A serious conversation on Gary Johnson

[JonathanBydlak]

I believe that he and Ron Paul will run and by around October or November if either one has a huge lead, the other will drop out and endorse the other.

As much as we all want Ron Paul to win, politics is crazy and you never know what the voters will find as the major issue of the day. Maybe legalizing marijuana will become the new craze for the 2012 elections and Johnson will dominate. Or the Federal Reserve will be huge and Ron Paul will surge. Either way, the more candidates the better. Until the primary (even the Iowa Caucus is ok to have multiple liberty candidates the way things work).

I think it's time that we influence the debate and run more than 1 candidate at a time.

I look at this as analogous to central planning. Just like our government can't sit in a room and centrally plan how best to spend our money, it's not really possible for anyone to centrally plan elections and know which candidates will best appeal to electorate.

Heck, every election there are 5-7 neocons running, so why can't we have multiple liberty Republicans spreading our message?

 

[angelatc]

His downsides seem to be that he risks being marginalized by the media and mainstream Republicans who don't like that he's more libertarian than social conservative.

Thoughts?

His open borders philosophy will never win him any GOP primaries.

(In before ideologues.)

 

[MRoCkEd]

His open borders philosophy will never win him any GOP primaries.

(In before ideologues.)

Same with pro-choice views

 

[JonathanBydlak]

His open borders philosophy will never win him any GOP primaries.

(In before ideologues.)

Meh. You could have said the same thing about RP in 2008: "His 'isolationist' foreign policy will never win him any GOP primaries." Maybe that's true, but I don't think that means he deserved any less support from us because of it.

McCain won the GOP nomination in 2008 while being (at the time, anyway) completely open borders. So while I agree that such a position can be a hurdle, recent history suggests it's not as insurmountable as one might think.

Gary's position is also, I think, actually more nuanced than your statement gives him credit for. Specifically, he talks about how violence along the border is a consequence of our poor drug laws. Yes, this line-of-reasoning requires voters to be open-minded about the issue, but it's not as if he's saying "I don't care about this issue at all." He just has an alternate explanation and solution.

 

[JonathanBydlak]

Same with pro-choice views

I've got to say that I find these statements kind of frustrating. As someone who cares about electing people who share a liberty political orientation, I think it's rather ironic that there are people willing to dismiss candidates on the presumed grounds that they are "not electable."

I don't mean to dispute the legitimacy of the concerns, of course, but I just don't understand why this way of thinking is suddenly acceptable when it was so resoundingly rejected (correctly, in my view) with respect to RP in 2008.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

He is OK with banning smoking in restaurants.

I wouldn't put any effort for someone who doesn't even understand the basics.

Lol! Yeah, that's a big issue.

I highly doubt he wants to pass a federal ban on smoking. He raised a question in that WSJ interview, but I don't think it was endorsing a particular policy view.

Never at the Federal level.

jesus christ, who cares if he wants to ban smoking in a restaraunt.

He has a credible record of voting for liberty, he has a non-interventionist foreign policy, he wants to end the drug war, end the fed, hell he wont even run away from the libertarian label.......

are we really going to say no to someone who holds 90% of our views but disagrees with us on one issue?

Or agrees with "us" on that issue?

To start with Gary will not be running for the U.S. Senate in New Mexico. There is 0% chance of that happening, as he has no interest whatsoever in serving in that capacity.

Interesting. Why no interest in Senate? We need every good Senator we can get, may even be more important than the President.

Why can't he run to get in the debates and then drop out and endorse Ron before the primaries?

The more Liberty candidates in the debates, the better!

His open borders philosophy will never win him any GOP primaries.

That could be a problem. Unlike a lot of emotional issues that are red herrings, this is both an emotional issue, but also one that effects everyday Americans. The economy is terrible, true unemployment is high. The government social spending is out of control. That is a real issue, and it is effected by immigration.

As for the divorce issue, give me a break. How many politicians have had multiple divorces? It's not an issue for any of them. But as soon as we find a politician that might be "on our side", we rip them apart for minor things. It's counter-productive.

 

[Ron Nielson]

Response to comments

What you say about GJ's divorce and what was written in the ABQjournel seem to contradict each other. If you can shed more light on this and solidly refute what was printed it would take a big negative off GJ for me.

I hope this might shed some light on your concerns--- The article that you have referenced is the only statement that Gary made to the press regarding this issue, of which I am aware. As noted in the article it was a very emotional time for all parties. Dee's comment in the article "Gary's actions are responsible for the split. My heart is broken with what Gary's done to me.... " This statement is correct as Gary did initiate the divorce and Dee was very upset about that fact. Gary did not initiate his divorce with Dee as the result of a relationship with the woman mentioned.

 

[Ron Nielson]

The issues--for Gary Johnson.

Noting a couple of questions regarding issues.

Federal Reserve---His views can be seen on his web site at http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/federal-reserve.html

Immigration---The issue of immigration is far too complex to simply classify an answer as either a "open" border or a "closed" border solution. This over simplification is creating more of a problem in finding a true answer. I would not classify Gary Johnson as a "open" border guy....unless you are referring to keeping the border open to legal immigration. He recognizes the problems that illegal immigration is causing in this country and as a border Governor ----has dealt with these concerns first hand.

We need to find solutions that have a high return on investment. Just building a wall and enforcing its presence with troops not only will cost a fortune but it does not deal with the full picture----it ignores the market place and the economic reasons of why people come to the U. S. To start that discussion we need to be able to document those that are coming into the country.....and not allow illegals to be employed. Security measures do not deal with the market place problem......we need a more comprehensive plan.

More information can be found on his web site.......but here is a rough out of his plan.



We need a comprehensive plan that provides a solution that we can afford—something that really works!

United States authorities do need to know who is crossing our borders and be able to prevent criminals from entering the country. However, security measures along the boarders are just not enough —they do not completely solve the immigration problem. We need a comprehensive immigration plan. It is time to implement an immigration policy that allows for better documentation and more easily obtainable permits for temporary guest workers to fill jobs that Americans refuse to take.

Immigration into the United States by ambitious, willing workers and their families is a good thing. Not only is it a historical and energizing part of American culture and experience, it is vital to our economy. These positive benefits should not be sacrificed or reduced in any solution to stop illegal immigration. However, a clear distinction must be made between illegal and legal immigration.

In reality, true and cost-effective border security will only be achieved through a common sense combination of technology, a market-based guest worker program, and a safe, but efficient system for the legal flow of immigrants to and from the United States.

Governor Johnson’s immigration proposal focuses on the following six key points:

1. Establish real and cost-effective border security.
• Continue to encourage and allow legal immigration.
• Support current border deterrents and security measures.

2. Create a temporary guest worker program that makes sense.
• Expand and streamline a market based temporary guest worker program.
• Enact an application and tracking procedure for guest workers, such as an e-verify system. Procedures must be quick, simple and efficient in providing documentation information, and must meet the needs of both employers and willing workers.
• Require guest workers to not only pay income taxes, but also provide proof of adequate health care coverage through insurance, secured savings programs, bonds, or a combination thereof.
• Allow spouses and dependents to enter the U.S. with guest workers, but only with proof of adequate health coverage and subject to the same background checks and health requirements.

3. Impose meaningful enforcement of immigration laws.
• Establish procedures and devote adequate resources that are sufficient to actually identify illegal immigrants and deport them. Implement a “one strike, you’re out” policy toward illegal immigrants with regard to future eligibility for guest worker programs.
• Impose and enforce sanctions and fines for noncompliance with immigration laws by employers that are sufficiently costly, ensuring that the risks simply are not worth the rewards.

4. Enact a reality-based process for current illegal workers to earn legal status.
• Allow a two-year grace period during which illegal immigrants already in the U.S. can come forward, pay any taxes owed, provide proof of consistent employment, pass a criminal background check, and apply for guest worker status.

5. Reduce border crime.
• Address the root cause of most border crime by legalizing marijuana, thereby removing 70% of the current cross-border illegal drug trade and replacing cartel and prohibition-related violence with legal, regulated and nonviolent commerce.

6. Achieve a better working relationship with Mexico.
• Stimulate cross-border investment through a robust, above-board and legal guest worker program.
• Strengthen the Mexican government by dramatically weakening the cartels through the legalization of marijuana.
• Aggressively negotiate mutually beneficial agreements with Mexico regarding such issues as funds transfers, taxation of income earned in the U.S. by guest workers, and deportation and incarceration of Mexican nationals arrested in the United States.

 

[Elwar]

Noting a couple of questions regarding issues.

Don't worry about trying to convince people issue by issue. Some people believe so much in a single issue that they try to discredit anyone that doesn't agree with them on that one issue even if they might agree with them on 99% of everything else.

Things like the abortion issue that hasn't had any meaningful legislation in decades, yet candidates are chosen on that single issue as though it somehow matters.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron, thanks for providing information. We will not agree on all issues. I would vote for Gary despite disagreeing on one or two issues.

That being said, immigration is the big issue where I will have to disagree. My comments and opinion on elements of disagreement with Gary's position page follow. Not everyone here will agree, of course:

We need a comprehensive plan that provides a solution ...

A "Comprehensive" plan will address the "lures" for immigration. Free health care, welfare, Social Security, and whatever other programs that transfer taxpayer money to new immigrants must be addressed (and eliminated). Anything less is not "comprehensive".

It is time to implement an immigration policy that allows for better documentation and more easily obtainable permits for temporary guest workers to fill jobs that Americans refuse to take.

Jobs Americans refuse to take? Repeating US Chamber of Commerce propaganda? The term "temporary" is often used here, when in reality, there is nothing temporary about it. We all know that there are not jobs Americans won't take, there are jobs that don't pay enough or that Americans can't get.

Immigration into the United States by ambitious, willing workers and their families is a good thing.
• Continue to encourage and allow legal immigration.

Encourage? Right now, in bad economic times, when unemployment and under-employment are high? In times of growth, there is a case for legal immigration. In recession or depression, it doesn't make sense. Increasing the supply of labor when there is already an excess makes matters worse.

4. Enact a reality-based process for current illegal workers to earn legal status.
• Allow a two-year grace period during which illegal immigrants already in the U.S. can come forward, pay any taxes owed, provide proof of consistent employment, pass a criminal background check, and apply for guest worker status.

Aye Carumba! Amnesty?!


This will be a controversial area, there is no doubt.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

McCain won the GOP nomination in 2008 while being (at the time, anyway) completely open borders. So while I agree that such a position can be a hurdle, recent history suggests it's not as insurmountable as one might think.

Well, this is the Ron Paul Forum. You won't find anyone here that voted for McShame in the GOP Primary. And even in the General Election, more people here probably voted for Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin than McAmnesty.

 

[angelatc]

Meh. You could have said the same thing about RP in 2008: "His 'isolationist' foreign policy will never win him any GOP primaries." Maybe that's true, but I don't think that means he deserved any less support from us because of it.
.

You didn't ask if we should support him. You wanted to have a serious conversation about the obstacles he'll face.

Apparently you didn't learn anything during the last election cycle. Let me know when you're ready to face reality

 

[klamath]

I hope this might shed some light on your concerns--- The article that you have referenced is the only statement that Gary made to the press regarding this issue, of which I am aware. As noted in the article it was a very emotional time for all parties. Dee's comment in the article "Gary's actions are responsible for the split. My heart is broken with what Gary's done to me.... " This statement is correct as Gary did initiate the divorce and Dee was very upset about that fact. Gary did not initiate his divorce with Dee as the result of a relationship with the woman mentioned.

But what you said;

The separation did not involve another women as there was no other women in Gary's life.

does not match what was said in the article.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Both of them running at the same time would be a frickin' disaster. Talk about a very avoidable mistake. More multi-candidate money bombs duds and in-fighting and blaming each other when a poll shows Ron Paul at 8% and Johnson at 3%.

We're not the "neocons." The pro-war position probably makes up 85% of the vote in a closed Republican primary. They can afford to run a bunch of candidates. The Ron Paul faction isn't big enough to have one candidate siphoning votes and money from another. "A house divided cannot stand;" we need to be a united front I think.

One of Paul/Johnson should run, the other should endonse him ASAP and maybe even make it clear that they're essentially running mates and will be if one wins the nomination.

Ron Paul 2012 for me.

Same with pro-choice views

Johnson's pro-choice of abortion views will sink him in a GOP primary. But I guess no more than Ron Paul's foreign policy does.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Both of them running at the same time would be a frickin' disaster. Talk about a very avoidable mistake. More multi-candidate money bombs duds and in-fighting and blaming each other when a poll shows Ron Paul at 8% and Johnson at 3%.

It would be good to have them both in the debates. You can donate to one, both or neither of them. Or wait until after the first Primary State to donate.