freecounterpoint: ObamaRomney Goreball warming

Saturday, October 15, 2011

ObamaRomney Goreball warming

19 comments:

Arelcao Akleos said...: Romney is a Trojan Horse who doesn't even pretend not to have a collection of bung-artists in his belly.; 10/15/2011 7:07 PM
Tecumseh said...: There is no perfect candidate, alas. Maybe Romney has changed, in the meantime? I mean, do you really think he's still talking to Holdren about cap & trade and how to sacrifice the energy-producing capabilities of this country on the altar of Pepean ideology? Nothing is totally impossible, but I'd be extremely surprised.; 10/15/2011 7:32 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: It isn't a question if he still has Holdren as number one on his energy policy list. It's a question of what sort of man is Romney that he consistently has people like Holdren as number on his policies list.; 10/15/2011 7:49 PM
Tecumseh said...: I mean, if you actually read what he says about energy production (pp. 85-100), it sounds like current mainstream GOP economics. I doubt it's much different than what Perry or Gingrich or Bachmann said they would do (or Cain would, if he would put pen to paper to explain his economic plan, besides his tax reform scheme).

So it all comes down to an issue of trust (based on past, undeniable transgressions, most since repudiated), more than anything else, no?

Maybe we should have a test, like I think you told me they used to have in Portugal in the old days, to make sure Moors really had converted to Catholicism after the Reconquista. Namely, to have him eat a plate of pork and shellfish (is that Carne de Porco à Alentejana or Ameijoas na Cataplana) and make sure he cleans the plate?; 10/15/2011 7:50 PM
Mr roT said...: Tecs makes me laugh hard.

"Hey, Romney's not a perfect candidate," Tecs avers. But actually, ideologically, Romney is perfect for the flaccid think of the Harvard crowd circled around Tecs' pinko shithead conflict-free church.

AA saw through all this from the beginning, but Tecs still looks up to the ivy cretins and used car salesmen that the GOP has become now.

"Would Romney screw anyone over?" Tecs asks.

Only Turgidson's "Hell yeah!" does that stupid query justice.; 10/15/2011 8:25 PM
Tecumseh said...: I was talking to AA. To you, I say: look at Intrade. Romney 67.2%, Perry 11.6%. If and when your Texas pretty boy gets back to within 50% of Mitt, wake me up.; 10/15/2011 9:12 PM
Tecumseh said...: And, by the way, I've been with da gop consistently since Jimmah's time, so I think I know a bit what I'm talking about when it comes to how to view candidates.

Besides, I'm not one of those fair-weather conservatives, who abandons principle at the first whiff of a pet ox being gored.

And I certainly don't put down the GOP voters as "heartless" (as your man does), or as "ivy cretins and used car salesmen" (as you do). This is too facile: Occupy Wall Street level of political analysis.; 10/15/2011 9:26 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: I'm not sure there's any test we can give Romney quite as effective in scrying what he really believes as was Ameijoas na Cataplana in checking out someone's "Bah, Islam" bonafides.

You are right, I do not believe Romney in what he says. I believe him in what he did, as Governor, and what he did before this particular presidential run, and what he still does when he isn't on point during a campaign spot.
What I do believe is that Romney would leave the substance of what Obama has been doing unchanged; this on the issues of Obamacare and of "Green Politics" and on the control of our borders [No, I don't buy his recent rhetoric. Again I buy what he did in the past, especially what he did before it became clear the Tea Party would not go away and leave the GOP free for the Rhinos].
I think he would be better than Obama, and probably Perry, in most of our foreign policy. And better than Obama in some aspects of economic policy.
But his AlGoreism, and his miserable Romneybama care and his general and obvious comfort with the same old same olders in DC, is more than troublesome.
I cannot support him in the primaries, and if he makes it then his "I'm the lesser of two evils" appeal will appeal to too few...and Obama will triumph again.; 10/15/2011 10:45 PM
Tecumseh said...: AA: I basically don't really dispute what you say -- we probably agree close to 90% on this. It's just a judgment call, weighing the possibilities: it all depends on what exact weights one assigns the variables, and how one assigns probabilities.

It all would be more relaxed if there was a margin for error. But there ain't. The GOP took some risks in 2010 -- some paid off very handsomely, but some blew in our faces, rather badly, and rather predictably (eg, Delaware, Nevada). Instead of agonizing too much about the presidential primaries (which tend to suck up all the oxygen every 4 years), I'd rather devote more time/energy/resources to the Senate races, making sure Harry follows Nancy off the podium.

That said, getting back to weights and probabilities, in presidential races I usually tend to assign more weight to defense and foreign affairs than domestic ones. 2008 was an exception, partly due to war-weariness, but mainly due to a premonition I had that things were going down the drain with the economy, and so it was more important than usual to put forward someone who knew something about business and finances. As I said many times, that was to a great extent the substantive reason I picked Romney over Mac (or Huck, Rudy, etc), despite the obvious reservations pretty much everyone had (and has) regarding Mitt.

This time around, the economy doesn't seem so paramount an issue in the primaries -- basically, all candidates more-or-less have the same platform, with the exception of Cain who has an novel tax plan, but on which I have many practical reservations, which I detailed in another post (well, not a totally new plan -- Forbes ran on a flat tax platform a few years back). All the talk about the economy in the debates revolved mostly on claims of competence and record, than on any real discord on what needs to be done -- which should be pretty obvious by now.

So, in this respect, Romney no longer stands out like he did in 2008 -- eg, Perry could probably do as good a job with the economy. The big difference now is in the ability to project competence -- and here I'm afraid Romney is the only one that has the necessary gravitas and experience, gained after many years working on it (he's not at all a natural, like, eg, Cain is) -- well, and also Gingrich, but he's a dick.

Finally, back to security and foreign affairs. Here, no one candidate stands out, except perhaps Newt, who's quite good, but not as good as, say, Bolton would have been, and although Newt made some mistakes, too, eg, with his reaction to Lybia, which was rather erratic. At any rate, Romney is solid here (not brilliant, but no big mistake, either), and clearly much better at it than either Perry or Cain.

Well, that's about it for now. We can argue about this till we go blue in the face, and still won't resolve it. How about we have some primaries, and let vox populi decide? It's too complicated...; 10/16/2011 12:35 AM
Mr roT said...: We won't resolve anything because the whole field is garbage.

All is lost when those blathering principle and political philosophy jump in with windcocks.

ABO vs ABR. That's what it boils to.

Time to close shop.; 10/16/2011 7:03 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: I have genuine hope for Cain. Nobody else at this point.; 10/16/2011 9:42 AM
Tecumseh said...: AA: Don't pay too much attention to Mr Rot's ravings--he's been reduced to muttering about the unfairness of it all, and equating A and B for all A and B. Maybe he'll snap out of it at some point (I do hope so), but right now, I don't see much evidence of coherent thought in what he says. More like a kid who lost a game, and is throwing a temper tantrum as a result.

As for Cain: Perhaps. But do take a more careful look at his tax proposal (I wrote at length about it on other posts), and see if you can make the case for it. To me, it doesn't look too well conceived. It's fine as a means to start the discussion on reforming the tax code, but, as Bachmann said (and she was right saying that): the devil is in the details. Now that Cain is a top-tier candidate, his 999 plan will take close, serious scrutiny (as it should). If his plan starts taking water, where would that leave him? He doesn't have much else to fall back on.; 10/16/2011 10:03 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: His 9-9-9 plan is clearly simply an effort to discuss what is possible, to get concrete discussion going on policy and ideas among a bunch of Republicans who, by and large, want to avoid those concrete discussions. It worries me not at all that he would be trying to think outside the box. Cain has shown no evidence of being a one-trick pony, or of rigidly insisting that an idea, if his, must be right no matter what [contrast, say, with Romney and his refusal to admit what his "health care" has wrought here in Massachusetts].
Cain, like Romney, has healthy experience in business, but unlike Romney he worked up by his bootstraps, and seems to have a much better sense of what damage government can, and does, do to the lives of men outside the circle of the establishment "elite".
I guess I do not believe "he doesn't have much else to fall back on". His thought, his instincts, his criticisms of our current DC Versailles, his caring for this nation, are clear and are sound.
He is also, unlike Obama, of genuine intelligence. His achievements his own, and open to the world to see, as opposed to the hidden hand that has propelled Baracky to power and still keeps hidden even such simple stuff as what he took in college and what his grades were.
Finally, I trust Cain not to become a dhimmi towards Islam. I do not trust any establishment person in this regard, at all.; 10/16/2011 10:25 AM
Mr roT said...: He is also, unlike Romney, of genuine intelligence. His achievements his own, and open to the world to see, as opposed to the hidden

FIFY.; 10/16/2011 10:37 AM
Tecumseh said...: Clearly, Cain beats Romney on character; I will not dispute that, it would be ridiculous to do so. But I didn't mean he cannot fall back on his inner convictions, and come up with some good stuff: I assume he can. But he doesn't have the infrastructure to do so at this late stage. It takes years of preparation, typically.

Look, even a pro like Rick Perry, with all the hoopla he jumped in, with all the years of experience, and all the promise (the nomination was basically in his pocket, if only he could talk coherently, and avoid some mild booby-traps) could not hack it, at least not up to now. If Perry had jumped in the race 6 months earlier, and worked out the kinks slowly, he coulda been a much more formidable candidate. But he didn't.

Now, Cain jumped in a long time ago, and he did work out many of the kinks, and raised his act (all a good sign). Is he ready now for the big leagues? Not quite clear, but we'll see.

Finally, about Cain being the only non-dhimmi: that's rather pushing it. Eg, do you think Newt (setting aside his obvious character flaws) would just roll over and let the Caliphate take over? In fact, I think he's basically auditioning for the role of Sec State now, and he probably will have a good shot at it, if the GOP wins. I don't see either Romney, Bachmann, or Santorum rolling over, either. Huntsman? Don't really trust him. Paul? Yes, he would, he brags about it.; 10/16/2011 10:48 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: When I said I trusted Cain not to be a Dhimmi, it was in reference to the top top three I had in mind, Romney, Cain, Perry.
Perry is as compromised with Islam as the House of Bush ever was. In many ways he's Grover Norquist's guy in this regard.
I believe Romney is better than Perry in this regard, but not overwhelmingly so. He doesn't have a history of long political ties with Islam Militant front groups in this country, as does Perry, but his record as Governor, and his previous statements, seem to be pretty much in the "hey, it's just a small minority of disaffected folks and I'm sure we can do business with 'em when business is there to be done" camp. For example, unlike Cain, Romney seems to be indifferent to the push throughout the US to enter Sharia law into our courts [civil, for now] and cultural institutions [schools, curriculum, etc....].
Newt is definitely better here. Maybe in soundness as good as Cain [and, of course, a longtime student of foreign policy]. I suppose the problem is I don't see him as ever being more than a marginal contender for the Presidential run [as you said, he may well be angling more for Secretary of State].
Tecs, I have very little confidence in either Romney or Perry. Cain is still a developing picture, and much that seems good may end up being judged otherwise when that picture does develop, but Perry and Romney we know very well--and that lack of confidence is, I think, well justified.; 10/16/2011 11:48 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: By the way, in the Post "Roots of Pepeanism", did you mean to not have an article but instead link to this thread?; 10/16/2011 11:48 AM
Tecumseh said...: Yep--I caught that. Those sticky cut-and-paste are getting annoying.

One general point: remember, though technically we're talking about electing a President (and VP), what US elections are is electing a whole Administration, that comes as a package. Focussing almost exclusively on who said what at a debate, or what a politician said 10 years ago or some such can be misleading, though of course not to be discounted. I think it's (almost) equally important to think about the team such a politician would bring, and of his ability to conduct that team as he moves to an Administration, if elected. OK, maybe I sound pedantic, but think about this, too.

For better or for worse, Romney represents now the GOP establishment (a much-maligned concept, one who drove me nuts many times over the years, especially in 1992). And this means, in part, that he can put together a team of the apparatchiks who can smoothly take the reins of the bureaucracy if and when the the time comes. OK, OK, there's lot of bad things that permanent bureaucracy can do. But you still need it, and you still need someone good enough at politics to run the show.

My model in all this is still Ronnie's campaign from 1979-1980. He was an outsider, but a seasoned one, with decades of experience. He had some pretty revolutionary ideas at the time -- basically, supply-side economics, and stand up to the Soviets.
But he also was careful to bring in or co-opt the conservative intelligentsia and the nuts-and-bolts guys. It all sounds easy now, but I still admire greatly how he did it.; 10/16/2011 12:25 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Yup, Reagan was an anomaly. We'd been all better off if men like him were not so anomalous in the GOP; 10/16/2011 2:39 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)