FOX Will Let Gary Johnson Debate -- Politico

[Diashi]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63977.html

http://images.politico.com/global/news/110920_gary_johnson_ap_328.jpg


Fox News has invited Gary Johnson to Thursday’s presidential debate over the objections of the Florida Republican Party, which is co-hosting the Orlando event.

But the former New Mexico governor and fledgling presidential candidate still won’t be on the ballot at Saturday’s Presidency 5 straw poll, since the Florida GOP controls that order exclusively...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63977.html#ixzz1YXnp5McC


Thoughts: nice to see he's being invited, but that's another candidate to take time away from Paul. We already have too many on stage. I wish Santorum, Cain, Huntsman would just drop out already. Secondly, Johnson is dividing Paul's Libertarian vote. I know firsthand from visiting with local Libertarian meetups that he's getting their support. Even though they agree with Paul, they're trying to push Johnson. Either some of the lower ranking candidates need to drop, or Johnson should do so and throw his weight behind Paul's campaign. We could really use it.

[Agorism]

What were their old debate rules.

Last time they removed Paul from the NH debate. Wonder if the polling is too favorable towards him this time?

[gaetano]

no doubt.

FOX is just out to water down Ron's already minimal speaking time as well as his vote.

[Diashi]

I have a bad habit of flying in Grassroots Central instead of other sub-forums. This doesn't really belong here so I apologize for that...

[SchleckBros]

I feel like Fox is doing this on purpose to try and take away from Ron Paul

[Diashi]

At one of those Libertarian meetups, I tried telling them that Johnson actually said he was "swooned" into believing indefinite detention at places like Abu Ghraib was necessary for some reason. They all told me none of them had heard him say that and didn't dive deeper into the subject - kind of annoying.

[PastaRocket848]

Did huntsman qualify without the rule change?

[deadfish]

I agree that Fox is doing this to dilute Ron Paul's time on stage.

However... like their other sleazy tactics, this will likely backfire on them.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

The Fox audience should be scratching their head, wondering who this new guy is and why he's there. :p

[ItsTime]

Did huntsman qualify without the rule change?

Thats the first thing I thought.

[TheTexan]

I agree that Fox is doing this to dilute Ron Paul's time on stage.

However... like their other sleazy tactics, this will likely backfire on them.

Yes, I can definitely see this backfiring. Gary Johnson is a good guy. I'm glad his voice is going to get heard, at least for a few minutes.

[Brett85]

Did huntsman qualify without the rule change?

What's the rule change?

[TheTexan]

Secondly, Johnson is dividing Paul's Libertarian vote.

I have to disagree with you there. That may be what is Fox is planning, but I don't think they understand us very well.

Libertarians haven't had a real chance at a presidency.. in.. well, centuries. They aren't going to throw away their vote so easily.

If anything, he will be another voice to back up ours. Unless of course, the MSM tries to portray him as a lunatic, as they have tried (and failed) to do so with Paul.

[Napolitanic Wars]

I don't mean to sound like a FOX pundit, but Gary will never win. That being said, I hope he gives a good ass-whoopin' to Perry and others, and after he drops out, he endorses Ron.

[Son of Detroit]

You guys on here don't make any sense. Everyone was saying Johnson wasn't being let into the debates because the "powers that be" didn't want two voices for liberty on the stage, yet when he DOES get included, it's suddenly some vast conspiracy to hurt Ron Paul?

You can't have it both ways.

[Dreamofunity]

At one of those Libertarian meetups, I tried telling them that Johnson actually said he was "swooned" into believing indefinite detention at places like Abu Ghraib was necessary for some reason. They all told me none of them had heard him say that and didn't dive deeper into the subject - kind of annoying.

When he came to speak at my school he said something similar during the Q&A part. I was not impressed.

I don't mind that he is in the debate, but if he uses it to take cheap shots at Paul, as a way to stay relevant, I'll be thoroughly annoyed.

[Billay]

no doubt.

FOX is just out to water down Ron's already minimal speaking time as well as his vote.

Unfounded bullshit.

[fearthereaperx]

I have to disagree with you there. That may be what is Fox is planning, but I don't think they understand us very well.

Libertarians haven't had a real chance at a presidency.. in.. well, centuries. They aren't going to throw away their vote so easily.

If anything, he will be another voice to back up ours. Unless of course, the MSM tries to portray him as a lunatic, as they have tried (and failed) to do so with Paul.

You must not have read up on REASON mag causing the Libertarian divide by backing Johnson whilst trashing Paul.

[tnvoter]

This is good news! Gary Johnson was great in the first debate imho. Can't beat Ron though.

[trey4sports]

You guys on here don't make any sense. Everyone was saying Johnson wasn't being let into the debates because the "powers that be" didn't want two voices for liberty on the stage, yet when he DOES get included, it's suddenly some vast conspiracy to hurt Ron Paul?

You can't have it both ways.


indeed.


You must not have read up on REASON mag causing the Libertarian divide by backing Johnson whilst trashing Paul.

Quite a selective memory. Nick has said numerous times that he likes both but prefers Gary. So what? Reason not BOWING at the altar of Paul doesn't mean it's not a good organization.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Unfounded bullshit.Why would you make such a rude post to a new person?

[Libertea Party]

I really really hope Johnson spends his time going after Santorum. That would be great if he brought up his record and took some potshots at some of his gaffes like "Let's go to war with Iran for gay rights" and "man-dog matrimony" theories. But really educate people about Santorum and others records. For a recap on career-politician/poser Senator vs actual Governor and Businessman Johnson:


1) In fact if it wasn't for Santorum endorsed Arlen Specter there would be no Obamacare (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/08/sen_specter_says_he_would_still_vote_for_health_bi ll_if_he_was_a_republican.html). If Santorum wants to take credit for 1% of votes now in the Iowa straw poll he has to own the 1% of votes in Pennsylvania for his public endorsement of Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania,_200 4#Results_2)
No Hack Santorum=No Obamacare

Rick Santorum: Bringing you expanded government healthcare TWICE in 2003 and 2009!


The ad, which ran during Specter's 2004 primary fight against former Rep. Pat Toomey, features Santorum, a conservative darling, endorsing Specter and calling him the "key vote" in passing then President George W. Bush's tax cut plan.

"Arlen is with us on the votes that matter to move our agenda forward for this president and for the country," says Santorum as a picture of Specter and Bush strolling at the White House is shown on screen.

While Santorum's support almost assuredly aided Specter in narrowly beating back a challenge from Toomey six years ago, the words of the former senator -- not to mention the images in the ad -- are sure to come back to haunt the newest Democrat as he prepares to run for reelection.

So not only did he endorse the guy during the primary but he went on air saying only votes on taxes not abortion matter to him. This primary was probably the closest thing to a Tea Party primary before 2010.

It was definitely a precursor and who did Santorum go to bat for? The establishment pro-abortion, pro-union, pro-government sleaze Specter that left the party and provided the 60th vote for Obamacare.

2) Abortion isn't a vote that matters to Rick!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3HOb0NEJ1E


3) Don't forget about him endorsing Romney over everyone else in 2008. Now he runs against him? Santorum's most galling behavior is on the issue of Obama/Romneycare:


"Santorum called the Democrats' national health care overhaul the "most important issue" of the coming presidential election, and said it would "fundamentally change America going forward," before quickly pivoting to attack Romney, who he supported in 2008
Continue Reading

"We'd better have a candidate who is out there and very, very strong in opposition to government-run health care and focuses on a health care system that centers on you, not on the government," Santorum said on Fox News Tuesday morning. "And that, I think, is a problem for Governor Romney this time around."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52993.htm

And this treasure:


“President Obama & former Governor Mitt Romney's policies both put government squarely at the center of your health decisions. But I believe more government is not the answer. And I'd be willing to bet you agree,” Santorum said in the email.

Ahead of Romney’s major health care speech last week, the Journal’s editorial page slammed Romney as a “compromised and not credible” candidate for president. The editorial board said if Romney couldn’t change his message on health care, he’d be fit to join the president on the 2012 Democratic ticket. Romney last week made the case that the health care reform law he signed in 2006 isn’t much like the one Obama signed last year, saying while both plans contain an individual mandate, the goals were different.

Santorum was quick to pounce then, faulting "a lack of foresight on Gov. Romney's part to understand the implications of his policy proposals."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55132.html


All of which he knew about when he endorsed him!

So Romney had a "lack of foresight of the implications of his policy proposals" in 2006 but Santorum doesn't "lack foresight" on his endorsements in 2004 and even more recently than Romneycare in 2008!

Stay classy Rick!

I think the press would eat this up.

[brushfire]

Why would you make such a rude post to a new person?

tourettes...

[KingNothing]

Nah, he should just ignore Santorum. No one cares about Santorum. He should speak logical, principled, words at every opportunity. Doing so will expose the shallowness and insincerity of the others.

Aaaaand if he wants to take pot-shots at Perry and Romney, that would be cool too.

[fearthereaperx]

Quite a selective memory. Nick has said numerous times that he likes both but prefers Gary. So what? Reason not BOWING at the altar of Paul doesn't mean it's not a good organization.

How can you like Ron Paul and appreciate all he's done to bring mass attention to the cause of liberty and at the sametime throwing him under the bus during a serious Presidential election while we we have our best shot at winning the nomination?

It appears that they have their own agenda at hand and want the attention and spotlight only on themselves at the expense of everyone else. They are a selfish organization, if that's the case, and a stupid one as well too, if they plan on alienating their own subscriber base.

They are free to do whatever they want and we're free to call them out on it.

[MJU1983]

Quite a selective memory. Nick has said numerous times that he likes both but prefers Gary. So what? Reason not BOWING at the altar of Paul doesn't mean it's not a good organization.

