GOP candidates: American exceptionalists, most of the time

CLAKE

7:06 AM ET

December 30, 2011

an case at least, Thomas Paine knew quite clearly what it was. The vile stain of slavery was present at every point, just as the awful profitability of cotton, and the easy availability of unpaid human labor from the African trade, corrupted the ideals of the new republic from the very first. In the end, the reckoning for this historic crime led to a war in which much of the ill-gotten wealth was squandered. On the other hand, that same civil war led to the triumph of capitalism and the expansionist state, with the new republic soon becoming an empire in all but name in the Philippines, Cuba, Haiti, and Puerto Rico.
Advertisement

Along the way, it was inevitable that politicians like Albert Beveridge would proclaim the idea of “manifest destiny” and the natural right of Americans to a dominant role in the world. It is the self-confidence involved in this idea—or rather the loss of it—that some people think should be the subject of the current presidential campaign. A candidate can expect to be ambushed and asked to affirm or deny the special position of the United States as an exemplary city on a hill, “shining” as a beacon to the less fortunate. On a slightly lower element of the scale, people answering polls have recently been asked whether they agree with this statement: “Our people are not perfect but our culture is superior to others.” The most recent polling on the latter point shows less than half of Americans in favor of the slightly tepid proposition, though it’s not obvious whether the perfection or the superiority is being voted on the most.

Especially to the extent that it starts to look like a loyalty oath, I think that the underlying question here should be dismissed as rash or stupid or both. Is the United States “chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model to the world”? Anybody claiming to have the answer to that question—as George W. Bush once seemed to do—would be a fool. For a start, what would be his sources of information? And how good a historian would he be? In the long view, very few of the survivors of the Roman Empire would have predicted that the inhabitants of the frozen and backward British Isles would be among the next builders of a global system, but so it proved. And there was no question that the British or English, especially the Protestant fundamentalist ones, believed that they had God on their side. In fact, I know of no European state that doesn’t have some kind of national myth to the same effect. The problem, as everybody knows, is that not all these myths can be simultaneously right.

Long-term ideas of “destiny” are not easily assimilated to shorter-term glooms about the loss of American power and prestige. It’s a strange fact, but in the present political season it is the American right that seems to harbor the most skepticism about American power. I personally find this odd: Yet again the United States has managed to get itself largely on the right side of a massive historical shift—the Arab Spring—which it had not “read” very well the first time round. And yet, most of the remarks made by seekers of the Republican nomination have been sour or grudging.

I remember Bernard-Henri Levy saying, in the early stages of the Iraq war that he opposed, that America had been essentially in the right about combating fascism and Nazism, and essentially right about opposing and outlasting the various forms of Communism, and that all else was pretty much commentary or, as one might say, merde de taureau. Something of the sort seems to apply in the present case, both in recent developments in Burma and Vietnam as well as in Libya and Syria. The crowds have a tendency to be glad that there is an American superpower, if only to balance the cynical powers of Moscow and Beijing. Perhaps if it were not for President Obama being in the White House, our right wing would be quicker to see and appreciate this point.

The ancients taught us to fear “hubris,” and the Bible teaches the sin of pride. I am always amazed that American conservatives are not more suspicious of self-proclaimed historical uniqueness. But proclaim it they do, as if trying to reassure themselves against the blasts of what looks like a very bad season.

thanks
professional web design

MAGAZINE07

10:18 AM ET

December 31, 2011

good

Like many conservatives, I don’t yet have a candidate in the presidential race and still hope that an accomplished former governor of a large state may yet jump in the race.
Although I appreciate Newt Gingrich’s rhetorical feistiness, having interned for the guy, I question his executive aptitude. Every time I come close to backing Mitt Romney, he does — or says — something that causes me to question his conservatism.
Not just that, with the election still eleven months away, I, like many Americans am already getting tired of the campaign. According to USA Today/Gallup poll, ”70% of registered voters across the country and 74% of those living in the battlegrounds say they can’t wait for the campaign to be over.”
Annoyed with the never-ending campaign we may be, but we Republicans are going to have to pick a candidate and that man, as Rush put it, is not going to be perfect:
I don’t want to be misunderstood as seeking perfection, because it doesn’t exist. We’re all imperfect, everybody. There is no such thing as perfection. And there is no way to remove risk from life. You can’t achieve perfection. You can try for it. It’s a great motivation. You can’t remove risk and you can’t achieve perfection. Nobody is going to be flawless.
His commentary, sage though it is, is not helping me pick a candidate, but it may help those of us who are as yet undecided because none of the candidates excites us rally around the eventual nominee.
In his commentary, Rush mentions three candidates about whose “conservative credentials” there is, his his mind, “no doubt,” Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. Interesting that those more social conservatives are currently floundering in most polls.
Kind of undermines the media/Democratic narrative that the GOP has gone so far to the right that Ronald Reagan couldn’t win nomination today.
*yet each is better than the incumbent
Share
Comments (54)
54 Comments
My husband and I have decided on Romney. He has the executive experience. We had liked Cain for his passion and willingness to reform the tax code. As for Newt, my husband says the man should be put in charge of cutting government. We’ve never forgotten Newt’s vacuum tube expose.
Comment by Louise B — December 15, 2011 @ 8:10 pm - December 15, 20
I decided earlier this week I was going to (Quixotically I admit) support Rick Santorum. He seems to derange the worst sort of people, so he has that going for him. And if by some miracle he were elected, Dan Savage would probably emigrate to France; so, win-win.
Comment by V the K — December 15, 2011 @ 8:32 pm - December 15, 2011
I’ve always liked Newt, but no way can I vote for him for president — he’s a firebrand and bomb thrower — not someone who can catch others’ bombs and lead effectively. I guess this falls into the “not presidential caliber” category.
I might be “post-gay” but I’m not “post-gay” enough to support Santorum, Bachman, Perry.
I’m not insane enough to try and figure out Ron Pau
Foreign policy is not going win this election so no Huntsman.
But, can any self-respective fiscal (let alone social) conservative give me a reason to vote for Romney that doesn’t start with or include Obama in your reasoning? The best (seems the only) argument anyone can make is “he can beat Obama”.

Voting for someone because of who they are not is an act of desperation not a meaningful vote.

I really think what I want is a reason to actually vote FOR Romney and not AGAINST Obama. And, so far, Romney has completely failed to deliver. His latest convoluted statement (I think Log Cabin called it a pretzel) on an amendment that is both for and against gay marriage is the perfect example of everything he has done so far in the campaign — just enough not to piss off the 25% who have consistently supported him but nothing more to ignite anyone’s passion on imagination.

Regardless of what he’s done since winning the office, four years ago, Obama ignited the imagination (it was Reagan-esce). So far the only Republican candidate that has even come close is the “one who hasn’t announced” (take your pick — Palin, Trump, Perry until he announced, Christy, Rubio, …)

I’m ready to caste my absentee ballot, but no one has earned my vote.

Those who are going to hold their noses and vote for Romney, convince me.
Comment by GayExPatriot(Toronto) — December 15, 2011 @ 9:11 pm - December 15, 2011

I agree, Dan. A Reagan is a once in a lifetime occurrence.

Our candidate just needs to be electable. I don’t expect Cicero but I wish for a candidate whose every pronouncement is not a verbal minefield.

For now, Romney is good enough. Rush has said that conservatism will sell but, IMHO, it’s a hard sell and I don’t see that any of our guys and gals can pull it off.

Comment by SoCalRobert — December 15, 2011 @ 9:29 pm - December 15, 2011

I was all for Herman Cain…before all the Bimbo Eruptions. Now? I just don’t know. Newt as POTUS? *shudder** Perry? No. Romney? “ehh” Paul? Not as POTUS either…

At this point I think I’ll just vote for Huntsman in the NJ primary…even though he’ll never survive the GOP Convention. But I’ll have voted my conscience.

For the Presidential in November? If it’s Obama vs. Romney or Gingrich, I’ll vote GOP even though they’ll lose to Obama. If it’s Hillary….well, all bets are off…though I might just vote for Hillary.

Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 15, 2011 @ 10:51 pm - December 15, 2011

It would be wonderful if we could get spectacular candidates for every election, but sometimes (actually, a lot of times) we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Regardless of how unexciting the GOP field is, it’s my opinion that we need to oust Obama. Regardless of who ends up with the Republican nomination, I’ll be happy for vote for him/her so we can get the country going at least part of the way in the right direction.

Comment by dottielaird — December 15, 2011 @ 10:52 pm - December 15, 2011

Isn’t it amazing how all the “good” fiscal-conservative candidates – the ones with charisma, track records and Tea Party support – have been either discouraged from running or destroyed (if they ran) by the kind of negative coverage that the media would never give Obama in a million years? Palin, Christie, Cain, Bachmann, Ryan, others.

Thus we are left with the choice of Tweedledum (the TR- and FDR-worshipping Newt) and Willard (Romney’s real first name). The Big Government establishment works! they’ve still got it!

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 15, 2011 @ 11:14 pm - December 15, 2011

(continued) I’m predicting an Obama win now in 2012, IF the “other shoe” doesn’t drop on the economy.

It’s like this. “The other shoe” will drop on the U.S. economy, probably taking the form of a U.S. sovereign debt crisis. But I can’t predict exactly when. Could be this month (unlikely), 2012 (medium likely), 2013 (medium likely), or even later. Neither Newt nor Willard will pull off a victory, without it. The bad news for Obama is that it happens on his watch, no matter what: if he is re-elected, it will in all likelihood prove to be his disaster.

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 15, 2011 @ 11:19 pm - December 15, 2011

I am with you ILC, I think the SCOAMF will be re-elected. I’ve seen it happen with Democrat governors like Jenny Granholm and Deval Patrick whose terms were unmitigated disasters, yet they still handily win re-election.

Comment by V the K — December 15, 2011 @ 11:36 pm - December 15, 2011

A Republican can’t be re-elected with job approval below 50, because of the media bias… a Democrat can be re-elected with job approval down to the low 40s, again because of the media bias. If Obama is at 40 or lower in October 2012, then he’ll lose.

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 15, 2011 @ 11:44 pm - December 15, 2011

As it is right now, I’m f-ing fed up with all the Republicans, candidates and supporters alike, sniping each other. Those folks can burn for eternity for all I care. I’m sick and tired of smug, elitist SOBs pontificating on who they think is really a Conservative (I’m looking at you, RedState) and attacking each other like the little bitch liberals they claim to loathe.

Romney’s pissing me off with his flailing about attacking the frontrunner du jour. I wasn’t giving Bachmann the time of day as it was and her Gardasil=retardation meltdown sealed it for me. Can’t help but note that Newt isn’t really attacking other Republicans so much.

Also can’t help but notice that the liberals seem to favor Romney over all others. Not attacking him so much, are they?

Michael Reagan wonders “Has the Right Gone Mad?”

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelreagan/2011/12/14/has_the_right_gone_mad

Comment by TGC — December 16, 2011 @ 1:03 am - December 16, 2011

I’m not insane enough to try and figure out Ron Paul.

Why? He epitomizes the essence of the Tea Party movement. But if he’s too bitter of a pill to take, then you might consider voting for Gary Johnson. Shame on Faux News and the lamestream media for disregarding these stalwart defenders of individual liberty.

Those that consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement who aren’t going to vote for either of those two candidates are full of chutzpah. If republicans are serious about cutting spending and tackling the multitrillion dollar debt, then they either nominate Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. The rest of those clowns don’t belong in the White House and you know it.

Comment by Rob — December 16, 2011 @ 1:29 am - December 16, 2011

Ron Paul: right about domestic policy e.g. the Fed, but to the left of Obama on foreign policy, and troublingly ‘unaware’ of his own past newsletter’s connections to rank homophobia and white racism. In the end, I just can’t get any more excited about him, than I do about Newt or Willard.

Gary Johnson == I truly don’t know anything about him. Hear his name twice a year, maybe. I know my ignorance there is shameful, but for the moment, I am submitting it as kind of a data point on his extreme low profile.

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2011 @ 2:03 am - December 16, 2011

Not to mention Paul’s moonbatshitcrazy and his followers are, perhaps, even more insufferable than the liberals are. Here’s a hint for you Rob: You don’t win friends, influence people and gather supporters for your candidate by pissing on them.

The Ronulans have smoked themselves retarded and that’s all there is to it.

Comment by TGC — December 16, 2011 @ 2:11 am - December 16, 2011

When Paul is heading back to Texas for his retirement, he can thank his supporters for making it so.

Comment by TGC — December 16, 2011 @ 2:13 am - December 16, 2011

For conservative credentials, Bachmann and Santorum are fine. I understand their “soc-con” values do not play well for those on the receiving end.

Gingrich is forever having to set the record straight on his comments, actions, positions, etc. It has reached the point of being pathologic.

Romney has been over exposed without raising the excitement level and, therefore, is filling the “well, I guess we could always back Mitt” niche.

Paul can not help but to eventually get himself wound up and start walking into walls while scolding like a crazy aunt who is anti-fluoride.

Huntsman keeps reminding me of Eddie Haskell. Whether he actually is insincere, I do not know. But he has mastered the facial gestures of a true sycophant. I am not too impressed with his supposed laser-like beam which is focused on the secrets of the Chi-coms.

Rick Perry may not have read the Constitution. Just how he will send Congress home and lower their pay is a mystery. Last night he decided to end the life term for judges. That kind of Chevas Regal chatter among friends doing pipe dreams while sipping themselves sillier is not appealing.

In the coming months, I will sit on my wallet and wait to see who finally emerges. Then I will go full bore in the drive to end the Obama presidency and to send as many TEA Party people as possible to both houses of Congress.

Comment by Heliotrope — December 16, 2011 @ 8:29 am - December 16, 2011

TGC – “Not to mention Paul’s moonbatshitcrazy and his followers are…”

“You don’t win friends, influence people and gather supporters for your candidate by pissing on them.”

Only 2 sentences to show what a hypocrite you are. New record?

Comment by Tim in MT — December 16, 2011 @ 8:32 am - December 16, 2011

If Ron Paul is “to the left of Obama on foreign policy” (parrot Fox News, much?) why does he have more active military contributions than the rest combined? All the left wing soldiers???

America is going to get it’s nose out of the business of the rest of the world. The real question is whether we do it of our own accord, or of our own bankruptcy…

Comment by Tim in MT — December 16, 2011 @ 8:35 am - December 16, 2011

Why are half the comments here, “I like XYZ candidate except for this one thing…”

Wasn’t the whole point of the post nobody is going to find XYZ candidate they agree with 100%?

Yes, please don’t vote for Ron Paul or Bachmann or whoever cause you found one thing out of 100 you don’t agree with them on. Just stay home and let the guy you disagree with 100% stay in office…

Comment by Tim in MT — December 16, 2011 @ 8:37 am - December 16, 2011

If Obama’s re-elected, definitely the “Other Shoe” economically will be dropped. It’s just a matter of how bad things get… But I also fear that the GOP is incapable of nominating an actual election-winner for 2012, which leaves us inevitably with Obama and the Other Shoe.

Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 16, 2011 @ 9:35 am - December 16, 2011

Well, if gutting the military and withdrawing into isolationism are your key issues, you can always back Gary Johnson, who agrees with Paul on those issues but without the crazy-eyed anti-semitism, homophobia, and racism.

Comment by V the K — December 16, 2011 @ 9:53 am - December 16, 2011

For the Presidential in November? If it’s Obama vs. Romney or Gingrich, I’ll vote GOP even though they’ll lose to Obama. If it’s Hillary….well, all bets are off…though I might just vote for Hillary.

I don’t get this. Do you think if Hillary Clinton had become President in 2008, that she would’ve done anything substantively different to Barack Obama? Hell, on the hot-button issue of healthcare reform, Hillary has been fairly consistently to the left of Obama!

Literally the only reason I can think that a conservative would vote for Hillary Clinton but not Barack Obama is ‘Anyone But Obama (Literally ANYONE)’, which is a terrible reason to vote for anyone.

If Ron Paul is “to the left of Obama on foreign policy” (parrot Fox News, much?) why does he have more active military contributions than the rest combined? All the left wing soldiers???

I think the issue here is one of confusion. ILoveCapitalism is coming from a neoconservative perspective (with the interventionist foreign policy inherent to it) while you appear to be coming from a paleoconservative perspective (which has always been at odds with neoconservatism when it comes to military interventionism).

The fact that both sides in that debate consider themselves to be the ‘real’ conservatives leads to a lot of confusion as to what a ‘left-wing’ foreign policy actually is. To a neoconservative, a non-interventionist policy is left-wing, but to a paleoconservative, the opposite is true. It’d probably help if you were speaking the same language here.

Comment by Serenity — December 16, 2011 @ 10:06 am - December 16, 2011

If Ron Paul is “to the left of Obama on foreign policy” (parrot Fox News, much?) why does he have more active military contributions than the rest combined? All the left wing soldiers???

Non-sequitur. Jack Murtha and John Kerry also had “active military contributions” – what’s it to do with their respective sins / bad policies? Hey, let’s compare apples and opera, to further derail rational discussion.

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2011 @ 10:36 am - December 16, 2011

Why are half the comments here, “I like XYZ candidate except for this one thing…”

I was one-fifth of the comments (then) and mine are more like, “I dislike XYZ candidate (because of these important things) except for this one thing…” And I mentioned Bachmann as one I could like. Just FTR.

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2011 @ 10:42 am - December 16, 2011

ILoveCapitalism is coming from a neoconservative perspective

LOL :-) As usual, Pomposity, you’re way off. (Hint: Neo-conservatives, while perhaps not as evil as you leftist crazies like to make them out, unfortunately support Big Government.)

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2011 @ 10:48 am - December 16, 2011

Strange timing, Bachmann vs. Paul on foreign policy: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/16/video-bachmann-takes-down-paul/

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2011 @ 11:14 am - December 16, 2011

Only 2 sentences to show what a hypocrite you are. New record?

And only one sentence to show you can be a blazing asshole and prove my point. Good on you.

Comment by TGC — December 16, 2011 @ 11:33 am - December 16, 2011

why does he have more active military contributions than the rest combined? All the left wing soldiers???

[Citation Needed]

Does he? I know that’s a claim that goes back to at least 2007 (you know, four years ago). It’s an oft repeated claim that the Rontards like to throw around, but not a one seems able to back it up.

Comment by TGC — December 16, 2011 @ 11:41 am - December 16, 2011

Gary Johnson is no longer a Republican. He has become a Libertarian. He might be thinking of becoming that party´s candidate in the presidential race.

I like Newt´s idea of having the judges of Supreme Court come up for review and reelection. Article III of the Constitution neither limits the terms of the justices nor does it affirm a lifetime appointment. The idea has merit. Article 186 of the Constitution of El Salvador sets limits. A judge is elected by the National Assembly (unicameral) for a period of nine years. Then he\she can be reelected for one third of a term every three years for a maximum of 18 years of service. That would be a great way of getting rid of Justices Kagen and Sotomayor. Also when a conservatice justice turns squishiy like Sandra Day O´Conner.

Comment by Roberto — December 16, 2011 @ 12:26 pm - December 16, 2011

The whole point of life-time appointment was to not have judges running for election/re-election, accepting contributions, or being able to or needing to make campaign promises. A judge who accepts money or promises favors in exchange-for office is a bought-judge. Tolerable in the lower courts, but totally unacceptable for a court of last appeal like the US Supreme Court.

Or, just limit their terms.

Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 16, 2011 @ 1:04 pm - December 16, 2011

After reading the comments posted here I have this sinking feeling the Pres. will be re-elected We have ,(or had), all of us,our favorite(s) Mine are almost gone now, or never really jumped in. However since Pres. Obama took office, my one goal has been to keep him from being re-elected in 2012. To that end , I will vote for who ever gets the nod, favorite or not.

Comment by pam — December 16, 2011 @ 1:49 pm - December 16, 2011

Well pam, who really wants Willard? I mean positive reasons, not just defeating Obama.

Someone said the other day: Newt flip-flops on his positions… Willard flip-flops on who he is.

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2011 @ 2:46 pm - December 16, 2011

#32 Romney , Huntsman & Paul have never been appealling to me.If the field staya the way it is I will vote for Perry in my state’s primary.He is my choice.Idoubt he will get the nomination. If he does great.If not,what do I do? What would you have me do?Stay home and not vote at all,knowing full well every non vote is a yes vote for Obama?If WILLARD gets the nod ,he gets my vote, reluctantly,by default.

Comment by pam — December 16, 2011 @ 3:36 pm - December 16, 2011

I don’t think the problem should be classified as having “flawed” candidates. Everyone is flawed and imperfect in some way. The problem is that the candidates just aren’t very good.

I like Newt´s idea of having the judges of Supreme Court come up for review and reelection. Article III of the Constitution neither limits the terms of the justices nor does it affirm a lifetime appointment. The idea has merit. Article 186 of the Constitution of El Salvador sets limits. A judge is elected by the National Assembly (unicameral) for a period of nine years. Then he\she can be reelected for one third of a term every three years for a maximum of 18 years of service. That would be a great way of getting rid of Justices Kagen and Sotomayor. Also when a conservatice justice turns squishiy like Sandra Day O´Conner.

That is a double edged sword, as it would also weed out judges on the farther right such as Alito and Thomas. The problem with this system is that judged will no doubt become even more opaque during the confirmation process than they already are. Despite the flaws, I say keep the system the way it is.

Comment by sonicfrog — December 16, 2011 @ 4:14 pm - December 16, 2011

What would you have me do?Stay home and not vote

Not at all. Just asking the question: Is there any joy in supporting Willard? Won’t we all be reluctant?

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2011 @ 4:17 pm - December 16, 2011

That is a double edged sword, as it would also weed out judges on the farther right such as Alito and Thomas.

My first thoughts too. The election of Supreme Court judges could turn out to be a case of being careful what you wish for if Kagan and Sotomayor make it to re-election but then Alito and Thomas lose to more liberal opponents.

Comment by Serenity — December 16, 2011 @ 4:58 pm - December 16, 2011

sonicfrog,

Using the example of El Salvador, nine years before review and reeelction could be over the span of one two term president or three one term presidents. Your point is well taken about being a two edged sword, but I think that I would like to take my chances rather than have a president, like Obama leave a legacy of forty or fifty years after his leaving office. As much as John McCain was my least desired candidate he did promise to appoint strict constructionists judges to sit on the high court. For that reason, I urged conservatives, on this, and other blogs, not to vote for a third party candidate, fearing that Obama would leave a long legacy with activists judges being in the majority. This, more than the screwups he´s made over his almost three years should rally conservatives behind who ever is our nominee. I prefer to hold my nose and vote for Romney, Santorum, or Bachman, if it isn´t Newt, rather than give Obama another four years to reek havoc with our country.

Comment by Roberto — December 16, 2011 @ 5:17 pm - December 16, 2011

Serenity,

Imagine a Republican President, and both house of congress for the next twenty years with activists judges ala Kagan and Sotomayor. Legislation they don´t like they would declare unconstitutional and promulgate the laws they want on the books. Scary!

The judiciary is the one element that Tea Party seems to have ignored. A conservative court should be a component of a smaller conservative government.

Comment by Roberto — December 16, 2011 @ 5:26 pm - December 16, 2011

If Ron Paul is “to the left of Obama on foreign policy” (parrot Fox News, much?) why does he have more active military contributions than the rest combined? All the left wing soldiers???

TGC touches on this @ #28.

This is a classic example of a “fact” that can not possibly exist. For this “fact” to be true, it is necessary to acquire the name and address of every single contributor to every candidate and then to run those names down to ascertain the contributor’s occupation. Then you have to winnow out every contributor with military status and then determine whether they are active military or not.

Such a census would require enormous sophistication and the organization compiling it would have to be both well funded, but also well known. Every marketing operation would kill for such precise and decisive information. Imagine the opportunities available to interested parties who needed to pinpoint active military contributors to the Ron Paul campaign. Such a list would have to cost millions, because compiling such a list accurately would be so incredibly expensive
So, boys and girls, when you see such a claim, your very first reaction should be to look at it steaming in the pasture and realize that the bull moved away and left it there.
Comment by Heliotrope — December 16, 2011 @ 5:55 pm - December 16, 201
Is there any joy in supporting Willard? Won’t we all be reluctant?
No, but there would be joy in saving our country from the SCOAMF.
Comment by V the K — December 16, 2011 @ 7:39 pm - December 16, 2011
True, that!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2011 @ 7:42 pm - December 16, 2011
So Willard becomes our “C+” compromise(d) candidate that only losers could feel excited about, in order to save us from… the big “F” candidate. It’s happened before in our history, I must admit.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2011 @ 7:47 pm - December 16, 2011
There’s always an outside chance Mittens might surprise us by not sucking utterly.
Look what Reagan, a true conservative, accomplished with a liberal senate and House. How might it be different with a moderate president and a significantly more conservative legislature.
Comment by V the K — December 16, 2011 @ 8:04 pm - December 16, 2011
But Reagan had a purpose… he *wanted* to accomplish certain things. Willard wants… ? Good poll standing? Will he be the Republican Clinton? (minus the sex scandals, maybe)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2011 @ 8:20 pm - December 16, 2011
BTW maybe I’m being cynical here, because I had some of those “hopeful” thoughts in 2008 and was let down.
I figured at the time, McCain-PALIN had a 1/3 chance of winning. And Obama, with a 2/3 chance of winning, had a 50-50 chance of being almost a moderate like he was pretending to be, as opposed to a complete left-wing liar bent on destroying America. Adding it up, I figured, there was only a 1/3 total chance of us ending up with a complete left-wing liar bent on destroying America. Well… guess which chance happened.
In this cycle, I’d give Willard 50-50 odds of winning and then 50-50 odds of being, as you say, an effective moderate willing to be guided by a conservative legislature. (as opposed to a Big Government guy, ready to betray the conservative legislature) So it’s a 25% chance that we end up with an effective moderate willing to be guided by a conservative legislature. Not good odds.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2011 @ 8:28 pm - December 16, 2011
I just can’t go with changing the structure of the judiciary. Here is another reason.
When the Supreme Court was written into the Constitution, it is true that the founders envisioned the position being held for maybe five or ten, or, at most fifteen years, then they figured the Justices would move on. They didn’t anticipate the people that held the position would stay for up to 30 years or more, as is typical today. That said, within the lifetime of the framers and their direct descendants, there were judges who stayed on the bench for life… Thomas Jefferson’s hated cousin John Marshall comes to mind. Yet, they didn’t make a concerted effort to amend the Supreme Court judicial process. And it’s not as if there were not rulings that a lot of politicians didn’t like. So, in this, I defer to their judgement.
Comment by sonicfrog — December 16, 2011 @ 9:36 pm - December 16, 2011
Ronald Reagan anted to “do something” as President.
The current crop of GOP wannabes just want to “be” President.
The current incu
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 16, 2011 @ 10:07 pm - December 16, 2011
Bachmann is who I will be voting for in my state’s primary. I think she only has the slimmest of chances, because, let’s face it, our country is much more misogynistic than it is racist. However I have to vote the way I believe and I think she is the best candidate for the country as a whole.
Comment by MeredithAncret — December 16, 2011 @ 11:12 pm - December 16, 2011
That’s Romneys biggest flaw. He just wants it SOOOO BAAAD, he’ll weave and dodge and change any position to appeal to the IT crowd… Whoever that might be. That said, I still think Romney is a decent guy.
But, as ambitious as The Romster is, turn that up to 11, and you have the delusional “I did not have lobying with that Government agency” Newt.
Comment by Sonicfrog — December 16, 2011 @ 11:21 pm - December 16, 2011
Was listening to some folk today discussing the idea of how poorly Newt is being treated by GOP insiders (particularly inside the beltway), that if he does not get the nomination, he could possibly go rogue. Upsetting the apple cart. . .if you will. The other side of that is that Indie’s might get caught up and float over to Newt. But there was also talk that Paul could also follow the same lead, pending his performance over the next couple of months.
Some say an third party choice or choices could swing either way, favoring either primary party.
So will be an interesting process. and in some ways so, oh so, tired of it.
Comment by rusty — December 17, 2011 @ 12:15 am - December 17, 2011
Interesting how a post I hacked out in a few minutes — and that I don’t think is one of my best — generates so much conversation
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 17, 2011 @ 12:40 am - December 17, 2011
Weird how they do that.
Comment by Sonicfrog — December 17, 2011 @ 11:43 am - December 17, 2011
This has always been a big difference between the GOP and the Dems. If a Republican disagrees with a candidate on one issue, he/she will stay home and not vote at all. However, if a Democrat agrees with his candidate on one issue, he/she will turn out with bells on. Sigh.
Comment by Dottie Laird — December 17, 2011 @ 3:33 pm - December 17, 2011
I think y’all should follow Gingrich’s advice:
thanks
Ghana news

AMNASHARIF22

12:06 PM ET

January 8, 2012

Over the past few years,

Over the past few years, there has been a growing tendency to dub Muslims as terrorists. And leading from the front in this blame game is none other than the superpower, the United States. It is extremely sad that such a tolerant and loving community is being dubbed as behind the terror outfits.

It is gross injustice that the Muslims of this world are being treated as second class. How many of you think that Muslims are behind the terror plots, no matter where they happen? No doubt most of the terror outfits are comprised of Muslims, but is it correct to say that all Muslims are terrorists? If we look at the community as a whole, the Muslims will outnumber almost the rest. Indeed most of the rich nations are Muslim nations.

There are a few misguided youth who have spoilt the spirit of Islam, disturbed the Muslim norms, created havoc in the world, revoked the laws of the land, disturbed peace, affected fraternal relations, and above all marginalised the facets and tenets of the KORAN --the Holy Book-- that has been leading several generations ever since it came into being. It is not just the Muslims that bow before the Koran, I being a non-Muslim, too, bow before the most sacred book, and I have no doubt in saying that millions of non-Muslims treat the Koran as their HOLY BOOK--much like the Geeta of Hindus, the Bible of Christains, and the Guru Granth Sahib Ji of Sikhs. All these sacred, religious books preach their followers fraternity, brotherhood, and love for all --no matter which religion they belong. Wouldn't it have been wonderful, had all of us followed our religion, keeping in mind the sanctity of all other religions?

this is my request to everyone..standby your faith, your religion, your prayer, your worship, your norms, but for God's sake don't use the pious name of God for violence, waging wars, letting bloodshed, diluting sacred human values, massacring men, women, children and old n infirm,---just for the sake of POWER n SUPREMACY over others.

ASK God when, you leave for haven, how correct are those indulging in gross human rights violations just to gain power n prestige just to create dread, fear n havoc in the world.

Muslims are a religious community, who believe in the sanctity n virtues of the Koran n the Prophet --the Great Prophet, who taught them to fight those who kill innocents, to wage a jihad against those who r antihuman-- not against all n sundry..

So, how did Muslims started being dubbed as terrorists? Being a community rich of strength n valor, the powerful Muslim lords saw themselves reaping dividends by ruling over the world. Just this was the beginning...n the rest is history, v much the present--may b d future too.

But can we let the blood of our brethren, n fellow citizens flow like this in suicide bombings, bomb blasts n all such atrocious tactics of the so-called terrorists? The disgruntled few r in a state of dissatisfaction n to satisfy themselves have started waging a war on innocents that they call as jihad. however, they fail to understand that in doing so, they have tarnished the sacred name of ISLAM, n invited criticism from world over..resulting in the world calling the entire Muslim community as associated with terrorists.

For God's sake stop calling Muslims terrorists. They are a community that loves its religion, its God, its Prophet, and upkeep human values. The dissatisfied n misled among them r the real culprits, who need to be justified. I have so many Muslim friends and trust me, they all believe in upkeeping human values, they believe in brotherhood, fraternity, their heart cries at the suicide bombings, their lives r disturbed by terrorist activities. They love humanity, first.

Do you know so many Muslims have died in the suicide bombings and bomb blasts? If the terroists who care so much for their religion, loved their religion n fellow Muslims, will they kill them? Will they place bombs at places where muslims r predominant? will they target muslim locations n habitations?

they have targetted muslim habitations..hyderabad in INDIA is a glaring example, where so many muslims were killed in the blast incide the mosque. such disgruntled elements placed the bombs inside the mosque only to create misunderstanding between different communities so that people fight each other out, which would result in the victory of the terrorists.

A Muslim scholar from Pakistan says: "Our religion teaches us that the murder of an innocent person is the murder of humanity as a whole. "

MUSLIMS r not terrorists. muslims r friends n fellow citizens. please do not mistake such a tolerant community because of a misled few!Over the past few years, there has been a growing tendency to dub Muslims as terrorists. And leading from the front in this blame game is none other than the superpower, the United States. It is extremely sad that such a tolerant and loving community is being dubbed as behind the terror outfits.