Gary Johnson plays the role of spoiler

Comments

  1. Mike Goodenow says:

    While I disagree with him on a majority of issues, I think that Gary Johnson is a welcomed addition to the Presidential race.   He has integrity and actually governed exactly as he said he would.

    The Republican Party has become so dysfunctional and so crazy over the past two decades that Republicans are not fit to govern in Washington at this time.  They need more time in the wilderness.   

    In their own strange way, libertarians often make more sense that the Republican Party as a whole.  There is no reason to have active U.S. military bases in 130 countries.  Marijuana policy in this country makes no sense.   And there are strategic cuts that could be made to the federal budget of at least $450 billion that even many liberal Democrats should be able to agree on — without cutting people’s benefits or hurting people.  We certainly need to prioritize and focus what the federal government is trying to do.

    So the Libertarians bring more to the table this year than ever before.  And as a consistent libertarian who also improved New Mexico’s infrastructure and held education even as a share of state spending, Johnson has shown the capacity to govern well from a libertarian and fiscally conservative stance.   He deserves the nation’s attention and consideration.

    Other than the deficit and a couple issues like underfunding NASA, I’m pleased with our current President, so I’ll be voting with enthusiasm for him to have a second term.  But I can see some of Gary Johnson’s virtues.            

      
        

     

  2. Michael H Schneider says:

    There you go being simple, intuitively obvious, and dead wrong again. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that there’s no other way
     
    to explain such incompetent , empty suit, and weak Presidents as Bush and Obama.
     
    You’re drawing a parallel, making a comparison. Yet all you'[ve done is list a bunch of adjectives without giving any evidence or reasoning to support the claim of comparability, or of the propriety of the adjectives. Can’t you actually make the argument? Perhaps an example of incompetence, or of weakness, for both presidents?

  3. stever says:

    See Michael, we’re not so different, I voted for Anderson too!

  4. Dr. J says:

    Mr. Schneider says:  

    “No, I blame the electorate. We demand simple, easy, wrong answers and we demand simple, glib candidates who look good and sound confident, we don’t care about facts and issues, and we get what we want.”
    Now you have finally said something I can agree with, how else to explain such incompetent , empty suit, and weak Presidents as Bush and Obama.
     

     

  5. EW-aif says:

    DJ, there WAS a great presidential candidate, in 1980– John Anderson.  As I recall, he was minority leader of the House for 20 years before he ran. 

  6. Michael H Schneider says:

    “Johnson has a very simple message for America: We’re bankrupt, we’re on the verge of financial collapse, and we have to balance the budget, no matter what it takes. It’s a message that will resonate with many.
     
    Simple, easy to understand intuitively, and dead wrong.  It’s also a message that’s being carried perfectly well by Paul, Romney, and a bunch of others.
     
    Also wrong were Nader, Ron Paul, and even John Anderson (that’s in retrospect – I voted for Anderson). But they were no more wrong (no wronger?) than McCain and Palin and Reagan and Bush.
     
    It’s true that our system discriminates against third party candidates. It’s also true that the country would probably be much better off if we had instant runoff voting, or proportional voting, or a parliamentary system.  On the other hand, do we really need more candidates with bad ideas? Does everyone remember the California Governor’s election where there were a gazillion whacko candidates?
     
    No, I blame the electorate. We demand simple, easy, wrong answers and we demand simple, glib candidates who look good and sound confident, we don’t care about facts and issues, and we get what we want.

  7. Carol Miller says:

    There is no such thing as a spoiler. No one owns the voters, much as many candidates and parties think they do. There is a multi-candidate effect whenever more than two candidates vie for a position. Electoral reforms – such as ranked choice voting which requires a winning candidate to actually have a majority – have been enacted in many jurisdictions within the US and are used in other countries. Electoral reform, campaign finance reform and term limits are needed to bring more democracy to the US.
    There will be at least 7 presidential candidates on the ballot in NM in November.

  8. Dr. J says:

    qofdisks says: ” …there are issues on which Americans agree.”  It would seem to be precious few when the details of policy comes out and the polarization starts immediately, like on this blog.  It is not the media doing it, they just report on what all of us are saying when we can’t agree on much of anything these days.

  9. qofdisks says:

    I don’t think there was or is any thing wrong with Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot or Gary Johnson.  They are all great candidates and very qualified to be president.
    I am distressed about the assumption that Libertarianism is automatically associated with the Tea Party and the Right.  There are a good number of Liberal Libertarians out there also.  Libertarianism overlaps elements of both the Left and the Right.  Believe it.  You may not be able to tell by the craven divide and conquer propaganda spewed by the corporate media that there are issues on which Americans agree.
     

  10. GFA says:

    It appears a libertarian candidate will take votes away from Romney across the country, not only here, thus improving Obama’s chances for victory in an already projected tight race. And I guess the liberal support for Johnson likely comes for those who want to legalize marijuana.  

  11. Dr. J says:

    I could agree with that Heath, but its’ like the chicken and the egg, when a great candidate comes along third party, you will have your opening to expand the system in my opinion, but I agree it is rigged so they never do.

  12. Heath Haussamen says:

    I disagree Dr. J. I believe the system is designed, from top to bottom, to make it more difficult for third-party candidates and thus discourages qualified candidates from running.

  13. Dr. J says:

    Heath says:  
    “Until reform gives third-party candidates a realistic chance to become viable, perhaps spoilers are our best hope of keeping the two-party system in check.”
    Sorry, but that’s a very simplistic statement about the problems of third party candidates.  They are just too odd, clumsy, inarticulate, unpolished, and quirky to be viable mainstream candidates.  Look at Johnson, I mean really who could imagine him running a country, he couldn’t even handle NM.  Others like Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, etc. all prove the point of them being as I described, no majority or even plurality of Americans could take leave of their senses to put a check in their box, it will never happen as long as third party candidates are like these.  Sorry, find some real candidates with real credentials and abilities and a third party has a good chance these days.

  14. Hemingway says:

    Nobody mentions the VP candidate for the Libertarian Party. He is former judge James “Jim” Gray of California. Johnson handpicked Judge Gray, a prominent advocate of marijuana legalization. A Johnson staffer said: this selection “puts pot front and center in the campaign.”
    “I was a drug warrior until I saw what was happening in my own courtroom,” Judge Gray said in 2010.
    It is of interest that Johnson has 15 percent support in New Mexico in a match-up against President  Obama and Mitt Romney, according to a recent Public Policy Polling survey.