Tag Archives: Gary Johnson

Why boast that your candidate–Gary Johnson–could throw the election to Obama

Libertarian Party eyes spoiler role in 2012 race | Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/18/libertarian-eyes-spoiler-role/

….”The Libertarian Party is now touting that possibility. An emailed statement from the organization earlier this week carried a rather sensational subject line: “Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson Could Deprive Mitt Romney of 5 battleground states, 74 Electoral Votes, 27% of the Electoral Votes needed to win in 2012.”

Libertarians reasoned Johnson, then, “could determine the winner” of the election.”…

RRD: This is not a new story and I am not suggesting some absurd notion of a collusion between Johnson & Obama, particularly since the former despises the latter,nor do I expect Johnson to drop out, or to try to lose ,or some such nonsense, my point is entirely different.
Whoever wins in 2012 whether Obama or Romney ,Johnson will need to win over many Romney voters for any future campaign, whether as a Libertarian, or as a Republican,if he is to have any chance of actually winning. In either case, why alienate people by making statements that sound essentially spiteful or petulant? Why not simply say: ”Johnson is serious”, or “We think Johnson could win x number of votes”. To talk about “beating Romney” is absurd,it implies that Romney is the enemy,but Obama isn’t. Why,when his staff must know how Obama is despised,and how important many regard this election as being,make it seem as if you are motivated not by the thought of winning,but of effectively helping the Democrat? Purely from a standpoint of self-interest this is self-defeating as it will alienate many of those very Republicans & Conservatives whom he will need in the future. In fairness I do not know whether this is his idea or his staff’s but given that Johnson & Romney supporters will need to work together in the future in any event it would be useful if they did not needlessly antagonize one another.(And yes I have made this comment to Romney supporters as well, urging them not to needlessly antagonize Johnson supporters).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why I will now vote for Romney in the 2012 election (after opposing him, previously) Obamacare must be repealed,a third party will take time to build

I have previously passionately argued  against voting for Mitt Romney ,even if Obama won as a result (though I also doubted that Romney could win). I had considered voting for Gary Johnson, or for skipping the Presidential ballot and just voting for Republicans in the House and Senate.

I have changed my position and will now vote for Romney in 2012 .

My  reasons are as follows:

1. The court betrayed us by upholding Obamacare. The only remaining option for repealing this obscenity is to get Romney into office and a Republican Senate into power .
”But Romney won’t repeal it?”
We were able to prevent any Republican defections on Obamacare in 2009 by means of applying massive political pressure,if we do so again,then there is a slim, but reasonable,chance that we will succeed in pressuring the GOP into repealing Obamacare.
This is not some open ended thing where it does not matter if it is repealed in 2012 or in 2016. Once the ”benefits” kick-in, in 2014 then it will become exponentially more difficult to repeal it.
But to do so will mean that we cannot accept the “lesser of two evils” as a standard,where we will vote for any Republican,even if he supports keeping parts of Obamacare.
Imagine what the result would have been in 2009, had we called the Republicans and told them “You must not pass Obamacare,do you hear! But we’ll vote for you anyway”.

We would have lost all leverage .

This is not “practical”,it does not “buy us time”. It accelerates the decline,since the Democrats will set the standard, and the Republicans will know that we will vote for them irregardless of what they do.

You think I’m mistaken?

You think that the Republicans are ”good fellows, who just need a philosophy?”

But they have a philosophy: it’s a combination of mee-toism/second handedness (”what will the pundits say”), pragmatism (” we have to violate free market principles to save the free market”), & altruism (”people are hurting”)
And as to the claim that Republicans won’t take the voters for granted, let us look at one of the “well meaning but confused folks” who just need to be given a shot of courage;Mike Murphy on Sarah Palin :

“Most pundits thought I was wrong. Look at the crowds she can draw, I was told.
She “excites the base.”Phooey. Every presidential election
year brings forth some new nugget of conventional
wisdom from the media elite that totally misses the real
picture. Last year, the big wrong idea was this notion
that base voters have somehow become the new swing
voters. We are now told the party base – those voters who will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it – must be carefully appealed to, romanced and appeased.Under that funhouse reasoning, Palin was an inspired pick.Unfortunately for McCain, the actual swing voters, the independents who do determine the winner of the election, didn’t buy into this fantasy at all.”

To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell – Daily News

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.428766

Or as Mccain snickered: “where will they go”.

No,if we are to actually slow down this monstrosity then we must draw certain red lines:

1. Repeal Obamacare,completely

2. Oppose Cap and Trade.

3. Defend the U.S.

4. Oppose censorship.

If a candidate does not actually do any of these things, then we must be prepared to vote him out of office.

We must also work to have a fallback plan should Republicans betray us. We must look into the Libertarian Party as a possible alternative,or perhaps create a new party to replace the GOP (a “teaparty party” perhaps?) .

“But third parties can’t succeed!”

Google:”the Whigs”.

However neither a third party nor the Libertarian Party can win in 2012.

It will take time to build up a alternative.

I therefore would offer this advice (HT to Stephen Bailey)

Unless you live in a solidly red or blue state, vote for Romney.
If you live in a solidly red or blue state vote for Romney,Johnson,skip the presidential part of the ballot etc ,use your own judgement.

The U.S. has a electoral college system,it DOES NOT matter who gets the most votes. The election is determined by who wins enough electoral votes. If you live in one of the deepest red states, your state will go for Romney whether you vote for Romney,Johnson,Obama, John Galt,or stand on your head or don’t vote in the Presidential election at all. The same holds true for solidly blue states. (But make sure that your state IS actually solidly red or blue,check Realclearpolitics )
If you live in anything less than a solidly red or blue state ,vote
for Romney. And even if you live in a solidly red state ,you should attack Obama online ,and speak with any of your friends in swing states,and present the reasons I’ve given here for why they should vote for Romney . Do not lie,just explain your reasoning .

I plan to address this at greater length in future posts.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Obamacare, Objectivism, Politics

Don’t let it go unheard #objectivist ( #aynrand )podcast:DOD bans criticism of Islam while Egytian pres. wants to conquer Jerusalem #tcot #jcot

Don’t Let It Go Unheard 06/24 by amypeikoff | Blog Talk Radio

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amypeikoff/2012/06/25/dont-let-it-go-unheard

….”PLANNED TOPICS: Just as a Muslim Brotherhood candidate wins the Egyptian Presidency, and his supporters call for a renewed drive to establish an Islamic Caliphate with Jerusalem as its capital, here in the U.S. our Department of Defense suspends a military instructor for including, in a course, material that crticizes Islam. Why you should vote for me (or yourself) instead of Gary Johnson. Disturbing evidence of Obama’s desperation to win. And more.”….

Disclaimer:Reposting does not imply agreement.(Nor does it constitute a political endorsement of Mitt Romney).

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Arab Spring, Current events, Egypt, Human rights, Islamism, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Objectivism, Politics

Politico:Romney advisors think Romneycare will help him with independents by showing his ”compassion” #obamacare #2012 #teaparty

Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74629_Page2.html

…..“The debate right now is fundamental and there’s one candidate in this race who can actually make the contrast that is necessary to take the Republican position, conservative position,” Santorum said outside the Supreme Court on Monday. “There is one candidate who is disqualified to make the case.”

RRD:I am not a Santorum supporter,(he has problems of his own),but Santorum,(and Gary Johnson and Ron Paul,when you can find coverage of them),are correct,this is a fundamental moral issue and one of Individual Rights ,and the GOP is reverting full-bore to its suicidal mee-tooism that helped give us Obamacare.

For why this is a disaster see:

“Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” by John David Lewis

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/obamas-atomic-bomb.asp

….”Romney and his aides view things differently: Since the outset of his 2012 run, they have privately predicted that “Romneycare” would be an asset in the general election that could help cast Romney as a kinder, gentler kind of Republican that swing voters can embrace.

More recently, Romney has sought to reassure conservatives by vowing to scrap the federal law “root and branch,” though he has also pointed to the Massachusetts law as an example of his compassion as a governor.”

RRD:From the “Etch-a-sketch” comment to this,(assuming it is accurate),the man’s own campaign is vindicating the predictions and fears of his critics.

….”Regardless of how swing voters ultimately view the Massachusetts law, it still presents a quandary for the rest of the Republican Party, which has typically been able to paint in the broadest of rhetorical strokes when discussing the federal law and its impact on individual rights. And softening Romney’s image is not necessarily an urgent priority for Republicans focused on the House and Senate.”…

RRD:Translation:Romney will kick the legs out from under our efforts to defeat statism,and Republicans in the House and Senate are frightened that Romney will so alienate the GOP Base that they will not vote,and Congressional Republicans will be slaughtered in 2012.
If true,such is the “practicality” of the GOP.

“Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, a Romney endorser who has also brought suit against the federal law, said that the party would have to be “slightly more nuanced” in its health care messaging with Romney at the top of the ticket.

RRD:Those who participated in the 2008 campaign know exactly what is meant by “nuanced”:Self-defeating hypocritical partisanship that,at best,undercuts the efforts of those of us who oppose and condemn the Individual Mandate on principle,and at worst leads some to sell their souls by shilling for a position that they never would have taken had not a Republican taken it.

There are people that, as a matter of public policy, think they shouldn’t be required by anybody to do anything,” he said. “As a matter of public policy, those guys are goners. But I think there’s a lot of people in between that understand the difference, where states can make their own decisions.”

RRD:”There are people that, as a matter of public policy, think they shouldn’t be required by anybody to do anything”,indeed,they include the Founding Fathers,Objectivists,Libertarians,and a significant portion of the Teaparty and Conservatives;including some of the most dedicated,passionate and energetic activists.And what does he mean by “goners”?That they will not vote for Romney?
Not true,I will not,but I know many who believe that Romney is the “lesser of two evils”.
Or does he mean “goners” in that they are marginal figures?If the latter then he has it backwards:the argument that the Individual Mandate violates individual rights is what has motivated people to oppose it,(due to their vestigial knowledge of,and respect for,the concept of individual rights),it is the narrow,legalistic argument that does not have wide backing.(And don’t get me started on the absurdist irony of the “states can make their own decisions”;on

image

what?Whether to violate individual rights?On the Individual Mandate?On Forced segregation?On Forced abortions?On Eugenics?On Slavery?)

image

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Obamacare

Don’t Let It Go MittRomney:The Fruitcake of 2012Presidential Candidates October 20, 2011

http://dontletitgo.com/2011/10/20/mitt-romney-the-fruitcake-of-candidates/

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events