May former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura announce in March his candidacy for president of the United States? According to a new discussion of Ventura and Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst and former New Jersey Judge Andrew Napolitano on Ora TV, Ventura’s decision regarding a presidential run will largely depend on what happens in the early primaries and caucuses of the Republican and Democratic Parties.
Talk of a potential Ventura presidential run arose from Ventura and Napolitano’s discussion of their agreement, as Napolitano states, that “these wars that we have been involved in and the ones that are contemplated are profoundly unjust, immoral, and unlawful” as well as their mutual admiration for War is a Racket author General Smedley Bulter. Moving the conversation from a shared critique of war to the presidential race, Ventura says:
I can’t imagine what [General Semedley Butler] would think of his country today — this complete hero. And General Butler said we need to pass a constitutional amendment that our military cannot go over 500 miles from our shore. And I think about that today and think that he is even more right today because we have the technology we can blow up the world 100 times over now. What do we need 170-some bases throughout the world [for]? And why are we in every war, Judge? I’m 64 now, and, when you count the war on drugs, we’ve been at war my whole life. What are we going to do about this? I mean, am I going to have to run next spring for the Libertarians?
Napolitano answers in part:
Only if you or Rand Paul or someone who shares these Jeffersonian values has a national audience will the American public be able to see the horrific nature of war and the deceptive, corrupt attitude of the two major political parties who live for war.
Later in the discussion, Napolitano, a Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Advisory Board member, explains what conditions could help make a Ventura run successful. Napolitano states:
You know, you and I have talked off-air many, many times about the viability of a third party. And we’re both familiar with the stranglehold that the Republicans and the Democrats have on the political process in general and certainly on the debates. I’m not talking about these primary debates now. I’m talking about the two or three or four — however many there will be — major debates in the fall of ’16 where half the country is watching.
This may finally be the year to break that stranglehold because of the track record of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders demonstrating the thirst and the hunger out there for an independent thinker as a major candidate. If Donald Trump is not the Republican nominee, if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic nominee, and if Rand Paul is not running for national office next fall, the time will be right for an independent candidate to show his handsome, articulate face.
Regarding Ventura’s prospects should he run, Napolitano notes that Napolitano and Ventura’s shared “brand” has “very broad and deep reach, particularly among young people and especially this year when we see the huge numbers supporting the antiestablishment candidates.”
Near the conclusion of the discussion Ventura elaborates on his plans regarding his potential presidential run. Ventura says he will probably decide one way or the other in March. If he decides to run, Ventura suggests he will seek the Libertarian Party nomination and obtain assistance from Roger Stone, who earlier this year was a Donald Trump campaign advisor.
In 1998, Ventura, running as the Reform Party nominee, defeated contenders including the Republican and Democratic nominees to win the Minnesota governorship.
He has a lot of “ask me anything” threads on FB. You can try asking him.
“if they were elected again, with the possible exception of Napolitano.”
New Jersey doesn’t have judicial elections, Napolitano held an appointed judgeship.
The long standing Ventura/Trump/Stone connection is more than troubling.
I really like Napolitano, but I wish he wouldn’t take the “big tent” philosophy to such a ridiculous length. He has so frequently affixed the “libertarian” label to obvious non-libertarians (such as Ventura, Rand Paul, Glenn Beck, and others) that it has become hard to take him seriously.
Kind of like watching a train wreck … from the wrecking train.
Sure, Ventura would stand little chance of being elected, but watching him run would be entertaining.
About as likely as his economic plan working in real life.
Don’t forget that Ventura also endorsed Donald Trump not too long after he endorsed Bernie Sanders.
Ventura certainly has flaws from a libertarian perspective, but it would be great if he got elected and released all of the government files on the JFK assassination, 9/11, Area 51, the OKC bombing, FEMA camps, etc… Watching the establishment “shake in their boots” as he talked about doing this while on the campaign trail would make great television.
