The website of presidential candidate Gov Gary Johnson, his supporters (which includes myself), and the back pages of many news sources, are up in a flutter over Johnson’s exclusion in the upcoming debate hosted by CNN (along with the New Hampshire Union Leader and WMUR-TV). As you might have guessed, the utterance “mother fuckers” (two words because that adds even more punctuation) came unbidden to my lips when I first saw it hit Twitter (via Gary Johnson and no one else). It sucks, but it’s done.
For a good article on this, the Atlantic got it right.
This reminds me of some of my more vehement comments over on Mike’s America, where the highlighted candidates were mainly establishment types, personified most futilely by the manufactured RINO, Mitt “the clit” “the piece of shit” “the pierced monkey tit” Romney. The argument was between candidates that represented clear conservative values versus the one most likely to win. I don’t think I really need to get into which side I’m on in this one, considering my top 3 candidates are Gary Johnson (least likely to win), Ron Paul (popular, but despised by the establishment), and Herman Cain (most likely but still second tier).
Speaking of the establishment, THIS is the real problem with the GOP. Now I expect some inbreeding, pushing candidates that the party has molded for decades, and picking “safe” candidates that don’t show a tendency to shun the party orthodoxy and stir some shit. But this isn’t some race for a safe GOP congressional district where a safe candidate can be expected to play along and vote the party line and occasionally show a hint of independence in exchange for a favor. This is for the effective leader of the party, someone who has to embody the direction the party needs to go. It also needs a leader, not a default. That’s how we got utterly fucked with the McCain nightmare.
While there may be candidates that may appear to be wastes of time in debates because “they have no chance,” the secondary purpose of these candidates is to give the party clear choices, not just a “next Reagan” beauty contest. And that means having candidates who will challenge the orthodoxy of perpetual war and deployment, question the sanity of the failed war on drugs, examine how much freedom we’ve given up for the “security” of TSA screenings and the Patriot Act, challenge the mistakes made by the party in the past (especially the spending orgy of the Bush/Obama years), and make actual bold steps (rather than whiny resolutions) to force action in an undeclared and unapproved war (Libya).
This means letting in fringe candidates who will probably not win, and championing causes that may be lost. For if we wait until this time next year to question and challenge the establishment candidates, all we’ll end up with is the same shit we had last time. Four years of Che Obama.