This is getting ridiculous

[thasre]

I just have to say that I'm so sick of all the handwringing over Gary Johnson. If Ron Paul forums is exclusively about promoting one man who is already nearly 80 years old, to the exclusion of any and every other potential candidate that might make our country a better place to live and raise future generations, then I don't really see the point of the forums at all.

The fact that people are wholly writing off one of the best Republican governors of the last half a century just because he might steal some votes from a man who hasn't even decided to run yet is absolutely ridiculous and it's the "all or nothing" defeatist attitude of Ron Paul's supporters that are going to screw us all over in the end, not Gary Johnson.

If any and every politician who is sympathetic to what we want for the country gets shut out completely because he or she isn't just like or better than Ron Paul, then no one will ever try to court our vote or move things in a direction we like, because they've already lost the battle before they've even taken up arms.

People need to grow up.

[hazek]

I'm sorry but I don't trust Gary the same way I trust Ron.

[Koz]

Personally I like everything about Gary Johnson, except for his foreign policy. I can't get past that. If you believe in having a foreign empire then there's not much you can do about the budget. For me that is abig sticking point. Governors don't have much say in that though.

But, if it were just between him and Romney I would probably vote Johnson instead of 3rd party. If it's between Romney and Gingrich I'm voting 3rd party.

Oh, and you grow up.

[klamath]

I just have to say that I'm so sick of all the handwringing over Gary Johnson. If Ron Paul forums is exclusively about promoting one man who is already nearly 80 years old, to the exclusion of any and every other potential candidate that might make our country a better place to live and raise future generations, then I don't really see the point of the forums at all.

The fact that people are wholly writing off one of the best Republican governors of the last half a century just because he might steal some votes from a man who hasn't even decided to run yet is absolutely ridiculous and it's the "all or nothing" defeatist attitude of Ron Paul's supporters that are going to screw us all over in the end, not Gary Johnson.

If any and every politician who is sympathetic to what we want for the country gets shut out completely because he or she isn't just like or better than Ron Paul, then no one will ever try to court our vote or move things in a direction we like, because they've already lost the battle before they've even taken up arms.

People need to grow up.

Trying to get me to vote for a neoconservative lite? Not going to work if I have a choice.

[Teaser Rate]

I’ve found it somewhat amusing that some libertarians, who preach that the solution to almost every problem is more competition are so afraid of the possibility of another libertarian candidate in the fray.

[sailingaway]

I just have to say that I'm so sick of all the handwringing over Gary Johnson. If Ron Paul forums is exclusively about promoting one man who is already nearly 80 years old, to the exclusion of any and every other potential candidate that might make our country a better place to live and raise future generations, then I don't really see the point of the forums at all.

The fact that people are wholly writing off one of the best Republican governors of the last half a century just because he might steal some votes from a man who hasn't even decided to run yet is absolutely ridiculous and it's the "all or nothing" defeatist attitude of Ron Paul's supporters that are going to screw us all over in the end, not Gary Johnson.

If any and every politician who is sympathetic to what we want for the country gets shut out completely because he or she isn't just like or better than Ron Paul, then no one will ever try to court our vote or move things in a direction we like, because they've already lost the battle before they've even taken up arms.

People need to grow up.

Start a Gary Johnson forum in the 'candidates' section, then.

I'm with others who simply tried to like Gary Johnson and have actually moved to actively disliking him. Speak up Kokesh, Lawson, all sorts and I'll cheer along. Gary Johnson seems concerned with Gary Johnson, to me.

Further, I think he is sensationalizing his pot use to 'appeal' to libertarians, and I'm a libertarian leaning conservative who believes everyone should be able to smoke if they want, and don't hurt others. I respect Ron for his views in this regard. But, personally, this isn't a big issue to me, except as a matter of consistency, which is. And, personally, I am drawn to others more conservative in their own lives, even if I think the laws should be different to allow people to select their own destiny. I see his sudden injection of his pot use into the dialectic as 'libertarian red meat', just as conservative politicians have traditionally thrown out conservative red meat. As with those conservative politicians, it makes me wonder why he wants to sensationalize his position. And not in a good way.

[klamath]

Start a Gary Johnson forum in the 'candidates' section, then.

I'm with others who simply tried to like Gary Johnson and have actually moved to actively disliking him. Speak up Kokesh, Lawson, all sorts and I'll cheer along. Gary Johnson seems concerned with Gary Johnson, to me.
or better yet go to garyjohnson2012.com and start a topic.

[Koz]

I’ve found it somewhat amusing that some libertarians, who preach that the solution to almost every problem is more competition are so afraid of the possibility of another libertarian candidate in the fray.

Not sure I would call Gary Johnson a Libertarian.

[pcosmar]

Yes it is.
The attempts to siphon off support of the ONLY man in public office with a 30 year history of Honesty and Integrity and Constitutional Commitment is getting ridiculous.

He may be a nice guy. and he may have been a decent Governor.

He is no Ron Paul.

[reduen]

I just have to say that I'm so sick of all the handwringing over Gary Johnson. If Ron Paul forums is exclusively about promoting one man who is already nearly 80 years old, to the exclusion of any and every other potential candidate that might make our country a better place to live and raise future generations, then I don't really see the point of the forums at all.

The fact that people are wholly writing off one of the best Republican governors of the last half a century just because he might steal some votes from a man who hasn't even decided to run yet is absolutely ridiculous and it's the "all or nothing" defeatist attitude of Ron Paul's supporters that are going to screw us all over in the end, not Gary Johnson.

If any and every politician who is sympathetic to what we want for the country gets shut out completely because he or she isn't just like or better than Ron Paul, then no one will ever try to court our vote or move things in a direction we like, because they've already lost the battle before they've even taken up arms.

People need to grow up.

Sad to see you go...! Maybe I will stop by GaryJohnsonForums.com some time to see how you are doing.... :)

[Guitarzan]

My main problem with Johnson is that he is nowhere close to being able to clearly articulate the philosophy of Liberty like Ron Paul does. And that is most likely because he doesn't have as firm a grasp of it as Paul does. He seems a bit wishy washy here and there, and I've always thought of him as the Reasonoids answer to Ron Paul. (Reasonoids are wishy washy here and there too)

My position is that if Ron runs, Johnson should step aside and wait until 2016, for there will be a bit of "divide and conquer" going on if they both run. But if Ron doesn't run, I'd more than likely be happy to vote for Johnson.

[torchbearer]

I’ve found it somewhat amusing that some libertarians, who preach that the solution to almost every problem is more competition are so afraid of the possibility of another libertarian candidate in the fray.

in a free society, you will have to convince people with reason that they need to support someone.
If people here aren't buying, it doesn't mean they don't value competition, it is because they all support a different product- voluntarily.

[Teaser Rate]

Not sure I would call Gary Johnson a Libertarian.

If Gary Johnson wasn’t perceived as a libertarian around here, then where does the opposition to his candidacy come from?

The argument against Gary Johnson’s potential campaign is just about the most anti-libertarian argument in existence: more choice is bad because people are too stupid to handle it.

I understand the emotional bond some people have formed with Ron over the years and the instinctive reaction to anything which may damage his chances, but opposing Johnson’s campaign on the grounds that he might split the libertarian vote goes against everything Ron has stood and campaigned for his entire career.

[dannno]

Further, I think he is sensationalizing his pot use to 'appeal' to libertarians,

Hmmm.. If Gary Johnson is trying to appeal to the cannabis crowd, then he is doing a HUGE disservice to himself by NOT being A PEACE CANDIDATE!! People who smoke cannabis are NOT war mongerers!! Period! And for most people who pot is an issue actually use it once in a while, which is unfortunate that more non-cannabis users aren't on board, but what are you gonna do?

I really like Gary Johnson, but I honestly haven't heard him utter a word on foreign policy.. I heard some people around here complain about that a little while back and I cooled off on him as well.

[CUnknown]

I think Gary Johnson's a great candidate and I'd be delighted to cast a vote for him if he runs and Ron doesn't.

However ...

On the day that Gary Johnson declares his candidacy, I'm not running out into the street with a sign. I'm not donating to his campaign. I'm not chatting excitedly to anyone nearby about how Gary Johnson will save the country.

I'll be like, hmm, cool.

Ron 2012 will be f&cking huge. Gary Johnson 2012 will be a footnote in history at best. I don't mean that in a negative way, it's just an assessment of the facts.

[dannno]

The argument against Gary Johnson’s potential campaign is just about the most anti-libertarian argument in existence: more choice is bad because people are too stupid to handle it.


Just so you know, this argument doesn't make any sense and I don't think anybody is buying it.

If Gary Johnson wants to send our troops overseas to kill innocent people, then most of us here aren't going to support him. Half our budget is dedicated to killing innocent people, I'm sorry if that is our primary concern and it isn't yours, but it is RON PAUL'S primary concern as far as budgeting items go. We cannot logically or fundamentally support Gary Johnson until he changes his position on the wars.

[hazek]

I’ve found it somewhat amusing that some libertarians, who preach that the solution to almost every problem is more competition are so afraid of the possibility of another libertarian candidate in the fray.

Haven't you read the replies in this thread? No one said anything against competition, everyone said something against this particular candidate as 2nd choice.

[fisharmor]

I just have to say that I'm so sick of all the handwringing over Gary Johnson.

I engage in no handwringing. I only show up in handwringing threads like this one, to point out why GJ is never going to get my vote.

e.g.,


If Ron Paul forums is exclusively about promoting one man who is already nearly 80 years old, to the exclusion of any and every other potential candidate that might make our country a better place to live and raise future generations, then I don't really see the point of the forums at all.

RP completely changed my perspective on everything. Most people here used to be something else, and RP convinced them of a greater truth.
GJ is a rider on the coat tails of the wave of change that RP started. He may have cut budgets, but he has not and will not change the national conversation in any meaningful way.

Moreover, by talking about making a better place to live and raise families, you're touching on his single biggest flaw that makes him unelectable: he is pro abortion. Being personally against it and professionally for it doesn't hold any water. If you're going to vote for it, you're for it.


The fact that people are wholly writing off one of the best Republican governors of the last half a century just because he might steal some votes from a man who hasn't even decided to run yet is absolutely ridiculous and it's the "all or nothing" defeatist attitude of Ron Paul's supporters that are going to screw us all over in the end, not Gary Johnson.

Straw man. I'm not writing him off because he might steal votes. I'm writing him off because I don't like him.


If any and every politician who is sympathetic to what we want for the country gets shut out completely because he or she isn't just like or better than Ron Paul, then no one will ever try to court our vote or move things in a direction we like, because they've already lost the battle before they've even taken up arms.

Court my vote? How about they do what I want, because that's what the system says it's supposed to do.
At least you're coming out and admitting that the whole damned system is rigged to keep muppets in power as long as they "court our vote" by promising to do a bunch of stuff that never, ever happens.


People need to grow up.

Yeah they do, but very few of them are on this board.

[Teaser Rate]

Just so you know, this argument doesn't make any sense and I don't think anybody is buying it.

If Gary Johnson wants to send our troops overseas to kill innocent people, then most of us here aren't going to support him. Half our budget is dedicated to killing innocent people, I'm sorry if that is our primary concern and it isn't yours, but it is RON PAUL'S primary concern as far as budgeting items go. We cannot logically or fundamentally support Gary Johnson until he changes his position on the wars.

You missed my point entirely, may I suggest you re-read my post, especially the parts you didn’t quote ?

Btw, the 2010 budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget) totalled $3.55 trillion and $663.7 billion of it was spent on defense. I’m not sure where you got your 50% figure from.

[Gaius1981]

Ron Paul has an incredibly radical view on foreign policy. I think it's very unwise to dismiss everyone who diverges a little bit from his view, as "big government neocon empirebuilders." I'm personally closer to Rand Paul's and Gary Johnson's view on foreign policy.

Ron Paul is like a great philosopher whose purpose is to educate and enlighten people; unfortunately, someone like that has minimal odds of winning presidential elections. Gary Johnson seems like a far more viable candidate as he, like Rand Paul, is willing to make a few compromises. Investing in younger candidates seem more sensible in the long term, too.

[Teaser Rate]

Haven't you read the replies in this thread? No one said anything against competition, everyone said something against this particular candidate as 2nd choice.

I see a big difference between saying that potential candidate X shouldn't win because his ideas would be bad for the country and saying that potential candidate Y shouldn't run because he might take away votes from another candidate.

I have no problems with anyone opposing Johnson's platform on any grounds, however, I do have a problem with people opposing his campaign because it might take votes away from Ron Paul for the same reason that I had a problem with liberals telling me that voting for a third party was the same as voting for Bush in 2000/2004.

[Travlyr]

Ron Paul has an incredibly radical view on foreign policy. I think it's very unwise to dismiss everyone who diverges a little bit from his view, as "big government neocon empirebuilders." I'm personally closer to Rand Paul's and Gary Johnson's view on foreign policy.

I see what you are saying, but if someone from the military industrial complex came knocking on your door for silver dollar donations every time they wanted a new weapon or ammo, I'm guessing that you would ask, "exactly who is our enemy, and are we winning?"

[dannno]

Hey teaser rate, were you paying attention during the RP '08 campaign?

If so, can you recall the incidents that occurred revolving around Ron Paul and Huckabee's candidacy early on in the primaries for me?

[Liberty_Mike]

Personally I like everything about Gary Johnson, except for his foreign policy. I can't get past that. If you believe in having a foreign empire then there's not much you can do about the budget. For me that is abig sticking point. Governors don't have much say in that though.

But, if it were just between him and Romney I would probably vote Johnson instead of 3rd party. If it's between Romney and Gingrich I'm voting 3rd party.

Oh, and you grow up.

Gary Johnson doesn't believe in having a foreign empire. He wants to bring our troops home from all areas of the world, including Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, etc. I have no idea where you got that one from..

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Start a Gary Johnson forum in the 'candidates' section, then.

Or maybe GaryJohnsonForums.com? Instead of "Liberty Forest": it can be called 'Weed Forest' since legalizing marijuana is about the only thing that really distinguishes Johnson from many other garden variety Republicans domestically.

Sarah Palin supporters don't come to RonPaulForums to push her; so why do Gary Johnson supporters lack that common courtesy? Will they be asking us here to donate to a rival candidate (Johnson) of Paul's once the primary season gets going?

[dannno]

Gary Johnson doesn't believe in having a foreign empire. He wants to bring our troops home from all areas of the world, including Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, etc. I have no idea where you got that one from..

lol.. really??

Why can't we get our candidates platforms straight? And why haven't the pro Gary Johnson folks been defending him on that the last 2 pages?

[Gaius1981]

I see what you are saying, but if someone from the military industrial complex came knocking on your door for silver dollar donations every time they wanted a new weapon or ammo, I'm guessing that you would ask, "exactly who is our enemy, and are we winning?"

That's true, bit I think there's a very legitimate concern with the position that all troops should be pulled home immediately. As you say the U.S. does have an empire, and they have troops in numerous unstable regions, so immediately pulling out all troops would create massive power vacuums, and likely ignite numerous civil wars. Ron Paul is absolutely correct in principle, but his purist positions on foreign policy would probably not work very well in practice. I think some moderation is necessary in this, which makes me more inclined to the positions of Rand & Johnson.

[Liberty_Mike]

I really like Gary Johnson, but I honestly haven't heard him utter a word on foreign policy.. I heard some people around here complain about that a little while back and I cooled off on him as well.

It's right on the issues section of Johnson's "Our America Initiative" web site.
http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/defense-and-the-middle-east-war.html

And in response to your comment above, I hadn't seen this thread until now, or I would have posted this sooner.

[dannno]

It's right on the issues section of Johnson's "Our America Initiative" web site.
http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/defense-and-the-middle-east-war.html


Gary Johnson opposed the war in Iraq as Governor of New Mexico and believes that the United States should withdraw our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as effectively possible, believing that neither country poses a current threat to the US.

The United States should not be borrowing money to build roads, bridges, schools and other infrastructure in foreign countries, especially when such help is currently needed at home. Non-military foreign aid around the world is something we can not currently afford.

What's wrong with that?!





DOH!



Governor Johnson supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign country and believes that the United States should protect that right militarily if needed.

[Liberty_Mike]

[/QUOTE]


What's wrong with that?!





DOH!

Yes, did you realize at the end it says "the United States should protect that right militarily if needed"? A perfect political play by Johnson to attract votes from supporters of Isreal without saying that it is always our obligation to defend Isreal as someone like Mike Pence would say.

[klamath]

Or maybe GaryJohnsonForums.com? Instead of "Liberty Forest": it can be called 'Weed Forest' since legalizing marijuana is about the only thing that really distinguishes Johnson from many other garden variety Republicans domestically.

Sarah Palin supporters don't come to RonPaulForums to push her; so why do Gary Johnson supporters lack that common courtesy? Will they be asking us here to donate to a rival candidate (Johnson) of Paul's once the primary season gets going?
and if they do they get banned. Anybody remember SarahGOP?

[klamath]

Yes, did you realize at the end it says "the United States should protect that right militarily if needed"? A perfect political play by Johnson to attract votes from supporters of Isreal without saying that it is always our obligation to defend Isreal as someone like Mike Pence would say.It will be needed. Might want to do a search for his statements on getting involved in foreign genocides?

[Liberty_Mike]

It will be needed. Might want to do a search for his statements on getting involved in foreign genocides?

The situation with Isreal is completely different than the situation of foreign genocides in Sudan and The Congo.

[pacelli]

A thread like this wouldn't even be necessary if you weren't concerned that Ron would "steal" votes from Gary. I'm not voting for Gary, but I don't have a problem with him running.

[klamath]

The situation with Isreal is completely different than the situation of foreign genocides in Sudan and The Congo.
Yes you are right. his statments on defending Israel with US troops and his statements about getting US troops involved in stopping genocides were different.

[acptulsa]

I’ve found it somewhat amusing that some libertarians, who preach that the solution to almost every problem is more competition are so afraid of the possibility of another libertarian candidate in the fray.

I find it sad.

I find it sad because they have enough sense to find out who is the real deal and who is the poser who will sell out five minutes after inauguration. And I find it sad because when they fear that most voters will go with the libertarian-sounding candidate who can afford the most commercials, regardless of other qualities, I fear they may be right.

[Wren]

Foreign policy was one of the main reasons RP got so much attention and support. He just flat out told it like it was, and that shows a type of courage that I've seen no other politician reveal. And that is one of the main reasons why so many people support Ron Paul and not Gary Johnson.

[nobody's_hero]

Ron Paul's age is more of a reason to support him. He's getting up there, and we need to try to get him into the presidency while his heart still ticks (i'm pretty sure being dead is a disqualification for president).

Gary Johnson can wait until he turns 80, if Ron Paul doesn't win in 2012.

Ron Paul will probably be gone by then and personally I won't give a **** who is president because it won't matter. China will want its loans repaid, we'll have 10,000 bases in 1,000 countries around the world, the U.S. dollar will cost more to burn than it's worth, etc.

[Koz]

If Gary Johnson wasn’t perceived as a libertarian around here, then where does the opposition to his candidacy come from?

The argument against Gary Johnson’s potential campaign is just about the most anti-libertarian argument in existence: more choice is bad because people are too stupid to handle it.

I understand the emotional bond some people have formed with Ron over the years and the instinctive reaction to anything which may damage his chances, but opposing Johnson’s campaign on the grounds that he might split the libertarian vote goes against everything Ron has stood and campaigned for his entire career.

I didn't say I don't think he should run, I just don't think he is a Libertarian. I will voter for RP over him.

[Koz]

Gary Johnson doesn't believe in having a foreign empire. He wants to bring our troops home from all areas of the world, including Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, etc. I have no idea where you got that one from..

Then I must be mistaken, I could swear I read he was for the war in Afghanistan.

[BamaAla]

Love it or leave it guy...

[devil21]

I honestly don't know enough about Johnson to say anything one way or the other. He did seem rather bland in the media appearances I've seen though.

But I welcome another liberty minded candidate, if Johnson is indeed that, on the 2012 campaign trail. Why does the establishment put up a bunch of carbon copy candidates? To stack the deck. We shouldn't have a problem doing the same thing. Having said all that, I don't see Johnson doing anywhere near as well as Ron would if he ran again. I read the other thread about Johnson not running if Ron does and that seems like Johnson is chewing on sour grapes.

[DamianTV]

I just have to say that I'm so sick of all the handwringing over Gary Johnson. If Ron Paul forums is exclusively about promoting one man who is already nearly 80 years old, to the exclusion of any and every other potential candidate that might make our country a better place to live and raise future generations, then I don't really see the point of the forums at all.

The fact that people are wholly writing off one of the best Republican governors of the last half a century just because he might steal some votes from a man who hasn't even decided to run yet is absolutely ridiculous and it's the "all or nothing" defeatist attitude of Ron Paul's supporters that are going to screw us all over in the end, not Gary Johnson.

If any and every politician who is sympathetic to what we want for the country gets shut out completely because he or she isn't just like or better than Ron Paul, then no one will ever try to court our vote or move things in a direction we like, because they've already lost the battle before they've even taken up arms.

People need to grow up.

No offense but these are the Ron Paul Forums. He would probably have a lot more respect if this site from most of the people here if these were the Gary Johnson Forums.

And it isn't that we don't know him, we all want to support every Liberty Oriented Candidate or Congressman as much as we can.

+rep @Hazek

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I’ve found it somewhat amusing that some libertarians, who preach that the solution to almost every problem is more competition are so afraid of the possibility of another libertarian candidate in the fray.

Looking at it the wrong way. We're attacking the rival competition, which is perfectly normal and healthy. Gary Johnson's supporters, on the other hand, are the ones looking for tax incentives (money bombs) and subsidies (activist support) from Ron Paul supporters for their flailing upstart business (Johnson 2012.)

[Sola_Fide]

If I want to go out and splurge, I am going to eat a huge juicy steak and have delicious cheesecake afterward. Why would I want a hamburger and a hotpie?


That is what I think of Gary Johnson...he is like choosing the burger and fries when I can have the steak and potatoes.


Also, I disagree with him on abortion (so do probably 90% of Republican primary voters).

[Elwar]

There is only disagreement between a few people who are very pro Ron Paul and very anti-Gary Johnson. Most people like Johnson or are ok with Johnson, but he's just not their guy.

I set up the garyjohnson2012.com site back after the Ron Paul rally where it was fairly obvious that Ron Paul was passing the torch for 2012 to a younger, ex-governor. I was ready then for 2012 because there wasn't anything in 2008 to be excited about.

Since then Ron Paul has hinted at getting back in the ring for 2012.

Johnson knew over a year ago that he was going to run and he's been making every effort for the past year toward that goal. He's had to use the "pro-pot Republican" thing as his foot in the door for most TV appearances since it's edgy and gets viewers, he then goes into the fiscal part of it and does well at winning over staunch conservatives on the issue. He also goes into fiscal matters and the deficit calling for a cut in Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Defense if we're really serious about fixing our country.

But he has run a campaign that indicates that he's willing to move to the center on a few issues to bring in more support.

I don't see his campaign as trying to pull in Ron Paul supporters, it appears to be more attempts to bring support from the rest of the party.

On one hand, some Ron Paul supporters don't like him because of his comprimising on the issues and on the other they don't like him because they think he's trying to pull away support from Ron Paul, who wins support because he doesn't comprimise. Which is it?

As many have indicated. Ron Paul makes you want to go out and plaster your car with "RON PAUL 2012". While Gary Johnson makes you think...hmm, guess that's the guy I'll vote for over the others. The only way Johnson can win that way is to run his campaign like an establishment candidate and play the game of the big boys. The more he does that, the more it will turn us off. But don't be surprised if the sheep fall for it.

Johnson does have a lot of experience as a leader and his record as governor is solid. Him as president would be a gradual move in the direction we want, Ron Paul as president would be a paradigm shift.

I'd be happily surprised if either become president.

[Fredom101]

That was a ridiculous attack on RP.
How is a guy who doesn't want to bring all troops home and isn't in favor of ending the drug war a great candidate?

[specsaregood]

I’ve found it somewhat amusing that some libertarians, who preach that the solution to almost every problem is more competition are so afraid of the possibility of another libertarian candidate in the fray.

It isn't that we don't like competition. It is that Johnson has come across as a douchebag recently. And our enemies are trying to use him to divide RP's base -- that much is clear.

[sailingaway]

It isn't that we don't like competition. It is that Johnson has come across as a douchebag recently. And our enemies are trying to use him to divide RP's base -- that much is clear.

And one of the main purposes of this site as I understand it is to showcase Ron in the upcoming election. Yes, we are pushing the liberty message, generally, but we also have a favorite candidate, and threads hinting or outright claiming Johnson is better because he is pro abortion or younger or more vanilla, or whatever, and that 'Ron can't win' go against the reason a lot of us post here. And there are a number of such threads. You can find them by looking for the inevitable 'so Ron should run in the primary to get into the debates and get attention but then drop out and endorse Johnson.....'

As several have said, if GJ is 'competition' let him develop his own, larger, site and his supporters can trumpet him there.

[specsaregood]

As several have said, if GJ is 'competition' let him develop his own, larger, site and his supporters can trumpet him there.

Also,if you believe that recent national review article, he seemed to diminish the accomplishment (# of votes) dr. paul got in the last election cycle.
Which is laughable, seeing as he was going up against his entire party and media and did MUCH better than anybody expected at the onset of his campaign.

[thasre]

I love how everyone gets on here now and says that they just want the Gary Johnson people to go start their own forums and stop bothering them here, but almost every thread I see about Gary Johnson on the general politics forum is one that was started out of the blue by someone who ZOMG HATES EVILLLLL GARY JOHNSON!!!!111!!

Yes, sometimes people post Gary Johnson threads in the 2012 candidates forum because he is probably going to be a 2012 candidate. And yes, many people on RPForums like Gary Johnson in addition to liking Ron Paul. Ron Paul himself likes Gary Johnson and has promoted his potential candidacy. There is no reason why people should be told to take their opinions elsewhere, and there is no reason why people should start threads like this one (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?274814-Gary-Johnson-rapidly-becoming-RP-s-worst-opponent-for-president.) just to write eleven pages of things about how awful he is.

This sort of behavior has turned into the most illiberal diatribe I've seen on RPForums, and I guess if I'm not welcome here because I think Gary Johnson is a good candidate then I'll just stop coming.

Good luck getting Ron Paul elected by making people feel ignorant, unwelcome, and wrong for thinking that supporting Ron Paul meant supporting his ideas and a groundswell of support for a variety of liberty-oriented approaches to government. If supporting Ron Paul means that we're supposed to tear down and insult and attack anyone who doesn't think getting Ron Paul elected president is the be all and for all of Ron Paul's own goals in governance, than I don't want to be a part of it.

I hope you all do a great job of turning Ron Paul into the candidate that no one wants to vote for because his supporters are assholes. After spending three years of my life promoting Ron Paul and spending hundreds of dollars to help campaign for him, it's pretty sad to be made to feel unwelcome just because I don't believe supporting Ron Paul means attacking other good people.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

All this infighting even now, when neither is officially running, only goes to prove the point made: that the more 'liberty' candidates there are, the worse off the movement.

Divided support = divided results.

[speciallyblend]

I love how everyone gets on here now and says that they just want the Gary Johnson people to go start their own forums and stop bothering them here, but almost every thread I see about Gary Johnson on the general politics forum is one that was started out of the blue by someone who ZOMG HATES EVILLLLL GARY JOHNSON!!!!111!!

Yes, sometimes people post Gary Johnson threads in the 2012 candidates forum because he is probably going to be a 2012 candidate. And yes, many people on RPForums like Gary Johnson in addition to liking Ron Paul. Ron Paul himself likes Gary Johnson and has promoted his potential candidacy. There is no reason why people should be told to take their opinions elsewhere, and there is no reason why people should start threads like this one (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?274814-Gary-Johnson-rapidly-becoming-RP-s-worst-opponent-for-president.) just to write eleven pages of things about how awful he is.

This sort of behavior has turned into the most illiberal diatribe I've seen on RPForums, and I guess if I'm not welcome here because I think Gary Johnson is a good candidate then I'll just stop coming.

Good luck getting Ron Paul elected by making people feel ignorant, unwelcome, and wrong for thinking that supporting Ron Paul meant supporting his ideas and a groundswell of support for a variety of liberty-oriented approaches to government. If supporting Ron Paul means that we're supposed to tear down and insult and attack anyone who doesn't think getting Ron Paul elected president is the be all and for all of Ron Paul's own goals in governance, than I don't want to be a part of it.

I hope you all do a great job of turning Ron Paul into the candidate that no one wants to vote for because his supporters are assholes. After spending three years of my life promoting Ron Paul and spending hundreds of dollars to help campaign for him, it's pretty sad to be made to feel unwelcome just because I don't believe supporting Ron Paul means attacking other good people.

i love how you group individuals together and everything you say about ron paul supporters could be said about you as well! The bottom line is i like gary somewhat that is why he is my second vote but your attitude makes me want to forget that idea alone!! Ron Paul 2012

bottom line you can make all the gary johnson threads you want but i think the valid point most make here that this is ronpaulforums.com , if you feel a strong need to spread gary johnson. then he has his own websites and you can make a forum for him!! I am not sold on gary yet! I am more inclined to focus on cpac 2011 for Ron Paul on www.ronpaulforums.com Ron Paul 2012 ps or you could purchase rpf ads:)

[speciallyblend]

All this infighting even now, when neither is officially running, only goes to prove the point made: that the more 'liberty' candidates there are, the worse off the movement.

Divided support = divided results.

don't sweat it to much it just means the gop will lose in a general election which they kinda deserve!! I like the idea of hearing both on the debate stage but something tells me gary will be a problem in the long run but if he is? it will fall on gary and the gop establishment for blowing another election in 2012!!!

[klamath]

I love how everyone gets on here now and says that they just want the Gary Johnson people to go start their own forums and stop bothering them here, but almost every thread I see about Gary Johnson on the general politics forum is one that was started out of the blue by someone who ZOMG HATES EVILLLLL GARY JOHNSON!!!!111!!

Yes, sometimes people post Gary Johnson threads in the 2012 candidates forum because he is probably going to be a 2012 candidate. And yes, many people on RPForums like Gary Johnson in addition to liking Ron Paul. Ron Paul himself likes Gary Johnson and has promoted his potential candidacy. There is no reason why people should be told to take their opinions elsewhere, and there is no reason why people should start threads like this one (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?274814-Gary-Johnson-rapidly-becoming-RP-s-worst-opponent-for-president.) just to write eleven pages of things about how awful he is.

This sort of behavior has turned into the most illiberal diatribe I've seen on RPForums, and I guess if I'm not welcome here because I think Gary Johnson is a good candidate then I'll just stop coming.

Good luck getting Ron Paul elected by making people feel ignorant, unwelcome, and wrong for thinking that supporting Ron Paul meant supporting his ideas and a groundswell of support for a variety of liberty-oriented approaches to government. If supporting Ron Paul means that we're supposed to tear down and insult and attack anyone who doesn't think getting Ron Paul elected president is the be all and for all of Ron Paul's own goals in governance, than I don't want to be a part of it.

I hope you all do a great job of turning Ron Paul into the candidate that no one wants to vote for because his supporters are assholes. After spending three years of my life promoting Ron Paul and spending hundreds of dollars to help campaign for him, it's pretty sad to be made to feel unwelcome just because I don't believe supporting Ron Paul means attacking other good people.
In case you didn't know the "like this one thread" was started because someone started a promotional GJ thread and GJ supporters starting saying things like RP is too old we need to get behind GJ.
GJ is not better than Palin in my book. Just because you think GJ is the end all be all doesn't make him the best candidate out there. GJ will be running against RP. Why do you think Palin gets savaged on here? It is because she is a potential candidate against RP, otherwise nobody would care about Palin. The same goes for all the potential other candidates. Fred thompson wasn't all that bad of candidate yet he was not spared because HE was an Opponent against RP. What makes GJ exempt? I have put across some points to why GJ is not by a long shot close to RP. GJ supporters somehow believe he is the heir apparent to RP. He is NOT.

[Travlyr]

All this infighting even now, when neither is officially running, only goes to prove the point made: that the more 'liberty' candidates there are, the worse off the movement.

Divided support = divided results.

It is healthy to discuss these differences. Leading the liberty movement is like "herding cats" ... "sheep are easy" ... but cats! That can't be done. But it is not fragile at all. Liberty is ingrained within us ... as a famous man once said, "Freedom is Popular."

The fundamentals of liberty are not taught in public school, so too few people understand the basics. I am looking forward to the discussions revolving around Dr. Paul's new book.

Liberty Defined - by Ron Paul
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?267582-Ron-Paul-s-New-Book!-Liberty-Defined-The-50-Urgent-Issues-That-Affect-Our-Freedom)

[txaslftist]

I’ve found it somewhat amusing that some libertarians, who preach that the solution to almost every problem is more competition are so afraid of the possibility of another libertarian candidate in the fray.

Who?

[Flash]

Well I seriously doubt Johnson or Paul will win the Republican nomination. In fact I'm positive they won't win. But I really don't see a problem with them running at the same time. The most important thing for me is spreading Libertarianism among the American people for future elections.

[txaslftist]

I hope you all do a great job of turning Ron Paul into the candidate that no one wants to vote for because his supporters are assholes. After spending three years of my life promoting Ron Paul and spending hundreds of dollars to help campaign for him, it's pretty sad to be made to feel unwelcome just because I don't believe supporting Ron Paul means attacking other good people.

Wow... could you make that any more whiney sounding?

[reduen]

"I hope you all do a great job of turning Ron Paul into the candidate that no one wants to vote for because his supporters are assholes. After spending three years of my life promoting Ron Paul and spending hundreds of dollars to help campaign for him, it's pretty sad to be made to feel unwelcome just because I don't believe supporting Ron Paul means attacking other good people."

Pot calling the kettle black in my opinion... I think you are here to divide and that is all... Support who you wish and let us support who we wish. What is the problem with that?

[Dissident]

I don't see the need to attack Gary Johnson.

However, when Ron officially declares, I would hope Johnson would reconsider his aims for 2012. What exactly is Gary Johnson bringing to the table that Ron Paul is not? If Johnson's real priority is changing the direction of the country and not accolades or power, he should defer to Ron. Johnson is still relatively young and Ron Paul's momentum is tremendous now.

[Teaser Rate]

Hey teaser rate, were you paying attention during the RP '08 campaign?

If so, can you recall the incidents that occurred revolving around Ron Paul and Huckabee's candidacy early on in the primaries for me?

Well, I remember a heated argument between the two concerning Iraq in one of the debates and also remember that Huckabee made a commercial with a flying cross to which Ron responded to by basically calling him a fascist.

But that’s not probably what you had in mind.

[Churchill2004]

Gary Johnson would be the second person Ron Paul has encouraged to run for President and then denied his support to when they did so, if both of them do end up running. I know the name Barr is worthless around here, and how he handled himself in 2008 was indeed shameful, but he understandably felt rather betrayed when Ron encouraged him to run on the LP ticket and then refused to support or even endorse him. Particularly when Ron had happily spoken at the 2004 Libertarian National Convention and endorsed Badnarik. The whole "open endorsement of all 4 minor party candidates" thing was a silly move, and while Barr's reaction to it was childish, so was Ron Paul's so-quiet-it-was-almost-apologetic endorsement of Chuck Baldwin in a fit of pique.

I think a similar dynamic is at work here: Johnson had the understanding going back to 2008 that he would run in 2012 as the libertarian Republican, with the presumed (and I wouldn't doubt personally implied) support of Paul. Paul himself didn't plan to run again, but now that he's getting so much more attention (and so much more positive attention) he's had second thoughts and has probably been convinced that he should run again himself, something he didn't want to do as recently as last summer. You can tell in the tone of his answers- he's gone from being slightly peeved at the question to being much more enthusiastic and playful with his refusals to answer. So now Johnson has moved on to drawing explicit contrasts between himself and Paul, taking a more Rand-like position on foreign policy, and otherwise gearing up for a run that will now probably happen in competition with Ron Paul instead of with his support.

You can look at this and see Johnson, like Barr, as being selfish and arrogant, and not without some justification. But an objective look at the scenario, like the '08 general election fiasco, doesn't exactly leave the good doc smelling like roses himself.

Granted, this is mostly just speculation. I don't know of any actual bad blood between Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, at least not yet. But for all the hand-wringing over how Johnson is trying to "divide RP's base", look at it from his perspective for a moment, and it's easy to see Ron Paul as unwilling to cede the spotlight to someone he had previously been willing to, and who doesn't hesitate to trample on the work Johnson has done laying the groundwork for a Presidential campaign. Work done, again, with Paul's implied (and borderline explicit) support, all because Paul changed his mind and decided he wants another bite at the apple himself. If I were Gary Johnson I'd take it as a slap in the face if Ron Paul announces he's running. Certainly Ron Paul himself has no grounds to complain about Johnson running, but the opposite is not true.

Now, I like Ron Paul. I'll support Ron Paul, even over Gary Johnson if they both run. But the man is not a saint, and we are not a cult of personality. The political dynamic has indeed changed since 2008, and Ron Paul 2012 seems a lot more plausible now than it did then. Likewise, Gary Johnson has somewhat fizzled, though I think it's unfair to judge him in terms of name recognition, etc. before he actually declares (a lot more people have heard of him now than had heard of Ron Paul in Jan. 2007). So, again, I understand why Ron Paul would change his mind and decide to run himself. But you should try to understand how this looks to Johnson, his supporters, and other libertarians skeptical, for whatever reason, of the merits of another Ron Paul campaign. Johnson is not the only one open to accusations of selfishness and betrayal if we want to go down that road, which I do not. I simply point this all out to bring some measure of balance to a discussion that is seeing only one side of the story. And the most hardcore Ron Paul-or-nothing types are most certainly only one side of the story.

[SilentBull]

Great analysis Churchill2004. The ideal scenario would be to have them both in the debates and have Gary drop out before the primary. But what then would happen if Gary starts doing ok in the polls? He might not want to drop out. It'll definitely be interesting to watch.

[klamath]

Gary Johnson would be the second person Ron Paul has encouraged to run for President and then denied his support to when they did so, if both of them do end up running. I know the name Barr is worthless around here, and how he handled himself in 2008 was indeed shameful, but he understandably felt rather betrayed when Ron encouraged him to run on the LP ticket and then refused to support or even endorse him. Particularly when Ron had happily spoken at the 2004 Libertarian National Convention and endorsed Badnarik. The whole "open endorsement of all 4 minor party candidates" thing was a silly move, and while Barr's reaction to it was childish, so was Ron Paul's so-quiet-it-was-almost-apologetic endorsement of Chuck Baldwin in a fit of pique.

I think a similar dynamic is at work here: Johnson had the understanding going back to 2008 that he would run in 2012 as the libertarian Republican, with the presumed (and I wouldn't doubt personally implied) support of Paul. Paul himself didn't plan to run again, but now that he's getting so much more attention (and so much more positive attention) he's had second thoughts and has probably been convinced that he should run again himself, something he didn't want to do as recently as last summer. You can tell in the tone of his answers- he's gone from being slightly peeved at the question to being much more enthusiastic and playful with his refusals to answer. So now Johnson has moved on to drawing explicit contrasts between himself and Paul, taking a more Rand-like position on foreign policy, and otherwise gearing up for a run that will now probably happen in competition with Ron Paul instead of with his support.

You can look at this and see Johnson, like Barr, as being selfish and arrogant, and not without some justification. But an objective look at the scenario, like the '08 general election fiasco, doesn't exactly leave the good doc smelling like roses himself.

Granted, this is mostly just speculation. I don't know of any actual bad blood between Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, at least not yet. But for all the hand-wringing over how Johnson is trying to "divide RP's base", look at it from his perspective for a moment, and it's easy to see Ron Paul as unwilling to cede the spotlight to someone he had previously been willing to, and who doesn't hesitate to trample on the work Johnson has done laying the groundwork for a Presidential campaign. Work done, again, with Paul's implied (and borderline explicit) support, all because Paul changed his mind and decided he wants another bite at the apple himself. If I were Gary Johnson I'd take it as a slap in the face if Ron Paul announces he's running. Certainly Ron Paul himself has no grounds to complain about Johnson running, but the opposite is not true.

Now, I like Ron Paul. I'll support Ron Paul, even over Gary Johnson if they both run. But the man is not a saint, and we are not a cult of personality. The political dynamic has indeed changed since 2008, and Ron Paul 2012 seems a lot more plausible now than it did then. Likewise, Gary Johnson has somewhat fizzled, though I think it's unfair to judge him in terms of name recognition, etc. before he actually declares (a lot more people have heard of him now than had heard of Ron Paul in Jan. 2007). So, again, I understand why Ron Paul would change his mind and decide to run himself. But you should try to understand how this looks to Johnson, his supporters, and other libertarians skeptical, for whatever reason, of the merits of another Ron Paul campaign. Johnson is not the only one open to accusations of selfishness and betrayal if we want to go down that road, which I do not. I simply point this all out to bring some measure of balance to a discussion that is seeing only one side of the story. And the most hardcore Ron Paul-or-nothing types are most certainly only one side of the story.
I'm going to start supporting Jim Demint.

[gls]

I've smoked pot for over a decade and I appreciate Gary's position on it but my main concern is ending the current overseas occupations and not getting involved in anymore unnecessary and ultimately futile conflicts. Unless Johnson comes around to a completely non-interventionist worldview (even disavowing so-called "humanitarian" wars), I just can't see getting particularly excited about him.

[sailingaway]

Well, I remember a heated argument between the two concerning Iraq in one of the debates and also remember that Huckabee made a commercial with a flying cross to which Ron responded to by basically calling him a fascist.

But that’s not probably what you had in mind.

Huckabee stood in front of book cases. In an interview when Ron HADN'T SEEN the ad, and Ron was told he was standing with a cross, Ron quoted the bit about 'when facsism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying the cross....', which is not exactly calling Huck a fascist, just saying carrying a cross does not mean much in itself. But it was actually over the top in response to the ad, had Ron seen it (which he said he hadn't in the interview.) The ad just had Huck standing in front of book cases, as Rand has done many times, since he has book cases in his living room, too.

[sailingaway]

Gary Johnson would be the second person Ron Paul has encouraged to run for President and then denied his support to when they did so, if both of them do end up running. I know the name Barr is worthless around here, and how he handled himself in 2008 was indeed shameful, but he understandably felt rather betrayed when Ron encouraged him to run on the LP ticket and then refused to support or even endorse him. Particularly when Ron had happily spoken at the 2004 Libertarian National Convention and endorsed Badnarik. The whole "open endorsement of all 4 minor party candidates" thing was a silly move, and while Barr's reaction to it was childish, so was Ron Paul's so-quiet-it-was-almost-apologetic endorsement of Chuck Baldwin in a fit of pique.

I think a similar dynamic is at work here: Johnson had the understanding going back to 2008 that he would run in 2012 as the libertarian Republican, with the presumed (and I wouldn't doubt personally implied) support of Paul. Paul himself didn't plan to run again, but now that he's getting so much more attention (and so much more positive attention) he's had second thoughts and has probably been convinced that he should run again himself, something he didn't want to do as recently as last summer. You can tell in the tone of his answers- he's gone from being slightly peeved at the question to being much more enthusiastic and playful with his refusals to answer. So now Johnson has moved on to drawing explicit contrasts between himself and Paul, taking a more Rand-like position on foreign policy, and otherwise gearing up for a run that will now probably happen in competition with Ron Paul instead of with his support.

You can look at this and see Johnson, like Barr, as being selfish and arrogant, and not without some justification. But an objective look at the scenario, like the '08 general election fiasco, doesn't exactly leave the good doc smelling like roses himself.

Granted, this is mostly just speculation. I don't know of any actual bad blood between Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, at least not yet. But for all the hand-wringing over how Johnson is trying to "divide RP's base", look at it from his perspective for a moment, and it's easy to see Ron Paul as unwilling to cede the spotlight to someone he had previously been willing to, and who doesn't hesitate to trample on the work Johnson has done laying the groundwork for a Presidential campaign. Work done, again, with Paul's implied (and borderline explicit) support, all because Paul changed his mind and decided he wants another bite at the apple himself. If I were Gary Johnson I'd take it as a slap in the face if Ron Paul announces he's running. Certainly Ron Paul himself has no grounds to complain about Johnson running, but the opposite is not true.

Now, I like Ron Paul. I'll support Ron Paul, even over Gary Johnson if they both run. But the man is not a saint, and we are not a cult of personality. The political dynamic has indeed changed since 2008, and Ron Paul 2012 seems a lot more plausible now than it did then. Likewise, Gary Johnson has somewhat fizzled, though I think it's unfair to judge him in terms of name recognition, etc. before he actually declares (a lot more people have heard of him now than had heard of Ron Paul in Jan. 2007). So, again, I understand why Ron Paul would change his mind and decide to run himself. But you should try to understand how this looks to Johnson, his supporters, and other libertarians skeptical, for whatever reason, of the merits of another Ron Paul campaign. Johnson is not the only one open to accusations of selfishness and betrayal if we want to go down that road, which I do not. I simply point this all out to bring some measure of balance to a discussion that is seeing only one side of the story. And the most hardcore Ron Paul-or-nothing types are most certainly only one side of the story.

Ron spread info about Gary generously, and that is supposed to mean RON isn't supposed to run for president instead of the person Ron generously has pushed into the public eye? Trying to advance liberty and liberty candidates as a way of life is NOT an implied endorsement for a particular contest, and certainly not if he runs himself.

You are seriously suggesting that if Ron helps give someone a boost he is thereafter bound to immolate himself in their favor, politically?

Seems to me GJ has done not a thing for Ron and Ron has done much for GJ, and if anything GJ should be repaying Ron for his generosity by backing Ron, certainly not the other way around.

Instead, GJ is mentioning his own appearance at RON'S events to bolster his own resume at places like CPAC where he would be competing against Ron, yet failing to mention Ron or that these were Ron's events when he lists his appearances with Ron's other guests. That is just tacky.

And it DID make me think of Barr, actually, and not in a good way. Remember when Ron invited Barr to a press event, and Barr said he'd come and didn't show up and then handed out flyers to the audiance at the event, saying he'd be speaking directly after at the same place, so Ron went through his event not knowing why Barr wasn't there, then Barr trashed Ron for holding the event? GJ hasn't done anything that bad, yet, but the email he sent out for CPAC taking credit for appearing at Ron's event at CPAC last year with Ron's guests, but not mentioning Ron, does have the same flavor, imho.

And I don't have a cult of personality regarding Ron, I am just thoroughly convinced he is a much better candidate, a PROVEN consistent candidate, than any others currently available.

[Churchill2004]

I've smoked pot for over a decade and I appreciate Gary's position on it but my main concern is ending the current overseas occupations and not getting involved in anymore unnecessary and ultimately futile conflicts. Unless Johnson comes around to a completely non-interventionist worldview (even disavowing so-called "humanitarian" wars), I just can't see getting particularly excited about him.

This is a reasonable position to take, but a lot of the same people (I obviously can't speak to you in particular) who are saying GJ's foreign policy is a deal-breaker for them didn't feel the same way about Rand Paul, whose foreign policy statements are a good deal further from his father's than Gary Johnson's are. Indeed, a lot of people were more willing to tolerate Rand's distancing himself form libertarian positions than they would have been of anyone who wasn't Ron Paul's son.

Personally, even as a strict non-interventionist myself, I don't find it that reprehensible that an anti-war candidate would be reluctant to accept the "I wouldn't have intervened in the Holocaust" label. Of course, as Ron Paul has pointed out when questioned about hypothetically defending Taiwan, this is a decision for the Congress to make. If the American people are so outraged at an ongoing genocide or an aggressive attack on one of friends that they want to intervene, then they should have the Congress declare war and the President should execute the policy duly decided upon by the people's representatives (or resign if his conscience doesn't allow it). Of course, this is the pat idealized answer, and isn't really sufficient in a world where the President has (and even an anti-imperialist President would inherent) near-unilateral authority over foreign policy and de facto control over the war power.

[low preference guy]

This is a reasonable position to take, but a lot of the same people (I obviously can't speak to you in particular) who are saying GJ's foreign policy is a deal-breaker for them didn't feel the same way about Rand Paul, whose foreign policy statements are a good deal further from his father's than Gary Johnson's are. Indeed, a lot of people were more willing to tolerate Rand's distancing himself form libertarian positions than they would have been of anyone who wasn't Ron Paul's son.

What's Rand departure on foreign policy? Did he say he might support an humanitarian war? No. The only disagreement is Gitmo, which would be irrelevant if we didn't get into stupid wars, including the "humanitarian" ones that Johnson supports and Rand doesn't.

So saying that Rand departed from Ron's foreign policy more than Johnson is bullshit.

[sailingaway]

This is a reasonable position to take, but a lot of the same people (I obviously can't speak to you in particular) who are saying GJ's foreign policy is a deal-breaker for them didn't feel the same way about Rand Paul, whose foreign policy statements are a good deal further from his father's than Gary Johnson's are. Indeed, a lot of people were more willing to tolerate Rand's distancing himself form libertarian positions than they would have been of anyone who wasn't Ron Paul's son.

Personally, even as a strict non-interventionist myself, I don't find it that reprehensible that an anti-war candidate would be reluctant to accept the "I wouldn't have intervened in the Holocaust" label. Of course, as Ron Paul has pointed out when questioned about hypothetically defending Taiwan, this is a decision for the Congress to make. If the American people are so outraged at an ongoing genocide or an aggressive attack on one of friends that they want to intervene, then they should have the Congress declare war and the President should execute the policy duly decided upon by the people's representatives (or resign if his conscience doesn't allow it). Of course, this is the pat idealized answer, and isn't really sufficient in a world where the President has (and even an anti-imperialist President would inherent) near-unilateral authority over foreign policy and de facto control over the war power.

I don't care about lables, libertarian or otherwise, I care about policies. And Rand is yet to prove himself, and we backed him in part because of his upbringing and our willingness to hope he'd have the truly unparalleled backbone his father has, facing against special interests. It is a leap of faith, but was for Senate, not the presidency. We expect him to make a record we can believe in, at this point.

For me, sovereignity is an issue, with the WTO, etc all figuring into it. I think the individual is best represented at the most local level where they can actually impact affairs and don't want our representation blunted by being merged into a global citizenry and international groupthink. Agression is not at all the same as protection of sovereignity, since agression can further, and even mandate, global interdependency rather that individuality and self determination. I don't get the feeling GJ has any significant support for individual sovereignity of nation states, and that is an issue to me where Rand seems better than Gary, although Rand has yet to actually create a record.

[Churchill2004]

Ron spread info about Gary generously, and that is supposed to mean RON isn't supposed to run for president instead of the person Ron generously has pushed into the public eye? Trying to advance liberty and liberty candidates as a way of life is NOT an implied endorsement for a particular contest, and certainly not if he runs himself.

You are seriously suggesting that if Ron helps give someone a boost he is thereafter bound to immolate himself in their favor, politically?

Seems to me GJ has done not a thing for Ron and Ron has done much for GJ, and if anything GJ should be repaying Ron for his generosity by backing Ron, certainly not the other way around.

Instead, GJ is mentioning his own appearance at RON'S events to bolster his own resume at places like CPAC where he would be competing against Ron, yet failing to mention Ron or that these were Ron's events when he lists his appearances with Ron's other guests. That is just tacky.

And it DID make me think of Barr, actually, and not in a good way. Remember when Ron invited Barr to a press event, and Barr said he'd come and didn't show up and then handed out flyers to the audiance at the event, saying he'd be speaking directly after at the same place, so Ron went through his event not knowing why Barr wasn't there, then Barr trashed Ron for holding the event? GJ hasn't done anything that bad, yet, but the email he sent out for CPAC taking credit for appearing at Ron's event at CPAC last year with Ron's guests, but not mentioning Ron, does have the same flavor, imho.

And I don't have a cult of personality regarding Ron, I am just thoroughly convinced he is a much better candidate, a PROVEN consistent candidate, than any others currently available.

It's disingenuous to pretend Paul's support of Johnson since the end of the '08 campaign, including public statements, was about anything but a presumed Gary Johnson run for President. Johnson has made clear he's running for President for some time now, and the support he's received from Paul's organizations (and Paul's public statements) can not plausibly be interpreted an other way but implied support.

It's equally absurd to argue that Gary Johnson has Ron Paul to thank for the public attention he's getting. Paul events and a speculated Paul endorsement have been a pretty small chunk of Johnson's media attention. The man was, after all, twice elected Governor of a state, and made waves nationally with his support for legalization and liberal use of vetoes. I'm sure Ron Paul's success in 2008 probably encouraged Johnson to get back into politics, but this idea that the only attention and support Johnson has gotten is what's been given to him by Paul is flat-out incorrect. He's been out there working hard, getting media appearances, and burning shoe leather. Yeah, he's been trying to appeal to Ron Paul supporters, but that's far from the only appeal he's been making. He no more owes whatever success he may have to Ron Paul than Ron Paul owes his success in 2008 to Michael Badnarik.

[Churchill2004]

What's Rand departure on foreign policy? Did he say he might support an humanitarian war? No. The only disagreement is Gitmo, which would be irrelevant if we didn't get into stupid wars, including the "humanitarian" ones that Johnson supports and Rand doesn't.

So saying that Rand departed from Ron's foreign policy more than Johnson is bullshit.

Gary Johnson, like Ron Paul, supports an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. Rand Paul does not, and that is no bullshit.

[sailingaway]

Gary Johnson, like Ron Paul, supports an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. Rand Paul does not, and that is no bullshit.

You don't know that. He has said he wants to debate if we should be there, and whether after 10 years it still is a threat. He was fighting charges he was too SOFT on this issue, and the National Review, for one, said he clearly wants us to leave, after their interview with him. He wouldn't leave in a disorganized fashion, but I doubt any would.

[sailingaway]

It's disingenuous to pretend Paul's support of Johnson since the end of the '08 campaign, including public statements, was about anything but a presumed Gary Johnson run for President. Johnson has made clear he's running for President for some time now, and the support he's received from Paul's organizations (and Paul's public statements) can not plausibly be interpreted an other way but implied support.

.

Not against himself if he ran. As a potential candidate in general is very different.

As for GJ's other support, I don't know of it, but I don't really follow him, so I'll take your word for it there is some. At the SRLC when both he and Ron were on the ballot, Ron was one vote shy of winning when GJ took 1% however, and that is a fact.

[Churchill2004]

I don't get the feeling GJ has any significant support for individual sovereignity of nation states

I have no idea what would give you this "feeling," but then again I think sovereignty-worriers like yourself are concerned with something that is not a realistic issue in the short-to-medium term. I feel the same way about Paul when he talks about "defending our sovereignty". I look around and I just don't see any serious threat to the ability of the United States to govern itself free from foreign interference. I don't like the international inter-governmental organizations like the UN, etc. either, but mainly because they're a pointless waste of money. There is nothing seriously binding us to comply with them, however, which would be a requisite for any actual erosion of sovereignty.

[Elwar]

From the looks of it, Johnson was given the go-ahead in 2008 to become the 2012 nominee in Paul's place.

Johnson got to work last year, most likely hoping that the R3VOLUTION would back him as it did Ron Paul.

That has not taken place. Though Johnson has been out there putting the boots to the pavement, he just hasn't captured the fire that Ron Paul did.

That leaves us with where we are today. Ron Paul has to re-think 2012 as things haven't quite gone as planned.

Politics can change a lot in the course of a year or two. So trying to plan something out 4 years down the road is fairly futile. Even planning out things for the next year will be difficult.

The primary season will be like golfing with shifting 20 mph winds. Ron Paul could surge and be the front runner or everything could swing one way and Johnson suddenly becomes super popular with the masses for whatever reason. And then it could shift back to Paul within a month.

Either way, I'd rather have both of them in there.

McCain's campaign was broke in August and all of the candidates were being nice to him on stage because they knew that he was close to bowing out of the race from lack of support. Then he went on to win the primary.

[Churchill2004]

You don't know that. He has said he wants to debate if we should be there, and whether after 10 years it still is a threat. He was fighting charges he was too SOFT on this issue, and the National Review, for one, said he clearly wants us to leave, after their interview with him. He wouldn't leave in a disorganized fashion, but I doubt any would.

We can speculate as to his secret true position all we want. In public he has either evaded the question, or explicitly contrasted himself with his father in that he would support a smaller, anti-terrorist force in the region. He has not come out in favor of a full and immediate withdrawal, as both Ron and Gary have.

I'm not necessarily trying to criticize Rand for bending some to political reality, I'm saying those who were willing to accept 75% as good enough from Rand are in no position to insist 85% isn't good enough from Johnson.

[klamath]

Gary Johnson, like Ron Paul, supports an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. Rand Paul does not, and that is no bullshit.
And to many republicans the war in Afganistan is a war to defend America. A lot of republicans will not support sending american troops into other nations to stop genocide as GJ has said he supports. Neoconservatism 101.

[Churchill2004]

Not against himself if he ran. As a potential candidate in general is very different.

As for GJ's other support, I don't know of it, but I don't really follow him, so I'll take your word for it there is some. At the SRLC when both he and Ron were on the ballot, Ron was one vote shy of winning when GJ took 1% however, and that is a fact.

Was Ron Paul even in any straw polls in April of 2006?

[klamath]

GJ brings no base to the table except a handful of left libertarians that grudgingly voted for RP.

[speciallyblend]

I've smoked pot for over a decade and I appreciate Gary's position on it but my main concern is ending the current overseas occupations and not getting involved in anymore unnecessary and ultimately futile conflicts. Unless Johnson comes around to a completely non-interventionist worldview (even disavowing so-called "humanitarian" wars), I just can't see getting particularly excited about him.

this is closer to how i feel^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am supporting Ron Paul but would be willing to support Gary depending on gary! When i go to cpac gary will be my second choice! If gary continues his drift toward humanitarian wars and occupation then i will have to look at voting 3rd party! The republican party has cornered themselves into a timeout in the corner! Ron Paul 2012 is how the gop can comeout of the corner once they realize what they have done and are ready to be good lil boys and girls or they can sit in the corner for another 2-20 yrs until they get it!!!

[sailingaway]

From the looks of it, Johnson was given the go-ahead in 2008 to become the 2012 nominee in Paul's place.



Where do you see a 'go ahead'? Ron has been asked since 2008 if he would run in 2012, and has NEVER said 'no'. Even at his most rejecting he has said 'I won't rule it out, completely'. For more than a year he's been specifically hinting he might. GJ may have WANTED to see it as a 'go ahead', but no such thing existed. I can see GJ may have hoped for Ron's support, and think he might have gotten it, had Ron not decided to run (and we are all assuming he has decided to run.) I can see GJ put some work into pushing himself. That doesn't mean Ron's supporters should support GJ instead, or support competitors. Mind you, everyone is their own person, and should do what they want. I see building GJ's vote in the 2012 election as a direct reduction of potential Ron Paul vote, myself. They will be trying to appeal to precisely the same people.

[speciallyblend]

hopefully this gets everyone back on the same page http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?275637-Paul-Johnson-2012-or-Johnson-Paul-2012

We can all have disagreements on either side but the bottom line is Paul/Johnson 2012 or Johnson/Paul would be a ticket i could support inside the gop!!! TRUST is what i need in the gop and the only ticket i could TRUST inside the gop is a Paul/Johnson 2012 ticket or possibly a Johnson/Paul 2012 ticket anyone else running in the gop would be a red flag(biggovgop) to me!

Why do i lack trust in the gop? basically the failed gop can answer that since they know!!

I will be pushing for a Paul/Johnson 2012 Ticket! I really could not support a gop establishment candidate even if Ron Paul was vp. I would be thinking maybe ron paul sold out! I could support a Johnson/Paul 2012 ticket but i highly doubt i could support a Johnson ticket alone unless the vp was ron paul or the Johnson ticket was a ticket Ron Paul endorsed.

why do i have so few choices in the gop?? the gop better answer that question soon or i am left with only 2 possible choices and will have to look elsewhere in 2012!!

If the GOP wants to WIN in 2012 then they basically have 2 possible options Paul/Johnson 2012 or Johnson/Paul 2012 or a 3rd option Paul/________ 2012!!!!


the big question is will the gop understand what is at stake in 2012?? Does the gop understand that it doesn't matter what the dems do? Does the gop understand the problem in our republican party is not obama or the dems but the gop leadership and the candidates they(gop) are running!

If the gop cannot figure out that the problem is the gop! Then i suspect we should invest in mexico or an island very soon !!
If the gop wants my vote in 2012, I suggest Paul/Johnson 2012 or Johnson/Paul 2012 ,the rest of the so-called gop candidates are nothing more then OBAMA REPUBLICANS!!

Ron Paul 2012 Trustworthy

[low preference guy]

I'm not necessarily trying to criticize Rand for bending some to political reality, I'm saying those who were willing to accept 75% as good enough from Rand are in no position to insist 85% isn't good enough from Johnson.

Supporting humanitarian wars doesn't make you 85% good on foreign policy. It makes you at best 10% good on foreign policy. Maybe he can have a panel with Bill Kristol and David Frum to talk about the desirability of fighting humanitarian wars.

As for Rand, all his actions will have the effect of making withdrawal more likely. He said he wants to have a debate about whether "the Afghanis are taking care of their security fast enough. The soldiers I ask agree with this" . What do you think the effect of that debate will be? Increase interventionism? *facepalm*

In contrast, the effect of making humanitarian wars acceptable is clear: start new wars.

So you have Rand Paul who is 90% good on foreign policy, and Johnson 10% good. It has nothing to do with Rand being Ron Paul's son.

[low preference guy]

It's disingenuous to pretend Paul's support of Johnson since the end of the '08 campaign, including public statements, was about anything but a presumed Gary Johnson run for President. Johnson has made clear he's running for President for some time now, and the support he's received from Paul's organizations (and Paul's public statements) can not plausibly be interpreted an other way but implied support.


I always interpreted it as support for a Johnson candidacy if Ron Paul himself didn't run. I think that's what Ron Paul meant, and what most people understood.

[sailingaway]

I always interpreted it as support for a Johnson candidacy if Ron Paul himself didn't run. I think that's what Ron Paul meant, and what most people understood.

Considering Ron always also said he himself had not ruled out running, I think it is the only realistic interpretation. Instead of denying GJ that exposure, in case Ron didn't run, in order to make sure he himself would have a clear path, he generously helped others along so long as he hadn't specifically determined he would be directly competing with them.