Skip to main content

Mitt Romney gives everyone not voting for Barack Obama the perfect excuse to vote for Gary Johnson

I read Betsy's page like I read a lot of other aggregator pages:  whether  you accept their political ideology or not, they often give you quick gateways into posts of interest that you would never otherwise have seen.

Betsy is a Republican, obviously, and interested in pro-Romney, anti-Obama sites, and that's why it is so telling to find this comment on the Romney 47% gaffe:
I have to say that my first reaction to reading and hearing this video was the same as Josh Barro, Romney just lost the election. He's already behind and fighting the image that he's too rich to relate to average people. Saying that these people regard themselves as victims and so won't support him just comes off as contemptuous.
First reactions are often exactly right on target.  Although I also subscribe to the point she makes later that these gaffes are rarely as decisive as opponents would like (remember Obama and the "bitter clingers" comment), I think this one is pretty devastating, especially in the battleground states.

Which brings me to my chief point:  if it settles out that this gives Obama a pretty solid 4-5% lead, then that situation pretty much guts the argument that you shouldn't vote for Gary Johnson because you could throw the election to President Obama.

Romney will have already done that for us.

What remains is the opportunity to make a statement of principle that Libertarians and libertarian-minded Americans are rejecting a two-party system that locks us into only two choices and gives us a four-month gotcha orgy that has nothing to do with discussing the issues.

All you moderate Republicans out there, all you independents who are socially tolerant and fiscally prudent, guess what?  If the election has well and truly been thrown to President Obama, then it's time to sent that principled message by voting for Gary Johnson.

Because that will now be the only way you are NOT throwing your vote away.

Comments

Anonymous said…
http://youtu.be/FP69507fTKY
Unknown said…
Given the current make up of the state of Delaware, is it any wonder which candidate will win the electoral votes? That being said, a vote for Romney is a wasted vote anyway. Why waste it? Vote on principle and vote Gary Johnson because, Romney has no chance of winning DE anyway...
anonone said…
Vote Green Party. Johnson is just another sore-loser republican.
JFlee said…
Will you vote for Gary Johnson? http://celebrity-plugs.com/t/
tom said…
No offense intended, JFlee, but your Butt-Plug comments while cute the first time around, and A1's (who probably ought to buy one--offense intended) "sore loser" mantra are becoming really tedious.

Since you are not adding anything new to the conversation, perhaps you could self-censor after the 3rd or 4th repetition so Steve doesn't have to do it for you.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...