# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Gary Johnson ~2012

## dr. hfn

I just rewatched his speech at the Rally for the Republic. This man is a great candidate and will appeal to the rest of the GOP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2EhA...eature=related

----------


## scandinaviany3

> I just rewatched his speech at the Rally for the Republic. This man is a great candidate and will appeal to the rest of the GOP.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2EhA...eature=related


Seems kind of flat and non charismatic..

Big thing is NM is not a primary state or  republican state so not sure how he could stand any chance at all

But that being said would make ideal vp candidate to swing new mexico over to the republican side.

----------


## itshappening

> Seems kind of flat and non charismatic..
> 
> Big thing is NM is not a primary state or  republican state so not sure how he could stand any chance at all
> 
> But that being said would make ideal vp candidate to swing new mexico over to the republican side.


that doesn't matter one bit.

he's the only Republican who can beat Obama.

----------


## dr. hfn

I would say Jesse Ventura then

----------


## scandinaviany3

> that doesn't matter one bit.
> 
> he's the only Republican who can beat Obama.


What doesnt matter?

----------


## scandinaviany3

> I would say Jesse Ventura then


Ventura does have a big following and if he cleans up and does the whole clean shaven head thing again he looks pretty macho...and sad to say but that really attracts voters.

Would match the tv culture and emotional process that is the focus of the electorate today.

I would have also thought at one time Gov of SC Sanford would be a natural., he screwed up the tv support speech for mccain pretty bad...cant be all bad 

He has the tv image, the reputation/voting record, supported ron in congress, and heads a key primary state.

----------


## adamni

> Ventura does have a big following and if he cleans up and does the whole clean shaven head thing again he looks pretty macho...and sad to say but that really attracts voters.
> 
> Would match the tv culture and emotional process that is the focus of the electorate today.
> 
> I would have also thought at one time Gov of SC Sanford would be a natural., he screwed up the tv support speech for mccain pretty bad...cant be all bad 
> 
> He has the tv image, the reputation/voting record, supported ron in congress, and heads a key primary state.


I really like Mark Sanford...he'd make a good candidate, I think.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> Ventura does have a big following and if he cleans up and does the whole clean shaven head thing again he looks pretty macho...and sad to say but that really attracts voters.
> 
> Would match the tv culture and emotional process that is the focus of the electorate today.
> 
> I would have also thought at one time Gov of SC Sanford would be a natural., he screwed up the tv support speech for mccain pretty bad...cant be all bad 
> 
> He has the tv image, the reputation/voting record, supported ron in congress, and heads a key primary state.


I have to say that I prefer Ventura, because he can break through the media blockade. The media is the main reason Ron Paul lost.

Having said that, theres no reason why we cant take another shot at the GOP nomination at the same time.

----------


## mczerone

> Ventura does have a big following and if he cleans up and does the whole clean shaven head thing again he looks pretty macho...and sad to say but that really attracts voters.
> 
> Would match the tv culture and emotional process that is the focus of the electorate today.


I'd like to see Ventura clean up his image, and drop the truther rhetoric.  I've said elsewhere that 9/11 still has question marks, but the media bullies love to kill support through ridiculous accusations of 'insanity' because one is a dissenter.  Sometimes you have to put a lid on it - and I'm not requesting that he lie about what he believes, but he isn't going to win supporters focusing on that aspect of his ideals.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> I would say Jesse Ventura then


Jesse has moved into the non-viable category with his 9/11 tin-foil-hatism.

----------


## Jeremy

> Seems kind of flat and non charismatic..
> 
> Big thing is NM is not a primary state or  republican state so not sure how he could stand any chance at all
> 
> But that being said would make ideal vp candidate to swing new mexico over to the republican side.


That has go to be the worst made up excuse I have ever head

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Seems kind of flat and non charismatic..


That's one speech.  I've seen him speak a lot, and he's really good, especially when he's talking actual issues (which he didn't do much of in the campagn for liberty speech).




> Big thing is NM is not a primary state or  republican state so not sure how he could stand any chance at all


The fact that it's not a GOP state is a good thing - Johnson won there twice by over 10% despite being a Republican.  He left office with huge appoval ratings, and he passed many progressive measures that put the left on his side.  He would win the state.




