Category Archives: Election ’12

Ron Paul’s First 2012 Political Ad Warns Republicans to Avoid Repeating the Mistake of Trusting Democrats on Taxes and Spending

Can the Republicans trust Democrats and compromise by raising taxes in exchange for spending cuts in this debt ceiling debate? Ron Paul says “no” in his first 2012 political ad.

Why not trust Democrats? Ask former President George H.W. Bush what happened to him when he broke his infamous “Read my lips” promise that he wouldn’t raise taxes.

Hopefully, Republican’s will listen to Dr. No for a change, if only on this critical issue.

The Family Leader’s Pledge Provides Litmus Test for Social Conservatives AND Libertarian Leaning Republican Primary Voters

Just last week, a “pro-family” group that calls itself “The Family Leader” laid out a 14 point “Marriage Vow” pledge for G.O.P. presidential primary candidates to sign as a condition of being considered for an endorsement from the organization. Among the more troubling points of this pledge, at least for those of us who care about limited government and individual liberty: vow support for the Defense of Marriage Act and oppose any redefinition of marriage, “steadfast embrace” of a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would “protect” the definition of marriage in all states as “one man and one woman” and “Humane protection of women” from “all forms” of pornography. Another point of the pledge reads “Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control” which I find quite ironic in that many of the 14 bullet points would be almost perfectly in sync with Sharia Islamic law.

In the introduction to the pledge, there was language that suggested that black families were better off during slavery and more likely to be families that included both a mother and a father than “after the election of the USA’s first African-American president.” This language was later struck from the document that included the pledge.

For most of the G.O.P. field, candidates were reluctant to sign and offered no comment. Mrs. Tea Party herself, Michele Bachmann, however; couldn’t sign the pledge fast enough – even before the reference to black families was removed. Rick Santorum also signed, Jon Huntsman said he doesn’t sign pledges, Newt Gingrich reportedly won’t sign the pledge unless there are additional changes to the language (How could he? Isn’t he on wife number 3?) Mitt Romney rejected the pledge calling it “inappropiate for a presidential campaign” and a Ron Paul spokesman said the congressman “has reservations” about the pledge and “doesn’t want the government to dictate and define traditional marriage.”

Gary Johnson, true to form, effectively vetoed the pledge.

Actually, this is an understatement. Gov. Johnson blasted the pledge calling it “un-Republican and un-American.”

Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives. The freedoms that our forefathers fought for in this country are sacred and must be preserved. The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded. We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the “public’s pocket book”.

This is exactly what this so-called marriage vow is: a distraction. The Tea Party movement was successful in the 2010 elections because the focus was on the economy, limited government, and liberty NOT divisive social issues.

Gov. Johnson continues:

This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.

While the Family Leader pledge covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.

Maybe The Family Leader has done as all a huge favor? By pressuring candidates to sign the pledge in hopes of receiving The Family Leader’s precious endorsement, those of us who want to have some idea of how serious these candidates are about limited government and freedom now have a litmus test of sorts. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum receive an F, Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich maybe a B, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul an A, and Gary Johnson an A+. The rest who have yet to respond get incompletes.

Obviously, for so-called values voters, the grades would be awarded in the opposite way (i.e. Johnson gets an F and Bachmann an A+). This pledge exposes the divide within the Republican Party and the battle for the party’s soul. Will G.O.P. primary voters nominate someone who will welcome individuals (especially independents) who aren’t necessarily found in a Norman Rockwell painting or will they once again nominate someone who panders primarily to white Christian men who want to tell you what to do in your bedroom?

If they win, we might as well get used to the idea of 4 more years of President Barack Obama.

Gary Johnson Makes his Case for President for Libertarians and Libertarian Leaning Republicans on Stossel

In case you missed it, John Stossel dedicated the whole hour of his show last Thursday to answer the question: Who is Gary Johnson? When Stossel took Johnson’s picture around the streets on NYC, only one person knew who he was. I think this could be one reason why his poll numbers are so anemic at this point.

The studio audience, mostly libertarian leaning (which is normal for Stossel), seemed to like most of what Gov. Veto had to say as he was routinely interrupted by applause.

It wasn’t a complete love fest, however. Stossel brought on guests to challenge the governor from both the Left and the Right to ask him some of the same asinine questions he would have likely been asked had he been invited to the N.H. debate. Johnson also got to debate a Barack Obama impersonator (which was kind of cheesy if you ask me).

I won’t go into anymore of my impressions from the program but I look forward to reading the comments section to see what some of your impressions are.

Quote of the Day: Jon Huntsman on Foreign Policy/Interventionism

As reported in Politico:

“I can’t think of too many tribal countries with which we’ve been involved — Afghanistan is another one — where it’s easy to extricate yourself once you get involved,” Huntsman told reporters here after finishing a cruise with Republicans on northern New Hampshire’s Lake Winnipesaukee. “So it might sound like it’s a tangential supportive role at the beginning even if it’s just a no-fly zone. But you’re making a commitment … and sometimes those things become very hard to unwind.”

[…]

“We’re deployed in some quarters in this world where we don’t need to be. It’s time we take a look at the map and we start to clean it up,” he said, arguing that both national security interests as well as financial costs should affect the decision.

And in addition, “we need to do a better job of identifying who our friends and allies are around the world,” Huntsman said.

Gary Johnson Excluded from New Hampshire Debate

Of 13 candidates and potential candidates for the G.O.P nomination who were invited to participate in the June 13th debate in New Hampshire, 7 have decided to participate. As of now, the 7 participants in the debate will be Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. Notable no-shows are Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, Rudy Giuliani, and Jon Huntsman (Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee were also invited but both have since decided not to run).

Not invited to participate: 2 term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson did not meet the “objective criteria” as determined by CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union Leader. To put it bluntly, Johnson’s poll numbers are too low for him to qualify.

The Johnson campaign is understandably very disappointed that their candidate was not invited to debate in a very key early primary state. Ron Nielson, a blogger for Johnson’s official campaign website writes:

In the latest Gallup poll, released one week ago, Governor Johnson’s level of support registered at 3% nationally. This is competitive with candidates like Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum, both of whom have been invited to participate. In fact, I’m not aware of a poll in which Mr. Santorum has out-polled Governor Johnson nationally.

[…]

Why are CNN, WMUR, and the Union Leader excluding the one Republican candidate with executive experience and a record of fighting for true fiscal conservatism and limited government? Why are they denying Americans the opportunity to hear from the Republican presidential candidate whose popularity is growing by the day? If only Governor Johnson had supported a statewide health insurance mandate, like other candidates.

From there, Nielson encourages Johnson’s supporters to contact CNN, WMUR, and the Union Leader and urge them to change their minds. Nielson also points out that 2 of the debate participants, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum haven’t even officially announced (seems to me that if the debate organizers wanted to exclude individuals, limiting the participants to those who have announced would be a more fair criteria).

In a statement Gov. Johnson released yesterday, he said he respects the decision of the debate sponsors but said its “unfortunate” that there will be a “missing voice” in the debate:

What will be missing is the voice of those who hold an undiluted view of individual liberty – those who believe that individual rights extend to women who face choices about abortion, Americans who happen to be gay, and those who don’t place other asterisks on freedom.

Likewise, there will be no voice for the growing number of Americans who see the hypocrisy and failure of drug laws that condone alcohol at White House Dinners while incarcerating millions of Americans, including our kids, who choose to smoke pot.

[…]

I look forward to participating in the July 10 debate in Las Vegas, sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform and the Daily Caller.

I’ve already made my case why candidates should not be excluded from the debates at this early stage, so I’m not going to repeat those arguments here. There is one point I intended to make in that post that I forgot to bring up though: the point in the campaign when candidates should be excluded from debates.

Is there a point in which candidates should be excluded? Of course! The point at which candidates should be excluded from the debates should be when it is mathematically impossible for the candidate to win enough delegates for the nomination. Last time I checked there haven’t been any primary votes and not a single delegate awarded to any candidate. Gov. Johnson has exactly the same number of delegates as Gov. Romney: 0.

Less than a month ago, Hugh Hewitt dismissed Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Gary Johnson as “1%ers” who should be “exiled” from the debates because they have “no prayer of winning.” As of right now according to the RCP Average, Rep. Ron Paul is running in 4th place with 8.3% and Herman Cain is in 5th with 7.2%. Gov. Johnson doesn’t register on the RCP Average but is polling between 1-3% in the polls individually. In the most recent CNN/Opinion Research Poll (May 24 -26) “HORSE RACE WITHOUT RUDY GIULIANI OR SARAH PALIN” Ron Paul comes in 2nd with 15%, Herman Cain 3rd with 13% and Gary Johnson 9th with 2%.

While these poll numbers do not bode well for Johnson at this point, the other two individuals who were “1%ers” who had no business being included in the debates less than a month ago are polling better than some of the establishment favorites. Less than a month ago Herman Cain lacked name recognition and has gained substantial ground once he had the opportunity to introduce himself to primary voters. The same can happen for Gov. Johnson once more people learn about his record as governor and where he stands on the issues.

1 16 17 18 19 20 23