Saturday, August 25, 2012

The Alternative and Antidote to the Major Party Statist Candidates...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Gary Johnson,  Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate 2012

America is faced with a choice on November 6, 2012 of selecting, and voting for one of "the lesser of two evils." Both Barrack Hussein Obama and Mitt Willard Romney are statists who believe in the power of government to correct perceived societal, economic, and political problems. They both believe the government, rather than the individual(s) has the solutions to problems and therefore believe government creates the environment that leads to prosperity and growth. The paths each advocate are different, but ultimately both paths lead to tyranny. A reality wherein the government reverses roles on the people and the people begin to work for the government. In direct contradiction to our founding principles and our Constitution.

Gary Johnson, a limited government, fiscal conservative, pro defense (yet anti MIC), libertarian (liberal) on social issues, and vocal supporter of individual liberty is a man with a clear vision for America, he understands the direction the nation needs to travel and the means by which to achieve getting America back on track again.

From the Johnson website:

Governor Johnson, who has been referred to as the ‘most fiscally conservative Governor’ in the country, was the Republican Governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003.

A successful businessman before running for office in 1994, Gov. Johnson started a door-to-door handyman business to help pay his way through college. Twenty years later, he had grown the firm into one of the largest construction companies in New Mexico with over 1,000 employees. Not surprisingly, Governor Johnson brings a distinctly business-like mentality to governing, believing that decisions should be made based on cost-benefit analysis rather than strict ideology.

Johnson is best known for his veto record, which includes over 750 vetoes during his time in office, more than all other governors combined and his use of the veto pen has since earned him the nickname “Governor Veto.” He cut taxes 14 times while never raising them. When he left office, New Mexico was one of only four states in the country with a balanced budget.

Term-limited, Johnson retired from public office in 2003. An avid skier, adventurer, and bicyclist, he has reached the highest peak on four of the seven continents, including Mt. Everest.

In 2009, after becoming increasingly concerned with the country’s out-of-control national debt and precarious financial situation, the Governor formed the OUR America Initiative, a 501c(4) non-profit that promotes fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, and rational public policy. He traveled to more than 30 states and spoke to over 150 conservative and libertarian groups during his time as Honorary Chairman.

Gary Johnson
comes down squarely on most issues the average working class family cares about. He understands that for America to prosper through the 21st century and beyond requires the nation follow sound fiscal and social policies. Something lacking in both the Obama and Romney vision for America.

Unfortunately, due to systemic hurdles designed by national two party system adherents, the requirements for candidate Johnson to get on the national debate stage with President Obama and Governor Romney is so restrictive they realistically insure it won't happen.

In response to this reality on Monday, August 20, 2012 Governor Johnson sent a letter to the Commission On Presidential Debates asking they reconsider their position.

Inclusion in the Presidential Debates


To the Commission on Presidential Debates,

I am writing to request that the National Commission on Presidential Debates reconsider your current – and exclusionary – requirements for participation in this Fall’s all-important Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates.

I am well aware of the history and genesis of the Commission, including the reality that it was created largely by the respective national leadership of the Democrat and Republican Parties. While I respect and understand the intention to provide a reasonable and theoretically nonpartisan structure for the presidential debate process, I would suggest that the Commission’s founding, organization and policies are heavily skewed toward limiting the debates to the two so-called major parties.

That is unfortunate, and frankly, out of touch with the electorate. You rely very heavily on polling data to determine who may participate in your debates, yet your use of criteria that are clearly designed to limit participation to the Republican and the Democrat nominee ignore the fact that many credible polls indicate that a full one-third of the electorate do not clearly identify with either of those parties. Rather, they are independents whose voting choices are not determined by party affiliation.

That one-third of the voters, as well as independent-thinking Republicans and Democrats, deserve an opportunity to see and hear a credible “third party” candidate. I understand that there are a great many “third party” candidates, and that a line must be drawn somewhere. However, the simple reality of our Electoral College system draws that line in a very straightforward and fair way – a reality that is reflected in your existing criteria. If a candidate is not on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to be elected by the Electoral College, it is perfectly logical to not include that candidate in a national debate. If, on other hand, a candidate IS on the ballot in enough states to be elected, there is no logic by which that candidate should be excluded.

Nowhere in the Constitution or in law is it written that our President must be a Democrat or a Republican. However, it IS written that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes – or at least 50% – cast by electors, and that any candidate who does so, and otherwise meets the Constitution’s requirements, may be President.

As the Libertarian Party’s nominees for Vice-President and President, Judge Jim Gray and I have already qualified to be on the ballot in more than enough states to obtain a majority in the Electoral College, and we are the only candidates other than the Republican and Democrat nominees to have done so, or who are likely to do so. In fact, we fully intend and expect to be on the ballots of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

However, the Commission has chosen to impose yet another requirement for participation: 15% in selected public opinion polls. Unlike your other requirements, this polling performance criterion is entirely arbitrary and based, frankly, on nothing other than an apparent attempt to limit participation to the Democrat and the Republican.

Requiring a certain level of approval in the polls has nothing to do with fitness to serve, experience, or credibility as a potential President. Rather, it has everything to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars available to and spent by the two major party candidates, the self-fulfilling bias of the news media against the viability of third party candidates, and an ill-founded belief that past dominance of the Republican and Democrat Parties should somehow be a template for the future.

In all due respect, it is not the proper role of an nonelected, private and tax-exempt organization to narrow the voters’ choices to only the two major party candidates – which is the net effect of your arbitrary polling requirement. To the contrary, debates are the one element of modern campaigns and elections that should be immune to unfair advantages based upon funding and party structure. Yet, it is clear that the Commission’s criteria have both the intent and the effect of limiting voters’ choices to the candidates of the two major parties who, in fact, created the Commission in the first place.

Eliminating the arbitrary polling requirement would align the Commission and its procedure for deciding who may participate in the critical debates with fairness and true nonpartisanship, which was the purported intent behind the Commission’s creation. As of right now, eliminating that requirement would not disrupt the process or make it unmanageable. Rather, it would simply allow the participation of a two-term governor who has more executive experience than Messrs. Obama and Romney combined, who has garnered sufficiently broad support to be on the ballot in more than enough states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College, and who, without the help of party resources and special interests, has attracted enough financial support to qualify for presidential campaign matching funds.

I urge and request you to remove the partisanship from the debates, and allow the voters an opportunity to hear from all of the qualified candidates – not just those who happen to be a Democrat or a Republican.

Thank you.



Governor Gary Johnson

Libertarian Nominee for President of the United States

Isn't it time to stand up and make the elite statist bureaucrats, and corrupt politicians hear and listen to the voices of Americans that are fed up with the half truths and outright lies that the major party politicians have been spoon feeding the public for nigh on 100 years?

It is time to give Gary Johnson the National Voice he so richly deserves, and We the People have a right to hear.

23 comments:

  1. There's a lot for people to like about Johnson, but his stance on entitlements seems completely irresponsible and rather hypocritical. He trusts the states with our important entitlements (which he would shrink to the point of creating mass poverty), but not on social issues, as if for one, there's a constitutional difference, and for another, as if liberty can truly be enjoying by a people living in abject poverty.

    The measly direct tax we pay to ensure our minimal welfare when we get old, lose a spouse (something you'd think he'd appreciate) or parent, or become disabled has proven vital to the standard of living of every developed nation on the planet, and Johnson would gleefully destroy that so the states can experiment with our welfare, just as they've often experimented with our civil rights.

    I see a deep intellectual inconsistency and utter lack of understanding of modern society from Johnson.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you see is a philosophy of limited constitutional government that you don't like and disagree with.

      You are using statist leftist hyperbole to attack a sane and rational man.

      The men who are front and center on the national stage,, Obummer and Mittens are the ones that REALLY need to be called out for their deceit and BS..

      Delete
    2. Which is the measly tax you refer to, Jersey?

      Delete
    3. Les, No. I do not see the constitutionality of legislating to put millions in abject poverty. The general welfare of the people is a constitutionally primary duty of the government.

      dmarks, the poor only pay a few percent, but they do pay for their entitlements, as do their employers. Every income earner, as opposed to the idle rich, pays those taxes. That's the proof you guys are lying when you say that millions and millions of working people pay no federal taxes.

      It also makes another point. There are millions and millions of people who actually make a pretty good living - but they work for it. They actually have to go out there everyday and do something to earn their keep. And they pay much higher rates than the idle rich.

      So, people who do not work for a living pay less a percent of taxes then people who actually go out and work and earn a living. If you're cool with that, dmarks, well... good for you. I think it's pretty !@#$%^&*()!@#$%^&*(). And to think you'd stick up for that crowd? Politically? Realistically? Philosophically? Ethically? And then pretend you actually care about this country? I find that abhorrent.

      JMJ

      Delete
  2. It really frustrates me that this country isn't able to support multiple parties. England has 11 different parties represented in the House of Commons and Israel has 14 represented in the Knesset. The fact that we are solely represented by the highly "connected" and corrupted Ds and Rs is utterly dispiriting, I think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure I would want to see 11 or 14 parties. Seems to me there must be a little redundancy built in in a system with that many parties. But hey, who knows. It couldn't be much worse than what we have right now.

      Delete
    2. If you haven't already, read L. Neal Smith's "Probability Broach" for an imaginative vision of a legislative process and structure that makes a lot of sense. Pay particular attention to the number of parties, the means by which individuals proxy their desires to one or another party at whim, the limitations on legislation, and where the legislation takes place. One must suspend a certain amount of belief- it is libertarian fiction, after all- but his idea of how a government could work captured my imagination in a very powerful way. I can never admit again to the legitimacy of a two-party system, or even three, for that matter.

      Delete
  3. Entitlements should be at the direction of the State, not the Federal Government. We've been operating on a failed model, one that rewards people for poor life choices. It's time for a change....and we're not going to see one from the two major parties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although not generally recognized as such, the word 'entitlements' has only four letters. The only real entitlements in life are those granted by natural law. Entitlements granted by governments of any size are bribes paid for political support and they invariably and inevitably lead to moral confusion. Entitlement outcomes from ciy, county, state, or federal governments will be the same. The only difference will be the numbers of people affected both directly and indirectly.

      Delete
  4. smiles, very nicely done, Les.

    continue along this line of thinking and you will make an impact on the thoughts of others.

    believe it or not, Jersey's comment is proof of this.

    it is posts like this that others will link to and that adds name recognition for Johnson.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, Obama needs a second term. In a second term, the gloves can come off and he can expose America to the full Monty of Marxism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Obama can then finish his job, and push unemployment up even more than he did in his first time, to 10%, and complete his actions of adding 10 trillion total to the national debt.

      Delete
    2. And solidify the neo fascist mentality even deeper in America's political psyche.

      Delete
  6. He may be an alternative, but he is no antidote.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would love to support an alternative this year and still might because AZ appears pretty solid Anti-Obama, so I might be able to vote for Gov. Veto. Anyone but Obama is great as long as it doesn't splinter the Anti-Obama vote and cause a Joker victory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Romney ultimately wins I predict many, especially those in the liberty movement are going to be very disappointed.

      Romney = Obama Light.

      Delete
  8. "He may be an alternative, but he is no antidote."

    More importantly, we won't get elected. And even if by a miracle he did, he would have no power base.

    If big-L Libertarians want to elect a president, they first have to elect mayors and governors, senators and congressmen.

    You don't build a party from the top down, but rather from the ground up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Silver, being a liberty minded individual why not use your voice in the blogoshere to support and build upon Libertarian principles and advocate for Libertarian causes and Candidates? Rather than supporting rEpublian neocon fascists like Romney?

      Delete
  9. Silver said: "You don't build a party from the top down, but rather from the ground up."

    It can work from the top down. Perot almost did it with his party. But it failed from the top down in that case, when Perot went batsh*t crazy the first time and dropped out, thus shedding most of his support.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perot had some great idea's, and America was listening and he had great grassroots support.

      Then, as you point out, he went bats**t crazy. I'd say he simply imploded. To bad really.

      Delete
  10. Your problem with seeing Johnson's position as having "... a deep intellectual inconsistency and utter lack of understanding of modern society..." results from the fact that your beliefs are intellectually inconsistant and reveal an utter lack lof modern society apart from that in which you exist. It happens a lot.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.



LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails