Why we need Paul AND Johnson in the 2012 debates

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

There seems to have been a few verbal scuffles recently between people who prefer a Ron Paul candidacy over a Gary Johnson one, and people who prefer a Gary Johnson candidacy over a Ron Paul one. This is not the way to go, people.

The fact of the matter is that we should encourage both Ron Paul AND Gary Johnson to get into the presidential debates in 2011. Think about it. The neocons never fret about the fact that they have a dozen neocon candidates all running at the same time, with almost identical views on all the issues. Because they know that having a stage chalk full of neocons merely legitimizes the neoconservative philosophy. Well, the same applies to us: having multiple libertarian candidates on the stage will help legitimize the liberty philosophy.

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are good friends--they are not going to be on the same ballot come January 2012. The one with less support will drop out and support the one with more support before the primaries and caucuses begin. Until then, both Paul and Johnson should be running and we should be supporting them both. Paul can bring disaffected, constitutionalist social conservatives into the fold, and Johnson can bring disaffected, freedom-minded liberals into the fold.

Remember when Ron Paul was the isolated fringe candidate, stuck on some far end of the stage in the Republican debates? Well, with 2 libertarians on the stage, that won't be the case anymore. Remember when Ron Paul was booed and insulted during the Republican debates? Well, with another libertarian candidate to stick up for and stand beside Ron Paul when the eggs start flying, people will be more hesitant to attack Paul. Having 2 libertarians in the debates will show voters that libertarianism is a growing force--not just a personality cult or a one man show. Plus, if Gary Johnson runs this year and fails, he will be able to enter the 2016 or 2020 race as a known commodity and possibly an heir apparent (similar to how Huckabee and Romney entered the 08 race in the single digits and left as frontrunners for the next election).

The polls show that Ron Paul has an excellent shot at the Texas Senate seat that will be open in 2012, and they also show that Gary Johnson has an excellent shot at the open New Mexico Senate seat in 2012. Whoever drops out of the presidential race can parachute into the Senate race (by January 2012, there will still be a year, plenty of time, to campaign for a Senate seat). Running for President will raise both their profiles and help ensure that whoever drops out will be sitting pretty for the Senate.

Ron Paul could finally amass enough votes in a field where the neocon vote is being split so many ways with so many different neocon candidates, or an independent-minded young Governor like Gary Johnson could catch fire in somewhere like New Hampshire. We shouldn't limit our options. Let's let both of them run, see who catches on the best, and then next winter we can all fall in line behind one or the other.

There is nothing to fear from having both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson run for President throughout 2011, and in fact we should look forward to both of them running.

 

[brenden.b]

Agreed.

 

[Thomas]

agreed, but i hope everyone supports ron

 

[sharpsteve2003]

plus 1

 

[Thomas]

plus 1

+1

 

[realtonygoodwin]

I agree as well.

 

[AZKing]

My only fear is that both will appear in the caucuses/primaries come Jan 2011... Otherwise, having both on stage is a good deal.

 

[trey4sports]

It's going to be exciting that's all i can say. Ron and Gary will be kicking ass in the debates, and hopefully one will catch fire (preferably Ron) with Iowans.

 

[sailingaway]

I disagree. I think their views are different, particularly on soveriegnity/interventionism and since I believe using the most local governmental unit to make policy, independently, best allows individuals to influence policy, and best allows varieties of policy so more individuals get policy they prefer, that makes a big difference to me. However, this isn't rocket science, and the big point is that just as when Huck and Palin are both in a poll they cannibalize support for eachother, Gary being in will impact not just votes, but polls, straw polls, etc which we use to get attention, up to that point.

I point out that Colorado article speciallybland posted here saying that 'since everyone knows' Ron Paul supporters just organize, his CPAC win doesn't mean anything and it is 'much more significant' that Johnson came in THIRD.

Gary has every right to run, but I wouldn't be promoting him in the presidential contest AGAINST RON any more than I would be promoting De Mint.

 

[trey4sports]

I disagree. I think their views are different, particularly on soveriegnity/interventionism and believing that the most local governmental unit best allows individuals to influence policy, that makes a big difference to me. However, this isn't rocket science, and the big point is that just as when Huck and Palin are both in a poll they cannibalize support for eachother, Gary being in will impact not just votes, but polls, straw polls, etc which we use to get attention, up to that point.

Gary has every right to run, but I wouldn't be promoting him in the presidential contest AGAINST RON any more than I would be promoting De Mint.

I would be curious to know what discrepancy's you're talking about. I've heard Gary say that he supports (to some extent) humanitarian wars and possibly abortion but other than that, I'm not sure where they differ???

 

[sailingaway]

I would be curious to know what discrepancy's you're talking about. I've heard Gary say that he supports (to some extent) humanitarian wars and possibly abortion but other than that, I'm not sure where they differ???

Part of it is dead silence on issues such as the G20 accord putting our financial regulations under the World Bank etc, but humanitarian wars is definitely in there. It is one of the issues where I find him slippery, to be honest, and my conclusion is that he is globalist minded, whereas with Ron and Rand there is no question where they stand.

 

[Elwar]

Gary Johnson doesn't support humanitarian wars. It has been brought up by a few people that have brought it up to him personally.

As for his stances, he does differ with Ron Paul in that he approaches things as a "where are we right now" and "how do we get to where we want to be" as opposed to "what does the Constitution allow" and "that's where we start".

His more centrist/pragmatic approach may bring in a few people who think Ron Paul is too extreme. Which will help if Gary Johnson steps down and endorses Ron Paul.

 

[sailingaway]

Gary Johnson doesn't support humanitarian wars. It has been brought up by a few people that have brought it up to him personally.

As for his stances, he does differ with Ron Paul in that he approaches things as a "where are we right now" and "how do we get to where we want to be" as opposed to "what does the Constitution allow" and "that's where we start".

His more centrist/pragmatic approach may bring in a few people who think Ron Paul is too extreme. Which will help if Gary Johnson steps down and endorses Ron Paul.

Given Gary's position on drugs seems to be more 'legalize them because they are cool' while Ron's is 'stop prohibition because this is an area for community and family', I personally think you will find more feeling in the GOP generally that Johnson is extreme than that Ron is. In fact, his being there to me underlines the old idea that libertarianism is all about wanting to smoke pot. I say that as someone who has been in the GOP forever and has seen libertarianism successfully marginalized in just that way for most of that time.

In any event, for me we are at a crossroads with SARs and global IMF and World Bank finanacial regulations, and all other undermining of independent national control of each nation's own destiny, and I think we need a real correction on that front. Interventionism isn't a one way street any more, and people are not noticing. I'm not even remotely attracted to a candidate I don't know will provide leadership in addressing this.

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Johnson's drug stance couldn't be farther from "legalize them because they are cool." Johnson's own website says something to the effect of: "We advocate a Don't Do Drugs theme, but we need to recognize that the War On Drugs has been a complete failure and that they should be legalized/decriminalized, and drug usage should be treated as a health problem rather than a criminal justice issue."

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

However, this isn't rocket science, and the big point is that just as when Huck and Palin are both in a poll they cannibalize support for eachother, Gary being in will impact not just votes, but polls, straw polls, etc which we use to get attention, up to that point.

If I learned one thing about political strategy from the 2008 race, it's that polls don't mean anything until about 2 weeks before the vote takes place. Remember "Huckaboom"? Huckabee went from single digits to frontrunner in Iowa in just a month. Then suddenly, the NH frontrunner Romney collapsed, and John McCain mysteriously came back from the dead. All that happened in a matter of a few weeks. Polls before that time are just a measure of name recognition. By the middle of winter 2012, Ron and Gary will have a good idea of their odds, and one of them will surely drop out and support the other before voting begins.

 

[Yieu]

I disagree. I think their views are different, particularly on soveriegnity/interventionism and since I believe using the most local governmental unit to make policy, independently, best allows individuals to influence policy, and best allows varieties of policy so more individuals get policy they prefer, that makes a big difference to me. However, this isn't rocket science, and the big point is that just as when Huck and Palin are both in a poll they cannibalize support for eachother, Gary being in will impact not just votes, but polls, straw polls, etc which we use to get attention, up to that point.

I point out that Colorado article speciallybland posted here saying that 'since everyone knows' Ron Paul supporters just organize, his CPAC win doesn't mean anything and it is 'much more significant' that Johnson came in THIRD.

Gary has every right to run, but I wouldn't be promoting him in the presidential contest AGAINST RON any more than I would be promoting De Mint.

Well said, +Rep.

 

[axiomata]

Johnson's drug stance couldn't be farther from "legalize them because they are cool." Johnson's own website says something to the effect of: "We advocate a Don't Do Drugs theme, but we need to recognize that the War On Drugs has been a complete failure and that they should be legalized/decriminalized, and drug usage should be treated as a health problem rather than a criminal justice issue."

Also, I've heard him say that though he tried alcohol and marijuana when he was younger, he chooses not to drink or do any drugs now.

 

[trey4sports]

Also, I've heard him say that though he tried alcohol and marijuana when he was younger, he chooses not to drink or do any drugs now.

If i remember right he even said he smoked pot daily, and eventually quit because it hurt his athletic abilities

 

[sharpsteve2003]

Gov. Gary Johnson: I Smoked Marijuana from 2005 to 2008
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/meet-gary-johnson-ron-paul-2012_520775.html

“It’s not anything I volunteer, but you’re the only person that actually asked about it,” says Johnson, who governed New Mexico from 1994 to 2002. “But for luck, I guess, I wasn’t arrested.” Although smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes was illegal in New Mexico until 2007, Johnson says he needed the drug following a 2005 paragliding accident in Hawaii. His sails got caught in a tree, he stalled—and fell about fifty feet straight down to the ground, he says. Johnson suffered multiple bone fractures, including a burst fracture to his T12 vertebrae. “In my human experience, it’s the worst pain I’ve ever felt.”

“Rather than using painkillers, which I have used on occasion before, I did smoke pot, as a result of having broken my back, blowing out both of my knees, breaking ribs, really taking about three years to recover,” Johnson says. He explains that painkillers had once caused him to suffer nasty side effects and the pain of withdrawing from the pills was unbearable. So, Johnson says, in 2005 "someone" who cared for him gave him marijuana to deal with the pain.

 

[brandon]

I agree completely. I created a similar thread back in 2008. As long as Johnson understands he will eventually have to drop out and endorse Ron (before any primaries), this is the way to go.