Gary Johnson Gearing up for 2012?

The pro-drug legalization, pro-immigration, small government budget hawk and former governor of New Mexico looks to be preparing for a run.

Gary Johnson is preparing to launch his Our America PAC shortly, as soon as he gets all of his legal ducks in a row. He will be hitting the trail hard soon, traveling the country to speak in support of issues and candidates, re-immersing himself in the public policy debate.

This December, Governor Johnson will also be releasing a book entitled "Seven Principles Of Good Government," published by The Heartland Institute (a conservative-libertarian think tank).

It's hard to see Johnson getting the GOP nomination. But he'd certainly make the primaries interesting.

Reason interviewed Johnson in 2001.

Comments

[Jmes Ard]

I don't know. I think he has as good a chance as anybody at this point

[Balloon Maker]

I'm glad the Romney-bot 5000 will have someone to snicker at during debates.

[creech]

Let's hope the Tea Party groups bring him in as a speaker instead of the Palins and Huckabees of the right.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Why has he been laying so low? If Gary Johnson had been out working it these past two years, he'd have some serious legs.

[JW]

He doesn't have a hope in hell, but good luck to ya!

[Xeones]

Tim, he's been off climbing mountains and shit.

[James Ard]

JW, I think you underestimate the number of Republicans that are fed up with the war on drugs. Not to mention Johnson will be good with the ladies.

[EMp]

If Governer Johnson is pro open-borders, he does not have chance guys. Sorry, but a lot of republicans would like to vote for libertarian candidates but for 2 or 3 big issues.

[Pushkin]

Madge: We can't vote for them! They want to keep the guvment from doing stuff!

Burt: They want to legalize stuff!

Madge: It might lead to dancing!

[James Anderson Merritt]

I get so tired of hearing these "dealbreaker" objections from GOPpers. Where is the GOP candidate who satisfies all of your demands? Usually such people are eliminated in the primaries, if they exist at all. Then you're left having to hold your nose and compromise on quite a few "dealbreakers." I've seen this happen in election after election for decades. Why not get that nose-holding out of the way FIRST on one or two issues, and throw your full and active support behind someone who will fight for 80% of the loaf you want, instead of the 30-40% you usually get? It is my belief that people who write things like EMp did above would never vote for a Libertarian anyway, but find it fun to dangle a bogus carrot in front of the LP, just to see 'em start fighting about whether to "compromise principle" or not. Insincere trolls, in other words. For those who are not, you are even worse than the libertarians you taunt, chasing an ideal you will never catch.

[EMp]

Respectfully Mr Merritt, I disagree with your assumption. Like I stated on an earlier post - I like the big majority of what Dr Paul stands for - I just think that a foriegn excursion is something that is in the national interest from time to time. The Iraqi operation "shock and awe" I have a lot of misgivings about. I attribute the invasion from a massive public sense or need to hit someone/anyone for the bloodied nose we suffered on 9-11. Being a conservative-libertarian I just think that freedom is a great and noble undertaking and the natural desire or state of man, but rules/ guidelines have to be voluntarily adhered to by an educated, informed, and ethical population. Somalia has/ had just about unfettered freedom and no rules - and look where they are. To make a long rant short, and to ad-lib one of the founders, if we keep doling out and lowering the bar in education and expectations - we can have all the freedom we want, but what kind of country will we have if the people coming into it do not respect it and demand entitlements from it... we will have no answer for a people that do not have scruples, ethics, or a healthy respect for law. Sorry about the long windedness guys.

[Xeones]

I hadn't heard that he was pro-open borders (preemptively shut the fuck up, LoneWacko) but as governor one of his big issues was school choice.

[EMp]

Sorry to rile you up,Xeones, but during this economic downturn most of the American electorate wants the border closed and immigration levels reduced. Maybe not an educated guess here, but when politicians start using the term "pro-immigration", intuitively, and perhaps incorrectly, most people think that means 'amnesty'. 🙂

[R C Dean]

During an economic downturn, borders are self-closing. I thought I saw somewhere (TLTG) that the number of illegals in-country is down pretty dramatically.

[EMp]

Not too noticeable in the Houston area, but I have heard that on a couple of news outlets in the past few months.

[BakedPenguin]

There's a lot of room between Lonewacko's NoImmigratzTukUrJerbz!!1!!1! and open borders.

[Xeones]

Regardless, Penguin, LoneWacko needs to shut the fuck up always.

[BakedPenguin]

Xeones, I don't see how my comment could be construed that I don't believe Lonewacko should shut the fuck up. I apologize if I gave you, or anyone else, the impression that I don't think Lonewacko should shut the fuck up.

Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.

[kwais]

That reminds me of Al Gore on Saturday Night Live; "I apologize if I offended any white people". Surprisingly he was very funny.

"I apologize if I offended anyone who is not Lonewhacko". "I also apologize if anyone got the mistaken impression that Lonewhacko does not need to shut the fuck up"

[Warty]

MY MEME LOOMS LARGE

[troy]

Ohhhh baby!!!!!! Loom away!

[BakedPenguin]

If Gary Johnson had been out working it these past two years, he'd have some serious legs.

OTOH, he has no baggage from any of the infights and general Republican clusterfuck of the past couple years.

[BakedPenguin]

Unless you were being literal about him working out, as in Governator, part 2.0

[Puck]

Oh, I thought Tim was joking. I'd be all over a Johnson run, but please, please, can't we have at least another 2- 3 years before all that nonsense starts again???!!!

[EMp]

Not LoneWacko, BTW(Unless that is an endearing moniker for people who disagree with you). Just a new poster who talks with a lot of blue-collar, lower middle class people that are very angry about what is happening in their country, especially in the past 10-15 years.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

who talks with a lot of blue-collar, lower middle class people

That's very noble of you. I hope they show their gratitude.

[EMp]

I consider myself one of 'em. Corporatist republicans and Socialist democrats are the bane of most of middle america right now. JMO - 😉

[juris imprudent]

Please say you don't heart Huckabee.

[EMp]

I don't heart Huckabee, Juris. I DO agree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues, however. We had some local conservative radio jockeys who ranted and raved against Dr. Paul constantly - bordering on the totally irrational. I will say that Governer Johnson does intrigue me, though.

[BakedPenguin]

Nope. While I disagree with you, EMp, you did not start off by insulting everyone here, insinuate that the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with you is because we are all part of some mysterious and dark cabal, and then demand we go to a crappy website you have that has a bunch of idiotic articles with no independently verifiable facts.

It's obvious that you are not Lonewacko.

[EMp]

Why thank you, Penguin. and for your graciousness I will not insert any Batman jokes anytime soon!

[Colin]

Regardless of how quixotic his run may be, he's certainly my candidate at the moment.

[kwais]

Well mine too.
And no less quixotic than voting for a Rino would be. Actually much less quixotic than voting for:
McCain
Guliani
Huckabee
Romney

Or a Bush.

[Nash]

All I can ever ask for is a freedom candidate that I get to actually support.

I wonder if he runs if Ron Paul will step out of the way and hand him his mailing list.

[James Ard]

Welcome EMp, I think Johnson is against "mass" immigration. At least that was what a quick google search tells me. Lonewacko is anything but endearing. He's a major league zenophobe, and even when you may agree with something he says, you feel really dirty.

[EMp]

Thanks for the "heads up" and the welcome James. For the record - I consider myself (feel free to take shots now ) an oxymoron : a conservative libertarian. Meaning libertarian in the belief in freedom, conservative meaning freedom must be underpinned by an educated and ethical people.

[troy]

If I was gonna quibble, i wouldn't say oxymoron, I'd say a redundancy. Anyway, welcome.

[EMp]

Thank you,Troy.

[troy]

you feel really dirty

So it's kind of how you feel after Steve Smith has paid you a visit?

[kwais]

I think EMp is right, I think that "open borders" are a losing issue.

However "secure borders with free trade of goods and services" is not a losing issue.

[Slap the Enlightened!]

I think EMp is right, I think that "open borders" are a losing issue.

Oh, I don't know. Some people are benefiting quite nicely from open borders.

[zerlesen]

On the suddenly topical subject of metadata, the URL in the last link is currently "http://reason.com/admin/pages/137084/okay, i need to get some proofing done before our copy editor strangles me. have fun at your party tonight. tell pepe i feel his pain."

[Eric H]

Ha!

[James Ard]

Republicans only interest in immigration is how many Democrats can be driven out of the party with it.

[EMp]

Yep. Huge political football. Heck, more like rugby. Cheap labor for the corporatists and a ready made constituency for the socialists. I think we have to be careful in that if they become voters - enough politicians of either stripe could be elected and could drastically change the U.S. Constitution by ammendments and appointments to the judiciary. Speaking as a near 1A and 2A absolutist here.

[BakedPenguin]

And that's where we disagree. I know many immigrants, and a lot of them become entrepreneurs. They have their families help out the business, and are self-sufficient. They see the problems caused by government, and if the Libertarians had their shit together, could probably find a decent constituency there.

Many of the workers would be happy with seasonal work, and would not seek to remain in the US. With the currently restrictive rules, they can't go back, because of fear of being caught. Ironically, increasing the number of green cards could decrease the foreign born population.

Also a green card is not a voting card. While I think the foreigner = socialist idea isn't exactly correct, it's also irrelevant if they're only here to work.

[EMp]

I understand what you mean, BakedPenguin, I have worked with and supervised, uh,'undocumented' individuals for past employers - quite an enlightening experience. Most of the people are hard-working and just want to make better money. Employers paid them under the table and doled out no 'benes'. That,in turn, justified 'small raises' for regular employees. Just my experience.

[The Libertarian Guy]

While Democrats need illegals to bolster their voter base. Don't forget that.

[hurly buehrle]

I might be the pessimistic one here, but I'm going out on a limb to suggest that maybe Gary Johnson isn't the Hope and Change I've been waiting for.

[EMp]

I'm still pining for a Barry Goldwater 2.0 on the horizon...:-(

[troy]

I think if a candidate said:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue...

today, I'd fucking cum in my pants.

[EMp]

That immortal line from Sen. Goldwater would have him labeled a domestic terrorist by Holder, Napolitano, MSNBC (specifically Contessa Brewer,Rachel Maddow,Chris Matthews,et.al.), the majority of the DNC and a few of them good ole Rockefeller republicans.

[BakedPenguin]

He is one of the very few Republicans I could vote for. If he has the balls to speak out against the WoD on the campaign, I'll donate money.

[Warty]

EMp, I hope no "shut the fuck up, EMp" meme develops here.

Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.

[EMp]

I hope so too, Warty. But an echo chamber means no one is thinking, or a lot of people are too chickens**t say what they mean. You will not get that from me.

[Warty]

I hate the term "echo chamber". "Amen corner" is way better.

[EMp]

Amen to that, brother! 🙂

[Christopher W.]

Would he be going after the Ron Paul bloc?

I'm not saying a "conservative libertarian" could win. But someone with a little more charisma and the finances could make enough waves to start putting the ideas out there.

I always remember that Eugene Debs never came close to winning an election, but Socialist ideas became dominant.

[James Ard]

Don't worry, EMp, heart-felt disagreement is a valuable commodity in these parts. And don't let Cavanaugh put you off, he can be harsh on those that might upset his overly aggressive sensibilities (what would you expect from someone who turns to Hollywood for the world's answers).

[EMp]

I understand completely, James, thanks!

[The Libertarian Guy]

I would love for Johnson to make some headway, but he's got a BIG strike against him, being a foe of the War on (a few) Drugs, Inc.

The big-government "conservatives" over at FreeRepublic, for instance, were - and probably still are - convinced that Johnson was a tool of George Soros, whose ONLY saving grace is being against the WoD as well.

On the Freeper note, go there and enter Johnson's name in their search bar. The control-freak Repubs are already bitching about him.

[Gene Berkman]

A run by Gary Johnson would be symbolic, and could get a lot of publicity for libertarian ideas.

Gov. Johnson is better than Ron Paul on immigration and abortion, and he opposed the Iraq War. His record as Governor is about as good as you can get, and he did not support Bush in 2000.

Most likely Obama will be re-elected in 2012 anyway, whether the Republicans nominate Romney or Pawlenty. But we can hope for a split government, with Republicans taking the House and/or the Senate.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Maybe the LP could persuade him to run. God knows we need a good candidate for '12.

[James Ard]

Sorry, Gene, It will be anyone but Obama in 2012. And neither Romney nor Pawlenty have any chance at the nomination. Romney for being a robot and Pawlenty for being a global warming fool. I had been sure Mitch Daniels was the one, which would be pretty good, but now I'm in the Johnson camp until he's out.

[LiberTARDian]

B-b-but...why would a Libertarian blog back a Republican?

(Because libertarians are conservatives.)

[The Libertarian Guy]

Fiscal conservatives, you damn skippy betcha we are.

Social... pretty much not.

[oaktownadam]

What does "conservative" even mean anymore?

Was it "conservative" for Bush to back a gigantic unpaid entitlement (Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit)?

Was it "conservative" to start 2 wars in as many years?

Was it "conservative" to force big banks to accept Federal funding, just so one failing back wouldn't be singled out?

[oaktownadam]

erp, s/back/bank

[Botox Porcupine]

Would you shut the fuck up already, Tard? If you can't tell the difference between modern (neo) conservatives and libertarians you need to shoot yourself in the head.

It's the only ethical decision.

And I fucked your mom.

[Warty]

Shut the fuck up, tard.

[EMp]

I sense a 'TARD' and feathering coming on!Ha-haa! OUCH! (Oh, my Sides!)

[The Bearded Hobbit]

TrollTARD,

First, many libertarians run as Republicans in order to get their ideas out to a wider audience.

Second, define "conservative".

Third, now run along and play, the adults are trying to have a conversation.

.. Hobbit

[The Bearded Hobbit]

I would take time off from work to canvass for Johnson if he ran. He is the only politician that I would make that statement for.

As much as I'd like to see him run for the WH, he would be much more useful to NM if he was to take Udall's Senate seat away.

... Hobbit

[Warty]

Tard gets him hot, shows him what he's got. Mo mo mo.

[That Guy]

I don't know, I think he could have a serious impact. Think of how much money and press Paul got last year, and this considering how kooky he is. Someone with an actual ounce of charisma might make as serious splash.

[troy]

How about Johnson/Palin? Then I cold have brain candy and eye candy!

[Botox Porcupine]

I'm gonna have to back Ron Paul. Aside from the fact that he's Christian (and as such likes to quote scripture and other such bullshit) he's the ideal candidate.

Plus he's by far the most educated candidate to have ever run for office.

But if Johnson had a better shot at winning the primaries he'd have my vote, too.

[sdghdfhedtet]

Welcome to Shopping ======== http://www.dudemalls.com

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

With our advanced manufacturing, production lines and well-organized sales networks, we can provide many products, such as apparel, shoes, caps, handbags, etc.
Our goal is "the best quality, best reputation and best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.

HOT SELL Product Brand is below:
Nike Air Jordan(1-25)/Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk: $32
Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&F ??T-shirt:
Coach /Gucci/Lv/Ed Hardy/D&G/Fendi ??Handbag:$35
Christian Louboutin/Lv/Ed Hardy/Gucci/Coach/Lacoste/ Timbland??Shoe :$35
True Religion/Coogi/Evisu/Ed Hardy/Prada ??Jeans:$30
New era/Gucci/Ed hardy ??cap : $13
Okely/Coach/D&G/Fendi/Gucci/Armani ??sunglass : $15
Nike shoes: 32 $, True Religion jeans: 30 $, Ed Hardy, t-shirts: 12 $, NFL Jersey: 20 $, Boots UGG: 50 $

[LoboD]

Johnson's run as NM Gov was impressive, 750 vetoes, around 1000 less state employees than the day he took office, and a balanced budget. He didn't come out for drug decriminalization until after he was elected to his second term. A quick youtube search turns up a lot of speeches in favor of ending the drug war. That's great for us libertarians but its not going to play well since the news networks will only attach that issue him to. It fun to dream for now.

[TJ]

Good site up promoting him running.
http://johnsonforamerica.com/

[EMp]

From what I've read, I like most of what he stands for, thus far.

[John C. Randolph]

I've got a better idea. Let's reduce the power available to government enough that it doesn't matter who's in office. Our country will be better off with people like Johnson running private businesses.

-jcr

[John C. Randolph]

I've got a better idea. Let's reduce the power available to government enough that it doesn't matter who's in office. Our country will be better off with people like Johnson running private businesses.

-jcr

[Warty]

Plus he's by far the most educated candidate to have ever run for office.

Um, Wilson was the president of Princeton.

[newathis]

The issue with "immigration" is not xenophobia, nor economics, but the ILLEGAL aspect. If we want to say "everyone welcome", let's stop the pretense and drop all immigration guidelines, come what may. Otherwise, enforce the law, consistently.

Does a nation have the right to control its borders?

[EMp]

Yes, or it is not a nation.

[MikeP]

Of course a nation does not have the right to control its borders. Collectives don't have rights that are not held by their constituents, and neither you nor I have the right to prevent the free passage of peaceful individuals over rights of way.

On the other hand, a nation does have the power to control its borders. It simply can't legitimately use that power to prohibit the free passage of individuals without justifiable cause.

[EMp]

O.K. then Mike P.,(of course,just to stir up the nest),let's pretend you have land you own - and on said land you put up a fence and a 'no trespassing' sign. If I am a peaceful person and want to check things out, build a small dwelling, maybe fish plant an apple tree for food - what would be wrong with that? I, based on your premise, should be able to come and go as I please without anyones' permission, hmm?

[MikeP]

Did the land have a right of way through it? If so, I must allow passage of people along that right of way. If not, I don't need to. In neither case am I compelled to allow someone else to dwell on my property.

[EMp]

Alright, MikeP, In a larger context, if you are a business owner and you would like to curtail current labor laws, you can hire a group of people who are not documented and pay them cahs under the table and no benefits, when these employees are injured, sick, disabled, or a wife/ girlfriend is going to give birth - they are not covered by insurance but can get healthcare from emergency clinics due to the laws that govern our healthcare system. No sweat of your brow because in the short term, you(your business) do not incure the cost - but the taxpayer does in the form local facilities closing down and patients walking off without paying the tab. The cost will be then covered in higher fees, premiums, deductibles,etc. Also, who decides the 'right of way' of which you speak? And to take it to the next logical step, if laws are not obeyed by employers, elected representatives, and a growing number of our clergy, it seems - then what is the incentive for, dare I say, joe six-pack to follow the laws of our nation? Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist.

[MikeP]

I, for one, fail to see why one should observe unjust laws. If the state enforces laws that protect the jobs or the job expectations of a favored class at the expense of an unfavored class, then I think those laws can and should be ignored.

As for your claim that health care facilities are closing due to uncompensated care mandated by law, that has been argued here many a time. Yet in no case has anyone actually provided an example of such an occurrence. Would you have one?

As for who decides the right of way of which I speak, it is generally found in common law. One's property is not much use if one cannot get to it: hence, rights of way. And when a state blocks the passage along rights of way of those one invites to come to his property, that is a clear violation of his right to that property.

[EMp]

It is also a violation to hire/ contract individuals for specific labor purposes who are not in the United States legally. I understand the concept of unjust laws, i.e. some current drug laws - but it does become a slippery slope when we cherry pick which laws we can obey - relevent to the long-term effect on culture, mores, our educational system,welfare system, property values,etc. I am fairly certain if one digs deep enough the trouble that should have been the proverbial canary in the mine-shaft on our economy, the sub-prime mortgage crisis was largely due to relaxed loan standards and large number of those loans given out to 'undocumented persons'. JMO.

[Elwar]

Hey all, there has been a lot of support since word got out about Governor Johnson's possible run. Check out http://www.garyjohnson2012.com and sign up to pledge your support.

I see Gary Johnson as the governor version of Dr. No. He vetoed 750 bills while governor, more than all other governors combined.

[Katie]

I was watching a MSN video today where Gary mentioned his new 501c4 (www.ouramericainitiative.com). The other websites have some good information, but this appears to be his official page.

I also found a facebook page too for Our America:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/.....5297924363

[Brian Defferding]

If Gary Johnson runs, I will be happy to support and campaign for him. I don't care what party.

[Ted Pearson]

There are some very moving arguments for the legalization of Marijuana. I have to say that framing the discussion in solving the illegal drug problem (for the most part) cannot be contained in legalizing Marijuana alone. I would expect there would be no noticeable reduction in the amount of crime as the traffickers will only move to the next illegal drug. The next rational step would be to legalize one drug after another always with the same argument and promise of fixing the illegal drug problem. Maybe the next legal drug will be peyote or mushrooms. I would most likely think that cocaine would be next but we better make sure it applies to crack at the same time or there might be trouble. On we go to the club drugs and prescription drugs. I understand the line in the sand has been drawn and a lot of people believe Marijuana is on the wrong side of that line but once that line starts moving, it will be very hard to stop.

Clearly the only way to effectively reduce the illicit drug activities would be to legalize nearly every recreational and addictive drug. It is also my opinion that to assert this overall solution will be realized with no less than broad legalization is either short-sighted or manipulative. Until we are prepared to present the argument as such, let us not make yet another empty promise to the American people.

Ted Pearson
http://teapartypatriots.org/Members/TedPearson

[Ted Pearson]

You make some very moving arguments for the legalization of Marijuana. I have to say that framing the discussion in solving the illegal drug problem (for the most part) cannot be contained in legalizing Marijuana alone. I would expect there would be no noticeable reduction in the amount of crime as the traffickers will only move to the next illegal drug. The next rational step would be to legalize one drug after another always with the same argument and promise of fixing the illegal drug problem. Maybe the next legal drug will be peyote or mushrooms. I would most likely think that cocaine would be next but we better make sure it applies to crack at the same time or there might be trouble. On we go to the club drugs and prescription drugs. I understand the line in the sand has been drawn and a lot of people believe Marijuana is on the wrong side of that line but once that line starts moving, it will be very hard to stop.

Clearly the only way to effectively reduce the illicit drug activities would be to legalize nearly every recreational and addictive drug. It is also my opinion that to assert this overall solution will be realized with no less than broad legalization is either short-sighted or manipulative. Until we are prepared to present the argument as such, let us not make yet another empty promise to the American people.

Best regards,

Ted Pearson