Politics

Two Heads Are Better Than One

|

The Simon and Garfunkel of libertarian-leaning politicians.

There's been some low-level sniping between some of the supporters of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the last couple of weeks. While part of that reflects bona fide policy disagreements, there is also a sense that libertarians who prefer one candidate are obliged to campaign against the other. But if last night's debate did anything, it settled the value of having two libertarian-leaning figures on the stage. When Paul's hardline libertarian moral defense of drug decriminalization was followed immediately by Johnson's consequentialist approach, the benefits of the Paul/Johnson duo became clear: Each guy got to make the arguments that the other one didn't, and the audience got to hear a broader case for a controversial position than the format allowed either man to offer by himself.

In the unlikely event that one of these candidates actually comes close to winning the nomination, their loyalists can duke it out. But for now, let them double-team all the authoritarians on the stage. Whether they mean to or not, they're helping each other.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

173 responses to “Two Heads Are Better Than One

  1. I welcome Johnson to the debate but he isn’t going to win any delegates.

  2. Paul Johnson.

    Sounds like a good name for a porn star.

    1. better: Peter O’Toole

      1. or Randy Johnson

          1. What about me?

            1. Phil McCracken

              1. Excuse me?

              2. Dick Turgidson

      2. Ooops.. you added an ‘e’ at the end by mistake.

  3. Of the two libertarian bookends last night, Paul came across better. If you want to somehow take that as an attack on the scattered, whining Johnson, so be it.

    1. I prefer Johnson and even I can admit he was not good last night. He was stuttering too much, and needed to explain more.

      1. I agree that Johnson, in his first Presidential debate ever, exhibited the same shortcomings (mannerisms, poor tone) that Ron Paul exhibited in 07. A per more debates and some coaching will round him out nicely.

        And, whiny or not, Johnson did in 5 minutes what Paul *never* did in 07 – he protested *successfully* against his being excluded from some question rounds.

        1. Paul still whines and stutters. I only saw part of the debate ( though I did see the great heroin part), but in the part I did see Paul stuttered and got off to terrible starts, took 3 attempts to spit out one word, and so on.

          So many Paul supporters seem completely blind to his faults. He has improved a lot, and he has the right message, but he is far from a great public speaker.

          Johnson’s whole demeanor seems week. Some people might want him to be the vibrant younger version of Ron Paul, but he doesn’t come off that way. For such an active guy he seems pretty low on energy.

          1. Paul did stutter, you are right about that, but he also came across as assertive and comfortable with himself, while the rest of the candidates gave off the walking on egg shells vibe.

          2. Paul doesn’t have Obama’s gift for oratory or Romney’s hair. When those become important to me, I’ll vote that way.

        2. eh, for some values of “success”. I support Johnson and agree that he came in a distant third behind Paul and Cain. (I would never vote for Cain, what with the fair tax and the CPAC ugliness)

        3. I’m not convinced Gary Johnson’s protest was successful. FAWK, all the questions, their order of present’n, and who they’d be directed at, were all decided in advance. And I actually suspect that to have been the case. In that case, it was just coincidental that a run of questions came up first that were scattered among 4 candidates, while the ones he got came later.

          Plus, he looked and sounded faggy throughout.

          I’m still glad he was there, though, for the exact reason our blogger-columnist laid out above.

          1. I must admit, though, that I’d’ve had trouble keeping my temper if I were asked the “TV show like Trump’s” question. I’d’ve probably answered, “I’m sorry, I came here to talk politics.” And then never have gotten another question from the m.c., unfortunately.

    2. 2011 Ron Paul has greatly improved his ability to articulate his views, compared to 2008 Ron Paul.

      In the 2008 nomination process, Paul seemed like the crazy uncle, and was easily pushed around by Team Red master debaters. This go around, he appears much more confident, and doesn’t seem like he’s going to put up with anyones shit.

      1. While Paul will not win the Republican nomination, I am certain that before this is over he will destroy the nomination bid of one of these “front-runners” with an exchange in one of these debates. Having him there makes these debates so much more interesting to watch.

        1. It’s always nice to have people who actually want to debate (rather than just make speeches) at debates.

      2. Considerasble improvement over 1988 too. I too think Ron Paul will wind up knocking out at least one, possibly 2 other candidates who are about even with or ahead of him in the polls. I’m hoping Herm Cain can do so too.

  4. Concur.

  5. Sadly, in terms of making a big, positive impression on the people who were watching, Herman Cain blew them both away.

    1. Or at least, that’s what Fox News’ focus group fabrication would have you believe.

      1. Ya, there are plenty of other articles saying that Paul won the debate. An “unscientific” poll on Fox News had Paul way out in front.

        1. Paul’s script kiddies wouldn’t have anything to do with that I’m sure. 🙂

          1. When you have the most actual supporters, you don’t have to write any scripts.

      2. Cain was clearly well prepared for the debate and coming from a radio show he’s had a long time to polish his delivery. He scored some pretty solid points – it was all rather programmed (he had three points for everything) but you can’t deny that he was effective with the masses.

  6. let them double-team all the authoritarians on the stage

    I know, right? It should be like shooting fish in a bucket.

  7. Pre-fucking-cisely.

  8. Johnson flopped: sorry, Cato — back to the drawing board. Sorry, Gary — go climb Mt. Everest again.

    “Low level sniping?” Well, “low” is one way to describe Shikhla Dalmia’s snotty condescending attack piece, which was posted on Johnson’s web site (and, naturally, here).

    1. You’re not helping.

      1. Go back to your blog that no one reads.

        1. That was meant for Raimondo.

          1. Montani was first, alarmed that he had a blog he didn’t know about, and second, that it was apparently terrible. 🙂

    2. You would know, Justin, you’re the master of snotty condescending attack pieces.

      1. My mean, vicious attack pieces are NEVER condescending.

        1. Heh.

        2. Nothing like combatting a charge of being condescending with some condescending caps usage.

    3. I completely agree, Justin.

    4. whoa there Justin Bieber. You do know that Dalmia is an employee of reason? And last I checked, Reason had about 20 puff pieces on Paul to about 4 on Johnson in the last few weeks.

    5. Christ, Justin. Reason publishes commentary on Paul several times a week, almost all of it positive, and you’re still convinced they’re part of a grand CATO conspiracy to sink the guy.

      In fact, I’m pretty sure I can name all the negative stories they’ve published on Paul in the last 5 years from memory. Here goes:

      — Shikhla Dalmia’s pro-Johnson article
      — The David Harsanyi hit piece from a while back (a shit article which never should’ve been run, I’ll give you that)
      — The Weigel/Sanchez story on the newsletters (questionable timing, but it was a subject worth discussing. And Paul didn’t come out of it looking too bad, unless you’re the hypersensitive type)

      Pretty thin gruel for a publication that supposedly wants to nail him to the wall.

  9. B team candidates, and it doesn’t matter who won

    1. What’s funny is that the guy the media is still touting as a big leaguer, Pawlenty, got blown away by all the B listers.

      He seems like a nice enough guy, but he’s more bland than tap water. He has zero chance of ever catching fire nationally.

      1. I don’t see how T-Paw recovers from his record on cap-and-trade, and his push for “green” jobs. The case Chris Wallace laid out was pretty scathing.

        1. You know, this maybe why T-Paw, ulike the other front-runners, wanted to participate in this debate. He can now say he had his apologize to the Republican base moment. If anyone brings this issue up again in the future, he can just say that he addressed it at the first Republican debate.

          I believe if there is something embarassing in your record, better to address it early and very directly, than to try to avoid the issue until it blows up in your face late in the contest.

      2. No way. Anyone who advertises their dot com site afterwards is clearly a douchey used car salesman…. Oh wait.

    2. Any republican candidate in the general would be an idiot to not pick Ron or Gary for the VP nod.

      B team or not (I will decide if you are right sometime in the first half of 2012) libertarianism is now mainstream.

      1. mainstream? Ya

      2. You’re assuming that Ron Paul would give up his House seat to be the VP running mate for whichever mainstream d-bag Republican wins the nomination.

        I’m guessing not.

  10. I donated a little bit to both of them today. I’d prefer Johnson as President, but I think Paul can get the message out better.

    1. So did I.

    2. I’ve been trying to donate to his campaign for 3 goddamn weeks and haven’t been able to get it to go through. I’ve just assumed that the most important part of his site didn’t work. Would have been about par for the libertarians with some potential course.

  11. Its one thing to hear a single person advocating a position, but as soon as you hear a second, suddenly the herd instinct cuts in and it starts sounding more plausible.

    Personally, I kind of like Johnson, perhaps because he’s sort of the opposite of the soundbite-laden blow-dried blowhards that we usually get in politics.

    1. Cain was the least ‘politician’ among them

    2. I liked when Johnson aggressively called Wallace out for not asking him questions.

    3. RC – agreed

  12. Somebody has sand in his vagina this morning.

  13. I feel like Johnson was soft-pedaling, afraid to make a gaffe that would completely doom his campaign. He clearly has in his mind that he might actually find a way to win this thing, and, frankly that is dooming him. When you are polling a 1% or less, you have to do or say something bold and brash, even if it turns off some people.

    Paul, on the other hand, at this point in his life has no qualm with stirring controversy, because he knows that he likely won’t win. Paul shows that libertarians are strongest when they call out Republicans on their rhetoric about liberty or free markets. The public responds when a libertarian exposes the veiled authoritarianism of a Republican, such as the heroin applause line.

    1. Actually, I think Paul states his case plainly not because he knows he won’t win, but because he isn’t afraid to lose.

      1. Fair enough and that’s basically what I’m saying. Johnson needs to just go in there with mindset of “even if I lose, I will go down swinging.” At 1% or less, it’s not like you can possibly poll much lower, so just go for it.

        1. …Or, let Paul be your swinging arm and channel votes by being the less crazy uncle. I’m not holding my breath, but this election could be surprising, and it certainly will be exciting.

  14. I’d like to believe we’re seeing a change, but it’ll take a bit longer. The douchoisie are still pimping Pawlenty and even Santorum.

    1. I read that Santorum piece this morning, it’s obvious that they were not watching the same debate that I was.

  15. I realize there is never time to go into detail in these debate, but I would like to see stressed the ungodly costs of the drug war, both monetarily and in terms of destroying the character of this country. We lock up more people than any other country on earth and the vast majority have never done anything to harm another person. It would seem the absurdity of it would be obvious to even the most obtuse. Of course, then you have the “society is the victim” crowd, for whom there is no hope.

    1. I agree. Paul or Johnson just needs to rhetorically ask the audience and the moderators “How many more people do you want to arrest for drugs, it was 1.6 million last year, how many more next year? How much more in taxes do you want to pay next year for prisons and swat teams? when will you people be satisfied with the drug war, at what level of incarceration will you be happy?”

      1. Yes. And I would also like to see them ask, “how much money are you willing to spend to save people from themselves?” Even if they get killed, it would mean a lot to just have someone stand up and make the argument.

        1. paul’s tactic was far better – subliminally suggesting that a vote against him on the drugs issue is an admission of personal weakness.

      2. How about them asking “How would it have helped this country if we had locked up Clinton, Bush and Obama for their drug use? If they could do drugs and become president then

        This example is going horribly wrong. Excuse me I need to rethink.

        1. That’s some grade-A internet snark right there!

  16. Question, unless Paul drops out and throws his support behind him, who votes for Johnson? I can’t see him peeling off many Ronulons. And if someone is of the disposition to support Johnson, why wouldn’t they already be supporting Paul?

    1. the argument would be: paul has a lot of baggage that prevents many R primary voters for pulling his lever. However, they may agree with many, if not most of his ideas. Were Johnson to run a credible operation he might be the alternative they turn to rather than going with Romney, etc.

      That said, Johnson needs coaching. Laid back may work in NM but he needs to be more forceful in stating his position and to draw differences between the others. Hard to do in allotted time but has to try.

      1. Combine Johnson and Cain. Cain was awesome. He was fearless. That is why Trump, even thought he is a circus freak, had gotten traction. People are angry and they want someone to fearlessly call bullshit. That is why people like Palin. Johnson is too tame and too boring for what is needed.

        1. Nothing like a good ol’ appeal to emotion, huh?

          Ya know, for a magazine called Reason……….

          1. It would be nice if the public made these decisions solely based on logic and reason, but we all know that isn’t true. 90% of the process today is based on emotion.

            Nothing is more deadly for modern politicians who aspire to the national stage than being boring, humorless, and uninteresting.

            1. Yeah. And it would be nice if Hell froze over.

              If RP could speak like Nigel Farage (UKIP), he’d win in a landslide.

      2. I cringed when Paul mentioned Israel and The Jews in America.

        1. Jew isn’t a bad word, except when it is. Remember, “to jew” is not a verb.

        2. I agree Gobbler. The way he vocalizes ‘Jeeeeeeeew’ reminds me of a lynching tree habitu

          1. Oh, cram it, you barmpot.

            1. Don’t be a berk, you bell ended little boy

          2. Works for me!

      3. paul has a lot of baggage that prevents many R primary voters for pulling his lever.

        Unlike Johnson Paul doesn’t support baby-killing! This is the fucking G…O…P PRIMARY.Being pro-choice is a whole baggage car full of “baggage”.

        1. Unless Obama has some serious primary challengers, then in primary states that don’t make it difficult to cross over (like NY, where you’d have to change registration over a year in advance), lots of Democrats will be voting in the GOP primaries.

    2. And if someone is of the disposition to support Johnson, why wouldn’t they already be supporting Paul?

      As someone who will vote for Johnson over Paul if that is the choice, the answer is: because Johnson is BETTER on more issues than Ron Paul. Why vote for the person who is with you 85% of the time over the one who is with you 95% of the time.

      Plus, Johnson physically sounds and looks better than Paul. Shallow as it seems, short and high-pitched is not a recipe for presidential electoral success. Yeah, Johnson needs to work on his debating skills, but that is teachable.

      Paul is my back-up choice for the primaries if Johnson has dropped out.

    3. Maybe it’s worth participating so that he looks promising for the VP slot?

  17. Pawlenty better knock off the robot arm movement that he learned at some Let’s imitate Clinton seminar he obviously attended. And he lost me on his non answer about how there should be room for intelligent design in the classroom. The obvious follow up question should have been, which class, science, literature, history or mythology? I was intrigued by the response of the fox focus group’s support of Cain, until they said second place was Insanetorum. Where did they get these people from? The bible study class that was cancelled because of the debate? Once again Paul shows the absurdity of the drug laws by asking Chris Wallace if he was going to run out and do heroin when it becomes legal. That was entertaining. The other absurdity of the mj debate was how the label is stuck on Johnson like a neon sign. He should just respond with, “It seems odd that a woman can legally have an abortion, and then an hour or so later at her home she lights up a joint and the SWAT goons bust in her door and arrest her for smoking it. Does anyone see the problem here?”

    1. Santorum is a major league douche but I thought he came across better last night than I’ve ever seen him do.

      1. I loathe Santorum. He should be the poster child for BiGOP statism. If he starts to gain any momentum, I hope that the voting public will be reminded of his many comments, criticizing individual liberty.

      2. That was his best?

        I just wanted to punch him.

      3. That is a low bar to clear. Santorum makes we glad I don’t own a shotgun, since then I would have to buy a new flat-screen TV after watching him for about ten seconds.

    2. You should never draw any conclusions from the results of a Frank Luntz focus group, unless those conclusions involve the uselessness of Frank Luntz focus groups.

      1. Say it with me: Fuck you Frank!

    3. GOP voter “They should both be illegal”

    4. I was intrigued by the response of the fox focus group’s support of Cain, until they said second place was Insanetorum. Where did they get these people from?

      Frank Luntz hired them from an extras casting agency. Fuck you, Frank!

      -jcr

  18. They were both good, but Paul induces far more passion

    Policy wise, I’m much closer to Johnson, but Paul just makes me want to jump out of my seat and holler hosannas.

  19. afraid to make a gaffe that would completely doom his campaign.

    Johnson’s campaign is doomed from the start.He should run anyways.

    1. I just wish hed run for senate – he actually was ahead in some polling – he could actualy win in NM, and i would love having him in the senate along with rand paul and maybe flake.

  20. I really appreciate Johnson’s statement that he was against all tariffs all the time – “you either believe in free markets, or you don’t” I believe he said.

    Sadly, I’d find it difficult to vote for someone with his views on abortion. There is nothing inconsistent about being libertarian and pro-life.

    1. Seriously? You’re a single-issue abortion voter?

    2. There is a third option. “Evictionism”.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM

    3. Abortion is low enough on my list of priorities that I will tune out that portion of any debate. Let’s see where they stand on other stuff.

    4. As important an issue as abortion is to me let’s be honest, even with pro-life presidents we haven’t really gotten anything done with the issue. Politicians go around touting their pro-life stance, but then do nothing once they have a chance. It seems to me that abortion has become almost a non-issue in US politics. Definitely not an issue to make you stand against Johnson due to.

      1. And that is a good point. If the other option was a pro-life candidate who wouldn’t get anything accomplished anyway, well…

    5. I’m pro-life, but I’d just like for Johnson to support the overturn of Roe v. Wade, with a Federalist argument.

      1. A president can tout his position as pro-life all he wants, but he’s not going to change the legal landscape with respect to abortion. The states are doing all the tinkering around the edges with regard to the regulation/legality of abortion – and they’re having to do so within the framework of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

  21. But for now, let them double-team all the authoritarians on the stage. Whether they mean to or not, [T]hey’re helping each other[the cause of liberty].

