Lepard: I support Gary Johnson [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

llepard

01-25-2010, 01:35 PM

I met Gary Johnson for lunch this weekend. I was impressed. Very impressed.

As most of you know Gary was the Governor of New Mexico for two terms. He cut spending, vetoed bills and was without a doubt the most libertarian governor in the country.

Here are some of my take aways.

First, Gary is not Ron Paul, although he shares nearly all of his positions and views.

Second, Gary does not take the RP crowd or support for granted. He intends to earn it.

Third, Gary is a true libertarian. But, Gary is also a competitor. If Dr. Paul is Obi Wan, then Gary is Luke Skywalker. This guys is smart, tough and political. He is also nice and kind hearted. But he is nobody's fool. He wants to accomplish his goal which is reforming America. I think he can. He built a large successful business and sold it. As he says, he is an accountant by trade. He pinches pennies. Example, he spent $18k of his $125k travel budget as Governor one year in N.M. He gave the balance back. He spent 6 hours in the State Police helicopter during his entire term (@$500/hr) while Bill Richardson spent over 1,000 hours last year alone in the new helicopter which he bought which costs $1,500 per hour to run. Richardson also bought a new State Jet. Johnson says he would ground Air Force One. (I love it.) Why? We can't afford it.

He does not drink. He is for legalizing marijuana. It will be a key part of his campaign.

He does not want to upstage RP. He is 56 years old, so he has some time to build a base and win. He is prepared to make this a long term project if necessary.

He is an ahtlete. As he says, no one will push themselves harder than he does. The way he said it, I think he really means it.

He had a lottery number for Vietnam, but was not called.

His father parachuted into France with the 101st Airborne before D-day. He lost a lung in the Battle of the Bulge. As Gary says, my father's service and sacrifice gives me some standing to talk about military matters. He would withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both his parents are alive. His mother works for the bureau of indian affairs, his father is a schoolteacher.

All in all, he is Ron Paul, but he is not going to lead with his chin. He is running as a Republican. He thinks he can win over the far right. (I am not so sure).

Gary is not about upstaging Ron. He loves Ron. He hopes Ron runs, imagine two voices speaking this message. They could support and play off one another.

I came away from the lunch feeling like I had just met the next President of the US.

I hope you will join me in supporting him. BTW, I still strongly support Ron Paul. Either of these men would be a big improvement over what we currently have. Ron is not getting any younger and I encourage you to take a hard look at Gary Johnson.

LL

dr. hfn

01-25-2010, 01:39 PM

Awesome! BTW llepard, how did that For Liberty project go?

llepard

01-25-2010, 01:42 PM

Awesome! BTW llepard, how did that For Liberty project go?

Rather than mail to all the libraries and have the DVD's sit on a shelf, we put the money toward having a booth at CPAC and handing out DVD's to representatives there. CPAC is next month so we will let you know.

qwerty

01-25-2010, 01:42 PM

I will support Ron Paul or the candidate which Ron Paul endorses!

I trust this man (Ron Paul) with my whole heart! :cool:

Austrian Econ Disciple

01-25-2010, 01:43 PM

I met Gary Johnson for lunch this weekend. I was impressed. Very impressed.

As most of you know Gary was the Governor of New Mexico for two terms. He cut spending, vetoed bills and was without a doubt the most libertarian governor in the country.

Here are some of my take aways.

First, Gary is not Ron Paul, although he shares nearly all of his positions and views.

Second, Gary does not take the RP crowd or support for granted. He intends to earn it.

Third, Gary is a true libertarian. But, Gary is also a competitor. If Dr. Paul is Obi Wan, then Gary is Luke Skywalker. This guys is smart, tough and political. He is also nice and kind hearted. But he is nobody's fool. He wants to accomplish his goal which is reforming America. I think he can. He built a large successful business and sold it. As he says, he is an accountant by trade. He pinches pennies. Example, he spent $18k of his $125k travel budget as Governor one year in N.M. He gave the balance back. He spent 6 hours in the State Police helicopter during his entire term (@$500/hr) while Bill Richardson spent over 1,000 hours last year alone in the new helicopter which he bought which costs $1,500 per hour to run. Richardson also bought a new State Jet. Johnson says he would ground Air Force One. (I love it.) Why? We can't afford it.

He does not drink. He is for legalizing marijuana. It will be a key part of his campaign.

He does not want to upstage RP. He is 56 years old, so he has some time to build a base and win. He is prepared to make this a long term project if necessary.

He is an ahtlete. As he says, no one will push themselves harder than he does. The way he said it, I think he really means it.

He had a lottery number for Vietnam, but was not called.

His father parachuted into France with the 101st Airborne before D-day. He lost a lung in the Battle of the Bulge. As Gary says, my father's service and sacrifice gives me some standing to talk about military matters. He would withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.

All in all, he is Ron Paul, but he is not going to lead with his chin. He is running as a Republican. He thinks he can win over the far right. (I am not so sure).

Gary is not about upstaging Ron. He loves Ron. He hopes Ron runs, imagine two voices speaking this message. They could support and play off one another.

I came away from the lunch feeling like I had just met the next President of the US.

I hope you will join me in supporting him. BTW, I still strongly support Ron Paul. Either of these men would be a big improvement over what we currently have. Ron is not getting any younger and I encourage you to take a hard look at Gary Johnson.

LL

If he truly does support all of Ron's positions I could see something like a Jacksonian type of program. It was supposed to be Jackson > Van Buren > Polk. (They were expansionist types...I just brought this up as a point of succession of like-minded Presidents to achieve what they wanted in the required time frame)

Maybe this go around we can do something like: Ron > Gary > Debra > Adam? :D

sofia

01-25-2010, 01:44 PM

acptulsa

01-25-2010, 01:48 PM

I hope Johnson would defer to RP iand back out if RP chose to run...

I would be surprised if he didn't.

At this point, I would hope we are all sophisticated enough to see that anyone who doesn't back down in the face of a previous commitment by a good liberty candidate in any race is either a planted spoiler or simply not serious about being benign and magnanimous.

Cowlesy

01-25-2010, 01:48 PM

I'm hoping he runs on the Libertarian ticket, as he'll get fileted on the Republican ticket for being pro-choice :\

llepard

01-25-2010, 01:50 PM

acptulsa

01-25-2010, 01:51 PM

I'm hoping he runs on the Libertarian ticket, as he'll get fileted on the Republican ticket for being pro-choice :\

Dubya's daddy didn't. He got forgiven for being pro choice years ago.

Of course, Republicans do love power and he was the sitting president at the time, so that may not translate...

...sure would help him get independents to vote for him, though (assuming Republicans had enough sense to nominate someone with crossover appeal, which is hardly a given).

llepard

01-25-2010, 01:51 PM

I'm hoping he runs on the Libertarian ticket, as he'll get fileted on the Republican ticket for being pro-choice :\

No he won't. He is running as a Republican. He is pro choice until viability. eg: early in first trimester. He is personally opposed to abortion.

He is running as a republican because he wants to win.

axiomata

01-25-2010, 01:57 PM

i dont know about the wisdom of splitting the anti-establishment vote two ways in a GOP primary....

they can "play off each other all they want"...but in the end, the liberty vote gets divided..

I hope Johnson would defer to RP iand back out if RP chose to run...

Ron Paul has univesral name recognition now....if Johnson runs..it'll be "Who is Gary Johnson" all over again...

i dont like this...

For it to work, one would have to drop out and endorse the other before the Iowa primary. Since they are on the same team, and they want the same thing (hint: it is not to be president), I am confident they won't blow it.

RP never really wanted to be president. That's one reason why we all like him, but if we are serious about this we do need someone that actually wants to win. I am quite confident that RP will gladly endorse Johnson in the end.

And Lepard, I hope you have the opportunity in the future to have the claim of having lunch with a president.

dr. hfn

01-25-2010, 01:59 PM

Rather than mail to all the libraries and have the DVD's sit on a shelf, we put the money toward having a booth at CPAC and handing out DVD's to representatives there. CPAC is next month so we will let you know.

Awesome! I'll be there too. Is this booth the "r3VOLution Booth"?

acptulsa

01-25-2010, 02:00 PM

For it to work, one would have to drop out and endorse the other before the Iowa primary. Since they are on the same team, and they want the same thing (hint: it is not to be president), I am confident they won't blow it.

RP never really wanted to be president. That's one reason why we all like him, but if we are serious about this we do need someone that actually wants to win. I am quite confident that RP will gladly endorse Johnson in the end.

And Lepard, I hope you have the opportunity in the future to have the claim of having lunch with a president.

Me, too. Douglas Adams had it right in his Hitchhikers' Guide series--follow the person who least wants to lead you. He or she is the only one who can be trusted.

axiomata

01-25-2010, 02:03 PM

Original_Intent

01-25-2010, 02:06 PM

No he won't. He is running as a Republican. He is pro choice until viability. eg: early in first trimester. He is personally opposed to abortion.

He is running as a republican because he wants to win.

I assume you mean early in the THIRD trimester, you don't see many of those 1st trimester babies making it.

I also wish he would adopt Ron Paul's "leave it to the states" position. Abortion is a big deal to me and I would have a hard time supporting someone who is effectively pro-choice.

johnrocks

01-25-2010, 02:08 PM

I love Ron Paul and I really,really,really like Gary Johnson, I think he can be a great voice and even RP's successor or one of them in the future, I'll support him 10000% IF Ron Paul doesn't run.

dannno

01-25-2010, 02:09 PM

I'd love to see two liberty candidates up on stage in the GOP debates.

pacelli

01-25-2010, 02:12 PM

pacelli

01-25-2010, 02:13 PM

I'd love to see two liberty candidates up on stage in the GOP debates.

So would I. A "message force multiplier" is a technique used by the media for years to sell their beliefs. A valuable tactic to spread the liberty message as well.

klamath

01-25-2010, 02:14 PM

acptulsa

01-25-2010, 02:15 PM

So would I. A "message force multiplier" is a technique used by the media for years to sell their beliefs. A valuable tactic to spread the liberty message as well.

Good point. But it isn't worth splitting our vote over. To have one drop out and throw support to the other just before the New Hampshire and/or Iowa polling date would be fine. But we can't afford not to work together!

llepard

01-25-2010, 02:17 PM

I assume you mean early in the THIRD trimester, you don't see many of those 1st trimester babies making it.

I also wish he would adopt Ron Paul's "leave it to the states" position. Abortion is a big deal to me and I would have a hard time supporting someone who is effectively pro-choice.

No i meant first trimester. I think he believes that abortion at any point after the first trimester is murder. I will check.

llepard

01-25-2010, 02:22 PM

I am encouraged you think he will not compete against RP should he run. I have a problem with his prochoice stand and what I know of his infidelity to his wife but will evaluate the whole picture based on a lot of factors when he runs.

For what it is worth, he says he was never unfaithful to his wife and I believe him. He says he had a bad marriage with many stresses, which led to a divorce. He even mentioned that he thought it was something people would try to criticize him for. He seemed to be very sad about the fact that his ex wife became sick and passed away. He is very tight with his kids, his son has joined the campaign.

llepard

01-25-2010, 02:25 PM

Your opinion definitely carries weight, especially since it is based on your personal experiences. Thanks for posting it. I'm wondering whether you think Johnson is going to be one of the first people to declare, or whether you think he's going to wait until others throw their hats into the ring?

I think he will declare early. He needs to build name recognition. Right now he is a virtual unknown. I also think RP will help him out. I think RP views him as a successor.

llepard

01-25-2010, 02:51 PM

Larry,
Thanks for all your patience on Sat! If you want, you can post http://newhampshire.watchdog.org/2010/01/gary-johnson-brings-small-government-initiative-to-new-hampshire/ on the forum so people can see the video of his trip. A lot of questions on abortion – as I understand it, Gov Johnson would also, like Dr Paul, see the issue turned back to the states. Dr Paul’s bills to do that would define life as beginning at conception, and then get the supreme court out of it, and leave it to the states. Gov Johnson’s approach would be similar, but do it based on viability, where each state would determine what they would consider viability. He personally considers it around 3 months, if I remember right.

Jim

haaaylee

01-25-2010, 02:59 PM

So he is for sure going to be running for president? Sweet. He needs to start early and get his name out there though.

Elwar

01-25-2010, 03:04 PM

Gary is not about upstaging Ron. He loves Ron. He hopes Ron runs, imagine two voices speaking this message. They could support and play off one another.

This is key.

I can't believe people think that two candidates that support each other and want nothing more than liberty would think that they would not understand the concept of splitting votes.

I would imagine if they were both running, they wouldn't necessarily be on the phone to each other all the time but their staff would certainly be interacting to give each other a heads up on plans.

LibertyEagle

01-25-2010, 03:06 PM

Isn't Gary for open borders, in addition to being pro-choice?

EDIT: Nevermind about the pro-choice. I just saw what you posted. :)

But, what about the open borders?

llepard

01-25-2010, 03:19 PM

Isn't Gary for open borders, in addition to being pro-choice?

EDIT: Nevermind about the pro-choice. I just saw what you posted. :)

But, what about the open borders?

No, he is not for open borders.

He is for registration, and some amnesty for members of the community who have worked here for a long time.

llepard

01-25-2010, 03:20 PM

Stop all handouts to illegal aliens and enforce our immigration laws. That would do for a starter.

He would do that. But he says there must be some amnesty for illegals who have lived here a long time and paid taxes.

constituent

01-25-2010, 03:22 PM

No, he is not for open borders.

He is for registration, and some amnesty for members of the community who have worked here for a long time.

He would do that. But he says there must be some amnesty for illegals who have lived here a long time and paid taxes.

I think that's a good middle ground.

Meatwasp

01-25-2010, 03:32 PM

Well if what he tells you is true and Dr Paul doesn't run I could consider him

Stary Hickory

01-25-2010, 03:45 PM

Here is a request to all the big supporters. Post as many videos as you can of this guy so we can all see him. I like him, he sounds great but he needs to be advertised heavily. And especially on these forums. In General Forums, I want to see him and hear him speak....makes a big difference. I guess I can hunt down some of his stuff, but I think it still stands that more video and audio from this guy could do wonders.

haaaylee

01-25-2010, 03:48 PM

Elwar

01-25-2010, 03:50 PM

YouTube - Gary Johnson 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwjVRXjjir0)
YouTube - Our America - The Gary Johnson Initiative (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Js0xdZFdrU)
YouTube - Our America - Immigration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbehpwxV7Sc&feature=related)
YouTube - Our America - Abortion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_mxYvSK6k&feature=related)
YouTube - Our America - Civil Liberties (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjoeV6z4IUM&feature=related)
YouTube - Our America - Defense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tudnm5cp3UM&feature=related)
YouTube - Our America - Taxes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxDW90CRMvw&feature=related)
YouTube - Our America - Economy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qZh041cqs&feature=related)
YouTube - Gary Johnson 2012: Meet Gary Johnson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSao9_JiIXc&feature=related)
YouTube - THE R3VOLUTION CONTINUES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF5V4vbL_WE)

Todd

01-25-2010, 03:56 PM

Elwar

01-25-2010, 03:59 PM

YouTube - Gary Johnson in NH Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I2dxIIY2NI)
YouTube - Gary Johnson in NH Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy1HSi0WFYQ)

Elwar

01-25-2010, 04:04 PM

YouTube - Gary Johnson- RLCNH Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0RTPqQh2OQ)
YouTube - Gary Johnson- RLCNH Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6abMoVllrk)

Romulus

01-25-2010, 04:08 PM

pro-choice, pro mary jane legalization.. uphill climb for 2012 and add in the 'google gary johnson' factor and it'll be square 1 all over again.

I'm pulling for rp 2012.. just because the fact that the establishment already hates him. :)

itshappening

01-25-2010, 04:08 PM

If Larry gave him a grilling and is impressed that should be good enough for most

I dont think RP will be running for president because it is very exhausting for someone his age

llepard

01-25-2010, 04:08 PM

I personally care about the abortion issue, but not enough to make that one issue a deal breaker for POTUS.....but convincing alot of the Republican culture warrior crowd would be a lost cause. I can't see anyone in that vein even remotely supporting Johnson as pro choice. And I have an even harder time seeing a pro choice candiate getting the nomination in today's times.

Check the videos. He thinks it is not an issue the government should mess with. But to the degree we do he is pro individual choice in 1st trimester only. Like RP he believes it should be a State issue. Personally he opposes abortion, as do most people.

Folks, abortion is not the be all end all of this election. The friggin country is disintegrating as we speak. Do we want to have some abortion litmus test? This guy will be fine, and independents will be much more receptive to his common sense view.

low preference guy

01-25-2010, 06:31 PM

I'd love to see two liberty candidates up on stage in the GOP debates.

I'd like to see 9!

dr. hfn

01-25-2010, 06:33 PM

We need to get some Democrat Liberty candidates next time too!

TheConstitutionLives

01-25-2010, 06:56 PM

I'm hoping he runs on the Libertarian ticket, as he'll get fileted on the Republican ticket for being pro-choice :\

Running Libertarian is a waste of time and resources. No debate involvement means guaranteed loss.

TotalLiberty

01-25-2010, 06:57 PM

I met Gary Johnson for lunch this weekend. I was impressed. Very impressed.

As most of you know Gary was the Governor of New Mexico for two terms. He cut spending, vetoed bills and was without a doubt the most libertarian governor in the country.

Here are some of my take aways.

First, Gary is not Ron Paul, although he shares nearly all of his positions and views.

Second, Gary does not take the RP crowd or support for granted. He intends to earn it.

Third, Gary is a true libertarian. But, Gary is also a competitor. If Dr. Paul is Obi Wan, then Gary is Luke Skywalker. This guys is smart, tough and political. He is also nice and kind hearted. But he is nobody's fool. He wants to accomplish his goal which is reforming America. I think he can. He built a large successful business and sold it. As he says, he is an accountant by trade. He pinches pennies. Example, he spent $18k of his $125k travel budget as Governor one year in N.M. He gave the balance back. He spent 6 hours in the State Police helicopter during his entire term (@$500/hr) while Bill Richardson spent over 1,000 hours last year alone in the new helicopter which he bought which costs $1,500 per hour to run. Richardson also bought a new State Jet. Johnson says he would ground Air Force One. (I love it.) Why? We can't afford it.

He does not drink. He is for legalizing marijuana. It will be a key part of his campaign.

He does not want to upstage RP. He is 56 years old, so he has some time to build a base and win. He is prepared to make this a long term project if necessary.

He is an ahtlete. As he says, no one will push themselves harder than he does. The way he said it, I think he really means it.

He had a lottery number for Vietnam, but was not called.

His father parachuted into France with the 101st Airborne before D-day. He lost a lung in the Battle of the Bulge. As Gary says, my father's service and sacrifice gives me some standing to talk about military matters. He would withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.

All in all, he is Ron Paul, but he is not going to lead with his chin. He is running as a Republican. He thinks he can win over the far right. (I am not so sure).

Gary is not about upstaging Ron. He loves Ron. He hopes Ron runs, imagine two voices speaking this message. They could support and play off one another.

I came away from the lunch feeling like I had just met the next President of the US.

I hope you will join me in supporting him. BTW, I still strongly support Ron Paul. Either of these men would be a big improvement over what we currently have. Ron is not getting any younger and I encourage you to take a hard look at Gary Johnson.

LL

What's his stance on:

1) Ending the income tax
2) Ending the Federal Reserve
3) Ending the War on Drugs
4) Bringing home ALL U.S. troops overseas, including ending the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan

?

Eric21ND

01-25-2010, 07:07 PM

Check the videos. He thinks it is not an issue the government should mess with. But to the degree we do he is pro individual choice in 1st trimester only. Like RP he believes it should be a State issue. Personally he opposes abortion, as do most people.

Folks, abortion is not the be all end all of this election. The friggin country is disintegrating as we speak. Do we want to have some abortion litmus test? This guy will be fine, and independents will be much more receptive to his common sense view.
If Gary is smart he can frame his stance in any number of ways as not to be seen as being "pro-choice". He could simply say he thinks Roe vs. Wade was an abomination and favors seeing it overturned, bam instant anti-abortion cred with that crowd. ;)

dr. hfn

01-25-2010, 07:10 PM

Running Libertarian is a waste of time and resources. No debate involvement means guaranteed loss.

the LP shouldn't be wasting resources on Federal races. They should be heavily involved in the effort to take over the GOP.

Ethek

01-25-2010, 07:40 PM

I couldn't get over to Concord but I'm looking forward to meeting Mr. Johnson. I agree if you are in to win the LP is not the way to go right now.

If he plans on openly campaigning on ending marijuana I hope he can avoid talking to it directly from the free spirit libertarian stance. Perhaps focus on just how oppressive the drug war is to minorities and non -violent offenders. How many violent offenders go free. He might also benefit to get the endorsement of a group like Oath Keepers and have a plan to assuage all of the local police forces who will be loosing a lot of revenue if they connect two and two together.

A bonus that Gary has over Dr. Paul is that he can come off as positive. He should nail talking points on the opportunity that is possible under liberty, not campaign on eliminating this or that federal security blanket.

On National Defense he cant be 'anti-war' he has to be more on the lines to 'have rights you must have the ability to assert rights by force if necessary. Rights also come with a responsibility to be justified' (declared wars) in a way that coddles the anxiety of any NeoCon.

Perhaps throw even throw some libertarian welfare programs in ala Thomas Paine. Channel federal welfare into memberships for blue collar workshops where people have a membership to use computing/tweaking/industrial equipment like CNC machines.

Win the crunchy set by winning over the whole foods crowd.

So many vested interests will want to see him excluded but going on Larry's statements he will get a lot of Ron's support, that is undeniable visibility at this point. This country needs a pep talk not based only on hope. I'm encouraged that Gary Johnson can be that cheerleader.

llepard

01-25-2010, 07:48 PM

What's his stance on:

1) Ending the income tax
2) Ending the Federal Reserve
3) Ending the War on Drugs
4) Bringing home ALL U.S. troops overseas, including ending the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan

?

He wants to audit the FED, then end it. He believes we should be on a gold standard.

He would reduce the income tax greatly, maybe flat tax, maybe consumption tax, he has not said that he will end the IRS, but i think that is just because it allows people to paint him as crazy.

He would end the war on drugs and legalize pot.

He would end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan. He would reduce overseas troops substantially. He does not call for closing down all bases, but he would close many. He is strong on DEFENSE. But against empire. He thinks he can convert some neocons. (i say good luck).

Basically, he is where Dr. Paul is but he is going to be a little less extreme and doctrinaire in his approach. He does not want people to be able to marginalize him the way they did for Dr. Paul. I am sure he is where we are. I think he is politically a little more tuned in than RP. Less philosophical crusader, more user friendly. I think he is not going to go looking for ideological fights, but he holds our views. He wants to have broad appeal. He is in it to win.

This clearly implies a trade off. I don't think he will compromise our principles, but I don't think he is going to be angry and aggressive at pissing people off. He is style is more to kill em with kindness. He told an anecdote about how one of the managers in his company said to him Gary you are the only guy I know who can fire someone and make them feel good about it, like you did them a favor. So maybe think of him as Barack Obama style with Ron Paul's philosophical views. (i know some of you will cringe, and he is not the narcicist that Obama is).

The guy is good. Of course that makes him a politician. But he is a politician with our views and I do not think he is a narcicist. I think he is competitive and has strong views about what is RIGHT. He is a warrior. But he is very laid back in his approach. He has a very relaxed southwest/midwest style about him. Not a blow hard. A very unusual guy.

He seems very practical. His tone is "hey this is not that hard, it's just common sense."

Live_Free_Or_Die

01-25-2010, 07:54 PM

I met Gary Johnson for lunch this weekend. I was impressed. Very impressed.

This endorsement is by far the best thing Gary Johnson has going for him among Ron Paul supporters. Getting this kind of support and recognition from a Ron Paul supporter with genuine credibility will likely put Gary Johnson in the Ron Paul community spotlight.

If Dr. Paul is Obi Wan, then Gary is Luke Skywalker.

I like your sense of humor :).

Eric21ND

01-25-2010, 07:57 PM

If they hit him on the drug issue Gary needs to say, "The government is essentially saying, 'you're too dumb to choose what to put into your own body and we're going to decide for you'".

Then he can focus on some factoids on the drug war.

pacelli

01-25-2010, 07:58 PM

Good point. But it isn't worth splitting our vote over. To have one drop out and throw support to the other just before the New Hampshire and/or Iowa polling date would be fine. But we can't afford not to work together!

I agree. If the 2 liberty candidates, Johnson and assuming Paul were friendly to each other, and one of them endorsed the other (and perhaps became an early VP??) then that would be ideal. The key in my fantasy is that the early media and HARD campaigning would be forced to focus on the liberty candidates. Working together but not splitting the votes, so both candidates support the overall principle of getting a liberty candidate elected.

Again, a fantasy scenario in mind to best use the media to get free campaigning, without harming the vote situation. Having a friendly candidate up on that stage would eliminate the "grouping up on that one lone nut" effect that we saw in the last debates.

pacelli

01-25-2010, 07:59 PM

This endorsement is by far the best thing Gary Johnson has going for him among Ron Paul supporters. Getting this kind of support and recognition from a Ron Paul supporter with genuine credibility will likely put Gary Johnson in the Ron Paul community spotlight.

I like your sense of humor :).

Yep. Lepard has a great deal of credibility when it comes to analysis of candidates.

Eric21ND

01-25-2010, 08:00 PM

I agree. If the 2 liberty candidates, Johnson and assuming Paul were friendly to each other, and one of them endorsed the other (and perhaps became an early VP??) then that would be ideal. The key in my fantasy is that the early media and HARD campaigning would be forced to focus on the liberty candidates. Working together but not splitting the votes, so both candidates support the overall principle of getting a liberty candidate elected.

Again, a fantasy scenario in mind to best use the media to get free campaigning, without harming the vote situation. Having a friendly candidate up on that stage would eliminate the "grouping up on that one lone nut" effect that we saw in the last debates.
Having both Gary and Ron simultaneously on stage would be amazing. And one endorsing the other would be substancial.

TotalLiberty

01-26-2010, 12:04 AM

He wants to audit the FED, then end it. He believes we should be on a gold standard.

Maybe we should be on the gold standard, but that is not a free market approach. Ron Paul has the libertarian approach here, allowing competing currencies instead of a centrally-planned monetary system.

He would reduce the income tax greatly, maybe flat tax, maybe consumption tax, he has not said that he will end the IRS, but i think that is just because it allows people to paint him as crazy.

This is a big compromise. One of the reasons RP stood out from other republicans was his stance on ENDING the income tax, and replacing it with NOTHING. Lots of republicans talk about reducing it, or replacing it with some other tax. Keep in mind that the morality is the main issue here- taxes are merely theft, so being for reducing taxes is like saying you're for stealing less.

He would end the war on drugs and legalize pot.

Wait, if he would end the war on drugs, how could he just legalize pot? What about the other drugs? No reason to think that keeping them illegal is hurting the demand. The free market approach here is to legalize ALL drugs and let the free market sort it out, not some centrally-planned bureaucracy.

He would end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan. He would reduce overseas troops substantially. He does not call for closing down all bases, but he would close many. He is strong on DEFENSE. But against empire. He thinks he can convert some neocons. (i say good luck).

He's again compromised. Ron Paul would bring them ALL home. This is the libertarian position. Obama said he would end the wars and bring home troops. Keeping the troops in many countries and not closing down bases means keeping (or trying to keep) the empire alive. Bad idea, and where is the money coming from?

Basically, he is where Dr. Paul is but he is going to be a little less extreme and doctrinaire in his approach. He does not want people to be able to marginalize him the way they did for Dr. Paul. I am sure he is where we are. I think he is politically a little more tuned in than RP. Less philosophical crusader, more user friendly. I think he is not going to go looking for ideological fights, but he holds our views. He wants to have broad appeal. He is in it to win.

Ending wars, bringing troops home, letting people keep their money is extreme? This is the problem with politicians like Gary J and Bob Barr. Everything is compromised. Pretty soon it's just neocon lite, and then the neocons win. "Broad appeal" does us no good whatsoever.

This clearly implies a trade off. I don't think he will compromise our principles, but I don't think he is going to be angry and aggressive at pissing people off. He is style is more to kill em with kindness. He told an anecdote about how one of the managers in his company said to him Gary you are the only guy I know who can fire someone and make them feel good about it, like you did them a favor. So maybe think of him as Barack Obama style with Ron Paul's philosophical views. (i know some of you will cringe, and he is not the narcicist that Obama is).

Gary J is already so compromised that I don't think he is a viable alternative candidate. If Ron Paul is extreme, I'm as extreme as they come. And that's a good thing in our movement.

The guy is good. Of course that makes him a politician. But he is a politician with our views and I do not think he is a narcicist. I think he is competitive and has strong views about what is RIGHT. He is a warrior. But he is very laid back in his approach. He has a very relaxed southwest/midwest style about him. Not a blow hard. A very unusual guy.

Personally, I don't even think he's a great speaker. Not that it would matter, people LOVED Obama's speeches during the campaign and look where that got us. I don't want a "warrior" as president. I want my freedom!

He seems very practical. His tone is "hey this is not that hard, it's just common sense."

Freedom is common sense. Compromise is a lose-lose proposal.

Kotin

01-26-2010, 12:19 AM

thanks for posting this, llepard.. I was not sure but I trust you.

llepard

01-26-2010, 06:13 AM

Freedom is common sense. Compromise is a lose-lose proposal.

Fine, you keep advocating for your freedom with zero compromise and get nowhere. How is that working out for you?

Use your head. This guy is where we are. He just has a piece of himself that is practical. eg: he recognizes that it will take time to educate people. He thinks that winning so you can actually make change is a practical approach to reform.

You can either support that approach, or not. In the abscence of a better alternative I support it. This guy is willing to make quite a sacrifice on our behalf. He could easily live a retired life of ease.

So you have a choice, you can remain ideologically pure in a campaign sense and go nowhere or you can soften the rough edges and move in the right direction. By the way, I believe he is ideologically pure.

He is not the philosopher king that Dr. Paul is. He is an executive who gets shit done. In case you have forgotten Dr. Paul's executive abilities SUCK and that is why the campaign was badly mismanaged on the inside. Being President requires a vision and the ability to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

This guy has the right vision. But more importantly, I think he can make it happen.

No, he is not an electrifying public speaker. Post Obama that is a good thing. He is sincere and thought ful.

eok321

01-26-2010, 06:38 AM

Use your head. This guy is where we are. He just has a piece of himself that is practical. eg: he recognizes that it will take time to educate people. He thinks that winning so you can actually make change is a practical approach to reform.

Hi Larry,

First off thanks for the update:)

I will be devastated if Ron does not run and its obvious that Gary is the next best thing.

Im assuming that Gary will be running.. so did you get any info on what his plans are over the next 12 months..i.e further trips to New Hampshire and possibly Iowa as well?

Thanks

fisharmor

01-26-2010, 06:47 AM

I had not heard this about Johnson.
So.... he effectively believes in the medieval/ancient notion of the quickening of the unborn.
How scientific.

Abortion stance is part of the package, like it or not. Some of us have applied some mental power to this problem and have arrived not only at the conclusion that support of the act is unconscionable, but also the conclusion that the way it went down judicially was one of the biggest face-pissings the rule of law got in the 20th century.

Let the country crumble. I would burn every American flag in the world to stop one abortion.

RP's position is a tenable one, and one that pro-lifers can get behind. It gives the pro-lifers a fighting chance. Johnson, just like Kerry, supports abortion, no matter how deeply personal or personally deep his deep personal feelings on it. And we see through that. And you all have to realize that there's a large segment of the vote lost right there.

Ricky201

01-26-2010, 07:07 AM

If Gary is smart he can frame his stance in any number of ways as not to be seen as being "pro-choice". He could simply say he thinks Roe vs. Wade was an abomination and favors seeing it overturned, bam instant anti-abortion cred with that crowd. ;)

He has said this in the past. In fact it is on his supporting websites:

"While Gary himself is personally pro-choice, he understands the proper role of government, and would return the abortion issue back to the 50 states to decide, as the US Constitution mandates. In order to put the abortion issue back under the proper jurisdiction, Gary would seek to have Roe v. Wade repealed. As Governor of New Mexico, he received the endorsement of the Right To Life Committee for his work in reducing abortions through parental consent, informed consent, banning partial-birth abortion, and ending Medicaid funding for abortions. As Governor, he supported every piece of legislation offered by the Right To Life Committee."

http://www.johnsonforamerica.com/issues.php

cindy25

01-26-2010, 07:44 AM

the Republican base is pro-war, pro-empire, and I don't see that changing in less than 2 years.

llepard

01-26-2010, 07:56 AM

Hi Larry,

First off thanks for the update:)

I will be devastated if Ron does not run and its obvious that Gary is the next best thing.

Im assuming that Gary will be running.. so did you get any info on what his plans are over the next 12 months..i.e further trips to New Hampshire and possibly Iowa as well?

Thanks

He is gathering information and testing the waters. I do not think it is 100% he will run. But, I think it is high probablility. He is travelling all over the country for the next 100+ days meeting with people and testing the waters. He has a campaign manager/poll guy and they are trying to figure out the odds.

He knows that New Hampshire and Iowa are key. He says that no one in this business will out work him. I believe him.

In the end though, the proof will be in the pudding.

llepard

01-26-2010, 08:03 AM

llepard

01-26-2010, 08:05 AM

the Republican base is pro-war, pro-empire, and I don't see that changing in less than 2 years.

The Republican base is not necessarily going to determine the Republican candidate. See, Massachusetts and Scott Brown. Independents will determine the outcome of the next election at the Primary and General levels.

Cowlesy

01-26-2010, 08:21 AM

He says that no one in this business will out work him. I believe him.

That's the biggest pull for me with Johnson. I think he'll work extraordinarily hard if he commits to run.

If he can reach the 80% that are not us, CPAC, Family Council or the other 10% on the right groups, he could win. It is just very difficult to reach those 80% who'd rather watch Football/Food Network than 10 minutes of a political message.

Nate

01-26-2010, 08:38 AM

So would I. A "message force multiplier" is a technique used by the media for years to sell their beliefs. A valuable tactic to spread the liberty message as well.

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00

This right here is the #1 reason we need to promote Gary Johnson. He gives us one more weapon in the fight. With both him & Ron Paul up there basically saying the same things but in different ways it makes the message seem less "fringe", "unRepublican" & "out of step with the mainstream of America" you know, all the crap they threw at Ron during 07-08. Johnson's Gubernatorial experience gives him & us added credibility.

If both of them run Ron Paul already has the advantage over Gary of name recognition, grassroots base & credibility with voters from his 08 run. Should Ron run Gary could campaign all the way up until the last debate, bow out, endorse Dr Paul to consolidate the liberty vote & become the leading candidate for Ron's VP spot should he gain the nomination. If Gary catches lightning in a bottle & actually ends up striking a chord with mainstream America then Ron could bow out, endorse Johnson & become his VP. If Ron Paul doesn't run for '12 then we would still have a horse in the race. Except for minor philosophical differences I currently see no downside to a Gary Johnson Presidential Campaign.

Elwar

01-26-2010, 08:39 AM

The Republican base is not necessarily going to determine the Republican candidate. See, Massachusetts and Scott Brown. Independents will determine the outcome of the next election at the Primary and General levels.

This...

Remember, Obama will be the Democrat candidate in 2012. The Democrats will not be voting in their primary, they will be voting in the Republican Party.

For those wondering about his approach to the drug war and marijuana legalization. He approaches it from an economic basis. He shows that we're spending far too much money encarcerating drug users with little results. He wants marijuana legal and a medical approach to other drugs one step at a time. He's worked with the anti-drug community for over a decade, he wants people to be drug free but he doesn't want to force them, but he wants to get people the help they need to stop if they want to.

For those looking at an all or none solution. Look at California's marijuana laws. They had to take baby steps. It was a fight to get medical marijuana legalized, and even then it wasn't perfect. They have finally come to the point of being able to bring up legislation to fully legalize marijuana after almost a decade.

Johnson did well in New Mexico considering he had a Democrat controlled Congress. He used the veto pen like no other governor before him. He'll do well in the White House.

constituent

01-26-2010, 08:40 AM

If he can reach the 80% that are not us, CPAC, Family Council or the other 10% on the right groups, he could win. It is just very difficult to reach those 80% who'd rather watch Football/Food Network than 10 minutes of a political message.

Which is why the controversial aspects of the character, the image and drama "Gary Johnson" will very much benefit the campaign of candidate Gary Johnson. There are plenty of elements to the story, and if played right, should keep people's ears ringing.

Stary Hickory

01-26-2010, 08:43 AM

I don't like how Gary Johnson presented abortion either. It sounds like a deal breaker for a shot at POTUS. Ron Paul does this better than Johnson. Otherwise he seems good. He does not seem driven enough for me though. Seems like to me he wouldn't make any big changes in DC if he got in.

Krugerrand

01-26-2010, 08:44 AM

the Republican base is pro-war, pro-empire, and I don't see that changing in less than 2 years.

It can change very quickly. W ran against Al Gore on 'a humble foreign policy' and 'not being the world's police.'

Nate

01-26-2010, 08:45 AM

The Republican base is not necessarily going to determine the Republican candidate. See, Massachusetts and Scott Brown. Independents will determine the outcome of the next election at the Primary and General levels.

I agree. Many people left the Republican Party during Bush & many people have left the Democrats because of Obama. The majority of Americans now identify themselves as independents & they WILL determine the next election. I see Johnson doing very well with independents, maybe even more so than Ron Paul. In fact I think he will do much better with disaffected Democrats & independents than he will with the Republican rank & file.

Nate

01-26-2010, 08:49 AM

Remember, Obama will be the Democrat candidate in 2012. The Democrats will not be voting in their primary, they will be voting in the Republican Party.

He used the veto pen like no other governor before him. He'll do well in the White House.

Both of these are great points.

Krugerrand

01-26-2010, 08:50 AM

For every voter like yourself, there are two independent female voters that are pro-choice. Which is not to justify his position, just to point out that I do not think abortion is the swing issue in this election. If we lose the religious right with their views of apocalyptic fighting against the muslim world I say good riddance.

Be careful writing off the pro-life voters as being just the religious right. I doubt W would have been elected if not for pro-life left leaning voters.

constituent

01-26-2010, 08:51 AM

I agree. Many people left the Republican Party during Bush & many people have left the Democrats because of Obama. The majority of Americans now identify themselves as independents & they WILL determine the next election. I see Johnson doing very well with independents, maybe even more so than Ron Paul. In fact I think he will do much better with disaffected Democrats & independents than he will with the Republican rank & file.

Which poses an interesting question. Should we be focusing our efforts on recruiting democratically-minded individuals into the republican fold? In this way we could play no small role in the outcome of the GOP primary.

Or would that be doing the GOP entirely too big a favor?

constituent

01-26-2010, 08:54 AM

I doubt W would have been elected if not for pro-life left leaning voters.

These days, too many of the _pro-life™_ voters know they're being played for single-issue suckers for that particular lobby to have the same power it did at the turn of the century.

I could be wrong, but imo, people may hate Obama and the dems, but they aren't exactly running to the GOP yet either.

Krugerrand

01-26-2010, 08:55 AM

The Republican base is not necessarily going to determine the Republican candidate. See, Massachusetts and Scott Brown. Independents will determine the outcome of the next election at the Primary and General levels.

This concept is HUGE and spot on. McCain on the surface was a terrible choice for the GOP. He only won because he got enough momentum in states that allow non-GOP registered voters to vote in the primary.

Personally, I think that is wrong. If you cannot muster the courage to register as a Republican, you should not vote in the GOP primary.

That said, it is the world we live in ... and we can use it to our advantage. I think a well funded and well argued liberty platform that is against the war and against NAFTA can have big-time independent support. That can get a liberty candidate into the general election.

Krugerrand

01-26-2010, 09:07 AM

These days, too many of the _pro-life™_ voters know they're being played for single-issue suckers for that particular lobby to have the same power it did at the turn of the century.

I could be wrong, but imo, people may hate Obama and the dems, but they aren't exactly running to the GOP yet either.

Let's assume Johnson gets the nomination ... he'd be running agasint somebody who support partial birth abortions, supports government funding of abortions, supports doctors/pharmacists not being able to follow their conscious and supports preventing parental notifications. It's not hard to get the pro-life voters given what he'd run against.

That leaves getting the nomination. I think he could do it ... but needs to frame his position better. You can't start out claiming to be pro-choice. He would be better off saying:
I personally abhor abortion. I have a plan to reduce the number of abortions - 1 repeal RvW, 2 - ensure no federal funds are directed towards abortion at home or in other countries, 3 - prohibit partial birth abortions, ensure that states have the power to implement controls such as parental notification laws and laws to prevent abortions after the first trimester or whenever a mother's life is in danger.

Nate

01-26-2010, 09:08 AM

Which poses an interesting question. Should we be focusing our efforts on recruiting democratically-minded individuals into the republican fold? In this way we could play no small role in the outcome of the GOP primary.

Or would that be doing the GOP entirely too big a favor?

I personally think that Johnson should recruit democratically-minded individuals into the liberty fold. I could care less about the GOP because the type of people Johnson would bring in are not the types that would be favorable to the neo-con hacks that currently run the party. We would be doing them a favor but it would be like the favor you give a crackhead by having an intervention & helping him get off the pipe. They don't like it at first but in the long run they are better off.

Krugerrand

01-26-2010, 09:10 AM

Which poses an interesting question. Should we be focusing our efforts on recruiting democratically-minded individuals into the republican fold? In this way we could play no small role in the outcome of the GOP primary.

Or would that be doing the GOP entirely too big a favor?

They don't need to "be in the fold" they just need to vote in the primary. I think this primary stands a great chance to get somebody 'anti-typical GOP' to do well. And, that can attract independent voters. Look at the early states McCain won ... that's where to focus on running an anti-war, anti-NAFTA candidate.

Elwar

01-26-2010, 09:22 AM

--------
As for abortion, he's one of those politicians who say they're personally against it but wouldn't be comfortable outlawing it-yet local pro-lifers love him. "He backs every piece of legislation we're for," says Dauneen Dolce, of the Right to Life Committee of New Mexico. That includes "parental consent," "informed consent," and bans on assisted suicide, partial-birth abortion, and Medicaid-funded abortion. Johnson didn't win the group's endorsement in 1994, but got it four years later.
---------

constituent

01-26-2010, 09:43 AM

They don't need to "be in the fold" they just need to vote in the primary.

In Texas, that involves showing up at the primary and having your registration card stamped Republican. If you don't think that most of those independent voters will consider this "in the fold," I dunno what to say.

I would venture to guess that there are at least a few states with similar restrictions on who is and is not allowed to participate in the party primary elections.

This doesn't even begin to address the issue of becoming delegates.

constituent

01-26-2010, 09:44 AM

I personally think that Johnson should recruit democratically-minded individuals into the liberty fold. I could care less about the GOP because the type of people Johnson would bring in are not the types that would be favorable to the neo-con hacks that currently run the party. We would be doing them a favor but it would be like the favor you give a crackhead by having an intervention & helping him get off the pipe. They don't like it at first but in the long run they are better off.

Well, I think the analogy is a bit simplistic, but overall I do agree with you and would admit that it does get the point across. :)

Krugerrand

01-26-2010, 10:04 AM

In Texas, that involves showing up at the primary and having your registration card stamped Republican. If you don't think that most of those independent voters will consider this "in the fold," I dunno what to say.

I would venture to guess that there are at least a few states with similar restrictions on who is and is not allowed to participate in the party primary elections.

This doesn't even begin to address the issue of becoming delegates.

True enough ... but remember that McCain won the GOP primarily because of the votes of people not registered as Republican.

TotalLiberty

01-26-2010, 10:35 AM

Fine, you keep advocating for your freedom with zero compromise and get nowhere. How is that working out for you?[QUOTE]

How is compromise working for you? Why not respond to the specific points I made about Gary J?

[QUOTE]Use your head. This guy is where we are. He just has a piece of himself that is practical. eg: he recognizes that it will take time to educate people. He thinks that winning so you can actually make change is a practical approach to reform.

So did Bob Barr. How'd that work out?

You can either support that approach, or not. In the abscence of a better alternative I support it. This guy is willing to make quite a sacrifice on our behalf. He could easily live a retired life of ease.

So you have a choice, you can remain ideologically pure in a campaign sense and go nowhere or you can soften the rough edges and move in the right direction. By the way, I believe he is ideologically pure.

I'd rather not compromise my principles. A watered down libertarian is a step away from full on neoconism. Compromise in this department will not help- we are then trying to beat them at their own game, which is impossible. Voters will always choose the most consistent of candidates, and in this case the neocons win hands down.

He is not the philosopher king that Dr. Paul is. He is an executive who gets shit done. In case you have forgotten Dr. Paul's executive abilities SUCK and that is why the campaign was badly mismanaged on the inside. Being President requires a vision and the ability to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

So we should support candidates who act less like Ron Paul libertarians and more like neocons? I'm not saying RP ran the best campaign, but this has nothing to do with the validity of sticking to his principles.

This guy has the right vision. But more importantly, I think he can make it happen.

No, he is not an electrifying public speaker. Post Obama that is a good thing. He is sincere and thought ful.

It sounds like you are certainly drinking the kool aid here. I'm not interested in supporting a candidate, just because he's a little better than all the other candidates. Like Ron Paul himself said, this is about IDEAS, not politicians...and ideas are bulletproof and don't require elections to be proven.

Elwar

01-26-2010, 10:40 AM

How is compromise working for you? Why not respond to the specific points I made about Gary J?

Gary Johnson didn't comprimise while in office. He stuck to his guns and made a lot of political enemies on both sides of the aisle but didn't budge.

He left New Mexico in great shape with a budget surplus.

llepard

01-26-2010, 10:46 AM

[QUOTE=llepard;2511459]Fine, you keep advocating for your freedom with zero compromise and get nowhere. How is that working out for you?[QUOTE]

It sounds like you are certainly drinking the kool aid here. I'm not interested in supporting a candidate, just because he's a little better than all the other candidates. Like Ron Paul himself said, this is about IDEAS, not politicians...and ideas are bulletproof and don't require elections to be proven.

To compare Gary Johnson to Bob Barr is absurd.

Fundamentally you need to ask yourself a question. Do you want to be rigid, doctrinaire and lose? Or do you want to be principled, open minded and win. The difference between winning and losing determines the outcome of the world. I know which world I want my children to live in, even though I have the street cred to be more doctrinaire than you.

Find someone else to argue with. You are oh so pure. I am done with this thread and you.

When you have made the contributions to this cause that I have you can say I am drinking the kool aid. With 68 posts and a December 2009 sign up date I suggest you STFU. Over and out.

Todd

01-26-2010, 11:37 AM

Check the videos. He thinks it is not an issue the government should mess with. But to the degree we do he is pro individual choice in 1st trimester only. Like RP he believes it should be a State issue. Personally he opposes abortion, as do most people.

Folks, abortion is not the be all end all of this election. The friggin country is disintegrating as we speak. Do we want to have some abortion litmus test? This guy will be fine, and independents will be much more receptive to his common sense view.

Like I said, I care about the issue, but I would definetely support Johnson if he were a nominee ....(Paul being out of it of course)....because I think getting the issue out of the federal hands is the right way to go
I completely agree with your analysis of Johnson as a viable option.

Bruehound

01-26-2010, 12:33 PM

when you have made the contributions to this cause that i have you can say i am drinking the kool aid. With 68 posts and a december 2009 sign up date i suggest you stfu. Over and out.

+1776 !!!!

Anti Federalist

01-26-2010, 12:41 PM

+1776 !!!!

I was thinking the same thing myself.

I have a list in my mind, of roughly ten people or so, who have the bona fides, they are the real deal and really, really put their money where their mouth is.

LL is at the top of that list.

klamath

01-26-2010, 12:47 PM

[QUOTE=llepard;2511459]Fine, you keep advocating for your freedom with zero compromise and get nowhere. How is that working out for you?[QUOTE]

How is compromise working for you? Why not respond to the specific points I made about Gary J?

So did Bob Barr. How'd that work out?

I'd rather not compromise my principles. A watered down libertarian is a step away from full on neoconism. Compromise in this department will not help- we are then trying to beat them at their own game, which is impossible. Voters will always choose the most consistent of candidates, and in this case the neocons win hands down.

So we should support candidates who act less like Ron Paul libertarians and more like neocons? I'm not saying RP ran the best campaign, but this has nothing to do with the validity of sticking to his principles.

It sounds like you are certainly drinking the kool aid here. I'm not interested in supporting a candidate, just because he's a little better than all the other candidates. Like Ron Paul himself said, this is about IDEAS, not politicians...and ideas are bulletproof and don't require elections to be proven.

It might change your prospective to Know that llepard personally paid for a $100,000 dollar ad in USA today for RP. It is wise to know who you are talking to before you you make assumptions.

TotalLiberty

01-26-2010, 12:57 PM

[QUOTE=TotalLiberty;2511704][QUOTE=llepard;2511459]Fine, you keep advocating for your freedom with zero compromise and get nowhere. How is that working out for you?

To compare Gary Johnson to Bob Barr is absurd.

Fundamentally you need to ask yourself a question. Do you want to be rigid, doctrinaire and lose? Or do you want to be principled, open minded and win. The difference between winning and losing determines the outcome of the world. I know which world I want my children to live in, even though I have the street cred to be more doctrinaire than you.

Find someone else to argue with. You are oh so pure. I am done with this thread and you.

When you have made the contributions to this cause that I have you can say I am drinking the kool aid. With 68 posts and a December 2009 sign up date I suggest you STFU. Over and out.

Wow, I didn't think my kool aid comment was a personal attack, sorry if it came across that way. I don't think I deserved to be personally attacked on this thread. And, I don't think it should matter if one has 1 post or 20,000 posts as far as their credibility. I'm not claiming to be pure. We are both after the same thing, correct? Maximizing our freedom & liberty. To me, compromising on major issues does not work. It's appeasement to the neocon agenda, which I want nothing to do with.

Lastly, what exactly is "winning" to you? Winning elections? That doesn't make sense to me. Listen to what Ronald Reagan said, especially in his early speeches. The guy was flat out anti-government, pro-free market. But what happened when he took office? The largest debt the country has ever seen was built in his 8 years, among all kinds of other areas of government growth.

Winning elections at the expense of principles may interest you, but it does not interest me in the slightest. Being rigid and standing up to statism/government in every area to me is a winning strategy.

We will not beat the neocons at their own game. It's impossible. Backing down on important issues is exactly how this movement will crumble.

TotalLiberty

01-26-2010, 01:03 PM

[QUOTE=TotalLiberty;2511704][QUOTE=llepard;2511459]Fine, you keep advocating for your freedom with zero compromise and get nowhere. How is that working out for you?[/B]

It might change your prospective to Know that llepard personally paid for a $100,000 dollar ad in USA today for RP. It is wise to know who you are talking to before you you make assumptions.

That's great, and I'm sure he's a great guy, but that doesn't change my point: that compromise is a losing battle. What happens is, if Gary J runs, he gets pitted against the Mitt Romneys and Palins of the neocon cast. The media will nail him to the cross for being unprincipled. Gary J will discuss how he will pull some troops from the middle east. Palin will proclaim that we need to WIN THE WAR first, and the crowd will give her a standing ovation. Gary will say we need to legalize weed, and the media will paint him as a lunatic who wants kids to be able to buy heroin at grocery stores.

Why not go all the way? The attacks are going to be there no matter what.

ALL of the candidates will talk about cutting taxes. Gary will not stand out here.
ALL of the candidates will talk about reforming the Fed. Gary will not stand out here.
ALL candidates will talk about cutting government spending. Gary will not stand out here.

I'd take RP any day, whether he is considered "extreme" by the mainstream or not. Principles matter. Candidates do not.

Original_Intent

01-26-2010, 01:05 PM

[QUOTE=llepard;2511720][QUOTE=TotalLiberty;2511704]

Wow, I didn't think my kool aid comment was a personal attack, sorry if it came across that way. I don't think I deserved to be personally attacked on this thread. And, I don't think it should matter if one has 1 post or 20,000 posts as far as their credibility. I'm not claiming to be pure. We are both after the same thing, correct? Maximizing our freedom & liberty. To me, compromising on major issues does not work. It's appeasement to the neocon agenda, which I want nothing to do with.

Lastly, what exactly is "winning" to you? Winning elections? That doesn't make sense to me. Listen to what Ronald Reagan said, especially in his early speeches. The guy was flat out anti-government, pro-free market. But what happened when he took office? The largest debt the country has ever seen was built in his 8 years, among all kinds of other areas of government growth.

Winning elections at the expense of principles may interest you, but it does not interest me in the slightest. Being rigid and standing up to statism/government in every area to me is a winning strategy.

We will not beat the neocons at their own game. It's impossible. Backing down on important issues is exactly how this movement will crumble.

I think the problem is that you do not understand how much Llepard sacrificed for the Ron Paul campaign, so it is a little bit infuriating(?) to have a Johnny come lately pop in and make comments about him "drinking the kool aid" regarding another candidate.

I haven't really considered anyone other than Ron Paul (or whoever he endorses) as presidential material for 2012, but I will say that an endorsement from Llepard carries a lot of weight with me.

TotalLiberty

01-26-2010, 01:07 PM

I was thinking the same thing myself.

I have a list in my mind, of roughly ten people or so, who have the bona fides, they are the real deal and really, really put their money where their mouth is.

LL is at the top of that list.

Money is just one way to contribute. I'm glad LL is contributing what he can to how he thinks we can best achieve liberty. Because I have fewer posts does not mean I am any less of a libertarian, or have less cred when it comes to ideas. I, too, donated lots of money and time to RP, and am involved in the liberty movement more on the civil disobedient/tax protest side.

My disagreement is about compromise, not about LL's character or what he has done for this movement in the past.

TotalLiberty

01-26-2010, 01:09 PM

[QUOTE=TotalLiberty;2511899][QUOTE=llepard;2511720]

I think the problem is that you do not understand how much Llepard sacrificed for the Ron Paul campaign, so it is a little bit infuriating(?) to have a Johnny come lately pop in and make comments about him "drinking the kool aid" regarding another candidate.

I haven't really considered anyone other than Ron Paul (or whoever he endorses) as presidential material for 2012, but I will say that an endorsement from Llepard carries a lot of weight with me.

I'm not a Johnny come lately by any means (other than this board) and I think I addressed my respect for LL. Instead of just listening to other posters who have donated a lot to RP in the past, don't you think it's more important that we discuss ideas, like compromise & the importance of principles?

Anti Federalist

01-26-2010, 01:13 PM

Money is just one way to contribute. I'm glad LL is contributing what he can to how he thinks we can best achieve liberty. Because I have fewer posts does not mean I am any less of a libertarian, or have less cred when it comes to ideas. I, too, donated lots of money and time to RP, and am involved in the liberty movement more on the civil disobedient/tax protest side.

My disagreement is about compromise, not about LL's character or what he has done for this movement in the past.

I happen to agree with you on compromise.

We are in the mess we are because of compromise.

Personally, I'll see RP in 2012 for president or, perhaps, sit out, again.

I'm not that keen on GJ myself.

That being said, it was the smart ass Kool Aid remark that drew blood and why everybody jumped on you.

It's not that you have nothing to contribute, it is that, being new, you don't know LL's history, which I and some other old timers do know, and let me tell you, it's staggering how much LL has put into this effort and the 2008 campaign.

sofia

01-26-2010, 01:13 PM

[QUOTE=TotalLiberty;2511704][QUOTE=llepard;2511459]Fine, you keep advocating for your freedom with zero compromise and get nowhere. How is that working out for you?[/B]

It might change your prospective to Know that llepard personally paid for a $100,000 dollar ad in USA today for RP. It is wise to know who you are talking to before you you make assumptions.

The fact that lepard paid 100 K for ad (for which I applaud him for) does not add any more weight to his opinion than that of those on this forum who could only afford to send $20.

That said.....i believe it sheer folly to split the liberty vote and the liberty money between two candidates...one of whom now has 100% name recognition and is all over the media daily...and is 100 REAL.

...and a guy with ZERO name reco that we can only say with 80-85% certainty will not sell out - at least to some extent - in the end.

We need a SINGLE Ron Paul force that starts off in the "top tier"....not two candidates in the "second tier"...

If Johnson intends to run with Ron in the race....then its his ego...nothing more that is propelling him.....ONLY IF Ron decides to not run....would I even consider supporting this man.

Krugerrand

01-26-2010, 01:15 PM

I think the problem is that you do not understand how much Llepard sacrificed for the Ron Paul campaign, so it is a little bit infuriating(?) to have a Johnny come lately pop in and make comments about him "drinking the kool aid" regarding another candidate.

I haven't really considered anyone other than Ron Paul (or whoever he endorses) as presidential material for 2012, but I will say that an endorsement from Llepard carries a lot of weight with me.

If I may add ... be careful what you label as "compromising." This forum is rather split on its views on abortion. Despite this one issue, Gary Johnson is not a "compromising" candidate. The abortion issue certainly does not merit the suggestion that support of Gary Johnson is giving in to neo-cons. Abortion is highly negotiable to those of neo-con persuasion.

Let's be honest here ... Even if they both run, very few voters will decide between Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. One will not cost the other a chance of victory. If you are stuck with Ron Paul or nobody ... you very well may end up not supporting somebody who could help advance the causes to which Ron Paul has dedicated his life.

TotalLiberty

01-26-2010, 01:17 PM

I happen to agree with you on compromise.

We are in the mess we are because of compromise.

Personally, I'll see RP in 2012 for president or, perhaps, sit out, again.

I'm not that keen on GJ myself.

That being said, it was the smart ass Kool Aid remark that drew blood and why everybody jumped on you.

It's not that you have nothing to contribute, it is that, being new, you don't know LL's history, which I and some other old timers do know, and let me tell you, it's staggering how much LL has put into this effort and the 2008 campaign.

Ok, I totally hear you. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sorry about the kool aid comment and retract it. I apologize to Llepard. I hope we can civilly discuss this.

Austrian Econ Disciple

01-26-2010, 01:21 PM

Krugerrand

01-26-2010, 01:24 PM

~~~
That said.....i believe it sheer folly to split the liberty vote and the liberty money between two candidates...one of whom now has 100% name recognition and is all over the media daily...and is 100 REAL.

...and a guy with ZERO name reco that we can only say with 80-85% certainty will not sell out - at least to some extent - in the end.

We need a SINGLE Ron Paul force that starts off in the "top tier"....not two candidates in the "second tier"...

If Johnson intends to run with Ron in the race....then its his ego...nothing more that is propelling him.....ONLY IF Ron decides to not run....would I even consider supporting this man.

I'd ask that you consider mine and Elwar's take in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228342).

Let's stack up on Liberty candidates early. Then we can pick a horse to finish the race.

I agree, the more the merrier.

They shouldn't be saying "will this candidate split up the Libertarian Republican vote".

They should say...it appears that the libertarians have taken over the GOP lineup.

I don't see why they don't say "Con: Romney will split the Palin, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Huckabee pro-war vote".

Think how helpful it would have been in those early debates if more voices would have supported Ron Paul's insights. Imagine if somebody would have followed up on McCain that he had no knowledge of the Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets and made him look like the fool he is.

itshappening

01-26-2010, 01:25 PM

Sad to see Larry get upset at this forum. I hope he understands that most of us appreciate his input and efforts in making a difference the best way he can

klamath

01-26-2010, 01:31 PM

Ok, I totally hear you. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sorry about the kool aid comment and retract it. I apologize to Llepard. I hope we can civilly discuss this.

It was a little history that you missed out on. We spent weeks and numerous near 1000 post threads composing the Ad Llepard was paying for.
I actually am with you in that if GJ runs against RP through the earlier primaries I will be seeing blood and no holds will be barred on my part. Having Llepard talk to GJ personally and have him come out with the opinion that GJ will not act as the spoiler helped my opinion of GJ. A lot remains to be seen about the future.

Todd

01-26-2010, 01:31 PM

Sad to see Larry get upset at this forum. I hope he understands that most of us appreciate his input and efforts in making a difference the best way he can

Some people haven't figured out there's a respectful and tactful way to disagree and still get your point across without being a condescending holier than thou ass

itshappening

01-26-2010, 01:37 PM

I have a good feeling Ron is going to run in 2012. I do not want to see GJ run in 2012. Gary can wait for 2016 and build on Ron Paul. One would hope Gary would become more radical in his libertarianism by that time, but that said I'd still vote for him (unless someone like Mary runs in the LP). He is no Ron Paul though. I'd like to see Adam or Debra run in 2020 though.

there might not be a chance to compete in a primary until 2020 if Obama fulfills his ambition of being a one term President. We might have one shot at this and we do not want a neocon being the nominee though the odds of that are high

One thing that bothers me about Johnson, Larry mentioned that he wanted marijuana to be key part of the campaign. I think the less he says about this in a Republican primary the better, he just needs to be programmed to run on his record as governor, what he did, how he did it, jobs and the economy AND NOTHING ELSE. Just those things over and over and if he's asked about drugs say he believes it's a states issue then change the subject to what he did in New Mexico, how he created jobs. That's what they want to hear.

Elwar

01-26-2010, 01:38 PM

If Johnson were running on the Libertarian Party ticket he could come out as against the income tax, against the Fed, etc...

He's actually stepping into the role of a viable candidate. The way to win is to generalize your stance. Plain and simple. Everyone wants hard stances on the issues out of the candidates but what wins is general statements. "Hope and Change" won the presidency and the power to pass major spending.

Gary Johnson has proved himself as a governor. If you have any doubts about his stance on the issues, just look at his actions while actually in office.

TotalLiberty

01-26-2010, 01:42 PM

Some people haven't figured out there's a respectful and tactful way to disagree and still get your point across without being a condescending holier than thou ass

Todd, I did not call anyone any names. You are displaying the exact behavior you are claiming to be against by calling me a "holier than thou ass". Please reread and let's try to have a civil discussion.

itshappening

01-26-2010, 01:43 PM

Johnson just needs to run on his record as governor

HIS RECORD, JOBS, ECONOMY, his healthcare solution and taking pot shots at President Obama

repeat over and over for 2 years, do not even mention drugs and abortion beyond prepared answers

People want to hear someone who has experience like a governor telling them what they've achieved and what they hope to achieve in the whitehouse. He should be proud of his record and effectively run on that. Mitt Romney did exactly that in 2008 and although he didnt win he came close and Fox etc. lapped up his talk of his record as governor (even though it was a modest one )

Todd

01-26-2010, 02:01 PM

Todd, I did not call anyone any names. You are displaying the exact behavior you are claiming to be against by calling me a "holier than thou ass". Please reread and let's try to have a civil discussion.

Sorry..

that wasn't totally directed at you and more at an overall growing forum tone of late. I think that's why Lepard responded in kind. (Alot of neocon drones)

I apologise.

Original_Intent

01-26-2010, 02:06 PM

OK, well I am glad the kool aid comment was retracted, as was mentioned that I felt was where the line was crossed also.

My stand is I cannot imagine anyone I would support vs. Ron Paul - period.

However, I am equally anxious to see who will be the next Ron Paul or better yet to get MORE Ron Paul types elected and working together (I think Ron feels lonely on those 434-1 votes!) I was just beginning to take Sanford seriously when he had the hike in the Appalacians incident. I wasn't sold on him at any rate, but I was starting to hope he might be at least an adequate candidate.

Because of the great respect that I have for Llepard, the fact that he is taken a serious interest in and even given somewhat of an endorsement for Johnson has me hopeful again. If RP runs, I still wouldn't give him (GJ) a second thought, but it is good to see other options. And it is also nice to see someone who is pretty solid on the principles and also appears to have both the will and the know-how to win. Frankly, as MANY have pointed out, Ron Paul is ALL substance but not much of a salesman, the marketing is lacking. (Frankly I love that about him, but in today's America it won't win elections - think "Yes We Can!") So if I could find someone that is 90-95% Ron Paul on substance, and was even 50% Obama on sales pitch - that's a compromise I'd be willing to make as long as the compromise is not in a "non-negotiable" area for me.

TotalLiberty

01-26-2010, 02:08 PM

Sorry..

that wasn't totally directed at you and more at an overall growing forum tone of late. I think that's why Lepard responded in kind. (Alot of neocon drones)

I apologise.

No worries, I think we all just want to have civil discussions without name calling and ad hominem attacks, no matter how much we may disagree about ideas, issues, or candidates.

Since we've cleared up the issues, I'd love to debate the idea of compromising principles when it comes to politics.

TotalLiberty

01-26-2010, 02:09 PM

Original_Intent

01-26-2010, 02:10 PM

Then they don't support him.

Elwar

01-26-2010, 02:12 PM

Then the question becomes, what if that compromise is non-negotiable for someone else?

You can't be all things to all people.

If someone is die hard for the Drug War but agrees with Johnson on everything else...they'll have to decide if they want a big government neo-con instead.

Elwar

01-26-2010, 02:15 PM

I was a huge supporter of Harry Browne and agreed with him about 100%.

I supported Browne's advocacy for open borders and an end to the war on immigration, which was not 100% the same as Ron Paul's stance.

I was willing to support Ron Paul because he's 95% in agreement on everything else.

Anti Federalist

01-26-2010, 02:20 PM

Ok, I totally hear you. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sorry about the kool aid comment and retract it. I apologize to Llepard. I hope we can civilly discuss this.

Excellent.

LibertyEagle

01-26-2010, 02:22 PM

I'm not a Johnny come lately by any means (other than this board) and I think I addressed my respect for LL. Instead of just listening to other posters who have donated a lot to RP in the past, don't you think it's more important that we discuss ideas, like compromise & the importance of principles?

Not to this board either, as you are RevolutionSD, reincarnated. Please follow the process clearly listed in the forum guidelines, and that you agreed to when you became a forum member, if you wish to refute the banning of your first account. Starting a new account is not acceptable.

Original_Intent

01-26-2010, 02:27 PM

No worries, I think we all just want to have civil discussions without name calling and ad hominem attacks, no matter how much we may disagree about ideas, issues, or candidates.

Since we've cleared up the issues, I'd love to debate the idea of compromising principles when it comes to politics.

Here's my take on compromising principles. It's a spectrum (Ayn Rand's grey areas, lol)

For instance abortion:

For me, the ideal candidate would favor outlawing abortion on the federal level because to my beliefs, that is within the purview of the federal government as defedning the life, liberty and property of it's citizens. (please let's not derail into a discussion about abortion)

However, I wm willing to compromise down to the point that a candidate feels that the issue should be turned over to the individual states to decide.

I could not support someone who was supportive of the status quo or that was pro-choice (from a POLICY standpoint).

Another example: War on drugs

Even though I have never so much as smoked weed, my ideal candidate would be in favor of legalizing all drugs, for pretty much the same reasons Ron Paul gives. Drug addiction should be treated as a health issue, not a crime, imho.

However, I am a LOT more flexible on this issue, as it does not directly affect me. Although I would disagree, I could probably bring myself to support someone who supported the status quo, as long as promoting the drug war was not something that he ran on as that would make me wary that he would escalate the war on drugs. Some people would feel that this was an inexcusable compromise on principle, but to ME it is just not that important.

And for a third example the War on Terror

I could not support someone who is not committed to ending our involvement all over the world. In my opinion we should close most military bases around the world (or have the host countries paying us for defending them), and we should worry about defending our country and not looking for fights elsewhere.

To me this is something that I can't compromise on.

Everyone could make similar lists of the hundreds of possible issues and make their own decisions on where the various lines of compromise are.

I have nto studied GJ in detail, but from what I have heard so far, it appears for me that he falls within acceptable limits.

pacelli

01-26-2010, 02:36 PM

They don't need to "be in the fold" they just need to vote in the primary. I think this primary stands a great chance to get somebody 'anti-typical GOP' to do well. And, that can attract independent voters. Look at the early states McCain won ... that's where to focus on running an anti-war, anti-NAFTA candidate.

McCain sang, "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" in New Hampshire, which he won. He won on a pro-war message. Don't forget that Johnson will be running as a republican as well. Do the voters of New Hampshire want a pro-war candidate? Would an anti-war campaign in NH be an effective use of grassroots resources?

akforme

01-26-2010, 02:48 PM

I do not like his position on Abortion, both for personal reasons as well as political. I wish he'd simply mirror the position that RP has taken which has allowed both pros and antis to be happy in the movement. Ie personally opposed to abortion plus not a federal issue.

I didn't like Ron Paul's, I respected his views at a federal level and did change my mine, I"m pro choice anti- roe v. wade. However, several of my liberal friends can't see past this issue so they never gave Ron a chance. Even if he was like you I doubt you'd see any change to abortion for a long fricken time. The fight give the politician too much power because people will close their mind off to this one issue.

Krugerrand

01-26-2010, 02:55 PM

McCain sang, "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" in New Hampshire, which he won. He won on a pro-war message. Don't forget that Johnson will be running as a republican as well. Do the voters of New Hampshire want a pro-war candidate? Would an anti-war campaign in NH be an effective use of grassroots resources?

No. Yes. McCain won where independents were allowed to vote. That was because he was perceived as anti-GOP establishment.

In New Hampshire, 21 percent of voters in the Republican primary told exit pollsters that they “somewhat disapprove” of the war. But 49 percent of those voters cast ballots for McCain—more than twice the total of any other candidate. Another 14 percent of the New Hampshire G.O.P. electorate said they “strongly disapprove” of the war. But McCain was their first choice as well, with 38 percent. (Ron Paul got 26.).

On the flip side, the 25 percent of G.O.P. voters in New Hampshire who said that they “strongly approve” of the war sided with Mitt Romney over McCain by an astounding 44 to 23 percent margin.
http://www.observer.com/2008/john-mccain-anti-war-candidate

Elwar

01-26-2010, 03:22 PM

No. Yes. McCain won where independents were allowed to vote. That was because he was perceived as anti-GOP establishment.

McCain captured the NH independent spirit in 2000 against Bush. He just kept those same voters in 2008.

Romney did well because he lived next door. He was slated to win NH because of that.

low preference guy

01-26-2010, 04:30 PM

sofia

01-26-2010, 04:47 PM

Sofia said:

"We need a SINGLE Ron Paul force that starts off in the "top tier"....not two candidates in the "second tier"..."

Max, the neocons divided their forces in 9 in the GOP primary. Yet they won. Why can't we do the same?

because we are already starting out with 2 major handicaps..

1. we are still a minority, and thus cant afford to spread our forces out....the 300 Spartans at Thermopolya held off the Persian army because they stood shoulder to shoulder

2.we have to break through the media wall and that will be easier to do with a signle force behind Ron Paul

low preference guy

01-26-2010, 04:52 PM

I disagree. Ron and Johnson won't attack each other. In the debates before Iowa we will have two voices talking about liberty. It will make our message sound more mainstream. When it becomes clear who has the better change to win (probably RP) and the debates before Iowa are over, one drops out and endorses the other.

If Johnson is the one who drops out, he still gains because he builds his name recognition for a future run. I think running them both (if they want to) is the way to go. Hey, let's even have Walter Williams run.

sofia

01-26-2010, 04:55 PM

purplechoe

01-26-2010, 05:03 PM

because we are already starting out with 2 major handicaps..

1. we are still a minority, and thus cant afford to spread our forces out....the 300 Spartans at Thermopolya held off the Persian army because they stood shoulder to shoulder

2.we have to break through the media wall and that will be easier to do with a signle force behind Ron Paul

I approve of this post...

:)

Meatwasp

01-26-2010, 05:04 PM

nobody will drop out after iowa or new hampshire...too early..

GJ and RP wont attack each other...but they will divide the money and the votes..

I.m afraid you're right

itshappening

01-26-2010, 05:08 PM

what if RP doesn't want to run? he's 76 and i dont expect him to.

Bergie Bergeron

01-27-2010, 12:13 AM

what if RP doesn't want to run? he's 76 and i dont expect him to.
I'm sure he wants to run again but the age factor might start to become a problem indeed.

Elwar

01-27-2010, 08:28 AM

nobody will drop out after iowa or new hampshire...too early..

GJ and RP wont attack each other...but they will divide the money and the votes..

Not so much. Johnson indicated his respect for Ron Paul and his willingness to be in this movement long term (as in, 2016 if necessary).

Basically it all comes down to the Iowa straw poll. Ideally we would have Paul and Johnson in the #1 and #2 slots...this would devestate all of the others. But most likely, one will do better than the other. The one who is lower will most likely finish out that quarter gathering contributions to put toward their PAC, then drop out endorsing the other.

That creates a huge boost to the other going into the Nov. 5th moneybomb hopefully with momentum into the Tea Party moneybomb with primaries soon after.

With Johnson getting in the game right now he's getting exposure, which means the liberty message is getting exposure.

All of the reasons that some Ron Paul folks might have for not supporting Johnson are reasons that others will support him and not Paul. And if he were to drop out and support Paul, his supporters would most likely follow suit because they're not that different.

I would actually love to see 2-3 other liberty candidates as well, especially in the debates. Let us drown them out this time.

Austrian Econ Disciple

01-27-2010, 08:43 AM

what if RP doesn't want to run? he's 76 and i dont expect him to.

He's going to run, unless his Wife is in poor health. Anyways, that is what Tom Woods was hinting at when I last talked to him, and I'm sure him and Ron are on close terms.

Elwar

01-27-2010, 08:57 AM

He's going to run, unless his Wife is in poor health. Anyways, that is what Tom Woods was hinting at when I last talked to him, and I'm sure him and Ron are on close terms.

The idea that he'd run if the economy is still in the shitter makes sense.

But politics changes quite a bit. We went from a primary where the war was the #1 issue to the general election where the economy was on everyone's mind.

A lot can happen in a year and a half. Maybe it'll all be about his position on how to deal with space aliens.

Ethek

01-27-2010, 09:01 AM

I see that RP supporters are the vanguard of a shift in popular opinion. It will not be an educated opinion, just one going with the flow. For those in this movement, I think its critical that you know YOUR principles and to stay above the game of issue politics. Pick a candidate that thats principled if possible but know that while everyone has the right to be principled, it does not do you any good if you do not also have the power to assert your rights in the first place. Your in no position to help anyone if your outspoken statements remove you from power or in more totalitarian systems put you in-front of a firing squad.

I am a fan of this G Edward Griffen video I attached to one of my blog posts. (http://gadsdenunion.ning.com/profiles/blogs/nominate-principled-candidates)