Since it became increasingly clear, following my candidate (and employer) Gary Johnson’s decision to drop out and run third party, and my second choice Ron Paul’s failure to gain traction after his very-respectable-but-just-not-energizing-enough finishes in the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, that a libertarian would not be representing the Republican Party in the general election, my sense of disappointment, frustration, and burn-out has compelled me to take something of a slight break from politics for a month or two. (I’m sure you were all enormously grieved by my absence.) A lot of libertarians in the GOP have been, and are currently, going through this phase right now. One thing that may be snapping a lot of us out of our funk, however, is the chilling surge in popularity of Rick Santorum–quite possibly one of the most overtly anti-libertarian candidates ever to come within reach of the GOP presidential nomination.
Luckily (that can’t be the right word…), Rick Santorum’s views are so far removed from the average American voter, that there is no way he would ever become President, even with the GOP nomination. The real concern is not the damage that a President Santorum (impossible) could do to the country, but the damage that a nominee Santorum (quite possible) would do to the GOP. The GOP is my political home. The GOP is the Party that called the very-libertarian-leaning Sen. Robert Taft its standard-bearer in the 1940′s. It is the Party that nominated Barry Goldwater for President in 1964. It is the Party that gave us Congressman Ron Paul, Congressman Barry Goldwater Jr., and Governor Gary Johnson, and more recently, Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Justin Amash. The GOP is the only Party that allows libertarians to have even a modest voice in national politics. Can anyone name a single, major politician with a roundly libertarian philosophy who has been elected by the Democratic Party in the past century? And the diminutive Libertarian Party, while beautifully orthodox in its party platform, is just not a realistic vehicle for getting libertarians elected to anything more influential than the occasional state legislator or city councilmember. The LP is playing in a winner-take-all system that is rigged against it, unfortunately. I believe most philosophical libertarians understand that participation in the GOP is the path forward for pro-freedom reform. That’s why, when my guy Gary decided to jump to the LP, I wished him nothing but the best, but stuck with the GOP.
Now, chatter abounds regarding some sort of alliance between Romney and Paul, with the purpose of stopping Santorum (or Gingrich). Let me preface my next comments by saying that it’s almost impossible to even fathom a Mitt Romney-Ron Paul 2012 ticket. Romney wouldn’t ask him, and I don’t think Ron would accept. Mitt’s people undoubtedly see Ron’s connection to old newsletters peppered with racist remarks to be far too much of a liability in the race against the first African-American President. A Mitt Romney-Rand Paul ticket is a bit more possible, but still remote. Rand has said he would accept the VP slot if Romney offered it to him. Rand lacks the newsletter baggage, and Rand is much less abrasive with traditional conservatives on war and civil liberty issues (his views, of course, are still very similar to his dad’s, but he tailors his language for conservative audiences and picks his battles much more shrewdly than his father).
The earnestly libertarian vote in the overall GOP is anywhere between 10 and 25%, judging by the vote tallies in primaries and caucuses thus far. The percentage of Republicans who may not have voted for Ron Paul, but who may not be culture warriors, or may be fed up with the Bush-era program of Wilsonian war-making and nation-building, is even higher. The GOP needs to represent these voters. It’s been said by some that Romney (or whoever the Republicans nominate) cannot win the general election without Ron Paul supporters. (I don’t know if this is actually true, but the nominee absolutely cannot afford to go all the way to making an outright enemy of Paulites, as Santorum does.)
Would I vote for Mitt-Paul (either Ron or Rand) if that were the ticket in November? I’m not entirely sure, but I’m leaning towards Yes. The drawback is that the Pauls understand that the strict constitutional role of the Vice President is unbelievably limited (as Vice President John Nance Garner once said, the office is “not worth a warm bucket of piss”). Cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate, and take over if the President is incapacitated or dies (something less and less likely in today’s era of modern medicine and impenetrable presidential security). A Vice President Paul would undoubtedly adhere strictly to that constitutional role, unlike, say, Dick Cheney, who saw his office as a “fourth branch” of government. However, every once in a while, those tie-breaking Senate votes are really worth something, and–more importantly–the Vice Presidency is a great bully pulpit, and one that an ideologue like Ron or Rand Paul would utilize to the fullest. Most importantly, it would set a Paul up as the heir apparent in the next Republican nominating contest (Rand could cruise to the 2020 nomination, and while a VP Ron would be too old to run for the top slot by then, he could play kingmaker, helping ensure that Rand Paul or Justin Amash gets the next nod).
