# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Johnson is considering a US Senate run in NM

## HardyMacia

Johnson is considering about at a US Senate run in NM - hopefully now we all can get behind him and get him elected...maybe give him his own pro-liberty candidate topic now here also.

----------


## specsaregood

As a LP candidate?

----------


## Bruehound

> Johnson is considering about at a US Senate run in NM - hopefully now we all can get behind him and get him elected...maybe give him his own pro-liberty candidate topic now here also.


Source? This would be great news.

----------


## CaptUSA

He should have done this in 2012.  He would have had a much better chance since it was an open seat.  We would have supported him.  The liberty movement would have been united instead of fractured.

Still, I wish him all the luck and will support him if he chooses to run.

----------


## supermario21

I would support him, and he should have run in 2012. Polls actually had him winning the race. My guess is that he will rejoin the RP and run.

----------


## Lucille

> He should have done this in 2012.  He would have had a much better chance since it was an open seat.  We would have supported him.  The liberty movement would have been united instead of fractured.
> 
> Still, I wish him all the luck and will support him if he chooses to run.


Right?  He would have won handily, and we could have used him in the Senate.  Now I'm afraid (R) NM voters will be all butthurt and blame him for Obama's reelection and won't vote for him because of his LP run.

----------


## AJ Antimony

If he runs as a Libertarian, then I hope he enjoys actually getting 5% this time.

If he runs as a Republican, then he's going to learn just what happens when you bail on the GOP to get 1% of the national vote. He's not going to be as well-liked in the NMGOP as he was before 2012.

I wish him the best of luck, he'll need it if he wants a political future.

----------


## Sola_Fide

What...has Gary been thinking for the past few years...who knows....  

He could have ran and won a seat already.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Right?  He would have won handily, and we could have used him in the Senate.  Now I'm afraid (R) NM voters will be all butthurt and blame him for Obama's reelection and won't vote for him because of his LP run.


Could you imagine what it would have been like?  We would have been all excited about having Ron Paul AND Gary Johnson to support at the same time.  Then, when Paul didn't get the nomination, Johnson would have gotten our attention and support.  Instead, he ended up fracturing our support (not really his fault), burning the GOP bridges, and made to look fringe.  He could be awaiting his oath of office right now instead of pondering his future moves.  Oh well, live and learn, I suppose.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

I'm not even gonna lift a finger on this if he runs LP. If he could drum up his glory days as governor in peoples' minds, he could landslide this as a republican. Doubt there is anyone in NM that has the prominence he once had nor the name recognition. I can kinda see why he didn't run this last election as he'd have to overcome the Obama affect but he should be golden two years from now. Coming from someone who wasn't that big a fan of his, I bare him no grudge and would lend a hand if he ran it to win it.

----------


## supermario21

I don't think the situation with the NM GOP would be as bad as some say here. They just ran Heather Wilson, a moderate who pretty much was the best shot here (would have done much better than Rand's guy, Sowards) and lost. It's not like GJ sabatoged that race. 2014 could be more favorable for the GOP and a guy like Gary could do well with crossovers (any R must do this with the party ID disadvantage and win the race.

----------


## dinosaur

> Johnson is considering about at a US Senate run in NM - hopefully now we all can get behind him and get him elected...maybe give him his own pro-liberty candidate topic now here also.


The only stance on the life issue that ever succeeded in uniting people in the liberty movement was the stance of Ron Paul.  Johnson's (personally) pro-choice stance guarantees that he will never function as a uniter, and will always be a divider.

----------


## ican'tvote

He talked a little bit about this in a live Q&A on his website. He said that if he runs for Senate, it will be as a republican.

----------


## Rocco

If he runs as a republican, I am on board. If he runs as a Libertarian, I won't even follow the race.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The only stance on the life issue that ever succeeded in uniting people in the liberty movement was the stance of Ron Paul.  Johnson's (personally) pro-choice stance guarantees that he will never function as a uniter, and will always be a divider.



I agree.  After I read Abortion and Liberty by Ron Paul, I cannot think of any pro-abortion candidate as a truly "liberty" candidate anymore.

----------


## Matt Collins

Well the good news is that since he ran as a LP candidate he'll have a huge fundraising list to build a warchest on.

The bad news is that it's not longer an open seat.

The good news is that he's got name recognition and a good record there.

The bad news is that the NRSC will probably work to hamper his efforts (although Mitch and Rand and Jesse and DeMint and Jack might could change this).

The good news is that he very well might have a big anti-Democrat sentiment on his side by then.

The bad news is that he might take funds and support away from a potential Tom Davis run

The good news is that if multiple serious and credible liberty cacandidates run in 2014 then the establishment will be playing whack-a-mole with us. 




Is there a source for the OP?

----------


## Eric21ND

Johnson has the opportunity to become the new wave republican, that can win in blue states out west.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> The only stance on the life issue that ever succeeded in uniting people in the liberty movement was the stance of Ron Paul.  Johnson's (personally) pro-choice stance guarantees that he will never function as a uniter, and will always be a divider.


There are plenty of people in the liberty movement that support Paul _despite_ his position on abortion.  And remember, Paul voted for the ban on partial birth abortions, a vote that he acknowledges himself was not in accordance with his stated position that the Feds have no constitutional authority to be involved in abortion.  So even if you argue his theoretical position shouldn't scare off pro-choice folks, the fact that he hasn't respected his own position in the past means he can't be trusted when it comes to abortion.  Paul did better with pro-choice folks because most liberty minded pro-choice folks care passionately about things like non-interventionism abroad and ending the war on drugs where Paul takes extremist positions in favor of liberty.  It isn't that his abortion position "unites" them so much as all but the most extreme pro-choice folks are willing to _forgive_ him for it.  Gary Johnson on the other hand, doesn't offer any red meat on foreign policy, drugs, or even the Fed so he doesn't inspire the same willingness to overlook among the pro-life crowd.  Also, one could argue there are more "single issue" hard core pro-life folks who wouldn't overlook no matter what among the small government, single males that predominate the liberty movement than there are hard core "single issue" pro-choicers.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There are plenty of people in the liberty movement that support Paul _despite_ his position on abortion.  And remember, Paul voted for the ban on partial birth abortions, a vote that he acknowledges himself was not in accordance with his stated position that the Feds have no constitutional authority to be involved in abortion.  So even if you argue his theoretical position shouldn't scare off pro-choice folks, the fact that he hasn't respected his own position in the past means he can't be trusted when it comes to abortion.  Paul did better with pro-choice folks because most liberty minded pro-choice folks care passionately about things like non-interventionism abroad and ending the war on drugs where Paul takes extremist positions in favor of liberty.  It isn't that his abortion position "unites" them so much as all but the most extreme pro-choice folks are willing to _forgive_ him for it.  Gary Johnson on the other hand, doesn't offer any red meat on foreign policy, drugs, or even the Fed so he doesn't inspire the same willingness to overlook among the pro-life crowd.  Also, one could argue there are more "single issue" hard core pro-life folks who wouldn't overlook no matter what among the small government, single males that predominate the liberty movement than there are hard core "single issue" pro-choicers.


Yes, but Ron Paul has said that pro-abortion "libertarians" are dangerous to liberty and need to be corrected.   In Abortion and Liberty, Ron lays out the irrefutable arguments that connect life to liberty.  

I think its great that many pro-abortionists will support Ron's ideas, but they are inconsistent and don't quite yet understand liberty.

----------


## KingNothing

> If he runs as a Republican, then he's going to learn just what happens when you bail on the GOP to get 1% of the national vote. He's not going to be as well-liked in the NMGOP as he was before 2012.
> 
> I wish him the best of luck, he'll need it if he wants a political future.


The GOP cares about winning, more than anything else.  If the voters still like Gary, the state-GOP will still like Gary.

----------


## Brett85

> The only stance on the life issue that ever succeeded in uniting people in the liberty movement was the stance of Ron Paul.  Johnson's (personally) pro-choice stance guarantees that he will never function as a uniter, and will always be a divider.


Johnson's pro choice stance would probably prevent me from ever donating money to him, but if I were living in New Mexico I would probably reluctantly vote for him.  He does support overturning Roe v. Wade and opposes all federal funding for abortion, so his actual policies on the abortion issue aren't nearly as bad as someone like Barbara Boxer.

----------


## compromise

I will support Governor Johnson if he runs for Senate, but we must make Tom Davis our main focus in 2014. Davis should be our Rand Paul and Johnson should be our Mike Lee, someone we still support but is not our main priority.

Johnson is economically very bad. Bachmann is more Austrian than he is. Johnson will face a popular incumbent. We don't know who'll challenge him in the primary either. Johnson's association with Romney's loss could mean he's vulnerable to a popular state legislator. Johnson's cultural liberalness may hurt him among socially conservative Tea Partiers.

With Davis, whoever wins the primary wins the general. Davis likely won't face any opposition except for Graham. Graham's decision to support a tax increase has really hurt him among SC Republicans. He is very weak now and is an ideal target for a well-respected Tea Party backed fiscal conservative like Davis.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> What...has Gary been thinking for the past few years...who knows....


He had people who influenced, convinced and supported him for the Presidential run. People who disagreed with Ron Paul on two issues.




> The only stance on the life issue that ever succeeded in uniting people in the liberty movement was the stance of Ron Paul.  Johnson's (personally) pro-choice stance guarantees that he will never function as a uniter, and will always be a divider.





> Johnson's pro choice stance would probably prevent me from ever donating money to him, but if I were living in New Mexico I would probably reluctantly vote for him.  He does support overturning Roe v. Wade and opposes all federal funding for abortion, so his actual policies on the abortion issue aren't nearly as bad as someone like Barbara Boxer.


Wanna guess what one of the issues was?

----------


## specsaregood

> Wanna guess what one of the issues was?


The war on Kony?

----------


## supermario21

Like I said on another thread, Davis's only opposition post primary will be Lindsey (if he can run as an Indy). He seems like a Lieberman type when it comes to keeping a seat.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The war on Kony?


Close, but no cigar... Or would that be a blunt in the Johnson camp?

----------


## Maximus

From his perspective, running LP was brilliant.  He owns his own "brand" and has a nationwide network of supporters.  The local Liberty movement there should help, but our main focus should be Miller/Davis.  He chose to build his own brand outside but allied with our movement.  Let his movement flex their muscles.

----------


## Kotin

We all begged him pretty much to do this at CPAC 2011.. He scoffed at us.. Please mr.johnson do it this time!!!! I would support you with cash and time you $#@!.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> The only stance on the life issue that ever succeeded in uniting people in the liberty movement was the stance of Ron Paul.  Johnson's (personally) pro-choice stance guarantees that he will never function as a uniter, and will always be a divider.


How did pro life become contrary to pro choice in our common usage of the terms?  It is thanks to people who trust the government more than their neighbors, family, and friends.

Anyway, it seems like you are intent on dividing.  In fact, you'll "guarantee" it.

----------


## dinosaur

> How did pro life become contrary to pro choice in our common usage of the terms?  It is thanks to people who trust the government more than their neighbors, family, and friends.
> 
> Anyway, it seems like you are intent on dividing.  In fact, you'll "guarantee" it.


You have my motive wrong, I'd like to prevent division.  I'm just pointing out a fact.

----------


## 69360

Awesome, I hope he does. I will send a few bucks his way.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> You have my motive wrong, I'd like to prevent division.  I'm just pointing out a fact.


Then, in the future, you can point out GJ's positions that are compatible with pro life (esp as regards to the life-begins-at-vitality pro-life crowd).  You can avoid pretending like this is a deal breaker as you play up the success of Ron Paul and the failure of Gary Johnson.  Sadly, neither was elected President so that score is 0 to 0.  Also, you might want to learn the difference between fact and opinion.

Fact: Ron Paul was not 100% successful in the area you claim, "uniting people in the liberty movement".

Opinion: Ron Paul was the uniter, not his position on abortion (which he admits was wrong at times).  Claiming otherwise to turn people against Johnson is doing the opposite of what you claim ("... I'd like to prevent division.")

----------


## Shane Harris

> Right?  He would have won handily, and we could have used him in the Senate.  Now I'm afraid (R) NM voters will be all butthurt and blame him for Obama's reelection and won't vote for him because of his LP run.


Worried about this too, but maybe he can still win.

----------


## Qdog

[QUOTE=AJ Antimony;4749532]

If he runs as a Republican, then he's going to learn just what happens when you bail on the GOP to get 1% of the national vote. /QUOTE]

You mean like Ron Paul did in 1988?

----------


## dinosaur

> Then, in the future, you can point out GJ's positions that are compatible with pro life (esp as regards to the life-begins-at-vitality pro-life crowd).  You can avoid pretending like this is a deal breaker as you play up the success of Ron Paul and the failure of Gary Johnson.  Sadly, neither was elected President so that score is 0 to 0.  Also, you might want to learn the difference between fact and opinion.
> 
> Fact: Ron Paul was not 100% successful in the area you claim, "uniting people in the liberty movement".
> 
> Opinion: Ron Paul was the uniter, not his position on abortion (which he admits was wrong at times).  Claiming otherwise to turn people against Johnson is doing the opposite of what you claim ("... I'd like to prevent division.")


Why not just calmly prove me wrong, instead of getting into my supposed motives and personal shortcomings?  Is it because you don't have much of an argument otherwise?

----------


## NoOneButPaul

$#@! him. 

What an ass.

Day late and a dollar short, this is what he should have done in 2012! This is why I couldn't stand Johnson, there was already an open seat waiting for you you jackass!

----------


## Matt Collins

> $#@! him. 
> 
> What an ass.
> 
> Day late and a dollar short, this is what he should have done in 2012! This is why I couldn't stand Johnson, there was already an open seat waiting for you you jackass!


Perhaps, but still, if he can run and has a chance of winning, we need to support him regardless of non-political differences.

----------


## Smart3

I'll support Johnson in any future bids.

----------


## Brett85

> You can avoid pretending like this is a deal breaker as you play up the success of Ron Paul and the failure of Gary Johnson.


It is a deal breaker for some of us, just like it would be a deal breaker if a politician supported slavery.

----------


## PursuePeace

source?

I willl defintely support Gary if he runs.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> The GOP cares about winning, more than anything else.  If the voters still like Gary, the state-GOP will still like Gary.


Maybe, but not as much as they did before 2012. 

If the GOP cares about winning as you say they do (and I agree), how would they feel about their former governor who bailed on the GOP and actually competed against, and took votes from, their presidential nominee?

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Davis likely won't face any opposition except for Graham.


I would expect the Democrats to run a serious candidate if they know well in advance that the GOP will have a bloody primary. But again, that's just what I'd expect.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> You mean like Ron Paul did in 1988?


Maybe. Maybe also like Bob Barr in 2008.

My main point is that when an individual--an elected Republican--decides to quit the GOP, and then actively compete against the GOP, it's going to bother a significant amount of GOP party members.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> As a LP candidate?


I certainly hope not. I do want him to run and win though.

Senator Gary Johnson= YES

President Gary Johnson=NO

----------


## Kotin

> "I don't want a liberty-friendly Senator from New Mexico!!!"


all I hear is ^^

----------


## jkob

Anybody still holding a grudge against Gary is insane. He wasn't the difference between Ron becoming the nominee and not. He most likely would of lost if he ran for senate in this presidential election too, look at all the senate races across the country. 2014 is a much better year despite it likely being against an incumbent. No Obama, no Romney.The party is doing soul searching right now so an outsider 'new breed' Republican like Gary Johnson might be appealing while if he had ran in 2012 he would of had to fall in line with Mitt Romney or be abandoned by the GOP.

 He's not Ron Paul but he's close enough to get my support. Very interested in seeing how Gary polls.

----------


## compromise

> I would expect the Democrats to run a serious candidate if they know well in advance that the GOP will have a bloody primary. But again, that's just what I'd expect.


Graham won every one of his races by at least a 10 point margin. SC is much redder than Indiana or Missouri in Senate elections. I don't think anyone they choose will have any success unless it's a former Governor or something like that.

----------


## SilentBull

I really hope he runs. I still don't get why he ran for president instead.

----------


## HigherVision

> If he runs as a Libertarian, then I hope he enjoys actually getting 5% this time.
> 
> If he runs as a Republican, then he's going to learn just what happens when you bail on the GOP to get 1% of the national vote. He's not going to be as well-liked in the NMGOP as he was before 2012.
> 
> I wish him the best of luck, he'll need it if he wants a political future.


I think some Ron Paul supporters are developing too much loyalty to the republican party. I don't think that was ever Ron's intent, he only ran as a republican for strategic reasons. If other liberty candidates have a different strategy that's silly to not support them because of it.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I think some Ron Paul supporters are developing too much loyalty to the republican party. I don't think that was ever Ron's intent, he only ran as a republican for strategic reasons. If other liberty candidates have a different strategy that's silly to not support them because of it.


IMO, the LP/CP started and exists as a protest against the GOP establishment's perversion of the party base. Ron has said it's ideal to restore the GOP to its Goldwater and Taft days as we're two centuries into a two party system. The perceived loyalty toward the GOP exists merely in gaining a bigger liberty foothold into the party ranks from bottom to top. I have no problem voting against the GOP when they have $#@!ty candidates but I wonder if the LP/CP folks vote GOP when it's clear there is a pro-liberty person in certain races. Party over principle happens in third parties too.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> I think some Ron Paul supporters are developing too much loyalty to the republican party. I don't think that was ever Ron's intent, he only ran as a republican for strategic reasons. If other liberty candidates have a different strategy that's silly to not support them because of it.


I agree, but some strategies are winning strategies, and some strategies are losing strategies.

I prefer winning strategies.

----------


## itshappening

I doubt Johnson would have won in 2012 because of the Obamanoids in NM.  They would have to split their vote on the Senate race and getting them to do that is near enough impossible. 




> It is a deal breaker for some of us, just like it would be a deal breaker if a politician supported slavery.


There aren't many single issue pro lifers, get over it. 

For what its worth pro lifers like Mourdock and Akin failed in RED states because they said dumb things. 

Get used to losing if that's your criteria for a candidate.

----------


## Brett85

> There aren't many single issue pro lifers, get over it.


There aren't very many single issue pro choicers either.

----------


## itshappening

> There aren't very many single issue pro choicers either.


If you honestly think Johnson's pro-choice stance will cost him ANY votes in a NM Senate race then you're crazy. 

And it won't cost him much support here or in the liberty movement because very few could care less about it.  

He isn't going to ban abortion in the Senate or in NM,  big deal.  His stances on other issues are far more important.

----------


## Karsten

2014 will be better for a republican running in a general election for senate.  in 2010 a republican won obama's senate seat.  do you think that would have happened in 2012?  you're crazy.  johnson simply would not have won this year in the general.  the electorate is more republican in off year elections (in 2006 democrats won by running as conservatives).

----------


## realtonygoodwin

> He should have done this in 2012.  He would have had a much better chance since it was an open seat.  We would have supported him.  The liberty movement would have been united instead of fractured.
> 
> Still, I wish him all the luck and will support him if he chooses to run.



Agreed.

What party, and is there a source for the OP?

----------


## Brett85

> If you honestly think Johnson's pro-choice stance will cost him ANY votes in a NM Senate race then you're crazy.


I never said it would.  I was just responding to your statement of "get used to losing elections if that's your criteria for a candidate."  Like you said, there probably aren't very many one issue pro life voters, but there aren't very many one issue pro choice voters either.  I don't agree with your assertion that a pro life candidate can't become President.  And, I have talked to people in the liberty movement who said that they wouldn't even vote for Johnson because of his stance on the abortion issue.  That's farther than I would even go.  I just said that I wouldn't donate money to him because of that stance.  The people in the liberty movement that said that they wouldn't vote for Gary Johnson because of his stance on abortion are people who are hardcore libertarians, people who fully supported Ron Paul in both 2008 and 2012.  One of them is a committee member of the Campaign for Liberty in Wichita, Kansas.  These are people who are hardcore supporters of liberty, but they can't in good conscience vote for someone who doesn't understand that defending life is essential to defending liberty.

----------


## itshappening

> These are people who are hardcore supporters of liberty, but they can't in good conscience vote for someone who doesn't understand that defending life is essential to defending liberty.


how would you expect him to defend life in a pro-choice Senate with a pro-choice president?  i'd much rather him fight other battles, that's the point i've been trying to make.  Having GJ in the Senate is a win as far as im concerned.

----------


## 1836

I'm as pro life as it gets, but I can't say that I wouldn't be able to vote for Johnson if he were a Republican nominee for Senate, for example.

It is unfortunate he couldn't tamp down that stance a bit.

----------


## compromise

If a pro-life presidential candidate can never win, how did George W Bush become president? Of course he flip-flopped when he became president, but on the campaign trail he was firmly pro-life.

----------


## itshappening

> If a pro-life presidential candidate can never win, how did George W Bush become president? Of course he flip-flopped when he became president, but on the campaign trail he was firmly pro-life.


he never did anything to stop abortions as president, despite having house and senate.  None of them do because it's a losing issue, polorazing, not certain to pass and even if anything passed there's the court cases to come. 

It doesnt matter if a pro-life president gets elected because they wont do anything.  This has been proven time and again.  The issue is settled as far as politicians are concerned and no president will waste time on it despite what they say beforehand.

----------


## RandRevolution

The achillies heel of the liberty movement is that we are political perfectionists and refuse to vote for someone like this who has honest convictions and agrees with us on some of the most crucial issues. 

Look at Gary Johnson - he wanted to cut 1.4 trillion year one, repeal NDAA and PATRIOT Act, abolish the department of homeland security, extremely pro 2nd-amendmant, anti-torture, anti cap and trade, anti Obamacare, anti bailouts and corporate welfare, would end funding of Fannie and Freddie, legalize weed and decriminalize other drugs, leave Afghanistan and Iraq, end medicare part D, end many military bases, believes in due proccess for everyone including foreigners, abolish the department of education, EPA and a few other departments I can't remember, pretty anti-fed and he clearly has real convictions.

All of this and some people here have the nerve to call him "the lesser of three evils". No, he's the lesser of two goods. 

This is someone who takes a year out of his life to promote our ideas and not only do people here refuse to vote for him (instead doing a write in for someone who wasn't even running and remained intentionally silent the entire general election) but we actually had so many people here act hostile towards him, calling him things like "Scary Johnson". Yes there are some things I disagree with Gary Johnson on and he's not as good as Ron Paul but he's right on 99% of the issues and his overall philosophy of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and free markets is great.

Not giving our votes to Gary Johnson is one of the biggest mistakes the revolution has made.

Instead of going

"What? He doesn't want to legalize all drugs? $#@! that guy."

we should be like

"What? He wants to legalize weed and decriminalize other drugs? What a huge step forward, awesome!"

But we've been spoiled by Ron Paul so we end up with too many perfectionists who refuse to vote for anything less than someone as perfect as Ron Paul. If not for Rand, Ron would have endorsed Gary in a heartbeat. He endorsed 3 left-wing lunatics in 2008 because they signed a pledge saying they agreed with him on Afghanistan, Iraq, The Federal Reserve and the Drug War.

----------


## Kotin

> The achillies heel of the liberty movement is that we are political perfectionists and refuse to vote for someone like this who has honest convictions and agrees with us on some of the most crucial issues. 
> 
> Look at Gary Johnson - he wanted to cut 1.4 trillion year one, repeal NDAA and PATRIOT Act, abolish the department of homeland security, extremely pro 2nd-amendmant, anti-torture, anti cap and trade, anti Obamacare, anti bailouts and corporate welfare, would end funding of Fannie and Freddie, legalize weed and decriminalize other drugs, leave Afghanistan and Iraq, end medicare part D, end many military bases, believes in due proccess for everyone including foreigners, abolish the department of education, EPA and a few other departments I can't remember, pretty anti-fed and he clearly has real convictions.
> 
> All of this and some people here have the nerve to call him "the lesser of three evils". No, he's the lesser of two goods. 
> 
> This is someone who takes a year out of his life to promote our ideas and not only do people here refuse to vote for him (instead doing a write in for someone who wasn't even running and remained intentionally silent the entire general election) but we actually had so many people here act hostile towards him, calling him things like "Scary Johnson". Yes there are some things I disagree with Gary Johnson on and he's not as good as Ron Paul but he's right on 99% of the issues and his overall philosophy of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and free markets is great.
> 
> Not giving our votes to Gary Johnson is one of the biggest mistakes the revolution has made.
> ...


there are more than one achillies heel for the liberty movement but it is certainly one of them.. hehe

----------


## 69360

> he never did anything to stop abortions as president, despite having house and senate.  None of them do because it's a losing issue, polorazing, not certain to pass and even if anything passed there's the court cases to come. 
> 
> It doesnt matter if a pro-life president gets elected because they wont do anything.  This has been proven time and again.  The issue is settled as far as politicians are concerned and no president will waste time on it despite what they say beforehand.


It's not settled, the country is about equally divided. 

Rand Paul isn't going to shut up about it and he's not going to flip on the issue.




> The achillies heel of the liberty movement is that we are political perfectionists and refuse to vote for someone like this who has honest convictions and agrees with us on some of the most crucial issues. 
> 
> Look at Gary Johnson - he wanted to cut 1.4 trillion year one, repeal NDAA and PATRIOT Act, abolish the department of homeland security, extremely pro 2nd-amendmant, anti-torture, anti cap and trade, anti Obamacare, anti bailouts and corporate welfare, would end funding of Fannie and Freddie, legalize weed and decriminalize other drugs, leave Afghanistan and Iraq, end medicare part D, end many military bases, believes in due proccess for everyone including foreigners, abolish the department of education, EPA and a few other departments I can't remember, pretty anti-fed and he clearly has real convictions.
> 
> All of this and some people here have the nerve to call him "the lesser of three evils". No, he's the lesser of two goods. 
> 
> This is someone who takes a year out of his life to promote our ideas and not only do people here refuse to vote for him (instead doing a write in for someone who wasn't even running and remained intentionally silent the entire general election) but we actually had so many people here act hostile towards him, calling him things like "Scary Johnson". Yes there are some things I disagree with Gary Johnson on and he's not as good as Ron Paul but he's right on 99% of the issues and his overall philosophy of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and free markets is great.
> 
> Not giving our votes to Gary Johnson is one of the biggest mistakes the revolution has made.
> ...


You're right, it's a major problem, but not mine. I voted Johnson. My only issue with him was that he's not pro-life. But he was the best choice on my ballot, obviously without a chance to win but still. So I put aside one very important belief and voted for the best candidate. We have to do that sometimes.

----------


## MozoVote

If he runs as a Republican ... will he keep wearing the "peace" shirts ?

----------


## TCE

Udall will be a tough out. Johnson had his chance in 2012. Some of us were fighting this battle in 2010 and 2011 and Johnson spit in our faces. If he wants to do all of the heavy lifting and then we put the cherry on top, then that's fine, but I've had enough games from him. Don't get me wrong, I voted for him for President and all, but clearly his advisers are horrible for suggesting he run for President. 

@Rand Revolution: It is one of the liberty movement's flaws, but I would argue a bigger flaw is throwing so much money and support behind guys who can't win. We're such a small group that every dollar is precious. The "Can they win?" question should be the second one asked after finding out if they are a legitimate liberty candidate.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Udall will be a tough out. Johnson had his chance in 2012. Some of us were fighting this battle in 2010 and 2011 and Johnson spit in our faces. If he wants to do all of the heavy lifting and then we put the cherry on top, then that's fine, but I've had enough games from him. Don't get me wrong, I voted for him for President and all, but clearly his advisers are horrible for suggesting he run for President. 
> 
> @Rand Revolution: It is one of the liberty movement's flaws, but I would argue a bigger flaw is throwing so much money and support behind guys who can't win. We're such a small group that every dollar is precious. The "Can they win?" question should be the second one asked after finding out if they are a legitimate liberty candidate.


Remember that Ron also ran a Libertarian candidate for President to subsequently win a Federal election as a Republican.

----------


## trey4sports

Yeah buddy. I'm all in either way. LP or GOP.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

good move.

----------


## TCE

> Remember that Ron also ran a Libertarian candidate for President to subsequently win a Federal election as a Republican.


Those were very different circumstances. Johnson had a following here in 2010/2011 of people who were willing to donate money, volunteer for him, and do countless other things to help him get elected to the Senate. He was cornered on the subject and essentially said, "I do not want to be a Legislator." Okay then. What has changed in two years? He had a golden opportunity along with tons of us who were willing to help out. He turned us down. I won't believe he's running for Senate until he actually announces.

----------


## HigherVision

> Yeah buddy. I'm all in either way. LP or GOP.


Me too, what is up with all the GOP loyalists in the Ron Paul movement? Has everyone forgotten the fact that they're our *enemy*?? That the two party monopoly is the problem?

----------


## Nathan Hale

I'm all in either way too.  The best thing to do would be to run as an independent, free of any party affiliation.

----------


## Okaloosa

> Me too, what is up with all the GOP loyalists in the Ron Paul movement? Has everyone forgotten the fact that they're our *enemy*?? That the two party monopoly is the problem?


My enemy is the assault on the Constitution and our Liberties.  We do not have two parties in my opinion we have one.  Running in the GOP will actually give us a second party and a chance at winning.  If you can't win you can't make policy.

----------


## Smart3

> I'm all in either way too.  The best thing to do would be to run as an independent, free of any party affiliation.


I concur, I wish he'd do something like Bernie Sanders and accept the Republican, Libertarian and Independent American (although that might be hard, since he isn't a pro-lifer) nominations, but still run as an Independent.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Those were very different circumstances. Johnson had a following here in 2010/2011 of people who were willing to donate money, volunteer for him, and do countless other things to help him get elected to the Senate. He was cornered on the subject and essentially said, "I do not want to be a Legislator." Okay then. What has changed in two years? He had a golden opportunity along with tons of us who were willing to help out. He turned us down. I won't believe he's running for Senate until he actually announces.





> I concur, I wish he'd do something like Bernie Sanders and accept the Republican, Libertarian and Independent American (although that might be hard, since he isn't a pro-lifer) nominations, but still run as an Independent.


Fusion tickets aren't allowed in New Mexico and the GOP wouldn't abdicate their line for an independent unfortunately.

It'd be great if Johnson were running in a small state like Vermont that was conservative leaning but no such option exists, unfortunately.

----------


## supermario21

Fusion tickets work in New York for Republicans, but I sadly don't even think you could trust the Libertarian Party to accept a fusion ticket if it were possible even with a Liberty candidate. They'd still trot out a candidate even if GJ was the Republican nominee. Jon Barrie actually did pretty well in the Senate race for a 3rd party candidate this year. To be honest, Libertarians did well in Senate races this year. Montana, New Mexico, and Ohio (Rupert listed as nonparty, but he's libertarian) all pulled in between 4-5% I'm pretty sure.

----------


## Adrock

> Fusion tickets work in New York for Republicans, but I sadly don't even think you could trust the Libertarian Party to accept a fusion ticket if it were possible even with a Liberty candidate. They'd still trot out a candidate even if GJ was the Republican nominee. Jon Barrie actually did pretty well in the Senate race for a 3rd party candidate this year. To be honest, Libertarians did well in Senate races this year. Montana, New Mexico, and Ohio (Rupert listed as nonparty, but he's libertarian) all pulled in between 4-5% I'm pretty sure.


They did better in AZ too.

----------


## Eric21ND

> Me too, what is up with all the GOP loyalists in the Ron Paul movement? Has everyone forgotten the fact that they're our *enemy*?? That the two party monopoly is the problem?


The Ron Paul movement is the GOP in many places.  Dr. Paul's idea to infiltrate the party was a stroke of genius.

----------


## compromise

> Fusion tickets aren't allowed in New Mexico and the GOP wouldn't abdicate their line for an independent unfortunately.
> 
> It'd be great if Johnson were running in a small state like Vermont that was conservative leaning but no such option exists, unfortunately.


Could he do what Sanders did, win the Repub nomination, then back out and run as a Libertarian or Independent? That would mean there wouldn't be a Republican listed on the ballot. Johnson could also distance himself from the GOP to attract liberal voters.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Could he do what Sanders did, win the Repub nomination, then back out and run as a Libertarian or Independent? That would mean there wouldn't be a Republican listed on the ballot. Johnson could also distance himself from the GOP to attract liberal voters.


There's no point in doing that, his prominence in the state makes him a lock under the GOP esp if Paul folk get behind him. I could see him running as a republican, winning, then jetting to the LP to give them some national credibility and status. That would be pretty heavy and likely to backfire in the next election as the republican hard-ons will be a hatin.

----------


## jkob

I fail to see how Gary could of won the senate seat in 2012 with Obama and Romney topping the tickets. The GOP would of likely torpedo'd his candidacy if he didn't fall in line with Romney. 2014 will be a much better Republican year.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gary-...54148464622795

----------


## cindy25

> If he runs as a Libertarian, then I hope he enjoys actually getting 5% this time.
> 
> If he runs as a Republican, then he's going to learn just what happens when you bail on the GOP to get 1% of the national vote. He's not going to be as well-liked in the NMGOP as he was before 2012.
> 
> I wish him the best of luck, he'll need it if he wants a political future.


are we forgetting who was the LP presidential candidate in 1988?

----------


## KingRobbStark

Too late.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> are we forgetting who was the LP presidential candidate in 1988?


The situation is different. RP didn't run as a Republican, then switch to the LP after losing.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> The situation is different. RP didn't run as a Republican, then switch to the LP after losing.


He didn't quit after losing.  He quit when it became apparent that he wasn't going to get a fair shake by the media.  I agree with you that it's a stretch to call the situation perfectly analogous, but to their credit, RP did cause a great deal of emnity among Republicans when he jumped ship.  The reason I call it a non-analogy was that Ron Paul had years to heal the wounds before he ran again in 1996, but Gary Johnson would be attempting to jump right back in their arms less than three years after he burned them.  Gary's better off running as an independent, do an Angus King thing.

----------


## mz10

> I fail to see how Gary could of won the senate seat in 2012 with Obama and Romney topping the tickets. The GOP would of likely torpedo'd his candidacy if he didn't fall in line with Romney. 2014 will be a much better Republican year.


Actually he would have been a nice counterweight to all the Akin-Mourdock crap, being a pro-gay marriage, pro-choice Republican.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Actually he would have been a nice counterweight to all the Akin-Mourdock crap, being a pro-gay marriage, pro-choice Republican.


He will be a nice counterweight to that in 2014 too, except in 2014 he won't have to contend with all those extra Obama voters or the huge "Rape Baby" PR effort from the MSM that tars Republicans across the board no matter what their personal stand on the issue might be.

The question I have is despite the title of this thread, I've read nothing in the news that suggests Gary is considering a Senate run.  Does anybody have a link to offer some hope this is even a possibility?

----------


## RonPaul25

i doubt he actually runs

----------


## Nathan Hale

A few GJ insiders put that word out, but GJ is on the fence, so far as I know.  There's a lot of pressure on him to stay in the LP, wait to see what happens to Rand Paul in the primary, and then jump into the Pres race.  But I hope he runs for Senate in 2014.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> A few GJ insiders put that word out, but GJ is on the fence, so far as I know.  There's a lot of pressure on him to stay in the LP, wait to see what happens to Rand Paul in the primary, and then jump into the Pres race.  But I hope he runs for Senate in 2014.


Wonderful, let's blow another opportunity all because of the LP. Even if Rand doesn't become the nominee in 2016, Americans in general will likely be pissed off enough to swallow whomever the GOP picks meaning all the extra GJ votes won't be enough to hand it to Hillary. Tho, I'm betting on Rand pulling it off because of the water temperature in the GOP by then and the economic conditions of the day. Hence, GJ should just stop wasting his damn time diddling himself in the LP and become the next GOP Senator from NM. The job pays ~$170k/yr, and the LP can't do anything similar for him.

----------


## compromise

> The job pays ~$170k/yr, and the LP can't do anything similar for him.


GJ isn't too worried about money, he's a very rich man.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> GJ isn't too worried about money, he's a very rich man.


Right and being a Senator is a novelty dream job for a very rich person. Also, a very rich person is hardly concerned with what some third party's pressuring is about. His ego will be better stroked getting help from all over the country while running for Senate all the while getting more significant coverage in the press. Lastly, his rise to prominence will help put NM back on the map.

----------


## supermario21

I'm sure the LP doesn't like losing it's stars to the GOP. Where do they go if Rand is a rising star Senator/pres. candidate, GJ is in the Senate and Amash is building a coalition in the House.

----------


## TCE

> A few GJ insiders put that word out, but GJ is on the fence, so far as I know.  There's a lot of pressure on him to stay in the LP, wait to see what happens to Rand Paul in the primary, and then jump into the Pres race.  But I hope he runs for Senate in 2014.


This sounds about right. Always thinking about the Presidency and never taking the low-hanging fruit that is the New Mexico Senate Seat. I, too, would be shocked if he runs in 2014. It would make too much sense.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> This sounds about right. Always thinking about the Presidency and never taking the low-hanging fruit that is the New Mexico Senate Seat. I, too, would be shocked if he runs in 2014. It would make too much sense.


A basketball on a Harlem Globetrotter's fingertip called, it wants its spin back.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> Wonderful, let's blow another opportunity all because of the LP. Even if Rand doesn't become the nominee in 2016, Americans in general will likely be pissed off enough to swallow whomever the GOP picks meaning all the extra GJ votes won't be enough to hand it to Hillary. Tho, I'm betting on Rand pulling it off because of the water temperature in the GOP by then and the economic conditions of the day. Hence, GJ should just stop wasting his damn time diddling himself in the LP and become the next GOP Senator from NM. The job pays ~$170k/yr, and the LP can't do anything similar for him.


As we mentioned earlier in the thread, even if he runs for the Senate, it likely will not be as a GOPer.  Ron Paul made a return to the GOP after running for President on the LP ticket, but only after 8 years of allowing bygones to become bygones.  Gary would essentially have to attempt a jump back into the GOP after barely a year.  If anything, he should run indy style like Angus King.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

https://www.facebook.com/garyjohnson2014?fref=ts

----------


## FreeHampshire

Well I hate to promote the LP over the GOP, but the fact is he is now hated by the Republican Party for running against them in such a crucial election. I think running as a LP for Senate is the best option at the moment.

----------


## cbrons

> Johnson is considering about at a US Senate run in NM - hopefully now we all can get behind him and get him elected...maybe give him his own pro-liberty candidate topic now here also.


I don't know if the result will be any different here. I mean, he will be running in a blue state. Yes, he was governor, but we have a new terrain in America now especially with these Senate elections. Most Senate elections, the neo-cons or very neo-con-like "liberty" guys are who get elected.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> As we mentioned earlier in the thread, even if he runs for the Senate, it likely will not be as a GOPer.  Ron Paul made a return to the GOP after running for President on the LP ticket, but only after 8 years of allowing bygones to become bygones.  Gary would essentially have to attempt a jump back into the GOP after barely a year.  If anything, he should run indy style like Angus King.


I just think that his record as a Republican Governor speaks for itself and can easily be used to trump the LP stuff and making him the frontrunner for the Senate seat.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> I just think that his record as a Republican Governor speaks for itself and can easily be used to trump the LP stuff and making him the frontrunner for the Senate seat.


It isn't as though there are any other candidates historically who have returned to the GOP to win an election.

----------


## compromise

> It isn't as though there are any other candidates historically who have returned to the GOP to win an election.


Ron Paul 1997?

----------


## Confederate

> Well I hate to promote the LP over the GOP, but the fact is he is now hated by the Republican Party for running against them in such a crucial election. I think running as a LP for Senate is the best option at the moment.


What's the point in running as an LP candidate for Senate? Waste of time and money.

----------


## Confederate

> I just think that his record as a Republican Governor speaks for itself and can easily be used to trump the LP stuff and making him the frontrunner for the Senate seat.


You mean the record of increasing spending, taxes, and debt?

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Ron Paul 1997?


Of course.

----------


## FreeHampshire

> What's the point in running as an LP candidate for Senate? Waste of time and money.


He has cross-appeal with both parties, but any attempt to secure the Republican nomination seems unlikely, the GOP big-wigs will come out in full-force and sabotage his campaign due to his betrayal. Independents do win Senate races, moreso than they win House races. So it is viable.

----------


## supermario21

Who is going to run though? Other than Lt. Governor Sanchez who backed out of this year's primary, the two top Republicans, Steve Pearce and moderate Heather Wilson, have lost in 2008 and 2012 respectively and will probably not run again. Also keep in mind that Rand Paul had endorsed Greg Sowards in the primary, but he didn't stick around. So theoretically GJ could have the nomination if he wants it.

----------


## Brett85

> He has cross-appeal with both parties, but any attempt to secure the Republican nomination seems unlikely, *the GOP big-wigs will come out in full-force and sabotage his campaign due to his betrayal.*


I don't see why.  Johnson will be the only Republican who will actually have a chance to win a Senate seat in New Mexico, and I would think the Republican Party would care more about winning a Senate seat than punishing Johnson for running as a Libertarian for President.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I don't see why.  Johnson will be the only Republican who will actually have a chance to win a Senate seat in New Mexico, and I would think the Republican Party would care more about winning a Senate seat than punishing Johnson for running as a Libertarian for President.


I agree.  We might actually see some big donors and PAC money come to back Johnson if he mounts a serious campaign; that means running as a republican.  I will not donate or volunteer my time towards a vanity run as some laughing-stock third party.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> You mean the record of increasing spending, taxes, and debt?


I meant his record of vetoing many bills, cutting the number of gov't employees and his prior business background which would resonate w/ the GOP primary electorate. Not to mention, he cut the 10% annual increase in the budget via line-item so spending and debt would've been higher w/o him. Also, during his time at the helm, things were far better off for NM folk than lately which would remind the average person of Johnson's "blast from the past" persona that might be beneficial as their Senator. Finally, he won his first election in a democratic state during the republican revolution of '94 which is likely to be the same scenario in '14.

----------


## TheTyke

Seriously, run to win (Republican) or don't waste the time. Rand was able to pull together an uneasy alliance with the Establishment after we thrashed their candidate in the primary, and we won because of that. It takes some doing, but if played right, they can't afford not to support their nominees for a position like that, and we can use them to get our people in. Are people joking about a 3rd party run? Hey, let's spend a few million on a losing race.. maybe if we're veeery luck we can quadruple the 1% from the last race. :P

On the abortion thing... It's not a losing issue. Over half of those polled are identifying themselves as pro-life now, and gaining every year. And I'm not sure where ya'll live, but here in my county in KY, a full half of our hardcore Ron Paul activists would not support someone who was pro-abortion (even "personally,") because without life there can be no liberty. It's THE most fundamental make or break issue for many of us. Just like most Paul supporters wouldn't support Romney for Team R, we are not about to set aside our most important issue for Team L. Many of those who disagree on the issue supported Ron anyhow because it isn't so important to them... so I have to agree, at least from my experience, candidates being pro-life will bring broader support from the liberty movement.

In any case, I hope Gary runs to win, and is successful. I wish him all the success in the world, and the Senate will be better off with him there. But I can see a lot of people focusing their resources on candidates they can support with a clearer conscience.

----------


## Confederate

> I meant his record of vetoing many bills


His vetoes overall only cut $27 million in state spending in multi-billion dollar budgets. He never vetoed a single budget and even championed increased spending on education.

He left the state with a debt 3x as big as when he entered office.

----------


## Confederate

> Seriously, run to win (Republican) or don't waste the time.


This.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> I just think that his record as a Republican Governor speaks for itself and can easily be used to trump the LP stuff and making him the frontrunner for the Senate seat.


I agree, but I think running without any party label might be best.  It helps him in the general when he finds himself surrounded by blue, and it allows him to operate without dealing with all the party bull$#@! during the primary - yeah, his record is solid, but he'll have a lot of detractors in the party.  Still, I wouldn't be averse to him rejoining the GOP.

----------


## supermario21

The party label stuff is meaningless. When PPP tested Johnson in 2012's NM Senate Race he was getting big crossover from Democrats but losing some Republicans. Now is the time to run as a Republican because most of the Republican establishment types in the state have been running in the last 2 Senate cycles. Wilson is unlikely to run again, Pearce probably won't. Lt. Gov Sanchez might be the only one considering it. Keep in mind Rand Paul also had a dog in the race in 2012, Greg Sowards who lost the primary I believe to Wilson.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> His vetoes overall only cut $27 million in state spending in multi-billion dollar budgets. He never vetoed a single budget and even championed increased spending on education.
> 
> He left the state with a debt 3x as big as when he entered office.


I presume you've done much more homework than I on the specifics. I was ultimately thinking in terms of how he can present himself to the republican base using his past record in words that they'd eat up. Then, in the years he served, things were much better for the average NM voter across the board so the nostalgia affect would work in the general which would build upon his prominent local name recognition.

----------

