Why a vote for Gary Johnson is not "wasted"

A vote for the Libertarian Party
is an important vote this November.

All evidence at this point seems to point to former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson winning the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. But some people I have spoken to said they will not vote for Johnson in the general election because he is "not viable". However, this is simply not true, and even if it were true, such an excuse would not be acceptable.

As of now, Johnson is polling at 9% against Obama and Romney. He needs 15% to get into the debates, so with a little more support, he can promote Libertarianism on a national stage. This would be a tremendous victory for the LP in its own right. Furthermore, if the Libertarian Party gets 5% of the vote nationwide, the FEC will give it approximately $90 million dollars. This would be a tremendous sum of money going forward. Even if Johnson can't win the election, this is reason enough to vote for him.

However, if enough people pay attention to Libertarianism, Johnson does have a chance of winning this November. 68% of Americans are considering voting for a third party. If even half of those vote for Johnson, that's over a third of the popular vote. Since Johnson's support has come roughly evenly from Romney and Obama's camps, it is feasible he will win a good number of electoral votes. To those who say that he won't get that much - in 1992, 39% of Americans were considering a third party candidate, and 19% ended up supporting Ross Perot. That is approximately half. Couldn't Johnson do the same thing? It's entirely feasible.

It's a long way to November. For that matter, it's a long way to the Libertarian Party's convention in Las Vegas in May. But one thing is for sure - a vote for Gary Johnson is not a wasted vote.

Why Ron Paul is finished and I support Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson is
running for president.
Here is why to vote
for him. 

Previously on this blog, I mentioned I supported Gary Johnson for the Republican nomination. Then, Johnson switched to the Libertarian Party and I said I would support Ron Paul for the nomination. But now, Ron Paul is pretty much finished, realistically speaking. He has said he will not seek a third party nomination. So, realistically speaking, I've got to turn to a third party. Johnson is currently polling at over 70% among Libertarians, and it seems likely he will get the nomination at the Convention the first weekend in May. If not, I will figure it out from there.

But why do I support Gary Johnson? There are several reasons. First, Johnson will significantly reduce government spending. He will pass a balanced budget in his first year, and eliminate wasteful government spending and pork. No other candidate besides Dr. Paul is willing to do that. Our country is on the brink of financial disaster, so much so that even Ben Bernanke admits it. We need to reduce spending, and we need to do it now.

Second of all, Gary Johnson will end useless wars. So long, War in Afghanistan. So long, Libyan war. Good-bye, War on Drugs. All in all, the defense budget will be cut 42% under Gary Johnson. Meanwhile, Obama finally ended the War in Iraq two and a half years after he said he would, and only after starting wars in Libya and Somalia. Romney/Gingrich won't cut military either. We shouldn't be the world's policeman.

The Libertarian Party
is fiscally conservative
and socially liberal. They
advocate small-government
libertarianism. It's a good idea.

Third, Johnson will protect out liberties. He opposes PIPA, SOPA, and ACTA, and would work to get those bills overturned if they pass under Obama. If they don't, Johnson will ensure they don't pass under his watch. Johnson (unlike Paul) also supports nationwide gay marriage. While I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all, legalizing gay marriage is a good start. He also opposes all forms of censorship as well as the indefinite detentions authorized under NDAA. It's scary what Obama is doing and what Bush did to our civil liberties. Reverse the loss.

Gary Johnson is a "classic liberal". Back in the day, these people were just called "liberals", but now we sometimes call them "libertarians". He opposes most forms of government intervention, except in cases of force or fraud by one person against another. He would downsize government and keep it out of our personal lives. We would stay out of other countries and balance the budget. So why has nobody heard of him? I'll let that sink in for a while and answer it later.

One more thing.... Go Giants

Top 10 Political Halloween Costumes of 2011

This is the second year in a row I have done this. For the first time, see this facebook page (I don't believe it requires a facebook account, but it might. You don't need to add me as af friend though).

10. "Occupy Chocolate Walnut Street" - the 1% of the "big kids" who get all the trick-or-treat candy need to learn to share with the little kids. 

9. Ron Paul - "The Constitution does not give the President the power to distribute candy to trick-or-treaters at the White House. Therefore, if elected president, I will not do so, as that can only be done by the states."

8. Social Security - Don't buy any candy to give to trick-or-treaters who come to your house. Instead, take candy from each trick-or treater who comes buy and invite them to come by later for more candy than they gave up. Proceed to give each returning trick-or-treater the candy you stole from the preceding trick-or-treaters. Eventually, you will run out of candy and an angry mob of trick-or-treaters will form outside your house and you will go down in flames.

7. A third party candidate: Hand out a delicious candy that is amazingly awesome but that nobody has heard of before. Nobody comes to your house.

6. Vice President Caingrich, under President Perry.

5. A Tea Party Protestor - Yell at little kids who come to your house asking for candy, since it's unjust taxation on the candy-rich.

4. Herman Cain: Yes, Mrs. Jones, I'd like a Kit-Kat, please... Here you go, Hermie sweetie. Next!... Wait, I misunderstood the question. I'd actually like Reese's Pieces.

3. USS Carl Vinson - take the candy you don't like, and dump it in the ocean.

2. Dick Cheney: Give chocolate to quails and shoot tricker-or-treaters because you "were confused about which was which". And quails can't eat chocolate, so double succes!

And now for...

1. THE SCARIEST COSTUME OF THEM ALL.... A three-headed monster consisting of Presidents Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama. 

Make the right choice in 2012. Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Liberty, Success!

Gary Johnson for President 2012 (and why I'm not Completely Sold on Ron Paul but Still Support Him)

Note: This post was originally titled "Gary Johnson for President 2012 (and why I don't like Ron Paul)". However, the purpose of this post was never to criticize Paul, but rather to say that I don't particularly agree with him on certain issues. I think Paul would make a good president. But I think Johnson would make a great president.


I have mentioned before that I consider myself to be a libertarian. Sometimes I support the Libertarian Party while other times I don't. Many libertarians feel that Ron Paul is the answer to all our problems. However, I am not entirely sold on him.

There is no doubt in my mind that "Dr. No" will cut federal spending significantly. This is a major accomplishment, especially in light of current events. However, in terms of government power overall, I fear he will simply give authority to the states. Authority that should not be given to any government, whether local or national. For instance, Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which would prevent the federal government from establishing a definition of marriage and allow states to make their own laws regarding what is and isn't marriage, however discriminatory they may be. Additionally, Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which removed DOMA challenges from the jurisdiction of the federal court.

As I have said before, I support marriage privatization - let the government recognize any union by two consenting adults, but don't call it marriage. But that being said, same-sex couples should be allowed all the same rights as married couples. It shouldn't be left up to the government to decide what is or isn't marriage, regardless of which government that is. That is only one example of where Paul would give authority to the states - the War on Drugs being another along with laws concerning abortion and medical research.

I appreciate Paul's efforts to improve our civil liberties in some areas, for instance opposing the PATRIOT Act. However, I feel that there is a libertarian-leaning Republican who will protect our liberties, cut spending significantly, and (unlike Paul) reduce government authority instead of transferring it. That candidate is Gary Johnson. When he was governor of New Mexico for two terms, he was called "the most fiscally conservative governor in America". Indeed, he earned this honor, using his line-item veto to ensure the state had a balanced budget the whole time he was in office.

As governor, Johnson created 20,000 new jobs in the state. However, Johnson says he did not actually actually create them. Instead, as he pointed out recently,

"I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor. We kept government in check, the budget balanced, and the path to growth clear of unnecessary regulatory obstacles. My priority was to get government out of the way, keep it out of the way, and allow hard-working New Mexicans, entrepreneurs and businesses to fulfill their potential. That’s how government can encourage job growth, and that’s what government needs to do today."

In other words, Johnson didn't actually create new jobs with taxpayer money like the Financial Stimulus did. Instead, he reduced government spending, giving more money to the people and companies of New Mexico, which in turn created jobs. 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat talked about "the seen and the unseen". Well, the unseen effect of high government spending certainly revealed itself in New Mexico. Spending money to promote job growth actually hurts job growth, and Johnson knows that.

However, Ron Paul is fiscally conservative too. What distinguishes Johnson is his focus on all civil liberties, returning them all to the people instead of letting the states run free like Congress does now. Johnson (like me) supports full marriage privatization, giving civil unions to all couples, male and female, and letting churches and individuals decide who is and isn't married. He also is fully pro-choice, though he does believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, calling it "judicial legislation". And frankly, though I too support a woman's right to choose, he's probably right. That being said, I agree with Johnson that after the case is overturned, legitimate, Congressional legislation should be passed asserting that abortion is legal. (Paul disagrees, saying it should be left up to the states).

Johnson has not been getting that much attention, primarily due to Paul's influence in the primaries. So, since virtually anyone who might consider voting for Gary will instead vote for the well-known candidate in Dr. Paul, I highly doubt Johnson has any hope of winning. I am still debating whether or not I want to switch to the GOP, since I don't particularly like the party as a whole. If I were to register in Connecticut where I go to school, I could register as an Independent and still vote in the GOP primary, but given issues that occurred in last year's general election with students, I'm not sure I want to do that either. In any case, if I do switch my registration, I must decide by mid-October, since New York doesn't switch party registrations until after the following general election, and all requests must be received 21 days before.  So I've got time to decide.

However, if I do vote for Johnson in the primary, I am confident that my vote will not be wasted. Even if he is totally a fringe candidate, I am still voting for a candidate who I genuinely support, just as I was doing when I supported LP candidate Warren Redlich for governor in 2010. If Paul were to eventually win the nomination, perhaps I'd vote for him over the LP candidate. Then again, perhaps I wouldn't. I really don't know yet. I'll figure that out later. For now, though, I am supporting Gary Johnson for President in 2012. I encourage anyone who cares about this country to do the same.

Note: This article previously indicated that Ron Paul co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act. Although he is a supporter of DOMA, Paul was not in Congress when it was passed. However, Paul did co-sponsor the Marriage Protection Act.