But a recent Daily Caller interview exposed some of Johnson's views.
According to the Caller:
[W]hen pressed on foreign policy topics throughout the interview, Johnson gave answers that didn't always seem to add up and were often, at best, unorthodox positions for a man who has been painted as a non-interventionist.
Johnson said that while he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, that doesn't mean he would necessarily stop drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan or Yemenhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300117019/communistvampire , even though he believes they create more enemies than they kill.
"I would want leave all options on the table," Johnson said. "But there’s an unintended consequence when it comes to drone attacks in Yemen http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674065611/communistvampire . Yeah, you take out the al-Qaida stronghold, but you also wipe out the other half of the block. That makes Yemenis against the United States for the rest of their lives and all their descendants."
But if Johnson plans on leaving Afghanistan, how does he plan to leave the option of a drone campaign against al-Qaida elements in Pakistan on the table?
"So now you have the U.S. bases that exist in those areas, do we shut down those military bases? Perhaps not," he suggested.
Now listen to Johnson contradict himself:
"I would completely withdraw our military presence," he expounded. "Does withdrawing our military presence from Afghanistan mean that we would still have a base open in Afghanistan if they allowed us to keep a base open? Perhaps."
Johnson said that while he favors withdrawing or reducing American forces based in Europe and the Far East, the Middle East is a region of the world the U.S. should remain in.
As the interview progresses, Johnson seems ever more confused. Although, I suspect he's not so much confused as trying to be all things to all people.
But despite Johnson saying he thinks that the Middle East is a region of the world the United States should maintain a military presence in, he contended that there are "no military threats" to the U.S. anywhere in the world.
Last year, The Weekly Standard reported that Johnson told the publication that he supported the concept of waging wars for humanitarian reasons despite wanting to cut the military budget by nearly half. Asked whether he stood by that, Johnson said he did.
"I don't want to close the door that if any of us were president of the United States that we would sit idly by and watch something like the Holocaust go down," http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0073CNKJ6/communistvampire he said. "I don't want to close the door on the United States involving themselves and putting a stop to that. Can we spend money on that? Yeah, I think so." ...
One intervention Johnson said he supports is the U.S. mission to help capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, which Johnson believes is arguably the "worst terrorist" group in the world.
"Based on what I know, yes," Johnson said, indicating his support for the mission to capture Kony. "Based on what I understand about it, that arguably this is the worst terrorist group that's been on the planet for the last 20 years."
That last statement is an interesting soundbite. It can be taken to read that Johnson thinks the Lord's Resistance Army is worse than al-Qaida. I have no idea if it is, but I can see how the conservative Right can beat Johnson over the head with that quote.
Still want to vote Gary Johnson as a protest vote?
Here is an article by Shaun Connell at the Washington Times Communities dealing with whether Gary Johnson is a true libertarian. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/capitali...
For many here at the Daily Paul this article will come as no surprise because we have intuited for a very long time that Gary J. is not what he claims to be and is in fact an empty suit so far as his principles of libertarianism are concerned. The author of the article is less abrasive in his assessment but the facts are what they are. That so many Ron Paul supporters could be deceived by this man surprises me given our professed devotion to the truth and honesty and our scepticism of so much related to the political jungle.
Perhaps this article will help GJ supporters who were or still are Ron Paul supporters to re-assess their support for Gary Johnson who is to my way of thinking desperately trying to channel Ron Paul in order to position himself as the inheritor of the Ron Paul rEVOLution. Personally he strikes me as just another ambitious deceiver who would break any promise you think he has made if he got anywhere near the ring of power. But everyone must decide for themselves.
If you think Johnson has a serious chance of becoming president on the LP ticket, you are simply delusional. Any rational person can convince himself that is the case merely by answering the following questions.
1. How many current members of Congress won on the LP ticket?
2. How many members of Congress has the LP elected, ever?
3. How many governors has the LP elected, ever?
4. How many Libertarians currently serve in any state legislature?
5. How many LP presidential candidates have won more than one percent of the popular vote?
6. How many electoral votes has an LP presidential candidate received, ever?
Here are the answers:
1. Zero. 2. Zero. 3. Zero. 4. Zero. 5. One. In 1980, Ed Clark won 1.1 percent of the popular vote. 6. One. In 1972 John Hospers got a single electoral vote. Ah, but some readers are thinking, Gary Johnson actually was a real politician; he served for eight years as governor of New Mexico. I agree that raises the possibility of him earning more votes as an LP candidate than previous candidates have earned. But he could earn many times the previous totals and still lose very badly.
Gary Johnson endorsed George W Bush in 2000
So I guess those supporting Johnson are now betraying their principles too. Oh the irony!
GWB ran on a big gov platform. Read the RNC platform of the year 2000. Notice No Child Left Behind, Increasing Home Ownership, and social intiatives endorsed by GWB all of which violate OUR PRINCIPLE!
AP NEWS ARCHIVE Jul. 8, 1999 7:51 PM ET SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) _ Gov. Gary Johnson endorsed Steve Forbes for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination Thursday, describing him through a spokeswoman as ``the man with the ideas.''
The Republican governor said, however, he will support whoever wins the party's nomination, according to his spokeswoman, Diane Kinderwater.
WOL: You've endorsed Gov. Bush for the presidency this year. Can you comment on his and Al Gore's general lack of interest in changing or discussing drug policy? And, given that you have said you will seek no further elective office, why not take a stand on principle on the drug issue and endorse either Ralph Nader or the Libertarians' Harry Browne, both of whom make drug policy reform major parts of their campaign?
Gov. Johnson: Believing that either Bush or Gore will win, I have to ask myself where do I have the most impact on this issue? I can have more of an impact working with Gov. Bush; after all, outside of drug policy we are pretty much in line. Do I not advance the issue further given that I would get a sympathetic ear at a Bush White House?
The stench of hypocrisy here is damaging my sinuses.... Lmao
Sorry, but Gary Johnson is NOT a Ron Paul! Have you ever seen ten thousand people at a Gary Johnson college rally! NO!
Don't get me wrong, I like Gary Johnson in a lot of ways, but sorry, he's just not a Ron Paul!
~Ever seen 10 thosand people at a Gary Johnson college rally! -->NO!
~Ever seen traffic slowed down to a snails pace due to a Gary Johnson sign wave? -->!NO
~Ever seen a Gary Johnson bumper sticker? -->NO!
~Ever seen a Gary Johnson yard sign? -->NO!
~Ever got up in the middle of the night to watch a Gary Johnson video -->NO!
~Ever googled Gary Johnson on your lunch break to get the latest Gary Johnson news! -->NO!
~Ever purposely walked through a crowded mall to show off your Gary Johnson tee shirt? -->NO!
~Ever seen a......"THE DAILY GARY" website? -->NO!
NUFF SAID! GIVE US RON PAUL 2012 OR WE WILL GIVE YOU OBAMA 2012!
How an Obama Victory Could Help the Liberty Movement:As Ron Paul's 2012 Presidential bid is drawing to a close, his supporters are struggling with the disappointment of defeat coupled with his son Rand's endorsement of Mitt Romney. It's been difficult and confusing for those who have invested their time, sweat, and money; but there are many reasons to be optimistic.
Ron Paul will send hundreds of delegates to Tampa for the Republican National Convention. They will have considerable power to shape the Republican Party platform, and they will make plenty of noise. Liberty minded citizens have taken over many state and local Republican Party committees and leadership positions, establishment politicians like Richard Lugar are being picked off, and the Liberty message has become a regular part of political discourse in America.
Granted, this Revolution may not be exactly what they've been hoping for, but it is a Revolution nonetheless. Ron Paul and his supporters have changed the political landscape dramatically, and for many years to come. However, this is no time for them to rest on their laurels. In order to be fully successful, the Liberty movement must recognize current reality, regroup, and redouble its efforts; and as hard as it may be to stomach, an Obama victory in November may provide the best opportunity to realize that success.
This theory is based on the very likely scenario that our economy will either not improve, continue on its downward path, or take a dive that will make the last crash look like a pimple on a penguin. Given the unsustainable debt, the European financial crisis, and the fact that neither production nor savings are showing any significant signs of improvement, this is not just speculation.
According to Peter Schiff, “It's a 100 percent chance.” That's a pretty bold prediction, but Schiff has made some pretty bold predictions in the past, and has been spot on! He correctly predicted every major economic event in recent history, including the dot-com bubble, the housing bubble and crash, and the 2008 financial crash.1
Schiff is not alone in thinking that 2013 or 2014 will see the next big economic turndown. Investor Jim Rogers, who also warned us of the last crash, agrees. “If you are not worried about 2013, please get worried.” 2
Now here's the rub. Whoever is the next President will take the blame for the crash in the eyes of the media and the general public. More importantly, the perceived economic philosophy of that President will be blamed. Regardless of reality, either capitalism will be seen as the culprit; or socialism will be seen as the culprit.
There will be no perceived nuances about the cause of the crash. Crisis produces extremes. Self preservation in the face of crisis causes people to circle the wagons, joining with people and ideas with which they agree. This effect will only be amplified by people's natural tendency, even under normal circumstances, to seek information that they agree with.3 To make matters worse, the very structure of the Internet, especially social networking sites, keeps contrary ideas in the background.
The Internet is building that bubble of "yes men" around you. For instance, everyone's favorite social networking site, Facebook, is filtering your friends according to how much you agree with them. It's not some crazy conspiracy theory, it's a computer algorithm.4
So let me repeat (in bold). The perceived economic philosophy of the President who presides over the crash will be blamed for the crash.
If Romney presides over the next crash, capitalism will be the villain. The drumbeat will be loud and clear for MORE government, more regulation, more stimulus, more money printing, and more debt. It will be a major blow to the Liberty movement and to Freedom itself, and increased statism will be the inevitable result.
On the other hand, if Obama presides over the next crash, socialism will be blamed, and the reaction will be against statism. The message of reduced governmental spending, regulation, and debt will be legitimized and amplified; and those who have been beating the Liberty drum will be in a position to put their ideas into action with increased public support.
The already increased influence and infiltration of Ron Paul supporters into Federal, state, and local governments, as well as the GOP party apparatus, will provide a springboard for their vision of a peaceful, free, and prosperous society.
Other factors could play into the Paulista's hands as well. A war with Iran, revelations from a Fed audit, increased drone surveillance, attacks on Internet freedom, and the European financial crisis are just a few examples of wild cards that could showcase the benefits of a Paulean philosophy.
So should Ron Paul supporters vote for Obama? The answer to that question resides in the image to the left (it's a flying pig). In fact, it's a ridiculous question, and serves no purpose other than encouraging people to consider the potentially positive consequences of an Obama win.
So should Ron Paul supporters vote for Romney? The answer is a resounding “No!” The Liberty movement has nothing to gain, and everything to lose with a Romney Presidency.
I realize that the thought of a second Obama term will be a hard thing for Paul supporters to stomach, Hope for an Obama victory in November, keep a bucket nearby, and keep working through other means to further the cause of Liberty.
