Gary Johnson Silenced

Gary Johnson, by far the best governor of New Mexico while I was living there for 17 years, terminator of corruption, has been denied a voice in the New Hampshire Republican Debate, purportedly due to low poll numbers.Land of the free, my ass.My question is why are the Republicans so afraid of the most popular governor in New Mexico's recent history?Is it his stand on drugs? unnecessary wars? fiscal responsibility? good-ol'-boy corruption? not interfering enough in people's personal lives?Stand for what America means, more like censor what America could be.Coffee HouseEdited by anglagard, : capitalization

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Thread copied here from the Gary Johnson Silenced thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

It was CNN that prevented him from taking part, wasn't it?

Do you have reason to believe that the "low poll" limit is bogus or is this an emotional rant?Are there participants with lower numbers?I would think the organizers would need to set a limit somehow/somewhere or have every fool in an elephant suit expect a seat.Is there any evidence that such a limitation is unreasonable or unnecessary or being arbitrarily applied?

Apparently he didn't meet some pre-defined poll cutoffs, here's a short article from a local paper: An excerpt: --Percy

Yes, unfortunately.I wish he had a chance, but the majority of Republican voters seem to prefer loudmouthed idiots to proven track records of good governance (not that democrats are innocent in this regard either).As Rod Serling would say, submitted for your consideration:

quote:

---

We've done polls in Massachusetts and Minnesota over the last couple weeks and found that Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Michele Bachmann are all unpopular in their home states. That's par for the course with this GOP Presidential field- we've polled on 9 of the candidates or potential candidates in their home states and only one of them is well liked- Gary Johnson in New Mexico.

---

sourceMakes for interesting reading.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Are those the only two choices I have? Seems to mirror the state of politics in the USA, we the powerful have dictated your only choice is between awful and worse.Perhaps you should read some of the commentary on the article I referred to in my reply to percy.Like them in regard to both Johnson and Ron Paul, I also sense a suppression of anyone who dares question warmongering and the oppression of 'drug' users. It seems fiscal libertarianism has been adopted (in theory, not practice) yet the idea of social libertarianism must be quashed at all costs.But that is another subject for another thread.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

So it is an emotional rant. Because your favorite Pol didn't make the cutoff?Do something about it. If you and other like-minded folk get working you can get his poll numbers up.Of course, if it makes you feel better you can always just sit here and whine in self pity about the vast social conspiracy stacked against you. Why? Did those people decide who got on the dais? That was the question wasn't it? So you think CNN and the other organizers used low poll numbers as some excuse to expand their conspiracy against your candidate?And your evidence is ...

Then maybe the problem is you, and people like you - people who bemoan the state of American politics but assume that the answer is to do exactly what they've always done: continue voting as though personalities, and not structures, are to blame.How many "decent guys" have you voted for, Ang? How many people who seemed like they were going to be the one to change things? And then they got in and a guy who seemed like he was going to take an ambitious stand on reform turned out to be a guy who could only participate in the same old special interest brokering?Did it ever occur to you, maybe, that it won't matter who you vote for until the system itself is changed? I'm not talking about "tear down the White House" type stuff, I'm just saying - maybe step one is have majority rule carry the day in the Senate so that elections actually have consequences there. Just a thought?

No, rather a false choice. Well, favorite republican. Bernie Sanders is my favorite democrat . Actually, before the libertarian party sold out, I was the Socorro County Chair. I did actively campaign for Howard Hutchinson for the state house as his campaign manager and Ron Paul for the presidency back in 1988. I know how much work it takes.Do you? Well then don't read it, at least it is not the phony choice you gave me. The fact minor party candidates are suppressed through various tricks, just like any minority vote or youth vote is suppressed.Why shouldn't the voters be allowed to hear from more than two perspectives like in nearly every other country in the world?Are you an advocate of two-party dictatorship?Will go into detail on these assertions if still interested.Edited by anglagard, : clarity

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

I agree the structure is to blame, but the structure can not be reformed until those who benefit from such a structure are removed from power, a real life catch 22. Are you referring to Obama? Under the Johnson administration in New Mexico, both the state speaker of the house (Aragon) and of the senate (Sanchez) were eventually convicted of felonies.One reason to like Johnson, he don't take no shit, he takes out felons, even politically connected ones. Yeah, see up-post and up-thread.Edited by anglagard, : Name names and kick ass

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Well, but that's everybody you elect. And you have to elect someone, there's no ballot option for "none of these motherfuckers" (or else everybody would pick that.) I'm alluding to complains about "hope and change" not really turning out, because the President is just a President and not Green Lantern, who can bring laws about simply by force of will. That complaint was leveled against Obama by some participants a few months ago, yes. I guess, but if he's unelectable - which he is - then there's relatively little reason for CNN to include him in their debate. Otherwise it just descends into a circus for cranks to spew their conspiracy theories and nonsense - oh, wait, too late.

Actually one has that choice in Nevada, the problem is it does not matter. See None of the above - Wikipedia. It's a Libertarian thing, or at least it was, before Bob Barr. Yes, one president can't change the world. However if one can start an undeclared war by executive fiat, another can end one by executive fiat. I'm just disappointed that the republicans could have at least had a better chance to listen to someone other than a certifiable idiot, phony or rabid psychopath (or in Newt's case at least, all three).All to often, try to do them a favor, and they spit in your face. Same attitude they all to often show to the citizens who elect them.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

When I find a worthy candidate, yes. I've been working US Senate campaigns in my home state(s) since Harold Hughes in the late 60's. I know the rigors, yes. Well, since this was a Republican debate I'm not surprised only Republicans were invited. Are you?What is stopping the Libertarian or the American parties from having a debate among their own candidates?This issue you brought up was that your man was not invited. He was not invited because he did not meet the polling criteria.You allege some conspiracy and now you're all over the map about minority voices and minority parties.So work within the system. Find a good candidate and promote them within the party.Sometimes you win (like Hughes in Iowa) sometimes you lose (like Krueger in Texas).It's not the party, Anglagard, it's the person.

I'm not sure that's true, but if Congress wanted something different they would get it. You're largely seeing a process of Congress ceding authority to the President, not the President taking authority from the Congress. Congresspeople have determined that it's better for them if the President doesn't need their permission to start wars - that way, they don't share any of the blame. Do you think anybody other that a phony, idiot, or sociopath can clear a Republican primary? I mean, that's sort of the problem, isn't it - Republican voters simply won't accept a candidate who takes a reality-based stance on most of the issues. I mean they've turned the debt ceiling into a religious issue.