From an email sent to me by the Johnson campaign:
Governor Johnson will be holding a News Conference on Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 at 10AM MST. It will be held at the Santa Fe, NM State Capitol building, in the Rotunda. We look forward to seeing you in attendance. If you do come, please contact the Marriott Courtyard Santa Fe at (505) 473-2800 and tell them you’re with Gary Johnson and get a discounted room rate beginning on the 27th.
Readers of this site who are unable to make it can see the event streamed live on www.GaryJohnson2012.com or www.Yowie.com.
There is a Facebook announcement for this event, here.
@69 Cholko: Don’t know if Stossel himself has considered running, but I’ve heard his name a few times too. Just saw Drew Carey floated as a ‘haha-wouldn’t-it-be-funny’ VP scenario as well (but I kind of love the idea): http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/29/ten-2012-predictions/
Johnson’s press release claims that we were on the ballot in all 50 states in 2008.
Who told him *that*?
And, In the worst kept secret in the world since Iraq, It’s Official..
If I was one of his opponents seeking the nomination for president of the Libertarian Party I would challenge him on this issue. I would say, “I am here in the Party to stay. Are you?”
I asked this very question of one of the 2008 candidates and he replied in the affirmative, that he was in the LP for the long haul.
Since that time I don’t believe this candidate has been to ANY LP function, but is still pushing his pet project, the “National Institute for Democracy”.
I would be happy if the candidate just pledged to support the LP Platform. FWIW, I don’t find NI4D, Fairy Taxes, or foreign wars as consistent
with the LP Platform.
PEACE
less then 40 hours and we will have new things to speculate about. Until then I am going to get some work done and practice scales on my guitar.
I occasionally see John Stossel’s name mentioned as a possible LP candidate. Does anyone have any knowledge of him ever stating that he has considered running, or is this just someone’s wishful thinking?
66 rb, right. And it IS, yes? But I would think that a political party isn’t a “place,” but rather a vehicle for political expression. The background of candidates is largely a function of who raises his or her hand for any particular race. Rarely, those are contested.
Now, if Penny or Stossel or someone of similar gravity raised his or her hand, we’d be having a different conversation.
The LP ought to run Kim Jong-Un as it’s candidate.
It should be more than just a place for disgruntled Republicans.
63 rb, sure, Ls should be both and neither left and right. A Paul/Johnson ticket does just that. Both are advocates of the largest spending cuts AND both are the most dovish on the stage of American politics. Both are for ending/winding down the War on Drugs. One is pro-life, the other pro-choice. Wonderful branding for the LP.
62 bylaw, that’s a brilliant idea! GJ could seek the LP’s VP slot starting now, with the explicit agenda of recruiting RP as the LP’s prez nominee. Should RP not come over, GJ steps into the prez slot, either before or after the convention!
Off the top, I’m not seeing any holes in the idea…
rc @37 see http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=7016
@30 under that bylaw the LP convention could nominate a paul/johnson ticket, keeping a seat warm for RP and GJ could always be swapped in for the top spot by the LNC if necessary
No quarrels with that, but did I say that in this thread?
I agree with you Paulie. There have been some people over the years who have departed the Libertarian Party and I missed them but there have also been some who have departed and it was beneficial.
53 jc, hear ya. Feedback:
1) How could such a vow ever be enforced?
2) If it could be enforced, it’d need to be a 2-way thing. Do you really want that? Say in 18 months from now, GJ falls off his bike and hits his head. After a period of unconsciousness, he wakes up spouting diatribes resembling the sayings of LaRouche and Pol Pot. We’d probably want him to move along in that case, yes?
Political parties are voluntary organizations. Making them, in a sense, involuntary seems contra-indicated.
Same advice I gave JCJ.
His description in no way resembles the Ron Paul movement I’ve seen.
As for Paul himself, it is true that he panders to his audience to at least some extent. His interview at The American View is quite different in flavor from his interview at Google, for example.
@55 No, he’s up to date. Consider Paul’s 2008-cycle interview on “The American View”.
If the LP National Convention nominates NOTA in order to support a Republican, in my opinion it is highly likely that the national party will fragment.
Good thing Tiffany Briscoe is running, in that case.
redneck anti-market, pro-police state “libertarian” movement enabled by and connected to Ron Paul.
You’re at least 15 years behind the times. Try attending a few different Ron Paul meetups in different cities.
NewFederalist @14, you misunderstand me. I have no problems with pseudonymous posting (in fact, I was a pseudonymous poster myself for years). When you post, I always know it is NewFederalist posting, which is fine. On the other hand, I was under the mistaken impression yesterday that Vop Osili, for whom I had the privilege of voting last November, was posting on this site. That’s the sort of thing that’s liable to confuse a person (and not in a good way).
Here is an idea . . .
If Gary Johnson leaves the Republican Party and announces he is seeking the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party (which it seems he will) he should give an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Libertarian Party. The oath or affirmation will state that he will support and defend the Libertarian Party so long as he shall live by keeping his membership and registration current, by under no circumstances is he ever to support a candidate of another political party, will do everything possible to avoid the appearance that he supports a candidate of another political party or he supports another political party, and he shall never seek office as a candidate of another political party. If Gary Johnson violates this oath it will be cause for punishment by the Libertarian Party which may include termination of his membership.
In other words his involvement in the Libertarian Party is for life. Once he gives his “vows” there is no turning back. As members of the Party and as delegates to the national Party convention we should insist on it. We have been screwed in the past – this means you Ron Paul and it looks like this means you Bob Barr.
We should insist on it. When he asks for our support we should ask him are you here to stay? Do you promise you will never support a candidate of another political party? Do you promise to never be a registrant of another political party? If he cannot promise us these things we should tell him, “Thanks but no thanks, we do not want you in the Party.” If I was one of his opponents seeking the nomination for president of the Libertarian Party I would challenge him on this issue. I would say, “I am here in the Party to stay. Are you?”
It is in your corner Gary Johnson. Promise us you are in the Libertarian Party to stay. Convince us you are in the party to stay.
This also goes to those in the Party who are his supporters. Convince us his involvement in the Party is permanent. Convince us we will not end up having buyer’s remorse.
Caveat emptor.
@51 If the LP National Convention nominates NOTA in order to support a Republican, in my opinion it is highly likely that the national party will fragment.
If the LP nominates NOTA, it will in effect be endorsing Obama or Romney/Newt/Repub Cand.
NOTA makes no sense, regardless of Ron Paul’s performance in the GOP primaries.
Also, I think Paul or at least many of his supporters have a fantasy outcome in mind of a brokered convention and think they will somehow win or gain something with enough delegates but no wins.
LP should nominate a Libertarian or cease to exist. I think it would be a good move to distance itself from being branded with the Rockwell/Rothbard/Buchanan redneck anti-market, pro-police state “libertarian” movement enabled by and connected to Ron Paul.
47 tk, yes, he should go to many conventions for all the reasons you suggest. Given the perennial critics and serial malcontents among us, I’d prefer to see expectations set at reasonable levels.
@47 As I recall, my campaign group in 2008 managed four on one weekend.
There was also the candidate (name omitted; it was apparently his campaign team’s idea) who made a point of arriving late to conventions so people had to wait around for him. There is some indication that his campaign team thought it would build the tension.
Johnson fundraising through end of March will be known by the time of the convention. It will be interesting to see if his fund raising is any good once he turns his coat.
RC@44,
“curious, Brother K, whether you think candidates like Bergland and Badnarik were ‘good branding.'”
Not necessarily.
I wasn’t around for Bergland’s campaign.
Badnarik’s campaign attempted some good branding stuff (positioning him as the antiwar candidate, especially to Democrats disappointed in the Kerry nomination; pitching the “spoiler” factor as a positive thing in Wisconsin, etc.), and made some big branding mistakes (the anti-immigrant commercials, for example).
However, even where the Badnarik campaign may not have branded well, it did not represent the particular branding problem I’m talking about.
Regarding state conventions:
If Johnson wants to be the nominee, he’d be well advised to attend as many as he can.
First of all, the state conventions give him a chance to interface directly with likely national convention delegates and have them in his corner before he ever gets to Las Vegas. Those are people who turn into boosters and floor workers at the convention, convincing other delegates, instead of having to be convinced themselves.
Secondly, if he doesn’t attend state conventions, he risks being perceived as haught/over-confident on one hand, or afraid to go mano a mano in debate with the existing field on the other.
“travel is time consuming and expensive.”
Yes, it is. One of the advantages he has coming into the race is that he’s perceived as being able to raise more campaign money than his opponents for the nomination.
If “I’m not going to spend the money to go to conventions” is what comes out of his mouth, what goes into the ears of party members will be “yeah, about that vaunted fundraising ability …”
“5 on the same day in March! Imagine the GJ detractors wailing that he didn’t make all 5!”
I seem to recall that Gary Nolan managed four conventions in one weekend in 2004. New York, a state I can’t remember (may have been New Jersey), Connecticut, then drove all night to make it to Ohio.
43 kk, hmm, 5 on the same day in March! Imagine the GJ detractors wailing that he didn’t make all 5! 😉
Some people will complain about anything. Me, I complain about complainers…. 😉
Biggest LP state delegations are:
CA, TX, FL, OH, NY .
35% of the total delegates are from those 5 states.
36 tk more, curious, Brother K, whether you think candidates like Bergland and Badnarik were “good branding.”
State conventions are posted on national LP site. http://www.lp.org Click on “events”. Ohio moved their state convention so as to get away from a big log jam in March. And Ohio LP still has some conflicts. Looks like the states are moving their conventions up to allow for some spacing between state conventions and the national convention.
41 hf, and I do believe many have already happened. And travel is time consuming and expensive.
But, yes, some may have it in their head that if GJ doesn’t attend X state LP convention that he is somehow arrogantly presuming he gets the nomination because he’s a former guv or somesuch nonsense. I simply point out that setting that expectation is neither realistic nor reasonable…
A lot of national convention delegates also attend state conventions as well.
more…
going to state LP conventions would be helpful, but I do wonder how many attend these events. Might a better use of time and resources be, for ex., to call a lot of likely NatCon attendees, and to do other “distance” events…webinar forums, for ex.
I’m reasonably sure you are reading more into my question than what was intended by it.
I’m curious to know whether Johnson will be facing his opponents for the LP nomination between now and the convention, or whether he will be pursuing the Barr strategy of “exploration.”
35 hf, I don’t know the LP state convention timetable for the next month and a half, do you? He still might go just to get to know folks, explain where he’s coming from, etc.
If it weren’t RP we are talking about, your technicality may make sense. For now, IF this is GJ’s entry strategy, it makes sense to me.
If, say, LP of MS is having its state convention on Jan. 15 and he doesn’t go, it might be fatal in Vegas in May, but I kinda doubt it. We all recognize I’d think that even if GJ announced he was seeking the LP nomination a year ago that he wouldn’t make every single state convention, yes? Has a L nominee ever done that?
Assuming we have this scoped reasonably accurately, of course GJ will reach out as much as he can to as many as he can between now and May.
36 tk, right, “kids’ table” = poor branding. It’s more people who feel the GOP is a lost cause/too corrupt/lost its way/taken over by neocons/no different than Ds, etc.
@33,
“if you assume that the LP is more likely to draw from Ds than Rs”
I assume no such thing.
But neither do I assume the opposite.
The LP is never going to get anywhere by continually branding itself as the kids’ table for Republicans who aren’t allowed to sit with the adults.
