Althouse: "I’m the only candidate that wants to get out of Afghanistan tomorrow, end the wars."

July 9, 2012

"I’m the only candidate that wants to get out of Afghanistan tomorrow, end the wars."

"I’m the only candidate that wants to end the drug war. I’m the only candidate that wants to repeal the Patriot Act. I’m the only candidate that’s talking about marriage equality as being a constitutionally guaranteed right. I’m the only candidate that wants to balance the federal budget now, and that means reforming the entitlements: Medicaid, Medicare."

He's Gary Johnson.

42 comments:

Brian Brown said...: So what?

This rhetoric rings hollow when even the most "conservative" house member's budget increases budgetary spending by hundreds of billions over the next 10 years.

Is Gary Johnson going to reform Medicaid (and by "reform" less spending is needed) by himself?; 7/9/12, 8:28 AM
Tibore said...: He's the only candidate that'll register single digit percentages in the upcoming election, and that's if he's lucky.; 7/9/12, 8:31 AM
NitneLiun said...: I did business with Gary Johnson years ago, just before he started to get some national attention. I would happily vote for him, even though it would be a Quixotic vote. The vested interests, GOP and Dem, would unite to destroy him though.; 7/9/12, 8:33 AM
test said...: I'm a libertarian and I wouldn't vote for Johnson.

"I’m the only candidate that’s talking about marriage equality as being a constitutionally guaranteed right."

We're supposed to believe a document that couldn't envision gar marriage in fact requires it, and what it expressly allows it also prohibits (capital punishment). The legislature exists for a reason, not everything you want to do is constitutionally mandated.

"end the war in Afghanistan"

Maybe he should have watched the video of the Taliban executing a woman for adultery before saying this. Warfare Rule 1: Win.; 7/9/12, 8:42 AM
Hagar said...: Gary Johnson makes "Lonesome Dave" Cargo look mainstream.; 7/9/12, 8:47 AM
Scott said...: The Libertarian Party should not run their own candidate for President until they start winning congressional seats consistently. Perhaps they should set a goal: 10% of the House and 1 Senator. If they achieve that, then run a Presidential candidate. If not, they should put their money into House races.

The Libertarian Party has no ground game. That more than anything is keeping them from being taken seriously. They should be all over House races in the Rocky Mountain states to establish a beachhead; then work out from there.

Unfortunately, the LP is just another political organization that sucks money from donors and provides nothing.; 7/9/12, 8:55 AM
Tibore said...: One of the Libertarian party's problems is that, in a total inversion of how other parties work, they manage to make sane and reasoned philosophies sound cuckoo. They start hewing to the ideal so hard that they never end up sounding moderate; rather, they come off as starry eyed idealists who'd flounder in the practical execution of government.

That may not be fair to any given candidates actual abilities, but it is the impression they give off.; 7/9/12, 9:04 AM
traditionalguy said...: Afghanistan has been proven unwinnable and even if it was winnable it would never be worth the cost.

Six more American Troops were IEDd to death this weekend for no reason except inbred stupidity in DC that sends our young men into impossible terrain and pretends for political capital at hme that their dying there for Afghanistan women wins bragging rights.; 7/9/12, 9:07 AM
Roman said...: When there is zero chance of you getting elected, there is no risk of being held accountable for what you say.

Hell, when there is a chance of being elected, you are still not held accountable for your promises, right Barry?; 7/9/12, 9:11 AM
Tank said...: Get out of that shit hole Afghanistan now.

End the drug war (we've lost that for about 50 years now).

Repeal the Patriot Act (the gov't intrusion Repub's love).

Gay marriage ? (really, who cares?)

Balance the budget.

Reform entitlements.

Whew. Those are some crazy ass ideas. What a loony tune.; 7/9/12, 9:12 AM
test said...: Scott:

"That more than anything is keeping them from being taken seriously."

I think the feature that keeps them from being taken seriously is that they attempt to apply their solution to everything. Like all solutions is has a limited relevant range. Acting as if all countries would love us if only we removed our military is wrong and everyone knows it. When you're that wrong on a high profile subject people don't trust you on other subjects they know less about.; 7/9/12, 9:19 AM
Known Unknown said...: Afghanistan has been proven unwinnable and even if it was winnable it would never be worth the cost.

Lots of bombs. Lots of collateral damage.

We can't bring ourselves to repeat Dresden, et al.

That's the only reason we cannot win.; 7/9/12, 9:21 AM
Tank said...: EMD said...
Afghanistan has been proven unwinnable and even if it was winnable it would never be worth the cost.

Lots of bombs. Lots of collateral damage.

We can't bring ourselves to repeat Dresden, et al.

That's the only reason we cannot win.

Win what?; 7/9/12, 9:24 AM
edutcher said...: Unilateral withdrawal doesn't necessarily end the war.

This is one reason why the guy could barely get 1% support in the primaries.

"marriage equality as being a constitutionally guaranteed right"?

You mean I have a constitutionally guaranteed right to marry my sister?

Suuure.; 7/9/12, 9:24 AM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: If Mr. Johnson thinks leaving Afghanistan "ends the war" there then he's really not been paying attention to it.

Perhaps we should leave - what more can be done if Pakistan doesn't help?. But it won't "end the war". Our presence there is not the cause of the war.; 7/9/12, 9:36 AM
Thorley Winston said...: “Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Censorship: Local and Express,” 1973]

AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. . .”

Ayn Rand's Q & A on Libertarianism; 7/9/12, 9:56 AM
Tim said...: "I’m the only candidate that wants to end the drug war. I’m the only candidate that wants to repeal the Patriot Act. I’m the only candidate that’s talking about marriage equality as being a constitutionally guaranteed right. I’m the only candidate that wants to balance the federal budget now, and that means reforming the entitlements: Medicaid, Medicare."

Ok then.

Two out of three candidates are delusional.

One thinks he's qualified for office.

The other thinks he can drastically shrink government and American commitments overseas just by clicking his heels.

Between the two of them, they'll get a near-majority, if not in fact a majority of American voters.

Dear God in Heaven.

Stupid voters is one of two cancers afflicting democracy.; 7/9/12, 9:56 AM
Tim said...: "The Libertarian Party has no ground game. That more than anything is keeping them from being taken seriously. They should be all over House races in the Rocky Mountain states to establish a beachhead; then work out from there."

Close.

What keeps them from being taken seriously is they, in fact, stand for nothing by opposition to the current system.

They're like disaffected, to-cool-for-school teenagers.

Their whole stance to American politics distills down to "whatever."

Do Libertarians hold one seat anywhere?

Any city council seats? School board? County supervisor? Transit district? Hospital district? State legislature? Mayor? Governor?

How many tens of thousands of elected offices are there in the US? And the Libertarians hold how many?

Surely one or two, right?

Right?; 7/9/12, 10:03 AM
Astro said...: Why would a Libertarian think that the government needs to 'sanction' marriage, gay or straight?

If you're asking the government to enforce a contract, why should it matter if the contract is between opposite sex individuals or same sex individuals?; 7/9/12, 10:15 AM
Lyssa said...: Marshall said: I'm a libertarian and I wouldn't vote for Johnson.

"I’m the only candidate that’s talking about marriage equality as being a constitutionally guaranteed right."

I consider myself a liberatarian, too (small "l"), and I support gay marriage, but this statement bothered me, too. I would like to see gay marriage widely accepted, but I do not believe that it is a constitutionally protected right, and it bothers me that Mr. Johnson would write that into the constitution.

I completely agree with Broccoli Scott and Tibore, too. Those are good reasons why I am a long way from being a big-L Liberatarian.; 7/9/12, 11:21 AM
Michael K said...: "Repeal the Patriot Act (the gov't intrusion Repub's love)."

Had the Republican program been enacted back in 2002, the private security companies would still be doing airport security instead of TSA. The TSA is Democrat policies squared. What's not to like ? Unions. Incompetence, Bullying. Stupidity.; 7/9/12, 11:26 AM
Tim said...: According to Wikipedia (FWTW), out of 7917 elected offices (president, US Senate, US House, Governors, state upper houses, state lower houses) there is exactly one elected Libertarian.

I'm guessing that's part of their super secret stealthy plan to take over the United States.; 7/9/12, 11:27 AM
wef said...: A wasted vote for Gary Johnson is at least a wasted vote against the power-worshiping, smug, suckup, servile go-along-to-get-along apologists for the on-going two-party con game where everyone's vote is wasted anyway.; 7/9/12, 11:56 AM
test said...: If the LP wanted to succeed they would limit their agenda in a meaningful way. They would stress that while they think the best society we can order would include legal drugs, society as ordered cannot make that leap. So instead here are the poicies we intend to implement.

If they limited themselves to libertarianish solutions to accepted social initiaves (education vouchers, breaking the employment link in healthcare, Walker style fiscal discipline) and quit pretending libertarianism works when dealing with dictators I think they'd have some success. Not a lot because of the party system, but some.

The history of parties in America show the only real way to effect progess is to work within one of the existing parties. That's why the Tea Party holds so much promise.; 7/9/12, 12:01 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: I have strong libertarian leanings, but the Libertarian party will never be a force in the political arena. For one, libertarians prize self-determination and have a deep-seated hatred of trying to force one's views upon another. Don't tell me to do, and I won't tell you what to do. With that mindset, is it any wonder we can't get together, form a proactive political party, and proselytize to the masses the way Democrats and Republicans do? It's anti-thetical to our very foundation. It's why I can't associate with a single party; I just can't get on-board with everything in a party platform, and I'm not interested in dissuading people from their own conclusions.

The formal big-L Libertarian party is often just a front for some fringe group trying to advance a special interest cause. Since enough people identify with libertarian values, it's a banner they co-opt in order to get some visibility. For example, the Legalize Marijuana crowd often tries to jump on the libertarian bandwagon, making the argument that growing and smoking dope in my own home isn't hurting anyone, so what gives? Whereas libertarianism doesn't ensure freedom to everyone for everything; it merely means power to decide these things should reside primarily with the people affected by it.

Anyways, this is my trivial attempt to explain my own libertarian philosophy, as anyone who associates as a libertarian is usually dismissed as a crackpot who wants to abolish the army and legalize pot and prostitution. Not so.; 7/9/12, 12:05 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: What keeps them from being taken seriously is they, in fact, stand for nothing by opposition to the current system.

I'm for stripping away a lot of the federal govt. and putting more power into the hands of states and towns. Smaller government is now considered a 'conservative' cause, although preservation of an entrenched govt. would be more in line with true conservatism.

My beef with both major parties is that neither one has shown the stomach to reduce the size of the federal government. One only wants to grow it faster than the other.

Dismantling our current system of free markets, enduring cultural institutions, and individual liberty is a postmodern trait exhibited most clearly by the Democratic party. In that sense, my sympathies are definitely 'conservative'.; 7/9/12, 12:16 PM
God, An Original A-hole said...: I will vote for Gary Johnson.

He is a bona-fide alternative to the two main parties.

Althouse once responded to one of my comments here with the quip, "We live in a two-party system. Deal with it!"

But does the Professor realize how destructive and mindless that attitude is?

Does she herself accept that Johnson is a bona-fide alternative to the two candidates selected by our American aristocracy?

In fact, Johnson is the only one of the three that will challenge big government, social-engineering, and the power of this aristocracy...

Those of you who think Romney will actually change anything are just falling for his sales pitch. He will do just as Obama has done; only his lip-service will be directed toward a slightly different audience.

Vote for Gary Johnson, my friends!

Otherwise you are throwing your vote away.; 7/9/12, 1:06 PM
wef said...: "We live in a one-party system with two factions. Deal with it!"; 7/9/12, 1:13 PM
Tim said...: "He is a bona-fide alternative to the two main parties."

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Right.

Just like my farts are a bona fide alternative to oxygen.

Breathe deeply.; 7/9/12, 1:48 PM
Tim said...: "In fact, Johnson is the only one of the three that will challenge big government, social-engineering, and the power of this aristocracy..."

"In fact," you say.

"In fact," as if even writing it gives life to the delusion.

Here are some facts for you:

He has no votes of consequence, anywhere.

He probably will win exactly zero precincts in the entire United States.

Zero precincts = zero electoral votes.

Zero electoral votes = No Fucking Chance.

He will win exactly zero, nothing, nil.

But to play along with the delusion, let's pretend, for a moment, he can win.

In the highly unlikely - to the point of impossibility - chance he might win - he'll have no votes in either house of Congress.

This is pathetic on so many different levels.

Obama voters are morons, but at least they have enough sense of reality to align behind a candidate who can actually win, notwithstanding the cannibalizing effect on America's future.

Libertarians?

Too funny.; 7/9/12, 1:55 PM
jvermeer51 said...: "Marriage equality". Per Charles Krauthammer: the traditional definition is: two people, different gender. If the "different" part is just some arbitrary and subjective prejudice, then aren't the "two" part and the "people" part also just some arbitrary prejudice?; 7/9/12, 2:20 PM
Cedarford said...: Those of you who think Romney will actually change anything are just falling for his sales pitch. He will do just as Obama has done; only his lip-service will be directed toward a slightly different audience.

Vote for Gary Johnson, my friends!

Otherwise you are throwing your vote away.
========================
No, that is the HS mentality that says if voting for a dork or an even dorkier Student Class President is uncool (somehow the cool people fail to come up with a real alternative)
Then the cool thing to do is vote for "Mickey Mouse" or "Kim Kardashian"....just to show your vote is not Wasted!

Then the dorkier candidate wins and the cool kids moan that it shows how bad the system is that the less dorky one was not elected (their protest votes having a bearing on the outcome)

The stupidity of that thinking is obvious.

Along with the obvious stupidity of guilt-absolving.
"Don't blame me for Obama, I voted for George Clooney as a write-in, making my voting so much wiser than those that picked between Obama and the even worse war seeker McCain".; 7/9/12, 2:22 PM
test said...: "If the "different" part is just some arbitrary and subjective prejudice, then aren't the "two" part and the "people" part also just some arbitrary prejudice?"

The two certainly is. Polygamy has a long historical tradition. How does one justify gay marriage but not polygamy? Christian tradition? Theocracy! Culture? Racist! It's not what the public is for? Either was gay marriage!

It's another in the long list of items which are better off as legislation than court rulings Popular support is a legitimate legislative factor. Obviously that has mattered to the courts (or we'd have polygamy as well) but all that shows is that the justices supporting gay marriage are implementing policy preference.

You have to allow words to mean something. Once you "interpret" them past the clear meaning they mean everything.; 7/9/12, 2:39 PM
Revenant said...: I'm voting for Johnson in November.

Not that it matters, given that I live in California. If I lived in a swing state I'd probably have to vote for Romney just on "he ain't Obama" grounds.; 7/9/12, 4:03 PM
Revenant said...: Per Charles Krauthammer: the traditional definition is: two people, different gender.

Well, no. The traditional definition is "one man, one or more women".

A good case can be made that marriage has always been a heterosexual arrangement, but pretending it has always been monogamous is just silly.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson was fine with legalized polygamy, too. Heck, it is already legal to shack up with multiple women and have kids with them, so long as you don't claim to be married to more than one.; 7/9/12, 4:08 PM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: Well, no. The traditional definition is "one man, one or more women".

This anthropology major instructs you to go look up 'polyandry.'

Anyway, to whose "tradition" are you referring?; 7/9/12, 5:48 PM
Anonymous said...: He also calls for a form of amnesty for illegal aliens in the country

Piece of shit! I hope I cross path with him, so I can kick his fucking teeth in. Why he and so called "open border" dipshits never mention USA citizens' rights to live in other countries illegally? Is it because we are white blue eyed devils? Evil white privileged rich people?; 7/9/12, 5:53 PM
Revenant said...: This anthropology major instructs you to go look up 'polyandry.'

I'm aware of it, but as you know it has never been widely practiced.

Anyway, to whose "tradition" are you referring?

Marriage in general. If Krauthammer was referring to American tradition he should have said "one man and one woman of the same race and religion". :); 7/9/12, 6:38 PM
Revenant said...: What keeps them from being taken seriously is they, in fact, stand for nothing by opposition to the current system. They're like disaffected, to-cool-for-school teenagers.

That explains why the pro-life movement isn't taken seriously, either -- it has totally failed to explain what kind of abortions it wants to replace the current ones. :); 7/9/12, 7:04 PM
Anonymous said...: If Arizona looks close, which I highly doubt, I'll vote for Romney. Otherwise, Johnson is my man.; 7/9/12, 7:32 PM
David said...: "I'm also the only candidate so enthralled with myself that I don't care that the miserable small percentage I might get could be enough to keep Obama in the White House."; 7/9/12, 10:29 PM
Revenant said...: "I'm also the only candidate so enthralled with myself that I don't care that the miserable small percentage I might get could be enough to keep Obama in the White House."

I promise the world will keep right on revolving around the sun even if that does happen.

Do you know why the race between Obama and Romney is so close? Because there isn't much difference between the two men. Sure, Obama's worse, but only marginally. Romney will carry right on shitting away trillions of dollars we don't have every year he's in office. They'll just be shat away on slightly different things.; 7/10/12, 4:38 AM