To Romney and the GOP Elites: What Goes Around Comes Around
On November 6th a large percentage of the Ron Paul supporters (10% of the GOP electorate) in the primary season exited the corrupt GOP voting process, stayed home, watched our television screens (like I did) and followed through with our warning to the GOP establishment. No Paul = No Vote in November.
Did you notice that during the many hours of broadcast news coverage of election night not one establishment news talking head mentioned what would have happened if Ron Paul supporters had voted en masse for the GOP and Mitt Romney? In fact, Ron Paul was never mentioned at all and they dared not even speak his name during the night's running commentary. The Paul factor was the elephant in the room the press had obviously been ordered to avoid in discussions at all costs.
The world knows how the Romney campaign and GOP establishment trashed Ron Paul and his supporters during the GOP primary season and in front of millions at the GOP national convention. Romney had the presidential nomination sewed up and had he treated the Paul voters with respect and reconciliation and added either Rand or Ron Paul on the ticket as I suggested in "No Paul = No Vote in November."
The Republican Party would have captured the Senate and the would have millions of young supporters promoting both the party and our freedom agenda. But this was not to be, due to the arrogance and animosity of the GOP big-wigs and the Republican operatives running the Romney campaign.
Maybe this is all for the best. After all, if Rand Paul were now the vice president he would be pigeon-holed and basically a captive hostage of the GOP establishment just like he was during the GOP convention when his father and Paul supporters were treated so badly. Ron Paul, Rand Paul and the Paul convention delegates certainly deserved better treatment than the broken promises and humiliation they received at the hands of the GOP brownshirts.
In fact, I thought Rand Paul was treated in a similar fashion to William Wallace at his execution at the end of the classic Mel Gibson movie, "Braveheart." The only difference was the GOP thugs forced Rand to keep quiet whereas William Wallace was able to shout "Freedom!" in his dying moments. William Wallace died that day and now, hundreds of years later, Scotland is on the precipice of Scottish independence.
Well, today I am just one of millions of Ron Paul supporters but I want Karl Rove and his scumbag friends and political operatives to remember: We told you that if a Paul wasn't on the 2012 ticket we wouldn't vote. You got what you deserved and now Obama has four more years to prove that he can become the worst president in history.
It is four long years until 2016 but unlike William Wallace, Ron and Rand Paul have not been executed and millions of liberty supporters remain. We will not be silenced and we will not forget.
So to the GOP elites and Mitt Romney we send a loud shout of "FREEDOM!", like William Wallace did so long ago. The only difference is we are still here. The only real GOP winners in this election were the Ron Paul forces and you will rue the day and bitterly regret your treatment of us during 2012.
So remember, "What goes around comes around." We will still be here in 2014 and 2016 and we will still be fighting for freedom.
Posted by Patrick_Henry on 11/12/12 08:09 AM
Spot on Ron, the only thing I wish more Ron Paul supporters like myself would have done instead of staying home or writing him in. I wish they would've gone and voted for Gary Johnson like I did. If Johnson would've garnered 5 percent of the vote. They would've had to have put the libertarian party into the electoral college for the next election. It really doesn't matter anyway since there's NO federal solution to our problems. We have to work within our state and local governments if we want to change things in this country IMHO.
Posted by theodorej on 11/12/12 06:19 AM
@Hoss ... . Excellent post and perhaps some what prophetic...
Posted by jp1110105 on 11/11/12 05:27 PM
When RP speaks, truth is spoken.
Ron Paul: A New Beginning
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/11/2012 14:07 -0500
From Ron Paul
Ron Paul: A New Beginning
America is over $16 trillion in debt. The 'official' unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.
Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.
Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance.
Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads.
It's not hard to see why, though.
To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, 'stimulus packages,' and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans' liberties I've named above.
As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor.
GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn't perform better.
They're looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies.
My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together.
Liberty is popular - regardless of race, religion, or creed.
As long as the GOP establishment continues to not only reject the liberty message, but actively drive away the young, diverse coalition that supports those principles, it will see results similar to Tuesday's outcome.
A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country.
I urge all my Republican colleagues to join the liberty movement in fighting for a brighter future.
Click to view link
Posted by DarbyJie on 11/11/12 12:55 PM
Thanks for an excellent post.
Posted by Hoss on 11/11/12 10:34 AM
To those whose thoughtful consideration led them to cast a vote for Romney, I appreciate the reasoning that went into your decision.
As for myself, seeing the man as a consummate statist through words and deeds, and knowing that the fractional reserve Ponzi banking system is coming to its mathematical conclusion, and viewing the history of actual performance of lesser-of-two-evils Republican candidates and how the shell game works, I simply could not bring myself to try to 'pick up the turd by the clean end'.
