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.

No, you're forgetting one of

No, you're forgetting one of Gary's stated reasons for leaving the GOP: he was shut out of the GOP debates (even when he met the qualifications to participate in them) and even when he went to the GOP for assistance he was shot down. He only participated in 2 GOP debates - the very first one which only had 5 people (and they probably would have let 'effin Lyndon LaRouche participate if he had wanted), and another one later where he got his line about his next door neighbor's dog creating more shovel ready jobs than the president.

You can be sure that if Gary Johnson ran as a Democrat, the party and the media establishment would do everything possible to make it seem as though he didn't exist

No Sense in Not trying

The benefits of this working out would be worth pursuing.

Not Possible

Dr. Paul had enough years in the Republican Party to force the issue of his candidacy. In addition, he had a philosophical tie-back to the "**Real Republicans" of Goldwater, Taft, Eisenhower. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rVd3JLg16U

Now compare with Johnson and the Dems: Was never a Dem, can't anchor his views to the party with any philosophy. I can't think of one Dem living or passed that he aligns with. Maybe JFK...

It would be great to see GJ debate the Dems, they just won't invite him to the party.

**Real Republicans IMO.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

Love it,


What makes you think the Free and Equal debates are only going to be on RT, CSPAN, Al Jazeera, LinkTV, and Free Speech TV (those were the bigger outlets that carried them last year, there were a number of smaller one, and tons of new media..they were in the tops on Twitter that night) in 2016?

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...

But as I said, I Love it ...I even think it should happen...Ron Paul said something along the lines of our message needing to be heard in all parties if we're going to win...Is Gary Johnson the guy though? Would he do it? Would he want to?

Support Liberty Media! http://benswann.com/ - http://www.bluerepublican.org/ - http://krisannehall.com/ - http://lionsofliberty.com/

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

Ya but...

democrats are more concrete in their platform. I feel that their debates end up being on who is the best Democrat. I'm not saying the Republican Party is very different but their was a (slight) variety of idiology. In other words, Gary would be embraced more by Republicans.

...verbal gymnastics on the social...shameful and suspect!

...what another politician...perpetuating the anti-God position and further social breakdown of the FAMILY UNIT - which is anti-liberty, and anti-American to the core because it only taunts God to move against us! Progressive TRASH!

Garbage like this makes me think he wants POLITICAL POWER, fame, relevancy, and a public platform to criticize(the spotlight)... he wants to be "in office"...he is "sticking his finger up in the air" and going with the political winds of the expediency message of "women can do whatever they want with THEIR bodies" and "the government should HONOR homosexuals for their choices"...
this is NOT Liberty...

...and if we don't believe the breakdown of the MORAL is directly to blame for the financial BANKRUPTCY, then we've absolutely lost our way!

Just because the PROPAGANDA is Pro-abortion and Pro-homosexual, we all know it was bought and paid for the DESTROY this Republic as these communists LABOR to hewn down the indispensable supports of religion and morality!!!

NO AMERICAN PATRIOT DOES THAT!!! Thank You, George Washington!

Anyway, the majority does NOT support these positions on abortion and homosexuality either, so he'll NEVER get elected as a Libertarian on those positions. What is he, half-an-Obama?

"...until the point of viability of a fetus.[is achieved]" - My Bible says Mary was "with CHILD" - it's the PROPERTY of the mother, subject to willful extermination at the mother's discretion, until it's our of the womb? The origin of pro-creation is purely biological, NO longer Divine - this is degenerative - this is WHY America is governed by evil!

"Government should ... allow marriage equality, including gay marriage." - no, the government can only FORCE the opposition to SHUT UP! This is the GOAL of the militant homosexual lobby; hired by communists, to upset and provoke the Christians, and whip the democratic majority into voting for their SILENCE - then they, and their lifestyle, will be exterminated by the dictatorship in power!

These positions are NOT the PRIORITY of the Liberty movement, so making mention of them is really telling by the OP - Gary Johnson clearly will play BOTH sides to get elected ... and our movement is ABOVE that!

People who FEAR their government take these middle-of-the-road positions, like Romney; and these positions are SPINELESS and self-serving, ever-changing, and not courageous! Patriots are courageous, they don't play these games after buying into polling data and discerning WHO controls the money and taking positions in order to please the Party king-makers.

Another fiscally conservative, socially moderate Democrat? That's what the Republican Party has become! I see no need to change party affiliation.

Of course, I am only ONE VOTE, and this is my INDIVIDUAL position - so please, don't consider me a THREAT to the Liberty movement...just disagree with me!

Now, I have a different reason altogether for being in this Liberty movement, not a purely theocratic one; as I've been castigated for several times on this forum ... so before you cast your stones at me ... READ this ...


LIBERTY FIRST, throwing off tyranny, regulations, unconstitutional mandates and THREATS to our Bill of Rights; and extinguishing our indebtedness to our determined conquerors from within and without, that is our priority - we'll debate religion & morality later when we are securely FREE to do so; because the homosexuals who want to get married, those who Gary SUPPORTS, are seeking to BAN MY FREE SPEECH as they have done in Canada.

Gary supports those pushing for a FULL BREAKDOWN of the family unit and our social structure through going from gay marriage to thrusting gender identity confusion unto our children in public schools, and eventually polygamy and whatever else it takes to provoke deem Christian moralists bigots, so the dictators don't have to hear it anymore! We are their wisest and most discerning critics!

Besides, marriage is NOT the government's institution; they have NO ROLE in defining it! Just because they hand out state contracts, and enslave the parties, and lay claim on the fruit of any marriage, and the public has accepted this unwittingly doesn't make marriage THEIR domain! Gary should say, like the founders; government needs to stay out of the business of the churches, PERIOD!

NO WAY I can ever support this politically deceptive, opportunist wing of Libertarianism; open support FOR abortion and homosexuality in order to gain votes(the political capital of elections) - their ends are not LIBERTY, they're the same as the current lot of elitists - SILENCE MY CRITICS when I do wrong! ALL laws on the books legislate morality, and positioning oneself to protect a "vulnerable minority" from the "moral majority" is the Democrat game...but actually, both parties do it...and the ONLY vulnerable minority I see nowadays is "the governed who want government restrained"!

In representative government, the representatives should represent the collective morality - and these positions clearly DO NOT - so I can't support him personally; because, I see the GAME! We need men of CHARACTER in public office; Statesmen, not politicians who straddle the fence on whether or not the current culture has reverence for the laws of Nature and of Nature's God!

I want this kind of HUMBLE character from my representatives: "the pagan Roman ruler Trajan handed his deputy a sword with the words: 'In so far as I command what is right wield this sword against my foes; but if I do the opposite, then wield it against me.' - this guy was a pagan, but at least he understood that men-pleasing wasn't why he was in office!

God instituted the family, civil government, and the church; fallible sinful men have been granted the stewardship responsibilities over these institutions - to go AGAINST the Creator and His moral code of conduct is foolish and destructive...this is how we got here as a nation...and the Federal Reserve System is CHIEFLY to blame, for it provided the bait that appeals HEAVILY to our fleshly desires ... 1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

You sound like a typical

AUTHORITARIAN (haha couldn't help not having at least one all caps) You want to force people into what you think is good and right based on your belief system. Sorry, but thats not liberty. Worry about you and your community. Let the Homosexuals have exactly what they want, maybe that will help push authoritarians like yourself into voting to keep government out of marriage.

"Let the Homosexuals have exactly what they want"...

...check their AGENDA...they want to use government FORCE to call my values HATE SPEECH ... research it...

(and they're being financed and used by communists to impose a dictatorship upon all political dissenters)

if they ARE the "minority", they should be represented as such in the national legislature; how did they(and abortion on demand) get to better than 50% support?

Gays can have their communities, and people may move there and do their gay thing - but in a competitive sense, MY tax dollars(nor yours) will not be used to reward the consequences of their actions unless YOU choose to live in their community!

That's liberty!

Why a political movement

when praying to god will do? Do not you trust his judgement anymore?

I question his character and courage!

..based on this MOVE...I'm clearly exemplifying the virtue of making an INFORMED CHOICE, and entering the debate!

From cloud to earth

As things are today, political movement is only for spreading ideas of liberty. We do not have majority in either party. Libertarians have 3-5% max. Our ideas do not spread well based on logic because religious and socialists use beliefs, emotions & short-term interests rather than reason consistently. So if bad economy continues, we may get 25%. If not,....

PS Theoretically, we could win the presidency even with 10% of populace becoming Libertarians. But to implement the ideas in practice requires majority and timespan of a generation.

Ayn was pretty close in a lot

Ayn was pretty close in a lot of ways, but she missed much of the moral and historical sourcing for principles of liberty. Fortunately, the founders knew of the source, and searched out its causes and effects.
Personal liberty == Economic liberty
Empires always ALWAYS set themselves before a higher ideal. It is necessary to confine a people, to confine economics. So, the founders researched the only successful historic free economy they could find. Guess where they found it...
Guess why empires have hated the peoples of that historic long-lasting, continually recurring, free economy...
Guess why they seek to dispel one "myth" with several of their own...
(Spoiler alert!)
To CONTROL economies, to obtain and/or retain a ruling class, to stop (dam) upward mobility, to subject others. The... uh... THE monotheistic traditions, even if you insist they are mere crutches, are taught by the long dead peoples of Economic Freedom (and therefor Personal Freedom).
Everyone has a religion. It is ideal which provides their daily motivations and perspectives. Everyone has a God or god, it is what they look to and seek.
Why, oh WHY, if you are in pursuit of Liberty, would you antagonize those who would be your ally in that cause--When their personal views are beside the point.
--Besides, Much of what the guy says can be verified by records of the would-be emperors, as they explain their methodology--Even if taken purely as a study of sociology, rather than theology.

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

so our demise is just an exercise of profit-taking?

...and we'll go libertarian to re-inflate the prosperity bubble again, and another class of elites one day will conspire to take OUR profits and deposit them in their personal accounts?

Or, is it MORE plausible that a Holy, sinless, moral Creator hates greed, envy, lying, adultery, murder and covetousness; and He moves against nations that LAUD and reward those values in a free society ONLY to selfishly serve materialism, and temporal and fleeting pleasures?

I think the latter; sorry - reverence for a Creator limits my libertarian mindset; and I have to be more concerned with supporting the Bill of Rights for my fellow man, while imposing the 10 Commandments personally upon my OWN conduct...not an easy political tight rope to walk...but I will not support wanton and reckless human behaviors that are destructive to life; that only leads to REAL lawlessness!

I made no such claim. I

I made no such claim. I merely bridged a gap between the practical and the ideal. No offense should be taken by either--But a brief sting is not unusual.

Greed, yes. Gain, no.

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

I am not offended....

I am just rigid in my position that I do not have to support "abortion rights" or "gay rights" in order to be for Liberty!

The libertarians, at the organized level, HATE my Christian-derived definitive positions; they worry about guys like me "shoving my theocratic morality down everybody's throat", whereas my positions are clearly consistent with our founding morals, and, in a true Republican government setting these are the values I want exemplified and encouraged nor threatened by parent government where I plant my flag and raise my family.

Republicans are being told to cave on these issues, and they are for political expediency; libertarians are kinda being invited into their "big tent" and these are already their positions...seems like the left has won, but, at the end of the day; if it wasn't for the Federal Reserve printing press, the easy credit, and the wholesale abandonment of Biblical principles regarding handling money by professing Christians in the first place, we wouldn't be here.

I wanna see if these biblical principles would benefit them nation if professing Christians in representative government VOLUNTARILY practiced them; I think they would(that's why they tout them when they run for office)...so...consistently, if they are going to now openly position themselves against biblical principles on the social issues as professing Christians, they surely can't be trusted with the nation's checkbook.

You can't get elected to public office in America if you're not a professing Christian...so...since this won't change anytime soon, I've decided to expose this exhibition of personal compromise, for political purposes, as the reason this nation continues its downward spiral...and I really don't care if libertarians think we've evolved and progressed beyond these foundational morals, and they reject me and lump me with "authoritarian neo-con hypocrites", I still get a vote, I'm still an INDIVIDUAL, and these are the weighty restraints I want my representatives to impose upon themselves as they consider how much Liberty I should be given to govern myself...I would expect them to set a moral example as my representative, and if they support positions that threaten innocent life, can result in a confiscation of my property for anything other than our REAL national interedenyists, I consider them unqualified for public office based on what this nation achieved when our money and our moral reputation was SOUND.

Gary Johnson it says, is a "non practicing Lutheran"; does he want the church to adopt his positions, or, is he denying, denouncing, or discounting Christ's words and the pure the Gospel Martin Luther turned Europe upside down for?

A well thought out idea...

I've thought along similar lines before, not as a means to win an election, but to educate. Johnson was a Republican Gov, so I'm not sure he would be welcomed into the Dems den with open arms; but we do need to inject our message into that camp.

Ron Paul's now famously famous moment on the stage with giuliani @ the Reb debate in 2007 was the final masterstroke which awoke the Libertarian in me, the same could be done for many Democrats!

We've reached out to those who would hear us on the right, but we haven't really reached out in the same way to the left. This should not be difficult, so long as we are respectful of their values (the good honest ones, and the terribly inconsistent statist ones).

I think we need to grew our own Democrat candidates from the grassroots. Imagine a Justin Amash or other principled propionate of liberty, beating the anti-war, civil liberty, clean food & water, and social/economic equality drums (through freedom, goodwill, and independent community support, not gov. force).

I would go door to door for that effort!


I wasn't awake in 2007...Any way you could post a link to that moment that helped you wake up? I would love to see it...

Bad food, worse weather, please rEVOLution the states so I can bring my family back home!
Rosa Koire for for President!

The democrat in you shines bright!

Do you mean, clean food and water through enforcement of private property rights or through laws restricting what a corporation can do with its own property?

Explain how social/economic equality can be achieved without government?

I don't see any way I could support economic equality.

He qualifies his statement

He qualifies his statement with "not through force", etc. Gracefully jumping a brain-hurdle grants that he formerly meant to say, "equality of opportunity". ...Similarly for the other notions.
scrap scrap scrap scrap scrap

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

What makes you think

he will poll high enough among democrats to be included in any debates?

He didn't poll high enough as a R, he won't as a D either.

The 2 major potties are the problem. He should stay Libertarian.

What can I say?

This is a great idea.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Many stick with democrats

Many stick with democrats after they look at religious part of GOP that wants to teach religion in school, prohibit this, prohibit that, and force the anti-abortion laws that would multiply the poor and crippled (thus giving the means for the religous to pass through the gates into heaven.) Taking into account that religious morality (sacrifice for universal neighbor) is similar to progressive morality (sacrifice for common good and society), non-religious folks choose Democrats as a more "civilized" dogma. Those who come to DEM for handouts and "group rights" (minorities, trade-unions, etc) cannot be easily dissuaded. As far as reason is concerned, the choice is not refreshing: either 1) believe in miracles; or 2) accept eating sh{i}t in gay bathhouses as a normal human behavior.

The solution is for GOP to grow past Ron Paul and accept morality of reason - teachings of Ayn Rand.

I agree entirely

For a while I've been saying 'At least the Republicans are split!' I would get puzzled looks, since normally a split party is a bad thing. So I would explain more, 'At least the party is split.. a big partition is abiding by the constitution and is standing by personal liberties, despite the old-guard neo-cons hoarding the media attention. Where are the democrats fighting for less invasion of privacy, and less abridgment of free speech? You don't see them. Democrats are by-and-large following the puppet-in-cheif on every issue, following strict party lines. At least the Republican party is split.'

they are in Oregon

Thankfully, I am in Oregon too.

nice idea

I do believe the Democratic party is totally corrupt to its core and is already set for Hillary Clinton as its nominee in 2016. Liberals are not totally opposed to the idea's of Liberty, the platform would have to be how Government CAN operate in a Reasonable and Responsible fashion.

A Liberal Libertarian if there ever was one, Gary Johnson!

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?

propagating D or R will get us

no where

So Ron Paul running as a R got us nowhere?


honestly how would you know if politics and running as an R

was the best way to raise awareness? I won't deny DR Paul has reached many through politics. And I won't deny that since he did go the politics route that running as R was probably strategically smart. But how do you know for a fact that he couldn't have done more if he dedicated his time to raising awareness outside of politics instead of being a congressman. The truth is, you have no freaking clue. No one does. And if you say otherwise then you just fell into the trap of legitimizing government and party politics. Dr Paul is likely going to have a much bigger impact now that he is outside of DC.

Save it for a real fight.

At the time, Ron had it right. But that has served its

purpose now.

The GOP will not be reformed. (it's always been this way really, it was never the party of individual liberty or federalism)

The DNC is a lost cause as well, has been for over a century.

Johnson running as a Dem will do nothing now. He's not a strong as Dr. Paul in his theory either. He'll just lead people astray. I don't even want to see him on the LP ticket next time.

Now Judge Gray, there's our man.

The "perfect" candidate is not required

to educate or inspire people to learn. Ron Paul inspired/inspires a great many people, but how many of them do you find that agree perfectly with him? Most candidates aren't perfect (look at the R's and D's from the past few elections). I believe Ron Paul was the perfect candidate for 2012, but that opinion obviously wasn't held by the masses. But again, I don't think a nomination or victory is the only measure of success.

Gray should grace the stage as well.