We have Mitt and we have Obama…..they will get the majority of the votes…..but there are others who are trying desperately to gain a foothold in the American political system……but who are these “wannabes”?
The New American has compiled a short list……
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (Running mate: former California Judge Jim Gray)
Gary Johnson served as New Mexico governor from 1995-2003 as a Republican and promises a different path from Romney and Obama under the campaign slogan “live free.” In a campaign ad, the former Republican presidential candidate says: “Give me one term as your president, and I will give you four years of peace, four years of fiscally conservative, socially accepting leadership.”
While the Johnson campaign has not posted a progress report on ballot access, the Libertarian Party typically makes the ballot in 45-50 states. So nearly every American will be able to check off Johnson in the ballot booth.
Fiscal Agenda: As governor, Johnson was labeled by the conservative Club for Growth “one of the most anti-spending governors in New Mexico history.”
Nevertheless, the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute only graded Johnson’s governorship as “B” throughout his tenure, largely because he was unable to entirely overcome an overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature. It wasn’t for lack of trying, however. Johnson became known as “Governor No” for his 750 vetoes in his two terms as governor, vetoing more than a third of the bills crossing his desk and using the line-item veto heavily on many of the rest of them. “Johnson sports a libertarian attitude toward government,” the Cato Institute said of Johnson’s governorship back in 2002. “He favors school vouchers, term limits, privately run prisons, lean budgets, and deep tax cuts.”
Johnson pledges to send a balanced budget proposal to Congress for fiscal 2014, the first budget of his presidency. He would do this by spending cuts, seeking entitlement reform, and an end to “excessive spending, bloated stimulus programs, unnecessary farm subsidies, and earmarks.” Johnson would work toward abolition of the U.S. Department of Education, arguing that it actually inhibits funding for education: “The Department of Education grants each state 11 cents out of every dollar it spends on education. Unfortunately, every dollar of this money comes with 16 cents of strings attached. States that accept federal funding lose five cents for every dollar spent on education to pay for federal mandates and regulations, taking millions of dollars out of the classroom.”
Johnson also favors a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Foreign Policy: On foreign policy, Johnson would cut military spending by withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Europe. He does not regard Iran as an imminent threat to the United States, and would not engage in sanctions against the Persian nation. He supports free trade as a foreign policy, and is generally supportive of NAFTA and the WTO, regarding them as successful implementation of his pro-free-trade agenda.
Civil Liberties: Johnson’s positions on civil liberties (what traditionally have been called God-given “inalienable rights”) are the strongest of any candidate expected to be on most ballots in November. Johnson wouldn’t have signed the NDAA (which allows presidents to indefinitely detain American citizens), is against the Patriot Act and warrantless surveillance, is against torture, and is for what he calls “due process” for terror suspects. He remains open to special military tribunals (instead of regular trial by jury) for certain terrorist suspects, however. Johnson is a solid supporter of the Second Amendment’s individual right to keep and bear arms.
Of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allows citizens to associate into corporations and spend money to persuade voters without federal government permission, Johnson takes a strong First Amendment stand. “I think it comes under the First Amendment, that they should be able to contribute as much money as they want.” Johnson makes the argument that more political speech by those outside of the half-dozen corporations that control most of the mainstream media “makes politicians more accountable, not less accountable.”
Social Issues: Johnson is generally pro-abortion, saying to a May 5, 2011 GOP debate audience in South Carolina, “I support a woman’s right to choose up until viability of the fetus, as governor of New Mexico, I would have signed a bill banning late term abortion.” Johnson opposes government funding of abortions.
On immigration, Johnson says that the federal government should make legal immigration easier and “should focus on making it easier and simpler for willing workers to come here with a temporary work visa, pay taxes, contribute to society, and fill jobs as the market demands.” Johnson also supports “workable employer verification systems” for illegal immigrants, a position that is not in sync with the traditional Libertarian Party open-border philosophy.
Johnson favors so-called “same-sex marriage” recognition, but has indicated that he ultimately favors taking marriage out of the hands of government. He has called for the immediate legalization of marijuana and an end to the drug war.
Your friendly neighborhood Libertarian……..who will vote for them and why? Answers?
Why Paul Ryan’s Constitution Has A Lot More In Common With Ayn Rand Than With The Founding Fathers | ThinkProgressPosted: 21 August 2012
Recently a reader, Terrance of Right Libertarian, (wordpress blog) had a rant on his site about abortion and Planned Parenthood and while we may not agree on a whole lot….he did give me an idea……for that I say thanx…..
We hear this daily and over and over during successive news reports…..so much it is quickly becoming nauseating……it is used for budget arguments….war arguments…..it is a useful slogan…..but sports fans, what is meant by the term?
First of all, as I understand it, is a government in which anything more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is generally disallowed by law, usually in a written constitution. Is that the way you understand it?
And then I found, “American Conservative Values….which states……
People who believe limited government are people, everyday people, who don’t want every aspect of their lives controlled by the government.
But is government intervention into a persons choice limited government? How about telling people who is to be your nuptials partner? How about which religion is evil and which is good? Maybe what is proper reading material? We could go on….but you have the idea…
So, what constitutes “limited government”?
I have said on many occasions….it is either all in or all out…..meaning either you want the government to make your decisions for you or you do not….and that means every decision…..not just the ones that you feel strongly about…..
If you are unwilling to butt out of everyone’s business, then please STOP using the term “limited government”……..So like Terrance I want to say STOP using the term you know it is a LIE…it is NOTHING but a slogan that has NO foot in reality!
College of Political Knowledge
2010/2012 Election Series
The mid term election is quickly approaching but what will the outcome be? Will the American people throw the bums out? Or will they go for broke and elect radical Righties to lead the country? Will the voter show logic and rationality in their voting? Just how will the people track in their voting?
There for awhile the media was giving the Tea Party more than its fair share of influence….why do I say that? Simple…..they missed the beginnings of the movement and now hope to capitalize on it……The media, especially conservatives in the media, have said that the people are tracking to the TP because of their anger with Washington…
Personally, I think it is much to do about nothing! The big TP candidate has shown that he is a Repub, NOT A Teabagger! One Scott Brown. The TP candidates in Kentucky and Nevada and elsewhere are showing that they are truly on the fringe…some think the unemployed are causing unemployment (no! really!)……and there is one that does NOT want to eliminate Social Security, but rather wants to PHASE it out (no! really! Has been said!) These show just how out of touch these people are….but the elections will tell just how out of touch the American people are.
If the TP cannot get a foothold in the South, where conservatism is at its highest point, then where will they find it?
A mainstream Republican rolled past a tea party activist Tuesday in the GOP runoff for a southeast Alabama congressional seat that Republicans hope to reclaim.Montgomery City Councilwoman Martha Roby was drawing 60 percent in the unofficial count in the 2nd Congressional District GOP runoff Tuesday against Rick Barber, a former Marine who operates a Montgomery pool hall that hosts tea party meetings.
Remember him? He was the one that was in a bar talking with our Founders and said to “Gather your armies”? His brand of politics did NOT play well in the Deep South……if not there, then where?
It is too early to look at the trends in voting…..okay something else…..Obama’s disapproval rating is 57…..Repubs are at 73% and Dems are weighing in at 67%……
I distrust polls especially the ones 4-6 months before an election…..much can happen by the time people vote and will swing approval in another direction…..the trends today point to the anger of the people will NOT translate into votes for any different type of candidate….the US will get a carbon copy of the politician that they voted out of office….nothing will change and the people can go back to bitching about their representation in Washington…a vicious cycle that few are willing to break…..the only trend that will be evident with the next election is that the TP will be proven to be a non-player……
Plato disliked democracy because he said it was “opinion over knowledge”…….and this next election will prove him correct, yet again…….people will vote with their opinions regardless of the facts…..
We have all heard Rand Paul and his waffling on the Civil Rights gaff that he made the day after his electoral victory, right? And NO…that is not what he is being taken to task over here on Info Ink.
We look for the most anal statements that people can make, and Mr. Paul has made a couple so far and he is NOT even elected to office yet….but the best anal thing was when on the ABC Sunday News Show when he took Obama to task over the oil spill in the Gulf…….
“What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,’” he told George Stephanopoulos. “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.”
Un-American? Would he be so pro BP if he made his living on the Gulf and not in some swank office? With comments like that, he is a perfect fit for the radical right and the teabaggers. This guy needs to shut the Hell ,up and stick to Kentucky politics….every time he opens his mouth he shoves a foot into it……
But in case you have been asleep after eating a drugged apple, let me refresh your memory…..just two days ago the son of Rep. Ron Paul won the Repub nomination for the senate seat in Kentucky after beating the fav of the GOP…this in a state that the Senate Minority leader is from and endorsed the other candidate……it was big news that he went against the established leadership of the Party and won the nomination……
But that is NOT the surprise!
Just hours after his win he had a couple of interviews and was asked if he believed segregation was okay in the private sector…..basically, he said it was fine if a privately owned company wanted to discriminate and that it was none of the governments business (I am paraphrasing)….
Immediately the media was all a gaga at his answer…they were caught by surprise….instantaneously they began to condemn him for his beliefs and saying that he needs to get out in front of the story…..
They were surprised!
(Thinking…..thinking……thinking…..) What part of Libertarian do they NOT understand? Do any of these “well informed” journalist ever pay attention to what is going on around them? Where is the surprise?
Rand Paul is a Libertarian! While there are some of their positions that I can agree with, most notably….anti-war, anti_IRS and anti Federal Reserve…..but that is where I cease to agree with them……other beliefs, of which there are many, that I cannot understand is their belief that capitalism will end racism or that capitalism will end poverty or CEOs deserve their massive bonuses or cheap imports do NOT destroy American jobs……just a few of the beliefs that I have a problem with….
Rand Paul is a Libertarian and he believes in some if not ALL of the things that I mentioned……So where is the surprise? I am NOT surprised in the least…and the morons making the big bucks should be less surprised than me…..But then I do not search for a sound bite on which to make a story…..
I for one have been a bit of a critic of the whole Tea Party movement….not because of their agenda but rather some of their tactics…..to me, lies are just that LIES…it is not a political tactic….why?…if they lie about one thing, how can they be trusted to be truthful about the whole thing?
I recently observed a Tea Party thing on Tax Day…..if you have never been to one of these I suggest you give them a try……if for no other reason than the amusement……
I observed that their were two types or camps, if you will within the Tea Party movement……one part is the ones carry signs and spouting mottoes, like Don’t tread on me or no taxation without representation or….well you have heard them as well…..the other “camp” is the ones that are truly fed up and are approaching it in an intellectual and logical way….these want limited government, end the Fed, etc……I guess if you subscribe to the “camp” theory then there is the Palin camp and the Paul camp……
Palin-ites are the neocons that embrace emotional issues like abortion, pray in school, morality, so forth, what has been called “traditional values”……Paul-ites are the ones that think government is doing too much, responsibility, limited taxation, and does not embrace a rigid set of social morals…..
The one common belief or issue or whatever you would like to call it is…ANGER! Each faction expresses their anger differently……..but make no mistake…the American people are angry….but the question should be…how angry are they? If you watch FOX news then you would be more likely to believe that they, the people, are close to storming the castle gates with pitch forks and torches…..personally, I do not think they are that angry, at least not at this time……the media, all the media, is covering the Hell out of anything the Tea Party does…….not because it is such a dynamic movement, but rather because they missed the boat a year ago when the protests first started…..they are trying to make up for their past oversight to the point that they are making the movement more important than it really is…
The best analysis of the Tea Party movement will come in the mid-term election this year….we will then see just how angry the American people are….we are told that the people have little faith in Washington and that the Congress sucks and the two parties have little confidence….if all that is true then the Tea Party should make a difference in the upcoming elections….personally, I think the American people will revert back to the old reliable, Dems and Repubs…….Why? Because they ARE angry just not with their politician……it is always the other guy that is at fault…..
Subject: Political Theory/Government/
As usual I must give the usual suspect the credit for turning me on to this subject (and the headaches that go with it) Quin of Quintessential Havoc (my blogroll will get you this this insightful person and his site)…..we have had exchanges on the need to limit and/or reduce the size of government….I first studied this subject when I was in grad school and the subject of Libertarianism was taught……
If you have even a small grasp of politics then you already know that the Libertarians are all about smaller government….but it goes beyond just the smaller size issue…there are those within the movement that see a way to all but eliminate government altogether…basically foreign policy would be the only thing that a Federal government would be in control of…if they got their way……..
I believe it was Robt. Nozick that said that it was not the state’s place to propose an end solution to the problems of society (that may be a bit simplified, but you get the idea)…that to bring about economic equality would entail the government interfering unacceptably in individual’s liberties……he believed that state taxes were a forced labor by government to redistribute wealth…( I guess that is a common Libertarian belief)…..
Nozick proposed a “Minimal State”….meaning that the state was to be cvonsigned to foreign policy and all else would be privatized, including such services as the police…..he believed the fundamental rights of property overrode everything else and to legislate it was a communal overriding of the individual’s well being….
So Nozick’s minimal state would be small, every Libertarians dream, and the people would be left to their own devices….basically, to me it says, people will be poor because they want to be poor…….
I do not agree with him…..I think that a government free from interference would produce a vast society of ignorant, unemployed and homeless individuals….I think many people would agree that this cost would be a bit excessive…….
So is a “minimal state” possible?…….I think not….for a true economic justice would be good for the country as a whole, both rich and poor alike…….a balance needs to be found between NO justice and Maxed out justice….there is a balance point but so far it has eluded me as well as everyone else…..
Barr, the Georgian who served as a Republican with Libertarian Party inspiration Ron Paul in Congress, said his third-party appeal stems from the idea that “choosing between the party of big government and the party of really big government … is not serving the country well.”
With either major party in control, Barr asserted in an interview before a speaking engagement Sunday night, “nothing is going to change of any substance.”
As the candidate of a party that aims to file government to the nub, Barr said his presidential agenda would include getting the federal government out of the war on drugs, letting states decide what drug offenses should be prosecuted and whether marijuana possession should be allowed for medicinal purposes.
Now, as a candidate trying to compete for votes with Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, Barr always is asked whether he will siphon enough conservative votes from McCain to assure the election of Obama, who is seen as favoring a more activist government than McCain.
Barr’s answer is that he wants to win and cannot “throw” the election to the Democrats the way that many voters thought independent candidate Ralph Nader pulled votes from Al Gore, allowing George W. Bush to claim the presidency in 2000.
Sounds like Barr and I are on the same thought wave. I have said that I do not believe that much will change in Washington after this election. But that is where the similar thinking ceases.
If Republicans are worried about the third-party presidential candidacy of former GOP Congressman Bob Barr and the possibility that he could win enough votes to affect the outcome in several states, they aren’t showing it.
At present there are no plans to follow the time-honored method of dealing with pesky third-party candidates by seeking to knock Barr off various state ballots. Indeed, when asked for comment about the Barr campaign, John McCain’s campaign flat out declined to offer any at all. Underscoring that indifferent approach, the Republican National Committee offered this response when asked about the former conservative congressman from Georgia.
The GOP strategy toward the Libertarian Party nominee presents a stark contrast to 2004, when Democrats aggressively challenged left-leaning Independent candidate Ralph Nader’s ballot petitions in order to remove him from the ballot in places where he might siphon critical votes from nominee John Kerry.
As third parties go, the Libertarian Party has done a solid job of getting its presidential candidate on the ballot nationwide in recent years. The Libertarian nominee has appeared on the ballot in 48 of the 50 states since 1988, and the party has qualified for ballot lines in 31 states this year-including Georgia, where Barr was elected to four terms from a suburban Atlanta House seat. The Barr campaign has met filing deadlines in every state so far and again expects to be on the ballot in at least 48 states.
The only states where the party anticipates trouble are Oklahoma and West Virginia, and Barr will likely sue for access in Oklahoma, according to Richard Winger, a ballot access expert who is advising the Barr campaign.
If McCain’s campaign, or anyone acting on his behalf, does challenge Barr’s ballot access, Barr’s campaign believes they would have a powerful argument that the Republican would be acting hypocritically and they are optimistic he will not do so for that reason.