Romney: Tightening presidential race 'exciting'
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 6 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
44 Comments
Login to comment
-1
SushiSake3
Has anyone else noticed how conservatives on JT never talk about policies?
JT conservatives never talk about policies because the candidates they support don't have any (besides 'NO!', of course.)
No, conservatives would much rather let their thoughts about who should lead their country into the future be guided by which GOP candidate can spit most on 'mainstream media,' be most pro-life, make disrespectful comebacks at a debate moderator, or who talks junk about 'protecting the border' - **everything except the thing they talk about the most but do absolutely NOTHING about - creating jobs. **
One could almost be forgiven for thinking that conservatives from the top to the bottom don't give a rat's a*se about creating jobs, and let's be honest - they don't.
0
Serrano
"he had asked her to share him with his mistress"
This is ridiculous, Gingrich isn't that much of a wimp, I'm sure he just flat-out told her she would have to share him, lol.
Think this is exciting now? Wait til Cain jumps back in, or, better yet, Palin jumps in!
0
SushiSake3
Serrano - are you talking about the 1st or the 2nd marriage that Newt bailed on for someone else?
0
Serrano
Whichever one you want it to be, Sushi.
0
SushiSake3
Serrano, whatever happened to conservative morals?
Clearly, they are not important.
-1
Serrano
Clearly, Sushi doesn't understand conservatives or conservatism.
2
SushiSake3
Serrano - "Clearly, Sushi doesn't understand conservatives or conservatism."
Serrano, I do clearly understand that despite what conservative principles conservatives may claim to stand for, they clearly don't.
Here's why - and the following are some of the many reasons why the current crop of GOP candidates - Romney, Newt, Santorum - do not deserve anyones' votes. Ditto for all those who dropped out - Cain, Bachmann, etc.
WHY CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY IS BANKRUPT
CONSERVATIVES SAY: They are all for freedom and liberty. CONSERVATIVES DO: Repress womens right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Repress the rights of gay/lesbian couples to enjoy the same rights of marriage as straight couples.
CONSERVATIVES SAY: They want “small government.” CONSERVATIVES DO: Take advantage of all the big government welfare and services they possibly can: Social Security, MedicAid, MediCare, Federally funded and built highway systems, military, policing, CIA, etc.
CONSERVATIVES SAY: They like free markets. CONSERVATIVES DO: Quickly sign up for big government-funded welfare when the same free markets destroy and/or ship their jobs to China.
CONSERVATIVES SAY: They demand freedom of speech. CONSERVATIVES DO: Decry the same freedom of speech when someone critticizes them or their country in a way they do not understand or cannot accept.
CONSERVATIVES SAY: They support freedom of religion. CONSERVATIVES DO: Decry the same freedom of religion when it means Christian festivals and doctrine are removed from school curriculums.
Really, what DO conservatives stand for?
It seems extremely clear that conservatives in general do not put their money where their mouths are, which is one of the many reasons Americans arent' buying their fatally flawed doctrine.
0
SushiSake3
[From the article] - "Romney remains the lukewarm leading candidate whose past stances on abortion and other social issues have failed to win the passion of the party’s more conservative members."
Supports my point from my previous post.
0
Laguna
Nice that Newt's doing well, if only because more details are desired regarding this "sharing" deal. For example, was he planning on, say, alternating weekends, or would he take on his wife and mistress at the same time?
The people need to know.
0
pointofview
Serrano - "Clearly, Sushi doesn't understand conservatives or conservatism."
Serrano, I do clearly understand that despite what conservative principles conservatives may claim to stand for, they clearly don't.
Here's why - and the following are some of the many reasons why the current crop of GOP candidates - Romney, Newt, Santorum - do not deserve anyones' votes. Ditto for all those who dropped out - Cain, Bachmann, etc.
WHY CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY IS BANKRUPT
CONSERVATIVES SAY: They are all for freedom and liberty. CONSERVATIVES DO: Repress womens right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Repress the rights of gay/lesbian couples to enjoy the same rights of marriage as straight couples.
CONSERVATIVES SAY: They want “small government.” CONSERVATIVES DO: Take advantage of all the big government welfare and services they possibly can: Social Security, MedicAid, MediCare, Federally funded and built highway systems, military, policing, CIA, etc.
CONSERVATIVES SAY: They like free markets. CONSERVATIVES DO: Quickly sign up for big government-funded welfare when the same free markets destroy and/or ship their jobs to China.
CONSERVATIVES SAY: They demand freedom of speech. CONSERVATIVES DO: Decry the same freedom of speech when someone critticizes them or their country in a way they do not understand or cannot accept.
CONSERVATIVES SAY: They support freedom of religion. CONSERVATIVES DO: Decry the same freedom of religion when it means Christian festivals and doctrine are removed from school curriculums.
Really, what DO conservatives stand for?
It seems extremely clear that conservatives in general do not put their money where their mouths are, which is one of the many reasons Americans arent' buying their fatally flawed doctrine. **
Sounds like you are cheering for Ron Paul.
3
Virtuoso
When I see "conservative" politicians on the stump, I'm reminded of the good old days before civil rights, when demagogues like George C. Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent the University of Alabama from accepting a black student. No matter what sort of obfuscations they use to clutter their rationale, in the end it all comes down to the old canard of "states rights." Those odious yahoos in the CNN audience at the debate in S.C., with their jeering, whooping and hollering, sent a chill down my spine. Its obvious that they loathe being part of the USA and won't be happy until the Confederate States of America is back in business.
0
TorafusuTorasan
I do have a question about the South Carolina primary: what is up with Stephen Colbert's rally with Herman Cain? Are either of those guys for real?
-1
RomeoR
SS3:
Nice 12:48 rant.
However in the future, if you are going to poach others' ideas, be sure to give them credit:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/conservatisms-bankrupt-and?xg_source=activity
RR
0
Laguna
Stephen Colbert is currently running for President of South Carolina, so it's a different kind of thing.
-1
RomeoR
Uh, Virtuoso, you do know that Wallace was a democrat.
RR
1
SushiSake3
Romeo - thanks for that link. I've never seen that site before.
Also good to see you agree conservatism is bankrupt. That's at least one thing you and I can agree on.
0
SushiSake3
Romeo, it's also pretty telling that you apparently have nothing whatsoever to say about my spiel besides calling it a 'rant.'
Really, there isn't much to say about something so indefensible.
-2
plasticmonkey
It's entirely appropriate that this GOP identity crisis is playing itself out in South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies proudly. The battle of this presidential race really is about the relationship between government and the people who it represents. The nation is divided by this, and it has been carried over unresolved since the Civil War. On the one hand there is the legacy of the founding fathers and their belief in the power of rationalism and the potential of government as a unifying locus in which there is dialogue about the greater good of the nation. On the other hand, there is a strong tradition, particularly born of the South, that exhibits a strong distrust of educated elites and the power of collective intellect to solve problems. These people rely on the perceived superiority of their own provincial cultural identity as a moral arbiter of who has and who has not. Let the "best" man win, and by whatever means, even if that means blacks at the back of the bus or more toxic waste into the Gulf. Keep the government off the big man's back (unless it's on the losing end). It is no surprise that the South with its Machiavellian traditions continues to exert disproportionate influence in the military, that Jim Crow laws are being resurrected to protect the frightened white man in South Carolina, or that Gingrich can woo these people with his cynical burlesque of intellectualism.
0
sailwind
Really, what DO conservatives stand for?
The difference between a Liberal's world view and a Conservatives world view.
There is a Pulitzer prize winning book called "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. Set in the Battle of Gettysburg during the U.S civil war. Lt Colonel Josh Chamberlain and his Sergeant Buster Kilrain. There is a monologue that they have between them talking about race and freedom and it encapsulates both the Liberal world view and the Conservative world view and the real difference of opinion in the two between the affairs of man and Governance in a way that transcends anything I could write.
Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain: Tell me something, Buster... What do you think of Negroes?
Sergeant 'Buster' Kilrain: Well, if you mean the race, I don't really know. This is not a thing to be ashamed of. The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time.
Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain: You see to me there was never any difference.
Sergeant 'Buster' Kilrain: None at all?
Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain: None at all. Of course, I haven't known that many freed men... But those I knew in Bangor, Portland... You look in the eye, there was a man. There was a "divine spark," as my mother used to call it. That is all there is to it. Races are men. "What a piece of work is man. How infinite in faculties and form, and movement... How express and admirable. In action how like an angel.
Sergeant 'Buster' Kilrain: Well, if he's an angel, all right then... But he damn well must be a killer angel. Colonel, darling, you're a lovely man. I see a vast great difference between us, yet I admire you, lad. You're an idealist, praise be. The truth is, Colonel... There is no "divine spark". There's many a man alive no more of value than a dead dog. Believe me. When you've seen them hang each other the way I have back in the Old Country. Equality? What I'm fighting for is to prove I'm a better man than many of them. Where have you seen this "divine spark" in operation, Colonel? Where have you noted this magnificent equality? No two things on Earth are equal or have an equal chance. Not a leaf, not a tree. There's many a man worse than me, and some better... But I don't think race or country matters a damn. What matters, Colonel... Is justice. Which is why I'm here. I'll be treated as I deserve, not as my father deserved. I'm Kilrain... And I damn all gentlemen. There is only one aristocracy... And that is right here. [points to his head]
Sergeant 'Buster' Kilrain: And that's why we've got to win this war.
0
Virtuoso
RomeoR@Nice try. Surely you also know Wallace walked away from the Democratic party in 1968, when he ran for president with Curtis LeMay as his running mate, spltting the ticket that put Nixon in the White House and turned the south solidly Republican.
0
unreconstructed
. Nice try, virtuoso. In 68 Wallace went independent. But he campaigned as a Dem in 72 and 76. Wallace's fellow Democrat Carter won it all in 76, carrying even that supposedly solid Republican south....
0
Laguna
Thanks for the literary lesson, Sailwind. I particularly like this line:
It reminds me a bit of Rick santorum:
and also Newt Gingrich:
Some can't seem to expand towards seeing the individual: They view race as a group and tend to stereotype each individual as such. The result is that an individual may not be considered as such - as a person such as one's self, whose opinions are perhaps different from one's own but are a result of shared experiences and common history and are thus at least accessible via empathy - but instead is something "foreign," beyond cognition: An object to be studied.
Enter Newt again:
So thank you again, Sailwind, for your outstanding literary expose of how the modern Republican Party is dominated by "pea-wits."
Finally,
One might what would have become of GWB if his father hadn't been president (or even GHB, if HIS father hadn't been a powerful senator); or of whether Romney could have risen beyond purveyor of private capital if his father had not been a former presidential candidate. Obama, at least, got where he is despite his name, not because of it.
-1
unreconstructed
plastic monkey
Uh, plastic, the currrent governor of SC is a woman, and she ain't even "white. "You do know this, yes?
When was it otherwise?
.
The modern Left in America basically despises the FF for both their race and for championing rationalism.Logic and rationalism, for most post-modernists, are merely handmaidens to power, which the Left sees as evil, as long as it eludes them that is. Where you been the last 25 years?
.
Unlike the 'Liberals' on the coasts, eh?
I'm sorry, but do you have anything more current than stereotypes from the 60s?
.
Jim Crow laws are being resurrected ? Examples , please. You are trying to take readers here into a realm of hysterical unadulterated lunacy now. Those of us who , like yourself, grew up outside the South know from history book photos that the laws you speak of (crafted by Democrats, plastic) governed even things as mundane but personal as restroom access; they mandated separate drinking fountains. Pause for a minute to consider how big and intrusive government has to be to enforce such policies. There is only one party in America today that could be capable of resurrecting Jim Crow, and it ain't Gingrich's...
0
unreconstructed
Nonsense. Obama admitted he was a beneficiary of affirmative action.
0
Laguna
The author continues:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/barack-obama-affirmative-actions-best-poster-child/237990/
Obama received nothing more than he would have naturally received if he had been born a Romney or a Bush. Affirmative action does not always work, but as the author points out, when it does, it really does.
-3
unreconstructed
He never published a single thing. He was the first pres of HLR not to be asked to clerk for a judge. He's a fraud.
-4
unreconstructed
" One might [wonder?] what would have become of GWB if his father hadn't been president (or even GHB, if HIS father hadn't been a powerful senator); or of whether Romney could have risen beyond purveyor of private capital if his father had not been a former presidential candidate. Obama, at least, got where he is despite his name, not because of it "
I find it funny that progs, constantly telling themselves and anyone who'll listen that conservatives "reject " science, fail to notice that in politics as well genes do count for something, and that heredity is a factor in this area of life. Fact is the Bushes , the Walkers and apparently also the Romneys are, in comparison with the rest of us, above average in any number of those capacities which confer conspicuous advantage over their fellow Americans.
0
Laguna
You are wrong there. He was the first president of HLR not to SEEK to clerk for a judge. Look it up: It is not what he wanted to do. (And I empathize: I was the only member of my graduating class in economics not to go on to an MBA or a career in banking.)
A more thorough understanding of what the presidency of the HLR comprises and how Obama fulfilled that role can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html?ei=5088&en=bed3e016d07394c2&ex=1327640400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1212207297-AT4u8n1L5i/2UmNHQuCUCA
0
Laguna
Wow. Anthropometry? Or just better breeding?
-2
plasticmonkey
@unreconstructed: I was not talking about which party the governor of SC belongs to, nor about her race, nor about which party is more racist. I was referring to a clash of ideologies (yes, perennial) that has recently become particularly exaggerated, and seems to have been bred from a historical conflict between North and South. It is more cultural than political, which is why neither party has had a monopoly on enlightenment or ignorance.
Which is why the modern left hates white intellectuals like Noam Chomsky so much, right? I know a combo of hot-button words is supposed to sound good when spouted by drive-by media pundits like Limbaugh, Hannity, or Gingrich, but I always suspected that even you had more sense than to try to pass the above off as a coherent or supportable statement.
You know what I'm talking about, and you know the motivation of those behind the legislation.
Segregating blacks from whites was not the result of big government policy. It was any easy policy to enact and enforce because it rode together with a culture of bigotry. The common white Southerner encouraged government discrimination against blacks, and eagerly carried out the law (and sometimes surpassed it). In the same way that many Christian evangelicals today favor a smaller government role in taxing their earnings, but a larger government role in making sure gays can't get married or terminal cancer patients can't smoke dope.
0
TheQuestion
When the debates started my one wish was that Perry and Santorum would go away, and it half came true. Cain and Huntsman were doomed from the start despite Cains early appeal. At the time I figured Newt would just troll the primaries until he got bored and went to go do...whatever he does in his spare time I guess.
The only thing that stops me from wanting Newt to leave is the fact that he's just fun to watch in a debate. I certainly wouldn't want him as president but he knows exactly what will hurt the other candidates the most, he's like Romney's personal trainer for the general election.
If this were to go down to just Romney, Gingrich, and Paul I'd be happy. Romney's going to win the primary but I'll be casting my vote for Paul, thank God for Michigan open primaries. The greatest victory I can see coming out of this primary would be for Paul's message to really get pushed into the main stream, something most media outlets have been resisting at all cost, so that we can start electing officials that will work to enhance freedom, not curtail or corrupt it as has been the case for the past 12 years. I'll take freedom and opportunity over security and mock stability every single time.
0
sailwind
LFR,
*They view race as a group and tend to stereotype each individual as such. *
Just as you do to all Republicans.
No two things on Earth are equal or have an equal chance. Not a leaf, not a tree. There's many a man worse than me, and some better... But I don't think race or country matters a damn. What matters, Colonel... Is justice. Which is why I'm here. I'll be treated as I deserve, not as my father deserved. I'm Kilrain... And I damn all gentlemen. There is only one aristocracy... And that is right here. [points to his head]
You didn't mention this part.
-1
sailwind
I'm pretty sure he didn't get an "A" in his economics class. But I wouldn't know seeing how he has pretty much kept his grades top secret.
0
Laguna
Yeah, sailwind, it's beautiful and it's true, and I do thank you for bringing that prose to my attention.
When I generalize of Republicans, however, I do so in quotes: there exists a summary of historical fact, buttressed by what current candidates utter, that lies at the base of my claims.
I ask you, honestly, would you accept this statement:
or:
Honestly, prejudice is a human frailty. It is also easy to target candidates in a primary, when they are both required to assume positions they are not comfortable with and simultaneously under attack from their own brethren. We Democrats are enjoying this now, just as you Republicans would be if it were a Democratic primary.
Truth does exist beneath and apart from partisanship, though, as I believe you believe. What is emanating from the Republican primaries is nothing but the truth: it is obfuscation and downright brazen lying. This is why whoever emerges from the primaries will lose to Obama, and this is the beauty of the American democratic system: it is messy and ugly, but it prevents (usually - the previous president was an exception) really bad people from coming to office.
0
YuriOtani
Gingrich is the perfect example of the Right wing male hypocrite. Talks the talk but his past shows his true nature. Wonders if he is in an open marriage now? Lose morals and a liar, he is something else. Supporters of him are using doublething to the extreme.
1
yabits
It certainly does. Seeking out truth will always demand that one change and progress to higher and higher truths. (This is one of the bedrock assumptions of the liberal philosophy.)
In the little story, Kilrain didn't see any unifying "equality" -- just superficial differences. The highest truths of the major religions all point to a "one-ness" of all things despite of those differences. But just because he can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
I think you meant "anything." And you'd be right. When you live in a purely superficial world, all "truth" is malleable and subject to -- what do conservatives call it? -- situational expediencies. Truth to them, after all, is just a thing to play with to attain one's goals.
-1
yabits
How accepting would he be of it if Callista presented to him as an ultimatum. My sense is that he's a total hypocrite who'd use his perverted powers of reason to conclude she was doing him all wrong -- unless, that is, he already had something on the side that he felt was better.
0
YuriOtani
yabits, can not agree with you more.
-3
The Truth Matters
Yeah and your degree from the Devry Institute really stacks in comparison. Jealousy is an ugly emotion.
0
The Truth Matters
So the republicans are looking at it boiling down to a serial philanderer and ethics violator or a guy who makes sticking to his guns look as easy as nailing jello to a tree in Singapore in August at 2 p.m. using a wrench as a hammer. Oh yeah, and he made a fortune by firing other people. He likes it!
Don't bother with packing Mr. President. You're not going anywhere for the next 4 1/2 years.
0
sailwind
I ask you, honestly, would you accept this statement:
Yes but I would include all people not just white folks.
I'm with this old evil white guy on this.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” ― Benjamin Franklin
-1
unreconstructed
Truthermatters
That rapier wit.
I am slain.
0
unreconstructed
Jim Crow laws are being resurrected ? Examples , please.
No, I don't.
You have made a ridiculous assertion. Can you back it up? Specifically, in what southern states are the Democrat Party's former, all too familiar assaults on individual liberty being "resurrected" ?
I would be most curious to know. I mean, you are talking about an absolute bombshell issue there, plastic. Biggest story of the decade if ya ask me. Don' keep us hangin. Who is the new George Wallace (Democrat)? Who is the new Bull Connor (also a Democrat) down there???
0
Wolfpack
There is no way to know whether President Obama received more undeserved benefits than a rich person may have. Affirmative action is designed to be discriminatory against whites in favor of primarily blacks, other minorities, and lastly white women. The use of preference is hidden to the greatest extent possible. It is well known that college professors are mostly liberal, in favor of affirmative action, and apply a different standard to their students based on their race. President Obama will not release his college grades or his SAT scores. If they were public, a comparison could be made and a determination could could be made as to whether he deserved the benefits he received.
Accepting legacy applicants to college does not automatically infer that the person is not as academically qualified as the average student. For blacks accepted via affirmative action, it is by definition an unearned benefit. What's more, other blacks that of qualify based on their own merits will always be suspected of getting an undeserved advantage. So now we have the situation where President Obama's children will be given preference over say, a poor white man from Appalachia. It is nonsensical and in the end - immoral.
What made the last primary in South Carolina so "exciting" was the battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama. The Clinton campaign played the race card and got slapped down for it. I suspect that the Clinton's did not feel that the inexperienced and untested Obama deserved to be given preference over Hillary.
Back to top