The Boston Globe reported that former GOP Massachusetts governor turned Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee William Weld told its reporters that he would be focusing his campaigning against Donald Trump because he did not want his Libertarian ticket to undermine efforts by Clinton to defeat Trump. This follows Weld’s earlier statement that “I’m not sure anybody is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States.”
Has anyone told Bill that the objective of a presidential ticket is to win the Presidency, and that when a party nominates candidates for the two top leadership jobs in the nation, it is supposed to represent an assertion that they are the best people for those jobs? Apparently not.
How about loyalty? Has anyone explained the ethical value of loyalty to Weld? See, that means that when a Presidential nominee asks you to run with him, by accepting his invitation you agree to assert that he should be President, not a candidate he’s running against. If a candidate’s running mate doesn’t unequivocally support him as the best candidate, why should anyone else? If Weld thinks Hillary is the most qualified individual to be President (Nonsense: WELD is more qualified), then he should endorse her and drop off the ticket. Indeed, many reporters, including Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame, have reported that Weld has considered doing just that.
Of course, I can’t blame anyone for being unenthusiastic about Gary Johnson, at least anyone who doesn’t accept his novel theory that his ignorance is a virtue. A fully in-sync VP candidate would argue that Johnson is more qualified to be President than Clinton because she knows too much about geography and foreign leaders. Weld is certainly not that, nor, apparently, does he even want his running mate to attract votes, since that would require taking votes away from Hillary.
So why is he running on the Libertarian ticket, especially since nothing in his past suggested a libertarian streak? Boredom? Giggles? A Fifth Column for Hillary? My guess would be that he thinks the exposure will resuscitate his own comatose career.
The only way he could be right is if he’s playing for that quid quo pro machine known as the Clintons to reward him for his support, or if being disloyal and lacking integrity comes into vogue for politicians, like being dishonest, corrupt and untrustworthy is now.