Tuesday, October 23, 2012

It's not often that I disagree with Bill Whittle

But I sure do here:

His argument goes like this:
Barack Obama is destroying this country.
OK, I can't really argue with that.
A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Barack Obama.
Well, hold up right there, Scooter.  Romney is looking to win Georgia by a high single-digit margin.  Out of the Million and a half or two Million votes cast here, my vote for Johnson (and the Missus', and #1 Son's) are going to swing Georgia's electoral votes to Obama?  I'm listening, but please show your work.
Four more years of Obama - unbridled by the need to get re-elected - will change this country to the point where nobody but the Democrats with their SEIU supporters will ever win an election again.

 LOLwhut?  I'm listening, but please show your work.  I know that a lot of folks didn't like it when I said that it would be better for the Republic is Obama is re-elected, but I did lay out my arguments.  They may be wrong, but they're not stupid.  In return, I'd like something a little more well-reasoned than the Republican equivalent of ZOMG Thermageddon!!!eleventy!!!

I kind of was expecting better from Whittle.

Again, I'm not disputing the disaster that would be a second Obama administration.  I'm not disputing the damage that would occur from an administration that doesn't have to face re-election, and is therefore disposed to ideology over pragmatism.  My point (and Chief Justice John Robert's in his Obamacare decision) is that elections - and actions - have consequences.  I see more upside from the reaction to an unbridled Obama second term than from a Romney administration.  As I said, I might be wrong, but I do show my work.  I wish that Whittle had, too.


Anonymous said...

Just so.

Your concept of Barkie 'being good for the republic' is sheer lunacy on the face of it - until the work is shown.

Not to speak for Bill - but I think the sheer bloat of gov't that Obama is preaching should make it intuitively obvious that they fully intend to control more aspects of our lives - all for our own good, dontchya know.

Bill is not prone to panic or sensationalism, IMHO.

Old NFO said...

Interesting, and one of the few that is not well thought out. Although I DO believe the Dems are hoping Johnson pulls enough votes that in combination with the expected 'dead voter' turnout they can squeak one out.

chiefjaybob said...

I have been thinking along the same lines lately. My logic goes like this: The Cook County cemeteries are chock-full of enthusiastic Democratic voters, so there is no way Obama will loose Illinois. I also believe that Romney will win overall and probably win big. So, I'm thinking about voting Johnson, in the hopes he can get 10% of the national popular vote and the Libertarians can start getting some of that sweet, free, federal money.

Having said that, I don't live in a swing state, obviously, so I have that luxury.

Rick C said...

1. " the Libertarians can start getting some of that sweet, free, federal money." That doesn't seem like a very _l_ibertarian position.

2. BP, I don't think Georgia's the place where that's likely to be a problem. Bush's win came down to 500 votes in Florida, and Florida's still considered a tossup state by, for example, RealClearPolitics. A small number of Gary Johnson votes could theoretically throw the election the other way if the situation were similar to 2000. See also Al Franken, the woman who won the governorship of Oregon after multiple recounts, Hugh Hewitt's "if it's not close they can't cheat," and so on.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

Another thing to remember is that votes for Johnson won't be "pulling votes away" from just Romney.

"1. " the Libertarians can start getting some of that sweet, free, federal money." That doesn't seem like a very _l_ibertarian position."

So is trying to gain a position of power over others in the first place, unless you consider it self defense. The R's and D's are perfectly willing to take that money and use it to get into positions of power and use that power against us. Short of shooting, the only way of preventing that is to get libertarians into positions of power themselves. Currently, the only way to compete meaningfully in that arena is to also get some of that same free money.

I think it was Roberta X who said "If they're going to vote at me, I might as well vote right back at them." The same principle applies with federal election funding.

The only way to win is not to play the game. But if someone else decides to play, if you still choose not to play then you can only lose.

How about a nice game of chess?

Rick C said...

"Currently, the only way to compete meaningfully in that arena is to also get some of that same free money."

Well, not if you can find a rich guy or someone who can get lots of donors--neither Romney nor Obama are taking Federal dollars this year.

I think I disagree on a more fundamental level, anyway. If libertarians or Libertarians want to be more effective, they should do what the Tea Parties are doing and start sweeping through the county-level R and D organizations. Several hundred people running positions there would be in a great position eventually to push state and federal-level candidates much more effectively. Of course it requires you to stop supporting people whose idea of publicity is getting arrested outside debates to highlight the unfairness that they're not in the debates, or to get arrested to demonstrate why drivers' licenses are such horrible things.

JebTexas said...

I think you missed Bill's point... he stated right up front:
1. If you posit that either Mittens or Barry WILL be the next president, then:
2. You must vote FOR Mittens because any other vote helps Barry get elected, especially if the election is close.
Your basic if/then program.

Anonymous said...

I'm with what Rick C (12:43) said above — that's the way to go. I also agree with JebTexas' comment (2:42) because no one knows how this one will go.

Now to talk at a more basic level, I'm opposed to taking actions that would cause a social/fiscal crash in this country, which it appears both you and I think would happen if BHO gets re-elected.

I really don't care if any other country goes smash. But I live here, and letting OUR crowded bus go off the mountain road to make some libertarian point of purity strikes me as childish and irresponsible.

And if they're doing it just for money, then that's despicable.

ASM826 said...

There's two of us. It's a movement.

Fiftycal said...

First, the "L"ibertarian party cannot organize a two car funeral procession. Second, I agree with Ayn Rand's assessment of the "L"ibertarians. To Wit;Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

doubletrouble said...

JebTexas points out Bill's stated position: Romney or Obama will win. That's a fact.
Voting will be for or against those two ONLY.
The thought that a second O term *shudder* would bring some sort of revolution to a head is pure folly in this age. Hell, even 220+ years ago Madison recognized that point:

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Another round of the 0-man would bring a barrage of "gradual and silent encroachments" the likes of which this country has not seen since it's birth.

Bill is right.

Gunnutmegger said...

3rd Party candidates generally hurt the Republican candidate more than the Democrat. Ross Perot, for example, is the direct cause of Bill Clinton's win in 1992.

Democrats are bought-and-paid-for sheep who vote as they are told. They have no principles, so they cannot vote on them.

The only thing that matters at this point is preventing a Democrat from appointing another Supreme Court justice.

Regardless of how imperfect Mitt is, and how good Gary Johnson seems, and how sclerotic the Republican leadership is, Johnson cannot win in this election. That's a shame, but that's also a fact.

Which makes the choice simple: cast a vote that helps Obama, or cast a vote that opposes him.

Brian said...

I tend to prefer open enemies to covert ones. Obama is a known entity, I think as soon as another (R) gets into the oval office the Tea Party will go to sleep the exact same way the anti-war movement did when Obammy got elected.

If the choice is between a statist and a communist I'll choose the Constitution Party every single time.

PS: and if you tell me I'm wasting my vote you are entirely welcome to bite my unwashed nethers. It is my vote to use, waste or defenestrate in any way I see fit!

Anonymous said...

See the key thing is, while you and your family might be able to vote for Libertarians without causing Thermageddon, you don't have any way of knowing how many other "you and your families" are out there...and you actually could, if you all blew it, cause Obama to have an unexpected undeserved win...
The lesser of two evils, as Bill said, is LESS EVIL...and Gary Johnson is a potential Ross Perot spoiler.
Can you afford to take that chance? We don't know until it's too late.