Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

If Mitt Romney wins...

rated by 0 users
This post has 22 Replies | 5 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 20
Points 640
MDay1985 Posted: Wed, Feb 15 2012 5:26 PM

If Mitt Romney wins, what can he do, if anything, to receive your vote? A certain policy promise? A certain VP pick?

 

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Thu, Feb 16 2012 12:32 AM
Hahaha he is not trustworthy, so nothing he does will make a difference. He could learn austrian philosophy and post on the mises.org forums, thats about it. And I still probably couldnt trust him enough to VOTE for him.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
John James replied on Thu, Feb 16 2012 12:42 AM

That's actually a pretty good question.  I'm not sure if there is anything he can do, aside from become a completely different person.  Although, then again, the fact that he's already done that so many times is a large part of the problem.

But ultimately "Romney is an echo, not a choice when it comes to Obama".  So if Romney is the Republican nominee, I'd just assume have Obama preside over the coming collapse.  At least then it can't blamed on "Republicans and their free market nonsense".  (Although, they'll still try that, as the R's will probably take over Congress.)

Honestly, now that I think about it, that would actually not be a bad consolation prize should Ron Paul not become President.  Basically it's the best possible alternative: political gridlock between a Democrat Executive and Republican Congress.  As long as the Constitutionally-minded Justices can hang on for 4 more years until a Rand Paul presidency, that may actually be the best scenario.

The last thing this country needs is Obama-but-with-an-"R"-by-his-name so that all the statists can claim "yeah things were bad when Obama was around, but he inherited that from Bush.  At least he was able to keep it together.  The minute another Republican gets into office, it all gets even worse!"

It would be worth dealing with that if it were Ron Paul in the White House.  The impact he could have would be astronomically larger than any negative impression that could come from blaming a worse economy on him.  And the more effective he is at minimizing the interference by government, the quicker things would genuinely get better...probably even before re-election time.  With a majority Republican Congress, I wouldn't be surprised if a Ron Paul-led White House could even get some repeals passed.  Not to mention all the lives that would immediately be saved and pulled out of harm's way (as Congress isn't even needed for that).

 

If it comes down to the Presidential election and Ron Paul is no longer in the race, I probably won't vote for President (or just write him in)...but I may have just given Ron Paul supporters a (at least somewhat) legitimate reason to vote Obama.

 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Thu, Feb 16 2012 8:40 AM

the R's will probably take over Congress

Why do you think so?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290
No2statism replied on Thu, Feb 16 2012 10:00 AM

I'm not going to vote when the primary comes up and I'm also not going to vote in the general election.  I do think obama is a lesser poison than Willard but I could never support either.

I'm not going to vote because they'll probably count my vote as a vote for Romney.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Wheylous:

the R's will probably take over Congress

Why do you think so?

Because I consider more things than just an RCP poll average.

For one thing, the Republicans have a supermajority in the House.  They would need to have a loss of at least 25 seats to become a minority.  That's not likely.  Especially when you consider they gained 62 seats in 2010.  The public can be capricious, but I doubt that capricious.  Especially when even after that election there remained a Democrat White House and Senate.

For another thing, there are more than twice the number of Democrats as Republicans in the Senate whose terms will be up (plus another two Independents who caucus with Democrats).

For yet another, at least 9 of those races are taking place in purple states (where there is currently one Republican Senator and one Democrat Senator).  In seven of those races it is the Democrat whose term is ending.

I also think the mood of the country is there.  There's been a Democrat Congress since 2007.  Obviously once a Democrat got in the White House for the trifecta, the backlash was instantaneous, and they lost the House the very next election.  While it does seem the Tea Party has lost a great deal of momentum, I'm not quite sure it's finished yet.  Aside from the taking over in the House, the R's gained 6 seats in the Senate (not enough for a majority obviously, but there may not have been enough potential seats open, I'm not sure.)

There's certainly no crystal ball, but even just going by numbers alone, I'd say the probability is pretty good that the Republicans will not lose 25 seats in the House, and will gain 4 seats in the Senate.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Thu, Feb 16 2012 5:13 PM

There's been a Democrat Congress since 2007

I had almost forgotten that. I bet most people would not even remember that Obama did preside over a Democratic Congress.

With the abundance of articles coming out "good economic news strengthens Obama reelection chances", I think people might commit a correlation/causation fallacy and vote Obama in again.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Wheylous:
With the abundance of articles coming out "good economic news strengthens Obama reelection chances", I think people might commit a correlation/causation fallacy and vote Obama in again.

a) that's kind of the idea.  You didn't think all the "QE" business was just for the purpose of introducing a catchy term, did you?  The whole point is to keep things together at least till the next election.  Wenzel called the bull stock market quite a while ago.

b) this assumes the plan will work and rates (or inflation) won't rise beyond the edges of the rug they've been sweeping it under

c) this as essentially no real bearing on Congressional elections, as this "good economic news" would be under a split Congress, so one can't say which way people would lean...they could easily say "hey things were really bad under a Democrat Congress, and once the R's took over the House things started to turn around."

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Sun, Mar 4 2012 4:55 AM

At best, we can hope for a Ron Paul vice-presidency.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Sun, Mar 4 2012 10:14 AM

John James:
The last thing this country needs is Obama-but-with-an-"R"-by-his-name so that all the statists can claim "yeah things were bad when Obama was around, but he inherited that from Bush.  At least he was able to keep it together.  The minute another Republican gets into office, it all gets even worse!"

That's not a bad point.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Sun, Mar 4 2012 10:18 AM

Anenome:
At best, we can hope for a Ron Paul vice-presidency.

I'd actually prefer a Rand Paul VP. I like Ron better, but if Mitt does win, it's probably going to be eight years before his VP can use his position to launch a presidential campaign. Ron is just too old at this point. Rand might be better for us.

