ohnson-- abolish IRS, institute Fair Tax on expenditures, not income with exemption for basic necessities, nothing else, end drug war, end Afghanistan war (not opposed to all foreign intervention like Paul, though). For repeal of Patriot Act. Curtail but not abolish Fed Reserve. Block grant medicare and medicaid funds to states. Give all roles in transportation, housing, and education back to states. Abolish D of Ed, HUD, Transportation. Pro-choice and for marriage equality. I know more lefties than many people on this board and Johnson will take as many votes from Obama as from Romney--in his opinion and my observation at least.
I am surprised that Johnson does not want to dissolve the federal reserve- which can be done by an Act Of Congress and yet I have not heard that Ron Paul has sponsored such a bill- just campaigned for ending the federal reserve. Political campaigns run by candidates who know they cannot win serve an important function in advancing important causes. Such candidates are free to make promises feeling fairly secure that he will never have to make good on them.
A candidate who has a definite chance of winning has to behave in a more strategic manner and think about making promises that he can actually keep. For instance Romney campaigned on abolishing the Department of Education in his 1994 Senate race Against Ted Kennedy and was portrayed as not caring about education. Romney has moderated that message to "The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I’m not going to get rid of it entirely.”, which is probably more in line with what is actually achievable for various reasons including that a president does not act alone but in conjunction with Congress. A candidate who wants to win not just 4 years but 8 years needs to think carefully about which campaign promises can actually be kept. A candidate who doesn't expect to win can make promises more freely.
Romney favors abolishing HUD
Romney's tax ideas are to lower corporate tax and to focus on tax breaks for the middle class. he believes that a flat tax is unfair to the middle class- that's a matter for in depth analysis.
Foreign Policy is a complex. Obama his already engaged in withdrawal from Afghanistan. Those who advocate that policy don't consider nuclear Pakistan. Romney acknowledges that a nuclear Iran is our number one threat and he firmly believes in American exceptional-ism. One doesn't really know what foreign policy issues a president will have to deal with and so one really has to judge how realistic they seem to be and how aware they are of what goes on in the world. Most candidates don't have foreign policy experience. George Bush never anticipated being a wartime president but he stepped up to the plate. I feel that Romney has the potential to project a strong image for America and to play a leadership role- but that is something that we can only know when we know.
Romney would return Medicaid to the states and go for a Paul Ryan type solution for Medicare
As previously mentioned Romney would defund Amtrack- I don't know what he would do with the rest of the department of transportation but I don't know that I am opposed to that being a federal expense since our highway system goes across the entire nation.
Romney differs with Johnson on social issues but I don't think social issues are the important voting issues in this campaign.
Dear Mackenzie, you are a thinking person, but even a good mind needs facts to make judgments with. Have you looked into the questions I asked you many posts ago? People do equivocate, change their minds, alter their positions to fit their objective, etc, but I believe the record of their true intentions can be discerned in their past choices.
So please, tell us: Who was his "favorite" President? Who did he back for President in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1996? And please get back to us on this, with how you factor this into the equation.
My real beef with Romney is that he will destroy the Republican Party. I can't imagine we will lose fewer than 50 seats in the house and multiple Governorships and Senate seats if Mittens is in office in 2014. He has no bold policy proposals and no base even within the GOP. As the sole repository of the remnants of the Enlightenment, classical liberalism and classical economic thought on earth today, I do not want to see the GOP used and abused by a progressive technocrat as his personal vehicle to personal power.
I agree with Thrasybulus, Gary Johnson is a solid guy with a solid record. Romney, God only knows where he stands on anything. You will have to elect him to find out. He is a chameleon. He changes to fit the venue. If Rominey is the nominee, I'll have to go with Johnson!
Johnson was a Republican until late 2012, that's when he figured out he would never be the establishments choice.
if I really meant to insult anyone's intelligence, I would explain everything rather than suggesting resources; using the latter is what I expect from intelligent, resourceful people, in which category I include everyone in this discussion.. I am quite serious about about typing these messages with my right index finger and do not appreciate having my temporary physical limitations dismissed as an excuse. To the contrary, the fact that I am posting at all using one finger of my wrong hand is a sign of conviction. As for passion, we may generally have too much of that and too little rational distance in current political distance.
One thing Romney and Johnson have in common is rational distance, but I think Johnson has the edge in conviction and consistency. Posters should also keep in mind that I am introducing my own ideas, comments, and new material rather than simply reacting to earlier posts, so my comments should be interpreted that way.
When I hear that a candidate "believes" in American Exceptionalism, I would like further explanation. This term gets thrown around far too casually. Currently, it sounds too much like the French mission civilatrice
sorry, civilisatrice typing skills not the best at the moment
Why? You have ignored all of what I have written and now you pose a bunch of history quizzes framed according to some criteria that you have arbitrarily mandated as what are the important questions to ask and designed to avoid answering any questions about the candidate that you are either proposing can beat Obama or will facilitate Obama winning the elections- Which is your true intent is any one's guess,
I am not here to do silly assignments by you. And for that matter you have not answered the questions that I addressed to you.
Your ending paragraph is just a smear campaign based on absolutely nothing as far as I can tell. I guess the same ideas that Romney shares with Johnson are bold if they are said by Jonson but not so if they are said by Romney- Pure hypocrisy!
I addressed the post that answered the question and showed that there are many policies that Romney and Johnson share. How about you explain why you believe that the areas in which they different are so much more important than anything else.
Romney and Johnson share very little!
Guizot- You are entitled to "believe' whatever you believe as is anyone. We all make our own personal character assessments of a candidate- but you have evaded the issue of electability by framing it as anyone who brings it up is speaking about "conscience". That is simply not the case. Gary Johnson was running as a republican for a short while but he didn't win favor with the American people. There was an overwhelming consensus that electability is a prioritized consideration with a strong majority in this election and that is because defeating Obama is fundamentally important. Romney was not my first choice but even as I favored Rick Perry, I heard Romney say many things that I agree with. I can go along with what the majority of Americans have decided because I do not find anything fundamentally wrong about Romney and actually there is a great deal that I like about him. I find it very difficult to get why people would vote for a candidate who has very unlikely chances of being elected, unless you are content with four more years of Obama.This is not an issue of conscience- it is rational concern Considering the policies that Johnson advocates, that's kind of weird. Obviously Romney is far closer to Johnson than Johnson is to Obama. Romney and Johnson share quite a few policies that you brought up in a previous post- but neither share much with Obama. Even if it were true that Johnson can attract some on the left- that still wouldn't be nearly enough to get him elected. Your only reason to make that point is to offset the argument that if you vote for Johnson and Obama wins you voted for Obama. You are trying to offset that with claims that Johnson appeals to the left and take votes away from Obama as well as Romney - making it a wash- but still not enough to get Johnson elected. If Johnson can draw votes from the left- that just means he is further to the left than Romney is- which adds substance to the conclusion that those that would vote for Johnson, don't think four more years of Obama is such a bad thing.
God bless and good night to all.
I find it very difficult to get why people would vote for a candidate who has very unlikely chances of being elected,
Many of the "principals" that Gary Johnson holds are also held by Romney_
Returning Medicaid to the states
Campaigning to abolish the department of Education in 1994 but now moderates the position to making it a lot smaller
Not a one to one match up with Gary Johnson's positions and so rejected by those whose position seems to be 'If we can't have everything we want, exactly as we want it, we'll take Obama" - who of course isn't any sort of a match up- So what kind of "principals" are we talking about here? I seem to be missing it.
The supposition is that all those that do not agree 100% with Gary Johnson lack principals. WRONG! they just disagree on some points. I have to wonder what makes Gary Johnson fans so 100% sure that they are right about the solutions to the complex problems that this country faces. Must be nice to be so certain.
Romney voters should read http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/08/consultant-in-chief/print
If you want to make a point- make it. Enough with the handing out of assignments. I took a lot of time writing my own and actual thoughts. Points which are repeatedly ignored here.
Yeah. My point is Romney voters should read article; vote with eyes wide shut.
Can you give one compelling point made in the article as a reason to read the whole article?
First sentence: "For the last three years, the Republican Party has been driven by what it’s against."i
Ironic, isn't it? here we are in a thread on libertarians and very little is being said about Gary Johnson that actually has any substance to it. The primary conversation is about bashing Romney, in fact judging from the title to the article, it appears to be an article against Romney This conversation gives rise to the question- Are libertarians really for Johnson, who is portrayed here as having no faults - or are they really just against Romney ?
All one has to do is skim the article to get that it isn't "fair and balanced" but is spinning against Romney. Even the title is just a bunch of opinionated buzz words and fancy labeling. .
Of course because Reason magazine is a libertarian monthly magazine- is it a surprise that they are bashing Romney? He is the competition to their candidate and this is the ONE article that I am supposed to read to qualify as having my eyes open- What not an article from MoveOn.org? How fair is that?
Hardly. The difference between Romney and Johnson is Johnson says what he means, and means what he says. Romney says what he thinks the crowd of the day wants to hear. Romney doesn't even know where he stands.
Since you wont watch youtube, I'll tell you. Romney was asked if he needed congressional approval to attack a country. He basically said no. He said the president needed to do what he needed to do, then let the lawyer sort it out after. That should make the toenails curl of someone who always preeches the constitution.
Can you give one compelling point made in the article as a reason to read the whole article?
You don't watch youtube, you don't read entire articles, I guess the only other thing to do is to try to spoon feed you. I think i'll pass.
Bob S Hardly. The difference between Romney and Johnson is Johnson says what he means, and means what he says. Romney says what he thinks the crowd of the day wants to hear. Romney doesn't even know where he stands.
If you are going to make such claims against a candidate you should substantiate it with evidence that the candidate broke election promises in the past. In spite of the brutal Republican campaign , I did not hear anyone leveraging such a claim against Romney. His views may have altered over the years but that seems a natural part of anyone's thinking process. Otherwise you are just projecting into the future based on a clearly negative bias, which is not a legitimate argument, imho.
Reguarding your second statement- you left out that Romney was talking about dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat. That is a major ommission on your part. That threat is already upon us and Iran is already engaged in aiding and abetting our enemies. Amedinejhad has made statements about the USA being the big Satan and that he can envision a world without the USA. Constitutionally the Commander in Cheif doesn't have to wait for Congress to declare war if another nation has already engaged in a war against us. Al queda declared war on the United States long before 911. There are Muslim Brotherhood documents in our posession that describe how they plan to take over the United States. It's no secret that they are engaged in a jihad against us. Do you deny it? Do you deny that Amejinehad is as radical as the Jihad gets?
Good for Romney for having the guts to make a strong statement about his willingness to deal with the Iran nuclear threat which is long past timeliness. The United States should be working with Isreal to stop this very serious threat. You are talking about a nation seeking nuclear capacity that has openly stated that their will to destroy both Isreal and the United States. At best ( meaning not making good on that promise) a nuclear Iran will radically change the world as we know it.
So I agree with Romney in the case of a nuclear Iran. Time is of the essense and so is maintaining intelligence security. We are at a moment when no one knows how close Iran is to attaining nuclear capacity, our intelligence has been seriously breached and probably set back fifteen years, and Congress seems not to be able to agree on anything.
Hopefully the third of those circumstance will change in 2013 when Romney will be president- but the other two remain the same. At this point we do not even know the source of the intelligence leaks which makes it all the more crucial to share plans with as few as possible. Later we can argue about interpretations of the constitution- for which there is a strong arguement that Iran is already engaged in war activities against the United States giving the Commander in Cheif the authority to take action without consulting congress- and this is likely what Romney means. I agree. Taking time out for a debate in congress could be fatal to our nation.
And I do listen to Utube at times, selectively.
This is one I chose to watch showing the new Muslim Brotherhood leader of Egypt. This is a war cry. No denying it. This is what is currently taking place in the Mideast.
Let the lawyers sort it out.
This is all I am going to spoon feed you. There is plenty more, you just need to look.
Oh you just love that "spoon fed line" don't you. I ignored it once and so you repeat it. Takes one to know one! You are right you are not going to spoon feed me in the way that you have been spoon fed.
A spoon fed person can only regurgitate the talking points that he has been fed, If someone brings up concepts that are not part of his spoon feeding, then he ignores that for which he has not been programmed to respond.
BTW- I thought you were referring to some of the more recent statements by Romney concerning his willingness to take the necessary actions to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power
Romney has no core values. If you just look, he constantly flip flops. He says what he needs to say depending on the crowd. If you really wanted to know who Romney was, you would research him. Got any friends in Mass?
“Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand.” - Chinese Proverb
You are entitled to believe whatever you fancy- but is it a surprise that you cannot spoon feed to me. I listen to what Romney says- he has core values You making a statement that it does not does not change the reality. You need to stop being spoon fed and open your eyes tothe here and now..
I am sorry to see this thread petering out in personal acrimony. I think many of us were trying to answer the original question about small-tent Libertarianism and electability, which, for the general public, is more about the candidate and the approach than about specific policies. We have made a respectable case for Gary Johnson as a new direction for Libertarianism, one dependent on neither left or right as usually understood and not as fallout from an Obama v Romney contest.
I would like to clarify my remark about France's mission civilisatrice. That policy was directly analogous to "exporting democracy." It was a justification for colonialism and intervention based on French superiority as a nation dedicated to liberty, equality, and fraternity. That sounds a lot like US nation building to me. The local folks did usually like France and the USA better as colonial powers, than the British, German, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian/USSR alternative, but we both should have learned our lesson in Viet Nam.
Johnson will respond vigorously to an attack and, unike Paul, he is open to using force against international oppression if there are no alternatives. He favored invading Afghanistan but knew we should have left after teaching the Taliban a quick, hard lesson.
I just spent two days at the Free State Project Porcupine Festival in New Hampshire. It's the most libertarians I ever saw in one place and it was amazing. Fifteen thousand people with fifteen thousand agendas vainly trying to form a coherent agenda is a process that is fun to watch. It is politics at its most primal level. I understand libertarians better. I wish them well as they wander through life. Most mean no harm. As I spoke about April 19, 1775 they were incredulous that thousands of people came together for freedom and liberty at the same time back then.
Guizot I think many of us were trying to answer the original question about small-tent Libertarianism and electability, which, for the general public, is more about the candidate and the approach than about specific policies. We have made a respectable case for Gary Johnson as a new direction for Libertarianism, one dependent on neither left or right as usually understood and not as fallout from an Obama v Romney contest.
How did you answer the question about Gary Johnson's electibility? Are you committing to a position that Gary Johnson is electible based on an assesment that the general public cares more about the candidate and approach than about specific policies- as in the general public cares more that the candidate gives an amount by which he will reduce the deficit but not about how the candidate will achieve that claim by specific policies?
How can you separate general approaches from specific policies? ( If you can then why not just run on "Hope and Change" and leave it to the general public to read into it what each one will ?) On what basis do you claim that the general public shares this view?
If you make, as you claim to have done, "a respectable case for Gary Johnson as a new direction for Libertarianism", how does that translate as a candidate electible by the general public, which requires making a case embraced by the general public ? Libertarians do not represent a large segment of the general public. It sounds like you are saying you made what is considered to be a respectible case by your own choir to your own choir. That is not electibility.
As far as "usually understood and not as fallout from an Obama v Romney contest." goes- it's a good thing you qualified that as "ususally" because it certainly does not apply to this discussion, which has priarily focused on bashing Romney over making a substantive case for Johnson.
"how does that translate as a candidate electible by the general public, which requires making a case embraced by the general public ?"
Good question, and as always, you have to look to history for the answer.
In 1856, the Whigs were a tired out party without any new ideas, and were challenged by the new Republican Party for the right to oppose the Democrats. As a result of splitting the anti-Democrat vote, Buchanan was elected president. he was so useless that the country drifted close and closer to civil war. In 1860, the remnants of the Whigs joined with the Republicans and got 39% and control of Congress, and anew direction began in America. The Republicans won nearly every election for the next 70 years
In the 1990's, the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada (yikes! what a name!) was worn out in the ideas department, offering little more than a less virulent version of the leftist platform. The New Conservative Party, beginning in Western Canada, challenged them for the right to oppose the Liberals. As a result of the divided vote for anti-Liberals, the Liberals won control of Parliament. In the next election, the remnants of the progressive Cons and the new Cons united to win enough votes to form as minority government, and in the next election they won an outright majority. Canada went from being on very shaky economic ground to being the most stable economic nation in the world.
That is what we need in the US. A fusion of the Libertarians and the Republicans leading to a new political order. But this only happens folowing an election in which the two factions lose because they did not unite. People won't change unless they get a real lesson in the cost of stupidity.
The American people are the same - they need a real lesson in the cost of stupidity. Just as they did with Carter. Obama is a real lesson in the cost of stupidity, and the Republicans have done better with Obama as President than at any time in history. 4 more years of him, and there might not be a Democrat party anymore. A tragedy for some, I'm sure.
What we do not need is a return to "safe" country club moderate Northeastern Republicanism. THAT would be a disaster for the conservatives and libertarians, and the US.
That is what we need in the US. A fusion of the Libertarians and the Republicans leading to a new political order.