Campaigns/Elections

Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on Five Reasons Why Serious Republicans Should Root for a Romney Defeat in November

|

Now that Mitt Romney has all but sealed the Republican presidential nomination after his five-state primary state victory this week, conservative commentarati will start circling the wagons around him. It'll try and rally the base by arguing that whatever Romney's flaws, he's better than the alternative, President Obama, whose labor-friendly, green-obsessed, spendthrift, soak-the-rich ways will finish off what's left of the economy.

But Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia in her morning column at The Daily lists five reasons why Republicans — and the country — would be better off if Romney loses in November. "A visionless, rudderless, gaffe-prone presidency is the last thing that Republicans need right now," she notes.

Read the whole thing here.

NEXT: A.M. Links: War Crimes Tribunal Convicts Charles Taylor, Newt Gingrich to Drop Out, Property Rights in Space Preemptively Attacked

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.

  1. Here it is John. Won’t see anything similar to this about why dems shouldn’t vote for Dear Leader.

  2. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

  3. right…four more years of Obama and with no concern about another election. What could go wrong?

    1. Grow some ball hair. You afraid of shit getting crazy?

    2. Four more years of Obama and my grandchildren won’t have to know what a Democrat is.

  4. shikha forgot one – romney’s defeat would have a negative effect downticket. angry women & hispanics, motivated by (mainly) state gop antics, will not split-ticket vote.

    1. What she “forgot” to mention was the real reason she wrote the article. It’s because Romney supports E-Verify and is against amnesty and the Dream Act. It’s funny how she forgot to mention that since supporting illegal immigation is her number one issue.

  5. Romney said he would reduce the size of HUD and Education.

    He is that brave.

    1. as compared to Obama, who called the last administration’s debt-running “unpatriotic”. He must have meant that W was not running the debt up high enough, fast enough. Spending money that does not exist..it’s the new patriotism.

      1. Obama has cut the deficit (but not in half like he promised to).

        Eliminating a $1.3 trillion deficit can’t be done in four years.

        1. * THIS IS WHAT SHRIKE ACTUALLY BELIEVES *

          1. $10 Trillion > $15 Trillion

            Thanks for the math lesson fuckstick.

            1. That is the DEBT, you idiot.

              The deficit is falling (yearly disparity).

              1. Yearly Deficit = Debt

                We are running a yearly deficit that has increased the total debt by $5 trillion over the last four years. If the deficit has been cut then why has this president incurred more debt than any other president in our history?

                The ass clown tries moar harder…

              2. Where are you getting your numbers? Because the numbers I see say the deficit fell from 2009 to 2010, was flat from 2010 to 2011, and will increase from 2011 to 2012.

                Of course, the forecast says 2013 and on will show a decrease in the deficit, but I treat that like every other forecast that is dependent on Congress cutting spending. Ain’t gonna’ happen.

        2. Obama has cut the deficit

          seriously…seek medical attention for that brain injury immediately.

          1. CBO says the deficit is smaller now that when Obama took office.

            I’d link you but you won’t read it unless someone on Fox News reads it for you.

            1. Ummm….so, spending a less during an economic equilibrium than during the middle of a financial panic represents an amazing achievement in your book. You have low standards.

            2. See, when Obama took office, the one-time dumbass stimulus package spending was in place, and counted against the budget. Obama wasn’t technically president, and therefore it isn’t counted against his “balance” as president. So shrike may be correct.

              But . . .

              BUT . . . Obama voted for the stimulus package, and so is certainly morally responsible for it. If you take away the stimulus, which was supposed to be a one-time deal, then spending has increased under Obama. Not only that, but if the economy headed south tomorrow, then Obama would propose (and most likely get) a huge stimulus package, which would further increase the national debt (and deficit). Shrike may be correct in saying that Obama didn’t raise the deficit; he’s a lying sack of shit for implying that Obama cares about the deficit.

            3. CBO says the deficit is smaller now that when Obama took office.

              This one again. As I recall, it is smaller than the 2009 FY deficit, after that deficit was pumped up by Obama’s stimulus bill. The 2009 FY deficit is, of course, All Bush’s Fault, even though he was out of office before the end of the first quarter.

              The 2009 FY deficit was $1.4T. Stimulus expenditures that year were around $250BB. Ex-stimulus, the deficit was $1.15T, so I think that’s a fair number to use “when Obama took office”, no?

              Guess what? The deficit has been higher than that every year. He hasn’t reduced the deficit at all.

              1. You’ve more than doubled the FY2009 outlays for the stimulus. $108B
                http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defau…..-09mbr.pdf

                Thus we’re talking $1.29B – exactly the same number as 2010 outlays and slightly worse than the 2011 $1.27B estimated deficit outlays. If that’s the baseline, technically what Shrike says is not inaccurate.

            4. Dude, saying “I’m only goint to spend 100k this year instead of the 120k I spent last year, even though I only make 50k” doesn’t mean shit. That’s still two years where you spent more than you brought in and you still increased your debt burden.

              Saying you reduced your deficit means about the same as me promising to only fuck your wife twice a month.

              1. Considering the drastic falloff in tax receipts, I actually consider the marginally reduced annual deficits far better than what they could have been. And deficits do matter in the sense that it is less piled into the national debt than otherwise might have, all things remaining the same. The problem is that these are marginal reductions from the worst deficit year in history, so not really much of an accomplishment.

  6. Didn’t we have a similar discussion about 4 years ago when so many dedicated libertarians told us that is was necessary to punish the Republican Party?

    I think it’s pretty obvious that four more years of Obama would be catestrophic for the republic. And I can’t see any real way for four years of Romney to be worse.

    1. Though he does make a good point that they won’t possibly get another good Republican in office for a generation. And if Romney does as bad as everyone expects, people will want to “punish the right” just like they did after Bush. We really are in a lose-lose right now. The argument is that Romney really won’t be significantly better than Obama. I mean, based on what we saw in Mass. he is like a slightly to the right Obama… except less charismatic and a mormon (which a lot of evangelical right will turn against when he doesn’t support their hardcore social issues).

    2. spoken like a white male

      1. Spoken like a half-wit.

        1. so a half-white male then?

    3. Romney’s policies will be nearly indistinguishable from Obama’s.

      He’ll be the rubber-stamping figure-head a civil service that will continue to loot us.

      He’ll continue to permit the military/state/intelligence aparatus to continue waging their splendid little wars.

      He’ll continue to tax the shit out of the middle class & small business owners in order to funnel money into the coffers of large politically connected enterprises.

      Obama will be a disaster, to be sure, but for the exact same reasons Romney is.

      1. And at least if Obama does it, they can’t blame The Greedy Capitalist President.

      2. I don’t see it. Romney has an actual clue about how business and economics work, unlike Obama whose incompetence grows by the day. I think he’ll look at this as a Bain-type project on an exponential level. Unlike Obama, it is difficult to say that Romney’s intent is to harm the country.

        1. If Romney’s Bain experience meant anything why doesn’t he produce a plan that reflects it?

          I read his 59 point plan and its nothing but a few tax cuts (which Bush proved do not create jobs).

          Romney doesn’t have shit. He said he would call China a currency manipulator. So what? Who hasn’t?

          Will he impose tariffs like his pal Trump wants to?

          Point me to a capable business person who explains why Romney would create jobs. You can’t.

          1. yeah, that probably explains why virtually every business-related group is throwing in with Romney. No one says he’ll be the next face on Mt Rushmore, but the incumbent’s knowledge re: economics has been on full display for 3+ years now. Only a massively uninformed population concerned about its freebies gives him even a chance of winning re-election.

            1. Groups like the Chamber? So what? They are a GOP front group.

              Real successful business men are NOT throwing in behind Romney. The big boys are supporting Obama again.

              1. Real successful business men are NOT throwing in behind Romney. The big boys are supporting Obama again.

                Protection money. Obama is still the likely winner so…

          2. Dude, unemployment dropped from 6.3 to 4.4 after the 2003 tax cuts. One could claim that that shows the tax cuts did create jobs.

            Standard disclaimer of correlation =/= causation.

        2. Unlike with Bain, if the country doesn’t become “profitable” after the cuts, he can’t duck and run. Also, he can’t just raid the treasury since it is an election and not an LBO. Yes, he has infinitely more business experience than Obama, but he panders and flip-flops EVEN more than Obama does. I think on the “lesser of two evils” scale, they are very, very close…

      3. I expect Romney to be weak. I expect that Justice will continue to raid medical marijauna dealers. I expect Romney will contine to approve drone assinations of American citizens living abroad. I expect Romney will even throw a few American citizens living in the US into indefinite detention at some black hole like Gitmo.

        I also expect that Romney will tell the UAW and SEIU to fuck off. I expect Romney to divert federal “support” dollars from useless green technologies to conventional technologies that are already making enough money to be able to afford to “influence” POTUS. I expect Romney to keep the Bush tax cuts alive for everyone including the evil 1%.

        So I only expect Romney to be about 2/3rds as bad as a second-term Obama.

        1. I expect Romney to keep the Bush tax cuts alive for everyone including the evil 1%.

          I expect Obama to do this if the Republicans hold Congress.

          I expect Romney to divert federal “support” dollars from useless green technologies to conventional technologies that are already making enough money to be able to afford to “influence” POTUS.

          I expect the Republicans to refuse to appropriate money for these programs if they hold Congress and Obama is President.

          1. We have three years of solid evidence that Obama is dumber than Carter and more corrupt than Nixon. There is no way that life gets better under a 2nd-term Obama even with a republican congress, because he isn’t Clinton.

            At least Romney has shown that he knows how to make money by building a functional business.

            1. Corrupt? You idiot.

              Let me know when he lies us into a war, outs a CIA undercover agent for political revenge, fires US Attorneys for prosecuting Republicans, sets up warrantless wiretapping then lies about it, etc.

              1. Who farted in here?

                1. Needz moar refried beanz.

              2. jesus shrike, how stupid are you? EVERY Dem of the era supported going into Iraq, from Bill when he was in the Oval to Hillary, Kennedy, et al. Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, not Rove/Cheney/Libby. Meanwhile, all the horribles the left screamed about re: terrorism remain in place, abetted by the new policy of killing American citizens.

                That does not even begin to touch on Fast & Furious, Solyndra, labor unions, NLRB dictates, the EPA, etc etc fucking etc. Just stop. There is no defense of the Obama record; hence, your side’s strategy to carpet-bomb the opposition.

              3. Ah, so shrike is one of those people that thinks that warrantless wiretapping is totally evil, but warrantless assassination on the same targeting rules is totally okay.

              4. I’m starting to think that whoever said you’re really a Bush lover in disguise was right, cause no one can be that dumb as to think there is a line of cokes worth of difference between the two.

          2. Under Romney, the Bush tax cuts become permanent or get a 10 year extension.

            Under Obama, the can gets kicked down the road year after year.

            Let’s not forget Sotomayor and Kagan.

            1. You mean the two women who actually tried to uphold some of our Constitutional protections when the Republican justices were ready to scrap them?

              1. I don’t think “bright” means what you think it does.

              2. really? The wise Latina’s signature ruling at the lower court level was overturned by SCOTUS, the case involving the CT firefighters. And Kagan’s beloved Obamacare may well face a similar outcome. So which rights, exactly, did they protect? The right to discriminate against the more qualified applicant, or the right to have govt command you to buy stuff?

      4. I expect Obama and Romney will be equally hideous on most civil-liberty issues — neither one will do a damned thing to reign in the out-of-control TSA, for example — but Romney would be .000001 percent worse because he owes allegiance to the political party that looked at circa-2012 America and said “Our economy is a mess, our infrastructure decaying, our constitutional freedoms eroding, and our world standing grows lower by the day. But y’know what the real problems facing this country are? Too many gays want to have weddings, and too many women have too much access to contraception.” At least the Democratic Party is less likely to use the power of the government to punish consenting adults who engage in non-procreative sexual activities.

        1. The states are busy solving the gay-marriage problem. The Federal DOMA is really a tax problem. It will die on its own.

          1. I do hope DOMA dies this year somehow before the Democrats lose everything.

            1. At some point, SCOTUS will have to answer the question of why two men, legally married in Iowa, must pay different federal taxes than a man and women legally married in Iowa. It’s a straight-up 14th amendment issue.

        2. many women have too much access to contraception

          I don’t think “access” means what you think it means.

          1. If RomneyObamaCare passes, I will be required by law to give money to the CEO of a private insurance company with cushy political connections. Even if it doesn’t, I’m still required by law to visit a doctor and buy written permission before I’m allowed to buy hormone pills to treat any possible problems with my ladyparts. And yet, according to the Republicans and various Team Red Libertarians whose blogs I’ve read, if a woman says “I think the insurance I am legally required to buy should help offset the cost of the permission slips I am also legally required to buy,” what that woman actually means is “I’m a sleazy WhoreCommie with entitlement issues.” When a woman says “My friend lost an ovary because her insurance company wouldn’t pay to treat ovarian cysts,” what that woman actually means is “I wanna fuck like a bunny at taxpayer expense.”

            Tl;dr: for all the many serious problems with RomneyObamaCare, it’s odd how much of the right wing venom is dedicated solely to those provisions of ROC which might actually help women.

            1. The issue was that a shill for the current administration decided to pick a fight with an organization she voluntarily joined over the health care coverage they currently provide. She did this knowing in advance that they were a Catholic organization, with all that entails.

            2. if a woman says “I think the insurance I am legally required to buy should help offset the cost of the permission slips I am also legally required to buy,” what that woman actually means is “I’m a sleazy WhoreCommie with entitlement issues.”

              If the shoe fits… “Sleazy whore commie” is not endemic to gender.

              ” When a woman says “My friend lost an ovary because her insurance company wouldn’t pay to treat ovarian cysts,”

              Linky? I thought Planned Parenthood was dedicated to helping women in this sort of bind. Also, I have not heard of one, not one, case where meds for the TX of ovarian cancer was denied.

              for all the many serious problems with RomneyObamaCare, it’s odd how much of the right wing venom is dedicated solely to those provisions of ROC which might actually help women.

              Heart disease claims more lives of women than ovarian cancers, and is much more expensive to treat. Why didn’t Sandra (appropriately named) Fluke decry this disparity, or was she more interested in sharpening her battle axe?

              I take it you’ll be on board with mandatory, “free” vasectomies and mandatory “free” TURPS for men then?

              1. This brings up one area where Obama has had unqualified success – divisive hate politics. The are kings at selling “look over there” arguments that polarize the nation. Too bad they have absolutely no skill creating anything – anything – positive.

                1. This brings up one area where Obama has had unqualified success – divisive hate politics.

                  You’re right, BP. I loathe ObamneyCare with an undying passion. “Commie gimme gimme” attitudes polarize me because it affects my livelihood in this country (not for long!) It is my qualified berserk button.

              2. Thank you for proving my point, GM! All the things wrong with our health system, including tax incentives that effectively make it impossible for individuals to buy decent insurance without going through either their employers or their schools — but rather than fix that status quo, let’s pretend only sluts and prostitutes want reproductive systems free of tumors.

                1. All the things wrong with our health system, including tax incentives that effectively make it impossible for individuals to buy decent insurance without going through either their employers or their schools

                  Bullshit. I pay $135 per month. Its a high deductible HSA plan, but it covers emergency, which is the whole fucking point of insurance.

                  Maybe you live in a crappy state or something, but I find $135 to be very reasonable.

                  My advice: Move.

                2. Thank you for proving my point, GM!

                  Where exactly did I do this?

                  All the things wrong with our health system, including tax incentives that effectively make it impossible for individuals to buy decent insurance without going through either their employers or their schools

                  Blame state insurance regulators for this primarily, particularly with cost driving insurance mandates, instituting licensing schemes, and requiring employers to offer health insurance (which, by the by, is a misnomer. The proper term is “Payment Assistance”). My point, which you conveniently gloss over, is that “access” is available. Furthermore, “access” has been bastardized to mean “somebody else is paying for my medical care!” Which that attitude is not limited to reproductive health concerns.

                  but rather than fix that status quo, let’s pretend only sluts and prostitutes want reproductive systems free of tumors.

                  That’s just ax grinding bullshit, Jennifer, and you know it. I’m not an OB/GYN, but I have performed obstetric and procedures peculiar to females in my career. You want to go beat some “misogynist” over the head with your cudgel, be my guest. But don’t you dare paint me with that brush. Go peddle that gender twaddle with someone else.

            3. Jennifer, I’m not arguing that the SoCons have managed to attack OCare for all the wrong reasons.

              Contraception, however, is elective (as are abortions, in most cases). I don’t think insurance should ever pay for elective procedures or drugs.

              And yes, yes, I know a few women use the pill to treat other conditions. For those women, the pill isn’t elective. Women who don’t have those conditions, though, are asking for insurance to cover an elective, essentially, a lifestyle, drug.

              Based on their reasoning, we may as well mandate coverage of boner pills and boob jobs.

              1. Jennifer, I’m not arguing that the SoCons have managed to attack OCare for all the wrong reasons.

                Freedom of religion, as guaranteed in the First Amendment, is not a correct reason? The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion and protects each person’s right to practice (or not practice) any faith without government interference.

                1. The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion and protects each person’s right to practice (or not practice) any faith without government interference.

                  Yes, but I am not convinced that *your* religious freedom must entail telling *my* insurance company which of *my* body parts it can and cannot fix.

                  1. My religious freedom entails me telling anyone anything I want.

                    Whether they act on it is up to them.

                    And if Im paying the bill, it is MY insurance company, not yours. Which is one of the biggest problems with employer provided insurance. Fix the fundamental problem and the problem is solved.

                    1. And if Im paying the bill, it is MY insurance company, not yours.

                      But if you and I are both paying the bill — which is usually the case with employer-sponsored insurance — then why is it not “my” company as well?

                    2. But if you and I are both paying the bill — which is usually the case with employer-sponsored insurance — then why is it not “my” company as well?

                      It is, in that case. None of my employees have ever paid a $ towards their coverage, so Im unfamiliar with those situations.

                      But if Im paying the bill, I will cover the body parts I want covered.

                    3. Just to clarify: two people pay the insurance bills — the employer and the employee — yet “true freedom” demands that only the employer have any say in what that insurance actually covers, and any suggestion that the employee should also have a say in this is antithetical to freedom?

                    4. any suggestion that the employee should also have a say in this is antithetical to freedom?

                      You have the freedom to request.

                      Suggestion =/= Guaranteed Favorable Outcome.

                    5. Just to clarify: two people pay the insurance bills

                      No, every situation I have discussed has involved ONE person paying the bill.

                    6. I’ve never worked for an employer offering 100 percent coverage; I’ve always had to pay premiums for my employer coverage,.

                    7. You should choose better employers.

                      Since college, 100% of my employers covered everything*, and 100% of my companies have covered every dollar. It all comes out of their salaries, they just dont know it. 🙂

                      *Not technically true, one covered up to a certain percentage of your salary. But as a young, single male, even my low starting salary meant they totally covered me…but it was close. Had I been making a little bit less, I would have had to pay some. The young, single females making the same amount as me were having to pay part of their insurance.

                  2. Yes, but I am not convinced that *your* religious freedom must entail telling *my* insurance company which of *my* body parts it can and cannot fix.

                    And I’m not convinced you have any standing to force me (or any other physician) and insurance companies to cover fixing whatever you want. I see, Freedom of Religion, except when that means forcing religious entities, private entities, to fund medical procedures they may find objectionable. (I have been on staff with two Catholic hospitals, BTW.)

                    Last time I checked, Planned Parenthood has no such constraints, or are yuppie women too good to avail themselves of PP’s services?

              2. I’m not arguing that the SoCons have managed to attack OCare for all the wrong reasons.

                Similar to how the Stormfronters have managed to attack Obama for all the wrong reasons: yeah, guys, you have legitimate complaints regarding his TSA record, his appalling disregard for civil liberties and limited executive power … but quit pretending your opposition to him stems from your principled love of constitution and country. No, you hate the man because he’s black, and the fact that he went on to do things so odious you’d even criticize a white guy for doing them is just a lucky coincidence.

                If religious freedom or free-market principles were the true motivation behind the anti-Fluke fiasco, the words “slut” and “prostitute” wouldn’t have been used to describe a woman who testified that medical insurance should treat ovarian cysts.

                1. No, you hate the man because he’s black

                  You are a fucking ass.

                  And wrong.

                  1. You are a fucking ass. And wrong.

                    The Stormfronters don’t hate Obama for being black? That’s news to me.

                    1. You said “you”. No one hear is a fucking stormfronter.

                    2. here even.

                      And if you meant to address that to stormfronters, that is fucking sloppy use of pronouns for someone who is supposedly a professional writer.

                    3. If you re-read my comment, you’ll not see me accuse anyone here of being one. I did, however, notice a similarity between the tone of the Republicans’ criticism of health insurance and the Stormfronters’ criticism of Obama.

                    4. I reread the commment multiple times.

                      You talked about stormfronters. Then stopped at a period and switched to “you”, referring to “us” (or some subset of us, pronoun was unclear).

                    5. I think the “you” was not directed at the Reason commentariat – it’s the kind of “you” we all use when confronting a third party of something whether or not they are not present to hear it.

                    6. it’s the kind of “you” we all use when confronting a third party of something whether or not they are not present to hear it.

                      I dont use a you in those situations, because that is stupid. You is for the audience of the piece. Either all of us, or just RC Dean. Either way, she was being an ass with that accusation.

                    7. Serious question, Rob: where did you get the idea that “you” as a second-person pronoun is unacceptable in modern colloquial American English? Since when did first-person and third-person become the only acceptable narratives? Or are you simply pretending it is because you want to believe I accused you — personally — of being a Stormfronter?

                    8. 2nd person? Like thou? Your relationship with stormfronters is that close?

                      Your usage might be acceptable, but in context it was very confusing. Personally, I dont care. If you werent directing it at some of us, then you werent being an ass (in that specific instance). Im more interested in your response to my 12:42 post, that you (YOU you, not stormfronters) never responded to.

                    9. Let’s change the verbiage:

                      “Hey lefties, you have legitimate criticisms of corporate corruption and conglomeration, but your misguided attempts to strengthen the regulatory state are inherently counterproductive.” If I made that statement, I’m clearly speaking for the libertarian voice towards a third party that may or may not be reading, and not accusing HnRers of being lefties.

                    10. In that case, you are specifically addressing the lefties (the “hey” makes it clear).

                      A professional writer shouldnt cause this kind of confusion.

                    11. The “Stormfronters have managed to attack Obama for all the wrong reasons: yeah, guys,” comparatively made that connection pretty clear to me.

                    12. A professional writer shouldnt cause this kind of confusion.

                      Nor should a professional writer pander to the lowest common denominator. If a reader does not understand anything more complex than a simple declarative sentence, if a reader does not understand the purpose of the colon in a phrase like “Similar to how the Stormfronters have managed to attack Obama for all the wrong reasons: yeah, guys, you have legitimate complaints regarding his TSA record …” well, letting that one reader wallow in his indignance is better than writing with the assumption “Every reader is equally incapable of getting this.”

                      (Having said that: I admit to using a much simpler, much more elementary style of writing when I send letters to my seven-year-old niece. Even if we discussed politics, and she knew what Stormfront was, I still would not have used that particular “Just like Stormfront: yeah, guys….” format, because at her age it would indeed be unreasonable to expect her to understand that I am not addressing that criticism directly to her.)

                    13. My problem was the next sentence. The yeah guys was previous one and caused me know problem at all.

                      Rereading it yet again, I see my problem, I didnt carry the yeah guys over. I concede it was probably acceptably written, but it did confuse this engineer.

                      The next sentence seemed directed at RC Dean/us to me. Maybe I took the period too literally.

                    14. “know problem”

                      no problem.

                      2nd time today Ive made that mistake. See how my brain works?

                    15. Rereading it yet again, I see my problem, I didnt carry the yeah guys over. I concede it was probably acceptably written, but it did confuse this engineer.

                      I have noticed — both in casual debates on threads like this, AND in comments that strangers leave on my professional pieces — that such confusions only ever seem to arise when the reader is looking at an opinion he does NOT agree with. I write a column on the theme “TSA sucks,” and the only ones who ever get confused are the TSA apologists. I write on the theme “Obamacare is awful,” and the only confusion stems from those who think Obamacare is spiffy.

                      Funny, that.

                    16. Considering I think Obamacare is an abomination, you have noticed wrong.

                      Really, WTF? you think I like Obamacare? Have you not read my fucking posts over the last fucking decade?

                    17. Rob, seriously — you’re doing it again. I mentioned my TSA and Obamacare anecdotes as examples of situations where misunderstandings only ever arise from people who disagree with me … and again you erroneously accused me of specifically criticizing you.

                    18. Okay, who was that aimed at then? Im the only person who misunderstood you in this thread.

                      And your point here was “Obamacare is awful” right? Or is this not that theme?

                      Also, going to reply to any of my other posts, the important ones, with fundamental differences?

                    19. And your point here was “Obamacare is awful” right? Or is this not that theme?

                      *Sigh* No, my point was “People who disagree with me are the people most likely to misunderstand what I am saying.” And I mentioned my columns on the TSA and Obamacare — or, rather, certain comments left on those columns — as but two examples of this.

                      Rob, if you really can’t handle analogies, if you really get sincerely confused when a writer with whom you disagree says anything which boils down to “Item A reminds me of different item B, and here’s why…” then I sincerely advise you to put me on “ignore,” because you’re not only going to misunderstand the majority of what I write, you’re going to convince yourself that I am personally attacking you. You’ve already done that twice on this thread.

                    20. My point was that I misunderstood you AND I agree with you.

                      So you are wrong.

                    21. Also, what is with the fucking capital R?

                      And the lack of the c?

                    22. I asked another writer this, but didnt get an answer, so will ask you: Would you capitalize E. e. cummings at the beginning of a sentence?

                    23. And, because it seems appropriate at this point in the conversation:

                      Dr. Kate Pulaski: Dah-ta, look at this.
                      Lt. Commander Data: [looking slightly confused] ‘Day-ta’.
                      Dr. Kate Pulaski: What?
                      Lt. Commander Data: My name. It is pronounced ‘Day-ta’.
                      Dr. Kate Pulaski: Oh?
                      Lt. Commander Data: You called me “Dah-ta”.
                      Dr. Kate Pulaski: [laughing] What’s the difference?
                      Lt. Commander Data: One is my name. The other is not.

                    24. The official answer is, if you put him at the beginning of a sentence, you write it “[E.] e. cummings,” to demonstrate to the readers that you-the-writer are the one who inserted the capital letter into his name.

                      The advanced answer for professional writers is, rewrite the sentence so that e. e. cummings is not at the front of it. Better yet, don’t write about e.e. cummings at all. The latter option has worked well for me thus far.

                    25. I request the same courtesy. Although I expect you might take up the latter option yet again.

                    26. you erroneously accused me of specifically criticizing you.

                      Reading it again:

                      1. You quote me
                      2. “such confusions” is in reference to a quote of me.

                      How the fuck should I not assume that was specifically directed at me?

                    27. but it did confuse this engineer

                      That explains everything. You know, Orrin’s an engineer too. 😉

                    28. So was Hoover.

                      Engineers might be worse than lawyers when it comes to being politicians.

                      Engineers, scientists, and lawyers should probably all be banned from office.

                2. If religious freedom or free-market principles were the true motivation behind the anti-Fluke fiasco, the words “slut” and “prostitute” wouldn’t have been used to describe a woman who testified that medical insurance should treat ovarian cysts.

                  Show me where it doesn’t. Give me a link to a policy memorandum that explicitly states this. I’m looking over the insurances that I currently accept (Aetna, Cigna, BCBS, Mutual ad about 26 others, and of course, cash) and not one of them denies the coverage of the TX of ovarian cysts (and all relevant DX/DifDX’s)!

                3. It’s pretty damn obvious to anyone who reads what you wrote in your first paragraph that you are talking directly to us, as evidenced by the “yeah, guys,” and then the “No, you hate…”

                  Oh and the use of the word “similar”, implying that we are similar to the Stormfronters.

                4. ^History lesson newbs:

                  ^This used to be a typical H&R commenter.^

              3. Based on their reasoning, we may as well mandate coverage of boner pills and boob jobs.

                Neither boner pills nor boob jobs offer the medical benefit “prevent the patient from either dying or losing a body part to cancer.” Hormone pills — which is what birth control pills are — often do.

                But I don’t mean to rehash the Fluke debacle; I’m just explaining why I want nothing to do with the modern GOP. It is not the party of Goldwater or even of Nixon; it’s the party of religious fundamentalists who don’t even pretend to hide their misogyny anymore. The Georgia GOPer last month who proposed legislation that would require a pregnant woman who miscarries to keep the dead and rotting fetus inside her until her body expels it naturally; Romney and the high-ranking GOPers did not support this, no, but neither did they condemn it. Their religious freedom somehow always boils down to “freedom to control women and their bodies.”

                1. Well said. The GOP is loathsome on nearly every issue.

                  Libertarians need distance from them.

                2. The Georgia GOPer last month who proposed legislation that would require a pregnant woman who miscarries to keep the dead and rotting fetus inside her until her body expels it naturally

                  Linky?

                  1. His name is Terry England. Feel free to Google it.

            4. Nevermind the fact that you aren’t giving your money to the CEO you fucking nitwit, we are against ObamaCare lock, stock, and barrel.

              Do you not see that the problem is 1) that you are being forced to buy insurance, and 2) that the insurance is provided by your employer?

              And you totally proved GM’s point that you don’t understand what “access” means because if you did, you would know that you have access to cheap contraception right now through your local Planned Parenthood. Unless you think you’re too good to get them from there?

              1. Do you not see that the problem is 1) that you are being forced to buy insurance, and 2) that the insurance is provided by your employer?

                These are very serious problems, yes. But I have the POV “until this abominable status quo changes, I am looking for the least-worst way to deal with it.” In libertopia, everyone will buy their own health insurance without their employer’s input. But we’re not in libertopia now, and certain laws that make sense in libertopia are downright harmful here.

                1. See my 12:42 post that I have been requesting you to respond to. The fundamental basis of your argument is wrong.

                  Individual insurance is not too fucking expensive to get. Its more than it should be, for all the reasons you have stated, by buying your own fucking insurance is still the “least-worst” way to deal with it.

                2. certain laws that make sense in libertopia are downright harmful here.

                  I disagree with this.

                  I use to agree with it, but decided its wrong. There may be a PREFERRED order of operations, but fuck it, I will take either order.

                  Yes, ending welfare before allowing open immigration would be PREFERREd, but fuck it, open the gates.

                  Yes, ending sin taxes before allowing pot to be legalized would be PREFERRED, but fuck it, legalize.

                3. Thank you for reproving the point that you don’t know what access means sense you completely ignored that part of my comment to bitch about libertopia not giving you what you want.

                4. But I have the POV “until this abominable status quo changes, I am looking for the least-worst way to deal with it.”

                  No you don’t, because the least-worst way to deal with it is for the FDA to make birth control pills OTC. The FDA could easily do so, the Executive Branch could easily do so under current law, and the side effects and price of such a well studied treatment easily justify it.

            5. Jennifer disappears for such a long time, and then comes back to post this rant.

              She’s a pretty solid libertarian until her twat becomes the subject of discussion.

              1. Thank you for another example of why I’ve had it with the GOP and the Team Red Libertarians: I discuss my deep concern over how misogynist insults like “slut” and “prostitute” were thrown at a woman who said she thought women’s medical insurance should cover the treatment of ovarian cysts … and you dismiss my concerns as merely talking about my twat.

                1. women’s medical insurance should cover the treatment of ovarian cysts

                  You still have yet to prove to me that it doesn’t. No links, no nothing.

                  Unless BCBS, CIGNA, Aetna, Mutual, PacfiCare, and the rest of PPI’s I accept are lying to me in triplicate and my smertphone Epocrates (where I RX my e-scripts) is totally bogus?

                  1. Did you pay no attention to what Sandra Fluke was talking about? She wasn’t demanding the right to have sex at taxpayer expense; she was talking about a friend who lost an ovary to an ovarian cyst which her insurance wouldn’t cover.

                    1. Its funny, on my plan, you pay for things your insurance doesnt cover out of your HSA account. COVERED!!!!

                      Of course, fucking Barry took OTC drugs off the list of things I can buy with it. Fuck you Barry!

                    2. she was talking about a friend who lost an ovary to an ovarian cyst which her insurance wouldn’t cover.

                      The veracity of THIS statement is the crux of the argument. Has this statement been vetted? Where are the links to her friend’s policy? Why didn’t she seek TX at a County Hospital network (which are abundant in MA)? Why didn’t she go to Planned Parenthood?

                2. I was under the impression that she just stated that contraception was expensive for a law student while in college and that the school should pay for it. If she tried to argue that medical insurance doesn’t cover that treatment she’s an out and out liar.

                  Nevermind that she joined a Catholic organization, knowing full well that they do not believe in contraception and they would be unwilling to cover it.

                  And you still haven’t acknowledged that you can get the pill from planned parenthood so “access” isn’t a problem.

                3. The language of your posts was far more strident than just a mere discussion of your concerns over the whackjobs that inhabit the far right wing of the Republican party.

                  You essentially smeared me the blame for their bad acts just because I happen to have the same party listed on my voter registration card even though I’ve only been a member of the party for four years and one of my highest priorities is to take the party away from those people.

                  I have a mother, a sister, a wife, and a daughter. I care abouth their health and well-being very deeply. I was also raised catholic and I firmly believe the federal government has no business telling the church who it can hire and what benefits they must provide or can’t provide to the people they hire.

                  Sandra Fluke took a job with a catholic employer knowing full well the position of the church and her employer regarding birth control. She was totally out of line going before congress and asking them to force catholic churches, schools, and businesses to violate church doctrine. She Was Wrong!

                  1. By the way, I’ve been an atheist for the better part of three decades. I have huge disagreements with catholic doctrine (including birth control). But this is supposedly a free country with a 1st amendment that guarentees free practice of religious beliefs. So the feds don’t get to tell the church and its affliates that they must provide birth control benefits to employees in violation of well established church doctrine.

              2. She’s a pretty solid libertarian
                lol

                I’d suggest you use “search” to refresh your memory.

        3. That’s what you think.

        4. Well look who just dropped in. What a surprise.

    4. Depends on if the GOP holds the House (and gains in the Senate.)

      4 years ago, Obama winning was disastrous because the Dems were certain to hold Congress and have a large majority in the Senate.

