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

[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.

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?



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.