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

[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.

 

[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/u...omney-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/u...omney-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.

 

[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/u...omney-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.