A Philosopher's Blog

The Republican Candidate

Posted in Politics by Michael LaBossiere on March 16, 2012
English: Governor Mitt Romney of MA

Image via Wikipedia

The prevailing wisdom is that Romney will get the nomination. After all, while Rick and Newt have managed to pull out some winds, Mitt has accumulated the most delegates. Also, Mitt can easily outspend his competition-they are mere millionaires and their superpacs are not quite as super as Mitt’s (or Obama’s).

That said, it is still possible for Romney to lose. Scandals, death, miracles, plagues and so on could come into play. Sarah Palin might decide to join the action. However, the main question at this point is this: who will be the Republican VP pick?

After that, the main question will be whether or not the Republicans can beat Obama or not. Obama has benefited from success abroad (killing Bin Laden) as well as an improved economy. However, Afghanistan could slide into hell and take Obama’s approval rating with it. There is also the fact that although the economy has been steadily improving, it could easily go belly up around election time. There is also the impact of the price of gas (which is largely beyond the president’s control) and, of course, the ever present possibility of some blindsiding disaster.

Interestingly enough, the Republicans need to hope that things start going worse for America. After all, if the economy keeps improving and Obama keeps putting notches in his gun for killing terrorists, then it will be harder to argue that he is wrecking the economy and appeasing America’s enemies.

The Republicans have been trying to hit him on Obamacare and also going after him on social issues. The attack on Obamacare will potentially be blunted a bit by the fact that it was modeled on Romneycare, but people often have short memories in politics and Romney is adept at switching positions. The social issues are a potential win for Republicans, but there are three main concerns. The first is that most voters are more concerned with the economy than anything else. The second is that while the “values voters” are influential in the primaries, they will almost certainly not play as decisive a role in the actual election. Third, the Republicans have made some missteps that have allowed Democrats to present the Republicans as being against women (Santorum’s remarks about women in combat and Rush’s slut comments come to mind). The Republicans will need to work at getting the focus away from women’s rights to focusing on things like religious liberty. The Democrats, of course, have to focus on casting the Republicans as being against women-something the Republicans have made significantly easier in recent days. But, people have short memories.

As a final point, Obama seems to have a clear personality edge over Romney-even Obama’s critics note that he is charismatic. In contrast, even some of Romney’s supporters have expressed dismay about his weakness in this area. Romney should, however, be able to stand up reasonably well in the debates.

But, as should be expected, it will mainly come down to the economy. If things continue to get better, the Republicans will have an uphill battle in convincing people to vote for them. But if the economy starts diving, the Republicans could get a golden ticket.

So, who will be the Republican VP candidate? And, more importantly, who takes it in 2012? Other than Cthulhu, obviously.

Enhanced by Zemanta

18 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. ajmacdonaldjr said, on March 16, 2012 at 11:24 am

    It’s been Romney’s to lose since day one. As you say, the question now is who will he pick as his running mate? I assume it will be someone who will be able to bring in the social issue votes, or it will be someone who will bring in the liberal vote (perhaps a pro-abort Republican)?

    Ron Paul has been proven by various polls to be able – over all other Republican candidates – to defeat Obama in November, so the Republican Party already knows who can beat Obama, they just don’t like Ron Paul and will never give him the nomination.

    As I’ve said many times, there will be no election in November. People – on the left and the right -are DONE with politics as usual.For example, the Ron Paul supporters will likely not be voting for president at all without Paul being the candidate, and OWS has gone on record as saying the election process is beyond hope and repair before November so they will not be participating in the election….they have other things in mind, as do I. See: https://www.facebook.com/events/219326428090917/

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on March 17, 2012 at 5:08 pm

      Some pundits have been floating the idea of a Santorum/Newt ticket, but I think that one of them will be willing to take the VP position under Romney.

      I’ll vote, since not voting is just handing over responsibility. The Paul supporters should, I think, write his name in even if he doesn’t get the nomination.

  2. magus71 said, on March 25, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    No matter who the Republican candidate is, we can rest assured liberals will continue their mantra:


    • magus71 said, on March 25, 2012 at 12:06 pm

      For some reason, pasting doesnt always work right here.

      I’ll try again:

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on March 26, 2012 at 4:00 pm

      Let us assume that Obama lied in this case (intentionally or unintentionally). How does this impact the general case for health care? Should we assume that if a person says one untruth, that they are locked into a mantra of lying? Should this apply equally across political parties? So, for example, would Santorum’s untrue claims also lock him intro a mantra of deceit?

      That a politician lies is hardly a shock. However, my main concern is not with the politician’s veracity in specific anecdotes but primarily with the issues.

      • magus71 said, on March 26, 2012 at 5:28 pm

        I think Obama’s lie highlights the argument that I’ve made all along: that the current system was not nearly as problematic as it’s been made to be by people like Obama and yourself. After all, if it were really problematic, why would a well educated lawyer who inhabits the White House have to lie to prove his point?

        And aside from health care, it shows Obama in yet another lie. He lies a lot; more than any president in memory. Clinton is famous for one lie. Obama has been caught but not held to task in several. He knew nothing of Rev. Wright’s racist, hateful views, remember? There are many more. He’s frightfully good at it. Maybe it’s the lawyer in him.

        • dhammett said, on March 26, 2012 at 8:14 pm

          Nixon? Remember him?

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on March 27, 2012 at 5:30 pm

          If he is lying (that is, he is intentionally trying to deceive, etc.) this does raise that classic point: why lie if the truth will suffice? I often ask that about Fox News. But, it is also important to ask: “okay, so there is a lie. But is there any truth that impacts on the issue?”

          Based on my experience, most folks lie. Obama does not seem to be excessively dishonest for a politician.

          • magus71 said, on March 27, 2012 at 8:40 pm

            “Obama does not seem to be excessively dishonest for a politician.”

            Most politicians don’t have to cover up past associations with race mongers like Wright, Prof. Derrick Bell (google him) or convicted terrorists like Bill Ayers.

            Besides, you’re comment is a bit of a cop out. Obama has clearly stated that his mother could not get coverage because of her pre-existing condition, which is not the case. His bill is a major issue, and he should be called to task since he wanted to make the emotional argument based on a lie.

            • T. J. Babson said, on March 27, 2012 at 10:11 pm

              Moreover, even though the lie was pointed out a long time ago, he repeated it knowing full well it was a lie.

              Three Pinocchios


            • Michael LaBossiere said, on March 28, 2012 at 11:43 am

              While this article does present an argument against Obama’s claim, the gist of it seems to be that the critic is attributing to Obama very specific claims that are inferred from Obama’s general remarks and then attempting to raise some doubts about what the author thinks Obama meant. This is a far cry from showing that Obama was lying on specific points. Rather, it shows that the author’s reconstruction of what Obama “meant” can be questioned.

              Now, even if it is granted that Obama lied about this, it merely deprives him of a single anecdote. All the other evidence and reasons for the law remain intact and have to thus be engaged on their own merits.

              Unfortunately, people put too much weight on anecdotes-hence the fact that the fallacy of anecdotal evidence is a common one. As such, Obama’s story does not serve as significant evidence for his claims nor does its “defeat” count as evidence against the claims regarding health care, etc.

              Yes, I will extend this same principle to the Republicans.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on March 28, 2012 at 11:33 am

              When assessing a claim it is important to consider the available evidence and not just evidence that is regarded as defective. Even if Obama was wrong in his claim (he might have believed it-after all, what we remember and what really happened are often two different things), his anecdote is not the only evidence being offered in support of the claim that we need health care reform. Now, if it was the only piece of evidence offered, then showing it is not true would eliminate it as a premise. However, it leaves all the other premises intact.

              I had thought that this “guilty by association” had been settled. After all, Obama repudiated Wright and his association with Ayers was long after Ayers’ radical days. As far as the professor goes, I would not classify him as a race monger. He did write about race, but I have yet to see credible evidence that he died a “race monger.” After all, being concerned about matters of race is quite different from being a “race monger.”

              If Obama was in error in his claim, then he should correct that. However, this does not show that the case for the law is thus undercut.

            • magus71 said, on March 28, 2012 at 7:15 pm

              Obama has repeatedly stated that his mother had to fight with insurance companies in order to get coverage for a pre-existing condition. This is clearly not true. Her fight was over disability insurance. Obama knows this as he represented her as her lawyer.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on March 29, 2012 at 10:12 am

              Well, suppose that what he said is not true. This would, at most, show that his one anecdote is not accurate. This leaves intact all other reasons supporting his view.

            • magus71 said, on March 29, 2012 at 10:09 am


              Ayers says he doesnt regret setting bombs and says that the Weather Underground didnt do enough. Sounds like he’s truly turned over a new coin.

              Here’s a New York Times review of Ayer’s book, way back in 2001 before Ayer’s connection to The Annointed One was well known and before the NYT wanted to protect Obama.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: