Why didn't we get behind Gary Johnson?

[erowe1]

Sorry for bumping this thread.

I just wanted to say, the more posts I see from the OP, on pretty much every topic that comes up, the more annoying his use of the word "we" in this thread title is.

 

[Athan]

I remember lurking the opposing candidates forum during the general election and it was basically people constantly shitting on Gary Johnson. To not support Gary, someone who agrees with you on 99% of the issues, because of minor imperfection is pretty ridiculous but the fact that people were actually hostile towards someone who should be considered a hero is just disgusting.
...
So yeah, this is the Achilles heel of the liberty movement and it's sad that all the momentum from the 2012 campaign was wasted due to people in the movement being perfectionists.

Coming from someone who DID vote for Gary, I think it came down to Gary Johnson simply splitting the ticket and dividing our efforts. Libertarian party members channeled support for him and did not help to take out neo-cons in primaries. I like Gary, but starting in November/December of 2011 his strategy really became ineffective and dragged down Ron's efforts as well. The strategy just got worse as time went on and I think a lot of people that will vote for Gary Johnson in any other office just got pissed at him and his ardent supporters. His supporters were actually campaigning HERE and on Ron Paul sites to give up on Ron before Ron called it quits. I mean... if I was in HIS shoes, I would have stepped down in late November, and gotten myself ready for a Senate office.

Gary just ****ed up strategically. He basically created infighting even if it was not intentional. I mean he can be president, but we need to have a little bit of an agreement which members need to be a standard bearer if you aren't really gaining ground.

 

[idiom]

A pretty basic requirement is someone who has the self discipline to not get their campaign into massive irreconcilable debt.

What is the point of electing someone who thinks debt is okay and can't control budgets they are given.

 

[TNforPaul45]

Why didn't we get behind Gary Johnson? Because he said that he was more effective than Ron who "never passed a single piece of legislation in his tenure in congress." A Statement that hurt Ron's feelings so much that he felt motivated to make it the first sentence of his Farewell Address.

If Gary had just been a bit more kind, he would have had an army​ behind him.

 

[Okie RP fan]

I would have voted for Gary if OK allowed him to be on the ballot, purely out of protest.

However, overall I was never truly impressed with Gary Johnson. He always acted like he had a chip on his shoulder and was clueless in regard to foreign policy for the better part of his candidacy.

 

[I<3Liberty]

I supported and voted for Gary Johnson. Ron Paul didn't do his write-in paperwork, so it appeared to me as if he wanted us to support someone else. Personally, I liked Gary Johnson -- he was definitely a better speaker (although sometimes he was a little too goofy to be considered professional.) I felt there were some things he had a better position on than Ron Paul, but I agree he was lacking in a few areas. Judge Jim Gray was great, as well. I wished he would have done more talking because people took him a lot more seriously than Gary.

 

[sailingaway]

I supported and voted for Gary Johnson. Ron Paul didn't do his write-in paperwork, so it appeared to me as if he wanted us to support someone else. Personally, I liked Gary Johnson -- he was definitely a better speaker (although sometimes he was a little too goofy to be considered professional.) I felt there were some things he had a better position on than Ron Paul, but I agree he was lacking in a few areas. Judge Jim Gray was great, as well. I wished he would have done more talking because people took him a lot more seriously than Gary.

I don't think Gary was a better speaker at all, and he didn't interview as if he had any backbone at all, unlike Ron. I was really surprised when they were in that first debate in SC at how bad Gary was because his supporters had kept saying over and over that he spoke better than Ron, and he really seemed uncomfortable in his own skin, imho. But opinions can differ, I guess.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

The better question is why didn't Gary run for Senate instead... I imagine he would have chimed in for Rand last week and would have been 1 more good guy in the Senate. The fact he didn't take the automatic Senate seat really made me question his motives.

No doubt he would have carried his state.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What I think of Gary is actually similar to what I think of Rand, although a bit different. Both of them have some libertarian sentiments, are a heck of a lot better than the other choices, but need to become more hardcore like Ron Paul.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Just saw this thread. What fun.

How about a what if? What role would Gary have played during Rand's filibuster if had actually run for Senate and won? Would he have been up there right from the start like Mike Lee? Or would he have reluctantly gone up there like Rubio and Flake? Guess we'll never know, because Gary made a couple of strategic mistakes. Not running for Senate was one. Listening to campaign advisers who wanted him to be critical of Ron was another.

