search
top

Congrats to VFTP

For playing a large role in keeping Santorum off the ballot in Indiana. It’s like the ghost of 1994 around this election, between Newt and Rick. It’s highly doubtful Santorum could even carry his own state (Pennsylvania, I mean, because it’s been long believed he actually lived in Virginia, but I’m doubtful he could carry Virginia either). I don’t like Mitt, but given Newt’s penchant for self-destructing, and Santorum’s penchant for wanting the government in everyone’s bedrooms, I’m not seeing too many other alternatives.

And don’t give me the Ron Paul crap. Paul is finished in this race. He never had a chance. I’m just hoping libertarians can find a better standard bearer; someone who can actually win. I’d take Rand Paul, if we really want a Paul. I’d also take Gary Johnson, if anyone knew who he was anymore.

54 Responses to “Congrats to VFTP”

  1. Wolfman says:

    I’m still behind Gary Johnson. I think he just needs the right time to be the Anti-Mitt/Anti-Obama. I’d like to see Ron Paul continue his run, to keep building on his (admittedly fanatical) base, then endorse Gary at the General Election. Even if he loses, a strong showing in a third party, at this level, would mean a President elected with the largest minority portion of the vote. Think about how that would look, if the election came back 34-36-30. The Presidential election decided on 6 percentage points 3 ways? It would be a huge step away from the EvilParty/StupidParty game. Even if this election is a loss in the third party, a strong showing could bode VERY well for the next Congressional election, and the next Presidential as well. Also, I don’t buy into the ‘Third Parties will only steal votes from X’ argument. I know some REALLY die-hard democrats who would vote for Gary Johnson over Barack Obama.

  2. Sebastian says:

    This is one election I’m not voting third party. It’s too important to get rid of Obama, and Johnson doesn’t stand a chance in hell on the Libertarian ticket.

  3. Patrick says:

    I usually refrain from taking sides in politics on gun forums (except when it comes to guns), but will note as a casual observer that many of us in the beltway see the Paul candidacy as a chance to build an organization and process for the younger Paul.

    Rand Paul is on the track. That family is sharp, and many think Rand is the one they are aiming to send to 1600. They seem to be taking the long view, and in the meantime they get a lot of libertarian ideas out there while building some supporters. Again: smart.

    For those who love RP, don’t get down. If they succeed in getting Rand the nod, you may yet see Ron Paul as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Now that would be fun to watch.

  4. Wolfman says:

    Think of it this way- Political involvement is much much lower than last time. Democrats are prepared to stay home in droves. Republicans and other conservatives are also pretty disenchanted, especially considering their choices. Nobody gives a ringing endorsement of Mitt Romney- the best I’ve ever heard is ‘he’s better than BO.’ If (and this is a big if) Gary can pull some big endorsements and get some people fired up, its possible to swing almost a third of the vote just by getting people to shake off the apathy. Basically, Gary Johnson is gunning for the disaffected portions of every other political party. People that were going to vote anyway made up their minds 4 years ago. Its the people that decided it wasn’t worth bothering that he’s going for. Disaffected moderates, social liberals, fiscal conservatives. If he can gather enough of those votes, he could alter the two party political view.

    • Sebastian says:

      I’ve watched Libertarians kid themselves for years. It’s not going to happen. The fact of the matter is, Libertarians are a very small minority, and the expectations Libertarians will have of Johnson are going to force him to take positions that are far outside the mainstream.

  5. A Critic says:

    “And don’t give me the Ron Paul crap. Paul is finished in this race. He never had a chance.”

    Your focus on winning has apparently blinded you to the fact that you are trying to choose the winner for the evil tyrant race. Does it really matter which evil tyrant wins? No, not really, not in any matter of substance. Are you really willing to endorse your own destruction merely because you have a preference in the style of the evil tyrant?”

    Obama is not the problem. The President is the problem. Changing names and faces won’t change the office or the course of the nation.

    • Fiftycal says:

      The “big L, SMALL l” libertarian paryt could not organize a 2 car funeral procession. 1 percent of 30 percent is NOT a winning number. Give up trying to start at the TOP. Until you have a REALISTIC underpinning, in local and state government, getting “L”ibertarians elected to Congress and the White House is a PIPE dream, and yes, a lot of “L”ibertarians sole purpose is getting legal dope. So get back with me in 10-20 years when you have control of 5-10 state legislatures. Until then, remember NOT to piss INTO the wind.

      And YES, I’d take the “lesser of 2 evils”. To do otherwise is STOOPID and/or suicidal.

      • A Critic says:

        “And YES, I’d take the “lesser of 2 evils”. To do otherwise is STOOPID and/or suicidal.”

        There is no lesser of evils. That’s just a trick evil uses.

  6. A Critic says:

    and wow did I screw that post up.

  7. jtbolt says:

    “The economy would turn right around if we only re-instated those old timey anti-sodomy laws!”

    • There’s a big difference between “Lawrence was wrongly decided” and “we need sodomy laws.” Santorum has specifically rejected, for example, laws against contraception, even though he argues that Griswold was wrongly decided. (I would argue that it came to the right result, but by the wrong method–and later decisions based on Griswold even came to the wrong result.)

      • SDN says:

        Don’t confuse the anti-theists with facts, Clayton. Santorum’s an icky godbotherer and that’s all they need to know.

        That would be a knock on Romney too, except he’s proven there’s nothing he won’t sell out to be elected.

  8. Gene Hoffman says:

    Johnson is the first actually electable third party candidate in a long time. I suspect that’s why media and others in the political establishment have done what they can to boost Ron Paul. Otherwise, Governor Johnson would change the agenda just by being involved.

    Sadly, for those of you in swing states you gotta vote for the right Supreme Court and lower court judges. As a Californian whose state is going Obama no matter what I do, I’ll at least not have to hold my nose or take power from the gun rights movement when I vote for Johnson. I guess Mitt could win me over but Obamacare light just seems like FDR light…

    -Gene

    • Johnston is only electable if Americans suddenly turn libertarian. That’s not going to happen. At least living in California, you have the luxury of voting your conscience, knowing that it won’t make a dime’s worth of difference to removing the Zero from the White House.

    • Wolfman says:

      Heck, I actually voted for Nader the first time Bush won. They say doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity. Trying over and over to do something worth doing is also called persistence. ‘Watching Libertarians kid themselves for years’ is, in some ways, akin to the losses we took in the mid-90’s. Persistence has paid off for us in the Courts as well as in Congressional races. There’s a reason gun-rights are a third rail in politics; the weight we can throw around. We know that there are unreachable sectors of both parties. The only way to get another party involved would be to motivate people that had either given up on politics or never gotten involved. If Gary Johnson can be the face that pulls a few extra from both groups, the next run can be even stronger.

  9. BigHayden says:

    Ron Paul 2012!

    I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there.

  10. And don’t give me the Ron Paul crap.

    Perhaps I can interest you in voting for Cthulhu. If you’re going to vote evil why choose the lesser?

    In all seriousness though I don’t understand the whole, “We must beat Obama this time around!” when the other option being presented is… Obama. Let’s face it, Romney is basically white Obama with an ‘R’ behind his name instead of a ‘D.’ Having him as president would be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

    Personally I will not vote for Obama or Obama so if Paul doesn’t get the nomination (and it is still possible for him to win depending on the number of delegates he takes away) I’ll vote Johnson if I vote at all.

    • Sebastian says:

      I don’t get people who say he’s the White Obama either, to be honest. Romney is at least arguably a capitalist, which I can’t agree Obama definitely is. Romney is far from my ideal candidate, but he’s a sight better than the current occupant of the oval office.

      • I don’t get people who say he’s the White Obama either, to be honest.

        Fair enough, politics would be boring if any two people could agree on anything. I call Romney a white Obama because they have many very similar platforms. Both candidate are for government involvement in the healthcare market, in favor of foreign military interventionism, clueless when it comes to economic matters, claim to have fixes for our spend-happy government while providing no plans to actually fix the root problem of spending, and in favor of using the government’s monopoly on force to coerce people into actions they do not wish to take.

