Quote:I don't wed myself to a political philosophy and try to fit everything into that philosophy.   I try to take each issue individually, try to figure out what works, what doesn't work, what the unintended consequences are, etc.  But when I do try to generalize about myself, I see myself falling into a social liberal / fiscal conservative type of box.  

 

Gary Johnson says he is a social liberal and fiscal conservative.   I also believe he's not a nut nor is he a crook.   That's why I'm interested.  

 

Even if he loses, he can get enough votes to show the way for a viable third party, which is something we really need right now.   Leave the socialists in the Democratic party and leave the social conservatives in the Republican party.   Take everyone else and offer them a viable alternative. 

 

This is precisely how I feel in a nutshell and why Johnson has my vote...again. Not being a nut, crook nor seemingly a zealot are all VERY appealing attributes.

 

Quote:Perot failed Nader failed and he's going up against the great political movement of our time... Good luck with that

 

Ross Perot ran as an Independent in 92, not a Libertarian. In 96, he ran as a Reform Party candidate (I had to look that one up, as I didn't remember). Nader was primarily a Green Party candidate as I recall...also not a Libertarian. I get your overall premise, but it's not exactly the same. Presenting reasonable, electable candidates who aren't crooks nor zealots is starting to draw more and more attention to the party...which can only be a good thing moving forward regardless of the outcome of this election.

 

It hopefully shows the American public that there are other, viable options...that there is a place for voters like TRM and myself are socially liberal yet fiscally conservative. I was a Democrat by default for over a decade until I found the Libertarian party because I didn't know any better.

---