In a very surprising editorial the Richmond Times-Dispatch has endorsed Libertarian Gary Johnson for President.
Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton meets the fundamental moral and professional standards we have every right to expect of an American president. Fortunately, there is a reasonable — and formidable — alternative.
Gary Johnson is a former, two-term governor of New Mexico and a man who built from scratch a construction company that eventually employed more than 1,000 people before he sold it in 1999. He possesses substantial executive experience in both the private and the public sectors.
More important, he’s a man of good integrity, apparently normal ego and sound ideas. Sadly, in the 2016 presidential contest, those essential qualities make him an anomaly — though they are the foundations for solid leadership and trustworthy character. (At 63, he is also the youngest candidate by more than half a decade — and is polling well among truly young voters.)
In every Presidential election since 1980, the Richmond Times-Dispatch has endorsed the Republican candidate. Johnson’s endorsement is a first for the newspaper.
Will this endorsement help either Clinton or Trump in Virginia? Will it even help Johnson?
Read the entire endorsement here.
23 comments
Interesting development: the RTD online article endorsing Johnson causes some firewall software to flag it as a phishing site. Almost as if somebody doesn’t want that article to be read.
It must have frightened somebody.
To this point in time, comments disagreeing with the author don’t dispute the RTD article or Jeanine. Instead they uniformly resort to conspiracy theories about Warren Buffett, accusations of vote splitting (hint: nobody’s splitting votes. Those votes? They were never yours), and the MSM conspiracy theory. Oh and personal attacks on anybody who hasn’t been drinking the Trump Kool-Aid.
Here’s some unsettling fact: for all the “can’t win” rhetoric about Independents, two are serving in the Senate right now. Over time, 30 have been elected to the Senate, making the odds 1.5%. Not high, but non-zero. Better than the House, where 111 Independent Congressmen make the odds of election only 1%. Odds of a president being independent? 2.3%, best of all…
And given all of the rhetoric about the unusual nature and importance of this election, perhaps it’s time to think more critically, and question whether the approach to party politics should be conducted using “business as usual” rules of blind loyalty and willing belief in patently false campaign promises.
I have this sneaking suspicion that Trump is going to win, but with a plurality. Nobody really likes Hillary. Trump’s supporters are diehard, a number of Reps. and independents are going for Johnson where a 3rd party candidate usually makes little difference at the presidential level. Will be interesting, because this (winning more popular votes, not the RTD) could make T. the president.
Trump pay get the most votes but still lose. The electoral college isn’t looking good for him.
Trump will get the most votes in enough states to put him over the top.
Huber and his gang will get to vote for President.
Isn’t this paper owned by Warren Buffet’s various enterprises? Warren is endorsing the libertarian because it is a vote for Hillary–it can’t go full liberal because there are still enough conservatives in Virginia to dump it should they do that–Warren is not stupid obviously. Endorsing the so called libertarian achieves the purpose. Not that it matters anyway though because no one reads these stupid papers anymore without knowing that they are just baloney, mostly calculations of the Democrat party to win elections…
Wild conspiracies aside, it has been established for weeks that Gary Johnson takes more votes from Hillary than from Trump.
Ronald Reagan understood and said, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism
is libertarianism…The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan
Less government intervention, less central authority, and more freedom are everything Trump is against.
So Hillary as president makes perfect sense and is preferable to Libertarians.
This is why they don’t belong in the GOP and can’t win anything as their own party.
That’s certainly an interesting, if illiterate, take on my comment. If Johnson narrows Hillary’s lead over Trump, that makes it more likely that Trump wins, not less.
Libertarians don’t belong in the GOP because the GOP has abandoned philosophical conservatism. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that they disagree on who should get the money after they’ve stolen it from the people, and how much to steal. This is how Republicans have wound up with a candidate who is a better Democrat than Hillary Clinton.
Hallelujah
And “can’t win”…..yet.
If newspaper endorsements are “just baloney” then why do political blogs feel the need to publish them and their readership feel the need to denigrate and whine about them? I guess rugged individualism is ok only when the individual toes the party line.
Illiterate??
You are absolutely right, the libertarians do not belong in the GOP. They have chosen their political vehicle and may drive it whichever way the spirit moves them.
You may pretend that libertarian votes may or may not have any subtractive or additive electoral significance, but in this world, here and in November, either you vote for Trump, or you vote to further damage the Republic.
I love a good debate. I’m open to saying I’m wrong or another person’s outlook is better than mine if they’ll take the time and patience to explain why they think or believe the way they do.
This never happens with you, Rocinante. Anyone who doesn’t march in lock step “unity” with what you consider to be the party line is condescendingly directed to walk the nearest plank. We’re not good enough or smart enough for your GOP. Just like the RNC did at the convention. Just like the most recent SCC broo ha ha.
It’s only in the last few years that I’ve had time and resources to become politically active. Given I believe in limited government, fiscal conservatism and Constitutional originalism, becoming active within the GOP would seem a natural progression. Yet GOP supporters of your ilk seem to keep insisting that principles don’t matter. If I don’t support even the most subpar candidate that the GOP hopes against all odds can win, I’m not Republican enough to join the party.
You and all the other stuffed shirt supposed Republicans may have it your way then. The GOP is not inclusive any more than the Democrat Party. At this point, it’s a forced duopoly and my vote is that both parties can take their shared totalitarianism and stuff it.
Rocinante does not always tow the party line. It doesn’t appear to be too keen on Congresswoman Comstock and she’s about as establishment Republican as it gets.
I wholeheartedly endorse and support Barbara Comstock to the same, if not superior level, that she supports our GOP Presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump!
My brilliance and wisdom can illuminate both those are able to appreciate it as well as those who are dim.
But you have to work at it.
My time and patience is limited so I pack a lot of lesson into my condescending snarkasm.
I expect lockstep AFTER the nomination contest, before that, knock yourself out. BUT the compact is: in exchange for playing nomination games, you agree to go all in for the nominee. I have no use for those breaking that covenant.
I have no doubt that you are of little value to the party, think of it as your apprentice phase.
If you follow the creed and support our nominees, climb aboard. — if your ‘principles’ instead take you in a different direction, buh-bye.
Even our most sub par nominee is superior to her democrat challenger! And yes we support THOSE nominees because they are OUR nominees.
You are correct, you are NOT Republican enough to join our party but our party, in its infinite wisdom, will allow you to express your ‘principles,’ along with every other warm body voter at one of our primaries.
See you at the inaugural, it will be ‘Yuge!’
My brilliance and wisdom can illuminate both those are able to appreciate it as well as those who are dim.
But you have to work at it.
My time and patience is limited so I pack a lot of lesson into my condescending snarkasm.
I expect lockstep AFTER the nomination contest, before that, knock yourself out. BUT the compact is: in exchange for playing nomination games, you agree to go all in for the nominee. I have no use for those breaking that covenant.
I have no doubt that you are of little value to the party, think of it as your apprentice phase.
If you follow the creed and support our nominees, climb aboard. — if your ‘principles’ instead take you in a different direction, buh-bye.
Even our most sub par nominee is superior to her democrat challenger! And yes we support THOSE nominees because they are OUR nominees.
You are correct, you are NOT Republican enough to join our party but our party, in its infinite wisdom, will allow you to express your ‘principles,’ along with every other warm body voter at one of our primaries.
See you at the inaugural, it will be ‘Yuge!’
Where has this been established? The Green Party candidate takes votes from Hillary not Johnson. It is no conspiracy that the media works openly for Democrats is it? Gosh that must be tin foil hat thinking. Go watch Clinton News Network and then tell me about conspiracy theories. Buffet wants to continue his crony riches and he is wedded to the clintons like flies on excrement.
Polls that include Johnson show a drop in Clinton’s margin. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-gary-johnson-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/
It’s silly to paint the RTD as a liberal media shill; they’ve endorsed the Republican in every presidential race since 1980, they regularly rip McAuliffe a new one in their editorials, they endorsed Sturtevant over Gecker in the crucial District 10 state Senate race.
I notice you have left out over half the context from the Reagan derived 1975 interview you quote by then REASON’s Editor Manuel S. Klausner, as well as Klausner’s conclusion, that “based on Reagan’s record while [he is] generally conservative, [he] is not particularly libertarian”. For those interested the second half of the quote you parsed out of your bogus Reagan as libertarian statement continues with Reagan stating:
“I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves.”
This interview was conducted over six years prior to Reagan being elected into the presidency and if anything he moved even further away from the tenets of traditional libertarian philosophy during that period, particularly it’s central political related principle belief regarding “spontaneous order”. For those of you that may not be familiar with this construct that libertarians rarely bring up in mixed political company it basically goes as follows:
a great degree of order is necessary in society for individuals to survive and flourish and from libertarian social analysis this “order” in society arises “spontaneously” out of the millions and millions of individuals who “coordinate” their actions in order to achieve this purpose with others. All institutions in human society have developed spontaneously without need of assistance from any central direction. Civil society is such a spontaneous order and is therefore not an organization and does not have a purpose intrinsically of it’s own.
Ten philosophers sitting in a classroom might make this nonsense work or a group of friends lounging in the basement zoned out on ganja hiding from mom (though I doubt the concept even in those cases) but 300 million plus Americans with 21st century agendas galore not a chance. By the way notice the US Constitution written with such precision and care is little more then a piece of paper whose meaning is only relevant to others to the extent it’s articles and amendments can generate spontaneous order through total civil agreement.
Reagan as a libertarian what a crock. Conservatism as libertarianism an even larger crock. Best case for the political philosophy of conservatism and the modern tenets of libertarianism is some areas of overlap regarding individual rights, rule of law, free markets and limited government. Regarding the “how” of governing they share NOTHING in common as Reagan well understood. A false marriage of convenience that brings no harm (since libertarianism has never been the basis of any state governance model) but brings very little real life policy or governing benefit to modern conservatism as well. Basically a harmless dead end for the young and political naive.
Clever quips, but thin broth.
Reagan didn’t need to -be- a Libertarian to understand that libertarianism is the “heart and soul of conservatism.” Just the same: I don’t need to -be- a communist to understand that communism is the heart and soul of socialism.
You’re absolutely correct: Republicans approach government (“how”) differently than Libertarians. As you noted, conservatives now believe that it requires the force of the State (the threat of violence) to order the lives of people—you’ve lost belief in society and social institutions. Own it, say it out loud: that’s socialism.
Reagan didn’t need to be a Libertarian to understand that Republicans put the state at the center of society, it’s precisely because he felt that way too that he was a Republican rather than a Libertarian. But he understood that the aspirtational ideals (lip service, if we’re cynical) of Republicans are aligned with Libertarian ideals.
As for the spectrum of libertarians, of course. Klansman David Duke is on the spectrum of Republicans, he doesn’t define the Republican party. There are libertarian anarcho-capitalists, they don’t define the party or movement.
Maybe libertarianism is for the young and naïve. But what has your grim sell-out pragmatism got you, old man? Donald Trump isn’t a conservative. Even if he wins, you won’t have a Republican president.
Endorsements by two Berkshire Hathaway-owned Virginia newspapers:
Richmond Times Dispatch endorsements: 2016 Johnson; 2012 Romney; 2008 McCain
Free Lance Star endorsements: 2016 (none to date);2012 Obama; 2008 none
One endorsement out of six possible went to a Democrat, and one so far to an independent. Three out of six possible to Republicans.
Not seeing that heavy Democrat-conspiring hand of Buffett you’re seeing.
No endorsement at all would have made more sense.