Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Your Presidential hopefuls for 2012

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Who are your Presidential hopefuls for the 2012 election?

My current list includes; Rep. Mike Pence, Rep. Jeff Flake, and Senator Jim DeMint. I think Romney would be a disaster.-he's a RINO anyhow who screwed Massachusett's over by giving them Romney-care, ie Obamacare at the State level. It'd be really great if John Allison of BB&T were to throw his hat into the ring, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DeMint was a good guy to be one of the few to stand up to the bailout. Perhaps he is one of the better fiscal conservatives. That doesn't change much for me when considering voting for any mainstream Republican.

My vote will most likely be a protest vote against the Reps for the libertarians. I don't supports the L'ers, but I figure the message may get across that enough people are sick of the current fascists in that stinker of a party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big question is what will the economy be like come 2012. It is bound to improve by then, but it's also possible Obama will screw things so badly the economy will still suck then, or possibly the economy will be ok but healthcare will ahve become a bureaucratic nightmare. If that happens odds are some Democrat will challenge him. This is common practice on both sides (think Ford, Carter and H. W. Bush). But of course with Obama one ought to always consider the race card, because he'll play it himself anyway.

I can think of only one democrat who'd challenge him: Hillary.

Assuming a bad economy in 2012 the GOP would ahve a field day. Everyone with a ghost of a hcance, plus the limelight seekers, would run. It would be hard to choose a winner in that scenario.

If the economy is in good shape, healthcare isn't a bureaucratic mess, then a challenge from any Democrat is political suicide. If Obama is popular as well, any GOP contender will be expendable.

In other words: it's too damn early to tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney is probably still your best choice. In re Romney-care. he probably made the best of a bad bargain with MA being , According to David Brudnoy, "a wholly-onwed subsidiary of the Democratic Party". your choices there were bad and worse. so that's a dead issue and far from the only issue. The fact that he won the governorship as at worse, a moderate Republican speaks volumes, and he is more conservative than you've been led to believe (before you open your mouth, look at my profile) .

He is telegenic read 1960 debates, he has the experience of taking companies that are two notches from the crapper and putting life back into them (for whcih McCain attacked him from the left) and he is a "mature" candidate, i.e. benn in it before. All forecasts, even based on what has happened say the economy will suck badly in 2012 unless you believe in fairy dust. the media will certainly try to manipulate the perception of the economy. Just the deficit to date is $T2 that we know of. That's gotta have an effect, and a bad one. Don't forget, Carter inherited a better economy than he left. and the 1976 economy was pretty sad. Look up "misery index".

Palin is starting to fade and the others named would be newbies as will Bobby Gindal. As for Huckabee...well..."Thank you, Huck: Barack".

What Romeny has to do is get media savvy and be more assertive

A good predictor will be the election of 2010 just as the election of 1978 was the predictor of 1980

As a candidate (meaning the whole package) I give Romeny a B with the range being C- (Huckbee) to B. Most of the named candidates have the goods but there would have to be a breakout for one of them to do it. Romney, Palin and Huckabee have the name recognition which, in business terms means "location".

For those thinking of voting for Spongepants Squarebob: We are going to get somebody, so don't think you're being clever. This is a relay marathon, not a sprint. I did pass in '92 and '08 (the outcome was already decided anyway)

I'll probably vote for any of them with the exception of Huckserbee

Edited by Space Patroller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I don't expect I will like any of the candidates, I'm doing a write-in for Optimus Prime.

In all seriousness, I will probably vote for whoever opposes Obama. There are a few Republicans (Palin, Huckabee, etc.) who I find even less palatable than Obama, so who knows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Erik Martinsen

Congressman Paul Ryan of Minnesota is my favorite U.S. politician, hands down. He's bound for greatness. He may be a bit too young to run for President in 2012 however—assuming he even has the desire to. He's charismatic, a great speaker, a damn good economist, and strongly influenced by his favorite book, Atlas Shrugged.

He even has Reaganesque good looks. ;)

Here's his recent address on government-run health care:

Here's one of his many TV appearances:

Edited by Erik Martinsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is, uh, not all that great

From his Wikipedia.

" On May, 21st, 2008 Paul Ryan introduced H.R. 6510, "A Road Map for America's Future". This proposed legislation outlines a plan to deal with entitlement issues. Its objectives are to ensure universal access to health insurance; strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; lift the debt from future generations; and promote economic growth and job creation in America.[1]"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Guest Erik Martinsen
Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is, uh, not all that great

From his Wikipedia.

" On May, 21st, 2008 Paul Ryan introduced H.R. 6510, "A Road Map for America's Future". This proposed legislation outlines a plan to deal with entitlement issues. Its objectives are to ensure universal access to health insurance; strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; lift the debt from future generations; and promote economic growth and job creation in America.[1]"

It's not as bad as that Wikipedia article makes it sound—though not perfect, I consider his plan a step in the right direction. He recently participated in the Cato Institute's conference on health care reform, where he made a presentation of his "Road Map for America's Future." You can watch it here.

He just posted a video blog about Ayn Rand on his official Facebook page, where he comments on what message he thinks Ayn Rand would have conveyed if she were alive today. It's called "Ayn Rand's relevance in 2009."

To the best of my knowledge, Paul Ryan is the first member of Congress who's video blogged about Ayn Rand.

"I think Ayn Rand did the best job, of anybody, to build a moral case for capitalism." —Paul Ryan

Edited by Erik Martinsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the focus on politicians? Pay attention to your culture and the philosophical ideas in your environment, they will have more immediate and long-term impact.

Indeed friends, lest not we forget the position of politics in the hierarchy of science. A mere branch of ethics...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elections happen every year. These people shape our laws which in turn affect our very freedoms by their votes. Thus, it is of crucial importance that the best man get elected. Certainly one should adhere to the proper philosophy and sense of life, but part of securing a life of liberty is taking time to vote for the best candidate. Just living the virtuous life isn't enough to secure the rights of man, action must be had as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus, it is of crucial importance that the best man get elected.

Not necessarily. It is of crucial importance that the government perform its proper function, viz. protecting the individual rights of the citizens. When, as now, the government is not doing so, it is of crucial importance that the government be moved back towards performing that function. That does not mean, however, than in each individual election we want the better man to win. Out of context, I think John McCain is probably a better man than Obama, both in his personal characteristics and in some of his likely policies. (I doubt, for example, that a McCain administration would have been as appeasing to North Korea as the Obama administration has been, or that it would have backed Zelaya in the Honduran crisis.) But I am quite glad that McCain did not win the election because of the longer-term effects such an administration would have had on the culture and the battle of ideas. Sometimes you need to take a short-term hit to build the foundation for long-term success. From that 'all things considered' viewpoint Obama is IMHO (and paradoxically) the 'better' man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

khaight, how do you think the government will perform its proper function as the institution of law and justice?-only when the right men are in office to adjudicate such actions, is when. I also said that electing the best man to the office is what one should want.-obviously McCain was not the best man for the office out of the field of Presidential candidates in '08 during the General election. Your sanctioning of Obama in hopes it will bring about a "change" towards a rational government based on laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights is wishful thinking and what Ayn Rand would term compromising principles or sanctioning the victim. Round about tactics and wishful thinking that reverse pyschology will jolt people to elect the right individuals or adopt the correct philosophy is irrational. I don't think Miss Rand would ever vote for the worst candidate in hopes in will inspire a revolution towards greater liberty. You don;t sanction evil-----EVER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Your sanctioning of Obama... ... what Ayn Rand would term compromising principles or sanctioning the victim. ... You don't sanction evil-----EVER.
What kHaight is suggesting would not be "sanction" nor would it be "compromising principles". I'm not saying he's right; just that this is not "sanction".

In the abstract, kHaight's argument is this: one has to choose between a greater and a lesser evil in the short term, but one sees that the greater short-term evil actually ends up with a better long-term result. In that type of situation, it is false to say that the person is choosing the greater evil. That would be like saying a person who is cutting back some expense today so that he can buy something he'd really love is rejecting material values.

So, argue that he's mistaken in his evaluation, but don't accuse him of sanctioning evil.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say I entirely agree with Khaight's post re:obama/McCain but he obviously is not sanctioning evil and I think Softwarenerd's comparison is dead-on.

Am I correct, Khaight, in taking what you said to mean this:

both Obama and McCain have many collectivist policies but since McCain is a better man his flawed policies would be a slow creep that often pass with little notice or protest which is more dangerous long-term than Obama who is so radical, anti-freedom and glaringly dishonest that he is more likely to stir up a shit-storm of protest and be defied?

If so I can see that.

I can see how McCain as a very flawed but generally intelligent and honorable man could lull people into complacency whereas no person of intelligence and honor is willing to be silent while Obama has his way with our freedoms.

Still.

It is very depressing that in what was the greatest beacon of reason and freedom the world had ever known this is how many have come to regard our elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

softwarenerd, this is my point in a nutshell; in an election wether local, state, or federal somebody WILL get elected,there's no getting away from that consequence, therefore it only stands to reason that one ought to choose the best available candidate even though he may not be in line with everything you may seek philosoph-politically speaking. Sure, you can choose to abstain from voting, but that lets the wrong candidate win by default. Again, one candidate will win, it's better to have the one with more idea's friendly to liberty win than the one who is marching us toward speedy and certain slavery. Nobody cares if you abstain from voting, except the biggest tyrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"no getting away from that consequence, therefore it only stands to reason that one ought to choose the best available candidate even though he may not be in line with everything you may seek philosoph-politically speaking. Sure, you can choose to abstain from voting, but that lets the wrong candidate win by default."

Correct me if I'm mistaken... but I belive Ayn Rand thought it moral to abstain from making a choice that is really no choice.

Was that not part of the peak of Atlas Shrugged when John Galt was being held by the govt?

That he refused to sanction their actions by acknowledging the false "choices" they put before him?

I'm not saying that all should abstain from voting but I don't think abstaining is immoral.

In fact, it was my choice in the last election.

Faced w/Obama/Biden McCain/Palin I realised that I could not use my voice, my freedom to vote for either.

Faced with such a choice again I will probably end up writing in a fictional character... Bill the Cat comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QuoVadis, Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin were not the only candidates for President in '08. Barr/Root were on the LP ticket and by far the most qualified men who would have honored the Executive branch with policies and actions that are in harmony with liberty. Again, someone will get elected, there can be no denying that political fact, so it stands to reason to vote for the candidate with the greatest understanding and defense of liberty, even if he falls short, and then once he is elected always continue the fight for individual rights and full laissez-faire capitalism. The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it is when men do nothing, like abstaining from voting, that they allow evil to win by throwing their hands in the air and giving up. Unless you plan on organizing a revolution than you will only be hastening your decent into statism, by refusing to vote. By not allowing the better candidate to win, from abstention, you are becoming part of the problem, because like I've said a million times bfore; somebody WILL become elected, though he may fall short of your ideals, by not voting you are voting for the worse candidate to win by a default on your part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By not allowing the better candidate to win, from abstention, you are becoming part of the problem, because like I've said a million times bfore; somebody WILL become elected, though he may fall short of your ideals, by not voting you are voting for the worse candidate to win by a default on your part.

What objective proof do you offer to support your assertion?

The candidates you mentioned had zero chance of being elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...