      I can see for Romney to be worse, only because he would drag Republicans into supporting “their guy” the way that GWB did.

      1. And the Republicans aren’t a bunch of pussies like the Dems are. They will actually get ALL their terribly Ideas passed… At least with a Dem at the helm with Reps in the house/senate there is someone there to fight against just lunatic ideas. The republicans won’t be able to blame the democrats for blocking everything sicne they would control the legislature and Obama would have to work with them for his legacy. I doubt the Republicans would put their #1 priority in blocking Obama since there will be no re-election and they will actually be on the hook.

        1. Absolutely — Romney plus GOP Congress is way more to be feared than Obama at the head of a divided government.

    5. “Didn’t we have a similar discussion”

      Yeah, Kohn brought that up the other day. I guess it’s always time to vote democrat in order to punish the republicans or something.

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

    I thought she was supposed to be arguing that Obama winning would be a good thing for Republicans?

    1. Obama winning isn’t really good for anyone… unless you are on handouts and want more. Unfortunately, Romney winning isn’t really any better. She is saying it is worse because there won’t be a chance at another Republican contender until at least 2020 or 2024 if Romney does so bad they “punish the right” again.

      1. “Obama winning isn’t really good for anyone”…esp alQaeda

        1. Obama’s Drone War is alQaeda’s best recruiting tool.

          1. dying aint much of a living

            1. In case you are obtuse rather than deliberately trolling, I point out that the targets of the drones have relatives and friends who are outraged by the attack and quite willing to take up arms to avenge them.

              But I suspect that you are just Team Blue trolling as Team Blue kept making the point I just made throughout the GWB era.

      2. They do get especially hardly “f’d in the a.”

      3. I was making a joke that Obama’s win means a visionless, rudderless, gaffe-prone presidency.

      4. Sure… but who says the next Republican will be any better?

  8. SIX: The economy has a very good chance of going seriously in the crapper between now and 2016, no matter who is in charge.

    Whichever party holds the White House is going to wear it. They can’t really do anything about it, but that’s the way the game is played.

  9. Nonsense article. Romney is better than Obama for the SCOTUS picks alone. He is also better on taxes. Everything else there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference, but those two issues are pretty damn important.

    1. Romney is only better on taxes if you are in the top maginal tax bracket or are living off Capital Gains. Everyone else only gets 2% or so off their taxes while losing a bunch of deductions. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org…..y-plan.cfm

      1. 5% for 25% bracket and 5.4% for 28% bracker, both of which I consider part of the “everyone else” group.

    2. So he can appoint more Scalias who uphold torture, random suspension of habeas corpus, random detentions and harassment of swarthy Latinos who may or may not be lawful residents, legal discrimination against gays, etc.? Sorry, conservative justices are rarely any better or worse than liberal justices. They just have different ways of stretching the Constitution to justify their own vision of the State.

      1. Scalia is at least qualified to sit on SCOTUS.

  10. Visionless I get. But rudderless & gaffe-prone? Not seeing it.

    And I’m not so sure that a President with “vision” is such a great thing, either. That depends a lot on the “vision,” doesn’t it?

    1. Rudderless is referring to the fact that his positions don’t “sail straight” – as in he incessantly flip-flops and panders.

  11. #4 Is the most important one. I’d rather have Rand Paul 2016 than Rand Paul 2020

    1. If Romney fucks up (which he will), Rand can run against him in the primary.

      Im still holding out for Ron 2012.

      1. I will be voting for a slate of Ron Paul delegates when my district convention reconvenes on the 15th of June. I don’t care how many delegates Romney has locked up by then.

        1. We thank you. Make sure Iowa is an RP state.

          1. You’re welcome. And were working on it.

  12. Romney is more likely to pick Supreme Court nominees whose views are slightly closer to mine, but that’s about the only difference I see.

    Apart from that, the key is to avoid having the presidency and both houses of Congress controlled by the same party. Gridlock is probably the best outcome we can hope for, while we wait for the inevitable financial crash.

    1. Unfortunately, when the financial crash does come, “speculators” will once again get the blame (for recognizing that the shit was about to hit the fan and deciding to make a bit of profit on the inevitable.)

      The solution, of course, will be more regulation.

      1. You’re probably right about that. It’s at least even money that the result of the big crash will look more Argentina than Libertopia (or even the USA circa 1970).

        However, there won’t be any significant change, for good or bad, until the crash happens, so it’s not quite as important which flavor of statist tool wins the election in the meantime.

  13. Romney would be marginally better than Obama. I’m gonna go with someone waaay better than Obama or Romney, i.e. whoever wins the LP nomination.

  14. And another one.

    Here come the articles to let us all know that it’s ‘better’ to have Obama in office somehow.

    Election year re-runs at Reason.

    You’d think some libertarians would start to wonder why so many purported Libertarians get so excited about Democrats when elections come around.

  15. Shikha wasn’t think to hard on reason number 1.

    If Romney loses can’t Obama put another liberal justice on the Supreme Court to under mind any future rulings on progressive acts of the Obama administration?

    Power is sort of kind of justice, no?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.