1. So I never had a problem with the existence of Guantanamo or holding prisoners indefinitely for the duration of the conflict. But I had a problem with a lot that went on at Guantanamo. A lot of people don't seem to get that difference. I think that if Gary Johnson were elected and on Day 1 said "look, there's nothing wrong with having a military prison and holding prisoners of war [I don't think Johnson is a pacifist... am I wrong?] as long as we are legal and ethical in how we do it", 90% of libertarians would get my take on this overnight and would protest vehemently if they were told they continued Bush's policies. Genuine pacifists wouldn't, obviously. The whole problem with Bush was torture and lack of due process, not the mere fact of holding prisoners of war or killing terrorists.
2. If there was a Democratic challenger that supported Obama on everything but all the war stuff you all worry about, I think that challenger would get a ton of support. He might not win - incumbency is a powerful force. But he'd make major headway. You guys are harping on a false choice. Romney is worse than Obama on all counts, and Johnson is better than Romney on some and worse than Romney on a lot of really important stuff (health reform, Social Security, environmental protection, social safety net, macroeconomics etc.). Seriously. I get why you guys think honest Democrats shouldn't vote for Obama. But who do you expect honest Democrats to vote for? Exactly what viable alternative is there? It sure as hell ain't Johnson or any other libertarian. If you bracket the weed/war/gays stuff, Johnson is worse than the most right-wing Republican. I don't understand why libertarians don't understand how important that is.
So that was a blend of proposition and rant but I really don't think a lot of people think through this stuff.
This is pinging a little off Brennan's post.
[UPDATE: 3. I've been curious what people think of this... I think if Ron Paul ran on the libertarian ticket they might have gotten the 5% they were looking for. Yes the man has baggage. But he is in an entirely different class of politican compared to Johnson. Anyway, I think he could have dramatically increased the LP vote. Which says two things: (1.) the libertarian movement is very personality cult/charisma driven, and (2.) is Ron Paul interested in the success of libertarianism or does he care more about using it to advance his own career and now just dropping it to ensure his son's career in the Republican party?]
Liveblogging Postwar: June 30, 1946: China
23 minutes ago