"It's a stacked deck against third-party"

[Chris0nllyn]

Pretty good interview with Gary Johnson.

Sagar Jethani (SJ): Since the November elections, there has been a marked interest in the libertarian wing of the Republican party represented by figures like Rand Paul and Justin Amash. What's your take on this?

Gary Johnson (GJ): Republicans lost because of their social agenda — because of their views on marriage equality, on a woman's right to choose, on immigration, and on drug policy. It was fear of that agenda which made the difference in the election. So now some Republicans are going to call themselves libertarians. They'll say they're socially conservative, but that they won't use government to make policy in those areas.

SJ: What's the overlap between libertarianism and the Republican approach to government?

GJ: I used to run as a Republican, and the words I used as a Republican didn't suddenly change when I ran as the Libertarian Party nominee. The majority of Republicans do not actually have a social agenda. They are fiscally responsible, and socially accepting. Really, most of us just don't give a damn. We don't care how other people live their lives as long as long as your life doesn't adversely affect mine. That's when government does have a role.

SJ: Some members of the GOP's libertarian wing support limited government until you tap an issue on their moral agenda. Rand Paul has supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. That wouldn't fly with libertarians.

GJ: That's right. Some libertarians may be socially conservative, but they're the last people in the world who are going to want to make a decision for a woman about her pregnancy, for example. I do believe that marriage equality is constitutionally guaranteed, hence the role of the federal government protecting it as opposed to leaving it up to states.

SJ: Another point of difference is the Republican propensity for military intervention.

GJ: And now John McCain is trying to raise everyone's blood pressure about the need for military intervention in Syria. That has my blood boiling. Let's stop with the military intervention. And you know who's driving that? It's Republicans, and McCain is the head of that spear.

SJ: Why is it that the idea of limited government, an idea which resonates with so many Americans, captures so few of their votes?

GJ: Because you don't know there's somebody out there talking about these issues. Toward the end of my campaign, I read somewhere that I got 1/1000th of the media coverage of Obama and Romney. I think it was actually worse than that. It's about getting heard. I wasn't heard.

SJ: But imagine that a third party candidate actually wins the popular vote. So what? The Electoral College actually chooses the president. And the people who sit in the Electoral College are put there by Democrats and Republicans. The very nature of the electoral process favors the two incumbent parties.

GJ: Exactly. It's a stacked deck.

Gary Johnson: "It's A Stacked Deck" Against Third Party Candidates

 

[Chris0nllyn]

SJ: How much does the stacking depend on who is allowed to participate in the debates?

GJ: Look at the Commission on Presidential Debates: it's entirely made up of Republicans and Democrats. None of them have any interest whatsoever in seeing a third party onstage.

SJ: Who do you think should be included in the presidential debates?

GJ: I think a very fair requirement would be: are you on enough state ballots to win the election? Using that approach, four people would have qualified to be in the national debate in the last election: [Green party candidate] Jill Stein, myself, Obama and Romney.

SJ: I'd like to talk about the libertarian approach to safety nets. Since the New Deal, people expect that instead of simply providing basic protections, government should also shield them from economic harm. Are we able to significantly reduce safety nets at a time when so many Americans depend on them?

GJ: I don't know if it's possible, but I absolutely believe that unless we balance the federal budget and cut entitlement programs to the tune of 30 percent then we will find ourselves with no safety nets at all. That's the eventual outcome. Now, is that a sexy message? One that resonates with people who are currently depending on these programs?

SJ: That's a tough sell.

GJ: Absolutely. And how are you able to deliver that message so that everyone understands that this is really necessary?

SJ: So the goal is actually the preservation of safety nets for those who need them — and that preservation is threatened by our lack of fiscal discipline?

GJ: You said it. I think the federal government should get out of health care delivery completely. Instead, issue block grants to states — a fixed amount of money — and leave it to the states to establish how to deliver health care to those truly in need.

SJ: And you would fund this with a consumption tax.

GJ: I support eliminating income tax, corporate tax, and abolishing the IRS. Replace it all with one federal consumption tax, something that market economists have embraced as the way to reform taxes. Social Security would then be paid for out of a national consumption tax instead of a payroll deduction with an employer match.