        You are right that Romney is arguable a capitalist, and I would argue he’s not. Romney has repeatedly support bailouts. Part of capitalism is the need for failing businesses to be liquidated so their assets and labor can be purchased by competent market actors. Supporting bailouts is another characteristic he shares with Obama and Obama’s predecesor.

        Of course we’ll likely have to agree to disagree on whether or not Romney is better than or the same as Obama. I will give Romney one thing and one thing only, I’d rather seem him get the Republican nomination than Santorum (although either one winning sends me off elsewhere so the distraction, I fully admit, is a moot point).

        • MicroBalrog says:

          It is not enough not to be an utter socialist.

          • Sebastian says:

            That’s what’s running. There isn’t a good candidate running. I have a choice between people who suck less, and who suck more.

          • Obama doesn’t fit the definition of a socialist very well, he more aptly fits the definition of a fascist.

            A socialist believes in the complete abolition of private ownership and handing over the means of production to the workers. Fascists believe in appropriation of private enterprise by the state, which is what the United States government is doing. The definition between the two can become blurred as socialists believe the state must first seize control of the means of production for the workers but after doing so must eliminate hierarchy (fascism has no such belief).

            During the General Motors bailout the government didn’t seize control and hand over the company in equal shares to the workers, it purchased a majority interest and maintained that interest, allowing it to call the shots. CEOs, managers, and other such hierarchal positions were never eliminated, which would be what socialists would advocate. Therefore it is much more accurate to call Obama, and Romney, fascists even though the term holds a stronger negative connotation and thus people are usually far less willing to use it.

            • Rob says:

              even though the term holds a stronger negative connotation and thus people are usually far less willing to use it.even though the term holds a stronger negative connotation and thus people are usually far less willing to use it.

              Or they use it incorrectly to mean capitalism or libertarianism, when it is much more accurate to call it “socialism lite.”

      • A Critic says:

        I don’t get people who say he’s the White Obama either, to be honest. Romney is at least arguably a capitalist, which I can’t agree Obama definitely is. Romney is far from my ideal candidate, but he’s a sight better than the current occupant of the oval office.

        That is an optical illusion/mass delusion. Romney is a fascist. So is Obama.

    • Wes says:

      “Perhaps I can interest you in voting for Cthulhu. If you’re going to vote evil why choose the lesser?”

      Nice1. I may have to steal that.

  11. Richard says:

    I am for whatever it takes for a deadlocked convention. That way there will be a 50-50 shot at getting someone I can vote for.

    Since, however, this is a gun blog and not an economics or social issues blog, I am constrained to point out that Romney has by far the worst record of anyone actually running on gun issues. And there is not a shred of evidence that his court picks will be any better than Obama’s. Look at his court picks when he was governor. And no excuses about MA being the most liberal state. It is but liberals outnumber conservatives by a whopping 1.4%. A littler leadership might go a long way toward fixing that.

    • Wes says:

      Hell, Romney’s record on guns is worse than Obama’s is!

    • Sebastian says:

      Romney’s record on guns isn’t that horrible, as we’ve pointed out. And his picks for SC stand a much better chance of being better than Obama’s, because he has to choose among the judges Republicans will find acceptable. People are quick to bring up the specter of Souter, but everyone thought Souter was conservative when he was nominated and confirmed. Presidents don’t have a whole lot of leeway on their choice of justices. Otherwise we’d be talking about Justice Harrier Meyers right now.

      Keep ind mind that in Massachusetts, Romney’s court picks are going to have to be confirmed by a legislature that’s somewhere a hair right of the Politburo, and some would argue the “a hair right” part.

      • Wes says:

        Mitt Romney: “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

        Sounds like a horrible gun-grabber to me.

  12. Wes says:

    Paul isn’t really a libertarian. He’s more a paleoconservative constitutionalist. (That “constitutionalist” part is the most important part since he’s the only candidate who actually is one.)

    So, let’s see, don’t vote for Obama, but instead vote for the guy who has a more gun-grabbing history than Obama and who supports the NDAA just like Obama? great plan.

    You know what the Oath Keepers call the NDAA? “Treason.”

  13. Wes says:

    I think anyone who thinks Paul is out of the race may not understand how the delegate process works. Those people might be in for quite a surprise in the coming months.

    • Fiftycal says:

      YAH! Paul has 18 delegates. Now he only needs 1022 MORE! I’ll bet with the RIGHTEOUS stance of the campaign he’ll sign them up by sooper Tuesday, right?

      • SDN says:

        Fiftycal, he’s referring to the Ronulans habit of running for delegate and LYING about who they’ll support because no one would vote for them if they knew they were Ronulan. Dishonesty is the Ronulan way.

        • Wes says:

          Not at all. In fact, Paul’s campaign manager went on national TV recently and straight-out explained it all. He also explained how the election has been rigged for Mitt Romney with moving up certain states’ dates, etc.

  14. Richard says:

    And Romney’s statements on social issues are almost the same as Santorum’s. It is just everyone thinks Santorum is telling the truth about his position while everyone thinks Romney is lying.

  15. Fiftycal says:

    Yah, and ObamMAO is an F-, gun grabber extrodinaire! You’d rather have him?

    • Wes says:

      Who has signed a gun-banning bill so far, Obama, or Mitt Romney? Pretty sure the answer is Mitt Romney.

      • Richard says:

        Not saying that Romney’s gun positions are inferior to Obama’s though it is unclear that they are superior either. However, I remind you that the President is one (albeit powerful) player in a dynamic system and the overall effect of a Romney presidency could well be worse than 4 more years. At least Republicans would resist Obama for partisan reasons. And Sebastian, you use the MA liberal defense without refuting my point that it was invalid. And the country needs a real conservative/libertarian party for which we we can just forget about with Romney.

        • Roping Down says:

          Agree. We let third party votes lead to Clinton. Then the Huckabee voted pulled down Romney in the primaries. We need to back a candidate who can win because the secondary effects you referred to are very important. Backing lost causes leads to even more causes lost.

          • Wes says:

            People like to blame Perot for Bush 1 losing, but let’s remember he didn’t do himself any favors with things like “Read My Lips.” He got absolutely hammered on that.

            I was watching some talking-head show recently, and they were talking about how if Ron Paul ran third party, (everyone calm down, he has no plans to do so), that he would arguably take more voted away from Obama than from the Republican candidate.

            There’s a lot of previous-Obama-supporters out there who are ticked to hell at him for continuing so many of Bush’s policies. And then he signs the NDAA. Make no mistake, the NDAA pisses people off in both main parties.

            Hillary supporters used to be super-pissed at him for in their opinion playing dirty. I don’t know if making her Sec of State appeased them or not.

  16. A Critic says:

    That’s what’s running. There isn’t a good candidate running. I have a choice between people who suck less, and who suck more.

    Think outside the box of lies they feed you. Why don’t you vote for Bitter? If you start campaigning now she can get at least a couple hundred votes in the main election, and that way you won’t be endorsing your own destruction.

    • Bitter says:

      Because I’m not running, and I wouldn’t run even if asked. Besides, you just insulted me as a woman since I’m not even old enough to run.

    • Fiftycal says:

      YEAH! A “couple of hundred votes”. And you would FEEL so much better! Of course it would be a MEANINGLESS display. Why not just move to N. Korea and you wouldn’t have to make all those “choices”. I know it’s hard to have to make a decision based on reality, but that’s all there is. No “blue” pill to take. THis is the only life we have.

  17. Wes says:

    I’m surprised Romney gets more praise here than Santorum. Santorum is more pro-gun. He probably would sign the NDAA, but when asked about it he does hem and haw so maybe there is a little hope there. I haven’t looked at their budget plans in a while, but I think Santorum is way ahead on how much spending he wants to cut. He is against TARP and bailouts.

    Negatives: He’s for the Patriot Act, probably/possibly/maybe for NDAA, likes TSA, is unfair on wanting to only give big tax cuts to manufacturing and other pet causes of his, he has a gay and bedroom problem.

    On a subjective, gut-feeling level, I think Mitt is the more “honest” guy of the two, for what that’s worth. Santorum is also more of a hot head, which I would think is worrisome internationally, but so many fake “conservatives” can’t wait to blow up other countries anyway and start more Vietnam Wars, so they probably see that as a positive.

    Romney has Paul Ryan talking nice about his budget plan, which is scary since Paul Ryan is a big-government clown who epitomizes what is wrong with the GOP.

    Anyway, I’m a bit surprised that, between the two, Romney gets the nod over Santorum, especially on a gun blog.

  18. St Mark says:

    The problem with LP and Ron Paul supporter is they rather see GOP fail then to see Liberals lose. Instead of trying to help and move GOP toward a more libertarian standpoint, they rather see them just fail and burn.

    Reason being: GOP is a flawed version of their Libertarian Utopia.

    • Wes says:

      That is incorrect. Ron Paul supporters would like to see the current incarnations of BOTH parties fail.

      hahaha. That’s a joke. Mostly.

      If RP supporters would rather see the GOP fail instead of seeing liberals lose like you say, they wouldn’t (mostly) be in the Republican Party voting Republican.

      And I wouldn’t say it’s even about moving the GOP more libertarian. While that would be nice, at this point it’s simply more about moving the GOP back to actually being conservative.

      The current GOP claims to be conservative; so many supporters claim to be conservative. But they’re not. What they are is full of crap. They can’t wait to fight the next undeclared Vietnam War, they pass the Patriot Act and NDAA, they spend almost as much money as liberals do… there’s nothing conservative about that.

      Take that clown Paul Ryan. (please!) This “small-government conservative” supports TARP, Patriot Act, NDAA, bans your choice to gamble online, proposes a budget that doesn’t balance the budget until the year 2063. Half the people reading this will be dead before the budget is balanced under the Ryan plan! He’s considered to be some kind of poster boy for the “small-government conservative” GOP, when in reality he’s a friggin’ joke.

      Ron Paul isn’t really libertarian anyway. He’s more just a constitutionalist. You know, that thing the “small-government conservative” GOP pretends they care about but only do when it suits them.

  19. Jay says:

    I’m not sure about the notion that Libertarians are a small minority, unless you mean card carrying party members. Part of that has to do with restrictive ballot access laws in states such as Oklahoma.

    At any rate a pretty good chunk of the electorate skews “little l” libertarian, as noted by a Cato paper from a couple years back:

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11152

    “We find that 14 percent of American voters can be classified as libertarian. Other surveys find a larger number of people who hold views that are neither consistently liberal nor conservative but are best described as libertarian. A 2009 Gallup poll found that 23 percent held libertarian views. A Zogby poll found that 59 percent considered themselves “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” and 44 percent agreed that they were “fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian.”

    • The 14% and 23% numbers are pretty accurate counts of libertarian sentiment. Many people are “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” but not at a libertarian level of consistency.

      Ask Americans if they support legalizing marijuana, and many say yes. Ask them about meth, cocaine, or heroin, and overwhelmingly, they say no. Ask Americans if sodomy should be illegal, and overwhelmingly they say no. Ask them if same-sex marriage should be recognized, and they say no.

  20. chris says:

    Any third party vote is a vote for Obama. We may not like the cheeseball the stupid party is going to run but we CAN”T take another 4 years of butthead!

  21. Wes says:

    In case you missed a thorough going over of Santorum’s record.
    http://www.dailypaul.com/213706/time-to-take-down-santorums-disguise

    “But Santorum’s voting record is overwhelmingly inconsistent with the campaign propaganda that comes out of his mouth.
    Santorum is not remotely a conservative or a defender of freedom.
    He is a big government, “Show-me-the-money” LOBBYIST. Period. End of story.”

  22. Wes says:

    Possible voter fraud (or just plain incompetence) in Maine. Includes eyewitness testimony.
    http://www.fox19.com/story/16937227/reality-check-was-there-voter-fraud-in-maine

top