Hannity and Colmes left unchallenged Huckabee's inconsistent statements on distribution of anti-Romney ad
SUMMARY: On the January 1 Hannity & Colmes, Mike Huckabee discussed a campaign advertisement attacking Mitt Romney that Huckabee said he decided not to air, claiming: "I don't know how you obtained that copy [of the ad] because we didn't give it to anybody. We had a box of CDs of them. We gave them to no one. We showed it in that room for those reporters, and the only way they could have gotten it would be to tape it, I guess, off a camera from the screen." But during a December 31 press conference, Huckabee himself said that his campaign had sent the ad to television stations, telling reporters, "We prepared it, sent it to the stations. It was supposed to start running at noon today." Moreover, Colmes himself had reported that "Fox News exclusively obtained a clean copy of the Huckabee attack ad that he ordered pulled earlier today." Yet neither Sean Hannity nor Alan Colmes challenged Huckabee's assertions.
During an appearance on the January 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee discussed a campaign advertisement attacking opponent Mitt Romney, which he said he decided not to air, and claimed, "I don't know how you obtained that copy [of the ad] because we didn't give it to anybody. We had a box of CDs of them. We gave them to no one. We showed it in that room for those reporters, and the only way they could have gotten it would be to tape it, I guess, off a camera from the screen." But during the December 31 press conference in which he told reporters that the ad would not be broadcast, Huckabee himself said that his campaign had sent the ad to television stations, telling reporters, "We prepared it, sent it to the stations. It was supposed to start running at noon today." Notwithstanding Huckabee's statement at the press conference, co-hosts Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes did not challenge his January 1 assertion that the campaign had not given the ad "to anybody." Nor did they challenge Huckabee's assertion that "the only way they could have gotten it would be to tape it ... off a camera from the screen," when in fact, the night before, Colmes himself reported that "Fox News exclusively obtained a clean copy of the Huckabee attack ad that he ordered to be pulled earlier today."
No one on the January 1 or December 31 editions of Hannity & Colmes explained how Fox obtained a copy of the ad.
While discussing the advertisement after it was played on the January 1 Hannity & Colmes, Huckabee stated:
HUCKABEE: Well, we didn't run the ad, Sean. What we did, we pulled it. I knew that if we said we had made one and didn't reveal that it existed, there would have been this cynicism of the reporters that said, "Oh, you really didn't have one." But we did. And I don't know how you obtained that copy because we didn't give it to anybody. We had a box of CDs of them. We gave them to no one. We showed it in that room for those reporters, and the only way they could have gotten it would be to tape it, I guess, off a camera from the screen.
Neither Hannity nor Colmes noted on that show that Huckabee had asserted at the press conference that his campaign "sent it [the ad] to the stations" and that "[i]t is being pulled off both radio and television. And that order was given earlier this morning, and we will abide by it, and it will not run."
During the December 31 edition of Hannity & Colmes, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron reported that the Huckabee campaign "did distribute the ad to TV stations across Iowa. Those stations got it, and they said, 'Don't run it. Cancel the ads.' " In a January 1 post on his blog, Cameron's Corner, Cameron wrote that "FOX News was the first to obtain a copy of the whole ad," which neither Hannity nor Colmes mentioned in response to Huckabee's assertion, notwithstanding Colmes' statement the night before. Cameron further reported that "[t]he final DVDs [of the ad] were printed for shipment to Iowa TV stations at 1 a.m. Monday morning" and that "Huck[abee] said [at the press conference that] they were not distributing it but told reporters repeatedly it had been sent to TV stations around Iowa to run at noon." On January 2, The Washington Post reported that the ads had been shipped to Iowa television stations before the campaign's decision not to run the ad:
The 30-second commercial was filmed in one day and shipped to stations across Iowa. [Huckabee national campaign chairman Ed] Rollins loved the ad for the way Huckabee lashed out at Romney's own record on gun control and abortion.
Then came Huckabee's morning run on Monday back in Des Moines. His head cleared from exercise and prayer, he told Rollins and others he'd changed his mind about the whole thing. He wanted it stopped.
But there wasn't much time. One radio spot prepared in connection with the TV ads had aired early in the morning and a whole slew of them were set to start at noon. Television time had been purchased. Moreover, in order to get some related direct-mail pieces out in time, the campaign had used first-class stamps. Now, the campaign had to stop the truck set to deliver them to the post office.
Similarly, a December 31 report on the CNN.com blog Political Ticker also stated that the ad had been sent to Iowa television stations:
If the ad ends up airing on Iowa TV stations, it will be because the stations have not yet had a chance to replace it in their schedules, Huckabee said.
Des Moines station KCCI told CNN it had been told this morning to run the ad -- then contacted shortly afterwards by the campaign to cancel the original order.
Additionally, during the January 2 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, Huckabee again acknowledged that the ad had been distributed to Iowa televisions stations, telling co-host Chris Cuomo, "I don't know how it got out there," adding, "And even the only network that said they had a copy said they didn't get it from us. They may have gotten it from one of the television stations who had it in the traffic."
From the January 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Let's go to the controversy of the hour, which is this ad, this news conference that you had where you ran this ad, and then you said, "But I'm not going to run the ad." And there were even snickers among the press here. Let's roll the ad to remind our audience.
[begin video clip]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Romney's record: over 700 million in new taxes, left office with a deficit, no executions, supported gun control, and Romney's government-mandated health plan provided a $50 co-pay for abortion.
HUCKABEE: If a man's dishonest to obtain a job, he'll be dishonest on the job. Iowans deserve better.
[end video clip]
HANNITY: Governor, it seems like -- you know what they're saying, that you had the benefit of running an attack ad but seemingly seeing like you're taking the high road on it by saying, "Well, I'm not going to run the ad," and then you ran it.
HUCKABEE: Well, we didn't run the ad, Sean. What we did, we pulled it. I knew that if we said we had made one and didn't reveal that it existed, there would have been this cynicism of the reporters that said, "Oh, you really didn't have one." But we did.
And I don't know how you obtained that copy because we didn't give it to anybody. We had a box of CDs of them. We gave them to no one. We showed it in that room for those reporters, and the only way they could have gotten it would be to tape it, I guess, off a camera from the screen.
But the fact is we pulled it. It was my decision. It was the right decision. I understand people are going to be cynical. But you know what? At the end of the day, what matters is the decision that we made to stay positive and not to go nuclear, not to engage in the same level of politics that has been relentlessly used against us and used against John McCain in New Hampshire.
HANNITY: But let me ask you -- but then, Governor --
HUCKABEE: We just need to change the course of the discussion.
HANNITY: But it's a fair question. And if you really felt that way about it, why would you run the ad while you're saying you're pulling the ad?
HUCKABEE: Well, for the reason that I said just a moment ago. Because if we didn't show the ad to the reporters, I think we thought, well, they would have said we didn't have one. So we didn't give them a copy of a big, thick folder of material that we had.
HANNITY: But you played it.
HUCKABEE: We destroyed that. We played it only for the room of those people. We did not give them the copies that we had. But Sean, more importantly is the fact that I think people have given me the position that I'm in in Iowa because it has been a positive campaign. No doubt that a lot of the negative attacks -- mailboxes have been full, phone calls every night, people have been inundated with television commercials. It's been very nasty, very negative. Not just with me. John McCain in New Hampshire is getting the same thing.
And we decided that, you know, if we talk about Ronald Reagan's legacy and his whole understanding of the leadership of the Republican Party -- you can't be Reaganesque if you violate the 11th Commandment of Ronald Reagan.
HANNITY: But you say about Governor Romney in this ad -- these are very hard words, Governor -- and you said about him, "If a man's this dishonest to obtain the job, he'll be dishonest on the job." Governor Romney responded. Let's roll that tape and get your reaction, sir.
ROMNEY [video clip]: I don't think Governor Huckabee was able to fool the media with his press conference. I don't think he'll fool the people of Iowa. It's a little like going up and saying, "I'm not going to call my opponent any names. But if I were going to call him some names, here are the names I'd call him."
HANNITY: Do you really believe he's dishonest?
HUCKABEE: If you tell things about somebody that aren't true, if you tell people that I cut meth sentences when I didn't, if you tell them that I spent money and created this huge budget, which I did not -- and The New York Times verified that those figures were wrong -- if you tell people things that even may have a sense of half truth but aren't the whole truth, they become the untruth.
The question that I had was, do I counterattack? And I finally decided, I can't fix in 30 seconds the damage that was done to a 10 1/2-year record I had as the longest consistent executive running a government in this presidential race.
But here's what I think people are looking for. They're looking for somebody who has consistency. And I had to ask this question, do I want someone to elect me because I've done a better job of disabling my opponent than he has done of disabling me? And I finally decided that's not what people are looking for in the next president.
COLMES: Hey, Governor, it's Alan Colmes. Welcome back to our show.
HUCKABEE: Thank you, Alan.
COLMES: Is Mitt Romney too dishonest to be president of the United States?
HUCKABEE: You know, I think that Mitt Romney has every reason to run for president. The voters are going to decide in Iowa and the rest of America who's consistent on issues like abortion and gun control, which one of us really comes forward with authenticity of our views and --
COLMES: Yeah, but I want to know if you stand by the words in that ad. Do you stand by the words in that ad?
HUCKABEE: I've never retracted the words, but I pulled the ad because I felt like that it is the tone and the spirit of the ad -- that that's not what we need. And I just want to believe that Americans really are looking for a different kind of approach to the political race of 2008.
COLMES: The point is, Governor, you stand -- you do stand by what that ad says. You're not disavowing what that -- that statement [unintelligible].
HUCKABEE: What I said was -- Alan, I've made it very clear that when you say things about an opponent's record that aren't true or say things about your own record which aren't true, I don't know else how you call that but dishonest. And if I make up things about my own resume, if I say I have endorsements that I don't have, the question is, do people want a president who have -- who has not been completely straightforward about endorsements, about positions, about events that have happened in his or her life? Those are serious questions that voters have to ask.
