GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good

[KILLER_CLOWN]

« Previous: Ron Paul Wins! | LRC Home | LRC Blog | Next: Nullification: Colorado and Washington Disregard Federal Marijuana Prohibition »

November 7, 2012
GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on November 7, 2012 01:35 AM

Romney lost today to a guy who is overseeing a horrible economy, prosecuting unpopular wars, and who can barely string 5 words together without a teleprompter. This was the best the Republican Party can do. Not only are the Republicans evil, they're evil and contemptible losers, which is far worse.

The biggest losers tonight are of course people who value peace and freedom, but we would have also lost if Romney won. The GOP is right up there in the loser category, however. The GOP lost seats in the Senate, and did little to improve its position in the House. It has served up two ridiculously bad nominees in a row, claiming "electability" and then going down in flames.

Rand Paul certainly came out of this looking very bad as well. He fell in line behind the party masters, banking on some advantage to be gained through an endorsement of Romney. He ended up just looking politically unsavvy and unprincipled. There is little to be gained either, from playing ball with a Party that as inept as the GOP at this point.

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the GOP may actually show sign of disintegration in the next several years. The GOP has ceased to present any sort of actual alternative, and worse yet, it can't run a winning candidate. Once that happens, the coalition that makes up your political party will begin to fall apart.

The Ron Paul movement is a big winner here. The GOP told the libertarians in the party to get lost, and the GOP paid for it. Interestingly, both Iowa and Nevada, where Ron Paul supporters gained control of the state party, both went to Obama after the Romney campaign actively fought to disenfranchise Ron Paul supporters. I guess the GOP got what it wanted there.

There is exactly one movement that offers any real opposition to the status quo, and it ain't the conservative movement, which is on life support and entering a permanent vegetative state. Ron Paul's libertarian movement, brimming with well-educated young people, is the only thing left standing. The GOP operatives who predicted a big victory tonight just look pathetic.

On foreign policy, if it proves to be true that Obama is truly reluctant to engage in the mass murder of Iranians, that may be a victory there all by itself. Time well tell on that one.

And finally, when the economy enters a deep recession in a couple of years (or sooner), it will be good that Obama will be in office. You all know how it would have gone otherwise: After a couple of years of Romney misrule, the media will decide that Romney was the candidate of "free markets." Then, mired in a depression, our wise overlords will declare that "we tried that free market thing, and look what happened."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/125562.html

[Donger]

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Donger

I know many will disregard this as it's "just Lew Rockwell" but it does make some interesting points.

[FishingRod]

Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney is not a Problem, his doing an ad for Todd Akin is a problem.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney is not a Problem, his doing an ad for Todd Akin is a problem.

I am holding out hope that Rand will be a viable candidate in 2016, I'm sure Obama will do his part to help out the opposition.

[RedNFeisty]

I do like Ron Paul. If I though he had a chance, I would have voted for him. Would have been even greater if Buffet would have ran.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by RedNFeisty

I do like Ron Paul. If I though he had a chance, I would have voted for him. Would have been even greater if Buffet would have ran.

It was too late yesterday, he should have been the GOP rep.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney is not a Problem, his doing an ad for Todd Akin is a problem.

O.M.G. Did he actually do that?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

I know many will disregard this as it's "just Lew Rockwell" but it does make some interesting points.

Which ones? Republicans are evil or mass murder of Iranians?

[DaveNull]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

O.M.G. Did he actually do that?

I didn't see an ad, but I got a robocall and was pretty shocked.

Ive lost some respect for him because of it.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Donger

Which ones? Republicans are evil or mass murder of Iranians?

I must digress a moment. When I saw this today, I couldn't help think of you:

British Have Invaded 90 Percent of the World's Countries!
by Michael S. Rozeff on November 7, 2012 06:15 AM

"Britain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world in its long and colourful history, new research has found." So says new research. Was this culture and/or genetic predisposition handed on to the U.S. via the British colonists? Or does the geography of the two countries that are essentially islands foster taking to the seas? Or has the advanced private property system produced the wealth that could be turned to extensive warfare? Or have advanced tax-collecting and money systems been essential to gathering wealth and focusing it on conquest? (Thanks to "pukerimu" for the link.)

Link

The analysis is contained in a new book, All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To.


That sounds like a good Christmas present to give a friend or family member who is a NeoConservative. You should ask your wife to buy it for ya' or pick it up for yourself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9...uxembourg.html

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Donger

Which ones? Republicans are evil or mass murder of Iranians?

The evil ones shouldn't have chased away a good portion of their base I guess, and we're also not for the mass murder of Iranians.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

And finally, when the economy enters a deep recession in a couple of years (or sooner), it will be good that Obama will be in office. You all know how it would have gone otherwise: After a couple of years of Romney misrule, the media will decide that Romney was the candidate of "free markets." Then, mired in a depression, our wise overlords will declare that "we tried that free market thing, and look what happened."

Ha. I told someone today that this was the only bright side to Obama winning.

The economy is going to tank and tank hard regardless if Romney won or not. Interest rates and inflation will go nowhere but up within the next two years, minimum. The bubble is re-inflating.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Ha. I told someone today that this was the only bright side to Obama winning.

The economy is going to tank and tank hard regardless if Romney won or not. Interest rates and inflation will go nowhere but up within the next two years, minimum. The bubble is re-inflating.

It's true, and exactly why i preferred Obama won. Romney would have opened the door for a democrat to come back in 2016 where as now Obama will be shown for the absolute failure he is. People like getting free stuff and that's all well and good but once they can't put food on the table things will change mighty fast.

[donkhater]

All kidding and partisanship aside, this whole election cycle was a teachable moment for my daugthers. The fact that so many people tie their future to the identity of who is elected at the federal level (president and congress) is a giant red blinking light that too much power has accumulated in Washington.

Ideally, the transfer of power from one party to another at the federal level should not shift the course of the country so much. Each party should be able to agree to a reasonable budget, national defense strategy and judicial system. Everything else is the result of extortion on behalf of our elected officials.