The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
42 votes

Never Say Never: Gary Johnson, Humble Libertarian: Exclusive Interview

In interviewing Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President, I was following the advice of Ron Paul, who recently stated, "[Gary Johnson] is wonderful, and I think he's doing a good job, and I think people should look at him, and every individual should make up their own mind."

A curious thing about Johnson’s candidacy is that if you are not a libertarian – but you are liberal who believes in basic civil rights, the right to due process, personal privacy, an unregulated Internet, a peaceful foreign policy, marriage equality, and an end to crony corporatism and pro-wall street policy making, for example, then Johnson – not Obama - is much closer to you on policy, but you’ll probably vote for Obama. Similarly, if you are a conservative who believes in the Constitution, small government, free markets, balanced budgets and the Fed out of huge areas of your personal and economic life that could be better handled by yourself or even the States, then Johnson – not Romney – is much closer to you on policy, but you’ll probably vote for Romney.

If you do vote for Romney or Obama, you probably have no clue who Gary Johnson is.

For that reason, the people Johnson really needs to win over in the last day or two of the campaign are those who already know that they are libertarian, and know very well who Johnson is - but just aren’t sure that Johnson is really libertarian enough.

In my interview with Gov. Johnson, I therefore covered a number of issues that Johnson-skeptics in the liberty movement frequently raise. For example, is his Fair Tax really libertarian; why is marriage equality a Constitutionally protected right and, most importantly, is Johnson really a peaceful non-interventionist on foreign policy?

It became clear very early on in our interview that it was going to be an enjoyable experience, and quite unlike most interviews I have ever seen with a presidential candidate or equivalent. I began with the topic of marriage equality – one of his major issues. After some time on it, I pushed him on a philosophical point about which he simply had not thought. Rather than return to a practiced statement of position or fluster or get respond to a question that was not quite what I asked, he simply said, “You are the first person to have ever said this to me… and I’m going to have to roll that around a little bit.”

From someone who has been a politician at the national level for eight years (a two-term Governor of a state), that combination of humility and self-assuredness was refreshing and very human.

And for the rest of the interview, I was similarly finding out as much about the man as his politics.

It’s Not What You Believe. It’s What You Achieve.

Johnson is not a purist. He is a pragmatist, and he says as much – often. As he says, “I think libertarians need somebody who can articulate getting from A to Z. But you know, if G is achievable, how about it? Let’s get there!”

As an example, he recalled that in one of the Republican debates, the candidates were asked if they were accept 90% cut in deficit for 10% revenue increase and every single Republican said they would not. Johnson, who was not at that debate, was shouting at the TV screen: “Yes. Of course I’d accept that. You’re talking about a 90% reduction in the deficit and a 10% revenue enhancement. Come on.”

Whereas some hard-line libertarians bristle at the slippery slope that such concessions at first glance represent, no such deal actually precludes further revenue reductions later on. Johnson is truly committed to the abolition of income and corporate taxes; he just realizes that being committed to a particular destination doesn’t preclude you from stopping along the way at places you don’t really love. The important thing is always to be moving toward the destination rather than not moving at all (or moving backward).

Johnson’s policy positions are easy to find so I wanted to push on philosophical consistency on the one hand, and approach to governing on the other.

For example, I pushed him on the Fair Tax, which he favors. Its advantages are myriad. Nevertheless, some libertarians point out two problems with this tax: first, it effectively puts government in a position of oversight on every transaction; second, it does something that at least has something of the entitlement state and dependency that libertarians abhor: it makes all Americans recipients of government checks. (Listen to the interview to learn more.)

Despite the fact that I was pointing out potentially serious problems with another one of his favorite issues, Johnson didn’t do what most other politicians would do, which is to revert to a well-worn defense that may or may not answer the actual question asked.

“I am advocating one federal consumption tax. We can certainly argue whether the prebate … is the best way to deal with the fact that the federal consumption tax is regressive… Perhaps not. But back to the Fair Tax package. I think that it is a great starting point for what should be a debate and a discussion over how you make this happen in lieu of having the IRS and income tax and corporate tax.”

I offered a summary of his position: “What you’d say is that the upside in terms of for liberty of a consumption tax – for example the Fair Tax – is so great, but as a matter of principle, you’re willing to concede the argument that says that there is some danger in having the entire population in receipt of a check – and that you would be open to discussing that?”

His response was a simple and disarming, “Yes”.

Had I just inadvertently contributed to the development of the tax policy of a presidential candidate? Probably not, but I nevertheless had the sense of an unrecognized strength that Johnson brings to the table as a leader: whereas he obviously knows his stuff, he doesn’t feel the need to have all the answers, and certainly no need to pretend to have them when he doesn’t. He holds deeply held principles that determine where he is trying to go, but how we get there – and for Johnson, it is clearly always “we” - is invariably a matter for productive debate, which benefits from open minds.

Based on these exchanges and myriad others throughout the interview, I began to see that what a few libertarians see as Gary Johnson’s philosophical weakness is actually his political strength. It is not that Johnson is wishy-washy in his libertarian principles. Rather, he is very aware of, and comfortable with, the practical realities of doing politics with other reasonable people who may disagree on the preferred implementation of commonly held principles. Some political questions can be reasonably answered without reference to libertarian orthodoxies, such as the one I asked about the principles that would govern him in making legislative compromises, and together we summarized his answer as “common sense”.

Never Say Never

I pressed Gary Johnson on foreign policy – the area in which some libertarians have most uneasiness about Johnson’s purity.

I asked, “There are some people who would be concerned that you would be more prepared to put our military in harm’s way for what might be called humanitarian interventions than for example, Ron Paul, so could you please explain … the principles ... that govern sending our troops into harm’s way when we’re not threatened? What are the rules?"

I liked his answer: not only did it not compromise anything sacred for me, but would play almost as well in a group of Republicans or Democrats as in a room of libertarians.

“No humanitarian wars. That is an oxymoron. There would have to be Congressional approval for any time the military is used. Look… Never say never…. I don’t want to say that if a genocide is occurring somewhere – and it is a situation that we could step in and alter – that we shouldn’t do that. … I can’t give you a definition of genocide but I would like to think that if I saw it, I would know what it was. I think that none of us want to stand by and watch some dictator in another country line up 2000 people at noon and shoot every day them in the head in a five minute time frame. That to me would be an intervention that could be stopped … and I hate to define anything at all … but it could exist and I don’t want to [say] “never”.

Again, I pressed further. Would participation by members of the military be voluntary? He answered affirmatively.

To deconstruct his complete answer reveals nothing necessarily at odds with libertarianism or the non-aggression principle. It just reveals a man who knows he can’t plan for all eventualities, and who has the humility not to think he has such a perfect understanding of a political philosophy that he can make general pronouncements with 100% confidence that would cover all conceivable life and death situations. One might call that caution - not a bad quality in a President

The Magic Number

Johnson’s campaign is promoting the idea that 5% of the vote is a game-changer for US politics. I asked him to explain.

At 5% of the popular vote, ballot access issues go away for the Libertarian Party. Ballot access alone currently consumes most the party’s time and money. The 5% vote also releases federal matching funds. Johnson explains just how important that could be: the LP is confident that they will achieve a vote close to their 5% target, and they will do so having spent two million dollars. In contrast, Romney and Obama will have spent two billion dollars. That’s one tenth of the main party votes for 1/1000th of their spending. The electoral bang for the Libertarian buck is hugely greater than that achieved by either the Republicans or the Democrats. With that ROI, the five to seven million dollars in matching funds that would follow a 5% showing on Tuesday – no longer having to be spent on ballot access - could be one of the greatest boosts that have happened to the liberty movement in a long, long time.

Ron Paul always said that the movement was not about him: it was about the message. The matching funds and the size of the libertarian “market” implied by a large enough vote to deliver those funds provide the easiest way to put Ron Paul’s views on the stage in the presidential debates in 2016. That is primetime. That is breakout. That is, finally, the televising of the rEVOLution. When Americans see a three-way debate with the likes of a Johnson or a Paul in 2016, we won’t have to struggle to tell them that they have been victims of a cruel illusion. The supposed difference between the Republicans and Democrats will be shown up for the illusion it is by the glaring contrast that the liberty candidate will so clearly offer. That is the liberty’s movement most powerful weapon if only it can be fired.

There is a greater difference between the end of the two party system and its continuation than there is between an Obama presidency and a Romney presidency. A choice between two things that are the same is no choice at all. Much nonsense is written about “Wasted votes”. By any accurate definition, a wasted vote would be one that, even if repeated indefinitely, could change nothing of substance. A vote for the duopoly, whether you prefer Obama flavor or Romney flavor, would be such a vote. When you see that, you see that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to vote to break the duopoly, which means to vote for Gary Johnson.

To the segment of hard-line Ron Paul loyalists who believe that Johnson should not be trusted to implement libertarian orthodoxy all of the time, I suggest you’ve got exactly the wrong end of the stick. It is precisely because he is not an ideologue - but an idealist with his feet on the ground - that he can do more to set up a big tent of liberty (and size does matter in a democracy) than those who think that any deviation from their own understanding necessarily represents a philosophical falling short.

I am not so surprised that I have been able to write positive things about Johnson’s politics. But I was not expecting to write such positive things about his character - and they may mean even more. Johnson is an easy-going guy who is not in his own way. I had never spoken to him before, but our interview, conducted over 2000 miles and a Skype connection, felt more like a decent conversation with a friend over tea, sharing our views of the world and perhaps even learning a few things from each other.

Of Blue Republicans - former Independents and Democrats who registered Republican specifically to support Ron Paul - 79% of those who have already voted have voted for Johnson. I had planned not to endorse any Presidential candidate who was not Ron Paul, and I have a deep respect for the 15% of Blue Republicans who have decided to write in his name – especially if they are doing so in a state where those votes will be counted.

But the truth is that the Blue Republican movement has already endorsed some wonderful candidates around the country. And a vote for Gary Johnson has the potential to do at least as much good for American liberty as a vote for any one of them.


I believe the majority of Blue Republicans have it right. Herewith, then, the Blue Republicans give their official endorsement of Gary Johnson for President. Not only is he a lover of liberty: he brings a humility, pragmatism and approachability to our movement of which we need more – not less – if we are to achieve the lofty goals we have set for ourselves.

Just put on your Ron Paul T-shirt when you go to vote for him - but hide it under your jacket so as not to violate any voting regulations.

And most importantly of all, Never Say Never.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

With sadness

because in my state, neither Rocky Anderson nor Jill Stein is on the ballot nor qualified as a certified write-in candidate, I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I am encouraged by the signs of flexibility on tax policy. (A progressive consumption tax along the lines described here: is a much better economic and political idea.)

Johnson will obviously not win but he will probably be blamed by Republicans for Romney's loss. His hope for 5% will almost be realized. I say he would make an excellent VP for Bernie Sanders in 2016.


The GOP stole primaries from Ron Paul; it's time to send them a message. This is our chance to vindicate and to show Republicans that Libertarians deserve due recognition and R.E.S.P.E.C.T

Liberty Movement vs. the corrupt GOP

The choice is clear!

LL on Twitter:
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

The sad part of all this

is that I really believe that if either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson were simply allowed to debate Obama and Romney in a general election presidential debate (not a primary debate),they could actually win.Even if the votes were rigged,they would at least win the most hearts and minds.And if we could simply all unite behind a great short video/ad promoting the principles of truth,freedom and peace and focus our efforts to promote said video,I think we could make it go viral nationwide and worldwide and become a force that could NOT be stopped.I think that is how we win.Anyone got a better idea?I'm all ears.

Down with the military industrial complex!

Gary = Peace on Earth!

LL on Twitter:
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

LL...I Say This With Kindness

....the third party debate thread does not have a single post from you
at this point and it is just about over.

I am confused as I would have thought you would be living on that thread and offering your insight. It will not look good for your credibility if you don't show any interest in the debate. Just a well meaning suggestion.



Because I have not seen a single comment from YOU on my posts pushing a 3rd party debate here.

Zak Carter is my friend -- did YOU contact him with the offer of your help?

LL on Twitter:
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

RP's Views

"The matching funds and the size of the libertarian “market” implied by a large enough vote to deliver those funds provide the easiest way to put Ron Paul’s views on the stage in the presidential debates in 2016."

The easiest way to get Dr. Paul's views on the stage in 2016 is to get Rand on the stage.


RE: "I was following the advice of Ron Paul..."

Raul Paul advice did not stop there. The doctor urged not to separate civil liberties from economic ones. Individual rights come from private property including your body but not stopping there. Government should take part in protecting individual liberty & private property. Therefore, "equal protection" is not a right, just equal protection of your prior individual rights and reminder to the government not to be unjust.

To bypass private property issue, the left had fooled everybody including religious "right." They substituted individual rights with a subset of "civil rights" then added fake conjectures, "group rights" and "human rights." Religious, with their focus on abortions and personal sacrifice, had swallowed every drop of progressive dogma.

Very good article!

I was reading about the part of the 5% opening doors in 2016, and it made me realize a few things. That the liberty movement isn't just a fad that will go away. Its something that people get their emotions involved with, and like an old friend when 2016 comes around, all of us are going to be like minded when we remember the excitement and the struggle that was the Ron Paul run for the white house. And who knows... maybe in 2016 we can have a Ron Paul/Gary Johnson ticket... and maybe not even in that order! But only IF we get the 5% for GJ! I am definitely voting for Johnson now.

And, please don't wear Ron Paul shirts to the voting booth... you WILL be turned away. It is against voting regulations. I can see the innocence in suggesting it, but don't do it.

Robin Koerner's picture

Thanks ...

... to those of you who noted that the T-shirt bit at the end could get you into trouble. I have updated the article accordingly.

All this talk about which

All this talk about which lever to pull in the voting booth.... Am I the only one who has noticed it doesn't matter which lever you pull? What matters is who counts the votes. As long as we have electronic Machines with code that no one can see our votes will not be counted. I recently seen a very smart statement

"If voting could change anything it would be illegal"

They will never let you vote away the power or the money...


Is there a link to this off-site? It's a great article, but I'm not going to link to DP.

Great work.

Thanks for helping to resolve the seeming abundance of irrational thinking that plagues the anti-Johnson liberty crowd. I'm hoping they will begin to realize the need for a workable process in order to accomplish, as you stated, our lofty goals. I think the struggle between liberty and tyranny will always be a work in progress rather than one single and finalizing great accomplishment.

Better be Careful!

Qutoed from article: "Just put on your Ron Paul T-shirt when you go to vote for him."

Better check your state rules on passive electioneering first.

Robin Koerner's picture


I updated the article in the light of your (and others') comment!

Thank you for letting me know.

I appreciate your time and integrity!



Thank you Robin Koerner

This just made my day.

LL on Twitter:
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Gary Johnson is no Ron Paul....

but he's getting my vote. We can't win the war with one battle but every battle where we can advance will eventually win the war.


but what exactly is this "war" we are fighting? Against the status quo? the 2 party system? or what?

I will give you a response if you reply, there's a point I would like everyone on DP who's still asleep to hear

"Truth is Treason in an Empire that lies" - Ron Paul

Educate the masses, and win in the end.

The "war" would be the War for Individual Liberty...

Advancing that cause is not going to happen with one man in one election. It has taken decades of historical events that have backed our message and Ron Paul switching parties to get some Republicans to finally hear our message.

I welcome your point and would like you to answer what's the game plan to run another liberty-minded candidate in 2016 if Romney wins?

you are right about that

It won't happen with one election. But I would like to point out that by boosting the Libertarian PARTY =/= a victory for liberty, really. I am getting tired of even typing this, but, the Libertarian Party is just an institution that can be infiltrated just like the TEA Party movement, and the Republican Party. Any political party is bound to become corrupt, so why not just vote for liberty candidates running for Congress, local liberty-minded people, and educate those around you?

Really, getting 5%, which seems to be the main goal to vote for GJ, won't necessarily be a victory for liberty but it's to prop up the Libertarian party. Candidates that are libertarian minded also exist outside the party.

So this election cycle, you really should vote for whoever you want, and encourage others to do so. Voting Locally is what's more important!

"Truth is Treason in an Empire that lies" - Ron Paul

Educate the masses, and win in the end.

So, what's the game plan to run another liberty-minded...

presidential candidate in 2016 if Romney wins? Do you see no hope that Libertarians and Ron Paul Republicans can unite using the Libertarian Party to run another liberty-minded candidate if Romney wins?

Also, would you have voted for Ron Paul if he were the Libertarian candidate?

Trust me, had Ron Paul won the Republican nominee, you would not have to convince me that I should vote for him rather than GJ and I'm Libertarian. I'll support the best shot for more liberty where ever I can find it. Had Ron Paul been the Democratic Party nominee, I would have voted for him.

As a libertarian, I'm open to Ron Paul supporters infiltrating our party to run another Ron Paul liberty-minded candidate.

We will see Whether Romney wins in a few days.

yes, I see no hope in the LP as a party, they had 40 years to build themselves up, and yet not a single Whether Romney wins in a few days.year did they get over 1.2% of the votes.

Not only that, I think as soon as this label of "Libertarian" becomes prominent, it's going to attract the bandwagon hoppers who will bring disgrace to the party, as it did with the TEA party, as it did with the Republican Party.

Realistically, GJ will get 2% vote MAX. And even if he happened to get 5%, it would be rather meaningless to actually letting people realize the message of liberty and electing local candidates(that money is going to the next presidential election, keep in mind)

Well, if you really want to vote for GJ, what can a guy over the internet do to change your choice? vote your conscious!

"Truth is Treason in an Empire that lies" - Ron Paul

Educate the masses, and win in the end.

That's interesting and telling....

See, Ron Paul use to be a Libertarian, actually, he still is, the only difference is he joined the Republican Party. His message as a liberty-minded Republican is the same consistent message he delivered as a Libertarian. So, what changed? You and history.

Your attitude of Libertarians is the same as the MSM. Libertarians are nothing but a bunch of irrelevant, pacifist, pot-smoking hippies that only want to make drugs legal. Their message of liberty is meaningless, but you know, history has a way of happening where you just can't deny the facts.

Here comes Ron Paul talking about blowback, the War on Drugs, state rights, balanced budget, the FED, limited Federal government, etc., etc. and all of sudden Republicans discovered liberty and they own the patent on it. All other parties that championed those cause before the Republicans are irrelevant.

And yes, I do hate it when the GOP marginalizes, mocks, ignores and alienates Ron Paul Republicans. It's wrong but don't let it stop you from being a hypocrite.

I agree with that

"See, Ron Paul use to be a Libertarian, actually, he still is, the only difference is he joined the Republican Party."

Agreed, so it's unnecessarily to support the libertarians who choose to join other parties. libertarian is also an ideology, RP is libertarian ideologically, but he certainly isn't a Libertarian as in a member of the party.

My point was individual is more important than a group, thus it's unnecessarily to support the Libertarian party to win for liberty. Those same individuals can run for other parties.

"Truth is Treason in an Empire that lies" - Ron Paul

Educate the masses, and win in the end.

What is to stop the two-party

What is to stop the two-party system from becoming the three-party system.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016

People who won't give-up fighting for individual liberty....

What's to stop a three-party system becoming a four-party system or five or six? As long as a three, four or five party system limits liberty, a new party will form.

Excluded 15%

While this was a nice read, and I appreciate the interview, and was hopeful, I am left with the following questions of interest:

1) Did you ask him about the life issue? That seems to be a basic issue that he and Dr. Paul depart on in the face of Liberty.

Dr. Paul says "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."

It seems that from what I can understand that Gary Johnson will have a hard time protecting Liberty if he does not protect Life. There is a big difference between 6-7 viability left to choice and a Federal Level Sanctity of Life Act whereby humans are considered legal persons at conception “without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency." [link]
2) Ron Paul says to keep the fruits of your labors. Gary Johnson wants 23% of them at a Federal Level.

How about letting the states decide how much tax to collect if one has to be collected, and then let the Federal Government court the states to use some of that money instead of the states having to bend to every whim of the federal government in order to get some of that money back for the benefit people of the state.
3) The other issue I would like to hear more about is the Medicare Issue. It sounds like a soundbite to me when Gary Johnson says people paid $30 in and are getting $100 out.

I would like to hear Gary Johnson answer how the Federal Government robbing the people of $30 turns into people getting $100 back out of the system. If the Federal Government had allowed people to invest that money into gold instead of inflating the money then perhaps people would be able to get more than $100 back out of the system. Or how about silver? After all one might consider that a 1964 silver dime is worth $2.50 today. A single 10 cent piece from 1964 is worth $2 dollar bills and a fifty cent piece. Didn’t Dr. Paul hold up a silver quarter and say a gallon of gas could be purchased with that quarter in 2012? How much health care would those silver dimes and quarters purchase in 2012? :

“At 5.30 mintues Gary Johnson says Medicare is a budget buster...Says people only put $30 into medicare and are getting $100 out....
Regarding your question about the 1970s investment into medicare at $15 a week:
Gold started the year 1970 at 34.94 per ounce. By the conclusion of 1970, the price was at 37.44 per ounce.
If you had been able to invest in gold at $15 a week in 1970 alone, how much gold would you have now after buying for 1 year and how much would it be worth today?
I did not spend the time to do the precise math...but you get the idea:
You would have in the neighborhood of $37,000 for the 1970 investment in gold alone because you would have been able to purchase about 21oz that year at $15 a week.
The problem is not that people put in too little and are getting more out of medicare now. The problem is that the Federal Government stole and wasted the people's money and now cannot deliver on its "promise."
I do not appreciate a bait and switch on the facts of the matter. I am sick and tired of watching my mom and Pop scrimp and worry after paying into SS/Med all their years only to be told they did not do enough. I could care less about my so called future "investment." I see it for what it is. P O N Z I And when I hear Gary Johnson speak the truth I will applaud it. How about "People, I know you paid into the system and the government wasted and defrauded you, but you have to understand, we can no longer afford it...I personally am sorry for you, but know, we will work together and pull thru..."
It seems to me, we are now in the process of dividing the young against the elderly and if you are in your 50s?, you are not far from being "culled"...and I am not too far behind you.”

These are the questions I would like to hear Gary Johnson speak to because I am not an ideologue. I am looking at ideas and from what I understand, his ideas on these topics do not reflect mine. Also I am wondering, does Gary Johnson wish to abolish 5 departments of the Federal Government?

I have been a straight ticket Repbulican voter during my voting life. I would never vote for Obama. I am no longer going to vote for Romney GOP lies. And I am not going to vote for half truths presented by this year's Libertarian Party. This year, I am going to write in


Those 7 letters represent my ideas because my eyes have been opened by the Champion of Liberty. For me, those are 7 Letters represent opposition to the evil practices of the RNC in Tampa as well as the broken bones and people carted off to jail during the caucuses. My vote may not be counted, but I do believe it will be noted by all concerned parties as to what some voters believe The Liberty Message to Be. It is not a man, it is a Liberty Platform for which I am voting this year.

If the Libertarian party wants 5% tax money, the Libertarian party can adopt a platform that reflects Ron Paul's platform. IMO, they could have easily done that this year, and my vote would have been theirs in the ballot box come Tuesday.


I'm a Libertarian that would have voted for Dr. Paul....

had he been elected as the Libertarian candidate. I don't agree with him 100% on every issue but would rather have him elected than Obamney.

I wonder how you would feel if Libertarians said they would rather write-in Gary Johnson than vote for Ron Paul as the Libertarian candidate? You would be making the same arguments GJ supporters are now. I don't agree with Gary Johnson 100% either. I believe in protecting life also but I'm not voting for Romney.

I actually crossed party lines and voted for Ron Paul in the primaries as a registered unaffiliated Libertarian.

If you want to get another Ron Paul to run in 2016 provided Romney wins, you will have to do it through the Libertarian Party unless you rather wait until 2020 to make that happen or start another party.

Libertarians welcome liberty-minded Ron Paul supporters to run another Ron Paul candidate in 2016 through our party but that is going to be harder without Ron Paul supporters.

Your Words

"If you want to get another Ron Paul to run in 2016 provided Romney wins, you will have to do it through the Libertarian Party unless you rather wait until 2020 to make that happen or start another party."

remind me of the argument to vote for the lesser of 2 evils when I was a Republican. There were candidates in the primaries I voted for only to end up with a "presumptive" nominee (before it was ever blatantly said like it was this year). I am thru being corralled. You perhaps have been out of that corral long enough to settle down. Me I am still running free and I am going to write in Ron Paul. There are some things on which I will never compromise… Probably the rest of my life. Hopefully in 2016 there will be a candidate with whom I can agree to compromise.

Are there somethings on which you will not compromise?

There will never be another Ron Paul....

Look...I understand. Vote who you have to vote for. Libertarians have fought the War for Liberty for decades. When Ron Paul switched parties, many of us thought it would do little good, that Republicans would never listen to him just because he switched parties. We were wrong.

Our challenge will be to find another candidate as close to him as we can and we know one does not exist.

We'll continue the good fight regardless whether we get the support of Ron Paul disciples or not. The other choices aren't acceptable.

Maybe you'll help once you realize united we have a better chance but do what you have to do.

Ron Paul said in Tampa

Ron Paul said in Tampa something to the effect that we will become the GOP tent. That is what Ron Paul has asked us to do. Not to raise up the Libertarian Party. If he had asked us to do that, I might take note.

Furthermore: "Our challenge will be to find another candidate as close to him as we can and we know one does not exist."

Is not a necessary challenge. Just adopt Ron Paul's 2012 platform and you will not have to worry about finding another Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not some kind of magic. The magic is liberty. Don't tamper with it.

he also said just after Tampa

That the Republican party was not his party.

I really wish more people were not so stuck on one party. Obviously people will go their own ways and fight their own fights. May we meet again in a a better place.

I'm not stuck in the

I'm not stuck in the Republican Party. I am only saying that Dr. Paul has suggested retaking the republican party. And that is what people are doing and that is what he reconfirmed in Tampa.

It makes me wonder why some people want to jump ship or take another ship halfway thru the trip.

I am writing in Ron Paul and voting for Liberty Candidates this election. But I seriously need to consider getting involved in the Republican Party to effect change locally. I will be happy to vote Libertarian when that Party adopts Ron Paul's 2012 Platform. I am no longer party loyal. However, I am still registered as a Republican which I have been my whole voting life. I see no need to change at this point.

I was referring to Ron Paul's consistency....

Ron Paul always put liberty and the constitution above party even when he knew his own party would frown upon it. That's what I'm referring to when I said it's hard to find another Ron Paul. Even Rand will never be another Ron Paul, he endorses a neo-con. Ron refuses to endorse Romney.

However, I would vote for Rand if I thought he was the best liberty-minded candidate running in 2016 that had the best chance of moving liberty forward. I'm Libertarian and would vote for a liberty-minded Republican over a Libertarian if I thought it would advance liberty. See, one thing Ron Paul taught me when he was Libertarian was not to get hung-up on political parties as much as the cause of liberty.

I realize now, many that support Ron Paul still don't embrace his message fully.

Ron Paul is the gold standard and carries the banner until one

as good comes along. They may not be identical, but until someone can stand on their own two feet and show up well in comparison, not shunning comparison, they aren't the one to carry the banner, imho. Goldwater STILL caries a banner, and Ron can, until we grow our own.

The CANDIDATE and the STANDARD BEARER are not always the same person.

I wrote in Ron Paul to show he is still my standard bearer -- and because I have been wanting to vote for him all year.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

People who write in Ron Paul

can be easily written off by the establishment as crazy/cultists. If a movement is more attached to the candidate then the ideas then it won't be a lasting movement.

Revolution will require compromise=fact.

Excellent Commentary - NEVER SAY NEVER!

I appreciate, so much, your willingness to talk about the issues and present alternatives and ideas that are SO IMPORTANT for everyone. And I think everyone should vote their conscience - and that will solve most of our problems - thank you for posting this article/interview. A member of our campaign staff has worked with Johnson in the past and can speak for his character. There are no clones of Ron Paul for sure, but if each of us uses our individuality and ideas to do the best we can with the seeds that he has planted - I think wonderful things are to come.

That's Natural! -->>
Rebellion! -->>

Best of luck on Tuesday

I agree with your sentiment & wish you great success on Tuesday.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

Thank you so much!

We are so excited to see the fruits of our labor, made possible by wonderful individuals ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

That's Natural! -->>
Rebellion! -->>

You're wrong on this Tisha

There are plenty of people who are holding to Dr.Paul's exact message and two that may be good picks for 2016 if he doesn't run.

Tom Woods and Judge Nap.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Great quote

"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way and the only way it does not exist." - Friedrich Nietzsche.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

I have to ask before claiming anything

Who decides what the threads are in the "Original" bookmark?

"Truth is Treason in an Empire that lies" - Ron Paul

Educate the masses, and win in the end.

The person making the post

and this one qualifies.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul