July 2, 2013

"Mitt Romney Voted Against 2012 Run In Family Poll."

"Over the Christmas break of 2010, Mitt Romney and his family took an internal poll on whether he should run for president once more...."

85 comments:

ricpic said...

Go away...just...go away.

ricpic said...

And that goes double for any bushy tailed Bush.

Dave said...

Bachmann - Palin 2016

Drago said...

Jackson - Pelosi 2016

Revenant said...

Hard to argue with that. I voted against him, too.

Dave said...

Which Jackson, Drago?

harrogate said...

"Meanwhile, Clint Eastwood's primetime address to an empty chair caught Romney's team completely off guard -- which one Romney adviser confirmed to The Huffington Post.

'He did just what he said he did,' said the aide, 'came up with the whole thing just as he went on stage. Utterly unimaginable.'"

Priceless for many reasons.

mccullough said...

His reason for running was that the other Republican candidates weren't good. That is actually a good reason to run.

Dave said...

Clint's movie "Trouble with Curve" was pretty good - sort of the traditionalists answer to Moneyball.

Tom said...

And that's why he lost. Because when it was time to go for the throat, he let Candy Crowely get in the way.

One of my professors work for George H W Bush both at the CIA and in the White House. And this prof said that after Bush was tricked into raising taxes and betrayed by the Democrats, he simply didn't want to be President any more. It opened the door for Perot and then Clinton won.


edutcher said...

Someone who thought of people besides himself.

Nah, we don't want him, let's take the sociopath who thinks he's ready to be POTUS after 4 years in the Senate.

BTW, so much fiction comes out of the WaPo, why should we believe this guy?

harrogate said...

Meanwhile, Clint Eastwood's primetime address to an empty chair caught Romney's team completely off guard -- which one Romney adviser confirmed to The Huffington Post.

Mr Yates himself said it was kind of a last minute thing, genius.

Tom said...

And that's why he lost. Because when it was time to go for the throat, he let Candy Crowely get in the way.

Christ, what nonsense!

What was he supposed to do, smack her in the mouth and call her a liar?

Bigfoot said she had the transcript there (she lied, of course) and he was wrong.

What should he have done?

Revenant said...

His reason for running was that the other Republican candidates weren't good. That is actually a good reason to run.

Only if *he* was a good candidate, which he was not.

Drago said...

Dave: "Which Jackson, Drago?"

Jesse? Tito? Jermaine? ...Browne?

Doesn't matter really.

Revenant said...

What should he have done?

Something along the lines of "Oh, you have the transcript there? What a handy coincidence! Go ahead and read it for us, will you?"

Then again, he was probably caught off-guard by Crowley's stunt. It never ceases to amaze me how Republican candidates act surprised when ambushed by Democratic media figures. They're your enemies, guys, smarten up.

Drago said...

Revenant: "Only if *he* was a good candidate, which he was not."

He thought he was.

It's always about self-selection.

I don't blame Romney for running (twice).

I'm for a large field which can be winnowed.

If there is someone you prefer, talk them into running.

If they won't, well, then you go to "war with the military you have", not the one you wish you had.

rcocean said...

"Meanwhile, Clint Eastwood's primetime address to an empty chair caught Romney's team completely off guard -- which one Romney adviser confirmed to The Huffington Post"

So the one high-point of the convention not due to the Romney Team.

Well, at least they were consistent in their incompetence.

Drago said...

Revenant: "Then again, he was probably caught off-guard by Crowley's stunt. It never ceases to amaze me how Republican candidates act surprised when ambushed by Democratic media figures. They're your enemies, guys, smarten up"

Could not agree more.

edutcher said...

Revenant said...

His reason for running was that the other Republican candidates weren't good. That is actually a good reason to run.

Only if *he* was a good candidate, which he was not.


He was beating Der Fuhrer down to the last weeks when the Miracle of Sandy happened, giving the Choom Gang time to crank up the vote fraud machine.

Revenant said...

If there is someone you prefer, talk them into running.

I preferred Gary Johnson, the only small-government candidate in the race who wasn't Ron Paul.

He ended up running as a Libertarian, so I got to vote for him anyway. :)

Revenant said...

He was beating Der Fuhrer down to the last weeks when the Miracle of Sandy happened, giving the Choom Gang time to crank up the vote fraud machine.

Yawn.

Dave said...

"edutcher said...He was beating Der Fuhrer down to the last weeks when the Miracle of Sandy happened, giving the Choom Gang time to crank up the vote fraud machine."

No - he was never ahead. Like it or not the most accurate predictor Nate Silvers 538 showed the race getting tighter for a while, but Romney never led. The Obama campaign was just better...

The Crack Emcee said...

""Mitt Romney Voted Against 2012 Run In Family Poll.""

He probably thought his time was better spent running the ol' supplement scam.

Shame he couldn't be president with that kind of experience and integrity,...

mccullough said...

Who buys these election books, anyway? Better yet, who would publish it?

harrogate said...

mcculough,

Man, I always wonder the same thing. Apparently people do buy them though because they sure as hell keep getting published. It just strikes me as silly to buy and read this shit, but hey, to each their own.

Drago said...

rocean: "Well, at least they were consistent in their incompetence."

Too true.

Their entire GOTV operations (strategy/policies/processes/systems) was a complete cluster from day 1.

This only came out after the election but there were some people sounding the alarm ahead of time.

For one of the better treatments of that total cluster you can go over to Ace of Spades HQ and look up "Orca".

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Rev wanted somebody who couldn't get out of the starting gate and then bitches about what happened.

Dave said...

He was beating Der Fuhrer down to the last weeks when the Miracle of Sandy happened, giving the Choom Gang time to crank up the vote fraud machine.

No - he was never ahead. Like it or not the most accurate predictor Nate Silvers 538 showed the race getting tighter for a while, but Romney never led. The Obama campaign was just better...


Oh, Christ, Silver was a shill for the Gray Lady, and by extension, Choom.

And, of course, Silver's numbers in the race had nothing to do with the NSA surveillance at the time or the IRS intimidation or the vote fraud.

No, it was Choom, all the way. That's why he didn't have an acceptance speech ready election Night.

That was why they had to have people from Chicago bused in to WI or voting machines that flipped every tenth Romney vote to Choom.

Revenant said...

Rev wanted somebody who couldn't get out of the starting gate and then bitches about what happened.

I bitch about "what happened"? That's nice and vague. What's the happening I allegedly bitch about? :)

garage mahal said...

Then again, he was probably caught off-guard by Crowley's stunt. It never ceases to amaze me how Republican candidates act surprised when ambushed by Democratic media figures.

The "stunt" was actually a simple correction. Romney was stupid enough to buy and repeat shit from conservative blogs as truth. Never a good bet.

somefeller said...

Even in their home, the Romneys were victims of skewed polls.

harrogate said...

somefeller,

Nice one.

edutcher said...

No, but the skew was everywhere else.

And the surveillance (gonna deny that?), and the intimidation (or that?), and the vote fraud (there was no vote fraud, right?).

Kinda makes the Gray Lady look like a soiled old whore.

somefeller said...

Harrogate, thank you. It is important for people commenting here to make sure others feel valued and validated, and I thank you for such valuing and validation.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote;
Only if *he* was a good candidate, which he was not.

As bad as he may have been, you can't possibly think he was worse than Obama. But that was your choice.
You chose poorly.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:
I preferred Gary Johnson, the only small-government candidate in the race who wasn't Ron Paul.

He ended up running as a Libertarian, so I got to vote for him anyway. :)

and where is Gary Johnson these days? Pumping Gas?

jr565 said...

If Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate how could you possibly say that Ron Paul or Gary Johnson were good candidates. Mitt Romney got almost half the votes of the country. Ron Paul couldnt' even get out of the republican primary. And got trounced by Mitt. And Gary Johnson got like a million votes.
1 % of the electorate. You guys were THIS close to taking the White House.

Republicans should be wary to ever trust libertarians. Because when faced with a second term of Obama they choose to endorse people who will be lucky to get 1% of the vote.



edutcher said...

PS Anent Drago's claim about ORCA, funny how some people are revisiting that in light of the NSA shenanigans.

Couldn't be something was arranged with Google, could it?

Of course not.

PPS I see the Baghdad Bob of Althouse is still playing with himself.

Keep it up, you may yet convince somebody other than yourself that the Gray Lady really does watch out for people's rights.

Non-Leftist people's rights, that is.

Ctmom4 said...

Romney brought the Marquis of Queensbury rules to a knife fight. He is a moral man; Obama has none. Winning was everything to Obama - by any means, no slander too egregious, no mud too muddy, no morals , no scruples.

jr565 said...

