John Guardiano weighs
in on Gary Johnson’s recent comments to the Weekly
Standard about defense spending. While I disagree with
Guardiano on a number of issues concerning foreign policy and
defense — especially the idea that those of us who do disagree
with him on these subjects “dream of a conservative movement
without its messy insistence on defense and foreign policy issues”
— he’s right on his main points. Defense cuts of the size
Johnson raises casually would be detrimental to U.S. national
security and thinking about such spending in a way directly
proportionate to population size makes no sense.
John McCormack provides
more context to Johnson’s comments about humanitarian wars,
showing that he did in fact endorse them during their
interview.
Finally, Jack Ross
says I misrepresent “totally” his
post on Johnson when I write
that he believes Johnson could win. Even if Ross isn’t
predicting a Johnson win, I’m not sure why you would
bother to write about a hypothetical path to the Republican
nomination for Johnson — or even write the
phrase “Obama-Johnson general election race” — if you don’t
think there is at least some theoretical possibility he
could be successful. But Ross is rather straightforwardly
arguing that there could be a set of circumstances that allow
Johnson to be a major candidate, competing on something approaching
even terms with putative frontrunners like Sarah Palin. (“It is
therefore quite conceivable that Palin could win Iowa, Johnson New
Hampshire, and the battle joined.”)
Nevertheless, I’ll point out for the record that Ross says
Johnson could lose even in this favorable set of circumstances: “It
bears emphasis, however, that none of this is to suggest that for
Gary Johnson to become the moderate or establishment choice would
secure him the nomination, far from it in fact.” You can wade
through the whole thing
here if you care to. My only point was that to believe Johnson
can be more successful than Ron Paul, you must believe that Paul
would have been more successful had he been pro-choice, pro-open
borders, and a relatively recent pot smoker. Unless Johnson soon
demonstrates some quality as a campaigner not currently in
evidence, I find that implausible.
Michael L. Hauschild| 12.13.10 @ 1:39PM
I stand in awe of the state of mental illness of some of the pundits who spew such non-sense as a Johnson candidacy. Why would anyone promote a ganja smoking, para-sailing (and crashing) disarmament babbling air head?
Bohner is about to give away the farm, any you loons are raving about someone whose only litmus test seems to be embedded gravel.
Margie| 12.13.10 @ 2:56PM
Let me whisper in your ear, Mr. H: It just may have something to do with Israel.
Red Phillips | 12.13.10 @ 2:47PM
I find it interesting that John Guardiano chose to place his objection on FrumForum. Is Guardiano similar to Frum, a defense hawk who is otherwise moderate? Until now I didn't realize Guardiano was in the "Frum orbit."
Margie| 12.13.10 @ 3:04PM
What logic.
Red Phillips | 12.13.10 @ 3:13PM
Margie, no "logic" was intended. I honestly did not know Guardiano was a FrumForum writer until now. No conclusions can necessarily be drawn from that, but it is natural to assume that Frum views him as friendly (or at least not averse) to his message of social and fiscal moderation and defense hawkishness. I doubt Frum would welcome columns from Antle.
Red Phillips | 12.13.10 @ 3:51PM
I also find it interesting that Guardiano touts RINO Romney as a "better and more informed" candidate. I guess all one has to do to be "better and more informed" in Guardiano's opinion is be an interventionist shill for the defense industry. I think him for showing his cards.
There is just so much wrong with Guardiano's FF piece, including an apologia for nation-building, that I don't have time to cover it all.
smokeganja| 12.13.10 @ 11:34PM
ya why promote johnson when we can just keep voting in boring old canditates who have lived such a repressed life that they have this sense of sociopathic narcissm to tell everyone how to live their own lives. Because that has worked so well in the last 200 years. You people that still think pot is bad for you crack me up. Ever hear of a thing called google? look up marijuana and get the truth.