  22. That said, Johnson needs coaching.

    Sorry, but statements like this really piss me off, because it immediately conjures up images of people like David Axelrod and James Carville.

    Fuck the Industrialized Candidacy mob.

    And- you know who else “needed coaching”?

    1. Michael Vick?

      1. The Gipper?

    2. That raises something that has been disturbing me for a while. Leaving aside Hitler’s total evil for a moment, he did go from convict to leader pretty quickly. Do you think political operatives in the major parties intentionally do some of the same things Hitler did to gain/regain power? I’m not talking about the goon squads, necessarily, just political tactics.

      I recall when reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich thinking that some of the Nazis political games were being repeated here. Could just be a coincidence as campaigns in republics do have some necessary similarities.

      1. Does everything have to be about Hitler, Pro L?

        1. As a discussion goes on, the probability that it becomes about Hitler approaches 1.

          So yes. Everything is about Hitler.

          1. Really? Do you think that happens when ladies are dicussing needlepoint?

        2. No, this is an off-topic thought. Do political operatives incorporate Nazi tactics into their campaigns? I think the answer is likely yes, though I also concede that not everything is bad simply because the Nazis did it. For instance, Nazis likely ate food.

          1. LIAR!!!

            1. They also propagated the species.

      2. Politicians do politics. What sorts of things did the Nazis do that were unusual for politics?

    3. Lindsey Lohan?

    4. Somalia?

      1. Roads. Roads need coaching.

      1. No amount of coaching could have saved that train wreck.

  23. Johnson’s record as governor blows away Pawlenty’s, and he outperformed him in the debate, but I think Paul, Cain, and Santorum were all much better. Johnson needs to stop fidgeting so much.

  24. Johnson had the poise of a 17 year old trying to figure out when to come out of the closet.

    1. Johnson had the poise of a 17 year old MIT graduate trying to figure out when to come out of the closet.

      1. Johnson had the poise of of a 17 year old MIT graduate trying to figure out how to tell his parents he’s gay and his gay friends he’s a republican.

      2. I don’t think somebody with Assburgers would care if anybody knew he gay or not.

    2. Why should Johnson come out of the closet? He already has the swishitarian vote all wrapped up. Reading Hit & Run should tell you all about that.

  25. I couldn’t believe anyone thought Cain won after all that evading on foreign policy.

    Then this morning apparently Fox news declared Santorum the winner? Really? The only thing memorable from him was his completely wrong morality BS.

    1. The MSM is clinging to the idea that they are still the kingmaker in these elections. The question remains whether the voting public will let them.

      1. The MSM don’t have the idea of being kingmakers, but of being king predicters.

    2. Cain isn’t “evading” on foreign policy. He is admitting he doesn’t know that much about it. There is a refreshing honesty in that but it doesn’t bode well for his long term prospects.Cain is running for CEO. Other guys get paid to do the foreign policy stuff and present it to him to make decisions.

  26. It’s amazing the lengths our fair media goes to marginalize anything resembling libertarianism. The Paulistas are out in force and they’re trying to tell me that vague sweeping gestures from Cain and socon morality from Santorum are more popular than liberty?

    Fuck that. But why so hostile to the idea that maybe the government shouldn’t control us? Is it out of fear or is protecting libertry really that kooky childish idea everyone says it is?

    1. “But why so hostile to the idea that maybe the government shouldn’t control us?”

      I’ve found that those who are hostile to limiting government often use the pronoun “we” when referring to it.

      “Is it out of fear or is protecting libertry really that kooky childish idea everyone says it is?”

      I think it is more out of contempt for the common man. They feel the average individual is too stupid to make certain choices for themselves, and that those choices should be imposed upon them by government.
      Yet at the same time these same people will clamor in favor of majority rule.
      Individuals are too stupid to make their own choices, but groups of those same stupid individuals have the right to impose their will upon others.
      Cognitive dissonance rules!

      1. Individuals are too stupid to make their own choices, but groups of those same stupid individuals have the right to impose their will upon others.

        Cognitive dissonance rules!

        That’s not cognitive dissonance. The idea is that in a population there are outliers, but if you add up all the vectors the outliers cancel out. Democracy is believed to be the process of summing the vectors.

        1. Yep. Like how 9 out of 10 gang rapists can cover that outlier.

    2. All isms are marginalized, and not by the media. In fact, to some extent the media exaggerate what influence isms have. Aside from that, the media just reflect what’s out there because they don’t want to appear stupid and/or irrelevant.

