On April 15, Congressman Justin Amash said he will soon decide whether to run for president. See this story. The story says that he stopped campaigning for re-election to Congress in February.
On April 15, Congressman Justin Amash said he will soon decide whether to run for president. See this story. The story says that he stopped campaigning for re-election to Congress in February.
I guess he saw the handwriting on the wall with regard to winning re-election as an independent.There was a time I would have supported his potential candidacy for the LP nomination but that time is past. He has waited too long AND he could have switched to Libertarian instead of independent when he left the GOP. Adios, Justin!
Casual, I’m not 100% sold and signed, but if he jumps in he’d be on my short list. A couple points in his favor:
(1) Unlike some others, he quit the Republican party when it cost something: he was in office and very much viable for re-election. To me that is way more convincing than people who were politically unemployed has-beens when they declared independence.
(2) I’m not deeply impressed by the rest of the field. Some of them are really good, committed lifelong libertarians, but it takes more than that. I can’t see any of them breaking our old 500K ceiling. I also can’t see any of them getting a front page CNN story; Amash got one just for thinking out loud about a run.
(3) Don’t have very recent numbers but it looks like he’s got a decent chunk of cash on hand and could bankroll the petition drives (and lawsuits) in those last few states that always seem to be the hardest.
(4) Despite the flaws, and they’re not insignificant, I consider him the most libertarian sitting member of congress.
Rep. Massie or Sen. Paul even Sen. Lee are at least as good. I think he has fumbled away his opportunity. I agree with Darcy Richardson that 2020 is not likely to be a good year for alternative parties. This polarization has gotten to incredible levels. The wasted vote syndrome is going to be at a fever pitch. He knows he can’t win re-election to the House so go out with a blaze of glory. To me that is just another GOP opportunist. I would rather have a Jorgensen/Hornberger (or the other way around) ticket and hold our heads high than suck it up for the 4th cycle in a row.
And if Massie, Paul the Younger, or even Lee very publicly quit the Republican party and sought our nomination, I’d give them a respectful hearing. I’d listen especially respectfully and carefully to their explanations for why they stuck with Trump when Amash had the principles to break with him.
But they haven’t and won’t. I’m comparing the options on offer.
I’d happily vote for Jo and Jacob in either order if they get the nomination. Same for Sharpe, Monds, Gray.
You are jumping way ahead of yourselves. Amash is an independent and has not said anything about running with a political party. If he does run, maybe he will stick with the principles he laid out in his eloquent statement of independence and run as an independent.
If he does sell out to another party to get ballot access, his positions on immigration and abortion put him more in line with the constitution party than the libertarians. And if he does decide to go with libertarians, say because their ballot access is better, it seems extremely unlikely that massie, either Paul or Lee will be his competition for the nomination. It would seem quite unlikely to me that anyone in their current field could beat him for the nomination but who knows, maybe the libertarians really are that ornery.
In the extreme hypothetical situation that any of the republicans you name were available I’d pick amash. He actually broke from the republicans before just jumping into the presidential race, and was the only one on the correct side of the impeachment issue. Of course it’s not my decision to make, as I would never join any party. But then I don’t see any chance anyone else will be making that decision either since those republicans will all stick with their party.
more communists = more fascists = more communists = etc.
See Germany 1929-1933, Spain 1931-1936, etc etc
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Nathan, Libertarians who promote “open borders”/unlimited, unrestricted immigration, and abortion are actually The ones who are NOT inline with their of self professed philosophy. Libertarianism DOES NOT mean “socially liberal and fiscally conservative,” or, at least this is a dumbed down way to define it. Libertarianism, more accurately defined, means PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE. All issues stances should go back to property rights and the NON-Aggression Principle, aka-the NAP.
One essential characteristic of property rights is the right of exclusivity to property. If property has no exclusivity, there is no property rights. Advocating that everyone on the planet should have access to the property that makes up the land mass known as the USA is at odds with exclusivity to property. Land is a scarce resource and is therefore subject to private property norms. Just because states have a monopoly on the function of regulating borders and immigration, it does not invalidate the function. States have monopolies on lots of functions, but this does not invalidate all of these functions. Astate policy that says anyone can enter the country with no questions asked, particularly when this country has morphed into a democratic welfare state with forced association laws, INCREASES the level of conflict in society, and is an ASSAULT on the rights of the existing population, particularly when large numbers of people enter who do not reciprocate the values of liberty. There is no liberty without reciprocity.
Now as for abortion, if a fetus is a life, which medical science appears to indicate that it is, abortion is murder, and is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Think about what goes into carrying out an abortion. Stabbing a fetus with a scaple, and/or crushing the skull of a fetus, or sucking a fetus out with s vacuum. These are acts of aggression, and unless the life of tbe mother is at stake, which is rare, it is not an act of self defense. The only other possible exveption would be in the case of rape, whereas the act that created the fetus was not entered into voluntarily, but these cases are pretty rare as well.
One of the problems with the Libertarian Party, is that there are too many people in it who do not really understand their own self professed philosopy.
Being a libertarian does NOT mean agreeing with leftists on social issues. Sure, you can sometimes find common ground, but this does NOT mean being “socially liberal,” nor does finding common ground with a conservative mean that libertarians are “fiscal conservatives,” at least not in the sense that Republicans are, or claim to be.
Closed border “libertarians” are the ones not in line with Libertarian philosophy unless you believe the government owns all property and can override property owners about who can travel and who can’t. Anyone who believes this should be 100% ok with what some states are doing when they have border checkpoints between states and restrict who can come into their states and who can’t. Anyone with this stances should never try to be gatekeepers over who is and isn’t a Libertarian. Also Amash is heads and shoulders better than Lee and especially Rand “Trump Sycophant” Paul. Massie is closer but Amash is still more in line with the Libertarian Party.
Brandon, agreed. But personally I would not want any of them as the LP nominee, Amash included. I think if Amash does run it will be LP for ballot access reasons, and will probably easily get the nomination despite my wishes. Even though he broke with the Republicans, he’s still way too much on that side for my taste.