2 votes

Gary Johnson is still no Ron Paul

I think Gary Johnson helps our cause overall. He perpetuates some of our libertarian ideas in a positive way. However, for those of us who are completely spoiled by Dr. Paul, Gary Johnson just fails miserably. Not only with his pro-choice positions, but also when he says "I believe there really are people in need and the government may be the only one who can provide."

While Gary Johnson may be the closest thing we have to an ally among the other Republican candidates, he still isn't fundamentally a defender of the Constitution! I'm so thankful for Dr. Paul and all of his stands!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

he's competition

I don't like johnson because he is competition for Ron Paul. He competes for time, money, and attention. Ron position is fragile. He needs all the time, money, and attention he could get. Why would another libertarian try to steal his thunder? Lets get Ron in the white house.

Do you realize how shallow

Do you realize how shallow that reasoning is? It's that same spoiler logic that has delivered nominations not to defenders of liberty, but to statist and corporate shills like Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

We are trying to cultivate a new mindset, in case you haven't noticed. The more people that we have on that stage, the better, because it shows that Paul is not merely some fringe candidate whose ideas have never been tried before or echoed by anyone else.

Sure, Johnson might not have as consistent a record as Paul does, but he also brings something to the picture Paul doesn't: executive experience.

And as of now, he is the most effective way of disarming criticism that libertarianism has never been tried before. Yes, Johnson's stances are not perfectly libertarian, but they're certainly a conversation starter.

And besides, the people who are going to vote for Johnson over Paul are either people who have already heard of Paul and find him crazy or don't like some of his traditionally conservative stances. He was never going to be their first choice, and even with Johnson polling only 1% right now, the longer he can stay in the race, and the more debates he can get in, the more likely it is that he will drop out and endorse Paul, thereby throwing the weight of his new supporters at Paul's campaign.

Most of all though, this kind of thinking fails not just on a pragmatic level but a principled one as well. For if we are to preach to others about how they should not be afraid of competition, what better way to show this tolerance than in a competition of ideas?

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.

- Barry Goldwater

He isn't running for 2012

He is beginning his 2016 run. One has to admit that he had the best line of the debate comparing Obama's programs to canine fecal matter.

That may not be his top priority

But as unlikely as it sounds, let's say Obama gets a 2nd term. Ron will most likely retire from politics. Wouldn't it be amazing to have the two Republican frontrunners in 2016 be Gary Johnson and Rand?

So what if he's not Ron Paul?

So what if he's not Ron Paul? Why don't you let him be himself?

You are aware that not even the good doctor's own son mirrors his father's positions 100% right?

Even Rand is far more pragmatic than his dad is in lots of ways. Now, I don't necessarily think that that's a bad thing, but I don't think it's a good thing either.

But the fact of the matter is, he's honest. Or more honest than 430+ politicians in Congress today. And the same goes with Gary Johnson. And the same even goes with some people on the left.

How often do you think it is that a man with Paul's 30-year old record comes along? How often do you think people like him were even elected before the Tea Party?

As to you smearing Johnson for believing in limited government assistance and being pro-choice, even the Libertarian Party is divided on these two issues. On the first, it's a division over just how much the government should provide assistance (and at what level the government should step in -- local, state, federal, for instance). And on the second, the LP's platform is purposely vague to allow polite dissent in the ranks of its members.

I have heard many arguments back and forth between pro-choice and pro-life libertarians. For the record, I support Paul's argument because he's a doctor and it's more consistent with his opposition to the death penalty.

That being said... I don't fault Gary Johnson for having his own reasons that I or anyone else here may not understand as clearly.

The only legitimate complaint I have with Johnson is he's just not a great debater. And I feel his impact has been limited this time around. But last night on that stage, you could be sure there's only one man that really agrees with Paul, and it was him.

