From a friend: Johnson won't run if Paul runs

[wormyguy]

Was just talking to a friend, whose father met Gary Johnson in Iowa a few weeks ago (they had an approximately 30 minute discussion). Apparently, Johnson told my friend's father that if Ron Paul runs again, then he won't run. Of course, this is third-hand information, but my friend is a pretty trustworthy source. An interesting tidbit of info, I think.

[Yieu]

I hope this is true. We don't need them being enemies or running against each other. It would be the respectful thing to do, if Paul runs (which I hope he does).

[JoshLowry]

I spoke with Johnson personally a little over a month ago and got the impression that he would run.

All of the groundwork he put in over the last year can't be for naught.

Maybe he realized he wasn't catching anything on fire? Lack of donations?

I think he would be a good candidate, there just happens to be a much better choice at this point in time.

[Zatch]

I hope Gary runs for senate or something.

[wormyguy]

I spoke with Johnson personally a little over a month ago and got the impression that he would run.

All of the groundwork he put in over the last year can't be for naught.

Maybe he realized he wasn't catching anything on fire? Lack of donations?

I think he would be a good candidate, there just happens to be a much better choice at this point in time.

Well, TBH I think that all the public indicators I've seen from Paul and Johnson is that it's unlikely that Paul will run, and that Johnson will run in his place. I'd prefer for Paul to run, as I think he'd have a better chance of success in the primaries (and I see Johnson as more of a technocrat than an ideological libertarian like Paul), but of course that's his decision and something we'll have to wait and see.

[Yieu]

Well, TBH I think that all the public indicators I've seen from Paul and Johnson is that it's unlikely that Paul will run, and that Johnson will run in his place. I'd prefer for Paul to run, as I think he'd have a better chance of success in the primaries (and I see Johnson as more of a technocrat than an ideological libertarian like Paul), but of course that's his decision and something we'll have to wait and see.

I hope that is not the case, I would rather see Paul run. I would back Paul enthusiastically, and while Johnson might be better than some other choices, I wouldn't get excited or make sacrifices like I would for Paul.

[Sola_Fide]

I think Governors sometimes have an aversion to going back to being legislators. They think they have been a governor, which to most is a launching pad to the Presidency, so being a Senator is going backward in their political careers. But I would love to see Gary as a Senator!

[Bergie Bergeron]

If Paul runs, would he consider a Senate run? Jeff Bingaman, a dem, will try to get re-elected in 2012.

[JoshLowry]

Well, TBH I think that all the public indicators I've seen from Paul and Johnson is that it's unlikely that Paul will run, and that Johnson will run in his place.

I've never picked up on this. Totally honest.

Ron's been working hard for his whole life. He's not looking for retirement imho.

If he is, then he needs to say it, because he deserved a nice relaxing one starting 10 years ago.

[Yieu]

I've never picked up on this. Totally honest.

Yeah, I've only got the idea that Paul would run. Haven't cared to pay attention to others.

[wormyguy]

I've never picked up on this. Totally honest.

Ron's been working hard for his whole life. He's not looking for retirement imho.

If he is, then he needs to say it, because he deserved a nice relaxing one starting 10 years ago.

Well, the most obvious case is the TNR article (I know, I know):


"Everybody's been aware of it, even during the last campaign," says Paul, whom Johnson informed of his intentions in April 2008. "I don't remember when anybody didn't assume that he would run for president." Fortunately for Johnson, Paul, while not ruling out a second act, has shown little appetite for one. ("I have made no plans," he told me.) And if he doesn't run, he'll "most likely" throw his weight behind Johnson. "I can't imagine endorsing anybody else," he says. The path, then, looks clear for Gary Johnson to become the Ron Paul of 2012.

[JoshLowry]

Well, the most obvious case is the TNR article (I know, I know):

Yea, if that's the best you got, then you should take a second guess on what Ron will do. ;)

So many signs point to yes.

[Philhelm]

Yea, if that's the best you got, then you should take a second guess on what Ron will do. ;)

So many signs point to yes.

I hope you're right. I'll be so devastated if Ron Paul doesn't run in 2012. I'm almost in tears, hoping that Paul will run. :(

[Yieu]

I hope you're right. I'll be so devastated if Ron Paul doesn't run in 2012. I'm almost in tears, hoping that Paul will run. :(

If he doesn't run, we'll all be let down, so I think he'll do it for our sake and because we want him to, rather than from a desire to run.

[Wren]

I also hope this is true, it wouldn't make any sense for him to run and split up the vote. But I feel confident that Ron will run again, has anyone noticed that whenever he's doing an interview, he always highlights his stance on the issues? He'll always bring up foreign policy and what the role of government ought to be even when it isn't particularly relevant to the interview. It feels like he's already doing some early campaigning without having announced yet

[HazyHusky420]

Hopefully the LP doesn't run a candidate if Paul or even Johnson for that matter get the GOP nomination, and those of you worried about Johnson not "getting the conservative" please keep in mind more and more people from mall backgrounds are converting to libertarianism and he could get the vote of alot of disgruntled moderate Democrats (the far left will continue to support the Green and Socialist parties and the Democratic partisans will still go for Obama).

Speaking of the Green Party, in 2008 they said they wouldn't run a candidate for president if Kucinich had gotten the Democratic nomination, so if we're lucky the LP will not run a candidate if Paul or Johnson gets it.

[economics102]

Stand back -- if I had my choice of how I'd like to see things play out, I'd like to see Ron Paul run to be the Republican nominee and announce Ralph Nader as his running mate right at the very beginning. If we're looking for a way to grab mainstream voters' attention, this would be very hard to ignore, and it sends a painfully obvious message: Ron Paul is running on the Integrity Ticket. That Ralph Nader would get on board with that, before you even hear a word out of either of their mouths, that would say so much about what the choice is for voters. It would be very hard to ignore, try as the media might.

Even moreso than Ron Paul I suspect, Ralph Nader is recognized by the mainstream voters as a completely honest man who can't be bought. Putting him together with Paul would turn heads.

It's like in those stories where the good guys and the bad guys team up to stop some more powerful Mutual Threat from destroying the world. The public would "get it" immediately. It's a narrative they understand, and it's non-partisan and exciting.

They could probably run on a platform that extends out from 2008's "We Agree" plank. On fears that Paul will swing too far to the right or Nader too far to the left, they can just pledge not to venture off-course from the main "We Agree" platform out of respect for the fact that so many of their likely voters may disagree with them on finer points. They're running to save the country from the "imminent crisis" it faces and will stick to that primary mandate.

Just a thought :)

[JoshLowry]

It's like in those stories where the good guys and the bad guys team up to stop some more powerful Mutual Threat from destroying the world. The puiblic would "get it" immediately.

They could probably run on a platform that extends out from 2008's "We Agree" plank. On fears that Paul will swing too far to the right or Nader too far to the left, they can just pledge not to venture off-course from the main "We Agree" platform out of respect for the fact that so many of their likely voters may disagree with them on finer points. They're running to save the country from the "imminent crisis" it faces and will stick to that primary mandate.

Just a thought :)

Haha, I like the imagery. I don't really know how the liberty movement would feel about Nader.

[Kregisen]

Stand back -- if I had my choice of how I'd like to see things play out, I'd like to see Ron Paul run to be the Republican nominee and announce Ralph Nader as his running mate right at the very beginning. If we're looking for a way to grab mainstream voters' attention, this would be very hard to ignore, and it sends a painfully obvious message: Ron Paul is running on the Integrity Ticket. That Ralph Nader would get on board with that, before you even hear a word out of either of their mouths, that would say so much about what the choice is for voters. It would be very hard to ignore, try as the media might.

Even moreso than Ron Paul I suspect, Ralph Nader is recognized by the mainstream voters as a completely honest man who can't be bought. Putting him together with Paul would turn heads.

It's like in those stories where the good guys and the bad guys team up to stop some more powerful Mutual Threat from destroying the world. The public would "get it" immediately. It's a narrative they understand, and it's non-partisan and exciting.

They could probably run on a platform that extends out from 2008's "We Agree" plank. On fears that Paul will swing too far to the right or Nader too far to the left, they can just pledge not to venture off-course from the main "We Agree" platform out of respect for the fact that so many of their likely voters may disagree with them on finer points. They're running to save the country from the "imminent crisis" it faces and will stick to that primary mandate.

Just a thought :)


That's all fine and dandy for the general election but the hardest part is the primary. For the primary Paul needs a tea-party conservative that all republicans love, like chris christy or rand or jim demint, etc.

[JoshLowry]

That's all fine and dandy for the general election but the hardest part is the primary. For the primary Paul needs a tea-party conservative that all republicans love, like chris christy or rand or jim demint, etc.

Good point but couldn't a large number of independents (large percentage Nader support) join the Republican party and vote for that primary ticket?

[economics102]

Good point but couldn't a large number of independents (large percentage Nader support) join the Republican party and vote for that primary ticket?

This is exactly my point. And nevermind the independents, let's talk about those who self-identify in polls as liberals. You'll have tons of them too. This is how Ron Paul can win the primary. It's like if you're a die-hard XBox 360 gamer and then your ultimate must-have favorite game comes out for PS3. You're gonna end up getting the PS3.

And in 2012, THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, so it's not as if liberals lose the chance to participate in the Dem primary by registering Republican.

The Republicans can't control for this. Every liberal that registers Republican is going to vote for Ron Paul. He'll have a monopoly on their vote. Every liberal who has become disenchanted with how Obama has basically continued Bush's policies, will see this as a golden opportunity.

Of course, the Democrats might try to stop this by encouraging liberals to register Republican and voting against Ron Paul to ensure Obama doesn't face strong opposition, sort of a reverse of Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" plan. Then again, if Democrats try this, it's more likely to look to most Americans like an attempt to squelch the honest candidates and would be a de facto admission that Paul/Nader might be a better fit for the country than Obama or whoever the frontrunner is in the fake-teaparty neocon horse race.

Ironically, this would also leave liberals in the ironic and awkward position of attempting to dissuade their base from supporting Paul (or encouraging them to sabotage him) by essentially arguing "he's not a liberal! he's the strongest of the tea party conservative candidates!" (which would also help Paul). And if they DON'T do that, liberals have nothing to lose and everything to gain by supporting Paul. They can reason, they're voting someone who is honest and shares a lot of the liberals' views and, while he doesn't share all their views, he's much more likely to actually do something about the things Obama's not, like ending the wars, protecting civil liberties, ending corruption, etc. So what could be the harm in setting up a Paul vs. Obama general election?

Which is why this could be a stroke of genius. Any deliberate attempt to sabotage Paul's ticket would only lend more credibility to it. And with this plan, pretty much nothing short of a deliberate, explicit effort by liberals to sabotage it is likely to be effective. We win!

This would pretty much screw over everyone in the establishment in one fell swoop. Their only hope of avoiding defeat would be to lock Paul out of the debates. But with Paul's increased prominence, both from his 2008 run, Rand's position as Senator, and the combined support of liberals (via Nader) and conservatives, and the internet, and perhaps some media attention for the novelty of the story, it would be much more difficult to keep him out of the debates than it was in 2008 when nobody knew who he was.

[JoshLowry]

This is exactly my point. And nevermind the independents, let's talk about those who self-identify in polls as liberals. You'll have tons of them too. This is how Ron Paul can win the primary. It's like if you're a die-hard XBox 360 gamer and then your ultimate must-have favorite game comes out for PS3. You're gonna end up getting the PS3.

And in 2012, THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, so it's not as if liberals lose the chance to participate in the Dem primary by registering Republican.

The Republicans can't control for this. Every liberal that registers Republican is going to vote for Ron Paul. He'll have a monopoly on their vote. Every liberal who has become disenchanted with how Obama has basically continued Bush's policies, will see this as a golden opportunity.

Of course, the Democrats might try to stop this by encouraging liberals to register Republican and voting against Ron Paul to ensure Obama doesn't face strong opposition, sort of a reverse of Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" plan. Then again, if Democrats try this, it's more likely to look to most Americans like an attempt to squelch the honest candidates and would be a de facto admission that Paul/Nader might be a better fit for the country than Obama or whoever the frontrunner is in the fake-teaparty neocon horse race.

Ironically, this would also leave liberals in the ironic and awkward position of attempting to dissuade their base from supporting Paul (or encouraging them to sabotage him) by essentially arguing "he's not a liberal! he's the strongest of the tea party conservative candidates!" (which would also help Paul). And if they DON'T do that, liberals have nothing to lose and everything to gain by supporting Paul. They can reason, they're voting someone who is honest and shares a lot of the liberals' views and, while he doesn't share all their views, he's much more likely to actually do something about the things Obama's not, like ending the wars, protecting civil liberties, ending corruption, etc. So what could be the harm in setting up a Paul vs. Obama general election?

Which is why this could be a stroke of genius. Any deliberate attempt to sabotage Paul's ticket would only lend more credibility to it. And with this plan, pretty much nothing short of a deliberate, explicit effort by liberals to sabotage it is likely to be effective. We win!

This would pretty much screw over everyone in the establishment in one fell swoop. Their only hope of avoiding defeat would be to lock Paul out of the debates. But with Paul's increased prominence, both from his 2008 run, Rand's position as Senator, and the combined support of liberals (via Nader) and conservatives, and the internet, and perhaps some media attention for the novelty of the story, it would be much more difficult to keep him out of the debates than it was in 2008 when nobody knew who he was.

I like it. It would put icing on the cake for Ron to reach out at a time like that to all Americans and say I will represent you.

[Liberty_Mike]

It is time for all the Johnson skeptics to eat crow! Johnson is a legit candidate, and I do think he will try helping advance the liberty movement. I met him a couple months ago and had the opportunity to talk to him one on one. Johnson is one of us, I do not care what any of you say. If you don't believe Johnson is one of us, I highly suggest you meet him and talk to him. If Ron were to run and Johnson believed that he would really hurt Ron's chances in actually winning, he would probably back off and help pave the way for Ron..

Ron Paul/Gary Johnson 2012!

[Bman]

That's not what I want to hear. I want multiple Candidates on stage who have strong points of agreement with Ron. First who is to say who may actually catch fire from the debates, secondly it gives a chance to get rid of the "kook" element. You're not getting away with calling half the stage a bunch of kooks.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's not what I want to hear. I want multiple Candidates on stage who have strong points of agreement with Ron. First who is to say who may actually catch fire from the debates, secondly it gives a chance to get rid of the "kook" element. You're not getting away with calling half the stage a bunch of kooks.

Really? They get away with calling millions of libertarians kooks every day. What would stop them from doing the same when there is two present (And I wouldn't really classify Gary as a libertarian from all the recent stuff I've seem him do)?

[Bman]

Really? They get away with calling millions of libertarians kooks every day. What would stop them from doing the same when there is two present (And I wouldn't really classify Gary as a libertarian from all the recent stuff I've seem him do)?

It's quite simple. There is power in numbers. To be honest I don't care whether or not you classify Gary as a libertarian. Not exactly a winning title, now is it.

[BamaAla]

Gary Johnson IS running. Write that down and take it to the bank.

The guy isn't on a non-stop nationwide whirlwind tour for nothing. If the situation is that only one of them is running, I fear many of the posters on this forum will be upset because GJ will be the one.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It's quite simple. There is power in numbers. To be honest I don't care whether or not you classify Gary as a libertarian. Not exactly a winning title, now is it.

Well if your only value is to win then label yourself whatever Frank Luntz tells you to. Moderate seems pretty well received. Maybe you would pick that label, or whatever is most liked.

These MSM journalists and media faces do not care about numbers. They'll try and marginalize our viewpoint no matter how many of us there are. Take that to the bank.

[economics102]

I like it. It would put icing on the cake for Ron to reach out at a time like that to all Americans and say I will represent you.

Yup. We thought 2008 was the "perfect storm" in which our candidate's cross-party appeal would steal the show. We were wrong, 2012 is THE year for that, it is THE year for the antiwar candidate. We say to the conservatives, "if you're serious about our fiscal problems, we must get out of the wars," and you say to the liberals "how about a candidate who will REALLY end the wars?"

In 2008 we said Obama would be no better than Bush/McCain, and that message fell on deaf ears. In 2012, it's a winning message. The Republicans have allowed the neocon warmongering to take a backseat to the tea party's financial conservatism. And pretty much all the major Republican candidates have hilarious over-the-top demo reels of trying to out-warmonger each other in the 2008 debates. When Ron Paul poses the seemingly simple question "how can we avoid financial ruin without ending all these wars?" the neocons won't even be able to PRETEND to be antiwar because it would be a completely 180 from what they did 4 years ago.

If the tea party arose from conservatives' disbelief in the sincerity of the Bush-era Republicans to take fiscal responsibility seriously, the contrast between the neocons 2000-2008 positions on the war and any attempt they might make to appear anti-war in 2012 is a far starker (=hypocritical) contrast than their current attempt to pretend they care about fiscal responsibility now when they appeared not to during the Bush era.

[Bman]

Well if your only value is to win then label yourself whatever Frank Luntz tells you to. Moderate seems pretty well received. Maybe you would pick that label, or whatever is most liked.

If you're running for office it only makes sense. Name me one new person who you consider liberty friendly that won this year and called themselves a Libertarian?


These MSM journalists and media faces do not care about numbers. They'll try and marginalize our viewpoint no matter how many of us there are. Take that to the bank.

Of course they will, exactly why you don't want to be standing on a stage by yourself.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Please Delete.

[Imperial]

If Paul runs, would he consider a Senate run? Jeff Bingaman, a dem, will try to get re-elected in 2012.

Try is putting it lightly. Bingaman is one of four senators with the highest approval ratings in the country, along with Snowe, Klobuchar, and one of the Tennessee senators if I remember right.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If you're running for office it only makes sense. Name me one new person who you consider liberty friendly that won this year and called themselves a Libertarian?

Dan McGuire in New Hampshire, and many other newly elected libertarians to the New Hampshire Legislature. Anyways, that misses the entire point. If the label you ascribe to yourself only purpose is to 'win', you have all ready lost.

[Bman]

If the label you ascribe to yourself only purpose is to 'win', you have all ready lost.

Thank you Confucius.

[nayjevin]

It is time for all the Johnson skeptics to eat crow! Johnson is a legit candidate, and I do think he will try helping advance the liberty movement. I met him a couple months ago and had the opportunity to talk to him one on one. Johnson is one of us, I do not care what any of you say. If you don't believe Johnson is one of us, I highly suggest you meet him and talk to him. If Ron were to run and Johnson believed that he would really hurt Ron's chances in actually winning, he would probably back off and help pave the way for Ron..

Ron Paul/Gary Johnson 2012!

I hope he's mentioning Ron on his speaking tours... and vice versa. Good exposure all the way around.

[cindy25]

Johnson has to start his campaign on the assumption Paul won't run. that way at there is at least a back-up

best would be a Paul announcement to run, now. but even an announcement not to run is better than this waiting game. Johnson/Rand would ok.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

From a friend: Johnson won't run if Paul runs

Good.


Well, TBH I think that all the public indicators I've seen from Paul and Johnson is that it's unlikely that Paul will run, and that Johnson will run in his place.

I really hope not. Just can't get excited about a Johnson candidacy. Feel like a no Paul election, Johnson would be another Bob Barr type: one people are talking about as the 'one' but that not enough people can/will rally around.


Well, the most obvious case is the TNR article

TNR = BS


Stand back -- if I had my choice of how I'd like to see things play out, I'd like to see Ron Paul run to be the Republican nominee and announce Ralph Nader as his running mate right at the very beginning. If we're looking for a way to grab mainstream voters' attention, this would be very hard to ignore, and it sends a painfully obvious message: Ron Paul is running on the Integrity Ticket. That Ralph Nader would get on board with that, before you even hear a word out of either of their mouths, that would say so much about what the choice is for voters. It would be very hard to ignore, try as the media might.

Even moreso than Ron Paul I suspect, Ralph Nader is recognized by the mainstream voters as a completely honest man who can't be bought. Putting him together with Paul would turn heads.

It's like in those stories where the good guys and the bad guys team up to stop some more powerful Mutual Threat from destroying the world. The public would "get it" immediately. It's a narrative they understand, and it's non-partisan and exciting.

They could probably run on a platform that extends out from 2008's "We Agree" plank. On fears that Paul will swing too far to the right or Nader too far to the left, they can just pledge not to venture off-course from the main "We Agree" platform out of respect for the fact that so many of their likely voters may disagree with them on finer points. They're running to save the country from the "imminent crisis" it faces and will stick to that primary mandate.

Just a thought :)

Ugh. Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich are unashamed socialists. If Paul picks one of them, I'd have to question his judgment.

I can't believe people here would even want either of them or especially think it'd go over well in a GOP primary. This is like that thread back in 2007 or 2008 seriously suggesting an Ahmadinejad endorsement would be a net positive for Paul's primary campaign.

[SilentBull]

Well, TBH I think that all the public indicators I've seen from Paul and Johnson is that it's unlikely that Paul will run, and that Johnson will run in his place. I'd prefer for Paul to run, as I think he'd have a better chance of success in the primaries (and I see Johnson as more of a technocrat than an ideological libertarian like Paul), but of course that's his decision and something we'll have to wait and see.

