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

[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.