He practically endorsed Ron on that stage last night and that helps us even if he's only polling 1% nationally. Why? Because the simple fact that he was on that stage reinforced the notion that Paul is not a lonely libertarian anymore. He has support out there. And the people watching in the audience and on their TVs needed to see that and maybe think, "oh, libertarianism has been tried before."

So trash him all you want. You're absolutely right, you have been spoiled by Dr. Paul. But if you think you couldn't help that, then you probably rushed to judge too fast.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.

- Barry Goldwater

I'm not smearing Johnson.

I'm not smearing Johnson. Its much easier to have respect for Johnson than anyone of the "other" candidates. But Paul's 30 year record, his principles, and his honesty are precisely what I'm emphasizing. Gary Johnson is not the quality of candidate that Ron Paul is. He's not even close. But that says more about Ron Paul than it does Gary Johnson. I've said before-his being on stage helps the cause of liberty.

Definately in agreement with you about the "endorsement"

from Johnson to Ron Paul, maybe it was intended to marginalize Ron Paul as only being "VP quality", but I think it backfired if you consider the important point you made, that HE'S NOT ALONE!

Polite company has gathered around Dr. Paul because his consistency from the last election cycle to this one has shaped the "debate". All others are pretenders and it is glaringly obvious, even though the PTB would have us think differently.


I don't see how there's any

I don't see how there's any other way he could have answered that question then, without "marginalizing" Paul, as you put it.

I think it was a thoughtful, sincere answer. There was no "take that" in his response; there's clearly a great deal of admiration between those two. Johnson will probably have another shot 4 years from now, although I'd hope he would seek office once more before that to give himself a bit more credibility. That way he could probably hone up on his debating skills and policy experience, and join Rand on that stage in 2016.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.

- Barry Goldwater

jaseed's picture

Good Points!


“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

– Thomas Jefferson


I'd prefer Ron Paul over Johnson, but you're exaggerating to say that Johnson fails miserably.

When Johnson says, "I believe there really are people in need and the government may be the only one who can provide," I'm inclined to agree with him, if only because the government has crowded out many of the private organizations one would expect in its absence.

You may agree on an end goal and differ on the path to get there. Replacing government programs with completely private organizations would take time, so – while keeping the end goal firmly in mind – providing certain gov. services during such a transition is a reasonable proposition.

Good point. As long as that

Good point. As long as that is not the end goal.

He does not has to be Ron

He does not has to be Ron Paul.
We already have Ron Paul.

But he can present a reasonably plausible Gary Johnson.

And he can become a vice president.
He think Ron could trust him more than most others; they have similar positions; he is young and very fit; he has executive experience.

But one thing at a time, first get Ron the nomination (which is the hardest part) and then talk about Gary, Rand, the Judge

my Ron Paul video collection:

(4 years RP, over 2300 videos)

He does help the ideas and

He does help the ideas and bring a rea debate about real issues rather than the dumb questions..."who would you chose as your running mate on the stage" .....lame!

Definitely helps get real

Definitely helps get real issues out there! And he is more liberty minded than the "rest" of them. However, my point is that just because we agree with him philosophically on some things doesn't mean he's some champion of the Constitution. Which is why as far as the VP consideration goes...I'd prefer Rand or judge personally.

Paul has already said he

Paul has already said he would like to see Napolitano in the Supreme Court or as his AG, and I would as well. But if I were to decide, I'd leave him on Fox News because a prospective Paul administration is going to need all the media allies it can get.

On Rand as VP, why do some of you persist in this delusion? Are you aware what kind of message this would send? How hypocritical it would appear?

You haven't thought about it obviously, if you still think it's a viable idea. Running a Paul/Paul ticket would only send the message that "those Pauls are trying to hijack this country and install a monarchy". They would be discredited, our movement would be discredited, all in a matter of seconds.

Besides, we all know Rand is going to run in 2016 whether or not his father wins. This was always the way it was going to happen. "One Paul at a time," he said, when asked about his presidential aspirations.

As much as I admire and respect Paul and his family, it's a sentiment I completely agree with.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.

- Barry Goldwater