What should the Liberty Movement do for POTUS 2012?

My intentions here are only to encourage rational consideration of the available options left for Paulites in the general election and to attempt to spark a healthy discussion with no name-calling or other actions stemming from anger, disappointment, spite, etc. I hope you will set the emotional nature of the current times aside and genuinely consider what I have to say.

Option 1 - Vote for Obama:

Pros:

•  Delivering the election to Obama is a method of punishing Romney
• Romney may be considered unelectable in 2016 given that Obama is much weaker than he was in 2008 and Romney may likely do worse than McCain did

Cons:

• Our troops remain in Afghanistan until 2014 (at least - whatever happened to the recent 2024 extension? Is 2014 election year fodder?)
• We may end up engaged in more needless militarism in Iran, Syria, etc, putting tens of thousands of American lives at stake
• Indefinite detention clauses in the current NDAA will remain
• The UN Small Arms Treaty will likely be signed
• Draconian censorship laws will likely be levied against internet freedom
• Whistle blowers will continue to be treated like sub-human criminals
• The government will continue to grow at an alarming pace
• We will likely get stimulated again with the current economic outlook
• The War on Drugs will continue even in states that have put in place legalization/decriminalization laws
• The healthcare mandate will endure
• There will be no audit of the Fed
• Foreign aid will remain untouched or maybe even increased
• The Welfare State will likely continue to expand

Option 2 - Vote for Romney:

Pros:

•  Slight possibility that Romney would listen to Austrian solutions in another economic crisis (I doubt it though)

Cons:

• Romney will be rewarded for his underhanded tactics used to attain the nomination
• Our troops remain in Afghanistan until 2014 - at least
• We may end up engaged in more needless militarism in Iran, Syria, etc putting tens of thousands of American lives at stake
• Indefinite detention clauses in the current NDAA will remain
• Draconian censorship laws will likely be levied against internet freedom
• Whistle blowers will continue to be treated like sub-human criminals
• The government will continue to grow at an alarming pace
• We will likely get stimulated again with the current economic outlook
• The War on Drugs will continue even in states that have put in place legalization/decriminalization laws (likely at a more aggressive pace than Obama. Romney equated drug use to murder in a speech aired on HLN earlier in the year)
• The healthcare mandate will endure
• There will be no audit of the Fed (I don't trust Romney's sincerity)
• Foreign aid will remain untouched or maybe even increased
• The Welfare State will likely continue to expand (Medicare promises)

Option 3 - Write-in Ron Paul:

Pros:

• You get to vote for one of your heroes

Cons:

• No one outside of your personal contacts will know you did so
• A write-in campaign has no chance at successfully electing Dr. Paul

Option 4 - Vote for Johnson:

Pros whether he wins or loses:

• The votes will be counted (to some varying degree depending on the state - I doubt there would be 100% vote flipping) which would send a clear message to the GOP that the Liberty Movement won't just fall in line based on political rhetoric and/or coercion
• 5% of the vote puts the LP in major party status for 2016 which would likely help to solve problems with gaining participation in the debates
• Johnson will not be the last LP POTUS nominee. Others after him may be more universally acceptable to the Liberty Movement, and major party status would give those potential candidates much firmer footing
• It will piss off both the Democrats and the Republicans (Johnson affects the duopoly candidates differently depending on the state in question)

Pros for the outside chance he wins:

• Afghanistan will immediately be drawn down
• Avoid war with Iran, Syria, etc, potentially saving tens of thousands American lives
• A budget with $1.4 trillion in cuts - enough to balance year one (more than the $1T proposed by Paul) - will be submitted to Congress which would likely lead to real cuts (not just baseline cuts)
• In the event of a financial crisis, no economic intervention will be employed thereby creating an environment for real recovery
• If Audit the Fed hits his desk, it will get signed
• The Drug War will end
• If the legislation passes, the 16th Amendment will be repealed, the IRS abolished, and a consumption tax implemented which would eliminate all federal payroll withholding (saving entrepreneurs a fortune), eliminate taxes on all used goods (clothes, cars, etc), and distribute the federal tax burden over everyone that interacts with our economy (illegal aliens, tourists, other visitors) not just the employed citizens. Texas and Florida - two of the biggest economies in the world - employ consumption taxes, and as a former Texas resident, it was nice to have no state withholding.
• Religious influences will no longer be employed to provide collectivist, government benefits to straight couples while punishing the gay and lesbian community. Separation of Church and State should not have exceptions, and the only argument that exists is based in religion.
• Although Johnson is pro-choice up to independent viability of the fetus, he takes the same policy approach as Ron Paul in saying it should be left to the states, thereby negating the importance of his personal opinions on the issue

Cons:

• If the legislation passes, some are concerned that the Fair Tax would create a new entitlement system due to the prebate that would be distributed to all US citizens. However, I would argue that collectivism is avoided because all citizens will receive it, and the prebate only represents the amount of tax that would be paid based on poverty poverty level income (~$2000/yr) which is not nearly enough to survive on and provides a logical solution to the regressive nature of other consumption taxes
• Johnson said he may be willing to militarily intervene for humanitarian reasons in other countries; however, he said he would only do so with approval from Congress (giving respect to the process provided by the Constitution)

----------------------------------------------
Did I leave anything out? Please discuss.

One last note: To illustrate the unreliability of emotion based decision making, please consider the following questions -

What percentage of people in prison (barring victimless crimes) are there because they acted out of emotion? I would venture to say greater than 90%.

What percentage of people in prison (barring victimless crimes) are there because they made rational decisions? Very few.

Did your parents ever tell you to "think before you act?" If so, why did they tell you that? Was it because making emotional decisions out of anger or other emotions can often get you into trouble?

Is the purpose of the Liberty Movement to gain liberty? If not, what is the goal? Given the above information, what is the most productive choice for Liberty with respect to the 2012 race for POTUS on a rational basis, neglecting emotion?

The factors stated above are what led me to where I stand now.

Thanks ahead of time for your genuine consideration and responses.

Follow @DerrelWalters