60 votes

Gary Johnson (D)

Gary Johnson (L) needs to become Gary Johnson (D). If there's one thing the story of Ron Paul should teach you, it is that you need to be part of the debate. If half of the country isn't planning on watching the Republican debates leading up to 2016, we need to inject some common sense into the Democratic Party's debates. Libertarian principles need to be voiced in all the debates, especially the two largest.

The Free and Equal debates were great, but let's be honest. Which is the bigger stage: the Free and Equal debate (aired on RT and CSPAN) or the Democratic Party's debates (aired on all major media channels). Maybe this will help answer that question: Imagine if Ron Paul never stepped foot on a Republican stage in 2008.

Most people that I know who vote for Democratic candidates do so based on one or two social issues. There needs to be a fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal candidate in the Democratic Party's debates. If people don't become educated on fiscal topics, it becomes very difficult to swing votes to the Libertarian or Republican candidate.

If all you care about is gay rights, you are forced to vote for a Democrat. Your drive to learn more about the other party stops. You've reached your destination, your decision. We need to inspire people to learn more, and I think Gary Johnson is just the man for the job.

Some examples of his "socially accepting" message (from his campaign website):

  • Life is precious and must be protected. A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus.
  • Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage. It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs.

His criteria for success would not be a nomination. It would be to provide an education. Sound familiar?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

As Ron Paul stated

Something along the lines of - "liberty needs to be represented in all parties if we're going to win" I agree with the premise of this post, I'm just not sure Gary Johnson is the guy for the job.

I think a Gary Johnson 2014 NM Senate run would be a much better use of his time and energy - and ours.


Support Liberty Media! http://benswann.com/contribute/ - http://opendebates2016.com/make-donation-open-debates/

We won't turn things around until we 1st change the media - donate to a liberty media creator today!

The "debate" is scripted theater

Political activism is inherently immoral.

Voting is an act of aggression against your neighbor, and as such is a violation of the NAP.

Good Call

We will allow the Dems and Repubs to vote our rights away, while we call voting aggression, this will get us closer to the anarcho capitalist world we desire. The NAP allows you to fight back, in this case you will be required to vote.


Are we still talking about Gary Johnson...this guy is a clown. His idea of Liberty is legalizing pot. Look at him on the real issues, he's a jackass.

I'm not saying you're wrong

but which issues? I'm just curious.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Good Idea

All depends on him getting into the debates though, and I'm pretty sure the DNC would go all out to preventing him. I remember Mike Gravel in the 2007 DNC debates making a bunch of stink about the main-stream candidates, and he was quickly dropped from future debates. Johnson would do the same, plus he's previously ran as both an R and L team member, plus the GOP dropped him from debates, so the DNC could use that as precedent.

How about a US Senate run first

Wouldn't it be a lot easier for Governor Johnson to run for the US Senate in 2014, as a Libertarian (or "independent") if he doesn't want to re-register Republican, rather than re-register Democrat and try to get into the Democrats presidential debates in 2016?

The ratings strongly hint that Republicans won't be running a serious competitor in the 2014 New Mexico US Senate race, and the sooner Gary starts that campaign, the easier it will be to clear the field of any competitor "on the right", even if Gary runs Libertarian. A sitting US Senator, especially as a Libertarian, would have a much better position from which to change the national narrative toward liberty. Then he would be in a position to run a successful Presidential race, in whatever party he chooses.

However, if Gary only runs in the 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary, all the Democrats have to do to marginalize him is remind everybody that he was a Republican Governor for 8 years. Senator Gravel was a lifelong Democrat and he was treated that way in the 2008 Democratic Primaries because he had some libertarian leanings. Gravel gave up on that party and re-registered Libertarian in 2008.

Gary should ask Mr. Gravel why he did that before seriously contemplating re-registering Democrat for 2016.

It really seems like a no-brainer to me.

Gary Johnson has already lost

Gary Johnson has already lost his chance at a good shot to run for U.S. Senate the window has closed

Has the filing deadline for

Has the filing deadline for 2014 come yet?

Until then, I wouldn't be so certain that "the window has closed" for Governor Johnson to run.

you been to new mexico right?

you been to new mexico right? Do you live there? Ask around, do some canvassing see if people have heard of gary johnson

If he isn't "heard of" in the

If he isn't "heard of" in the state that he was Governor of for 8 years, than why is anyone thinking that he has a chance at being elected President?

Nevermind, it looks like you're against Gary Johnson doing anything. Sorry I bothered you about this.

Democrats will beat the snot

Democrats will beat the snot out of the republicans in Fla on the medical marijuana issue where the republicans are very north-korea-like and the democrats are supporting it.

An enemy of my enemy is my friend is the saying?

Hence the "lesser of 2 evils" certainly on the issue of what you can and cannot do to take care of yourself using a plant which has known benefits and which is being looked at around the world for it's medicinal benefits. Hell and if you don't need it for medical reasons it just makes you feel good and for that they put people in cages and wreck their lives in the state of Fla where an ounce is a felony.

Which is why my voters card reads LP

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

Interesting idea

I've been wondering how I should "label" myself next time I run for office. I'm leaning toward independent, but only for a local election.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

That would be interesting to

That would be interesting to see. And it would prevent him from spoiling Rand Paul 2016 and giving us 8 years of Mrs. Clinton.

I've said it before

I've said it before there must be "Ron Paul Democrats" as well as "Ron Paul Republicans" if you want to effect any kind of real change. Allowing nearly half of eligible voters to discount your message purely because of Republican Party affiliation is poor strategy.

It would be good to have Ron Paul Democrats

so I hope you're putting that into practice yourself.

But when it comes to your claim about party affiliation, it is not true that "nearly half of eligible voters" would discount you simply for partisan reasons. You seem to be thinking in national numbers, but even with that, registered voters are roughly 60-70% of all people "eligible" to vote, Democrat registration is less than 40% of that and not all registered Democrats nation-wide are partisans.

Have you ever run for a partisan office before, Velveeta?

I have, twice in fact, and, even in heavily Democrat districts, Democrat voters didn't "discount my message purely because of Republican Party affiliation".

Perhaps you're only thinking about a Presidential or state-wide race, but if that's all we do, the liberty movement will never succeed in changing anything in our country. It's easier to overcome built-in partisanship with more local campaigns, where the candidate can meet the voters face to face more often. The more personal contact with voters during a campaign, the easier it is to counter any blind partisanship.

When I talked to voters I didn't lead out with "I'm a Republican", which would be idiotic anyway. I campaigned at local non-partisan meetings before both party's primaries and people assumed that I was a Democrat without even asking. They simply asked me about my ideas and positions instead. People were focused on what's important and I was able to change minds on some things, or at least be respected for principled consistency by those who disagreed.

Some people that liked me might later asked my party affiliation, but it didn't change their opinion of me. It prevented only the ultra partisan from being willing to go "all out" for my campaign, like setting up a fundraiser or endorsing me in the voter's guide. Even Democrats were willing to sign my petition sheets to get into the voter's pamphlet for free, too, even when they knew that I was a Republican.

I changed a lot of minds on the issues that matter, even though I didn't win the elections.

I understand your point, although I disagree.

You said: "I changed a lot of minds on the issues that matter, even though I didn't win the elections."

So my response is, in fact you did not change minds. People may have interacted with you, but winning elections is proof that people are amenable to your positions. People listening is not people changing their voting habits.

My point, front and center, is that party line voters still exist and without "liberty Democrat" candidate choices (an oxymoron, I know) on the ballots, those people who will never, ever consider voting outside their party will never fall into the liberty camp.

Gary Pledged To Support The Libertarian Party

In the final Libertarian Party debate, Gary promised to remain involved in the Libertarian Party past 2012. I could be recalling incorrectly, but I believe he pledged to stay in the Libertarian party for life.

Of course Barrack Obama promised Illinois voters that he wouldn't run for president in 2008, but I think Gary has more integrity and will take his promises to the Libertarian Party more seriously.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

of course

he's over a million in the red

kind of funny,,, he talks of fiscal constraint,,,,, and yet spent more money than he had
ron paul never spent more than the campaign took in

gary johnson should take note

The ground-up

The ground-up operation:
After we have filled every PC seat in the R party, we can start filling PC seats in the D party. :) They have mostly vacant seats, too.

We may be dumb as sheep, but we herd like cats, and are more clever than monkeys. What sane person would think us cattle?


gary johnson can not go away, this is on the front page? gary johnson has no chance in the Dem party. gary johnson is done politically for ever. only thing he can do is keep failing in the Libertarian Party & I don't think even the LP wants him anymore. gary johnson made his choice he must deal with it

For those who still think voting makes any difference

this is not a bad idea. If nothing else maybe it would wake more people up. But I will never vote for anyone to be my ruler ever again. I learned how to live FREE.

Presidential debates

The best thing that we could do, is to get the debate format changed to include ALL candidates that made it on the ballot in enough states to win! Hell Gary Johnson would have had a much better chance of winning if he were allowed to debate Obama and Romney in front of all of America! Does ANYONE know how we can make this happen? This B.S. of choosing between a corrupt democrat and a corrupt republican has to stop! There should be at least 3 or 4 candidates on stage during the presidential debates! And the debates should be hosted by someone NOT affiliated with either major party! And all questions should come from the voters and not known to the candidates before hand! Make them think on they're feet!

The Free and Equal Elections Foundation

The 2012 Free and Equal debates were on RT, CSPAN, Al Jazeera, LinkTV, Free Speech TV, Ora.TV and those were just the bigger outlets that carried them last year, there were a number of smaller ones, and tons of new media..they were in the tops on Twitter that night and the next day. Enough people watched them that Jimmy Kimmel Made fun of us.

We made that happen in about 2 months. Now Free and Equal has a few years to make what they produce in 2016 absolutley massive. And it won't be just right before the election this next time around. Christina Tobin, Marci Forgrave and myself laid out a 6 point plan to take what was seen by about 10 million people last year to something that has the potential to be seen by 100 million here and around the globe (an international audience is important too, we were inundated with foreign journalists who had no idea there were anything besides D's and R's in America for weeks after our debates last year) and they won't just be right before the election.

I want debates that start late spring/early summer, with 8-10 candidates and a low vote winner going home every week, (last year you could vote for your favorites online,in 2016 it will be from your phone) with our last candidate standing right before the D/R debates in the fall. Think there might be some public demand to have that candidate included on that stage? I sure do!


In Liberty, Zak Carter

Support Liberty Media! http://benswann.com/contribute/ - http://opendebates2016.com/make-donation-open-debates/

We won't turn things around until we 1st change the media - donate to a liberty media creator today!

You must be new here :)

You must be new here :)

New here?

I've been here for about a year and a half! What does that have to do with anything I posted about?

As a fellow who has...

As a fellow who has been at this for over 50 years, I think there is a VERY strong possibility that there will not be a 2016 election. The US dollar and perhaps the federal government will have crashed by then. There may be food riots and DHS may impose martial law, perhaps even WWIII. The next two years will provide us with more info, but I am not optimistic about the immediate future of the USA.

Canned food and ammo should be high on everyone's priority list. Hang-on, it's going to be a rough road.

And people should give

And people should give thought to interpersonal skills that will be beneficial during a long-drawn-out hardship.
Toughly, "Well you should share", just won't cut it. That is on the zombie road--BUT, cooperation, negotiation, mutual support and good choices, skill sharing, and much more, would/will all be of great value.

We may be dumb as sheep, but we herd like cats, and are more clever than monkeys. What sane person would think us cattle?

Maybe Kucinich could run

Maybe Kucinich could run again at least. It'd be nice to have a voice of partial sanity in both parties' primary debates.

They'll just call him a racist and hermetically seal their minds

As soon as he says he's against nationalized health care or wants to get rid of the failed Department of Education.

I agree that there are many things that Gary Johnson stands for that would be attractive to many Democrats. I just don't know how he could even try to convince them of the logic or reason behind any of his positions once he dares go against any of the 'sacred' 10 planks and they call him a racist*.

*blanket term that may be applied to blacklist any non-liberal for any reason.