I wish Bill Bradford was still alive and publishing Liberty Magazine. He'd have called Reason on their opinions and made their errors clear without resorting to fallacy of composition or mud slinging.

Quote:
"Well, fine, but from now on the Libertarians can just shut up about being the “party of principle” and about being so much better than those compromising Republicans—statements I have heard endlessly, ad nauseum for my entire adult life. That is now officially over."

Lump them all in with the GOP who has been betraying everything they claim to stand for since the inception of the party. Libertarians haven't betrayed anyone, and 45% of the delegates at the convention voted against Johnson and 49% against Weld as the candidates to represent the party. And in the first ballot (which shows the real choices of the delegates) more than 50% opposed them both.

His logic is rubbish.
The facts don't support his conclusion.
If ANYONE should shut the frak up its Tracinski who has lost his ability to reason and resorted to a mud slinging fight with some other writers who don't represent the Libertarians.
The reality is like a line from Animal House ;^) If Tracinski had said that about Libertarians at the convention, I'd agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTF2j...

I got out of it he was saying the party has drifted to the dark side, and these 2 are the public faces of it. I did not sense he meant all Libertarians. But that was my take on it, of course, you may have differing reasons and background to see it differently. I assumed the quote was valid, but I do not know that for a fact, had she said it, I interpreted that as meaning "a conservative free thinker" type, possibly as a sarcastic remark?

I agree that Johnson (and even more, Weld) are not representing the Libertarian principles in this campaign. In fact, I think Weld has never had any libertarian principles. However, the article brands all Libertarians as non-principled based on the action of two people, and on the excuses for those actions made by a few writers who have been willing to give Johnson a chance to broaden the appeal of his candidacy for one single specific reason: getting into the debates. That has been the reason (or excuse depending on your point of view) given for the silence of Johnson in defense of libertarian principles, and for his shoddy choice of Weld as VP running mate. The writer has concluded that Libertarians in general have no principle, and that conclusion is even more irrational than the actions of Johnson when both are placed in the context of libertarian principles, the history of the Libertarian Party, and the actions of Libertarians.
The writer uses leftist thinking to come to an irrational conclusion about libertarians with no basis in reality. Quoting Rand is an insult to her ability to reason. Were Rand alive she would be tweeting what a fool he is, while at the same time agreeing that Johnson and Weld may have destroyed the best chance for the free market in a century.
I usually agree with Tracinski because he often makes valid observations, and many of his other articles are pro-liberty, but he owes Libertarians an apology for this poorly reasoned screed. Painting an entire group of people who have a history of being defenders of the free market and of individual liberty for actions of one person that they can't control is akin to blaming all the American people for the looting, traitorous actions of Obama.