Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson, who initially entered the race as a Republican during the primaries, spoke with The Daily Caller on Monday about why voters should support him and what he’d most like to hear from each major candidate.
Recent polls have shown Johnson’s popularity hovering at six percent nationally, with small but significant support in swing states like Ohio, Colorado and Virginia that might be enough to influence the outcome of the race. (OPINION: Why I’m wasting my vote on Gary Johnson)
Johnson recently sued the Commission on Presidential Debates, alleging antitrust violations because he was excluded from each of the three nationally televised presidential debates. That lawsuit is still pending.
How is Gary Johnson doing the day before Election Day?
There’s a lot of apprehension on my part, because how well are we gonna do? Two days ago, CNN comes out with a poll, and they have me at 5.6 percent. And it’s a big poll. … [My assistant] and I are walking through the Detroit airport, and there’s [another] big poll: Obama 50, Romney 48. But we look it up, and sure enough, when Gary Johnson’s name is included, I have six points. No one’s including my name. It’s a big, big question mark.
Do you think, after Election Day, people are going to be talking about your influence on the race and asking why the media didn’t cover your campaign more?
I hope so. I hope it’s a big pants-down phenomenon.
If you were in a position where you could shout a question to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in the Rose Garden, and they had to answer it, what would it be?
Romney — the question I would want to ask, and this is obvious, is HOW DO YOU BALANCE THE BUDGET AND HOLD MEDICAID INTACT, AND INCREASE SPENDING FOR THE MILITARY? I would maintain that’s not possible. And yet, with a straight face, he consistently says that.
The question I have for Obama, is I think everything he says … everything that comes out of Obama’s mouth, I can’t disagree with it. I can’t disagree with anything he says. With a straight face, he’ll still say balancing the budget is important. Categorically, he’s right on. But the reality of his governing is 180 degrees from what comes out of his mouth. And I’m talking about on the civil liberties side, you know, gay rights — he’s as militaristic a president as we’ve ever had. He’s said some really favorable things on the drug war. Who was to believe he was going to shut down medical marijuana facilities? So I guess a specific question, with that as a preface. You know, everything that you say, versus what you do — they’re like 180 degrees, and in the case of medical marijuana, a specific promise to not crack down on medical marijuana facilities where legislatures votes to implement those programs — specifically, President Obama, WHY ARE YOU SHUTTING DOWN FACILITIES IN COLORADO AND CALIFORNIA WHEN YOU EXPLICITLY PROMISED NOT TO DO THAT?
You’ve done three “Ask me Anything” interviews on Reddit, a site heavily involved in the drug culture. How will your administration handle the drug war, starting on day one?
I would de-schedule marijuana as a narcotic, completely. I would embark on a process of pardoning individuals those individuals who have been convicted — undergo a process of commuting sentences for those who are in jail for nonviolent, victimless crime. And I don’t view selling drugs as having victims. I think drug sellers are just users that get thrust into the selling role. …
It’s a state issue, just like alcohol. There are still dry counties in this country. The reality is, I think Colorado is going to pass Prop 64 — and when they do, I think they’re the first of the 50 states to bring an end to the prohibition of marijuana. And the reality of that’s going to be, when everyone in the country starts getting on an airplane and going to Denver on the weekends to chill out, every state’s going to catch on and start changing their laws. This is so parallel to alcohol prohibition, when New York said, hey, we’re not going to enforce federal prohibition laws. Feds, if you want to have at it, you come have at it. But, as a state, we’re not going to do it anymore.
Do you want to legalize all drugs?
It gets more complex when you start moving down the line. First of all, if we legalized all drugs tomorrow, the world would be a better place. A much better place. 90 percent of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not use related. That’s not to discount the problems with use and abuse, but that should be the focus. We’re not going to go from A-Z, but we’re going to start with A-M, marijuana. We’re going to legalize marijuana. When people realize the sky isn’t falling, and the world’s a better place, and police are enforcing real crime — then we’re going to move onto other drugs.
The drug issue isn’t very high on most voters’ list of priorities.
The main issue is the economy.
Right. Why is it that people have the perception that you’re the drug candidate, and Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the ones who focus on the economy? How badly does that hurt you?
I completely agree with you, that that’s the perception. But the reality is anything but. I mean, I don’t even talk about it. … I think we’re going to suffer a monetary collapse if we don’t balance the federal budget. So, I’m advocating balancing the federal budget, and everything that goes into that — the entitlements, military spending — and I’m advocating eliminating the income tax, corporate tax, abolishing the IRS, and replacing all of that with one federal consumption tax. I am embracing the fair tax, I think that’s a terrific starting point.
But I was on Neil Cavuto, and Neil goes, governor, you need to stop talking about drugs, because you’re so good on all these issues. Well, Neil, who’s the one talking about drugs?
Do you agree with Rick Perry that the Department of .. what’s it, there … the uh … Department of Education should be abolished?
I think the number one thing the federal government could do to improve education is to abolish the federal Department of Education. Why? The Department of Education gives each state 11 cents out of every school dollar that every state spends. But it comes with 16 cents of strings attached. And, by the way, it comes from money the states send to Washington in the first place. … What they do, is say, you have to do A, B, C and D, and here’s 11 cents to do A, B, C and D. And what people don’t recognize is, to accomplish A, B, C and D, it costs 16 cents. It’s a negative to take federal education money. If the Department of Education didn’t exist, the states would have more money for education. No strings, no mandates. Give the money to the states — 50 laboratories of innovation and practice.
But there’s some things states can’t do, or maybe wouldn’t enforce, without the Department of Education.
Like what?
Let’s say a local public school district in a state discriminates against blacks. That’s a violation of federal law, and right now, that would be investigated through the Office of Civil Rights, which is a huge agency in the Department of Education.
I would completely — just totally disagree with you. What you’re saying sounds terrific, but the reality is it’s a pile of muck, when it comes to the actual implementation of this stuff. You end up spending an enormous amount of money — $90 billion to do what you’re talking about, but it isn’t just what you’re talking about — it’s a bunch of other stuff, too, for things that have very little impact on the states.
It’s never going to be an okay practice to not conform with the law. … It’s still federal law. Discrimination is against the law.
Wouldn’t it be a better solution to issue restrictions on the Department of Education once you’re president, rather than just abolishing it entirely? You said states can implement some programs. But wouldn’t it be better to keep some agencies, like OCR, [that have oversight] over the states?
States can do whatever they want. It’s against the law to discriminate. School districts would be breaking the law by discriminating. You know, I made a name for myself as governor of New Mexico by vetoing legislation. I vetoed more legislation, I think — and this may be an embellishment — but I may have vetoed more bills than the other 49 governors, combined. So, when I saw legislation like what you’re talking about — well, we want a federal agency to come in, and we’re going to pass a law that the state government is going to have a special agency to determine whether there’s discrimination in the individual school districts in New Mexico — veto! Veto! That’s a pile of muck that’s just going to cost the state a whole lot of money, and burden all the municipalities. That would have been my take on that legislation.
Anything you want to add to our readers?
A vote for me right now is a way to send a torpedo into the two-party system. It really is. If I get five percent of the vote, Libertarian Party gets matching funds next time. Libertarian Party does not have to deal — and I’m speaking broadly here, this doesn’t apply 100 percent, but it comes darn close — but the Libertarian Party would not have as big an issue with ballot access in any of the states. The time and the money that the Libertarian Party spends right now on ballot access virtually takes up all their time and all their money. If we could devote that attention to actual candidates, and winning elections — this is an opportunity to send that torpedo.