Don't Pay Paul to Rob Romney

Many Ron Paul supporters are angry with the fact that he did not get the nomination and are prepared to cause irreparable harm to our nation just to prove a point. But at what cost?

Many Ron Paul supporters are angry with the fact that he did not get the nomination, and are prepared to cause irreparable harm to our nation just to prove a point – but at what cost?

Let me begin by saying that Mitt Romney was not my first choice; however, over the past weeks, he has far exceeded my expectations. Now, I can truly say that I am fully supporting Mitt Romney, not just voting against Obama.

Everyone knows of Ron Paul and his spirited passion for government reform, much of which I agree with. Out of all the candidates, he was the only one with the courage to say what really needed to be done to fix our financial woes.

However, we also know the reality: swift cuts, like the ones he wanted, would have been difficult to accomplish – would be very difficult, and his party knows it.

The problem with Ron Paul is not his beliefs, his age, or even his eccentric passion; it is his die-hard supporters. There is no way Ron Paul could have lost, right?

Well, that is wrong. He never, at any time, had the majority support in the GOP. This may be disappointing, but "the process is the process." Primary after primary, Ron Paul was behind in the polls. Sure, there were some rays of hope for Paul in some states, but never enough to obtain the nomination.

Ron Paul lost, GET OVER IT!

Like so many of the spoiled public employees of the past year, many Paul supporters are upset that they did not get their way. Now you are all saying that you will vote for a third party, or not vote at all. Are you serious? If you truly believe in what Ron Paul stands for, you will follow the lead of many Paul supporters and support Mitt Romney.

If choose not to do so? You were never truly a Ron Paul supporter and would never have actually voted for him in the general election; this is especially true for the anti-war supporters. You know who you are, own it.

Reality Check: A VOTE FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN MITT IS A VOTE FOR OBAMA. If we are to defeat Obama, we need to be unified in our effort. Nothing else matters.

You can bet that Obama's supporters will be out in great numbers (and multiple times) – it is a historical fact. Trust me, I like the idea of a strong third party; there may be time for that, but this is not that time.

A third party could easily swing the election toward Obama, but is it worth it? Remember, it has taken decades of progressivism to get where we are, so it will take years to undo all the damage.

First, we must stop the bleeding, then, mend the wound. Mitt Romney, along with conservative control of the House and Senate, will stop that bleeding.

It’s gut check time. Will you support moving closer to what Paul was fighting for, or will you continue this self-destructive progressive path we are on. This whole election can swing on 5 percent.

Are you willing to sacrifice the entire American experiment, all to prove some ideological point? It is all quite literally in your hands. Choose wisely.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

FreeThought Troy November 01, 2012 at 03:13 PM
Wow - a George Soros blast. Nice. It's been since Glen Beck since I've heard something like that.
Bob McBride November 01, 2012 at 03:18 PM
Once again, Gary Johnson is not going to win. Either Romney or Obama will win. The election is about who is going to be president for the next 4 years, not whether or not the Libertarian party is going to survive. You're obviously well within your rights to cast your vote any way you see fit, however you need to acknowledge that voting for Gary Johnson will have the same effect on who wins the presidency as not voting at all. You are casting a purely symbolic vote. You are essentially voting against whichever mainstream candidate closest fits the Libertarian model. You are, truly, wasting your vote. That being said, again, it's obviously your right to do so. Personally, I think it's a mistake and a miscalculation regarding the value of your vote.
FreeThought Troy November 01, 2012 at 03:22 PM
I can not tell a lie. I am beginning to understand what Conservatives were going through in 2004 when all of the Liberals were voting for Nader.
Jay Sykes November 01, 2012 at 03:32 PM
If I lived in states like -CA - TX - NY, for this election cycle , my vote would not change the Electoral College outcome, I would give serous consideration to voting third party.
Greg November 01, 2012 at 04:17 PM
The liberals can vote for Barr/Sheehan in the Peace and Love Party, or whatever it's called. They state that Obama and Bush have equal war records, how could a lefty vote for that?
Randy1949 November 01, 2012 at 05:02 PM
Then don't. Please.
Bren November 01, 2012 at 09:11 PM
Jay, I was trying to be positive. The bar is set low when our "best" = "not the worst."
Bren November 01, 2012 at 09:15 PM
Keith, 9/11 occurred in 2001. There were numerous leadership failures (partially due to extensive presidential vacation time, staff hubris, etc.). The infamous "tax refund" wherein foreign funds had to borrowed to send everyone a silly check, also took place during the first Bush administration. Just keeping the record straight here.
Lyle Ruble November 01, 2012 at 09:30 PM
@Michael McClusky....You should be listening to two of the most pragmatic commentators on this thread. Bob McBride and Jay Sykes are right on the money with their comments. In a close race, your third party vote is a throw away vote. Jay is correct in his statement, if you lived in a heavily red or blue state, a third party protest vote wouldn't make any difference. You also need to recognize that libertarianism is unworkable in today's world; we don't live in a vacuum.
Michael McClusky November 01, 2012 at 10:12 PM
@Lyle Libertarians have long ago accepted the fact that they would not get their way most of the time in this country. What they hope to accomplish is to change the trajectory of government; irresponsible spending, wreckless programs and obtrusive laws need to be curbed for all of our sakes.. Neither major party is ready to really take on these challenges. Votes are not wasted by voting for what you believe.in. What state you live in should have no bearing on how you view the federal government Whether I live in Wisconsin or Illinois or wherever, the federal elections are essentially the same except for the electoral college. Just because I live in a so-called battleground state does not change my contempt for the two major parties.
Lyle Ruble November 01, 2012 at 10:19 PM
@Michael McClusky....You're a true libertarian, strictly an ideologue regardless of practicality.
Michael McClusky November 01, 2012 at 10:28 PM
@Lyle No, I am a pragmatist. Since the Republicans and Democrats are incapable of making hard choices, then why not turn towards a movement that is more than eager to? The Republicans and Democrats cannot even balance a check book; they have been both bought out a long time ago. Budgets will always be screwy because of the immense secret agendas going on. It is not being practical or wise to show either of them any support.
oak creek resident November 01, 2012 at 11:04 PM
@Nothougt Boy MSNBC is the most unprofessional bunch of hateful losers I've ever seen. They mock, insults and skew anyone who is not a far left wing limpdick liberal. For you to point the finger at fox, and use msnbc as an example of balance, shows that you are: a NOTHOUGHT BOY.
Lyle Ruble November 02, 2012 at 12:00 AM
@Keith Best...Was it necessary for you to make the statement "I was born a poor black child"? What's that all about, couldn't you have figured out another way to make your point rather than bring race into it? Now you know why so many claim Republicans are racists.
Bob McBride November 02, 2012 at 12:55 AM
That's a line from a Steve Martin movie (The Jerk), Lyle... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfAvQp-Uk5I
Luke November 02, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Ohio and Colorado both have more than 12 presidential candates on their ballots.
Bob McBride November 02, 2012 at 01:41 PM
JEAN HOFFMAN The Basics Profile Home Profile Photos Jean on Patch Comments More Stuff The Board Recently Why isn’t George W. Bush campaigning for Romney? Bush is ... Election 2012: Romney to ... -by Jean Hoffman Why isn’t George W. Bush campaigning for Romney? He is ... Don't Pay Paul to Rob Romney -by Jean Hoffman Why isn’t George W. Bush campaigning for Romney? He is ... Bill Clinton: Romney's ... -by Jean Hoffman Why isn’t George W. Bush campaigning for Romney? He is ... Mitt Romney Coming to ... -by Jean Hoffman Why isn’t George W. Bush campaigning for Romney? He is ... Joe Biden Coming to Lakewood -by Jean Hoffman VOTE EARLY!!! Save Time and Trouble -- Saturday is Final ... Obama-Romney Race Too Close... -by Jean Hoffman VOTE EARLY!!! Save Time and Trouble -- Saturday is Final ... Bill Clinton's St. Pete ... -by Jean Hoffman VOTE EARLY!!! Save Time and Trouble -- Saturday is Final ... Bill Clinton in St. Pete ...
Satori November 02, 2012 at 02:04 PM
Nobody likes a spammer Jean
Jay Sykes November 02, 2012 at 02:11 PM
I didn't set the bar or dig the hole to set it below grade;me, I just read the tape measure.
Jay Sykes November 02, 2012 at 02:34 PM
WELCOME TO WISCONSIN, JEAN !!! (maybe, I forgot to welcome you on some other string where you cut/paste your spam) ....just visiting or do you plan on staying?
Keith R. Deschler November 05, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Satori and McClusky, good arguments, and ones that need to be made amid all the hostile "wasted vote" crapola. The system encourages this , by not giving us a chance to actually rate the candidates in the ballot box. The candidate with the fewest top ratings gets eliminated, and so on. Our founders believed very strongly in voting for the person and philosophy you believed in, not just the best financed, best looking, best sounding sales person out there. I agree that Libertarians have a long way to go, especially in Wisconsin, to be a consistent threat to the duopoly. But we are pushing the agenda toward smaller government in both the personal and economic spheres, because we are losing our liberties in both, and we cannot continue to spend ourselves into bankruptcy. I don't see us "taking" enough votes from any GOP candidate (or Democrat) to make a difference Tuesday. Besides, there are always people who are not going to vote for the power parties if they have some other options available. That's what we offer, and we are not going away. As for the Paulbots, they need to join with us in building up the LP and getting our candidates more support and help.
Keith R. Deschler November 05, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Mr McClusky, do you live in the Racine area? Our local LPWI chapter meets at the Golden Keys restaurant on the third Saturday of each month, from 12:30-3 PM. (5930 Washington Ave). We would love to have you come, and check us out. Call George Meyers at 635-0792 for more information. We are also on Facebook (Libertarian Party of Southeastern Wisconsin).
Bob McBride November 05, 2012 at 12:50 PM
What is the purpose of Tuesday's election, Keith? Is it to elect the folks who will be actively involved in the process of governance over the term associated with the position they're running for? Or is it to attempt to establish a viable third party? That's what it comes down to, Keith.
Michael McClusky November 06, 2012 at 12:49 AM
@Keith R. Deschler Don't listen to Bob. The status quo is not working.
Keith R. Deschler November 06, 2012 at 04:00 AM
Bob does a good job putting up the arguments for the "conservative" side of the duopoly, tired as we are. Michael, keep on putting out your better arguments for building up a third party alternative. This is not the Libertarian Party of Browne, and Badnarik, and other really "purist" folks who feel that a Sales Tax versus the Income tax is a choice between arsenic and stricknine, or who dream that we sell off $50 trillion in government assets to fund annuities to close out Social Security and Medicare. We realize that we have to use our leverage to pressure the GOP to do what good conservatives do-balance the budget through reducing wasteful and unnecessary spending, and start paying off the debt. That's a lot to do right there, but we certainly are proposing reasonable yet bold steps to actually shrink the size and cost of government, and restore many liberties that have been watered down over many years. We are not proposing any kind of libertopia, but we do want to get to the eventual goal of the full restoration of personal property rights. We have a considerably different agenda than the two "companies" who want to say just enough to make themselves look acceptable to a large cross-section of the public. Even with a more practical approach, the LP is still the "party of Principle" that seeks a higher level of thought and action to bring about free markets, civil liberties, limited government, prosperity, social tolerance, and peace. BTW, Romney/Ryan in a landslide!
Craig November 06, 2012 at 04:30 AM
@Nick: From the dribble you spew it is not possible that you voted Republican- ever! It doesn't take a profiler to see through you. Don't try to be something you are not!
Bob McBride November 06, 2012 at 05:08 AM
If any third party is going to be successful, it needs to get its message out there much sooner and its got to be more than just trashing Republicans and Democrats coupled with "vote for so-and-so". The best I can tell from Gary Johnson's website, the objective seems to be "get 5% of the vote and they have to acknowledge us". That, and pushing Gary Johnson as some sort of charismatic, man's man. I looked at the positions on stuff and it does follow pretty much the conventional Libertarian platform, freshened up a bit. The hard sell we've been getting around here for the past couple of weeks needed to start about 9 months ago and needed to include, as I mentioned, something more attractive and interesting than trashing the two major parties. That could have been done w/o concerns about the national media covering the candidate. That's true "grassroots" work. "Grassroots" as it relates to the major parties is an oxymoron. Perhaps it was being done elsewhere. It's been non-existant here. Waiting 'til the last minute and banking on frustration and fatigue generated by endless carping between the two major parties as a catalyst for a last minute third party surge isn't a workable strategy. As for the election, I'm still pretty much convinced Obama is going to take it, for the same reason he took it first time around - and, again, with an assist from the Republicans via their VP selection - albeit not to the same degree as last time.
Keith R. Deschler November 06, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Election is trending to Romney, this is not 2008, and I don't see a repeat of 2000 with any so-called "spoilers" in Florida. Romney has a large lead among independents, and is not way behind among women like McCain was in '08. As for this state, our LPWI is a work in progress, and I admit they put too much stock into the Ed Thompson showing a decade ago. Too many of the "tea and crumpet" types who like to sit around and shoot the bull. You're right about doing the grassroots stuff a lot earlier. They should have nominated Gary in the early spring(but we did have a spirited battle with longtime LP activist Lee Wrights for the nomination). His platform is more mainstream than what we had up until 2004. Barr/Root was GOP light, and tried to appeal to conservatives disappointed in McCain/Palin. She kept the right happy, and Barr/Root made a fair amount of LPers unhappy. Both are back in the GOP, and good riddance. Both were not really schooled enough in the liberty philosophy to articulate it well. That's the purpose of our party at this time, especially with the higher offices-education.
Keith R. Deschler November 06, 2012 at 12:29 PM
BTW, when I ran for assembly in two presidential years (2004 and 2008), I usually gave POTUS flyers out to people who showed some interest, or were not happy with either the R or D running. I didn't even have Barr/Root stuff in '08, although I did manage to vote for them. Our members locally were split on these two, and some went for McCain (because of Palin), and some for Chuck Baldwin (the Constitution Party guy Ron Paul endorsed). The POTUS is not my emphasis with the LP anyway, but it does help to have a credible ticket at the top, just to make us more appealing down the ballot, and to better articulate the message and credibility of the party to the nation. The Greens have had the same issue that we have had in the past, with Nader being the only credible candidate they have ever run(Jill Stein is a nice lady, but she reminds me of Badnarik with her statements and her getting arrested and the like).
Michael McClusky November 06, 2012 at 02:48 PM
@Keith R. Deschler I will make that phone call and I hope to attend the next meeting. As for posting my views on the internet- the most destructive aspect of the bloggers on Patch is the fact that many of them feel that their candidate is infallible. There is a lack of critical thinking by some, because no one politician is correct 100% of the time. Bob McBride criticizes the fact that a third party voter would mudsling at the two major candidates. Well, both of them are not beyond criticism. The most interesting conversation I ever had on Patch was a few months ago. This concerned the views of Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson with regards to the relationship between the federal government and the citizenry. Two Republicans, a Democrat and myself discussed the fundamental question of how much power should the federal government actually have. Mr. Brian Dey seemed to be the most knowledgeable of us, but all four of us contributed much in the varying viewpoints that exist today. I think people would do well to read all three of our Founding Fathers writings on this subject. Then we can all proceed to have a deeper understanding of one another's conclusions.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something