A Libertarian for Mitt Romney

[NomadS]

Found this at TheBlaze.com. At least there are a few Libertarians that understand the choice.

There is a time for idealism and a time for realism, and for me, the time for realism is now. I endorsed former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson back in December of 2011, when he was still seeking the Republican nomination for President. I continued to support him even after he left the Republican Party and became the Libertarian Party’s nominee for President. Indeed, I am a DC elector for Gary Johnson. On Tuesday November 6th, however, I will not be casting my vote for Gary Johnson – instead I will be casting it for Mitt Romney.
I still believe strongly that Gary Johnson would make the best President of the three candidates running, however, it is time to recognize he will not be President. The next President will either be Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and without hesitation I can say that Mitt Romney will be a vastly better President than Barack Obama......

For libertarians who want to have a say in electing the next President the choice is clear. Where there are differences between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the positions advocated by Mitt Romney are far superior to those of Barack Obama.

The Liberty movement is growing every day, and I firmly believe that libertarianism is the greatest single hope for America’s future. While libertarians will not get the chance to elect a libertarian president in 2012, we can begin to right the ship by electing the candidate who most closely represents our values and our vision of government.
The work of transforming America and putting libertarian ideals to work will be a long and hard fight, but one well worth it. A few years ago, not many outside of Washington think tanks knew what libertarianism even was. Now, thanks to the campaigns of people like Ron Paul, we have taken a big step in educating voters and winning converts to our cause. Let’s take another step now by electing Mitt Romney, and ending Barack Obama’s big government reign of terror. --
Christopher R Barron


Barron: A Libertarian for Mitt Romney | TheBlaze.com

​

 

[John James]

Voting the lesser of two evils is always better than standing by principle.

I wonder if ther was ever a guy that voted for the national socialist party because the alternative was the marxist party.

Oh yeah, Germany was filled with such folks.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is always better.......

Guy X wants to rape my son but guy Y wants to kill him.

Yep the lesser of 2 evils is always better

 

[buckstopshere]

See the whole premise of the OPs comment is to dig at libertarians for not "understanding the choice"

But libertarians aren't supposed to take offense to being called an idiot for not voting how the "conservatives" want. Just for good measure, if you defend yourself, you're a purest and no one can measure up.

NONE OF YOU WILL MAKE ME FEEL GUILTY ABOUT NOT VOTING FOR ROMNEY

 

[John James]

I wanted to vote robomney....I really did. I just could not sing loud enough to ignore the train cars rolling by the church any longer.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

The choice of how to vote is YOURS. I would never second guess ANYONE on that choice. I understand and agree with the thinking of the follow in the article. Many disagree with me. I do think that we ALL need to remember that we want the same things - but there is a sharp disagreement as to the best way to get it.

 

[John James]

The choice of how to vote is YOURS. I would never second guess ANYONE on that choice. I understand and agree with the thinking of the follow in the article. Many disagree with me. I do think that we ALL need to remember that we want the same things - but there is a sharp disagreement as to the best way to get it.

I do not believe that all Americans want the same things.

 

[Wreaver]

Voting the lesser of two evils is always better than standing by principle.

I wonder if ther was ever a guy that voted for the national socialist party because the alternative was the marxist party.

Oh yeah, Germany was filled with such folks.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Oxymoron: Libertarians for Romney.

I don't think he's making a point that is decidedly different than other people on this forum who don't like Romney, but are voting for him because it is vote against Obama. I'm a libertarian; I'm still voting for Johnson.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I do not believe that all Americans want the same things.

for the love of heaven - that's NOT who I was referring to. This dead horse has been thoroughly beaten around here way too many times. There are several main groups around here - two of which have been especially conflicted with this particular election. One is Libertarians (semi-big L) that are so fed up with both parties that they will NEVER vote for Romney, so they choose to sleep better by voting for Johnson. The other group is libertarian leaning republicans (small caps in both cases) that think Johnson's the better guy, but know that there's no way that the guy can win with less than 50% name recognition. Never mind people willing to vote for you. They choose to take a more pragmatic route and vote for Romney - on the thought that he will be WAY better for the country than Obama. Both groups are happy that Ron Paul made the dent that he did and both want to see the .gov DRAMATICALLY shrink in size.


The arguments fly both ways - with both groups (if they don't think about it) each calling the other idiots. The person mentioned in the article in the original post is an example of one of these groups. My point - which has been expressed many times is that these two groups want the same things at a core level. But they disagree on the best means to get there. One group could care less whether Obama gets a second term since they see Romney as the same thing. The other does not agree with that particular assessment. That doesn't change the fact that both want to get to a libertarian solution (if not a Libertarian solution). And both have to realize (unless there's COMPLETE denial) that we won't get there entirely in 2012.

Hopefully that clarifies things?

Edit - yes I'm also sure that there are straight-ticket Republicans and union-fed Democrats and social Conservatives (typically would have voted Santorum or Gingrich types) around here as well. These are the other of the "several main groups" that I was referring to. While the gun crowd does have it's leanings - it also is more diverse than people would give it credit for.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Found this at TheBlaze.com. At least there are a few Libertarians that understand the choice.

A vote for Romney is a vote for everything you dont like about Obama

 

[Stschil]

The arguments fly both ways - with both groups (if they don't think about it) each calling the other idiots. The person mentioned in the article in the original post is an example of one of these groups. My point - which has been expressed many times is that these two groups want the same things at a core level. But they disagree on the best means to get there. One group could care less whether Obama gets a second term since they see Romney as the same thing. The other does not agree with that particular assessment. That doesn't change the fact that both want to get to a libertarian solution (if not a Libertarian solution). And both have to realize (unless there's COMPLETE denial) that we won't get there entirely in 2012.

Hopefully that clarifies things?


Edit - yes I'm also sure that there are straight-ticket Republicans and union-fed Democrats and social Conservatives (typically would have voted Santorum or Gingrich types) around here as well. These are the other of the "several main groups" that I was referring to. While the gun crowd does have it's leanings - it also is more diverse than people would give it credit for.

I disagree. At their core, the two do not want the same things, or else there would not be endless threads spouting the same old same old. They may think so, but at their core, those who would give the reigns to 'The Party' are more interested in being with the winner. It's called Normacly Bias by some. I prefer to view it more like Stockholm Syndrome. The victims have come to identify with their abuser.

The Republican Party has shown time and time again that they only care about the views of then voting public when its time to win their vote. They have wonderful words that have not translated to action. Like it or not, it is NOT the voters' views that will be governing if Romney is elected, it will be the Party's wishes, which have proven to be as detrimental to the Nation, though in a slightly different manner, as the Democrat plan. There is no changing it from the inside now. The system perpetuates itself independently of the voting public at the Federal Level. Once either party gains power, it puts practices, regulations, and laws in place to further separate itself from having to care about the public. It will take a century or more to reverse the damage that has been done by both the GOP and the Progressives. It's too late.

For those who believe Romney in the White House will 'give us a little more time to prepare', I ask. Why haven't you been preparing before now?

 

[jamil]

A vote for Romney is a vote for everything you dont like about Obama

This popular sentiment on INGO demonstrates the extent to which ideologically colored glasses distort reality. We all like to embellish the bad points of the other side as well as the good points of our own. People with an ounce of pragmatism know they're doing that, and can admit that to themselves. Ideologues acually believe it.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I disagree. At their core, the two do not want the same things, or else there would not be endless threads spouting the same old same old. They may think so, but at their core, those who would give the reigns to 'The Party' are more interested in being with the winner. It's called Normacly Bias by some. I prefer to view it more like Stockholm Syndrome. The victims have come to identify with their abuser.

We get to agree to disagree on that. I maintain that we want the same things, you are free to disagree. Some will even call names and insult people who otherwise would agree with them. I maintain that that is a dumb strategy. From either side.

There are some of us - given the choice between casting a vote that will have a very limited effect (i.e. Johnson - main good effect = more money for the L party in the future) and one that will help prevent a complete idiot of a President from making an even BIGGER mess out of things, at the cost of not being able to vote for the perfect candidate - will choose the latter. I don't see Stockholm Syndrome anywhere in there. I see pragmatism and logic. But that's why we get to agree to disagree. And why you don't see me yelling anything about wasted votes - nor making fun of anybody's position. Why should I alienate a potential friend that would agree with me on most any given candidate?

I guess it comes down to the notion that maybe I believe that there still are enough people that call themselves Republicans that actually believe in Liberty. They are waking up. The dent that Ron and Rand Paul and others have made in the Republican party is evidence of their existence. And some of the more jaded amongst the L's have become so disgruntled with both parties that they either cannot see this or choose to take the third party approach. There will always be the "steer it from within" vs. "build a new ship and sink the old one" discussion. Fair enough - so be it.

BTW - what makes you think that my family and I are not prepared?

I think Romney has the ability to refire the economic engine of this country. Obama has PROVEN that his brand of cronyism will not do it. Will that be enough? I DON'T KNOW... If you think that the country is beyond hope - I agree that your strategy is the correct one. If you think that the big old battleship can still be turned - then the first step is getting the wheel into the best hands possible. Right now that's one of two guys... whether we like it, or not.

 

[jamil]

We get to agree to disagree on that. I maintain that we want the same things, you are free to disagree. Some will even call names and insult people who otherwise would agree with them. I maintain that that is a dumb strategy. From either side.

There are some of us - given the choice between casting a vote that will have a very limited effect (i.e. Johnson - main good effect = more money for the L party in the future) and one that will help prevent a complete idiot of a President from making an even BIGGER mess out of things, at the cost of not being able to vote for the perfect candidate - will choose the latter. I don't see Stockholm Syndrome anywhere in there. I see pragmatism and logic. But that's why we get to agree to disagree. And why you don't see me yelling anything about wasted votes - nor making fun of anybody's position. Why should I alienate a potential friend that would agree with me on most any given candidate?

I guess it comes down to the notion that maybe I believe that there still are enough people that call themselves Republicans that actually believe in Liberty. They are waking up. The dent that Ron and Rand Paul and others have made in the Republican party is evidence of their existence. And some of the more jaded amongst the L's have become so disgruntled with both parties that they either cannot see this or choose to take the third party approach. There will always be the "steer it from within" vs. "build a new ship and sink the old one" discussion. Fair enough - so be it.

BTW - what makes you think that my family and I are not prepared?

I think Romney has the ability to refire the economic engine of this country. Obama has PROVEN that his brand of cronyism will not do it. Will that be enough? I DON'T KNOW... If you think that the country is beyond hope - I agree that your strategy is the correct one. If you think that the big old battleship can still be turned - then the first step is getting the wheel into the best hands possible. Right now that's one of two guys... whether we like it, or not.

AP, I usually agree with you on most things, but I have to disagree on this. They do not want the same things. On the surface it may seem so, but not in the details. Not only do they disagree with the route, but also the destination.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

AP, I usually agree with you on most things, but I have to disagree on this. They do not want the same things. On the surface it may seem so, but not in the details. Not only do they disagree with the route, but also the destination.

How so? - the only way that I can see that - is if you mean that they are heck bent on a Big L President and would not accept a little l one. Or if I was vice-versa...

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what their target is, if it's that different that my own? My own target being the President and Congress that will reduce the role of the federal government back to its intended limits under the Constitution.

 

[hornadylnl]

How so? - the only way that I can see that - is if you mean that they are heck bent on a Big L President and would not accept a little l one. Or if I was vice-versa...

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what their target is, if it's that different that my own? My own target being the President and Congress that will reduce the role of the federal government back to it's intended limits under the Constitution.

I don't want the same things as most "conservatives". The problem is we all have different definitions of conservative. Genocide against Muslims? I don't want that. TSA, NDAA, Patriot Act, etc. I don't want that. Banning gay marriage? I don't want that. Creating a theocracy? I don't want that.

Many of my beliefs cannot be reconciled with modern day "conservatism". Therefore, I don't want the same things as them.

 

[hookedonjeep]

Well thank God we still live in a free country, for now...... On election day, or before, if you do the early voting thing; cast a ballot for whom you think will be the best, not who has a better chance of winning. Odds, like any statistic, can be swayed before the contest to entice suckers to change their bets ahead of time, ie; Vote for someone other than their conscience dictates over fears of "wasting a vote". When it is over and done with, will you regret your vote? THAT, my brothers and sisters IS a wasted vote. The whole premise behind the vote is to vote your conscience. So, vote your conscience and sleep well knowing you stood by your principals, and that you didn't sell out.

 

[Survivalcookie]

We get to agree to disagree on that. I maintain that we want the same things, you are free to disagree. Some will even call names and insult people who otherwise would agree with them. I maintain that that is a dumb strategy. From either side.

There are some of us - given the choice between casting a vote that will have a very limited effect (i.e. Johnson - main good effect = more money for the L party in the future) and one that will help prevent a complete idiot of a President from making an even BIGGER mess out of things, at the cost of not being able to vote for the perfect candidate - will choose the latter. I don't see Stockholm Syndrome anywhere in there. I see pragmatism and logic. But that's why we get to agree to disagree. And why you don't see me yelling anything about wasted votes - nor making fun of anybody's position. Why should I alienate a potential friend that would agree with me on most any given candidate?

I guess it comes down to the notion that maybe I believe that there still are enough people that call themselves Republicans that actually believe in Liberty. They are waking up. The dent that Ron and Rand Paul and others have made in the Republican party is evidence of their existence. And some of the more jaded amongst the L's have become so disgruntled with both parties that they either cannot see this or choose to take the third party approach. There will always be the "steer it from within" vs. "build a new ship and sink the old one" discussion. Fair enough - so be it.

BTW - what makes you think that my family and I are not prepared?

I think Romney has the ability to refire the economic engine of this country. Obama has PROVEN that his brand of cronyism will not do it. Will that be enough? I DON'T KNOW... If you think that the country is beyond hope - I agree that your strategy is the correct one. If you think that the big old battleship can still be turned - then the first step is getting the wheel into the best hands possible. Right now that's one of two guys... whether we like it, or not.

Well said...why let the country go further down hill for 4 more years by voting for Johnson, knowing he cannot win in 2012...Johnson and his supporters need to work very hard getting his name out there and raising money for 2016.

 

[mrjarrell]

The fear coming off of the Obamney supporters is palpable. Guess it's going to get worse the closer we get to election day. They'll likely be setting themselves on fire by then.