Gary Johnson Gary Johnson Is Seeking the LP Nomination

[anaconda]

LP nomination will be a rough gig in 2012 if RP gets the Republican nomination.

 

[Echoes]

Gary would fit right in with past (anti-liberty) nominations. Go gary, break a leg.

The Libertarian Party is a joke.

 

[klamath]

Gj has become a trainwreak of a candidate. At one time I might have considered voting for him if RP wasn't around but not a chance anymore. Too many attacks on RP and and some really egotistical weird behavior on GJ's part has put any chance of my vote in the same league as a vote for Gingrich Romney. Pretty close to nil.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Gj has become a trainwreak of a candidate. At one time I might have considered voting for him if RP wasn't around but not a chance anymore. Too many attacks on RP and and some really egotistical weird behavior on GJ's part has put any chance of my vote in the same league as a vote for Gingrich Romney. Pretty close to nil.

Where do you get these criticisms? GJ has been nothing if not amiable to RP. He called out RP as his desired running made at a debate! Any "criticism" issued is some twist of wording when cornered by the press to comment.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Gary would fit right in with past (anti-liberty) nominations. Go gary, break a leg.

The Libertarian Party is a joke.

I agree and disagree. The Libertarian Party is a joke, but not for the reason you imply (i.e. their moderation and supposed "selling out" of Randroid Ancap theology). The LP is a joke because it insists on ideological lockstep at the expense of practical politics. They forget that the very definition of a political party revolves around the idea that a party is an organization that exists solely as a vehicle for individuals to compromise in order to elect their favored candidate to office. It's not some ideological crusade. Party of Principle is a contradiction in terms. Support philosophical liberty, but allow the political arm of the liberty movement to be an actual political arm with an eye on winning seats. Every political party is more moderate than the ideology. Sorry, but that's the way it goes. Otherwise it's just not worth having a political party.

 

[klamath]

Where do you get these criticisms? GJ has been nothing if not amiable to RP. He called out RP as his desired running made at a debate! Any "criticism" issued is some twist of wording when cornered by the press to comment.

Last time I checked the media didn't run GJ's campaign website when he published an article calling RP a racist. It was removed only when they realized it was harming with the double RP/GJ money donaters. There was a lot of those to begin with.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron was asked about what criteria he would use to determine Supreme Court appointees in a recent Des Moines Register editorial board interview, with abortion opposition explicitly stated in the question. He responded that he would determine their qualifications by how they felt about property rights, the bill of rights, necessary and proper clause, interstate commerce clause, and the general welfare clause.

I thought when it was revealed that Ron signed that anti-abortion pledge that it was simply the campaign signing his name to a pledge without consulting Ron for the purpose of reaching out to Republicans, and his answers in that interview and in several others (including the Thanksgiving forum) have more or less confirmed my suspicion.

Ron (and I) believe(s) that a proper reading of the Constitution would overturn Roe v Wade.

 

[sailingaway]

last time I checked The media didn't run GJ campaign website when he published an article calling RP a racist. It was removed only when they realized it was harming the double RP/GJ money donaters. There was a lot of those to begin with.

It linked to an article that IMPLIED he was a racist....and itself linked to a 'prior to debunking' story long since debunked, to be precise.

 

[klamath]

It linked to an article that IMPLIED he was a racist....and itself linked to a 'prior to debunking' story long since debunked, to be precise.

No it wasn't linked it was hosted on his website. the article was elsewhere on the web but it was cut and pasted onto his site. The URL was GJ's campaign web address.

 

[Inny Binny]

I agree and disagree. The Libertarian Party is a joke, but not for the reason you imply (i.e. their moderation and supposed "selling out" of Randroid Ancap theology). The LP is a joke because it insists on ideological lockstep at the expense of practical politics. They forget that the very definition of a political party revolves around the idea that a party is an organization that exists solely as a vehicle for individuals to compromise in order to elect their favored candidate to office. It's not some ideological crusade. Party of Principle is a contradiction in terms. Support philosophical liberty, but allow the political arm of the liberty movement to be an actual political arm with an eye on winning seats. Every political party is more moderate than the ideology. Sorry, but that's the way it goes. Otherwise it's just not worth having a political party.

The purpose of the LP was never to get someone elected, except maybe local offices. Its purpose was entirely educational, and setting up a political party is one of the best ways to get exposure.

There is no point trying to achieve a win within it at the national level. It would have to become a Republican or Democrat clone in order to persuade the marginal voter. The only hope for electing a libertarian candidate to national office is running within one of the pre-existing parties.

 

[sailingaway]

No it wasn't linked it was hosted on his website. the article was elsewhere on the web but it was cut and pasted onto his site. The URL was GJ's campaign web address.

You know, you are right. when we were furious it went to a link, but it was initially hosted.

 

[sailingaway]

I agree and disagree. The Libertarian Party is a joke, but not for the reason you imply (i.e. their moderation and supposed "selling out" of Randroid Ancap theology). The LP is a joke because it insists on ideological lockstep at the expense of practical politics. They forget that the very definition of a political party revolves around the idea that a party is an organization that exists solely as a vehicle for individuals to compromise in order to elect their favored candidate to office. It's not some ideological crusade. Party of Principle is a contradiction in terms. Support philosophical liberty, but allow the political arm of the liberty movement to be an actual political arm with an eye on winning seats. Every political party is more moderate than the ideology. Sorry, but that's the way it goes. Otherwise it's just not worth having a political party.

It seems to me that you don't need another political party if you are going to be part of the mushy, corporatist middle. There are already two parties occupying that space.

And I say that, having been a registered Republican ever since I could vote.

 

[low preference guy]

A Paul/Johnson third party ticket, at this stage in the game, has the potential to really break through.

That's not even close to a possibility. It amuses me that some people can be so delusional.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Inny Binny and sailingaway are correct. Election to political office is supposed to be a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Self-proclaimed "pragmatists" seem to be highly prone to losing sight of the fact that "pragmatism" necessarily implies some ultimate (and necessarily non-"pragmatic") goal towards which it is directed. Consequently, such "pragmatists" always seem to end up replacing the original goal with the means intended to achieve it - in which case, what is the point of having adopted the original goal to begin with?

By "pragmatically" adopting electoral victory as the end to which they are devoted, "pragmatic" LPers render themselves entirely superfluous. For all practical purposes, they are no longer "Libertarians" at all, but merely "Republicans" or "Democrats" by other name.

Furthermore, "pragmatic" LPers are NOT being the least bit "pragmatic" at all! Consider: if getting elected is to be their raison d'etre, then what's so "pragmatic" about going the 3rd-party route and having to deal with such huge obstacles as lack of funding & publicity, restrictive ballot-access laws, etc., etc.?

I challenge any "pragmatic" LPer to answer that question - without recourse to "theology" (i.e., principles).

P.S.: Dismiss me as some species of "theologist" if you will, but what does it profit a man to achieve electoral victory, if he loses his soul?

I agree and disagree. The Libertarian Party is a joke, but not for the reason you imply (i.e. their moderation and supposed "selling out" of Randroid Ancap theology). The LP is a joke because it insists on ideological lockstep at the expense of practical politics. They forget that the very definition of a political party revolves around the idea that a party is an organization that exists solely as a vehicle for individuals to compromise in order to elect their favored candidate to office. It's not some ideological crusade. Party of Principle is a contradiction in terms. Support philosophical liberty, but allow the political arm of the liberty movement to be an actual political arm with an eye on winning seats. Every political party is more moderate than the ideology. Sorry, but that's the way it goes. Otherwise it's just not worth having a political party.

The purpose of the LP was never to get someone elected, except maybe local offices. Its purpose was entirely educational, and setting up a political party is one of the best ways to get exposure.

There is no point trying to achieve a win within it at the national level. It would have to become a Republican or Democrat clone in order to persuade the marginal voter. The only hope for electing a libertarian candidate to national office is running within one of the pre-existing parties.

It seems to me that you don't need another political party if you are going to be part of the mushy, corporatist middle. There are already two parties occupying that space.

 

[JohnGalt1225]

I agree and disagree. The Libertarian Party is a joke, but not for the reason you imply (i.e. their moderation and supposed "selling out" of Randroid Ancap theology). The LP is a joke because it insists on ideological lockstep at the expense of practical politics. They forget that the very definition of a political party revolves around the idea that a party is an organization that exists solely as a vehicle for individuals to compromise in order to elect their favored candidate to office. It's not some ideological crusade. Party of Principle is a contradiction in terms. Support philosophical liberty, but allow the political arm of the liberty movement to be an actual political arm with an eye on winning seats. Every political party is more moderate than the ideology. Sorry, but that's the way it goes. Otherwise it's just not worth having a political party.

If I wanted to vote for a corporatist party full of candidates ready and willing to abandon all principles in hopes of getting elected and "compromise" I would have just stayed a Democrat (which is what I considered myself when I became eligible to vote 6 years ago) or joined the Republican party. I mean seriously, if the LP is just supposed to sell out and start peddling establishment candidates then they should just merge with the GOP.

 

[Imperial]

This debate is kind of silly, considering Gary Johnson is nothing close to an 'establishment' candidate.

 

[Mises_to_Paul]

I voted for Badnarik in 2004 and Barr in 2008 (holding my nose all the way--which I now regret). I still give to the LP every month.

All I know is that if Ron Paul gets the nomination and the Libertarian Party doesn't do what it can to support his campaign, I will never give another dime to the LP. Anything but full fledged support would indicate to me that the LP is happy being a loveable loser/fringe party/ideological safe-haven who is afraid to actually step to the plate and have their ideas tested in a meaningful way in real life.

This is the hour. Time to step up.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron (and I) believe(s) that a proper reading of the Constitution would overturn Roe v Wade.

I agree

 

[Nathan Hale]

Last time I checked the media didn't run GJ's campaign website when he published an article calling RP a racist. It was removed only when they realized it was harming with the double RP/GJ money donaters. There was a lot of those to begin with.

As previous posters have said, this simply is not true.

 

[Nathan Hale]

The purpose of the LP was never to get someone elected, except maybe local offices. Its purpose was entirely educational, and setting up a political party is one of the best ways to get exposure.

I totally disagree. First, it's not true. A political party seen as credible can gain attention, but an extremist "party" that seeks only to educate loses money by taking that form. Second, it's dishonest. Voters expect candidates for office to be candidates for office, not ideologues abusing the process for a few quick headlines.

There is no point trying to achieve a win within it at the national level. It would have to become a Republican or Democrat clone in order to persuade the marginal voter. The only hope for electing a libertarian candidate to national office is running within one of the pre-existing parties.

I disagree. The LP is perfectly capable of moderating in order to attract the moderates necessary to build a coalition that wins election. I was involved with the LP for a LOOOOONG time and we've had this debate. Quite frankly, it's a false dichotomy to say that the two options are "pure or distilled to nothing".