Gary Johnson Gary Johnson; Libertarian failure.

[WarAnonymous]

I am not voting for Johnson, because I do not agree with him on some key things, but I guess I don't understand why all the attacks on him because he isn't a pure enough libertarian. At least he's trying to learn more about it, as compared to Romney, or Obama.

It comes off as very snobbish and cult-like, almost.

Not meant to be harsh but I don't believe he is ready to be president of the United States. He really struggles on some key questions about economics.

 

[orenbus]

I am not voting for Johnson, because I do not agree with him on some key things, but I guess I don't understand why all the attacks on him because he isn't a pure enough libertarian. At least he's trying to learn more about it, as compared to Romney, or Obama.

It comes off as very snobbish and cult-like, almost.

It's not about purity, it's about at least having a base of knowledge that he does not posses, which he should as a presidential candidate. The same could have been said about Sarah Palin when she ran four years ago, I'm not completely against Gary Johnson, and I may still vote for him but the above interview is kind of a disaster and doesn't help to convince me to vote for him.

 

[WarAnonymous]

It's not about purity, it's about at least having a base of knowledge that he does not posses, which he should as a presidential candidate. The same could have been said about Sarah Palin when she ran four years ago, I'm not completely against Gary Johnson, and I may still vote for him but this interview is kind of a disaster and doesn't help to convince me to vote for him.

I've seen a few interviews that have worried me.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It's not about purity, it's about at least having a base of knowledge that he does not posses, which he should as a presidential candidate. The same could have been said about Sarah Palin when she ran four years ago, I'm not completely against Gary Johnson, and I may still vote for him but the above interview is kind of a disaster and doesn't help to convince me to vote for him.

Ok. I guess I am different in that regard. I would vote for Farmer John if I thought he had the best principles and wasn't a globalist puppet.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Not meant to be harsh but I don't believe he is ready to be president of the United States. He really struggles on some key questions about economics.

I don't like any of our choices, personally. But just for grins, are you saying Obama or Romney would be preferable? Because if you aren't, why aren't we encouraging Johnson to study things we think he should learn, rather than driving him towards camps such as CATO, that we oftentimes do not agree with.

 

[orenbus]

Big give away if he had seen this video at 33 seconds (names on the wall) could have helped avoid a miss step during the interview.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ha ha. That video is great. I'd never seen it.

 

[KingNothing]

Oh, so that explains it then I suppose. New Mexico must take whoever they can get.

But, while in office, Gary Johnson was one of the best governors in American history.

I think we tend to over-value the more apparent political skills (demagoguing issues, rhetoric, personality, etc.) and under-value the more important ones (surrounding himself with good people, reasoning ability, understanding of nuance, thinking ahead, strategic thinking, etc.) Ron rules at politics because he's amazing at nearly all of these things. No one is Ron Paul. Gary's good enough for me though, because of his track record.

 

[svf]

^^^THAT'S a libertarian candidate I could get excited about.

And YET.... even Harry Browne was a "controversial" LP nominee with all kinds of infighting surrounding the process - I remember it all too well. The AZ LP even rebelled and put L. Neil Smith on the ballot for president instead of Harry in 2000 which meant he was on in 49 states instead of 50.

For more read this: http://www.harrybrowne.org/2000/Controversy.htm

There are lessons to be learned here. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and all that.

 

[jointhefightforfreedom]

This interview is a fucking train wreck. The man knows less than 90% of the people on these forums.

He does have a good freedom loving spirit and props for that, but he has zero grasp of the philosophy or economics.

Agreed ! Write-In for Paul 2012

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Personally I don't care if someone votes for Johnson or not. In the grand scheme of things, it will not make a real difference. He will probably get around 1/2 a percent nationally like every other LP candidate for President has done in the last 30 years.

What I would discourage people from doing is sending him any money. There are plenty of other liberty candidates that have a realistic chance of winning their race, and they could use the money much more effectively that Johnson can. Essentially, every dollar Johnson gets from Ron Paul supporters is a dollar that could have been sent to Massie, Bills, Bentivolio, Hightower, etc.

 

[mport1]

I don't want to watch all 30 minutes of that. Can summarize what happened?

 

[nobody's_hero]

I guess the only motive I have for voting Johnson at this point is to try to get a sense of what our numbers are.

 

[The Dude]

Aaand here comes the anti GJ holier than thou circlejerk. NOBP, 'cause I really want to waste my vote on someone that isn't even running or wants the office of the Presidency. Let's not forget Ron Paul himself can be a pretty awful public speaker at times.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I guess the only motive I have for voting Johnson at this point is to try to get a sense of what our numbers are.

I think that will be hard to quantify, since not every person here will vote for Johnson. He may not be on the ballot in some states, some people might vote for Goode, some for Paul (write-in), some may leave the ballot blank, some may vote for Obama or Romney. There are probably some states out there that have others on the ballot as well (I think one state has Chuck Baldwin on the ballot).

The real way to see what our numbers are will be our effectiveness at the local level over the next 2 years. The more people that we can get elected to county committees, the more people we will send to state, and therefore to national committee. If Preibus is voted out in 2 years and we see one of our own, or even a tea party type in that spot, then we will know we have made major gains.

 

[dancjm]

Aaand here comes the anti GJ holier than thou circlejerk. NOBP, 'cause I really want to waste my vote on someone that isn't even running or wants the office of the Presidency. Let's not forget Ron Paul himself can be a pretty awful public speaker at times.

Ron Paul is a bad public speaker if you are a PR man. What do you want substance? or style? If it's style, just vote for Obama.

The truth is, despite the conventional wisdom, it's not how you say it, it's what you say.

And you have a choice. You have the choice to remain true to your convictions, to not compromise, to not accept the lesser of evils. To do what is right, regardless of whether you feel it will "get you anywhere" or not.

Ron Paul has led by example. He didn't say "I won't vote that way, because I won't win". He knew what he believed in, and he stayed true to it.

Follow his example, I say.

Know what you believe in.

Vote Ron Paul 2012.

No matter what.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I think that will be hard to quantify, since not every person here will vote for Johnson. He may not be on the ballot in some states, some people might vote for Goode, some for Paul (write-in), some may leave the ballot blank, some may vote for Obama or Romney. There are probably some states out there that have others on the ballot as well (I think one state has Chuck Baldwin on the ballot).

The real way to see what our numbers are will be our effectiveness at the local level over the next 2 years. The more people that we can get elected to county committees, the more people we will send to state, and therefore to national committee. If Preibus is voted out in 2 years and we see one of our own, or even a tea party type in that spot, then we will know we have made major gains.

Good points. I'm frustrated and impatient to see what our numbers are, but you're right, at this point, vote totals this November couldn't be considered scientific data, for sure.

 

[dbill27]

I'm only a few minutes in but it kind of sounds like the interviewer is being a huge d-bag. He did an awful job of explaining booms and busts before the fed, so I'm not sure where he comes off being the one to grill anyone.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Good points. I'm frustrated and impatient to see what our numbers are, but you're right, at this point, vote totals this November couldn't be considered scientific data, for sure.

I look at it this way - it is a long battle that we are in. Libertarians, paleo-cons and traditional conservatives have been absent from GOP politics over the last decade or so. We just haven't been involved, and because of that the social-cons, moderates and neo-cons have a lot of control in the party. The good news though is that it is very easy for us to take back full control, or at least have a major seat at the table. It just requires people who are passionate about this to get off the sidelines and get directly involved. If at all possible, people should run for local office or county committee - if they can't then they should get involved locally in any way they can. If we don't then we can pretty much expect the very same stuff that happened this year to happen again in 2016 or 2020. We need our people in positions of influence at the local level - then when we have a liberty candidate running for House, Senate or the Presidency those people can then be very powerful at getting votes.

I think some here do not understand how influential a committeeman can be. You have direct contact with every single registered Republican in your district, and by having that relationship with the voters you can tremendously impact how the results at the polls will turn out and whether or not they will favor our candidates.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

And YET.... even Harry Browne was a "controversial" LP nominee with all kinds of infighting surrounding the process - I remember it all too well. The AZ LP even rebelled and put L. Neil Smith on the ballot for president instead of Harry in 2000 which meant he was on in 49 states instead of 50.

For more read this: http://www.harrybrowne.org/2000/Controversy.htm

There are lessons to be learned here. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and all that.

Browne fairly earned his LP nomination in '96, but many in the LP felt the internal skids were over-greased for him to win it again in 2000. It's suggested that 2000 was supposed to be 'Hornberger's year' (at least, that what Bumper suggested to me). The friction over him was indeed more about the process, than ideology.