Off Topic Board

No single vote has any influence. I'd rather be a part of supporting Gary Johnson, who while far from perfect, would at least subscribe to a governing philosophy fairly close to my own as president than for Mitt Romney. I could list all the things I don't like about Mitt Romney, but it would take up too much space and time, so I'll refrain. Gary Johnson represents opposition to Barack Obama's policies far more than Romney does. At best, Romney is Obama lite.

As for the Reagan comparison, 1) Romney is no Reagan 2) Reagan has been mythologized by the right to a great extent, and even if Romney were to replicate his policies to a T, there's a lot of stuff I'd dislike about it 3) I think Reagan's accomplishments had more to do with his ability to be the "Great Communicator" and sell his ideas to the people and Congress than the percentage of vote he got in the election (which was just barely over 50% in 1980. Obama by the same metric had more of a mandate) and 4) Romney's not winning in a landslide. This is going to be a close election. That is reality

I agree that we should acknowledge reality. Gary Johnson won't win. And Mitt Romney is never going to be the True Conservative you wish he was. If he turns out to prove me wrong, I'll give you credit Greg. But I'm pretty certain that if he wins, you'll be the one having to defend your vote for the next four years.

I don't need Romney to be a great Conservative. I want him to steer us back in a more Conservative direction than we currently are. I own a business, and work with a wide variety of business people every day. I see the absolutely horrible impact from Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Frank/Dodd/et al, with an unbelievable destruction of wealth, business, employment, home values, etc. It HAS to be stopped, and not just through more "hope & change", dreaming that voting for Gary Johnson will somehow lead to change decades down the road. You don't believe there is the potential for a mandate. I do. I see Romney in MUCH better shape than Reagan was in as of October 1980, and I see all the conditions coming together for dramatic disappointment in Obama and all that could come along with that as far as the election. I would LOVE to see Romney coming in and being Conservative, and I honestly believe the chances of him being more Conservative than you are worried about are better than the converse.

But weighing the pros and cons, I don't even see how it is a question as to where our votes are best placed. On one side, an outpouring of popular support can actually influence him in the right direction, beyond even just getting him elected.

A vote for Johnson, or not voting at all, IMO, results in ZERO impact, now or in the future.

Better to vote for Romney now, be active in TEA Party or Libertarian movement, promote future candidates like Ron Paul within the GOP, etc..

You are making a big assumption. That Romney will not only not do what he is campaigning on, but actually spending more than Obama, if you think he will not be better for us than Obama. I don't believe that is the case, I do not believe I'm being played.

First of all, Romney has already been a huge success in life. He has been a success in business, made himself EXTREMELY rich, been a success as an executive, etc. He does not need to win POTUS to be a success, he is already one. Secondly, he understands a balance sheet. He has actually seen bad business models, and corrected them. You are making a big assumption that he can't understand the American balance sheet, that he won't make corrective changes. Being POTUS is VERY much different than being the Gov of Massachusetts. As Governor, he had VERY little ability to control spending:

"The Democrats had veto-proof majorities in both chambers and rewrote Romney’s budget, as they have with all governors’ budgets, to what they wanted," said Fred Bayles, director of the Boston University Statehouse Program. "Romney’s attempt at vetoing or adding language to the final document were all blocked, with the exception of a few vetoes he issued toward the end of his term when the Legislature was away."

Fact of the matter, Romney was able to do some good in Massachusetts, and doing SOME good is a relatively significant victory in that state.

But you have to jump to the conclusion that not only is Romney lying now about what he wants to do, but that he will break promises, and will show that he learned nothing in his life in the private sector. I don't see that all coming true. I do not think I will be regretting my vote. But regardless, at least I know how bad Obama is, and that it would be more shocking than if pigs started flying out of my ass if Romney ended up being worse for our nation than Barak Obama.

