Gary Johnson 2012?

[AUChizad]

I really like this guy.

Any chance this guy becomes a real contender in the primaries? I somehow doubt it. He will be labeled a RINO, I'm sure.

[GH2001]

I don't think he's a RINO. He holds many of the same stances as Ron Paul. His main position that is his bread and butter seems to be taxes. Ive read that he hasnt raised them one time while Governor and actually cut them 14 times. Anyone who is for smaller, more efficient government is ok by me. At worst, he's a libertarian socially which isn't the worst thing in the world. Most people just want someone right now who will fix the country economically. And I think this guy fits the bill. I would imagine him and Paul would have a lot of the same supporters.

[AUChizad]

I don't think he's a RINO. He holds many of the same stances as Ron Paul. His main position that is his bread and butter seems to be taxes. Ive read that he hasnt raised them one time while Governor and actually cut them 14 times. Anyone who is for smaller, more efficient government is ok by me. At worst, he's a libertarian socially which isn't the worst thing in the world. Most people just want someone right now who will fix the country economically. And I think this guy fits the bill. I would imagine him and Paul would have a lot of the same supporters.

Yes. He appears to be a "less out-there" Paul. Without the racist comment baggage, or any crazy conspiracy theories like NAFTA is all part of some plot to dissolve the American borders.

I like this guy a lot. A shame the guys that make the most sense, get the least publicity.

The way I see it, he is the only legitimate candidate the Republicans have to offer that could stand a chance against Obama. Can't see him winning the primary though.

[GH2001]

Yes. He appears to be a "less out-there" Paul. Without the racist comment baggage, or any crazy conspiracy theories like NAFTA is all part of some plot to dissolve the American borders.

I like this guy a lot. A shame the guys that make the most sense, get the least publicity.
The way I see it, he is the only legitimate candidate the Republicans have to offer that could stand a chance against Obama. Can't see him winning the primary though.

That's because Foxnews, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol and the rest of the neocons attempt to silence the non-RINO's as much as possible during an election cycle. You can see it now. Who gets the most mentions? Huckabee, Romney and Trump.  Last election cycle? McCain, Guiliani, Romney. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo barely got any press. Ron Paul got even less.

I will say it again - Chris Christie needs to jump in. It's his election for the taking. He's the ONLY "real difference" candidate who also has the star power to win the nomination. I like Herman Cain as well.

[GarMan]

Gary who?  And, that's the problem.  Based on the various sites I've reviewed, he seems to be a solid Conservative.  I don't see anything RINO or Liberterian associated with him. 

I'd still like to see a guy like Herman Cain in the arena, but he suffers from the same problem. 

[AUChizad]

I don't see anything RINO or Liberterian associated with him.

Pro-choice, anti-war, pro-legalization of marijuana...name a social issue and he has a libertarian stance on it.

[GarMan]

Pro-choice, anti-war, pro-legalization of marijuana...name a social issue and he has a libertarian stance on it. 

Sort of...  He seems to be carefully walking that line.  As an example, from one of his sites... 

Life is precious and needs to be protected. Deciding to have an abortion is a very difficult decision. As Governor, Gary Johnson supported legislation that banned late term abortions and allowed for parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. He believes that ultimately it is a woman’s right to make such a decision during the early stage of pregnancy.

That's not exactly the proverbial "pro-choice" stance when he also "supported legislation that banned late term abortions and allowed for parental notification for minors seeking an abortion."  NOW would go spider-monkey on him and accuse him of being a NAZI.  In fact, it's the same with all of his positions.  Nobody wants war, but some of us recognize when it's "needed to protect... specific interests."  Again, that was a quote from his walking-the-line position on the subject.

Marijuana...  That tired old argument again?  Really???  Lately, it seems that we're getting more meth imports than MJ.  This "War on Drugs" isn't going to stop merely by legalizing pot.  And, many of the thugs dabbling in MJ are also smuggling meth, cocaine and firearms.  The position is weak.

