But I am voting for him because i despise the other two more!!! On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote:
> > http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives > > ‘Never Gary Johnson’: He’s Not Conservative and Not Even All That > Libertarian > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives> > [image: fullscreen] > Johnson at CPAC 2016 (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) > > - SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE > - TWEET ARTICLETWEET > - PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1 > - PRINT ARTICLE <http://www.nationalreview.com/node/435704/print> > - ADJUST FONT SIZEAA > > by JAMES SPILLER <http://www.nationalreview.com/author/1749176> May 23, > 2016 4:00 AM > Write in a name if you must, but don’t be misled by the label > ‘Libertarian.’ > > What to do? The awfulness of Donald Trump and the awfulness of Hillary > Clinton can make conservative Republicans feel helpless. We shouldn’t. We > still have the power to do tremendous good — or harm. Whoever wins, we have > lost this presidential election, but we may still end up with most of the > governorships and control of most state legislatures. If we lose Congress, > we’ll likely get it back in the midterm. The triumphant return of > conservatism at the presidential level has been postponed, but not > permanently. Trump supporters might say we have nothing to lose, but we do > — this is still the greatest country on earth. One way to help lose > American conservatism would be to support Gary Johnson, the Libertarian > party’s presumptive nominee for president. > > There are many responses to that assertion. The most common is “What’s the > worst he would do, leave us alone?” The assumption is that someone whose > label is “Libertarian” has libertarian values and would promote them in > office. In the case of Johnson, that notion is absurd. > > When Johnson took the tiller in New Mexico in 1995, the budget stood at > $4.397 billion. When he left in 2003, it had grown to $7.721 billion, an > increase of 7.29 percent a year. Of the eleven governors who filed to run > for president this year (two Democrats, Johnson, and eight Republicans), > only one had a worse record on spending growth > <https://ricochet.com/governors-for-president-are-improving-in-raw-spending-terms/>. > In New Mexico, Bill Richardson, Johnson’s Democratic successor, clocked in > a little better than he did, but Richardson’s successor, Susana Martinez, > has shown what a fiscal conservative looks like: New Mexico currently > spends less than it did when she took office. It’s not just at a state > level that being more fiscally conservative than Johnson is a bipartisan > achievement. Federal spending during the time Johnson was in office grew > at an average annual rate > <http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2020USr_17s2li011mcn_F0xF0fF0sF0l_Spending_In_20th_Century> > of > 4.49 percent. Late Clinton and early Bush weren’t as successful in their > efforts to fight spending cuts as they might have been, but Johnson makes > them look like Coolidge, and federal spending since then has grown at an > average annual rate of 4.56 percent. > > The assumption is that someone whose label is ‘Libertarian’ has > libertarian values and would promote them in office. In the case of > Johnson, that notion is absurd. > > Johnson also claims to have balanced the budget every year, but what he > means by this is that he complied with the New Mexico constitution, which > as a practical matter prohibits operational spending deficits. New Mexico’s > debt is required to be off the books, or at least off those books, in a > separate “capital outlay” budget. This means that *of course *his > operating budgets were balanced; New Mexico makes the alternative > impossible. The capital outlays are considered “balanced” if it is believed > that they can likely be paid for in the future, and rosy assumptions are > permitted. It’s as if you or I claimed to be debt-free because our current > account, which does not allow for overdrafts, had no overdrafts, despite > our taking out ever more maxed-out credit cards and making minimum payments > on each. In the sense that Johnson says he balanced the budgets, every > president and Congress in history has passed balanced federal budgets 100 > percent of the time. In fact, Johnson inherited a debt of $1.8 billion and > left a debt of $4.6 billion, a rate of increase unmatched by the 22 > governors in either party who have filed for presidential primaries in the > past two decades, with the exception of Governor Tom Vilsack (D., Iowa) in > 2007. During every year that Johnson, as he says, balanced the budget, he > added to the debt. > > As with so many big-government types, government growth under his > administration was greater not only quantitatively but qualitatively. That > is, he expanded government into new and illegitimate areas. Most notably, > he created a new form of the refundable tax credit, a film subsidy > <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/15/gary-johnson/gary-johnson-says-tax-breaks-made-new-mexico-secon/> > that > has since spread like a cancer across America. Plenty of other governors > imitated Johnson’s pattern of buying publicity, including photo > opportunities with celebrities, by paying, cash down, for filmmakers to > move out of some other state; traditional subsidies just weren’t generous > enough to enable states to compete. > > Like Trump this cycle, Johnson in 2012 proposed cartoonish plans to cut > spending. Trump promises to achieve savings of more than 100 percent on > various costs; Johnson promised a less radical-sounding, but still > implausible, 43 percent budget cut in the first year. Like Trump, he > demonstrates no interest in even the vaguest outlines of fiscal policy. > Johnson would turn much of the government over to the states and make them > make the cuts. Fine. But he showed no interest, either, in detailing the > cuts he promised to defense or to the federal court system. His Social > Security cuts were on the order of a few percent at most in the first year. > No one who seriously wants to cut spending thinks that a 43 percent cut — > which would entail costs associated with, for example, closing bases — > followed by stasis in subsequent years makes more sense than, say, a 35 > percent cut in year one followed by a 15 percent cut in year two. > > In 2016, Johnson has forgotten all that. His promises on spending extend > all the way to the promise to balance the budget. Again, he gives little > detail. The section “Government Spending” on his campaign website includes > the false and hypocritical claim that debt repeatedly doubled under Obama > and Bush. (It only nearly did so > <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=20&startYear=2001&endMonth=05&endDay=20&endYear=2016>; > the multipliers are 1.86 for Bush, 1.81 for Obama so far, and 2.53 for > Johnson as governor.) Here, the closest thing to a spending policy is > Johnson’s stated commitment to look at the budget closely, veto any budget > with a deficit, and pass a balanced budget. The focus of Johnson’s fiscal > policy can be found under “Taxes,” a different section of his website. > There he makes his case for a a consumption tax. The closest parallel can > probably be found in Mike Huckabee’s 2008 campaign, which was heavy on the > FairTax and also also light on spending cuts. > > On public financing of political campaigns, the one issue on which Johnson > has gone into significant detail, he said in 2012 that he would increase > spending. The biggest Libertarian-party message of 2012 was “Vote > Libertarian one time.” If the party got 5 percent of the vote in 2012, it > would have qualified for public funding for its private political speech in > 2016 and would have been the only political party to receive this uniquely > anti-libertarian subsidy. (The two major parties raise too much money to > qualify for funding for the presidential campaign.) This cycle, Johnson has > not addressed the public-funding issue, but he does address the problem of > the major parties’ having access to inordinate private funds, aligning > himself with Sanders on the larger issue of campaign finance. > > Those of you with keen memories will note, incidentally, the discrepancy > between his pro-choice rhetoric in this video and his moderate pro-life > rhetoric when in a Republican debate <https://youtu.be/nS6nguMTr38> four > years ago. His campaign site takes the middle road: It notes the > late-term-abortion ban (although not the counseling requirement) that he > supported as governor and that he told Republicans about, but those > positions are described in the past tense, without any indication of his > current position. Whatever you believe the principled libertarian position > on abortion is, it probably doesn’t involve telling conservatives that you > would increase restrictions and then suggesting to progressives that the > practice should be unrestricted. > > On civil liberties as with fiscal issues, Johnson’s record is less > libertarian than that of his successors as governor of New Mexico, and even > of most other governors and presidents. Bill Richardson, his immediate > successor, introduced concealed carry. Susana Martinez succeeded Richardson > and got rid of civil-asset forfeiture. Johnson’s successors enacted sound > libertarian reforms, including measures against eminent-domain abuse and > Johnson’s government involvement in markets. This cycle, Johnson has > declaredagainst freedom of association > <http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/19/think-twice-before-voting-for-gary-johnson-as-a-trump-protest-vote/> > for > bakers and florists. Other than supporting drug legalization, in which he > has a substantial personal financial interest, there appears to be very > little in his record or agenda that National Reviewreaders would find > appealing. > > Some argue that one has a moral duty to vote for a candidate on the ballot > rather than write in a name. Johnson will be on the ballot in all fifty > states, but his participation in the general election will be no more > sincere than his effort four years ago to secure the Republican nomination. > Rather, he has repeatedly used the electoral process to enhance his > personal standing and now seeks to use it to build a patronage machine. He > claims that the machine pursues libertarian ends, but it does not restrict > itself to them and has never achieved them. > > Not only does Johnson’s faction seek the anti-libertarian objective of > public campaign funding, but it tilts elections to Democrats. The potential > negative impact of the Libertarian party can be clearly seen in the > election for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota in 2008. Al Franken beat Norm > Coleman by 215 votes, with the Libertarian party netting 13,916 votes for a > candidate focused on economic issues, particularly drilling. A little more > than a year later, Obamacare passed with 60 votes, Franken providing the > 60th. With public funds and a professional ground game diverting votes, who > knows what Congress might pass? > > As Libertarian-party activists like to say, don’t vote for the lesser > evil. If you want a libertarian, please consider writing in Janice Rogers > Brown or Penn Jillette. If you want someone who isn’t a barbarian, please > consider Mitch Daniels. By all means, give up on this year’s presidential > race if you must, but please don’t throw away 2020. > > *— James Spiller is an attorney living in Washington, D.C. He writes on > Ricochet.com as James of England.* > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Bruce Majors <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/libertarians-may-have-a-chance-to-shine/ >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hey Bruce! >>> >>> Wow, I am surprised that the LA Times printed this Op-Ed; but it's "Spot >>> On"; and I'm glad you shared it! (Thank you!) >>> >>> For those of you who didn't click on Bruce's link: >>> >>> Op-Ed To fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectivity >>> [image: Donald Trump] >>> Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump discusses U.S.-Russia >>> relations at a news conference in Doral, Fla. on July 27. (Evan Vucci / >>> Associated Press) >>> Justin Raimondo >>> >>> Why are the rules of journalism being rewritten this election year? >>> >>> My local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, is so clearly in >>> the tank for Hillary Clinton that I no longer take pleasure in my morning >>> read. Trump’s acceptance speech, for example, was covered on the front page >>> with two stories: on the left a straight, albeit somewhat >>> judgmental, account of the speech, and on the right a “fact check” that >>> disputed every point made by the GOP nominee. Clinton’s speech was covered >>> with three front page stories, with headlines describing her nomination as >>> “historic,” “inspiring” and “trailblazing.” A relatively mild fact-checking >>> piece was relegated to the back pages. >>> [image: Should we care about Hillary Clinton's 'historic' candidacy?] >>> <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-hillary-clinton-first-woman-20160802-snap-story.html> >>> Should we care about Hillary Clinton's 'historic' candidacy? >>> <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-hillary-clinton-first-woman-20160802-snap-story.html> >>> >>> This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and >>> television media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to >>> separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The >>> media has long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle >>> journalists seem to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic >>> against what they see as a major threat, and in playing this role they’ve >>> lost the ability to assess events rationally. >>> >>> To take a recent example: Trump said at a news conference that he hoped >>> the Russians — who are accused of hacking the Democratic National >>> Committee’s computers — would release the 30,000 emails previously erased >>> by Clinton’s staff. The DNC went ballistic, claiming that Trump had asked >>> the Russians to commit “espionage” against the United States. Aside from >>> the fact that Trump was obviously joking, Clinton claims those emails, >>> which were on her unauthorized server during her tenure as secretary of >>> State, were about her yoga lessons and personal notes to