The Republican Party has become bipolar. This is the only logical conclusion to draw after reviewing its treatment of the swelling ranks of Ron Paul supporters who have long been dismissed as insignificant, yet who are now being courted by commentators hoping to prevent another Ross Perot-like split vote in November’s general election.
Throughout this presidential campaign cycle, media pundits and competing candidates have been quick to label Ron Paul and his supporters as unrepresentative of the GOP. “I don’t think Ron Paul represents the mainstream,” said Mitt Romney just days before the Iowa caucus in January. “I’m working harder than anyone to make sure he’s not the nominee.”
That statement would repeatedly prove itself true over the following eight months as Romney’s lawyers and surrogates worked multiple angles to unseat elected delegates who supported Ron Paul, change convention rules to minimize the influence of such delegates, and frustrate their goals in sparking any change or controversy. As if it couldn’t get any worse, Romney’s campaign and the RNC scripted the convention itself so that no mention of Paul’s delegate vote was made, and the result of an important vote was pre-determined to be read from the teleprompter by the chairman.
One can imagine how disenfranchised and frustrated Paul supporters have felt in recent weeks with the GOP. Treated like enemies, it’s a bit jarring to hear so many insisting that they should see Romney and his campaign as friends. But that’s exactly what is happening.
Told over and over again that they were not wanted, let alone needed, Ron Paul supporters are now being recognized as a significant voting bloc without whose support Romney may not become elected. This has prompted some awkward reactions, most notably by Breitbart’s Kurt Schlichter, whose recent post (fetching nearly 4,000 comments in a few days’ time) urges Ron Paul supporters to set aside their frustration and their principles to pull the lever for Romney.
“Nothing less than the Constitution is at stake here,” writes Schlichter. “And you could make the difference.” Because Romney advocates for policies which Paul supporters overwhelmingly reject, they are being asked by the Schlichters of the world to set aside their principles in the short term in order to save them in the long term.
This is an odd, but recently prevalent pattern within the party. Recall George Bush defending the bailout: “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” Romney’s VP pick Paul Ryan sang the same tune when voting for TARP: “This bill offends my principles, but I’m going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles…”
The Ron Paul wing of the Republican party does not think this way at all. Principles are not conveniently set aside because of strategy, and the lesser of two evils is ultimately recognized as just that: evil. Libertarian-leaning folks recognize that you cannot preserve something by violating it, any more than you can save a village from would-be pillagers by razing it to the ground yourself.
Consider the example of a woman whose husband beats her whenever she defies his command or expresses a contrasting opinion. Who in their right mind would suggest that the woman should stay put? After a long history of violence, the best course of action is to flee to safety. Why, then, would Ron Paul supporters think of cozying up to a candidate whose staff and party have gone out of their way to ensure they are pushed aside as irrelevant and troublesome?
But let’s be clear—this isn’t just about campaign strategy and thuggish convention practices. The real reason why Ron Paul supporters aren’t lining up to help “defeat Obama” by voting for Romney is that they see little substantive difference between the two. There are myriad superficial differences, to be sure, but on foreign policy, civil liberties, the war on drugs, and a litany of domestic issues, there is no distinguishable contrast between candidates. Ron Paul’s crowd doesn’t get very excited over trading lots of big government for a little less big government.
Libertarian-leaning voters are therefore being asked to jump on a bus going 95 mph towards the cliff’s edge rather than the 100 mph vehicle, when they see the switch as a largely futile exercise. They believe, rather, that unless we slam on the brakes and shift into reverse, it matters little whether we decelerate slightly when the destination remains the same.
Appealing to Ron Paul supporters to vote for Romney simply to help defeat Obama will not be an effective argument when they see Romney as espousing many of the same policies, even if only with slight contrast. If this voting segment does in fact carry the weight it was repeatedly told it never had, then the Republican Party should stop presuming it has earned their vote by default, and encourage Romney to start making severe, sincere concessions to demonstrate his willingness to put the brakes on America’s steady path towards the brink. Failing to do so means that Ron Paul Republicans will refuse to jump on either candidate’s car, and will instead be found running in the opposite direction.
Related Posts (automatically generated)
- Should Mormons vote for Mitt Romney?
- On the Rand Paul Endorsement
- Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul
- Why an Obama Re-Election May Be Best for the Cause of Liberty
- Joseph Smith, Habeas Corpus, Mitt Romney, and the 2012 NDAA
102 comments so far. Care to chime in?
#1 Doug Bayless | September 24th, 2012 9:43 AM
I’m still looking for concrete evidence that a Romney presidency would even be this alleged small *deceleration* in big, centralized, Federal government regulations, interventions, and taxpayer spending. The positions Romney has backed himself into include likely spending *more* money, faster, than an Obama Presidency (it’s not just the suggestions on paper for new corporate welfare projects for military hardware that the Pentagon largely agrees it doesn’t need and that puts the overall projections in spending at almost equal with overall projections in spending for an Obama budget … you have to also factor in Romney support for completely unfunded but also allegedly crucial spending for things like war with Iran, border “protections”, crackdowns on domestic civil liberties with more “Homeland Security” spending, etc.)
So I reject the idea that Romney even represents any course reversal, hope, savings, or wisdom at all on the face of it. Sure, there are some superficial differences in their approach, rhetoric, and maybe even some specific programs that they each allege they would tweak differently. But big picture, I see far more sweeping expenses and an *acceleration* in decreasing liberty by following the logical conclusions of Romney’s rhetoric than Obama’s — and that’s an impressive task.
At any rate, neither of the “mainstream” parties candidates are giving this voter much to want to pull the lever for. And that’s certainly not the fault of the Ron Paul supporters who have been bending over backwards to speak up, point out what should be obvious concerns, and doing massive grassroots education on these issues.
#3 Alex | September 24th, 2012 11:19 AM
What about for some of the key Ron Paul legislation to be passed. Most notably the Audit the Fed bill. We would need to get Republican Majority in the Senate, which is possible, if not likely. Reid, who is possibly the biggest liar to ever take office – though he has some stiff competition – said he supported the bill in 2008, until it passed in the House and he said it will never see a vote in the Senate as long as he is Majority leader. Obama would veto it i’m sure. Does anyone know what Romney would do?
#4 Anna Janek | September 24th, 2012 12:27 PM
Write – In Congressman Ron Paul!
#5 Mike S | September 24th, 2012 1:29 PM
Another problem for Romney – the Ron Paul supporters have been so spoiled to have such a consistent, stable candidate for so long, will never recognize Romney as anything but an untrustable flip-flopper.
So even if Romney did start paying lip service to the Constitution and limited government, we will point to his long history and current campaign statements supporting the opposite and withdraw even further from him.
It is pathetic that Romney and Reid are the two most high-profile LDS members in politics. How do we get another Ezra Taft Benson?
#6 Jay | September 24th, 2012 1:41 PM
Well done, as usual.
#7 Adamo | September 24th, 2012 1:52 PM
We should vote for Gary Johnson, so that it will be easy for the country and especially the GOP to see how significant we really are.
#8 George | September 24th, 2012 3:22 PM
So, go ahead and vote for someone other than Romney and allow Obama to complete what he’s doing and turn America into the Socialized States of America? Do that rather than vote for a man who has good character and hopefully will be open to being pulled back to the right? I don’t get it. I don’t like Romney either, but not supporting him IS de facto supporting Obama. Do you really want to do that? …just so you can keep you precious “principles”? Sometimes your arrogance is frightening!
#9 outside the corridor | September 24th, 2012 3:26 PM
Thanks, Connor; I’m glad you know how you stand on this; I’m with you–
There has been a lot of talk in RP circles about how there wouldn’t be an election in November, and now I am beginning to see that there won’t be a real election; it was stolen by the GOP/RNC on one side and the DNC on the other–
at least half of the Democrats at the convention were outnumbered by what the PTB wanted there as well–
in other words, regular Americans aren’t driving that car towards the cliff anymore–
the election has basically become meaningless, hence . . .
here is the truth about him:
Johnson was married to Dee Johnson née Simms (1952–2006) from 1977 to 2005. As First Lady, she engaged in campaigns against smoking and breast cancer, and oversaw the enlargement of the Governor’s Mansion. He initiated a separation in May 2005, and announced they were getting divorced four months later. Dee Johnson died unexpectedly on December 22, 2006, at the age of 54. It was established in February 2007 that her death was caused by hypertensive heart disease. Syndicated columnist John Dendahl expressed shock upon her death, as she had been “very vivacious” only two weeks previously. After her death, Johnson said, “People couldn’t have gotten a better number one volunteer, because that’s what she was. Whatever [the issue] was, she had a caring approach.” Johnson and his late wife have two grown children: a daughter, Seah (born 1979), and a son, Erik (born 1982).
