NYT Op-Ed: "Gary Johnson ... competing to become [tea party] leader"

[Chieftain1776]

Written by the RINO of all the RINOs, David Brooks, unfortunately. Erick Erickson and Joe Scarborough slightly criticized Johnson after the piece was discussed this morning on Morning Joe. I don't trust Brooks' motives but this was a nice mention nonetheless:



....
The movement is especially popular among independents. The Rasmussen organization asked independent voters whom they would support in a generic election between a Democrat, a Republican and a tea party candidate. The tea party candidate won, with 33 percent of independents. Undecided came in second with 30 percent. The Democrats came in third with 25 percent and the Republicans fourth with 12 percent.

Over the course of this year, the tea party movement will probably be transformed. Right now, it is an amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several bright and polished politicians, like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its de facto leader. If they succeed, their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become a major force in American politics. After all, it represents arguments that are deeply rooted in American history.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/opinion/05brooks.html?partner=rss&emc=rss


UPDATE: from haaaylee:
btw, here is the video mentioned by OP from Morning Joe:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#34702640

[kathy88]

The time has come to sort the wheat from the chaff.

[sofia]

NY Times giving publicity to Gary Johnson is disturbing. Why not Ron Paul?

Johnson has zero name recognition and even less charisma. Its gotta be Ron in 2012....until Rand is ready in 2016 (thats if USA isnt under martial law by then)

[Elwar]

As much as I support Gary Johnson, I don't like the idea of him being the "leader" of the Tea Party movement. Maybe Ron Paul could be because the movement was created because of him, but the leader of the Tea Party movement should be the principles of Liberty and the ideals behind the original Boston Tea Party.

[Dunedain]

NY Times giving publicity to Gary Johnson is disturbing. Why not Ron Paul?

Johnson has zero name recognition and even less charisma. Its gotta be Ron in 2012....until Rand is ready in 2016 (thats if USA isnt under martial law by then)

Our overlords only feel comfortable if THEY pick our leaders. Ron Paul was picked by the people and they do not feel comfortable with that. Gary Johnson was picked because he is an insider, a governor who stated he supported "open borders". They can get behind a guy like that. He controled a border state with Mexico and is for open borders.

This is someone that no one is going to be able to get behind. The vast majority of people in the liberty movement are against open borders. Thus the NY Times is knighting him as tea party leader decider in chief.

[constituent]

Thus the NY Times is knighting him as tea party leader decider in chief.

What amazes me is that you still see "tea party leader" as anything other than a smear.

[Dunedain]

What amazes me is that you still see "tea party leader" as anything other than a smear.

The term I used was "tea party leader decider in chief", obviously not a derogatory title. However, millions of POTENTIAL patriots support the tea party gatherings so smearing this "movement" is not in liberties best interest.

[constituent]

The term I used was "tea party leader decider in chief", obviously not a derogatory title.

You're not getting it. I'm not surprised.

Guess what Dunedain, it's not about you. Disappointing, I know.



However, millions of POTENTIAL patriots support the tea party gatherings so smearing this "movement" is not in liberties best interest.

huh?

Care to define "liberties[sic] best interest?"

[Dunedain]

Regardless, Gary Johnson remains an "open borders" candidate. The quote is his. He will never be a viable candidate for liberty because of this. Only a minorty of liberty movement people advocate ruination of the country via open borders.

As for Gary Johnsons direct contribution to the immigration-invasion? Massive 3rd world immigration made a sharp spike under his watch as gov...and this is a guy tasked with running a border state!

Even Ron Paul has stated we must secure the border or have no nation at all (see my sig for Ron Paul's direct quote).

[constituent]

Even Ron Paul has stated we must secure the border or have no nation at all.

Yea, and to think that people actually confuse the guy for a "strict constructionist."

Go figure.


Only a minorty of liberty movement people advocate ruination of the country via open borders.

I would like to see the stats on that. What source are you using for this data?

Thanks.


P.S., you still have yet to define "liberties[sic] best interest," and explain how it pertains to Sarah Palin's/Newt Gingrich's tea party "movement."

[Dunedain]

Yea, and to think that people actually confuse the guy for a "strict constructionist."

Go figure.



I would like to see the stats on that. What source are you using for this data?

Thanks.


P.S., you still have yet to define "liberties[sic] best interest," and explain how it pertains to Sarah Palin's/Newt Gingrich's tea party "movement."

You ask many questions, yet impolitely. You seek wisdom, but with rudeness. I recommend a different approach.

[constituent]

You ask many questions, yet impolitely. You seek wisdom, but with rudeness.

yea, that's what it is...

and since when does 1 = "many" ?

[Elwar]

"What is your view on legal immigration?"

"I think it depends on our economy. If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home."

"I’m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy."

[Dunedain]

Here is an interview with Gary Johnson where he states he wants "open borders". He has stated elsewhere that he is for unlimited immigration but he is generally quiet about the subject...for obvious reasons.

"Yes, we should have open borders. " - Gary Johnson.
http://www.theagitator.com/2009/04/2...hnson-in-2012/

[constituent]

...

[Elwar]

Open borders does not prohibit sovereignty. I can drive up to Georgia and back all I want and will not affect the laws of Georgia one bit.

[Dunedain]

"What is your view on legal immigration?"

"I think it depends on our economy. If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home."


And if they don't go back home? Will you enforce the law Mr. Johnson or fall back on your "open borders" policy?

[Dunedain]

Open borders does not prohibit sovereignty. I can drive up to Georgia and back all I want and will not affect the laws of Georgia one bit.

and Georgia is no longer sovereign as a result. Supremacy to make and enforce the law is now at the federal level...i.e. the Supreme Court, the Oval Office and the Congress.

As the border of the U.S.A. weakens we lwill ose our sovereignty as a nation. This has started happening already with the U.N. and other multi-national entities.

[constituent]

And if they don't go back home? Will you enforce the law Mr. Johnson or fall back on your "open borders" policy?

So to be clear, you support federal mandates that obligate local authorities to bear the burden of enforcing federal (unconstitutional) immigration policy?

I thought we stood for "state's rights" and the "founder's intentions" here? Doesn't it say something about that in the mission statement?

[constituent]

Supremacy to make and enforce the law is now at the federal level...i.e. the Supreme Court, the Oval Office and the Congress.

Wait a second, don't you think that's a good thing? Or perhaps that's only when it suits your political agenda?


and Georgia is no longer sovereign as a result

Yea, tell that to the taxpaying citizens of Georgia...

[Elwar]

And if they don't go back home? Will you enforce the law Mr. Johnson or fall back on your "open borders" policy?

That was actually a quote by Ron Paul...not Gary Johnson.

[constituent]

That was actually a quote by Ron Paul...not Gary Johnson.

...and now you know what you're dealing with.

[Elwar]

and Georgia is no longer sovereign as a result. Supremacy to make and enforce the law is now at the federal level...i.e. the Supreme Court, the Oval Office and the Congress.

So...traveling into a state now takes away it's people's control of their state?

[Dunedain]

So to be clear, you support federal mandates that obligate local authorities to bear the burden of enforcing federal (unconstitutional) immigration policy?

I thought we stood for "state's rights" and the "founder's intentions" here? Doesn't it say something about that in the mission statement?

You stated before my opinion on the issues was not important. I agree. State some facts or absorb the ones I posted.

[Dunedain]

So...traveling into a state now takes away it's people's control of their state?

I think it depends on who the people are that are moving in. If they speak the same language, have the same common heritage and don't retain primary alliance to the state they came from, it probably would not have a huge impact (other than diluting the vote with an increased population).

[constituent]

You stated before my opinion on the issues was not important.

You can't even keep straight which issues we're discussing, and when we're discussing them... Run along or remove your head from your hindquarters.

P.S., the only "fact" you stated was a misattributed quote. If you can't tell a fact from opinion... well, heaven help us from the next guy you and yours put in charge.

[constituent]

I think it depends on who the people are that are moving in. If they speak the same language, have the same common heritage and don't retain primary alliance to the state they came from, it probably would not have a huge impact (other than diluting the vote with an increased population).

"Ein Volk, Ein Reich..."

Knew you'd give me the chance.

[Dunedain]

That was actually a quote by Ron Paul...not Gary Johnson.

Whoever would advocate a temporary worker program I would ask the same question. What do you do with the people that don't leave?

[constituent]

What do you do with the people that don't leave?

What would you do? What is the right answer here, for you, Dunedain?

[Elwar]

I think it depends on who the people are that are moving in. If they speak the same language, have the same common heritage and don't retain primary alliance to the state they came from, it probably would not have a huge impact (other than diluting the vote with an increased population).

Nobody has said anything about giving them the vote (citizenship).

In a true libertarian society, people will be able to cross borders freely with no affect on the state or nation they travel to. They will not be there for government handouts, they will be there to fulfill a need in the free market.

With a free market, the more the merrier.

[Dunedain]

In a true libertarian society, people will be able to cross borders freely with no affect on the state or nation they travel to.


If immigration didn't have any negative effects I would support most immigration causes. However, the reality is that the places that have the most 3rd world immigration are being bankrupted and de-evolving into backward third world countries. California is the most obvious example but there are many others. The places that benefit from immigration are because the immigrants came from a more prosperous nation. For example, immigration to Zimbabwe turned the country into one of the wealthiest countries in Africa. When they left it de-evolved into a anti-civilization nightmare.

There reality is people turn their host nation into whatever nation they left. Thus California becomes Mexico and so on.

[constituent]

For example, immigration to Zimbabwe turned the country into one of the wealthiest countries in Africa. When they left it de-evolved into a anti-civilization nightmare.

lol, lest we forget dear St. Rhodes.

[PreDeadMan]

Ron Paul doesn't mind open border as long as we dismantle the welfare state. Then the illegals wont have an incentive to come here and get free handouts and so forth. They would have to work and it would definitley help the overall economy.

[Elwar]

Ron Paul doesn't mind open border as long as we dismantle the welfare state. Then the illegals wont have an incentive to come here and get free handouts and so forth. They would have to work and it would definitley help the overall economy.

I think most libertarians feel the same way. Open borders should be the goal, but with the welfare state we have right now, it should be delayed.

I too would like to see the day when an American truck and a Mexican truck pass each other in opposite directions across the border at 60 mph, freely trading back and forth both benefitting from the free market. But we have a long way to go before we can reach that point.

[Epic]

Gary Johnson ain't gonna cut it. He's not that suave.

[nbhadja]

And if they don't go back home? Will you enforce the law Mr. Johnson or fall back on your "open borders" policy?

You do realize that Johnson is a libertarian who is for an extremely small government, against taxes, and against all forms of welfare. He even privatized a lot of the New Mexico prisons.

I could careless about Illegals if there was no welfare and no subsidization.

[haaaylee]

Ron Paul doesn't mind open border as long as we dismantle the welfare state. Then the illegals wont have an incentive to come here and get free handouts and so forth. They would have to work and it would definitley help the overall economy.

This is exactly what i was about to reply with. Without the welfare state the only reason people would immigrate into our country would be if the market needed them, otherwise they have no incentive to come here (minus perhaps family)

Open borders would help the market, if they did it legally and didn't get hand outs from the government/tax payers.


Make them have to work to be able to stay here instead of draining our economy by getting our hard earned money. If they didn't work because there was no demand in the market for them, they'd have to leave.

[haaaylee]

btw, here is the video mentioned by OP from Morning Joe:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#34702640


and for all of you who think stephen colbert is a neo-con versus an actor, this clip will let you know that he is indeed playing a character on his show.

[Elwar]

Gary Johnson ain't gonna cut it. He's not that suave.

I agree...definitely not as suave as this guy:

http://www.llholding.com/images/poker_bill_clinton.jpg

Though...my vote isn't won by suave.

[Dunedain]

Ron Paul doesn't mind open border as long as we dismantle the welfare state. Then the illegals wont have an incentive to come here and get free handouts and so forth. They would have to work and it would definitley help the overall economy.

I agree that dismantling the welfare state would be solve most of the problem. However, Ron Paul as president would not be able to do this. How does the president stop immigrants who come here to have their babies from using hospitals for free and not paying their bills? How does he dismatle medicaid singlehandly? It would take an act of congress, literally, to repeal all of this and we KNOW that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Only the "command in chief" can secure the border...at its source. The president can easily recall all the border guards sent to the middle east and put them back at their posts. He could take ALL the U.S. armed forces and station them all on the southern border. The entire U.S. naval fleet could all be docked in San Diego within a fewin weeks.