On The Nature Of Campaign Arguments

By now many of you are aware that the Democrat party and the Obama campaign in particular are attacking the private sector experience of the Republican nominee. They are saying that the goal of working in private equity is to make profit, and not to create jobs, moreover, that Bain Capital destroyed jobs in a few cases to make profit for itself. They moreover assert that this is different from the job of a President, which they say is essentially to create jobs for everyone, presumably even if they must do so at a loss. Well, they are right about one thing: there is no similarity whatsoever between the job of the President of the United States and a business man. But it would be one thing if (as their defenses assert is the case, but clearly is not) they merely were asserting that being in private equity does not uniquely qualify a person to be President. In point of fact, the Democrat argument is that being in private equity (in fact, being in the private sector!) uniquely disqualifies a person from ever being President presumably unless they absolve themselves of their sin of profit seeking by attacking it while in the public sector, so surely the Republican nominee has paid his penance! But oh well. The nature of the arguments aside, it is certainly true that the Republicans are missing the most compelling argument for their nominee by incorrectly claiming that private sector experience uniquely qualifies one to be President (if that were true, I should expect to see the Republican party nominate Warren Buffet, but I doubt that he would run against his good friend and ideological ally Obama), indeed the only argument that can be made for the most far-left Republican nominee in over a century: he’s not Obama. That should be more than enough.

Comments Off on On The Nature Of Campaign Arguments

Filed under Dumbasses, Election 2012, Liberals, Republicans

Comments are closed.