Cornell Republicans Lose Credentials After Endorsing Gary Johnson
“Mr. Trump should not be the face of American conservatism.”
The College Republicans at Cornell University have endorsed the Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson.
They announced their support for Johnson in a post on Facebook:
Dear Members and Alumni,
The Cornell Republicans, as the official representatives of the Republican Party at Cornell, are dedicated to promoting limited government and individual freedom. But our organization does not solely represent the Republican Party. Our first responsibility is to our members: libertarians, moderates, neoconservatives, and everyone in between. We value our ideological diversity and welcome differing perspectives.
This election’s unprecedented nature has made blind commitment to our Party unpalatable. The Cornell Republicans cannot, in good faith, endorse our party’s nominee. Mr. Trump should not be the face of American conservatism. Instead, we are proud to endorse the true conservative in this election: Gary Johnson.
Governor Johnson’s commitment to fiscal conservatism is unparalleled. Governing a blue state, he shrunk the size of the government, balanced the state’s budget, and never increased taxes. While we do not agree with all of his positions, we firmly support his devotion to free trade, states’ rights, and other conservative principles.
This has caused New York’s Federation of College Republicans to yank their credentials.
Inside Higher Ed reported:
BREAKING: NYS GOP Group Kicks Out Cornell Group for Endorsing Libertarian Ticket
The New York Federation of College Republicans announced Saturday that it is revoking the credentials of the Cornell University Republicans over the Cornell group’s endorsement of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for president.
The Cornell group’s endorsement cited Johnson’s fiscal conservatism and contrasted his policies favorably with those of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. “No one wants to vote for the lesser of two evils. Together, let’s stand on the right side of history,” the endorsement says. It adds that “our organization does not solely represent the Republican Party. Our first responsibility is to our members: libertarians, moderates, neoconservatives and everyone in between. We value our ideological diversity and welcome differing perspectives.”
Saturday’s statement from the New York Federation of College Republicans said that the Cornell chapter would be stripped of all privileges for the semester, including participating in events and receiving fellowships. Cornell Republicans who disagree with their chapter’s decision will be able to apply to participate as individual members.
Two thoughts: At first glance, it looks as though the Cornell Republicans are breaking with their party and technically, by endorsing the Libertarian candidate, they are. But let’s not forget that Johnson is actually a long time member of the Republican Party. When Johnson ran for Governor of New Mexico, he ran as a Republican and served as one.
Second, the Cornell Republicans are making the same mistake many people do by conflating the Republican Party with conservatism. Although many conservatives are Republicans, not all Republicans are conservatives. It’s called the Republican Party, not the Conservative Party.
Donald Trump’s job right now is to be the Republican Party nominee, not the “face of American conservatism” as the Cornell Republicans seem to think.
Was Mitt Romney the face of American conservatism? Was McCain?
The Cornell Daily Sun has a statement from the chair of the Cornell Republicans:
Olivia Corn ’19, the Cornell Republicans’ chair, said that despite possible limitations, club leadership is committed to doing everything possible this fall to recruit new members and “resume business as usual” — with a small name change.
“The Cornell Republicans will stand by our principles and not fall in line with a Trump henchman,” said Executive Director Austin McLaughlin ’18, responding to the revocation.
“I am looking into whether or not [the federation] has the legal ability to [revoke recognition],” Corn said. “All I ask of the Cornell community is that they stand behind us during this difficult time in our fight for free speech and moral principles.”
Casey Breznick, a Cornell student who has written for Legal Insurrection and College Insurrection, has written a column for the Cornell Review in response to the situation:
Cornell ‘Republicans’ Endorse Gary Johnson for President After Pressure from Cornell ‘Daily’ Sun
“True conservative” – a descriptor not even Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson would ascribe to himself, yet the Cornell Republicans declared him as such, and the only one of such running for president in 2016, in a recent Facebook post.
The endorsement comes a little over a week after the Cornell “Daily” Sun published a staff editorial calling on the Cornell Republicans to renounce and, by implication, not endorse Donald Trump for president.
