Allvoices: Gary Johnson "the most qualified presidential candidate in LP history"

In an article yesterday, AllVoices praised former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and running mate Judge Jim Gray (both presumptive nominees until 5 May) as the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party:

Gary Johnson and Jim Gray:
Most qualified ticket in
Libertarian Party history?

Johnson, who served two terms as the Republican governor of a traditionally Democratic state from 1995 to 2003, has more executive experience than President Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney combined. He maintains high favorability ratings in New Mexico, and a recent poll showed him pulling 15 percent of the vote there against Obama and Romney.

--snip--

On Monday, Johnson announced that he was endorsing the LP vice presidential candidacy of federal prosecutor Gray, the author of three books including Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed: A Judicial Indictment Of War On Drugs. As a Superior Court judge appointed by former Republican California Gov. George Deukmejian, Gray changed his views on the illegality of drugs when he came to the following realization, which he shared in an interview with Reason TV: “The tougher we get with regard to drug crime, literally the softer we get with regard to the prosecution of everything else.”

The article gives the best one-paragraph summary of Johnson's beliefs and positions that I have read so far:

Johnson is promising to make marijuana legalization a “front burner” issue in 2012, and by teaming up with Gray, he sends a strong message that he is fully committed to doing just that. The former governor, an accomplished triathlete who climbed Mount Everest in 2004, is also strongly pro-choice, supports marriage equality for gays and lesbians and pledges to make ending the war in Afghanistan a top issue as well.

Definite must-reading.

Comments

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog