Gary Johnson Announcement? [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

thasre

09-29-2009, 11:25 PM

Does anyone know if this is true?

from race42008.com

I have learned that former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson will be making an announcement in three weeks.

I have been unable to verify details, but speculation is mounting that the former Governor is preparing to re-enter the public policy debate.

Over the last sixth months, there have been rumors that Governor Johnson has been considering launching a campaign for the Republican nomination in 2012, although Johnson has not confirmed this.

I sure hope it's true! But I hope the announcement is NOT that he's running in 2012. That would be premature. But for Johnson to begin stepping into the public policy debate now would be a very good thing if he does ultimately decide to run for President. (As I hope he does, in time.)

lx43

09-29-2009, 11:36 PM

Yeah its very premature to announce his run for president. He is definately not running for Senate in NM.

Its probably an endorsement.

Njon

09-29-2009, 11:47 PM

justinc.1089

09-30-2009, 12:23 AM

Maybe he is going to endorse Kokesh?

justinc.1089

09-30-2009, 12:32 AM

I can't support him for president due to how he treated his (now deceased) wife. See http://bit.ly/vfOyT (PDF) linked from note #13 at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_E._Johnson&oldid=313295888

If a man can't show commitment in his marriage, what makes us think he'll be able to show true commitment to the Constitution?

Ugh...

Johnson just keeps on looking like a weak candidate with extremely little hope of winning the Republican nomination... and yet sadly he is our best hope.:(:confused:

I will support him, but I am NOT happy at all about him being pro-choice, even if his position is the same as Paul's, I still don't like him being pro-choice, and I don't like the idea of a leader being a person that can't remain commited to their spouse either.

I always think if Gene Simmons can do it, ANYONE can do it.

We should all pray or do whatever it is you like to do to try to make things happen that Ron Paul will run again, because even at his old age I think he will be a much stronger candidate than Johnson.

We're just not in a good situation for a candidate to run. Ron's old, and Sanford and Johnson can't stay away from other women.:mad::( And Johnson is pro-choice:(, and Sanford is not a sure thing anyway, he could be just another typical politician.:(

Matt Collins

09-30-2009, 12:36 AM

justinc.1089

09-30-2009, 12:41 AM

Gary will start making the talk show / PR rounds here soon to lay the ground work for a Presidential run. If we can get him double the % that Ron got in NH, and have him come in 3rd in Iowa, then he might have a shot.

But I can't reveal my source, let's just say it's someone who is prominent, educated, and "in-the-know". ;)

We will need a lot more than double the % Ron Paul got in New Hampshire to win.

I think its time people here really dig in mentally, and prepare for the challenges ahead of us in elections because you can't go from 5%-10% to victory in normal elections.

You could go from the top three, maybe top five in unusual situations, and win, but not from near last. So if Johnson does decide to run, we're going to need him going into New Hampshire looking to very realisticly claim total and complete victory over the enemy. That way the worst that can happen is third.;)

I do hope still that Ron runs though because Johnson just isn't Ron Paul.

Dreamofunity

09-30-2009, 08:55 AM

Elwar

09-30-2009, 09:01 AM

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/comment.php?comment.news.7

Elwar

09-30-2009, 09:04 AM

silverhawks

09-30-2009, 09:42 AM

Does Gary still support internet taxation and open borders?

Elwar

09-30-2009, 10:51 AM

Does Gary still support internet taxation and open borders?

You're already supposed to pay sales tax on your web transactions out of state. Johnson joined 43 other governors calling for authorization to streamline and simplify the existing sales tax system. He also was beat up for trying to pass child porn laws on the Internet that mirrored existing New Mexico law.

As for open borders...do you mean like how the Libertarian Party platform that says "Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders." Or are you referring to his adopting the National Governors Association policy:

The Governors urge Congress to consider the following principles regarding immigration policies.
-The decision to admit immigrants is a federal one that carries with it a firm federal commitment to shape immigration policy within the parameters of available resources we as a nation are determined to provide.
-The fiscal impact of immigration decisions must be addressed by the federal government. The states, charged with implementing federal policy, have shared and are sharing in the costs; however, there should be no further shift of costs to the states.
-A basic responsibility of the federal government is to collect and disseminate timely and reliable statistical information on immigration and its consequences for the United States.
-Federal immigration policies should ensure that new immigrants do not become a public charge to federal, state, or local governments.
-The federal government must provide adequate information to and consult with states on issues concerning immigration decisions that affect the states.
-States should not have to incur significant costs in implementing federal laws regarding immigration status as a condition of benefits.

-The Governors urge the following regarding Legalization and Naturalization:
States require maximum flexibility in determining and allocating resources to meet the needs of newly legalized aliens.
-The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) must be diligent in its efforts to ensure that felons are not naturalized and being given the benefits of citizenship rather than being deported.
-The naturalization process should be streamlined to be more efficient and accessible to eligible applicants wishing to become citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities thereof.
-The INS must take aggressive action to eliminate the backlog of naturalization applications, which is now approximately 800,000 nationwide.

