5 Reasons Why Conservatives Should Root For a Romney Defeat

He won't stop socialized medicine and will prolong the party's intellectual confusion.

Now that his five-state primary victory has all but assured Mitt Romney the Republican presidential nomination, the conservative commentariat will likely jump on the Romney bandwagon and try to steer it to the White House. Romney might have his flaws, it’ll argue, but he’s the lesser evil compared to Barack Obama, whose labor-friendly, green-obsessed, spendthrift, soak-the-rich ways will finish off what’s left of the economy.

Perhaps. But here are five reasons why Republicans—and the country—might be better off if Romney loses.

One: Smart folks are betting that the Supreme Court will outlaw the individual mandate but leave the rest of ObamaCare to Congress. Hence, one conservative argument for a Romney victory is that, combined with a GOP-controlled Congress, it’ll offer the last hope for repealing the law. But repeal is not an end in itself. The question is, can the GOP replace ObamaCare with sensible market-based reforms?

No.

Republicans are as loath as Democrats to eliminate the other poison pill in ObamaCare: forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, something that a majority of Americans support. Indeed, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has declared that, on this issue, “Republicans share some of the same goals as Democrats.” But the odds of Romney defying the party leadership and embracing a politically unpopular position are roughly the same as Hamas embracing Israel. Ronald Reagan might have. But Romney?

The most likely scenario is that President Romney and congressional Republicans will end up fighting with Democrats to wangle bigger subsidies for insurance companies to help them fulfill the mandate—not the mandate itself. A Republican administration will thus become complicit in turning insurance companies into regulated public utilities receiving government money and protection in exchange for providing a government-mandated service. This is halfway to socialized medicine—something conservatives are allegedly against, remember?

Two: Commentators like Michael Gerson maintain that precisely because Romney has been a serial flipper previously, he’ll be less likely to flop now on conservative issues. But Romney’s desperation to establish his street cred with the base is not a blessing when it comes to government spending.

He’s struck a distressingly bellicose tone on national defense, proclaiming that he wants a “military so powerful that no one would ever think of challenging it”—never mind that America already spends more on defense than the next 15 nations combined. To demonstrate his resolve, he has proposed to lock the Pentagon’s annual budget at a minimum of 4 percent of the GDP, regardless of the external threat environment. This works out to $2.5 trillion in additional spending over a decade, surpassing even Obamacare’s real price tag by about a trillion dollars.

But if he doesn’t “flop” on this promise, there’s no way he’ll be able to bargain entitlement spending cuts with Democrats—and he might well end up as big a spender as George W. Bush and Obama.

Three: Both the left and the right, according to the polls, are troubled by the fact that America is becoming a land of crony capitalism. No doubt that’s why Romney has been mouthing clumsy platitudes about how “you’ve got to stop the spread of crony capitalism” and striking a brave pose against the auto bailout.

But, tellingly, the financial bailout was just fine with him. That’s no coincidence. He is, after all, the ultimate Wall Street insider, receiving millions of dollars in subsidies and government handouts for companies he was trying to rescue as CEO of Bain Capital. He might not be running with the intention of helping his corporate pals, but it is inevitable that they’ll have his ear. Their interests and needs are far more comprehensible to him than, say, those of consumers. Witness his sabre-rattling against Chinese currency manipulation that would put the most ardent mercantalist  to shame. A devalued yuan is effectively a gift from Chinese taxpayers to American consumers who benefit from cheap Chinese imports. But it no doubt hurts some American businesses and for Romney what's good for business is good for the country. Someone less naturally suited to shutting the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington is hardly imaginable.

Four: If Romney wins this election, odds are he’ll automatically be the Republican nominee in 2016. Regardless of whether he wins then, this will effectively kill all prospects for putting a more serious Republican reformer (such as Wisconsin’s Rep. Paul Ryan) in the White House until 2020 or 2024. It might be far better to swallow hard and accept another Obama term to keep the path clear for a Republican more likely to deal with our fiscal and political dysfunction, rather than elect President Romney and block that possibility for another generation.

Five: The GOP is in a state of intellectual flux, illustrated perfectly by the ideological heterodoxy of its presidential field. Various strains representing different interests are fighting for the soul of the GOP: The neocons are duking it out with anti-war Paulistas. Social moderates are trying to wrest some space from pro-life religious conservatives. Deficits and debt worry everyone, but there is no consensus on entitlement reform. The GOP allegedly stands for the free market—but it has yet to figure out whether Bush’s financial bailout was right or wrong.

A visionless, rudderless, gaffe-prone presidency is the last thing that Republicans need right now. Having to defend Romney’s slips—he’s insulted 7-Eleven cookies, said he enjoys firing people, and announced he is not concerned about the very poor, and that’s just this year—will further contort the party’s soul. Four years of Romneyisms, all of which smack of elitism, will cement the image of the GOP as the out-of-touch party of the rich.

Better that the GOP remain in the political wilderness for another four years (and, hopefully, find itself) than have a Romney presidency prolong its intellectual and moral confusion.

Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia is a columnist for The Daily, where this column originally appeared.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John C. Randolph||

    You left out the single most important reason why Romney should never again hold any position of public trust: his depraved indifference towards human suffering. The video where he turned his back on a man who needs marijuana to stay alive shows as clearly as anything could, just how cold and evil Willard Romney truly is.

    -jcr

  • Suki||

    Putting a dog in a cage on the roof of an SUV is not "human suffering".

  • SIV||

    Pet parents disagree.

  • WWNGD?||

    If you call your pet "your baby" and you think you are a Mommy or a Daddy to a pet, you need to have your pet removed from you.

  • Rich||

    God love a duck! I'll be a monkey's uncle.

  • Raven Nation||

    Better yet, you should be removed from all contact with human society.

  • Bucky||

    how do you like the 'dog' of a presidency we've had so far...

  • wareagle||

    pet parents are the new reformed smokers on the totem poll of annoying people, taking douchebaggery to a new level. I have four kids and have had multiple pets. One big difference: the pets could replaced the next day; the kids never can be.

  • Raistlin||

    He only put it up there so Obama wouldn't eat it.

  • Suki||

    +100 ROFL

  • Brandon||

    Who said anything about a dog on the roof of an SUV?

  • Ed Zeppelin||

    Nobody needs marijuana to stay alive.

  • JohnD||

    John Randolph is a loon. No one needs MJ to "stay alive". And the single most important reason to vote FOR Romney.... To get Obama out of the WH.

  • John C. Randolph||

    No one needs MJ to "stay alive".

    Did you get your medical degree from Pompous Ass University?

    the single most important reason to vote FOR Romney.... To get Obama out of the WH.

    You're the loon if you think that will make any difference.

    -jcr

  • LloydRMc||

    You're in a hazy, purist, ideological wonderland if you think it won't. See my posts about the drilling ban, and the so-called recess appointments.

  • Drake||

    I don't know how to say this nicely - you are fucking retarded if you think the country is better off with Obama as President.

    Romney sucks and I don't like him, but Obama is far far worse.

  • Brian D||

    Depends on hos Congress goes. I fear an Obama Presidency with a Republican Congress less than I fear a Romney Presidency with a Republican Congress.

  • Matrix||

    +1

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Especially if SCOTUS kills Obamacare for us.

  • Major Pain||

    Don't worry about it. Romney is unelectable. The Dems won't vote for him; quite aside from his complete lack of personality, the platform is unacceptable to them. The swing voters won't vote for him; he's completely inarticulate, obviously and thoroughly disconnected from the majority, fumbles constantly and deeply in public (not what you want for the leader of the USA), and has untenable (and stupid) military plans.

    You're going to get another four years of Obama simply because the republicans couldn't offer a decent candidate.

    I rather suspect that Obama's 2nd term isn't going to greatly resemble his first, either. Should be interesting.

  • BarryD||

    Every reason you listed about Romney being unelectable, can be said of Obama.

    I no longer believe anyone is "unelectable".

  • Ed Zeppelin||

    Obama proves anyone can be elected President in the country.

  • Jessica||

    "You're going to get another four years of Obama simply because the republicans couldn't offer a decent candidate."

    You meant "wouldn't", right? Ron Paul is a more than decent candidate.

  • LloydRMc||

    "Electability" is a myth, and what makes you think Independents won't vote for him? They have left President Obama and other Democrats in droves (which is what drove the 2010 Democrat armageddon all the way down the ticket to dog catcher, including 700+ state legislative seats). Just what is it that President Obama and his party is going to do to get them back?

  • WWNGD?||

    So what you are saying is I need to vote for someone I don't like to get rid of someone I don't like. hmmmmm sounds like a plan.

  • Drake||

    No. I am saying that Obama is worse than Romney.

  • UvalDuvalCuckoo||

    More along the lines of curing aids by contracting the clap. They both suck (or something), you can survive either, but ones a lot easier to manage and overcome. Obama is only marginally worrisome, but the crowd he runs with and empowers are intent on destroying any notion of a market economy (note I'm not saying Obama is out to destroy the US) and most everything that makes this country not suck. I can't believe I'd ever say this, but after the past few years, I'd jump for joy to have Ashcroft or Gonzo back as AG.

  • Bill||

    When Obama screws up the economy or at best, doesn't fix it, then the MSM and Dems can't blame it on the libertarians and the free market. (Or can they?)

  • Teaching Student||

    With the media as it is? Yeah they can.

  • Bucky||

    4. is wrong...
    Romney told Rush he will end up a one term pres. because of the unpopular changes he will make...
    bye bye dept. of uneducation...

  • John C. Randolph||

    You're an idiot if you believe that there's any significant difference between them.

    -jcr

  • Bucky||

    ad hominem much?
    hows about not showing your lack of ability to argue and back up your words with some cohesive thought?

  • UvalDuvalCuckoo||

    So you think a Romney cabinet will be just as bad as Obamas? Obama already appointed the entire AList of regulatory zealots, anyone romney could put in place would be pikers in comparison.

  • Huck||

    There's also this argument: Romney is unlikely to do things too differently from Obama. In fact, if trends hold, he'll outspend Obama and outregulate him as well. Even if he somehow manages to reverse that trend, it will only be a marginal change at best. So, if the dollar collapses or the economy just worsens slowly, Democrats will just blame those free marketeers the Republicans again - and those dastardly libertarians behind the curtain. In 2016, will get someone even more to the left of Obama.

  • Suki||

  • Bucky||

    women in uniforms...
    that'll get you up in the morning...

  • Suki||

    North Korea is Best Korea!

  • Huck||

    Ooh, me likey chicky pickies...and a non sequitur contest to boot!

  • Jerryskids||

    The first presidential vote I cast was for Reagan, as much against Carter as for Reagan. The reason I did not fully support Reagan as much as he sounded libertarian leaning was because he chose Bush as his running mate. In 1988, I was a county delegate for the Republican Party at the state convention who supported Jack Kemp because he seemed the most libertarian. The Robertson folks had taken over so many of the county parties, though, that Kemp never had a chance and Bush wound up with the nomination. That was it for me and the GOP.

    I say that to say this - stop it. Just stop it. Stop pretending you have any belief the GOP in any way, shape or form supports smaller government, fiscal responsibility, greater liberty, the free market, or anything else libertarians believe in. The Ron Paul Revolution ain't happening - it already happened and this is as good as it gets. Republicans will pay lip service to Goldwater and Reagan, but you will never see more than 10% of them actually support anything other than the same old crap.

    Romney is not a poor choice for the Republicans, he is not some sort of imperfect Republican, he is the very model of the perfect candidate for them. And there's not a nickels' worth of difference between Bush and Obama and Romney.

  • Jerryskids||

    "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

    Romney, like Bush and Obama, has no particular reason for wanting to be President. He has no principles, no goals, no big agenda. He just wants the job, he will do or say whatever it takes to get the job and nothing he has ever said or done has any bearing whatsoever on what he will do as president. He is a blank slate, just as Obama was.

    Nobody can seriously tell me they had any inkling whatsoever that Obama would not only not repeal the worst of Bush's excesses but would in fact expand on them, and nobody can seriously tell me they know what Romney has in mind for his reign. But I can tell you now that you will not like it.

  • klecu||

    Comment of the month!

  • Bucky||

    put "fundamentally change" in your pipe and smoke it...

  • LloydRMc||

    No. I am QUITE certain that I will like approximately the same percentage of what Romney does as what Reagan did, because I will know full well just Romney's predecessor would have done in each situation, as I knew in Reagan's case.

  • LloydRMc||

    Utterly ridiculous "not a nickel's worth of difference"

  • John C. Randolph||

    Romney is unlikely to do things too differently from Obama.

    We have no reason at all to expect Romney to deviate from the Bush/Obama warmongering, tax, borrow and spend policies in any way at all.

    -jcr

  • Bucky||

    warmongering?
    Orcs are roaming freely across our lands, unchecked and unchallenged...
    bearing the 'white hand' of Saruman..

  • LloydRMc||

    Your conflation of Presidents Bush and Obama's tax and spending policies/priorities is beyond absurd.

    For instance, we had 52 consecutive months of job growth under Bush, versus the worst unemployment, job growth, and GDP performance for the American economy since the Great Depression. In fact, some isolated metrics are WORSE than the depths of the great depression.

    Were you aware that the vast majority of the "improvement" in unemployment last month was due to people leaving the labor force - giving up looking for work? According to the BLS, the total "not in labor force" is 88 MILLION people?

    The liberals screamed bloody murder over a (maximum) Bush deficit of $440 Billion, yet the Obama deficits are a TRILLION (more than twice that) for as far as the eye can see, and 40 cents of every dollar we now spend is borrowed.

  • LloydRMc||

    There is that argument, and it is utterly fallacious. For instance, there is NO WAY IN HELL that Romney would ever even APPROACH the level of regulation that Obama has imposed.

  • SIV||

    Six: Go TEAM BLUE!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I've never heard anyone accuse Shikha of being a shill for Big Blue.

  • SIV||

    You don't read her posts? The "don't cut welfare for immigrants" in particular?

    4 years ago many here were defending Weigel as a "libertarian". He was TEAM BLUE through and through.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    As I recall, it was an argument against equating illegal immigration with more serious crimes. It was opposition to the populist rhetoric from the GOP meant to sow distrust and hatred of a group of people who are largely looking for means to their own livelihoods. I don't recall an argument involving welfare.

  • SIV||

    Or maybe Shikha is TEAM RED, exhorting her fellow conservatives to hold out another election cycle for a "Real TARP Supporter"

    a more serious Republican reformer (such as Wisconsin’s Rep. Paul Ryan) in the White House

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh Shikha, you're going to have all the closet republicans around here up in arms with this one.

    How dare you insinuate that White-Obama ain't the great libertarian savior!

  • Drake||

    Closet Republicans? You mean people like Ron Paul?

  • Almanian...still||

    RP came out of the closet years ago. He's out there strutting it for all to see - "I'm a REpublican, and I'm PROUD!"

  • General Butt Naked||

    Ron Paul is one freakin' guy and he gets shit on by republican establishment all the goddamn time.

    Sorry, but presently republican thought is represented by Romney. Republican voters had a choice this year and they chose Romney as their representative.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    And Santorum was second in line. Now that's depressing.

    The Republican Party needs to be destroyed. Let the hardline Progressives figure out what to do with Team Blue.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I am truly think we'll be fucked by whomever wins the presidency, so I'm just in it for the lulz.

    I advise trollin' our resident team players hard for the next 6 months, if only to keep our sanity.

  • sarcasmic||

    I am truly think we'll be fucked by whomever wins the presidency

    Meet the new boss...

  • SIV||

    You're rooting for an Obama reelection.
    So who's the Team Player General?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The General is right.

    And destroying just one Team won't do the trick. Can you imagine how megafucked we'd be if the progressives took over the Dems, AND had 100% of the power? North Korea would be afraid of looking bad in comparison.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Without the Republicans as opposition, I don't know if the Democrats could survive. There are a lot of strains within their coalition (greens and unions, gays and blacks, etc.), united only by a general love of power. If the destruction of the GOP sent a lot of neocons and "moderate" Republicans to the remaining establishment corporatist party, the increase in infighting might be enough to rip them apart.

  • LloydRMc||

    My progressive sister thinks that President Obama is a neoliberal hack.

  • ||

    You totally proved his point.

  • Brandon||

    You're the one who's equating "fucked by whomever wins the presidency" with "Rooting for an Obama reelection," so....you?

  • SIV||

    Liberaltarian Fusionism Lives!
    Legal marijuana and gay marriage in Obama's 2nd term!

  • General Butt Naked||

    You have so much emotionally invested in White-Obama that you cannot separate ANY criticism of your savior with explicit endorsement of the other side.

    It's fucking sad, dude.

  • SIV||

    lol
    REMEMBER TRAYVON! REMEMBER SANDRA FLUKE!
    IT'S THE THEOCRACY STUPID!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Huh?

  • sarcasmic||

    Straw men are made of straw.

  • Bucky||

    i'm just looking for some Kinetic Unemployment of federal workers and rollback of their wages to pre-Owebama...

  • coma44||

    While I agree that Romney is not a real true Republican, there are none that are electable. So do we hope and pray Romney does not get elected so the "Pain" that the Obama-ites inflict causes a "shift" in the people and the Republican party?

    I think not because No matter what or who is in charge we the people must stop putting up with unconstitutional actions, and with no worries about relection Obama and Gang will pull out all the stops on making this country a Socialist heaven.

    Make no mistake about it they both suck. And they both need to be kept in check.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The only reason to hope that Romney wins decisively is that it will lead to larger republican majorities in the Senate and House which will include some serious fiscal conservatives-libertarians.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Like who? Paul Ryan?

  • Proprietist||

    No, that's a joke - as it was during the Bush years.

    The only reason to hope Romney wins decisively is watching the poor little morons who've spent the past four years blasting libertarianism as the "root of all evil" come pathetically crawling back to us once they're in the minority.

  • LloydRMc||

    Keep dreaming.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Sounds a lot like the same fuckwittery that got the jackass elected in the first place.

  • Almanian...still||

    A visionless, rudderless, gaffe-prone presidency is the last thing that Republicans America needs right now.

    Fixed. Unfortunately it's what we're gonna get...welcome to my nightmare.

  • Almanian...still||

    Also, I'm coming around to the "if Obama's re-elected [loathesome and awful though he is], maybe Team Red can capture the Senate and hold the House, thereby ensuring utter, sweet, delicious gridlock for four years" argument.

    I could do with four years of nothing "getting done" from Washington.

  • robc||

    It doesnt work that way...coattails exist.

    If Obama wins, the GOP wont make gains in the House and Senate.

  • Bill||

    In a bad economy and with recent tea party activity, Repubs or other non-democrats could make gains even if Obama won. It's happened before, but I agree it's rare.

  • KDN||

    If Obama wins, the GOP wont make gains in the House and Senate.

    In the House, sure. But the Senate's a different animal because of the odd natures of statewide races and their election cycle. It's entirely possible and may even be likely to see a (small) Republican Senate majority in the wake of an Obama victory.

    The House is all but assured of seeing a small backswing towards the Democrats. "Extremist" freshmen without any accomplishments do have a tendency to get de-elected.

  • robc||

    "Extremist" freshmen without any accomplishments do have a tendency to get de-elected.

    If we want a net increase in tea-party/fiscal con/libertarian types in congress, then they need to survive. For that to happen, Obama needs to lose (note: not saying who needs to win).

    Obviously, the Gary Johnson presidential coattails would be the best, and thats the way Im voting. But Obama needs to lose, so I have to vote against him.

  • robc||

    It happens to also be a vote against Romney, so it has that going for it.

  • wareagle||

    by definition, a vote against Romney is one for Obama. I don't see how anyone can make the case that Obama is not substantially worse.

  • robc||

    Bullshit. A vote for Johnson is a vote against Obama and a vote against Romney.

    How the fuck are you too stupid to understand this?

  • LloydRMc||

    And if enough people do that, Obama wins. 100% of Johnson votes siphoned off thusly come out of Team Red, and it could be enough to make Obama win, e.g. 1992. Look it up.

  • Brandon||

    Obama is not substantially worse. Romney himself has been making that case for 5 years now.

  • LloydRMc||

    Yeah, right.

  • klecu||

    In order for Obama to be substantially worse, there would have to be a difference in substance between him and Romney, and in order to measure that difference, Romney would need some sort of substance.

  • LloydRMc||

    OK - how about this: Romney believes in the Constitution, and would abide by it. President Obama believes that the Constitution is a "Charter of Negative Rights", and flaunts that constantly, e.g. making "recess appointments" when the Senate did not believe itself to be in recess. A President Romney would NEVER do such a thing.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm voting for Rush! 2112!

  • Almanian...still||

    Rush Limbaugh? Oh, no...I get it!

  • Baal||

    Both teams' rhetoric echoes 'temples of syrinx' enough sometimes to make one laugh/cry.

  • Saro||

    This November, you'll have a choice between the liberal, gun-grabbing architect of Obamacare, or Obama himself.

    Real Choice (tm) brought to you by the USSA political process!

  • Brian from Texas||

    "The lessor of two evils"....."The enemy of my enemy is my friend".....I hear those two sayings a lot and I think they are the two most retarded sayings in the history of the universe.

  • Almanian...still||

    "It could be worse..."

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It is worse. I give up on the GOP.

    When Santorum is the second choice of the Republican Party and the limited government guy gets the shaft and booed for calling for peace, then it's time to give up on them.

    The Neocons and the Socons own the GOP, lock, stock, and barrel. Even if libertarians could take power, would we want to be associated with the assclownery of the last 40 years?

  • KDN||

    Even if libertarians could take power, would we want to be associated with the assclownery of the last 40 years?

    Sure. Politics is all recent history anyway, if anybody actually cared about the history of a party then the Democrats would still be trying to get out from under Jim Crow.

  • Lord Humungus||

    My main reason for wanting an Obama loss is to see the douchebag suffer a defeat. It would be a blow to his narcissistic self-worth and provide much comedy as the liberals weep salty tears.

    Of course a Romney win would suck, but hey, we're headed on a downward spiral anyways, so we might as well have a few yucks.

  • Nyarlathotep||

    A Romney victory would be like getting beaten to death with a baseball bat. By contrast, a second Obama victory would be like getting tortured with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch while forced to watch "I am Sam" on endless loop until you expired in a puddle of your own bodily fluids. Oh, and don't forget -- it would all be for your own good.

  • Lord Humungus||

    so it's win-win?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Don't forget the riots, Lord H. Hell, even Occutards would get beat up.

  • ||

    That's sort of my position even though I've thought for quite a while that an Obama win would be better in the long run.

    But I've come to despise Hopey McChange so much that I think I just want to see him lose. Also, the SCOTUS nominations.

  • ||

    Commentators like Michael Gerson maintain...

    Gerson is a idiotic piece of shit who should be ignored, fyi.

  • ||

    ...a more serious Republican reformer (such as Wisconsin's Rep. Paul Ryan)...

    More serious, okay, but by how much? Ryan is just as much warmonger, and his big sweeping plan wouldn't balance the budget for decades.

    Having said that, I figured the weak GOP field this time was intended to forfeit the presidency this time so Obama could screw things up even more, leaving a mess that a very strong 2016 slate could wrestle over fixing, with the added bonus of going up against a new Dem nominee. And of course, there's the conspiracy theory that the Democrats and Republicans have worked out a deal to trade the presidency every eight years now.

  • robc||

    his big sweeping plan wouldn't balance the budget for decades.

    FTFY

  • ||

    Heh, of course. His plan would balance it in forty years. The actual results, on the other hand...

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Paul Ryan is a joke. He's a figleaf covering the GOP's opposition to real fiscal reform.

  • wareagle||

    and yet, he is the only one putting anything that even vaguely resembles fiscal sanity on paper. Who else is doing it? Obama?

  • robc||

    Rand Paul.

  • robc||

    Also, Ron.

    And unlike Ryan's. The Pauls plans both resemble fiscal sanity.

  • ||

    And everybody is already up in arms about how draconian and severe the Ryan "austerity" budget is, so the Paul plans are moot points.

  • BenDFW||

    Rand and Ron can only win at the local level. I'm convinced that Ron Paul's presidential campaigns are just fundraisers for his PACS and other future projects. The guy never had an actual interest in winning. He is far ahead of his time and often a LOT of his most fervent supporters don't actually understand what he stands for.

    So often you'll hear one of them on the radio at odd hours (since Rush and Hanity are almost impossible to get on) and they will talk about his stance against NAFTA as if he was against Free trade, when the real reason is that Ron Paul doesn't want any management of foriegn trade. Heck if someone wants to sell us cheap heavily subsidized gasoline, while heavily tarriffing our heavily subsidized corn he wouldn't have a problem with it.

    Ron Paul is far ahead of his time, America isn't ready for an honest politician and never ever will be.

  • LloydRMc||

    More like about 200 years behind the times. Demonstrably.

  • Bill||

    Probably should read: "even a weak Repub. reformer like Paul Ryan"

  • LloydRMc||

    Four more years of President Obama, and America will be beyond saving. Mark my words.

  • robc||

    Romney is still about 300 delegates short of a majority.

    Im not granting him the GOP nomination quite yet.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Who is another likely possibility?

  • SugarFree||

    Santorum is just waiting for its chance to surge again.

  • robc||

    Likely? None.

    Mathematically possible? Brokered con.

  • SugarFree||

    OK... let's be clear before any retards show up and squawk that I am not advocating this...

    What would happen if Romney, Santorum, and/or Gingrich died at this point? Who disposes of their delegates? Would it have to be a brokered convention or could they hold a quick and dirty primary election-a-thon?

    And if it was brokered, who would be in the mix besides the survivors that already had delegates?

  • Marshall Gill||

    let's be clear before any retards show up and squawk that I am not advocating this

    It could end up better than Romney winning.

    Why are you advocating this?!!!

  • Brandon||

    Why are you not?

  • Rich||

    It seems the president has granted it, though.

  • ant1sthenes||

    What's up with all these "5 things in a category" articles? Did you guys get bought out by Cracked?

  • David Litterman||

    Exactomundo! You guys should have more "Top 10" articles.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Well Shikha, you have failed to list even one reason why a second term for Obama would be a better outcome than a first one for Romney.

  • Drake||

    I'll translate for you:

    "If we can't have a Libertarian leader as pure as the driven snow, fuck the world! Waaaa!"

  • LloydRMc||

    ROFLMAO! Exactly! Brevity is the soul of wit!

  • wareagle||

    you have failed to list even one reason why a second term for Obama would be a better outcome than a first one for Romney.

    and why did you expect a member of the bloviating class to do that? These folks love to pat themselves on the back for thinking deep ethereal thoughts that bear no semblance to reality. There is no statistical measure under which another Obama term would be good anyone but Obama and his handlers.

  • Brandon||

    Right, the real adults in the room are the ones who think White Obama would be noticeably different from Black Obama.

  • ||

    The Supreme Court is 1 Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia dropping dead away from being stacked with another Obama "wise latina" appointee. That alone is reason enough to vote for Romney. Stupid executive branch policies are fleeting. SCOTUS appointments last a lifetime. If Romney changed absolutely no policy from Obama, but appointed a Roberts, Alito, Thomas or Scalia to the court instead of a Kagan or Sotomayor it would be well worth the vote.

  • BenDFW||

    This changed my mind. The Supreme court is scary. Why did the Bush Administration not force the issue with their nominies while wise latinas get in first shot?

  • LloydRMc||

    Precisely.

  • LloydRMc||

    Precisely!

  • sewa elf||

    I agree, this article is very useful. Thanks for posting.

  • D.D. Driver||

    I don't know what "smart folks" think the individual mandate will fall but not all of ObamaCare? The conventional wisdom is that if the individual mandate falls, all of ObamaCare falls.

    Maybe the individual mandate is constitutional. Maybe not. But it is very unlikely that the Court will find it "severable."

  • Mr. FIFY||

    This is scary:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....f=politics

    I puked up some of my morning coffee after reading this. Be warned.

  • Bucky||

    gives new meaning to eating 'dog'...
    unless that is beneath Barry O...

  • Ron||

    So either way we are screwed

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If Congress had passed Ron Paul's bill to leave hot-button social issues to the state, not the federal courts, then I would not even consider voting Repugnican. Of course, it's precisely because of people like me that Congress would never pass such a law. "OMG - we have to elect Repugs to get the right federal judges!"

  • magma2||

    You had me then you lost me on #4. Paul Ryan in the White House? God I hope not. Keeping Romney out hopefully will open the door for someone like Rand Paul or Jim DeMint. If Ryan is the preferred alternative, may as well have Romney.

  • T o n y||

    The single best thing that could happen to this planet is for the American Republican party to get itself onto a giant boat, and for that boat to sink.

    As of now it's a race against time. Will the Republicans destroy education standards enough to get people to keep voting for them? Or will people take Republicans' various huge disasters into account and figure out that they haven't done a single good thing for this country in decades?

  • The Last American Hero||

  • The Last American Hero||

    How many of those fabulous inner city school systems are in Democratic Strongholds?

  • Devil's Advocate||

    How does Obama's decision to kill school choice in DC help improve education? The Democrats don't give a shit about education. They only care about the support of the teachers unions.

    I just hope that the giant boat for Team Blue is big enough to hold you too.

  • ||

    Yeah, we need smart, educated voters like this:

    http://youtu.be/P36x8rTb3jI

  • John C. Randolph||

    Will the Republicans destroy education standards

    What's left to destroy?

    -jcr

  • LloydRMc||

    Good things the Republicans have done in decades:
    1) Reagan tax cuts (actually done with a Democrat-controlled Congress by a Republican President)
    2) Stopped Bush 43 "immigration reform"
    3) Bush 43 Tax Cuts (for ALL tax brackets, despite what you have heard, also increased tax credit for children and eliminated the "marriage penalty")
    4) Stopped Obama "Cap and Trade"
    5) Upheld Bush 43 tax cuts for two more years

  • np||

    There's nothing to me in the article claiming Obama would be better. Romney may in fact be (slightly) better compared to Obama, but I read Shikha's article as simply stating that Romney is not enough to turn the country around, and thus won't be doing any favors for the GOP.

    Basically, unless Ron Paul wins the presidency, America's going to continue down its current path, just a bit faster or slower, but continue nonetheless. The question is, who do you want to take the blame?

  • LloydRMc||

    Wow - the depths of your misunderstanding are epic.

  • Lloyd||

    I don't care how "pure" some politician's political ideology may be. We have several major problems that need to be fixed. (1) Despite the stimulii and other Keynesian stupidities, we have an unliquidated loss from the housing crash of about $11 trillion. It will come out of somone's pocket and it will be us. (2) The debt and deficit continue to climb and even the Ryan Plan would not change it much. (3) The hard-core statists in both parties are gaining power and flexing it and that requires someone who will wipe out more than 3 Cabinet-level departments and agencies. (4) Racial animosity is growing every day and the Democrats are stoking the fires. Any outbreak of overt widespread violence will be the end of our nation and society. Just these require more guts and sense and restraint than any of the 'electible' GOP candidates have shown in their careers. They won't change how things work enough to prevent one disaster or another.

  • Registration At Last!||

    Recent cases demostrate beyond all dispute that GOP SCOTUS nominees aid and abet police brutality far beyond Democratic SCOTUS nominees.

  • PapayaSF||

    But on balance, GOP SCOTUS nominees are far, far better. They at least don't see the Constitution as a blank slate on which to project their socialist fantasies. A second Obama term will get us one or two more like Kagan or Sotomayor. What will that do to libertarian goals?

  • ||

    Citation?

    I haven't exactly seen the court's left wing taking a principled stand against state authority.

  • billj||

    Once again the country has a choice between the lesser of two evils. But andy conservative that votes for Pres. Obama (either directly or by default by not voting) needs to have his head examined.

  • yu100w||

    i am voting for Romney

    http://www.boyfriendlyrics.com/

  • jacob the barbarian||

    Are you completely fucked up? Romney sucks donkey dick, but Obama will rape your ass with it. Where you high when you wrote this, or are you naturally impaired? If the choice is Obama or a can of frozen OJ concentrate - "The Can for President!"

    Obama is in way over his head. At least Romney has actually been a chief executive - and he did well. Do I like Romney? No. But O got to go!

    O got to go! O got to go!
    Hey hey! Oh ho!! Barak Obama has got to go!
    O got to go! O got to go!
    Hey hey! ...

    Repeat ad nauseum. The Occutard crowd might get the message

  • Brandon||

    "and he did well."

    He did RomneyCare, dipshit. You have no standing to call anyone else impaired after typing this pile of shit.

  • PapayaSF||

    RomneyCare was at least on the state level, so it was Constitutional and its results can be compared with other states.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    A citizen cannot be compelled to perform by the state. A subject, on the other hand...

  • jacob the barbarian||

    Hey Brandon, Read the 10th amendment you asshole. State medical care is stupid idea at the state level sucks -- but at least it is legal. Pushing the same idea at the federal is 50x worse. Unless you are some Obamaturd and then it is 57x worse.

    Take the time to read the comment next time. I aint no fan of Romney -- so fuck off. Not only are you some BLUE Team drone, you cant read.

  • ||

    He said he did well as a chief executive. I think he meant as a private executive, not as a state executive.

  • John C. Randolph||

    If the choice is Obama or a can of frozen OJ concentrate - "The Can for President!"

    If I had the choice of a can of frozen orange juice over Obama, I most certainly would vote for the OJ. Willard Romney, however, is NOT anything as harmless as a can of orange juice. He's another power-hungry douchebag, and he's completely interchangeable with Obama, GWB, Hillary Clinton, or any other member of the political class that you care to name.

    -jcr

  • jacob the barbarian||

    Romney did very well running an actual company, and he made some good moves as governor in the countries 2nd most retarded state. Then there was the Olympics. The guy does know how to manage. I am just worried that the spending is not going down any time soon. But at least it won't go up as fast as it does under our current dear leader.

  • BigT||

    Do we want a good manager?

    Only if he is headed in the right direction. Else we get screwed faster.

  • jacob the barbarian||

    OK. That is an interesting point.

    Still, the current situation involves a guy who could not manage a 7-11, how is that working out for you?

    I hate having to pick the evil of two lessers.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    The problem with this argument is that it concedes the point of those on the left that we need someone to manage the economy. We need someone that knows well enough to get the fuck out of the way, and that is it.

  • jacob the barbarian||

    Devil, When I say manage well, I am not talking about gov. control of the economy. I am thinking "Chief Executive of the Federal Government." Romney took over a number of companies and made them leaner. A leaner government is something I can dream about. Wake me up when it actually happens.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    It would be great if he really meant that, but his rhetoric is all about him having the business experience to know what it takes to grow the economy. The natural state is for the economy to grow, but he makes it sound like he is the only guy with the right recipe to make it happen. I don't look at Romney and see a hands-off kind of guy.

  • ZippoTing||

    OK wow lets do it man, go for it.

    www.Deep-Web.tk

  • Alex the wolf||

    I dont see why this magazine is so anti Romney. He is heavily critzised for Romneycare, well that was Massachusets, what do you expect there? Do you think Ron Paul would do any better there?
    I find myself very close to Romney, some of his quotes are memorable, like when he said "If you want free stuff, vote the other guy"
    I really dont get why 4 more years of Obama would be better in any way.
    I tell you this: if Romney wins in October, the economy will start growing for real, just to catch up for the years lost and growth is the clue to fix the debt crisis. Libertarians should stop this nonsense and support Romney. A ticket with Marco Rubio would be great.

  • jacob the barbarian||

    @ Alex,
    Romney goes for all the "we must make the world safe for democracy bullshit." News flash, the world wants us to go home. Lets take their advice. If you do not like that idea, then see it this way "Fuck all them ungrateful foreign bastards!"

    Then comes the other part - Romney probably won't dismantle the entitlements which are killing this country worse than all the military spending. He might slow growth down, if that. Slowing growth down is not enough.

    Does this help?

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Going over the cliff at 60 MPH rather than 70 MPH is not really much of an improvement. People like Romney don't seem willing to make the changes necessary to really fix things, so all he will do is to dilute the message of those that really do believe in limited government and free markets.

  • jacob the barbarian||

    If the difference was that small I would agree with you. Why bother?

    The difference is bigger than that. As for diluting the free market message. I would not be able to say. Team Blue will describe Romney as a heartless laissez faire capitalist who would throw grand ma under the train in order to keep it running on time. If only that were so.

    Team Red may have cured itself of the Rockefeller 'compassionate conservatism', I am not holding my breath on that one. Anyone want to buy a bridge?

  • LloydRMc||

    No - we are approaching the edge of that cliff, slowing as President Obama attempts to triangulate.

    To hijack your metaphor: Romney means coming to a complete stop, and possibly, (hope upon hope) backing up a little.

    A President Obama reelection, with no need to worry about that again, means he will floor it, and keep it floored, all the way to the bottom.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Why we should hope Romney wins: the Republican nominee is almost always the guy who came in second place in the most recent contested cycle (only recent exception is Buchanan, who came in second in 1996, but they had left the party by 2000).

    As bad as Romney is, I shudder at the though of Santorum being the nominee in 2016 if Obama wins another term.

  • Manny Klausner||

    Shika's post raise some important points (as usual). They all deserve serious attention.

    But I view this election as a potentially critical turning point for the cause of liberty. In contrast with the last election -- where McCain was also a flawed candidate -- Obama's victory had a positive aspect: It brought us the Tea Party (albeit at a brutally high cost).

    Unfortunately, in politics, "intellectual and moral confusion" come with the territory. It seems to me that Shikha misses the larger context.

    I'm rooting for a Romney victory because Obama can do even more damage in a second term than he has already -- certainly with executive orders and appointments, as well as in undermining the case for Free Minds and Free Markets by his ongoing demagoguery. Perhaps most significantly, he can be expected to nominate Supreme Court Justices who could detrimentally change the outcome of Supreme Court cases for decades.

    I don't underestimate Romney's flaws, and I'm planning to vote for Gary Johnson (assuming he'll be the LP candidate) for President -- because I prefer to vote for libertarians, and I live in California, where my vote can't affect the outcome. However, in battleground states, there is a powerful case for libertarians to vote for Romney.

    In short, I'm certainly not rooting for Romney's defeat -- and I hope that those who take liberty seriously fully understand what's at stake in this election.

    Manny Klausner
    Co-Founder, Reason Foundation

  • LloydRMc||

    Very well said - as is to be expected.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    The nomination of Romney creates an interesting dilemma for libertarians. Allowing Obama 4 more years in office (even with a Republican Congress) will allow him to continue to pick away at our liberties (particularly economic ones), while allowing some of his existing "reforms" to fester and increase the level of dependency of some people on the government. At the same time, electing Romney would result in marginal improvements at best in some areas and continuation of the same failed foreign policies and entitlements. Romney would further erode people's faith in "free markets" and in people who claim to believe in limited government. The only saving grace is that Romney might appoint SCOTUS justices that are marginally better.

    Basically the debate comes down to whether you are willing to bet that the country can survive another 4 years of Obama. If it can, we can wait for someone like Rand Paul. If it can't, we might be so fucked that even Ron Paul couldn't pull it back from the brink.

    Over 330,000,000 people in this country, and these are our options? At least I can vote for Gary Johnson here in Idaho without feeling like I am supporting Obama because there is zero chance of Obama winning here.

  • JSinAZ||

    We're all supposed to take a bullet so the Republicans can become, in some ill-defined way, "better"? I don't own any GOP stock, and I don't believe in altruism, so send better arguments.

    On the other hand, four more years of Neolib racialist demagogery might just be enough poison to kill any notion of community in this country other than some kind of identity-group horror. That sounds so much better than some fractured GOP dithering...

  • LloydRMc||

    Four more years of Obama IS the "bullet" - game over for our country as founded.

  • Ed Zeppelin||

    You people are really on another plane of existence if you equate Obama to Romney. Obama has been a disaster. I'd vote for a stray dog if it were the GOP nominee rather than give Obama a 2nd term, his ego flush with victory and free from ever having to answer to voters again.

    You anti- Romney types need to do an agonizing reappraisal of your self-supposed political acumen.

  • joy||

    But repeal is not an end in itself. The question is, http://www.nikewinkel.com/scho.....x-c-4.html can the GOP replace ObamaCare with sensible market-based reforms?

  • LeeAMrl||

    So let's see. You say not to vote for Romney so we can get a true conservative. So let Obama drive the country into a wall after turning on the after burners instead of putting Romney in the drivers seat and at least putting on the breaks for a while.

    Not sure if you're very clever or maniacally stupid.

  • MSMort||

    This post is an example of why Conservatism is going extinct. The vast majority of people make decisions emotionally. Even first order logic escapes them. You think not? Consider that 53% of Democrats favor Socialism, and the vast majority of them love Big Government.

    But this post presents is a derivative logic sequence for why Conservatives (and Libertarians) should sit out an election! Not only is the logic hard to follow, this has been tried for DECADES, while the candidates get no better and the nation slips farther Left.

    I suspect readers of this magazine will continue to ignore the realities of politics, continue to sit out elections, and continue to do nothing more than complain as the nation goes bankrupt...even though "reason" dictates a new path is required. May you luxuriate in your logic until the end of your livelihood.

  • Terrance||

    Four years of Romneyisms, all of which smack of elitism, http://www.edhardypoort.com/he.....-c-10.html will cement the image of the

  • weebean||

    Support RP and bring back true conservatism. This may be the last chance.

  • strat||

    While this article actually contained content, the title struck fear into my heart. Top 10 (or 5 or 15 or any other number) lists have become the bromide of lazy journalism. Reason writers, please do not follow in the footsteps of all of the other organs out there that have adopted this model. It would be beyond unfortunate.

  • conlib707||

    The confusion withing the Republican Party is due to the Socialists controlling its leadership, both physical and social, while pretending to be moderate Conservatives. Don't get me started on the Marxist controlled Democrat Party.

  • LloydRMc||

    Your passion and missionary zeal are commendable. Unfortunately, if you cannot see the blatantly obvious differences - political, philosophical, experiential, and temperamental - between Governor Romney and President Obama, then those same, otherwise positive attributes you have are clearly blinding you to the obvious truth.

    The simple truth is, if Mitt Romney doesn't win this election, then America, (as founded), is over, with almost no chance of ever existing again. All you people who sat out the 2006 election to "teach the Republican party a lesson", all of you who voted for "Hope" and "Change": just look around to see what you have wrought and know that, if President Obama gets another term and The Affordable Care Act gets fully enacted, there cannot, I repeat: CANNOT be such a thing as a truly conservative president in 2016, and likely never, ever again in the United States of America.

    A 2012 win by President Obama will truly be the death knell of our Constitutional Republic as we know it.

    So lean on your orthodoxy and theory of a better, brighter 2016 if you must. Free will means you can make any choices you wish, not that you can escape the inevitable consequences of those choices.

  • LloydRMc||

    OK - here's another one: The Obama administration roundly ignored TWO U.S. District court orders and kept an illegal drilling moratorium in place.

    Do you think that Governor Romney, as President, would EVER do ANYTHING remotely similar to those things - the illegal ban, or ignoring District court orders?

    Or to claim, on the one hand, that the Federal Government can in no way influence the price of oil, but on the other hand, that it would cost $52,000,000 to root out the oil "speculators" that he just KNOWS are driving up the price of oil, even several such previous investigations haven't turned up a single trace of wrongdoing?

    And were you aware that oil futures dropped WHILE President Bush was making the announcement that he was going to open up more of the Continental Shelf up to oil exploration and drilling?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement