Bruce Willis expresses the apathy and anger that Libertarians need to turn into enthusiasm for Gary Johnson

No, this is NOT a celebrity endorsement story.

But Bruce Willis' recent Esquire interview definitely catches the anti-Romney mood among the politically disaffected:

Bruce Willis: Romney is the
disappointing "Dash Riprock"
of the GOP.

"I get cranked up, I start talking about Hollywood and what's wrong with what. Or politics. I might start in on Mitt Romney."

Romney?

And with that one simple follow-up, Willis gets mildly cranked up. "Yeah, Romney. He's just such a disappointment, an embarrassment. Chin up, hair up. He's just one of those guys, one of those guys who says he's going to change everything," he is saying. "And he'll get in there, and they'll smile at him and introduce themselves: 'We're Congress, we make sure nothing changes.' He won't do it. He can't. Everybody wants to be Barack Obama. And what did he change?"

You think Romney'll win?

"No. Nah. I don't really care."

Now Willis, who publicly backed the first Bush in his run against Clinton, gets wound up on the Republican candidate. "He's just the Dash Riprock of the Republican party."

Then he laughs out of the corner of his mouth, leaning into his stare. Just like the old smart-ass Bruce Willis. This might be called the third Bruce Willis stare.

A lot of people don't care because they don't think it can possibly make any difference.

Libertarian Presidential nominee Gary Johnson could make that difference, but this is the wall of apathy and anger we have to break through: everybody believes that even if Mitt Romney wins, it won't make a difference, so why bother?

Because there is a chance to make a difference this year, a slim one admittedly, but it's there.

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