Above link is to a 2010 interview with Governor Johnson I did for the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has strong small government credentials;
he vetoed more bills than all other governors combined; he got good ratings
from CATO despite having to negotiate a Democratic-dominated state; he has more
executive experience than Obama or McCain had when they were nominated and as
much as Romney; also, his executive experience evidences a strong commitment to
putting the principles of reduced government and freedom ahead of
politics. In contrast, Romney introduced
the same kind of health care plan that Obama introduced; Romney has never been
consistent in any of his principles; Romney has been a major beneficiary of the
Fed-funded financial industry that is the underlying force behind big government
(of which the bailout is the most visible but not the only symptom). There is a comparison between Romney and
Johnson: Romney has spent his life benefiting from and implementing big
government; Johnson started a real business from scratch and has fought big
government.
Mr. Johnson is more honest, as capable, as
moderate, and more committed philosophically to the ideas of freedom than any
candidate other than Ron Paul. He
succeeded at a real business, unlike Romney’s; Romney succeeded at a
crony-capitalist one funded with and dependent on printed government money. Johnson is a real businessman. Romney is a
crony capitalist.
2 comments:
No question that on domestic spending and on principles which better mirror Hayek and Milton Freedman, Johnson woulda, coulda been a better choice than Mitt.
Where we are now is in a two person race where Mitt is hands and shoulders better than Barack.
Barry, I've concluded that voting for the two party system is a waste of a vote. Continuing to vote for it continues to prop it up. The more voters turn away from the two party system, the more likely change becomes.
Post a Comment