Reading a follow up from The Daily What on that terrible “Marriage Vow” business from a couple days ago, I saw a quote from Republican candidate Gary Johnson who reased a statement about the vow saying it was “offensive and unrepublican.”
WOAH. That is…crazy.
Intreagued by this guy, I went to his website. The first statement on his homepage says:
Gary Johnson has been an outspoken advocate for efficient government, lower taxes, winning the war on drug abuse, protection of civil liberties, revitalization of the economy and promoting entrepreneurship and privatization.Johnson is best known for his veto record, which includes over 750 vetoes during his time in office, more than all other governors combined. He cut taxes 14 times while never raising them and when he left office, New Mexico was one of only four states in the country with a balanced budget.
Well, that doesn’t sound too bad to me. But it’s all very vague, so moving on to some issues I care about that most republicans tend to punch in the face. His thoughts on education for example…
The Department of Education grants each state 11 cents out of every dollar it spends on education. Unfortunately, every dollar of this money comes with 16 cents of strings attached. States that accept federal funding lose five cents for every dollar spent on education to pay for federal mandates and regulations, taking millions of dollars out of the classroom.
Schools should have the authority to decide how best to spend educational dollars. Without federal regulations and mandates, schools could choose to purchase new computers, better lab equipment, and maintain after-school sports and music programs even during times of tight budgets.
Once citizens and their local representatives have the freedom to decide how their educational funds will be spent, they can consider innovations that will drive student choice, educational competition, and better results.
I’m not exactly sure how I feel about this plan he has to get rid of the Department of Education. It’s idealistic definitely, the figures seem to be there, and it’s odd, but not completely ridiculous. Untraditional, but the traditional hasn’t been serving us well. And if he tries it and it doesn’t work—well, this doesn’t seem like the type of guy to hang onto ANYTHING useless and not serving the public.
How about his thoughts on my precious internet-something the government has lately been dipping into and trying to fuck everything up…
It is not a coincidence that the one element of our modern economy that has been uniquely left free of government interference has created equally unique growth and transformation. An Internet free of regulation and taxation has produced innovation and enhancements to quality of life almost unparalleled in human history. If the market demands Internet services, speed and access, the market will provide them without any help from the government. The government, with its regulatory foot in the door, will inevitably end up attempting to regulate and referee content, speech, and commerce.
::jawdrop:: OMG HE GETS THE INTERNET AND HOW WE FEEL.
The FCC should not be allowed to create rules regulating content, Internet speeds, and pricing for services. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the content marketplace. The Internet should remain independent, accessible and market-based.
On the one hand, this means that ISPs can charge fuck all what they want without government intervention but it also means that the government can’t try to throttle internet use. I’m all for it.
Next up we have what he refers to in an all encompassing way as “civil liberties”.
Civil liberties are so foundational to America that the first eight amendments to the Constitution address them directly. These amendments enshrine government’s duty to protect individual liberties, including the rights to free speech and free association.But today, government has created for itself sweeping powers to monitor the private lives of individuals and otherwise intrude upon our daily activities, our households and our businesses. The extent of the government’s reach today would be unrecognizable to the Founders.Much of the recent erosion in civil liberties has occurred in the name of national security. But we can – and must — combat threats to our safety while adhering to due process and the rule of law.
Life is precious and must be protected. A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus.
Stem cell research should only be completed by private laboratories that operate without federal funding.
Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should protect the rights of couples to engage in civil unions if they wish, as well as the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs.
Now, this bit a a little dicier. I’m not sure what that fetus comment means, though if it means what I think it means, he’s not against a woman’s right to choose abortion, unless it’s late term. That thought doesn’t thrill me, but it doesn’t turn me off either. I just wonder how he feels about cases where late term abortion could save a mother’s life. Anyway, he’s pissed off at least one pro-life website with his stance so I’m not so worried about it.
The stem cell research is…fair…I guess. I mean, he’s not making it illegal which is good, and it’s not like he would outlaw federal spending on it FOREVER so if private labs learn more, it could be federally funded in the future so, okay.
And that last bit? Yeah. Right on.
Now, this is something less concerning to me, but still make me think he’s an interesting candidate-his stance on drugs.
A recent Gallup poll reports that 46% of Americans now agree that marijuana should be legalized, a dramatic increase in support that reflects Americans’ increased knowledge and understanding of the issue. Proposals to regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol have been considered in several states, and Governor Johnson has supported those efforts; he believes the federal government should end its prohibition mandate and allow each state to pursue its own desired policy.
To create a drug-free society, we’d have to build a police apparatus so intrusive that all Americans would have to be under surveillance 24 hours a day… presumably for their own good. Would citizens of the “land of the free” ever stand for that?
Abuse of hard drugs is a health problem that should be dealt with by health experts, not a problem that should be clogging up our courts, jails, and prisons with addicts. Instead of continuing to arrest and incarcerate drug users, we should seriously consider the examples of countries such as Portugal and the Netherlands, and we should ultimately choose to adopt policies which aim to reduce death, disease, violence, and crime associated with dangerous drugs.
Honest, effective education will be key to succeeding with this transition. America has cut teen cigarette use in half, not by criminalizing possession and use, but through a combination of honest education and sensible regulation.
We can never totally eliminate drug addiction and drug abuse. We can, however, minimize these harms and reduce the negative effects they have on society by making sure drug abusers are able to access effective treatment options (jail is not an effective treatment option).
Well. I certainly agree that lying to kids about drugs isn’t helping anyone, sensible regulation sounds reasonable to me, as does allowing states to decide their policy.
And as far as turning drug abuse over to people better able regulate it—again, sounds reasonable enough. A man not afraid to adopt foreign policies proven to work.
I’m not addressing every issue he discusses, but I agree with the majority of his ideas. Not all, but not everyone is going to agree with everything and the thing is, even if I don’t agree with this man, I DO think he is a sensible and rational person who has demonstrated that he believes in his stance on issues and has created real change in his home state. He’s not a wishy washy person who is going to say things to get the vote. He’s a little bit simplistic I think, but what’s so wrong with not over complicating everything? He’s also idealistic, but so am I.
I don’t admit to knowing everything about this guy, but I definitely know enough to want to know more. He is, in my eyes, the best republican candidate for 2012 so far and pending further information, perhaps the best presidential candidate. I really hope he gets the nomination because I think his views and his outspoken-ness towards his fellow republicans could do wonders for showing America that republican doesn’t mean evil, and it doesn’t mean blindly following crazy conservative ideals.
Anyway, that’s all the thoughts I have today. Any thoughts or concerns about this guy?