Gary Johnson Could Hurt Ron Paul, Libertarian Party Trashes Ron Paul

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/16/ron-pauls-role-in-the-2012-election-cycle-remains-uncertain/

Libertarian Party:


“Ron Paul was the best and worst thing to happen to libertarians in 2008,” said Andrew Davis, who was communications director for the Libertarian Party before becoming press secretary for the party’s presidential nominee Bob Barr during in 2008. “His campaign started the recent constitutional movement and brought libertarian ideas into the mainstream, but he also shattered this coalition when he refused to pick a successor and his campaign came to a close.”

Davis’ cynicism is understandable from the Libertarian Party’s perspective. When Paul withdrew from the presidential race in June 2008 after it was clear his campaign had run its course, he refused to endorse Barr, who was, at least on paper, the closest candidate to Paul ideologically of any presidential candidate in any party. Instead, Paul simply told voters to either not vote, or vote for any of the third party candidates.

Rank and file Libertarians Party members who welcomed Paul’s success in the Republican Party felt betrayed. Paul was a mainstream candidate who fully embodied the majority of the Libertarian platform, but refused to bless the Libertarian Party’s nominee with an endorsement once he put his Republican campaign to rest.

But for Davis, the fact that many libertarian-leaning voters have to look to the Republican primary to find a candidate to support is a sign that, in some ways, Paul failed in 2008. “Things could have been completely different in 2008 if Paul would have passed the torch,” he said. “Instead, he got in the way of the best thing to come from his campaign.”

“That was the hardest thing to stomach during the 2008 campaign, even more so than Obama getting elected because we truly stood on the cusp of a constitutional revolution,” continued Davis. “Paul just couldn’t step out of the limelight when his time was up.”

But from a Libertarian Party’s point of view, the absence of the libertarian-leaning Paul in the 2012 presidential field could be exactly what the party needs to grow in strength.

Gary Johnson:


Complicating matters this time, however, is the reality that Paul may not be the only libertarian-leaning Republican in the presidential field, should he choose to run. Former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson has been tip toeing around announcing his candidacy for president for months now. His supporters have already dubbed him the “next Ron Paul,” which begs the question: is the Republican field big enough for two libertarians?

Johnson’s almost assured candidacy essentially erases the most significant argument for a Paul bid: that a libertarian-leaning presence is needed in the field to draw attention to libertarian issues. If both run in 2012, the only difference between the two candidacies would be seen in which libertarian positions were most emphasized. Paul, for example, may devote more energy to railing against the Federal Reserve while Johnson would certainly give more emphasis to legalizing marijuana.

Paul told TheDC he “hasn’t talked details of the politics of the presidential race” with Johnson. It seems quite conceivable, though, that Johnson’s presence in the race could foil a repeat of Paul’s 2008 success by splitting the liberty-leaning vote in the Republican primary.

It's so predictable and still some here refuse to see this impending train wreck if they both run. :(

[Kotin]

agreed.. the Lp is a joke and johnson is as well.


johnson for senate or johnson for nothing.

[gls]

The Libertarian Party feels they are entitled to our votes, even when they nominate a bailout supporting interventionist drug warrior.

[muzzled dogg]

Chuck Baldwin?

[R3volutionJedi]

I never really liked Johnson as a presidential candidate. He doesn't have the "charisma" Ron Paul has. His stances on Abortion, past drug use, divorced-status - turn me off. Run for Senate, Gary.

[R3volutionJedi]

Chuck Baldwin?

what about?

[teacherone]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/382622/0_61_061808_cav_barr_320.jpg

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/bob_barr.jpg

[specsaregood]

//

[amy31416]

Andrew Davis has to be one of the most unprofessional people I've ever dealt with. Everything they want to blame on Ron Paul is a bunch of bullshit--Ron Paul handed them their biggest opportunity on a silver platter, and they screwed up. Now they want to play the blame game and not take responsibility for their own failures.

Whoever thought that people who supported RP would switch to Barr/Root in droves, without question, was a total retard.

[low preference guy]

Dr. Paul endorsed him for President instead of Barr.

So when the http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6881/smalldouche.gif says, "but he also shattered this coalition when he refused to pick a successor and his campaign came to a close.” he is incorrect or lying.

What coalition? The only coalition was the Ron Paul coalition. There was never a coalition around the libertarian party.

[MRoCkEd]

Hey LP, haven't you learned anything from Rand Paul yet?
You have no influence if you don't play to win (within the two party system).

[gls]

Whoever thought that people who supported RP would switch to Barr/Root in droves, without question, was a total retard.

LOL I had forgotten about Root, the "Libertarian" who donated a $1000 to Joe Lieberman (http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26020893465) in 2006.

[Matt Collins]

GJ isn't a joke, but the LP wouldn't know how to do politics if it hit them in the forehead (and it has).

[specsaregood]

//

[Fredom101]

Can we FINALLY give up on the LP and stop caring about it?
Ditto with Gary Johnson. He's watered down Ron Paul. Where's the excitement about his campaign? It's not there, because he's discussing the same old tired GOP rhetoric, except that he's for legalizing (and taxing) MJ, and he's "less" war mongering than others. Who cares?

[dean.engelhardt]

Dr. Paul endorsed him for President instead of Barr.

So when the http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6881/smalldouche.gif says, "but he also shattered this coalition when he refused to pick a successor and his campaign came to a close.” he is incorrect or lying.

I remember they same way. Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin after he got out of the race. The author should have used google before making a fool of himself.

Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin for President (http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/)

Also remember Barr and the LP making asses out of themselves by refusing to participate in the Ron Paul directed third party debate. Bob Barr said it was beneath him.

[sailingaway]

They picked an absolute tool as a candidate whom moreover sabotaged Ron's press event to endorse third party ideas, after first saying he would attend.

Ron didn't endorse McCain, either, and Barr may look similar to Ron ON PAPER but paper is barely worth the paper it is printed on...........

[sailingaway]

Hey LP, haven't you learned anything from Rand Paul yet?
You have no influence if you don't play to win (within the two party system).


They bashed Rand, too, and Rand won.

[sailingaway]

Can we FINALLY give up on the LP and stop caring about it?
Ditto with Gary Johnson. He's watered down Ron Paul. Where's the excitement about his campaign? It's not there, because he's discussing the same old tired GOP rhetoric, except that he's for legalizing (and taxing) MJ, and he's "less" war mongering than others. Who cares?

He isn't even watered down RP. He's faux.

[dean.engelhardt]

Can we FINALLY give up on the LP and stop caring about it?
Ditto with Gary Johnson. He's watered down Ron Paul. Where's the excitement about his campaign? It's not there, because he's discussing the same old tired GOP rhetoric, except that he's for legalizing (and taxing) MJ, and he's "less" war mongering than others. Who cares?

There are those of us that believe the GOP is too corrupt to save. If you are looking for moral high ground, the LP party is much better than the GOP.

[trey4sports]

GJ is a cool guy and I really like him, but he will not hurt Ron Paul, in fact his presence will validate the fact that Libertarianism is a viable ideology.

After all, there will be more than 1 neocon on the stage so it only makes sense to have more than one liberty leaning candidate espousing liberty ideals.


It's not about the leader, it's about the ideas

[sailingaway]

GJ is a cool guy and I really like him, but he will not hurt Ron Paul, in fact his presence will validate the fact that Libertarianism is a viable ideology.

After all, there will be more than 1 neocon on the stage so it only makes sense to have more than one liberty leaning candidate espousing liberty ideals.

It's not about the leader, it's about the ideas


It is only not about the leader if there is more than one person as good, and if one doesn't think so, it is about the particular leader leading at that time, by necessity.

Others being in may have advantages to them, but if people want RON and HIS positions to get maximum impact, it will undermine that effort. Gary is no Ron. Some may prefer him, but regardless, they are not fungible.

[Matt Collins]

If the LP wanted to be effective they would do two things:

1- Get everyone of their people to run for every dog catcher, water board, school board, county commission, and city council seat in the nation.

2- Put all of their resources in swing states like FL, OH, PA, VA, IN, MO, NC. The quickest way to ensure the two major parties start coming towards their direction is to become a threat to them on a recurring basis. If the parties begin losing to their opponents in these swing states and the margin of victory is less than the amount of 3rd party votes you'll see the shift in rhetoric real quick. Ralph Nader taught this to Al Gore and the Democrat Party back in Florida in 2000. After Gore lost Nader was interviewed about costing Al Gore the Presidency, and Ralph flatly said "maybe now the Democrats will pay more attention to its progressive wing"

[johnrocks]

Like it or not, the system is biased toward a two party system and I don't think Ron Paul would have made a smignet of the dent in the political process if he were a LP candidate instead of a GOP Congressman who ran in the GOP primaries.

I think we really need to stop bickering among ourselves so much as see who the real political enemies are and that's the statists in both parties who have control of the political process. My opinion is, we need to join the GOP and take it over, a coalition of libertarians,Constitutionalists,paleo conservatives and other like minded individuals would make a pretty powerful bloc in the Party;imho; if we stuck together and actually pulled in one direction.

[R3volutionJedi]

Dr. Paul endorsed him for President instead of Barr.

So when the http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6881/smalldouche.gif says, "but he also shattered this coalition when he refused to pick a successor and his campaign came to a close.” he is incorrect or lying.

right.

[SanjaySingh]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/16/ron-pauls-role-in-the-2012-election-cycle-remains-uncertain/

Libertarian Party:Gary Johnson

It's so predictable and still some here refuse to see this impending train wreck if they both run. :(

At least Ron is not as open border as Gary Johnson.

[AlexMerced]

Gary Johnson really doesn't appeal to social conservatives at all, which Ron Paul does as we saw in the poll were they took Huckabee out giving a lot of that support to Ron Paul.

I don't think Johnson would dilute Ron Pauls message or appeal, I still think he'd give it credibility. I'm honestly more worried about Huckabee than anybody else.

[speciallyblend]

I never really liked Johnson as a presidential candidate. He doesn't have the "charisma" Ron Paul has. His stances on Abortion, past drug use, divorced-status - turn me off. Run for Senate, Gary.

which drug you talking about caffeine? alcohol? or are you implying marijuana? if your implying marijuana. Then that is why he gets my vote for choosing something safer then many common foods and alcohol and many more substances!! defend 75 yrs of lies or not, i pick not!!

[speciallyblend]

even if the gop crashed and burn the lp is not the party that will fill the spot until they build a bigger coalition and start a new party that doesn't have the tarnished brandname lp on it!!

[speciallyblend]

Gary Johnson really doesn't appeal to social conservatives at all, which Ron Paul does as we saw in the poll were they took Huckabee out giving a lot of that support to Ron Paul.

I don't think Johnson would dilute Ron Pauls message or appeal, I still think he'd give it credibility. I'm honestly more worried about Huckabee than anybody else.

I would agree but the real threat is not huckabee but the dominated gop neo-cons all of them, very depressing as i see it!! i suspect an obama 2nd term thanks to the gop!!

[eduardo89]

johnson for senate or johnson for nothing.

+10000

[Rebelitarian]

There have been record amounts of Libertarian candidates who won elections in 2010.

Besides Chuck Baldwin was more of a Ron Paul candidate than Bob Barr ever was. Bob Barr and Ralph Nader were put there by the Globalists to stymie 3rd party turnout.

It is best to get LP and CP candidates elected locally to stop the Globalist agenda in Washington.

[trey4sports]

There have been record amounts of Libertarian candidates who won elections in 2010.

Besides Chuck Baldwin was more of a Ron Paul candidate than Bob Barr ever was. Bob Barr and Ralph Nader were put there by the Globalists to stymie 3rd party turnout.

It is best to get LP and CP candidates elected locally to stop the Globalist agenda in Washington.

Yes, the evil, mysterious, globalists plotted Bob Barr so he could hurt the LP's growing street cred.....

[RonPaulFanInGA]

There have been record amounts of Libertarian candidates who won elections in 2010.

And what would that be? County coroner again?

When is the Libertarian party going to win even one seat in the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate? Or a Governorship? Or even just crack the 2% mark in a presidential election? It has been forty years now since the party's founding. How about some results?


Yes, the evil, mysterious, globalists plotted Bob Barr so he could hurt the LP's growing street cred.....

The runner-up at the nominating convention to be the Libertarian party's 2008 presidential candidate was Mary Ruwart: a woman that basically supports the legalization of child porn. Seriously. Someone with that view came within a smidgen of being their nominee. Seems the Libertarian party does a pretty good job making themselves look bad to the mainstream American public without any nefarious outside conspiracy.

[Eric21ND]

The Libertarian Party feels they are entitled to our votes, even when they nominate a bailout supporting interventionist drug warrior.
+1776

[Eric21ND]

LOL I had forgotten about Root, the "Libertarian" who donated a $1000 to Joe Lieberman (http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26020893465) in 2006.
That is appaling and unforgivable.

[low preference guy]

The runner-up at the nominating convention to be the Libertarian party's 2008 presidential candidate was Mary Ruwart: a woman that basically supports the legalization of child porn. Seriously. Someone with that view came within a smidgen of being their nominee. Seems the Libertarian party does a pretty good job making themselves look bad to the mainstream American public without any nefarious outside conspiracy.

it sounds like you've been drinking the New World Order kool-aid.

[jkr]

Chuck Baldwin!

[Billay]

How does Johnson hurt Pauls chances? Paul isn't going to win the Republican nomination we might as well get as many candidates that are pro liberty on the stage.

[trey4sports]

And what would that be? County coroner again?

When is the Libertarian party going to win even one seat in the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate? Or a Governorship? Or even just crack the 2% mark in a presidential election? It has been forty years now since the party's founding. How about some results?



The runner-up at the nominating convention to be the Libertarian party's 2008 presidential candidate was Mary Ruwart: a woman that basically supports the legalization of child porn. Seriously. Someone with that view came within a smidgen of being their nominee. Seems the Libertarian party does a pretty good job making themselves look bad to the mainstream American public without any nefarious outside conspiracy.

I was being sarcastic

Unfortunately, you're right..... the LP is dead :(

[Tinnuhana]

Did Ron Paul endorse Baldwin? Or did he merely say that that was who he'd be voting for? There's a difference. One is a directive, the other is more, "Vote as you see fit. I'll probably vote for this guy."

[Flash]

johnson for senate or johnson for nothing.

I really don't understand the logic behind Gary Johnson running for President when he can possibly become a Senator. He'll get some media attention while he is running for advocating the legalization of all drugs, ending the wars overseas, & therefore bring some very important Libertarian issues to the mainstream. However in the Senate he can talk about these things for another six years and actually be able to communicate with the GOP & Dem establishment and perhaps win a few of them over. It really annoys me that Johnson isn't even considering a Senate run.

[speciallyblend]

I really don't understand the logic behind Gary Johnson running for President when he can possibly become a Senator. He'll get some media attention while he is running for advocating the legalization of all drugs, ending the wars overseas, & therefore bring some very important Libertarian issues to the mainstream. However in the Senate he can talk about these things for another six years and actually be able to communicate with the GOP & Dem establishment and perhaps win a few of them over. It really annoys me that Johnson isn't even considering a Senate run.

this^^^^^ plus the lp is not winnig supporters by trashing ron paul or nominating bob f'in barr!!!

[anaconda]

Like Ralph Nader said, "everybody has to earn their votes."

[devil21]

I didnt read the whole thread.

Does anybody really expect Gary Johnson to take any significant support from Ron Paul? Other than a few GJ cheerleaders that show up here occasionally, his support seems small. GJ won't run because RP will eat his lunch on the ballot and GJ doesn't want to "waste" one of his campaigns on a losing cause.

[Zap!]

There have been record amounts of Libertarian candidates who won elections in 2010.

Besides Chuck Baldwin was more of a Ron Paul candidate than Bob Barr ever was. Bob Barr and Ralph Nader were put there by the Globalists to stymie 3rd party turnout.

It is best to get LP and CP candidates elected locally to stop the Globalist agenda in Washington.

Baldwin is closer to Pat Buchanan than either Ron Paul or Bob Barr. Not that there's anything wrong with that, Pat is amazing.

[cdc482]

I think Johnson and Paul both running is a good thing. I would be very happy with either as President.

[Captain Shays]

Dr. Paul endorsed him for President instead of Barr.

So when the http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6881/smalldouche.gif says, "but he also shattered this coalition when he refused to pick a successor and his campaign came to a close.” he is incorrect or lying.
Eh. You stole my thunder. Anyway you're spot on and thats why I voted for Baldwin. Well I agreed with him more than Barr and liked him more than Barr but had Ron Paul told me to vote for Barr I probably would have

[Captain Shays]

Did Ron Paul endorse Baldwin? Or did he merely say that that was who he'd be voting for? There's a difference. One is a directive, the other is more, "Vote as you see fit. I'll probably vote for this guy."

He fully endorsed Baldwin

[devil21]

He fully endorsed Baldwin

Actually, RP didn't endorse anybody. Baldwin is who RP voted for, that's it. He held a press conference to urge people to vote for any third party candidate. This is also when Bob Barr lost a lot of support from this movement, because Barr refused to show up at RP's press conference, because Barr thought RP was going to endorse him but wasnt.

[cdc482]

Marijuana legalization (while not a hugely important issue IMO) will bring in a lot of votes. I think Johnson has a good chance.

[Krugerrand]

I hate the burst their bubble ... but their notion that things fell apart because RP didn't pass the torch to the Libertarian Party is absurd. Had that happened, RP's body of ideas would have been list to the notion of a 'fringe part.' Not that the GOP is something wonderful ... but keeping the torch in the GOP at least keeps the hope alive.

(That's not to say that the GOP will always be the best vehicle - but right now it is.)

[RonPaulFanInGA]

He held a press conference to urge people to vote for any third party candidate.

Bad memories of Ron Paul encouraging people to vote for Cynthia McKinney.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08cdfJI4PXg4d/610x.jpg

Would have sooner voted for John McCain or Barack Obama than her....

[Matt Collins]

Actually, RP didn't endorse anybody. Baldwin is who RP voted for, that's it. He held a press conference to urge people to vote for any third party candidate. This is also when Bob Barr lost a lot of support from this movement, because Barr refused to show up at RP's press conference, because Barr thought RP was going to endorse him but wasnt.
Was Baldwin even on the ballot in TX? :confused:

[devil21]

Was Baldwin even on the ballot in TX? :confused:

Baldwin was a write-in on the TX ballot, as well as many other states, including mine.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Have we all already forgotten what happened in 2008?

Ron Paul did endorse Chuck Baldwin: http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/
And the reason Ron Paul waited so long to endorse was because both Baldwin and Barr were personal friends of his, so he didn't want to choose between them. Rather, he wanted to give them equal support in the third party alliance. The reason he finally gave his endorsement to Baldwin (not "passing the torch" to the LP) was because Barr went AWOL at the very last minute when he was supposed to show up to the third party press conference, and Barr tried to hold his own dueling press conference with Paul's (remember Adam Kokesh going over to Barr's presser and chewing Barr out?). No wonder Paul didn't endorse Barr!

As for Gary Johnson, he's not just a "watered down Ron Paul" to a lot of folks. A lot of folks, like myself, see Gary Johnson as "Ron Paul + youth + executive experience + improved speaking skills." And having both GJ and RP in the debates will NOT hurt either of them. In fact, it will help both of them, and the libertarian philosophy as a whole. Think about it. Neocons never fret when there are 10 neocons running at the same time, because they know it legitimizes the neocon philosophy. Well, having multiple libertarians on the presidential debate stage to back eachother up will have the same effect. I hope both GJ and RP run, and the one with lesser support waits until like a month before the primaries start and then drops out, endorses the other, and goes back to their homestate to run for Senate (whoever that is). Because there will certainly be enough time by December 2011 to begin a run for the November 2012 Senate election.

[gls]

Bad memories of Ron Paul encouraging people to vote for Cynthia McKinney.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08cdfJI4PXg4d/610x.jpg

Would have sooner voted for John McCain or Barack Obama than her....

You'd vote for Obama or McCain over someone who signed onto the below 4-point plan? Well, I guess that's your issue...



We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

[MikeStanart]

johnson for senate or johnson for nothing.

+9000

[nathanmn]

As for Gary Johnson, he's not just a "watered down Ron Paul" to a lot of folks. A lot of folks, like myself, see Gary Johnson as "Ron Paul + youth + executive experience + improved speaking skills." And having both GJ and RP in the debates will NOT hurt either of them. In fact, it will help both of them, and the libertarian philosophy as a whole. Think about it. Neocons never fret when there are 10 neocons running at the same time, because they know it legitimizes the neocon philosophy. Well, having multiple libertarians on the presidential debate stage to back eachother up will have the same effect. I hope both GJ and RP run, and the one with lesser support waits until like a month before the primaries start and then drops out, endorses the other, and goes back to their homestate to run for Senate (whoever that is). Because there will certainly be enough time by December 2011 to begin a run for the November 2012 Senate election.

Well said.

[nathanmn]

You'd vote for Obama or McCain over someone who signed onto the below 4-point plan? Well, I guess that's your issue...

Yeah, if you believe that Cynthia McKinney was going to not increase the national debt you are as crazy as her:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRGlBMN_SjI

The fact that she gets a platform at all is insane.

[trey4sports]

Have we all already forgotten what happened in 2008?

Ron Paul did endorse Chuck Baldwin: http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/
And the reason Ron Paul waited so long to endorse was because both Baldwin and Barr were personal friends of his, so he didn't want to choose between them. Rather, he wanted to give them equal support in the third party alliance. The reason he finally gave his endorsement to Baldwin (not "passing the torch" to the LP) was because Barr went AWOL at the very last minute when he was supposed to show up to the third party press conference, and Barr tried to hold his own dueling press conference with Paul's (remember Adam Kokesh going over to Barr's presser and chewing Barr out?). No wonder Paul didn't endorse Barr!

As for Gary Johnson, he's not just a "watered down Ron Paul" to a lot of folks. A lot of folks, like myself, see Gary Johnson as "Ron Paul + youth + executive experience + improved speaking skills." And having both GJ and RP in the debates will NOT hurt either of them. In fact, it will help both of them, and the libertarian philosophy as a whole. Think about it. Neocons never fret when there are 10 neocons running at the same time, because they know it legitimizes the neocon philosophy. Well, having multiple libertarians on the presidential debate stage to back eachother up will have the same effect. I hope both GJ and RP run, and the one with lesser support waits until like a month before the primaries start and then drops out, endorses the other, and goes back to their homestate to run for Senate (whoever that is). Because there will certainly be enough time by December 2011 to begin a run for the November 2012 Senate election.


+1

agreed

[Paul4Prez]

It's so predictable and still some here refuse to see this impending train wreck if they both run.

When a freight train hits a moth, they don't call it a train wreck.

[speciallyblend]

lp is a joke they got nothing to do but trash folks!! the lp became a joke with bob barr!!

[speciallyblend]

+1

agreed

ditto, gary johnson is not a threat to our movement period! Trey will tell you at cpac garys loud cheers came from ron paul supporters:) that doesn't mean we are switching to gary it just means we cheered for him but to be honest he isn't even close to where ron paul was back in 2006-2008. It will be nice to hear gary back up ron paul on stage! I just do not see the threat folks think gary is!! If the gop chooses to ignore ron or gary ? i see an obama 2nd term as the gop screws themselves by not listening or nominating ron paul or gary!

[trey4sports]

When a freight train hits a moth, they don't call it a train wreck.


I honestly just don't see GJ gaining traction in the GOP. In all honesty, i think the only thing he will do is VINDICATE the liberty wing of the GOP. He may not gain a lot of votes but i do believe that he represents the liberty wing of the GOP very well.

[speciallyblend]

I honestly just don't see GJ gaining traction in the GOP. In all honesty, i think the only thing he will do is VINDICATE the liberty wing of the GOP. He may not gain a lot of votes but i do believe that he represents the liberty wing of the GOP very well.

exactly:)

[ronaldo23]

lp is a joke they got nothing to do but trash folks!! the lp became a joke with bob barr!!

This. I remember from this past election cycle the LP of Kentucky running articles about "Why Rand Paul is NOT a libertarian," how he "betrayed libertarian values," and how both Rand and Conway were "faces of the same bad coin"

Here's what the LP of Kentucky had to say after Rand won the primary

"He had gone from being an outsider candidate to a tea party candidate to an establishment candidate in the past nine months," Koch said. "It's a complete identity crisis. I've never seen anything like it." Moreover, closer to the election they ran a piece about how Rand is a complete neo-con on foreign policy.

It's really hard to take anyone seriously who makes the above assertions.

[devil21]

Im pretty convinced that the Libertarian Party is actually controlled by status quo interests and this would explain their constant assault on the biggest libertarian of all.

[mport1]

I really don't like the LP or Gary Johnson. Both are for big government and are insignificant.

[trey4sports]

Im pretty convinced that the Libertarian Party is actually controlled by status quo interests and this would explain their constant assault on the biggest libertarian of all.

The LP is not anti-paul

they even shared some resources with Paul in '08

[trey4sports]

I really don't like the LP or Gary Johnson. Both are for big government and are insignificant.

GJ is not for big gov't. He has said that he would veto and budget that didn't balance the budget during his first year of the presidency. Just becuase he isn't an an-cap or a big L libertarian doesn't mean that he is pro big gov't.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I find all the LP bashing and the noticable absence of some of the more hard core libertarians from this thread hilarious.

BUT.....

If the shoe was on the other foot, there would be a lot of panties all wadded up....

[mport1]

GJ is not for big gov't. He has said that he would veto and budget that didn't balance the budget during his first year of the presidency. Just becuase he isn't an an-cap or a big L libertarian doesn't mean that he is pro big gov't.

Just because he is for smaller government than most Republicans doesn't mean he isn't for big government. Sure sounds like he wants plenty of government to me from his interview on Free Talk Live - http://www.freetalklive.com/files/garyjohnson.mp3

[angelatc]

I honestly just don't see GJ gaining traction in the GOP. In all honesty, i think the only thing he will do is VINDICATE the liberty wing of the GOP. He may not gain a lot of votes but i do believe that he represents the liberty wing of the GOP very well.

I don't think he'll gain traction either. They'll make a mockery of his position on legalized drugs. Plus let us not forget that only Newt and Mitt, and maybe Trump, will be granted any significant time to speak on the debate stage.

I don't want Ron Paul to be the only anti-war voice on that stage again though.

[nathanmn]

Just because he is for smaller government than most Republicans doesn't mean he isn't for big government. Sure sounds like he wants plenty of government to me from his interview on Free Talk Live - http://www.freetalklive.com/files/garyjohnson.mp3

I've listened to that interview and it is great. Anyone who isn't sure about GJ should listen to that interview.

RPF was created to support a Republican in a political race. We, like Ron Paul, presumably believe in promoting smaller government from within the Republican party. The fact that GJ wants smaller government than almost every Republican at the federal level means that, in a relative sense, it is foolish to say he is for big government. Only an anarchist could think GJ supports "big government", and only someone that doesn't want to see political progress wouldn't want to see him in some type of office promoting smaller government. Its tough to even tell if you support working in the political process mport, but if you do it seems you want to run anarchists and get .1% of the vote. Good luck with that, but those of us that are in the political real world would like it if you stopped talking about GJ as if you have similar political goals as us, when you obviously don't.

[trey4sports]

Just because he is for smaller government than most Republicans doesn't mean he isn't for big government. Sure sounds like he wants plenty of government to me from his interview on Free Talk Live - http://www.freetalklive.com/files/garyjohnson.mp3


I've listened to that interview. I'm not sure what "big government" proposal you're referring to?

[Akus]

even if the gop crashed and burn the lp is not the party that will fill the spot until they build a bigger coalition and start a new party that doesn't have the tarnished brandname lp on it!!elaborate how LP tarnished itself......

[Nathan Hale]

elaborate how LP tarnished itself......

I believe he was speaking specifically to the LP's tarnished *brand name*. Though the case could be made on either count, I guess.

[mport1]

I've listened to that interview and it is great. Anyone who isn't sure about GJ should listen to that interview.

RPF was created to support a Republican in a political race. We, like Ron Paul, presumably believe in promoting smaller government from within the Republican party. The fact that GJ wants smaller government than almost every Republican at the federal level means that, in a relative sense, it is foolish to say he is for big government. Only an anarchist could think GJ supports "big government", and only someone that doesn't want to see political progress wouldn't want to see him in some type of office promoting smaller government. Its tough to even tell if you support working in the political process mport, but if you do it seems you want to run anarchists and get .1% of the vote. Good luck with that, but those of us that are in the political real world would like it if you stopped talking about GJ as if you have similar political goals as us, when you obviously don't.

I am a voluntaryist but do support working within the political system as one option to increase liberty. That is why I post here often, have donated a ton of money to Ron Paul, and have worked countless hours on his behalf. If it is between GJ and your average Republican I would obviously choose GJ hands down. However, I would much rather see more principled people like Ron and to a lesser extent Rand who can and have won. I just can't get excited about somebody like GJ and would support a more principled candidate over him. He likely won't win and also isn't helping to spread the message of true liberty.

[speciallyblend]

I don't think he'll gain traction either. They'll make a mockery of his position on legalized drugs. Plus let us not forget that only Newt and Mitt, and maybe Trump, will be granted any significant time to speak on the debate stage.

I don't want Ron Paul to be the only anti-war voice on that stage again though.

funny because any republican against legalization i and many millions will make sure i/we never vote for them!!

[scrosnoe]

I am very tired of this 'stuff' here. Ron Paul is a Republican.

Get involved and shape the Republican party so that we can get him or someone like him nominated. That is about the size of the problem and the solution. It takes people doing the work of building the party and electing people of principle to make even a Ron Paul effective once elected. Plenty of work todo methinks! I wrote a piece on this forum in 2007 called 'Mirroring the Republican Party'. I would like to change the title now and call it 'Being the Republican Party'.

We have made great progress, but clearly we have more work to do -- so please hang in there!

If the Republican Party is going to keep the RINOs and Neocons involved, let's make sure we make the Conservatives and Paleocons and Libertarians feel welcomed in this big tent. I believe that Ron Paul has given us a winning message, but it is up to you and I to hold onto ground in the Republican Party so that real people of principle can rise to the top and be our party's nominee for President.

Sandra Crosnoe
Precinct Chair
Washington County in Oklahoma

co-founder of R3publicans (http://r3publican.com) (or Republicans Restoring the Republic)

[nathanmn]

I am a voluntaryist but do support working within the political system as one option to increase liberty. That is why I post here often, have donated a ton of money to Ron Paul, and have worked countless hours on his behalf. If it is between GJ and your average Republican I would obviously choose GJ hands down. However, I would much rather see more principled people like Ron and to a lesser extent Rand who can and have won. I just can't get excited about somebody like GJ and would support a more principled candidate over him. He likely won't win and also isn't helping to spread the message of true liberty.

That is MUCH MORE reasonable than what you were saying before. I don't think GJ is a hardcore philosophically-based libertarian... so if that is what you are looking for I can see why you wouldn't be excited about him. However, for those of us that want effective candidates that want to cut government and aren't as worried about libertarian philosophy(someone can be libertarian for mostly pragmatic reasons, and argue for libertarian ideas based on that... pretty much like GJ does) then GJ is still a great liberty candidate.

[Badger Paul]

There are those of us that believe the GOP is too corrupt to save. If you are looking for moral high ground, the LP party is much better than the GOP.

If you believe that you're better off running as an independent than on the LP line. Americans may not be enamored of the two parties buy they're not turning to narrow, ideological parties like the Greens, LP or CP as alternatives.

1- Get everyone of their people to run for every dog catcher, water board, school board, county commission, and city council seat in the nation.

They are doing this. They have been doing this for 40 years. There are many LP members who sit on local boards and commissions. But their electoral victories don't translate into anything more than this. That's because the three most prominent non-major parties are more suited for the national level than the local level. It's hard to consult your "little red book" about fixing a sidewalk or renovating the local water treatment plant. Those who try wind up looking ridiculous. Or they don't do anything more than read passages of the Fountainhead into the meeting minutes. Again, they look ridiculous. Thus the paradox, parties more suited for the national level can't get anyone elected on the national level. Those who get elected on the local level, don't advance any further and disillusioned about politics.

What was nice about RP 2008 was you could be a liberal, a moderate, a conservative, libertarian, you name it and find something to support about Paul. It wasn't an ideological campaign unlike LP efforts of the past. Barr a represented a narrow slice of the libertarian universe (the Dondero/RLC galaxy) and his campaign reflected this. That's why it did so poorly. Other libertarians wanted nothing to do with it. He turned out to be a bad choice and the ticket wasn't very well balanced. They can only blame themselves, not Ron Paul, who actually made the LP nomination worth having for once.

[Jay Tea]

I'm gonna have to side with those who say that GJ running would be good, not bad. There are two basic scenarios if he runs:

1) Gary generates enough support to have a place in the debates alongside RP. Ron's going to be there regardless of what Gary does.

2) Gary can't stir up anything on his own.

Most of us aren't going to shift our allegiances to Gary if Ron runs again. He'll have to earn his own votes. If he does, that's two libertarian voices in the primaries instead of one. The psychological impact of such a thing is enormous. Ever studied why campaigns are so concerned with yard signs and bumper stickers? It has nothing to do with winning voters over with an eight-word slogan.

[sailingaway]

Ever studied why McCain won the primary when most GOP voters are much more conservative than he? It's called too many candidates dividing the conservative vote. The liberty/conservative vote is a smaller subset yet.

[nathanmn]

Ever studied why McCain won the primary when most GOP voters are much more conservative than he? It's called too many candidates dividing the conservative vote. The liberty/conservative vote is a smaller subset yet.

I don't think so... McCain ran in 2000 and is a super long time Senator who the media loved. I think he won more because the media was hanging on his nuts and everyone has known who he is for a long time, and he has war hero status due to being a POW.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Ever studied why McCain won the primary when most GOP voters are much more conservative than he? It's called too many candidates dividing the conservative vote. The liberty/conservative vote is a smaller subset yet.

McCain won because all the other major candidates imploded. Remember how the media was saying McCain was dead in the water in the summer of 2007, mostly due to his immigration policies?

Fred Thompson imploded because expectations of him as the "Southern Reagan savior" were set way too high and when he didn't come blasting into the race with all guns a-blazing, people saw him as lazy and old. Rudy Giuliani's support bled away as voters looked at his social positions and then he stupidly banked on a Florida-only strategy, which failed because nobody was paying attention to him after his dismal showings in Iowa and New Hampshire. Mike Huckabee imploded because he focused too much on Iowa, and stumbled through New Hampshire. Mitt Romney imploded when Mike Huckabee caught fire and charmed Iowans, putting Romney in second place and making Romney look like a loser going into New Hampshire.

McCain beat the more conservative candidates because they all made critical campaign mistakes at the last minute and imploded, while John McCain made all his campaign mistakes early on and then laid low the rest of the way.

Plus, McCain won because it was "his turn," and the Republican Party ALWAYS nominates the presidential candidate whose "turn" it is. This time around, it's either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee's "turn". (There's a good chance Huckabee won't run though)

The really remarkable fact is that there was like 10 neocons on the debate stage in the run-up to the 2008 election, and only 1 libertarian. And even though something like 50% of Iowan Republicans were against the war in Iraq, and New Hampshirites were unhappy with all the major candidates, a neocon still won, even though the neocon vote was "split" 10 ways. Why? Because having all those neocons saying the same kinds of things in those echo chamber debates succeeded in legitimizing the neocon philosophy, and making people think that neocons are the only realistic/viable candidates, so instead of voting their conscience and voting for an anti-war or anti-partisan Republican candidate like Ron Paul, they voted for a neocon like McCain because all the neocon echoing in the debates had convinced them that neocons were the only real candidates.

If Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are in the debates together, however, this will have the same positive effect for US. It will legitimize the libertarian philosophy and make more people feel like libertarianism is a legitimate philosophy and libertarian candidates are legitimate candidates to vote for.