Re: Why Obama Might Actually Be the Second Best Choice

John James — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 00:59:36 GMT

I think it's inevitable. Even if a Republican wins this year, I don't see the Paul support going away. Even after 2008 it didn't even go dormant. That's what the Campaign for Liberty was all about.

And as was mentioned here, the tipping point may have already been crossed. And given another 4-8 years, the support will have only grown (look at Paul campaign 2008 versus today)...plus, these current supporters (especially the young ones) will be that much more mature, that much more refined, that much more independently wealthy, and that much more influential in industry and politics.

Re: Why Obama Might Actually Be the Second Best Choice

No2statism — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 00:07:24 GMT

Obama isn't as bad as Romney. Despite their rhetoric, the Democrats have pretty much always been less statist than their Republican successors. Compare Carter to Reagan and Clinton to Bush 43.

I see no reason for anyone to doubt that Romney would spend more than Obama would.

The good thing about Obama is that he just doesn't have the brains to fuck things up quite like Lincoln and Wilson did. At least he doesn't seem to.

I hope Double J is right about the younger Dr. Paul though. His voting record hasn't been as good as his father's from what I've heard and I've also heard that he's not as into hard money as his father. However, that doesn't mean he couldn't be the Harding to Obama's Wilson as Harding (as Senator) voted for WWI but then cleared out most of the smoke left by Wilson.

Re: Why Obama Might Actually Be the Second Best Choice

gotlucky — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:50:51 GMT

All good points. There are a couple of things I think the libertarian movement needs:

1) More John Stossels

2) A politician with the charisma and speaking ability of Nigel Farage

Until then, let the Democrats take the blame.

Why Obama Might Actually Be the Second Best Choice

John James — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:10:43 GMT

I can't say I disagree with the notion of voting for "Ron Paul or no one".

Even putting moral and political principles aside (that is, assuming you are able to bring yourself to actually vote for a wargmongering criminal statist because you think he's "the lessor of two evils")...

First of all, I think virtually everyone can agree there's basically no way Dick Scamtorum or Noot the lizard would beat Obama. It's just not going to happen. Even just going by current polling data, it doesn't look good for them. But on top of that you can go in and analyze the characteristics of what either of those matchups would look like, and it's even worse.

So the only one other than Paul who has a shot at beating Obama is Romney. And I'm not sure if there is anything even the nice-looking guy "from the private sector" can do to win Ron Paul supporters, aside from become a completely different person. Although, then again, the fact that he's already become a different person so many times is a large part of his problem.

But ultimately "Romney is an echo, not a choice when it comes to Obama". So if Romney is the Republican nominee, I can't say I wouldn't 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 (i.e. any of the GOP nominees who isn't Ron Paul) 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 kind of backlash 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).

But think, if Romney ends up as President, there's by and large no difference between him and Obama fundamentally. He'll grow government, continue the wars (and probably start more), increase the police state, and of course continue the cozy relationship between Wall Street and White House. (Again, look at Romney's top contributors. Seriously. Just look at it. Anyone who thinks anything would change with Romney as President is delusional.)

So basically you've got Obama anyway, but he'll be part of the Republican Party that will have control of Congress...so they'll be able to get a lot more "done" (i.e. more laws passed...more money spent...more people killed)...and it will basically take away any chance for a Rand Paul run for at least another 8 years (as, an incumbent will obviously run for re-election in the next cycle, preventing any sort of GOP primary.)

At least if Obama stays in office:

a) He'll have a Republican Congress against him, making it harder for anything to get passed (from either party...which is virtually always a good thing)

b) He'll be the most visible figure in government, and presiding when things get even worse...so the blame won't be able to be placed on "Republicans and their free market ideas"

Obviously it's not ideal, but if Ron Paul isn't President, that may very well be the next best alternative available.

General

Re: Why Obama Might Actually Be the Second Best Choice

Re: Why Obama Might Actually Be the Second Best Choice

Re: Why Obama Might Actually Be the Second Best Choice

Why Obama Might Actually Be the Second Best Choice