her husband — so >>> how would revealing them endanger “national security”? Yet the media >>> reported this accusation uncritically. A New York Times piece by Maggie >>> Haberman and Ashley Parker, ostensibly reporting Trump’s contention that he >>> spoke in jest, nonetheless averred that “the Republican nominee basically >>> urged Russia, an adversary, to conduct cyber-espionage against a former >>> secretary of state.” Would it be a stretch to conclude from this >>> description that the New York Times is a Trump adversary? >>> >>> The DNC emails, published by Wikileaks, reveal a stunning level of >>> collaboration between important media outlets and the Democrats. Former DNC >>> Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sought to silence NBC’s Mika >>> Brzezinski, who had found fault with the DNC’s role in the primaries. The >>> emails have headings like “This must stop.” Incredibly, NBC’s Chuck Todd >>> agreed to act as a go-between, even arranging a call between Wasserman >>> Schultz and Brzezinski. Which raises the question: Why was a major media >>> figure taking his marching orders from the Democratic party chair — and how >>> did this affect his network’s coverage of the Trump campaign? >>> [News coverage tying Trump to Russia] smacks of the sort of McCarthyism >>> that we haven’t seen in this country since the most frigid years of the >>> Cold War. >>> >>> The DNC emails also show that Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel sent his >>> copy for a story on Clinton’s fundraising operation to the DNC’s national >>> press secretary, Mark Paustenbach, prior to publication. Politico has since >>> apologized, but Vogel has his defenders. The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple >>> said Vogel’s “prepublication generosity” was meant to give “the people >>> you’re writing about … the opportunity to rebut all relevant claims in a >>> story.” One wonders if the Washington Post does this for the Trump >>> campaign. Somehow I doubt it. >>> >>> Since last summer*, *Politico has been vehemently anti-Trump, and it’s >>> only getting more extreme. It’s run several stories linking Trump to >>> Vladimir Putin: “Why Russia is Rejoicing Over Trump,” “GOP Gobsmacked by >>> Trump’s Warm Embrace of Putin,” “Donald Trump Heaps More Praise on Vladimir >>> Putin” — and dozens of similar articles. The gist of these pieces is that >>> Trump’s stated desire to “get along with Putin,” and his comments on the >>> costs imposed by our membership in NATO, mean that Trump is essentially an >>> agent of a foreign power. A recent article by Katie Glueck on Trump’s >>> hacking joke said that Trump “appeared to align himself with Russia over >>> his Democratic opponent” — as if he were a kind of Manchurian candidate. >>> >>> Of course, Politico is not alone in what was once called red-baiting. The >>> Atlantic also weighed in with Jeffrey Goldberg’s “It’s Official: >>> Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin,” and a Franklin Foer >>> story in Slate was headlined “The Real Winner of the RNC: Vladimir Putin.” >>> This coverage smacks of the sort of McCarthyism that we haven’t seen in >>> this country since the most frigid years of the Cold War. >>> >>> Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can >>> certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and >>> they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to >>> be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind >>> up having the exact opposite of its intended effect. >>> >>> Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in >>> the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, >>> widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to >>> backfire. Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political >>> class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may >>> soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration. >>> >>> *Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com and the author >>> of “Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative >>> Movement.”* >>> >>> *Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion >>> <https://twitter.com/latimesopinion> and Facebook >>> <https://www.facebook.com/latimesopinion>* >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Bruce Majors <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raimondo-trump-media-bias-20160802-snap-story.html >>>> >>>> **** >>>> Angela Keaton >>>> Executive Director >>>> Antiwar.com >>>> Los Angeles Office: 323-512-7095 >>>> San Francisco Office: 415-520-6845 >>>> >>>> We are already against the next war. >>>> <https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/41729-already-against-the-next-war> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- brine http://brineb.blogspot.com/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