Of course he's running. Think about it this way. Ron has been fighting for over 20 years to get people to understand liberty. He's finally in a position to make it even more popular. You think Ron will pass this opportunity up? 20 years of fighting, to then quit and never find out what could have been? There is no way he's not running!

[MRoCkEd]

How do we draft Gary for senate?

[Elwar]

This actually isn't good news because Johnson IS running. All indicators put him at announcing in February. Paul said he would decide by "spring".

It's not good news because it sounds like he knows that Ron Paul won't run. I hope this isn't so.

It's fairly obvious that Paul and Johnson got together after the 2008 run and Paul handed the mantle to Johnson, hence the introduction of Johnson at his rally. And the subsequent preparation on Johnson's part to run for president in 2012.

Johnson has also indicated that he's in this for the long haul (hinting at running in 2016/2020 if necessary).

I do agree that Johnson hasn't picked up the traction he probably thought he would. I think his strategy was to move more toward the center while counting on Ron Paul's grassroots support to follow. It was a gamble and doesn't appear to be playing out as expected.

Ron Paul's style inspires grassroots support. Johnson's style makes him like all of the other Republican candidates, just with a more libertarian message.

Maybe Johnson will announce an exploratory committee in February and see how things go from there. If the support isn't there, Paul may pick up the mantle in spring.

[MRoCkEd]

This actually isn't good news because Johnson IS running. All indicators put him at announcing in February. Paul said he would decide by "spring".

It's not good news because it sounds like he knows that Ron Paul won't run. I hope this isn't so.

It's fairly obvious that Paul and Johnson got together after the 2008 run and Paul handed the mantle to Johnson, hence the introduction of Johnson at his rally. And the subsequent preparation on Johnson's part to run for president in 2012.

Johnson has also indicated that he's in this for the long haul (hinting at running in 2016/2020 if necessary).

I do agree that Johnson hasn't picked up the traction he probably thought he would. I think his strategy was to move more toward the center while counting on Ron Paul's grassroots support to follow. It was a gamble and doesn't appear to be playing out as expected.

Ron Paul's style inspires grassroots support. Johnson's style makes him like all of the other Republican candidates, just with a more libertarian message.

Maybe Johnson will announce an exploratory committee in February and see how things go from there. If the support isn't there, Paul may pick up the mantle in spring.

Spring? Ron needs to announce by CPAC at the latest.

[TheTyke]

Good point but couldn't a large number of independents (large percentage Nader support) join the Republican party and vote for that primary ticket?

I hate to say it, but this is like pulling teeth. It is incredibly difficult to get people to change party on a large enough scale to swing an election. During Rand's campaign I mustered a handful (most for my county) and ThomasinKY switched more than anyone in the state - but it was still a drop in the bucket.

Furthermore I've heard this was the strategy in Kokesh's campaign, but it fell dismally short even with tons of volunteers and few voters. People by and large stick to their original registration, and "historic times" are not sufficient to overwhelm this. It is far more effective to appeal to the party base, as Rand did.

That said, it is definitely worth switching people if we can! If it were a close vote, that .2% or whatever could be the deciding factor. The biggest thing though will be appealing to the party base like Rand... we'll do fine in a general election, but this stuff about reaching out to "liberals" (modern definition) is counterproductive where we really need to win, the primary...

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Paul said he would decide by "spring".

When/where? There is a palpable sense I think Ron Paul will announce one way or another no later than CPAC and quite possibly earlier than that.

Paul said decision at "beginning" of 2011:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/20/ron-paul-not-ruling-out-2012-presidential-run-says-decision-to-come-at-beginning-of-the-year/

[MRoCkEd]

Oh yeah. Paul naming socialist Nader as his VP while running for the GOP nomination is an incredibly bad idea, most respectfully.

[Elwar]

When/where? There is a palpable sense I think Ron Paul will announce one way or another no later than CPAC and quite possibly earlier than that.

Paul said decision at "beginning" of 2011:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/20/ron-paul-not-ruling-out-2012-presidential-run-says-decision-to-come-at-beginning-of-the-year/

Hard to tell I suppose.

"If I still think [my support] would be only three or four percent, that would be one thing. But I think our numbers our growing, so I’ll just have to assess it next year."
A decision, he adds, will come "by spring."
http://mobile.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/11/23/ron_paul_2012/index.html


So we're given a window of between the start of the year and the start of spring...

[Philhelm]

I looked outside and didn't see any snow on the ground, so it must be spring. Run, Ron, run!!!