4 votes

Gary Johnson is not a libertarian

TAMPA, April 12, 2012 — While the media continue to ignore compelling evidence that the Republican primary race is much closer than they are reporting, some Ron Paul supporters are nevertheless thinking about what they might do if Paul does not get the Republican nomination.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawaken...

Comment viewing options

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

Nobody fits everybody's list of requirements

Nobody's a "perfect fit" but I'm voting for Ron Paul because of his record, and his dedication to committing his life's work to recall the Founder's principles.

Gary Johnson is a good man. I could vote for him. But I'm voting for Ron Paul this election.

This is my opinion. Good men are rare. The few we have we should encourage to run and we should support.

Once again, this is my opinion.

Gwen Kraft

"Personal Liberty & Personal Responsibility" -- Dr. Ron Paul

"A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom." -- Bob Dylan

Someone who advocates aggression ...

... is not a libertarian = true.

Someone who doesn't talk about the non-aggression principle is not a libertarian = false.

Mullen is making the second claim, not the first. I don't think he's deliberately smearing Johnson; I just think he doesn't see the difference.

Question: Is it worth it for me to write about this in my own column?

-------------------
George Dance

Robbing Ron Paul
http://www.nolanchart.com/article9813-robbing-ron-paul.html

I think hes more Libertarian than Ron Paul

cause hes socially liberal and would not allow any religious radical authoritarianism enforced by the states.

Libertarain , Constitutionist

Libertarain , Constitutionist ... what the hell ?

If Ron Paul has to run as a 3rd party candidate , then why are all of you people saying he's going to run as a Libertarian , or a Independent , or whatever else this Political system in this country has lead us to believe as being as a legitimate party to run on? This two party system in this country has managed over the decades to convince the American People that if it's not Democrat , or Republican , or MAYBE Independent or quite possibly Libertarain , then a political party that would challenge the status quo would have NO strength ? That is total BS . We are buying into a political monopoly that established political parties are making the rules ? Ron Paul , and us/his supporters can run as whomever we want !

He may not be as libertarian

He may not be as libertarian as Ron Paul, but that doesn't make him not a libertarian.

https://twitter.com/#!/cevans93

reedr3v's picture

Wrong. Mullen was correct in stating that the

Nonaggression Principle is the defining factor in libertarianism.

wolfe's picture

Yes, yes it does...

Libertarianism means one thing. The non-aggression principle is to be obeyed. If he makes decisions based on anything but that principle, then he cannot be consistent nor a libertarian. Read the article. If he is not deciding from principle, then his decisions are not libertarian EVEN if he sometimes happens to agree with us.

Btw, Ron Paul is a libertarian-light to be palatable to the Republican Party. He is hardly the bar for libertarianism. If the LP can't even nominate someone as libertarian as Ron Paul, than they are hopeless.

Have you ever asked yourself how can Ron Paul be the ONLY consistent politician? Because he is the only one who makes his decisions from principal, the non-aggression principle. So you may or may not agree with him on every position, but he will always be able to give you his argument and reasons he believes it is line with the non-aggression principle **OR** he changes his mind (i.e. death penalty).

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

wolfe's picture

Good article...

Thank you. And if they have another Barr debacle and nominate Gary Johnson, I will not bother to ever try and support the LP.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I was very disappointed in

I was very disappointed in the LP when Barr got the nomination. Personally I wanted Christine Smith. Most LP voters vote for the person most likely to bring in the most attention and votes and that will clearly by Gary Johnson. I won't support him but I will be shocked if he doesn't get the LP nomination.

I met Christine Smith. She's a complete whack job. Thank

goodness the delegates in 2008 had enough sense not to give her enough nomination cards to make it into the televised debate. It's bad enough she reached the threshold for a speaking slot the next day.

I'm no fan of Barr, and I have no love for Gary Johnson, but if your "endorsement" of Christine Smith is any indication of your ability to ferret out a proper candidate, I'll be sure to not pay any heed to any of your comments on the subject in the future.

Wow. I didn't vet all the the

Wow. I didn't vet all the the candidates in the LP race but I did narrow out others quickly that I didn't want to see get the nomination like Gravel, Ruwart and Barr. I also wanted a pro-life candidate. Out of whoever was left and I can't remember who they were (Phillies?) I picked Smith. I wasn't at the convention so I didn't actually vote. I just remember thinking I thought she would be a good nominee. Perhaps if I were voting I would have spent more time and noticed what you did about her. Or maybe you are completely off-base, who knows?

Mind me asking who you supported? and what specifically did you find wrong with Christine Smith?

