Gary Johnson What about Gary Johnson?

[Michael Landon]

I'm all the way in on Paul, through the nomination in Tampa. If it's not him, then I'm voting for Johnson.

- ML

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Supporting a Romney/Paul ticket is worth considering. While VP is largely symbolic, there are several good things that could come out of that scenario.

1. Rand would have a massive audience ready to hear the message, even if it has to be a bit watered down. Not only would he have a captive audience during the primary but also during the Romney/Paul presidency.

2. Rand would be front-runner for 2016 in the case that Romney/Paul loses.

3. We would have a liberty spokesperson in Romney's ear 24/7. Who knows what that would mean, but it can only be a positive.

4. Rand could provide a serious check on Romney's decision making. If Romney attempts to pass through legislation that is a serious erosion of our liberty then Rand could threaten him by speaking out against the administration. This, in turn provides a certain level of leverage.

5. I'd love to hear a big crowd start yelling "President Paul" at a Romney/Paul rally. THAT would be cool.

6. Rand could influence Romney to choose a good cabinet.

If Rand accepts VP to Romney, we'll all be longing for the days when Rand was watering down libertarian rhetoric to the point of being interchangeable with the Republican talking points of the day. It'll be the total and complete death of the movement.

 

[sailingaway]

I asked him that question last week when he came down to Fort Lauderdale and he said he never considered it because he doesn't agree with the 17th amendment nor he wants people to expect him to bring back earmarks.

That sounds specious, seriously. Utterly bogus. Rand isn't bringing earmarks, and the senate would be a place to start a repeal of the 17th if he felt that strongly. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

I'm not voting for Johnson because he doesn't draw me, doesn't seem dedicated to any principles enough to fight for them and cost benefit approach sounds an awful lot like the mushy political middle we already have. Why bother voting for someone who can't win if they don't even stand for anything?

I'd feel better writing Ron's name in, but I'm not deciding until Ron doesn't win, if he doesn't.

 

[trey4sports]

If Rand accepts VP to Romney, we'll all be longing for the days when Rand was watering down libertarian rhetoric to the point of being interchangeable with the Republican talking points of the day. It'll be the total and complete death of the movement.

ohh cmon dude.

I'm not sure that I would really want a romney/paul ticket but it is certainly a conversation worth having, and I do believe that Rand would keep his sights on our values.

 

[Antwan15]

///

 

[Antwan15]

ohh cmon dude.

I'm not sure that I would really want a romney/paul ticket but it is certainly a conversation worth having, and I do believe that Rand would keep his sights on our values.

This CANNOT happen, if the GOP is dumb enough to put romney up there, they WILL LOSE! The VP is meaningless, and this would be nothing more than a shill to atempt to woo us. They NEED to understand that we WILL NOT vote for and establishment candidate who does not follow the constitution. The need to learn their F'in lesson!!! Plus, let say that happend and Mitt won, how long before we get a liberty minded candidate then? Do you think our country can avoid a Treasury bond default for eight more years? Time to take your medicine GOP, If you do not nominate RP, you WILL LOSE, I don't care who your VP is!

/rant

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

ohh cmon dude.

I'm not sure that I would really want a romney/paul ticket but it is certainly a conversation worth having, and I do believe that Rand would keep his sights on our values.

Do you really believe Rand would go against Romney on anything publicly if he were VP? The best we could hope for was that really boring and empty speech at CPAC.

 

[trey4sports]

This CANNOT happen, if the GOP is dumb enough to put romney up there, they WILL LOSE! The VP is meaningless, and this would be nothing more than a shill to atempt to woo us. They NEED to understand that we WILL NOT vote for and establishment candidate who does not follow the constitution. The need to learn their F'in lesson!!! Plus, let say that happend and Mitt won, how long before we get a liberty minded candidate then? Do you think our country can avoid a Treasury bond default for eight more years? Time to take your medicine GOP, If you do not nominate RP, you WILL LOSE, I don't care who your VP is!

/rant

yeah, then good. If you're so sure that romney will automatically lose then this does nothing but help our cause because rand would get a huge jump on the others for 2016.

Do you really believe Rand would go against Romney on anything publicly if he were VP? The best we could hope for was that really boring and empty speech at CPAC.

to be honest - i think you only see what you want to see. I'll post some of the positives of this scenario once again.



Supporting a Romney/Paul ticket is worth considering. While VP is largely symbolic, there are several good things that could come out of that scenario.

1. Rand would have a massive audience ready to hear the message, even if it has to be a bit watered down. Not only would he have a captive audience during the primary but also during the Romney/Paul presidency.

2. Rand would be front-runner for 2016 in the case that Romney/Paul loses.

3. We would have a liberty spokesperson in Romney's ear 24/7. Who knows what that would mean, but it can only be a positive.

4. Rand could provide a serious check on Romney's decision making. If Romney attempts to pass through legislation that is a serious erosion of our liberty then Rand could threaten him by speaking out against the administration. This, in turn provides a certain level of leverage.

5. I'd love to hear a big crowd start yelling "President Paul" at a Romney/Paul rally. THAT would be cool.

6. Rand could influence Romney to choose a good cabinet.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

yeah, then good. If you're so sure that romney will automatically lose then this does nothing but help our cause because rand would get a huge jump on the others for 2016.



to be honest - i think you only see what you want to see. I'll post some of the positives of this scenario once again.



Supporting a Romney/Paul ticket is worth considering. While VP is largely symbolic, there are several good things that could come out of that scenario.

1. Rand would have a massive audience ready to hear the message, even if it has to be a bit watered down. Not only would he have a captive audience during the primary but also during the Romney/Paul presidency.

2. Rand would be front-runner for 2016 in the case that Romney/Paul loses.

3. We would have a liberty spokesperson in Romney's ear 24/7. Who knows what that would mean, but it can only be a positive.

4. Rand could provide a serious check on Romney's decision making. If Romney attempts to pass through legislation that is a serious erosion of our liberty then Rand could threaten him by speaking out against the administration. This, in turn provides a certain level of leverage.

5. I'd love to hear a big crowd start yelling "President Paul" at a Romney/Paul rally. THAT would be cool.

6. Rand could influence Romney to choose a good cabinet.

I already saw those, and I answered with my post. The negatives:

1. That massive audience would then associate libertarianism with Mitt freaking Romney.

2. There hasn't been a losing VP candidate in the White House since FDR. Before that you have to go to the mid 1800s.

3. One watered-down liberty spokesperson as opposed to all of Bush's neocon team, which would also be Rand's ear. Apparently, it was Olsen would brought Rand from his former to his current foreign policy views, and being surrounded with hack neocons can't possibly help any.

4. That's taking an extremely optimistic view of things.

5. I guess. I'd rather hear such a chant for Ron on inauguration day.

6. Goes back to my one voice versus many in number 3.

 

[tttppp]

That sounds specious, seriously. Utterly bogus. Rand isn't bringing earmarks, and the senate would be a place to start a repeal of the 17th if he felt that strongly. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

I'm not voting for Johnson because he doesn't draw me, doesn't seem dedicated to any principles enough to fight for them and cost benefit approach sounds an awful lot like the mushy political middle we already have. Why bother voting for someone who can't win if they don't even stand for anything?

I'd feel better writing Ron's name in, but I'm not deciding until Ron doesn't win, if he doesn't.

I actually like Johnson's cost benefit approach. Its the same approach a CEO would use when running a business. I think we can use more of that in the government.

 

[Aratus]

If Dr Paul is not the nominee....... I WILL WRITE HIS NAME IN!!!!!!!
I will use a purple crayon to make my point!! His name will be on the ballot if I have to put it there myself!! Get it!

i have toyed with what i will do come november... if...

 

[JJ2]

yeah, then good. If you're so sure that romney will automatically lose then this does nothing but help our cause because rand would get a huge jump on the others for 2016.



to be honest - i think you only see what you want to see. I'll post some of the positives of this scenario once again.



Supporting a Romney/Paul ticket is worth considering. While VP is largely symbolic, there are several good things that could come out of that scenario.

1. Rand would have a massive audience ready to hear the message, even if it has to be a bit watered down. Not only would he have a captive audience during the primary but also during the Romney/Paul presidency.

2. Rand would be front-runner for 2016 in the case that Romney/Paul loses.

3. We would have a liberty spokesperson in Romney's ear 24/7. Who knows what that would mean, but it can only be a positive.

4. Rand could provide a serious check on Romney's decision making. If Romney attempts to pass through legislation that is a serious erosion of our liberty then Rand could threaten him by speaking out against the administration. This, in turn provides a certain level of leverage.

5. I'd love to hear a big crowd start yelling "President Paul" at a Romney/Paul rally. THAT would be cool.

6. Rand could influence Romney to choose a good cabinet.

I like #4. But it would probably only work well with Ron as VP. He could force his way onto the ticket and then publicly oppose every single thing Romney pushes/signs that is unconstitutional or every budget that is not balanced. LOL.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Gary has acknowledged that he is the backup plan (in private anyway). The haters may not realize this, but Paul and Johnson have a long history, dating back waaaay before 2007 when 99% of the people on these boards suddenly became aware that either man, or the libertarian movement itself, existed. Both men are in this for the movement and they have a plan. If Paul wins the nomination, goes indy, or jumps on Romney's ticket, Gary will demure.

 

[ssjevot]

Gary has acknowledged that he is the backup plan (in private anyway). The haters may not realize this, but Paul and Johnson have a long history, dating back waaaay before 2007 when 99% of the people on these boards suddenly became aware that either man, or the libertarian movement itself, existed. Both men are in this for the movement and they have a plan. If Paul wins the nomination, goes indy, or jumps on Romney's ticket, Gary will demure.

What haters really need to realize is writing in Paul's name is the worst possible option. If he isn't on the ballot you should vote for someone who is. Some states don't count write-ins and even in those that do the numbers will be nowhere near as big as people on the ballot. We want to have the largest possible chunk voting for a candidate that isn't the GOP nominee or Obama so the GOP knows why they lost. We want them to see that large percent the LP gets and ask themselves why they didn't get it. It's about getting them to change their ways.

 

[W_BRANDON]

I already posted this on one of the other GJ threads going on today, only because I didn't see this one first.

GJ fell into complete disfavor with me during a recent appearance on YoungTurks, where he sat silent with a grin on his putrid face while the host made jabs at Ron Paul over the newsletters, which included branding RP, a racist. GJ is not a genuine exponent of the liberty movement, in my opinion. Watch him closely.