Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson Supporters Plan Protest at CNN Headquarters in Atlanta

|

Johnson_campaign_to_protest_CNN

Frustrated that Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Gary Johnson isn't getting more coverage from CNN, Johnson's supporters are planning to protest outside the network's headquarters next week. 

An email from Chris Hill, who volunteers* for the Johnson campaign in Florida, says that "supporters of Gov. Johnson—and folks who just believe in fairness—are gathering at CNN Headquarters in Atlanta to let the network know that voters deserve the chance to learn that there is another choice in November besides President Obama and Gov. Romney." 

The protest will be held on July 15 and 16. 

More from that email: 

This isn't just about Gov. Johnson. And it isn't just about CNN. If the major media organizations across the country don't even include Governor Johnson in their polls, much less their coverage, millions of Americans who are ready for a third choice in 2012 will be robbed of their opportunity to be heard.

We want to let CNN – and all the other networks – know that we will not be shut out.

Join us in Atlanta July 15-16!  Then support our Twitter Bomb on July 16th at 11 a.m. EDT by using the following Hashtag: #BlackoutCNN.

For details, carpooling options, and everything else you need to know about our "protest", visit: CNN Protest For Fair Coverage of Governor Johnson.  

This is like a flashback to last summer, when Johnson attacked the major networks in various interviews for ignoring him. To be fair: Back then he was one of a dozen GOP candidates; now, he's the candidate for the third largest political party in the country.

*Hill is not paid by the Johnson campaign, in case that wasn't clear.

NEXT: Europeans Apparently Don't Like Paying Sky-High Cigarette Taxes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Gary Johnson Supporters Plan Protest at CNN Headquarters in Atlanta

    Will all seven of them be there?

    1. No, I think most of us seem to be clustered in Ohio, Texas and Colorado.

      1. I’m in Florida, wielding one of the Rings of Libertarianism. It’s principal power is being able to yell without being heard

        1. Unfortunately, I can still hear you, ProL. Maybe the ring doesn’t work.

          1. I’m typing, not yelling. Here, let me yell:

            1. Enough, ProL! You’re hurting my ears!

              1. Maybe I switched Rings with The Hammer? He has the Ring of Libertarianism that amplifies screams of indignation.

          2. Yeah, Episiarch. Haven’t you read the first amendment?

            The right of the people to speak with their unamplified voice in a forum of the government’s choosing, shall not be infringed.

        2. I’m in Florida, wielding one of the Rings of Libertarianism

          Wait a minute… how many Rings of Libertarianism are there? And if there are more than one, is there one to rule them all? And if so, who has it? So many questions!

          1. And if so, who has it? So many questions!

            Duh. The KOCHTOPUS!

          2. It’s obvious that the One Ring is held by an anarchist. And rightly so.

          3. I don’t know – but all of them make you invisible.

            1. ^^ this

          4. I think there are 7. From the poem:

            7 for the Libertarians, and their hearts of stone.

          5. Seven.

            Three Rings for the Democrats who follow the lie,
            Seven for the Minarchists cursed to squall alone,
            Nine for Republicans doomed to pry,
            One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
            In the Land of Columbia where the politicians lie.
            One Ring to spend it all, One Ring to find them,
            One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
            In the Land of Columbia where the politicians lie.

            1. I’m listening to the audiobook version of The Hobbit while I’m “working”. Very apropos.

            2. IDK, I like my ending to the line better. It was, after all, their love of precious things that kept them from being controlled by the One Ring.

            3. You went there, the Seven made the Dwarf Lords terribly greedy, you know.

          6. Ron Paul had the one ring to rule them all, but he gave it to his son Rand, who dropped it somewhere.

          7. The One Ring is the Ring of Liberaltarianism. The one to Rule Them all and in the Darkness Bind Them. Hopefully it stays lost forever.

    2. maybe they should protest at a network people actually watch. Seems the Johnson supporters alone would double the CNN audience.

      1. +7

      2. I watch Erin Burnett.

        Oh, wait. I meant stalk her. Anyway, I heard she works for them.

        1. maybe we can compare restraining orders sometime…

  2. Paul needs to endorse Johnson.

    1. Too late. Paul should have done that in the primaries.

      1. Why is it too late?

        I don’t know how the flesh-pressing, back-room deals of national politics go in this regard, but I think we can all agree that Ron Paul had better not endorse Romney. So if he has to endorse someone, why not Gay Jay?

        1. Dear God/Paul., can we please not call him “Gay Jay”? “GarJo” is bad enough.

          1. Sorry, in my mind, it just flows out that way. Sometimes I just can’t help myself. I think he should run with it. Pull some of the gay vote from Obama *cough* no chance *cough*

            1. I believe one of his campaign events here in Tampa last week was actually at a gay bar.

          2. Gay Jay is fucking hilarious. Why do you hate hilarity, Riggs? And why did you maul Lucy, you animal?

            1. Riggs is A Serious Man.

              Wait a minute…

              1. ::arches eyebrows::

      2. Johnson had already dropped out of the race when Paul still had a shot at capturing the “not-Romney” vote.

        1. In the end there was only enough room for one libertarian candidate. And Johnson was the more viable of the two. Paul cock blocked Johnson. Had Paul never ran and endorsed Johnson I think Johnson would have done better than Paul did.

          1. No. Johnson was a lousy candidate and Paul draws a decent chunk of the SoCon vote. He was #2 with Evangelicals in Iowa.There is no chance in hell for a libertarian-leaner to do well, much less win elections, without Christian conservatives.

          2. If by “more viable” you mean “got less votes”, then I totally agree.

            1. I think that’s “got fewer” votes. Someone call Cavanaugh so we can get a ruling on this!

              1. newkyalur

          3. viability being measured by dollars raised, donors, scientific polling, straw poll results, internet activism, or some other metric?

    2. Unclear on how that helps Johnson at all, since I seriously doubt Paul supporters put much stock in endorsements.

      It would, however, enrage the GOP even more into sabotaging the Paul campaign’s spreading into the state party apparatuses.

      1. TULPICAL THREAD ALERT

  3. Johnson has my vote, but it looks like he needs to learn a lot about campaigning on the National level. Or, maybe it’s just an artifact of having no major party support. Just seems like he’s a bit ineffective at stumping for votes.

    1. He is not very ineffective. He never got anywhere in the primaries. The vote was there. But he couldn’t seem to take a single vote from Paul.

    2. “A bit ineffective”? Try “absolutely inept”.

      1. You’re grossly over-stating Gary Johnson’s campaign skills.The gay rights guy was beating the pants off Johnson.

        1. The gay rights guy was beating the pants off Johnson.

          I see what you did there.

        2. I love his positions but this inability to assert himself would certainly give me pause if he had a snowball’s chance in hell.

          1. Johnson’s only opportunity was to get traction in New Hampshire. He couldn’t poll at better than 1% in the state that should be most friendly to his brand of libertarian conservatism.

            1. And yet candidate who got even less than that were invited to the debates while he was not.

              The media has the campaign scripted, and there simply was no room for two token libertarians.

              1. Who else else polled at less than 1%? The “winner” of the Iowa caucuses?

                The gay rights guy got more actual NH votes than Johnson (as did Vermin Supreme in the Dem Primary) and he wasn’t invited.

              2. Cain at least never should’ve got his ass invited to that debate.

          2. “this inability to assert himself”

            He vetoed 750 bills, including 14 tax cuts and pushed for MJ legalization and school choice. Seems like he asserts himself pretty well when it counts!

            1. For someone who wants to be president, the presidential primaries is “when it counts”.

      2. Maybe if he had more of that two-faced, lying, douche nozzle, used car salesman smell, he’d be more effective. Like Obama and Romney? Right?

    3. “Only intentions matter.”

      Reasonoids have no trouble using that line to diss leftists, but their own behavior….

    4. Read this awesome article to learn just how inept a campaigner GJ is. It’s shocking that he ever got elected Gubernor of New Mexico. Seriously.

  4. My guess, CNN has Blitzer or some other pundit douche give a three to five minutes of token coverage about Johnson’s protest (not Johnson himself or the issues he stands for) before pivoting to whether Mittens tax records is an issue.

    1. I sort of overheard part of a radio interview where someone claimed to have heard Blitzer make the argument that CNN’s ratings were so low because they are the only objective, unbiased news source left.
      According to Blitzer, the CNN staff are not leftist propagandist hacks, but heroes of objectivity.
      Wow, now that is delusion.

      1. When your competition is Fox and MSNBC, you can look quite unbiased with relative ease.

        1. And yet they can’t manage it.

      2. Anyone still following this show, Newsroom

        I watched the first episode twice, and the second time through, the show’s smug sense of itself had become so obvious, I just felt I couldn’t stand to watch another episode.

        Speaking of which, lefties hate all things big-corporate– except when it comes to their news. Then only big-corporate can properly deliver us our truthful information. Anyone notice that?

        1. I tried but when James O’Keefe was presented as some threat to the republic and the Tea Party folks painted as crazies by the allegedly “moderate Republican anchorman”, it became obvious that Aaron Sorkin remains who he is. That the show centers around covering stories that have already happened – as in, here’s how this should have been handled – makes it easier to ignore.

          Kind of a shame, too. I spent about 15 years in the biz way back when. Maybe I was too young to notice ideology, but it did not seem to be a big deal. Of course, folks took the 3 networks seriously, too.

      3. Objectivity is clearly lacking at CNN however Blitzer is correct that they are not run of the mill leftist hacks you see at ABC, NBC, and CBS.

        Watching CNN it is clear they they are heavily driven by a centrist populist ideology. More often than not this has them taking the “left’s” side but in the end they push whatever they think makes the majority happiest.

        This of course is what makes them so unpopular, It makes them appear as the sort of newsroom equivalent of the milquetoast flip flopper with no moral core than Romney and Kerry were and it is just hard to get really fired up by that.

      4. “According to Blitzer…”

        …-$4,600 is an excellent score on Celebrity Jeopardy.

      1. He lost on Jeopardy? Baby? Oooooooooooooohhhh.

          1. Way to totally ruin the reference, Epi. Like you’re trying to ruin my blog.

            1. Your blog is a gift of ethereal wonder, Tulpy-poo. I don’t know why you gifted us with such bounty, but I’m glad you did. Oh the fun we’ll have!

              1. Stability without Statism!

            2. tulpa, one criticism of your blog, you forgot one point here:

              My own take on things is that of a rule utilitarian who values the following goals, in order of importance:
              1.Stability
              2.Prosperity
              3.Liberty

              You need to insert “Shooting dogs we’ve never met before” between one and two.

              And Barack Obama is going to shut your blog down as soon as he repeals Citizens United.

              1. Defending yourself from strange, fleet-footed carnivores falls under liberty.

                1. Defending yourself from strange, fleet-footed carnivores falls under liberty.

                  I have been described as a strange, fleet-footed carnivore.

              2. Where is blaming the victim in all this?

  5. Hopefully one day we will be able to say we were libertartian before it was cool.

    1. More likely one day we will be able to say we were libertarian before it was outlawed.

      1. That is a threadwinner.

      2. More likely one day we will be able to say we were libertarian before it was outlawed.

        I wish. For them to outlaw something, they have to see it as dangerous to them. RIght now libertarianism is a joke to most statists.

        1. I’m not certain about that. The FEC is explicitly designed to prohibit the rise of a third party and right now, the LP is that third party.

          1. I wouldn’t disagree with you on that.

      3. Scruffy the outlaw libertarian. It has a nice ring to it. Better than Scruffy the Planet Express Janitor.

        1. I will admit though, the resemblance is uncanny

          1. “What fevered dream is this that bids to tear this company in twain?”

          2. Scruffy’s goin’ to get one of them $300 haircuts, this one’s lost its pizzazz.

  6. I’ve seen this same routine every four years, and every four years, the major media organizations have maintained their utter lockdown on any serious coverage of the LP or any other third parties. If Paul had run third party, he could’ve shattered it, for one cycle at least, but I don’t see Johnson being able to muster up enough initial support to break through.

    1. The same lockdown they have on any serious coverage of the Green, Constitution, and Prohibition parties, and Pirates games in September.

      1. LP is the third largest party and the one who’s popularity is on the upswing. If the media weren’t obssessed with the horse race between Team Red and Team Blue they’d cover a growing political trend that will shape American poilitics in the future.

        1. If the media weren’t obssessed with dependent on the horse race between Team Red and Team Blue

      2. To be fair, the Pirates haven’t played a meaningful game in September in my lifetime.

        1. fuck sid bream.

      3. Currently in first place in the NL Central, with a 72.4% chance of making the playoffs according to ESPN.com.

        McCutchen for MVP baby!

        1. McCutchen will look great in Phillies pinstripes when he’s traded for Hamels,
          Victorino and a bucket of warm spit.

        2. They were in first place last July, too. (I live here)

          1. I’m old enough to remember the World Series wins in 1971 and 1979, and the division titles in between. My parents were at the 1960 World Series, Game 7. I’ve seen the ticket stubs. Not getting too excited for this year, as they’re one McCutcheon slump away from a losing streak.

            1. loved the bellhop hats on the 79 Pirates, and the “We are Family” fight song….

    2. I think Paul is damned if you do, damned if you don’t. He’s made promising gains in converting many local and state GOP apparatuses into liberty loving supporters while building a network for Rand in 2016. Sabotaging Mitt with a third party run would negate all that.

      1. Especially an inept campaigner who supports baby-killing, foreign intervention, and a national consumption tax.

        1. And he wants to abolish the IRS. I’m all for ending the income tax, but the gov’t does have valid taxes to collect. How will it do that without an IRS?

          1. Ask people to send them in.

      2. I think Paul is damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

        You don’t have to tell me twice.

        He’s made promising gains in converting many local and state GOP apparatuses into liberty loving supporters while building a network for Rand in 2016.

        This.

  7. Amazing that Johnson didn’t go far in the GOP primary when he doesn’t see a problem with superimposing “HELL” in giant red letters on his photograph for campaign literature.

    While Christian conservatives do have some wacky positions on social issues, I don’t get the nonchalance with which libertarians do things to turn them off. They’re certainly more likely allies than leftists.

    1. If one looks at that poster in a myopic way, and can extrapolate the total sum of his support chances from Christian conservatives from that, I agree.

      But at some point Christian Conservatives are going to get a load of his politics. Are they going to support him then?

      1. No

      2. Johnson has nothing to reach out to Christian conservatives. There is a hell of a lot more libertarian votes in the fundy Christian camp than the Atheist community.

        1. I disagree with that assessment. The religious right only sides with the GOP based on the social issues. If the GOP and the Democrats were to essentially swap positions on gay marriage and abortion, the evangelicals would be reliably blue. They have little natural affinity for the laissez-faire economic policies that we support. In fact, their scriptural text would have me believe that they might very well find common ground with the left on economic issues with relative ease.

          1. Don’t ruin SIV’s retarded fantasies for him, Sudden. They’re all he has.

            1. SIV has retarded fantasies? I mean, to each their own, but man… get a foot fetish or be an ass man or something. I mean, that seems so wrong.

              Probably easy, but what if they have The Strength? That could really end up hurting.

          2. You might want to look at the facts of political demographics.

          3. “In fact, their scriptural text would have me believe that they might very well find common ground with the left on economic issues with relative ease”

            See Jimmy Carter, 1976 election.

        2. Well, he is right that conservative xtians far outnumber atheists. The difference is that the CX’s take it personally if they are not explicitly pandered to by politicians; I and all the other atheists (etc) I know are happy if politicians refrain from pandering to any religious group (which is different from pandering to the areligious).

          1. The Atheists are near all progressives (as a few atheist commenters here lament). Evangelicals send Ron Paul and the other “libertarian-leaners” to congress every 2 years. There is a strong religous-based desire to be left alone by the state. This streak is what inspired many of them to participate in politics in the first place. They also have a habit of revering a literal interpretation of ancient texts, such as the US Constitution.

            1. The Atheists are near all progressives (as a few atheist commenters here lament).

              I won’t say this wouldn’t be the case regardless, but I’d certainly lay at least some blame for this skew at the feet of the GOP. For anyone under 30, Republicans have never been anything but the Jesus Party because of the kind of pandering Tonio is complaining about. It’s been explicit and constant for decades now.

              1. They also pander on individual liberty and small government issues too. They haven’t exactly delivered on either.

                1. For sure. But religious pandering is, I’d say, comparatively much more alienating. And whether you deliver or not, the alienation still happens.

                  1. I suppose it isn’t alienating to the Christians.It plays well with people who actually vote.

        3. Um, while it is true that Conservatives are exceedingly rare among Atheists the percentage of Atheist Libertarians is probably close to triple the percentage of Libertarians in the General Population. This is also true among the Neo Pagan and New Age (rhymes with Sewage) crowds.

    2. The Christian conservative votes appear to be largely influenced by the AFA, FOTF, et al… Without those group’s endorsements, trying to get their vote is just pounding sand. And those groups won’t even cross over to support Ron Paul, who has far more commonality with them than Johnson.

      1. The Christian conservative votes appear to be largely influenced by the AFA, FOTF

        What about ROTFL?

        1. That’s me after I read a Don Wildmon urgent newsletter.

    3. While Christian conservatives do have some wacky positions on social issues, I don’t get the nonchalance with which libertarians do things to turn them off.

      No, you don’t get it, Tulpa. It’s not that libertarians are deliberately alienating social conservatives, it’s that social conservatism is incompatible with freedom and individual rights. There are some social conservatives (notably John) who realize that in order for government to leave them alone that government has to leave everyone alone, but most SoCons want to have their cake (be left alone themselves) and eat it too (impose their morality on others).

      1. social conservatism is in practice incompatible with freedom and individual rights

      2. Tonio, he’s trolling. He gets it, he just wants to be a douchebag. He’s very good at that.

      3. This isn’t a case of deliberate alienation (probably) but rather a case of not caring about alienation.

        There are shitloads of ways to get the same message across without using what conservative Christians consider a swear word.

        1. Is there a picture of this thing? I don’t think I have seen it.

          1. Oh lord, what an idiot. Still, blah.

            1. I’m more offended by the comma. It’s like he is saying “Hell? Yes, please.” Not “Hell yes!” It’s definitely shitty campaign material.

    4. You know what is wacky? Liberals saying they want the government to stay out of their uterus by demanding access/choice for abortion then demanding the government pays for birth control and finance Planned Parenthood. CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

      There is a t-shirt that says it best. “If I wanted the government in my uterus, I’d fuck a Senator.”

  8. The third largest political party is also the biggest scapegoat for the TEAM supporters. Who else could or would adequately bear the brunt of their political tribalism? They need a boogeyman. Those “racist, gay loving, pot smoking, child-killing, anti-progress, isolationist, lower-class-hating” libertarians (l or L) certainly fit the bill, what with their ridiculous belief in [fill in the blank].

    Also, KOCHTOPUSSSS!

    1. As of 10/2010, the Constitution/American Independence party has 200,000 more registered voters. And the Greens only about 30,000 behind the LP.

    2. As of 10/2010, the AIP/Const party has 200,000 more registered voters than the LP. The Greens only have about 30,000 fewer than the LP.

      1. This is incorrect. You will need to cite your source to convince me. In CO alone the LP as three times as many registered as the Constitution Party (16,000 Ls, 5,000 ACPs) and the ACP is a Major Party (thanks to Tom Tancredo getting more than 10% last Gubernatorial election) and I know that the gap in CA is even greater.

        1. I tried to cite my source but Reason thinks I’m spamming.

          It’s the reference 31 from the LP’s wikipedia article.

        2. According to that source, CA has 413,032 Constitution/AIP voters and 91,111 LP voters. Probably an immigration thing.

          Nevada has almost 50,000 AIP and barely 6,000 LP.

          1. That is largely the result of people registering as “independent”, as in decline to state, but being so damned stupid that they register as members of the official American Independent Party.

            1. Oh, forgot about that.

              Of course, when a few tens of thousands of people checking the wrong box on a form is enough to destroy your party’s “third largest” status, that’s not a good thing either.

              1. To be honest, I’m just glad that I’m not a member of a party that attracts that level of sophistication lol.

  9. *Hill is not paid by the Johnson campaign, in case that wasn’t clear

    LOL

    Like the “Johnson campaign” could afford to pay anyone.

    1. Yeah, too bad Gary didn’t institute socialized medicine in his state or he could have gotten the millions of dollars Mittens did from those “liberty-loving”, “small-government” conservatives who want to protect us from socialized medicine by the Dems.

    2. Yeah, too bad he wasn’t more like Mittens and BO. Instead, he suffers for his sins – refraining from instituting socialized medicine, balancing the budget and being the #1 governor for job creation.

  10. How about CNN does a story comparing Romney’s record to Johnson’s as a governor?

    1. What? That would just be boring. Nobody wants facts. They want blowhards who shout and read polished talking points. Anything else and you are just “ineffective” as people have been screaming on here.

    2. That would mean that CNN would have to acknowledge that Gary Johnson exists. No, they loathe him. Must be allergic to common sense.

      Asa matter of fact, I don’t think I’ve even heard Obama or Romney ever utter the name “Gary Johnson” either. I think they’re scared if they utter his name, he will appear in the polls.

  11. Word is they are also going to protest at the Dallas, New York and Los Angeles Bureau too.

    Come join the fun when CNN get Occupied itself.

    I hate Twitter and don’t have an account, but I might just get a Twitter account JUST for this.

  12. Why protest at CNN? No one watches it.

    How about protesting a network people actually watch, like QVC or Animal Planet?

  13. You think CNN is going to cover a protest against them?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.