Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, and . . . Rand Paul

Is Fox suddenly covering Gary
Johnson because, frankly,
Mitt Romney is so boring?

Fox News has actually been covering Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson quite a lot lately.

Look here and here for the past two days. The problem is that these are still in the novelty category, asking questions like, "Could Johnson shake up the race?" or "Could Johnson get into the debates?"

What Gary Johnson needs is more coverage of his views, his statements, and his activities. I realize the campaign--short on money as any Libertarian campaign must be--has decided to focus on media attention rather than scampering around the country. But we also need Gary out in a few selected venues. It would have been nice, for example, had somebody gotten him invited to give a graduation commencement address somewhere.

Likewise I am seriously hoping that somebody in the campaign has contacted, say, Iraq Veterans Against the War or some other notable anti-war group, and made arrangements for some sort of Memorial Day photo-op.

Gary Johnson and Ron Paul:
Don't hold your breath waiting
for an endorsement.

Meanwhile, the MSM is not asking Ron Paul about endorsing Gary Johnson. They're asking him about endorsing Mitt Romney. Neither Gary's name nor the Libertarian Party comes up in CNBC Larry Kudlow interview, although Paul does say he doesn't have any plans for a third-party run.

My personal take: court Paul's supporters but do not have any expectations of a Paul endorsement for Gary.

Two reasons: (1) I think Ron Paul is consciously clearing the way for Rand Paul to be the nominee in 2016, and (2) I think that Gary's stands on abortion and marriage equality at too far at odds with both Pauls for the chasm to be breached.

Take Rand's weekend speech in which he says that he didn't think that President Obama's views "could get any gayer" and then ticked off on his fingers all the anti-abortion-rights legislation he has introduced or supported.

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 — ...

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 ...

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...

Search This Blog