Njon

09-30-2009, 11:38 AM

So...you'd rather have Obama?

I'd rather have someone who is both a constitutionalist and a man of proven good character.

eok321

09-30-2009, 11:51 AM

I will be happy with a Johnson/Paul ticket

Ron just doesnt have the energy or time to spend weeks on end travelling around IOWA/NH, Gary has energy in abundance. Ron Paul has layed the groundwork and built up an army of grassroots.

I would like to see Ron run but drop out and endorse Johnson before the first primary. That way the liberty ticket gets double the time to win over people in the debates.;)

Flash

09-30-2009, 12:57 PM

tajitj

09-30-2009, 02:37 PM

You have got to be kidding me with these personal attacks. Please tell me that any of you know something more than a wiki article. What a thing to do, attack a man and his marriage situation when you have no idea what was going on.

People will cry and whine about issues they did not give two hoots about until they became Ron Paul supporters.

I disagree with him on issues, but realize on some BIG ones he is going to stick his neck on the line and fight for them.

Go ahead a name me another Republican Gov who did not endorse GWBush in 2004 or John McCain in 2008. Give me another former Gov who spoke at Rally for the Republic.

Gary Johnson is his own man, we will have to get to know him fully before writting him off because of a divorce.

I for one can't wait to see what is up and from what I already know about the guy would support him 100% if he runs. (unless Ron Paul also runs) Then both get 50/50 support.

haaaylee

09-30-2009, 03:37 PM

I'd rather have someone who is both a constitutionalist and a man of proven good character.

Good luck.

You might just have to compromise if you want to fix this country.

And from what i've read the marriage was already falling apart and moving towards divorce. . .

Chieppa1

09-30-2009, 04:12 PM

Can't vote for him because he didn't stop having sex once his wife died? What do that have to do with being a president and maybe, just maybe giving us back some freedoms?

Pretty sure Thomas J banged a couple women in his time....i guess I can't follow his lead.

thasre

09-30-2009, 05:00 PM

I have a few problems with Gary Johnson myself, but I still think he's our most viable candidate. And I'm a firm believer in throwing my support behind the best candidate who's actually running... not exactly a "lesser of two evils" sort of thing, but a "least evil among many" sort of thing. (It's why I voted for Bob Barr even though I thought he was a supremely mediocre candidate.)

The way I see it is, our choices in 2012 on the Republican side are going to be something like:
Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal, New Gingrich, Gary Johnson.

Of those, Gary Johnson is the CLEAR frontrunner in terms of being a real reformer, with mostly flawless policy positions and an even better political record, and is arguably even the most qualified / experienced with eight years of having been a governor with almost no major problems resulting from his policies (contrasted with the dismal records of Romney and Huckabee).

The way I see it is, the candidates rank something like this:
Gary Johnson > Sarah Palin > Bobby Jindal > Newt Gingrich > Mitt Romney > Haley Barbour > Tim Pawlenty > Mike Huckabee.

When Sarah Palin is shaping up to be the next best thing to a Ron Paul candidate, Gary Johnson doesn't look half-bad.

thasre

09-30-2009, 05:21 PM

Pretty sure Thomas J banged a couple women in his time....i guess I can't follow his lead.

I have to say, although I agree with your overall sentiment in your comment, I think Jefferson gets a really bad rap about his women habits. It seems that he was very faithful to his first wife, with whom he had six children before she died from complications of childbirth. And apparently he promised her he'd never remarry (which he technically didn't) but since it's hard to expect a widower to remain celibate, he took another "wife", his first wife's half-sister, whom he couldn't marry because she was a quarter black.

Some people like to make it sound like "Oh, that wicked Jefferson raped one of his slave women" but they had six children together and he took her with him as a "secretary" when he went on vacations to France and such. He freed from slavery those of his children with her that he could (the law prevented him from freeing slaves who couldn't support themselves). His daughters married white men and entered into white society; his freed sons married mixed-race women but had a privileged position in the black community. One later went West where he and his family passed for white, and only one son even continued to self-identify as black. One of the descendants of this latter son went on to become the first elected black public official in the State of California.

All in all, he seems to have had two consecutive, monogamous, stable relationships and did the best by them he could under the circumstances. His relationship with Sally Hemings was semi-public even during his own lifetime and was kind of an open-secret long afterwards. His family was well-provided for. I just don't think people give Jefferson the credit he deserves in how he handled his love life.