Would I (and most libertarian voters) cast a ballot for Mitt without a strong libertarian running mate? No. Some, more optimistic and compromising libertarian voters might vote for Mitt, but the bulk of Paul’s voters will vote third party, write in Ron Paul’s name, or stay home (a small segment of younger, more naive Paulites will even hold their noses and vote for Obama as a protest vote). A semi-libertarian running mate like Mike Lee or Jim DeMint would surely be better than an outright anti-libertarian running mate like Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum, but there will be no great libertarian-neoconservative alliance without someone of a Paul’s caliber.
Does this mean that libertarian Republicans are fake Republicans? I hardly think so. If you’re a non-libertarian Republican, try to see it from our perspective. Would you vote for anyone the GOP nominated? Any human being, so long as they had an (R) next to their name? Perhaps there are a handful of Republicans who are so committed to playing Red Team – Blue Team that ideas and philosophy mean nothing to them, but I think just about every Republican voter draws the line somewhere. I and other libertarians see Mitt Romney as a George W. Bush Republican. One who will use a few libertarianish phrases, but who–when push comes to shove–will expand the expensive, ineffective wars; will be willing to use bailouts as a means for propping up bubbles; will continue the dilapidation of privacy and civil liberties; and will make only half-hearted efforts at balancing the budget and paying off the debt. Mitt Romney probably wouldn’t take America as sharply in the wrong direction as Obama would, but he would take it in the wrong direction, and at this critical point in history, that’s something we just can’t afford.
I am almost certainly going to vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson, in November. Not because I’m leaving the GOP. Far from it. Those in the Libertarian Party are wonderful people, but investing my time and money in a third party is throwing pearls to the swine. As bad as the GOP establishment can be to libertarians sometimes (okay, most of the time), I still have never seen any Barry Goldwaters, Gary Johnsons, or Ron Pauls elected to major offices by the Libertarian Party, nor has the LP ever been able to give as wide a national hearing to libertarian ideas as the Republican presidential debates have. Until a bunch of billionaires come along and use the sheer power of cash to build up a national political machine (via SuperPACs) for the Libertarian Party that can rival the Democrats’ or Republicans’, I will remain a Republican and will invest my time and resources in building up the Republican Party.
No, the “alliance” between Romney and Paul is quite assuredly nothing more than an instance of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy being utilized to take down Santorum, who is utterly odious to both camps, but the fact that serious pundits are even speculating on the idea of Romney-Paul shows how vastly the make-up of the GOP has changed in the last several years, and how desperately the Republican Party needs something BIG to keep libertarians active in the Big Tent, and not breaking away to third parties or casting protest votes for Democrats.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:13 am
zero chance, negative chance romney would pick ron or rand paul for veep. Why the alliance? maybe ron paul just likes romney, figures he will be the nominee and helping him will also help ron paul, not to mention get in good graces of romney supporters who might help his son in a white house bid someday.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Interesting and honest and thus refreshing.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:24 am
No, the “alliance” between Romney and Paul is quite assuredly nothing more than an instance of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy being utilized to take down Santorum….
Exactly….and, when Paul supporters realize that Ron is simply being used in this fashion, the backlash will be huge.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:32 am
#3,
I don’t know, I think they already realize that.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:33 am
You have to think about voting for a ticket that puts a Libertarian a heartbeat away from the Presidency? Really?
This might be the only shot to have a Libertarian President in the next 100 years.
Well it is said that Libertarians are not pragmatic…
February 25th, 2012 at 11:36 am
The Paul/Romney friendship is genuine and goes back a ways. The wives really take to each other too.
I’m sorry Josiah that your field of acceptance is so limited, when you narrow your possibilities so far, you’re bound to be disappointed.
I’m right in step with you on Santorum. I find him increasingly horrifying.
I’ve recently converted to being an ABO, because as flawed as Santorum is in regards to your ideology, Obama is even worse. Survey the landscape, get the best deal you can. Protest votes fade and are forgotten and you end up with the worst one in the White House instead of the less preferrred one. I had to talk myself through this. I can hardly stand to watch Santorum when he talks, but even more so with Obama.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:36 am
I believe Ron Paul is under VERY HEAVY PRESSURE to run third-party if he doesn’t get SOMETHING from the Republican party.
I completely agree with those who view the idea of Ron Paul as veep as a non-starter. I would go further: I don’t think Rand Paul as the veep is realistic either. The South will go Republican no matter what and, as far as I can tell, that’s the major point in Rand’s favor, if you can call it that.
So what can Paul get on the basis of which he can turn to his supporters and say “See? It was worth it! This is what I got and this is why I’m endorsing Romney and why you need to vote for him.”
Since the veep pick is not a likely or rational option, what could Romney give Paul and his supporters?
That’s a question that needs to be asked, and I look forward to the ideas others may advance in that regard, other than putting a Paul on the ticket.
For what it’s worth, I think Romney needs to examine the Ron Paul platform closely, and think about what of significance he can adopt as the price for Paul’s endorsement.
There are three major planks from Paul:
1) Non-interventionism abroad,
2) abolition of the FED and a return to the gold standard, and
3) restoration of constitutional liberties through actions like repealing the Patriot Act, closing Guantanamo, no more warrantless wiretaps, no summary execution of American citizens, and so on.
I believe Romney cannot adopt 1. There would be a revolt of the neo-cons and that would split the party in two.
2 is believed to be kooky and would damage Romney’s credibility.
3, on the other hand, is a viable and interesting option. I’m a liberal Democrat, and I can tell you many of us are FURIOUS that a constitutional lawyer like Obama has turned his back on the Constitution in this regard. In one fell swoop, Romney might bring many of the Paul folks on board by adopting this plank and also materially affect Obama’s level of support, particularly with young socially liberal libertarians. On a purely selfish note, I would like Romney to do that because it would force Obama to re-examine and reconsider his positions on those issues.
Whatever plank of the Paul platform Romney adopts, one of the three I’ve listed or some other provision, I think the argument that Romney needs to adopt one of Ron Paul’s more important positions is persuasive, and more politically realistic than a place on the ticket or something meaningless, like a prime-time speech.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:41 am
There’s an alternate explanation for why Ron has been so helpful to Mitt in the campaign. If anything, Ron’s done more to bring down Gingrich and Santorum than Mitt’s team has. Ron’s been invaluable in turning the tide of debates, and his ad team is better than Mitt’s.
America is coming to the end of the Statist Cycle. A single failed Bond Auction will start a major run on the dollar. How many credit rating reductions would it take to shut down the infusion of cash into the country? The government is borrowing more than 40 Cents of every dollar it spends, and the government sends out 55 Million Social Security checks every month….and that’s only PART of the safety net.
Far from being a George Bush Republican, Mitt is devoted to the idea of bringing Federal Spending, which is now over 25% of GDP down to less than 20% of it. In other words, he wants to turn back the Statist Cycle. That’s never been done in history before.
And, not only that, he wants to Cap that level of spending….and pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to end deficit spending once and for all. And, as if that wasn’t enough, he has demonstrated his capacity to do that in all 3 sectors of the economy.
THAT’S why Ron has been aiding the Romney campaign. THAT’S why libertarians should support Mitt. Otherwise, the Statist Cycle goes full circle. The next phase, after failed bond auctions and credit downgrades, is blood in the streets.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:49 am
Think of government as a parasite living off of an organism. Think of the organism as the private sector of the economy. Think of the parasite as The State, defined as the government plus those who profit or gain from the government’s initiation of physical force, which includes taxation and deficit spending.
Eventually, the parasite kills the organism it’s feeding on. At that point, the cycle has gone full circle. We’re one failed bond auction away.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Josiah
If the Paul supporters mostly don’t support the GOP nominee in the general election, whether they vote third party, don’t vote, or vote for Obama, they will be marginalizing themselves.
The rest of the GOP will view them as unreliable and thus treat them as a factor over which the GOP has no influence and thus no reason to incorporate them or their policy views…
February 25th, 2012 at 11:54 am
Dave,
But you have to understand, many libertarians don’t believe those items are big enough and soon enough, and more importantly, many libertarians don’t believe Romney would actually even do those things.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:57 am
Becoming the clear second, getting attention to his cause and ideas, was always the most realistic best case scenario for Paul. So become clear second, kicking down the not-Romney’s was in Paul’s interest. Great performances in Iowa and New Hampshire gave him attention, but rise of Newt in South Carolina and Santorum in the caucuses took lots of it away.
I don’t think he is willing to risk chaotic primary in attempt doing somekind of delegate ninja at the convention after several rounds of voting, like some of his supporters are suggesting, considering that the more likely income of that kind of attempt would be to have the “marvelous marxist”, Tofflerian, a bipolar version of Thomas Friedman, Nutty Newt to become the nominee, or Theocrat Rick who would be one of the most anti-libertarian Republican nominees ever.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
#11 – Yup. Heck, most republicans don’t believe Romney, which is why this
primary rolls on.
Ron Paul is basically a placeholder. No one thinks he can be president or
would want him to be. But at least he gets the message out. I don’t think
he can bring voters to the GOP at all.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Anyway when it comes to Rand Paul leaving the Senate to become VP, Kentucky governor is Democrat, he could nominate a Democrat to Rand Paul’s senate seat until next congressional election in 2014.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
#14,
Wouldn’t the appointment get to serve out all of Rand’s Senate term, meaning until 2016?
February 25th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Santorum’s now criticizing Romney for not supporting the auto bailout.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
The thing is, there is common ground between Romney and Paul. And it is what makes it possible to bring in at least some Paul supporters… There is a huge tradition to “live and let live” within Mormon doctrine and why libertarian politics always go over well in Utah.
Ron Paul as a Libertarian is not his weakness, that is his strength. His weakness is his continued belief in Trutherism and other wild conspiracy theories.
These beliefs isolate him from mainstream thought in any ideology. In fact, if the world were so full of murderers and miscreants as Paul believes, this country would not even be worth saving.
Paranoia is not a compelling political philosophy.
Libertarian tendencies, though impractical, is something that could bring Romney supporters and Paul supporters closer together.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Josiah,
There are libertarians who lack perception….you can find those people in ANY camp. My advantage is in knowing virtually anything worth knowing about Romney. I’ve been following him for 10 years. As just one example, Mitt had an aid keep track of every campaign promise he made during his 2001-2002 campaign for the Governorship. When he won, he asked to see the list. There were a little over 70 promises on it, and he kept every promise on the list.
Doing what he said he’d do, enumerated in #8, is his raison d’etre for being in the race. He doesn’t need the money. His whole life is based on doing the right thing.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Romney should invite Rand Paul to be the chairman of his national campaign (fire Pawlenty) and Ron Paul could be invited to fill a senior advisory position. The latter is almost certain to happen. This should be enough to convince libertarians that they will have a prominent voice in the administration.
But inviting either Paul to be the VP on the ticket is a bad idea. The main role of the VP is to attend funerals and to say ditto to everything the president says. This would kill all the appeal the Paul’s have today. And they probably wouldn’t do it.
It’s a huge mistake to put one of the rising stars of the party into that position. Palin’s political career was destroyed when McCain made the mistake of putting her on the ticket too early. The VP should not become a distraction. It should be someone that fits the profile of Dick Cheney, not Sarah Palin.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
BTW,
Josiah, a failed bond auction would mean other governments would no longer loan us the money the government needs to conduct business, like sending people checks, and THAT could happen tomorrow.
As Mitt said, we probably have a couple of years…..but it COULD be tomorrow.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
amen Dave,
thats what Paul accepts. He trusts in Mitt’s business principles/experience. A businessman is a conservative (unless hes at GM of course).
I hope the Romney/Rubio ticket will call for an audit of the fed
February 25th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
15:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0018.htm
I think that elected candidate serving for the remainder of the unexpired term if there is any of that term left, means that the election would be in 2014 congressional election, the winner would serve the two remainder years of the unexpired term, and would have to face another election again in 2016, if he wants to stay in the Senate.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
It is very illogical to say vote for a place holder… but to say that you don’t trust Romney to do what he says. You don’t even have a name or a person to compare. Of course a dream (or pretend) candidate is better than any living person.
And in fact Ron Paul has never been vetted. Not like the others. He has never made it to the threshold of a true choice. So of course he looks much as any dream would look until examined.
You get the complete lack of logic in the whole idea that it is better to not vote for the closest thing to what you believe?
One way some of what you believe happens, the other none of it does.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Excellent column as always, Josiah. I too will be voting for Gary Johnson this fall.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
#3 and 4, you two must have an extremely low opinion of Ron Paul to suggest that he is so stupid that he could be easily manipulated by Romney to run attacks against Santorum and Gingrich. Paul is a smart man, and most of all, he is his own man. Paul doesn’t kowtow to anyone, that is his biggest selling point. Paul has his own agenda that he is pursuing, no one is using him.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Josiah, nice guy and all, thoroughly represents the leftwing of the libertarian Republican movement. He by no means is representative of us libertarian Republicans of all. Sadly, Josiah takes out the anti-Islamist part of the pro-liberty equation. We libertarians do not want our wives and girlfriends to be forced to wear ugly black burkas from head to toe, booze and gambling outlawed and free speech banned under Sharia Law. These days you simply cannot call yourself a consistent “libertarian” without also staunch opposition to rising Islamism.
We libertarian Republicans will enthusiastically endorse Mitt Romney for President, (with a hat tip to our friend Gary Johnson on the Libertarian Party line.) Mitt (and Gary incidentally) get it on the issue of Islamism, unlike Ron Paul.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net
February 25th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Good post, but I think you are mistaken with your underlying premise.
If you don’t think Romney will tackle the deficit, you haven’t paid much attention to his career. Shrink the blood supply, kill the tumor. Balance/shrink the budget, slow/reverse the growth of government = less government in our lives. Sounds libertarian to me.
It takes a while to turn the ship of state, but you start by living within your means, consolidating agencies, and forcing those that remain to tighten their belts. Romney’s background in business restructuring is all about that.
I think many libertarians will be pleasantly suprised, and should you get the opportunity, will gladly vote for Romney’s re-election in 4 years. In light of this, I hope you help give him the first 4.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
I don’t know where this idea that businessmen are conservative comes from…but most are decidedly not.
Big business LOVES big government. Big business loves to play the crony game and supports candidates that they feel will “help” or payback their efforts in government regulation, etc. Also most Big businessmen are socially liberal.
Small businessmen, the mom and pops and owner operators of entrepreneurial start ups tend to be very conservative.
But that isn’t what Romney is. He is of the liberal business school world of high finance and Wall Street bankers (I know he didn’t actually work on Wall Street – not the point)
Being a successful big “businessman” just means he knows how to play the game for maximum profitability…to get an idea of how he would govern we need to look at his record as an elected office holder.
There’s your trouble.
February 25th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
19. Ah! Finally! Somebody gets that the Paul supporters should a) be treated seriously and b) should be offered something concrete! A breath of fresh air.
Ron Paul in a senior advisory position certainly makes some political sense. At least then many Paul supporters would see that they finally had a seat at the table, even if they’re not at the head of it.
I still think Romney needs to give the Paul folks something significant in the platform, but a senior position is certainly a good start.
February 25th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
I don’t think there ever has been an alliance between Paul and Romney. Nonetheless, Romney will end the fed and he don’t need no Ron Paul to do it.
February 25th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
27
Romney isn’t a big business kind of guy. He founded Bain Capital from pretty much scratch. He’s not the CEO of GE. He’s not small business, but he’s not big-business-big-government either.
February 25th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
From US Constitution A1.S3.P4:
This is something we need to consider. Historically, at least recently, the Vice President has been absented from the Senate. I never understand why. For me, a President of a House is the one who define the agenda for the Senators to vote. We have seen how Reid and his crones have played the game during the Bush Administration, making it nearly impossible for the Republicans to do anything. My question is, why cannot a Libertarian Vice President force the Senators to vote on issues that they refuse to touch with a 10-foot pole, like Social Security and Medicare? I understand the Vice President can’t vote, but he, according to Constitution, should have the ownership of the agenda.
February 25th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
#31. That’s interesting. What does the constitutionalist Paul think of that idea?
February 25th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Tele – are you serious? How many times have Mitt’s Bain Capital invested in “mom & pop” businesses? Have we forgotten how Staples has only one store when Bain invested in it? Have we forgotten how Dominio’s Pizza was found only in a handful of states before Bain gave them the resources to go nationwide? Yes, Bain invested in several companies with thousands of employees, but it also has invested in many companies with hundreds of employees or less.
February 25th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
From Wiki concering my #31:
If Paul is on the ticket, he’ll be more likely than not to “preside” the Senate as the Vice President.
February 25th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Josiah represents old-style libertarianism. This is no longer your grandpappy’s libertarian movement. Today we modern libertarians recognize that Big Islam is just as much a threat to our personal liberties, as is Big Government.
Josiah’s approach, and that of the Ron Paulists, is to hide your head in the sand, and pretend Islamism doesn’t exist. That’s whey you see a news blackout at Daily Paul, Reason, Lew Rockwell.com and other left-libertarian sites about how Islamists are threatening to ban alcohol in towns in Pennsylvania, are raping young Brit girls from London to Manchester, Muslim honor killings in Ontario and Phoenix, AZ, and Swedish cartoonists stoned and egged at speeches on college campuses in Oslo.
That doesn’t fit the left-libertarian/Josiah Schmidt template. So, they ignore it.
Mitt Romney has a rabid anti-Islamist Walid Phares as his foreign policy advisor. Romney is 110% Pro-Israel. Fighting Islamism has become the number one issue for us right-libertarians. Josiah and the left-libertarians can stay home on election day. But as for us anti-Islamist libertarians, we’re gonna vote Mitt Romney, with enthusiasm.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net
Fmr. Libertarian National Comm.
Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus
February 25th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Wow, things turned nutty.
February 25th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
As #17 said, “Ron Paul as a Libertarian is not his weakness, that is his strength. His weakness is his continued belief in Trutherism and other wild conspiracy theories.”
That’s a complete bullshit lie. I might as well say that Newt wants to move the White House to the Moon, Santorum believes that we should nuke Hell, or Romney has 100 wives stowed away in Utah. I don’t know why, but these ridiculously false lies just piss me the hell off.
February 25th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Maybe it has been stated, if so I concur. If the Libertarian Republicans are more than likely to vote third party or not at all, why pay attention to them? Why waste energy trying to garner their vote? As such, they can be completely ignored from either D or R voting totals. If, as a group, you state no way now how, then why should the rest of us care?
February 25th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
#38,
So, you’re saying the GOP nominee should only expend their energy on garnering the votes of those who already plan on voting for them??
February 25th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Your vote for a no-chance 3rd party libertarian candidate is hurting the very same party that you speak so highly of, the GOP. Eventually the libertarian party’s message will get through, whether through a GOP/libertarian hybrid or through a genuine libertarian candidate rising up through the GOP. For every vote that you give to a no-chance libertarian candidate – Obama gets a little stronger. We could really use your vote in this upcoming election, and although I understand the need to cast a symbolic vote for the libertarian party, Obama’s policies need to be stopped. Consider reconsidering
February 25th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
#40, I’m never going to vote for someone who supports the NDAA indefinite detentions clause or the Patriot Act. Until he flip flops on that, he has no chance of having my vote. Sorry.
February 25th, 2012 at 5:32 pm
#38. well, yes, to a point. You still have to convince your base to be motivated enough to go to the polls. But also convince others who are undecided or waffling. But if you have a group like #41, why bother? It’s a waste of resources.
February 25th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
42. Why bother? How about because it’s a close election and you want to win!
No one is saying all the Ron Paul people can be brought on board, or that they will get everything they want; that’s absurd. What we’re talking about is giving them at least a FEW things so that SOME of them will come on board. It’s called campaigning and winning votes, and it’s how you win an election. Unless Romney’s not interested in winning, of course.
February 25th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
What if Ron was given Secretary of Treasury?
February 25th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
I’m speaking in absolutisms, obviously. Of course Romney will try to be all inclusive.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
#44, I won’t vote for someone who supports shitting on the Bill of Rights just cause someone who doesn’t support shitting on them is in the Cabinet.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
What an unaddressed issue is are the polling organizations that intentionally dropped Gary Johnson for their polls when Johnson was polling higher than 1% Santorum and 1% Huntsman last Summer and Fall. Johnson was at 2% and higher and then Gallup, CNN, Rassmussen and other polling organizations dropped him like a hot rock. I even emailed one of them about they they excluded Johnson and they said there wasn’t enough interest in including Johnson to bother listing him, and this was when Santorus was still running at 1-2% and the polls that were still including Johnson (Fox) still listed him higher than Santorum.
And if Johnson needs to poll at 15% to qualify for the presidential debates, would the polling organizations take any answer in favor for Johnson and lump it into the “some other candidate” or “undecided” pile that they admitted doing to those who answered their choice for Johnson when Johnson was still a GOP contender last year?
February 29th, 2012 at 5:24 am
Oh nice, Eric Dondero is back. The guy whose comments were deleted because he made up a really juvenile nickname for me after I disagreed with him.
February 29th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
“If the Paul supporters mostly don’t support the GOP nominee in the general election, whether they vote third party, don’t vote, or vote for Obama, they will be marginalizing themselves.
The rest of the GOP will view them as unreliable and thus treat them as a factor over which the GOP has no influence and thus no reason to incorporate them or their policy views…”
The view above is a good example of how many Republicans think. The problem is that the Social Conservative Republicans want to talk about unity and how the libertarians should compromise. But then when that are elected the Social Conservatives enact big government policies that grow government. Rick Santorum had this to say about Libertarianism:
“I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/20/santorums-libertarian-problem/#ixzz1nnM4wUki
I would vote for a Clinton before I would vote for Santorum. If the Republicans don’t try to put forward candidates who respect individual rights I have no reason to support their social conservative behemoth over the Democrats Liberal social policy. I don’t see how anyone can vote for Obama though.