Monday, September 3, 2012

Why Gary Johnson Should be on the Presidential Debate Stage...

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

Five Reasons why Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for President should be included in all Presidential debates. Article by Nick Sloan of THE KANSAS CITY KANSAN

1. Johnson has a proven political career. Johnson was twice elected as Governor of New Mexico, meaning he's won more gubernatorial elections than Romney has and the same amount of general elections as Obama. This is not an Al Sharpton or Ralph Nader type candidate who hasn't won a thing. Johnson was the sitting governor of a state and there are only 50 individuals who can say that right now. While I understand the idea of a polling requirement to qualify for the debate, Johnson deserves an exemption here. He has the political background to receive some debate time.

2. After the countless political ads and conventions, can we really say we don't know Romney or Obama? Presidential debates are built up as the time when America is introduced to the candidates, but America has already been introduced to these individuals. Outside of the speeches by Chris Christie, Clint Eastwood and Rand Paul, I did not watch a second of the Republican National Convention. Outside of maybe Bill Clinton's speech, I probably won't be watching the Democratic National Convention. I already know who Romney and Obama are.

Meanwhile, America doesn't know who Johnson is - and that's not necessarily his fault. It's tough for a third-party candidate to compete against countless airtime for the Democratic and Republican conventions. It's also tough when you have three cable news networks uttering the words "Obama and Romney" 24 hours, 7 days a week. If the media covered Johnson more, I imagine his polling would reflect it. He's a long-shot candidate not because of his political career or stance on the issues. He's a long shot because of the two-party system and the media.

3. Johnson could make the other two candidates better. A great thing about a presidential primary is the fact the candidates normally feed off of each other because of the competition. For example, I thought Obama became a great candidate because of the lengthy battle he had with Hillary Clinton in 2008. I also thought Romney shined after Newt Gingrich destroyed him in the 2012 South Carolina primary election. Having Johnson on stage could sharpen the debate - and quite frankly, we need better debates in this nation.

4. According to one Website, Johnson would be a strong candidate if people voted on how they actually really felt about the issues. The Website is a political survey site where readers can fill out a survey and find their ideal candidate. In many states, Johnson is competitive based on the amount of surveys filled out. He currently leads in the states of Texas, Arizona and Georgia - three good states to win on election night. He's also within one or two percentage points in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania - three more really nice delegate states. If Johnson was given more media time and allowed in the debates, the 2012 election would be a legitimate three-way race.

5. If you measure up all three candidates in terms of the most important issue in this campaign, Johnson wins hands down. The most important issue is jobs. The American economy is still struggling and unemployment is still above 8 percent in America, with the underemployment rates much higher. As Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, the amount of job growth during Johnson's two terms was 11.6 percent. During Romney's time as Governor of Massachusetts, job growth in the state ranked 47th out of 50th. It may be unfair to give all the credit or criticism to politicians when it comes to job growth. However, those are the numbers. Johnson's numbers are the best if you look at side to side. Why doesn't he get to debate?

Read more here.


  1. I know you wish Johnson would get elected, but your ardor reminds me of a vulgarism a former friend used a lot about wishing in one hand and doing something else in the other and seeing which filled up first. There's no moral superiority in letting the worst man win.

    1. And there is moral superiority in voting for a lesser of two evils over a more principled and qualified man? If so, how so.

    2. If you know the best man CANNOT win, you do your children and grandchildren no favors by letting the greater of two evils win just to look superior.

    3. My children, all grown, know their old man, I'm sure they would approve of me standing on my principles that are grounded in something greater than voting for what I view as the lesser of two evil. They might disagree but they understand.

  2. So should Jill Stein.

    But lucky us, it's Mittens and The Black Bush for our election entertainment.

  3. The Democrats and Republicans have what is essentially a cartel and I just don't see them ceding on this (allowing Mr. Johnson to debate), unfortunately. It's going to be the same old, same old, same old.

    1. Yeah, typical BS from two BS parties. It will eventually crash down on them. As it well should.

    2. I think that Perot had the right idea (a reform party). He just wasn't a very good messenger.


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 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.