Gary Johnson Campaign Responds to Jesse Benton's Claim That There's "No Chance" of a Ron Paul Endorsement

During a conference call with reporters yesterday, Jesse Benton of the Ron Paul campaign said there was "no chance" of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) endorsing former two-term New Mexico governor and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson. 

From Brian Doherty's report: 

While Benton refuses to say Paul will endorse Romney, he believes that "if our ideas are embraced and treated with respect, I think the GOP has a very good change to pick up a substantial number of votes" from Paul people. "If we are treated like in '08, then I think a lot of people will stay home or sit on their hands." Agreed, though I think it will be very hard for a Romney like the Romney of today to pick up many Paul fan votes. The vote is not like matter that can neither be created nor destroyed; Paul invented his vote and without him I think a majority of it will disappear in November.

Benton says there is "no chance" of an endorsement of Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.

Johnson endorsed Ron Paul in 2008. The press release announcing Johnson's endorsement was titled "'Veto Johnson' endorses 'Dr. No' for president," and was distributed by Jesse Benton. Reason reached out to the Johnson campaign this morning for a response to Benton's announcement. They sent us a statement from Ron Nielson, Johnson's senior advisor: 

"Continuing and growing the Ron Paul revolution is not about endorsements.  It is about making sure civil liberties, non-intervention and a real commitment to smaller government are in the national conversation, and they will not be if the conversation is only between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  While Governor Johnson would obviously like to have Congressman Paul's endorsement, we have not asked for it, nor do we expect it.  Ron Paul has an important role to play in the Republican Party in the months ahead, and Governor Johnson has an important role to play in offering voters a third choice in November.

"We are confident that Governor Johnson will successfully appeal to Ron Paul voters on the basis of shared values and his position as the only proven proponent of constitutionally-based smaller government and an anti-war foreign policy based on non-intervention."

More coverage of the Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson, and Ron Paul. 

Comments

[ClubMedSux]

That was a pretty even-handed and respectful response from the Johnson campaign, though I would've preferred the truthful response of, "We don't expect Ron Paul to endorse a non-Republican because he's trying to set up his son and doesn't want to fuck things up."

[Joe M]

Props to the Johnson campaign for a very diplomatic response. I think he understands the dynamics here pretty well. If he's truly an advocate for liberty, and not just an attention whore, he doesn't have to be the only star in the sky. Rand Paul is on deck, and sabotaging his chances won't help anything.

[Magiccatphoto]

Nicely said and agreed..

[tampydampy]

Looks like those dudes are all about having fun, at others expense lol.

http://www.Privacy-Rules.tk

[Hyperion]

Well he can't endorse Romney.

I would like to see him endorse Johnson.

All of the speculation about Rand Paul running for POTUS as the R candidate in 2016, I just don't see it. I see him running, but not making much impact at all, let alone getting the nomination. I like Rand, but he is not his dad, and I don't think he has any chance of ever becoming POTUS. He just doesn't have the cult of personality that Ron has and he also lacks any type of charisma that would replace that.

I myself, like Johnson and his choice for VP. If Paul is not the R candidate, which he obviously will not be, Johnson has my vote.

[Joe M]

Well, it might be 2020, which would be a lot cooler for an ophthalmologist.

"Rand Paul has the 2020 vision!"

[ClubMedSux]

I'll take Rand over most other Republicans, but he's hardly anybody I get excited over. And perhaps more significantly, he has very limited appeal to the independent quasi-liberal quasi-libertarians that I think a guy like Gary Johnson can more effectively attract. At a time when the Republicans are scaring off everybody with their out-of-date social conservatism, I'm just not sure that a guy who still caters to social cons can further the cause of liberty long-term.

[shelleyjr]

"Well he can't endorse Romney." That is what I think too. But in an article on the Daily Caller it says, "Benton said Romney will still have to work hard if he wants the votes of Paul's supporters."

IF RP does support Romney then it is all about helping his son and not about the message.

