6 votes

Daily Caller: Gary Johnson’s Strange Foreign Policy (A Real Downer)

Jamie Weinstein | Daily Caller
April 12, 2012

Libertarian Party presidential contender Gary Johnson has been portrayed as an anti-war candidate, but that isn’t quite so clear.

Johnson sat down with reporters and editors from The Daily Caller last week, generously providing his time to answer any and all questions, no matter how difficult or ludicrous.

But when pressed on foreign policy topics throughout the interview, Johnson gave answers that didn’t always seem to add up and were often, at best, unorthodox positions for a man who has been painted as a non-interventionist.

While Johnson positions himself as a strong anti-war candidate who wants to cut the defense budget by 43 percent, he told TheDC that he supports America’s efforts to aid African troops in tracking down Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and that he wouldn’t rule out leaving behind American bases in Afghanistan.

Johnson said that while he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, that doesn’t mean he would necessarily stop drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, even though he believes they create more enemies than they kill.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-gar...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What a space cadet.

He has always struck me as just ODD.

I used to like Gary

a bit .... that lame foreign policy position allows me now to say this:

Only Ron Paul

whether he is a Republican nominee

or he decides to run third party

or I decide to write Ron Paul in (even though in my state it will be thrown out) I don't care (in Big Letters I will write)

Gary is not a philosophical libertarian.

I'm sure Gary is a great guy, but he is not what many libertarians think he is.

Gary is a product of the CATO/Koch "beltway libertarianism", he is not a philosophical libertarian like Ron Paul and the great folks at the Mises Institute.

Their has been a struggle between the beltway types and the philosophical types for a while.

The beltway libertarian,compromises and waters down his views to make them more acceptable to the mainstream, and ends up being the court jester for the establishment.

The philosophical libertarian, does not compromise, knows right is right and wrong is wrong, is not searching for a pat on the back from the establishment, but is trying to destroy that establishment.

Ron Paul is in the philosophical camp, with the Rothbardians and Mises Institute.

Gary Johnson is of the beltway types, like Reason, CATO, and other Koch entities(including the Libertarian party itself).

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Kind of how I view him

In the debates, he frequently mentioned how he approached every issue through a "cost benefit analysis". That tells me that while he may have come to some of the same conclusions as Dr. Paul, he doesn't have the same grounding.

Not surprising

We have known all along that Johnson is a Libertarian libertarian. He thinks Liberty has no dominion outside the USA border. The Libertarian Party is just as irrelevant as it has always been.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

IT JUST GOES to show you....

We only have one candidate who is "CONSISTENT" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8o5soqdCj8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7RaYbToq7Q

With all due respect, I will no longer be a voting prostitute for Constitution rejecting harlots.

Jeez.. And this is the guy

Jeez..

And this is the guy random people keep preaching about on Facebook? lol

He's a Slime I don't trust him at all

Ron Paul he is not!

His lack of foreign policy experience shows...

To me, Gov. Johnson's comments came across as half-baked, the words of someone trying to figure it out during the course of the interview. While having been a governor is good executive preparation, his total lack (as far as I am aware) of any foreign policy experience is a clear weak point. (In my opinion, this was also a crucial weakness for GW Bush, making him an empty vessel that the neo-cons were able to fill in the aftermath of 911.) On foreign policy, Johnson just isn't ready.

On a related note, I was looking over Johnson's Web site last night and noticed that Federalism seemingly plays little role in how he derives his positions (for example, he is pro-choice until fetal viability, but did not address the question of Federal authority to regulate abortion). This is another area where his entirely state-level political background leaves him with an inadequate grasp of important issues. He apparently wants to be Ron Paul, but doesn't come close to having Dr. Paul's level of experience.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

I don't think it's experience

I have 0 experience, but I could defend a non-interventionist FP. It would appear to me that he just doesn't get it. Which is sad.

I've mentioned a video that I saw some time back

WHICH I couldn't frigging find to save my life then of him that put his foreign policy in question for me.

He was for the wars, said we should have had more troops on the ground and so on. I haven't brought it up since that day because I didn't have proof but his true side has come out anyway.

I personally think that's why he was placed on stage with Dr.Paul because he was "more palatable" on foreign policy to the PTB.