Sorry if I jumped a little too hard there.

I'm in an itchy mood. My apologies.

I really didn't like any of the candidates.

Some had their plus sides.

They all had negatives.

I was pleasantly surprised by Jingozian and Kubby. (I had not known of or met either before hand. I had studied their websites, and I wasn't impressed)

They performed quite well in the debate(s) (even the informal ones) and were very much more "presidential" in person.

Smith was exactly the opposite. I liked her too from her website, but in person she was a wreck. I agreed to seat her as a delegate in one of our State's open slots when I found out her State (Colorado) was full. (that should have been a red flag - her own State couldn't find room for her?) Had I spoken with their chair before hand, I would not have done so. I was advised by members of that delegation later that she is a perennial nuisance. She seemed normal at first, but as time went on, it was quite obvious, there are entire gears missing, not just a few screws loose. I can't pinpoint anything off the top of my head. It was 4 years ago, and I didn't pay much mind to her except her personality did make an impression, as did her candidate speech, and it wasn't a positive one. Instead of promoting herself, she took her entire speaking time to rant like a crazed maniac (literally, no really, it was ugly to watch.) about Barr.

I likely would have supported Kubby, but due to his legal problems, it was questionable if he could even campaign outside of California.

Jingozian in hindsight was likely the better option, but he seemed not quite ready on that go round. If he were to try again, he might do much better. I'd have liked to see him run for House or Senate anyway first and move up that way. I think he would have had a decent shot.

In the end, I settled on Root. I wasn't keen on his recent GOP ties, but I too was once a Republican when I first registered to vote. It was what one did in my family if they believed in Liberty. I learned better since then. I could see Root was doing the same. (note, he's still an LP activist - Barr has since jumped back to the GOP) Of those running, I felt he could run the most "real" campaign. Sadly, he got the back seat, then pretty much thrown under the bus by Barr. He too, I'd have liked to see run for something more local, but still Federal in Nevada. Perhaps he still may. (I don't care for his "Vegas" demeanor, but I'm not into picking beauty contestants either, it's also not so bad in person)

In the end, Smith was just not a "stable" individual to put it politely. Gravel was past his prime and seemed to be pandering more than anything. His direct-democracy initiative was a real turn off. (I don't think he "got" the LP)

Kubby had legal issues.

Jingozian wasn't ready that round.

Phillies was a know it all cantankerous professor. He's right most of the time, but that doesn't make me want him to be the nominee. In hindsight, he might have made the best one, but he certainly wouldn't have gotten more votes. He would have run a respectable but positively invisible campaign centered mostly on a newsletter and Google Adwords. (for real, that was his strategy. He somehow believed Adword impressions means something)

Barr's only plus side lasted all of two weeks. He had "celeb" status as a former Congressman. Then the media promptly ignored him. Then he dissed Ron Paul. That was that.

Ruwart was a no-go from the moment she fubar'd up in her book. It isn't about the intellectual argument. Sometimes you just can't make a "right" argument about the "wrong" subject. There was no way in Hell, Heaven, or on God's Green Earth that I was going to vote for someone who even gave the semblance, hint, or whisper of in anyway excusing or making the case to defend child porn. It just wasn't going to happen. It doesn't matter what she meant, or what she actually said. What matters is public perception. And she would have been the absolute death knell of the LP as its nominee. (not to mention I could never, ever claim or admit any affiliation with the LP ever again)

That left Root.

Not a terrible choice, but not a "good" one either, and he had potential to be a decent one.

Thankfully, Ron Paul was on my General Election ballot in November. That's who I voted for.

wolfe's picture

I wasn't aware of that in her book...

I agree that would have been an insane problem. And quite frankly sometimes libertarians tend to make intellectual arguments for the sake of shock value alone.

I have been guilty of this as well. A common example is drunk driving laws. Intellectually and statistically we are correct, but it doesn't win people over and there are about a million other things we could talk about that does win people over.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

wolfe's picture

I liked...

Mary Ruwart.. But I didn't actually spend much time vetting the candidates because I was was wrapped up in Ron Paul so don't fault me if that was a bad selection... :)

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I like Ruwart in some ways.

I like Ruwart in some ways. She has written some good stuff about how the FDA guidelines effect medicine in our country and how the cost to develop drugs makes it not economically viable for drug companies to actually try and cure diseases. With that said she is a complete anarchist and I don't agree with her there.

wolfe's picture

That's why I liked her...

I had to double check who wrote your comment because at first I was thinking it was sam, but realized it couldn't have been when I read the last line... :)

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

...

...