2012 US General Election Discussions: Start to Finish

[Kobi]

Five months riding into the GOP nomination race on a wave of enthusiasm, Gov. Rick Perry will be moseying back to Texas, CNN reports, breaking the story. He is expected to hold a presser at 11 a.m. during which he drop out of the race on the eve of the South Carolinian primary and throw his weight behind fellow anti-Romney Newt Gingrich, acccording to Politico. Like Jon Huntsman who dropped out himself two days ago, Perry's flailing candidacy had fallen behind that of comedian Stephen Colbert in Public Policy Polling's numbers in South Carolina released yesterday. Perry decided to stay in the race after coming in fifth in the Iowa caucus (announced via one of his two Twitter, both of which are current silent on the dropping out as of now.) Perry's dropping out comes after a week of calls from his once-strong supporters -- including South Caroline State Sen. Larry Grooms and Red State editor Erick Erickson -- to call it quits and "start his image rehab now by becoming a 'kingmaker' in the GOP race," reports The Daily Beast's Patricia Murphy. And in choosing to endorse Gingrich, he's appeasing conservative leaders wishing to stall Mitt Romney, as The Wall Street Journal reports. "Some conservative leaders, aiming to stop the momentum of Mitt Romney, had urged Mr. Perry to bow out and to help rally conservative voters around another candidate—Newt Gingrich or former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum."

Update 10:19 a.m.: Politico reports that it wasn't just his backers, but the Gingrich team itself, that has been lobbying Perry quit the race before the South Carolina primary to give a boost to Newt. 'Gingrich had been assiduously lobbying Perry officials in recent days," Politico writes. "The former House speaker has repeatedly texted Perry manager Joe Allbaugh." CNN reports that both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have "reached out to Perry asking for his backing in the race for the GOP presidential nomination" without confirming (as Politico has) that Perry had decided to back Gingrich.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...esident/47601/

[Kobi]

ABC News reportedly plans to air a "potentially explosive" interview with Newt Gingrich's second ex-wife Marianne, just two days before the South Carolina primary and hours after tonight's CNN Republican debate. Matt Drudge first reported that the interview with ABC's Brian Ross was "set to rock the trail," but that the decision about when and if to air it had set off an "ethical" debate inside the network, with some execs questioning whether it should be shown so close to the primary.

The AP and The New York Times both report that there was indeed some disagreement, but that ABC has decided to air the interview on Nightline on Thursday night, with excerpts being released earlier in the evening, before the scheduled GOP debate on CNN at 8:00 p.m. ET. However, as of this morning there's no mention of the interview anywhere on ABCNews.com or the Nightline website. (Ironically, there is an AP report republished on the site, but it's not linked from the front pages.)

Howard Kurtz at The Daily Beast concurred with the Drudge and AP stories, but adds that Marianne Gingrich does not say anything in the new interview that she hasn't said in the past. However, her most prominent previous comments were given in this 2010 interview with Esquire magazine, one that we're sure a lot of voters haven't read. Even if they had (and already forgot about it), there's a big difference between a year-old print interview and fresh TV sound bites two days before a big voting day.

While that interview also didn't reveal much in the way of scandal or new revelations, it was certainly unflattering to the candidate, as one of the people closest to the "real Newt" talked in great detail about his affairs and divorces, and his sometimes bizarre and unexplainable behavior. One particularly stinging quote from the interview was, “He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected." Gingrich divorced Marianne to marry his current wife, Callista, who he was having an affair with at the same time he was leading the impeachment fight against Bill Clinton.

The Gingrich campaign quickly jumped on the defensive, with one advisor calling Marianne "bitter" and adding that “It is pretty nasty to use personal tragedy for political exploitation.” They also pre-emptively released a statement from Gingrich's daughters saying the divorce was "a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events," but that if ABC wants to talk about the past, "Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...ex-wife/47591/

[Soon]

Newt Gingrich: Doing Monogamish All Wrong

Newt Gingrich, defender of traditional marriage, was still married to his second wife—and still fucking the living shit consecrated host out of Callista, then his "devout Catholic" mistress, now his "devout Catholic" third wife —when he asked his second wife for an open marriage:

Marianne Gingrich, a self-described conservative Republican, said she is coming forward now so voters can know what she knows about Gingrich. In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an "open marriage" arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife. She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.... "He wanted an open marriage and I refused." Marianne described her "shock" at Gingrich's behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista "in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington."

Technically you're not asking your wife for an open marriage if you've already been fucking another woman for six years. You're presenting your wife with an ultimatum. That doesn't make you a proponent of open marriage, Newt, it makes you a CPOS.

But Newt's got a new campaign slogan: "Screw as I say, not as I screw."

And then there's this:

She said Newt moved for the divorce just months after she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, with her then-husband present. "He also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress. He knew," she said. Gingrich divorced his first wife, Jackie, as she was being treated for cancer. His relationship with Marianne began while he was still married to Jackie but in divorce proceedings, Marianne said.
So, Callista, how's your health?

[Gentle Tiger]

Anyone surprised that Republicans have been quiet about the counting error in Iowa? No one upset or concerned? No one? What a shock! Be bewhee, bewhee quiet. Apparently concern and efforts should be around making sure that government issued id is required in order to vote in the presidential election coming up.

Either you care about voting fraud and making sure the process is accurate or you don't.

I think the 2012 Presidential Election will be interesting this year on many levels. And can you imagine a Romney-Santorum or Gingrich-Palin ticket? What? Did that hurt your brain?

[Corkey]

Iowa's caucus rep party chairman can't even say with certainty who won the damn caucus. 8 precincts are... "missing". This is what's called voter fraud. They have done it to themselves.

[Gentle Tiger]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Iowa's caucus rep party chairman can't even say with certainty who won the damn caucus. 8 precincts are... "missing". This is what's called voter fraud. They have done it to themselves.

Right?! "Missing" They don't really know what happened. So how are they going to address the problem so that nothing is "missing" in November? They think part of the problem has to do with a form not being submitted for some of the precincts.

Interesting indeed.

[Cin]

Mr. 1 Percent snaps at a 99 percenter

As Gingrich scores with race-baiting, Romney tries redbaiting, telling a voter, America's right and you're wrong!""
By Joan Walsh

Sometimes Mitt Romney’s animatronic persona can be a political liability. It’s why the story of strapping his dog Seamus to the top of the family car for a 12-hour drive continues to, well, dog him: Who could be that callous? But most of the time I’d argue it’s a virtue, especially in a farcical GOP campaign that Paul Krugman calls the “FOF primary,” for “fools and frauds.” The moderately intelligent Romney rarely seems rattled by the insanity around him; he goes through the meet and greet motions day after day, knowing his piles of money will eventually tumble out of a dump truck and crush his rivals. His stoic mien also helps Romney lie with impunity.

But Thursday we saw a different Mitt Romney, a man apparently rattled by Newt Gingrich’s rise in the South Carolina polls. Romney’s troubles have partly to do with Gingrich’s nonpareil race-baiting, but they’re also about an unfolding story line that depicts the man from Bain Capital, destroyer of jobs, dodger of taxes, as the perfect frontman for the top 1 percent in a time of rising (and long overdue) national concern with economic inequality. So when a man on a rope line outside Romney headquarters in Charleston asked him today, “What will you do to support the 99 percent even though you are part of the 1 percent?” Mitt snapped. He sounded a little more Chris Christie than Richie Rich, which is what so many of his GOP friends have been urging, but I’m not sure it’s going to play well. Here’s what he said, his face getting redder as he closed:

Lemme tell ya something. America is a great nation, because we’re a united nation and those who are trying to divide the nation as you’re trying to do here and as the president is doing are hurting this country, seriously. The right course for America is not to divide America, and try and divide us between one and another, it’s for us to come together as a nation. And if you’ve got a better model, if you think China is better, or Russia is better, or Cuba’s better, or North Korea’s better, I’m glad to hear all about it. But you know what? America’s right, and you’re wrong!

On MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell praised Romney for sounding “Reaganesque,” which left Ron Fournier aghast. “I’d say he built a straw man. That protester didn’t say he thought Cuba and Russia had a better economic system, what he said was that Romney’s part of the 1 percent, and which is true. Romney talked about the politics that divide, the fact is, it’s not politics that divides us, we are divided. There is a huge and growing gap between the rich and the middle class and the poor – and by the way, that’s an anxiety shared by blue-collar Republicans and blue-collar Democrats.”

They’re both right. Romney did sound Reaganesque – the nasty, bitter Reagan who was California’s governor more than the genial “morning in America” president most people remember (although both Reagans could play the politics of resentment when they had to). But I’d say he was more Nixon than Reagan. And that redbaiting, wow. “America’s right, and you’re wrong” is just as angry and divisive as “America, love it or leave it.” Fournier’s commonsense answer also ought to remind working-class fence-sitters that even supposed GOP populists like Chris Christie actually carry water for guys like Richie Rich. It really shouldn’t matter if you sound like Christie but push policies that enrich the Romneys. The South Carolina primary keeps getting more interesting.

Still, I stand behind my post last night refusing to take this new Gingrich surge seriously. For establishment Republicans, this second Newt surge has to feel like acid reflux; there is no way the thrice-married, disgraced House speaker will ever be president. But let’s give a hand to Rick Perry, who bumbled his way out of the race the way he bumbled through it, handing his endorsement to Gingrich on the very same morning Newt’s second wife told ABC News that he asked her for an open marriage so he could go on romancing his mistress Callista without the political stain of another divorce. You might say Perry was trying to help his buddy distract the media from the Marianne story. You would be wrong.

Poor Rick Santorum. Mr. blue-collar family values from Pennsylvania keeps getting jilted for the Tiffany’s-shopping serial adulterer from Georgia. Even the news that he actually won Iowa comes too late to produce another Santorum surge. (Sorry.) He’s probably under enormous pressure to follow Perry out the door, but on Thursday he looked too angry to consider that. It’s down to Romney and Gingrich in South Carolina.

You can watch the video here:
http://news.salon.com/2012/01/19/wat..._99_percenter/

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Iowa's caucus rep party chairman can't even say with certainty who won the damn caucus. 8 precincts are... "missing". This is what's called voter fraud. They have done it to themselves.

And every 4 years there is all the hoopla about Iowa! The straw poll and the caucus- all the media coverage on the "first" state to actually caste votes. Millions of dollars spent in the state and all the nutty predictions about it and who nominees will be- and they can't actually say who the freakin' winner is?

I think there should be some kind of rotational system for primaries for both parties.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Newt Gingrich: Doing Monogamish All Wrong

Newt Gingrich, defender of traditional marriage, was still married to his second wife—and still fucking the living shit consecrated host out of Callista, then his "devout Catholic" mistress, now his "devout Catholic" third wife —when he asked his second wife for an open marriage:

Marianne Gingrich, a self-described conservative Republican, said she is coming forward now so voters can know what she knows about Gingrich. In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an "open marriage" arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife. She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.... "He wanted an open marriage and I refused." Marianne described her "shock" at Gingrich's behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista "in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington."

Technically you're not asking your wife for an open marriage if you've already been fucking another woman for six years. You're presenting your wife with an ultimatum. That doesn't make you a proponent of open marriage, Newt, it makes you a CPOS.

But Newt's got a new campaign slogan: "Screw as I say, not as I screw."

And then there's this:

She said Newt moved for the divorce just months after she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, with her then-husband present. "He also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress. He knew," she said. Gingrich divorced his first wife, Jackie, as she was being treated for cancer. His relationship with Marianne began while he was still married to Jackie but in divorce proceedings, Marianne said.
So, Callista, how's your health?

Newt has a way about booking on wives that develop serious illnesses. First one had cancer and the second, the MS. Good question to ask Callista! Although, she is over 20 years younger than he is (trophy wife) - he probably thought the age difference might predict her staying healthy longer, I guess.

it is interesting to me however, that Callista is always with him- and they were doing all the book tours together as well as the election. perhaps she decided to keep a good eye on him! Ugh, I fail to see what is attractive about him. Maybe it is the power and $ thing. Callista does like those Tiffany's diamonds!

[AtLast]

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/20...ows-support-b/

The best thing about the GOP primary season is Stephen Colbert!!!

[Kobi]

Was reading an editorial this week about the USA as a republic, not a democracy, and why the founders did this. Important stuff.



An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:

"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."

It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.

[UofMfan]

Rick Santorum officially declared the Iowa winner.

Mitt Romney won New Hampshire.

New Gringrich wins South Carolina.


No wonder this happened:



I would be singing too Mr. President