The Politics of Blame? “George did it.”

Should a presidents’ predecessor be a factor in judging his performance?

We have all heard President Obama’s refrain, “it took us a long time to get into this mess and it’s going to take us a long time to get out of it.”  This is his explanation for why, now in his fourth and final year of his first term as president the Great Recession persists.  But is it a legitimate excuse?  And if we applied this principle to other presidencies how would the landscape of American history change?

Of course, there is some justification to President Obama’s explanation.  He did indeed inherit a wrecked economy.  The problem is that if we embrace this standard for Obama we must use it for all and then the process breaks down.

For example, one could say that Bill Clinton deserves no credit for his prosperous years of balancing the budget.  Rather, Clinton should say, “Aw shucks folks, thanks, but actually, it took us a long time to get here.  Ronald Reagan did it.”

One could make the case that only because Reagan ended the Cold War did we earn the great peace dividend and balance the budget.  Because of Reagan we could discontinue the  wasteful expense of researching and developing and deploying weapons that were never used and ultimately destroyed.  At one time, before Reagan, 49% of the national budget was spent on the military.

But can the Carter years be blamed on Gerald Ford?

Should Richard Nixon be excused for only doing what Lyndon Johnson did and worse?

Should the Great Depression be blamed on Calvin Coolidge instead of Herbert Hoover?

The greatest president in American history?  Hmmm, that would not be Abraham Lincoln but James Buchanan.

Presidential historians who dump on John Tyler would have to credit him, not James K. Polk, for bringing Texas into the union.  Much of the ground work was done in the Tyler administration before Polk was even elected.

The problem with this “George did it” interpretation of history is that in the end, no one is responsible for anything.  Obama can blame it on George, after all he inherited the problem, but if a president is not responsible for what happens on his own watch, and those events are only a chain reaction of what his predecessor did, then why shouldn’t George Bush blame his mess on Clinton?  After all, as Obama says, “it took us a long time to get here.”  Who is to say “how long?”

And blaming it on George does not explain why Obama’s own policies did not accomplish what he publicly said they would do such as the stimulus money creating jobs.  In fact,  most economists believe the economy under George W. Bush was wrecked by a housing crisis, created by an unchecked banking industry and excessive spending, including a $1 trillion – off the books – war in Iraq.

Obama’s solution was to ignore the housing crisis and increase spending many fold, with giveaways to favored political constituencies.  According to a 2009, USA Today report, counties that supported Obama for president “reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival.”  Most studies say it did not create a single net job.

While presidential historians consider context, they must ultimately judge a president on how he plays the cards that are dealt him.  They will admit that Richard Nixon was no more abusive than Johnson or Kennedy and that he showed sparks of genius but they will never likely rate him as a great president because he lost the presidency.  Kennedy and Johnson, for all of their faults, did not. Nixon could not blame his fall on Johnson.  Circumstances change and a president must adapt to meet the new rules of the game.

Clinton knows this full well.  It is why his ambition is unsated and why he persists so diligently in public life.  Nothing can change the fact that he was impeached.  He is now trying to bracket that event with favorable context and ultimately have history declare it only and solely a political act.  The best way to do this is to accomplish as much as possible as an ex-president and have his wife win the presidency too.  Any future ten year old, forced to memorize the presidents would reach those names “Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton” and would intuitively know that the impeachment had to be political persecution or the public would never have voted them back.

If one were to judge this election based solely on numbers and data and the economy and presidential history, Mitt Romney should win in a landslide.  If he loses, it will reflect more on him as a failed candidate,  than on Obama as a president.

By almost any standard Barack Obama, our beloved first African American president, is a likable leader, but he has presided over the longest war in American history, he has not stopped the spending that got us into trouble, and after four years he has still failed to even touch the housing crisis.  Presidents are not only compared to other presidents, they are compared to their own promises, their own words.

The Sienna Institute proudly claims that Barack Obama is the 15th greatest president in American history.  Not a chance.  His election is indeed historic, monumental, but his presidency, like most recent presidencies, has been a dismal performance.

About these ads

42 Responses to The Politics of Blame? “George did it.”

  1. Doug, you noted that, regarding the stimulus package, “Most studies say it did not create a single net job.”

    The “net” part of that is where the Administration slides by. For example, they can point to a good number of jobs created in various “SmokeFree” organizations that hired people to promote smoking bans in bars.

    However, the resulting unemployment caused when bars closed probably overbalances that by a factor of ten to one or more.

    You also noted that, “Presidents are not only compared to other presidents, they are compared to their own promises, their own words.”

    Promises are one thing. I doubt you’ll find a president in history that kept all, or probably even most, of his promises.

    However telling a blatant lie on national television about something as basic as drastically increasing taxes on a minority group is a different story. Six months after President Obama took office he appeared on the Today Show and swore to Meredith Vieira that he had not raised taxes on any “people” since taking office. In reality of course one of his very first acts in office was to raise taxes on regular smokers by 150%, and on one of the poorest well-defined minority groups in the country, smokers who roll their own from scraps of paper and shreds of tobacco, by over 2,000%. If you put (gasdoc bare-faced blad) into Google you’ll see the 30 second video of the lie and some commenting about it under “Obama in bare-faced lie!”

    A stimulus that reduces jobs instead of creating them, and a lie about taxes that relegates millions of Americans to the status of vermin…

    … those things are, I believe, unique to President Obama.

    Michael J. McFadden,
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

    • For ease of reference, since I didn’t know whether links would actually go through here… The URL for the Obama video is http://tinyurl.com/ObamasLie

      – MJM

    • T-Agorist says:

      The problem of Statism (or one of them) is that it encourages short memories on the part of voters. For example, the housing bubble began in the 1970′s, but is oft blamed on Dubya. I would say that overall blame lies in the laps of presidents in general. Even further, fault lies in with larger political class. In my opinion, the way out of this mess is a vote for Nobody. Free markets real property rights can’t come about in the context of Statism.

      The Vote for Nobody Campaign | http://anti-politics.ws

      • Rich Grise says:

        The “fault” of the housing bubble was caused by the very people who were betting on the bubble itself, flipping houses with intent to flip them some more and make a pile of cash. When the bubble popped, which was inevitable, the people who lost their buble-bets
        SHOULD have LOST, not got bailed out by Our Glorious Beloved Infallible Commissar! (with YOUR money!)

        If some idiot took his family’s life savings and lost it at the craps table at Vegas, woule you bail their stupid lame asses out? It’s the same thing!

        And I’m still writing in Ron Paul – he obviously won’t win, but I will know I Have Done The Right Thing. For some intangible reason, I just don’t trust Johnson.

      • ___j___ says:

        @T-Agorist, given your userhandle probably I shouldn’t waste my breathe telling you that voting for liberty-candidates *is* important in 2012… because even if you have no good options for the presidency, surely there is *some* liberty-candidate further down-the-ballot who deserves your vote. In case anybody reading this wants the logic:

        https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/post-paul-what-now/#comment-32198
        Voting-for-anybody is better than not-voting, because not-voting looks just exactly like apathy (statist politicians just love that!)

        https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/post-paul-what-now/#comment-32225
        Short explanation of gary johnson & virgil goode, compared to obama & romineey (statist politicians hate when you vote 3rd-party!)

  2. b smith says:

    Does anyone still believe that any president really makes a difference. They are all puppets who occupy the WH temporarily during the historic flow of events they did not create and are beyond their control to affect. Until voters recognize the real PTB and resolve to do something about them, we are all stuck in a continuing pattern of fighting over red states and blue states without ever stopping to think what that means.

    • ___j___ says:

      I believe a good president could make a difference, yes. They can veto bills. They can bring the troops home, as commander-in-chief. They can pardon non-violent ‘social’ criminals. They can use the bully pulpit to win hearts and minds, plus explain to the everyday citizen exactly how the real-powers-that-be are benefiting from the status quo.

      But I also believe a bad one can do great harm. Which is why 2012 is not going to be a very pleasant election-cycle for me, at least on the presidential line. There are some good senate and house and local candidates, however.

  3. Rod Carew says:

    Hi Doug ~ Thanks for your reflections and posting them for all of us.For further solutions:Do you think it’s too late to get us back to honoring our Biblical and Fore Fathers documents ?? Hillsdale College is offering a free on-line, 10 week Course on this very subject.Appreciate your gifts of critical thinking,writing,and speaking.
    Rod

    • Rich Grise says:

      Please leave your Bible in your church.

      Article 1 of the Bill of Rights is _supposed to_ guarantee freedom from religion! Did you know that all wars have their roots in religion?

      • ___j___ says:

        Rich, you are misreading the first amendment — congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… which means, first of all, no federally-mandated official religion, or religious practices, or religious tenets, and second of all, no federally-enforced blacklisted religions, of any type.

        After the 14th amendment, which “incorporated” the bill of rights so that it also applied to each of the states rather than just the feds, this was modified to apply to laws passed by statehouses, preventing the creation of a state-mandated religion, and of a state-level blacklist.

        The idea about freedom of religion is simply that: no government entity will ever tell you what religion to have, or not to have. There is no such thing as freedom-from-religion, which is a completely distinct concept, and not to be found in the Constitution. Many of the founders *did* feel strongly that religion was best kept in the private sphere, and ought not to be a campaign issue, nor a legislative priority. But this is a custom which applies to political candidates only, because they have a special relationship to the rest of the populace, as upholders of the Constitution.

        Nobody ever intended the custom putting a damper on religious sentiments expressed by candidates and office-holders to apply to *everybody* that happens to be a citizen. In particular, the very next clause of the first amendment guarantees that citizens will always have the right to freedom of speech. Rod Carew is just exercising clause two of amendment one. You can argue theology with him if you *really* insist, but I suggest this blog is hardly the place to do so.

  4. Jim says:

    After Doug appeared alongside admitted revisionists at Ron Paul’s “We Are The Future” rally it’s very hard to accept anything Doug writes as credible. For example while Clinton did face impeachment hearings he was acquitted by the Senate on February12 1999:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach021399.htm

    Of course writing the truth (“he faced impeachment proceedings and was acquitted”) is not nearly as sensational and does not make very good revisionism..

    • Jim, I’m not sure what the original quoting was, but I’m guessing from the context that Doug simply said “he was impeached”? If so, then he may have been at least technically correct. I’ve always felt that the language is misleading in this area but that’s the way it seems to be. E.G. Andrew Johnson “was impeached” even though he was acquitted. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson

      Making the statement without expanding on it though is what I usually call the Antismokers down for: in Kessler’s words their statements are often “accurate” but at the same time they’re not really “true.” E.G. “There’s no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke” can be claimed to be “accurate” under theories of carcinogenicity. BUT… you could also say “There’s no safe level of exposure to ethyl alcohol” under the same theories and push to ban alcohol service in restaurants: alcohol is both a Class A Carcinogen *AND* a highly volatile liquid with a standard martini emitting roughly one full gram of deadly carcinogen every hour into the air everyone else is forced to breathe in that restaurant. In both cases, “no safe level” can be said to be “accurate” but is also, in a real sense, a lie.

      Feel free to impeach me if you like however….

      - MJM

      • Jim says:

        Well, michaeljmcfadden if someone where charged with embezzlement but acquitted one cannot exactly call them an “embezzler” (innocence unless proven guilty) could they? Of note also is that most modern bloggers back up their claims with references (as you did in your comment). Perhaps it’s a generational thing? Something that Doug has not latched onto yet? It would be nice if he did as there are several points in his article I would like to read further about and am sure others would as well so while there is no set rule a blogger must cite references it is becoming the standard convenience.

  5. Jim, as noted, “I’ve always felt that the language is misleading in this area.” If I was making the statement I would always try to include the qualifier, just as I do in all my writings on smoking. See for example my “Lies Behind The Smoking Bans” at http://tinyurl.com/smokingbanlies and you’ll find that, despite the fact that I was putting great effort into simplicity and brevity, I tried to stick to the “truth” rather than simple “accuracy” in my statements.

    - MJM

    • Jim says:

      Doug is paid $8000 per month to write this blog in favor of a failed GOP nomination candidate who has not publicly come out for or against the write-in campaign in his name. So I doubt we will get any factually correct blogs from him until his gig a spin-doctor is over. For example he intentionally omits info like ” From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid (under Bush) than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau.”from the same article he quotes in his blog (reason he doesn’t provide a link for readers).

    • Surfisher says:

      michaeljmcfadden — Jim is the forum’s troll (hates all that’s good) so no-one here pays attention to it.

      • ___j___ says:

        Actually, surfisher, I still pay attention to Jim… even though he does often behave in a way that can only be called troll… because from time to time he says something useful, or at least interesting. It’s not technically true that he hates all people in the liberty movement — I once saw him say out loud that Gary Johnson was “a pretty decent guy” which is SPECTACULAR praise, coming from Jim.

        I also thought his video link from BadLipReading was pretty humorous — http://youtube.com/watch?v=igQlbesF0zA
        (they also have vids for other 2012 politicians… Santorum)
        (best line: “I’m a leprechaun farmer who’s a gambler.”)
        (Ron Paul does remind me of a leprechaun: they would do almost anything to hold onto their gold… except endanger their liberty!)

        @MJM, yes the term impeached is correct jargon, although most folks assume it means more than it says. However, being ‘acquitted’ by the senate is also jargon; both B.Clinton and A.Johnson had their sentence overturned by a smaller (more elitist slash aristocratic) jury, rather than having their original grand-jury trial (by a large body of commoners) really overturned.

        The traditional idea of a serious crime goes like this: the big-jury is responsible for assessing the charges, and the evidence, to say whether sufficient evidence for a trial exists, and whether the alleged act is in fact a crime under the law. Once that initial hurdle has been passed, the lawsuit is proven not to be a frivolous one lacking enough evidence, or similar gaffes.

        The small-jury, presided over by a judge (chief justice of the scotus in the case of presidential impeachment-trials), is tasked with determining whether the evidence indicates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. B.Clinton was not convicted according to the 2/3rds rule, although about half of the senate (all repubs) voted him guilty of being a liar. Acquitted, but still pretty embarrassing.

        A.Johnson was saved from conviction by a single vote… later, many of the not-guilty votes turned out to be bought with cash & patronage. Johnson’s barely-avoided conviction would have been over a matter covered in the Constitution explicitly — he fired the existing secdef, and replaced him with a new one, but never got the advice & consent of the senate (to confirm the new secdef-nominee). Failure to obey the Constitution would presumably count as a High Crime. Interestingly, though, bribery was also an impeachable offense, so if there had been enough evidence on bribes to prevent impeachment over the secdef to warrant a new impeachment proceeding, A.Johnson might have been impeached & convicted in a second attempt, covering his behavior in the previous impeachment-trial. Guilty, but got away.

        Nixon was *not* ever impeached by the full House, let alone convicted by the senate and scotus, but that’s only because he resigned before they could get rid of him the hard way. Guilty.

        One thing I’ve always wanted was to see impeachment trials for abuse of patronage, earmarks, and the like: congressfolk bribing their voters with pork. Obama-phones, sigh. (Bribery *is* a bidirectional term, though I’m not sure if that was grammatically true back in 1787.)

  6. leslymill says:

    Now I want to pull out some history books……this could take a week to study…..Is this an historians life purpose? I will say how can Obama blame bush when he is doing the same thing….don’t need a history degree to see this.

    • Rich Grise says:

      I’m not voting Johnson – for some reason, I simply don’t trust him. I’m writing in Ron Paul, essentially as we speak. (I just received my California vote-by-mail ballot.)

      Let Gary go, and join the write-in campain for Dr. Paul! Let’s present a unified front against the criminals in Washington!

  7. Surfisher says:

    Amazing that the people have been bamboozled into thinking that either Barack or Mitt are a solution — when both are AGAINST these principles upon our Nation was built!

    PRINCIPLES we must stand by!

    “A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have….” Thomas Jefferson

    “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

    “When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.” DOROTHY THOMPSON

    “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will.” FREDERICK DOUGLAS

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” —Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” EDMUND BURKE

    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN
    —————————————————-

    Voting for either would be legitimizing the further corruption that seems to have no end!

    VOTE for Garry Johnson — or face the dire consequences of failing to do so — TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICA!

  8. Rich Grise says:

    The simplest way to have Freedom is to, well, just up and BE FREE! Screw the bureaucrats; just be conscious enough to not get caught. After all, Freedom is for individuals!

    • Surfisher says:

      WARNING, WARNING, WARNING:

      Voting for either Barack or Mitt would be legitimizing further the corruption that seems to have no end in the aim to destroy Americans’ Freedoms and Prosperity!

      If Barack or Mitt win — Free America ENDS in 2012!

      VOTE for Garry Johnson — or face the dire consequences of failing to do so — TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICA!

      (Would love to write-in Dr. Ron Paul — but ALL indications are that such write-in votes for Ron Paul will be screened and then thrown out — that’s how much the Establishment fears the Good Doctor!)

      • Rich Grise says:

        For some reason, I don’t trust GJ.
        1. Will he call off all the wars and bring our kids home forthwith?
        2. Will he end the insane war on drugs?
        3. Will he cut federal spending by any significant amount, rather than just increasing it by less than planned and calling it a “cut?”
        4. Will he get rid of five different federal bureaucracies?

        5. Will he work towards abolishing the income tax? For that matter, will Dr. Ron abolish the income tax?

        I have my California vote-by-mail ballot on my desk now, but have been procrastinating for several days now. Will a GJ vote send as strong a message as a write-in?

        One way or another, we need to present a united front, rather than splitting ourselves down the middle and diluting our message of Liberty!

      • ___j___ says:

        Rich, not sure if you are still holding off, or have made your decision, but for the benefit of any undecided readers, possibly including you:

        1. wants to bring troops home from Afghanistan now, close most of our EU-region bases soon, and cut defense budget by 43% in his first year (balanced budget now). Not ‘all’ wars & bases, but solid.
        2. executive order to legalize marijuana now (regulated similar to beer), but not other drugs, which ought to be treated as HHS issues; thinks DEA war on drugs should be ended now.
        3. serious cuts, balanced budget in one year, surplus in two years
        4. not necessarily — wants to abolish dept of education, and would sign a bill to end the fed (but thinks that is not our biggest trouble); plans to cut spending dramatically might defund further agencies.
        5. currently favors abolishing income tax, to replace it with FairTax

        As for how to best send a message, and unify the liberty-voters, I have specific thoughts on that, which differ from other folks here. Some people advocate everybody unifying around Gary Johnson, and some others advocate everybody writing in Ron Paul. To my mind, either one is just fine, and will send the correct message, loud & clear, to the people who need to hear it. The mainstream media will *not* be reporting how many votes Gary manages, nor how many Ron Paul write-ins there are, to everyday folks, or even to politically-involved folks. Everything will be *all* and only about Mitt vs Barack, unless there is a spoiler scenario, as with Nader in FL in 2000.

        But the point is not to send a message to average voters; the point is to send a message to the folks that run the RNC, and the 2014 liberty candidates as well as 2016 liberty candidates. *Those* people can easily add up the numbers, and realize that Gary Johnson + Ron Paul + Virgil Goode + other liberty-leaning candidates represent hardcore liberty-voters, of various sorts. We can worry about unifying in 2016, if we manage to get a liberty-nominee.

        For now, though, do as you please. Do you like GJ better than RP, or vice versa? Do you want the liberty-candidate in 2016 to be more like RP, or more like GJ? There is some risk to doing a write-in vote, if the candidate is not a certified write-in for your state election commission. (Maine has certified Ron Paul as a write-in, but I’m not sure about California?) That might impact your decision somewhat.

        Last but not least, since you live in a non-swing-state, you can vote for a liberty-candidate, *without* any worries about being a spoiler. That’s the advantage to not being a swing-state: you are free to vote for who you wish, because statistically your prez-vote changes nothing in terms of the electoral college outcome. Anywhere but the ten or so swing-states, that result is set in stone by this point.

        Folks living in FL NC OH WI VA CO IA NV and maybe NH need to know that they are swing-voters in swing-states with extremely tight margins of victory, which means that liberty-voters are kingmakers. Decide if you want 4 more years of Obama with congress against him, or 8 years of Mitt with congress backing him. Even if your own vote is not something you want to be strategic about, you can give advice to other folks in your swing-state, likely voters; each one counts. Figure out which is the lesser of two evils, and advise accordingly.

      • Rich Grise says:

        That “electoral college” is another one of the scams that REALLY pisses me off – Mexifornia has 55 electoral votes, but if Obamney gets 27 of them and Rombama gets 28, then they say ALL 55 GO TO Rombama! In other words, if you’re not with the crowd, they actually CHANGE YOUR VOTE!

        Can anyone suggest a way to stop that sort of insanity?

      • Rich Grise says:

        The “lesser of two evils” is still evil.

  9. I don’t follow LIbertarian politics closely, but am a bit surprised/puzzled that, if Ron Paul were treated as unfairly as it seems he was treated, why didn’t he, near/at the end, switch over to the Libertarian ticket and take on GJ as VP if needed? Were the Liibertarians and GJ that strongly attached to having GJ run in that slot despite knowing that historically they had no chance on their own? Their chance would STILL have not been good with Paul as the leader, and the *likely* outcome would probably have been to simply split Obama’s opposition, but I’m still puzzled by it.

    - MJM

    • Rich Grise says:

      I can’t guess what was on Dr. Paul’s mind – why not ask him?

    • Jim says:

      Better yet why didn’t he demand recounts in all the states he was (allegedly) robbed of the vote? Of course if he didn’t milk the us against them conspiracy rhetoric he wouldn’t have ended his campaign with over $2 million surplus which will be funneled to his son’s RandPAC under the guise of “funding Libertarian causes” (in other words he was never in it to win it but to help Jr. get exposure and $).

      • Jim, if you don’t think he was in it to win, I would think you’d be a strong supporter: obviously you’ve been smoking a lot of what he’d like to legalize.

        - MJM
        Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” — but that book was mainly about tobacco! LOL!

      • Jim says:

        Mike listen to the blog author at 16:10. Wead says that the Paul campaign’s own numbers showed Romney already had the win secured before Michigan which held it’s primary on February 28. Then look at Paul’s FEC disbursements. Plenty of family members on the payroll in a “race” which campaign strategist Douglas Wead himself admits they lost 6 months before the convention (Paul’s son in law and grandson in law both raked in over 56,000 in less than 8 months while the median American YEARLY income is less than 25,000) then tell me again it wasn’t about the $

    • ___j___ says:

      Your question is difficult to answer without being Ron Paul, as Rich implies, but I can give you the speculative scuttlebutt. First of all, there are specific state ballot-access laws that prevent a person from switching parties mid-stream (called sore-loser laws).

      Second, the convention for the Libertarian party was over long before the natcon for the Republican party, so besides ballot access, switching midway would definitely bump somebody from their nomination-slot.

      Third, running on a third-party ticket would likely have split the vote, and Ron Paul has said in the past he didn’t want to run third party, or didn’t plan to run third-party, and similar things. Whether this was his own choice, or motivated by politics related to the 2012 campaign season, or motivated by politics related to the liberty-movement in the future, or a combo, is unknown.

      Finally, fourth, the chances of winning the electoral college when running as a third party are effectively zero, even with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on the same ticket, at this late of a date. They might not even have been able to get the 15% polling nationally that would have let them squeak into the prez-debates. So, while Ron Paul has always campaigned with voter-education in mind, he also has always campaigned to promote the liberty movement, and to win over the hearts and minds of everyday republican voters. The primary goal was to win, but the secondary goal was to promote liberty in the near term, to pave the way for a win later on. Switching to the libertarian party at the last minute would have helped him gain some amount of added exposure to new listeners, but might well have cost him many of the key listeners he had gained among republicans so far, based on anger at splitting the vote and/or deserting his original party.

      In the long run, methinks the way he ran his campaign will be to the benefit of the liberty-movement. The only way we can have a hope of winning most elections is by getting a liberty-candidate to become the nominee of the republican party… and to do that, we need to gain support for liberty-concepts amongst republican primary-voters, and educate liberty-supporters on how to become republican-delegates. These long-term goals are short-circuited if lots of people leave the repub party, trying to return to independent status, or to become new members of the libertarian party, or whatever. The problem is partly one of voter psychology (used to the two-party system), but mostly one of election-math (the infamous lesser-of-two-evils rule of thumb) and funding-math (only nominess of one of the two major-parties can garner significant donors from the corporate world).

  10. Surfisher says:

    Voting for Barack Romney or Mitt Obama — is like choosing by which train you want our Nation to be destroyed…a bullet train or a freight train…?!

  11. Surfisher says:

    Have the American People been reduced again to vote for the “lesser of two evils” — are there no other options?

    My conscience cannot allow me to vote for the “lesser of two evils”, because, that means that an Evil will still get elected!
    ———————————————–

    1) The Barack is the evil we know — a Socialist minded professional politician that will have most of its venomous teeth pulled out when republicans win more seats this election. Thus, it will lack the ability to do much more damage than it’s done already. If the Barack is “elected” it will end its last term in a whimper.

    2) The Mitt — the evil we don’t know…yet. But all indicators are that it is supported by the Central Banks. And that it supports Israel unquestionably to the detriment of our own national security (will start more unconstitutional wars to protect Israel, not the USA).

    Should the Mitt win, we may be in bigger trouble — since it assured itself of no competition for the next republican nomination (see the false vote it made the GOP do on its behalf):

    ————————————————-

    So, unless we vote for Gary Johnson — who wants to restore Liberty and Prosperity, what would you get instead:

    Final four years of ‘toothless’ BO — or 8 more years of the Mitt (with the possibility it has groomed its spawn — 5 Mormon Sons — to keep the dynasty going) for many decades to come…?!

  12. There’s another aspect to all this that I’ve only seen considered once (I forget where): Given present conditions it is likely that the next four years will be a disaster no matter who’s president. If Obama is re-elected it will mean a likely Republican victory in 16. BUT… if Romney is elected, the voters won’t know WHERE to go in 16. A good many will believe it stemmed from Obama’s massive debt increase, and another good many will also blame Romney for “not doing enough” to fix it. I would say that from a Libertarian or Paulian standpoint that a Romney victory is likely to be a strong positive.

    Of course it’s also a dangerous positive: remember what happened in 1930s Germany: the populace gave up on the traditional parties and flocked to an alternative that turned out to be a dangerous disaster. That could happen here too… except THIS time the nutso has a big red button to play with. If the Libertarians run a good, strong, candidate it might be their best shot ever. BUT… it could also open the race to a Krazy who’s not even on the horizon yet.

    Not good at all.

    - MJM

    • Surfisher says:

      The BO wants to destroy our Freedoms and our Nation!

      But, If Mitt gets into the White House — expect An American Tragedy!

      Mormon Mitt won’t allow Catholic Ryan to be anything but his doormat (to be disposed of when the time comes).

      His 5 Mormon Sons are getting groomed to take over…and create a Dynasty of little Mormon Mitts for decades to come!

      Now, that is truly scary!

  13. Surfisher says:

    VOTE for Gary Johnson (do not write-in Ron Paul)!

    Here is why:

    The Establishment fears Ron Paul so much that they will do anything to stop him and his (our) movement for Liberty on the election level (since so far they have not been able to control the internet, and thus shut us down completely)!

    The Major Networks will show after the election NOTHING for Ron Paul (not even that he got ANY of the Vote, for that would be admitting that some actually dared to write-in his name).

    The Apparatchiks have been instructed to shred all write-in ballots where Ron Paul’s name appears (for proof just watch after the election and see if Ron Paul is even mentioned, let alone how many votes he got)!

    Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 States — so a vote for him is a vote COUNTED against the wannabe despots of America! (Plus, if he breaks the 5+% level, the Libertarian Party (Ron Paul’s original party) will be eligible for federal funds to the tune of about 90 million dollars for the next election — and no longer will be a financial shoe-string operation!!!)

    VOTE GARY JOHNSON (or write-in Ron Paul if you must) — as long as you vote for what you realize is BEST for our Nation, and NOT get bamboozled into voting again for the “lesser” of two evils (this path only leads to more and bigger evil, for the next election cycle…should there be one)!!!

  14. Surfisher says:

    Unless you VOTE for Gary Johnson — we won’t have an Election, but puppet Selection!

    You want a prediction — here is an APODICTIC one:

    The American People LOOSE, regardless which one of these two puppets (Barack Hussein or Mormon Mitt) gets “elected”!

    (PLEASE, SPREAD THIS — THERE IS TIME LEFT TO INFLUENCE THE UNDECIDED!)

  15. Surfisher says:

    Principles we must stand by!

    “A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have….” Thomas Jefferson

    “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

    “Freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them — and then, the opportunity to choose.” C. WRIGHT MILLS

    “When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.” DOROTHY THOMPSON

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” EDMUND BURKE

    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN

    “We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.
    But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.” — Written in a letter by then former President Theodore Roosevelt on January 3, 1919 to the president of the American Defense Society.

  16. Surfisher says:

    Ron Paul schools Barack Hussein:
    “If you don’t know the Constitution (the one you swore to protect) you shouldn’t be in Office.”

    10 minute video — spread it like wildfire!

    (also, note how without a teleprompter Lil’ Hussein can’t put two words together without mumbling, bumbling and stumbling)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 475 other followers

%d bloggers like this: