Libertarians are stepping up to the big time when it comes to fundraising from political action committees. Already, a PAC is redirecting its support away from the Republican Party and over to the small-government Libertarian cause.
Purple PAC, founded by former Cato Institute President Ed Crane, originally supported Sen. Rand Paul’s, R-Ky., presidential campaign. Paul, whose namesake has long been identified with Libertarian viewpoints, dropped out of the Republican primary race on Feb. 3. On Wednesday, Purple PAC announced its support for Gary Johnson, just three days after the former New Mexico governor won the Libertarian Party’s nomination at its national convention in Orlando, Fla.
“We intend to spend at least $10 million in support of the Johnson campaign,” Crane announced in the Wednesday statement. As of March 31, the PAC reported it had $363,252 on hand.
Funding for Libertarian presidential campaigns has always been a blip compared with the mountains of cash backing candidates of the two major parties. In 2012, Republicans and Democrats each spent more than $1 billion on their respective presidential campaigns. In comparison, the Libertarians received less than $2.5 million in that election. But with Johnson currently picking up 10 percent support in some polls against Trump and Clinton, money is starting to flow in his party’s direction — with more likely on the way.
Full Post by Ben Berliner @ Sunlight Foundation http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2016/06/07/libertarians-step-into-the-big-money-spotlight/
“Thane Eichenauer
June 10, 2016 at 01:12
MP-F> Then GJ needs to become more Libertarian.
If Gary Johnson is not Libertarian enough now I really, really doubt he is going to become any more Libertarian between now and election day.”
Johnson is a politician who wants to win. He does not appear to be, from what I have seen and know about him, an ideology. He is practical. He wants to win. To do so he has to provide the products people will buy. He runs but uses the products which will get him elected. Those products solve the problems today facing Americans in the Red and Blue Zones simultaneously, resulting in both sides supporting him. Simple.
L, yes, the world has always and likely will always have varying degrees of political dysfunction. Everything’s relative. For me, less statism works better than more.
Where that process flips, if ever, is an interesting but unanswerable question.
We could try and find out, or we can be milquetoasr theorists perpetually whining They don’t agree with me. They are evil. I am the pure True Believer, the first into Heaven seated next to Saint Murray!?
Statism has also been an epic fail everywhere it has been tried!
L: Look at the history of third parties.
me: I have. The Republican Party was a 3rd party that filled in when the Whigs collapsed. Now it looks as though the Rs are collapsing. Don’t you agree?
But even if we were to view the LP as following the Prohibition model, ie, bringing an extremist position to the public’s attention, I submit that just as Prohibition was a bad idea, so is the NAP. Both might be good sentiments, but both get epic fails if and when implemented. The NAP is even worse in a sense, since its implementation is unfathomable, except perhaps in experiments on islands or other remote places. I note that all of those have failed as well.
Yeah, if Gary hasn’t “figured out” libertarianism by now he is never going to fully comprehend it.
MP-F> Then GJ needs to become more Libertarian.
If Gary Johnson is not Libertarian enough now I really, really doubt he is going to become any more Libertarian between now and election day.
Then GJ needs to become more Libertarian. A Libertarian is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. So we just create positions that allow him to be both at the same time and all will be well. Easy. I’ll have it ready tomorrow.
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson both diverge from pure Libertarianism, in different ways, but similar in degree.
If you really believe this, then you clearly have no understanding of what libertarianism is really about.
If you go through all the planks of the LP platform, I doubt you could find more than 1 or 2 where Gary Johnson is as libertarian as Ron Paul.
Heck, even on Johnson’s signature issue (the Drug War), he’s still much less libertarian than Ron Paul is.
L: Newsflash: People who basically like the status quo, and are “frightened” by the idea of major changes, are never going to vote for a third party.
RC: [blah blah blah, NAPster, blah blah blah, viable, blah blah blah, NAPster, blah blah blah…]
Look at the history of third parties. Those that have been successful (not so much in getting votes, but in actually influencing policy) have been those that have stood for “radical” ideas, e.g. the Prohibitionists and Socialists of the early 20th century, or of course, the most successful third party of all time, the Republicans, who rose to power on the basis of the “radical” idea of abolishing slavery. Even today, the only third parties that have had any lasting impact have been the “radical” ones (like the LP, GP, and CP). “Moderate” or “centrist” third parties, like the Reform Party and the Modern Whigs, have either fizzled out quickly or never done anything in the first place. And no, this year won’t be much different. Sure, the LP might very well get 2-3% instead of the typical 1%, or then again, maybe not. But even if that does happen, so what? It’s not going to do anything to move the country in a libertarian direction.
“Meliinda,
LoL, you also have a wry sense of humor. I’m being smart-alecky,
a establishment libertarian”
What me? A sense of humor? I can’t imagine what you mean. Ah well. A sense of humor is essential when you do not live in a box, if you know what I mean, EstyLiber.
Meliinda,
LoL, you also have a wry sense of humor. I’m being smart-alecky,
a establishment libertarian
“libertarian Establishment
June 9, 2016 at 21:16
Melinda,
I was expressing tongue and cheek humor.”
I thought you might be. But given the number of Posters of whom that was clearly not true it is better to err to the side of caution. And next time work a little harder on differentiating yourself from those who are perfectly serious. Have you thought about asking someone to bake a cake for your group wedding with the Clydesdale Horse Team?
LE – I’ve seen videos of Rothbard stating that it is a good strategy to propose small, workable transition proposals, so long as the end goal is not abandoned. The example he used was about taxes. He said it’s fine to push hard to repeal a particular tax when the opportunity presents. And, if it is repealed, to be satisfied with that for a few years before pushing to repeal the next tax. You don’t have to publicly campaign on the repeal of all taxes, all the time. If libertarians fail to propose workable transition measures, we will never accomplish anything.
There are things that, if Johnson were elected, he would have no reasonable chance of accomplishing. There is absolutely no possible way to end Social Security in the next 4 years. But there is a small chance, with a libertarian President, of repealing the Department of Education.
The philosophical wing of libertarianism should be separate from the political wing. The philosophical wing describes the end goal. The political wing is tasked with putting that goal into practice. The political wing can’t fulfill the end goal described by the philosophical wing overnight. In this election, ending the Department of Education is on the table. Ending Social Security is not.
Melinda,
I was expressing tongue and cheek humor.
LE: Instead of uprooting the weeds we just want to trim the weeds before they grow out of control. then when they grow back, we’ll trim them again, so on and so forth.
Me: Does one detect a facetious tone here?
Ls are in no position to pull OR trim weeds. The weeds have grown and multiplied widely in the 4.5 decades since the LP was founded. It was built, but they have not come, nor are they likely to with the Randian/Rothbardian strategy of positing an extreme, unworkable construct and hoping that vast percentages of society are converted.
It’s important to keep an eye on the prize–maximizing liberty — but to also understand that politics is the art of the possible. That requires judgment, and experimentation, and flexibility.
What is your name, Libertarian Establishment? Include a bio. You sound like a graduate of the Ed Crane School for Family Values. Either that or you have a very wry sense of humor.
And the answer, at least for me, is NO we do not want to be efficient. We want to be free and we are tired of working for freedom, shelling out money to support the Shills for Continued Disempowerment.
Note that being a real Conservative means you know power should be, and remain, locally in the hands of real people and not going to pay for the posh life style of people paid to keep you credulous and hoping for what never comes.
How much big money did it take to explode Ron Paul into real visibility? It was tiny amounts of money and cooperation online that accomplished the R3VOLution, not corporate funding. We had Yahoo groups which came together to make up graphics – ask and they produced. We used groups, interconnected, to hit the MSM will floods of calls. That unnerved them – it was also a lot of fun.
And all of us who were there know Ron’s Campaign had nothing to do with it. We did it ourselves.
It was power in the hands of the people. And we can do it again if we get on point and let Gary know he needs to stop getting a few folks to sign his petition on the Debate and force the issue with positive, workable solutions which resonate for everyone. We can build a coalition right across Red and Blue. It is time to get serious about Liberty.
C’mon guys we have to moderate or water down our principles, our views are too extreme. Really, separation of education and state, separation of medicine and state, separation of retirement and state isn’t that a bit too much for the American electorate to stomach.
Besides don’t we want to be efficient managers of all these government agencies, departments, programs etc., like what conservatives talk about doing. After all we are “Fiscally Conservatives” aren’t we? We’re not Fiscal Anarchist, right?
Instead of uprooting the weeds we just want to trim the weeds before they grow out of control. then when they grow back, we’ll trim them again, so on and so forth.
Besides we need the money, so let us water down our views and the weeds- I say.
TELL, iirc, in 08 and 12, the savaging continued post convention. I’m not seeing much this go round.
Progress.
Thane Eichenauer
June 9, 2016 at 15:17
“Those that were going to criticize did so prior to the convention. Now it is all up to Gary Johnson to persuade people that he is worthy or their vote.”
To be worthy of support a candidate has to tell you what they are going to do to solve the problems which move you to support them. I know there are Libertarians who donate just so there will be someone on the ballot they can vote for instead of against. But that is not going to change anything.
Additionally, Reagan managed to get cross over from Dems because he was charismatic and made connection with voters. He looked you in the eye and shook your hand. It was electric. Even the media liked him and he could deflect criticism when you thought that was not possible. This is not to say I approved, but he was effective. Gary is not like that. Therefore, he has to double – down on the truth and commitment.
And what happened to campaigns where the candidate goes out and takes stands and shakes hands? How about we add one of those?
robert capozzi commented “I note almost no feedback on IPR from GJ’s detractors of late. Not sure what to make of that.”
I don’t know if I would characterize myself as a GJ detractor but I do find fault in Gary Johnson. His support of the Fair tax (or his non-branded version of it) is the same problem as he has 4 years ago. His support of humanitarian intervention is a problem. Much of his faults are no different than they were four years ago. There is really no need to review them over and over. Are they going to change? I don’t see that as likely. How much effort should one put into criticizing a candidate for positions they aren’t likely to change on? Little I say.
Those that were going to criticize did so prior to the convention. Now it is all up to Gary Johnson to persuade people that he is worthy or their vote.
I was at the 2008 and 2016 LP national conventions. I do not know if the candidates themselves made these wildly optimistic fundraising claims, but they had multiple supporters at these conventions that did make these claims.
There is a fine line between getting carried away and being dishonest, and I think they crossed it.
Ah Ha! They must have found the magic words. “Your bonus hinges on how much you raise.” That would have done it. SMILE
btw, I suspect Crane became a much more prolific fundraiser for Cato in the late 80s til he stepped down as prez. PurplePAC has I think done OK.
Thank you Robert. That is very much appreciated.
mpf, 100% agreed. Sorry if my words could be interpreted otherwise.
Robert, I do not accept assertions of truth which are clearly unrealistic as acceptable means for extracting money from donors. I watched this go on for years, the money going only to pay salaries. Also, I knew the individuals making these statements. They knew they were lying. It is time for it to stop.
Gary can get support by telling the truth and providing real solutions to the problems we face today. There is a lot out there to be told and to be done.
mpf, I don’t believe BB or GJ made the particular claims AJ’s speaking of.
Everybody lies. Reliability and credibility come to those who lie least.
Wow! I agree in spades. It is a truism that if a politician’s mouth is moving that politician is lying. I’m not saying Gary lies (Though I would say that about Barr) but the estimates on fundraising were unrealistic, at best before.
aj, wisdom! Only believe that which is real.
Having financial goals can be helpful, too. And note that supporters can get carried away.
I remember at the 2008 LP National Convention in Denver that Bob Barr supporters were going around telling people that if Barr won the nomination that he’d raise $35-$40 million. I was skeptical of this claim, and I turned out to be right, because the Barr campaign only ended up raising $1.5 million.
There were Johnson/Weld supporters at the recent convention in Orlando who were claiming that if Johnson/Weld got nominated, they would raise $200-$250 million. I am skeptical of this claim as well.
New rule that all LP delegates ought to follow: Do not believe any claims about raising money that has not already been raised prior to the convention.
Amen, Andy.
”
Andy
June 9, 2016 at 10:06
I have seen Ron Paul speak in person five times, and each time Ron Paul tore the roof off the place. I have never seen Gary Johnson have that kind of an effect on a crowd.
Ron Paul also handles himself in a debate better than Gary Johnson does. I never saw Ron Paul have any “meltdowns” like Johnson did in some of the debates before the recent national convention, and I never saw Ron Paul stammering for answers or making ridiculous comments like, “Jews should be forced to bake Nazi cakes.” or giving one words answers without elaborating, or saying, “I don’t know.” all of which Johnson has done in debates.”
