Gary Johnson wins Libertarian nomination

[Allan from Fallbrook]

The one guy no one is talking about, but should be.

From CNN: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/05/gary-johnson-wins-libertarian-party-presidential-nomination/

[scaredyclassic]

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

[CardiffBaseball]

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.

[bearishgurl]

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.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CardiffBaseball]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.[/quote]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[scaredyclassic]

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.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=squat250]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.[/quote]

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…

[bearishgurl]

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.

[briansd1]

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/jan-june12/congress_05-03.html

[Allan from Fallbrook]

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/sean_trende/) 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.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]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 […][/quote]

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

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-16-2012/the-battle-for-the-war-on-women

(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). [/quote]

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.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] 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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Hence, the idiotic “War on Women” meme that’s being bruited right now. No such thing.
[/quote]

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

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Focus instead on tax reform, entitlement reform and the coming “crowding effect” both will have on this country if nothing is done.

Or not[/quote]

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.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] 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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Hence, the idiotic “War on Women” meme that’s being bruited right now. No such thing.
[/quote]

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

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Focus instead on tax reform, entitlement reform and the coming “crowding effect” both will have on this country if nothing is done.

Or not[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.

[Anonymous]

Once again, the Daily Show cuts through the crap:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-4-2012/jack-goldsmith

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

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):

[Author]

Posts