So Ron Paul supporters are going to vote for Romney if agreements can be made? Maybe for some but not for me thank you very much.

I am from NM and will vote for Gary Johnson again. It's a no brainer.

[Hyperion]

I don't know any Libertarians that will vote for Romney. The one exception might be if Paul were the VP nom. Otherwise, no way.

[RockCod]

Unfortunately I think a lot of Paul supporters are falling for the "anyone but Obama" rhetoric that the neocons have been putting out, and will hold their noses and vote for Romney.

[lovingliberty]

Just because Rand Paul doesn't have a cult of personality, doesn't mean he can't be the Republican presidential nominee. In fact, that will probably make him more likely to be the Republican presidential nominee. Ron Paul's support was principally focused in a few certain Democrat-leaning or swing states - namely Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Indiana, Connecticut, Washington and Vermont. The only Southern state Ron performed very well in was Louisiana (most likely because of Ron's congressional district bordering Louisiana).

Rand Paul on the other hand has very strong support in the South. He can easily get the conservative Evangelical and Southern Baptist vote across the South and lower Midwest and perform very well in pretty much all the states that Santorum and Gingrich won. Rand has a lot of support from leaders affiliated with the "religious right".

Combining good performance in traditional "Ron Paul states" with equally good performance in very socially conservative states is sure to result in success for Rand. Expect Rand to come second at least in the primaries.

Expect Rand to be competing against Rick Perry or Bobby Jindal (one or the other will run), Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty, possibly Marco Rubio and maybe Paul Ryan. The field will still be MUCH stronger than it was this year. However, I'm fairly confident Rand Paul can perform very well when combining the delegate strategy with his high polling.

[JEP]

Wow, it's almost like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson aren't in the race for themselves, but are running in order to promote a cause that goes beyond personal achievement. Crazy.

[Proprietist]

If Ron Paul won't endorse a fellow libertarian who has spoken nothing but kind words about Paul and endorsed him in 2008, that tells me Paul is actually in it for himself.

Of course, many of us will lose a significant amount of respect for him if he endorses Romney for a relatively meaningless speaking position at the convention, instead of endorsing an actual libertarian.

[Emmerson Biggins]

He is in it to take over, or transform, or reclaim the Republican Party. If you think that's stupid, ineffectual or misguided, fine. But when you cast aspersions about his motivations, you are just being a dick about it because some anti-anti-cosmotarian hangup that you can't get over.

[Kaptious Kristen]

Ron Paul is going to be pressured to endorse someone. If it's Romney, then he (Paul) can get fucked. I hope it's either Johnson or nobody.

[Hyperion]

He CANNOT endorse Romney. Romney is everything that Libertarians despise. RPs supporters would be livid. I know that I would.

[Joe M]

There's no way that will happen, unless Romney undergoes some crazy philosophical conversion in the next few months.

[Hyperion]

You mean, if he does a flip flop? That would be totally believable...

[Joe M]

He only flip flops on insignificant "boutique" issues.

[deified]

abortion?

[RockCod]

Abortion, gay marriage and who's more Jesus-y seem to be the insignificant issues that neocons care about.

[ReformRealist]

Gary Johnson has a great shot at being the most successful third party candidate in a while and the most successful Libertarian presidential candidate ever.

As such I feel it would be a wasted opportunity if he did not make electoral reform a central issue. Plurality voting is one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, we have a two-party system. I don't see how arguing for something like approval voting would hurt him at the polls. On the contrary, I think he could expand his support that way.

Gary Johnson probably won't win, but he can build momentum for not just liberatarian ideas, but also ideas on how to fix our flawed voting system.

[Hyperion]

Agreed with Johnson having a good chance at being a highly successful 3rd party option. If he could pull off 20%+, I would say that is highly successful.

One thing that is really bothering me is this IMO stupid talk of Libertarians staying home if RP does not get the nominiation. That is the worst possible thing that any L can do. We need to get out and vote for the Libertarian guy if we ever want to accomplish anything.

[Joe M]

20% would be beyond phenomenal. No non-duopoly candidate has received that much in a hundred years, and that was Teddy Roosevelt. I'm hoping for 5%.

[Hyperion]

I thought that Ross Perot got more than that, I thought it was over 20%?

[Iamtheeviltwin]

Perot's biggest support was in Kansas at 19% if I recall correctly. Nationwide he did around 10% during his first run.

[Hyperion]

From Wikpedia:

In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote, approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election

[Hyperion]

Also, I don't think that 5% will accomplish anything for us. If we all go to vote for Johnson, I believe that he will top 15%, which will be what it takes to shake up the establishment. If RP would endorse him, I really believe that he can do it.

[ReformRealist]

If Ron is really concerned about Rand's future then I think he could kind of make a quasi-endorsement of Gary Johnson just by speaking highly of him.

In any case, the key is getting to the debates. If Johnson can get to the debates then who knows what he could get. It's an uphill battle, but it is possible.

[shelleyjr]

I agree that Gary needs to get into the debates. I contacted 5 national polling companies asking them to include Gary Johnson in all future Presidential polls. If he can get his poll numbers up to 15% nationally then he can debate Obamney in October. If you are a Gary Johnson supporter please contact the national polling companies and ask that Gary be included. The American people should have more choices than 2.

[ReformRealist]

What's key though is bulding momentum because we've had guys like Perot(not saying I supported him) before who have been successful in terms of popular support initially, but never translate that into any kind of progress over time.

This is why a discussion about electoral reform is essential. Most Libertarian congressional candidates simply don't have the clout to compete and the only way that will change is if our voting system is changed. Whoever is the main third party candidate in any election cycle should make this a central issue.

Could Obama honestly proclaim himself to be an agent of change at a debate if Gary Johnson is there arguing for electoral reform in order to make the system more fair? He would look foolish to many no doubt.

[Flex Nasty B.I.G.]

I'm getting pretty pissed at Ron Paul over this. It seems like he's lost a lot of the humility he used to have, and is starting to get a little too comfortable with the being-popular and having-a-family-legacy-in-the-senate things.

The right thing for the "liberty movement" is for RP to pass the torch to GJ. However, family ties apparently are more important to RP.

Fuck Rand Paul, I won't ever vote for him.

[Joe M]

Maybe. But I think that the elder Paul still feels the burn from his failed LP candidacy in 1988, and knows what a pain it is to run third party. I think he truly believes it will be easier to take over one of the major parties than to start from scratch more or less, as Johnson is.

[ReformRealist]

The ideological landscape has changed since 1988 and Ron Paul himself had something to do with that. He is way more popular now then he was then.

[shelleyjr]

From what I read the LP is the fastest growing 3rd party. There is also a large number of people registering Independent. If the trend continues then just maybe the LP will be a major player in the future.

I don't know if RP's approach of changing the republican party from the inside will work. It is hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

If the increase of registered Indy's is an indication that people are tired of the 2 party duopoly then the LP might be the change they are looking for?

LP as Gary says takes the best from the Dems and the Reps. In fact, on Garys' second term as governor he won by a large margin because the Dems voted for him!

[Hyperion]

The thing is, this, IMHO:

Ron Paul is firmly in the camp that believes the best opporutunity for the Libertarians is from inside the Republican party. He has been in that camp for a long time. I myself was firmly in that camp only a year ago, but now I have one foot in that camp and one in the jump the sinking R ship camp.

[Azathoth!!]

And he's right to be where he is--watch as he confers with the Libertarian caucus in Congress....what? There isn't one?

What a shock!

The fact is, the only libertarianesque structures in the federal government are run by Republicans--and they're few and far between.

Know why?

Because liberaltarians maintain the Libertarian Party to keep the house divided against itself. Keeping libertarians from taking over the GOP ensures that libertarian ideas are forever a minority--and serious opponents of statism only rarely get into the GOP.

And whatever vestiges of non-statist freedom and liberty remain in this country rot on the vine.

Libertarians are to the 'right' of Republicans. There's nothing wrong with that. Far right-- extreme individualism, far left--extreme statism. The two never meet in some weird form of totalitarianism--ALL totalitarianism is leftist--be it communist, socialist, or theocratic.

The only way forward is to take over the GOP.

[Hyperion]

I don't agree with you. If the Rs continue to resist Libertarian ideals, then there must be a 3rd major party. That will be us.

totalitarianism--ALL totalitarianism is leftist

Then the Republican party is full of leftists much more so than they have Libertarians. See:

Lindsey Graham
John McCain
Joe Lieberman

Ok, Lieberman is not an R, but I had to include him for extra effect...

Never has there existed in this country, in any party, bigger adversaries of liberty or bigger supporters of tyranny than the 3 aforementioned jackwagons.

[Azathoth!!]

Yes, the Republican party is full of statists, but as Proprietist notes, it's only 90%--whereas the Democrats are at 100%.

And the LP? Probably at about 70%--definately over 50% to keep the 'third party' jabbering going on.

[Proprietist]

???

Libertarians don't take over the GOP because the GOP is 90% non-libertarian and there aren't enough already-converted libertarians in America to overcome that. I've long supported starting a new moderate libertarian party without the anarchocapitalist history like the LP, or perhaps taking over the shell of the Reform Party.

But the picks of both Barr [while not really satisfactory per se] and Johnson indicate that the LP is attempting to move in the direction of political realism, IMHO largely thanks to the Libertarian Reform Caucus we started to ditch the old radical platform and urge the party to get away from Badnarik-type candidates.

[Hyperion]

a new moderate libertarian party

Err, the moment I hear that word, moderate, when related to politicis, it immediately sets off my skeptical alarm.

Why? Because most of the time anyone utters that word it means one of 2 things.

If a politician is saying it, it means they don't really stand for anything or have any hard opinions on any issues, but rather that they will evolve, barf, on the issue depending on how many votes it might get them.

When a voter says it, it means they are sliding more leftward, and they will nearly always be using it in conjunction with the phrase 'right wing extremists'.

To that I say, fuck moderate. The reason I am Libertarian is that I support the following:

Smaller and less intrusive government.

Following of the constitution and respect for civil liberties for ALL citizens.

End the WOD.

End foreign military campaigns of aggression.

There are more, but those are the top issues. Anyone don't support that, they are not getting my vote. If they start using the words moderate or it's for the children, then I am immediately skeptical.

[Proprietist]

By "moderate" I mean more along the lines of incrementalist and within the realm of political reality - the stances that are libertarian, but can also actually win elections move us in the right direction. Not biting off more than we can chew, as the LP has doing since it started.

It's kind of like the Johnson campaign:
- advocating for legalizing weed but not necessarily for selling heroin at the 7-11 next door.
- advocating for a 43% Federal government cut vs. advocating for hardly any government at all
- avoiding issues like child porn, private ownership of nukes, etc. that probably won't win a democratic election in a million years
- focus on issues that appeal to independents, like electoral reform
- float the neutrality option - it sounds friendlier and more open than isolationism and still affirms a strong military.

[hk]

Stop calling it isolationism for one, we are not going to put tariffs on anyone.

Non-interventionism is the appropriate term.

[Proprietist]

I don't personally call it "isolationism" - I was using that in the context of how the media brands Ron Paul. And non-interventionism is inaccurate too, as we would intervene if a nation harmed us. Neutrality works for both practical and rhetorical purposes.

[hk]

People already own dangerous bombs, and if they do anything crazy the police will catch them, don't worry.

Don't fear crazy people, they'll get apprehended and there are less than you think.

Also anarchocapitalists don't believe in violence or anything crazy like that. They just want to move into a government-free area, at some very distant point in the future.

