E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jim Cole / AP file
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, shown announcing his plans to seek the Republican nomination for president April 21, 2011, in front of the Statehouse in Concord, N.H.
LAS VEGAS -- The Libertarian Party on Saturday chose former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, once a Republican White House hopeful, as its presidential candidate in the Nov. 6 election.
Johnson, who announced in December he would run for president as a Libertarian after mounting a long-shot candidacy for the Republican nomination, won 70 percent of the votes cast by 632 delegates at the party's convention in Las Vegas, Libertarian Party spokesman Stephen Gordon said.
Johnson, who became the front-runner after winning straw polls at 12 previous state debates, beat Air Force veteran R. Lee Wrights, after the field narrowed to two candidates from six at the start of the convention on Thursday.
"I am very humbled. This is just the start," Johnson told Reuters after securing the nomination of the Libertarian Party, whose philosophy is "minimum government, maximum freedom."
Third parties have traditionally fared poorly in the two-party U.S. political system long dominated by Republicans and Democrats.
The Libertarians' best presidential showing came in 1980 when nominee Ed Clark won 921,128 votes or 1.1 percent. In the 2008 election, party nominee Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman, got 523,686 votes or 0.4 percent.
Johnson, 59, is running on a platform that includes slashing government spending to balance the federal budget by 2013, as well as ending the war on drugs, beginning with the legalization of marijuana. He also supports the so-called "Fair Tax," which would replace the income tax with a 23 percent national sales tax.
Delegates said their preference for Johnson stemmed from his experience as Republican New Mexico governor from 1995 to 2003, which they said gave him a greater chance of success in a national election. Wrights had no prior political experience.
Democratic President Barack Obama is seeking re-election in the November election. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the presumptive Republican nominee.
Party officials hope they can count on supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul for votes in the general election. Paul's campaign has focused on issues favored by Libertarians like small government and a non-interventionist foreign policy, which
Paul, who ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, is the last remaining Republican challenger to Romney. The Texas congressman is far behind in the polls and has not won a single nominating contest.
As New Mexico governor, Johnson vetoed so many bills - some 750 - that he was later nicknamed "Governor Veto" -- a record he referred to in a debate on Friday as evidence of his strong character.
Wrights, 53, avoided complex policy proposals. Asked about gun control, he said, "I don't know about the rest of y'all, but you don't want to be crawling into my window after midnight." On foreign policy, he said, "Stop being a nosy neighbor and start being a good neighbor."
Both spoke of abolishing multiple federal agencies. The crowd's favorite target was the Internal Revenue Service, but proposals to curb the Departments of Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, and Education were also greeted by applause.
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
Who's Gary Johnson?
Former GOP governor of New Mexico.
Dang, another good person Iwould vote for , but This time I have to vote for the one who has best chance to remove the O from office and the crooks he has surrounded himself with.
Got 3 predictions for this election cycle. 1a Romney gets elected, democrats learn how to use the filibuster- nothing gets done. 1b Obama gets re-elected, republicans continue to stuff him- nothing gets done. 2 Rich people get richer. 3 Poor people get poorer. Got 10$ any takers??
1b. check
2. check
3. check
All problems will continue to be blamed on Obama.
You are probably correct. But Obama is learning to use his executive orders more to get things done. Not nearly as much as Bush did, but he starting to rack up some movement. I'm sure that if Romney wins he'll have no problem abusing Executive priviledge and will be tossing out orders like they are candy. He's not a man use to being told no. As for Obama well we'll see if his new found back bone continues to grow.
Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian, but now runs as a Republican.
Johnson ran as a Republican, but now runs as a Libertarian.
Pretty much proof that Libs are just Pubs.
What a misleading article. Mitt Romney's candidacy is also founded on libertarian ideology. The Paul Ryan Plan is based on libertarian principles. But some of the mainstream media is just trying to confuse the public. Problem is that we are sick and tired of the extreme right trying to fool us. This is an attempt to muddy the waters so people will become frustrated and therefore not vote. IT WILL NOT WORK.
There is a tremendous difference between Corporatism cloaked in libertarian language and actual libertarianism. Romney and Obama, like the vast marjorities of Republicans and Democrats, are Corporatists. The central point of their political and economic ideology is the same: provide sufficient benefits to major corporations and economic growth will result. You can see this in their approach to tax structures and policy as well as regulatory structures and policy. People who shriek, rant, rave, and steam about Obama being "anti-business" and "a socialist" and all that other nonsense are either ill-informed and not paying attention, or they are part of the "divide and conquer" strategy that is playing out in the halls of political and media power.
Libertarians, on the other hand, are typically in favor of simple and sane regulation that makes the costs of doing business transparent and that allows businesses and individuals to rise and fall largely on their own merits. A Libertarian would never sanction a bank bailout, but more to the point, they wouldn't let banks get to the point where they need to be bailed out, because they wouldn't support regulatory structures that promote fraud and deceit in the first place. You wouldn't see Libertarians supporting legislation that allows, for example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to use taxpayer funds to buy mortgage-backed securities in which the banks don't have to disclose the full accounting of the contents. In fact, you wouldn't see them supporting government-backed involvement in the mortgage business at all, in large part because it leads to the kind of fraud and corruption that ultimately brings down the banks.
Romney and Obama, and moreover, Republicans and Democrats broadly, support government involvement in nearly every industry - and the involvement they support typically takes the form of complex tax breaks, subsidies, and other patronage that, over the long haul, is a reward for campaign contributions. This is the fertile soil in which corruption grows.
The partisan divide that is so present today (witness Ted Nugent shrieking that Democrats should have their heads chopped off) is simply a sideshow. It's the product of a massive, self-organizing conspiracy between Congress, most Federal agencies, a corporate-run (6 companies!) media, and the corporations that fund and therefore own the government.
Libertarians - and though I am a left-leaning libertarian, I do plan to vote for Johnson - want to see that system of corporatism destroyed. We very much believe that corporations are a force for good - after all, they DO drive the economic growth that benefits the world when properly channeled - but we also believe very strongly that freedom means being free from corruption, being free to understand the real costs and benefits, the real risks and potential rewards, of all our choices. Without that kind of knowledge, it is not possible for people or institutions to be responsible for their own choices.
In the end, that's what libertarianism is really about - the concept that liberty and personal responsibility are directly intertwined and symbiotic. There is no mainstream Republican or Democrat alive today for whom that concept is anything more than a hypocritical talking point, and that is ESPECIALLY true, in my opinion, of the Republicans because it's a leading point for them.
jack mack, yeah yeah. When you have freedom without law and regulation only criminals will have true freedom. Witness: Wall Street and the Saga of the Unregulated Derivatives. A product in part of libertarian stupidity in the person of greenspan.
Is it true that Libertarians are really conservative anarchists? Might as well be...
I wonder how long the majority will have to reject the liberatarianism philosophy, e.g., the Ayn Rand "every man for himself philosophy," before the supporters of this absurd philosophy understand it will never happen here. Of course, everyone ignores the fact that Rand participated in those benefits she rejected, signing up for Medicare, when it came time to actually prove her alliance to her own principles.
I guss perhaps as long as it will take for conservative republicans to believe that GOP policies are proven failures since they've failed every time they are enacted and the repubilcans continue to insist they will work, and for some reason conservative republicans continue to believe this despite clear evidence to the contrary.
The funny thing is that there is actual video of Romney saying that he considers Ayn Rand to be one of his personal heroes.
Not a single item on Gary Johnsons web site says every man for themselves, and this isnt a religion its a campaign. I do not think Gary Johnson swore aligence to Ayn Rand. As a matter of fact he refused to sign any pledges earlier in the campaign.
Read and learn about that which you have little knowledge.
Common logic and simple answers are all that are offered. Not complete utopia, but a dramatic departure from the status quo.
He will have my vote, as I will not be wasting my time on Republicans nor Democrats, both have proven incompetent liars bought and paid for by special interests.
It starts with leadership at the top.
You know a funny thing about this screwball philosophy: a lot of self-employed, petit-bourgeous techies are libertarians and randians. And the funny thing about that is that most of them receive The Truth and about 80 to 90% of their operating orders from the giant corporations whose technology they support. They are essentially in liege to these Ducal Multinationals, while spouting the egoism of a paranoid megalomaniac who, worst of all, was an absolutely lousy novelist.
Prohibitionists, you have the blood of thousands of innocent people on your hands!
Even if we could afford to put Narcs on every single corner, at least half of them would soon become dealers themselves. Gifting the market in narcotics to ruthless criminals, foreign terrorists and corrupt law enforcement officials is seriously compromising our future.
Why do you wish to continue with a policy that has proven itself to be a poison in the veins of our once so proud & free nation? Even if you cannot bear the thought of people using drugs, there is absolutely nothing you, or any government, can do to stop them. We have spent 40 years and trillions of dollars on this dangerous farce; Prohibition will not suddenly and miraculously start showing different results. Do you actually believe you may personally have something to lose If we were to begin basing our drug policy on science & logic instead of ignorance, hate and lies?
Maybe you're a police officer, a prison guard or a local/national politician. Possibly you're scared of losing employment, overtime-pay, the many kick-backs and those regular fat bribes. But what good will any of that do you once our society has followed Mexico over the dystopian abyss of dismembered bodies, vats of acid and marauding thugs carrying gold-plated AK-47s with leopard-skinned gunstocks?
Kindly allow us to forgo the next level of your sycophantic prohibition-engendered mayhem.
get off my page your dad
Dear dad: I rarely quibble about things like this, but you need to re-study the punctuation section in your GED handbook.
Just look where New Mexico ranks in the areas of: murder, suicde, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, worst place to raise a child, education, drop out rate, teen pregnancy, economic diversity, amount of federal dollars recieved (the most) and on and on. Per capita (because populationwise, it is a very small state). Enough said. Great job picking a candidate.
Not nearly enough said...
Which one of these items is correctable with legislation? Better yet what does the president have to do with these statistics you quote?
America can put an object on Mars yet cant produce a competitive student, has more people incarcerated and participating in the judical system than any other county in the world now or past, and cant pass a balanced budget.
Tell me again how we are on the right track, and this is just a fringe movement? Do you study Greece, Spain or other debtor nations?
I totally agree about the great pick for a candidate, great observation.
The loons have nominated another loon to howl at the moon.
lol. dig it: http://www.loontune.com/
Check out the tremolo. (If link deleted, loontunecom)
Considering people are disappointed in Obama and no one really wants Romney this could very well be their best showing yet.
Gee, another Taxaholic running for President. Hey, Gary, There IS already OVER a 23% sales tax, have you ever bought gasoline lately? By the time you add Federal, State and County taxes, it is well over 23% of the price of the gasoline. We need no taxaholic Democrats nor Libertarians in the Oval Office.
Good Grief
*Changes Channel - Click*
Lets watch something more interesting like the Girls of the Amazing Race in Action.
http://www.cbs.com/shows/amazing_race/
Now that's Liberty in action.
Well, since Paul is an experimental creature resulting from a cross between man and chicken (the slippery slope! the slippery slope!) this guy is better than that.
Otherwise, wow! Highly significant! Why didn't they nominate Mushmouth Greenspan, whose endless promulgation of libertarian and laissez-faire stupidity made him an major player in the recent destruction of the economy by deregulated and unregulated derivatives?