Two Republican state legislators (from different states) have already jumped ship and re-registered Libertarian. At least one of them is up for re-election this year, and will be running as a Libertarian. More early signs of a paradigm shift.

The risks of the LP being corrupted are minimal, compared to the opportunities given to us by the disarray in both major parties. Many voters (including mainstream political leaders) who have dismissed our ideas and principles in the past will seriously consider them this time around. The opportunities for libertarian outreach have never been better.

It’s worth noting that neither Johnson nor Weld is “in control” of the LP – they are simply the party’s nominees for the top of the ticket this time around. The LP can deal with a threat from outside forces if and when it arrives. In the meantime LP members and non-members alike can enjoy the extraordinary opportunity that this year’s election has opened up.

Please explain why you badmouth Mr. Romney. What aspect of considering to vote for the Libertarian candidate confers the epithet "idiot" on Romney? Or is it some other aspect of the man? I can disregard his religion, which may seem dubious to many and ridiculous to me, but overall, he is a man of high ethics and personal integrity.

I don't see any mechanism by which Romney and his allies could take over the LP (even if he wanted to, which he doesn't). On the other hand, his recent remarks have given the LP instant credibility and a higher profile among Republicans who previously dismissed it as a "fringe" group. Many of them will give its platform and principles a closer look, thanks to Romney. A few of them might even come over to the side of liberty permanently.

Great talking points from the Democratic Party.

I'd strongly recommend you go look at the original bill Romney championed and not what it has since been amended by the liberal Massachusetts Assembly to say. The Heritage Foundation was a big supporter of the original bill because it didn't mandate anything. Those provisions were ushered in as amendments after Romney left office. That was the huge mistake Romney made when debating with Obama in the 2012 elections - he failed to distinguish between the bill he had originally championed and what it had since morphed into.

I don't see Romney actually becoming a member of the LP (he has already said he disagrees with its position on decriminalizing drugs), but his mere mini-endorsement of its candidates will encourage his political allies to consider voting Libertarian as an acceptable alternative to supporting Trump. This will add to Gary Johnson's standing in the polls, improve his chance of getting into the debates, and raise public awareness of the LP, its platform and its principles. It's all good.

+1 for you. Mitt Romney is such a member of the Ruling Class that it must make the Bush's proud. They don't care who wins... either Republican or Democrat as long as they can control us peons.

If Romney really backed Hillary, he would be urging his political allies to stay home, not discussing the LP candidates. By raising the profile of the LP in "establishment" circles, he is also strengthening the credibility of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party and opening up a whole bunch of issues for debate. I think he is serious when he says he is considering voting for Gary Johnson this time around.

I resisted the draft too. A government that is willing to resort to a draft is not worth fighting for.

I never served either, but I bet I've done more for the defense of this country than many that have, and certainly more than I could've carrying a gun (and I am a damn good shot, and not timid). How, by helping to design and build the most capable defense platforms in the world.
Not sure if the Romney's are in this category or not, but I'd argue serving in the military is not a prerequisite or definition of patriotism.

..
1. Because the law was an unconstitutional abrogation of First Amendment rights.
2. See #1. He never should have been forced to leave in the first place.
3. So what? You're saying that only someone who has served in the armed forces can love this nation? BS.
4. So you're saying that his First Amendment rights and a legal deferment are trumped by your definition of "patriotism"? BS.
5. See #3 above. I have tremendous respect for and many friends who serve or did serve in the US military. I also know some soldiers who disrespect the uniform they wear. See Nidal Hasan. Your blanket statements are pure logical fallacy. Patriotism is judged case by case - and not by you.

Take your hate and empty accusations elsewhere.

To underscore what others have said here, this is an Objectivist forum, and Objectivists were instrumental in getting the military draft abolished, because it is, in a word, slavery. And generally speaking, the proper idea is that "this nation" - meaning its government - is there to serve us. We are not here to serve it. So dodging the draft is not cowardice - an easy ad hominem - it's a rejection of presumptive slavery.

What Michael said about the quality of draftees as soldiers resonates too. If a.) the purpose of government as identified clearly in the Declaration is "to secure rights" as its sole function, and b.) the armed forces are the #1 first-line defense of rights, then soldiers should be among the highest-paid government employees rather than the lowest, and there should be no shortage of people signing up, for the lucrative pay if nothing else.

I've long believed that America's armed forces are analogous to a fist in the martial arts, with the President - as CinC - analogous to the brain, and the entire chain of command beneath him representing the synapses and nerve array that translate the brain's command into the muscular activation of a punch. A fist in sync with a wise, competent brain is effective; a fist comprised of what amounts to a random bystander compelled to do the job of one's own, is a pale, ineffectual imitation, giving predictable results. See the entire outcome of the Vietnam war for details. A military draft is an open admission that a government's conceptualization of the military as the government's primary rights-protector is hopelessly muddled, and that its leadership - still analogous to its brain - is addled and erratic in its grasp of purpose, not to mention of ethics.

It's not a great analogy, but in any contest between an army of men self-motivated to be part of that army, and an army of men forced into it, guess which one wins? There is a reason for this.

A second issue: The common argument that "you didn't wear a uniform, therefore your views are null" - generally in the role of an ad hominem - is itself null. One does not have to have attended medical school and run a medical practice to possess valid views on medicine vs. government; one does not have to have become a CPA to possess valid views on taxation; one does not have to have worked as an architect or building contractor to possess valid views on the regulatory straitjacketing of housing construction; one does not have to have worked as a climate scientist to possess valid views on the religion of Chicken Little.

Certainly, if one does have such credentials it adds the weight of further expertise to one's views, but the absence of them is not some kind of magical trump card (pun if you want one,) which nullifies an opponent, thereby saving one the work of debate.

Further, given that there was a significant dearth of major wars between the close of the Vietnam War and Desert Shield, it is a simple demographic fact that huge swaths of the American population came of age during extended peacetime (I'm one of these.) Which means the "chickenhawk" epithet is even more blatantly meaningless.

In retrospect, I wish I had joined up after H.S. - particularly given that my CinC would've been Reagan - but I decided not to, and have never worn a uniform in any branch. (Though like Thoritsu, I too have racked up significant time building state-of-the-art equipment for the military - FLIR pods for USN jets, specifically.)

But there are lots and lots of people across America who hit their 20s between Vietnam and Kuwait/Iraq, and as such devoted their time and energy in pursuing careers in the marketplace rather than joining the military. Are all of those people's views forfeit? And different individuals possess radically different talents. Some people have a military aptitude, some a business aptitude, some a technical aptitude, etc. Assuming every individual is equally fit for every job is a distinctly collectivist view.

Complying with a draft order is a guarantee of absolutely nothing vis-à-vis courage, patriotism or toughness. Enlisting certainly is. But neither is choosing a different career a guarantee of these qualities' absence.

/soapbox

That last line pretty well backs up what I just posted at about the same time.

Even if Romney’s mention of voting Libertarian is born of personal frustration, there are many others who will follow his lead and at least examine the Libertarian candidates as possible alternatives to Hillary and Trump. In the short run, Romney’s statements will shine a spotlight on the LP and may lift Gary Johnson’s poll numbers to the point that he will be included in the presidential debates. For their own purposes, there may be many Republicans and Democrats that would like to see this happen.