Ron Paul shows support of Gary Johnson as potential 2012 candidate

[silentshout]

I like both of them equally, actually my cultural views are more in line with Johnson's, but i think Ron would do better as more people know who he is.

 

[itshappening]

yes but Ron needs to go after Romney

generic ads in Iowa isnt going to work. Huck went after Romney and got the god vote too. that's the key . also, organizing it properly so we swamp a low turn out caucus

we can win in Iowa with either candidate if they ran the right campaign

 

[acptulsa]

Republicans vote for whomever is nominated and someone who wants to end the Modern Prohibition can't get nominated.

Maybe. But I think we're changing the rules more than that. I'm not sure these things that were always impossible will always be impossible.

I think if Johnson has a real weakness, it's that he's too low key to fire people up when he appears in person.

 

[itshappening]

Iowa and New Hampshire is all that matters

if in their heads the race involves one of our candidates then that is enough

we have to be negative and take on Romney while also selling our candidate as a champion of freedom and fiscal responsibility

I honestly believe if we're organized enough and slick enough we can win in Iowa with anyone we get behind. I do believe Ron's celebrity helps though but we can win with anyone if we put our money and opur mouth is and if Ron actively worked for the candidate through CFL and fundraising which he has indicated he would do for Johnson

Imagine millions of dollars of ads hitting Iowa airwaves for months. They will think in their heads the race is between our candidate and the establishment, likely Romney. Imagine us trashing Romney day after day, night after night. we squeeze all the other pretenders out and make ourselves players

It doesn't matter if Johnson isnt known widely, he will be known on election night when he wins

 

[Elwar]

Republicans vote for whomever is nominated and someone who wants to end the Modern Prohibition can't get nominated.

When Johnson first started getting back out in the public I was hoping he would stay away from the drug war because it's Republicans he has to win over, not anyone else. I figured he'd focus on fiscal matters, etc.

But after seeing what he's done with it, it's worked out fairly well for him. He's considered an expert on the drug war issue and that's why he's brought onto TV shows and different interviews. Nobody would be calling on him to come and talk about how we need to balance the budget or cut spending. You can get any number of Republicans to come talk about that. The drug war is Johnson's niche and whenever it comes up, he is brought in.

And he does it well for Republicans, focussing on the fiscal side of it. Telling them about how over 80% of current inmates are in jail because of the drug war and how much money could be saved and focussed on real criminals if his plan is put into place. I've seen conservative talking heads say "well, that makes sense".

Also, it's what he knows...I consider Ron Paul a statesman. He knows everything involving government from top to bottom. Johnson isn't as well versed on federal issues as Ron Paul and you can see it in some of his interviews. He has a year to get fine tuned on the other issues but for now, talking mainly about the drug war and throwing out other fiscal issues, he shows an expertise and knowledge that you'd want from a presidential candidate. He's no statesman for sure, but he's on the right side when it comes to the issues.

 

[t0rnado]

A few people mentioned Huckabee, but I highly doubt he has any chances of getting the nomination. After two felons, who Huckabee pardoned as Governor of Arkansas, went on rampages and murdered more people, I remember a bunch of news outlets stating that his political career was pretty much over. He pardoned them because they became Evangelicals and found Jesus in prison.

As for Romney, he will not get the Evangelical, Baptist, Methodist vote because he is a Mormon. I obviously can't say that every single Evangelical will not vote for him, but I'd presume that the majority will not.

 

[libertybrewcity]

i would definitely like to see johnson run as senator instead of president. his speach at the r4r shows his lack of speaking skills.

he his young. he has time to develop a record more than governor more than a decade ago. yes, if he did run for president and ron didn't i would absolutely support him but i would less optimistic about his candidacy. he has practically no national name recognition and those that do know him outside the ron paul circles likely do so for his views on the drug war.

 

[libertybrewcity]

A few people mentioned Huckabee, but I highly doubt he has any chances of getting the nomination. After two felons, who Huckabee pardoned as Governor of Arkansas, went on rampages and murdered more people, I remember a bunch of news outlets stating that his political career was pretty much over. He pardoned them because they became Evangelicals and found Jesus in prison.

As for Romney, he will not get the Evangelical, Baptist, Methodist vote because he is a Mormon. I obviously can't say that every single Evangelical will not vote for him, but I'd presume that the majority will not.

it would tough for romney to get the evangelical vote. he has a lot that he would have to take care of were he to receive the nomination. his health care record would be thrown around during the primary. he is mormon but he might not be able to attract the independents needed.

im sure if ron paul ran again this time his endorsement of non-republican candidate would attract more attention. i would think that the third party choices would be much better this time around.

 

[MozoVote]

Ugh.

Huckabee, Romney.

UGGHHHH!!

I was willing to at least give some thought to the rest of the GOP field in 2007. Tancredo and Hunter were decent in some regards. Maybe I could have stomached sleep-aid Thompson if I had to.

But I will vote Libertarian if it's Schmuckabee or FlipFlopney.

 

[White Knight]

Johnson believes gay marriage should be legal and that abortions should be legal while Ron Paul differs on those issues. I'd vote for him without hesitation, but I doubt that Republicans would back anyone that supports freedom.

I know I wouldn't vote for anyone who supports those two positions.

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Johnson believes gay marriage should be legal and that abortions should be legal while Ron Paul differs on those issues. I'd vote for him without hesitation, but I doubt that Republicans would back anyone that supports freedom.

True, but Johnson is a federalist on these issuse. He has said he would not have gay marriage legalized on the federal level, and he would seek to repeal Roe V Wade.

 

[.Tom]

If the government is going to be involved in marriage, why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?

I thought this was a libertarian forum...

 

[RM918]

Ugh.

Huckabee, Romney.

UGGHHHH!!

I was willing to at least give some thought to the rest of the GOP field in 2007. Tancredo and Hunter were decent in some regards. Maybe I could have stomached sleep-aid Thompson if I had to.

But I will vote Libertarian if it's Schmuckabee or FlipFlopney.

Remember about the same time when Giuliani was front-runner? Anything can happen.

 

[speciallyblend]

Remember about the same time when Giuliani was front-runner? Anything can happen.

bottom line is Ron Paul or Gary Johnson for the gop in 2012 or i will be looking elsewhere. if the gop doesn't wake up after nov 2010 election. then they will deserve to lose in 2012!!

 

[White Knight]

If the government is going to be involved in marriage, why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?

I thought this was a libertarian forum...

It's a paleo-libertarian forum (Ron Paul is one). HUGE difference.

 

[acptulsa]

If the government is going to be involved in marriage, why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?

I thought this was a libertarian forum...

You're right on two counts, as far as I'm concerned. The government should not be involved. And gays should be allowed to do anything that does others no harm.

I think you're mistaking a conversation about political chances, political techniques and simple realities for something more philosophical.