DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Who is Gary Johnson?

Did Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson miss his moment?

By Callum Borchers August 7 at 2:30 PM


For a brief time, two months ago, Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson was a media magnet — relatively speaking. He wasn't getting as much attention as a major-party standard bearer, but in the span of 17 days between mid-May and early June, the former governor of New Mexico was the subject of more stories in U.S. media than he had been in his entire campaign to that point, according to Lexis-Nexis archives.

Johnson had just bolstered the Libertarian ticket by adding former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld as his running mate, and as it became clear that Republicans and Democrats were about to nominate historically unpopular candidates, the media gave Johnson a closer look than at any other point in the race. When CNN hosted a town hall event for Johnson and Weld on June 22, it marked the first-ever event of its kind for a Libertarian presidential candidate — live in prime time on one of the three major cable news channels.

Since then, however, the spotlight has faded. CNN held another Libertarian town hall this week but, like the first, it still failed to draw as many total viewers as regular programming on Fox News and MSNBC. After back-to-back conventions for the Republicans and Democrats and a week when Donald Trump's conflicts with a Gold Star family and his own party leaders dominated headlines, there seemed to be little room for Johnson, whose poll numbers have flat-lined.

Who is to blame for Johnson's inertia? Did he fail to make the most of an opportunity when he had one, or is the press just not taking him seriously enough? I asked America's best-known Libertarian journalist, Fox Business Network's John Stossel, to weigh in. Stossel moderated a Libertarian debate in April and will host a town hall with Johnson and Weld Aug. 26. The following conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

THE FIX: Have you observed the same thing I have — that coverage of Gary Johnson is in decline?

STOSSEL: Yes, and it beats me as to why. As someone who came to [libertarianism] later in life, from being on the left, it was such an epiphany that I believed other people would wake up to it once it was explained to them. But that hasn't happened. Maybe it will still happen; maybe people come to it slowly. But I'm frustrated and bewildered. These are two sane, ex-governors from Democratic states, reelected — each of them — and they can't even get on the radar screen.

THE FIX: Who are you frustrated with? Is it your colleagues in the press for not covering them enough, or is it Johnson for not doing enough to attract earned media?

STOSSEL: He's trying. I don't claim to have the answer to what will attract the media. After we do our town hall at the end of August, he'll suddenly get to 40 percent in the polling, he'll get into the debates, and people will see that they are so much better than Donald and Hillary, and the Libertarians will finally get to show how limited government works better. That's obviously wishful thinking, but that's my scenario.

THE FIX: How would you grade Gary Johnson as a media figure?

5-Minute Fix newsletter
Keeping up with politics is easy now.
Sign up
STOSSEL: B-minus. He is a little verbally low-key. His answers could be simpler. He could appear more energetic, though frankly we Libertarians don't like energetic candidates. We think they do more harm.

THE FIX: And how would you grade the press for coverage of the Libertarian ticket?

STOSSEL: I would give them all an F. They have largely failed to cover Libertarian ideas. They smear us with the usual lines: we don't care about poor people, we don't want to honor any borders, we don't want to keep the country safe. The nuance is more complicated.

THE FIX: You've been in newsrooms for a long time, so what do you think stops us from covering Johnson more? Some of it is based on polls, obviously.

STOSSEL: People like the simple answer to put in a story. There's a problem. Hillary proposes this solution. People say it will make things better. That's a simple theme. It's harder to cover someone who says, "Let's do less of this micromanagement, and here's how the free market will solve it better." It's much harder to explain in a news story. Libertarianism doesn't lend itself to simplicity.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...iss-his-moment/

The use of free market concepts to mandate or require any symbolism, especially the hypothetical Nazi symbolism of hatred and death, in a capitalistic financial transaction of any kind, prevents him from garnering votes from those who disagree, since it is a fundamental issue for some.

if you are going to force businesses to "not discriminate".. then damn it, they can't discriminate... against anybody, for any reason.

What he is advocating is completely contradictory to free market concepts..

I would agree with John McAfee who is quoted later in the article...

I will say however, that I do appreciate Johnson's consistency..

Yes, that is the point. It's not that he loves Nazis.

Sorry, but you can't pick and choose which groups to discriminate against. If one group has a right, all groups have that same right.

Sorry, but you can't pick and choose which groups to discriminate against. If one group has a right, all groups have that same right.

It's just like protests. Some are sickened by the KKK marching and protesting. Others are sickened by BLM marching and protesting. But, you can't give one of those groups the right to march and protest and then not allow the other group to do the same.

. I simply think that rights are for all people, not just the few who you choose.

You've been called a troll many times on this board because others think you are a Bengal's fan and come on here to trash the Browns.

It's about maintaining equal rights for all groups of people, not just the ones I like.

I know many Jews from Cincinnati, but I am only guessing on why the Bengals were used as the choice of team to assign.

This is perhaps where the disconnect or disagreement is. I unlike Johnson distinguish financial and business transactions of voluntary goods or services from other aspects of society. I think rights to choose not to engage in a business transaction are up to the proprietor's choice. If we were to talk about Constitutional Rights to peaceable protest, fairness, equal treatment under law, then perhaps we would agree.

You must feel its OK to not bake a cake for a gay couple then, or any other type of person you don't agree with.

If your biggest hangup with Gary Johnson is cake baking discrimination, then I think you're doing ok.

A baker should have the right to say " I won't bake a cake with a swastika on it" . But the baker should not have the right to say I will not bake you a cake because you are a nazi.

If someone comes in and asks for a cake with a swastika, the baker should say " I don't bake that kind of cake. Here are the alternatives you can choose from" including a plain cake that the person can add the swastika themselves.

JMO

Does the baker put names on other cakes? If yes then they should have to put adam and steve's name on it.

The rainbow? If they don't put rainbows on any cakes including those for little kids then they can say we don't do that. If they put it on other cakes then they cannot refuse.

The figurines? We don't have those but if you get them you can place it on top yourself after you get the cake home.