TLR: Gary Johnson Guarantees Mitt Romney a Place in His Administration

theisns

Mitt Romney (Photo: Gage Skidmore)

The following was originally published at The Libertarian Republic yesterday (via Joshua Fauver at ATPR):

On Saturday, in an interview with Deseret News, Libertarian Presidential nominee Gary Johnson asserted that Mitt Romney would play a part in his eventual Presidency. Said Johnson, “If Mitt Romney wants to be a part of the administration, that would be a guarantee.”

He continued on to state that he has no specific position in mind for the 2012 Republican nominee. Said Johnson, “I think [the position] would be for Mitt Romney to decide … and I say that with reverence to his skills as a business person and having run the Olympics.”

Johnson’s running mate, William Weld suggested that perhaps Romney would serve as a good Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Both Johnson and Weld also suggested that former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt could possibly be part of the administration, perhaps as Secretary of State.

Continue Reading

141 thoughts on “TLR: Gary Johnson Guarantees Mitt Romney a Place in His Administration

  1. Anthony Dlugos

    Well, if Johnson actually won, he sure as hell wouldn’t be able to fill his administration with only Libertarians.

  2. Andy

    Bullshit! A Libertarian President could fill his/her administration with libertarians. Johnson/Weld just do not give rat’s ass about libertarians.

  3. Anthony Dlugos

    Fill the entire cabinet with Libertarians qualified for the positions?

    You must be sniffing inhalants.

  4. ATBAFT

    One Libertarian has already served in the Cabinet – Colorado’s Gail Norton was Secretary of the Interior.

  5. Anthony Dlugos

    I ask the Irrational Caucus again: where would he find enough qualified Libertarians to fill all the cabinet positions?

    There isn’t a “third” party that rose to prominence in any political system anywhere on the planet that didn’t take a significant portion of its leadership cohort from the detritus of party(ies) on its(their) way to extinction.

    You really didn’t think Johnson would fill his hypothetical administration up with some the dopes at the Convention, did you?

    I guess dancing naked guy could be put in charge of HHS. lol

  6. Anthony Dlugos

    ATBAFT,

    That’s one. We got a lot more positions than that to fill.

    And Johnson also did NOT rule out the name you mentioned.

    In case this isn’t blatantly obvious enough, this was clearly done for polling purposes.

  7. Jill Pyeatt

    Anthony said: ” where would he find enough qualified Libertarians to fill all the cabinet positions?”

    Are you serious? Libertarians are probably the most qualified of all. We have talented people from just about every profession, and those are just the ones I personally know.

    Gary is pathetically trying to get an endorsement from Mitt. But this, along with his poor selection of vice-presidential candidate and personal handler, is too much for me.

    I will officially not even vote for him. It looks like I’ll be supporting Dr Stein, specifically because of her foreign policy, which is far more closely aligned with mine than Johnson/Weld’s.

  8. Shivany Lane

    Let’s Examine this:
    What are the qualifications for a cabinet?
    A scan of the Constitution itself reveals that there is nothing therein that addresses the qualifications for members of the President’s Cabinet. The only real requirements are that the President nominates a person to be a department secretary and the Senate must then confirm the appointment. Aug 16, 2010

    In my recollection, this has not changed since 2010. They do have to get senate approval which in years past was just a rubber stamp. When the Repuglicans took over the senate, it became a huge deal. The President picks who he wants as his advisers. Barring anything dramatic like being a felon, he should be allowed to have them

    Cabinet Members:

    Secretary of State
    Secretary of the Treasury
    Secretary of Defense
    Attorney General
    Secretary of the Interior
    Secretary of Agriculture
    Secretary of Commerce
    Secretary of Labor
    Secretary of Health and Human Services
    Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
    Secretary of Transportation
    Secretary of Energy
    Secretary of Education
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs
    Secretary of Homeland Security

    Let’s vote or volunteer and see if we can’t fill these, shall we?
    * I nominate Thomas Knapp for Secretary of Defense or Secretary of Veterans Affairs
    * I nominate George Phillies for Secretary of the Treasury
    * I nominate Richard Winger to serve as an under secretary wherever he feels most comfortable, Attorney General sounds nice because he is an encyclopedia of history and law cases and he could do the most good for Ballot Access there.

    Well???? Don’t even pretend we don’t have enough people out of at least the 1000+ who showed up for the Orlando convention. I would nominate John McAfee but it seems many of you don’t respect him. He would be a good Secretary of State.

  9. Andy

    Jill, I am surprised that you have been in this long.

    I have been a Gary Johnson skeptic from day one. It looks like I have been proven to be right again.

  10. Thomas Knapp

    Anthony,

    We have numerous lawyers, including sitting state supreme court judges and sitting and retired circuit judges, to fill both DoJ and federal court appointments.

    I don’t know what the military situation is. We used to have a couple of admirals around, but at least one of them has passed away. Don’t know of any generals, but we’ve got plenty of veterans. Obama appointed a former infantry sergeant as Secretary of Defense. I know we’ve got at least one of those, because I see him every morning in the mirror when I shave.

    We’ve got doctors coming out the wazoo, and at least one pharmaceutical research and former surgery professor (Mary Ruwart), so Surgeon General and FDA are probably covered.

    Most of the time, the main qualification for a cabinet appointment is “raised a lot of money for me in the campaign” or “I owe that guy’s state, city, or party organization a favor.”

    But of course, you “pragmatists” have it all figured out. You’ve cratered completely in the last two elections, but THIS time it will be different, FOR SURE, and you won’t need all those stupid Libertarians and their ballot access ever again.

  11. Thomas Knapp

    Shivany,

    What did I do to make you mad? I’ve already done my eight years as a federal official, and ten years before that in the military to boot.

    If the Johnson administration calls, they’ll get my voice mail and I’ll think about calling them back. But I wouldn’t advise them to have anyone wait up for it.

  12. Pete Blome

    Finding qualified people is a critical question for any real Presidential candidate. Although it would have been better if Gary mentioned appointees with SOME libertarian credentials first, it is just a fact that any win by Gary Johnson will have to include qualified R’s and D’s willing to serve a Libertarian President. After all, after Andy and Tom Knapp get jobs pouring coffee in the West Wing there will still be at least 100 critical Presidential appointments left. I think we have to seriously ask where are the qualified libertarian appointees to handle complex, sometimes technically based government jobs? We need to know this for no other reason than they would be needed to shut their own jobs down. That actually takes skill, knowledge of the law, and discretion. I can’t blame him for talking to Romney, but the political delivery of this news could have been handled better, f’sure. Of course, GJ’s eyes are all on winning Utah.

  13. Andy

    Our goal is not to continue running the machine of big government. Our goal us to shut it down, or at least shut as much of it down as possible within a 4 year term.

  14. Anthony Dlugos

    Thomas,

    Alright, that’s a reasonable enough answer. I still don’t think Johnson…nor any Libertarian who actually wins the presidency…would be able to fill his entire administration with ONLY libertarians, even if all Libertarians manage to agree on even a loosely defined version of that term.

    In any case, I’m not that worried about it, because a win would be a miracle, and as I pointed out (and Jill agreed), this was obviously done for polling/support purposes. I doubt Mitt would even deign to accept a position that wasn’t head honcho.

  15. Shivany Lane

    IOh Thomas,

    I thought it was a compliment. You could do quite a bit of good in either department and I don’t know many libertarians. I find you to be honest and truthful and have a soft spot in your heart for those who have served. I just wanted to get the ball rolling.

    As you said, we have many well qualified Libertarians to more than fill the cabinet. You can be an under secretary. That pays at least $((K a year and all you have to do is shuffle papers and give an occasional oopinion, which is something you are very well qualified for.

    My main point was, that even in my small circle of Libertarians, I could probably fill the cabinet. Surely Gary Johnson has a bigger circle than I do.

    BTW, it is not uncommon for the Party Leader to suggest some of those secretaries. The President doesn’t always know who the big donors were. Hell, Johnson could walk out onto Pennsylvania avenue and choose 16 people and have a better cabinet than what he would likely choose.

    This is all academic since big business will not let him win. He better stay off any of those mountains he climbs before the election. I hear ropes can be flawed and avalanches happen. Just feeding the conspiracy theorists. Ok missing Darryl’s show now. ciao

  16. Anthony Dlugos

    well stated, Pete.

    Andy, I agree. I just don’t know where you get this crazy idea that “shutting it down” requires no experience. Shutting down cabinet agencies would actually require MORE experience and skill than just kicking the can down the road.