I was on my feet cheering and crying when Ron said in South Carolina, “We just walked in. We can just walk out.” It took courage to say what needed to be said and he had the balls to do it. No one is perfect – for me the question is are they headed for the same vision, freedom for all of us in a world at peace through actions which take us to the goal? It is our individual choices and values which will bring that world into being.
I understand about the Nazi cake. I groaned. Let them make their own cakes!!!
Andy, $10 million is what Purple PAC has projected they can raise. Since there are other Libertarian PACs and Gary Johnson PACs, and anyone can form a PAC, it’s quite possible for the total amount to be many multiples higher than Ed Crane can raise. Because of their history, any large Koch donations are likely not to go the Crane Purple PAC. He knows this, but still claims $10,000,000 as his goal.
L: I’m curious, though, as to GJ’s excuse: Is he related to Ron Nielson, or is he just really, really gullible?
me: I don’t know. 😉
I think RN’s advertising is top notch, except the pic on this year’s website has got to go, as Bee suggested.
Otherwise, I — and probably you — don’t have enough information to have an opinion of RN’s skills.
JB — whom I’ve met back in the day and seemed a cheery enough bloke — has pulled some overtly shady moves that would give me pause for hiring him.
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson both diverge from pure Libertarianism, in different ways, but similar in degree. Ron Paul, however, has always been very firm in his opinions, and very in your face, especially in 1988 when he alienated many potential supporters by being too hot headed in public appearances. He used his constitutionalism to justify taking not quite libertarian positions for political purposes. Gary Johnson is still adapting to the pure Libertarian positions and if he keeps on he will quite possibly end up a much a more pure doctrinaire Libertarian than Ron Paul.
“I don’t know” is the beginning of wisdom, ADR, AJ.
RP1 didn’t go for the nomination, last I checked. Yes, he can tear the roof off, especially with true believing NAPsters. He can also be quite embarrassing. So can GJ.
In politics, the art of the possible, you take your best shot with what ya got.
L: Newsflash: People who basically like the status quo, and are “frightened” by the idea of major changes, are never going to vote for a third party.
me: Sorry, I don’t buy the premise, especially in 16. While there have always been social liberal Rs and fiscal con Ds and leaners, they have never had a viable choice. Plus, never has the choice been between two weaker R and Ds. Many of these independent or vaguely party-affiliated voters might just not vote when they see just how reptilian this choice is. This year, they DO have a reasonable choice…just as qualified and well positioned for the masses in the middle, with an edge and a strong bias toward more freedom.
I completely cede your point that RP1 knows his NAP and is ready with the snappy NAP answer. Because it is a nice sentiment but an unworkable construct, it only took RP1 as far as he went.
GJ seems to intuitively recognize that the NAP is an unworkable non-starter. He’s walking a far more challenging path: Offering voters a PLAUSIBLE alternative. Winning is of course a very long shot, but my God the dude is on fire, media-wise, opening eyes to a third way.
Sniping “but he’s not a NAPster” probably will not stop him on the path he’s on. He already knows that.
$10 million is a drop in the hat for a presidential race. Democrats and Republicans spent over $1 billion each on their presidential candidates last time, and this does not include all of the free media that they get.
Was it worth it for the LP to sell out its principles for the promise of a measly $10 million that may or may not even materialize?
I have seen Ron Paul speak in person five times, and each time Ron Paul tore the roof off the place. I have never seen Gary Johnson have that kind of an effect on a crowd.
Ron Paul also handles himself in a debate better than Gary Johnson does. I never saw Ron Paul have any “meltdowns” like Johnson did in some of the debates before the recent national convention, and I never saw Ron Paul stammering for answers or making ridiculous comments like, “Jews should be forced to bake Nazi cakes.” or giving one words answers without elaborating, or saying, “I don’t know.” all of which Johnson has done in debates.
L, I’d say RP1 emphasized CONSTITUTIONALISM in 08 and 12, often IIRC referring to himself as a “constitutional conservative.”
Sure, he used Constitutionalist rhetoric, but he used it to argue for hardcore libertarian positions. He never endorsed some hodgepodge philosophy cobbled together from the “best” of the 2 major parties, as GJ has repeatedly done. Newsflash: People who basically like the status quo, and are “frightened” by the idea of major changes, are never going to vote for a third party.
I saw RP1 on Morning Joe, refusing to endorse GJ. Didn’t he rationalize his “principles” by endorsing RP2, who is far more of a plumbline deviationist, is he not? If it was about “family,” I’m not sure how that is consistent with “principle.” But maybe you have a coherent explanation for this apparent double standard….
I have never claimed that Ron Paul was perfect, and I will readily admit that nepotism is one of his major flaws. How else to explain his decision to employ the bumbling, power hungry idiot Jesse Benton as his campaign manager? I’m curious, though, as to GJ’s excuse: Is he related to Ron Nielson, or is he just really, really gullible?
Well Shane, I don’t agree with you on any particular. I am speaking from observed events which refute your unsupported assertions. But to begin, what are your sources for these assertions? Be specific.
Let’s list your unsubstantiated assertions.
1. Ed is still an amazing fundraiser.
In fact, Ed lost money on every event he put on while he was managing the Clark Campaign for President. He was vociferously chastised for this in my presence by Charles Koch after having managed to lose a quarter of a million dollars on what was supposed to be a fundraising at the end of the Clark Campaign. The Kochs left the campaign in debt, which Ed and Alicia were forced to pay. Alicia told me this in person while I was helping her during her fun for National Chairman.
Politics is a much harder sell than a 501 (C) 3, especially when the tax write off is coming from those who are otherwise benefiting from what will likely be money otherwise lost to taxes. Roger MacBride told me Ed was, ‘no fundraiser.’ But Roger was not worried about that. He was spending his earnings from the Little House on the Prairie Series at the time.
Melinda’s posts are incoherent.
I disagree. Provide examples to support your assertion.
I lead Libertarians further from reality instead of bringing them closer to action.
No, this is absolutely untrue. I am providing facts which have been long ignored and which are inconvenient to many, especially those ‘professional libertarians’ whose incomes depend not on achieving freedom but creating the appearance their rhetoric could actually accomplish steps in that direction. Most of them know this but ignore the inconvenient cause and effect issue. I call this the Wally Syndrome.’
What the think tanks, Cato, Reason chief among them, have been doing includes heart-warning rhetoric, which sells well to those of us dedicated to the principles of freedom.
But it has resulted in corporatized prisons which incarcerate for non-violent crimes at a profit, among other atrocities against the cause of liberty. Many who would have been Libertarians left to start organizations which work for their liberties, which were compromised by the policies promoted by these think tanks. http://www.texasturf.org/ is one of these. Roads are paid for by taxpayers. Today Texans are losing the capital investment made in these as they are sold off to corporations. Are the taxpayers compensated? No. I had the founder of Texas Turf, Terri Hall, on my show once or twice. Read her articles.
To clarify this issue for you I suggest you reflect on the highly questionable assertion that corporations are ‘private.’ Entities which receive preferential treatment by government and pay massively for special legislation are using laws to evade costs and accountability. Bob Poole, founder of Reason, spoke to the Texas legislature in support of corporatizing roads under the fictional word, ‘privatize.’ When the State transfers resources, entrusted to them by taxpayers, to an entity which has no responsibility to the people, the people lose.
Personally, I would prefer to dispense with government. But if it is there it has to function in the way we originally intended, not as it does now.
We would need to go over the dozens and dozens of specific applications of this flawed idea to completely cover the specific problems and violations of rights involved. That would then be a book, which it is not appropriate to write here.
Bob’s personal prosperity depends on selling these ideas as ‘libertarian.’ Reason was in the tank when he first presented the idea, at the time his first book, “Cutting Back City Hall,” was published. I gave the first book party for Bob. He gave me a copy of the book. I read it. Conversations about the book and garbage collection then took place. Why would it promote individual rights to have the right to determine how your garbage is disposed of be taken away from you, commodified and sold? Even tiny slices of our freedom matter. We have a right to contract for ourselves. The State should not compromise our individual rights, no matter how small.
Bob argued that it was more ‘efficient.’ But liberty does not have to be efficient. It is anything we choose it to be. We can be inefficient, wrong, silly, and anything else we like. That is our choice to make as individuals.
So, produce those examples, Shane. And include your bio. Your use of a first name only makes you effectively anonymous. Long experience taught me sources do matter.
Chuck, it’s good to see that someone knows what they’re talking about. The Koch/Crane relationship is gone. But Ed is still an amazing fundraiser.
Melinda, your posts are honestly incoherent and really inaccurate on the bits that make sense. I don’t mean to be rude. You’re posts seems to lead libertarians further from reality instead of bringing them closer to the action.
Clarification:
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster June 8, 2016 at 14:51
What they have on hand is less than Crane got from the Kochs for his annual salary at CATO. Ten million is a drop in the bucket for them. Any money from the Kochs is a pay off for staying firmly in the GOP hegemony and not speaking out for corporate accountability. Cheapskates.
Massimo June 8, 2016 at 15:20
I don’t think it’s time for this SK3 Kochtopus intercine warfare, Melinda. We do have a real opportunity to be present in the debates. Considering what Paul presence in the primaries did for the movement, it is an opportunity of a life-time. And I don’t buy the argument that Johnson is no Paul. Paul was never a great orator, he struck people with the content of what he said, not the form. If Johnson stays on message, I don’t care if he is a classical-liberal instead of a pure libertarian. The big-tent approach is fine for me, we will debate the finer details when we have some traction, now we look as ridiculous as the Marxists discussing the Albanian Communist party platform in the ’70s.
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster June 8, 2016 at 16:42
This is not enough to make an impact using traditional methods. It is enough to change the paradigm if it was used effectively. But Crane was never effective in this regard and none of the people names have a history of climbing out of the box. What you got is what you’ll get.
Melinda’s fuller response:
Massimo, corporate accountability is a foundational issue in this election. Appearing to ignore the outrages visited on us as individuals by corporate entities, overlooking corporate manipulations of government for their profit, will destroy our credibility and call into question our commitment to protecting the rights of individuals. And we need to recognize the facts. The Kochs money poured into the LP when they were attempting to own it for their own purposes. They were buying a shield for their actions, which violated the rights of individuals.
The State grant of limited or no liability for corporations, the use of political influence to overturn verdicts for losses of life and property, these are part of the Koch business strategy – along with their lying.
It is wrong to cooperate with or accept funds from sources which engage in this kind of behavior unless this comes with an admission of guilt, as restitution. Not the case here.
Refusing or returning funds from the Kochs will also get media attention which demonstrates our commitment to accountability and rejection of crony capitalism, which has attempted to corrupt the true meaning of the free market. This is one of the reasons today, the LP is viewed as an adjunct to the GOP. This must change.
With the uncashed check Johnson should include a note:
Dear Charles and David,
Instead of another attempt to buy cover for your unlawful use of government you might consider directing these funds to the many victims you have blown up, poisoned, or otherwise harmed.
Cordially, Gary Johnson.
Yes, RC, I just saw some other information that makes Utah a likely early target. The early good poll numbers plus it’s proximity to NM and CO make UT a natural to be on the early list. Make it one of the first 12 states to hit.
For a more limitd budget:
ME, NH, VT and NM, CO, UT to start.
As to how much to spend on a single flight or ad buy, it depends on the population of the area, viewship of the shows chosen, type of viewers and cost per spot. it should only be for major network broadcast TV – cable and internet ads are not as viable.
I’ve always had a preference to buy ads that bracket the local news shows, evening national news in the local area if possible. Hitting only one network in each local market with more spots is better than spreading the same budget over all the networks. The other networks will notice and try to encourage us to buy from them too. They will all cover the candidate as a result. ** But you should NEVER demand or ask for such a trade, nor even imply it. That will backfire. **
Ultimately, the campaign should try to spend at least 10 cents per capita in each target state before the debates. Any PAC, which should have more funds, should be shooting for at least 30 cents per capita per targeted state between now and the debates. We need to spend now and not wait, since getting into the debates is the key.
Of course, there’s always that big early hurdle – Ballot Access. Hopefully, this year, we’ll have more money to get beyond that.
L, I’d say RP1 emphasized CONSTITUTIONALISM in 08 and 12, often IIRC referring to himself as a “constitutional conservative.”
Have you seen any of GJ’s blizzard of news vids over the past week? I’d say he’s really starting to come into his own, stepping up his game.
I saw RP1 on Morning Joe, refusing to endorse GJ. Didn’t he rationalize his “principles” by endorsing RP2, who is far more of a plumbline deviationist, is he not? If it was about “family,” I’m not sure how that is consistent with “principle.” But maybe you have a coherent explanation for this apparent double standard….
It’d be clearer if it said “originally supported in this presidential election cycle” or somesuch.
***
I note almost no feedback on IPR from GJ’s detractors of late. Not sure what to make of that.
+++
BR, I see that GJ polled in UT at 16% vs DJT and HRC. I wonder why that might be, and whether UT should be an early target?
As you seem to have campaign expertise, I wonder what the minimum dollar amount is for an ad buy of the sort you advocate.
And I don’t buy the argument that Johnson is no Paul. Paul was never a great orator, he struck people with the content of what he said, not the form.
It’s true that Ron Paul has never been a particularly smooth or polished public speaker. However, he makes up for it by knowing libertarianism backwards and forwards, and understanding how to apply it to virtually any issue. That’s a huge advantage, as he’s never caught off guard by unexpected questions.
Johnson, on the other hand, not only lacks polished oratorical skills, but he’s also a bit of an intellectual lightweight, and it often shows in interviews, and especially in debates, where he frequently comes across like a blind man trying to navigate his way through a minefield.
Its support for Rand was more recent.
“originally supported”…It originally supported Libertarian candidate Sarvis for VA Senate, didn’t it?
“I don’t think it’s time for this SK3 Kochtopus intercine warfare, Melinda. We do have a real opportunity to be present in the debates. Considering what Paul presence in the primaries did for the movement, it is an opportunity of a life-time.” – Massimo June 8, 2016 at 15:20
******
Don’t waste your time. MPF is no libertarian. She advocates for a communitarian form of local government fascism. She opposes true Libertarians and pure liberty.
This is not enough to make an impact using traditional methods. It is enough to change the paradigm if it was used effectively. But Crane was never effective in this regard and none of the people names have a history of climbing out of the box. What you got is what you’ll get.
There is another SuperPAC. It seems likely that if the Koch network will back GJ, this will be the vehicle.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281807-million-dollar-super-pac-donation-coming-for-libertarian-ticket
They had a squabble with Crane, but that is irrelevant now. They need each other. Crane signed on to being their agent and performed well on their behalf for decades. They know that, they just wanted direct control.
Now the Kochs, along with the entire petroleum industry, are facing meltdown right now. We accurately predicted the present Exxon stock plunge over 18 months ago from what was happening before and after the Refugio Spill and their vulnerabilities. We also followed the market in energy alternatives and where oil companies are investing to spread their investments and this is picking up. The Kochs began this strategy years ago. They have taken their deceit into other industries, for instance the assurances made to Georgia Pacific on closing operations and laying off employees when GP was acquired.
There is a saying, “Be careful how you treat people on the way up because you will see them again on the way down.” They know they have evaded accountability for decades and have left rage and death behind them. I heard from a significant number of former Koch employees when I was publishing on them. too. Revelations and Tell-Alls will begin as soon as those people feel safe.
Pay back time will come. They know that, too. Appearing to be supportive of the LP, when they tried their hardest to destroy it, is cheap insurance. It would be cheap at 100 million.
Johnson would get more traction for the debates by taking the principled position and demanding accountability but it seems he will not be going there.
After the battle for Cato Institute control ousting Crane at the Kochs’ request, what makes you think the Kochs would donate to a Crane PAC?
I don’t think it’s time for this SK3 Kochtopus intercine warfare, Melinda. We do have a real opportunity to be present in the debates. Considering what Paul presence in the primaries did for the movement, it is an opportunity of a life-time. And I don’t buy the argument that Johnson is no Paul. Paul was never a great orator, he struck people with the content of what he said, not the form. If Johnson stays on message, I don’t care if he is a classical-liberal instead of a pure libertarian. The big-tent approach is fine for me, we will debate the finer details when we have some traction, now we look as ridiculous as the Marxists discussing the Albanian Communist party platform in the ’70s.
What they have on hand is less than Crane got from the Kochs for his annual salary at CATO. Ten million is a drop in the bucket for them. Any money from the Kochs is a pay off for staying firmly in the GOP hegemony and not speaking out for corporate accountability. Cheapskates.