This is probably why Bill Kristol sought his own candidate instead of the LP.

[Bigby]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/06/03/gary-johnson-i-agree-with-73-percent-of-what-sanders-says-you-know-n2172078

Not only that, but this is starting to discredit the idea that the Libertarians are Republican-lite in my personal opinion. Sounds like they're a more right-wing Green Party now that the Paul wing is dead. Regardless, I think this answers why Kristol chose his own candidate rather than rallying around the Johnson/Weld ticket.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

It's  because he is a total warmonger

[Indy Texas]

There's a decidedly "left-libertarian" flavor to this year's LP ticket.

At the convention, Bill Weld said he opposes a flat tax, not from the True Libertarian "I oppose all taxes" standpoint but because he thinks it's too regressive.

[Joe Republic]

So, the head of a ticket comprising two former GOP governors says he agrees with a socialist three quarters of the time.  I don't understand politics any more.

[Famous Mortimer]

The real reason is because Kristol is a single issue voter and that single issue is invading countries as soon as there's the slightest excuse to do so. The Libertarian Party is non-interventionist so there was absolutely no chance of a prominent neo-conservative getting behind them. I seriously can't figure out why people thought it was ever a possibility. Maybe pro-business/Chamber of Commerce/Club for Growth types would back the back the Libertarian Party but not neo-conservatives.

[Wisconsin+17]

LP is pro abort, pro gay marriage, if you want a socon why go with the LP?

[Santander]

Neocons have long been allies of the religious right, because they wouldn't have the numbers on their own to influence policy. The LP could never have even been in the picture because they're opposed to what neocons and their allies stand for - interventionist foreign policy and social conservatism.

[wolfsblood07]

Neocons have long been allies of the religious right, because they wouldn't have the numbers on their own to influence policy. The LP could never have even been in the picture because they're opposed to what neocons and their allies stand for - interventionist foreign policy and social conservatism.

I agree 100%, but there was courting of the libertarians by Ted Cruz during the primaries.  Which really seemed strange given what you pointed out.  Was Reagan able to bring libertarians and neocons together in his coalition?

[Phony Moderate]

Kristol's main issue with Trump is obviously foreign policy, so he isn't going to throw his support behind a party that is less neocon than Trump.

[PaperKooper]

Johnson is less appealing than Trump to the two groups with the most problems with Trump, neoconservatives and social conservatives. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Johnson is less appealing than Trump to the two groups with the most problems with Trump, neoconservatives and social conservatives. 

'Neocons' are not a relevant group of voters.

[Santander]

Johnson is less appealing than Trump to the two groups with the most problems with Trump, neoconservatives and social conservatives. 

'Neocons' are not a relevant group of voters.

I think the point is that they're an ideologically influential group with strong political ties to social conservatives. Neocons didn't shape the Bush administration's policies by being the most numerous, they did it by having the most influential ideas.

[Tartarus Sauce]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/06/03/gary-johnson-i-agree-with-73-percent-of-what-sanders-says-you-know-n2172078

Not only that, but this is starting to discredit the idea that the Libertarians are Republican-lite in my personal opinion. Sounds like they're a more right-wing Green Party now that the Paul wing is dead. Regardless, I think this answers why Kristol chose his own candidate rather than rallying around the Johnson/Weld ticket.

If anything, the Libertarian party was more of a right wing equivalent of the Green Party under his auspices, at least in terms of being a fantasy checklist of unfeasible proposals for conservative, ultra-small government types.

[Famous Mortimer]

Neocons have long been allies of the religious right, because they wouldn't have the numbers on their own to influence policy. The LP could never have even been in the picture because they're opposed to what neocons and their allies stand for - interventionist foreign policy and social conservatism.

I agree 100%, but there was courting of the libertarians by Ted Cruz during the primaries.  Which really seemed strange given what you pointed out.  Was Reagan able to bring libertarians and neocons together in his coalition?

Cruz is not a neo-con. Cruz just hate taxes. Him reaching out to libertarians made perfect sense, that's why he did it. Kristol reaching out to Libertarians makes no sense, that's why he didn't.

[wolfsblood07]

Neocons have long been allies of the religious right, because they wouldn't have the numbers on their own to influence policy. The LP could never have even been in the picture because they're opposed to what neocons and their allies stand for - interventionist foreign policy and social conservatism.

I agree 100%, but there was courting of the libertarians by Ted Cruz during the primaries.  Which really seemed strange given what you pointed out.  Was Reagan able to bring libertarians and neocons together in his coalition?

Cruz is not a neo-con. Cruz just hate taxes. Him reaching out to libertarians made perfect sense, that's why he did it. Kristol reaching out to Libertarians makes no sense, that's why he didn't.

I am glad Cruz is not a neocon because I actually like him.  But I suspect Kristol and the neocons would have been okay with him being the nominee.
I guess I can see what you're saying about Cruz and libertarians having common ground on a few issues like taxes, and maybe the gold standard.  I just thought it was a little surprising for Cruz to reach out to them because they are so permissive on drugs and some of the other social issues, and Cruz is like a church elder from 1675 on those issues!

[Fuzzy Bear]

LP is pro abort, pro gay marriage, if you want a socon why go with the LP?

Probably because the GOP doesn't intend to do anything about the social issues. 

Furthermore, a Libertarian would likely appoint Strict Constructionalist SCOTUS Justices whom, at a minimum, would reverse Roe v. Wade and allow abortion to be a state matter.

[Santander]

I am glad Cruz is not a neocon because I actually like him.  But I suspect Kristol and the neocons would have been okay with him being the nominee.
I guess I can see what you're saying about Cruz and libertarians having common ground on a few issues like taxes, and maybe the gold standard.  I just thought it was a little surprising for Cruz to reach out to them because they are so permissive on drugs and some of the other social issues, and Cruz is like a church elder from 1675 on those issues!

Cruz is an economic libertarian (i.e. corporate shill) first and a social conservative second. His preacher father helps him tap the vote-rich religious right, because he knows being an economic libertarian alone is not enough to become a major player in national politics.

[sparkey]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/06/03/gary-johnson-i-agree-with-73-percent-of-what-sanders-says-you-know-n2172078

Not only that, but this is starting to discredit the idea that the Libertarians are Republican-lite in my personal opinion. Sounds like they're a more right-wing Green Party now that the Paul wing is dead. Regardless, I think this answers why Kristol chose his own candidate rather than rallying around the Johnson/Weld ticket.

If anything, the Libertarian party was more of a right wing equivalent of the Green Party under his auspices, at least in terms of being a fantasy checklist of unfeasible proposals for conservative, ultra-small government types.

I don't think that the LP has changed its dynamic so much between when it nominated Paul and when it nominated Johnson. Remember that Paul had a primary battle of his own in '87, only getting 51% of the vote at the convention while the 2nd place candidate, Russell Means, ran distinctly to the left of Paul. There were clearly many back then in the LP who thought Paul was too conservative. I also don't think that "the Paul wing is dead," as evidenced by listening to any libertarian podcasts or webcasts now, which are all complaining about how Johnson isn't enough like Paul. Also, in the Hammer of Truth poll of LP members taken before this year's convention, the only libertarian figure polled who scored higher than Johnson in approval was Paul. (Both scored higher than Rand Paul, Amash, Petersen, McAfee, Barr, etc.)

[5280]

I've always thought Johnson represented the left wing part of the Libertarian party, while Austin Petersen, Rand Paul and Ron Paul were the right wing part of the party.