> But that being said would make ideal vp candidate to swing new mexico over to the republican side.


I disagree.  He's young, charismatic, good looking, an athlete, a term-limited governor with strong policy wins and credentials, he's the perfect choice.  Give him the top nod and he'll succeed in every way that Paul didn't.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> I just rewatched his speech at the Rally for the Republic. This man is a great candidate and will appeal to the rest of the GOP.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2EhA...eature=related


How about..no

----------


## StilesBC

Maybe I'm missing something, but is there any reason Ron Paul cannot run again?  I know he'll be 76 in 2012, but he's healthy so I doubt there's an issue with age unless there's a specific rule.  But he would actually need to be prepared this time to *be* president.

----------


## Shotdown1027

Whomever Paul endorses in the Presidential election is likely to be the best option, but if any of them are anti-fed, non-interventionist, and of the Austrian free-trader variety (or maybe even the Chicagoan, but still anti-fed)---i'll support Sanford, Flake, or Johnson.

I think Johnson would cause some problems because he says he's pro-choice (but supported pro-life stuff while in office?) and doesnt seem to be outspoken on the war or the Fed. He's GREAT on the War on Drugs though. He's my top guy.

After that, Sanford. Sanford has proved he's willing to buck the system (releasing pigs on the floor of the SC House to protest "pork", AWESOME!) and is anti-REAL ID. He worked with Paul while in Congress in a great way.

Flake is now against the War in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and is beloved in Arizona and by pork-busters everywhere. Unfortunately he is still somewhat of a hawk, hasnt shown anything on the War on Drugs, and we know nothing about what he thinks of the Fed.

----------


## StilesBC

I think our candidate's main issue should be to eliminate the central bank - Jackson style.  All other issues can be explained as a symptom of the Federal Reserve system.

----------


## Shotdown1027

Stiles,

Maybe not the MAIN issue,because that issue wont click but with about 1 million former-Paul supporters. But he could make it AN issue. First,though, he should gain notoriety amongst rank-and-file republicans.

----------


## mudhoney

It certainly seemed like he was selling himself to us during his speech at the rally.

----------


## mczerone

> Stiles,
> 
> Maybe not the MAIN issue,because that issue wont click but with about 1 million former-Paul supporters. But he could make it AN issue. First,though, he should gain notoriety amongst rank-and-file republicans.


Wasn't there a list of 4 issues somewhere...

----------


## Peace&Freedom

Ventura is preferred, ESPECIALLY because of the truther issue. Look, we tried it Paul's way of not talking about the false flag, and how many states did we win??? We tried it the nontruthers' way, it didn't work. It's time for frank engagement of all issues of wide concern to the liberty movement.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> Ventura is preferred, ESPECIALLY because of the truther issue. Look, we tried it Paul's way of not talking about the false flag, and how many states did we win??? We tried it the nontruthers' way, it didn't work. It's time for frank engagement of all issues of wide concern to the liberty movement.


Trying it the truther way would obviously be far less effectual, it would actually be disastrous.

----------


## mczerone

> Ventura is preferred, ESPECIALLY because of the truther issue. Look, we tried it Paul's way of not talking about the false flag, and how many states did we win??? We tried it the nontruthers' way, it didn't work. It's time for frank engagement of all issues of wide concern to the liberty movement.


But it is not an "issue of wide concern".  It's like the JFK assassination: most of America has their own theory that isn't aligned with the official story, but if a presidential candidate started discussing such a thing, the opinion makers would immediately discredit the candidacy.  So even if many people don't really believe the official story, they'll still join the bully in picking on the stupid 'conspiracy theorist'.

If you want to run a campaign featuring 9/11, I'm sure Cynthia McKinney will have your back.  And 90% of the population will run the other direction.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> Trying it the truther way would obviously be far less effectual, it would actually be disastrous.


Jesse COULD make it work, because he will be given time in the media to explain his reasoning.

----------


## MRoCkEd

I like his positions, but remember, he needs to play the "soundbite" game well.

