Reasons Why Conservatives Should Root For a Romney Defeat: Six and Counting

|

Back in May when Mitt Romney had all but secured the Republican nomination after a string of primary victories, I had listed five reasons why conservatives should still wish for a Romney defeat. These were:

One: As the author of RomneyCare and an abiding supporter of the mandate on insurers to cover pre-existing existing,

Romney.Mirror.RightSize

he did not have the bona-fides to lead a "repeal and replace" movement against ObamaCare.

Two: The biggest issue facing the country is out-of-control government spending. The only way of cutting it would be if Republicans put defense cuts on the table and the Democrats entitlement cuts. But the one consistent theme in Romney's otherwise unbroken record of flip-floppery is more defense spending. Thus he'll never be able to rein in government spending.

Three: You can't expect the ultimate Wall Street insider to fight crony capitalism no matter how many clumsy platitudes he mouths to do just that.

Four: Romney's victory this year will mean no semi-sensible Republican (admittedly a rare breed) would likely have a prayer of becoming a president for the next 12 years or so.

Five: GOP is in a state of intellectual flux with various strands competing for supremacy and requires someone with firm convictions to engineer a healthy synthesis.

And to these five one can add this sixth the wake of Romney's disastrous 47 percent remark:

His tinny understanding of their positions will make conservatives squirm over and over and over again. The caricature he presents would force them to spend four years looking at themselves in a distorted mirror. This will pretty much decimate whatever is left of the conservative brand, abandoning the ideological terrain to liberals for years to come. Think about it as the domestic equivalent of the Soviet Union winning the Cold War and becoming the sole global super power.

Better to lose a battle now in the hope of winning the war later.

Feel free to add your own reasons, Dear H&R Readers, to this admittedly non-exhaustive list.

NEXT: British Journalists Arrested in Phone Hacking Scandal

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. I’m voting for Gary’s Johnson.

    Rush 2112!

    1. We’ve taken care of everything
      The words you hear, the songs you sing
      The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
      It’s one for all and all for one
      We work together, common sons
      Never need to wonder how or why

    2. And the men who hold high places
      must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality
      Closer to the heart

      1. That’s not on 2112. Though I suppose A Farewell to Kings could be relevant in a presidential election too.

    3. Now there’s no more oak oppression,
      For they passed a noble law
      And the trees are all kept equal
      By hatchet, ax, and saw

  2. Because anybody who’s spent the last 5 years campaigning for the office isn’t the kind of person who should have it.

    1. How does that disqualify Romney, Obama, and probably Johnson?

      1. NOT disqualify

        1. How long has Ron Paul been campaigning?

  3. 4 more years of Joe Biden gaffes.

  4. The GOP needs to be overhauled and only total humiliation will do it. A Goldwater would be unwelcome in the GOP today.

    Birthers, Bigots, and Birchers do not make for a durable party composite.

    1. Goldwater, a guy who actually voted against the Great Society would be so welcome in the Democratic party. Go and kill yourself you hateful little retard.

    2. and welfare recipients, environmentalists, and union members do?

      Look in the mirror, you twisted twit.

      1. It’s sad that you think there’s something wrong with being a welfare recipient, environmentalist, or union member.

        1. At least, in the case of welfare recipients, some of them may have had no other choice, and actually *need* the assistance.

          Being an environmentalist or a union member, OTOH, are strictly voluntary actions, and only assholes join either movement willingly.

          1. Only assholes care about the environment?

            1. No, but environmentalists are assholes.

              1. Well, depends on who you include in the category of environmentalists. I’d include most hunters and sportsmen, but perhaps “conservationist” is a better word there.

                1. There are probably overzealous, preachy assholes in the conservationist movement, too, but most environmentalists are preachy assholes.

                  1. Yeah, in my experience with conservationists, John Muir was the biggest asshole of them all… So was Teddy Roosevelt – that fat fuck – everyone hated him. All those conservationist pricks…

        2. It’s sad that you think there’s something wrong with being a welfare recipient burden on society, environmentalist delusional totalitarian, or union member member of a rent-seeking, if not outright criminal, organization.

          Yeah. A fucking tragedy.

          1. Good clarifications, RC. Watch Tony call you a racist hillbilly for the editing job, though.

            1. It’s sad that you think there’s something wrong with being a racist hillbilly.

              1. I hereby disavow any and all implications that I am from south of 70.

          2. Just say “parasites” and “cockroaches.” It’s shorter and more clearly fascist in tone.

            1. Just say “parasites” and “cockroaches.” It’s shorter and more clearly fascist accurate in tone.

              FIFY

              1. How is it that people who profess to care most about individual liberty can sound the most like violent fascist autocrats when deciding whom they will scapegoat for the country’s problems?

                1. “sound the most like violent fascist autocrats”

                  Yeah, the last time I turned on Ed Schultz’ MSNBC show, I had the same thought.

                2. Cytotoxic supports liberty? When did that happen? Last I heard he was calling for the extermination of apostates and infidels to establish the caliphate of Ayn Rand (PBUH) on Earth.

                  1. Cyto supports liberty more than Tony does, you have to admit.

                    1. I’m pretty certain that Tony doesn’t support carpet-bombing cities for their own good, an idea that Cyto vigorously defended against all comers many moons ago.

                      That alone makes Tony a greater supporter of liberty than Cyto.

                    2. Cyto’s warboner is a result of bad conclusions from good premises. It happens.

                      Tony thinks everyone belongs to the State. That does not a “greater supporter” make.

                    3. What Randian said.

                    4. Since Cyto’s bad premise is that people’s right to life depends on whether they are allies of the Federal Government of the United States or not, it’s kind of hard to argue that your point is very substantive.

                    5. The problem is that isn’t his premise.

          3. Well put, RC, well put.

        3. Did Tony just admit that he wants MORE people to be on welfare?

          Why do you want more people to be poor, Tony?

          1. I don’t. That’s why I don’t support the principal libertarian economic policy of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.

            I just don’t think receiving public assistance makes you a bad person, in the way being a bigot does.

            1. But without more people on at least one kind of public assistance, your Team loses its ability to gain and/or maintain seats in the House and Senate.

              Which is the only reason your Team pushes for more public assistance. Not to help, but to bribe votes.

            2. I don’t. That’s why I don’t support the principal libertarian economic policy of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.

              OMG. Tony is so cute when he projects!

            3. Explain how libertarian economic policy transfers wealth from the poor to the rich, you dishonest fuck. This is especially rich coming from someone who supports a government institution that punishes savers and pushes them into riskier investments. The Federal Reserve is the biggest gift the financial industry could ever asked for. And of course you supported TARP, when we didn’t. And the stimulus.

              1. It’s a troll, Jordan. Don’t feed it.

            4. If you support Social Security you most certainly do support transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.

            5. That’s why I don’t support the principal libertarian economic policy of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.

              Way to not get it. The means for transferring wealth from poor to wealthy is a redistributionist government.

              But you are unwilling to give up the power of redistribution because of your misguided HOPE that it can be made to work the way you think it should if only “the right people” can be put into power.

              Never mind the systemic incentives inherent in a redistributionist system.

              Your description is apt for Social Security which taxes are paid by working poor to benefit the wealthiest age group in the U.S.

              You did know that, right?

        4. Even if you think that welfare is totally good and necessary, I would think that you would have to admit that in most cases there is something wrong with being on welfare. I mean, it shouldn’t be seen as a desirable thing, should it? And you can’t deny that at least some welfare recipients are leaches.

          1. I’m gonna go ahead and deny that they’re “leaches”. Maybe “leeches”, but not the former.

            1. Some are probably Leaches too. That’s a fairly common name, isn’t it?

              1. Lol. But I highly doubt any of those Leaches fail to capitalize the first letter of their last name. ๐Ÿ™‚

                1. Alright, enough with being a pedantic asshole. Presumably there’s a stupid Tony comment to respond to somewhere…

        5. Re: Tony,

          It’s sad that you think there’s something wrong with being a welfare recipient, environmentalist, or union member.

          It’s sad that you think it’s sad.

          Wefare recipient: Complicit in a stolen goods racket.

          Environmentalist: Complicit in a property rights violation racket.

          Union member: Complicit in a protection racket.

          1. Interesting OM. However your description of the Environmentalist is flawed. While I won’t argue with 1 and 3, you forget what happens when YOUR property rights interfere with or damage MY property rights. If I have a property somewhere on a river in my state and you have a property at the source of that river and you pollute the shit out of it, your shit flows downstream. You harm my ability to fish in the waters I paid to be on, your shit washes up on MY shores and damages my property. Not only that, but the smells of your shit devalue my property. It sickens the wildlife that I enjoy hunting on my property making it inedible. While I will agree there are tons of overzealous assholes in the environmentalist movement – you have to admit things that you do to your property that also effect my property is now my business since you are now violating my property rights. If you drink well water, we all sip water from the same aquifer and we all have a stake in maintaining it since we are all stockholders of it’s well being. If it dries up or is no longer drinkable, it effects all of us. While I think we need strong property rights, you have no right to infringe on mine.

    3. You’re a fucking liar, shrike. No true Goldwater admirer would a) vote only for Democrats and b) call only for the overhaul of one political party.

      BTW, your Team has shitloads of bigots in its ranks. Tony and yourself being two.

      1. Democrats do not have a coherent theme. Many ex-Republicans like Bruce Bartlett are voting Dem simply because the GOP is so bad.

        1. Shit Sandwich/Giant Douche, shrike. Or Hand in Garbage Disposal/Hand in Deep Fryer.

          That’s the “choice” between Rs and Ds.

    4. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

      Birthers, Bigots, and Birchers do not make for a durable party composite.

      You mean to say that there are no bigots in the Demorat party?

      *cough* NAACP! *cough*
      *cough* La Raza Unida! *cough*

      Also, why is every loon I’ve met against the Birchers? What the hell did they do besides alleging that Eisenhower was a RINO?

    5. The propoganda has worked well on you. The GOP has practically thrown in the towel on fiscal conservatism and riles up the christians with distracting rhetoric on gay marriage. Don’t be a dupe.

      1. Meanwhile, the Dems never have been in for fiscal conservatism, and rile up the wealth haters with distracting rhetoric on the private sector.

  5. Three: You can’t expect the ultimate Wall Street insider to fight crony capitalism no matter how many clumsy platitudes he mouths to do just that.

    Not to pick nits but that is just wrong. Joe Kennedy was the ultimate Wall Street insider and he basically built the SEC. Sometimes insiders are just the people to go after the cronies because they know who the cronies are and how they operate.

    Maybe Romney is not that insider. But that is another question. Saying an insider can never do anything about corruption is just horseshit of the highest order.

    1. Maybe Romney’s Mormon morals will force him to do good instead of evil once he comes into power…?

    2. John, I’m not sure that building the SEC and being a Wall St insider are mutually exclusive positions.

      Many of the things the SEC does are against the interests of individual investors and favor the positions of established insiders.

    3. “ultimate Wall Street insider”

      Just lazy knee-jerk emotive rhetoric

  6. Romney’s disastrous 47 percent remark:

    Ya know, I don’t come to HR to read recycled and dubious Dem operative (or Republican operative, for that matter) memes.

    Other than pearl-clutching in DemOp precincts, I see no evidence that his remarks were, in fact, disastrous. If there is any, please write an article on that.

    1. ^^THIS^^ Why does reason recycle so much bullshit conventional wisdom? Dalmia is one of the worst about that. Aren’t they supposed to be better than that?

      1. Because for a pinkotarian, remaining a part of the Beltway Cocktail Party Circuit is always the number one priority.

        1. Every time you comment, I hear “Dueling Banjos”. I wonder why that is.

          1. Careful, Randian, or he’ll make you squeal like a pig.

          2. And every time you comment, I think of “Will and Grace”.

            1. Am I Will, Grace, or that chick with the squeaky voice?

              1. Am I Will, Grace, or that chick with the squeaky voice?

                As a libertarian, you would have to be the pill-popping, hard-drinking, rich chick with the squeaky voice.

                1. Yeah, I think she pretty openly had servants and wore clothes made by third-world children.

              2. Re: Citizen Nothing,

                Am I Will, Grace, or that chick with the squeaky voice?

                You just want to be the chick with the squeaky voice, don’t you?

          3. I thought Banjos dueled with Sloopyinca.

        2. “Because for a pinkotarian, remaining a part of the Beltway Cocktail Party Circuit is always the number one priority.”

          I really hope this is parody.

        3. You both ought to be ashamed of yourselves, you Kultur War retards, for bringing the thread down to the level of ‘Dueling Banjos’ remarks and Orange Line cocktail parties.

          1. This is why nobody takes libertarians seriously.

    2. Apparently you did.
      That remark is disastrous I tell you, disastrous!

      1. It is disasterous! And the muslims are rioting because of Youtube.

    3. Ya know, I don’t come to HR to read recycled and dubious Dem operative (or Republican operative, for that matter) memes.

      Then why do you come? Certainly not for the ampersands.

      1. I beg ? plead you to reconsider.

        1. Your weak, skinny, and pitiful ampersands do not impress me.

          1. You not say ? is weak! ? is game to you? How ’bout I take your little thread and smash it!

            1. You should stop starving those things.

              1. You should stop starving those things.

                So these are sarcasmic hampersigns rather than full-bodied John hampersigns.

        2. HOLY SHIT

            1. How you do dot? Zoorce code she no say noozink but ze ampersant!

        3. I don’t even see anything but a box with letters and numbers in it.

      2. Then why do you come?

        For the profane, entertaining, and occasionally enlightening comments.

    4. Other than pearl-clutching in DemOp precincts, I see no evidence that his remarks were, in fact, disastrous.

      As someone somewhere once said, “Mega Dittos”. ๐Ÿ˜›

    5. Yes, I agree. What’s the big deal? This is one of the few times I agree that Hit and Run comes across as more concerned about leftwing opinion than it should be. The 47% remark is not some enormous gaffe, and we all know what the point of the remark was. One that I assume pretty much every libertarian agrees with.

      The government is too big and spends too much. Our foreign policy is so bad that new wars in the Middle East and Asia are not as distant a possibility as they should be. And, as much as Romney isn’t the solution, at least he isn’t eager to drive off the cliff. His Democratic opponent doesn’t even believe in the cliff, let alone try to avoid it.

      1. Its the lazy, uncriticial adoption of the “mainstream” DemOp meme ‘o’ the day: YouTube video causes riots, Romney made another gaffe, etc., that I would prefer to avoid.

        Maybe the DemOps are right this time. If so, let’s see an article that points to something other than DemOp talking points reiterated by the usual suspects. If there’s nothing behind the meme, then don’t propagate it, that’s all I’m asking.

      2. And now I see that there is a gap in the video of his remarks, conveniently cutting off part of what he said about the “47%”.

        Supposedly only one or two minutes (no proof of that) and supposedly inadvertant (no proof of that, either).

        1. What?!? Mother Jones, engaging in dishonest editing?? Why , the very idea!

      3. It wasn’t a horrible gaffe, but it also wasn’t very well said. I think that the piece that Reason ran yesterday about the myth of the rational voter was good. I’m sure that close to half of that 47% who don’t pay federal income taxes will support Romney. I see what he is getting at and agree that it is relevant, but his conclusions weren’t great.

        1. Romney should clarify by saying there are millions of Americans who are just going to vote Democrat because that party promises rewards for ballot-box loyalty.

        2. No argument here. And he could easily have sidestepped it by explaining the point in the correct way.

          1. But he’d still be catching hell for it, even with such explaining.

            1. Better to catch hell for something clearly reasoned then what he did say.

      4. The problem for me with what Romney said is that he is being Team Red selective with his 47% comment.

        #1. An actual analysis of the 47% doesn’t jibe with Romney’s assertation that all of them are Obama supporters.

        #2. He doesn’t seem to mention anything about welfare that Republicans support. ie. corporate handouts, the military industrial complex, farm subsidies, veterans benefits, and select foreign aid (see Israel, State of)

        #3. He denigrates the entire 47% as “not willing to stand up and take responsibility for their lives”. That’s a fucking gaffe and you know it. Regardless of if you think it’s a true statement, you don’t call half the population (many of whom are your constituency) freeloaders.

        1. You are right (sort of), but this is also all irrelevant.

          1. Sure it is. Romney didn’t rail against the fact that 47% of the population don’t pay income taxes (of which he may have belonged – we won’t know without him releasing his returns). Instead he tried to relate three unrelated things to try create a bullshit meme that people here are buying into:

            1. 47% of people don’t pay income taxes.
            2. 47% of people will vote for Obama
            3. Federal entitlement programs are out of control.

            He tries to equate 1 and 2, and blame #3 on the his equation. Which the honest brokers out there are rightfully calling him out on.

  7. What a bunch of crap. I know Gary Johnson is a nice alternative, but let’s face it, if Romney loses – Obama wins. And Obama is far worse on 1 through 5. I have kids and can’t sit back and enjoy the apocalypse while waiting for a perfect Republicans.

      1. OT – What happens if I use ampersands any way

        1. If you use ampersands the Apocalypse comes sooner and some people try to hasten the return of the Elder Gods in this way.

        2. Just try it and find out, Beltway Boy.

    1. Apocalypse is coming either way. Why not speed up the process so we can get it over with sooner?

      Also, votes for Gary Johnson send a message to BOTH major parties, not just the Republicans.

    2. If you honestly believe Romney will stave off the fiscal apocalypse any better than Obama, especially considering his more bellicose foreign policy would cancel out any marginal savings and cuts he could likely make, perhaps you deserve what you’ll get.

      A Romney victory means Rand Paul won’t likely be able to run in 2016 and in 2020 will have to answer for Romney’s policies, a la McCain being forced to answer for Bush policies he never endorsed.

      1. If I’m getting an apocalypse either way, what does it matter what I deserve?

        1. Because if you don’t vote for a complicit party, you are not complicit in that apocalypse and thus won’t deserve it.

          1. Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.

    3. And Obama is far worse on 1 through 5.

      I think this is where your analysis gets off track. “Marginally worse at best” is more accurate IMO. In fact, realistically, if you want taxes to go up, vote Romney. He can get away with it and will be just as ready to do so as Obama.

      If you want a more aggressive foreign policy, vote Obama or similar reasons.

      Otherwise, yeah, Obamaney is not FAR worse that that other guy. They are equally awful.

      1. 1. I think the author of Romneycare is far more likely to overturn Obamacare than the author of Obamacare. (not that either of them actually wrote the bills)

        2. Defense cuts are nice. Entitlement reform is the only way to avoid bankruptcy. Obama’s idea of reform is more people on the dole.

        3. Romney at understands what regulations do to a business. Obama understands MORE is better.

        4. Last I checked, Presidential terms were 4 years.

        5. When has this statement not been true? Nobody since Reagan has had those “strong convictions” and hoping for that magical person in 4 years is wishful thinking.

        6. The 47% comment is proving to be the opposite of disastrous.

        1. Romney at understands what regulations do to a business.

          Does he?

          1. I’m guessing so. I work for a business and have a pretty good idea.

        2. And Romney is going to make serious changes to entitlements to avoid bankruptcy? Good one

    4. You know, your one vote really isn’t as important as you seem to think it is. Just vote for who you like the best. Thinking that you can vote strategically like that is just silly.

    5. Newsflash: Your vote isn’t going to decide the election

  8. Reasons Why Conservatives Should Root For a Romney Defeat: Six and Counting

    But I’m not a ‘conservative’, so tell me why should I root for a Romney defeat?

    1. Because you are not a conservative.

      1. And you’re no Goldwater fan, shrike.

  9. Think about it as the domestic equivalent of the Soviet Union winning the Cold War and becoming the sole global super power.

    But an outright socialist winning a second term and operating without any worry of running for re-election is “winning”? I would like to hear this explained.

    1. That made no sense to me either.Has Shikha got into the medical marijuana again?

    2. Because there is no difference between the two candidates, doncha know? Notwithstanding, of course, the fact that thinly-veiled under that canard, Dalmia consistently pitches here for the Lefties.

      1. Don’t use the c-word, Vonnegut Boy, it only summons He Who Shall Not Be Engaged.

        Also, Shikha’s shilling for the left wing of libertarian thought does rather balance Kennedy and her shilling for the right.

        1. Let’s see…candidates?, course?, canard?, consistently?…huh?? “He Who Shall Not Be Engaged”…double huh?

          1. Dondero? The Urkubold? White Injun? The guy who writes “snuh” all over the place…oh wait, that one was in Usenet.

    3. I’m personally voting for Johnson and hoping Obama wins the presidency (via electoral college but not popular vote, for the lulz) and the Republicans win supermajorities in both houses of Congress. Republicans in Congress keep the pocketbook in check and block bad nominees to the SC, Obama doesn’t launch the military into every single internecine conflict on god’s green earth.

      It’s the best logical outcome.

      1. How exactly has Obama been any less belicose than the second Bush Administration? Obama intervened in Libya, has been conducting a low intensity war in Pakistan and Yemen. I can’t see how a McCain administration would have been any different.

        How many people does Obama have to drone strike and how many wars does he have to get into before we can kill this “we have to hope for the Democrats to win because Republicans will get us in a war” meme?

        1. I severely oppose Obama’s pointless and incoherent foreign policy, but compared to President McCain, who is lambasting Obama for not launching a full scale invasion and war of choice in Syria and Iran, I’d say Obama has been the model of restraint.

          1. Whatever gets you through the night. Congress and the media would have never allowed McCain to do shit in Syria. Obama in contrast has a blank check. There is no anti-war movement and there is no media or opposition to check him.

            1. Because the Democrats have never given a Republican candidate a blank check to start a unilateral, unnecessary war? Most certainly a Republican Congress wouldn’t? Are you even listening to yourself?

              1. Yea Proprietist. There was no political cost to the Iraq war. Republicans are just dying to repeat it.

                Are you listening to yourself?

                1. So you seriously don’t believe McCain would have launched full-scale attacks on Syria or jumped onboard with Israel’s coming war on Iran? The Republican debates on foreign policy turned into candidates all trying to out-bellicose each other, so I don’t believe anything has changed.

                  “Military Keynesians” probably believe that spending ad infinitum on some new wars will save the economy and the military-industrial complex profits will “trickle down.”

        2. This a textbook example of the hypocrisy of some people on this board that I’ve been pointing out. Whenever economic of fiscal issues are discussed, John (and others) inevitably say “Oh look Reason claiming again that Obama and Romney are the same. Sure Romney may suck, but that doesn’t mean there’s no difference.” But when the subject shifts to foreign policy, the line is “Look at how bad and aggressive Obama has been on foreign policy! Romney couldn’t possibly be worse! They’re the same!”

          1. So it is not possible that Obama could be just as bad on foreign policy as any Republican and worse on economic matters?

            Is that state of affairs a logical impossibility? I don’t see how. And if it is not impossible, then tell me why it is not actually the state of affairs and stop calling people hypocrites for daring to suggest it.

            1. Because your logic is no different than the people who say Romney and Obama are exactly the same on economic/fiscal issues, yet you try to pretend it isn’t. You offer no proof. You’ll say “Look Obama has drone striked people and killed US citizens, how could Romney be worse?” Um, by doing it more often? What I’m saying is you don’t use this same logic on other issues. Obama has been terrible on foreign policy, but let’s not pretend like Romney wouldn’t have done everything he’s done and more. Romney has been more bellicose in his rhetoric over Syria and Iran. Obviously we can’t know what they both would do in the next four years, but based on the evidence, there’s a really good chance Romney would be worse.

      2. And Obama appoints a few more Wise Latina types to the Supreme Court, ensuring that the Constitution becomes a blank slate for leftist fantasies for a decade or two?

        1. As I said “Republicans in Congress…block bad nominees to the SC.”

          1. They’ve got to let someone through eventually…

          2. In fact, I kind of hope Obama stubbornly nominates Elizabeth Warren to the Supreme Court, and Congress becomes a four year Republican filibuster and gets absolutely nothing done, no budget allocated, etc. Might be the best case scenario.

          3. As I said “Republicans in Congress…block bad nominees to the SC.”

            Just like the blocked Keagan and the Wise Latina. Dream on.

            1. Oh, you mean back when they were minorities in both Houses? What does that have to do with my argument that the GOP should ideally have a supermajority?

              It’s a little harder for Obama to nominate a beady-eyed Constitution-shredding internationalist illuminati when the votes don’t already inherently exist.

              1. It is easier because he will have won relection. And there is no gaurentee they will take the Senate.

                You are dreaming.

                1. And that has nothing to do with what I’m hoping for as the least bad likely outcome: a tiny Obama reelection via the electoral college but not the popular vote (thus not a “mandate”) and a Republican supermajority in both Houses of Congress. If the Democrats won Congress and the Presidency, I’d agree that would be truly awful, as it would be if Republicans won both.

      3. I’m not hoping that anyone in particular wins the election (barring a miracle). But I tend to agree that this would be the better outcome. I see the republicans making gains in congress in any case, so I think it would be slightly better to have divided government.

    1. But the Republicans won’t get 60 votes in the Senate. So it will be effectively divided. And we had a divided government from 06 to 08 and from 10 now. Did things get any better? They got worse from 06 to 08. And they have remained basically unchanged since 2010. Did a divided government keep Obama from going to war in Libya? From getting a way with fast and furious?

      1. Executive Orders and expiring tax rates should keep Obama’s “progress” going.

        http://pjmedia.com/blog/execut…..rity-bill/

    2. Divided government just ain’t gonna cut it. We need…sigh…strong leadership *dodges tomatoes* to defuse out fiscal bomb on autopilot.

      1. And you think that will happen?

    3. The problem with that is Obama will bypass Congress by using executive orders. He’s already done it quite a bit, and with no need to be re-elected, nothing will stop him from doing it more and more.

  10. One: As the author of RomneyCare and an abiding supporter of the mandate on insurers to cover pre-existing existing, he did not have the bona-fides to lead a “repeal and replace” movement against ObamaCare.

    How does this mean conservatives should hope for a Romney defeat? I can see it leading to apathy, but actual opposition? Is Obama going to be more likely to get rid of Obamacare? Or is another Republican president in 2016 going to have a chance to get rid of it once people are getting actual benefits from it?

  11. Seriously, I think that a Romney victory coupled with a Republican Congress is the doomiest scenario we face. (I don’t think a Dem Congress is a serious possibilty.)

    1. How so? Romney wouldn’t get anything past a Dem filibuster. And Bush had a Dem Congress his last two years in office, how did that work out?

      If the media would ever hold Obama accountable, I might agree with you. But they won’t. So a second Obama administration would just see him ruling by executive order and doing whatever the hell he wants.

      1. Those last two years didn’t produce the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, or Medicare Part D, I’ll tell you that much.

        1. Those last two years didn’t produce the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, or Medicare Part D, I’ll tell you that much.

          All of those things had significant Democratic support. They were all bi-partisan and would have easily passed in the 06-08 Congress. In fact, I am pretty sure that Congress renewed the Patriot Act. And it continued to fund the Iraq war. We had more troops in Iraq in 2008 than we did in 2006.

          1. Still, I know that 2006-2008 were sort of darker days, but I don’t think it had anything to do with the makeup of the Congress.

            1. It had a lot to do with the makeup of Congress. The Democrats took over and did nothing to stop the things about Bush they said they were going to, put spending through the roof, and got a lame duck Bush to sign onto any number of horrible economic policies.

              1. Bush and Paulson pushed TARP. There were no other new spending bills in 07-08, you moron.

                1. But earlier spending was supported and continued by the Dems, moron.

                  06-08 was darker because there was nothing good on the horizon. The TP has provided some relief.

      2. Dems would never filibuster. They’ve made it clear that that is just obstruction and being a bad sport.

        1. Ah thanks for the morning laugh +1

    2. I think two years of that, with all of the swings lately, wouldn’t be too bad. If they suck, then the House could go back very quickly. And they’ll know that.

      Provided that a GOP Congress actually tries to exert some fiscal responsibility, a possibility I’ll believe when I see, it might be better than what we have now. Maybe.

      1. Provided that a GOP Congress actually tries to exert some fiscal responsibility

        Good one!

        1. It’s a slim chance, but it’s not as zero as usual. They’re running on that more than on anything else. So we might see a little action for the first session, then the wars with China and Iran will undo the good. Wars that start later this year, if we’re really unlucky.

    3. I think Romney with a Democratic Congress would be worse. Congress primarily controls the purse strings, the President primarily controls the military. Obama + Republican Congress is the least worst outcome in that regard.

      1. I agree.

        So far, Republican prsidents with a Democratic Congress (there really weren’t any other kind from the fifties til 2001) have generally seen increased growth in govenment power and spending.

        Nixon signed every piece of Great Society legislation left over from the Johnson administration as well as adding the EPA, enacting price and wage controls and began endless tinkering with energy markets.

        The only to Reagan’s credit is that he at least saw the reduction of the rate of increase in federal spending but that took practically his whole term. His term also saw huge growth in the federalization of crime, not just the drug war, with a seemingly endless list of prosecutions for obsenity, pornography and phony “financial crimes”. All these thing had healthey bipartisan support.

      2. I just don’t see Mitt Romney as a hawk, regardless of what he might’ve said in the past few mos. Then again, I didn’t see Obama as a hawk, either.

        1. The problem with Romney and the GOP is that they will automatically jump into the tank with Israel in whatever major war they start, and Israel seems to be just waiting for a US nod to start such a war.

          And they have all criticized Obama for not sending troops into Syria to take out Assad’s government.

          1. Nixon (Kissinger, really) didn’t jump into the tank with Israel in 1973.

            1. Yes, Nixon’s attitude until 1973 was, “Fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.”

  12. “The biggest issue facing the country is out-of-control government spending.”

    Not unemployment?

    1. If you think we can just keep spending Team Be Ruled style – and that raising taxes on the rich will pay for it – you’re a bigger fool than you portray yourself to be, Tony.

      1. If you think we can seriously address the budget deficit without decreasing unemployment or raising taxes, etc.

        1. There is simply no evidence that a tax increase would address the budget deficit.

          1. Since the single biggest policy contributor to the deficit is tax cuts, it’s possibly safely assumed that arithmetic works in the other direction as well.

            1. This must be the part of the program where you say that every dollar belongs to the government and that which we “get” to keep is a gift from the Great Mulatto Father in Washington.

              1. Change the subject from arithmetic to the morality of taxation. Add a dash of racism. Nice. Convincing.

                1. What “racism”, asshole?

                2. Tony, you baked the morality of taxation into your original premise, which is that the amount the government decides to take is a mere “policy consideration”.

                  This conversation was headed to Moralityville from the jump, but that’s your own damn fault.

            2. Since the single biggest policy contributor to the deficit is tax cuts

              Heh, heh. Priceless.

              1. Since the single biggest policy contributor to the deficit is tax cuts

                Because government spending has nothing to do with it.

            3. That’s only if you buy the “tax expenditure” bullshit terminology. Cut spending by five cents on the dollar, and there’s no need to raise taxes by five cents on the dollar.

            4. Since the single biggest policy contributor to the deficit is tax cuts

              Yep. Not taking is giving. So a tax cut is actually an expenditure.

              Not giving is taking. So any cut in spending is actually theft from the person who would have received the money.

              It totally makes sense.

            5. Since the single biggest policy contributor to the deficit is tax cuts.

              Nope. It’s the new spending baseline created by the stimulus.

              Tony, what do you think the deficit will be in FY2014 if we let all the Bush tax cuts expire?

              1. Can I do 2015? First Google hit:

                If all Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, it would cut the deficit by 54%, or $226 billion, in 2015.”

        2. You’re of the mindset that tax increasing tax rates is the magic bullet/universal cure for all illnesses/Rosetta Stone, Tony.

          It’s especially fucking hilarious when one of you leftist twats says a five-cent tax increase would be sufficient. Real knee-slapper, that.

          1. Your straw man serves only to distract from the fact that you guys won’t countenance even a nickel increase in taxes, which means you don’t actually think the budget deficit is the biggest problem, you have an ideological beef with certain government programs and you’re using the budget deficit as the excuse to claim we have to eliminate them–things you’d want eliminated even in a time of surplus.

            I don’t think taxes solve all problems. I said you can’t seriously address the budget deficit without them.

            1. And “you guys” wont countenance even a penny decrease in spending.

              1. “We” certainly will. I’m for big cuts to defense.

                1. Yeah, but that’s the ONLY area you’ll cut, and cutting defense alone won’t give a net decrease in overall spending because you’ll just push for spending former defense money on poverty-perpetuation programs.

                  1. Even if you eliminated the defnse budget completely, it wouldn’t be enough.

                2. I’m against defense cuts. We need to cut offense.

                  1. What Tim said.

            2. Let’s see: if I collect 1.8 trillion dollars (R), but I spend 3 trillion (E), I can do one of two things: increase (R) or decrease (E).

              I fail to see how advocating for all of the gap reductions to come from the (E) side is not taking the budget problem seriously.

              1. “A government budget isn’t like a household budget, Randian. Everybody knows that.” -Channelling the spirit of Paulie Krugnuts

                That’s right. The basic rules of accounting do not apply when you can wave a wand to make money appear out of thin air.

              2. What Tony doesn’t get (that is, a couple of things Tony doesn’t get):

                1. There’s no way taxes can be raised enough to cover the extra $1.2 trillion Randian pointed out, above.

                2. Tony doesn’t get the “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” part of the definition of “racism”.

            3. A math question for Tony: If Congress consistently spends $1.10-$1.40 for every dollar they get in tax revenue, how much do they have to raise taxes in order to balance the budget?

              1. “As high as they can be raised”, would be the answer.

                Because rich people suck.

            4. you guys won’t countenance even a nickel increase in taxes

              When the working class is overtaxed as they are I tend to favor reducing spending. Also. The budget is only a problem for the government, not for me.

              Now.. the government REACTION to the imploding budget is how I might be affected but if govt has to slash and burn in order to make debt payments, not a problem for me.

        3. Oh.. give me 5 minutes and a red pen… I can do it.

    2. Since umemployment will be the ultimate consequence of out-of-control government spending, methinks you have, as usual, the cart before the horse.

      Just as you do when you say, “the single biggest policy contributor to the deficit is tax cuts.”

      The single biggest policy contributor to the deficit is spending and the belief, that you seem to share, that there is simply no area of civil life into which the government cannot intrude.

      The Reagan era saw record tax revenues and Congress still managed (and Reagan still signed) record deficits. One Reason writer commented at the time that would hate to see what kind of deficits Congrss would run if they managed to increase taxes.

      At least in the Reagan era pols had the excuse that interest on the debt was a sizeable portion of the budget and the deficit.

  13. If it wasn’t for the damn judicial appointments, I would be leaning toward Obama in the White House and Repub Congress as the best case outcome. On the theory that Romney isn’t going to change the trajectory of big government/fiscal catastrophe in any meaningful way, so Obama might as well take the blame. Congress could rein in the worst of his excesses, and might actually be inspired to push back on some things out of sheer partisan contrariness.

    1. Right — Romney wouldn’t change the trajectory of big government, but his “cuts and deregulation” would take the blame for his disastrous performance.

      1. We’ll get blamed for that anyway. Doesn’t matter who’s in charge.

        1. Doesn’t mean the masses will be equally convinced in either scenario

    2. If Republicans won enough members of Congress to block judicial nominees, Obama’s nomination powers would be a non-issue.

      1. They can’t block Supreme Court Justices for four years. That isn’t politically possible.

        1. Why not? If Obama is nominating radicals who wish to destroy the Constitution, I’d hope the GOP would filibuster to kingdom come.

          1. You just can’t. The public won’t stand for it.

            1. Depends on the nominee, right? If the public wouldn’t stand for the nominee, the President would be the one punished at midterms. With a Republican supermajority, Obama would be forced to nominate a relatively MOR candidate.

              1. In order to defeat a judicial appointment you have to have nominees on the order of Clement Haynsworth or G. Harrold Carswell.

                Both of those men were so unqualified on either competence or competence grounds that there Nixon couldn’t even muster enough support from his own party.

                1. “on either competencepolitical or competence grounds

                  1. Of course, in those days, the liberal Rockefeller wing was still a notable force in the Republican Party.

                    1. Dude, who do you think is dominating the party now?

                    2. Socons, though, IMO, not nearly to the extent that they are able to get much of their agenda passed even if the GOP takes both houses.

                      Though, since their spending makes Rockefeller’s NY administration look like misers, I guess you have a point. ๐Ÿ™‚

                  1. I’d forgotten them. You don’t have to go that far back after all do you.

    3. While they would be somewhat better in some areas, I’m not too wild about the prospect of Romney appointees to the court either. Maybe the SC should change from lifetime appointed justices to something more like jury duty. Draft a hundred people or something, give them each a copy of the constitution and have them vote on constitutional issues.

    4. I think the judicial appointments thing is overrated. As shitty as the Dem justices are, there are times where they’ve been right and the conservative wing wrong (mostly on civil liberties, with the exception of CU and the 2nd Amendment) and the conservatives can’t be consistently counted upon on the areas they’re supposed to be good on (cough Roberts cough)

  14. “Yeah, that’s what I thought = you all just want Obama to win. Why not just vote for him rather than badmouth our TEAM player?? You fail to look the other way!! Why have you not brainwashed yourselves into worship of the GOOD team??? I will fulminate endlessly in my grumpy fashion issuing declarations of my Right-Minded Indignation just you remind you every day how much you all disappoint me and make me feel better about my superior status as the lone supporter of the guy who if he were wearing a blue tie would be my mortal enemy! And why do you all keep picking on Sara Palin! She was a very commendable candidate!!””

    1. If you should hope Romney loses, doesn’t hat make Obama the lesser of two evils?

      1. Nope. I’m taking my Obama vote and casting it for Gary Johnson!

        1. In the RLC, there’s lots of fighting over whether Obama is so bad that everyone must vote for Romeny, or whether this is the time to make a big splash by voting LP in larger-than-usual numbers.

      2. John| 9.19.12 @ 11:00AM |#

        If you should hope Romney loses, doesn’t hat make Obama the lesser of two evils?

        john, I thought you’d found your sense of humor the other day? Remember? It was a special time! You celebrated it for a minute. Then you went back to browbeating everyone for failing to develop a hardon for whatever knucklehead happens to be wearing a red tie this election cycle.

