by Country Thinker | December 3rd, 2011
Weekend Thoughts
This is an off-day post, but an article came to my attention and I just couldn’t wait. It appears that the Libertarian Party is (almost) certain to have a strong candidate for the 2012 election cycle. But before I get into the details, let me share with you a comment from Karl Rove last Tuesday:
I think there will be talk about [a third party presidential candidate]. But at the end of the day you have to have people who are willing to get behind that particular candidate, and I think there are too many people who feel so passionately about the necessity of removing President Obama from office that while in normal times they might be infatuated with a third party candidacy, this time around they’ll be very reluctant to do it.
One thing we know about Rove is that he is first and foremost a strategist. With this statement he is either profoundly ignorant, or this is a strategic move to “shame” a worthy candidate into not running. Since we know the first isn’t true, the second must be. The problem is that this election is NOT about defeating Obama. It is about saving our country from destruction. Rove implicitly assumes that people believe Romney or Gingrich are up to the task, but many of us know they are not.
In the first instance, as I began discussing last Tuesday, the Americans Elect “party” is a well-funded operation dedicated to nominating a candidate outside of the usual nomination process. They have their eyes on Jon Huntsman, and even if they get a lower-tier candidate, they will run someone. Karl Rove is certainly aware of Americans Elect.
Returning to the article that prompted this post, it appears that Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, and Gary Johnson are all in negotiations with the Libertarian Party. To what extent Paul and Ventura are showing interest I cannot say, but Johnson is very interested. (Note: I’ve been holding
this story back for a while, but it is not unexpected; my fellow Libertarians and I have been bombarding Johnson’s inbox asking him to run on our ticket.)
Ron Paul has been cagey about an independent or Libertarian run, which makes sense because he’s still in the race for the GOP nomination. But, when he inevitably drops out of the race, a Libertarian Party run makes more sense than before—not only do we offer ballot access in most states, we may also be able to offer a blue-chip Vice Presidential candidate as well. After all, among current GOP nominees, Johnson makes the most sense as a running mate for Paul in the first place.
I’m not going to get into the benefits of Gary Johnson as a candidate, or a Paul/Johnson ticket until either happens, but I will say that those who cry “split the vote” are wrong. A Paul/Johnson ticket would dig far deeper into Obama territory than most conservative pundits are able to comprehend. (Example: Younger voters. They will not vote for a Republican like Romney or Gingrich, but many are fanatical about Ron Paul.)
Now, there are two things I’ve been consistent about—that I anticipated at least one strong third party candidate, and that I place odds instead of making predictions. The first is almost certain to occur, and I am placing the odds of a Ron Paul/Gary Johnson ticket north of 50%.
Happy days, indeed, as a glimmer of hope for the country has emerged!
End Note: Many will support Romney and/or Gingrich in 2012 because they are “better than Obama.” I do not question that point. But, as Michael Tanner explains here, both are big government neocons who support big government interventionism, and will do little or nothing to pare back the size and scope of government. Thus, while I concede that both would be “better” than Obama, neither, in my humble opinion, would be “good enough” to spare our country from disaster. Thus, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or some combination thereof may be our last chance.
.jpg)
My recent post is on Americans Elect and I think you are right that they are planning to run one of their own, Huntsman. It’s a Council on Foreign Relations operation aka bankster operation to hedge their bets against a populist All American third party should the Republican nominee turn out to be a RINO.
Remember how young people gave Obama the election? But now that Paul has so many young people, we get to hear how they don’t vote that much anyway, citing statistics before all this meltdown and martial law talk started. It’s really absurd.
It’s interesting how the Dems can run an extreme character (Obama), yet the GOP is afraid to nominate anyone right of center. At some poin the statist drift must stop, and the question is when and how.
I would get behind a Paul Johnson ticket. I’m not going to vote for Newt or Mitt.
I agree with you. I will not vote for someone who I don’t want to hold the office.
As a long time small “l” and a sometimes large “L” libertarian, I sympathize, believe me.
The dilemma remains, as always: A Libertarian Party ticket cannot win the Presidency in 2012, which means either Obama or the Republican nominee will win.
So what’s the point of separating the small “l” libertarian voters who follow Paul and Johnson from the Republican Party?
