Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Libertarian Thread (Was: Gary Johnson Thread) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Maurile Tremblay
- Start date
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Yeah that is what I saw too. But it was at that many signatures a week ago by the same thing. Makes me wonder how quickly it is updating or if it is doing so properly? I would think there should be thousands by now, but maybe there are multiple petitions going that are not all together yet for a final count. Not sure.
Making news in the hometown. Ron Paul had a decent base here in Reno during the 2008 process. Unfortunately, Reid and the unions control the Vegas market (though shrinking with unemployment issues).
http://www.foxreno.com/news/news/local/three-man-race-can-johnson-beat-obama-and-romney-n/nQDqs/
Mitt Romney and President Obama’s visits to Northern Nevada may get all the headlines, but they’re not the only presidential hopefuls visiting the area.
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson was in town campaigning for president on the Libertarian ticket. And while Southern Nevada leans blue and Northern Nevada leans red, Governor Johnson thinks the time may be right for a third party candidate to make some noise right here in the Silver State. He sat down with FOX 11 News for an in-depth, insightful and sometimes funny interview.
http://www.foxreno.com/news/news/local/three-man-race-can-johnson-beat-obama-and-romney-n/nQDqs/
Mitt Romney and President Obama’s visits to Northern Nevada may get all the headlines, but they’re not the only presidential hopefuls visiting the area.
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson was in town campaigning for president on the Libertarian ticket. And while Southern Nevada leans blue and Northern Nevada leans red, Governor Johnson thinks the time may be right for a third party candidate to make some noise right here in the Silver State. He sat down with FOX 11 News for an in-depth, insightful and sometimes funny interview.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Oof.
Last edited by a moderator:
FavreCo
Footballguy
In at #422. Reason (optional): It's way past time to get rid of the republicans and democrats.
I am admittedly clueless on how the federal government can override state laws here. Is it as simple as "it's illegal nationally so the states have zero rights"?
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/judge-jim-gray-slams-obama-for-demanding-shutdown-of-medical-marijuana-centers
Judge Jim Gray Slams Obama For Demanding Shutdown Of Medical Marijuana Centers
August 9, 2012Posted in Blog, News
DURING VISIT TO COLORADO, LIBERTARIAN PARTY VP NOMINEE JIM GRAY CRITICIZES PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR INTERFERING IN STATE’S MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS
August 9, 2012, Denver, CO — Visiting a Denver medical marijuana dispensary Thursday, Libertarian vice presidential nominee and retired Superior Court Judge Jim Gray urged passage of Amendment 64, the statewide initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol that will appear on this year’s ballot.
Judge Gray was also critical of the Obama Administration’s interference in Colorado’s state-regulated medical marijuana system. Last week, the Justice Department issued letters to 10 state-legal medical marijuana facilities demanding that they shut down. Fifty-seven total businesses have now received such letters.
Judge Gray is running for vice president on the Libertarian ticket with presidential nominee and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson has expressed strong support for Amendment 64.
“Marijuana prohibition has been just as ineffective, harmful and wasteful as alcohol prohibition,” Gray said. “Regulating marijuana like alcohol will take marijuana out of the underground market where it is supporting drug cartels and other criminal enterprises, and it will allow the state and localities to redirect their limited law enforcement resources toward serious crimes.
“Amendment 64 presents a responsible new approach, and I am proud to lend it my full support.”
“It is frankly surprising to see the President coming to Colorado to garner support for his campaign less than a week after his administration demanded the shutdown of 10 more state-legal businesses,” Gray said. “When it comes to many of these state-legal medical marijuana businesses in Colorado, it can be said with certainty that President Obama didn’t build them — he killed them.”
“The federal government has no business interfering in states’ efforts to regulate and control marijuana, and I can assure you it would not do so under a Johnson administration.”
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/judge-jim-gray-slams-obama-for-demanding-shutdown-of-medical-marijuana-centers
Judge Jim Gray Slams Obama For Demanding Shutdown Of Medical Marijuana Centers
August 9, 2012Posted in Blog, News
DURING VISIT TO COLORADO, LIBERTARIAN PARTY VP NOMINEE JIM GRAY CRITICIZES PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR INTERFERING IN STATE’S MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS
August 9, 2012, Denver, CO — Visiting a Denver medical marijuana dispensary Thursday, Libertarian vice presidential nominee and retired Superior Court Judge Jim Gray urged passage of Amendment 64, the statewide initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol that will appear on this year’s ballot.
Judge Gray was also critical of the Obama Administration’s interference in Colorado’s state-regulated medical marijuana system. Last week, the Justice Department issued letters to 10 state-legal medical marijuana facilities demanding that they shut down. Fifty-seven total businesses have now received such letters.
Judge Gray is running for vice president on the Libertarian ticket with presidential nominee and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson has expressed strong support for Amendment 64.
“Marijuana prohibition has been just as ineffective, harmful and wasteful as alcohol prohibition,” Gray said. “Regulating marijuana like alcohol will take marijuana out of the underground market where it is supporting drug cartels and other criminal enterprises, and it will allow the state and localities to redirect their limited law enforcement resources toward serious crimes.
“Amendment 64 presents a responsible new approach, and I am proud to lend it my full support.”
“It is frankly surprising to see the President coming to Colorado to garner support for his campaign less than a week after his administration demanded the shutdown of 10 more state-legal businesses,” Gray said. “When it comes to many of these state-legal medical marijuana businesses in Colorado, it can be said with certainty that President Obama didn’t build them — he killed them.”
“The federal government has no business interfering in states’ efforts to regulate and control marijuana, and I can assure you it would not do so under a Johnson administration.”
Federal laws enacted pursuant to the United States Constitution are the supreme law of the land. Any state laws that conflict with federal law are to that extent invalid.Federal law prohibits the distribution or use of marijuana. There's nothing states can do about it except hope that the feds look the other way. Obama's administration, like the administrations before his, have not looked the other way.
Herb
Footballguy
I figured it was a stupid question and that was the answer. Do the states have the legal right to take this through the courts? I assume it is cost prohibitive and futile, but wouldn't there be a public opinion advantage based on some recent polling?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Yes! They did! The "commerce clause has gone awry" courts expanded the powers of the federal government by asserting just about any activity where there is a interstate market for that activity whether "you" participate in that market or not, whether your activities cross state lines or not is covered by the interstate commerce clause. (More or less - the legal guys can correct the details.)
Makes even more "sense"
- I know enough about the commerce clause to see how that could be the case. Thanks for the info.
Wrighteous Ray
Footballguy
Yes, that's why he only gets about 1% of the political threads (or less).
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Yes. What's your point?
Fennis
Footballguy
He likes the status quo and wants more of the same
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
Yeah, because that's what I said.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
Ok... then what's your point?Yeah, because that's what I said.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I believe Gary Johnson will get more than 1% of the vote, perhaps a lot more, but I am curious what Tom Servo's point might be as well.Ok... then what's your point?Yeah, because that's what I said.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
508 signatures. That's pretty embarassing.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/greenlibertarians.htmlThis article is pretty old but I think gives some background on the Libertarian and Green party's recent history. I like this website and it has some good links.
Fennis
Footballguy
Inclusion in the Presidential Debates
To the Commission on Presidential Debates,
I am writing to request that the National Commission on Presidential Debates reconsider your current – and exclusionary – requirements for participation in this Fall’s all-important Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates.
I am well aware of the history and genesis of the Commission, including the reality that it was created largely by the respective national leadership of the Democrat and Republican Parties. While I respect and understand the intention to provide a reasonable and theoretically nonpartisan structure for the presidential debate process, I would suggest that the Commission’s founding, organization and policies are heavily skewed toward limiting the debates to the two so-called major parties.
That is unfortunate, and frankly, out of touch with the electorate. You rely very heavily on polling data to determine who may participate in your debates, yet your use of criteria that are clearly designed to limit participation to the Republican and the Democrat nominee ignore the fact that many credible polls indicate that a full one-third of the electorate do not clearly identify with either of those parties. Rather, they are independents whose voting choices are not determined by party affiliation.
That one-third of the voters, as well as independent-thinking Republicans and Democrats, deserve an opportunity to see and hear a credible “third party” candidate. I understand that there are a great many “third party” candidates, and that a line must be drawn somewhere. However, the simple reality of our Electoral College system draws that line in a very straightforward and fair way – a reality that is reflected in your existing criteria. If a candidate is not on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to be elected by the Electoral College, it is perfectly logical to not include that candidate in a national debate. If, on other hand, a candidate IS on the ballot in enough states to be elected, there is no logic by which that candidate should be excluded.
Nowhere in the Constitution or in law is it written that our President must be a Democrat or a Republican. However, it IS written that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes – or at least 50% – cast by electors, and that any candidate who does so, and otherwise meets the Constitution’s requirements, may be President.
As the Libertarian Party’s nominees for Vice-President and President, Judge Jim Gray and I have already qualified to be on the ballot in more than enough states to obtain a majority in the Electoral College, and we are the only candidates other than the Republican and Democrat nominees to have done so, or who are likely to do so. In fact, we fully intend and expect to be on the ballots of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
However, the Commission has chosen to impose yet another requirement for participation: 15% in selected public opinion polls. Unlike your other requirements, this polling performance criterion is entirely arbitrary and based, frankly, on nothing other than an apparent attempt to limit participation to the Democrat and the Republican.
Requiring a certain level of approval in the polls has nothing to do with fitness to serve, experience, or credibility as a potential President. Rather, it has everything to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars available to and spent by the two major party candidates, the self-fulfilling bias of the news media against the viability of third party candidates, and an ill-founded belief that past dominance of the Republican and Democrat Parties should somehow be a template for the future.
In all due respect, it is not the proper role of an nonelected, private and tax-exempt organization to narrow the voters’ choices to only the two major party candidates – which is the net effect of your arbitrary polling requirement. To the contrary, debates are the one element of modern campaigns and elections that should be immune to unfair advantages based upon funding and party structure. Yet, it is clear that the Commission’s criteria have both the intent and the effect of limiting voters’ choices to the candidates of the two major parties who, in fact, created the Commission in the first place.
Eliminating the arbitrary polling requirement would align the Commission and its procedure for deciding who may participate in the critical debates with fairness and true nonpartisanship, which was the purported intent behind the Commission’s creation. As of right now, eliminating that requirement would not disrupt the process or make it unmanageable. Rather, it would simply allow the participation of a two-term governor who has more executive experience than Messrs. Obama and Romney combined, who has garnered sufficiently broad support to be on the ballot in more than enough states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College, and who, without the help of party resources and special interests, has attracted enough financial support to qualify for presidential campaign matching funds.
I urge and request you to remove the partisanship from the debates, and allow the voters an opportunity to hear from all of the qualified candidates – not just those who happen to be a Democrat or a Republican.
Thank you.
Governor Gary Johnson
Libertarian Nominee for President of the United States
To the Commission on Presidential Debates,
I am writing to request that the National Commission on Presidential Debates reconsider your current – and exclusionary – requirements for participation in this Fall’s all-important Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates.
I am well aware of the history and genesis of the Commission, including the reality that it was created largely by the respective national leadership of the Democrat and Republican Parties. While I respect and understand the intention to provide a reasonable and theoretically nonpartisan structure for the presidential debate process, I would suggest that the Commission’s founding, organization and policies are heavily skewed toward limiting the debates to the two so-called major parties.
That is unfortunate, and frankly, out of touch with the electorate. You rely very heavily on polling data to determine who may participate in your debates, yet your use of criteria that are clearly designed to limit participation to the Republican and the Democrat nominee ignore the fact that many credible polls indicate that a full one-third of the electorate do not clearly identify with either of those parties. Rather, they are independents whose voting choices are not determined by party affiliation.
That one-third of the voters, as well as independent-thinking Republicans and Democrats, deserve an opportunity to see and hear a credible “third party” candidate. I understand that there are a great many “third party” candidates, and that a line must be drawn somewhere. However, the simple reality of our Electoral College system draws that line in a very straightforward and fair way – a reality that is reflected in your existing criteria. If a candidate is not on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to be elected by the Electoral College, it is perfectly logical to not include that candidate in a national debate. If, on other hand, a candidate IS on the ballot in enough states to be elected, there is no logic by which that candidate should be excluded.
Nowhere in the Constitution or in law is it written that our President must be a Democrat or a Republican. However, it IS written that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes – or at least 50% – cast by electors, and that any candidate who does so, and otherwise meets the Constitution’s requirements, may be President.
As the Libertarian Party’s nominees for Vice-President and President, Judge Jim Gray and I have already qualified to be on the ballot in more than enough states to obtain a majority in the Electoral College, and we are the only candidates other than the Republican and Democrat nominees to have done so, or who are likely to do so. In fact, we fully intend and expect to be on the ballots of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
However, the Commission has chosen to impose yet another requirement for participation: 15% in selected public opinion polls. Unlike your other requirements, this polling performance criterion is entirely arbitrary and based, frankly, on nothing other than an apparent attempt to limit participation to the Democrat and the Republican.
Requiring a certain level of approval in the polls has nothing to do with fitness to serve, experience, or credibility as a potential President. Rather, it has everything to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars available to and spent by the two major party candidates, the self-fulfilling bias of the news media against the viability of third party candidates, and an ill-founded belief that past dominance of the Republican and Democrat Parties should somehow be a template for the future.
In all due respect, it is not the proper role of an nonelected, private and tax-exempt organization to narrow the voters’ choices to only the two major party candidates – which is the net effect of your arbitrary polling requirement. To the contrary, debates are the one element of modern campaigns and elections that should be immune to unfair advantages based upon funding and party structure. Yet, it is clear that the Commission’s criteria have both the intent and the effect of limiting voters’ choices to the candidates of the two major parties who, in fact, created the Commission in the first place.
Eliminating the arbitrary polling requirement would align the Commission and its procedure for deciding who may participate in the critical debates with fairness and true nonpartisanship, which was the purported intent behind the Commission’s creation. As of right now, eliminating that requirement would not disrupt the process or make it unmanageable. Rather, it would simply allow the participation of a two-term governor who has more executive experience than Messrs. Obama and Romney combined, who has garnered sufficiently broad support to be on the ballot in more than enough states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College, and who, without the help of party resources and special interests, has attracted enough financial support to qualify for presidential campaign matching funds.
I urge and request you to remove the partisanship from the debates, and allow the voters an opportunity to hear from all of the qualified candidates – not just those who happen to be a Democrat or a Republican.
Thank you.
Governor Gary Johnson
Libertarian Nominee for President of the United States
Fennis
Footballguy
Pathetic
http://paindependent.com/2012/08/republicans-trying-to-boot-gary-johnson-from-pennsylvania-ballot/
Republicans trying to boot Gary Johnson from Pennsylvania ballot
By Eric Boehm | PA Independent
HARRISBURG — The Pennsylvania Republican Party has already booted one third-party candidate from the state’s presidential ballot and is making life difficult for Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson.
Republican voters acting on behalf of the state GOP this week officially challenged the signatures submitted by Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, who is seeking an equal place on the November ballot beside major party candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
Libertarian Party presidential nominee and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson could be knocked off the ballot in Pennsylvania by the Republican Party.
Ron Nielson, senior adviser for the Johnson campaign, told PA Independent on Wednesday that the campaign submitted more than 49,000 signatures — more than twice the amount required to gain access to the ballot in Pennsylvania.
He said the campaign expected to survive the challenge from the Republicans.
“The two major parties have a lot of money they can use to maintain the status quo,” he said. “We’re trying to give the voters a choice between the policies of Obama and Romney, and we’re going to fight to stay on the ballot because we think the voters deserve to have that choice.”
The signatures will be challenged in Commonwealth Court.
Thursday is the final day for a candidate to qualify for the ballot, but the court could strike a candidate from the ballot after that date if it was determined they did not have enough signatures following a challenge.
In order to qualify for the ballot in Pennsylvania, the major parties have to submit only 2,000 signatures, but third party candidates had to collect more than 20,000 this year.
The process is fundamentally unfair, and the major parties have plenty of resources to go to war against candidates they are concerned may slice into their share of the vote.
“The two major parties are preventing democracy from taking place in Pennsylvania,” said Robert Small, facilitator for the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition, which fights for the equal access for all parties. Small is a registered member of the Green Party.
Even if there isn’t a challenge, the third parties have to spend time and resources gathering all those signatures that could otherwise be used campaigning, Small said.
In 2006, Pennsylvania was named by the Helsinki Accords as one of the worst places in the world to have a free election. The Helsinki Accords is an international group that monitors elections. The group specifically pointed to Pennsylvania as an example of how ballot access laws in the United States limit some groups’ rights to participate in elections.
Other third parties also have felt the heavy hand of the two party oligarchy.
The Constitution Party withdrew its presidential candidate, Virgil Goode, from the state ballot on Tuesday. The party submitted 35,000 signatures, but state law would have required them to cover the cost of legal fees if the Republicans had been able to successfully challenge enough of the signatures to bring them under the state threshold.
Jim Clymer, a lawyer and state treasurer for the Pennsylvania Constitution Party, said those fees could have easily exceeded $100,000.
“We pulled out because we were threatened with having to pay their legal fees if we did not prevail,” he said. “The numbers made it appear doubtful that we would be able to survive.”
Valerie Caras, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Republican Party, said Wednesday the party was fighting to protect the integrity of the ballot by challenging the Libertarian and Constitution candidates.
“Our Commonwealth’s election guidelines require nominating petitions to contain legitimate signatures of registered voters. Upon close inspection, neither set of nominating petitions meets that standard,” she wrote in an email.
The battle over signatures is the second ballot access battle Johnson’s campaign has had to fight this week in the Keystone State.
On Tuesday night, Johnson had to fly cross-country from New Mexico to Pennsylvania in order to re-sign documents in front of officials at the Pennsylvania Department of State on Wednesday morning.
The issue: Johnson’s original submission lacked an apostille – a form of certification for documents similar to having something notarized – and was deemed invalid by state officials on Tuesday.
“The Republican Party has a room full of lawyers who can go through and challenge these signatures and all we have is a bunch of volunteers who have taken off from work to collect the signatures and fight the challenges,” Nielson said.
He said the Libertarian Party is on the ballot in 36 states and in the process of qualifying for the ballot in the remaining 14 states plus the District of Columbia.
Pennsylvania has more than 4.1 million registered Democrats and nearly 3.1 million registered Republicans, according to the latest voter registration figures.
There are fewer than 1.1 million people in the state registered at members of third parties or as registered independents.
Even so, the major parties have reason to fear those small groups of people, said Terry Madonna, a professor of political science at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster.
“In a close election, they don’t want the minor party to drain votes away from their candidates,” Madonna said. “It’s rare that it makes a difference, but we saw it make a difference in Florida in 2000.”
In that instance, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader won 97,000 votes in Florida, while the gap between Republican candidate George W. Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore was fewer than 540 votes.
Contact Eric Boehm at Eric@PAIndependent.com or follow @PAIndependent on Twitter
http://paindependent.com/2012/08/republicans-trying-to-boot-gary-johnson-from-pennsylvania-ballot/
Republicans trying to boot Gary Johnson from Pennsylvania ballot
By Eric Boehm | PA Independent
HARRISBURG — The Pennsylvania Republican Party has already booted one third-party candidate from the state’s presidential ballot and is making life difficult for Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson.
Republican voters acting on behalf of the state GOP this week officially challenged the signatures submitted by Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, who is seeking an equal place on the November ballot beside major party candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
Libertarian Party presidential nominee and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson could be knocked off the ballot in Pennsylvania by the Republican Party.
Ron Nielson, senior adviser for the Johnson campaign, told PA Independent on Wednesday that the campaign submitted more than 49,000 signatures — more than twice the amount required to gain access to the ballot in Pennsylvania.
He said the campaign expected to survive the challenge from the Republicans.
“The two major parties have a lot of money they can use to maintain the status quo,” he said. “We’re trying to give the voters a choice between the policies of Obama and Romney, and we’re going to fight to stay on the ballot because we think the voters deserve to have that choice.”
The signatures will be challenged in Commonwealth Court.
Thursday is the final day for a candidate to qualify for the ballot, but the court could strike a candidate from the ballot after that date if it was determined they did not have enough signatures following a challenge.
In order to qualify for the ballot in Pennsylvania, the major parties have to submit only 2,000 signatures, but third party candidates had to collect more than 20,000 this year.
The process is fundamentally unfair, and the major parties have plenty of resources to go to war against candidates they are concerned may slice into their share of the vote.
“The two major parties are preventing democracy from taking place in Pennsylvania,” said Robert Small, facilitator for the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition, which fights for the equal access for all parties. Small is a registered member of the Green Party.
Even if there isn’t a challenge, the third parties have to spend time and resources gathering all those signatures that could otherwise be used campaigning, Small said.
In 2006, Pennsylvania was named by the Helsinki Accords as one of the worst places in the world to have a free election. The Helsinki Accords is an international group that monitors elections. The group specifically pointed to Pennsylvania as an example of how ballot access laws in the United States limit some groups’ rights to participate in elections.
Other third parties also have felt the heavy hand of the two party oligarchy.
The Constitution Party withdrew its presidential candidate, Virgil Goode, from the state ballot on Tuesday. The party submitted 35,000 signatures, but state law would have required them to cover the cost of legal fees if the Republicans had been able to successfully challenge enough of the signatures to bring them under the state threshold.
Jim Clymer, a lawyer and state treasurer for the Pennsylvania Constitution Party, said those fees could have easily exceeded $100,000.
“We pulled out because we were threatened with having to pay their legal fees if we did not prevail,” he said. “The numbers made it appear doubtful that we would be able to survive.”
Valerie Caras, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Republican Party, said Wednesday the party was fighting to protect the integrity of the ballot by challenging the Libertarian and Constitution candidates.
