Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ewv

The ideal candidate

9 posts in this topic

You can always trust the pragmatist Romney to sell out America in his quest for power and prominence. Ayn Rand wrote about his father's "consumerist" view of capitalism in The Obliteration Of Capitalism, The Wreckage Of The Consensus, and Egalitarianism and Inflation.

His father was well-known as a liberal Republican and didn't get very far in national politics. Mitt Romney is not a liberal Republican, just a compromising pragmatist trying to be conservative. I don't think he is a personal power seeker; he seems to really believe that as a conservative businessman he can 'manage' the government better while throwing out whatever bones he thinks would be effective to win votes. He would have been better on a lot of issues than McCain, but hardly an ideal candidate. But what ideal candidate would have a chance at being elected President now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what ideal candidate would have a chance at being elected President now?

Reagan would probably win in a landslide. Rudy Guiliani could do it too. With some more seasoning and national experience, Sarah Palin might pull it off four years from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what ideal candidate would have a chance at being elected President now?

Reagan would probably win in a landslide. Rudy Guiliani could do it too. With some more seasoning and national experience, Sarah Palin might pull it off four years from now.

"Ideal candidates"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what ideal candidate would have a chance at being elected President now?

Reagan would probably win in a landslide. Rudy Guiliani could do it too. With some more seasoning and national experience, Sarah Palin might pull it off four years from now.

"Ideal candidates"?

If the ideal in question is getting elected, yes. If the ideal is an Objectivist candidate, obviously none of the above qualifies.

But if an Objectivist were running who had the optimism and communication skills of Reagan, the serious and self-confident leadership of Guiliani, and/or the open, active enthusiasm of Palin, I think he (or she) would get enormous support from the American electorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the ideal in question is getting elected, yes. If the ideal is an Objectivist candidate, obviously none of the above qualifies.

But if an Objectivist were running who had the optimism and communication skills of Reagan, the serious and self-confident leadership of Guiliani, and/or the open, active enthusiasm of Palin, I think he (or she) would get enormous support from the American electorate.

Even if such a person weren't to win, the impact on both how people think of government and the tone of that specific election would be substantial.

Tangent: While I'm horrified by the fact that a neo-Marxist used car salesman won the election, I'm waiting for the '10, '12, '14 elections to decide what this fact means. (According to stats tossed around on talk radio, 7% of registered Republicans didn't vote this year. The other assertion they seem to back up to a reasonable degree is that McCain would've won had the economy not tanked when it did. Also, many unaffiliated voters wanted to see a change in a party that hasn't had a consistent message since it reneged on the Contract with America. McCain's incredibly ineffective campaign, clueless as to how to counter Obama's consistent altruism, his charisma and America's pragmatic ways, didn't help. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what ideal candidate would have a chance at being elected President now?

Reagan would probably win in a landslide. Rudy Guiliani could do it too. With some more seasoning and national experience, Sarah Palin might pull it off four years from now.

"Ideal candidates"?

But if an Objectivist were running who had the optimism and communication skills of Reagan, the serious and self-confident leadership of Guiliani, and/or the open, active enthusiasm of Palin, I think he (or she) would get enormous support from the American electorate.

When the American electorate votes in the person that promises them the biggest handout or "change" I do not think the skills you mention would have much to do with getting elected. Although I do think that the skills you mention would be a good thing in a president, senator or congressmen. I do not think most Americans care about those skills nor principles today and hence why we are where we are. So, I must ask where are your facts to support your statement because the facts I see support people like Obama and his ilk getting elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what ideal candidate would have a chance at being elected President now?

Reagan would probably win in a landslide. Rudy Guiliani could do it too. With some more seasoning and national experience, Sarah Palin might pull it off four years from now.

Not being American I don't know the first thing about his politics, but in the x-factor age, that doesn't seem to matter too much!! So, in the sense of image alone (and I repeat, I do not know his views on anything) Bobby Jindal is the telegenic march of Obama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When the American electorate votes in the person that promises them the biggest handout or "change" I do not think the skills you mention would have much to do with getting elected.

That's not why Obama got elected. Obama promised handouts, but he also promised tax cuts -- something Objectivists would endorse. He promised "change" and "hope" and, after Bush's disastrous presidency, who doesn't want that? He promised everything to everybody but was carefully non-specific about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When the American electorate votes in the person that promises them the biggest handout or "change" I do not think the skills you mention would have much to do with getting elected.

That's not why Obama got elected. Obama promised handouts, but he also promised tax cuts -- something Objectivists would endorse. He promised "change" and "hope" and, after Bush's disastrous presidency, who doesn't want that? He promised everything to everybody but was carefully non-specific about it.

I don't recall hearing about any supporters of Obama who said a THING about his ideas. It was all about "Yes we can" and "Change we can believe in." I agree with Betsy that someone with better ideas and who could communicate them well to the American people would stand a good chance of winning. And by winning, I mean not only an election, but winning the terms of the debate. THAT would be the real coup because the crucial ideas would get actual notice on a national stage. Winning the election would be the cherry on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0