Libertarian Party: “Jeb and Mitt, we welcome your vote and admire your courage!”

lpban

Press release from the Libertarian Party:

For Immediate Release
Saturday, July 16, 2016

CNN reports that Gov. Jeb Bush and Gov. Mitt Romney are considering voting for Gov. Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for President.

Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, Nicholas Sarwark, says, “The Libertarian Party is delighted that Govs. Bush and Romney are considering voting for our candidates, Govs. Johnson and Weld. I think they know that Johnson and Weld are far more qualified to be President and Vice President than Trump and Pence.”

“It takes great courage for someone who has spent so many years serving the Republican Party to consider voting for a different party’s candidate for president. We applaud Govs. Bush and Romney’s courage. They don’t have to agree with us on every issue to see that our Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are clearly the best choices in this race.”

“Govs. Johnson and Weld are exceptionally well qualified and also exceptional human beings. If Americans want candidates they can be proud to vote for, and who would serve honorably and justly, they should support Govs. Johnson and Weld.”

The Libertarian Party is the only political party in America devoted to protecting all rights, of all human beings, all the time.

(Via American Third Party Report)

71 thoughts on “Libertarian Party: “Jeb and Mitt, we welcome your vote and admire your courage!”

  1. Pingback: Libertarian Party: “Jeb and Mitt, we welcome your vote and admire your courage!” | Untruth

  2. Darcy G Richardson

    Great courage? The Republican establishment didn’t get its way for once, so Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush are publicly pouting. Not sure I’d describe that as “courage.”

    The fact that Johnson and Weld might possibly appeal to the likes of Bush and Romney, moreover, says everything one needs to know — and then some — about the current Libertarian ticket.

  3. Rebel Alliance

    The fact that establishment cronies like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney would consider voting for Johnson/Weld shows how much our Libertarian brand is being corrupted. This is a strong argument for real libertarians to vote AGAINST Gary Johnson this year. If we can’t achieve real change, what was the point in even being involved in the LP? I mean, give me a break here. If Adolf Hitler were to talk up Johnson/Weld, would the LP leadership brag that “Woohoo, a really famous guy is endorsing our Libertarian candidates!!”

    Give me a f*cking break. Absolutely repulsive.

  4. dL

    Republican ex-governors supporting moderate ex republican governors is not surprising. Hell, you might looking at the preview of the next LP Dream Ticket.

    Romney/Bush 2020

    “Proven credibility.Fiscally conservative. Socially conservative”

  5. Cody Quirk

    “The fact that establishment cronies like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney would consider voting for Johnson/Weld shows how much our Libertarian brand is being corrupted.”

    Disagree. 

    When it comes to politics, the enemy of my enemy usually ends up as my friend; it actually shows just how far into the political mainstream the Libertarian brand has advanced and the fact that two big supporters of the twin-party system are publicly saying that they might vote for Johnson shows how much they are willing to do a 180′ on their attitude and actions concerning minor parties, and therefore make us look good, and the twin-party establishment look bad.
    By Jeb & Mitt making these statements; they give the LP and Libertarianism more power in media attention and even public appeal; their comments alone help hurt the twin-party image with the voters 🙂

    Both these men are in no way Libertarian and the statement in the article does not ask for them to join the LP at all, yet by getting some of the establishment to turn against itself and look our way; it will put us on the path to winning big in a few months.

    Of course, anything that looks like serious advancement & progress on the LP’s part looks the opposite to the butt-hurt purist crowd that would rather see the LP stay small and on the fringes of the political arena, even if they refuse to admit it.

    As much as I have come to despise him, I do agree with CP founder Howard Phillips on one thing that he said- “There are good compromises and bad compromises; good compromises get you closer to your goal and bad compromises take you further away”.
    Well, the actions of Gary Johnson and even this party statement are in fact good compromises that indeed are getting us there, unlike what some on IPR like to claim.

  6. Cody Quirk

    “The fact that Johnson and Weld might possibly appeal to the likes of Bush and Romney, moreover, says everything one needs to know — and then some — about the current Libertarian ticket.”

    Yes it does; it says that our ticket is so viable and has such a wide appeal that it even divides some individuals & factions within the political establishment and therefore turns the arguments of those that want to maintain the twin party system -upside down.

  7. Darcy G Richardson

    “…the fact that two big supporters of the twin-party system are publicly saying that they might vote for Johnson shows how much they are willing to do a 180′ on their attitude and actions concerning minor parties…” — Cody Quirk

    Are Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney — neither of whom are really likely to vote Libertarian in November — the ones who are doing a 180, or is it the Libertarian Party that has done an almost breathtaking 180 degree turn? I would suggest the latter.

    This will all be moot, of course, once multimillionaire philanthropist and Romney bundler John Kingston’s “Better for America” organization — a group whose executive director was the chief of staff to former First Lady Laura Bush — actually fields a presidential ticket.

    Unlike Unity ’08 or the aborted Americans Elect operation four years ago, I believe this is likely to happen sooner than naysayers here and elsewhere might think, possibly within a week or two following the GOP convention in Cleveland. It’s also the ticket Romney and Bush are most likely to support.

    Seriously, Cody, they’re both pretty intelligent guys and they’ve both had nice things to say about William Weld, but I can’t see either of them voting for a clueless stoner like Johnson.

  8. dL

    “When it comes to politics, the enemy of my enemy usually ends up as my friend; ”

    No, when it comes to politics, particularly US politics, the enemy of my enemy is usually another enemy.

    Since the United States is a plurality,winner take all voting system, a purist” is someone who apparently once took a high school civics class. Plurality voting scientifically excludes a viable third party in national elections. What plurality voting doesn’t exclude are hucksters who advance their media careers by playing a game of respectability politics with establishment opinion makers. Unless you are one of those people who can capitalize on media career by the LP playing footsie with establishment media/politics, you have to qualify as a dupe of the highest order, or at best, someone who feels better about himself merely by watching someone who reads from a teleprompter saying something nice about your party.

  9. robert capozzi

    Politics — as opposed to political philosophy — is a noise machine. That Mitt and Jeb consider voting J/W is positive noise because more people hear about the ticket. Simple as that. This is the most effective noise machine the LP has ever fielded.

    That Jeb especially is going against his pledge is a big deal in R circles. That the last R nominee finds the obvious — that DJT is an unqualified embarrassment — and he’s willing to say so publicly is also a big deal. The more that Rs and R-leaners hear it, the better. D leaners, too, might take another look with this sort of noise in the Public Square.

    Color me confused that some find this development somehow negative.

  10. Thomas Knapp

    “Are Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney — neither of whom are really likely to vote Libertarian in November — the ones who are doing a 180, or is it the Libertarian Party that has done an almost breathtaking 180 degree turn? I would suggest the latter.”

    Well, let’s face it: That breathtaking 180 degree turn took place some time ago and the skid marks are barely visible in the rear view mirror at this point.

    This is now the third presidential election in a row in which the LP has turned its presidential nomination over to a Republican instead of nominating a libertarian. And two of those three times the VP slot was awarded to a Republican as well.

    What’s different this year isn’t that the Libertarian Party is nominating a Republican. It’s that the Republican Party isn’t.

  11. Thomas Knapp

    “Do you believe that any legitimate national party would endorse the Republican candidate for President rather than have a candidate of their own?” — David Collison (chairman of the Reform Party), 2009

  12. Robert Capozzi

    TK, can you specify which L prez and vp candidates were actually Rs, despite all of them being pledge signers?

  13. Robert Capozzi

    TK, my guess is you consider Gray the only semi L, but I truly can’t read your mind…

  14. Andy

    This is disgusting. Jeb and Mitt are not even remotely libertarian. The only reason they would consider voting for our presidential ticket is if our ticket is not really libertarian, and considering that we have CFR gun grabber Bill Weld on the ticket, it should be apparent that this is a counterfeit Libertarian ticket.

  15. Andy

    Tom, Jim Gray was a Republican, and while he joined the LP back around 2002 or 2003, he has never been a hardcore libertarian.

  16. George Phillies

    ” Jeb and Mitt…The only reason they would consider voting for our presidential ticket”

    The reason they are considering our ticket is that their party is running Donald Trump.

  17. Andy

    Jeb and Mitt talking about possibly voting Libertarian is a bad thing. It shows that the LP has strayed far from its principles, and it is also a turn off to people who are libertarians, or libertarian learners, or who are looking for anti-establishment alternatives. I can see lots of these people saying something like, “So Jeb and Mitt are thinking about voting Libertarian this year. Well then fuck the Libertarian Party. Jeb and Mitt are douchebags.”

  18. Thomas Knapp

    Andy,

    Yes, Jim Gray WAS a Republican — at one time. He left the GOP 14 years before his vice-presidential candidacy and ran as a Libertarian for lower office before running for vice-president. I’m easy to get along with. He may not be a “hardcore libertarian,” but his move over to the Libertarian Party seems to have been genuine and permanent rather than opportunistic and temporary.

    Bob Barr’s first Libertarian campaign for public office, after being a GOP county chair and a Republican-appointed US Attorney, and serving four terms as a US Representative, was for the presidency, and he went back to the GOP after it ended.

    Wayne Allyn Root’s first Libertarian campaign for public office, launched a couple of years after writing the book Millionaire Republican and about a month after endorsing John McCain for the presidency, was for the presidency, and he went back to the GOP after it ended.

    Gary Johnson’s first Libertarian campaign for public office was for the presidency — after he served two terms as a Republican governor and ran for president as a Republican.

    I guess we could, if we’re charitable, say that William Weld ran a Libertarian campaign before he ran for VP as a Libertarian — he sought and received the New York LP’s 2006 nomination for governor, then screwed them over by quitting his campaign after he had promised live on camera not to. Johnson and Weld have repeatedly introduced/characterized themselves as “Republican governor of New Mexico” and “Republican governor of Massachusetts” in interviews and in at least one campaign video. In one interview, Weld referred to the Johnson/Weld brand as a type of Republicanism that people might like better than Trump’s.

    If it walks like a Republican, talks like a Republican and calls itself a Republican (in some instances above even after being nominated for office by the Libertarian Party), I’m gonna go out on a limb and call it a Republican.

  19. Andy

    It is not as though Jeb or Mitt are any better than Donald Trump. They are just as bad, if not worse, and i am leaning toward worse.

  20. Andy

    Tom, Gray left the Republican Party about 9 or 10 years prior to running as the LP’s vice presidential nominee in 2012.

    Gray has a pleasant personality, but he is a watered down moderate libertarian at best. He fits in with the Republican Lite mold.

  21. Thomas Knapp

    “Tom, Gray left the Republican Party about 9 or 10 years prior to running as the LP’s vice presidential nominee in 2012.”

    I guess if 1998 is about 9 or 10 years prior to 2012, you’re correct (Wikipedia says he left the GOP for the LP after his 1998 GOP Senate primary campaign failed).

    Of course, I suppose he might have come to the LP as late as 11 years prior to running for VP — he was certainly in the LP by 2001. As an LP activist, I was asked to (and did) set up a book signing for him in St. Louis that year.

  22. Richard Winger

    Ron Paul has simultaneously been a Libertarian and a Republican for many decades. The idea that there is some litmus test to differentiate “a Republican” from “a Libertarian” is not a sound idea.

  23. Andy

    Tom, i do not have time to look it up now to verify years/dates, but I recall Gray saying two things that drove him out of the Republican Party were the passage of the Patriot Act, and Kohn Ashcroft as Attorney General, both of which happened in 2001.

    I know that Gray ran for office as a Republican in 1998.

  24. Be Rational

    Interesting. I remember many times when the purists were upset because Ron Paul was too Republican and not Libertarian enough.

    Now he’s a purist hero?

    Yes, indeed, the brand has been irretrievably lost.

  25. Be Rational

    ‘This will all be moot, of course, once multimillionaire philanthropist and Romney bundler John Kingston’s “Better for America” organization … actually fields a presidential ticket. ”

    “Unlike Unity ’08 or the aborted Americans Elect operation four years ago, I believe this is likely to happen sooner than naysayers here and elsewhere might think, possibly within a week or two following the GOP convention in Cleveland. ”

    “It’s also the ticket Romney and Bush are most likely to support.”
    Darcy G Richardson
    July 17, 2016 at 03:48

    **************

    This.

    This is may also be the reason the Kochs and Purple PAC haven’t yet stepped up to support Johnson.

    The GJ/WW campaign have left themselves open to being displaced by a new 3rd choice. To prevent this they needed to have an implemented strategy to preclude any successful atttempt to make a late entrance. Then needed to nail down a larger base of support in a selected group of key states and make convincing inroads with the media as to the seriousness of the campaign. They needed to adopt and implement a plan of early advertising in key states they could plausibly win. This would have driven the media attention to include all the national evening news programs on a regular basis. GJ/WW would now be polling in the high double digits, well above the debate threshhold, and no “Better for America” or other alternates would consider entering the race.

    Opportunity waits for no [campaign] man[ager].

  26. Thomas Knapp

    Be Rational,

    In fairness to Andy, he has always been a huge Ron Paul supporter. He didn’t hate on Ron Paul and then switch to promoting Ron Paul as better than Johnson.

    I, on the other hand, did not support Paul in 2008 or 2012, and am not promoting him as better than Johnson now (I don’t recall that I’ve ever expressed an opinion at all on their relevant merits, but I could be wrong; if I did it was some time ago).

    So Andy and I each fit different halves of your implied description. I think Mr. Winger was at least nominally supportive of Paul in 2008 and/or 2012, but again I could be wrong.

  27. Andy

    Sure, Ron Paul has gone back and forth to the Republican Party, but his issue advocacy and record blows away that of Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Gary Johnson, Jim Gray, and Bill Weld, from a libertarian perspective.

  28. dL

    well, In the credit where credit is due category, Johnson/Weld may be moderate repubs, but at least they are not dixiecrats. The second libertarian statement Weld has made since his candidacy(the first statement being the trenchant comparison of trump’s deportation stance to Kristallnacht).

    https://soundcloud.com/buzzfeedandrew/48432809a

  29. dL

    “Sure, Ron Paul has gone back and forth to the Republican Party, but his issue advocacy and record blows away that of Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Gary Johnson, Jim Gray, and Bill Weld, from a libertarian perspective.”

    Not exactly a high standard to exceed. But I will give Paul credit, he is a libertarian, he did about as well(in an advocacy role) one could ever expect from someone in the repub party. I have some real points of disagreement w/ him on some issues(abortion and immigration), will note he has some real teflon properties with respect to his footsie dalliances wit some pretty despicable elements. I scoff at the idea that he played any influence in reshaping the republican party for the better(like some). His lasting contribution may be the extent his education effort re: central banking spawned an ideological cadre that was necessary for a bitcoin early adoption model . Although Satoshi Nakamoto was not influenced by Ron Paul(as best one can tell), bitcoin may have never advanced by the the obscure corners of cypherpunk libertarianism without the significant Paul contingent that made up the momentum core of the early adopters.

  30. langa

    Interesting. I remember many times when the purists were upset because Ron Paul was too Republican and not Libertarian enough.

    About 95% of the “purists” who criticized Ron Paul were pro-abortion fanatics. Most other purists (even those who disagreed with him on abortion) were quite supportive of Ron Paul.

  31. langa

    The second libertarian statement Weld has made since his candidacy…

    Yes, Weld is absolutely right on the pornography issue. Unfortunately, just a few seconds later, he attempts to “succinctly” summarize libertarianism as keeping the government out of your pocket and out of your bedroom, which is fine as far as it goes, but (not coincidentally, I assume) completely ignores arguably the most important aspect of the libertarian philosophy — a non-interventionist foreign policy.

  32. dL

    “Yes, Weld is absolutely right on the pornography issue. Unfortunately, just a few seconds later, he attempts to “succinctly” summarize libertarianism as keeping the government out of your pocket and out of your bedroom, which is fine as far as it goes, but (not coincidentally, I assume) completely ignores arguably the most important aspect of the libertarian philosophy — a non-interventionist foreign policy.”

    As mentioned, Weld’s moving lips have produced two libertarian statements. The remainder of the oratory emission could be construed as moderate republican pollution. The Boaz-Gillespie redefinition of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” reduces to a practice of “tax it and regulate it,” itself a complete sellout of libertarianism, which is: “do not need your permission.” And, of course, in practice, we do not even get “tax it and regulate it,” we get “tax you to prohibit it.” As such, “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” is a mere lip service veneer around the status quo.

  33. dL

    “About 95% of the “purists” who criticized Ron Paul were pro-abortion fanatics. Most other purists (even those who disagreed with him on abortion) were quite supportive of Ron Paul.”

    You can criticize without necessarily disavowing support.
    (i) paul did not make anti-abortion prohibition a center piece of his campaign
    (ii) roe v wade, although under attack from conservatives, is still the law of the land that can be redressed through the courts

    So abortion w/ regard to Paul was not the thing to die on the hill for. Even though I am pro-abortion rights, Abortion on Demand(i guess that makes a fanatic, but I prefer the term radical).

    The thing I that one could really criticize Paul for is the same thing one might criticize Sanders for. Refusal to take their political campaigns beyond their parties. Although Paul didn’t endorse the party’s nominee like Sanders.

  34. George Whitfield

    By the way, the excellent Johnson-Weld campaign video “Are #youin?” has now been viewed over 7 million times on the internet. And we are all happy that one of the commenters above has recently rejoined the Libertarian Party so his comments are less ironic. Have a very pleasant Summer!

  35. Election Addict

    “Although Paul didn’t endorse the party’s nominee like Sanders.”

    Frickin Sanders. Just saying.

    I recall when Paul held his own event during the Republican Convention. That was principled.

  36. langa

    …I am pro-abortion rights, Abortion on Demand(i guess that makes a fanatic, but I prefer the term radical).

    Actually, the reference to pro-abortion “fanatics” was meant to denote people for whom abortion appears to be the only issue they care about (there are also anti-abortion “fanatics”). Abortion is one of those rare issues where the correct libertarian position is open to debate, and so it is particularly ill-suited to serve as some sort of litmus test for determining whether someone is a libertarian (or how libertarian they are).

  37. Tony From Long Island

    DARCY SAID: “The fact that Johnson and Weld might possibly appeal to the likes of Bush and Romney, moreover, says everything one needs to know — and then some — about the current Libertarian ticket.”

    Yeah…we don’t want ANYONE to vote libertarian…..just the .05% who have in the past! What’s the point then? Why wouldn’t you be HAPPY that someone with name recognition is considering the LP? Why does the LP exist other than to influence ideas and gain votes?

    I don’t get you guys! You should all be THRILLED that the LP is gaining name recognition but you all just constantly WHINE and COMPLAIN that people aren’t libertarian enough. I feel bad for SOME of you.

  38. Tony From Long Island

    DL said: “About 95% of the “purists” who criticized Ron Paul were pro-abortion fanatics.

    Nobody is PRO-ABORTION, as in “I think abortion is great! There should be more of them!”

    A majority of this country feel that it should be an OPTION for a woman. There is a difference….a BIG different.

    can of worms opened . . . .

  39. Thomas L. Knapp

    Darcy’s not a Libertarian, so there doesn’t seem to be any particular reason why he WOULD want the LP’s ticket to do well.

    On the other hand, he has a point that you seem to be missing. If instead of “Bush and Romney” the names had been “Manson and Saddam,” would you still disagree?

  40. Tony from Long Island

    yes, I still would disagree. So who exactly should VOTE for the LP? A vote is a vote.

    I am a registered democrat who often votes for the LP candidate. Would you prefer I vote for Clinton instead?

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Nobody is PRO-ABORTION, as in ‘I think abortion is great! There should be more of them!'”

    Wrong. Among others:

    “I’m not just ‘pro-choice,’ I’m pro-abortion believing it to be a positive factor in our society …” — L. Neil Smith

  42. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I am a registered democrat who often votes for the LP candidate. Would you prefer I vote for Clinton instead?”

    I don’t have any preference as to how you should vote. That’s your business.

    I do have a preference for candidates whose values closely match my own. If Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney like a candidate, that’s something I think is at least worth further investigation before I vote insofar as it is prima facie evidence that the candidate’s values don’t closely match my own.

  43. Tony From Long island

    The reasons why someone ELSE likes a candidate does not influence whether I vote for them. If I don’t know a candidate well enough to know if they deserve my vote then that’s on me.

    There was no way in hell I would have voted for Mitt in 2012, but whether or not he supports Johnson has not one iota of influence on whether or not I will vote for Johnson

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, congratulations on your methodology for choosing candidates. It’s as fucked up as your political philosophy, which is saying a lot, but at least it’s yours and you’re welcome to it.

  45. Tony From Long Island

    Hmm being 70 70 or so on the Nolan scale makes me “fucked up.” I’m glad I’m not 100 / 100 like you or else I would up as miserable as most of the other LP members I have met over the years.

    Relax. Don’t take everything so seriously. Enjoy life!

  46. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    Why do you assume I am “100/100” on the Nolan Chart?

    First of all, that’s something of a meaningless term.

    All “the Nolan Chart” is is a graphing methodology where one axis runs “libertarian” to “authoritarian” on “economic issues” and the other runs “libertarian” to “authoritarian” on “social issues,” where 100 is “most libertarian” and 0 is “most authoritarian.”

    The thing about the methodology is that the questions used to determine the graphing are not specified in the concept of the Nolan Chart itself. That’s left to particular implementations, the most popular of which is the Advocates for Self-Government’s “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” — which itself changes over time, meaning that one week I might be “100/100” and the next week I could be “60/80” depending on what question is asked and what the creators of the quiz deem to be “the” libertarian answer.

    Just as an example, the current version of the WSPQ doesn’t include an immigration question that a previous version did. For someone like Andy, the presence of that question would represent an immediate 10-point shift on one axis (assuming that it went by the actual libertarian answer, as it used to and not the Hoppean paleoconservative fake libertarian answer). Does Andy magically become any more or less libertarian because the markings on the instrument of measurement change?

  47. Tony From Long Island

    You make a good point about the quiz, but I also think you understood the point I was trying to make.

    I’ve always felt that the Nolan chart was made in a way as to make most people who took it more libertarian. it was too black and white.

    I just took the new version that came up when I googled it and, while I did go through it really quickly, I landed on the line separating libertarian and liberal, which is where I’ve always sorta been. The only issue that I have really changed on during my life is the gun issue.

  48. Thomas L. Knapp

    Yes, I understood the point you were trying to make.

    Did you understand the point I was trying to make vis a vis Romney and Bush?

    Romney and Bush aren’t just anyone. They are political figures with known positions (to the extent that one or the other isn’t flip-flopping this week).

    What they think about a candidate might not be a perfect proxy for that candidate himself, but it can surely be treated as a reasonable indicator.

    If Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both think that Candidate X is the best thing since sliced bread, I still might want to check out that candidate and decide for myself, but I’m probably going to expect going in that I won’t like what I see.

  49. Starchild

    Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were not my first or even second or third choices for the Libertarian Party presidential ticket this year. But I disagree with some of my fellow radicals who think they are so bad or so un-libertarian that we should not vote for them. Clearly they have many ideological shortcomings (especially Weld), but I believe they are nevertheless the most libertarian choices that will appear on U.S. presidential ballots this November, and that their doing well will tend to help, not hurt, libertarianism, and advance the cause of liberty, not set it back.

    I also disagree that the Libertarian Party has done a 180-degree turn. The closest that came to happening I would say was in 2006 when the platform was gutted, or 2008 when we nominated Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root. But we survived those setbacks and can survive this. Radical candidates for president and vice-president did respectably well at our convention; an apparently much more radical candidate came very close to beating Weld. Considering that there wasn’t a “big name” radical candidate to oppose either of them, I am not dismayed by the results, as I was in 2008.

    As far as Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney saying they might vote for Johnson, I’m in the “more votes the better” and “more publicity helps” camp. If someone is going to vote for the wrong reasons (e.g. listening to what some establishment pol says), I’d rather have them vote the right way for the wrong reasons than vote the wrong way for the wrong reasons.

  50. Tony From Long Island

    I do understand your point. I simply do not agree with it for the most part. Yes, If Ted Cruz thought a candidate I liked was the second coming of Christ, I would be taken aback a bit . . . However, Romney and Bush are not going to drool over Johnson / Weld. They will just find some areas that they agree on them with. I’ve never seen a candidate that I agreed with 100%. I probably never will. I love Ron Paul, but disagree with him strongly on certain things. I loved Howard Dean in 2004 but he was a bit more liberal than I am.

    So, if Johnson / Weld gets the backing of Romney or Bush, it will just allow some others who might have been hesitant to check them out.

    I’m done with work for the day. See you all tomorrow.

  51. Andy

    Jeb and Mitt are not even remotely libertarian, so I would be skeptical of their motives.

  52. Tony From Long island

    Just as I suspected you would say . . .

    since there are only a few registered libertarians . . . would you be skeptical of EVERY OTHER VOTER in the country?

  53. Starchild

    Andy – I’m *totally* skeptical of the motives of people like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, but I still welcome their support for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld to the extent they give it.

  54. robert capozzi

    tk, my sense is that if Manson and Saddam (or Duke) said they were considering voting J/W, that would drive down their vote totals. They are widely considered notorious figures.

    Jeb and Mitt are not widely considered notorious figures. Both, rather, are respectable figures, who are obviously repulsed by DJT. Some — and perhaps you — would say they are as notorious as Manson, Saddam, or Duke. My sense is this camp is mostly outlying tails on the Bell Curve.

    Jeb and Mitt and other mainstream Rs want Trump to lose, and they want to position themselves to rebuild a post-Trump GOP, I suspect. If in that process, it creates a net positive buzz for J/W, I’d say that’s helpful to the cause of lessarchy, moving from the fringe to the edge of the Public Square.

  55. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    For the record, no, I would not say that Romney and Bush are “as notorious” as Manson, Saddam, or Duke. My use of the extreme version of the analogy is intended to show that there is a spectrum along which implicit or explicit endorsements can be scored. If I wanted to paint the Romney/Bush endorsements in a positive light vis a vis that spectrum, I might have compared them to endorsements by Jesus and Gandhi, also without meaning that Romney and Bush are as beloved as those two.

    Your use of one word does shed some light on my position in the matter, though. That word is “respectable.”

    As some (notably the commenter who self-identifies as “dL”) point out (elsewhere — I’m not sure if he’s done so here), Johson/Weld is a “respectability politics” (the term I’ve used before is “cargo cult”) ticket. It’s not intended to advance libertarian policy or ideology goals, nor does it do so. Rather, it attempts to sell the idea that Libertarian Party political candidates are just like those other guys.

    If Libertarian Party candidates are just like those other guys, then the Libertarian Party is a waste of libertarians’ time. If I wanted to support candidates who are just like the Republicans and Democrats, I’d support Republicans and Democrats. Then I’d be able to tell myself I’m a winner!

    If, on the other hand, Libertarian Party candidates aren’t just like those other guys, then making it seem like they are is just lying to the voters, which doesn’t seem like a good long-term strategy to me.

  56. Starchild

    Tom – Some of our Libertarian candidates are more like “those other guys” than I would prefer, but not so much as to be anything like indistinguishable, imho.

  57. robert capozzi

    tk, agree with Starchild. They are NOT the same as the R and Ds, they are on the edge of respectability. Some in the center of respectability, like J and M, see enough respectability in the L ticket, and pure insanity in the R ticket, that they are apparently having what for them is a crisis of conscience.

    That’s helpful, for the center of respectability is unconscionable and, by all indications, unsustainable. Goes something like: Our guy is SUCH a nut, we have to reconsider whether we want to be associated with DJT’s insanity. Thankfully, there’s an alternative in J/W that their conscience is sufficiently assuaged in considering voting — for perhaps the first time in their lives — for a candidate other than an R.

    Other Rs (and Ds) may have similar conscience concerns about their candidates, as well they should.

  58. Brad

    Whining doesn’t solve anything. The delegates have voted. If you would rather vote for Hillary or DJT over Johnson/Weld, be my guest. Heck, if you want to see who the Reform Party nominates at the end of next week, that’s fine too.

    Still don’t like results then? Form your own party & see how that works.

  59. Thomas Knapp

    There are more than 200 candidates for president, of which Johnson is one. I do not know how many of those candidates will appear on the ballot, or be registered as write-ins, in Florida, but I will examine as many of them as I have time to and can find information on, and either vote for the one I prefer, or not vote for president.

    Is there any particular reason why I should do otherwise?

  60. Andy

    How is William Weld not just like the “other guys” (as in the typical Republicans and Democrats)? He seems like just another establishment hack to me.

  61. Andy

    I bet if Darryl W. Perry had become our party’s candidate for President, that there is no way in hell that Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney would even entertain the idea of voting for him, which to me, is a good thing.

    Ruling class establishment sociopath control freaks like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney SHOULD be repelled by our candidates, and if they are not, then it means that we are not doing something right.

    If we are doing things right, people like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney would not consider supporting us unless somebody put a gun to their heads and forced them to do it.

  62. langa

    Nobody is PRO-ABORTION, as in “I think abortion is great! There should be more of them!”

    I think there are many people who are “pro-abortion” — if not in the sense that you describe, at least in the sense of thinking that abortion is, on balance, a good thing — but the vast majority of them are not willing to openly admit to it. Similarly, many people believe that, on balance, war is a good thing, even though very few of them would use the phrase “pro-war” to describe their beliefs.

  63. langa

    Jeb and Mitt are not widely considered notorious figures. Both, rather, are respectable figures…

    And therein lies the problem. We will never have anything approaching a free society as long as men like that are seen as “respectable” by the majority of the public. Thus, if we want to ever have a free society, we must start by convincing people that these are not “respectable” figures, that their actions should be seen as reprehensible, and so forth. But it’s basically impossible for us to do that, while simultaneously bragging about their decision to endorse our candidates.

  64. robert capozzi

    L: We will never have anything approaching a free society as long as men like that are seen as “respectable” by the majority of the public.

    me: Wow, quite a statement. I look at it differently.

    Politicians are practitioners are of the art of the possible. That’s what Jeb and Mitt are. It’s a narrow band of what can be done in the context of the times.

    If there were to be a paradigm shift toward liberty, the “Jebs and Mitts” of 20 years from now would have different records than Jeb and Mitt do. They might have significantly different positions, but those positions would be near the center of the new normal in 20 years.

    Aside from you, most people recognize that experience governing is a consideration when voting. Two former guvs saying that a ticket of two former guvs is preferable to their own party’s nominee is something that most might notice as at least significant, something to pay attention to.

  65. robert capozzi

    tk: ….art of the con

    me: On one level, of course I agree. Given where we are at, though, the “con” holds much sway over our collective socioeconomic configuration. Undoing the con requires understanding and to some extent playing along with the con.

    Or, perhaps, moving to AndyLand.

Leave a Reply

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