Gary Johnson and Ron Paul at the debates; "they" are getting scared of Paul.

I don't really have a thesis here, just some thoughts.

Outside of straight up Paul supporters, socially conscious folk (I'm thinking the loud liberals, radicals young and old, hippies, artists, revolutionaries, etc..) might not appreciate the slow, steady stride at which Ron Paul has garnered more attention and support.

Yet, at every turn 'big media' has downplayed, ignored, and/or made sarcastic comments about the very idea that Ron Paul be taken seriously. I'm too lazy to cite examples here, but include not including him in debates, ignoring 2nd or 3rd place rankings in opinion polls (while talking extensively about some candidate that was at 5th), constant reiteration that he shouldn't be taken seriously, etc.

This is hardly an accident; as Ron Paul has his finger directly on the pulse of the beast which becomes the mechanism for Oligarchy in America.

A funny thing has happened. At the outset Ron Paul, as a republican, doesn't even enter the realm of possibility for 99% of liberals as potentially not-insane. After a while, probably some of their smart friends told him he was a pretty cool dude, but for the most part never had a need to give him a shot in the first place (understandably, associating the last ten years with republican ideas).

As he has become a force, they've taken more notice but due to their value systems (I'm talking to you feminists, labor people, poverty advocates) can't see past (what I would consider) flaws in Paul's beliefs.

There is a fuzzy distinction on the fiscally conservative side of things between easing the tax burden on citizens ,and, taking from the poor to ease the burden on the rich. This distinction seems to be glossed over by my non-libertarian radical friends. Potential reasons for this is the topic for another post, but it seems to be a defining characteristic of radical non-libertarians.

Paul is tragically anti-choice (to be fair, he insists this outside the realm of federal jurisdiction, but he is wrong about this too); and he wants to slash federal spending. Anyone who strongly associates with 'feminist' will never vote for an anti-choice candidate. Advocates for the poor are likely to focus on potential cuts to safety-nets (and maybe not take into consideration how Paul's policies might alleviate the conditions that cause such degrees of poverty int he first place).

In any case; it seems to me Paul loses a *lot* of the left on issues that are only tangentially related to what he really stands for: fair government, fair money.

Enter Gary Johnson.

I know less about Johnson but from the little I do know, I like him. Gary Johnson was rumored to get a potential endorsement from Paul for president; but Paul entered the race afterall. Gary Johnson is what some affectionately refer to as a "Ron Paul Republican".

Vetoed the shit out legislation when he was governor of NM; he is also pro-choice (feminists, check), pro-immigration (poverty advocates, check) and pro-legalization of marijuana (half the population, check).

So WTF is this guy doing on a farking fox news primetime debate, from out of nowhere? Splitting the Paul support, likely. Paul has become a force that the powers-that-be are feeling more vulnerable to. When they finally had to put him on these debates, he wins them again and again.

This is a party where, well I don't need to say it.. just look at the 'popular' candidates--but having all this sane-talk from Dr Paul on a twice-weekly basis is probably starting to make sense to these red necks and conservatives. And when your power is derived from ignorance (true in both the democratic and republican parties, but in different ways); you sure as fuck don't want an informed constituency.

This strikes me as similar to the story of the girl who swallowed a fly. Except I do know why they swallowed the fly, in this case: because people more or less demanded it.