[hk]

Walter Block is an anarcho-Capitalist but is willing to vote for Ron Paul. I think most people find minarchy reasonable, as do I.

[Proprietist]

"People already own dangerous bombs"

That's not an argument that a political party needs to flaunt support for their right to do so, especially one serious about winning elections. The LP was long a philosophical exercise.

"Also anarchocapitalists don't believe in violence"

Even if anarchocapitalists could prove and guarantee a peaceful wonderland it doesn't matter in the context of elections and appealing to a plurality of voters. Anarchocapitalism will probably never win a democratic election (or even come close) except in an invented micronation.

[ReformRealist]

I haven't heard him talk about electoral reform much if at all. As I said it would be a mistake not to.

[mattl]

Hows that working for you. Bob Barr less then 1% GJ polling at 7% Paul polled at 18% as a third-party candidate. Ron Paul is a libertarian GJ is not. If Gary would just run as libertarian he would be closer to 18% and have my and other RP people support.

[Hyperion]

Why is GJ not Libertarian?

[Proprietist]

"Ron Paul is a libertarian GJ is not."

Funny, because I've argued Ron Paul is no libertarian if he believes the 10th Amendment really supercedes the 14th Amendment, and believes the Federal courts should not extend protections from state laws on issues like sodomy (Lawrence) and state theft of private property (Kelo). He's a selective Constitutionalist.

But he'd still have my vote over almost all the other politicians.

I'm not understanding why GJ would be unacceptable for any libertarian, even if he won't deliver a perfect libertarian-constitutionalist end-State.

[sloopyinca]

At the LP convention, Johnson took pains to reach out to the Ron Paul supporters, and to standing ovations. Their politics are mostly aligned, so it made perfect sense.

If Paul doesn't return the favor, it will be apparent that his main concern is helping his son, not helping his country and libertarianism. I will be sorely disappointed if Paul endorses anybody other than Johnson, barring him getting the GOP nod for President or VP, which could still happen from the floor of the convention.

And if the LP gets his support, it will enable them to get federally matching funds for 2016, enabling them to run a stronger campaign after (likely) 8 years of Team Blue fucking up everything in the executive branch. It would be the perfect opportunity to actually win the WH. That opportunity rests almost solely on Ron Paul's shoulders. I hope he does the right thing.

[Hyperion]

It would be really smart of Romney to choose RP as his running mate. He has virtually nothing to lose by it. The ABO crowd is still going to vote for him and he could pick up a lot of RP supporters. This may be the only way he can defeat the O.

The problem is that the old school establishment still firmly entrenched in the R party would totally freak out, it will never be allowed.

I believe the VP choice will be Rubio because the Rs believe it will give them some of the Hispanic vote. And Rubio is shaping up to be a real neo-con. The only alternative might be if Romney can find a non-white gay female Hispanic neo-con as his running mate.

[NoTalentAssclown]

I think Paul knows that alot of his voters are gonna either go for Johnson or stay home. Endorsement or not, I think most RP supporters know that the only liberty candidate left would be Johnson.

I think RP is just going to sit out and not endorse anybody unless he gets HUGE concessions from Romney on policy issues or a cabinet position.

[sloopyinca]

I think RP is just going to sit out and not endorse anybody unless he gets HUGE concessions from Romney on policy issues or a cabinet position.

Talk is cheap and Paul knows it. "Concessions" are window dressing, especially when they are obvious lies. Why would Romney change his core beliefs this late in the game to get an endorsement of somebody he beat? And even if he did, how could Paul trust the man to live up to them? They'd be counter to the way he governed and to his campaign promises.

And as far as a cabinet position, why would he take that? He would still be taking orders from the guy he completely disagrees with on the only cabinet position that would make sense (Treasury). He would be surrounded by people whose politics are against his and he would have no free reign to do what was needed.

He either endorses Johnson or he sits it out and silently pushes Johnson by continuing his campaign for liberty through the election while making sure he tells people not to vote for him but for a liberty-minded candidate that is on the ballot. Anything else will be selling out to Team Red.

[BakedPenguin]

Why would Romney change his core beliefs this late in the game...

Did you mean obtain some core beliefs? A weather vane has none.

[crazyfingers]

It's not just Rand's future that RP is concerned with, but also the thousands of others that have gotten involved with the GOP at his urging.

[sloopyinca]

Why would he concern himself with Rand's future when Rand's politics aren't a lot closer to Ron's than a lot of other run-of-the-mill Team Red pols? Is he concerned with liberty or dynasty? I don't think he can have both.

And did anybody read Rand Paul's speech at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition the other day? Straight SoCon boilerplate.

[Voros McCracken]

I think you're being a bit unfair to Rand Paul.

One of the interesting things I've noticed about him is that the main difference from his dad is the ability to lie to Republicans about what he really thinks when it suits him politically.

Rand Paul ran as a much more conventional Republican than his father and still gives speeches along those lines. But he's _voted_ pretty much exactly like his Dad. Rand Paul the candidate would have enthusiastically voted for the NDAA and as a Senator he voted against it and trashed it with a speech from the floor.

We've seen this behavior before, but usually it's a reverse situation where fiscal discipline (Paul Ryan) or civil liberties (Obama) are talked up in the media, and then abandoned in practice.

So should libertarians approve of it when it works in their favor? Yes or no?

[sloopyinca]

I have a hard time supporting someone whose values are ever in doubt. Even in a pol, the best policy is to always be open and honest. And it's getting rarer and rarer, but it's still the right way to be.

I'm tired of hearing the words "nuanced", "pragmatic" and "evolving" from a complicit media. Guessing what someone's stances really are after hearing them spin around an issue or flat-out lie about one is a game I want no part in playing.

[Emmerson Biggins]

I don't have a problem with point of view. But I don't know. If the only way to get freedom is to pander to morons, I'm not so sure I can blame anybody for pandering.

[LibertarianAmazon]

Ron Paul is against abortion, but he would abort all his principles if he supported Romney.

[Romulus Augustus]

Gary Johnson needs to make a strong, well-reasoned appeal to RP supporters.
One theme should be: "If I do really well, then that demonstration of libertarian votes will help Rand Paul be taken seriously by the GOP. If I fail to get any significant number of votes, then the GOP will feel free to dismiss Rand Paul." The best way to help Rand Paul is to vote for Gary Johnson in 2012. If and when Johnson makes this statement, we need to get it out through social media to all the Ron Paul supporters in their meetup groups, etc.

[Azathoth!!]

"The best way to help Rand Paul is to vote for Gary Johnson in 2012"

No, it isn't. Rand Paul is a Republican--like his father, he's trying to tear apart the statist monster that has eaten ALL our political parties(yes, that includes the LP) Gary Johnson is part of the problem--because he jumped ship AFTER having run as a Republican.

There is no one good to vote for in this election. No one. This will be an election for the purpose of removing someone--and nothing more. 2016 is what's important now.

[Hyperion]

So we should just all vote for Obama or Romney, or stay home instead of having a better choice in Johnson? WTF?

[Azathoth!!]

There are no good choices. None. Voting for Romney is not a thing I'd ever advocate.

The sheep will give my state to Romney which will allow me hands as clean as Pilate's.

Johnson is irrelevant. The LP is irrelevant. As it's members unabashed support for Republicans makes plain.

2016 is the election to focus on.

[Hyperion]

Johnson is irrelevant. The LP is irrelevant. As it's members unabashed support for Republicans makes plain.

Geez, Azathoth, if the majority of Libertarians think that way, then we are irrelevant. Fortunately, I don't believe that they do. I know that I don't, and I will be voting for GJ if Paul is not the R nominee.

[Proprietist]

If Johnson had stuck around, he would have likely divided the votes Paul ended up getting, diminishing the credibility of the libertarian movement in the GOP. You should be glad he left.

[Hyperion]

Agree. Now Paul should get behind Johnson, once the convention is over of course.

[FSBA]

Since Rand was elected he's said publicly he's for arresting people who go to listen to "Muslim extremists", ankle monitoring all exchange students from the Middle East, and that states should have anti-sodomy laws. Just the guy I want carrying the torch of libertarianism.

[jeffersonish]

It makes no sense for Ron Paul to endorse anybody in this race for various reasons. I could see him POSSIBLY endorsing Mitt IF some major consideration was offered, but I don't see that happening.

My voting strategy is Ron Paul in the primary, and either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in the general depending on who is on the ballot. In the end, I think MOST supporters of either of these candidates is a thinking person who isn't going to put a lot of stock in endorsements.

[Hyperion]

Totally agree, except for that I think it makes sense for Paul to endorse Johnson when he is the only liberty minded candidate left to vote for. If Romney comes out in favor of any Paulish positions, it will be total BS, I will never believe anything he says until he proves it. I won't hold my breath.

[Proprietist]

Gary's polling 7% nationally, which is great for a third party candidate few have heard of. And more importantly than the %, Gary Johnson has the chance to actually WIN states like New Mexico, Maine, etc.

Gary Johnson puts about 40 states in play that wouldn't be if the choices were Romney and Obama. Therefore, all polls should include him if they want accurate results.

[Hyperion]

Imagine what 7% could turn into if he gets into the telivised debates and gets the support of RP supporters.

[crazyfingers]

http://publicpolicypolling.blo.....ident.html

Bob Barr was polling 6% around this time last cycle. These early polls don't mean anything. Sadly the 'wasted vote syndrome' kicks in hard, even in deep blue and deep red states where it really should not.

[Proprietist]

There needs to definitely be a coordinated effort to get Johnson in the polls. They should permanently include any candidate that attracts more in any one state than the national margin of difference between Romney and Obama.

Of course, most pollsters are ideological and want to guide the national dialogue, not to allow voters to see all the options available.

[mattl]

I gave Gary alot of props when he was a republican. Now he is running as a libertarian and he is not as libertarian as one of the republican candidates for president. This candidate got more votes in the 2008 republican primary then any libertarian candidate has gotten.He will double that vote count this time around. Look on GJ web site and you will see why paulbots like myself can't get behind him. Issue 1 the fed. GJ now supports what almost every republican supports an audit. Nothing about free market currency. Nothing about ending the feds monopoly on money. Issue 2 only going to war with declaration from congress. Now in GJs defense he does say something vague about only going to war via constitution. But after two interviews where GJ seems to be unclear about what that means. To recap 2 things GJ needs to say at every stump speech and needs to change his web site to state: 1) Legal tender laws need to be removed, tax must be removed from gold and silver 2) Will only go to war with a declaration of war from congress. The only way he will get my support and alot of rp people. Otherwise this Rothbardian will not vote, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth anyway.

[Brandybuck]

So it appears that Ron Paul will once again endorse the whichever rabid social conservative the Constitution Party puts on the ballot.

[Hyperion]

Which one did he endorse last time?

[Proprietist]

Chuck Baldwin.

[Lucas]

The new Libertarian platform is the most positive political change I have seen in a long time, simple, concise and MODERATE. In have been waiting a long time for this to happen, am finally ready to support it. Ron Paul has done an excellent job of bringing the core of Libertarian ideas to the national stage. But Ron Paul is a Republican. His position on abortion will keep many many people who agree the rest of his ideas from voting for him or embracing Libertarian ideas. Gary Johnson has so far done a great job of staying away from the polarizing issues, most of which have nothing to do with the job of President, and I hope he continues this way. There are millions of moderate, independent, centrists, that understand the ideas and reasoning behind the U.S. Constitution and hold these ideas as sacred. In the current political climate, we do not have a voice, I will do everything in my power to continue the current path towards the Libertarian party becoming that voice. Gary Johnson 2012!!!