Back in May, I speculated that the conventional wisdom that Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson would disproportionately impact Donald Trump was wrong, and that Johnson was instead pulling support from both Trump and Hillary Clinton in almost equal measure. Fast-forward roughly four months, and it would appear the major candidates are realizing this as well — especially Clinton, whose campaign is now reportedly worried about the effect Johnson may have in a handful of important swing states: …[A]s national and battleground polls tighten and Democrats’ hand-wringing grows more urgent, operatives both within and allied with Clinton’s political operation who are looking
Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson recently sat down with Townhall.com’s Guy Benson for a fascinating interview covering a number of different topics. In “Part II” of the interview, Johnson intimated that he disagreed with his running mate Bill Weld’s one-time suggestion that Stephen Breyer or Merrick Garland would be ideal Supreme Court nominees, and he suggested that he would not be opposed to a bill protecting the unborn after 20 weeks (though he also insisted that he did not object to the pro-abortion Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling being “the law of the land”). However, when the discussion turned
Jennifer Rubin, the ostensibly “conservative” columnist for The Washington Post, raged at social conservatives yesterday for attacking Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson. As Danny Cannon wrote for The Pulse 2016 yesterday, Johnson is not remotely conservative, but nevertheless, Rubin, a staunch libertarian in GOP clothing, has written glowingly about him on multiple occasions. Rubin opens with a completely false premise: Social conservatives, more than any segment of the Republican Party, have suffered a grievous blow this presidential cycle. They have proved themselves entirely powerless to stop the impending nomination of a thrice-married, lying casino operator with no affection for their issues (e.g.
Over the weekend, the Libertarian Party nominated former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson for the presidency, with former Massachusetts Governor William Weld serving as his running mate. Now, some, including Johnson himself, are suggesting that the Libertarian ticket could be the perfect choice for conservative voters unsatisfied with Donald Trump. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial yesterday urging voters to consider Johnson, describing him as “an honorable alternative if Mr. Trump makes himself unacceptable.” By social conservative standards, however, both Johnson and Weld are unacceptable already. In a section on his website ironically titled “Abortion and the Right to
The Daily Caller reported this week that a source within Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson’s campaign suggested the former New Mexico governor could be in line for a fundraising boon should he sew up the Libertarian Party nomination as expected: Billionaire businessman and philanthropist David Koch has pledged “tens of millions of dollars” to help bankroll the campaign of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, according to a source within Johnson’s campaign. […] A Koch spokesman initially declined to comment on the record. But after publication, the spokesman told TheDC: “Reports that David Koch has pledged his support to Gary Johnson –
Did you know there was a Libertarian Party presidential debate last week? I don’t blame you if you didn’t, as the mainstream media all but ignored it — and maybe justifiably since the Libertarians have zero chance at winning the presidency. That being said, the debate was very interesting. Several different issues of interest to us here at The Pulse 2016 were discussed, including abortion and religious freedom. Three candidates participated: former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who ran as the Libertarian Party nominee in 2012; tech entrepreneur John McAfee; and Austin Petersen, a 35-year-old, libertarian blogger/policy wonk who could easily
Earlier this week, former Rep. Ron Paul explained to CNN why a libertarian cannot endorse Donald Trump’s authoritarian approach: My biggest beef is, from a libertarian viewpoint, there is absolutely no difference, meaningful difference, between Hillary and Trump. They both support the military industrial complex, the Federal Reserve, deficits, entitlements, invasion of our privacy. And it’s super nationalistic populism versus socialism. That is so removed from what we need to be doing. We need to remove ourselves from tyranny. He went on to explain: From a libertarian viewpoint of limited government there is nothing they are offering that reduces the size and
Time Magazine reports on Ted Cruz’s embrace of the Paul “liberty voters” in New Hampshire. Subhead: “The Iowa Republican winner appeals by trumpeting the gold standard, privacy rights and limits on eminent domain.” Time‘s Alex Altman reports from Salem, NH: In the hours after Sen. Rand Paul dropped out of the presidential race Wednesday, the libertarian state representative and passionate Paul supporter [Eric Eastman] says he fielded a personal phone call from Jeb Bush and an offer from Donald Trump’s campaign promising VIP treatment. Even an aide to Chris Christie reached out. But as he processed his grief over Paul’s