Thanks for this, I literally laughed out loud.

But...but...he knew what he was getting into when he voluntarily signed up! Right? Oh...wait.

I agree, I don't think he should come out swinging against him or be sending out mailers on Santorum's record, etc. However, when he attacks Paul in debates, etc he needs to do a better job of deflecting it and turning it around on Santorum and shutting him up. And you are right, Rand and the Revolution PAC do not have to play by the same "rules" as Ron. :-)

I think the worst thing of this event is it gave Santorum new life. He is going to give Paul fits in debates by constantly attaching his ideas to things that are so far from reality, but sound scary, that it is going to cripple him from reaching more mainstream repubs. Paul needs to figure out how to effectively kneecap Santorum's attacks and turn it around on him to make HIM look like the extremist. I googled Santorum, and every interview he's given since the results he's made a point to attack Ron Paul. Paul's gotta find a way to cleverly shut him down.

There is much to be angry about...

And so it unfortunately begins... http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mailbag-why-i-cant-vote-for-ron-paul-20110502

Eric, I often wonder if Paul got this quote from reading Maj. Gen. Smedley Buttler. Have you ever read his book "War is a Racket"? Very short, and VERY good. This debate was one of the reasons I began to admire and follow Ron Paul. It was so frustrating watching all those people on stage snicker and the moderators roll their eyes at simple logic.

Eric, I agree. I do fear that many of the “crazies” will attach themselves to Johnson and cause a similar problem. I never meant to imply that Johnson was inoculated against crazy supporters, or being looked down upon because of who supports him. I was simply answering Georg’s question of why I believe that Johnson might think he’s a better candidate then Ron Paul. I can definitely see how many of the “420” crowd will hurt Johnson’s image right off the bat. But I do get the impression that he will respond better to these kinds of situations then Paul has done in the past. But we shall see. Your post seemed to be reacting in offense towards some of what I wrote, and I apologize if I did offend you, it was not my aim. I was simply taking a step back and assessing as I see it why, in Johnson’s view, Paul might be a weaker CANDIDATE. I am not saying anything negative about him personally or that he’s weaker on liberty or the issues. If the question is why JOHNSON believes he’s a better CANDIDATE, which it was, I think you have to take into consideration these glaring negatives of Paul’s in answering that. And as far as him not dwelling on the issue, I think that is a bit naïve. He’s had to face this issue with his house campaigns as well as his presidential. I also seem to recall that he changed his story from what he said during the house campaigns to what he said during the presidential. That strikes me as more “dancing” then simply brushing it off. Also, if he’s not dwelling as you say on his weaknesses/past and figuring out how to answer them satisfactorily then I’m sorry to say that’s another sign that he is a weak CANDIDATE…again, not saying he’s not good on liberty, or principle, etc. , but only a weaker CANDIDATE. Furthermore, all the “baggage” has not really been totally aired to the public as his ’08 campaign was never taken seriously. It did get some minor play, but the media didn’t really pursue it and his opponents (to my knowledge) didn’t really bring it up. So it’s a bit unfair to say that the public has considered the issue and have given him a pass and he’s enjoying his success in spite of the “baggage”. This time around, if his candidacy is taken seriously (which I believe it is) this stuff WILL get significant play. If it is repeated ad nausium to the public by the media and/or his opponents then I really do believe that the average voter will do no further research on the man, and it will indeed be game over for Paul’s chances at being president and, far worse, hurt the spread of his message. I hope and pray that I am wrong, but it’s foolish to just wave it aside and act as if it’s water under the bridge. I agree with you that if Johnson’s campaign gains traction there will be soundbites against him, and any other candidate for that matter. He will probably have to defend his failed marriage, etc. However, soundbites of “HE CHEATED ON HIS SICK WIFE” (John McCain anyone?) are probably much more easily overlooked to the general public than “HE’S A RACIST, AND HERE’S THE NEWSLETTER CARRYING HIS NAME TO PROVE IT”. I wasn’t trying to say that ALL soundbites of ANY nature are swallowed hook line and sinker by the general public…but the race card I believe is one that once you hear it, it’s enough to make the average person VERY leery of the candidate. But I am puzzled that you seem to disagree with me that the general public seems to get their political information via soundbite. I can offer countless examples of people being whipped up into a frenzy over a soundbite level of understanding on an issue(s)…especially here in Michigan. :-)

Georg, The baggage I refer to is: 1) Allegations of racism. There are "Ron Paul Newsletters" that were published when he was in between stints in congress that were blatantly racist. Dr. Paul has condemned the message and content of those newsletters; however, he dances around the issue of who wrote them and whether or not he knew what was being published under his name (many speculate it was Lew Rockwell - which I could totally see -, which Paul does not confirm or deny). Listening to him explain it away is really unnerving, and comes across as very disingenuous. If he really did not pay attention to what was being published under his name and unknowingly trusted racists to use his name it’s bad, and if he did know it’s even worse. There were also ugly stories of KKK members publically donating to him last time around that he also handled poorly. 2) Some of his more vocal supporters. The way many of his supporters treat him like a god and get verbally abusive towards those that disagree is not a net positive. A personal experience, my father and I went to a Republican presidential event in '07 on Mackinac Island (where coincidentally was the first time I met my now good friend Eric Larson). The island has no motor vehicles and you must take a ferry to get to it. At the end of the day one ferry was filled with "Ron Paul people". Then Rudy Guiliani got aboard and the heckling immediately began and continued the whole ride back to the mainland. It got so bad that the capt had to bring Rudy into his private area as people were beginning to get very rude, loud, and threatening. I was mortified. What made it worse was there also happened to be a news crew aboard who caught the whole thing and played it on the news. Johnson, as of yet, does not have these things. They are just ugly and really turn people off towards the man/supporters who they mix up the message with. Regarding earmarks, as far as I understand I tend to think Dr. Paul is just trying to make the best of a no win situation. The budget and the purse strings are controlled by congress, so congress has a duty to decide where the money goes. Whatever they don't decide just goes to the executive to do with whatever. So basically, he's saying, "look, I don't think we should be collecting all this money, but since it's here I'm going to get as much dough back to my constituents as possible or we can just give all the tax dollars to the president to do with whatever he sees fit." I don't see his position on earmarks as necessarily baggage; however, he WILL have to explain it better to make the general populace understand how they work. In general, I think, most people just think that if there was no earmark the money wouldn't be spent, which is not the case. The money WILL be spent; it's just a matter of by whom and for what. Again, this is just my basic understanding of it, I could be far off, so if anyone knows better please enlighten! :-) The gentleman you encountered seems to be the average American who doesn't really do any research about candidates, has a minimal attention span, but likes to lecture others about the sound bites expelled by their favorite left/right talking head. Unfortunately, those are the people the liberty movement needs to reach to continue to grow. If a quick shocking sound bite can explain away the need to do any real intellectual work on the issue, game over. It's sad...

Although I highly doubt Johnson would say this, I think the answer to why he might be a better alternative (at least in terms of getting elected) is obvious. He doesn't have the ugly baggage (fair or unfair) that Ron Paul has. If Paul gains significant traction the electorate will get beat over the head with it, which will turn off all those people who will hopefully look to Johnson. I think it's a shrewd political move, and a good safety net for the liberty movement. Johnson, in a way, could be Reagan to Paul's Goldwater.

Laura, Just wanted to point out that Gary (or his team) chose YOU to be on his presidential candidate website. It's in the "about" section, one of the pictures that scrolls through is a picture of you and him together. :-) Very cool! http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/about

"...because I especially enjoy making a tidy profit off of a socialist." = CLASSIC!

HA! I like your hubby, very funny.

If the social conservatives don't vote for him it's going to be because of his stance on abortion, drugs, and the empire. I doubt his marital problems will even need to be brought up with all that red meat for the SoCons. Although if it does, it will be a tad hypocritical considering McCain was their last nominee. Although I totally disagree with Johnson on abortion, I think this is going to be the guy I get behind (although admittedly I have not totally made up my mind). The more I think about it the less excited I get about another Ron Paul run. Paul is in a GREAT position right now to continue being a fairly noticeable messenger without too much scrutiny, as well as being the chair of his committee. Furthermore, he's got too much baggage and his profile is higher this time around. Which means his dirty laundry is going to get aired much more prevalently, frequently, and earlier. I think another run by him could potentially do more harm than good for the so called "liberty movement". Unfortunately, in today’s politics the messenger is almost more important than the message (especially if you are aiming to drastically change the way things are done). I’m not saying that its right…it just seems to be reality. I think the smartest thing Paul could do FOR THE MOVEMENT would be to keep hinting at a run for the next several months then decide against it because “there is no need to get in when there already is a great liberty candidate”, he’s already hinted at getting behind Johnson anyway. I also like how Johnson has been putting a bit of separation between himself and Paul in regards to the "Dr. No” vs. “Gov. No" monikers. Basically saying that although Paul is for the most part right on his stances, as a congressman it has always been more of a theoretical "no"; whereas he as a governor took it another step and showed that the sky won't fall and you actually get good results with "no".

Laura, What, no love for my man Justin Amash? ;-)

Hey Trip, Ever seen the movie "pi"? It's off the wall..

Georg, thanks for this link it was VERY interesting. I love how you post on so many different things and it's always good. :-)

Fox News does not allow their videos to be viewed outside of the US for "copyright reasons". So I don't get to see our reps appearence. :-(

Allright Laura, I can't resist anymore while overseas...I'm breaking down and commenting! ;-) Regarding the "class envy" point, what I find most perplexing is when you speak with someone who is all for "taxing the rich" it’s always because "they can afford it, and it won't affect their standard of living!" Which is SO true, it won't affect their standard of living. The rich will still spend their money on personal pleasures...it's their investment capital, charitable donations, etc that will pay for the increase in their taxes. So it's not a gain to society because what the government says it's going to try to do with that money is already being done by that money...just more efficiently.

Here, here sir!

"They do this as a comparison so that Johnson comes off looking like a centrist, ostensibly." I think Paul would be willing to deal with some name calling if it helped the public view Johnson as a centrist. How great would it be if we were in a political climate that viewed Johnson in that light!?!

Heck yeah Justin Amash reference...that's MY new representative! Thrilled with that outcome.

I'm surprised they didn't airbrush out the tobacco use...haha.

YES! Also listen to "Rain" and "Sea" by him...amazing talent. Glad you liked him Georg.