Our friends over at Reason Magazine have a great post about the CNN’s debate debacle and it’s plans to exlude Gary Johnson from Monday night’s event in New Hampshire. (Note: PJTV will be broadcasting LIVE before, during, and after the debate from New Hampshire on PJTV.com and on our Facebook page.)
Nick Gillespie includes a compelling video in his post about the former governor of New Mexico that, “makes a decent case that the two-term GOP governor (in a Democratic-heavy state!) meets CNN’s own criteria for deciding who gets in and who doesn’t.”
Gillespie also embeds this video from the Johnson campaign that shows a number of our recent presidents and nominees (Clinton, Carter, Dukakis) and their very early single-digit place in the polls.
The campaign video concludes by saying that we shouldn’t let media elites determine who is qualified to be in the debate and provides the CNN corporate phone number.
So, if you want more voices in the debate – like a reasonable libertarian alternative to Ron Paul – call CNN to let them know you’d like to see Gary Johnson in New Hampshire on Monday night: 404-827-1500.
And, if you want to learn more about Johnson, click here to watch PJTV’s interviews with him.
Maybe if Nick and his buddy Matt Welch just swear & curse at CNN and their readers a bit more than usual they can get the Good Guv included. I’m sure that’ll convince everyone that they’re really sincere and serious about his inclusion. Am I the only one who’s sick of these two’s schtik over at Reason?
CNN doesn’t want to advertise this guy because he can beat Obama. He’d steal votes from open-minded businessmen and pot-smoking pragmatists everywhere.
If Gov. Johnson was there then not only one person (Ron Paul) would be on point about real changes in our government.
No need to legitimise Ron Pauls or Garys message, just try to keep them locked out and looking like radicals.
The message is a winning one, if allowed to be communicated.
Chipper: yes, you’re the only one.
As for the debate, I think they’re intentionally excluding Johnson to marginalize both Johnson and Paul. That last debate was scary for the establishment, what with two out of five candidates speaking so reasonably on the subjects of government vs liberty. With it down to just one of seven this time, it’ll be easier to start making fun of Paul for being an “extremist”. It’s bad for Paul, Johnson, and the American people.
I don’t think either Johnson or Paul need the media’s help for them to be marginalized. They do that to themselves well enough.
Ron’s son might actually be able to get over 2% of the GOP primary vote though. A “moderate” Paul is far more dangerous to the establishment than Ron is, considering that Rand might actually have a chance to win in 2016/20.
There isn’t enough room for one libertarian let alone two. Besides, “legalize it, dude” isn’t really a compelling campaign theme. Though Johnson might just win California; problem is his voting base would be to high to actually be able to check his name on the ballot, and even that’s assuming they have enough of their normal cognitive functions to even make it out of their house or park, or where ever it is they like to smoke their bongs.
Ah, pot heads candidates are funny; and I thought alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods and television are damaging enough to society; apparently we need something else for Americans to become unhealthily addicted too.
Pimping or the drug wars, are you!
What does it exactly say about the other candidates when you look at this “pothead’s” record and see that he has (arguably) more experience and a better record than the other candidates?
For the record he currently does not smoke or drink. Also, why give a voice to someone advocating personal liberties? I mean why are those more dangerous things you mentioned even Legal? You shouldn’t have a right to harm your body with fast food or alcohol. You should also only watch pre-approved government television because no one would want you thinking for yourself. That’s dangerous and you need to be protected from that.(sarcasm)
PJTV should have Gary on their panel covering the debate. That could be fun.
Gary is a very good human being and was a very good governor for NM. However, the divided GOP hierarchy of the moment and beltway pundits would eat him up for a snack….not because he lacks viable strategies but rather, becuase he’s not an insider politician. Personanlity wise he’s more akin to GW Bush under polished high-roller type pressure. In the right objective environment, he’s one hellva great organized orator.
I wish there was genuine hope for him but, I’m afraid there isn’t, in terms of reality.
Oh, no. I will definitely not be urging Gary Johnson’s inclusion in any presidential debates.
I’m not saying he’s an evil villain or anything like that. I’m just saying he’s not a serious presidential candidate, whatever he thinks of himself.
Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul shouldn’t be included either. I’m really doubtful about Jon Huntsman.
He is a serious candidate to me because he has the best track record. Whether you consider him to be serious is irrelevant, his track record as Governor should be reason enough to have his ideas heard. That should be especially true during a time of record defecit/debt. Not listening to “the most fiscally conservative republican”, who has a successful track record, would be very unwise and foolish at best. Also the fact that he ACTUALLY QUALIFIED FOR THE DEBATE is a good reason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuukQq8_9gc
Wrong link, sorry. The real one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UgP47a6994
I guess you’re one of those new-age GOP/Tea Party constitutional folks.
See if you can show me anywhere that cites a candidate for president must pass some arbitrary ‘serious presidential candidate” criteria. Last I checked, the constitution says no such thing and prevailing law follows the constitution as the criteria to file as a presidential candidate.
Seems you’re endorsing more of the same…political corruption and only money talks, perpetuated on both sides, eh? Maybe you can elaborate on what precisely about Mr. Johsons education, career, and two term successful governship makes him a non serious candidate for president.
Remember how the establishment selected McCain for you?
Remember how the controlled media selected McCain for you?
Johnson has the resume, but the GOP base won’t pull for him. Beyond that, he’s not great at public speaking. He shrinks from questions, mitigates with “I believe” instead of asserting, reiterates talking points to a t, and allows media commentators to make him a joke (i.e. 1st debate where Chris Wallace asked him what reality TV show he would do or recently when John Stossel had him debate an Obama impersonator). He needs to improvise and not take shit (i.e. politely throw the question back in Wallace’s face and refuse Stossel appearance or walk out when the Obama impersonator shows up to the step)
This is from somebody who likes and could vote for him. How somebody from his campaign hasn’t reworked his communication skills is beyond me. His down to earth, this is just my opinion style works in certain settings, but can’t play consistently on the national level.
Still, Herman Cain gets an invite?
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2011/06/10/jon-stewarts-makes-racially-charged-joke-herman-cains-expense-he-d
Maybe not getting to represent the GOP is a blessing in disguise.