Gary Johnson Disputes Rand Paul’s Libertarian Cred

[Krugminator2]

Gary Johnson Disputes Rand Paul’s Libertarian Cred

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/27/gary-johnson-disputes-rand-pauls-liberta

Severe libertarian Gary Johnson does what he does best.

It amusing to read the comments at Reason. Even they seem to realize Johnson is out to lunch.

 

[Brett85]

If Rand ends up winning the Republican nomination, I think he also needs to show up to the Libertarian Party convention and convince them to either nominate him or to not nominate anyone in 2016. It could really hurt Rand if Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 49 states in the general election.

 

[Ronin Truth]

That's OK, because the libertarians dispute Gary Johnson's Libertarian cred too.

 

[cajuncocoa]

If Rand ends up winning the Republican nomination, I think he also needs to show up to the Libertarian Party convention and convince them to either nominate him or to not nominate anyone in 2016. It could really hurt Rand if Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 49 states in the general election.

While Rand may be as "libertarian" as the GOP can stomach, he's not enough to gain the nomination of the LP, and it would be insulting to ask them to forego fielding a candidate just because Rand is the GOP nominee. If Rand really had the libertarian cred that his dad has, there would be no reason to worry; no candidate the LP would nominate would be a threat to Ron. So, why are you guys even worried about Gary Johnson? If Rand > Ron, or even = Ron in the minds of libertarian voters, you'd have nothing to worry about.

 

[William Tell]

Yeah, well, at least Rand didn't support going after Kony.

 

[wizardwatson]

Yeah, well, at least Rand didn't support going after Kony.

I know, that #bringbackourgirls thing was such a joke.

 

[Krugminator2]

While Rand may be as "libertarian" as the GOP can stomach, he's not enough to gain the nomination of the LP, and it would be insulting to ask them to forego fielding a candidate just because Rand is the GOP nominee.

Rand is light years more libertarian than Bob Barr and Wayne Root. That isn't even debatable The LP nominated them. He probably is more libertarian than Gary Johnson, though that can be debated. It certainly wouldn't stop me from voting for Johnson if Rand isn't the nominee.

I am both a small "l" and big "L" Libertarian, and the purity tests are one reason why the ideology doesn't gain traction. There are a lot of libertarians who don't consider Ron Paul a libertarian, because of his states rights, immigration, abortion, and gay marriage views. And there are a lot of brain damaged Ron Paul supporters who don't think Milton Friedman was a libertarian. It is madness.

 

[Rudeman]

While Rand may be as "libertarian" as the GOP can stomach, he's not enough to gain the nomination of the LP, and it would be insulting to ask them to forego fielding a candidate just because Rand is the GOP nominee. If Rand really had the libertarian cred that his dad has, there would be no reason to worry; no candidate the LP would nominate would be a threat to Ron. So, why are you guys even worried about Gary Johnson? If Rand > Ron, or even = Ron in the minds of libertarian voters, you'd have nothing to worry about.

Have you seen the candidates the LP has nominated? Their standards aren't very high and they don't care if the candidate is libertarian.

 

[Brett85]

While Rand may be as "libertarian" as the GOP can stomach, he's not enough to gain the nomination of the LP, and it would be insulting to ask them to forego fielding a candidate just because Rand is the GOP nominee. If Rand really had the libertarian cred that his dad has, there would be no reason to worry; no candidate the LP would nominate would be a threat to Ron. So, why are you guys even worried about Gary Johnson? If Rand > Ron, or even = Ron in the minds of libertarian voters, you'd have nothing to worry about.

I think a lot of libertarian voters would've even voted for Gary Johnson over Ron if Ron had been the GOP nominee. Granted, it wouldn't have been the 1% he got against Romney, be he still would've received some support. I don't see why it doesn't make sense that we don't want someone else on the ballot who will simply take votes away from Rand. Even if he only gets .5% in the swing states, that could be enough to cost Rand the election in a really close election.

 

[Brett85]

Have you seen the candidates the LP has nominated? Their standards aren't very high and they don't care if the candidate is libertarian.

Yeah, no kidding. Rand is at least more libertarian than Bob Barr. Bob Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich for President over Ron for crying out loud.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Yeah, no kidding. Rand is at least more libertarian than Bob Barr. Bob Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich for President over Ron for crying out loud.

Back when I was a party member, I too fell victim to sooo wanting the LP to get better vote totals that I always was interested in seeing typically former republican elected officials defect to the LP. It became a popularity contest for who had the bigger name rather than a contest of principle. Out of the latest potential candidates, Mary Ruwart should've been their candidate yet they probably wouldn't have got the numbers that Johnson brought to the table. I was giddy back in the early 2000s when it was obvious that Johnson had libertarian leanings and thinking how great it would be if he became the nominee at some point. Little did I know back then that there would be an attempted revival of libertarianism in the GOP led by Ron, nor me being a delegate in my local and state GOP.

 

[William Tell]

While Rand may be as "libertarian" as the GOP can stomach, he's not enough to gain the nomination of the LP, and it would be insulting to ask them to forego fielding a candidate just because Rand is the GOP nominee. If Rand really had the libertarian cred that his dad has, there would be no reason to worry; no candidate the LP would nominate would be a threat to Ron. So, why are you guys even worried about Gary Johnson? If Rand > Ron, or even = Ron in the minds of libertarian voters, you'd have nothing to worry about.

Wait, you are saying Bob Barr had a more libertarian record than Rand does? Because that's not so at all.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Rand is light years more libertarian than Bob Barr and Wayne Root. That isn't even debatable The LP nominated them. He probably is more libertarian than Gary Johnson, though that can be debated. It certainly wouldn't stop me from voting for Johnson if Rand isn't the nominee.

I am both a small "l" and big "L" Libertarian, and the purity tests are one reason why the ideology doesn't gain traction. There are a lot of libertarians who don't consider Ron Paul a libertarian, because of his states rights, immigration, abortion, and gay marriage views. And there are a lot of brain damaged Ron Paul supporters who don't think Milton Friedman was a libertarian. It is madness.

Have you seen the candidates the LP has nominated? Their standards aren't very high and they don't care if the candidate is libertarian.

I think a lot of libertarian voters would've even voted for Gary Johnson over Ron if Ron had been the GOP nominee. Granted, it wouldn't have been the 1% he got against Romney, be he still would've received some support. I don't see why it doesn't make sense that we don't want someone else on the ballot who will simply take votes away from Rand. Even if he only gets .5% in the swing states, that could be enough to cost Rand the election in a really close election.

Yeah, no kidding. Rand is at least more libertarian than Bob Barr. Bob Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich for President over Ron for crying out loud.

It seems like you've convinced yourselves that there's no reason to be worried about the LP. Good, and I agree with you. As things stand today, I'd vote for Rand over Gary Johnson (subject to change, depending on what Rand says and does in the next 18-20 months). I still think it would be insulting (and hubristic) to ask them to sit out the election just because Rand is running. Have a little faith in your candidate.

 

[specsaregood]

It seems like you've convinced yourselves that there's no reason to be worried about the LP. Good, and I agree with you. As things stand today, I'd vote for Rand over Gary Johnson (subject to change, depending on what Rand says and does in the next 18-20 months). I still think it would be insulting (and hubristic) to ask them to sit out the election just because Rand is running. Have a little faith in your candidate.

I'm certainly not worried about the LP candidate ruining it for Randal. If Randal can't make the LP candidate irrelevant then he doesn't deserve to win. Excepting the possibility of the LP having somebody change their name to Ron Paul and nominating him as their candidate.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm certainly not worried about the LP candidate ruining it for Randal. If Randal can't make the LP candidate irrelevant then he doesn't deserve to win. Excepting the possibility of the LP having somebody change their name to Ron Paul and nominating him as their candidate.

Or Ron Paul himself.

 

[William Tell]

Lol @ Reason comment:

Notorious G.K.C.|2.27.15 @ 4:55PM|#
"While Paul may be the most libertarian-minded candidate in the field of prospective GOP presidential candidates, Johnson said, Paul doesn't fit the libertarian mold on a host of issues: from abortion to marriage equality to immigration and marijuana."


RAND: "Every human being is a person from the moment he comes into existence through conception."


JOHNSON: "Fuck off, slaver! During the earliest stages of my existence, my mother had every right to kill me, and you're excommunicated for saying otherwise!"

 

[Brett85]

Gary Johnson's style of libertarianism is more just social liberalism and fiscal conservativism mixed together, rather than actual limited government libertarianism. A large number of libertarians are pro life and opposed to abortion rights, and I would say most libertarians don't support expanding the definition of marriage but just support getting the government out of marriage all together.

 

[Rudeman]

It seems like you've convinced yourselves that there's no reason to be worried about the LP. Good, and I agree with you. As things stand today, I'd vote for Rand over Gary Johnson (subject to change, depending on what Rand says and does in the next 18-20 months). I still think it would be insulting (and hubristic) to ask them to sit out the election just because Rand is running. Have a little faith in your candidate.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post. My response is simply that you think the LP is somehow some purist organization and that Rand isn't libertarian enough for them when that couldn't be any further from the truth. Now Rand may not be libertarian enough for you, but that is an entirely different matter. Ultimately the LP will do what they think is best for their party.


Regarding GJ am I the only one disappointed with how his political career has played out? He could have been a solid Senator, now he's a one trick pony.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Not sure how you came to that conclusion from my post. My response is simply that you think the LP is somehow some purist organization and that Rand isn't libertarian enough for them when that couldn't be any further from the truth. Now Rand may not be libertarian enough for you, but that is an entirely different matter. Ultimately the LP will do what they think is best for their party.


Regarding GJ am I the only one disappointed with how his political career has played out? He could have been a solid Senator, now he's a one trick pony.

My main point is what I highlighted in yours. To think the LP has any other goal (such as, getting Rand elected) is insulting and laughable.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

My main point is what I highlighted in yours. To think the LP has any other goal (such as, getting Rand elected) is insulting and laughable.

I believe a phone call from Ron Paul would change that.