Maybe Another Reason To Vote Romney

OK, there are lots of reasons to get Obama out of office.  The problem is, that for most of them, I have no reasonable hope that Romney will be any better.  Corporatism?  CEO as Venture-Capitalist-in-Chief?  Indefinite detentions?  Lack of Transparency?  The Drug War?   Obamacare, which was modeled on Romneycare?  What are the odds that any of these improve under Romney, and at least under Obama they are not being done by someone who wraps himself in the mantle of small government and free markets, helping to corrupt the public understanding of those terms.

So I am pretty sure I cannot vote for Romey.  I really like Gary Johnson and I am pretty sure he will get my vote.  Republican friends get all over me for wasting my vote, saying it will just help Obama win.  So be it -- I see both candidates undertaking roughly the same actions and I would rather that bad statist actions be taken in the name of Progressives rather than in the name of someone who purports to be free market.

To test my own position, I have been scrounging for reasons to vote for Romney.  I have two so far:

1.  Less likely to bail out Illinois when its pension system goes broke in the next few years

2.  I might marginally prefer his Supreme Court nominees to Obama's

That is about all I have.  Stretching today, I have come up with a third:

3.  If we have a Republican in the White House, the press will start doing its job and dig into the facts about drone strikes and warrant-less wiretapping.

You know the press are in full defense mode protecting their guy in office when the only press that reports on the ACLU's accusation about sky-rocketing wire tapping under Obama are the libertarians at Reason and the Marxists at the World Socialist Web site.  Four years ago the New York Times would have milked this for about a dozen articles.  It may take a Republican President to get the media to kick back into accountability mode over expansions of executive power.


  1. Peter Bickford:

    I'm basically Libertarian myself (and living in California, where I have absolutely no hope of moving the election). On the chance that Arizona might actually be close enough so that one man's vote can make a difference, I'd definitely recommend going for the _result_ you want (Obama out of office) over the message you want to send with your vote (as stated in the posting).

    In a winner-take all system such as ours, you essentially get a chance to weigh in as two points--1 spent when you decide not to vote for a guy, and 1 spent when you vote for the guy who might actually win. With the record of the past four years as a guide, I'm spending both my "points" against Obama. In doing so, I don't just weigh in as not giving him my support, but I actively negate one of his supporters. If I voted for Johnson (or any other guy polling at 2%) I'd be diminishing my already tiny impact. And heck, we Californians are doomed anyway--you guys might actually make a difference!

  2. Craig:

    I see both candidates undertaking roughly the same actions
    Hogwash. It would seem to me that you might be concerned about what we call the "economy." Instead of slouching once more into recession, a Romney win would probably result in a serious recovery next year. Absent the threats of higher taxes and with the prospect of Obamacare being repealed, entrepreneurs (yourself included) would likely begin to invest in expansion. Romney's economics are likely not Austrian enough to please me, but his lack of antagonism towards the free market makes him eminently more preferable than the other.
    How could you ignore the economics?

  3. Bennett In Vermont:

    I'm with you on this one. Plus the really big negative for Romney is that he'd probably kill the commercial space movement in favor of the established aerospace contractors like ATK. Not to mention probably putting Mike Griffin in charge of NASA again (horrors!).

    So despite my disappointment at the entire Obama agenda to date, Romney seems to be an even worse pick to run our country into the ground.

  4. mahtso:

    I would not be asking whether things will improve under Pres. Romney, but how much worse will they get under a second term for the President. I would think that for any voter with kids, the hope that even small advantages will be "compounded" in the long run would be a powerful incentive to vote for the lesser of two evils.

  5. Rick C:

    Ok, how about:

    Not likely to appoint criminals like Tim Geithner? Not likely to blow off the Hatch Act, or the WARN act, etc., etc?

  6. Andrew Garland:

    If you believe that both candidates are the same, equally bad, then vote out the incumbent. This interferes with building a more complete control of the state aparatus.

  7. mesaeconoguy:

    Obama has the worst economic recovery on record.

    The reason for that is self-inflicted stupidity:

    As a business owner, that should be your primary concern.

  8. JW:

    There's only one reason not to vote for him: there is no significant difference between the Giant Douche of Romney and the Turd Sandwich that's Obama.

    I'm voting with my feet and staying home on election day. No point in encouraging them.

  9. John Moore:

    We already have a VC-in-chief. At least Romney knows how to do it. But seriously, Romney is clearly less of a statist than Obama. On civil liberties, you're right that they'll be about the same, but the press will go after Romney. Likewise, if Romney brags about K-O'ing Al Qaeda, and they strike back on another 9-11 anniversary, the press will *at least report it.* The only power our press will "speak truth to" is non-Democrat power.

    In the debate tonight, Romney gave a lot of ideological support to devolution from Federal power to state power, which LIbertarians should cheer. Of course, he had to reassure various constituencies that their federal benefits wouldn't be cut, but that's in battles already lost.

  10. Val:

    Here's a couple of incredibly important reasons: The Supreme Court.

  11. Brian Dunbar:

    Fewer 'ums' when he speaks.

    Drives me nuts when people do that.

  12. Keith Jackson:

    I'm principally opposed to participating in the auction of my neighbors' rights, otherwise known as elections.

    I agree that Romney will completely fail to avert the national debt catastrophe and will be a mess in dozens of other ways. But he isn't nearly the same as Obama, if for no other reason than he is not intent on scuttling the US economy in an ideological vendetta. I was previously skeptical of Obama critics who saw him as a man who hates what America represents, and who wants to knock us down a few pegs in retaliation for the perceived arrogance and economic "unfairness". I opted for the more obvious answer of incompetence. But I think they're correct. I don't see that in Romney, despite all his flaws.

    But no matter who wins, this is the most depressing election I've ever seen in my lifetime.

  13. fredrick.:

    Absolutely true about the drone strikes. The handful Bush did were all decried with crocodile tears about how innocent civilians were killed. Obama seems to be able to use drones wantonly with nary a comment.

    As soon as Romney is president all of a sudden the drones will once again be an issue.

    Not that I really care all that much what we do with really evil Jihadists and their relatives overseas. If Joe Arpaio were buzzing your home in Phoenix with a drone, I would be more concerned.

  14. ErikTheRed:

    On the courts:

    1) When Romney was governor, exactly 25% (9 of 36) of his appointees were GOP. The ultra-liberal Boston Globe editorial page praised his appointments.

    2) The supreme court has only struck down around 150 federal laws ... since its inception. The Supreme Court is the most insanely overrated backstop of all time.

  15. fredrick.:

    And who is he suppose to appoint if he is Gov of MA? Is he suppose to import people from North Dakota, so he can get a conservative appointment?

    Seriously MA is one of the most liberal states in the nation, if he were only allowed to appoint conservatives 75% of the offices would be vacant.

    We should really be looking at how well he did in a state that is leftist. Against all odds he managed to win an election in, and to get a modicum of conservatism in a left wing state.

  16. fredrick.:

    "Do nine men interpret?" "Nine men," I nod.

    Delia, here we nine were hailed.

    Somehow I think I got that backwards :P

  17. Nehemiah:

    I like to think protecting conscience rights is important. At least it was to Thomas Jefferson

    "It behooves
    every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of
    it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become
    his own.”

    Obama's administration is attacking religious freedom on so many fronts it is hard to keep track of.

  18. Keith Jackson:

    There's a reason they call them opinions.

  19. ErikTheRed:

    Lame excuse. The President and state governors have both the veto pen and the bully pulpit. There's no excuse to simply get steamrolled like that, but I guess the GOP supporters have pretty much learned to accept losing every significant legislative battle and comfort themselves with "gee, spines are uncomfortable, so we don't expect our politicians to have any."

    Gary Johnson was in a 2-1 Democrat-Republican state, governed as a strong fiscal conservative and - unlike Romney - managed to get re-elected. He didn't even give them a socialized medicine system. Romney's a decent salesman with extraordinary hair, but he has no spine. When it comes to governance, he's a limp noodle.

  20. obloodyhell:

    And yet he would still be, if all that were conceded as "true", a massive rightward shift from Obama.

    And evidence is he probably isn't as left leaning as that record suggests.

  21. obloodyhell:

    If you see no significant difference between the two then you're either absolutely bereft of the slightest vestige of common sense or as blind and ignorant as a bat.

    Perhaps in your case it's both, I grant. :-S

  22. obloodyhell:

    Precisely. I find Warren's complaints about this admin's utterly wretched record on small businesses in direct conflict with his defacto support for the son of a bitch at the heart of most of it.

    I mean, if you REALLY think it's NOT glaringly obvious that Romney would be far better for small businesses you've got some major critical thinking flaws.

  23. obloodyhell:

    }}}} This interferes with building a more complete control of the state aparatus

    Moved! Seconded!! At the least, you can ALWAYS justify voting out the incumbent for JUST this reason.

  24. obloodyhell:

    Another wildly successful experiment in self-trepanning speaks out.

  25. obloodyhell:

    }}}} How could you ignore the economics?


  26. Berl Kaufman:

    About 80% of federal expenditure goes to entitlement programs which no one, Romney included, wants to touch, and the military. Romney would likely expand the military budget. Romney has made it incredibly clear he won't touch medicare or SS. The other 20% is a battle for this or that. As Coyote is suggesting, the economic differences are minimal. Indeed, Romney will probably back some sort of MA style replacement of Obamacare at some point after getting it repealed.

  27. mark2:

    Wow lose a debate, grossly manipulate numbers.
    Labor department says Sept +114,000 jobs created.
    Unemployment goes down to 7.8% but that figure uses +873,000 new jobs in September to get the 7.8
    7 fold divergence to make the unemployment look better (at least under 8%)
    I strongly suspect there will be a major revision Nov 7, since you need 160K jobs a month to get unemployment down and only 114,000 jobs were really created this month

  28. fredrick.:

    They are not called opinions. They are called palindromes :P

  29. mark2:

    Ask yourself. What would Ron Paul do? He wouldn't cut the military, probably wouldn't cut SSA significantly either. Unfortunately you need to pick your battles in 2 years you can get 2 maybe 3 major bills passed, you can't cure everything. Yes Romney will make incremental changes, but so would everyone else. Even Gary Johnson or Rosanne Barr.

  30. mark2:

    I call double bull. NM has routinely been a swing state as long as I have been alive. MA blue through and through. . You gotta do what you gotta do to get whatever part of your plan passed. Gary had a much easier time and with that I highly doubt that Gary Johnson nominated even 25% libertarians to office
    Besides, you changed the subject with your comment above.

  31. Steve W from Ford:

    I don't agree with you that the Big O and Romney are two sides of the same coin but rather than argue I'll simply make this point: Mr Romney is likely to be a FAR better manager than Mr Obama. Mr Romney has a proven history of finding top notch managers for diverse enterprises and has been a huge success at everything he has tried. Whatever else the modern Presidency has become it still is, at base, a job of trying to manage the largest organization in the world. Is that alone not worth your vote?

  32. mesaeconoguy:

    The actual "apples to apples" revision won't come out until Jan 2013, conveniently well after the election.

    Contrary to what the economically illiterate press is saying, and even some ex-BLS/CBO/others, there most definitely is opportunity to manipulate this number.

    It is almost universal consensus among economists that the reported number is incorrect. Any significant upward revision will raise very serious questions about the integrity of BLS reporting, which already is shoddy:

  33. JW:

    I take this as the highest compliment coming from a TEAM drooler.

    "Vote for our guy so the other guy doesn't win!" Now, who is bereft of common sense?

  34. markm:

    The evidence is, he's got no principles at all - and better conservatives than him have often shifted far to the left once they've settled into Washington.