Sounds beautiful to progressives, right? An antiwar candidate who's also some sort of libertarian on drug issues, even as he runs as a Republican.
First, he'll never win as a Republican. Even less chance than Ron Paul, with whom he will split (2-1 for Paul) libertarian votes inside the GOP.
Second, he's not all that.
How many governors do you know of that have vetoed bills supported by their own wives? It's true, and I was a newspaper editor in New Mexico at the time.
It's true that, in states with open primaries, especially, he could be a stalking horse. New Hampshire will be very interesting.
Beyond that? If the GOP establishment remains pro-war, Johnson's entry into the race means nothing.
That said, Johnson isn't nutbar on "fiat money" and doesn't have a quasi-racist past (and present, for all we know). He also is a more thoroughgoing social libertarian than Paul, favoring legalization of marijuana and other classic social libertarian issues, as this profile notes. Those "other" issues include being pro-choice, as noted in this series of pullouts. So, if you want a stalking horse for antiwar voting and you're in an open primary state, vote Johnson and not Paul.
But, a serious GOP candidate? He's both pro-choice and pro-legalization. Even though more charming, and younger, than Paul, his outspoken stances on these issues will sink him.
That said, per a WSJ profile, Johnson supports gay civil unions but not gay marriage, will not run a third-party campaign, and supported Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin in 2008. Speaking of ...
(Sidebar: Paul is no true libertarian. He's really a "Christianist" who, if not seeking the GOP nod, should work for the Constitution Party nomination, not the Libertarian Party one. The Constitution Party is really the Religious Right party.)
That all said, because he's pro-legalization on pot, and OK with at least civil unions for gays (he's kind of down on state-sanctioned marriage for anybody), he could undercut Paul on the "hip" factor.
No comments:
Post a Comment