Wayne Allyn Root on SCOTUS Decision: “Worst Possible Outcome for Obama”

In an article published Thursday 28 June 2012 by NewsMax titled, “Obama Now Officially the Taxer-and-Chief” Libertarian National Committee Member Wayne Allyn Root writes:

” . . . I rooted for this outcome with trepidation. Because the loser of this decision would gain the edge in the election. Why? Simple. Voters are motivated by fear, anger, shock, and outrage. . . . So today’s Supreme Court ruling might seem to be a victory for President Obama, but in reality it is the worst possible outcome for him. . . .  He isn’t Barack Hussein Obama anymore. He is Barack Taxes Obama. . . . All in all, a hollow victory for Barack Taxes Obama. In the long run, I’m betting it’s a victory he’ll wish he lost.”

The complete article is available here:

http://www.newsmax.com/WayneAllynRoot/Obama-Taxer-Chief-election/2012/06/28/id/443887

In early January Mr. Root made the following prediction:

“Prediction: Just before the election the U.S. Supreme Court rules against the individual mandate, thereby killing Obamacare. Even with a total failure of his progressive/socialist agenda, Obama’s class warfare appeal to the 50% who pay no income taxes makes him a formidable opponent.”

Available here:

http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/blog/2012/01/03/wayne-roots-10th-annual-new-year-predictions/

and here:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/01/wayne-root-joins-forbes/

Previous Obamacare analysis and predictions by Wayne Allyn Root can be found at the following IPR links:

 Any Attempt to Pass Universal Healthcare Now will Damage the Obama Presidency Beyond Repair… and Result in Unrest in the Streets.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/wayne-root-the-citizen-revolution-has-begun%E2%80%A8%E2%80%A8post-election-analysis/

 “Remember the “radical rules” of socialist and Marxist community organizers like Obama mentor Saul Alinsky: the ends always justify the means. Obamacare isn’t about healthcare . . .”

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/11/wayne-root-is-obamacare-willing-to-sacrifice-the-lives-of-women/

 

Wayne Allyn Root is a current member of the Libertarian National Committee, serves as the chair of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee and was the 2008 Libertarian Vice-Presidential nominee.

44 thoughts on “Wayne Allyn Root on SCOTUS Decision: “Worst Possible Outcome for Obama”

  1. Oranje Mike

    #2 – I don’t see what’s wrong with that statement. It sounds quite accurate to me.

  2. Thomas L. Knapp

    @2, @3,

    The Obama administration argued before the Supreme Court that the individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.

    The Supreme Court agreed, it is constitutional because it’s a tax.

    How big is the Obama tax increase? Well, as of 2009, the average cost for health insurance for a family of four was a little over $13,000.

    It’s therefore not much of a stretch at all for the GOP to argue that “Obama just raised the taxes of every family in America by more than $10,000 per year.”

  3. George Phillies

    In order to avoid the anti-injunction act, the Supreme court had to rule it was not a tax, except that it was enacted under the Constitution’s taxing power.

    For our next episode of comic relief, elections are approaching.

  4. JT

    This is the crucial point: make no mistake, THIS WAS THE WORST-POSSIBLE OUTCOME FOR LIBERTARIANS.

    I’ve already heard from a few people who had told me that they were going to vote for GJ & Libertarians who now say that they’re voting for Romney & Republicans solely because of Obamacare. I’ve said that I don’t think that’s a wise decision & explained why. However, I can’t say I that I don’t understand where they’re coming from. Given the fact that Obamacare is wildly unpopular & practically all Republicans have pledged to repeal it while practically all Democrats support it, this is a disastrous situation for the LP. Son of a bitch.

  5. paulie

    Yes, although to be fair, that is actually Obama’s middle name. That’s why all the same publications always referred to “George Walker Bush,” “William Jefferson Clinton,” “Ronald Wilson Reagan,” “James Earl Carter” et al with their middle names too, right?

  6. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    That Root has remained silent, for a day now, regarding his possible exit from the LP indicates that he might indeed be considering it — while leaving himself wiggle room to change his mind.

    In this case, silence equals maybe.

  7. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    And yes, this Supreme Court ruling will hurt Johnson — but some outside event was bound to hurt him before November. Something always happens which convinces people that “this election is too important to lose.”

    Of course, it needn’t hurt Johnson in safely blue or red states, but even after Florida 2000, many voters still don’t understand the electoral college.

  8. bruuno

    #6-Unless, of course, you are a family of four and actually have insurance, then there is no “tax increase”. And if you have two kids you seriously need to have health insurance. I’m fine with calling it a ‘tax’. What I have a serious problem with is claims like yours that everybody is now going to pay thousands of dollars more in ‘taxes’. That is total BS and you know it.

  9. Austin Battenberg

    Perhaps this is why the LP released the statement basically saying having Obama in office is better then Romney, because they want to try and slow the backlash of voters moving to Romney just for the sake of opposing Obamacare.

  10. Eric Blitz

    @ JT/8

    I share your worry that this decision hurts libertarians and Gary’s campaign. It energizes conservatives who will use the ‘don’t waste your vote’ argument with even greater effect against disaffected Republicans, Tea Party folks, Ron Paul groups. The decision makes the election more of a referendum on Obama than otherwise would have been the case, whereas we need the election to be a referendum on government and the duopoly.

    I think the way to mitigate this is to push Romney into the weeds on health care, using his claim/rhetoric that he will replace Obamacare on day one against him. The more he is forced to provide details on the subject instead of offer platitudes, the more the question of compromised principles and the impact of Romneycare becomes important. I hope Obama pushes him into those policy weeds, because I don’t the major media outlets are still not taking Gary seriously enough to let him push into the discussion, must less effect it directly.

  11. Eric Blitz

    I must learn to self-edit for grammar/spelling before posting here…

    Revise last line to read: I hope Obama pushes him into those policy weeds, because the major media outlets are not taking Gary seriously enough to let him into the discussion, much less effect the debate directly.

  12. JT

    Blitz: “I think the way to mitigate this is to push Romney into the weeds on health care, using his claim/rhetoric that he will replace Obamacare on day one against him.”

    Has he said that he’ll replace it on day one, or that he’ll repeal it? There’s a difference there.

    Blitz: “…the more the question of compromised principles and the impact of Romneycare becomes important.”

    Obama will definitely bring up Romneycare. However, I think voters who hate Obamacare won’t really care what Romney did in Mass. as long as he pledges to repeal Obamacare if he’s elected this year. This is a law that’s sharply divided along Republican & Democrat lines.

    I hope I’m wrong about it, but the disdain for Obamacare by most right-leaning people & centrist people alike makes me think that this is going to have a significant negative impact on Libertarian vote totals. And some of the liberal-leaning people who would’ve voted for GJ will probably vote for Obama & other Democrats in order to prevent Republicans from repealing it & save Obama’s signature initiative.

    Libertarians really didn’t need this.

    Blitz: “I must learn to self-edit for grammar/spelling before posting here…”

    Tell me about it. I wish there was a way for any poster, not just writers, to fix errors in their posts that they notice afterward.

  13. Austin Battenberg

    He’ll “replace or repeal” Obamacare just like Obama would either “create or save” jobs. That way, no matter what happens, you can claim success. Brilliant!

  14. Jill Pyeatt

    Well, Facebook just added editing capabilities, so maybe there’s hope–

  15. Austin Battenberg

    And JT, your comment proves that we need to target left leaning voters even moreso then in the past, since conservatives who dislike Romney will still vote for him to get that “socialist” out of office.

  16. Bubbalicious

    That Root has remained silent, for a day now, regarding his possible exit from the LP indicates that he might indeed be considering it — while leaving himself wiggle room to change his mind.

    In this case, silence equals maybe.

    Maybe. Or maybe he’s busy. I saw on the LNC Public Discuss that he did a lot of interviews about the Supreme Court decision yesterday. He’s still posting to LNC Discuss so I would guess that most likely means he has not actually quit.

  17. Bubbalicious

    That’s why all the same publications always referred to “George Walker Bush,” “William Jefferson Clinton,” “Ronald Wilson Reagan,” “James Earl Carter” et al with their middle names too, right?

    Not so much, but Nixon and Johnson often had their middle names used.

  18. Bubbalicious

    Perhaps this is why the LP released the statement basically saying having Obama in office is better then Romney, because they want to try and slow the backlash of voters moving to Romney just for the sake of opposing Obamacare.

    I understand the logic but they should have used it to point out that there is NO difference between Romney and Obama and that Johnson has a better plan.

  19. Mark Hilgenberg

    I don’t know why we need to keep referencing candidates other than Johnson. We should not be in the Romney vs. Obama or Left/right debate regarding healthcare.

    I found this article to be a great way to show how radically different Libertarianism is as compared to conservatism.

    http://c4ss.org/content/10777

    “The Manufactured Debate Over Obamacare”

    “Contrary to outraged cries from Republicans that it’s some sort of radical departure from our “free enterprise” system, Obamacare is in fact a direct continuation of the bipartisan neoliberal consensus of the past thirty years. The guiding principle of this consensus is the use of state power to protect corporate profits — which consist mostly of rents on artificial scarcity — from the radical deflationary effects of technologies of abundance. In the spirit of the original American state capitalist, Alexander Hamilton, this consensus seeks to maintain the value of the enormous concentrations of land and capital owned by the rentier classes, and guarantee the returns on them.”

    Click the link for more.

  20. Bubbalicious

    we need to target left leaning voters even moreso then in the past, since conservatives who dislike Romney will still vote for him to get that “socialist” out of office.

    True, but, we really need to target libertarian voters or would be voters, there are already 20% give or take that are more libertarian than either left or right; we just have to make them understand the left-right seesaw is just a dead end. We will never get all of them, but by being more organized, and more persistent, we can always reach a lot more than we have so far.

  21. Aaron Starr

    If I were running the Johnson campaign, I would avoid the 10 or so states (CO, FL, IA, NC, NH, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI) where the Presidential outcome is going to be decided.

    Both the Obama and Romney campaigns (along with all the Super PACs) will be spending well over a $1 billion there. The Johnson campaign will be relatively invisible, while voters will be told over and over again that their votes matter because the election is so close.

    The Johnson campaign will only be able to spend about $1 million, so it should instead focus on states where it is already understood that one candidate is going to win overwhelmingly.

    He can tell voters in those states that they should vote their conscience and send a message because the winner of the electoral votes in their state is already a foregone conclusion.

    In places such as Wyoming and Utah, he may want to focus on economic liberties and second amendment issues, so he can draw conservative voters.

    In places such as California and Illinois, he may want to focus on civil liberties and foreign policy, so he can draw liberal voters.

  22. Bubbalicious

    On the other hand maybe swinging the race comes with some power, and appealing to excluded liberals in conservative states and vice versa may be the way to go.

    On the third hand maybe we should find the natural libertarians everywhere and not even left the swing state/safe state, liberal/conservative thing have any impact on our calculations at all. Anywhere you go some people will fall for that and some people won’t.

    Our job is to organize the ones that don’t. Helps when we have candidates up and down the ballot running for all sorts of offices to make it look like a bigger effort to the voters. Even more so when there are regular activities and outreach events going on. When people have something to plug into they are more likely to get involved. So, find where that is happening and maximize it.

  23. Chuck Moulton

    Aaron Starr wrote (@29:

    If I were running the Johnson campaign, I would avoid the 10 or so states (CO, FL, IA, NC, NH, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI) where the Presidential outcome is going to be decided.

    The Johnson campaign will only be able to spend about $1 million, so it should instead focus on states where it is already understood that one candidate is going to win overwhelmingly.

    In 2004 Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik focused on swing states because that’s where the media would be. That same year Green candidate David Cobb focused on non-swing states because he could tell people their votes were meaningless anyway. Neither strategy seemed to have a huge effect on the vote totals.

  24. Mark Hilgenberg

    @ Aaron 29

    Exactly, I think a “vote your conscience” type message in those states would be good.

    We are working that angle in Utah but we are targeting the independent to left leaning voter. Indies happen to be larger than the D’s and R’s combined.

    In Utah the conservatives are predominantly driven by religion so we feel Johnson’s equality and abortion positions would be a sticking point with them.

    The college age still tend to be more on the “conservative” side but very open to our social issues.

  25. George Phillies

    There are plenty of new media paths to reaching states like Iowa and getting specifically tot eh people who like our message rather than their message.

    Obama: War on Afghanistan and Uganda, not to mention Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Nepal, and the Philipines.

    Rmoney: And I’ll attack IRAN, too.

    Libertarians: Peace and Prosperity

    Republicans: We’re wiretapping your telephone and lying about it.

    Obama: I’m wiretapping your telephone and told Congress to say it’s legal

    Libertarians: Wiretappers will get long prison sentences.

  26. Andy

    Chuck Moulton said: “In 2004 Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik focused on swing states because that’s where the media would be. That same year Green candidate David Cobb focused on non-swing states because he could tell people their votes were meaningless anyway. Neither strategy seemed to have a huge effect on the vote totals.”

    The swing state strategy may not have resulted in an impressive vote total for Michael Badnarik, but it did have a positive effect. I gathered petition signatures in New Mexico in 2005 to regain ballot status for the Libertarian Party of New Mexico, and I ran into a suprising number of people who saw or heard the Michael Badnarik for President ads in 2004 and they all enthusiastically signed the petition.

  27. Austin Battenberg

    And lets not forget the increase in libertarian minded voters since the rise of Ron Paul in 2008, especially the younger voters.

    @28 I agree, but most people I know who are libertarians don’t even consider themselves libertarians. I got everyone I work with to vote for Ron Paul, some call themselves conservative, some call themselves liberal, and I am the only libertarian. But for the most part they all agree with me on issues, its just a matter of emphasis. The “conservatives” I know don’t actually care about abortion, gay marriage and drug laws, and the “liberals” I know actually agree with me about economics when I explain them a rational libertarian perspective.

    That doesn’t mean they will automatically jump on the Libertarian Party train though. It took me months for me to go from being a liberal to a libertarian. It may take others longer then that. Some of the older folks it might never happen.

    So while I agree that we need to get ALL libertarians to vote for Johnson in November, we have to make sure we can appeal to the disaffected liberals and conservatives who lean our way, but may vote for the two major parties because they still believe in the lesser of two evils.

  28. Be Rational

    If you make up a name while petitioning (or whatever) and ask people if they heard of that person and saw or heard their ads you will find a surpisin number of people who say they did – pretending to be well informed. If your attitude is positive, they will enthusiastically sign your petition.

    My favorite petitioner used to ask women, “Are you a registered voter?” And if they said yes, he would look them in the eye and ask, with his sweet, little plea, “Will you sign my petition?” And they almost always did. No further discussion needed.

  29. Andy

    “Be Rational // Jun 29, 2012 at 11:51 pm

    If you make up a name while petitioning (or whatever) and ask people if they heard of that person and saw or heard their ads you will find a surpisin number of people who say they did – pretending to be well informed. If your attitude is positive, they will enthusiastically sign your petition.”

    I never once brought up the name Michael Badnarik or any TV or radio commercials that aired while I petitioned for Libertarian Party ballot access in New Mexico in 2005. When I asked some of the people I encountered to sign the petition to place the Libertarian Party back on the ballot in New Mexico THEY RESPONDED BY BRINGING UP the Michael Badnarik for President ads and then signed enthusiastically because of the ads. It wasn’t a huge number of people, but it was a lot more than I would have expected (which I wouldn’t have expected to encounter anyone who saw or remembered those ads).

  30. Aaron Starr

    Chuck @31 writes:

    “In 2004 Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik focused on swing states because that’s where the media would be. That same year Green candidate David Cobb focused on non-swing states because he could tell people their votes were meaningless anyway. Neither strategy seemed to have a huge effect on the vote totals.”

    I’m not sure that a non-swing-state strategy will result in significantly more votes, but I do believe that a non-swing-state strategy will result in more exposure — everything else being equal.

    Operating a Libertarian campaign in a swing state is like being a firefly next to a spotlight — practically invisible.

  31. Mary Lund

    but I do believe that a non-swing-state strategy will result in more exposure — everything else being equal.

    Why would reporters go out of their way to a state where they are not already deployed to cover a campaign that won’t affect the outcome?

    Wouldn’t they be more likely to pay at least some attention to a campaign that can determine the outcome of the race in key states that will determine the national result and where they are already going to cover the election from?

    I agree, but most people I know who are libertarians don’t even consider themselves libertarians.

    Those are the people we need to organize to reach, not so much convert liberals and conservatives although that is always nice too, but first reach the people who already lean libertarian whether they know it or not. For that matter many people who already know they are libertarian need to see more from the party to vote LP.

  32. Robert Capozzi

    Concur with AS. The notion of getting “reporters” to cover GJ is a premise that I’d check, in swing states or not. The L candidate is not “hard” news. Ls — GJ esp. — are best to mix with the commentariat, higher up in terms of political abstraction.

    Advertising resources are another matter. To the extent they can be targeted, my sense is to go where the votes are, which is the lopsided, non-swing states, where the obstacles to the wasted vote syndrome are lowest.

    The path of least resistance likely yields the most results.

  33. Aaron Starr

    Mary Lund @ 42 writes:

    “Why would reporters go out of their way to a state where they are not already deployed to cover a campaign that won’t affect the outcome?

    Wouldn’t they be more likely to pay at least some attention to a campaign that can determine the outcome of the race in key states that will determine the national result and where they are already going to cover the election from? ”

    Many reporters don’t travel because their isn’t the budget for it. If the Johnson campaign travels to local media markets and visits the newspapers and local radio and television stations, he is more likely to get interviews than if he were to do that in a swing state where it is more likely that the Romney and Obama campaigns have significant resources on the ground.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *