Planned topic for today’s “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard”: Earlier this week the Libertarian party sent out an e-mail, bragging,”Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson Could Deprive Mitt Romney of 5 battleground states, 74 Electoral Votes, 27% of the Electoral Votes needed to win in 2012.” Bosch and I think it’s therefore the perfect time to start what we’re calling our “Intervention for Gary Johnson Voters” series. We will, in the coming weeks, be bringing you stories that show what it will be like if Obama is elected for another term. Listeners can then decide whether helping to bring this about is something they want to do — or brag about doing. Join in live, call in or participate in the chat room if you can!
Reference: Libertarian Party eyes spoiler role in 2012 race (HT Ken Gardner)
Sunday’s live show, and then later the archive recording, can be accessed here.
To access the show page at BlogTalk Radio, which will allow you to check out a past episode, or to subscribe to the recorded archives via iTunes and other services, use this link.
To access the new iTunes store page for “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard,” where you can find past episodes, subscribe, and leave ratings and reviews (pretty please!), use this link.
Don't Let It Go 
The thing is, we could just as easily cost Obama the election as well. If Gov. Johnson is allowed on the debate stage he’ll be coming at Obama from the left on civil liberties which is something Romney can’t do. Due to having prior been a Republican very few on the left know about him yet (which is why polls currently show him taking from the right by a slight margin). It’s in the GOP’s best interest to have him on stage. If that happens he’ll do one of two things, take more from Obama or actually have a shot at winning outright.
You don’t have to take my word for it the ACLU’s Director asked him to spoiler question where Obama was concerned due to his social stances.
Both sides claim that a vote for Johnson is a vote for the other candidate. It really is alarming that they are in such agreement.
The day I vote Mitt Romney is the day I lose all remaining respect for myself. Maybe this country needs to go down faster instead of slower?
Obama 267
Romney 266
Gary Johnson 5
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=slR
I voted for Nixon, motivated by Ayn Rand’s arguments. I have regretted doing so for my entire life. Don’t make the same mistake.
Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are champions of individual rights. But, to employ an invalid distinction, why, in the current context, are economic issues more important than civil liberties? At this point I am undecided in the election, but I am open to persuasion. I think this country might survive 4 more years of Obama. His policies are fairly easy to dismantle. There are intelligent proposals for phasing out social security, medicare, etc., given the political will. This is not the case for policies on the right. I am not aware of a coherent analysis for dismantling the intimate ties between the government and the financial sector, for example; Alan Greenspan certainly didn’t know how to do it. The current global financial framework makes this even more difficult. If Romney is elected I’m not sure this country can survive strengthening the bonds of crony capitalism and handing over civil liberties to the religious right. You haven’t made the case for why Romney is better than Obama.
You have to show why Obama’s policies are bad and worse than Romney’s. Glibly throwing around the word “nihilism” to describe leftist policies isn’t going to work; it’s just name calling. You haven’t made the case.
“Glibly”? I’ve made the case in many prior shows. Can’t do everything in one hour…
“I think this country might survive 4 more years of Obama.” You mean in the sense that Greece might survive, too? They’re just further along down the same path.
I am deeply troubled by Peikoff’s support of Romney and Ryan. Even if you overlook her politicizing in choosing a candidate that is more likely to win, the sad truth is that Obama will win even if we sacrifice the integrity of Objectivists to support Romney.
Romney can’t seem to put his mouth quickly enough and as much as I despise his policy I have to admit Obama has the able rhetoric to attract an easy majority. I only see the gap between Romney and Obama widening, and see no benefit in trying to help Republicans who can’t even help themselves.
Amy Peikoff in her own Podcast admits that Johnson would be a better candidate. I’m glad we’re in agreement, but that’s not the best reason to vote for him. A vote for Johnson speaks loudly as a vote AGAINST the two party system that we have had for years. Republicans and Democrats both increase the size of government and merely vary in the style in which they do it.
Johnson 2012
My question is why I should vote for Romney if I live in a state that is solid one way or the other? I personally live in the deep south, and my state has not voted for a Democrat since Carter. Why should I not vote for Johnson under these circumstances?
Each State Delegation in the US house and senate will only get 1 vote for President and VP if 270 electoral votes are not achieved in the general election. Small states will have the same weight as large states.
Harold
http://robertringer.com/roberts-insights/saving-america-romney-style/
Now, back to reality and the possibility that what we may be facing after November 6 is not Romney-Ryan tinkering around the edges, but, rather, a permanent Der Fuhrbama dictatorship. Take your choice: quick death or slow, agonizing death. How great it is to live in a free country.
If there is no chance whatsoever of Romney winning anyway, why should anyone compromise their integrity by voting for such an evil?
That’s my feeling exactly. Aside from the integrity issue, I feel Objectivists lose their voice in politics when they blend in with Republican supporters when it comes to voting.
I presume, in the interest of objectivity, you will also be “bringing stories that show what it will be like” if Ryan/Romney is elected, to have a go at us? Since the only clear and uncompromising plank in their platform has to do with the internal sexual organs of the female body, it should be rather easy to concoct, and perhaps even of salacious appeal (thereby attracting a larger audience–including many of the devoutly religious, sexually repressed).
The worst result of a Romney victory would be that in 4 years when Romney predictably leaves things in shambles, the electorate would say “see, small government doesn’t work!”
TOM WROTE: The worst result of a Romney victory would be that in 4 years [should we survive so long] when Romney predictably leaves things in shambles, the electorate would say “see, small government doesn’t work!”
AND I RESPOND: Perhaps so–and: The best result of a B.O. victory would be that in 4 years (should we survive so long) when B.O. predictably leaves things in shambles, the electorate would say “See, big government INDUBITABLY doesn’t work.”
But then, we will need to find a GENUINE small-government champion who ALSO respects individual rights. (The two types are by no means necessarily synonymous–and Ryan/Romney are, of course, neither.)
True enough an Obama win will hopefully leave the country fatigued after four years of an ever growing nanny state. Personally I believe that our big chance comes in 2016, when the immensely popular Obama is no longer eligible and the field is much more open.
Well, it’s idle speculation–but I suspect we are FORTY years from a tolerable government, and not four. (Should we survive so long.) (Come to that, I know for a fact that I won’t–regardless of Obamacare, or Romneycare, or Ryancare: pick your poison.)
My estimate of the “ease” of concocting a Ryan/Romney scenario for a four-year stretch needs, I have to admit, serious revision. In fact, it would be nearly impossible to do—requiring a fathoming of the unfathomable. The sole uncompromising precept in the Republican agenda surely wouldn’t consume the entire term (would it?); so the time would be spent on other “efforts” as well. And those could be practically anything imaginable—ranging from the overtly capitalistic, to pure communism, and anything in between. There’s simply no telling. And therefore, no tale can be told.
But the story is otherwise, with B.O.
And the difference between the two cases is an argument in B.O.’s “favor”—the principle being: Know Thy Enemy.
This is not that difficult. If Obama represents something beyond the norm of the liberal, predatory, welfare state (something nihilistic), then a case can be made for voting AGAINST Obama and for anyone who has a chance of beating him. It’s a short reprieve, and a hope that Romney/Ryan will at least slow the malignant growth of the state.
If you believe that Obama is no worse than say, Bill Clinton, and that Romney is another Bush, you can make the case for voting for Johnson, in that as Libertarian candidates go, he’s pretty damn good.
Ms. Peikoff is simply articulating the former case (and quite persuasively, I think). All elections are tagged as “historic” by some group or another. They aren’t. The question is, is this one?
Remember, Clinton did not hate capitalism. He wanted it to thrive so he could take more $ to harvest votes. He believed he could make capitalism benevolent. Obama, on the other hand, seems to genuinely hate the mechanisms of free enterprise and unfettered human interaction. That’s a different (and uglier) beast altogether.
But it IS “that difficult.” No one seems to put much importance on the Republicans’ willingness—eagerness, even—to outlaw abortion. I consider it to be of enormous importance.
I am haunted by Ayn Rand’s comment in a question-and-answer session, about Ronald Reagan: to wit, that if he, Reagan, could not even understand “THAT fundamental a right” (i.e., a woman’s right to abortion)—then he could have no grasp of rights, as such. And his trumpeting about economic and property rights and national defense and all the rest could not, therefore, be taken seriously. And “Who is Ronald Reagan?” remained an unanswerable question—rendering him an unknown enemy.
As I commented in another forum, the “abortion issue” does not begin and end with abortion; a politician’s opposition to it—although it alone is bad enough—is suggestive of a multitude of other potential transgressions: those willing to assume control over such an intimate matter will be willing to assume control over anything. And I would not place an ounce of trust or “hope” in such mentalities. They are deadly menaces—and are worse, in my book, than an avowed Communist (unless, of course, the Commie is of the same antiabortionist persuasion).
If the Republicans would disavow their anti-abortionism, and recognize a woman’s right to her own internal reproductive organs, I would vote for and indeed actively campaign for them, in a heartbeat (even despite their warmed-over socialism).
But they will never do that. They would sooner disband their party.
Ask yourself why.
In the end, they are deadly serious about it. And so should we be.
If you want to be a single-issue voter, that’s fine. But you will run afoul of those who see the election differently. It does no good to lecture those who vote AGAINST Obama about the horrible positions held by Romney; we already know this. The question is whether this election calls for a strategic stance to keep a certain candidate out of office.
Imagine: Huckabee vs Bill Clinton. I could claim that Clinton will end gun rights in the USA. Perhaps he wants to. But he won’t and he can’t. Just as Bush Sr. and Jr. did nothing regarding abortion but tinker with the margins (partial birth and federal funding).
Gary Johnson is one of the saner people who has ever run for President in this country. Paul Ryan is one of the saner (economics-minded) persons to appear on a presidential ticket in recent memory. Neither of these facts matter much. Either we NEED to vote out Obama as a measure of self-defense, or this is just another Clinton vs Dole. If you think the latter, then you can base everything around a single issue. If you think the former, this election is a no-brainer.
Personally, I’d vote for one of the Manson girls if it meant Obama had to move out of the White House. I think he’s that bad. Could Romney surprise us? Be another Bush? Be only marginally better than Obama and pave the way for another Obama? Absolutely. This could blow up in our faces. In which case you can get a bumper sticker that says “I Didn’t Vote For Either of Them.”
I’ll humbly eat crow at that time. But for now, I’m gonna roll the dice, ’cause we don’t have a lot of good options.
Anti-abortionism is not a “single issue.” That’s my (main) point–which I suppose bears repeating: ‘[T]he “abortion issue” does not begin and end with abortion; a politician’s opposition to it—although it alone is bad enough—is suggestive of a multitude of other potential transgressions: those willing to assume control over such an intimate matter will be willing to assume control over anything.” …. With “anything” including–ANYthing: guns, monies, property, speech, and all other parts of everyone’s bodies. A politician who even pays lip service to assuming direct control over the tissues INSIDE OF the individual bodies of the electorate is simply beyond the pale (and, quite possibly–demented).
That this does not immediately disqualify such a creature from consideration for an office charged with executing laws at gunpoint is–I say–evidence of how far our subjugation has now proceeded.