Who Is Gary Johnson?
What the libertarian Republican brings to the 2012 race
Someone was missing from last week's Republican presidential debate, and that's too bad. He's an announced candidate who was a two-term governor of New Mexico, and he makes a case for strongly limited government.
Who is he? Gary Johnson. He was left off the platform because the sponsors say he didn't meet their criteria: an average 2 percent showing in at least three opinion polls.
But I grilled him because I think people might want to hear from him.
When he was governor, he vetoed 750 bills and shed a thousand state jobs. That made Republican and Democratic politicians mad, but in a state with a two-to-one Democratic advantage, this Republican was re-elected.
"I got re-elected … by saying no to the government," he told me. "I was a penny- pincher."
His political philosophy comes down to this:
"The government has a role to protect me against individuals that would do me harm—whether that be property damage or physical harm. The federal government has an obligation to protect us against foreign governments that would raise arms again us. But beyond that, government does way too much."
(Article continues below the video "Gary Johnson's Vision for a Truly Free America.")
What about education?
"The number one thing that the federal government could do to improve education in this country would be to eliminate the Department of Education (and) give education back to the states—50 laboratories of innovation … ."
Johnson is not a social conservative, which leads some political observers to say he has no shot at the GOP nomination—ever. He doesn't buy it.
"I respect the views of social conservatives," he said. Yet "I think that 60 percent of Americans describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I would argue that perhaps it's not socially liberal—that it's really classically liberal, which is the notion that less government is better government, the notion that (the) best thing that the government can do for me is to let me be the individual that I might be."
He takes a position on the drug war that differs from most Republicans, though it's not fully libertarian.
"I would legalize marijuana. … When it comes to all of the other drugs, we should look at the drug problem first as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue."
Johnson believes the country is "just two years away from being at a tipping point" on marijuana.
"I have smoked marijuana. I have drunk alcohol, although I don't do either today," he said. "The big difference between marijuana and alcohol is that marijuana is a lot safer."
And what about foreign policy?
"I was opposed to Iraq from the get-go," he said. "I did not see a military threat from Iraq. … I think that military intervention in Libya is unwarranted. Where was the military threat from Libya? Where was the congressional authorization to go into Libya? Where in the Constitution does this say that because we don't like a foreign leader we should go in and topple that foreign leader? (We) need to look at the unintended consequences of these actions we take. … We do all of these good things in the name of liberty, and the consequence oftentimes is much different."
On trade and economics, Johnson is a true libertarian. He opposes tariffs and other government interventions.
"I believe in free markets," he said. "There is a magic to free markets. Department of Commerce might be a good one to eliminate. … What we do in this country is pass laws that advantage corporations, individuals, groups that are well-connected politically—as opposed to creating an environment where we all have a level playing field … access to the American dream."
Nor is he a fan of stimulus spending and bailouts.
"Banks that made horrible decisions were bailed out at all of our expense. They should have been allowed to fail."
I'm glad Johnson is in the race, along with Ron Paul. I don't hear a consistent limited-government message from Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, or Newt Gingrich. We sure didn't get one from George W. Bush or John McCain. I'm eager to hear more from Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain. I plan to talk with them soon.
John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What I'd absolutely love and prefer is a Jeffersonian republican -- Ron Paul and Johnson are flawed, sure, but they're by-fucking-far the best candidates in the entire race. God, please, let one of them win the nomination and the presidency. *Kneels in prayer*.
GOD DOES NOT HEAR THE PRAYERS OF LIBERTARIANS, RES! REPENT, LEST YE BE NOT SAVED AND DAMNED TO LIVE IN SOMALIA FOREVER!
ROOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAADZZZ!!
ROOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAADDZZZ!!!
I can already see the dead children and old cripples lining the streets of Utah.
AND WHO THE FUCK WILL BUILD AND MAINTAIN ROADS IF THE FEDERALES DO NOT? FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
I have to know Almanian. Do you start screaming ROOOOOOOAAADDDDDZZZZZZ!! around the wife and kids at night?
I have this mental image of you in your boxer shorts with a beer yelling at your family about federal investment in infrastructure and where it all went wrong.
If this is all true, I salute you.
Holy crap...you just described me at night.
funny anecdote: When the news, a far left show, anything remotely relating to politics/AGW/Public skules comes on the TV she makes a mad dash to switch it to Food Network/ScyFy/Sci/Dsc or Bravo. She hates it when I say "Don't get me started" as that means I have usually been railing for an hour already.
Remember that poll where Libertarians were less likely to be "disgusted" over everything?
Don't get me started
Whitey wuz pinch'd.
The Winter Hill Gang is truly a thing of the past. Won't be long until Somerville is no longer run by the Irish Mob and we're taking orderz from the fookin' Portugues?...
She hates it when I say "Don't get me started" as that means I have usually been railing for an hour already.
Ha same here.
My wife has told me I'm not allowed to talk to her about COPS doing traffic control for churches on Sundays anymore. She says she doesn't care. I say they should have to wait in their stupid churchy parking lots and not get special treament because they paid public servants to do their dirty work.
I think I converted my girlfriend at dinner last night.
She's been wanting a new car recently, but everything she wants is out of her price range. So I just explained to her that with the money she pays in taxes she could buy a new car every month for the rest of her life (trading in the previous one).
She said "But then I wouldn't have any roads to drive on."
So I told her how all the roads, cops and firemen make up less than 15% of government spending, meaning she could keep those if she was willing to wait 6 weeks for every new car instead of a month.
Then I showed her how she could buy 2 vacation houses instead if she didn't want the cars.
10 minutes later she was spitting out ideas about how they could get rid of social security.
It's good that you got her to swallow your thoughts but points are taken away for her spitting things out later.
keep it up.
Personally, I don't yell. I usually drink water instead of beer, though I enjoy thoroughly beer when I do. I have a group of friends who also 'enjoy' my 'wisdom.'
The subjects listed are on target, but add me expounding about the "war on fat" being completely backwards.
Oh yeah, my wife dives for the remote, but ScyFy/Sci/Dsc aren't on the list for her. Lately it's anything with chef's contests... And the kids seem to love anything that involves stupid teenagers with high-pitched screams and laugh tracks.
I enjoy Dos Equis.
Let Paleo's circumstances be proof positive to all the Atheists out there that there IS a HELL. Now for the tautology - if HELL exists the GOD exists. Sorry to use you that way Paleo, but you provided the all the proof.
My 11 year-old son is a big fan of Obama simply because the teachers at school told him he should be. My 16 year-old daughter is really forming a brain and learning to think for herself. Both of them look a bit perplexed when I start yelling at the newscasters. At least my daughter is getting to the point where she'll ask why and we can talk about it so there's hope for her yet.
Jefferson kept slaves!
SQUAWK!
Jefferson was better to his slaves than Congressmen are to their constituents. Fuck modern politicians -- Obama, McCain, and their whole fucking legions of devotees and disciples aren't worth the dirt beneath Jefferson's nails.
They'll probably parrot that shit, though, if somebody brings up Jefferson.
"Jefferson was better to his slaves than Congressmen are to their constituents"
Yeah, they both liked fucking them a lot.
"Obama, McCain, and their whole fucking legions of devotees and disciples aren't worth the dirt beneath Jefferson's nails"
What a bizarre worshiper of the past you must be to prefer a man who actually kept human chattel while singing hymns to human liberty to McCain and Obama, whatever their faults.
Hasn't this argument been deconstructed on dozens of occasions in the last month (or so)? Yeah, pretty sure it has been.
I'm not sure how you "deconstruct" the fact that the man owned human beings as property via force, and defended such a system's interests.
I'll admit being mightily confused about Jefferson-worship. His ideas? Sure. His life? Like a walking contradiction of his ideas.
Don't you see, he wrote paeans to liberty!
And then made his slaves deliver copies of them to the press.
Unless I'm missing something, "Jeffersonian" means you subscribe to his ideas. Of all the libertarians and republicans I've ever met, I never recall meeting a person that cared about anything but his ideas.
"Jeffersonian" means you subscribe to his ideas"
Including his slave whipping and fucking? Cuz those were ideas he really acted on!
I think one must examine historical figures within the context of their time and place. Our modern sensibilities are refined to the extent where we can't imagine much of what the past was like, whether it be Roman spectacle, medievel agrarian life, or colonial society. Is any of that analysis meant to excuse Jefferson's actions? No. But it is an attempt at nuance and understanding. Yes, his ruminations on liberty and his simultaneous human chattel are evidently contradictory. But he was a man of his time and place. I do imagine that he was torn over the situation, and the historical evidence seems to indicate as much. Jefferson himself had a great deal of volatility in his financial situation and I do believe that a big part of the reason he hadn't freed his slaves earlier was a financial need (again, not a valid excuse, but one has to consider his actions within their context). Moreover, he freed his slaves upon his death, which was more than most men of early 1800's Virginia would do.
Did you know that, despite long hours of unpaid labor, many slaves received little to no college credits?
Wow. That's all I got. "Wow."
How dare you bring a sense of intelligence to this discussion?!
I'm a libertarian to the core but i have to agree with MNG: Jefferson, the actually living person, was a sonofabitch. And yes, that goes for all slaveholders. (I'm looking at you, Washington.)
Nevertheless, J's political ideas were pretty damn good.
Obviously you are incapable of untangling a set of ideals from someones hypocrisy. Try pulling your head out of your ass and getting some fresh air. It will clear you 'mind.'
A lot of them seem invested in fighting attacks on his person, as though his life is inextricably linked with his ideas. And, for what it's worth, they aren't wrong. Just, not in the good way that can be defended outside a craven capitulation to slavery.
RPA is into Jeffersonian republicanism. Thought I'd clarify that so he won't have to use that phrase another hundred times this week.
Yeah, but where's the vulgar, pointlessly non-PC rhetoric?
If that was about me, I'm offended!!
You don't like libertarians, you don't like republicans, and you don't like Sarah Palin. I got that. This snide remark is sort of redundant, MNG. Thanks anyway, though. =) I appreciate the free information distribution.
I'm fine with libertarians, I've been subscribing to, reading, and commenting (via h&R) Reason for years before I ever seen you around these parts. I disagree with libertarians on some things but agree with them on many things. Sorry to make fun of your cute catchphrase, I realize you've been working on it for a long time.
Pretty sure I don't have a catchphrase, but okay.
I'm a Jeffersonian Republican!
Though he meant George Jefferson...
Pretty sure I've only mentioned that, what, thrice? Ever? But either way, that would make a great catchphrase. "I'm a liberal/I'm a leftist/I support the National Labor Relations Board", however, would be so humiliating and degrading a catchphrase, you might want to hang yourself with a wire if you're anywhere but San Francisco.
How about, I'm a Jeffersonian Democrat?
Or wait, how about I'm a Reagan Democrat with a twist of Jefferson Republican on the side?
OK, I'm a Burrian Libertarian? A Polkian Conservative? McKinley Progressive?
Washingtonian Labor Progressive?
That's your business, dude. But Jeffersonian Democrat doesn't sound right. Like, I don't know, a gay pride parade and an Aryan Nations convention.
"But Jeffersonian Democrat doesn't sound right"
You do know that Jefferson's party eventually became the Democratic party, right?
Andrew Jackson wasn't Jeffersonian at all. I don't know if you're just playing with words to win a fight or not but that's, at the very least, misleading.
You do know that Jefferson's party eventually became the Democratic party, right?
Wikipedia disagrees, at least in the short term:
"The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names."
It's true that the Democrats evolved from that party; but so did the modern Republicans (later), since the D-R party thrived, grew, and eventually fractured while the Federalists faded away.
We call that a "Harvey Slavebanger"
(in re: "a twist of Jefferson" -- I though threaded comments was supposed to fix this?)
Another +1, you're on a roll today
That would mean a Libertarian Socialist. That is a oxymoron. Coming from therefore it makes perfect sense.
That's Herman Cain...
Moving on up, to the West Wing
You gotta understand. MNG is just here to build some understanding. Or is that Neu Mejican? They all look alike to me.
Did you know that Jefferson was computer illiterate and never learned to drive a car? It's true!
Holy shit -- that guy was a TOTAL redneck, rube gun-toter! It's a good thing we have great politicians like Obama and Bush in our day and age to show those stupid-ass 18th-century primitives how it's done! Maybe MNG was right after all.
He's lost my vote!
Jefferson didn't need computers, he just cajoled other human beings via the lash to do the equivalent work.
Ah -- but he never used Tasers. Proof of his humanitarianism.
He was working on that, he was an inventor. It was up next after the dumb Waiter v.2.0
Any proof that Jefferson beat his slaves? Or are you working under the assumption that all slave owners beat their slaves (otherwise, why would they stay slaves)?
Are you saying all slavery was the same and that all slave owners were equal in their evil?
Surely this isn't the case. While slavery is definitely evil, there MUST be different categories of slave holders on that scale- objectively speaking.
So, again, evidence he lashed his slaves?
Ron Paul and Johnson are flawed, sure, but they're... the best candidates in the entire race...
Ron Paul has a few minor flaws, such as being a little older than voters like, a bit more conservative than libertarians like, and a bit more uncompromising than necessary, but he's running a great campaign.
Gary Johnson is much more mainstream, and has the best record of any candidate in the race. I don't really see any flaws, but he seems to be gaining no traction.
Is "complete amateurism in running your campaign" considered a flaw?
Don't write off Johnson yet, those who are inclined to do so. This group is not inspiring anyone, so Paul or Johnson still have an outside chance at pulling off a shocker.
Yeah, Johnson could be the guy if he'd figure out how to capture the sense of energy and outrage that people respond to in a leader. This is where Bachman and Palin are able to gain traction - not so much what they say, but the fact that they are on the offensive and say it with conviction and passion. Everybody wants a fighter on their side. That's one reason I was amazed that McCain got as many votes as he did against the Rorschach Candidate. You gotta be passionate about what you are for and what you are against. Heck, Bush the Elder was able to gin up more gumption in a speech than most of these nozzles - and he was about as passionate as a librarian.
McCain did so well last time because he had Huckabee as an attack dog, lambasting Romney every chance he could and soaking up enough of the media spotlight to keep people from looking too closely at McCain's record.
Then, once people realized that Huckabee was probably about as bad of a Republican as Barack Obama would be, they (largely) backed away from him and McCain won by default.
I was quite suprised that McCain won. I think part of it was Huck and Romney splitting the 'values voters', Paul peeling off the 10% of GOP that leans libertarian, and the national security conservatives and those who thought a moderate candidate was the only choice left to pick the candidate.
The talking heads hold a lot of blame for the McCain win. Rush, Hannity, Lavin, Savage, etc threw in really early with Romney and spent a lot of time and energy painting Huckabee as a liberal-in-sheep's clothing.
After Huckabee basically carried the south on super-tuesday and Romney didn't break anywhere outside the north-east he bailed.
Suddenly the Talking heads were left with three candidates they couldn't publicly support. McCain whom they had railed against for years, Huckabee whome they had just finished painting as McCain's lapdog, and Paul whom is too libertarian for them.
So what did they do? They all jumped out of the Republican primary and started dissecting the Dem primary.
McCain barely won many of the primaries after super-tuesday and probably would have lost many of them if the Talking Heads had thrown in with Huckabee. Who is pretty much cut in the so-con, small-government mold that they love.
(Not to mention I think their meddling in the Dem Primary early on to sink Hillary indirectly led to Obama winning the nomination.)
The final blow to Romney's 2008 campaign was really Huckabee and McCain ganging up during the WV caucus. Mostly because 'Ol Huck is an intolerant, judgmental POS (i.e. - a Southern Baptist)...
".....figure out how to capture the sense of energy and outrage..."
Well put. About the only thing Johnson (or Paul) can do is attack the asinine positions of the top 2 or 3 front runners in the republican field. Whether it's Romney's silver spoon liberal past and his wacky belief in an upstate New York charlatan, or Michele Bachmann thinking there's not a lot of evidence for evolution and it might be a good idea to teach intelligent design in public schools, geez I thought republicans wanted to get rid of dept of education. Johnson should just hammer each of the front runners with questions on their hypocrisy and defend his positions with the individual freedom mantra, with a few quotes from the founders thrown in for good measure. Just keep questioning their positions and past comments and show how ridiculous they are. He might want to challenge audiences to put up or shut up about the fiscal conservatism and the constitution. Okay maybe not the upstate new york part, he might still need to carry Utah.
Michelle Bachmann would be quite happy to do away with the Department of Education. IIRC, decentralized education is what brought her into politics.
Didn't she get her JD from Oral Roberts U.? And her bachelor's at a state college?
None of that matters. What matters is that she was a tax lawyer, who, I believe, worked for the IRS. Aside from the automatic "You suck you suck you suck" reaction to her IRS dealings, tax lawyers are ipso facto insane.
Ooh, that's kinda too juicy to stay quiet for long. She was a lawyer for the IRS? Why does the Tea Party even give her the time of day?
Because she's birthed 400 babies, which is impressive given the relatively short time span in which it was accomplished.
Ron Paul has her beat: 4000 babies!
Michelle did provide "thinspo*" to anorexic and bulimic girls in her home.
*Google or ask SugarFree
Whatever. The Bachmann routinely lay between 400 and 600 thousand eggs in a single spawning. Her track record is quite poor in that respect.
Can't blame her, though. Tax code is worse than the Necronomicon.
and her LL.M from some hick cow college called William and Mary.
So she could go work for the IRS.
Since 1693!
You are kidding, right?
The IRS job is a blot on her record,Still it isn't like she held a real libertarian-disqualifier job like "federal prosecutor".
I declare her anathema. Her name will not be spoken here again.
Bachmann
Good insight Cyto.
Ron Paul fails routinely because he expresses himself in the negative. No one acts on the negative.
People only act on the positive, even for negative things (e.g., if you buy this, you rid yourself of termites; if you vote for me, I'll get more people employed).
If Gary Johnson wants to win, he needs to articulate how voting for him brings gains to those who vote for him, gains that far exceed voting for all other candidates.
Bachman and Palin are able to gain traction because of their physical attractiveness.
What's amazing about America is that if they were discovered to be bisexual lovers, with video evidence of the same, they'd be in the White House in 2013. We're that fucked up. Or that awesome. I'm not sure which.
I've given money to Johnson and prefer him to all the current candidates (Obama included), but you can write him off...Sadly he doesn't have any natural constituency. Conservatives are not going to brook his anti-WOD and pro-choice stances and liberals seem to wedded to spending as a philosophy lately. And his mannerisms are off-putting as hell.
That's a bit premature. Clinton was in no better shape this early in his first campaign. Johnson will likely fail, but it's not a given. One good moment could flip things around pretty quickly, and the GOP is a little nervous about the "anointed" "frontrunners" not seeming very compelling to voters.
I hope you are right, but Clinton afaik was never excluded from a debate...
Yeah, and Clinton had charisma and had already been tapped as "potentially the next big thing" by the media after his appearance at the governor's conference. Kinda like Obama getting tagged as the next big thing (for 2012) after his speech at the Democrat national convention.
^This^
I follow politics like other people do sports. It was obvious Clinton would be the nominee as soon as he announced.
RomneyBot with be compelling once the next round of updates are installed.
*will* stupid typing bastard crap
His hair is certainly presidential. The media loves his hair.
The next model will come with a wide array of snap-on presidential hairstyles, a baby-kissing sub-routine that guarantees not to draw blood this time, and a realistic urination and defecation simulator for those long campaign bus tours.
The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human... sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. I had to wait till he moved on you before I could zero him.
If you pay close attention, Romney has never been seen in public with a dog.
Mitt Romney: I'm a friend of Sarah Palin. I was told she was here. Could I see her please?
Press Secretary: No, you can't see her she's making a statement.
Mitt Romney: Where is she?
Press Secretary: It may take a while. Want to wait? There's a bench over there.
[points to bench]
Mitt Romney: [looks around, examining the structural integrity of the room, then looks back at him] I'll be back!
That was good.
Shit, does this mean Trig is leading the resistance?
He likes to tell than anecdote about carrying one on the roof like luggage.
I wonder how he'd do on the Voight-Kampff empathy test?.
He'd pass, if being a replicant is passing.
Jon Stewart commented on his hair the other day "Only my sideburns saw the ghost"
I don't find Stewart to be that funny, but one made me laugh.
The problem with Romney is that if he starts to get too passionate and animated his hair starts to come apart. Being president is all about having the best hair.
Harry Truman disagrees
Harry Truman was a Jeffersonian Republican.
He was a 60's rock band?
He owned slaves?
No, but Breakfast at Tiffany's was awesome.
Yep, too bad he doesn't have the presidential look and pleasing voice of Harry Browne to go with his resume.
Obviously he knows more about being an executive than did the current occupant of the WH.
Im not so sure. If the economy continues to go downhill Obama is beatable. If the Republican field continues to suck (T-Paw, Romney, Newt) enough independents just might fall in love with Johnson to give him a shot.
Okay, this is weird. I'm agreeing with almost everything MNG is saying today.
You didn't read the Boeing post, did you?
"I've given money to Johnson."
Most likely translation: I once filled up my gas tank in Taos, and the tax money went to the state, and the state paid Johnson's salary...
Did he say which Johnson? He might have just tightly rolled a $20 and stuck it in his own pee-hole.
Ah. "I've given money to "Johnson"."
It all comes clear.
Maude Lebowski: Does the female form make you uncomfortable, Mr. Lebowski?
The Dude: Uh, is that what this is a picture of?
Maude Lebowski: In a sense, yes. My art has been commended as being strongly vaginal which bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina.
The Dude: Oh yeah?
Maude Lebowski: Yes, they don't like hearing it and find it difficult to say whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his dick or his rod or his Johnson.
The Dude: Johnson?
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003519/quotes
What do you need that for, MNG?
SHUT THE FUCK UP, DONNY!
The best part of that conversation is when the Dude says: "He fixes the cable?"
Don't be fatuous, MNG
+1
I have taken lebowski's cue on when listening to authority figures just answer "I'm sorry I wasn't listening" like he responded to the malibu cop.
That worked out pretty terrible for the Dude man, stomped and run out of town all while being forced to listen to the Eagles.
GET OUT OF MY PEACEFUL CAB!
I've got a nice little beach community here Lebowski, and I aim to keep it that way.
I've always said I wanted Gary Johnson to run and would support him. I agree with a lot of his stances and I've expressed my disappointment with Obama and most of the GOP candidates.
My best hope for this election is that Romney gets nominated, pushing Johnson or Paul to seek the Lib nomination, followed by delightfully entertaining chaos and consternation.
You can't do that! A vote for Paul or Johnson will be a direct vote for Obama!
The dumbest thing people say to this effect is when they say you will be throwing your vote away to vote for a non-front-runner in a PRIMARY contest. WTF?
You have this one right, MNG... some people just don't get the concept of primaries.
pushing Johnson or Paul to seek the Lib nomination
Don't see that happening, but if it did, it could only benefit Obama.
Hilarity and hijinks ensue!
And then there's Maude!
(sorry)
Fuck. I can't seem to get the joke handle to disappear. I guess I'm stuck this way.
Maybe you will finally learn not to fuck with The Maude, smart guy.
You gotta be really careful when referencing Maude. I once said "And then there's Zod!" to highnumber, and I believe the Maude theme song got stuck in his head for a good month. It worked okay for me, because I got a Zod-as-Maude post (and, come to think of it, the Zod Times spin-off) out of it, but I'm not sure it was worth saddling him with that song, repeating endlessly in his head.
I also got in trouble for calling Broadway, "Maudeway."
"Who the fuck just called me James Woods?"
A colleague of mine is friends with somoene who worked on teh CNN debate. The friend stated they had to work to find a way to not include Johnson. So, it was an attempt by CNN to exclude him. My guess is, they want to keep tarring Rep.s as crazy bible beaters and that's hard enough to do with Dr. Paul on stage, but with he and Johnson, the public might recieve too much non-mainstreem approved information.
Crazy Bible beaters send Ron Paul to the US Congress every two years. Cosmo-fags vote for his Democrat party opponent.
Yes, but Paul has the wacky idea that his religion (and its moral components) is a personal choice, and should not be forced on other via legislation.
That's what I don't get. Paul is a religious conservative, but everything he says indicates that he doesn't want the federal government dictating religious values and expression. So Paul is a net good for freedom, regardless of his religious views.
Just like Sarah Palin!
Too bad they're on opposite sides, a Johnson-Wiener ticket would be awesome and Vice President Wiener would be the funniest VP EVER.
Here we go...
Ask Herman Cain why he supported TARP.
Because he doesn't have all the information, and he relied on the generals and a team of experts, who told him it was a good idea.
Then they all had pizza.
Excellent! +several
Cain worked for the Fed. He applied the same rule to TARP as he did to Pizza: You don't shit where you eat.
If that's his philosophy, someone needs to get the message to his awful pizza joints.*
*note: The poor quality of his pizza chain does not reflect upon his ability to hold office. I wouldn't eat a pizza he made, though.
He probably can't get a restaurant license without a place to shit.
Oh, that movie....
Oh, that post going in the wrong place....
This is amazing 🙂 Love it!
Actually, no, as you point out earlier in your post Jefferson was plagued by financial difficulties for most of his life. He was, in fact, a piss poor businessman.
Upon his death, all his slaves, like the rest of his property were sold to satisfy his debts. He was mortgaged to the hilt.
His writings, especially the later ones, show that he did understand what a moral horror slavery was (as well as being a trap that would ensnare the nation in bloody conflict eventually) but, unfortunately, he had neither the political nor the moral will to act upon those beliefs. Plain and simple, slavery was far to vital to the personal comfort of Thomas Jefferson for him to give it up.
However, given the fact that my ancestors, along with other Quakers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, owned slaves until the preaching of John Woolman convinced them otherwise, I hesitate to be harshly judgmental in his case. He was, as is often pointed out, for the most part a creature of his times. And the judgment of his times was that the chattel ownership of certain other human beings was hunky-dory.
"The hour of emancipation is advancing in the march of time. As to the method by which this difficult work is to be effected, if permitted to be done by ourselves, I have seen no proposition so expedient, on the whole, as that of emancipation to those born after a given day. This enterprise is for the young, for those who can follow it up and bear it through its consumation."
Jefferson to Edward Coles, 1814.
Paul and Johnson seem to have a lot in common. But Paul has shown time and again that he can't get the nomination. People remember him as a loser. I wish he would drop out of the race and campaign for Johnson. The new guy would immediately become "worthy" of an invite to most shows and debates. It could really change the race...
The biggest thing Johnson has going for him, both practically and campaign-spin wise, his the fact that he's held executive office and has vetoed bills. I respect Ron Paul greatly, and it's obvious that even if he doesn't win here, his intellectual current is beginning to run more and more through the GOP. But Ron Paul has still just been the symbolic no vote. Johnson WILL vote bills down. That's a major reason to support him in my book. Plus, his stance on federalism is pretty close to Paul's.
The guy just fails as a public speaker.. he makes Ron Paul look smooth so I guess he's good for something.
I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff, BuzzSave.(c)om
Ron Paul has been in DC and he's earned my trust. Johnson is an outsider who hasn't. Two Libertarians are too many and I'm concerned that they will diffuse votes allowing one of the neocon chumps to get the GOP nod.
This is RP's last chance and GJ shouldn't jeopardize it.
thank you
is good
ThaNk U