Home / George And The GOP Debate: Presidential Physics

George And The GOP Debate: Presidential Physics

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Presidential politics parse a man or a woman’s fitness for elected office, but I propose that there is also presidential physics. While the physical body may be the top quark that is on display, it is the je ne sais quoi — the soul, that inspires. We cannot see “soul” therefore, do not know much about it, so we depend on the body, mind and emotions to make evaluations about others, inclusive of many factors.

The candidate meter: Here is a list to size up the candidates. Who will be the nominee of the GOP? For an answer we must consult Heloise’s famous checklist (see The Meaning of Oprah) to figure out how hot is the candidate. Let us count the ways:



Physically fit—check



Full head of hair—check



Elected to high public office—check

The “I care” factor—check

Family factor—check


Race—WASP (big) non-WASP (small)—check

Both parties have candidates that would score points, but only a few would move the meter to red-hot. Romney and Edwards come to mind, followed by Obama and Huckabee. Despite the polling fact that the Republicans are less satisfied with their candidates than are the Democrats, both will nominate someone. Democrats tend to nominate (and elect) the best looking of the field, while the GOP tends to nominate the best connected of the field. So, which party is the party of the people or the Populist Party? Probably neither one is even close. While the Democrats have the best looking field, this time and last, they are up against Republicans, who collectively have more public office experience, and that’s key. The “I care” factor however, seems deficient.  

The frontrunner is the good-looking Mitt Romney (YouTube clip). Where were you Mitt 8 years ago? I predicted early on that Romney was going to be a front-runner or the choice of the GOP. He ranks high on Heloise’s checklist. He compares with Ronald Reagan in many ways. Name wise, both begin with an “r” and have six letters in last name, and both were governors. Romney is a clone, rather than an innovator. He “feels” the Bush doctrine.

The Debate:  George Stephanopoulos played master of ceremonies to the nine Republican Candidates for Sunday’s debate: Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, and Mike Huckabee, make up the top tier. The front-runners placed in the front with the spoilers on the fringe. The debate format included only two video questions, one from a woman and one from a man—not a YouTube debate.

I chose four areas of the debate to focus on:

Fair tax or flat tax: It would eliminate all taxes and replace it with a 23% sales tax. They split agreement on this issue, about half for and half against it. Let us dispense with the rhetoric. If, the Republicans were for the business sector, how would a flat tax affect them? The flat tax would flatten many professionals whose bread and butter depend on the complexities of the tax code. Would the GOP or a president in 2008 from the GOP (God forbid), invoke revoking the present tax code? Tom Tancredo a major supporter of the bill. Gov. Huckabee had a comical response. He said flat tax amounted to catching pimps, drug dealers who would be unable to evade taxes. He said, “This would eliminate the underground economy!” 

Abortion: I find this issue interesting in terms of the Right and the Left. A deal-breaker if the candidate-to-be fails the pro-life, anti-abortion test. Contentious because black women are the greatest users of abortions and many (pundits) feel its target (via Planned Parenthood). The staunchest supporters of abortion are on the Left, where most African Americans place their trust. Warbling on pro life started the debate with a direct ad attack on Mitt Romney. After the discussion, Romney looked visibly shaken by an exchange that placed him on the pro life side of this debate. He should. If this logic holds out, then Guiliani is also in trouble with the Party. He is plainly too liberal.

Islamic extremism: Ending the war in Iraq was a question posed from a video. Ron Paul was livid in his response of “just come home!” There were some cheers. Duncan Hunter said: “It was a race (by Democrats) to see who could stampede for the exit.” He continued, “Not a single Democratic candidate paused in their rush for the exit—to say good job!” As Kennedy believed: “Democracies don’t like defeat.” McCain supports the surge—what else is new. He believes that “they are winning on the ground.” He predicts genocide and blood filling the streets if we cut and run. “We will not set a date for surrender, as the Democrats want.” Wow.  

“In four Democratic debates,” Guiliani said, “not one Candidate said the word ‘Islamic terrorism’—that’s taking political correction to extremes.” Romney said, “It was critical for us to win this conflict…it is essential.” Yes, the Republicans are all in a cave addressed “war mongers.” Romney was projecting power when he said,  “Obama said he would have tea with our enemies and bomb our allies (Pakistan)!” I think that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats know anything about a “real” enemy. Why, because clearly the U.S.A. makes and break countries, nations and people over in some image that allows eventually for bombing them (once friends) into stone-age submission. This is a battle royale of words. In addition, the Republicans took this opportunity to turn Obama’s words against him. 

Iraq: Tom Tancredo spoke, as I believe: “Iraq has to take control of Iraq.” I said that three years ago; when it looked like U.S. troops were about to pull out and leave Iraq to Iraqis. As we all know, that never happened. Ron Paul (Texas) was the only one among them that told the truth, with a capital T. He complained about the lies, “oil was going to pay for the war, we’d be out in six months.” He was on fire, but he did not have anything to loose, tough talk from a non front-runner—too bad. 

There was even a clip of Obama. He seems to have a target on his back. Romney was his biggest critic. Romney reminded everyone that Obama does not know the difference between our friends and enemies. The Candidates wanted to squash Obama to establish them, as experienced, so it came up. However, I ask is experience really the sine quo non for voters? In America where religion, regions, and races fly under the radar for most readers, it seems a moot point. Why, the main reason is that we expect our president to possess strengths or characteristic that we ourselves do not possess as a people. We remain blissfully ignorant of world cultures, mores, and foreign languages. Why are we in other countries nation-building, democracy-dowsing, and capitalism-pushing?

The meaning of democracy: George W. Bush’s speech in January of 2005 was reviewed for comments by the candidates: Nation building, his point. The candidates were ready for this one. Guiliani gave a lengthy argument: “one has to develop the bedrock of democracy…people are afraid to live their lives…buy groceries…education…have a job, safe streets, You have to have a certain quality of life…be comfortable. Then elections start to mean something in the full picture of what a democracy means.” I think that within this mini-speech by Guiliani, there is a kernel of truth. Nevertheless, the glaring gap appears in that he has clearly defined the meaning of capitalism, more than democracy. Goods, services, quality of life made freely available to all. It is the old “pursuit of happiness” that is the bedrock of our society. Romney continued the argument to wage a “campaign of values,” would be the right way to pursue. Tom Tancredo said, “My job as president is to protect and to defend this country, not to give free health care.” 

Ultimately, the candidate who made the most sense overall had the least chance of winning: Ron Paul. Republicans were strong on degrading Democratic candidates in general and Barack Obama in particular.

Powered by

About Heloise

  • RJ

    Romney and Edwards are the pretty boys of this campaign. Both are rich, have great hair, and have somewhat limited experience in high elected office. Both are also trailing in the polls for their party’s nomination.

    I believe it’s worth mentioning that the three people polling better than Romney for the GOP nomination – Rudy, Fred Thompson, and (shockingly) McCain, are all bald or balding. And when was the last time we elected a bald President? Eisenhower?

  • RJ

    Wait – does LBJ count?

  • REMF

    “Romney and Edwards are the pretty boys of this campaign.”

    Any particular reason why you’re interested in “pretty boys”…?

  • Clavos

    I like pretty people (male or female) much better than ugly people.

    My wife says I’m a “lookist,” and she’s right; I am much more attracted to good-looking people.

  • I used to think Romney was just bland, standard-issue political hypocrite. But lately his rhetoric has turned nasty and offensive [always accompanied by that million-dollar smile, eew]. He is the scariest and most despicable of a very scary and despicable lot of war-mongering creeps.

  • Clavos, are you a handsome bastard or an ugly bastard? 🙂

  • Clavos

    My wife says I’m just a bastard, but she’s always been too kind.

  • RJ

    Any particular reason why you’re interested in “pretty boys”…?

    Well, yes. After all, I’m a flaming homosexual. Just don’t tell my girlfriend, or any of my former girlfriends, okay? Thanks. I know you’ll do the classy thing, REMF. As always.

  • No matter how anybody, left or right, dem, or pub, wants to spin it, Pakistan is not our friend. They are good at talking out both sides of their collective mouth, however.

  • Dr Dreadful

    I’m thinking that on that basis, Clavos won’t be voting for Uncle Rudy or Uncle Fred…

  • Ray wins the prize: Pakistan is NOT our friend, but a phony ally.


  • Indeed he is, REMF.

    And there is a dumb news story today about Mitt getting a question concerning his sons’ [lack of] military service while Dad sounds the militarist drumbeat everywhere, and Dad’s replying that the boys are serving their country, by working to get him elected [groan]. Even his snarky way of handling this nonissue [it’s a volunteer army, no reason his sons have to excuse their nonservice] is offensive and ridiculous.

  • Clavos

    Of course he’s snarky! He’s an effing republican!!

    And if he’s going to be a warmonger, his kids should be in the military and on the front lines, volunteer army or no.

    Fuckin’ republican chickenhawk.

    Vote Ron Paul and NOBODY will ever have to serve again!

  • Dr Dreadful

    #12: Hmmm…

    Anyone noticed that no matter what we happen to be talking about here on BC, certain commenters will always change the subject to their pet obsession?

    For example:

    MCH aka REMF: The invalidity of anyone’s opinion who has not “served”, particularly but not exclusively conservative chickenhawks.
    moonraven: The stupidity of Dave Nalle and Clavos, and how everything they say and do is an attempt to compensate for inadequate penis size.
    Arch Conservative: The godhead of Mitt Romney, and how he will sweep the 2008 election over any !@#$%%*&^%ing liberal piece of $^%@#$%@ moonbat one cares to ^%$&*#ing name.
    Dave: The rationale for every horrendous and/or outrageous act perpetrated by the Bush administration.
    STM: How any given country would benefit from having a little Union Jack in the corner of its flag.


  • Clavos

    I never shoulda let her measure it…

  • Clavos


    Write some articles.


  • Dr Dreadful

    Oh, all right, Clavos, I’ll drop Eric a line. I had been under the impression that one needed to submit some example articles to him for review first, but that’s just if you don’t have your own blog.

    I do have a blog, but I don’t link to it yet because it’s still in its infancy – “under construction”, as the expression goes.

    So I’ll write him and see what I need to do.

    I’d say “watch this space”, but I suspect MR would immediately turn that into some kind of sarcastic comment…

  • Clavos


    They let me write.

    Don’t worry!

  • “the final frontier….”

    or i will….



  • blast you Clavos..ya messed up my Jest…!

    “watch this space


    “the final frontier…!”



  • Clavos

    No wonder I couldn’t figure it out!

    Sorry, gonzo.

    Some of us are just quicker on the draw…

  • Dr Dreadful

    Phasers on stun, pardner…

  • the crystals cannae handle the strain!!

    but i digress…

    as long as i ain’t wearing the red shirt…go for it, Doc


  • RJ

    Great YouTube link, gonzo. Thanks! 🙂

  • STM

    DD: “So I’ll write him and see what I need to do.”

    Do you think you could stick to the Queen’s English, though, when you do?

    You’ve been in heathen territory, what, 18 months and you’re already saying: “I’ll write him”.

    Fair dinkum DD – remember your prepositions.

    And don’t fall into that other hideous and grating American grammatical trap regarding use of the word couple.

    It’s not “a couple beers”, but “a couple of beers”.

    And watch out for, “I could care less”. It doesn’t make sense. Proper usage is, “I couldn’t care less”.

    Just a couple of tips, mate, from Down Under regarding your current circumstances.

    If you need any other help, write me.

  • RJ – yer welcome…. heh

    mebbe you Aussies need a translator …?

    “my hovercraft is full of eels” – priceless


  • STM

    Lol! Classic. Gotta love Monty Python Gonz.

    Try googling Doug and Dinsdale Piranha … a skit based on the criminal Kray brothers from the east end of London.

    It’s on You Tube. A hoot.

  • Dr Dreadful

    LOL… the infamous Piranha brothers. Their intimidatory weapons of choice were, as I recall, not guns, coshes and assorted pieces of industrial machinery but irony, sarcasm and litotes.

  • Silver Surfer

    Yes, and no Cartesian dualism … just a good old nailing of people’s heads to the floor

  • Dr Dreadful

    But they were really nice about it all the same… loved their mother… no-one would say a word against them.

  • Clavos



    Good word, that.

    Haven’t seen it in print since my college lit courses.

  • Clavos


    Meant to say:

    “Not a bad word, that.”

    [mumbles] Need more coffee….

  • Silver Surfer

    Lol. Not averse to a litote, then?

  • Dr Dreadful


    Admit it. You had to look up “litotes” on Wikipedia before you posted that comment…

  • REMF

    “MCH aka REMF: The invalidity of anyone’s opinion who has not “served”, particularly but not exclusively conservative chickenhawks.
    moonraven: The stupidity of Dave Nalle and Clavos, and how everything they say and do is an attempt to compensate for inadequate penis size.
    Arch Conservative: The godhead of Mitt Romney, and how he will sweep the 2008 election over any !@#$%%*&^%ing liberal piece of $^%@#$%@ moonbat one cares to ^%$&*#ing name.
    Dave: The rationale for every horrendous and/or outrageous act perpetrated by the Bush administration.
    STM: How any given country would benefit from having a little Union Jack in the corner of its flag.”

    You forgot one, Dr.:
    RJ: Calling anyone opposed to the occupation/invasion of Iraq a “commie” or a “pinko.”

  • Dr Dreadful

    That why you call him Tailgunner Joe?

  • Clavos

    C’mon, Doc.

    My degree is in English lit with a minor in writing.

    You Poms don’t have ‘arf an attitude about Yanks’ command of the Mother Tongue.

    I had a Brit director in a play at the Ft. Lauderdale Little Theater who once said to me, in response to my comment that I spoke English,

    “No, my young friend, you don’t speak English; you speak Ameddican.”

  • Dr Dreadful

    His name wasn’t Noel Coward, was it?

  • Clavos

    No, but he was a fan!

  • Clavos

    And besides, if I were going to look it up, it would be here.

  • REMF

    “That why you call him Tailgunner Joe?”

    LOL. Yeah, there is a similarity between the two, the difference being that McCarthy actually served. Although he did lie about the tailgunner part.

  • Iron Duke

    I realize that comments are where the fun is, but did anyone else notice that the actual article makes no sense at all?

  • Clavos


    Why do you think we got off on all these sidetracks?

  • Lumpy

    MCH and Joe McCarthy – brothers from two different mothers.

  • STM

    RJ: “Well, yes. After all, I’m a flaming homosexual.”

    You’re not a pommy RJ, are you?

  • Clavos

    Uh, Oh.

    Now you’re gonna catch hell from the Doc, mate…


  • STM

    I’m going to get a swifty up the bum

  • STM

    Kick, that is 🙂

  • zingzing

    well. this was an etertaining bunch of comments. i have to pee.

    someone said something like “yeah, the comments are fun, but the article makes no sense,” and i have to agree…

    “romney” has six letters?

    please… what does that mean? so does.. um… “hafler,” and that don’t mean shit. “volver.” six letters. letter. six letters. bitches. six. shakin google bussom. yeah. six. six. six. whatev. ersssss.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Re, comments #48-52:

    (Thank you, Clav…)

    And I thought I’d had too much to drink this evening.

    zing: Close the fridge door. Screw the cap back on the vodka. Or whatever it is you’re indulging in… it’s time to exdulge.

    Stan: Come on. Not all Poms are gay. How d’you think we make more Poms?…
    …Actually, now I think about it… 60 million of us and not a single one who’s any good at sports. Yup. Must all be gay…

  • STM

    Had a couple of quiet ones have we doc??

  • Arch Conservative

    [Personal attack deleted]

    So I’m the godhead of Mitt Romney huh? Nothing wrong with that. Since I have repeatedly stated why Romney is my man I will go through the other candidates and say why I would never vote for them and why I believe they will not be our next president. Fair enough?

    Rudy G: He’s basically a RINO. He’s much too socially liberal for me to ever consider voting for him. It is also for this reason that I think he will not win the GOP nomination. A lot of people are saying that he’s more electable in the general election than Romney but I don’t think he’s pallettable enough for the GOP base what with his support for abortion, his marital problems and his being from New York City.

    John Mccain: Let’s face it. He comes off as old and kooky. Plus he thinks applying the geneva convention to terrorists would somehow ensure that they behave civilly toward us. He’s weak on the illegal immigration issue, as are virtually all American politicians on both sides, only he’s more vocal about it. Where most politicians ignore the issue completely or do a semantic two step around it, Mccain, along with his good pal Ted Kennedy have basically came out and said “hey illegals screwing you over is fine with me.” It is for these reasons that I wouldn’t vote for him and also why he will never win.

    John Edwards He’s been very hard at work peddling his leftist class warfare propaganda. It seems like Johnny boy would have us believe that we are all screwed and completely incapable of upward economic mobility without the federal gvernment coming to the rescue. “Hey Johnny boy…..life is hard for most people and have you ever stopped to consider that the reasons some people succeed and others don’t is because they put more effort in and that neither you nor anyone else from the federal government can ever deliver on the idealistic utopian promises for every American that you’re currently offering?”

    Then there’s the whole I’d rather be president than spend time with my wife who’s suffering from cancer issue.

    Ultimately I think the reason Edwarrds will not get elected is because he has become to beholden to the far left groups like the daily kos and while Americans on both sides of the spectrum can appreciate wanting to help those less fortunate and making things more condusive for the average American to succeed, his rhetoric is way over the top and will be recognized as such.

    Barack Obama: I’m glad of all of the he’s a uniter who represent everyone bullshit has died down. Obama is the least exeperienced of all the major candidates, has the least amount of accomplishments to offer as evidence as to why we should vote for him, and is the most unknown quantity. if one were to examine his brief voting record, as I have done, one would see that he’s pretty much a party line run of the mill liberal adn that’s why I would never vote for him.

    I believe he will not get elected because he is a half white half black man who is perceieved to be black and I don’t see this nation electing someone who is black or at least perceived to be in the near future. I also don’t think he’s in the same league in the Clinton’s when it comes to playing political hardball.

    And finally we have Hillary:

    Let’s be honest….. ALL politicians pander. Even my man Mitt has done it. They all do it because they have to if they ever want to have any hope of actually winning an election. We have to understand this and sort through all of the bullshit and each of us come up with our own assessment of each candidate as far as their charachter, what they really believe and what they would actually do or be capable of doing. However it is my belief that Hillary is head and shoulders above the rest when to comes to pandering. I do not believe she has a sincere bone in her body and that she may at some level actually care about this nation and the people that live in it but that those concerns will never be entertained in her mind until all of the concerns for her personal quest for power and recognition have been met.

    She will say or do anything to get a vote. I’m sure we have all seen the clips of her affecting a butchered fake southern accent when she was speaking to black voters in a southern church. That would be like Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee going to a campaign event in New York city and adopting a horrible Brooklyn accent and the last time I checked that hasn’t happened yet.

    In fact if one carefully examines all of Hillary’s public statements we can see that the only thing that she truly has been consistent on is her desire for more and more power.

    I wouldn’t vote for her becasue I think she would reveal her true colors if elected and govern from the far left. When I hear people saying that everything she has done for the past 6 years or so is proof that she is a moderate I have to laugh. Hillary, although evil, is not stupid. If she learned nothing from watching her husband’s political career, she learned that moderates have the greatest chance of winning elections and she has following this golden rule to a tee. I believe she would basically utter a big “too late now motherfukcers, you’re stuck with me” as soon as she took office and then start using her power to make us more and more socialistic with each passing day and that is completely contrary to every one of my beliefs.

    I don’t think she will win because there is such a massive mistrust of her and a desire to put an end to both the Clinton and Bush influence on American politics. The folks on the right hate her husband and the folks on the left hate Bush. I think most Americans want a new start. I believe there are many that believe she is truly far left as I do and are also disgusted by the idea of her being president.

  • STM

    Arch, I think the good doctor is sleeping off a hangover. I have the perfect cure for that: a cold cup of pork fat with a hair in it :-/

  • Dr Dreadful

    #53: Yeuch! Just thinking about that cured me.

    #52: So let me understand your way of thinking, Arch. By your own admission, nothing Hillary has done over the last six years, whether it be her voting record, her publicly-expressed opinions or the causes she espouses, suggests that she is anything other than a moderate Democrat.

    So on what grounds, other than your own hatred, should we believe that she is far-left?