Thomas Mullen, writing in the Washington Times Community pages, thinks Johnson is not really a libertarian, and that the Libertarian Party's
. . . chief benefit has always been that it nominated candidates that libertarians could actually believe in, even if they weren’t going to win.I'd quote more, but Mullen is downright surly about threatening people who might reprint his words.
Anyway, Johnson's not enough of a purist for him, because even though he would cut the defense budget by over 40%, the former two-time New Mexico Governor won't actually make campaign statements forever explicitly ruling out the idea that he might someday under some circumstances actually use military force somewhere in the world.
Meanwhile, in the Las-Crucas Sun-News, Walter Rubel laments that Johnson didn't get enough done during his two terms (other than leaving a budget surplus) and that he wasn't blindly faithful to the idea of building the GOP:
"He never worked to build the Republican Party when he was governor," former state Rep. Richard P. Cheney of Farmington told Simonich. "From my viewpoint, he was more closely aligned with the Libertarian Party."Ironically, Mr. Rubel's article is the perfect counterpoint to Mr. Mullen's, because Rubel inadvertently makes the point that Gary Johnson, ah, governed from a libertarian perspective.
So Gary Johnson both is and isn't a libertarian.
As far as I can see, this primarily means that Johnson is actually starting to draw some significant attention.
You can tell that when pundits start looking for any critical angle they can find, once they stop ignoring you.