Associated Press
Given how very close the 2012 presidential race has become, a candidate like Gary Johnson, on the ballot in 48 states, may very well make a difference.
When he was running for the Republican presidential nomination last year, Gary Johnson, the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, drew ridicule from mainstream party members as he advocated legalized marijuana and a 43 percent cut in military spending.
Now campaigning as the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee, Mr. Johnson is still only a blip in the polls. But he is on the ballot in every state except Michigan and Oklahoma, enjoys the support of a few small "super PACs" and is trying to tap into the same grass-roots enthusiasm that helped build Representative Ron Paul a big following. And with polls showing the race between President Obama and Mitt Romney to be tight, Mr. Johnson's once-fellow Republicans are no longer laughing.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus characterized Johnson as a "nonfactor," but there's ample evidence the Republican establishment isn't sincere in its dismissal. In Iowa, the Romney campaign "ran what was effectively a surveillance operation" to monitor Johnson's efforts to collect ballot signatures, while in Pennsylvania, GOP officials "hired a private detective to investigate his ballot drive."
The detective flashed an FBI badge -- he's a retired agent -- and asked to see the petitions collected by Johnson canvassers.
And in Michigan, the Johnson campaign filed the necessary paperwork three minutes late, and Republicans used this to block the former governor from the state ballot.
At a certain level, I can understand the concern among GOP officials. The party wants President Obama's critics to have one alternative -- Mitt Romney -- and fear giving voters more options would weaken the opposition to the incumbent. Given how many conservatives have never been altogether thrilled with Mitt Romney, Johnson starts to look like a threat.
But that's not the whole story.
Unlike Virgil Goode's candidacy in Virginia, which will appeal almost exclusively to the far right, Johnson has the capacity to appeal to likely-Democratic voters -- he wants to legalize marijuana, supports marriage equality, and takes a Ron Paul-like approach to foreign wars.
Still, Johnson seems to be rattling Republicans' nerves a lot more than Democrats'. The Libertarian doesn't have much money, and will almost certainly fail to reach more than a few points in any state, but in an exceedingly close contest, his tallies will be worth keeping an eye on.
Leave a Comment:
Given the amount of time, money and effort the GOP put in to getting Nader on the ballot in 2000, they have every reason to be nervous.
My thoughts, exactly! Naderize the Mittster.
And here's his bumper sticker-( very popular in the Red (neck) States!) "The other white meat!"
Oh, Day, almost choked on my bacon...
here we go!!! The pendulum swings back!
The other thing is that they can't effectively publicly go after this guy without being seen to be "eating their own" and pissing off a segment of the tea party that while willing to go along with the GOP as a necessary partner really don't like them.
Um. He flashed an FBI badge? Sorry, but whether he WAS an agent doesn't make any difference. He isn't one now.
That's a felony.
Hmm, tsk, tsk.
Whenever I say that I feel myself and Libertarians share alot I get laughed at or yelled at by "actual" Libertarians. Drug legalization and non-intervention in foreign affairs are not the core issues to these folks IMHO. The Libertarians I know are feeling ripped off by literally any government activity. It's a super-cult of resentment, they loathe any effort to level the playing field. Although they would of course deny it, they want to send grandma out on an iceflow before they want her to have Medicare. If grandma could not save enough pennies to deal with health insurance companies, it was her fault and so what.
Libertarianism would work perfectly in a society of 100 highly-educated moral people, until one of them figured out the others were idiots and how easy it would be to "get over" on them.
personally i think the libertarian ideology is fundamentally flawed. a fair tax would make the u.s. government dependant on consumer spending. people saving their money would actually become, not just a bad thing, but a critically bad thing. the government would probobly, not just tollerate prostitution, criime, drug dealing, but maybe even support it. depend on it. and if you thought people sell us too hard now... just wait til the u.s. government needs it to survive. they will unlock the flood gates of sales... repetative, burn it into your brain until you think you need it, cant hear yourself think... sales. and corperations would still run amok all over us.
Iconic conservative William Buckley debated Ron Paul eons ago. Buckley was deeply informed by his Catholic faith and truly was a compassionate conservative. The problem with libertarianism, and its offshoot, Ayn Rand's Objectivism, is that it makes no allowance for the unemployable.
Sick, disabled, elderly? Too bad!
Than were ts a alternative go as the Dutch do they closed most of their prisons lack of crime and criminals http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_x4LgBJB7Q
Obama used Al Qaida, NATO & CIA to overthrow the gov't in Libya, because the gold backed Dinar currency posed a threat to our “world reserve currency” ie. 'the sixteen trillion dollar house of cards'. As soon as U.S. armed “rebels” shot Gadaffi their “central bank” was adjusted appropriately.
The only reason we bombed Iraq in 2003, was to return the oil sales in Iraq from Euros back to Dollars.
Now we have Iran, one of the last independent oil producers in their region, selling oil to China and Russia for gold; a direct threat to the dollar.
Dollars we still send to Pakistan even though that’s where we found Osama Bin Laden.
Russia and China have stated publicly that we should leave Syria and Iran alone. Yet we now have Romney saying he’ll topple the gov’t in Syria ‘faster’ than Obama…
It’s FED AGENDA. The handful of rich evil men control our government via the Federal Reserve, weild the might of our military, and censor all of our mainstream media.
We need to put Congress back in control of our money, spending less than is gathered, to build wealth in the U.S. Treasury.
Balancing the budget will end any need for credit from a bank. It is a bitter pill better taken sooner than later, to slash the government down to size.
We HAVE TO cut medicaide, medicare, military, and the size and scope of the Federal Government or there won't be ANY safety net for seniors after the destruction of our currency. You can't borrow to keep it sustained, it's morally reprehensible, and the rest of the world is eventually going to call us on it.
The FED will end, make no mistake. We can fix this now while we still can, or the FED will print itself to death. And the destruction of our currency or ww3 or any number of ugly scenarios pop up in my mind, how about you? It doesn't matter what the odds are, the stakes are too high.
Stop voting for FED puppets!
Gary Johnson POTUS 2012
@George Martin: That's a straw man argument, and a really dumb one too. Libertarians believe in voluntary contribution - people help people all the time, it's normal and human. You are confusing institutionalized power with people and society.
Libertarianism might have a less effective approach to helping the poor or elderly, hypothetically speaking, but to say that our position is that of 'too bad!' proves that you do not know what you are talking about.
It's interesting that you say that. I take care of my grandparents. I would even if they didn't have medicare. Unlike you, I don't feel that it is my right, or their right, to foist their needs onto strangers through the police powers of the state. One supposes that would have put your grandparents to death were they not cared for by strangers; after all, why should you have to shoulder such a burden for the sake of your own family?
We tried that before. It didn't work.
"If grandma could not save enough pennies to deal with health insurance companies, it was her fault and so what."
Your first argument is that Libertarians are cold heartless bastards, which is far from the truth.
Your 2nd argument is that Medicare is needed to take care of the elderly. Well in a lot of cases Medicare does not help as much as it should, and the burden of payment is placed on the family, potentially costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is a mismatch between what is covered and what is actually useful in Medicare today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/opinion/sunday/how-medicare-fails-the-elderly.html
As for affordable health care in general. If we cut down on government interference, free-market competition will give insurance providers the incentive to provide better coverage and lower their costs. Obamacare and Romneycare are health insurance mandates. It increases the cost of healthcare overall for everyone, people who don't have it have will have to pay more for it, and people who don't want it will have to pay a penalty. Forcing people to pay for a product or service is a violation against liberty and the free-market.
No, it did work. What isn't working is the current system in which we force strangers to take care of others for us. It's actually on the verge of monetary collapse if you look at the numbers. People like Johnson understand this and want to do something about it, unlike others (particularly politicians) who remain living in la la land, where money never ends and debt never causes any harm.
Agreed with cantingas321. George Martin, you should do some research about the Fraternal Insurance Societies of the late 19th and early 20th century in America and the Friendly Societies in England throughout the latter half of the last millenium. All completely voluntary forms of mutual aid that worked quite well.
The problem is, you can't empower the government to do something vague, such as, "level the playing field," without also giving it power to do a lot more mischief. History has shown that governments will do as much mischief as they can with whatever power they get -- certainly far more often than any good they might intentionally (or, more likely, accidentally) do with the same power.
