Front Page Google News: Ron Paul Revolution: What Now?

[sailingaway]

I left this comment:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/09/ron-paul-revolution-what-now-ron-paul-re#comment_2899278


Last convention w/ no first ballot winner Reagan almost beat Ford w/ unbound delegates. Paul led the TX delegation for Reagan.

Problem w idea of fall back where Paul doesn't run his own movement is people don't trust others. The idea that a Paul voter would be a Johnson voter makes no sense, he has no record in office of fighting for what Paul fights for, except lower spending. We need to grow our own-there are a handful. But they need a record, if only of having worked with us whole heartedly on this battle.

Paul may not win, but until he CAN'T, he is our best bet, at the nomination or securing fallback gains, & at growing the movement. He is Pied Piper to the apathetic - who don't always mobilize effectively, 1st time, in an election time frame. Having been one in 2008, I know how that goes. I did vote for Paul, because I was apathetic but registered GOP, and could.

[G-Wohl]

The idea that a Paul voter would be a Johnson voter makes no sense, he has no record in office of fighting for what Paul fights for, except lower spending.

I think this is unfair and also not true. Johnson was a governor, so his political record will of course be focused on different sets of policies. And he has advocated a number of RP's positions in the public sphere, especially ending the War on Drugs and the entitlement system. He also introduced a few policy suggestions with respect to the tax code, if I remember correctly.

He is not as solid a candidate as RP, but he does have a couple of very ideal qualities. He should be seen as an ally, not a detractor.

[sailingaway]

I think this is unfair and also not true. Johnson was a governor, so his political record will of course be focused on different sets of policies. And he has advocated a number of RP's positions in the public sphere, especially ending the War on Drugs and the entitlement system. He also introduced a few policy suggestions with respect to the tax code, if I remember correctly.

He is not as solid a candidate as RP, but he does have a couple of very ideal qualities. He should be seen as an ally, not a detractor.

I expressed my opinion. He would have a lot of work to do after this campaign to convince me he is an ally, but as much as that is an issue, I tried to like him even when I thought he WAS an ally, when I thought Ron might not run, and he did nothing for me. The point that Ron should not run a Ron Paul movement after this campaign because he might taint it somehow (McConnell as quoted) was raised in the article, and I responded to it. Sure, they'd rather have someone who'd sell out, that is what McConnell likes, he does well in that type of venue.

You can like Gary, of course. I don't, and they say in there that a Ron Paul voter would be a Johnson voter, which seems reaching, as a rule. Unlike some he WAS in office but not pushing for things I care about. Governors have civil liberties issues, or can, if they care about it. However, the thrust of my comment is that Ron should run Ron's movement, and to think anyone else could, is ridiculous.

[CaptUSA]

Johnson is a great asset to our cause, but he just won't be the heir to the Ron Paul revolution.

Rand Paul has the opportunity to be the heir if he doesn't screw it up. He's not there, yet.

This is why Ron Paul is the only option. It takes all kinds of approaches to advance liberty, but Ron Paul's integrity is unmatched. He lives by his principles no matter what the consequences. This is the type of leader it takes to inspire people. Robert the Bruce arguably did more the win the freedom of Scotland, but it was William Wallace that stirred the emotion in people's hearts that allowed it to happen.

[sailingaway]

Johnson is a great asset to our cause, but he just won't be the heir to the Ron Paul revolution.

Rand Paul has the opportunity to be the heir if he doesn't screw it up. He's not there, yet.

This is why Ron Paul is the only option. It takes all kinds of approaches to advance liberty, but Ron Paul's integrity is unmatched. He lives by his principles no matter what the consequences. This is the type of leader it takes to inspire people. Robert the Bruce arguably did more the win the freedom of Scotland, but it was William Wallace that stirred the emotion in people's hearts that allowed it to happen.

+rep!

[surf]

Johnson is a great asset to our cause, but he just won't be the heir to the Ron Paul revolution.

Rand Paul has the opportunity to be the heir if he doesn't screw it up. He's not there, yet.

This is why Ron Paul is the only option. It takes all kinds of approaches to advance liberty, but Ron Paul's integrity is unmatched. He lives by his principles no matter what the consequences.
no reason to rip Gary Johnson. i'm planning on sending delegates to Tampa and voting for my guy in November, but i like that Johnson is throwing himself out there. hell, he said he'd vote for Ron Paul in his only GOP debate. it wouldn't even surprise me if, for the first time in history, the libertarian candidate endorsed the republican candidate.

Bob Barr - the supreme asshole of 2008 doesn't count as a libertarian candidate.

[CaptUSA]

no reason to rip Gary Johnson. i'm planning on sending delegates to Tampa and voting for my guy in November, but i like that Johnson is throwing himself out there. hell, he said he'd vote for Ron Paul in his only GOP debate. it wouldn't even surprise me if, for the first time in history, the libertarian candidate endorsed the republican candidate.

Bob Barr - the supreme asshole of 2008 doesn't count as a libertarian candidate.Oh, I don't want you to think I was ripping Johnson! I've followed him for a long time. Like I said, he's a great asset. We need more people like Johnson!

I just don't think he has the same ability to inspire. It's just not his style. He takes a utilitarian approach to liberty. That is desperately needed and we need people to show how it works. But if you want people to fight beside you, you need someone who preaches liberty from the moral arguments first.

[G-Wohl]

But if you want people to fight beside you, you need someone who preaches liberty from the moral arguments first.

Thank you! So few people - even here - realize that our problem is primarily a philosophical one, and as a result, has badly affected our politics. +rep

[brenton]

i would vote for gary johnson without hesitation, if ron paul wasn't running. as things stand, though, it's no one but dr. ron paul for me.

[seawolf]

I agree, I will vote for Gary Johnson before Obama or Romney. Thas is a no brainer.

[muh_roads]

Rand Paul voting to sanction Iran already screwed it up for me. I'd vote for Gary. I can see many not getting on board cause of the pro-choice thing sadly...

We really won't have someone as awesome as Ron for a long time to come.

[jay_dub]

Oh, I don't want you to think I was ripping Johnson! I've followed him for a long time. Like I said, he's a great asset. We need more people like Johnson!

I just don't think he has the same ability to inspire. It's just not his style. He takes a utilitarian approach to liberty. That is desperately needed and we need people to show how it works. But if you want people to fight beside you, you need someone who preaches liberty from the moral arguments first.

There's nothing wrong with a utilitarian approach. Frankly, I don't care how we get there, so long as the train reaches its destination. IMO, Johnson's approach may be more palatable in the long run. We get 'liberty' without the window dressing, but I sometimes think Ron's approach is too big a pill for some to swallow. Don't get me wrong....I LOVE RP's message but I love results more.

Ron has the vision, but Gary has the workmanlike approach. I can see how the vision is especially appealing to younger voters, but we oldsters just want to see things change. I don't harbor any hope of Johnson winning, but I refuse to vote against my conscience. For example, my first presidential vote was cast for John Anderson in 1980.

In the long run, I see no chance of things REALLY changing until all these groups outside the 2 parties come together. That is the only path to success. I don't see either party (D or R) ever being reformed, but I do see enough unrest in America to defeat them if we could somehow come together. Realistically, I know it's a pipe dream. It will likely take almost total collapse before America gets off its collective butt.