  17. Pete Blome

    Shivany, it isn’t academic. Realistically answering the question of who will be appointed leads to credibility, more votes, and, eventually, electoral victories.

  18. Thomas Knapp

    Anthony,

    You write:

    ” I still don’t think Johnson…nor any Libertarian who actually wins the presidency…would be able to fill his entire administration with ONLY libertarians, even if all Libertarians manage to agree on even a loosely defined version of that term.”

    I agree 100%. If he could, he would be the first president to ever fill all cabinet and sub-cabinet positions from his own party’s ranks.

    In fact, it would be harder for Johnson, not just because the LP has a thin bench — I don’t think it’s as thin as you think it is — but because he will have a Republican or Democratic Senate that has to confirm the appointments.

    For the record, if Johnson wins (he won’t) and if he wants me to work for him (he won’t) and if I agree (unlikely), the job I’ll be angling for is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Communications. I’m better looking than Liz Allen. And Rob Lowe.

  19. ATBAFT

    As others have suggested for years, the LP should have a permanent Shadow Cabinet of qualified libertarians to comment on federal issues, decisions,projects, etc.

  20. Jill Pyeatt

    Well, Tom Mahon, Gary’s not-so-warm-and-fuzzy handler, assured my husband on FB during his incredibly inappropriate rant against us that Johnson wouldn’t have a place for us in his administration.

    This was quite a bizarre comment, as neither of us have or ever had interested in working for government.

  21. Andy

    Anthony, people also have to have the will to shut a government agency down, or at the very least, greatly reduce its size and power.

  22. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Anthony Dlugos

    I ask the Irrational Caucus again: where would he find enough qualified Libertarians to fill all the cabinet positions?

    While I do agree with you, I still think it was kind of a poor PR move to publicly state as such. It serves to drive away Libertarians, doesn’t attract Democrats, and I don’t think it would make Republicans go towards him. Now, a Mitt Romney endorsement would help accomplish the last one, but announcing something like this would actually hurt such an endorsement, because it would lead to accusations that Mitt Romney was only endorsing him because of that offer.

    Though, maybe it will bring in more support than it would drive away for all I know. But it does seem like something that could hurt him, at least a little, and wasn’t necessary to say.

  23. Anthony Dlugos

    Or just the will to keep their job. They don’t have to be doing it for any “pure” philosophical reason. In fact, I would prefer that Johnson hires a bunch of amoral cretins who couldn’t tell the difference between Rothbard and rotgut. They wouldn’t get hung up on WWRD (What Would Rothbard Do?).

    I used to manage in the debt collections field, and owned my own firm for a while. I always asked potential employees. if they thought being past due on debt was “wrong.” I almost never hired those who said yes. Those folks invariably got caught up in moralizing to the debtors. I wanted people who’s sole concern was cutting deals and making money.

  24. Anthony Dlugos

    Just Some Random Guy,

    Fair point.

    I think your last paragraph hits the nail pretty close to the head. In fact, I remember reading an article where the Johnson Communications Director, I think in regards to the Civil Rights Act kerfuffle, flat out said that the Libertarians who had a problem with Johnson’s answer (that he would have signed the CRA) were complainers who were eventually gonna get pissed off about SOMETHING and leave anyway, so forget ’em.

  25. Shivany Lane

    Pete Blome:

    It is indeed academic, as in theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful:
    an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.

    I simply listed the Cabinet positions so that people can maybe get the gray matter fired up and see if perhaps out of the at least .5 million Libertarians and millions of independants we could come up with 16 people . BTW, you do not need to be qualified, just well liked. As long as the Senate approves you, you are in. Look ta our next Supreme Court choice that Obama made many months ago. He is more qualified than most of the judges sitting on the SCOTUS bench today and yet, there he sits in Limbo.

    Think…it really is healthy

  26. William Saturn

    This really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Johnson-Weld ’16 is basically the successor of Romney-Ryan ’12 since the Republicans went in such a radically different direction this time.

  27. Anthony Dlugos

    Thomas,

    lol. That’s good stuff.

    Yea, I didn’t operate like that, and I didn’t hire people like that either. I hired happy people who wanted to make money. They rarely wasted time on inefficient tactics.

    I left collections a couple years ago. Back when I started (mid-nineties), calling neighbors was a PERIODICALLY potentially useful tactic. But used rarely, and any resistance whatsoever from the neighbor and good collectors thanked them for their time and moved on. Sometimes, someone would just spill a whole lot of beans with one question.

    Later on, as caller i.d. became prevalent and auto-dialers made everyone aware of what a collections call sounded like, calling neighbors became completely pointless.

  28. robert capozzi

    aj: Our goal us to shut it down, or at least shut as much of it down as possible within a 4 year term.

    me: That takes a lot more skill than maintaining government functions, esp with a Congress filled with Rs and Ds.

    A bomb disposal expert needs to understand the bomb and how to dispose of it.

  29. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Shivany Lane

    Look ta our next Supreme Court choice that Obama made many months ago. He is more qualified than most of the judges sitting on the SCOTUS bench today and yet, there he sits in Limbo.

    Merrick Garland had the problem of getting nominated in an election year, raising the possibility of a Republican getting elected and offering a preferable choice to the Republican senate. If Scalia had died a year ago I think Garland would have gotten onto the Court fairly quickly.

  30. Zeleni

    I’m a Green but I’ve been following Gary Johnson and the Libertarians too (like I follow the D and Rs). I’ve found most of the Libertarian criticism of Johnson and Weld to be somewhat overblown and purist.

    But this seems ridiculous. I mean, I could see placing Romney in an economic capacity or free market czar or something. But the guy’s a big time interventionist. Libertarians might have a hard time stocking a cabinet of people with pure Libertarians, but you could probably find qualified candidates who have libertarian positions on the department they’d be in charge of.

    This is the equivalent of a Green presidential candidate suggesting a climate denier for the Department of Energy or the EPA.

    Or a hawk for the Secretary of Defense…

  31. JamesT

    Whelp it’s definitely Castle for me then. Good god. Do they need the entire board/officers to recind the nomination? Can state parties disaffiliate like the L Neil Smith thing in 2000?

  32. Shivany Lane

    Election year or not. Obama doesn’t step down for nearly a year since he nominated Merrick. The Senate needs to do their damn job. The job I pay them to do. If I lived closer to Washington DC I would be on the Hill every day, with a saign saying DO YOUR DAMN JOB.

    If they do not do their job they should not be paid. FULL STOP!!!

  33. Shivany Lane

    And let me just add, even if, god forbid, Trump wins…he will quit like he has done with every other working job he has ever had. Once he finds out that he really can’t do whatever he wants then he will be out.

  34. George Phillies

    The LNC can revoke a nomination.

    “A candidate’s nomination may be suspended by a 3/4 vote of the entire membership of the
    National Committee at a meeting. That candidate’s nomination shall then be declared null and
    void unless the suspended candidate appeals the suspension to the Judicial Committee within
    seven days of receipt of notification of suspension. The resolution of suspension must state the specific reasons for suspension and must be signed by each member of the National Committee agreeing thereto. The Judicial Committee shall meet and act on this appeal within 30 days and before the election. ”

    There is an appeal to the Judicial Committee.

    Without saying whether this is a good idea or not, I would expect that the LNC will not act as you are asking without a very great deal of pressure from the members, which I do not see happening yet.

  35. Luchorpan

    Shivany Lane,

    I expect Trump would love the presidency. He likes all that celebrity and attention. And I expect both he and Hillary want the power. You can argue that one or the other would be a bad choice, but it’d be some of the best years of their lives.

    Why should politicians and bureaucrats do their jobs? Rubio didn’t hardly bother to show up, betrayed his campaign promises. He’s getting reelected.

    And most of them seem to like rotating in and out of the private sector, after serving their future employers while in the public sector. They only bother about voters when threatened over reelection. How is that conflict of interest even fixed? it’s an impossible good-ole-boy problem of revolving doors.

  36. George Phillies

    Out of curiosity, what are thoughts on what happens if Johnson misses the 15% cutoff for debate access?

  37. Thomas Knapp

    “Can state parties disaffiliate like the L Neil Smith thing in 2000?”

    That was the other way around — the LNC disaffiliated the Arizona Libertarian Party, thinking that ballot access would magically go to an impostor replacement organization. Since the LPAZ wasn’t represented at the national convention, they didn’t see any reason why they shouldn’t pick their own presidential slate (L. Neil Smith/Vin Suprynowicz).

