@ Master: Thats a better question, which is worse, Pelosi or Palin?

@ Jamie "American Exceptionalism"..."an extension of the earlier idea of Manifest Destiny, and basically derives from the bullshit idea that the USA is god's chosen land to lead the free world, etc."

Yes Jamie your first part was mostly right about Manifest Destiny, however your argument doesnt develop instead it transfers into a religous and derogative tone based in no given facts.

American Exceptionalism simply is the thought that America has more oppurtunity and freedoms than the "old western world" or Europe of the 17-20 century (Debatable idea but I agree). As an American that is a good thing, and shows how we were the first modern democracy. People who believe in this are not assholes but nationalistic. Not saying they cant be assholes also.

To me that is what I would want from EVERYONE in my government, Romney, Palin, Pelosi, Obama (even though the last two dont believe in it). I would also want them to be smart enough to understand how the world turns outside America, but believe that America was the first and is now the last greatest hope for Democracy worldwide.

If you scraped Ronald Reagan's dead uterus, you'd get Mitt Romney. He's like a cheap chinese knock-off of an already bad design.

And here's a newsflash: it doesn't matter who gets elected, The Agenda will go forward. Like Bill Hicks said, here's politics in America: "I like the puppet on the right. Well, I think the puppet on the left shares my beliefs. Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets! Go back to bed America, your government is under control."

@PettyOfficer: "People who believe in this are not assholes but nationalistic."

In my opinion most people with strong nationalistic views are assholes.

Where did I put my brown shirt?

Unfortunately, you have to stretch the definition of Democracy waaaay out of shape to fit American government in there. I love America and am grateful every day that I was born here, but we don't exactly have a democracy. Representational Federalist Oligarchy... is not the same as democracy. When was the last time anyone voted on an issue? No, you vote for people who vote on issues. Big difference.

"In my opinion most people with strong nationalistic views are assholes."

Yeah, I have to agree here. =)

Adversary, the logistics of a full on democracy of 300 million people voting on every issue is absurd. That said, I'd much rather be governed by rule of law than by rule of the majority.

I agree with TheGhostmaker, Ron Paul would be the best choice, unfortunately his chance of winning is very small. But you people are overlooking the two candidates who are most likely to be forerunners come the primaries:

Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty. (I say Pawlenty, but they are both good).

Also in respect to conservative politicians, Adversary has no idea what the hell he is talking about (In reference to his comment about Regan and Romney).

Way to back up your argument, Kool.

Chrispminis, aha! See, you actually thought to yourself, "Yeah, we don't vote on issues... How would we do that? Gee, 300 million people would make that difficult, if not impossible." And just like that, democracy is dead again. And bottom line, it doesn't matter what you would "rather", you will take what you are given because you are powerless to affect change. So am I. So are we all... right?

Hunt49r's comment led me to google Peter Schiff, being under the impression that he was just a stock broker and economist.

Time to celebrate that Peter Schiff is running for the senate!


RE Nationalistic tendencies, it kinda depends on the nation you choose. I could probably be described as, to a large extent, an American Nationalist, despite not being an American!

I'm a Huckabee fan! He is a solid conservative with no notions of political elitism, a man who is scandal-free, a proven politician, a good thinker, and a good person.

@zrallo, Huckabee has some charm - getting cheered loudly at the Jon Stewart show, for example... but he is not without scandal. There have been several cases where he made very questionable pardons of violent criminals who committed again. Maurice Clemmons and Wayne DuMond are two well known examples. Apparently (according to former staff) all you needed to do was claim that Jesus saved you - preferably while you were working at the governor's mansion (which favored prisoners did) and he'd tend to take pity on you and grant a pardon. Especially in light of Maurice Clemmons raping a minor and killing four police officers in cold blood after being pardoned expect this to be an issue for Huckabee should he run.

True, i did hear about this.. however, i am slow to blame the actions of the prisoners pardoned by Huckabee on him instead of those who comitted the crimes. In at least one of those cases, I believe the parole board of the state was unanimous in advocating pardoning, and the original trial judge had advocated clemency as well.. i am not sure about the other one

the thought of sarah palin in office still scares the shit out of me

"Thats a better question, which is worse, Pelosi or Palin?"

Pelosi. Palin isn't evil, she's just an idiot who is ruining conservatism. It wasn't hard for Obama to win, considering Palin was on the other ticket. All he had to do was remind people of her 47 IQ.

Adversary + 1

@Adversary - Reagan and Romney do bear similarities, but Romney is very different in both his consistency (or lack thereof) of real tangible conservative ideology and his ability to convey conservatism in an appealing fashion.

Romney has been known to flop on issues that are important to "the base" come primary times. He was never one to oppose abortion until it became politically necessary, and his views on health care are impossible to nail down. It should also be noted that he enacted a quasi-public health care system in Massachusetts while he was Governor, something very out of tune with American "conservative" ideology.

And to really get to the heart of this thread, it matters to the electorate that Romney is a mormon, I personally think that is his biggest struggle (though it is a silent one) in the primaries.

@ Kap --

I'd happily take a Mormon over someone who sat in Rev. Wright's church for five years. <cough Obama cough>

Has America ever had an atheist president?

No, no atheist presidents, although there are many atheist congressmen.

Well, then it's about time.

Romney has a problem with the grassroots right wing and tea party organizations, he is considered the big business/RNC brass GOP candidate and his Massachusetts health care program is not dissimilar to obama health care program, coupled with him being a mormon to scare off the white evangelicals he could find his road through the primaries tough going.
Jindal might make a good " hey we like racial diversity, we arent all old white guys" VP candidate but he is a bit too much like Dan Quayle to go the whole way.
Palin- as a presidential candidate she is a sure bet to get obama reelected, the grass roots my support her but heavyweights in the GOP hierarchy will sabotage her going to the top of the ticket, that said she would make a good VP candidate from a fund raising and bringing out the base point of view(not from a policy or know anything about anything point of view!)
Huckabee- likable, Christian Evangelical support but maybe lacking in the economics field, and after bush the electorate might be done with "i cant explain it but i feel god supports my way" types.
Newt Gingirch?

@ sean- I agree that Huckabee is very likable and maybe if he was paired to someone more economically sound (Schiff or Paul are 2 of my favs. :P) either as Pres or VP. He could easily draw most of the Christian republicans, and is a lot more intelligent then Palin. :D

I would bet we've had atheists presidents before, just ones smart enough not to admit it. Many people who claim to be religious do so by rote... if they actually examined what they believe, they'd have to send themselves to their non-existent hell.

@ Jamiet- Just because someone claims to be religious doesn't mean they are. I'm sure there have been atheists presidents before, that just claim to be Christian to get some extra votes. The majority of the population claims to be Christian, so they have to adjust their views in order to get some support.

I personally don't think that their personal beliefs are all that important, because it has little to do with how well they can run a country.

Too slow Hunter

dang, lol

I saw an argument saying that if nothing shakes up the race before the primary and Palin is running, she will win. She kind of cuts off the other candidates at the knees in different ways.

Palin/Bachman!

@ Dingle / Hunter49r: "Just because someone claims to be religious doesn't mean they are."

Ok, fair comment. What I should have said is:

It's about time America had a president who's not a hypocrite.

....but that's probably impossible.