If he had an actual chance, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. The problem is I live in a swing state. And the sheeple in my state are barely on the Romney side.

If you can get California, and other blue states, to go for Johnson I'll vote for him to.

Otherwise we are just fucked.

I hate statements like this one:

"Identify and implement common-sense cost savings to place Medicare on a path toward long-term solvency."

Yeah? Like what? Please go ahead and identify the common-sense cost savings that you plan to implement.

Otherwise it's just more hot air from just another politician.

I don't live in a Swing state. Maybe I'll vote for him.

"If he had an actual chance, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat."

If everyone who says that would vote for him he'd have an actual chance.

Actually, Amy, I think I will do just that. Neither of the political parties have given me a candidate that I can vote for with clear conscience, so Gary Johnson it is.

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

If I was in California again I'd be voting for Johnson.

Rumor has it he is not on the ballot in my state as I signed a petition earlier this year to put him on... Never followed up on the outcome because with each week we are brought closer and closer not just to fiscal demise but this guy in the white house is flat out DANGEROUS. I think he is all too close to the Muslim brotherhood and jarrett is effectively calling the shots. Reminds me of FDR and Alger Hiss. I mean, executive orders and corruption galore - not to mention the drone strikes and his administrations inability to keep military secrets bit to sell the to Hollywood for a buck. Disgusting.

And then, with a republican president you have pretty much been all but assured the media will NOT be giving you watered down versions or suppression of important news stories in order to make informed decisions.

I'm in a swing state and in all good conscious cannot leave the affairs to this world to a commie turncoat from Chicago who has no real experience in life save for being a hen-pecked-chronic-bed-wetting-thin-skinned-plutocrat with serious, serious psychological issues.

Speaking of the traitorous media, anyone catch this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBR4g6cBYeA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Take five minutes out of your day and watch this video by Pat Cadell(democrat).

Speaking of the traitorous media, anyone catch this? -- Feebie at September 30, 2012 6:41 AM

That is scary.

The quote I heard the other day that is sticking with me:

The four metals of freedom are gold, silver, copper, and lead.

Time to stock up on beans and bullets.

I have been a Libertarian since 1973. In my youth, I worked very hard for the Libertarian presidential campaigns. I walked several precincts, talking to people door to door to get votes for Ed Clark when he ran. When voting time came, I voted for Ronald Reagan - I felt it was that important.

After that, I strictly voted Libertarian again, until the time of Obama. I voted the ticket that had Sarah Palin - I felt it was that important.

This year, I will vote for Romney.

If everyone who says that would vote for him he'd have an actual chance.

The problem is, you'd have to deal with all the people who wouldn't even know who the hell he is. You ask somebody to vote for Gary Johnson, and I'd bet that nine times out of ten, he/she'd ask, "Gary Who?"

Too bad that Gary Johnson has zero, zilch, zip chance of winning.

Unless you're voting a bright blue or bright red state, a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

First, Gary Johnson is hands down the best and sharpest candidate the Libertarians have ever run. He has a solid record as a private sector businessman, entrepreneur, and two-term governor of New Mexico. He's articulate, insightful, and consistent with his stated philosophy of government.

That said, however, the Libertarians are living in fantasy land.

Libertarians believe that a third party president will be free to work with both parties and reach compromise solutions. Have they not been watching American politics for the past few decades?

A Libertarian in the Oval Office will be the lonely man on the hill. He'll have no built-in base of power in Congress from which to start negotiating the implementation of his agenda.

A president who has a base of power in Congress works with members of his own party to influence other Congressmen. He has influence on the workings of committees because his fellow party members on that committee can point to the president's potential veto as negotiating leverage.

Even if Gary Johnson were elected, what chance does he have? He'll have absolutely no one in Congress from his party - meaning he'll have no base of power from which to operate.

On every single bill he wants passed, he'll have to work for each and every vote. Or he'll have to work off bills proposed by various Congressmen themselves instead of implementing his own agenda.

He'll have no coattails with which to reward faithful party members. Presidents aligned with a Congressman's party can reward support with election appearances, fund-raisers, and invites to signings. Third party presidents can offer these things, but the efforts won't carry the same cachet since the party powers-that-be won't get anything out of touting a third-party president.

The Libertarians need to start at the local level and get some state legislature seats, mayoralties, and even some seats in the House of Representatives. From there, they can go statewide and reach for the governor's office and the US Senate.

Once they have a stable of potential candidates and a record of governing well at the state and local level, people will begin wondering why that Libertarians isn't running for president rather than "who?"

You really should watch the full clip as well

Freebie, what state are you in? He is definitely on in 47 states. In Pennsylvania, he is almost certainly on. In Oklahoma and Michigan, he is almost certainly not. In MI, his write-ins WILL be counted, In OK, they don't allow write-in.

