What if Romney wasn't running?

[Esoteric]

Would we be winning? Would the establishment find another darling to push? Just an interesting thing to think about.

 

[The Gold Standard]

If Romney wasn't running we would be chasing Chris Christie or some other statist warmonger piece of shit.

 

[bt53]

I think the need for an anti-mitt Romney really plays in Paul's favor. If the GOP darling were a faux washington outsider/tea partier with some social conservative cred it might be a lot more difficult to build a base against them.

 

[Babylon]

There's always a Mitt Romney.
(indeed, there's always a Paul)

This story has played out many times before.

Every once in a while, it has a different ending.

 

[wgadget]

"...Imagine there's no heaven..."

 

[wgadget]

No, seriously, if there was noMitt Romney, there would always be Buddy Roehmer.

 

[itsnobody]

How could there be no Mitt Romney? There's no way Romney's going to drop out

Hopefully soon the race will be just between Romney and Paul...

 

[thoughtomator]

I agree with bt53... it's hard to think of a more artificial opponent to have than Romney.

If it ends up Obama vs. Romney.... It will be the Checkout Line Election:

Ballot 2012
[ ] Paper
[ ] Plastic

 

[muh_roads]

There's always a Mitt Romney.
(indeed, there's always a Paul)

This story has played out many times before.

Yep.

There will always be the masses and there will always be The Remnant. An economy will always exist as long as people want to work. Though the next cycle is probably going to wipe out many of the masses...bleak times ahead but it won't be the end of the world. For many it will feel that way though.

Keep your head on straight and you'll push through just fine. Most here know what is coming and are anticipating it.

 

[Restore America Now]

"...Imagine there's no heaven..."

What about pizza?

 

[bt53]

No, seriously, if there was noMitt Romney, there would always be Buddy Roehmer.

According to PPP, Buddy's surging all the way to the White House following a steller debate performance in which he proved his electibility by hiding backstage.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

(indeed, there's always a Paul)

There is not always a Paul, not one this prominent, and certainly not one with this kind of track record of principled consistency. Who was the Paul in the 2000 Presidential race? 2004? I say it was Harry Browne in 2000 and Micheal Badnarik in 2004, but they didn't get any real national coverage. Dr. Paul right now is getting more coverage in one day than they got their entire campaigns -- combined!

But now, thanks to us and to Ron Paul, in the immediate future perhaps there always will be a "Paul". That will be a vast improvement in American politics. We've proven there's a constituency for freedom.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

What about pizza?

He he he I miss that little guy. I wonder what his "unconventional endorsement" will be. Maybe he'll endorse himself and get back in the race. That would be hilarious. Endorsing Trump: another hilarious possibility. I hope he will endorse stuffed crust or free extra toppings or something like that.

 

[Babylon]

There is not always a Paul, not one this prominent, and certainly not one with this kind of track record of principled consistency. Who was the Paul in the 2000 Presidential race? 2004? I say it was Harry Browne in 2000 and Micheal Badnarik in 2004, but they didn't get any real national coverage. Dr. Paul right now is getting more coverage in one day than they got their entire campaigns -- combined!

But now, thanks to us and to Ron Paul, in the immediate future perhaps there always will be a "Paul". That will be a vast improvement in American politics. We've proven there's a constituency for freedom.

There wasn't that much need for a 'Paul' in years past.

Paul-ish types were there, of course.

But, you didn't notice them because their services weren't so urgently needed...

Keep in mind that there are times in this country's history where, thankfully, it didn't really matter if folks were following the constitution or not. For, we had GOOD men in charge for the most part. Decent moral men.

In such times, it doesn't really matter what is or is not in a constitution. Indeed, it doesn't matter if you even have one.

A Constitution was put in place to guard against the evil, the greedy, the rapacious, and the sadistic. When such men aren't in power or hovering around the peripheries, the Constitution is unnecessary.

 

[Philadelphia76]

If Romney wasn't running we would be chasing Chris Christie or some other statist warmonger piece of shit.

Precisely. Huntsman would be the "Romney" or someone like Christie, Daniels or Jeb Bush would have been brought in off the sidelines...

 

[Cortes]

The GOP would support Barney Frank if he signed on to the war lobby.

 

[-:Undertaker:-]

If it wasn't Romney it'd be Perry.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

There wasn't that much need for a 'Paul' in years past.

Thank you so much for your reply. I disagree heartily. I think the federal government has been horrific and intolerable for its entire history. I personally have found it horrifically intolerable at least since I was 12. It was a monster when it was slaughtering 80 people by burning them alive in their church in Waco, Texas (and then arresting the survivors. And then imprisoning them even after a jury found them not guilty). It was a monster when it was slaughtering Nez Perce Indians for having the temerity to run away from the army to Canada. It was a monster when it was slaughtering southern civilians for the crime of, umm, living in the South.

There has always been a need for a "Paul". The need for a man with a backbone and a belief in liberty to stand up and slay the monster.

Paul-ish types were there, of course.

But, you didn't notice them because their services weren't so urgently needed...

I disagree. I've been a libertarian for basically my whole life. I noticed freedom-fighters. I made Harry Browne signs and called into radio shows for him in 1996. He was urgently needed then. The debt was oppressive. The government was enormous and out of control. We were a socialistic and tyrannical country and needed to be turned around. Unfortunately, that didn't happen...yet... not in the 90s.

Keep in mind that there are times in this country's history where, thankfully, it didn't really matter if folks were following the constitution or not. For, we had GOOD men in charge for the most part. Decent moral men.

I cannot adequately express how completely and vehemently I disagree with this statement. Those in political power are almost invariably the most reprehensible and hideously evil men available in the population. It's an incentive problem.

In such times, it doesn't really matter what is or is not in a constitution. Indeed, it doesn't matter if you even have one.

Completely inaccurate and delusional view of history. During 1917, the government was arresting people for eating meat on incorrect days of the week, for refusing to be paid murderers, and for reading the Constitution in public. During the 1930s, the government was paying farmers to destroy harvested food (actually, they still are, I think). Evil tyrants were in charge, tyrannizing the public. Evil tyrants are always in charge, and they always tyrannize the public.

A Constitution was put in place to guard against the evil, the greedy, the rapacious, and the sadistic. When such men aren't in power or hovering around the peripheries, the Constitution is unnecessary.

It's an incentive problem, man, an incentive problem! There is always an ample supply of evil men, and large hordes of misguided ones to buttress them. Even initially good men tend to be corrupted by power.

This brings us back sort of to the topic of the thread. If Mitt Romney didn't exist, someone else just as bad would. Do you really think that Mitt Romney is more evil and corrupt than Theodore Roosevelt? Evil and corrupt men have lived in every generation throughout history. The problem is the power available in the government, enabling them to amplify their evil. We need to destroy that power. To throw the "ring of power" into the fires of Mordor. That is the only solution.

 

[affa]

government enables power.
power enables oppression.
only those who seek power usually find it.

in Ron Paul, we have someone who truly despises power, but is willing to stand up and use that power to dismantle power, thereby empowering the rest of us.

He has a long history proving he is capable of resisting the urge to power. That is incredibly rare, and something to be absolutely cherished.

This idea that we usually have moral people in office is idealistic patriotism, but simply untrue. we do have a chance right now, though.

 

[Liberty Shark]

We would probably be in deep $h1t, in terms of having a chance of winning.