Set it right. Donate to Free Republic.
Posted on 07/31/2012 4:12:21 PM PDT by grundle
Politico running feature stories on Gary Johnson. Wonder why?
We need to see more different views on the debate podiums. I’m with you. We also ought to have instant runoff so that anytime a candidate does not get 50% plus one of the vote, the true sentiment of the voters can become the final result.
“anti-war candidate... who supports abortion, gay marriage, and is a staunch proponent of legalizing marijuana.”
This stalking horse could backfire. He has potential to take the Obama young dupe vote.
I don't think so, because he is so totally unknown. You only get known by spending huge $$ which he doesn't have. Perot was able to do it with his personal wealth.
In that case you are wasting your time.
He was a FAR FAR better governor in NM than Romney could have ever hoped to be in MA.
““I only have one issue with Mitt Romney, and that is, I have no idea where he stands on any issues,” he said.”
Well some of us don’t Have that problem. We know Exactly where O’Romney stands which is about one inch away from Zero on almost every issue we care about.
Still, if I thought he’d a chance of winning, I’d rather have Almost anyone than Romney, provided they unhorse Generalisimo Obambi.
Some of Johnson’s views may play best in the Mountain West and Alaska, but that’s not the case with gay marriage. I believe the people of just about every state in that region have overwhelmingly passed a marriage amendment.
But this matters not to Johnson; he thinks gay marriage is a Constitutional right! Obama of course agrees but won’t yet say so, so I guess Johnson deserves credit for being honest. But Johnson should make it clear exactly what his position means; namely that judges should strike down every traditional marriage law and amendment and impose gay marriage on the entire nation. Be honest with the people. Tell them that you consider their recent direct votes on the matter to be acts of hatred and bigotry, and that you, as a morally superior person, will seek to have the judiciary strike down those votes.
So what kind of judges would Johnson nominate? A judge who will impose gay marriage will likely be very unfriendly to other aspects of libertarian thought. I wonder what kind of judges he nominated while governor of NM?
And of course Johnson holds the typically crazy libertarian views on immigration. He’d legalize illegals and increase already mass levels of legal immigration. It has apparently escaped him that the vast majority of these immigrants will go on to vote Democrat, and for ever increaseing government. Why can’t libertarians see this? Are they really so clueless that they think their philosophy will win over Hispanics, Asians, and other immigrants? Do they really think small-govt, live and let live appeals stand a chance against Democrat mastery of ethnic and racial pandering?
I’m sure he’d like the results a permanent Democrat majority would put in place as far as social issues, but his ideas about government and taxes would be buried.
I know libertarians like to say things like ‘get rid of the welfare state’, or ‘get rid of racial preferences’, but keep mass immigration. Again, why can’t libertarins see the problem of trying to abolish these policies while immigration policy continually imports more customers of them?
Do governors in NM appoint judges? If so, what kind did he tend to nominate?
His statement about gay marriage being a constitutional right should not be overlooked. One can only arrive at that if they buy into the absurd ‘living Constitution’ method of interpretation. And if one buys into that, then they should have no problem with other judicial outrages like the case gutting private property rights. Someone looking for a socially liberal but economically conservative judge will likely end up with a judge who is liberal on everything.
I like Johnson less every time I hear him speak, mostly due to the type of judges his rhetoric suggests he would nominate, and because of his leftwing views on immigration.
Do governors in NM appoint judges? If so, what kind did he tend to nominate?
His statement about gay marriage being a constitutional right should not be overlooked. One can only arrive at that if they buy into the absurd ‘living Constitution’ method of interpretation. And if one buys into that, then they should have no problem with other judicial outrages like the case gutting private property rights. Someone looking for a socially liberal but economically conservative judge will likely end up with a judge who is liberal on everything.
I like Johnson less every time I hear him speak, mostly due to the type of judges his rhetoric suggests he would nominate, and because of his leftwing views on immigration.
Nope. If that became a real possibility, the media would change the narrative. They’d play up all the ways he might appeal to conservatives, and downplay the ways he appeals to liberals.
Here's what the rule should be: The national debates should include ALL candidates who are on the ballots in enough states that, if they won those states, would be enough to reach the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win.
What we have now with the polling threshold is media-driven, not ideas driven, as it should be.
What Gary needs to do is reject all the commies who have infiltrated the Libertarian Party and kick them out. Harry Brown saw that coming and couldn’t muster enough patriots to stop it. That’s too bad. Harry should have called for patriots to bust commie heads back in 1996.
So the chore is passed onto conservative patriots, Let’s see if they answer the call.
Gary will get plenty of funding from the Obama team. Another divide and conquer strategy in the making. Same as Goode in Virginia.
Well you asked for her, it appears that despite not accepting corporate funds Dr. Stein is getting some publicity. Also she is qualified in enough states to get an Electoral College majority. She and her VP candidate were arrested today in Philadelphia for protesting Fannie Mae for unfair foreclosure practices. At least she has the guts to put herself on the line. Having read the entire article including the case of the two women being kicked out of the homes where they had lived for many years, I see both banking and judicial misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance at the criminal level. [providing, of course, that the information is correct.]
Perhaps someone would like to post this as a separate thread. My computer skills suck.
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.