I don't know what he is just yet but Bob Barr comes to mind.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I've concluded...

after reading the entire article that a: Johnson's foreign policy is in fact disappointing(especially his 'humanitarian war' policy) b: though his policy is deeply flawed, it's no less perfect or more incoherent than Rand Paul's c: the columnist himself skews toward the language of an antagonist, does a lot of paraphrasing with occasional one line quotes that are patched together, and generally is very opinionated and negative toward Johnson, and d: For all of Johnson's faults he's NO WHERE NEAR as bad as Barr.

Things to consider; Think of the multitude of articles that were written misrepresenting Dr. Paul's foreign policy (how many times was he called an 'isolationist') and how the writer of this article still couldn't resist making his compliment of Paul's foreign policy a back-handed one- referring to it still as "extreme." Don't be quick to judge Johnson's positions based on this article. It smells like the Ron Paul hit pieces or yore. Maybe the MSM are hedging their bets. Maybe they're afraid that, were Paul not to get the nomination, his supporters would shift to Johnson, giving him the 15% support he needs to be on the stage between Obama and Romney. Maybe they're afraid, were that to happen, that REAL issues would be FORCED into the discussion and ruin the Obama/Romney charade they already have prepared. There is an underlying purpose here. It seems to me that there is a concerted effort to split the ranks of those behind the libertarian philosophy.

Johnson is no Dr. Paul. We all know that. Johnson will never be president. We know that too. But minus Paul, what other candidate is even UTTERING the intention of CUTTING ANYTHING from the military budget? I'm all Ron Paul until I hit the wall, but if NOT PAUL, I may still consider Johnson. We shall see.

Well said

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Yes, it is possible that he

Yes, it is possible that he is being misrepresented here....that's why I'd like to see some clarification from Johnson himself. I concede your point that Johnson is better than Obama and Romney. His compromises would not necessarily be so bad, however, if he didn't also appear to be weak and indecisive and unfocused. In this interview (which could again be misrepresented), he seems to almost talking on the fly and reacts to any controversy by immediately backing off. If he got into a major debate, I'm not sure how well he'd handle himself when pressed.

Well stated...

...he SEEMS reactive and not active in being coherent, but it'd be a debate worth watching, unlike the Romney/Obama facade.

That's disappointing..I like

That's disappointing..I like Gary, but this just makes it seem like he looked at the flak Ron Paul caught for his stance on foreign policy and decided to just try and keep everybody happy. Pragmatic move probably.

Makes him look very weak. Foreign policy should be front and center together with monetary policy...compromising on those is compromising on the issues where we're the strongest.

i don't even know why he wants to be president so badly

he wouldn't be putting in the same level of effort as paul, were johnson seeing his number in the polls

That's a little too strong.

That's a little too strong. His record as governor was excellent. The main problem I have with him is on foreign policy.

johnson is not a libertarian.

johnson is not a libertarian. He's a wannabe faker. Simple as that.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

Yep, just another Bob Barr

Gary Johnson has earned as much credibility as a "Libertarian" as Rick Santorum.

He's said that before.

Another Bob Barr, and he can go take a walk. Hopefully the LP comes to its senses someday, but don't count on it.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Hi Gary...

... why would they not vote for Obama? You both offer us military bases and drone attacks?

Plano TX

If Gary is the LP nominee,

If Gary is the LP nominee, and Paul is not running, I'll guess I'll have to sit out my first presidential election. I could write in Ron...but why bother if he isn't running?

I'm voting Dr. Paul anyway

I'm still going to write in Dr. Paul - at least I'll be able to sleep with a clear conscience.

You know, the "lesser of two evils" is still evil.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Well....there are degrees in

Well....there are degrees in everything. I disagree with Paul too on some issues including immigration and abortion. Still, Paul is far, far superior to any viable alternative. Is Johnson beyond the pale? I would desperately like to say no, but it looks bad.

Well that is very

Well that is very disheartening.

This was already known about Gary Johnson.

Justin Raimondo did a very revealing article on Johnson a while back, called "Caveat Emptor".

Johnson really isn't worthy of consideration, IMO.

I'm not sure the full extent

I'm not sure the full extent was known. We all knew he was imperfect but not this bad. The Kony comments reveal a shocking lack of limits to his foreign policy. Sadly, I'm not sure that Rand is any better.

I've been a big defender of

I've been a big defender of Johnson here but unless there are some major retractions or clarifications from the campaign, he probably just lost me. We are...so....so screwed.