To the Editor: Recently I heard people speak of three candidates for president: Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. I'm thinking, instead, of Hillary and Donald vs. Gary Johnson. …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
To the Editor:
Recently I heard people speak of three candidates for president: Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump.
I'm thinking, instead, of Hillary and Donald vs. Gary Johnson. He's the former governor of New Mexico. He was re-elected as a Republican in a Democratic state. Unlike Clinton and Trump, he has executive experience.
The advantage of having three candidates on the ballot in all 50 states is that there is no longer an incentive to do negative campaigning. If Clinton and Trump go at each other, Johnson can just sit back with his hands folded and agree with both of them that they're both not good candidates. All they'll be doing is helping Johnson, so no incentive to do that.
Why would he come out of retirement (during which has climbed Everest and the other 6 summits in every continent)? Because the major parties have presented us with such low quality candidates that this year, a Libertarian like Gary Johnson can win. Plus, he has William Weld as his vice president, another two-term governor, Republican in a Democratic state.
How can you help? If you're presented with a poll that doesn't include Gary Johnson, ask why, and suggest that he should be included. Even if you don't plan to vote for him, aren't more choices better? And if his presence can keep the other two from using negative campaigning, that's a good thing.
Russell Nelson
Potsdam