Gary Johnson: Family Leader pledge gives Republicans a bad name

[Modbert]

Johnson continues to be by far the most reasonable Republican running for the Presidency in 2012. It's too bad he doesn't get nearly enough attention.

Gary Johnson: Family Leader pledge gives Republicans a bad name | Iowa Caucuses

Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson thinks the pledge that an Iowa Christian conservative group is circulating is offensive because it condemn gays, single parents, divorcees, Muslims, women who choose to have abortions “and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.”

Johnson in a news release and in a speech at the Conservative Leadership Conference in Las Vegas Saturday said the pledge gives Republicans a bad name.

“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,” he said in the written statement.

Rest of his statement after the jump, worth the read.

 

[jillian]

funny that the rightwingnuts are eerily quiet.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Johnson's better than most Republicans running, but his sketchy stance on Guantanamo Bay turned me off from him.

 

[Modbert]

funny that the rightwingnuts are eerily quiet.

While I don't support Johnson as my choice for 2012 like I use to, I still think he's by far the most reasonable Republican in 2012. For those who haven't heard much about him, he's Ron Paul without the religious baggage. He's a true Libertarian and more of a real Conservative than most so-called Conservatives in the GOP.

 

[jillian]

Johnson's better than most Republicans running, but his sketchy stance on Guantanamo Bay turned me off from him.

at least he's not insane.... but he probably figured out that the right goes into meltdown when anyone talks about closing gitmo.

i heard him talk. he's better than most of the libertarian types and doesn't think government should make moral judgments for us.

which is why he doesn't stand a chance.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

funny that the rightwingnuts are eerily quiet.

While I don't support Johnson as my choice for 2012 like I use to, I still think he's by far the most reasonable Republican in 2012. For those who haven't heard much about him, he's Ron Paul without the religious baggage. He's a true Libertarian and more of a real Conservative than most so-called Conservatives in the GOP.

What makes him a "true libertarian?"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Johnson's better than most Republicans running, but his sketchy stance on Guantanamo Bay turned me off from him.

at least he's not insane.... but he probably figured out that the right goes into meltdown when anyone talks about closing gitmo.

i heard him talk. he's better than most of the libertarian types and doesn't think government should make moral judgments for us.

which is why he doesn't stand a chance.

Well at first he stated he supported keeping Gitmo open, but then put up on his website that he would support closing it. So his position now is to close it, but to me that's sketchy considering what he said before.

 

[hortysir]

funny that the rightwingnuts are eerily quiet.

While I don't support Johnson as my choice for 2012 like I use to, I still think he's by far the most reasonable Republican in 2012. For those who haven't heard much about him, he's Ron Paul without the religious baggage. He's a true Libertarian and more of a real Conservative than most so-called Conservatives in the GOP.

You're the one that piqued my interest in him.
I haven't been disappointed by him, just the MM's coverage of him.

 

[jillian]

Johnson's better than most Republicans running, but his sketchy stance on Guantanamo Bay turned me off from him.

at least he's not insane.... but he probably figured out that the right goes into meltdown when anyone talks about closing gitmo.

i heard him talk. he's better than most of the libertarian types and doesn't think government should make moral judgments for us.

which is why he doesn't stand a chance.

Well at first he stated he supported keeping Gitmo open, but then put up on his website that he would support closing it. So his position now is to close it, but to me that's sketchy considering what he said before.

people change their minds. if that's your only issue with him, then maybe he's your guy.

no one is ideologically pure. nor can we expect people to be. i find pragmatism mixed with an idea of what is right and wrong works pretty well. but then again, i tend not to get ideologues.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If candidates who sign this pledge somehow think they are scoring some points with some core constituency of the Republican Party, they are doing so at the peril of writing off the vast majority of Americans who want no part of this ‘pledge’ and its offensive language.

And to the Old Bush Base, much of the TPM, and social conservatives in general, the above is heresy.

This is indicative of the conflict between the radial social rightists from the South and the more moderate Old Guard from the Mid West and Mountain West, like McCain, Romney, and Johnson. Indeed, it was McCain who experience the savage extremism of Southern social conservatives prior to the 2000 South Carolina primary.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

at least he's not insane.... but he probably figured out that the right goes into meltdown when anyone talks about closing gitmo.

i heard him talk. he's better than most of the libertarian types and doesn't think government should make moral judgments for us.

which is why he doesn't stand a chance.

Well at first he stated he supported keeping Gitmo open, but then put up on his website that he would support closing it. So his position now is to close it, but to me that's sketchy considering what he said before.

people change their minds. if that's your only issue with him, then maybe he's your guy.

no one is ideologically pure.

Well this happened in a matter of days, so I think it was backlash from his expected base that prompted him to change his mind. Regardless, I think Ron Paul is a better candidate, and more consistent.

 

[Modbert]

You're the one that piqued my interest in him.
I haven't been disappointed by him, just the MM's coverage of him.

I remember being one of the first posters on USMB to talk about Johnson over a year now. Time sure flies.

 

[Modbert]

Well this happened in a matter of days, so I think it was backlash from his expected base that prompted him to change his mind. Regardless, I think Ron Paul is a better candidate, and more consistent.

I understand you probably don't want Gary Johnson to run because he is the candidate that would take the most votes away from Ron Paul. That being said, I would say Johnson is more of a Libertarian than Paul.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well this happened in a matter of days, so I think it was backlash from his expected base that prompted him to change his mind. Regardless, I think Ron Paul is a better candidate, and more consistent.

I understand you probably don't want Gary Johnson to run because he is the candidate that would take the most votes away from Ron Paul. That being said, I would say Johnson is more of a Libertarian than Paul.

On the contrary, I'm happy Johnson is running. Competition is healthy, but I won't be voting for him. I am curious why you think he's more libertarian than Ron Paul.

 

[Modbert]

On the contrary, I'm happy Johnson is running. Competition is healthy, but I won't be voting for him. I am curious why you think he's more libertarian than Ron Paul.

Ron Paul lets his religious views get in the way of being a Libertarian. For example, his support of DOMA.

He also thought DADT was a "decent policy" back in 2007.

Sanctity of Life Act.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

On the contrary, I'm happy Johnson is running. Competition is healthy, but I won't be voting for him. I am curious why you think he's more libertarian than Ron Paul.

Ron Paul lets his religious views get in the way of being a Libertarian. For example, his support of DOMA.

He also thought DADT was a "decent policy" back in 2007.

Sanctity of Life Act.

Religious views don't really "get in the way" of being a libertarian. His view on marriage is that it should be up to the people to define marriage for themselves. His definition doesn't have to be the same as your definition, but that's alright.

As for DADT, he changed his mind simple as that.

Right Now - Ron Paul: Constituents changed my mind on 'don't ask, don't tell'

As for abortion, he doesn't think the federal government, including the Supreme Court, has a say in the issue one way or the other.

The one area where libertarians sometimes have a problem with Paul is his immigration stance.

 

[Modbert]

Religious views don't really "get in the way" of being a libertarian. His view on marriage is that it should be up to the people to define marriage for themselves. His definition doesn't have to be the same as your definition, but that's alright.

As for DADT, he changed his mind simple as that.

Right Now - Ron Paul: Constituents changed my mind on 'don't ask, don't tell'

As for abortion, he doesn't think the federal government, including the Supreme Court, has a say in the issue one way or the other.

The one area where libertarians sometimes have a problem with Paul is his immigration stance.

Can you clarify what I bolded? Because I was going to say something but I don't want to take what you said wrong.

 

[Anachronism]

The Pledge goes too far in terms of what it demands the individuals believe in, but not far enough in what it would demand of an elected official who doesn't live up to it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Religious views don't really "get in the way" of being a libertarian. His view on marriage is that it should be up to the people to define marriage for themselves. His definition doesn't have to be the same as your definition, but that's alright.

As for DADT, he changed his mind simple as that.

Right Now - Ron Paul: Constituents changed my mind on 'don't ask, don't tell'

As for abortion, he doesn't think the federal government, including the Supreme Court, has a say in the issue one way or the other.

The one area where libertarians sometimes have a problem with Paul is his immigration stance.

Can you clarify what I bolded? Because I was going to say something but I don't want to take what you said wrong.

From his book Liberty Defined:

"I'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired."

He's basically saying that since the government is involved in marriage both sides want to use the government to force their definition of marriage on the other side, whereas if the government wasn't involved it would be between people and religions to define marriage for themselves.

Hope that clarifies what I meant.

 

[Trajan]

funny that the rightwingnuts are eerily quiet.

22 minutes.......


so what is the over under for under average IQ fox watchers time limit to respond ? 30, 45...2 hours?