Who would you NOT support?

[thasre]

We keep discussing "who would be the best for our movement?", when maybe we should begin by separating the wheat from the chaff... it should be easier to see which candidates are most likely to succeed if we know which candidates would NOT be likely to succeed with our movement. So I've just listed a handful of people whose names I've seen discussed as potential 2012 presidential candidates, with varying degrees of support, and I'm asking you to vote for anyone you would prefer NOT to support. If you feel like could support all of them, please select the one you would be like to run the LEAST.

Here's who I'm considering contenders, with a brief summary of pros and cons from what I've seen discussed:

Ron Paul
PROS: Started the movement!
CONS: May be too old...

Mark Sanford
PROS: Good spending record, well-liked
CONS: Foreign policy problems

Gary Johnson
PROS: Supported Paul, record of libertarian style governance
CONS: Very little name recognition

Jesse Ventura
PROS: I've never understood what Ventura's pros are... enlighten me...
CONS: Kind of looney...
(sorry, I'll admit a bias against Ventura here on my part...)

Peter Schiff
PROS: Good economics, former advisor to Paul
CONS: No political experience

Andrew Napolitano
PROS: Great constitutional expert!
CONS: No elective experience, only judicial

Rand Paul
PROS: Son of Dr. Paul!
CONS: No experience.

Well, those will do for now I guess. Some names have been thrown around more than others, but I thought I'd try to be somewhat exhaustive.

 

[Kludge]

I don't even think Rand is old enough, is he?

 

[thasre]

I don't even think Rand is old enough, is he?

There's only a 2 years' difference between him and Obama.

 

[Bruno]

Ventura

 

[Kludge]

Shouldn't there be a NotA option?

 

[ctiger2]

Ventura's an excellent person & a terrible politician. He's too thin skinned.

 

[Objectivist]

LAck of political experience in this day could be a valued asset if you compare it to those that are experienced in the arena of politics.

 

[Nathan Hale]

If we're talking about the 2012 Presidential race, Schiff, Napolitano, and Rand Paul are non-starters as they have zero political experience (Napolitano gets a slight "ehhh" on that one, but it's not enough to catapult him to credibility). The only viable candidates are:

Ron Paul - too old but I'd back him if he got the nod.
Gary Johnson - who I support for the nomination if he runs.
Mark Sanford - who is slightly suspect but not so much that I would withhold support.
Jesse Ventura - nice guy who I like but he has too much political baggage and the albatross by trutherism.

 

[nate895]

Gary Johnson believes in permits, not liberty.

 

[Kludge]

Gary Johnson believes in permits, not liberty.

Well... it was nearly a decade ago...

Wait... Why does this seem so familiar? You sure his last name isn't Barr?

 

[nate895]

Well... it was nearly a decade ago...

Wait... Why does this seem so familiar? You sure his last name isn't Barr?

Exactly my thinking on this issue, though Gary Johnson has a slightly different problem in that his social beliefs are that of a liberal Democrat (i.e., as long as you ask first, why not?). We can't be sure with anybody but Paul or someone with little chance (there is always a small chance, even my PoliSci teacher agrees everyone could theoretically go out one day and decide to vote libertarian). We might have to be satisfied with more voices in the legislative branches at least until 2016. We need a Senator or, preferably, a Governor in 2010. We should commit our resources to that if Ron Paul doesn't run and commit to winning, and even then we should only divert enough resources to make Paul competitive.

 

[Imperial]

Ventura has huge name recognition- everyone knows him as the wrestler who won in Minnesota. And he isn't just known in Minnesota.

Still, he isn't my favorite(though I may support him).

You forgot the con on Dr. Paul of the newsletters- yes, it IS a con for most voters, although not so much for us.

 

[nate895]

Ventura has huge name recognition- everyone knows him as the wrestler who won in Minnesota. And he isn't just known in Minnesota.

Still, he isn't my favorite(though I may support him).

You forgot the con on Dr. Paul of the newsletters- yes, it IS a con for most voters, although not so much for us.

Everyone has forgot about the newsletters. If they bring it up again, all we have to do is get out a comeback in that he believes in liberty, therefore he doesn't believe we should use government coercion against anyone except for violating someone else's rights.

 

[Paulitical Correctness]

The hell with offending anyone on this one, but...

What exactly has Ventura done for our movement other than run his mouth a little bit?

I mean, really, the arrogance of his statements at the R4TR about showing him that we're serious. So basically, put the elbow grease in and if we work hard enough he'll grace us with a run? Really Mr. Ventura? You'd be kind enough to help us? While you sit on your ass in Mexico and leech off our hard work?

Screw him, IMO.

 

[mlmvh]

A few comments -

Of course I still love Ron Paul, as long as he's up for running, wants to win, and hires Doug Wead to run his campaign!

I like Governor Mark Sanford, but he attended a Bilderberg Group meeting. When asked about it, he said that he was curious and wanted to see what it was all about. Perhaps he was gathering intel for us, but I wouldn't count on it!!

Gary Johnson has served as a Governor and has a great record, but I'd love to see if he can give a speech that kicks a little more ass than the one he gave at the Rally for the Republic!

Jesse Ventura has also served as a Governor and can really stir up a crowd, but I can't truly take him seriously unless he gets a haircut!! You can call me shallow, but you know that John and Jane Q. Public think it, also.

Peter Schiff and Rand Paul would be good if they held other offices first. Judge Napolitano can be a Supreme Court Justice or Attorney General!

 

[Elwar]

I would vote for them all if they were up against the typical neo-cons...

the trouble comes when picking between one or the other

 

[Nathan Hale]

Gary Johnson believes in permits, not liberty.

So? He supports a substantial movement toward the rights of an individual to use marijuana. If you limit "liberty" to zero regulation then you're setting yourself up for failure.

 

[nate895]

So? He supports a substantial movement toward the rights of an individual to use marijuana. If you limit "liberty" to zero regulation then you're setting yourself up for failure.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."-Thomas Jefferson

We can never expect to have liberty if we don't support candidates who are pro-liberty. If the radical never gets a voice because no one will vote for him because they compromise, we are doomed.

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater

You are being moderate in your pursuit of justice.

 

[asimplegirl]

I don't know.. I would have to research each one extensively...then I would make my choice...as of right now, I am not informed on any one of them except Ron Paul....and that Jesse Ventura was in movies and was a wrestler...that's about it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

no more republicans for me-lest they be RP-esque repubs.