Is Gary Johnson really that good?

[Kregisen]

http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/10/gary-johnson-distances-himself


Q: What did you think of Rand Paul's initial statements about the Civil Rights Act, that the government should not tell private businesses they can't discriminate? That's consistent with libertarian views, right?

A: When he made those statements, I thought to myself, "This is probably why I'm a Republican, because maybe I would not toe the (libertarian) line." I'd like to think I would have signed the civil rights bill and wouldn't have had any issues with it.

Q: You thought about this because of what Paul said?

A: Yes. As a result of his statements, I found myself engaged in discussions over just that notion. I was trying to think of examples where I would have sided with the notion that government does have a role in that capacity. Something analogous is smoking in restaurants. I was opposed to the government mandating that restaurants not allow people to smoke, believing it becomes the customer's choice whether they go in or not. But then, I thought, what about the employees? Aren't they hostage to a smoking environment, even if they don't smoke? [...]

Q: Isn't the true libertarian position to support gay marriage?

A: I've taken the position that I support gay unions.

Q: Why not marriage? What's the difference?

A: Right or wrong, that's what I'm advocating.


He's the best possible presidential candidate besides Ron for sure, but how good is he? He supports smoking bans on private property, he supports the government regulating marriage and not allowing gays to marry, and he thinks the government can tell a business who to associate with. :/

[MRoCkEd]

He's really good. Not Ron Paul good though.

[BamaAla]

He's really good. Not Ron Paul good though.

Cosign.

No one is going to represent my personal views 100%, but Gary Johnson and Ron Paul come closer than anything else out there.

[Humanae Libertas]

Gary Johnson worries too much about his mainstream appeal. For that, I don't really like that guy, he just doesn't want to look "liberal" in the eyes of the neocons. Which is why he assumes stupid things about Ron Paul, calling him an isolationist.

[speciallyblend]

Cosign.

No one is going to represent my personal views 100%, but Gary Johnson and Ron Paul come closer than anything else out there.

compared to what the gop establishment has to offer. The only folks left in the gop for 2012 with an ounce of credibility are Ron paul and Gary after that the gop is what it is a septic tank that needs flushing!!

[low preference guy]

not at the level of Ron Paul or Peter Schiff and maybe not even electable

[libertybrewcity]

he will bring RP issues into the mainstream. any libertarian on the republican stage is a great addition. i just don't really like Jesse Ventura..

[payme_rick]

But then, I thought, what about the employees? Aren't they hostage to a smoking environment, even if they don't smoke?

I thought that once... then, one second later I thought "who's forcing the employees to work there? No one, you can choose where you work and do not have a right to a job!"

[Kregisen]

But then, I thought, what about the employees? Aren't they hostage to a smoking environment, even if they don't smoke?

I thought that once... then, one second later I thought "who's forcing the employees to work there? No one, you can choose where you work and do not have a right to a job!"

Exactly. Employees have no less of a choice than customers do. It's one thing to say the government should force businesses to keep smoke away, and it's just dumbassery to say the customers can just leave, but the employees are stuck.


That really scares me about this guy.

[FSP-Rebel]

Johnson will have a name rec problem inevitably. Major problem. I like him tho.

[tangent4ronpaul]

NO!

But he will cost us votes. :(

-t

[Agorism]

I doubt we'll see another Ron Paul in our lifetimes in terms of not compromising often.

[jmdrake]

I wish folks would understand the point Rand was making about the CRA. He was making a constitutional point, not a "freedom of association" point. He never said he would repeal any part of the civil rights act or not vote for it, but that one part (two parts actually) should have been reworded because they are not constitutional. They are not constitutional because they rely on an invalid interpretation of the commerce clause.

[specsaregood]

Gary Who? And why should I care? Oh thats the dope-smoking guy, right?

[Sola_Fide]

I don't like Gary Johnson.

The more I learn, the more I don't like. At first I thought it would be great to have 2 liberty candidates up on stage in the debates. But the more I learn about Gary, the more I realize that there will only be one liberty candidate in 2012.

[robertwerden]

The problem with Gary Johnson is his interviews are normally focused on legalizing pot. He is not well rounded in his media draw subjects.
Ron gets called for all sorts of subjects including ones that he has never even talked about just because they know he will have a different take on it. Gary only gets those questions after the pot question. To me Gary is a one trick pony and not electable in a general election.
Then again Obama got elected on hope.

[low preference guy]

I wish folks would understand the point Rand was making about the CRA. He was making a constitutional point, not a "freedom of association" point. He never said he would repeal any part of the civil rights act or not vote for it, but that one part (two parts actually) should have been reworded because they are not constitutional. They are not constitutional because they rely on an invalid interpretation of the commerce clause.

this to me looks like Rand was trying to make a point that includes a lot more than the constitutional aspect:


But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?


So, you see, when you blur the distinction between public and private, there are problems. When you blur the distinction between public and private ownership, there really is a problem.

i really, really wish jmdrake wouldn't mislead and lie all the fucking time.

[Galileo Galilei]

The civil rights act should have been a Constitutional amendment, just like the right to vote amendments.

[BamaAla]

The civil rights act should have been a Constitutional amendment, just like the right to vote amendments.

They were smart enough to realize that they wouldn't have enough states to ratify.

[qh4dotcom]

But then, I thought, what about the employees? Aren't they hostage to a smoking environment, even if they don't smoke?

I thought that once... then, one second later I thought "who's forcing the employees to work there? No one, you can choose where you work and do not have a right to a job!"

A contract can be forcing you to work there if you're an independent contractor...in the case of an employee the loss of a pension and the unavailability of the same job elsewhere can be forcing someone to work there.

[Keith and stuff]

On the issues? He is worse than Ron Paul but better than Rand Paul.

[sailingaway]

I don't like Gary Johnson.

The more I learn, the more I don't like. At first I thought it would be great to have 2 liberty candidates up on stage in the debates. But the more I learn about Gary, the more I realize that there will only be one liberty candidate in 2012.

This is pretty much where I am, too.^^

[sailingaway]

On the issues? He is worse than Ron Paul but better than Rand Paul.

I don't agree with that (in terms of being better than Rand), but time will tell.

[Sola_Fide]

On the issues? He is worse than Ron Paul but better than Rand Paul.

Booooooo

[fisharmor]

To me Gary is a one trick pony and not electable in a general election.

GJ would lose every single anti-abortion vote in the country.
When you lose every single anti-abortion vote, it really doesn't matter how fiscally restrained you have been in the past.

If he ends up on stage, the first thing that people will notice is that he's not anti-abortion, and the second thing they'll notice is that he's not pro- much of anything from the left.
In the eyes of most, he stands for nothing, essentially.
Being fiscally restrained and fairly devoted to laissez-faire might be a selling point when we're all eating cat food for protein, but right now it's not going to get him very far.

[TheTyke]

Ooosh... that's the same tripe the smoking-ban zealots overrunning Kentucky are peddling. I'm disappointed in Gary - he's no substitute for Ron. Rand, for his part, went after smoking bans in his letter defending the CRA remark.