January 15, 2012

"Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S." (And, of Late, the Dumbest) [Bumped]

aanobamasigns.jpg

Gallup has some news that should be reassuring -- Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.

Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.

It "should be reassuring" if only many of those online that pass themselves off as "conservative" weren't currently demonstrating to all and sundry that, like too much perfectionism, too much conservatism is a mistake.

Yes, nothing is damaging the "Conservative Brand" lately more than the rolling stupidity that is lumping itself around the failure of the Republicans to come up with a viable candidate that is more "Conservative" than Mitt Romney. This "failure", which was predictable as long as four years ago, is causing many online 'conservatives to drop into premature political menopause with whining, hot flashes of anger, and the grinding of dull, old, axes. They are pissed, it would seem, because nobody other than Romney can carry the fight to Obama in the coming election. The more demented among them are declaring, shades of McCain/2008, that they will take their retracted balls and go home on election day rather than vote against Obama.

These people are deeply stupefied and confused. Ideology will do that to you. They seem to think, to actually believe, that this coming election is about only voting if you can vote for a candidate you like. Let me disabuse these kids of this silly notion right away. The election of 2012 ain't a conservative popularity contest. It's a war to, first, last, and always, destroy any possibility of a second term for Barack Hussain Obama.

This is not a "Vote-For" election. This is a "Vote-Against" election. This is not a "Sit-It-Out-And-Pout" election. This is a "Get-Obama-Out" election. That is what it is about and that is all it is about.

If people can't understand, at this point, that very simple concept their minds are much too simple to be conservatives and they might as well go off and sit at the kiddy table and write in "Vermin Supreme" with a blunt pink crayon.

If true conservatives want to have a truly conservative candidate in a truly conservative party they will have to commit to the long march. You know, "the long march" like the one the left took through out political, academic, religious, and media institutions. The one they spent decades on. The long hard road to political supremacy. The one that takes work and money.

That's the one thing I don't see erstwhile conservatives actually doing from election to election. Instead they run their lives and their businesses off on the side and they show up every three years or so to watch the little red hens of politics take the nomination away from their conservative flavor of the week.

The way the Republican party is set up in the primary system means that to even have a shot at winning it you have to be running for it years and years and years before the actual elections. That's what Romney's been doing. That's the game and he's got the pieces in place to win it. You may not like it, but, hey, change it or play it.

But if you're beat because your "choices" are late to the party like Perry, or not really in it to win it like Newt, don't start blaming Romney the little red hen.

It's just not dignified to hold your breath, stamp your feet, and threaten to take your retracted balls and go home.

So suck it up and remember this: This is not a "Sit-It-Out-And-Pout" election. This is a "Get-Obama-Out" election.

Go now, my conservative friends, and sin no more.

Bain-of-our-Existence.jpg

[Greetings InstaPunditeers! Check out the vast elsewhere here so that we can put a quake in your quaker, some shake in your shaker, and a rock in your sock!]

Posted by gerardvanderleun at January 15, 2012 11:03 AM
Bookmark and Share

Comments:

HOME

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

Thank You! I have been saying this and saying this and saying this, but getting more than a handful of people to understand this is like driving railroad spikes with a wet sponge!

These are the people who are running, like it or not. That is the cast you have to choose from, not the one you have in your Fantasy Political League. If conservatives want to have more of a say in the Republican Party then they have to be in the party - why would the Republicans listen to the demands of people who never show up, never help, and only bitch?

If conservatives want more conservative candidates running for the presidency then they have to get more conservatives nominated now to run in local and state offices, so that these conservatives get the training and skill to run in the big leagues without blowing up. It is a rare skill to run for president without blowing yourself up and each party provides plenty of examples every four years.

The bonus that happens when more conservatives are in state and local offices is that the party establishment changes. Who are the establishment? It isn't just pundits in Washington, its the office holders who put policies in place that define what the party is. This is done at the local and state level because both of the Big Two parties is actually a collection of state and local parties - every office except for the presidency is either a local office or a statewide office. There truly is no National Party holding everything together - that's just an office in Washington that is tasked to hand out press releases and coordinate with a state party on the convention.

Romney came out of 2008 with natural advantages for 2012: he knew what a national campaign would require, he knew people in state and local parties - the fixers, the people other in those party turn to for advice and for the important endorsement, he knew where the money was, he had the list of volunteers, he had name recognition and had some vetting. I could go on about these advantages, but they are real and he has them. It isn't a surprise that he is doing well.

Back on topic - if conservatives want to change things then they better get off their bisquit-fed asses and get down to the county party meeting, attend some rubber chicken functions, meet people whoa re running for office and work to get the conservative one in. Anything else is just holding a pity-party, and I hate pity-parties.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at January 13, 2012 12:13 PM

Nice piece Gerard.

If conservativism/freedom (not neo-conservatism) is to survive, Conservatives/Patriots must get out and become active. Sending $100 bucks to the "party" is no longer enough.

People MUST become active and engaged. I saw how well this worked when I was a student at SF State in the sixties. The leftists knew how to make their opinions not only known but adopted. That's why we are at this point in our nation. The left will fight for what they 'believe' in.

Now it is our turn. And this may well be the last chance we get. So, get off the couch and get at 'em. Get in their face and get your friends educated now.

I just re-read F.A. Hayek's, The Road to Serfdom. I read the book the first time in the sixties. Now it is crystal clear to me what Hayek was warning us about.

Posted by: Terry at January 13, 2012 1:52 PM

The simplistic single-minded obsession with Obama doesn’t move me. Barry is a symptom. I don’t hate the fever, I attack the virus.

I am engaged in a long march. Is asking that a candidate actually understands his Oath to the Constitution considered ideological? Are you advocating that we compromise somewhere shy of upholding the law?

Posted by: foxmarks at January 13, 2012 2:21 PM

I've already put my two cents in. I'm all in with voting for Romney, even though he gives me headaches and heartaches at times.

To put it simply: A Romney presidency, coupled with both Houses in GOP hands, will very likely result in a resurgent economy. No Obama + Good Jobs may fall well short of what we limited government types think we want, but it's a start in the right direction. If we're serious about rolling back government, then we'll just have to do it while Americans are fat and happy again. Yes that's a challenge, but it will be a nice problem to have.

Also, the stupid notion that "there's no difference between Obama and Romney" and similar twaddle is nonsense. There IS a difference, as people will find out when the GDP and jobs grow faster than they have in years. We can argue about "how that's not enough" after Obama is booted out. Again, another nice problem to have.

Posted by: Don Rodrigo at January 13, 2012 2:25 PM

Are you advocating that we compromise somewhere shy of upholding the law?

You want a frontal assault with a fixed bayonet? Get real. The left has patiently taken over institution after institution with flanking maneuvers that took years. It's going to take years to undo their damage.

Posted by: Don Rodrigo at January 13, 2012 2:29 PM

"...every office except for the presidency is either a local office or a statewide office."

My mistake - the vice presidency is the second national office.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at January 13, 2012 4:51 PM

Mikey has it so right. There is no political fantasy league where we can graft the Reaganstein we want from a large field of attractive superstar organ donors. There is only option A, Obama's opponent and a prayer of saving the country, or option B, Obama for 4 more and to hell with liberty and the constitution.

Stop navel gazing and nitpicking and commit to the fight, ugly and brutal though it certainly will be. The GOP will pick a candidate and that person will be the battlefield on which America stands or falls. Your only choice is to be there or regret it bitterly.


Posted by: Askmom at January 13, 2012 6:27 PM

foxmarks, I would say that I am also on the long march. I see this as Round 4 of a 12-rounder. But I don't get the sudden switch to "therefore we shall beat our breasts and insist that the Romney's who we find inadequate are therefore deeply unconstitutional lawbreakers, with whom we have no truck." Is Romney advocating a repeal of the 1st Amendment or Article V or something?

Here's my theory. Conservatives don't really want to run the country. They don't want to put their money where their mouth is and see if their ideas mostly work, even in compromised form. They would rather have nothing, and complain about how perfect it all would have been if we had listened to them.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at January 13, 2012 7:52 PM

I have begun to really respect Romney's persistence.

Posted by: Maureen at January 13, 2012 9:00 PM

Right you are, Gerard. ABO - 2012!! Let's get 'er dun.

Posted by: Jimmy J. at January 13, 2012 9:12 PM

I have to agree with foxmarks: "Barry is a symptom."

The real problem is the roughly 50% of the voting population which is perfectly OK with socialism and communism.

The other real problem is the debt, and continued deficit spending. Not one of the likely candidates has a realistic proposal to reduce it. The only one who does is He Who Shall Not Be Named. The situation is too far gone for us to "grow our way out of it", absent immediate and severe cuts in government, which, as I said, none of the "serious" candidates is proposing. So it looks like we will choose between going off the cliff at 120 mph or going off the cliff at 90 mph.

If Obama is President when we go off the cliff, he will likely use the crisis to grab even more power. If a Republican is President, the left and the media (but I repeat myself) will of course blame Republicans and conservatives, and that will lead to the election of even more radical leftists.

We are between a rock and a hard place. I don't believe that we are going to be able to vote our way out of this.

Posted by: rickl at January 13, 2012 10:12 PM

That may well be true, but at the same time we're not going to be able to shoot our way out either. So we might as well buy time with voting.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 13, 2012 10:44 PM

The other thing that 'conservatives' whining about Romney not being conservative enough is that the POTUS has to effectively govern the entire country not just some ideological conservative faction of it. Too ideologically aligned Presidents from either side won't work. This is another reason why a Romney type will have more success than a Santorum type. George Will made a good point that obsessing over the President is itself not very conservative.

Conservatives should put their focus on getting conservatives elected to local, state and congressional positions more than they should focus on a single executive position.

Per Gerard's point and others above we have to play to win and we'll have to accept winning in increments. If the purist conservatives don't have the stomach for that long struggle than they just need to get out and shut up.

Romney wouldn't be my first choice but I'll happily vote for him over Obama or any other Democrat and the country will be objectively better off for it.

Posted by: phil g at January 14, 2012 6:05 AM

Sad to say, but I've been voting since 1964 (remember Goldwater?) and every single time was a "vote-against-election".

Your franchise must oppose perceived threats because Utopia will never be on the ballot.

Posted by: GaGator at January 14, 2012 7:57 AM

Do you remember the dem party of the 50's-60's? Do you remember them being against abortion, pro-family, cutting taxes? Do you remember the path they set their feet upon? Abortion, life is not important, family is not important, social engineering, raising taxes to pay for their agendas? Do you see the similarity of the gop slipping onto this path and the very strong similarities between the parties? I do.

Posted by: J at January 14, 2012 8:08 AM

It would appear that the Prime Minister of India - Manmohan Singh, and the ruling Congress party leader Sonia Gandhi have joined together with the most dreaded force known to man - Lawyers, and are now vying for the title of 'The Biggest Puddle of Santorum in India'.

Maybe Santorum Americanus should join forces with Santorum Indicum and jointly sue the likes of Google, Yahoo, and Facebook. We can call it 'The Grand Santorum Technicum'!

Yeah, good luck with that.

I almost forgot to say, Mmmm... frothy!

Posted by: Asif at January 14, 2012 8:33 AM

The GOP is nothing more than Donkey Lite now. The TEA Party needs to become stronger. Working against this is the need to pay one's own way; the Lefties get paid not to work, making a real reason to vote for FREE every time.

Ron Paul needs to get many delegates; I don't believe he wants to be President but to bend the GOP Convention to the right, nailing it there.

The path to power is in the Congress, with people that will follow the Constitution and block Presidential whims.

Posted by: Peccable at January 14, 2012 9:01 AM

Wow, insulting people you disagree with, hmmm...where have I heard this before? Might as well call me a racist, bigot, homophobe, jesus-in-my uterus nutjob! That ALWAYS works for libs, right? Well guess what? I refuse to vote for Mitt Romney. So maybe YOU should "get on board" and back someone else. At least Newt can take a punch and he is still standing. The media is gonna chew up Mitt and spit him out so that there is nothing left but his pretty hair. Remeber Arnold?, he was so electable! I dont need to be a member of the Republican party.

Posted by: at January 14, 2012 10:28 AM

Not sure who you are reacting to other than the voices inside your head Mr. NoName.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 14, 2012 11:05 AM

"...I almost forgot to say, Mmmm... frothy!"

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, Mr/Ms Asif. Could we have less cleverness more of the English language?

Looking at the calendar I see that it is seven months before a candidate is chosen to run against Obama in November. Until then I consider myself free to look at, donate to, or otherwise support COTR (Candidates Other Than Romney).
In November I will vote, and I will vote for the person on the ballot, for the office of POTUS, who is NOT Obama. If that person is Ron Paul I'm going to a bar and beat someone up, I won't want to, I will have to. (Actually since I will probably pick on someone my size, who will be undoubtedly younger. They will kick my ass) Around July I will endorse someone on my tiny blog, the media will not notice.
I live in Massachusetts, I've voted for Romney in the past, and for the exact same reasons, it did very little good. Curse me if you want since I voted for the man who gave us Obamacare-Lite, I deserve it. If you wish to know my political beliefs it is this:

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent."
- Claire Wolfe, _101 Things To Do 'Til The Revolution_

Posted by: John the River at January 14, 2012 11:46 AM

It's actually Mrs. NoName, a longtime reader who comes here regularly for the good times to be had here. I have never commented before, was surprised by the ugliness of this post, guess that makes me crazy.

Posted by: at January 14, 2012 11:52 AM

Neither ugly nor beautiful... merely telling it like it is.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 14, 2012 11:58 AM

At least Romney seems to have a good record of being able to fire people. That was one thing that frustrated me no end about Bush. He never cleaned out the Clinton crowd and they sabotaged him constantly.
I was for Pawlenty, the Perry, then Cain. They all blew themselves up or quit, so we are left with Romney. At least the guy does his homework and can speak rationally. And he does not think America is a place needing "damning". This is what we've got so lets roll.

Posted by: Peter at January 14, 2012 12:01 PM

I think we're 'thirsting for death' here Gerald,
Mitt is a perfectly nice fellow, but Masscare is right in the Obamacare brief before the Court,

Posted by: narciso at January 14, 2012 12:20 PM

RE: poster January, and others like him/her (such as the Jaden Haven blogger you link to -- a Ron Paul fan)......if the "sit it out and pouters" are large enough, we may never get back the freedoms the Marxist in Chief will continue to usurp via executive orders and his use of out of control of Federal agencies, and his corrupt DOJ.

I am not a violent person. But like John the River, I've got my limits. If somebody dares to say to my face,anything along the lines of what I sometimes read on blogs:

"Maybe we need to truly bottom out and hit rock bottom before we climb out, so maybe we should just re-elect Obama"......

I am going to punch him in the nose.

Look, of course Romney is a "moderate" RINO. But if the Tea Party conservative GOP has enough power or influence in both houses (and hopefully majorities in both houses), do you think they will let Romney get away with doing things like keeping Obamacare, granting amnesty to illegals prior to securing the border, appointing left-wing former ACLU socialists to the Supreme Court, etc.?

Do you think Romney will use the EPA to aggressively prevent our own domestic energy production - such as blocking the pipeline, refusing to issue permits for drilling, etc., in what is an apparent intentional attempt to ruin our econony? Do you think Romney will use his DOJ to sue states that try to do things like enforce immigration laws or require a voter ID?. ETC ETC. Just for starters.

We held onto or 2A - RTKBA by a 5-4 thread, in the Wash DC case. Our 2A rights go up in smoke if President Chavez gets to fill 2 vacancies from 2012-2016. That is just the tip of the iceberg. "Let's reach rock bottom, to really teach those RINO's a lesson" my ass.

This essay is right on the money. I don't know yet who I will vote for in the Florida primary (assuming it matters by then), because I still don't have a feel for who is best able to BEAT OBAMA. I can't stand Newt - I think he is a slimy opportunistic, dishonest scumbag. But....no matter, if he ends up being the guy, becuase my standard for whoever the final GOP nominee is simple: I will vote for a ham sandwich if said sandwich has a chance to beat Obama.

Posted by: southernjames at January 14, 2012 12:27 PM

And one more thing:

At least Romney does not appear to HATE AMERICA like President Chavez and his wife Marie Antoinette do.

Whoever the GOP nominee will be, at the very least we can safely assume that, if he wins, and is not torpedoed by the "sit it out and pouters" he will speak proudly of America's promise, opportunity, and inherent goodness, instead of bemoaning America's faults and weaknesses.

ABO - 2012.


Posted by: southernjames at January 14, 2012 12:35 PM

southernjames:
I am not a violent person. But like John the River, I've got my limits. If somebody dares to say to my face,anything along the lines of what I sometimes read on blogs:

"Maybe we need to truly bottom out and hit rock bottom before we climb out, so maybe we should just re-elect Obama"......

I am going to punch him in the nose.

I agree completely. Anyone who would vote for Obama at this point is clearly an enemy of the United States, and they deserve no mercy when (not if) TSHTF.

Some people might choose to sit the election out, and while I personally would never do that, it's a matter of individual choice and there's nothing I can do about it.

Another alternative is to vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. If Bill Still wins the LP nomination, then that's probably what I will do.

There IS an alternative to statist Democrats and statist Republicans. I only wish that more people would see it, and quit slavishly voting for D's and R's.

Posted by: rickl at January 14, 2012 1:19 PM

southernjames:
Our 2A rights go up in smoke if President Chavez gets to fill 2 vacancies from 2012-2016.

No, they don't. Our unalienable rights are not subject to revocation by unelected tyrants in black robes.

If they do make such a decision, then that would clarify matters, wouldn't it?

Posted by: rickl at January 14, 2012 1:28 PM

Rickl,

A vote for the Libertarian or similar third party candidate is the same as a vote for Obama. Ross Perot sucked votes from Bush, and that is why we got Clinton. Maybe that wasn't a disaster, because for all of Billy Jeff's issues, at least he did not HATE AMERICA, and everything it stands for (or at least once did). But another four years of Chavez's best little buddy, will, in contrast, be a disaster for the USA. Just my opinion of course. Perhaps he is simply incompetant and not actually malevolent.

And I take a bit of a jaundiced view of the "Let 'em come and take em," type of lack of concern over 2A threats. It will be a death by a thousand cuts. Various laws that a young, in power for decades, far left majority SC will uphold. Such as laws requiring serial numbers on individual bullets, to help "solve crime" - but really intended to make ammo cost 10 times more. Upholding product liabilty suits against gun manufacturs, with the intent of course to drive them out of business. Upholding "martial law due to disasters" exceptions to RTKA. Declaring that actions such as suspending the 2A, as happened in New Orleans post-Katrina are perfectly kosher.

Look, Washington DC and Chicago had BANS on law abiding citizens owning handguns for self protection. A lady owns a small .38 for her bedstand becuase she lives in a housing project and she want to protect her kids from gang bangers or a violent Ex? That lady is a FELON. (And no, a 12 gauge shotgun is not suitable for everyone). Those laws were ONLY struck down as violative of 2A by the slimmest of 5-4 majorities. With of course Barry Soetero's young appointees, who will be on the court for decades, siding with the minority. They MUST remain a minority. That is absolutely critical - and this is not the time to sit home because the GOP candidate doesn't e.g., sufficiently tout returning to the gold standard.

I hope and pray that a sufficient number of people listen to people like Gerard. Keep preaching it, Mr. V.

Posted by: southernjames at January 14, 2012 2:19 PM

Wow, Bill Jones. You really convinced me of the rightness of your cause what with the insults and all that.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at January 14, 2012 4:24 PM

Outstanding work, my friend. So many idiots are ready to hand the election to Obama simply because Romney's not their guy. Wake the f**k up, people! Obama's got to go! The very existence of America is at stake here.

Posted by: RawLinks at January 14, 2012 5:52 PM

Obama is A problem and the symptom of a larger problem butTHE problem is that American doesn't have a real conservative party which the Republicans are about to prove again.

Posted by: Richard at January 14, 2012 5:52 PM

I think Romney is pretty much going to be an Obama with a non-insane energy policy. And sadly, that's good enough for me to vote for him (though I would prefer Paul but so many other Republicans are hung up on his foreign policy even though the course we've followed the last 10 years has been disastrous).

But for the life of me, I don't understand those pining for Perry, Gingrich, or Santorum. Social Conservatism is not the answer, nor should they be embracing the occupy wall street movement.

Posted by: JeremyR at January 14, 2012 6:08 PM

Amen. I'm not thrilled with Romney either, but it looks like he's going to get the nomination, and I'm okay with that. I'll vote for him, and vote for candidates at the local and state level that will keep him on the straight and narrow. First and foremost, the Worst President Ever must NOT get a second term!

Posted by: RebeccaH at January 14, 2012 6:11 PM

Do not conflate conservative with Republican. There is no place in the current incarnation of the Republican party for conservatives except as vote fodder.

I heard this same the floggings will continue until you vote Republican crap the last time around with McCain. Who is missing the teachable moment here? Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. The Republicans and their cheerleaders are insane.

Posted by: FreandB at January 14, 2012 6:11 PM

Every four years people like you tell us how important is that we suck it up and choke down whatever turd sandwich Team Red nominates. Enough is enough. If a candidate who actually holds our values can't get elected in the general, we have bigger problems than making sure an (R) wins.

Posted by: Xenocles at January 14, 2012 6:20 PM

I am soooo glad that the 15% of Americans who were willing to fight for freedom in 1776 didn't have your encouragement.

Posted by: SDN at January 14, 2012 6:35 PM

You are correct Gerard, but I think you misunderstand the significance of this election and of the events that led up to it.

Since the end of the cold war, the two ideologies have been growing farther apart, and the implications of policy have been growing more important.

For the conservatives, this has taken three main forms, school vouchers/charters; health care savings accounts; and private retirement "social security" accounts. Taken together, these proposals would have slowly but relentlessly changed the relationship of individuals to the state. The state would have receded in importance, becoming more of a referee and less of a parent in our lives.

The conservative process had progressed far enough, that Obama had no choice but to go the "Full Montey" leftist on us in order to stop the trend. The old incremental, take over our lives liberal agenda didn't work any more. The conservatives forced his hand in that respect - though he was more than happy to play it.

Given the results of the 2010 election, and the actions of several state governments since then, this clash has only intensified. He knows (as do most elite liberals) that if he loses and Democrats lose the Senate, its pretty much over the for the progressive movement for the next generation at least. The Democrats may come back with a conservative light agenda, but that is only after they get really desperate.

So expect the worst this election. Everything is on the line for progressives. Because of the momentum Obama has in the regulatory world and the courts, a lot is on the line for conservatives too. Though in my opinion, conservatives are in a better position long term than progressives - so the pressure is a little lower.

Posted by: James at January 14, 2012 6:38 PM

This is certainly a "vote for" election for me, because I'm supporting Ron Paul. Any of you who expect anything to be better under Romney will be just as disappointed as the suckers who voted for Obama to end the wars.

-jcr

Posted by: John C. Randolph at January 14, 2012 6:47 PM

Counterweight.

I will vote against Obama. If the beneficiary of that vote is Romney, so be it.

I am WORKING toward getting a CONSERVATIVE governor and another CONSERVATIVE senator.

I have registered as "Republican" after four or five years non-aligned. Caucuses are coming and I'm going to run for state delegate. This will be my third time if I am successful.

The Narrative/Conventional Wisdom puts Utah somewhere to the right of Birchers.

And our nationwide political presence is embodied by Jon Huntsman?

The reality is that the Republican Party elite in Utah is detached from the rank and file and as firmly entrenched in "go along/get along" with the progressive left as is the worst of the national party time servers.

Another four years of pandering to Greens and teachers' unions here will leave Utah worse off than is California. This must not be allowed to happen. This will not be allowed to happen.

We will begin in the neighborhoods and end up in Washington.

Posted by: TmjUtah at January 14, 2012 6:50 PM

The liberal/marxist/socialist crowd has pushed their crap too far for too long. All out WAR with this faction is in the offing; I will gladly help shut these turds down.

Posted by: Gryphon at January 14, 2012 6:57 PM

Happy Instalanche, Gerard!

Posted by: rickl at January 14, 2012 7:26 PM

Ah. More "Vote for Romney or Obama will win!!!".

Don't. Care.

Conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists have been ignored by the GOP for so long that we really don't care if another RINO loses.

Romney will win and he will continue to let the banks and the unions and the lobbysist and the lawyers and the corporations run the country for the personal financial gain.

I won't be a party to that.

Posted by: John at January 14, 2012 7:41 PM

This is one of the reasons that the Democrats go after people like Sarah Palin and Scott Walker. They don't want to face them when they're more politically mature in some future election.

So they try to destroy them before they become a threat. Conservatives are not paying attention between election and allow the Democrats to do this.

Then they wonder why their bench is so shallow.

They're going to be going after Bobby Jindal after the next election because they see him as a future threat.

Posted by: schmuck281 at January 14, 2012 7:52 PM

It is tiresome to have to hold your nose and pull the lever every 4 years, and extremely frustrating when we, like Diogenes, search for that one honest person (a regular guy, not one rich enough to buy the office) who can truly merit our vote, and display the leadership that this great nation needs.
It would be nice to get beyond this jaded feeling that they're (D and R) all the same, bread and circus, etc etc...but boy, they just keep on giving us reason to believe that we're the suckers in this big con.
Meantime, the future for my children continues to look grim...

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at January 14, 2012 8:16 PM

"Conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists have been ignored by the GOP for so long that we really don't care if another RINO loses."

If the RINO loses, you're never going to get another chance to vote for a Libertarian or "Constitutionalist" again---ever. It'll be like living in Chicago, or Moscow. You'll only have a wide choice of Leftists to vote for: Fabian Socialists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists or Trots.

We're in water up to our necks---or hadn't you noticed? The ship is listing and about to go under.

And I won't blame the Left for turning the US into a people's soviet; I'll blame obtuse, stubborn---selfish---fools like you.

I dislike Romney intensely, but I'll vote for him in a heartbeat. I've got kids, and I want them to live free.

Posted by: ahem at January 14, 2012 8:35 PM

"If people can't understand, at this point, that very simple concept their minds are much too simple to be conservatives and they might as well go off and sit at the kiddy table and write in "Vermin Supreme" with a blunt pink crayon."

Really? That's your argument in favor of Romney? Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt that your "Vote for Romney, you big stupid %$#@& idiots!!" is going to work all that well. Trashing people and then ordering them to support your guy is the trademark of leftists - or used to be.

And please don't try to con us into believing Romney is anything other than a nanny-state liberal. Honesty might work where insults don't.

BTW: do the names Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Packwood, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, Mark Hatfield, and a host of others ring a bell? These are the candidates we were ordered to support by empty-headed "conservatives". All of these and more did enormous damage to the country and the GOP. Which raises the question: just how bad does a Republican candidate have to be before even the "GOP or Bust" gang will not vote for them? McCain bad? Romney bad? Dede Scozzofava bad? Or is there no minimum standard any longer?

Posted by: Mwalimu Daudi at January 14, 2012 8:43 PM

Well, if you're so certain that it takes the likes of Romney to win the Presidency, then you don't appear to need my vote to do so.

I'm not going to vote for Obama. I'm not going to vote for Romney either. If the GOP ever manages to select a candidate closer to what I want, then I'll vote for that person.

Posted by: Richard Cranium at January 14, 2012 8:49 PM

Well then you've got no bitching coming to you no matter how it turns out. You'll just have to suffer in silence. And we expect you to live up to that.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 14, 2012 9:07 PM

"Suffer in silence"...
Yeah, coulda, woulda, shoulda...
Please, take this country back, one step at a time.
It's not like we're going to get a House or Senate full of Reagans, or a Reagan in the WH, and none of the above overnight.
And yes, Reagan was all that the conservatives claim him to have been. A damned good American, and a damned fine leader.
Romney is not Reagan.
But he's better than obammy.
And I've had enough of this "let's let him do some damage, and then people will see the light and vote Republican" bullshit.
Four years of damage translates to shit that may never be undone.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at January 14, 2012 9:27 PM

Congrates Gerard for making it to Instapundit.

The problem I see with Romney as POTUS is the problem we have with Boehner and RINOs. Sure, no doubt about it, they are better than having a Congress of Marxists, but they are also helping perpetuate the socialist rot in the country. By offering no policy agenda and by resisting the Commiecrats just hard enough to earn media/public contempt, but not hard enough to accomplish one small policy change, they frustrate the system. The inactivists in the middle and the right give proof to conservatives and people in the middle that politics can't fix our problems. That is very dangerous, as Ron Paul's rise shows, because it makes normal people turn to radical candidates or give up on The System.

What happens when RINO Romney doesn't win political battles to reverse Obama attacks on our country? People give up or people try the most unfamiliar alternative just because it's not been tried.

There are many months to pick someone better than Romney. If you were angry at the RINOs in the last few years you cannot now pick the most RINO of the RINOs and seriously think he won't surrender early and often to concerted media/DNC class warfare and anti-American efforts. We've tried this over and over and doesn't help. If our problems are bad they need repair not being happy they are getting worse at a slower rate.

Decline is a choice and Republicans are choosing to decline when they choose Romney.

Posted by: Scott M at January 14, 2012 9:32 PM

It's been decided that someone is going to break into your home and steal all your worldly goods. You will be offered a choice between this guy and this other guy. If you throw up your hands and say it really doesn't matter to you which one robs you and that the end result is pretty much the same, thereby refusing to choose from the options you're offered, then YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN. And you damned well BETTER not, because some of us find complaints about the obvious and inevitable tiresome. In fact, it's actually YOUR fault that your house is being robbed; if you don't participate willingly in your own victimization by exercising your freedom of choice, you're really to blame for it. So there.

Shut up. Get in line. And please remember to shut up. Do not even consider voting for a third party candidate that might actually not be intent on robbing you, because there is no chance of such a party ever succeeding, because nobody ever votes for them. Did you shut up yet? If not, why not? Just shut up already.

Do I have all that about right?

Posted by: Mike at January 14, 2012 9:36 PM

"And yes, Reagan was all that the conservatives claim him to have been."

He served 8 years and did not get rid of the Department of Education, even though he promised.

Posted by: Fat Man at January 14, 2012 9:37 PM

Well Struck Gerard. I have been trying to wise up the chumps for months now, even though Grandpa told me not to try.

Come on folks. Repeat after me, the Blogfather's oath:

I understand that the United States of America desperately needs to remove Hussein and his Insane Clown Posse from its Presidency. I will do what ever it takes to accomplish that end, even if it means that I must vote for a syphilitic camel.

Posted by: Fat Man at January 14, 2012 9:45 PM

We understand the necessity of defeating Obama, but we don't like the way the GOP is once again forcing it down our throats. Mitt is Obama Lite, and as such many conservatives will once again sit this cycle out like in 2008. I and many TEA Party types will go to the polls and vote for local & state offices, but I will not hold my nose again for the likes of a McCain RINO. The senate will fall to the R's, the house will remain R, and divided government will be the norm.
I think a stalemate in government is a good thing.

Posted by: Nous Defions at January 14, 2012 9:59 PM

No, I won't vote for any more lesser evils, because I will not vote for evil. Romney is not entitled to my vote just because I think Obama is somewhere between incompetent and malicious.

You want my vote, you earn it. If the country is going to hell, it's because of people who vote for evil, not because of people who insist on somebody they can at least half agree with. Not 100%, just 51% or better.

If the establishment Repubs won't produce a candidate that earns my vote, HOW DARE YOU MORONS BLAME ME?

Posted by: Nope at January 14, 2012 11:09 PM

Because you are the one at fault?

Posted by: vanderleun at January 14, 2012 11:12 PM

I have a question for Gerard and those who agree with him that the conservatives against Romney are idiots. Do you really wish that John McCain was president right now?

Before you respond "YES, duh!" think about it for a minute. The entire reason conservatism is in ascendancy right now is the fact that Obama is presiding over so much failure. Because of Obamacare, and because all his big-government solutions have not helped the economy.

And don't bother claiming McCain would have turned things around. McCain supported TARP. McCain has a long history of looking to big government for solutions to all kinds of things. You really think he would have taken the actions necessary to rip the economic band-aid off, or would he have done like Obama and W. and kept trying more Keynesian stimulus? Do you honestly believe that President John McCain would have done anything to rein in federal spending and address the national debt?

If you believe that, you're a much bigger fool than any die-hard Mitt-hating Ron Paul supporter, that is for damn sure. And who would get blamed? We don't even have to guess. Look at who got blamed in 2008. Not just Republicans, but free-market conservatism as a whole. Despite the fact that whatever harm Bush and the Republican Congress did to the economy, and the large deficits and debt accumulation, were due to their veering away from small-government, free-market conservative ideals.

Nor is Romney much different than McCain. The main difference seems to be that he is better at pretending to be a conservative when it suits him. His record belies the idea that he really is a conservative -- I don't mean perfect conservative, I mean conservative at all. So just like 2008, the question is whether we want Obama, or someone who will do many of the same things as Obama but get my ideology wrongly blamed for it. I admit, chastened, that I made the wrong choice in 2008 due to fear-peddlers like Gerard. I will not repeat that mistake. I refuse to.

I am not afraid of another four years of Obama. Republicans have the House and it's quite possible they will take the Senate. Obama wasn't able to destroy the country with a Democrat majority in both houses -- and when he tried, he got shut down in the midterms. And what has he been able to do in the past year? We will survive, I promise.

Let's say Obama wins reelection... so we either get four years of gridlock with a Republican Congress, or he has to move right like Clinton did. Then in 2016 we have a clean slate with guys like Allen West, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, etc. etc. You know... candidates that we might actually WANT to vote for. Wow, what a concept!

Or, you can elect some statist Republican weasel to put a fresh tarnish on the brand, just when it is starting to shine again.

Posted by: huntz at January 14, 2012 11:24 PM

I'm sorry, but if there's anything that we've learned from (among others) Bob Dole and John Kerry, it's that simply being against something is not enough. You need a positive vision and a record that, at the very least, proves you're more than just talk.

I'm not going to sit this election out simply because my guy didn't win--I don't have a guy in this race and never did--I'm going to hold my nose and pull the lever just like I did for John McCain. What I'm not going to do is doorbell or phone bank or donate money or put a freakin' yard sign up, and because of that you're ONLY going to get me instead of me+. THAT is the price of nominating the "electable" candidate who talks a good game but hasn't ever accomplished anything conservative.

Posted by: Eukardios at January 15, 2012 12:24 AM

Thank you for this. Yes! Couldn't agree more.

Posted by: danielle at January 15, 2012 1:17 AM

Romney is marginally better than Obama if we're looking at the next four years alone. But President Obama goes away in four years; a President Romney doesn't. Given the choice between two candidates who both supported Obama's stimulus bill and who helped put a health insurance mandate into law, I'll go with the one who won't lock me into the same bad choice in 2016.

Posted by: Beat Obomney Now at January 15, 2012 1:27 AM

I don't believe the bellyachers here have the stomach for making the long march. They make a lot of noise but what I'm hearing are their excuses for not having attempted even a piece of the work necessary to draw America back onto the right path.

Eternal vigilance is only part of the price of liberty. For anybody who is not already making contributions to campaigns and advocacy groups totaling well into the five figures annually, becoming politically effective requires a total lifestyle makeover. And a commitment measured in decades. Who's up for that? Not the bellyachers here, that's for sure.

Anybody who genuinely detests the Romney candidacy and wasn't already organizing for their preferred candidate in 2009 has forgotten the fable of the little red hen. Or never learned it. (And can someone unaware of that fable and its lesson really be able to conserve the principles of 1776?)

Posted by: Micha Elyi at January 15, 2012 1:55 AM

It astonishes me that there are people who do not understand this:

Under the system we have now, one of two candidates will be elected President. Perhaps some day we can break out of the two-party, winner-take-all system, but it won't happen in time for this election. And this election is crucial, because the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, if re-elected, will have the power to damage our nation far worse than he already has. To sit this one out, to not take a side, is to passively allow evil to triumph.

If the two major party candidates are Romney and Obama, one or the other *WILL* be elected. We'll have a choice between a crap sandwich and a crap sandwich with arsenic and botulism sprinkles. One may disgust you and make you sick to your stomach, but the other will disgust you and make you sick to your stomach ... and then kill you.

Posted by: Murgatroyd at January 15, 2012 2:04 AM

Merchandise with the sentiment
"Even Romney is Better than Obama"
is available at
www.EvenRomney.com

Posted by: EvenRomney at January 15, 2012 4:09 AM

Theres no difference between Romney and Obama as it relates to how neither of them give a hoot about the working class, the Constitution, or anything else but themselves and benefactors.

Should Romney get the RinoNod, he will lose, and should. All I can hope for at that point is a Congress that will hang Obama, and a Rino Senate that will impeach him should he continue to govern by executive order.

I for one, of millions, will not vote for either Romney, or Obama because, there is NO DIFFERENCE.

Posted by: Puddin at January 15, 2012 4:37 AM

My elderly and very conservative uncle lives in California. At least 20 years ago he was complaining that California was finished. I told him his generation was asleep for the past 50 years for letting it get to that point. Little did I realize that applied to my generation too all around the rest of the country.

Posted by: binarytree at January 15, 2012 5:02 AM

You say you want the Republicans to produce better candidates? What are you doing to bring that about? And no - bitching on a blog is not bringing something about. If you want your concerns addressed by any major party then you have to show up. It's awful that such a simple thing has to be said.

The Republicans aren't truly going to address the concerns of conservatives unless they are actually in the party and electing people to office. Two things will be respected (1) showing up to help and (2) showing electoral strength. You elect people to office you change the establishment. You change the establishment your concerns are no longer an after thought.

Oh - and it will take a long time.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at January 15, 2012 5:21 AM
"This is not a "Vote-For" election. This is a "Vote-Against" election."

Which is precisely the way the Romneyrrhoids wanted it, since it's the only way their crappy candidate could get the nomination.

Posted by: McGehee at January 15, 2012 5:38 AM
The Republicans aren't truly going to address the concerns of conservatives unless they are actually in the party and electing people to office.

...and playing right into the Establishment's "where else are they gonna go?" trap.

Posted by: McGehee at January 15, 2012 5:39 AM

You got another answer McGehee? Get in, show your electoral strength and dedication, become the establishment, change the course or...what? If you want a particular type of presidential candidate then you have to get those people into lower level elected offices so they can get trained, and to get them into those offices they first have to be nominated, and that means you have to be in the party for the long haul. Staying home is surrender - you know, as in "you lose every game you don't play."

Complaining is easy, and I'm tired of conservative pity-parties.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at January 15, 2012 6:13 AM

Limited-government conservatives, as well as libertarians, have an inherent disadvantage. We believe government should be limited and constrained, and should leave us alone to pursue our dreams, run our businesses, and raise our families. We don't want to have to think about politics 24/7. We don't want to have to write our congressmen about every damn issue that comes along, and most of us don't want to work in government or run for office.

By contrast, liberals, leftists, and statists of all types are drawn to government like bees to honey. They're the people who go straight from law school into political office or the bureaucracy, without ever getting a job in the private sector. They're the ones who coined the phrase "the personal is political". They believe that every problem, no matter how small, has a government solution. And government also naturally attracts control freaks who like to wield power over others.

To paraphrase Trotsky, "You may not be interested in government, but government is interested in you."

I don't know how this can be fixed. At the root, it's a cultural phenomenon. The United States was once populated by people who generally believed that government should stay out of their way, but such people are today a shrinking minority.

Posted by: rickl at January 15, 2012 6:38 AM

What really grinds me is that the potential candidates conservatives were excited about were SAVAGELY attacked and run off by the same people who are now telling us we have to vote for the Republican nominee, whoever it may be. In fact, Rove, Will, Lott, etc, etc, are telling us it is over and Romney is the only candidate worth consideration.

Sorry, I'm tired of being cornholed by my 'friends' and then expected to thank them for it.

Posted by: iron308 at January 15, 2012 6:41 AM

I agree, iron308. A lot of us get the feeling that we've been had, that the outcome was essentially preordained, and the primaries are little more than kabuki theater.

I've been saying for months that the pre-primary series of debates were designed to let the media and pollsters pick a front-runner, before any voters got to have their say. Now the primary season has just begun and we're already being told that it's all over. It stinks to high heaven.

Posted by: rickl at January 15, 2012 6:50 AM

Actually, I'm happy they were "savagely attacked" and blew up this early.
BTW - how many of these were "own errors"?
Who forced Bachmann to go with Gardisil?
Who forced Pawlenty to leave?
Who forced Perry to have brain-lock?
Who forced Cain to have wandering hands?
Who forced Gingrich to be erratic?

Posted by: Mikey NTH at January 15, 2012 7:25 AM

A while ago I made the suggestion that the Republicans make a change to the primary voting process in each state. Add to each ballot one additional choice; NONE OF THE ABOVE. Then the proportion of votes gathered by that choice go to delegates that are pledged not to vote in the first two rounds of voting at the national convention. After which all the convention delegates are likewise released.
In 2008 we watched in horror as a UN-electable RINO went on to nomination and disaster. Now, wouldn't it have been great to have been able to say in August of 2008, "Just Kidding!".

Posted by: John the River at January 15, 2012 7:49 AM

If the establishment Repubs won't produce a candidate that earns my vote,...

A few points in response: “the Republicans” are us. If you don’t want to support the Republican candidate you are probably not a Republican. That’s not a mortal sin. If it comes to a choice between being a Republican and a Conservative, I choose Conservative. But if the consensus of Republicans, via the nominating process, produces a moderate and the person running against him is a Liberal, I’ll vote for the moderate Republican. Sometimes less bad is the only choice because we have to live with the consequences just like everybody else.

I’m not going to defend Romney, I don’t have to. If I had the power to anoint an American president it would be Sarah Palin. But I don’t. So I’ll vote for the person who is not Barack Obama because there is not a major political figure in this country who is more destructive of liberty.

Those who think that “the worse the better” are living in a universe where nations can’t fail and believe that America can recover from endless mismanagement. They believe that the majority will “see the light” and agree with those who took their marbles and went home to sulk. There is in some of these comments an almost gleeful delight in the thought of their fellow citizens impoverished and society broken. In Jeremiah Wright’s words: “the chickens are coming home to roost.” That is neither kind nor wise. Times like that bring on the demagogue, the Hitler, the Lenin, the Peron rather than the Libertarian champion. People in distress look for a savior, not for someone who tells them that he will let nature take its course. “The worse the better” is a slogan for Lenin, not Kerensky.

I also have a nagging thought that some of these comments come from the Obama campaign, wolves in sheep’s clothing, who are trying to convince some people that by not voting against Obama they will teach those rascally Republicans a lesson. Going to the internet and making comments that discourage the opposition to Obama is cheap and could be effective.


Posted by: Moneyrunner at January 15, 2012 8:48 AM

Goldman Sachs tops the list of Romney's campaign donation sources followed by the rest of the usual suspects. Yeah, let's elect a president of Wall Street.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286&cycle=2012

Bullying conservatives isn't going to change that Romney is as bad a candidate as McCain. Why would you expect this to have a different outcome? Are you classically insane?

Posted by: freandB at January 15, 2012 8:53 AM

If we are to believe the narrative that Romney is so inevitable and such a nice guy, why did he just challenge the petitions of Rick Santorum in Illinois on Friday? Meanwhile, despite well-publicized defects in the Rick Perry and Ron Paul petitions here, he didn’t bother to challenge those. In short, he’s happy to see the conservative vote split so that it is easier for him to look like a winner with only 30% support, but didn’t want to risk actually losing delegates to Santorum.

Note that delegate petition challenges have been rare since the 1976 nomination fight between Reagan and Ford. Although the Santorum delegates were vulnerable to a challenge for lack of sufficient signatures since they were largely Herman Cain supporters and organized too late in the process after Cain suspended his campaign, there seemed to be a “gentleman’s agreement” with the Romney campaign to not challenge. Instead, by the Friday afternoon deadline for challenges, the Romney campaign was evidently worried enough about the Santorum campaign to risk adverse publicity by knocking them off the ballot.

On the other hand, they obviously didn’t perceive Ron Paul or Rick Perry to be a serious threat. Perry didn’t file slates of delegates in Illinois, nor did Huntsman. Ron Paul’s supporters had done their delegate petitions properly, so only his “top line” petition was vulnerable – but that doesn’t affect delegates. It’s a beauty contest, like a straw poll, and therefore has no impact other than publicity. If the Romney crowd was concerned about valid petitions, they would have challenged both the Perry and Paul petitions. Instead, they were just worried about losing delegates to Santorum, and wanted to weaken the image of his campaign in the other early primary states. Nice guy, eh? Is this what Illinois voters want? As you may recall, Obama rose to power in Illinois through petition challenges. The end justifies the means to maintain the myth of inevitability.

Posted by: SurgeUSA at January 15, 2012 9:08 AM

Mikey it is not just the also rans. How many people on 'our' side piled on to Palin, O'Donnell, Anger?

The message was clear- conservatives we don't want your ideas or candidates upsetting the way things are done. And we aren't going to vote for you, but if you don't vote for us then you are a cry baby, or maybe a democrat in disguise.

All of you who think that ought to reflect on the candidates we end up with and whether they have helped or hurt the cause of returning our country to a limited government, constitutional republic- Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain.... Huh? Yeah, let's stay on that path because it is so much better than the Dem alternative.... seems like two sides of the same coin to me.

Speaking for me alone, if I felt candidates that represented me had been given a fair shot in the primary process, then yes I could go out and vote for the eventual nominee in good conscience. But I am not going to be be told to sit down and shut up until I'm told who to vote for.

Posted by: iron308 at January 15, 2012 9:54 AM

I see a lot of griping about how your conservative candidate isn’t getting a fair shake. I’m curious who, specifically those conservatives who are being marginalized are. I see at least one Santorum and one Paul supporter, but who are the others supporting?

Posted by: Moneyrunner at January 15, 2012 10:25 AM

or not really in it to win it like Mitt

I believe you meant Newt.

Posted by: M. Simon at January 15, 2012 10:26 AM

Re: 7:49AM

If it comes to a choice between being a Republican and a libertarian, I choose libertarian.

Congress shall make no law.... We have more than enough of them already.

Posted by: M. Simon at January 15, 2012 10:33 AM

Right you are Simon. Fixed. Thanks.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 15, 2012 10:35 AM

Too much conservatism is a mistake? Have you been paying attention for the last two decades? When has this been the case, and when has the reverse 'too much moderation' been the fault?

This sounds like the McCainiacs last time. They believed in intimidation as a method of getting conservatives to the electoral booth. How'd that work out again?

And I'm not a conservative purist. I'd be willing to vote for Gingrich or Paul if I had too. But Romney is a bridge too far.

I don't see Reagan btw as some super conservative. What he was was somewhat conservative. It'd be nice if we could get a nominee for the conservative party that was actually y'know, conservative.

But hey, the Constitution Party needs votes. And you'd better believe I'll be blaming you lame McCainiacs/Romneyites for the eventual lose to Obama. I'll be doing it very loudly too. Maybe this time the Establishment will get a clue. Either that or they can go the way of the Whig.

Time and past time to have an intervention for the addict.

Posted by: Tennwriter at January 15, 2012 10:37 AM

"I'd be willing to vote for Gingrich or Paul if I had too. But Romney is a bridge too far."

Not voting, voting third party, or not voting for the Republican candidate is a vote FOR Obama. That's simply the facts.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 15, 2012 10:44 AM

"If it comes to a choice between being a Republican and a libertarian, I choose libertarian."

To vote libertarian is to vote FOR Obama.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 15, 2012 10:45 AM

Ahem says he has children so he has to vote for Romney. How about another view...let the poisons of the earth hatch out now, when your children are young and shielded from the worst of it?

The GOP can choose to be for Ordered Liberty or for Immorality and Socialism. One of these choices has a future. The other doesn't.

Let's have this fight now.

Do you serve the Constitution, or do you serve the bitch goddess Power?

And that question reveals your statment Mr. Vanderleun as the irrelevancy it is.

Posted by: Tennwriter at January 15, 2012 11:28 AM

Don't you live in Washington State, Vanderleun? Your vote doesn't matter anyway. At any rate, a vote for a third party is not a vote for either team. It's the opposite of that; it's a rejection of both of them. We reject the false dilemma that the establishment presents.

There is no compromise between food and poison, and Romney is poison. Nominate an acceptable Republican and we can talk about coming together despite our differences. Until then, it doesn't matter if we are fed Romney's cyanide or Obama's arsenic. Four years ago folks like you were demanding that we line up behind the author of McCain-Feingold. This year you're insisting we support the inventor of Obamacare. You've either failed to learn your lesson or you're one of the enemy. Which is it?

Posted by: Xenocles at January 15, 2012 11:52 AM

ahem said: "If the RINO loses, you're never going to get another chance to vote for a Libertarian or "Constitutionalist" again---ever."

So, you're saying that if Obama wins, elections will never take place again in the United States?

Yeah, I'll trust *your* judgment.

Consider the possible outcomes:

1) Obama is re-elected, the economy continues to suck and Americans get to see how much the left loves the welfare state. Voters move to the right.

2) Romney wins, and like Obama, he continues to let the banks and the unions and the lobbyists run the country. The economy doesn't get much better because in his 53-point economic plan, no where are the words "free market". Voters get to see that Republicans suck as much as Democrats, as if 8 years of Bush didn't already teach them that.

If Obama wins, there is a chance that a libertarian leaning conservative gets nominated in 2016.

If Romney wins, there is no chance that a libertarian leaning conservative challenges his incumbency. In fact, no one will, just as no one is challenging Obama.

As you can see, for people that would like to see freedom restored in this country, Obama winning is the more desirable outcome.

If Romney wins, I will vote for the Libertarian candidate so that my vote *truly* reflects my will.

Posted by: John at January 15, 2012 11:54 AM

"f Obama wins, there is a chance that a libertarian leaning conservative gets nominated in 2016."

.... and that will help extend the Democrat/Progressive winning streak into 2017! Brilliant!

Posted by: vanderleun at January 15, 2012 11:57 AM

"At any rate, a vote for a third party is not a vote for either team."

It is now and will remain a vote FOR Obama. Just stamping your foot and saying it isn't does not make it so.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 15, 2012 11:59 AM

To vote Romney is to vote FOR (a melanin-deficient) Obama.

Posted by: RealitiCzech at January 15, 2012 12:00 PM

If you think Obama and Romney are the same, you either haven't been paying attention or there is no hope you will be returned to sanity.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 15, 2012 12:04 PM

Let me, since we are far down the comment thread now, repeat myself: "This is not a “Vote-For” election. This is a “Vote-Against” election. This is not a “Sit-It-Out-And-Pout” election. This is a “Get-Obama-Out” election. That is what it is about and that is all it is about."

Hear me now or hear me later while the tears come streaming down your face.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 15, 2012 12:07 PM

Maybe Obama will win thanks to my likely third party vote, but at least I'll still have my integrity. When Obama beats Romney despite your vote we'll be in the same position except you will have sold your soul in a vain bid for power. Of course, I vote in a deep blue state so the idea that my failure to vote for Romney will have any bearing on the election results is absurd on its face. If you think Romney has any chance in hell of carrying WA in November you're as nuts as you accuse us of being.

Posted by: Xenocles at January 15, 2012 12:21 PM

I for one, of millions, will not vote for either Romney, or Obama because, there is NO DIFFERENCE.

You're kidding, right? Romney is merely an idiot, while Obama is a committed Marxist. There's an ocean of difference between the two. You'd better bone up on your Political Philosophy.

As Gerard suggests, we need to buy time.

John: You don't have to believe me. I feel confident you're destined to learn the hard way---unfortunately for us all.

Posted by: ahem at January 15, 2012 12:36 PM

"If you think Obama and Romney are the same, you either haven't been paying attention or there is no hope you will be returned to sanity."
Romneycare, assault weapons ban, gay marriage...
you're right.

To vote Obama is to vote FOR a conservative Romney.

Posted by: RealitiCzech at January 15, 2012 12:57 PM

History lesson - Progressives were once a unified Party. They had an economic agenda coupled with a social agenda. Thus Alcohol and Drug Prohibition coupled with the Income Tax.

They now have split into two factions. One handles economic socialism the other handles the moral socialism. Mostly.

And I'm supposed to get excited about this and vote for the moral socialists? Explain it to me again - I'm a little thick.

We are getting the government we deserve. I see no point in worrying about politics. I worry more about the people. The source of the politics.

Posted by: M. Simon at January 15, 2012 1:18 PM

"Or is there no minimum standard any longer?"

The standard is a guy who actually IS a limited government conservative apparently by how this primary cycle has gone.

Guys like that are simply "too dangerous" to support even if he's a Republican.

Posted by: Major Vee at January 15, 2012 1:26 PM

To vote libertarian is to vote FOR Obama.

Which is why I used the small "l". I'm going to vote Paul in Illinois and then probably for what ever scarecrow the Rs put up in November.

My point is that I'm not convinced that who gets elected matters. The government is owned. And the owners will own both candidates.

And, I keep hearing "Constitutional this and Constitutional that" from "conservatives". So where is the Constitutional authority for Drug Prohibition? Yeah. I don't see any either.

Now if only conservatives would come out and say, "I really think Prohibition is a good idea but I see no authority for it in the Constitution" I might have some respect for them. Actually one did say it once in a private e-mail to me - he didn't want his pro-prohibition position jeopardized with the public.

I'm looking forward to meeting some real Constitutional Conservatives. There are some. But the vast majority are phonies.

They are in fact like every other American. "We will follow the law if it is our interest." Fine. The answer to that is a lot fewer laws.

Posted by: M. Simon at January 15, 2012 1:33 PM

"If you think Obama and Romney are the same, you either haven't been paying attention or there is no hope you will be returned to sanity."

Foreign policy: mostly the same. Drone wars, aggressive stance vs. Iran including possible sanctions. Intervention without congressional approval wherever we get an itch.

War on Drugs: Same.

Abortion: Same.

Health Care: possibly Romney might slightly scale down a national health care plan, but he'll have one with a lot of the same.

Economics: subsidies for favored industries. Which industries are favored might shift some, but the principle won't.

And the biggest difference between the two:

Obama faces a hostile House of Representatives. If the GOP takes the senate, they'll feel obligated to support whatever big government monstrosity the "top men" in the Romney administration come up with. See George W. Bush for examples.

Vote for Romney all you want, but turn in your the "GOP is for limited government" bonafides when you do.

There's reasons to not like Ron Paul, but if you hadn't been so quick to abandon your limited government roots, you wouldn't have to deal with him right now the way you have to. This ain't football, and I don't get happy just because "my team" wins.

Posted by: Major Vee at January 15, 2012 1:36 PM

"If Obama wins, there is a chance that a libertarian leaning conservative gets nominated in 2016."

.... and that will help extend the Democrat/Progressive winning streak into 2017! Brilliant!

You have to consider that Paul is winning the youth vote. If we can get a libertarian with a sensible foreign policy (Palin pant, pant) I think one might do all right in 2016 when the youth will be 4 years older and thus a bigger force in politics. And 2020 looks even better.

In the mean time I'll be voting for reverse scarecrow (he thinks he has a brain when he should be looking for one) in November.

Posted by: M. Simon at January 15, 2012 1:57 PM

Sure, it's a "vote against" election. I'm voting against Romney being on the 2016 ballot.

If Romney was ineligible to run in 2016, then he'd be better than Obama for the next four years. But if he wins, we can only get Romney or somebody worse in 2016, while if Obama wins, we can get somebody better than Romney in 2016. On the eight-year perspective, Obama is the lesser evil.

Posted by: Beat Obomney Now at January 15, 2012 2:05 PM

Correction. A third party vote is not a vote for Obama, it is one-half a vote for Obama. My fully half-assed vote will go to Romnoid when it comes to that.

Posted by: james wilson at January 15, 2012 3:07 PM

But if he wins, we can only get Romney or somebody worse in 2016, while if Obama wins, we can get somebody better than Romney in 2016.

Yeah? Who? And why can't you get that "somebody" right now?

On the eight-year perspective, Obama is the lesser evil.

Are you insane, or are you merely trolling?

Posted by: Murgatroyd at January 15, 2012 4:47 PM

I hear something truly unbelievable in this thread that makes me wonder if we have what it takes to get through the coming calamity: If Obama wins and gets his laws passed and his judges sat we're toast.
We're toast now, then, because we haven't the spine nor the conviction to fight the good fight. I'm voting against Obama, but it will take a whole lot more than a Republican victory to change the listing ship of state. Everyone is going to be called upon to defend his rights, by all means necessary, if we care about them enough. We may have to starve the beast with a tax revolt and a general strike. We might have to face imprisonment for speaking out against the corrupt government. We might lose everything: property, family and freedom, and we have to be willing to lose even our lives if we want a country worth saving. Voting is the least we can do, and it might be the only thing some people will do, if it comes down to their entitlements or their freedom.

Posted by: Jewel at January 15, 2012 5:22 PM

I only wish the powers-that-be at the Big Government Republican Establishment were reading this thread. Because then they would know that they are well and truly &*^%ed.

When I look at Obama, I see a guy who is exactly what I expect him to be: a big government, welfare state socialist.

When I look at Romney, I see a guy who is only incrementally different than Obama, a guy who thinks every societal ill can be solved with a new regulation or another government agency.

I should be seeing the opposite of Obama but I'm not. I'm seeing what the Republican Party wants me to have: A Big Government Establishment Republican who will continue to let the monied interests run the country for their own financial benefit. A guy who will maintain the status quo no matter what, who will do whatever the banks tell him to do and who will put a some minor pretense of "fiscal conservatism" to maintain the illusion that he is somehow different.

Look at Bush. Eight years and what did you get? Four seconds where he pretended to want to start moving the SS system to a private footing. But he had no problem whatsoever in enacting the largest unfunded mandate in US history, for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry, with his Medicare prescription coverage. Nor all his new bureaucracies and all their union employees, like Homeland Security and the TSA.

Nope. I'm not doing it again. The Republican Party is the enemy of true fiscal conservatives and libertarians. ^&%$ them. I'll throw a party when Romney loses. I will not reward them with my vote. I will not vote for something I don't want.

Posted by: John at January 15, 2012 5:52 PM

Hmmm, which prison rapist shall I choose -- the one with the Blue bandanna, or the one with the Red bandanna?

Posted by: B Lewis at January 15, 2012 5:54 PM

Now I am positive there is a virulent outbreak of Romney Derangement Syndrome. Worse than BDS and OBS because it is so baseless.

Posted by: vanderleun at January 15, 2012 6:07 PM

If Obama wins you are going to lose your freedom. I repeat: You. are. going. to. lose. your. freedom. We all are.

All your intricate fantasies about proving a point or retaining your so-called integrity and fighting another day are only that---fantasies. Clearly, you fail to realize the gravity of the situation: you are stark raving mad. It is because of smug numbskulls like you--ignorant citizens who let evil thrive by default--that we now have a communist in the White House. Clue: 2012 is your last chance to preserve such freedoms as you currently enjoy. Wake up from your stupor and help us vote Obama out of office. We'll deal with the fallout afterward.

Posted by: ahem at January 15, 2012 8:39 PM

ahem -- that is what we were told in 2008. There might have been some reason to believe it then, because Obama's party held both houses of Congress.

Yet he was somehow too inept to turn the US into a European social democracy. When he tried, the people gave Congress to a bunch of crazy Tea Party conservatives. And what horrible things has Obama done since January 2011?

Nope, I am not scared. The republic will survive a hack socialist president with conservatives in Congress to oppose him (and come this November and November 2014 there will be even more o them). Conservatism will continue to gain ground and Obama will be stymied. And we will have four years in this environment to turn over the bankrupt Republican establishment.

I am not buying the apocalyptic rhetoric. It insults my intelligence, and I resent it. Real talk: if John McCain were president today, the party and the conservative movement would be as lost today as it was in 2006. Screw that. I'm done propping up the worthless Republican establishment that threatens and cajoles us to hold our noses and vote for crappy candidates like Romney. It's time they had to hold their nose for once and vote for a conservative.

Posted by: huntz at January 15, 2012 9:49 PM

Color me unimpressed with the recent GOP's track record with regards to defending freedom. Now I have to get back to my online poker game. Oh wait, that's right, I can't.

Posted by: Major Vee at January 15, 2012 11:16 PM

Awwww. No online poker? Well, into every life a little rain must fall.... especially that rain best called "1st world problem."

Posted by: vanderleun at January 16, 2012 12:10 AM

ahem said: "If Obama wins you are going to lose your freedom. I repeat: You. are. going. to. lose. your. freedom. We all are. All your intricate fantasies..."

Okay, so now the guy who declares that there will never again be elections and that all freedom will cease if Obama is re-elected is preaching to us about fantasies?

Let me guess, we're all going to be rounded up and sent to FEMA re-education camps, right?

Strip a layer of aluminum foil off your hat, ahem, some small quantity of reality needs to seep through.

If this is your argument as to why Romney should be elected, well, good luck that.

Posted by: John at January 16, 2012 9:21 AM

Hello, my sweet Gerard.

I've been out of pocket, so please forgive my late entrance. As always, I'm honored by the linkage and offer hearty congrats on the Instalanche.

Well, it looks like I'm not the only one fed up to rim with the GOP's choice of factory approved, inflatable dolls.

You're free to make a case for the anybody but Obama or we're all going to Hell brigade. I happen to disagree.

It doesn't seem rational to pick Obama's fraternal twin if all you reap is more Republican sanctioned socialist degradation of the country.

We're poised to recapture the senate and increase the house with a slate of tea-partyish freshmen, a nice bully wall of obstructionism can be a great tool of deterrence.

Keep in mind, Bush had a complicit congress in his first term. They readily climbed on board his expansive government agenda of compassionate idiocy in the name of party unity. The dem's had no problem cheering on GW's insane social mandates in the last four years.

I have serious concerns that a majority of the congressional GOP will give Romney free reign, sinking us even further down the abyss.

I know you despise Obama and that's just fine, but maybe your emotions are getting in the way of considering more rational alternatives.

As far as getting involved on a grass roots level to win the long game (I assume you mean personal liberty, fiscal austerity, less government intrusion and corruption) from the ground up, please take a look at the organization I'm involved in that's trying to do exactly that.

Yes, I'm supporting Ron Paul this year. Gary Johnson would have been my first choice, but that's a wasted vote if I want to empower a significant change of platform within the GOP.

I think your endorsement of Romney is a vote for the status quo, my friend and I just can't do that anymore.


Posted by: Daphne at January 16, 2012 7:18 PM

Hello, my sweet Gerard.

I've been out of pocket, so please forgive my late entrance. As always, I'm honored by the linkage and offer hearty congrats on the Instalanche.

Well, it looks like I'm not the only one fed up to rim with the GOP's choice of factory approved, inflatable dolls.

You're free to make a case for the anybody but Obama or we're all going to Hell brigade. I happen to disagree.

It doesn't seem rational to pick Obama's fraternal twin if all you reap is more Republican sanctioned socialist degradation of the country.

We're poised to recapture the senate and increase the house with a slate of tea-partyish freshmen, a nice bully wall of obstructionism can be a great tool of deterrence.

Keep in mind, Bush had a complicit congress in his first term. They readily climbed on board his expansive government agenda of compassionate idiocy in the name of party unity. The dem's had no problem cheering on GW's insane social mandates in the last four years.

I have serious concerns that a majority of the congressional GOP will give Romney free reign, sinking us even further down the abyss.

I know you despise Obama and that's just fine, but maybe your emotions are getting in the way of considering more rational alternatives.

As far as getting involved on a grass roots level to win the long game (I assume you mean personal liberty, fiscal austerity, less government intrusion and corruption) from the ground up, please take a look at the organization I'm involved in that's trying to do exactly that.

Yes, I'm supporting Ron Paul this year. Gary Johnson would have been my first choice, but that's a wasted vote if I want to empower a significant change of platform within the GOP.

I think your endorsement of Romney is a vote for the status quo, my friend and I just can't do that anymore.


Posted by: Daphne at January 16, 2012 7:18 PM

If the best the Establishment GOP has to offer, in opposition to Obama, is "This is the most important election in our lifetimes" or "You'll lose ALL your freedom" or "Romney is the ONLY electable candidate"- then it shall be cast aside as nonsense. There is a few degrees of difference between Obama and Romney with the stark reality of their similarities- they are merely two sides of the same coin. They're both fully bought and paid for by Wall Street, Unions, Bankers, and special interests. Take note of who their biggest campaign contributors are, if you doubt me.

I happen to be a person of principle. I take great offense when I'm told I must endure evil, even if it's a "lesser". Holding my nose and pulling a lever for either Romney or Obama flies in the face of what I believe; i.e.- that there is a superior candidate with whom I share a great deal of viewpoints. Being told to disregard him, and choose between Tweedledee, opposing Tweedledum (because the establishment told me to)- well- pardon me if I feign deafness.

No amount of bellicose chest-thumping by any of your ilk will convince me to vote for a lesser evil. By consenting to vote for a lesser evil gives the establishment GOP carte blanche to pick whomever they please- for they know playing the "fear of loss of freedom" card will work almost every time. I'm not buying it this time. I didn't buy it when they offered up McCain, and I won't buy it with Romney.

Ron Paul voters are getting tired of being ignored, told to step in line with viewpoints contradictory to our own held beliefs, and told to pull the lever for the Banker/Pentagon candidate. Blame us if you wish, but we can sleep well knowing that we *DID* vote for the one candidate who can at least apply the brakes to the landslide that is becoming America.

Posted by: Justari at January 16, 2012 7:33 PM

I've never been able to understand why Republicans hire far-left liberals to "moderate" their debates. Must be suicidal.

Posted by: PacRim Jim at January 16, 2012 8:50 PM

"Awwww. No online poker? Well, into every life a little rain must fall.... especially that rain best called "1st world problem.""

Exactly, Republicans believe in the freedom to do things Republicans like to do, and screw everyone else.

Who exactly appointed you the arbiter of which freedoms are important? Don't ask for my damn vote unless you want to give my views a seat at the table.

Posted by: Major Vee at January 18, 2012 2:37 PM
Post a comment:

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.










Remember personal info?