Wow, okay, so all that is totally irrelevant to this thread, but I just had to share it...

klamath

09-30-2009, 06:26 PM

Sanford sounded and acted great on fiscal policy, all that matters right?
Then we find out he was spending state money to visit his honey.
Let Johnson run for president and believe me there will be more to the story.
I have no problem voting for someone that has been divorced, people make mistakes. What I do have a problem with is, if there was unethical behavior involved that puts into question whether I can trust them.
I have been down this road before. Better of two evils. I had the choice of voting for a man that was part of a known interventionist administration or a governor that stated multiple times he wanted a humble foreign policy and wanted to lead the world by example not by force. On retrospect I wish I hadn't of voted for or supported with cash that governor as he did more harm to my beliefs and issues than the vice president of the interventionist administration.
Beware who you throw you support behind as he might very well turn out to hurt your cause far worse than to have a known enemy win.
I have become a strong believer in getting the right man or vote for gridlock. We will be a lot safer with gridlock than a poor leader that shoots us all down.
Bear in mind that I haven't completely written off Johnson, but some big red flags have been raised and I think he needs to be watched just as I believe Glenn Beck needs to be watched as a possible bad person to back.

itshappening

09-30-2009, 06:32 PM

Ugh...

Johnson just keeps on looking like a weak candidate with extremely little hope of winning the Republican nomination... and yet sadly he is our best hope.:(:confused:

I will support him, but I am NOT happy at all about him being pro-choice, even if his position is the same as Paul's, I still don't like him being pro-choice, and I don't like the idea of a leader being a person that can't remain commited to their spouse either.

I always think if Gene Simmons can do it, ANYONE can do it.

We should all pray or do whatever it is you like to do to try to make things happen that Ron Paul will run again, because even at his old age I think he will be a much stronger candidate than Johnson.

We're just not in a good situation for a candidate to run. Ron's old, and Sanford and Johnson can't stay away from other women.:mad::( And Johnson is pro-choice:(, and Sanford is not a sure thing anyway, he could be just another typical politician.:(

No one is going to be perfect sadly :(

Flash

09-30-2009, 06:36 PM

Stop saying Johnson can't stay away from other woman. One marriage didn't work out, end of story. Same thing happened to John Mccain and he still won the Republican nomination.

By the way for a board that pretends to care about marriage so much I find it funny most of you support gay marriage. I do as well, but I understandt he original intent of marriage was for a male & a female. If marriage is such a sacred thing, then may be you guys are against the Libertarian position on it?

Njon

10-01-2009, 03:07 PM

Can't vote for him because he didn't stop having sex once his wife died?

That's not what happened. Did you read the article I linked to? He left his wife.

Njon

10-01-2009, 03:13 PM

By the way for a board that pretends to care about marriage so much I find it funny most of you support gay marriage. I do as well, but I understandt he original intent of marriage was for a male & a female. If marriage is such a sacred thing, then may be you guys are against the Libertarian position on it?

I don't support gay 'marriage.' Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman. And ideally, the government shouldn't be involved in licensing marriage at all.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-01-2009, 05:58 PM

Elwar

10-01-2009, 06:12 PM

The pillars of the Republic are falling down all around you, and you base your damn voting on whether or not he is married, or left his wife? Good grief, if this is the Liberty movement we are doomed.

Exactly, someone can veto every big government bill that comes across the table but veer away from little house on the prairie and you're the devil.

Romney is a good mormon...sure, he's also a socialist and facist but he wears his holy underwear to sleep every day so we might as well stand behind him.

Flash

10-01-2009, 06:19 PM

I don't support gay 'marriage.' Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman. And ideally, the government shouldn't be involved in licensing marriage at all.

You would then be this critical of the 70% of marriages that fail, right? You would blame the victim of abuse if she or he left the marriage? You would say that person comitted a grave sin?

His religous beliefs may not be the same as yours, he may not view marriage as a sacred thing. If you are judging him on his religion then you are no worst than the ones who dismissed Ron for being a creationist.

justinc.1089

10-01-2009, 06:23 PM

I don't really like what Johnson and Sanford did with their marriages, but that wouldn't stop me from supporting them.

It just lowers them in my opinion because it shows a lack of discipline.

I know you guys are saying Johnson did not cheat on his wife, but the chance is good that he did in my opinion. But again it won't change my support for him.

I don't find a contradiction in supporting a libertarian position on marriage and saying its bad for someone to cheat on their spouse or end marriages for no good reason though.

RyanRSheets

10-01-2009, 06:33 PM

I didn't read what he did, but a constitution doesn't bitch at you for pointless reasons. It's a bit easier to commit to long term.

It started out great! I particularly loved her Post Office and general welfare. It seemed like we were made for eachother, and everyone kept commenting how great a couple we made. She was all I could think about for a while. I traveled the country talking about how much she inspired me! She called me nightly to make sure I wasn't misusing my power.

I had big goals though, and she wanted me to be a man I couldn't be. I wanted to help the poor. I wanted to stop the violence. I wanted to clean up the streets. She said I was overstepping my bounds and that I should let them make their mistakes so that they could learn from them. I told her that she would agree with me if she would have been there at the time.

One night I asked if she would be willing to give me her paper. I wanted to have tax. She told me she'd only allow it if it was consistant and fair and first we'd have to get ratified. We disagreed, and that was the beginning of our struggles. I wrote the tax on her anyhow and told her to be silent. I think I hurt her pretty bad then. She just kept nagging me with that damned First Amendment, so I seceded. It just wasn't going to work out, me a power hungry tyrant, it being a modest, agreeable document.

Njon

10-01-2009, 06:49 PM

Njon

10-01-2009, 06:55 PM

You would then be this critical of the 70% of marriages that fail, right? You would blame the victim of abuse if she or he left the marriage? You would say that person comitted a grave sin?

I'm not getting into a theological debate over when divorce is permissible and when it's not. But I will say that 'irreconcilable differences' or 'no longer in love' is not a valid reason in the eyes of God. I don't know what reason was cited in this particular case, but the article I referenced seems to imply such a reason.

His religous beliefs may not be the same as yours, he may not view marriage as a sacred thing.

It really doesn't matter what he or I believe. What matters is what's true, and marriage is a sacred covenant. While it may be legal under the law of man to divorce for almost any reason, that doesn't make it morally-correct.

If you are judging him on his religion then you are no worst than the ones who dismissed Ron for being a creationist.

I'm making a judgment based on his actions.

haaaylee

10-01-2009, 07:00 PM

That's not what happened. Did you read the article I linked to? He left his wife.

Not every divorce is mutual. Would you rather him stay in a marriage where he wasn't happy? There were together since '77. It isn't like he has been jumping around from woman to woman over the years. Not every marriage (shit, hardly any) works out for the rest of either one's lives.

Austrian Econ Disciple

10-01-2009, 07:06 PM

Leaving one's wife, especially when she is ailing, shows an essential lack of character.

I don't care. All I care about is if he is on the side of Liberty or not. This is why the Liberty movement and the LP never go anywhere. The people who support such a movement are the pickiest sons of bitches I've ever seen. If you don't agree 100% with a candidate then you trash them. We'll never go anywhere that way.

People aren't perfect. There is more important things then a politicians private life, that is OUR REPUBLIC.

So go ahead, try and find your "perfect" candidate, while I will fight for Liberty every chance I get. That is the difference between purists and Liberty minded people. WAKE THE FUCK UP AND LOOK AROUND YOU.

teamrican1

10-01-2009, 07:11 PM

Leaving one's wife, especially when she is ailing, shows an essential lack of character.

Dee Johnson died of a sudden and unexpected heart attack a year after the divorce. She wasn't "ailing".

People grow apart. It happens. The great Harry Browne listed marriage as one of his "traps" in How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World for a reason.

Njon

10-01-2009, 07:14 PM

Not every divorce is mutual. Would you rather him stay in a marriage where he wasn't happy? There were together since '77. It isn't like he has been jumping around from woman to woman over the years. Not every marriage (shit, hardly any) works out for the rest of either one's lives.

Marriage is a lifetime commitment. If someone doesn't take that seriously, they shouldn't get married in the first place. http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Matthew+19%3A1-12

Njon

10-01-2009, 07:20 PM

I don't care. All I care about is if he is on the side of Liberty or not. This is why the Liberty movement and the LP never go anywhere. The people who support such a movement are the pickiest sons of bitches I've ever seen. If you don't agree 100% with a candidate then you trash them.

That's not true. I don't agree with Dr. Paul 100% of the time. But I know that he is committed to constitutional government and I believe that he is a man of good character.

A man of good character who is not committed to the Constitution doesn't help us.

A man of bad character who is (allegedly) committed to the Constitution can't be trusted to govern justly.

People aren't perfect. There is more important things then a politicians private life, that is OUR REPUBLIC.

Indeed, people are not perfect. We're all morally flawed in various ways. But nevertheless, if someone is willing to sell out in their family life, what makes you think they will be trustworthy in their public life?

Njon

10-01-2009, 07:27 PM

Dee Johnson died of a sudden and unexpected heart attack a year after the divorce. She wasn't "ailing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_E._Johnson&oldid=313295888 says she died of "hypertensive cardiovascular disease." Footnote number #14 linked to http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/56804.html (listed as: Santa Fe New Mexican Feb 11, 2007) but that link didn't work.

justinc.1089

10-01-2009, 09:02 PM

I don't care. All I care about is if he is on the side of Liberty or not. This is why the Liberty movement and the LP never go anywhere. The people who support such a movement are the pickiest sons of bitches I've ever seen. If you don't agree 100% with a candidate then you trash them. We'll never go anywhere that way.

People aren't perfect. There is more important things then a politicians private life, that is OUR REPUBLIC.

So go ahead, try and find your "perfect" candidate, while I will fight for Liberty every chance I get. That is the difference between purists and Liberty minded people. WAKE THE FUCK UP AND LOOK AROUND YOU.

Yeah I agree with this, and its why despite not being thrilled about Johnson I will still support him, unless something changes like he says we should not only stay in Iraq 100 years if thats how long it takes to win, but also defeat Iran at the same time. He would lose my support then lol.

But I can handle him not making perfect decisions because no one is perfect, he could regret it for all we know, and I can handle him being pro-choice IF he remains constant in supporting states handling that individually.

tajitj

10-01-2009, 09:56 PM

So if Gary runs and we basically get behind the guy because he supports Ron Paul and almost everthing we do, we are goin to have people like Njon bashing him the whole time. Even going out of their way to tell other people to not support the guy, an active anti Gary Johnson campaign of their own.

Reminds me of hardcore Baldwin supporters VS Bob Barr. It is really hurts our movement to not agree to disagree on a candidate. You may be the biggest supporter of godly marriage but a lot of people get married for their own reasons that have nothing to do with God.

AbolishTheGovt

10-01-2009, 11:25 PM

Leaving one's wife, especially when she is ailing, shows an essential lack of character.

First of all, she wasn't "ailing." She had some past medical conditions, but her death was totally unexpected:

But Taos Ski Valley police officer Ramey Stevens, who with a neighbor discovered Johnson's body Friday night, remarked: "Her past medical history just apparently caught her off-guard," the paper reported. ... Friends have said she recently underwent knee surgery and was hospitalized once for a digestive disorder, but that she otherwise was a healthy woman, The New Mexican said.

Second, if you want to know how Johnson's personal life affects his governance, just look at his tenure as governor. He showed in plain view, for eight years, how little his imperfect personal life affected his governance. He may have had a failed marriage, but he still managed to veto 750 bills (more than all the vetoes of the other 49 governors in the country combined), reduce taxes $123 million annually (in a state that had never gone more than 6 years without a tax increase), cut the rate of government growth in half, eliminate the state's budget deficit, leave the state with 1200 fewer government employees (without firing anyone), shift Medicaid to managed care, privatize half the prisons in the state, stop campaign finance reform in its tracks, oversee the construction of 500 miles of new highway (all designed, financed, built, and guaranteed by the private sector), and sacrifice his neck politically in order to become the highest ranking US official to ever call for the end of the War on Drugs and to be the only Republican Governor to refuse to support George W Bush for President.

We have the opportunity to support a major, mainstream-party presidential candidate with real experience and political clout (i.e. who can actually WIN) who advocates abolishing the Fed, backing the Dollar with gold, radically reducing taxes and the size of government, ending all the foreign wars, closing all the needless foreign military installations and bringing all our troops home, restoring our privacy, restoring habeas corpus, ending the drug prohibition, saving our second amendment rights, and overturning Roe v Wade, and who was the only Republican Governor with the balls to endorse Ron Paul for President in 2008. This is a guy who proved for eight consecutive years that he means what he says and has proven that he doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk (moreso than all the other US governors combined). We cannot pass this opportunity up.

justinc.1089

10-02-2009, 12:14 AM

First of all, she wasn't "ailing." She had some past medical conditions, but her death was totally unexpected:

Second, if you want to know how Johnson's personal life affects his governance, just look at his tenure as governor. He showed in plain view, for eight years, how little his imperfect personal life affected his governance. He may have had a failed marriage, but he still managed to veto 750 bills (more than all the vetoes of the other 49 governors in the country combined), reduce taxes $123 million annually (in a state that had never gone more than 6 years without a tax increase), cut the rate of government growth in half, eliminate the state's budget deficit, leave the state with 1200 fewer government employees (without firing anyone), shift Medicaid to managed care, privatize half the prisons in the state, stop campaign finance reform in its tracks, oversee the construction of 500 miles of new highway (all designed, financed, built, and guaranteed by the private sector), and sacrifice his neck politically in order to become the highest ranking US official to ever call for the end of the War on Drugs and to be the only Republican Governor to refuse to support George W Bush for President.

We have the opportunity to support a major, mainstream-party presidential candidate with real experience and political clout (i.e. who can actually WIN) who advocates abolishing the Fed, backing the Dollar with gold, radically reducing taxes and the size of government, ending all the foreign wars, closing all the needless foreign military installations and bringing all our troops home, restoring our privacy, restoring habeas corpus, ending the drug prohibition, saving our second amendment rights, and overturning Roe v Wade, and who was the only Republican Governor with the balls to endorse Ron Paul for President in 2008. This is a guy who proved for eight consecutive years that he means what he says and has proven that he doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk (moreso than all the other US governors combined). We cannot pass this opportunity up.

Agreed. All of that is much more than the sad facts of the failed relationship he had with his wife, no matter who is to blame, and him being pro-choice for pro-life people like me. Again since his position is correct it doesn't matter too much, but I would feel more comfortable with him being pro-life personally.

But again, I agree with you. Johnson is our best shot at 2012.

RyanRSheets

10-02-2009, 01:17 AM

I'm just going to throw this out there...

I am terrible at relationships. I make a good friend, but a terrible boyfriend. I try to be honest and I don't lie, but I'm terrible at love. I would probably be a Gary Johnson if I ever got married. I am 100% confident that I would make a good president because I believe, deeply, in this movement and I will not be purchased.

I refuse to subscribe to the theory that a man can be judged by the quality of his marriage. In today's society few marriages last; it is a societal problem that is a result of far too much government. We don't have the time for ourselves and as such we don't have the time for eachother. A man who craves more of himself will tend to separate from others. It is actually kind of selfish for a public servant such as the president to spend time on something like marriage in my opinion; we elect him to devote himself to us.

I'm just coming out of a 4 year relationship and though I have regrets on how I treated her, I feel like it was the right action for us to end it. I feel a little more free and I feel like she can find someone more like she deserves. As it was, I would work at least 40 hours a week then I would come home and try to squeeze in being there for her and fighting for my beliefs. I love her as a person, but ultimately we were growing apart.

If you can accept this, can you accept that a man was more interested in work, or even another woman, than marriage? Can you accept that a man made the wrong decision in choosing his wife? Can you accept that self naturally precedes externality in order of priority?

I never care. I am selfish. My ultimate goal in life is to ensure that every man has the right to live his life as he sees fit. I don't want to do evil things, I just want to enjoy my life within the bounds of morality. I have the foresight to realize that marriage is not the right choice for me right now. Should I be rejected as you are rejecting Gary?

justinc.1089

10-02-2009, 02:19 AM

I'm just coming out of a 4 year relationship and though I have regrets on how I treated her, I feel strong. I feel like I have the opportunity to be myself again. As it was, I would work at least 40 hours a week then I would come home and try to juggle my fight for Liberty and her needs. I love her as a person, but I'm working for something more important and I simply don't have the time.

I think your motives are good, but misplaced a bit.

I think our individual relationships are one of the most important things in our lives, and that means treating our families, including our spouses, correctly and in an outstanding manner.

What good is freedom if you are alone, and isolate those closest to you?

I challenge that if you isolate those closest to you and work for the good of all your country that you are no longer free, but that you have enslaved yourself to public service out of your sense of duty because you can no longer enjoy your own freedoms with other people.

I work for freedom first for my girlfriend, then family, friends and extended family, and so on all the way up to my country.

What is the proportion in that for choosing between them?

I don't know and wouldn't want to have to decide. I wouldn't want to choose for example whether I was going to have to treat my girlfriend wrong or my country wrong because it would be a terribly hard decision. I love my girlfriend and she is the most important person to me, but thats relative to me, and my country is a lot more people than just her.

It just depends on the perspective. You're looking at it from only the big picture, a collectivist perspective, but there is also a smaller perspective that you are first obligated to those that you love. Its a part of being human in my opinion.

There is duty to one's country, and there is also a moral responsibility to be a moral person which includes loving your wife and family.

The balance between those can conflict, but there is no answer to which is more important.

You could also argue it is one's obligation to work for freedom for the entire world to the disadvantage of one's own country as well, but no one here thinks in that sense because you do not feel a sense of obligation to the rest of the world.

And that is natural, and perfectly justified, just like it is perfectly justified and moral to feel more obligated to your own family than your own country.

I'm not trying to disagree with you though, or beat you up or anything though. I'm just pointing out you should be good to your family and your country, and you should sense a moral obligation to both. If I sold out my country, I would feel I have done something terrible, and if I did something wrong to my girlfriend, then I would again feel that I did something terribly wrong. They both deserve loyalty, and neither should be sacrificed for the other.

And again everyone makes mistakes so I don't hold it against Johnson or Sanford either really. I think they're both decent people. Its just a bit disapointing to see that happen to anyone.

Elwar

10-02-2009, 06:48 AM

I wonder if those who see Gary Johnson as "immoral" also feel the same way about Ronald Reagan.

RyanRSheets

10-02-2009, 07:15 AM

I think your motives are good, but misplaced a bit.

In retrospect I really don't like the way I worded that at all, so I reworded it :P

Anyhow, the point I'm really trying to make is that we shouldn't really expect that whoever we pick be a family man. I know my sentiment won't be shared by the mainstream, but I really have no problems with a president that might not put family first when in office. I feel bad for any family that has to endure neglect, but I feel awful for an entire country that has endured neglect. Ultimately the President of the United States is one of the most important if not the most important person in the world, and as such we should expect that they demonstrate the utmost dedication to their job. Unless they're in a very supportive relationship that helps stabilize them I can see no reason why we should expect a presidential candidate to have a really good record of relationships.

fisharmor

10-02-2009, 08:59 AM

Yeah, the family thing is tricky.
At a regular job, most companies like hiring family men, because they are breadwinners and other people are depending on them keeping the job. There is more riding on that job than just a paycheck.
It's different for public servants. I suppose the family life is important for the "Fred Thompson" reason.

At the height of his buzz, I heard an interview with his wife. It was clear that she wasn't really on board with the idea.
Every debate I saw him on after that, he was a dud.
He dropped out soon after. I'm not under any illusions as to why.

Family life is important, but only insofar as it might affect the job.

Firegirl

10-02-2009, 11:16 AM

AbolishTheGovt

10-02-2009, 12:17 PM

I live in Albuquerque and have my whole life. I wasn't into politics at all when Gary Johnson was in office, but everyone knew that he was different from the other politicians and would stand up for things he believed in, even if it could cost him his career.

And since I was hanging out with massive potheads at the time, we all loved the fact he wanted to legalize pot.

Do I think he would make a good president? Honestly I don't really know. But, I can tell you he would/is a much better politician than Bill Richardson, who obviously can be bought with a little money....and look how far Richardson has gotten in Washington. So depressing. Doesn't seem to pay to be an honest politician....

So does treating your wife like crap mean you are a dishonest scumbag like the rest of them?

Or would I have someone who treats their family like crap but hasn't been involved in any bribes or financial scandals that screw the American public out of money and freedom?

Hmmmmm.....

Well, I would take issue with the "treating one's family like crap" remark in regard to Gary Johnson. He had a failed marriage, sure, but I'm acquainted with Gary Johnson's son Erik, and I know firsthand that Erik and Seah (Gary's kids) have an incredibly strong relationship with their dad, and Gary loves them to death. And, as far as I know, Gary and Dee remained on very civilized, respectful, and even cordial terms during their separation and divorce, unlike Rudy Giuliani who held nasty, dueling press conferences with his wife during their divorce and who tried to kick her out of the mayor's mansion; or John McCain, whose first wife dutifully waited for him all those years to come back from Vietnam, and when he finally came back, he dumped her for some uber-rich heiress to a beer corporation; or even Fred Thompson, whose first wife, when she filed for divorce against him, claimed he had acted "abusively" towards her. Heck, Ronald Reagan (also a divorcee) was notoriously distant and aloof from his children.

Flash

10-04-2009, 02:01 PM

May be the announcement will be an endorsement for Adam Kokesh or Doug Turner.

erowe1

10-04-2009, 02:15 PM

I wonder if those who see Gary Johnson as "immoral" also feel the same way about Ronald Reagan.

A man's faithfulness to his wife matters to me when I consider him as an elected official. I have a bunch of beefs with Reagan, but if an identical man were to run for president right now, the fact that he had been divorced and remarried decades (over 40 years I think) ago, would not be one of those beefs, because time matters. People change, and I wouldn't judge him after so long married to the same woman because of something he did so long ago that I disagree with. I wouldn't be able to say the same for Mark Sanford, however. I don't know what the future holds for him. But if he decided to run for president in 2012, I don't know if I could support him, and if I did, his recent marital problems would be a big hindrance to me. I hope he takes the next few years (or more than a few) to get completely out of the spotlight and try to to everything he can to repair the damage he did to his wife and sons. And when I look at what Newt Gingrich and John McCain did to their wives, I see utterly opportunistic, self-centered, self-righteous, untrustworthy egotists. No vow they make can be trusted. I don't know enough about Gary Johnson to say where he falls. But I won't say that it's not an issue I would have to think about.

Flash

10-04-2009, 05:09 PM

rp08orbust

10-04-2009, 05:13 PM

After much thought on open borders, I'm against it. I sure hope Gary Johnson isn't a supporter of open borders or illegal immigration in general. I fail to see how a massive amount of Socialist mexicans storming into America can advance the cause of liberty. Name one time in American history where we had this amount of legal & illegal immigration from latino populations. Name one advantage it would be for our movement.

Talking about Mexicans in such collectivist terms is certainly no help to the movement.

But one advantage to an influx of poor immigrants (regardless of ethnicity) is that it bankrupts the welfare state more quickly.

Flash

10-04-2009, 06:13 PM

Talking about Mexicans in such collectivist terms is certainly no help to the movement.

But one advantage to an influx of poor immigrants (regardless of ethnicity) is that it bankrupts the welfare state more quickly.

Obviously. Catholic immigrants are one of the main reasons liberals like Kennedy were elected into the congress. And this is from a guy that's descended from them. It's not like I was singling out mexicans specifically. For the most part I'm against any massive wave of immigration.

Elwar

10-05-2009, 08:07 AM

A man's faithfulness to his wife matters to me when I consider him as an elected official. I have a bunch of beefs with Reagan, but if an identical man were to run for president right now, the fact that he had been divorced and remarried decades (over 40 years I think) ago, would not be one of those beefs, because time matters. People change, and I wouldn't judge him after so long married to the same woman because of something he did so long ago that I disagree with. I wouldn't be able to say the same for Mark Sanford, however. I don't know what the future holds for him. But if he decided to run for president in 2012, I don't know if I could support him, and if I did, his recent marital problems would be a big hindrance to me. I hope he takes the next few years (or more than a few) to get completely out of the spotlight and try to to everything he can to repair the damage he did to his wife and sons. And when I look at what Newt Gingrich and John McCain did to their wives, I see utterly opportunistic, self-centered, self-righteous, untrustworthy egotists. No vow they make can be trusted. I don't know enough about Gary Johnson to say where he falls. But I won't say that it's not an issue I would have to think about.

So...Gary Johnson has to re-marry and we wait 40 years and then he'll be a good candidate to go in and vote no against big government?

Gary Johnson has a record of principled voting against government consistently for 8 years while in an executive position in a state dominated 2:1 by Democrats, he's willing to take an unpopular stand on an issue because his stance is RIGHT, but you judge him for being one of 43% of Americans who has had a divorce (which didn't seem to be an issue for the majority of Republicans who supported Giuliani and McCain).

"The National Center for Health Statistics recently released a report which found that 43 percent of first marriages end in separation or divorce within 15 years. The study is based on the National Survey of Family Growth, a nationally representative sample of women age 15 to 44 in 1995. Bramlett, Matthew and William Mosher. "First marriage dissolution, divorce, and remariage: United States," Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics; No.323. Hyattsville MD: National Center for Health Statistics: 2 1.

erowe1

10-05-2009, 08:10 AM

So...Gary Johnson has to re-marry and we wait 40 years and then he'll be a good candidate to go in and vote no against big government?

I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I only said that that's what happened in the case of Reagan, and that the interposition of such a long period of time is definitely a mitigating factor. I specifically said in the case of Johnson that I don't know enough to judge him on it. But I also certainly would not count remarriage as any kind of a plus, unless he were to remarry his original wife, in which case my respect for him would increase tremendously.

erowe1

10-05-2009, 08:13 AM

After much thought on open borders, I'm against it. I sure hope Gary Johnson isn't a supporter of open borders or illegal immigration in general. I fail to see how a massive amount of Socialist mexicans storming into America can advance the cause of liberty. Name one time in American history where we had this amount of legal & illegal immigration from latino populations. Name one advantage it would be for our movement.

He's definitely a major supporter of NAFTA. That's one big minus I have against him. His pro-choice profession is another.

RevolutionSD

10-05-2009, 08:18 AM

brandon

10-05-2009, 08:23 AM

I'm no fan of playing politics to achieve freedom, but when 55% of marriages end in divorce and the vast majority of the remaining 45% of marriages are unhappy, co-dependent, and unsuccessful, you're going to throw this guy under the bus for getting a divorce? Wake up.

Yes. Weak families make for strong government. I have no desire to support a man who destroyed his family in anyway whatsoever. I despise most politicians and it doesn't take much for me to throw them under the bus.

Elwar

10-05-2009, 08:31 AM

I wonder how many of you folks that are so sensitive about a divorce were so bent out of shape about Ron Paul's racist newsletters...

Or did his voting record help to overlook that blight?

erowe1

10-05-2009, 08:36 AM

I wonder how many of you folks that are so sensitive about a divorce were so bent out of shape about Ron Paul's racist newsletters...

Or did his voting record help to overlook that blight?

I don't know if I'm one of the people whom you think is so sensitive about divorce. But, speaking for myself, yes, I saw the newsletters as a major blemish for RP.

brandon

10-05-2009, 08:39 AM

I wonder how many of you folks that are so sensitive about a divorce were so bent out of shape about Ron Paul's racist newsletters...

Or did his voting record help to overlook that blight?

Assuming he actually wrote the newsletters himself (which he didn't), destroying a family for selfish reasons is a great deal worse than simply writing down your observations on a culture of people.

erowe1

10-05-2009, 08:43 AM

Assuming he actually wrote the newsletters himself (which he didn't), destroying a family for selfish reasons is a great deal worse than simply writing down your observations on a culture of people.

I agree with your conclusion, but disagree with the idea that it matters whether or not he personally wrote the newsletters. Of course he didn't, just as he didn't personally write The Revolution: A Manifesto, or all those emails and fund raising letters I get from him with his signature at the bottom, or his endorsement of Chuck Baldwin, or probably a great deal of the items you can read in the Ron Paul archive at lewrockwell.com. He's responsible for all of those, no matter who wrote them on his behalf. I suspect that the reason he didn't fall back on the "I had a ghost writer" excuse over all those years of answering the newsletter charge prior to 2008 was because he knew that that, although true, was a lame excuse.