In respons to :

"His reason for running was that the other Republican candidates weren't good. That is actually a good reason to run. "
Revenant wrote:
"Only if *he* was a good candidate, which he was not."

so then why did Gary Johnson and Ron Paul run?

jr565 said...

Here's a joke for libertarians:
"One day, while an elephant was walking through the woods, she got a thorn stuck in her foot. She saw an ant passing and asked him to help her get the thorn out.

The ant asked, "What do I get in return?"

The elephant replied, "If you get it out, I'll have sex with you."

So the ant gets busy taking the thorn out. When he finally gets it out he looks up at the elephant and says "OK it's out, are you ready?".

The elephant thinks, "Hey, what's a little ant gonna do anyways?" The ant climbs up and starts to work away. Just then a monkey overhead drops a coconut on the elephant's head.

"Ouch" screams the elephant, and the ant responds, "Yeah take it all bitch."

Libertarians are the ant. Delusions of grandeur.

harrogate said...

edutcher,

Again here you are getting all a'blubber. Just stop caterwauling for a sec and breathe. Despite getting shredded again today alone by the site hostess, and by multiple commenters, we know you are valued. You know all kinds of things and have so very much to teach!

jr565 said...

And Gary Johnson ran the most successful Libertarian campaign in the party's history. And he got 1 million votes.
Well congratulations on that.

Tom said...

Edutcher said...

Tom said...

And that's why he lost. Because when it was time to go for the throat, he let Candy Crowely get in the way.

Christ, what nonsense!

What was he supposed to do, smack her in the mouth and call her a liar?

Bigfoot said she had the transcript there (she lied, of course) and he was wrong.

What should he have done?

----------------------------------------


When it happened he couldn't do anything. But he should have anticipated it. Now, you may say that's asking a lot and required being ruthless. But ask yourself, would have Reagan or Clinton anticipated and had a plan?

Look, I supported Mitt and thought he was far superior to Obama. But there is something animalistic the way we elect president and if you don't know the game you're playing, how do you win?! Mitt didn't know and he lost.


That said, I'm kinda glad he kept his dignity and integrity. Those just happen to no longer be criteria to be president.

edutcher said...

Wassa matta, harro?

The idea of President Asteriskworry all the little trolls?

It should.

What's happening in Egypt can happen here.

Revenant said...

so then why did Gary Johnson and Ron Paul run?

To promote their philosophies of government.

Michael K said...

Blogger garage mahal said...

Then again, he was probably caught off-guard by Crowley's stunt. It never ceases to amaze me how Republican candidates act surprised when ambushed by Democratic media figures.

" The "stunt" was actually a simple correction. Romney was stupid enough to buy and repeat shit from conservative blogs as truth. Never a good bet."

I'll even bet you believe that. You swallow anything Obama puts out, no matter how slimey.

Obama got the transcript to Crowley. He knew she had it and knew she was primed to see it his way. Romney didn't know because that was against the rules of the debates.

You get to live with the consequences of your vote. I'm old enough that I won't have to as they will go one for many years. At least Roosevelt wanted the US to do well, even if he didn't know how to do it.

edutcher said...

OT, but hey, it's the sort of thing we're talking about:

The prosecutor in the Zimmerman case has been indicted for falsifying the arrest warrant and complaint.

Looking more like Choom's kind of people the further we go.

Revenant said...

where is Gary Johnson these days?

The same place Mitt Romney is: "not in the White House". :)

They're both retired zillionaire businessmen, of course, so I doubt either one's exactly hurting.

somefeller said...

Edutcher, according to your link, the prosecutor was indicted by a self-appointed "citizens grand jury", not a real one. Some while you can call that an indictment if you want, it isn't one by any normal legal usage of the word.

That having been said, your comments are valued and validated. Thank you for participating in this discussion.

Revenant said...

If Mitt Romney was a terrible candidate how could you possibly say that Ron Paul or Gary Johnson were good candidates. Mitt Romney got almost half the votes of the country.

He was a terrible candidate for a variety of reasons.

On the one hand he ran against a sitting President whose signature accomplishments were unpopular with the public, during a bad economy the President had done nothing to help... and still lost. He was handed the Presidency on a silver platter and couldn't close the deal. Yeah yeah, whine whine, the media was mean to him... and to every other fuckin' Republican candidate since Herbert Hoover. Get new material.

