Thursday, October 11, 2012

Judge Napolitano on the debates

Because Romney and Obama are different only in degree, I wish the cabal of former leaders of the two major political parties that runs the debates would permit former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson to participate. He is the Libertarian Party candidate who is on the ballot in all 50 states and the only current national candidate who if elected would shrink the government and keep it within the confines of the Constitution.

Don't hold your breath. The debates are crafted by the folks who run the Romney and Obama campaigns. Romney is afraid of Johnson because he might take the votes of those who are tired of unconstitutional government and deficits and war. Obama is afraid of Johnson because he might take the votes of those who are appalled at the government's murderous drug wars and its assaults on personal freedom and who also are tired of war. Both sides fear Johnson because he is essentially fearless when it comes to his belief that the Constitution means what it says -- meaning if it does not authorize the feds to regulate health care, fight undeclared wars or mortgage the future, then they simply cannot do it.

But the powers that run the means by which we elect presidents have decided that they can ill-afford a frontal assault on the big government they have created, on national television much less, and four weeks before a presidential election. You see, without Johnson in these debates, the argument will remain how much the feds should regulate, rather than whether they should do so.

There is no argument from me that the Libertarian Party has often mis-prioritzed it's money and it's efforts; and there is merit to the idea that the LP should not spend energy and money on a Presidential candidate, until it is able to build a solid base of local and state elected officials.

That doesn't diminish my support for Gary Johnson or the LP writ large, and nothing that Judge Andrew Napolitano states above regarding the debates is incorrect. Adding Gary Johnson to the mix would interject ideas and philosophies fundamental to the concepts of liberty and fiscal responsibility. Ideas that you will not hear from Obama or Romney. 


  1. "Adding Gary Johnson to the mix..."

    But it would be an irrelevancy. His party is miniscule and he has no base of power, and no chance of winning.

    Why not allow George Will to participate?

  2. Well....George Will is both not running for office and not on the ballot in 50 states.

    I didn't propose adding Gary to the debates in consideration of his chances of winning, I specifically proposed that his addition would bring conservative ideas into the debate, whereas at present, we have two candidates not far removed to begin with, racing to the center.

  3. this is not the time to jeopardize this country TODAY, when there is NO CHANCE for a Johnson type...we need to GET OBAMA OUT and then work.

  4. The problem with that mindset is that it occurs every four each successive election is "the most important election of our lifetime!"

    And when the GOP regains or maintains office....government continues to grow....and your liberties continue to be further restricted, regulated and taxed. The GOP is interested in political power, not conservatism.

  5. Amen. But the system IS what it is. Conservatism wins under only one scenario. Absolute and total permanent gridlock. And THAT is something that never happens, either.

  6. Amen. A Congress that governs least...governs best.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.