Never Battle With George Soros When Death Is On The Line!

George Soros - Spooky Dude - has made some comments recently about the Republican race, particularly aimed at Mitt Romney.  The reaction to his comments have been quite amazing, in my opinion, mostly because some on the Right have actually taken his comments at face value.  Yes...George...Soros...at face...value.

In an interview with Fareed Zakaria, Soros recently said this:

ZAKARIA:  "So you think Mitt Romney, if elected, would pursue a stimulus program?"

SOROS:  "I think — I’m pretty sure that would happen."

Soros had previously said:

"If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them."

Rush Limbaugh's response to this was: "He's endorsing Romney. 'Romney, that's cool, no difference, I could go either way that way.'"

Newt Gingrich, of course, used Soros' words for exactly the purpose that Soros intended them: “I think for most Republican voters, the idea of trying to nominate a Soros-approved candidate is not a very appealing idea.” Newt's claims about Romney being Soros-approved earned four Pinocchios.

Many anti-Romney Bloggers and Tweeters have used the comments to support their theory that Romney is not electable against Obama and that Obama actually wants to face Romney in the General Election.  It is an interesting theory, but is it really wise to cite Soros as an ally just to take a shot at a candidate you don't really like?

Here's the most important question: Does anyone really believe George Soros is going to speak honestly about the Republican race?  If Soros and Democrats really do want to face Romney, would Georgie say something that - taken at face value -  is likely to eliminate Romney from the GOP nomination?  I mean, we aren't really taking George Soros at his word, are we?

I always chuckle when some host asks a Democrat strategist (usually on CNN) something like, "What do Republicans need to do to beat Obama?"  The "strategist" then goes on a rant about someone that is clearly not what the Republicans need to do.  It's like asking Bill Belichick at halftime what the Giants need to do to beat them in the second half.  Such a stupid question would get a stern rebuke and dismissal from Belichick.  And yet they just listen as a Democrat gives Republicans "honest" advice.  It's so altruistic of them to want to help their opponents.

Trying to guess what is really behind George Soros' statements is like trying to guess which glass Wesley put the iocane powder in.  For that debate, see here.  It is the same with James Carville, Paul Begala, Donna Brazile, etc.  We cannot take any of these fools at face value.  They want to divide, confuse, and mislead people regarding the Republican race.  Why wouldn't they?  They want to win in 2012!  The only way to know who the Dems want to see and who they don't want to see in a General Election is to follow the money...and the money leads to:

Obama spends $$$$$$$$$$$$ to attack Mitt Romney!!!

(here) (here) (here) (here) (here) (here) (here) (here)

I found those - and other - links without any trouble.  With the same amount of effort, I found no Obama attacks on Santorum.  Shouldn't that tell us something about who Obama actually wants to face?  We shouldn't listen to Soros, or CNN talking heads, or Newt Gingrich (who is making arguments for the left)...we should look at where the Left is spending money.  It's all on Romney.  Would any reasonably intelligent or cunning person spend money attacking a man he didn't fear?  The man Obama fears, is the man we should nominate to face him!  Mitt Romney.


The moral of the story: Never Trust George Soros When An Election Is On The Line! (or ever)

GOP Candidates' Favorite Logical Fallacies

I love logical fallacies.  I don't so much like to use them, though we all use them, but I love to point them out and discuss them.  Politics is saturated with fallacies, especially when it comes to campaigns.  I have followed the 2012 GOP quite closely, so I compiled a list of logical fallacies and have attributed a few fallacies to each candidate, based on which ones I think each candidate uses most often.  The candidates are listed starting with the most logical (in my opinion) to the least logical.  I also threw Obama, the media, voters and occupiers at the end, just for fun.

Ron Paul – 

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.  Ron Paul doesn't really introduce new ideas, he just keeps hammering away at the same issues.  It doesn't mean the issues aren't important, just that people don't care to listen to him anymore.

Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact.  Paul often paints a grim picture of what will happen if we take certain smaller steps.  It doesn't mean they will or won't happen - I happen to think he's right most of the time - but they are not guaranteed to happen.

Mitt Romney – 

If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.  Romney doesn't want to alienate voters so he often works hard to navigate a path that will please both sides.  I attribute much of it to practicality - and I don't mind it so much - but it is a fallacy nonetheless.  Of course, the "Whiskey" fallacy had to be applied to the most stone-cold-sober candidate.

Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.  This is one that people lob at Romney a lot.  I don't necessarily agree with the criticism, but I can see why some feel that way.  I think the bigger problem for Romney isn't multiple inconsistencies to defend A position, but using inconsistent arguments to defend various positions.

Rick Santorum – 

Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.  I think Rick does this a lot, but it largely goes unnoticed.  He attacks Romney on RomneyCare/ObamaCare but overlooks some valid differences between the two.  See my previous post about Santorum.

Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.  Kind of the same issue discussed above.  Santorum oversimplifies when convenient and overcomplicates when convenient.

Newt Gingrich –

Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.  People say Newt is a great debater, but it is largely because he doesn't address the questions asked and instead goes on his own tangent.  See response to John King in South Carolina.  This may make for great debate theater, but it is illogical.

False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.  Newt is King of bad analogies.  He recently analogized his not making the ballot in Virginia to the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Pay attention; they're all over the place.

Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.  Most of the time when Newt says "baloney", he is appealing to ridicule.  He says "baloney" and then paints the argument in question as silly or stupid.

All Candidates (Ever) –

Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.  Do I really need examples here?  This the foundation of political rhetoric.

Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.  Again, a staple in politics (and religious debates).

GOP Voters –

Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.  Where is the Ronald Reagan of yesteryear?  GOP voters compare candidates to Reagan, they criticize the GOP field because there is no perfect candidate, they call for a brokered convention on the assumption that a perfect candidate will emerge, etc.  Not going to happen.  Pick the guy who can beat Obama and unite!

Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.  Voters do this with candidates all the time, especially candidates who they don't feel are "true conservatives".  Speaking of "true conservatives"...

No true Scotsman – when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.  "No TRUE CONSERVATIVE would [insert your own qualification for a true conservative]."

Debate Moderators – 

Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.  A moderator will ask a very complex question about health care, or poverty, or immigration and say "Take 60 seconds to answer that."  Yeah, that's not going to happen.

Media –

Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy).  Mitt Romney is wealthy, therefore he cannot relate to the poor, he isn't "one of us", etc.  No mention of John Kerry, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.  Example: Rick Santorum wins 3 states in one night...it must have been caused by [1 reason].

Obama –

Note: Most fallacies apply to Obama, but I had to pick just a few...

Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.  See the last 3 years!

Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.  Super PACS, Libya, lobbyists, Let's Move, etc. etc. etc. 

Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.  Class warfare, health care debate, Paul Ryan budget, elections, Fat Cat Bankers, Wall Street, Oil Companies, 1%ers, etc. etc. etc.

Occupiers – 

Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.  This is their whole platform!

Santorum's 10th Amendment Hypocrisy!

Rick Santorum appears to be a decent conservative candidate who gained a lot of momentum with his three recent victories. Still, Santorum has had the luxury of flying under the radar so we don't really know how he will stand up the increased scrutiny whereas Romney has been attacked by Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Paul, Huntsman, Obama, the DNC, etc. Ron Paul is the only candidate to have really criticized Santorum, even though Santorum has been extremely negative toward Gingrich and Romney for many weeks.


Santorum's main talking point has been the individual mandate. In particular, he has hammered Romney relentlessly on RomneyCare claiming it to be "government-run top-down medicine." He is clearly not buying Romney's 10th Amendment argument nor his pledge to repeal ObamaCare since he enacted RomneyCare as a Governor. In the Florida debate, he said, "According to Governor Romney, that's OK. If the state [enacts a mandate], that's OK. If the state wants to enforce it, that's OK." Romney has claimed that his State - dominated by democrats - wanted health care reform so he did it in the most conservative way possible. Santorum dismisses this argument saying that principle matters more.


Santorum is obviously against the individual mandate, but where he gets into trouble is when he refuses to accept that there are differences between Federal ObamaCare and State RomneyCare. He appears to be glossing over the 10th Amendment argument. This may be problematic for him considering his 10th Amendment/representative government defense for voting against a right-to-work bill. He claims that his state didn't want it so - even though it is a conservative principle based on the Constitution - he didn't want to go against his state. Below is the transcript of a debate he had with Ron Paul:


MR. SANTORUM: Congressman Paul knows, because we've talked about this before, I've already signed a pledge and said I would sign a national right-to-work bill. And when I was a senator from Pennsylvania, which is a state that is not a right-to-work state, the state made a decision not to be right to work. And I wasn't going to go to Washington and overturn that from the federal government and do that to the state. That's a very different -- different position.

REP. PAUL: May I --

MR. KING: Quickly, sir.

REP. PAUL: Yeah, the response should be, yes, I understand that. That's the way politics works: You voted the way you thought was best --

MR. SANTORUM: Well, representative government.

REP. PAUL: -- yeah -- for your state. (Applause.) But as president, are you going to represent South Carolina or Pennsylvania? That's really the question. (Applause.)

MR. SANTORUM: Well, maybe -- maybe you didn't hear what I said. I said I would support a national right-to-work law and sign it into law, and would support and advocate for one. (Applause.)


Full Transcript


So, he voted against a state right-to-work bill because the State didn't want it and he wanted to respect "representative government." But, he has pledged that if elected President, he "would support a national right-to-work law and sign it into law, and would support and advocate for one." Sounds somewhat similar to Romney's take on RomneyCare, except that the 10th Amendment argument is reversed. Romney's argument is pro-10th Amendment, while Santorum's argument is pro-Federal government. One can argue differences between right-to-work and a mandate, but the similarities between the arguments/justifications cannot easily be dismissed.


Santorum said, "I wasn't going to go to Washington and overturn that from the federal government and do that to the state." He wouldn't do it to his State as a Senator, but he would do it to ALL States as President? That is not a strong 10th Amendment position.


In addition, given Santorum's reluctance to accept Romney at his word regarding whether he would actually repeal ObamaCare if given the opportunity, it is important to note Santorum's pledge to advocate for and sign into law a right-to-work bill, even though he opposed it in Pennsylvania. Can he be taken at his word? If Romney can't be trusted, then how can Santorum?


Oh yeah, he also fully endorsed Romney as a Conservative in 2008 (2 years after RomneyCare was enacted): “In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide more than their party’s nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear.  Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united Republican party.” Rick Santorum, February 1, 2008