On the other hand he is the antithesis of the "small government conservative" model you guys like to claim you support when you're trying to con the voters into handing you the reigns of power. Had he been a less incompetent campaigner and actually managed to win election we just would have had four more years of yet another President growing the government, shitting all over the Constitution, and doing nothing to solve our problems.

This is why you Mittheads are so enraged at your loss. You sold out every principle you claim to hold and still got your asses kicked. Sure, my candidate lost by a lot more than yours, but who cares? There's no difference between second place and millionth place in the American electoral system.

In the incredibly unlikely event that Johnson won he would have been an actually good President. Your guy would have been Obama Junior and you know it. There's nothing more pathetic than a man who sells out and still loses.

garage mahal said...

Obama got the transcript to Crowley. He knew she had it and knew she was primed to see it his way. Romney didn't know because that was against the rules of the debates.

Even if that were true it just makes Romney and the conservative media that was telling that silly lie look even more ridiculous.

Revenant said...

At the end of a speech in which Obama described the Benghazi attacks as a reaction to defamation of Islam, he said "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

That can certainly be spun as "he called it an act of terror", but it is not the moderator's job to spin or to fact-check. Were she going to fact check, she ought to have checked both candidates -- Obama's description of Romney's op-ed, for example, was rated as a whopper of a lie by most fact-checking sites, but Crowley let it pass. Hm. :)

gadfly said...

State after state, with the help of Romney money, voted Romney in despite his always changing politics and his liberal bias and inclinations. After Palin bailed there was but one candidate with a true conservative record worth running on - but Newt blew it when he attacked Bain.

WTF! The GOP Ruling Class wanted handsome Mitt and so we ended up with "teh won."

madAsHell said...

Really????....this is journalo-ism at it's worst.

Writ Small said...

I've been thinking about the three main ideologies a bit in terms of the personality temperaments that moves a person to align with one. I'm sure this isn't original, but these are my musings.

The Democratic party has been called the "mommy" party, and that makes sense. Its members are driven by compassion. They want to comfort the oppressed. The want everyone treated fairly. They are anti-violence and think talking things out can solve most problems. People who go overboard with this ideology can lose all judgment in an overdone effort ensure "fair" outcomes. See Affirmative Action.

The Republicans are the "dad" party. They see the world as a dangerous place and seek to protect the family through strength and are ready to do violence when necessary. They put responsibility far ahead of compassion and want people to do for themselves. They admire self-reliance and despise dependency. People who go overboard in this ideology are overly tribal, which can lead to bigotry.

Libertarians are most aligned with the child. Above all, they want freedom to do what they want and not have anyone tell them what they can do. All forms of authority are to be resisted. All moral standards are to be challenged. One's responsibility is to oneself. Libertarians tend to have highly idealized views that often prove tragic when applied to real world situations. See Snowden, Edward. They are rarely trusted with power, and often fail as leaders because their own mistrust of authority leads to indecision. The term "Losertarian" sounds pejorative but reflects that they very rarely, if ever, win.

Mitt was a kind of classic "Dad" candidate. Like Reagan, he believed in reducing the influence of government on business. He had faith in the free market, competition and in American ingenuity. He was unapologetic about the American military as a force for good in the world and understood that military strength flows from the fiscal sort. He wanted to reduce dependence on government programs for the able-bodied, but keep protections in place for the truly needy.

On the other hand, he was also the awkward "Dad" who told groaners and was embarrassingly uncool. Having wielded power, he knew compromise was an inevitability and that made him unattractive to purists.

In the end the contrast was stark, but Americans grown a little too comfortable and touch fearful in the protective arms of "extend unemployment benefits" Obama said no to "get a job" Romney. Sometimes the voter falls short of the task.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

Edutcher, according to your link, the prosecutor was indicted by a self-appointed "citizens grand jury", not a real one. Some while you can call that an indictment if you want, it isn't one by any normal legal usage of the word.

"Some while"?

You need to lay off the sauce if you're going to go to your "job" at the "office" in the morning.

And you may want to check this out when/if you sober up.

What the establishment says and what may actually exist are not always the same.

I Callahan said...

Republicans should be wary to ever trust libertarians. Because when faced with a second term of Obama they choose to endorse people who will be lucky to get 1% of the vote.

jr, I agree with you in principle, but how else do you send a message to the GOP to stop sending RINO's, if you keep voting for those RINO's?

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:
To promote their philosophies of government.

always the philosopher, never the leader.
You know what also promotes philosophies in govt. getting someone in power. And if that's not possible, getting someone in power who's more amenable to listening to your philosophy who can actually lead.

Those who can, do. Those who,can't promote their philosophies of govt (and act as spoilers to elections)

But this is the problem with libertarians. They are dealing with philosophy when four more years of Obama is the reality. Gary Johnson isn't teaching much about govt philosophy now is he?
Its like they'd rather stay in the ivory tower where there philosophy remains pure than get their hands dirty and in so doing compromise, but also lead (and in so doing change the direction of the country in the direction they want)

machine said...

So he was stomped twice!

Hahahahahahaha.....ya burnt!

jr565 said...

I Callahan,
Romney wasnt a RINO so much as a squish. I actually had no problem supporting him (and maybe that's because I'm not right wing enough to demand absolute purity). But I do know this. If you get a Romney into the White House, he'd be far more amenable to Tea Party arguments than an Obama. So, even if he comes in as a squish, the base can push him in directions that they couldn't do to an Obama.

If he even ran govt from the center and not the right, that's better than having govt run front the left.

And on the economy he wasnt bad. If he was a big govt conservative he wasn't biggest govt liberal.

He wasnt a RINO like a Lincoln Chaffee was a RINO, or Bloomberg is a RINO, or even like McCain is a RINO. And even there, I would have taken a McCain over Obama. (But not a Lincoln chaffee)
But if you what to know how to keep the RINO in line. One way is to not elect them. But then you have to deal with his opposition who is usually worse. The other way is to elect him, and then hold his feet to the fire. Do you want our support, mr president? Then you better not f us on these core points or you won't get our vote on reelection and you won't get our support when you want to implement your great RINO project. Or even better, if you think you're going to pass that RINO project you're going to lose 1/3 of your base.

MCD said...

I voted for Romney. On the plus side, he lived his principles, he had a good management record, he was respected by people who had dealt with him, and he seemed pragmatic, willing to confront the nation's problems and work with Congress.

On the negative side, he was a little stiff (years in big business have that effect on people), and the nation would be called racist if the first black president were not re-elected.

I thought Romney would do a better job. I'm sorry he lost.

MCD said...

I voted for Romney. On the plus side, he lived his principles, he had a good management record, he was respected by people who had dealt with him, and he seemed pragmatic, willing to confront the nation's problems and work with Congress.

On the negative side, he was a little stiff (years in big business have that effect on people), and the nation would be called racist if the first black president were not re-elected.

I thought Romney would do a better job. I'm sorry he lost.

edutcher said...

machine said...

So he was stomped twice!

Hahahahahahaha.....ya burnt!


It's not stomped if it was stolen.

PS Choom pushes ObamaTax back again to avoid blowing another election.

NSA, IRS, lowest rating ever.

Everywhere in Africa, he's told to go home.

Ya burnt.

Joe Schmoe said...

If you think Gary Johnson cost Mitt the race, then you don't understand simple math. If all GJ votes go to Mitt, Mitt still loses.

If you think third party candidates influence presidential elections to the point where they change outcomes, then you should kiss Ralph Nader full on the lips for keeping Al Gore and John Kerry out of the White House.

Joe Schmoe said...

Libertarians are most aligned with the child. Above all, they want freedom to do what they want and not have anyone tell them what they can do. All forms of authority are to be resisted. All moral standards are to be challenged. One's responsibility is to oneself. Libertarians tend to have highly idealized views that often prove tragic when applied to real world situations.

You could've just said "I don't like libertarianism", although a more accurate statement would be "I don't understand libertarianism and I suffer from much of the same misinformation as the media."

Marshal said...

MCD said...
I voted for Romney. On the plus side, he lived his principles, he had a good management record, he was respected by people who had dealt with him, and he seemed pragmatic, willing to confront the nation's problems and work with Congress.

On the negative side, he was a little stiff (years in big business have that effect on people), and the nation would be called racist if the first black president were not re-elected.

I thought Romney would do a better job. I'm sorry he lost.


I was optimistic that he would apply his experience as a turnaround manager. What we need, and have basically never had, is someone to push these bloated agencies to cut their fat. The people involved simply take their core structure & responsibilities as a given and thus fail to understand the savings opportunities.

Obviously it's not a given he would sufficiently prioritize this or that the bureaucrats would not be successful in thwarting it. But at least there was the possibility of success. Electing Obama meant a guaranteed push toward further fiscal decline.

That's why self-serving justifications like "[Romney] would have been Obama Junior and you know it" are miles from truthful.

jr565 said...

If you think Gary Johnson cost Mitt the race, then you don't understand simple math. If all GJ votes go to Mitt, Mitt still loses.


That's if you count the popular vote. If you him on a state by state level, where the margin of difference is small, the difference could have meant that Romney wins a state that he lost.
And even if it didnt turn the election, we don't know the vote count until after the votes are counted. And yet libertarians voted for their candidate anyway, even though only Mitt Romney was the only guy who stood a chance to beat Obama. Gary Johnson was not in the running. So, no excuse.

Baron Zemo said...

Electing Rhinos does not work. What it does is give cover to the liberal Dems when they foist stuff like this new amnesty bill. Even if they get one or two Republicans they claim it as a bi-partisan bill.

Rhinos are not loyal. You can't count on them. Fuck em.

Joe Schmoe said...

jr565, show me a state then where Johnson cost Mitt electoral votes. I can't, because it didn't happen.

Your herd mentality when it comes to voting flies in the face of the freedom to vote for whomever you want to, a freedom that I'd gather you support in theory but not in practice. Don't give me this whining and lack of accountability, either; if the candidate you liked was good enough, he or she would've won. Anyone can vote for any damn person they want, be they a Dem, GOP, or a damn write-in vote.

Thorley Winston said...

I too supported Romney (both in 2008 and 2012) as the best candidate. The guy has a track record of (a) generally making things better than they were before he got there and (b) delivering as much or more than what he promised he’d deliver. I’ll take that over ideological purity with no track record of results twice a day and three times on Sunday.


Joe Schmoe said...

While I'm here, let me offer up an alternative version of libertarians to Writ Small.

The libertarian mother and father love their family and view it as the most important building block of the community. They both pitch in to make the best home that they can for their children, and they actively participate in all aspects of their children's development. Rather than bitching about how bad schools are, the libertarian parents participate and volunteer in school activities when they can, because they see it as their responsibility to help make their community the best that it can be. Yes, they make it a point of pride to be self-sufficient, but their concept of local community is so strong, and their compassion for their neighbors so strong, that they are willing to help someone out at a moment's notice because they know their neighbors would welcome a friendly face rather than some government-assigned stranger with no connection to them. They care deeply, and they don't want to depend on faceless bureaucrats thousands of miles away making decisions that can so dramatically affect the quality of their local communities. They value true freedom, and they don't proselytize their values on others because they respect other people's right to think what they want. They don't advocate a policy of every man, woman and child for themselves; they just want their community to be as locally-controlled as possible. They respect the rule of law, but they don't feel unnecessary laws should be passed as a way to favor some groups over others.

Revenant said...

Republicans should be wary to ever trust libertarians. Because when faced with a second term of Obama they choose to endorse people who will be lucky to get 1% of the vote.

The answer to the statement "libertarians need to support the Republican candidate to keep the Democratic candidate out of the White House is "Republicans need to support the libertarian candidate to keep the Democratic candidate out of the White House.

Sure, you outnumber us but so what? Democrats outnumber you. If the sanity of a political position was determined by its number of adherents there would never be any reason to vote Republican.

Revenant said...

You could've just said "I don't like libertarianism", although a more accurate statement would be "I don't understand libertarianism and I suffer from much of the same misinformation as the media."

His choice of metaphor is telling, though. If the Republican Party is "Dad" and the Democratic Party is "Mom", what that tells us is that Democrats and Republicans see *themselves* as children. They're looking to someone else to make the moral and financial decisions for them, to keep them safe, and to provide them with necessities.

Libertarians view themselves as adults. Elected officials aren't mommy and daddy surrogates; they're employees we hire to do things for us. The person responsible for making our moral choices, financial decisions, et al, is... us.

That's how adults are supposed to think. That's why we call them "adults", not "big kids".

jr565 said...

Joe Shmoe wrote:

jr565, show me a state then where Johnson cost Mitt electoral votes. I can't, because it didn't happen.

Your herd mentality when it comes to voting flies in the face of the freedom to vote for whomever you want to, a freedom that I'd gather you support in theory but not in practice. Don't give me this whining and lack of accountability, either; if the candidate you liked was good enough, he or she would've won. Anyone can vote for any damn person they want, be they a Dem, GOP, or a damn write-in vote.

I didn't say you COULDN'T vote for who you wanted. I just said you were stupid for doing so. And the candidate you voted for didn't win either, so I guess that means he wasnt good enough either?

You wasted your vote. For nothing.

jr565 said...

Joe Shmoe here's something for you to peruse:
"Romney’s margin of loss to President Obama in five states – the swing states Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire, and the dyed-blue Connecticut – were less than the number of votes Paul won during the Republican primary, shows political news website Policymic.

In Florida alone, President Obama defeated Romney by 46,000 votes while Paul got more than 117,000 votes in the primary. If only 40-percent of these Ron Paul Republicans stayed home on Election Day, it would have been enough to cost Romney the state and its 29 electoral votes.

Similar scenarios can be seen in the other states, whose combined 71 electoral votes would have been a game changer, giving Romney the presidency by a slim 277-261 victory over the President."


- See more at: Ron Paul effect may have cost Romney election

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

And here for you , Joe Shmoe:
here's an article from before the election showing how Gary Johnson would act as a spoiler in key states.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/gov-gary-johnson-could-cost-romney-5-battleground-states-74-electoral-votes-need

Ad it looks like it came to pass. Thanks for four more years of Obama care. Was the author psychic?. Or was this just common sense that only libertarians couldn't grok.

This happened once before with liberals when Nader took key votes from Al Gore and Bush walked away with the election.

And the. next time he wanted to run both Bill Maher and Michael Moore got on their hands and knees and begged him not to run, and not act as a spoiler again. Because the stakes were so high for the liberal cause (ie 4 more years of Bush).
Why can liberals learn this lesson but libertarians can't ?

You really taught the conservatives a lesson about purity. And what does that lesson look like? 4 more years of Obama.
Enjoy it.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

And by the way, you,libertarians are going to keep wandering in the wilderness. You can act as spoilers and keep electing democrats, but you are so fringe you will not get mainstream repubs to vote for you unless you become moderates.


If Rand Paul becomes the nominee I'll be sure to return the favor. Even if it means 4 years of Hillary.

jr565 said...

And by the way Joe Shmoe. Look at the comments in the link I provided from the libertarians. They acknowledge that they may have cost the election for Romney. Ad that was the point.
It was more important to teach republicans a lesson for dissing Ron Paul than to defeat Obama. Even though no one is griping more about Obama than the fucking libertarians. Well you got your victory, now enjoy the reward.

jr565 said...

Libertarians are lefty on foreign policy and righty on fiscal policies. As such they are stuck between both parties. At some point they'll have to choose one or just vote for principle and be content never taking the White House.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:
The answer to the statement "libertarians need to support the Republican candidate to keep the Democratic candidate out of the White House is "Republicans need to support the libertarian candidate to keep the Democratic candidate out of the White House.

Sure, you outnumber us but so what? Democrats outnumber you. If the sanity of a political position was determined by its number of adherents there would never be any reason to vote Republican.


Libertarians don't have to support republicans, yet libertarians are supposedly fiscal conservatives and small govt. If the greatest expansion of govt EVER isn't enough to get you guys to not throw away your vote and vote for a guy who can't win, then you are a lost cause.

Revenant said...

here's an article from before the election showing how Gary Johnson would act as a spoiler in key states.

The word you're desperately searching for is "could", not "would".

The five states the LP predicted Johnson *could* "spoil" were North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado. Romney won North Carolina. In the other four states Obama's margin of victory exceeded Johnson's total votes.

And it looks like it came to pass.

You fail at basic arithmetic.

Revenant said...

Libertarians are lefty on foreign policy and righty on fiscal policies.

The "lefty" position on foreign policy is "war is great so long as America doesn't get anything out of it". :)

The libertarian foreign policy is the foreign policy George Bush claimed to have in 2000: opposed to nation-building, "humanitarian" invasions, and non-defensive wars in general. This happens to be the position held by most Americans at the moment; the last twelve years of continual war have worn people out.

Smaller government and less war -- if you think that's a fringe position among the electorate, you really need to watch something besides Fox and MSNBC. :)

Revenant said...

If the greatest expansion of govt EVER isn't enough to get you guys to not throw away your vote and vote for a guy who can't win, then you are a lost cause.

"The greatest expansion of government ever" happened under George Bush, not Barack Obama -- Bush grew the government by almost 50% in inflation-adjusted dollars. Obama's great sin was to lock in the spending levels of Bush's final budget.