Libertarians have routinely been known to take the margin of victory between GOP and Democrat candidates. Running as a Libertarian, Bob Barr gave both Indiana and North Carolina to Zero in 2008 (IN hadn’t gone Dem in a Presidential race since 1964). In the race for the seat Gabby Giffords holds in AZ, she only defeated Republican Jesse Kelly with a mere plurality in 2010.
Gary Johnson could prevent the Republican candidate from winning New Mexico (which is a state we need to win), even if he only got, say 5% or so, which he probably will.
Bob Barr gave both Indiana and North Carolina to Zero in 2008
Crap. I didn’t know that. Your right. We must stop this guy from running. Maybe he is mulling it over right now and won’t. Thanks for the info. I can’t believe it.
Nobody "prevents" a Republican from espousing the ideals and principles of the traditional Republican Party, which attracted many of us to the Party in high school and college. Small government, maximum individual freedom, leaving business alone to do business, all that stuff.
As long as most of the GOP candidates are "Democrat Lite," agreeing that the welfare state is A-OK (but it will work more efficiently with us in control!), there will be Gary Johnsons and Ron Pauls to muck up the works for the RINOs and others in the party who are committed to winning at any cost, since they believe the worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat, yada-yada.
The Libertarian Party, if you recall, was formed in 1971 in reaction to Nixon's abandoning the gold standard and imposing wage-and-price controls to keep inflation in check. The founders were mostly disaffected Republicans who believed (incorrectly, as it turned out) that if they ran Libertarian candidates who were solidly in support of individual rights and opposed to an ever-more-powerful federal government, the contrast would bring the Republicans to their senses and not give Nixon another term and maybe also elect more small-government types to office when there was a choice.
These people never expected, never even intended to win the Presidency. They would have been pleased if the Republican Party had just backed off a little from the big-government, out-bid-the-Democrats mindset which most of the Republicans in those days fell into by the end of their first term.
The Republican establishment, of course, paid no attention. After Nixon resigned in disgrace and Ford became President, look who was appointed--appointed!--Vice President: Nelson A. Rockefeller, a man who was the polar opposite of Barry Goldwater, the Republican Senator from Arizona who many of us looked up to as Mr. Conservative.
Then, despite Ford's bumbling with foreign affairs, the W.I.N. buttons and a plan to ration gasoline, the eastern Republican establishment saw him as their man and wanted every Republican official to fall in line to get him elected in 1976. This was mostly to prevent Ronald Reagan from getting his hands on the party machinery and, whether he won or lost the presidential election, purging Nixonians from positions of influence. (Does this sound just a little familiar?)
Carter of course was elected, and I have to say Republicans did it to themselves. An opportunity passed them by.
And they are heading in that same direction this year, whether we want to admit it or not. Playing to base emotions, waving the flag and pretending to be a tough guy--on Democrats, terrorists, entitlements, you name it--isn't going to win a national election against an incumbent President.
A change of direction is in order, and you won't be seeing it from Romney, Gingrich or most of the others on that platform.
Has there ever been a Republican governor--other than Gary Johnson--with the courage to veto so many bills passed by a Democrat legislature? I don't think so. Ronald Reagan didn't even come close (although line-item vetoes could count) during his governorship.
If you'd rather not see Gary Johnson run on the Libertarian or some other minor party's ticket, at least let the guy have a chance to be heard in the next debate. He has some good ideas, more good ideas as Santorum and Huntsman, fer cryin' out load. (Oh, yeah, I forgot--he's "pro-choice" so that will no doubt make him ineligible for the GOP nomination. As if the President has any control over the Supreme Court.)
Republicans used to be known as the "big tent" party during the Reagan years. You had a great variety of opinions on the way government should work, some good, some not so good, but everyone was given consideration because that was necessary to build party strength. You can't go pi$$ing people off who could help get you elected.
Recently, it's more common for Republicans to be called the "stupid party." Is it any wonder why?