Can't vote for the Big O myself but if you really need a reason I'd float Romney care. Meet the new boss same as the old boss as Roger and DMV would say.

Obama is to Romney
As brown sugar is to aspertame

You like Obama better?

I'll either vote Romney or maybe write in Bea Aurther or something. But I will vote.

you are voting for sarkozy?

I'm voting RP.


Done compromising, will never vote for another establishment R again. And TW no I dont like him better, my point was for all their differences their purpose is the same. Mittens is bought and paid for just like Soetoro and both are ineligible constitutionally btw (both of their fathers).

So you are voting "present"

Bea Arthur ran a failed campaign in the late '70s.
Her slogan was "I will win this election, or my name will be Maude"

I understand fully what you're saying Bloody. Not exactly how I feel but I see it two ways. You can stand up and be heard or you can try to get involved.

The party has to change.

I agree in principle, bro, but what happens to the country in the next 4 years? You figure at least 2 Supreme Court justices will be nominated by Obama. At the very least, we need a more business- friendly environment. Romney might fit that ticket.

Perhaps if another Perot (new party?) decides to run... then, some of us would jump ship. RP just doesn't do it for many of us disenfranchised.

It sucks that the decision has come to not who do I want to be president but who we can't afford another four years of. Then living in NY my vote rarely counts anyway.

I bet the czars are really counting on a second term.... I wonder if they get bonuses and stuff...

but Mittens doesn't have to keep them does he..??

^ If elected, we'll know Romney's true intentions within the first 6 months.





Takes courage to admit to that. I feel exactly the same way. And yes, I remember him from waaaay back as being a man of little substance as well ("empty suit" as you put) even when he debated constitutional law which has supposedly his strong suit (pun intended) against Keyes, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I was also hoping he'd surround himself with capable people.


The delegate issue you bring up is an interesting one but I doubt that'll happen. Ron Paul's followers are a loyal bunch but I imagine the dislike for Obama by the rest is so great that differences will be put aside & the Republican wagons will circle around Mittens, er, Romney.



Still don't have a reason to NOT vote for Romney. Just can't let that bozo waltz in for a second (undeserved) term of apologizing and vacations.
BUT if Romney gets in and pulls a dubbya, I will personally go door to door (better yet, use the internets) to support a viable third party.

Any vote that isn't for Romney, is a vote for Obama. Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance in an election against Obama, so it's pointless voting for him. Not a big fan of any one running(especially anyone who pushes for social programs). That being said Ron Paul would be my choice(if I knew he could beat Obama).

Two quick questions:

1. How long have you been voting Libertarian?
2. How many Libertarians have been elected to office?


Seems as though it's fashionable to say one is Libertarian these days. Not sure how practical that is though. Sounds like a protest vote nothing more.

I gave up on the Reps back in '96. Supported and voted for Alan Keyes in the primary. When Dole won the nomination, I figured there had to be a better way. Joined the Libs and voted Harry Browne. If all the Libs had voted Dole in '96, Clinton still would have won, so don't give me the "you guys gave Clinton the election" speech. Just like my vote for Ron Paul in '08 didn't give Obama the election.

That's probably true. However, I think that a fresh, re-packaged version of the Libertarian brand with a new name and a charismatic leader might eventually pull it together & make it work... and no, the Tea Party moniker is tainted despite their "revolutionary" ideas IMHO.

...and you are correct, it hasn't exactly worked out well for any of us, Stink. That's why I haven't voted since Kerry vs. Bush. My candidates rarely won in Maryland anyway.
Like dpnewell, I lost interest in the Republicans near the end of Dubbya's first term. I, too, supported Alan Keyes btw. I'm just very concerned about the next four years. The Democrat constituencies are ever- growing & that party appears to be in the catbird seat long-term despite the potential congressional debacle facing them after the next Presidential election.

^^ You may be right. USSA has to sink further and feel more tax pain, more austerity, more bankruptcy........before they will embrace change.

The entire Occupooper Movement was a democratic platform. It was the Kenyan King's reelection campaign...without the pillars and fancy slogans designed to ensnare the morons and useless proles out of their parent's basements.

They're mad they didn't get the Hope and Change they wanted. Now they cry.

Romney rejects Ron Paul-style austerity ← return to Inside Politics

You can almost hear the collective gasp from Ron Paul's loyal band of supporters.

Speaking Monday at a town hall style-meeting event in Cleveland, presumptive GOP presidential Mitt Romney plunged a fork into the idea that he could come around to embracing Mr. Paul's call for deep cuts in federal spending.

"My job is to get America back on track to have a balanced budget. Now I'm not going to cut $1 trillion in the first year," he said, distancing himself from Mr. Paul's (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/oct/19/paul-time-cut-spending/) plan to slice more than a quarter of the estimated $3.8 trillion being spent by the the federal government.

Why not, someone in the crowd apparently asked, sparking a response from the former Massachusetts governor.

"The reason," he explained, "is taking a trillion dollars out of a $15 trillion economy would cause our economy to shrink [and] would put a lot of people out of work."

Mr. Paul proposed deeper cuts in federal spending than any of his rivals in the GOP nomination contest, rolling out a plan in October that called for $1 trillion in spending cuts during his year in office -- in part by closing federal agencies, attrition in the federal work force and ending the wars overseas.

"I think the easiest place to cut spending is overseas," Mr. Paul said at the time, reminding supporters that the nation has spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us richer. It makes us poorer."

Mr. Paul's plan aims to cap federal spending at 15.5 percent of national GDP (it is currently about 25 percent of GDP) by 2016 and balance the budget in three years. Mr. Romney, meanwhile, has laid out a fiscal plan that aims to cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP and bring the budget into balance by 2020. He, however, opposes cuts to military spending, which currently accounts for about 18 percent of federal outlays.

Speaking at a campaign stop last week in Portsmouth, Va., Mr. Romney drove home that point, saying he will add new ships to the U.S. Navy, add new aircraft to the Air Force and add 100,000 active duty personnel.

Please give me reason(s) NOT to vote for Romney!

Spray tan. Not in my White House, pal.

There's no substantial difference between Obama and Romney. On all the really BIG issues, they are the same.

Perpetual war
Deficit spending
Destruction of civil liberties
Monetary policy
Foreign policy
Entitlements

The debates are gonna be hilarious. Romney will be grasping at straws trying to make distinctions between himself and Obama.

I heard Romney has Sherrif Joe on his shortlist for veep!

Sherrif Joe better wear his vest 24/7!

The Kenyan King is gonna Breitbart him!