Why we need Gary Johnson, Rand Paul and Ron Paul all to run for POTUS...

[Michael Landon]

Imagine the stage set like this:

Trump, Bachmann, Johnson, Huckabee, Romney, Rand, Palin, Ron, Pawlenty

Any question that is asked of the panel, we would have 3 candidates essentially answering the same way, which could be the opposite of the remaining 6. This will show the crowd and watchers that Ron isn't the only one on stage that thinks this way. If it's only Ron then he looks like the odd man out and the fringe candidate but with 2 others agreeing with him then it doesn't looks so bad. Plus, if one answers a question the other two can elaborate on it so that way we get more info out on our views.

Also, as candidates drop out, like in 2008, those candidates usually throw their support behind one of the remaining candidates. Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, etc all threw their support behind McCain so the masses started supporting McCain also. In 2012, when Pawlenty drops out and throws his support behind Trump or whoever, we'll have Johnson dropping out and throwing his support behind Ron or Rand. Then when Rand drops out he'll support Ron. This shows the voters that other candidates agree with Ron and his views.

I think, at least early on, that all three need to run.

- ML

[Kotin]

having ron and rand run at the same time is a terrible idea..

gary johnson will already be there and he wont be dropping out to help Ron.. he is in this for himself.

[IDefendThePlatform]

I definitely like the concept.

I think for it to really work the other liberty-oriented candidates would need to drop out at least a few weeks prior to the Iowa caucuses so we don't split votes.

Also, rand already dismissed running against Ron so it would need to be mike lee or amash or someone.

[Brett85]

The candidates who want to go in the direction of a more non interventionist foreign policy are actually Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Donald Trump, and Haley Barbour. It seems like the tide is slowly starting to turn in our direction.

[acptulsa]

But I think the major sticking point for Republicans last time was a lack of respect (which we taught some of them) for noninterventionism. If that obstacle is truly out of the way, I don't see much resistance to Ron. Especially if we can count on the economy to continue to tank--or, at least, for their economic structures to tank and try to take the economy with it.

[Wren]

And what if Johnson doesn't drop out? What if he happens to gain just enough traction to progress further in the debates? I wouldn't be supporting Johnson even if Ron endorsed him, I'll tell you that much. Humanitarian wars and intervention for israel aside, he's no where near as knowledgeable or articulate as RP on the issues. I've grown weary of him ever since the day that people started calling him the "next Ron Paul". I know this movement is based upon the idea of liberty and it isn't supposed to be centered around Ron Paul alone, but realistically it really IS centered around RP and not just because of his ideologies, but for his principled track record and downright honesty. TELLING IT LIKE IT IS. He's trustworthy, and now more than ever, we need someone who won't sell us out.

[acptulsa]

He's trustworthy, and now more than ever, we need someone who won't sell us out.

With testimony like this, we won't have to worry about Johnson.

Hope he condescends to run for the Senate. Or for governor again, if the state allows that.

[IDefendThePlatform]

The candidates who want to go in the direction of a more non interventionist foreign policy are actually Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Donald Trump, and Haley Barbour. It seems like the tide is slowly starting to turn in our direction.

It will be nice to hear at least one or two other candidates saying end the wars. It'll make RP look smarter for having been saying it the longest. Makes it tougher to just write him off.

[Wren]

With testimony like this, we won't have to worry about Johnson.

After refusing a completely winnable run for a senate seat, I do worry actually. He's questionable at best.

[acptulsa]

After refusing a completely winnable run for a senate seat, I do worry actually. He's questionable at best.

You won't be the only one to notice the difference, believe me. So, there's no harm in letting him come campaign and debate as long as he can afford to.

[sailingaway]

Each would be cannibalized. Rand won't run, Gary can and will do what he wants, but as when he got one vote at the SRLC straw poll and Ron lost it by one, all he can do is be spoiler. If he wants to, that is his prerogative, but I can't see why a Ron Paul supporter would be expected to want him to run any more than want Sarah Palin to run. If she doesn't Run Ron picks up votes, too....

Trump is a sideshow and is irrelevant.

[Brett85]

But I think the major sticking point for Republicans last time was a lack of respect (which we taught some of them) for noninterventionism. If that obstacle is truly out of the way, I don't see much resistance to Ron. Especially if we can count on the economy to continue to tank--or, at least, for their economic structures to tank and try to take the economy with it.

I'll probably get blasted for saying this, but the major obstactle that Ron has is his age. At 77, he would be the oldest President the U.S. ever had if he was elected.

[sailingaway]

having ron and rand run at the same time is a terrible idea..

gary johnson will already be there and he wont be dropping out to help Ron.. he is in this for himself.

Bingo.

[sailingaway]

I'll probably get blasted for saying this, but the major obstactle that Ron has is his age. At 77, he would be the oldest President the U.S. ever had if he was elected.

Yeah, we know. Why would you be blasted? If he were 47, I really do believe he'd be the frontrunner, this year, already. However, at 97 he'd be better than Gary Johnson.

[acptulsa]

I'll probably get blasted for saying this, but the major obstactle that Ron has is his age. At 77, he would be the oldest President the U.S. ever had if he was elected.

We can turn that into an advantage. There are photos of him with Ronald Reagan.

[Brett85]

Yeah, we know. Why would you be blasted? If he were 47, I really do believe he'd be the frontrunner, this year, already. However, at 97 he'd be better than Gary Johnson.

It just seems like you get criticized here if you say that Ron probably doesn't have much of a chance to win the nomination. I do believe that if Ron were 20 to 30 years younger, he would have a realistic chance to win the GOP nomination. That's why I think Rand will have a good chance to become President sometime in the future.

[acptulsa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPu1UIBkBc

Can you imagine reusing that line on a sitting president?

[Wren]

It just seems like you get criticized here if you say that Ron probably doesn't have much of a chance to win the nomination.

Because you lower morale and it makes the movement sound defeated when you say something along the lines of 'RP can't win' or 'I don't think he has much of a chance' even if you're giving your truthful analysis.

[thehighwaymanq]

Honestly, I think Gary is going to hurt Ron Paul. For example, if we have 100 liberty-minded individuals, 75 will vote for Ron, and 25 will vote for Gary. We're splitting the Liberty movement, and we totally do not have the numbers to afford to split whatsoever.

[sailingaway]

It just seems like you get criticized here if you say that Ron probably doesn't have much of a chance to win the nomination. I do believe that if Ron were 20 to 30 years younger, he would have a realistic chance to win the GOP nomination. That's why I think Rand will have a good chance to become President sometime in the future.

You didn't say that. You said the worst thing he has going against him is his age. As for Ron this year, if he doesn't win, he can inspire as he did last year, and have more people pushing for the obvious solutions instead of the 'leadership solutions' when the crises peaks (since leadership clearly doesn't want to address it.) I agree, Rand may well be president in the future, and Ron has only a chance if everything falls just right this time. But it is a chance worth fighting for. And if HE doesn't want to do it, he can suggest Rand. Or he can say he can't really do all the traveling necessary with his committee and give Rand a hugely visible 'supporting role' moving transition further in that direction.

He has to think it over, and let us know, though. And whatever is done, it needs to be done wholeheartedly.


Honestly, I think Gary is going to hurt Ron Paul. For example, if we have 100 liberty-minded individuals, 75 will vote for Ron, and 25 will vote for Gary. We're splitting the Liberty movement, and we totally do not have the numbers to afford to split whatsoever.

I think clearly Gary is running for Gary, and possibly out of fear of Rand getting more of a toehold first, and is not running 'for the liberty movement' or for Ron. IMHO that meme is merely to brush off the fact that Ron helped raise his profile while running against Ron.

[acptulsa]

Honestly, I think Gary is going to hurt Ron Paul. For example, if we have 100 liberty-minded individuals, 75 will vote for Ron, and 25 will vote for Gary. We're splitting the Liberty movement, and we totally do not have the numbers to afford to split whatsoever.

If the weaker candidate drops out by the third or fourth primary, it honestly won't be that bad. If the weaker candidate has the grace to do that. And since the powermongers are unlikely to be funding him, I expect he'll have to.

[thehighwaymanq]

I don't think Johnson will drop out, no matter what. The best case scenario is he drops out early, supports Ron, and works to help his campaign.

He's gotta swallow his pride and understand that even though he is a highly successful member of the Liberty movement, and we thank him for his action, this is our best chance ever to achieve Liberty. He will not win, and you may say Ron won't win either, but he has 500 X better chance to make a major splash.

[sailingaway]

If the weaker candidate drops out by the third or fourth primary, it honestly won't be that bad. If the weaker candidate has the grace to do that. And since the powermongers are unlikely to be funding him, I expect he'll have to.

The media buzz starts and splits before the primaries, even in the straw polls. I disagree. For example, in the SRLC straw poll last year, which a huge amount of effort was put into, Ron lost by one vote to Romney. Gary Johnson got one vote. I'm not saying that one vote belonged to Ron by right, but neither do ours belong to someone running against Ron, and we shouldn't be expected to support them.

And, 'the weaker candidate'? Do you suggest that if by some miracle, like all Ron Paul supporters being drugged, Gary were to do better in early races, Ron Paul people would support Gary? I think only a few would even if Ron dropped out. I personally wouldn't. They are very different. However, in the meantime delegates would be fragmented assuming any success by the others, and if none, Gary's much more liberal phraseology might taint what Ron is saying.

Whatever, he is going to run. I just think the idea that Ron Paul supporters should support it is disingenuous.

[sailingaway]

You won't be the only one to notice the difference, believe me. So, there's no harm in letting him come campaign and debate as long as he can afford to.

If the 'masses' looked at actual records as much as we do, they would be here already. I agree with wren.