Posted on 04/21/2011 11:30:46 AM PDT by logician2u
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson announced today that he's running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
"I'm ready for a different America," Johnson said in a statement today. "I'm ready for the day when a person can build a good life on a decent income, and we can take our government at its word."
Johnson announced his candidacy Thursday morning on the steps of the New Hampshire State House and plans to spend three days in the early-nominating state meeting with supporters and visiting local businesses.
Thank you, Jim.
Thing is, I remember Johnson, and I would not describe him as “pro-abortion.”
See my post a couple above.
He’s not nearly as strong as I would like, but he’s better than 80% of the Repulicans.
Hear, hear. I am SICK of the RINOs holding that "But you'll cause Obama to be elected" gun to my head. Go ahead & fire; I will not vote RINO this time.
Dear sitetest;
It’s so wonderful to see you.
With warm regards,
trisham
As I said...I want Palin/Bachman in 2012. That is whom I’m pushiing!!
Sorry, wagglebee. I want e\/ery child to be wanted — and if a women don’t want the child gie it up to ADOPTION!!
Unfortunately there are so many Gary Johnsons in America that if he gets nominated it wouldn't be hard for Democrats to put a few other Gary Johnsons on the ballot to split the vote.
Where is everyone getting that Johnson is pro-abortion?
That certainly was not his position when Governor.
He passed anti-late term abortion laws.
He passed parental notification laws.
He wouldn’t let tax money get spent on abortions.
He favors the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
He’s a squish for host of other reasons, but the above was basically Fred Thompson’s position, too, and he was loved here.
He is the only one running aside from Paul that would actually reduce the siz and scope of the Federal Government.
You may want to read this:
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/21/pro-abortion-gary-johnson-to-seek-republican-2012-nomination/
Thanks! Happy Easter!
In fairness, this is from an interview with Mr. Johnson by the Weekly Standard:
“But as a matter of law, Johnson thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned. ‘It should be a states issue to begin with,’ he says.’The criteria for a Supreme Court justice would be that those justices rule on the original intent of the constitution. Given that, it’s my understanding that that justice would overturn Roe v. Wade.’”
He thinks that abortion should be legal up to viability (which is about 20 weeks or so? and that's pretty darned gross and evil), but he thinks the states have the right to decide the question for themselves.
If he were to nominate anti-Roe Supreme Court justices, it could advance the cause of life.
On the other hand, it's clear that he's a cheerleader for abortion “rights” otherwise.
Tougher call.
sitetest
May they troll in peace.
EXCELLENT! There goes Romney's votes!
They deserve each other!
Wonderful. He ascribes to the 'half-pregnant' philosophy when it comes to 'life'.
But he thinks Roe should go.
Roe, in one way or other, must go if unborn children are to ever again be protected in law. Whether by a judgment of the Supreme Court overturning, vacating, or gutting the decision, or whether by constitutional amendment, or whether by Congress finding its balls again and taking jurisdiction over abortion away from the courts, Roe's gotta go.
It'd be only one step toward the ultimate goal of protection of all unborn people in law, but it would be a pretty big step.
The thing I don't like about this guy is that even though he's anti-Roe, he comes off as something of a cheerleader for abortion “rights,” and so the question becomes, which is greater, the good he does by backing overturning Roe, or the damage he does by using the bully pulpit of the presidency to promote abortion “rights”?
I don't know the answer. If he becomes a serious candidate, I'll pray about it.
sitetest
Which, of course, begs the question:
Other than the supreme right, the right to live, what other unalienable rights should be considered "a state issue"? Speech? Press? Religious liberty? The Right to Keep and Bear Arms? Trial by a jury of your peers? Parental rights? What? If states can "decide" against these rights, have not they alienated what Americans have always called unalienable?
This whole Stephen A. Douglas Democrat concept is a gross denial of the most important cornerstone principles of our free republic, upon which we premise our form of government and our entire claim to liberty.
And other Republicans, like Gerald R. Ford, and Ron Paul, and Rand Paul, and John McCain, and Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin, have gone down the same unconstitutional pro-choice for states, states' rights trump unalienable rights, road.
The broad path to destruction.
Well, not sure what his ‘plus’ is over all the others that have a tracker record, but with a position like that *I believe in abortion rights (only at the state level), it doesnt make sense to me.
Here's my view of things.
Abortion is a species of unjustified homicide. It's a criminal matter. Criminal matters are generally matters that are appropriately addressed at the state level.
Laws against murder and manslaughter are appropriately the province of the states.
Thus, the Supreme Court should return the matter to the states.
However, there is certainly a federal interest in play here. Imagine if a state repealed all its laws against private homicide. Or laws against the private killing of one class of persons. Blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Republicans, homeschoolers. Whatever. It would become a federal issue to vindicate the rights of persons not to be killed privately.
Remember that the Constitution reposes in the federal government the obligation to ensure a republican form of government in each state. It's difficult to figure out how one has a republican form of government in states that refuse to pass laws to deal justly with crimes that violate basic rights.
Thus, playing this out, once Roe was overturned, it would be the right and duty of the states to pass laws regarding abortion.
States that made abortion illegal and that provided some appropriate way in criminal law to vindicate the rights of unborn persons wouldn't need any interference from the federal government.
States that refused to do their duty in this regard should then have imposed on them by the federal government some sort of legal regime to vindicate the rights of unborn persons.
To me, that seems the right way to do things.
But it's a two-step sorta thing - first you gotta return abortion law back to its proper venue - the states. Then, states that refuse to get right, the federal government should act.
Just how I see it.
Let me mention another heresy, LOL.
I'm a Catholic and thus don't believe that any abortion whatsoever should ever be legal in anyway whatsoever. Furthermore, Catholic teaching states that this conclusion is obvious through the application of natural law, and does not require Catholic faith or supernatural grace to come to it. Thus, the Church teaches, and I believe, that ALL MEN ARE OBLIGATED to acknowledge that law may not justly permit abortion. Ever. In any case. Any abortion at all.
Yet, I know that many men's minds are clouded by sin, and it might be a while before I get enough men (and I'm speaking, of course, about all adult humans, not just the males of the species) to vote in accord with these views to put them in place in our representative democracy.
Thus, if states generally, and the federal government when the states are in breach of their obligations, passed laws forbidding abortions except in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, I'd take that.
At least until the next week. That's 96% of abortions, and it's a good first start.
I'd be back for the other 4%, and yes, I know, it might become well-nigh impossible to get the other four percent, but, hey, I'm not going to sacrifice the lives of 1.2 million kids a year because I haven't been able to rescue the last 50,000.
I know, I know, I'm a “moderate.”
Just remember, EternalVigilance, I'm a moderate who is a lot closer to you than to folks who say they're pro-life but would vote for a pro-abort “because we don't want Obama to win.”
sitetest
The current “legal” regime in the US is that no governmental entity may impinge on the basic “right” of a mother to obtain the private killing of her unborn (or even just-about born) offspring.
Recognizing that states have a right to significantly restrict, even eliminate this “right” undermines entirely the idea that recognition of this abortion “right” is something required by the Constitution.
There are 30 states that, if Roe were overturned, would immediately place significant restrictions on abortion, and around 20 states (I'm doing this from memory) that would all but ban abortions except in the “exception cases.”
That’d be a darned good start on an abortion-free America.
I'm willing to take my loaf of bread a few slices at a time.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.