        Its not that we don’t *hate* Obama as much as you john… its just that we are perhaps less sanguine about the Great Hope presented by what – even you should admit – is a lukewarm, halfassed GOP Ken-Doll mannequin who is capable of switching his ‘principles’ in a heartbeat. If I were *seriously* a partisan republican, I’d probably be even more disgusted, given how weak-tea Romney-bot is. Instead, I’m just a disaffected libertoid who is standing at a political salad bar and not liking the looks of anything for offer.

        I know you make the case that its a shit sandwich and we all have to take a bite…

        ..which I why I’m voting VERMIN SUPREME 2012. At least I will not be ashamed of my vote.

        1. I had to look this guy up:

          (Vermin Supreme) participated in the Lesser-Known Democratic Candidates Presidential Forum and “glitterbombed” fellow candidate Randall Terry, claiming that? Jesus told him to turn Terry gay

          The photo is what seals the deal. I almost choked.

  15. I’m pulling for a tie in the electoral college, followed by 4 years of Romney/Biden. It would be the worst Odd Couple clone in history.

    1. Im pulling for a very tiny Romney EC win, 3 delegates jumping to Paul to push Romney under majority, and a miracle in the House.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

      1. Man that would be piss everybody off.

        I’m in.

        1. According to John, the R delegates who do their duty and vote their conscience would be immoral.

          It would make it tripley sweet.

          1. If any of the EC members threaten Romney, I hope that the Republican Party does a full-on purge of the Paulites so the Republican Party can finally give itself fully over to the socons and warmongers and stop pretending.

            1. Multiple ones in Nevada have already done it. One has flat out said he is voting for Paul and a couple others are considering it.

              1. Does Nevada have a law binding electors to the party’s nominee.

                Is there a possibility that we will ever see another presidential election that is concluded without litigation? ๐Ÿ™‚

      2. Have there been any challenges to the state laws that bind electors to their party’s candidates?

        The last time I remember an elector going of the reservation was when Roger McBride voted for John Hospers instead of Nixon in 1972. this was the event that triggered the move to those elector-binding laws, IIRC.

  16. The congressional split really leaves me not caring about what happens with the election. The judicial appointments and the fact that a Romney loss would seem like a repudiation of spending reform leaves me a bit cold, but overall I remain apathetic.

  17. Define “conservative”.

    1. “Not a liberal.”

    2. “Bigot”.

      1. “Racist.”

      1. “Christ-fag.”

        1. Why did you repeat my comment?

          1. Different spelling, ProL.

    3. The Late P Brooks| 9.19.12 @ 11:03AM |#

      Define “conservative”

      Thinks Khakis are ‘casual’

  18. If Obama pushes for bullshit in 2014, the congress will oppose him. If Romney pushes for bullshit in 2014, the congress will rubber stamp it. Just like they did for Junior Bush.

    1. I’m pro-bullshit, anti-horseshit.

    2. There is this house called the “Senate” you might want to look into.

      1. I thought that the Emperor dissolved the Senate?

        1. But that’s impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?

  19. Hey, that’s pretty good, you look like you’d got a fine career ahead of you over at The Daily Kos, Shikha. But we’re gonna need a bit more frothing, k?

    1. Someone has to occupy the Dave Weigal Journalism Chair at Reason.

  20. Because things are going to get significantly worse over the next 4 years, regardless of who wins. It’s already baked in. So better to have a Democrat in the White House when it happens so Liberals can’t use a Republican president as a cop out for why statism is an abject failure.

    1. I think a number of potential GOP candidates this time around who didn’t run believe this. That winning in 2012 means presiding over an unavoidable disaster.

      1. If you think there is going to be a disaster, who do you want to be President when it hits. I have to admit President Empty Chair and his retarded defenders would definitely bring the LULTZ. But would he be so bad that something horrible and irreversible could happen?

      2. And another winnah (PL, of course).

        1. I thought about running, but I was intimidated by Romney’s hair. It’s perfect.

          1. He’ll rip your lungs out, Jim ProL.

            1. Exactly. Which is why I let him finish his pi?a colada and moved on.

    2. I go back and forth about that. Sometimes I think that is about right. Other times I think Obama would do so much damage and it would get so bad, especially if he gets a couple of Supreme Court nominees, there will be no fixing it. The attitude he and his supporters have displayed in the last two weeks towards the First Amendment sends a chill up my spine, especially when you combine that with all of the talk about how he only failed because he didn’t “sell his policies to the American people well enough”. That is nothing but a dog whistle for “the mistake we made was letting our opponents say anything.”

      The other bonus of an Obama loss will be the misery and suffering of his supporters. I can’t say I will be particularly happy at Romney winning. But God will enjoy misery of creatures like Shreek and Tony. The first Wednesday in November will be national Schadenfreude Day.

      1. I do think the tears shed during an Obama loss would be yummy and sweet, but they wouldn’t be worth a Mittens victory.

        1. I am evil to think that they would.

          I would watch the Facebook news feed continuously for a week after an Obama loss. And just laugh and laugh.

          1. Wouldn’t be just tears, CN – there would be blood shed, from the riots sure to come if Obama loses.

        2. I will ask you again. What is Romney going to do that is worse than Obama? Do you really think it is a good idea to re-elect a President who has engaged in the kind of corruption that Obama has engaged in and just last week told the world he had no regard for the 1st Amendment?

          I don’t expect you to vote for Romney. But to think that an Obama victory would be worse and more damaging to the country in the short term is just nuts.

          1. I mean Romney victory would be worse in the short term at least than Obama winning.

          2. What is Romney going to do that is worse than Obama?

            War. Which is a big one.

            1. I don’t think Romney will be worse on war than Obama. But he will be more likely to have a Congress which rubberstamps his boneheaded ideas. Meanwhile, Obama’s boneheaded ideas will likely be fiercely contested.

              1. I don’t think Romney will be worse on war than Obama.

                The post 9/11 Republican Party cannot be trusted with the military. At all.

                They just can’t help themselves from saber-rattling day in and day out.

                1. They just can’t help themselves from saber-rattling day in and day out.

                  And the Democrats are different how? Oh I get it they lie and don’t even bother to tell you the wars they are fighting. And that makes you feel better I guess.

              2. Also, ME policy phoned-in from Tel-Aviv. No thanks.

                1. Also, ME policy phoned-in from Tel-Aviv. No thanks.

                  The JEWS!!!

                  MNG, so nice to have you back. It is always good to have some anti-Semitic Jew baiting on the board. Those evil Jews just run the government.

                  1. PC thuggery is not just the bastion of the left anymore…
                    Calling someone out as anti-semetic whenever they question Israeli policy is as bad as calling someone a racist whenever they question Obama.

                    1. There’s a huge difference between questioning Israeli policy or even Israeli influence on American foreign policy and saying:

                      Also, ME policy phoned-in from Tel-Aviv. No thanks.

                      Sorry, that’s just a fucking disgusting comment.

            2. What evidence do you have that Romney is any more likely to get us in a war than Obama? Obama has gotten us into one war in Libya and functionally two more in Yemen and NW Pakistan.

              If Israel attacks Iran and Iran then sends missiles against US bases in Kuwait, we are going to be at war no matter who is President.

              I do not for the life of me understand how Libertarians after the last four years can cling to this idiotic idea that Democrats are somehow less likely to get into a war than Republicans. It defies all evidence.

              1. I do not for the life of me understand how Libertarians after the last four years can cling to this idiotic idea that Democrats are somehow less likely to get into a war than Republicans. It defies all evidence.

                I don’t understand this either – most wars that the U.S. chooses to engage in have started under Democratic administrations, and regardless of who is president, the U.S. military hardly goes a year without shooting at somebody.

                I thought Obama preferable to McCain because I was certain that McCain would pull the stupid stunt Obama pulled with Libya, but that is because of McCain’s truculent personality, not his party affiliation.

                1. I don’t understand this either – most wars that the U.S. chooses to engage in have started under Democratic administrations,

                  Hence why I said “post 9/11”.

                2. John, if Iran was told that we would not intervene in their war with Israel unless attacked, why exactly would they attack us?

                  1. Cali,

                    It might be because Israel can’t realistically strike at Iran w/o flying over Iraq or Saudi, and neither can happen without our connivance. I doubt too whether the Israelis have enough airpower to be able to fly over a 1000 miles each way to the estimated more than 20 targets associated with Iran’s nuclear program. If they want to stomp Iran’s nuclear program all in one go, they’re probably going to need the U.S.’s help. Which is probably why the Israelis haven’t hauled off and done it yet.

                    I do like your idea—if I’m reading you correctly—of telling everyone, “We’re sitting this one out; if you want to kill each other, have at it.”

              2. Obama followed the withdrawal timetable in Iraq. McCain would have ignored it.

                Obama has gotten us into one war in Libya

                And Republicans promptly criticized him for not sending in the brigades on the ground.

                In ever military action / war Obama has engaged in, the Republicans have demogogued that it’s not enough. It’s always and forever a call for more troops, more hostility, more invasions, more aggression.

                1. Again Randian, we are going to end up in a war with Iran in the next four years no matter who is President. The enemy gets a vote. I know you don’t like that. But they do. We may end up in a war with China if we are not lucky.

                  That would be one advantage to Obama winning. It would be of great educational value to Libertarians like you. Perhaps you would finally understand the world is a bit bigger and more complex than your political grudges.

                  1. *yawn*

                    I didn’t mean to awaken Red Tony, guys. Sorry.

                    Please be aware, John, that I said that Obama might be slightly better than Romney on war, not that Obama is great on it or anything.

                    That would be one advantage to Obama winning. It would be of great educational value to Libertarians like you. Perhaps you would finally understand the world is a bit bigger and more complex than your political grudges.

                    What the fuck are you talking about?

                    1. hat I said that Obama might be slightly better than Romney on war,

                      REally?

                      I thought you said

                      What is Romney going to do that is worse than Obama?

                      War. Which is a big one.

                      Am I missing the words “might be slightly better”? Are we on different internets?

                    2. Does worse mean “100% worse” in your world, John?

                    3. Does worse mean “maybe slightly worse” in your world? It doesn’t in mine. And even if it did, it wouldn’t mean it was automatically a bid deal.

                2. Obama was forced to follow the withdrawal timeline after he fought to extend it.

                  1. Obama was forced to follow the withdrawal timeline after he fought to extend it.

                    Absolutely correct.

                    Still, you know that McCain would have been worse on this point. And the Republicans went ahead and criticized Obama for following the timeline anyway.

                    1. Randian,

                      McCain could not have forced the Iraqis to agree to a SOFA anymore than Obama could have.

                      Could you at least try to know what you are talking about instead of pulling shit out of your ass?

                    2. “The prevailing narrative is that U.S. and Iraqi leaders could not reach agreement over the legal protections needed to keep our troops in Iraq. To be sure, this was a matter of vital importance. But while this may have been a reason for our failure, the privileges and immunities issue is less a cause than a symptom of the larger reason why we could not reach agreement with the Iraqis: Because of his political promise to fully withdraw from Iraq, the President never brought the full weight of his office to bear in shaping the politics and the events on the ground in Iraq so as to secure a residual presence of U.S. troops. That left our commanders and our negotiators in Baghdad mostly trying to respond to events in Iraq ? trying to shape events without the full influence of the American President behind them.

                      John McCain, December 2011.

                      Next time, you know what the fuck you’re talking about. McCain is absolutely convinced he could have brought the “full weight” of the Presidential Office to bear on getting a new SOFA.

                    3. And McCain was talking out of his ass. It is easy to talk a big game when you are not President. Obama brought the full weight of the Presidency. He desperately wanted to stay. And he still didn’t get it done.

                      Maybe you have this great opinion of McCain and think of him as some great leader possessing magical powers of persuasion. But I am not seeing it.

                      And I don’t think you do either. You are just pretending reality fits your prejudices.

                3. It’s a cry for do it right, do it fast, and get the hell out. Neither Bush nor Obama understands that.

                  Because they’re like you–

                  It’s always and forever a call for more troops, more hostility, more invasions, more aggression.

                  If the US fought it’s conflicts like what it is–the sole superpower–they’d be short sweet expressions of overwhelming force. We’d be done and out and helping the survivors set up democracies. Instead we namby-pamby around trying not to offend, trying to fix things before they’re ours to fix. Trying to undo the damage of the war while we’re fighting it.

                  And so we wind up in these stupid ‘nation-building’ quagmires in which we try to convince despots to become democrats, Stupidity.

              3. I’ll reiterate what I said upthread; whenever the subject is fiscal/economic issues, John bashes everyone over the skull with the fact that while Romney might not be good, and that while Bush and the Republicans were awful, it doesn’t mean Obama isn’t worse and that there’s no difference. But whenever the subject is foreign policy, he constantly points out how bad Obama is and how Romney couldn’t be worse and that because Obama sucks there’s no difference.

            3. So you’re saying Romney would be worse on war than Bush?

      2. I found myself wondering what the Hollywood crowd thought of Nakoula Nakoula being brought in for questioning. Yeah, they can dismiss him as an amateur hack and he has a past of committing fraud and yada yada, but, still, that image has to have caused some beard scratching somewhere.

        1. I doubt it. They don’t think that would ever happen to them.

          1. IMO, the odds that government clamps down on dissent in this country are evenly split between the two Teams. Team Blue just happens to have the power at the moment.

            1. Here is the difference. It is a lot harder for the Republicans to do it because they don’t own the media. The media would have gone insane if Bush had arrested that filmmaker. But when Obama does it they cheer. The media allows Obama to do things with very little or no worry about there being a political cost.

              1. If you’re in the majority in the government, John, you don’t need to “own the media”.

                With Dems, owning the media AND clamping down on free speech, would be cake with sprinkles on top of the icing.

                1. f you’re in the majority in the government, John, you don’t need to “own the media”.

                  Yes you do. The media can make you pay a political price and expose what you do. We still have elections in this country. The way you clamp down on things is to do in secret so few or no people know about it. Thanks to the media most people either don’t know the film maker was arrested or honestly think it was an unrelated arrest.

                  That is what Libertarians don’t get. Liberals really do want to get rid of political dissent. And they have the media cover to do it. Conservatives talk a good game, but in the end all they will ever do is tilt a few porn windmills. Liberals can and will do a hell of a lot worse than that. Give Obama a replacement pic on the Supreme Court and Citizens United will get overturned. What do you think happens then?

                  1. Um, if the government imposes martial law, the press won’t be able to make anyone pay… they’ll be under government control.

                    And the odds are even on either Team going that route, John.

                    1. The odds are even at exactly zero. The government could never impose martial law because the military would never agree to it. They would stand down and refuse the order.

                      And you only impose martial law when the courts and the state and local governments cease to function. That isn’t going to happen. The founders created a federal system for a reason. It makes doing something like that well neigh impossible.

                    2. Sorry, John, but I disagree. There are people in power in both Teams, who have underwear-soiling dreams of just such a future.

                    3. The question is who is more likely to do the most damage. And the last four years have answered that pretty clearly.

                    4. The government could never impose martial law because the military would never agree to it. They would stand down and refuse the order.

                      Add domestic WMD mass casualty event, stir. Dissolve Bill of Rights, serve.

                      That said, I don’t think one Team is more likely than the other to do that in the aftermath. I’m just taking issue with the idea that the military would never agree to something like that.

                      The lack of shame in this Administration for sending the goons to get the filmmaker, is really disturbing. Nixon at least had the decency and shame to have to resort to burglary. This is getting within eyesight of being as bad as some of the Red Scare shit Wilson pulled.

                    5. Martial law?

                      Unneccessary complication of hypothesis much?

                      Nakoula was dragged in without martial law. Google pulled the video without martial law.

                      It’s really easy to suppress dissent when the media is helping you do it.

                      Hell, done right, you wouldn’t even know they’re doing it. Why do you think the MSM and it’s national branch, The Left, wants to shut down alternative media?

                      And the media will not help the GOP suppress dissent.

  21. What is so frustrating about Damlia is that she takes a reasonable argument and turns into to a left wing love fest. It very well may be that Romney wouldn’t do enough and would just end up getting conservatives blamed for the mess he didn’t clean up. The argument is that a second Obama will be such a disaster for the Democrats and a Romney administration such a limp noodle, that conservatives are better off letting Obama do four more years of damage and then getting a better President in 2016.

    Dalmia doesn’t give the second half of the argument. She fails to explain how bad Obama is going to be and what that would do to the big government Democratic brand. So the post just comes off as shilling for Obama.

    1. I think the implied point is that true conservatives should vote for Johnson and not worry about if they are spoiling Romney’s chances, since a Romney Presidency will be bad for conservatives in the long run. It would be much better in the long run to have Rand Paul or Jim DeMint as the 2016 nominee than running crappy President Romney against Hillary Clinton, and hope that Republicans win the Congress in the interim to turn Obama into a lame duck.

      1. How do you know things will be any better in 2016? Who is to say either of those two guys wins the nomination? What if it is Hucakby and things are so bad any R nominee wins. Do you want a President Huckaby? I don’t.

        That seems to be wishful thinking on your part.

        1. The high likelihood or Romney today, or the small possibility of Huckabee tomorrow. Hmm…doesn’t sound like much difference to me.

          If Romney is elected, Rand Paul will become persona non grata as the loyal opposition to the administration’s policies. Since team voters stick with their team leaders for the most part, Rand Paul or Jim DeMint’s chances to ever be the nominee and President drop with a Romney Presidency.

          1. Rand Paul will become persona non grata as the loyal opposition to the administration’s policies.

            No he won’t. He will become one of the most powerful people in the Senate. Paul has a following. Romney can’t blow him off or face being primaried.

            1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
              Yeah, right. I remember quite clearly what happened to the few libertarians and real conservatives last time the Republicans held unilateral control.

              Those were the days when true budget warriors like Paul Ryan were voting for unfunded legislations like Medicare Part D.

        2. I figured there was a strong chance the Muslim Brotherhood would take over in Egypt, but I still think it was worth it for the Egyptians to take the gamble and kick out Mubarak.

    2. Re: John,

      The argument is that a second Obama will be such a disaster for the Democrats and a Romney administration such a limp noodle, that conservatives are better off letting Obama do four more years of damage and then getting a better President in 2016.

      Just how much damage can you expect Obama to do with a hostile Congress and Senate? Instead, a New England liberal can certainly do a LOT of damage to our economy and liberties with a Congress and Senate that votes on party lines.

      I’ll take door number one, please!

      1. Obama’s been doing plenty of damage as of late.

      2. Just how much damage can you expect Obama to do with a hostile Congress and Senate?

        Look at the damage he has done in the last two years? Just how much damage can a President do with a hostile House and an evenly divided Senate coming off a complete repudiation in the midterms?

        A fucking lot as we have seen.

        1. How much LEGISLATIVE damage has he done since the GOP won back the House and gained in the Senate? Obama has done a lot of crap since last year, but he’s been severely limited. An even bigger GOP majority in the House could truly crush his effectiveness.

          1. Especially because Team Red will devolve to pure apoplexy with an Obama re-election and turn Washington into a political bloodbath.

          2. Doubtful. He would just ignore Congress and rule by EO. You have to understand the advantages he gets by the media being so protective. Fast and Furious and Solandra would have ended any other President’s career. But they didn’t touch Obama because the media refused to go after him on it.

            There is nothing Obama can do, no matter how lawless that the media will ever call him on. That makes it very hard to control him, especially if he knows he won’t run for election again.

            1. No, my point is name a single piece of major Democratic legislation passed since the Republicans took over in 2011. There hasn’t been any, and Obama’s already basically a lame duck. I’d rather that continue and Obama continue to remind us all of his ineptitude than give either party a blank check with all three branches of government complicitly passing every piece of spending and legislation they desire.

              1. Romney would never get a blank check. HE would have a hostile media and any number of RINOS in the Senate looking to sell out and be told how statesman like they are.

                Romney would be a weak, care taker President. He would be another Ford.

                1. Right, the media control everything. That’s why Bush got reelected with Congressional majorities in 2004 – because the media was so obviously in the tank for him.

                  1. Propritist,

                    The media has a huge effect. That is why Bush didn’t go after Iran’s nuclear facilities, why he never got Social Security reform through, why he spent his last two years in office signing anything Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi told him to.

                    Yeah, the media matters a lot.

                    1. Oh, it matters. But most people are set in their teams and most Team Red voters don’t trust Team Blue media to begin with.

                      We have lived every combination of Republican or Democrat Congress or Presidency in the past 10 years, and so far, the least bad option for limited government advocates has been the Democratic President-Republican Congress configuration of the past year and a half. No major legislation passed, no major wars started, no major jumps in spending and both teams killing each other’s worst excesses off.

                    2. Democratic President-Republican Congress configuration of the past year and a half.

                      The last year and a half have been a disiaster. They haven’t cut spending in any meaningful way or done anything to get the government’s throat off of the economy.

                      Sorry but a I don’t see Congress doing nothing while Obama’s bureaucrats make war on the productive as being any sort of a good thing.

                    3. Of course they have. They’ve just been less of a disaster than any of the other configurations.

                      No major legislation or stimulus and no new wars is something to be thankful for, considering how bad the economy remains and how tumultuous the world has been. Now they get to make unilateral cuts since they could never pass a compromise, which is fantastic in my view. Obamacare isn’t getting implemented. Considering the alternatives, it could have been much, much worse.

                    4. Sure it could have been worse. The Dems could have won in 2010. But by your logic that would have been better since Obama would be even weaker right now.

                    5. What?! How is that “my logic”? I’m pointing out that divided government means less government, and divided in this particular way compares very favorably to 2007-2008 when Bush and the Democratic Congress helped ruin the economy and then worsen the moral hazards that caused the ruin in the first place.

                      Explain to me exactly how the past year and half has been worse than, say, the all-Republican years where they passed all kinds of horrifically crappy, sweeping legislation like Medicare Part D, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. and put us into two endless and pointless wars playing “follow the leader”?

              2. Obama is ruling by executive order. Or have you not noticed that?

                1. Executive orders are comparatively limited when standing next to landmark legislation. No landmark legislation has gotten passed since Jan 2011. This is a good thing, imho.

                  1. Note, I’m not justifying executive orders – those should be banned. Just pointing out that it’s comparatively harder to administer massive changes without funding compared to legislation.

  22. “Think about it as the domestic equivalent of the Soviet Union winning the Cold War and becoming the sole global super power.”

    If the Soviets had won in 1989 there’d be no internet, no cell phones, no viagra and no ‘Tough Acting Tinactin’ you fool.

    1. Also no Call of Duty or World of Warcraft. Parents would be forced to live in their own basements.

      1. John Stewart would be grubbing for old roots in the Hollywood Collective Farm.

        1. On the other hand, Alien 3 would never have been made.

  23. You’re not going to have a president you find close to satisfactory so get that out of your pretty little heads right now.

    1. Pfft! Joke is on you! My head isn’t pretty!

  24. I honestly can’t imagine anyone caring much one way or the other unless they’ve drunk the TEAM juice.

    1. Either flavor of TEAM juice, you mean.

    2. “TEAM juice” sounds like a high school sports hazing event gone horribly wrong.

      1. Ew. Eww ewwwww.

        Tony would like it, though.

  25. Don’t vote for Romney because he might be as bad a Obama.

    So… vote for the 5 megaton nuke going off over the 1 megaton nuke.

    Nuke analogies! They’re the new car analogy!

  26. “As the author of RomneyCare and an abiding supporter of the mandate on insurers to cover pre-existing existing”

    Yeah, that “pre-existing existing” is the jam.
    Anyhow…
    Massachusetts mandated covering pre-existing conditions and community rating in 1996. They are coupled only in the sense that the mandate was a mechanism to thwart the spiraling health care costs from enacting those provisions, and the feds threatening to withdraw $385,000,000 from the fund used to compensate providers for uninsured care.
    Little discussed besides the mandate is Romney wanted an “opt out” of the insurance mandate if an individual could show that they had sufficient money to pay for their own care.
    None of these things happened in a vacuum. There were competing plans including total state takeover of health care in a state with an 87% Democrat legislature.
    This issue has been vastly oversimplified.

    1. Exactly. There’s no way Romney’s presiding over the USA is going to be like the presiding he had to do over Mass.

  27. In retrospect, I think four more years of Jimmy Carter would have been tits.

    1. Hell, I’m at the point of wishing that Bill Clinton had tried to emulate FDR’s longevity.

      1. That’s the scary thing: Is there any major party candidate since 1992 that Clinton couldn’t whip, easily?

        If it wasn’t for term limits, we’d be living through his fifth term right about now, and getting geared up for his sixth.

  28. Re: Tony,

    “The biggest issue facing the country is out-of-control government spending.”

    Not unemployment?

    No. One begets the other, so fix the first, the other fixes itself.

  29. It’s an immensely curious fact about modern “Progressives” that they dismiss as intellectually handicapped or hopelessly superstitious (or both) those who deny the full reality and role of undesigned, evolved order in the non-human world (especially in the realms of biology, geology, and astronomy), but regard as enlightened and indisputably correct those those who deny the full reality and role of undesigned, evolved order in society.

    Nice one Don.

    http://cafehayek.com/2012/09/q…..y-405.html

  30. This article sucks. It could have been good. How does Obama losing = losing the Cold War? This is Dalmia at her worst.

    1. She is the worst writer at Reason. Does she now plan to write a column explaining how liberals would be better off if Romney wins? Isn’t that the logical conclusion to make after reading this article?

      1. She’s totally right, though. No true conservative should vote for Romney, as no true progressive should vote for Obama.

        And yes, I think progressives would be better off if Obama loses, as his incompetence is dragging them down and his policies violate all their purported values.

  31. The first Wednesday in November will be national Schadenfreude Day.

    I like that

  32. Both suck and for a reason both TEAMs indulge in: neither candidate will be elected because he was liked, but rather because the other candidate was disliked. This wouldn’t be a problem if this tepid endorsement of a slightly lesser evil wasn’t taken as a mandate for the entire TEAM agenda.

    Obama could have just taken his election for what it was–anger at Bush and the neo-cons–and been a simple caretaker president, pushing a little progressive nonsense on the edges. But he and his cronies thought a vote against the excesses of Bush was an enthusiastic embrace of Obamacare and shitty school lunches.

    Romney–if elected–will do the same damn thing. He’ll take a vote against an over-reaching president as a greenlight to over-reach himself. The swings of the pendulum get wider every time.

    What Shikha misunderstands is thinking that repudiating Romney will reform the Republican party. It won’t for the simple reason that nothing will convince them that they are doing anything wrong. They have too many other people, sentiments and mechanisms to blame for their problems. And a defeat of Obama will be treated exactly the same way by the Democrats.

    Their delusions are too well-honed to just go away.

    1. I’d like to see Romney win just so he rearrange the furniture on Obamacare and all the Republican thought leaders will be forced to pronounce it good.

      1. That, and the nonstop live coverage of the “because Obama lost” riots on cable TV…

    2. Romney–if elected–will do the same damn thing. He’ll take a vote against an over-reaching president as a greenlight to over-reach himself

      Maybe. But that view doesn’t really fit with the idea that Shaika is selling that Romney is some kind of secret liberal craven flip flopper. To over reach would require him holding actual conservative views.

      And you are right. A Romney loss might make the Republicans worse not better. Blair winning made the Tories much worse.

      1. Romney doesn’t have to believe in anything to over-reach. He will be led around by his party just like every other modern president.

        Either one wins, liberty loses.

        1. But is there any difference in liberty-loss rates?

          I’d say “neglible” would be the answer.

          1. It’s the difference between getting shot with a .38 and a .380.

  33. I see this election as essentially trying to vote for more time. Time for either a true fiscal conservative/libertarian to be elected, or if that doesn’t happen, enough time to amass enough cash to get my family out of the country. In that regard, Romney is leagues better than Obama, I’m thinking a Romney presidency vs a 2nd term Obama presidency would buy the country at least 4 extra years of fiscal solvency.

    1. Where would you go?

      1. (Independent)Texas, Australia, New Zealand, Mars. In that order. Well none are libertarian paradises, all are, or will be, better than the U.S. after a U.S. default.

    2. I don’t know. When you look at the differences in their spending proposals, and then acknowledge the fact that they’re proposals will be watered down by Congress, I don’t think there will be a big difference either way.

  34. Re: Tony,

    It’s sad that you think there’s something wrong with being a welfare recipient, environmentalist, or union member.

    It’s sad that you think it’s sad.

    Wefare recipient: Complicit in a stolen goods racket.

    Environmentalist: Complicit in a property rights violation racket.

    Union member: Complicit in a protection racket.

    1. What you said, OM.

  35. If you want a libertarian president, it’s not going to help to root for the defeat of the republican candidate. You need a younger, more attractive libertarian candidate with better hair. Then he’ll win or at least make a decent showing. If he did win, he wouldn’t do much, but don’t worry…that’s because the president can’t do much good anyway.

    Seriously, I kind of think worrying about the presidential candidate is like becoming upset about how Miss America plans to bring about world peace. Nothing will ever change the fact that people are incredibly shallow when making decisions.

    1. Becoming President is about having a huge fundraising network. You can think campaign finance reform for that. If we had the old system, someone like Romney would never have been nominated because other and better candidates would have found a few rich backers and been able to compete. As it is, only the insiders with the networking to raise funds had a chance.

      1. Becoming President is about having a huge fundraising network….As it is, only the insiders with the networking to raise funds had a chance.

        That. I always thought that W was awfully ungrateful in not doing anything to either save Enron or pardon/commute Ken Lay, considering that without Lay’s fundraising, W’s ass would never have been in that chair.

        I’m happy that he didn’t, of course.

        1. And Jon Corzine is not in prison because he was a huge Obama fundraiser. But remember the $1000 contribution limit makes politics clean.

        2. I, personally, cannot for the life of me figure out why Ken Lay was giving that kind of money to Bush. Enron always got good treatment from the clinton administration and judging by
          Rubin’s call to the Bush white House, I’m seriously thing Enron would have gotten a bailout from a Gore administration.

          Enron would have been a perfect fit for the Obama administration too.

          The fact is that neither as governor of Texas nor as president pre 9/11 Bush never showed much of a propensity for subsidies or bailouts, though he did have a reputaion, less that totally deserved, as a deregulator.

          Of course, everyone wants to spin Enron as a problem of deregulation whereas for the most part the problem was govenment favoritism.

          1. Mind you, it’s quite possible that the writing on the wall told Shrub not to bail out Kenny Boy.

            There’s absolutely no way that the Bush crew could’ve sold an Enron bailout as anything but a giveawy to his old crony.

            Gore, on the other hand, would have been widely believed saying that he had done it “to save the workers’ jobs and pensions” or “to contine devloping green power and preventing global warming.”

            It’s all in the message.

    2. “If you want a libertarian president, it’s not going to help to root for the defeat of the republican candidate”

      Again, a Romney Presidency will send the few libertarians in Congress out to the wilderness, just like they did during the Bush years. Romney will either win reelection and force the 2020 nominee to defend Romney’s policies, or lose and it won’t be until 2020 a libertarian Republican would even have a chance for nomination. An Obama reelection will merely continue to prove his incompetence and idiocy and set up 2016 to be an easy win for a libertarian Republican like Rand Paul.

    3. There’s not going to be a Libertarian president until there’s a Libertarian Party.

      All the third parties in this country are fuck-ups. They all run someone for president, and them complain when no one pays attention to them. Why don’t they pay attention? Because they don’t know who the fuck they are.

      The LP needs to start running people for dog catcher, or county auditor. They need to run people for the Board of Elections, the school boards, city councils, state legislatures. They need to exist where people can see them, and see what they do.

      When that happens, they won’t need to grovel after libertarianesque Republican candidates or accept Republican cast offs as their nominees.

      Until then, they’ll just be whining that the Republicans aren’t libertarian enough while strapping on the kneepads to get in to the best liberal parties.

      1. Umm the LP is already running people for “dog catcher, or county auditor…Board of Elections, the school boards, city councils, state legislatures.”

        Most of these offices are practically invisible to the public. I doubt most people can name their School Board members or the Supervisors of the local Soil and Water Conservation District (a favorite target for Libertarians in Florida).

        And the reason Soil and Water Conservation Districts are a favorite target for Libertarians in Florida is that there is so little interest in those elections that getting your name on the ballot is pretty much all it takes to get elected.

        Seriously, check your own state party’s website. I’m willing to bet they have a candidate running in a fair number of races from city council to state legislature. I know the Florida LP does.

        I’m afraid the reason I gave up on the LP is that I realized no one wants to vote libertarian because the libertarians have no free stuff to offer them. And wouldn’t offer it to them if they did have it.

        The Romney 47% is too low and it’s not limited to Obama voters. For all practical purposes 100% of major party voters are voting that way because they believe they’ll get something for nothing.

      2. The LP has been running people for those offices for decades. The problem is not strategic.

  36. No matter who you vote for, the outcome of the election will be the same.

    1. I find I can accurately predict the outcome of an election by taking the inverse of my ballot.

  37. Reason always likes to write about teaching the Republicans a lesson and getting them to reform. Those are fine goals. But shouldn’t we also worry about teaching the Dems a lesson and getting them to reform? The Democrats haven’t always been batshit insane. They have pretty much been taken over by the hard left. Love it or hate it, we are stuck with the two party system. And that means every few years Democrats are going to win elections. And in fact we want them too once in a while because it is the only way to keep the Republicans in any sort of check.

    If a Romney loss would bring some sanity to the Republicans, wouldn’t an Obama loss bring some sanity to the Democrats? If the Democrats suffer an earth shattering loss this year, wouldn’t that discredit the Obama liberals and give the old Clinton DLC centrists a shot at taking the party back. Or better yet, might the Democrats do some soul searching and actually start to care about civil liberties again if for no other reason than to attack the Republicans? Do you we really want four more years of the Democrats trying to reach peak retard?

    Obama basically shoved it up the ass of every civil libertarian who voted for him. But Sheika sees no reason for him to pay any political price for that.

    1. If Romney won and the Republicans won both houses of Congress, I’d assume the Democrats would come crawling back to us and would find their anti-war, civil libertarian side again. That’s how it always works.

      If only we could make both parties pay the price, which is really what we’re advocating. Since we can’t, and since the GOP IS the party with the actual libertarian-friendly politicians at this moment, rewarding them for nominating an anti-libertarian spendthrift war hawk and granting them essentially 8 years until a libertarian Republican could have the possibility of a nomination doesn’t help our cause in the long-term. The Republicans have been good to us – whenever they’re in the minority.

      1. So what you are saying is, the Republicans can be rewarded for welcoming Libertarians into the party by having Libertarians vote for their opponents anytime they don’t give Libertarians exactly what they want? In contrast Democrats can completely kick out Libertarians, make them unwelcome, and actually try to make the word itself a political insult, and they are rewarded with Libertarian votes.

        1. “So what you are saying is, the Republicans can be rewarded for welcoming Libertarians into the party by having Libertarians vote for their opponents anytime they don’t give Libertarians exactly what they want”

          Where did anyone advocate voting for Obama?

          “In contrast Democrats can completely kick out Libertarians, make them unwelcome, and actually try to make the word itself a political insult, and they are rewarded with Libertarian votes.”

          That wasn’t true when they were the minority party in government.

          1. That wasn’t true when they were the minority party in government.

            Then maybe some time as the minority would do them so good? Right?

            1. Sure. I’d like both Democrats and Republicans to be minority parties, and could care less about the short-term political fate of either until that happens.

      2. I don’t think Dalmia plans to vote for Johnson. Judging from this article, she plans to vote for Obama or at least be happy when Obama wins.

        1. More construance out of thin air?

          1. You don’t think it wold make her happy seeing Obama win? If not, how do you square that with this article.

            1. For the hundred thousandth time, not wanting Romney to win does not equal wanting Obama to win.

              Is there a Guinness World Record for thickheadedness?

              1. For the hundred thousandth time, not wanting Romney to win does not equal wanting Obama to win.

                One of them is going to win. If you are happy when Romney loses, that means you will be happy when Obama wins. Stop being obtuse.

                1. No it doesn’t. Continuing to spout false dilemmas merely proves my point you have nothing to offer to these conversations but fallacies.

                  1. Again, of the options most likely to happen, I’d prefer Obama re-election by a miniscule margin + Republican supermajority. That does not mean I want or would be happy with Obama or a Republican supermajority. I wouldn’t be happy until there is a libertarian president and a libertarian supermajority. I don’t care what party or politician brings that about.

    2. You must be thinking of a different Democratic party.

      The Democrats have given us FDR and were pro-slavery, and got us involved in Viet Nam and Korea.

      GWB was a terrible president, but frankly, I can’t think of anything he did a democrat president wouldn’t. People seem to forget that the Iraq war drum beat was bi-partisan…

  38. I call poppycock on point four!

    “Four: Romney’s victory this year will mean no semi-sensible Republican (admittedly a rare breed) would likely have a prayer of becoming a president for the next 12 years or so.”

    And a Obama win would let a sensible Republican more likely in 4 years? Sorry but history doesn’t back this up at all. If you look at recent electoral history, Americans generally consider a two term president a success. Going from 1968, since the Kennedy assassination kinda screws things up, 8 years of Nixon-Ford, and Ford narrowly loses to Carter, mostly because of the unpopular Nixon pardon. In the 80s, eight years of Reagan followed by four for Bush. In the 90s, 8 years of Clinton, with Gore winning the popular vote in 2000 and incredibly narrowly losing the electoral vote. Even in 2008, there are signs McCain would have won, or only narrowly lost if the economy hadn’t gone belly up right after the conventions. If you look at the pattern, after 8 years the incumbent party usually either wins, or very narrowly loses.

    In other words, if Obama wins this year, 2016 doesn’t look any better for a sensible Republican, they’d still likely have to wait till 2020.

  39. The world must work in some crazy way I’m not familiar with. If a candidate loses election to one farther to the “left”, that will encourage candidates and their supporters to move toward the “right”?

    1. You have to realize that many writers at Reason aren’t actually Libertarian, they just hate Republicans and can’t get jobs at liberal websites (yet).

      1. so balko is collecting intel from the front?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.