|Gary Johnson in his 2012 presidential run. AP file photto.|
Unlike Rand Paul or daddy Ron, who are more Christian rightists than anything else, covered with a selective dollop of anti-Federal Reserve goldbug thoughts, Gary Johnson's the real deal.
The first newspaper where I was an editor, a weekly, was in New Mexico, when he was governor. He is a straight shooter, too.
He vetoed a bill the NM Lege passed that, in its original form, had been pushed for by his wife. The original core of the bill hadn't changed that much, but, it had been "Christmas treed" enough, among other things, that he couldn't support it.
He's less of a warhawk than Bernie Sanders, let alone Hillary Clinton, on the Democratic side, too.
He's even more honest and realistic than either of them, or the Paul family, about the War on Drugs, too.
That said, I get that Faux News is necessary for some publicity, but it hates real libertarians.
And, he's real enough to pal around with the libertards at places like Reason.
Per his Wiki page, he loves school vouchers, wants to make Medicare a block grant for states, and while not as much a goldbug as the Pauls, wants to abolish the Fed. At the same time, he, as a true libertarian, is pro-choice and pro-gay rights, including gay marriage, and has been for years. And, as Joe Monahan notes, he has a reputation of never running a negative political ad.
And, that leads to my poll at right.
My personal thought is that I would at least consider voting for Johnson over Clinton if I had no Green Party option, yes. It's not likely, because even the Pauls haven't talked about making Medicare, in addition to Medicaid, and possibly even Social Security, a state-run block grant program. If he were just half as nutbar fiscally as he's actually shown, I'd consider it more.
Update, per comments:
That said, per Brains' first comment, I'd missed Johnson on the burqa. I agree that's anti-free speech, which is weird in general for a libertarian, especially given the religious connections. (Given what I know about Johnson, and how he has laughed at the idea of "anchor babies," I don't think it's racist, though.) Have to disagree with the second portion of that blog. I said so on there, and that the author was taking Johnson's email comment out of context. He disagrees, but I stand by that.
I think his view of free speech, per his blog, means that he sincerely thinks calling something "offensive" is anti-free speech. That's of course utter nonsense, as I also said on the link Brains provided. Mr. Saturn ignored that, leaving me to think he truly drinks that portion of the Libertarian Kool-Aid.
It's no skin off my back within Libertarian Party circles. I'm not one and never will be, and also love to see Libertarians, as well as tea partiers, devour their own in ways that belie how Democrats, let alone real liberals, allegedly do.
But, when a person like that tries to impose his definition of free speech outside that circle? Nope. I call Wittgensteinian bullshit on a made-up language game.
Anyway, the header was comparing Johnson to the Pauls. There may be candidates even more Libertarian than him. We may even, once again (please? please?) get a Libertarian presidential candidate who doesn't even have a driver's license.