Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

    By JIM RUTENBERG

    When he was running for the Republican presidential nomination last year, Gary Johnson, the former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, drew ridicule from mainstream party members as he advocated legalized marijuana and a 43 percent cut in military spending.

    Now campaigning as the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee, Mr. Johnson is still only a blip in the polls. But he is on the ballot in every state except Michigan and Oklahoma, enjoys the support of a few small “super PACs” and is trying to tap into the same grass-roots enthusiasm that helped build Representative Ron Paul a big following. And with polls showing the race between President Obama and Mitt Romney to be tight, Mr. Johnson’s once-fellow Republicans are no longer laughing.

    Around the country, Republican operatives have been making moves to keep Mr. Johnson from becoming their version of Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate whose relatively modest support cut into Al Gore’s 2000 vote arguably enough to help hand the decisive states of Ohio and Florida to George W. Bush.

    The fear of Mr. Johnson’s tipping the outcome in an important state may explain why an aide to Mr. Romney ran what was effectively a surveillance operation into Mr. Johnson’s efforts over the summer to qualify for the ballot at the Iowa State Fair, providing witnesses to testify in a lawsuit to block him that ultimately fizzled.

    Libertarians suspect it is why Republican state officials in Michigan blocked Mr. Johnson from the ballot after he filed proper paperwork three minutes after his filing deadline.

    And it is why Republicans in Pennsylvania hired a private detective to investigate his ballot drive in Philadelphia, appearing at the homes of paid canvassers and, in some cases, flashing an F.B.I. badge — he was a retired agent — while asking to review the petitions they gathered at $1 a signature, according to testimony in the case and interviews.

    The challenge in Pennsylvania, brought by state Republican Party officials who suspected that Democrats were secretly helping the effort to get Mr. Johnson on the ballot, was shot down in court last week, bringing to 48 the number of states where Mr. Johnson will compete on Nov. 6.

    Reince Priebus, the national Republican Party chairman, has called Mr. Johnson a “nonfactor.” And Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Romney campaign, said that its entire focus was on beating Mr. Obama and that “voters understand the stakes are high, and if they want to change the trajectory of this country, they’ll vote for Romney.”

    But Robert Gleason, the Pennsylvania Republican Party chairman, vowing that the state will become far more competitive for Mr. Romney than Democrats realize, said he was not about to give Mr. Johnson an easy opening to play a Nader to Mr. Romney’s Gore in Pennsylvania this year.

    “This election will be close — if you remember, Bush lost by only something like 143,000 votes in 2004,” said Mr. Gleason, noting that his party has managed to disqualify tens of thousands of Libertarian signatures. “So we play the game hard here.”

    Both sides agree that Mr. Johnson, whose pro-marijuana legalization and antiwar stances may appeal to the youth vote and whose antigovernment, anti-spending proposals may appeal to conservative fiscal hawks — and to supporters of Mr. Paul — has the potential to draw from both Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama.

    Aides to Mr. Romney, while playing down his impact on their candidate, say Mr. Johnson is more likely to hurt Mr. Obama in the potentially critical state of Colorado, where a marijuana initiative Mr. Johnson supports is expected to draw young voters to his cause on Election Day.

    They have said they are keeping a keener eye on Virgil Goode of Virginia, a conservative Constitution Party candidate who is on the presidential ballot in Virginia and 28 other states.

    The Republican efforts to impede Mr. Johnson’s candidacy have drawn charges of spying and coercion from Libertarians and countercharges from Republicans that the party had resorted to fraud while accepting secret help from Democrats.

    Democrats and Obama campaign officials deny any such involvement. But Mr. Johnson has been receiving critical help from Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative once so committed to his party that he has a tattoo of President Richard M. Nixon on his back.

    A onetime Nixon and Reagan aide, he said he left his party this year out of frustration with its positions on social issues, spending and domestic surveillance. (Mr. Johnson supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights and opposes government surveillance.)

    And Mr. Stone says he has become so frustrated with the party’s attempts to shut down Mr. Johnson, whom he says he is advising at no charge, that he vowed in an e-mail last month, “Republican blood will run in the streets b4 I am done.”

    Mr. Johnson credited Mr. Stone — who helped organize for Mr. Bush the so-called Brooks Brothers riot that temporarily shut down the presidential election recount in Miami-Dade in 2000 — with helping him navigate his way through the challenges, and with overall advice.

    Mr. Johnson said he had no problem being labeled a potential spoiler in an election that he views as “a debate between Coke and Pepsi.” (He said he viewed himself as Perrier.)

    “Take the issue of Medicare,” he said. “Both parties are arguing over who is going to spend more money on Medicare when we should be having a raging debate in this country over how we’re going to cut Medicare.”

    He admits he has only limited finances. The Federal Election Commission had denied his request for general election matching funds, ruling that he did not meet its requirements for third-party candidates. And his campaign filings show he had roughly $50,000 in the bank at the end of August, having burned through much of the more than $350,000 or so he raised in small donations that month.

    He said that his campaign had found it hard to keep up with the offers of volunteer help, and that when it came to campaigning, “I think we’re going to stick with what we’ve been doing — stay flexible and take the most advantage out of media appearances.”

    Democrats say Mr. Johnson could have the biggest effect on Mr. Romney in Nevada, where a Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist poll in September showed Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney effectively tied.

    Mr. Stone said the campaign believed it had the potential to cut into support for Mr. Romney in three of his must-win states, Florida, Ohio and Virginia — where challenges to the Libertarian candidate quickly failed — as well as in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

    There is very little polling on Mr. Johnson to bear all of this out, which his campaign points to as evidence that he is being unfairly ignored by the news media. However, The Miami Herald and The Tampa Bay Times have measured his support at about 1 percent — far more than the 537-vote margin that was ultimately deemed to have separated Mr. Bush from Mr. Gore in 2000.

    “As we all learned in Florida, when something’s close enough, even small numbers can make a difference,” said Charlie Cook, the publisher of The Cook Political Report, which monitors electoral trends.

    That appeared to be the thinking when Pennsylvania Republicans sought to go after Mr. Johnson’s petitions, which Mr. Gleason, the party chairman, suspected had been collected with help from Democrats. He noted that many of the signatures came from Democratic precincts of Philadelphia.

    One petition gatherer, Tracey Norton of Germantown, said in an interview that she was a Democratic committeewoman, though she said she did not act in a partisan manner when being paid to collect petitions.

    In court, the Republicans presented evidence that some petitions had been collected without the proper signatures. But some of that evidence was collected by the private detective, Reynold Selvaggio who, some of the petition workers said in interviews and testimony, flashed his F.B.I. badge “like he was law enforcement,” as one worker, Reynaldo Duncan, said in an interview.

    In testimony, Mr. Selvaggio denied Libertarian lawyers’ suggestions that it was an intimidation tactic, saying his badge stated clearly that he was retired and that he said so in his interviews. The judge hearing the case, James Gardner Colins, a former president judge of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, seemed displeased.

    “I have a badge that says I’m president judge,” he said, “but I don’t flash it to anyone, because I’m not president judge.”
    His ruling in favor of the Libertarians came down on Wednesday.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us...gewanted=print

  • #2
    Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

    When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil. Johnson's got my vote.

    Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

      Originally posted by shiny! View Post
      When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil. Johnson's got my vote.
      When you vote for Johnson (or voted for Nader or Bob Barr in 2008), you still are voting for the Democrats and Republicans.

      Mr. Johnson said he had no problem being labeled a potential spoiler in an election that he views as “a debate between Coke and Pepsi.” (He said he viewed himself as Perrier.)

      “Take the issue of Medicare,” he said. “Both parties are arguing over who is going to spend more money on Medicare when we should be having a raging debate in this country over how we’re going to cut Medicare.”

      One petition gatherer, Tracey Norton of Germantown, said in an interview that she was a Democratic committeewoman, though she said she did not act in a partisan manner when being paid to collect petitions.
      Right, because there are many Democratic committeewomen that want to see spending on Medicare slashed.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...licans/303422/

      What do you do if you're a loyal Republican who, like three fifths of George W. Bush's donors, has given $2,000 to the President's re-election campaign—the maximum that the law allows? If you're among a growing number of clever conservatives, determined to bleed votes from John Kerry at any price, you write a check to Ralph Nader. Who better to throw a close election to your man than the guy who did so last time around? If Machiavelli had had to contend with campaign-finance laws, this is a tactic he might have devised.
      Was Ross Perot anti-FIRE? You tell me.

      http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ros..._+_Economy.htm

      The federal government [should alter the tax code because today it] rewards businesses that create debt to finance growth rather than financing growth through savings or equity (stock) financing. A corporation that borrows money can write off the interest payments, [while] stock dividends are not deductible.
      Tax breaks that encourage savings by individuals can save the federal government more in interest than the cost of the incentive. [Another method] to encourage savings is to require higher down payments for major purchases. “No down payment” is almost uniquely an American phrase.
      Perot > Johnson, Barr, Nader






      Rest In Peace George Carlin
      Last edited by Slimprofits; October 15, 2012, 10:18 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

        I'm voting for Bobby Kennedy. It'll make about as much difference to the outcome, so why not follow one's conscience. Besides, if the GOP and Democrats don't mind dead people voting for them, why should anyone mind if someone votes for a dead person.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

          Excellent videos, Slim.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

            Originally posted by Slimprofits View Post
            When you vote for Johnson (or voted for Nader or Bob Barr in 2008), you still are voting for the Democrats and Republicans.
            This is not a true statement at all. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson and the Libertarian Party. Likewise a vote for Nader is a vote for the Green Party. Just do a mental exercise to verify who gets what votes:
            If a person votes for Obama, Obama gains one vote. If a person votes for Romney, Romney gains one vote. If a person votes for Johnson, Johnson gains one vote. If a person votes for another person, that person gains one vote. If a person doesn't vote for any of them, nobody gains a vote.

            Voting for Johnson can only "help" elect one candidate or another if the second best alternative for that voter was to choose a different candidate who is one of the primary contenders. If the alternative for that voter is to not vote for President at all, or any of a plethora of third party candidates or the ultimate winner, then voting for Johnson has no impact on helping any other candidate.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

              I suppose you are correct Ghent.

              If the alternative for that voter is to not vote for President at all, or any of a plethora of third party candidates or the ultimate winner, then voting for Johnson has no impact on helping any other candidate.


              Following your logic, it also has no impact whatsoever on the outcome of the election.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

                http://www.marketplace.org/topics/el...dential-debate

                Read the memorandum of understanding for tomorrow's presidential debate

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

                  Originally posted by Slimprofits View Post
                  http://www.marketplace.org/topics/el...dential-debate

                  Read the memorandum of understanding for tomorrow's presidential debate
                  It's a complete joke. I could not stomach reading the whole thing word-for-word so maybe I missed it...is there an "or else" section? What happens if one person does challenge the other to an additional date? Can you sue for damages?

                  It's so ridiculous that the two parties are literally conspiring to prevent the American people from truly understanding their positions. No props, notes, charts, diagrams or anything else that might conceivably aid in people understanding what the hell you are trying to say. No questioning the other candidate directly??!!!

                  Imagine how much more useful it would be for the candidates to each present a one-hour PowerPoint presentation of their views, plans, etc. Then imagine if the debates included 4 parties. The best thing is that the candidates with no chance of winning could at least point out all the BS of the two party candidates.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

                    Originally posted by Slimprofits View Post
                    I suppose you are correct Ghent.



                    Following your logic, it also has no impact whatsoever on the outcome of the election.
                    [/COLOR]
                    That depends on what you define as the outcome of the election. If by outcome you mean whatever comes out of the election, then votes for people other than the ultimate winner do matter and have an impact on innumerable subjects, with the only exclusion being the occupancy of the office voted for.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

                      Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
                      That depends on what you define as the outcome of the election. If by outcome you mean whatever comes out of the election, then votes for people other than the ultimate winner do matter and have an impact on innumerable subjects, with the only exclusion being the occupancy of the office voted for.
                      This is a primary reason to vote third party. Obviously Gary Johnson is not going to win the election. But it's possible that he will get more votes than the margin between the winner and loser. The goal is long term change by hopefully (in fantasy land anyway) changing the system or at least influencing the major parties by showing that a growing part of the population is unhappy with the "options" offered by the candidates they are putting forth.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

                        Originally posted by DSpencer View Post
                        This is a primary reason to vote third party. Obviously Gary Johnson is not going to win the election. But it's possible that he will get more votes than the margin between the winner and loser. The goal is long term change by hopefully (in fantasy land anyway) changing the system or at least influencing the major parties by showing that a growing part of the population is unhappy with the "options" offered by the candidates they are putting forth.
                        If the owners of Reason and Cato (Kochs) won't even donate to the guy, why should any libertarian care about him?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

                          Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
                          If the owners of Reason and Cato (Kochs) won't even donate to the guy, why should any libertarian care about him?
                          Why should any libertarian care about who the Kochs donate to?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

                            Originally posted by DSpencer View Post
                            Why should any libertarian care about who the Kochs donate to?
                            Libertarians read Cato and Reason. Kochs are the patrons of Cato and Reason and therefore libertarian thought in America. Libertarians believe in the free market. The free market is dominated by billionaires. Libertarian billionaires are betting on Romney and against Johnson. The post-citizens-united free market in political spending has decided. How can the market be wrong?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Mr Nader, Meet Mr Johnson

                              Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
                              If the owners of Reason and Cato (Kochs) won't even donate to the guy, why should any libertarian care about him?
                              Why must people overcomplicate things? It's simple: Vote for the person you think is best. People should just vote their conscience instead of trying to vote "strategically" based on their fear of what other people might do. I honestly like Johnson best, so he's getting my vote.

                              The political meme spread by the MSM is that 3rd party politicians "steal" votes away from Democrat or Republican candidates, as if the Dems or Repubs are the rightful owners of those votes. They aren't. WE own those votes! They must EARN our votes.

                              They haven't earned my vote! They're as bad as the TBTF banksters who make millions and billions of dollars in bonuses for dreadful job performance. If banksters receiving those obscene bonuses makes you mad, then Republocrats acting as if they deserve our votes after doing just as terrible a job should make you even madder.

                              Humph!

                              Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X