2 votes

The more good candidates, the worse the bad candidates look.

Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't we all be clamoring and protesting about the complete absence of Gary Johnson from the debates? I know we have a lot of liberty-leaning supporters, and we have a lot of impact in the news when we work together.

Now that Paul is firmly placed at #3 with double-digit polling, shouldn't we be trying to get Johnson in the debates so that the two of them can further contrast the difference between retro-conservatives and neo-conservatives?


We shouldn't start voting for Johnson in polls if we don't completely agree with him, but his name recognition is very low.

Having Johnson on the stage will effectively double the air-time of the liberty message. The key to getting a retro-conservative in office is to change minds by spreading the message of small-government.

Do you all agree?

Is this something we should do?

Is this something we can do? How?


I consider Bill Redpath to be a friend of mine. He has been the chairman or treasurer of the Libertarian Party for decades. He has run for national office several times. He's a legend in the Libertarian Party when it comes to achieving ballot access. He strongly supports Paul, but he's spending much time and effort to help Gary Johnson with ballot access, and he's sending letters to the news networks about his glaring absence from the debates. This woke me up. Now it's going to bug me unless we fix this media blackout.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Completely Shameless Bump

I'm sorry if it's bad netiquette, but I'm bumping this thread. I think this is a big deal. I will be happy to be told that I'm wrong, but I think it's an important subject that absolutely needs to be taken seriously.

I don't think there's very much time left before our entire opportunity to bring up the topic of Johnson's blackout is gone.

I know I'm not new here, but is this something that can be promoted by a moderator? I don't really understand these things.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.


Anybody who is for freedom is our friend. We do not support centralization even for Ron Paul.

You are absolutely right. At the moment Ron Paul seems far out to many because he is the only one saying many of the things he talks about - although the others are paying lip service to him now.

But having two candidates talking about many of the same things would make it much more safe for the next wave of people to join the freedom express.

The media treats Johnson like they did Dr. Paul in '07. They are just elitist propaganda services.

Best of all, when Johnson eventually drops out all his supporters would come to Dr. Paul.

I like him, too..but,

I like him, too..but, unfortunately, it took an unbelievable amount of effort and about 4 years to get RP where he is, and we can not let up. It is almost like seeing your friend going down in quicksand but you have no rope to throw him nor anything to pull him up with. Not much one can do except feel terrible.


I'm thinking that one possible effect would be to show that the "He's good, but he's too old" argument to be BS.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

I agree

I do agree with all of that, but I think that trying to get Johnson into the debates would be profitable, politically. Those who disagree with him do so because they don't hear the same viewpoints from other members of the party. Now other candidates are starting to copy him, so people are starting to look for the tiniest thing to point to to make him look crazy. I just read an article where someone absolutely loves Paul's positions and record, but he says that he doesn't like him because he believes in the creation theory from the Bible. Having a second person who can legitimize -all- of Paul's positions will make him look more mainstream. What then can the pundits say? "Paul and Johnson are loons."

Besides, I don't think it's wasted time at all. I think that anyone who starts supporting Johnson is also going to support Paul.

But the biggest reason I believe we should do this is that doing the right thing always has the best outcome, even if it's something we don't see. If we see another honest candidate who by any metric ought to be in these debates, then we should be outraged, and I think it's our responsibility to express that outrage.

By the way, thank you for telling me that you think it's not a good idea. (= I like honest disagreement much more than dishonest agreement.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.