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) (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Maurile Tremblay
- Start date
Chadstroma
Footballguy
I did not wait for the audience/analyst reactions afterward but he was horrible. Ron Paul came off better than he did and if you have ever seen Ron Paul in a debate that should tell you something.
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
agreed...dude was a disaster :X
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Johnson always had several "translators" at the State House here in NM because he's not only ineloquent, except for brief flourishes of passion, he's fairly diffident in general. I'm a commie, so it dont matter, but he's behind only Gingrich if i had to choose a Republican for prez, no matter how bad a candidate he is.
ren hoek
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
Gary Johnson definitely had some rough moments last night, but he knocks the drug legalization question out of the park at 40:00.http://youtu.be/zjvUAMScQo8My face melted when he started talking about cost-benefit analysis.
ren hoek
Footballguy
A few debate thoughts: (you can follow along here:
)-A murderer's row of losers representing the neocons. If this is what the field looks like come election time, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson should slaughter everyone just like they did in this debate. Of course, I am underestimating how easily this electorate will vote for the speaker that gives them warm fuzzies without delineating specific policies.
-Godfather's Pizza Guy is a token.
-Did Tim Pawlenty grow up in a working class family?
-Surprisingly balanced line of questioning from a surprisingly balanced panel. First time I've ever watched a Fox News sponsored event and felt like it had real integrity. Seriously great job by this panel. They must be saving Brit Hume for the big gun neocons.
-Where are Huckabee and Bachmann and Trump? Why wouldn't they show up here?
-Audience is clearly in the sack for Ron Paul. Only applauding him when they ought to be cheering for Johnson as well. If the audience turnout is like this every time the simple perception of Ron Paul winning the audience over could do a lot in the way of warming the mainstream up to him. One can hope anyway.
-People aren't falling for the traditional hollow GOP talking points anymore, thank God. At least not on this night.
Really enjoyable debate and the panel was absolutely bringing the heat with their questioning. Good stuff, highly recommend.
)-A murderer's row of losers representing the neocons. If this is what the field looks like come election time, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson should slaughter everyone just like they did in this debate. Of course, I am underestimating how easily this electorate will vote for the speaker that gives them warm fuzzies without delineating specific policies.
-Godfather's Pizza Guy is a token.
-Did Tim Pawlenty grow up in a working class family?
-Surprisingly balanced line of questioning from a surprisingly balanced panel. First time I've ever watched a Fox News sponsored event and felt like it had real integrity. Seriously great job by this panel. They must be saving Brit Hume for the big gun neocons.
-Where are Huckabee and Bachmann and Trump? Why wouldn't they show up here?
-Audience is clearly in the sack for Ron Paul. Only applauding him when they ought to be cheering for Johnson as well. If the audience turnout is like this every time the simple perception of Ron Paul winning the audience over could do a lot in the way of warming the mainstream up to him. One can hope anyway.
-People aren't falling for the traditional hollow GOP talking points anymore, thank God. At least not on this night.
Really enjoyable debate and the panel was absolutely bringing the heat with their questioning. Good stuff, highly recommend.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Should slaughter everyone? Really? In what reality is this?
Token what?
No idea. Why is this even a question you are asking?
You keep saying neocons. Can you provide a definition of what a neocon is?
Huck and Trump have come out and said they are not running. Makes sense. Bachmann has not announced yet and may not. There were a lot of people 'missing'... interestingly, you don't ask about Romney.
Ron Paul is bad when it comes to public speaking and Gary made Ron look like a polished speaker. It was horrible. It is hard to applause someone when it physically hurts you to listen to them.
What would those be and how do you demonstrate that 'people' are not 'falling' for them anymore?
Gary Johnson vs. Ron Paul
Ilya Somin • May 22, 2011
With Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels choosing not to run, there are now two libertarian-leaning presidential candidates in the GOP field for 2012: Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Which is a better standard-bearer for libertarianism? I think it’s Johnson by a wide margin. He’s both more libertarian than Paul on the issues and likely to be a more effective candidate.
I. The Issues.
Turning to the issues first, the difference between the two is strikingly large. As I explained back when Paul ran in 2008, he has very nonlibertarian positions on free trade, school choice, and especially immigration. He also believes that Kelo v. City of New London was correctly decided because he thinks the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The latter is theoretically compatible with being a libertarian; one can believe that the Constitution should protect us against various forms of oppression by state governments, but simply fails to do so. But Paul’s position is at odds with most modern research on the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and with the views of virtually all libertarian constitutional law scholars. It also bodes ill for the nature of his judicial appointments in the unlikely event that he actually wins the presidency.
On all of these issues, Johnson is clearly superior to Paul from a libertarian point of view. He supports school choice and free trade agreements, he’s as pro-immigration as any successful politician can be, and he believes that the Bill of Rights constrains the states as well as the federal government. On the other hand, I can’t think of a single issue where Paul is more libertarian than Johnson, though I’m open to correction by people who know more about their records than I do.
I don’t agree with Johnson on everything. For example, I’m significantly more hawkish than he is on foreign policy. But as a political standard-bearer for libertarianism, Johnson is about as good on the issues as any remotely mainstream politician is likely to be at this point in time.
II. Political Viability.
Johnson is also probably more politically effective than Paul. That’s because he doesn’t carry any of the negative baggage that Paul does. Unlike Paul, Johnson never published a newsletter with racist and anti-Semitic content, or signed on to a political strategy of appealing to white racial resentment against minorities, as Paul did in the early 1990s. As I said during the 2008 campaign, I don’t believe that Paul is a racist. But his record of insensitivity on racial issues dogged him in 2008, and is likely to resurface in 2012 if his candidacy becomes at all successful. Paul also has a record of endorsing weird right-wing conspiracy theories, such as the mythical “North American Union.” This too was seized on by the media in 2008, and could be a problem again. If Paul becomes the public face of libertarianism in 2012, there is a risk that the movement as a whole could be tainted by association with these dubious elements of his record. By contrast, Johnson has no comparable problems, as far as I know.
Finally, it’s worth mentioning that Johnson, whom I saw speak at the Students for Liberty conference, is much more articulate and charismatic than Paul, who isn’t especially impressive in either department. I would not say that Johnson is a truly great public speaker. But he’s pretty good, which is more than can be said for Paul.
The big advantages that Paul has over Johnson are that he has more money and greater name recognition. But if libertarian activists, donors, and intellectuals become aware of the ways in which Johnson is the superior candidate, they might rally around him and possibly give his campaign the boost it needs to take off and surpass Paul.
Realistically, neither Johnson nor Paul has a strong chance of actually winning the GOP nomination. But if his campaign gets off the ground, Johnson will have better odds than Paul does because he’s more appealing to voters and the media, and less hated by the GOP establishment. More importantly, he’s certainly a far superior libertarian protest candidate and public face for the movement. The chance that either candidate can win the presidency in 2012 is remote. But Johnson is the one more likely to serve as an effective spokesman for libertarianism, adding new supporters without unnecessarily alienating people.
Many times in politics, we face a choice between a candidate with better political skills and one who is better on the issues. Johnson trumps Paul on both counts.
Ilya Somin • May 22, 2011
With Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels choosing not to run, there are now two libertarian-leaning presidential candidates in the GOP field for 2012: Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Which is a better standard-bearer for libertarianism? I think it’s Johnson by a wide margin. He’s both more libertarian than Paul on the issues and likely to be a more effective candidate.
I. The Issues.
Turning to the issues first, the difference between the two is strikingly large. As I explained back when Paul ran in 2008, he has very nonlibertarian positions on free trade, school choice, and especially immigration. He also believes that Kelo v. City of New London was correctly decided because he thinks the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The latter is theoretically compatible with being a libertarian; one can believe that the Constitution should protect us against various forms of oppression by state governments, but simply fails to do so. But Paul’s position is at odds with most modern research on the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and with the views of virtually all libertarian constitutional law scholars. It also bodes ill for the nature of his judicial appointments in the unlikely event that he actually wins the presidency.
On all of these issues, Johnson is clearly superior to Paul from a libertarian point of view. He supports school choice and free trade agreements, he’s as pro-immigration as any successful politician can be, and he believes that the Bill of Rights constrains the states as well as the federal government. On the other hand, I can’t think of a single issue where Paul is more libertarian than Johnson, though I’m open to correction by people who know more about their records than I do.
I don’t agree with Johnson on everything. For example, I’m significantly more hawkish than he is on foreign policy. But as a political standard-bearer for libertarianism, Johnson is about as good on the issues as any remotely mainstream politician is likely to be at this point in time.
II. Political Viability.
Johnson is also probably more politically effective than Paul. That’s because he doesn’t carry any of the negative baggage that Paul does. Unlike Paul, Johnson never published a newsletter with racist and anti-Semitic content, or signed on to a political strategy of appealing to white racial resentment against minorities, as Paul did in the early 1990s. As I said during the 2008 campaign, I don’t believe that Paul is a racist. But his record of insensitivity on racial issues dogged him in 2008, and is likely to resurface in 2012 if his candidacy becomes at all successful. Paul also has a record of endorsing weird right-wing conspiracy theories, such as the mythical “North American Union.” This too was seized on by the media in 2008, and could be a problem again. If Paul becomes the public face of libertarianism in 2012, there is a risk that the movement as a whole could be tainted by association with these dubious elements of his record. By contrast, Johnson has no comparable problems, as far as I know.
Finally, it’s worth mentioning that Johnson, whom I saw speak at the Students for Liberty conference, is much more articulate and charismatic than Paul, who isn’t especially impressive in either department. I would not say that Johnson is a truly great public speaker. But he’s pretty good, which is more than can be said for Paul.
The big advantages that Paul has over Johnson are that he has more money and greater name recognition. But if libertarian activists, donors, and intellectuals become aware of the ways in which Johnson is the superior candidate, they might rally around him and possibly give his campaign the boost it needs to take off and surpass Paul.
Realistically, neither Johnson nor Paul has a strong chance of actually winning the GOP nomination. But if his campaign gets off the ground, Johnson will have better odds than Paul does because he’s more appealing to voters and the media, and less hated by the GOP establishment. More importantly, he’s certainly a far superior libertarian protest candidate and public face for the movement. The chance that either candidate can win the presidency in 2012 is remote. But Johnson is the one more likely to serve as an effective spokesman for libertarianism, adding new supporters without unnecessarily alienating people.
Many times in politics, we face a choice between a candidate with better political skills and one who is better on the issues. Johnson trumps Paul on both counts.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
I found the first couple of paragraphs under 'political viability' the most amusing. There are a lot of reasons why Ron Paul is not politically viable and what leads the way are his views. After that is his horrible campaign presence and speaking ability. However, looking at the recent debate, Gary Johnson made Ron Paul look polished and suave in his delivery because he was so pathetically bad. Maybe it was because he was nervous?
I dunno but taking that as a sample would lead me to believe that this is not an area Johnson has an advantage over Paul in. Now, if Ron Paul even got to the point of being an actual player that everyone took seriously- then all the baggage (and more) would be leveled out against him. But we have never got to that point of him being anything more than a small group of passionate people hyping him up on web polls and giving lots of money. The only thing that Gary Johnson being in the primary does is take Ron Paul's already meager chances and decreasing them even more as the libertarian vote gets split. Being that it is such a small minority in the first place- there is no real opportunity for either Paul or Johnson to win short of some terrorist blowing up some debate that the two are not allowed in and the explosion ends up killing every other candidate.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
Yeah, I think he's got potential to get alot better. He's certainly not a naturally skilled public speaker and doesn't have that confident sounding presidential air about him. A bit like Pawlenty, I think, in that they both come off rather under-confident.When Johnson gets it going, though, I think he's pretty engaging and likeable. He doesn't seem to have a natural confidence speaking, but you can still see the confidence in his belief coming through. He stands by his principles and they are based on sound logic, so he can certainly draw confidence from that. To contrast Pawlenty, he just seems like a weenie all the way around because it's clear he's just saying whatever he thinks people want to hear. I have no idea what people see in Pawlenty.He does need to figure out what to do with his hands too. Alot of nervous energy going on with them. Then the way he flops them out to the side while to talking just looks weak. He does have some fairly effeminate mannerisms. Cain would be the opposite as he's very good at saying absolutely nothing, but he sounds confident when he says it. Sadly, that's what works and many Republicans were eating it up. I hope Johnson sticks around because I think people will like him more the more they see him. He's very engaging in spurts and his ideas are fantastic.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Did you watch the debate? Ron Paul was met with overwhelming applause on nearly every answer he gave.
Token black guy. Looks like he's corrupt.
He only said it like 3 times during the debate.
Someone who supports big government, the nanny state, nation-building, imperialistic foreign policy, the Patriot Act, the "spreading of democracy."
At the time I'd posted that, Huckabee and Trump hadn't yet bowed out of the race. Why is me not asking about Romney interesting?
I really don't care. I'm sorry that they "physically hurt" you that way. I'm inspired by policy and the content of the words coming out of their mouth, not by how pretty they look when they talk.
Not sure why you have people and falling in cute little airquotes like that, but comparing this debate to the 2k8 SC debate, it seems like the audience was much more inclined to libertarian ideas than the last time around, where I believe they openly cheered on waterboarding for example.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Yeah, at times he just looks overmatched, but at others he is brilliant. Ron Paul is just old. I figure one of them will take the lead in the polls and the other will bow out accordingly. It'd be silly for the both of them to run.
Fennis
Footballguy
The next day Willie Nelson changed his mind. More here: http://teapotpartyblog.com/?p=77Gary Johnson's quote about it:
“I didn’t expect anything going in there. I do think the world of Willie Nelson. I’m a really huge fan but I wasn’t expecting anything. The flip-flop, I assume, has to do with all sorts of reality factors. I’m just guessing here. Willie Nelson aside, I’ve always openly wondered why any celebrity would endorse any political candidate because there’s just no upside to it whatsoever. But in this case he does have the Teapot Party and the Teapot Party’s main issue is legalizing marijuana, so I thought I understood his reasons for endorsing, and welcomed it. I thought that was terrific. But it is what it is, and I think it has brought attention to the issue, and maybe I’ve gotten some attention out of it, so I’m certainly not negatively pulsed by this at all.”
Chadstroma
Footballguy
And? Ron Paul also hits it out of the park on a bazillion internet polls and raises a lot of money. Why? A small group of highly motivated people. That does has not and will not equal 'slaughtering everyone' as much as some really wish they could close their eyes while rubbing a lantern and make it so.
Yea, because the GOP always trots out the token black guy. I always find it amusing how people are so quick and eager to dismiss any African American that holds conservative viewpoints. And I do not know about that case but let me explain a couple of things to you about the business world before you run around labeling people corrupt. First, a lawsuit saying such and such hardly makes it true. Second, although I do not agree with it, this type of compensation is fairly common in the corporate world- being a so called libertarian, this is not something you should be crying about, it is the free market operating.
Can you point to me a conservative that is not a libertarian that you would not label a neo-con?
Because Romney is the closest thing to being a frontrunner. It points to your political naivete.
Well, their policy is bad too.
See my comment above about Ron Paul supporters. They make it a point to pack into these types of groupings because of their small numbers the only way that they can make an impact is by showing up and being loud at these events, spamming online polls, give lots of money, etc. Their goal is to make themselves look much bigger than they are, kinda like a blow fish, and it can work for those who fail to be critical in their thinking.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Can anyone be surprised that a Nelson and a group he leads called Teapot Party changed their minds? (toke) Hey dude..... (toke) Yea man?..... (toke) Let's endorse that guy.... (toke) Ok... man... (toke) I like him... (toke) Like who man?... (toke) The guy we just endorsed.... (toke) Endorse who man?... (toke) The guy who likes pot (toke) Oh, yea, man, I like pot... (toke) No, the guy we endorsed! (toke) What guy man? (toke)
ren hoek
Footballguy
Like I said, I think one of them will have a real shot if they're going up against the likes of Pawlenty, Santorum and Godfather's Pizza guy.
Wouldn't the GOP never trotting out black guys make him more of a token? You don't think there's anything convenient about a guy with no political experience whatsoever making a run at president on the heels of the country's first black president being elected? A good speaker at that?
Way to completely miss the point.
He couldn't beat out John McCain. He's a flipflopper and was a noshow at the SC debate. Why would I ever consider him a front runner? I feel like I'm arguing with a three year old.
Yeah. Pulling out of the Middle East, using sound money, decreasing the size of government and saving trillions of dollars. Horrible ideas.Well, their policy is bad too.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Neither has a snow balls chance by themselves. With both in, they are competing against the already small libertarian minded vote. It takes their snow balls chance and cuts it down further.
Or perhaps he is a conservative who just happens to be black. Wha? Gasp! But you know... maybe you are right, because I do believe that Trump flirting with running was about being the token rich guy.
Oh, I got the point. The point that you will jump at anything to deride and attack anyone that is not your guy. No matter what the situation is, if it looks bad USE it! I got it. No worries.
Sadly, you are clueless about how this statement here just reinforces the fact that you really have no understanding about politics.
Chaos Commish
Footballguy
Well, he brought his A game to that interview. I've never seen Ron Paul do so well from a passion and leadership standpoint. But these guys are not Republicans. They're Libertarians. So Johnson, like Paul, has no chance of being meaningful. I can't support something with no chance. I can't understand why Johnson is running as a Republican. What's the point?
Chadstroma
Footballguy
He is a plant by establishment Republicans who want to split the libertarian vote in the GOP
.... because you know... that is such a huge voting block to begin with.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
GOP> this should be your candidate.
Brady Marino
Footballguy
He doesn't come in pretty packaging or easy-to-swallow pill form, so he's got no shot. I like the guy, though.
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
What state do you live in? Me, I'm a California boy. Should I never vote for anyone other than a Democrat? When you vote for Gary Johnson you don't actually think he's going to win. Hell, Gary Johnson himself probably doesn't think he's going to win. What you are doing by voting for him is letting the parties know you are an unhappy voter and your vote is up for grabs if candidate x will adopt this stance in the next election.
Brady Marino
Footballguy
I hate this "I have to vote the way everyone else does" mentality. Makes no sense unless people really just love beating their chests over the fact they voted for the winner, which I have yet to find.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
It makes sense if you think the other guy in the two man race will do more damage than the guy you are voting for that actually can win.
How can that make it make sense?Your vote does nothing to determine who wins or loses. The most it can do is send a very crude signal about what kind of politician you'd be willing to support. Voting for a politician you don't like is a complete waste of a vote (as opposed to being only 99.99% wasted if you vote for someone you do like).
Chaos Commish
Footballguy
I agree and it's why I won't vote for any of them.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
It does make sense because times that over and over, it actually has an impact and races are won and lost on it. You don't have to like it for it to make sense but it does. Now, if someone like you, who is above doing something like that, could find someone worth backing then maybe your vote will mean something one day. But it won't because libertarians are on the fringe and will never be accepted. As long as the people you trot out to have a noble vote for is Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, your vote means less than anyone voting Democrat or Republican.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
From the book of "you know your campaign is in trouble when you..."
ren hoek
Footballguy
Through 45 seconds. Absolutely brutal. I wonder if I have the willpower to make it through all 7 minutes.
ren hoek
Footballguy
That was kind of embarrassing.
