November 5th, 2012

The Cloward-Pivens of the right

Commenter “Susanamantha” quotes a libertarian friend of hers who refuses to vote for Romney this year and will be voting for Gary Johnson:

Not a single Republican IN MY LIFETIME has reduced the national debt; in fact, excepting Ford, they have all significantly increased it. There have been NO attempts to curb the growth of medicare/medicaid, or defense, for that matter; three things cannot keep growing disproportionately to GDP. If we’re going to crash and burn, I’d rather it be now, than in 30 years when my kids or grandkids have to deal with a much worse burden.

I hope Romney wins, I really do; but he is not the best candidate for the job, in my opinion. I’m not wasting my vote for Gary Johnson, I’m voting for who I think best reflects my values, and how I think government should be run (and he as demonstrably proven that he can do that in NM).

Democrats are getting more big government, not smaller, so it’s not like it will be any less high stakes next time around, and voting for a Republican who is slightly less big government is no longer an option, in my opinion.

The fact that his vote might end up causing Romney to lose and Obama to win is irrelevant to this man. He and others of his ilk, who might be addressed by Bill Whittle’s video but who close themselves to its message and who look instead to the imminent arrival of an economic apocalypse, have more in common with the far left than they think they do. They are the Cloward-Pivenistas of the right. They believe that, if things get bad enough, the system will break down and enough people will see the light and then the true conservative dawn will break.

Cloward and Piven thought the breakdown would lead people towards the leftist light. People like Susanamantha’s friend think it will be the light on the right. But the idea is similar: endure (or even cause) pain now for future gain.

Of course, it all depends on being able to count on future events and people’s reactions. But that’s a messy, risky, and downright dangerous business.

Both sides are idealists, Don Quixotes if you will (although perhaps that’s being unfair to the Don) against the rest of us plodding Sancho Panzas. It’s an old story, isn’t it? A perfectionistic idealism is where the Don Quixotes on the right meet those on the left, in a dangerous no man’s land. The ones on the right could well end up encouraging the triumph of what they most hate.

[ADDENDUM: Randy Barnett has something to say to his fellow libertarians.]

204 Responses to “The Cloward-Pivens of the right”

  1. Rob Says:

    Yes, sticking to principle and refusing to compromise or “sell out” can have bad consequences. Unfortunately, selling out can also have unfortunate consequences. That said, I will “sell out” this time and vote for the dingbat Romney. However, I reject any attempt to portray my third party brothers as misguided. They’re not misguided at all. They choose to hedge their bets differently and I for one will not be surprised if they turn out to be the ones who are right.

  2. DonS Says:

    Ron Paul supporters tend to be idealist utopians, I’ve noticed. This is also a tendency of Libertairan Party politics, where the game seemes to be “I’m a better libertarian then you!”.

    OTOH, I think the GOP was lucky to have McCain lose in ’08. McCain would have been a good foreign policy POTUS, and he would have been better at economic policy then Obama (pretty much anyone would), but I think a McCain ’08 victory would have destroyed the GOP by now. Things would have been better then they are with Obama, but no one would believe that because of the MSM.

  3. DonS Says:

    They choose to hedge their bets differently and I for one will not be surprised if they turn out to be the ones who are right.

    So, are they hoping for collapse and for a restart of our society, or do they think Johnson can win the election?

    Johnson can’t win, to think so isn’t hedging bets, it is self delusion.

    Expecting a small government reset after the Democrats run the country into the ground is a poor bet. The probability is that things will go the other direction, into a more absolute government.

  4. thomass Says:

    If you want conservative change; you have to get active with the republican party (so as to take it over). For Romney it is hard since staff is often picked from people active in the campaign… and being he was not the conservative first choice (or second, or third, et cetera)…. but same deal. Try to get involved.

    Sort of a long march if you will. :)

  5. Steve Says:

    Is it really a problem to vote third party in true blue states such as CA and MA where Romney is unlikely to win? If Romney is going to lose in these states, why not protest if you want? Similarly if Romney is going to cruise to victory in reliably red states, maybe there is not much risk in making a protest vote. Swing states may be the major exception. Voting for a third party candidate can throw the election.

  6. Baltimoron Says:

    If someone won’t vote for Mitt Romney, that is Romney’s fault, not theirs. It is a candidate’s job to build a coalition; to convince a plurality of voters to get behind them on election day.
    Republicans need to find a way to convince the fringe libertarians to join them, or to build a winning coalition with a different group of voters. But either way thats on the Republican candidates. No one has any kind of obligation to vote for one of the two major parties.

  7. Holmes Says:

    Baltimoron- what a straw man that is. An obligation? No one claimed that. But it is still a choice and Neo has outlined that consequences of that choice. And for this election, at least, they are severe, if not the outcome desired by the Apocalpyse motivated voters.

  8. neo-neocon Says:

    Steve: yes, it is a problem to vote third party in blue states. I’ll tell you why.

    First of all, it’s important to swell the national popular vote, so that if Romney wins he can claim a mandate. Secondly, even blue states have a lot of red voters. Think Massachusetts when Scott Brown won. It was a tremendous shock. What happened was that enough Democrats came over to Brown, plus there was a bigger-than-usual turnout among Republicans in Massachusetts. Even in a state like Massachusetts or California, if Democrat enthusiasm and turnout were low, and Republican enthusiasm and turnout were high, Republicans could win.

  9. Holmes Says:

    I think there are elections where it doesn’t actually matter (GHB and Clinton, e.g.), but it matters now and a protest vote, unless it’s, as Steve points out above, in a solidly Blue state, is a vote for the guy that stands for everything libertarians supposedly hate. Voting for a non-starter candidate is a thrown-away vote and no amount of rationalization changes that.

  10. expat Says:

    Baltimoron,
    That’s the problem with the hard-core libertarians: it’s their way or the highway. I got really turned off earlier this year by commenters hogging threads with their legalize dope comments. Too many don’t take into account that certain societal norms are essential for geting kids through their rebellious teens. Pointing out problems with current drug laws and punishments is not the same as saying anything goes.

  11. DJMoore Says:

    “Cloward-Pivens on the right.” Hm.

    This idea seems to be crystallizing out of solution everywhere. See, ferex, Buttercup.

    As I said at my place, I think many of these people, including some I greatly admire and look to for inspiration, are making the same mistake the socialists and communists do: that man is perfectible, and should be perfected. That they themselves are good models for the rest of us.

    And that if we don’t wake up and do what they say, the hell with us.

    The big difference between them and the statists is that at least they’ll leave us alone and not order unbelievers into the death camps. And I admit, I’d kinda like to see the showdowns when they happen, in the same way I’d like to see a star go nova.

  12. Artfldgr Says:

    Of course, it all depends on being able to count on future events and people’s reactions. But that’s a messy, risky, and downright dangerous business.

    not at all.
    That’s a false belief.
    its a belief that the left and others with high morals and low real ability to stick to them proselytize and say, as a testimony, but its completely untrue.

    IF your orchestrating future events and have orchestrated past events and have done so barely opposed for 40 out of 200 years…

    why not orchestrate?

    lets imagine that the people protesting things and saying about each of the things they say are true, rather than considered marginalized words from a marginalized class?

    well… remember what i said about half a decade ago? yes, its been that long… does this, from someone else, jog the memory?

    if you flooded the welfare rolls and bankrupted the cities and ultimately the nation, it would foster economic collapse, which would lead to political turmoil so severe that socialism would be accepted as a fix to an out-of-control set of circumstances. The idea was that if people were starving and the only way to eat was to accept government cheese, rather than starve, the masses would agree to what they would otherwise reject.

    what have people done over a bit of gas?
    let along food?

    i said that starvation and socialism go hand in hand… people eating barely enough calories cant mount a counter revolution, and so on and so on. you can read how its done there are white papers and manuals on it. i have said so.

    but instead, you keep trying to reach this from the lies in a house of mirrors, half of them you accept as truth, but have not really thought it out, or tested it.

    your quote or statement, or whatever you want to call it… is CONDITIONAL…

    take a look at it… what is the condition that has to exist for you to accept it? what condition are you taking for granted?

    Of course, it all depends on being able to count on future events and people’s reactions. But that’s a messy, risky, and downright dangerous business.

    in the context of a free and moral people willing to die rather than succumb… then MAYBE that statement would stand.

    but do we have that?

    the doors of a soviet are closing, and you wont see it… as i said… the idiot hogs will not listen nor change their focus from the spread of corn and bs on the ground as the fence is built around them.

    they would not oppose the internal army seeking to overthrow government and have openly said so, and even declared war. (feminism, racialists?)

    they would not even get past the fake arguments, and they will not prevent the politicos from having a chance to fix things.

    but note… we have EVERYTHING NOW THAT NAZI GERMANY HAD IN PLACE…

    do we even know it?

    we have eugenics
    (planned parenthood and wealth redistribution)

    we have euthanasia
    (Aktion T4/ health rationing along Volk lines)

    we have mostly a nationalized economy

    and i can go on and on..
    [edited for length by n-n]

  13. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: you misunderstand my point.

    The operative words are “count on.” Plus, there are always events that are black swans. I certainly do not think that people’s reactions (i.e. human nature) are completely unpredictable.

    But people on the right who believe that if Obama is elected and things go down the tubes there will be a backlash that leads to more conservatism (and after all, this is the population I’m addressing in this post) are counting on a highly unlikely chain of events, and therefore they are going down a very risky path. In fact, it’s a lot more likely that people will react to another Obama term by becoming more reliably leftist, and that the country will go the way of Greece and/or Venezuela rather than towards the right.

    I’m puzzled by the fact that you don’t understand that we are basically in agreement on a lot of points. What you’re describing in your post is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

  14. I R A Darth Aggie Says:

    But the idea is similar: endure (or even cause) pain now for future gain.

    There will be pain.

    I’d rather we deal with it under a sound framework, like we have forgotten that we have. We have to at least try to get it done ourselves. Rome wasn’t built in a day, the current debt wasn’t accumulated in a day, and it won’t be solved in a single election cycle.

    Trying to deal with it after breaking that sound framework is fraught with danger. Under such circumstances, this business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.

  15. DonS Says:

    As Neo said:

    First of all, it’s important to swell the national popular vote, so that if Romney wins he can claim a mandate.

    If every CA Republican voted for Johnson, it might not alter the outcome, but it would confuse Romney’s mandate.

    My protest vote is against Obama. I wasn’t a Romney supporter during the primary, but at this point Romney is the only good choice left, and he needs to win and also the media and Congress need to understand that he has the support of the American people.

  16. Steve Says:

    neo, Scott Brown is an interesting example. He may win, but Romney, who touts his accomplishments as governor and his record of bi-partisanship, likely will not win in MA. One interpretation is that Romney does not have the track record of success that he claims. Another is that Romney is more conservative than he appears. I hope it is the second but my sense is that it is the first. In regard to having a mandate, I would say the down ballot races matter more. The shift in 2010 was historic. If the shift continues in 2012 and also in 2014. We’ll have a new political landscape, one that will push Romney right (again my guess that Romney ‘the conservative’ is just a salesman hoping to close the deal).

  17. Teri Pittman Says:

    Reminds me of that nonsense in the 60s, when people were encouraged to vote for Nixon to bring on the revolution. Guess that didn’t work out exactly like they thought it would.

    I’ve done exactly one protest vote and that was for Perot. I’m on the West Coast and they called for Clinton before our polls closed. Perot got a lot of votes that way. This is not the election to waste a vote in. We need to stop thinking that we can get a candidate that stands for everything we want. We need to get candidates we can work with, ones that we can pressure to stay the course and make the tough choices. If these folks are making a protest vote and are not involved in local politics, they are not serious.

  18. neo-neocon Says:

    Steve: it would be unrealistic to believe Romney will beat Obama in Massachusetts. But I predict he will do better than McCain did in 2008, and better than most Republican candidates for president would against Obama.

    Massachusetts voters sometimes elect Republicans at the state level as governor, when they want to (temporarily) get their fiscal house in order. And Scott Brown was running for senator against a remarkably uncharismatic opponent, Coakley. This time, against Warren, he may lose.

    My point is not that Romney will win Massachusetts, or even that Brown will. My point is that if every Republican in the state were to go to the polls and vote for Romney, and Democratic fervor and turnout were low, Romney could win, even in Massachusetts. So even in blue states it’s important to vote.

  19. Artfldgr Says:

    the bigger picture your talking about, but the parallel your missing!!!!

    your sitting here comparing the disaster seekers of the left… with the disaster seekers in the non left (the ‘right’), and the people caught in the middle.

    and yet, you have generally argued that we are not in a remake of germany 1933-1945…

    but there you had the people caught in the middle with a choice between two totalitarianisms… (we condemn them, but forget that they had no third choice, did they?)

    on one side.. the red communists, saying the SAME things… led by stalin… all competing for the same under class of lesser people who are the numeric majority that can crush the thinking minority of commoners.. (middle class)

    on the other side, is a man who said that he made his flag red, as his people were first communist, then fascist…

    both sides did the same thing…

    both of them tried to knock the prize off the shelf. to put the ball in play, so that one of them can grab it…

    they needed the people to move the ball, so they can steer it once it starts moving. they implemented all the stuff we have now.

    ALL THE STUFF…

    its the differences you blow up to false negation and the similarities you diminish that prevents you from seeing the OBVIOUS…

    Shoa III the EXPANDED VERSION
    [after Shoa II the covert version]

    people of germany were also left with a dual decision. they had a choice between the brutal animals of russia… or the brutal people of where?

    most do not know the histories… so most don’t know what informed their judgment and why they felt that Hitler was the lesser of two evils. (he was!!!)

    with communism proven bad, and china proving fascism can work, where are they driving the herd?

    Germany after WWI was a liberal paradise of perversions and drugs and so on… (with a connected lineage to todays left here in the US)… they gave women the vote… they manipulated women as men were not as homogeneous in their choices, and fears and so on…

    so you have a huge women vote, who did obama and the left rely on too? women

    they had a huge youth vote, the older men died in the first war… did they rely on this vote too?

    AFTER The first votes of 1933 or so (After the votes of 1929 that the left here and feminists here use to disprove the women voted for safety and freebies and security and their children (hitler talked a lot about children)), the rest of the votes were too dishonest to use to know beyond a certain point. the women carried the vote, but their numbers are assumed to be inflated because like today, the voting is a big mess…

    voting after the 1929 election became a mess, just as it is here in the US now… we have not even discussed this gaming of the machines except in passing! but its a key thing over other BS, like jello, or some piccadillo or what not. its critical…

    stalin and lenin took over russia, a country they did not grow up in, and were not a part of, and whose people they enslves were from someplace else…

    hitler took over germany, a country that he did not grow up in, as he was austrian. he hated his own self, as obama hates white, a part of himself.

    its almost a checklist..

    economic extreme turmoil – check
    not born of the nation – check
    marxist to the core – check
    nationalized most of the economy – check
    laws for eugenics – check
    laws for euthanasia – check
    hate crimes – check
    disparate impact as proof – check
    power shifted to one office – check
    crowds cheering heil or hail leader – check
    laws to create internal police SS/KGB/DIE/etc – check
    limited freedom of speech – check
    gun control – check
    food control – check
    destruction of privacy – check
    creation of Volk (those favored by the state with the privilege of not having to be equalized. women, minorities, foreign, etc)
    creation of scapegoats (those disfavored by the state with the punishment of being less than equal. white men, jews, chinese, etc)
    Law by Fiat – check
    control of the school – check
    dealing with external forces betraying internal people for power – check
    people have no third option – check

    i can go on and on and on with the parallels.
    can any one match each with a negation?

    you have literally hundreds of programs coming at once based on surveillance of people. including one state which wants to record all conversations on buses!!!!! (the wealthy who drive and are volk do not get spied on as the poor who have to take public transportation)

    Funny, but since i introduced people to hilmar Von campe… like soros a ex nazi, unlike soros, he opposed that… has died of a massive heart attack that came on suddenly like a few others have died.

    he wrote: Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: a Former Hitler Youth Warns America,

    did you read it neo? i wonder. others have answered as to what they ahve read that i suggested. though you have never told me you read anything that i have suggested… or perhaps i have forgotten?

    Hilmar von Campe was listed in the 1992 ‘International Who’s Who of Intellectuals.’ He is the author of [five] books, and WW2 veteran in the German Army as well as a former prisoner of war in Yugoslavia who staged a daring escape in 1945, crossing seven borders to freedom. He lived through the years of Nazi power and brain-washing in Germany as a child and then as a soldier. After the war, he learned about the Holocaust and the Nazi atrocities and had to come to grips with the reasons how something like that could happen. He also had to deal with his own moral responsibility for them. The destruction of Germany, the loss of his father in a Soviet concentration camp and of his elder brother who fell in Russia, and the expulsion from their home in Eastern Europe, had a profound impact on his life.

    he was a changer you never covered.
    like the others i listed. only newbies were covered. not the older ones, nor the most important classical ones in the whole of the genre!!!! which people before your change have been reading avidly for nearly 100 years.

    the german people who were caught inside, could not figure out what each was offering. they knew communism was bad, they lived close to it, and saw it… but they did not now this other vartiation of the same theme.

    but thats the point.

    you can stand there and scream, there!!! there is the camoflage… and the idiots will say, but that isnt camoflage from germany 1933, so it must not be the same thing

    no. the camoflage is designed for the victims, not the spectators.

    you even spoke of it neo…
    but you never went past it.

    ie. if the games designed for african americans dont work on others… and the games directed to women under feminism dont work for others…

    you sat there and did not say “what are the games designed for ME as a person who grew up in the USA”… and what group can you trust that these games wont work on..

    you see… if the feminists, minorities, white men, and such, linked up… they each could see what the target cant… and could save each other rather than shoot each other

    out of this whole group, the one group that the left fears the most and marginalizes the most… are those with experience..

    the immigrants, the refugee kids, the people who lived there or got caught in it, and of course, those who were a serious part of it at the level of control, not lower down.

    for 30 years they been screaming silently

    they want to teach you how to fly a plane…
    you want to figure it out on your own!!!

    so.. are we crashing or sailing to new vistas?

    of course we are crashing…
    regardless of who wins tomorrow
    because the best way to insure a win, is to control both sides… no? to use the more extreme side to herd you into the less extreme side.

    may i ask how did hitler capture germans from the classic german state, and from the communist state?

    well, their self hatred of the classical state had them forget and negate their past and their history (sound familiar?)

    their knowledge of the monstrosity of communism, and what its people do, and did.. made for a poor choice (sound familiar?)

    their lack of knowledge of the third way, its goals, and the seeming caring of a leader who would help and make grand changes and a better place… was the only nice choice (sound familiar? that choice was Hitler).

    right now…
    the collective sigh of a lot of people matches the same sigh given by Germans as they thought they skirted disaster in voting for Hitler, over Stalin.

    but in truth, it did not matter as Hitler and Stalin were partners… until they weren’t…

    hey, didnt obama say something to the bear (medvedev means bear in russian), on an open mike as to collusions? – check

  20. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: I have made it very very clear, from early in the Obama administration, that I consider we are set on a course of tyranny. I consider it more like Chavez than Hitler’s Germany, but tyranny is definitely the name of the game.

    For example, see this from July of 2009:

    How did I come to the point of agreeing that Obama is a socialist who only cares about our economy as a vehicle for income redistribution, has no interest in promoting or even supporting liberty either abroad or in this country and in fact considers liberty to be his bitter enemy, is intent on gaining more power for himself by rewarding his constituents with money earned by others, and wants to make America over into a European-style social welfare state at best and a Chavez-style banana republic at worst?

    And this from the same time period:

    How can we reach the greater community? Do you speak to Obama supporters you know? What is the response if you try to explain what you think has been happening?

    Churchill was thought to be crazy during the 30s, obsessed with his warnings about Hitler, who didn’t appear to most of the rest of Parliament to be such an awful fellow. Maybe the nature of the beast is that such warnings cannot be heard, that they seem excessive until the most dire things actually occur. Most people almost instinctively reject what seems like an extreme point of view unless they’ve arrived at it themselves through personal awareness, step by painful step, or through a dramatic and possibly life-shattering single event.

    We’ve had experience with incompetent presidents and/or deceptive presidents before. But I submit that we’ve never before had a president with such malignant and radical designs who also was so deceptive in such a profound way.

