Rumor: Ron Paul to endorse Gary Johnson on the Tonight Show, Tuesday.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Thats the buzz. At this point, the Libertarian Party would risk losing ballot access if they remove Johnson or nominate Paul. Anyone else think that Ron's announcement will be about Johnson?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

He'll probably just do a noncommittal "vote your conscience/vote for a third party candidate" like he did in '08.

It started that way. Then Bob Barr decided he was going to skip Ron Paul's press conference at the last second, and later, accused Paul of hurting the liberty movement by not endorsing him. As a result, Paul gave him the finger, and endorsed Chuck Baldwin. The Libertarian National Committee put up a motion condemning Paul as not being libertarian enough for supporting Baldwin (ironically, this effort was lead by Wayne Allan Root), but Mary Ruwart and R. Lee Wrights stopped it.

While many of the Paulites themselves would probably vote for Johnson, Paul himself seems like someone who could vote for the Constitution Party.

I have always said that Paul is closer to the Constitution Party/Pat Buchanan types than he is with Gary Johnson, though Johnson is a much more viable candidate than Goode is. If Ron Paul was to run third party, I would like to see him merge the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party into the Constitutional Liberty Party or something of that nature.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What a coward.

Please elaborate.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What a coward.

Please elaborate.

Some people, even some on this site, praise Ron Paul like he's such a hero leading a noble cause. He's spent his entire time in the last two presidential primaries bitching about establishment Republicanism, something Mitt Romney exudes, and, as I'm sure everyone knows, even ran as a Libertarian himself in 1988. No one with half a brain, surely, thinks that Ron Paul actually likes Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson. He just doesn't want to upset the Republican Party and make things difficult for his son. Granted, it's not as pansy-ass as his "I endorse voting your conscience!" BS from 2008, but it's still a weak move from someone who has, if nothing else, an "honest" persona.

I can see your point, though I disagree. His "vote your conscience" was meant to give third party candidates of all stripes attention. It did not work. He won't be endorsing anyone this time around. He is hosting LPAC in Virginia next month, which should be interesting.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

To play devil's advocate, it's not like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have been more desirable choices for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Unless you think Ron Paul could have been the nominee by attacking Romney's record and simply chose not to.

Paul wouldn't have been marginalized in a Santorum or Gingrich nominating convention.  He would have been able to build solid voice over the GOP platform and he would have had a great shot to be a meaningful third party candidate with a divisive major party nominee as opposed to a boring one.

Yes, but Paul has Rand to deal with. I don't blame him for what he has done so far. The base for Rand should be enough to give him the nomination in 2016 if a serious effort is made (which means Ron Paul's special needs grandson-in-law/campaign manager Jesse Benton should be shafted). This campaign never was about winning, as I just realized a few days ago.

Is that a cowardly thing? I don't think so. I guess Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and other activist candidates are cowards too, with that logic.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

To play devil's advocate, it's not like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have been more desirable choices for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Unless you think Ron Paul could have been the nominee by attacking Romney's record and simply chose not to.

Paul wouldn't have been marginalized in a Santorum or Gingrich nominating convention.  He would have been able to build solid voice over the GOP platform and he would have had a great shot to be a meaningful third party candidate with a divisive major party nominee as opposed to a boring one.

Yes, but Paul has Rand to deal with. I don't blame him for what he has done so far. The base for Rand should be enough to give him the nomination in 2016 if a serious effort is made (which means Ron Paul's special needs grandson-in-law/campaign manager Jesse Benton should be shafted). This campaign never was about winning, as I just realized a few days ago.

Is that a cowardly thing? I don't think so. I guess Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and other activist candidates are cowards too, with that logic.

If Paul really had stones, he wouldn't have to worry about Rand.  The Paulites would be closer to control of the party if Romney had been defeated in the primaries because the establishment would have been defeated.  Now? I can't say his ideology is any closer to having a voice in the GOP than it was when he started back this 'Rloveution' back in 2007.

Oh, but Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, as well as Jim DeMint don't count as voices? They are not strong voices, but they are voices none the less. The Paul faction is much stronger, and is ready for 2016. Most of them are well informed, and don't need Paul to tell them who to vote for.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

To play devil's advocate, it's not like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have been more desirable choices for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Unless you think Ron Paul could have been the nominee by attacking Romney's record and simply chose not to.

Paul wouldn't have been marginalized in a Santorum or Gingrich nominating convention.  He would have been able to build solid voice over the GOP platform and he would have had a great shot to be a meaningful third party candidate with a divisive major party nominee as opposed to a boring one.

Yes, but Paul has Rand to deal with. I don't blame him for what he has done so far. The base for Rand should be enough to give him the nomination in 2016 if a serious effort is made (which means Ron Paul's special needs grandson-in-law/campaign manager Jesse Benton should be shafted). This campaign never was about winning, as I just realized a few days ago.

Is that a cowardly thing? I don't think so. I guess Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and other activist candidates are cowards too, with that logic.

If Paul really had stones, he wouldn't have to worry about Rand.  The Paulites would be closer to control of the party if Romney had been defeated in the primaries because the establishment would have been defeated.  Now? I can't say his ideology is any closer to having a voice in the GOP than it was when he started back this 'Rloveution' back in 2007.

Oh, but Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, as well as Jim DeMint don't count as voices? They are not strong voices, but they are voices none the less. The Paul faction is much stronger, and is ready for 2016. Most of them are well informed, and don't need Paul to tell them who to vote for.

Those people are not Ron Paul.  They do not hold the full ideology of Paul.  Even if they were, 3-4 people  is not a real voice in a political party.  If Ron Paul died tomorrow, his message would be buried with him.  "Ready for 2016" is the same thing I heard in 2008.   Paulism is not going to make a dent in 2016 either because Ron Paul balked at the opportunity to move it forward.

Does Rand Paul not appeal to mainstream Republicans more than Ron? 2008 to 2012 was Ron to Ron. And the point of it was to strengthen the Ron to Rand transition. If Rand does not run, Gary Johnson will. And if Johnson does not, Walter Jones will, etc.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I also hold the position that Ron Paul was cowardly. And this is coming from someone that really wanted him to do well this cycle. I don't see why people think its okay for him to sell out his true convictions just to help out a family member. To me, that doesn't sound like an honest politician; its one of those things I dislike about politics. This is something about the Ron Paul movement that I have a problem with: I have a strong feeling that it isn't about the ideology so much as it is about Ron Paul. This move by Paul makes it seem to be more of as a dynasty to me rather than a political movement; like if a Paul isn't leading the movement, then the movement would die off with them.

What I admired about Ron Paul was that he stuck to his beliefs and took on the establishment, no matter what. This election, he basically decided to be the establishments attack dog to help a family member, which I don't admire very much. Gary Johnson supported Paul in the primaries over and over again, and is currently an available choice for promoting views very similar to Paul's. He could influence the debate this cycle if he was able to have access to Paul's support. Ron Paul could show the Republican Party that the liberty movement cannot be ignored if he made Johnson a force this election, but instead he is essentially deciding to sell out his beliefs to help out his son? That strikes a nepotistic tone that diminishes my opinion of Ron Paul.

Once again, I think the whole point of the campaign was to build the base. Ron Paul never intended to win, and we should of known that from the start. I wish I caught on. Ron Paul did nothing cowardly-this was a simple political exercise, and a flexing of his muscles. And those muscles are going to be ripped when Rand leads the Revolution to victory come 2016

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

To play devil's advocate, it's not like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have been more desirable choices for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Unless you think Ron Paul could have been the nominee by attacking Romney's record and simply chose not to.

Paul wouldn't have been marginalized in a Santorum or Gingrich nominating convention.  He would have been able to build solid voice over the GOP platform and he would have had a great shot to be a meaningful third party candidate with a divisive major party nominee as opposed to a boring one.

You kidding? Gingrich personally detested Paul, and they had a long history to boot. The last time Gingrich interacted in a big way with Paul was when he (and the rest of the Republican establishment of the time) tried to support a Democrat who switched parties against him. Gingrich wouldn't just marginalize Paul, he'd mock him openly at the convention and find a way to have his delegates tossed out.

Santorum might personally let Paul delegates be present, but his platform is quite a bit worse than even Romney's to Paul supporters. Also, if circumstances came together to let Santorum take the nomination because of Paul, the people from the RNC would still almost certainly be pulling moves to silence the Paul delegates as division is not something you want your convention to showcase.

I do think Paul really dropped the ball the last two weeks before Iowa, but it was because of his rather inexplicable unwillingness to attack Santorum or Romney once he was cruising to victory that things went bad, not a desire to protect Rand. He would have probably won first by a decent margin had he tried running some attack ads against Romney and Santorum, and that would have probably left him with far more strength than now, but instead he sat back and let them ride in off the coattails of the "Anyone But Paul" media.

Also, you need to keep in mind that Paul would certainly like to be president, but his top priority has always been to create a movement that can last past his death. Running third party, or strongly endorsing a third party candidate, would be a helluva way to go out, but that would make him a Pat Buchanan or Ross Perot; incredibly important/influential for a year or two, then promptly forgotten about/detested by the people they sought to gain the support of.

At the very least, he's done a decent job of that. In 2008, there was only one person with Ron Paul-esque views (Ron himself) and he only had two very loose allies in the form of Jim DeMint and Walter Williams. In 2010-2011, this group expanded to two senators with fairly close views and a congressman with virtually identical views, not to mention a deluge of state congressmen (such as in New Hampshire, where somewhere between a quarter and a third of the state congressmen are liberty supporting types). Right now, its looking likely that he'll have several new congressmen to replace him by the time he's retired. By 2016 that number will be vastly increased and by 2020 it could very well form a plurality or even majority of the Republican party.

This. Post. Is. Perfect.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Who is Ron Paul actually going to vote for?  Does anybody know?

Most likely Johnson, but it could be Goode. I suspect the former is more likely.