Why Ron Paul over Gary Johnson?

[Mechaman]

For me, I probably match Gary Johnson more issue-wise, but Ron Paul just has that charisma. When he speaks, I stop to listen. It's inspiring almost. I mean, not in the way that Obama is inspiring, but it makes sense. When Gary Johnson speaks it's just kinda dull.

Paul has an odd charisma. I do not know what it is, but I love it. I feel like I am fixing a problem by supporting Paul. Gary Johnson does not have the leadership qualities, in my opinion. When I hear him, I think "makes sense but will never happen". Then Paul will say the exact same thing, and I interpret it differently. He knows how to use the Constitution and Congress to get it done.

Arlo Guthrie (who I might go and see Friday night) said it right: Paul is the only candidate who would of signed the Constitution if he were there. I don't even think Johnson would.

I suppose you and I define charisma differently. We probably do. Every time I look at Paul or listen to him talk, all I see and hear are a weak-voiced old man who looks like a stiff breeze would blow him over.

I'm also not quite sure I understand your last point. What does Guthrie mean by saying Paul is the only candidate who would have signed the Constitution if he were there? There's no way to prove that statement true or false, especially considering that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, which were proven failed. In doing so, one has to put themselves in the position of a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, only then can they determine if they would have signed it. Guthrie's statement is pure conjecture as I interpret it.

Considering what the Articles of Confederation entailed and that the Constitution was viewed by (diehard) defenders of the Articles as pretty much a concession to centralized government, Ron Paul might actually be the only candidate to not sign the Constitution.

Now if the guy was talking about the Declaration of Independence....yeah I could see that.

[Mechaman]

Ron Paul charismatic? What next, Stephen Harper a liberal environmentalist?

We don't see it, obviously, but then we don't have the bug in our brains that makes people see Ron Paul as the next Thomas Jefferson. Paul appeals to some weird part of the reptile brain, especially in the young (given his vote totals thus far, mostly those too young to vote . To take Chairman Sanchez's - who's like fifteen years old - quote...

Paul has an odd charisma. I do not know what it is, but I love it. I feel like I am fixing a problem by supporting Paul.

You see?

And, yes, this -

Most of Ron Paul's supporters are not actually libertarians, not in the way the word is traditionally used. They're mostly working-class anti-government conspiracy types, so Paul's bizarre conspiracy-fueled paleoconservatism is right up their alley.

To be fair I don't really consider Paul to be the most charismatic politician ever.  But so definitely the hell isn't Gary Johnson.

I mean no offense but Gary Johnson almost makes Tim Pawlenty sound excitable.  I'm not talking about positions here, I'm talking about personality.  Gary Johnson strikes me at best as a long time psychologist specializing in dealing with patients with a history of drug and alcohol abuse.  One-on-one the man could convince you he's your best friend forever over a cup at the local fair trade coffeehouse.  However, when standing on a stage before television audiences of millions of people the effect becomes very dissonant.
That's where the difference between "likability" and "charisma" comes in.  Gary Johnson is probably the most likable candidate on a personal level, but he doesn't have any charisma.

Ron Paul may not have the right kind of charisma, but at least it's there.