You are here

Home

A Tactical Vote for Obama

Error message

  • Deprecated function: Optional parameter $decorators_applied declared before required parameter $app is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 3532 of /home/ethepmkq/public_html/drupal7core/includes/bootstrap.inc).
  • Deprecated function: Optional parameter $relations declared before required parameter $app is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 3532 of /home/ethepmkq/public_html/drupal7core/includes/bootstrap.inc).
Mon, 2012-02-13 19:15 — The Conductor
Topic: 
Economics
Politics
Places: 
U.S.A.

Borepatch saves me the trouble explaining why I will vote for the current President if the Republicans foist Mitt Romney on me:

Here's the problem: it's not Obama, it's Obama's world view. He's just particularly ruthless in pushing it aggressively. Obama isn't alone: he has the entire Intelligentsia on his side, the MSM, the European Elites, the international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). They're all in the same tribe, which believes that things should be run by them, with a strong, interventionist government in charge (run by them, 'natch), and with the peons givering deference where it's due (to them, 'natch).

Romney's in that tribe. So's Newt, and probably Santorum. And 60% of the Republican Party. Only Ron Paul explicitly rejects that world view.

Essentially, it's the Blue State model - although we need to recognize that all of Europe is deeper Blue than even Massachusetts. Here's the crisis: the Blue model is collapsing.

We’re in for a Brief Period of Violent Upheaval, coterminous with a Great Repricing. The future is far from certain, and upheavals almost always end with the stability of geater tyranny.

But you’ve got to play to win, and get the future you want. The future I prefer cannot coexist with remnants and justifications for the Blue State model. I want total victory for Madison and Jefferson’s Constitution.

I think that the answer is that we want Barack Obama to be in the Oval Office as the Blue Model comes crashing down.

You see, Romney will roll up his sleeves and try to fix things, but his fixes are likely to be at least a little sane, and so he'll get savaged by the Intelligentsia saying Paul Krugman sez we need a 3 Trillion dollar stimulus!!eleventy!

And so when the bottom inevitably falls out, Romney will take the blame, not Obama. And we'll go back for another round of Blue Model on steroids, because nobody will want to trim Social Security and everyone will be invested in stupid Romney screwed everything up.

If the O-Man is there another 4, they won't have this - particularly if he rules via regulation, not legislation (as is entirely likely).

And so, we have no chance to survive, until the Left decides that maybe this isn't such a good idea. If we're lucky, they'll figure this out as Europe and a couple States crater but the rest stagger on.

My view is that we are better off (long term) taking the massive hit that will be another Obama term, getting it over with, and then picking up the pieces of the collapsed Blue (Democrat and GOP) statist model.

Of course, there will always be apologists. I cannot expect the dream of Progressivism to fall completely away. But we can put it back in its cage for a few more generations.

Comments

Tue, 2012-02-14 09:03 — Bulldog (not verified)

Normally, I'd agree.

In this situation, I'm afraid I can't.  I DO NOT like Romney.  But in a democracy you sometimes have to weigh the good against the potential bad.

Romney is not optimal.  I want a total victory for the Constitution, as well.  Romney and Obama, however, are similar.

But not so similar as to make Romney undesirable in the extreme, which is what Obama is.

Here is the difference - Obama is forcing the population to accept his terms.  Should he win again, this personality flaw of his will only get worse, not better.

Romney, should he win, will have to start slowly, and you'll notice Ron Paul is not attacking him.

There's a reason.  Romney needs Ron Paul and Ron Paul's votes.  Ron Paul realizes he can get big portions of his agenda simply by not browbeating Romney, and playing a strong second/third fiddle.

Romney will have to utilize big chunks of Paul's agenda to get elected.  He can't campaign as "not Obama".

Which is, right now, all that he is.

Tue, 2012-02-14 14:32 — The Conductor

I fear Romney with a compliant Congress (or Congress with a compliant Romney) more than Obama’s ego.

I have already “priced in” some kind of cataclysm. Obama’s dictating will make it easier to see who is on which side, and get the ugly out of the way sooner. I have an unusually high tolerance for risk, so I can accept that not everyone is so eager to precipitate the inevitable.

It is true that Paul can accomplish much just by being the only one in the race who isn’t a jerk. I suppose Romney could openly embrace some of RP’s planks once he is secure in the nomination. But Mitt is still part of the problem.

Wed, 2012-02-15 09:47 — Bulldog (not verified)

Mitt is part of the problem.  That doesn't mean he can't reform or alter his stance.  In this election, it's a question of the lesser of two evils. 

When comparing two remarkably similar characters as Obama and Mitt, I factor out ego.  Both are huge.

I have to compare a few other things.  The first is - why is the press actively promoting anyone BUT Mitt?

Because Mitt has the best shot to win, at this point.  Things can change, but this is a fact.

The second is - is Mitt 'better' than Obama? 

No, but he isn't 'worse', if only because he is a member of the party which is pushing for better controls on spending.

The third is - can the rest of the party pull Mitt into line?

This is harder to answer.  In fact, it's impossible to answer.  But one has to believe it can.

 

I believe Paul is angling to make himself meaningful within the larger campaign, and acting as a counterbalance to Mitt's less liberty-centric focus.  I think Paul recognizes Christie or Haley are likely VPs, and wants Rand to hae a shot at a Cabinet level position.

Christie as a VP would make moot any of Mitt's government growth tendencies.  Christie's record in NJ is very good.

Wed, 2012-02-15 12:45 — The Conductor

Well, I don’t trust the rest of the party, so there is no force pulling Romney toward the Constitution. We are agreed that Mitt is better than Barry. But the idea of the tactical vote for Obama presumes some kind of socio-political collapse. The question is not about which of the two is better in “ordinary” times, but which one I want to wear the shame when the rioting begins.

I am not studied enough to speculate on VPs and Cabinet. The weight people give the VP is odd to me. The office has almost no power, so we could resurrect George Washington as VP and Romney would still sign all the fresh handouts or indirect mandates that Congress could send him.

Thu, 2012-02-16 16:09 — Bulldog (not verified)

The VP still provides balance.  Sure, it's a meaningless job, but if you want NJ in play, Christie is an obvious choice.

I understand what you're saying though.  It's why I voted for Dukakis over Bush.  Look what happened to Bush - hoisted on his own petard.  I almost expected it to occur.  I wish I could say I was a genius and 'knew' something, but even a blind squirrel finds a few nuts.

I was also convinced Clinton would ruin the Democratic Party.  Well, I was very close to being right about that.  I just didn't expect Bush II to do the same to the Republicans.

Still, I don't expect rioting, unless the OWS resurrects and becomes meaningful somehow, which I don't see at all.

There is a socio-political adjustment coming, and it's going to be unconventional.  I sense we are either going to be smothered by the pillow of the nanny state, or people like you and me are finally going to be heard.