian Movement. If you want to present Libertarianism in a more hard-hitting manner, go ahead. And know that more people will listen because the Johnson/Weld ticket has received literally several thousand media mentions -print, radio, television and online media- since Bill Weld agreed to join Gary Johnson’s ticket. Getting the name out is the best we can hope for, attached to a short summary of libertarian views. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal is a short summary, not at odds with libertarianism, just not as deep or radical as some hope. Well, radicals, go ahead an be radical. But you have more of an audience because Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have created more of an audience for Libertarians to speak to.
A GJ staffer (whom I knew back in the day) contacted some cult challengers I know seeking WW’s contact info 2 or 3 weeks prior to GJ’s announcement of WW as his veep pick.
If the Illuminati was behind this, the inquiry would not have been necessary. At least that’s my interpretation.
They knew each other from at least the 90s, but had fallen out of touch.
Should read, “I could see…”
First off, how do you know that it was Gary Johnson that reached out to Weld? Also, even if this narrative is true (which I would not assume), who put Gary Johnson up to it, and how do you know that Johnson is not in on the conspiracy?
Johnson is certainly guilty here, at the very least of being a dupe, but the rabbit hole may run deeper than that.
Why did Johnson call Bill Weld “the original libertarian”? Does anyone else here consider Bill Weld to be “the original libertarian”? I could swe referring to say David Nolan, or Murray Rothbard, or Ludwig von Mises, or Lysander Spooner, or even Ron Paul as “the original libertarian, but Bill Weld, give me a break.
Does anyone here even consider Bill Weld to be a libertarian at all?
Green Party
Dr. Jill Stein Green Party was not included in the poll.
When Dr. Jill Stein Green Party was included in NBC poll last Thursday – very different results.
Dr. Jill Stein Green Party polled 4 per cent in that NBC poll.
More GJ coverage:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/this-time-around-gary-johnsons-third-party-bid-makes-sense-060422915.html
AJ, but you seem to overlook that GJ reached out to WW.
Is that just inconvenient to your narrative?
I do not know if it was the CFR or the CIA or whoever who put Hinkley up to shooting Reagan. I do recall reading that Hinkley’s dad knew George Bush.
It should be pretty obvious that the establishment has been working toward infiltrating, sabotaging, and co-opting the Libertarian Party and movement for years. This election they were extra motivated because of Trump. This whole Never Trump movement looking into the LP is a scam. They have their guy Weld on our ticket now, which should make every real libertarian out there want to puke.
AJ: [weld] is here as a hijacker who has co-opted the party.
Me: Are you sure? I don’t know the whole story, but I have reason to believe that GJ reached out to WW. I believe he was solicited, which isnot something “hijackers” do. Your conspiratorial proclivities again reveal themselves, I suspect in embarrassing ways.
….
How did the CFR get Hinckley to shoot Reagan? Is Jodie Foster in on it as well? Or were there other undisclosed, sinister shooters involved?
Robert Capozzi, perhaps a better way to say it is that Weld is not INSPIRING people to become libertarians.
Weld is not here because he gives a rat’s behind about the Libertarian Party or movement, he is here as a hijacker who has co-opted the party.
I made no comment above about Hinkley or the attempt on Reagan’s life, but yeah, i think that was a set up, and that George Bush was in on it. Reagan was not a good guy, but he was not as high up in the establishment system as Bush was. They needed Reagan because he was an actor and a good front man. The establishment really wanted George Bush as President. After Reagan got shot Bush had a more prominate role. Reagan was just an actor/frontman they used to sell the public their bullshit.
“actual libertarian Libertarian Party with actual libertarians, but this “easier” road actually leads the party off of a cliff because it sells out our principles.”
I take it the Bednarik campaign was the highlight of you political life then, right?
Andy’s not completely wrong and it probably would have behooved Johnson to pick an LP lifer not have trouble on his activist flank (which Barr did not do and paid for it) rather than old money Republican like Weld. Nevertheless, if you are going to grow the party, people like Weld and other Republicans like him are the fruit which are going to fall from the tree first. That’s the reality and its the way the party earns mainstream credibility, not with candidates like Chief Wana Dubie.
That’s the rub, that’s what it boils down to. Either the LP is going to be a working, mainstream political party with all the factions and the “LINOs” and the 80 percenters and all the fire-eaters that the two major parties have and take as a given in their day-to-day existence. Or it’s going to be a factional club dedicated to the proposition that when one’s house is on fire the first thing you do is grab a bucket. 33,000 dues paying members is nice but since few people outside of the “club” know who Harry Browne is its also irrelevant since the major parties don’t ask you to pay an admission fee to be associated with them. Ron Paul’s political success came largely as a member of the Republican Party, not with his association with the LP. That’s the reality. The Green influenced the outcome of the 2000 election, not Harry Browne’s Libertarians. The Reform Party garnered 19 percent and nine percent of the vote in 1990s, not the LP.
The LP has a breakthrough chance given the unpopularity of the major party candidates and that breakthrough can only be achieved with mainstream credible candidates, like it or not. However, Andy has a point about the Barr fiasco and it’s the job of the activists to hold the candidates who win the party’s nomination to its platform if they want such activist help during the campaign, otherwise this is a pointless exercise. Ideally this is how the party, any party should function. Well see if it does.
more…
AJ also alluded to the Reagan assassination attempt was a globalist plot to install GWB as prez. This I’d not heard before.
Was the CFR behind Hinckley? Was he their patsy?
aj, btw, every time I check Alex Jones, I see Roger Stone on, and they are both deeply into the Trump camp.
Is this your direction as well?
Jones seems to think that DJT is his kinda guy, but he’s concerned that the VP candidate might be a “globalist.” Sessions seems to be their fav pick.
srg: Trying to complain about Romney’s comment meaning the party is ‘hijacked’ indicates to me that you’re so desperate to try to find something to complain about that you’re pulling at the silliest straws possible.
me: Yep, sure feels like that.
I think it’d be GREAT if MR publicly says he’s voting GJ/WW. It’s great he’s considering it. This only adds to the marketing echo chamber, creating more and more buzz.
But, then, some like AJ seem to view candidates as missionaries. The Church wants to know “How many have you converted?”
I see this as a completely different exercise. It’s marketing — advertising, really. The ticket generates impressions, which generates interest, which generates improved poll numbers, which may or may not get in the debates, which may or may not translate into votes, which may or may not lead to winning some states (could UT be in play?), which may or may not lead to throwing the election into the House, or whatever fantasy scenario one can dream up, including winning (a very, very long shot).
Whether all that effort leads people to decide, Yes, I too wish to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state, is really not the ticket’s job. Their job is to generate leads. Closing to left to others.
Some of these leads might even read THE manifesto and conclude, “OMG, when I was a fetus, I was a parasite! Sign me up!” 😉
L: Ron Paul … if he was on the LP ticket, Romney wouldn’t touch the LP with a 10-foot pole — Trump or no Trump.
me: Probably true. That’s because it’s pretty widely known that he was a member of the JBS, and NewletterGate 1.0 and 2.0 render him toxic for most.
L: the ticket is getting a lot of attention right now
me: At least you admit this!
L: Look at Sarwark’s “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff” line. Is that a perfect summary of libertarianism?
me: I’ve heard Boaz use that phrase as well, and it’s a fine phrase. It’s vague, though, politically. I’d be perfectly happy and supportive if GJ said that, too.
aj: Weld is NOT creating new libertnrians.
me: I am going to strongly suggest that you deeply confused. No one “creates” Ls. The INDIVIDUAL chooses a political philosophy.
Or do you disagree?
If you don’t disagree, then the point is that it’s too early to tell what INFLUENCE GJ/WW has had on the race, the LP as institution, the number of people IDing as L, or the political consciousness of the nation. In terms of IMPRESSIONS — the marketing reach that WW alone has generated — it’s got to be way, way more than Root, who was calling into low-level radio talk shows.
Politics is marketing. So far, the 2016 model is making a huge splash, better frankly than I expected.
Now, it could be with this Romney disclosure, this all could be part of some sinister CFR/CIA /New World Order/ Mark of the Beast/ Gotthard Train Tunnel
conspiracy. We may all be rounded up into FEMA camps, implanted with chips, perhaps ground up into food.
That would kinda suck, agreed.
A few thoughts:
1. Andy is right. Weld is nowhere close to being a libertarian, and his old buddy Romney knows that, which is the only reason he is considering voting LP. And no, it has nothing to do with Weld’s “big name” status. Ron Paul is just as well known as Weld (probably more so), and I can guarantee you if he was on the LP ticket, Romney wouldn’t touch the LP with a 10-foot pole — Trump or no Trump.
2. The reason the ticket is getting a lot of attention right now is a combination of three factors. First, as RTAA pointed out, the media is desperate to find an “alternative” to Trump. Second, the Establishment types see Weld as one of their own, and know that they can trust him not to “rock the boat” too much. Finally, they are simply killing time until the major party conventions.
3. I don’t know why people keep acting as if libertarianism is some sort of ultra-complicated philosophy that has to be “dumbed down” to appeal to the public. It’s actually very simple, which is a big part of its beauty. Look at Sarwark’s “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff” line. Is that a perfect summary of libertarianism? No, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” garbage.
4. For the record, I’m at least 95% sure that I’ve heard Ron Paul say that the last time he endorsed the GOP nominee for President in the general election was Reagan in ’80. He did not endorse Reagan in ’84.
“The Romney comment is disgusting. Romney saying that he is thinking about voting for our ticket should be a clear sign to even the most dense among us that our party has been hijacked and co-opted. Mitt Romney is far from bebeings libertarian.”
This makes no logical sense at all. Your complaint is apparently that a non-Libertarian would… vote for your candidate. Okay… so? Because very few people have their personal ethos match up exactly with a particular party, it’s typical for people to vote for someone they aren’t in full agreement with. That doesn’t mean a candidate doesn’t follow the ethos of their party if someone not perfectly aligned with their party votes for them.
For example, I voted for John Kerry back in 2004. I disagreed with a number of his positions, and those positions were completely in line with the Democratic party. I just figured that he was better than Bush (and at the time paid little attention to third party candidates). While there are certainly quite a few criticisms of Kerry I would agree with, it would be completely absurd to somehow conclude the fact that I, a non-Democrat who disagrees with a number of Democratic party positions, voting for him somehow means he isn’t a liberal (or whatever ethos you want to ascribe to the Democratic Party). That’s insane.
Trying to complain about Romney’s comment meaning the party is ‘hijacked’ indicates to me that you’re so desperate to try to find something to complain about that you’re pulling at the silliest straws possible.
Mitt Romney isn’t the nominee for the LP (and never will be). The comment isn’t disgusting for most people. In fact, the last poll in Utah had Johnson only 10 points behind Hillary & 13 behind DJT.
Or perhaps he couldn’t find anyone better. Recall that he was talking up French during the brief time he appeared to be a candidate.
If Mitt votes for the LP ticket it will be because the LP ticket has been hijacked.
Andy, ah am thinking that Mitt is just coming around to voting for his view of the lesser evil.
The Romney comment is disgusting. Romney saying that he is thinking about voting for our ticket should be a clear sign to even the most dense among us that our party has been hijacked and co-opted. Mitt Romney is far from bebeings libertarian.
Remember all that media that Wayne Root got. He failed at creating new libertarians as well.
Weld is NOT creating new libertnrians. Just because the CFR/CIA influenced media is giving him some coverage, it does not mean that he is inspiring people to become libertarians like Ron Paul or Harry Browne did.
Weld is a terrible representative for the LP. If he represented what it means to be a Libertarian I’d quit the party.
“If Bill Weld were at the top of the ticket, it would be very easy for me to vote for Bill Weld for president,” Romney said. “So I’ll get to know Gary Johnson better and see if he’s someone who I could end up voting for. That’s something which I’ll evaluate over the coming weeks and months.”
– Mitt Romney
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/mitt-romney-donald-trump-racism/index.html
KL, disagree. GJ is all about “aw shucks.” He’s a nice guy. He’s not about name calling, but in a moment of weakness, with tongue in cheek, he called The Donald a “pussy.” Multiple times.
It’s not in keeping with his character as a nice guy, but it IS out there, and on one level, it’s accurate. But on GJ’s Zen side, it’s bad karma.
It’s a joke. Get it, or don’t.
Johnson’s “misfire” comment was stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRxe-3tb1v0
RC
Agreed, social inclusive is better than saying socially tolerant.
mike b., actually the point is to use words people can relate to, like conservative and liberal. Still, I do think GJ’s positioning is sub-optimal. I’d rather see a tweak, something like:
Ls can sometimes sound like fiscal conservatives and sometimes like social progressives. But to be a L is to be for a consistent approach…maximum freedom and liberty in all things, be they economic, social, and foreign affairs.
never liked the word “tolerant.” Too much like “tolerate.”
WW says “socially inclusive,” and I prefer that, actually.
aj: Could Be Rational be Richard Winger?
me: Crossed my mind, but my guess is Nick Youngers.
aj: …absolutely no evidence that indicates that Bill Weld is a successful libertarian sales rep…
me: Then, AJ, ADR, but you are not paying attention. WW by himself probably has generated more impressions as a L VP candidate than all previous ones COMBINED for their ENTIRE campaigns. When you add his joint appearances with GJ, he’s probably generated more impressions than most if not all L prez candidates for their entire run, probably several of them aggregated.
He’s pounding the digital pavement in unprecedented ways. You and I may not agree with his every word, but only the most myopic don’t find him compelling and credible.
Is he out proselytizing the NAP? Certainly not, thankfully. That he leaving to the (mad) scientists!
I am glad to see that Gary Johnson has climbed up to 12% in the polls. Lets keep this trend going.
Andy,
I agree with your sales rep comments. At best, Bill Weld is a liberal Republican which is not the same as being a libertarian and I wish GJ would stop using libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal line. I know he’s trying to simplify the term for people who are not familiar with what a libertarian is but I would state it that libertarians are fiscally responsible and socially tolerant. That conservatives are socially intolerant and liberals are fiscally irresponsible.
Could Be Rational be Richard Winger? The talk about Massachusetts has me wondering this as it is similar with his past exchanges with George on this subject.
There is absolutely no evidence that indicates that Bill Weld is a successful libertarian sales rep, or that he has any loyalty to the party or movement.
Be Rational: “This is especially true in MA where the LP tries to stay small and unimportant as a matter of strategy in order to avoid the hard work of actually having a functioning political party. ”
Be Rational is a liar or an idiot, or perhaps both. Massachusetts has vigorous programs to expand the size of our state organization. Unlike many other state parties, not to mention National, we have a vigorous issues outreach program, one which actually reaches women and people of color. What we fortunately do not have is a surplus of dimwits who want Libertarians to get a shiny badge from a state official, reading “major party”, as opposed to actually becoming a party that is major.
Oh, be rational advocates spending money on TV network ads.
Why? For similar reasons that a pharmaceutical sales rep need not have a PhD in biochemistry. Sales reps and candidates are not theorists, but instead communicators who deal in volume.
Why does the LP continue to nominate former Republicans who can recite libertarian talking points but at their core are not principled libertarians. Most of us had our Road to Damascus conversion to libertarianism but If you’ve recently converted to libertarianism, you shouldn’t be put on the top of the LP ticket (i.e. Bill I only been a libertarian for a month and just read the LP platform two weeks ago Weld) because you are a libertarian newbie, a new believer, not fully immersed or grounded in the libertarian faith and still may cling to old political views or formerly held beliefs that do not align with libertarian principles…I know I’m using a lot of religious wording.
I wonder how many Libertarians would support Jeb Bush for President and John Kasich for Vice President on the Libertarian Party ticket, if Gary Johnson and Bill Weld told them that was who to vote for, and if they started getting lots of publicity and there were promises of big campaign donations going to them.
Also, perhaps, most importantly, when Bill Weld endorsed Jeb Bush 9 months ago, it was reported that he did so because he agreed with most of Bush’s positions on the issues.
It’s very simple.
Bob Barr was on the board of directors of the NRA. Bill Weld supports gun control.
Bob Barr opposes the individual mandate for healthcare insurance. Bill Weld supports it.
Bob Barr is a member of the ACLU. Bill Weld is a member of the CFR.
Bob Barr opposes the PATRIOT Act. Bill Weld signed a letter calling for the renewal of the PATRIOT Act.
Bob Barr did not endorse George W. Bush for re-election, but endorsed Libertarian Michael Badnarik. Bill Weld endorsed George W. Bush enthusiastically and has never endorsed a Libertarian.
Bob Barr did not endorse Barack Obama for president, but ran as the Libertarian presidential nominee. Bill Weld endorsed Barack Obama enthusiastically, praising his political views.
There’s much, much more, but I’m not going to spend all day writing it out.
Ron Paul endorsed Harry Browne, and after he died, he read a tribute to Harry Browne on the House floor which was entered into the Congressional record. Ron also endorsed Badnarik.
Weld’s crappy endorsements are just the tip of the iceberg as to why he is not a libertarian, and Ron Paul does more in one day for the cause of liberty than Weld has ever done in his life.
VP is a high profile office, and Weld does not belong in this position, or any other position, in the LP.
.
Don’t get me started on Johnson or Gray.
sb “Governor of Massachusetts”, of course. My bad.
William Saturn: “[Weld’s] positions on the issues are far less libertarian than Bob Barr.”
I hope you have a cite for that. Not a cherry-picked list of his record as Governor of Maryland, either: his actual stated “positions on the issues” as of today.
Andy, it’s really hard to blame Weld. He was a Republican trying to get the best Republican for the nomination. Rand could never win inside today’s R party, and Trump needed to be stopped. The LP was so insignificant that many libertarians would never consider the LP before now because of it’s small size and record of no victories and little leadership. Why waste your money and your time on something that is going nowhere. This is especially true in MA where the LP tries to stay small and unimportant as a matter of strategy in order to avoid the hard work of actually having a functioning political party. The NY LP has never won ballot status, despite the low vote threshhold, because of their lack of money for campaigning and almost zero major network TV advertising since Clark ’80. Not everyone is willing to spend their entire life, working, giving and living as a poor activist when faced with the prospect of achieving nothing as a result.
We now have a chance to change that dynamic. We should take the opportunities and resources that have come our way. We can grow to a significant size in membership, donations and votes at the polls and use that to actually elect sincere, well spoken, rational, NAP endorsing but practical Libertarians to lower offices in the near future and build our way to victory.
You can help by working for long-term victory instead of whining about imperfections you cannot change.
Andy,
I just don’t like to make a big hoopla about the VP pick. They don’t really do much in government unless the President wants them to (like Bush did with Cheney). I understand any apprehension you have with Weld though, I do too. He’s no Judge Jim Gray, who I absolutely LOVED! Gray is so eloquent and thoughtful. But Johnson makes a decent point….Jim Gray got ZERO national media coverage in 2012.
You’re right that Weld would seem a lot more legit if he endorsed Ron Paul in 08 and 12, and/or endorsed Rand Paul in 16. But you know what, I could be wrong but I don’t think Ron Paul endorsed Harry Brown or Michael Badnarik in 2000 and 2004. In fact, I’m pretty sure Ron Paul endorsed W in 00.
And I was discussing Johnson. I honestly just don’t know enough about Weld to make an informed opinion of him yet.
RC: There are several factors in choosing the 12 initial states.
You are correct that some solid blue states offer the opportunity to pick up both D and R voters who think their state is so safe for Hillary that they are more willing to vote for someone they prefer.
Some states are in either Johnson (3) or Weld (6) territory, which should lead to greater initial name recognition and resonance, most are blue states, although three of them have the potential to be battleground states.
Contiguous states are advantageous because of advertising overlap from state to state – overlap from MA, ME and VT covers most of NH, for example.
States that are likely to be uncontested by either the Ds or Rs for President are more likely to notice our smaller number of ads to have an impact.
The three west coast states have demographic factors that make them desireable, and marijuana legalization activity on the coast plus in CO also is important.
All of these things should help us get the attention and free media we need to go well past 15% in the polls.
There are advantages in being very high in the polls in a small state – as we’ve recently seen in UT, because this can lead to additional earned media. It’s easier to pick up a victory in a small state, with the threat of taking one or more electoral votes (ME divides its electoral votes, so Johnson could actually win the nothernmost Congressional District there for one EV, as Perot nearly did) which will also allow for earned media. The advertising campaign itself, with ads actually running should also result in earned media – the media likes to cover campaigns that are actually doing something visible and that have a plan. All of these are separate items of interest that can be used to keep Johnson/Weld in the mix of electoral news – if his campaign staff is up to utilizing this resource.
All of our media investment in a few states can get us nationwide earned media. We use the free media to leverage our investment.
I do like the idea of hitting MN, and there are others, but hey, we don’t have money to go everywhere, and they haven’t given any indication of beginning anywhere. I’ve already suggested doing CA without buying LA because of cost. I’d possibly put MN in the next group – but they just have to get started. Is there a special reason to put MN ahead of CA? If we could include Jesse Ventura in the advertising endorsing, maybe that would be a kicker to do MN soomer. The ads don’t have to be the same in each state – probably shouldn’t be.
The Johnson campaign really should get some ads running – at least in the first six on my list. $60,000 to start – keep the free media coming and show potential donors that the campaign is really happening. Use the activity, the ads , the free media, to raise more money to keep it all going. Not all donors are in love with ballot drive donations.
Every election the LP does the ballot drives, fundraises for the ballot drives and then has nothing left for the election. We have a better campaign team and we need a better campaign plan.
Rand was the most libertarian candidate in the 2012 Republican primary, and who does Bill Weld endorse? Jeb Bush and then John Kasich.
Who did Bill Weld endorse in 2008 and 2012? Did he endorse Ron Paul either time? Did he endorse Gary Johnson in 2012? No, he endorsed Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
Who did Bill Weld endorse in 2000 and 2004? Did he endorse Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik? No, he endorsed George W. Bush, and he even did fundraising for George W. Bush.
And now we are supposed to believe that Weld is a libertarian, even though just 4 months ago he endorsed John Kasich? Are you kidding me?
There was no internet back then. We can reach a lot of people a lot cheaper than we used to be able to do.
Andy,
Andy,
I would argue that the reason Rand Paul didn’t do well wasn’t because of his message, but it was because of the rise of both Trump and Sanders. Sanders courted a lot of the younger voters that previously supported Paul, and Trump courted a lot of the older voters that previously supported Paul. Rand was polling as a front runner leading up to Trumps announcement that he was running for president.
I know it’s easy to point to the 08 and 12 Paul campaign as evidence that if we are true to our principles, we can make headway, but the fact is he was really the only serious anti-establishment candidate. There are plenty of people out there who vote anti-establishment, but that doesn’t mean they are libertarians.
Andy, sadly the membership numbers during the Brown era were rigged. There was a fundraising campaign based on direct mail churning of outside mailing lists that was designed primarily to enrich the fundraising guru running it – and he looted the LP quite successfully, scooping out tens of thousands of dollars in payments for creating phony memberships.
The method used the tried and true direct mail lists of conservative donors, many of whom will respond to any well written appeal. The party sent out and paid for the letters which brought in donations, and even if the fundraising cost more thant the money brought in and these new donors didn’t have a clue what the NAP was, they were included as members on the lists. And of course they didn’t help on campaigns, run for office, get active, go to conventions, or even donate again. They were just direct mail churn, the party lost a fortune, the fundraising guru got rich and finally the project was abandoned as a failure and a money loser.
This was a Bergland team fiasco, brought to you by hard-core NAP members who were blinded by the flash and promises of a faction of principle, which led to the fleecing of the party.
I was in DC at one of the LP conventions during this disaster warning against this con job as it was happening, but no one wanted to hear the truth. It’s pretty well known and accepted now that this was a big con job, but even now, some have been fooled into thinking these were actual memberships. Sorry, Andy, but the direct mail scam – Project Archimedes – still claims you as a victim.
How far ahead was the party in 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 00, and 04? All of those elections you could argue we had a much more ‘pure’ candidate than we did in 08, 12, and 16.
Ron Paul inspired lots of people because he had a bold message. Rand Paul has inspired less people than his father because his message is less bold.
I am glad that I saw Harry Browne in 1996 instead of some LINO like Barr or Weld. If I saw the likes of Barr or Weld instead of Browne I never would have joined the party.
Just imagine how much further ahead the party would be right now if we had had real libertarian Libertarian Party presidential tickets in 2008, 2012, and this year.
BR, what makes intuitive sense to me about your initially-target blue states idea is that R voters might be more likely to support GJ and not feel they are wasting their votes; are more likely to be social libs; and even D voters who find HRC too reptilian might be a nice protest vehicle.
The only question in my mind is CPM efficiency in those places. Is $1 spent in Portland, ME reaching more people than say Minneapolis.
I have a friend who is rather anti-government and is a Trump ‘supporter’ only because he doesn’t want Hillary to win. One day we’re at the Round Table Pizza and we look up on the monitor and low and behold Fox News is on and they are discussing Gary Johnson. My friend is like, “I never heard of him”. And I gave him a breakdown of his record as governor and where he is at on the issues. He said he’s going to look into Johnson and libertarianism now even though he doesn’t like Johnson’s position on immigration.
Just because Johnson has zero charisma doesn’t mean that he won’t bring people into libertarianism. I’m GLAD he is getting media coverage. It makes people question.
The LP was at its peak of 33,000 and something dues paying members during the Harry Browne hardcore libertarian era. It had been you watered down Republican Bob Barr, William Weld, etc…, types that have driven people away from the party, and caused the party to go downhill in general.
My development went just like Austin’s, though I was voting for Repubs prior to 2008. I voted for George Allen for Senate and Tom Davis for Congress. I haven’t even considered voting for an R or D since 2008, and I want to puke when I think about the decade I spent supporting those scumbags.
Ron Paul brought me in, and I was a Barr supporter, pre-nomination, in 2008. Nowadays, you couldn’t pay me to support someone like that for our nomination (well, maybe I’d do it for like…..$50).
So, yeah, I agree that getting people in the door is very important. The dots start connection and the light bulb eventually goes off for most of us, once we become exposed to libertarianism. Of course, we can question how well a GJ campaign brings people in…..
The way I see it is that Johnson is like a gateway to libertarianism. I know that many libertarians despise his whole, “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” shtick, and you can count me as one of them. But for the mass people out there, that might be easier to understand then explaining the NAP.
I was a liberal Democrat all my life. When I lived in Virginia, I supported and voted for Jim Webb for Senate and Al Weed for Congress in 2006. In 2007 I was an early Obama supporter, but for amusement I watched the Republican debates. I saw Ron Paul being the only anti-war Republican candidate and I respected him for that. While it took time, I eventually reconsidered my philosophical beliefs, and over the course of several months became a libertarian. First I would say I was more of a moderate like Johnson is, but over time, as I read more libertarian authors and visited libertarian websites, I became more and more radical to the point I am now, where I am practically an anarchist.
As Johnson says, if we are at A, and the goal is Z, I would rather have a candidate get us to B instead of maintaining the status quo of A. If he brings in new blood, I’m confident they will over time become more radicalized. I’m proof of that.
Wow, Be Rational . . . that was . . . . pretty rational!
Johnson’s appearance on Full Frontal has surpassed 182,000 viewers already …
The LP should be able to add tens of thousands of full NAP supporting members from this campaign – if we reach out to our new prospects, teach them in a warm, welcoming manner, and gradually bring them to embrace our fight for pure liberty.
But, Andy, if you want to rant and rave and scare them away, you can keep the LP small and insignificant and it won’t be any more pure when it’s smaller, it will just be doomed to prepetual insignificance.
Bob Barr endorsed Badnarik in 2004, joined the party in 2006, and worked for the ACLU. Weld endorsed Jeb Bush 9 months ago and John Kasich just 4 months ago and is still an “active” member of the CFR. He joined the party 2 weeks before becoming its VP nominee. His positions on the issues are far less libertarian than Bob Barr.
OK, now I can’t even take you seriously. Sorry
Weld is probably worse than Barr, he certainly is not any better.
Andy, Bob Barr is the only LP POTUS candidate I have refused to vote for (I didn’t vote for Browne in 1996, but I didn’t do so out of principle). Stop comparing Barr to Johnson or Weld. If Johnson was Barr, he would have returned to the Republican Party. I’m pretty sure that will never happen. Barr was a social conservative warrior who had absolutely no place in the LP. Weld and Johnson believe in the principles of smaller government. Maybe not as small as you want it to be and maybe not as fervently or pure as you would like, but they are not Bob Barr.
We can both agree that Bob Barr was a disaster, but your comparisons do not hold water.
What is the point of getting coverage if you do not have actual libertarians to cover? I bet we would be getting lots more coverage right now if our ticket was Jeb Bush / John Kasich (both of whom were endorsed by Weld over the last several months). Would you people be going gaga over all of the media cover we would be getting if the Libertarian Party had nominated Jeb Bush for President and John Kasich for Vice President? Just imagine all of the media and money we would get with a ticket like that.
Did all of you miss what I think the most important part of this interview was? The audience! They were very enthusiastic, and clearly understood what Johnson said! No “fringiness” there.
It was obvious he was nervous, and that made him more endearing.
I’m happy to be supporting Gary. I just heard yesterday that he and Weld will be giving the keynote speech at a local event we have coming up in Pasadena in a couple weeks called Politicon. We’ll have a table there, and hopefully we’ll have a good presence.
I’ll post something here about Politicon as soon as I find something official about the keynotes speaker.
No, the defeatist attitude is from the people who think we should run LINO’s instead of actual libertarian Libertarian. You are the people who do not want the Libertarian Party grow. You are the people who turn actual libertarians away from the Libertarian Party.
You people had your way in 2008 with Barr/Root and look where that got us. Nowhere.
https://youtu.be/tZqmLvNvoNk
No question, RC, you are correct. Any of the other LP potential POTUS candidates this year would be getting Stein level coverage AT BEST.
12% is great, but we’re unlikely to surpass and maintain a polling average above 15% unless we run TV spots NOW – and being close or occasionally over won’t cut it, as the Commission will fudge their selection of polls and computation of averages if they can.
We have to get started – even just $50,000 in the first 6 states (previously 5, UT added due to recent info). The ads will give us leverage to stay in the media spotlight and stay included in the polling. Leverage means that running $50,000 in targeted Major Network Broadcast TV spots can bring earned or free media coverage worth many times the amount spent.
(Start with these 6 states: ME, NH, VT and NM, CO, UT – $60,000 would be better with the extra state.)
(When more money comes in, add the next six: MA, RI, CT and WA, OR, CA.)
The Johnson campaign should plan to spend at least 10 cents per capita per state in these 12 states before the debates, before moving on to other states. Any Johnson or LP PAC should spend at least 30 cents per capita before moving on. The message should be gentle, introductory, positive about Johnson and what it means to be a Libertarian. A moderate L message can promote edgy but reasonable short term change in a libertarian direction while still being consistent with the NAP.)
Andy, I do understand your point of view. I just think that it’s a defeatist attitude. First off, the term “LINO” is even more lame than when Republicans use RINO. Second, I am SO TIRED of hearing about the “mainstream media.” It does not have a liberal bias (go ahead and attack me).
Finally, if you want a party of 100% pure libertarians, you are just setting yourself up for disappointment. It will NEVER happen. Like I’ve said previously, all parties have factions and so does the LP. It’s people with your viewpoint that pushed me out of the LP.
If the Johnson / Weld ticket attracts more people to the principles of libertarianism, then mission accomplished. ANY OTHER TICKET would have gone unnoticed as usual. The LP would remain tiny and unknown. I guess that’s what you want.
RTAA, disagree. In my judgment, none of the other contenders would have gotten 1/10th the play GJ/WW have. They would get Stein-level play instead.
I do not believe in kissing the ass of the establishment. I give the establishment the middle finger.
Mark, I disagree. The LP should not accept dirty money from Weld & co. These people are not interested in liberty, they are just using the party for there own nefarious purposes. It would be one thing if the money was all going to be used to promote a hardcore libertarian message, but this is clearly not the case.
I agree with Darryl Perry, in that some Libertarians are trying to take what appears to be an easy road, rather than taking the hard road of building an actual libertarian Libertarian Party with actual libertarians, but this “easier” road actually leads the party off of a cliff because it sells out our principles.
I have turned down thousands and thousands of dollars over the years, so money is not my biggest concern. I would tell the establishment Republicans to take their dirty money and shove it straight up their ass.
Ron Paul raised $40 million, and he did it by putting out a pretty hardcore libertarian message. He did this WITHOUT selling out to the CFR or the Republican establishment.
If we can’t build an actual libertarian Libertarian Party, and if we can’t run actual libertarian Libertarian candidates, then perhaps the party should just call it quits and shut down. Selling out principles to our enemy, the political establishment, is not the path to liberty.
Trent Hill: “Johnson/Weld has DEFINITELY attracted more media interest [by default] than previous LP campaigns.”
The MSM is seeking a Trump alternative. This year ANY LP candidate would have attracted more media interest than any previous LP campaign.
it depends on how big and how many deviations there are. I do not expect every candidate to be perfect or to agree with me on every little detail.
Given the type of people who are in the CFR, and given the history of the CFR, yeah, being a member of this organization is a red flag to not support somebody.
The misfired joke that war referred to (and was bleeped by CBS when Colbert repeated it) what when Gary called out Trump as a “pussy”… multiple times.
I agree it was a misfire. You don’t try to provoke Trump, it drags you down to his level, and is unnecessary, as he is self-provoking.
Weld & Johnson side by side clearly does show one thing Gary needs to work on. His confidence in interviews where he may be tossed a fastball. Weld was cool and collected, able to handle the situation, Gary came off a bit nervous, even though he was being treated rather gently. I recall him being better in 2012.
I’m guessing that the early practice from being in the GOP race in 2011 got him more confidence in his delivery. Hopefully the numerous media opportunities he’s getting will help improve his delivery.
A.J., my sense is that you can tolerate some deviation ism, but C.F.R. membership is a non-starter for you, RP1, Alex Jones, etc.
>The best thing that Weld could do for the LP right now is to not do anything.
Wrong.
The best thing he can do is call his friends and contacts and have them write checks to the LP or to the individual state parties to pay for petitioners like Andy to get LP candidates on the ballot.
Some of you people do not get it. The mainstream media has been in bed with the government for a long time in this country. Look up the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird. It should not be surprising that the controlled mainstream media would give more attention to LINO (Libertarian In Name Only) candidates, particularly when was of them is a CFR member (note that CFR membership ranks include influential people from the media) They want the public to be exposed to FAKE libertarianism. This is called controlled opposition. The establishment has hijacked and co-opted our ticket.
Robert, being a member of the CFR is one of many problems with Weld. There are also his numerous anti-libertarian issue stances, his endorsements of multiple big government candidates (and no endorsements for libertarians), and his lying to and screwing over the Libertarian Party of New York. This guy is NOT a libertarian and should not be a candidate for our party.
“We already knew that Gov. Johnson isn’t the most articulate public speaker. I suspect that is why he makes joint appearances with Gov. Weld.”
Likely true.
Darcy’s comments might be true for him–but for the general public this ticket represents to former Republican Governors with solid public policy credentials and experience. No, they aren’t super charismatic. But, their message went out to millions last night, most of whom had never ever heard them talk–so it doesn’t particularly matter that they were repetitive.
Johnson/Weld has DEFINITELY attracted more media interest than previous LP campaigns. Easily. I suspect they’ll cruise to the best LP finish ever (and Darcy will owe me a set of books 😛 )
Tony. Understand that for Andy, WW being a CFR member is like being a Klan member for most. He will gnaw on this bone until it’s pulverized.
Yeah – nominating the two best qualified candidates in the history of the LP is a tragedy . . . .
The best thing that Weld could do for the LP right now is to not do anything. Just be a paper candidate and hope that nobody notices him or looks up his record.
Either this, or drop out of the race and allow the LNC to nominate a real Libertarian in place of him (I am pretty sure that the LNC nominates a replacement candidate if either the presidential or vice presidential candidate drops out).
We already knew that Gov. Johnson isn’t the most articulate public speaker. I suspect that is why he makes joint appearances with Gov. Weld.
I sometimes grow tired at his repetitiveness, but we are also the people who watch most of his interviews. The average voter doesn’t so he doesn’t come off as repetitive yet. I agree, though, that he needs to mix it up and stop seeming like he’s just “glad to be here.”
Darcy, the thing you’re missing here is you’ve heard it before. Johnson had the opportunity to hit over 2 million people last night with a message they’ve NEVER heard before. You being derisive doesn’t change the fact that he just got a libertarian message out to millions of people in one short segment.
E.A., I suspect GJ’s repetitiveness is his attempt to stay on message. It’s preferable to undisciplined blather.
Johnson’s personality leaves something to be desired. I was considering voting for him, before the previous few weeks anyway, due to his poll numbers. It’s not that he’s boring, I prefer that even. But he is repetitive and a little childish. What joke “misfired”?
Yes, I suspect that the MSM assume GJ takes votes from DJT, and they want that to be the outcome. So they push him. However, if the polling continues to improve, then it becomes less about hurting DJT and more about the horse race.
As for the lack of excitement, I dunno, DJT has been “exciting” and “entertaining.” We’ve been watching Deadpool for the last 6 months, now maybe it’s time for a Tom Hanks flick….
If they MSM believes that Johnson/Weld will help Clinton beat Trump, then the MSM will continue to promote Johnson/Weld (and ignore Jill Stein).
If, OTOH, polls indicate that Johnson/Weld won’t hurt Trump, and might even assist Trump, then the MSM will ignore Johnson/Weld.
Yawn — and a big yawn, at that. I watched the short Colbert interview late last night and was struck by Johnson’s inability to say anything new or original. Sorry for pointing this out, but the former New Mexico governor has pretty much repeated the same dull and uninspiring things in virtually every national media appearance since the Orlando convention.
Weld was even worse — if that’s possible.
If Colbert’s facial expressions were any indication, the mainstream media is already growing inattentive, if not entirely bored, with the Libertarian candidate. Unless Johnson and his less-than-inspiring running mate can come up with some fresh and imaginative things to say — the kinds of clever and creative sound bites that could grab some serious attention — the pundits and talking heads will eventually lose interest altogether.