But this is probably all pie in the sky anyway.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Mar 5 2012 12:27 AM

gocrew:

Anenome:
At best, we can hope for a Ron Paul vice-presidency.

I'd actually prefer a Rand Paul VP. I like Ron better, but if Mitt does win, it's probably going to be eight years before his VP can use his position to launch a presidential campaign. Ron is just too old at this point. Rand might be better for us.

Repubs don't generally elect VPs into the Presidency. It's better used as a position of influence for ideological growth than anything else. For that reason, Ron Paul is perfect for it. He'd be able to travel the country making speeches, and would have a large amount of influence, potentially, on Republican political establishments.

Rand Paul is too young and unknown at this point. He too needs to run for governor if President is his ambition. Becoming a VP would probably end his ability to become a president.

It's all academic in the end tho. It will still be nigh impossible to defeat Obama this election. I suppose it's better for the country to go down in a blaze of glory than a long drawn out end :P Imagine if the dems win re-election both this time with Obama and again after him O_O

That would be truly frightening.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Mon, Mar 5 2012 8:33 AM

Repubs don't generally elect VPs into the Presidency.

Two of the last five Republican presidents were VP's first.

 

Rand Paul is too young and unknown at this point.

Something that would quickly change if he were a VP candidate.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Something that would quickly change if he were a VP candidate.

His Civil Rights Act comments are a bit damning.

Imagine if the dems win re-election both this time with Obama and again after him O_O

Actually, fears of doom are probably overblown. We made it out of the 70s, didn't we?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Mon, Mar 5 2012 8:52 AM

His Civil Rights Act comments are a bit damning.

Sure, but that's not what we're talking about.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 274
Points 5,675

That's actually a pretty good question.  I'm not sure if there is anything he can do, aside from become a completely different person.  Although, then again, the fact that he's already done that so many times is a large part of the problem.

But ultimately "Romney is an echo, not a choice when it comes to Obama".  So if Romney is the Republican nominee, I'd just assume have Obama preside over the coming collapse.  At least then it can't blamed on "Republicans and their free market nonsense".  (Although, they'll still try that, as the R's will probably take over Congress.)

Honestly, now that I think about it, that would actually not be a bad consolation prize should Ron Paul not become President.  Basically it's the best possible alternative: political gridlock between a Democrat Executive and Republican Congress.  As long as the Constitutionally-minded Justices can hang on for 4 more years until a Rand Paul presidency, that may actually be the best scenario.

The last thing this country needs is Obama-but-with-an-"R"-by-his-name so that all the statists can claim "yeah things were bad when Obama was around, but he inherited that from Bush.  At least he was able to keep it together.  The minute another Republican gets into office, it all gets even worse!"

It would be worth dealing with that if it were Ron Paul in the White House.  The impact he could have would be astronomically larger than any negative impression that could come from blaming a worse economy on him.  And the more effective he is at minimizing the interference by government, the quicker things would genuinely get better...probably even before re-election time.  With a majority Republican Congress, I wouldn't be surprised if a Ron Paul-led White House could even get some repeals passed.  Not to mention all the lives that would immediately be saved and pulled out of harm's way (as Congress isn't even needed for that).

 

If it comes down to the Presidential election and Ron Paul is no longer in the race, I probably won't vote for President (or just write him in)...but I may have just given Ron Paul supporters a (at least somewhat) legitimate reason to vote Obama.

 

There's always Gary Johnson.

Anyhow, Ron Paul himself can't do everything. The libertarian movement needs to be far longer lasting and self sufficient; if it literally all comes down to a single 73 year old doctor with self-admitted flaws, then we aren't going anywhere. Spreading the ideas is far more important in the long run than winning an election or two.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290

@ My Buddy:  I don't think Gary Johnson is the right man for the liberty movement.  If I'm not mistaken, Lew Rockwell already said that he would be the least libertarian LP nominee ever.  There was Bob Barr, but Gary Johnson isn't a confederalist either.  The fact that he's not an Austrian shows that his economic policies would have too many flaws to them.  He boasted that he privatized prisons as Governor of NM and that's nothing to be proud about.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580

I think most Ron Paul voters will not vote for anyone else.  So that 20-30% republican voting block will pretty much be gone for the general election.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Do note: Ron Paul supporters are NOT 20-30% of the voting block for republicans.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Mar 6 2012 4:49 PM

No2statism:
He boasted that he privatized prisons as Governor of NM and that's nothing to be proud about.

It probably cost him all his political capital to achieve it though. THat's the problem with politics, even the most insignificant reform is damned near impossible.

Which is why I support political separation over an attempt to arrest the momentum of the US. I'll start my own floating country. The US debt will come crushing down long before we can expect any kind of philosophic revolution among the populace. Do you really want to be there when it happens if there were a viable, free alternative?

I know there's no one now, but I intend to rectify that in due course.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Hey, if you find a way to make millions of (2010) dollars, let me know.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 468
Points 8,085
Wibee replied on Tue, Mar 6 2012 10:10 PM

Why not Zoidberg? 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 391
Points 6,975

@No2Statism

I'd disagree. Johnson is no Ron Paul, but he seems genuine in his support for many libertarian propositions. Given time I think he could become much more important in advocating for libertarianism in the mainstream. I admit though that I am a bit dissapointed he defected to the libertarian party. I liked to use him as something of a 'gateway' libertarian with those friends of mine who were hesitant to listen to Paul. 

I hope he returns to the Republican party after the elections. At least I think he'd be more useful in spreading the message there. He's still fairly young, so who knows? He might be able to launch a better Presidential campaign later on, or even be part of a Rand Paul campaign. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (23 items) | RSS