Friday, May 4, 2012

In which I endorse Barack Obama for President

Stick with me on this, because I am motivated by hope and change.

The race essentially is between Obama and Romney - Ron Paul is interesting but whatever impact he has had is over.  Likewise, the Libertarian (whatzisname?) will get the typical Libertarian 2%.  As adults, we need to face reality that this is President Composite Girlfriend vs. Mittens.  OK then, which way will make us better off?

Let me start my cheerfully admitting that a second Obama term - unfettered by the need for re-election and likely facing a Congress entirely controlled by the GOP - will be a disaster of faculty lounge inspired radicalism.  It will be EPA killing oil production and the ATF arming the Iranian Mullahs.  He will moot card carrying communists for the Supreme Court, as well as for every open Federal Bench seat.  Nobody can constrain his radicalism now, and it will be much, much worse come January.

So what about Romney?  He's an Establishment Fixer to the core, as his record as Governor of Massachusetts shows.  While he might not support new gun control laws today, he was happy to in the past when he felt the need to "reach across the aisle" to "make an impact" (build a political career).  While he may not support huge State-sponsored intrusion into your private business today (RomneyCare), he was happy to in the past - again, when he felt the need to "reach across the aisle" to "make an impact".  Romney is easy to figure - just ask yourself what's most beneficial for Mitt Romney right now, and that's what he'll support.

He has an exquisitely refined sense of sniffing out tactical personal gain, and does not suffer from a surfeit of political philosophy like those boring old Founding Fathers did, with all their tiresome talk of liberty.

He's Gov.Party the Lesser.

And so we must vote for Obama.  He's the only hope for real change.

The GOP in general, and Mitt Romney in particular are big-government, big-spending, big-intrusion-into-our-business.  The Republic is facing a fiscal crisis - the nation's credit has been downgraded, the Entitlement programs are just now tipping into a bottomless sea of red ink, the middle class has been hammered with collapsing housing valuations, persistent unemployment, and a higher education bubble that is ensuring that our children graduate with so much student debt that they will never be able to marry.

And where are the bold reforms from the GOP?  The best on offer is Paul Ryan's plan which won't balance the budget for three decades.

And dig this: the Media will savage a President Romney mercilessly in hopes that he will falter, lose heart and supporters at the savage attacks, and think it will be in his best interest to reach across the aisle to preserve his re-election chances.  The media will think this because Romney has shown repeatedly that he'll cave if it builds his personal political chances.

So what about change?  We're actually seeing change today, before our eyes.  Just ask Orin Hatch, in the fight of his political life against a Tea Party candidate.  Or ask (former) Senator Bennett, or (former) Congressman Castle.  A Million people were energized to take to the streets to protest, two years ago.  That's change.  And you know what they were protesting?

Barack Obama and his vision for a remade America.

That's what you give up by voting Mitt Romney into the White House.  In six months, Romney will be a sad sack, pummeled by the media into losing his "conservative" veneer (and let's be honest, no one believes he's actually a conservative).

A RINO President will demoralize the one significant spark of change that we've seen, the only reaction to an out of control Fed.Gov, our only hope of putting the brakes on before we're as wrecked as Greece.  And quite frankly, a withering of the Tea Party reform movement will be a delight to a GOP Establishment every bit as corrupt and venal - and power mad - as Nancy Pelosi.

And so, it is our civic duty to take a hit for our Country.  Put Obama back in office, unfettered.  The orgy of Progressive overreach by Regulation will be sporadically (and mostly ineffectively) resisted by a corrupt Big Government GOP.  The Agencies will rule the land, and the economy will remain seized up.

And rather than a million Tea Partiers taking to the streets, it will be two million, or three.  Rather than five or ten corrupt GOP Establishment corrks turned out of office, it will be thirty, or fifty.

And that will be the time when the calculators like Mitt Romney will get the idea that they will most likely advance their career by striking down the Progressive beast, again and again.

Because if that message doesn't come across loud and clear, and repeatedly, then the game is over.  It simply won't matter who's in office, because they're both the Establishment Party.

So vote Obama this November.  I do not say this from anger, or frustration, or peevishness, but from cold, rational calculation.  Sure it will be painful, but we got into this mess because like Bluto in Animal House, we f***ed up: we trusted the GOP.

We screwed up, and believed all this, and the government never got smaller under the GOP.  It got bigger, and more intrusive, and more remote from the people, yea even under St. Ron.  Maybe it's too late for us, but if it's not then the only way forward is to burn the GOP to the waterline.  The most expedient way is to keep the Tea Party energized, and a President Romney will cause many to fall away from that movement under the eleventh commandment (another Reagan philosophy).

Well screw that noise.  We f***ed up once, trusting him and the rest of the GOP team.  How's that working out?  Rebuilding a party that Reagan might actually recognize is what this country needs - and right now, damn it - and Mitt Romney isn't the man to do it.

Barack Obama is.

Hope and Change.  Your country depends on you.  Your children and grandchildren will wonder what you did at the Republic's darkest hour.  Don't let them down.  Vote Obama.

UPDATE 4 May 2012 13:52: Aretae has an interesting comment on this matter.  Og has an interesting take on the down-ticket races.


Unknown said...

You know, I was thinking something similar to this on my drive to work this morning.

Irish said...

Thay my Blogbrother is a very thought out, intellectual approach. Well said and it does make sense no matter how painful it is for the transition. I see now how REAL change could only happen this way.


bluesun said...

And dammit if I don't agree with you. I was willing to let myself be cautiously optimistic about Romney, believing the hype (such as it is), till he met with Bloomberg (whether or not it had anything to do with his plans for his presidency, it shows the crowd he hangs with wonderfully), which snapped me out of it.


Ken said...

You make out a case. Conscience prods me to write in Ron Paul regardless, but I'm thinking about what you say.

Paul, Dammit! said...

I've got to respectfully disagree, BP. I don't love Mitthew, but I feel that your argument is based on fear of the consequences of setting a low bar for progress. I guess it's a matter of priorities. I see the next four years as being critical for setting the tone for austerity measures, which means a smaller budget, and I don't see Obama reversing course in the face of overwhelming need there. Romney's a survivor, and he'll want 8 years just as bad as Obama, which means maxing out his popularity, which won't work as a moderate- if Tea Party measures are working in the House, he'll lean that way. Ultimately, I feel that 4 years of paralysis under Obama is too high a price to pay for just gambling that someone better than MITT will come along. We've seen between Clinton and Bush just what a 4 year span can do to change the world. Maintaining the status quo as a holding action feels too much like polishing the brass on the Titanic. Mitt's a shit fit, IMHO, but he stands a better chance of containing the single largest problem we face as a people than anyone else. If conservatives lose the mandate of righteous rule over a failed attempt, then we deserve what we got, anyhow. Those same Tea Party candidates have an opportunity to be part of the problem, just like Obama, once they get a taste for the fiber of the fabric.

Borepatch said...

Well Paul, you saw him in Massachusetts just like I did. Mitt's a trimmer and a triangulator, focused on the tactical. He's not the big picture visionary, and he's not a fighter. He will nudge the trajectory, but won't seriously change it.

He will also buckle under the hysterical attacks from the press - I've never seen him stand up to them, and so there's no reason to think he'll change.

As an establishment type, I expect that his view of what it will take to get elected is much more aligned with the Washington in-crowd (including the media) than with the Tea Party.

And so I have to stick with my thesis, which is that he will demoralize the Tea Party and dampen the one movement for change that we're seeing. Quite frankly, as an establishment guy, I expect he would think this is a feature, not a bug.

Anonymous said...

I must admit that my big fear in voting for Obama rather than Mittwit is that four more years of Obama would make the situation unrecoverable.

Borepatch said...

Kinnison, what makes you think that it will be recoverable after 4 years of Obama-lite and the eleventh commandment being used against the Tea Party?

Aretae said...


I respond here.

Better a vote for Johnson.

Robert Hewes said...

I just can't do it, my brother. First of all, my arm wouldn't allow itself to pull the lever for Obama. And Romney? I'd rather have a glass catheter inserted and broken than vote for Schrödinger’s Candidate.

In my blog today I argue that in the long run we're all dead -- people, parties, and civilization. The Republican party can't be fixed, and I hope it's dead before the country itself.

Alan said...

The only argument that Romney supporters seem to have is, "Look at how bad Obama is!".

The only problem is that Romney's record is actually worse than Obama's.

Right now Obama is mostly neutered by a GOP House. Romney wouldn't be.

I do not believe that a Romney President backed by a GOP congress would be better than another four years of an ineffectual Obama.

Kevin said...

The foundation of your "Let Obama Win" recommendation is "We can still save the Republic!"

I'm not so sanguine.

I think we've passed the point of no return and we're augering in. The only difference we can effect now is "how hard will we hit?"

Now you may argue that leaving Obama in place to rule by regulatory fiat through the various bureaucracies will produce enough backlash to soften the crash, but I don't think so. That's just me, though. If we had a population large enough to do what you suggest, we'd have a population large enough to ensure that we'd have better choices than we've got.

Honestly? I don't think it's going to make much of a difference either way. Vote your conscience.

Single White Alcoholic Seeks Same said...

Romney certainly isn't perfect, but didn't he balance the budget while governor of the most liberal state in America?

If Obama is elected to a 2nd term and has no fear of facing re-election he will give amnesty to all illegal aliens in this country. 20-30 million new registered Democrats overnight.

Game over.

doubletrouble said...

I,too, must disagree.
Read Og's piece, specifically the paragraph with the "climbing" analogy.

Borepatch said...

@Single, Mitt didn't balance the budget. He pushed some spending obligations to out years is all.

Borepatch said...

Doubletrouble, I think I'm just describing where best to drive the piton. Romney isn't the right place to support our climb, but there are alternatives.

Duke said...

There is no way I could side with the enemy of this country, I would be a traitor. If any one is so opposed to the candidates then don't vote. I maintain ANYONE who pulls the lever for Obama is an enemy like him.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

Rather than voting for Obama, I would instead vote for Johnson. No, he's not going to win, but not only will you be sending a message to the Republican Party by not voting for either Obama or Romney, you'll be boosting the LP's numbers and helping build them to a point where an LP candidate can win. Like I said over at Aretae's post:

Another point in favour of voting for Johnson (or whoever the LP candidate ends up being): If enough people do it and the LP candidate can get 5% of the popular vote, the party will qualify for matching federal funding in the next election.

This will help create a situation where either the Republican Party reforms itself, or hemorrhages Tea Party members to the LP. It will also help pull people from the Democrat Party who are only Democrats because of the Republican Party's constant pandering to the social conservative / religious reich elements.

Toaster 802 said...

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” John Quincy Adams

The Republican party is only interested in serving the interests of it's 1%

Burn it down. It's rotten to the core anyway.

Anonymous said...

This stance is too cute by half.

1. It's nothing new. I have seen people try to make this 'let them win' case since at least Clinton-Dole '96. It wasn't any more convincing then, and nothing between then and now has lent more credence to the logic.

2. It's based on socio-political reasoning that borders on the Marxist: 'We can predict the future dynamics of mass opinion' (and push a few levers to make it go where we want it). Just like the horrors of advanced-stage capitalism was predictably - like clockwork - going to spur the proletariat to throw off their chains and bring about communism, here a left-wing President is supposedly going to predictably - like clockwork - prompt the 'tea party' to, uh, something or other. What I'm suggesting here is: maybe not?

3. Notice that only the right ever reasons this way. The left never plays this game; they just focus on winning here and now, and making sure all prior gains are locked-in, forever ratcheted forward. Now it may be that this let-them-win theory is brilliant and the left is just dumb too dumb to come up with it. But looking at history it's hard to deny that their approach seems to, well, work. Meanwhile the (R)s are called the 'stupid party' for a reason.

All in all I favor the simple interpretation: if you vote for President Obama, here's what you'll be voting for: President Obama. Not that there's anything wrong with that.... ;-)

Borepatch said...

rwcg, we'll have to agree to disagree (although your comment has seeded another post I'll put up when I have some time). You're correct that the Left has excelled at incrementalism, and that the GOP is the Stupid Party.

But there is a dynamic at work in this country, one that is not at all well understood by the Establishment. It's a disruptive change, and it's been coming for a long time (at least 25 years, and probably a lot longer).

That the Establishment doesn't understand it is shown by their hysterical reaction to the Tea Party idea - in the media, and by the party Old Guards.

Maybe it's because I've lived in High Tech for so long, but when disruptive change occurs it happens suddenly and catastrophically for the incumbents.

The idea that the Old Guard Left can continue a top-down incrementalist approach against this doesn't hold water. The question is not whether the existing structure will get swept away by this disruptive change, but when.

A different way of saying the same thing is that the Internet has revolutionized communications, retail, finance, manufacturing, etc. The only major area that still retains its Guilded Age, top-down control model is politics.

That ain't gonna last, no matter how many PhD Community Organizers get ACORN funding. Just sayin'.

This may be too cute by half, but it don't take a weather man to know which way the wind blows.

agirlandhergun said...

Ya know, I am not as smart or educated on the issues as you and that fact becomes more clear everyday. I am not a fan of Romney, but my thinking has always been get rid of the idiot who currently resides in the White House, but I keep seeing these posts and, so I ponder.

I wish I was so clear on what I believed to be true.

Erin Palette said...

I remain firm on my "If I have to vote Eric Holder out of office, then I will" position.

Quizikle said...

Ya know?
Usually you speak much truth.

But this time?

You speak much truth

Anonymous said...

I'm really worried about possible Supreme Court appointments by Obama.

Tacitus said...

We will have to disagree here, but the great thing about the conservative end of the political spectrum is we can disagree without being condemned as Kulak-Trotskyite-Wreckers.

I do respect your perspective as having roots in MA. And lets agree where we can, the House/Senate races are critical.

From Wisconsin, where the political cycle never stops spinning and where the Progressives are Regressive..


Mulligan said...

I can agree with the argument, its essentially the same argument I've made in the past. However, in good conscience I cannot vote Obama; it would require me to overlook the fact that Obama was not legally elected and can not be re-elected according to the requirements as listed in our constitution.

Borepatch said...

Tacitus, I'm very grateful that I'm not at ground zero of political disruption like you are.

TJP said...

"OK then, which way will make us better off?"

Neither. The country will continue on its course regardless of your vote.

Thinking that things are changing because of something one's political clique is picketing at the voting booth is the white man's rain dance.

Fred said...

I understand your logic, and don't disagree with it. I do, however, disagree with the end result of your logic.

Kevin, above, opined that we've past the point of no return; I think we're dangerously close to it, perhaps even irreversibly close, but not quite there yet.

I agree that Romney isn't the right guy, and that the media will start the attack somewhere around the conventions and not quit until everything becomes a smoking crater.

The formulation - the Constitution - is sound, but the supporting structure has been rotting for some time. Mittens won't repair the rot, but he may slow its advance enough that whomever comes next might have a shot at it. My fear is that with an unencumbered four years for Obama to wreak havoc there just might not be a "whomever comes next."

I've been so thoroughly disgusted with the crop of GOP candidates for decades that I've considered a cabin in the hills and learning hermitology; problem is, I understand potentials, and the potential of the US is pretty much unlimited.

I've said several times that 2012 is the last election cycle for the GOP as we know it, no matter who sits in the oval office in 2013. My perception is that a substantial majority understands just how badly the GOP has failed us, and once the mission of voting Obama out is over I think we'll see a concerted effort to either completely revamp the GOP or render it insignificant by moving forward with a strong 3rd party. Either way, there will be a lot of Republican political blood on the floor, and, as a result, I'm convinced Mittens will be a one-termer. I do not think Republicans are smart enough to recognize that and position Romney as the change agent and lightning rod necessary to stop the collapse and lay the foundation for "whomever comes next" to alleviate much of the necessary pain and reverse the rot. I know Romney isn't.

Sorry, BP, bad choice that it may be, I'm afraid I'll have to line up with the "not Obama."

Sevesteen said...

The choice between Obama or Romney to advance my goals is too close to call. I calculate that Romney will be slightly less harmful short term...but in 4 years we are guaranteed a liberal vs. RINO election, no matter what the Tea Party does. If we elect Obama, we can cross our fingers and hope for a little more difference in candidates in 4 years.

The best practical outcome I can see is for the Libertarian vote to be big enough to change the results. Won't do any good this time, but maybe next election the candidates will pander to the libertarians a bit.

Kansas Scout said...

You just certified yourself as insane and toxically cynical. I am pretty sure I won't visit your blog anymore because of this nonsense that confirms your not serious. Now, if you said you were starting the revolution next week and needed volunteers then you would convince me you were on the right track. Not so much now. Hell, it's your blog. Do what you want.

Chas S. Clifton said...

"Try to make things worse so that after the Big Collapse, we can seize power."

Somehow that approach is a little too parlor-Lenist for me, even when coming from the political right. I'll go for the incremental change, thanks very much. And I'll get my full dose of Schadenfreude if The One fails to be re-elected.

Anonymous said...

Borepatch.....groan......shoot somebody else that has the same thoughts as me......
I think this stratagy may be plausible. I see some awakening of the sleeping progressives in Madison, WI. They seem to be awakening to the possiblity that their lives are really not that urbane. They are awakening to the reality that their house values are down 30% and their taxes are up 15%. They are awakening to the fact that the REAL inflation rate is near 8 or 9% if you factor in gas and food. They are awakening to the fact that their hoper and changer aint working; he's out playing.
So another 4 years of this doof is very disturbing BUT it may be the "hard to swallow pill" that is needed to awaken all of the sleepers.


Unknown said...

I will not vote for Obama.

Obama will give amnesty to at least 50 million illegals. We'll turn into a sink hole like Mexico.

NO to Obama!

Ed Bonderenka said...

I started out reading this post wondering where the catch was, what the clever point would be, What good reason there would be for voting for Obama.
I'm still waiting.

SiGraybeard said...

Borepatch, I'd like to see you enlarge on this:But there is a dynamic at work in this country, one that is not at all well understood by the Establishment. It's a disruptive change, and it's been coming for a long time (at least 25 years, and probably a lot longer).

A different way of saying the same thing is that the Internet has revolutionized communications, retail, finance, manufacturing, etc. The only major area that still retains its Guilded Age, top-down control model is politics.

Are you suggesting that democratization via the Internet will lead to the end of the political corruption, rule by special interests, and stave off financial collapse? Taking power from, you know, the guy who was just given a kill switch?

Cause I'd really like to see how that happens...

The Scribbler said...

I'm going to disagree with you on this one, in a big way. My full response is here:

nydwracu said...

Response here. In short, I'm not optimistic enough about the Tea Party to swallow reelecting someone who large segments of the population will be utterly uncritical of, and who will appoint people like Holder.

Anonymous said...

Knew you'd end up in this self-created logic-hole of a corner:

To recapitulate a couple of points:

• Mitt's pliable? Great — all the easier to keep him focused.
• Parties don't "learn lessons" — you simply opt yourself out of having any political effect.
• Lefties are in for the long haul, with a time-prespective measured in decades.
• You aren't however, because it's just too hard and boring and tedious to stay focused. So you'd prefer to see the polity collapse, and we can all shoot it out.

Hmm. Thought better of you.

Differ said...

You, sir ar a brave man to advocate this line of reasoning; and it has some merit, but am less sanguine about the outcome than are you.
If Ron Paul is not the Republican candidate, can he stand as an independent?
Does the presidential election ballot include a write-in slot?

eiaftinfo said...

The thing this post implies is that this has not been tried before – sadly Obama makes the 3rd time folks like BorePatch embarked on a mission to teach the Republicans a lesson.

My first experience was Carter. Gerald ford couldn’t drive a golf ball straight you know, he was from the Washington crowd – frankly, the Republicans in DC just weren’t listening. What better lesson to send that a “nice”, quiet spoken governor from Georgia?? Never mind those little incidents that followed later – Iran’s Islamic revolution, the Arab oil embargo, purchasing gas only on odd or even days, 17% inflation rate, a decimated military, fireside chats in cardigans as we were all asked to turn our thermostats down to a government approved 68 – we taught those damn Republicans a lesson.

My second experience was Clinton – TWICE FOR F*#@KS SAKE!!!!. Nothing to see here either, “booming economy” (thanks to Reagan), little things like the Cole, Kenya, World Trade Center I, Somalia and Blackhawk Down with a military so neutered we had to tow the landing craft off the beaches as we retreated, the crash of March 1999 as Clinton attacked the largest software company in the world in an attempt to break it up, and finally the moral deprivation of a President unable to stop himself from utilizing an intern’s vagina for his own personal humidor. Yep, we sure taught those Damn Republicans a lesson – by subjecting the country to two terms of Clinton.


My current experience in this whole process – the Obama administration. Honest to god – where to start? The destruction of our reputation over seas (if you screw with us the fires of hell will rain down on you to bowing low enough to give every major world leader a quick blow job), the systematic destruction of our military capabilities and the continued reduction of forces in active war zones – endangering every soldier on the ground, the enslavement of our children as their tax burden becomes equal to their income, the utter destruction of the best healthcare system in the world that will lead to a closing of 30% plus of all hospitals and the early retirement of up to 40% of all doctors, the systematic destruction of the oil industry to be replaced by an utterly failed policy of alternative energy sources, the broad attack on America’s core job producers – small business through outrageous tax policy and a draconian IRS collection, an ongoing attack on the “rich” who are paying 70% of the tab (top 10% of wage earners) while 49.7% PAY NO F&#*!&G taxes at all . . . . . . . WE SURE SHOWED THOSE DAMN REPUBLICANS BY VOTING FOR THE ‘CLEAN, ARTICULATE BLACK MAN’ SPOUTING “HOPE AND CHANGE” OUT HIS A$$.


For those who are all smug and self righteous in their belief that re-electing Obama will teach the Republicans a lesson – I would simply ask you to let go the hate: your hate of America, your hate of those who have succeeded, your hate of those risking all in an attempt to succeed at their personal dream, your disgust of your own children and grandchildren, your hate of your neighbor, your doctor, your banker, your car salesman, your college graduate . . . . . . . that you NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON AMERICA AS IT TEETERS ON THE EDGE OF DECADES AND DECADES AND DECADES OF DECLINE . . . . . and simply vote ABO – Anyone But Obama.

Where there a poodle with massive diarrhea on the national Presidential ballot as the Republican vs the current Marxist that occupies the Whitehouse . . . the poodle could be assured of my enthusiastic support!

So, with all due respect to Borepatch – I disagree.

Borepatch said...

eiaftinfo, I really don't know why people assume that I "want to teach the Republicans a lesson." That's not the point of the post here.

What is different is that (probably) the Internet and New Media has made it possible for people to self-organize on a very large scale (a million people in the street on April 15, 2010). Obama was the cause of that - well his policies and philosophy.

It doesn't matter the slightest what I "want", these are observations. Another observation is that some of the worst collaborators (Specter, Bennett, Castle, and likely tomorrow Lugar) have been purged by this movement.

For better or worse, it IS change, and change in the right direction. The extrapolation is how best to continue this. My take is that Romney will be in the mold of Bush (Sr. or Jr.), and bend to the MSM pressure and give cover to Republicans like Lugar.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this was the point. It's not revenge I'm after, but continued action.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

eiaftinfo: You hit on one key part of my reason (and other people's reasons) for endorsing Johnson. Voting for Obama will teach the Republicans nothing except that their next candidate will need to be more like Obama to get votes (e.g., "If people are voting for Obama, that must be what they want. Our next candidate should be more like Obama."). It only damages the nation and drives the Republican Party even farther from where it needs to be.

Voting for Johnson, however, gets your vote recorded and counted as a vote for a specific candidate (which write-ins won't) and lets the Republican Party leadership see where the votes are going. They can see specifically what the values are that are pulling voters away and say "If people are voting for Johnson, that must be what they want. Our next candidate should be more like Johnson."

And if they can't learn that, then the Republican Party needs to go away - and we'll have started the process by giving the Libertarian Party (the most viable replacement) a boost in numbers to get started. Remember, if the LP can get just 5% of the popular vote, then they qualify for federal funds in the next election. Whether you agree with federal funding of campaigns or not, when the other two parties do have it not having it is a huge disadvantage.

Frankly, without an outside party to use to apply leverage, the Republican Party is beyond saving. Heck, what happened to Gary Johnson before he moved to the LP is a perfect example! He didn't toe the party line, and he couldn't be dismissed as a kook like the leadership and the media manage to do with Ron Paul, so he got shut out of the critical debates despite qualifying for them.

tl;dr version: Voting for Obama will only make the Republicans try to be even more like him next time around. Voting for Johnson will leave a record for the RP to follow, and send the message that the RP needs to be more like him, instead. If the RP can't get that message, they need to go away, and voting Libertarian now will have the added effect of starting that process as well.

mmasse said...

Obama has been undermining the US military for four years and it time for that to end. He has dismantled a once proud NASA and relegated it to detecting space junk. He has made a mockery of our foreign relations and has largely ignored the border issues. Last but not least is Fast and Furious, without Obama stonewalling congress we might actually see someone in chains for this. I am not voting this terrorist back in the White House.

eiaftinfo said...

Jake - replace Johnson with Perot. Yep, your "vote will be recorded" as Obama continues his destruction for another 4 years.

Bore - Still a little confused about how a vote for Obama is "continued action". You might remember the "punishment" of the Republicans during Bush 43 in 2008 at the 2006 election - along with the conservatives dissatisfaction with the Republican stand on immigration. That worked out so well. My recommendation is to focus on local, state and congressional offices - move those people, change those people.

Romney over Obama - really, it's truly a choice in your heart of hearts??? wow.

Borepatch said...

eiaftinfo, there is admittedly a difference between "your vote" and "Obama gets re-elected". My take is that the reform movement will be strongest if Obama is re-elected, and very well may get gutted if Romney is elected.

That said, I expect that Romney will win handily. Not everyone agrees with me, but I've been saying for 9 months or so that Mussolini could beat Obama this election, and don't see much reason to change that opinion.

But it isn't a question of punishment, it's a question of what is the dynamic moving forward.

As to my heart of hearts, I think that best would have been Ron Paul or Johnson (but neither had a chance). After that the order would (probably) have been Perry, then Newt (with major misgivings). Cain was interesting, but looked like he'd be ineffective.

But in my heart of hearts, I don't see Romney as any better than Obama on net. Really. I watched him for 4 years in Massachusetts, and this is an informed opinion. He'll cook the frog more slowly, but cooked it will be. In fact, I see Romney as positively dangerous because his slow cooking may prevent the frog from jumping from the water.

Given that Romney is likely to win, I expect my expectations are low enough that I won't be let down by his policies. Heck, maybe he'll be better than I think. But I sure don't think so.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

eiaftinfo: Then, like I said, the Republican Party needs to end.

As far as Obama continuing his destruction for another 4 years, I'd rather have Obama with a Congress that reflexively opposes him than Romney with a Congress that reflexively supports him, and that's what it looks like is going to happen.

A hostile Congress at least has a chance of slowing the destruction - a supportive Congress won't even bother. And I don't see Romney being any less destructive than Obama, he'll just do it in different ways.

eiaftinfo said...

Bore - I too watched Romney through the eyes of my daughter and her family during their stint in Mass - wasn't very pretty. Yet, Obama is simply on an entire different level. He is at the "ruling" level, he will "rule" with an even stronger hand in the next 4 years, Congress will simply be ignored. It may well be already too late to stop a complete collapse of our economy (unfortunatlly, that is where my heart lies), yet another 4 years, another 5+ trillion in debt, Obamacare, unfunded SS and Medicare, the transfer of $500 Billion in medicare obligations to state Medicare programs - will insure the collapse.

Jake - End the Republican Party and replace it with what? Perot, probably the best 3rd party candidate and only received around 17% of the vote and insured Clinton - that worked out so well. If the Republican party is destroyed there will be no "hostile congress" - only a Democratic Congress quickly moving to an Argentina or Venezuela style socialist republic.

But gentlemen, so be it. A vote for Obama is a vote for the Republican Party as we know it to end and "continued action" that leads us to . . . where again??

November will tell the tale.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

If Perot had had an actual party behind him, they would have been able to build on his 17%. Instead, he was an independent (and founded his own vanity party for the next election).

Who to replace them with? How about the Libertarian Party (you know, the one I'm encouraging people to vote for)? They have a solid and persistent base, that someone like Johnson can build up, and they are philosophically the closest to what the Republican Party claims to be it's guiding principles.

As far as your claim that "If the Republican party is destroyed there will be no "hostile congress"", do you really expect it to happen overnight? No, realistically, as the Republican party dies out whatever party replaces them will rise to fill in the gaps.

eiaftinfo said...

Ah, of course, the Libertarian Party. Heavy Sigh. Got .40% of the popular vote in 2008. They hold not a single office that is of any real importance. They have been making their case to the American people - had have been rejected.

I believe the Republican party is a good vehicle for conservative reform - we just need to keep working on the engine as we did in 2010. The changes were broader and deeper than the media is willing to acknowledge and the "inside the beltway" Republicans had hopped. It was a good start - and I'm hoping this trend of correction continues in 2012.

But, to completely reject party because it needs to be re-tuned, and replace it with something like the Libertarian party? Past wishful thinking.

Anonymous said...

Interesting, and quite logical.

And, hopefully, not necessary:

Go to your favorite search engine (I prefer "Ixquick") and type in "Ron Paul Wins" . Something quite extraordinary is happening, something that may also teach the GOP and the RNC a needed lesson.


Anonymous said...

I'm going to go for Romney, for two reasons
1) A one-term Romney is safer than a second-term Obama (we ain't seen nuthin' yet)
2) The Tea Party is currently too much "Democrat = Bad; Republicans = Good" -- they need to be shown/reminded that no traditional politician will do them any good. And Romney can do that.

og said...

You make an interesting point or two, but it's all based on the idea that anything can "Send a message" to the GOP to put forth great candidates.

because that worked so well when we sent that message about McCain. And Dole. And etc. and etc and etc.

the GOP gets your message. Your message is "I'm bad at math".

The GOP establishment has the resources to do whatever they want, and they do not do a single thing by your leave, never have, never will. That establishment has to change- or be replaced by something different. And holding your breath until you turn blue or voting against them out of spite won't change a thing. So far, what HAS happened, is that everytime a wimpy repuiblican gets trounced by a democrat, the whole party establishment moves a little closer to the left, to go where they think the votes are.

This will not happen overnight. Nothing Obama does in his second term will "energize" people to bring forth a new Reagan. Shit, the same shit they say about Romney now, they said about Reagan then. Keep punishing the Republicans for not being Democrats (which is all they hear, trust me) and they will become Democrats. Oh, sorry, too late, it's already happened.

but hey, you're voting. That's all I want anyone to do. I have looked around a good deal, and I can't find anyway NOT voting does a damned thing. At least you have a plan, which is more than most, even if it is, in my opinion, a terribly misgiuided one.

Anonymous said...

Count me with eiaftinfo.

Anyone voting for Obama either:
• Really, truly thinks he's great, or
• Would prefer to crash the economy & country & polity so as to "teach the GOP a lesson" and encourage "people to self-organize."

That view is little different from a spoiled, impatient kid who wants to take his marbles home because the Big Kids simply won't play the way he wants.

And I thought you were serious. More fool, me.

Borepatch said...

Og, I'm actually not trying to send a message to anybody, just observing that Obama is causing a reaction by the Tea Party and that Mitt may squelch this. I see the Tea Party as unique in my lifetime as really changing the debate in Washington.

But voting is key, and voting out establishment types in the local/state races is more important. This is a bottoms up insurgency, and the powers that be don't really get that yet.

But if people vote, they will.

Skip said...

Yannow, after a coupla Maker's Marks I think I have it solved.
I'll write in the Pres. of my gun club.
It won't matter who is in the chair.
How many is of ours are in both houses matters.

og said...

"just observing that Obama is causing a reaction by the Tea Party and that Mitt may squelch this."

I completely understand. And I also understand this: if the tea partiers, the lovers of liberty, are so easily "Squelched", and so easily get distracted off-point, well, in my opinion they deserve to lose, and lose badly. We need people who are committed to long term continuous pressure, not people who will see an R get elected and just stop fighting. but you're right in the end; vote.

Anonymous said...


Battlefield USA said...

Americans have been voting for the dumbocrats all these years... and here we are.

Americans have been voting for the repukocrats all these years...

Excuse me.


Do people really believe that we got here by voting dumbocrat alone?

Are people really so dense, that they can not see that Obama is just a continuation of, AND... an acceleration of... get this... BUSH?

Both parties are globalists. Both parties are anti-constitution and anti-liberty The repuko-dumbo party is nothing more than a mass psyops job on the unthinking minds of the sheoples. Now, while it is true that both presidents since the mind pucking mass psyops job catalyst called... get this... 911, that has given us every single National Security Stasi State law... also think about which parties in the legislative branch that has endorsed all this nonsense. Dumbocrat? Repukocrat? The dumbocrat-repukocrat party?

Do the sheople honestly believe the RINO Romney is going to repeal any of that? That he is NOT going to expand on any of it? That he is going to be our... savoir?

How in the hell is Romney going to make a difference in your liberty and freedom? Sure, he MIGHT slack off a bit on the march to totalitarianism, but for anyone who has kept an eye on poli-ticks all their adult life, they should have some kind of twinkle clue that that is how they play the game. To keep the unthinking numbskulls off balance. To keep the sheoples... not thinking, but... thunking.

Voting and poli-ticks are like the price of gas. Slowly raise the price and squeeze the sheoples just enough to get them to squeal. Then lower the price a few pennies until they sigh a relief and stop bitching. The price of gas is still higher than it was and the sheople are now acclimatized to a higher price. Now, just keep repeating that... like voting and electing dumbocrats and repukocrats.

Remember where we were? Here we are. Imagine where we will be. And it has not made one wit of difference who you voted for... and that right there should be enough to give you at least a semblance of a clue.

You are being PLAYED by the establishment.

Battlefield USA said...

P.S. Before anyone says... But, but, but what about Ray-gun? Huh?

Remember that Reagan with his side-kick Ollie gave us C.O.G. Continuity of Government.

You know, kind of like the precursor of where we are today... just magnified and amplified and... built upon!

Anonymous said...

I could not bring myself to vote for O. But the odds are so high of us not getting a chance to vote at all this year that I believe it is all moot thinking about it. If it looks like he is going to lose I would expect a false flag as an excuse to declare martial law. And suspend the elections until the "emergency" is over.
We are past the point of elections being allowed to change anything.

Texred said...

Unbelievable, I just cannot conceive an idea of why any true, loyal, God fearing patriotic American would vote for BHO. Oh yeah, you can opine that it will make things better in the long run, but that's just rubbish, the Germans in the late 30's thought the same thing. I want better for my children and their children. You are being incredibly selfish, sir. The man just came out and equated that being tolerant of sexual deviancy is the same as our Lord and Savior sacrificing himself on the cross for our sins! NO! I will not, I can not vote for someone so inherently evil. Ever hear of the old saying " cut off your nose to spite your face"? I didn't think so or you could not post such idiotic hypoberle.

Texred said...

Sorry, that should read hyperbole.

Matthew said...

So I know I'm late on this will be a cold day in hell before I vote for Obama.

You vote out Obama and you vote out Napolitano and Holder as well. The idea of voting him back in is about as sound as getting in a car accident, looking around at the wreck, putting the car in reverse and then doing it again. Better to have a one term Barry and a one term Mitt.

Weetabix said...

Heh. Turns out you were dead right. Good show!

malaivelsiddha said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.