Roger Stone, Ventura, and Napolitano are all people who have held offices of power, and controlled political strategy as serious players. All of them “came to libertarianism” once out of power. None of them have done anything to directly expand individual freedom after leaving their offices of power (possible exception from Napolitano, whose books and brief TV show on FBN, “Freedom Watch,” have awakened some people).
Trust those who fight for freedom when it doesn’t benefit them, when they have something to lose.
Napolitano sounds the most radical, but he upheld the drug war when he was a judge. At least he apologized for this gross inadequacy on his part.
The other two are less radical and less consistent than Napolitano. Stone has worked for Trump, but states his disagreements with Trump’s un-libertarian aspects. Ventura sounds good on several issues, but terrible and self-contradicting on other issues (this is the most dangerous, because it means that when pressure is applied, there are no solid foundations to resistance –equaling a Reaganesque cave in on 99% of all “single issues”).
My guess? All of them would easily be bent to the will of the system, if they were elected again, with the possible exception of Napolitano.
…Then again, Ventura is probably smart enough to give the FBI goons who run the LP some headaches. Maybe he should be supported for that reason alone, …assuming the LP isn’t going to be a force for individual freedom in the USA.
Google has existed for the entire time that Ventura has claimed to be a small-L libertarian. (Since “Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me,” …a passive and ineffectual book title if ever there was one.) Yet he still very obviously and publicly lacks a comprehension of the basic principles of libertarianism. He doesn’t seem to grasp statistical thresholds basic to the “Nolan Chart” view of libertarianism. (ie: One can be 80% libertarian; certain issues are more fundamental and important than others; strategy and philosophy are linked; …etc.) …These are not hard concepts, nor are they difficult to find explained, in-depth, online.
He continually whines that he’ll join a revolution, but he won’t start one. He doesn’t know how to be a George Washington or a Thomas Paine. He doesn’t have the intellectual depth of a Harry Browne, Thoreau, or Thomas Paine (at least not thus far).
Initially, when he cut his hair and spoke like a “patriotic conformist,” he was electable, by the teeming masses of patriotic conformists. Then, he began wearing tie-died T-shirts, and contradicting essential moral principles of libertarianism (even more than he had when he was governor). This has made him less electable, and less libertarian.
For a brief period after his governorship, he seemed to be in transition, and more appropriately weighting morality and empathy. This lasted until he began championing Bernie Sanders and universal control of government healthcare, about 3 years ago.
We don’t need any more Reagans who sound libertarian, but really aren’t. We definitely don’t need a quasi-libertarian of the socialist left who doesn’t understand how to apply philosophy to politics.
We need consistent individual liberty.
Jesse just isn’t smart enough to solve a single one of our biggest problems, because the man cannot even consistently define the proper role of government.
He proved this beyond any doubt when he was interviewed by Adam Kokesh. The entire interview was like the blind leading the blind, and he didn’t even rise to the level of a first-time attendee of a Libertarian Party supper club meeting.
EPIC FAIL. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
This talk continues to make me nervous.
I’m curious: Has Austin Petersen commented on Ventura’s possible candidacy?
I have considerable respect for Judge Napolitano but not so much for Gov. Ventura. We’ve been down this road before and it never seems to work out.
What frightens me is his mention of getting help from Roger Stone. Stone knows how the LP nomination process works, and he would try stuffing delegations.
Ventura sounds libertarian on some issues, but not enough for my vote at the convention.
The lessons that the two major parties learned from George Wallace in 1968, Ross Perot in 1992, Ralph Nader to a lesser extent in 2000 will result in both parties doing their utmost to see that Ventura {nor any other viable potential threat to the status quo} will not be in any of the Fall debates nor be able to get on all the state ballots.
Donald Trump seems to be the only one today who would be able to do so and that would be primarily because he could self-finance his efforts. If Ventura had billions to invest in a campaign he’d have a chance. Unfortunately, without a billionaire on the ticket we’re still several decades for a third party candidate being elected to national office.
How about a repeat of the 1980 Libertarian ticket ~ Ed Clark & David Koch? Get the Koch brothers to stop funding a Republican Party that is trying to commit suicide.