Gary Johnson (that other guy thats supposed to be running)

Now dont get me wrong, I plan to vote for Ron Paul in 2012 even if he isnt the nominee. I will write his name in if I have to because Id rather waste my vote than vote for the lesser of two evils. I honestly believe that not only is he the only person on that stage that will end these illegal and undeclared wars, but also that he's the only man on the stage that understands that there is absolutely no reason to risk a third world war by going to war with Iran over a weapon that doesnt exist and that (even if it did) Israel can defend itself. Paul is the only man on that stage that understands that we need smaller Government and that we need to look into the Federal Reserve. And he's the only man that can secure our borders while lowering our world's largest prison population. In my mind, the choice is obvious. He is founding father material.

With that said, I have an issue with another candidate that is also in the race. Gary Johnson has recieved little to no air time throughout these debates and this process. The system is literally holding him down. Most people dont even know who this guy is. As Ron Paul gets held to 89 seconds, this man cant even get into a debate. This was released recently on the subject:

RNC RESPONDS TO JOHNSON CAMPAIGN DEMAND FOR FAIRNESS

Republican Establishment Pushes Gary Johnson to Third Party Run — And Their Demise By Andrew Davis | 11/28/11 The Republican Establishment doesn’t like Gary Johnson. That’s no secret. And, while GOP presidential hopefuls Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul complain about a lack of airtime in the debates, Johnson is excluded outright. In fact, the pattern of exclusion has been so obvious — and, intentional — that political writer Dave Weigel dubbed it the “Gary Johnson Rule [1].” It’s not that Johnson lacks the credentials for office [2]. As a two-term governor and business owner, he has more executive experience than many of the other candidates. He also has a record on cutting spending that rivals even Paul’s reputation for being a fiscal hawk — Johnson vetoed 750 bills during his time in office. He also left New Mexico with a balanced budget, and the highest approval rating from constituents [3] than any other 2012 GOP presidential candidate. People like Johnson. The Republican Establishment does not. Perhaps they don’t like his Goldwater-like platform [4], or maybe they just don’t like people from New Mexcio. Whatever the reason, Johnson has been pushed to the side and ignored. In October, after being excluded from a series of debates (he has been allowed to participate in just two), Johnson petitioned the Republican National Committee (RNC) for assistance. Last week, the RNC contacted Johnson [5], saying they “have to have some minimum criteria in order for candidates to participate in these debates…otherwise, the debates would be utter chaos and unhelpful to Republican voters as we select [their] nominee” — essentially admitting either they lack the creativity to host 10 candidates on stage, or the RNC thinks Republican voters are too stupid to have a few more choices on stage. Unfortunately for the GOP, it appears the neglect is pushing Johnson towards a possible third-party bid with the Libertarian Party. The Daily Caller reports [6] that Johnson has considered such an option. “One thing I would make clear is that, if I did decide [to seek the Libertarian nomination], that’s nothing that’s pre-ordained,” Johnson said. “That’s something that I would have to go out and work for. And I would do just that, I would go out and work for that.” Political strategist Roger Stone told the Daily Caller [7] that a third-party run such as Johnson’s could be disastrous for Republicans in 2012, especially if they nominate a candidate unappealing to the party’s conservative base. “The Libertarian Party, for example, is on the ballot in all 50 states, and should the Republicans nominate, say, Romney, then a candidate running on a tea party fiscal platform would…pose a great danger,” Stone said. But, could anybody blame Johnson? All he wanted was a fair chance to earn the support of Republican voters, and the Republican Establishment stood in his way at every turn. Should he seek other alternatives to get his message out, the consequences would be squarely on the shoulders of those that pushed him in that direction. Johnson’s conservative economic views, and liberal views on social issues, give him mass appeal, even across party lines. This could be particularly devastating against a milquetoast Republican in the general. Johnson may not pick up the support of values voters, but his track record on spending, and limited government take on the role of government, could attract many grassroots activists and Tea Partiers disgusted with the GOP’s continuous failure to get serious about eliminating debt. There is only so much that conservatives can take, and already Republicans seem to have forgotten the lessons of 2010. Maybe Johnson is the wake-up call the Republican Establishment needs to shake things up. While Barry Goldwater failed to win the general election in 1964, his candidacy gave birth to today’s conservative movement. Johnson may be in the same position to force the hand of the Republican Establishment, which has largely been given a free pass to run roughshod over the limited government principles that once defined the party. The only hope for the GOP at this point is to either nominate a conservative candidate that will appease the increasingly incensed (and, justifiably so) grassroots, or convince Johnson to ignore the insults of the past few months and go away quietly. Whatever the GOP (and Johnson) decides to do, it was the Republican Establishment that tied their own noose. What’s left now is whether they’ll swing from it.

Its becoming painfully obvious that this entire process is completely unfair when it comes to candidates that the system doesnt agree with. Ron Paul held to 89 seconds in debates or not even mentioned as a top tier candidate even though he's polling second or third. When Paul moves up to third the top tier becomes the top two. When he drops to fourth its the top three again. When Paul moves up to second only the front runner is mentioned. Bachman is starting to deal with the same issues here even though she's playing their little game. But Johnson isnt even able to get on the air? The system wants Newt or Romney and the media is choosing our candidate. We the people choose our candidate!

We as Americans should not put up with these games on something as important as a Presidential election. Even if you dont believe that there is an agenda in play here, you have to ask yourself why the media chooses to give certain candidates more air time over others. I can sit here and watch Fox News all day and hear Ron Pauls name mentioned only once or twice and the person bringing him up will be laughing at him. The only man on the stage that isnt a warmonger sell out and he gets this kind of treatment? If this process is supposed to be a fair and just one, why not give these guys the chance to talk? And why cant the MSM keep their idiotic opinions to themselves? Bill O'Reily excluded Paul the other night even though he was in second place simply because he didnt think he could win. Seriously? The fair and balanced no spin zone? Nice one Bill.

reply to post by e11888
Agreed! S&F for you. If I couldn't have Paul, I could see myself supporting Gary, despite the disagreements I have with him on some other policies. The rest of these establishment, more-of-the-same folks, though - not so much.

I've said for a long time now that the unequal treatment of candidates & coverage by the media borders on outright election fraud in my opinion, as well as misrepresentation of the claims of these outlets as fair & balanced, "news", and so forth - instead of reporting the facts, these outlets act as gatekeepers and shapers of these races, much to the detriment of the US people and the entire world. I believe they should be held firmly accountable by the FEC and the FCC for their chicanery and misrepresentations, when such present themselves as often as they do so as to be obvious manipulations of the electoral process and public opinion.

Gary is DEFINITELY worth a look by all parties - I was excited the other week when I saw some of the 'conservatives' at Redstate were actually giving him a look...much rather see them supporting him than the others if they continue to refuse to even consider Paul.

being from new mexico, we all know gary is a good guy, even the left here knows that although they may disagree with him on issues.
the problem with gary is that everytime he gets an interview the only topic covered is his wanting to legalize drugs.

Originally posted by rubbertramp
being from new mexico, we all know gary is a good guy, even the left here knows that although they may disagree with him on issues.
the problem with gary is that everytime he gets an interview the only topic covered is his wanting to legalize drugs.

It should be discussed. If something as dangerous as alcohol or tobacco is to be legal, why should someone be thrown in prison for smoking a plant? I know the whole ATS rule about not talking about illegal drugs, so Ill keep this brief. We have the world's largest prison population mostly because the Government thinks it should be able to tell grown adults what they can or cannot put in their own body. We have drug cartels and violence on our borders. Fast and Furious doesnt happen without the war on drugs. Trillions of dollars arent wasted without the war on the drugs. And these vicious drug cartels and street gangs go away without the war on drugs. Who pays for the world's largest prison population? We do. Who pays for this war on drugs? We do. This is a very important issue that should be discussed on a wider scale in this election. Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are absolutely right.

Who pays for the Marines to be growing Opium in Afghanastan? We do.

reply to post by e11888


don't get me wrong, i completely agree.
it's just that nobody would ask him about anything else.

Do you really think they want two Libertarian Conservatives on stage, tag-teaming the rest of the field?
When Gary Johnson said he would pick Ron Paul as his VP in the one debate they did allow him to attend, that was the end of it.
Paul could ask him to be his running mate. They are similar in their beliefs.

GJ is a great guy, I'd love to see them both on stage but my focus is Ron Paul. Johnson just doesn't have the support base big enough to give him the credentials he needs to get any spotlight, which is unfortunate. It should've been fair from day one but that won't be happening with the media thinking they pull the strings and benefit from it all.

If it were up to me, it would only be Paul and Johnson on stage. Ron is stronger on the issues though.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
GJ is a great guy, I'd love to see them both on stage but my focus is Ron Paul. Johnson just doesn't have the support base big enough to give him the credentials he needs to get any spotlight, which is unfortunate. It should've been fair from day one but that won't be happening with the media thinking they pull the strings and benefit from it all.

If it were up to me, it would only be Paul and Johnson on stage. Ron is stronger on the issues though.

I agree Paul is the stronger candidate but I could see myself supporting GJ if they would just give him a chance to get on the stage. Paul obviously has my vote though. Still I think GJ should and probably will bring to light the unfair treatment.

I like Gary Johnson, I consider him to be one of the few true Republicans remaining. He needs to wake up to the fact that the Republican party itself is all but dead, nothing remains of it except corporate shills. If guys like and Tom Coburn and Paul can't reclaim their party they'd be better replacing with something new. As long as Johnson bucks the party and it's monied interests he'll be sidelined, much like Paul.