Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Vote for Gary Johnson.

Here’s a handy cut-out and keep reminder of why whether it is Obama or Romney it matters not the mote in the eye of a weasel.

(Apart from to the assorted vested interests and corporations who have been cosying up to Dumbo or Eeyore).

I don’t think Allen will mind my theft here!

Please don’t vote for the lesser of two weevils. That way nothing changes. Please don’t vote “Anyone but…” because that perpetuates the vile farce. I know Johnson hasn’t a water-boarding cat on Titan’s methane seas chance of winning but sometimes that is not the point. A modest boost for the Libertarian Party is a result. It’s a start and it has to start sometime. Let that be now.

Is Romney anywhere near being a small-government conservative let alone a libertarian? No he isn’t. So why are some people on this blog hoping for him to win? This is supposed to be a libertarian blog so why are writers and commentators so keen to hope, when they get off the cattle truck, to able to choose to go down the trap to the slaughter manned by the guy who’s better with the humane stunner than the other? Jumping the fence instead almost certainly won’t work – this time – but is this the point? Why not vote for the Libertarian Party candidate and be damned and not feel icky coming out of the booth? Why not just be yourself! Isn’t that at the core of the liberty?

Isn’t that what any genuine democratic process has to be about – saying what you really want, not what the duopoly wants?

Isn’t it always better to do what is right than what seems expedient? In the long-run anyway. You never know what might happen. It might even just work out, eventually.

Live Free and Die Hard.

Vote Johnson. Make yourself known as a Libertarian. Why claim to be a libertarian (or even Libertarian) and write posts or comments to that end and then not support the Libertarian candidate?

You know it doesn’t make electoral sense (in a way) to vote for Johnson but you know it’s right and you know where the journey of a thousand miles starts. In the dark but at least heading towards the light.

No vote is wasted if it can be built upon. Eventually. But people have to start voting for what they really want otherwise what is the point?

No vote is wasted if it is cast from the heart and the head. And if enough people do that… It starts, slowly, but it starts. But you have to stand-up and be counted and not just bellyache on blogs until the 11th hour and then you rally round a “major” party because you either have never really been a libertarian or you don’t care or you just want one of the “biggies” less than the other. They might not be the “biggies” for all time but it takes one person at a time to change that. And isn’t individuality rather than the herd what we are all about at our best?

(Again from Allen).


  1. CountingCats says:

    I’m not going to be a purist. A victory for Romney is a fillip for the tea party, and a fillip for constitutionalism.

    Change can only be incremental, and the first step towards restoring the true revolutionary values is to kick out the counter-revolutionary Obama.

  2. john b says:

    Not sure a victory for Romney is a victory for the Tea Party, y’know.

    Romney won the nomination because all of the other candidates were portrayed as too extreme to win the general election – he’s the last hurrah of postwar consensus, pre-Goldwater, pre-conservative revival, pre-Religious Right, country club Republicanism, exactly as the chart above implies.

    If he loses, then the constant refrain from the 2012 primaries that only a moderate-corporatist-centrist candidate is electable will be laughed off in the 2016 primaries, which is strongly to the TP’s favour. If he wins, then you’d need to bet that the influence of Paul Ryan and the GOP House will far outweigh Romney’s natural instincts and that of the Senate (which will most likely be Dem, but even if it goes GOP will be much closer to Romney’s traditional position than to the House and the TP).

  3. john b says:

    Ooh, someone just pointed me at a brilliant possibility (*). If the EC is tied, the House picks the President and the Senate picks the VP. The House is allowed to pick any of the top 3 polling Presidential candidates, of whom #3 is very likely to be Johnson.

    Imagine the sheer awesomeness of a TP-dominated House deciding they have no interest in a lacklustre coporatist RINO who they only ever barely tolerated, and opting for Gary instead.

    The Johnson/Biden administration. You heard it here first…

    * for extremely tenuous values of “possibility”.

  4. Julie near Chicago says:

    You know, that “vote your conscience” ending to the OP **could** be taken as just the teeeeniest bit insulting…if I were in the mood to be insulted.

    I have every intention of voting my conscience, you know. I’m going to cast a meaningful (utile) vote AGAINST somebody who’s trying to turn us all into the ants of the Ant Farm…whose entire time in office has proven he has not the slightest regard for the Constitution he’s sworn to defend, nor for the country he’s supposed to be protecting from “all enemies, foreign and domestic,” nor for the individual human persons who make up that country.

    Yes, I do believe I WILL withhold a vote for somebody who looks to the UN for moral support in his project to bring America low, and to show individual Americans that they have no particular right to exist.

    My conscience demands it.

  5. Mr Ed says:

    Mr Johnson has some way to go. Same-sex marriage is surely simply a State matter. A tied College would be hilarious, but with Biden lurking, the President has a vital bodyguard in him.

  6. Mike says:

    Either Obama or Romney will be president. Fact.
    Romney is bad – but he is not equally as bad as Obama, as you posit here. Not by a long shot. Obama will entrench socialism in the US in such a way that it will *never* be rolled back. He has to be defeated this time.
    There will come a time for real values to surface in the political realm in the US. But it’s not now. For now, the increasing influence of the Pauls (yes I know about their disgusting abortion position) is your best shot at increasing libertarian influence.
    that means, voting for Romney.

  7. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    Yes, the idea that a Johnson vote is in some way pro-Obama because you are not voting Romney is simply wrong. Setting aside the lesser of two evils thing, you may as well argue that those who vote Green party are really supporting Romney because they are depriving Obama of that vote.

    And you don’t need to win to make an impact. I think it was a euro-election in the late 1980′s in the UK where the Greens polled about 15%. I hold no brief for the greens but the major parties noticed and adopted some green policies. (I don’t like them at all, but that’s not the point).

    By showing the criminal gangsters of the major parties that you can’t be taken for granted, you have much more influence than someone who just troops in and votes in a tribal manner. Thus a serious Johnson vote, even if it did deprive Romney of the White House would show the GOP that they simply can’t win by being the not-Obama party. They would instead actually have to adopt constitutionalist policies instead of the neo-con, corporatist, crypto-fascism you get today.

  8. john b says:

    “you may as well argue that those who vote Green party are really supporting Romney because they are depriving Obama of that vote.”

    You may recall precisely this point being made by huge numbers of mainstream Democrat commentators in November 2000. It’s not *entirely* false.

    I’m sceptical that Obama is genuinely as he is categorised by Julie & Mike (I’m socially liberal but economically centrist, for what it’s worth), in terms of bringing communist tyranny, as opposed to bringing more-or-less-the-same-corporate-sponsored-big-government-authoritarianism-as-Bush plus a few baubles for the poor.

    But if he were genuinely a new Stalin, standing against someone who was merely a corrupt neocon, then they’d be right that beating him was a greater moral imperative. This, not coincidentally, is why it’s in the interests of the main party duopoly to push the lines that BUSH=HITLER and OBAMA=STALIN as much as they possibly can among their respective voters.

  9. Julie near Chicago says:

    I doubt that the Sith is like Stalin in this respect, that I think he would disdain to pull the triggers himself. I think he’d have no problem with his buddy Billy Ayers doing it, though (and I think young Billy would get off on it, giggling as he let fly).

    But I do think that Obama wants America brought low, and I don’t think he has much in the way of feeling for others in his makeup. I also think he’s developed a certain worldview, a lot of which he got from the people he’s been surrounded with since childhood. Thus it is with all of us, after all–and mostly we either retain that early learning as a backdrop to whomever we become, so that it informs our adult worldview, or alternatively we rebel and beat it out of ourselves entirely (if we can).

    I’ve always thought, and still do, that Obama really wants to be a cross between Mugabe and Springsteen.The only reason to try to uphold some prestige for America is just that there’s more status to being “Leader of the Free World” than some tinpot third-world dictator, no matter how many nice palaces and ratty sables he may have….

    But as I said before, I don’t think he’s particularly moved by the suffering of real live individual humans. I think humans are strictly objects that he runs across in his life, and where he’s not moved to try to impress them his biggest concern is to shove them out of the way.

    That’s not Stalin at all.

    But he is not a nice man, and the people he runs with are if anything worse, and any of them would sell your grandmother to make lampshades out of, given the right incentives.

    So, I never said “OBAMA = STALIN.” I did say Obama will take us to the Gulag, if we let him–witness the Czars, the Executive Orders, mixed with the obvious contempt for the whole enterprise of America.

    Look at his list of Communist or near-Communist appointees. Look at his most trusted advisor….

    And throw into the mix the out-and-out criminal types he runs with, Axelrod, Rezko…look at his Bioethics advisor, Dr. Zeke, and tell me this is a man who will not countenance evil.

    This is nothing, NOTHING like what Pres. Bush or Gov. Romney has in mind.

    I hope that clarifies things somewhat.

  10. CountingCats says:

    If it were a choice between Romney and Clinton I could go along with the lets all vote Johnson line, but it isn’t Clinton. It is Obama.

    I tend to go along with Julie on this. I see no sign that Clinton wanted to do America down, but I do see signs that O’bama (black Irish, don’tcha know) does wish to see America as having less influence, for good or ill.

    Obama isn’t just another Statist, he is a wrecker, and he needs to be kept out even if it is just so he doesn’t make further Supreme Court appointments, regardless of other policies – Muslim Brotherhood being welcome at the White House, flexibility when dealing with Putin, subsidising Brazilian oil production while restricting US production, racially divisive policies at the Justice Department…..

    Obama is qualitatively different to any other President the US of A has had, and needs to be treated as such. Carter was dangerous, but he was a fool, not a deliberate wrecker. Would any past President have been seen dead palling about with Bill Ayres or Jeremiah Wright?

  11. Bod says:

    Voting your conscience is a wonderful luxury that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, but I’m not sure really what point there was in posting Johnson’s policy views, because it’s inconceivable that any of them will come to pass in the next administration. The only justification, might be if you really *know* that both the other candidates are as bad as each other, and we simply don’t, and then such a vote for Johnson might make sense.

    Incidentally, Johnson’s support for the EPA as ‘an example of good government’ and his support for leaving 250k US troops in various locations around the world doesn’t look too ‘libertarianish’ to me. He’s given interviews recently indicating that initiating combat for ‘humanitarian reasons’ might be justified, and I believe I read that while he recognized that drone attacks were conterproductive, that he was OK continuing them in Pakistan and Yemen. I have some sympathy for his viewpoint on the military, having interventionist leanings myself, but I recognize that this is an idological weakness in myself, and I believe a much greater weakness in a libertarian candidate for office. His support for the EPA is nonsensical, and form a personal viewpoint, his support of gay marriage is somewhat flawed, if I understand *his* points. I don’t think that any two (or three or more) individuals who seek a life together deserve any special recognition or approbation from or by the government. If the government has no place in your bedroom beyond making sure you’re not Jimmy Savile, then it has no place at your wedding. Fill out a piece of paper at a lawyer’s or government office establishing that a contract between two or more individuals has been entered into, and you’re done.

    I posted, late in a thread from last month, a serious question that I don’t think anyone saw fit to answer. Assume it’s November 2015.

    Realistically, what legislation would we like to have seen enacted and/or struck down, that would allow us to look back on a Romney first term and consider it ‘tolerable’. As I noted, one of these two fuckers is going to be in the big seat, and we don’t like either of them at all, do we?

    So unless we intend to piss and whine about how bad things are because libertarians have no political traction, and console oureselves by wandering around the DailyFail sniggering at the moral failings of America which would have all been corrected if only the American public had been enlightened enough to vote Johnson, establishing a baseline level of acceptability for the next administration is probably not a bad thing to do.

    So, what would a satisfactory Romney Administration look like?

  12. Ornithorhynchus says:

    I live in Oklahoma, one of two states in which Johnson failed to qualify for the ballot. In fact, we haven’t any presidential candidates other than the two big parties on our ballots since 2000. The ballot-access laws here are horrible. (Back in 1992, Paul Tsongas, one of the front-runners, failed to qualify for our Democratic primary.)
    It’s early morning here– I still haven’t figured out how I’m going to vote. I can’t stomach the thought of voting for either of those two sickos.

    At least I always have some State Questions to vote on. Those are always so simple and clear-cut.

  13. Bod says:

    Write in Cthulhu, of course.

    Why vote for a lesser evil?

  14. NickM says:

    Oddly enough Bod we have elections here for Chief Constables and “Commissioners of Crime* soon.. But seeing as no bugger has cared to campaign I was actually going to vote for the Cthulhu/Nyarlathotep ticket. Seriously. R’lyeh is rising i tells ya! He’s got us both!!!

    *I think that’s what they call ‘em.

  15. Bod says:

    When I lived in Manc, the big issue was a CC who thought God talked to him, and instructed him to purchase shotguns to control behavior in Moss Side. We always assumed he meant The Old Guy, but I guess he might have meant a Great Old One.

    Ia James Anderton!

  16. NickM says:

    I remember him – with his fuck-off OT prophet beard!

  17. Paul Marks says:

    Some of the anti Romney stuff in the add is not actually true (for example the “anti gun” thing is a distortion of piece of legislation in Mass, and if Romney really was “pro bailouts” he would be winning in Michigan right now – he is losing because he OPPOSED the G.M. bailout, and that may cost him Ohio also).

    However, truth is not required in political ads – and Mr Johnson may score just enough votes to give New Hampshire (and some other States?) to Comrade Barack.

  18. Paul Marks says:

    I think Barack would have won New Hampshire anyway.

    And a better (more free market) candidate than Romney would have lost by MORE.

  19. Bod says:

    The kulaks haven’t been plundered sufficiently, Paul.

    They still own shirts and firewood, the bastards.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: