“The fact is, I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor.”

Thursday, June 23rd, 2011

Dammit, Gary Johnson is coming dangerously close to making me admit that I actually like a politician—as opposed to the usual default position of merely not loathing one as much as the others.

The quote reminds me of Sen. Arnold Vinick, the best candidate the GOP ever nominated for president . . . and who, unfortunately, was entirely fictional.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

31 Responses to ““The fact is, I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor.””

  1. #1 |  Aresen | 

    It is important to note that by not “creating” any jobs, he did not destroy jobs by massive taxes to “create” jobs.

  2. #2 |  Matt | 

    OFF TOPIC (WHITEY BULGER): “Agents on Wednesday morning began surveilling the couple’s apartment. Shortly before 6 p.m. Wednesday local time, the agents lured Bulger out of the apartment. They determined that he was, in fact, the man they were seeking and arrested him without incident, DesLauriers said.”


    They lured him out of his apartment. No forced entry SWAT raid.

  3. #3 |  Reggie Hubbard | 

    That he was left out of the last debate is a giant shame. I don’t think he has the media presence to elevate himself to legitimate contender status but his voice being left out angered me to no end. I’ve long given up on CNN but that was just another instance of me feeling validated by not watching them anymore.

  4. #4 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    I was waiting for the issue of a SWAT-less Whitey arrest to be brought up. If SWAT isn’t used for Whitey, it should never be used. Period.

    Now you might say that Whitey was given some professional courtesy by the feds and local cops. Murderers and mob bosses stick together, eh?

    Regardless, when the FBI gets the former #1 Most Wanted by handing it off via a phone call to local cops you have about as much proof as needed that SWAT raids are about circle-jerking testosterone junkies raging against the peasants and hoping to get a few thrill kill notches on their badges.

  5. #5 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    I’ve long given up on CNN

    How will you keep up with what’s hot on Twitter?

    Stolen from reddit.

  6. #6 |  divadab | 

    @Boyd – good point! It’s not a solution to the oppression of the black man to extend that oppression equitably to the white man also. But it’s about all our first black president seems capable of.

    And CNN? Gutless propagandists for the corporatist state. Why do you even watch? Nothing of much use is ever on teevee – it’s specifically run to confuse and distract.

    Ron Paul and Gary Johnson would make a great Independent presidential team, don’t you think?

  7. #7 |  Reggie Hubbard | 

    I don’t think Ron Paul would make a good President is my problem. I’ve never thought Ron Paul would be good in the executive office but I supported him last time around because his message was important.

    Johnson can be President. I think he’s the only one in this field who would make a better President than Obama except for maybe Huntsman (who I haven’t seen much of but I’ve been impressed with) and very tiny maybe on Romney.

  8. #8 |  paranoiastrksdp | 

    Unrelated but I hope you tatortots won’t mind:

    Mario Masic has a website:

  9. #9 |  Ron | 

    Since Gary Johnson doesn’t want to make abortion illegal in this country, he doesn’t stand a chance for the nomination.

    Which is incredibly sad, especially considering abortion will never illegal in this country anyway … Also considering the fact that the last pro-life republican didn’t do anything about abortion when he had both houses of Congress and a majority on the Supreme Court. According to the GOP faithful, you have to be pro-life for the sake of it.

  10. #10 |  James | 



  11. #11 |  Brandon | 

    #2, they couldn’t use a SWAT team! A police officer might’ve gotten hurt!

  12. #12 |  Cornellian | 

    I’m an Arnie Vinick from way back.

  13. #13 |  Cornellian | 

    Whoops I meant I’m a fan from way back.

  14. #14 |  Ya Know . . . | Oh, My! | 

    […] Ron Paul has been saying this for decades. […]

  15. #15 |  J.S. | 

    I couldn’t take the Vinick character seriously given it was Alda playing him.

  16. #16 |  HV | 

    Unless I’m missing something, Johnson may want to take a look at his website which states that he “Created more than 20,000 new jobs” http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/record

  17. #17 |  CyniCAl | 

    Bulworth is the greatest fictional politican ever.

  18. #18 |  Jeff | 

    The only thing I’ve heard from Johnson that I didn’t like was that he wouldn’t be willing to sign any bill longer than three pages. While I appreciate the sentiment, throwing down an arbitrary number sounds like sound-bite manufacturing, not serious policy discussion.

  19. #19 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    Jeff – Yes, true. Now, if he’d said he wasn’t willing, to…say, sign any bill which didn’t stick to the issues in it’s title… (Many countries actually don’t /allow/ unconnected issues to be pushed into bills)

  20. #20 |  albatross | 

    Ron #9:

    For abortion to stop being a political issue would be a genuine disaster for the GOP. I think it is very unlikely they will ever make a serious effort to get rid of it–outrage about abortion provides a vast army of willing volunteers, donations, and endorsements from priests and ministers across the country.

  21. #21 |  Whim | 

    Somehow this became a Whitey Bulger thread. Okay, I’ll bite.

    Why wasn’t a SWAT team used?

    Bulger was armed, and having been accused of ruthlessly killing 19 people, he just might have a tendency to want an even 20 before he leaves this earth.

    And, the FBI probably wants to question him about whether other Boston FBI agents were involved as associates in his Winter Hill Mob.

  22. #22 |  EH | 

    The only thing I’ve heard from Johnson that I didn’t like was that he wouldn’t be willing to sign any bill longer than three pages.

    Well, he’d just drop that idea as soon as elected, so you might as well just focus on the planks you have the energy to hold him to. Same as it ever was.

  23. #23 |  Jesse | 

    #9 Ron:

    I think Ron Paul would make a fine president. That said, it’s because the qualifications I appreciate in a President are far different than what the mainstream considers “electable”. I don’t care if he’s dashingly handsome, can pander to the electorate, is a great speaker, or can come off as having gravitas or an authoritative prescence.

    I care about principles. But I’m in the extreme minority, and “electability”, while distictly different from principles, is what most of the electorate cares about.

  24. #24 |  Sukoi | 

    Jeff #18

    Wasn’t it Herman Cain that made that pledge:


  25. #25 |  Marty | 

    Gary Johnson rocks- but I wish he’d join Toastmasters… his message is far more dynamic than he projects.

  26. #26 |  Mario | 

    I read the Wikipedia page on Gary Johnson, and but for one point I like everything I now know about the guy. The one point is that he’s in favor of some kind of state bankruptcy law (though he’s against state bailouts). I’m against both.

  27. #27 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Why, Mario?

  28. #28 |  Matt | 

    @21 I find your comment a little puzzling: you seem to be suggesting, sensibly, that a SWAT raid could be dangerous both to the officers and to the suspect. But is you conclusion that the SWAT teams should be reserved for non-violent suspects, or that they should not be used at all (or used only in very rare situations)? Also see Radley’s recent post titled Officer Safety.

  29. #29 |  Matt | 

    “I think Ron Paul would make a fine president.”

    He would make a _better_ president, but power still corrupts. It would corrupt any of us. The more power, the more corrupt.

    I’d love to see a libertarian have some big electoral success for a change, but it pains me to think of the disappointment we’d feel when the job takes its toll on him.

  30. #30 |  Jeff | 

    #24, I sit corrected.

  31. #31 |  Mario | 

    Boyd Durkin @ #27

    Perhaps I don’t understand the issue of state bankruptcy. So, let me explain my understanding of it. Please, bear with me.

    You and I can’t just choose to not pay our debts and get away with it. Our creditors have every right to continue pursuing us, and can even bring us to court to force us to pay. We’ve contracted that debt, and the government will support our creditors in getting us to uphold our end of the contract. The one thing we can do, however, is petition the government to be discharged of our obligation via bankruptcy. If we’re given a discharge, we are both legally free of the obligation to pay, and our creditors are now forbidden to try to collect.

    States, however, are sovereign entities. They can at any time choose to not pay any of their debts, with a special exception, which I will be discussing, and no one will make them. Regarding most of their debts, states are simply free to walk away. Of course, there will be consequences that will affect their ability to borrow in the future, but that can happen to anyone.

    Now, the one exception, by my understanding, are debts which represent obligations incurred by the state for which they are mandated by their constitutions to pay. These they can’t just walk away from, not without an amendment to their state’s constitution. I believe that the states currently “exploring” the option of bankruptcy have state pension funds as one of these constitutionally mandated obligations, and that these funds represent large obligations.

    So, why try to finagle some kind of “bankruptcy,” which is unprecedented and for which there is no existing legal framework, instead of using the framework which does exist: namely, amending their constitutions? I think the answer is pretty obvious. No politician in his or her right mind wants to spearhead and advocate for such an amendment, an amendment to welch on the obligation to retirees. Generally, an amendment is far more difficult to enact than a mere law and requires significant public support. I doubt this support exists in any of these states.

    Moreover, I’m suspicious as to the motives. My guess is that states would like to continue borrowing money, which they will find difficult if they stiff the bankers. If they were legally able to, I’m guessing that states would rather renege on obligations with people who are less likely to be able to retaliate. In this case, pay the bankers, stiff the pensioners and public workers.

    If the states can get the support of the federal government to do this, which is really what their “bankruptcy” is all about, then the individual politicians can shield themselves from the backlash; at least, that’s what I imagine the idea behind all of this is. That’s undemocratic, in a big way. Furthermore, I believe it’s unconstitutional — and I’m talking about the federal government here. I don’t see where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to allow the states to circumvent their own constitutions.

    The issue of defined benefit public pensions is a separate issue. Incidentally, I think they should be ended across the board, and public workers ought to have retirement accounts like the rest of us. Nevertheless, all that aside, I can’t see state bankruptcy as anything but a politician’s dirty trick and a sneaky way to circumvent law in order to stiff the rest of us while continuing their profligate ways with the banks.

    If my understanding of the situation is in any way in error, I welcome correction.