8 votes

Ron Paul will not endorse Gary Johnson-Jesse Benton has Confirmed

Jesse Benton, the national campaign chairman for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential bid, flatly told The Daily Caller on Tuesday that Paul “will not endorse Gary Johnson.”

The decision is not entirely unexpected, as Paul’s son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, spoke at the Republican National Convention last week and has endorsed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Gary Johnson

is annoying. He shouldn't have even run for office, he should have thrown his weight behind Ron Paul, if he was interested in the well-being of our country. But his ego is his primary concern. For that reason, no matter how much his platform has in common with Ron Paul's, they are fundamentally dissimilar. Ron Paul is spiritually evolved way beyond Johnson.

So I will write in Ron Paul's name come November.

I will not endorse pi$$ing on Jesse Benton's head

if his face was on fire.

I have confirmed it.

lindalsalisbury's picture


I don't give one rat's acc in heqq what Jesse Benton has to say and I am sick of "people in the know" and "close to the campaign" quoting him.

Please lay off if you are not quoting Ron Paul.

Yes, I am done forever with

Yes, I am done forever with Benton. When the votes started being counted at the convention he was outside doing a big talk surrounded by RP supporters. I was an alternate, had gone to have a smoke, and knew how important it was to get right back inside to see this voting. I even saw delegates out there listening to him. I thought..WHY? This was a time they should have all been on the floor.

The best news I've had today!

The best news I've had today!

The RP to GJ transformites are missing the OBVIOUS

Gary Johnson openly explains that his approach to governing is based on a cost/benefit analysis and not ideology.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not based on some arbitrary cost/benefit analysis scheme. They are based on the ideology of classical liberalism.

Gary Johnson's approach to governing is unacceptable. I don't care if the end conclusion of Johnson's cost/benefit analysis is the libertarians position most of the time, the means do not justify the ends. I don't blame Ron Paul for not endorsing him.

New Mexico

seemed to like his vetoing 750 spending bills.


Your gonna come out and say Ron Paul is not going to endorse Johnson's but
Didn't say if Ron Paul is goin to announce a 3r part run very strange.
Wouldn't u wanna squash everything all at once .
I hope at the least Ron starts a new party .

Benton probably had to say something...

... since all the talk around here lately has been how great GJ is - and how Paul should be his vp and all that nonsense.

And - I'm sure he did it at Paul's behest.

Who cares what Benton says

Who cares what Benton says about who RP will or will not endorse? Who even cares who RP does or doesn't endorse? Who gives a rat's ass who anybody does or doesn't endorse?

Think for yourself. Do what YOU think is right. You have to live with the man in the mirror.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

I don't understand how Dr.

I don't understand how Dr. Paul standing behind Gary Johnson would hurt Rand Paul. I'm not saying it wouldn't, but it would be stupid if it did. Think about it... Rand has spoken at the convention and openly endorsed Romney for presidency. How could his father not following along with him hurt him? I mean, does that mean that if I run for office and my father disagrees with me (which he does, he's a neocon to the bone) that the liberty movement won't vote for me? How stupid.

here come the downvotes

from people who must deny reality and want to bury this information.

C_T_CZ's picture

Listen to Benton.....NOT!

Yeah, because Benton was such a good source of information so far...NOT!

I'm hoping the Good Doctor throws his support to Gary Johnson. Not because Johnson is perfect, or is another Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has these reasons to promote Gary Johnson:
* Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states, unlike other 3rd party candidates;
* Johnson publicly and consistently promotes Ron Paul and Paul's ideas. Johnson was a strong supporter even back in the 2008 campaign;
* A promotion of Johnson is a direct and public rebuke against the GOP for all the blatant corruption and fraud;
* A promotion of Johnson best sets up the Liberty Movement in 2014 and 2016;

Paul does not need to endorse Johnson, per se. For example, Paul can say something like "I have been offered Secretary of the Treasury position by Gary Johnson, should he win. This is a position I would seriously consider, so I hope everyone takes a look at Johnson and his alignment with the Liberty Movement."

Such a statement would skirt a direct endorsement, yet make it crystal clear who Ron Paul would want as president.

Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof

Actually, everything Benton said turned out to be true

we just didn't want to hear it.

Ron Paul is not some doddering old man at the mercy of his staff. He is honest and wanted us to be warned. He let Jesse do the talking, but Ron KNEW how evil and dishonest Romney was and could pretty much predict how the convention was going to turn out.

This isn't a Rambo movie. This is real life and EVIL exists!

Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Viva La Revolucion!

I agree

with your whole statement.

This is not surprising at all.

Gary Johnson is pro-abortion and that to Dr. Paul is a denial of God given natural rights. You cannot deny one right (to life) and expect to enjoy the others.

This is one reason why the American People are losing their liberty. They have thrown away the lives granted to millions of the unborn who are God's children. God is not mocked. There are always consequences for blatant lawlessness.

To endorse Johnson would go against Dr. Paul's most fundamental beliefs.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

SteveMT's picture

Ron Paul: Abortion laws should be state-level choice

It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.

I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 2&6-7 , Apr 19, 2011

I agree that this is indeed Dr. Paul's political position.

This is the way he wishes to limit abortion which he fundamentally disagrees with. This is the path he has chosen to take to repeal Roe v. Wade and to deal with the decision of the Supreme Court that found a right to privacy in the Constitution that somehow irrationally overrode the right to life. In the Roe decision they stipulated that when the Congress determined in law when life begins then that would be the guiding factor in any other decisions by the Supreme Court. This is why Dr. Paul introduced not only the We the People Act but also the Sanctity of Life Act.

Personally I believe that the way Dr. Paul has chosen is a very wise solution that deals with the reality of the political situation and the present moral condition of society. It would also hand the political decision making power back to the States where it rightfully belongs and close the door to Federal appeals. Also by stipulating that life begins at conception the States would be required to recognise that the Constitutionally protected right to life prevailed.

This would then lead to anti-abortion legislation at the State level with varying degrees of consequence from State to State. Dr. Paul himself has said that he favours punishment for the abortionist rather than the woman in the case but that would be decided by each State.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)


I really doubt that abortion is the end all for Dr. Paul.

I don't think anyone claimed

I don't think anyone claimed it was the end all. However, It's high on Ron's list. Just ask him and he well you.

Ron has NEVER endorsed a pro-choice candidate for POTUS. Only three times since 1976 has he shown support in public for a candidate for POTUS. Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, and Chuck Baldwin. All made being pro-life a very high priority. There are many reasons Ron will not endorse Johnson, but this a big one. Johnson does make the cut when you consider the kinds of people Ron has supported over the years.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!


is more of a morality issue and I firmly believe that you can't legislate morality. Even though I believe that someone has the right to murder an unborn baby, I would never personally do that. How do I know? Because I have a 10 year old son that is on a feeding tube. The doctor's offered to "terminate" the pregnancy and damn near got smashed in the face.

We the people need to spread the word about abortion through whatever means it takes. Preachers need to preach it from the pulpit and politicians needs to shut the hell up about it, for or against.

I am not sure why you are

I am not sure why you are debating the merits of abortion?

The point is Ron does not support people for POTUS who are pro-choice. Ron is solidly pro-life and never tried to hide that. He is not a pure states rights guy on this issue and never has been. The point is Ron will not endorse Johnson because of this and many other issues. For some insight on how Ron contemplates these things, here is some suggested reading...From Ron himself.


Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

RP is wrong

in this case but I still voted for him. He stands on the side of big government if he wants the government to intervene whether at the state or local level.

Where on earth did you get the idea

That he ever wanted the government to intervene at ANY level?

I believe in the freedom to be what we choose to be.


RP says it is a states issue. If a state says yes or no to abortion, that is government intervention.

Ron has delivered more than

Ron has delivered more than 4,000 babies and cared for them while still in the womb. I kind of suspect he knows a little more about when life begins than a random poster on a message board. However, you have the right to you opinion and I respect that.

I stand with Ron Paul, and just like Ron Paul cannot endorse Johnson- I cannot vote for him. I am writing in Ron Paul.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!


I never said anything about when life begins. I said RP was on the side of big government. I am pro life and agree with him totally on when life begins. Hard pill to swallow, but Ron is wrong or inconsistent.

C_T_CZ's picture

There is 92.4% Alignment Between Paul and Johnson

They have the same solution on the abortion issue - it is an issue left to the states, until there is a Constitutional amendment. So even though they do not agree on this one particular issue, they both promote the same solution.

Yet, there are many other topics where there is 100% alignment between Paul and Johnson.

I think there is enough alignment where Paul could support Johnson and sleep well at night.

Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof

Their solution is not even

Their solution is not even close to being similar. Read Ron's defense of federal pro-life protection in Liberty Defined. Also, read Ron's Sanctity of Life Act legislation. Ron and Gary are at opposite ends of the field in terms of the philosophy of how they approach this issue.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

Ron was never going to

We didn't need Benton to tell us this, and nobody should be shocked or mad at Benton over this news.

Ron was never going to endorse Johnson. Anyone who ever thought he was does not know Ron very well at all. Ron has only endorsed 3 people for POTUS since 1976. Ronald Reagan. Pat Buchanan. Chuck Baldwin. In the case of Pat Buchanan, Ron served as a campaign adviser. Ron does not, has not, and will not endorse a pro-choice candidate for POTUS. Though he does not scream it from the rooftops like many pro-life people do, if you ask Ron he will tell you its one of the most important issues he considers. I have have asked him and he has told me. More than once over the years. Feel free to do the same if you get the opportunity.

He is a man of principle and conviction.

This why I think when Ron indicated that the door may still be open for a third party run, we squandered our chance by trying to push Ron as VEEP to Johnson. We should have been pushing for a total LP shakeup, asked Johnson to step aside as he indicated he would, and pushed Ron for POTUS.

The window was very narrow and it may too late.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!