Gary Johnson's most recent campaign ad, which I happen to think is very good:
I like Johnson. Between he and Ron Paul I'd still go with Ron Paul, but Johnson has a lot of potential to do a great deal of good for the libertarian cause. His positions on issues are close to Paul's in a number of areas, although they diverge in some pretty significant matters, such as abortion and taxes. Incidentally, in those two areas I am more in agreement with Johnson's positions than with Paul's, although I respect Paul's reasons for his stances. And even in the case of abortion, I think Paul's political approach is reasonable: It's a states rights issue, and let the states decide. Even though I believe a pregnant woman's right to exert control over her own body trumps the rights of the unborn child in her womb -- and I don't state this lightly -- I am skeptical that the federal government has the power to regulate abortions one way or another.
The reason I would still prefer Paul over Johnson is that I (and everyone else and their dogs) know where the good doctor stands on most issues. Paul has been honest and upfront about his principles, and has not strayed away from what he professes to believe. The same may indeed be the case with Mr. Johnson, but the governor hasn't been around as long as the congressman. Also, every time he describes himself as a pragmatic libertarian a few red flags go up in my mind. Does that mean Johnson would put expediency over principle? I don't really think so, but I dislike the label. In any case, if Paul isn't on the ballot, Johnson gets my vote. And that's the way things seem to be going.
For a comparison between Paul and Johnson from a Johnson supporter, see here.
I like Johnson. Between he and Ron Paul I'd still go with Ron Paul, but Johnson has a lot of potential to do a great deal of good for the libertarian cause. His positions on issues are close to Paul's in a number of areas, although they diverge in some pretty significant matters, such as abortion and taxes. Incidentally, in those two areas I am more in agreement with Johnson's positions than with Paul's, although I respect Paul's reasons for his stances. And even in the case of abortion, I think Paul's political approach is reasonable: It's a states rights issue, and let the states decide. Even though I believe a pregnant woman's right to exert control over her own body trumps the rights of the unborn child in her womb -- and I don't state this lightly -- I am skeptical that the federal government has the power to regulate abortions one way or another.
The reason I would still prefer Paul over Johnson is that I (and everyone else and their dogs) know where the good doctor stands on most issues. Paul has been honest and upfront about his principles, and has not strayed away from what he professes to believe. The same may indeed be the case with Mr. Johnson, but the governor hasn't been around as long as the congressman. Also, every time he describes himself as a pragmatic libertarian a few red flags go up in my mind. Does that mean Johnson would put expediency over principle? I don't really think so, but I dislike the label. In any case, if Paul isn't on the ballot, Johnson gets my vote. And that's the way things seem to be going.
For a comparison between Paul and Johnson from a Johnson supporter, see here.
No comments:
Post a Comment