A Romney win will be a crippling blow to the liberty movement

[Havax]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

[sailingaway]

I don't think so. Obama is awful and if people turn to the Devil they don't know, I don't see how that has to do with us. Some of us were Dems, not GOP before finding Ron Paul, anyhow. Remember the break down of voters for Ron?

[dean.engelhardt]

I agree, but not many will. Romney is a big step backwards.

[sailingaway]

I agree, but not many will. Romney is a big step backwards.

I don't want to be responsible for either of them. I voted for Bush. That's enough.

[nobody's_hero]

Agreed, with the first point especially. If the GOP wins without us, we can pretty much abandon any further attempts to influence the GOP because they won't be interested in any message we try to sell.

[DeMintConservative]

How is the liberty movement doing in the UK? Or France? Or Italy? Or Canada? Or pretty much anywhere else in the Western hemisphere?

It's so fringe that even a guy like Romney would be considered a far-right freak in those countries.

If Obama is re-elected, his agenda is validated. He'll have carte blanche to keep moving the country towards an European style social-democracy and rightly so. He'd have earned it. And the conclusion the GOP would take from this wont' feature Ron Paul: it'll be that Rommey was too much to the right of the country's political center.

I suspect that if Obama wins, the platform of the GOP candidate in 2016 will be very different from Romney/Ryan's - sadly, not in a good way.

[sailingaway]

How is the liberty movement doing in the UK? Or France? Or Italy? Or Canada? Or pretty much anywhere else in the Western hemisphere?

It's so fringe that even a guy like Romney would be considered a far-right freak in those countries.

If Obama is re-elected, his agenda is validated. He'll have carte blanche to keep moving the country towards an European style social-democracy and rightly so. He'd have earned it. And the conclusion the GOP would take from this wont' feature Ron Paul: it'll be that Rommey was too much to the right of the country's political center.

I suspect that if Obama wins, the platform of the GOP candidate in 2016 will be very different from Romney/Ryan's - sadly, not in a good way.

then the GOP will keep losing.

You don't really win points by implying we are all fringe freaks.

Just sayin'.....

[Okie RP fan]

Those are the points that I've been afraid to utter, but, have pondered over a lot.

Hard truths, those are. Which, is why we need to stick to our guns and vote third party or write-in Paul. Don't give Romney and the establishment anymore votes than they deserve.

I certainly don't like Obama and want him out, let me reaffirm that to any wandering eyes on here. But, 8 years of progressive policies under Romney? I shudder when I think of the thought.

[ninepointfive]

Thoughts?

You're correct - which is why I voted for Gary Johnson

[acptulsa]

then the GOP will keep losing.

You don't really win points by implying we are all fringe freaks.

Just sayin'.....

You expect a European trying to sell Romney to us to do a competent job or something? You ask a lot.

You should see him trying to say that Romney would do less social engineering through taxation with his tax reform than Ron Paul would with his excise tax and tariffs. Logic ain't got nothin' to do with it.

If refusing to rise to any bait and being able to think for myself makes me a fringe freak, then I'm inclined to wear the label--with pride.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I agree, but not many will. Romney is a big step backwards.

Romney is a big step sideways.

[nobody's_hero]

Romney is a big step sideways.

That would probably be more accurate. Too bad we're all standing on a tight rope.

[acptulsa]

Romney is a big step sideways.

lol

They aren't talking about policy, where the two are indistinguishable. They're talking about Red Team/Blue Team gamesmanship. That's different.

[thoughtomator]

The events that will make liberty ascendant once again in America will not be affected in any major way by who wins this race. Those events will be the huge global economic quakes that will bring the New World Order to its knees in a global information- and starvation-driven revolution against tyranny. I will live to see the light of freedom shine once again, God willing.

[July]

I don't know, it is a bad outcome either way, and there really isn't a good pragmatic answer to this question, IMO. I think the best outcome would be a Republican majority in the senate...or picking up as many seats there as possible. Best case would be for some of the candidates that Rand has helped, to win their races, and then he hopefully picks up a couple more allies on a few issues.

[Root]

then the GOP will keep losing.

What if that's by design? Generally what if TPTB have the GOP set up to be the designated fall guy until..?

[KEEF]

I don't know, it is a bad outcome either way, and there really isn't a good pragmatic answer to this question, IMO. I think the best outcome would be a Republican majority in the senate...or picking up as many seats there as possible. Best case would be for some of the candidates Rand has helped win their races, and he hopefully picks up a couple more allies on a few issues.

Agreed...Give Obama the WH and hopefully republicans sweep the house and senate so that we keep in a somewhat stailmate. Then we give um hell in 2014 and 2016.

[DeMintConservative]

then the GOP will keep losing.

You don't really win points by implying we are all fringe freaks.

Just sayin'.....

When exactly did I imply that?

[Travlyr]

The events that will make liberty ascendant once again in America will not be affected in any major way by who wins this race. Those events will be the huge global economic quakes that will bring the New World Order to its knees in a global information- and starvation-driven revolution against tyranny. I will live to see the light of freedom shine once again, God willing.

That's right. It is almost irrelevant who wins the presidency now. A lot of us are still going to work diligently for sound money and defeat the tyrants anyway. End The Fed.

[RonPaul25]

How is the liberty movement doing in the UK? Or France? Or Italy? Or Canada? Or pretty much anywhere else in the Western hemisphere?

It's so fringe that even a guy like Romney would be considered a far-right freak in those countries.

If Obama is re-elected, his agenda is validated. He'll have carte blanche to keep moving the country towards an European style social-democracy and rightly so. He'd have earned it. And the conclusion the GOP would take from this wont' feature Ron Paul: it'll be that Rommey was too much to the right of the country's political center.

I suspect that if Obama wins, the platform of the GOP candidate in 2016 will be very different from Romney/Ryan's - sadly, not in a good way.

I agree with this and it is why I am voting for Romney

[acptulsa]

I agree with this and it is why I am voting for Romney

lol

Romney and Obama are so close together that the only way that could happen is if the GOP moves to the left of Obama.

And if you and others are going to vote for them no matter what, just because you consider that capital R all the proof you need that It's Right, they might as well move left of Obama right now. Indeed, if Obama hadn't embraced Romney Care and made it his own, Romney would already be left of Obama.

[nobody's_hero]

What if that's by design? Generally what if TPTB have the GOP set up to be the designated fall guy until..?

Maybe. I don't think that works for long, though. Eventually you can't keep pointing fingers and blaming the GOP if they haven't been in power for years or even decades. We might actually be doing the GOP a favor by keeping them away from power (though it's painful to watch democrats run the show). Whomever is sitting in the driver's seat is going to be blamed for the crash.

[DeMintConservative]

Indeed, if Obama hadn't embraced Romney Care and made it his own, Romney would already be left of Obama.

Hehe, you can't make up this stuff.

[JK/SEA]

the power of the FREEDOM movement lies within local politics....the prez is just one guy.....

[acptulsa]

Hehe, you can't make up this stuff.

No, I can't. And like Will Rogers said, if it weren't true it wouldn't make you laugh.

[Athan]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

Actually, it won't matter much. Romney is going to destroy this country no different with Obama as soon as he gets involved with Iran. Republicans will be blamed, but not libertarians. We never wanted what they are selling and as long as we keep taking over local GOP parties, the GOP leadership will be routed.

[sailingaway]

What if that's by design? Generally what if TPTB have the GOP set up to be the designated fall guy until..?

I'm not pretending I'm stronger than TPTB, but I am strong enough to not personally take part in their games.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A5u6HmQCAAAv6Kj.jpg

I'm writing in Ron Paul.

[bunklocoempire]

How is the liberty movement doing in the UK? Or France? Or Italy? Or Canada? Or pretty much anywhere else in the Western hemisphere?

It's so fringe that even a guy like Romney would be considered a far-right freak in those countries.

If Obama is re-elected, his agenda is validated. He'll have carte blanche to keep moving the country towards an European style social-democracy and rightly so. He'd have earned it. And the conclusion the GOP would take from this wont' feature Ron Paul: it'll be that Rommey was too much to the right of the country's political center.

I suspect that if Obama wins, the platform of the GOP candidate in 2016 will be very different from Romney/Ryan's - sadly, not in a good way.

So McCain was too much right of the country's political center. lol

I remember catching the GOP platform goings-on on C-Span for '08, with McCain as presumptive nominee, for a GOP "win" the platform was pushed left.

Compare the GOP '08 platform with the GOP '12 platform and the growing liberty movement and the resistance to McCain and the '08 platform.

Assuming the goal of the liberty movement is to move forward instead of losing ground more slowly, disciplining the GOP has produced better results than supporting them for fear of the other guy.

Don't take my word for it though, compare the platforms. If the '12 platform is deemed more 'conservative' there is still the matter of a GOP candidate winning -so then what? Push the platform left for a win and validate that agenda? :eek: :rolleyes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoS-MCnTPtQ

Duty is ours, results are God's makes a heck of a lot more sense than rewarding bad behavior and hoping for change in the future while we can so easily look to recent history for some solid cause and effect.

One example of the results of discipline:



http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/08/republican-party-platform-has-a-.html Republican Party Platform Has a Lot to Say About Science
Climate change does a disappearing act. While the 2008 platform spent nearly two pages on "addressing climate change responsibly" and "reducing demand for fossil fuels" in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, the topics are barely mentioned in the current version. Also gone is the 2008 platform's proposal for a government-sponsored "Climate Prize," which would award millions of dollars to “scientists who solve the challenges of climate change.”

Instead, the 2012 version emphasizes "taking advantage of all our American God-given resources" and the need to encourage greater domestic oil, gas, and coal development. The party opposes "any and all cap and trade legislation" that would create a system of tradable pollution permits designed to reduce industrial emissions of warming gases such as carbon dioxide. And it calls on Congress "to take quick action to prohibit the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations that will harm the nation's economy and threaten millions of jobs over the next quarter century."


NOBP

[supermario21]

Agreed...Give Obama the WH and hopefully republicans sweep the house and senate so that we keep in a somewhat stailmate. Then we give um hell in 2014 and 2016.

The only problem is nobody (the stupid public) really likes obstructionists. That's all I hear about on local brain dead radio in Youngstown, Ohio (granted, a Dem stronghold). They think Obama deserves a second term because Republicans have bullied him too much (give me a f'ing break).

[supermario21]

And since Romney or Obama is going to be elected anyways, we might as well see what Romney does. We already know what Barack has done and continued to plan.

[DeMintConservative]

It's worked marvellously. That's why Romney, the moderate governor of MA, won the nomination. Because the GOP was keen on nominating a conservative after McCain was crushed.

I don't care about alternative universes. In the real world, the lesson the GOP - and the press and the Dems, basically the CW- will take from this is that the country preferred Obama's left-wing policies and proposals (easily the most leftist one since McGovern). And I'm not sure how to effectively dispute that if Obama wins. The immigration stance will certainly change: Romney will win whites by the largest margin ever since Reagan even if loses the election.

[DeMintConservative]

And since Romney or Obama is going to be elected anyways, we might as well see what Romney does. We already know what Barack has done and continued to plan.

Yeps.

There are some libertarians that only apply that logic when the incumbent is a Republican though. If it's an authoritarian liberal like Obama, it turns into "let's just give this guy 4 more years, at least he can't run for a 3rd term".

[supermario21]

Yeps.

There are some libertarians that only apply that logic when the incumbent is a Republican though. If it's an authoritarian liberal like Obama, it turns into "let's just give this guy 4 more years, at least he can't run for a 3rd term".

I'll agree, and I'll add to that. So what if Romney wins? If we don't like him we find someone for a primary (Rand). It doesn't kill the party. Heck it got Pat Buchanan (the last Republican insurgent) a primetime speaking slot at the 1992 convention. I think even if Rand were to lose, to have a platform to give a keynote speech would be a huge win for the movement.

[jcarcinogen]

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. Its time for the neocons to die off.

[parocks]

I don't know, it is a bad outcome either way, and there really isn't a good pragmatic answer to this question, IMO. I think the best outcome would be a Republican majority in the senate...or picking up as many seats there as possible. Best case would be for some of the candidates that Rand has helped, to win their races, and then he hopefully picks up a couple more allies on a few issues.

Republicans need to keep the House.

[nobody's_hero]

And since Romney or Obama is going to be elected anyways, we might as well see what Romney does. We already know what Barack has done and continued to plan.

That's sort of been the line-of-thinking for the past 100 years or so. Which, incidentally, happens to be the amount of time it has taken our country to circle the drain. :(

[parocks]

It's worked marvellously. That's why Romney, the moderate governor of MA, won the nomination. Because the GOP was keen on nominating a conservative after McCain was crushed.

I don't care about alternative universes. In the real world, the lesson the GOP - and the press and the Dems, basically the CW- will take from this is that the country preferred Obama's left-wing policies and proposals (easily the most leftist one since McGovern). And I'm not sure how to effectively dispute that if Obama wins. The immigration stance will certainly change: Romney will win whites by the largest margin ever since Reagan even if loses the election.

You can counter that by saying that Conservatives didn't not like Romney.

Conservatives don't vote for moderate Republicans. Conservatives did not see that there was a big choice between Obama and Romney. Conservatives thought that Obama and Romney both sucked.

[JJ2]

I agree with the OP. But the one thing that at least gives me some hope even if Romney wins is that Gov. Jesse Ventura has said he will strongly consider running as an Independent in 2016 (of course it would probably be easier to win if there was no incumbent running).

[nobody's_hero]

Yeps.

There are some libertarians that only apply that logic when the incumbent is a Republican though. If it's an authoritarian liberal like Obama, it turns into "let's just give this guy 4 more years, at least he can't run for a 3rd term".

Only because it has produced better results. Sorry, but consider 2004, in the midst of a flag-waving blind 'patriotic' fury and the prevailing "logic" that you don't replace a president in the middle of a 'war on terror' (which, if you recall, you couldn't criticize politically without being a terrorist sympathizer), when practically *NO ONE* would dare criticize George Bush from within the GOP, wasn't exactly a practical time for libertarians to say, "hey GOP, you're doing it wrong."

There's a reason why its better to challenge the status quo when the incumbent is a democrat than to wait for the GOP to fall in line behind the 'fearless leader' with unquestionable loyalty. Right now the GOP is out-of-power and doing some soul-searching. You can forget that happening when Romney is president.

Even Ron Paul won't bother to endorse a GOP challenger against a GOP incumbent, what makes you think the GOP mainstream membership is just going to think it's a great idea when Romney is in the White House and up for re-election in 2016? By law, presidents can only serve two 4 year terms, but in reality, it has now become such a petty red-team blue-team squabble that they serve one 8-year term.

Obama is an incumbent and had practically NO challengers [from within his own party]. Democrats were awfully bored this primary season. The GOP is no different [when it comes to protecting its incumbent at all costs].

For example:

Could you have imagined trying to primary Obama from within the DNC this year?

Can you imagine trying to primary Romney from within the GOP in 2016?

[DeMintConservative]

Only because it has produced better results.

Haha, sure. For authoritarian liberals. Certainly not for the country.

[robert9712000]

I'm half tempted to vote for Obama even though i despise his policy's.The reason has nothing to do with who will hurt the country more because both suck,but like was mentioned before,if we still desire to try to take control of the republican party then a win by Romney is devastating to our influence ,because it establishes his views in the party and we know thats very anti libertarian and it reaffirms that they can win without us.If he loses it might force the Gop to gravitate towards the libertarians because theres no denying that we were the only enthusiasm in the party.So i know as far as principle its just as wrong to vote for Obama as Romney but as a strategic move to secure a better footing of the movement within the republican party,i think Romney needs to lose and republican in the house and senate need to win,too make as much gridlock as possible for Obama on his next term.

[DeMintConservative]

Yeps.

There are some libertarians that only apply that logic when the incumbent is a Republican though. If it's an authoritarian liberal like Obama, it turns into "let's just give this guy 4 more years, at least he can't run for a 3rd term".

Another "real libertarian" axiom: always vote with your principle! Never vote strategically! Don't settle for the lesser evil! Well, unless you're voting for Obama, in that case it's okay. Even if that implies some convoluted and slightly bizarre win about a party moving right if the more left-wing guy wins the election.

[CPUd]

I'll agree, and I'll add to that. So what if Romney wins? If we don't like him we find someone for a primary (Rand). It doesn't kill the party. Heck it got Pat Buchanan (the last Republican insurgent) a primetime speaking slot at the 1992 convention. I think even if Rand were to lose, to have a platform to give a keynote speech would be a huge win for the movement.

