Why we need Paul AND Johnson in the 2012 debates

[eduardo89]

Gary needs to run for Senate, but I'm sure he could stick around long enough in the presidential race to enter debates and get some attention before dropping out to run for Senate. It'd be good backup for Ron

 

[Nathan Hale]

If you ask me, this is best left up to the primary voters. The best strategy is to have both enter the primary, stick around for a few debates, and then analyze who is better positioned to win the primary - at which point the weaker candidate drops out and endorses the stronger candidate. There's plenty of time between the start of the debate season and the Ames straw poll (imho we need to winnow the liberty candidate field to one candidate by the Ames poll so that we can maximize that candidate's results in the poll)

 

[HardyMacia]

The first poster was spot on, it would be in liberty's advantage to have both Johnson and Paul in the debates. The first debate is coming up in May, and I don't think Ron will have made a decision by then.Johnson will have announced by then at we'll have at least one voice for liberty in the debate.

 

[Michael Landon]

I would like to see Gary, Rand and Ron in the debates that way it'll look like their views aren't so "kooky."

- ML

 

[randolphfuller]

Supporting "humanitarian wars" like Somalia? Like Libya?

 

[sailingaway]

Not this again....

They would take votes from each other in straw polls and debate polls etc when those are needed to get early media. Gary can do what he wants, but he would be running against Ron and it's disingenuous to expect Ron Paul supporters to support him, any more than we'll support Bachmann or anyone else who is running against Ron.

At the SRLC last year, Ron lost to Romney in the straw poll by one vote, and lost all that media. GJ GOT one vote. From the perspective of someone who supports Ron Paul, I disagree that Ron was helped by that.

 

[TCE]

Right, because public opinion means everything in electoral politics. Congress's approval rating was 13% in December and it's pretty bad now/URL] as well. 75% want the Fed Audited and that will never happen. The list goes on. Public opinion is meaningless, having two voices in the debates "influencing" the public wins us all nothing. Gary Johnson all of a sudden thinks he's an amazing politician and as such, has runaway from Ron Paul. One is fine.

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

bump

 

[Charles Lupton]

Personally, I support both. I prefer Gary for his more socially liberal views. I want to see all qualified candidates in the debates and may the best candidate win! (Note: I know being at this forum what 99.999...% here think that is!) Question #1: Having both in the race, it is likely one will eventually drop out, but that person is likely to endorse the other. That said, wouldn't having them both there possibly bring more supporters to libertarian ideas? (Gary bringing the more socially liberal ones and then supporting Paul could bring him extra support or vice verso.) Question #2: If you truly support Ron's ideals then why do you want the media controlling who gets to speak?

Finally, as you know I had a petition running to get him in the debate, but another one surpassed mine. The petition is not an "Support Gary" petition, but an, "All voices should be heard." I still remember Fox's treatment of RP in 2007. It wasn't fair then, but I wasn't politically active at the time. Sign if you want, share if you want, it's your choice and won't fault anyone who doesn't and many people have signed and commented their support for another candidate(I.E. "I support XXX, but all candidates should be heard"). It currently stands at 955 signatures. It's your choice and you have a right to your opinion, I just think he has the right to have his opinion be heard. http://www.change.org/petitions/cnn-let-gary-johnson-in-the-debate

From a Reason magazine interview after his announcement:
"Reason: What do you think of Gary Johnson’s announcing his candidacy? Is it good for your cause to have another candidate with very similar ideas in the race?

Paul: The other side has dominated for years. Everyone represented their views as modified Keynesianism, and they don’t present an alternative on foreign policy. But the Republican Party had a history where we had less interventionist foreign policy and sound money and personal liberties [were valued], so having two, three, or four candidates who believe in them is good."

 

[Charles Lupton]

Final bump with a link: Did Gary Johnson meet the sponsors own "objective" criteria?

 

[biles1234]

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/hwqkb/cnn_does_democracy_no_favors_in_excluding_gary/

CNN Does Democracy No Favors in Excluding Gary Johnson, by yours truly.

REDDIT FOLKS! BUMP IT! THANKS :]