A Shameless Plug For Gary Johnson

Folks from NM do not think much of him.

 

He says he's not a social conservative. I know issues like marijuana legalization, gay marriage, and abortion are (mostly) state's rights issue. When running for president libertarians can say, "that issue does not concern me, it's a state's rights issue" and deflect a need to answer.

What are his personal views on these issues?

 

I was not there then but his second term did not win him many friends.

 

Let me rephrase the question. When he was governor of New Mexico, supposing a bill legalizing gay marriage came across his desk. Would he veto it or sign it?

Same question for marijuana and abortion.

 

You cannot be pro-choice and a conservative. The two are completely antithetical. Conservatives would never vote for a pro-choice.

 

I did. I admit I voted for Jesse Ventura for MN governor in 1998. My choices were:

Skip Humphrey (D): Son of Hubert Humphrey, pro-choice flaming liberal.

Norm Coleman (R/D/?) Mayor of St. Paul that just recently switched from Democratic Party to Republican party, and switched to pro-life in order to run.

Jesse Ventura (Ind.) Fiscally conservative, pro-choice with a libertarian streak in him. He had the advantage of not being named Humphrey or Coleman.


In 1990 I voted for a fiscally conservative pro-life Democrat (Rudy Perpich) over the pro-choice RINO (Arne Carlson)

 

No. That was my logic when I voted for Ventura--the only way abortion is going to get overturned is if the Supreme Court judges are changed out. And there would never be a state law prohibiting abortion in the liberal land of McCarthy, Mondale, Humphrey, and Wellstone. So deciding on voting for a gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota based on their stance on abortion was not a priority for me.

 

It looks like this will be the strategy of Republicans running in 2016.

Here's an excerpt from Scott Walker's interview last night on Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: Do you believe that a woman has a right to end a pregnancy at any point during those nine months?

WALKER: Well, I think ultimately, I mean pro-life because that's an unborn child. When I think of the ultrasound picture that Tonette, my wife, and I saw of our first son, who's now going to be 21 this June, it's indistinguishable not to recognize that it's a human life. That's why I'm pro-life.

My point is we acted on the grounds that we have legally to be able to act under the Supreme Court's decision. We'll act that way at the federal level if we were in a position like that, as well.

But ultimately, it is a life.

WALLACE: But ultimately it's her choice?

WALKER: Well, legally, that's what it is under the guidelines that was provided from the Supreme Court.

WALLACE: And would you change that law?

WALKER: Well, I -- that's not a change you can make. The Supreme Court ultimately has made that.

I believe in the right to life and I believe that there are other things that can be done at both the state and the federal level.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-ne.../4087171184001

 

I enjoyed watching Johnson responding to the Presidential Debate that he was not allowed to participate in. You might not agree with the party platform, but it would be nice if our education system and our news media would admit that having only two parties is a bad idea.

 

Well, we have an answer to this question.

http://christiannews.net/2015/03/07...-of-closet-in-support-of-homosexual-marriage/

Click on full list and scroll down to Gary Johnson