Posts tagged ‘Mitt Romney’

November 3, 2012

What a Romney Victory Would Mean for the Right

by Eric T. Phillips

Many–myself included–have argued that an Obama victory would be better for the long term health of a pro-liberty right. Romney’s defeat, this line of thinking goes, would force the GOP to reevaluate its beliefs and strategies, an outcome that could only benefit the young Ron Paul wing of the party.

Daniel McCarthy offers an alternative analysis. He argues that the Ron Paul movement only caught on the way it did because of the dissident right’s profound disappointment with the presidency of George W. Bush. A corollary to this observation (which McCarthy does not mention) is that the Tea Party–born in opposition to a Democratic President–has proven itself directionless and easily co-optable. When the Democrats are in power, it’s easier for different elements of the right to band together and pose as the party of liberty, even if most of those elements are profoundly anti-liberty.

On the other hand, McCarthy argues, “a Romney victory might, as the Marxists used to say, heighten the contradictions on the right to the point that reform becomes possible.” That is, Romney could provoke a civil war on the right as soon as he begins acting like Obama II (or Bush IV). And that would open up possibilities for noninterventionists and actual budget hawks who are currently frozen out of power.

It’s an interesting interpretation. But frankly, the short term prospects for a sane right are bleak no matter who wins. Even if we get the type of reevaluation we want–whether prompted by an Obama or a Romney victory–who is going to represent our side? Where are the actual budget hawks and noninterventionists who are going to take over the Republican Party, and–this is crucial–are they going to hire Jesse Benton?

October 23, 2012

Quotes of the Day

by Eric T. Phillips

Lew Rockwell:

Romney’s handlers wanted him to be less of a warmonger tonight, and Obama’s handlers wanted him to be more of a warmonger, but that was all just a lying smokescreen. The establishment scam of bipartisan foreign policy still dominates: these two are twins of empire, interventionism, spending, and mass death. Oh, and Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel.

John Glaser:

Obama and Romney quibbled on every issue, as they did – mostly dishonestly – on Iraq. But on every major issue there was no discernible difference in actual policy between the two.

Justin Raimondo:

Foreign policy debate summary: Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel — and, oh yes, America…

Romney de-neoconned himself, for at least one night: does this mean his promised appointment of John Bolton as SecState is off? I think not…

Neither candidate wanted to talk about foreign policy — because the differences between them are negligible.

October 15, 2012

Ben Swann on Paul Ryan

by Eric T. Phillips

And the congressman’s phony status as a fiscal conservative:

Swann doesn’t even mention Ryan’s budget plan for 2012, which wouldn’t have balanced the budget until 2040.

When there is so little difference between the two parties, my instinct is to root against the incumbent. To “throw the bums out.” But I cannot think of a single good thing that would come from a Romney/Ryan victory. A vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote for war with Iran. No reduction of the welfare state could offset the disastrous effects of such a war, and, of course, under Romney/Ryan there would be no reduction of the welfare state. Paul Ryan voted for the largest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society, and Mitt Romney was an architect of Obamacare.

We’re supposed to ignore those inconvenient facts, Republicans tell us, because we must , in the words of one National Review writer, combat the “existential threat Obama-sized government represents.” But if Obama-sized government represents an existential threat, a Romney-sized government will lead straight to ruin.

 

October 7, 2012

Mitt Romney Debates Himself

by Eric T. Phillips

And this complication only includes flip-flops over the course of the current campaign:

Tags:
October 6, 2012

Quotes of the Day

by Eric T. Phillips

Justin Raimondo:

Since Wednesday night’s presidential debate was about domestic policy, I have little to say about it except to note Romney’s insistence that there must be no cuts in the military budget. None, nada, zero, zilch – this in spite of the fact that we spend more on the military than most of the rest of the world combined. Despite his chameleon-like disposition, this is the one stance apparently not subject to the Etch-a-Sketch Effect: the neoconslurking behind him are no doubt making sure of that.

Daniel Larison:

On almost every issue, Romney gives the impression that everything is negotiable, and his commitment at any given moment doesn’t mean much of anything…There does seem to be one exception to all of this. Romney’s foreign policy views have been dreadfully consistent throughout his national career. Whether it is because he has felt compelled to adopt hawkish views to compensate for his compromises on other issues, or because a hawkish foreign policy is one thing he has supported for a long time, this is one area where he typically hasn’t tried to have things both ways. We can be fairly sure that his speech at VMI on Monday won’t include any similar admissions of error on his part, and there aren’t going to be any significant reversals on policy. Romney’s hawkish foreign policy views seem to be the only thing that he won’t sacrifice for the sake of political expediency.

Gary North:

Today, the literature of Austrian economics is vast compared to 1973, let alone 1945. The ideas are spreading. With every economic crisis, with every fiscal deficit, with every QE, with every kick of the political can, the market for Austrian economics grows.

October 5, 2012

Adam Kokesh on Recently Uncovered 2007 Obama Video

by Eric T. Phillips

Everyone knows that Mitt Romney is a chameleon. But lest anyone think that Obama is somehow more honest, I’m posting this comparison of Obama talking to a conference of black ministers v. Obama giving a nationally televised speech. Commentary by Adam Kokesh:

 

October 4, 2012

Thoughts on the Debate

by Eric T. Phillips

The establishment has handed down its decision about last night’s presidential debate: Romney won. Of course, this pronouncement has nothing to do with substance: both Obama and Romney are committed supporters of the welfare-warfare state with no serious plans to contain its unsustainable growth. Presidential debates are all about style. And the establishment is right: Romney won that battle. He appeared confident and competent–he had good posture, he seemed comfortable and alert, and he even came across as a little friendly. In other words, he looked “presidential.”

People who follow politics know that Romney is a snake who will say anything to please the focus groups he and his campaign think represent the American electorate. Even his supporters know that. I can’t help but think, though, that many of the millions of undecided voters who were watching the debate last night were not thinking about Romney’s lies and flip-flops. They simply saw a man who looks like he could play president on a TV show if he wasn’t actually running for the real thing. And, in the debased system that is American democracy, that is an important attribute.

I’m not going to make any hard and fast predictions, but I do think that a Mitt Romney presidency is more likely now than it was yesterday.

 

 

October 4, 2012

Tom Woods Interviews Dan McCarthy

by Eric T. Phillips

On Romney, Obama, and the election. (Spoiler alert: they’re both bad.)

 

September 30, 2012

Mitt Romney’s Allegiance to Israel

by Eric T. Phillips

Martin Bashir on Romney’s favorite attack line:

August 15, 2012

Virginia Postrel on Paul Ryan

by Eric T. Phillips

Virginia Postrel thinks that Paul Ryan should be the “Ross Perot of 2012,” that he “could be a great communicator, educating the public about policy challenges and Republican plans to address them.”

I completely agree. Ryan can explain how his plan to balance the federal budget by 2040 makes him a fiscal conservative, how supporting the massive bailouts of 2008 makes him an advocate of capitalism who “gets” the free market, how his secret support of Bernanke’s inflationism makes him a proponent of sound money, and how recreating the British Empire under American leadership shows how the United States is an exceptional nation.

Somehow, though, I think Ryan will settle for the amateurish media coverage that paints him as some kind of libertarian. That way, credulous Republicans will feel better about voting for a man who was the architect of the health care reform they are hoping to repeal.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers