Article: Why libertarians don't win elections

Thrasybulus- If we assume that history repeats itself- forgetting the "tired out party with out new ideas" since there is no match up here- Your two example means that by splitting the vote we have four more years of Obama-meaning the end of the United States. There will be no merging of the touted party with new ideas and the party portrayed as worn out with no new ideas. Shariah Law may well govern the entire world with Iran being its nuclear power head- even if that didn't happen Obama would complete his mission to "fundamentally transform America" . The United States will cease to exist as an idea- perhaps as a name, but the idea will either be finished or if we are lucky will have moved else where so that people will still have a beacon of freedom in the world.

Since your two examples suggest that you know that splitting the vote can well mean that Obama wins- then why split the vote? is it because you imagine that the United States can survive four more years of Obama offering the Libertarians a chance to "merge with the republican party - meaning changing the direction of the Republican Party back to the left- yet again- now that it is has been moved back toward the American political philosophy through the efforts of the Tea Party ?. Good God- you are as clever and strategic as the Muslim Brotherhood !If you are voting for Gary Johnson because you believe it makes it possible for Libertarians to have more influence after four more years of Obama- you seem to be overlooking something major- like Obama.

Maybe you need to rethink your plan.

Bob S - Are you aware that the image you are posted is used by the tea Party, which id the the right of the republican party, while the Libertarians portray themselves as being to the left of the Republican party ?

I am well aware of where the image came from.

Roger, I'm glad to hear you went to PorcFest!! I listen to the Liberty New Network, and just about all the hosts were there broadcasting, and it sounded like a great time. As you said, all those thousands of people doing what they wanted to do, and it was all done in peace. I'm going there next year.
Back to the topic at hand, I'll ask this question and if anyone cares to respond, please do. Why do Republicans campaign like Libertarians(if their ideas really stink), and then govern like Democrats?

Why don't you ask your question in more specific terms. I wonder who said Libertarian ideas really stink, other than you? I pointed out that Romney shares a great deal of ideas with Johnson? Why would that be Romney campaigning like Johnson and not Johnson campaigning like Romney? I think both are just campaigning as themselves.

Some Republicans some of the time govern like Democrats. Your question is not really a question it is just rhetorical and the rhetoric is only true part of the time for some of the republicans and in my view not a question that anyone can give an answer to unless they agree with the rhetoric that underlies the question- which is so generally applied that it becomes absurd, imho.

This is Mackenzies main point, and it is a good one:

we have four more years of Obama-meaning the end of the United States.

My answer is, on our current trajectory, the US is indeed finished. We need to roll the dice and shake things up. Holding on for dear life is not a strategy. Putting up the boring technocrat guy for President is not a feasible strategy.

Obama is going to have a heck of a time destroying the US with Republicans controlling the House, the Senate, and a majority of Governorships and State Houses. He will suffer further disastrous losses in 2014. His party will turn on him. The American people will get good and mad and turn off "Charles in Charge" and start to think about what our options really are. Real reforms that are now unthinkable will be put forth by Republican Governors, like the firestorm over unions in Wisconsin, or Jindall and statewide vouchers in Louisiana, but dozens of times in dozens of states as the European Welfare States collapse.

Romney has made it clear he intends to trim the sails and try to stay ahead of the storm. We need bold leadership willing to turn into the storm.

So your assessment of Romney is that he is a boring technology guy? This kind of statement says more about the speaker than the candidate. I don't find Romney boring and I don't throw Staples and the Olympics into the technology category. Worse- this seems to be your campaign in support of Johnson- "Romney is boring" Dare we debate such an occluded assessment? I think "boring is in the eyes of the beholder" applies here. As I recall another Gary Johnson supporter in this thread explained away his poor showing during the republican debates by saying he doesn't have "charisma"- But he is, as we are told by his supporters "bold leadership"- Oh well- its hard to distinguish Johnson and Romney on important issues ( energy and oil for instance) so you can just argue that the Johnson is "bold leadership" - where have we heard that before? - Oh- right- that was what Obama supporters told us about Obama.

Apparently foreign policy is a "non-issue: to you. Not a word about it! even though I made specific reference to it in my own post

Obama is "relieved"The new president of Egypt is from the Muslim Brotherhood . There is a current leak in our national defense which includes plans of a cyber attack to disable Iran's nuclear capacity-which now cannot be done. The information leaked includes conversations taking place at the White House. Obama did nothing for two weeks when the Iranian's were protesting and there was a window of opportunity for a regime change in Iran. This administration is sending guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels, announcing that it will not uphold immigration laws passed by congress, and punishing Arizona for implementing their own laws to control the illegal immigration that flows through Arizona- much of it as drug trafficking that ends up in Phoenix, the distribution center for illegal drugs through out the United States. Arizona's punishment ? Denied access to a federal immigration data base-ONLY Arizona. And then there are the new laws that allow the president to take over the internet if a state of emergency is declared. And the fact that Obama is preventing oil drilling in the United States while lending billions of American taxpayer dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company. What has Congress done to stop all of this? And if Obama wins- what makes you so sure that the progressives will not also make gains in Congress? It took Congress to pass Obamacare ! What if we just have another balance of power in Congress and four more years of grid-lock?

Gary Johnson on the Iran nuclear buildup :Iran does not threaten our national security and there is no proof they are building a nuclear weapon

Is Gary Johnson clueless that Iran has long been funding terrorists who kill Americans, Mid Easterners and whoever else is around ? And since Gary Johnson is not on a "need to know' basis with our military and intelligence- how does Gary Johnson know what proof we do or do not have? Proof or no proof- the implication of Johnson's statement is that he will be as pro-active as Obama when it comes to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power.Why do you believe that the United States can take the risk that Iran actually is developing nuclear weapons. What does Johnson do then? Say "oops!" ?

You have made it clear that you are not voting for Johnson because you expect him to win but because he might cause an Obama win and that will create a good opportunity for Libertarians to gain power in four more years.

Question: Since Libertarians claim to be neither left nor right but somewhere in between, why wouldn't a Romney presidency also create an good environment for the Libertarian rise to power in four more years? is it because you secretly feel that Romney will take us in a better direction than Obama's current direction of driving us over the cliff and therefore will not create the opening for the Libertarian rise to power?

The policy of creating chaos in order to destroy the system so that it can be replaced with a different system is the progressive strategy as clarified by Cloward and Piven- . It is also the essence of what you are saying.

So now that Obama Care has been upheld by the Supreme Court- are you still for throwing a spanner in the works of Romney's election campaign to make way for a Libertarian take over in four years? If Obama Care isn't repealed in the next year - how do you think its chances are of being repealed after four years?

We don't have the votes to revoke Obamacare. We'll just have to wait for it to collapse under its own weight. Now we need the east/west highway so we can drive to Canada to get health care. We'll likely see the physicians we already know and pay them cash.

Think about it.

"I don't find Romney boring"

Get real. The Gallup poll shows respondents rating Romney as the most boring nominee IN HISTORY. Fewer than 8% of those polled rated him as "exciting". I'm assuming those people were hairdressers:-)

Your point about Obamacare is better (what wouldn't be?), but to reform health care will be a life and death struggle, and we need the public to see and understand just how bad government meddling can be.

For example, it was in the wake of Obamacare's passage that Gallup reported, for the first time in their 50+ years of asking the question, that a majority of respondents did not believe that health care was a constitutional "right".

Romney is a compromiser through and through. We don't need to compromise on this power grab. We need to expose it for what it is - and kill it.

And he never submitted a budget to Congress for approval in 3 1/2 years.

"I don't find Romney boring"

Get real. The Gallup poll shows respondents rating Romney as the most boring nominee IN HISTORY. Fewer than 8% of those polled rated him as "exciting". I'm assuming those people were hairdressers:-)

Are you saying that "real" is that I am supposed to measure my own feelings by a Gallop Poll ? You get real. All you are posting is attitude opinions and assertions and not answering my question.

And why do they ask such a Gallop question to begin with? Isn't that called a "leading" question ? Do they ask that about all the candidates?

Of course they ask that about all candidates! Whether or not a candidate has followers who find them exciting is a key factor in how strong they will be in office. It was Reagan's devoted base that enabled him to break the back of inflation - the strong medicine needed required strongly committed followers in order to stay the course.

George H. W. Bush as the victor in 1980 would have been swept into the gutter - the most common feeling Gallup found for him was that he reminded women of their first husband! Not a plus:-)

And as strong medicine is needed to deal with the serious disorders we are facing, the fact that Romney has no fanatical support base dooms his presidency. If there is one....

It has been reported several times that 70% of Americans wish we had other candidates running.

Boy, wouldn't that send a message if those 70% voted for Gary Johnson.

It sure would, but most of those 70% have never heard of Gary Johnson.

Thrasybulus -So now that Obama Care has been upheld by the Supreme Court- are you still for throwing a spanner in the works of Romney's election campaign to make way for a Libertarian take over in four years? If Obama Care isn't repealed in the next year - how do you think its chances are of being repealed after four years?

OR- Is this a non issue with you- Will you vote for Obama because you find him more exciting. I have never found Obama exciting- He is robotoc. I have found Romney exciting at moments-which I am sure you will tell me is not something that I can possible feel because according to you my feelings are directed externally by polls .And Guess what! Even if Americans found Romney boring, I have higher regard for Americans than to believe that they would vote for Obama and his totalitarian health care bill because they find that hollow poser "exciting" .

A while back you were making the false claim that Romney did not support the full repeal of Obama care and citing that as the reason why we should not vote for Romney. What changed?"

It has been reported several times that 70% of Americans wish we had other candidates running.

Making this the narrative is like fiddling while Rome burns.

I'm not voting for Obama - OR OBAMA LITE. Romney is opposed Obamacare this week because it is unpopular. He was an advocate of "repeal and replace" last month. And he authored the original form of it, which he has never renounced, and which is destroying Massachusetts. Worst possible candidate the GOP can put up against Obamacare.

What irony. We nominate the inventor to oppose the implementer:-)

It's a mistake to compare Willard with Johnson. Ron Paul is far more Libertarian than Gary Johnson. Using Dr. Paul vs Gov. Johnson, you find that Willard and Dr. Paul have far more differences that Willard has with Gov. Johnson.

I'm not voting for Obama - OR OBAMA LITE

But, but, but, don't you know that a vote for Johnson is really a vote for Obama.

Mac comments:

"It has been reported several times that 70% of Americans wish we had other candidates running.

Making this the narrative is like fiddling while Rome burns."

Rome has been burning since Johnson did away with real money. There is a gas station in Washington State that's selling gasoline for 20 cents a gallon, payable in pre-64 dimes, quarters or halves. The problem is that our citizenry is largely ignorant of the reasons for our decline. The inability to focus on the root cause enables progressives to blame all manner of innocent parties. It goes back to 1913 when we gave up control of our currency to the fed. Roosevelt worsened the situation. Johnson put the final nail in the coffin with his grand society and debasing of the currency, but the brink was delivered by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and their home loan scam. They are the reason we have had over 4,000,000 people lose their homes in the last few years. It will be a quarter century before we recover from what they did. Banks were forced to lend in "underserved" areas. The reason they were underserved is that people couldn't pay the mortgage. Banks were forced to lend anyway. The banks called these loans NINJA loans. That stands for No Income No Job or Assets. Loan anyway if the area is "underserved". The taxpayers are stuck with the wreckage.

The progressives are indeed fiddling while Rome burns and telling stories they think the public will like. The election this November might as well be a roll of the dice because it isn't going to make much difference. Nearly all candidates are progressives. The R and D after the names have been made irrelevant. I'm being interviewed on the radio next week about this very subject.

Thrasybulus, You are simply evading the transformative impact of this election excepting if you think you can turn it around and use it against Romney. Despite your attempts at character assassination, Romney has repeatedly stated in unequivocal terms that he will repeal Obama care. No mater how you want to slant Romney's motivations, it is meaningless when we have a choice between Obama who wants to make sure that ObamaCare stays in place, and who managed to make gains in the recent polls despite nothing but bad news about his policies and administration- VS Romney who will sign the bill to repeal ObamaCare. Whatever slander campaign you are trying to galvanize against Romney, I don't think Americans really care what the political motivations are if ObamaCare is repealed,. They either care that ObamCare is repealed- or that it stays in place. That is what will affect their lives. End of Story - but still some will chose to be a spanner in the works motivated by their own visions of political gain - such as a rise to power of the Libertarians in four more years. Maybe instead of trying to make your portrait of Romney's political motivations into the central issue- you should examine your own- not exactly ones that care about the well being of The United States and its people, imho. If Obama wins, then maybe it won't work for Libertarians will to power in four years. Maybe the Libertarians political motivations will be seen as instrumental in the re-election of Obama and the entrenchment of Obama Care resulting in the escalation of the economic downfall of the. United States. The public will not then embrace the Libertarians for the role they played in this election. In fact the Libertarians have a better chance in four years with a Romney presidency, especially if Romney is not successful- and since you believe that - maybe you should re-think the Libertarian power strategy.

"...What irony. We nominate the inventor to oppose the implementer..."

Romney has repeatedly stated in unequivocal terms that he will repeal Obama care.

Romney created Romneycare. He bragged about helping Obama create what is dubbed Obamacare, which is really Romneycare on a national level. Now he wants to be president and we are supposed to believe that he will repeal a plan that he designed.

I gotta run, I have to check out some oceanfront property in Lewiston that is for sale, cheap.

Bob- none of that negates Romney's current position which he has repeatedly stated as the will the repeal Obamacare.

What are you proposing- that the country is better off with a fully qualified liar- who is too lazy to have invented ObamaCare but has certainly implemented the real thing- and liar that he is, we still knows he is determined to keep ObamaCare in place. What is the point of your robotic, backward looking smear campaign against the candidate chosen to defeat the monster in the oval office? Do you think we haven;t heard that over and over again ad nasium? How much do you believe in the power of repetition? Or do you suggest that we spend the few short months before the election re-doing the primaries so that your chosen favorite- who ever he is has another shot ? I have news for you - there were a lot of people who supported other candidates but most are adult enough to realize we have to go with the one who was chosen by the majority. and put all that we have into defeating the real enemy- Obama.

Bob- none of that negates Romney's current position which he has repeatedly stated as the will the repeal Obamacare.

Romney is going to say what he needs to say to get the support of people who have short memories. Romney has been all over the spectrum his entire life. The man has no core!

What are you proposing- that the country is better off with a fully qualified liar

The country would be better off without either of these jamokes.

the real enemy- Obama- NOT

The enemy of freedm are the fat smug unreflective majorities that want to be "taken care of" by the government - they feel "entitled" to a worry free and prosperous future. This is exactly what Romney is selling - "we can do better".

We CANNOT do better on the same underlying assumptions. The people have to wake up as to where the bus is headed - not get a driver with better hair.

How do people learn? Painfully. Haltingly. In bits and pieces. Obama is the best teacher they could ever get. No reason for us to offer them a slightly less toxic version of the Welfare State. The sooner it becomes clear to the people that the Welfare State is finished, the sooner we can stop flogging the dead horse and learn to walk on our own two feet again.

I love it.

Bob S observes correctly:
"The country would be better off without either of these jamokes."

There's a word I have not seen or heard for about 40 years and this political season is the perfect time to bring this neglected word back to our lexicon.

Main Entry: jamoke 

Part of Speech: n

Definition: a lowlife, a low-class person; an inconsequential person

Etymology: likely nautical origin

Usage: slang

The fact remains that 70% of the American people wish we had somebody else running.

"Mitt Romney and his fellow Republican refuseniks are in a new bind. They cannot wield the club of nonconstitutionality anymore. And in the debates, how is Mr. Romney going to bash Mr. Obama for extending to all Americans the very same insurance regulations and affordable health coverage that Mr. Romney enacted as governor for the people of Massachusetts — who like the results very much? We predict that Mr. Obama will eat Mr. Romney’s lunch."

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/bending-historys-arc-t...