----------


## Printo

Are you kidding me!?! The media would eat Ventura alive over his Truther beliefs!  He doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell once it comes out that he thinks the government did 9/11.  Plus he'll only run 3rd party & wont win.

Sanford, Flake & Johnson are all perfect candidates.  They're young, principled & can make the appeal to the GOP, at least more-so than Ron Paul was able to.  At least Dr. Paul was invited to the next CPAC meeting.

----------


## Printo

The way to win is with fiscal conservatives.  Republicans, well everyone, loves money.  Its all about the Benjamins baby.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> But it is not an "issue of wide concern".  It's like the JFK assassination: most of America has their own theory that isn't aligned with the official story, but if a presidential candidate started discussing such a thing, the opinion makers would immediately discredit the candidacy.  So even if many people don't really believe the official story, they'll still join the bully in picking on the stupid 'conspiracy theorist'.
> 
> If you want to run a campaign featuring 9/11, I'm sure Cynthia McKinney will have your back.  And 90% of the population will run the other direction.


No they won't and you have no evidence, just a shopworn repetition of a false presumption that they would. I shall repeat, the evasion of this issue was the credibility killer---to this day, 9-11 is emotionally fueling the country's current foreign policy, surveillance state and war spending. It is a current issue, and to not deal with it eliminates the ability to reverse the above. 

Those who just put us through a year of evading it, only to see Paul's positions ignored and marginalized anyway, are simply not in a position to keep lecturing everyone else about what is effectual and what is not. If liberty candidates can talk openly about the Fed, NWO, NAU and other conspiracies and frauds, they can do so about 9-11. Stop selectively discriminating, and stop dividing.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> No they won't and you have no evidence, just a shopworn repetition of a false presumption that they would. I shall repeat, the evasion of this issue was the credibility killer---to this day, 9-11 is emotionally fueling the country's current foreign policy, surveillance state and war spending. It is a current issue, and to not deal with it eliminates the ability to reverse the above. 
> 
> Those who just put us through a year of evading it, only to see Paul's positions ignored and marginalized anyway, are simply not in a position to keep lecturing everyone else about what is effectual and what is not. If liberty candidates can talk openly about the Fed, NWO, NAU and other conspiracies and frauds, they can do so about 9-11. Stop selectively discriminating, and stop dividing.


While I don't think the issue should be pushed too much, I agree with you!

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> No they won't and you have no evidence, just a shopworn repetition of a false presumption that they would. I shall repeat, the evasion of this issue was the credibility killer-*--to this day, 9-11 is emotionally fueling the country's current foreign policy, surveillance state and war spending.* It is a current issue, and to not deal with it eliminates the ability to reverse the above. 
> 
> Those who just put us through a year of evading it, only to see Paul's positions ignored and marginalized anyway, are simply not in a position to keep lecturing everyone else about what is effectual and what is not. If liberty candidates can talk openly about the Fed, NWO, NAU and other conspiracies and frauds, they can do so about 9-11. Stop selectively discriminating, and stop dividing.


No its not, everyone has forgotten about 9/11. 

Hijacking the movement for liberty and making it all about 9/11 would be disastrous. People like you would divide the movement.

----------


## Indy4Chng

> No its not, everyone has forgotten about 9/11. 
> 
> Hijacking the movement for liberty and making it all about 9/11 would be disastrous. People like you would divide the movement.


+1

I like Johnson or Sanford, we need someone with governtorial experience, congressman DO NOT get elected to president.

They need to drop the rest of their platforms and focus entirely on fiscal principles and the economy... that will win the biggest appeal.  Make it the number one issue and only one they give speeches about.

----------


## StateofTrance

Call me stupid but you can't become a president (read *cool president*) if you wear "glasses"..Last prez who wore glasses was Truman....

----------


## SimpleName

> I have to say that I prefer Ventura, because he can break through the media blockade. The media is the main reason Ron Paul lost.


Ventura certainly does have the media exposure and that's why I think he is our best chance in 2012. How could you ignore Ventura? He'll be slamming the other candidates like they've never been slammed before. If he is "clean" and completely stops the acknowledgment of the inside job, he should be able to rally us all once again. And also, one thing I think the tough guy Republicans who think they have to vote for whoever is toughest (McCain...war hero) will find him very appealing.

----------


## StateofTrance

I'm scared that he will come off as a kooky, nut-case....I'm pretty sure his opponents will play clips of him talking "trash" ...I don't know..

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

Gary should get started right now, he hasn't a shot in hell of making an impact in 2012 lol. Better get it started now.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Maybe I'm missing something, but is there any reason Ron Paul cannot run again?  I know he'll be 76 in 2012, but he's healthy so I doubt there's an issue with age unless there's a specific rule.  But he would actually need to be prepared this time to *be* president.


As we've seen, age is unfortunately an issue.  The media makes great play out of the age issue.  So unfortunately it would not be smart to run Paul for the top nod.  How about Secretary of the Treasury?

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Ventura is preferred, ESPECIALLY because of the truther issue. Look, we tried it Paul's way of not talking about the false flag, and how many states did we win??? We tried it the nontruthers' way, it didn't work. It's time for frank engagement of all issues of wide concern to the liberty movement.


PLEASE.  Trutherism is Ventura's biggest weakness right now.  Paul didn't fail because he wasn't a truther - in fact, if he WAS a truther he would never have gained the traction he did.

----------


## scandinaviany3

> Whomever Paul endorses in the Presidential election is likely to be the best option, but if any of them are anti-fed, non-interventionist, and of the Austrian free-trader variety (or maybe even the Chicagoan, but still anti-fed)---i'll support Sanford, Flake, or Johnson.
> 
> I think Johnson would cause some problems because he says he's pro-choice (but supported pro-life stuff while in office?) and doesnt seem to be outspoken on the war or the Fed. He's GREAT on the War on Drugs though. He's my top guy.
> 
> After that, Sanford. Sanford has proved he's willing to buck the system (releasing pigs on the floor of the SC House to protest "pork", AWESOME!) and is anti-REAL ID. He worked with Paul while in Congress in a great way.
> 
> Flake is now against the War in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and is beloved in Arizona and by pork-busters everywhere. Unfortunately he is still somewhat of a hawk, hasnt shown anything on the War on Drugs, and we know nothing about what he thinks of the Fed.


didnt know about johnson on pro-choice discussion...that is a deal killer to get him out of the primaries alive.

I think then Sanford makes the most sense.

----------


## Slist

> As we've seen, age is unfortunately an issue.  The media makes great play out of the age issue.  So unfortunately it would not be smart to run Paul for the top nod.  How about Secretary of the Treasury?


When Reagan was asked about his age in a debate, he wittily answered:

"I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponents youth and inexperience."

No one touched the age issue again after that answer

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> PLEASE.  Trutherism is Ventura's biggest weakness right now.  Paul didn't fail because he wasn't a truther - in fact, if he WAS a truther he would never have gained the traction he did.


And your evidence for this is...? (Again lacking.) Meanwhile, we have an entire year's worth of direct experience that ignoring the issue doesn't gain us any traction. This same exact kind of thinking encouraged looking the other way in the face of the Fed's destructive influence. Want to go back to that, too?

----------


## Nathan Hale

> When Reagan was asked about his age in a debate, he wittily answered:
> 
> "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponents youth and inexperience."
> 
> No one touched the age issue again after that answer


Yeah, but he was a LOT younger than Ron Paul will be in 2012, and  we're far beyond those kind of jokes these days.  Better to pick a person with experience who isn't all kinds of old.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> And your evidence for this is...? (Again lacking.)


Public opinion.  Even among our kind, where opinion is rather radical in that general direction, there is little support for truther logic.  Among the general public, there is none at all.  I remember specifically that on O&A, Jim Norton, of all people, outdebated Jesse Ventura on 9/11.  Now, if a retard like Norton can cause Ventura to storm out of the studio, then he is lacking.




> Meanwhile, we have an entire year's worth of direct experience that ignoring the issue doesn't gain us any traction. This same exact kind of thinking encouraged looking the other way in the face of the Fed's destructive influence. Want to go back to that, too?


Please point out how there is a direct relationship between these two issues because, well, there is none.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Please point out how there is a direct relationship between these two issues because, well, there is none.


For decades when the Birchers and others brought up the Fed, they were ridiculed and marginalized, like truthers today. That's the connection. The public also finds talk about NAU, noninterventionism, ending the IRS, etc 'extreme'--so should we stop talking about those issues too?

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> I remember specifically that on O&A, Jim Norton, of all people, outdebated Jesse Ventura on 9/11.


Link or it didn't happen. I am of the opinion that Jesse can win in spite of his beliefs because he makes a strong case for them.

----------


## itshappening

if there is a right to life issue with Johnson he just needs to affirm states rights, same with drugs.  it's NOT an issue for a President and they shouldnt be defined by it.  heck, we have more pressing matters federally like a bloated massive government that is out of control

politically it could harm him though but who knows.

----------


## MRoCkEd

Johnson should speak of his position as ron paul did - he is pro-life but thinks the states should decide

----------


## Nathan Hale

> For decades when the Birchers and others brought up the Fed, they were ridiculed and marginalized, like truthers today.


That's a circumstantial connection with no substance behind it.  Perhaps the Fed critics were wrongly ridiculed and truthers are justly ridiculed.  But I'll run with your take - even assuming that truthism will one day become part of the acceptable debate, it's political kryptonite today.  And if a person makes such kryptonite an integral part of their political being, as Ventura has, it destroys his viability as a candidate.  Regardless of the truth behind trutherism, the fact of the matter is that nobody wants to hear it, therefore it behooves us to advocate a candidate who isn't a truther.




> The public also finds talk about NAU, noninterventionism, ending the IRS, etc 'extreme'--so should we stop talking about those issues too?


It's classic folly to assume that the only two options available to us are dramatic espousing of every crazy scheme we believe, or blind adherence to focus groups and polling.  The best avenue is found in balance between the extremes.  Even Ron Paul, when advocating things like ending the IRS, said that actually eliminating the IRS wholesale was a far-off goal - and that helped his traction, because much of the criticism coming from journalists and interviewers regarded how Paul intended to pull off such dramatic departures.  And despite that, people supported that goal, as many people support noninterventionism.  Trutherism has nowhere near the traction that ending the income tax does.

As for the NAU, I'm not about to start debating it here (search the threads I've debated the NAU plenty on this board), but I consider the NAU something that we should avoid as well.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Link or it didn't happen. I am of the opinion that Jesse can win in spite of his beliefs because he makes a strong case for them.


http://www.foundrymusic.com/media/di...ber_17907.html

I guess that means it happened.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> http://www.foundrymusic.com/media/di...ber_17907.html
> 
> I guess that means it happened.


Not as composed as he should have been, thats for sure. Weak arguments of Opie and Anthony, he has done far better.

----------


## Nathan Hale

I don't share your opinion of Ventura, and I say this as a person who's seen or heard Jesse debate 9/11 dozens of times.  I like Ventura.  I have his latest book.  I've youtubed his every media appearance this last year.  I watched every episode of his short-lived MSNBC show.  And my experience with the man informs me that he is not a good debater.  There are countless instances where I find myself wincing at his missed opportunities and non-sequitor conversation changers.

----------


## pacelli

I think it is a little early to be making a final decision about who will be "our" presidential candidate for 2012.  Sure, campaigning will probably start in 2010, with a field of 14 republicans, 3 democrats, Ralph Nader, and perhaps an Independent candidate like Ventura.  There is still a great deal that will happen in the world between now and that time.  I'm not suggesting to drop the issue.  

I think we should identify possible candidates and keep a close eye on ALL of them.  If we are going to be an effective grassroots movement, wouldn't it be helpful to know about some previous false scandal or quote from our candidate, rather than be blindsided by it (i.e. newsletters)?   Media presence will be a major issue, as well as the candidates' ability to WORK the media.  We've learned that from the Ron Paul presidential campaign.  Bydlak came on these forums and admitted to us that Ron turned down interviews and had to be pressed to campaign in person, especially during the earlier primaries.  The next 'freedom and liberty' candidate will have to approach campaigning in a manner that makes it worth becoming a campaign donor. 

When it comes time for all candidates to file their campaigns with the FEC, I am confident that we'll be down to a choice between 2 candidates.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> That's a circumstantial connection with no substance behind it.  Perhaps the Fed critics were wrongly ridiculed and truthers are justly ridiculed.


Sauce for the goose, I find absolutely no substance or proof behind your 'trutherism is Kryptonite, no one wants to hear it' presumptions. Where is YOUR evidence?  There are far more people who have demonstrated and protested over 9-11 than over the Fed or the income tax. I object to people selectively belittling issues they don't like, and then projecting their dislike into a universal dogma like "therefore, this issue has no appeal."

----------


## pastortony

Peace&Freedom,

Any candidate for national office that holds to a truther position will be made to look like the biggest idiot on the planet by their opponents and the media.  It is not an issue that a candidate can win on.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Sauce for the goose, I find absolutely no substance or proof behind your 'trutherism is Kryptonite, no one wants to hear it' presumptions. Where is YOUR evidence?


Popular culture, polling, the world around me.  Truther theology is not the religion of the nation.




> There are far more people who have demonstrated and protested over 9-11 than over the Fed or the income tax.


Yes, but you're connecting two things that are not connected.  Yes, more people demonstrated over 9/11 than the fed or the income tax, but those people weren't demonstrating about US involvement or complicity in 9/11, they were demonstrating about what America has done in the name of 9/11.  That's a totally different issue.




> I object to people selectively belittling issues they don't like, and then projecting their dislike into a universal dogma like "therefore, this issue has no appeal."


So do I.  I'll let you know when I see someone like that.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

Then I'll simply be just as vaguely dogmatic in return and say 9-11 truth is suported by popular culture, polling, the world around me. Anti-Truther theology is not the religion of the nation. In New York I have been at multiple, specifically 9-11 truth ('government is complicit') protest events where thousands were in attendance. I have been active in tax honesty and Fed protest events, which had nowhere near the same numbers or intensity.

----------


## pastortony

> Then I'll simply be just as vaguely dogmatic in return and say 9-11 truth is suported by popular culture, polling, the world around me. Anti-Truther theology is not the religion of the nation. In New York I have been at multiple, specifically 9-11 truth ('government is complicit') protest events where thousands were in attendance. I have been active in tax honesty and Fed protest events, which had nowhere near the same numbers or intensity.


The reason that thousands turn up for a 911 truth protest is because the movement itself has many cultic qualities: an "us against them" mentality, the belief that only they are right and everyone else is either a fool or decieved, guru-type leaders (Alex Jones, et al.), financial exploitation, etc.

The same marks do not apply to anti-tax, or anti-fed movements, at least from what I have seen.  

I said it before and I will repeat myself - any candidate that is a 911 truther will be made to look like a fool by their opponents.  They will quickly be associated with the crowd that thinks that it was all done with holograms and therefore will be the laughing stocks of the campaign.

----------


## Printo

If you think a 9/11 truther can win an election, especially as a Republican, you are clearly high on drugs.  The American people do not want a conspiracy nut to be their leader.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Then I'll simply be just as vaguely dogmatic in return


I'm not being vaguely dogmatic.  I don't espouse dogma.  I'm just talking about the way things are.




> and say 9-11 truth is suported by popular culture, polling, the world around me.


But it isn't.




> Anti-Truther theology is not the religion of the nation.


Neither is Christianity, there just happen to be a vast majority of people in both camps.




> In New York I have been at multiple, specifically 9-11 truth ('government is complicit') protest events where thousands were in attendance. I have been active in tax honesty and Fed protest events, which had nowhere near the same numbers or intensity.


Name one event in NY attended by more than 2,000 people (i.e. "thousands") who believe that the US government did 9/11.

----------


## Ron Paul Vermont

> Are you kidding me!?! The media would eat Ventura alive over his Truther beliefs!  He doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell once it comes out that he thinks the government did 9/11.  Plus he'll only run 3rd party & wont win.
> 
> Sanford, Flake & Johnson are all perfect candidates.  They're young, principled & can make the appeal to the GOP, at least more-so than Ron Paul was able to.  At least Dr. Paul was invited to the next CPAC meeting.


You are absolutely right.

----------