It seems like Gary did learn a lot about "libertarian" theory during the process. His message was much better (clearer) by the end. If he wants to run for Senate, he will get a fair amount of support from Ron Paul fans.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Speaking as someone who probably disagrees with Ron Paul maybe 5-10% of the time while agreeing with him 90-95%, saying Gary agrees with the libertarian view 99% of the time, even if you throw him all of the controversial issues (I don't, I think he's wrong on abortion for one) is overly generous. Considering the issues that are actually likely to be changeable in four years, his biggest problem (Much like Rand) is not going all out on Ron's foreign policy. However, when it comes to harder-core libertarian theory, he just isn't very good. He wants to arrest dealers of hard drugs. He's OK with "Humanitarian Wars" (This one was one the President could probably actually change). He looks at things from "Cost benefit analysis" and while this leads to a lot of libertarian views, he'll reject the philosophy as soon as it doesn't fit that analysis anymore. He's utilitarian. He doesn't really understand why decentralization is truly important. He supports FairTax (This one is really, really frustrating, no tax that takes 23% of anything is justifiable, period.) Overall, he was the guy I wanted to vote for in 2012 (I was only 17 during election season... I tried to convince other people to vote for Gary but I don't think I convinced anyone.) Unlike Romney or Obama, I can't imagine Johnson actually making anything worse, and he'd probably have made a few things better. So I would definitely have voted for him. But he's no Ron Paul. Much like Rand, Gary doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as. Ron Paul.

 

[I<3Liberty]

Speaking as someone who probably disagrees with Ron Paul maybe 5-10% of the time while agreeing with him 90-95%, saying Gary agrees with the libertarian view 99% of the time, even if you throw him all of the controversial issues (I don't, I think he's wrong on abortion for one) is overly generous. Considering the issues that are actually likely to be changeable in four years, his biggest problem (Much like Rand) is not going all out on Ron's foreign policy. However, when it comes to harder-core libertarian theory, he just isn't very good. He wants to arrest dealers of hard drugs. He's OK with "Humanitarian Wars" (This one was one the President could probably actually change). He looks at things from "Cost benefit analysis" and while this leads to a lot of libertarian views, he'll reject the philosophy as soon as it doesn't fit that analysis anymore. He's utilitarian. He doesn't really understand why decentralization is truly important. He supports FairTax (This one is really, really frustrating, no tax that takes 23% of anything is justifiable, period.) Overall, he was the guy I wanted to vote for in 2012 (I was only 17 during election season... I tried to convince other people to vote for Gary but I don't think I convinced anyone.) Unlike Romney or Obama, I can't imagine Johnson actually making anything worse, and he'd probably have made a few things better. So I would definitely have voted for him. But he's no Ron Paul. Much like Rand, Gary doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as. Ron Paul.

The fairtax would tax consumption which I believe is a good idea because everyone that consumes will pay taxes and it will encourage people to be more conservative with resources and not just go impulse buy a load of crap. This is something (in my opinion) the greens and eco-liberals and few eco-republicans would like. Also, the percentage could be decreased as spending becomes more efficient. I do agree with you on the "cost benefit analysis" -- I was annoyed by that, as well and felt it left him too narrow-minded when working through issues. Judge Jim Gray incorporated more philosophy into his reasoning, but he did this mostly through videos and social media where he had few followers compared to Gary. I really wish he would have shared a Facebook, Twitter and Google+ page with Gary, so people heard more from both of them.

Gary did change his position on wars and even talked about the Kony thing later on. Again, I think the cost benefit analysis left him narrow-minded and he lacked the philosophy Dr. Paul had. He attempted to adopt more of Dr. Paul's views as time went on.

I know it's a super-controversial issue and there's so much more to it, but I do agree with Gary's position on abortion. At quickening, the fetus can feel pain and it is capable of living separate from the mother, so I believe it then becomes an issue of euthansia of an individual not aborting a fetus. Yes, laws are not going to resolve the issue, but it's setting some realistic boundaries. Dr. Paul was for leaving it to the states, but I think there does need to be cutoff at the point where the fetus is no longer dependent on the mother since at that point, it is possible to do a C-section (which is faster and less risky for the mother than abortion) and allow the baby to be kept alive in the NICU. It's a win/win scenario.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

The better question is why didn't Gary run for Senate instead... I imagine he would have chimed in for Rand last week and would have been 1 more good guy in the Senate. The fact he didn't take the automatic Senate seat really made me question his motives.

No doubt he would have carried his state.

Very True. I won't take him or anyone seriously unless they run in the fashion as our other liberty candidates have, i.e. Republicans.