slade's Link
Gary Johnson: We need a path to citizenship and easily available work visas — and calling illegals “illegal” is “very incendiary”
A golden moment from his interview with our Townhall cousin, Guy Benson. Watch him get genuinely pissy at around 4:00 when Guy, very politely, presses him on why the term “illegal” is so troubling. What we’re left with here is a third-party candidate who’s hyper-libertarian on immigration, of all issues, but not so libertarian on, for example, a carbon tax or whether business owners should be forced to cater gay weddings. That’s his pitch to conservatives who have been alienated by Trump: Possibly some new taxes, certainly less religious liberty, and all the amnesty you can eat. There’s no reason left why any anti-Trump conservative should waste a vote on this guy when they could back Evan McMullin, a write-in choice, or simply not vote for president on their ballot. Johnson’s appeal, we’re told, is as a protest candidate. What am I protesting in voting for him? Borders?
Take five minutes and read Robert Tracinski’s recent piece on Johnson as an essentially “left-wing candidate.” It’s less an indictment of Johnson, though, than it is of libertarian intellectuals who seem happy to watch him squander his opportunity this year with the right by remaining dogmatically left-ish on cultural issues:
My whole exchange with the folks at Reason, particularly the last response from Doherty, reveals a particular theme: libertarians can’t bring themselves to take any political position that might be seen as sympathizing with the Right in the culture war…
[T]he reaction of Johnson’s Libertarian apologists in an indication that, as much as they look down on the culture war and see themselves as floating above it, what that really means is that they have taken a position in the culture war, and they’re on the side of the Left. They would rather force you to bake the cake and make sure everyone knows that “the kind of anti- discrimination law we’ve had for many decades is not something he’s interested in rolling back,” in Doherty’s description. I’m not sure this is an irrational calculation for libertarians to make, though. If Johnson shifted right on a few choice cultural issues to try to woo disaffected conservatives, two things would happen. First, he’d lose some of his support from progressives, and it’s unclear that he can make up those lost left- wing votes with an equal or greater number of right-wing votes. (Johnson pretty reliably draws a bit more from Hillary’s base in four-way polls right now than he does from Trump’s.) More importantly, it’s a core part of the libertarian “brand” that they don’t stoop to indulging supposedly primitive conservative impulses on culture- war issues. If they did, they’d be little better than — ugh — Paul Ryan. They might consider trading some of their more enlightened left-ish cultural positions for a real share of the electorate in November, but Johnson’s not going to bring them that. In a best-case scenario he’s a 15 percent candidate, which is a nice haul but not enough to win a single state or even to match Perot’s total in 1992. They’re not going to auction off one of the pillars of their political identity for something so meager. In which case, sure, why not seize the opportunity offered here by Guy to reach conservatives online by getting visibly angry at calling illegals “illegal”? It’s good for the brand. Not so good for votes, but the brand has always been more important than votes.
And this is from Never Trump Central
I do agree that Johnson has a somewhat more open position than I would prefer on immigration, but it is a position he has held for a long time, which means more than the past few days, which seems to be the expiration date on a trump position on.... well, anything.
I'll take the "dip-wad" stand against dragging us into any more no-win wars like the ones of the last half-century, or continuing the ruinous War on Drugs that has resulted in the exact same tremendous black market and turf war situation that Prohibition brought our grandparents.
The Libertarians have also always stood for some other really crazy ideas, like smaller and less intrusive government, more personal liberty, lower taxes, and such nonsense.
I always did kinda favor the politicians with some of those crazy ideas, like Goldwater in '64, Newt in '94, and Rand in '15. None of them had much luck against the steady stream of Populist promisers in the long run, but it was good to see and help someone making the good fight for sanity in government, even briefly.
That is unless, the clientele of that cafe are never Trumper/Hellary helpers and then they'll be sold out.
Libertarian’ Gary Johnson Prefers Government Control to Religious Freedom
Libertarian Candidates Expose Themselves as Anti-Trump Shills for Hillary Clinton
July 23, 2016 Justin Moldow
As someone who has been a heavy critic of the Gary Johnson campaign, I’ve run into four main arguments from his supporters who are wary of my criticisms. They say that people should vote for Gary Johnson because
It helps spread the message of libertarianism He’s better than Clinton and Trump It will help end the two-party dictatorship It will help grow the Libertarian Party A deeper examination will reveal that these four arguments do not hold their weight, and that there is literally no logic in voting Gary Johnson for President this November.
Refuting point #1: It helps spread the message of libertarianism
I can understand why someone would want to vote for a candidate for the sake of promoting libertarian ideas. While libertarians usually don’t gain much ground through the political process, it still remains the best avenue to attract fresh minds to our ideology. No one was more successful in bringing people to libertarianism than Ron Paul. But Gary Johnson is far from Ron Paul.
If you want to vote for a candidate to help spread libertarian ideas, then you shouldn’t be voting for Johnson, because he is spitting in the face of everything we stand for. Over the course of his campaign, Johnson has stated that Jewish bakers should be forced to make Nazi wedding cakes, that he would continue to federally fund Planned Parenthood, scientific research, green energy, and NASA, that he likes the idea of equal pay for equal work, that he likes the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, that he agrees with Bernie Sanders 73% of the time, that the free market bankrupted coal, that North Korea is the greatest threat to our national security, that he supports humanitarian wars, that he supports a carbon tax (which is ironically the type of policy responsible for bankrupting coal), that recessions are caused by consumers getting overheated, that he wants the US to remain in the United Nations, that he supports TPP, that he believes Hillary Clinton is no criminal, and that he supports a basic, government subsidized income.
Okay so he’s not perfect, you’re probably saying. But things only get worse when you take a look at his VP, Bill Weld. As governor of Massachusetts, Bill Weld proposed and supported some of the strictest gun control measures in the nation, supported the Patriot Act, as well as the Iraq War and Trump style eminent domain. In 2008, Bill Weld endorsed Barack Obama for President, and in 2012 endorsed Mitt Romney. Prior to becoming the Vice Presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party in 2016, Weld wasn’t even supporting his own running mate, but had instead endorsed John Kasich for President.
While supporting Kasich, Weld made appearances on local television boasting about his lifelong relationship with Hillary Clinton. He also went on local television and extolled that he has “always been in favor of the universal [Obamacare] mandate.” In addition to this, Weld recently stated that he believes a libertarian foreign policy consists of having “superior air power and sea power projected around the world.” To make matters worse, Gary Johnson refers to Bill Weld as “the original libertarian,” as well as his “role model in politics.”
Johnson is a confused moderate at best, but Bill Weld is an establishment hack at worst. For anyone who’s paid attention to the Johnson/Weld campaign, Weld has been getting more airtime than Johnson, which is for obvious reasons, terrible for libertarianism. But even when Gary is given the spotlight, he botches it.
A month ago, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld had the biggest media exposure of their life, appearing on an hour long CNN Town Hall. Gary had the opportunity to open up millions of new minds to the ideas of liberty, but instead failed to articulate any real libertarian principles. When asked about the war on drugs, he neglected to explain its failures and instead said, “We are not espousing the legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana.” When Chris Cuomo pressed him further, saying, “It seems to me that there’s an inconsistency here. Either you think drugs should be legalized or not,” Gary responded with, “Keep the drugs illegal.”
Johnson and Weld spent the rest of the Town Hall pandering to Democrats instead of promoting libertarianism. Gary Johnson called Hillary Clinton a “wonderful public servant,” and Bill Weld called Barack Obama “statesman like,” and complimented his second presidential term. When asked about their views on gun control, Gary Johnson said, “I don’t think our position would be making it easier. We’re not looking to roll back anything.” Johnson and Weld also doubled down on wanting to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Gary Johnson chokes under pressure and was barely even able to debate Austin Petersen and John McAfee throughout the Libertarian primary. If he is able to make it into the general debates against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, he will crumble under the weight of the two biggest bullies in the history of politics. All those who know nothing of libertarianism will look to Gary Johnson as the golden calf of our philosophy, and will think that everything he says is what we believe in. And all of the reasonable Republicans and Democrats watching will be convinced that the statist gibberish coming out of his mouth is what libertarians stand for.
There is no logic in voting for Gary Johnson if you want to help spread libertarianism. If you are voting for Gary Johnson for the sake of promoting libertarian ideas, you’re not helping to spread the philosophy of anything other than statism. The Johnson/Weld campaign has been an utter trainwreck and an utter disgrace to the message of Ron Paul. And if you acknowledge all of their faults but still seek to promote their campaign for the sake of libertarianism, then you are lying to people about what the philosophy is, which is no more honorable.
Refuting point #2: He’s better than Clinton and Trump
Many Johnson supporters will concede that Gary is far from being a perfect libertarian, or really being libertarian at all. But they still plan on voting for him because “at least he’s better than Hillary or Trump.” This then becomes the lesser of the evils argument, instead of one about sound, philosophical principles.
By choosing to vote for a lesser of the evils, you are acknowledging that though each of the candidates are evil, you wish to limit the amount of evil that will be present in the White House. If this is the case, then there is no logic in voting for Gary Johnson, since he has little chance of even making it into the presidential debates, let alone the White House.
If one wants to limit the evil in government, then it becomes paramount to for vote for the lesser of the evils which has a legitimate chance of winning the election. It is therefore illogical to vote for Gary, when this is now one less vote going towards the candidate who has a reasonable opportunity of lessening the evil in office. Anyone voting for Gary because he’s “better than Hillary or Trump” should actually be voting for either Hillary or Trump in order to limit the amount of damage our next president can do. Otherwise it’s a moot point to support Gary because he is a lesser evil.
Refuting point #3: It will help end the two-party dictatorship
Ending the two-party dictatorship would be great, but is this really the end all be all of our philosophy? One can just as easily vote for the Green Party, or the Communist Party, if they seek to end the two-party dictatorship. Yet no reasonable libertarian would ever advocate for that, since these parties are not representative of our views.
Ron Paul ran in the Republican Party. Rand Paul ran in the Republican Party. Justin Amash ran in the Republican Party. Thomas Massie ran in the Republican Party. And they have all made greater strides towards liberty than any Libertarian Party candidate ever has. There is nothing inherently wrong with working within the two major parties in order to promote our ideas. What should matter is the individual running, and not the party they are running under. What good is voting against the two-party dictatorship if you’re just going to vote for a candidate who is no different than the candidates in the two major parties that you spend your time bickering about?
Refuting point #4: It will help grow the Libertarian Party
I am utterly shocked by the number of libertarians that wish to employ the same line of thinking which helped corrupt the Republican and Democratic Parties. Placing party above principle is precisely why the Tea Party and Occupy movements met a screeching end, and were replaced by a blind unity to party loyalists and big government progressives. This is why we continue to get stuck with the Hillary Clintons and Donald Trumps, and look in the mirror asking ourselves what happened to this country.
What good is growing the Libertarian Party if it is going to be represented by people that are not libertarians? What good is growing the Libertarian Party when it is about to become the party of Romney and Bush?
I am often told that libertarians should support Gary Johnson today, that way the party can get federal matching funds, which will help actual liberty minded candidates tomorrow. But this is the exact same lie that was told to the Tea Party movement years ago. Vote for the GOP today, and we’ll shrink government tomorrow. Yet here we are years later still waiting for the GOP to shrink government. Instead, they continue to give President Obama everything he wants (it’s almost like they think he’s a wonderful public servant).
Remember when George W. Bush said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market”? To vote for Johnson is to say “I’ve abandoned libertarian principles to save libertarianism.”
Do you honestly believe that the Libertarian Party will ever want liberty to succeed when it’s the big government progressives who are getting them money and airtime? If another Ron Paul were to come along, do you honestly believe the LP would nominate him over a Gary Johnson or Bob Barr? Do you honestly believe that a party which has failed to gain any ground in its 45 year history is competent enough to become a leading voice for liberty? If the Libertarian Party refuses to nominate liberty minded candidates while it is still small, why would they suddenly nominate liberty minded candidates when they are much larger and backed by special interests?
If you want the Libertarian Party to become the GOP Lite, go ahead and vote for Gary Johnson. But if you want to promote the genuine ideas of liberty, there is no logic in heading out in November and casting a vote for Gary Johnson.
Conclusion
There is no logic in voting for Gary Johnson. He is not helping to spread the ideas of liberty, he is a wasted vote if you are looking to vote for the lesser of the evils, and it makes no sense to vote for him in order to end the two-party dictatorship and grow the Libertarian Party. We are better than this. We are the leading intellectuals of our society and can do better than to promote a candidate that has no understanding of our philosophy, and his Clinton loving running mate who seeks to undermine everything we stand for. A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote to undo all of the progress libertarians have made over the last 8 years, and a vote to move us back to square one.
In an interview with Politico published today, Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson says he supports the controversial and secretive “free trade” agreement Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which potentially restricts free speech by expanding criminal punishment for publishing “trade secrets” and violating copyright.
“It is my understanding that the TPP does advance free trade,” says Johnson, “Is it a perfect document? Probably not. But based on my understanding of the document, I would be supporting it [though] in a perfect world there wouldn’t be a document like that, there would just be free trade.”
This comes just two weeks after Johnson told Politico that TPP is “laden with crony capitalism.” And that the “Free market really is the answer.”
Johnson is the only one of the leading four presidential candidates who supports TPP. According to Politico, this decreases his appeal among the supporters of likely Democratic presidential runner-up Bernie Sanders.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and presumptive Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein all oppose TPP.
but,but,but....
June 23, 2016 Matthew Carr
On Wednesday June 22nd, CNN was kind enough to hold a Presidential Town Hall for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. Many libertarians were incredibly excited about the event. Supporters of the presidential ticket were happy to see the party receiving mainstream attention, and the folks in the #NeverJohnson crowd were anxious to see if Gary and Weld could redeem themselves, at least enough to earn a vote in November. But the two failed, as a team. They showed everyone why they are unfit to represent the Libertarian Party and its philosophy.
Here are the worst moments of the CNN Libertarian Town Hall, in no particular order.
