Support Romney, Ron Paul if he runs, or other?

exclusive to FR | June 1st, 2012 | Peter O'Donnell

[Peter ODonnell]

Just wondering ...

Do you plan to support Mitt Romney, hold out for a Ron Paul candidacy, or is there a third alternative that attracts you?

I am not an American resident or voter, but I share your concerns about Obama's potential for enhanced trouble-making in a second term. Romney has obvious "RINO" or "CINO" flaws, but could be as much as a considerable improvement on Obama, at least almost guaranteed to be a less dangerous president. Or is it worse to have a so-called conservative running a globalist administration?

Now with Ron Paul, I feel you could expect better economic management than either of the above, but many have questions about the realism or even the safety of Ron Paul's foreign policy and attitudes towards global security issues. Personally, I think he might do okay since his first term for sure would be overwhelmed by economic issues.

I don't think there is any other realistic alternative but maybe people have some ideas about that.

Well, basically just wondering how people are viewing this as we move inexorably closer to the moments of decision.

Hope and pray that it works out as this world would be a much worse place with a weakened or damaged America (as is already evident). Romney at least talks a good game on the subject of restoring American greatness, but I think that is a task that will take a lot more than cheerleading from a president at this point. Not to say that the U.S.A. appears fatally weakened but there are some disturbing trends.

Keep the faith ...

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Over/under 60% for Obama you think? I'm not sure. I expect a swing against Obama in every or almost every state but I think Maryland might be less Republican than it was 4 years so even if Black turnout is down as it should be I don't know if Romney can do much better than McCain's 36.5%. “

These losers re-elected O’Mally in a landslide after him raising THEIR taxes and close to admitting that he lied about keeping electric prices down to get elected. This state is more liberal than ever. Obama polls high here.

Like Northern VA voters here are on the gravy train, VA will be a challenge too for Romney for the same reason,

[Impy]

I like the Hitler/Stalin analogy

Credit goes to Professor Schweikart.

I have always thought we would have been better off not choosing sides between Hitler and Stalin but that we should have popped a LOT of popcorn, settled into comfy chairs and witnessed the result of "Let's let Hitler and Stalin fight." After their respective forces had annihilated one another and only one was left barely standing, send in Patton and finish off the surviving forces. No more Nazi Germany. No more Soviet Union. No Warsaw Pact. No European Axis. No Cold War (after WE have won). Spring training for our military would have been finishing off Imperial Japan while waiting for the preliminary result in Europe to determine whom we would be annihilating there.

There's an idea. I haven't looked at it that way. But might Hilter have kicked their butt without having to deal with us on the Western Front and then been in a stronger position? Imagine if he had stay allied with Soviets in the first place, ouch. (This is more interesting than the awful election.)

[LS]

Unfortunately, as history shows, these things rarely work out like you'd like. It is just as likely that if---big if---Germany could have controlled enough of eastern Russia to force either a negotiated peace or the overthrow of Stalin, we would have eventually seen England wiped out with v-2s and starved to death; and possessing all the oil they needed in the Caucasus and Middle East, the Nazis might very well have consolidated for a few years, then achieved the bomb themselves. So there would have been no break from the Cold War, only different players. Meanwhile, would our own a-bomb program have progressed without all the Jewish scientists such as Einstein, who had PERSONALLY lobbied FDR for the bomb to save Jews? I doubt it.

In other words, it was just as likely that we would have faced a vastly stronger Nazified Europe, with ALL the troops swung our way, armed with rockets, jets, and nukes. And STILL at war with Japan. Not a good scenario. No, you don't play "maybe" when your survival is at stake. You ally with the lesser of evils and worry about that one later.

[Windflier]

I like your WWII analogy, except for the fact that Britain would have fallen to Hitler, had we not joined the fight when we did. I think the scenario you proposed would have played out just like that, had our forces stopped at the Rhine.

Simply securing France, Belgium, and the Low Countries would probably have been sufficient to secure ours and our real allies interests. The Reds could have then taken over the rest of the fight, and Hitler and Stalin would have beaten each other to smithereens.

It’s interesting to war game out what might have been. I’m kind of turning your analogy over in my mind right now to see what lessons I can draw from it.

[Clintonfatigued]

“Either way I love stupid analogies, Obama is trying to burn down my house and has be to stopped, he’s standing there pouring gas on it. Glove Romney as the Republican nominee is the only guy with a hose and pair of handcuffs to get rid of him. But Romney is a pyro-maniac himself and maybe (or say probably instead of maybe, or even say certainly) he’s gonna start his own fire before long. That will be dealt with when it happens. Obama wins and my house is a pile of ash tomorrow.”

Very well-put. Romney sucks, but voting for him is the only way to stop Obama.

[BlackElk]

It would, of course, have been useful to have our forces nearby. If we put them in England, I don’t think the Germans would have invaded England to get at them snd they might have thought twice about the wisdom of running the risk of tangling with American forces in France, Belgium and the Low Countries. I am guessing that Hitler would have tangled with the soviets on the Eastern Front if it seemed that we would stay put in England or Western Europe. He was certainly a nutcase but why would he fight a two-front war if he thought it possible that he might fight only Stalin. We could have propagandized that our troops were in England only because of our old special relationship with the Brits. We could also have communicated that V-2s and buzz bombs were not welcome against our forces and might lead to quite lethal consequences for the nazi regime if indulged.

[John D]

I think Ron Paul would make a great president.

How could someone who blames every problem in the world, Make a good president? How could anybody who wants to experiment with perverts in the military Make a good president? How could anybody whose only accomplishment the entire time he has been in Washington is acquiring more earmarks than anybody else running Make a good president? How could anybody who endorsed Cynthia Mckinney for president Make a good president? How could anybody who would rather bow down to terrorists rather than defeat them Make a good president?
The surrender monkey would do more damage to America than the wannabe king has done.

[BlackElk]

Impy:

Hitler was not terribly rational, He made grave errors in his war against the soviets. At first, when he sent only the Sturm Abteilung (young blonde, blue-eyed Aryans) into Russia's Western precincts, they were welcomed by the long-suffering soviet citizenry. Within weeks, he sent in the SchutzStaffel to round up the Jews. Backfired BIG TIME. Stalin had been forced to allow his people to march behind ikons of the Blessed Virgin and invoking not the Comintern but "Mother Russia." OTOH, neither the nazi ideologues nor the soviet ideologues were likely to yield to one another once blood had been shed. It would have been an epic battle with monstrous casualties, and then we would have been in an excellent position to, ummm, pragmatically capitalize on the situation.

[John D]

If Paul runs as an independent, he will be handing the election to Obama.

Paul running 3rd party would help the Republican candidate. Cut and Run's band of surrender monkeys will never vote for the Republican candidate. They want the most anti-American coward running. That would be the democrat. If Cut and Run is on the ballot many of them will vote for him instead of obama. Cut and Run is the only person running who hates America more than the wannabe king.

[fieldmarshaldj]

A dog would not do nearly the damage those two execrable leftist frauds have and will continue to inflict.

[Maurice Tift]

  ... How could anybody who endorsed Cynthia Mckinney for president Make a good president?

  Ron Paul doesn't support bad behavior from gays in the military:

   "I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said to The Washington Post. "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."

  He never endorsed Cynthia McKinney. He endorsed Chuck Baldwin.

I certainly don't see him as a supporter of terrorism. Regarding Israel: I believe I’m the only candidate who would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty. - more here

[Peter ODonnell]

I have the feeling that things will take very unusual and unexpected directions soon after the party conventions, if not even before then. Without going into much detail, because I really don’t know any details, I figure that the current situation looks and feels suspiciously like the “end times” and that both of these major candidates could be tossed overboard by their parties in the middle of a developing global crisis, for various reasons. Some influential Democrats, for example Bill Clinton, seem increasingly convinced that Obama is a weak link. I am not even convinced that Obama will be nominated. Meanwhile, Romney may be just the right person to fit into this scenario for good or for mischief, depending on what those details are.

Could be entirely wrong and this may just turn out to be business as usual — but there’s a feeling of the other shoe being about to drop, in a world where not much would need to happen to launch a major crisis (some would say, isn’t this already a major crisis? ... but I mean something far more dramatic than this mess).

[GOPsterinMA]

“Sorry for the long post.”

Au contraire. Your post is very well thought out and logical.

“Ron Paul is not going to run, that’s 100%. The reason, his son is a Republican Senator who he wants to have a future.”

I've thought this all along. And I'd rather have Rand Paul as VP than Jeb or Huckabee (although there are many other people I'd rather see as VP than Rand Paul).

“I’m not making a pitch for Romney I hate the guy but to make a much better analogy stolen from another freeper it’s like helping Stalin beat Hitler in WW2.”

Either Romney or Obama is going to get elected in November, it's as simple as that.

Stalin vs. Hitler...my mind wanders...

I've always thought of a scenario in which the defeat of both Germany and Japan carry out as they did. Then the Allies (minus the Soviets) unite and using the defeated Nazis as the spearhead, Russia is attacked from the West. Toss in a second front from the East (after Japan is dispatched) and the Soviets would have been in the same scenario the Nazis were in - a war on two fronts. With no one to supply them and the US having “the bomb”, Soviet Communism could have been defeated right then and there.

I know that Rommel that thought of the possibility of uniting with the Allies and militarily it could have worked quite well. IIRC, Patton also thought of uniting with the defeated European Axis powers was workable.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I've always thought of a scenario in which the defeat of both Germany and Japan carry out as they did. Then the Allies (minus the Soviets) unite and using the defeated Nazis as the spearhead, Russia is attacked from the West. Toss in a second front from the East (after Japan is dispatched) and the Soviets would have been in the same scenario the Nazis were in - a war on two fronts. With no one to supply them and the US having “the bomb”, Soviet Communism could have been defeated right then and there.”

The 1980s movie Patton's Last Days was replayed on cable last week where he get’s slapped down for suggesting such a thing.

Politically it was not possible at the time. The US had spent much political capital for years both making out the USSR as heroes and Nazi Germany as demons. The Katyn Forest massacre by the USSR had been played down in the US and the US factories had been arming the USSR for years. The US government under Roosevelt was loaded with American communists sympathetic to the USSR.

Hollywood made a US movie The North Star 1943 that depicted USSR socialist small town peasants overrun by Nazi's as patriotic heroes fighting them as the resistance behind the lines. Later during the Cold War this movie became unpopular.(I found a free copy on the internet and watched it again the past year.)

So with all of the above the American voter would not understood that all their relatives in the military, many of them who sacrificed greatly, were suddenly going to attack those they were told were helping us all those years. They wanted the troops home in 1945, VE and VJ. The wake-up day was when the USSR announced that had the bomb, which they stole from us,

[GOPsterinMA]

“The 1980s movie Patton's Last Days was replayed on cable last week where he get’s slapped down for suggesting such a thing.”

I've long suspected that Patton was killed for wanting to take on the USSR. Call me a tinfoil wearer, but it's what I believe.

“Politically it was not possible at the time.”

I completely agree. I think of a line from the Orson Welles film “The Stranger” where a Nazi is described as “still having the stench of burnt bodies” on his clothes; no way would those types be fighting along side (or in front of) the Stars and Stripes (at least not openly). Although, Nuremburg could have been effectively canceled if those ghouls were thrown back in against the Soviets - I highly doubt they would have survived a second time against them. "Herr Hess, you have two choices: take this Mauser and attack the East or you get hung in five minutes."

“They wanted the troops home in 1945, VE and VJ. The wake-up day was when the USSR announced that had the bomb, which they stole from us,”

Of course! And since we don't have the luxury of a crystal ball, I doubt most folks saw Korea and Vietman on the horizon, which cost us another 110,000+ American lives and countless more casualties.

In the end, Patton was right in a military sense - we should have fought them then why we had the troops there (and were the sole owners of “the bomb”). Politically, it couldn't happen.

[GOPsterinMA]

I erred, the quote was: “still having the stench of burnt flesh”.

“In the end, Patton was right in a military sense - we should have fought them then why we had the troops there (and were the sole owners of “the bomb”). Politically, it couldn’t happen.”

should read

In the end, Patton was right in a military sense - we should have fought them when we had the troops there (and were the sole owners of “the bomb”). Politically, it couldn’t happen.

[Sirius Lee]

I am, however, worried about the pompous FReepers who will refuse to vote Romney, even if it means an Obama victory.

I'm worried about the spineless weasels who slam other FReepers who refuse to sellout and vote for a liberal.

That is just downright treasonous.

Indeed, voting for mitt or obama is treasonous.

As much as I dislike Romney, I would take any non Communist over Obumbo

And mitt is NOT a non-communist, but you're in luck - Virgil Goode is not only non-communist, he's Conservative.

[sickoflibs]

I forgot to mention that after Hitler killed himself and Germany surrendered the war with Japan was still on and most were expecting to have to invade the main islands.So many troops were being sent to the Pacific.

I remember a scene in McArthur where he told the Soviet military leader that if the USSR tried any of that funny business in Japan that they did in Europe that he would arrest their whole USSR diplomatic staff. Eventually Truman fired him over Korea.

Patton and McArthur both wondered why we fought in WWII just to let communists pick up the spoils, but as Republicans learned the hard way (OK maybe just a few did), you need the voters’s support in wars to win.

[GOPsterinMA]

“Patton and McArthur both wondered why we fought in WWII just to let communists pick up the spoils, but as Republicans learned the hard way (OK maybe just a few did), you need the voters’s support in wars to win.”

Yep.

[Impy]

Hitler was so arrogant and stupid. We are very fortunate, if he had avoided just a few of his worst blunders things could have gone a lot worse.