Reason has this interview with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, covering a wide range of topics. Toward the end he says he will announce his candidacy for the Libertarian presidential nomination once the Republican race is sorted out. Thanks to Bob Johnston for the link.
I wonder what that would impact his decision?
That should say why not what!
Given his recent comments about Sharia law, we don’t want him.
I think he said he doesn’t want sharia law to have the status of “law” in the U.S. He is just supporting the status quo in the U.S. “Law” is different from the ability of two individuals to decide to submit to arbitration under any rules they wish. But, as he said, in Great Britain, there was an experiment to have sharia have the status of law.
@Casual: If I understand correctly, Johnson is waiting to announce his candidacy for the Libertarian nomination so that he will not have so much competition for media attention with the large number of Republican candidates in the race.
I think Joshua’s analysis is exactly correct, as it stands now Johnson would have to compete with well over a dozen different republican and democrat candidates for president. After a clear winner is apparant on both sides, he will only have to compete with two. He is somewhat regularly making appearances on various cable networks for interviews even now though, i know he’s been on various fox news shows a few times in the past several months.
Gary Johnson is not my first choice as a candidate, but anyone who thinks that Sharia Law should be the law of the land, or is somehow consistent with individual liberty, is not a libertarian. If individuals want to voluntarily agree to follow Sharia Law, without coercing others to comply with it, that is their business, but they have no right to force it on to others.
I think that Gary Johnson is making a big mistake by not announcing that he is running now. A lot of people do not care who the Democrats or Republicans pick as their nominee. Also, Libertarian Party fundraising is down right now, and the party is currently at risk of failing to make the ballot in Oklahoma, and this could also lead to the party failing to make the ballot in some other places. The petition deadline in Oklahoma is March 1st, so if Johnson waits too long to announce it will be too late for him to raise enough money to salvage the Oklahoma ballot access drive. Right now it is looking like the LNC may not salvage ballot access in Oklahoma either. The ballot access drive in Oklahoma would be in much better shape right now if not for the LNC once again mismanaging things.
Gary has said he is waiting till after the other primaries to avoid the circus with all the bodies still running. He will announce once the Democratic and Republican parties have selected. This way he isn’t “debating” 10 or more people in the news. It will be just the 3 of them then.
Not that any news will ever mention a third party.
I’m in agreement with Richard. Any Libertarian that supports Sharia Law is NO Libertarian whatsoever. Sharia Law itself is anti-Libertarian.
Most people have any understanding of what Sharia is. Including Mr Johnson. Sharia is not a unitary or singular body of decions. Among the Sunni there are several main legal schools, and those schools of Sharia have several subschools of Sharia decisions and interpretation. The Saudi’s promote a particular variety. I assume Daesh has a particular school of Sharia they adhere to. Etc.
All this blather abt “Sharia Law” is like someone claiming all Baptists adhere to the same doctrine etc. This is just ignorant prittle prattle on the part of people like Johnson.
I’d reccomend Cyril Glasse’s New Encyclopedia of Islam is a good read, but Glasse has great, short entries that explain “Sharia” and the wide variety of schools of Sharia.
ANY oppressive religious legal system with infringes upon one’s, especial a woman’s civil rights and legal privileges, is evil and should never be allowed to ever have legal immunity or even a legal precedence in the US or preferably anywhere. We have the First Amendment and other constitutional improvisations that prohibit such crap here, and it needs stay that way.
Shame on any Libertarian that thinks otherwise, but then again some people in the LP really do wear the label of freedom on their sleeve, or have their own un-libertarian agenda.