The Next Ron Paul

[W. E. Messamore]

...is Gary Johnson.

Talk is cheap. Every politician says what most Americans want to hear, that he/she is going to spend responsibly, fight corruption, keep America out of open-ended wars, rise above partisanship, and choose principle over party. Even Bush and Obama said they'd do all those things.

One of the things that sticks out the most about Congressman Ron Paul is that he is one of the very, very precious few politicians whose record matches his words. While we may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of Ron Paul's impact on American politics, at 74 his chance at our nation's highest elected office may have passed (he'll be 76 at the time of the 2012 election).

Enter libertarian Republican Gary Johnson, the two-term Governor of New Mexico who wowed the audience during his endorsement of Ron Paul at Dr. Paul's Rally for the Republic. At a youthful 56 and with an impressive number of triathlons and other feats under his belt (he summited Mount Everest in 2003), he has the vigor, health, and longevity that we need in a president. And unlike our current president, Johnson doesn't even smoke.

Why do I think Johnson would make the Republican's best choice to oppose Obama in 2012? First of all he'll win. Period. We can have that debate in the comment threads or on another post if you'd like, but I say Johnson has a better shot than Palin or any other GOP hopeful at actual victory. But more importantly, Johnson is policy-driven, principled, dedicated to limiting the size, role, and influence of government, and has the toughness we need to make that happen.

Here's proof:


-A self-made business man with no political experience, Johnson exploded onto the scene of New Mexico politics and won a tough Republican party primary and then the governor's seat in a state where Democrats outnumbered Republicans two-to-one, all without mentioning his opponents even once in print, radio, or television.

-During his 8 years as governor, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax increase in its entire history.

-Instead of growing, the state government shrunk by 1,000 employees with no firings.

-At the end of his two terms, the state had a budget surplus.

-During his tenure, he vetoed 750 bills, more than the vetoes of the governors of all other 49 states over the same period combined!

-He was the only Republican governor not to endorse George W. Bush in 2000.

-He opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning.

-In 1999, Johnson became the highest office-holder in the U.S. to advocate an end to the War on Drugs and decriminalization of marijuana.


Who has a better record of executive experience than Gary Johnson of turning around a failed government and preventing it from growing and wasting ever more money? I humbly submit that the answer is: no one.

That is why I am excited to announce that I will be interviewing Gary Johnson live this Wednesday, Dec 2 at 6:00 PM Central / 5:00 PM Mountain Time and urging him to make a run for President in 2012. The show will stream over the Internet for one hour.

You can check out the details here (http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/12/gary-johnson-interview-this-wed.html). On Wednesday at 6:00 PM Central you can listen to the show here (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wesmessamore/2009/12/03/interview-with-gary-johnson).

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - Gary Johnson 2012: Meet Gary Johnson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSao9_JiIXc)

[Elwar]

Great to see that you'll get to interview Gov. Johnson. Good luck!

[RM918]

Despite how good of an idea it may seem, I can only think we'll just end up with another, 'Who is Gary Johnson?' campaign and get a repeat blackout shutout of '08.

[TCE]

The problem is, he has so much personal baggage that he'll be easy for other Republicans to take down in the primary. His name ID is also incredibly low. He would need to outspend everyone else and get past his personal life problems in order to be any kind of factor.

[Kludge]

Despite how good of an idea it may seem, I can only think we'll just end up with another, 'Who is Gary Johnson?' campaign and get a repeat blackout shutout of '08.

+1

Think local and state. The federal government is lost for our generation. Liberty candidates make up about .2% of the legislative branch, 0% of the executive branch, and 11% of the judicial branch if you count Clarence Thomas (22% if you stretch far to include Scalia, too).

[Elwar]

The problem is, he has so much personal baggage that he'll be easy for other Republicans to take down in the primary. His name ID is also incredibly low. He would need to outspend everyone else and get past his personal life problems in order to be any kind of factor.

Ron Paul, a Congressman, had from May 2007 to January 2008 to get name recognition.

Gary Johnson, a Governor, has December 2009 to January 2012 to get name recognition. He's doing the things required for that, forming a PAC, releasing a book, getting on TV.

By 2012 they'll be saying Sarah who?

[dr. hfn]

Endorse Adam Kokesh, Johnson!!!

[dannno]

I've always been a big fan.

[W. E. Messamore]

And since Washington outsiders always balance their ticket with Washington insiders as Veep picks, he can select Ron Paul after he gets the GOP's nomination!

[haaaylee]

He for sure needs to get out there and start getting on TV show, etc. if he wants a good shot at this. I agree, he has a lot more time to accomplish this than Ron did. At least get the ideas out, even if he doesn't run.

[RevolutionSD]

...is Gary Johnson.

Talk is cheap. Every politician says what most Americans want to hear, that he/she is going to spend responsibly, fight corruption, keep America out of open-ended wars, rise above partisanship, and choose principle over party. Even Bush and Obama said they'd do all those things.

One of the things that sticks out the most about Congressman Ron Paul is that he is one of the very, very precious few politicians whose record matches his words. While we may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of Ron Paul's impact on American politics, at 74 his chance at our nation's highest elected office may have passed (he'll be 76 at the time of the 2012 election).

Enter libertarian Republican Gary Johnson, the two-term Governor of New Mexico who wowed the audience during his endorsement of Ron Paul at Dr. Paul's Rally for the Republic. At a youthful 56 and with an impressive number of triathlons and other feats under his belt (he summited Mount Everest in 2003), he has the vigor, health, and longevity that we need in a president. And unlike our current president, Johnson doesn't even smoke.

Why do I think Johnson would make the Republican's best choice to oppose Obama in 2012? First of all he'll win. Period. We can have that debate in the comment threads or on another post if you'd like, but I say Johnson has a better shot than Palin or any other GOP hopeful at actual victory. But more importantly, Johnson is policy-driven, principled, dedicated to limiting the size, role, and influence of government, and has the toughness we need to make that happen.

Here's proof:


-A self-made business man with no political experience, Johnson exploded onto the scene of New Mexico politics and won a tough Republican party primary and then the governor's seat in a state where Democrats outnumbered Republicans two-to-one, all without mentioning his opponents even once in print, radio, or television.

-During his 8 years as governor, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax increase in its entire history.

-Instead of growing, the state government shrunk by 1,000 employees with no firings.

-At the end of his two terms, the state had a budget surplus.

-During his tenure, he vetoed 750 bills, more than the vetoes of the governors of all other 49 states over the same period combined!

-He was the only Republican governor not to endorse George W. Bush in 2000.

-He opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning.

-In 1999, Johnson became the highest office-holder in the U.S. to advocate an end to the War on Drugs and decriminalization of marijuana.


Who has a better record of executive experience than Gary Johnson of turning around a failed government and preventing it from growing and wasting ever more money? I humbly submit that the answer is: no one.

That is why I am excited to announce that I will be interviewing Gary Johnson live this Wednesday, Dec 2 at 6:00 PM Central / 5:00 PM Mountain Time and urging him to make a run for President in 2012. The show will stream over the Internet for one hour.

You can check out the details here (http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/12/gary-johnson-interview-this-wed.html). On Wednesday at 6:00 PM Central you can listen to the show here (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wesmessamore/2009/12/03/interview-with-gary-johnson).


Um, no, it's not, Gary Johnson is Ron Paul light- he doesn't even believe in ending the income tax. :(

[Flash]

Um, no, it's not, Gary Johnson is Ron Paul light- he doesn't even believe in ending the income tax. :(

Is there a source for this?

[RevolutionSD]

Is there a source for this?

Yes, his own website!

He states that he wants to "lower the income tax".
This is no different than the rhetoric we hear from all the other republicans. :(

[Old Ducker]

Not a good sign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Turner

[Flash]

Yes, his own website!

He states that he wants to "lower the income tax".
This is no different than the rhetoric we hear from all the other republicans. :(

Don't forget JohnsonForAmerica is a fan-made site. Can't take anything on there too seriously.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

http://www.cannabisculture.com/library/images/uploads/2074-Govenor-Gary-Johnson-.jpg

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/Chaohinon/gj.jpg

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/Chaohinon/gj2.jpg

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/Chaohinon/gj3.jpg

[dr. hfn]

wtf lol

[klamath]

Gary Johnson is not even close to the same league as RP. RP has had national name recognition for years to all libertarian Republicans and a large donor base from around the country. I know a lot of people don't want to admit it but RP's votes are most likely going to come from Huckabee and Rommney voters. The religous right voters family values voter in the republican primaries. This was proved in Nevada when Romney dropped out. His delegates went to RP. Gary Johnson will turn those voters off. To the religous right he matches NY Rudy.
Pro abortion, cheated on his wife. Rudy was really pretty fiscally conservative and strong prowar when the republican electorate was still strong prowar but because of his first two stands he did worse than most of the other republicans including RP.
Add to the fact that Johnson was a heavy pot user means he is not going over well with the RR.
If the libertarians want to give the middle finger to the religous right in the Republican primaries then they might just as well run Johnson in the libertarian party.
The decision on whether RP is to old is RP's decision. I don't care if people want to promote GJ around here but if they start promoting GJ over RP on the RP forums don't expect me to be cheering.

[Flash]

1) Not all Reptilians are evil.
2) To the original poster, will you ask him if he will endorse Kokesh for congress? And does his Our America PAC only apply to New Mexico?

[constituent]

Despite how good of an idea it may seem, I can only think we'll just end up with another, 'Who is Gary Johnson?' campaign and get a repeat blackout shutout of '08.

That's the spirit! In fact, it was precisely this attitude that made the RP2008 grassroots campaign everything that it was. Where would we be if it weren't for this defeatist attitude in mid 2007?

;) :)

[constituent]

http://www.cannabisculture.com/library/images/uploads/2074-Govenor-Gary-Johnson-.jpg


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/Chaohinon/gj.jpg


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/Chaohinon/gj2.jpg


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/Chaohinon/gj3.jpg



No mustachio? A win any way you slice it!

[Kludge]

//

[Gaius1981]

Here's a video of Gary Johnson reducing the number of federal employees deep within an underground government facility in New Mexico. I think he did it in a way which Ventura would approve of.

YouTube - Fallout 3 - Gary? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd8hYnG2464)

[malkusm]

The problem is, he has so much personal baggage that he'll be easy for other Republicans to take down in the primary. His name ID is also incredibly low. He would need to outspend everyone else and get past his personal life problems in order to be any kind of factor.

This all might be true....but you're sort of assuming that any "liberty-minded" candidate that runs won't endure similar scrutiny.

Hell, Ron Paul has one of the cleanest track records, best background and family life there is, and they still found a way to smear him. When that wasn't enough, they blacked him out.

Guess what? We still influenced millions and made them think. Gary Johnson should run and we should support him. Ron Paul should run and we should support him, too. I don't think winning the Presidency is attainable at this stage, like Kludge said - we need to build from the ground up (state/local elections)....but the more voices we have advocating our message, the better.

[Original_Intent]

I would venture to say that the next Ron Paul is probably someone not nationally known at the moment. It could be the guy that is our temporary state chairman of the C4L here in Utah, Lowell Nelson. The guy has no political ambition as far as I can tell, but he knows his stuff at a Ron Paul level and actually can speak on "liberty topics" off the cuff better than Ron Paul imho. There's probably thousands out there like him. I think once people wake up and stop letting the media dictate to us who is "presidential enough" or who to take seriously, I think we could see a complete overhaul of the people currently in office and replaced with some real statesmen. They are out there.

Frankly, Rand and Peter Schiff are the only two politicians that I know much about that even hold a candle to Dr. Paul. Jason Chavvetz (R-UT) seems to be shaping up pretty well. I think we will be seeing a lot more instances of the old neocons getting replaced with fresh, liberty-minded people.

And hopefully we will have the original around for many years to come. :)

[Theocrat]

There is only one Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/).

[cindy25]

1) there is only one Ron Paul, but no one is immortal.
2) Rand, should he win the senate seat, could be the next generation. senators are always taken more seriously than congressmen, and Rand on a 2012 or 2016 ticket is not far fetched if he preforms well in the senate.

[RM918]

That's the spirit! In fact, it was precisely this attitude that made the RP2008 grassroots campaign everything that it was. Where would we be if it weren't for this defeatist attitude in mid 2007?

;) :)

It's defeatist to call throwing out all the recognition that's been built a bad idea?

[jmdrake]

Not a good sign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Turner

Looking at the fact that his campaign manager was a CFR member? Cause that's the only negative thing I saw. Anyway I wouldn't through someone under the bus solely based on guilt by association. But I agree it's not good.

[dr. hfn]

There is only one Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/).

so are you going to quit when Ron Paul is done? Sunshine Patriot?

[dr. hfn]

Ron Paul has one more chance to run for President and that is 2012...but I really like Gary...maybe we should run many candidates...and then support the last man standing...

[tajitj]

Gary Johnson has a better chance of winning than Ron Paul does. I think Paul realizes this and will end up backing someone and not running. He will throw his name out there and rally the troops but end up not filing. He might even file and get into the debates but pull out before voting. That happens all the time, he and Gary could have a little agreement to drop out and endorse the other depending on what polling is looking like.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ron 2012 or bust. So much for this being a Ron Paul forum, eh...

Johnson is no Austrian.

[jmdrake]

Ron 2012 or bust. So much for this being a Ron Paul forum, eh...

Johnson is no Austrian.

So all you have to be is Austrian to get your vote? :D

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/31/xin_280701310930718165862.jpg

(And yes I know you're talking about economics and not country of origin. I'm just being a prick)

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul has one more chance to run for President and that is 2012...but I really like Gary...maybe we should run many candidates...and then support the last man standing...

Uhhh...let's not. Remember the Barr / Baldwin wars on RPF in 2008?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So all you have to be is Austrian to get your vote? :D

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/31/xin_280701310930718165862.jpg

(And yes I know you're talking about economics and not country of origin. I'm just being a prick)

Come on, kill me! Nyahhhh! :D It's always good to throw in humour.

[Original_Intent]

Uhhh...let's not. Remember the Barr / Baldwin wars on RPF in 2008?

There would have been no wars if the Barr supporters hadn't been such clueless dipshits.

Just kidding guys - sheathe your knives, holster your firearms! :D

[klamath]

Ron Paul has one more chance to run for President and that is 2012...but I really like Gary...maybe we should run many candidates...and then support the last man standing...


yeaw like Romney. Let's all back Romney because he most likely will be the last man standing.

[constituent]

It's defeatist to call throwing out all the recognition that's been built a bad idea?

I'm sorry, can you quote where I said that please?

[ChaosControl]

I cannot vote for him, sorry.

[RevolutionSD]

I know that the plan among libertarian insiders was to have both RP & Gary J run for the GOP nomination in 2012. That was about 6 months ago that I heard this.

Now, I'm not a voter as I have become an ancap since the 2008 primaries. But, I see no point in promoting Gary. Ron Paul has far more name recognition now than he did in 2008, and he can build this up even more to '12.

The downsides to RP are mainly his age, and his stance on abortion. The good thing is RP exercises daily and is in very good health. I think his mind has slipped some, but he is still far sharper than GW Bush in his presidency!

The abortion thing doesn't offend me much because he is just saying leave it to the states. But RP does not attract the female vote, that is just a fact that must be overcome somehow if he is to have any significant impact.

[jmdrake]

The abortion thing doesn't offend me much because he is just saying leave it to the states. But RP does not attract the female vote, that is just a fact that must be overcome somehow if he is to have any significant impact.

Support for abortion is below 50% for women as well as men.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1212-5.gif

Besides that only becomes an issue in the general election. Republicans are solidly pro life. No pro choice GOP presidential candidate could get the nomination.

[RM918]

I'm sorry, can you quote where I said that please?

You quoted my post and called it defeatist, and that was the subject of my post.

[constituent]

You quoted my post and called it defeatist, and that was the subject of my post.

"throwing out all the recognition..."

If you can't even speak to what I'm asking, it's clear that further discussion with you on this matter will bear no fruit.

meh.

Enjoy your day either way!

[constituent]

Now, I'm not a voter as I have become an ancap since the 2008 primaries. But, I see no point in promoting Gary. Ron Paul has far more name recognition now than he did in 2008, and he can build this up even more to '12.


Let's see, Ron Paul stands for the same issues today that he stood for before the primaries. Exactly what changed for Ron Paul in terms of name recognition?

Care to take any wild guesses at what made all the difference between some no name congressman, and the current heavy hitter almost everyone knows as Ron Paul (before they'd never even heard of the guy, much less could they have placed his face or name).

To be fair, the economy hasn't hurt RP's position of influence, but I would argue, however, that he wouldn't have a position of influence had it not been for grassroots intervention. There is no doubt in my mind that a dedicated grassroots can do the same again for Gary Johnson, if not winning the presidency, at least propelling the liberty agenda onto the national stage well into the next decade.

If you can't or won't see this as a win for progress toward the goals of limited American government and unlimited American potential, then I don't know what to tell you.

Figure it out.

[RM918]

"throwing out all the recognition..."

If you can't even speak to what I'm asking, it's clear that discussion with you on this will bear no fruit.

meh.

Enjoy your day either way!

I'd argue there's no point in getting snarky, but hey, internet. I guess you wouldn't have the confidence to say anything if you had to do it in a civil manner.

Anyhow, to my point:

Yes. As in, running this guy, who has no name recognition, who no-one's ever heard of, who very few people are excited about...when we already have someone who has those things, perhaps not as strongly in certain categories than others but still far above the other guy but dismissing him because he's a few years older than before is starting over from square one. Paul's staunch and has made his mark, and has a lot more momentum especially after the recent 1207 success.

Throwing all that away and relying on an endorsement to carry that momentum through is a bad idea, and I don't see how thinking it's a bad idea is somehow defeatist. There was no choice but to deal with it in '07, but just because I'd rather not see the progress made thrown to the winds does not make me 'defeatist'.

[Romulus]

Despite how good of an idea it may seem, I can only think we'll just end up with another, 'Who is Gary Johnson?' campaign and get a repeat blackout shutout of '08.

this

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Let's see, Ron Paul stands for the same issues today that he stood for before the primaries. Exactly what changed for Ron Paul in terms of name recognition?

Care to take any wild guesses at what made all the difference between some no name congressman, and the current heavy hitter almost everyone knows as Ron Paul (before they'd never even heard of the guy, much less could they have placed his face or name).

To be fair, the economy hasn't hurt RP's position of influence, but I would argue, however, that he wouldn't have a position of influence had it not been for grassroots intervention. There is no doubt in my mind that a dedicated grassroots can do the same again for Gary Johnson, if not winning the presidency, at least propelling the liberty agenda onto the national stage well into the next decade.

If you can't or won't see this as a win for progress toward the goals of limited American government and unlimited American potential, then I don't know what to tell you.

Figure it out.

I will abstain from voting in 2012 if Ron doesn't run and Mary doesn't win the LP nomination. Gary Johnson is nothing to me period, and to a lot of others also. The guy has no clue on the economy, and his only libertarian credentials is that he wants to decriminalize (legalize?) marijuana, but not all drugs? Wow, call me excited! Oh, he's also for LOWER taxes, not no taxes, and I have no clue on his position with all the ABC departments? Does he want to end every single one like Ron does? I'll take a wild guess at no. What about closing all 750+ overseas bases and massively reducing military spending? Does he know what the MIC is?

How much did he decrease NM spending? Does he want to End the Fed? Does he even know about Boom-Bust, and the distorting the Fed does by artificial fixing interest rates? Does he know about higher/lower order of capital?

[constituent]

Lol, if you'd have spent half the time researching your concerns that you put into drafting the rant below, you'd already have your answers.


I will abstain from voting in 2012 if Ron doesn't run and Mary doesn't win the LP nomination. Gary Johnson is nothing to me period, and to a lot of others also. The guy has no clue on the economy, and his only libertarian credentials is that he wants to decriminalize (legalize?) marijuana, but not all drugs? Wow, call me excited! Oh, he's also for LOWER taxes, not no taxes, and I have no clue on his position with all the ABC departments? Does he want to end every single one like Ron does? I'll take a wild guess at no. What about closing all 750+ overseas bases and massively reducing military spending? Does he know what the MIC is?

How much did he decrease NM spending? Does he want to End the Fed? Does he even know about Boom-Bust, and the distorting the Fed does by artificial fixing interest rates? Does he know about higher/lower order of capital?

That's a ton of questions. Frankly, for all that legwork, you'd have to ask someone on the payroll.

[constituent]

I'd argue there's no point in getting snarky

You're certainly one to accuse...

[constituent]

Throwing all that away and relying on an endorsement to carry that momentum through is a bad idea, and I don't see how thinking it's a bad idea is somehow defeatist. There was no choice but to deal with it in '07, but just because I'd rather not see the progress made thrown to the winds does not make me 'defeatist'.

I'll ask you again, who said that's what supporting Johnson would mean? Only you friend, only you.

If you can't figure out how to support two candidates with hopes that at least one makes the big rodeo, I can't help you.

To be blunt, I enjoyed the RP campaign much more when it was actually about something, not just your run of the mill political wonkery. Frankly, I look forward to letting you power hungry, would-be politicos have your little circus, while those who enjoy advancing the debate and reframing issues enjoy our own.

It will make for an interesting dynamic if we can all work together. There is no good reason not to.

Of course, you'll have to figure that out on your own. ;)

[constituent]

...

[W. E. Messamore]

A lot of people are pointing out that this is a Ron Paul forum. I'd like to point out we rallied around Ron Paul because we believed in his ideas. It was never about him, but about the ideas, and the policies, and America's future.

This is not and must not be a cult of personality like Obama's following is- but a college of like-minded individuals who have rallied around someone who represents our principles. Someone else does too and I believe has an excellent shot at getting Ron Paul's ideas, our ideas into the Oval Office- Gary Johnson.

Frankly, I would ideally like a Johnson Paul ticket. The Washington outsider with an "insider" veep is usually a winning combination.

[RM918]

I'll ask you again, who said that's what supporting Johnson would mean? Only you friend, only you.

If you can't figure out how to support two candidates with hopes that at least one makes the big rodeo, I can't help you.

To be blunt, I enjoyed the RP campaign much more when it was actually about something, not just your run of the mill political wonkery. Frankly, I look forward to letting you power hungry, would-be politicos have your little circus, while those who enjoy advancing the debate and reframing issues enjoy our own.

It will make for an interesting dynamic if we can all work together. There is no good reason not to.

Of course, you'll have to figure that out on your own. ;)

Is that not what you are suggesting by saying Paul is too old? If it isn't, why even bring it up?

I don't see how a perfectly reasonable line of logic is somehow now 'political wonkery', does it not simply make sense to go with the guy that's proven himself thus far after at least somewhat successfully breaking out into the open, instead of going to a fresh face that nearly no-one is familiar with or excited about? Are we somehow compromising our values by doing so? Assuming Paul and Johnson are equal ideologically, how is choosing the more prominent one 'political wonkery'? And if it is, how is your argument that it's better to stick with someone younger and fresher not also 'political wonkery'?

How is ANY of that power-hungry compared to your supposed pure-and-holy stance, and what sets them apart? What makes either one morally superior to the other? Do I get some sort of army commission for supporting Paul instead of Johnson and no-one told me? If I remembered correctly, what matters here is the ideas and the only difference between my position and your position is strategy.


You're certainly one to accuse...

I merely return the respect given to me, which is apparently running dryer by the second.

[klamath]

A lot of people are pointing out that this is a Ron Paul forum. I'd like to point out we rallied around Ron Paul because we believed in his ideas. It was never about him, but about the ideas, and the policies, and America's future.

This is not and must not be a cult of personality like Obama's following is- but a college of like-minded individuals who have rallied around someone who represents our principles. Someone else does too and I believe has an excellent shot at getting Ron Paul's ideas, our ideas into the Oval Office- Gary Johnson.

Frankly, I would ideally like a Johnson Paul ticket. The Washington outsider with an "insider" veep is usually a winning combination.

Gary Johnson does not represent my principles any more than Huckabee or Palin.
RP represents my principals and so why the hell should RP take second fiddle to GJ:mad:

[constituent]

Is that not what you are suggesting by saying Paul is too old? If it isn't, why even bring it up?

Stop there. Show me where I said that. Show me where I said it even once.

I stand by my statement about this discussion bearing fruit.



Assuming Paul and Johnson are equal ideologically, how is choosing the more prominent one 'political wonkery'? And if it is, how is your argument that it's better to stick with someone younger and fresher not also 'political wonkery'?

Show me one instance of my argument being that which you're trying to suggest here. Just one.



How is ANY of that power-hungry compared to your supposed pure-and-holy stance, and what sets them apart?

It is abundantly clear that you do not understand my position enough to suggest that it is "pure-and-holy." If you believe that my choice to support Gary Johnson is anything but a bucket of compromise, then I suggest that you search my posting history concerning Gary Johnson. Devote particular attention to those posts dating back to the first rumblings that he might choose to run.



What makes either one morally superior to the other? Do I get some sort of army commission for supporting Paul instead of Johnson and no-one told me? If I remembered correctly, what matters here is the ideas and the only difference between my position and your position is strategy.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand wtf you're even trying to get at here...



I merely return the respect given to me, which is apparently running dryer by the second.

If I've heard it once... Disagreement is not disrespect, btw.

Mischaracterization of your opponent's argument to look right, however, is.

Consider this in the future when you formulate your positions, and we can avoid any unnecessary tension. I'll gladly return you the favor.

[constituent]

Let me add some smilies to that so as to ensure that you realize I mean no disrespect...

:) :) ;) :D <3

[constituent]

ahhhh.... :p

what the hell... for good measure.

[W. E. Messamore]

Gary Johnson does not represent my principles any more than Huckabee or Palin.
RP represents my principals and so why the hell should RP take second fiddle to GJ:mad:

Your principles aren't limited government, individual liberty, and constitutional rule of law? Please at least listen to the interview (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wesmessamore/2009/12/03/interview-with-gary-johnson) tonight, or to the recording of it on the same page afterward. I'll be asking Johnson all about his principles so he'll get a chance to tell you what they are himself.

[klamath]

Your principles aren't limited government, individual liberty, and constitutional rule of law? Please at least listen to the interview (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wesmessamore/2009/12/03/interview-with-gary-johnson) tonight, or to the recording of it on the same page afterward. I'll be asking Johnson all about his principles so he'll get a chance to tell you what they are himself.

I know Gary Johnson's opinions and I know Palin's opinions. I agree with many of their opinions and disagree with some major ones.
RPis the only wne I don't have major issue disagreements with.

And again WHY should RP play second fiddle as Gary Johnsons VP if the aguement is he is too old to run. I find it very disrespectful for you to come to the RP forums state rp is too old to run so GJ should and then you say RP should run as Johnsons VP?

[RM918]

Stop there. Show me where I said that. Show me where I said it even once.

I stand by my statement about this discussion bearing fruit.



Show me one instance of my argument being that which you're trying to suggest here. Just one.

You seem to be for Johnson running and against Paul running, and while I'll admit I'm not readily seeing you pointing out that as the specific reason, you've pointed out no other reasons and that seems to be the prevailing argument against Paul running and for Johnson. As you've yet to supply me with another reason, I stuck with it.




It is abundantly clear that you do not understand my position enough to suggest that it is "pure-and-holy." If you believe that my choice to support Gary Johnson is anything but a bucket of compromise, then I suggest that you search my posting history concerning Gary Johnson. Devote particular attention to those posts dating back to the first rumblings that he might choose to run.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand wtf you're even trying to get at here...



Even if I did get the above wrong, you still haven't answered how whatever I've said somehow turns the arguer into anything resembling 'power-hungry'. The latter point was brought up because in order for a sole supporter of Paul in this context and be hungry for power would involve there to be power to hunger for. Is there some tangible benefit to supporting Paul in this context, or what anyone else argued, that would label them as power-hungry?



If I've heard it once... Disagreement is not disrespect, btw.

Mischaracterization of your opponent's argument to look right, however, is.

Consider this in the future when you formulate your positions, and we can avoid any unnecessary tension. I'll gladly return you the favor.

Accusing people of being power hungry or being solely politically motivated for seemingly no reason, is I think warranting the label of 'disrespect'. I'm trying to argue my point here, for why someone thinking that focusing all efforts on Johnson when there's no enthusiasm and no recognition is not defeatist, which is what you claimed in your first reply to me.

A misunderstanding sounds like a far better name for it, and even a misunderstanding does not warrant acting coy while tossing about baseless accusations like being power-hungry.

Now if you're just going to act incredulous and act like you don't understand anything I've just posted, perhaps we should start over: Why is what I said in my first post defeatist?

[constituent]

You seem to be for Johnson running and against Paul running, and while I'll admit I'm not readily seeing you pointing out that as the specific reason, you've pointed out no other reasons and that seems to be the prevailing argument against Paul running and for Johnson. As you've yet to supply me with another reason, I stuck with it.

Seem to be? This is just getting ridiculous.

Thanks for playing.



Even if I did get the above wrong, you still haven't answered how whatever I've said somehow turns the arguer into anything resembling 'power-hungry'. The latter point was brought up because in order for a sole supporter of Paul in this context and be hungry for power would involve there to be power to hunger for. Is there some tangible benefit to supporting Paul in this context, or what anyone else argued, that would label them as power-hungry?

...waxing intellectual ...yawn




Accusing people of being power hungry or being solely politically motivated for seemingly no reason, is I think warranting the label of 'disrespect'. I'm trying to argue my point here, for why someone thinking that focusing all efforts on Johnson when there's no enthusiasm and no recognition is not defeatist, which is what you claimed in your first reply to me.

huh?



A misunderstanding sounds like a far better name for it, and even a misunderstanding does not warrant acting coy while tossing about baseless accusations like being power-hungry.

omg, you're still going? :) :p



Now if you're just going to act incredulous and act like you don't understand anything I've just posted, perhaps we should start over: Why is what I said in my first post defeatist?

Now you want to go 'round in circles? I'm tempted to pass, but will say go ahead and quote it for me.

I'm actually quite confident that it will become quite obvious to you exactly what was defeatist about your post when you read it anew. ;) :)

All of that said, I don't really even care if you're defeatist. I was just using your post to make a broader point.

[constituent]

I know Gary Johnson's opinions and I know Palin's opinions. I agree with many of their opinions and disagree with some major ones.
RPis the only wne I don't have major issue disagreements with.

In the interest of keeping the peace between the RP-only folks like yourself, and those who feel that supporting both candidates is the best way to advance liberty on the national stage, could you outline what those major disagreements are? It would be great if you provided the positions your ideal candidate would hold as a sort of foil.

Thanks klamath.

[jmdrake]

A lot of people are pointing out that this is a Ron Paul forum. I'd like to point out we rallied around Ron Paul because we believed in his ideas. It was never about him, but about the ideas, and the policies, and America's future.

This is not and must not be a cult of personality like Obama's following is- but a college of like-minded individuals who have rallied around someone who represents our principles. Someone else does too and I believe has an excellent shot at getting Ron Paul's ideas, our ideas into the Oval Office- Gary Johnson.

Frankly, I would ideally like a Johnson Paul ticket. The Washington outsider with an "insider" veep is usually a winning combination.

Wes, that's life at RPF. On RPF and the main meetup forum some people attacked anyone who didn't sign on to "write in Ron Paul" even after Paul himself said he wasn't going to run. Some of this is, as you have implied, cult of personality. Some of it is policy puritanism. Some is "projection". (For instance I've seen candidates being attacked as not being "liberty candidates" for not supporting open borders when Ron Paul doesn't support open borders either unless America no longer has a welfare state "immigration magnet".

Yes we'll have to look beyond Paul at some point. I'm not sure if that point has been reached yet or if Johnson is the "next big liberty thing" but I'm keeping an open mind. Good your show! Glad you're picking up the ball on this! And remember to have a thick skin around here. :D

[Gaius1981]

Here's Gary Johnson's new YouTube channel. It's a few days old, but as there aren't any comments there yet, I figure few of you have discovered it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/OurAmericaUMe