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Wow... if you and Tremblay are coming out like that it must have been beyond horrible.'Ren Hoek said:I did. I like Gary Johnson a lot, but'Ren Hoek said:.
(three parts) on The Alyona Show.
everything about this guy.
joffer
Footballguy
link
A funny thing happened this week when I had the audacity to call a so-called “Marriage Vow” pledge for candidates issued by the Iowa-based Family Leader group for what it is: Offensive and UnRepublican.
The funny thing that happened is that the Internet, the blogosphere, my Facebook page, and yes, my cell phone, lit up with reactions to my suggestion that the Family Leader pledge essentially asks Republicans to endorse putting the federal government in the business of discriminating against everyone who doesn’t fit in some idyllic two-parent, heterosexual and non-Muslim mold. I not only rejected the pledge, but rejected the notion that Republicans who claim to believe in limited government could at the same time advocate sending that same government into American bedrooms, living rooms and private lives in order to enforce a particular set of values.
The reaction to my statements, and to the whole Family Leader pledge fiasco, is very telling — particularly for Republicans who are serious about winning elections going forward.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of Independents, libertarians, and more than a few bona-fide liberals came out of the woodwork to flood blogs, social media sites and my own website with supportive words for my condemnation of the Family Leader pledge. And more than a few pundits questioned my sanity for actually saying — while seeking the Republican nomination for president — that the social issue emperors have no clothes.
But where are the Republicans, or more precisely, the Republicans running for president? Plenty of Republican voters and sympathizers expressed their agreement with my concerns, but except for the two candidates who have actually signed the offensive pledge, the rest of the field — even those declining to sign it — has treated it with kid gloves. Why kid gloves? The Family Leader pledge is just plain insulting to millions of Americans.
That is a major problem for Republicans. The simple fact of the matter is that those of us running for president are, to a great extent, the faces and voices of the Republican Party. What kind of message does it send to the Independents and Democrats, not to mention regular Republicans, we will need to win back the White House next year when only one Republican candidate for president is willing to unequivocally reject a “pledge” that is offensive on its face to single parents, gays, divorcees, women, members of our military and too many others to list?
For a party that claims limited government as its guiding principle, Lincoln as its inspiration, and individual freedom as a sacred right, rejecting this kind of intolerance and big brother moral judgment should be a no-brainer. But it obviously isn’t.
It isn’t a no-brainer for Republican candidates because they are afraid. Afraid of offending a guy and his organization because they happen to be in Iowa and happen to have a big mailing list. They are afraid of the tail that is wagging the dog.
If Republicans have any hope of winning the White House, keeping control of the House and regaining the Senate next year, it certainly is NOT as the party of intolerance. It is NOT as a party so arrogant as to try to define the values of free people who are perfectly capable of defining their own values. And it is absolutely NOT as a party who alienates a clear majority of Americans in a short-sighted effort to curry favor with a minority which has a disproportionate amount of influence on the nominating process.
There is one thing on which virtually all Republicans, Independents, and Democrats agree: Our economy is on the ropes, and the federal government is helping it to death. And while America is wonderfully diverse in its opinions on most everything, the one moral issue on which we can all agree is that it is fundamentally immoral to continue on a path that has already racked up a public debt amounting to more than $40,000 for every man, woman and child in the country — and growing every day. Unlike a the Family Leader nonsense, that immorality is the government’s business — and the American people are begging for leadership to put an end to it.
Therein lies the pledge Republicans should be signing: That we will balance the budget, create an environment in which jobless Americans can go back to work, and otherwise keep the government out of American households — whatever they may look like.
A funny thing happened this week when I had the audacity to call a so-called “Marriage Vow” pledge for candidates issued by the Iowa-based Family Leader group for what it is: Offensive and UnRepublican.
The funny thing that happened is that the Internet, the blogosphere, my Facebook page, and yes, my cell phone, lit up with reactions to my suggestion that the Family Leader pledge essentially asks Republicans to endorse putting the federal government in the business of discriminating against everyone who doesn’t fit in some idyllic two-parent, heterosexual and non-Muslim mold. I not only rejected the pledge, but rejected the notion that Republicans who claim to believe in limited government could at the same time advocate sending that same government into American bedrooms, living rooms and private lives in order to enforce a particular set of values.
The reaction to my statements, and to the whole Family Leader pledge fiasco, is very telling — particularly for Republicans who are serious about winning elections going forward.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of Independents, libertarians, and more than a few bona-fide liberals came out of the woodwork to flood blogs, social media sites and my own website with supportive words for my condemnation of the Family Leader pledge. And more than a few pundits questioned my sanity for actually saying — while seeking the Republican nomination for president — that the social issue emperors have no clothes.
But where are the Republicans, or more precisely, the Republicans running for president? Plenty of Republican voters and sympathizers expressed their agreement with my concerns, but except for the two candidates who have actually signed the offensive pledge, the rest of the field — even those declining to sign it — has treated it with kid gloves. Why kid gloves? The Family Leader pledge is just plain insulting to millions of Americans.
That is a major problem for Republicans. The simple fact of the matter is that those of us running for president are, to a great extent, the faces and voices of the Republican Party. What kind of message does it send to the Independents and Democrats, not to mention regular Republicans, we will need to win back the White House next year when only one Republican candidate for president is willing to unequivocally reject a “pledge” that is offensive on its face to single parents, gays, divorcees, women, members of our military and too many others to list?
For a party that claims limited government as its guiding principle, Lincoln as its inspiration, and individual freedom as a sacred right, rejecting this kind of intolerance and big brother moral judgment should be a no-brainer. But it obviously isn’t.
It isn’t a no-brainer for Republican candidates because they are afraid. Afraid of offending a guy and his organization because they happen to be in Iowa and happen to have a big mailing list. They are afraid of the tail that is wagging the dog.
If Republicans have any hope of winning the White House, keeping control of the House and regaining the Senate next year, it certainly is NOT as the party of intolerance. It is NOT as a party so arrogant as to try to define the values of free people who are perfectly capable of defining their own values. And it is absolutely NOT as a party who alienates a clear majority of Americans in a short-sighted effort to curry favor with a minority which has a disproportionate amount of influence on the nominating process.
There is one thing on which virtually all Republicans, Independents, and Democrats agree: Our economy is on the ropes, and the federal government is helping it to death. And while America is wonderfully diverse in its opinions on most everything, the one moral issue on which we can all agree is that it is fundamentally immoral to continue on a path that has already racked up a public debt amounting to more than $40,000 for every man, woman and child in the country — and growing every day. Unlike a the Family Leader nonsense, that immorality is the government’s business — and the American people are begging for leadership to put an end to it.
Therein lies the pledge Republicans should be signing: That we will balance the budget, create an environment in which jobless Americans can go back to work, and otherwise keep the government out of American households — whatever they may look like.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
Let's hope he doesn't screw up in the little time he's going to get during the debate.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Apparently Rush Limbaugh said it before Johnson did, though."My next door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than this president."Good line.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
Apparently Rush Limbaugh said it before Johnson did, though."My next door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than this president."
Good line.
http://www.slate.com/id/2304429/pagenum/all/
Last edited by a moderator:
I love the guy. First presidential candidate I've ever liked. Would be great not only for poker but to keep the government from unnessesarily interfering in our lives: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2011/09/gary-johnson-could-be-who-poker-players-need-in-office-10957.htm
Similar threads