Pandering To Democrats
Chris Cuomo asked Gary if he shared the same views as Donald Trump when it came to Hillary Clinton, Trump stating that she “is the most corrupt person to run for president.” Johnson replied with “that is not a view that I would embrace.” But it didn’t end there. In a little game that the candidates played with Cuomo, Bill Weld says Barack Obama has “been statesman like,” Johnson said he is a “good guy.” When it came to Hillary Clinton, Weld went on about how they are “old friends” and has a “bond” that is “lifelong,” and later in the evening Bill stated that he would vote for Hillary Clinton if there was not libertarian candidate. Johnson went as far as to say that she is “a wonderful public servant.”
Weak On The 2nd Amendment
Many people suspected that Gary Johnson was weak when it came to the issue of guns and after tonight’s Town Hall it’s clear that he is. In response to an audience member Johnson stated “I don’t think our position would be making it easier. We’re not looking to roll back anything.” and he continued with his line of being open to “keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill… keeping guns out of the hands of potential terrorists” and doubled down on Bill Weld’s position of creating a 1,000 member task force designed to address that issue. Which of course is the liberal position. A Johnson-Weld administration would add even more layers of government bureaucracy and yield unconstitutional power by taking away the second amendment rights of whomever they label a terrorist or mentally ill.
Supports A Social Safety Net & Cronyism
“There should be a safety net regarding healthcare, and in no way are we saying this safety net should be eliminated.” No this is not another socialist statement made by Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, this was made by Gary Johnson in response to what the role of the federal government should be in healthcare. To be fair, Gary did mention having more of a free market in this area. I’m not sure why, Gary doesn’t have a positive view on free markets. He believes the free market bankrupted the coal industry and that ending discrimination requires government force. Johnson also went on to defend the federal funding of Planned Parenthood.
Weak On Tax Policy
In talking about his “fair tax” proposal, Gary Johnson told Chris Cuomo that it would be revenue neutral. Johnson did mention the potential benefits of abolishing the IRS, which was the one good statement he made about the issue, but was immediately contradicted by Bill Weld stating “I don’t think you have to go so far as to abolishing the IRS.” Who is exactly is running for president here? Which leads me to my next point.
Their Teamwork Approach
Gary was asked about the balance between cutting military spending and maintaining a strong national defense, and you’d think he’d have a good answer to a seemingly simple question – because I don’t know, HE’S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT! Instead, he looks over to his VP candidate and says “want a crack at that one?”
I thought Bill Weld was going to be just another meaningless Vice President with no influence on public policy, at least that’s what I was told by many Johnson supporters leading up to the Libertarian National Convention. Bill Weld has a history of supporting extreme measures of gun control, supported the Iraq War and, in the past, has endorsed Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and John Kasich. Gary insists that him and Weld are running as a team, like Co-Presidents if you will. It’s clear that Bill Weld will have an incredible amount of influence in a Johnson presidency, which is a scary thought for any libertarian, given his track record. Not to mention it makes Gary look very weak.
Tonight’s Town Hall had many in disbelief and left them wanting to pull their hair out. They continue to reveal they’re incapable of conveying an inspiring, consistent message of liberty. I’ve said it once before and I’ll say it again; Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are not libertarians and the party has made a huge mistake in nominating them.
By Ryan Girdusky August 8, 2016 Small government moralists, who refuse to support Donald Trump because he’s not conservative or libertarian enough, face a conundrum: Gov. Gary Johnson isn’t conservative either. At least when it comes to Supreme Court picks. In fact, Johnson is far to the left of the Republican nominee. In an interview with Reason TV, Johnson and his VP nominee Bill Weld said they would pick Supreme Court Justices that shared similar opinions to Stephen Breyer and Merrick Garland.
There is nothing even slightly libertarian or conservative about either of these men’s judicial philosophies. Justice Breyer ruled in favor of affirmative action in college admissions and against vouchers for parochial schools. He supports gun control and Obamacare, believes the Supreme Court can learn from foreign laws, and has said we cannot rely on the original Constitution alone.
Justice Garland is equally supportive of big government, especially on gun rights. He voted to uphold a Clinton administration policy to store records of gun purchasers and wanted to re-hear the case that overturned D.C.’s handgun ban. Another justice like Breyer or Garland would be an utter disaster for anyone who supports limited government or maximized individual liberty. On the other hand, Trump’s Supreme Court nominees were adherent to the Constitution. They included Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-Utah) brother Justice Thomas Rex Lee and Justice Don Willett.
There’s no doubt that if Johnson could somehow pull off a massive come-from-behind victory and win the presidency it would ultimately be a giant defeat for libertarians and #NeverTrump-ers when he picks a series of progressive Supreme Court nominees.
Read more at http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/08/08/gary-johnsons-supreme-court-problem/#22hypgvPBZEEWHyr.99
That's why he has their vote, getting Wasted.
