« Rich people like Warren Buffett want their taxes raised | Main | Autism is genetic »

August 16, 2011

Comments

If Romney's the nominee, he'll be forced to choose a Veep from the stupid wing. Look at the running mates of recent non-stupid Republican nominees: Sarah Palin, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle. Have to give a nod to both wings.

Considering the history of the Republicans, that candidates must wait their turn, Romney is the probable, if not certain, choice. That, however, leaves room for one of the stupids in 2020.

Who cares who the Republicans nomnate. President Obama start with 250 electorial votes in his pocket without having to spend a dollar on his campaign. this is the number of states that Gore, Kerry, and Obama have carried in the last three elections. The Republican nominee starts with about 175 electorial votes without spending a dollar (the amount that McCain won).

Given that all Obama needs to do is retain Ohio, Michigan, or Florida, it does not look good for the Republicans.

The real election will be in the House races to see if the Democrats can regain control of the House or get close enough to have actual control.

A Michelle Bachmann candidacy makes it very likely that Nancy Pelsoi will be Speaker of the House in 2013.

Here's the problem. The "smart" Republicans nominate liberal idiots like Bush Sr. and Jr., Bob Dole, and John McCain. The latter two were not even trying to win elections - their goal was to lose gracefully, and so they did. The former two were a disaster after getting elected; Junior more so than Senior, as Junior was the worst of all worlds (talks conservative, governs liberal, so liberal failures get blamed on conservatives). Based on the track record of elections from 1988 on, it is *stupid* to let the "smart" wing of the Republican party decide the candidate.

Romney is clearly cut from the Dole/McCain mold - he will do no more than lose gracefully. Therefore, far from being the only hope, he is no hope at all for the Republican party. If Romney chose another candy-ass liberal compromiser (sorry, "smart" Republican) like Giuliani as VP, that would seal Obama's reelection hands-down. The absolute worst thing the "smart" wing can do is alienate the "stupid" wing so badly that the "stupid" wing stays home or votes third party. Yet the supposedly "smart" wing of the Republicans has actually done this more than once, and thus lost perfectly winnable elections!

The "smart" wing of the Republican party suffers from the same problem as the "smart" Democrats - they think they are a lot smarter than they really are. In fact, using the metrics of "ability to learn from failure" and "ability to perceive reality correctly" both groups are abject morons no matter what their SAT scores and prestige degrees seem to indicate. It is no surprise that "smart" Republicans and "smart" Democrats fail in the same way. Both are captives of liberal ideology, which blinds them to the disastrous stupidity and catastrophic failure of trying to implement their delusions in the real world.

As a postscript, it is puzzling that Auster prefers Bachmann to Perry. All the problems that he thinks Perry has (mainly that he is a captive of neocons and bad on immigration), Bachmann has too, and she is a woman to boot. Given that no candidate will ever meet the Auster purity test, he ought to support the "least worst" candidate, which from his view should be Perry.

A Texan friend of mine wants the Republicans to win next year, with Rick Perry as the VP so that he is in position to do the least possible harm to Texas.

The first time I saw Rick Perry on TV I actually thought he was Rod Blagojevich.

Romney is not the only hope, for he cannot win.

If he is nominated, conservatives sit out. Seriously. This includes me.

How is it that Democrats are "smart"? I realize many are high IQ, but if you believe in something as fundamentally stupid as leftism- even on the level of doublethink- you are not smart, whatever your IQ is.

Auster is, like the National Review people, fundamentally a creature of the establishment, just one of a few contrarians they keep on staff to appear broad-minded. He's not smart either, because Bachmann is obviously not going to be th nominee.


"To the extent that smart Republicans sought an alliance with stupid evangelical Christians, they only wanted their votes, they didn’t want them actually running the country."

http://amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/28/00006/


Evangelicals are stupid, but not the kind of stupid that you think. They are stupid for going along with a lot of liberal BS because they have been shamed into it. They are stupid for working those blue collar jobs and dealing honestly with the folks the screw them. They are stupid for investing in producing productive kids who behave as they do. They are not the same kind of stupid as the left half of the bimodal distribution of Democrats. They are basically doers and givers. Smart Democrats are doers and takers. Dumb Democrats are NAMs and takers.

The problem with Romney is that he has never created anything of value. As someone who is building his own factory, I can attest that the myriad of regulations is crushing to the small businessman. The sheer number of laws and the documentation requirements of those laws make manufacturing a deplorable proposition. Because his only executive experience is shipping jobs to China, there is zero chance that Romney understands what is required to build something. For those who don't know what is required to build something, here is the short list:

1. some amount of money
2. a very smart, very committed individual willing to give up everything

Regulations kill business startups by forcing the entrepreneur to focus on paperwork rather than building or creating value. My company is in the dietary supplement business and the new regulations are nothing more than a criminal act against the American people. And worse yet are a new set of proposed regulations that will surely kill the industry. I see no chance that Romnney will understand that these regulations are useless (except to create new Federal jobs) and create misery by unemploying people in the industry. A person who sits behind a desk cannot imagine how much effort and emotional investment is required to build something from scratch. If you then consider that there are hundreds of industries, and assume that similar regulations likely exist for each, then you have begun to understand one reason for our economic malaise. Personally, if all the useless regulations in dietary supplements were wiped-clean tomorrow, I could hire three people by next week. That is how pernicious the regulations are. Repeat across 3 million companies and unemployment is solved.

When was the last time you heard Romney give a speech or write a scholarly article on the negative effects of regulations? Never, is my guess. He is an empty value-transferer.

BTW, I highly recommend that some people consider learning how to make stuff. It is far more enjoyable than desk work. An honest wage for honest work is a truism. Desk work is a joke.

Jeff

I am think Manchin for VP.

There is nothing for him in the Pelosi Democrat party. Or for his State.

And the Rep are likely to take the Senate so he would be the least in-step member of the caucus in the Minority. Yeech.

Are you sure Eric Cantor is smarter than Michele Bachmann? I think you, as an atheist, are just prejudiced by Bachmann's religion (while ignoring the religions of the others you mention, or assuming they don't believe them). Bachmann has seemed impressive in debates so far. Cantor doesn't seem that impressive, and comes across as sort of dogmatic.

Assuming evangelicals are stupid just because you don't share their beliefs is itself stupid. I've known some clearly intelligent evangelicals (and Mormons, for that matter).

In terms of pure intellectual horsepower, I have little doubt that Romney is the smartest guy in the race this time, as he was last time. He also has a track record of genuine success in business, politics, and the non-profit sector. I agree he would do well in a general election, particularly if the economy is as bad or worse than it is today (which will probably be the case).

But in terms of applied political intelligence, Christie is the smartest. He would beat any of the other candidates (Obama included) in debates, and doesn't come across petulantly dogmatic the way Cantor does. He also would be able to run on his record without twisting himself in knots like Romney.

Evangelicals are repulsed by Romney's Mormon religion and his previous life as a pro-choice liberal. Romney will need a stupid Evangelical Christian on his ticket to try to attract at least some Christian conservative votes.

Eric Cantor is a sorry, smarmy little pissant who sneers and curls his lip at what he considers his inferiors. Considers himself Virginia upper crust and would have fit in well in the 18th century, but just a poseur today.

How on earth is Rudy Giuliani a good choice for VP ?

Thank Gaia for Michelle Bachmann! She is definitely helping Romney by dividing the creationist wing. Rick Perry stands a very good chance of granting Obama a second term. He is highly appealing for a nomination win but will be easy for Obama to pick apart. Current polls show that Romney is the most electable Republican running. I have a good sense for political predictions, but I never “run the numbers” like this article does:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/16/romney_vs_perry_how_the_numbers_and_the_calendar_stack_up_110953.html

If you look at poll momentum, Perry looks like he is headed for frontrunner status, but this analysis shows that he will need to destroy Bachmann fast in order to beat Romney before moderate states weigh in. That means he would need to be tough with a lady like Mr. Nice, T-Paw, tried to do. Add to that the non-candidacy of Palin. I predicted that she would not run, which increasingly seems to be the case. Somehow, her not running helps Romney in poll results.

Before he announced that he would run, I predicted to my friends and family that Obama would be president. He was elected for racial reasons, just as Harry Reid explained. His win was guaranteed by the selection of Dole’s second coming, McCain, who had no strategy. This time, Obama’s race might not be enough, unless the unintelligent Perry can charm together a unity block to beat Romney. So, Iowans for Romney might want to vote for Bachmann because she is Romney’s divide-and-conquer tool.

I don't really like any of them. Bachmann may be unelectable, and I don't like her positions on social issues. I'm not wild about Perry either. Sorry, I don't share your enthusiasm for Mitt Romney. He's been running for president for about five years, and he has yet to take a firm position on anything remotely controversial. And he certainly doesn't like to talk about his record. Obamacare? He's against it, except he signed something quite similar in Massachusetts. Abortion? He's against it, except, when he was governor of Massachusetts, he supported it. Job creation? Yessir, all for it, except at Bain Capital, he specialized in downsizing and job export. Sorry, I'm not sure he's any more electable than Bachmann. He certainly hasn't fired up the GOP base.

And take Giuliani. Please. He did a good job after 9/11, but that was almost ten years ago. And he's got lots of baggage. Christie has certainly stood up to the unions and governed New Jersey pretty effectively, but he's poor on immigration, and he supported firing a New Jersey state employee for publicly burning a Koran (on his own time). He got slapped down by the federal court for that one. Eric Cantor is a bit of an unknown, but he seems to have done a good job in the House. And I have to mention your favorite closet Nazi, Ron Paul. Good on the issues, most of them, at least, but he has some wierd ideas and is probably also not electable.

I think the Republicans are likely to win the 2012 presidential election for one reason - presidents who run for reelection during recessions always lose. Always. And the economy isn't going to be any better in a year than it is right now - maybe it will be worse.

Also, the Republicans are likely to take the Senate - they defend 11 seats next year, while the Democrats defend 23. The House, of course, is up for grabs.

So there is at least a fair chance that we will have a GOP government in 2013. This is not necessarily a good thing. If we get more Republicans of the Bush-McCain-Cheney-Rumsfeld variety, well, no thanks. Keep the neocons and RINO's - I'd rather have more of Obama.

Unless a Republican candidate is solid in the National Question, I am sitting this one out like I did in 2008; I voted a third-party candidate as a protest vote. In terms of longer-term strategy, a liberal Democrat is better than a fake conservative in office.

[HS: Yes, much better for Obama to appoint more leftist Supreme Court judges. But the time you get your "real" conservative, the Court will be so liberal that they will rule that all of his conservative laws are unconstitutional.]

Guiliani did a good job as mayor prior to 9/11, too, but that's old history now.

Jeff, if you're upset about the FDA regulations on what supplement makers can or cannot claim for their products, then I'm not that sympathetic.

It's pretty funny the way the far right now has gone all woo-crazy. We had a guy running for office here who took so much colloidal silver he turned blue.

What's with that fixation, anyway? Where's the rationality? So New Agey.

HS -

Your point about the Supreme Court appointments is well taken and is the main reason I will vote for any Republican over Obama. The Court has become a de facto second legislature, in some ways more powerful than the real one. We can't have any more William Brennan's.

I'm not to excited about any of the Republican candidates. Of course I would never vote for a Democrat. They will simply add & expand programs, increase taxes and spending, and add new regulations. This is what they do; they can't stop themselves.

So the question is which Republican will do the least harm and maybe do a couple of good things too. Deregulation should be at the top of the list along with getting a handle on spending and debt.

Perry has my vote for now. He will take a hard line on spending as he has done in Texas. (Texas is the 5th lowest state for GDP per capita spent and 2nd lowest for state debt per capita.) And he will favor low regulations and tort reform. But he is not good on immigration. He is not as smart as Romney. Perry is more like Reagan, a big picture guy with a direction in mind rather than a superbright guy into all of the details.

But then Obama is really bright, but does he really understand Obamacare? Does anybody?

And Carter was really bright too, and he didn't work out too well. He is still saying crazy stuff.

People like the author of this article are exactly the reason why the GOP needs to be dumped and left to swing in the wind. He and they are indistiguishable from leftists. The only difference is what they want to spend confiscated money on.

Stupid Christians? OK, then tell your candidates to stop courting them, start insulting them openly and honestly like the Democrats do, and start passing laws that marginalize them and demean them as citizens and contributors to the nation.

Hilarious. You call evangelical Christians stupid, because they won't support a Mormon, because... he's a Mormon. So presumably, you see nothing wrong with Mormonism, even though it is a religion based on the religion of the people you call stupid.

Just another child whining in the romper room. Go ahead, tell 60 percent of your electorate to go pound sand. I'd love to see you give them the excuse to leave your lame, worthless party of fake conservatives.

"Jeff, if you're upset about the FDA regulations on what supplement makers can or cannot claim for their products, then I'm not that sympathetic."

You do not have to be sympathetic or not to free speech, but the claims issue is an issue. I have used 12g of fish oil per day to treat my eczema to better effect than steroid creams, however, I cannot claim that in my adverts.

The real problem is the control of ingredients that we sell. For example, the ban on ephedra and prohormones is ridiculous. In a world where abortion is legal it is absurd to ban which plants I choose to eat. I cannot see how anyone but a tyrant can oppose the peaceful trade between merchant and customer. You are free to disagree, but whenever you support laws against my industry you are in favor of using violence against peaceful people.

I'll grant the others executive experience, but when has Cantor demonstrated competence?

Bachman has, by far, the best rating on immigration from Numbers USA. That's the issue that determines the future of the US. She gets my single-issue vote.
Robert Hume

My IQ is above average and I'm not a Christian yet I'm pulling for Bachmann.

Why should moderate Republican=smart and conservative=stupid? There is little difference between Dems and establishment Reps. For a recent example look how they joined together as a team on the recent debt deal.

"To the extent that smart Republicans sought an alliance with stupid evangelical Christians, they only wanted their votes, they didn’t want them actually running the country."

Are you just trolling, HS?

Assuming you're not, I think you meant "socialist Republicans." Socialist Repubs lose every time for prez, and Romney is clearly a socialist because of his tyrannical mandate forcing everyone in his state to buy medical care insurance. For prez, only Repubs who seem conservative have any chance of winning (cf. losers: Dole, McCain).

And those stupid evangelicals will definitely sit this one out if Romney is the nominee, ensuring Hussein wins the election. Your analysis is for suck.

And who cares who wins the election? The Repubs and Dems play for the same team; the Dems just play harder.

Peter Brimelow has a rather plausible theory that it's simply impossible for a Republican to ever win the presidency again, so long as current demographic trends and voting patterns hold true.

Bush narrowly won re-election in 2008. Since then, America has become consistently less white and thus more pro-Democrat. As a result, the "Bush coalition" is simply not a viable path to victory anymore, especially not with a president like Obama, who has such huge minority appeal.

A future Republican president needs to have some way of increasing and/or broadening the GOP base in order to win in a national electorate that favors Dems. Sailer thinks that this will entail some manner of white outreach, whatever that means. It used to seem that the Tea Party was a possible path to that goal, but now, according to the Times, the TP is actually one of the most unpopular institutions in America. Hmm.

Sorry, Bush won in 2004, of course.

"smart people over to the Democrats"

After the depredations of FDR's brain trust, JFK's & LBJ's best and brightest, and the last 20 years of Yale and Harvard grads, if the American people again choose the self-described 'smart people' to rule them, then liberty and prosperity will be lost in America.

The lead post ends with these opinions:

"Romney is the only hope for the Republican Party, and I hope he is smart enough to select a non-stupid Vice President. Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie or Eric Cantor would all be good VP choices."

I haven't visited this blog before, but evidently it's one of those many conservative sites that cares little about the problem of Islam.

Romney on Islam:

“I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it’s quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world’s great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.”

“…by no means [is Jihadism] a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam….”

Giuliani on Islam and Muslims:

“I have great respect for the Islamic religion. I have great respect for the Arab world, for the Middle East.
… and on the evening of September 11, 2001, the day my city was attacked, I got on television, and I said to the people of my city, “We’re not going to engage in group blame. This is a small group of people. This does not typify a great religion and a great people.” ”

Idiots. I don't want them handling the vital issue of the safety of my society.

http://hesperado.blogspot.com/

The comments to this entry are closed.