Author Topic: Gary Johnson's faux pas  (Read 2151 times)

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Gary Johnson's faux pas
« on: September 08, 2016, 02:50:29 PM »
So Gary Johnson had a brain fart this morning. He either forgot or never knew the importance of Aleppo.

That's pretty bad, and yet.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/no-excuse-johnson-says-if-voters-disqualify-him-over-aleppo-flop-so-be-it/

He owned it. He didn't blame his opponents. He didn't blame the media. He didn't just ignore the questions about it to attack his opponents.

This is the kind of difference that Bernie brought to the campaign, and it is a complete 180 to how Clinton and Trump act when they're caught out on their mistakes.

I really don't know if this is the dawn of a new political era. Where the Internet and social media makes it so politicians have to act differently. But I really, truly hope so. Gary Johnson is a man who I disagree quite a lot on in regards to policy positions, but the way in which he runs his campaign,  in much the same way conservatives respected Sanders while disagreeing with his message, gives me some small sliver of hope for the future.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2016, 03:00:42 PM »
On a slight tangent, I am still lurking here, I just haven't been posting much because Seriati, Fenring, and D.W. pretty much manage to encapsulate what I feel about the topic of the day.

I still immensely value the debate and different viewpoints on display.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2016, 03:03:16 PM »
While embarrassing, he IS a non-interventionist. 
Then again, his slogan of "Feel the Johnson" was enough for me to not take him seriously.   ::)

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2016, 03:09:32 PM »
LOL. He was just playing off of "Feel the Bern," I'm assuming,  and yet the light heartedness of it makes me like him more.

This is a man who knows that he has no chance of winning, yet he puts his message out there without apologies. I respect that. I LIKE it. If it were between him, and Clinton, I'd vote Johnson.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2016, 03:16:54 PM »
I've never heard of the Syrian crisis being referred to as "Aleppo," which makes me inclined to believe the question was unfairly phrased. Granted, asking "What is Aleppo?" was a particularly unpolished response.

It's also easier to accept being "disqualified" when one never had a chance in hell to begin with.

I did like Sanders less when he (or his supporters) started to act like he might actually win. ETA: That was poorly phrased, I dislike how the tone shifted from the beginning of the campaign when it was idealistic to the end when it seemed idealism was sacrificed for a chance at power.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2016, 03:19:45 PM by NobleHunter »

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2016, 03:37:20 PM »
I disagree that Sanders was trading idealism for power.

He has never acted like he wanted a position in the Clinton administration, and she hasn't offered him one.

What he DID do was decline to shut his mouth about the positions and demands of his followers just because of "B...b...but TRUMP!"

He had a message to spread, and he did. The fact that he didn't meekly instruct his followers to support Clinton at her or the establishment's demands doesn't mean that he was looking for power. It just means that he took seriously his position as the figurehead of a new political bloc and wasn't willing to play everyday politics with it.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2016, 03:53:51 PM »
Did you miss the part where superdelegates turned from unelected powermongers who were going to make sure Clinton was elected to sacred guardians of the People's Will who should vote for Sanders?

Or how every screw up in the primaries was a secret effort by Clinton to disenfranchise righteous citizens and to stop the People from having their Voice heard but, dude, caucuses are totally a legit form of selecting delegates? So Clinton didn't *really* have a few million more votes than Sanders. And they're all from red states anyways, so they don't count.

His message suddenly seemed less important than scrabbling after every possible advantage when it seemed Clinton wasn't inevitable after all.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2016, 03:54:48 PM »
He had a message to spread, and he did. The fact that he didn't meekly instruct his followers to support Clinton at her or the establishment's demands doesn't mean that he was looking for power. It just means that he took seriously his position as the figurehead of a new political bloc and wasn't willing to play everyday politics with it.

I think he may have also been waiting until the 11th hour for a miracle that would somehow turn the tables on the primaries result. What with the FBI investigations, Wikileaks, and all the rest, there's no telling what sort of strange event might have somehow put him back into the race. Giving up and telling his supporters to go elsewhere prematurely would have removed all chances. Additionally, I can entirely understand that if he felt the election was stolen from him he might have chaffed at having to fold. In that position I would have been SO reluctant to give my opposition the satisfaction.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2016, 04:04:46 PM »
You know what? I try not to be partisan.  You raise a good point.

Maybe he got overexcited about his support, and tried to turn the establishment in his favor. It IS a minus in the ultimate gauge of immunity to politics as usual.

At the end of the day, he stilled owned his positions. He is still the only national politician in my memory to be right on so MANY things and to have never apologized for them.

Okay. In the end, when he thought he had a chance, he bent slightly. But do you honestly not see the difference between that and Clinton's career?

PS- Clinton may be the preferable candidate out of the two, but she is still detestable. Even at her best, she only fights for what she thinks 51 percent of the country supports. Sanders, and Johnson, are different. They say what they think, they think what they say, and they are willing to let the chips fall where they may.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2016, 04:08:08 PM »
He had a message to spread, and he did. The fact that he didn't meekly instruct his followers to support Clinton at her or the establishment's demands doesn't mean that he was looking for power. It just means that he took seriously his position as the figurehead of a new political bloc and wasn't willing to play everyday politics with it.

I think he may have also been waiting until the 11th hour for a miracle that would somehow turn the tables on the primaries result. What with the FBI investigations, Wikileaks, and all the rest, there's no telling what sort of strange event might have somehow put him back into the race. Giving up and telling his supporters to go elsewhere prematurely would have removed all chances. Additionally, I can entirely understand that if he felt the election was stolen from him he might have chaffed at having to fold. In that position I would have been SO reluctant to give my opposition the satisfaction.

Oh, no doubt. I was personally hoping that the FBI would decide that she had crossed the line, and that Sanders would be the standard bearer. It's a shame that they didn't, but I can't blame him for waiting to see the results.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2016, 04:18:55 PM »
I see the difference between him and Clinton but I was still disappointed in him.

Though I would suggest that arguing he's better than Clinton at unprincipled idealism is damning with faint praise.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2016, 07:38:37 PM »
Quote
Oh, no doubt. I was personally hoping that the FBI would decide that she had crossed the line, and that Sanders would be the standard bearer. It's a shame that they didn't, but I can't blame him for waiting to see the results.
I don't, either.  Given his commitment to his campaign objectives and the level of support he acted reasonably.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2016, 01:56:01 PM »
On the original observation, I was disappointed that Gary didn't handle that question better. It was a question he should have prepped for and handled. He can't afford to be president and talking to diplomats and not know the name of Syria's second city.

There's an interesting article on the scope of the failure, quite pro-Johnson, but worth a look.

One of the points made is how Johnson handled the failure. He didn't try to bluff his way through the question, or spit out a talking point. He didn't blame the interviewer for being unfair, he owned his mistake and expressed his embarrassment.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Gary Johnson's faux pas
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2016, 02:00:58 PM »
One thing to bring up on the attention paid to Johnson on this: The Media is probably trying to undo their excessive attention on Trump by now giving Johnson "excessive attention" in the hopes he will siphon voters away from Trump and onto his(Johnson's) ticket. In some ways I'm torn. I'm more inclined to think it's more likely to draw off many of the Republicans who would have otherwise held their nose and voted for Clinton. But I do think that the decision to give Johnson a lot of attention is a definite attempt to pull voters away from Trump. It probably doesn't also hurt that it helps pull away any negative attention Hillary might otherwise get.

I'd expect more of this in the run up to November. If Hillary hits a rough patch, expect them to find something "interesting" to talk about in regards to Johnson.