It may not get anywhere anyway, of course, but branding itself as something different rather than as the toddlers’ version of an existing product is an important first step in finding out.
Well, if he says he will only run Libertarian if Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination, and Ron Paul remains a contender for a while, then he isn’t seeking the Libertarian nomination or debating other people seeking the Libertarian nomination until that sorts out…and by then most of the state conventions may have already happened.
31 hf, patience is a virtue. First, he makes his announcement. Then he states his plans. There’s an appropriate sequence in this sort of thing….
32 tk, or excellent branding, depending on one’s perspective. Since RP is already heavily branded L and RP is the only nationally known L, to associate with him makes good sense. Apple named it the “iPhone” after the spectacularly successful “iPod,” and then followed them up with the “iPad.”
Now, if you assume that the LP is more likely to draw from Ds than Rs, I might agree with you. I’ve seen no evidence that we will or could in significant numbers. Most pols who state they have L leanings are Rs, at least that I’m aware of.
@29,
“I don’t agree with you that that would be the only ‘nightmare’ scenario for the LP”
Indeed, there’s already one nightmare in likely progress.
If the predictions and hints are correct, the de facto front-runner’s announcement on the 28th will amount to “I’m a Republican who will run as a Libertarian if the Republicans nominate the wrong Republican.”
That’s piss-poor branding for the LP, especially since this is the second cycle in which it is a major factor.
So, will Johnson be visiting LP state conventions between now and the national convention, or not?
Sane, bylaws say: a14, s3: In the event of the death, resignation, disqualification or suspension of the nomination of the Party’s nominee for President, the Vice-Presidential nominee shall become the Presidential nominee. Two-thirds of the entire membership of the National Committee may, at a meeting, fill a Vice-Presidential vacancy, and, if necessary, a simultaneous Presidential vacancy.
I wouldn’t worry about this, as odds for RP winning the R nomination are wildly long. It would be a high-class problem to have….
@28
I don’t think Johnson will accept the LP nomination in May if Paul looks competitive in the GOP at that point.
But, supposing he does, I believe I have been told that there is a procedure for the LNC to remove a candidate for cause (such as “dropping out”). At that point (presuming that is correct) the LNC might appoint a new candidate, or, as would be my guess, NOTA.
Depending on when that occurs, Johnson may still appear on some state ballots and have any votes he receives counted even if he asks people not to vote for him.
I don’t agree with you that that would be the only “nightmare” scenario for the LP; see comment 24.
Only LP nightmare would be if Gary Johnson wins the LP nomination in May, then Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination in September, and then Gary Johnson makes a course correction and drops out. Then what ?
If the Gary Johnson supporters want to be in the Ohio delegation at the national convention, they have two hurdles to jump: #1 sign the LP pledge to be a national LP member and then # 2 which is to vote in the LP Primary on March 6. Both hurdles to be in the Ohio delegation. Same goes for Ron Paul supporters. Once they vote in GOP primary in 2012, they can’t be in the Ohio delegation at the national LP convention. These rules were set up for Ohio LP for obvious reasons.
25 p, receivables to offset a current deficit.
This could set off a firestorm of outrage by some Ls over matching funds. Myself, I’m OK with Ls taking them, although I’d prefer they not exist. Perhaps a L candidate should get his/her supporters to sign something saying “I assign my tax dollars to a matching funds account of the candidate I support,” just to keep things tidy.
Hopefully, GJ and his staff have been briefed on this one…
Using the standard that one is an LP member once one signs the pledge unless it is explicitly revoked, Johnson has been an LP member for 18 years; he’s just not been a dues paying or active member.
I have been told by campaign sources that Johnson will be receiving matching funds that will cover his debt. They are not looking at it as debt, just as money in the bank that has not been deposited yet but which can be relied upon for spending purposes.
Chances are that we will have a good idea of who the Republicans will nominate before May, and that it won’t be Paul, so it’s not totally impossible.
If it looks like Paul will actually pull off the Republican nomination at that point, or is still a serious contender for it, I predict LP delegates will pick NOTA for president. I’ve opined previously on what I think NOTA will do to the LP, but nevertheless that is my prediction.
It’s also possible, although unlikely, that Paul will switch parties himself. In that case Johnson would not be able to beat him for the nomination and is positioning himself for VP. Which he would have a pretty good shot at, perhaps competitive with Ventura if he also runs.
The worst scenario for the LP is if Paul is still competitive in May but then loses anyway, in which case I believe we’ll get NOTA with all its downsides but without even the benefit of a past LP nominee running on a major party ticket.
22 would read better if the “just” was instead “while”…
18 gp: Yes, that’s possible. It COULD be that RP will still be in the hunt in April, but I doubt it. If he somehow is still a plausible nominee in, say, March, then GJ will need to make a decision.
19 gp, another recently described your posts as “cryptic,” and I must concur. Campaigns sometimes run deficits, as do other enterprises. That seems to be the “point” to me. You, OTOH, seem to have a fixation on minor financial perturbations and expenditures, causing you to miss the big picture rather frequently, near as I can tell. However, just as the LP as an institution seems to have learned from the events of 08, it’s not clear that you are.
So, this being Christmas and all, why not give us all a gift on non-cryptic communication? If you HAVE a point, make it! 😉
@20 Occasionally, especially on the monthly thread, there is some utility to having a header that identifies the news being posted. Had the owners been agreeable to the cash offer we made, a slight restyling to allow titles would have been done.
Phillies
If you change your name for posting comments, it will stay changed until you change it back. I also think Jeremy has a good point; if you don’t mind people knowing that it is you posting a given comment, it’s probably best to just sign it with your name.
@15 Missing the point again, aren’t you?
@7
Referring back to:
“I am hearing the announcement is that he is going to back Ron Paul, and run Libertarian if Paul doesn’t get the nomination.”
However, the identity of the Republican nominee is not determined until September, and may very well be unclear at the start of April. “run L if Paul does not get the nomination” requires knowing at least modestly before our convention if Paul will be the nominee, and that’s not necessarily going to occur (well, the folks at RedState will be happy to tell you that’s already totally clear, the answer being “NO NO NO”, but if Johnson agrees with them he will declare now, which is very different than the strategy proposed at 7″).
Capozzi @12 – good points.
I think Jeremy said put things other than their name in the name field when they’re not blogging anonymously. That would not apply to you (or to some extent me, although many people here know my real full name and many have met me IRL).
8 “gp”: Unlike Johnson, Barr did not start his campaign a quarter of a million dollars in debt; he just ended up that way.
me: Yes, and GJ started his campaign about a year prior to Barr’s run. As a scientist, I’d think you’d want the relevant variables on the table for others to consider and weigh….
“I really don’t understand why people put things other than their name in the name field when they’re not blogging anonymously. Well, I sort of get it with Lake, since he’s a crazy man. But others just shouldn’t do it. Just a pet peeve of mine.”
Why? If I used a name how would you know it is not fake? If I used my real name I can assure you that you would not know me so again, what is the big deal? A moniker is a moniker and I have never changed mine. BTW, Merry Christmas!
9 “gp”: The strategy is *impossible* unless Paul drops out of the race well before the Republican primaries are over.
me: Presumably, at some point, GJ announces for the LP nomination, delaying that announcement into the early spring. There may be overlap if RP stays in through the GOP convention. The point is that RP won’t get the GOP nomination, and in NOVEMBER, his supporters will be invited to vote L. That’s hardly “impossible.”
RP has already signaled that he finds the idea of GJ switching to the LP a positive development.
It is possible to learn from past mistakes, to make adjustments.
What JJM reports sounds like a good idea to me. I’d also say it’s perfectly appropriate for MH to be there to welcome GJ into the LP, if that’s the plan.
Dropping out and supporting RP makes great sense. The only wrinkle is that RP is again IMO fumbling NewsletterGate.
This move also sets up the optimized ticket of Paul/Johnson much better. By coordinating messaging, the narrative makes sense. It became contentious in 08, and ended fractiously and counterproductively.
Presumably, GJ has gotten his fill of R politics. He seems like a dude who can live with or without politics, so turning his back on the GOP costs him nothing. By deferring to RP, he’s not selling his soul, he’s just recognizing and respecting that RP has built a national following and fundraising base.
Alternatively, should RP decide to soldier on in the GOP, GJ can be a force to build a REAL third party, one dedicated to liberty. Just as many/most Ls disagree with RP on some issues, many/most may also disagree with GJ on some issues. There’s no getting around SOME disagreement in politics, even within a party.
If we want to be the Borg, someone needs to invent the implants! Myself, don’t you know that you can count me out.
George, if you just put your name in the name field at all times you will not have this problem. I really don’t understand why people put things other than their name in the name field when they’re not blogging anonymously. Well, I sort of get it with Lake, since he’s a crazy man. But others just shouldn’t do it. Just a pet peeve of mine.
I am 8 and 9, and am trying to figure out the persistence of the name change.
@7 The strategy is *impossible* unless Paul drops out of the race well before the Republican primaries are over.
@5 Recalling that Paul will be running until the Republican convention toward Labor Day, and out convention is at the start of May, the proposed timing will work–but only if he invents a time machine.
@4 The rational interpretation is that the announcement will be a bit more than a party change. Of course, that is the *rational* interpretation, so evidence that it will occur is a bit limited. There have been rumors that the current LNC chair has been trying to recruit Johnson as our candidate. That’s what happened in 2008, after all, and that worked so well for our party. Barr at least went through the motions of joining the party first. Unlike Johnson, Barr did not start his campaign a quarter of a million dollars in debt; he just ended up that way.
“John Jay Myers // Dec 24, 2011 at 11:24 pm
I am hearing the announcement is that he is going to back Ron Paul, and run Libertarian if Paul doesn’t get the nomination.
That is a very smart move in my opinion, there is a good chance Paul will not get the nomination, but if the Libertarian Party plays this right, and keeps Johnson away from Wayne, then the Ron Paul people will be looking for a home after the Republican primaries, because none of those people are going to vote for Newt or Romney.”
This is a good strategy, but the fact remains that Gary “FairTax” Johnson is NOT a good back up candidate for Ron Paul.
It would seem strange to me that Hinkle would attend if the announcement is as you suggest JJM. However, I agree that it sounds like a good move, if it is in fact the one he makes. It also seems likely to result in an RP endorsement later on, which would be incredibly valuable to the party and the GJ campaign.
I am hearing the announcement is that he is going to back Ron Paul, and run Libertarian if Paul doesn’t get the nomination.
That is a very smart move in my opinion, there is a good chance Paul will not get the nomination, but if the Libertarian Party plays this right, and keeps Johnson away from Wayne, then the Ron Paul people will be looking for a home after the Republican primaries, because none of those people are going to vote for Newt or Romney.
“richard winger // Dec 24, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Mark Hinkle, national chair of the LP, will be there.”
Why is Mark Hinkle traveling all the way to Santa Fe, NM for this? I could see if he was already there for some other reason, but it seems like a long way to travel for something this trivial.
I hope it’s a news conference where he lays out a real understanding of why we can not be the worlds police, and we must bring our troops home now.
An understanding that our current foreign policy breeds terrorism, it does not end it.
That this countries foreign policy has been set to benefit the oil industry, the military industrial complex and one country in particular, with no benefit to the American people except endless debt and more terrorism and a growing dislike and mistrust for us around the globe.
I hope this is the long-awaited news conference where Governor Johnson takes back his support of the (un)Fair Tax.
Mark Hinkle, national chair of the LP, will be there.