We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Marks on Mitt First he has no chance whatever of being elected President of the United States of America.
He is a rich kid, yes so is George Bush as well – but George Bush gives a good imitation of looking and sounding like an ordinary Texan, Mitt Romney looks and sounds like what he is.
Americans will accept a Democrat who was born rich – they have more of a problem with a Republican who was born rich.
– Paul Marks, taking no prisoners
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Check out this YouTube(Link) video of Mitt telling it like it isn’t.
Romney’s problem is that he’s a New England liberal in the Republican Party from a religion that sounds like a 19th century version of Scientology. The only way that you could make him more unappealing to the base would be to make him a mouthy lesbian who calls Islamists “freedom fighters” a la Michael Moore. He’s barely more electable than Giuliani, and that’s not saying much since Giuliani would get beaten up like a retarded baby seal at the polls by both sides.
Now, if Romney were a solid, reaganesque Republican who was 75% Ron Paul on economic and civil liberties issues, he’d be a terrifying candidate for Hillary and Obama. Strong on national defense, strong on free market capitalism, strong on civil liberties, yeah, he’d sweep the south and midwest faster than you can say ‘git er done.’
Sounds to me like you are describing Thompson (who also has the advantage of a non-Paul view on foreign affairs). Yet Thompson does not seem to be getting much traction, at least not yet.
Another valid distinction between Mitt and say President Bush is how accessible their jobs (prior to politics) are to your average joe 12-pack. Bush worked in the oil industry and was the managing general partner of a baseball team. That sounds fun, lucrative and virile. Mitt started a consulting firm and eventually branched-out into private equity. Sounds boring, girly and potentially involves a lot of talking and, shudder, listening.
Now, if Romney were a solid, reaganesque Republican who was 75% Ron Paul on economic and civil liberties issues, he’d be a terrifying candidate for Hillary and Obama.
And if ‘ifs’ and ‘ands’ were pots and pans beggars all would be tinkers.
For me, from what Mid (and others) have said there is only Fred and the rest are loons or quasicrats.
I mean, God help us! Mike (I don’t agree with kangaroos) Huckabee or Mitt (Snake Oil For Sale!) Romney and then what? Ron Paul MD? Or Rudi (who in my ignorance I used to think of as a straight arrow) Giuliani… Oh hell!
Sheesh, I’m not even considering the Democrats because their only sales point right now seems to be that they offer a choice between Hillary and Obama which is like a choice between riding the lightning and getting the lethal injection.
And we won’t elect someone named after a baseball glove President…
My surmation of the current Republican field.
Mitt would have a 100% chance of being elected. If he were running as a Democrat. Rich people who change their political stances on a minute by minute basis are well received by Democratic voters but consistency is valued when you have an (R) next to your name.
Fred Thompson reminds me a bit of Frankenstein’s monster. They were both touted as the Next Big Thing in their respective fields. However, the cold hard reality is that both of them were just large lumbering beasts who wander around aimlessly in a pale imitation of what they were supposed to be.
Huckabee is probably the scariest of the bunch. He is a socialist to the core who has, at best, only a rudimentery grasp of economics and who’s foreign policy is based on….. well I have no idea. He probably doesn’t either. The only reason he is doing so well is because he says the words “Jesus” alot, and because all of the other “top tier” candidates are just as big a bunch of wankers as he is.
McCain will probably win the nomination. Not because he is a good choice, or even sane for that matter, but because he has butt loads of name recognition built up over the past 8 years. In American politics the person whose name people can easily remember will receive votes. This is mostly because most Americans care less about American politics than does the rest of the world. When it comes down to casting a vote it’s much easier to remember a name than to remember a person’s platform.
Ron Paul will not win. The absolute last thing you need to do in American politics is to tell people that their own stupidity has caused most of their problems. The truth is what you tell your friends while you are sipping brandy and smoking cigars in a private room. You are, under no cirumstances, to stand up in front of the nation and tell it to them. The youth appreciate his straightforwardness because we grew up being lied to from the second we popped out of the womb. Sadly, we won’t be in the majority for another generation at least. The Reckoning will not be pretty.
Guiliani is dead. He never had a shot. He was more of a long shot than Paul ever was. Name recognition was the only thing he had going for him. That was rendered usless once people rememberd that he was a sorry ass son of a bitch that would have made Mussolini stare in awe.
Sorry for any grammar/spelling issues. A bad keyboard and AOL software are the only tools I have to work with at the moment.
Mr. Marks is making a basic error by failing to take into account not just the candidate, but the alternative.
He is correct that Romney compares poorly to the ideal Republican candidate. Fortunately for Romney, the ideal Republican candidate is not running this election. Or the last. Or the one before that. Or the one before that. And so on back to the founding of the Republican Party.
I’m fairly confident that the last President the US had that won the position on account of people voting for him was Washington. Every president since has won the position because of people voting against the alternative.
Rich or Middle or Poor, Young or Old, Man or Woman, Black or White those are the things are not a vital factors to select a President for US. The one who’s having enough knowledge, ideas and attitude to lead the country is important.
Breakdown Recovery
Mitt certainly has money now, but did he come from a wealthy family?
Until we get to the states Giuliani is fighting for we will not really know if he has a chance or not. If there is something we know about him is that he fights and keeps fighting; no one who did in New York what he managed to do can be discounted too early.
I like Thompson too, the only problem is that so far he lacks the fury to get there; he would probably make a good Vice-Presidential candidate for one of the others, but not for the big job.
What I think of Huckabee is not repeatable in polite company…
McCain is a stranger to freedom of speech (just for starters), so I would even prefer a Democrat to him.
Mr Paul would make a good Secretary of Commerce, but President: not in your live! Now that Iraq seems to be getting better, the last thing the USA needs is to go back to before the Surge.
Beg to differ. Even the idea of not running around starting pointless wars is not new to the Republican party … as a matter of fact, until Shrub, the Democrats were the ones who started the pointless wars, and the Republicans were the ones who ended them.
Remember what a bad idea “nation building” was when Clinton was doing it? When one’s brain has not been eaten by his party, the same actions look just as bad regardless of the actor.
Of course the Rothbardian view of “Democrats starting pointless wars” includes World War II and Korea.
In short either the world should be taken over by the Nazis or by the Communists – any American resistance to such world conquest being, by definition, evil.
Just so we have that clear.
As for Iraq. I did not support going in to Iraq in 2003 and, in spite of improvement in the situation in recent months, if I could go back in time to 2003 I still would not support it.
However, my opposition was based on tactical considerations. Now, not in 2003, the enemy in Iraq is the same enemy as the enemy in Afghanistan – the cases can no longer be divided.
Perry asks why Fred Thompson has not done well – and I would go further than Perry, I would say the only thing Fred Thompson can do now is to consider what other candidate he is goint to endorse.
One can say everything that people have been saying for months – that Fred started much too late (months after people started to talk about his running) and campaigned wrong (not enough television stuff).
But there is a bigger factor – and one that would hit Ron Paul even more.
Fred Thompson has questioned the Welfare State – and people who question it do not get elected.
Look what happened to Barry Goldwater (Fred Thompson’s hero) in 1964.
Or look what happened to Governor Du Pont in 1988.
Ronald Reagan got elected by going on about “waste” not by questioning Medicare, Meidicaid, Social Security and so on.
It is hard for us pro freedom people to accept but most people (even in the United States) are NOT like us. They have not been like us since at least 1936 (see the 60% of the vote for F.D.R. after the voters knew what he stood for).
Ron Paul may not have any detailed plans to deal with the entitlement programs (as Fred Thompson does) but, in theory anyway, he is more opposed to them than Fred Thompson is.
It is this – not pro war or anti war – that would doom Ron Paul.
In short it is what is good about him that would mean he is unelectable.
But this does not mean that one has to accept someone who wants even more government programs, someone who wants to put the government to work. Someone who the British “Economist” magazine (sorry “newspaper”) likes. One does not have to accept “Mitt” Romney.
Not “Fee-Fee”, not “universal health care”, not yet more taxpayer subsidies and “national planning” for the auto industry. Not Romney.
Even pragmatic (sell out) types like me have to draw the line somewhere.
One of the most depressing things I hear on Fox News is the line “economic conservatives support Romney” or ” fiscal conservatives support Romney”.
The idea that “Mitt” Romney is the representative of the free market is utterly absurd.
A good businessman is not always in favour of a smaller government, in size of scope, in fact many super rich people have a record of being in favour of bigger government.
Former Governor Romney is one such person.
RC Dean asks whether Romney comes from a wealthy family – yes, although he has been very successful in business himself (so have George Soros and many nonconservative people, being successful in business means nothing in terms of political opinions).
F. Davies points to John McCain poor record on freedom of speech and says he (Mr Davies) would support a Democrat.
If one of the three Democratic candidates had a better record on freedom of speech you would have a good point.
Sadly they are all in favour of limiting business and individual political donations.
The only hope for freedom of speech in the United States is that the Supreme Court grows a backbone.
Of course business enterprises tend to be timid anyway.
And the Wall Street financial industry gives more money to Democrats than to Republicans – and it is not just fear.
It is a matter of what they were taught in school and university – even businessmen have “business is evil” in the back of their minds.
Also the financial industry is dependent on the drip feed of funny money from the Federal Reserve system.
Actually they are Welfare Queens.
They may drive nice cars and wear nice suits – but the Wall Street crowd are still on Welfare.
Paul,
When you talk about Fred being unelectable, there is one extremely knowledgeable and informed cartel that disagrees with you. The MSM.
They have been stacking every card in the deck to try to deal him out. Today I watched on ABC I think as a talking head announced that “after losing in S C Thompson was going back home to see his mother instead of going to Florida.” The host (Stephanopolous?) asked if that meant he was quitting. The talking head said it sounded that way.
One thing they left out. Fred’s mother is in the hospital.
NBC spent a whole analysis on all of the Republican candidates. All four of them. They spent a lot of time on Giuliani. (Look up how he and Fred compare so far.) They even spent an extended major part of the program on Bloomberg and how he would do. Fred? Might as well not exist.
Fred Thompson is probably the only candidate that could get every Republican to vote. He is certainly the only one I will vote for. And he will probably swing a lot of the disenfranchised Democrats. The MSM know this. And they are working as hard as they can to sell the ‘fire in the belly’ BS. When MSM works this hard to take down a candidate, even if it means building up other Republican candidates, they care.
Midwesterner:
I don’t think this is going to go as well as we’d hoped.
Dale, if you get that starship running, I’ll bring beer.