American Spectator Magazine: Good and Bad of The New Ron Paul (Gary Johnson)

[Matt Collins]

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/11/gary-johnson-as-ron-pauls-succ



The big disadvantage: Johnson is more permissive on abortion and immigration than Paul, more of a standard-issue libertarian. Not only will this complicate Johnson's ability to become the full-service paleo candidate the way Paul was, but it also will add to his differences with mainstream conservatives. Ron Paul ran into trouble in the Republican primaries just for opposing the Iraq war. Had he also been pro-choice and lax on borders, like Johnson, those problems would have been magnified.

[Elwar]

"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.

[erowe1]

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/11/gary-johnson-as-ron-pauls-succ

I think that's a very fair criticism. RP has a coalition of people coming from various places, and paleo-cons make a really big part of it. I just don't see Johnson keeping that together. In addition to what that article mentions, Johnson's also a big proponent of NAFTA, if I recall correctly.

That said, I hope he runs. I'll support him if Ron Paul doesn't run. And even if Ron Paul does run, I think it could be good to have Johnson and RP both in the debates. And if nothing else, Johnson could bring the drug war debate up to a serious level of discussion in the GOP, and even if he sacrifices his own 2012 chances in doing that, it could have positive results in elevating the issue to the level of at least being debatable among conservatives.

On the abortion issue, all Johnson needs to do is suck it up and stop referring to himself as pro-choice. That label does more to turn people off than his actual policies.