The thing that matters is what the contingency plans are for when the currency stops working to move food and fuel. All the laws passed which have the effect of legitimizing executive branch dictatorship against a non-existent terrorist threat seem to be telegraphing what the reaction will be. Both sides of the contest were sewn up by the recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history, neither side would even admit the issue exists, even as news trickles out daily showing the increasing absurdity of attempts to hold the Ponzi together while all participants know the jig is up.
To me the choice was, which one would be the one to attempt to assume dictatorial power when the fit hits the shan. In that light, the only choice is neither one of them. I can see no way in which Romney would have been 'better' at being dictator, having shown zero inclination towards respect for individual rights. If Obama is hated more by the 'guns and bible' crowd he openly derides, then so much the better. If Leviathan will fail by overplaying its hand, then let it be the arrogant socialist who pushes it too far.
The only limitation of power is and always has been fear of retribution. Romney was promoted by the money cabal to divide us, and it worked. But it might have been a step too smart for them, because when things fall apart, a common enemy works to unite people far more powerfully than a common 'leader', especially a limp dishrag like Romney.
Posted by theodorej on 11/11/12 09:23 AM
Ron ... . I could not agree with you more... . Your observation has caused me to rethink my position,initially my feeling was that Romney was intent on an eight year term not four and for that reason he would embrace Ron Paul by either making him chairman of the fed or a meaningful cabinet post that would have brought his base into the fold... The republicans deserved what they got and my prayer is that the nation can survive the socialist onslaught... .The American people have demonstrated their lack of discernment by choosing a flagrant abuser of the constitution over a decent man that perhaps could have been moved to the right given the proper set of circumstances... As for the elitist that bullied the people into accepting their choice,... .they will be the meat that this administration will be quartering and consuming...
Posted by johnacord on 11/11/12 08:58 AM
Now we have a POTUS who not only is not Constitutionly eligible for the office but has been elected by overt, blatant fraud. Here is an interesting analyis every DB read whould study, especially those dedicated to electing a libertarian candidate in 2016.
Below is an excert. The full story is at Click to view link
November 7 | Was the election stolen? Remember all those lawsuits by Democrats demanding that any voter identification laws be repealed. Well, now we know why they filed them. They needed to steal the vote in certain key states so that Obama could be reelected.
Curiously, Obama lost in every state that requires a photo ID to be produced before voting. A list of closely contested state elections with no voter ID, which narrowly went to Obama include: Minnesota (10), Iowa (6), Wisconsin (10), Nevada (6), Colorado (9), New Mexico (5) and Pennsylvania (20). This amounts to a total of 66 electoral votes. When added to Romney's total of 205 electoral votes, that would give Romney 271 electoral votes, enough votes to win even without Ohio or Florida.
Posted by johnacord on 11/11/12 05:51 AM
The Great Financial Crisis will most likely occur between today and October of 2016. The probbalitity of that occuring has to be 80% or more. As so elegantly and convincingly argued by the intellects of the DB the collapse wil lshake the very foundations of the world economy and usher in a new age where libertarianism will be the only alternative to a discredited NWO.
IMHO it would have been greatly detrimental to both conservatism and libertarianism in the coming struggle against a vastly weakened NWO to have had an ertzatz "Conservatibe" like Romney in the WH. Far better it be Obama who is entirely discredited. For that reason I cast my vote for Johnson.
Posted by The_Squiller on 11/10/12 11:57 PM
Therein lies the problem with the republicans: by ostracizing Ron Paul, then they are indeed truly out-of-touch with political reform and the changing face of America. The noshow of Paulists may have tilted the needle towards Romney's loss, but the fact remains that there exists a plethora of factions within the republican party. Even Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama also reveals another side of the GOP's multiple personalities.
Also, ideologically-laced divisive labels such as "socialist-spewing statist", "free market-spewing statist", "corruption in the Fascist Left" (as if the GOP was never tainted with it), and "socialist liberal ideas" only serve to further alienate conservative thought.
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly frustratingly and disgustingly predicted that the Democrats will "evaporate forever" should Obama fail to fix the economy in his second term. But his failure does not equally exonerate republicans either. It is a certainty that they are going to be ecstatic should Obama fail, which is a compelling motive to filibuster and give the White House 4 years of hell while the American public suffers in the crossfire.
The Republicans lost simply because they are in shreds and is populated by power-hungry ideologues who only answer to the call of their own egos, Ron Paul excluded.
Posted by MetaCynic on 11/10/12 08:03 PM
This election might be a blessing in disguise. When the inevitable, long expected real crash does smite the U.S. economy, who do we want to be at the helm to take the blame, the socialist spewing statist, Obama or the free market spewing statist, Romney? The public is more attuned to rhetoric and slogans than it is to a president's actual record. For example, almost all observers, whether of the left or right, still believe that government actually shrank under Reagan. In reality it did no such thing. Just the opposite happened.
It's Reagan's free market rhetoric which is today remembered, not anything which he did to grow the state. Likewise, the cause of the future economic collapse will be associated with someone's rhetoric. Let it be Obama's. Once socialist rhetoric is rightfully forever linked in people's memory with economic collapse, it will be much easier for the blameless free market to pick up the pieces and rebuild. The rebuilding would take forever if the free market were to take the blame for the failure of socialist policies, which is what would happen if Romney were president.
The youthful Ron Paul movement can continue to infiltrate and take over the leadership of the Republican Party at the grassroots level. Paradigms shift when the old guard dies off. Because of the really unpleasant economic events now emerging, come 2016, the public will be desperate to hear new ideas for governance. Hopefully, by then with a boost from DB and other pro freedom voices, statist intervention will have been thoroughly discredited by reality. The long suffering public might then finally be ready to learn that freedom is not some utopian whimsy as they have been led to believe by the power elite. Liberty is not only practical but even vital for the quality of their day to day lives. When this time comes, libertarians should be positioned to show the way.
Posted by PepperDingle on 11/10/12 06:41 PM
I was able to obtain the actual video handed out to the press in regards to the Ron Paul question and how they were told to deal with it. Have a look:
Click to view link
Posted by nithsdale on 11/10/12 06:21 PM
You won! Four million so called GOPers did not vote. That's why Romney lost.
As the race tightened, I did file my absentee, thinking half a loaf was better than none and Romney might stop the Islamization of America.
In retrospect, I was wrong. I am 88 and I knew that the Obama support came from those born in the late 60's, then on, people that have no historical concept of what is happening, have been trained to get what they can and as quickly as possible.
The generations succeeding me have no idea of what is ahead. I do since I spent my life living abroad, while maintaining a home here, and being in constant contact with Islam. When you rebuild commercial and industrial facilities, especially after WWII, you are working with admiralty law, a concoction born from the Koran but processed by the latter day Templars for partnerships in The West, in a successful attempt to continue "international trade". This association, misinterpretted terribly by Europeans then and now, established a world code to facilitate business, trade unencumbered by pirates and double dealing which precluded it until the Silk Road functioned with Mohammed's new trading dictums for what is now over a thousand years! It was the only law left after the collapse of all the other governments in 1945 and the USA recognized that fact and ran with it to establish some sort of order while the world rebuilt itself from the destruction of the only real world war our globe has had.
It was a bargain that no one really thought of as religious even though scholars of Islam warned it was. It worked and especially well when we took to buying oil from the Middle East under Rockefeller developed agreements with the Kings of the Desert then, suggesting it was better to buy their sea of oil and save ours for when they ran out. Europe bought into this since it was so dependent upon the East, both Middle and Asian, to supplement the goods they needed for their recovering populations. The tropics still provided more everything than the lands they inhabitted with winters taking so much time!
Despite the teapot tempests re the course taken, it worked. The oil, energy needed to build what is called The American Century, really did the job. In half a century, fifty years, international trade made us all consume alike, all over the world.
Today, youth is captivated by the most complicated electronic devises that science and engineering ever thought to concoct. They live in a new world which has no relation to the world I knew. They are not as interested in the world view as we were but more in that their view be like everyone elses worldwide because that is their society. To be more blunt, they don't care about currencies, gold, silver et al unless it enhances theor lives personally. They just want to continue doing, getting as they live. They do not care about anything else. What they are, what they have, what they will want is their "freedom". How they get it is also their "freedom"
There is no way that Ron Paul can effect a change with such people. His followers hanker for the way things were but they will never be that way again.
Mr.Holland is correct. Those of us who knew the world before the internet had no business voting. We do not know the world today.
The trouble is those who voted do not know what comes next. They will learn soon. The rule of law in The West is an oxymoron. It changes everyday and in every way. This Islam knows and Islam does not change. There are millions of workers who never read anything who believe life is prelude to death. Islam assures them they have it right and they love it. They are raw minds and The west and its devotion to the thing of the moment can never counter the appeal of just living, loving, having babies and then going!
The Man who lives in the White House is their kind of guy. Doesn't matter where he came from, we are the world! Religion, who cares? We all believe in something.
Therein lies the tale to come. Obama loves Islam. he wears a a gold band proclaiming it, never replaced it with a wedding ring. He tells American History tales of how Islam has helped build the USA, here and abroad. He is not lying. Admirlty Law has always superceded our Constitution even with our Founding Fathers. The UN is setting it as the law for all!
Islam will rule and they have their Grand Caliph in place to effect it!
Posted by Revolutionary thinking. on 11/10/12 03:26 PM
Reply from The Daily Bell
Go have a drink.
Posted by RED on 11/10/12 02:40 PM
I appreciate and fully understand your insight and perspective, and while I sympathize, I find I am only in partial agreement with it.
I can understand how from a very high level and broad overview Libertarian perspective one might try to make the case that there is no difference between electing the current Marxist in chief and Romney, but I find this allegation in itself quite "Elitist" and arrogant.
From a very practical standpoint, there is in fact a significant difference between the two, and there is an even bigger difference between the current Regime and truly "Conservative" Republicans and free market oriented "Tea Party" members.
I would much rather work with a Romney / Ryan administration as a step toward moving the country to free markets and less government than with the current intractable Marxist and Fascist regime.
Yes, I am aware of "false dichotomy" rhetoric to the contrary, however given the current "system" why not at least try to move it in the correct direction toward more Free Market values.
There is a reason why Ron Paul affiliated himself with the Conservative members of the Republican Party as opposed to the Socialist Left; because there is a significant difference.
Yes Ron Paul was treated badly by the GOP, but your analysis is clearly influenced by "sour grapes", bitterness and just perhaps a bit of vindictiveness. (Where is your well analyzed and objective statistical data to support how the election could have turned out with greater participation?)
It appears at least a bit arrogant to assume that even with Ron Paul on the ticket you would have been able to significantly move the Socialist Behemoth in the "right" direction. Perhaps, just perhaps we may have to move the corrupt political garbage machine incrementally... ... just as the socialist liberals have done over many decades.
Although at present you appear to be rather smug and self satisfied with your editorial piece, you are not insulated or immune from the onerous tactics of the left and you (and others) may pay quite dearly for your inaction.
At least there would have been some immediate meaningful relief for private sector business enterprises (and therefore the general economy) with a Romney / Ryan Administration. And yes, you would have been able to exercise some significant influence over their administration.
You will not be able to exercise any influence over the current Marxist and Fascist Regime, and, absent impeachment, if 4 more years are realized, you may find that you cannot recover from the deep dark oppressive abyss to which they will chain you! You may even have nothing left to "save".
I applaud your Resolve for 2014 and 2016 and rest assured that there are those of us with equal or greater feelings of Defiance and Resolution. I would love to see the whole "system" turned on its head and changed immediately; but a significant portion of the 'voting' electorate is corrupted with socialist 'liberal' ideology, and that corruption may accelerate over the next 4 years.
From a pragmatic standpoint, I am concerned that your inaction may in reality turn out to be vindictive spite that will cause more harm than good.
Yes, eventually the Fascist Left will fail and destroy itself. But I wonder how much unnecessary misery and carnage will occur in the mean time, and how much of it could be avoided if we push for the 'incremental' changes whenever we have a chance.
Time and events will tell!
I simply wish to author another Perspective for consideration that appears to be shared by others as well.
Take care and Best Regards:
Posted by rodvanmechelen on 11/10/12 02:16 PM
Several months ago, I read your article about "No Paul = No Vote." At my county caucus it was part of my speech: "No Ron Paul = No Republican in the White House." Yes, I did vote. For Gary Johnson. No, I didn't think he could win, but I hoped he could crack the 5% needed to achieve minor party status and break the duopoly. That aside, I shared your articles with the Liberty Republicans in western Washington State, and obviously many of us agreed with your basic premise. Thank you for that.
Posted by Friend_of_John_Galt on 11/10/12 02:15 PM
There is some evidence that possibly 3 million, nominally Republican, voters who might have voted stayed home. The talking heads have mostly assumed these stay-at-homes to be evangelicals ... or other deep social conservatives. There is some truth to that analysis, as I have seen too many postings to the Tea Party discussion list I regularly see where there were a significant number of posts complaining that Romney "wasn't 'pure' enough as a conservative" and there were a modest few who held significant negative views of the "Mormon cult" that they withheld support. Indeed, over the past few days I've heard callers to Limbaugh and to a locally produced "conservative talk radio show" explain their choice to not vote due to the presumed failings of Romney as a "true conservative." These voters (based on the posts I read) would have been even more heavily negative if we had a Rand or other true Libertarian either as VP or as Presidential candidates on the ballot.
In this case, the stupidity of refusing to vote for the "better" because the "perfect" wasn't available is quite frustrating.
On the Libertarian side, in no state did Gary Johnson (my preferred candidate) receive a vote that would have affected the outcome of the winner-take-all contest.
The best figure I found online was that Johnson received about 1.2 million votes for a .97% (that's just below 1%) share of the total vote. Only in New Mexico, where Johnson was a former governor, did he achieve more than 1% ... Of course, these are preliminary counts, since it will take 30 days or more for most states to file their official final tally.
As an Objecctivist, I note that the Objectivist Standard (a magazine that publishes Objectivist articles and view points) had specifically endorsed Romney, and I assume that many Objectivists may have taken that endorsement in consideration. (The reality being that with the type of system we have, with winner-take-all elections, that voting for a third party candidate often feels like a vote against one's own interests. (I'm not suggesting a change in our political system, as the Constitutional system with checks and balances we have has more advantages (in holding back radical changes) than the disadvantages of a parliamentary system as used in much of the rest of the world.)
In the same vein, the withholding of votes from Libertarians for Romney is distressing -- when considering the substantial negative potential of a second Obama term. Again, staying home as a protest only ensured that the "better" was unable to achieve a victory. I don't fault those who voted for Gary Johnson as a matter of conscience -- but only those who simply didn't vote (their votes might have affected down ballot candidates). Indeed, I came very close to voting for Johnson due to my living in a state where a Romney defeat was a foregone conclusion (and proved true with a 55% share to Obama). However, I voted for Romney since, for a time, I thought he might actually win -- and if he lost, I wanted there to be insufficient difference in the total vote count for Obama to claim a "mandate."
However, I agree with the viewpoint of the article that the treatment of Ron Paul by the establishment Republican party leaders -- and the Romney campaign -- was dreadful and very counter productive. At the very least, Ron Paul should have been allowed to address the convention -- and his name should have been entered into nomination, even though the overwhelming delegate vote would have given the nomination to Romney (most probably on the first vote). This would have served to reduce much of hard feelings felt by Paul supporters and delegates, and might have peaked the interest of "uncommitted" voters who probably ended up voting for Obama.
I suspect that a re-established Republican party with strong Libertarian leanings would prove much more attractive to those so-called "moderates" who either swing between the parties or tend toward electing liberals.
The Republican party would do very well to consider transforming itself into an individual liberty, limited government party. While a pure Libertarian (or Objectivist) political party (with candidates) would certainly be intellectually stimulating -- the reality is that the Libertarian party has been in existence for some 40 years (I recall voting for Libertarian candidates in my youth) but it has never garnered more than a fraction of the vote and, on a very few occasions, may have proved to be a spoiler in a few campaigns, allowing much worse statist candidates to win over "better" (but imperfect) candidates (particularly in down ballot situations).
The problem for the Republicans, if they contemplate such a redirection, is that the religious-social conservatives appear to be totally turned off by many Libertarian/Objectivist ideas, such as stopping the war on drugs, backing off from the abortion issue (which should never have become a national issue in the first place), and other favorite issues of the social conservatives. The Republicans may feel that they ought to "stick" with a solid member of their coalition rather than gamble on picking up enough liberty loving voters considered to be in the changeable middle. But the lesson of this election is that if the religious right didn't get their way, then they stayed home (and, by some counts) lost the election for Romney. WIth friends like that, you hardly need enemies.
Posted by Hondomatic on 11/10/12 12:26 PM
Nail - Hammer - Swing! Nice work Ron; I'll be keeping my ear to the ground and my eyes skyward.
Posted by rmp on 11/10/12 12:15 PM
I agree, the GOP's treatment was shameful, and because of that I don't think I can ever vote GOP again. But I didn't stay home either. I voted for Johnson just to register something which I think was and is important; to give those numbers an increase which I think did happen this time around. But, that too was what Paul said would happen. Some will go for Johnson, some will stay home, some will cave and vote Romney. Either way, the money power won and life goes on.
Posted by Bosco Hurn on 11/10/12 11:53 AM
For the visual, go here:
Click to view link
Posted by Bluebird on 11/10/12 11:50 AM
Right on! I stayed home. No Paul, no vote! Someone (perhaps Mr. Hultberg?)said 12,000,000 fewer people voted than did 4 years ago. Now I am not saying they all stayed home because of the Ron Paul treatment, but for many of us, that was the reason. Plus, I just could not vote for either man because they promise more war, more killing. "FREEDOM!!"