If Romney's Losing, Why Do the Media Act Like He's Already the President?

At Breitbart.com, Joel B. Pollak makes a powerful case that the media have "treated [Republican presidential candidate Mitt] Romney as the incumbent," in the process overlooking any responsibility President Obama may have for the current state of the country. 

Some of Pollak's claims are pretty dubious. Unless spending more on Medicare somehow saves us money, it's hard to see how Romney "took on the entitlements crisis head-on." Ditto the howler that Romney has a "practical plan for the housing crisis," given that Romney is not proposing that the government stop printing/spending money, leave deadbeats to get out of their borrowed homes and allow real estate values to continue the long-overdue decline that began in 2006 and needs to continue. (The word is practical, not practicable.) And come on: Romney "set aside time to visit victims of Hurricane Isaac"? If anything we need presidents who will do a lot less of that stuff. 

Still, his media critique is on target: 

Romney’s so-called “gaffes” have one thing in common: they are all statements of fact. He is being held to a presidential standard--for presidents should know better than to tell all--while Obama’s outright lies to the nation (on Libya, the debt, etc.) are ignored by the media.

Obama’s failures as the actual incumbent are also passed over--or spun into positives. We reached 2,000 dead in Afghanistan? Hey, Obama “ended the war.” Unemployment still above 8 percent? Oh, that jobs report was “better than expected.” We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11, and Obama lied about it? Don’t worry, “bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.” Growth down to 1.3%? Say--“No one could have done it better.” 

That last canard came to us courtesy of former President Bill Clinton, who returned to the political scene to disown his own political legacy after Obama had spent the past four years destroying it, and his entire political career fighting it. The expansion of the welfare state, the proliferation of opaque regulations, and the explosion of debt were all things Clinton resisted. No longer--not when 2016 may be a new opportunity for Hillary.

Romney is also the incumbent in a cultural sense--he is the old, rich, white guy that 45 years of higher education and Hollywood have inveighed against. He has a stake in the system and values that two successive generations of elites have been taught to hate. And so an election that ought to have been a referendum on Obama, and which Obama hoped to turn into a choice between him and Romney, is now a referendum on Romney alone. 

I am unyielding in my belief that this election pits Obama against Obama Jr. Given the chance to run against a president whose most lasting offense against the country was signing a mandatory health insurance law, the Republicans chose to run the inventor of mandatory health insurance. It's like an old Syrian election, where the obvious lack of a choice is the point of the election, where the real goal is to show that power can force the citizens not just to accept preposterousness but to cheer for it. 

"A loss for Romney means Obamacare is forever," Pollak warns, neglecting to say what a win for Romney would mean along that line. His description of what a second Obama term will ratify is mostly depressing: "A Romney loss also means America will have accepted persistent high unemployment and slow growth as the new normal, creating a lost generation and destroying both our entitlement system and our future prosperity." 

That's true, and it sucks. But what really sucks is that the Republican option is Mitt Romney. Certainly the media have been relentless in their anti-Romney carping and their extraordinary deference to Obama's gang that can't shoot (or talk, or send email) straight. That just proves that in addition to being biased, reporters are dumb enough to think there's something at stake in this election. 

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.

  • juris imprudent||

    That just proves that in addition to being biased, reporters are dumb enough to think there's something at stake in this election.

    Talk about the money shot. Never has so much been spent for so little - and that is even including internet porn.

  • Generic Stranger||

    People actually pay for internet porn?

  • juris imprudent||

    It is still the biggest item of commerce over the web.

    I was doing some work for a early social website before the dot-com crash. We doing a SQL-Server to Oracle conversion and we discovered that a very large part of the user-contributed content could be charitably called softcore. Myself and the other lead went to one of the VPs and suggested fencing off that content and charging for it (the site itself was free) and her response was "I can't work for a porn company". Needless to say, that venture went tits up.

  • R C Dean||

    her response was "I can't work for a porn company".

    "Sweetie, you do work for a porn company. A free porn company."

  • Ted S.||

    The good stuff, I'd guess. Or do you know where to find internet porn that's high-quality and free?

  • Bam!||

    The Pirate Bay?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Given the chance to run against a president whose most lasting offense against the country was signing a mandatory health insurance law, the Republicans chose to run the inventor of mandatory health insurance.

    Oh come the heck on Cavanaugh. You know this is false but you wrote it anyway.

  • Marshall Gill||

    You mean Romney, with his vast dictatorial powers while governor of Mass, didn't single handedly create mandatory health insurance?!!

  • PapayaSF||

    A state mandate is different from a federal mandate. Federalism, how does it work?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    That's the other fact that Suderman Co are forgetting over and over again. But to suggest that Romney "invented" the insurance mandate is even worse and even more blatantly false.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I mean, Romney was trying to figure out how to say "white horse prophecy" in French when people in Washington were first talking about an insurance mandate.

  • R C Dean||

    While a state mandate is different from a federal mandate, both are still mandates.

    Yes, by electing Romney, the Repubs gave this issue away as a practical matter. Romney can't hammer Obama with it, so its a non-issue.

  • Bam!||

    You're really missing the point: Mitt Romney sees nothing wrong with forcing people to buy health insurance.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    And the individual mandate isn't the worst part of the Obamacare law by a long shot. It was just the easiest part to take down constitutionally.

    Had SCOTUS struck down the individual mandate but left the rest of OC in place, things would be even worse, as the pre-existing condition denial ban would have quickly bankrupted every private health insurance company in the US if there were no mandate.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    as the pre-existing condition denial ban would have quickly bankrupted every private health insurance company in the US

    Uh, no - they'd have just raised rates even higher even faster.

  • John||

    Which is what they are doing now thanks to community rating and forced terms of coverage. And just think Obama won the youth vote and will win it again despite completely fucking them with community rating.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Doesn't matter how fast they raise rates if people have no reason to subscribe until they need medical services that cost more than the premium.

  • John||

    Unless you have a traumatic injury and incur a bunch of expenses before you can buy insurance. Most people are risk adverse and will buy insurance if they can.

  • ||

    Still, if you can buy a catesrophic only plan, and then switch to comprehensive as soon as you get a chronic condition, it would kill the market for comprehensive plans.

    (oh wait ... maybe that's a good idea).

  • mgd||

    Pretty sure that catastrophic plans don't meet the minimum coverage levels mandated by Obamacare.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Of course, but without the mandate that wouldn't matter.

  • ||

    Well, if they modified the minimum coverage levels, that would help.

  • Libertarian||

    Point #1: If SCOTUS had struck down Obamacare, it would have been the best thing for Obama's chances of re-election. The fact that he's neck and neck with Romney shows once again that the Repugnantcans are, at best, incompetent and, at worst, philosophically bankrupt.

    Point #2: The conventional wisdom is that Goldwater set the stage for Reagan, yet the GOP was totally dismissive of Ron Paul.

  • ||

    Wishful thinking alert.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Mitt Romney not only signed into law a bill which had such a ban on pre-existing condition denial, but also has voiced support for the ban in the campaign.

  • ||

    Not only has he voices support for the stupidest part of the bill, he's come out in favor of trade sanctions on China, and accused Obama of outsourcing jobs.

    He's demagoguing on stupid shit that doesn't even belong in the Republican platform.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    He's also in favor of auto bailouts.

    Really disappointing that the Republicans whiffed another opportunity to get someone in line with their stated principles -- which aren't libertarian by any means, but are a damn sight better than what their candidates have been preaching.

  • ||

    Oh I thought he was against auto-bailouts. Well, he was against it before he was for it.

    I guess his focus groups told him that to win Ohio, he had to be in favor of auto bailouts.

  • juris imprudent||

    Speaking of the auto bailout - the guy who was the Big O's point man was a proud Private Equity guy. It would be so sweet for Romney to mention Rattners' name when Obama throws out the evil PE shtick.

  • PapayaSF||

    Oh, that's not the stupidest part of the bill at all. That has to be the medical devices tax. Why doesn't that get discussed more? Romney should bring it up during the debates:

    "We were told this bill would make healthcare more affordable, but part of it is a tax on companies that medical devices like pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, and electric wheelchairs. Is Mr. Obama claiming that raising the cost of wheelchairs makes healthcare more affordable? He also wants higher taxes on doctors, higher energy costs, thousands more federal bureaucrats, and made it illegal to sell the least expensive kind of insurance policies. How does any of that make healthcare more affordable?"

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    It's just too bad there's not a third or fourth choice, something different than Red or Blue. But we do live in a binary world, so that's just reality.

    /this is what people actually believe

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    This is what people believe, because it's true. A FPTP system will almost always converge towards a two-party system.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    It's demonstrably UNtrue. The fact that people do not avail themselves of other choices does not mean that there are only two.

  • John||

    According to Reason's own poll, Romney is winning 77% of the Libertarian vote. Apparently Tim and Reason are in the minority in the opinion that it is Obama Jr.

    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org.....rian-vote/

    77% that really surprised me. Reason completely wrote off the Tea Party because a smaller percentage of them supported Gingrich in the primaries. I guess now they will have to write of Libertarians too.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Self-identified Tea Partiers supported Speaker Titties and Senator Frothy. Not the real Tea Partiers.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Yes, here we are writing off the Tea Party.

  • John||

    Tim,

    You guys excoriated the Tea Party for not voting for Paul. And your comentators were brutal.

  • RBS||

    Now it makes sense, John can't tell the difference between people who write for reason and people who comment on reason articles.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    He can, but it doesn't fit his current narrative.

  • ||

    Tim, your link just goes to Google. It doesn't show whatever you're trying to show. I've had this problem before in trying to link to Google searches.

  • sloopyinca||

    Here's the poll in pdf.

  • ||

    Ah, so that's what it was. Thanks for the clarification.

  • Raven Nation||

    Re: Reason Report, Nuptials News.

    Belated congrats.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Well, I'm convinced then. I'm voting for Romney!

  • John||

    Fuck off Mary and go back on your meds.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    I could do this for weeks and never get as annoying as your whiny and stupid "Well, I might as well vote for Obama" shit was.

    Not to anyone who isn't you, anyway.

  • RBS||

    Hahaha, Red Tony!!!!!!!!

  • ||

    According to Reason's own poll, Romney is winning 77% of the Libertarian vote. Apparently Tim and Reason are in the minority in the opinion that it is Obama Jr.

    There are two ways of identifying "libertarian" voters (small l, by the way, not big L).

    1) People who self-identify as libertarian

    2) People who are judged libertarian by the pollsters based on how the participants responded to particular issues.

    The Reason poll uses the latter scoring:

    The Reason-Rupe September 2012 poll includes our favorite ideological questions to differentiate libertarians from liberals and conservatives. Using three questions, we can define libertarians as respondents who believe “the less government the better,” who prefer the “free market” to handle problems, and who want government to “favor no particular set of values.”

    It's entirely possible for these people to not consider themselves libertarians and be less likely to vote libertarian. As many people here have pointed out, most people act like there are only two choices.

    Reason completely wrote off the Tea Party because a smaller percentage of them supported Gingrich in the primaries.

    Funny, I wrote off Bob Barr for the same reason. It's hard to take Newt supporters seriously.

  • Raven Nation||

    Plus, it would be easy for a lot of conservatives to give libertarian answers to those three questions - in good faith, even though they don't actually live by it.

  • ||

    It's like an old Syrian election, where the obvious lack of a choice is the point of the election, where the real goal is to show that power can force the citizens not just to accept preposterousness but to cheer for it.

    There will be more than two candidates on the ballot in at least 47 states. There is a choice other than two big statists.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    OT: I just found out that it's illegal in PA to attach a loaded rifle or shotgun to a bicycle tube. There goes my weekend project.

  • Libertarian||

    Why is it illegal, pray tell?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    A bicycle is considered a vehicle and vehicular transport of loaded long guns is prohibited, except for those with hunting licenses on hunting grounds.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    reporters are dumb enough to think there's something at stake in this election.

    But we are looking at "starkly different" candidates in The Most Important Election in History!!!!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Obama won the youth vote and will win it again despite completely fucking them with community rating.

    Obama's going to send everybody to college.

    FOR FREEEEEEEEEEEEE!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Does Reason have a copyright on the false equivalence trope?

    Time to give it a rest, Orangies.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    No, but no one else does and they're damn well going to take advantage of that lack.

  • ||

    Pointing out they both suck /=/ saying they both suck equally.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, the HitandRunpublicans sure found this story right away. Cavanaugh's take-down of the media coverage has somehow morphed into you believing he's taking Romney down (again).

    Color me surprised...

  • John||

    77% of Libertarians do seem to think there is a difference.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    I know! I can't believe I didn't take Romney seriously before now.

  • John||

    Fuck off Mary.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    How much of a difference, John?

    I'm mildly in favor of a Romney Presidency over four more years of Obama -- if Romney and Obama really are the same, then if nothing else it means we get the sublime pleasure of firing Obama twice. But Romney's governing model isn't a radical departure from Obama's -- and that is as unfortunate as it is problematic from a libertarian standpoint. Hell, it's problematic from a conservative standpoint.

    Libertarians would be better served to knock it off with the false equivalences, but conservative slurping of Republicans' sloppy seconds is far more of a problem.

  • John||

    Ask the 77%. But if you just read Reason, you would never guess that 77% Libertarians were voting for Romney. I would have never guess it was that high.

    So clearly there is some difference despite Reason's claims to the contrary.

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh, I misread your 77% thing. I took it as 77% of Libertarians think there is a difference in Romney and Obama. Please disregard my statement below about being one of the 77% then, as there's no way in the fucking world I'll be voting for Mitt or Obama.

    Now, to address that point of the 77%...that's 77% of the people who self-identify as libertarian, which doesn't exactly make it reliable. Hell, Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian.

  • John||

    But then you are just claiming no true Scottsman. If they identify as it, more than likely they are by any reasonable definition of the term even if some of them are lying.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm not claiming no true Scotsman, but I am claiming few true Scotsman, so to speak.

    If libertarians were such a force, why didn't they clean up in the GOP races in 2010 when the Team Red establishment were fighting them every step of the way? Sorry, but a big chunk of those people are simply misidentifying themselves. I'm not saying it's intentional or malicious, but it's still misidentification.

  • John||

    You are confusing the issue. Libertarians could be a small minority and it is could also be true that 77% of them are supporting Romney. There relative support for Romney says nothing about their overall size and influence.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm not confusing shit. I'm plainly saying that I believe a big part of that 77% have misidentified themselves. A better metric would be to ask them a series of questions (and that means a lot more than 3) to determine where they fall on the political spectrum. That wasn't done here and therefore I think that 77% is a wildly inaccurate number.

  • John||

    I believe a big part of that 77% have misidentified themselves.

    And the only reason you believe that is that they don't agree with you.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    To be honest, I just don't care enough how other libertarians vote to go ask them about it.

    If they have a great revelation about Romney's acceptability to libertarians as a candidate, then they should clue the rest of us in. Otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and assume that they just have a different take on existing facts than I do -- and that's fine.

    Why do you care anyways, John? Unlike other Reason articles (say, by Chapman or Suderman), this one doesn't have factual errors or a terribly strong editorial slant. It makes three points:

    1) The media's coverage of the election is bizarrely pro-Obama (which is true).

    2) Pollack is being disingenuous about Romney's beliefs and record (which is also true).

    3) Romney = Obama Jr (which is an opinion and is stated as such).

    So, what's the problem? Should Cavanaugh have slipped in, "and by the way, 77% of libertarians are voting for Romney"?

  • John||

    No. It is not about this article. I was more shocked that the percentage was that high. I didn't think more than five or six percent of Libertarians were voting for Romney. But the only libertarians I know are on Reason.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    this one doesn't have factual errors

    T-Cav claims that Romney "invented" the individual mandate for health insurance, which is patently false and has been gone over again and again in H+R when Suderman tries to push the same falsehoods.

  • Cavpitalist||

    And the only reason you believe that is that they don't agree with you.

    They don't agree with themselves.

    True Scotsman's ass, there is nothing significant and borne out by real enacted policy in common between Romney's worldview and the Libertarian worldview. Nothing.

    If you call yourself a "libertarian", regardless of "l" size, and you are voting for Romney, either a.) you've bought into the lesser of two evils trope, b.) you don't understand Romney's positions or c.) you don't understand your own.

    Not from some angle of political purity, but from an angle of overlapping belief systems - ours simply doesn't overlap with his.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    All o' y'all need to look at the actual polling [pdf] rather than depending on Cato's (interesting but not dispositive) gloss.

    What Kirby describes as "likely libertarian" voters are in fact broadly described fiscal-con/social-noninterventionist voters. That they make up 20 percent of the electorate makes it a stretch to call them libertarians (in particular big-L Libertarians, as staunch spelling refusenik John insists on doing). Libertarian candidates have topped one percent in prez races exactly once in history — 32 years ago, the same year Ted McGinley joined the cast of Happy Days.

    When asked to describe themselves, a mere 4 percent chose the title "libertarian." Four times as many poll respondents described themselves as "liberal."

    That fiscal cons overwhelmingly choose Romney is no surprise, because they have convinced themselves (wrongly in my view, and objectively in defiance of Romney's record in Massachusetts) that Romney will be substantially more conservative than Obama. The social-noninterventionist vote is more interesting, because it indicates they may be deciding (correctly, in my view) that hot-button social issues are unlikely to be affected one way or another by a presidential election — or in fact by a Senate election (go, Todd Akin, go).

  • Tulpa Doom||

    they have convinced themselves (wrongly in my view, and objectively in defiance of Romney's record in Massachusetts) that Romney will be substantially more conservative than Obama.

    Romney's record governing the bluest of blue states is significantly more conservative than Obama's record governing the entire country. Which isn't saying much, of course...Andrew flerking Cuomo's record is more conservative than BO's. But it ain't Romney supporters who are deluded on this issue.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The PDF you're linking to is a list of 61 questions and responses. No analysis that breaks it up into social and fiscal cohorts.

  • ||

    If they identify as it,

    If you bothered to read anything about the poll, you'd know it's not based on self-identification. But that doesn't fit your narrative, I guess.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    But if you just read Reason, you would never guess that 77% Libertarians were voting for Romney.

    Damn straight. It's a good thing somebody did a poll so you could find out what Reason isn't telling you.

  • John||

    Of course it was CATO who looked at the poll and picked up on it. I saw the poll when Reason posted it and didn't notice that. But Reason didn't point it out either.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    See above.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm mildly in favor of a Romney Presidency over four more years of Obama -- if Romney and Obama really are the same, then if nothing else it means we get the sublime pleasure of firing Obama twice. But Romney's governing model isn't a radical departure from Obama's

    We really don't know how Romney will act in office. But we do know how Obama has acted, and more importantly, he fact that the media has lost all interest in their watchdog role.

    So worst case, Romney will act like Obama, except with a hostile press corps keeping and eye on him. Which is an improvement over the current situation.

    Best case a strong majority gets elected to the Senate and the Congress sends Romney legislation slashing government spending and repealing Obamacare, which he signs.

    Either way, and even with a weak middle course, it's better than having Obama re elected.

  • Alien Invader||

    Except that the GOP will decide Romney was the right choice if he wins. And they will never recover from it.

    If the GOP looses its head this time around, there is a very remote chance that the one it grows back will be at least somewhat better.

    Key word: remote.

    Price tag: four more years of the O-Boy.

  • sloopyinca||

    And I'm one of those 77%. However, I don't see the difference as stark enough for me to pull the lever for Romney. He's for continued intervention in the mideast. He's for a form of Obamacare (based on, you kn0ow, what he's fucking already done and refuses to completely denounce). He's for continued runaway spending on SS and Medicare. And he's not exactly come out in support of more civil liberties IRT NDAA, the USAPATRIOT Act, the War On Drugs and myriad other Team Red/Blue partnerships.

    IOW, he may only be 90% as bad as Obama, but that's still too bad for me.

  • John||

    then you are not one of those 77%. That is 77% who plan to vote for Romney.

  • sloopyinca||

    I realize that now. Please see my above comment about people incorrectly self-identifying as "libertarian."

    Question: if you asked 1000 Islamists participating in an embassy-storming if they thought their views were moderate and 77% said they were, would you consider them moderate or not?

  • John||

    So you are telling me that most people who call themselves Libertarians are nuts on a level with Islamists? The reason why that answer would be disturbing is because they are clearly not moderate and they are basically nuts. Libertarians last I looked were not nuts.

    That analogy doesn't hold. Unless you are willing to claim that the country is gripped by some kind of insanity. In the end, you are just defining who is a "libertarian" down to "anyone and only anyone who agrees with you"

  • sloopyinca||

    Bullshit, John. I was merely saying that people often misidentify themselves. Especially when 2/3 of America think the further right you get, the more you become a libertarian.

  • John||

    What proof do you have that any or even a majority of those people misidentified themselves other than the fact that you don't agree with them?

    You have none. So all you are saying is "libertarian means anyone who agrees with me".

  • sloopyinca||

    The first piece of proof I have is this (from the poll):
    45 {DERIVED}"Ideological"Groups
    Libertarian 24%
    Conservative 26%
    Liberal 26%
    Communitarian 24%
    Total 100%

    If you think 1/4 of America is libertarian then you're off your fucking rocker.

    The methodology for determining "libertarian" from the survey was three questions, and I think they're somewhat leading questions at that.

  • John||

    Why can't 1/4 of the country be Libertarian? 25% is not a majority. And according to that poll 50% of the country is liberal of Communitarian. That 50% out votes the 25% every time.

    I get it sloopy. Anyone who disagrees with you is by definition not a Libertarian no matter what they think.

  • sloopyinca||

    If 1/4 of the American population were libertarian, do you not think they would have a more visible impact on the political landscape, John? Seriously, you're smarter than this.

  • John||

    No Sloopy I don't. A group of 1/4 of the population who can't agree on anything and have a position on a huge variety of issues, will have very little impact. It is not like they are single issue voters.