1) I strongly dissagree with the position we could not cut from the military. I believe EVERY department can and should have cuts, even if some are hardly more than symbolic. It is fairly critical, IMO, that there are no sacred cows, that we instill the perspective that government is wasteful, PERIOD, and that we can always find ways to cut, and not hold our pet programs as above the fray. So, here is a place where TEA Party type pressure can be applied to President Romney.

2) Very debatable. Speaking a tough game can actually be more likely to prevent the game than ignoring it. I don't think Romney will jump into a war, willy-nilly.

3) Actually, that is totally untrue (that Romney has stated he does not want to cut spending). That was a comment stated that he did not want to DRAMATICALLY cut spending IMMEDIATELY. The qualifyers of dramatic and immediate are essential to incorporate into the discussion. By that, he could still actually make cuts, not just baseline cuts, but just not "dramatic". And even if he did not IMMEDIATELY, he certainly did not rule out cuts after the "immediate" period. Once again, let's push the TEA Party into action on this. But, I would not anticipate the kind of spending Obama has been up to., no matter what.

4) History can be looked at in multiple ways. Were spending increases due to wars, due to legislatures of the other party, due to the POTUS's policy preferences?

Yep, Romney got elected in Massachusetts. So? So he has the ability to appeal to the other side? Yes, he does. Look no further than Chris. Reagan also appealed to many Democrats. Is some of Reagan's profile almost mythical? Yep. But there is a reason someone gains that kind of respect. He was a great leader, and he did achieve a lot.

Anyway, I can't fathom how anyone could think pissing a vote away for Gary Johnson will do an ounce of good. He will not win. No one (not Democrats or Republicans) will care or change future policy due to the vote. Meanwhile, voting for Romney has the real potential for positive influence in the election results, AND for future policy influence. But, hey, sounds you are convinced otherwise.

Nope, that's not what I said. The Religious right already have a home in the mainstream GOP. They don't need the TEA Party. But some religious right will ALSO like what the TEA Party has as a platform, and they are not content with the GOP on fiscal issues. So, they will support the TEA Party, as well. But the TEA Party is founded on totally different issues than those of the social side of the Religious Right. The TEA Party will attract people from a wide range of background, but holding the TEA Party as the guilty party for your dislike of the Religious right is inappropriate. Those Religious Right folks would be pushing Romney on the social issues with or without the TEA Party.

And if you think Romney is pandering to the right more than the anything else, I beg to differ. I believe he is trying to secure the middle more than anything right now, and I believe he will be very quiet on issues like gay marriage, like contraception/abortion, etc. He may present his positions, but he is going to be campaigning on the economy, on Obamacare, and not much else.

I have been to a TEA Party rally, and I know a bunch of folks just like me who support the platform. We are hardly the Religious Right variety, and care very little about that in this upcoming election. I believe we are MUCH more characteristic of the general TEA party populace than any few politicians who are pushing Romney toward anything.

The problem is that anyone can identify themselves as a Tea Partyer, and as far as I've seen, there isn't any way for those of you who identify themselves as such to vet who claims it.

As much as you want to dissociate what you view as the purists of the Tea Party movement from those who aren't "true" Tea Partyers (and I understand why you would want to), guess what? If someone says they're Tea Party, the perception is the reality, no matter how much you and others might want to protest otherwise.

In short, until you are elected as Grand Poobah of Membership, the Tea Party dog is going to have a whole bunch of fleas. You can blame the media for that, but when someone wearing a tinfoil hat says, "I'm with the Tea Party and I want to see Obama's birth certificate because he's going to turn us into Muslims", do you really expect them to say, "Okay, but are you REALLY a member of the Tea Party? Let me see your membership card."

If someone says, "I'm a Tea Partyer, and I want Romney to move to the right," guess what? Whether or not you agree, he's a Tea Partyer. And there have been, and are now, people who are saying that, which you know or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But you're right that the religious right have a home in the mainstream GOP. Which is why and how Barack Obama got elected. Religious zealotry makes a whole lot of people more nervous than secure; as many people are turned off by that aspect of the Republican party as like it, and it's those who are in the middle who moved over to give Obama a chance because of what they perceived as the strident tone of the Republican Party.

I'm not saying that he is pandering to the right............yet. But if he were truly confident that there wasn't going to be a whole segment of voters who, out of spite, would sit on their hands, he would be doing a lot more than "being quiet" on the social issues that are more likely to gain him votes from the middle. The fact that he's not is due to SOMETHING; I don't think he's overly bright, but I do think he wouldn't be afraid of losing votes for no reason.

Seriously, if he were sure that voters on the right, be they Tea Partyers or religious right, of which BOTH groups should prefer him no matter what his policies they might disagree with, weren't going to sit this one out, why wouldn't he be shouting from the rooftops whatever message will resonate with the people who are going to get him elected, in the center?

1) Unfortunately, I agree with you, UNLESS forced into it by reality, and maybe even some good influence by the Dems.
2) No way to know, but I would prefer that we talk a tougher game . . . I believe it will have much more potential to force Iran to back down and hold off the Israelis.
3) Not sure. If teaming up with Paul Ryan, then I believe there is potential there for us. Paul Ryan is not perfect, either, but who in a position of significance has proposed a more brave plan than him. I would actually hope for a plan more consistent with the Mack Penny plan. Regardless, there is at least potential here, and as I said, that quote you presented was not accurate. As I said, at least Romney has some understanding of balance sheets, and came from a world where you actually can't just keep spending more money than you have, that waste is bad. So, YES, I truly believe he is capable of making true cuts, not just baseline cuts. But more importantly, I think he is MUCH more likely to spend less than Obama in a second term, where he does not have to worry about re-election. And possibly MOST important, I truly believe he would sign off on responsible Congressional budgets and spending cuts - something we won't see with Obama as POTUS.
4) Congressional Republicans were a disaster under Bush. They seriously lost there way. Hence, the TEA Party came into being, and they have led to the shitcanning of some of the worst of the lot, and put the FEAR in others.

If you and enough others stay home, we will have a 2nd term of Barak Obama, a term where he has NO CONSIDERATION for the will of the people, for anything remotely reflecting fiscal responsibility or respect for the Constitution or free market capitalism. That we ABSOLUTELY KNOW. Can you say the same about your concern over Romney?

3) I'll give Paul Ryan credit for at least having the guts to put forth a plan to address entitlements, but I still find it inadequate, and it's objectively far from truly cutting spending. And that's assuming Romney ultimately makes a serious push for even that. Also, Rand Paul and the senators he worked with put forth a better/bolder plan not too long ago, as did Ron Paul. Obama can't spend a dime without agreement from congressional Republicans. If they had any balls they would keep him in check. And as I've said, they have a better record of holding a Democratic president in check than a Republican. The quote may not have been fully in context, but he still accepted the standard Keynesian view of government spending, so it's not like I don't find the quote repulsive anyways.

As to your last paragraph, I'm not sure how me staying home (which I've said I won't do) makes me responsible for Obama. Mitt Romney is not entitled to my vote. Not voting for Romney does not help Obama any more than not voting for Obama helps Romney (and yes, I have had conversations with Democrats who've said that if I don't vote for Obama, I'm responsible for Romney winning, trying to play the war/civil liberties/drug war card). Sure we do not have absolute certainty that Romney will not have respect as president for the things you mentioned, while we do with Obama (though I don't get the Constitution thing. Aside from Obamacare and maybe the auto bailout, what has Obama done that Romney thinks is unconstitutional?). But based on all available evidence, I can make a pretty good guess that Romney will be a pretty bad president, at the very least from a libertarian POV. Under your logic, shouldn't I have voted (had I been old enough) for Kerry in 04, and I guess I should vote Democrat in 2016 should Romney win?

There is no "Party" in TEA Party to be desperate. THAT is the point you seem to be missing. THAT is what I was implying when I said there would be a dramatic mix of people that support the TEA Party. Just as identifying as Pro-Military will include a wide range from veterans and families of veterans, to hyper-patriots, to hawks, to full-blown gun nuts, to skinheads, to farm kids looking to get away from home, to guys looking to pad their resume for future politics, etc. etc. etc.

Since the TEA Party is nothing more than a platform and encouragement for grass-roots mobilization, how the hell do you propose they keep from having Religious Right, or racists, or whatever else from claiming to be TEA Party supporters?

This scenario has its good and bad points. The good is that it is truly more open to a wide range of folks. It is not as likely to be taken over by any one group. But, if people don't think critically, they can be misunderstood, as you are doing. The Left and Dems are trying to model the TEA Party in a way to undermine it's effectiveness, and quite frankly, you are buying right into it. That is so damned typical of the Left . . . to not actually deal with the debate, but rather to demonize the messager. Politics of personal destruction, etc.

Rather than having to change the name of the group or movement as soon as it gets too effective, and the Left/Media start their effort to undermine the group, can't we toughen up, think critically, and actually call bullshit on it?

I gave TM a +1 for this as this, I feel, is the crucial point. Now I know I am not a libertarian or, for that matter, a conservative so feel free to take my post with a pinch of salt if you wish. The left, traditionally, have had a similar problem in Britain with the old Edwardian left coalition being split between two center-left parties (at least until recently....). In 2005, when the Iraq war loomed large, anti-war voters had a galling choice: vote for Blair who helped give cover for the biggest foreign policy disaster of the 21st century and led to the death of hundreds of thousands or let Michael Howard's rather nasty Tory party in. There were various vote-swapping websites where Labour voters would vote Lib Dem where they were ahead in exchange for Lib Dem voters doing the same.

If I lived in Oregon and I was a libertarian, I would vote for Johnson. Firstly, it doesn't matter actually what Johnson believes and proposes. As far as anyone is going to interpret a vote it is for lower spending and less social conservatism. If a GOP candidate wants to run statewide in Oregon than that 4-5% of the vote sends a message. If similar numbers vote libertarian in states that won't affect the result, I think it helps clarify a mandate for a President Romney rather than muddying it. It says that a plurality of people voted GOP and even more voted for its libertarian inclinations. It's not as if a libertarian vote runs counter to a mandate for all the things on which you all seem somewhat to agree (even if I don't). Now, if you are socially conservative then voting GOP rather than libertarian seems to make much more sense.

Just my two cents.

Sorry, but the reality of the world is that people totally ignore the votes cast for Anderson, Perot, et al. All they know and care about is what the main candidates received. Right or wrong. I'm not going to fight reality, but rather accept it and make my influence the best possible. In this case, my influence is best in continuing to support and promote Conservative policy, through voting for the more Conservative person in primaries and general elections, through support for grass roots efforts such as the TEA Party, and through expressing my principles to those who might actually be open to hearing them.

No its not. Romney is running on a platform. It includes transferring the tax deduction for health care to the individual, it involves reducing regulations, it involves tax reform that is more fair than we currently have, and more favorable to business and the economy. It involves repealing Obamacare. I can go on. YOU are assuming, jumping to conclusions. Could it end up being the way you indicate? Of course. But voting for Romney and his platform is certainly not supporting and promoting "Cronyism, beauracracy and spending" . . . that would end up being a betrayal of the support. You can call me a fool, but my opinion is that Romney wants to be a good POTUS, and if given enough support, he can overcome "Cronyism, beauracracy and spending". IMO, Romney has more potential to avoid that crap for the simple reason that the guy is loaded and already been a success in life. I could end up being wrong, but I believe weighing the pros and cons leaves me with the conclusion there is NOTHING to gain for abstaining my support for Romney, but TONS to lose by stripping him of my support (and those like me). Worst case, Romney ends up spending a bunch. What have we lost? Nothing. Best case, he wins, wins with a good margin (totally possible, just see the Reagan/Carter election), and takes office with a mandate, and actually does repeal Obamacare and promotes the platform. WIN.