Gary Johnson "I will continue the Ron Paul Revolution" if RP doesn't get the GOP nomination

[Oddone]

No One But Paul

 

[kathy88]

No One But Paul

This.

 

[cheapseats]

Why do people here dislike Gary Johnson so much? I probably wouldn't vote for him because of his stance on the abortion issue, but other than that, I don't really have any problem with him at all.

Millions of people are saying the same of Ron Paul.

Yeah yeah, they're saying the same about the other Personhood Pledge signees. The point is that hysteria over Abortion (now even Contraception) and tugging the field Hardright was CRAZY LIKE A FOX with Few and ROPE A DOPE with Many, for alienating the broad center . . . where reside so many millions of Voters who are disillusioned (or disgusted) with Obama, but SO not prepared to hand the reins and the reign back to the quote-unquote Moral Majority.

Attention Spans aren't THAT short.

DIVIDE & CONQUER, a tale as old as Time.

 

[cheapseats]

No One But Paul

I ask you as any other NOBP.

For the sake of argument, let's say you don't get your way . . . only because Life very often works out that way, by NOT working out the way you want or believe you need.

If the next president is NOT Ron Paul, it will be SOMEONE.

Gary Johnson bodes better for me than does Obama, Romney, Santorum or Gingrich.

I understand the school of thought that WORSER OF EVILS will "crash this corrupt system" quicker. I have also met several Early Adopters of the FIGURATIVE ARMAGEDDON THEORY who have been living largely off-grid in anticipation of the Big Metaphorical Bang since the SEVENTIES.

"Fully off-grid and self-sufficient" with an OUTHOUSE? I mean, if we HAVE to, this is the quintessential case of HAVING TO DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO, but...

The people who have spent DECADES evading The Man while waiting for him to implode? They can track a political conversation, boy. Diss the Fed, they AGREE. Fuckin' Robber Barons. Diss the Parties, they AGREE. Fuckin' Game. Diss the Media, they AGREE. Jim Morrison called it, man, they ALL called it.

Sooo...WHAT, they "just" got the TIMING wrong?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

He did a nice job as governor of New Mexico and shrunk the state government so he's got my vote in November.

No, he did not. It is important to realize this. qh4dotcom's statement above is not true. It is false.

• New Mexico's state government's spending went way up while Johnson was governor, from 4.4 billion annually to 7.7 billion annually. (see here)
  
  
• New Mexico's state government's taxes went way up while Johnson was governor. Total direct revenue increased from 5.3 billion to 6.6 billion (see here) . Or, according to a different measurement from a different site, tax revenue increased from 2.7 billion to 3.5 billion. (see here)
  
  
• New Mexico's state government's debt went way up while Johnson was governor. In fact, it tripled: from 1.82 billion to 4.6 billion. (see here)

More spending. More taxes. More debt.

So, there's his record. But, but, but, you say! But, he really shares our vision of liberty at heart, he just did a lousy job actually implementing it as governor. Well, here's his farewell State of the State Address, in which he explains to New Mexico the things which were important to him, the accomplishments of which he is most proud. Virtually all of which are various programs he has increased. Various spending he has increased. Various pork barrels, in other words, that he's rolled out for leviathan and its grateful parasites.

Here it is: http://www.stateline.org/live/details/speech?contentId=16108

So not only does he not walk the walk (which is what's important to me), he does not even talk the talk (in case that's what's important to any of you).

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Another note: But, but, but, you say! But, this was the legislature's fault! Mr. Johnson was vetoing, vetoing, vetoing, as much as he could, but they were overriding him. It would have been tons worse if not for him.

Truth will contradict this theory. Mr. Johnson did veto many bills, but clearly not nearly enough. He did not veto appropriations bills. Those would have been the important ones to veto! He did not veto all the outrageous growth in the state government that was occurring during his tenure. In fact, as you can see from his address above, he took pride in much of this growth. He could have vetoed the cancerous growth. The debt. The taxes. The waste. He could have stopped it. But, either he had no desire to do so (this is what I think is the truth), or, the most charitable possibility is that he had the desire, but lacked the courage to do it.

What's more, New Mexico has the line item veto. Not only could he have vetoed budget bills outright, he could have crossed out billions of dollars of spending, line by line. Did he? No. His line item vetoing was weak, weak, weak. Paltry. Inconsequential. 27 million out of multi-billion dollar budgets.

Weak.

Fake.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

helmuth, you are fantastic.

i didn't live in this state when GJ was governor (thank goodness) but i like to make the point that GJ's governorship was a springboard for Richardson's swandive.

No, he did not. It is important to realize this. qh4dotcom's statement above is not true. It is false.

• New Mexico's state government's spending went way up while Johnson was governor, from 4.4 billion annually to 7.7 billion annually. (see here)
  
  
• New Mexico's state government's taxes went way up while Johnson was governor. Total direct revenue increased from 5.3 billion to 6.6 billion (see here) . Or, according to a different measurement from a different site, tax revenue increased from 2.7 billion to 3.5 billion. (see here)
  
  
• New Mexico's state government's debt went way up while Johnson was governor. In fact, it tripled: from 1.82 billion to 4.6 billion. (see here)

More spending. More taxes. More debt.

So, there's his record. But, but, but, you say! But, he really shares our vision of liberty at heart, he just did a lousy job actually implementing it as governor. Well, here's his farewell State of the State Address, in which he explains to New Mexico the things which were important to him, the accomplishments of which he is most proud. Virtually all of which are various programs he has increased. Various spending he has increased. Various pork barrels, in other words, that he's rolled out for leviathan and its grateful parasites.

Here it is: http://www.stateline.org/live/details/speech?contentId=16108

So not only does he not walk the walk (which is what's important to me), he does not even talk the talk (in case that's what's important to any of you).

 

[rpwi]

Hypothetical question - say Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, and its Obama vs rep nom vs libertarian party. Can Gary back off the top of the ticket and let it be a Paul/Johnson ticket?

Would he even consider it?

A most excellent question. Say Paul wants to run after a the republican convention (and he isn't nominated)...his options as an independent are very limited. Number of states are already past their deadlines to get onto ballots as independents. If Paul were to run to run as a libertarian he would have excellent ballot access...problem is the libertarian nominee might have too big of an ego to let Paul take his place. The libertarian convention is on 5-3...I really hope the LP party realizes the situation as it is and allows for Ron to take the nomination if he accepts...and if not it would go to somebody else. That or the LP convention has to be delayed...very important as they are probably Ron's best hope of running for President outside of the Republican party.

 

[Schiff_FTW]

So not only does he not walk the walk (which is what's important to me), he does not even talk the talk (in case that's what's important to any of you).

Thanks for the information. I think a lot of libertarians are so desperate for a 'respectable' candidate that they haven't bothered to look into what GJ actually says and does. He hasn't made a secret of his statist leanings. Just go back to his speech at the Rally for the Republic where he BRAGS about NOT CUTTING any government jobs under his tenure. This is the guy we're supposed to get excited about?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

A most excellent question. Say Paul wants to run after a the republican convention (and he isn't nominated)...his options as an independent are very limited. Number of states are already past their deadlines to get onto ballots as independents. If Paul were to run to run as a libertarian he would have excellent ballot access...problem is the libertarian nominee might have too big of an ego to let Paul take his place. The libertarian convention is on 5-3...I really hope the LP party realizes the situation as it is and allows for Ron to take the nomination if he accepts...and if not it would go to somebody else. That or the LP convention has to be delayed...very important as they are probably Ron's best hope of running for President outside of the Republican party.

Yeah, this potential situation was why I had really hoped that Ernest Hancock, a true Ron Paul rEVOLutionary, would have gotten the nod as party chairman in St. Louis. Alas, it was not to be.

Hopefully, the LP will have enough decent and intelligent people there at its convention in Las Vegas to at least do what you recommend, rpwi: nominate whoever, but provisionally, with the provision that if in the coming months Ron Paul wants the nomination, he gets it, whenever he asks.

Even better, in my opinion, would be to just nominate Ron Paul. Period. Ron doesn't want it and didn't ask for it. Fine. But it's legal to nominate him anyway. The Constitution Party of Montana nominated Ron last time without his permission. Get him on the ballot. Make the threat real: "One way or another, Ron Paul will be in the general election. Nominate him or die, GOP."

 

[Oddone]

Bridges, he burned a few. I was standing on one when he lit it on fire. Good luck and all that...

 

[bluesc]

The Constitution Party of Montana nominated Ron last time without his permission. Get him on the ballot. Make the threat real: "One way or another, Ron Paul will be in the general election. Nominate him or die, GOP."

This is beautiful. I'm not going to encourage it because it may be politically unwise, but having his name on the ballot would be a huge razor sharp pendulum swinging a millimeter above the GOP's balls.

Put him on the ballot in Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Iowa and NH = no GOP President unless it's Paul. Then only withdraw his name if the conditions Paul sets are met -- the least of which should be fair treatment.

 

[cheapseats]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

In an interview in Reason magazine in January 2001, Johnson's accomplishments in office were described as follows: "no tax increases in six years, a major road building program, shifting Medicaid to managed care, constructing two new private prisons, canning 1,200 state employees, and vetoing a record number of bills."[26]

Andrew Sullivan quoted a claim that Johnson "is highly regarded in the state for his outstanding leadership during two terms as governor. He slashed the size of state government during his term and left the state with a large budget surplus."[40]

According to one New Mexico paper, "Johnson left the state fiscally solid," and was "arguably the most popular governor of the decade . . . leaving the state with a $1 billion budget surplus."[41] The Washington Times has reported that when Johnson left office, "the size of state government had been substantially reduced and New Mexico was enjoying a large budget surplus."[28]

According to a profile of Johnson in the National Review, "During his tenure, he vetoed more bills than the other 49 governors combined — 750 in total, one third of which had been introduced by Republican legislators. Johnson also used his line-item-veto power thousands of times. He credits his heavy veto pen for eliminating New Mexico's budget deficit and cutting the growth rate of New Mexico's government in half."[42] Johnson has "said his numerous vetoes, only two of which were overridden, stemmed from his philosophy of looking at all things for their cost-benefit ratio and his axe fell on Republicans as well as Democrats."[23]

Are we suggesting that the #Wikipedia segment subtitled THE LEGACY is total baloney, tho it is not cluttered with warnings of [CITATION NEEDED]?

 

[cheapseats]

DOES Gary Johnson misrepresent himself?

Is he FULL OF SHIT or BETTER THAN MOST?

Ron Paul is UNUSUAL for commanding undying, unwavering loyalty from some. NO ONE else can or will measure up, NO ONE deserves from them what they gave to Ron Paul. Period, end of story.

In discussion of ALTERNATIVES (if Ron Paul does NOT secure the GOP nomination and does NOT wanna plug away on a Third Party long-shot), are Detractors suggesting that Gary Johnson is NO BETTER than Romney, Santorum, Gingrich & Obama?

 

[TheTexan]

Helmuth you deserve about 5 +reps from that truth bomb but I can only give you one. Thanks sir

 

[cheapseats]

My question stands:

Is anyone suggesting Gary Johnson is NO BETTER than any of the existent alternatives, IF Ron Paul does not get the GOP nod and declines to run Third Party?

 

[cheapseats]

I say that EMPIRICALLY, Gary Johnson would be SUBSTANTIALLY better than Obama, Romney, Santorum or Gingrich...IF Ron Paul does not secure the Republican nomination AND if he declines to run Third Party.

Not just SOMEWHAT better, but SUBSTANTIALLY better.

I GET that that is an upsetting-unto-heretical notion to his Loyal-EST Troops. We aren't crossing that bridge yet, either.

 

[bluesc]

DOES Gary Johnson misrepresent himself?

Is he FULL OF SHIT or BETTER THAN MOST?

Ron Paul is UNUSUAL for commanding undying, unwavering loyalty from some. NO ONE else can or will measure up, NO ONE deserves from them what they gave to Ron Paul. Period, end of story.

In discussion of ALTERNATIVES (if Ron Paul does NOT secure the GOP nomination and does NOT wanna plug away on a Third Party long-shot), are Detractors suggesting that Gary Johnson is NO BETTER than Romney, Santorum, Gingrich & Obama?

Gary Johnson, is that you???

 

[cheapseats]

Gary Johnson, is that you???

Been called a lotta things these past six years, but never Gary Johnson.

Lemme bring the question in from the general ANYONE to the specific you.

Are YOU suggesting Gary Johnson would be NO BETTER than any of the existent alternatives, IF Ron Paul does not get the GOP nod and if he declines to run Third Party?

 

[bluesc]

Are YOU suggesting Gary Johnson would be NO BETTER than any of the existent alternatives, IF Ron Paul does not get the GOP nod and if he declines to run Third Party?

No, but I AM suggesting that he doesn't meet my standards. I AM suggesting he isn't any better than the others in the areas that matter to me - the monetary policy and Israel.