[AUChizad]

Sort of...  He seems to be carefully walking that line.  As an example, from one of his sites... 
That's not exactly the proverbial "pro-choice" stance when he also "supported legislation that banned late term abortions and allowed for parental notification for minors seeking an abortion."  NOW would go spider-monkey on him and accuse him of being a NAZI.  In fact, it's the same with all of his positions.  Nobody wants war, but some of us recognize when it's "needed to protect... specific interests."  Again, that was a quote from his walking-the-line position on the subject.

And I completely agree with both of those stances. You don't have to have a bloodlust for babies to support a woman's right to choose. He has vocally opposed the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, from each of their start. Doesn't mean if a WWII situation were to arise, he wouldn't support involvement in a just war.

Marijuana...  That tired old argument again?  Really???  Lately, it seems that we're getting more meth imports than MJ.  This "War on Drugs" isn't going to stop merely by legalizing pot.  And, many of the thugs dabbling in MJ are also smuggling meth, cocaine and firearms.  The position is weak.

I'm not going to instigate a 20 page rant about that here. But your position here is indeed weak. I bet those same thugs that are smuggling meth, cocaine and firearms, also drink alcohol and/or smoke tobacco. Better outlaw those! 

Whether you want to believe it or not, the vast majority of pot smokers would never touch a drug like meth.

[GH2001]

And I completely agree with both of those stances. You don't have to have a bloodlust for babies to support a woman's right to choose. He has vocally opposed the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, from each of their start. Doesn't mean if a WWII situation were to arise, he wouldn't support involvement in a just war.
I'm not going to instigate a 20 page rant about that here. But your position here is indeed weak. I bet those same thugs that are smuggling meth, cocaine and firearms, also drink alcohol and/or smoke tobacco. Better outlaw those! 

Whether you want to believe it or not, the vast majority of pot smokers would never touch a drug like meth.

Right...I was about to say being pro choice doesn't mean that you are for late term abortions. I think MOST people would probably be against abortions in the 3rd trimester even if they were pro choice. I am against abortion but with the economic shape the country is in, I can get past this stance of his. If we don't fix this mess, none of the other will really matter.

[GarMan]

And I completely agree with both of those stances. You don't have to have a bloodlust for babies to support a woman's right to choose.

OK, so...  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, which doesn't officially start until 90 days after conception, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  The offical pro-choice crowd would rip this postion apart as they have in the past.  By the way, what about federal funding? 

I'm not going to instigate a 20 page rant about that here. But your position here is indeed weak. I bet those same thugs that are smuggling meth, cocaine and firearms, also drink alcohol and/or smoke tobacco. Better outlaw those!   

Yeah...  But, there are two obvious points here regarding alcohol and tobacco.  First, they are legal, and we don't have a significant problem with the smuggling of these substances. 

Whether you want to believe it or not, the vast majority of pot smokers would never touch a drug like meth.

 
Pansies...  As long as they're still open to cocaine every now and then.

[AUChizad]

Yeah...  But, there are two obvious points here regarding alcohol and tobacco.  First, they are legal, and we don't have a significant problem with the smuggling of these substances. 

So...if marijuana was made legal, there wouldn't be a significant problem with the smuggling of these substances. No?

That's the most circular logic I've ever seen. Marijuana is illegal, so it's bad, so it should be illegal. 

[GarMan]

So...if marijuana was made legal, there wouldn't be a significant problem with the smuggling of these substances. No?

That's the most circular logic I've ever seen. Marijuana is illegal, so it's bad, so it should be illegal.   

Sorry Sweatheart...  I was referring to this War on Drugs argument.  Like it will completely go away overnight if we merely legalize pot, man... 

[Snaggletiger]

You know why low riders have those little bitty steering wheels?

It's the only way they can drive with handcuffs on.

[Vandy Vol]

OK, so...  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, which doesn't officially start until 90 days after conception, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  The offical pro-choice crowd would rip this postion apart as they have in the past.  By the way, what about federal funding?

The "official" pro-choice and pro-life crowds are the problem anyhow.  They spread these idealized black and white concepts of what it means to be pro-choice or pro-life for political purposes.  You're a pro-choice candidate?  Oh, so you clearly think that women should be able to get an abortion whenever and for whatever reason.  You're a pro-life candidate?  Then you obviously advocate that no woman should be able to obtain an abortion for any reason.

If a candidate fails to completely fit into one of those two categories, but attempts to label himself as pro-choice or pro-life, then those crowds have a hissy fit about how wishy-washy the candidate is.  In reality, the issue is too complicated and has a lot of factors that affect a person's stance on the topic.  I'd prefer to hear their exact views on a topic rather than a brief, unrealistic classification or label.

[Tarheel]

I really like this guy.

Any chance this guy becomes a real contender in the primaries? I somehow doubt it. He will be labeled a RINO, I'm sure.

I heard this guy interviewed on a Salem Radio Network talk radio program and he sounded very reasonable and sharp.  The interviewer did confront him on his libertarian stance on some issues.  He acknowledged them but down-played them by focusing on the real problems in this nation such as unemployment, rampant Fed-Gov expansion, irresponsible Fed-Gov spending, and tax reform.  I could support a fellow like this; he does not have the fringe element of Ron Paul and could be viable if he gets his name out there as GarMan alluded.

And like most of the candidates he's going to need barges and barges of campaign shekels.

[Tarheel]

That's because Foxnews, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol and the rest of the neocons attempt to silence the non-RINO's as much as possible during an election cycle. You can see it now. Who gets the most mentions? Huckabee, Romney and Trump.  Last election cycle? McCain, Guiliani, Romney. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo barely got any press. Ron Paul got even less.

I will say it again - Chris Christie needs to jump in. It's his election for the taking. He's the ONLY "real difference" candidate who also has the star power to win the nomination. I like Herman Cain as well.

Agreed wholeheartedly but Christie is not going to run.

Herman Cain can be a phenomenal candidate too but no one knows him outside of Atlanta and some business circles.

[Tarheel]

Gary who?  And, that's the problem.  Based on the various sites I've reviewed, he seems to be a solid Conservative.  I don't see anything RINO or Liberterian associated with him. 

I'd still like to see a guy like Herman Cain in the arena, but he suffers from the same problem.

He is a libertarian but that does not define his core politics and he seems to understand that the social issues are NOT the serious national concerns right now.

[GarMan]

He is a libertarian but that does not define his core politics and he seems to understand that the social issues are NOT the serious national concerns right now. 

If anything, I would use the term NeoCon rather than RINO.  RINOs tend to adopt more Liberal ideas like prescription drug programs for deadbeats and other Leftwing crap. 

[GarMan]

The "official" pro-choice and pro-life crowds are the problem anyhow.  They spread these idealized black and white concepts of what it means to be pro-choice or pro-life for political purposes.  You're a pro-choice candidate?  Oh, so you clearly think that women should be able to get an abortion whenever and for whatever reason.  You're a pro-life candidate?  Then you obviously advocate that no woman should be able to obtain an abortion for any reason.

If a candidate fails to completely fit into one of those two categories, but attempts to label himself as pro-choice or pro-life, then those crowds have a hissy fit about how wishy-washy the candidate is.  In reality, the issue is too complicated and has a lot of factors that affect a person's stance on the topic.  I'd prefer to hear their exact views on a topic rather than a brief, unrealistic classification or label.

I couldn't agree more, Snookums.  Unfortunately, it is the loudest voice who defines the term, label or category.  This guy is no more pro-choice than GWB based on his track record and statements. 

[Vandy Vol]

I couldn't agree more, Snookums.  Unfortunately, it is the loudest voice who defines the term, label or category.  This guy is no more pro-choice than GWB based on his track record and statements.

Which is one of the many problems with our country's political system.  When the majority of voters listen to and parrot the loudest voices, and those voices are pandering to an "us vs. them" political system, no one ends up actually listening to the candidate's stance.  It's always "pro-choice" this, "conservative" that, "socialist pig" here, "liberal hippy" there.  People want to address vague stereotypes, not specific stances.

Of course, I understand that this is how group think and the bipartisan political system generally operate, but it's frustrating nonetheless to see individuals perpetuate those stereotypes by claiming that X candidate is not Y because he does not fit some retardedly simple definition of what Y is.