Gary Johnson Gary Johnson just announced that he is running for President

[ItsTime]

And yet he's still polling N/A to 1% nationally and everyone knows Gary Johnson ain't winning crap. Fail.

At this point, does Johnson even meet the 1% support in five different independent polls requirement to get into the May 5 Fox News debate?

What a total waste of a winnable Senate seat in New Mexico for a Jim Gilmore-style vanity campaign.

Has he even been included in 5?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

 

[sailingaway]

Half of what hurts Congressman Paul are his peeps.

I agree that it would be nice if 'peeps' would be a little more self aware. However, Gary will eat into Ron's ability to show growth of support and that is key particularly in the early days, since media try to marginalize him. YOU even seem to think he doesn't have state-wide level of support, and frankly, I think you should know better.

Plus Gary's using drugs three days a week for years isn't going to endear him to the people offended by Ron's 'peeps'. And I suspect some at CPAC making noise might not have been Ron's people, who mostly were trying to make a good impression.

Gary's supporters certainly have the right to support him, but why they have to keep coming here and pitching to supporters of someone who his candidacy will hurt, I don't know.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Has he even been included in 5?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Probably not. Gary Johnson is such a total non-factor that pollsters, at this early stage, probably don't want to spend the money to include him.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

Gary can't touch Ron on principles, and if you think Ron's support wasn't a big part of Rand's success, look at Moffett.

By principle you mean how Ron preaches against spending bills and then tags pork projects for his people? Principle would be taking a stand, even if it hurts your district. Seriously, I love Ron but some of you need to know, he's not perfect. Also, to compare a campaign of Moffett to Rand is pure stupidity. There are MANY factors there.

Fact, Ron helped Rand when it came to money. Fact, Rand won in spite of his father in Kentucky. Ron does not poll well in Kentucky and still doesn't.

 

[jmdrake]

Gary already said he wouldn't pick Ron as running mate if he won. But that decision is downline past all the voting where they'd be competing. And you've just suggested Ron would lose prochoice votes from 'here' to Gary. Why would Ron Paul supporters support that?

There's no way that Gary can win so he won't have a chance to pick anyone as a running mate. After the primary, if Gary hasn't overtly attacked Ron, this Ron Paul supporter wouldn't be against Ron picking Gary. Gary would be a better choice than a lot of other people I've seen floated around.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

And yet he's still polling N/A to 1% nationally and everyone knows Gary Johnson ain't winning crap. Fail.

At this point, does Johnson even meet the 1% support in five recent and different independent polls requirement to get into the May 5 Fox News debate?

What a total waste of a winnable Senate seat in New Mexico for a Jim Gilmore-style vanity campaign.

OH, so you can't drop out and run for a Senate seat? I didn't know that rule.

Has Congressman Paul decided he's running? I didn't know he announced.

So, unless you poll well 17 months before the election you should not announce? Didn't know you were calling for Ron to drop out in 2007-2008.

You guys sound like the GOP of 2007 saying Ron needs to drop out since he can't win.

 

[blakjak]

awesome

amazing - first time there is more than one person running that I would actually vote for

 

[ItsTime]

By principle you mean how Ron preaches against spending bills and then tags pork projects for his people? Principle would be taking a stand, even if it hurts your district. Seriously, I love Ron but some of you need to know, he's not perfect. Also, to compare a campaign of Moffett to Rand is pure stupidity. There are MANY factors there.

Fact, Ron helped Rand when it came to money. Fact, Rand won in spite of his father in Kentucky. Ron does not poll well in Kentucky and still doesn't.

Earmarks are not pork. Get over it.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

I agree that it would be nice if 'peeps' would be a little more self aware. However, Gary will eat into Ron's ability to show growth of support and that is key particularly in the early days, since media try to marginalize him. Plus Gary's using drugs three days a week for years isn't going to endear him to the people offended by Ron's 'peeps'. And I suspect some at CPAC making noise might not have been Ron's people, who mostly were trying to make a good impression.

Gary's supporters certainly have the right to support him, but why they have to keep coming here and pitching to supporters of someone who his candidacy will hurt, I don't know.

Maybe, just maybe..... some are tired of seeing ignorant and misguided posts from people. Most GJ threads are started by people bashing him.

 

[ItsTime]

By principle you mean how Ron preaches against spending bills and then tags pork projects for his people? Principle would be taking a stand, even if it hurts your district. Seriously, I love Ron but some of you need to know, he's not perfect. Also, to compare a campaign of Moffett to Rand is pure stupidity. There are MANY factors there.

Fact, Ron helped Rand when it came to money. Fact, Rand won in spite of his father in Kentucky. Ron does not poll well in Kentucky and still doesn't.

Earmarks are not pork. Get over it.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

Earmarks are not pork. Get over it.

They are spending bills which "Ron Paul doesn't vote for new spending bills....." except when he does.

 

[ItsTime]

They are spending bills which "Ron Paul doesn't vote for new spending bills....." except when he does.

Way to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[sailingaway]

By principle you mean how Ron preaches against spending bills and then tags pork projects for his people? Principle would be taking a stand, even if it hurts your district. Seriously, I love Ron but some of you need to know, he's not perfect. Also, to compare a campaign of Moffett to Rand is pure stupidity. There are MANY factors there.

Fact, Ron helped Rand when it came to money. Fact, Rand won in spite of his father in Kentucky. Ron does not poll well in Kentucky and still doesn't.

I studied the Constitution before people were trying to pretend a unitary presidency was acceptable under the Constitution. I agree with Ron and not Rand on that point, and if your principles are DIFFERENT doesn't mean he doesn't stick to his own, consistently. And polling someone for President against Palin and Huckabee in Kentucky is very different than polling for STATE WIDE office. You are one of 100 in the senate, but the only one in the white house. You ignore that bit about Ron polling at the top of the Texas SENATE poll until he said he wasn't interested.

You are right that Moffett has more issues than just not having us, and Rand was simply a better candidate. But Ron's support was also a factor.

 

[ronpaulmn]

Gary was on Freedom Watch last night.. Here at about 2:35 in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMyUeSJJ6jk&feature=player_embedded

Jack Hunter was also on much later for those that like to watch him as well.

 

[sailingaway]

They are spending bills which "Ron Paul doesn't vote for new spending bills....." except when he does.

What spending bill has Ron voted for that wasn't authorized by the Constitution?

 

[BamaFanNKy]

Way to be intellectually dishonest.

So he doesn't add spending for his district?

I mean, Senator Paul has sworn against this and disagrees with his father doing this. Is Rand dishonest?

 

[mCsenget]

I agree that Bachmann will have more impact, but she is less directly TRADING on what Ron built and what Gary wants to just take over. She is certainly trying to get her share, but she just does it by showing she's different in areas she hopes will be attractive to different people, even though of course she is going for the tea party wave Ron helped spur to begin with. Her supporters don't come on here saying she and Ron should be in the debates then Ron should step aside at the right moment and let her take over...

You know, Ron himself would be a Gary Johnson supporter. He said so before. Whereas, although Ron appreciates Michelle Bachman, it's pretty clear that he wouldn't support her candidacy in the way that he would support Gary's.

That's the big difference. Neither Gary nor Ron is perfect, but they are both pretty damn good (thousands of times better than the rest of the field) and have different strategies for how to get themselves 'out there'. I think that, given Ron's own support of Gary, this forum should be more open to the idea of a Johnson campaign. I am surprised that he doesn't have his own sub-forum here yet.

Overall, this is a campaign for liberty: not just for Ron Paul or for the presidency. Imagine how great it could be to have a younger guy up there on stage to forcefully agree with Ron on all kinds of issues? We should all welcome this, I think.

 

[BamaFanNKy]

I studied the Constitution before people were trying to pretend a unitary presidency was acceptable under the Constitution. I agree with Ron and not Rand on that point, and if your principles are DIFFERENT doesn't mean he doesn't stick to his own, consistently. And polling someone for President against Palin and Huckabee in Kentucky is very different than polling for STATE WIDE office. You are one of 100 in the senate, but the only one in the white house. You ignore that bit about Ron polling at the top of the Texas SENATE poll until he said he wasn't interested.

You are right that Moffett has more issues than just not having us, and Rand was simply a better candidate. But Ron's support was also a factor.

To be honest, I never saw the poll where Ron did well in Texas for Senate.

Ron was a factor in $ for Rand in Kentucky. His name hurt him in the Primary, actually. I had to talk people off the ledge who didn't trust him because of his father.

 

[jmdrake]

So he doesn't add spending for his district?

Not to my knowledge. An earmark on money already allocated doesn't add spending for his district. The question on earmarks is whether or not you are going to give the president a blank check on how to spend the money, or if congress will preallocate it. Additive earmarks are a separate issue.

I mean, Senator Paul has sworn against this and disagrees with his father doing this. Is Rand dishonest?

False choice fallacy.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

So, unless you poll well 17 months before the election you should not announce? Didn't know you were calling for Ron to drop out in 2007-2008.

The primary is not seventeen months away.

Though will agree with you on earmarks. Hate that Ron Paul inserts millions of dollars in shrimp subsidies into bills. Hate it.