TAMPA, May 15, 2012 — Ron Paul’s announcement today that he will “no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted” may finally have some of his supporters considering the possibility that he will not be the Republican Party’s nominee. That may be overly pessimistic considering that Paul also stated that he will continue to pursue his delegate strategy, which has been far more successful than his quest for a primary win.
However, even the most ardent supporter may find it prudent to have a “Plan B,” especially in states where the rules on write-in candidates are onerous. There is one man who believes he’s wide open in the Plan B end zone. He’s former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson.
Johnson secured the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president at its national convention last Saturday in Las Vegas, winning over 70% of the delegate votes.
Johnson supports Ron Paul, but doesn’t think Paul will win the Republican nomination. He wants Ron Paul supporters to know that he represents an opportunity to vote for a lot of the things they believe in.
“Ron Paul has always been about a message and so have I and it’s the same message. It’s about liberty and it’s about freedom, first and foremost, and when Dr. Paul’s candidacy comes to an end, there’s a viable alternative and I don’t think it’s a handicapped choice. I think it’s reloading. There’s no concession.”
So, do Paul supporters have to compromise to vote for Johnson?
Continue at Communities @Washington Times.com…
I will support Gary Johnson if Ron Paul isn’t the Republican nominee and I urges others to do the same. Gary Johnson may not be Ron Paul but he’s close enough and he’s a gazillion times better than the freaking neocon statists. The best way to inflict pain on the GOP is to work to make a 3rd party strong and viable. The LP, despite its flaws and some bad candidates in the past, is my choice.
I want the GOP to get its butted kicked in the general election. Mittens and Obushma are identical warmongering big government statists.
One has to join & register in a Party to make it into a Major Party There is no way around that fact that is how the Tyrannical One Party System of the D&R Party Has RIGGED The System Those Are The Rules Like Them Or Not.
Nope, sorry, but no sale. I’ve commented here before on Johnson’s MANY shortcomings, even if it’s obvious that he isn’t a “real” libertarian. For those of us who support Ron Paul, it’s NOT about winning the White House: it’s about principle, a category that Johnson is a little bit weak in, to put it kindly. The “go along to get along/settle for second best” approach hasn’t worked before, and it won’t work this time either. Johnson is, by his own words and deeds, ultimately a statist and as such will do NOTHING of substance to roll back the size and oppressiveness of the federal government. IOW, a vote for Johnson is ultimately a vote for MOSS (“more of the same sh**). For anyone who believes in liberty, a vote for him would be both pointless and self-defeating.
OH if you only agree with Johnson on say 80% of the issues then you will vote for Obama or Romney where you only agree with say 10% to 20% That makes no sence at all !
I’m a committed non-voter, so this whole discussion is academic anyway. That said, true libertarians are about principle, not compromise for the sake of short-term –and usually elusive– political expediency. I shouldn’t have to repeat this, but principle is the whole point of the Ron Paul campaign – NOT his election to the White House. As I’ve said before here in response to other articles Tom has posted on this topic, and apparently need to state again: Ron Paul’s supporters aren’t interested in compromise, because there are no other candidates, especially not Gary Johnson, who have been consistently committed to ALL of the fundamental principles of liberty. Again, a Gary Johnson presidency will be committed ultimately to continuation of the very worst of the institutions that make up the predatory and all-powerful American state. Why would any libertarian want that, and how would America possibly benefit from four to eight years of it?
Than what’s your excuse for last time liberranter? In 2008, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin were both further from Paul then than Johnson is now. Ron Paul isn’t going to be on the ballot in November and states like TN and MA won’t even accept write-ins for President. There is only one way to dent the Republicrats and that’s Gary Johnson.
First of all, I have no idea what you mean by “last time.” If you’re referring to the 2008 presidential election and the LP’s inexcusable and pathetic handling of that event, that has nothing to do with me. As I mentioned in response to Raymond Agnew above, I’m a committed non-voter who shuns electoral politics on principle, so I had nothing to do with the outcome of the last round of quadrennial kingmaking. As an aside, as much as I support Ron Paul, even in the extraordinarily unlikely –indeed, otherworldly– event that he is miraculously elected president, without a sympathetic congress and an ethical, constitutionally grounded federal judiciary, he will be nothing but a powerless figurehead, and probably a very short-term one at that. Since the odds of a sympathetic congress or constitutionally ground judiciary emerging in support of a President Paul are even more remote than the chances of his being elected president in the first place, the whole scenario is a non-starter.
As far as your second point is concerned, let me see if I understand your “reasoning” correctly. You’re saying that more of the same weak or bad medicine that has had either no effect at all in the past, or that has made the patient sicker is the only thing that in absence of the proper cure will save the patient? I guess that’s the kind of “logic” one would expect from someone who considers the likes of Gary Johnson a reasonable alternative to a true defender of liberty.
Did you know that Gary Johnson actually did sign a bill to block internet pornography? https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/complaint-aclu-v-johnson-concerning-online-censorship-new-mexico and this is not talking about child pornography either and the ACLU took them to court. Still, I know all politicians can be shown to have voted for something that “appears” to be against principles. I don’t really care about pornography, I know though on basics this would be against the right to free speech. It’s just bringing in facts to the situation. Also, this was back in 1998 and “it seems there are mitigating circumstances.”