Actually the best place to find out would be to check his website for his position on issues, and also to check the libertarian party platform.

Yes, but when if ever might the whole rotten bunch be crushed and obliterated? Only, and just maybe, after the Great Collapse shuts it all down, but then, most people somehow believe they must be Governed by Force. Not a pretty picture.

Darn few real "conservatives" left - most have moved to the grey middle we call neocons, while most everybody in D.C. is acting like a war-monger. Doesn't bode well.

It's been a LONG time since the Libertarian Party has been viable; makes me sad indeed. Gov Johnson was a good choice, but the LP for whatever reasons gets very little support. Wayne Allyn Root left the party after being running mate to a defunct republican; Rand Paul is naught but a pseudo-libertarian who screwed up at the RNC when he ditched his Dad and turned to that flaky neocon Romney. The Dem-Rep now-collectivist war-monger monopoly now clearly has America by the throat. Voting is no longer then answer, if indeed it ever was!

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are complaining about Johnson not explaining his current positions yet, I agree that we still have to wait and see, but since he hasn't announced at all that is hardly a surprise. Unless his positions have changed completely from the last time he ran, he would be better than anything the GOP or Dems have as candidates, and a Libertarian would not be as likely a puppet to the political insiders and corporatocracy. Those alone are more than enough to say "Johnson would be the most rational choice for individual liberty and free markets." Whatever you are saying about Web, Carson, Trump, Carly, and Jindal is unclear to me.

Hello Timelord,
So right. "The biggest problem is media access."
We must keep pushing and supporting opposition voices to the two major parties until the media can no longer deny their voices opportunity to be heard as widely. The two party system lock must be broken, or at least one of the parties must be brought back to Constitutional principles and restraint. It is this statist establishment leaning of both major parties that must be "crushed and obliterated!"
Respectfully,
O.A.

Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

I've spent 20 years as an enthusiastic libertarian and Libertarian, former member of LP national and on the state central committee of LPCT for over 10 years (as Secretary, membership dude and web site dude). I've run for office as a Libertarian multiple times, including local office and statewide office. (I was elected twice to the regional board of education as a Republican but I was outspoken about libertarianism and how it would benefit us and used the word libertarian many times.) I was also the major reason that Rep Bob Barr was not on the Connecticut ballot as a Libertarian when he was the endorsed candidate for President. Those are my credentials with respect to LP candidacy; make of them what you will.

To me, Gov. Johnson has a great personality, is an excellent speaker, understands and presents the Libertarian platform clearly and sincerely and is a whole lot more telegenic than any of the front-runners in the other two (well, one, really) parties. One major positive is that he can articulate LP policy with complete focus on how it will benefit everyone rather than complaining about how the other policies are harming us. It's hard to hold that course; libertarians have been complaining for decades!

The biggest problem is media access. Lack of access is due to lack of money, AND the media's steadfast refusal to pay any attention at all to 3rd parties, AND the fact that the media would much rather focus on policies that they disagree with than those they agree with. And even when a Libertarian candidate manages to get ballot access and do a big media buy, no news outlet will cover it and no editorial board will pontificate about it. Well, there is the occasional editorial, sometimes even at major papers, and they invariably say, essentially, "wow, these libertarians have some really great ideas; it sure would be fantastic to implement those policies. BUT they can't possibly win an election and Candidate X has 1 great policy position and 2 we can choke down, and we know he's the opposite of what we want on 5 important platform planks, WE MUST STOP EVIL CANDIDATE Y FROM WINNING! (And by the way, Candidate Y has 1 great policy position and 2 we can choke down, and we know he's the opposite of what we want on 5 important platform planks BUT HE MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO WIN.)

It helps that he's a former Governor and that his policies actually proved to be effective. I don't know the details about everything he did as Gov but I'm sure some of it wasn't libertarian. I am confident, though, that in most cases what he did was better than what was being done, in other cases he had no chance of instituting libertarian policies, and in the ones where he was "wrong" he has sincerely changed his views.

As Gulchers know, the LP doesn't fit at all into the left/right, progressive/conservative political model. In reality progressives would agree with at least 40% of our platform and conservatives would agree with at least 40% of our platform, but instead of progressives supporting the LP because they approve of gay marriage, complete legalization of drugs, non-intervention in foreign affairs, no federal abortion ban, and no corporate welfare, they focus on our support of bakeries turning away any customer they choose, 2A, property rights, right-to-work and no civilian welfare. Then the conservatives play the same game. That's how it plays out with the activists and media who funnel "information" to the masses. In the halls of power it's a whole different story. While the lefties and righties have a few definite disagreements they have at least 80% agreement on the proper level of gov't control and on gov't policy itself. Furthermore, even when they disagree with each other, both sides want to stay in power more than they want their favorite policy implemented.

Both sides vote for huge spending increases, huge tax increases, massive expansion of regulatory power, interference in the energy sector (go, go, go solar and ethanol and wind, all of which can never work), more restrictions on gun ownership, more interference with medical care, more corporate welfare (ex-im bank ring a bell?), fatal economic policies, expansion of the military, wider and deeper foreign intervention, it goes on and on. The disagreements are all on the edges. "Let's all have a big row over abortion, gay marriage, and gun control! The "other side's" policies have led to the utter destruction of our society and it will never be restored until the "other side" is crushed and obliterated!"

Hello MichaelAarethun,
Here is a link you may find instructive. Gary Johnson on the issues... the good, the bad, and the ugly. :) Depending upon one's political leanings...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johns...

Respectfully,
O.A.

Hello cern4881,
I have listened to Gary Johnson many times over the years and he does make a lot of sense on a lot of issues. If the MSM which is so obviously in the pockets of the "two" party candidates would give third party options the time of day perhaps his odds would improve. A lot of young people do support him, so perhaps the younger generations will make positive change as they feel the burdens past statists have unfairly saddled them with.
Respectfully,
O.A.

It really doesn't matter what the establishment types do because they will support an establishment candidate. As for Cruz, most would jump behind him if he were the candidate with the exception of some hard right constitutional types who refuse to believe that Cruz is eligible to be president. Also, you have clowns like McCain who would rather vote for a Socialist or even a Communist over Cruz.

In the end however, if the Republican party is going to continue to be "stupid" in their attacks on Conservatives, it will be they who will be the owners of their defeat by the Dems. As they say, "Stupid is as stupid does" and McCain is the glaring example of Stupidity!!!!

Cruz will be fine as long as he keeps his cool and let's things play out. That includes with Trump.

Libertarians and Objectivists if they are smart enough, will find the right path that will give us the candidate the country needs for moving the country off of the disastrous course we are currently on. If they cannot, then they will suffer the same fate as the Establishment types. Lost election perhaps a new and reinvigorated party!

Hello Rex_Little,
Indeed. I remember Goldwater, though I was quite young then and McGovern (8 years later?). It is an interesting history lesson to be considered and incorporated into one's political science philosophy. Rand supported Goldwater, but we never had a president Goldwater did we? :) Still, one must choose their own poison, since there never seems to be a perfect candidate for us.
Respectfully.
O.A.

Hello Texian,
It is only fair. The progressive socialists have been infiltrating the Democrats for so long they no longer resemble even the party of JFK.
Respectfully,
O.A.

There is no possibility that enough conservatives would move from the Republican Party to the Libertarian. Also, I'd be willing to bet that of those Libertarians, dissatisfied Republicans, Objectivists and peripherals all got together, they'd hardly make a blip in this election. The reason for that, as you can tell by the so-called debates which are a ridiculous display and certainly not true debates, the appeal is to the lowest common denominator. We have devolved into political theater. Voting for a 3rd party Libertarian Party that could win, would require a majority of thinking, moderately intelligent people who keep track of and understand the issues. Hello? Anyone there?

Hello jbrenner,
It is always good to hear from you. It is a principled decision. I have high regard for standing on principle. If only more people would do so. I feel as if we are making some inroads with some of the electorate these days. Perhaps some (though probably not yet enough) of the ignorant masses are finally coming out of their stupor.
It would please immensely to feel more confident and optimistic about the future again.
Regards,
O.A.

I am delighted and will vote for him (again). He is the most successful Libertarian candidate in history. If his lawsuit to get third parties into the Presidential debates succeeds, he will be able to state his (our) values to the whole nation against the monopoly of the two parties. See his statement on http://www.GaryJohnson2016.com and an interview with him here: http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-l... -- he is cool, focused, rational, and original.

It does not matter if he does not get elected this time around. The message will be heard, and will grow. Not voting for him because it might take votes from someone else is stupid and insane.

Hello richrobinson,
I hear you. I will weigh the amount of statism in each candidate and make the best choice possible when it comes right down to it. The establishment types already have two strikes against them in my book.
Regards,
O.A.

Hello fosterj717,
Your comments are worth much. Good analysis.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Hello freedomforall,
I concur. There is more to worry about on those fronts from every other candidate in the race thus far.
O.A.

I understand your confusion as to my first paragraph. I use the term (rightfully or wrongfully) R (big R) Republicans meaning the Establishment who is still firmly in control and will do anything to hold on to their power, regardless of the damage they are doing to our country. Hence giving this president everything he has been demanding. That is not in our best interests however it is in the best interests of the denizens of the Beltway......

To me, 70% (my guess) of these "Republicans" are either to inept or just plain do not understand their jobs and only wait for their leadership to give them their marching orders. Or, they are indeed pretending to support the republic but in reality are representing a ruling elite in a country that in reality is nothing but an Oligarchy