PDA

View Full Version : 2012: Johnson or Paul, who do you prefer more?




christagious
10-28-2009, 09:39 PM
After reading all of the 2012 Ron Paul stuff coming out lately, it got me thinking and wondering a little bit. If it had to be one or the other that ran would you prefer Ron Paul or Gary Johnson? I'm expecting most of you to say RP because we are, of course, on Ron Paul Forums. But I think from an "in it to win" standpoint, Johnson might the the route to go? Many people view the GOP as the party of "old, white rich guys". Johnson is young, very fit (triathlete), and probably more "hip" to things. He could probably do a pretty good job of speaking to the younger generations, kind of like Obama. You could say that he has the appeal of Obama and Romney with the Ron Paul ideology.
At the same time, though, Ron Paul is starting to get more media attention and people are finally seeing that he was right all along. And he is the reason why we are all here, so we would all love to see him as President and kick Obama's ass in debates.

I'm on the fence, I'm not sure who I would prefer to see run. Of course either/or is fine and both would be good too, but I'm afraid of getting too many of our guys in the 2012 GOP primaries simply because it could divide our vote and then Newt/Mitt/or Sarah would get the nomination. Unless we saturate the primaries with OUR candidates, but I don't think there's enough of those to choose from to get in there.

What are your thought?

Austin
10-28-2009, 09:47 PM
I don't think there are very many scenarios in which we will actually get a liberty candidate elected in 2012. Consequently, I think our efforts in 2012 will once again be educational, and Ron is the best person for that message.

brandon
10-28-2009, 09:50 PM
//

Arklatex
10-28-2009, 09:50 PM
Ron Paul is President in 2012

Dieseler
10-28-2009, 09:52 PM
I'll support Dr. Paul but I want him to declare yesterday not a year from now.
Lets get on with whatever is legal as far as campaigning goes immediately so we can get a jump.
The iron is as hot as it is going to get and still produce something worth keeping.

krazy kaju
10-28-2009, 10:02 PM
I want both to run. Of course they would split up votes that would otherwise all go towards one, but if they both run, the liberty movement will get more media coverage overall. That said, I would obviously prefer RP win, but I think Johnson has a better shot.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-28-2009, 10:08 PM
Ron Paul. As far as I am aware Gary Johnson is not an Austrian, however, he would be my second choice for the GOP nomination. If I would have my ultimate preference at this time.....it would be between these four:

Ron Paul
Mary Ruwart
Andrew Napalitano
Myself (Jokingly of course)

Austin
10-28-2009, 10:14 PM
I'll support Dr. Paul but I want him to declare yesterday not a year from now.
Lets get on with whatever is legal as far as campaigning goes immediately so we can get a jump.
The iron is as hot as it is going to get and still produce something worth keeping.

Announcing 3 years before the election?

Ron Paul shouldn't announce until late 2010 or early 2011.

dr. hfn
10-28-2009, 10:16 PM
I know one thing, we must not split the Liberty vote/movement with multiple candidates...I think...maybe I'm wrong...

Dieseler
10-28-2009, 10:18 PM
Announcing 3 years before the election?

Ron Paul shouldn't announce until late 2010 or early 2011.


The people need to know now that he intends to run.
I meet a lot of people who NOW KNOW who he is and wish they had supported him in the primaries.
Give hope now.
Give me a good reason to wait and I'll consider your view.
I want to know now.

Epic
10-28-2009, 10:23 PM
RP - he's got the built in base and GJ can't really resurrect the Paul coalition.

klamath
10-28-2009, 10:33 PM
In the end I don't thing OBama can be unseated in '12. There is no way Gary johnson can hold the coalition that RP built together. I for one would bolt. I don't trust GJ to hold his word. I see GJ as being more about GJ.
I would be off trying to get Jeff Flake to run if RP didn't.

dr. hfn
10-28-2009, 10:43 PM
we need a united front...bring in the 9/12 and Tea Party groups...

Dreamofunity
10-28-2009, 11:06 PM
If it's an attempt at education, Paul all the way. If it's an attempt to win, I'd have to go with Johnson. As much as I love the man, I don't think the general populace would elect a 77 year old man regardless of his good health and sound ideas.

Arklatex
10-28-2009, 11:20 PM
I know a lot of people who wished they knew about Ron Paul, what if we were ahead of the curve and we did our job getting him out to the masses.

What if the effect were x3, so in Iowa what if we got 30%? I think that is very realistic. Is that enough to win it?

dr. hfn
10-28-2009, 11:21 PM
I think his age might kill us. What if his age was the only reason we lost? We would never hear the end of complaints about his age...we might be mocked and laughed at for running such an old person...

Baptist
10-28-2009, 11:35 PM
Paul.

And this time I say we focus most of the energy in Iowa instead of New Hampshire. Clearly the caucus states were our strength. Plus, it's harder to manipulate a caucus than electronic-voting primaries. So I say we descend on Iowa like flies on poo.

ClayTrainor
10-28-2009, 11:36 PM
I just want to see Ron Paul in the debates... that's all i really want.

He has the potential to wake up droves at those things...

Flash
10-29-2009, 01:47 PM
I don't think there are very many scenarios in which we will actually get a liberty candidate elected in 2012. Consequently, I think our efforts in 2012 will once again be educational, and Ron is the best person for that message.

I agree. I seriously doubt Gary Johnson or Ron Paul will win. Most likely it'll be between Romney & Newt Gingrich. But imagine how many more Libertarians could be created from a Ron Paul and Gary Johnson campaign.

Todd
10-29-2009, 01:48 PM
I don't think there are very many scenarios in which we will actually get a liberty candidate elected in 2012. Consequently, I think our efforts in 2012 will once again be educational, and Ron is the best person for that message.

This^

It's a No Brainer if Paul runs.

TonySutton
10-29-2009, 01:59 PM
I believe it is a good thing to have 2, 3 or even more candidates speaking truthfully about the Constitution, down-sizing the federal government and sound economic policy. It means more people will hear the message. As always some candidates will fizzle but their followers should unite behind who ever is left talking about these same things.

It will also make it harder for the MSM to censor our message.

paulitics
10-29-2009, 02:07 PM
Both, but Ron Paul is a proven winner of changing the hearts and minds of people.

I know he gets alot of flack for not having alot of charisma, or not looking or sounding a certain way. In actuality, for someone who is not coached by a staff of a hundred people, and servants to pick out his suit, and polish his shoes - for someone without a teleprompter, he's pretty damn effective at changing hearts and minds, which proves a natural charisma. I think it is his honesty and pure passion for what he believes in that is refreshing, and unlike anyone else in politics these days.

But will we, as a movement get behind Paul, or will there be some hesitation? Will we still have the same energy and spirit to raise millions, or have we already become too jaded ? I guess I am more concerned about our energy, than Ron Paul's.

jmdrake
10-29-2009, 02:12 PM
Ron Paul at least has some name recognition. I frankly had never heard of Gary Johnson before yesterday. There is some baggage that a fresh candidate wouldn't have. Someone mentioned age. I'll leave it to the reader to guess the rest. But it means starting from scratch. Also as someone else said Ron can hold this particular coalition together. We saw how contentious that was last year once Ron pulled out. Some saw Bob Barr as the only "liberty" candidate and were turned off by some of Baldwins so called "theocratic" views. Never mind that much of what some libertarians objected to about Baldwin had been said by Paul. Anti abortion. States should retain right to refuse gay marriage. Constitution replete with references to God etc. (actually Paul went further than Baldwin on that last point). But libertarians tuned out the parts of Paul's message that they didn't like. I'm not sure they'd do that for any other candidate. I'm certain social conservatives wouldn't tune opposite holdings on such issues.

surf
10-29-2009, 02:20 PM
i think Johnson could be a very credible candidate. he is much more in tune with libertarian ideals than i think most give him credit for. and it's not just ending the drug war.

remember he spoke at the conference in Minneapolis, and i'm fairly certain he stands with RP on foreign policy and i'm not so certain that he doesn't entertain Austrian beliefs. he's a man of integrity as far as i can tell - and obviously an upgrade over any "viable" candidate the Rs would throw out there. i would love to see a Johnson/Paul ticket announced early in the primary season.

my .02

klamath
10-29-2009, 02:39 PM
i think Johnson could be a very credible candidate. he is much more in tune with libertarian ideals than i think most give him credit for. and it's not just ending the drug war.

remember he spoke at the conference in Minneapolis, and i'm fairly certain he stands with RP on foreign policy and i'm not so certain that he doesn't entertain Austrian beliefs. he's a man of integrity as far as i can tell - and obviously an upgrade over any "viable" candidate the Rs would throw out there. i would love to see a Johnson/Paul ticket announced early in the primary season.

my .02

Men of integrity don't cheat on their wives.

Andrew Ryan
10-29-2009, 02:45 PM
Both.

RonPaulFanInGA
10-29-2009, 02:57 PM
I sure hope they both don't run. We need to be united. Not more multi-candidate money bombs. ;)

Johnson is going to get scorn from the Christian right for being pro-abortion. Paul will have those stale old newsletters pop up again. Pick the poison there.

hueylong
10-29-2009, 03:04 PM
We need to be thinking in terms of recruiting LOTS of new candidates. For President, and everything else.

And yes -- Dr. Paul, at 77 would be a tough sell to anyone outside the 'coalition'.

There will be lots of growing pains as the core ideas of Dr. Paul enter the political mainstream. Lots of us will be unhappy with the various twists and turns.

The important thing, is breaking the lockstep of both parties toward an ever larger and more expensive Federal Government. We need Dr. Paul's ideas to take root and start impacting Congressional elections across the country. It'll be hard to find candidates that meet all of our criteria for ideological purity. But if people start unelecting congressmen who vote for more spending and bigger government more often -- we can get where we need to go.

We need to win at least 1 major race in 2010 (likely, Rand) -- and have at least a dozen credible candidates for Congress in 2012. Right now, our bench is just too thin.

Promontorium
10-29-2009, 03:20 PM
I belived Ron Paul could win. I was all in on that. I even voted for him in the general election, because above all else, that was my choice all along.

But I've learned what's real here.

in 2012, the Republicans will put up some loser pos who has never stood out as a candidate. He will be right down the party line. He will lose.

The Democratics will have the entire media behind them from day -500 and they will unleash more money and more ACORN than this Earth thought possible.

They will lose nothing with alt candidates. They will lose nothing with in-party bickering. Instead of Clintons vs. Obama, black leaders vs. Obama, moderate Democrats and women vs. Obama. It will be Obama. There are more of them than anyone else.

You could run Jesus against Obama, and Obama would win.

The only person that can beat Obama is Obama. And he is really careful.

I'm thinking:
Obama 2012
Neocon 2016

I'll continue to support other candidates for other positions, but until America is no longer what it is, there isn't a hope for a president who follows the rule of law.

ctiger2
10-29-2009, 03:43 PM
If Ron does decide to run, I'd think he should wait until after the 2010 elections for sure to see how those play out. If the USD collapses in the mean time, that will help wake A LOT more people up. I'd think an early 2011 announcement would be golden.

Live_Free_Or_Die
10-29-2009, 04:04 PM
nt

Ricky201
10-29-2009, 04:22 PM
I could careless of Johnson runs, but I will back him. Paul is the one to deliver the message of liberty. Paul woke me up during the debates, and I'm sure there are millions more that need a cure for apathy.

Besides, shaking the foundation that the Establishment stands on always leads to a good time!

johnrocks
10-29-2009, 04:29 PM
I could not vote for anyone else as long as Dr. Paul is on the ballot, perhaps a Paul/Johnson ticket,lol.

johnrocks
10-29-2009, 04:32 PM
Maybe someone could do a parody using I'm Proud to be an American by Lee Greenwood as the base.

I'm proud to be a "Paulbot"
Where at least I know I'm free
And I'll gladly stand up
and fight cause
he does for you and me!

Something along those lines,lol.

AbolishTheGovt
10-29-2009, 09:30 PM
Ron Paul. As far as I am aware Gary Johnson is not an Austrian, however, he would be my second choice for the GOP nomination. If I would have my ultimate preference at this time.....it would be between these four:

Ron Paul
Mary Ruwart
Andrew Napalitano
Myself (Jokingly of course)

Actually, Johnson has become a student of Austrian economics since ending his term as Governor. He told Bill Kauffman of the American Conservative Magazine earlier this year that if he runs for President, he will make abolishing the Federal Reserve one of his central planks.

AbolishTheGovt
10-29-2009, 09:42 PM
Gary Johnson.

First of all, this revolution has got to be about more than just Ron Paul. If we keep running the same guy over and over again, even when he is extremely old, he'll just become seen as a perennial candidate like Ralph Nader or Lyndon Larouche. We've got to be willing to step outside the Ron Paul box.

Second, Ron Paul is not going to run. Not only is he too old, his wife Carol is not in good enough health. Ron is not going to put Carol through another grueling presidential campaign. The last one took a toll on her as it is.

Third, Gary Johnson can actually win. The key is New Hampshire. NH is the perfect place for Gary--an independent, liberty-minded two-term Governor. With no Democratic challenge in 2012, all of New Hampshire's progressives who want to vote will do so in the Republican primary, and Gary can reap all the benefits of that. There is no reason Gary can't be the NH candidate. In 2008, Ron Paul was just a few measly percentage points away from a top three finish in Iowa. Gary Johnson is basically a Ron Paul who is younger, has executive experience, has better speaking skills, and actually has the determination to win. There is no reason Gary can't improve upon Ron's 2008 showing and pull off a top three finish in Iowa, then go on to win New Hampshire. If enough of us Ron Paul supporters get behind Gary, he can also have Ron's record-breaking fundraising base behind him as well. Riding his good showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, we can moneybomb Gary Johnson into the nomination. Gingrich is very unpopular with the base right now, Palin is a terrible debater, neither Huckabee nor Palin will make it through New Hampshire, Romney won't make it past Iowa and SC unscathed. 2012 could be a perfect storm, and we can't pass this opportunity by. 2012 will be the year of the economy, with a Second Depression bulging and hyperinflation approaching. People will want a tried and tested fiscal conservative, and Austrian economists like Gary Johnson will be in high demand thanks to folks like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul. It is very possible for Johnson to win.

Oyate
10-29-2009, 10:27 PM
What about Paul's Johnson?

nelsonwinters
10-29-2009, 10:52 PM
I all for any liberty-minded individual to run for whatever office they feel they can be effective at. That being said, after Rand and Peter win in 2010, this would be a nice follow up:

2012 Presidential: Ron Paul (focus on Iowa... was only a couple thousand votes from being a top-three candidate and considered top tier and getting media attention).

2012 NM Senate: Johnson vs. Udall

2012 MN Senate: Ventura vs. Klobuchar

I don't know what state Andrew Napolitano lives in, but he would be an awesome senator as well.

libertarian4321
10-30-2009, 05:27 AM
Many people view the GOP as the party of "old, white rich guys".


Well, Johnson is a late middle aged (he'll be 58 in '12), rich, white guy. Not sure that will be seen as "breaking the mold" :)


Johnson is young, very fit (triathlete), and probably more "hip" to things. He could probably do a pretty good job of speaking to the younger generations, kind of like Obama.

I've only seen Johnson speak live one time- at the Rally for the Republic. I was underwhelmed to the point of disappointment. He just wasn't a good speaker- mostly because he didn't know how to work a crowd and kept stepping on his own applause lines.



At the same time, though, Ron Paul is starting to get more media attention and people are finally seeing that he was right all along. And he is the reason why we are all here, so we would all love to see him as President and kick Obama's ass in debates.

How about Ron Paul as the Presidential candidate and Johnson as VP who can step in if it turns out that Ron really is too old?

Romulus
10-30-2009, 06:51 AM
gary who?

Ron Paul or no one.

Romulus
10-30-2009, 06:52 AM
PS.

I suspect as things heat up.. there will be cointel to divide us over this FYI

Elwar
10-30-2009, 07:17 AM
Both and then some.

They will not split the vote.

They can only help each other early on by creating an "us vs them" as opposed to "us vs the 'kook'". By having several liberty candidates in the debates it will legitimize the message and the choice will come down to one of the neo-cons or one of the liberty candidates.

When the poll numbers lean overwhelmingly toward one liberty candidate, the choice will be clear.

tajitj
10-30-2009, 07:27 AM
Both, and both each gathering up some nice support base and money, but after first few primaries I would like one or the other to drop out and endorse the one still in.

That might be a likely senerio.

I agree with thread discussion, Johnson might be more "electable" than Dr. Paul and he is a new face the people might be more open to hearing. The media did a number on Ron, I dont think they will have a successful time of bashing Gary like Ron.

Icymudpuppy
10-30-2009, 08:26 AM
I know that Ron Paul is still mentally and physically fit and perfectly capable of holding the office of president.

But America is a nation where image is more important than substance. Where average voters would rather watch Dancing with the Stars than a news broadcast.

Unfortunately, Age does matter to these people. McCain was ridiculed for his age and it was a big sticking point in the droves of young sheep who blindly voted for Obama. McCain is younger than Paul.

Television image also matters. Obama has a deep resonate voice, and a strong facial structure. Ron Paul has a nasally high pitched voice, and a weak jaw line. Both, despite the reality give him an appearance of weakness to sheep who view image over substance.

Articulation and dumbing everything into sound bites is important. Obama is good at running sound bites. Ron Paul has a tendency to ramble and while you and I understand his points, to the sheeple, he comes off as incoherent.

I also have a nasally high pitched voice, tend to ramble and am not handsome. While I may win a local campaign, I know I would never be elected in a popularity contest which is what the presidency has become.

So, we have to find a candidate who to the American Sheeple looks "PRESIDENTIAL".

Sadly, they would have voted for Romney.

I think our best bet is Johnson (provided he gets a better haircut), with Ron Paul as VP.

No bald man has come close to the presidency since television became important, so Ventura is not valid.

I know you all hate to here about how superficial the american sheeple are, but it is a fact we have to work with.

Romulus
10-30-2009, 08:42 AM
I know that Ron Paul is still mentally and physically fit and perfectly capable of holding the office of president.

But America is a nation where image is more important than substance. Where average voters would rather watch Dancing with the Stars than a news broadcast.

Unfortunately, Age does matter to these people. McCain was ridiculed for his age and it was a big sticking point in the droves of young sheep who blindly voted for Obama. McCain is younger than Paul.

Television image also matters. Obama has a deep resonate voice, and a strong facial structure. Ron Paul has a nasally high pitched voice, and a weak jaw line. Both, despite the reality give him an appearance of weakness to sheep who view image over substance.

Articulation and dumbing everything into sound bites is important. Obama is good at running sound bites. Ron Paul has a tendency to ramble and while you and I understand his points, to the sheeple, he comes off as incoherent.

I also have a nasally high pitched voice, tend to ramble and am not handsome. While I may win a local campaign, I know I would never be elected in a popularity contest which is what the presidency has become.

So, we have to find a candidate who to the American Sheeple looks "PRESIDENTIAL".

Sadly, they would have voted for Romney.

I think our best bet is Johnson, with Ron Paul as VP.

No bald man has come close to the presidency since television became important, so Ventura is not valid.

I know you all hate to here about how superficial the american sheeple are, but it is a fact we have to work with.

that is lame thinking we need to tailor fit our message to fit in with their image. you have the wrong idea.

people vote with their hearts when it counts.

bottom line its about content, not the packaging - people need to wake up to that instead of us perpetuating that falsehood.