  • sloopyinca||

    No Sloopy I don't. A group of 1/4 of the population who can't agree on anything and have a position on a huge variety of issues, will have very little impact. It is not like they are single issue voters.

    But yet the poll identified that wildly diverse group by how they answered just three questions?

    Thanks for playing. You just proved my point for me.

  • John||

    Face it sloopy. Most Libertarians are voting for Romney.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    This line of argument is collectivist though. Even if I agree that the poll correctly identified libertarians, it doesn't matter who try are voting for, I can still think they are confused and wrong.

  • juris imprudent||

    If you weren't a Team Red dumbass John, you might think about how that poll result. Almost neatly divided into quarters?

  • John||

    So what? I get it juris, only polls that fit your preconceived notions are valid.

    And apparently 77% of Libertarians are Team Red dumb asses too.

  • sloopyinca||

    Face it sloopy. Most Libertarians are voting for Romney.

    ...based on one poll that said 25% of people were libertarian based on three questions yet only 4% of the respondents agreed with that assessment.

    Read:
    44 Thinking about your overall political philosophy, would you describe yourself as…
    Conservative, 31%
    Moderate 21%
    Liberal 15%
    Libertarian 4%
    Progressive 8%
    Something"else 16%
    Don't"Know/Refused 4%
    Total 100%

    45 {DERIVED}"Ideological"Groups
    Libertarian 24%
    Conservative 26%
    Liberal 26%
    Communitarian 24%
    Total 100%

    Yeah, I trust that methodology.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So what.

    Hardly anyone in America self describes as a socialist. But at least 30% of the population is, based on their attitudes and voting habits.

    Hell 95%+ of the people in the news media are fucking socialists and almost everyone of them would recoil from that accurate descriptor.

  • ||

    So what.

    The block John has been trying to pound into a round hole is that people who count themselves as libertarian are mostly voting for Romney. But the 77% poll result isn't based on self-identification, meaning most of those people are people who count themselves as conservative or liberal, rather than libertarian. So the idea he based off this, that libertarians think Romney is much better than Obama, doesn't hold water.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I find it interesting that Reason damns the Tea Party because self-identified TPers favored Gingrich; but then when self-identified libertarians favor Romney, they don't take their word for it but do some Myerson-Briggs analysis or something.

  • sloopyinca||

    These aren't self-identified libertarians, Tulpa. Did you read the poll? The pollsters id 24% of the respondents as "libertarian" based on their answers to three questions.

    Why don't you read the study and then come back here and comment on it. You'll come across less partisan that way.

  • Mike M.||

    I find it interesting that Reason damns the Tea Party because self-identified TPers favored Gingrich; but then when self-identified libertarians favor Romney, they don't take their word for it but do some Myerson-Briggs analysis or something.

    Cosmotarians are so awesome in their vast powers that they can even read minds.

  • ||

    The "Cosmo" comes from Cosmology. Cosmotarians are connected to the infinite insight of the universe.

  • Todd||

    Hey, I'm rolling with John myself. Suffice to say it's ironic that in a year where libertarianism has entered the mainstream in political discourse that the two top-line candidates are about as unlibertarian as it gets.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'd say that Romney is decidedly more libertarian-friendly than GWB was.

  • sloopyinca||

    Meh. It's tough to say. Based on their governance (GWB prior to being elected President), I'd have to disagree. GWB changed post-9/11 into much more of a statist and violator of civil and human rights than I ever thought he would become.

    Romney was one of the most liberal progressive Republican governors in the last half-century. Thinking he will be different if given the keys to the WH is taking one hell of a leap of faith.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    GWB was simply awful as Governor of Texas, and on the campaign trail promised a massive expansion of our most unwieldy entitlement (Medicare Pt D), as well as a litany of other government programs besides. I will agree that 9/11 changed his foreign policy, but otherwise he governed as his record and rhetoric indicated he was going to govern.

    Romney was a fairly average Governor of MA -- which is not a compliment by any means, but given the composition of the legislature and political climate, not necessarily indicative of anything but political cowardice.

    I would take a political coward in a blue state over someone who governed a conservative state in statist fashion, any day of the week -- though someone like a Mitch Daniels, Luis Fortuno, or Mark Sanford would have been much better than any of the mental midgets who've run as Republicans recently.

  • sloopyinca||

    I would take a political coward in a blue state over someone who governed a conservative state in statist fashion, any day of the week -- though someone like a Mitch Daniels, Luis Fortuno, or Mark Sanford would have been much better than any of the mental midgets who've run as Republicans recently.

    Sad, really, when we actually had a two-term Republican governor of a blue state with an exceptional track record running this time around get totally disregarded by the party establishment in addition to Ron Paul, who also got disregarded by them.

    Yeah, there were some mental midgets, but not quite all of them were. The real mental midgets were the GOP primary voters who chose the least stupid of the idiots over the two reasonably intelligent men in the race.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Bush won New Mexico in 2004, sloopy. It's a swing state.

    RP was disregarded by the establishment too, but that didn't stop him because he wasn't an arrogant ass like GJ is.

  • sloopyinca||

    GJ had a Democrat majority in both houses the entire time he was Governor of New Mexico, Tulpa. Whether or not it is a swing state (it's voted (D) in every election but one since 1988) in federal elections doesn't change the fact that he had a Democrat Legislature to work with all 8 years he was there.

    I don't think being an arrogant ass stopped GJ as much as the party's inner mechanisms did. That and he's not a great speaker or campaign bullshit artist like your boy Mitt, or Titties or Assgrease for that matter. Oh well, style over substance has been the Team Red way for at least 20 years.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Oh well, style over substance has been the Team Red American way for at least 20 more than 200 years.

    FIFY

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'd have to disagree. GWB changed post-9/11 into much more of a statist and violator of civil and human rights than I ever thought he would become.

    Then you weren't paying attention to his campaign rhetoric in 2000.

    He ran as a compassionate conservative and for federal driven education reform.

    What in his past would lead you to think that he was libertarianish?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    He talked a lot about a "humble foreign policy", something you can't really judge a governor's record on.

  • juris imprudent||

    Go ahead, pick that turd up by that end - it isn't as shitty as the other end.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Under what line of argument? He's a technocrat consultant that thinks we're one regulation tweak
    away from paradise. He won't even seriously consider a balanced budget initiative and thinks the department of defense is woefully underfunded. WTF?

  • ||

    I'm guessing that 77% of libertarians are horrified by Obama, afraid of what he'll do with a second term, and really, really, WANT to like Romney.

    That is until Romney waltzes around talking about the awesomeness of the pre-existing condition denial ban, trade sanctions on China, and how Obama is a weaking who hasn't the balls to invade Iran.

    Face it, John. Romeny is NO LIBERTARIAN. In fact, we are so fucked that both parties are openly pandering in to voters in ways that make it CRYSTAL FUCKING CLEAR that their focus groups rae telling them that voters want MOAR FREE SHIT.

    There is no libertarian policy consensus out there. If there was, Romney wouldn't be desperately running ads in Obio telling people how much he wants to slap the Chinese with trade sanctions.

  • John||

    Face it, John. Romeny is NO LIBERTARIAN

    Who ever claimed he was Hazel? And yes of course that is why they are voting for him. And the constant "they are all the same" chant that goes on on here does nothing but act as an apology for Obama. No they are not the same, if for no other reason than Romney is not personally corrupt in the way Obama is. Obama is uniquely horrible and will do God knows what after he doesn't have to face re-election. And Reason is going to be happy about him having the opportunity.

  • ||

    They're not the same. But the fact that they're both pandering to voters in ways that spell "here little girl, want some candy?" tells me that the voting public is full of dumb little girls that want candy.

    Which deoesn't bode well for the future of the Republic, whichever party wins.

  • John||

    So they are not the same, but it won't make any difference who wins. Whatever hazel.

  • ||

    No it won't because even if Romney win's it won't be politically feasible for him to take away the baby's candy.

    He'll want to get reelected, after all.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Will he pull a fast and furious? Will he try to gut the 1st amendment to protect the feelings of terrorists? Will the media ignore his public looting for his cronies? Or his illegal wars? Will he push for higher taxes? or a new entitlement? or promote economy killing regulation?

  • ||

    Oh, I'm sure he will be right along on that "freedom of speech doesn't protect speech that offends religion" bandwagon. He'll funnel plenty of money to his cronies - via defense spending. The media will treat his illegal ways with due deference (but partisan sniping). He won't make a serious effort at tax reform. He'll cut taxes marginally, and close a few loopholes for the wealthy.

    The only thing that MIGHT pass, seriously, is the medicare voucher program. And it will be indexed to inflation, and probhably end up getting repealed before it takes effect (seeing as how it's 10 years out).

    Seriously, even if the Republicans DO win, the budget cuts are going to be tiny and not enough. They aren't going to cut defense spending, they're too afraid to do anything serious about entitlements, and there isn't that much money left outside of those two things to cut.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    There is no reason to believe that he's as personally corrupt as Obama nor that the media will felate him, the way they do Obama. And another entitlement is a complete non starter at this point.

  • Calidissident||

    Who gives a shit about what the media says? The media throwing partisan shots at the president (although even then they still maintain constant propaganda to maintain the "Imperial Presidency" for lack of a better term) didn't make the Bush years any more tolerable

  • ||

    And another entitlement is a complete non starter at this point.

    How could you add any more entitlements? We already have cradle to grave welfare, and universal healthcare including free birth control pills.

    All Obama has to do is declare food to be a form of preventative healthcare.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Will he pull a fast and furious?

    Most likely, or something very similar, yeah.

    Will he try to gut the 1st amendment to protect the feelings of terrorists?

    No doubt.

    Will the media ignore his public looting for his cronies?

    I doubt they stop now.

    Or his illegal wars?

    The majority of the media will probably ignore it, sure, but the right-wing talkosphere will sufficiently cow any traitors that object.

    Will he push for higher taxes?

    He'll have to. He's going to spend more on the military and Medicare.

    or a new entitlement?

    I'm sure. That IS the current R and D trend.

    or promote economy killing regulation?

    Oh yeah. Mitt Romney is definitely the kind of guy who thinks he can single-handedly control an economy (and everything else) from Washington.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Personally corrupt John? Really? And what special knowledge do you have that tells you Obama is corrupt and that Romney is a sainted soul?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    His house deal with Rezco reeks of corruption.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Obama is corrupt and that Romney is a sainted soul

    Where the hell did you get that from John's statement that Romney isn't as corrupt as Obama? Talk about moving the goalposts.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    So why vote for the new crook?

  • BigT||

    Moochelle's sweet deal with the Chi hospital right after Obama became state senator reeks of corruption as well.

  • PapayaSF||

    Romney is no libertarian, but some of his appointments and advisors might be. Obama isn't a full-on Marxist socialist, but Van Jones was. it's a certainty that Romney's entourage and appointments (to the bureaucracy and the the courts) will be more libertarian (on average) than Obama's have been.

  • Paul.||

    "77% of Libertarians do seem to think there is a difference"

    No they don't. 77% of people that the pollsters decided were libertarians based on a pre-fab set of "philosophical" questions that republicans routinely lie about believing in are voting for romney. That's a big difference.

  • Todd||

    Nice pointing out the media critique. They think that by getting rid of old, rich White guys, All Will Be Well. There are some people who think by making the occupant of the White House look different, things will be different.

    As much as Dinesh D'Souza was rightly trashed for tying Obama to post-colonial politics, the American left is looking very much like the Brits post-colonialism. Yeah...this isn't going to end well.

  • John||

    What should disturb Libertarians about the media constant Obama cock sucking is that Romney may well win. And when he does, it sure would be nice to have a media that can act as a watch dog and has some credibility. But thanks to their giving Obama a complete pass, no one will pay any attention when they start doing their jobs again after Romney takes office. So we will end up with neither party being held accountable for anything. No matter how many thumb sucking "gee maybe we got a little over the top in our soft coverage of Obama in the last four years" though pieces is going to give them any of their credibility back. And that is really a bad thing for the country.

  • ||

    No, John, you'll be desperately trying to explain away Romney's actions when he goes back on his promise to repeal ObamaCare, starts handing out subsidies to "clean coal", and decides to wage an air war against Iran.

  • John||

    First, Obama is going to waging war against Iran. Iran gets to decide if we go to war or not. So get that thought out of your little head. Voting for Obama will not keep us out of wars.

    Second, I won't defend any of that. And if you think I would, you don't know me very well or more likely just talking out of your ass so you can feel better about yourself. Either way, go fuck yourself Hazel.

  • ||

    So what about the inevitable moment when he "reforms" ObamaCare in all the wrong ways?

    If Romney win's 10-to-1, his move is to repeal the Medicare cuts and the IPAB, but NOT the individual mandate or the pre-existing conditions ban.

    He's been pandering to seniors straight down the line and so has most of the Republican party.

  • John||

    Romney won't have a choice in how he repeals Obamacare. He is running for President not king you half wit. Congress will put a bill on his desk repealing it and he will sign it or sign his own political death warrant.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Assuming that there are enough Congressional votes to make such an outcome possible.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The house has passed a repeal bill over 100 times. Hairy Reed refuses to let it even come up for a vote in the Senate - which indicates that it would probably pass even with a Dem majority.

    If the republicans get the senate, which should be a lock, then a repeal of Obamacare will wind up on the president's desk.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I don't think it would pass, it's just that there are a lot of Dem senators running this year who don't want a pro-Obamacare vote on their record right before the election.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I don't think it would pass, it's just that there are a lot of Dem senators running this year who don't want a pro-Obamacare vote on their record right before the election.

    Which is why I think it would pass.

    Enough of the 22 dems up for reelection this year would cave.

  • ||

    The Senate is NOT a lock, if you've been following the polls lately. Even Tommy Thompson is trailing in Wisconsin.

    And even they win the Senate, the Republicans
    will have to overcome a Democratic filibuster, or have enough Republican votes to ram it through reconcilliation. And just one or two Republican vote in the Senate could be enough to stop a reconcilliation vote and allow the Dems to stop a repeal.

    Now, there are going to be quite a few Republicans who aren't going to want to cast a vote to repeal the ban on pre-existing conditions. Because voters like free shit, you know.

    So Romney will compromise. He'll repeal the IPAB and the medicare cuts (because senior citizens vote a lot) , and then he'll claim the the Republicans saved Medicare, and that they repealed the parts that voters didn't like. Maybe make a few other cosmentic changes. Oh and no free birth control pills. And that will be IT.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The Senate is NOT a lock, if you've been following the polls lately.

    Split up for election this year is 22d 11r. The Rs pick up 5 seats (giving them a majority) if it just goes to an even split. In reality, they should pick up 7-10 seats.

    The only way that the Senate doesn't go republican is if this is a democrat wave election with Obama winning in a landslide (57%+ pv). Which isn't going to happen.

  • ||

    That's an absurd analysis. The reason those seats are D's in the first place is because they are in blue states.

    Assuming that they'll just go 50-50 is retarded. Look at which states those seats are in and at the polling in individual races.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Haha political death warrant...you crack me up

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Romney can't repeal OC as long as 41 Dem Senators don't want him to.

    He can gut it by having his executive agencies fill the hollow shell of the bill with styrofoam. And I think he will because if he doesn't he knows his goose is cooked with the right, and it's not like moderates are in love with OC.

    It's interesting to see Reason saying that Romney is a man without principles (agreed) AND that he would do something horribly unpopular with the electorate, like saving OC.

  • Cytotoxic||

    He can be both unprincipled and terrible at politics-BECAUSE HE IS.

  • ||

    Agreed. You frequently see headline reading things like "Romney's Tax Promises Don't Add Up".

    But you never see one's saying "Obama's Debt Reduction plan Doesn't Add Up", or even "Obama's Debt Plan Number Confirmed by CBO". They simply aren't discussing anything Obama has proposed at all. They aren't giving any critical analysis to any of Obama's proposals. Possibly because he hasn't made any. He's running on air. He's running on promises to "create 1 million jobs", without specifying how that's supposed to happen.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    This is interesting:

    Canada, which allowed Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr to be transferred to a prison in his homeland months earlier than expected, did so after pressure from the United States, Foreign Minister John Baird said on Sunday.
    http://mobile.reuters.com/arti.....0?irpc=932

  • ||

    What should disturb Libertarians about the media constant Obama cock sucking is that Romney may well win.

    Unless the swing state polls are highly inaccurate, that seems unlikely. Romney appears to be trailing in Virginia, Florida, and Ohio, and he needs to win all three or he's toast.

  • John||

    Time will tell. Regardless, a Republican will win at some point. If not now, then certainly in 2016. And when that happens, the media will have absolutely no credibility in attacking him. So we will be left in a situation where neither party can be held accountable for anything.

  • sloopyinca||

    So we will be left in a situation where neither party can be held accountable for anything.

    When was the last time they really were, John?

  • John||

    I would say Bush was held pretty accountable. He lost the Congress in 06 and left with a 24% approval rating. Obama in contrast has been worse, and may win re-election. Clinton was impeached. Obama has not been held accountable by the media or his own party for a single thing. He literally ordered the death of American citizens and his supporters and the media cheered him on. there is nothing he could do that would cause his supporters to give up on him. Nothing, up to and including killing people or declaring himself dictator.

  • sloopyinca||

    I would say Bush was held pretty accountable. He lost the Congress in 06 and left with a 24% approval rating.

    Yeah, and the war being wildly unpopular and him being an utter moron had nothing to do with it. Besides, how does one's approval rating=holding someone accountable? If he really were being held accountable, he would have been on trial for war crimes.

    Obama in contrast has been worse, and may win re-election.

    Like GWB did in 2004.

    Obama has not been held accountable by the media or his own party for a single thing. He literally ordered the death of American citizens and his supporters and the media cheered him on.

    Yeah, and so did all the Team red warmongers.

    there is nothing he could do that would cause his supporters to give up on him.

    The same can't be said about Bush apologists? After all, Mitt's entire foreign policy is based on Bush's, and I don't see any difference in how either one approaches Medicare, the WoT, the WoD and the size of government.

    Nothing, up to and including killing people or declaring himself dictator.

    Every President in recent memory did the former. None have done the latter.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I wasn't a fan of the Iraq war (or most of our post-Cold War foreign policy), but do you have evidence of war crimes perpetrated by GWB? If so, I'd like to see it.

  • sloopyinca||

    Gitmo? Torture? Rendition?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Oy. Not going to respond to that. You and I are both smarter than the discussion that would follow.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    al Qaeda isn't a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, so the crimes would have to be much stronger than that to rise to the war crime levels. Something like genocide would be necessary.

    Imprisoning POWs at Gitmo wouldn't even be problematic for a Geneva Conventions signatory.

    Of course, the big question is whether the people we were picking up were really combatants at all, but that's not a war crimes issue. And of course the torture and rendition were unamerican and illegal under our own laws.

  • sloopyinca||

    al Qaeda isn't a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, so the crimes would have to be much stronger than that to rise to the war crime levels. Something like genocide would be necessary.

    So as long as you declare war on a nebulous group of people, you're free to do anything in your "war" because they don't count? That's fuckin gretarded.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hey, if they're not smart enough to wage war as a nation-state, fuck 'em! Amirite?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Well, as I said the big issue is whether the people we catch really are part of the group.

    The Geneva Conventions are a give and take. Bad news is you have to wear uniforms and refrain from killing prisoners. Good news is your own guys are protected from torture. AQ has made their decision, so there's no war crimes here.

  • John||

    How many Americans did Bush order the deaths of? Maybe I missed that.

    And you need to get it through your thick skull sloopy,. Obama is going to war with Iran. You can go to bed with your little hopey changy peacenik jammies every night and think otherwise, but you are pissing in the wind.

  • juris imprudent||

    Haven't we always been at war with Iran?

  • sloopyinca||

    How many Americans did Bush order the deaths of? Maybe I missed that.

    Not sure. I can't get the breakdown of the American death toll in Iraq from just his years.

    And you need to get it through your thick skull sloopy,. Obama is going to war with Iran.

    I know. That's one reason why I will not be voting for him.

    You can go to bed with your little hopey changy peacenik jammies every night and think otherwise, but you are pissing in the wind.

    Nonsensical gibberish is nonsensical.

  • John||

    yeah sloopy going to war in Iraq is just like drone striking someone. That is idiotic and you know it.

    And I would not be surprised at all if you end up voting for Obama. You not fooling me.

  • Calidissident||

    Pretty rich that John of all people is accusing someone else of supporting Obama just because they oppose Romney. It's not like 90% of all John's posts on this board aren't defenses of Romney and/or criticisms of Obama, while he nonetheless maintains that he's not voting for Romney

  • Cytotoxic||

    John's criticisms of Sloopy still stand. Sloopy's remarks are insipid.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'm curious... under that definition of "order the deaths of", how many Americans did Ron Paul order the deaths of when he authorized military action in Afghanistan in his capacity as a Congressman?

  • John||

    And he doesn't need all three. He only needs VA and Florida.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Dear John and other likely voters who lean toward Romney:

    When are you guys going to get it? True Libertarians don't care about advancing libertarianism anywhere ever. Okay, got it?

    They care about themselves and making themselves feel good. Period. Gosh darn it, they're smarter than everyone and by golly if they're not gonna remind us dolts of that every 3 seconds.

    A True Libertarian is like a fan of some unsigned indie band. Once they make it big, poof, all interest dies because they can't feel good about being "different" anymore.

    But anyway, on Jan. 20, 2013, when Gary Johnson is anywhere on Mother Gaia but the White House, how will he help to repeal Obamacare?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    True Libertarians don't care about advancing libertarianism anywhere ever.

    Neither does Romney, so I guess that puts those of us who are voting for Gary Johnson on the same footing as those of us voting for Mittens.

    If the GOP gave a crap about getting libertarian votes, they could make an effort to find someone who isn't the model of the Northeastern Republicrats that Reagan ran against.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Libertarianism is based on geographic location?

    Who knew?

  • ||

    Libertarianism is based on geographic location?
    Northeastern Republicrats

    Who know you considered Romney a libertarian, Mulatto? Reread his post. He's referring to Romney-style Republicans.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If the GOP gave a crap about getting libertarian votes, they could make an effort to find someone who isn't the model of the Northeastern Republicrats that Reagan ran against.

    I don't see what's so "Northeastern" about Romney, considering he was born in Detroit and didn't move to Boston until he went to Harvard.

  • ||

    It's a reference to the type of Republican that's seen more in the Northeast, not a reference to place of birth. I've seen Reason refer to the term before, as well. It has nothing to do with libertarianism being linked to specific places.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    This has a strong scent of Godesky to it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    77% of Libertarians do seem to think there is a difference.

    Like our extra-special "libertarian" who believes anybody who doesn't immediately and unquestioningly obey a police order deserves to be summarily executed?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Most Libertarians are voting for Romney.

    I suspect most libertarians will stay home (until the bars open).

  • sticks||

    Why do they even close the bars?

  • ||

    Yes, let's all go vote for Romney so we can have four years of being horribly disppointed and betrayed. Cause that was awesome the last N times.

    We don't need a new President, we need some new voters. Ones that aren't retarded parasites.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yes, let's all go vote for Romney so we can have four years of being horribly disppointed and betrayed. Cause that was awesome the last N times.

    The only time in my lifetime that a republican ran on a semi small government platform and had a Congressional majority was 2000.

    That's it.

    So N=1.

    All of this they always betray us BS reminds me of pussies in middle school that were afraid to ask anyone out on a date because they got shot down the first time they tried.

  • ||

    All of this they always betray us BS reminds me of pussies in middle school that were afraid to ask anyone out on a date because they got shot down the first time they tried.

    It's more like someone who's gotten STDs from the sorority girls too many times. Do you really think this time we won't catch something?

  • Calidissident||

    You people are in serious denial if you actually believe that. The Republicans say the same shit every election and never follow through

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Welform reform never happened. Got it.

  • ||

    Welfare reform happened in the 5 mintues after the collapse of Communism during which the liberal media doubted the awesomeness of socialism.

  • Calidissident||

    If that's gonna be the signature accomplishment Republicans can hang their hat on, then I think you're making my point. Welfare spending continues to soar, which confirms that the reforms were teetering around the edges. Not to mention, that the largest social spending programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps) were left untouched. Which is even more evidence that Republicans are not serious about what they say about small government, and will only go as far as they need to to avoid losing the base. Which isn't very far most of the time

  • Tulpa Doom||

    And there go the goalposts.

    If you don't want to be contradicted with counterexamples, don't speak in absolute terms.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If you think the welfare tweaking of the '90s was 'follow through' then you've proven CD's point.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Welfare reform is a much bigger step toward libertarianism than the LP has come remotely close to accomplishing in its 40 year history.

  • Calidissident||

    And how many gigantic steps away from libertarianism has the GOP been responsible for in recent history?

  • ||

    The only time in my lifetime that a republican ran on a semi small government platform and had a Congressional majority was 2000.

    Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative". In case you hadn't noticed "compassionate" is a synonym for "big government".

    Republicans never run on a small government platform because their focus groups tell them that voters like free shit. And once they get elected, they want to get reelected, and their focus groups tell them that voters like free shit.

    So you tell me how we get a Republican, or anyone of any other party, in on a small government platform if the majority of the electorate has their hand out yelling "gimme!gimmegimmegimegimegimee!"

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative". In case you hadn't noticed "compassionate" is a synonym for "big government".

    Right so N=0 not 1.

  • Calidissident||

    Is Romney running on a small government platform? I must have missed that.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So you prefer total despair to doing something that might work.

  • ||

    Are you saying that electing Romney "might work"?

    I think the voters need to be taught a lesson.

  • wareagle||

    it should be fairly obvious that another go of Obama will NOT work. I'll take might over won't for 16-trillion, Alex.

  • ||

    I'll take being kicked in the nuts by Romney on the off chance it will hurt less than being kicked in the nuts again by Obama

    Fixed.

  • ||

    Yeah, so that when the economy collapses everyone can blame Romney's radical deregulation and austerity programs, instead of the welfare state entitlement programs that are the real cause of the problem. Just like in Europe.

    At some point, ideas have to be tried, so they can fail miserably.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    They've failed miserably time and time again....and every time they blame us.

    Hell, they're blaming the current troubles on Bush still, when they're not blaming the Tea Party.

  • ||

    So precisely what is a Romney presidency supposed to accomplish?

  • Calidissident||

    Tulpa, you continue to dodge my questioning of your logic for supporting Romney, so I'll keep saying it until you respond: Your logic for supporting Romney is essentially "He has a chance to win, Johnson doesn't, and he's better than Obama, therefore we should support him." Seeing as how we have an electoral college, and you live in Pennsylvania, you contradict your own logic, as Romney has no chance of winning PA. Furthermore, no one person's vote, even in a swing state, is ever going to swing the election. Why does it matter to my vote whether I'd need 1 million people to join me and vote for Romney in order for him to win, or 40 million to join me and vote for Gary Johnson? In either case, there's a ton of people who I have no control over that would need to act differently. When you go in the voting booth on election day, the results have already been decided. What box you check won't change it. So if you do vote, the only logical thing to do is vote for the best candidate

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Romney has a chance in PA. There's time left.

    Moreover, were I to do as you propose it would demoralize Romney supporters in other states and cause a total chain reaction and stuff.

  • Cytotoxic||

    All that's left is the crying...

  • Tulpa Doom||

    At least I'm not crying beforehand like the third party partisans around here.

  • ||

    Pointing out reality isn't "crying". But your posts on this subject certainly sound like whining.

  • ||

    That was to Tulpa, not Cyto.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I don't know if people are actually crying, but the atmo of despair and helplessness is palpable among the third partisans.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes Tulpa that's a direct consequence of not IGNORING REALITY. Like the reality that Romney is a political lost puppy about to lose to the worst president since LBJ. Like the reality that even if Romney were to win, it would not be nearly enough.

  • Calidissident||

    HAHAHA this might be the funniest shit you've ever said! Newsflash: No one (and certainly random people in other states who don't know you) cares enough about you to be demoralized into not voting for Mitt Romney just because you switched your vote to Gary Johnson. And you're high off your ass if you think Romney can win PA. He's down almost 10 points in a state that hasn't gone red since 1988.

    Furthermore, if election day comes, and it's obvious from the polls that Romney's going to lose, or that he's at least to lose Pennsylvania, will you vote for Johnson? Cause you are a total hypocrite if you don't

  • ||

    Yes, the worst thing that could happen would be that a libertarian could demoralize a bunch of evangelical social cons into not voting for Romney, becuase the libertarian switched his vote to an actual libertarian.

  • T o n y||

    "He has a chance to win, Johnson doesn't, and he's better than Obama, therefore we should support him."

    Absolutely crystalline logic, assuming you buy the notion that Romney is better than Obama.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    In 2004, when Bush toured the country touting SS privatization, True Libertarians screamed: He isn't serious! It doesn't go far enough! Murray Rothbard gave me crabs so bring the troops home now!

    Whatever, guys, whatever.

  • ||

    Oh yeah, I remember all that talk of crabs. I was so happy, those giant sea bugs are delicious. Rothbard was my idol for like, a whole meal.

  • ||

    Yes, and we saw how fast Republicans caved in on that, didn't we? In fact, he caved so hard he had to give seniors medicare part D, just so they would stop freaking out.

  • Stephdumas||

    Speaking of the media, I spotted that funny editorial toon
    http://www.cagle.com/2012/09/d.....ia-in-bed/

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "A Romney loss also means America will have accepted persistent high unemployment and slow growth as the new normal, creating a lost generation and destroying both our entitlement system and our future prosperity."

    And a Romney win means something different?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Another fomenter of despair. Lovely.

  • ||

    Accept despair Tulpa, whose name is Doom.

    It is only by embracing despair that one can see the truth, and emerge cleaned.

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh, Tulpa's accepted despair. That's the only explanation for him being a Team Red cheerleader.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I hath met despair, and his name is Jake Locker.

  • ||

    I meant cleansed.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    And I would not be surprised at all if you end up voting for Obama. You not fooling me.

    The world inside John's head must look like something devised in a collaboration between M C Escher and Hieronymus Bosch.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    OT: The Lions lost. Again. And look like the frauds they probably are. Which gives a sense of comfort, a touchstone in a crazy world.

    "The Lions suck. Again. At least THAT part of the world is normal..."

  • ||

    Face it sloopy. Most Libertarians are voting for Romney.

    Well, no. Someone ELSE doing the survey labeled about 25% of the poll respondents as libertarian-ish, but only 4% of the actual people responding to the poll self-identified as libertarian.

    Do the math. It is possible that 100% of self-identified libertarians in the poll are voting for someone not Romney.

  • sloopyinca||

    OT: Ooh, bad call in the Packers game...by the REAL officials. I hope that blown fumble call costs the Packers the game. I really do just to see the talking heads at ESPN spin it away as "part of the game" now that their preferred officials are calling games again.

    And on that note, I'll happily say that the refs this week have missed just as many calls and made as many bad ones as the guys last week. Of course, that will be spun as them being rusty due to the league fucking them over.

  • wareagle||

    a conspiratorial part of me thinks the NFL engineered the whole thing, bringing in refs who were basically set up to fail by working a game light years beyond the NAIA level.

  • Raven Nation||

    Fox Commentator at the GB game: "The honeymoon with the regular officials has been shorter than a Kardashian honeymoon."

  • sloopyinca||

    Joe Buck probably worked on that joke all week. And sadly, a big chunk of football fans don't give two shits about (or don't even know who the fuck) the Kardashians are.

    At least I hope so.

  • Raven Nation||

    Probably true. But still funny.

  • wareagle||

    they know just like they know names of contestants on The Voice. Names of their Congressional reps, not so much.

  • ||

    "sadly"?

  • ||

    I would like it if Romney would win, but if he's going to win by running on trade protectionism and saving Medicare, what's the fucking point?

    He's not running on a small government platform, he's running on "Hey voters, I have a bunch of free shit for you, AND I'M NOT OBAMA!"

  • Raven Nation||

    Well put. This, I think, is one of the consequences of the 2010 elections. Most Republicans thought being "not Obama" would be enough.

  • ||

    yes, he's trying to be NOT-OBAMA + "a bunch of random crap my focus groups tell me people will like".

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Speaking of the NFL refs: while I was idly flipping through the channels yesterday morning, I landed on the MSNBC Hipster Douchebag Focus Group Show just in time to hear Douchebag Leader giddily yammering about how the NFL referee strike was opening America's eyes to the need for union solidarity.

    Yeah, that's what I thought, too.

  • Raven Nation||

    Wow! That's the kind of statement that really can't be responded to.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    NEEDZ MOAR PANICS!

    Over the past few years, synthetic drugs like K-2, Spice and Bath Salts, have become increasing popular with teenagers and young adults because of their accessibility. Their ingredients are relatively easy to obtain and order online and until recently, they weren't classified as illegal substances. But as they come under legal scrutiny, one by one, they've triggered a domino effect of newer, altered, and more potent versions.

    "I think [the drugs] just keep changing to try to circumvent the law," Lindsay Wold, a detective with the Grand Forks police department, told Yahoo Shine. "Anytime we try to figure something out, it changes." Since July, her department has launched an awareness campaign in an effort to crack down on the Smile's growing popularity with teens and young adults in the area. While reports of overdoses have spiked, Wold says it's difficult to measure it's growth in numbers.

    Why, it's almost as if the urge to take consciousness altering drugs is unstoppable.

  • Raven Nation||

    One of the websites I visit regularly (a science one) has had a paid banner recently which reads: "Do you know what skittling is? Your teen probably does." Something to do with cough medicines I believe.

  • ||

    You might want to rethink your choice in science websites.

  • ||

    Why, it's almost as if the urge to take consciousness altering drugs is unstoppable.

    They will be when Obama gets reelected.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I haven't been sober in 3.5 years.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Reminds me of this.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    No double standard, volume XXMCIIV

    Trial in limbo 2 years after crash that killed Fawn woman

    “It’s been two years. I mean I understand you’re not going to get to trial the next week if something happens,” said Lesser, 42, of Penn Hills. “It just keeps getting put off, and I sincerely believe that it’s because of Adam’s job.

    “I would think if it would be someone like myself, and I had a 0.112 (percent) blood-alcohol level, it certainly wouldn’t have been two years of me just living my life,” Lesser said.

    Some homicide cases proceed quicker than others. For instance, a Nov. 10, 2010, case involving the death of a wildlife conservation officer near Gettysburg only went to trial this week. Delays occur for any number of reasons.

    Of course the Gettysburg case on the tip of every media outlet's tongue when covering this one is a death penalty trial complete with psychological evaluations, and which has already had a change of venue. Certainly not comparable to your garden variety DUI + vehicular manslaughter. And it hasn't been 2 years yet since that murder and it's already underway.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Oh yeah, and it took the Pittsburgh Police 6 months after the accident to fire him.

  • Cytotoxic||

    John/Redtony 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 7%s 7755$$ 83j

  • widget||

    Given the chance to run against a president whose most lasting offense against the country was signing a mandatory health insurance law...

    There a 2.3% national sales tax on medical equipment coming up. Tax more for something and get we get less of it.

  • SDN||

    Tim, Romney did take on the entitlements crisis head on, by nominating Paul Ryan as his running mate. Ryan is the only politician so far who has come up with any plan to even begin addressing entitlements. It doesn't go far enough, but it at least starts.

    No Libertarian plan has a chance of being implemented unless you propose overthrowing the government.

  • ||

    I give him points for that, but is he really running on it. His overall platform shows he's not serious.

    He wants to cut taxes and increase defense spending. And he keeps telling seniors he'll restore the $700 billion that Obama cut from Medicare.

    You know, I'm all for cutting taxes in the long run, but he's running on a 20% tax cut in a time of exploding budget deficits. This is not a winning issue for Republicans right now. If he had a serious budget plan, he would have a chance, but he doesn't. He refuses to tell anyone he's going to take away their cookies. In fact he tells thme he's going to give them more cookies.

    We desperately need someone who actually is going to level with the public about the budget. If Romney said he was going to freeze taxes and defense spending and reform entitlements, THAT would be a serious proposal.

    But NO, like a retard, he thinks he has to pander to traditional conservative voters, so he trotts out the same tired bullshit about tax cuts and more defense spending.

  • T o n y||

    God, John really is the Red me. Only difference is I know why Bush was horrible. John just feels that Obama is horrible.

  • triclops||

    That is some unintentionally hilarious self-unawareness you just posted there.

    Because of course John would not say that he knows why Obama is horrible and you just feel that Bush was.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement