Why Sanford might be a better choice than Johnson

[christagious]

I think we may need to compromise for 2012 because we're not gonna get a "more perfecter" candidate than Ron Paul. We may have to do what conservatives a long time ago did; they couldn't get Goldwater so years later they settled for Reagan (who wasn't exactly the most conservative, constitutional candidate around).
Now back to the present, we couldn't have Ron Paul this year, so now we're arguing between Johnson and Sanford. While I would probably rather have Johnson as president, I don't think he's as viable as Sanford. Sanford is all over the place, on the news quite a bit and is still in the political spotlight; Johnson is out running triathlons, he's pretty much retired from politics. We may need to settle for Sanford. Any thoughts?

[SnappleLlama]

Why are we supporting either of them? Aren't there any better candidates?

[Tenbatsu]

We cannot compromise with the candidate we back. Reagan still perpetuated the global agenda, the war on drugs, and the banking system. Compromise is not an option. If we are to ever change the system we will need someone equal to Ron Paul or better.

Personally I do not trust Mark Sanford after his attendance of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting. Unless he comes out and discloses exactly what occurred during that meeting I will be unable to support him in any upcoming election.

[ArrestPoliticians]

I think we may need to compromise for 2012 because we're not gonna get a "more perfecter" candidate than Ron Paul. We may have to do what conservatives a long time ago did; they couldn't get Goldwater so years later they settled for Reagan (who wasn't exactly the most conservative, constitutional candidate around).

This isn't evidence for anything except sitting 2012 out. Reagan was worse than Carter. The fact that Conservatives were duped into supporting Reagan should if anything point us to why we better not sell out for some phony victory.

[christagious]

I guess you guys are right. I forgot about Bilderberg too, that's a dealbreaker. I have a bad feeling about 2012, we're already having Palin and Jindal and Romney shoved down our throats by the MSM. I just hope that whoever we choose is viable, I'm thinking our only hope is Ron Paul again. I don't see Johnson as being the most winnable candidate, Ventura messed up by coming out of the 9/11 closet, who else is there?

[Kotin]

why do we keep talking about an election that wont be for another 4 years?


FOCUS ON 2010 Congressional races.. sheesh were starting to sound a little too much like the LP

[Elwar]

in the defense of liberty is a vice

[AbolishTheGovt]

Why Sanford might NOT be a better choice than Johnson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4qtgTAg_7o

McCain hack.

[dannno]

I think we may need to compromise for 2012 because we're not gonna get a "more perfecter" candidate than Ron Paul. We may have to do what conservatives a long time ago did; they couldn't get Goldwater so years later they settled for Reagan (who wasn't exactly the most conservative, constitutional candidate around).
Now back to the present, we couldn't have Ron Paul this year, so now we're arguing between Johnson and Sanford. While I would probably rather have Johnson as president, I don't think he's as viable as Sanford. Sanford is all over the place, on the news quite a bit and is still in the political spotlight; Johnson is out running triathlons, he's pretty much retired from politics. We may need to settle for Sanford. Any thoughts?

That was precisely the problem with the conservative movement. They compromised away their most cherished beliefs to the elite.

[kombayn]

I want to see Mark Sanford and Gary Johnson both run. They need as many candidates out there as possible. I'm already hearing rumors that Virgil Goode is going to run for the Constiution Party nomination. Jesse Ventura will take over Nader's spot as an Independent, I think the Green Party wil die or nominate their darling, Cindy Sheenan or Matt Gonzalez.

[RSLudlum]

I say push both (johnson and sanford) to run, and maybe on the same ticket if either gets the nomination. I believe both are far better than the current names (Jindal, Palin, etc) being thrown around by the GOP.

[pastortony]

We cannot compromise with the candidate we back. Reagan still perpetuated the global agenda, the war on drugs, and the banking system. Compromise is not an option. .

If you don't compromise you will never win or even come close. Just look at the LP and CP for your evidence. A "perfect" candidate won't win nationally. Instead we need to find a candidate that is sympathetic to our views and holds to the same general principles. The key is then once we regain power, that we don't give it away as we have done in the past.



If we are to ever change the system we will need someone equal to Ron Paul or better.

We need someone much better than Ron Paul. Paul did not win. While his principles were spot on, his ability to communicate those principles to the majority fell way short.