I caught parts of the debate last night thanks to Fox News live streaming it. I thought Romney missed a few golden opportunities to make Obama look bad; but on the whole he did very well. Romney was much more in control of the facts and Obama looked dejected. It had to be hard on his enormous ego. This morning the consensus seem to agree with my take. Even the MSNBC socialists were disappointed in Obama’s performance. If you havent seen this video, get over to Bunkerville and watch Chris Mathews go through a complete an utter meltdown. It is hilarious!
So, feeling a little upbeat this morning, I thought i would try to give a little more reason to feel good about Romney’s chances of winning this election. The polls have many of us worried. They show Obama ahead by a few percentage points in the popular vote; but more worrisome is that he is shown to be leading, in some cases by a significant margin, in crucial swing states. As I said in this post, I don’t buy what these polls are selling. On November 6, I see Romney channeling Reagan and Obama channeling Dewey. However, we must be concerned that this election could be close, especially in the Electoral College tally. I know that many of my conservative friends are worried that our libertarian friends could deny Romney the election by them voting third party, Gary Johnson. This is what I want to talk about today.
I have a number of libertarian blogger friends. One you know of is Brian at Frankenstein Government. Most of you know that although I am not a libertarian, I am within spitting distance of being one. Brian and I agree on many if not most things. Where we sometimes differ is not in the analysis of the problem but in the solution. Brian is going to vote for Gary Johnson. He has been fed up with both of our two principle parties for a long time. In his post linked above, he lays out his compelling reason for not being able to support the Republican Party or their candidate. He believes that the Republican party is just as corrupt as the Democratic Party and can not be reformed. He argues that the American voters have supported one or the other of these two parties forever and if they continue to do so they can expect to get the same bad results.
What we know doesn’t work- is going over the cliff. We have seen the results of that. I said that in 2000, 2004, 2008. I will say it again. Romney is not the solution. He is more of the same. The elite have given you your two selections. They don’t care who you vote for just so long as you vote for one of THEIR two candidates. The two party monopoly, which is really just a one party monopoly, is the greatest fraud ever foisted upon us. But I gotta say- it keeps working. Largely because of millions of people like this who simply can’t find the solution. They color the base of the cliff. Instead of solving the problem…they treat the symptoms…and thus the disease continues. Behold a carrier.
This is the comment I left for Brian with some minor editing for typos.
But, why do you put all the fault on the two-party system and the politicians and none on the electorate, Brian? The parties are run by a small group of elites because the majority of the electorate allows it to happen. They don’t get involved in the local and state and federal level of the parties and so have no input on who the candidates will be. We really do get the governments we deserve. I don’t see that the Libertarian party will be any different. You may be happy with their choice of candidate. But, how many people were actually involved in choosing that candidate. Was there a better option? The Libertarian Party is small and has a very active base. So, the percentage of party members involved in selecting your candidate was much higher than it was for the Democrats or Republicans. I predict that as the Libertarian party grows, the same thing will happen. It will be controlled by a small group of elites.
I’m just saying…
Now, I identified myself as a Republican for far too many years. I should have woken up after Nixon, But I didn’t wake up until after Bush II. I believe that the Tea Party movemnet’s efforts to reform the Republican Party is the best answer for America. Brian thinks it is to abandon the two party system and suppoert the Libertarian Party and in this election that means voting for Gary Johson. [ It will be interesting to watch the New Mexico results on election night. I lived many years in New Mexico. It has been a solid Democrat state for years. Yet, they elected Gary Johson as a Republican Governor and he was very popular. Because many of my Libertarian Party friends have said that they are drawing more people from the Democrats than the Republicans, there is a slight possiblity that Joson could pull enough votes in New Mexico to give the state to Romney. A very small chance I grant you.]
So, the question is: will the libertarians voting for Gary Johnson hurt Romney’s chances? Well, Bruce McQuain at Questions and Observations wrote about a recent CATO poll of likely libertarian voters and here is the result:
Romney 70%
Obama 13%
Johnson 14%
Other 3%
So, be of good cheer, my friends. This humble observer is still predicting a Romney victory. and, if you need even more reason to feel good, get over to Bunkerville and watch that Chis mathews video. It is priceless. As Bunker said, it does appear that Mathews has lost that tingle in his leg.
Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
Asylum Watch 
I’m all for standing by convictions as freedom-loving libertarians are wont to do. (I, too, slide across the line between conservative and libertarian). HOWEVER, this election is like no other in history. The Obama administration and his global governing string-pullers are taking our nation down a path from which we cannot recover unless we start putting the brakes on NOW. A vote for Gary Johnson or any third party candidate is a wasted vote and could potentially spell the doom for our nation. We NEED the libertarian vote to put Romney over the edge. I know the GOP really screwed up at the convention with their disdainful treatment of Ron Paul delegates. But punishing the party at the polls on Nov. 6 is throwing the baby out with the bath water. STOP OBAMA FIRST. Then get organizied and get focused on bringing libertarian and constitutional ideals to the process. You’ll have a much more receptive audience with Romney in the WH and a republican controlled congress than with Obama as commander-in-chief. Sometimes you have to be a realist first and an idealist second.
I’m gonna say it: Voting for Gary Johnson or even staying home on election day is a Selfish, prideful act.
“The Obama administration and his global governing string-pullers are taking our nation down a path from which we cannot recover unless we start putting the brakes on NOW. ”
BINGO! That is why we must send Obama packing, NOW!
Thanks for the link…I look forward to seeing where the polls head after last night. Frankly, I could not stand the thought of four more of him. Johnson is an issue. I will take Romney, warts and all .
Me too! I can’t wait to see what happens with the polls. I hope there were a lot of people tuned-in last night.
65 million not counting univision and telemundo!
Well, all right!!!
I don’t think Johnson will siphon many votes from Romney. He has no chance of winning.
I would like to see a strong Libertarian party, but they’ve got to build it from the ground up, electing county and state officials, growing candidates for bigger national offices. You don’t start at the top.
And Romney did an outstanding job last night. He poked a needle in Obama’s overinflated ego, didn’t he? heh heh heh…
I agree with you, Kurt. The LP has to start at the community level and work out and up from there.
The cupcake got his ass kicked.
Btw, I read that comment about Islam. Most excellent. I might steal it. Thanks.
Obummer looked really bad last night. I so enjoyed watching him squirm.
Lord Obama was dejected. That always happens to divine right monarchs when their cult is challenged.
His halo slipped down around his knees last night.
Jim, I whole heartily and by 110% agree with you in that, “. . . the Tea Party movement’s efforts to reform the Republican Party is the best answer for America.”
I go further. I have been a student of electoral systems throughout the world and their historical consequences. I can write a treatise, but here I will put it succinctly: the two-party electoral systems in a democracy have been the only successful systems – Great Britain (and some of their constitutional copies among their ex-colonies) and the United States. Most of the instability in Europe and third world countries that copy them I can place right at the doorstep of their proportional representation systems of their elections. Proportional representation breeds balkanization in the democratic process and provides the power of blackmail to parties with 1-2% representation in their parliaments. There is a lot more, but this suffices in this forum.
A third party is the first step to proportional representation and to chaos in the parliamentary representation of a democracy. Most of the time, proponents of proportional representation and third parties do not imagine the can of worms they are opening.
Exactly, John. How many government has Italy had since WWII?
First, I loved the debate last night… “trickle down government…” PRICELESS!!
Second, The choice in this election is Obama and entrenchment of progressivism, or Romney and a chance for free market capitalism to pull us out of this mess. It’s clear that Romney truly believes that it is free people in the free market that can create the wealth to right this foundering ship called our economy. He absolutely schooled Obama on free enterprise being the answer, not big government. There were some openings he didn’t take, but overall, he pounded Obama pretty good. Best of all, he did it in the debate where the topic was the most important to the electorate: Jobs and the economy.
Third, I’m basically a libertarian leaning, Tea Party leaning, Republican. I’m with the Tea Party and libertarians in saying government is far too big and fiscally irresponsible. I’m with the libertarians in a social outlook that says I don’t care what you do, so long as you’re not hurting me or mine, and it’s not the government’s job to socially engineer our society. I part company at that point with social conservatives… This is not to say I’m not in favor of many social conservative positions, it’s that I think communities and families have the responsibility to deal with the issues, not the government–particularly at the Federal level. In a center-right country (polls show that we are a majority center-right, if not right, country), I think that the “right” part of that equation is a belief in individual liberty and capitalism. The “center” part of that is all of those who have the belief in individual liberty, but don’t agree with the “far right” social views… the imposition of those views on society at large. Many die hard Democrats I know actually believe in individual liberty and capitalism, and they even think that the gravy train of government entitlements is disgusting and irresponsible, but the “religious right” type of social conservatism is so repellent to them that they vote for Dems and are open to believing the BS Dems put out about economics as well because of it. Now, I am fully aware that the “religious right” is actually a reaction to the hard left that wants to social engineer their principles through government. Which brings me back to the libertarian framework where social engineering of any kind is NOT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT. (Oh, I also lean Tea Party more than “Paulist libertarian” on security and the military… believing that in the world as it is we can’t just defend our borders, because our interests do not end at our own borders… however I do believe that security and military spending can be done much more wisely.) But, I vote Republican because I believe that the influence of the Tea Party, the impact of the “Great Recession”, and four years of Obama, are driving it toward a more Constitution-based, free market capitalism based, platform. In other words, it’s leaning Tea party and libertarian on some issues just like I am. This is a change. It wasn’t that way prior to 2008. I’d agree with libertarians who said there is little or no difference between the parties prior to 2008. But, just like 9/11 woke many of us up to the terrorist threat from radical Islamists, I think the crash of 2008 and the incredible debt and sweep toward progressivism of the Obama years has woken many Republicans, even the old guard, up to the fact that we need to get back to fundamentals. The only way to change direction is to elect a Republican and to keep working to make the Republican party align ever more closely with libertarian principles.
You have been a Romney man since the beginning, Pat. I was sure you were going to enjoy that debate. “Debate” doesn’t actually fit, does it. It was more like a lecture to a young child.
I believe you and Brian are incorrect on several accounts, and I credit myself in being a libertarian, too. There are light years difference between the parties, and sometimes we can talk about that. I agree we could use another party, but it is not realistic to presume that we will ever have a viable third party.
Three party elections have a miserable history in this country. Remember that if Ross Perot would not have run for President, we would have never had Bill Clinton to mess with. That alone should convince any rational person that voting for a third party candidate is usually a big mistake.
Voting for an ideology is not realistic.
You have left me confused, Bob. I understand why you disagree with Brian; but i am unclear on what you are disagreeing with me? If you are saying the Republican Party is not run but a snall group of elitest, I beg to disagree. If you are saying that the Republicans have not grown government over the years, I also beg to disagree. Of course the two parties are different in ideology but both are ruining this country. We do agree that a third party is not the way to go. And, I agree with John Galt’s comment that third parties can lead to multiple parties and coalition governments where small parties can get inordinent power from joining with a bigger party.
I see your point Bob. But I refer to the net effect. The net effect of both parties has been to expand the role of government in virtually everything and it is what will eventually ruin the US. Both parties expand the role of the state. They practice crony capitalism, They expand the welfare state. Welfare for the rich and elite (bankers, oil subsidies, 0 tax rates)….welfare for the not so rich.
All republics have failed Bob. So two party systems have a miserable track record as well.
As long as you think you must vote for one of these alleged parties, you will remain a hostage.
So what is realistic Bob? Continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result? Is that your idea of realistic? Like fighting the “drug” war? How long have we been wasting time and money on that shit? Or Afghanistan?
Romney is just one more elite, fat cat banker. He has voted ad nauseum for expanding the role of government. That’s his history. He is a statist. Libertarians don’t like statists, remember? However, following the greatest marxist that ever snuck his way into office is going to make squish Romney look like a real conservative.
So here’s my question to you Bob. What exactly is the difference between these parties? One takes my money and delivers it to the welfare state, the other takes my money and delivers it to the rich. Both expand statism. Both leave me poorer. Who am I supposed to like again?
frankenstein says, “the other [Republicans] takes my money and delivers it to the rich.”
Really? Wow, directly from the Obama campaign.
Not to disillusion your illusions with facts and numbers, but the Bush tax cuts of 2003 benefited the middle class – those under $150k the most – and, by the way, it increased revenue, let me repeat that, it increased revenue, as to bring annual deficits from $410 billion in 2003 to $190 billion in 2007. So much for the repeated lie ad-nauseam by Obama and the press that it was Bush policies that got us into the 2008 mess.
Now we have deficits of $1,300 Billion.
It’s a 100 year program of corporatism that Brian is probably referring to. The Bush family knows how to play that game all too well. Good Lord, it would take ages to go into the intense corporate backdealling with that one family alone. The middle class tax cut is a distraction from the huge amount of money that has been offshored via the Fed.
No matter who wins, the agenda will continue: mark my words. The only thing that will derail it is mass education leading to an East German type stand-down. It’s the height of ignorance to not understand how these people are all connected and what they hope to accomplish.
We have to try, rM! We may go down anyway but we have to try.
$160 billion in 2007, John. Then Pelosi/Reid took over and the next year had the biggest deficit of Bush’s term (he signed it), and in 2009 (which was Bush’s last budget year) those two never gave him a budget to sign. They passed continuing resolutions until Obama got in office and HE signed the 2009 budget, which was the first trillion dollar deficit and included the (non)stimulus.
Here’s a question for you… The 2009 budget with the “one time” stimulus had a deficit of $1,412 billion. 2010 supposedly didn’t contain the stimulus, but had a deficit of $1,293 billion, and 2011 which also didn’t contain the stimulus, had a deficit of $1,299. It would seem that only slightly more than $100 billion left the spending, but that the stimulus was supposedly a one time thing. Why didn’t $800 billion go away?
RM is right. None of that btw, has anything to do with Obama. I resent your inference.
Do the rich get “real” tax breaks? Sure that’s why Romney parks 25 mill in the Caymans. That’s why he paid 13% and I pay 20% on a measly 45k.
So John, how much has GE paid in 7 years on 180 billion in profits? ZERO.
The reason the tax code is slanted for the rich is because they like it that way. The reason Congress doesn’t change it is BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT THAT WAY.
So before you go shooting off your mouth- I didn’t benefit one bit by the Bush tax cuts. None of us did. We were already 10 trillion in debt when President Golf Game came to office and promptly burned through another 5.
Geezus, to hear you GOP statists tell the story- you’d think Bush was an angel. He was an elite silver spooned kid who finished at the bottom of his Yale class with a DUI or two. He made things real cozy for his cronies, abandoned the border so that they could get a real cheap labor force.
I too wish to see a more aggressive Romney. However, it’s just me. He definitely has a strategy there, and if he’s relatively non-intimidating, it’s on purpose. That Romney did well is only part of the picture, the other part is that O basically self-destructed.
Barry was very uncomfortable without his teleprompter, wasn’t he?
Romney helped himself enormously last night and now he needs to keep the pressure on all the way up to the election. I have read in several places that Johnson is pulling some votes away from Obama also so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
I see it the same way, Steve. The Libertarian Party is not going to hurt Romney, in my opinion.
After the debate I think Romney at least got a foot in the door of the White House. A couple of more like that and he’s in.
I’m thinking the same thing, rjjrdq.
While Romney is not the candidate I would have preferred to have by a long shot, and I welcome the opportunity to criticize his policies once he is elected, one would have to be truly blind to say that Romney is just more of the same, and that it does not make a difference who is elected. America stands on a precipice, and it desperately needs someone to walk it away from the cliff’s edge and back to some sort of sanity. While I do not have high hopes for a Romney administration, at least he will try to do that. Meanwhile, Obama is doing everything he can to push the country into the abyss.
” America stands on a precipice, and it desperately needs someone to walk it away from the cliff’s edge and back to some sort of sanity. While I do not have high hopes for a Romney administration, at least he will try to do that. Meanwhile, Obama is doing everything he can to push the country into the abyss.”
Well said, John. There is a big difference between the wo candidates and Romney is our best choice to but some time to move the country even further from the cliff.
One thing is certain in my mind: Romney is preferable as POTUS!
I had to watch the youtube video of the debate, if you can call it that. I still saw the moderator trying to cut Romney off, so he was trying to run defense for Obama, as best he could. I saw a very unhappy Obama that was off his game and I saw Romney as very at ease. Wish he had elaborated a bit more, but I doubt he would have been allowed to. Obama really had nothing to run on, so he had empty words. I did see alot of glaring and jaw clenching going on and trying to keep under control, can imagine what he wanted to say. Now we have the media trying to make excused about him being off his game, oh well. If that is an issue with him, maybe he should not be in the White House, poor guy, he doesn’t do well under pressure without someone else feeding him his lines. I am more libertarian leaning, as well, but will not vote off the Republican party, in my opinion it will throw the vote to Obama and that is not acceptible. Romney was not my first pick either, but at some point we have to consider our options and Obama is NOT an option I am willing to settle for.
I read that sixty million or more people watched the debate. Thast is good! Yet, it is the other sixty million voters we have to worry about.