GOP Trying To Throw Gary Johnson Off Of Several State Ballots

[RobertNashville]

...However, the challenges are not based upon legitimate reasons.

And you know this because you are so intimately involved with the Johnson campaign and working with his legal staff, right?

Anyway, if they are without substance then Johnson has nothing to worry about...he'll be on the ballots and lose just like he expects.

[mikegideon]

I just don't see it that way. The choice for R or D is a false one in my opinion. I won't vote for the lesser of two evils anymore. At this point I will vote my conscience at the ballot box until the Republicrats force me to vote with the cartridge box.

What cartridge box? The one Obama and his friends want to ban?

[Chucktshoes]

What cartridge box? The one Obama and his friends want to ban?

Yep, that one. The one I will empty on any government official who attempts to take it. When it comes time for the jackboots to knock on my door I will exercise my right to engage in an unfair gunfight.

[quietguy]

I just don't see it that way. The choice for R or D is a false one in my opinion. I won't vote for the lesser of two evils anymore. At this point I will vote my conscience at the ballot box until the Republicrats force me to vote with the cartridge box.

Look, I appreciate your sentiment, but if enough people feel the same, you have ensured that BHO gets to extent his rein. At least the way things stand today, the only option to really effect change is to change the one of the two major parties that you most closely affiliate with. This is especially true for those of us of a conservative mindset. The Tea Party movement was initially something that I really got behind, but after being demonized by the media and co-opted by the whackadoos whose only interest was the social agenda, and now all we get is lip service to the original intent. I really thought that it could be the movement that really changed the direction of the country, but they are now a footnote not dissimilar from the occupy movement.

History provides us with two prime examples - the 1912 election, and the 1992 election. Do a little research into the state by state results of those elections, and the impact on the electoral college.

I don't like it, and I don't agree with it; but we are where we are. I have always said that our politicians should have to read the Constitution and Washington's farewell address every day and before they conduct any business. Just like I think that all American's should have to watch the 9/11 footage at least once a month, along with Clinton and Barney Franks calls to expand Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. Our discourse needs context, and if you bury the source, we forget why we got here way too quickly.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Don't walk away from the Tea Party too fast. Media would like you to believe they are just a second stringer, but

they are still growing. these things take more time than a commercial break. If you're not in it for the long haul,

you never were in it. Just sitting on the sidelines.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Don't walk away from the Tea Party too fast. Media would like you to believe they are just a second stringer, but

they are still growing. these things take more time than a commercial break. If you're not in it for the long haul,

you never were in it. Just sitting on the sidelines.

+1

[quietguy]

Don't walk away from the Tea Party too fast. Media would like you to believe they are just a second stringer, but

they are still growing. these things take more time than a commercial break. If you're not in it for the long haul,

you never were in it. Just sitting on the sidelines.

Well, the co-opted Tea Party is not something that I could ever get behind. While the media didn't help, the complete shift of focus from what really would get the country back on track to a social agenda based on the most irrelevant issues, I can't cotton to. The hardliners in the Republican party are responsible for this shift, not the media. We need fiscal reform, we need tax reform, we need monetary policy reform, we need to completely redo the way we educate our children, and we need a review of our freedoms and responsibilities. To my eyes, the entire movement is far too focused on gay marriage and/or civil unions, labor issues, etc.

Could it effect real change? Absolutely

Can it effect real change in present form? Not a chance.

[mikegideon]

Look, I appreciate your sentiment, but if enough people feel the same, you have ensured that BHO gets to extent his rein. At least the way things stand today, the only option to really effect change is to change the one of the two major parties that you most closely affiliate with. This is especially true for those of us of a conservative mindset. The Tea Party movement was initially something that I really got behind, but after being demonized by the media and co-opted by the whackadoos whose only interest was the social agenda, and now all we get is lip service to the original intent. I really thought that it could be the movement that really changed the direction of the country, but they are now a footnote not dissimilar from the occupy movement.

History provides us with two prime examples - the 1912 election, and the 1992 election. Do a little research into the state by state results of those elections, and the impact on the electoral college.

I don't like it, and I don't agree with it; but we are where we are. I have always said that our politicians should have to read the Constitution and Washington's farewell address every day and before they conduct any business. Just like I think that all American's should have to watch the 9/11 footage at least once a month, along with Clinton and Barney Franks calls to expand Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. Our discourse needs context, and if you bury the source, we forget why we got here way too quickly.

What a great post!

FWIW, I don't need to see the 911 footage more than once. It hasn't yet, and never will inspire me to get my nuts fondled at the airport. Instead, I don't fly. I'll stop there.

[mikegideon]

Well, the co-opted Tea Party is not something that I could ever get behind. While the media didn't help, the complete shift of focus from what really would get the country back on track to a social agenda based on the most irrelevant issues, I can't cotton to. The hardliners in the Republican party are responsible for this shift, not the media. We need fiscal reform, we need tax reform, we need monetary policy reform, we need to completely redo the way we educate our children, and we need a review of our freedoms and responsibilities. To my eyes, the entire movement is far too focused on gay marriage and/or civil unions, labor issues, etc.

Could it effect real change? Absolutely

Can it effect real change in present form? Not a chance.

They may have blown their wad now, but definately served a purpose. The social agenda just alienates people. The entire Republican party suffers from the same problem. The country won't fail because of what happens in somebody's pants.

[Chucktshoes]

They may have blown their wad now, but definately served a purpose. The social agenda just alienates people. The entire Republican party suffers from the same problem. The country won't fail because of what happens in somebody's pants.

I can back this statement 100%. I was all behind the TEA Party, before they went off the rails on the social agenda. Of course, even the Occupy kids had the source of the problem right, they just had the solution wrong.

[Wyldk2]

Why do we even bother? The republicrats have their minds made up, they want Obama out. They have proven they'll cheat and lie in order to ensure that their prefferred candidate is the only one on the ballot in their party, why would anyone think anything otherwise. (What they did to Ron Paul was wrong), but they proved to the rest of us that they will break their own rules in order to seat their "paid for" candidate.

Both sides do the same thing. Obama was paid for back in 2008.

Politicians only want power, they put up a front saying they'll do what's best for the people. But what people? could it be they are only going to help those that put them in power in the first place? And leave the rest of us out to dry.

And the original "Tea Party" was started by Ron Paul, before it was taken over.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Why do we even bother? The republicrats have their minds made up, they want Obama out. They have proven they'll cheat and lie in order to ensure that their prefferred candidate is the only one on the ballot in their party, why would anyone think anything otherwise. (What they did to Ron Paul was wrong), but they proved to the rest of us that they will break their own rules in order to seat their "paid for" candidate.

Both sides do the same thing. Obama was paid for back in 2008.

Politicians only want power, they put up a front saying they'll do what's best for the people. But what people? could it be they are only going to help those that put them in power in the first place? And leave the rest of us out to dry.

And the original "Tea Party" was started by Ron Paul, before it was taken over.

Actually, it was an idea based on the comments by Rick Santelli, of CNBC during one of his commentaries.

Paul had nothing to do with the Tea Party, but briefly associated himself with it during his campaign.

[Worriedman]

Don't walk away from the Tea Party too fast. Media would like you to believe they are just a second stringer, but

they are still growing. these things take more time than a commercial break. If you're not in it for the long haul,

you never were in it. Just sitting on the sidelines.

+2

[RobertNashville]

They may have blown their wad now, but definately served a purpose. The social agenda just alienates people. The entire Republican party suffers from the same problem. The country won't fail because of what happens in somebody's pants.

I don't agree, Mike. There is no and I would say, never can be any organization that has more than one member where everyone agrees 100% on issues or even on what issues need to be addressed. Certainly, someone who is a social conservative and someone else is who is a libertarian and someone else who is a fiscal conservative are not going to agree on all issues but there are plenty of issues they can agree on; at least enough to work together.

Hell, I consider myself a social conservative and a fiscal conservative and have libertarian leanings...but I don't agree with any one of those "groups" 100%.

I was at the March on Washington in 2009...it was a hugely diverse group (along with simply being huge)...I'm sure there were people in my own little group from Tennessee who I could find disagreements with; that doesn't mean we couldn't find common ground.

The Tea Party is not a "party"...it's not even any one group or collection of groups...it's really just average people who are doing what citizens should have been doing all along...getting involved and making their voices heard (even if they all don't always say the same thing).

[Guest ThePunisher]

I don't agree, Mike. There is no and I would say, never can be any organization that has more than one member where everyone agrees 100% on issues or even on what issues need to be addressed. Certainly, someone who is a social conservative and someone else is who is a libertarian and someone else who is a fiscal conservative are not going to agree on all issues but there are plenty of issues they can agree on; at least enough to work together.

Hell, I consider myself a social conservative and a fiscal conservative and have libertarian leanings...but I don't agree with any one of those "groups" 100%.

I was at the March on Washington in 2009...it was a hugely diverse group (along with simply being huge)...I'm sure there were people in my own little group from Tennessee who I could find disagreements with; that doesn't mean we couldn't find common ground.

The Tea Party is not a "party"...it's not even any one group or collection of groups...it's really just average people who are doing what citizens should have been doing all along...getting involved and making their voices heard (even if they all don't always say the same thing).

Well said.

[quietguy]

The Tea Party is not a "party"...it's not even any one group or collection of groups...it's really just average people who are doing what citizens should have been doing all along...getting involved and making their voices heard (even if they all don't always say the same thing).

The Tea Party started out as a movement, but now really just perceived to be the radical social agenda of the Republican party. Regardless of our beliefs - that is the public perception, and perception is reality.

I would characterize the moment's original intent as "hitting the reset button". Government has become too complex and complicated, and we need to get back to the basics. I think the vast majority of Americans can agree with that, and can get behind the sentiment, Republican, Democrat, Independant, or otherwise.

[RobertNashville]

The Tea Party started out as a movement, but now really just perceived to be the radical social agenda of the Republican party. Regardless of our beliefs - that is the public perception, and perception is reality.

I would characterize the moment's original intent as "hitting the reset button". Government has become too complex and complicated, and we need to get back to the basics. I think the vast majority of Americans can agree with that, and can get behind the sentiment, Republican, Democrat, Independant, or otherwise.

In this case, I don't believe that perception is reality because the Tea Party is not "an" organization that can be put in a bottle...it doesn't have a membership structure or an organization like the Republican Party or the Democratic Party or the local country club...no one can identify "THE" Tea Party because it's a movement of individuals.

I am the Tea Party...by that I mean I am as much the Tea Party as any individual is...what anyone who isn't involved (especially those not involved or who are anti-Tea Party) thinks about the Tea Party has zero impact on what I do and how I involve myself in the political process; at least, not unless I let it.

Edited September 13, 2012 by RobertNashville

[quietguy]

In this case, I don't believe that perception is reality because the Tea Party is not "an" organization that can be put in a bottle...it doesn't have a membership structure or an organization like the Republican Party or the Democratic Party or the local country club...no one can identify "THE" Tea Party because it's a movement of individuals.

I am the Tea Party...by that I mean I am as much the Tea Party as any individual is...what anyone who isn't involved (especially those not involved or who are anti-Tea Party) thinks about the Tea Party has zero impact on what I do and how I involve myself in the political process; at least, not unless I let it.

While I normally agree, in the case of political movements, it is how you are seen by others that matters. When you ask the majority of Americans what the Tea Party stands for, it will not be a positive or accurate response.

Edited September 13, 2012 by quietguy

[JPS]

Voting for a third party candidate for president is like betting on the worst team in the NFL to win the super bowl - they may be your favorite team, but they won't win; you know it, and you wouldn't waste your money. Go ahead and root for your candidate, but don't waste your vote on them.

As for the Tea Party - my hope is that as the election cycle continues they become more and more integrated into the republican party, and that the party reflects their values instead of continuing towards a moderate or centrist philosophy. As someone rightly said in an earlier post, we need to worry as much about our local and state elections as we do for the presidential race.

[RobertNashville]

While I normally agree, in the case of political movements, it is how you are seen by others that matters. When you ask the majority of Americans what the Tea Party stands for, it will not be a positive or accurate response.

The majority of Americans would have trouble telling you who is the Secretary of State right now or even if they have heard about the embassy attacks...the majority of Americans who are eligible to vote don't even bother to register and the majority of those who register don't even vote.

So....

I don't really give a flying you-know-what about what the majority of Americans think about the Tea Party.

All the really matters is what those who identify with Tea Party ideas DO...do they continue to be involved...give money to candidates...make phone calls; etc...as long as they stay involved they can have an impact no mater what the great unwashed think.

[quietguy]

The majority of Americans would have trouble telling you who is the Secretary of State right now or even if they have heard about the embassy attacks...the majority of Americans who are eligible to vote don't even bother to register and the majority of those who register don't even vote.

So....

I don't really give a flying you-know-what about what the majority of Americans think about the Tea Party.

All the really matters is what those who identify with Tea Party ideas DO...do they continue to be involved...give money to candidates...make phone calls; etc...as long as they stay involved they can have an impact no mater what the great unwashed think.

Well, for all of its claims, the Tea Party has had about as many failures as victories. Just look at the race to unseat Harry Reid, or the Christine O'Donnell races to see examples of the Tea Party's limitations. Both of those should have been no problem races for the Republicans, and were dismal results.

[oddprimer]

Show me a better candidate than Romney who can actually win the election and I'll happily vote for him...until then, well, sticks and stones and all that.

Well, Obama? I mean he's going to win, he's a better option than Romney for gun rights (as far as signed legislation goes) plus Romney can't actually win short of a heart attack or a naked sobbing boy.

What you want is a candidate with the illusion that they could win. That would be Romney. I think it would be far better for the third party to turn out and vote libertarian heavily.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, for all of its claims, the Tea Party has had about as many failures as victories. Just look at the race to unseat Harry Reid, or the Christine O'Donnell races to see examples of the Tea Party's limitations. Both of those should have been no problem races for the Republicans, and were dismal results.

Don't make that assumption. It

won't work.

Without worrying about names and which race won or lost, what was the

single most important thing to come

from the tea party movement? A well

named threat to political infrastructure

was named and put on notice about

the probability of destroying said

infrastructure and doing more than

redesigning a web page. I keep saying

to not write off that group. When I hear

things like this it tells me where people

still go for their news. Too obvious.

The Tea Party movement is doing just

fine and is growing. More to them than

one liners and has been statements by

an outsider. Pay attention to them, not the television.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, Obama? I mean he's going to win, he's a better option than Romney for gun rights (as far as signed legislation goes) plus Romney can't actually win short of a heart attack or a naked sobbing boy.

What you want is a candidate with the illusion that they could win. That would be Romney. I think it would be far better for the third party to turn out and vote libertarian heavily.

Welcome to

the board.

Interesting first post.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikegideon]

Well, for all of its claims, the Tea Party has had about as many failures as victories. Just look at the race to unseat Harry Reid, or the Christine O'Donnell races to see examples of the Tea Party's limitations. Both of those should have been no problem races for the Republicans, and were dismal results.

Yep. Both of those candidates were nuttier than a squirrel turd.