Not Obama and Not Romney

Gary Johnson for President

As many know, I am a strong Ron Paul supporter and wrote a lengthy article explaining my endorsement for campaign.

Unfortunately, his campaign did not achieve its goal to win the Republican nomination in 2012.

The Republican party chose Mitt Romney as their candidate and instead of welcoming the Ron Paul supporters into the party they fought tooth and nail to steal delegates from Paul to even keep his name from being put into nomination at the convention.  I could document some of the shenanigans that have come to life but it would take too much time.  President historian and Paul insider, Doug Wead, has documented some of it on his blog otherwise some Google searches will no doubt find much more.

So, what is my reasoning?

Con's for Obama:

• Terrible understanding of the role of government
• He is a Keynesian.  No understanding of how macro-economics (or even micro-economics) works.
• Promotes the idea of an ever expanding government
• Believes the President can attack whoever and whatever he wants without Congressional approval
• Continues the foreign policy disaster of previous administrations
• Continues Civil liberty abuses
• "Obamacare"
• Broken promises about transparency, closing Gitmo, shovel ready jobs, and many more
• No Hope and no Change
• More government lies: about Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and probably the Bin Laden raid
• Joe Biden as Vice President
• Pro-choice.  Pro-gay marriage.
• Would nominate more Justices to the Supreme Court who are clueless on how to interpret the Constitution, though might be stronger on the Civil liberty side.
• ...

My thoughts about Obama:

He seems like a nice guy with a great family.  His take on the role of government and how the economy really works is exactly backwards.  His foreign policy is also pretty much the same foreign policy as Bush, though perhaps worse.  The only saving grace for Obama is that there is a significant force within the Democratic party that is pulling him to be less hawkish on foreign policy and potentially better on civil liberties.  If he wins, we will likely see 4 more years of a split government with Obama unable to get anything done, but the Republicans will have a chance to pick a better liberty loving candidate 4 years from now.

Con's for Romney:

• Campaign and collaborating with the Republican establish to rob Ron Paul and his delegates of their place within the party and convention
• He is an establishment Republican
• He is NOT a tea party or constitutional Republican
• He is the originator of Romneycare, the blueprint for Obamacare (THE IRONY OF IT ALL!  The year Obama is vulnerable for Obamacare and who do the Republicans nominate but the guy who did it first!)
• Mister etch-a-sketch.  What does he really believe?
• He is a Keynesian.
• He was in favor of the bailouts (like TARP) and stimulus spending.
• His budget plan will continue the growth of government.
• He plans to INCREASE spending on the military when we already spend more on our military than the next 10-14 countries combined.  Who is going to invade us?  Mexico or Canada?  Who has a navy that is big enough to threaten us?  Who has a nuclear arsenal at all comparable?
• He is talking like a war hawk, saying we should get involved in Syria and threatening military action against Iran.
• He thinks Russia and China are our enemy.  Where has he been?

My thoughts on Romney:

Romney is seems like a nice guy with a great family.  He seems to understand how to run a business, but he is very foggy on the true role of government and how macro-economics works.  He seems to be a true politician.  He is financed by Goldman Sachs and the big banks.  He is an establishment, neo-con Republican.  He talks like he is Conservative with he speaks to conservatives, and like a moderate to everyone else.  He has no real plan to address our budget crisis.  He won't cut anything of significance nor greatly reduce taxes.  His chief sins are wanting to increase military spending, and increase our hawkish stance and involvement around the world which is morally wrong, dangerous, and economic suicide.  He is not a defender of civil liberties, but seems intent on growing the security state.  If he wins, he may have a Democratic Senate or probably less than a filibuster proof Senate.  We will have 4 more years like Bush, followed by him running against the sad Democratic challenger either of which will not help.

Con's for Johnson:

• Pragmatic, not a philosophical, libertarian
• Pro-choice.  Pro-gay marriage.
• Doesn't have a snowballs chance in H... of winning

My thoughts on Johnson:

Johnson is on the right side of most economic, and military issues.  He is a defender of civil liberties.  He is on the wrong side of the abortion and gay marriage issues but these are not issues the federal government needs to get involved with.  He would greatly reduce the budget and pull back the military.  He seems to have a good track record on getting his way in New Mexico (a heavily democratic state) when he was the governor there.  In all likelihood, he will not get a significant number of votes though perhaps at least 5% nationally which will be enough to make the Libertarian party a greater player 4 years from now.

So, why Gary Johnson?  

• Ron Paul is not running.  
• Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment robbed Paul and his delegates their voice at the Convention and changed a long standing party rule on getting delegates to prevent a Paul-like repeat in the future.  When they were winning the game, they still cheated and took steps to hold onto power that they were clearly losing.  This is NOT something that I can overlook.  It should not be supported.  
• Although Mitt is probably better on the economy than Obama, he is worse on foreign policy and with his hawkish rhetoric makes us and the world less safe
• A loss by the Republican party would perhaps be a wake up call to them to make room for liberty.  
• I could not in good conscience vote for Obama, but I can vote for the best of 3 candidates that could mathematically win (Gary Johnson) with the hope of also making a statement and helping the Libertarian party get the 5% mark for additional funding.