    See also this post of mine, as well as this one, when in October of 2008 I said I considered that Obama was most likely a socialist of the Chavez type.

  21. Artfldgr Says:

    sorry… too long… just cut it down…

  22. baklava Says:

    Neo,
    I’m an anti CP person to the point I’d like to slap somebody who tells me these things.

    My family’s safety is at issue because of these people.

    They are so me me me that they selfishly do not care about persuasion out being responsible. They only obsesses about their fantasy and yet leftists could take over.

  23. baklava Says:

    My older daughter was talking to my younger daughter in the car the other day and she gets it.

    She works. She will be alright.

    But if CP succeeds she might not be ok because anarchy will ensue

  24. Instapundit » Blog Archive » I’M SO TIRED OF THIS: The Cloward-Pivens of the right…. Says:

    [...] I’M SO TIRED OF THIS: The Cloward-Pivens of the right. [...]

  25. T Says:

    Late to the conversation. I noted in an earlier topic that it is my belief that such Cloward-Pivens of the right simply don’t believe that more Obama damage (or the fiscal cliff) is irreversible. Thus, precipitating that catastrophe will allow us to more rapidly reconstitute our society.

    A major flaw in that premise is that such a catastrophic fiscal-cultural failure will create an immense vacuum. Keep in mind that our Republic arose as opposition to royal totaltitarianism, not as opposition to chaos and anarchy. When chaos and anarchy are the well-spring, it’s order, not disputation that is desired and the most likely result is rigid totalitarianism. Tyranny is simple (a direct chain of command) and neat (clarity of that chain of command) and historically more prevalent than any variation of a disputational democracy (whether Mao, Louis XVI, Henry VIII or Otto I, II or III or any one of the Caesars).

    In a related idea, Maverick Philosopher explains it this way (posted October 31, 2012. The Losertarian Party, emphasis mine):

    As I said, politics is a practical business. It’s about winning, not talking. It’s not about ideological purity or having the supposedly best ideas; it’s about gaining the power to implement good ideas. The practical politician understands that quite often Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien, the best is the enemy of the good.

    http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/

    Cultural and fiscal anarchy are neither the path to democratic power nor the source for good ideas.

  26. don giannatti Says:

    The amazing self important smug arrogance of these people who feel they should ‘vote their conscience’ is stupifying!

    Who the hell do they think they are? Iditotarians are soooooo boring.

  27. T Says:

    don gianetti,

    I don’t know if it’s smug arrogance as much as it is short-sightedness; perhaps both in some lethal combination.

    God-willing, it won’t make a difference this cycle.

  28. Greg Swann Says:

    “The ones on the right could well end up encouraging the triumph of what they most hate.”

    Distinguishing them from whom? Nixon froze wages and prices, by far the most Marxist action ever taken in the United States. He also inflicted the EPA on us. Bush Senior gave us the Americans With Disabilities Act, while Bush Junior coughed up the Patriot Act and the TSA. The notion that Republicans do anything to slow the growth of the total state is absurd and indefensible. If anything, Republicans are worse enemies of liberty than Democrats. In any case, a coin that promises more Marxist statism either way you flip it is surely a bad bet.

  29. TANSTAAFL Says:

    C,’mon, dude, don’t waste your vote on Gary Johnson. Just vote for Obama.

  30. Artfldgr Says:

    I’m puzzled by the fact that you don’t understand that we are basically in agreement on a lot of points. What you’re describing in your post is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

    interesting to note..

    but its what i focus on that i glean has meaning in context to whats happening.

    i pointed out that your point is erronous…
    and if i had time and space i can show you that it is, and did a feeble attempt

    but note your return…

    The operative words are “count on.”

    no… its not… its all the stuff around what your saying that isnt said that i am looking at!!!!!!

    do you think that humans can be counted on at all? or that the universe can be counted on? then the theory or idea being presented in parrot form without really deep introspection is that you can count on some things but not on others.

    now… take the sentence your saying it puzzles you that you and i seem to be on the same page, but by different means.

    Of course, it all depends on being able to count on future events and people’s reactions. But that’s a messy, risky, and downright dangerous business.

    i will admit that i may have missed the point you INTENDED to make, but it was not locked down clear unless who your talking to has the SAME UNDERSTANDING of the key points that are there, but not stated

    the operative word is not count on, as the concept of counting on anything is an illusion we create by negating the negations. you can count on a city bus… really? you can count on government to help… you can count on yourself… you can always count on mom

    none of them can be counted on in the certain way that people talk and use it. ie. i recognize this split between what is being said, and what is real, and so my focus is different, as i dont carry the same set of illusions.

    [or as i put in the post, dont look to the other victims of a con to figure out the con, look to someone the con is not directed to, or whose clock ticks are different, as the con wont work on them and they can see the game]

    the reason i have this different view is that i have a very in depth view of history and that history completely negates what your saying.

    its funny, but to a physicist and deep thinker like i am (not saying your not, but we are different, and thats great!), i see the only thing you can count on is what you see you cant count on at all… :)

    as a physicist i can always count on randomness… but you would think you cant count on it, as you cant predict it… but i would say you can count on it because it being unpredictable is 100% predictable.

    hows that for flipping the burger to a new insight?

    to me, the randomness of a dice can be banked on to the point i can tell if dice are loaded… no?

    i can look at a series of actions and events and to me, the randomness of events is something i can bank on, unless they are not random.

    to me, randomness is not a dark closet in which everything that goes there is inscrutable, to me, randomness makes the inscrutable scrutable. (ouch)

    so when you see a collection of events, you cant believe that they can be orchestrated. why? well, mostly because you cant conceive of HOW they can be orchetrated.

    so what happens next? well, what happens is what happens to every inventor that comes up with something new that someone else cant see… the other person declares it impossible.

    which is what we do when we cant solve the problem ourselves, and refuse to assume and live what we know, and assume its possible, just that we cant do it.

    so, when people cant figure out what the politician is doing, they declare him to be crazy, nutty, a loser, etc… they do not think that maybe he has a very non random, well planned outcome, and that because the person doing the analysis doesnt know it, they cant connect the events to the outcome.

    ie. they pretend to be able to work from the events to the outcome. which would be real analysis. but what they do instead is try to connect the event to a colelction of outcomes they assume. then when the events dont connect to any of those, they do not declare themselves to miss something, they declare the other as lesser for not finding the path to their ideas.

    its very hard to note the difference…

    we dont see these illusions.

    some are in time, some are in other things.

    for instance… is a computer chip stable and 100% valid, or can it spontaneously flip bits and change values?

    those who dont know how they work, and what goes into their construction at the most basic level (in getting matter to be the material of the models realization), would think so. “the computer is always right (people make mistakes)”

    but the truth is that the computer has error checking and parity bits and all manner of things in place to fix these events. so it is not 100% in reality, its a lot less than that, and extra stuff brings it NEAR that.

    so to the world, computers are exact
    to someone like me, they randomly can make errors, but the degree of that error is so small, it creates the illusion of 100%.

    this randomness is so normal and pervasive and constant… that it defines our whole reality from sub atomic level all the way up to things so big that it would take 400 million light years to traverse its length!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    to me, all stability and static things are an illusion, and only exist that way within a time frame that preserves the illusion!!!!!!!!!!

    so… now, knowing that truth, or at least being capable of modeling that truth compared to the illusion we live every day and accept without much question. what does “Count On” mean?

    you cant count on anything.

    just as the only thing that doesn’t change is change.
    the only thing not random, is randomness itself.

    the computers randomness has been reduced till it makes on mistake every 100,000 years. since you and your contemporaries live shorter than 125, and no society has lasted 20,000 years, let alone 100,000 it seems stable.

    the left cries… oh, how garbage will destroy us, but thats just an illusion of time. in 300 million years, the plates will be subducted and all the matter that is on them, will be melted down and rejiggered as a whole new surface comes up, with whole new materials to be mined, and so on. (as matter cant be destroyed or made, but only moved around with energy)

    the pyramids were and are a monument to the primitive understanding that is superior to our own… that reality never holds still and that nothing is ever stable.

    i can give you tons of illusions that you live by that are completely untrue.

    have you ever returned to the same place twice?

    nope. never…. nor can you ever return to the same place ever twice… the energy required to do so is very prohibited at our tech level

    you may say, of course i go to the same place twice. i sleep int he same bed every night, or most nights. i have a home, i work in the same office for 10 years.

    but you see… there is a lot of other meaning in the sentences that exist and we assume the other has the same meaning (ergo the social fracturing that socialism made creates the tower of bable problem. where two people have a hard time understanding the same thing)

    when i say you will never go to the same place twice, i am being absolute, and your being relative (if you retort with the bed office etc).

    how so? well, relative to the surface of the earth, you can go to the same place twice. but that is a clipped down lesser part of reality.

    relative to the whole, you can never be in the same place twice, as the sun is in orbit in the galaxy and will take 300 million years to come back to the same area… but that is area relative to the galaxy center. the galaxy is moving towards Andromeda, so technically nothing in the whole galaxy will ever traverse the same location.

    your context says you cant count on people because in your context your ruling out how to do it, and all the ways it works.

    ie. the smaller your contextual view is, the more absolute the relative position seems

    so if your whole world is an island, or europe before america, etc… then the idea of never being in the same place twice and that we are moving towards the great attractor isnt even in existence to you…

    but if your education covers manipulating people, and how its done, and backed up by history, and so on. then you can include it in what you hear and think.

    so this is where a big part of my communication problem comes from (in aspergers too). the volume of knowlege when too disparate, means i am talking more real absolute, while theo ther is talking more relative but believing its absolute.

    most just get angry with me for not understanding them, not wonder as you do, why we misalign.

    for you and me, its different world experiences and knowledge, but not so much capacity. with others its also capacity, their lack of it prevents them from sharing a similar pool even if they share similar social lives.

    this happens all the time in what we discuss here as one person referrs to somethig… ie. a council is a soivet… the othe is operating from ignorance.

    by the way, ignorance wins over knowing.

    the illusion is that knowing wins, but knowing always loses… because winning by knowing requires the other to concede and admit on some level their ignorance or lack.

    so. ignorant of knowing how to control people and get what you want out of them. you assume it cant be done.

    but my knowing how,m means not only cant it be done, but i have enough knowledge to see it work… you may deny that knowledge or methods exist without studying them., and so ignorance wins.

    in fact, without moral honor and conceding honestly, ignorance is the stronger position.
    [edited for length by n-n]

  31. Squid Says:

    The Cloward-Pivens want to crash the system because they believe they will rule the system that emerges from the wreckage. There’s a big difference between the would-be tyrants and those who believe that the system is going to crash, and the the Dems and GOP are just quibbling over how quickly we get to that point. To that end, it is not a matter of enduring “pain now for future gain.” Rather, it is a desire that the pain should fall on us today, so that our grandchildren need not suffer tomorrow. We have no delusions about reigning over the ashes. We merely want to get through the turmoil, seek out “the new normal,” and carve out a space where our families can live unmolested.

    I am a big admirer of Bill Whittle, and I appreciate his good-faith attempt to talk me into voting for Romney. But I simply will not reward a GOP that looks at the dire threats to our nation and responds by forcing Mitt the Inevitable down our throats. If Obama wins Minnesota and a second term, it will not because I cast a principled vote for Mike Rowe; it will be because the GOP made an unprincipled decision to push Romney and cut the legs out from under the real reformers.

    All of these appeals to the horrors of a second Obama term are serving only to hold a gun to the nation’s head. I have no desire to negotiate with those who employ such tactics. And I refuse to accept that my only choices are “losing quickly” and “losing more slowly.” My support goes to those who are committed to actually winning. I only hope that one of the major parties wakes up soon, and figures out that downsizing Washington is not a sin.

  32. richard mcenroe Says:

    They’d rather be right than free.

  33. Marty Says:

    Can Johnson win? No.

    Can Johnson pull enough votes to energize a real third party with the ability to score significant legislative representation in 2014 and a competitive Presidential camapign in 2016 and a real shot at the White House no later than 2020? No.

    Can Johnson cost Romney the 2012 election? Yes, it’s that close. A few thousand votes in places like OH and CO may spell the difference.

    If Romney loses because Johnson tips a swing state or two by a few hundred or thousand votes, will that cause the GOP to totally rethink most of its positions and key people and move in a dramatically Libertarian direction? No.

    If Obama wins, is he a real and proximate threat to the economy, national security, any limitations on the national government, teh possibility of future free elections, and many of the Libertarians’ most cherished rights? Yes, he threatens all of those, right now.

    Unless one of my above conclusions is not just wrong but horribly, overwelmingly wrong, a vote for Johnson is not only wasted, but gambling with the future in an irresponsible way.

    They need to grow up– the world only offers some choices, they have to live with reality.

  34. neo-neocon Says:

    Greg Swann: I see we have our very own Cloward-Pivenista of the right in the comments section. Do you not think there are degrees of statism? And that Democrats represent a greater degree than Romney-Ryan? And that getting rid of Obamacare would be a good step, and that Romney-Ryan are far more likely to facilitate that than Obama in his second term? And what about foreign policy? Do you think economics is the only issue in the world? Do you think Romney-Ryan’s foreign policy would be exactly as bad as Obama’s? And then there are the SCOTUS justices. No doubt you think Romney-Ryan would appoint justices every bit as liberal as Obama would.

  35. Chuck Myguts Says:

    The only difference between the Republican party and the Democrats is the Republicans are going to take the country to hell only a little slower as the Republicans compromise in the direction the Democrats want to go

  36. Rob Crawford Says:

    There’s a Heinlein quote that, sadly, I cannot find online, that if you’re a citizen of a polity with political parties, you should be involved in the one closest to your ideals and work on persuading the party to adopt your views. If they do not, then you should still support that party.

    Why? Because even if you didn’t convince them on round 1, giving your support makes it more likely they’ll listen to you next time. Show support for them, they’ll support you.

    And, more importantly, you learn how to compromise.

    The Ron Paul crowd is the exact opposite — they insist on being “heard”, then bail when the general election comes along. Even Ron Paul does it — unless it’s HIS election, then he’s a party-line Republican…

    (And I’ve expressed disgust directly to the “let it burn” types. They do not understand the horror and pain they would see unleashed. The longer the deluge can be put off, the better.)

  37. Mike Launi Says:

    I am a libertarian. If Obama wins Obamacare never goes away. Romney says he will eliminate Obamacare. I am voting for Romney.

  38. Pervy Grin Says:

    If I lived in Ohio I would vote for Romney. But I live in California so I will vote for Johnson. What % of the vote does a party need to receive federal funding and be invited to the debates? Every vote counts in Johnson’s case.

    BTW, I find Bill Whittle insufferably smug, obvious, and boring. Can’t make it through even 1 minute of any of his videos.

  39. David Says:

    Please explain the functional difference between voting for Johnson and writing in your own name. Johnson may reflect your views 95% of the time, but he has 0% chance of getting elected. If you are voting for a candidate with 0% chance, why not pick yourself and have 100% agreement?

    This is a childish view of politics. The time for trying to get a better Republican candidate was during the primaries, but these voters don’t like dealing with that reality. Hell, Romney was somewhwer between my 4th and 6th choice for the nomination, but my favorites either didn’t run or flamed out. Sucks, but pretending it didn’t happen is not rational.

    Bottom line, any vote for a thrid party for Us president functionally helps the R/D candidate you least favor.

  40. Apopkian Says:

    It’s not the same. The left is pushing the system into collapse, while the right wingers who don’t vote Romney are simply dropping out of the system.

    It is certainly logical since Republicans are just moderate liberals on so many issues these days.

    I don’t want a collapse but it seems inevitable no matter who gets elected.

  41. Lurking Observer Says:

    We have had a few cases of societal/economic crumbling, due to mismanagement (deliberate or otherwise). Weimar Germany, Argentina.

    Has this ever resulted in governments that wound up being less paternalistic and all-controlling? More developed countries (e.g., Germany, Argentina), when faced with collapse, do not revert to smaller governments, but to larger, more authoritarian ones.

    So, while leftist Cloward-Pivens might have a point (Viva la Revolucion!), rightist Cloward-Pivens would seem to be pursuing a pipe dream.

  42. neo-neocon Says:

    Pervy Grin: Here’s why I think it’s important to vote for Romney even if a person is in a blue state.

    Although of course, it’s less important than it would be in a state that’s closer.

  43. neo-neocon Says:

    Apopkian: why not give Romney-Ryan a chance, before you look into your cloudy crystal ball and say it cannot be done?

    And I think it matters whether it happens quickly or slowly, even if it is indeed inevitable. It is good to buy time. And I agree with all those who say that a conservative response to chaos and collapse is the least likely outcome, not the most likely.

  44. neo-neocon Says:

    Chuck Myguts: please see this.

  45. Irene Says:

    @Greg Swan: “Nixon froze wages and prices, by far the most Marxist action ever taken in the United States.”

    Oh pshaw! There was nothing marxian or socialist about wage/price controls then. The US economy was being hit with exogenous shocks from the newly-organized OPEC and their resultant oil embargo. Nixon wasn’t trying to wrest away the ownership of property from anybody, he was trying to find some way to deal with cost push inflation. I’m not saying he was successful, but I remember very clearly the huge increases in everything from food to fuel, and unions demanding huge pay increases which the economy could not easily absorb and which would have put American products out of reach of both the international market and the national market (yes, UAW, I’m referring to you).

    If you want to talk about socialist/marxist presidents, you have no further to look than that pig currently in the White House.

  46. JuliB Says:

    I think a collapse would be an awful thing. How often do such events turn out? Look at both the French and Russian Revolutions and the bloodshed and tears that accompanied the changes. The chance that another Am Rev would be fruitful and follow in the same path as the first one is slim-to-none.

    Are all votes important? Ever since the Dems have harped on the popular votes (saying that the Electoral College should be abolished), I’ve been of the opinion that the popular vote is important too.

    While I would like to vote 3rd party, I weigh the appointment of SC judges, the gun issue and abortion as vitally important. So, I will continue to vote R. I vote like my life depends on it, because it really does.

  47. Artfldgr Says:

    one method of control:

    The Abilene paradox is a paradox in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of any of the individuals in the group.

    It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group’s and, therefore, does not raise objections. A common phrase relating to the Abilene paradox is a desire to not “rock the boat”.

    read the change agents guide and dialoging to consernsus, and you will realie that these are formalized methodologies for creating abilenes paradox in a group you control, while letting them think that they are in control

    that last part is key

    if they let you think the choice was yours, you then believe you were not controlled in making it.

    so dialoguing to consensus is a group control method that creates abilenes paradox. it sets who is on your side to start, who you can convert, and if not convert, remove

    you can take courses in it, and learn how to manipulate groups.

    Here from MIT

    A SHORT GUIDE TO CONSENSUS BUILDING

    An Alternative to Robert’s Rules of Order for Groups, Organizations and Ad Hoc Assemblies that Want to Operate By Consensus

    http://web.mit.edu/publicdisputes/practice/cbh_ch1.html

    from ISerbyte
    (she worked in education under Reagan)
    from The deliberate dumbing down of america ..

    The reason Americans do not understand this war is because it has been fought in se­cret—in the schools of our nation, targeting our children who are captive in classrooms. The wagers of this war are using very sophisticated and effective tools:

    Hegelian Dialectic (common ground, consensus and compromise)

    Gradualism (two steps forward; one step backward)

    Semantic deception (redefining terms to get agreement without understanding).

    Page 120: RONALD G. HAVELOCK’S THE CHANGE AGENT’S GUIDE TO INNOVATION IN EDUCATION was published by Educational Technology Publishing: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973.

    This Guide, which contains authentic case studies on how to sneak in controversial curricula and teaching strategies, or get them adopted by naive school boards, is the educator’s bible for bringing about change in our children’s values.

    Havelock’s Guide was funded by the U.S. Office of Education and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and has continued to receive funding well into the 1980s. It has been republished in a second edition in 1995 by the same publishers.

    i told you to read that book years ago!!!

    Artfldgr Says:
    November 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
    http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/13/it-had-to-happen/#comment-92429

    it is a training manual on mass control

    bet if you read it, you might not think such things are hard to control.

    not only that, but you would know what to be offended at, and how to disrupt the process.

    but if you dont even know it exists, how are you going to oppose what isnt there, that you dont know about, and hasve no reason to act upon?

    NCES maintains a series of Educational Records Series handbooks containing the com­puter coding numbers, categories, and specific pieces of information gathered and recorded about anything connected with schools—including Handbook VIII: The Community. This hand­book, while having its contents merged into later versions of others in the series, originally contained the coding for all community “quality of life” information, including factors pro­ducing socio-economic status data and a chapter entitled “Attitudes, Values and Beliefs.” This handbook provided the vehicle for profiling a “community”—defined as a “school district” by the Census Mapping Project—for planning of programs by Community Education practitio­ners. (Community Education’s Effect on Quality of Life by W. James Giddis, Diana Page, and George L. Mailberger [Center for Community Education at the University of West Florida: Pensacola, Fla., 1981], p. 8.)

    Profiling a community for “Attitudes, Values and Beliefs” is useful for those education change agents steeped in the methods taught in Ronald J. Havelock’s The Change Agents Guide to Innovation in Education, regularly taught at the National Training Laboratory’s pro­grams and other leadership training seminars for teachers, administrators, board members, elected or appointed officials, and other “first-level adopters” of new education reform/re­structuring proposals. The data gathered through the Census Mapping Project, among other things, assists in identifying those in a local community defined as “resisters” to controversial programs.

    so next time yuo hear a leftist say i am an agent of change, will you think that they are referring to the techiques in havelock or that they are a person who wants to improve the world?

    you tell me.

    The change agent’s guide to innovation in education by Ronald G. Havelock (1973)
    http://www.amazon.com/change-agents-guide-innovation-education/dp/087778048X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352151881&sr=1-2&keywords=The+Change+Agent%27s+Guide+havelock

    new its just $596.42…
    that keeps it out of the hand of parents but not a problem given school libraries (like what i work in)

    used copies now can be had for 20 dollars, and there are lots of copies for other areas

    if you cant understand it. maybe your an affirmative action teacher… they have this version
    Change Agents Guide to Innovation in Education (Made Easy)
    http://www.amazon.com/Change-Agents-Guide-Innovation-Education/dp/0877780390

    so maybe, if they had classes, and you didnt know they did, and they trained thousands. it might have a mass effect… want to guess if this is at the centralized “teachers college” at columbia?

    i describe it at the link
    but that was in 2008 about a week after obama was elected….

    remember?

  48. dicentra Says:

    A perfectionistic idealism is where the Don Quixotes on the right meet those on the left, in a dangerous no man’s land.

    I’d like to correct the record, here. Cervantes didn’t write Don Quijote as an idealist but as insane. Cervantes was making fun of the absurd conventions in the “libros de caballerías” that were popular at the time. He had the poor sod attempt to live by the books’ rules in the real world and then have a good laugh at the consequences. Cervantes explains that Quijote read so many of those books that “his brain dried out” and he lost the power of judgment (which is in concert with the theory of bodily humors: dry brain = loss of judgment).

    Ergo, you can’t “diagnose” Don Quijote with any identifiable disorder such as schizophrenia, because his insanity was crafted to serve Cervantes’ purposes, not to be a representation of an authentic disorder.

    Check out this bit of dialog from the famous windmill scene (chapter 8):

    “What giants?” said Sancho Panza.

    “Those thou seest there,” answered his master, “with the long arms, and some have them nearly two leagues long.”

    “Look, your worship,” said Sancho; “what we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the sails that turned by the wind make the millstone go.”

    “It is easy to see,” replied Don Quixote, “that thou art not used to this business of adventures; those are giants; and if thou art afraid, away with thee out of this and betake thyself to prayer while I engage them in fierce and unequal combat.”

    Quijote rejects Sancho’s judgment because Sancho hasn’t read the books and is therefore not hip to the situation. But that doesn’t stop the vanes from hoisting Quijote off his horse and sending him tumbling down the hill.

    So yes, there’s a comparison to be made between Don Quijote and the Left: they’ve read so many books on Marxism and deconstruction that their brains have dried out, they’ve lost their judgment, and their knuckle-headed ideas don’t concord with reality. It takes a simpleton like Sancho to see things as they are, and a high-falutin’ fool like Quijote to reject reality in favor of utter nonsense.

    With predictable consequences.

    –Makin’ that degree in Spanish Lit pay off somehow…

  49. BWP Says:

    So the Republicans can, and regularly do, expect Libertarians to ignore their values/prinicples and ‘hold their nose’ while voting for the Democrat-lite–aka Republican–candidate. Guess that means Republicans recognize that they have no values/principles that they’re willing to stand up for except that ‘win for the power’ value that they know best how to use. Or perhaps their values are so closely aligned with those that Democrats favor, that Republicans are embarrased when confronted by the values of truly limited government, limited Federal oversight of states, and freedom espoused by the libertarian-minded voter.

    So why won’t Republicans who believe in limited taxes and government, with a regulatory state that allows for personal freedom, hold their nose and vote for the Libertarian candidate? Surely they couldn’t have bought the whole cloth being sold by the East Coast run Republican party–which is led by nothing more than an Israel-loving Democratic-lite group of ‘wisemen’….could they?

    For some reason, I just don’t see the current Republican party reducing spending by $1 Trillion dollars in the 2014 fiscal year……nor do I see them ending the tragic and useless Wars on Poverty, Drugs and Terrorism. So we’ll see at least four more years of internal and external wars for our country.

    And the author thinks I should give up my values for that?! Sorry Charlie, I’ve got principles.

  50. Long-time-lurker Says:

    I had decided that I was not voting anymore to specifically protest the lack of my consent. Then while watching football yesterday, I saw a lying anti-Rob McKenna ad and I just couldn’t ignore the fact that the Evil-lite Party (AKA the Stupid Party) no matter how bitterly disappointing was vastly, vastly preferable to the Evil Incarnate Party (AKA the Jackass Party). Ten minutes later my ballot was all filled in, signed, sealed and on its way to the County Elections Department (almost all vote-by-mail in this state). Thanks you Lawless Lying Commie Crap-Weasels™. You got me to hold my nose and vote yet again.

    Lurker

    P.S.
    I read that the Majority Leader of the Senate has already stated that he will not work with Romney should he win. I hope Romney doesn’t reach across the aisle to said POS LLCCW unless he has a warrant and handcuffs in hand. The proper response is to sign an EO banning public employee unions. Call it the Harry Reid killed My Union order.

    Lurker

    P.P.S.
    President Romney had better make war-to-knife and knife-to-the-hilt his strategy for dealing with the Ministry of Lies and Propaganda. If the New York Times isn’t out of business within 30 days after their next publishing of classified information, then he’s not trying hard enough.

    Lurker

  51. Bill Peschel Says:

    I’m voting for Johnson, too, thanks in the end to Instapundit’s link to Richard Epstein’s article, “The Libertarian’s Dilemma.”

    All we’re trading is a guy beholden to the labor unions to a guy beholden to Wall Street. We’re going to lose either way. I’m being given a choice between having my house flooded out or my house burning down.

    (Also, there was a Vodkapundit column about Romney that said we should vote for him because he wasn’t Obama. Not what I call a strong endorsement.)

  52. David Says:

    I watched all of the Bill Whittle video and thought I would puke. He is confused thinking that the Paul/Johnson/non-voters are conservatives. Yes I want smaller government and more liberty, but time and again, conservatives have proved to me it doesn’t mean the same thing when they say it.
    I will stand on principle this election. If not in this, our most desperate hour, when?

  53. Armchair pessimist Says:

    Sheesh! Weren’t we having this conversation 4 years ago when purists vowed they would defile themselves with a vote for McAmnesty? How’d that turn out, guys?

    This from Gibbon’s Decline & Fall, about the fall of Constantiople. Scroll down past footnote #31 (or 32?):

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25717/25717-h/files/895/895-h/gib6-68.htm#2HCH0001

    The CPers again, whose fanaticism destroyed the work of 15 centuries.

    Please, don’t do this.

  54. southernjames Says:

    I’m just a dumb hick from French Lick, and not one of those smart “principled” Libertarians, who just somehow know that if enough people cast a “protest” vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul or some such, it will lead to a sea change somehow, some day…..and even if not, at least we’ve got our principals as we stand by and watch our country become a third world sh-t hole.

    What I do know is that either Romney or Obama will win. And from MY ignorant hillbilly perch, my belief is that, and these are just a few examples:

    1. We don’t know what sort of Federal judges Romney will appoint; and even if it appears he’s appointed a conservative judge, he might turn out to be a Souter, and not an Alito or a Scalia. BUT, we DO know what kind Obama appoints. And our 2nd Amendment rights are currently holding on by a very precarious 5-4 thread. I’m kinda fond of my 2A rights, down here in the Gunshine State. I’m not too fond of people who take that lightly, all for the sake of trying to “teach the GOP a lesson!! Dammit”!

    2. We don’t know for 100% sure if Romney will call off the EPA from trying to destroy domestic energy production (coal, new drilling leases). We DO know what Obama’s EPA will do, and what sort of ongoing Executive Orders in general will spew non-stop from Mr. “I’ve got more flexibility now,” and Mr. “I’ve Won.” “Congress? We don’t need no stinkin Congress, amIright, Van Jones my man?”

    3. The fiscally conservative tea party representatives in the House and Senate are more likely rather than less likely to have at least some influence over Romney’s policies than on Obama’s. I kinda think that is a safe bet.

    4. Joe Smith v. Jeremiah Wright. “Love of Country” vs. “G-d DAMM Amerikka.” Hmm, which one do I prefer? Gosh that’s a toughie.

    5. Back door amnesty, in direct contravention of Federal law. “Consitution? Federal laws? We don’t need no stinkin Constitution or Federal law, amiright, Axelrod my man?”

    6. No tweaking, let alone repeal of the montrosity known as Obamacare.

    7. Please, do I have to really see Mochelle Antoinette’s fat a$$ on the cover of every magazine in the check-out aisle for another four years, and have to hear about her latest million dollar 3 week luxury vacation, paid for courtesy of you and me?

    I could go on. I don’t give a damn about Romney. But either he or Obama will be the next president and I want Obama OUT. Then, we’ll continue our work on grass roots changes from the bottom up, in our party.

  55. PoliTech Says:

    Cloward-Piven … hardly. There are more than just the presidential candidate elections on this ballot. People should forgo such “strategery” in their voting and rather simply vote their conscience.

    Local elections are far more important than most acknowledge. Local politicians spend much of your tax money, one should be as thoughtful with those elections as with national elections.

    Also, in case you don’t know, in 2010 – Over 800 Libertarian candidates ran for office with Libertarian candidates for the U.S. House receiving over 1,073,000 votes. Pamela Brown, ran for California Lieutenant Governor against both a Republican and a Democrat, and got 574,640 votes. There were 38 Libertarians elected or re-elected to public office that year, and by the end of ’08 there were 154 Libertarians holding elected office.

    Last, Who do you think you are anyway? No citizen owes you their vote one way or the other.

  56. Llarry Says:

    Is it really a problem to vote third party in true blue states such as CA and MA where Romney is unlikely to win? If Romney is going to lose in these states, why not protest if you want?

    Because it’s phony. Voting is secret. Nobody will ever know who you voted for–unless you announce it. The only reason you cast a “protest vote” is so you can go out and tell people about it.

    It’s an act of self-aggrandizement and childish attention getting that brings us ever closer to becoming a nation of pathologically unserious Honey Boo Boos who have no hope of ever saving ourselves from the ruling class.

  57. Lee Reynolds Says:

    A single ELECTORAL VOTE can cause Romney to lose. Which in turn means a single state. A single voter…not so much, especially in a state that is almost sure to go to Romney.

    I live in Arizona. I intend to vote for Romney. I am willing, as one pundit put it, to crawl over broken class to cast my ballot for him. However, because I live in Arizona I could vote for Snoop Dogg and Romney would still carry the state, and all 11 of its electoral votes.

    Were I living in Commiefornia or Taxachusetts then my vote for Romney might actually mean something all by itself. Since I have the good fortune and good sense to steer clear of those blighted areas of the country, my vote is largely symbolic, at least as far as the presidential election is concerned. When it comes to local and state government, my vote is of supreme importance.

    Whether this person is being foolish or (perhaps wisely) casting a vote in protest depends entirely upon where they live.

  58. Jim,MtnViewCA,USA Says:

    “If every CA Republican voted for Johnson, it might not alter the outcome, but it would confuse Romney’s mandate.”

    Or not. I used to be registered Repub. Now I am an independent because the Repubs seem unwilling to embrace real change–a rollback of the growing power of the federal gov’t.
    If Romney wins we will still need to put RINO feet to the fire to get them to do stuff. Stuff that Bush/Repub-Senate/Repub-House wouldn’t do.
    I planned to write-in Sarah Palin. I am voting Romney, he wasn’t my choice but he’s grown on me. Plus I hate the media. But in CA, voting for the Libertarians should be understood by the Repub establishment to mean the People want change. Don’t slow the growth of gov’t, reduce its size. This doesn’t reduce Romney’s mandate, it sharpens and focuses it.

  59. wef Says:

    The fact that his vote might end up causing Romney to lose and Obama to win is irrelevant to this man.

    You and others of your “ilk” are in magical-thinking error if you believe that his vote will have anything but less than a raindrop’s difference in an ocean. And please don’t try to give the incoherent (and juvenile) Whittle argument, which boils down to two things. First, the sophomoric plea that we must think in terms of “What would happen if everybody did it?” What Whittle is struggling to articulate – and inappropriately so – is some entreaty to believe that calculus of integration over infinitesimal points is applicable to our moral judgments about our individual decisions. And the second and really puerile Whittle point is that THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER! Every four damned years the con artists of the republican party give us the same bs. But, sure, Romney is different. This time. Yeah, right.

  60. Llarry Says:

    I will stand on principle this election. If not in this, our most desperate hour, when?

    Thanks for proving my point in your own words that protest votes are acts of self-aggrandizement and childish attention getting.

    Your pomposity is exceeded only by your cheesy melodrama. If you were serious, you’d realize that all votes are between a lesser of two evils, because politics attracts a certain type of person.

    You vote for the person who will do the least amount of damage. And you never, ever, under any circumstances, personalize politics by falling in love with a candidate.

    Gary Johnson is no more principled than any other pol. His ads here in California are egregiously, retardedly false.

    “Endless war”? Johnson seriously believes that if we just refuse to fight then the enemy will put down his weapons? How’d that work for us before 1917 and after 1945?

    No, Johnson knows full well that there’s no such thing as “endless war,” and that the current war is specifically a war against expansionist, imperialist, Salafist Islam seeking to reestablish a global caliphate by attacking western interests. But he cynically uses bumper-sticker slogans to appeal to people like you, who think he’s principled.

    Johnson deliberately strips our current war of its historical context and does so to achieve personal power, yet you think he’s principled.

    I’m voting for the guy who at least treats me as though I’m intelligent and who clearly takes the situation seriously.

  61. Greg Swann Says:

    > I see we have our very own Cloward-Pivenista of the right in the comments section.

    Ad hominem plus well poisoning. All in support of tu quoque and two wrongs make a right, of course, the leaden dyad of malevolent rationalizations.

    > Do you not think there are degrees of statism?

    Yes. Republican administrations have been much more statist since Roosevelt died.

    > And that Democrats represent a greater degree than Romney-Ryan?

    Obama with the Congress that will win tomorrow will be hamstrung, without even taking account of the Benghazi investigation. The last time we had this — Clinton’s second term — was a virtual golden age. Meanwhile, Romney and Ryan promise to be the typical Republican pushovers. Your rebuttal is to cite Reagan, but until conservatives embrace liberty, Reagan is an outlier.

    > And that getting rid of Obamacare would be a good step

    Would be. Won’t happen. Big Bird can sleep easy, too.

    > and that Romney-Ryan are far more likely to facilitate that than Obama in his second term?

    Romney and Ryan are more likely than is Obama to make Obamacare even more of a Rotarian Socialist berry patch. This is what Republicans call “reform” — selling out taxpayers to corporate interests.

    > And what about foreign policy?

    Here there is room for some hope, as long as we don’t run out of young men to deliver up to slaughter.

    > And then there are the SCOTUS justices.

    There, too, although the Republican record on this score is very poor. As a reasonable counter-argument, letting the Supreme Court destroy it’s reputation for probity, much as the mainstream media has done, could be a good thing. We don’t need a reliable über-state, we need self-reliance. Razing the temples is probably a good thing.

    > No doubt you think Romney-Ryan would appoint justices every bit as liberal as Obama would.

    The past is prologue.

    The bottom line is you have no reason to believe that a Romney victory would not be much worse than a second term for Obama. The prospect of four years of gridlock is very appealing; it was wonderful under Clinton. Meanwhile, you can be certain that any legislation successfully passed by Romney will be ripe with corruption, since this is the only way he will be able to buy the needed votes. This is not despair, it’s a clear-eyed reflection of recent history.

    For what it’s worth, I voted for nobody, since this is the only person I want to rule over me:

    http://selfadoration.com/what-is-the-most-self-loving-way-to-vote-for-slavery-by-proxy/3954

    Our “choice” is D-for-Demonic-Marxist versus R-for-Retarded-Marxist. If you think anything but Marxism will win tomorrow, you’re not thinking hard enough.

  62. Tex Taylor Says:

    Though I would never waste my vote, can I admit that I have sympathized with your friend on occasion and have in weak moments wished the same thing? The thought goes, “the system is broken, let it break because it better for me to deal with it than my children.”

    But then it occurred to me one day, that is like recognizing you have coronary heart disease, so you wish for a heart attack to inspire you back to health.

    The problem is that is: (1) You may not get that chance; (2) irreparable damage, a part of you unable to ever regenerate – the scars remain and being heart tissue unable to go through mitosis, its effective action compromised forever.

    I can empathize with your friend’s conclusion. But like I once was, your friend’s solution is unnecessary and myopic.

  63. syn Says:

    If Gary Johnson is willing to reach out Occupy Wallstreet (an artifical construct of the Progressive Left) then how can he govern reasonable?

    How can a Libertarian promote free-market capitalism while at the same time reach out to anti-capitalist anarchists?

    And how can a Libertarian demand reducing the size and scope of government while at the same time advocate “flood the borders with Mexicans” (Gary Johnson Playboy interview 2011) who ideally should become taxpayers however in reality become recipients of of America’s Big Government Entitlement system?

    Libertarians might spend time and effort analyzing why their party never recieves more than 5% (this is Gary Johnson’s percentage in NM-the state he governed for eight years) and why they always demand that the Republican Party bend to their will?

    Ideologically-except for issue of taxation- the Libertarian Party identifies more with Progressivism than Conservativism from Environmentalism, Global Warming, Drugs, Abortion, Same-sex Marriage, Anti-Semitism, War, dirty dealings with Dictators, Open Borders etc etc that perhaps it is time for Liberatarians to consider joining the Democrat Party, persuade Progressives -through Libertarians notoriously thuggish and anarchistic tacitics- to give up taxation.

  64. ATLien Says:

    I hate that I have to keep telling people this, but here it goes:

    THIRD PARTIES WILL NOT WIN A PRESIDENTIAL RACE.

    And Libertarians especially aren’t going to get that third party win. Trying to get Libertarians to do anything in a bloc is like herding cats.

    The only solution is to take over one of the two parties. And if you pay attention, the Republican party is ever so slowly shifting toward small “L” libertarian ideas. With old-school blue-blood Republicans of the North dying off, and the rise of the Tea Party and even Libertarian followers in the south and west, the Republican party is on the precipice of a change of ideals.

    But, as with everything else these days, people are impatient and want everything “NOW.” Hell, I believe that the GOP could be flipped in such away within a couple of election cycles if everyone works hard for it. The only obstacle to all of this is the social conservatives. And to get them into the game, all you have to do is convince them that theocratic leanings are damaging to religious freedom.

    But again, we have to work hard and be patient.

    And Artfldgr, take you posts and cut them in half. Then cut that in half again. You take tl;dr to an extreme.

  65. Llarry Says:

    > And what about foreign policy?

    Here there is room for some hope, as long as we don’t run out of young men to deliver up to slaughter.

    Again–right out of the horse’s mouth–proof that those who who “stand on principle” tend to be infantile and superficial.

