Mitt Romney - Scores lowest and ALCU card and wants more military

Ron Paul 2012

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
28
I've been discussing this with fellow libertarians and most of them are either going to vote for Gary Johnson and most everyone else is sitting out. What we can't figure out is why anyone in their right mind would vote for Romney. He scored lowest (far lower than even Obama) in the ACLU scorecard.

http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf

Romney is talking about increasing military spending, and as much as Obama has pretty much perpetuated the MIC and dragged his feet on getting us put of the middle east, Mitt Romney makes him look like a peace-loving hippy.

us-troops-afghanistan-iraq.jpg


And given his numerous flip flops and the fact he created the prototype for Obamacare, I'm not sure I trust him when he says he'll do anything to repeal it. He is just another wall street/Fed cronie.
 
Last edited:
I'm not really a fan of the ACLU. I agree with them on police state issues like the Patriot Act and the NDAA, and strongly disagree with them on issues like abortion and the "separation of church and state." But they really are a left wing organization rather than a libertarian organization. But, I'll grant that Romney is absolutely horrible on foreign policy issues and wants to increase the Pentagon's budget at a time when our country is drowning in debt.
 
ACLU is a liberal organization. For President Obama to be a given a score anywhere near Ron Paul shows their liberal bias. Reproductive choice???? That's called murder. Voter supression??? That's called protecting the ballot boxes.

Their immigration policy is extreme. They oppose the freedom to pray in school, promoting a radical agenda called "Freedom FROM religion". They support the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act. They support affirmative action.

Ron Paul opposes their radical immigration policy, supports a constitutional amendment in 1997 to promote the freedom to pray in silence at school, and votes against VAWA and affirmative action.

For them or anybody to even insinuate that President Obama is as freedom-loving as Ron Paul is an insult to Ron Paul and many of his supporters.

(To your point about Mitt Romney, we may disagree on some things about him...but I will agree that he isn't as conservative as most conservatives would like. But I want to make the point that the ACLU is NOT a friend of liberty-loving people.)

(Note: I agree with them on issues like the Patriot Act and the NDAA...but I don't think they understand the constitution all that well when they promote freedom from religion.)
 
Last edited:
I'm not really a fan of the ACLU. I agree with them on police state issues like the Patriot Act and the NDAA, and strongly disagree with them on issues like abortion and the "separation of church and state." But they really are a left wing organization rather than a libertarian organization. But, I'll grant that Romney is absolutely horrible on foreign policy issues and wants to increase the Pentagon's budget at a time when our country is drowning in debt.

you beat me to it. :) I was still typing just as you were posting.
 
ACLU is a liberal organization. For President Obama to be a given a score anywhere near Ron Paul shows their liberal bias. Reproductive choice???? That's called murder. Voter supression??? That's called protecting the ballot boxes.

Their immigration policy is extreme. They oppose the freedom to pray in school, promoting a radical agenda called "Freedom FROM religion". They support the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act. They support affirmative action.

Ron Paul opposes their radical immigration policy, supports a constitutional amendment in 1997 to promote the freedom to pray in silence at school, and votes against VAWA and affirmative action.

For them or anybody to even insinuate that President Obama is as freedom-loving as Ron Paul is an insult to Ron Paul and many of his supporters.

(To your point about Mitt Romney, we may disagree on some things about him...but I will agree that he isn't as conservative as most conservatives would like. But I want to make the point that the ACLU is NOT a friend of liberty-loving people.)

(Note: I agree with them on issues like the Patriot Act and the NDAA...but I don't think they understand the constitution all that well when they promote freedom from religion.)

Only care enough to counter one point, Ron said numerous times this cycle that unlimited travel and trade across borders (he even said open borders, the horror!) is the goal, and that there is no reason we shouldn't move in that direction.
 
Only care enough to counter one point, Ron said numerous times this cycle that unlimited travel and trade across borders (he even said open borders, the horror!) is the goal, and that there is no reason we shouldn't move in that direction.

He voted in favor of the border fence and other bills that provided border security. He's not as strong on that issue as I would like, but he doesn't support "open borders."
 
ACLU is a liberal organization. For President Obama to be a given a score anywhere near Ron Paul shows their liberal bias. Reproductive choice???? That's called murder. Voter supression??? That's called protecting the ballot boxes.

Their immigration policy is extreme. They oppose the freedom to pray in school, promoting a radical agenda called "Freedom FROM religion". They support the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act. They support affirmative action.

Ron Paul opposes their radical immigration policy, supports a constitutional amendment in 1997 to promote the freedom to pray in silence at school, and votes against VAWA and affirmative action.

For them or anybody to even insinuate that President Obama is as freedom-loving as Ron Paul is an insult to Ron Paul and many of his supporters.

(To your point about Mitt Romney, we may disagree on some things about him...but I will agree that he isn't as conservative as most conservatives would like. But I want to make the point that the ACLU is NOT a friend of liberty-loving people.)

(Note: I agree with them on issues like the Patriot Act and the NDAA...but I don't think they understand the constitution all that well when they promote freedom from religion.)

I agree completely. Any legitimate libertarian organization would give Obama a rating of 0%.
 
He voted in favor of the border fence and other bills that provided border security. He's not as strong on that issue as I would like, but he doesn't support "open borders."

He stated in numerous interviews that he didn't want the fence, and he's also voted against other bills that provide border security.

He said this in a Q&A in New Hampshire:

" ... in an ideal society - and there are many libertarians who would argue that case - I don't think we're in the condition where that would work very well right now, even though I recognize that as something we might well strive for.

In reference to the open travel of immigration, labor, and goods across American borders... about twenty seconds later, he says, verbatim, "that is something we should strive for," and "I don't see any reason to not work in that direction".

Will find the video for those remarks when I can. The original was wiped from YouTube when RonPaul2008dotcom was erased, and was from this event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFcqjisV8o8.



@49:00, Questioner asks about a free market in immigration, and Ron says that's the ideal.



Watch the whole video, but at 3:35 he says "ideally, the freer the better".
 
Only care enough to counter one point, Ron said numerous times this cycle that unlimited travel and trade across borders (he even said open borders, the horror!) is the goal, and that there is no reason we shouldn't move in that direction.

You can make claims about what he says or even quote him...but it's his voting records that show where he stands. He's not in favor of open borders and this vote proves he isn't:

http://votesmart.org/bill/3341/8235/296/secure-fence-act-of-2006

I don't think supporting a 700 mile fence is called supporting open borders. :)
 
You can make claims about what he says or even quote him...but it's his voting records that show where he stands. He's not in favor of open borders and this vote proves he isn't:

http://votesmart.org/bill/3341/8235/296/secure-fence-act-of-2006

I don't think supporting a 700 mile fence is called supporting open borders. :)



He doesn't support a fence.

Looking at voting records alone is a poor way to judge anybody. Legislation is hideously gargantuan and multi-faceted, a vote for or against a particular item headlined in a bill is regularly meaningless.
 
Last edited:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll385.xml

Also, see the videos above, and read his chapter in Liberty Defined.

Well, in Liberty Defined, he basically reminds us that open boarders, wouldn't necessarily be all that 'open' in the first place, if there are property rights....

So if some immigrants come and squat on your property, without your permission, you have a right to tell them to take a hike...or if some cartel tries to run guns or drugs across your property...well, with the right to bear arms and the elimination of the drug war, there will probably be a lot less of that. With the elimination of the welfare state, less people coming for govt handouts too, and of course with the non interventionist foreign policy and elimination of the warfare state--hopefully fewer terrorists wanting to come blow themselves up too. So, it fits together...
 
Last edited:
ACLU Campaign Report Card: GOP Split on Constitution

Submitted by Anthony D. Romero on Fri, 12/30/2011

Anthony D. Romero is the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, the nation’s premier defender of liberty and individual freedom.


Since the presidential election began in earnest earlier this spring, the GOP candidates have been in a race to attach themselves to the DNA of Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln and Grover Norquist. This is nothing new. What is new -- and a race of its own -- is their ferocious competition to be seen as defenders and guardians of our Constitution.
Over and over during debates, on TV ads and splashed across campaign websites and Twitter feeds, the candidates have invoked the Constitution as a means of undermining policies they oppose and promoting policies they support.

It’s a great political device to use a document revered as much as the flag itself. What sometimes gets lost, however, is that the Constitution wasn’t written as fodder for political campaigns. It was written to be the foundation for all our freedoms.

That’s why the American Civil Liberties Union launched a new campaign this year -- ACLU Liberty Watch 2012 -- to be a watchdog on the candidates of all parties so that the Constitution is defended throughout the election campaign.

Just in time for the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, we’re releasing a report card today, with the ACLU’s Constitution and civil liberties experts providing a critical assessment of the major candidates of all parties, grading them with four to zero constitutional “torches” on seven key issues, including national security, immigration, marriage equality and reproductive choice. More issues will be added.

We may surprise some people in that the scores in the report card -- which is viewable here -- don’t divide along party lines. In fact, the report card reveals a deep ideological rift in the GOP.

Our experts found that Republicans Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman earned solid scores, with four, three and two torches across most major categories, although both received one torch on marriage equality and none on reproductive rights.

President Obama also achieved solid scores or better across most categories, including four torches for ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. However, he received just one torch and none for keeping Guantanamo Bay open and continuing unconstitutional surveillance under the PATRIOT act, respectively.

Republican-turned-Libertarian Gary Johnson scored even better than Paul, Huntsman and Obama, earning four and three torches on most major issues. They stand in stark contrast to the other major GOP candidates, three of whom -- Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum -- didn’t earn a single torch in any of the seven major categories.

Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich received torches in only one category: two torches each for promoting a humane immigration policy, including their support for a path to legal status for some long-term residents.

Ultimately, the good news from the report card is that genuine support for our constitutional values and freedoms has no partisan boundaries. Indeed, Ron Paul’s recent surge in Iowa has been attributed to his adherence to the Constitution and civil liberties.

Like the Constitution, the ACLU Liberty Watch report card is a dynamic, living document that we’ll continue to update throughout the 2012 election. Because our rights matter. And because we’re choosing our president in 2012, not our liberties.

http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/content/aclu-campaign-report-card-gop-split-constitution


I know, I know . . . bleeding-heart liberal rag.

Still, gold stars from the ACLU play well with disillusioned Democrats and with Liberty folk who believe that no-holds-barred Survival of the Fittest devolves into MIGHT MAKES RIGHT as surely as Socialism and Communism and Fascism and "New" World Order boil down to MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
 
The word "Constitution" should never be written in the same sentence as "the ACLU."
 
I know, I know . . . bleeding-heart liberal rag.

Still, gold stars from the ACLU play well with disillusioned Democrats and with Liberty folk who believe that no-holds-barred Survival of the Fittest devolves into MIGHT MAKES RIGHT as surely as Socialism and Communism and Fascism and "New" World Order boil down to MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

Ron was hosed in a few of those categories, but yeah, Johnson is better than Rombama.
 
Well, in Liberty Defined, he basically reminds us that open boarders, wouldn't necessarily be all that 'open' in the first place, if there are property rights....

So if some immigrants come and squat on your property, without your permission, you have a right to tell them to take a hike...or if some cartel tries to run guns or drugs across your property...well, with the right to bear arms and the elimination of the drug war, there will probably be a lot less of that. With the elimination of the welfare state, less people coming for govt handouts too, and of course with the non interventionist foreign policy and elimination of the warfare state--hopefully fewer terrorists wanting to come blow themselves up too. So, it fits together...

I'm defining "open borders" as lack of government regulation, and you're right, Ron and yourself have articulated the argument made by ancap Hans-Hermann Hoppe in regards to immigration and a free society.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top