Santorum drops out.

[MMMark]

Thurs. 12/04/12 12:08 EDT
.post #139
[url=Santorum drops out. - #43 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]I have no idea how you could read that entire piece and think that author is “desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth.”

It’s not clear, but he might be. He equivocates.

Under the sub-head Both Political Party Leaderships Are Controlled By Special Interests, he suggests that both parties represent, not “the people” but rather “only special interests,” and also

In every election they blindly cheered the election year rhetoric, voted as they were told and then were somehow surprised after each election that despite the same old campaign promises their candidates were little different from the Democrats.

The way I read this, Holland is saying that the rhetoric and promises of either party are not to be believed. I agree. But then:

What would the Romney campaign need to offer the Ron Paul Revolution forces to get a majority of our support? Speaking only for myself, naming Rand Paul as his VP running mate and a promise of a Ron Paul cabinet appointment would get my attention. This would need to be followed by campaign pledges for real action on the Fed audit and a required declaration of war for future neocon inspired foreign military actions.

Also, under the sub-head Will Ron Paulers Vote For Romney?, Holland writes

This young women speaks for millions of us who will not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 unless he unilaterally guarantees us he will advance our freedom agenda. He can do this by naming Rand Paul as his VP running mate and a promise of a Ron Paul cabinet appointment, followed by campaign pledges for real action on the Fed audit and a required declaration of war for future foreign military actions.

But that is not what "this young woman " (YouTube user ABillyRock) said. ABillyRock didn’t say Paul supporters would vote for Romney in exchange for “guarantees.” She said that “I welcome losing if the winning team is not supporting the principles this country was founded on.”

A “guarantee” from Romney isn’t the same thing as “the winning team…supporting the principles this country was founded on.” For Holland to suggest it is, is either naive, or disingenuous. By quoting Schanberg, I give his intentions the benefit of the doubt: Holland is desperate to believe that this time, Romney would tell Ron Paul supporters the truth.

@John James

That makes absolutely no sense. No one hates Ron Paul because “he’d win”.

Do you mean you don’t think Paul would beat Obama, or do you mean that there is “no one” who would hate to see that happen?

@John James

Oh? And what would that be? 1.7%?

For example, yes. I would call a 55% increase “significantly better.”

@John James

Uh. Isn’t that like…exactly what the girl in the video in the article said?

Pretty close.

@John James

Is this supposed to be a joke? Are you mocking some over-the-top Ron Paul-sympathetic writer that I’m unaware of? Or are you just mocking us?

No, no, and no. I am genuinely excited about libertarianism’s growth in popularity during the last twenty-five years. Why do you ask these questions?