Why do these back-handed, innuendo questions need to be asked. Are you afraid of blowback "when he becomes president"? Do you think he needs to be dissected into little tiny pieces to vet him for his job as president?
Paul was a long shot, at best, to become president. The same with Johnson. As someone who is almost 60 years old, and active in the movement since 1980, I am quite aware that the corrupt establishment holds all the cards. Trust me, so does Dr Paul. So does Johnson.
If Johnson were to get into the debates, he wouldn't be debating on whether a former adviser is now in the CFR. He would be changing the dialogue to getting out of Afghanistan. Not starting a war in Iran. Pulling all foreign aid. Changing NDAA, abolishing the Patriot Act, the IRS, the police state. He could bring the drug war front and center.
He will not be joining in with them advocating detaining or assassinating American citizens and all of the above-mentioned issues. If you want to see more than Obama and Romney up there, in agreement on the aforementioned issues, with no voice for the movement, then you can work against Johnson by doing the same backhanded articles that have been pulled on Paul all along.
It's never been about winning the presidency in these efforts (although neither Paul nor Johnson would turn it down) it's been about waking up Americans to reality. Regardless of the tiny nit-pick points people have thrown up against Paul, or now throw up against Johnson, it will be Mitt or Barack. The best we can do is wake up America and try to paint the next president into a corner.
If your real desire is to prevent Johnson from being the president, I don't think you have to worry about that. I personally believe Mitt and Barack are the ones truly in need of exposing past indiscretions, and my bet is that you will find a whole heck of a lot more on them, than Johnson (or Paul). They are the non-liberty candidates. How about trying to point your light on them?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: