United Liberty
UPDATED: Dear Erick Erickson: Libertarian’s WON’T and SHOULDN’T Hold Their Noses
Fri, 06/29/2012 - 10:15am | posted by Jeremy Kolassa
Of all the commentary on the SCOTUS decision today, this one stood out to me. It’s from a post written by Erick Erickson over at RedState, titled “I’m Not Down on John Roberts.” (Really, at this point, who could be?) There’s one paragraph that got my attention. The italics are his; the bold is mine:
Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.
With all due respect, Mr. Erickson, that is balderdash.
As I have written, the entire reason that this decision was made, the entire reason that this abomination has passed, was because a conservative justice, appointed by a Republican president, made it so. In effect, Roberts pulled some random garbage out of left field with a Death Star’s tractor beam in order to make this work.
And so somehow, because a conservative had upheld this unrepetant bag of you-know-what, libertarians are going to jump to their side by electing the guy who created Obamacare’s prototype?
Excuse me, but just what in the name of the Father, Son, and the Unholy Ghost is Erick smoking?
We need to run conservatism out of the country. It is now officially a caricature. It has no positions. It has no justification. It wants to defeat a law by electing a man…who basically wrote that law.
I can’t say it’s a joke, because it’s not funny. In this case, the punchline is a literally punch—straight to the gut.
Conservatives like Erickson need to get their heads screwed back on and stop smoking whatever it is they are. Libertarians are not going to hold their noses for this, and they shouldn’t. They should run as far away from this as possible, and do everything they can to avoid it. Any conservative who also calls himself principled should do the same thing, and refuse to vote for Mitt Romney or any big government Republican.
If you’re going to vote for someone, at least vote for someone who is serious about this. So far, the only one I can see is Gary Johnson. He didn’t create Obamacare in New Mexico. And he sure as heck wouldn’t continue it. Mitt Romney? I don’t know.
And that’s why nobody should be holding their noses this election.
EDIT: Apparently, I have been so persuasive, that Erick has actually deleted that part of his post. I’m not taking this down, because the point still stands, not just for Mr. Erickson but for conservatives everywhere. Has Erick seen the light, or is this just to deflect criticism? I dunno. But it is interesting to see.
I expect I will be voting for Gary Johnson myself, but not because I blame conservatives for Romney. He is getting the nomination despite attempts by conservatives to support a sequence of more conservative candidates.
Funny thing is, back in 2008 ever said Romney was the conservative alternative to John McCain. Well, I suppose if we’re working based on relative descriptions…
However, if you look at all of the “conservative” alternatives to Romney in the GOP primary, none of them (outside of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and maybe, just maybe, John Huntsman) were serious about cutting government. They were not concerned about liberty; they were concerned with their pet issues. Or, if they were Newt Gingrich, they were concerned with their ego. They are the products of modern American conservatism, so I don’t buy this “no true conservative” argument.
Also, I really must ask: is this the David Friedman? Machinery of Freedom and all?
Yes.
I’m not arguing that the other candidates (aside from Ron Paul and Gary Johnson) were libertarians, merely that they were the candidates supported by conservatives. Romney was generally seen, despite his best efforts, as the candidates the conservatives were trying to avoid.
And the word “literally” literally continues to be used for the opposite reason that it should
You get the idea, which is all that matters, Mr. Grammer-Nazi.
However, considering that it was poor English, it has now been edited.
Yeah, Jeremy. I think you’re right. Libertarians shouldn’t vote for Romney. Vote for someone else — because voting for someone else and not rallying behind the only guy with a reasonable chance of beating Obama, someone both conservatives AND libertarians equally hate, is incredibly intelligent.
By the way, Roberts’s reasoning?:
“The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A [of the Internal Revenue Code] would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”
That’s not out of left field, Lass. That’s called reasonable, objective jurisprudence.
Death Star tractor beam…hmm…(?) I’m glad I read this post, Lass. I used to respect Libertarians — now I think they’re just as retarded as conservatives (either that or the same fucking thing).
And calling a man “Lass”? Really?
So instead of voting for Gary Johnson, the only man with the reasonably clear shot of beating Obama, you want to vote for Obama?
No, really. Romney is a carbon copy of Obama and holds all the same positions. He wrote Obamacare’s prototype, for god’s sakes. Voting in Romney means that all of Obama’s policies will be continued.
Do you want that? Do you want Obama to have another 4 years? Then vote for Johnson, or someone else who isn’t Romney or Obama.
Also, by the way, I have testes. I am a man. Thus, the proper term would not be “Lass.” It would be “Jeremy.”
If reasonable, objective jurisprudence means assigning meaning to words that the architects of the law, the President who signed it, and the Congress which passed it, explicitly denied and the words used to justify it do not exist, then we’ve had enough of this reasonable, objective jurisprudence, which is actually code for, “I’ll read into this any meaning I want, make implications that don’t exist, and just make up some reasoning to justify my decision.”
This is the problem with believing that former judges and lawyers appointed for life can possibly reconcile the plain language of the US Constitution and Congress’ arcane laws so that they reconcile. It often leads to bizarre results. Only a textualist does not infer meaning where it does not exist, nor try to guess at the intent of those who write the laws. It matters not who appoints them, but their approach to the law speaks volumes. None should be surprised by this decision. Roberts has never claimed to be an originalist nor a textualist.
Robama, I mean Romney is merely an Obama who can’t slow jam the news. Though I’m still a registered Republican, I’ll take a quote from Gary Johnson when NPR asked him if he was on the rack and he had to vote for Romney or Obama or be killed. “Take this to the bank: I would rather die.” My sentiments exactly. I am so sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, just the thought of considering Romney makes my skin crawl. If Mr. Erikson thinks I’m going to roll over like a dog and take it without lube from Romney, he is sadly mistaken.
Obama and Romney are both for the Patriot Act. Obama and Romney are both for NDAA and the suspension of Due Process. Obama and Romney are both for CISPA and government censorship/control of the Internet. Obama and Romney are both for foreign entanglements and going to war with Syria and Iran. Obama and Romney are not for balancing the budget. Romney increased Massachussetts’ debt by more than $2 billion. Obama increased the national debt by more than $5 trillion. They both spend like drunken sailors. Romney came up with the blueprint for Obamacare and until recently supported the mandate for coverage (another flip-flop moment), Obama shoved Obamacare down our throats. Tell me how I must vote for Romney when they are both so similar, one would have to see which one is wearing the magic underwear to tell the difference.
I will not vote for either Tweedle-spend or Tweedle-spendmore. I’m voting for Gary Johnson and if Eric says it’s a wasted vote, he can shove his opinion up his backside for his Romneycare doctor to fish out during his next colonoscopy.
Funny thing is that in the early 1990s Mitt Romney was considered a libertarian-leaning Republican. He was recruited by libertarian Republican Gov. William Weld originally. Romney was backed by the Republican Liberty Caucus in the 1990s. His campaign was in contact with Massachusetts libertarians, and received support among libertarians.
But hey, saying Romney has libertarian ties, is politically incorrect among the Ron Paulists, and fringe left-libertarians. So, his history of association with the libertarian Republican movement is all ignored.
SIMPLE SOLUTION: VOTE GARY JOHNSON IN SAVE RED STATES. VOTE MITT ROMNEY IN SWING STATES. (IF YOU LIVE IN A DEEPLY BLUE STATE, YOUR CALL.)
And Eric Dondero backs Romney. What. A. Shock.
I normally vote GOP, but I voted for Barr in 2008. Living in a deep blue state, NY, Election Day is pretty much an exercise in futility when it comes to the presidential elections.
I can’t defend the GOP, folks, but at the same time Obama MUST be defeated. Can’t we agree on that?
I’m from NY myself. If you still live in that state, it’s utterly useless to vote for Mitt Romney. It will mean nothing. But if you vote for a third party candidate, you’ll at least be helping that party get more attention and overcome electoral hurdles.
Post new comment