Eh... Reason Magazine is on my shit list and probably will be for a long time thanks to Katherine Mangu-Ward. I think they have ulterior motives over there.

[Jingles]

I like Gary Johnson. But Ron Paul is much closer to my political views. If Ron wasn't running I would support Gary Johnson. I don't know why you guys are looking at this negatively. There is no animosity between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson (Its not like he didn't endorse Ron in 2008 and is still very supportive of him). Gary will not take on Ron Paul, but rather they will add to each other on that stage. Gary will take away from the other governors because of his jobs record. Gary tend to talk in more pragmatic/statistical terms why Ron sticks to philosophy, but also in practical terms as well. They can only add to eachother's presence on the stage. Remember the first debate that Fox held in this cycle. They helped each other out. Its very hard to explain our positions in short 1 minute or 30 second answers. Having 2 people on stage who believe the same thing (albeit there are some minor differences) will help us not hurt us.

Calm down, guys!

[Billay]

Why would you make such a rude post to a new person?

Conspiracy theorist should be laughed at.

[AlexG]

Conspiracy theorist should be laughed at. some people...:rolleyes:

[matt0611]

How can you like Ron Paul and appreciate all he's done to bring mass attention to the cause of liberty and at the sametime throwing him under the bus during a serious Presidential election while we we have our best shot at winning the nomination?

It appears that they have their own agenda at hand and want the attention and spotlight only on themselves at the expense of everyone else. They are a selfish organization, if that's the case, and a stupid one as well too, if they plan on alienating their own subscriber base.

They are free to do whatever they want and we're free to call them out on it.

Agreed. Thumbs down to reason from me as well.
I'm really sour on their "brand" of libertarianism.

[trey4sports]

How can you like Ron Paul and appreciate all he's done to bring mass attention to the cause of liberty and at the sametime throwing him under the bus during a serious Presidential election while we we have our best shot at winning the nomination?

It appears that they have their own agenda at hand and want the attention and spotlight only on themselves at the expense of everyone else. They are a selfish organization, if that's the case, and a stupid one as well too, if they plan on alienating their own subscriber base.

They are free to do whatever they want and we're free to call them out on it.

with the exception of KMW i would be curious to know who threw Ron under the bus. Have you ever read Reason or watched their interviews?

They have done a lot of good and the fact that they simply don't make Ron Paul into a political god doesn't hurt them in my book. Their track record proves they support the ideas of libertarianism.


Eh... Reason Magazine is on my shit list and probably will be for a long time thanks to Katherine Mangu-Ward. I think they have ulterior motives over there.

Well of course they do. Every organization works in its self-interest, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a better magazine (with the possible exception of The American Conservative, that is if you're more paleo-con than libertarian) or even another magazine in the same tier. Unless you like reading Bill Krystal and Ben Stein lol

[jason43]

Personally I want Johnson as a running mate, he gives executive experience and 'youth' to the ticket. If Paul could get him on board with the Fed issues I'd really like him.

I think this is an MSM attempt to unsettle Paul. There is literally no other reason for them to allow Johnson in. They have tried to undermine Paul by letting him be a lone voice, that didnt work, so now they will try to split his vote.

The problem is that I think this will backfire. All it will do is provide support to Pauls views by having two people on stage promoting liberty. None of us are leaving, even those of us who like Johnson.

Another possibility is that Johnson could build a moderate and independent base, not get the nomination and either endorce or be named as Pauls running mate which would add to our numbers.

If Paul had decided not to run this time, most of us would be squarely in Garys camp.

[1836]

I'm glad they're inviting Johnson. Indeed, if they are to invite Huntsman and Santorum, who both poll similarly to Johnson (around 1 or 2 percent), they have to invite Johnson.

[eleganz]

I'd be really disappointed if Johnson didn't use this final national television time to be completely supportive of Ron Paul and show the NATION that he is right.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Conspiracy theorist should be laughed at.I think Fox's unfair coverage and tactics have gone beyond the realm of conspiracy.

[FSP-Rebel]

I'd be really disappointed if Johnson didn't use this final national television time to be completely supportive of Ron Paul and show the NATION that he is right.
That's what I'm hoping for. Gary doesn't have much money left to do much campaigning anywhere anytime soon. Though, if he took Perry and/or Romney down a notch he could possibly create a buzz for himself.

[jason43]

I think Fox's unfair coverage and tactics have gone beyond the realm of conspiracy.

There is a big difference between conspiracy theories and the way the MSM has treated Paul in every debate in both elections. Look at what all the Republican operatives say "They need to get him off the stage"


http://youtu.be/46sLzLtNJu4

http://youtu.be/46sLzLtNJu4

They want us to go away.

[matt0611]

I'd be really disappointed if Johnson didn't use this final national television time to be completely supportive of Ron Paul and show the NATION that he is right.

Prepare to be disappointed.

[ONUV]

there should be 5 people there max.

[fearthereaperx]

with the exception of KMW i would be curious to know who threw Ron under the bus. Have you ever read Reason or watched their interviews?

They have done a lot of good and the fact that they simply don't make Ron Paul into a political god doesn't hurt them in my book. Their track record proves they support the ideas of libertarianism.

They support THEIR OWN narrow ideas of Libertarianism. Meaning, if someone doesn't follow in lockstep 100% to what they believe in, than, they won't support you. Gary Johnson relates more to Reason's brand of libertarianism than Ron paul, even though, Ron Paul is a clear front runner to bring full attention to the General ideas of Libertarianism. Talk about isolationsists.

What they should say, is "we like Gary Johnson but we will support Ron Paul in the Presidential election; as we know, although flawed, he has the best shot to finally bring the cause of liberty for everyone to the mainstream." How is that making him out to be a political God?

Instead they are saying: "We like Ron Paul a lot and know he polls at 13%, but we are supporting Gary Johnson, who polls sub 1%, to finally bring more attention to [Reason's] Our own cause of liberty as he appears to be a better fit to our agenda"

[Badger Paul]

"Gary will not take on Ron Paul, "

We'll see about that. I'm not saying it will happen but including someone who doesn't even register in polls at the last minute is pretty fishy to me. If nothing happens then it's all good. If not, then at least we'll know whose side Fox isn't on.

[emazur]

Personally I want Johnson as a running mate, he gives executive experience and 'youth' to the ticket. If Paul could get him on board with the Fed issues I'd really like him.

He wants to end the Fed - first heard him say it when he was speaking at Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic back in 2008. He also thinks we're headed for a currency collapse.

BTW, what a horrible picture - makes poor gary look like he's 80 years old

[Ethan]

I'm very happy they're letting Gary Johnson into the race.

He's no Ron Paul but he's so much better than the other Republican candidates. If the conservative media wants to give our ideas more air time by using Johnson as a mouth piece I'm fine with that.

Liberty is an idea whose time has come.

[fearthereaperx]

"Gary will not take on Ron Paul, "

We'll see about that. I'm not saying it will happen but including someone who doesn't even register in polls at the last minute is pretty fishy to me. If nothing happens then it's all good. If not, then at least we'll know whose side Fox isn't on.

Gary won't go after Paul. The moderators will. I would be surprised if they didn't do a compare and contrast on a topic with both of them to paint the picture that Johnson is the more 'sane, compassionate, and pragmatic' Libertarian candidate.

[Karsten]

I like having Johnson in the debates. The more liberty voices in a sea of neocons the better.

[trey4sports]

They support THEIR OWN narrow ideas of Libertarianism. Meaning, if someone doesn't follow in lockstep 100% to what they believe in, than, they won't support you. Gary Johnson relates more to Reason's brand of libertarianism than Ron paul, even though, Ron Paul is a clear front runner to bring full attention to the General ideas of Libertarianism. Talk about isolationsists.

What they should say, is "we like Gary Johnson but we will support Ron Paul in the Presidential election; as we know, although flawed, he has the best shot to finally bring the cause of liberty for everyone to the mainstream." How is that making him out to be a political God?

Instead they are saying: "We like Ron Paul a lot and know he polls at 13%, but we are supporting Gary Johnson, who polls sub 1%, to finally bring more attention to [Reason's] Our own cause of liberty as he appears to be a better fit to our agenda"


I completely disagree.

Reason has written positive articles about Jeff Flake, Luis Fortuno, and even Rand Paul. Hell, they have been absolutely giddy about Rand Paul and he does not adhere to their brand of Libertarianism. The assertion that Reason only supports purists is completely false from everything I have seen from them.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

There is a big difference between conspiracy theories and the way the MSM has treated Paul in every debate in both elections. Look at what all the Republican operatives say "They need to get him off the stage"

They want us to go away.That's what I'm saying. Pointing out Fox's shenanigans is not espousing conspiracy theories. We've seen it with our own eyes many times.

[Paul4Prez]

Good for Fox. Governor Johnson should have been in all of the debates. It is a travesty that they included Huntsman but not Johnson in the recent ones.

And don't worry about him hurting Ron Paul's chances -- people will flock to the candidate with the momentum and the double digit poll numbers and the grassroots energy and the money in the bank, and that's Ron Paul.

[helmuth_hubener]

Gary Johnson: "All these governors are squabbling over who made the most jobs. I've got breaking news: the governor doesn't make jobs. The free market makes jobs. My state made more jobs percentage-wise than any of these other guys' actually, you can look the numbers up, but I would never stand up here and brag about it or take credit for that. The people did that. What I did to assist that was the same thing I will do as president: veto all the stupid stuff Congress wants to do. As governor, I vetoed more spending, more taxes, and more idiocy than the other three governors put together. They do not really stand for small government. The only ones on this stage who stand for small government are myself, Ron Paul, and perhaps Herman Cain, though he hasn't got any track record. The rest are liars"

I'd like him to say that. That would be a great line for Ron Paul as well: "As president, one of my most important duties will be to veto all the stupid stuff that Congress wants to do." Debate coach, if you are reading, make a note of it!

[sailingaway]

You guys on here don't make any sense. Everyone was saying Johnson wasn't being let into the debates because the "powers that be" didn't want two voices for liberty on the stage, yet when he DOES get included, it's suddenly some vast conspiracy to hurt Ron Paul?

You can't have it both ways.

I don't remember anyone saying that. In fact, Fox bent their rules for the first debate they let him in for, too. They had him on Hannity multiple times, they've been pushing him, actually. Or did, for a year. It's RON they have a problem with.

[sailingaway]

"Gary will not take on Ron Paul, "

We'll see about that. I'm not saying it will happen but including someone who doesn't even register in polls at the last minute is pretty fishy to me. If nothing happens then it's all good. If not, then at least we'll know whose side Fox isn't on.

I sure hope Ron doesn't get bogged down with a back and forth with Gary, given their respective polling numbers. Ron needs to keep his attention on Romney and Perry, but Fox is pushing Perry, and I bet they see Gary as a way to deflect Ron. But things don't always play out in debates the way they want.

[sailingaway]

I completely disagree.

Reason has written positive articles about Jeff Flake, Luis Fortuno, and even Rand Paul. Hell, they have been absolutely giddy about Rand Paul and he does not adhere to their brand of Libertarianism. The assertion that Reason only supports purists is completely false from everything I have seen from them.

They hope Rand is more 'pragmatic'. I hope he isn't. They want to influence him.

Flake is DEFINITELY more 'pragmatic'.

[trey4sports]

I don't remember anyone saying that. In fact, Fox bent their rules for the first debate they let him in for, too. They had him on Hannity multiple times, they've been pushing him, actually. Or did, for a year.


Boy that Hannity post- debate interview was difficult to stomach last time.

[trey4sports]

They hope Rand is more 'pragmatic'. I hope he isn't.

Regardless, to say that Reason only supports purists is far from reality. I get mad because they tend to support anyone who pays lip-service to libertarianism!

[helmuth_hubener]

The assertion that Reason only supports purists is completely false from everything I have seen from them. Other way around. They don't like people who *are* purists. Ron Paul is much more libertarian than Gary Johnson, on some very important issues. Those issues are the ones on which Reason takes a more non-libertarian stance. Notably, foreign policy. Also, monetary policy. That's two out of the three big policy areas on which Paul and Johnson disagree. On domestic policy, OK, they agree -- maybe. Even on that, I trust Paul more to be actually totally committed to doing everything he can to repeal the income tax, ax whole departments, phase out Socialist Security, etc. The only issue I can think of on which Johnson is possibly more libertarian than Paul is abortion, depending of course on which side you think is the libertarian one.

Everyone at Reason is not of one monolithic opinion. I'm not saying you can't find Reason articles opposing war, or decrying inflation. But there are also many pro-war articles. And they definitely weren't interested in bringing monetary policy to the forefront -- how unfashionable. There is definitely a divide between the Inside-the-Beltway (Cato/Reason) libertarians and the Outside-the-Beltway (Mises/Rothbard) libertarians. The outsiders are much more consistent, much more radical, and much more anti-war.

[sailingaway]

Regardless, to say that Reason only supports purists is far from reality. I get mad because they tend to support anyone who pays lip-service to libertarianism!

I don't think they want purists, to the contrary, I think they want people they can manipulate. That lets Ron, with his fixed principles, out. Cost benefit approach? Perfect.

[Keith and stuff]

This should help Ron. Last time Johnson was it the debate it really helped Paul a lot. Ron is likely very happy about this news.

[fearthereaperx]

I completely disagree.

Reason has written positive articles about Jeff Flake, Luis Fortuno, and even Rand Paul. Hell, they have been absolutely giddy about Rand Paul and he does not adhere to their brand of Libertarianism. The assertion that Reason only supports purists is completely false from everything I have seen from them.

If that were the case, you would think then that they would say "we like Gary Johnson, as he fits nicely with our agenda, but we will support Ron Paul in the Presidential election; as we know, although flawed, he is the best and only shot to finally bring the cause of liberty for everyone to the mainstream."

Again, by publically stating the complete opposite, they are showing that they only care about themselves and influencing their own brand.

They're attempting to personally benefit from the movement at the expense of hurting us. That is the definition of throwing someone under the bus.

[sailingaway]

This should help Ron. Last time Johnson was it the debate it really helped Paul a lot. Ron is likely very happy about this news.

You must have seen a different debate than I did, and after the debate half the writeups tarred Ron with Gary's brush as if there were no difference between the two. Whatever, he'll be in, and I'm sure Ron will be fine.

[speciallyblend]

This should help Ron. Last time Johnson was it the debate it really helped Paul a lot. Ron is likely very happy about this news.

I hope ron and gary hammer the gop est/status quo. It was nice in the first debate as both of them made sense while the rest reminded me of nazi americans!!

speaking of hammertime:) Mchammer should remake you can't touch this:) with ron paul wearing hammer pants:) haha

[speciallyblend]

You must have seen a different debate than I did, and after the debate half the writeups tarred Ron with Gary's brush as if there were no difference between the two. Whatever, he'll be in, and I'm sure Ron will be fine.

i watched that whole debate ron and gary handed the gop est/status quo their asses on a platter! My wife liked them both! It was nice having 2 voices countering the american nazi's(perry,bachmann,romney and the rest of the biggovgop! Ron Paul(Batman) Gary(robin) no need to fear gary!!

[Diashi]

Johnson helped in the first early debate because he and Paul set the tone for future debates with Libertarian ideas. Now that the tone hasn't changed, it's reasonable to be concerned that Johnson is FOX's excuse for shaving Paul's talking time by another fraction. I'm not upset that he's getting some equal attention, finally, but it would be a lot better if there weren't all those other tanking candidates on stage taking away important discussion time.

[LirvA]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63977.html

http://images.politico.com/global/news/110920_gary_johnson_ap_328.jpg



Thoughts: nice to see he's being invited, but that's another candidate to take time away from Paul. We already have too many on stage. I wish Santorum, Cain, Huntsman would just drop out already. Secondly, Johnson is dividing Paul's Libertarian vote. I know firsthand from visiting with local Libertarian meetups that he's getting their support. Even though they agree with Paul, they're trying to push Johnson. Either some of the lower ranking candidates need to drop, or Johnson should do so and throw his weight behind Paul's campaign. We could really use it.


You are correct, but only partly.


Gary Jonson needs to get some recognition and support nation wide, THEN when he does drop out and endorse Ron Paul, which he obviously will, he will do so not as a nobody, but as someone who had recognition.

And c'mon, how awesome would it be to see two libertarians ganging up on the GOP neocons?


;)

[LirvA]

Personally I want Johnson as a running mate, he gives executive experience and 'youth' to the ticket. If Paul could get him on board with the Fed issues I'd really like him.



This. I'd love to see a Ron Paul/Gary Johnson ticket.

[Liberty_Mike]

Gary Johnson is a plant who has been placed in the debates by the neo-cons and zionists to siphon votes from Ron Paul. Do not fall for their trick!

[Liberty_Mike]

In all seriousness, to the people saying this will take more time away from Ron Paul, I disagree. Ron Paul gets minimal time at the debates as it is. I don't think this debate will be any different, regardless of the fact Gary is now going to be part of it. Look at it as a postive and see it as one more person on the stage to take away time from Romney and Perry!

[outspoken]

I'm still trying to understand how Johson got elected as governor as a GOP candidate... We live in interesting times and if nothing else there is a movement to stop labeling people, falling into rank and file, and no longer just voting based on group thinking. Even Obama who is 180 degrees to Ron Paul on most everything, illustrates well how people are fundamentally no longer voting based on group thought... Although skin color unfortunately seems to still cloud people's judgement at the present time.

[trey4sports]

This. I'd love to see a Ron Paul/Gary Johnson ticket.

welcome to the forums!


Gary Johnson is a plant who has been placed in the debates by the neo-cons and zionists to siphon votes from Ron Paul. Do not fall for their trick!

*Puts on tin-foil hat and looks around, suspiciously*


In all seriousness, to the people saying this will take more time away from Ron Paul, I disagree. Ron Paul gets minimal time at the debates as it is. I don't think this debate will be any different, regardless of the fact Gary is now going to be part of it. Look at it as a postive and see it as one more person on the stage to take away time from Romney and Perry!

agreed. More than one person talking about these ideas is a good thing.

[outspoken]

I hope Johnson goes in there and rips these establishment whores who were governors a new ass about how when in such a position individual freedom must still be respected and protected. Knowing you aren't going to win can be a powerful tool to say exactly what is on your mind without sugar coating for the benefit of winning. What is Johnson's stance on the Fed btw?

[LirvA]

welcome to the forums!


Thank you!



I hope Johnson goes in there and rips these establishment whores who were governors a new ass about how when in such a position individual freedom must still be respected and protected. Knowing you aren't going to win can be a powerful tool to say exactly what is on your mind without sugar coating for the benefit of winning. What is Johnson's stance on the Fed btw?


You bring up very good points, and others in this thread have also mentioned that it would be good for Gary Johnson to really tip his hat to Ron Paul in this upcoming debate. I completely agree.

As for Johnson's position on the Federal Reserve, I am not sure of that. It may be Milton Friedmanish.

I'll have a look around on twoplustwo where Gary Johnson himself has gotten support from the owner, Mason Malmuth, and has even posted. It's possible he's addressed the fed there publicly. I am from there and I mean you no harm.


:)

[LirvA]

The only post Gary Johnson has made thus far on twoplustwo regarding the federal reserve:



Even more nonsense about the federal debt. He clearly does not understand how the monetary system in the US works.

One question to him: How can a sovereign issuer of money, with no foreign denominated debt, with a floating exchange rate run out of money/risk default?

Answer: It can't (unless it chooses to). The main thing to worry about is inflation. But I haven't seen one Republican make a convincing argument that inflation is going to be a problem in the short/medium term.

This whole budget hysteria is going to hurt the US economy dearly. Can't support any person who will hurt economic growth based on misconceptions.



I would argue that the writing is on the wall with regard to inflation. We are now borrowing and printing 43 cents out of dollar that we spend as a country. There is no way we can possibly repay 14 trillion dollars in debt when our ongoing deficits are 1.6 trillion dollars a year.

Because of this reality, we already see a reduced appetite for U.S. debt. Do you realize that the Federal Reserve is currently printing money and buying up to 70% of U.S. treasuries? This is what economists call “monetizing the debt,” simply printing more money to cover shortfalls, and it’s an obvious recipe for serious inflation.

When government simply increases the amount of money it prints, that’s more money chasing the same amount of goods and services. Doesn’t it have to result in higher prices? Of course it does, and all Americans suffer. Also consider the fact that over half of our currency is overseas -- if the dollar stops being used as a world’s reserve currency, those dollars will come back to America, and massive price inflation will be the result.

As for economic growth, I believe my 8 year term as governor suggests that I do understand what conditions are necessary for economic growth. One proposal I really like is the Fair Tax, which I believe would blow the lid off of jobs in the U.S. -- learn more at FairTax.org.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=27785114&postcount=4


He doesn't offer any solutions to the Federal Reserve there, but I do know that he wants to cut all spending by 43%.

[BUSHLIED]

I don't mean to sound like a FOX pundit, but Gary will never win. That being said, I hope he gives a good ass-whoopin' to Perry and others, and after he drops out, he endorses Ron.

Johnson will help Paul...Johnson is a former Governor and will help to attack the other governors...he will detract from Romney and Perry as his record will stand out against theirs...he will also buttress Paul's message and after he loses NH, will drop and get behind Paul who will need him in other Blue states...that's my hunch.

[LirvA]

Gary Johnson on the Federal Reserve:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuBpc6_o-5g




THE FEDERAL RESERVE SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT and its actions held to the same level of scrutiny as any other federal department.

* The American people deserve to know the extent to which the Fed has purchased private assets at home and abroad.
* Many Americans have become interested in the Federal Reserve in recent years. America's representatives in Washington, D.C. need to also become a lot more interested in how this government institution affects the American economy.
* The role and the activities of the Federal Reserve are long overdue for examination, reassessment, and ultimately, thoughtful reform. Can the Federal Reserve pursue both stable prices and full employment, or does its currency manipulation cause malinvestment, inflation, and prolonged unemployment?
* Conduct an audit to provide true transparency of the Federal Reserve's lending practices.
* Establish clear Congressional oversight.
* Get the Federal Reserve out of the business of printing money and buying debt through quantitative easing.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/spending-and-the-deficit

[michaelkellenger]

Gary Johnson has lied in interviews claiming he is the only candidate that would bring the troops home, balance the budget, and is pro-liberty.

[Billay]

Wonder if Johnson will come off as the sensible Republican replacing John Huntsman. His endorsement will mean alot more and it will be great having a whole stage against the fed and 3 guys against the wars.

[hubze]

Looking at Gary's website, they share the same views on almost everything...so why is Fox so much more threatened by Ron than they are Gary...is it something personal? Is it because Ron dissed their golden boy O'Reiley? What is the deal?

[Joe3113]

This is a direct measure against Ron Paul.

[LawnWake]

Yeah uhh guys, if you believe in the free market, you will believe that media outlet can sell whatever journalism they want. If it's biased journalism towards a certain ideal or ideology, then they should be free to do that and you should be free not to support it by not buying it.

It sucks, but a 'free market' isn't all sunshine and butterflies and you can't be using the free market argument when you see fit and drop it when it results into something you don't like. What a lot of people here are complaining about isn't a biased media, but a media that is biased against Ron Paul. We'd be seeing no complaints if Ron Paul would've been called the frontrunnter from the beginning even though he'd be in fourth or fifth place while Perry would've been called unelectable if he'd been first.

I'm personally happy that Johnson's at the debate. More liberty voices on the stage is a good idea, it makes Ron Paul look less out of place. Johnson will probably dropout by the end of this year anyway and endorse Ron Paul.


Gary Johnson has lied in interviews claiming he is the only candidate that would bring the troops home, balance the budget, and is pro-liberty.

Yes, Ron Paul did the exact same thing. It's called campaigning. Why should they mention each other and drive potential voters in their direction?

[LirvA]

This is a direct measure against Ron Paul.


Certainly possible, but I think it will backfire on them, as support for Gary Johnson equals support for Ron Paul, DUCY?

[michaelkellenger]

Yes, Ron Paul did the exact same thing. It's called campaigning. Why should they mention each other and drive potential voters in their direction?

Ron Paul says he is the only person on the stage (a stage that doesn't include Gov. Johnson) that does that. Gary Johnson says he is the only person in the race that does that.

[LirvA]

Johnson will probably dropout by the end of this year anyway and endorse Ron Paul.



You think so? I sure think so

;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5uctRxDmg&t=39m37s

[LirvA]

Ron Paul says he is the only person on the stage (a stage that doesn't include Gov. Johnson) that does that. Gary Johnson says he is the only person in the race that does that.


You're getting bogged down in semantics. Gary Johnson is on the side of liberty, just like Ron Paul.

[LibertyEsq]

Yeah uhh guys, if you believe in the free market, you will believe that media outlet can sell whatever journalism they want. If it's biased journalism towards a certain ideal or ideology, then they should be free to do that and you should be free not to support it by not buying it.

It sucks, but a 'free market' isn't all sunshine and butterflies and you can't be using the free market argument when you see fit and drop it when it results into something you don't like. What a lot of people here are complaining about isn't a biased media, but a media that is biased against Ron Paul. We'd be seeing no complaints if Ron Paul would've been called the frontrunnter from the beginning even though he'd be in fourth or fifth place while Perry would've been called unelectable if he'd been first.

I'm personally happy that Johnson's at the debate. More liberty voices on the stage is a good idea, it makes Ron Paul look less out of place. Johnson will probably dropout by the end of this year anyway and endorse Ron Paul.



Yes, Ron Paul did the exact same thing. It's called campaigning. Why should they mention each other and drive potential voters in their direction?

Nonsense, we can complain about the media being biased against Ron Paul as much as we want. Part of the free market is the ability of consumers to criticize faulty products

[LawnWake]

Nonsense, we can complain about the media being biased against Ron Paul as much as we want. Part of the free market is the ability of consumers to criticize faulty products

Sure you can, but most of the complaining doesn't boil down to 'they're not fair to Ron Paul' but 'they don't like Ron Paul', like the complaining that Reason likes Johnson more than Paul. People can like whomever they want and sure, it's pretty poor for the media to not give him fair time at the debates. But no one owes Ron Paul shit.

[Darrel Tucker]

Another 1%er on the stage...

[LirvA]

Another libertarian on the stage. Something that is sorely needed.

[michaelkellenger]

A friend of liberty is a friend of Ron Paul.

[KingNothing]

This is an AMAZING thing. Gary says he won't run again in 2016, but if Ron doesn't win the nomination this time around, hopefull Gary can build up enough support this year that we can convince him to run in the next election. He's an absolutely amazing, principled, politician with a record of success.

[AlexMerced]

This is an AMAZING thing. Gary says he won't run again in 2016, but if Ron doesn't win the nomination this time around, hopefull Gary can build up enough support this year that we can convince him to run in the next election. He's an absolutely amazing, principled, politician with a record of success.

2016 will definetley have Huntsman, Rubio, and Rand going at each other (it'll probably be more of a Rand Vs Rubio race than anything) although I wouldn't be surprised to a see Gary Johnson, Paul Ryan, or Chris Christie jump in 2016

[michaelkellenger]

2016 will definetley have Huntsman, Rubio, and Rand going at each other (it'll probably be more of a Rand Vs Rubio race than anything) although I wouldn't be surprised to a see Gary Johnson, Paul Ryan, or Chris Christie jump in 2016

So you are saying Ron isn't going to win in 2012??? What's with all this 2016 garbage.

[acptulsa]

You guys on here don't make any sense. Everyone was saying Johnson wasn't being let into the debates because the "powers that be" didn't want two voices for liberty on the stage, yet when he DOES get included, it's suddenly some vast conspiracy to hurt Ron Paul?

You can't have it both ways.

The situation has been changing, and they're reacting.

Specifically, they have been usurping the message but not fooling those who were already pushing it. They saw freedom regaining popularity, they set out to usurp the message, and they fooled some people but it obviously wasn't enough to suit them. And, of course, they finally figured out that they were splitting their own vote, not ours.

Not a big surprise. Hope both Paul and Johnson knock 'em dead. That would make for a nice backfire for them.


So you are saying Ron isn't going to win in 2012??? What's with all this 2016 garbage.

Just thinking ahead. Ron Paul has already said that if and when we get him in, he's not going to waste one minute of his precious four years running for reelection.

[speciallyblend]

This. I'd love to see a Ron Paul/Gary Johnson ticket.

Paul/Johnson 2012 said that from the beginning:) bottom line is having both on the stage is a good tactic as they both call out perry,romney! I hope gary understands his actions in this debate determine if he is an option in 2016! Gary is a smart man! I expect him to endorse Ron Paul 2012.

[Romulus]

More BS alert... to include Huntsman and dilute RP's speaking time.