The Sun, in its editorial, wrote Trump’s views “defy the values of equality and diversity that are fundamental to both our collegiate and national values” and “The list of Trump’s policy weaknesses and character failings is endless.” Even though the Sun has a staff of over 100 to think of phrases to discredit the GOP candidate, they couldn’t avoid including this cliche: Trump is a “clear and present danger.”
The Cornell Republicans add on: Trump displays “visceral rhetoric and angry demeanor” and “insults our war heroes.”
It seems both are reading the same DNC talking points.
Featured image is banner image from Cornell Republicans Facebook Page.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Nor should an open-borders zealot, or a candidate who wishes to force a business to serve those they do not wish to serve.
2016 should have been an election charged with passion, but it is atmospherically deadening, as if many voters wished the candidates would just go away. If the 20th century was one in which people believed government could solve all the world’s problems, the 21st century is fast developing into one where government has become like the weather: chaotic, capricious and ultimately arbitrary — something everyone talks about but no one can do anything about.
The factions have filled political discourse with entropy. There it will remain until it settles around a new attractor. Until then, all that is left is to live out our lives in the shadow of a mysterious federal building that no intelligent life is known to inhabit, save for a lady rumored to be in periodic residence occasionally glimpsed trying to send a message on a BlackBerry before smashing it with a hammer.
—Richard Fernandez
Yep. Because there is no clear ideology to follow. Only a muddled “populism” and “nationalist” shouting in a general, undefined, and essentially dishonest way on the one side, and a totally discredited and corrupt hegemon on the other.
Question is, where do we go from here? Trump is fantastically unpopular with the young voters. We can talk about the issues, but I suspect it’s simply because he’s not relatable to people under… 60.
One way or another, Trump will go away (even presuming the highly unlikely scenario of him being elected and reflected), but the millennial voters will not. The GOP can ostracize students who endorse Johnson, then what?
If history is any guide then the young voters of today will grow up and discover that progressivism is a form of oppressive socialism and will become classic liberal thinkers out of necessity. They may not ever embrace the Republican Party or what is presently called by the name conservatism though.
I see your point, but the Americans today are more liberal than ever and conservatism, or classic liberalism, is under threat from within the GOP. There is no major party candidate in 2016 who can even attempt to pretend to be a classic liberal.
I’m not interested in team R going against the team D if they are representing two competing forms of big government socialism. I’m not sure young voters will see any distinction there or will find what the new GOP has to offer more compelling than the traditional Democratic agenda.
“… but the Americans today are more liberal than ever and conservatism, or classic liberalism,…”
No basis or data supporting this assumption: “Americans today are more liberal than ever”. Further the present day conservatism is not classical liberalism and that is easily demonstrated by any number of comments posted here.
I meant to say “you don’t Americans” are more liberal than ever.
Quite aside from their sophomoric notions of electoral strategy, the Cornell ex-Republicans have a contentious idea of what “conservatism” means. They seem to adhere to a slightly bowdlerized version of “fiscal conservatism”, which is fine by me but hardly universal. The social conservatives will fight to undermine that; they always do.
Until there’s popular agreement on just how to resolve the schism between two essentially incompatible flavors of the concept of “conservative”, convenient statements like “I’d prefer to vote for a true conservative” will be essentially meaningless.
Social conservatism advocates personal responsibility where progressivism promises government handouts: see unwed mothers on welfare.
Are Prohibition laws about personal responsibility? I was under the impression that heroin over the counter (pre-1914) was actual personal responsibility.
“Social conservatism” as it exists today is just another flavor of Progressive.
You think that because you’re a Liberal Progressive Troll.
Hello TROLL. We WILL call you out for what you are here.
Social Conservatism does not equal progressivism. The mere attempt to conflate the two means you’ve never actually thought about the two in a serious manner.
But, tom, you are NOT a “conservative”. What you are is a penurious old coot who is too dense to get that “social issues”, as we’ve often pointed out, INCLUDE tax policy, gun control, law enforcement, etc., and MORE etc.