    Tell you what: Let’s you and me go to the Marine base in 29 Palms and you can tell the volunteers there that they’re just cannon fodder that “we” joyously serve up to “slaughter.”

    My only request is that you let me film it so I can post it on YouTube.

    Why is it 100-percent consistent that those of you who profess concern for our troops always speak of them in the most disparagingly contemptuous terms imaginable?

    Whether it’s leftists or libertarians, you always talk about our fighting forces–which include women, too–as though they’re passive morons and helpless victims who are scooped up by the crowd-control dump truck in Soylent Green and dropped into meat grinders for the amusement of fat, cigar-smoking plutocrats.

    Your worldview is about as incisive as that of Ellen Barkin’s or Bill Maher’s.

  66. Artfldgr Says:

    now govenors are issuing EOs to change elections and so on… (Cuomo in ny).

    so basicaly we have a king, and lords who make laws and can even make EO that pertains to elections…

  67. Julie Says:

    My state will be for Romney, basically no matter what I vote. I don’t particularly want him to have a mandate, because I don’t think his ideas are all that great, so I don’t give a damn about increasing his popular vote and don’t see that it matters that much anyway. I obviously can’t vote for Obama, which would be just as much a “wasted vote” anyway, given the state I’m in, so I’m voting for Gary Johnson, a person who, incidentally, I think would actually be a fine president.

    It’s really interesting, though, to read these comments griping about the supposed bullying by libertarians who have to have everything their way (something that would come as a suprise to a great many libertarians, I’m sure). It’s interesting because essentially this post is trying to bully libertarians into voting for something they don’t support. Romney seems likely to be better than Obama on some issues, primarily the debt, although who knows, really? He may or may not be better on foreign policy. He doesn’t seem all that convincing to me on entitlement reform. And on civil liberties which, yes, actually do matter to some of us, he is unlikely to be any better at all. You want libertarians to support him with the same fervor you do even though there is little reason to believe that he will be substantially better than Obama on any issue that matters to libertarians. You want libertarians to support “not Obama” with the same fervor that liberals supported “not Bush.” And, hey, look where that got us!

    Eh, sorry, but that just isn’t a convincing case. No matter what kind of fool names you want to call us.

  68. Greg Swann Says:

    Llary: When someone tells you something you can’t refute and yet feel you must reject, that’s a cue from your mind that you have not thought the matter through. This is me from here: http://selfadoration.com/war-what-is-is-good-for-for-rent-seeking-of-course-as-with-all-government-programs/3960

    The purposes of U.S. foreign policy are these, in ascending order of importance:

    3. To defend the “interests” of American investors overseas who should be paying their own way or doing business here instead.

    2. To establish a vast jobs program for Republican legislators and rent-seekers to counter-balance all the Democratic jobs programs. (This is the notion that got me thrown off of FreeRepublic.com, BTW.)

    1. To expend munitions supplies, thus to prompt re-orders from arms-makers — which is to say reliable campaign donors.

    Assassination of truly psychotic trouble-makers is fast and cheap, but it leaves the arsenals full and the Pentagon empty.

    I have nothing but respect for the people (99% men) who give their lives and limbs to scare foreign bad guys away from the overseas interests of rich Americans. But the whole tragic mess has nothing whatever to do with the actual interests of ordinary American taxpayers.

    Want proof? We don’t defend our own borders.

    Now if you don’t want to actually think about what I’m saying, go ahead and threaten me with the Marines again. That has always been the primary reason for governments to maintain vast standing armies, to intimidate the people who are compelled to pay for them. And now we’re back to tu quoque and two wrongs a make a right.

  69. Artfldgr Says:

    its interesting who suddenly shows up out of nowhere and what they say near key times… anyone else but me notice?

  70. neo-neocon Says:

    Julie: I couldn’t care less how fervently libertarians support Romney. And if this post is an example of “bullying,” I think you’re using a pretty elastic definition of the word. Did I threaten anyone? I am merely stating what I see as the possible consequences of the act of voting for Gary Johnson. You, of course, are quite free to reject my arguments and vote for whomever you want. And I am free to continue to say that people who want to hasten an economic apocalypse in order to hasten conservatism (or libertarianism) somewhat resemble those on the left who ascribe to Cloward-Piven because they think it will hasten statism on the left. And that it’s a dangerous move for those on the right to ascribe to that kind of thinking.

  71. Llarry Says:

    Llary: When someone tells you something you can’t refute and yet feel you must reject, that’s a cue from your mind that you have not thought the matter through.

    I can’t refute your childish notion that our troops are passive, helpless victims simply delivered up for the slaughter?

    All I have to do to refute that is talk to any serving member of the armed forces to know they’re not passive. All I have to do to refute the notion that they’re being delivered up for the slaughter is to read about the nature of their missions, the equipment and weapons they use, and the treatment they receive when they’re wounded.

    That’s what I’m refuting. Everything else you write is your opinion. One doesn’t refute opinion; one disagrees with it.

    You need to learn the definitions of words. That would be helpful.

  72. neo-neocon Says:

    Greg Swann: ad hominem? Hardly. I am saying that your arguments fit the portrait of a Cloward-Pivenista of the right. This has nothing to do with any other characteristics of yours; I know nothing else about you except what you posted here.

    And then I went on to ask you questions concerning your positions and arguments.

    An ad hominem attack, by the way, is this:

    Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent’s personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent’s argument,

    So, when I ask you questions about your opinions, these are your answers:

    > Do you not think there are degrees of statism?

    Yes. Republican administrations have been much more statist since Roosevelt died.

    > And that Democrats represent a greater degree than Romney-Ryan?

    Obama with the Congress that will win tomorrow will be hamstrung, without even taking account of the Benghazi investigation.

    In your first answer you ignore the point of my question, which is to compare Democrats and Republicans now, not Republicans pre-FDR and Republicans later (and of course what you say is true about them).

    In your second you display your ignorance of Obama’s methods. First of all, he will not be “hamstrung” in his use of the veto, which is quite a powerful tool. Second of all, he is quite adept at going around Congress and getting his way through executive fiat, orders, czars, etc. That is likely to only get worse in a second term, in which he is not limited by the need to be re-elected.

    As far as SCOTUS justices go, in Massachusetts Romney was constrained (“hamstrung” if you will) by a legislature that was 85% liberal Democrats and could block any appointment he made that was not to their liking. So the past is not prologue; it does not seem especially relevant. And I guarantee that any SCOTUS justice Romney would appoint would be less liberal than any justice Obama would appoint, even if the Romney appointees would be unlikely to meet your high standards.

  73. kevino Says:

    RE: “Not a single Republican IN MY LIFETIME has reduced the national debt”

    While it is true that a “single Republican” has not reduced the national debt, a group of Republicans elected to the House of Representatives in 1993 and led by Speaker Gingrich demanded a balanced budget and pushed until they got it. President Clinton started by ignoring them, then he switched to phony accounting numbers. Clinton vetoed their budgets and caused the Federal government to be shut down, but the GOP radicals prevailed, and they managed to create the last time the discretionary spending was under control.

    Oddly, Clinton gets credit for balancing the budget, but he wanted none of it. And it is important to remember that Clinton didn’t shut down the Federal government because the GOP wasn’t cutting spending enough.

    The 2012 political campaign has been horrible. We have serious problems in this country, and our political leaders have failed to deliver a real debate on what is needed. They have done so because the American people did not demand what is needed: to have *ALL* of our prospective leaders sit down and talk plainly about the budget — which we haven’t had in years, industrial policy, tax policy (business and individual), energy policy, and environmental policy.

    I really miss Ross Perot’s 30-minute talks about the budget. I miss Gingrich telling the press to ask Clinton what he intends to do about Medicare going broke: “You can either raise taxes, cut benefits, or both. Ask him what he intends to do.”

    We can’t continue to spend like this.
    We can’t continue to live off past glories without a plan for the future.

    If it can’t go on forever, it won’t.

    No matter who wins tomorrow, the big losers are:
    1. The Lame Stream Media for being totally in the tank for the Democrats
    2. All of us, but especially young Americans, who will lose their future because their parents and grandparents were too greedy to risk their free stuff, too cowardly to change, and too stupid to learn the lessons of history.

    In the end, we get the government that we deserve.
    We let the politicians — especially the Democrats — reduce the election to fear, anger, and triviality.
    What happens next is very predictable.

  74. Llarry Says:

    Now if you don’t want to actually think about what I’m saying, go ahead and threaten me with the Marines again.

    More of your inability to understand the basic meanings of words.

    I invited you to 29 Palms so you could tell marines to their faces that you equate them to animals being led to the slaughter. I said I wanted to film the result and post it on Youtube.

    If you consider an invitation a threat, you’re quite the delicate flower, aren’t you?

    And speaking of people who are utterly unaware of their own thought processes, you revealed your disgust and contempt for our armed forces by immediately jumping to the conclusion that they would do you physical harm.

    Very telling. You’re in no position to lecture anyone on thinking, since you’re not even aware of how your own mind works.

  75. Dave Says:

    No one thinks welfare recipients will “see the light” and vote Republican. What right-wingers see (and left-wingers don’t see) is that after the dollar collapses, cold hard reality wins with 0% of the vote.

    Does this mean that 47% of the population will die of starvation or curable diseases? Probably not. As they did after Katrina, the Mormons will quickly set up refugee camps all over the country. These camps will be well-provided with food, shelter, and medicine, but sadly for the Dems, no ballot boxes.

  76. richard40 Says:

    If you are in a non-swing state it makes some sense for a die hard libertarian to vote for Johnson, since your vote will not swing the election anyway, and could help the libertarian party in the future. But if you are in a swing state, romney is the only option.

  77. Llarry Says:

    I obviously can’t vote for Obama, which would be just as much a “wasted vote” anyway, given the state I’m in, so I’m voting for Gary Johnson, a person who, incidentally, I think would actually be a fine president.

    I have no ideas what kind of ads he’s running in your state, but in California they were just embarrassing. He’s the King of Reductionism, refusing to address the context of virtually all of the most important issues of our day.

    Why are we at war, for example? No answer from Johnson. Let’s just end the wars! Easy-peasy.

    Some of us actually read about why we’re at war. I’d like to know if you or any other Johnson supporter are familiar with Unit 999, for example. Can you tell us about Abu Zubayr al Halili? Can you explain the relationship between Abu Sayyaf and Saddam?

    What did the memo that the Daily Telegraph found in the rubble of a Baghdad government building say about bin Laden’s relationship to Iraqi intelligence? How many training camps did Saddam run, and how many jihadis did he train between 1999 and 2002?

    Who’s Khala Khadr al-Salahat and where was he captured? What did Putin say on June 18, 2004, about Saddam’s plans for the U.S. and its interests?

    I’m betting not a single Gary Johnson supporter could answer any of those questions off the top of his or her head.

  78. wannabe Says:

    I can’t let myself stress about this any more than I have already. If the Obamai win they will continue to fail and will continue blaming Bush into 2016. Hopefully all of the dolts who voted for them will finally realize that Clint was right, the man’s a fraud.

  79. Lisa Says:

    Wow, I’m blown away by nasty tone in the comments. I’m married to one of those libertarianish contrarians. After 20 years with the man, I can tell you this much: no amount of wheedling, browbeating, blame, ridicule, etc. is going to change his mind or that of anyone like him. This election doesn’t ride on him because he won’t vote any differently than he did last time. The only time that I’m aware of that he voted R for President was GWB’s second term. He was disappointed to say the least.

    I personally will hold my nose and vote for Romney, but seriously, why was Ronald Reagan the only presidential candidate in my lifetime that I was happy to vote for? Since then, it’s been blah, unprincipled, big-government loving, etc. etc. etc.

    Anyway, go Romney! And pray like hell that he’s only half as bad as I think he might be.

  80. neo-neocon Says:

    Lisa: why was Reagan the only presidential candidate in your lifetime that you were happy to vote for? Because politicians are an odd breed of cat. Really great people tend to be winnowed out for a number of reasons. I almost always vote for the lesser of two evils. I tend not to get enamored of any politician.

    And I understand quite well that people like your husband will not be persuaded. This post of mine was descriptive more than anything; I didn’t expect most of those I’m describing to change their minds.

  81. DonS Says:

    Republicans shifted left after FDR because they had no choice. The left had essentially won the fight for public opinion.

    Neo, a lot of the libertarian/Ron Paul types hate neocons. They also tend towards no foreign interventions, and a dislike of American support for Israel. You are probably aware of this, but I’m just throwing it out there.

    Myself, I’m a libertarian minded Republican, and in fact I was a Libertarin Party member for awhile. And I like a lot about Johnson, and I think he deserved stronger recognition then he recieved (although I was never a suporter in the sense of backing him).

  82. Forrest Says:

    It always devolves into a “lesser of two evils” vote, which is why I’d crawl over broken glass to vote for Romney, because the alternative is just to terrifying to contemplate.

  83. Mike Mahoney Says:

    Susanamantha ignores or is unaware of two winds at Romney’s back if he wins. These are fair weather Winds that blow in the libertarian direction. The first is what I will call surface winds: the Republican controlled House and Senate, if we get it. They will keep Romney moving towards the promises both he and the party have made. The second wind is what I will call the jetstream: the Tea Party and their allies. This is the powerful driving force behind the surface winds. I believe Romney is happily disposed to set his sails to these winds.
    If either Romney, the Republican party or either of the bicameral chambers tries to buck the jetstream, namely you and I, they will reap a whirlwind in 2014 that will tear the Republican party assunder. Watch for it. Vote Mitt and make it happen.

  84. DonS Says:

    I personally will hold my nose and vote for Romney, but seriously, why was Ronald Reagan the only presidential candidate in my lifetime that I was happy to vote for? Since then, it’s been blah, unprincipled, big-government loving, etc. etc. etc.

    Reagan represented a new political trajectory, the resurgance of small government conservatism. An inflection point, as it were. It is real hard for anyone else to measure up to that.

  85. Llarry Says:

    Wow, I’m blown away by nasty tone in the comments.

    Nobody’s nastier, more insulting, and more condescending than the average libertarian. What makes most of them insufferable is their unjustified conceit that they’re smarter than everyone else.

    Yet look at what they say. Our troops are dumb animals being led to the slaughter?

    Can you conceive of anything more reprehensible, ignorant, and childish, especially since it’s a notion that’s positively incandescent with stupidity on almost countless levels?

    To say that our troops fight and die for corporations and “the rich” shows a total lack of knowledge in geopolitics, government, the military, society in general, and economics.

    If someone utterly lacks a fundamental understanding of those elements, what good is their opinion?

    Not all libertarians are nasty. Glenn Reynolds is a good example of a reasonable libertarian. But it’s been my experience that the most appallingly vicious, arrogant, and yet vacuous political commenters are libertarians.

    If I had a dollar for every time a libertarian uttered the word “sheeple” I could buy my own island, my own 767, and my own harem of gorgeous Russian mail-order brides.

  86. The Whited Sepulchre Says:

    I will never vote for another Republican.
    I’m for gay/lesbian marriage, I want to end the drug war, and I don’t want to get into any more wars in the Middle East for the benefit of Lockheed Martin. I don’t want to pay for 47% of the world’s military when we have 7% of the world’s population. I don’t want to borrow money from China to pay for enough military to prove to China that we aren’t weak.
    I’m sick, sick, sick of Republicans who claim that they’re for smaller government, and then spend money like drunk cowboys once in office. I’m sick of Republicans who claim that they’re “free market”, and then go invent something as fundamentally dumb-assed as RomneyCare.
    I want to elect government officials who are going to spend less money, not those, like Paul Ryan, whose budgets project AN INCREASE IN OBAMA’S SPENDING LEVELS.
    I don’t want to be associated with a party that talks about rape in terms of “God’s Will”.
    If this attitude were spread about the nation, would it guarantee that one of the Obamneys was elected instead of the other?
    Who cares? Seriously. Are you afraid that one of the Obamneys will force through another TARP program like the one Bush supported?
    Are you afraid that one of the Obamneys will nominate “liberal” Supreme Court justices? Have you looked at what one of them appointed as gov. of Massachusetts?
    Good lord in heaven, people !! Get a clue !!
    I’ll bet anyone (not everyone, but anyone) here $100.00 that if the white Obamney is elected, he’ll outspend the black one.
    Takers?

  87. Micha Elyi Says:

    Ron Paul supporters tend to be idealist utopians, I’ve noticed. This is also a tendency of Libertairan Party politics, where the game seemes to be “I’m a better libertarian then you!”.
    DonS

    I recall Howard Dean campaigning on a slogan something like “I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party” in 2000. His appeal was attractive to many in his party and mobilized its idealists. Arguably, that laid the groundwork among the Democrat grassroots for Obama’s nomination in 2008.

    Think that could never happen among Republicans? Perhaps the slogan “A choice, not an echo” may be a reminder.

    Sure, idealism can go off into the weeds as the Taliban – the Muslim wing of the Muslim religion – illustrate with their “I’m a better Muslim than you, watch me blow up these ancient statues” actions. (They are still doing this today.) Still, to suggest idealism is bad therefore let’s not have any idealism – do you really want to go there, DonS?

     

    So, are they hoping for collapse and for a restart of our society… ?
    DonS

    No. They’re expecting that collapse. They figure that if it happens while some can remember being a free people there’s still a chance ten thousand years of bondage can be avoided.

  88. Llarry Says:

    I don’t want to get into any more wars in the Middle East for the benefit of Lockheed Martin.

    There we go. With this one statement you negate everything you have to say on politics.

    What did Lockheed Martin have to do with Saddam’s Unit 999?

    What does Lockheed Martin have to do with the Khlaid Sheik Mohammed?

    I find it astonishing that after elven years of war, you haven’t educated yourself on even the basics of why we’re fighting. Instead, all you can do is regurgitate fifth-rate, refried slogans. Pitiful.

  89. parker Says:

    I am a libertarian (note the lack of an upper case L) but I always vote republican whenever I realize the race is close. This time around I will enthusiastically vote for Romney. Why? Because in Romney I see a competent and sincere manager. If he is our POTUS come January will I always agree with him? Of course not. However, BHO must go. Be of good cheer.

  90. Apopkian Says:

    Neo-neocon,

    I and many others faced the same choice when Bush ran. I voted for Bush and things didn’t work out for conservatives. I am not falling for it again.

    If the inevitable housing crash happened under a Democratic president it would have certainly benefited the conservatives.

    I am not sure what will happen when the big crash comes but you don’t need a crystal ball to know that it is inevitable.

    Buying more time is the only benefit of voting Republican. On the other hand you could also argue that the slow boil is a more efficient method of transforming a nation into a leftist slum. If the crash comes sooner we might be more prepared to fight.

  91. parker Says:

    “I’m for gay/lesbian marriage, I want to end the drug war..”

    I’m not for gay/lesbian marriage; but I am not opposed to homosexual marriage. I definitely want to see an end to the ‘drug war’. It is futile and costly. I want to see marijuana legalized and all other drugs treated as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. I want to see a national policy that takes cocaine, heroin, etc. addiction out of the hands of the criminals and transfers this to the hands of medical professionals. OTOH, the rest of your post is irrational IMO.

  92. neo-neocon Says:

    Whited Sepulchre: your comment is another good example of exactly what I’m talking about in this post.

    I know that your mind is made up, so I won’t try to argue with you except to say that your statement of the Republican Party as a party that “talks about rape in terms of ‘God’s Will’” is flawed in two important ways. The first is that the Republican Party never said that. The second is that no individual in the Republican Party ever said that, either. The one individaul in the Republican Party to whom I believe you are referring, Richard Mourdock, said that the life is God’s will, not the rape:

    I believe life begins at conception. The only exception I have for to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape. It is something that God intended to happen.

    Mourdock later clarified further:

    I said life is precious. I believe life is precious. I believe rape is a brutal act. It is something that I abhor. That anyone could come away with any meaning other than what I just said is regrettable, and for that I apologize,” Mourdock said, according to The Indianapolis Star’s account of his news conference Wednesday.

    ‘If they came away with any impression other than that I truly regret it, I apologize,” he said. “I’ve certainly been humbled by the fact that so many people think that somehow was an interpretation.”

    The problem is with the word “it,” but from the context it is crystal clear he meant the fetus, not the rape. Feel free to disagree with what he said, but please don’t twist what he said.

    And I’m surprised that a libertarian (which I assume you are?) would say the party said it, when a single candidate in Indiana said it.

    And I’ve already answered the charge that Romney appointed liberal justices in Massachusetts, but I’ll repeat it here. Are you aware that the Massachusetts legislature at the time was 85% liberals, and that any other selection would never have been approved? Romney is a realist, not a Don Quixote. If he had not been a realist, he would not have become governor of a liberal state. There are many people who will never forgive him for that crime.

    The perfect is indeed the enemy of the good, as your comment demonstrates.

  93. DNW Says:

    DonS Says:
    November 5th, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Johnson can’t win, to think so isn’t hedging bets, it is self delusion.

    Expecting a small government reset after the Democrats run the country into the ground is a poor bet. The probability is that things will go the other direction, into a more absolute government.”

    I agree.

    It surprises me that some folks seem to imagine that a wrecked economy might translate into more libertarian sentiments among an already state-dependant client class which knows it literally cannot survive without you in legal thrall to its wants.

    The socialist solution to economic problems conceived of as caused by a lack of confidence in, or cooperation with, the socialist regime by some “social segment”, has historically been to get rid of half-way measures, and institute an even purer form of expropriation and duress.

    I guess the thing is, is that Libertarians” (big “L”) can’t quite envision is how every constitutional safeguard and right would be tossed overboard long before the state dependent and their directors would allow themselves to sit idly by and starve, while a resurgent class of self-starters showed the way to a better future.

    They seem to imagine that, “Here will be a line they would not dare cross, and one which will serve as a limit from behind which I can operate.”

    But that just overlooks the point that the very essence of progressivism/socialist governance is the principle of governance without limits or boundaries.

    No. I think that the American left would be glad to engage in heretofore “unthinkable” individual confiscations and oppressions long before serious social or economic disruptions could occur which would materially affect either the bureaucrat class or its clients by leaving them stranded, so to speak.

    And among those few supposed liberals who might be expected to have had “qualms” (unlike say Daniel Lazarus, who would have none) concerning natural or individual rights, it would nonetheless be justified in the name of “humanity” and expediency.

    We already have a health care plan that sets up what amount to recusancy fines. And Roberts, of all people called it a tax

    No, the only thing to do is fight in the arena, up front.

    The left after all, doesn’t miss a trick, and they don’t play by the “rules” and they have few or no moral inhibitions when it comes to implementing programs of social management which they find to be in their perceived interest.

    You take a half-step back expecting them to fall over, and they will advance and cling before you can get reset.

    They have nothing else to do day in and day out, aside from calculating how to access your life, make you labor on their behalf, and cut off any means of evasion or escape from their ceaseless claims

    After all, it’s for the sake of the children, don’t you know.

  94. GaryP Says:

    To Neo-neo:

    God bless for trying. I have made many of the same arguments in replies to posts about why it was better to:
    1) Not vote at all since their first choice isn’t running or their vote doesn’t “really count”
    2) Vote for libertarians you know will lose because they believe in things I believe in
    3) Vote your conscience, because only all or nothing is acceptable

    I think there is little or no hope for our nation because so many people aren’t willing to accept either the limits of their power or the limits of what our economy can do.

    We don’t get to choose the president from all humans on the planet, only between the two on the ballot that have a chance to win.

    If you throw your little bit of power away voting for someone who can’t win, then you are in essence saying that if I can’t have the exact president I want, then I don’t care who is president. (Sounds kinda childish when put that way, doesn’t it?)

    Romney will probably not fix everything (including the economy). Obama, however, may very likely break the economy. Complex systems (like economies) don’t change in a linear fashion. They resist change until the pressure is too great and then they jump to another stable state.
    The two states of economies I have in mind are 1) our current one (highest standard of living in human history) and 2) subsistence, with little or no surplus to support civilization or anything much else than keeping body and soul together.

    If Obama (and others like him) breaks this thing, Most of us aren’t going to survive (no matter how much we prepare) and no one will have what we had for maybe a thousand years. That’s how long it took last time the western economy jumped from the “good” state to the “bad” state (Dark Ages).

    This isn’t about your preferences or your conscience. It is about the survival of you and everyone you love.

    Romney may not keep us from going over the edge but Obama is going to do his best to drive us over the edge. Once it happens there will be no going back to a libertarian or conservative government that fits some ideal. Once the economy breaks, it cannot be fixed. It has to heal and rebuild from the lowest level of basic survival and the lowest level of political structure (feudal, and don’t count on ending up as a baron).

    Condemn your loved ones to that if you wish. I will not. I will pray that Romney can reverse our course or at least change it but I will do nothing to hinder our last (not very large) hope.

    I’m going to vote for Romney tomorrow (even though he isn’t my first choice) and then work at the Republican office the rest of the day.

  95. Llarry Says:

    I and many others faced the same choice when Bush ran. I voted for Bush and things didn’t work out for conservatives. I am not falling for it again.

    What a load. You didn’t “fall” for anything. Bush announced all his big-government plans during his run for the White House, and then he followed through on them.

    Name some of Romney’s plans to expand federal spending and the size of the federal government.

  96. parker Says:

    The error committed by some of the posters on this thread is found in the cliche “cut off your nose to spite your face”. This is never a wise policy.

  97. Kyndyll Says:

    “And the second and really puerile Whittle point is that THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER! Every four damned years the con artists of the republican party give us the same bs. But, sure, Romney is different.”

    I have not voted for a Republican president lately and I have sufficient issues with the Republican party that I am a registered Independent. I say this not to establish bona fides with you, but to explain why I have done my share of “making a statement” in presidential elections. On multiple occasions, including in 2008, I have “made a statement” by refusing to vote for either major candidate, when neither suited me.

    What’s different about the 2012 election from any other presidential election in my lifetime is that never before have we been confronted with the threat of a second Obama term. The potential consequences of that vastly outweigh the value of throwing a vote away because there isn’t a candidate – at least not with a chance of winning – that is everything I hoped and dreamed of.

    There was a time when hijacking a commercial jet and flying it into prominent buildings seemed the stuff of Hollywood. Likewise, there was a time when a US President who didn’t represent the best interests of the US and its citizens would’ve seemed like something out of a novel/movie. That’s not the case anymore. We have an incumbent president who, whether he is a conceited dolt, a cold ideologue or a puppet, has not been acting in our best interests. Giving him four more years to wreck our economy and our foreign affairs, do controversial and bizarre acts, and stuff the Supreme Court with like-minded minions that could be ruining the country for decades to come, just because you want to make a statement about Romney’s imperfections is infuriating.

    I won’t say that this is the “most important election ever” but it surely isn’t a run-of-the-mill presidential election, and the reason for that is not Romney. Pick some other election to make your statement.

  98. Apopkian Says:

    Llarry,

    We knew he wasn’t a conservative, but people said he was better than the alternative. The same thing people are saying about Romney.

    Now you may think Romney is better than Bush and more acceptable but I guess it all depends on how low your standards are.

    Romney will at best slow the growth of government while allowing millions of more immigrants ensuring that no right wing president will ever be elected.

  99. kolnai Says:

    Liarry -

    Are you new here?

    In any case, bless you, sir. You said pretty much everything I wanted to say, and better than I could have.

    Hope you stick around after the election.

  100. kolnai Says:

    Oh, and Liarry, you might enjoy this piece I’ve always admired from the old NR writer and polymath Ernest van den Haag:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/686027/posts

  101. T Says:

    Neo,

    “when a single candidate in Missouri said it.”

    n.B., Mourdock is Indiana. Todd Akin is Missouri. Given the subject matter conflating the two is understandable.

  102. Llarry Says:

    Llarry,

    We knew he wasn’t a conservative, but people said he was better than the alternative. The same thing people are saying about Romney.

    I asked you to tell me some of Romney’s stated plans to expand the power and size of the federal government and increase spending.

    You apparently don’t have an answer.

  103. peter Says:

    This is why we need an Approval Voting System. Under Approval Voting all this goes away.

  104. DNW Says:

    This is in response to any who might be tempted to imagine that a social-collapse-push might bring about a regenerative-shove.

    It won’t have to get nearly that far before any libertarian regeneration option is cut off.

    Does anyone really think that progressives don’t realize how precarious and dependent their lives are upon others at every moment?

    Do we imagine that they are a group of subsistence farmers who just like to share and share alike, but who will go quietly back to their plows once an overburdened social scaffolding begins to sag and then collapse?

    They are in fact creatures of the scaffolding. A threat to the support of the scaffolding is perceived by them as an existential threat.

    What do we think, that some of us have sneaked unnoticed under the radar, and that the progressives have never noticed that some [very few relatively] people have delighted in the notion of “going Galt?

    Hell they are obsessed with it. And while they may mock the prospects, they are also obsessed with making sure that nothing like that ever develops: “by any means necessary” as they say.

    I have a few hunting buddies who’ve made lame jokes up in deer camp about stocking up with beer and and chips and ammunition for game, and then listening to Armageddon unfold from the comfort of a lounge chair. At which point they will presumably go on about their lives relieved by the self-destruction wrought by the behaviorally incontinent, and serenely surveying the smoking ruins of the left’s self-induced and deserved immolation.

    The trouble with that theory is, is that the behaviorally incontinent are like those AIDS carriers whose idea of cosmic justice was infecting the innocent too. They won’t go quietly into the darkness they have themselves created.

    But back to the practical point. In an age of computers and Google earth, where everything can be inventoried and scanned, where walls are transparent, and even outhouses in the middle of miles of woodland show up on satellite images, how can anyone imagine that they would be left alone long enough for the client class and its managers to become really desperate in the first place?.

    It doesn’t even make a plausible joke anymore, because you would lose whatever freedom you had left long before that.

  105. JackWayne Says:

    Another 4 years, another silly plea to pick either a dem or repub because only one of them will win – not a 3rd party loser. Get this – this country is doomed so it doesn’t matter if you vote Mittens, the Black Jesus, a Pacifist like Johnson or a Watermelon like Stein. The American Dream is dead, you just haven’t realized it yet. The best you can do is keep your head down and your weapons ready because there’s not a single sob in this country that will help you when they come to get you. Mr Nakoula can tell you all about it.

  106. Llarry Says:

    Liarry -

    Are you new here?

    Long-time lurker. I stopped commenting on political blogs over two years ago, but I had to get back into it recently because I’m infuriated by the notion that we “win” by letting everything collapse.

    It took us more than sixty years to get into this mess, and it’s going to take several election cycles to get us out of it.

    All I want is for the “principled” crowd to point out to me what Romney has said in this campaign that indicates he’ll be another Bush.

    As you may recall in the second debate, Romney gave a brilliant answer as to why he won’t. Bush was a product of his time period. We live in a different era now.

    Libertarian arguments against Romney are as out of date as Obama’s arguments. Romney seems to be the only presidential candidate who’s dealing with circumstances as they stand today.

    Every vote is a roll of the dice. I’m expecting to be disappointed. I won’t take it personally. But based on Gary Johnson’s childish, deceitful ads in California, I couldn’t vote for him. Either he’s lying about what he’d do, or he’s even more catastrophically naive than Obama.

    Have you noticed that libertarians criticize Romney for not being conservative enough, and then they say they won’t vote for him because they don’t want to give him a mandate?

    That’s the typically muddled libertarian thinking. Romney has been running on a platform of reducing the size, power, and scope of the federal government and reducing federal spending. Those are libertarian positions.

    If everyone in the country voted for him, he’d have no choice but to follow through. By refusing to give Romney a mandate, libertarians are making it that much more likely that he won’t do what they want him to do.

    Utterly inexplicable.

  107. Bill Dalasio Says:

    Count me as in agreement with Rob. Look, for most voters, the probability of your vote mattering at all borders on zero. Particularly if you’re not in a swing state. In New York or California, do you really think voting for Johnson is any more “throwing your vote away” than voting for Romney? The electors are going to be Democrats no matter how you vote. If that is the case, you don’t need to hope “for the collapse of our society”. You need to be able to draw the conclusion that the expected benefit from voting Libertarian, in terms of moving the Republicans in that direction, will exceed the benefit from voting for the Republican you know will lose in your state ANYWAY to add an incredibly small marginal increment to the notion of a Romney mandate.. To my mind, while I don’t agree with it, it’s not an evil or irrational assessment.

  108. Bill Dalasio Says:

    If every CA Republican voted for Johnson, it might not alter the outcome, but it would confuse Romney’s mandate.

    No, it wouldn’t. It would establish that CA Republicans wholeheartedly support his efforts to diminish the government’s intervention in the economy and that he could count on their support in that direction. And it would establish that they aren’t so hot on his efforts to legislate morality. If anything, it would serve to focus his mandate.

  109. Llarry Says:

    Get this – this country is doomed so it doesn’t matter if you vote Mittens, the Black Jesus, a Pacifist like Johnson or a Watermelon like Stein.

    Yes, yes. I know. You’re the only intelligent person in this whole crapstorm, right?

    We’ve been written off many, many times before, and we’ve always come back. One thing you clearly don’t understand about American history is that our pattern is to skate right up to the edge of the abyss, peek over into it, and then make a 180-degree turn and fix the problem.

    You go play with your guns and hide while the rest of us will do the hard work of repairing the damage of the past sixty years.

  110. Long-time-lurker Says:

    For now we see through a glass, darkly but I’m pretty sure that Sir Golfs-a-lot is Frankenstein unbound.

  111. Bill Dalasio Says:

    Let me stipulate. I’m a “broken glass” Romney voter. I’ll wake up tomorrow morning and cast my NY vote for Romney because I’m willing to make that compromise to shut down the “stolen election” ploy. But, it was a choice, a calculation, that I could have as easily have decided otherwise.

  112. gcotharn Says:

    The song “See You in November”, was composed in fall 2010 … in response to an astroturf “f*ck tea” campaign which appeared on the internet. This is how I feel today: see you in November. Its time. Leftism delenda est.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZfR1xFpxC8

  113. Llarry Says:

    If every CA Republican voted for Johnson, it might not alter the outcome, but it would confuse Romney’s mandate.

    No, it wouldn’t. It would establish that CA Republicans wholeheartedly support his efforts to diminish the government’s intervention in the economy and that he could count on their support in that direction. And it would establish that they aren’t so hot on his efforts to legislate morality. If anything, it would serve to focus his mandate.

    No sooner do I say it than a libertarian confirms it.

    Not supporting Romney will encourage him to do what you want.

    Here’s how people on planet earth think: If Romney doesn’t get a solid mandate from a group, he’ll be less inclined–not more–to do things the way that group wants.

    If you refuse to give Romney a mandate, then he’ll look to the people who supported him when it comes time for him to make decisions. By not supporting him, you ensure that your concerns are not taken into consideration.

    He’s already broadcast this with his comment about how he can’t worry about courting the 47 percent who won’t support him. If you refuse to support Romney, he won’t take your desires into consideration.

    And if he wins tomorrow without significant libertarian help, it’ll be the equivalent of you deliberately blowing yourself up with a hand grenade to protest… anything. Romney will be victorious, and you’ll have less influence than you did before the election because you’ll be politically dead.

    Romney’s a businessman. He looks at cost versus benefit. If he sees that libertarians can’t be reached, he’ll put you out of his mind.

    You’ll have squandered a golden opportunity to expand your influence.

  114. Apopkian Says:

    Llarry,

    Romney says he wants to expand military involvement overseas and suggested we might need to keep troops longer in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also has a record as Governor in a very blue state where he increased government involvement in health care.

    And like I said before he is for immigration which means a permanent Democratic majority in the near future. This would mean an end to any hope of a small government.

  115. neo-neocon Says:

    T: oops, will fix.

  116. Joe Bidon Says:

    I learned about Cloward-Piven back in wood shop. No wait, that was mortise-tenon. Anyway it was one smokin’joint. Not that I would inhale while making one, with all that wood dust in the air.

  117. gcotharn Says:

    beginning at 5:45, this video shows neoneocon as the election returns come in on Nov 6.
    http://is.gd/mbiyVc

  118. parker Says:

    To believe monetary-fiscal-economic collapse will bring about a Libertarian awakening is to believe in unicorns. The exact opposite would/will occur. Welcoming a collapse is welcoming fascism. Its happened before and it can happen here. Be careful of what you wish for.

  119. John Nesbitt Says:

    Hi everybody, I am THE Cloward–Piven referenced in this post. I was reading the quote and thinking how similar it was to the email I’d written, until it eventually dawned on me that it WAS what I’d written, verbatim! I’ve been linked to on Instapundit, one more thing off the bucket list.
    There has been a lot of speculation about my motives, personality, character, and psychological makeup in the post and the comment section (why, I should even be slapped!), so I figure I could chime in and add a little to the ongoing commentary.
    Let’s start with neo-neocon herself. She ends my quote by saying that “The fact that his vote might end up causing Romney to lose and Obama to win is irrelevant to this man.” I’m not sure how she arrived at this conclusion but this has not, in fact, been an easy decision. Since I’ve been outed, I’ll give the specifics of my situation. I live in OH, which is pretty important in this election, as I’m sure everybody knows. I have been scouring websites and digging through news for the past 4 days, trying to find something, anything, that would cause me to change my vote back to Romney. I’ve not found suitable evidence to do that. And until I pull the lever tomorrow, I will continue to do so. So I guess that puts me squarely into the undecided voter camp that seems to be the target of such universal scorn this year.
    According next presumption, as my new nickname suggests, I’m secretly hoping that the system will implode and from the ashes will spring my libertarian utopia. This is misleading. Saying that I wish to see a collapse sooner rather than later is not a wish for that collapse to happen; I just don’t think that the consequences of our utter political irresponsibility should be borne by future generations. I would imagine that anyone with small children could sympathize. The implicit message in neocon’s post and more than a few subsequent comments is that Romney will come swooping in and reverse the tide; that this is the precise point in history in which we irreversibly pivot towards tyranny, or we right course back to liberty and the fundamentals set forth by the founding fathers. To many in this conversation, this seems to be the unvarnished truth. To me, it seems like I’ve heard this routine before. Setting aside the fact that the president is not a king, and there’s still that small matter of congress to contend with, there’s little in Romney’s platform that makes me see the drastic changes that others seem to take as a given. To be fair, Romney’s promise that he will do what he can, within his presidential powers, to minimize the practical effect of Obamacare, is compelling. This is part of the reason I have not voted already. But there seems to be sufficient evidence that his power to reverse it, if elected, has perhaps been oversold. I’m still looking for evidence, though, so any links in the comment section would be welcome. Regardless, I have enough confidence in the republic to think that a single president cannot bring it to its knees. That doesn’t seem to be the case for a lot of commenters here. Perhaps this is THE time that a single president will unravel the constitution and we will begin the slow descent into a socialist dystopia. Or maybe there’s a little bit of Chicken Little at play here. We shall see.
    Another topic burning up the comments thread seems go as follows: anybody who votes third party in this election does so for their own gratification; they can fancy themselves ideologically pure in a sea of dupes and compromisers. I do not see my vote as virtuous (in fact, I don’t think that voting in and of itself is particularly virtuous, but that’s another story.) I don’t think that Gary Johnson is the perfect candidate; and I don’t ever expect there to be a perfect candidate in a political system structured the way ours is. Having said that, I do expect a the Republican party to give at least SOME indication that they are the party of limited government. I don’t think I’m asking for the moon here. Just so I’m clear, I don’t consider tax cuts and year over year deficits small government; I consider that palliative care (or if I’m feeling cynical, buying votes). Is this mindset really all it takes to be labelled an idealist these days? As I said in my email, if Obamacare is the end of western civilization, can someone explain to me why we nominated the one guy who helped to architect its inspiration? I understand the difference between it being a state run enterprise and a national one, but you have to admit that seems like picking nits to the casual observer. My father-in-law did make a good point when we were talking about this topic; he said that the primaries are where these inter-party disagreements should take place, the general election is not the place to air such grievances. Unfortunately, if you’re of a libertarian bent, that means you’re out of luck. I’ve yet to see a Republican primary where the (successful) candidates didn’t play to the more traditional conservative base, only to swing to the center once nominated.
    Personally, I’ve looked at a bunch of appeals along the line of Bill Whittle’s video, and there are far better arguments out there that argue in favor of voting for Romney. For a start, Christopher R. Barron’s argument can be found here:

    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/a-libertarian-for-mitt-romney/

    I’ve read this article and its comments twice today in an effort to either affirm or change my position.
    For my part, I found Bill Whittle’s video to be a slightly disingenuous emotional appeal (and this is coming from somebody who likes Bill Whittle.)

    To my mother-in-law, Susanamantha: Thank you for not tearing me a new one for my email rant, it was totally within your right to do so.
    To kevino: Thank you for disputing my assertions with facts. You’re quite right. Here’s hoping we get a fiscal conservative in the white house one of these days.
    To neo-neocon, I love ya, and if anybody was to cut me to pieces in a public forum, I’m a bit honored that it was you, but I do not see eye to eye with you on this.
    To anybody else that finds themselves in my particular situation, I offer the following:
    Don’t tell your vote to anybody if you don’t want to make enemies.
    Look out for people who want to analyze you rather than argue with you. I love a good argument; being pigeonholed by people you admire is not so fun.
    If you’re voting for somebody that’s not the main Republican nominee in a close election, the big tent suddenly gets a lot smaller really fast.
    If you find yourself being compared to Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven because of your choice of candidate, perhaps that’s an indicator that you’re no longer a member of the Republican party, whether you want to be or not.

  120. BLBeamer Says:

    I voted for Gary Johnson and my vote won’t have the slightest influence on whether Obama wins or not. My state will go for Obama by at least 5 points. My one vote will make no difference whatsoever out here on the margin.

    As tempting as it was to vote against Obama by picking the best alternative with a chance of winning (h/t to Heinlein), I decided my vote for Romney would be a waste this time.

    By the same reasoning I voted for Ed Clark in 1980 because by the time I got to the poll, Jimmy Carter had already conceded.

  121. Llarry Says:

    Romney says he wants to expand military involvement overseas

    Link, please.

  122. Apopkian Says:

    Llarry,

    I got that from the debates where he said we need more involvement with Arab Spring and complained that Obama is not doing enough in Syria.

    He also said that we shouldn’t give dates for our withdrawal from Afghanistan because he thinks we might need a few more months to perfect Democracy there and prevent Taliban domination.

  123. neo-neocon Says:

    John Nesbitt: well, your anonymity had been preserved till now (I had no idea who you were, by the way), so now that you’ve come forward, I applaud your bravery.

    My Cloward-Piven charge seemed to fit your statement because—even though you say you don’t desire such a collapse of the system—you indicated that there’s something to be gained from having it happen sooner rather than later. That’s the risky miscalculation I’m referring to (many others have even riskier miscalculations, by the way, because they do desire it). The idea that precipitating the collapse sooner, and facilitating a second term for Obama (when he will no longer be checked by any need to moderate his positions to appeal to the voters) is dangerous for the reasons I and many other commenters here have stated. In summary, the opposite effect (greater tyranny, more state control) is a more likely outcome.

    You do sound sincere in wanting to find a reason to think that Romney is worth voting for. Please take a look at this post, in particular the video and then the “NOTE” towards the end, which deals with the history of Romneycare, and Romney’s original proposals for it and then how the legislature changed it, and what he had to say about it at the time.

    And I would almost guarantee that if Obama is reelected, his appointees to SCOTUS will take us further down the road to a very elastic and liberal interpretation of the Constitution. Romney’s appointments will be more conservative, even if not as conservative (perhaps) as you would wish, I wrote about this in a previous comment, here, addressing a previous commenter who had complained that Romney’s judicial appointees in Massachusetts were too liberal:

    As far as SCOTUS justices go, in Massachusetts Romney was constrained (“hamstrung” if you will) by a legislature that was 85% liberal Democrats and could block any appointment he made that was not to their liking. So the past is not prologue; it does not seem especially relevant. And I guarantee that any SCOTUS justice Romney would appoint would be less liberal than any justice Obama would appoint, even if the Romney appointees would be unlikely to meet your high standards.

    The SCOTUS reasoning alone would be enough to vote for Romney.

  124. Llarry Says:

    I have been scouring websites and digging through news for the past 4 days, trying to find something, anything, that would cause me to change my vote back to Romney. I’ve not found suitable evidence to do that.

    Words fail me.

    You’re a lost cause. Vote your “principles.” Romney’s going to win anyway. Libertarians will account for about 1 percent of the vote, and Romney will win by at least three.

    We could’ve used your help, but now that you’ve shown that you’re unreachable and irrational, I won’t worry about you anymore.

    Anyone who can’t perceive the stark contrast between the choices in this election is not someone who can be counted on. They should be ignored as the frivolous, self-indulgent, perpetual teenagers they are.

    And you outed yourself because you love the attention. You admit it in your verbose post. That’s what I said earlier about libertarians. You vote for purposes of self-aggrandizement so you can announce to the world how special you are. You don’t actually care about the troops or future generations or anything other than yourselves.

    This guy explains why it’s important to vote for Romeny. I don’t expect you to understand. After all, you’re a libertarian.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332579/crush-them-michael-walsh

  125. John Nesbitt Says:

    Thanks neo, looking into it now.
    And Llarry, looking at your link too, thanks.

  126. gcotharn Says:

    John Nesbitt says:
    “I do expect a the Republican party to give at least SOME indication that they are the party of limited government.”

    John,

    Thank you for your polite and full response.

    First, I am clearly on record that the Repub Party sucks eggs. I understand your frustration with Repub big spending, among other issues.

    However, the Repub Party has given indication that, relatively speaking, they are the party of limited government. Romney has given indication that, relatively speaking, he is the candidate of limited government. And there are other clear differences, which I will not belabor.

    Second, if you want more limited government, the clearest pathway is to support the Tea Party takeover the Republican Party. This takeover is already underway, and progress has been made. Remember, in the beginning of any project, there is a whole lot of pedaling in order to make the first little bit of progress. Tea Partiers are already doing that pedaling. We can take over the Repub Party from the inside. We can remake it, from the inside. It is plausible — much more plausible than creating an entirely new third party (which, during its formation and growth, will cripple the Repub Party and allow Dems to gain more governing control than they otherwise would gain). The Tea Party has momentum, and structure already in place. If you want limited government, we are your homeys.

  127. Llarry Says:

    I got that from the debates where he said we need more involvement with Arab Spring and complained that Obama is not doing enough in Syria.

    No, he said that we need to show leadership in helping the regional powers make sure that the people fighting Assad are the right people. We need to show leadership in order to make sure that the wrong groups are not armed.

    Romney said nothing about expanding military involvement overseas. The transcript of the debate shows that.

    http://tinyurl.com/8tjmsya

    You’re basing your decisions on things that were never said. That’s terrifying.

  128. Yuri Says:

    John Nesbitt,

    You are right.

    This “neo-neocon” (as her name suggests) has more — much, much more — in common with typical leftists than you or any of those she decries as the “Cloward-Pivenistas”. That she could write it without sufferring crippling cognitive dissonance should be proof by itself.

    Her piece is rife with the same bad assumptions, logical fallacies, non-arguments, aspersions, and specious reasoning that the left commonly uses.

    Her goal — her WHOLE goal — is to see Romney elected. I suspect that she hasn’t thought things through beyond that simple, immediate, and useless goal.

    I heard Glenn Beck the other day say that he would hold those who do not vote for either Romney or Obama to be responsible for everything Obama does, and — IN THE SAME BREATH — state that he could not be held responsible for what Romney might do. You know, Romney, the candidate that he will AFFIRMATIVELY vote FOR.

    This is the kind of strict conformism and opposition to ACTUAL liberty that informs those who make these absurd, logically self-contradictory, arguments.

    Regarding your advice:

    “Don’t tell your vote to anybody if you don’t want to make enemies.”

    I have learned that you cannot make enemies without, at the same time, making friends. And vice versa.

    “Look out for people who want to analyze you rather than argue with you. I love a good argument; being pigeonholed by people you admire is not so fun.”

    Good advice. Pigeeonholing is the sign of a lazy intellect incapable of providing argument.

    My return advice is that you give out your admiration more carefully.

    “If you’re voting for somebody that’s not the main Republican nominee in a close election, the big tent suddenly gets a lot smaller really fast.”

    Shockingly small, really. It’s a wonder even “neoneocon” hasn’t been booted out the front flap for subversive thought. I guess having NO thought, or ability to think, is the only way to ensure that you get to stay in the tent.
    But, if that’s what she wants; then there’s no point warning her of the approaching mob of torch-bearing pyromaniacs.

    ” If you find yourself being compared to Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven because of your choice of candidate, perhaps that’s an indicator that you’re no longer a member of the Republican party, whether you want to be or not.”

    Yes, and it’s a sign that the person thus pigeonholing you and arguing by insult, is no longer a person who understands or appreciates actual freedom in any form. Only a different form of conformist totalitarianism than her adversaries.

    p.s. As for me, I actually WILL be voting for Romney tomorrow. But I keep my reasons to myself.

  129. John Nesbitt Says:

    gcotharn, I was actually going to mention the tea party as a model of how do it right, but as Llary pointed out, my post was long-winded already.
    As you suggest, the tea party and libertarians fit together (mostly) like hand in glove. The eternal question is, how does one get a limited government candidate past the primaries? I don’t want to see a split of the Republican party, and am truly impressed by the people that the tea party has already put into office. Godspeed my man (or woman).

  130. Llarry Says:

    John Nesbitt: well, your anonymity had been preserved till now (I had no idea who you were, by the way), so now that you’ve come forward, I applaud your bravery.

    He outed himself. He’s not brave. He just likes the attention. Everybody’s talking about him as he pretends to be honestly struggling over whether to vote for a failed far-left president who represents everything this self-styled libertarian claims to oppose, or a businessman with a sterling track record of cleaning up messes and who’s pledged to implement policies that libertarians have been championing for years.

    Note in his endless post above that he says Romney’s ability to repeal Obamacare has been oversold. If that’s the case, why would that play into a decision to vote for Johnson? Does he have special Obamacare-repealing powers that Romney lacks?

    It’s all bogus. He just doesn’t want to be one us “sheeple” mindlessly falling for the Rethuglicrat propaganda that he and all the other cool kids can see through.

    One thing I’ve learned about libertarians is they’re terrified of others’ opinions. They can’t even do something secret–like casting a vote–without worrying that strangers will think less of them.

  131. Llarry Says:

    This “neo-neocon” (as her name suggests) has more — much, much more — in common with typical leftists than you or any of those she decries as the “Cloward-Pivenistas”.

    Let’s see some specific examples.

  132. Greg Swann Says:

    > I am saying that your arguments fit the portrait of a Cloward-Pivenista of the right.

    This is name-calling, ad hominem in se. You characterize, too — Straw Man fallacy — albeit not as much as other commenters here. Your initial position is absurd, and you defend it by redundant brow-beating.

    Thugs is thugs. Expressing a preference for one brand of thug over another is futile.

    Democrats are awful, Republicans are usually much worse. Nature is just, and there is no need to rush the collapse of Western Civilization. Unless a huge number of people do a complete 180 degree turn in their moral philosophy, the West will fall to rubble in very short order.

    The last word is all yours.

  133. Sparkey Says:

    I read these Libertarian arguments and I see the same dogmatic naiveté that Socialists have, an absolute unwillingness to be swayed by rational argument or reason. True to their principles. True to their faith for which martyrs have perished…

    No thank you, I already have a religion.

  134. RandomThoughts Says:

    After reading John Nesbitt’s “you people don’t understand me” self defense, I’m drawn back to Llarry’s earlier comment: “Voting is secret. Nobody will ever know who you voted for–unless you announce it. The only reason you cast a ‘protest vote’ is so you can go out and tell people about it.

    Being dismayed at the conclusions people draw about your voting behavior once you’ve made a point of publicly airing it is…well…it comes across as just another part of the “self-aggrandizement and childish attention getting that brings us ever closer to becoming a nation of pathologically unserious Honey Boo Boos who have no hope of ever saving ourselves from the ruling class..”

  135. baklava Says:

    John Nesbitt,

    Vote for Romney for my daughters.

    A collapse will not bring a country that our forefathers made.

    Please care.

    Thank you.

    And thank you Neo for your grand work on the topic of Romneycare

  136. Bill Jones Says:

    The Republican Party needs to be beaten like a rented mule every four years until it excretes the Trotskyite Neocon filth.
    If that takes 20 years, so be it.

  137. baklava Says:

    Greg,

    This isn’t about your feelings.

    This isn’t about one man- Romney or Obama.

    This is about personal responsibility, free markets and national security being passed to our grand kids.

  138. John Nesbitt Says:

    Yuri, don’t give up on neo-neocon just yet. I’d love to know your reasons for voting for Romney, but I understand your wish to keep it private.
    Llary, as you say, I did “out” myself. I could’ve had my email sit anonymously on this page, but I chose to write a response, with my real name. But I think you’ve not got your facts straight. I’m not “struggling over whether to vote for a failed far-left president who represents everything this self-styled libertarian claims to oppose”. It’s actually a decision between voting for Gary Johnson (not Obama) and Romney.

  139. R Daneel Says:

    Hmm, why did my previous comment get eaten?

  140. Baklava Says:

    I believe Bill Jones is tolerant, loving, kind, warm, reasonable….

    /sarcasm off

  141. John Nesbitt Says:

    baklava, I have kids, too and I’m not hoping for a collapse of the union, which is why I’m reticent to vote for ANYBODY who I think will increase our national debt.

  142. John Nesbitt Says:

    neo-neocon’s assertions about the supreme court are also true. That’s something I forget to take into accout a lot of times.

  143. Baklava Says:

    Now I know you are pulling my leg John.

    Here are your choices (as Bill Whittle put it)

    A) Romney
    B) Obama

    There really is no other choice except a non-choice which in effect helps Obama if you (a conservative or libertarian) does not vote for Romney.

    All conservatives and libertarians should be voting for Romney as if their lives and kids lives depend on it.

    If you believe the last 4 years of added debt will be repeated by Romney – I don’t know what to say…..

    1st) Just Romney being elected will send the signals to business owners and CEO that the recover will be mighty and Romney won’t even have to do much and the money sitting on the sidelines will be activated.

    Economics is not hard science. Economics is about attitude also. Knowing that things will be better will bring about an unleashed economy along with the 20% income tax rate reductions, corporate tax rate reductions, and capital gains tax rate reductions.

    2nd) As hiring and employment picks up dramatically that will mean less dependency, less food stamps, welfare, ssi, medicaid, SCHP, etc. Able bodied people will be working letting us take care of the non-able bodied better.

    3rd) This will help educate people of the way to move forward in future generations

    4th) As the economic growth happens that means naturally more revenue into the government while the expenditures drop in item #2 above.

    5) John Nesbitt is happy once again and sees the light. His kids see success. Grandkids see success instead of a country laden with debt.

    I’m not panacea happy go lucky know nothing John. I was a liberal in 1991 and heard an alternative point of view other than ABCCBSNBCCNN and proceeded to visit the LIBRARY 3 times a week that year. I’ve read thousands and thousands of pages on race, sex, economics, environment, history, etc.

    I am VERY VERY CLEAR. We need all conservatives and libertarians to understand that there is not choice but to vote Romney. To not do so is to move this country towards catastrophic insane anarchy which nobody knows how we will emerge but I can predict it won’t be one that our forefathers created.

  144. RandomThoughts Says:

    I’m not “struggling over whether to vote for a failed far-left president who represents everything this self-styled libertarian claims to oppose”. It’s actually a decision between voting for Gary Johnson (not Obama) and Romney..

    Voting for Gary Johnson is essentially one of two things:

    1. Throwing away your vote. There is no such thing as a relevant “protest vote” in this election, except in so far as you make a public issue out of your private vote. Which leads to reason #2…
    2. Making a public statement through airing your third party candidate vote, which serves to draw attention to yourself while doing nothing whatsoever to contribute meaningfully to the political process.

    Why you would want to pursue #1 I can’t fathom, but hey, it’s America, you can do what you want on election day. Vote for Gary Johnson, for Mickey Mouse or not vote at all.

    Why you would want to pursue #2 is beyond my expertise. I don’t even play a psychologist on TV. I do know however that you’ve managed to draw quite a bit of attention to yourself through this strategy. It’s been…enlightening, for those of us watching from the bleachers.

  145. Baltimoron Says:

    Holmes,

    Not sure if you’re following the thread this far down, but your comment actually illustrates why I wasn’t making a straw man argument at all. Saying libertarians are apocalypse motivated is the same as saying any responsible person should feel obligated to hold their nose and vote for Romney.
    Voting for a third party doesn’t make someone irresponsible, it simply means that no one from the major parties gave them a good enough reason to vote for them.

  146. Baklava Says:

    Baltimoron,

    I’ll bite.

    You wrote, “it simply means that no one from the major parties gave them a good enough reason to vote for them.”

    Please tell us Baltimoron what would be a good enough reason to vote “for” Romney. What would he have had to say to you?

  147. John Nesbitt Says:

    Baklava, I’m not pulling your leg and I think your prognistications are a bit optimistic, but as I said in the email rant I originally sent (linked at the top of this page), I will be happy to vote for Romney a second term if he can fulfill his promises, and I will be happy to have been proven wrong. I believe that Romney will win this election as it is. Unfortunately, I do think that we will continue sustain a significant amount of debt, for three reasons:

    Unless the house significantly changes, we’ll still have that albatross hanging around our neck that’s constantly trying to siphon money from the electorate. One could say that Romney will develop a certain fondness for the power to veto, but…

    …there’s little indication in the past 30 years that having a republican in the white house encourages thriftiness in any way, shape, or form. Economics may not be a hard science (in total agreement with you there), but it’s awfully tough to argue with charts indicating our debt increases over the last quarter centry, and who was in office at the time.

    Unless I’ve just missed it (which is entirely possible), Romney has not addressed the 4 elephants in the room: Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax cuts. We cannot have all of these things maintain the status quo and stay out of debt. Or at least I’ve not seen any evidence that we can.

    None of this matters, though, because Llary and RandomThoughts have my number; I’m only in this for the exposure, and the amount of press I’m going to get from playing the villian in a neo-neocon post is going to be OFF THE HOOK! People magazine, here I come!

  148. John Nesbitt Says:

    Baklava, also, I forgot to mention, you’ve been quite civil, so I don’t think you a happy go lucky fool or anything of the sort.

  149. Baklava Says:

    There is only one way to be persuasive John. I won’t change your mind by badgering you or accusing you of things or calling you names.

    I’ve actually converted an african-american towards conservatism in 1999 and he still is conservative because one you understand – you understand.

    The budget WAS balanced in 1998 and 1999. Congress was Republican for the first time in 40 years.

    Congress which holds the purse strings was for over 40 years Democrat until 1994. This is the reason that even though Regan lowered the top marginal rates from 70% to 28% (yet the revenue into the treasury went from 550 Billion in 1981 to 990 Billion in 1989) due to the spending by Democrats in Congress the deficits did persist even though unemployment and dependency dropped!

    You may not receive your 2nd chance to vote Romney and I encourage you with ALL my heart and soul to vote Romney this time around.

    We cannot afford to have the hands around our country’s throat any more.

  150. parker Says:

    Wow, the worms are coming out of the wood work. Few, if any, here will argue that Romney is a ‘perfect candidate’. But 4 more years of BHO is a nightmare. To argue otherwise is sheer idiocy. Those of you who think an economic-fiscal collapse will bring about a Great Libertarian Awakening are thoroughly deluded.

    You are welcome to your yearning for an apocalypse. I hope you have plenty of ammo, body armor, a large cadre (numbering in the tens of millions) of supporters suitably well armed, several years of food, fuel, and water stockpiled, and your own fleet of stealth bombers with plenty of cruise missiles. Otherwise, you have a death wish mixed in 50-50 with your purity.

  151. Apopkian Says:

    Llarry,

    I don’t see how we can influence a foreign country with a religion and culture that is hostile to us without increasing our involvement.

    Considering the recent history of the Republican support he should have made his position more clear.

  152. Llarry Says:

    I’m not “struggling over whether to vote for a failed far-left president who represents everything this self-styled libertarian claims to oppose”. It’s actually a decision between voting for Gary Johnson (not Obama) and Romney.

    Please. A vote for Johnson is a de-facto vote for Obama, as you well know.

    Either Obama or Romney will win. Nobody else counts. If you don’t vote for one, you’re voting for the other.

    A serious thinker should not have to struggle with voting for someone whose positions accord with their own 100 percent but who has no chance of winning, or voting for someone whose positions accord with their own 60 percent and whose election will prevent the continued policies of someone whose positions you–as a libertarian–ought to utterly oppose.

    Like Neo-neocon I was a Democrat until the day I saw George W. Bush stand on the rubble of the World Trade Center with his bullhorn and say, “I can hear you; the rest of the world can hear you; and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

    I’ve voted straight Republican ever since. I’m pro-choice, nonreligious, and I oppose corporate welfare.

    So what? I have no problem voting for Republicans because in this current era I agree with more of their positions than I do with those of the Democrats. It took Bush’s speech for me to realize that I opposed cartoon Republicans who didn’t exist. I opposed a caricature of Republicans implanted in my head by my schooling and by the mainstream media.

    Ever since 9/11 I’ve not had to spend a single second agonizing over who to vote for. The choice is always easy: Vote for the person with whom I agree most and who has the best chance of winning.

    The most important thing to me is winning. In 2008 the GOP had a candidate whose precious principles were more important than winning. He wanted to lose with pride and dignity rather than stoop so low as to actually challenge Obama.

    To tell the truth, whenever I hear a person yapping about his “principles” now, I just think, “Maniac. Loser. Attention whore. Child.”

  153. Llarry Says:

    Llarry,

    I don’t see how we can influence a foreign country with a religion and culture that is hostile to us without increasing our involvement.

    You said Romney wants to expand our military involvement overseas. You were wrong. Involvement takes many forms.

  154. Baklava Says:

    Llary,

    Conservatives oppose corporate welfare also.

    We need to convince/persuade any politician and voter that the free market should decide where capital goes.

    Have a good business plan? Have a product people want? Treat your employees well? Provide good customer service? Those are the tests that should bring capital.

    Not some government agency thinking that their friend CEO with some photo op should get tax payer dollars.

    That ALL should end.

  155. Llarry Says:

    Unless I’ve just missed it (which is entirely possible), Romney has not addressed the 4 elephants in the room: Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax cuts. We cannot have all of these things maintain the status quo and stay out of debt. Or at least I’ve not seen any evidence that we can.

    Yup. You missed it. He’s addressed all of them in some detail. So has Paul Ryan. All we have to do is exploit our energy resources to the maximum; roll back the most onerous of federal regulations; repeal Obamacare and reform Dodd-Frank; lower the corporate tax rate so that we can make the U.S. the most attractive place in the world to do business; and return Medicare and Medicaid to their original purpose of serving as safety nets, not entitlements for all.

    Thanks for proving that you’re not in the least serious.

    Strangely enough, a deeply unserious presidential candidate attracts deeply unserious supporters!

  156. Kevin Says:

    I have seen more of my liberal friends go libertarian than conservatives. A lot more. They are also geographically diverse. New Mexico, Washington State (where I live), Idaho and a few others as well.

    My thought is that liberals are dissatisfied with President Obama but will never vote conservative. For them Gary Johnson is the lesser evil.

    I predict a five percent nationwide vote for Gary Johnson. As to which side will be affected the most is anybody’s guess.

  157. Apopkian Says:

    Llarry,

    Involvement can take many forms and all of them cost money. Considering we are dealing with Muslims, I doubt influence will come through cultural outreach.

    I know you think I should read between the lines to get the answers you want, but considering that there are so many people concerned about these same issues shouldn’t Romney spell out his plan. A plan that should involve slashing budgets for every department. This would not involve building more ships…

  158. parker Says:

    “For them Gary Johnson is the lesser evil. I predict a five percent nationwide vote for Gary Johnson. As to which side will be affected the most is anybody’s guess.”

    All to the well, 5% less for the messiah is 5% less for the messiah. If you are correct we will see Romney at 58%, BHO at 36%, and all others at 6%. Good cheer to you and your liberal friends.

  159. T Says:

    Having read through all 146 comments (has this post touched a nerve or what?) I begin to see several different arguments occuring simultaneously. Frankly I had some trouble synthesizing all of them and at first couldn’t quite understand why. Then, I came to believe that it was like the three blind men describing an elephant each by feeling a single different part.

    I submit that most of these arguments are, to a certain degree, independent of each other and each has a certain independent validity (e.g., the idea of a protest vote vs. publicizing that protest vote for attention), but I suspect that like each of the blind men, we’re all missing the greater picture.

    Let me re-quote Bill Vallicella (Maverick Philosopher) that I linked to at 4:16 pm above:

    . . .politics is a practical business. . . . It’s not about ideological purity or having the supposedly best ideas; it’s about gaining the power to implement good ideas. . . .quite often Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien, the best is the enemy of the good.

    So does one see his/her vote as a moral choice or a moral directive? That could be Johnson, Stein or Romney. Does one see his/her vote as a chance to implement a set of ideas? Porbably not Johnson or Stein. Does one see his/her vote simply as a vote against the particular status quo of the Obama adminsitration?

    The argument has been raised that Romney would (or wouldn’t) do “x,” but we really don’t know that to be true or false at this juncture. We really don’t know for sure that a vote for Johnson or Stein will send any real message at all. We marvel at how people could have been taken in by Obama in 2008, yet a vote for Obama could just as well have been a vote against the Bush era (the validity of the face of the Bush era created by the MSM is another topic altogether).

    I offer the following guideposts:

    1) If the choice is between Romney or Obama, does one present at least the lesser of two evils?

    2) Can we all agree that Obama essentially presents a deleterious path for this country that none of us choose to walk?

    3) If politics is the business of getting things done, do any of the candidates have viable track records. What positive and tangible results has Obama achieved? Romney? Johnson? Stein? How do they compare? Would a vote for Johnson or Stein in f

    4) If one can not make a choice by preference, can one choose by the least pernicious downside while still voting to get things done?

    5) Can we recognize that in being so emotionally vested in our particular choice that we are not unlike the hagiographic Obamacons. We may not kneel at the altar of the person, but we, each of us, hold our own perception in just such a high esteem, and like them bristle at those who fail to see our own personal logic.

    IMO life, and therefore politics, is dynamic. As such it is very difficult to see trends from any given position or perspective, however I think we can mostly agree that one particular trend is clear; that for Obama to remain in office will ahev a decidedly deleterious effect reconstituting this nation in the image of our founding fathers.

  160. T Says:

    sorry, incomplete. should be:

    3) If politics is the business of getting things done, do any of the candidates have viable track records. What positive and tangible results has Obama achieved? Romney? Johnson? Stein? How do they compare? Would a vote for Johnson or Stein in fact have any real effect at all?

  161. Llarry Says:

    Involvement can take many forms and all of them cost money.

    I’ll say this as many times as necessary: You claimed that Romeny said he wanted to expand our military actions overseas.

    You were factually incorrect. It doesn’t matter how many times you try to change the subject or swivel-hip your way out of it.

    You were wrong, and you’re basing your vote on a falsehood.

  162. John Nesbitt Says:

    OK, people, this has gotten out of hand. For the last time, I don’t want an apocalypse; it was an ill conceived sentence that I sent in a hastily written email meant only for a few people. You have my solemn promise that I would have worded it better had I originally written that to a wider audience. I DON’T WANT THE UNITED STATES TO DESCEND INTO A STATE OF ANARCHY. Can we put that strawman to bed?

    Baklava, you are quite right. I cannot disagree with what you say. That’s why I’m vacillating.

  163. neo-neocon Says:

    John Nesbitt: you are hereby exempted from the apocalypse-seeker charge. But believe me, other people do want the US to descend into a state of anarchy. During the Republican primaries, a lot of libertarians who hated Romney would come here (and to many other blogs) posting about how they would vote for Obama in order to hasten the economic downfall and the rebuilding in a more libertarian mold.

    But in terms of your own voting decision,I would think just the prospect of the SCOTUS differences would be enough to convince you that a Romney vote made sense. And there are plenty more reasons. So I do not understand the reason for your vacillation.

  164. Baklava Says:

    Clarity of mind here.

    Thank you for saying you cannot disagree.

    However I don’t understand the vacillating.

    Let me say it another way.

    You have a track record with Obama. You know what you are going to get.

    You have the words of Romney. Income, capital gains, corporate tax rate cuts, economic boom, cutting even for PBS, less dependency, actually having budgets passed again. ALL of these things mean less deficits.

    Are you looking for a trillion dollar deficit to be solved in one year?

    I would like to know just like I asked of Baltimoron (who hasn’t replied yet) what is it you are actually looking for that would’ve sold you?

  165. Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master Says:

    The notion that chaos today would lead to a revivification of the American Spirit is doubtful.

    More than likely, it would lead to the USA splintering into multiple factional regions and a great deal of chaos and the destruction of the oldest world power (yes, the USA *is* the OLDEST world power. Unlike any other nation of the world, none of whose governments was in anything like its current form in 1800. England is closest, it quietly changed from a pure Monarchy under George to a Parliamentary Figurehead Monarchy under Victoria… but that is an exceptionally radical change in governmental style. No other nation is vaguely close. While many “existed”, in a sense, none were vaguely close to their current forms, and most have been through one or more revolutions in the intervening 200+ years.)

    The chaos that followed would descend upon the entire world, and the number of people living safely under the umbrella of Pax Americana would be greatly reduced.

    And it’s thoroughly possible that a unified fascist Amerikka could result, too, a nightmare for all the world, given our military prowess.

    Yeah, things *might* wind up better… but that’s not the way to BET. The best thing to do is to hold things together as best you can, and hope that America manages to deal with its problems in a surprisingly structured way like Russia did.

  166. Apopkian Says:

    Llarry,

    As I said any effective influence over Muslims would have to involve military force. Not to mention all the talk about more ships.

    You can choose to be willfully ignorant but Republicans support a strong well funded military and aggressive military involvements. I support slashing the defense budget and downsizing our military.

    You can disagree with my view on this issue but then that is the point. I don’t vote Republican because the party has different views than me.

  167. Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master Says:

    Unlike any other nation of the world
    is
    Unlike any other *major* nation of the world
    ;-)

    Not arguing about Lichtenstein or whoever because, in the grand scheme of global politics, who gives a rodent’s patootie about Lichtenstein?

  168. John Nesbitt Says:

    Neo-neocon, SCOTUS is huge, and as I said before I often let that fall by the wayside in my decision-making. Thanks for bringing it back to the forefront.

    In response to Baklava’s question:
    “I would like to know just like I asked of Baltimoron (who hasn’t replied yet) what is it you are actually looking for that would’ve sold you?”

    That’s a great question. I was really hoping for more of a referendum on exactly how the budget will be reduced, with specifics. I mentioned in a previous post that four of the big unopened economic questions in my mind are: Defense, medicare, medicaid, and tax cuts. I’ve not gotten anything from Romney to suggest what he’s really going to do to resolve this situation. I mean, he’s got this page for medicare:
    http://www.mittromney.com/issues/medicare
    I’ve read that over and over and I cannot, for the life of me, discern if this is a feasible strategy or not, and I don’t see where the inevitable compromises come into play. Contrast that with Johnson’s approach to Medicare. He makes no bones about the fact that Medicare/Medicaid budgets will have to be cut (as will Defense) if we are at all serious about reducing the debt. Romney, on the other hand, is promising tax cuts and balanced budgets, and we all know this isn’t possible. WE ALL KNOW IT. So we know from the start that he is writing checks that he can’t cash. I’m not blaming the man; it’s the American electorate that wants something for nothing; but it doesn’t exactly make me have the highest confidence in him, either. We all know that the private sector isn’t going to swoop in and reduce our deficit, and suddenly make Medicare cost neutral. We can only reduce the size and scope of our current problem with some difficult decisions; decisions that, so far, only Johnson has been willing to expand on.
    Look, I know it seems like I’m harping on the debt, when there are so many other aspects of the presidency at play here. But the debt is important, and I think it will ultimately be our undoing if we don’t contain it, yesterday.
    Your question deserved a better response than that rambling mess, but it’s getting late. Sorry :/

    Neo-neocon, to answer your question about why I’m still vaccilllating… Let me turn it around and post the question to you this way: Let’s say there’s somebody running for office whose views coincide with yours more than any other candidate in your voting history. Let’s also say that your vote, either way, is statistically insignificant, even in a swing state. There’s about a one in a gajillion chance that the election will be decided on one vote. And you know, you KNOW, that your person is the right person for the job at hand. Are you telling me that you don’t feel the slightest moral responsibility to vote for that person, regardless of their chances? Essentially everybody, not just on this comment thread but everybody who I discuss politics on a personal basis is telling me that only a fool would vote for a 3rd party candidate in this election, but it just seems wrong to do otherwise. I’ve gone over the arguments a hundred times in my head, and it still seems wrong. I don’t see that view as some sort of absolutism or idealism or attention getting or any of the other pop psychology that’s been bandied about in this comment thread. It just seems like the right thing to do. I really just can’t explain it any other way. It’s a conflict between doing what I know is right versus doing what I know is not right on the outside chance that my vote will decide the outcome of the election.

  169. Llarry Says:

    You can choose to be willfully ignorant but Republicans support a strong well funded military and aggressive military involvements. I support slashing the defense budget and downsizing our military.

    You made a factually incorrect statement, which I corrected. Romney never said he supports expanding military operations overseas.

    You defend your superficial, poorly thought-out political positions by making crap up, but I’m willfully ignorant.

    Got it.

  170. neo-neocon Says:

    John Nesbitt: it’s an easy question to answer.

    I am a realist. When I vote, it’s not about whether I’m a good person or a bad one. It’s not about some sort of abstract moral choice, or a quest to find a candidate who is a near-perfect match for me even if he/she can’t possibly win.

    It’s about voting for the best person who has a good chance of winning. It’s really quite simple. Voting isn’t abstract, it’s not a philosophy exam. It’s very practical and rooted in real-world concerns with real-world consequences.

    I would not choose to vote for a third-party candidate who had no hope of winning. I would consider that a selfish indulgence, unless the other two candidates (the ones who were real contenders) were exactly alike. And since that is impossible, even if they were identical twins, I would not do it. And I especially would not do it in an election like this one, where one candidate is far worse than the other in the possible real-world consequences of his election.

    As a voter in Ohio, you have a special responsibility to be practical and realistic. You can tell yourself your vote doesn’t matter because it’s only one vote, but an election actually could be decided by one vote (in fact, that’s more likely than Gary Johnson winning, which is utterly impossible). Look at how close Florida was in 2000, and that decided the entire election. Something similar could happen with Ohio this year.

  171. Llarry Says:

    I’ve read that over and over and I cannot, for the life of me, discern if this is a feasible strategy or not, and I don’t see where the inevitable compromises come into play.

    First you said Romney hasn’t addressed the issue. Now you admit that he has.

    Yet you expect people to believe that you’ve been pondering, pondering, and pondering some more, hundreds of times, reading, researching, discussing it with what appears to be every person on the planet, because this is a moral issue that you can’t resolve.

    A “pop psychologist” would conclude that you haven’t done much real research or thinking at all, but you’ve instead been blathering incessantly to everyone who will listen about the moral turmoil you’re in due to the earth-shattering import of your vote.

    I sure hope you’ll write a book about how you voted, because it’ll be absolutely fascinating. And very, very important.

  172. Apopkian Says:

    Llarry,

    Romney said WHAT??????

    “How in the world, as commander in chief, you could stand by as we shrink our military commitment financially is something that I don’t understand, and I will reverse it,”

    “In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets,”

    “The right course is to add ships to our Navy, to modernize and add aircraft to our Air Force, to add 100,000 troops to our active-duty personnel, and to strengthen America’s military.”

    Feel free to google these quotes…

  173. kolnai Says:

    John Nesbitt -

    Interesting replies (and you have been more than courteous, so I will do the same).

    1) I guess this is just a matter of one’s level of realism. You cite Romney’s lack of specifics and his (possibly) pie-in-the-sky plan to balance the budget. Granting that that’s true, arguendo, I’ve never cared about it for a moment. You hit the answer on its head when you noted that Romney has to win first, govern second. Johnson doesn’t have to worry about winning, because it’s impossible, so he can act like he’s governing right now in his imaginary libertarian paradise. Of course that will make him more appealing to libertarians, just as the socialist nominee seems more appealing to socialists.

    But neither can win, and even if they did, they could not govern – or rather, perhaps they could govern, but it’s pointless to say so because in an “America” where outright, uncompromising libertarians or socialists could gain enough institutional/governmental power to govern, we would no longer be living in the American system as we know it. It would be a totally different country with a totally different system.

    This is, essentially, rock-ribbed libertarian Randy Barnett’s point in the article neo linked above.

    And that’s all there is to it on that one. Campaign in poetry, govern in prose – thus it has been, thus it always will be (even in parliamentary systems, which I guess libertarians would love, judging from the desire I’ve seen on here to vote 100% their principles).

    I know Romney will disappoint me on a lot of things, but I also know that our system – the American republic – was DESIGNED to be disappointing to ideologues (and I am an ideologue, just a conservative one) of all stripes. I don’t mean to go all “meta” on you, but if this is about our republic, then that object includes the formal structure, procedures, and intentions of those who founded it. And it was not their intention, nor was it contained in the structure and procedures they bequeathed to us, to have a bunch of single-issue parties stocked with extremely intense, philosophically impeccable ideologues.

    Yes, the debt threatens that system too. But ideological purity as a systemic organizing principle is burning down the house to put out its fire.

    The very motto of America could be “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” Or, let me put it like this – if every one of our Founding Fathers thought like you, this country would never have existed.

    I’m not going to expand on this point because it would require a blog of my own, but I will say this: be careful what you wish for. I know it won’t change your vote, but as you seem quite open to discussion I highly recommend you read and ponder carefully Edward Banfield’s essay, “In Defense of the American Party System.” Here’s a link to it:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=pt3l4iBzkJcC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=edward+banfield+in+defense+of+the+american+party+system&source=bl&ots=y3A7xpV0Ak&sig=OLWpS-D2NWCbOS6iLaye7Q8-bYQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=37qYUOWaFqf5igK2-YGACA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA

    To summarize it somewhat gnomically: ideological purity as a rubric for a party system is a political minefield, and as such, it’s a recipe for disaster. In short: more libertarian (and other) parties, more communist parties. And as we see in Europe and elsewhere, electorally, libertarianism just can’t compete with the coalitions of the left. The Republican party is, like it or not, the most libertarian party that can effectively govern in the entire world.

    Perspective, my friend.

    2) Your question to neo is basically rendered otiose by what I’ve just written, but let’s set that aside. In the first place, I want to say that there’s a slight inconsistency in your position. First, you invoke practical considerations as a pretext for your vote – your vote is statistically insignificant. But then, you say you can’t not vote on principle – it would be “morally irresponsible” not to, “regardless of their chances.”

    If you believe the last part, then the first part (the practical consideration) doesn’t matter. You’re effectively saying it’s a moral obligation to vote for the candidate that best aligns with your views.

    On the other hand, if you really are taking into account the first part – that you can vote your conscience because, anyway, your vote doesn’t matter – then by implication if your vote did matter you might choose differently. And if you’re willing to factor practical considerations into your decision, why not the ultimate practical consideration – viz., that Johnson can’t win, and Romney can?

    Next: you say being called an absolutist or an idealist or a utopian (etc.) is “pop psychology.” That’s incorrect. Pop psychology would be accusing you of voting for Johnson because of racism or something like that. Absolutism/idealism/utopianism are characteristics of belief systems – that is, of ideas and arguments – so no psychologizing is necessary.

    Now, again, I want to note a slight inconsistency in your remarks. You say that voting for the guy you KNOW is the right one, that agrees with you “more than any other candidate in history,” is a “moral responsibility.” Then you say that this is not absolutism or idealism, but simply a matter of “doing the right thing.”

    Obviously, doing the right thing and absolutism/idealism are not mutually exclusive as a matter of logic. And, as a matter of practice, the way you’ve stated your position is both absolutist/idealistic and “doing the right thing.”

    The question should be: if you know something is the BEST option, is it morally permissible to pursue or choose an option that is not the best, but still better than the WORST, if circumstances are such that that least-worst option is the only one practicable?

    And my answer is, unhesitatingly, “Yes – of course it is morally permissible.” Maybe it is even, in your terms, morally obligatory, though I suppose that would depend on the situation. In any case, there is no need to argue for the moral permissibility of choosing the least worst option in cases where it is the only one feasible. It’s common moral sense. To dispute it is to be precisely what I gather you don’t want to be – an absolutist, an extremist.

    Clearly, if you do not agree that Romney is better than Obama, then this argument will hold no water with you. But I get the sense that you understand perfectly well that Romney is better than Obama – even if, for you, he is still BAD. You just think Johnson is vastly superior in every way. And that’s fair enough. But you are not morally obligated to vote for Johnson, as I’ve just laid out.

    It seems to me that answers the thrust of your question.

  174. expat Says:

    We should remember how Romney has actually performed in his nonpolitical life. He did close Bain and send the workers to NY to find a co-worker’s daughter. He did get the boy scouts together to repair and clean up the playground he set up to honor a dead child. In other words, Romney really does believe in taking responsibility, and he wants to role back the fed so that responsibility goes back to states and communities. I believe Romney will give credit to states, communities, and individuals and inspire others to do as they do.

    One of the most inspiring things I can remember along this line was after the 2004 tsunami. Someone on German TV interviewed Indian high-tech workers (obviously from the upper classes) who were gathering and taking supplies to victims on the coast. They said they were inspired by seeing how people in America got together and did things instead of waiting for the government.

    I believe that Romney understands that this is America’s strength. It is not a question of simply rolling back federal government. It is crucial that the people be empowered to fix their own problems. This unleashes all sorts of creativity based on real experiences. So many people want to go back to the Founders for ideological arguments. Perhaps we should look a bit at Ben Franklin and his successes from starting the Philadelphia Library to inventing the lightning rod.

    Many libertarians want to get government off our backs, but all too many seem more interested in self indulgence than in taking things into their own hands. They really don’t inspire.

  175. Llarry Says:

    Feel free to google these quotes…

    I must have a reading disability, because nowhere in those quotes do I see Romney saying he wants to expand our military involvement overseas.

    Oh, well. I’m probably just not as smart as you.

  176. B Moe Says:

    I am voting Libertarian and its not my vote that will cause Romney or the Republicans to lose, it is the Republicans continuing to nominate spineless, Progressive Lite pragamtists instead of real alternatives that is causing them to lose.

  177. Doubtingthomas Says:

    The thing I don’t get, and the thing maybe some Libertarian can explain to me is this:

    Let’s say Obama wins because enough Libertarians voted for Johnson.

    Does anyone really expect the GOP’s response to a loss to Obama will be: “Gee whiz. If only we’d been more like Gary Johnson we could have won.”

    It’s very romantic to believe that if we just let the Democrats burn the country to the ground, we can all yell “I TOLD YOU SO” really loud and then Barry Goldwater will rise from the ashes and decriminalize marijuana, but it ain’t gonna happen.

    Don’t give your car keys to a drunk just because Mario Andretti won’t return your calls. Not when there’s a perfectly reasonable cabbie waiting outside for you.

  178. SteveH Says:

    I suppose the sheep could vote with the two wolves about what’s for dinner. Which would obviously make him one out of the box deep thinking sheep that just isn’t going to take it anymore.

  179. kolnai Says:

    B Moe -

    You think they’d win if they nominated Gary Johnson?

    And libertarians wonder why they’re marginalized. They’ve got all of the survival instincts of a gnat flying into oncoming traffic.

    At least they’re not “spineless,” I guess. It is quite courageous, I grant, to troll conservative blogs on the eve and morn of an election in order to trumpet their own virtue and smugly castigate the only thing close to allies they have.

    That’s how you win seats at the table, champs. Make sure no one wants to hear from or talk to you anymore.

    Gnats, traffic, *splat,* etc.

  180. kolnai Says:

    And Wayne Allyn Root has something to say to his fellow libertarians:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/03/why-mitt-romney-is-only-sane-choice-for-libertarians/

  181. John Nesbitt Says:

    Thanks for the food for thought kolnai and neo-neocon, and particularly the links.

    I voted for Bush in 2000, Bush in 2004, and McCain in 2008, secure in the notion that, as neo-neocon says: “It’s about voting for the best person who has a good chance of winning. It’s really quite simple. Voting isn’t abstract, it’s not a philosophy exam. It’s very practical and rooted in real-world concerns with real-world consequences.”
    I’ve seen my “practical” vote play out with very real, very sobering consequences.

    I appreciated the conversation; I didn’t mean to troll.

  182. T Says:

    Over at Pjmedia, Andrew Klavan has, arguably, the final word on this discussion:

    It seems to me that many left-wingers confuse good intentions with good outcomes and mistake the feeling of virtue for virtue itself.

    But there is a conservative version of this as well. There are conservatives who confuse good principles with good outcomes and who mistake the feeling of wisdom for wisdom itself.

    http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2012/11/05/shut-the-hell-up-and-vote-for-romney/

  183. JuliB Says:

    John,

    Two things…

    1. You are arguing that we need to remove the Bush tax cuts? As a libertarian, you want to raise taxes? I’m shocked as much of “our” (R/libt/Tea) literature and studies indicate that tax increases decrease tax ‘revenue’.

    2. Are you pro-gun? The SC could destroy our rights quite easily since O will NOT nominate anyone remotely friendly to our interests. This will have a direct impact on people losing their lives/general safety because GUNS SAVE LIVES.

    Whereas Romney can nominate someone squishy, there’s a good chance that this person will be friendly to us vs. 100% chance that O’s nominations will be anti-gun.

    My second point is enough to make me pull the level for Romney.

  184. Patrick in Michigan Says:

    A vote for a Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama. I am voting for Mitt Romney

  185. Apopkian Says:

    Llarry,

    Romney said he plans to organize and arm one side of a foreign civil war. I don’t think I am reading between the lines when I assume it means military involvement.

    And when he said he plans to expand the size and funding of the military, I assumed he meant that he wants to expand the size and funding of the military.

    Oh well. I guess that’s why I’m not a Republican anymore.

  186. Rob Says:

    My guess is that a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, but that’s another story….

  187. neo-neocon Says:

    John Nesbitt: what was the “practical” consequence of your vote for McCain? Trying to stop Obama and failing? There’s nothing wrong with that, except the “failing” part. A vote for some third-party candidate would merely have increased Obama’s mandate.

    And you actually know nothing of the “practical” consequences of your vote for Bush, except that it helped elect him. To know the actual real-world practical consequences of that vote, you’d have to compare the Bush presidency with its alternatives had he lost, a Gore presidency and/or a Kerry presidency. I think those would have been a lot worse than what we got under Bush.

  188. neo-neocon Says:

    B Moe: yes, if they don’t play exactly your way just take your ball and go home, and toss a grenade at the field while you’re at it.

  189. Bruce Says:

    Well said. I think there is potential for NH to go to Obama because of the Libertarian vote. I have offered my arguments, but the “purists” won’t budge.

    I think moost of us have a large libertarian streak. Except for a few key issues, most of us want the rest of government out of our lives.

    The Libertarians need to focus on State elections and form a credible third party. Win some governorships. Send a few members to Congress. Then and only then, should they run a national candidate. To do so otherwise only sets them up as a spoiler.

    I heard Rand Paul on the radio today and he said if “you are looking for the perfect candidate, with whom you agree 100%, then you had better run for office yourself, because that’s the only candidate with whom you’ll completely agree.”

  190. Czar of Defenestration Says:

    Too true! Those promoting the candidacy of Johnson or Paul in the November election are ensuring the REELECTION of Obama, at the cost of freedom for ALL of us – THAT is what is at stake here. What freedoms do they think they’ll have left after 4 more years of Obama?! I tell them to STOP stroking their EGOs, and START PUTTING AMERICA *before* their ideological PURITY! I don’t EVER want to hear these faux-Libertarians come crying to ME about losing their “liberties” ever again!

  191. Baltimoron Says:

    Baklava,

    I voted for Romney earlier today, as I’d intended to for several months. I don’t recall having said anything to the contrary. You just jumped to that conclusion.
    The fact that it didn’t even occur to you that I might disagree with the extreme libertarian position on the two party system while still respecting them says about all I need to know about your political views.

  192. DonS Says:

    Still, to suggest idealism is bad therefore let’s not have any idealism – do you really want to go there, DonS?

    Oh, idealism is fine, I never said otherwise. However, it has to be properly tempered with realistic expectations.

  193. DonS Says:

    But in CA, voting for the Libertarians should be understood by the Repub establishment to mean the People want change

    It will be interpreted to mean a bunch of nuts in CA want pot, a weak military, pot, open borders, and pot.

  194. DonS Says:

    More than likely, it would lead to the USA splintering into multiple factional regions and a great deal of chaos and the destruction of the oldest world power (yes, the USA *is* the OLDEST world power. Unlike any other nation of the world, none of whose governments was in anything like its current form in 1800. England is closest, it quietly changed from a pure Monarchy under George to a Parliamentary Figurehead Monarchy under Victoria… but that is an exceptionally radical change in governmental style. No other nation is vaguely close. While many “existed”, in a sense, none were vaguely close to their current forms, and most have been through one or more revolutions in the intervening 200+ years.)

    Parlement already existed in England when Jamestown was founded. By the time of the American Revolution, England was already partially a democracy.

    The chaos that followed would descend upon the entire world, and the number of people living safely under the umbrella of Pax Americana would be greatly reduced.

    Few Libertarians seem to grasp that for over 200 years, Anglo-Saxon navies have dominated the world’s oceans, and without that the world would be a much more dangerous and poor place. Since WW2 it has been the US navy providing that domination, and at this point the UK can’t pick up the slack. A reduction of US military capability would have very dangerous implications.

  195. Baklava Says:

    Baltimoron,

    I personally don’t know what happened here. I asked a question respectfully.

    You can answer the question respectfully – or not. (however one way will cease future conversation because I’m not interested in disrespect)

    Thank you for voting Romney.

  196. Baklava Says:

    Baltimoron wrote, “You just jumped to that conclusion.

    What conclusion did I jump to?

    Thanks.

  197. Baklava Says:

    Please re-read my post that you have an issue with

    http://neoneocon.com/2012/11/05/the-cloward-pivens-of-the-right/#comment-451019

    The post I responded to was right above:
    http://neoneocon.com/2012/11/05/the-cloward-pivens-of-the-right/#comment-451016

    I will only move forward in conversations with people if we can hear each other. My intent was to hear from you what you needed to hear from Romney. That’s all!

  198. T Says:

    DonS,

    I was thinking specifically about the U.S. Navy during the 3rd debate when Obama was justifying a reduced number of ships. The fact he clearly does not understand, as evinced by his snide response, is that one can have the most indomitable juggernaut in the world, but a single ship can still only be in one place at one point in time. As you point out, is has been the U.S. Navy’s presence that has allowed the entire world to take open sea lanes for granted.

  199. John Nesbitt Says:

    JuliB, I will attempt to answer your questions:

    “You are arguing that we need to remove the Bush tax cuts? As a libertarian, you want to raise taxes? I’m shocked as much of “our” (R/libt/Tea) literature and studies indicate that tax increases decrease tax ‘revenue’.”
    I don’t disagree with the premise that raising taxes past a certain point decreases revenue. I don’t know what point that is, as many smarter folks than myself have run the numbers on that one. And in a vacuum, I completely agree with you. The problem is, in reality, we have a staggering debt, and spending money is clearly something that both parties can get behind. My philosophy is simple; if you have a budget that runs a deficit, you should not lower taxes at the same time. It’s just bad news, on so many levels. Since we have been running a deficit since the Bush tax cuts have been in effect, that means that I don’t think that they should have been introduced. Starving the beast, as much as I would love it to work, has not done the trick. Having said that, I don’t know the economic effects of repealing them, particularly in a recession; so I’ll not chime in on that issue. I’m all on board with lower taxes…. as a result of a government that’s been reduced in size and scope.

    “Are you pro-gun? The SC could destroy our rights quite easily since O will NOT nominate anyone remotely friendly to our interests. This will have a direct impact on people losing their lives/general safety because GUNS SAVE LIVES.”
    I am, and I’ve seen no inclination on the part of the White House up to now to restrict gun rights. As a matter of fact, I get the impression Obama doesn’t want to touch that topic with a ten foot pole. It’s not particularly a concern with me vis-a-vis the Supreme Court, either. My concerns with potential Obama supreme court nominations would be more with regard to property rights vs. imminent domain issues before it would be with any 2nd amendment transgressions.

  200. T Says:

    John Nesbitt,

    Responses to your points above. First, taxes.

    Since WW II tax revenues have fluctuated between 15% and 23% of GDP regardless of the actual tax rates inposed. In fact the 60 year average has been 18.8%. Thus, no matter what one does to tax rates, the expected revenue will historically be ~18.8% of the GDP. beyond that, money moves out of taxable positions (apologies, I have a link for that, can not find it as I write, but this information is based upon govt statistics, not partisan statistics).

    The GDP.

    Everyone agonizes about the deficit and the national debt. Well they should, but one also must look at both sides of the equation. Paying down the debt and creating balanced budgets are essential, but expanding the GDP is an equally important solution. Imagine a person with an income of $50K who has $50K in consumer debt (credit cards). that person is in a world of hurt. Now imagine that s/he can triple his/her income to $150K/yr (perhaps by getting a second or third job). The $50K debt instantly becomes a smaller proportion of their economic life and, thus, more manageable for them. Doing that nationwide is increasing our GDP by getting the economy moving again so that moderate rates generate more revenue. Now some might respond “. . . but 16 TRILLION dollars?” remember there was a time when a BILLION dollars was viewed with the same jaw-dropping amazement and there was also a time when a beer cost a nickel. This is not to diminish the imact of $16T, but to set it within a current perspective; a perspective that will change just like the price of that beer has risen.

    When one speaks of more revenue to the left, their first response is always to raise taxes; they see no other alternative because they’re not particularly savvy when it comes to economic ideas. Give a leftist the choice between 50% of $100,000 and 10% of $1,000,000 and most will automatically go for the 50% because it’s a larger percentage.

    Furthermore, the left refuses to accept the fact that the economic pie is infinite. To them itis finite; to gain here one must take away there. In order to create a Bill Gates, other people must be paupers. This is a naive and absurd position which reflects a naive and ignorant view of economics; it’s based on the social dicta that drives the left, i.e. that “haves” v the “have nots.” Who did Bill gates rob or cheat to gain his wealth (or Steve Jobs for that matter)? Answer: No one. They created and provided a product that people wanted because it improved their lives.

    To a leftist a finite (zero-sum) economic pie is a reality because the policies they want to implement focus on social goals at the expense of the economy; in fact, they create a finite economic pie as a self-fulfilling prophecy (just look at what the Obama administration has failed to achieve by focusing on Obamacare’s social equity v job creation).

    Romney has already indicated that his goal is to get the economy moving again. In doing so he will wield an important economic sword to help control the deficit; i.e., make it a smaller part of the economic whole. I repeat, paying down the debt and establishing a balanced budget is important, but so is increasing the GDP in order to reduce the impact of the debt itself.

    As for gun control and your claim that you’ve seen no indication that Obama wants to restrict gun rights. Surely you must be aware that there is at least suspicion that the entire “Fast and Furious” debacle was executed in part to justify greater U.S. gun control. No proof yet, but do you really trust Obama’s apparent ignoring of gun issues when he is willing to tell Putin that they’ll be more flexibility after the election? And do you trust someone who promised to reduce the deficit by half or have a one-term proposition, who, then increased the deficit by 33% and then ran for re-election anyway?

    Remember, an Obama victory today means no holds barred for the next four years.

  201. Alec Rawls Says:

    I was giving out “Obama wrong way” bumper stickers yesterday when a fellow brought up a voter guide and said “I’m voting for this guy,” pointing to “Gary Johnson.” “The Libertarian guy?” I asked. He nodded and suggested: “That’s what primaries are for. You vote for your ideal candidate, then in the general you vote for the lesser of two evils.”

    The fellow said “the lesser of two evils is evil,” and started to walk away, as if he had just said “checkmate.” “But he is the LESSER evil,” I replied. “Isn’t it better to have the lesser evil than the greater evil?”

    Amazingly, the guy stopped in his tracks and seemed stunned, as if he had never considered before what the idea of choosing the lesser of two evils means. He tried to formulate a reply but could only repeat that the lesser of two evils is still evil, prompting me to repeat that the lesser of two evils is not as evil as the greater of two evils.

    Finally he said the Cloward-Pivin type thing: “Its better to have things collapse and have to start over.” “THAT,” I said, “is evil. That is the greatest evil, to not try to stave off destruction from a liberty-hater like Obama.”

    But I don’t think this libertarian really believed in the destruction thing. That only came out after he was stumped by the lesser-of-two-evils thing, which indicates a profound insularity to the Libertarian movement.

    I have heard their “the lesser of two evils is evil” line before but it never dawned on me that they would talk to so few people outside of libertarian circles that they would not have ever had it pointed out to them that their rebuttal is completely rebutted by the saying they think they are rebutting. The guy was actually stone stumped, like he had never thought before about the logic of choosing the lesser of two evils. He only had this nonsensical little Libertarian mantra that had, despite its total illogic, had been all the shield he had so far needed for his illogical position.

  202. Alec Rawls Says:

    Sorry, the above should read that it was I, me, yours truly, who said “That’s what primaries are for. You vote for your ideal candidate, then in the general you vote for the lesser of two evils.”

    That is, I left out the “I” in: “He nodded and I suggested that that’s what primaries are for.”

    I hate typos. Made an even worse one Yesterday. I wrote a comment that there is a real case to be made for women not having the vote since single women are biologically driven to try to turn government into their husband. Some can overcome that liability with their reason, just as men have biological liabilities they have to overcome with reason, but there is an argument that women’s particular biological liabilities are especially hostile to liberty, and democracy is only valuable to the extent that it serves liberty. (Tyranny of the majority was just as wrong in the eyes of the founders as tyranny by an autocrat.)

    Nevertheless, I came down on the side that voting equality has to be given priority in this case, except I left out a “not” and it came out the opposite. Women should be stripped of their voting rights! What fun.

  203. Apopkian Says:

    Looks like a close one. Doesn’t really matter who wins. In four years will have enough new immigrants to make sure that socialism will be the set path.

    Next generation Republicans will already accept some version of Obamacare as a moderate position.

  204. Mike Says:

    Romney was only talking about cuts in the proposed increases. Excuse libertarians if they can’t get behind that. Why should libertarians compromise their principles. You guys can’t even throw them a bone, like real spending cuts. Republicans have turned into a bunch of centrist cowards who will say anything to get elected. It’s pretty bad when Romney was trying to out democrat the democrats on social security and medicare during the debates. When push comes to shove, the public trusts the democrats more when it comes to these programs because republicans talk out of both sides of their mouths. They throw red meat to the base by saying “we want smaller government”. But when asked what they are going to cut “crickets” Social Security, nope, medicare, nope, military, nope, and you can’t cut interest on the national debt, that’s 80% of the budget. What a joke! They try to get the left on their side by saying that they’re not going to cut anything, and they try to get the so called right on their side by saying, but we’re going to slow the rate of increase. How about having a pair of balls and standing on principle. How about offering a real difference. But then again, they know they have most of the rights vote by default, so they go after the vote of the left by saying no cuts. The party needs to change, then libertarians will come back.

    As for foreign policy, most of the terrorists don’t hate us for our freedom; some do, but the majority are motivated by our foreign policy.

    1. The overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953.
    2. Unwavering support for Israel.
    3. The propping up of dictatorships across the middle east that Muslims view as oppressive, and are also Israel’s enemies.
    4. The blockade of Iraq that killed a lot of people.
    5. Saudi Arabia’s use of American troops in Iraq 1 instead of Arab fighters.
    5. Bases on what they consider to be holy land.

    But according to you neocons, their primary motivation is they hate us for our freedom……right..

    I guess we can do whatever we want around the world, and it doesn’t have consequences.

    You guys will never see the truth, our empire will come to end because of financial reasons, and we will be forced to bring our troops home. Lets hope that a nuke isn’t detonated in a major city before then, because unlike the cold war, who do we strike back? Using letters of Marque, which is the constitutional way of dealing with threats that don’t have country is the only way to take away the recruitment tool of the terrorists.

    Ron Paul received more money from the troops than all the other republicans combined including Obama, but he’s soft on defense….right.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge