Comments on: Ron Paul might run again in 2012; should decide by mid-2009

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:46:00 +0000

Yea, that’s the least of Paul’s “public perception” issues. I love the man, and will work like a DOG for him if he runs again–but this wont even be brought up.

By: Ross Levin

Ross Levin — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:43:45 +0000

It could be a public perception issue, though, like it was for McCain.

By: Michael Seebeck

Michael Seebeck — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:05:13 +0000

max, at 72 now, Dr. Paul is in better health than probably almost all of us here. He is a fitness freak and a MD, after all. He bikes or swims miles daily. In his case, barring some traumatic disaster, I don’t really think his health is an issue.

By: max

max — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:53:56 +0000

at 77, Paul will be too old, 5 years older then McCain was this cycle. Paul should pass the torch to Gary Johnson or Mark Sanford.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:48:42 +0000

Id pay money to see Johnson and Paul on the same stage–if only to see two (out of..what? candidates denounce the war.

By: Chad

Chad — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:24:01 +0000

Oh, my other thought is this:

I’m an optimist, but I don’t think 2012 is an exciting prospect as a chance at electoral victory per se. I think it’s more about speaking truth to power. If Paul, Johnson and Sanford all ran, you’d see a much more interesting debate than if it were all Giulianis or Romneys or Palins.

By: Chad

Chad — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:22:04 +0000

Cool discussion all! I’d love to see Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and Mark Sanford all running in 2012.

For the record, I have huge hang-ups with Sanford, but he kicks so much but on economic policy and has been awesome on the REAL ID. He’d at least add a lot of legitimacy to some of the opinions that would otherwise just be the “libertarian” candidates in the GOP primary.

By: HumbleTravis

HumbleTravis — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:03:59 +0000

I agree that Cato sometimes publishes good things and Reason still has some good writers like Radley Balko. I just meant the big foundation money might not make it to Johnson.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:57:08 +0000

CATO and Reason are pretty much the same thing. Made up of the same cross-polinated pond.

As for David and Charles Koch—I dont agree with who the men donate to, but their organizations (ATR, Cato, Reason, etc) have done alot to convince people that less regulation, less taxes, and less government is good. That, at least, makes our jobs easier.

By: HumbleTravis

HumbleTravis — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:51:32 +0000

I think Reason readers might support Gary Johnson, but I am not so sure how many from the CATO establishment would.

David Koch (former VP candidate of the Libertarian Party) donated thousands of dollars in the primaries to Mitt Romney and John McCain. His brother Charles Koch gave his money to Sam Brownback!

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:32:48 +0000

Interesting, neither candidate would suffer for lack of money—but either, or both, might suffer from lack of votes. Johnson would get support, including financial, from the Reason/Cato crowd. Paul from the Paulites.
Still, It’d be interesting to watch 2 of the 10 candidates on the stage denounce the Drug War, 2 of the 10 candidates on the stage rail against the War. It wouldnt look “fringe”. It would look like “just another opinion”. If they both ran, i’d just be forced to support both. =)

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:13:02 +0000

Yes, exactly.

And you should still implement that idea sometime.

By: Michael Seebeck

Michael Seebeck — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:11:14 +0000

A Paul and Johnson run would present an interesting strategy, since both of them could tag-team their opponents on the front end, and the psychology of that approach coupled with a gentlemen’s lay-off-the-other agreement could make for some great political theater.

My wife and I discussed this strategy in a state legislature race, with us running against each other and creating an artificial tiff to generate primary publicity, but before we could implement it, we would up stuck in CA. The difference was that we would create some controversy in a clean way, where Paul and Johnson would just trash the other guys instead of each other. I just hope that whomever takes the mantle takes the gloves off more and becomes more aggressive than Paul was.

By: Hugh Jass

Hugh Jass — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:37:00 +0000

Coming Back to the LP,

I wasn’t years off. I was referring to how the candidates would have done if they had run in that year for a second time.

By: Coming Back to the LP

Coming Back to the LP — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:40:42 +0000

Hugh Jass, your years are all off on your post.

You need to recheck your data:

72 Hospers
76 MacBride
80 Clark
84 Bergland
88 Paul
92 Marrou
96 Browne
00 Browne
04 Badnarik
08 Barr

I’d suggest no more “B” candidates for a while.