-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
 | | |||
| ||||
|
Showing posts with label Gary Johnson For President. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gary Johnson For President. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Obama To Grads: Reject Voices That Warn About Government Tyranny.
FYI - From Gov. Gary Johnson/Our America Initiative.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Don't Sell Out To The Crazies Who Have Bought Our Country...LIVE FREE!
FYI - From Gov. Gary Johnson/Our America Initiative and Youtube.com.
http://www.OurAmericaInitiative.com
http://www.GaryJohnson2012.com
#LiveFree
#PushBack
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
http://www.OurAmericaInitiative.com
http://www.GaryJohnson2012.com
#LiveFree
#PushBack
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Gov. Gary Johnson's Live Free Project.
FYI - From Gov. Gary Johnson/Our America Initiative and Youtube.com.
#LiveFree
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
#LiveFree
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Gov. Gary Johnson On 3rd Party Candidates & Why the GOP Will Never Regain The Presidency.
FYI - Gov. Johnson's recent interview with Sagar Jethani/PolicyMic.com.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Gary Johnson: "It's A Stacked Deck" Against Third Party Candidates
On Thursday, PolicyMic writer Sagar Jethani spoke with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who ran as the Libertarian Party's 2012 presidential candidate. Johnson shared his observations about the rise of the GOP's libertarian wing, the role of safety nets in a limited government, and the ability of third parties to compete in national elections.
Sagar Jethani (SJ): Since the November elections, there has been a marked interest in the libertarian wing of the Republican party represented by figures like Rand Paul and Justin Amash. What's your take on this?
Gary Johnson (GJ): Republicans lost because of their social agenda — because of their views on marriage equality, on a woman's right to choose, on immigration, and on drug policy. It was fear of that agenda which made the difference in the election. So now some Republicans are going to call themselves libertarians. They'll say they're socially conservative, but that they won't use government to make policy in those areas.
SJ: What's the overlap between libertarianism and the Republican approach to government?
GJ: I used to run as a Republican, and the words I used as a Republican didn't suddenly change when I ran as the Libertarian Party nominee. The majority of Republicans do not actually have a social agenda. They are fiscally responsible, and socially accepting. Really, most of us just don't give a damn. We don't care how other people live their lives as long as long as your life doesn't adversely affect mine. That's when government does have a role.
SJ: If you had chosen to remain in the Republican primary race, where would you have broken ranks with the other candidates?
GJ: I would have been different from every other candidate on the question: would you support a budget plan that involved 10% tax increases to 90% spending cuts? Every Republican answered no. You're talking about the biggest issue facing the country. I would have said "Absolutely, yes! Pass that legislation!"
SJ: I remember thinking their answer was really intended for Grover Norquist, not the viewers at home.
GJ: (Laughs) Exactly! You're the president of the United States and you're given an opportunity to actually address the biggest issue facing this country and you're going to say no because of a dime's worth of tax increases?
SJ: Some members of the GOP's libertarian wing support limited government until you tap an issue on their moral agenda. Rand Paul has supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. That wouldn't fly with libertarians.
GJ: That's right. Some libertarians may be socially conservative, but they're the last people in the world who are going to want to make a decision for a woman about her pregnancy, for example. I do believe that marriage equality is constitutionally guaranteed, hence the role of the federal government protecting it as opposed to leaving it up to states.
SJ: Justin Amash has joined Rand Paul in arguing that the issue of same-sex marriage should be left up to states. You don't agree?
GJ: I get a little frustrated with social conservatives because they punt on the social issues by leaving it up to the states. Libertarians do not want to punt on those issues, and that is a stumbling block for Republicans. There is a federal role in our lives inherent in the Constitution.
SJ: Another point of difference is the Republican propensity for military intervention.
GJ: And now John McCain is trying to raise everyone's blood pressure about the need for military intervention in Syria. That has my blood boiling. Let's stop with the military intervention. And you know who's driving that? It's Republicans, and McCain is the head of that spear.
SJ: Last year the website iSideWith reported that when people completed its online survey to identify which candidate best represented their views, the vast majority of them discovered they supported libertarian principles. If the actual election results had been based solely on where people stand on the issues, you would be in the White House right now.
GJ: That's right.
SJ: Why is it that the idea of limited government, an idea which resonates with so many Americans, captures so few of their votes?
GJ: Because you don't know there's somebody out there talking about these issues. Toward the end of my campaign, I read somewhere that I got 1/1000th of the media coverage of Obama and Romney. I think it was actually worse than that. It's about getting heard. I wasn't heard.
SJ: How much of that is because of money?
GJ: You know, I got my degree in political science, and I built a list of what it would take to get elected. At the top of that list was money.
SJ: You received just under 1% of the popular vote in last year's presidential election. Will we eventually see a third-party president, or has the two-party system so captured our electoral process that the best a third-party candidate can do is raise issues and help frame the debate?
GJ: Prior to the election last year, I would have said yes, third parties definitely have a chance. But I was really disappointed in the showing. The only way a third party has a chance of winning is to have enough money to actually be heard. Take Michael Bloomberg with his net worth of $30 billion. If he wants to spend a billion to trumpet whatever he wants to say, he's going to have an opportunity to be heard and get elected. Do I have an opportunity to get elected? Well, somehow I have to have $50 million to leverage that going forward. Is that going to happen?
SJ: It comes back to money?
GJ: It comes back to money.
SJ: But imagine that a third party candidate actually wins the popular vote. So what? The Electoral College actually chooses the president. And the people who sit in the Electoral College are put there by Democrats and Republicans. The very nature of the electoral process favors the two incumbent parties.
GJ: Exactly. It's a stacked deck.
SJ: How much does the stacking depend on who is allowed to participate in the debates?
GJ: Look at the Commission on Presidential Debates: it's entirely made up of Republicans and Democrats. None of them have any interest whatsoever in seeing a third party onstage.
SJ: Who do you think should be included in the presidential debates?
GJ: I think a very fair requirement would be: are you on enough state ballots to win the election? Using that approach, four people would have qualified to be in the national debate in the last election: [Green party candidate] Jill Stein, myself, Obama and Romney.
SJ: I'd like to talk about the libertarian approach to safety nets. Since the New Deal, people expect that instead of simply providing basic protections, government should also shield them from economic harm. Are we able to significantly reduce safety nets at a time when so many Americans depend on them?
GJ: I don't know if it's possible, but I absolutely believe that unless we balance the federal budget and cut entitlement programs to the tune of 30 percent then we will find ourselves with no safety nets at all. That's the eventual outcome. Now, is that a sexy message? One that resonates with people who are currently depending on these programs?
SJ: That's a tough sell.
GJ: Absolutely. And how are you able to deliver that message so that everyone understands that this is really necessary?
SJ: So the goal is actually the preservation of safety nets for those who need them — and that preservation is threatened by our lack of fiscal discipline?
GJ: You said it. I think the federal government should get out of health care delivery completely. Instead, issue block grants to states — a fixed amount of money — and leave it to the states to establish how to deliver health care to those truly in need.
SJ: And you would fund this with a consumption tax.
GJ: I support eliminating income tax, corporate tax, and abolishing the IRS. Replace it all with one federal consumption tax, something that market economists have embraced as the way to reform taxes. Social Security would then be paid for out of a national consumption tax instead of a payroll deduction with an employer match.
SJ: Wouldn't replacing income and corporate taxes with a consumption tax disproportionately hit lower-income Americans who typically spend more of their income?
GJ: It is regressive. But here's how the FairTax deals with this: issue everybody in the country a $200 per month rebate check. So everybody in the country gets $2400 a year which allows us to pay the unavoidable part of consumption tax for food, clothing, and energy. That's how it avoids being regressive.
SJ: Taylor Peck, one of the founders of iSideWith, observed that while young people may lean Republican on fiscal discipline, they ultimately broke for Democrats in the last cycle because of their social views and aversion to military intervention.
GJ: I completely agree. And if Republicans don't get it, they're not going to regain the presidency.
Sagar Jethani (SJ): Since the November elections, there has been a marked interest in the libertarian wing of the Republican party represented by figures like Rand Paul and Justin Amash. What's your take on this?
Gary Johnson (GJ): Republicans lost because of their social agenda — because of their views on marriage equality, on a woman's right to choose, on immigration, and on drug policy. It was fear of that agenda which made the difference in the election. So now some Republicans are going to call themselves libertarians. They'll say they're socially conservative, but that they won't use government to make policy in those areas.
SJ: What's the overlap between libertarianism and the Republican approach to government?
GJ: I used to run as a Republican, and the words I used as a Republican didn't suddenly change when I ran as the Libertarian Party nominee. The majority of Republicans do not actually have a social agenda. They are fiscally responsible, and socially accepting. Really, most of us just don't give a damn. We don't care how other people live their lives as long as long as your life doesn't adversely affect mine. That's when government does have a role.
SJ: If you had chosen to remain in the Republican primary race, where would you have broken ranks with the other candidates?
GJ: I would have been different from every other candidate on the question: would you support a budget plan that involved 10% tax increases to 90% spending cuts? Every Republican answered no. You're talking about the biggest issue facing the country. I would have said "Absolutely, yes! Pass that legislation!"
SJ: I remember thinking their answer was really intended for Grover Norquist, not the viewers at home.
GJ: (Laughs) Exactly! You're the president of the United States and you're given an opportunity to actually address the biggest issue facing this country and you're going to say no because of a dime's worth of tax increases?
SJ: Some members of the GOP's libertarian wing support limited government until you tap an issue on their moral agenda. Rand Paul has supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. That wouldn't fly with libertarians.
GJ: That's right. Some libertarians may be socially conservative, but they're the last people in the world who are going to want to make a decision for a woman about her pregnancy, for example. I do believe that marriage equality is constitutionally guaranteed, hence the role of the federal government protecting it as opposed to leaving it up to states.
SJ: Justin Amash has joined Rand Paul in arguing that the issue of same-sex marriage should be left up to states. You don't agree?
GJ: I get a little frustrated with social conservatives because they punt on the social issues by leaving it up to the states. Libertarians do not want to punt on those issues, and that is a stumbling block for Republicans. There is a federal role in our lives inherent in the Constitution.
SJ: Another point of difference is the Republican propensity for military intervention.
GJ: And now John McCain is trying to raise everyone's blood pressure about the need for military intervention in Syria. That has my blood boiling. Let's stop with the military intervention. And you know who's driving that? It's Republicans, and McCain is the head of that spear.
SJ: Last year the website iSideWith reported that when people completed its online survey to identify which candidate best represented their views, the vast majority of them discovered they supported libertarian principles. If the actual election results had been based solely on where people stand on the issues, you would be in the White House right now.
GJ: That's right.
SJ: Why is it that the idea of limited government, an idea which resonates with so many Americans, captures so few of their votes?
GJ: Because you don't know there's somebody out there talking about these issues. Toward the end of my campaign, I read somewhere that I got 1/1000th of the media coverage of Obama and Romney. I think it was actually worse than that. It's about getting heard. I wasn't heard.
SJ: How much of that is because of money?
GJ: You know, I got my degree in political science, and I built a list of what it would take to get elected. At the top of that list was money.
SJ: You received just under 1% of the popular vote in last year's presidential election. Will we eventually see a third-party president, or has the two-party system so captured our electoral process that the best a third-party candidate can do is raise issues and help frame the debate?
GJ: Prior to the election last year, I would have said yes, third parties definitely have a chance. But I was really disappointed in the showing. The only way a third party has a chance of winning is to have enough money to actually be heard. Take Michael Bloomberg with his net worth of $30 billion. If he wants to spend a billion to trumpet whatever he wants to say, he's going to have an opportunity to be heard and get elected. Do I have an opportunity to get elected? Well, somehow I have to have $50 million to leverage that going forward. Is that going to happen?
SJ: It comes back to money?
GJ: It comes back to money.
SJ: But imagine that a third party candidate actually wins the popular vote. So what? The Electoral College actually chooses the president. And the people who sit in the Electoral College are put there by Democrats and Republicans. The very nature of the electoral process favors the two incumbent parties.
GJ: Exactly. It's a stacked deck.
SJ: How much does the stacking depend on who is allowed to participate in the debates?
GJ: Look at the Commission on Presidential Debates: it's entirely made up of Republicans and Democrats. None of them have any interest whatsoever in seeing a third party onstage.
SJ: Who do you think should be included in the presidential debates?
GJ: I think a very fair requirement would be: are you on enough state ballots to win the election? Using that approach, four people would have qualified to be in the national debate in the last election: [Green party candidate] Jill Stein, myself, Obama and Romney.
SJ: I'd like to talk about the libertarian approach to safety nets. Since the New Deal, people expect that instead of simply providing basic protections, government should also shield them from economic harm. Are we able to significantly reduce safety nets at a time when so many Americans depend on them?
GJ: I don't know if it's possible, but I absolutely believe that unless we balance the federal budget and cut entitlement programs to the tune of 30 percent then we will find ourselves with no safety nets at all. That's the eventual outcome. Now, is that a sexy message? One that resonates with people who are currently depending on these programs?
SJ: That's a tough sell.
GJ: Absolutely. And how are you able to deliver that message so that everyone understands that this is really necessary?
SJ: So the goal is actually the preservation of safety nets for those who need them — and that preservation is threatened by our lack of fiscal discipline?
GJ: You said it. I think the federal government should get out of health care delivery completely. Instead, issue block grants to states — a fixed amount of money — and leave it to the states to establish how to deliver health care to those truly in need.
SJ: And you would fund this with a consumption tax.
GJ: I support eliminating income tax, corporate tax, and abolishing the IRS. Replace it all with one federal consumption tax, something that market economists have embraced as the way to reform taxes. Social Security would then be paid for out of a national consumption tax instead of a payroll deduction with an employer match.
SJ: Wouldn't replacing income and corporate taxes with a consumption tax disproportionately hit lower-income Americans who typically spend more of their income?
GJ: It is regressive. But here's how the FairTax deals with this: issue everybody in the country a $200 per month rebate check. So everybody in the country gets $2400 a year which allows us to pay the unavoidable part of consumption tax for food, clothing, and energy. That's how it avoids being regressive.
SJ: Taylor Peck, one of the founders of iSideWith, observed that while young people may lean Republican on fiscal discipline, they ultimately broke for Democrats in the last cycle because of their social views and aversion to military intervention.
GJ: I completely agree. And if Republicans don't get it, they're not going to regain the presidency.
Picture Credit: Washington Times
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Gov. Gary Johnson's Live Free Tour at Miami University
FYI - Gov. Gary Johnson on his Live Free tour speaking at Miami University.
LIVE FREE!!!
-ADY
"A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Monday, April 1, 2013
Gov. Gary Johnson's Google Hangout online townhall from 3/26.
FYI - Gov. Gary Johnson's recent Google Hangout online townhall.
#LiveFree
-ADY
"A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Gov. Gary Johnson's speech at Paul Fest!
FYI - Gov. Gary Johnson's speech at Paul Fest!
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Gary Johnson Can and Will Win – Here’s How.
FYI - From Ron Moore/ManhattanLP.org.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Gary Johnson Can and Will Win – Here’s How.
What’s the objective? That is – what are we trying to win?
I propose the objective is to shift the path of the human race irreversibly toward freedom. That means many things . But let’s keep it short and borrow a phrase from someone who knows about freedom – Ron Paul. The objective is “peace, liberty and prosperity”. That’s winning. That’s winning no matter who is in the White House, no matter who controls Congress. Winning is winning over hearts and minds to the idea that humans are better off when they are free – all humans – all the time. There’s an old bumper sticker. – If the people lead, the leaders will follow. You can’t expect electoral change until you have cultural change. That cultural change has been building quietly for some time. Ron Paul has been the natural focal point for that movement and while we haven’t won the war yet – we’ve been quietly winning battles for at least 5 or 6 years. If you haven’t been paying attention Ron Paul has been winning a lot of battles lately that haven’t been so quiet. He’s been winning because he has been saying things that people know – deep in their hearts- to be true.
Fast forward to the 2012 presidential debates. Imagine Barack Obama in the middle, Ron Paul on one side, Gary Johnson on the other and about 60 million people in their living rooms .
What do you think is about to happen?
I don’t know about you but that’s what I am hoping (and working and donating money) for. Don’t give me that crap about Ron Paul can’t win. I don’t care about can’t – I care about how? Freedom is too big to fail – right?
Just to humor some of the nay-sayers out there let’s allow for a second the off chance that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination. Let’s imagine the 2012 presidential debates with Barack Obama, Gary Johnson and – (wait for it) Mitt Romney? Who do you think is the weak link in THAT debate?
If not Ron Paul who do YOU want defending freedom against Barack Obama in front of 60 million people.
I still like the Johnson, Obama, Paul scenario but the outcome is the same either way. It’s just a matter of degree.
That debate will not be about the finer points of deep libertarian philosophy. It won’t be about minarchism vs. anarchism. It won’t be about whether to take matching funds. It won’t be about whether the Fed or the Treasury will print money out of thin air. Those debates are for the hard core that always vote Libertarian- let’s call them “the 1/2 of 1 percent”. The 2012 presidential debate will be about the other 99.5% of Americans. It will be about how the rest of the American people feel – deep in in their hearts – about the men who are talking to them from that stage and how they feel about what those men are saying. It will be about whether the American people should – deep in their hearts- trust the Government more than they trust freedom, that is – more than they trust themselves, their families and their neighbors.
I’ve seen Gary Johnson debate 3 or 4 times now. Standing opposite Barack Obama, Gary Johnson will make sense to everyone who isn’t dependent on a government check and a lot of people who are. He will strike a chord in people’s hearts because despite what the political class want you to think , people really do believe in freedom and they really do know -deep in their hearts – that it’s the way forward for the human race. It’s just that they have had it drummed into their heads since birth that they need a nanny (well – all those other people do) or the world will fly apart. But a free world will not fly apart – quite the opposite. Gary Johnson is just the guy to explain to 60 million people in his calm, experienced way that as he says “good government is easy”. He knows – he did it in New Mexico as Governor for two terms. He can do it again as President. It will make sense to them when he says “peace is cheaper” and when he tells them that – deep in their hearts – they really ARE libertarian.
The voters are going to like Gary Johnson. I’ve seen it already. Regular people are telling me they like this guy. He is changing their minds about freedom. And when the people begin to change their minds about freedom elections begin to change, laws begin to change, the way we deal with each other begins to change. And – funny thing – once people change their minds about freedom they don’t go back.
This is how we win.
So when someone tells you Gary Johnson can’t win – tell them he is already winning. Tell them you won’t waste your life voting for the lesser of two evils. Tell them your life is worth more than that? Tell them you are going to vote for the real win. The one where freedom – and the whole human race – wins.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Gov. Gary Johnson On The Issues!
FYI - From iSideWith.com/Taylor Peck.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Interview with Gary Johnson
Posted 3 months ago by Taylor Peck
Last month Gary Johnson became the Libertarian Party's 2012 Presidential nominee after ending his bid for the Republican nomination last December. We sat down with Mr. Johnson last week and discussed his views on immigration, abortion, drug policy and education.
Q: If elected President would you grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.?
A: I wouldn't call it amnesty I would call it a grace period. I think one of the real misconceptions about amnesty is that its citizenship. I am advocating comprehensive immigration reform. I think we should make it as easy as possible to get a work visa. Would immigrants stand in line to get a work visa if the line was moving? I think that they would.
Q: Would you issue a national immigration policy or leave it up to each individual state to implement their own?
A: In this case the work visa does fall under the Constitution and that would be a federal rule. It would be complicated if you had a work visa in New Mexico and Colorado would not honor it. When President George W. Bush proposed amnesty he never meant dual citizenship and thats why in my opinion that the issue did not advance. Then he backed off. Why do we elect a president? We elect a president to lead and push the dialogue and make people understand.
Q: You have stated your that you believe abortion should be outlawed after the 5th term which is different from the official position of the Libertarian Party which views abortion as an individual right. If elected President would you outlaw late term abortions?
A: So this is a tough issue and when it comes to my own beliefs. I believe that a woman has the right to choose but after a certain point there is no viability to the fetus. I signed legislation banning late term abortion and it turns out this is the current law of the land which is Casey vs. Planned Parenthood. Viability of the fetus is defined as being able to sustain the life of the fetus even outside the womb even with artificial needs, that's the law of the land which I did not realize mirrors my own beliefs.
Q: Have you discussed abortion with those within the Libertarian party who view this as an individual right?
A: I don't find myself sideways at all with the Libertarian party. Leaving this decision to the states and recognizing the law of the land mirrors my own personal beliefs. I personally support a woman's right to choose and when I signed legislation banning late term abortion I did not want late term abortions to be criminalized.
Q: Other Presidential candidates have cited congressional earmarks as the leading cause of wasteful government spending. As President what would you do to cut spending and is it even possible to eliminate all congressional earmarks?
A: I got to serve as the governor of New Mexico for eight years under the guise of being a Libertarian governor under the guise of being a Republican. They did a caricature of me in an editorial cartoon where I was on a pogo stick and at the end of the pogo stick was the word "veto" and I had veto'd every square inch of the state and thats exactly what I did. In a state that is two-to-one Democrat I made a name for myself vetoing more legislation than the other forty-nine governors combined I found that it's really good politics to be a good steward of tax dollars and that was what my re-election really stands for.
Q: So you don't have a problem with earmarks if the money is wisely spent?
A: No, I did not have an issue when you talk about earmarks. New Mexico had a line-item veto so I was able to item out certain earmarks and I took that to a new art form. I didn't have an issue with the legislature of New Mexico spending money that we had. I had an issue with them spending more money than I felt we had. Medicaid is really the budget buster in all the states because it is open-ended. You do not know what it is going to cost. It's an entitlement and so the legislature in New Mexico would come up with their projections and I'd come up with another projection and the difference was hundreds of millions of dollars. I'd veto that expenditure every single year which was the obligation from what I thought the state would have every year.
Q: You are in favor of decriminalizing marijuana because it would lower the price and "eliminate the criminal element." Would you legalize other narcotics including heroin and cocaine?
A: I've advocated legalizing marijuana since 1999. When it comes to all the other drugs I am advocate of harm reduction strategies. Death, disease and crime is what we really care about. Right now we are at the tipping point when it comes to marijuana in this country and I think Colorado will be the first domino to fall with the ballot initiatives they have to regulate marijuana like alcohol. When that happens we all take giant steps forward to look at drugs from a rational standpoint which is that it is a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. I would take all of those initiatives and get it out of the criminal justice system. The world would be a better place tomorrow if all drugs were legalized believing that 90% of the drug problem is prohibition related, not use related. I don't think we go from criminalizing all drugs to legalizing all drugs overnight. I think once we legalize marijuana and find out that the world doesn't end and is actually a better place, when police go out and fight real crime as opposed to non-violent crime, I think we will all kind of slap ourselves across the face and recognize what were we all thinking and let's focus on other drugs and what can we do from a harm reduction standpoint.
Q: You have stated that you would abolish the U.S. Department of Education. Would you encourage individual states to set their own standards similar to the No Child Left Behind Act?
A: I don't think people recognize that the the Department of Education was established in 1979 under Jimmy Carter. So if you measure educational performance since 1979 there is nothing to suggest that the federal government has added any value. The federal government gives eleven cents out of every school dollar that every state spends but it comes with 16 cents of strings attached, and I found this as governor of New Mexico. I was more outspoken than any governor in the country regarding school choice and vouchers having proposed a full blown voucher system in New Mexico for six years believing that bringing competition to education would improve it dramatically. There is so much education that is being distorted by Washington. Give it up to the states and in my opinion there will be some fabulous successes that will be emulated.
Gary Johnson Is More Qualified Than Ross Perot - Include Him In Polls!
FYI - From AllVoices.com/Darren Richardson and GaryJohnson2012.com.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
AllVoices.com: “Gary Johnson vs. Scott Rasmussen: The Voters Lose”
By Darren Richardson
As we move toward the hype and hoopla of the Republican National Convention in Tampa next week and the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte early next month, The American Pundit Writing Assignment for the second half of August focuses on the condition of political reporting in United States:
Do the media place too much emphasis on the superficial aspects of politics at the expense of meaningful, investigative coverage? Or do you think full coverage of stage-managed events – such as the upcoming Republican and Democratic conventions – also is necessary to keep the voting public as informed as possible? How could media coverage of the campaigns and candidates be improved?
In a political media climate largely driven by polling results, who or what a polling firm decides to include in its polls can influence wider media coverage of the candidates or issues, which affects the vote totals. And just like CNN, Fox or other media outlets, professional pollsters sometimes get it wrong. But unlike news organizations that readily correct their mistakes, pollsters can be more stubborn.
Rasmussen plays word games
The most recent example of a major mistake by a high-profile pollster is Scott Rasmussen’s unjustifiable justification for omitting Johnson from his firm’s polling. “We have concluded that the most accurate measure of the Obama-Romney race is to leave Johnson out of the mix,” Rasmussen wrote on his website earlier this month.
Rasmussen also knows that Johnson is not your typical third party candidate. Maybe that’s why he alluded to accuracy in measuring the “Obama-Romney race” rather than “the presidential race.” Yes, it is more accurate measure of a race between two people to only include two names. But the 2012 presidential race features three, not two, viable candidates for the White House.
A slogan on the Rasmussen website further confirms the pollster’s intricate knowledge of the symbiotic relationship between polls and the news: “If it’s in the News, it’s in our Polls.” With a slogan like that, Rasmussen obviously knows that his polls do, in fact, help drive coverage. Still, he has made the decision to keep voters in the dark rather than shining an honest light on the full spectrum of the options this November.
Johnson’s eight years as governor of New Mexico (1995-2003) give him more executive experience than President Obama, Vice President Biden, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney and would-be VP Paul Ryan combined. Think about that irrefutable fact for a few moments, and then ask yourself a question: Has the two-party system so corrupted American politics that the most qualified challenger to the incumbent is left “out of the mix”?
Despite despicable ballot-suppression tactics against the Libertarian ticket in several states, Johnson and running mate Jim Gray likely will be on the ballot in all 50 states, with Johnson as arguably the most-qualified “third party” presidential candidate since ex-president Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose ticket in 1912.
Johnson is more qualified than…
Johnson is more qualified to be president than Texas billionaire businessman H. Ross Perot, who was included in 1992 polling (and the ’92 debates) even after suspending his campaign for a time that summer. Perot pulled in about 19 percent of the popular vote.
Johnson is more qualified than John Anderson, a Republican representative who failed in his bid to win the 1980 Republican nomination and turned independent in his presidential quest. Polls by Gallup and other organizations included Anderson until October, when he began dropping into single digits against GOP nominee Ronald Reagan and Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter. In fact, Reagan and Anderson squared off in a one-on-one debate on Sept. 21, with Carter refusing to participate. Anderson’s numbers dipped after the debate, so Reagan and Carter faced off just a week before the election. Reagan won in a landslide, and Anderson ended up registering 6.6 percent of the popular vote.
And there can be absolutely no doubt at all that Johnson is more qualified to be president than Alabama’s segregationist governor George Wallace, who won 46 electoral votes with 8.6 percent of the popular vote in 1968, when Richard Nixon squeaked by sitting Vice President Hubert Humphrey. There were no presidential debates between 1964 and 1976.
Why is Rasmussen preventing the American people from learning more about their choices in November?
To his credit, Rasmussen stated that if “some other candidate” begins registering more than 4-6 percent, he may consider including Johnson. But Rasmussen also must know that simply including any candidate’s name in his polls would elevate the candidate’s numbers. For now, Rasmussen and other pollsters can hide behind circular logic and tricky linguistics while pretending to serve the public interest. But as more American voters begin to realize that Johnson is, in fact, “some other candidate,” Rasmussen may have no choice but to replace his catch-all phrase with a real name.
The voting public, and the country as a whole, will be well-served when he does.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Gary Johnson polls ahead of Romney and Obama on issues!
FYI - From Examiner.com/Karl Dickey.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
RELATED TOPICSLibertarian Party Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Libertarian Presidential candidate polls ahead of Romney and Obama on issues.
RELATED TOPICSLibertarian Party Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson
Credits:
www.garyjohnson2012.com
The most comprehensive poll of 887,000 Americans this year via the iSidewith website has found Libertarian Party Presidential nominee Gary Johnson easily beats Mitt Romney and Barack Obama for the 2012 General election. He is in fact, the most popular presidential candidate you have never heard of due to a media blackout of Libertarian candidates. NPR did recently report on this finding, however, as with most media outlets, continues to discussing the general election naming only Romney and Obama to the exclusion of Johnson.
iSidewith has website visitors answer questions based on a comprehensive list of issues and matches those answers with candidate's positions. The advantage of this method of picking a candidate enables Americans to get past the rhetoric, media exclusion and campaign ads often associated with campaigns so voters are able to focus on only the issues.
If the election was held today based on what 887,000 Americans have already 'voted' via the iSidewith website, Gary Johnson would win 28 states, Barack Obama would win 16 states, Mitt Romney would win 4 states.
Most polls take samples from 800 to 1,200 American voters, often excluding mention of Johnson and iSidewith is helping Americans make an informed choice bypassing the mainstream media in finding a candidate most in line with their own principles and values.
National Poll: Gary Johnson at 24%, Obama at 45%
FYI - From Examiner.com/Karl Dickey.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
National Poll: Gary Johnson at 24%, Obama at 45%
A new nationwide presidential election poll conducted on August 8, 2012 by Pulse Opinion Research of 1,000 likely voters put Barack Obama in the lead with 45% of respondents saying they expect to vote for him in the November 6, 2012 general election, ‘some other candidate’ received 27%, Gary Johnsonreceived 24% and 3% were not sure who they were voting for. The responding likely voters were asked, “Suppose in this year’s Presidential Election you had a choice of Libertarian Gary Johnson or Democrat Barack Obama. If the election were held today would you vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson or Democrat Barack Obama?” Here is a link to what the actual poll sounded like when voters were called for the poll.
This is up from another recent national pollwhere Johnson was at 19% and up from aJanuary, 2012 poll at 9%. So Johnson is growing in popularity despite the general media’s refusal to cover arguably one of the more interesting candidates in the race. One thing to be sure, the more people hear Johnson's message, the more he jumps in the polls and volunteers jump onto his campaign.
The stakes are high for all three candidates in how they perform in national polls as it is one of the more important determining factors concerning who is able to participate in the upcoming Presidential Debates. A candidate must receive a minimum of 15% of the polling votes to participate, yet Johnson's name is not mentioned in most of the polls being considered for the criteria.
The poll was conducted under the same parameters asRasmussen Reports, LLC conducts its polling. In the polling Rasmussen has been conducting of the election they include the names of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, purposefully leaving out the name Gary Johnson replacing it with “some other candidate’ which many find unfair since Johnson’s name will be on the ballot in all 50 states. In fact, the only three presidential candidates who have a mathematical chance to win the presidency are Gary Johnson,Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Jill Stein of the Green Party would be a formidable candidate for the other three if she was going to be on the ballot in all 50 states, however is expected to be on less than 38 and suffers from the same, if not worse, media blackout as Johnson
.
.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Libertarian presidential candidate optimistic about uphill fight.
FYI - From MyWestTexas.com/James Cannon and LPTN.org.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Read more: Libertarian presidential candidate optimistic about uphill fight - Mywesttexas.com: Top Stories http://www.mywesttexas.com/top_stories/article_d190a670-e6a3-11e1-bdf3-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz23wAVTZvj
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Libertarian presidential candidate optimistic about uphill fight.
Gary Johnson
Libertarian Presidential nominee Gary Johnson signs an autograph for 10-year-old Michael Dameron Tuesday at Dee's Bistro & Grill in Odessa. The third-party candidate kicked off his Texas tour in the Permian Basin in an effort to garner more support ahead of the presidential debates. Michael's mother, Charlotte, said it was important for her to teach her son that an individual could make a difference in a grassroots effort.
ODESSA -- In an attempt to gain more supporters and increase polling numbers ahead of the presidential debates, Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson began a weeklong tour of Texas on Tuesday.
The third-party candidate gave a 20-minute stump speech before answering questions from a couple dozen West Texans at Dee's Bistro & Grill. After stating his credentials as a former small business owner and two-term governor of New Mexico, Johnson spent the majority of his time defining his nuanced view of issues that face America.
"I'm socially accepting and fiscally responsible," Johnson said. "I believe the majority of Americans fall into this category."
The Libertarian told supporters the biggest problem facing his campaign is a lack of exposure. He admitted that if he were to have any chance in the general election, he would need to be on the podium with President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney during the debates. But therein lies the problem, he said. To be invited to the national debates, which are viewed by millions, Johnson would need to poll at least 15 percent nationally. As it stands now, only three of the 18 major polling institutes have him on the questionnaire, and he is only polling about 1 to 2 percent nationally.
"We should readdress how the (election, polling and debate) system works, but the Commission on Presidential Debates is run exclusively by Democrats and Republicans and they have no interest in reworking presidential debates," Johnson said.
Johnson said that not only was he the only third-party candidate on the ballot in all 50 states, but that he was the only candidate who cared about civil liberty issues and a sound fiscal policy. Johnson rattled off a list of his Libertarian credentials to an enthusiastic crowd: Support for a balanced budget, equality for all Americans to marry, abolishment of federal income taxes, support for bringing the troops home from Afghanistan, the willingness to call the drug war a failure and to refuse to bomb Iran.
"I've always supported issues first and politics last," Johnson said about his willingness to tackle contentious issues such as entitlement reform and immigration.
He recounted his history running for governor of New Mexico. Even though the Republican party said they would include him, he told the audience, the establishment said he had no chance of winning as an outsider Republican in a two-to-one Democrat state.
He ended up winning and proceeded to veto more legislation than all of New Mexico's governors before him, he said during his meet-and-greet. The next election, he won by an even larger margin, he recounted. Johnson added that he liked to think it was based on his ideas and governing policy.
Several in the crowd asked Johnson's opinion on an array of subjects, and the former governor provided detailed, nuanced explanations instead of the typical 30-second sound bite. During most explanations, like immigration, he said there wasn't a simple answer or a one solution fix. He said the country needed to readdress its worker visa program, end the war on drugs to take away the black market profitability, offer a path to existing illegal immigrants in America, abolish racial and ethnic immigration quotas, end federal income taxes and allow the markets to decided how many jobs low-skilled immigrants could perform in America.
He described the Federal Reserve as a group of "crony capitalists" and called the bailout scheme an "inside job" that was tantamount to grand theft from taxpayers.
Charlotte Dameron brought her 10-year-old son, Michael, to teach him about the importance of integrity and leadership when considering political candidates.
"I vote on issues and Johnson's are in line with mine and the Libertarian Party's," Dameron said. "But I wanted to bring my son to teach him how one person can make a difference in a grassroots effort."
Lydia Colon, of Odessa, was one of the 20-somethings in attendance supporting "personal freedom and less government."
She said she's been a Libertarian for about a year and definitely would vote for Johnson, regardless of how many others would vote for a third-party candidate.
But some like Carol Traut, a political science professor for the University Texas of the Permian Basin, said money and entrenched interests will prevent a third-party candidate from becoming viable. She quickly talked about how America has become a splintered, apathetic society and said even though more people are disaffected, she expects little change.
Regardless, Johnson said he is optimistic about his presidency and his cause of spreading liberty and Libertarianism to the American people as he tours the country.
He will be in Dallas speaking to supporters today as part of his tour in Texas.
James Cannon can be reached at jcannon@mrt.com.
Read more: Libertarian presidential candidate optimistic about uphill fight - Mywesttexas.com: Top Stories http://www.mywesttexas.com/top_stories/article_d190a670-e6a3-11e1-bdf3-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz23wAVTZvj
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Star-Telegram: “Gary Johnson counting on Ron Paul’s backers to switch.”
FYI - From the Star-Telegram/Bud Kennedy and GaryJohnson2012.com.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Star-Telegram: “Gary Johnson counting on Ron Paul’s backers to switch”
By Bud Kennedy
Libertarian presidential candidate and would-be spoiler Gary Johnson smoked out new campaign cash here this week.
But his hopes are just a pipe dream unless he wins over Republican voters loyal to never-say-quit candidate Ron Paul.
“Hundreds” of Republicans have promised Johnson they will switch his way if the Republican National Convention nominates Mitt Romney on Aug. 30, Johnson said Thursday.
“That’s hundreds telling me personally, which means how many more?” Johnson said during a six-day Texas campaign swing.
He predicted a “gigantic influx” of support after Romney is nominated.
“People are holding out hope for Ron,” said Johnson, a former New Mexico governor.
“After that, who represents Ron’s voice best? Romney? Or me?”
Ten weeks from the start of early voting in Texas, Johnson is nowhere close to qualifying for a presidential debate and has been completely shut out of campaign buzz by the Republican cable-TV and talk-radio echo chamber.
His campaign message is thin enough to fit a GMC Tahoe window: “balance the budget,” “end wars,” “abolish the IRS” and “end the war on drugs.”
Yet even before any Paul voters switch, his current 8 to 13 percent of the vote in Western states might be enough to tip pivotal Electoral College votes for or against Romney or President Barack Obama.
If Johnson takes away a swing state Romney badly needs — “then let me be the spoiler,” Johnson said.
And if he helps Obama win?
“Do I agree with him on dollars-and-cents issues?” Johnson asked. “Absolutely not.
“But we’re closer on civil liberties. Actually, I think I take votes away from both Romney and Obama.”
In a Deep Ellum restaurant Wednesday night, Johnson drew cheers by mentioning Paul.
“Ron Paul always said that he was a messenger,” Johnson said.
“When Ron Paul’s campaign comes to an end, who is going to be the best voice for liberty and freedom? … It’s going to be me.”
Johnson said he’s “the only candidate who doesn’t want to bomb Iran” and wants to get U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.
“I’m the only candidate who talks about marriage equality from the standpoint of it being a constitutionally guaranteed right,” he said.
“I’m the only candidate that wants to end the drug wars. Let’s legalize marijuana. … I’m the only candidate who talks about repealing the Patriot Act.” Paul’s voters are two weeks away from listening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)