  27. Exactly what can they help each other to do, Jesse? What difference does it make whether two inevitable losers fight and bicker or cooperate? The only people who believe in these clowns are the ones who are stupid enough to send donations to Reason, and we both know that won’t put anybody over the top.

    1. So you’re calling for a Revolution…

  28. None of this matters. This country is full of dumb fucks, so the sack of shit with big ears will carry on.

    1. Right, Paultards are the smart ones.

      1. Compared to the progressive shitstains who continue to climb over each for the opportunity to lap at Obama’s taint?

        Fuck yes, they are.

        1. You’re a fucking dimwit.

          1. Well, Max, I’ll raise your fucking dimwit, and point out the obvious. You are a chlamydia-infused shitcunt.

      2. “”Right, Paultards are the smart ones.””

        Anyone who uses tard that way shouldn’t use smart in the same sentence, or perhaps at all.

      3. We make no claims beyond the ability to perceive the obvious. Of course, it’s obvious than just about anyone looks like a genius compared to you.

        -jcr

    2. This. As a group voters are stupid and have short memories. The doom continues apace.

  29. lol, Those pompous windbags jsut look corrupt as the day is long lol.

    http://www.anon-toolz.at.tc

  30. Forget your pipe dreams of defeating the duopoly. We own you and we always will.

  31. Johnson and Paul: good cop, bad cop. One more cop and we’d really get somewhere with the herd. Easy to mock or marginalize a minority opinion.

    1. More like goofy clown, goofier clown

      1. That would be Max and Edwin

  32. Gary Johnson has my vote…badass!

  33. In 2008, with only one libertarian on the stage, the authoritarian candidates were successfully able to marginalize Paul’s views and make him seem like a crazy person to the general audience.

    Now with two libertarians making the same arguments on the same stage, the views inherently appear less crazy to people and the rest of the candidates can’t as easily excuse them as nutcases.

    1. Not only that, the conventional candidates look like complete assholes when they try their standard evasion and blathering on a stage next to two men of integrity.

      -jcr

  34. Only one candidate for 2012 has proven that he knows how to solve problems and fix things.

    Herman Cain! He answers questions in a direct, simple manner. He understands how to solve problems – by DEFINING the problem, determining ways to solve it, seeking experts, and then FIXING it.

    Herman Cain 2012! The sun is shining on America again!

    1. Top. men.

    2. Herman Cain sounds like the name of some shitty inner-city principal who likes to diddle 12 year old asian girls (or boys, he can’t tell the difference). If only his first name was Dirk, he could become an 80s action hero.

  35. I would vote for a Paul/Johnson ticket in a heartbeat.

  36. I can see only one problem going forward. If Johnson is unable to poll higher than 1%, they’ll quickly try to exclude him from the debates, leaving us back where we were in 2008. Thus, the benefit of two libertarians would be squandered. He’ll need a much better performance in June to stay alive.

  37. It seems to me that Paul is setting out to make his last great libertarian stand, but in doing so, he’s making Johnson look like a moderate. Anything short of legalized heroin makes Johnson’s pro pot argument look radical. It makes immediately attainable libertarianism possible because of the way the argument is framed.

    Paul’s view is arguably more libertarian, but it isn’t politically possible. He is just re-framing the debate

  38. 3rd Parties and Independents need to combine forces and have a Consolidated Presidential Nominating Convention to nominate a quality ticket in the light that neither the GOP nor the DNC will nominate a ticket that can seriously turn this country around. Remember the Rally for the Republic? Something similar could provide Americans a real choice in the General Election. What if your primary choices were Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jesse Ventura, Chuck Baldwin, etc.

  39. I disagree with Dr. Paul and Governor Johnson on one issue each. I’d be happy to see either a Paul/Johnson or a Johnson/Paul ticket in the general election, though.

    -jcr

  40. 4 libertarians are better than 2

  41. After the debate, I’m fine with Johnson pretending to run for the next few months, but he needs to drop out and endorse Ron Paul before the actual voting starts. Look at the polls. Ron Paul is a major candidate and has the best chance of any Republican against Obama. He is also the best-funded candidate in the field. Johnson needs to step aside eventually and let Ron Paul win. If he refuses to get out of Ron Paul’s way, then he is the single greatest threat to the victory of libertarianism and is worthy of the unending enmity of all true libertarians.

  42. They should both stay in through at least the first primary or caucus, or maybe the 2nd. Again, much easier to marginalize just one lib opinion

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.