I’m pretty sure, though, that Brownback very narrowly won reelection in 2014, in a race over a relatively unknown Democrat that was much, much closer than any race should be in such a heavily Republican state.
And I’m sure that the recently-concluded primaries for the Kansas state legislature resulted in a lot of losses for the pro-Brownback forces (Brownbackers?) among the GOP officeholders.
So the withdrawal of support does seem like it had an effect, even if it was not immediately dispositive.
Doesn’t matter, anyway; I agree that the worry about Trump’s ignorance and desire to remain ignorant is not necessarily going to be enough to sink him. Lots and lots of people are on his side no matter what, and plenty of them seem to see (as others have noted) this ignorance as a strength rather than a weakness. I don’t think this election is in the bag for Clinton, not at all. I was just responding to the assertion that Trump’s lack of knowledge “bothers no one.” It doesn;t bother as many as I’d like. But it clearly does bother a bunch of us, including some in the GOP.
Though, also to be fair, Johnson is running on a Libertarian platform where we cut back the military and withdraw our focus on policing the world.
I’ll grant that, that is probably the largest thing that I don’t like about his platform, but it seems pretty reasonable for him to not give a shit about the things he’s said he doesn’t really give a shit about. Just because we all think that the US should be involved in Syria doesn’t mean that he has to think so. Of course, if you disagree with him on that, it would be a reason to not vote for him.
Granted, that’s not the argument he’s making. He’s claiming brain fart. And maybe it was. Who knows. I know I had one person throw an acronym at me once, in a noisy room, and I couldn’t make the damn thing out because I was expecting a word, not an acronym. I could see the reverse happening. And it does seem like, since his platform doesn’t demand it, that he should be able to safely say that he doesn’t give a shit about Syria, so if he is saying that it was a brain fart, I’m not seeing any strong reason to doubt it.
Just popped in to say that I saw a Johnson/Weld ad on TV (early Sat. am; probably a cheap media buy). Just the candidates’ heads responding to comments, but in a self-deprecating, funny way.
If it was Johnson vs Trump vs Nobody Else, he’d have my vote.
Although that’d be true for Joe The Plumber vs Trump vs Nobody Else, come to think of it…
But we are involved in Syria and in the world. I’m potentially open to a clear argument and plan how to get us less involved (probably selectively and in a limited way, I’m positively open to the Lib’s idea of more capitalism and less socialism at home). But that (either one) would have to include understanding the current situation and its limitations.
Again the big problem I see with Libertarians generally is their tendency toward a form of argument assuming we’re starting from square one, and here’s how they’d like things to be. Or no more reassuringly, ‘here’s my simple dogma for every situation: get the government out of it. It will always just work, no need to consider any details or starting point’.
Johnson’s lack of knowledge seemed to epitomize this pre-existing problem of Libertarians at least from my POV. Granted his somewhat effective come back was to say he should have known and just whiffed and he really is interested in this stuff and don’t think he completely doesn’t care.
He’s not going to win, even any state. I can’t vote for Clinton or Trump but I don’t pretend it really makes a big difference who else I settle on if anyone.
I’m sympathetic to brain farts. I also think he handled the post-gaffe part well. (Then again, third party candidates can afford to do the aw-shucks routine.) I think the appropriate followup would be a detailed interrogation concerning his Syrian policy. Preferably as part of a printed interview.
I think there’s more going on here. See below.
I think it would be fine for him to argue that we shouldn’t be involved in Syria. But extracting yourself from quagmires is difficult: he should be able to discuss how he would deal with the fallout. Hand waving simply doesn’t cut it.
Ok, here’s what I think is going on. He hasn’t received a detailed policy briefing on Syria. Furthermore, Johnson isn’t an A-list politico (though Weld admittedly might be). But the biggest problem is that the Libertarian party simply doesn’t take security issues very seriously, just as the US peace movement doesn’t. I would be all for seeing a serious proposal to ratchet down our military spending to, say, 2-3% of GDP. The Center for Defense Information regularly outlined such sorts of military budgets during the 1970s-1990s; I assume their successor continues to do so.
AFAIK though, no group has seriously traced through the national security implications of such policies though. It’s all hand waving. Check out what the Koch backed libertarian Cato Foundation has to say about Syria. The first one is unintentional self parody: Syria’s Other Problem: Inflation. According to the article Syria has annual inflation of about 200-300%. Trust me, that issue is trivial compared with their other problems.
Here’s a more sensible article: It’s Time to Admit That American Intervention Can’t Fix Syria. Not bad. It outlines the limits of US power. But it also roughly endorses the Obama strategy, which is far more hawkish than that advocated by, say, John Mace at this message board. So while it is serious, it isn’t advocating a libertarian or peace movement policy.
This is pathetic. I’m not blaming Gary Johnson for this state of affairs: he’s just a mouthpiece. I do blame the Koch Brothers a little. Or to be more accurate, I think they are phonies. A sincere libertarian would care a lot about the path between what we have now and a 2-3% military budget policy. Phonies wave their hands.
The peacenik part of the left shares proportional blame.
The notion of currency-issuing central banks independent of the government dates from the 17th century, as does the idea that these banks should be subject to government regulation. Even Lincoln thought of his Greenbacks as temporary scrip to get the Union through an emergency.
The cacophony about abolishing the Fed breaks down into two distinct and opposite noises: extreme leftists who want the U.S.G. to print paper money with little restraint, and Hyperlibertarians (including Johnson*) who are happy to “let the market decide what money should be.” Gold? Bitcoins? Every Tom, Dick and Harry printing paper money backed by gold, aluminum or beanie babies and letting the market work it out, as was common in 19th-century U.S.? Let the Magic Market decide.
I don’t know if Gary Johnson personally is a deranged crackpot. Perhaps he just embraces some of the Hyperlibertarian stupidities to up his support from 3% to 5%.
Wow. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt; and I’d assumed that this man, once a Governor of a U.S. State, had a viable brain.
Of course his scientific factoid is itself wrong — the Sun’s absolute luminosity will grow and extinguish life on Earth long before it enters its red giant phase.
But more importantly, who but an utter idiot would try to solve next century’s problem by looking into the future billions of years? Would he say to an unemployed job seeker, “Don’t sweat your poverty! In a billion years or two your ashes will be commingling with those of King Midas who turned all he touched into gold”?
Especially sad, when Rick Kitchen’s link is clicked, is to learn that Johnson’s support is especially high among youngsters who supposedly believe in science.