It looks like my comment to neo-neocon’s post is being proven at Cornell.
——————–
https://legalinsurrection.com/2016/09/polls-and-the-reluctant-trump-voter/#comments
Their game is dangerous not only to the nation if Hillary wins, but also to themselves. Their future influence within the party is on the line. Win or lose they will be seen as having been disloyal to the party. They will either be seen as a cause of Trump’s defeat or as having contributed nothing to his victory. Win or lose, the pressure on the party will be to move to the center, and they refuse to go there. In either case it will be very hard for them to claim a seat at the policy setting table.
And they need to be at that table if they want to influence the direction of the party. If they want to get back in the game, they better act quickly.
——————-
Apparently those who are disloyal can take a hike. Of course, if we are to believe rags (and who wouldn’t?), none of you wants a seat at the table:
——————-
And, of course, you have it exactly backwards. People like me never demand, ask, or expect “a seat at the table”.
What we do expect and demand…as consumers, if you will…is a offering we can spend our vote for.
——————-
So I am confused as why you are even discussing this. You should be just waiting for 2020, having given up on 16. Or is rags wrong and you do want to sit at the table? And if you do, how are you going to earn the seat?
Good luck building your party on a dwindling base: no conservatives, no young people, no minorities.
And what base do we have now? A bunch of self centered whining fools who equate defeat with moral purity and confuse principles (which they never define) with tactics (which they never possess). Who refuse to plan for a victory and take comfort in defeat? That base? The base that gave us Obama 2? That base? The base that voted Perot and gave us Clinton 1? That base? The base that voted libertarian in VA and gave us McAuliffe? That base? The base that is so stupid that it wouldn’t get a conservative candidate on the ballot this year? That base? The base that replaced Boehner with Ryan? That base? Is that the base you’re talking about? From the results it appears that that base works for the democrats.
Your base now are the older people and AltRight.
edge, if all the conservative base does is lose elections, it’s no base. And they have been doing that for decades. Their unflinching principles are used election after election to defeat us. If we have a problem with young people, it’s largely because the hard right won’t compromise an inch on social issues. You make it sound like wishing will change that – it won’t. How do you guys propose to change your message to attract them? Will you even try? We can’t go on giving our enemies the tools to defeat us with. And those tools are supplied to them by the unyielding stance of the hard right. The hard right is the worst enemy conservativism has today. I’ve asked several times how you are going to get a seat at the table. The answer appears to be that you don’t give a damn. Everyone else is supposed to come to you and you’ll tell them what the terms are. And that’s supposed to win voters. Amazing!
“And they have been doing that for decades. Their unflinching principles are used election after election to defeat us.”
Well, that pretty clearly identifies you. Who’s this “us”, Kemosabe?
Because you have just clearly excluded yourself as ANY kind of conservative.
Which you’ve been lying about for months here. So, who is your “us”?
No, you lying bullying Collectivist. None of your straw-men.
Conservative principles are not hard to find for anyone with any moral and intellectual integrity. I recommend Bill Whittle’s excellent speeches before various TEA Party groups.
Little wonder, however, you find them a mystery.
You are to Bill Whittle what Westboro Baptist is to true Christianity.
But you are a lying, bullying Collectivist thug, like your little yellow god.
Another of your insightful, thoughtful answers. I will give it the consideration it deserves.
Here you go, you lying bully.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bill+whittle+tea+party&view=detail&mid=66851A8B6641C99599F466851A8B6641C99599F4&FORM=VIRE
Name what Whittle defines in that series that I DON’T constantly advocate.
Next, name the things that Whittle defines that your Great God Cheeto DOES NOT advocate. Because Der Donald is ANTI-conservative.
(You won’t, because it would be too much to expect from a lying Collectivist thug.)
Rags, i am glad that you are a fan of the original PJM crew (BC especially). Roger L Simon has a number of posts which makes his evolution pretty clear.
The situation for this election year is a critical choice between the Clinton Crime Family and an unknown quantity DJT (but I have faith in Rudy Giuliani to do the right thing).
That is the choice we have not a choice which I preferred.
You rant and rail against DJT, he was NOT my 1, 2, or 3 choice – BUT he is what we have. he seems to have grown as a candidate and stands by his friends. he has given a list of proposed SCOTUS nominees (with which I agree).
When Justice Ginsburg screeched her ad hominem against DJT it solidified my support for DJT.
This is the most critical vote in the past 50 years, with a debt crises (both national and personal), judges to be placed on the bench (after Obama has seeded the lower courts with lifetime Lib-Rule appointments) a depleted and politicized military and a feckless foreign policy where friends can’t trust us and enemies do not fear us.
Stop sucking on your thumb and come out full bore for a pro United States recovery.
The election is between Trump and Clinton. On Nov 8 one of them will be elected. Trump is the far better candidate and deserves to be elected. That’s reality. Everything else is just the raving of a mind in denial.
Enjoy your holiday. The coals are almost ready and the beer is cold.
The election is between two Collectivist thugs.
I won’t be voting for either of them.
depending on which state you live/vote in, it just won’t matter who you vote for – but when you are trying to depress the DJT vote, I say fie on you, you are NOT a patriot and do not give a fig for the future prosperity or future as a republic –
shame, shame, shame!
4th armored,
If this is the choice, then my children will grow up without seeing a conservative president. But it’s not the choice because if Hillary is elected, we can still come back with a conservative candidate in 2020.
4th armored div,
I’ll say the same to you, who will vote for a guy with a trade policy identical to Bernie Sanders, a policy on borrowing and spending identical to Barack Hussein Obama, a policy on Federal minimum wage law no different than Nanny Pelosi, and a policy on entitlement spending the same as Harry Reid.
You can get screwed. And shame, shame, shame on you for being a dupe.
my parents survived Auschwitz and the Russian Gulag, needless to say I am very pro Israel. neither the Clinton Crime Family with Soros supporters nor Gary Johnson – isolationist are my cup of vodka (or Sour Mash Bourbon).
I had thought of voting for Johnson (I lived in NM for a time), if the stakes were not so high I still might have —-
BUT NOT NOW, we are in a life or death election.
you might think that I am exaggerating, I AM NOT, wake up and smell the cappuccino.
The election is between two Collectivist thugs.
I won’t be voting for either of them.
You can, if you find that acceptable. Your right. You can send the system the message you’re smooth and groovy with the shit sandwiches they’re serving.
I won’t.
I thought the argument was that RINO’s like Bush and Rimney do not excite the base sufficiently.
Oh well. Try your new aging/nationalist base. Not that there is anything wrong with appealing to the old people.
Maybe the base needs to change. Maybe what they demand can’t be achieved. Have you thought of that? We could have had Romney if the base had gotten excited. Are you really saying that Obama’s election was better for conservatives than yielding and voting for Romney to prevent it? Is that your logic?
I get your point about demanding something that can’t be achieved. For instance, asking the congress for a budget that Obama would surely veto.
Refusal to settle for Trump, however, is not a manifestation of inflexibility. I would settle for Rubio or even Kasich. It’s simply that while I can accept an imperfect conservative, i can’t accept somebody who is no conservative at all, and an unqualified to be president on top of it. Trump will do as much damage as Hillary.
I’ll wait for 2020.
edge,
what will you wait for in 2020? Another candidate that you can’t support? Another election you can sit out while the progressives continue to stack the court, destroy our constitution and take our freedom? Another chance to feel superior while losing? Can’t you see that you are killing the principles you claim to defend?
What am I waiting for in 2020? A candidate more palatable than Trump or Clinton.
edge,
opting out of your responsibility to vote for the best candidate doesn’t opt you out of the consequences of the election. They will take your rights just as they will take mine. I can say I tried.
It’s not “I didn’t vote, don’t blame me!”. It is, “I didn’t vote – BLAME ME!”. And we will.
And we’ll laugh in your lying, bullying mug.
rags,
Another of your insightful, thoughtful answers. I will give it the consideration it deserves.
To further make your point. About 58% (and rising) of Americans want an end to cannabis Prohibition. About 80% favor an end to medical cannabis Prohibition.
Where is the “base” on this issue?
Where are the Republican politicians?
The “base” is exactly where it used to be: that ending drug prohibition for intoxicating substances is a poor social choice. You KNOW that, TROLL. But, I’ll humor you, because I feel sorry for your poor attempt at trolling people who are so much smarter than you:
The “base” opposes legalization or normalization for exactly the reasons of the social destruction it brings with it: an incalculable amount of economic and emotional damage from “high drivers” (think “drunk drivers” but with a half-life FAR longer), long-term brain damage from those who don’t merely use recreationally, but are chronic daily users who bake their brains to the point where they are useless to society and all the social support necessary for those non-producing individuals, the additional nanny-state regulation which all individuals must endure and engage (additional cluttering signs “you must be x age to buy marijuana,” additional counters, additional security cameras to prevent shop-lifting, etc…), warnings, lawsuits, settlements, media campaigns about how “dangerous” it is to engage in, regressive “sin” taxes that become addictive to State governments. The list of things just goes on and on.
Have you ever tried NOT being a Liberal Progressive TROLL?
It’s not a major issue for the American public and while we can debate the pros and cons of legalization of pot, there is no such thing as medical marijuana.
If the GOP is laying down the gauntlet and saying if you don’t support Trump then you’re not a Republican then they won’t have much of a party. Trump is a polarizing figure and the party should have known that many conservatives who would have tepidly backed Rubio or Christie or Fiorina just wouldn’t support him. Many of those conservatives were reliable Republican voters who vote for Senators, Representatives, Governors, etc, all of which the party needs to stay afloat in the event Trump loses.
That said, the Cornell Republicans probably should have stopped short of endorsing Johnson, at least as an organization. As individuals, of course they can do whatever they want, including set up the “Cornell Libertarians”.
Age probably is a factor too – at age 70, Trump is an older candidate and isn’t going to have the same appeal to younger people who probably skipped Apprentice or Trump’s Fox News interviews. Gary Johnson looks younger, although at 63 he’s still ten years older than their parents. All of the party candidates are over 60 this year (Hillary is 68, Stein is 66), so obviously Baby Boomers intend to run the country for four or eight more years, which isn’t really a surprise.
That’s the same strategy that sat out Romney and gave us Obama 2. Please explain how allowing Obama 2 was better for conservatives than voting for Romney. How would a vote for Romney have been more damaging than allowing Obama 2 proved to be? If you can’t explain it, why repeat the mistake?
I voted against Romney Care in 2012. I also voted against Obama Care.
That’s nice. My guess is you voted against RomneyCare and ObamaCare because they were not “Single Payer” and were thus insufficiently Progressive.
TROLL.
On the theme of Labor Day…recognizing it’s not part of the subject of this thread…
https://youtu.be/GONGcSCnusc
Kuhlifornia is considering over-time for farm workers. So you’ll see LOTS more of those in the video.
You’ll also see them moving earth all over the U.S. before long.
So, the party that nominated a guy who isn’t a Republican just booted a group that endorsed a guy who isn’t a Republican.
And the not really a Republican candidate is running around bashing Republicans (Senator Flake, most recently) while simultaneously demanding party unity. Comedy gold.
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
Ronald Reagan
Who identified as a Conservative with the a capital “C”. Never a libertarian.
Johnson offers nothing to Conservatives in 2016. He doesn’t like the free expression of religion, supports abortion on demand, wants to cut the DoD budget by 45% and his running mate wants to ban AR-15s. Absolutely nothing to offer Conservatives. He’s like a Democrat with 100% more morals.
I am not a fan of Trump, I was going to vote off on the election but the kurfule with the Khans at the convention convinced me to go ahead and vote for Trump, him waving the constitution in the air is what did it for me. Doing that at the Democratic convention where the party is doing it’s best to destroy that document and accusing the other party of not reading it was ludicrous. Look at it another way who would the Congress impeach Hillary, not a chance in he11, Trump in a New York minute.