Gary Johnson wins Libertarian nomination

User Forum Topic
Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 6, 2012 - 1:33pm

Submitted by scaredyclassic on May 6, 2012 - 2:39pm.

I met him. He's great. I registered repub in nm to vote Gary. He's the man.

Submitted by CardiffBaseball on May 6, 2012 - 8:22pm.

Allan don't you think attempting to change the republican party from within is a better way to go than running Libertarian? Or is the two-party corruption so deep and embedded that it just doesn't matter no Liberty loving pubbie will ever break through?

I think Ron is keeping the seat warm for Rand Paul who seems to go down a little smoother for those who think Ron Paul are crazy. Now Rand is making noise about going after the TSA.

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 6, 2012 - 10:05pm.

Both good posts. If RP loses at the primaries, I will reregister back to an "independent" and vote for Gary in the gen'l election ... that is, if my *new* Republican ballot coming in will preclude me from voting Libertarian for Prez.

I won't vote for Obama OR Romney.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 6, 2012 - 10:13pm.

CardiffBaseball wrote:
Allan don't you think attempting to change the republican party from within is a better way to go than running Libertarian? Or is the two-party corruption so deep and embedded that it just doesn't matter no Liberty loving pubbie will ever break through?

I think Ron is keeping the seat warm for Rand Paul who seems to go down a little smoother for those who think Ron Paul are crazy. Now Rand is making noise about going after the TSA.

Hey, Cardiff. I honestly have no idea. I had the forlorn hope that the GOP would start moving back towards the middle (I know, I know, crazy, right?), but that now doesn't seem possible.

At this point, an Obama win is the best thing that can happen to the GOP. That would provide a huge wakeup call and my feeling is that guys like Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman will be given more of a say as we head to 2016.

Of course, I'm probably nuts to believe that and maybe a truly independent third party is the way forward. This reactionary shit seems to pretty much be par for the course for both parties.

Submitted by harvey on May 7, 2012 - 7:10am.

I like Gary Johnson. Some people were talking about him a little while ago. Every election cycle it seems we get one or two candidates early in the process that have a lot of potential but they never make it because they don't conform to party orthodoxy or just aren't insiders. Wesley Clark was another example.

I think Gary Johnson made a mistake associating himself with the Libertarian party. The party just doesn't have a strong brand image and too many Americans just associate them with kooks. He's not going to win and now he won't be able to shake the Libertarian association going forward. We certainly do need a third party in this country but I think it will have to be one that starts brand new.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on May 7, 2012 - 7:13am.

this might sound mean but, he's a little goofy looking.

man he used to dress super casual for a governor.

he built up a handyman business to a major nm construction co.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 7, 2012 - 10:54am.

squat250 wrote:
this might sound mean but, he's a little goofy looking.

man he used to dress super casual for a governor.

he built up a handyman business to a major nm construction co.

Scaredy: Doesn't sound mean at all. Remember Ross Perot? He took plenty of snide digs for his appearance and accent. Never mind his business success, he looks like a bumpkin and sounds like he's from Mayberry RFD!

Romney very much looks the part, doesn't he? Like John Edwards did as well. They look presidential. No need to worry about the substance...

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 7, 2012 - 11:42am.

I have learned over the years that "looks" and "demeanor" can be VERY deceiving. None of these has anything to do with the amount of wealth, brains, common sense, resourcefulness or integrity one possesses.

Submitted by briansd1 on May 7, 2012 - 12:59pm.

Allan, as a conservative, I think that you still have hopes for the Republican party... If that is the case, then you can't possibly believe that "they are all the same." One is better than the other.

As far as an Obama win being best for the Republican party, I have my doubts. My bet is that if Obama wins, the Republican party will turn even more right-wing reactionary.

Gingrich, in particular, will claim that nominating a moderate was the wrong thing to do.

As the Republicans turn more towards Gingrich, Brewster, Palin, Bachmann, et al, in national elections, they will turn into a perpetual minority party of angry white folks.

I look forward the backlash to the war on women. The country is also moving to gay marriage and that will be a huge defeat for the Republicans. In the end, Republicans will cave and will feign support, just like they are feigning support for gender equality, racial equality and the social safety net.