Johnson is now engaged to Santa Fe real estate agent Kate Prusack, whom he began dating in 2008 after meeting on a bike ride. Johnson proposed in 2009 on the chair lift at Taos Ski Valley Resort in New Mexico. He lives with Prusack in Taos, New Mexico, in a home that he built himself. Johnson is an avid triathlete who bikes extensively and abstains from all recreational drug use, caffeine, alcohol, and some sugar products. During his term in office, he competed in several triathlons, marathons and bike races. He competed three times (1993, 1997, 1999) as celebrity invitee at the Ironman World Championship in Hawaii, registering his best time for the 2.4-mile (3.9 km) swim, 112-mile (180 km) bike ride, and 26.2-mile (42.2 km) marathon run in 1999 with 10 hours, 39 minutes and 16 seconds. He once ran 100 miles (160 km) in 30 consecutive hours in the Rocky Mountains. On May 30, 2003, he reached the summit of Mount Everest “despite toes blackened with frostbite.” He has also climbed three more of the Seven Summits: Mount Elbrus, Mount McKinley, and Mount Kilimanjaro—the tallest peaks in Europe, North America, and Africa respectively. He ran in the 25-mile Bataan Memorial Death March in New Mexico, in which participants run in the desert in combat boots while wearing 35-pound packs. On October 12, 2005, Johnson was involved in a near fatal paragliding accident when his wing got caught in a tree and he fell approximately 50 feet to the ground. Johnson suffered multiple bone fractures, including a burst fracture to his T12 vertebrae, a broken rib, and a broken knee. He used medicinal marijuana for pain control from 2005 to 2008.
Her death could have been prevented, but he divorced her just months before she died–
Why wasn’t he taking care of his wife? A man who can’t take care of an obviously sick wife and who pushes her beyond her limits . . . and then divorces her . . .
will not do a very good job of taking care of a nation on the verge of collapse–
I guess he’s going to get married again, but –
what was he thinking?
She did all that work for him, and then he just decided he didn’t want her anymore–
and then, ‘oops, she’s dead; should have known she had a disease’?
#10 outside the corridor | September 24th, 2012 3:32 PM
you say you don’t like Romney (why don’t you like him if he has a good character?)–
Well, he doesn’t have a good character–
he’s earned his money in extremely aggressive and borderline ways–
he’s a vulture capitalist–
and he’s no less socialistic than Obama, except he will probably destroy America and the world with warfare before Obama will–
it appears they have an equal opportunity of destroying America–
By the way, I can prove that Romney is not only dishonest but a vulture capitalist–
if you want proof; I assume most people on here already know that about him; if you don’t, why don’t you?
Most people on here know that Obama and his wife had their law licenses . . . either suspended or revoked; or they gave them up–
for whatever reason it is hard to say, but it’s highly suspicious–
In other words, the ‘powers that be’ have cleverly arranged it so that Devil #1 and Devil #2 are competing for the White House–
One of them has darker skin and not as much money, and the other is a “Mormon” who has gotten his money in ways that would make most Mormons blush–
So, go ahead and vote for someone other than Romney and allow Obama to complete what he’s doing and turn America into the Socialized States of America?
I’m not “allowing” for Obama to do anything by not voting for him. I am refusing my consent, as I want nothing to do with what he espouses, and the same goes for Mitt Romney.
Unlike many, I do not see voting as strategy. It is, for me, an affirmation of support and a willingness to share accountability for what that individual does with the power he is entrusted with. Thus, I would not vote for Romney to help defeat Obama if I do not support what Romney espouses. And I don’t, so I won’t. More on my thoughts in this radio interview: http://www.connorboyack.com/audio/ktkk_24aug12.mp3
Do that rather than vote for a man who has good character and hopefully will be open to being pulled back to the right?
Character is meaningless to me in the context of voting for the office of President. Character does not say whether one will or will not adhere to his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Character does not say whether the person will have an aggressive, offensive foreign policy or not. Character does not say whether the person will impose mandates, executive orders, and other big government programs upon Americans.
I’m not interested in pulling Romney to the right. I’m interested in helping him better understand and defend individual liberty. If he wins, then sure, I hope he will be open to the truth and willing to act upon it. But I won’t vote for him out of that hope, as in my view, it is quite naïve to “hope” for politicians to do anything, especially when they have a long-standing record that suggests they’ll do the opposite.
#12 Clyde A | September 24th, 2012 4:22 PM
I have two big beefs with your post. (1) Romney said that no one was working harder than him to ensure that ANY of the other candidates were not nominated–because we was working for he nomination himself, not because he had any particular animosity toward RP. (2) I don’t recall the delegates from any of the other candidates being mentioned in any way. Why would he single out RP dlegates? Just because RP refused to endorse him? That is hardly a reason to go out of his way to extend his hand to RP’s delegates.
Say what you want, but Romney is clearly the lesser of two evils. He wasn’t in my top 3 when the nomination process started, but he is ALL WE HAVE. Any one who cares about the constitution would be a fool to vote for anyone else at this point–or to not vote at all. Romney is very likely the most conservative, constitutionally-minded candidate that the Republicans have put up since Reagan. I say we take this victory and build on it for next time, not tear down whatever progress we might have made because Romney is not our perfect candidate.
Why would he single out RP dlegates?
I didn’t say that he was. I merely mentioned that the RNC purposefully did not announce Paul’s votes (who received the most out of the other candidates), but yes, they also didn’t mention the others. This is problematic, but as I note in the post, it’s a trivial matter compared to the policy issues.
Say what you want, but Romney is clearly the lesser of two evils.
Some of my thoughts on that here.
I say we take this victory and build on it for next time, not tear down whatever progress we might have made because Romney is not our perfect candidate.
Ron Paul supporters do not see a Romney election as any sort of victory. Victory over what? More big government?
Romney supports a variety of anti-liberty and unconstitutional policies. That’s hardly something to get excited about, IMO.
#14 Clyde A | September 24th, 2012 5:02 PM
I think the majority of Ron Paul supporters see a Romney victory as a small victory–maybe a very, very small, unsatisfying victory, but a victory nontheless. There are the ardent few who will never accept any kind of victory short of a Ron Paul election, but I think you are in the minority of RP supporters. Most of us prefer to live again to fight another day in the best position possible. That is clearly not after a 2nd Obama term. I think you need to be careful about thinking you speak for all RP supporters.
I don’t think I speak for all RP supporters. I simply know many of them, observe many more, and pass on my general observations as to how they largely will behave given the circumstances. If you disagree, that’s fine.
You think that the best position possible for liberty will be a Romney presidency beginning in 2012. I say, well, you can’t predict the future.
Let’s say Romney wins. Let’s say he’s re-elected after that, and because his economic policies are full of intervention and manipulation, the market continues to sag, until a full dollar collapse. Then, the “left” uses this to whip up its base and show how capitalism failed, and how we need state ownership of core sectors of the market to ensure nothing like this ever happens ago. Atlas Shrugged becomes real life. And the conservative right, thinking they did their work and elected the guy to “fix” the economy, largely goes back to sleep, just as they did under George W. Bush.
But on the other hand, suppose Obama is re-elected. He imposes his progressive utopia on America for four more years, continually and further enraging the conservative right, who recognize that in order to combat such popular idiocy they’ll need to field a far better candidate in 2016 to ensure that nobody like Obama ever has another chance to do as much evil as he did. Along the way, new media educational initiatives have found fertile ground in this active, enraged group of citizens, who over the four years realize the inconsistency of conservatism and embrace libertarianism. They stand better prepared, ready, and willing to ensure that the next nominee for the Republican party is one worthy of support.
But hey, I can’t predict the future either. Maybe you’re right, maybe I’m wrong. Only time will tell. In the mean time, I’ve been counseled by God to support good, honest, and wise men. I at least know that Romney fails to meet that latter qualification. So, I won’t be supporting him.
#16 Butch | September 24th, 2012 6:46 PM
outside the corridor, what do you have against Gary Johnson??? yr talking out of both sides of yr mouth, first you say his former wife was “very vivacious” before she died then you say why wasn’t he taking care of his obviously sick wife? Which is it? Anyway, notice you didn’t mention ANYTHING about his stands on the issues or how he performed as Gov. of New Mexico? THAT is the only thing that matters. Gary Johnson’s business w/ his wife is HIS business. Hes not Ron Paul but hes the only interested in saving the Constitution. Personally, I think America deserves to die. Since we keep voting in the wrong guys and ignore the best candidates simply because they’re not backed by the Banksters, we deserve what we get. So I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson even if it means teh ticket is split and Obumma gets another 4 years to destroy the country. Whatever happens is what God wants to happen. If He thinks America deserves to be destroyed, so be it. He is in control.
#18 Hawks5999 | September 25th, 2012 1:50 AM
A Romney victory is not a small victory, it is a huge defeat at this point (it won’t happen so this is academic). The reasons a Romney victory is not any size victory for Ron Paul supporters:
1) It reinforces the strategy to the GOP of running a moderate neo-conservative to win an election (this hasn’t ever worked btw, cf. Bush 92, Dole 96, McCain 08.
2) instead of 4 more years of a big government statist, it results in possibly 8 more years of big government statism under the GOP followed by another potential 4 years under Paul Ryan’s unprincipled statism. That is, 12 more years before a liberty minded, small government candidate is even possible for the GOP ticket.
3) it prevents the cleansing, humiliating defeat the establishment GOP leadership deserves and the party needs to spur the membership to replace that establishment leadership.
A resounding and utter defeat of Romney is the best thing for the Party and for the country. Without a humiliating defeat of the Romney the GOP can not reform itself into the truly small government, anti-statist force it needs to be to counter the decidedly and determined big government statists of the Democrat party. Without that counterbalance, this country truly will be doomed.
#19 Jon | September 25th, 2012 4:48 AM
Romney is on the record as being pro federal reserve, so any bill that would pass through would probably only pass it were weak and it would done more for publicity purposes.
Argentina continues with more and more statist interventionism even though everything continues to get worse. Just because things get bad doesn’t necessarily mean people will change their minds. It is amazing to me how people hold onto ideologies even though those ideologies are proven false. The liberals still believe in the war on poverty and how is that war going? Not that good.
#20 Kay Rivoli | September 25th, 2012 9:11 AM
A write in candidate has never been elected for President. It will NOT happen. A write in vote will be a vote for Obama and socialism. Mitt Romney is in favor of auditing the fed. He wants to fire Ben Berneke. He is in favor of 70% of the things the Ron Paul supports want. No candidate will stand for 100% of what every person believes is important. Gary Johnson, as much as I like him, will NEVER win. A President will not be elected from a third party. If you plan on writing in Ron Paul or voting for Gary Johnson you may as well vote for Barack Obama and take your share of responsibility for the collapse of our economy. Make no mistake, the collapse of our economy is Barack Obama’s goal. Russia came here long ago and stated they would never have to fire a single shot to make us socialist. It would happen through our economy. Right now you have two choices, the socialist agenda of Barack Obama or two men who love this country, will fight to preserve our freedoms and will leave us able to fight another day. We need the Senate, to retain the Congress and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. As my grandma said, “the facts will stand up when the world burns down”. If you write in Ron Paul or vote for Gary Johnson you will play your part in the U.S.A. becoming the U.S.S. of A. Those are the facts. Like them or hate them, they are the facts. Ignore them at the peril of our country.
#21 Eddie H | September 25th, 2012 11:02 AM
Why don’t the writers in here devote some energy to getting the debates opened up for all four candidates instead of only supporting socialist Obama and Neo-con Romney? I’m not voting for Obama. I’m not voting for Romney. In the group of registered Republicans I regularly meet with (3,085), only 21% of them are considering Romney and the percentage gets smaller everyday as they ‘wake up’ to the real facts about Romney. The ‘good’ part of the GOP is mad as hell at Romney and aren’t going to take it anymore. They are working hard to get the facts about Romney out to all of those ‘bad’ GOPers whom have been ‘hypnotized’ by the Neo-cons. Romney will not be president in 2012!
#22 Tammy H | September 25th, 2012 11:58 AM
First Kay Rivoli, Romney said, “Bernanke is doing a good job”. Not sure where you get your info. Second, Ron Paul taught us to research and get the truth. Becuase of doing my homework and researching each and every cannidate, I choose NOT to vote for anyone other than Ron Paul. A vote for anyone else will only mean “compromise again”. I have no problem with you chooing to vote for anyone. I have a God given right as you have a God given right to make a vote for your choice. If you are voting because you think or feel you have no other choice, but to vote for whom you would not have voted for in the first place, YOU are choosing to compromise again. Isn’t that what really got us where we are today? This may very well be the last time any of us can hope to have the right to vote. I will not choose to vote for any lesser of the evils. I will vote for Ron Paul. As far as the comments above by Clyde A, you really have no idea of the strenght behind Ron Paul. We are many!! Don’t be fooled :) Do yourself a favor, vote for whom you thought in the begining would make the BEST president for Our Country. To go through life with regret, is a haunting way to live.
#23 Virago | September 25th, 2012 12:17 PM
outside the corridor, I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply by bringing up Gary Johnson’s wife, but your link states they separated in May 2005. They divorced later that year. She died in December 2006, so how are you justifying that he divorced her “just months before” she died. It was over a year. She also had an undiagnosed heart disease but was on medication for high blood pressure. It was ruled natural causes. Why is any of this a big deal?
#24 John Shuey | September 25th, 2012 1:02 PM
RE: Comment #8 by “outside…” —
Governor Johnson has addressed this situation in his book, and by and large accepted responsibility for the breakup of his marriage.
Look at it this way, if everyone in America who made a similar mistake and got divorced votes for him, he’ll win in a landslide.
#25 Mark | September 25th, 2012 1:05 PM
What RP supporters fail to realize is they are in a very tough spot and can only win if they support Romney. Here’s why.
If they support Romney and Romney wins, they are part of the conversation because they are part of the winning team. (RP supporters win)
If they support Romney and Romney loses, they still have a chance to come back to the table and tell everyone WHY Romney lost and offer an alternative path. (RP supporters win)
If they don’t support Romney and Romney wins, they are completely marginalized since everyone will see that their lack of support was totally irrelevant. (RP supporters lose)
If they don’t support Romney and Romney loses, they will be marginalized as the tinfoil hat wearing PaulBots who delivered 4 more years of Obama. (RP supporters lose)
Pick your poison………
No, Mark, Ron Paul supporters realize the tough spot. They just rejection the notion that they “win” in any fashion by supporting a candidate who opposes what they stand for. They support the Constitution, and therefore cannot support a candidate who advocates violating it in so many ways, simply hoping that they might be “part of the conversation” (whatever that means) should he win. They stand by their principles, and “do what is right, let the consequence follow.” In this case, doing what’s right means refusing to support candidates who do not support the Constitution.
#27 RICHARD | September 25th, 2012 1:38 PM
I will not vote for Romney or Obama ! I agree with Tammy H. Vote your concience and for the candidate you feel will represent the Constitution and the best interests of We The People !
#28 Clyde A | September 25th, 2012 1:52 PM
So it means more to vote for someone like Gary Johnson, who is flawed in numerous ways and has absolutely no chance of winning, rather than voting for Romney, who aligns with Ron Paul about 70-80% of the time? This gives Obama a better chance to win and govern completely untethered by the need to ever run a campaign again. Does anyone somehow believe that America will come back to the right following a sharp veer to the left in Obama’s 2nd term. Obamacare will be an institution after 4 years and will NEVER be repealed. Obama is a man bent on destroying the constitution. It is irrational to vote or anyone but Romney, if you love the constuitution.
#29 Doug Bayless | September 25th, 2012 4:01 PM
There’s a lot I like about Mitt Romney as a person. I’d be happy to have him as a neighbor (in this example, it has nothing to do with how awesome it would be to afford a home in one of his neighborhoods). I’d be fine with him as an ecclesiastical leader in my Church (he and I are both active Mormons). I could see volunteering for an Olympic committee he headed up or working for some company he was invested in. I think that, in general, he and his family have done a decent job introducing active LDS families on the national and world stage. Further, if the US President was simply a figurehead like European royalty then he’s certainly got the coiffed hair and whitened teeth for the job.
But, frankly, this isn’t “American Idol”. Or it shouldn’t be, anyways. Too many citizens talk about voting like it’s some kind of frivolous sports match. They say the craziest, most unfounded things about their candidate and his challengers. But it’s not all in fun like sports tend to be. This is a serious job interview with meaningful implications.
The fact of that matter is that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney differ very, very little on actual national issues of substance. We’re talking about war powers, actual bottom-line tax spending and borrowing, respect for the Bill of Rights, respect for the ‘Golden Rule’, and the proper ‘role’, if you will, of centrally planned Federal mandates. It is true that — due to public opinion and backlash — Mitt Romney is more likely to scale back certain aspects of the centrally planned Federal healthcare rules and regulations. It is also true that — due to influences of the people he has hired as consultants — Mitt Romney is also more likely to scale up pre-emptive warfare overseas.
But, again, even on just these two issues where the general public irrationally seems to believe the two candidates are *so* different, it’s just a matter of degree. With either man taking the job, we are likely to maintain the bulk of the new Federal healthcare regulations. With either man taking the job, we are likely to maintain our wars in the middle east and plausibly expand into Iran. Both Obama and Romney propose spending way, way more than the Federal government takes in — to almost *exactly* the same degree.
Please spell out for me where Romney allegedly aligns so closely with Ron Paul (“70-80%”). What could your criteria possibly be? When I look at the broad range of issues, Paul, Obama, and Romney certainly agree on many things but Romney and Obama tend to line up much more closely on the important issues where Paul and Romney part ways.
[As an aside, I can think of possibly one issue that's of import to me -- abortion -- where current rhetoric would place Paul and Romney closer together and somewhat apart from Obama. But on that issue, Romney has a deeply checkered political past -- while Paul has a consistent one -- *and*, more pragmatically, it's not an issue where things are likely to get any worse this next term or the President is likely to have a lot of influence (unlike warmaking, civil liberties, budget approvals, Federal growth, and a billion other issues where Paul and Romney do not align but Romney and Obama do align). I'd like to believe that in considering this issue with regard to potential Supreme Court Justice selection that a President Romney would place potentially overturning Roe v Wade *above* stacking the court with Federal yes-men/women who exhibit deep beliefs in neo-conservative warmaking and unchecked Federal supremacy when choosing potential Supreme Court judges but Romney's campaign rhetoric does not inspire any such hope or confidence -- and neither does studying the recent history of alleged 'conservatives' in the mold of Romney when they made their Supreme Court Justice picks ... ]
Bottom line is that a fact-based, non-partisan approach indicates Obama and Romney to be almost identical with regard to their likely effect on our nation if elected. Consequently, I’m going to vote my conscience and that’s likely going to be third-party or write-in.
I happen to really like Ezra Taft Benson’s advice on that when he suggested that “You should always vote for the best possible candidate, whether they have a chance of winning or not, and then, even if the worst possible candidate wins, the Lord will bless our country more because more people were willing to stand up for what is right.”
I find it insane that people want to vote somebody in just because they are on the “Republican” team officially now and seem to be nice or something and don’t want to reasonably discuss any of the actual job qualifications or applications.
#30 Jamie | September 25th, 2012 4:29 PM
Those of you claiming Romney agrees with Paul on 70 or 80% of the issues… Where in the hell are you coming up with such a wildly inaccurate statistic?
And what does Gary Johnson’s personal life have to do with his campaign? Why are people more interested in politicians personal lives than their political actions? Maybe that’s the heart of the problem. People had more fun gossiping about bill Clinton’s affair than addressing the fact both Obama and Romney are active participants in the destruction of our constitution.
#31 Brandon Shipp | September 25th, 2012 4:35 PM
What I’m trying to understand are these Romneybots spouting “Romney aligns with Ron Paul 70-80% of the time”…..what alternate reality did you just step out of? I watched every single debate during the Republican primaries. I’ve researched both men’s positions on every major issue and some of the minor ones as well. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have aligned on ZERO issues. Mitt Romney: Big government, bailouts, mandated healthcare, corporatism, interventionalist foreign policy, supports Bernanke and the Fed, was pro-choice until he decided to run for president in 2008, and the list goes on. Ron Paul: Small government, believes if corporations make bad decisions they should be allowed to fail, free market healthcare, Austrian economics, anti-war, pro-national defense (real defense, not offense mis-labeled), Abolish the Fed, Abolish the IRS, Abolish TSA, strike NDAA and Patriot Act out, has ALWAYS been pro-life…….which issues did they align on again?
#32 Robert Fallin | September 25th, 2012 6:43 PM
Defeating Romney is not enough, no more than defeating George H. W. Bush was enough in 1992. A third place Romney finish would destroy the GOP establishment, hopefully relegating the Republican Party to the dustbin of history, just as the Whigs and Federalist parties before it. A Romney victory would not help “Audit the Fed”. Romney’s biggest contributors are banksters and vulture capitalists. Besides, GOP Senators such as Judd Gregg, Lamar Alexander and John Kyl were some of the biggest opponents to “Audit the Fed” in 2009. The relatively few GOP members of Congress with any integrity would “jump ship” and join the Libertarians. Either that or they would finish off a mortally wounded GOP establishment and toss out their miserable leadership, including John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell. Libertarians and independents may even displace some of RINOs presently disgracing Congress. Talk about a “win/win.”
#33 Sean Sittig | September 26th, 2012 1:16 AM
I think the confusion in regards to the 70%-80% statement is that Romney has at one point held every stance on every issue. Not the kind of guy I would vote for. This country doesn’t know what integrity is anymore. Its been sold and shipped off to the highest bidder for longer than I’ve been alive. Romney isn’t going to win this election, and the reason I say that is this: the arguments used to persuade us RP supporters center around lesser of the two evils, i.e. “it will be almost as bad as voting for Obama, but not quite”. No thank you! I’ll choose conscience over convenience, principal over party, and I’ll sleep like a baby on Nov 7th. The simple fact is that the GOP lost this election during the Iowa primary.
#34 JamesButabi | September 26th, 2012 9:08 AM
Nope. There is 0% chance I will vote for Romney or Obama for that matter. When you have a choice between Romney and Obama you have no choice at all.
As pointed out, it is bad enough putting up a big government candidate with little differences, but actually frauding them at your convention and changing rules is shameful and shouldn’t be tolerated. Asking Ron Paul supporters to now hold their nose and join the ranks in a party who actively discarded and frauded them is a pill that most who were active in the party or paying attention cant begin to swallow.
I will vote for Gary Johnson. We need another party to have easier ballot access and access to debates.
#35 J | September 26th, 2012 10:26 AM
I cannot believe this conversation. Any third party wreaks havoc on the election. You Ron Paul supporters need to get over it. Anyone is better than Obama!!!!!!
#36 Robert Fallin | September 26th, 2012 10:33 AM
ANYONE is better than Obama? Haven’t you learned ANYTHING from Ron Paul? Heck, Romney is MUCH more likely to get us into a Middle East war with Iran than Obama, as Romney Netanyahu are business partners and “soul mates”. However, Romney has NO chance of winning with “George Soros” counting the votes, no matter how many criminal fraud acts Romney commits. Gary Johnson has a better chance of winning POTUS than Romney and GJ has a better chance of winning than Obama or Romney surviving the full four years without either a military coup or armed rebellion.
A third place finish for Romney would likely finish the GOP establishment. A Gary Johnson victory most certainly would.
#37 seanmom | September 26th, 2012 10:58 AM
Romney has repeatedly said he will audit the Fed. In surreptitiously taped footage, he is seen putting much of the blame for our economic instability on the Fed printing more and more money.
Obama is in court trying to preserve his right to indefinitely detail AMERICAN citizens.
Romney stands with the First Amendment. Obama threw it under the bus six times at the UN, before the entire world.
If you throw away your vote on a candidate who can’t win, good luck enjoying your self-righteousness in Obama’s ideological retraining camps, while your kids eat MichellO’s lunches and learn to hate you, America, and the Constitution.
Can you live with knowing you helped elect a Marxist who will now have NO controls on him and can proceed with his ultimate goal–to redistribute American wealth here and across the world to achieve his socialist dream of “fairness”?
What will you say when your grandchildren (if they are still allowed to talk to you, in the few hours the government isn’t overseeing and indoctrinating them) look and you and ask why you didn’t vote for Romney and stop President-for-Life Obama? That you voted for the first guy Obama sent to the Gulag?
If Romney wins, I can guarantee you will have another chance to vote against him in four years if you don’t like him. If Obama wins, I have no such confidence.
#38 J | September 26th, 2012 10:59 AM
I love Ron Paul, but lets be clear. He doesn’t have a chance. I would have voted for him because I know all about his policies. I think he is great. Do you really think any third party would win? I consider those who are Ron Paul fans and won’t vote for anyone else, just as radical as Obama fans. What we will have here are Ron Paul supporters and the evangelicals helping obama to win because they could either not get past the fact that their guy didn’t win the primary or they could not get past Mormonism. Yes, I would have voted for Paul, but third parties are radical and illogical. I realize there will be fraud and I know all about Soros and if Obama wins again at least I know I did my part in trying to defeat him. I have been studying politics and government for over 25 years and have no use for radical behavior like some of the Ron Paul supporters have.
#39 Robert | September 26th, 2012 11:00 AM
The Republican Party does not care what Paul supporters do. They are in this to lose! Sound insane? Well what’s more insane – that two Presidential elections in a row Republicans miraculously ended up with leftists candidates that seemingly noone wanted? That both gave horrible campaigns? That refused to fight back? Obama has so many skeletons that have come out of the closet, he could easily be taken out. But time and time again Republicans refuse to pull the trigger. I mean come on…sooner or later you’ve got to atleast start to entertain the idea that these two parties are cooperating behind the scenes. To me, its obvious that the Democrat Party has essentially become the Communist Party. If you don’t see this, you don’t have your eyes open. Whats trickier to see is that the Republican Party is simply the party of false opposition. Please, suspend disbelief and THINK ABOUT IT!
#40 KC Ted | September 26th, 2012 11:05 AM
I’ll simply vote for Gary Johnson. He is not 100% Ron Paul (who is?). However, on matters of critical importance, he is spot on. When I look at my ballot in November, I will vote for the candidate that most closely mirrors my views. That won’t be Romney or Obama. I can’t write in, in my state, so I will proudly vote for Gary Johnson.
Will he win? Most probably,, no. However, voting is also about conveying the people’s thoughts and beliefs, and if there is a large voting block for Johnson (and write ins for Paul, where counted) then the establishment, and the rest of America will see it.
A big showing for Johnson (5%+) will also have a bearing in the next election, for opening avenues for the LP in ballot access and matching campaign funds.
#41 PJSolarz | September 26th, 2012 11:05 AM
Ron Paul couldn’t get motre than 11% of the vote. Getting your foot in the door in of the Republican Party as delegate is a step in the right direction, to turn the party around. Standing firm on a losing proposition will get you the same results as voting for Obama. Letting it all crash as a “told you so” is both childish and insanely unpatriotic way to get your point across. You want to make changes? Baby steps, a little a time. Going to Tea Party rally’s and Republican meetings chanting “Ron Paul” or “end the FED” does nothing for your credibility and stunts the growth of the movement. Use what intelligence you might have and see what works and what hasn’t since 1988.
#42 J | September 26th, 2012 11:36 AM
Simply stated, I don’t agree….it’s illogical!!!
#43 Robert Fallin | September 26th, 2012 11:56 AM
Romney is a traitor, as is Obama and every member of Congress who voted for the NDAA. Look up the definition of “treason” in the Constitution. They, and those who promote them, knowing this, should be hanged, as giving “aid and comfort” to a traitor is, in itself, treason, AS DEFINED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
#44 Robert Fallin | September 26th, 2012 11:59 AM
I have played this “gradualism” game and it only plays in one direction, towards tyranny. Massive “vote flipping” has been demonstrated in many states. Ron Paul deserves so blame for his lack of success; he allowed scum like Jesse Benton to sabotage his campaign.
#45 Alan | September 26th, 2012 12:06 PM
I have and will continue to support Dr. Paul’s efforts to raise our awareness of the critical issues affecting our republic. I must, however, report that I am a pragmatist before I go further. At my core I am still of a Republican philosophy. By joining the support of Romney you may have a hand in saving America from a disaster. I am sure even Dr. Paul would agree that is better to treat the problem while the patient is still alive than to come back and have to get the Lord to grant another resurrection.
#46 seanmom | September 26th, 2012 12:18 PM
“Romney is a traitor, as is Obama and every member of Congress who voted for the NDAA.”
Romney has NO responsibility for ANYTHING that has happened in Washington. He’s never been in Washington. He wasn’t part of the Bush administration, he’s never voted on or signed a bill of Congress.
Why is he a traitor?
#47 seanmom | September 26th, 2012 12:23 PM
Seriously, people, a principled vote is only principled if it does not have the effect of bringing about the opposite of what you want.
If Obama wins, there will be no Tea Party, no Ron Paul voice, no alternative news, nothing. Obama will get his indefinite detention, his FCC Fairness doctrine, his gun control bill Bobby Rush is still holding, his cap and trade bill, all the international treaties he wants to sign, including the one coming down in the next few months that would criminalize anti-Islamic speech.
And even if the Congress or Senate disagrees, have we not seen his exercise of Executive power often enough yet to know that he will do it anyway?
This is an election like no other. The plans Obama has to transform this nation, those things he could not openly do last time or get passed last time will be carried out this time, by a president who does not respect the Constitution, will not obey the law, will govern by fiat, and thinks of himself as a global citizen.
How can you do anything that would facilitate this catastrophic outcome?
#48 Robert Fallin | September 26th, 2012 12:39 PM
WHY is Romney a traitor? What part of “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” do you not understand?
#49 Timothy Locke | September 26th, 2012 1:12 PM
the GOP and the Republican’t Party via Ryan/Romney, is insane.
Asking for Ron Paul Supporters to Vote for Romney to get rid of Obama is akin to asking to take out Stalin, and put in Mussolini.
May as well ask the rape victim, who she wants to be imprisoned with for the next four years, Rapist number 1, or Rapist number 2?
#50 J | September 26th, 2012 2:53 PM
You cannot reason with fanatics………
#51 Robert Fallin | September 26th, 2012 3:19 PM
You cannot reason with moral degenerates, either.
#52 Jon | September 26th, 2012 3:54 PM
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos!” – Homer Simpson
Ha! this is what the Obama vs Romneyites are arguing over.
Personally, if someone wants to be my ruler, I say “Shove it, you can’t rule me!” I won’t vote for these type of people. In fact, I refuse to vote in the national elections any more, when the most part of the people are wicked there is no point in voting anymore!
#53 Frank G | September 27th, 2012 3:28 AM
“Anything is better than Obama”??? I get so tired of hearing this idiotic statement! It really doesn’t flatter the GOP thought process! Get a brain and try to have some morals that the GOP represents! We need to stand up and make a statement! I’m writing in Ron Paul because it’s my choice and it will show support for RP for the next election and show the GOP to take him serious. We certainly need CHANGE:)
#54 Frank G | September 27th, 2012 3:32 AM
“Romney has NO responsibility for ANYTHING that has happened in Washington. He’s never been in Washington. He wasn’t part of the Bush administration, he’s never voted on or signed a bill of Congress”.
Maybe we should vote for a guy who has “never voted on or signed a bill of Congress”. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot with a statement! Let me give this president thing a try.
#55 Robert Fallin | September 27th, 2012 3:42 AM
Fine words and I respect your choice, even if I do not agree with it. I will not bring this up again with you, as I admire your desire to “vote your conscience”. However, please let me point out that Dr. Paul was on the ballot in several states in 2008 and was also a write-in candidate in others. Dr. Paul repudiated all of those attempts, urging supporters to vote for Pastor Chuck Baldwin. Over 2,000 DEMOCRATS wrote in “Ron Paul” in their New Hampshire primary in 2012; however, the mainstream media did not even report this, leaving us to learn from it through the “Blue Republicans”. A vote for Dr. Paul in the general election is a futile gesture. Gary Johnson actually has a shot at winning and is certainly closer to Dr. Paul in spirit and on most issues than Dr. Paul’s son Rand. Even if he does not win, a strong showing by Gary Johnson will go far to break the two-party monopoly in the US; now that Romney’s conspirators have changed party rules, it will be virtually impossible to even nominate an alternative candidate to the GOP’s hand-picked choice. Had Dr. Paul made a stronger effort to win the nomination and was leading an effort to get on the ballot, I might feel differently; but, he is not.
#56 Terry Wilbanks | September 27th, 2012 5:59 AM
I like a lot of Ron Paul’s ideas, but scratch my head-wondering about others. I don’t like some things about Romney and the republicans. I just know that O has GOT to go or America is finished! We simply cannot survive 4 more years of this Marxist/Socialist Muslim. Ron doesn’t stand a chance, so why bother? Having said all that…I’ll hold my nose and vote against BHO, by voting for the only candidate who has any chance at all.
OK, go ahead and curse me!!!
#57 Robert Fallin | September 27th, 2012 6:07 AM
I will not curse you, though I think Romney and most of Congress are traitors for their support of the NDAA. However, I do ask that you make a real argument for a Romney candidacy, besides the fact that he is “not Obama”.
Romney receives money for the same donors and “created” Obamacare, which is fascist, not socialist. Romney is more likely to start World War III with his knee-jerk support of Israel. So, just HOW would Romney be an improvement over Obama?
#58 Terry Wilbanks | September 27th, 2012 6:22 AM
There is not time nor space for me to give all my answers here, but will begin with…..I believe that Romney will not bow to the Islamic infidels (yes I mean that). He will not travel the globe bowing to every banana republic leader. Yes he is a Mormon, but last I checked, Mormons are advocating killing everyone who doesn’t convert. He “says” he is opposed to homosexual marriage. He “says” he is opposed to abortion. Although I have a HOST of other reasons, these are enough fo me to NEVER vote for BHO. His skin color has nothing to do with it, contrary to what all the idiotic talking heads say. I would vote for a black candidate with no reservations if he/she were the right one.
IMO, Obama is doing his best to reduce the USA to a 3rd world nation.
#59 Jason T | September 27th, 2012 6:46 AM
@Terry Wilbanks. If you live in NY or California or any other “blue” state that hasn’t elected a Republican president in 30 years (basically since Reagan was in office), your vote for McCain 2.0 won’t count. But if you vote for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, you’ll be helping to strengthen a 3rd party which is what our country needs.
“A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate’s popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.” http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml
#60 Randy | September 27th, 2012 7:06 AM
I’ve been on the fence about voting for Romney but after reading this article and all the comments after it I think I’ve made my decision…
#61 Why an Obama Re-Election May Be Best for the Cause of Liberty | Connor's Conundrums | September 27th, 2012 8:03 AM
[...] a previous post, I described why Ron Paul Republicans won’t be voting for Mitt Romney. The rebuttals received, whether on this blog, Facebook, via email, or in person, shared a common [...]
#62 Kim Fish | September 27th, 2012 9:48 AM
Principles will not be sacrificed for Romney. The Romney campaign played dirty, did not play by the rules, acted so against Republican principles . . . now they can lose the vote because of it.
By not voting for Romney, I am NOT voting for Obama. I am not voting for Obama either. I choose to not vote for either evil. I will stand on principle . . . something that neither Romney’s nor Obama’s groups understand.
#63 Westin Brewer | September 27th, 2012 10:41 AM
As a practicing Latter Day Saint , I would recommend that we pay close attention to this coming Priesthood Session and General Conference. (For non-LDS folks, this is an event that happens 2 times a year – where we get to here from our church leaders) I would invite any non -LDS folks to join us – check out http://www.mormon.org and you can find a location where you can watch and listen to the leaders via satelite in our church buildings. For me, everytime I have had something heavy weighing on my mind – be it political, family, or personal. I come away with a clear mind and a much closer receptivity to the voice of the Lord – I am in no way endorsing -or not endorsing – Connors position of who to vote for – But I did in the past vote for a candidate who didn’t have a chance at all in winning, and I still to this day beleive strongly that for me it was the right thing to do. It wasn’t for President Elect, and the other two competing candidates had similar political perspectives. What is neat is our vote in America matters!
#64 outside the corridor | September 27th, 2012 11:33 AM
Why did he divorce her? She was a great help to him, but because of the nature of her illness, it’s obvious she worked herself to death–
yes, deaths from that sort of condition are sudden, and she could have gotten care, but instead he divorced her–
There is something very questionable in a man who will let his wife work that hard and then divorce her, but if you can’t see that, then . . .
there’s no point of my wasting words–
As for Romney, though I would never vote for him, and though I don’t believe he has a good character, based upon his business ventures–
I feel sorry for him right now; he’s obviously not doing well in his campaign–
he doesn’t stand for anything; he stands for Mitt–
He’s all about himself–
allowing his church service to be featured in the RNC?
He’s had his reward–sad.
#65 Mike from Canada | September 27th, 2012 5:06 PM
I’ve just discovered this blog; good stuff!
Even though I’m not an American, I have been following American politics with great interest. Canadian politics are rather boring (except in Quebec), but American politics are never dull. As a Mormon, I’m having great difficulty understanding why so many LDS people are wishing for a Romney victory. He definitely does not stand for liberty (remember the war in heaven?) and tends to represent everything that is wrong with big government. My biggest worry is that he will win the election and in doing so, do great damage to the church. In my eyes, there’s not much difference between Romney and Obama; both are pro-war and lean far towards the left. No matter who wins, the results will be the same for the USA; more spending on the military, more inflation of the US dollar et al. An Obama win will yield the same results as a Romney win, minus the negative attention to the church.
I believe that God sends prophets to deliver the truth to the world and that Ron Paul is probably some sort of secular prophet. Ignoring him will come at a great price for the people of America and the rest of the world.
My two cents.
#66 John Jacobs Jingleheimerschmidt | September 28th, 2012 6:39 AM
The nitwits who says “a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama” suffer from two flaws: They’re bad at math, and they don’t understand the presidential electoral process.
(1) Math: A vote for anyone but Obama or Romney is a half-vote against both of them. You make a faulty assumption that all Johnson voters are Republicans, because you’re looking at it through the prism of your own perspective. The last I knew, Johnson was earning more otherwise-Democratic than otherwise-Republican votes in Colorado.
(2) Presidential Election: This is an Electoral College race. Your vote only counts in your own state. You’re actually voting for Presidential Electors, who could cast their vote for someone completely different for president. The majority of Americans do not live in “swing” states, and in the non-swing states, people can vote however they like and it won’t change the outcome of the election. Also, don’t blame anyone except used-car-salesman-Romney for failing to earn enough votes, and the dimwitted-Republican-primary-voters for nominating him.
#67 alicesmith | September 28th, 2012 11:46 PM
Well, I enjoyed your article right up to the last paragraph, but not including the last paragraph.
You wrote: “Romney to start making severe, sincere concessions to demonstrate his willingness to put the brakes on America’s steady path towards the brink.”
Seriously Connor, how stupid do you really think Ron Paul supporters are? So you think, Ron Paul supporters would all of a sudden believe it if mr. etch-a-sketch, decided to mouth (lie) and put on an act for Ron Paul supporters?
It’s obvious from your article, you understand completely why Ron Paul people will NOT vote for Romney. To me, your article sounds like a stupid ploy to entice Ron Paul people to vote for the dem in drag, Romney, if only he’d play act for us. Come on, don’t disrespect us in this manner. We’re not like your neocon bobble heads that believe politicians when their lips move. We tend to go to voting records, and past history to learn the truth. Mr. etch-a-sketch’s history is out there for all that care to look.
#68 Kachina | September 29th, 2012 7:22 AM
We were not given much of a choice in this election. Doom or Gloom…
I Want An American President who will serve and work for America MORE THAN Foreign Interest or the U.N. Our country is being torn apart at the seams because our Politicians are focused on the world and not at home and forget about this New World Order business…WE ARE AMERICA and that is how I want it to stay…
Time For Change…and Ron Paul could have given US that change!
#69 JKimball | September 29th, 2012 10:19 PM
I’m a Ron Paul Republican (voted for him in the primary and contributed to his campaign) and I’ll happily be voting for Romney in November. The primary is the time to fight these battles. That is what it is for. I don’t expect Mitt to save the bus from going over the cliff. I think we’re headed for disaster no matter who the president is. But you’re wrong to say he isn’t much better than Obama. His is much better than Obama.
#70 Glennus | September 29th, 2012 11:15 PM
Just imagine if everyone who has ever said or fallen for the media/rnc propaganda that “Ron Paul stands no chance of winning so why bother?” actually voted their conscience… We’d have a Ron Paul presidency.
Repeat a lie enough times and everyone will not only believe it but trumpet it for you. BHO managed to do it… he had a great first album in 2008. I think it was entitled “I will stop the wars, America is not a country that detains its own citizens without trials, I will bring transparency to the White House”. Why any of you believe our voting systems aren’t completely compromised after witnessing both party’s establishments cheating their own parties at both conventions this year is beyond me. These are the same people who volunteer as election judges, counters, etc. These are the same people who lied about straw poll counts for months.
#71 alicesmith | September 30th, 2012 1:28 AM
Glennus, You wrote:
“Why any of you believe our voting systems aren’t completely compromised after witnessing both party’s establishments cheating their own parties at both conventions this year is beyond me.”
I think you might be underestimating how many of us think the same. The quote: ‘it’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes’ comes to mind. (I’m not possitive I’ve got that quote exact.) Sigh, you’re probably not hearing it much in comments because that’s just another can of worms or another problem we’ve got with our corrupt system. The corrupt system would and will fight us tooth and nail if the people demand that we return to paper ballots. This may sound dramatic, but I fully believe that organized criminals have taken full control of our government and there’s not one iota of it that is not completely corrupt. FWIW, I don’t think we’ve had honest elections for a very long time.
#72 alicesmith | September 30th, 2012 1:32 AM
JKimball, I’d really suggest you do some research on Romney. No, he’s no different, other than style, than Obama. His history proves he values the Constitution like a piece of used toilet paper. Don’t believe me, listen to him speak for yourself.
#73 robertfallin | September 30th, 2012 2:27 AM
The Romney’s campaign ordered bus drivers to kidnap delegates. Fortunately for them, I was not there; because, if I were, I would have performed a citizen’s arrest on the bus driver for felony kidnapping; and, had he resisted, I would have put his head right through the windshield. Romney belongs in prison, not the White House.
#74 Kelly W. | September 30th, 2012 8:44 AM
What do people have against Socialism? Do they think it is worse than the Fascism we are currently living under? Have any of the “Socialism-haters” ever lived under Socialism themselves?
#75 robertfallin | September 30th, 2012 9:12 AM
Socialism, like fascism, is “legalized thievery”. The biggest difference is socialists create small entitlement groups. However, as Ron Paul has repeatedly pointed out, Obamacare is fascism, just as his “banker bailouts” were.
#76 Kent Perry, AZ. | September 30th, 2012 9:43 AM
Don’t give me this Baloney a vote for anyone else is a vote for Obama, when for the last three years, all the reasons or complaints you have given to replace Obama are the same fricken reasons you will have to replace romney. Which happen to be the same reasons I didn’t vote for Obama.
Romney has been telling us all along he was going to repeal obamacare. Now he says he wont get rid of it but wants to refine it by adding things to it HE wants when WE told him we didn’t want it at all. Many more changes Obama has made, Romney promised he would put back the way they were but now that he has secured the republican nomination, he is going to let them stay as Obama has done.
Jeeez you republicans REALLY DON’T give us much reason to vote for anyone do you. Just like you did giving us McCain who co-wrote the NDAA, you give us a white Obama and expect us to go Gah Gah over ths jerk liberal romney.
You try to extort a vote out of us predicated on the fear of republicans losing to the enemy, saying:
“YOU WANT OBAMA TO WIN??” OR, “Don’t you want to defeat this enemy?!?!”
You think that is how you defeat the enemy (Banks) by supporting another candidate that supports all the things the enemy has done or is doing?
Ill tell you what happens when you choose a candidate like that. You won’t defeat the enemy by giving us another enemy to hate.
No what happens when you support a candidate that is for the same things the enemy is for, you are no longer fighting the enemy.
You ARE, the enemy.
And to think we could have had RON PAUL but
America BLEW IT AGAIN
for the very last time
what a pity
#77 robertfallin | September 30th, 2012 9:51 AM
The “Ron Paul” campaign blew it (with lots of help).
The campaign let that stupid “racist newsletters” nonissue fester for almost 5 years and the real author came out after the damage was done (Ron Paul could have defused it by answering it early and reminding everyone how Bill Clinton was accused of RAPE by a supporter). So far, Gary Johnson’s campaign has not made a misstep. With Romney’s campaign going south and Johnson ascending, there may be just enough time to pull this election out of the sewer.
#78 Kent Perry, AZ. | September 30th, 2012 10:03 AM
Answering it early? He ANSWERED IT IN 2008 and he still took 2nd place in the democratic New Hampshire primary with 40% of the swing voters. Look, if you think racist crap hurt him, you’re probably a liberal that uses that over-hyped, over used meaningless accusation on all Republican’s. Jeez man, he wouldn’t BE a republican without SOME liberal digging up something, anything to call it racist. He never made the comments but had his name on the banner of a Blog that supports free speech and YOU KNOW RON PAUL, when it comes to the Constitution, he is going to go by allowing others to exercise their constitutional right to free speech and if you don’t like it VOTE FOR THE TWO IDIOTS THAT ARE TAKING IT AWAY FROM US.
#79 Kent Perry, AZ. | September 30th, 2012 10:06 AM
Gary Johnson is pro choice
#80 Kent Perry, AZ. | September 30th, 2012 10:18 AM
@ Connor who said, QUOTE:
” I think we’re headed for disaster no matter who the president is. But you’re wrong to say he isn’t much better than Obama. His is much better than Obama.”
Ha ha ha HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW! That is the same load of crap everyone was saying back when no one could be worse than Bush and Obama proved that theory wrong!
Now they are saying no one can be worse than Obama, and I really don’t want to test that theory of the lesser of two evils again because YOU AIN’T A PROPHET and I don’t believe in your Crystal ball but most of all,,,
I REALLY DON’T WANT TO KNOW WHAT MORE EVIL THAN OBAMA IS GOING TO BE LIKE TAKING A CHANCE ON SOME WALL STREET BANK BOUGHT BASTARD, WHO IS DYING TO GET HIS CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL RESERVES PRINTING PRESS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN AND ALL HIS FRIENDS, AT A COMPANY,
#81 robertfallin | September 30th, 2012 10:21 AM
That is funny, Kent. I was president of the Junior Republicans for Goldwater in 1964. Surely, Johnson is pro-choice; however, more importantly, he is pro-states rights and believes, just as Ron Paul does, that abortion is a STATE, not federal issue. Gary Johnson and Jesse Ventura are both pro-choice; Ventura is a athiest and a truther, to boot. However, both are more tolerant than so many of the Ron Paul supporters I have unfortunately experienced. I made over 100 videos for Ron Paul and Liberty candidates. However, one criticism of Ron Paul and I am slandered. So much for believing in “liberty”.
#82 alicesmith | September 30th, 2012 10:35 AM
Kent, You wrote:
“Now they are saying no one can be worse than Obama, and I really don’t want to test that theory of the lesser of two evils again”
Actually, I see Romney as doing more damage to our country than Obama. With Obama, at least those that call themselves ‘conservative’ are awake and paying attention and are fighting back.
With Romney, the average neocon will sigh a big sigh of relief that an ‘R’ is back in charge then they’ll go back to sleep. All the while, Romney will violate the Constitution just like Obama and continue on the same path minus opposition.
#83 Yin | September 30th, 2012 12:09 PM
I have lived under socialism. It’s awful. It creates such an entitlement mentality that almost kills personal motivation and responsibility. People become so complacent and indiferent. They rarely have to face real challenge or struggle and therefore don’t grow and mature in the ways they are capable of because they know that everything will always be provided for them.
The system is abused by everything from women taking paid time off because of their periods, to people taking months on end off during the winter because of depression, or taking time off because they’re trying to quit smoking and are moody and irratable (these are all situations I’ve seen myself).
It creates situations where surviving as a one-income family is near to impossible, thereby depriving women the choice of raising their children themselves.
It creates a hostile environment for the gospel because “I have everything I need, why would I complicate my life with religion?”
It’s not bad that people are assisted and provided for. It’s bad that it’s the government doing it.
#84 Kelly W. | September 30th, 2012 3:40 PM
That wasn’t my experience living with Socialism in Germany.
And I’m sure nobody in USA under Fascism is anything like what you’re describing.
#85 JKimball | September 30th, 2012 7:03 PM
I readily acknowledge that Obama and Romney have very similar positions on a bunch of issues. But they are also different in a lot of ways. The one that is most important to me is that Romney has a proven track record of balancing budgets that were in big trouble prior to his arrival on the scene. That was the case with the olympics, and Massachusetts, and of course that was how he succeeded in business. Obama appears to be intentionally drowning the country in debt, and has made no effort to even propose a budget.
Like I said, I preferred Ron Paul for his positions, which I agreed with more than Romney’s. But we lost the primary. I’m going to do like Rand and get behind Mitt.
#86 robertfallin | September 30th, 2012 7:23 PM
Even if what you were saying about Romney and “balancing budgets” were true (and it will not be with his federal budget), Hitler had the most financially successful government in history during the 1930s. That is why Hitler received over 90% of the vote to assume dictatorial powers. Would you have supported Hitler?
#87 JKimball | September 30th, 2012 7:30 PM
You laugh at me for stating that Mitt Romney is much better than Obama, as though I had a crystal ball. Of course I’m stating it as my personal opinion. But it is based on significant research into both of them, and I will stand by it.
I will also say that if you think Mitt is in this for purely selfish reasons you are wrong. Again that is my personal opinion, you are correct I have no crystal ball. But I know he has spent a good portion of his fortune on his campaigns and he has a remarkable record of serving others without any expected reward. Here’s an example: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151270661116756&set=a.10150350860541756.399338.700021755&type=1&theater
Now do I expect that he thinks he will do better financially as president than if Obama is president? I sure hope so. He wants everybody to do better financially, including himself, no doubt. And with his background in business he has a way better understanding of what government can do (or stop doing) to help businesses succeed than Obama does. You can’t really fault him for wanting to make the environment more friendly for business just because he owns stock in businesses.
#88 robertfallin | September 30th, 2012 7:53 PM
What about the guy who sponsored voter fraud all over the country, including assault of a RP supporter in Louisiana and the kidnapping of RP delegates at the RNC? I am not laughing at you, I am saying Romney’s support of the NDAA makes him as dangerous as POTUS as Obama and more dangerous with his knee jerk support of Israel, which even Obama does not do.
#89 JKimball | September 30th, 2012 7:55 PM
You make a fair point. A balanced budget isn’t the most important thing, even if it our debt is the biggest threat to our liberty. I don’t think I would have supported Hitler. Too much shouting and flailing of the arms. But I believe Mitt is a better man than Hitler. For that matter, I’ve researched his personal life and I think he is a better man than I am. Again, that is just my opinion and I could be wrong. Give this page a look if you haven’t yet:
#90 JKimball | September 30th, 2012 8:05 PM
I think it is fair to ask for some evidence that Mitt or even his campaign was responsible for the treatment of RP delegates. I readily believe that corruption is rampant in the GOP itself, but I won’t hold Mitt responsible for that without some sort of evidence that he was involved. Romney and Ron Paul appear to have a genuine friendship, even if they have their differences politically. The impression I got from Mitt during the debates was that he was respectful of RP supporters.
I agree I am concerned about his position on the NDAA.
#91 robertfallin | September 30th, 2012 8:08 PM
I only know Mitt from the number of times he has changed his positions and from the criminal acts he has condoned. He personally broke the federal election laws when he and Paul Ryan handed out subs during the Michigan primary. I know one of his and Tagg’s business partners is serving 110 years for fraud. His support of the NDAA alone makes him persona non grata in my book.
#92 robertfallin | September 30th, 2012 8:11 PM
What about Romney’s paid volunteer who walked around with a phony delegate list identifying some of his delegates as Ron Paul delegates. What about his delegate who conned Gingrich and Santorum delegates into believing they were supporting a fusion delegation when it was actually a delegation supporting Romney? I already mentioned he and Paul Ryan handing out subs in Michigan, which is a federal crime under federal election law.
#93 JKimball | September 30th, 2012 8:36 PM
Wow, I hadn’t heard the thing about the sub sandwiches. I take back what I said about him being better than Hitler. haha
#94 robertfallin | September 30th, 2012 8:42 PM
You probably read Doug Wead said Romney’s campaign threatened Ron Paul with a PR smear campaign, did you not?
Romney has been implicated in a $8B Ponzi scheme, but faces no jail time because he comes from one of the “protected” families. I am sure Romney is a great “family” man, but so was “Don Corleone”.
#95 outside the corridor | October 1st, 2012 9:15 AM
the subs were handed out in Wisconsin–
‘home’ state of Ryan–
just a little detail; now they might have been handed out in Michigan, too–
but someone ‘caught’ them in Wisconsin and tried to do something about it–
the information got ‘lost’–
#96 robertfallin | October 1st, 2012 9:55 AM
Wisconsin, eh? Thanks, I stand corrected.
#97 outside the corridor | October 2nd, 2012 10:31 AM
That’s all right; for all I knew, they did it in Michigan, too–
#98 Todd | October 6th, 2012 9:02 PM
It’s more than a little disingenuous to say that the differences between Romney and Obama are only superficial, especially on the subject of civil liberties. There is no reason to believe that President Romney would, for example, kill thousands in Pakistan, most of them probably innocents, extend the Patriot Act, authorize an NDAA, hold human beings in Guantanamo for years without being charged, some being charged but not tried, some being cleared but not released, or, let’s face it, order the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen and then two weeks later kill his 16 year old American son.
Is Romney a slimeball unprincipled Republican? Yes, of course, but we’ve had plenty of slimeball unprincipled Republican Presidents that didn’t commit to such a methodical and unrelentless campaign against liberty and life. We don’t know if Romney would. We do know Obama has.
I don’t mean to suggest that libertarians should vote for anyone but Johnson, just that they should recognize that Obama is a known evil. Besides, if the Libertarian isn’t going to win the Presidency, then I look forward to seeing how a businessman does at it.
Actually, Todd, there is plenty of reason to believe that a President Romney would do those things. He wants to double the size of Guantanamo (his words), he said he would have signed the NDAA, he supports the PATRIOT Act, and Romney’s foreign policy advisory board is comprised of the folks who were key to George W. Bush’s imperial foreign policy, so not much would change under his presidency as it relates to the military industrial complex and the heavy use of drone warfare.
In other words, pretty much the exact opposite of what you said is true.
#100 outside the corridor | October 7th, 2012 10:28 AM
Well, Romney may cut social programs. Even though his own business ventures have gained from public expenditures (baillouts, etc.)–
he believes that those who have contributed to SS should not receive it, because it’s a program that is mostly beneficial to poor(er) people, and Romney doesn’t think that poor(er) people need help–
I do not believe in SS; I don’t think it should ever have been established, but I know people who have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to it–
if they lose it, oh well–
but these same people would be told by Romney that they gave to a ‘wrongful’ program, perhaps–
if they are wealthy, they can benefit from taxes paid by poor people, but if they are poor, they cannot get their own money back–
That is Romney’s political philosophy–
#101 alicesmith | October 7th, 2012 6:35 PM
Todd, Please listen to Romney speak with his own lips that he supports the NDAA.
Also, you might want to hear him in the following clip say the EXACT same things as Obama:
#102 A new day… » Libertarian Realism: Shifting Overton’s Window | February 22nd, 2013 12:55 PM
[...] blogger, Connor Boyack, recently argued for several reasons why a Ron Paul supporter would not vote for [...]
Post a comment
Featuring 899 posts w/ 16,347 comments.
Search the blog
- 4/19/13 Salt Lake Marathon Security: Paranoia Or Part Of The New Normal? (City Weekly)
- 4/16/13 YAL training on Effective Citizen Activism
- 4/12/13 Op-Ed, Standard Examiner
- 4/8/13 KZNU (radio)
- 3/21/13 Weber County Constitution Party keynote address (speech)
- 3/13/13 Pet projects board the Utah money train (Salt Lake Tribune)
- 3/11/13 KHQN (radio)
- 3/4/13 Plan dies to up taxes on rich to boost education (Salt Lake Tribune)
- 2/22/13 Bill banning enforcement of federal gun laws 'stuck in limbo' (Deseret News)
- 2/22/13 FOX 13 News (TV)
- 2/21/13 Mormon stake president gets political at church, laments election results (Salt Lake Tribune)
- 2/20/13 Concealed carry law moves forward (Daily Herald)
- 2/20/13 KNRS (radio)
- 2/20/13 It's Gun Day for Utah lawmakers (Daily Herald)
- 2/20/13 KZNU (radio)
- 2/16/13 Utah legislators worry about government increasingly violating individual liberty (Standard Examiner)
- 2/13/13 Utah House panel says teen drivers should turn off cellphones (Salt Lake Tribune)
- 2/11/13 Sex education bill narrowly advances through committee (KSL)
- View all media/events »
- Randy on Kirby Heyborne's Promotion of Babylon
- Randy on Kirby Heyborne's Promotion of Babylon
- Jordan on Seoul, Korea Temple Promise
- Ana Belen Lau on Why I Stopped Watching 24
- outside the corridor on Where Our Demons Hide
- iimx on Where Our Demons Hide
- outside the corridor on Where Our Demons Hide
- iimx on Where Our Demons Hide
- outside the corridor on Where Our Demons Hide
- Scott Stover on Where Our Demons Hide
- Chris Baker on Where Our Demons Hide
- iimx on Children of the Collective: The State's Attack on Individuality
- iimx on Where Our Demons Hide
- outside the corridor on Where Our Demons Hide
- outside the corridor on Children of the Collective: The State's Attack on Individuality
- View extended list »
- Why Do Latter-day Saints Ignore Ron Paul? (363)
- Why I’m For Ron Paul and Against Mitt Romney (282)
- Children of the Collective: The State’s Attack on Individuality (175)
- Religion and Politics: The LDS Church and Proposition 8 (173)
- The Protected Class of Sexuality (161)
- Breaking: New Anti-Proposition 8 Campaign to Target LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson (157)
- Outrage Over a Shoe (154)
- Why an Obama Re-Election May Be Best for the Cause of Liberty (151)
- Of Mosques, Mormons, and Mob Mentality (140)
- Brigham Young on Public Education (139)
- Council on Foreign Relations (132)
- The Chameleon-Like Qualities of Mitt Romney’s Conservatism (131)
- Glenn Beck’s Broad Brush (128)
- Domestic Enemies of the Constitution (126)
- FLDS Petition Conclusion (121)
- Harry Reid Against the “Right Wingers” (117)
- President Packer, Straw Men, and the Pro-LGBT Propagandists (117)
- Health Care Hocus Pocus (115)
- Media Blacklisting Ron Paul (111)
- Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul (110)
- View extended list »
- Where Our Demons Hide
- Raising Taxes is the Wrong Approach
- Children of the Collective: The State's Attack on Individuality
- I Believe the Resurrection is Real
- What Internet Taxes and Gay Marriage Have in Common—And Why Both Are a Bad Idea
- The Price of Liberty: Eternal Vigilance
- Individuals Have the Right to Own Guns
- How to promote freedom in Utah
- State Sanctioned Marriage: Rendering Unto Caesar That Which Is God's
- A Forgotten Focal Point in the Book of Mormon
- Gun-Free Zones: A Vacuum of Logic and Lawful Defense
- Confessions of a RINO
- Promoting Measures to Maintain and Strengthen the Family
- Where the Political Battle Lines Lie
- How Latter-day Saints Can Create Zion
- Am I a Satan-Supporting Raving Lunatic Engaging in Priestcraft?
- Why an Obama Re-Election May Be Best for the Cause of Liberty
- On Sullying Mormonism
- Why Ron Paul Republicans Won't Vote for Romney
- Individual Liberty Requires Personal Responsibility
- View extended list »
- The Consistency of Christian Character
- On the Necessity of Repentance
- Why the Latter-day Saints Prepare
- The Family: A Proclamation to the World
- For the Strength of Youth—Service to Others
- For the Strength of Youth—Honesty
- For the Strength of Youth—Music and Dance
- For the Strength of Youth—Entertainment and Media
- For the Strength of Youth—Family
- Inviting the Savior Into Our Home Through Worship
- Arresting the Decay of Society with the Holy Ghost
- May 2013 (1)
- April 2013 (2)
- March 2013 (3)
- February 2013 (1)
- January 2013 (2)
- December 2012 (2)
- November 2012 (3)
- October 2012 (2)
- September 2012 (5)
- August 2012 (3)
- July 2012 (4)
- June 2012 (4)
- May 2012 (3)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (6)
- February 2012 (5)
- January 2012 (6)
- December 2011 (4)
- November 2011 (5)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (2)
- August 2011 (3)
- July 2011 (2)
- June 2011 (6)
- May 2011 (4)
- April 2011 (3)
- March 2011 (4)
- February 2011 (4)
- January 2011 (6)
- December 2010 (4)
- November 2010 (4)
- October 2010 (4)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (8)
- July 2010 (4)
- June 2010 (6)
- May 2010 (4)
- April 2010 (6)
- March 2010 (5)
- February 2010 (6)
- January 2010 (7)
- December 2009 (8)
- November 2009 (8)
- October 2009 (7)
- September 2009 (8)
- August 2009 (6)
- July 2009 (8)
- June 2009 (6)
- May 2009 (8)
- April 2009 (7)
- March 2009 (8)
- February 2009 (8)
- January 2009 (10)
- December 2008 (10)
- November 2008 (12)
- October 2008 (13)
- September 2008 (10)
- August 2008 (8)
- July 2008 (9)
- June 2008 (10)
- May 2008 (7)
- April 2008 (9)
- March 2008 (12)
- February 2008 (10)
- January 2008 (11)
- December 2007 (11)
- November 2007 (14)
- October 2007 (12)
- September 2007 (10)
- August 2007 (20)
- July 2007 (7)
- June 2007 (13)
- May 2007 (21)
- April 2007 (23)
- March 2007 (26)
- February 2007 (23)
- January 2007 (29)
- December 2006 (33)
- November 2006 (55)
- October 2006 (62)
- September 2006 (27)
- August 2006 (32)
- July 2006 (68)
- June 2006 (26)