I understand that Gingrich and Romney are little more than McCain clones. But doesn’t it make more sense to elect one of them (Supreme Court nominees and all that) and simultaneously continue the fight to reform the Republican Party from within, than gamble on splitting the vote and reelecting Obama?
Of course, if you honestly believe Ron Paul could win as a large “L” Libertarian, then my logic is faulty and your article makes sense.
So, do you honestly believe the Libertarian Party could win the Presidency in 2012?
Sherman, there are actually 2 components to the question. First would A Romney/Gingrich presidency be enough to prevent the pending disaster we’re headed for? My opinion is no. Slow things down, perhaps, but will not change the final outcome.
The second question is whether Paul could win as a big L Libertarian. I cannot predict the future, but I can say that the odds are well north of zero. That, in my humble opinion, is enough to cheer it on.
No Libertarian candidate for President has ever polled more than 1.1% of the popular vote.
No Libertarian has ever been elected to the US Congress.
Since “the party’s creation [40 years ago], twelve Libertarians have been elected to state legislatures, though none hold office currently.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
Yet you say that the odds Paul will win as a Libertarian are “well” north of zero?
Zero sounds like a better bet to me.
As a card-carrying Libertarian, I’m aware of the history of the party. Zero may be a better bet, e.g., under 50%, but he would get 10% of the vote ata a bare minimum.
Ted, do you think Obama is going to save the country from destruction?
My guess is: no.
So if you think that Obama is definitely not going to make anything better, why push so hard for a third party candidate whom you know will *not* get elected, and will likely just suck votes away from the GOP candidate?
Look, I get that you don’t want this to be a “anything but Obama,” thing, but here’s the thing. With Obama, you know what you’re going to get. With one of the GOP candidates, you can speculate all you want about them being the same as him or whatever, but in reality you don’t actually know what you’re going to get.
It’s more reasonable to say that Obama will continue to be just like Obama, than it is to say “Romney will continue to be just like Obama.”
There’s a better chance for things to change with someone that isn’t Obama, and that someone will almost definitely not be a third party candidate.
I think Karl Rove is right.
No, I don’t think Obama will save our country from destruction, but I don’t think either Romney or Gingrich will, either. Neither understands how serious outr position is. Both mouth some of the words, but neither have put forth credible plans to rescue us.
I’m going to have to disagree with you on Rove. He has said there won’t be a third party run. Americans Elect and/or the Libertarian Party will run third party candidates.
A Paul/?Johnson ticket would dig far deeper into Obama territory than most conservative pundits are able to comprehend. (Example: Younger voters. They will not vote for a Republican like Romney or Gingrich, but many are fanatical about Ron Paul.)
You’re going to have to convince me of that. And even so, it will still dig deeper into the GOP territory, resulting in an Obama reelection.
Until you have some solid polling behind you, this is all wishful thinking fantasy territory. Gary Johnson? Nobody knows who he is!
And Jesse Ventura is a certified troofer kook. Anybody who can’t decide between renouncing his US citizenship and moving to Mexico or running for president does not have his head screwed on straight.
Even if by some miracle a Libertarian wins the presidency, where is his power base? There’s a reason no president since Eisenhower has bean bipartisan and above the fray.
I’m not a Ventura fan, which is why I reported that he is in the mix, and left it at that.
A Ron Paul/Gary Johnson ticket attracts younger voters, minorities, active military, and “hippies” to a far greater extent than any typical Republican will. For example, Obama has received more campaign contributions from active military than all of the non-Ron Paul candidates combined. Ron Paul has received more support from active military than all of the other candidates — including Obama — combined. That’s a significant block of predominately Democrat voters who would vote Libertarian in the scenario I have presented here.
The Obama contribution thing was not from active duty military, but from DoD, including civilians. Big distinction there.
As for the rest of it, we’ll have to disagree. A Libertarian ticket will never win and will only siphon more votes from the GOP that the Dems, giving Obama 4 more years to “finish the job.”
I’m always happy when people are ready to agree to disagree. Thank you, although it does not surprise me coming from a mature debater –a sad rarity these days.
As you can imagine, as an LP guy, I naturally disagree that the LP can “never” win. As I’ve argued before, a Romney or Gingirch win is still an Obama win. The GOP ends up consolidating his “gains” if either is elected. We can disagree on that point, but if you felt as I do you would inderstand why I feel that the country has no choice but to pray like h*** that the LP has someone who can win.
I understand where you are coming from, and my sympathies lie there as well. It’s the realist in me speaking.
It’s interesting you mention realism. It often comes down to perspective and expectations. In this case I don’t think Romney or Gingrich have what it takes to save the country from what’s coming. If so, voting for them doesn’t make sense, and trying to do something — anything — else to save the country does.
That’s the irony. Many call me idealistic for going the third party route. I say that it is small government folks who think the GOP can be redeemed who are the idealists!
“In this case I don’t think Romney or Gingrich have what it takes to save the country from what’s coming.”
Ideologically, I agree. But I think technocratically, Romney could carry out a drastic plan if it was foisted upon him. This is a multiple choice test, and the best answer may not even be available. It also makes no sense to vote for a hopeless ticket.
For the Libertarian party to be viable, its got to start getting people elected to state legislatures, governorships and US Congress first.
Random thoughts …
1) Crist, Lieberman, Murkowski, etc … Don’t be surprised to see the Establishment, under Rove’s guidance, be the one’s to launch a third-party candidacy.
2) I’d argue that Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney both represent something far worse than Obama. Quite frankly, they scare the crap out of me.
3) I don’t think Ron Paul will go independent, but I’d be in favor of it if he does.
4) The “winnable,” “electable” strategery that has been shoved down our throats all my life, has never, ever, ever reversed the growth of government.
5) The “winnable,” “electable” strategery has a serious problem this year too. Worst case scenario, Paul will retain around 10% of the vote. That 10% isn’t going to budge. They aren’t going to vote for “Team Republican” in the general election. See #2.
6) Gingrich, Romney, et. al., can’t win the general election. Look at the polls. Saber-rattling is highly unpopular.
7) Pay attention to the financial news and about the Fed actions. Very Bad Things (economically) are coming our way. 2 things will happen: 1) the citizenry will grow even more impatient with war; 2) Washington will rattle the sabers in hopes of drumming up nationalist sentiment in an effort to keep enough support behind the régime. Add them together and you can expect more significant social unrest.
8) While the Tea Party is mostly right, it better grow some balls. It needs not only the radicalism of the original Tea Party, but needs to understand it shares the same enemy as the original too.
9) America wasn’t founded in submission to authority.
10) The National Defense Authorization Act tells you all you need to know about what the Establishment is planning for dinner. Are you sitting at the table, or are you on the plate?
Excellent points, and I’m sure you could have continued all day! My general observation about the current race is that people who say this election is about “beating Obama” are wrong. It is about saving the country. For those of us who don’t think Romney or Gingrich have what it takes, voting for any of the above is more or less the same.
What I don’t get, is the Tea Party. The whole thing started in reaction to the despicable TARP and bailouts. Only 2 candidates opposed them from the get-go: Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann. Now, I’m no fan of Bachmann, but throwing support behind her at least shows some level of consistency. Instead, they got behind bankster Herman Cain and now lobbyist Newt Gingrich, both of whom backed TARP/bailouts and still do. Plus, they’re willing to jump on the TARP/bailouts-supporting and socialized healthcare advocate Romney bandwagon if they “need” to.
Huh?
The excuse is that everyone is a super-serious-realist and whatnot, but what, exactly, are we being real about? Reversing the growth of government? Obviously not.
So if TARP and the bailouts are OK, socialized healthcare is OK, and we’re not going to reverse the trajectory of the state, what are we doing? War? Is it all about war? Because Obama, quite frankly, has escalated war. The Nobel Peace Prize winner has proven to be a bigger warmonger than GWB. So if it’s war, Obama is your man.
The Tea Party is the revolution that wasn’t. The conservative movement has become rudderless, drifting wherever the establishment blows. It no longer has convictions it refuses to compromise. It’s no wonder the country continues moving leftward. As wrong as they are, the leftwing base is committed.
Agreed on all scores, CL. Most Tea Partiers still think their path is through the GOP. Good luck with that.