[The Brazil Times nameplate] Overcast ~ 58°F  
High: 71°F ~ Low: 51°F
Monday, Sep. 15, 2014

Political Horse Race

Posted Wednesday, November 2, 2011, at 8:25 AM

 

 

It is starting to look like the Republican primary fight is going to come down to Mitt Romney and Herman Cain. In a way, that makes sense. The Republican Party is fundamentally divided into two camps: The "blue bloods" and the conservatives. Both factions have their place, particularly in national elections where the candidates are evaluated by the widest spectrum of voters, beliefs, and experiences.

Mitt Romney is an excellent representative of the blue bloods. He is an East Coast moderate who believes that government can and should fix people's problems without becoming socialist. The blue bloods have been successful in presidential politics winning the party nomination for Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain.

The other primary candidates are all jockeying for the support of the party conservatives.

Gov. Perry effectively ended his campaign by trying to win both factions causing both wings of the party to have reservations about his commitment to their side of things. Newt Gingrich should be a natural fit for the conservatives, but he has too much baggage and caries a feint odor suggesting that his time has passed. Ron Paul, wearing the Republican label, is really a Libertarian; a political philosophy which has never really become mainstream.

Considering candidate Bill Clinton was accused of raping Juanita Broadrick and had a "bimbo eruption" squad, I don't think that "a gesture that wasn't overtly sexual but made her uncomfortable" in the 1990s will significantly effect Herman Cain.

The standard bearer for the conservative wing of the party is Ronald Reagan. Before Reagan, there was the unsuccessful bid by Barry Goldwater. Before that, you may have to go all the way back to Calvin Coolidge or William McKinley to find a Republican president representing the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

It may be me, but I have been noticing that Herman Cain has important traits in common with Reagan. Herman Cain is 67-years-old. Ronald Reagan was 69, the oldest person elected to the presidency. This suggests life experience and wisdom.

Before politics, Ronald Reagan was an actor. As a candidate, Reagan was known as "The Great Communicator." Herman Cain had a very successful talk radio show on WSB in Atlanta. Cain is a very powerful speaker.

Ronald Reagan was charismatic, had a great since of humor, and was genuinely optimistic believing that America's finest days lay ahead. Reagan also gave straight answers to tough questions; none of the politician's tap-dance. You can't help but notice that Herman Cain apparently comes from the same mold.

The primary points of Ronald Reagan's platform was: Lower taxes to stimulate growth, less government in people's lives, strong national defense, and restoring the dollar to the gold standard. He was also an ardent believer in federalism; what he called "states rights."

Herman Cain's platform is longer, but in similar spirit. According to his website, Cain's platform is: Strengthen national security, reduce government spending, his 9-9-9 tax reform, secure our borders and enforce immigration laws, develop domestic energy resources, reduce regulation to encourage economic growth, repeal Obamacare, re-do financial regulation, return education to the states and local communities, and "In God We Trust." http://www.hermancain.com

What does Mitt Romney stand for? On his website, Mitt Romney points out our strengths and acknowledges our problems. However, there are no substantive statements on what he stands for or what he would do. It all appears to be calculated to offend the fewest while being consistent with the principals of the Republican Party. http://www.mittromney.com

Mitt Romney has governing experience, an established political organization, and is a proven fundraiser. Romney has run a presidential campaign before and clearly knows how to be a contender. He is the odds-on favorite of Republican insiders. Herman Cain has business experience, but no governing experience, a very small political organization, and modest, but growing, fund raising experience. Cain insists that message is more important than money. He has an up by the bootstraps personal story and a compelling personality and vision.

In this horse race, Mitt Romney is the favorite. In horse racing, the smart money usually bets on the favorite. The favorite is the favorite because they are most likely to win. We are 12 months from the election. Will this be the race for the long shot? I think the odds makers might be wrong.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Mitt Romney is the Republican "yes" man and will go through with most of the plans without a qualm. Will he make a lot of folks mad? No, probably not. Will he do what needs to be done and drastically cut foolish spending even if it means he won't be popular with the "good old boys"? Most definitely not! I am not willing to waste my money on the favorite this time!

Herman Cain on the other hand is a busines man who will run this country like business and for that he has my vote! Will he make a lot of folks mad? Oh yea! Will he do what needs to be done and drastically cut foolish spending even if it means he won't be popular with the "good old boys"? I hope so! I am willing to place my bet on the long-shot!

I don't want a "yes" man in the white house......

-- Posted by Proud of My Country on Wed, Nov 9, 2011, at 1:10 PM

A very good analysis, in my opinion. One thing bothers me about the entire Republican field with the exception of Ron Paul. Is all this talk of a strong national defense just another way of suggesting we continue to embark on various "adventures" abroad. Have we not had enough of war in recent years? We already have, by far, the most advanced defense establishment in the world. What more is needed?

-- Posted by Bob E on Fri, Nov 11, 2011, at 10:33 PM

Dear Bob,

I understand exactly what you are saying. None of us plebeian are privy to the details of the defense budget, but there are a few things we can reasonably know or deduce.

1. Endless war will bankrupt a nation as surely as endless handouts.

2. The only way to get enemies to stop waging war on us is to kill them until they are dead, then kill them a little bit more.

3. There are probably too few soldiers and sailors to meet our obligations.

4. The men and women in uniform today do not get paid nearly enough.

5. Without a doubt, there is ungodly waste in the military.

Will we stay superior to everyone else if we make drastic cuts? While we stand still, our enemies continue to keep moving.

Charles

-- Posted by Charles Hear on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 5:40 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Hear me out
by Charles Hear
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
Patriot's Day
(0 ~ 2:23 PM, Sep 11)

ISIS Made a Mistake
(1 ~ 1:41 PM, Sep 5)

Vice News and ISIS
(2 ~ 9:02 PM, Sep 3)

Beyond Stupid
(1 ~ 10:04 PM, Aug 6)

The Worth of a Slave
(2 ~ 7:38 AM, Jul 7)