SJ: Wouldn't replacing income and corporate taxes with a consumption tax disproportionately hit lower-income Americans who typically spend more of their income?

GJ: It is regressive. But here's how the FairTax deals with this: issue everybody in the country a $200 per month rebate check. So everybody in the country gets $2400 a year which allows us to pay the unavoidable part of consumption tax for food, clothing, and energy. That's how it avoids being regressive.

SJ: Taylor Peck, one of the founders of iSideWith, observed that while young people may lean Republican on fiscal discipline, they ultimately broke for Democrats in the last cycle because of their social views and aversion to military intervention.

GJ: I completely agree. And if Republicans don't get it, they're not going to regain the presidency.

...

 

[EvolutionIsBS]

Elections are rigged. Lock and Load, People!

 

[ylexot]

I still disagree with Gary on gay marriage (government should get out of it completely) and I'm not sure about abortion (sticky subject...libertarians are pretty evenly split on the issue). Other than that, he's right on IMHO.

 

[Lurk]

It was observed, maybe 140-160 years ago, that the bicameral republican form of government ensures that only two major parties would dominate American politics. Another form of government, such as a parliamentary government, would encourage the rise of several parties and lead to development of coalitions and non-majority party rule. It's not the Democrats or the Republicans preventing the Green Party from becoming a serious contender, it's the Democratic Republic that does it. In the case of the Libertarian party, it the stupid spokespersons/leaders/candidates they support. If a third party was really relevant, it would replace one of the other dominant parties, as the Republican party replaced the Whig party in 1850's. I'll see if I cannot find that reference, if I decide to give a damn.

 

[Larry Gude]

Gary Johnson (GJ): Republicans lost because of their social agenda — because of their views on marriage equality, on a woman's right to choose, on immigration, and on drug policy. It was fear of that agenda which made the difference in the election. So now some Republicans are going to call themselves libertarians. They'll say they're socially conservative, but that they won't use government to make policy in those areas.

It's true. However, those are nothing more than symptoms. The small potatoes.

The GOP is in disarray because of Med Part D, doing NOTHING about immigration when it mattered, creating the DHS, TSA, Patriot Act, $5 trillion in debt, losing not one but two wars, Gitmo, $4 gas, the GM bail out and TARP.

The GOP lost in '08 because those policies were harming the nation so bad that a cult of personality like Obama won the presidency. Not social issues.

Had we killed bin Laden in December of '01 when we had him, had we just got on with it and won in Iraq, were gas under $2 a gallon, had entitlements been reformed instead of expanded, had a sensible immigration plan been put in place in, say, 2004, had we not created this enormous growth in government and useless bureaucracy, not bailed out GM, fixed Wall Street instead of taking it over, in short, if things weren't a mess, Obama has no chance, nothing to run on.

So, we can look at social issues, the GOP position on them, anti abortion, no gay marriage, no freedom to choose what you ingest, we do see the truth of the GOP; a party for as much government as possible.

I used to say the left should have cheered Bush on most issues. What he did made what Obama has done possible. I am starting to think, as time passes, maybe the GOP should start cheering Obama; he does what they would have done. Fact is, the party has done NOTHING to stake out it's alleged small party roots every since.

Social issues are symptomatic but, clearly the lesser issues. No one chose social liberalism couple with socialist governance over social conservatism coupled with limited government. We chose social liberalism and socialist governance over social fascism coupled with socialist governance.

 

[SamSpade]

Pretty good interview with Gary Johnson.

Pretty sure he's out to lunch regarding the Electoral College. Your own party electors vote for you. Win a state, win your party's slate of electors. The only way you lose is if they suddenly change their mind and vote for someone else.

 

[SamSpade]

I really don't think social issues play as big a role in national elections.

My own experience - since I am completely surrounded by Obama supporters at work - is that they just plain like him. They cheered when he won, but they honestly can't say why they like him, except that they think he's doing the best he can and all that.

Admittedly, a great number of them are die-hard Democrats - yellow dog Democrats - who vote Democrat not in a small part due to the fact that they simply hate Republicans. And I am barraged all day long by misstatements and made up crap about who they are and what they are like.

Elections lately have been decided by smaller and smaller numbers as of late, but I don't think it's the "swing" voters themselves that make a difference. It's the VOLUME of the die-hard voters who don't really ever intend to vote for the other party. Bush won with this strategy in '04. Get MORE of your own guys to show up, and you win. Look at the election numbers this time around and compare them to '08. It isn't fringe issues and swing voters. It's more of base, and less of base, and mostly, they don't give a crap.

 

[czygvtwkr]

The GOP is in disarray because of Med Part D (People dont care), doing NOTHING about immigration when it mattered (Most people don't care unless they are hispanic), creating the DHS (People Dont Care) , TSA (People Don't Care) , Patriot Act (People Dont Care) , $5 trillion in debt (Most People Don't Care) , losing not one but two wars (The one thing they made stick that people care about) , Gitmo (People Dont Care) , $4 gas (Most don't think anything could be done about) , the GM bail out (People Dont care) and TARP (People Don't Care) .

Larry while most of your talking points are good, the fact is that most people don't give a damn about most of them and the ones that do care less about them than you seem to think. Most people don't care about an issue unless it has a direct, immediate, and identifyable impact on them

 

[Larry Gude]

Larry while most of your talking points are good, the fact is that most people don't give a damn about most of them and the ones that do care less about them than you seem to think. Most people don't care about an issue unless it has a direct, immediate, and identifyable impact on them

And under my administration they would care because they'd get an itemized bill for the crap they vote for, every month.

I would eliminate payroll withholding taxes while I was at it.

The fact is all these things already have a direct, immediate and identifiable impact on all of us, every day through the various and sundry ways government policy invariably can NOT help but impact us.

 

[czygvtwkr]

And under my administration they would care because they'd get an itemized bill for the crap they vote for, every month.

I would eliminate payroll withholding taxes while I was at it.

The fact is all these things already have a direct, immediate and identifiable impact on all of us, every day through the various and sundry ways government policy invariably can NOT help but impact us.

Most people can't even tell you who the speaker of the house is and what party he belongs to.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Most people can't even tell you who the speaker of the house is and what party he belongs to.

Kenwood, with the House Party?

 

[FreedomFan]

Gary is a good start, but he's not a pure libertarian. He seems little more than a pragmatic statist Republican who is pro-weed. They are a dime a dozen.

 

[Larry Gude]

Most people can't even tell you who the speaker of the house is and what party he belongs to.

Because it doesn't matter.

If there were a case to be made, clear, tangible differences, then, more people would know and care. But, that's not what we have. The GOP won back the House but, for what?

I know folks would naturally say "Oh, but things would be even more worse-er if Nancy was still Speaker!" and I am sure there is some truth to that but, doesn't that indicate that there should be a LOT more reason to know who Boehner is and what he is trying to lead the House in doing?

If things are so bad, and they are, and the GOP is the better choice to fix things, a dubious proposition at best, then, certainly, there should be a LOT more resistance and opposition come from the House leadership.

So, as there isn't much to attract attention, folks tune it out and don't care.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Because it doesn't matter.

If there were a case to be made, clear, tangible differences, then, more people would know and care. But, that's not what we have. The GOP won back the House but, for what?

I know folks would naturally say "Oh, but things would be even more worse-er if Nancy was still Speaker!" and I am sure there is some truth to that but, doesn't that indicate that there should be a LOT more reason to know who Boehner is and what he is trying to lead the House in doing?

If things are so bad, and they are, and the GOP is the better choice to fix things, a dubious proposition at best, then, certainly, there should be a LOT more resistance and opposition come from the House leadership.

So, as there isn't much to attract attention, folks tune it out and don't care.

Folks tune it out and don't care because they are lazy (and as a whole stupid), exactly the same reason why people signed up for mortgages where they had no idea what they were signing up for.

The democrats have been very successful at painting the GOP as racists, rich, religious fanatics, and mean war mongers, in fact a friend of mine that went to Leonardtown Highschool told me his teachers told him if you have money you register as a Republican and if you dont as a Democrat.

Perception is what matters, reality has very little to do with anything. Close elections come down to which canidate is taller, better looking, and more charasmatic, people as a whole just don't care about anything else any more.

The GOP really needs to rebrand itself, not necessarly on platform, but perception.

 

[Larry Gude]

Folks tune it out and don't care because they are lazy (and as a whole stupid), exactly the same reason why people signed up for mortgages where they had no idea what they were signing up for. People were doing what everyone was doing; trying to cash in. Our leaders were doing everything they could to get everyone into the pool. You're making my point; people DO pay attention to what is working. No one jumped to refi or flip a home because people were losing money doing it.

The democrats have been very successful at painting the GOP as racists, rich, religious fanatics, and mean war mongers, in fact a friend of mine that went to Leonardtown Highschool told me his teachers told him if you have money you register as a Republican and if you dont as a Democrat. Again and again, I say it is not the success of their argument. It is the abject failure of ours. And a huge part of that problem is there are so few on our side even bothering to make a good argument.

Perception is what matters, reality has very little to do with anything. Close elections come down to which canidate is taller, better looking, and more charasmatic, people as a whole just don't care about anything else any more. If that were true, The GOP would not have won the House in '94, Bush would not have won in 2000 and 2004 and would not have had a GOP congress for most of that as well as a favorable court.

The GOP really needs to rebrand itself, not necessarly on platform, but perception.

The GOP just needs to be honest; "Hey, we're socialism light. It's practical. Big government, big military, big business."

They've ####ed over small business and individual rights and the Constitution so bad the last decade, I really can't see them bothering to argue otherwise.

:shrug:

 

[czygvtwkr]

People were doing what everyone was doing; trying to cash in. Our leaders were doing everything they could to get everyone into the pool. You're making my point; people DO pay attention to what is working. No one jumped to refi or flip a home because people were losing money doing it.

People were stupid, they took adjustable rate mortgages when rates were at historic lows (the only place to go is up, durrrr) People were lazy because so many never read the documents they signed, do you remember the post by the woman that use to own Rita's in Lexington Park claiming over and over that the mortgage company lied when she never even read the documents herself? Stupid and Lazy. And no that was not working, it was an artificial bubble, there is no way that prices could have continued to climb but everybody thought (hoped) that they would just so they could get theirs, in the end they did get theirs.

Again and again, I say it is not the success of their argument. It is the abject failure of ours. And a huge part of that problem is there are so few on our side even bothering to make a good argument.

That's because the loudest arguments are from those groups that most reasonable people do not want to be associated with. You have the religious nuts like Mr "Legit Rape" you got the redneck's that do simply hate Obama because he is black, re-branding means shutting these people up and taking their power away, if not throwing them out altogether.

If that were true, The GOP would not have won the House in '94, Bush would not have won in 2000 and 2004 and would not have had a GOP congress for most of that as well as a favorable court.

As hard as it is to believe Bush was more charismatic than either Gore or Kerry, he also had name recognition, and the unfettered support from the section of the GOP that only cares about the most religious candidate winning, you damn well know that these people did not support Romney because he is a Morman.

 

[czygvtwkr]

I'd like to add that a few years ago that TNT, i believe, made a movie about George Wallace. There was also a lot in the media about him them, I think it was some anniversary about something. Anyway what I took out of what I saw is that he originally ran for governor on the platforms of improving education, doing much needed repairs to roads, building the road infrastructure up etc, the state of Alabama sorely needed these things and he lost the election, was basically ignored. He re-invented himself and introduced shock politics to the race next time by being a very vocal supporter of segregation. That was something that people cared about (I wouldn't exactly say it "working", like you seem to think that people will listen to something that works) and you know the rest.

My point is that you have to stir up people with something that they are not apathetic about, and unfortunately things like budgets, rights, and other boring stuff are lost on most people. I bet a candidate showing up with Kim Kardashian would get more votes from that that taking any stance on any issue.