20 votes

Stop worrying about G. Johnson

We must remember, our goal is to enlighten all we can. To have more people believing in liberty is the goal. The path is to have as many people speaking the ideas of liberty as possible.

Ron Paul in 2008 spread this message further then ever before. We must expect more people trying to fight for and defend it now.

Imagine how beneficial it will be for us to have multiple liberty candidates reaching even more people nationwide. This is our course, and the goal we seek. We will win the hearts and minds of all and eventually all candidates will support the idea of freedom for all. .



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

2001 Johnson speech

I'm just wondering if people saw this 2001 speech by Gary Johnson, where he spoke about liberty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo6NbulobBA#t=0m45s

"I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America."

Some people here seem to doubt he does.

It's easy to support the

It's easy to support the Constitution, but does he understand the principles? I never hear him cite the founders. I never hear mention of Bastiat or Hayak. Does he understand that the IRS and Federal Reserve are unconstitutional, and why? He doesn't strike me as a philosophical politician. He's a military interventionist, which means he's a natural enemy of liberty.

It's "easy to support the Constitution"?

Well then, maybe you could explain to me why almost none in office do it.

They all say it. I believe

They all say it. I believe Gary Johnson as much as I believe them.

This is just a microcosm of the "hardcore LP" mentality:

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2011/04/21/former-governor-g...

The author is the same guy who absolutely trashed RP throughout the 2008 Prez Campaign.

About this blog: it is strictly a CATO/anarcho-capitalist/borderless nation libertarian. Essentially, whatever Reason Magazine and CATO says- they're about it.

Note specifically how the author paints Ron Paul without context as 1)too old and 2)"racist".

This site is just an example of what NorthEastern libertarians are still on about.

I agree, we need more Ron Pauls, more Gary Johnsons, more

more more more.... and i agree its all good.

What we don't need is more Huckabee's Mittens and McCains...

Go Gary go.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Gary Johnson is a "better government" mealy mouth

I don't know why anyone thinks he's even remotely libertarian - much less competition for Dr. Paul.

Listen to what he says

- For humanitarian war
- Govt by cost/benefit analysis, NOT by constitutionality
- Pro "War on Terror"
- Did NOT reduce the size of govt in New Mexico.
- Has an unattractive ambition to be President, unlike Dr. Paul

Watch what happens. Even if he makes it to the debates, he'll backpedal on everything remotely interesting about him. He's doing it now. Try and get a straight answer out of the guy.

The beauty of Dr. Paul is he stands up not only for the lawful and the practical principles, but that he stands up for the moral principle of what the appropriate role of the government is in our lives.

When Gary Johnson makes the argument, for example, that government shouldn't prohibit pot because it's none of their business, then I'll be impressed.

Far as I can see he did make an impact on the size of NM gov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson#Legacy

Did the government actually get smaller? This says he cut the rate of growth by half...so he just made it grow slower. But it also says he cut 1200 government jobs.

Look I don't think there really are that many people on here that are going to say he is better than RP. But what they are saying is he is 10X mitt, sarah, donald, and daphy.

Does the motivation or reasoning he makes for smaller government really mean that much to you? I mean I think its great he says pot should be legal because its safer than alcohol. I think its great he vetoed a bill in NM on regulating pet stores b/c he thought it was silly they would want to create a pet cop bureaucracy next. Yes the government has no business being involved in this stuff, but its also ok to mock them and their stupidity/egotistically too.

Your argument is the same as the people that think whether Rand Paul would have voted for the civil rights act is important. Some how buried in that analysis there is some tid-bit of information that is relevant to how he would vote on some unforeseen issue. The constitution clearly means nothing in DC today and electing Ron Paul in 2012 isn't going to make it all that more relevant 20 years from now anyway.

Funny most of your arguments Against Johnson were made against Rand Too...I bet Raimondo even wrote a nearly identical piece on Rand.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/09/23/the-hollow-man...

I don't know I just see this constitution/lawful worship as silly. Practical reasoning and human cooperation are the keys to me...F@%k the rule worship.

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. -Lysander Spooner

Demagoguery

Gary Johnson does support the constitution. When I've heard him talking about a "cost-benefit analysis," he was talking about the war on drugs. We've spend how many hundreds of billions of dollars and gotten what for our money. That's what he's talking about.

Ron Paul supports the war on terror. He voted to for the authority to go into Afghanistan to hunt for Bin Laden and the others responsible for 9/11. He was against the war in Iraq, just like Gary Johnson was, but they both want to stop terrorism. Johnson wants to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan "tomorrow."

Did Ron Paul reduce the size of the federal government?

What are Johnson's supposed dark ambitions?

When has he not given a straight answer, specifically?

You totally misstate Ron

You misstate Ron Paul's position on Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Paul voted to grant the President authority to use military force to hunt for Bin Laden. He later regretted it. He does NOT support the War on Terror and says so every time he's given an opportunity. Johnson wants to leave Afghanistan and Iraq but still thinks we should intervene militarily wherever HE thinks it's necessary. He sounds a lot like Obama in that regard.

Garry Johnson

My question is: did he jump the gun? I thought all 3 (Johnson, Rand and Ron) said they were all waiting for Ron to declare one way or another. My impression was they were all in contact with each other.

I'm quite sure Johnson is his own man

And he doesn't need approval to run.

ytc's picture

OK, I used to think that it may help spread libertarian ideas

if we had more varieties of libertarian-leaning debaters to push back neocons.

But IF Gary J is FOR waging "humanitarian wars" (ala Obm Libyan fiasco) and FOR legalizing abortion (rather than allowing individuals to decide at local levels) and FOR catering to Israel-firsters, I am against him.

Raimondo sums it up beautifully in "Gary Johnson: Caveat Emptor" Apr 22 column:
"Contrast this with the foreign policy views of Ron Paul, the only real libertarian in this race. He doesn’t just want to manage the empire: he wants to end it. Paul is similarly unequivocal about ending all foreign aid, without exception. Paul has never been taken in by the "collective security" gambit, in which "peace" is supposed to be assured by our network of "defensive" alliances. He adheres to the foreign policy of the Founders, who warned against "entangling alliances" and "passionate attachments" to countries other than our own."

Nice quote

I was just going to link it on this page.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/04/21/gary-johnson-c...

Mises.org
Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com

dailyjohnson

yup, the more people splitting the vote the better. We all know how big the libertarian vote is. I bet it sure could support 20 other libertarian type presidential candidates.

reading this thread and all the support for a vote splitter, i wonder if you guys are inhaling just too much of that weed smoke

Wow, this is the most

Wow, this is the most rediculous comment. I am sorry, but you have to remember, the libertarian vote is small and connot win a primary alone. We must win the minds of many others. As I pointed out when the two realize who has greater support I am sure the losing candidate will endorce the other, not splitting the votes anymore.

Your rant has no real e=debate and you simply attack marijuana smokers. Try to be better then the neo-cans please.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

It can be a two-edged sword.

The debate invitations are often decided upon polling numbers.
Sometimes these invite only those with at least 10% polling, or 15% polling numbers.

So, let's say in the early going, RP polls 9% and Gary polls 4%.
Then neither of them gets into the debates, if the threshold is 10%.

Or, let's say RP polls 14%, and Gary polls 3%, and the debate participation threshold is 15%.
Neither gets in that one either.

The debates are the big national exposure, and alot of people make voting choices based on what they hear on the debates. And also they often decide who could be a winner, and who is a nobody, based on whether they have enough support to even get invited to the debates.

So, this could be a real problem, and end up pushing them both into the background under circumstances like that.

It needs to be considered.

I saw as a net positive the fact that Johnson

was the butt of some early jokes by late night comedians.... Any coverage is good coverage at this point, and even some good natured ribbing increases recognition.

As always BigT

You make very intelligent argument, and I can't disagree lol. I do not expect Ron to fall short, but someone like me can never tell. If Johnson is able to get into debates I find it hard to believe that Ron will not. There is such a greater name recognition and following for Ron Paul. But we will have to see...Ron does not seem to worried about Gary entering.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Common sense?

I do not agree with the weed statement but tend to agree about dividing support.It would be kind of like trying to hit a one foot target from a hundred yards with a shot gun.The chances of even one pellet hitting the target is pretty slim.Or all pressure could be applied to one projectile through an accurately aimed rifle barrel.The chances are now very good for hitting the mark.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Neither Ron nor Rand has announced

So there is no divided support issue. IMO, that would be a problem we'd all love to have.

I agree

It is time to announce or endorse so that we can all get to work in an educated direction.Sooner is better.Blind bets are always a loss.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

But again

Both of these candidates cannot win. Only one can. If say Gary is trailing he can easily give his support to Ron. Which would easily tranfer all his support to Ron. So those votes are no longer devided.

We also have a Libertarian party candidate, would you consider this splitting votes as well? What about the several Neo-Con Republicans? Aren't they all splitting votes between themselves then?

As I stated the more people speaking the message of liberty, the more will hear it. That is the goal, to make people realize the fair and moral perspective of the Liberty ideal. We will not win this attack on freedom without support from the masses to return to a free nation. If the people do not support it then we are no better then the others that force their opinions on the unwilling.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

I understand what you are presenting

I understand what you are presenting here.I just can't help adding up the contributions spent along the way by two candidates rather than one.All the contributions spent during the run will be lost to the other and may just guarantee neither a win.Money spent along the way cannot be recouped?100% divided by two is 50%,50% spent of 50%= 25%.Total left for final candidate =75%.Or 100% could be applied in one direction.Every penny will count for a win against Obama.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

If it's a money

problem, then don't send GJ any. I won't be, but that doesn't mean I won't be happy seeing more liberty minded speech in the debates. We should all be happy liberty is actually part of the debates now.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

The tide is turning

I agree it is very good to see the tide is turning towards liberty.I still have to ask if those who want to contribute to GJ could be convinced to spend it more wisely for a better chance of overall success? Whether we like it or agree with it or not it will come down to the total contributions in the end.I fear that if they are not all applied in one direction all will be lost again.I could be wrong,it is just a thought.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

I understand

the theory, but it is not solely money that will fix the problem, as usual

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Agreed.

.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Oh yeah,

because we sure have been doing very well in winning presidential elections with very few libertarian minded candidates in the race up to this point. What do you seriously expect from politics?...and that last line is a bit childish, don't you think?

I've been coming to this site since it was set up, and this kind of thing is exactly why I cancelled my account and stopped visiting it about a year ago until just recently. I thought maybe people had grown up, but I guess some haven't.

I think most of the time the debate is rigged, but when we have the oppurtunity to have a real debate, some people on here just want to squash it. Most people who visit this site are very strong-willed, principled people, and I'm sure they can make up their own minds without you telling them how to vote.

When the movement gains ground and becomes larger, the views of the people within the movement become broader and more diverse. It's just the nature of large groups, especially political groups. So I'll ask again, what do you expect?

"The times call for courage. The times call for hard work. But if the demands are high, it is because the stakes are even higher. They are nothing less than the future of human liberty, which means the future of civilization." – Henry Hazlitt