Time will tell... I will continue to eat well and exercise so that I can watch it all unfold in the years ahead.

This is a good new story on partisanship in Washington.

Is Washington's Partisanship 'Even Worse Than it Looks?'
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 7, 2012 - 4:04pm.

Brian: As you know, I haven't voted GOP since 1996. Do the Republicans more align with my conservatism than the Dems? Absolutely.

However, the idea of the GOP turning into a perpetual minority party is nonsensical. All of the wishes of the Lefties to the contrary, there is no evidence to support this. If anything, the Dems are moving more to the Right (example: the ACA is essentially a redrafted version of the GOP's mid-1990s plan) and America has been and remains a Center-Right country.

Do a little reading of Sean Trende (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors...) who writes nearly completely on this topic.

The paradigm has shifted in this country and neither party is in a position (yet) to offer meaningful solutions. Hence, the idiotic "War on Women" meme that's being bruited right now. No such thing. But, the Dems don't really have any other significant talking points to push (the economy isn't doing particularly well, ACA could possibly be voted down, etc), so the Dems are pushing made-up wedge issues and trying to gin up support in the base, especially in key battleground states (think Obama and the Trayvon Martin shooting). Given the viciousness of the GOP Primary, Obama should be kicking Romney's ass in the polls. He isn't and, in fact, he's either only slightly ahead or dead even (depending on the polls used). Given that, the idea of the GOP being a "perpetual minority party" seems somewhat at odds with the facts on the ground.

You tend to focus nearly exclusively on partisanship and Dem versus GOP, when the larger issues confronting our country have nothing to do with either.

Focus instead on tax reform, entitlement reform and the coming "crowding effect" both will have on this country if nothing is done.

Or not.

Submitted by harvey on May 7, 2012 - 4:22pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Hence, the idiotic "War on Women" meme that's being bruited right now. No such thing. But, the Dems don't really have any other significant talking points to push [...]

Yes, the Dems are the only ones using the "War On" meme:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-ap...

(The whole thing is good, and the part that starts at about 5:30 is what really exposes the bias in your claim.)

Quote:
Obama should be kicking Romney's ass in the polls. He isn't and, in fact, he's either only slightly ahead or dead even (depending on the polls used).

Gee, you mean the media is telling us we have a close race?

I can't imagine why...

But I do agree that the GOP isn't going anywhere...I mean that Murdoch is still going to keep using his media dominance to tell people what to think. What is going to change is we are going to start hearing things that are even more Orwellian, especially when Mitt "Romneycare" has to start explaining his political past in earnest.

Submitted by briansd1 on May 7, 2012 - 5:41pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
If anything, the Dems are moving more to the Right (example: the ACA is essentially a redrafted version of the GOP's mid-1990s plan) and America has been and remains a Center-Right country.

So which side made more compromises? The left has moved to the right and the right moved further to the right.

On ACA, the Democrats clearly did the best they could for good of country; and Republicans refudiated their own ideas just because they could.

So the Democrats have moved to the right and you call them leftists?

BTW, Allan, the whole world has moved to the right.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Hence, the idiotic "War on Women" meme that's being bruited right now. No such thing.

So explain all the efforts to defund Planned Parenthood accross the country. Are they not real? Republicans are the ones leading those initiatives.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Focus instead on tax reform, entitlement reform and the coming "crowding effect" both will have on this country if nothing is done.

Or not

I'm glad he didn't, but Obama was about to give in to Boehner on the budget. But the Tea Party wanted all or nothing.

Life and especially politics are about compromises, not intransigant all or nothing demands.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 7, 2012 - 10:19pm.

briansd1 wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
If anything, the Dems are moving more to the Right (example: the ACA is essentially a redrafted version of the GOP's mid-1990s plan) and America has been and remains a Center-Right country.

So which side made more compromises? The left has moved to the right and the right moved further to the right.

On ACA, the Democrats clearly did the best they could for good of country; and Republicans refudiated their own ideas just because they could.

So the Democrats have moved to the right and you call them leftists?

BTW, Allan, the whole world has moved to the right.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Hence, the idiotic "War on Women" meme that's being bruited right now. No such thing.

So explain all the efforts to defund Planned Parenthood accross the country. Are they not real? Republicans are the ones leading those initiatives.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Focus instead on tax reform, entitlement reform and the coming "crowding effect" both will have on this country if nothing is done.

Or not

I'm glad he didn't, but Obama was about to give in to Boehner on the budget. But the Tea Party wanted all or nothing.

Life and especially politics are about compromises, not intransigant all or nothing demands.

Brian: I don't call Democrats Leftists unless they are Leftists. Leftists are Leftists, but a fairly large number reside in the reactionary wing of the Democratic Party, just as a fairly large number of the reactionary Right resides in the GOP. In both instances, these reactionary elements are attempting to co-opt their respective parties.

I completely agree with your sentiments about the GOP by the way, and cannot stand the confluence of corrupt party hacks like Boehner rubbing elbows with bright eyed zealots like Cantor. That being said, I equally lament corrupt party hacks like Harry Reid rubbing elbows with bright eyed (and equally corrupt) zealots like Nancy Pelosi.

BOTH parties got us here, Brian, and acting as though somehow the Dems are blameless, while the GOP is completely nefarious is something of a Pollyanna worldview. Our political class has abandoned us and is now serving the monied interests that put them in power. Obama was granted substantial control and a huge amount of political capital upon taking office and by any objective measure, he's squandered both.

As far as ACA goes: Liberty is the freedom from coercion. This bill was not done for the good of the country, it is "legacy" legislation and, like the stimulus, was a poorly crafted, outsourced to Congress, piece of shit. Yeah, I know you'll proffer the usual "well, we have to start somewhere" argument, but, dude, in this case it won't hold water.

Submitted by harvey on May 8, 2012 - 7:22am.

Once again, the Daily Show cuts through the crap:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-ap...

Here's the book that explains why it's not so easy for Obama to wave his hand and make some problems go away:

Power and Constraint: The Accountable Presidency After 9/11

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Constraint-A...

The laws have been structured so that there is no way to undo this stuff without cooperation from Congress and agreement from the courts.

In other words, we have three branches of government.

And the author is no Obama fanboy. He was a star conservative lawyer during the Bush administration (aligned with John Yoo):

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazi...

Submitted by briansd1 on May 8, 2012 - 9:33am.

What bothers most of the Republicans is that they call Obama socialist and radical. That shows how right-wing radical Republicans have become.

As pointed out by Allan himself, Obama is a centrist president. The Democratic party has moved to the right, to the dissappointment of many long time Democrats.

I've asked Republicans what's so radical about Obama and they always mention the bailouts. But those bailouts were Bush's doing. Other than that they can't think of anything radical.

I've talk to people from the South. What's really radical is his race.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 8, 2012 - 9:59am.

briansd1 wrote:
What bothers most of the Republicans is that they call Obama socialist and radical. That shows how right-wing radical Republicans have become.

As pointed out by Allan himself, Obama is a centrist president. The Democratic party has moved to the right, to the dissappointment of many long time Democrats.

I've asked Republicans what's so radical about Obama and they always mention the bailouts. But those bailouts were Bush's doing. Other than that they can't think of anything radical.

I've talk to people from the South. What's really radical is his race.

Brian: Strawmen abound. You use terms like "most" or "many", but, in truth, these are just generalizations or stereotypes.

Just like saying you've spoken to the people in the South. Whom, exactly, and where? I deal with Southerners in my business, as well as Westerners, those from the Middle West and the Eastern seaboard. I'd suggest you speak to some people in the Raleigh-Durham tech triangle, or outside the research centers in Florida, Alabama and Georgia or Silicon Gulch in Austin, TX. My point is this: There are plenty of ignorant, bigoted people everywhere in the US, not just the South. You might opine that MORE of them reside in the South, but I believe your bias against the "redneck culture" has blinded you to certain realities, just as much as your bias against conservatives has led you to believe the GOP is somehow marching into oblivion.

I have nothing against Obama. As I've opined previously, I think he's a likeable cat and obviously highly intelligent. He is, however, in over his head, just as his predecessor was. The world has changed rapidly in the last 20 years and our government and political class has failed to catch up and, most important, has failed in their mission to create the best environment for America to compete.

Whether it's a failure of will to reform taxes and entitlements, or confront the looming specter of the true costs (economic as well as social/cultural) of the welfare state, or restrain the worst impulses of Big Money, Big Oil, Big Labor and the Military-Industrial-Prison Complex or to protect, at all costs, our most important rights and liberties, we've been sold down the river by BOTH parties.

Obama simply represents the latest in a long line of presidents willing to bend us collectively over the table whilst gently whispering some pabulum about all being well and, not to worry, the big Nanny State will take care of everything as it takes over everything (see "Life of Julia".) It won't and it can't and we're watching as the whole thing starts to unravel right before our eyes.

Submitted by briansd1 on May 8, 2012 - 11:14am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

The world has changed rapidly in the last 20 years and our government and political class has failed to catch up and, most important, has failed in their mission to create the best environment for America to compete.

I absolutely agree with you there.

About Republicans, I wasn't talking about you, Allan. Since you don't vote Republican, then my comments obviously don't apply to you.

However, there is a narrative in the Republican party of Obama as socialist radical. In truth, nothing Obama has done is radical. His policies are more center right, IMO.

Submitted by briansd1 on May 9, 2012 - 12:04pm.

For better or for worse, the defeat of Dick Lugar shows that the Republican party is headed right into their arms of the Tea Party. I don't think there's any room for Jon Huntsman.

“Just yesterday, France elected a socialist,” Mourdock declared in his victory speech. “There are those I’m sure in the administration and in the left side of the Democratic Party that were cheering for that. But we’re not going to stand for that in Indiana because the supporters of Barack Obama are not going to win!”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/o...

MOURDOCK: I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view. … If we [win the House, Senate, and White House], bipartisanship means they have to come our way, and if we’re successful in getting the numbers, we’ll work towards that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum...

Submitted by gregw9898 on May 9, 2012 - 2:14pm.

briansd1 wrote:
What bothers most of the Republicans is that they call Obama socialist and radical. That shows how right-wing radical Republicans have become.

As pointed out by Allan himself, Obama is a centrist president. The Democratic party has moved to the right, to the dissappointment of many long time Democrats.

I've asked Republicans what's so radical about Obama and they always mention the bailouts. But those bailouts were Bush's doing. Other than that they can't think of anything radical.

I've talk to people from the South. What's really radical is his race.

Brian -
Running up $16T in debt and bailing out every industry and not letting anything fail is socialist, radical and down right nuts. It has collapsed every other major super power before that has tried the same approach. Obama is spending $4T this year and making $2T. That is absolutely absurd on all levels. It is not okay. It is not okay to leave that debt to our children unless we hate them.

Your perspective should not be the last 20 years of politics in this country, it should be world history and debt levels of the other failed super powers of the past.

Submitted by gregw9898 on May 9, 2012 - 3:44pm.

gregw9898 wrote:
briansd1 wrote:
What bothers most of the Republicans is that they call Obama socialist and radical. That shows how right-wing radical Republicans have become.

As pointed out by Allan himself, Obama is a centrist president. The Democratic party has moved to the right, to the dissappointment of many long time Democrats.

I've asked Republicans what's so radical about Obama and they always mention the bailouts. But those bailouts were Bush's doing. Other than that they can't think of anything radical.

I've talk to people from the South. What's really radical is his race.

Brian -
Running up $16T in debt and bailing out every industry and not letting anything fail is socialist, radical and down right nuts. It has collapsed every other major super power before that has tried the same approach. Obama is spending $4T this year and making $2T. That is absolutely absurd on all levels. It is not okay. It is not okay to leave that debt to our children unless we hate them.

Your perspective should not be the last 20 years of politics in this country, it should be world history and debt levels of the other failed super powers of the past.

Since Rich is so good with numbers and historical data, I would love to see a comparison of our debt levels currently as compared to the estimated debt/GDP levels of the Roman, Byzantene, Russian, English and other empires that went under due to GOV spending. I'm not sure there would be accurate data but it would be a great article!!

Submitted by briansd1 on May 9, 2012 - 3:51pm.

I'm not sure empires are good for the lives of citizens.

For example, during the Russian Empire the peasant population were serfs. The people of Switzerland, on the other hand, had it pretty good through history.

Empires are good for kings and politicians but not necessarily good for the common person.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 9, 2012 - 4:34pm.

gregw9898 wrote:

Since Rich is so good with numbers and historical data, I would love to see a comparison of our debt levels currently as compared to the estimated debt/GDP levels of the Roman, Byzantene, Russian, English and other empires that went under due to GOV spending. I'm not sure there would be accurate data but it would be a great article!!

Markmax Redux: You're obviously unfamiliar with the work of economic anthropologist David Graeber: http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000...

This book is absolutely filled with historical data and will utterly debunk many of the falsehoods you've attempted to deploy here (under this and your other nom-de-plume.)

Of course, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't even know how to properly spell "Byzantine" to know much about actual history.

Marshal your facts, correctly assemble your argument and then open your mouth.

Submitted by gregw9898 on May 9, 2012 - 5:11pm.

briansd1 wrote:
I'm not sure empires are good for the lives of citizens.

For example, during the Russian Empire the peasant population were serfs. The people of Switzerland, on the other hand, had it pretty good through history.

Empires are good for kings and politicians but not necessarily good for the common person.

We have an empire already. We are in 150 countries. We tell people how they can run their countries and destroy the GOVs that don't agree with us and install people we like that we can pay off for our favor. We have the debt of all the other "empires" too.

The 15-20% of real unemployment are the serfs. Obama has expanded serfdom if that's your measure.

Submitted by gregw9898 on May 9, 2012 - 5:09pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
gregw9898 wrote:

Since Rich is so good with numbers and historical data, I would love to see a comparison of our debt levels currently as compared to the estimated debt/GDP levels of the Roman, Byzantene, Russian, English and other empires that went under due to GOV spending. I'm not sure there would be accurate data but it would be a great article!!

Markmax Redux: You're obviously unfamiliar with the work of economic anthropologist David Graeber: http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000...

This book is absolutely filled with historical data and will utterly debunk many of the falsehoods you've attempted to deploy here (under this and your other nom-de-plume.)

Of course, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't even know how to properly spell "Byzantine" to know much about actual history.

Marshal your facts, correctly assemble your argument and then open your mouth.

Sorry for the misspelling but I wasn't asking you and also you didn't address my point. That book doesn't seem to address my post either.

I would like a comparison of debt levels between the major empires from a well respected economist, not historian. Don't acuse me of not getting my facts straight if you can't understand a blog post first.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 9, 2012 - 5:28pm.

gregw9898 wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
gregw9898 wrote:

Since Rich is so good with numbers and historical data, I would love to see a comparison of our debt levels currently as compared to the estimated debt/GDP levels of the Roman, Byzantene, Russian, English and other empires that went under due to GOV spending. I'm not sure there would be accurate data but it would be a great article!!

Markmax Redux: You're obviously unfamiliar with the work of economic anthropologist David Graeber: http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000...

This book is absolutely filled with historical data and will utterly debunk many of the falsehoods you've attempted to deploy here (under this and your other nom-de-plume.)

Of course, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't even know how to properly spell "Byzantine" to know much about actual history.

Marshal your facts, correctly assemble your argument and then open your mouth.

Sorry for the misspelling but I wasn't asking you and also you didn't address my point. That book doesn't seem to address my post either.

I would like a comparison of debt levels between the major empires from a well respected economist, not historian. Don't acuse me of not getting my facts straight if you can't understand a blog post first.

Markmax Part Deux: Okay, I won't "acuse" you.

You have shown a marked propensity for either ignoring facts, or not understanding them.

Graeber, AS I CLEARLY STATED, BUT YOU IGNORED: is NOT an historian, but, rather, an economic (NOTE THE WORD "ECONOMIC") anthropologist. Thus, he is a mix of ECONOMIST and ANTHROPOLOGIST.

The referenced book EXACTLY addresses the issues of debt, credit and fiat money and does so in an historical arc that covers 5,000 YEARS, meaning it encapsulates ALL of the empires you mentioned, including the "Byzantene" one.

How this fails to address and, most important, debunk your salient points is beyond me, but, as stated at the outset, you never seem to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

READ the FACTS. UNDERSTAND the FACTS. ARGUE by using the FACTS. Or not.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 9, 2012 - 5:33pm.

briansd1 wrote:
I'm not sure empires are good for the lives of citizens.

For example, during the Russian Empire the peasant population were serfs. The people of Switzerland, on the other hand, had it pretty good through history.

Empires are good for kings and politicians but not necessarily good for the common person.

Brian: This one's for you. Came across this article in The Atlantic and thought of you: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...

Give it a read and I'd love to hear your thoughts. Clive Crook, the author, is British and delves into the key differences between British and American snobbery (including disdain for "rednecks".)

Submitted by Arraya on May 9, 2012 - 5:45pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Markmax Redux: You're obviously unfamiliar with the work of economic anthropologist David Graeber: http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000...

This book is absolutely filled with historical data and will utterly debunk many of the falsehoods you've attempted to deploy here (under this and your other nom-de-plume.)

Absolutely Fantastic book! I just picked it up and ploughed through half of it in the past couple days.

fyi- Graeber is one of the architects of Occupy

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 9, 2012 - 5:58pm.

Arraya wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Markmax Redux: You're obviously unfamiliar with the work of economic anthropologist David Graeber: http://www.amazon.com/Debt-The-First-000...

This book is absolutely filled with historical data and will utterly debunk many of the falsehoods you've attempted to deploy here (under this and your other nom-de-plume.)

Absolutely Fantastic book! I just picked it up and ploughed through half of it in the past couple days.

fyi- Graeber is one of the architects of Occupy

Arraya: Yup, you enjoying this book makes perfect sense. I did know of Graeber's involvement with Occupy, you're also undoubtedly aware that he's an Old School Anarchist, too. His writings on Anarchy are especially good.

I read his book as something of a tetralogy, including Niall Ferguson's "Ascent of Money" and two of Satyijit Das' books: "Traders, Guns and Money" and "Extreme Money."

If you choose to read all four, I'd strongly recommend having copious amounts of alcohol close at hand. Kidding aside, all four of these strongly support some of your postings regarding "end stage capitalism."

Submitted by harvey on May 10, 2012 - 6:41am.

Interesting book recommendation. This is from the Amazon link in the "About the Author" section:

In the summer of 2011, he worked with a small group of activists and Adbusters magazine to plan Occupy Wall Street. Bloomberg Businessweek has called him an "anti-leader" of the movement. The Atlantic wrote that he "has come to represent the Occupy Wall Street message... expressing the group's theory, and its founding principles, in a way that truly elucidated some of the things people have questioned about it."

Slight change of subject, but another interesting historical aspect of debt is the association between debt and the Jews in Europe. Since usury was outlawed by the Christian church and Jews were often not allowed to own land that they could farm, Jews took on the roles of merchants and moneylenders. At the time these roles were not viewed as carrying any status, but of course it turned out to be one of the better "career choices."

This concentration of Jews in the early "financial industry" is where the stereotype of the "rich, greedy Jew" developed and what ultimately led to some pretty bad stuff that we aren't supposed to mention on internet forums.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on May 10, 2012 - 10:50am.

Gary Johnson = Ron Paul - teh Crazy

If it was Johnson vs. Obama I'd have to give Johnson a long hard look. He's a centrist on a lot of issues, he doesn't pander to the religious right, he believes in science. I don't agree with 100% of his positions, but he doesn't get the auto DQ that Romney/Gingrich/Santorum/Paul do for advocating blurring the line between Church and State. I hope Johnson pulls a decent percentage of the vote in the general.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.