If Mitt wins, no one will challenge him in the 2016 primary. You try to make it sound so easy, but it's not. Ron Paul ran all the way to the RNC, and they didn't even want him in the building. We all know how Mitt's people think about competition.

[nobody's_hero]

Haha, sure. For authoritarian liberals. Certainly not for the country.

Oh come now. You can't save the country unless you manage to change one of these currently useless parties. I'm obviously talking about the changing sentiments within the GOP.

Guess what? The country may be screwed regardless of whether Obama or Romney wins. It might not be screwed if we make it so voters have a real alternative offered by one of these two parties.

But that can only happen if the liberty faction of the GOP survives. We can only survive if we are relevant to the vote totals. If Romney wins without us, then the GOP doesn't need us. Period.

It's funny that you're accusing us of *not voting strategically* when clearly we've put more strategy into our votes than you have.

[EBounding]

It makes no difference who wins. The presidency is just one office. It's also an office we don't have a lot of control over. But we do on the local level. For those involved with the local GOP, if Romney wins, it gives an opportunity to demonstrate how awful he is and show leadership. The local level is where it begins. (http://peopleagainstndaa.com/oakland-county-michigan-defends-u-s-constitution-against-ndaa/)

[AuH20]

I have a hard time believing the House will bow down to King Romney. They will kick his ass, unless he switches sides and starts making deals with the donkey which is certainly possible. That's why I'm not overly worried about Romney. There is enough resistance in the HoR to make his life a living hell.

[gte811i]

I have a hard time believing the House will bow down to King Romney. They will kick his ass, unless he switches sides and starts making deals with the donkey which is certainly possible. That's why I'm not overly worried about Romney. There is enough resistance in the HoR to make his life a living hell.

Keep dreaming. A republican house WILL bow down to a Republican President. Static resistance . . . NOT-GONNA-HAPPEN. Now if we had a hundred Justin Amash's then maybe, until then I'd like to have whatever you are smoking.

[AuH20]

Keep dreaming. A republican house WILL bow down to a Republican President. Static resistance . . . NOT-GONNA-HAPPEN. Now if we had a hundred Justin Amash's then maybe, until then I'd like to have whatever you are smoking.

Not after the Bush years. The wounds are still fresh. Bush led to Obama. I think many politicians would admit that privately.

[AuH20]

error.

[gte811i]

Not after the Bush years. The wounds are still fresh. Bush led to Obama. I think many politicians would admit that privately.

Hah. I asked Congressman Westmoreland that directly this past weekend. Wouldn't a return to the Bush foreign policy lead to a Republican loss in 2016?
His response was to return to his talking points and we've got to get rid of Obama, blah, blah, blah. Never addressed it, completely avoided the question.

We do not have men and women with backbones and principles in Congress. When you realize that, you realize that when the King says go, you do it. Being involved in the local level has really opened my eyes.

Very, very few individuals have the courage/stamina/fortitude to stand up to the Executive leader, be it the Chairman of a convention, the Governor of a state and much less so the President who is a member of your own party and to tell them NO. That leader will try and exert so much pressure to get someone to bend. I can see where one might think as you do. But IMO that position is extremely naive, from individuals who do not understand how the actual "power structure" of government operates.

To stand up against the President when he is in your own party is shooting yourself in the foot, and one must have extreme courage to do so. And in today's society we do not have individualists people who are willing to stand up and go against the grain.

[gte811i]

That's okay that you think the way you do. We can revisit the conversation in 4 or 8 years. I'm willing to be wrong and I pray that I am. Just remember in 4/8 years we had this conversation. If the Republican get control of both sides of Congress and the Presidency it will be very bad. I would much rather have super-majorities in the House/Senate and let the Dems control the Presidency.

[AuH20]

Hah. I asked Congressman Westmoreland that directly this past weekend. Wouldn't a return to the Bush foreign policy lead to a Republican lose in 2016?
His response was to return to his talking points and we've got to get rid of Obama, blah, blah, blah. Never addressed it, completely avoided the question.

We do not have men and women with backbones and principles in Congress. When you realize that, you realize that when the King says go, you do it. Being involved in the local level has really opened my eyes.

Very, very few individuals have the courage/stamina/fortitude to stand up to the Executive leader, be it the Chairman of a convention, the Governor of a state and much less so the President who is a member of your own party and to tell them NO. That leader will try and exert so much pressure to get someone to bend. I can see where one might think as you do. But IMO that position is extremely naive, from individuals who do not understand how the actual "power structure" of government operates.

To stand up against the President when he is in your own party is shooting yourself in the foot, and one must have extreme courage to do so. And in today's society we do not have individualists people who are willing to stand up and go against the grain.

If the Bush debacle didn't happen and the Tea Party hadn't been created I would agree with you. The rules have changed. Mitt is in for a major surprise:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/us/politics/house-republicans-would-thwart-romney-move-to-center.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


As Congress was set to reconvene on Monday, House Republicans said Mr. Romney could go his own way on smaller issues that may help define him as separate from his Congressional Republican counterparts. But, they said, he must understand that they are driving the policy agenda for the party now.

“We’re not a cheerleading squad,” said Representative Jeff Landry, an outspoken freshman from Louisiana. “We’re the conductor. We’re supposed to drive the train.”

It's the House he has to worry about, not the Senate.

[gte811i]

If the Bush debacle didn't happen and the Tea Party hadn't been created I would agree with you. The rules have changed. Mitt is in for a major surprise:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/us/politics/house-republicans-would-thwart-romney-move-to-center.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



It's the House he has to worry about, not the Senate.

Call me skeptical. I'll believe it when I see it. I have seen nothing from the Republican House that suggests they would actually put up a fight.

Talk is cheap. Show me. This is good in 4 years when the R house has betrayed some principles and more people actually see it, instead of making excuses for why R's sold them down the river, more people will wake up.

[AuH20]

Call me skeptical. I'll believe it when I see it. I have seen nothing from the Republican House that suggests they would actually put up a fight.

Talk is cheap. Show me. This is good in 4 years when the R house has betrayed some principles and more people actually see it, instead of making excuses for why R's sold them down the river, more people will wake up.

I think they would, because there are so many more people watching what they are doing, than ever. This isn't the Bush years. Secondly, Romney is a Mass liberal. He's not trusted for good reason. These two factors will lead to an epic confrontation, especially if more constitutionally minded reps get in this upcoming cycle.

[hammy]

Mitt Romney is a sad sad candidate. He's so weak on every front it's almost unimaginable.

[The Free Hornet]

How is the liberty movement doing in the UK? Or France? Or Italy? Or Canada? Or pretty much anywhere else in the Western hemisphere?

It's so fringe that even a guy like Romney would be considered a far-right freak in those countries.

You are spreading bullshit. It is an oft-repeated misconception that US politics is "further right". Huffington Posters and their ilk like to paint Obama as some sort of center-right guy while pretending first-world Europe is a center-left utopia.

Nevermind the false paradigm of the left-right spectrum. The US is further along in statism than either the USSR was or China is. We have more in prison, spend more on the military, collect more data on our own citizens. The size and scope of our Federal and state workforces is beyond what they can match (dollar for dollar if not man for man). I'm not able to compare state-owned enterprises to our corporatism/fascism but what is the fundamental difference?

Internet trolls like to pretend the US "far right" or our GOP is considered further right. It is a lie and you should know better. Why repeat it?

I don't doubt that other Europeans lack the strength of our liberty movement, but this is an issue tangential to where the two controlling parties stand and the scopes of our respective governments. More is the same than different.




If Obama is re-elected, his agenda is validated. He'll have carte blanche to keep moving the country towards an European style social-democracy and rightly so. He'd have earned it. And the conclusion the GOP would take from this wont' feature Ron Paul: it'll be that Rommey was too much to the right of the country's political center.

I suspect that if Obama wins, the platform of the GOP candidate in 2016 will be very different from Romney/Ryan's - sadly, not in a good way.

Your eyes are close. We are already a "European style social-democracy". Arguing about who pays the medical bills is a smokescreen. It doesn't matter and hasn't likely mattered given the scope of state control and the requirement that hospitals not turn people away (until doing a sufficient degree of paperwork to prove it is not a covered/emergency condition).

Romney isn't to the right of anything substantial. Your delusions are reprehensible. Stop spreading the lie of some great difference from the party that brought us Wars on Drugs (and everything else), ADA, Medicare expansion, bigger deficits, bailouts, et cetera. It is sad pathetic trolling and I look forward to your departure after Romney loses and you "interest" in liberty wanes.

[Matthew5]

And for those of us who have given up on the GOP, it really won't matter.

The liberty movement is made up of more than Republicans. If the liberty movement chose to opt-out of the system completely, then you'd show how powerful you are. It's not just about the GOP, we need to show both parties they don't have our loyalties.

Either outcome next month isn't going to be favorable for us. If Romney wins, they'll say "see we can do without you nut jobs". If he loses, either A: "Thanks you hard-line nut jobs, you gave a COMMUNIST four more years *weeping and nashing of teeth*" or B: "See, we knew the liberty movement was just a liberal sabotage campaign! *weeping and nashing of teeth*"

I guess I'm alittle pessimistic this evening. :p

[jcannon98188]

Not after the Bush years. The wounds are still fresh. Bush led to Obama. I think many politicians would admit that privately.
And yet the republicans voted lock step for NDAA because their party told them too.....

[jcannon98188]

If the Bush debacle didn't happen and the Tea Party hadn't been created I would agree with you. The rules have changed. Mitt is in for a major surprise:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/us/politics/house-republicans-would-thwart-romney-move-to-center.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


It's the House he has to worry about, not the Senate.
Tell me more about how these congressmen refused to endorse Mitt Romney...

[ProBlue33]

I agree 100% with the OP, here are some of my recent posts on this topic.


If you think this Pro Ron Paul people are fractured now, if Romney wins it will really fracture and scatter to the winds the remnants of the movement.
Because it will mean the political system doesn't need the Ron Paul crowd to win. if he loses, well things will start building for Rand.
And there will be justification for "I told you so", we lose that and to not punish the RNC/GOP for their stupidity, you don't think other GOP supporters might not finally get it with a tough loss. So much hinges on Romney losing, I hope nobody that frequents RPF is voting for him.


After the attendance at the UVU for somebody that can't win the presidency, it makes me wonder just how much legs this movement has, BUT it will be out of reach at the national presidential level for possibly 8 years if Romney wins next month. Which means the focus would then shift to Congress and the Senate, if the movement doesn't fracture. Some people may not be able to wait and will give up

Here is how critical this is if you have followed this for the past 5 years, a vote for Romney is more a vote against Ron Paul, than a vote for Obama, if you don't understand this you haven't been paying attention.

[sailingaway]

It's amusing watching the people supporting Romney and the people supporting Obama argue this point.

[supermario21]

The only problem is that our electoral system is not designed for a government to make sweeping changes. Unless the stars align like they did in 08 for the Dems, and even then it was a stretch, we're never going to get to that breaking point which ushers in a GOP House, White House, and 60+ Senate, let alone get all of them to agree upon everything we want. As Obama implements more left wing policies in his 2nd term, our powers to undo them in the future will be limited. Heck even Ron talks about preserving social security and medicare, whereas if he were in the debate in the 60s he would have definitely been in favor of never instituting the programs. So even perfect guys like Ron are forced to deviate somewhat from the ideal position of complete abolishment of those programs. Our best chance is to bully the tea party now before they get sucked into the establishment too much. They need a leader and Rand is positioning himself to be one of them. We need to act now before this movement becomes too comfortable in Washington much like the Gingrich Revolution freshmen eventually became.

[Number19]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?Why do you think Romney has a chance to win? We still have two weeks, but the popular vote doesn't count. It's the electoral vote which counts. Obama has a pretty solid lead here, counting strong Obama states and leaning Obama states, already has sufficient electoral votes to win . It's going to come down to only three states - maybe four: Ohio, Virginia and Florida. Ohio leans Obama and Virginia/Florida are toss-ups. Romney must win two to have any chance of winning. You also might toss North Carolina, an undecided state, into the mix and of these four, Romney must win three. Also, from what I hear, Gary Johnson is running strong in Virginia - 9% in a few polls. He won't get this in the election, but if he pulls 4-5% he may swing the state to Obama. There is a good chance that Romney could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.

Republicans will keep control of the House but the Senate has begun to swing toward the Democrats again. Control of the Senate is what this election is about, for two main reasons : Supreme Court appointments and treaty ratification. From the perspective of the liberty movement, the best outcome would be for Obama to win and for the Senate to swing Republican.

[jmdrake]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

Meh. You play the hand you're dealt. We as a movement spend to much time worrying about things we can't control. Will Santorum stay in? In 2008 it was will Huckabee stay in? And consider this concern you listed:

The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

Well imagine what would have happened if Ron Paul had won? Part of Ron Paul's prescription for fixing our financial woes is to let the correction (crash) happen.

I ain't voting for Romney or Obama so it doesn't matter to me who wins. And my not voting for Romney has nothing to do with what happened at the RNC. His policies suck. So do Obama's.

But here's the bright side of a Romney victory. We quit obsessing over 2016. You hit the nail on the head that a liberty candidate running against a GOP POTUS incumbent is unthinkable and unworkable. So yeah, Rand 2016 would be gone. That would leave more time for him to gain experience. It would also give the grassroots time to get its act together on supporting local candidates, getting our individual fiscal houses in order, and figuring out how to work together for something other than a POTUS campaign without killing each other. And if Obama wins? Everything accelerates towards POTUS 2016. It's simply a matter of playing the hand you get rather than the one you wish you had.

[jmdrake]

There is a good chance that Romney could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.

I'd LOL if that happened. Then watch liberals who've been hating on the electoral college since 2000 all of a sudden love it.

[supermario21]

Republicans will keep control of the House but the Senate has begun to swing toward the Democrats again. Control of the Senate is what this election is about, four two main reasons : Supreme Court appointments and treaty ratification. From the perspective of the liberty movement, the best outcome would be for Obama to win and for the Senate to swing Republican.

We need to prioritize this, but you still have a bunch on here not even willing to throw support behind guys like Mourdock, Flake, Mandel, etc..If anything the Republican pickups are going to be the moderates. Don't know much about Berg and Rehrberg.

[Peace&Freedom]

There is no good prospect policy-wise for liberty with either a Romney or a Obama victory, only a tactical one if Obama wins. Tactically, a GOP defeat will discredit (once again) the establishment party leaders' strategy of foisting another moderate loser on the Republican rank and file. At the very least, come 2016, real conservatives will have the fine talking point that, "we bit on McCain, then Romney, they failed, so it's our turn now."

The coming economic collapse, after a Obama victory, will discredit Democrats nationally for years to come. Republicans will sweep to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2014, perhaps even a veto-proof majority. This sets up a victory for a breakthrough liberty candidate in 2016, riding the coat tails of the meltdown, two nationally discredited major parties, and the momentum of a change year.

[supermario21]

There is no good prospect policy-wise for liberty with either a Romney or a Obama victory, only a tactical one if Obama wins. Tactically, a GOP defeat will discredit (once again) the establishment party leaders' strategy of foisting another moderate loser on the Republican rank and file. At the very least, come 2016, real conservatives will have the fine talking point that, "we bit on McCain, then Romney, they failed, so it's our turn now."

The coming economic collapse, after a Obama victory, will discredit Democrats nationally for years to come. Republicans will sweep to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2014, perhaps even a veto-proof majority. This sets up a victory for a breakthrough liberty candidate in 2016, riding the coat tails of the meltdown, two nationally discredited major parties, and the momentum of a change year.

You bring up an interesting point about the 2014 Senate map. Just took a look at it and Republicans should have a shot to pick up 10 seats. I would argue that the map is way more favorable than this map was ever pegged to be. Montana, South Dakota, Iowa, WV, Virginia, NC, Ark, La, Colorado, and New Hampshire. Throw in Minnesota (Coleman v Franken II) and New Jersey (Christie) if they get interested as options for 11 and 12.

[thequietkid10]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

Well the GOP establishment are idiots anyway besides with the economy the way it is, it would be hard for Romney not to win.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

We are insignificant, at least the puritans. To borrow a "Pro Wrestling" term, If Gary Johnson breaks 5% this board will mark the fuck out.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

I would love to see a primary challenge from the right when Romney fails to control the budget, and even better, if he fails to bring down unemployment.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

possible, it might also create a "come to Jesus" moment for the right

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

I suppose your being the pessimist, I"m being the optimist.

[Keith and stuff]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

Not in New Hampshire. The national GOP establishment is trying somewhat to encourage liberty voters to support Romney. Here is the blog post about it. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?796-Rand-Paul-campaigning-for-Romney-or-himself-in-New-Hampshire-Video

I'm not saying that I'm voting for Romney, I'm not. However, if Romney wins NH, the GOP establishment will think that Romney won NH partly because of liberty people voting for him. Whether that will actually be the case or not, I don't know as I may only speak on how I'm voting.

[thoughtomator]

The only problem is that our electoral system is not designed for a government to make sweeping changes. Unless the stars align like they did in 08 for the Dems, and even then it was a stretch, we're never going to get to that breaking point which ushers in a GOP House, White House, and 60+ Senate, let alone get all of them to agree upon everything we want.

This happened for the GOP in 2000; it's more common than you might expect. And 60 in the Senate is not necessary either, 51 or 50+VP will do. They just need to have the courage of their convictions on day 1 of the new session and not allow the filibuster for the session.

I expect that the first indicators will come in the House, that's how it went during the last Republican Revolution - if not for the historic betrayals of Newt Gingrich, much of what we want to get done now could have been done then. The House with its 2 year terms is specifically designed to be closest to the people. I had some hope that 2010 was the start of a new Republican Revolution, but it petered out when so many "Tea Party" candidates became business-as-usual officeholders. 2014 is a better bet, if we still have an electoral system, as the big shocks are going to hit between this election and then.

The electoral goal, IMO, should be to obtain a solid House majority of reps willing to impeach anyone and everyone who doesn't obey the Constitution, whether that be a President or all the Supreme Court justices (or lesser judges). The core problems with the structure of law these days are not things that can be fixed legislatively, there are core principles (e.g. the Bill of Rights) that need to be reaffirmed. The interesting thing when you study the details of our system of checks and balances is that Congress really holds all the cards if it has a majority with courage. The other branches only seem more powerful because we haven't had that in such a long time. A historic economic shock, as I expect to come within the next year or two, is the kind of event which could produce such a Congress.

[McChronagle]

doubt it. a gop sitting on the sidelines can throw all the blame on the dems. putting the gop in the spotlight puts the pressure on them and if anything will only prove further how inept and destructive they are, especially if a financial collapse occurs under their watch.

[thequietkid10]

I'm sorry, this whole "If Romney looses it will discredit the establishment" is bunk. The GOP put up JOHN FRIGGEN MCCAIN in 2008 and lost. They put up Bob Dole in 1996. How many more moderates have to loose before the establishment changes it's mind? Besides if you ever got the Kingmakers to move from the McCain/Romney/Dole types to something else, they would most likely put up a Huckabee or Santorum. At this point your best bet would be that the evangelical get's beat even worse. Of course the problem with that is, is that if the GOP's current infatuation with Romney and McCain are any indication, it will take another two decades for them to move on from the evangelical candidate.


Our best bet (IMO) is to get President Romney to piss off the tea party with inadequate cuts to government and then offer our candidates as a solution

[Origanalist]

I'm sorry, this whole "If Romney looses it will discredit the establishment" is bunk. The GOP put up JOHN FRIGGEN MCCAIN in 2008 and lost. They put up Bob Dole in 1996. How many more moderates have to loose before the establishment changes it's mind? Besides if you ever got the Kingmakers to move from the McCain/Romney/Dole types to something else, they would most likely put up a Huckabee or Santorum. At this point your best bet would be that the evangelical get's beat even worse. Of course the problem with that is, is that if the GOP's current infatuation with Romney and McCain are any indication, it will take another two decades for them to move on from the evangelical candidate.


Our best bet (IMO) is to get President Romney to piss off the tea party with inadequate cuts to government and then offer our candidates as a solution

Just playing devils advocate here, But what did 8 years of GW do?

[thoughtomator]

Just playing devils advocate here, But what did 8 years of GW do?

made a fuck ton of money for the creeps who bought our political system

[Origanalist]

made a fuck ton of money for the creeps who bought our political system

While the GOP faithfull went along to get along.

[scrosnoe]

Maybe Rand Paul has more sway than some here give him/us GOP liberty minded types credit for...

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Why do you think Romney has a chance to win? We still have two weeks, but the popular vote doesn't count. It's the electoral vote which counts. Obama has a pretty solid lead here, counting strong Obama states and leaning Obama states, already has sufficient electoral votes to win . It's going to come down to only three states - maybe four: Ohio, Virginia and Florida. Ohio leans Obama and Virginia/Florida are toss-ups. Romney must win two to have any chance of winning. You also might toss North Carolina, an undecided state, into the mix and of these four, Romney must win three. Also, from what I hear, Gary Johnson is running strong in Virginia - 9% in a few polls. He won't get this in the election, but if he pulls 4-5% he may swing the state to Obama. There is a good chance that Romney could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.Pretty much what I was going to post. Fox talking heads are saying Romney's strategy hinges on winning Ohio, and he's still behind in the polls there. I don't see last night's debate helping his cause. He came off as weak and too similar to Obama on foreign policy. I think Obama squeaks it out in OH. *crosses fingers*

[supermario21]

I think we play a dangerous game just running around saying we anticipate a great economic collapse within the next year or two. Yes, it may be correct, and Ron has always been correct in predicting various bubbles bursting, but we should probably moderate our message just a tad to appeal to the masses we will need. We just need to run on a message of warning and true leadership, rather than running around saying "I expect a collapse." In essence it's the same thing but we cannot afford the outside media to label us as extremists early in the game. I also feel that a Romney win in NH would be credited to liberty activists. Because of Romney's pragmatism I honestly think that he would be more open to the tent of the party (us) than someone like McCain would have been.

[Ivash]

then the GOP will keep losing.

You don't really win points by implying we are all fringe freaks.

Just sayin'.....

That is... unlikely. If Obama is reelected, the Republicans will win in 2016 unless the economy significantly improves. Given the instability in the world that type of improvement is unlikely. Even if it were to improve Republicans would have the upper hand.

[acptulsa]

That is... unlikely. If Obama is reelected, the Republicans will win in 2016 unless the economy significantly improves. Given the instability in the world that type of improvement is unlikely. Even if it were to improve Republicans would have the upper hand.

The trick is going to be clearing the moderate deadwood out. They will try to repeat 2008--a million presumed conservatives splitting the conservative vote and just one moderate warmongering chickenhawk MIC goon to garner all of that vote unsplit. Our challenge isn't to ensure that we only field one presidential candidate. I sincerely doubt we'd field more than that. Our job is to do a good enough job of education that Republicans understand that we can sell a real conservative to independents and even liberals (if only on the federal level), and that no Santorum is mistaken for a conservative.

[gjdavis60]

Vote for whoever you want for President. The movement doesn't really have a card to play here, imo.

Get as many of our peeps elected to House, Senate, and state offices as possible. There's still a lot of work to do here. Allies in political office provide great support to the credibility of our message.

Watch the unfolding of the deteriorating global economy and the failure of the welfare state. Financial pain is the essential catalyst for political change.

Keep changing minds about the role of government.

[WesSeid]

And yet the republicans voted lock step for NDAA because their party told them too.....

That says a lot right there. It is DEMOCRATS who have recently voted against the Patriot Act and the renewal of the electronic wiretap act.

There are still too many neocons in Congress to have a Republican President who has already basically said he'll start a war with Iran and has said he wants to increase military spending by $200 billion dollars a year.

It's hard to fathom, but Obama is actually better on foreign policy than Romney is.

I think people need to take a look at what Rush Limbaugh and some popular blonde Republican talk show host have said about the election. They said if Romney loses, then shut down the Republican Party and fire all the same-old advisors who keep running the elections. If Romney loses, the Republican Party is going to have some soul searching to do.

Also, Paul Ryan is such a big-government, fake-conservative hypocrite... Romney deserves to lose simply for choosing Paul Ryan as a running mate.

Really though, in the end, none of the above matters to most people here because most people here will not be voting for either of the two main candidates. I'll tell you what though, anyone thinking of voting for Romney should go and watch the RNC Sham 2012 and similar videos again. What happened at the convention sealed it for me, and there's no way on Earth I would vote for Romney after that. The toolbags at the RNC can kiss my ass.

[WarAnonymous]

I don't know, it is a bad outcome either way, and there really isn't a good pragmatic answer to this question, IMO. I think the best outcome would be a Republican majority in the senate...or picking up as many seats there as possible. Best case would be for some of the candidates that Rand has helped, to win their races, and then he hopefully picks up a couple more allies on a few issues.

I am not sure how this could help, unless of course you mean "Liberty" Republicans... Guys like Graham, McCain, Portman, etc. We don't need more of

I for one don't want more "republicans" in the senate voting yes to NDAA, Patriot Act, CISPA (If they take a vote), etc.

[WarAnonymous]

That says a lot right there. It is DEMOCRATS who have recently voted against the Patriot Act and the renewal of the electronic wiretap act.

There are still too many neocons in Congress to have a Republican President who has already basically said he'll start a war with Iran and has said he wants to increase military spending by $200 billion dollars a year.

It's hard to fathom, but Obama is actually better on foreign policy than Romney is.

I think people need to take a look at what Rush Limbaugh and some popular blonde Republican talk show host have said about the election. They said if Romney loses, then shut down the Republican Party and fire all the same-old advisors who keep running the elections. If Romney loses, the Republican Party is going to have some soul searching to do.

Also, Paul Ryan is such a big-government, fake-conservative hypocrite... Romney deserves to lose simply for choosing Paul Ryan as a running mate.

Really though, in the end, none of the above matters to most people here because most people here will not be voting for either of the two main candidates. I'll tell you what though, anyone thinking of voting for Romney should go and watch the RNC Sham 2012 and similar videos again. What happened at the convention sealed it for me, and there's no way on Earth I would vote for Romney after that. The toolbags at the RNC can kiss my ass.

In Ohio 3/5 Democrats in the house all voted against NDAA, Patriot Act Ext, and CISPA while EVERY republican voted for all of them. Those 3 also voted for Audit the Fed.

[nobody's_hero]

And yet the republicans voted lock step for NDAA because their party told them too.....

You don't question the fearless leader!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7iu4TQhszs

[unknown]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

AGREE 10000000000000000%

And Ill explain why.

Even though Bush doubled the national debt, attacked the Constitution and greatly expanded the size of government, Republicans didnt say sh*t.

Ron Paul Republicans did but we are actual Conservatives/Libertarians.

The State Sovereignty movement, whether its resisting the Patriot Act, Obamacare, FEMA, the NDAA, the TSA etc., has only been successful because a Democrat is in office.

IF Romney is elected, the sheeple will stand down.

I would argue that its CRUCIAL that Obama win so that the movement continues to build and gain momentum.

[69360]

I'll agree, and I'll add to that. So what if Romney wins? If we don't like him we find someone for a primary (Rand). It doesn't kill the party. Heck it got Pat Buchanan (the last Republican insurgent) a primetime speaking slot at the 1992 convention. I think even if Rand were to lose, to have a platform to give a keynote speech would be a huge win for the movement.

I absolutely guarantee you that Rand would not primary Romney. I'd bet everything I own on that. It's political suicide and Rand is a smart politician.


I don't think Romney is going to win. I'll admit I'm closer to policy with Romney than Obama. But I think the best outcome is an Obama win with the GOP taking the senate and holding the house. Keep everything deadlocked for 4 years and Rand runs. I don't think that outcome is likely though. I the house and senate will stay where they are. Hopefully the GOP house can keep Obama in check.

I'm voting for Johnson.

[The Gold Standard]

A Romney win will be crippling to the movement to take over the GOP. The movement for liberty will continue regardless.

[ninepointfive]

I'll admit I'm closer to policy with Romney than Obama.

Well, probably closer to his most recent rhetoric and talking points.

[supermario21]

I absolutely guarantee you that Rand would not primary Romney. I'd bet everything I own on that. It's political suicide and Rand is a smart politician.


I don't think Romney is going to win. I'll admit I'm closer to policy with Romney than Obama. But I think the best outcome is an Obama win with the GOP taking the senate and holding the house. Keep everything deadlocked for 4 years and Rand runs. I don't think that outcome is likely though. I the house and senate will stay where they are. Hopefully the GOP house can keep Obama in check.

I'm voting for Johnson.

The problem for you is that at this point, I think Romney is more likely to win the election (based on trends, etc) and that Democrats will hold the Senate. What's worse is that it's the tea party guys that are struggling more than the establishment moderates like Tommy Thompson, who seems to have turned things around in Wisconsin. We need to make sure that Flake, Mourdock, Berg, and even Akin all get elected. There's a chance that Republicans being elected this year are Scott Brown, Thompson, and Linda McMahon.

[trey4sports]

In order to gain control of the GOP beast we must first bring it to it's KNEES.

[MelissaCato]

I think it's bad enough a Romney win can give us a 8 more years of this BS corruption compared to Obama giving us 4 more. The thought of Romney winning the election alone creeps me out - I'm actually in hopes Obama gets re-elected in a way because then Rand Paul will have the best shot ever in 2016 or any Republican for that matter.

Either way I think about it - I cannot NOT write Ron Paul in.

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul has my vote until hell or high waters.

[sailingaway]

I think it's bad enough a Romney win can give us a 8 more years of this BS corruption compared to Obama giving us 4 more. The thought of Romney winning the election alone creeps me out - I'm actually in hopes Obama gets re-elected in a way because then Rand Paul will have the best shot ever in 2016 or any Republican for that matter.

Either way I think about it - I cannot NOT write Ron Paul in.

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul has my vote until hell or high waters.

Me too! I found out Ron's votes would be counted in CA, just AFTER I posted this pic:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1627&d=1351098606

[Anti Federalist]

I agree with this and it is why I am voting for Romney

Why are you voting for a gun banner?

[acptulsa]

AGREE 10000000000000000%

And Ill explain why.

Even though Bush doubled the national debt, attacked the Constitution and greatly expanded the size of government, Republicans didnt say sh*t.

Ron Paul Republicans did but we are actual Conservatives/Libertarians.

The State Sovereignty movement, whether its resisting the Patriot Act, Obamacare, FEMA, the NDAA, the TSA etc., has only been successful because a Democrat is in office.

IF Romney is elected, the sheeple will stand down.

I would argue that its CRUCIAL that Obama win so that the movement continues to build and gain momentum.

It does seem like many Republicans just stand together when they have the White House and enjoy having won, while more Democrats are actually willing to look at what their golden boy is actually doing and decide if they're happy about it or not. It certainly isn't true 100% of the time on either 'side of the fence', but that does seem to be the general trend.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't care about alternative universes. In the real world, the lesson the GOP - and the press and the Dems, basically the CW- will take from this is that the country preferred Obama's left-wing policies and proposals (easily the most leftist one since McGovern). And I'm not sure how to effectively dispute that if Obama wins. The immigration stance will certainly change: Romney will win whites by the largest margin ever since Reagan even if loses the election.

That's what all this boils down to, especially down south.

I have heard this with my own ears, too many times to count now:

"I don't care, just so long as we get that nigg*r out of the White House".

And it is not at all what the country wants.

More people of voting age abstain from voting than vote either R or D.

I'm not sure what Boobus wants exactly, but either by choice or sloth, Boobus has been voting "no confidence" for years now.

Ron Paul energized these people to get involved again.

"Dr. Paul cured my apathy".

[CPUd]

That's what all this boils down to, especially down south.

I have heard this with my own ears, too many times to count now:

"I don't care, just so long as we get that nigg*r out of the White House".

And it is not at all what the country wants.

More people of voting age abstain from voting than vote either R or D.

I'm not sure what Boobus wants exactly, but either by choice or sloth, Boobus has been voting "no confidence" for years now.

Ron Paul energized these people to get involved again.

"Dr. Paul cured my apathy".

I am in the South, and have had several people tell me with a straight face that Obama is in the process of implementing Sharia law so the Muslims can take over the U.S.A., and that's the only reason they have to vote for the Mormon.

[Dianne]

There is a cripling blow to liberty, either way this election goes... This is not by choice, it is by design. These terrorists who are running for President of the United States are puppets of the United Nations, our current owners..

And keep in mind, your home, your land, you, and your children have already been placed as collateral to China by the UCC agreement filed with the Maryland Federal Clerk, for 16 trillion in debt to China.

So country is screwed, done... America is history .. now learn to adapt to that, and how you will defend when some Chinese guy comes knocking on your door, asking you to leave.

[mport1]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

Yep, you've nailed it. I'm pulling for an Obama win.

[sailingaway]

quasi related picture off twitter:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A5mT8gGCMAET1ws.jpg

https://twitter.com/NolanForLiberty/status/259401121162997760/photo/1

[DeMintConservative]

That's what all this boils down to, especially down south.

I have heard this with my own ears, too many times to count now:

"I don't care, just so long as we get that nigg*r out of the White House".

And it is not at all what the country wants.

More people of voting age abstain from voting than vote either R or D.

I'm not sure what Boobus wants exactly, but either by choice or sloth, Boobus has been voting "no confidence" for years now.

Ron Paul energized these people to get involved again.

"Dr. Paul cured my apathy".

Yeah, of course. They must be a bunch of racists in the South. There's no other legitimate reason to want your beloved Obama out of the WH. It must be racism. The same people who vote for Nikki Haley, Tim Scot, Alan West or Bobby Jindal.

Disgusting. I've heard that narrative outlined many times - mostly by far-left sites and hawks like Chris Mathews or Maureen Dowd. Never once by a person of character.

[Shane Harris]

Yeah, of course. They must be a bunch of racists in the South. There's no other legitimate reason to want your beloved Obama out of the WH. It must be racism. The same people who vote for Nikki Haley, Tim Scot, Alan West or Bobby Jindal.

Disgusting. I've heard that narrative outlined many times - mostly by far-left sites and hawks like Chris Mathews or Maureen Dowd. Never once by a person of character.

It may not be so much racism but its definitely collectivism. He's a democrat. I'm a republican. Romney is a republican, therefore I like him. Speaking of, why are you pushing Romney so hard on these forums?

[acptulsa]

It may not be so much racism but its definitely collectivism. He's a democrat. I'm a republican. Romney is a republican, therefore I like him. Speaking of, why are you pushing Romney so hard on these forums?

He's not pushing Romney. He's pushing the fallacy that we're all Obama supporters. Because you can't be a conservative and not support a liberal, if that liberal happens to be the one that screws you over at the Republican CalvinBall Tournament. You know, because Republican always means conservative no matter how much socialized medicine it passes, and the fact that the people have no voice in the party doesn't mean it isn't republican, because, you know, it says Republican right there on the sign...

[Shane Harris]

He's not pushing Romney. He's pushing the fallacy that we're all Obama supporters. Because you can't be a conservative and not support a liberal, if that liberal happens to be the one that screws you over at the Republican CalvinBall Tournament. You know, because Republican always means conservative no matter how much socialized medicine it passes, and the fact that the people have no voice in the party doesn't mean it isn't republican, because, you know, it says Republican right there on the sign...

Ah I see now

[Shane Harris]

I don't know how anyone who claims to support liberty could vote for either one of those terrorists after that last debate.

[acptulsa]

Ah I see now

Well, could you explain it to me? Because somewhere in the process of tying myself in a knot, I got confused.

But when the Republicans lose, maybe they'll do some of the same soul searching that the Democrats are doing. Now that they've won, and discovered what they won... :rolleyes:

Note to Demopublicans and Republicrats. We told you so. Both of you.

[Athena]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I think a Romney win will almost definitely be GREAT for libertarians. Just like an Obama win will almost definitely be great for the anti-Dem leftists. Both candidates are fascists. Having someone who is "your guy" be a fascist in the executive branch will seriously make you reconsider "your team." Not your VALUES, but your "team" (and most people are either Team GOP or Team Democrats.)

[Mini-Me]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I think a Romney win will almost definitely be GREAT for libertarians. Just like an Obama win will almost definitely be great for the anti-Dem leftists. Both candidates are fascists. Having someone who is "your guy" be a fascist in the executive branch will seriously make you reconsider "your team." Not your VALUES, but your "team" (and most people are either Team GOP or Team Democrats.)

Say what? Mainstream Republicans didn't even recognize Bush's fascism...and mainstream Democrats don't even recognize Obama's today. Both sides either look the other way or CHEER when their own "team" is ramping up authoritarianism.

Do you know when Democrats cared about wars and civil liberties? When Bush was in office. Do you know when mainstream Republicans started paying attention to us and listening? After McCain got creamed. Our gains in 2012 compared to 2008 are due hugely to McCain's loss.

Republican identity politics especially are all about collective power and pride in being on the winning team (U-S-A! U-S-A!), and they're fueled by the same chest-beating mania and perverted sense of "strength" that drives hypernationalism. When self-identified "conservatives" feel strong, they are almost completely impervious to outside influence...outside influence like us. The best - and for some people, the only - way to briefly open them up to outside influence is to make sure they get their asses handed to them; the loss, the feeling of being "losers," stuns them and shakes their confidence, and it is at that time that a small portion start to reevaluate. (The good news is the number of people changed by this process can potentially accelerate each repetition due to social proof.)

The OP really said it all...a Romney win is the worst possible outcome of this election, and unfortunately, it's now actually looking like it might happen.

[acptulsa]

Both candidates are fascists. Having someone who is "your guy" be a fascist in the executive branch will seriously make you reconsider "your team." Not your VALUES, but your "team" (and most people are either Team GOP or Team Democrats.)

It has been my experience that most Democrats are more likely to do some soul searching when they win, then discover just what they got for all their effort and support. Most Republicans, however, cannot be induced to search their souls unless and until they lose.

[RonPaul25]

Didn't read the whole thread but the way I see it is the biggest difference we can make is on the local level, not national. If Romney looses, some people will blame us for not supporting him, resulting in us being shunned at local/state meetings. Whereas if Romney wins and they know we supported him, people would be more likely to listen to our ideas. I am talking about actual people and not the establishement

[Athena]

Say what? Mainstream Republicans didn't even recognize Bush's fascism...and mainstream Democrats don't even recognize Obama's today. Both sides either look the other way or CHEER when their own "team" is ramping up authoritarianism.

Do you know when Democrats cared about wars and civil liberties? When Bush was in office. Do you know when mainstream Republicans started paying attention to us and listening? After McCain got creamed.

Republican identity politics especially are all about collective power and pride in being on the winning team (U-S-A! U-S-A!), and they're fueled by the same chest-beating mania and perverted sense of "strength" that drives hypernationalism. When self-identified "conservatives" feel strong, they are usually completely impervious to outside influence...outside influence like us. The best - and for some people, the only - way to briefly open them up to outside influence is to make sure they get their asses handed to them; the loss, the feeling of being "losers," stuns them and shakes their confidence, and it is at that time that a small portion start to reevaluate. (The good news is the number of people changed by this process can potentially accelerate each repetition due to social proof.)

The OP really said it all...a Romney win is the worst possible outcome of this election, and unfortunately, it's now actually looking like it might happen.

I and a LOT of former Dems cheered Obama on before he was elected. Lesson learned.
A LOT of current libertarians cheered Bush on before he was elected. Again, lesson learned.

[Mini-Me]

Didn't read the whole thread but the way I see it is the biggest difference we can make is on the local level, not national. If Romney looses, some people will blame us for not supporting him, resulting in us being shunned at local/state meetings. Whereas if Romney wins and they know we supported him, people would be more likely to listen to our ideas. I am talking about actual people and not the establishement

...or, they'll believe that they can still keep winning elections even if they keep peddling the same old politicians without reevaluating a single thing.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Didn't read the whole thread but the way I see it is the biggest difference we can make is on the local level, not national. If Romney looses, some people will blame us for not supporting him, resulting in us being shunned at local/state meetings. Whereas if Romney wins and they know we supported him, people would be more likely to listen to our ideas. I am talking about actual people and not the establishement

100% correct.

It amazes me that conservatives and libertarians don't understand incrementalism and pragmatism at all. The progressives surely do, which is why they have been able to implement their agenda over the last 100 or so years. The right on the other hand, splits into little ideological factions and sits on their hands when "their guy" doesn't win.

[Athena]

It has been my experience that most Democrats are more likely to do some soul searching when they win, then discover just what they got for all their effort and support. Most Republicans, however, cannot be induced to search their souls unless and until they lose.

Doesn't the rise of RP contradict your evaluation? (Not being snarky...serious question.)

What you're saying might have been true pre-widespread-internet when everything political seemed like dueling urban legends, but now, the smarter 50% of the population can fact-check at their fingertips, which they do, because they care. Also, religious fundamentalism is on the decline in the US (and I suspect that's due to the interwebs, as well.)

[Mini-Me]

I and a LOT of former Dems cheered Obama on before he was elected. Lesson learned.
A LOT of current libertarians cheered Bush on before he was elected. Again, lesson learned.

Lesson learned for you, yes, but look around you though at the huge mass of Democrats still supporting Obama, even people who previously marched in anti-war protests during the Bush era. Most of the time, for most of the people, the lesson is not learned at all. Has Romney's nomination just four years after Bush left office not proven this? We've already won over about as many of the rational people as we're going to, and we're coming up against diminishing returns there, because most people have entirely different personality types. Now, we're stuck trying to win over the vast majority of people who form their political opinions emotionally based on social cues. In the case of Republicans, a Romney win will not bring them closer to us; instead, it will embolden them to pursue Bush-era policies with renewed fervor and arrogance and fewer doubts. Combined with all of the other consequences the OP listed (such as our next chance at the Presidency being 2020 at the earliest...a huge problem), a Romney win is the absolute worst case possible result from this election.

[AuH20]

Lesson learned for you, yes, but look around you though at the huge mass of Democrats still supporting Obama, even people who previously marched in anti-war protests during the Bush era. Most of the time, for most of the people, the lesson is not learned at all. Has Romney's nomination just four years after Bush left office not proven this? We've already won over about as many of the rational people as we're going to, and we're coming up against diminishing returns there, because most people have entirely different personality types. Now, we're stuck trying to win over the vast majority of people who form their political opinions emotionally based on social cues. In the case of Republicans, a Romney win will not bring them closer to us; instead, it will embolden them to pursue Bush-era policies with greater fervor and fewer doubts. Combined with all of the other consequences the OP listed, a Romney win is the absolute worst case possible result from this election.

I highly doubt this. Romney is not the preferred choice of the voters. His ascension crystallized largely because every other candidate flamed out. No one is going to cheer Mitt Romney on pursuing unpopular policies. There will be a severe backlash. I'd say that a quarter of the GOP electorate are braindead GOP loyalists who care not about policies but about the W, while the rest possess senses and a functioning brain.

[Mini-Me]

I highly doubt this. Romney is not the preferred choice of the voters. His ascension crystallized largely because every other candidate flamed out. No one is going to cheer Mitt Romney on pursuing unpopular policies. There will be a severe backlash.

In terms of Republican voters, you're right that Romney is not their preferred choice. Someone like Jeb Bush would be their preferred choice...which doesn't exactly contradict what I'm saying.

Just noticed your edit:

I'd say that a quarter of the GOP electorate are braindead GOP loyalists who care not about policies but about the W, while the rest possess senses and a functioning brain.
Perhaps in terms of fiscal policy and economics, yes...but not civil liberties and foreign policy. Romney acting like Obama isn't "tough enough" on Iran is Republican red meat for a reason, and few have the sense to tie foreign policy to their fiscal views instead of putting it in their blind spot. I mean, they've nominated a guy who wants to triple the size of the military in a country that already spends as much as the rest of the world combined, and yet he's still somehow less insanely hawkish than the guy they nominated the last time and the guys they have their eyes on for next time.

[AuH20]

In terms of Republican voters, you're right that Romney is not their preferred choice. Someone like Jeb Bush would be their preferred choice...which doesn't exactly contradict what I'm saying.

No, not Jeb Bush either. He would end up like Perry. On the trash heap. The core republican wants a hybrid conservative like Reagan ( before he was shot). Part libertarian, part realist and with some basic social reservations. In the contemporary environment, Rand Paul is the closest to that and if he isn't demonized can pull together a similar coalition.

[acptulsa]

Doesn't the rise of RP contradict your evaluation? (Not being snarky...serious question.)

What you're saying might have been true pre-widespread-internet when everything political seemed like dueling urban legends, but now, the smarter 50% of the population can fact-check at their fingertips, which they do, because they care. Also, religious fundamentalism is on the decline in the US (and I suspect that's due to the interwebs, as well.)

Two things: I, just for example, became a Republican in 2008, specifically for the purpose of voting for Ron Paul. I enjoyed doing it in 1988, and wanted to do it again.

The second thing is this:


I highly doubt this. Romney is not the preferred choice of the voters. His ascension crystallized largely because every other candidate flamed out. No one is going to cheer Mitt Romney on pursuing unpopular policies. There will be a severe backlash. I'd say that a quarter of the GOP electorate are braindead GOP loyalists who care not about policies but about the W, while the rest possess senses and a functioning brain.

I did say most Republicans. A certain percentage, the one with souls, morals and a sense of carrying good traditions into the future (you know, the ones Democrats like to pretend don't exist), voted for a non-nation building conservative named Dubya and got something entirely different. They were fashionable before the Disaffected Obama Voters made it fashionable.

I just wish there were more of both types. This nation might then be on the road to salvation, rather than rack and ruin.

Oh, and 'the rest of the candidates' didn't flame out. Ron Paul was libeled and slandered by an Australian Democrat named Rupert Murdoch. And if he hadn't been, the GOP would be blowing Obama out of the water right now with all those ever-growing number of independent voters.

[Athena]

Lesson learned for you, yes, but look around you though at the huge mass of Democrats still supporting Obama, even people who previously marched in anti-war protests during the Bush era. Most of the time, for most of the people, the lesson is not learned at all. Has Romney's nomination just four years after Bush left office not proven this? We've already won over about as many of the rational people as we're going to, and we're coming up against diminishing returns there, because most people have entirely different personality types. Now, we're stuck trying to win over the vast majority of people who form their political opinions emotionally based on social cues. In the case of Republicans, a Romney win will not bring them closer to us; instead, it will embolden them to pursue Bush-era policies with renewed fervor and arrogance and fewer doubts. Combined with all of the other consequences the OP listed (such as our next chance at the Presidency being 2020 at the earliest...a huge problem), a Romney win is the absolute worst case possible result from this election.

Have you read the free Ebook "the Authoritarians"? (I just did, and if you read it it will confirm a lot of what you're saying. Great book! Really.)

I guess I just think the internet is a game changer. There are still a LOT of Obamabots, for sure, but I think people might be wising up. Over at my.Firedoglake, (and firedoglake is the second biggest liberal blog on the web, second only to Daily Kos!) NONE of the community are still supporting the Dems.

And a LOT of RP supporters were rooting for Bush before he was elected. I think the internet changed that in a smallish but highly significant way, and in a way that's growing.

[acptulsa]

And a LOT of RP supporters were rooting for Bush before he was elected. I think the internet changed that in a smallish but highly significant way, and in a way that's growing.

I have voted in every election since 1984, and have voted for the lesser of the two major party evils twice--Gore and Kerry, both of whom I detested with a passion. I saw, however, right through Dubya, primarily because I actually looked at who he picked for a running mate. That said, I must speak up for those who voted for Dubya in 2000. They got what Obama voters got. They got lied to.

Have you seen what he said about nation building during that campaign? Sounded really, really good. Bore no relation whatsoever to what he did in office.

[Mini-Me]

No, not Jeb Bush either. He would end up like Perry. On the trash heap. The core republican wants a hybrid conservative like Reagan ( before he was shot). Part libertarian, part realist and with some basic social reservations. In the contemporary environment, Rand Paul is the closest to that and if he isn't demonized can pull together a similar coalition.

I agree that's who they THINK they want, but when it comes to military spending, the vast majority will totally buy into the idea that anyone who wants to cut a dime is "weak." Or...maybe that really is who they want: We tend to like Reagan for his rhetoric but hang our heads in disappointment at his actual policies and spending...it's easy to say that mainstream Republicans overlook Reagan's flaws, but given their continued choice of candidates, it may be more accurate to say that they actually do love Reagan for all of his worst aspects. I mean, how many non-Paul-supporting Republicans do you know who would ever consider any spending on the military to be "too much?" How many do you know who can define any limit to what they believe is practical? We're already spending as much as the rest of the world combined; there is no real milestone left that we have yet to reach, but I'm still seeing people cheering on Romney acting like Obama is selling our military for parts. From what I've seen, a lot more people are susceptible to eating up establishment GOP rhetoric than you're indicating.

Now, I do agree that Rand Paul speaks their language and has a good shot of presenting himself as their man in 2016, if Romney loses this year. However, Rand still has to CONVINCE Republicans on issues like foreign policy; they aren't already with him, and from what I've seen, he's not their ideal, but they like him enough on other issues to often look past this, because he isn't as forceful about it as his father. Either way, if Romney wins, Rand will have to wait until a Romney loss in 2016 and his next shot in 2020, which may be too late. In the meantime, Republican attitudes toward Rand will harden during Romney's term, if they behave anything like how they did during Bush's administration...and it's yet to be seen whether Rand will weather the storm long enough for their attitudes to thaw again after Romney's 2016 loss.

[Athena]

I have voted in every election since 1984, and have voted for the lesser of the two major party evils twice--Gore and Kerry, both of whom I detested with a passion. I saw, however, right through Dubya, primarily because I actually looked at who he picked for a running mate. That said, I must speak up for those who voted for Dubya in 2000. They got what Obama voters got. They got lied to.

Have you seen what he said about nation building during that campaign? Sounded really, really good. Bore no relation whatsoever to what he did in office.

Yes!
That's what I'm saying, too.
Not sure how wires are getting crossed here?

[acptulsa]

Either way, if Romney wins, Rand will have to wait until a Romney loss in 2016 and his next shot in 2020, which may be too late. In the meantime, Republican attitudes toward Rand will harden during Romney's term, if they behave anything like how they did during Bush's administration...and it's yet to be seen whether Rand will weather the storm long enough for their attitudes to thaw again after Romney's 2016 loss.

Maybe. Maybe. I agree that this stands to reason, history bears it out, and all of that. Hell, Ford was never elected, was obviously going to lose the general, and when he ran many Republicans were feeling very, very betrayed by that 'Law and Order' guy Ford had to pardon. Yet even Reagan couldn't successfully primary him.

But the 'net is a game changer. And there's an even more powerful game changer in the works--total fiscal meltdown. Hunger has a wonderful way of sharpening the mind...

[AuH20]

I agree that's who they THINK they want, but when it comes to military spending, the vast majority will totally buy into the idea that anyone who wants to cut a dime is "weak." How many non-Paul-supporting Republicans do you know who would ever consider any spending on the military to be "too much?" How many do you know who can define any limit to what they believe is practical? We're already spending as much as the rest of the world combined; there is no real milestone left that we have yet to reach, but I'm still seeing people cheering on Romney acting like Obama is selling our military for parts. From what I've seen, a lot more people are susceptible to eating up establishment GOP rhetoric than you're indicating.

Now, I do agree that Rand Paul speaks their language and has a good shot of presenting himself as their man in 2016, if Romney loses this year. However, Rand still has to CONVINCE Republicans on issues like foreign policy; they aren't already with him, and from what I've seen, he's not their ideal, but they like him enough on other issues to often look past this, because he isn't as forceful about it as his father. Either way, if Romney wins, Rand will have to wait until a Romney loss in 2016 and his next shot in 2020, which may be too late. In the meantime, Republican attitudes toward Rand will harden during Romney's term, if they behave anything like how they did during Bush's administration...and it's yet to be seen whether Rand will weather the storm long enough for their attitudes to thaw again after Romney's 2016 loss.

It comes down to taking down the talking heads, namely Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They are the ones who herd the weak-minded, in order to discredit those who want to approach our excessive defense spending in a sane manner. My position is very much like Rand Paul. In this day and age, I believe in the concept of standing armies but believe that military expenditures should be drawn back to pre 911 spending levels, in light of the impending fiscal crisis. These type of proposals don't mean I am weak on terror or hate America.

[Mini-Me]

Have you read the free Ebook "the Authoritarians"? (I just did, and if you read it it will confirm a lot of what you're saying. Great book! Really.)

I guess I just think the internet is a game changer. There are still a LOT of Obamabots, for sure, but I think people might be wising up. Over at my.Firedoglake, (and firedoglake is the second biggest liberal blog on the web, second only to Daily Kos!) NONE of the community are still supporting the Dems.

And a LOT of RP supporters were rooting for Bush before he was elected. I think the internet changed that in a smallish but highly significant way, and in a way that's growing.

I haven't read that book, but I do agree with you about the Internet: It's our salvation really, because it not only breaks the media's monopoly on information but provides a platform for us to show our strength. It is "growing" as you say, because social proof means everything when it comes to public opinion.

When it comes to Republicans though, they're a lot more demographically and ideologically homogeneous than Democrats. This is a good thing in the sense that the GOP base is growing old and needs an infusion of new blood, which gives us (who are very young on average) the power to continue naming our terms until they finally acquiesce. Their uniformity makes it easier for us to bond with them over issues of agreement than with the Democrats (a more mish-mash coalition that includes allies on various issues alongside people who oppose us on literally every issue), but it also makes them more stubborn and resistant to change...both in terms of politics and habits. More than any other demographic, the GOP base gets its news from the mainstream media, and like good upstanding citizens, they actually watch it too. If any demographic religiously reads the newspapers and watches Fox News to stay informed and abreast of current events, it's them. Except for visiting comfortable pockets of like-minded souls, the Internet is not their preferred choice for information. If Romney wins, they're going to be hearing a lot of rah-rah'ing from their preferred sources, and when Romney pulls unprecedented authoritarian shenanigans, they will pause for a second, ingest the propaganda from their preferred sources, and nod in agreement...and see each other nodding in agreement, and nod in agreement to that, and they will be much harder to reach until they're stunned again by a Presidential loss four years later. In the meantime, we will have lost four years, and we will have also lost some of the power (and GOP despondence) we need to take over the party from the ground up.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I'm half tempted to vote for Obama even though i despise his policy's.The reason has nothing to do with who will hurt the country more because both suck,but like was mentioned before,if we still desire to try to take control of the republican party then a win by Romney is devastating to our influence ,because it establishes his views in the party and we know thats very anti libertarian and it reaffirms that they can win without us.If he loses it might force the Gop to gravitate towards the libertarians because theres no denying that we were the only enthusiasm in the party.So i know as far as principle its just as wrong to vote for Obama as Romney but as a strategic move to secure a better footing of the movement within the republican party,i think Romney needs to lose and republican in the house and senate need to win,too make as much gridlock as possible for Obama on his next term.
That's how I see things. Id I lived in Ohio it would be a tough call.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I have a hard time believing the House will bow down to King Romney. They will kick his ass, unless he switches sides and starts making deals with the donkey which is certainly possible. That's why I'm not overly worried about Romney. There is enough resistance in the HoR to make his life a living hell.
When's the last time you ever seen Congress kick the ass of a President from the same party? They're a rubber stamp for the most part.

[AuH20]

When's the last time you ever seen Congress kick the ass of a President from the same party? They're a rubber stamp for the most part.

There are enough dissidents in the House to cause major problems for Boehner and they already have for the most part. Historically, we are in a very unique situation, in that many of these reps are forced into corners they may not exactly like.

[RonPaulMall]

I think the most important thing a Romney loss would do is start to convince "Red State" America that they can't possibly win at the national level. Given the demographic reality of America, this is going to happen at some point eventually. Smart Conservatives, like Pat Buchanan, realize it already. But the rank and file R's still have their heads in the sand about it. But the sooner the Conservative Movement realizes it, the better it is for us. Devolution is pretty much the only chance liberty has. We might not ever be able to win the majority of conservatives over to liberty, but winning them over to the idea that the Federal Government is the enemy is close enough. That is the true virtue of an Obama win. It puts the face of evil (for the Conservatives) in to the White House and given what a horrible President Obama has been, and how horrible the economy is, it could serve as a Lincoln-like election in its effect on the opposition.

[acptulsa]

Yes!
That's what I'm saying, too.
Not sure how wires are getting crossed here?

The media crosses the wires. It's called 'divide and conquer tactics'. All we have to do is outgrow them.

[Shane Harris]

I think the most important thing a Romney loss would do is start to convince "Red State" America that they can't possibly win at the national level. Given the demographic reality of America, this is going to happen at some point eventually. Smart Conservatives, like Pat Buchanan, realize it already. But the rank and file R's still have their heads in the sand about it. But the sooner the Conservative Movement realizes it, the better it is for us. Devolution is pretty much the only chance liberty has. We might not ever be able to win the majority of conservatives over to liberty, but winning them over to the idea that the Federal Government is the enemy is close enough. That is the true virtue of an Obama win. It puts the face of evil (for the Conservatives) in to the White House and given what a horrible President Obama has been, and how horrible the economy is, it could serve as a Lincoln-like election in its effect on the opposition.

hadn't thought of this, but very possible. +rep

[AuH20]

I think the most important thing a Romney loss would do is start to convince "Red State" America that they can't possibly win at the national level. Given the demographic reality of America, this is going to happen at some point eventually. Smart Conservatives, like Pat Buchanan, realize it already. But the rank and file R's still have their heads in the sand about it. But the sooner the Conservative Movement realizes it, the better it is for us. Devolution is pretty much the only chance liberty has. We might not ever be able to win the majority of conservatives over to liberty, but winning them over to the idea that the Federal Government is the enemy is close enough. That is the true virtue of an Obama win. It puts the face of evil (for the Conservatives) in to the White House and given what a horrible President Obama has been, and how horrible the economy is, it could serve as a Lincoln-like election in its effect on the opposition.

I concur. Trying to 'save' this abomination is counterproductive ultimately.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I highly doubt this. Romney is not the preferred choice of the voters. His ascension crystallized largely because every other candidate flamed out. No one is going to cheer Mitt Romney on pursuing unpopular policies. There will be a severe backlash. I'd say that a quarter of the GOP electorate are braindead GOP loyalists who care not about policies but about the W, while the rest possess senses and a functioning brain.
I would turn that percentage around. 75% or more are INDEED braindead loyalists. You could not so much as question anything the Bush administration did or you were a terrorist sympathizer or a liberal troglodyte. I saw libertarians raising alarm bells and they were steamrolled out.

[DeMintConservative]

It may not be so much racism but its definitely collectivism. He's a democrat. I'm a republican. Romney is a republican, therefore I like him. Speaking of, why are you pushing Romney so hard on these forums?

Nonsense. The majority of Republicans don't like Romney. He's just the lesser evil. I'm not pushing nearly as hard as many here push for Obama.

[Bastiat's The Law]

No, not Jeb Bush either. He would end up like Perry. On the trash heap. The core republican wants a hybrid conservative like Reagan ( before he was shot). Part libertarian, part realist and with some basic social reservations. In the contemporary environment, Rand Paul is the closest to that and if he isn't demonized can pull together a similar coalition.
You underestimate Jeb Bush. If Romney loses and if Rand Paul runs in 2016. I believe Jeb Bush would be our top competition, not Rubio, not Ryan, not Christie.

[Bastiat's The Law]

There are enough dissidents in the House to cause major problems for Boehner and they already have for the most part. Historically, we are in a very unique situation, in that many of these reps are forced into corners they may not exactly like.
Precious few actually. Boehner still got through most everything he wanted. Kerry and Massie will help though, but we need more.

[DeMintConservative]

I think the most important thing a Romney loss would do is start to convince "Red State" America that they can't possibly win at the national level. Given the demographic reality of America, this is going to happen at some point eventually. Smart Conservatives, like Pat Buchanan, realize it already. But the rank and file R's still have their heads in the sand about it. But the sooner the Conservative Movement realizes it, the better it is for us. Devolution is pretty much the only chance liberty has. We might not ever be able to win the majority of conservatives over to liberty, but winning them over to the idea that the Federal Government is the enemy is close enough. That is the true virtue of an Obama win. It puts the face of evil (for the Conservatives) in to the White House and given what a horrible President Obama has been, and how horrible the economy is, it could serve as a Lincoln-like election in its effect on the opposition.

This will never happen. Especially because if Romney loses, it'll always be close.

If Romney loses, it'll convince Republicans of 3 things:
- that they can't win while proposing entitlement reform
- that they can't win without softening the stance on abortion and contraception subsidies
- that they can't win without a radical change in their immigration platform (I'm pretty sure about this as Romney, regardless of the result, will win whites by the largest margin since Reagan, if not of all times).

That's it. Permanent majorities are a myth. They never happened and never will because parties simply realign by the ideological center. That's the process that will happen in the future too.

You guys keep talking as if Romney is going to lose to some libertarian. He won't. If Romney loses, it'll be to the most leftist president of the last 50 years. The conclusion people will arrive is "okay, we need to move left". Just like after the Reagan+Bush victories, Democrats became New Democrats with Clinton proclaiming "the era of big government is over". Just like after 8 years of Clinton, Republicans became "compassionate conservatives". Parties don't quit trying to win and what they do to win is move closer to the center.

[sailingaway]

This will never happen. Especially because if Romney loses, it'll always be close.

If Romney loses, it'll convince Republicans of 3 things:
- that they can't win while proposing entitlement reform
- that they can't win without softening the stance on abortion and contraception subsidies
- that they can't win without a radical change in their immigration platform (I'm pretty sure about this as Romney, regardless of the result, will win whites by the largest margin since Reagan, if not of all times).

That's it. Permanent majorities are a myth. They never happened and never will because parties simply realign by the ideological center. That's the process that will happen in the future too.

You guys keep talking as if Romney is going to lose to some libertarian. He won't. If Romney loses, it'll be to the most leftist president of the last 50 years. The conclusion people will arrive is "okay, we need to move left". Just like after the Reagan+Bush victories, Democrats became New Democrats with Clinton proclaiming "the era of big government is over". Just like after 8 years of Clinton, Republicans became "compassionate conservatives". Parties don't quit trying to win and what they do to win is move closer to the center.

McCain lost to the same leftist president and everyone knew it was because the base wouldn't turn out for McCain.

[Athena]

I haven't read that book, but I do agree with you about the Internet: It's our salvation really, because it not only breaks the media's monopoly on information but provides a platform for us to show our strength. It is "growing" as you say, because social proof means everything when it comes to public opinion.

When it comes to Republicans though, they're a lot more demographically and ideologically homogeneous than Democrats. This is a good thing in the sense that the GOP base is growing old and needs an infusion of new blood, which gives us (who are very young on average) the power to continue naming our terms until they finally acquiesce. Their uniformity makes it easier for us to bond with them over issues of agreement than with the Democrats (a more mish-mash coalition that includes allies on various issues alongside people who oppose us on literally every issue), but it also makes them more stubborn and resistant to change...both in terms of politics and habits. More than any other demographic, the GOP base gets its news from the mainstream media, and like good upstanding citizens, they actually watch it too. If any demographic religiously reads the newspapers and watches Fox News to stay informed and abreast of current events, it's them. Except for visiting comfortable pockets of like-minded souls, the Internet is not their preferred choice for information. If Romney wins, they're going to be hearing a lot of rah-rah'ing from their preferred sources, and when Romney pulls unprecedented authoritarian shenanigans, they will pause for a second, ingest the propaganda from their preferred sources, and nod in agreement...and see each other nodding in agreement, and nod in agreement to that, and they will be much harder to reach until they're stunned again by a Presidential loss four years later. In the meantime, we will have lost four years, and we will have also lost some of the power (and GOP despondence) we need to take over the party from the ground up.


Please, please, please read this free Ebook:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

It was written during the Bush years but totally applies to the Obama years. It explains "all of it". It explains the Bushbots and the Obamabots equally well. He flat-out says "this is a personality type" just like you did, and it makes sense. It's backed by gobs of good scientific research he explains and that almost anyone can understand. I'm happy to note that rather a lot of his comments are Obama-defectors who see what's up.

[DeMintConservative]

McCain lost to the same leftist president and everyone knew it was because the base wouldn't turn out for McCain.

That's a myth. The base turned out okay. McCain lost because Obama destroyed him with Indies and moderates.

And I doubt that if Romney loses, anyone will claim it's because the Republican base didn't turn out. Especially because he'll put up huge margins in red states.

[Mini-Me]

McCain lost to the same leftist president and everyone knew it was because the base wouldn't turn out for McCain.

It also caused our own support to...what, quadruple? More?

[acptulsa]

Parties don't quit trying to win and what they do to win is move closer to the center.

You tell us over and over and over and over that we're pushing Obama. Then you come out and say that the closer Republicans get to where Obama is, the better they do. Over and over and over and over. Yet the reason Romney's going to lose is because he's already indistinguishable from Obama.

This is so simple, I'm sure that even a mind as simple as yours can grasp it. When faced with a choice between a liberal who claims to be a liberal and a liberal who's lying and claiming he's actually conservative, most people will go with the seemingly honest liberal over the obviously lying liberal.

That's why, had Ron Paul been nominated, we'd be kicking Obama's ass right now. We sold real conservatism on the federal level to independent voters, and a great many disaffected Democrats who don't like Obama any better than any conservative in his or her right mind likes Romney--which as you yourself pointed out, is few if any, on the idea of Paul's real, principled conservatism as an anti-corporatist measure. We sold them federal level conservatism. Flip Flopney isn't principled, but that's beside the point. We could never sell his conservatism as an anti-corporatism measure because he's not conservative. And given the choice between the corporatist they've got and the corporatist from Bain Capital, they'd rather keep the corproatist they've got.

And there's not a damned thing we can do about it. Even if we weren't butthurt from the screwing We, the People took at the so-called republican gathering in Tampa we couldn't do a damned thing about it...


And I doubt that if Romney loses, anyone will claim it's because the Republican base didn't turn out. Especially because he'll put up huge margins in red states.

We hear it every damned day. Often as not, from you. We are the base. We're as conservative as you can get.


That's a myth. The base turned out okay. McCain lost because Obama destroyed him with Indies and moderates.

Independents and moderates might have liked voting for a conservative in 2008. They often do in times of economic crisis. Unfortunately, there was none in the general election. Not even Bob Barr fit the description. So, I guess we'll never know.

[sailingaway]

That's a myth. The base turned out okay. McCain lost because Obama destroyed him with Indies and moderates.

And I doubt that if Romney loses, anyone will claim it's because the Republican base didn't turn out. Especially because he'll put up huge margins in red states.

I agree independents fled, but they polled independents right after to find political leanings and found more than half called themselves MORE conservative than GOP. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

It doesn't matter to me, I already wrote in Ron Paul, and am thrilled that it looks like his votes will be counted in CA.

[DeMintConservative]

I agree independents fled, but they polled independents right after to find political leanings and found more than half called themselves MORE conservative than GOP. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Link? I never heard of that before. Check the exit polls. Check the ideological breakups.

[DeMintConservative]

You tell us over and over and over and over that we're pushing Obama. Then you come out and say that the closer Republicans get to where Obama is, the better they do. Over and over and over and over.

Again, I'm reality based. If Obama wins after this four years, it means American is now much more to the left than just 4 years ago. This has nothing to do with my preferences. It is what it is.


Yet the reason Romney's going to lose is because he's already indistinguishable from Obama.


That's just a fantasy.

[angelatc]

There are enough dissidents in the House to cause major problems for Boehner and they already have for the most part. Historically, we are in a very unique situation, in that many of these reps are forced into corners they may not exactly like.

What makes you think that a president Romney would seek approval from Congress? He's a technocrat - we have one here in Michigan. The legislature told him he couldn't build a bridge, and he just decided to build it anyway.

Bush did the same thing! We told him no on the auto bailouts, and he said screw you, I'm using Taro money. Romney has no respect for the system - he just wants to run it.

[acptulsa]

Again, I'm reality based. If Obama wins after this four years, it means American is now much more to the left than just 4 years ago. This has nothing to do with my preferences. It is what it is.

And yet there isn't one smidgeon of concrete evidence of it. Not one. Just your goofy interpretation of election results. There is not other indication. None.


That's just a fantasy.

A Flip Flopney win is the fantasy.

Pleasant dreams... :rolleyes:

Character still counts with many voters. With most candidates, they have to elect them before they find out if there's any character there. With Flip Flopney, they just don't have that problem. Unfortunate for you, but there it is.


Link? I never heard of that before. Check the exit polls. Check the ideological breakups.

Ideological breakups? Roflmao! Buddy, you're living the GOP's ideological breakup.

[angelatc]

This will never happen. Especially because if Romney loses, it'll always be close.

If Romney loses, it'll convince Republicans of 3 things:
- that they can't win while proposing entitlement reform
- that they can't win without softening the stance on abortion and contraception subsidies
- that they can't win without a radical change in their immigration platform (I'm pretty sure about this as Romney, regardless of the result, will win whites by the largest margin since Reagan, if not of all times).

Which will mean they're still going to be clueless - nothing more than a protest vote.

[sailingaway]

Link? I never heard of that before. Check the exit polls. Check the ideological breakups.

I am trying to remember the polling company. Gallup or Rasmussen I think. It was about February after the election, I think. I don't have the link any more and Rasmussen went to this subscription wall, so I'm not sure if I could pull it up.

[Pauls' Revere]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

on point number:

1) they already affirmed they dont want us and believe they can win without us.

2) again, they already consider us insignificant.

3) agreed, Romney will seal the deal. Especially since the GOP did thier rules change this last convention.

4) I already indirectly blame the GOP for helping to usher in socialism if not outright as much as the Dems. The GOP has lost it's way.

so, yeah if he wins I know two things for sure will happen. Taxes will go up, and we will lose more freedoms. Same for Obama.

[Mini-Me]

Please, please, please read this free Ebook:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

It was written during the Bush years but totally applies to the Obama years. It explains "all of it". It explains the Bushbots and the Obamabots equally well. He flat-out says "this is a personality type" just like you did, and it makes sense. It's backed by gobs of good scientific research he explains and that almost anyone can understand. I'm happy to note that rather a lot of his comments are Obama-defectors who see what's up.

I started off by reading the author's "Comment on the Tea Party Movement" here (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/drbob/Comment%20on%20the%20Tea%20Party.pdf), and I'm disappointed to see how thinly veiled his political bias is. He's spot on about authoritarian followers, but he tries too hard to inherently tie them to conservative ideology and downplay their prevalence among liberals, when it is really only the demographical and ideological homogeneity of authoritarian conservatives that makes them bolder and more visible. There are just as many authoritarian liberals, and they're just as bad, but the Democrats of today are essentially a coalition party opposing a largely uniform group of baby boomers who became the Republican base. Being more of a coalition, they simply don't have as many unanimous points of agreement to work each other into a fervor about much of anything except for wanting more economic regulations, controls, and progressive taxation...and hating Bush (and other Republicans). However, their contrasting diversity and tolerance for each other is incidental to the circumstances and demographics, and it is not indicative of Democrats being intrinsically more free-thinking or rational than Republicans as human beings, or as a result of their ideology. As you say, these insights apply just as well to the Obama-bots as the Bush-bots...and yet the author doesn't himself doesn't seem ready to acknowledge it.

(It's really just the nature of collective institutions to become monsters unto themselves and destroy the individuality of their "cells" though, and over time the reason for their existence shifts from accomplishing a specific purpose to simply promoting their own existence and accumulating power. Sociopaths inevitably rise to the top of all kinds of institutions, from governments to NGO's to corporations to political parties to nonprofits, and irrational, emotionally/socially driven personality types enable this through their desire for social acceptance overriding their individual consciences and rationality. Completely reshaping this reality isn't going to happen, and collective institutions will gradually trend toward evil for all eternity, but the worst abuses are only made possible by the centralization of coercive power, which has also led to the centralization of corporate power...and we're the only political movement that understands the problem or the solution. Mass psychology is an obstacle to change as well, but we can at least adapt to it by making it emotionally and socially rewarding to promote individual liberty, and by making it as unpopular and socially isolating as possible to support neoconservatism. A huge part of that is by making sure the neocons are perceived as "losers" on their way down. Sociopaths rule the world by social manipulation, and as much as we'd rather just argue our hearts out on principled and consequential grounds, we're going to have to learn how to influence people more efficiently on top of that to even the odds.)

Anyway, the imbalance in his analysis was a bit irritating and kept throwing up "caution" signs in my mind, but I could stomach it until he tried lumping libertarians in with authoritarians by portraying us as callous, uncaring "social dominators" who are driven largely by a resentment of equality. In fact, he seems to consider that our defining characteristic.


Libertarians vary in how much the government should do, but staunch libertarianism
apparently rejects the role that government can play in righting injustice and social wrong. It seems
to say, “If some people get screwed in life because of discrimination against their race or gender or
nationality or sexual orientation or whatever, that‟s their tough luck. The government exists to do
things like organize fire departments. It has no business interfering with the way society works.”

One can hold this view, but it does not overflow with sympathy, generosity, or a sense of
justice. When millions of Americans had no health insurance and other millions were being gouged
by the big insurance companies, when so many had been laid off because of a recession caused by
greedy, deceitful bankers, when the poor stayed poor while the rich got richer through tax cuts
enormously favoring them, the “leave things alone” attitude seems morally bankrupt and very
selfish. You often see the Gadsden flag at Tea Party rallies; it‟s the yellow one with the coiled snake
in the center. The inscription under the snake does not read, “Don‟t tread on us;” it goes, “Don‟t
tread on me.” It‟s an apt symbol for this kind of libertarianism.

If you read postings and comments that argue the Tea Party‟s case on various websites, you
will sometimes encounter sentiments like those expressed in the “Three Groups” quote above. Poor
people are poor, they say, simply because they are lazy. We should not extend unemployment
benefits to the people laid off now because it will just encourage them to watch TV instead of
looking for work. The poor people who accepted the banks‟ invitation to buy nice houses for their
families at low interest rates were “reaching beyond their class” and deserved to lose them. The rich
are rich simply because they worked harder than everybody else, and deserve their wealth. Obama
is taking money from those who work hard to buy votes from people demanding hand-outs.
These attitudes come right out of the catechism of the other authoritarian personality that
research has discovered, the social dominators. Their defining characteristic is opposition to
equality. They believe instead in dominance, both personal (if they can pull it off) and in their group
dominating other groups. They endorse using intimidation, threats, and power to enrich themselves
at the expense of others. This is the natural order of things, they believe. “It is a mistake to interfere
with the „law of the jungle,‟ they argue. Some people were meant to dominate others.” “It‟s a dog
eat dog world in which the superior people get to the top.”

Such people may want government to stick to running fire departments so they can rise/stay
above others unimpeded. Research shows that social dominators are power-hungry, mean, amoral,
and even more prejudiced than the authoritarian followers described earlier. They want unfairness
throughout society. Barack Obama, and the ludicrous perception that he is going to lead African-
Americans in “taking over America” would be their worst nightmare. So the hypothesis that the Tea
Party movement has more than its fair share of social dominators may have merit.


Now, yes, there are a lot of fiscal conservatives who ARE like this, and who believe some of the right things for the wrong reasons...but how many real libertarians actually fit the bill? It's much more representative of mainstream Republicans than libertarians or even Objectivists. There will always be a few in any camp, but to apply the caricature so broadly as to attempt to define libertarianism in these terms is simply outrageous...especially the parts of the "social dominator" outlook that "endorse using intimidation, threats, and power to enrich themselves at the expense of others," which are wholly incompatible with libertarianism. What malicious, blatantly disengenuous slander! He included enough "some people" references that he could backpedal on this generalization of libertarians if someone called him on this directly in conversation, but the aim of the piece and emotionally manipulative tone is pretty transparent. This is going to get very off-topic, but I take that mischaracterization personally, so I have to rant about its injustice a bit:

The author may have a good understanding of authoritarian followers, but once he started in trying to make the shoe look like it fit on our feet too, his essay revealed itself as little more than an intellectually dishonest political hit piece against the Tea Party in particular and fiscal conservatives in general, masquerading as psychological insight from a serious academic. (Some of his charges are also quite hypocritical, considering his own worldview implicitly endorses state coercion to enforce his arbitrary utilitarian judgments; the hypocrisy is doubled by his earlier criticism of right-wing hypocrisy. He also likes calling Tea Partiers "Tea Baggers" in the same essay where he laments their own labeling...he's unreal.). I've been all over the political spectrum except for Communism and hard fascism: I was "born and raised" neoconservative and remained so (occasionally wondering about the disconnect between military spending and fiscal conservatism) until I became disillusioned with the wealth gap and the Bush administration's corporatism, militarism, and disregard for the Bill of Rights. I entertained libertarianism before rejecting it for "progressive"/social democratic views out of concern for the poor, then spent a lot of my free time working out universal healthcare and education systems on paper. Gradually, my curse of economic sense forced me to keep revising those ideas until they became so convoluted I was no longer convinced they were workable. Still, what alternative was there to the misery of American corporatism? I plodded on, remaining the only liberal on both sides of my entire family...not exactly a walk in the park, but I wasn't going to back down, because I CARE about people and justice more than fitting in. I became disillusioned with the Democrats after they won Congress in 2006 and kept punting on the war/police state issues, and by the time I heard of Ron Paul in May 2007, I was firmly in the Kucinich/Gravel camp. I initially dismissed Paul as well-intentioned and honest but wacky, but he came back to mind six months later, and I decided that as an honest man, it was worth trying to convince him he was wrong about economic issues. (...lol.) I started writing an essay about problems with the gold standard and such, backing it up with my understanding of Keynesian and otherwise mainstream economics and continually reading about them to be sure, but I forced myself to think everything through to its logical conclusion, and after days of effort and revision, I kept having to address contradictions in my arguments until I finally realized that I was the one who was mistaken. Over the next month or two, I reexamined my beliefs with the understanding that if I was wrong about one issue, I could be wrong about several, and during this time I learned thought enough about economics to totally change my worldview again.

I naturally lean toward the libertarian "I think people have a right to be left alone" viewpoint anyway, and my own life experiences gave me the disposition to eventually come around to hardcore libertarian positions, but nothing ever changed regarding my desire to see people's living standards improve. I'm STILL a "bleeding heart" libertarian, and I believe the current wealth gap is unnatural and harmful, but I do not see economic equality as a supergoal. Instead, I see widespread prosperity as a much higher goal and the free market as the only rational means. I would rather let some people be so rich they owned moon bases than cripple economic production in the name of enforcing equality, so no, I'm not particularly obsessed with equality...but that doesn't mean opposing it defines me, or that I wouldn't be thrilled for free market policies to result in increased production, a middle class that isn't gutted by inflation and capital misappropriation, and the closing of the wealth gap. (Really though, the equality I care most about is equality of rights, and only libertarian/Lockean rights are truly reciprocal and consistently respect each individual's dignity, self-ownership, and free will.)

What's the point of all this obnoxious and off-topic talk about myself? When it comes down to it, I take it quite personally that Bob Altemeyer has the gall to make a carelessly defamatory accusation that libertarian ideology is driven by a callous fundamental resentment of human equality and a "me, me, me" attitude. I expect those kind of accusations from leftist trolls on the Internet who transparently make no genuine attempt to understand us, but when this guy claims to know libertarian motivations and paints them as negatively as possible immediately after writing convincingly and correctly about authoritarians (despite nagging bias throughout), that kind of demagoguery is totally beyond the pale.

Ultimately, the author reminds me a bit of Noam Chomsky, even if he's not quite as outwardly hostile to anything remotely resembling the "right wing:" He's intelligent enough to make startingly accurate pinpoint criticisms of political opponents when they exist, but he's not open-minded enough to take a step back when they don't. When he's right, he's really right, but he's still ultimately guided by a "partisan" (in the loose sense of the word) ideology in a closed feedback loop, so when he's wrong, he has to force the square peg into the round hole and build sophisticated arguments on a foundation of quickstand to bury the elephant in the room and his cognitive dissonance along with it. (That's a lot of mixed analogies...) I have no problem reading something from someone coming from another viewpoint, and I can understand someone disagreeing on economic policy, but if he's the type of hack who goes around insulting libertarian motivations instead of at least acknowledging that we DO care, then I don't think I'm going to get much out of his book that I don't already know. Even if the subject were totally new to me, it's probably not a good idea to view someone as an authority on this topic when he's already shown himself to deliver "honey, honey, poison."

Speaking of poison:

When the American Enterprise Institute recently fired David Frum for saying the GOP was contributing to its own Waterloo by listening to the most radical voices in the party, it was just the latest loss of a principled, intelligent conservative that began some time ago.
Wait...libertarians are social dominator authoritarians, but David Frum is a principled, intelligent conservative? FOR REAL?

...rant over. Anyway, sorry, but I'm afraid I can't put that guy on my "must read" list. ;)

[anaconda]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

A somewhat different perspective...

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/25/rand_paul%E2%80%99s_leverage_with_mitt/

[CaptLouAlbano]

1) they already affirmed they dont want us and believe they can win without us.

2) again, they already consider us insignificant.

On these two points, the reason is because there is no evidence that suggests the Ron Paul faction is a sizable number of people. If a group was able to quantify the number, and say something like "here are 4 million voters who voted for McCain in 08, that will not vote for the GOP ticket in 12 because of their allegiance to Ron Paul" then you might have something. As far as I can tell, the faction is a very small number of people who are still allied to Paul.

[Dogsoldier]

A Romney win is a disaster for the liberty movement.I agree with the OP.

It also says cheaters do actually win.It says everything the Romney camp did was ok.

I can't believe their are some of you are voting for Romney you are the truest form of a traitor or your a troll.

[CaptLouAlbano]

A Romney win is a disaster for the liberty movement.I agree with the OP.

It also says cheaters do actually win.It says everything the Romney camp did was ok.

I can't believe their are some of you are voting for Romney you are the truest form of a traitor or your a troll.

People vote for a variety of reasons: ideological, pragmatic, emotional, political, etc. Just because someone's reason differs from yours does not mean they are a traitor. There are people within this movement as a whole who are running for elected office within the GOP this year and next year. It is only natural that those people publicly support the nominee.

[RonPaul25]

I tend to agree that if Romney looses it will somewhat legitimize the leftist policies of Obama. Even in Romney is gonna end up doing the same, his rhetoric is different. At least with a Romney win there is hope that the majority of people still believe in conservative principals.

[Travlyr]

I tend to agree that if Romney looses it will somewhat legitimize the leftist policies of Obama. Even in Romney is gonna end up doing the same, his rhetoric is different. At least with a Romney win there is hope that the majority of people still believe in conservative principals.

Where does Romney and Obama differ on policy?

[jkob]

It will be a set back for sure. You could pretty much give up on presidential politics for a generation most likely. I don't think it will undo the progress we've made in other areas, we just need to keep getting liberty candidates elected on all levels of government.

Obama winning isn't a good situation either. 2016 isn't a slam dunk by any means.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Where does Romney and Obama differ on policy?

In the broad sense they differ very little, but on specific economic policies Romney has more of a supply-side tone to his rhetoric.

The bigger issue though is in Supreme Court nominees, and the signing of legislation. We will be sending Rand allies in the Senate this year, and again in 2014. As Rand continues to increase his influence we want someone in the White House that is willing to sign legislation that he is able to pass. Obama, in all likelihood, will not sign onto Rand's bills.

For many this election is not as much a confirmation of Romney as it is a rejection of Obama.

[AuH20]

You underestimate Jeb Bush. If Romney loses and if Rand Paul runs in 2016. I believe Jeb Bush would be our top competition, not Rubio, not Ryan, not Christie.

You haven't looked at Jeb Bush's policy beliefs lately? Have you?? He's on the record making many destructive comments. He's King RINO. His candidacy is DOA.

[AuH20]

I would turn that percentage around. 75% or more are INDEED braindead loyalists. You could not so much as question anything the Bush administration did or you were a terrorist sympathizer or a liberal troglodyte. I saw libertarians raising alarm bells and they were steamrolled out.

You don't associate with these people but I do. It's funny how libertarians view conservatives through this blurry prism and vice versa from the conservative viewpoint, creating these erroneous caricatures of them. The hill was inundated with calls during the Medicare D fiasco as well as the McCain-Graham Amnesty bill. And let's not even get started with TARP. Bush is a pariah to all but the most hardcore GOP loyalist (roughly a 1/4 to a third). He sold out for popularity since he's always been a political creature as opposed to an individual with firm beliefs.

[Athena]

I started off by reading the author's "Comment on the Tea Party Movement" here (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/drbob/Comment%20on%20the%20Tea%20Party.pdf), and I'm disappointed to see how thinly veiled his political bias is. He's spot on about authoritarian followers, but he tries too hard to inherently tie them to conservative ideology and downplay their prevalence among liberals, when it is really only the demographical and ideological homogeneity of authoritarian conservatives that makes them bolder and more visible. There are just as many authoritarian liberals, and they're just as bad, but the Democrats of today are essentially a coalition party opposing a largely uniform group of baby boomers who became the Republican base. Being more of a coalition, they simply don't have as many unanimous points of agreement to work each other into a fervor about much of anything except for wanting more economic regulations, controls, and progressive taxation...and hating Bush (and other Republicans). However, their contrasting diversity and tolerance for each other is incidental to the circumstances and demographics, and it is not indicative of Democrats being intrinsically more free-thinking or rational than Republicans as human beings, or as a result of their ideology. As you say, these insights apply just as well to the Obama-bots as the Bush-bots...and yet the author doesn't himself doesn't seem ready to acknowledge it.

(It's really just the nature of collective institutions to become monsters unto themselves and destroy the individuality of their "cells" though, and over time the reason for their existence shifts from accomplishing a specific purpose to simply promoting their own existence and accumulating power. Sociopaths inevitably rise to the top of all kinds of institutions, from governments to NGO's to corporations to political parties to nonprofits, and irrational, emotionally/socially driven personality types enable this through their desire for social acceptance overriding their individual consciences and rationality. Completely reshaping this reality isn't going to happen, and collective institutions will gradually trend toward evil for all eternity, but the worst abuses are only made possible by the centralization of coercive power, which has also led to the centralization of corporate power...and we're the only political movement that understands the problem or the solution. Mass psychology is an obstacle to change as well, but we can at least adapt to it by making it emotionally and socially rewarding to promote individual liberty, and by making it as unpopular and socially isolating as possible to support neoconservatism. A huge part of that is by making sure the neocons are perceived as "losers" on their way down. Sociopaths rule the world by social manipulation, and as much as we'd rather just argue our hearts out on principled and consequential grounds, we're going to have to learn how to influence people more efficiently on top of that to even the odds.)

Anyway, the imbalance in his analysis was a bit irritating and kept throwing up "caution" signs in my mind, but I could stomach it until he tried lumping libertarians in with authoritarians by portraying us as callous, uncaring "social dominators" who are driven largely by a resentment of equality. In fact, he seems to consider that our defining characteristic.



Now, yes, there are a lot of fiscal conservatives who ARE like this, and who believe some of the right things for the wrong reasons...but how many real libertarians actually fit the bill? It's much more representative of mainstream Republicans than libertarians or even Objectivists. There will always be a few in any camp, but to apply the caricature so broadly as to attempt to define libertarianism in these terms is simply outrageous...especially the parts of the "social dominator" outlook that "endorse using intimidation, threats, and power to enrich themselves at the expense of others," which are wholly incompatible with libertarianism. What malicious, blatantly disengenuous slander! He included enough "some people" references that he could backpedal on this generalization of libertarians if someone called him on this directly in conversation, but the aim of the piece and emotionally manipulative tone is pretty transparent. This is going to get very off-topic, but I take that mischaracterization personally, so I have to rant about its injustice a bit:

The author may have a good understanding of authoritarian followers, but once he started in trying to make the shoe look like it fit on our feet too, his essay revealed itself as little more than an intellectually dishonest political hit piece against the Tea Party in particular and fiscal conservatives in general, masquerading as psychological insight from a serious academic. (Some of his charges are also quite hypocritical, considering his own worldview implicitly endorses state coercion to enforce his arbitrary utilitarian judgments; the hypocrisy is doubled by his earlier criticism of right-wing hypocrisy. He also likes calling Tea Partiers "Tea Baggers" in the same essay where he laments their own labeling...he's unreal.). I've been all over the political spectrum except for Communism and hard fascism: I was "born and raised" neoconservative and remained so (occasionally wondering about the disconnect between military spending and fiscal conservatism) until I became disillusioned with the wealth gap and the Bush administration's corporatism, militarism, and disregard for the Bill of Rights. I entertained libertarianism before rejecting it for "progressive"/social democratic views out of concern for the poor, then spent a lot of my free time working out universal healthcare and education systems on paper. Gradually, my curse of economic sense forced me to keep revising those ideas until they became so convoluted I was no longer convinced they were workable. Still, what alternative was there to the misery of American corporatism? I plodded on, remaining the only liberal on both sides of my entire family...not exactly a walk in the park, but I wasn't going to back down, because I CARE about people and justice more than fitting in. I became disillusioned with the Democrats after they won Congress in 2006 and kept punting on the war/police state issues, and by the time I heard of Ron Paul in May 2007, I was firmly in the Kucinich/Gravel camp. I initially dismissed Paul as well-intentioned and honest but wacky, but he came back to mind six months later, and I decided that as an honest man, it was worth trying to convince him he was wrong about economic issues. (...lol.) I started writing an essay about problems with the gold standard and such, backing it up with my understanding of Keynesian and otherwise mainstream economics and continually reading about them to be sure, but I forced myself to think everything through to its logical conclusion, and after days of effort and revision, I kept having to address contradictions in my arguments until I finally realized that I was the one who was mistaken. Over the next month or two, I reexamined my beliefs with the understanding that if I was wrong about one issue, I could be wrong about several, and during this time I learned thought enough about economics to totally change my worldview again.

I naturally lean toward the libertarian "I think people have a right to be left alone" viewpoint anyway, and my own life experiences gave me the disposition to eventually come around to hardcore libertarian positions, but nothing ever changed regarding my desire to see people's living standards improve. I'm STILL a "bleeding heart" libertarian, and I believe the current wealth gap is unnatural and harmful, but I do not see economic equality as a supergoal. Instead, I see widespread prosperity as a much higher goal and the free market as the only rational means. I would rather let some people be so rich they owned moon bases than cripple economic production in the name of enforcing equality, so no, I'm not particularly obsessed with equality...but that doesn't mean opposing it defines me, or that I wouldn't be thrilled for free market policies to result in increased production, a middle class that isn't gutted by inflation and capital misappropriation, and the closing of the wealth gap. (Really though, the equality I care most about is equality of rights, and only libertarian/Lockean rights are truly reciprocal and consistently respect each individual's dignity, self-ownership, and free will.)

What's the point of all this obnoxious and off-topic talk about myself? When it comes down to it, I take it quite personally that Bob Altemeyer has the gall to make a carelessly defamatory accusation that libertarian ideology is driven by a callous fundamental resentment of human equality and a "me, me, me" attitude. I expect those kind of accusations from leftist trolls on the Internet who transparently make no genuine attempt to understand us, but when this guy claims to know libertarian motivations and paints them as negatively as possible immediately after writing convincingly and correctly about authoritarians (despite nagging bias throughout), that kind of demagoguery is totally beyond the pale.

Ultimately, the author reminds me a bit of Noam Chomsky, even if he's not quite as outwardly hostile to anything remotely resembling the "right wing:" He's intelligent enough to make startingly accurate pinpoint criticisms of political opponents when they exist, but he's not open-minded enough to take a step back when they don't. When he's right, he's really right, but he's still ultimately guided by a "partisan" (in the loose sense of the word) ideology in a closed feedback loop, so when he's wrong, he has to force the square peg into the round hole and build sophisticated arguments on a foundation of quickstand to bury the elephant in the room and his cognitive dissonance along with it. (That's a lot of mixed analogies...) I have no problem reading something from someone coming from another viewpoint, and I can understand someone disagreeing on economic policy, but if he's the type of hack who goes around insulting libertarian motivations instead of at least acknowledging that we DO care, then I don't think I'm going to get much out of his book that I don't already know. Even if the subject were totally new to me, it's probably not a good idea to view someone as an authority on this topic when he's already shown himself to deliver "honey, honey, poison."

Speaking of poison:

Wait...libertarians are social dominator authoritarians, but David Frum is a principled, intelligent conservative? FOR REAL?

...rant over. Anyway, sorry, but I'm afraid I can't put that guy on my "must read" list. ;)

The author unveils his political bias transparently in the book, and I would guess he's now seeing how a lot of the authoritarian types jumped right into being Obamabots straight from being Bushbots. (Several people make this point on his comments page, too, after reading the book.)

Also, I doubt he's every hung out with libertarians. He probably just read some Ayn Rand and was like "OMG!"

I still think you'd like the book. He explains some of the highest quality psychological science on fascism/authoritarianism that exists. You just have to forgive him for being less than politically astute. The book isn't as offensive as the Tea Party article. The book is really more about "What makes fascists tick?"

[sailingaway]

FYI: Oct. 24: In Polls, Romney’s Momentum Seems to Have Stopped

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/oct-24-in-polls-romneys-momentum-seems-to-have-stopped/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

It is NYTimes and Nate is definitely biased personally, but he makes good points, and he is uber concerned about his credibility as a pollster.

[Travlyr]

In the broad sense they differ very little, but on specific economic policies Romney has more of a supply-side tone to his rhetoric.

The bigger issue though is in Supreme Court nominees, and the signing of legislation. We will be sending Rand allies in the Senate this year, and again in 2014. As Rand continues to increase his influence we want someone in the White House that is willing to sign legislation that he is able to pass. Obama, in all likelihood, will not sign onto Rand's bills.

For many this election is not as much a confirmation of Romney as it is a rejection of Obama.

I don't think Romney's economic policy differs from Obama at all. He is not talking about auditing the Fed. Without a true audit of the Fed the economics will roll along like a steamroller. The ship will not turn around under Romney.

You had the pleasure of doing business when money was sound. A lot of us never had that chance. We have always been on the losing side of inflation. That is not going to change under either Romney or Obama. Obama seems to be less likely to bomb Iran, but I doubt he has the power to stop the warmongers anyway.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I don't think Romney's economic policy differs from Obama at all. He is not talking about auditing the Fed. Without a true audit of the Fed the economics will roll along like a steamroller. The ship will not turn around under Romney.

You had the pleasure of doing business when money was sound. A lot of us never had that chance. We have always been on the losing side of inflation. That is not going to change under either Romney or Obama. Obama seems to be less likely to bomb Iran, but I doubt he has the power to stop the warmongers anyway.

The differences are marginal at best, I agree on that. Obama is however, a socialist's dream come true, and I want to see that rejected soundly in the EC. As far as Audit the Fed, Romney has gone on record supporting it, though he is not making it a major issue on the stump - more than likely because it is not yet a major issue with the voters. Nonetheless, if we can get the bill passed in both houses in 2012 I believe we have a better chance of it being signed by Romney than by Obama.

[AuH20]

The differences are marginal at best, I agree on that. Obama is however, a socialist's dream come true, and I want to see that rejected soundly in the EC. As far as Audit the Fed, Romney has gone on record supporting it, though he is not making it a major issue on the stump - more than likely because it is not yet a major issue with the voters. Nonetheless, if we can get the bill passed in both houses in 2012 I believe we have a better chance of it being signed by Romney than by Obama.

He's not a traditional socialist. He's a Fabian and they are the most dangerous, because they aren't truthful about their intentions.

[Bastiat's The Law]

You haven't looked at Jeb Bush's policy beliefs lately? Have you?? He's on the record making many destructive comments. He's King RINO. His candidacy is DOA.
I think you just made my case. The last two republican nominees have both been king RINOs and they won a flood of states and had 10's even 100's of millions of dollars behind them. Even with the last name Bush, he'd still be a force to contend with, especially in south and Florida.

[supermario21]

The problem is the moderate RINO Scarborough crowd was already hyping up Jeb in 2016. Even though RINOs are condemned by many, there are still way more of them than us, and the majority of Republicans do as they're told by the establishment.

[AuH20]

The problem is the moderate RINO Scarborough crowd was already hyping up Jeb in 2016. Even though RINOs are condemned by many, there are still way more of them than us, and the majority of Republicans do as they're told by the establishment.

Jeb is done. He's blasted the tea party as extremists. And has an immigration stance much worse than Rick Perry. There isn't a big enough eraser on the planet. Plus, his last name is Bush.

[nobody's_hero]

You haven't looked at Jeb Bush's policy beliefs lately? Have you?? He's on the record making many destructive comments. He's King RINO. His candidacy is DOA.

I hope you are right but FFS they picked Romney this year. I don't know if being a RINO is a disqualifier or a 1st-class ticket to win the nominaton.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I hope you are right but FFS they picked Romney this year. I don't know if being a RINO is a disqualifier or a 1st-class ticket to win the nominaton.

It was more like Romney outlasted a bunch of weak competition. Last man standing more so than anything else. Remember how many were at one time the favorite only to rise and fall when they didn't live up to the hype? I think it large part it was because none of them with the exception of Newt had a national profile of any significance. I think if Huckabee would have run in place of Santorum, we very well might have seen a more intense battle for the nomination.

[AuH20]

I hope you are right but FFS they picked Romney this year. I don't know if being a RINO is a disqualifier or a 1st-class ticket to win the nominaton.

But look at all the frontrunners that crashed and burned. Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum. Romney was the last man standing.

[nobody's_hero]

FYI: Oct. 24: In Polls, Romney’s Momentum Seems to Have Stopped

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/oct-24-in-polls-romneys-momentum-seems-to-have-stopped/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

It is NYTimes and Nate is definitely biased personally, but he makes good points, and he is uber concerned about his credibility as a pollster.

I suspect more polls will show this. I think it got to the part where Romney opened his mouth during the foreign policy debate and everyone on the Romney band wagon heard the haunting sound of the George Bush chuckle.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlFqFFoaoe8

[sailingaway]

It was more like Romney outlasted a bunch of weak competition. Last man standing more so than anything else. Remember how many were at one time the favorite only to rise and fall when they didn't live up to the hype? I think it large part it was because none of them with the exception of Newt had a national profile of any significance. I think if Huckabee would have run in place of Santorum, we very well might have seen a more intense battle for the nomination.
No, the party establishment sets up a candidate or two (one as back up) imho, each year. They CHANGED the rules at RNC to benefit Romney, differently in different states BEFORE the campaign began. I think Huntsman was a special interest back up, but Romney had the party behind him, likely due to his dropping out in 2008 at a surprising key moment so McCain could solidify the party, imho. And McCain/Guiliani had it in 2008, imho.

There is a very uneven playing field for whomever the party establishment is behind. Then there is regional establishment, which in the south was behind whomever the evangelical candidate would be, however that was perceived at the time, and the old time regulars locally got behind them, vying with national establishment. Anyone else coming in had to fight both.

Jeb Bush might well be the guy they get behind, nationally, with some 'if they catch on' possibilities like Rubio, who would otherwise be building his organization to 'really run' the next time, and to be the fake conservative of the cycle for 2012.

I'm cynical, but I have seen a lot of evidence leading me to be cynical.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I'm cynical, but I have seen a lot of evidence leading me to be cynical.

There is a solution for cynicism - run for office and directly have an effect on the process. In four years from now, any one of us can be sitting on our state committee if we work hard enough. AJ Spiker did so in Iowa and there are others across the country having a positive impact - they should be role models for all those who seriously want to have an influence in the political process.

[supermario21]

But this is what scares me about a 2nd term for Obama. Republicans are going to look at the Hispanic vote and realize Jeb is their only shot to win them back. The tea party/small government crowd is also going to get cast aside again and there's going to be a big fight between the base and the establishment. The only problem is that you're going to get 4 or 5 guys who the tea party folks get divided by and 1 establishment hack. It's why I'd rather have a tea party insurgent primary Romney in 2016 than a Republican defeat. If Rand or some other small government crusader is the only one willing to challenge Romney it will be healthier for our movement than having a bunch of nobodies like Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, etc split the Tea Party vote.

[GunnyFreedom]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

Only if it's a blowout. Otherwise all we have to do is say that Rmoney BARELY squeaked out a win against the worst President in history. And that's not just a mindless party thing, remember that Reagan blew Carter away in a humiliating defeat.

If the collapse starts building hard core, just keep articulating how the reason we didn't support Rmoney was because he was identical to Obama. Get ahead of the pushback and paint Rand as 'the new Reagan' to save the economy.

We can survive and thrive from ANYTHING but a Rmoney blowout.

And it does not look like it's going to be a blowout, so I'm not worried.

[Suzu]

Even Ron Paul won't bother to endorse a GOP challenger against a GOP incumbent.....

Can you imagine trying to primary Romney from within the GOP in 2016?I haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but Ron Paul has said that if Romney wins, he would run against him in 2016.

Anyhow, since it's going to be close, it is really up to who counts the votes, isn't it. Which "team" spends the most money on hacking the machines is the winner.

[Suzu]

There is a solution for cynicism - run for office and directly have an effect on the process. In four years from now, any one of us can be sitting on our state committee if we work hard enough. AJ Spiker did so in Iowa and there are others across the country having a positive impact - they should be role models for all those who seriously want to have an influence in the political process.Here in my county in MO, there is a majority of liberty lovers on the GOP committee now, and we've won offices in the state senatorial and congressional district committees. Two years from now, things will be looking even better in this county. The GOP committee is sponsoring educational events for the public every other month. We started with a focus on Agenda 21. Today at a Todd Akin event here in town, he mentioned getting US out of the UN, and everyone in the room applauded and cheered loudly. Oh, it's going to be a fun two years!

[KEEF]

I haven't read this whole thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but Ron Paul has said that if Romney wins, he would run against him in 2016.

Anyhow, since it's going to be close, it is really up to who counts the votes, isn't it. Which "team" spends the most money on hacking the machines is the winner.
Citation?

[seeker4sho]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

I predict the Ron Paul movement will collapse when Rand Paul takes over from Ron. Rand sold out to the neocons when he announced his support for Mitt Romney. I will drop my support for this movement if he takes over.

[supermario21]

I predict the Ron Paul movement will collapse when Rand Paul takes over from Ron. Rand sold out to the neocons when he announced his support for Mitt Romney. I will drop my support for this movement if he takes over.

Well go have fun floundering around in the Libertarian Party then, remaining even more irrelevant than you are now.

[DeMintConservative]

I predict the Ron Paul movement will collapse when Rand Paul takes over from Ron.

Fully agreed.

[Travlyr]

I predict the Ron Paul movement will collapse when Rand Paul takes over from Ron. Rand sold out to the neocons when he announced his support for Mitt Romney. I will drop my support for this movement if he takes over.

The Liberty Movement is not going anywhere. It is worldwide. Ron Paul exposed the truth in, "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity (http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf)" Those of us who have read Ron Paul's works are not able to unlearn what he taught us. We'll go on without you if necessary.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I predict the Ron Paul movement will collapse when Rand Paul takes over from Ron. Rand sold out to the neocons when he announced his support for Mitt Romney. I will drop my support for this movement if he takes over.

Utter foolishness. Nearly every single elected GOP official and candidate from the conservative/libertarian wing of the party is publicly supporting the nominee. If you cannot deal with the reality of politics then perhaps supermario21 is right - the LP might be a better place for you.

[DeMintConservative]

Jeb is done. He's blasted the tea party as extremists. And has an immigration stance much worse than Rick Perry. There isn't a big enough eraser on the planet. Plus, his last name is Bush.

If Romney loses, I think Rubio/Bush - and only one of them will run - and Martinez will be overwhelming favorites for 2016. The after-election talk will be how the GOP can't win in the future without making major inroads with latinos (and that's probably true, the demographics kleep getting tougher every cycle) and need some one with immigration reform cred and ideally some sort of personal connection to Hispanics. And there will be lots of pressure to go the electable route, primary voters easily get tired of seeing the other guys winning.

[CaptLouAlbano]

If Romney loses, I think Rubio/Bush - and only one of them will run - and Martinez will be overwhelming favorites for 2016. The after-election talk will be how the GOP can't win in the future without making major inroads with latinos (and that's probably true, the demographics kleep getting tougher every cycle) and need some one with immigration reform cred and ideally some sort of personal connection to Hispanics. And there will be lots of pressure to go the electable route, primary voters easily get tired of seeing the other guys winning.

Agreed. I think Rand needs 8 years to raise his national profile in order to become a serious contender to the nomination. And if some other person was to arise as a potential nominee from this wing, they will need that much time or longer.

[acptulsa]

I predict the Ron Paul movement will collapse when Rand Paul takes over from Ron. Rand sold out to the neocons when he announced his support for Mitt Romney. I will drop my support for this movement if he takes over.

This herd of cats doesn't really need a figurehead. Ron Paul wasn't even a particularly good one, from a charisma point of view, yet the movement grew from nothing. And you can't even say it grew under his leadership--he admitted himself that, for all that the conventional thinkers called him our leader, he could barely keep up with us.


Agreed. I think Rand needs 8 years to raise his national profile in order to become a serious contender to the nomination. And if some other person was to arise as a potential nominee from this wing, they will need that much time or longer.

Obama didn't. I give Rand more credit than Obama.

[supermario21]

Let's face it: if we're a one person movement, then we don't deserve to transform America. Ron does everything that doesn't require politicians, get people to come see him, educate themselves on the issues, etc. Someone needs to play the politics. Believe it or not, no movement that is successful relies on an extremely narrow base that many of you want. Rand is the guy to do that coalition building for us, and until he actually betrays the movement with votes, is not worth ditching.

[The Dark Knight]

Romney won't win so we will have 4 years to get prepared for Rand. If you wont support Rand that is your choice, I dont see anyone else that can carry this movement as much as Rand could. His voting record is great, not perfect but good enough for me.

[acptulsa]

His voting record is great, not perfect but good enough for me.

If the best senate voting record we've seen in a few decades isn't good enough, or doesn't make up for one lukewarm semi-endorsement, there's truly no hope for this nation.

[Origanalist]

Romney won't win so we will have 4 years to get prepared for Rand. If you wont support Rand that is your choice, I dont see anyone else that can carry this movement as much as Rand could. His voting record is great, not perfect but good enough for me.

I wish I had the same confidence you do that Romney won't win. It's starting to look like he might.

[PaulConventionWV]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

I think you're overstating the blame on the free market. Nobody in their right mind will think Romney is free market in any way.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I think you're overstating the blame on the free market. Nobody in their right mind will think Romney is free market in any way.

Agreed. Romney's biggest selling point is that he is not Obama. A potted plant would be polling as well as Romney is. I just heard on the news that nationally, Romney is up 20% over Obama with Independents. That is a 28 point swing from 08 for Obama. Do they love Romney - hell no, they have just realized that Obama was a huge mistake.

[acptulsa]

Do they love Romney - hell no, they have just realized that Obama was a huge mistake.

And merrily we skip from one huge mistake to another huge mistake. Just like four years ago. And twelve years ago...

[CaptLouAlbano]

And merrily we skip from one huge mistake to another huge mistake. Just like four years ago. And twelve years ago...

All the more reason that the next candidate from this wing of the party that runs for the nomination has the ability to sell the message to the majority of voters.

[acptulsa]

All the more reason that the next candidate from this wing of the party that runs for the nomination has the ability to sell the message to the majority of voters.

And that doesn't just mean picking a Great Communicator, if we can find one. That means four more years of hard work undoing the brainwashing to pave the way for that candidate.

Strangely enough, it seems the message is easier to sell, at least in regards to federal candidates, to liberals than to self-styled conservatives. For that you can thank Public Enemy Number One--Rupert Murdoch. We have got to give Faux the serious discrediting they so richly deserve...


Yeah, yeah. He makes the kind of noises that allows him to win a GOP primary, therefore he's easy to demonize. But his policies are Ron Paul's policies, and his honesty is Ron Paul's honesty. So, maybe it's time liberals learned who their friends are, no?

Look, we've been through this, and I thought the answer was obvious. The best thing for liberals--really, the best possible thing--is libertarians in Washington and your Dems or Greens or whoever down at the state capital. This is the best thing. Really.

If health care and regulation and all of that great stuff is handled on as local a level as possible, no libertarian will violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments by interfering, and the corporations cannot easily distort the whole thing to their ends because to do it would require buying fifty state (and more than half a dozen territorial) legislatures. That's not easy. Washington, on the other hand, is easy. One stop shopping.

One stop shopping. There's your corporatism in a nutshell. Go to Washington and do one stop shopping. Just like that. Fill the legal code down in Washington and every mom and pop down at the farmer's market needs the same fourteen lawyers to do business that Monsanto needs to do business. Let the state legislatures handle it, and (depending on the state) mom and pop need one lawyer, while Monsanto needs at least fifty. One stop shopping.

Keeping Washington honest sounds good in theory. Didn't work. But if you keep Washington small, you don't have to convince twenty million voters nationwide that your local sewers are more important than gay marriage, abortion, and their own local sewers combined. You can just throw out the city council--and it doesn't take twenty million voters to do that.

"I do verily believe that..a single, consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth." -- Thomas Jefferson

How much proof do we need that the man was absolutely right before we pull our heads out and believe him?



No offense, but the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are a better compromise, and a better idea. They really are. We might not live in your liberal state after we work together to get libertarians in office, but no Constitutionalist worth his salt will stand in your way if the majority of the voters in your state want to experiment with socialism.

Hell, with a little healthy competition between the states, you might just make it work halfway well. Europe did, before they had a stupid attack and consolidated their efforts. Now it has all gone to hell...

Please, tell me how I'm wrong about this.

We could get a real conservative elected so easily--if only we could get him or her the nomination. I'm beginning to wonder if the Republican Party isn't the worst place for a true conservative to be.

[CaptLouAlbano]

And that doesn't just mean picking a Great Communicator, if we can find one. That means four more years of hard work undoing the brainwashing to pave the way for that candidate.

Right we need to have people in place at the county and state level to support the candidate of choice, particularly in the early states. Though, all indications from where I sit, looks like we will have eight years to pave the way. Personally, I see that as a plus. I am very high on Rand, and I think 8 years from now, he very well could be the Majority Leader coming out of the gate in 2020 with endorsements from sitting Senators and/or Governors from IA, NH, SC and FL (assuming those are still the first 4).

[whoisjohngalt]

I couldn't agree with the OP more. People seem to undervalue the importance of Rand 2016. It is less about influencing policy and more about using the office of President as a pulpit from which we can educate the average American, who pays little attention to politics.

For those of you who agree, especially those of you in Ohio, some of my friends in the Cincinnati recently started this fb page and are trying to stir up some more anti-Romney sentiment. This is the deciding county in the deciding state for this election.

https://www.facebook.com/saveourparty?notif_t=fbpage_admin

[RonPaul25]

As much as I wish it's gonna happen, I think a lot of you are overestimating Rand's chances in 2016. After what the establishment and media did to Ron this year, do you really think their gonna play nice with Rand. In addition, the chances he wins the primary are slim. However, he will be able to assert more influence in a Romney admin than an Obama admin.

[acptulsa]

As much as I wish it's gonna happen, I think a lot of you are overestimating Rand's chances in 2016. After what the establishment and media did to Ron this year, do you really think their gonna play nice with Rand. In addition, the chances he wins the primary are slim. However, he will be able to assert more influence in a Romney admin than an Obama admin.

After what the Republican Party did to Ron this year, do you really thing we're going to play nice?

I pity the fool who underestimates us from here on out.

[Suzu]

Citation?Well, he hinted at it during his last appearance on Jay Leno's show. And he must have said something to Doug Wead about it, if this Wead blog post (http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/post-paul-what-now/)is any indication.

[Bastiat's The Law]

This herd of cats doesn't really need a figurehead. Ron Paul wasn't even a particularly good one, from a charisma point of view, yet the movement grew from nothing. And you can't even say it grew under his leadership--he admitted himself that, for all that the conventional thinkers called him our leader, he could barely keep up with us.
Can you expand on this point? Not sure what you mean by that.

[Bastiat's The Law]

You don't associate with these people but I do. It's funny how libertarians view conservatives through this blurry prism and vice versa from the conservative viewpoint, creating these erroneous caricatures of them. The hill was inundated with calls during the Medicare D fiasco as well as the McCain-Graham Amnesty bill. And let's not even get started with TARP. Bush is a pariah to all but the most hardcore GOP loyalist (roughly a 1/4 to a third). He sold out for popularity since he's always been a political creature as opposed to an individual with firm beliefs.
You're still talking about a certain segment of the republican or quasi-republican party, namely tea party folks. These people aren't a panacea. Even these more enlightened souls are very easily duped by so-called Tea Party candidates that are really establishment hacks in sheeps clothing. I think the kings of these TPINOs (Tea Party In Name Only) are Rubio and Allen West. West caved to Boehnor on the debt ceiling compromise. I hope to god the serious tea party folks wake up to these guys soon.

[WesSeid]

If the best senate voting record we've seen in a few decades isn't good enough, or doesn't make up for one lukewarm semi-endorsement, there's truly no hope for this nation.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder how we could do much better than Rand, not only at this time, but any time. Yeah, he (presumably) played politics and endorsed Romney over Ron, but, if we think about it, here's a guy who votes basically the same as Ron Paul, while at the same time he gives speeches bashing neocons and indirectly calling them hypocrites, while at the same time has neocons not hating him or even actually liking him.

I mean, if Rand Paul isn't a liberty movement trojan horse, then he sure is a lousy neocon.

[Chester Copperpot]

The more I think about it, the more I wonder how we could do much better than Rand, not only at this time, but any time. Yeah, he (presumably) played politics and endorsed Romney over Ron, but, if we think about it, here's a guy who votes basically the same as Ron Paul, while at the same time he gives speeches bashing neocons and indirectly calling them hypocrites, while at the same time has neocons not hating him or even actually liking him.

I mean, if Rand Paul isn't a liberty movement trojan horse, then he sure is a lousy neocon.

Amen

[DeMintConservative]

Rand Paul will run for re-election in 2016, regardless of what happens this year.

[rpfocus]

Agreed! 3rd Party all the way!

[CPUd]

Agreed. Romney's biggest selling point is that he is not Obama. A potted plant would be polling as well as Romney is. I just heard on the news that nationally, Romney is up 20% over Obama with Independents. That is a 28 point swing from 08 for Obama. Do they love Romney - hell no, they have just realized that Obama was a huge mistake.

I can confirm this:

http://i.imgur.com/zhhPk.jpg