As Gary says, "What will happen if you all 'waste' your vote on me? I'll be the next President."

CTG - Libertarians have been fighting among themselves about whether they should start at presidential politics or focus at the bottom and work up since the early years.

Libertarians are best at fighting among themselves and doing purges. I recall that Murray Rothbard started this meme - referring to most of the party as airheads. Branden called it best when he said Rothbard was just an asshole.

Wisconsin.

I vote libertarian or tea party (if applicable) on state and local levels. I make exception for Walker because he is a union buster (thumbs up, way up).

But I won't throw away my vote this year.

And Gary Johnson IS my favorite candidate - but practically speaking it's a non starter. I don't intend to be quixotic for this national election.

dee nile (who named themselves very appropriately): A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama.

As the race seems to be shaping up, it looks like another 4 more years of Obama.

Johnson:

"My voice right now is representative of the fastest-growing segment of American politics today. It's young people who realize that they are screwed. That they aren't going to have any retirement. That they aren't going to have any healthcare. Young people are graduating from college today with [the equivalent of a] home mortgage without a home and I'm talking now about student loans and what's the cause for high tuition in this country? It's the government guaranteeing student loans."

So, let them stew another 4 more years while they get a little more organized than the rudderless Occupy Movement. Let everbody stew another 4 more years.

From Conan above,

¨That said, however, the Libertarians are living in fantasy land...Even if Gary Johnson were elected, what chance does he have? He'll have absolutely no one in Congress from his party - meaning he'll have no base of power from which to operate.¨

In another 4 years we all could be living in another land, but I wouldn´t use the word fantasy to qualify it. If a libertarian( even Johnson) is elected, it will indeed be a different land, so I don´t think he will govern like you present as necessary in your post. No allegiances to Congress can also be seen as a good thing. And Johnson seems to have some experience in this,

¨Curren is part of a group that may be small and somewhat unknown but that is powered by its passion for the small business owner and former New Mexico governor who vetoed 750 bills, cut tax rates 14 times without raising them and left office with a $1 billion budget surplus...¨

750 BILLS VETOED

He can certainly be obstructionist with all those passionate( maybe a better word will be desperate) people behind him.

As far as his own legislative agenda goes, in place of working with the duopoly, let´s work the duopoly. Maybe what will be required for a future ¨Great Depression¨ will be an Anti-FDR.

Considering that we are at 36 days out and counting down -- convincing 155 million people that Johnson is who they should vote for is pretty close to impossible.

I could see a president just saying NO. The problem is getting the 155 million people to say yes.

I look at the Romney assessment of 47% are going to not vote for him as accurate. What are the chances they are aware enough to vote for anyone else?

We are so fucked.

I am in socal, syo my vote on national issues means squat anyway.... He has my vote

You might as well write in H Ross Perot. You might better save the gas and time and stay home. A vote for Johnson is either a vote for Obama or no vote at all. I live in NY, which is a lock for Obama unless he is caught snorting coke and molesting small children on national TV, in which case it might be in play. I'm still voting for Romney. He's not a fiscal conservative, but he's as close as we're going to get this time.

Yeah, the system stinks and it's unfair and we get to choose the lesser of two evils. I agree with all of that, but a vote for Johnson is no vote at all.

I suspect a few Florida voters would like a do-over on that 2000 vote for Nader, right?

A Libertarian in the Oval Office will be the lonely man on the hill. He'll have no built-in base of power in Congress from which to start negotiating the implementation of his agenda.

And this is the problem with politics. Politicians should NOT have a BASE OF POWER.

Senetors should have the issues of their individual states as their priority.

Represenitives should have the concerns of the citizens in their districts.

Instead politicans on both sides of the aisle are concerened with garnering more power for the party and paying back favors to those who support the party

Well, that may not be the way is should be, but that's the way is is.

Libertarians live in this fantasy world that their nonaligned president could easily navigate both sides of the aisle and "get things done" because he's not beholden to anyone.

The flip side of not being beholden to anyone is that no one is beholden to you. You're starting from scratch with little political capital to spend and few built-in allies.

====================

Realism requires that the Libertarians do a better job of building voter support and political momentum than they have done so far.

Otherwise, they're just another lonely voice crying out in the wilderness, another group of Monday morning coaches claiming they coulda won the game if only someone would only recognize their genius and make them the coach - despite their complete lack of willingness to lay the proper foundation to be qualified to coach at any level of the game.

My beloved GOP has all kinds of strategies and tactics for the swing states. We will reward swing-state libertarians who join us under the big tent. For your sakes, we hope to see you there.