http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2FD09189-6818-4832-BFC6-89FD845A0423

Quote :

"Johnson to run as Libertarian Gary Johnson will quit the Republican primaries and seek the Libertarian Party nomination instead, POLITICO has learned."

Quote :

"Johnson has announced the Dec. 28 event on his Facebook page. Campaign spokesman Joe Hunter said only that it would be “a significant announcement.” Calling news of the switch “the worst kept secret,” Libertarian Party Chairman Mark Hinkle said the Santa Fe event will include a press conference at which Johnson will switch his voter registration to Libertarian. Johnson’s campaign has been talking to Libertarian officials for months, Hinkle said. “It looks like it’s definitely going to come to fruition here,” he said. Hinkle noted that Johnson remained a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party while serving as the Republican governor of New Mexico. Johnson’s efforts to attract attention included a bicycle tour of New Hampshire and web ads that described him as the ideological heir to libertarian hero Ron Paul. Johnson’s view mirror Paul’s, though he is more hands-off on social issues, opposing government restrictions on abortion. Like Paul, he opposes all drug laws and the nation’s participation in overseas efforts to stop cultivation of coca and poppy plants. Now, Johnson will seek the Libertarian nod at the party’s national convention in Las Vegas in May."

Think he'll get the nod?

12/21/2011 5:22:20 AM

I love Gary Johnson, more so than Ron Paul, but I will vote for paul because he at least has a very very minute shot of actually winning. I'm just speculating, but I imagine most libertarians would feel the same.

12/21/2011 11:54:10 AM

I'm on board.

12/21/2011 12:10:51 PM

He could get the nomination. Gary Johnson will drop out/endorse Paul if he gets the nomination. If Paul doesn't get the nomination, I would vote for Johnson under a Libertarian ticket.

12/21/2011 12:11:08 PM

^^^I don't think Paul has any shot of winning, there are just too many ideological differences between the average republican primary voter, and the average libertarian, but I think his doing well early on could help the legitimacy of the libertarian message which could then help Johnson's bid. We should start hearing what the early states think pretty soon.

[Edited on December 26, 2011 at 10:02 AM. Reason : .]

12/26/2011 10:01:40 AM

This is what I posted on Gov Johnson's Facebook page a few days before he announced that he'd be formally dropping out of the GOP race and running as a Libertarian:

Gov Johnson, please run on the (L) ticket. The only GOP candidates that I would vote for are you and Gov Huntsman. Barring something unforeseen where one of you wins the GOP nomination, I won't be voting GOP this year (I'm 32 years old, registered GOP for my whole life, and I have only voted for President once--Bush in 2000--a vote that I regret). I also other probably won't be voting (L), as the Libertarian Party usually nominates people who are too extreme and ideologues rather than pragmatists.

If nothing else, your run on the (L) ticket would help to reshape the GOP into something that reasonable people could again support. The more they are forced to acknowledge the libertarian wing, social moderates, and fiscal conservatives, the better.



(I forgot again about that vote for Badnarik (L) that I made in 2004...oh well, the point still stands).

Of note, Johnson "Liked" my post, and it appears that he only "likes" or comments on a very few things that people write on his wall. Clearly I had a hand in this development.

12/26/2011 2:03:52 PM

We need a big war to change the government significantly.

12/26/2011 2:43:13 PM

@duke, that's awesome! Huntsman, Johnson, Krager, and Paul are the only gop that have some level of appeal to me as a leftie for a variety of reasons. I think Johnson more than Paul and more than many previous libertarians has the opportunity to be a real party builder.

12/26/2011 2:52:12 PM

He doesn't have a shot at winning. It's kind of pointless to waste a vote on the Libertarian ticket.

12/26/2011 3:04:09 PM

It's a complete waste to vote for Obamney.

12/26/2011 4:55:57 PM

^^^ Yeah, Paul's a fucking nut. Good for him for bringing some concepts of libertarianism to the forefront, but he's a nut. Hopefully people won't think all libertarians are a bunch of nutters...

Oh, wait. Fuck. hahaha

...but yeah, I think he would be a great (L) candidate, if the fringe that drives the party will just go for it.



^^ I'm to the point where I'd rather waste a vote and accomplish nothing than cast a vote that actively encourages these motherfuckers. The toss up isn't between (L) and (R) nearly as much as it's between (L) and go to the gym, or bar, or take a nap.

* assuming any of the likely GOP candidates win

12/26/2011 6:19:49 PM

Kind of surprising that two GOP candidates made it to marriage equality before the Democrat for the 2012 election, although he's certainly been moving in that direction.

Kudos to Johnson on that.

12/28/2011 12:35:02 AM

better yet, i believe they both take it a step further to "marriage is no business of the state to begin with".

12/28/2011 1:39:20 AM

Paul I think is for getting the government out of marriage altogether in the near term. Which, I see where he's coming from, but the government isn't getting out of the marriage business any time in my lifetime. So until then, making marriage open to couples regardless of orientation is a more practical step and something that is likely to happen in the coming decade(s). And that's one of the appeals of Johnson, his libertarianism has a practical bent to it.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/civil-liberties

Quote :

"[Government] should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage."

[Edited on December 28, 2011 at 1:51 AM. Reason : .]

12/28/2011 1:45:03 AM

I like Johnson, he was on Red Eye one night. I do wish he had more of a chance of winning. I agree that Ron Paul is too old and crazy to be legitimate. I also agree the GOP has lost all sense of integrity and conviction. I blame the unholy marriage of the right and the bible thumpers. I think I am still registered as a Republican, because I just never got around to changing it, but I do not consider myself a Republican at all anymore. I think the Libertarians best chance to gain power is to start with local elections and smaller offices. Maybe they have done this and I missed it, but I dont see it

12/28/2011 2:59:34 PM

^That's pretty much my situation as well.

If Paul managed to win the GOP nomination, I'd vote for him. Otherwise, I would likely vote for Johnson as a Libertarian as a 'fuck you' to the Republican party.

12/28/2011 5:02:40 PM

I'd rather Obama win than Romney. At least if Obama wins, the GOP can nominate a libertarian in 2016. If Romney wins, he's up for re-election in 2016 and we're thoroughly fucked through 2020.

12/28/2011 5:13:04 PM

I dont see the GOP ever nominating a Libertarian as a prez candidate, not so long as the base is made up of religious right morons. The fucked up thing is that Libertarians (minus the crazy) represent the majority of American views. I think most Americans respect the constitution, want economic freedom, small government, conservative economic opportunity, but then they also are relatively moderate socially and dont want the government dictating private life. I think the Libertarians can someday gain the mainstream (especially as people get sick of both parties) by shaving off disgruntled GOP people as well as liberals who have seen the economic error of their ways while still respecting moderate to liberal social views.

12/28/2011 5:28:23 PM

Quote :

"I think most Americans respect the constitution, want economic freedom, small government, conservative economic opportunity, but then they also are relatively moderate socially and dont want the government dictating private life."

I think you're projecting your own beliefs onto the rest of the country.

12/30/2011 10:28:02 AM

^

Can you clarify what their views are? If you are implying most of the country are legislate your underwear theocrats, I don't think that's the case. I just read http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Theocrats-Religious-Right-Harms/dp/0984493247 and his main point was that the religious right has a disproportionate showing in congress relative to what the public thinks.

While a majority are religious, a majority does not want a bible thumper busting up in the bedroom to make sure the woman isn't on top.

[Edited on December 30, 2011 at 11:31 AM. Reason : a]

12/30/2011 11:27:26 AM

Why conservatives continue to spout that the Constitution was created with the idea of small government is beyond me.

12/30/2011 1:47:03 PM

It was created with the intent of establishing a limited government.

See, the limits don't do much good when we have an entire judicial system built around "creative" interpretations of the Constitution. If there aren't hard and fast rules for what any government can do (included with an amendment process), then there's no point in even having a Constitution.

[Edited on December 30, 2011 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ]

12/30/2011 1:49:01 PM

The Constitution is a framework, not the Ten Commandments. It's own ambiguous nature (in places) is likely how it's lasted to this day. Setting up a rigid law structure to cater to merely a 1790 America would have destroyed this country in under a century. The Constitution was created to empower the federal government but yes, it did prescribe certain boundaries.

12/30/2011 2:54:49 PM

Quote :

"Why conservatives continue to spout that the Constitution was created with the idea of small government is beyond me."

oh that's right, it was england we were trying to copy. we had to make sure we had a king and govt to have a say in every detail of our lives

12/30/2011 2:59:25 PM

The good news is that we all got a good chuckle out of you trolling aaronburro. I'm too much of a curmudgeon around these parts to play your game.

12/30/2011 3:33:02 PM

so you think we were trying to copy big govt style england? cool.

12/30/2011 3:49:00 PM

I think you feel you are clever for trying to goad myself and others into replying to your nonsense.

12/30/2011 3:52:29 PM

Quote :

" merely a 1790 America would have destroyed this country in under a century"

Ahem, Civil War?

12/30/2011 7:09:21 PM

^^^The US indeed wasn't trying to copy the UK, regardless of how extensive its regulatory and welfare states were (actually the welfare state was nearly nonexistent everywhere); rather, it saw the unsustainability of an insufficiently powerful government over a loose confederation, with obligations exceeding its power to satisfy, so the Constitutional Convention, among other things, sought to give the government of the United States the powers (like taxation) necessary to pay off its debts from the War of Independence, and additionally the Constitution was made vague enough to mitigate the pressure for yet another Convention in the future (notably with the "necessary and proper" clause, but also with other weaselly phrases like "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" and "The executive Power" and slightly later on with "cruel and unusual Punishment" in the 8th Amendment).

The later interpretation of Article III requiring judicial review, and the much later expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, again took the pressure off any broad-based effort to hold another Constitutional Convention in order to give the government enough power to do what it was expected to do; I don't think the Supreme Court always gets it right, like when it (until recently) held that the Second Amendment only protected state militias, or when it recently used the (flawed) doctrine of corporate personhood to end any meaningful campaign-finance reform, but its continual refinement and disambiguation of the Constitution's meaning has served us well, far better than a strict adherence to the outmoded mores of the late 18th century would have.



^The legal structure wasn't even all that rigid by the mid-1800s (notably, judicial review was never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but had become de rigeur by then), and the controversy over slavery was evident even during the Convention: Unable to agree on whether slavery would be forever banned or forever permitted, a compromise was hit upon in which no legislation on the matter could be passed until 1808 (at which time the importation of slaves was finally banned by legislation); the trend appeared to be the slow decline of slavery, but then a couple years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, something appeared that made it viable seemingly for generations to come...

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 1:43 AM. Reason : crank dat cotton gin

12/31/2011 1:38:46 AM

Quote :

"The Constitution is a framework, not the Ten Commandments."

Exactly. The Ten Commandments tell you what you can't do. The Constitution outlines what the federal government can do, and the bill of rights are protections for the individual.

Quote :

"It's own ambiguous nature (in places) is likely how it's lasted to this day."

It's only ambiguous if you want to make it that way; the language is actually pretty clear. Either way, that's not how it lasted to today. It has lasted by default. For it to have not lasted would have meant that the legislature overwhelmingly decided to scrap the whole thing.

No idea what a new Constitution would look like if today's government was responsible for creating it. Part of me thinks a constitutional convention would be a good thing, but it could just as easily be a disaster.

Quote :

"Setting up a rigid law structure to cater to merely a 1790 America would have destroyed this country in under a century. The Constitution was created to empower the federal government but yes, it did prescribe certain boundaries."

An amendment process is included, but there's no way you can claim with any certainty that actually following the Constitution would have "destroyed the country". It would have meant a more decentralized government with a much more diverse set of laws by state. That's not a bad thing.

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 11:18 AM. Reason : ]

12/31/2011 11:14:43 AM

Gary Johnson asks Iowa supporters to back Ron Paul

Quote :

"Johnson added that while he and Paul are both libertarians, "we don't necessarily agree on every single issue. However, on the overriding issues of restoring our economy by cutting out-of-control spending and the need to get back to Constitutional principles in our government, Ron Paul and I are in lock-step.""

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/201845-gary-johnson-asks-iowa-supporters-to-back-paul

12/31/2011 12:53:21 PM

Quote :

"It's only ambiguous if you want to make it that way; the language is actually pretty clear."

It's pretty clear, if you presume someone from a fresh, post-revolution society is reading it.

It's less clear when someone from a modern global super-power was reading it.

And they were also pretty clear about denying blacks, women, and people who didn't own land lots of rights, so you now we can trust everything else in there was really well thought out to stand the test of time.

12/31/2011 1:55:40 PM

Quote :

"the language is actually pretty clear"

why oh why do we have an air force

I mean Congress had the power to raise an army and a navy but it said nothing about an air force

12/31/2011 5:23:27 PM

The Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, then after a few decades was made it's own branch.

Quote :

"but its continual refinement and disambiguation of the Constitution's meaning has served us well, far better than a strict adherence to the outmoded mores of the late 18th century would have. "

Nobody wants to adhere to an outdated Constitution. Those of us who advocate adherence to the Constitution are saying that we support updating the Constitution to keep up with the times, in accordance with the provisions established therein for that exact purpose, rather than just fucking ignoring it or using some insane tortured logic to justify doing something.

12/31/2011 7:44:46 PM

If Ron Paul doesn't make a strong showing in the other early primaries, I'll fully support Gary Johnson...especially after getting word that the Iowa state GOP will be stripping Ron Paul of his delegates and splitting them between Romney and Santorum: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/campaigns/romney-edges-santorum-in-tight-race-for-iowa-delegates-paul-shut-out/2012/01/04/gIQA52AsZP_story.html

Fuck the Republican party. Don't give a shit if the vote is split - fuck them. They didn't want to play nice, now they'll be forced to deal with the consequences.

1/4/2012 8:01:21 PM

^ wow

was the plan all along to only split between the top 2 or what?

it definitely seems though like they are gaming the system for Romney.

This comes up every election season but I guess it's time to point out that majority-rules systems often result in a candidate no one really likes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count

1/4/2012 8:10:17 PM

I think what actually happened is that Ron Paul did not dominate strongly enough in any county or district to be assured of getting even a single delegate by the time the set of conventions would finish, much as Ross Perot, despite getting 19% of the vote in the 1992 general election, did not dominate in any individual state and therefore got no electoral votes.

1/4/2012 8:49:16 PM

Quote :

"If Ron Paul doesn't make a strong showing in the other early primaries, I'll fully support Gary Johnson...especially after getting word that the Iowa state GOP will be stripping Ron Paul of his delegates and splitting them between Romney and Santorum"

I wonder if Paul or Santorum will come in last tonight?

1/21/2012 7:44:10 PM

Quote :

"I dont see the GOP ever nominating a Libertarian as a prez candidate"

Well, for what it's worth, they did it in '64.

1/21/2012 7:56:33 PM

In the sense of "former member of the Libertarian Party" they couldn't have, because the LP wasn't founded until 1972; then again Goldwater was indeed a libertarian in any sensible meaning of the term.

1/21/2012 8:04:34 PM

Quote :

"If Ron Paul doesn't make a strong showing in the other early primaries, I'll fully support Gary Johnson...especially after getting word that the Iowa state GOP will be stripping Ron Paul of his delegates and splitting them between Romney and Santorum: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/campaigns/romney-edges-santorum-in-tight-race-for-iowa-delegates-paul-shut-out/2012/01/04/gIQA52AsZP_story.html"

I can't find any corroboration of this claim anywhere. Even the linked news article no longer exists. You got any other reference for this?

1/21/2012 8:07:52 PM

One of the three major news-org-based estimates of the delegate split gave all of the delegates to Romney or Santorum; another one gave 11 to each and then 3 to Paul, while another gave 7 to each of Romney, Santorum, and Paul, and then 4 to Gingrich.

The final delegate count won't be made until the Iowa State Convention in the summer.

1/21/2012 8:13:47 PM

http://lpmeck.org/gary-johnson-candidate-for-lp-presidential-nomination-sends-letter-to-lpnc-convention/

Quote :

"Gary Johnson, Candidate For LP Presidential Nomination Sends Letter To LPNC Convention I truly wish that I could be there today in Durham to join you at your state convention, but unfortunately due to the scheduling of so many conventions this weekend that was just not possible. I am there with you in spirit and so are many other libertarians across the country that are not only attending conventions but also running local campaigns, writing op-eds or participating in many other forms of activism opposing the unconstitutional expansion of our government into every aspect of our lives and our wallets. Your home state is set to play an important role in the presidential election this year not just because it will host the Democratic convention or because it represents a crucial swing state, but because you are at the epicenter of an important battle for individual liberty. The battle over the Amendment 1 ballot initiative will be a signal to the country and the world as to whether we are ready to stand up for civil liberties, civil rights and freedom. The fight against Amendment 1 is a fight to protect the freedoms of not just the LGBT community but for everyone. That is because this isn’t just about marriage equality. It is bigger than that. The freedom to marry is inextricably tied to the freedom of speech, the freedom to bear arms, the freedom to earn a living and many other liberties. Freedom cannot be parceled into economic liberties or personal liberties. They are essential parts of the whole. You either embrace it fully or you don’t. I certainly have and that is why I have not been afraid to speak out on controversial issues even when they may have hurt my chances at higher office. I have openly supported marriage equality, been a vocal opponent both of our failed war on drugs and our failed attempts at nation-building."

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

"March Matching Funds Mania"

Quote :

"We want to have some fun with "March Madness*" and finish the important task of qualifying for federal matching funds. 1. To qualify for federal matching funds the campaign must raise $5000 from each of any 20 states. 2. Only the first $250 of your donations to the campaign count toward the qualifying goal. So if you and your spouse are considering donating and were just going to donate $500, then it is better if you both donate $250 so your family's full donation gets matched. 3. As a Libertarian Party candidate for President, only donations received prior to the LP Convention qualify for matching funds. If you were thinking about waiting until after the convention to contribute - don't. Donate now and your dollars will be worth twice as much."

Public Campaign Financing is a way of dealing with the problem of big money in politics. You don't have to be rich to run for office. You don't have to be in the pockets of wealthy lobbyists to run for office. You don't have to have major party support to run for office. It's something I've long supported. Especially in the post citizens united ruling world. We may not be able to regulate campaign spending the way we could during the times of McCain-Feindgold. Even if super PACs are making things nastier and more distorted, and harder for us to participate effectively in politics as individuals, public campaign financing keeps that door open for small dollar donations to get people elected.

Darn if I'm not starting to like to like this guy a lot more. And he only needs $338 to qualify for North Carolina. Only up to $250 per individual can go towards that goal. But I'm starting to consider donating a little his way.

[Edited on March 26, 2012 at 11:45 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2012 11:30:41 PM

I'm voting for him as Librarian

3/27/2012 10:44:50 AM

http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/blogpost/10979281/

If Paul is on the Americans Elect ticket once he's done playing Republican, then there goes Johnson's chances of getting the Libertarians to have a good vote turnout right?

4/13/2012 7:49:14 PM

i would rather them run Ron Paul

But then again, if the campaign doesn't deliver by winning more voters outside the movement, then it would be fairly niche.

Also, Bill Clinton won in 1994 because of Ross Perot, no?

4/13/2012 9:10:11 PM

He won the Libertarian nomination, there is a huge effort to get him in the debates with the Dem and Repub. nominees.

5/5/2012 8:01:17 PM

Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman were my favorites in the beginning. I really wish Johnson would chill out a little on the drug issue, though. He's made his point, and I don't disagree, but since jumping to the L ticket, it's seemingly become his front and center issue, and that's a mistake. Hopefully he'll stop now that he has the L nomination.

5/5/2012 10:11:49 PM

Huntsman 16

5/5/2012 10:30:29 PM

^^^^^Ron Paul has refused the Americans Elect ticket, even though he is by far the most popular candidate, whether drafted or declared; also it looks like the project will fail like its predecessor, Unity '08, for lack of a viable candidate to put on the ballot: http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/buddy_roemer_still_short_for_a.html

5/5/2012 11:18:27 PM