Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is running for president, but you wouldn’t know it if you’ve been watching the many Republican debates. The widely respected two-term governor, who is also a Republican Liberty Caucus Advisory Board member, has been excluded from all but two of the debates, despite the fact that he met the stated qualifications for many of them.

The complaints (shown to the right) focus primarily on the idea that giving some candidates access to the debates while excluding others amounts to the media effectively donating the value of that airtime to those campaigns and is a violation of campaign finance laws which require the reporting of in-kind contributions. They focus specifically on the recent CBS debate and argue that by selecting which candidates benefited from valuable air time during the broadcast debate and excluding others, CBS was “directly and significantly supporting those candidates it favors, and advocating the nomination of one of their favorites and opposing the nomination of Complainant, whom CBS evidently disfavors.”

In a press release about the complaints, Senior Campaign Adviser Ron Nielson writes:

“As this campaign progresses, it is clear that nationally televised debates are having a tremendous impact. Candidates are moving up and down in the polls with every debate, fundraising is impacted dramatically, and Republican voters obviously remain undecided. When one looks at the inconsistent and arbitrary criteria networks such as CBS have used to decide who gets to be on the stage for the debates, it is apparent that decisions are being made in board rooms that are having the effect of ‘preselecting’ candidates.”

That is just wrong. We owe it to our supporters and to the process to take this basic unfairness and clear bias to those agencies whose job it is to insure that the power of the airwaves is not being misused in an arbitrary manner in the Republican nominating process.”

While we remain very fortunate to have other voices for liberty in this campaign like Rep. Ron Paul, the exclusion of Johnson shows a very serious problem in the Republican primary process. It suggests that the party is essentially letting the media pick which candidates voters are allowed to hear from which amounts to the media picking the Republican nominee.

Complaints about media bias have been heard frequently from supporters of other candidates, going back to the 2008 election. Ron Paul received similar treatment in 2008 and there has been considerable complaint that in the recent debate he received only 89 seconds of airtime out of 90 minutes while other candidates were given much longer to express their positions and address questions. If Johnson is the victim of a media blackout, Paul is victim of a kind of gray-out with much the same effect. He is allowed to compete, but not on a level playing field. It’s better than being excluded entirely, but it’s still not fair.

This is unfair for the voters and it is very unhealthy for the Republican Party. Liberty candidates like Johnson and Paul have good ideas which appeal to the voters and they deserve a chance to be heard. The Republican Party is allowing itself to be defined by the media as a party of corporate hacks and religious extremists because that fits the narrative of the election which the media wants to create. Candidates like Paul and Johnson defy that stereotyping and put a more positive face on a party which is much more diverse than the media likes to admit.

These complaints represent a positive step in the right direction which activists can focus on. It’s an opportunity to express your dissatisfaction and demand that the networks be held accountable for their clear bias and manipulation of the political process. Demand that Governor Johnson be included in future debates.

To make this easier we’ve provided a form below which will let you email your members of congress and also the directors of the FEC and the FCC and perhaps most importantly key decision makers at CNN which is broadcasting the upcoming debate on November 22nd.

Chat Live with Special Guests During the Debate

Welcome to our live online event for the FoxNews Republican Presidential Debate in Tampa Florida. The debate begins at 9pm eastern time on Thursday the 22nd and our live coverage will begin a little bit before that. We’ll have live chat commentary which you can participate in with capacity for hundreds to take part and share their observations during the debate, plus a post mortem after the debate which may feature a special guest. Drinking games during the debate are not only authorized, but encouraged. The chat application is right below and some information on the candidates fills out the rest of this article.

The debate is being sponsored by the Republican Party of Florida at their Presidency 5 straw poll event in Orlando, but you don’t have to pay $175 to attend (or have Ron Paul pay it for you).  You can watch it on cable on FoxNews and get the blow by blow commentary here.  It’ll be just like being in the audience. There will also be a livestream of the debate to watch on the web.

Prior to the debate you can submit your questions for the candidates on video through YouTube or just vote on the questions you like the best.

The Contenders

Gary Johnson is making big news right before the debate, because after being excluded from the last two debates, he battled his way back in with a 1% oor higher showing in five recent polls, plus he’s still outpolling Rick Santorum and John Huntsman.  In fact, in a current FoxNews online poll Johnson has surged ahead and is now tied for third with Rick Perry and ahead of Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney.  Interestingly, Johnson’s inclusion in the debate is over the objections of the Republican Party of Florida which has had a troubled history in dealing with the libertarian-leaning wing of the party which Johnson represents.  If Johnson can bring the kind of dynamism to this debate which he has shown in recent television appearances he could become a major contender again.

Rick Perry is the longest serving governor in the history of the state of Texas and has launched a campaign based around strong statements on states rights and getting Washington off the backs of the people. His statements are somewhat in contrast to his long record as a government insider and supporter of federal programs. He is perhaps best known in Texas for his friendliness to large corporations and the inside deals and special favors which have been hallmarks of his administration. This is Perry’s first debate and there is some speculation that he is not well prepared and may suffer based on his history of being a weak debate performer, or may even duck out at the last minute citing the wildfire crisis in Texas as a reason not to attend.

Ron Paul is probably the highest profile candidate. He is a 10 term Congressman from Texas known by his colleagues as “Dr. No” for his consistent opposition to any growth of government spending or programs and any legislation of questionable constitutionality. Paul ran for president in 2008 and his campaign launched the Tea Party movement and pioneered non-traditional fundraising methodology which has been adopted by other insurgent campaigns since then. Paul is a conservative libertarian politically who believes in minimal government and strict adherence to the Constitution and for his outspoken, sometimes irascible style.

Mitt Romney is a perceived frontrunner, but he has been running a very low profile campaign and losing ground to more active candidates. The former governor of Massachusetts has a strong business background and a successful record in office. He ran for president in 2008 and has high name recognition, but is somewhat tainted by his association with President Obama’s public health care plan which was largely based on a plan Romney instituted in Massachusetts which has been plagued by budget overruns. This debate is Romney’s opportunity to confirm that he is a frontrunner or end his campaign quickly with a bang.

Michelle Bachmann is a controversial Congresswoman from Minnesota who is best known for her association with the Tea Party movement and her extreme religious views which include strong opposition to gay rights and a call for a federal ban on pornography. Bachmann has a strongly fiscally conservative record and was a top contender in the polls until a few weeks ago when her numbers dropped into the single digits, possibly because of the entry of Rick Perry into the race and his appeal to the same demographic.

Herman Cain is the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, a syndicated columnist and a former federal reserve board chairman.. Until recently he was a nationally syndicated radio talkshow host, but is on hiatus during his campaign. He is from Atlanta and has degrees in mathematics and computer science. He is a strong fiscal conservative with relatively pragmatic positions on social issues. He is an experienced and dynamic public speaker and brings powerful credentials as a very successful businessman to his campaign.

John Huntsman is the former Governor of Utah and most recently was President Obama’s Ambassador to China. He is seen as a moderate Republican with an appeal to independents, though so far his lack of media exposure and relatively low public profile have held him back from any success in national polls. If he performs well here it may take him from the back bench to being a more major contender.

Rick Santorum served two terms as Senator from Pennsylvania and two terms in Congress representing suburban Pittsburgh. He is Roman Catholic and has a reputation as an extreme religious conservative. He tried to legislate the teaching of intelligent design at the federal level and has made controversial statements on a variety of social issues. He is known for his aggressive and confrontational style and for not shying away from controversial positions.

For more information on the candidates, their statements and their records see Project Vote Smart.

With GOP contenders battling it out for the chance to face President Barack Obama in 2012, the once “cult-following” of Texas Congressman Ron Paul has turned into a base large enough to consider him one of the frontrunners. Having a massive Facebook following, the second highest 2nd quarter funds raised after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and recent poll victories such as the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll; Paul’s more than 30 year old message of individual liberty, sound money and free markets is resonating with an ever larger audience.

Of course with this popularity comes criticism. Too many Republican voters and self-described “Constitutional conservatives”—at least those I’ve come across—have been quick to describe the libertarian-minded congressman as “kooky” and a “crazy old man”. Their primary focus is on foreign policy but some on economics as well. Despite Paul’s fervent belief in Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of avoiding “entangling alliances”, these conservatives often paint him as a “liberal”. Perhaps liberal in the classical sense like John Stuart Mill, but certainly not in the modern-day so-called liberalism of persons like President Obama, Ed Schultz, and Alan Colmes.

Many rumors are spread by the anti-Paul conservatives. Paul supporters are often referred to as “PaulBots”—ironically similar to author Jason Materra’s term “Obama Zombies” used in the book of the same name—although save for a few kooky and loud conspiracy theorists, Paul supporters tend to be better at justifying their support for the jolly old man than do the Obama Zombies. Paul is often mischaracterized as a bigot, even though there is no evidence to support this ad hominem attack.

But what the anti-Paul conservatives—usually of the interventionist line of foreign policy thinking that is commonly referred to as neoconservatism, though having its roots in Woodrow Wilson—fail to do is actually look at what Paul’s foreign policy positions are and have been and see if they have any connection to reality.  Paul’s years of studying the Austrian School of Economics have had a surprising effect on his analytical skills when it comes to foreign policy.

Recently, Ron Paul supporters posted a video to Youtube entitled “Ron Paul the Master”. It shows a collection of speeches and interviews in which Ron Paul makes some stunning predictions about our current economic woes and even international conflicts of the present. And he does this as far back as 2002. Of course no one gave him the time of day.

Let’s analyze one of these speeches, which begins at 3 minutes into the video and was presented before congress on April 24, 2002.

“Our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens, and the internal affairs of foreign countries, leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned.

The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result.

Major moves will be made by China, India, Russia, and Pakistan in Central Asia to take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages sought after for years.”

This is absolutely true. The chaos gave us many unexpected problems. Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq grew after the invasion. And the country is now under Shiite control, moving it dangerously close to Iran. In 2002, Iran’s president was the more philosophically minded Mohammed Khatami…but now we have an anti-Semitic loudmoth, Ahmedinejad. Russia has moved into Iran to build an energy alliance. Vladimir Putin, and his cronies in Gazprom and Lukoil would love to gain control of the natural resources in Iran and Russia has been helping the Islamic Republic develop nuclear technology which US intelligence believes is being developed for destructive purposes. Let’s hope and pray they are wrong.

China and Pakistan have certainly taken advantage of the chaos. Not only is their alliance stronger, but the oil contracts in Iraq are going to—guess who—China! Kind of debunks the whole left-wing moonbattery that Iraq was “blood for oil”.

You can find more detail in these articles:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082802200.html

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/June/China-Benefits-from-Oil-Deals-with-Iraq/

“Current Israeli-United States policies will solidify Arab Muslim nations, this will include those Muslim nations that in the past have fought against each other.

Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.”

What exactly do you think the “Arab Spring” is? Peaceful democratic people overthrowing dictators? Not quite. The Muslim Brotherhood, a precursor to Hamas, has founded its own political party in Egypt; it is possible these theocrats will gain significant power in the new government. Let’s not forget that Libyan and Yemeni rebels have been linked to Al Qaeda. Just the other day the new Al Qaeda cheif Ayman Al-Zawahiri was lauding the rioters in Syria.

And certainly the dictators—such as Gaddafi and Mubarak—aren’t moderate in the eyes of their own people, but often American politicians have viewed them as such. Useful when we need them, disposable when we don’t as Mobutu Sese Seko and Saddam Hussein once were.

“Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict.

The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court”

This wasn’t entirely true, Saddam was tried by his own people. But did we really “win” the war. We turned the country over to the Shiite theocrats instead of secularists and now those people are getting close to Iran.

“An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.”

Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, and exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending.”

Ah yes, remember when that Burger King value meal was around $3.

“Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money.”

Though Bernanke has kept interest rates low, there is the prospect of T-Bill interest rates going up with the forthcoming debt crisis. There has been a dollar devaluation of 40% against the Euro since this 2002 speech, nearly 14% since June 2010 alone according to an article in The Washington Post.

Quantitative easing most definitely contributed to the high gas prices we see today. If you think it was all the fault of this “Arab Spring”, take a look at the Commodity Price Index some time. This freshly “recycled” dough being put in the hands of speculators causes them to artificially drive up the price of oil and other commodities, some of which are being bought as a hedge against the falling dollar; quite the vicious cycle.

As for gold, when Congressman Paul gave this speech gold was roughly $300 per ounce and today it stands at more than $1615 per ounce; you can check out the historical data on gold prices here.

That’s a whopping 438% increase.

“Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.

The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.

Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.”

The president today has the power to order the assassination American citizens, as in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki—traitorous as he may be, this is wrong. The Constitution has rules for punishing those who commit treason. But President Obama has ignored this and has ordered him to be killed if possible with drone strikes in Yemen.

The welfare state has expanded significantly. A new, unaffordable addition to Medicare under Bush 43 was passed. We saw more than a trillion dollars of so called economic stimulus under Nancy Pelosi and the combined presidencies of Bush and Obama, and that’s not even including Obama’s wasteful and unpopular health care overhaul. Not to mention billions of foreign aid to countries, some of which—such as Pakistan—are less than trustworthy.

“This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened

During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.

The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East.”

The middle east is on fire right now. The Israelis are more concerned for their security than ever before. Meanwhile the Saudi lobby pushes us to deal with Iran, with the hopes that they can beat the Islamic Republic in terms of spheres of influence in this theocratic mess of a region.

“Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos.”

This one is self evident. Class warfare is a weapon of distraction used by those who wish to expand the size of government while fat cats at firms such as General Electric, Goldman Sachs, and BP fatten their wallets thanks to government’s policy of picking winners and losers via loopholes and subsidies. The administration may talk the talk, but just take a look at Obama’s campaign contributions and how cozy he is with Jeffrey Immelt; how GE almost got away with paying no taxes, and how a former Goldman Sachs legal adviser with no judicial experience now sits on the Supreme Court.

In addition, a piece was posted two days later, here, containing more words than in the video, which appears as if it may have been cropped to save time. Some of the predictions in that post, such as a reinstatement of the draft did not come true (thank God), but there is one of note that have somewhat come to fruition

“Some European countries will clandestinely support the Muslim countries and their anti-Israel pursuits.”

If you go on YouTube and read the comments sections on almost any video relating to middle eastern politics, you will find that it is a cesspool of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric, and many of the people making these comments are living in Europe. You can take my word for it as a person of Middle Eastern descent who keeps up with these things, or you can check it out yourself. The barbaric theocrats of Hamas are given the benefit of the doubt by many YouTube in the UK, France, Germany and Greece, while the Israelis are fallaciously smeared as “genocidal” and heartless.

Ron Paul’s predictions show a deep understanding of not just economics, but human emotions in the geopolitical world. Those who dismiss him as a “nut” and on the fringe would be wise to thoroughly read this article before making such a judgment. The facts are on his side, and he truly does seem to know what he is talking about.

Dr. Paul concludes with:

“I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.”

Well, 2012 will be ten years in. You weren’t wrong on all accounts Ron, in fact, you were right on a great many of them. We should all be most displeased that these predictions came true.

————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi is finishing his B.S. in Economics at Texas A&M University; he is a board member and Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Photo of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R, TX) by: Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)”]

Published 7/29/11 on Examiner

Don’t Believe the Hype.  Meet the Real Rick Perry
Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas Sends Warning to Republicans Nationwide About Perry’s Tax and Spend Record

AUSTIN, TX – Texas Governor Rick Perry may be the flavor of the day for a lot of Republicans, but Texas Republicans who are familiar with his record are a lot less enthusiastic about his presidential run.  “Perry has a unique talent for finding new ways to raise taxes and loves to use taxpayer money to subsidize his business cronies,” says Secretary Dave Nalle of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas.  “His supposed belief in limited government and states rights conveniently disappears whenever it conflicts with the demands of the special interests and corporate cronies who he serves.”

Governor Perry’s record of big government, big spending, big taxing and attacks on the fundamental rights of Texas citizens is a familiar to Texans, but seems to be much less well known to Republicans outside of the state, which may explain his high initial showing in the polls.  The Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas is compiling a complete dossier on Perry to share with fellow Republicans outside their state so that they can be informed about what they are being sold in a Perry presidential candidacy.

The file on Perry’s abuses of power, insider deals with cronies and tax and spend policies is thick, but for a start here are what Texas RLC members voted as the top five Perry scandals which GOP primary voters need to know more about:

1. Business Slush Funds: Perry made heavy use of business incentive “slush funds” which used taxpayer dollars to subsidize selected businesses, many of them run by his major campaign contributors.  Just two of these funds, the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas Emerging Growth fund, spent over $700 million to subsidize businesses to move to Texas or expand operations in Texas, with little evidence that these handouts of taxpayer money produced job or revenue growth anywhere near sufficient to justify the expense.  In fact, many of these businesses eventually downsized or relocated long before they had earned the money Perry gave them, or even went bankrupt with $25 million fund dollars like Countrywide Financial. source

2. Toll Roads and Land Seizures Perry has never met a toll road project he wasn’t willing to seize huge amounts of private land for and then give the exclusive management contracts to foreign corporations.  Perry’s time in office has set records for eminent domain land seizures – over a million acres have been seized.  His toll road projects have confiscated family farms and torn communities apart.  Toll roads have been used as a massive off-the-books tax program, taking money from Texas drivers and feeding it to foreign financial interests and management groups which lobbied the governor for special deals which produce much higher tolls and higher profits than are typical in other states. source

3. Forced Vaccinations: In 2007 Perry issued an executive order which would have forcibly vaccinated every girl in Texas entering the sixth grade with Merck’s Gardasil vaccine for Human Papilloma Virus.  This massive violation of the privacy rights of Texas teenagers and their parents would have come at a cost of $360 in taxpayer money per shot.  It would have been a huge windfall for Merck, which had paid Perry’s former Chief of Staff $250,000 to lobby the governor and legislature to promote the forced vaccination program. source

4. The Job-Killing Franchise Tax: Knowing that it would be impossible to pass an income tax against popular opposition in Texas, Perry promoted the idea of a special business tax called the “Franchise Tax” which taxes businesses at different arbitrary rates set by the government.  This tax expands business taxes to types of businesses which are not taxed in most states and in many cases taxes small businesses more than large corporations they compete with.  For example it taxes small car repair shops at double the rate it taxes large dealerships for car repairs.   It’s a small business and job killer. source

5. Scuttled the Anti-TSA Bill When Rep. David Simpson led the Texas legislature towards passage of an enormously popular bill (HB1938) to hold the TSA accountable for intrusive searches of airline passengers, Perry played a key role in making sure that the bill was not passed.   When the TSA and the Justice Department began pressuring him, although Perry had promised to submit the bill to the special legislative session, he delayed submitting the bill until it was so late in the session that it was virtually impossible to hold the constitutionally mandated votes necessary for passage.  That way he could score points with the public for submitting the popular bill while at the same time making sure that it wouldn’t pass.  It’s a classic example of Perry’s insincere pandering. source

Don’t be fooled by campaign hype.  If Perry says he’ll cut taxes or get government off our back, look up his real record.  Look up his past statements.  He supported TARP.  He supported the bailouts.  He was even Al Gore’s Texas campaign manager back in 1988.  A vote for Perry in the Republican primary is a vote for more big government and more taxes and more of the the same deficits and irresponsibility we had for 12 years under Bush and Obama.  The Republican Party and the nation need real leadership, not more of the same with a nicer head of hair.

RLC of Texas Chairman Judson Vandiver asks, “Let’s hope Republicans outside Texas see through all the hype.  Let’s all say to to Perry what he said to a Texas state trooper when he tried to bully her after she pulled him over for speeding YouTube: ‘Why don’t you just let us get on down the road?’”

Yesterday the RLC created a Presidential Endorsements Committee under RLC At-Large Board member Aleq Boyle.

The goals of the committee are to review presidential candidates, take member input, and make recommendations on what actions — if any — to take moving forward.

The RLC has not endorsed any presidential candidate since 1996, when we endorsed Steve Forbes.

Our Bylaws purposefully make it difficult to endorse a candidate for president of the United States and the RLC has traditionally focused on state and local races instead.

Rule 5.D. of the RLC Bylaws states, “Candidate for President of the United States may be endorsed by the Caucus by a 2/3 vote of the active and voting Chartered state’s executive committees. The national Secretary shall notify all Chartered states of a favorable national board proposal for endorsement and state executive officers shall inform the Secretary of the approval or denial by their executive committee within 60 days.”

The chairman of the committee, Mr. Boyle, has more than 20 years of experience in GOP politics. You may contact him if you are interested in providing feedback to the committee.

Only RLC members’ opinions are valued in this process, so please join our organization if you have not yet done so.

The lead-up to the 2008 presidential election included debates sponsored by YouTube and Facebook — and now it appears 2012 will have at least one debate conducted via Twitter.

A GOP debate that organizers are calling the “First Presidential Townhall on Twitter” has been slated for July 20.

The virtual event—organized by the Andrew Hemingway of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire and sponsored by TheTeaParty.net—is scheduled to take place between 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET.

So far, only Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Georgia businessman Herman Cain have been announced as participants. But organizers say others are slated to announce their involvement later.

Learn more about the event here.

When I and many other self-described liberty Republicans heard that there would be two candidates bearing the liberty standard in 2012 we didn’t know what to think. Would there be a civil war to divide the liberty movement which even still is only in its infancy, or would two candidates bring the liberty message legitimacy?

Early indications were not good. Powerful advocates of Ron Paul, most notably Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com and Lew Rockwell, started running hit pieces on Gary Johnson as soon as he announced his candidacy. Authors at The American Spectator and The American Conservative wrote slightly less vicious pieces along the same lines. On the other side institutional libertarians at such places as Reason, the CATO Institute and the Republican Liberty Caucus appeared to be rallying around Johnson, blowing off Paul as either less libertarian or as less electable. (Editor’s Note: The RLC has not endorsed any Presidential candidate.) The battle lines were drawn: The R3volution vs the “libertarian power elite” (as the late Murray Rothbard called them).

For all of the antagonism, there was little animosity between the actual candidates themselves. As Ron Paul was mulling over an entrance into the race he was asked whether he would endorse Johnson if he decided not to run. His answer was simple: “I can’t imagine endorsing anyone else.” Likewise, when Gary Johnson is asked why someone should vote for him over Ron Paul, as he was on Stossel’s program recently, his canned answer was “I would never make that case.”

Luckily for our cause of liberty, a de facto truce seems to have developed between the two camps. This is a fortunate development indeed, considering the degree to which the liberty movement has succumbed to infighting and self-destruction in the past. Ron Paul enthusiasts can identify with being locked out of a debate, as Gary Johnson was in New Hampshire. And Gary Johnson followers, who were mostly Ron Paul followers less than three years ago, have given up converting any who still identify more with Paul’s brand of libertarianism. Presumably they have come to realize that his candidacy is only useful to the degree to which he attracts new voters to the cause, and dividing the fledgling movement serves no constructive purpose.

And as the race has developed and the message and rhetoric from each candidate has further evolved, it seems that the two standard bearers for liberty have tailored their message to vastly different constituencies. Beginning in March, at The Family Leader Presidential Lecture Series, Ron Paul began targeting his stump speech towards religious groups and family values voters. He makes a fantastic case for liberty based on the experience of the Israelites in 1st Samuel Chapter 8 (which he aptly points out is closely related to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution). The 75 year old has also lead a personal life that is very much in line with the values of social conservatives. He has only had one wife, he has five children, many grandchildren, and even a few great-grandchildren. It‘s clear to anyone who hears him speak that his faith plays a significant role in his life.

On the other hand, Gary Johnson has not lead such a Christian conservative life. Divorced, he has two children and, while raised Lutheran, does not attend church (although he believes in God and will even “admit to praying once and a while”). To the Christian conservative base to which Ron Paul has tailored his message, this would be a huge negative. But not to the pragmatic liberals who are itching for a candidate who understands economics but are wary of the caricature Bible-thumping snake oil salesmen which have sadly become associated with “Republican.” Being a two term governor of a blue state in which he remains popular, Johnson also brings credibility to the notion that a liberty oriented candidate could actually govern if elected. As an entrepreneur who grew a one man handy-man business into one of the largest construction firms in his home state, he also has credibility with small-business types. In addition, Governor Johnson has been able to take arguably even more liberty oriented stances than Paul on such issues as abortion and immigration, stances that Paul simply could not take if he wished to maintain his appeal with Christian conservative voters even if he did agree with them himself (and there is no indication that he does).

The contrast between the two liberty candidates extends into core philosophy. Ron Paul is what a “rights-based” libertarian who advocates for liberty on the basis of the morality of personal property rights. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, is a “consequentialist” libertarian who would claim that everything government does should be looked at from a cost-benefit analysis. The fact that these two different perspectives arrive at the same policy conclusions should not be surprising: a geometric proof and an algebraic proof of a mathematical theorem should arrive at the same conclusion. Otherwise there is something wrong with that theorem.

Practical implications of this slight difference are significant even on issues which the two candidates largely agree. Ron Paul, for instance, would never admit to supporting “gay rights” because even though his policy would be very friendly toward gays, as a rights-based libertarian he does not believe that any group has specific rights and he is loathe to spin his rhetoric in a way that implies this is the case. This could confuse some voters who do not understand rights-based libertarianism. As a consequentialist libertarian, however, Gary Johnson is proud to say that he supports gay rights and voters who support gay rights but may not understand the issue deeply enough to take a second look at Ron Paul could be drawn towards Johnson’s campaign. Likewise, Paul’s message retains more credibility with social conservatives if he refrains from talking about “gay rights” as such.

In a similar fashion, when it comes to foreign policy Gary Johnson will not admit to being a non-interventionist. He even appears to be insulted by pundits who identify him as such. In order to stay philosophically consistent, as a consequentialist libertarian he has to view each potential conflict from a cost-benefit standpoint. Johnson will not even rule out intervening in conflicts for humanitarian purposes if he thought such an intervention would yield greater benefits than costs. That being said, he has decided virtually every conflict we are currently involved in fails the cost-benefit analysis test. He believes that much of our military spending, many of our strategic alliances, and scores of overseas military bases fail the test as well. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a strict non-interventionist. As a rights-based libertarian, he sees intervention in the affairs of other nations as inherently illegitimate. This distinction between the two candidates may lead hardcore anti-war voters to be naturally drawn to Paul while Gary Johnson is more open to receive the support of voters who are receptive to more moderate rhetoric when it comes to national security issues.

Rhetorical and philosophical differences between the two liberty candidates naturally lead to slightly different geographic constituencies as well. Whether or not the candidates have understood this and communicated it to each other, they seem to recognize it. Ron Paul has made a strong effort in Iowa, where religious conservatives who will understand his references to the Old Testament and the founding documents are likely to grasp his ideas and hopefully identify with them. Being a caucus state, Iowa is also a naturally favorable state for a politician with such fanatical followers as Paul. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson has pinned all of his hopes on a strong finish in New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state where thousands of liberty loving activists have moved as part of the Free State Project. With a broader, simpler message of the “religion of the pocketbook”, Johnson hopes to make a big impact on a state which is known more for its appreciation of distilled liberty than its appreciation of religion.

Looking onward to the next two primary states, it is my opinion that the same strategy of “divide and conquer” should be employed in a similar way. Nevada, much like New Hampshire, is a state which is famously liberty oriented and not known for its conviction to religion. In stark contrast, South Carolina is a famously religious state and member in good standing of the so-called “Bible Belt.” By defining themselves slightly differently, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson should be able to appeal to these two states in a way that a single liberty candidate would be unable to do. It should also be noted that, as a Congressman from a southern state, Ron Paul may be able to make a close connection with voters in another southern state. Likewise, as the former governor of a western state, Gary Johnson may be able to make a connection with voters in another western state.

This is not to say that Gary Johnson should abandon Iowa and South Carolina, or that Ron Paul should completely give up on New Hampshire and Nevada: there are vast numbers of individuals in each of these states who do not fit the general character of the state who would identify better with the opposite candidate. With that clarification out of the way, it is in the interest of the liberty message that each of these candidates focuses their efforts in the state most likely to be receptive to their rhetoric in order to maximize the degree to which the message of liberty resonates.

Each candidate should recognize that it is unlikely that a liberty candidate will win the nomination this time around, but it is important that the message gets out and that a liberty loving base for future liberty candidates is built. We can only win the battle for the presidency once we win the battle of ideas.

Kyle R. Johnson is a masters student in chemical engineering at the University of Idaho. He is originally from Richland, Washington.

Evidence against June 13 GOP debate sponsors CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader continues to mount as they persist in excluding former two-term Republican Governor Gary Johnson from the Manchester, New Hampshire debate.

WMUR and the Union-Leader have been inundated with calls and e-mails from concerned Americans, many complaining that they are embarrassing the state of New Hampshire and jeopardizing its status as a first in the nation primary state.

And now Johnson supporters recently released a video targeting CNN:

HOPE AND CHANGE

Johnson’s supporters are hosting a MoneyBomb for his campaign in conjunction with the debate, and cries for inclusion have come from different corners of the political spectrum — ranging from Willy Nelson to the gay conservative group GOProud.

Additionally, there is hope for Johnson supporters:

CNN tried to keep former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel out of the June 3, 2007 Democratic presidential debate, but his supporters flooded CNN/WMUR/Union-Leader with requests and their decision was eventually reversed. Mike Gravel was able to debate.

SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA

The specific criteria CNN and the other outlets are using to justify the exclusion of Governor Johnson also doesn’t add up. The first requirement for inclusion in CNN’s debate is that the individual be “a candidate,” but some of the invitees not only are not candidates (Michele Bachmann), but haven’t even taken a single official step toward becoming one (Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin). CNN’s own definition of a potential invitee is “a candidate”.

CNN selectively used versions of polls that included the names of spoiler non-candidates (such as Palin and Giuliani) in its listed criteria. Despite excluding other polls, Gov. Johnson does qualify for the June 13 debate under the “2.00% average of three polls in the month of May” category.

In the May 27 CNN poll, three different surveys were taken: One including spoiler non-candidates Giuliani and Palin, one including spoiler non-candidate Palin (but not Giuliani), and one including neither Giuliani nor Palin. In the survey that did not include the two spoiler non-candidates (who, as non-candidates, were not eligible for invitations anyway, under CNN’s objective criteria), Gary Johnson earned 2%.

In the May 26 Gallup poll, two different surveys were taken: One including spoiler non-candidate Palin, and one not including spoiler non-candidate Palin. In the survey that did not include the spoiler non-candidate, Johnson earned 3%.

Finally, in the May 4 Quinnipiac poll, only one survey was taken, and Johnson earned 1%.

So the May Johnson poll results using CNN’s poll sources are: 2 + 3 + 1 divided by 3, which equals 2%. View the poll data compiled here.

A Johnson supporter explains the math for all you visual learners:

Finally, in a just-released PPP poll, Gary Johnson leads GOP contenders in favorability ratings in their home states. Johnson is supported by 44 percent of New Mexico voters.

SKETCHY FROM THE START

GOP Presidential candidate Fred Karger explains how the CNN/WMUR/NH Union-Leader debate has been problematic from the very beginning. Says Karger, “The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is very clear on the rules governing debates stating that, ‘The organization staging the debate must select the candidates based on pre-established objective criteria.’ CNN’s criteria is objective, but was the criteria pre-established?” The following evidence was collected by Mr. Karger:

1) Invitations were sent to Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. When were the invitations sent?

2) Were the invitations sent out on a rolling basis, rather than after the criteria period closed? Donald Trump was invited, but he announced he would not run on May 16, 2011. Mike Huckabee was invited, but he announced he would not run on May 14, 2011. Haley Barbour was not invited. Barbour met the criteria after the April 22, 2011 release of a Gallup poll. Haley Barbour announced he would not run on April 25, 2011.

3) Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman did not meet the polling criteria until he received 4% in the UNH poll, which was released on May 23, 2011 at 5pm (pdf). Jon Huntsman announced he would not participate in the debate on May 27, 2011. In the three full days between 5pm May 23, 2011 and May 27, 2011, Jon Huntsman would have needed to receive an invitation from the debate sponsors and have decided to decline that invitation.

4) Herman Cain: Herman Cain announced on or before May 24, 2011 that he would attend the NH debate. When was he invited? Herman Cain met the criteria on April 28, 2011.

5) Rudy Giuliani: Rudy Giuliani qualified on May 4, 2011, when the UNH Survey Center released its Granite State Poll. When was he invited?

6) Polling firms excluded: Why did the criteria exclude the following polling firms: Rasmussen, Zogby, Public Policy Polling and Suffolk — all of whom conducted national polls on the Republican 2012 primary during April and May 2011?

7) Debate Date Moved: The Debate was originally set for June 7th, but was rescheduled to June 13th. The decision to change the debate date was announced on April 27, 2011. Why was the date moved?

8.) UNH Survey Center Polls: When were the UNH Survey Center’s two polls about the 2012 Republican primary (which came out in May 2011) commissioned? Were they commissioned prior to April 1, 2011 (the beginning of the criteria period)? It is important to note that in May 2007, the UNH Survey Center did not conduct any polls about the Republican primary.

The 2007 debate was also hosted by CNN, WMUR TV and the New Hampshire Union Leader. In this debate there were 10 participants: Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson. The pre-established objective criteria for this debate was never released; however, by 2011 standards, it would have been a 6-man debate. During April and May of 2007, Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson did not average 2% on three national polls.

If the same criteria was applied 4 years ago, UNH Survey Center polling would have excluded Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore and Ron Paul, all of whom would not have met (.pdf) a 2% polling criteria.

TAKE ACTION

Please take five minutes to contact CNN, WMUR, and the NH Union-Leader and demand that Gary Johnson is included in their June 13 GOP debate.

A former Republican Governor should automatically gain inclusion in a GOP debate. It’s really that simple.

For WMUR, call 603-669-9999 or email them; for the NH Union-Leader, call 603-668-4321 (redirect to the Newsroom) or email them; for CNN, call 404-827-1500 or text CNN (space) and your news tip.

Also, please sign this petition for inclusion.

CALLING FOR INCLUSION

A variety of individuals and groups are calling for Johnson’s inclusion in the June 13 debate. A sampling of comments is found below.

“The decision to exclude Gary Johnson is completely out of step with the spirit of the New Hampshire primary. We endorse an open political process that keeps New Hampshire special. We respectfully request that the debate partners — CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader — reconsider this decision and welcome Gov. Johnson to the June 13th debate.”
– David Hurst
Chairman, New Hampshire Young Republicans

“When any media outlet decides they are the judge of a “viable” candidate, such as the denial of Governor Gary Johnson (in a GOP debate at St. Anselm’s College Monday), at that point they are usurping the voter’s right to choose a candidate. I say shame on any news agency putting itself in a position to decide which candidate is worthy for America to hear. Just on the face of this issue it seems un-American.”
– Jerry DeLemus
Chairman, Granite State Patriots Liberty PAC

“Man, Gary Johnson’s supporters are dedicated, and unrelenting.”
– Jeff Winkler
Columnist, The DailyCaller

“GOProud has significant policy differences with Governor Johnson, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. However, we believe strongly that Governor Johnson deserves to be included and that Republican primary voters’ best interest would be served by having his voice in this important debate.”
– Jimmy LaSalvia
Executive Director, GOProud

“CNN appears to be aiding and abetting the attempted overturning of gay marriage in one of the five states where it is legal. CNN should lead the way and open up its debate to all serious Presidential candidates, not just some.”
– Fred Karger (who also wants to be included in the debate)
GOP Presidential candidate

“Sign the change.org petition to get Gary Johnson into the debate!”
– Willy Nelson’s TeaPot Party

Let us not accept NO as the answer. Doing so would allow CNN too much power over the GOP primary.

Seven Republicans will meet this month for the first New Hampshire debate of the 2012 election, taking place on June 13 in Manchester and sponsored by CNN/WMUR/NH Union-Leader.

Unfortunately, RLC Advisory Board member Gary Johnson, the former Governor of New Mexico twice elected in a Democrat state, was not invited. This despite the fact that Johnson polls at 3% nationally and participated in the first GOP Presidential debate in South Carolina. Several of the candidates invited have not even announced they are running, but Johnson formally announced his candidacy.

RLC members believe that Governor Johnson (as well as Congressman Ron Paul) has solutions to offer Republican voters. If they are not permitted to hear the liberty message, they can’t become a part of the liberty movement by joining groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus.  Johnson’s positions and viewpoints have particularly strong appeal to New Hampshire voters and not including them is doing them a real disservice.

TAKE ACTION

If concerned Americans don’t protest the exclusion of Governor Johnson from the debate, he will surely not be included. However, if we let folks know what our opinion on the matter is, they are more likely to give him consideration.

Please request to hear Governor Gary Johnson in the debate!

• There is now a grassroots petition being signed up online Change.org which will be sent to media and GOP leaders.

• Call WMUR at (603) 669-9999 and fill out their contact form.

• Call the NH Union-Leader newspaper at (603) 668-4321 or e-mail them.

• Call CNN at (404) 827-1500 or (202) 898-7900 or text CNN (space) and your news tip to 772937. You can also submit your comment online.

• Post your comments at CNN’s article about the debate.

Another option is to contact the Advertising Departments for each of these outlets and inform them that you will not be purchasing anything they sell until Gary Johnson is included in the debate. If the Advertising Department believes they will lose customers, they will pressure other departments to change their strategy.

If prospective GOP voters do not get to hear from Gary Johnson, it’s one less liberty advocate providing the solutions our country needs.

Please forward this message to other concerned Americans.

Several developments within the Republican Party were readily apparent during the presidential debate last Thursday evening. Predictably, the talk beforehand had centered around the lack of “big names” that would show up, which presumably was our media’s way of dutifully drawing the parameters of public discourse.

Obviously, the gatekeepers in the press view the majority of America’s voting public as incapable of coming to their own informed decisions, thereby (in their mind at least) leaving it incumbent upon them to tell them who is and is not “viable.” Any candidate who dares to stray from the tiny box of “acceptable debate” is instantly derided as a crank by opinion makers on both the left and right.

The degree to which the rhetoric of the Republican Party has shifted over the last four years was tangible and welcome. 60% of the candidates on the stage were willing to either call for the outright withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan or signal strong reservations about the war; this would have been unthinkable during the 2008 election cycle. Although not representative of Republican primary voters at large (though the numbers who are souring on Afghanistan has seen a significant uptick over the last year) this put on clear display the degree to which many in the GOP can no longer reconcile the notion of limited government with the expensive nation building operation in Afghanistan.

Spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a country with little appetite to develop civil institutions and leaders that we rarely seem on the same page with looks more and more like a waste of resources as the years drag on. With the recent death of bin Laden, now would be the ideal time for a conservative candidate to articulate the rationale behind a speedy exit from Afghanistan; if not now, after the death of al Qaeda’s leader and America’s most notorious menace, then when?

Nor could the candidates on stage be heard chiming in on Iraq (at least not in a positive manner), reflecting the sober view of many Republicans that, in hindsight, the war was in fact a blunder. This softening of the war drums within the GOP is an excellent sign, as their abandoning of a restrained foreign policy following 9/11 cost them the trust of a significant portion of the electorate. Success in 2010 came with focus on a conservative economic message, not the preaching of a Wilsonian foreign policy.

Another welcome aspect (which many establishment Republicans were no doubt grimacing about) was the libertarian arguments presented on the stage in South Carolina. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson’s presence were double breaths of fresh air for those in the Republican Party who had become disenchanted with the authoritarian rhetoric espoused during the Bush years. On this particular night, it was Rick Santorum carrying the banner of statism.

The former Pennsylvania senator’s words contrasted starkly with the liberty-friendly arguments made by Paul and Johnson. It was as if Santorum was unaware his version of big government conservatism had long since been rejected by the party. Too many Republicans have wised up to the disingenuous practice of intertwining strong family values (which are a wonderful thing) with the federal government (which is possibly the worst instrument on the face of the earth for promoting those family values) for Santorum’s arguments to carry much sway.

Having two candidates like Paul and Johnson making a case for drug legalization in this venue was an encouraging sight. The conservative/liberal paradigm many on the right have looked at this issue from is simply an inaccurate approach. A majority of conservatives are likely unaware that William F. Buckley, a conservative stalwart if there ever was one, was no fan of the federal war on drugs.

Even if it is not a winning issue in 2011, letting conservatives correctly view our senseless drug policy as merely an extension of overbearing, nanny state government would finally allow us to end what has become another endless “war” (poverty and terrorism among others) which government seems curiously unable to win. That these views are at least getting a hearing is a giant step in the right direction; supporters of each of these men should be glad Republican primary voters got a double dose of free market and individual liberty based perspectives.

The debate also crystallized just how challenging it will be to break through to a critical mass of Republicans. Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh could be heard praising Santorum the following day on his program, demonstrating just how determined many of the Bush-style conservatives are to preserve the status quo.

It seemed that the 2008 election provided many of the talk radio hosts, who had lost so much credibility over the preceding decade, an opportunity to make a clean break and embrace a genuinely conservative platform. But they are willing to double down and continue as apologists for the same tired talking points, ignoring everything from the monetary policy and civil liberties questions to failing to facilitate a reasonable debate over our overseas policies.

We need to acknowledge that many are simply using the Tea Party as a vehicle to get the same sort of Republicans who gave us Iraq, Medicare Part D, and back into power. But with more debates like the one in South Carolina, there is much hope for the future trajectory of the conservative movement. Presenting clear, concise arguments on how to truly restrain government will see to it that the needle is slowly moved in the right direction.