    That said, yes, political parties are organized at the state level. The LNC is merely a mutual affiliation mechanism. If a state Libertarian Party decides to disaffiliate (or is disaffiliated from the other end), it remains its state’s Libertarian Party, with its ballot access if it has any, and can go it alone or work up another affiliation mechanism with other state parties (LP or otherwise) to run presidential candidates and so forth.

    The Oregon LP decided to sit out this year’s national convention, but not to formally disaffiliate — probably to see if the national convention would finally start respecting its decisions instead of forcing unwanted people onto its delegation. We did, so I suspect they may remain affiliated and send a delegation in 2018.

  38. Thomas Knapp

    “A candidate’s nomination may be suspended by a 3/4 vote of the entire membership of the
    National Committee at a meeting.”

    There are no LNC meetings scheduled between now and the election. And the response to suggestions that one be scheduled seem to have been met with calculated silence.

  39. Shivany Lane

    And it needs to stop!!

    I am eternally disappointed in politics. I thought the Libertarian Party would be different. NEWS FLASH: You aren’t.

    I fear that the Millennials were raised as entitled little s$$hole brats. We don’t need to look further than the swimmers n the Olypics who litterally pissed on the home country. They are not going to change shit. Where are my Hippies? Where is the outrage? I am getting too old for this shit and I only had two children. Two children does not a movement make.

    I am exploring an exit strategy. I have Family in Italy. I have family in Finland. I feel like there really is no where to escape to. I want my country back. I want my polite society back. I want people to stop poisoning their minds with (Un) reality TV. I am too poor to realistically escape too soon. I have been a victim of the *isms. Ageism and Sexism. Both against the law. Voth non-provable. What is an old lady to do. I weep for our country.

  40. Andy

    What about a petition among LP members to suspend and/or remove the Johnson/Weld ticket? Could this force or pressure the LNC to act?

    Is there a way for the LNC to get rid of Johnson/Weld and appoint other candidates and have those candidates appear on the ballot in all of the states plus DC?

  41. Thomas Knapp

    “Out of curiosity, what are thoughts on what happens if Johnson misses the 15% cutoff for debate access?”

    Fundraising will presumably suffer. A brave face will be put on.

    Given the interest this year, it’s not out of the question that Johnson will have a second record year.

    Four years now when the “pragmatists” decide to get behind a Paul LePage/Rahm Emanuel ticket, they’ll roundly denounce those damn purists for foisting Johnson/Weld off on the LP and costing it the election.

  42. Thomas Knapp

    “What about a petition among LP members to suspend and/or remove the Johnson/Weld ticket? Could this force or pressure the LNC to act?”

    Force? No.

    Pressure? Possible, I guess, but very unlikely. They seem to have convinced themselves that flushing those turds would be the end of the party.

    “Is there a way for the LNC to get rid of Johnson/Weld and appoint other candidates and have those candidates appear on the ballot in all of the states plus DC?”

    Richard Winger would probably know which states allow substitution and how late. Probably very few and not very. There’s a point beyond which the ballots have been finalized and sent off for printing and so forth.

    This election cycle is pretty much a write-off for the LP at the presidential level — at best.

  43. Anthony Dlugos

    I am interested in what Johnson will do if/when he misses the debates.

    He could just transition to a “get the message out” campaign and just make minimal appearances the rest of the way.

  44. Thane Eichenauer

    Luchorpan> Rubio didn’t hardly bother to show up, betrayed his campaign promises. He’s getting reelected.

    Marco Rubio may be re-elected but there is still an election ahead of him. He has a few opponents that could torpedo his re-election. Alan Grayson, Paul Stanton and Augustus Invictus all have skills that might lead to unexpected results.

  45. Richard Winger

    The real culprit is the Commission on Presidential Debates. It is so extremely difficult for anyone but a Rep or a Dem to get to 15% in the polls, the only chance is for Gary Johnson to do what he is doing.

    It is the 15% poll rule that shuts out the opportunity for parties with really different policy choices to be heard in the debates. It is the 15% poll rule that prevents most U.S. voters from learning about alternative ideas. All this ire is being aimed at the wrong target.

  46. Just Saying

    “The real culprit is the Commission on Presidential Debates.”

    Oh, give me a break. That’s really lame…

  47. dL

    “Shivany, it isn’t academic. Realistically answering the question of who will be appointed leads to credibility, more votes, and, eventually, electoral victories.”

    No it doesn’t. Precisely why it isn’t academic…because you Pragmaticrats couldn’t produce one academic paper to substantiate the harebrained premise that “credibility” has anything to do with 3rd party electoral success in plurality voting/single member district voting system.

  48. Joseph Buchman

    George Phillies @ August 22, 2016 at 20:57
    “Out of curiosity, what are thoughts on what happens if Johnson misses the 15% cutoff for debate access?”

    The CPD may change the rules if they really want him in. Already lowered to “within the margin of error” meaning about 11 or 12 percent will do. Also the CPD has indicated 15 percent (or the 11 percent) in a handful of swing states might be sufficient. Next it could be 15 percent (11) among a specific demographic. They set the rules.

    That said, my personal reaction would be relief. Gary Johnson is not, and I forecast will not, be prepared to appear in a CPD debate with HRC and DT. He will not have Weld to pass difficult questions off to. Trump will fry him with the “wonderful public servant” depiction of HRC and the “DT is a pussy, pussy, pussy” depiction. Trump will prove who is the pussy in that debate, and it won’t be HRC. My fear is that if GJ gets into the first CPD debate he will appear as an utterly unprepared, waffling stoner (something close to how he and his brother admitted that Lee Wrights mopped the floor with him in 2012). The end result of that will be to put the LP into an box of “not credible/ill prepared” for a generation or more. And his poll numbers would then fall below the threshold to be invited back for the second and third debates — and they might just cancel Weld out of the VP debate as well.

    So, while I believe every candidate who is on the ballot in states representing 270+ electoral college votes should be in the CPD debates . . . I greatly fear the end result of such an invitation to GJ.

    If he is not invited . . . the campaign will, I expect, pressure the advertisers and sponsors to withdraw, try to gain media attention from that, and produce a shadow debate where GJ is able to answer the debate questions following Joe Hunter’s writing those answers for him. I expect his team of six-figure consultants would prefer this outcome. They might even be working for it, rather than actually trying to get to 15 percent. But that is the paranoid, cynical, not-on-the-bandwagon, wondering what Kool Aide Tom Mahon has drunk, part of me.

    Fortunately this will all be over in only 77 more days (unless it’s thrown into the US House — LOL).

    Joe

  49. dL

    “Out of curiosity, what are thoughts on what happens if Johnson misses the 15% cutoff for debate access?”

    If???

    It was foregone conclusion from the start that they would never do anything b/c they never raised the money necessary to be considered a “real,serious” campaign. Personally, i will mock the pragmaticrats as a bunch of con artists/carpetbaggers/dupes who couldn’t manage 15% in a 3-way race with Stalin and Hitler.

  50. Richard Winger

    I watched Gary ‘s 1998 debate against his Democratic opponent and I thought he did very well. Especially since the journalists asking questions were the League of Women Voters-type of people who tut-tutted about spending on public education.

    And, the voters of New Mexico seemed to agree.

  51. T Rex

    “I will officially not even vote for him. It looks like I’ll be supporting Dr Stein, specifically because of her foreign policy, which is far more closely aligned with mine than Johnson/Weld’s.”

    I voted for Stein last time around for exactly that reason. I was annoyed at myself for voting for Barr in 2008 and didn’t want to support more washed-up Republicans.

    This year the Constitution Party is more tempting, since Darrell Castle is way more libertarian than Virgil Goode (who was even worse than Barr).

  52. Shivany Lane

    OK, This is not meant as a slight, or to anger anyone, I am just curious. I have sat here and read all kinds of bad things about Gary Johnson yet it isn’t like he dropped out of the sky. The delegates voted for him. Over 500 delegates voted for him.

    So my twp questions are, if you did vote for him, are you now one of the complainers”

    And if you did vote for him and not complaining, why did you cote for him?

    I really am trying to understand the dynamics of how this part works.

    If I offend anyone I am deeply sorry.

  53. steve m

    Shivany,

    The commentators here on IPR in no way represent the average Libertarian Party Member or even convention delegate.

  54. Shivany Lane

    OK, cool/ I thought that maybe someone would give me some insight as to what all this hoopla is about since the delegates voted for hiim, not me though, and all I hear is bitching and moaning about him. And then the other camp that clench their teeth and say they will vote for him no mater what. Then you have the cheerleaders who think he is just Sandy and Neato.

    At least the Democrats were a little bit more honest. Which is why they don’t win as many elections as they could.

    The Republicans walk lockstep like brown shirts. Half of them don’t even know what the issues are.

    I just thought the Libertarians would be more transparent thatn that. I was annoyed at how many people were crowding around our vote counters while they counted the votes. It’s not like we have hanging chads or anything. Oh well, it is what it is.

  55. robert capozzi

    gp: Out of curiosity, what are thoughts on what happens if Johnson misses the 15% cutoff for debate access?

    me: Barring an October-type surprise, a 3% result in November would be my best guess.

  56. Just Saying

    “I watched Gary ‘s 1998 debate against his Democratic opponent and I thought he did very well.” — Richard Winger

    That was a long, long time ago and Martin Chavez was no Donald Trump — or Hillary Clinton, for that matter.

    Of course, goofy Gary thinks Hillary was a “wonderful public servant,” so we won’t be watching any firepower aimed in that direction if the Libertarian nominee somehow gets on the debate stage, which appears less likely with each passing day.

    The Donald will almost certainly make the ill-prepared, dull-witted Johnson look even more ridiculous than he already is…

  57. Robert capozzi

    I do believe that GJ could use his Jimmy Stewart personna to his advantage. Are we tired of smooth talking pols and bullying reality TV stars?

  58. Tony From Long Island

    When I saw this headline this morning, the first thing that popped into my mind was “Andy will go beserk!!” I was correct. I’m trying to think of the last President who filled his Cabinet and sub-positions ONLY with members if his own party. . . . can’t seem to think of one. . . . and those guys had lists hundreds of names long to choose from

    Can we have Daryl Perry for Secretary of f Anarchy? Andy can be his under-secretary, but then again wouldn’t that be a superfluous position and be part of “big government?”

  59. George Whitfield

    Just to add some real world perspective to this discussion, the Johnson-Weld video “This Is the Year” has been viewed over 6 million 600 thousand times and their video “You In?” over 13 million 170 thousand times. I will be speaking to a discussion group this Sunday about their campaign and helping to win them and the Libertarian Party more support.

  60. Joseph Buchman

    Richard Winger @ August 22, 2016 at 23:16
    “I watched Gary ‘s 1998 debate against his Democratic opponent and I thought he did very well.”

    He was better back then. For example:

    “New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson went a step farther, believing that the largest drug problems had more to do with drug prohibition than drug use. (New York Times, May 18, 2001) Drug prohibition has been one of the biggest threats to the United States. It has led to gang warfare in the ghetto, racial profiling, and illegal police raids. It has threatened to tear apart the inner cities. And plenty of drug money has been funneled into right wing dictatorships in Latin America.”

    http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/Book5Ch.2.html

  61. Jill Pyeatt

    Shivany, I wasn’t able to make it to the convention, and for that reason alone, I’ve tried not to become part of the negativity surrounding the Johnson/Weld campaign. In fact, I haven’t said much for two and a half months. However, they’re just getting worse and worse. Pandering to Romney is disgraceful. And I now believe Weld flat-out lied to the convention-goers when he said he’d changed his mind about gun control.

    Everyone is talking about “voting your conscience”, and I will be doing that. Barring huge changes in their campaign, that won’t be for Johnson.

  62. Be Rational

    If elected POTUS, a real Libertarian could fill his/her cabinet with highly qualified and talented LP members and libertarians from various movement organizations:

    I would start with David Boaz as head of my transition team and Chief of Staff in the White House

    John Stossel as Press Secretary

    Tom Woods, Chairman of the Federal Reserve

    … if they would take the jobs.

    We need a thread for this.
    Fill Gary Johnson’s cabinet and top jobs with the best Libertarians.

  63. Be Rational

    Council of Economic Advisors would include:

    Mike Munger, Duke University
    Gene Smiley, Marquette University
    Sheldon Richman

  64. robert capozzi

    Woods is a historian, Richman is not an economist. Stossel’s health might not make his a good candidate for press sec.

    If the last R nominee were to endorse, that would be major hard news. j/W tacked left at first, now they are tacking right. Romney might want and be reasonably good as Treasury Sec.

    The KEY job would be OMB Director. That job needs a major quant. Dan Mitchell might be up to the task.

    As TK reminded us, the VP in a less-than-270 outcome is selected from the top 2 by the Senate, so if GJ were to win the longshot scenario, it’s either Pence or Kaine. Weld might just take a sr advisor role, though. Or maybe he finally gets Ambassador to Mexico!

    I really doubt there are any Ls who have the depth of knowledge to handle State or Defense.

  65. Anthony Dlugos

    Jill,

    Of course you are entitled to your position, I just want you to understand that the J-W campaign has essentially explicitly said that they do not give a sh*t about your position, that they CAN’T afford to give a shit about your position. Or mine. Or anyone else who posts at this site for that matter. There aren’t enough of us to matter, plain and simple.

    And more obviously, there are even fewer that would take your position that some bawdy campaign talk about having a spot for Mitt is a deal breaker. Furthermore, the campaign communications director was correct in pointing out that, for the complainers among the LP, if it wasn’t the “yes on CRA,” or the “Weld on guns,” or the “spot for Romney,” it would have eventually been SOMETHING.

    You may be telling the truth that you were biting your tounge until this latest apostasy, but that is really quite irrelevant. They wrote you…and me…off a long time ago. As well they should.

  66. George Dance

    Shivany: “OK, This is not meant as a slight, or to anger anyone, I am just curious. I have sat here and read all kinds of bad things about Gary Johnson yet it isn’t like he dropped out of the sky. The delegates voted for him. Over 500 delegates voted for him.
    “So my [two] questions are, if you did vote for him, are you now one of the complainers”
    “And if you did vote for him and not complaining, why did you [vote] for him?”

    I haven’t heard many, if any, of the delegates who voted for Johnson complaining. There may be some, but if so they’ve been drowned out by what I’ve called the “Johnson-bashers”, who opposed him from the beginning and are eager to rationalize their position.

  67. George Phillies

    Anthony, there are several paths that will make the Johnson campaign give a flying f*** about the complainers, and they will be severely unpleasant.

    For starters, some of the complainers know how to organize national press campaigns. It goes downhill from there.

    George D: Let me turn that around. There were an almost adequate number of delegates who concluded in advance that the Johnson campaign was going to be a fundraising scam that spent most of its money on consultants. There is still time for them to turn out to have been mistaken, but the record so far is in the “they were right” direction.

    That’s before we get to the campaign’s stand on issues.

    The increasing desperation of Johnson supporters to cover their backsides is already apparent.

  68. Thomas Knapp

    Quoth Anthony,

    “Of course you are entitled to your position, I just want you to understand that the J-W campaign has essentially explicitly said that they do not give a sh*t about your position, that they CAN’T afford to give a shit about your position.”

    There’s a little more to understand than that.

    As the convention was opening, Gary quite clearly stated in a media interview — IIRC, it was CNN — that once he had the nomination it would cease to be the Libertarian Party campaign and become the Gary Johnson campaign.

    He wasn’t lying.

    The LP was just the cheapest available ballot access mechanism, and if we didn’t understand that before nominating him it was because we went out of our way to NOT understand that before nominating him.

    The LP gave away its 2016 ballot line to an alternative GOP slate instead of running a ticket of its own.

    Our bad.

    Oh, well, maybe next time.

  69. Be Rational

    Before the nomination I called for replacement of Nielson and his management team as well as financial transparency as conditions for a nomination vote for Johnson. Delegates should have demanded these conditions in advance.

    The conditions were not met, of course. The delegates went ahead even though we could see that masked spending would allow looting of campaign funds and no actual campaign outreach would be forthcoming, no matter how much money was raised.

  70. Anthony Dlugos

    Thomas,

    Well, the least they can do is put the 2020 Circus somewhere more exciting than Orlando. Vegas again, or Havanna.

  71. George Dance

    George Phillies: “George D: Let me turn that around. There were an almost adequate number of delegates who concluded in advance that the Johnson campaign was going to be a fundraising scam that spent most of its money on consultants. There is still time for them to turn out to have been mistaken, but the record so far is in the “they were right” direction.
    “That’s before we get to the campaign’s stand on issues.”

    Not to dismiss your concerns about the campaign misspending funds (since I’ve got to admit I haven’t looked much at campaign spending), I don’t think it was that big a concern with the delegates; had it been, those voicing it and those concerned about the campaign’s stand on issues would probably have been an unstoppable coalition.

    Certainly the loudest opposition to the Johnson campaign seems to come from its stand on issues: its non-opposition to drivers’ licenses, its non-support of legalizing heroin and removing the age of consent, its opposition to a “religious” freedom to discriminate, its refusal to challenge gun prohibitions on the mentally ill. These were all components of a strong, vocal anti-Johnson campaign long before the convention.

    Had there been an equally strong opposition worried about the Johnson campaign being a ‘scam’, I just don’t see any way he would have won the nomination.

  72. Be Rational

    Libertarian Nominees for Positions in the Johnson Adminstration:

    David Boaz – White House Chief of Staff
    John Stossel – Press Secretary
    Tom Woods – Chairman of the Federal Reserve
    Dan Mitchell – Director, Office of Management and Budget
    Mike Munger – Council of Economic Advisors
    Gene Smiley – Council of Economic Advisors
    Sheldon Richman – Council of Economic Advisors

    … Other suggestions ?

  73. robert capozzi

    br: Delegates should have demanded these conditions in advance.

    me: How would that’ve worked?

    And are you saying that since — once again — the pseudonym’s counsel went unheeded, the better course would have been to select Pussy Pyramid Petersen, the runner up?

  74. Be Rational

    Prior to the nomination, Johnson was quite concerned that the outcome would be close. If a coalition of those who supported him and perhaps some who opposed him, had joined together and presented these items as requirements for their support, it could have caused Johnson to make the changes.

    But, your point that there were no credible alternatives did make such demands difficult to insist on, is quite valid. But a small change in support would have changed the outcome, so it’s possible Johnson could have been persuaded to make the change. After the nomination there was no way to make such demands.

    It might be a advisable to change the party by-laws and add some conditions on the winning POTUS candidate’s campaign management and finances for future elections; or signing a contract in advance of the nomination.

  75. George Dance

    Tom Knapp: “The LP gave away its 2016 ballot line to an alternative GOP slate instead of running a ticket of its own.”

    It’s certainly not a ticket running on the goal of shutting down the federal government (as Andy summarizes it above); and, to the extent that’s the goal of the Libertarian platform, it’s not a ticket running on the platform.

    I don’t think it’s fair to call it a “GOP” slate, though. I’ve heard nothing (but opposition) from it to the ideas of protecting the rights of zygotes; to keeping/throwing the brown people out of the country; to giving Christians the right to discriminate against the sinful; or to bombing and invading the rest of the world; all of which are defining characteristics of the Republicans and their campaigns, including the present one.

    Rather, the Johnson campaign seems focused on what Walter Olson calls “libertarian centrism” – going after the quarter of Americans who have been hitherto unrepresented in American politics: those who identify as “socially liberal” and “fiscally conservative”, as Pew puts it; or who want the government to do less to “solve problems” and “promote values,” as Gallup puts it.

  76. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . John Stossel – Press Secretary . . . ”

    Isn’t John Stossel battling cancer? Don’t think he’ll be anyone’s press secretary. Wish him the best . . .

  77. robert capozzi

    br, I suspect GJ may be a loyal guy. Nielsen has been a bit of a Svengali for him.

    I would say Nielsen’s imagemaking skills are very, very good. Top notch. Whether he’s a Rove or Axelrod, I can’t say. Much more difficult task to make a 3rd party candidate look presidential.

  78. Tony From Long Island

    T. Knapp: “The LP gave away its 2016 ballot line to an alternative GOP slate instead of running a ticket of its own.”

    That’s a dubious conclusion, considering the stances Gov. Johnson takes on social issues.

    I would say that a large majority of GOP voters (before drinking Trump-Ade) valued social stances before economic stances.

    Most of you on here just can’t accept and never will accept that some libertarians are not as “hard core” as creepy (and rude) Daryl Perry. As I say often. . . go ahead and have your .05% purity vote. Where’s it getting ya?

    Show me a party’s candidate who follows the platform of that party 100% of the time and I will show you a mirror and a liar.

  79. Thomas Knapp

    “I don’t think it’s fair to call it a ‘GOP’ slate, though.”

    You might want to take that up with the slate. First two lines of the first campaign video:

    “I’m Gary Johnson, Republican governor of New Mexico.”

    “I’m Bill Weld, Republican governor of Massachusetts.”

    Of course, in their most recent radio ad they didn’t call themselves Republicans. They called themselves independents. So you may have a point. But it still boils down to the Libertarian Party handing its ballot line over to SOMETHING besides a Libertarian presidential campaign.

    Like I said, oh well, maybe next time.

    Then again, this is the third time in a row. At some point, the conclusion that the Libertarian Party has no interest in being a libertarian party becomes difficult to avoid.

  80. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . Then again, this is the third time in a row. At some point, the conclusion that the Libertarian Party has no interest in being a libertarian party becomes difficult to avoid. . . . . ”

    Or maybe you can look at it this way: A POTUS can really do nothing without members of his own party in congress. Elect some of your more strict Libertarians to lower government positions and use the POTUS election to just get the word “libertarian” out there. I remember when I first discovered the LP, I NEVER heard the word anywhere other than C-SPAN. That’s where I saw Andre Marrou give a speech in 1992 and it piqued my interest. Of course I was an immature 18-year-old at the time, as opposed to an immature 42-year-old now.

  81. robert capozzi

    TK, it’s a true statement. Neither were L guvs.

    Your literalism seems to know no bounds!

  82. George Phillies

    “Certainly the loudest opposition to the Johnson campaign seems to come from its stand on issues: its non-opposition to drivers’ licenses, ”

    not on this planet.

    Some folks were upset about the cake issue. I suspect more were upset about the fraud tax.

  83. Thomas Knapp

    Attributions of “radicalism” and “purism” and “strictness” are the first refuge of scoundrels when it comes to LP affairs.

    Nobody asked Johnson and Weld to campaign on dismantling the federal government.

    I’ve not even heard anyone, even the most “radical” “strict” “purist,” object to the fact that Johnson’s proposed cuts to the federal budget this time out are smaller than his 2012 proposal (which, btw, this “strict radical purist” thought were a little out there).

    What people have objected to on issues grounds is when Johnson or Weld:

    1) Specifically proposes making America LESS FREE than it is now, in direct contradiction to the party’s platform and in some cases in ways that even the ruling parties have deemed too draconian (e.g. “You shouldn’t have anybody who is on the terrorist watch list buy any gun at all”); or

    2) Specifically state that they OPPOSE the Libertarian Party’s platform (e.g. “Governors Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal”).

    It’s not a matter of insufficient “strictness” or “purity” or “radicalism.” It’s a matter of running against the party instead of for the party. “Anti-libertarian” is not the same thing as “moderately libertarian.”

  84. George Dance

    George Phillies: ““Certainly the loudest opposition to the Johnson campaign seems to come from its stand on issues: its non-opposition to drivers’ licenses, ”
    not on this planet.

    He was booed for that in Orlando; that, and for not supporting the legalization of heroin (for 5-year-olds). Last I looked, Orlando was on this planet.

    Some folks were upset about the cake issue.

    Yes, I mentioned that one: the “religious liberty” of Christians to refuse to do business with gays.

    I suspect more were upset about the fraud tax.

    I don’t remember that one; the idea of replacing the progressive income tax with a sales tax?

  85. Tony From Long island

    ” . . . . . He was booed for that in Orlando; that, and for not supporting the legalization of heroin (for 5-year-olds). . . . . ”

    Yeah! Let Stevie Wonder Drive! . . . and that 12-year old kid who is the “co-chair” of Trump’s campaign in a Colorado county – let him shoot up . . .

    Sometimes the ridiculous rigidity of the purists makes me shake my head – and then they wonder why the LP doesn’t catch on . .

  86. robert capozzi

    GJ in the NYT today: “This is the demise of the Republican Party,” he said. “This is an opportunity, I think, for the Libertarian Party to become a major party.”

    And yet TK keeps picking nits about how he accurately says he was a R guv and could be viewed as an Independent sometimes.

    Hyper sensitive?

  87. Anthony Dlugos

    The Hyper Sensitive Caucus! Look! A bumper sticker with “Libertarian” on it, but not in ALLLCAPS!!

    CONVENE THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE!!! ENACT ARTICLES OF RADICAL ANNOYANCE!!!

  88. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    I’m not the one who “viewed” Johnson as an independent.

    He’s the one who says he’s an independent.

    The radio ad in question mentions the Republicans, mentions the Democrats, and says that Johnson and Weld are independents. There’s a relevant partisan affiliation missing there. Can you figure out which one it is?

    Keep in mind, I’m not blaming Johnson and Weld for using and discarding the LP. We knew they were snakes when we picked them up. This is on us, not them.

  89. robert capozzi

    tk: I’m not blaming Johnson and Weld for using and discarding the LP.

    me: I reject your premise. L is used a LOT by GJ. He doesn’t use it TO YOUR SATISFACTION, which is a different matter. “Use” and “disgard” are YOUR projections, not facts.

    Did you miss the NYT quote I supplied just above?

  90. George Dance

    Tom Knapp: ‘Attributions of “radicalism” and “purism” and “strictness” are the first refuge of scoundrels when it comes to LP affairs.

    Nor do they accurately describe the anti-Johnson-bashers’ campaign; that’s why I don’t use them: usually I use their own term, “libertarian Libertarian” (though of course keeping the scare quotes).

    Nobody asked Johnson and Weld to campaign on dismantling the federal government.

    That was a quote from “Andy”, earlier in the thread. It is usually couched as “following the Platform”, but it’s perfectly logical to think that the second implies the first: Darryl Perry, for one, has drawn that implication.

    “I’ve not even heard anyone, even the most “radical” “strict” “purist,” object to the fact that Johnson’s proposed cuts to the federal budget this time out are smaller than his 2012 proposal (which, btw, this “strict radical purist” thought were a little out there).”

    It’s the same plank: to submit a balanced budget on day one. (Thanks to sequestration, the deficit is smaller now). But you’re right, no one says much about the campaign’s fiscal planks.

    “What people have objected to on issues grounds is when Johnson or Weld:

    1) Specifically proposes making America LESS FREE than it is now, in direct contradiction to the party’s platform and in some cases in ways that even the ruling parties have deemed too draconian (e.g. “You shouldn’t have anybody who is on the terrorist watch list buy any gun at all”); or

    Actually, both Clinton and Trump have endorsed that idea; Johnson has opposed it. However, he hasn’t denounced the idea of the FBI having a “watch list”, or the idea of even having an FBI; both of which I think pit him against the Platform.

    2) Specifically state that they OPPOSE the Libertarian Party’s platform (e.g. “Governors Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal”).

    I did mention that one: Johnson was booed for not supporting the legal sale of heroin – specifically to five-year-olds, though he hasn’t supported it period. To the “libertarian Libertarians,” of course, that makes him a “Drug Warrior.”

    “It’s not a matter of insufficient “strictness” or “purity” or “radicalism.” It’s a matter of running against the party instead of for the party.

    If you’d said “the Platform” rather than “the party,” I’d agree with that completely. (The people who voted for Johnson and his approach are all part of “the party,” for the nonce).

    “Anti-libertarian” is not the same thing as “moderately libertarian.”

    Indeed; the only question being where the 27% or so people Gallup et al put in the ‘libertarian quadrant’ are “moderately libertarian or “anti-libertarian”. To the “libertarian Libertarians,” of course, they’re the latter, and it’s a sellout to even campaign to them.

  91. Thomas Knapp

    George,

    Like I said, the first refuge of … well, not scoundrels … just people who suffer from some kind of weird compulsion to keep slathering lipstick on the pig until there’s more lipstick than pig while complaining about how rude it is for anyone to notice or mention that what they’re putting the lipstick on is a pig.

  92. dL

    “He was booed for that in Orlando; that, and for not supporting the legalization of heroin (for 5-year-olds). Last I looked, Orlando was on this planet.”

    Oh, I bet the Pragmaticrats would boo too if they were accused of supporting the coerced legalization of meth-amphetamine for children. That actually is a de facto public policy to some extent. Hence, the accusation in this case would be a legit one. Certainly a much more of a legitimate accusation than the canard that “purists” support 5 year old children taking heroin.

    So when Pragmaticrats like George Dance stop supporting the coerced prescriptions of meth-amphetamine to children, then the Purists will open up a dialogue about age restrictions on opioid’s like Heroin.

  93. George Dance

    dL “Oh, I bet the Pragmaticrats would boo too if they were accused of supporting the coerced legalization of meth-amphetamine for children. That actually is a de facto public policy to some extent. Hence, the accusation in this case would be a legit one. Certainly a much more of a legitimate accusation than the canard that “purists” support 5 year old children taking heroin.”

    I doubt you can find one “Pragmaticist” who’s said anything supporting “the coerced legalization of meth-amphetamine for children” On the other hand, in Orlando at least one “libertarian Libertarian” candidate was campaigning on the legal sale of heroin to children, in accordance with the LP Platform. Johnson was only one candidate who opposed the Platform in that area, and was booed for it: IIRC, Petersen and Feldman were booed as well for their “anti-libertarian” positions on the issue.

    “So when Pragmaticrats like George Dance stop supporting the coerced prescriptions of meth-amphetamine to children,

    Can’t stop what one never began.

    “then the Purists will open up a dialogue about age restrictions on opioid’s like Heroin.”

    But doesn’t even agreeing to discuss the issue make one an “anti-libertarian”?

  94. Thomas Knapp

    George,

    Next time the LP has a convention, please get me an invite to the alternative event you attend. Wherever the hell you were at in Orlando sounds a lot more fun that the actual convention at the Rosen Centre.

  95. Anthony Dlugos

    Well, seeing a certain libertarian magazine journalist passed out sitting in one of the chairs at the bar was the highlight of my weekend there.

  96. George Phillies

    TK: Unfortunately, we were at the same convention. Nice hotel. Unfortunate outcomes.

  97. langa

    …the “religious liberty” of Christians to refuse to do business with gays.

    Wrong. The actual libertarian position (from the platform that you seem to regard with such disdain) has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Zero. Atheists have exactly the same property rights and freedom of association as do the most fervent religious zealots.

  98. langa

    Speaking of the patented George Dance Straw Man, is anyone really buying your ridiculous claim that in a free society (as in, the one the dreaded platform advocates) we would have five-year-olds running around shooting up heroin? How about this: You find me a five-year-old who is eager to stick a needle in their arm, and whose parents would allow them to do so, if only it weren’t for that damn law against it, and then maybe I’ll take this absurd canard a bit more seriously. The desperation of the Johnson apologists is both humorous and disturbing.

  99. dL

    George:

    No, it’s “Pragmaticrat,” not “pragmatist.” A Pragmaticrat is someone who throws up phony objections to a position despite the fact that the nature of the objection is already in full force by a system/status quo that is supported/defended on “pragmatic” grounds.

    Hence, in this instance, throwing up a boogeyman of legal heroin and children despite the reality of 6 million children being prescribed legal methamphetamine so as to be able to function within the mandatory, modern educational system. True, you may not explicitly endorse it. But you are more than willing to tolerate it. Which, of course, is more or less the same position that someone like DWP has re: children and heroin in a free society. The difference being that in the instance of a free society, the assumption would be that the child would be making a free choice(note: i imagine it would be exactly zero 5 year olds who would make that choice), whereas in the current system, the decision for the child to be on a regimen of methamphetamine is being made by someone else.

    So, as long as the Pragmaticrats persist in throwing out phony accusations that “purists” support 5 year olds buying heroin, expect some fair play turnabout on the matter.

  100. robert capozzi

    langa: You find me a five-year-old who is eager to stick a needle in their arm, and whose parents would allow them to do so, if only it weren’t for that damn law against it, and then maybe I’ll take this absurd canard a bit more seriously.

    me: Do I detect a chink in Langa’s absolutist armor? 😉

  101. langa

    The only thing you’re detecting is my mild irritation at the repeated invocation of such a ludicrous straw man argument. The “NAP wouldn’t work if the world were full of unsupervised 5-year-old heroin addicts” argument is about as logical and relevant as the “NAP wouldn’t work if 99.9% of the population were Ted Bundy-style homicidal maniacs” argument. It’s quite ironic that the pseudo-libertarians so often accuse us “purists” of being unrealistic, while they rely on hypotheticals that are completely divorced from reality.

  102. Luchorpan

    Justin Raimondo:

    “He’s soft on Hillary; wants Romney in cabinet: guaranteed annual income; carbon “fee”- when will libertarians hold Gary Johnson accountable?”

    https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/767786379099058177

    Also the latest controversy: Is the Libertarian position that handguns are WMD?

    https://twitter.com/NRO/status/768207968143683585

    I’m not posting as a troll, just thought that relevant. This thread seems dedicated to criticism/defence of Johnson.

  103. Mark Vetanen

    Humm…
    Bill the Cat is looking more and more appealing the more the ‘truths’ come out about Gary Johnson.

  104. George Dance

    dL “Speaking of the patented George Dance Straw Man, is anyone really buying your ridiculous claim that in a free society (as in, the one the dreaded platform advocates) we would have five-year-olds running around shooting up heroin?”

    Well, since we’re speaking of “straw men”, maybe we should point out that I didn’t make any such claim; you did, and tried sticking it in my mouth (just as you did with your claim that I supported “coercively” giving methamphetamines to children).

    The claim I did make was that legalizing exactly that is in the Platform – “we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.” – and that is what those talking about candidates “running against the Platform” are referencing.

  105. George Dance

    Luchorpan: “Also the latest controversy: Is the Libertarian position that handguns are WMD?
    https://twitter.com/NRO/status/768207968143683585
    I’m not posting as a troll”
    No, you’re just giving links to them.

    One could point out that Johnson’s been a supporter of the right to carry handguns in public for at least the 17 years since he got concealed-carry passed in New Mexico; but why bother pointing that out to someone who doesn’t know, or even care to learn, the difference between a handgun and an AR-15?

    Maybe you should cease getting your information on the campaign from National Review, and go to a more reputable source (like, perhaps, National Enquirer).

  106. George Dance

    “Next time the LP has a convention, please get me an invite to the alternative event you attend. Wherever the hell you were at in Orlando sounds a lot more fun that the actual convention at the Rosen Centre.”

    Sorry, I don’t go to U.S. conventions; as a former Libertarian leader up here, I’m probably on the no-fly list anyway.

    What I did do was watch what was billed as a ‘Libertarian candidates’ debate’ on C-SPAN. https://www.c-span.org/video/?409916-1/libertarian-party-holds-presidential-debate

  107. Luchorpan

    George Dance,

    I follow Justin Raimondo on twitter. The NR link was from his feed. And I guess it was Weld who made the odd comment, my mistake. It is an odd comment though.

    Moving on. I happen to be very much opposed to genetic engineering, so for me personally, I didn’t like this:

    https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/765953069259436036
    “People “trying to splice plant DNA in their skin..to photosynthesize energy into their bodies” excites Gary Johnson”

    Perhaps that’s arguably libertarian, but I don’t personally like it. Anyway, cheers. Thanks for hearing me out and replying.

  108. George Dance

    Langa: “…the “religious liberty” of Christians to refuse to do business with gays.”
    Wrong. The actual libertarian position (from the platform that you seem to regard with such disdain) has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Zero. Atheists have exactly the same property rights and freedom of association as do the most fervent religious zealots.

    Oh, come on: not one of the passed or pending state freedom-to-discriminate laws is based on the Libertarian platform. They all give that freedom to discriminate selectively, to those who claim a “religious” right. And, considering that these laws come from the same party that also wants to ban Muslims from entering to the U.S., to use government agencies to spy on Muslim religious ceremonies, to close down Muslim places of worship, and (among the more extreme members) to ban Islam entirely, it’s quite clear that this “freedom” will apply to members of one religion only.

    It makes as much sense to embrace these laws as a move toward the Libertarian position on freedom of contract, as it would to embrace any Republican initiative to exempt fundamentalist Christians from taxes, as a move towards the Libertarian position on government financing.

  109. George Dance

    Luchorpan: “Anyway, cheers. Thanks for hearing me out and replying.”

    Wow; how can I get angry with someone so nice. I will have to point out that I wasn’t accusing you of not knowing the difference between a handgun and an AR-15; it was the author of that terrible National Review hitpiece referenced in the (which I read, but I guess Justin didn’t). Yes, the NR writer confused Johnson and Weld, too; I notice he did the same thing when discussing their Supreme Court preferences. But that’s his bad, not yours or Justin’s.

  110. dL

    dL “Speaking of the patented George Dance Straw Man, is anyone really buying your ridiculous claim that in a free society (as in, the one the dreaded platform advocates) we would have five-year-olds running around shooting up heroin?”

    Your are quoting langa, not me. I didn’t write that.

    But you did write:

    “He was booed for that in Orlando; that, and for not supporting the legalization of heroin (for 5-year-olds). Last I looked, Orlando was on this planet.”

    You want to dish that garbage out, i can dish it right back…as I did. The problem, however, in arguing w/ Pragmaticrats like yourself is that by renting your critical faculties out to charlatans, TV teleprompter readers and the like, you have lost the ability to follow an argument, namely: that toleration of a heroin legalization regime is no more of a tacit support for 5 year olds doing heroin than toleration of the existing regime is a tacit support for children on a methamphetamine regimen. Got it? So when you throw out the accusation, you get an accusation tossed right back at you? Got it? Just as you didn’t explicitly say ” i support the legalization of methamphetamine for children, DWP didn’t say “I support the legalization of heroin of for 5 year olds.” Got it.

    Of course, the aggravating circumstance here is that while you are tossing out more or less hyperbolic hypotheticals, the the legalized amphetamine regime is a very real, and if you are actually concerned about the legalization of narcotics for children, you would probably be saying something about it rather than chirping pragmaticratic accusations.

  111. langa

    …maybe we should point out that I didn’t make any such claim [about an epidemic of 5-year-old heroin addicts]…

    Not explicitly, but that was obviously the underlying premise of the whole question. Why else even ask it? If you simply want to ask about bizarre hypotheticals, why not instead ask the candidates if they support laws prohibiting people from cutting their own thumbs off, or something else that would never happen?

  112. langa

    So, there are two possibilities. Either you actually believe that, absent federal drug laws, we would have an epidemic of 5-year-old heroin abusers, in which case you do appear to be from the other planet that Phillies mentioned, or you are just gratuitously criticizing Perry for opposing a law that is allegedly designed to solve a problem that is, by your own admission, a figment of your imagination. So, which is it?

  113. langa

    …why bother pointing that out to someone who doesn’t know, or even care to learn, the difference between a handgun and an AR-15?

    Actually, Weld (Johnson’s “original libertarian”) said that assault rifles are WMDs. Then, in the very next sentence, he said that handguns are worse than assault rifles. So, it seems quite reasonable to infer that he considers handguns to be WMDs (unless there’s some class of weapons worse than WMDs).

  114. langa

    …not one of the passed or pending state freedom-to-discriminate laws is based on the Libertarian platform.

    Irrelevant. I’m not criticizing Johnson for failing to support any pending laws. I’m criticizing him for failing to take the actual libertarian position on the issue. To quote the platform for which you seem to have so little use: “For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable.” That says nothing whatsoever about religion.

  115. langa

    By the way, I think I have figured where all that money is going — not to advertising, not even to line Nielsen’s pockets, but rather, to George Dance and the other Gary Groupies, for “services rendered” — services like posting inept defenses of Governor Milquetoast’s blatantly anti-libertarian positions. I certainly hope it pays well, because it seems like a full-time job.

  116. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Just Some Random Guy: If Scalia had died a year ago I think Garland would have gotten onto the Court fairly quickly.

    No, if Scalia had died a year ago, Obama might not have even nominated Garland.

    Garland seems calculated to appear as a mainstream centrist. A white male, not too far to the left, that Republicans might have supported. A safe pick for Obama (though not safe enough, it seems).

    Had Scalia died earlier, Obama might instead have chosen a less safe, less centrist judge. A woman or person of color, and farther to the left.

  117. Simon Saez

    Wow! This is extremely disturbing. I never planned on voting for Gary Johnson, but the entire time I had respect for him and his campaign. That was until now.

    I just cannot fathom why he would not only praise Mitt Romney and offer him a cabinet position, but offer him an extremely important and powerful cabinet position like Sec. of State or “Defense.”

    No wonder so many die-hard libertarians are refusing to support him. Initially I could overlook Johnson’s support for TPP (as horrible as that was), but this Mitt Romney-in-cabinet business is just absurd. What’s next? Is he going to say that Hillary Rotten Clinton ought to be the Attorney General?

  118. T Rex

    “What’s next? Is he going to say that Hillary Rotten Clinton ought to be the Attorney General?”

    If he does, the Johnson supporters will respond:

    1) He didn’t “really” mean that. He merely supports Hillary Rotten Clinton harm reduction strategies and after a long period of tyranny we can move to liberty. It will be part of the transition phase!

    2) Pshaw. What are you, a crazy radical anarchist? We’ve got an election to win! And Hillary has a lot of experience.

    3) Hillary is “a wonderful public servant.” Oops, sorry for that Johnson quote. He actually meant Hillary is bad!

  119. Shivany Lane

    OK, I have had scores of emails in my inbox concerning this subject.
    There were 1000+ delegates in that room with me.

    The voting was not transparent. Somebody, I am assuming the state chair announced the votes the first time. Then some woman entered it into an excel spreadsheet. Really? Excel went out like in in 2000.

    Then an announcement was made that they were adding delegates. Not replacing delegates, adding them. Now as I read the rules, you were supposed to be there at the beginning. Tough Shit if your free-market Uber car was late. Do you think that the House of Representatives waits for all the representatives to show up and then they change the voting because Joe Congressman is late???

    OK, so now the number of delegates has increased. On the second ballot it was decided we not shoult out the the votes for each state, we take them up to Excel lady who enters them in. And Pow, Gary wins! by not many votes but enough to get over the 50% threshold. More than half the room was not happy. I may be old but I have good ears.

    Voting consisted of an index card, one that can be gotten at any office supply store or even walmart. We wrote the name of our candidate and stuck it in a box lid. A huge area box lid. Not a slit in a box. If the LNC didn’t have enough money for boxes with slits, we would have made you some.

    Then there were about 6-7 “observers” watching the vote be counted. At least one of these observers was a shill for the Johnson Campaign. How intimidating is that? If we are going to be a party we need to act like one instead of a school vote for class president.

    And here we are bitching about who YOU all chose to be your candidate. My integrity is clear. My soul is clean. i have the right to bitch, though I don’t out of respect for a very dear friend of mine. Also, I believe the majority rules. Buyers Remorse? We warned you. People who weren’t delegates? STFU. Those of you who voted for Gary because of Charles Koch, keep dreaming.

    Just please stop fighting among each other. Start brainstorming ideas so that our elections will be better and more transparent in the future. heave on that transparency because I personally think the vote was rigged. I have no proof other than my own observations. Start acting like a Political Party instead of a school full of bullies.

    Now langa, i will drop the mic and walk away.

  120. Thomas Knapp

    langa,

    I don’t think George requires pay from the Johnson campaign to defend it. He seems like a pretty dedicated individual, and is almost always willing to be completely wrong in public at no charge 😉

  121. Thomas Knapp

    Shivany,

    It sounds like California might need to re-think how it conducts its polling in written secret ballot scenarios.

    In that state’s defense, they ARE a very large delegation. California was entitled to 130 delegates. Each state conducts its own polling in its own way, and they had to come up with a system that worked for a delegation the size of a small town, to be done on a busy convention floor in a very limited amount of time.

    In my delegation (New Hampshire), the process was very transparent. I suppose it’s possible that a very skilled magician could have pulled some kind of sleight-of-hand trick, but I don’t think that’s what happened. I am as certain as it’s humanly possible to be that New Hampshire’s election was honestly conducted, honestly counted, and honestly reported. But IIRC we only had nine voting delegates. So it was a lot easier for us to manage that than it would be for California to manage it.

    I’m not sure why you don’t like the idea of observers. They’re part of the whole point of keeping the voting/counting honest. If anything untoward had taken place in front of watchers from competing campaigns, someone would have raised a ruckus to make sure it was righted. In the aforementioned small town, each party was entitled to one observer at each polling place, to make sure that the other parties weren’t stuffing extra ballots in the boxes, etc. (that’s why the Democratic Party machine had to do the stuffing elsewhere and it always took a couple of hours for the ballot boxes to make the 15 minute trip from the polling place to the central counting facility).

  122. George Phillies

    “https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/765953069259436036
    “People “trying to splice plant DNA in their skin..to photosynthesize energy into their bodies” excites Gary Johnson””

    A little math, including the known thermodynamic efficiency of photosynthesis, not to mention the need to wear clothing under many weather conditions, do not cast an optimistic light on this bizarre proposal.

  123. Shivany Lane

    Thomas,

    I too would really like to believe that no funny business went on.
    There were so many “observers” that I could not see the counting and I was 4 people down from the cheesy box top we threw our index cards into. Computers have printers. I suggest we use them next time so that the ballots are not a single index card with a name on it.

    Also, a box with a slot so that no one could just snag a few ballots or add a few. I had been a democrat for a long time. I have voted for over 30+ years. i have never seen anything as unprofessional as that day. When I was president of my knitting guild, everyone got a ballot with the names preprinted on them. Each ballot was numbered. Not like 1-2-3-, but a long hash type number that I could decipher if needed. They were randomly handed out so that there would be no chance I would know who voted how, but I could spot a fake a mile away. I counted the ballots to make sure they matched up with the people present. Each ballot was slipped into an envelope, sealed and slid into the voting box. It only takes a second to unseal an envelope.

    One particular person, which shall remain nameless, hovered over the counting people in a very intimidating way. Don’t Linertarians have any sense of personal space?

    What is done is done. I am convinced it was not a fair vote. That is my opinion based on my years of being a part of various organizations and having voted in every election since I was 18. Before the next election, I will expect that our illustrious leaders come up with a way to have a fairer vote. 4 years ago, it took how many ballots for Gary to win? This year it took 2. That is almost statistically improbable.

    If our delegation is so big, split us up into thirds to make it more manageable. I was on TV you know, voting. I looked unhappy. Do you know why I was unhappy? because i was disappointed that the one state in the Union that has the skills available to them couldn’t come up with a better way to vote than blank index cards.

    Besides, I didn’t vote for Johnson and you are all stuck with him now. Enjoy!! But stop bitching about it.

  124. Thomas Knapp

    “4 years ago, it took how many ballots for Gary to win?”

    He won by a large margin on the first ballot four years ago. This time it took two ballots and he only just barely weaseled in on the second. So the two or three people watching on C-SPAN, at least, know that he isn’t very popular in the LP. If they read FEC reports, too, they’ll have noticed that he spent something like ten times as much as all the other candidates combined to carry the nomination.

  125. Shivany Lane

    I stand corrected. I was told it took several ballots for him to win. That’s why I wore comfy clothes.

    I still think a more transparent and fair way of counting the votes is in order. I still think there were shenanigans. I know there was a buzz about it among the Gary Supporters.

    How many observers do you think is a fair number? There are 5 candidates and supposedly their people were voting so why were there at least six people blocking my view of the counting process when I was pretty close to the counting person? I asked Boomer about it and he said, don’t worry about it. Which to a woman like me means, don’t worry your pretty little head, let the menfolk do their work. BTW, all the observers were men and several of them were leaning in way too close for my comfort. I have seen observers during vote counting. They are not allowed anywhere near the actual ballots. These guys could touch the ballots.

    Shenanigans! Non Transparency. Possibly Cheating.

    And even though Charles Koch pledged millions of dollars to Gary Johnson, he has had a change of heart and decided his money was better spent on maintaining Republican control of the senate. Sorry Gary.

  126. Anthony Dlugos

    I was flummoxed when they handed me a blank index card to write my vote on.

    WTF?

  127. Anthony Dlugos

    Shivany,

    Whether Koch or any other heavyweight donor gives Gary some lettuce is besides the point. Those big money men sure as hell were NOT going to give anyone else that was running a thin dime.

  128. Shivany Lane

    “People “trying to splice plant DNA in their skin..to photosynthesize energy into their bodies” excites Gary Johnson””

    George, True Story:
    I spent a month in Sweden during Christmas. You know how cold it is there right? Our thermometer only went to 0 Celsius so I know it was colder. Anyway, my son was in school there and one of his colleagues believed that you could train your brain to not feel the cold. He wore shorts everywhere we went. Even in the dorms it was not very warm since they use hot water heat, like the steam heat in SF.

    He was never cold. Never turned blue. It was as if it was a summer day for him. Oh and he wore sandals much of the time which meant show on the toes. I have a picture of him I will try to dig up.

    The mind is a wonderful thing. Now if only people used it.

  129. Chuck Moulton

    Be Rational wrote:

    If a coalition of those who supported him and perhaps some who opposed him, had joined together and presented these items as requirements for their support, it could have caused Johnson to make the changes.

    We tried. We pushed it to 2 ballots, which I was proud of — and I have it on good authority that Johnson was convinced he would lose when he didn’t carry the first ballot. If it went to 3 ballots, Johnson would have scrambled and made some pledges to campaign as a libertarian and not flush money down the toilet.

    Oh well. Most I could do was try.

  130. Jill Pyeatt

    Shivany, are you accusing the CA delegation of possibly cheating at the national convention???

    Boomer is “my people”. I don’t know who else was observing, but I can’t imagine anyone in our state leadership (well, I don’t know everyone in Northern CA) cheating.

Leave a Reply

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