As far as THIS libertarian is concerned, the impetus for both the drug war AND the foreign interventions comes from the same place, and should be consistently opposed. But also, the desire to "level the playing field" also comes from the same place: The impulse to use force against those who initiated no force, in order to benefit others or otherwise improve the world. As cliche and simplistic as it may sound, the old saying, "two wrongs don't make a right" applies. When you take from some or restrict their behavior to "level the playing field" so that other people benefit, you create seeds of resentment and conflict that, if pressed hard enough or left long enough, inevitably end up in civil unrest, or even war.
Force needs to be avoided, except as a just response or countermeasure to aggressive force. Unfortunately, the primary thing that government has going for it IS force. It's a hammer. And when you have a hammer, as they say, every problem looks like a nail. This is one reason why government needs to be OUT of as many areas and activities of life as possible. Government's response to virtually ANY problem involves the use of force; in turn, that force engenders resentment and even hatred, which will someday boil over and undo any good that may have been done by the earlier use of force.
The idea of non-intervention goes a lot deeper than just keeping our noses out of the middle-east or other foreign locales. The government has "intervened" in our own, domestic affairs, with some spectacularly checkered results. Real libertarians understand that all of the intervention is of a piece. When the decision to intervene, or the decision about the nature or duration of intervention -- in any sphere of activity -- is left to political processes, good things seem to happen only by accident (or because the phenomenon in question, for instance, the US free-market economy, is so robust that it can absorb tremendous abuse and still produce desirable results).
By the above definition, I suspect that the people who dismissively laugh at your attempts to build bridges aren't very libertarian at all, whatever they claim. I see that several "important libertarians" have lately disavowed Governor Johnson on a pragmatic basis: "he just can't win, so we all need to circle the wagons and vote Romney to defeat the hated Obama." They may very well be right about Johnson. But I find it hard to believe that they are libertarian at all if they can endorse Romney, just to get rid of Obama. On the basis of their own, self-professed pragmatism, how can they possibly believe that either man will move this country one inch closer to true freedom? Is the best argument they have that Romney will slow our inevitable slide into the pit? If they are libertarian, then their libertarianism counts for nothing, as they have neither the wisdom nor courage of their alleged convictions. Maybe they don't like Johnson as a viable candidate, but are they so impotent that they couldn't have arranged for a more truly libertarian candidate than Romney to run under the GOP banner? If so, why should we care at all what irrelevant people like that have to say? At least libertarians have principle on their side; "libertarians" who abandon principle, to the point of being able to support the likes of Romney, merely out of a false assessment of the relative dangers of Obama vs. Romney, are probably lost.
Re: Priebus I just can't take this guy seriously, he looks just like
the Geico Gecko.
please don't slander the Gecko like that...
i agree with jon stewart. his name isnt actually reince preibus. its ryan parker. hes just so drunk, when he says his name it sounds like, ryance prabsdjfks.
The Libertarian doesn't have much money...
That's for sure. I saw a sloppily handpainted sign for him on a street corner here in PA yesterday that couldn't even fit his whole name on one line. It read:
Gary
Johns
on
However, I have also been on a few college campus visits with my son in the past few weeks, and 2 of the 3 colleges we visited had Johnson tables set up in the student union buildings. That surprised me. He does seem to have some grassroots action going on, at least among young people.
But they all are backing him "ironically".
Yep, if you think the "voter suppression" will only be working on Obama supporters, just wait til you see what they're lining up for this guy.....
A very nice alternative for the disenfranchised Ron Paul supporters. After what happened at the convention, it wouldn't suprise me if GJ pulled in a good number from them, if they even vote at all.
As Gary Johnson is a Ron Paul Supporter he may very well have their vote.
Gary Johnson has been a highly talked about name here in Phoenix. To continue Arizona's tradition to be the joke of the country, his name was spelled wrong on my early voter's ballot. It was printed as "Gray Johnson."
Might want to check that ballot again. Judge Jim Gray is Gary Johnsons running mate
Ashley, You sure that wasn't "Johnson / Gray"? Does the corresponding Democrat line say "Obama / Biden," or the GOP line "Romney / Ryan"? If they did make the typo you describe, what an oops!
a retired fbi agent flashed his badge? is that even legal?
anything is only illegal if you get caught and can't buy your way out of it... innocence through wealth, the new judicial code of the US of A.
Ron Paul has NOT endorsed Mitt Romney, and a lot of his supporters are pretty P.O'd about some of the questionable ways he was treated in the primaries and convention. If Paul, who is at the end of his political career, were a vindictive sort of guy—or just one committed to his own philosophy—he could support Johnson. Wouldn't that be interesting!?
Paul's most appealing trait is that you believe he believes what he's saying. Unlike uh, who...?
Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. He is against women having rights, over their own bodies. Ron Paul lies alot as well, just look at his campaign mailers, and listen to how he deals with his racist past.
oooh. nice one, GM. agreed!
ron paul is a republican... in name only. come on. OFCOURSE hes a libertarian. the guy practically invented the party.
Yes, bowling dude, I have commented on Paul's limited definition of "Freedom" before.
@Lebowsky Dude:
First, you're stupid.
Second, Ron Paul is a libertarian - and libertarians can disagree on when life begins. To Paul, life begins in the womb - therefore has rights. To Johnson, life begins outside the womb. Therefore, he is pro choice.
You call yourself a libertarian, but don't even know what it is, just like every other liberal with an axe to grind on this site.
Giovanni - I'll say again, libertarianism is actually quite appealing. The idea of getting government out of our lives, out of stupid wars, corporate welfare, etc., is tempting. But I think there are blind spots, like social welfare, which I believe ultimately benefits all society. We can argue more about that.
Now, meanwhile, you may say that Ayn Rand was not a true libertarian, but an adherent to her own created philosophy, Objectivism. Even so, some quotes from Ayn might be instructive.
So, when we're discussing freedom, that is why, Paul's appeal on other issues notwithstanding, I find his definition of freedom that excludes abortion rights more politically motivated than sincerely held, or at the very least self-contradictory.
I haven't called you names.
Johnson actually believes that abortion is ok up until the month when a fetus develops a functioning brain.
A specific definition of "Libertarian" can vary a lot, but it all revolves around individual liberty, freedom, non-aggression, personal responsibility, and fiscal sanity.
The beliefs within libertarianism can be anything from minarchy, to voluntaryism, but they all revolve around the same core principles.
I think Ron Paul's ultimate vision is voluntaryism, where every social interaction is voluntary and free from fraud, force, and coercion. Although he never stated this explicitly.
Plus there are people of different religious backgrounds thrown into the mix.
ill tell you one thing i know for a fact... gary johnson will decimate romneys portion of the vote in virginia. every republican i know there hates romney and is itching to seperate themselves by voting librtrn. its no joke. romneys candor plus a republican sect 3rd party is "end of story" for the rep win. i bet my life on it.
this is what you call a slam dunk for dems.
I don't know, Johnson also has an appeal to Dems who are not happy with Obama. He may take a fair share of His votes as well.
librtrn is the moderate portion of the rep vote. hands down. the rep party has been split in 2. tea party and librtrn. the rep vote this election only represents the "far" right. mods have no intentiion of going the religious right/anti abortion route. no way no how.
in retrospect... i bet ross perot dropped out of the 1992 race for this same reason. even though he claims it was death threats to his daughter. it makes more sense that he was either paid off or forced to leave by some kind of persuasion. ross perot aswell divided the rep vote, not the dem. and i know a couple people that just decided not to vote when he dropped out. and they were reps.
Johnson's tapping the pissed of Paul supporters that got the royal shaft at the Republican convention. Karma's a bitch, ain't it ?!
Talk about payback! If it is at all possible i'm for it.
its like rommney is always saying... we need choices. choices in healthcare providers, choices in (privatized) education, competing and creating a fair price... choices in republican candidates? haha
Gary Johnson, the respectable candidate for ODS sufferers who like to get high. I guess to a lot of Republicans Johnson doesn't have the same "stench" as the Republican nominees.
Both parties become less representative of the majority of Americans each day. As each day passes more and more Americans look for an alternative. So Democratic and Republican Parties continue down your path...see where it takes you. there are alternatives that look more and more apealing as each day goes by...each time you cater to special interests...each time you fail to do what is right for the country. As for me I am voting for change now....I am voting for Gary Johnson for president and I am voting for any independent I can find at state and local level races. Take a close look at Gary Johnson: he is the sanest man running for president.... Join the wave of change
I'm with you in PA
I live in Massachusetts. This year I went to the caucus, which MA has in addition to a primary. At the statewide caucuses, Ron Paul won 16 out of 19 possible delegate spots. These delegates were bound to vote for Mitt Romney on the first round of votes at the convention, because Romney won the primary; however if there were a second vote the delegates would be free to vote their consciences -- for Ron Paul. At the caucus these delegates swore an oath to vote for Mitt Romney at the convention.
Apparently this was not good enough for the MA GOP leaders. They decided to add an additional criteria that had not been in place during the caucuses: that the delegates sign an affidavit punishable by perjury to vote for Mitt Romney. Since they hadn't done so, the MA GOP chose to disqualify all 16 of the Ron Paul people and install their own hand-picked choices.
I will NEVER vote for a republican candidate again. I am taking my money-donating, sign-waving, bumper-sticker covered car driving Ron Paul-i-ness to GARY JOHNSON.
You're the person I was talking about in #11 above. Can't blame you.
Don't waste your vote on Obama or Romney this election as they are both owned buy the big banks and corporations and will do NOTHING to stop the out of control spending! Vote for Gary Johnson as he is the ONLY candidate NOT owned by the banks and corporations and has a plan to save this country! Check him out at garyjohnson2012.com
I would also like to say, very briefly, that the people who urge independents and supporters of third-party candidates to not "waste their votes," by pulling the lever for other than the Demo or GOP choices, are floundering in the water, doing their best to drag others down with them. You can allow yourself to sink with the rest of them, or you can try to scramble to safety. Third parties and independents offer a way out, but it is of course necessary for a great many people to decide to vote that way, cutting the line that ties them to the twin cement bags that weigh the whole country down. Just because the bipartisans want company in their misery, that's no reason for you to oblige and continue your own misery. If their bulk and weight is too great, we will all go down together anyway. But if you break free of the two-party scam, you'll at least be taking a chance at survival; if enough others join you, the combined buoyancy may be enough to float the US for years to come, while the two cement bags settle at the bottom of the dark deep, where they belong.
He isnt a true libitarian, he is another EX GoP who lost an election then became mad they supported another candidate. Very similier to Arlan Spector in PA, instead of just going home they switch parties. He has no chance and a retarded comericial to boot.
No doubt Gary Johnson will draw votes from Romney and Obama. Lemme put it this way, I've typically voted Democratic, I voted for Obama in 2008 (naively) on the premise that he would close Guantanamo, let the Patriot Act expire, and generally work to reverse the course GWB set us on.
Obama betrayed both his anti-war and pro-liberty supporters because he strengthened and extended GWB's policies. I believe Obama buckled under criticisms of being "radical" and "socialist" and ended up barely left of center in the end.
Both Republicans and Democrats are accustomed to over-spending and are mostly corporate puppets anyways. As we saw with the bank bailout, the real important decisions aren't made by voters, they're made behind the closed doors of board rooms.
If Ron Paul had gotten the nomination for the GOP, I would have actually considered voting Republican for the first time in my life. In that respect, I think the GOP made a huge mistake by choosing Romney. Although I'm not Libertarian across the board, I will support Gary Johnson, if only to help ensure that a multi-party system doesn't completely die out.
Well said. I've always voted Republican but i was a huge Ron Paul Supporter and felt the GOP completely let me down with their choice. I vowed to sit this one out if they didn't choose Ron Paul as i couldn't in good faith give either candidate my vote. At least with GJ, though I may be "wasting", i can at least say i voted for someone who earned my vote and not just someone nominated by my affiliated party.
If you seek true investigative journalism, it is clear the duopoly is funded by the same groups that look out for Wall Street. Is it not obvious why the opposition is trying to silence Johnson's voice with no real coverage or national polling, even though he is polling double digits in some states?
Gary Johnson 2012 for REAL CHANGE
Down with Duopoly!
LIVE FREE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQcRR-71Tq0
http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/10/15/gop-suddenly-not-laughing-about-gary-johnson