I've been very pleased with Gary Johnson's campaign for President since his nomination at the Libertarian convention earlier this month. He's been doing interviews all over the media and generally bringing the right kind of attention to his candidacy and to the Libertarian Party.
Vice Presidential candidate Judge James Gray? Not so much.
Gray has been virtually invisible thus far. No campaign website. Can't find him on the LP's website or Gary Johnson's website. Doesn't have a Facebook page for the campaign. Has a personal website and Facebook page, but not for the campaign? I haven't seen any media clips with interviews.
Such a fuss was made that Gray should get the nomination. He passionately spoke to a private caucus of the Indiana delegates and he begged, promised that he wouldn't disappoint. Well, sorry, so far it's a disappointment. Almost a month has passed, and nothing to show for it. We don't have forever to wait for the action to start- especially if competing against candidate poised to raise a billion dollars each.
2 comments:
I went to a website and a Norton 'malicious cookie' notice popped up. So I found a Daily Caller article:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/30/pro-pot-judge-will-be-gary-johnsons-vp-pick/
"The decision to run with Gray “puts pot front-and-center in the campaign,” one Johnson adviser told TheDC."
Note: I don't know what it is that compels Libertarians to put the legalization of drugs at the forefront of a national campaign for the oval office. Not the message that affects my daily life and certainly not determinative of a voting booth decision.
Yes, the economy and foreign policy are my pick for Top Two. Pot doesn't affect my daily life either.
However, it is a terribly, expensively misguided policy to continue the drug prohibition that gives strength to criminal gangs and to the violence that accompanies black market commerce. The lessons of Prohibition, during and after, are as useful as ever: During = criminal gangs using violence to protect illicit trade; After = civilized business people conducting orderly trade, and the gangs are out of that business.
Given the loss of life associated with drug related violence, while it isn't my top issue, and while it doesn't affect my life directly, I have great sympathy for the human cost of drug prohibition, and oppose it on those grounds. It's a worthy issue on this basis. To ignore it entirely is to ignore the loss of life involved.
Post a Comment