“Our Commonwealth’s election guidelines require nominating petitions to contain legitimate signatures of registered voters. Upon close inspection, neither set of nominating petitions meets that standard,” she wrote in an email.
The battle over signatures is the second ballot access battle Johnson’s campaign has had to fight this week in the Keystone State.
On Tuesday night, Johnson had to fly cross-country from New Mexico to Pennsylvania in order to re-sign documents in front of officials at the Pennsylvania Department of State on Wednesday morning.
The issue: Johnson’s original submission lacked an apostille – a form of certification for documents similar to having something notarized – and was deemed invalid by state officials on Tuesday.
“The Republican Party has a room full of lawyers who can go through and challenge these signatures and all we have is a bunch of volunteers who have taken off from work to collect the signatures and fight the challenges,” Nielson said.
He said the Libertarian Party is on the ballot in 36 states and in the process of qualifying for the ballot in the remaining 14 states plus the District of Columbia.
Pennsylvania has more than 4.1 million registered Democrats and nearly 3.1 million registered Republicans, according to the latest voter registration figures.
There are fewer than 1.1 million people in the state registered at members of third parties or as registered independents.
Even so, the major parties have reason to fear those small groups of people, said Terry Madonna, a professor of political science at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster.
“In a close election, they don’t want the minor party to drain votes away from their candidates,” Madonna said. “It’s rare that it makes a difference, but we saw it make a difference in Florida in 2000.”
In that instance, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader won 97,000 votes in Florida, while the gap between Republican candidate George W. Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore was fewer than 540 votes.
Contact Eric Boehm at Eric@PAIndependent.com or follow @PAIndependent on Twitter
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Good post pacman. Just outrageous that a 3rd party candidate be required 10 times as many signatures to be on the ballot. Sure they are 10 times as good but that still isn't fair.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
I don't understand this part. Were they not legitimate signatures?
Wrighteous Ray
Footballguy
The campaign probably doesn't know how many legit signatures it got. Sometimes people sign twice, or sign with a fake name, or sign even though they're not a registered voter, or there are some other defects. That's why campaigns typically try to greatly exceed the required number before handing them in, because they know that some of them are probably no good.In this case, though, the Constitution Party wasn't willing to take the risk that it had handed in enough good signatures, because if they had been wrong, it would have cost them too much.
New interview - http://ivn.us/2012/08/30/gary-johnson-interview-media-frightened-to-let-me-debate/
Lost in the drug debate, another big item to me is Johnson's stance FOR on-line gaming. That was a big early platform item but it has been quite (except for 2+2 where it still comes up). I haven't been so FOR a candidate since my first vote back in 1984.
I recently caught up with two-term New Mexico governor and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson to discuss his recent appearance at P.A.U.L. Fest, Republican politics, the presidential debates, and the general election. With no shortage of good humor, Gov. Johnson is clearly riding a wave of adrenaline and momentum from this past weekend’s events in Tampa, Florida.
Gary Johnson Interview:
Craig Schlesinger: What was your impression of P.A.U.L. Fest with respect to positive reinforcement from Ron Paul supporters pledging to also support your campaign?
Gary Johnson: I don’t have a sense of where they were prior. I don’t have a sense of whether or not it was a shift, but certainly I don’t know how I could have been received any better.
Craig Schlesinger: After your speech at P.A.U.L. Fest you mentioned that Gov. Romney and President Obama are scared to debate you. Why do you think the establishment press and political class fear your inclusion in the national conversation?
Gary Johnson: [Laughs] Maybe the frightening thing to them is if I actually do well, then where were they these last several years when it comes to what I’ve been doing and reporting on what I’m doing? I think that, probably, their biggest fear is “Holy cow, what if this actually turns out to be something? Are we going to be accountable for not covering it?” [Laughs] Clearly it’s a dog and pony show, it’s much ado about nothing, and shouldn’t it really be about the issues? Paul Ryan balances the budget in 28 years, and that takes into account growth. That’s the boldest Republican? Wow! That’s really not all that bold– it’s not bold at all! But the media makes it out to be that way. If they include me, it really does point out the mediocrity of both parties. In spite of the media not being there, I might have a good showing.
Craig Schlesinger: So you don’t take any solace in the fact that the Republicans nominated such a “staunch libertarian” for Vice President?
Gary Johnson: [Laughs] Yeah, right! We seem to be 180 degrees on most of these issues– and I am talking about Paul Ryan– Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, marriage equality, the drug war, PATRIOT Act, NDAA, an actual balanced budget, FairTax. You can go down the list –Paul Ryan supported banning online poker. [Laughs] That’s a big difference!
Craig Schlesinger: Do you find it amusing that the Republicans are sporting the national debt clock at their convention without the slightest hint of irony?
Gary Johnson: [Laughs] Yeah, I do! We have a $16 trillion dollar debt, $7.5 trillion of that is the responsibility of Republicans, $8.5 trillion is the responsibility of Democrats. It seems a little disingenuous.
Craig Schlesinger: Why do you suppose there is so much misinformation about libertarianism out there? Enough already exists as it is, but Paul Ryan gives out copies of Atlas Shrugged and somehow that automatically paints a skewed picture. Why do you think that is?
Gary Johnson: I just chalk it up to “libertarian” having a “cool” connotation, and so the misunderstood part of it is people trying to label themselves libertarian. Nobody’s shying away from the label. It would be terrific to have an education over what libertarianism really is, which will take place. More people are trying to understand what libertarianism is. And if more people would understand what it is, they would understand that a lot more of them are actually libertarian.
Craig Schlesinger: Looking forward to the presidential debates, regarding the polling, it seems like the Republican primary situation for you all over again– arbitrary exclusion. The vast majority of the national polls aren’t even including your name as an option for voters being surveyed. Do you have any tricks up your sleeve to gain inclusion on the national stage?
Gary Johnson: You’re pointing out the reality. Whether or not what we do amounts to anything, we’re not going to take this lying down.
Craig Schlesinger: Will you be filing any lawsuits demanding inclusion?
Gary Johnson: You know I hate to show any hole cards that we might think we have [laughs], but I just want you to know that we’re going to go down kicking and screaming.
Craig Schlesinger: [Laughs] Fair enough. Do you think that the actual polls being utilized are a bit perverse, especially when compared to iSideWith’s survey and sample size of just over two million people (as of Wednesday August 29, 2012 at 9 A.M. EST)? Shouldn’t that be just as legitimate?
Gary Johnson: Yeah, I’m really heartened by iSideWith. I cite that all the time, and I cite it from the standpoint that I think I’m the next President of the United States based on that site. In a very short amount of time people get paired up with the presidential candidate most in line with their views. And the fact that its now two million plus, I wish that was receiving more attention.
Craig Schlesinger: In the context of the general election, what more can you offer to the waning “Ron Paul or nobody” crowd, your resume not withstanding?
Gary Johnson: I think there will be a certain percentage of that following that is “Ron Paul or nobody.” For me it’s about the issues and being the spokesperson for the liberty and freedom movement– and I kind of fall into this by default. If I thought Ron Paul was going to be the Republican nominee I would not have gone down this path. But back in December I didn’t see Ron Paul as the nominee, and so where is the spokesperson for this movement? For all of those people that think it’s Ron Paul or nothing, I would argue that I’m better than nothing. [Laughs]
Craig Schlesinger: [Laughs] Have you had any recent dialogue with Congressman Paul, and can we expect any surprises in the aftermath of the RNC?
Gary Johnson: Well if there are any surprises, I’m not aware of them and we haven’t had any conversations. He asked me for my endorsement in 2008, and I readily gave that endorsement. When I dropped out [of the GOP primaries] I asked everyone that was going to vote for me to vote for him. And in the last debate [i appeared in], I’m asked the question ‘who would your vice presidential candidate be from those that are on stage?’ Well that’s a clear-cut answer: Ron Paul.
Craig Schlesinger: Right on. Thanks for taking the time to speak with me, and good luck with everything. I’ll be checking in down the road.
Gary Johnson: Great, Craig, thank you very much.
Lost in the drug debate, another big item to me is Johnson's stance FOR on-line gaming. That was a big early platform item but it has been quite (except for 2+2 where it still comes up). I haven't been so FOR a candidate since my first vote back in 1984.
I recently caught up with two-term New Mexico governor and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson to discuss his recent appearance at P.A.U.L. Fest, Republican politics, the presidential debates, and the general election. With no shortage of good humor, Gov. Johnson is clearly riding a wave of adrenaline and momentum from this past weekend’s events in Tampa, Florida.
Gary Johnson Interview:
Craig Schlesinger: What was your impression of P.A.U.L. Fest with respect to positive reinforcement from Ron Paul supporters pledging to also support your campaign?
Gary Johnson: I don’t have a sense of where they were prior. I don’t have a sense of whether or not it was a shift, but certainly I don’t know how I could have been received any better.
Craig Schlesinger: After your speech at P.A.U.L. Fest you mentioned that Gov. Romney and President Obama are scared to debate you. Why do you think the establishment press and political class fear your inclusion in the national conversation?
Gary Johnson: [Laughs] Maybe the frightening thing to them is if I actually do well, then where were they these last several years when it comes to what I’ve been doing and reporting on what I’m doing? I think that, probably, their biggest fear is “Holy cow, what if this actually turns out to be something? Are we going to be accountable for not covering it?” [Laughs] Clearly it’s a dog and pony show, it’s much ado about nothing, and shouldn’t it really be about the issues? Paul Ryan balances the budget in 28 years, and that takes into account growth. That’s the boldest Republican? Wow! That’s really not all that bold– it’s not bold at all! But the media makes it out to be that way. If they include me, it really does point out the mediocrity of both parties. In spite of the media not being there, I might have a good showing.
Craig Schlesinger: So you don’t take any solace in the fact that the Republicans nominated such a “staunch libertarian” for Vice President?
Gary Johnson: [Laughs] Yeah, right! We seem to be 180 degrees on most of these issues– and I am talking about Paul Ryan– Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, marriage equality, the drug war, PATRIOT Act, NDAA, an actual balanced budget, FairTax. You can go down the list –Paul Ryan supported banning online poker. [Laughs] That’s a big difference!
Craig Schlesinger: Do you find it amusing that the Republicans are sporting the national debt clock at their convention without the slightest hint of irony?
Gary Johnson: [Laughs] Yeah, I do! We have a $16 trillion dollar debt, $7.5 trillion of that is the responsibility of Republicans, $8.5 trillion is the responsibility of Democrats. It seems a little disingenuous.
Craig Schlesinger: Why do you suppose there is so much misinformation about libertarianism out there? Enough already exists as it is, but Paul Ryan gives out copies of Atlas Shrugged and somehow that automatically paints a skewed picture. Why do you think that is?
Gary Johnson: I just chalk it up to “libertarian” having a “cool” connotation, and so the misunderstood part of it is people trying to label themselves libertarian. Nobody’s shying away from the label. It would be terrific to have an education over what libertarianism really is, which will take place. More people are trying to understand what libertarianism is. And if more people would understand what it is, they would understand that a lot more of them are actually libertarian.
Craig Schlesinger: Looking forward to the presidential debates, regarding the polling, it seems like the Republican primary situation for you all over again– arbitrary exclusion. The vast majority of the national polls aren’t even including your name as an option for voters being surveyed. Do you have any tricks up your sleeve to gain inclusion on the national stage?
Gary Johnson: You’re pointing out the reality. Whether or not what we do amounts to anything, we’re not going to take this lying down.
Craig Schlesinger: Will you be filing any lawsuits demanding inclusion?
Gary Johnson: You know I hate to show any hole cards that we might think we have [laughs], but I just want you to know that we’re going to go down kicking and screaming.
Craig Schlesinger: [Laughs] Fair enough. Do you think that the actual polls being utilized are a bit perverse, especially when compared to iSideWith’s survey and sample size of just over two million people (as of Wednesday August 29, 2012 at 9 A.M. EST)? Shouldn’t that be just as legitimate?
Gary Johnson: Yeah, I’m really heartened by iSideWith. I cite that all the time, and I cite it from the standpoint that I think I’m the next President of the United States based on that site. In a very short amount of time people get paired up with the presidential candidate most in line with their views. And the fact that its now two million plus, I wish that was receiving more attention.
Craig Schlesinger: In the context of the general election, what more can you offer to the waning “Ron Paul or nobody” crowd, your resume not withstanding?
Gary Johnson: I think there will be a certain percentage of that following that is “Ron Paul or nobody.” For me it’s about the issues and being the spokesperson for the liberty and freedom movement– and I kind of fall into this by default. If I thought Ron Paul was going to be the Republican nominee I would not have gone down this path. But back in December I didn’t see Ron Paul as the nominee, and so where is the spokesperson for this movement? For all of those people that think it’s Ron Paul or nothing, I would argue that I’m better than nothing. [Laughs]
Craig Schlesinger: [Laughs] Have you had any recent dialogue with Congressman Paul, and can we expect any surprises in the aftermath of the RNC?
Gary Johnson: Well if there are any surprises, I’m not aware of them and we haven’t had any conversations. He asked me for my endorsement in 2008, and I readily gave that endorsement. When I dropped out [of the GOP primaries] I asked everyone that was going to vote for me to vote for him. And in the last debate [i appeared in], I’m asked the question ‘who would your vice presidential candidate be from those that are on stage?’ Well that’s a clear-cut answer: Ron Paul.
Craig Schlesinger: Right on. Thanks for taking the time to speak with me, and good luck with everything. I’ll be checking in down the road.
Gary Johnson: Great, Craig, thank you very much.
Johnson's speech at PAUL Fest. Share with anyone who will watch -
It is 13:36 long, so set aside the time. I am not sure Johnson and Paul are 100% are in agreement though there are many philosophical similarities. Also, I wonder, how does aligning himself as a "Paul disciple" (for lack of better term) work for independents in general?
It is 13:36 long, so set aside the time. I am not sure Johnson and Paul are 100% are in agreement though there are many philosophical similarities. Also, I wonder, how does aligning himself as a "Paul disciple" (for lack of better term) work for independents in general?
Goode would get twice that many in two hours.
Just because most who have posted often in this thread support Johnson does not mean that we are opposed to any potential 3rd party candidate nor their plight. Many parts of me wishes that a couple of the 3rd parties could find common ground to increase their message. I should read your comment as it is explicitly stated, Goode has more support than Johnson (and that's fine) - instead I read as "I wish supporters of 3rd parties didn't make negative comments toward other 3rd parties. That makes us no better than supporters of the 'main parties'"
Glad Mitt realizes he probably has better things to do on the campaign trail:
Ronald T. Nielson @RTNielson
@MittRomney withdraws ballot access attacks on @GovGaryJohnson in Ohio. #RonPaul #obama2012 #mittnews
Retweeted by Gov. Gary Johnson
Ronald T. Nielson @RTNielson
Romney camp looses fight to push @GovGaryJohnson off ballot in VA. #mittnews #ronpaul #libertarian #obama2012
Retweeted by Gov. Gary Johnson
Or not
Ronald T. Nielson @RTNielson
@mittromney now joins in attack on @GovGaryJohnson over ballot access in MI #mittnews #ronpaul #obama2012 #libertarian
Retweeted by Gov. Gary Johnson
Ronald T. Nielson @RTNielson
@MittRomney withdraws ballot access attacks on @GovGaryJohnson in Ohio. #RonPaul #obama2012 #mittnews
Retweeted by Gov. Gary Johnson
Ronald T. Nielson @RTNielson
Romney camp looses fight to push @GovGaryJohnson off ballot in VA. #mittnews #ronpaul #libertarian #obama2012
Retweeted by Gov. Gary Johnson
Or not
Ronald T. Nielson @RTNielson
@mittromney now joins in attack on @GovGaryJohnson over ballot access in MI #mittnews #ronpaul #obama2012 #libertarian
Retweeted by Gov. Gary Johnson
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Went to see him yesterday at Winthrop University. He sold me enough to sign the petition to get him on the debates. I'd like to hear more. Still a bit of an unknown to me, but I'd like to hear some specifics on his plans/ideas. He certainly can't be any worse than the other two idiots we've got to choose from.
Topes
Footballguy
Personally don't much care for his plan to gut Social Security and Medicare, turning them over to the states, and turning the states into test tubes of inovation.
There's this fetid meme throughout Llibertarianism that states can compete in this arena or that, rebuilding and reengineering all of economics along the way. The way it works is the free market. That is, if you don't like it, you just move to another state.
Look, if I don't like my state government, I'm not going to just up and move to another state. It is a silly notion.
Plus, the "move to another state" notion points out the fact that folks DO actually move.
Take a guy who has lived in five states and worked in six states. He's paid into six separate states' Social Security and Medicare systems.
He then retires to Arizona.
How's that six different Medicare cards working for ya..?
If some of these Llibertarians could get offa their anti-collectivist wah-wahs and embrace Single Payer, they'd garner a lot more interest.
There's this fetid meme throughout Llibertarianism that states can compete in this arena or that, rebuilding and reengineering all of economics along the way. The way it works is the free market. That is, if you don't like it, you just move to another state.
Look, if I don't like my state government, I'm not going to just up and move to another state. It is a silly notion.
Plus, the "move to another state" notion points out the fact that folks DO actually move.
Take a guy who has lived in five states and worked in six states. He's paid into six separate states' Social Security and Medicare systems.
He then retires to Arizona.
How's that six different Medicare cards working for ya..?
If some of these Llibertarians could get offa their anti-collectivist wah-wahs and embrace Single Payer, they'd garner a lot more interest.
Topes - I agree with you to a point but the Social Security/Medicare debate is not one I want to engage in but wish our national "leaders" would since this is one of the many elephants in the room. BUT, these are items that ANY 3rd party would not be able to change immediately if at all - I doubt that we will see any changes in these programs in the near future period due to the political implications and divisive nature of the programs in general . I would hope that this isn't the only reason you wouldn't consider a Libertarian candidate (unless this your #1 topic of concern, then I guess I understand).
For individuals supporting 3rd party candidates (whether is Johnson or another), I think most are like me (reading the thread confirms this to a point) - if I am "forced" to choose the lesser of all evils, then lets consider the platform ideas of all parties, who can effectively change what policies and then vote from there. Many just happen to not like the ideas/stances that either major party take now (when they take a firm stance) and are equally concerned that the parties CAN effect change on some of the issues at this point.
I will respectfully disagree, as well, that the Libertarian party needs to embrace a Single Payer system. There are pros and cons of this system but I hope the party doesn't adopt this stance just because it is "politically correct" or scores "political points". Although this may bring you into potentially supporting the party, it may also drive away others. If, after considerable debate and consideration, it is determined that Single Payer is the best option and the best method to fix a broken system, then by all means I agree.
For individuals supporting 3rd party candidates (whether is Johnson or another), I think most are like me (reading the thread confirms this to a point) - if I am "forced" to choose the lesser of all evils, then lets consider the platform ideas of all parties, who can effectively change what policies and then vote from there. Many just happen to not like the ideas/stances that either major party take now (when they take a firm stance) and are equally concerned that the parties CAN effect change on some of the issues at this point.
I will respectfully disagree, as well, that the Libertarian party needs to embrace a Single Payer system. There are pros and cons of this system but I hope the party doesn't adopt this stance just because it is "politically correct" or scores "political points". Although this may bring you into potentially supporting the party, it may also drive away others. If, after considerable debate and consideration, it is determined that Single Payer is the best option and the best method to fix a broken system, then by all means I agree.
Topes
Footballguy
Saying he wouldn't be able to change them doesn't make his position right.When looking at third party candidates and fringe movements, I'm usually looking for the takeaways.
By "takeaways" I mean the arguments that will have influence outside of the candidacy or movement.
For instance, Fair Tax. Will Fair Tax replace the current tax code? No. But I don't believe it was designed to do so. It was designed to promote the necessity of Tax Reform because the tax code is unfair because it is unwieldy. The takeaway is the typical tax code changes. When the tax code changes, it is usually changed in the diraction of the problem, rather than away.
The Kill Social Security movement is in full swing, and has been for decades. I am under 55. Yet, Social Security is a part of my retirement plan. I'm paying into it. I don't believe it is seriously threatened by insolvency. Rather, I feel that this notion is a ruse. Convince enough people that Social Security is going bankrupt and they'll believe it.
It is an important issue to me, and I don't take kindly to folks who avail themselves of the Pete Peterson language regarding the Social Security sky falling.
If I vote third party, I'm voting Jill Stein. The Gary Johnson crowd will never get me! (So please feel free to end this here, as I'm a time-waster.) On the lesser/least of evils argument, I hear that a lot. I know a bunch of Paulbots (and even a couple apoplectic Paulsies). For these folks, the "evils argument" makes sense. That is, if Ron Paul says it, it's true. By definition and by their very identity in life, they align themselves with what Ron Paul says.
For the rest of us, it's not so simple. Defining the two-party presidential race as a "lesser of two evils" affair is a legitimate construct on its own. That is, you don't like either choice, but ya gotta choose. But to unquestioningly take that argument away from the two-party presidential race and into the full race results in conclusions/decisions based on illogic.
That is, you end up with folks saying "voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil".
That is, broadening the "two evils" argument to the entire presidential field leads to a presumption that there is an unavailable choice that is "good" and it is not one of the "evil two".
So, thanks much for not going down that rhetorical road!
It would certainly drive many out, due to the individualism fetish so prevalent in
.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
I say everyone should vote for him anyway. An individual vote will have no impact on Obama v. Romney but would go far to make sure a 3rd party can participate in the process in the future.
- plus a cursory post to push this back to page 1. I won't count, but that should be 35 Obama/Romney threads and 1 Johnson thread on page 1 
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Jobber
Footballguy
Me too. I've voted R my whole life, all the way down the ticket. This time it's Johnson followed by ANY 3rd party available. I'll go with Libertarian, if available. Followed by Green, Socialist, whatever.
Jill Stein?
Similar threads