From the January 2 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
CUOMO: The polls are strong and in your favor. It has become about you and Mitt Romney very largely. The commercials, the negativism, a big issue for you. So, you have a press conference. You have a commercial that you film that's negative and that it does go after Romney and a little bit after McCain
HUCKABEE: No, it actually kind of endorses McCain and shows that he has been hit, too, by the same stuff that I have been hit by.
CUOMO: Joining forces that he has been a target as well.
HUCKABEE: Right.
CUOMO: You then say in the presser, "I'm not going to run this commercial, because I don't feel it's the right thing to do." But you then show the commercial to the media. Is that having it both ways? Was that a little deceptive?
HUCKABEE: No, not at all. In fact, because if I hadn't have done it, the same media that said, "Oh, you showed it to us," would have said, "You don't have one. You didn't show it to us." And we didn't give them DVDs -- which we, by the way, had multiple copies of prepared to give away, as well as a stack of documentation on the facts. But we said, "No, we're not going to do that." You know, this campaign -- Mitt Romney has just unleashed unbelievable attack ads against me, against John McCain, before that, against Rudy Giuliani. And I just decided, let's change the tone of this. Iowa people are sick of it. Every time they go to their mailbox, they're inundated with nasty stuff. It's like poison in the box. And their television set has become almost a sewer. And so we just decided we'd change the debate and let the voters decide.
CUOMO: If you could do it again, though, would you have showed that commercial to the media, knowing that it would run on cable for 24 hours? It is free. That's good from a financial aspect, but it got out there. You knew people were going to see it.
HUCKABEE: I don't know how it got out there. And even the only network that said they had a copy said they didn't get it from us. They may have gotten it from one of the television stations who had it in the traffic. I might have done it differently. But here's the real issue. The issue is not, did they get to see it in the press conference? The issue is, we pulled ours. We didn't run a negative campaign. Mitt Romney did. If we'd have stayed with it, we would have exposed some things about his record that, frankly, think would have probably made a difference here in these last days. But I think Iowa voters hopefully are going to look deeper than just these 30-second ads in which they smear somebody's 10 1/2-year record as a governor. And they're going to say, "You know what? Do I want a president who got there by telling me what's wrong with the other guy, rather than telling me what he actually did for his own state when he was governor?"
CUOMO: And at the same time, though, you feel that you do have to defend your record as governor. I mean, to the extent that Romney's ads have been a little bit different if they're negative, in that he says, "Oh, you're pro-life" -- he likes that. He says, "You're a good guy" -- he likes that. And then he attacks your record for pardons --
HUCKABEE: It's kind of like saying, "Oh, what a nice side of your face. By the way, let me knock you on this side." I mean, you know, come on. Nobody's that ridiculous to see that.
I think he was particularly trying to say we're both pro-life, but the truth is, we're really not both as pro-life as he would like for people to believe. You know, he's claimed endorsements that he didn't have from the NRA. His health plan has a $50 co-pay for abortion; he signed it. Those are things that are very troubling, not just to voters in Iowa. And it's not because of the issues, which are troubling enough, it's the fact that there's been a duplicity between what has been said and what actually was done in the record.














Whether or not Mike Huckabee is pro-life is immaterial - like all other RepubliKKKans, he seems to be anti-truth.
He's not pro-life, he's pro-fetus. Once that baby pops out, suddenly their interest wanes.
Dbeden, I think you've stumbled upon something here; instead of aborting the fetus, why not abort post-birth. According to your postulation the republicans will never notice.
Isn't that their current policy?
You know, I think I really did. according to the latest census, 1 in 4 children go without health-care. Since our health-care is largely profit driven, those kids who get sick and can't get help is just the free market at work. If you're born into a family wealthy enough to afford the rising costs, good for you. If not, better luck next life.
Oh, and good job assuming my position on abortion. You know what they say when you assume...
Splitting hairs a little here... the system is in definite need of an overhaul...but, these kids have no health insurance. Health care they can get and do get...albeit by way of ERs, etc.
...and, I say that because I believe that the most egregious offenders in this entire health care problem are the insurance and pharmaceutical companies - i.e. peripheral yet integran non-health care providers.
I would agree with you to a point. Yes, they can get health-care, but without health insurance, a trip to the emergency room can cost thousands of dollars that their family doesn't have.
Case in point: My girlfriend in high school one day came down with a very bad respiratory infection. She couldn't even stand up straight because of the pain. It took her step-father 3 weeks before he allowed her to go to the doctor, because they couldn't really afford it. She came very near close to dying, all because her family was too poor to afford either health-insurance or basic health care.
So yes, these kids can get health-care, but at a terrible cost to their families, which puts pressure on them to get well without medical treatment.
"Yes, they can get health-care, but without health insurance, a trip to the emergency room can cost thousands of dollars that their family doesn't have."
I take it you don't live in the US? If you did then you would know that everyone has health care paid for them. I'm guessing you know nothing about the US illegal immigrant issue. It seems they can get health care any time they want and not pay for it. If an illegal can do it, your gf can do it. What were YOU doing at the time, just letting her suffer? You couldn't take her to the hospital or she couldn't go on her own??
"Everyone has their health care paid for?" Except for deductibles, co-pays and when I was between school and a job. I guess I am just not everyone.....
Friedberg, I get the feeling Philib may have been raised a lot like a show poodle.
If you did then you would know that everyone has health care paid for them.
Apparently you live in an alternate universe. Do you think that when someone goes into an emergency room, they are treated to immediate care without any requirement for payment? One emergency room visit for something little would cost dozens of hours in time spent and thousands of dollars. Add to that the fact that people can no longer declare bankrupsy for medical bills, and the situation is compounded.
But you don't care about learning what is actually going on in this country. It is so much easier to blame a group of people who aren't like you.
"Do you think that when someone goes into an emergency room, they are treated to immediate care without any requirement for payment?"
It works that way for all the illegals. Are you, lefty and frederboy claiming that the millions of illegals actually PAY their medical bills?? Perhaps that's why the deductables, co-pays, ect are so high to REAL Americans. Perhaps when those of you from the left actually insist that illegals start paying their share of the pie then the immense costs of medical care won't be so immense.
Find some stats for me on the illegals thing. So, you aren't going to refute my points?
What 'points' did you make? All I read was some rambling about being an un-employed liberal who wants the government to pay everything for them. Get a job and let your employer pay your medical. That's what I did.
I have a job, Phil, thanks. Just saying that after graduate school, I had to pay my own health insurance as I was on the job hunt. When I was interning, I had to pay my own. You said that "all Americans" had their health insurance paid for which is a patent and outright lie! With deductibles how they are (higher than ever), insurance companies are making a killing.
"It is so much easier to blame a group of people who aren't like you."
Aren't like me? You mean LEGAL? Yeah, it is very easy to blame the high cost of medical care on MILLIONS of illegals who DON'T PAY for their medical care.
You were kind enough to guess how much ONE visit to the emergency room would cost an individual. How much do you think (insert number here) of illegals are costing the medical system at "thousands of dollars" each?
Let's do some quick easy math. Say there are 20 million illegals. Say 10% use the emergency room as their 'health care' system. Say each visit costs $10K. That would add up to just $20,000,000,000 NOT BEING PAID! Alright, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, let's change that to 5% and only $5K /visit, that would equal; $5,000,000,000. Now, would that be per year? Or, per month?
Are you saying LEGAL Americans should be perfectly happy paying somewhere between 5 and 20 BILLION $$$ per year or month to make up for those unpaid medical bills?
Find some links to back that up please.
When more children die it is a method of controlling the destructive human population. The system is just the method by which the liberal dream of population control is achieved. Just think how much environment is saved when a single destructive human child does not live.
What a load! Post a link backing up your phony claims against liberals. The only known population controls being pushed are by right wingers demanding a fence to keep the brown people out.
he's just being an idiot. but population growth used to be considered a liberal issue. now it's become racist to even talk about it.
" but population growth used to be considered a liberal issue."
Well, at 40,000,000+ dead so far, population growth is no longer an issue for liberals, huh?
Philib, a lot more people than that have died throughout history, and even more have been born, so overpopulation is still a serious problem. I don't know where you get your numbers from.
Try to keep up with the conversation. Go read some of the posts and take a guess.
Sorry, hbl, that was uncalled for. I apologize.
Blocking the brown flood from the south is not a method of population control. Rather it is a means of enforcing a "quaint" perhaps archaic term called sovereignty.
Change the word "brown" to "Western" or "American", and your quote could be from Saddam Hussein circa Feb. 2003.
The third world leaders of the middle east are not in a position of power to prevent the flood of anything into their countries. We however, are in such a position.
Could we just block the racist Eastern Europeans?
And, Fin, since we are in such a position, what are you going to do personally to curb this "invasion?" Are you volunteering to guard the border?
Personally i plan to pressure our legislature to do something about illegal immigration, not finding myself in a governmental position of power this is the best a citizen could do. Besides of course forming vigilante militias, something that seems more and more likely to occur.
The Nazi Party pursued its racial policy aims, and some related social aims, through persecution and killing of those considered "impure" or otherwise "enemies of the Reich." Especially targeted were minority groups such as Jews, Roma (also known as Gypsies), Blacks and other people of color, Slavs, Jehovah's Witnesses [8], people with mental or physical disabilities, and homosexuals.
Gee Fin, sound familiar?
Wanting to protect my country from onslaught by illegal foreign invaders is not racism or xenophobia. It is the defense of the sovereignty of our nation.
The very least the Republicans could do is make sure every newborn has a set of bootstraps to pull themselves up by.
Perhaps a starter set of "bootie-straps" might be provided, which could then start that new citizen off right, and would evermore eliminate the need for discussion about government programs for food, shelter, health care, or anything else.
Of course, such a "bootie-strap" policy would have to be run as a faith-based initiative, because the government should not be involved in giving ANYTHING to any citizen which might have to be paid for by any other citizen. That's Socialism.
So, make sure every single fertilized egg is carried to term (using government force and coercion, if necessary), make sure that born baby has his own bootie-straps, and that pretty much would take care of government's responsibility for that citizen for his or her entire lifetime! Never again could a citizen ask for any special favors from government, whining that they haven't had a fair chance in life. They'd get that chance, GOP style! Everyone gets bootie-straps, so nobody has any right to complain!!
Brilliant, if I say so myself.
Rather than a "bootie strap", why not cultivate a culture where men and women feel it is their moral responsibility to feed, clothe and educate the children they have chosen to bring into the world.
That is in the best interest of any child.
Well said Tommy. If our culture really could live up to that standard, We would all be better off.
Including the children that are the result of rape and/or incest?
Situations CAN change, too, you know. A couple might be perfectly able to care for and afford a child when it is conceived, yet over the course of the pregnancy that ability might be lost to disaster, health problems, whatever.
It's not as black and white as you would like it to be. Even birth control can FAIL.
Read my post again and tell me where rape and incest fit into "chosen to bring into the world".
"Read my post again and tell me where rape and incest fit into "chosen to bring into the world"."
If a women doesn't have...or CAN'T have...an abortion, that amounts to choosing to bring a child into the world.
Your ridiculous comment doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response, just so you know.
"Your ridiculous comment doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response, just so you know."
You've got to be kidding. You replied to say my comment doesn't deserve a reply? I think I'm getting a headache.
I replied to your post just so you would know I saw it, without addressing your asinine comment specifically, just in case you missed it.
Take a Tylenol.
Your comment was the only asinine one, Tommy.
Take a hike.
TOMMY:
The Bible is over 2000 years old. In that Christian Bible, you will find Jesus addressing all the problems you claim can so easily be eliminated if people will just behave as you believe they should.
So, was Jesus wasting his time and his breath? Is YOUR "solution" the antidote to the kind of life of service to our fellow man that Jesus preached we should pursue?
It's really too bad, Tommy, you didn't have an adjoining "MOUNT" next to Jesus, so you could tell the masses the rightwing rebuttal to Jesus' claptrap bleeding heart nonsense. (If FOX NEWS had been around back then, I'm sure you'd have been given MORE than equal time to ridicule Jesus!) You could have saved the world 2000 years of suffering (and counting).
What's most disturbing about you Rightwingers, Tommy, and your "simplistic solution panaceas" to all humankind's problems is, you show the same disdain for the teachings of the Christianity you claim --- as you show disdain for our Constitution while claiming utmost patriotism.
Jesus recognized the likes of yourself. Hypocrites.
The old saying goes, if you can't HELP, then get the hell out of the way. This next election will be clearing the way for real solutions to real problems, and sweeping away the empty platitudes provided by the emotionally and intellectually bankrupt Rightwing.
So Tex, if you disagree with my statement of "cultivating a culture" of moral responsibility, then it only stands to reason you prefer the alternative......which is cultivating a culture where people are encouraged to have kids for any damn reason no matter their circumstances - the kids be damned, it's the parent's right to feel good, is that what you're advocating?
Nice to know how little you think of children.
"the alternative......which is cultivating a culture where people are encouraged to have kids for any damn reason no matter their circumstances - the kids be damned, it's the parent's right to feel good..."
Catholicism, summed up nicely.
I would argue that it sums up abstinence-only sex education perfectly.
Tex,
How is Tommy saying that parents should care for their children a rebuttal to Jesus' message?
Ben,
Great question. Of course children who are born of parents who are able to care for them properly are the lucky ones, it's those that are born to irresponsible mothers and fathers that get the shaft........so promoting a culture that encourages the former is the preferred environment for all children.
He's not pro-life, he's pro-fetus. Once that baby pops out, suddenly their interest wanes.
Unless the kid survives to its 18th birthday. At which time they either want them to vote Republican or enlist in the military to die in their illegal wars.
"die in their illegal wars."
How dare you!! How dare you claim defending this nation from terrorist attacks is illegal. Maybe you are talking about the last illegal war ... vietnam ... that was promoted by all the democrats in government and gotten OUT of by a republican. You know, the one that killed 50,000+ US military men/women. You really need to get a grip on reality!
Phil,
Two things:
1) Who sent advisors into Vietnam initially?
2) When did Iraq attack us?
1; Eisenhower? Who escalated it to the point of no return?
2; We aren't in a war with Iraq. It is YOU who says we are fighting the Iraqi military.
Yes, Eisenhower, but I agree the Dems were not innocent. Are you sure you want to give Nixon all the credit for ending the war?
Let me rephrase on Iraq then, what did Iraq/Iraqis have to do with 9/11? If we are concerned about who attacked us, shouldn't we go to the places where they were from?
"Are you sure you want to give Nixon all the credit for ending the war?"
Yes. Who else you got in mind? He was in charge, right? Using logic that many at this site use, then the man in charge gets blame/credit. Otherwise, if you give credit to others for ending that war, we can certainly blame others for starting our current situation.
Phil,
Since you think the Iraq war is a war on terrorists, why have we not gone to other countries that had citizens involved with 9/11? In your mind, were there more terrorists in Iraq right after 9/11 than anywhere else? If not, why did we send the most troops there?
"why have we not gone to other countries that had citizens involved with 9/11?"
Certainly, you don't expect me to be able to answer that? But, IF I was in charge, we would have entered several countries and those who support the actions of the terrorists would be even more upset with our government than they already are.
I do expect you to answer that. Think we need a draft yet? We definitely would under your plan.
"I do expect you to answer that."
Sorry, I don't have psychic powers to guess why govenment officials do what they do. You'll have to ask one of the 'regulars' to use the psychic powers they constantly use to 'know' why officials do what they do if you want an answer to that question. I gave you my opinion which is good enough for me.
Ok, answer me this then. Do you think the tours that our troops are currently on are too long? What do you think of the psychiatric care that our vets get?
Where would you attack if you were in charge?
"Do you think the tours that our troops are currently on are too long?" Yes
"What do you think of the psychiatric care that our vets get?": It's as good as the currently employed psychiatrists can give.
"Where would you attack if you were in charge?": everywhere a terrorist makes an attack on anyone.
Answered yours. Now answer mine: Why do you support terrorisms? What's the difference between the weapons an 'enemy combatant' and a 'prisoner of war' used before they were captured?
Here, Here! How dare he/she claim that the Bush admin. ignored actual intelligence in Iraq and lied to the Congress, the American people, and the United Nations using doctored up lies from a felon who hadn't been in Iraq for decades. How dare he/she claim that the Bush admin. pulled out the weapons inspectors successfully operating in Iraq so they could start bombing. How dare he/she claim that we tortured people who committed no crimes and them tortured or killed more people based on the jibberish the victims screamed to get us to stop the pain. How dare he/she claim that we presided over the loss or embezzlement of tens of billions of dollars, ignored Iraqi compaies and labor to give away billions to friends who hired slave labor from Indonesia to screw up projects. How dare he/she claim that we allowed massive genocide to occur throughout the country, allowed Blackwater to indiscriminately kill civilians without recourse, and forced the government to allow the US to put "army bases" over the biggest oil fields in the country and cancel deals with Russian oil companies and give them to American ones.
Anyone grounded in reality like yourself can see that all those things are simply not true. At least that is what I was told to believe by FNC and right-wing radio.
How dare you!! How dare you claim defending this nation from terrorist attacks is illegal.
How dare you!! How dare you display such abject stupidity. The terrorists who attacked were almost all from Saudi Arabia. The day the terrorists attacked, the President's father was in a business meeting with the brother of the man who masterminded the attack.
The war in Iraq was a pre-emptive war of choice, which is explicitly illegal under International Law, treaties to which the US has signed, which give them the power of law in the United States. A law the President broke with full knowledge of its illegality and with impunity.
So yes, the phrase "illegal war" is precisely correct. Too bad your ignorance is so profound that you think wrapping yourself in the flag excuses you from being called on your (and the President's) lack of courage and stupidity.
"The war in Iraq was a pre-emptive war of choice,"
Sure, we are fighting IN Iraq, not WITH Iraq. Just like when Japan attacked the US, we attacked Germany and Italy. You don't like the way terrorists work their strategy? Do more than complain about the US fighting them, then.
"Just like when Japan attacked the US, we attacked Germany and Italy."
Um, Phil, Germany and Italy declared War on US. Remember? For your analogy to make sense, Iraq would have had to declare war on the United States, but they didn't.
"For your analogy to make sense, Iraq would have had to declare war on the United States, but they didn't."
Al queda DID declare war on us. While the US was removing a murderous dictator the terrorists had no problem entering (assuming any actually had to enter) Iraq to fight against US troops. BTW, democrats had fully supported our efforts to remove Saddam, too. I don't remember if you had warned anyone about the likelyhood of terrorists entering Iraq while we removed Saddam. If you had, it sure would have been appreciated if you had been more vocal. If you hadn't ... well, you have no complaint, then.
Nope, but I was against the invasion from the start. I was trying to be loud, but no one listened.
"He's not pro-life, he's pro-fetus"
Kind of like how the Democrats are "pro choice" on abortion but anti-choice on everything else?
No, not like that at all. That's a fairy tale Rush told you..
RH,
Where are we "anti-choice?" School vouchers? Hope you had a Happy Holiday season.
Yeah I did. I hope you had a great holiday season as well. I would say that the Democrats are anti choice when it comes to guns, taxes, how to run your own business, school vouchers, private accounts for social security, health care, etc. It's a pretty long list in my opinion.
I would say that the Democrats are anti choice when it comes to guns (I don't think some sort of licensing/control is anti-choice, after all, we license people to drive, why not do that for something else that can kill? If people want to limit the guns that can be bought, I kind of see your point.) taxes (not sure how anyone could have "choice" with taxes. Do you mean voting on the tax code?), how to run your own business (no clue what you mean here) school vouchers (my one problem here is that if kids are given money for private schools, doesn't that penalize those who are paying for them? The differences in private school tuition and what we pay in tax for public schools is staggering), private accounts for social security (the program is not set up to be a private program, do you really want to expand the government that much? Who would oversee the private investments?), health care (again, not sure what you mean here. We do need to reform the system and I think there have been more than one proposal put out there),
If we are going to spin the word "choice" this far, what about those on your side of the aisle (I certainly don't mean you) who say you support the war or you are unamerican? Is that a "choice?" I have been called someone who "hates the troops" because I voted Democratic, but I think my "choice" benefits them since I am voting for those who provide them benefits. I was told that if I wanted to "choose" to support the troops, I had no choice but to vote Republican. Never mind that I sent money for body armor. The "choice" Dobson/hard-core religious right folks give is a false one as well. Dobson and his ilk call themselves "Pro-Family" and make it sound like if you don't vote for his candidates, you are "choosing" to be anti-Family.
Here's to a peaceful New Year and arguments made in this site that are not phrased in absolutes ("All Democrats do....." "All Republicans.....").
friedbergboy1422 , Rinohunter is a complete dittohead, and I listen to Rush enough to know what RH has swallowed. Rush takes the pro-choice label on a personal issue (abortion), and applies it to all sorts of societal contracts and larger issues in a very feeble attempt to show hypocrisy.
It's a typically weak bit of Rush cleverness, but RH belches it out here occasionally. You addressed the problems with it very well. It's a ridiculous extension of choice in a private matter into a complete abandonment of responsibility and civilization.
HBL,
Thanks for the post, I am just trying to understand/challenge the mindset and frankly, I have no idea what is meant by "choice" in some of these areas.
I think its great Republicans are lying and attacking eachother. I hope these idiots all destroy themselves.
Is it not also nice to know that the democrats virtuously abstain from such mudslinging? Wait, but they don't! The wives do the dirty work.
Ruh roh! The republicans can now add vets to the list of people who won't be voting for them this year!
HA! I didn't know you were Scooby-Doo as well...
Scoob and I are in tight with each other.
My first thought was Astro. Maybe I'm dating myself.
They were the same voice.
Don't worry too much about dating yourself. At least you can be reasonably sure of sex after the date...
(OK, bad joke, but I thought it was funny.)
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
All I got to say is; "Onward Christian Soldier, March as to War!"
When Fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag, and carrying a cross; do you think Sinclair was distinguishing between the Evangelical or the Mormon?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
What kind of Facism are we talking about here?
Just wondering, because Huckabee is much more pro-immigration, pro-education and pro-healthcare than the neocons, and a lot of the talking heads like Coulter and Limbaugh are writing him off as a closet liberal.
Is a Facist to you just someone who will attempt to govern social behaviors?
Dex, do you consider working towards a healthy, educated population an example of government intrusion?
A very loaded and general question on your part. Generally, my answer is yes. A line should be drawn at some point, because you can govern health and education right into rigid control and destruction of personal freedom. It's hard to tell when the best time to draw that line is.
Also, do you mean the Fed or state or local? I think, in the best case scenario, each should be in charge of working for particular priorities.
Dex, sorry if it came off that way, wasn't meant to be "loaded", I just was confused as to whether you were saying Huckabees liberaloid traits were closer to ,or further from ,fascism than the typical GOP positions.
Ha, neither! I think establishment GOP positions could be considered closer to fascism than Huckabee's, although I still think they are corporatist rather than fascist.
I agree to the extent there is a real difference between corporatism and fascism I certainly think the extreme part of the GOP agenda has its focus on corporatism.
What kind of Facism are we talking about here?
Well, "facism" means discrimination based upon looks alone. Perhaps you mean "Fascism," which is when the government is pro-business to the exclusion of almost anything else, wrapped in a hypocritical coat of religion to make it more palatable to the rubes who are quick to swallow it, such as yourself.
*Fascist misspelled in my 2nd sentence.
First one, too.
Is that going to be the only way you can refute wingnuts? By, correcting their spelling? Your not as good as you think, then. Maybe too much singular sex (are you going blind, yet).
Fascism will come to America only after communism has marched through, draped in red and spitting social services. Once the socialists have had their way with America the people will regress into an authoritarian fascist state.
A very interesting analysis. I can see something like that happening in Venezuela right now.
Funny, I missed the communist takeover. Fascism is here now draped in a flag and preaching fake christianity.
Again, not really. A fine argument can be made for a guilded-age corporatism that is hurting democratic society, but fascism really isn't accurate...you just think of the CEO's as SS colonels instead of suit-wearers.
That may be, but fascism was known for being married to corporate interests. Nazi germany might have won the war had they not succumbed to business wishes and let the corporations run wild producing non standardized war equipment which made it nearly impossible to sustain. So when I mention fascism, it is from that point of view I am making my claim.
News to me, I thought it was because the Germans lost the air war and had no fuel to run their tanks.
Read up on it, they lost the air war in large part (emphasis mine to note not the only reason) due to the different kinds of aircraft available. When the war ended, they actually had a sizeable air force on hand but it was revealed they couldn't adequately keep them serviceable due to the spares situation. On the other hand, one of the great feats of the american military was to adapt the 9mm into many of their weapons, they could simply re-supply by lifting rounds off of german munition dumps or dead german soldiers.
Like I said though, not the only reason but one of the main reasons. Proper prior pre-planning prevents piss poor performance!
You are both right, to a point. There were a myriad of factors as to why the Nazi's fell. Both of your points were part of it, but also included is Hitler's overt paranoia about members of his own party (and rightly so, they did try to assassinate him,) his mistaken belief that the Soviet Army's offensive, after taking Vienna, was headed to Prague instead of Berlin, and sent the majority of his forces to Prague, and the heroic General Reisman leading a rag tag group of military criminals on one last raid to assassinate off-duty German officers ;)
Thanks for adding in! I am a big history buff and I'm pretty sure I've read every issue of WWII three times now. Several factors is the correct answer.
I think it's safe to assume the nazi's failed because hitler was a certifiable loonz ... a complete nut case. There are current leaders who are not far from being allowed to achieve what hitler could not. Chavez and Imadinnerjacket are both very dangerous, but amazingly are held in high esteem by so many liberals. I wonder what is more equal to fascism ... liberalism or corporate-ism.
"When Fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag, and carrying a cross"
I wonder what kind of flag and cross liberals will be using? Wait, let me guess ... rainbow flag and open scissors is the cross.
Please explain how Ahmadinijad is so dangerous considering that he has no actual power in the Iranian system and is really not all that popular in the country?
"Please explain how Ahmadinijad is so dangerous considering ..."
I guess a fair comparison would be: how do you consider Cheney so dangerous when he has no actual power in the American system and is really not all that popular in the country? Am I wrong to think you consider Cheney to be a great danger to America?
Phil,
He has much more power than the guy in Iran that everyone is so afraid of. He has made all of his papers not accountable to the government. He held a secret energy task force meeting that we still don't know anything about and he is the second most powerful man in the country. Much, much more powerful.
Cheney: Super dangerous because: "He has made all of his papers not accountable to the government." and "He held a secret energy task force meeting"
Imadinnerjacket: Not dangerous because he only SAYS there are no homosexuals in Iran. He's not the one who actually murders them. And, he only SAYS Iran has the right to destroy Isreal when they achieve nuclear capabilities, he doesn't actually push the button.
So Cheney is dangerous because he won't let liberals join his meetings? Imadinnerjacket is a sweet guy because liberals share his view on destroying Isreal and gays? What I don't understand (and probably never will) is why the left thinks RW talk show hosts are so dangerous BECAUSE they express their opinions, but dinnerjacket is not when he expresses his opinion.
Where did I say I liked Iran's president? You are aware that Cheney is breaking the law, right? Would you feel comfortable with a Democratic administration with as much power as this one has claimed?
Wow. Incredible case of liberalism biting itself in the rear. Liberal hypocrisy peeks out of the woodwork.
Your analogy would only be accurate if the Mullahs actually liked Ahmadinejad, worked with him, and valued his opinions. They don't.
"... if the Mullahs actually liked Ahmadinejad, worked with him, and valued his opinions. They don't."
They don't?? How, on earth, do YOU know that? Give me just one example that can prove what you claim as fact! It doesn't even have to be a real fact, just make one up. But, bring ONE to the table.
A fine argument can be made for a guilded-age corporatism
The "guilded ase" is one in which unions prosper. The "gilded age" is probably the one you are referring to, except that it doesn't exist in this country, and never has.
"guilded ase" is, of course, meaningless. I meant "guilded age," which is also meaningless.
Delusional on so many levels. Fascism and Socialism just arent really related. Socialism can best be described as a rigid corporate/State melding. Also the very idea that socialism is anywhere near gaining a foothold in this country is naive and amusing in its delusional way. Isnt it just horrible the way people think hungry children should be fed, educated maybe have actual access to healthcare. Those horrible peope who dont want children, ignorant, starving and dying of easily preventable diseases. They are the very epitome of Moussolini. In your world of complete delusion that is.
"Isnt it just horrible the way people think hungry children should be fed, educated maybe have actual access to healthcare. Those horrible peope who dont want children, ignorant, starving and dying of easily preventable diseases."
Just who are you talking about? What child in America goes hungry? What child in America doesn't have access to an education? What child in America doesn't have access to free health care? What I think is horrible is the way people feel they can murder infants as their way of birth control.
Well, Phil, according to the census, 16% of Americans don't have any type of Health Insurance and 12.3% live in poverty.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
" according to the census, 16% of Americans don't have any type of Health Insurance and 12.3% live in poverty."
Health insurance? When did I say "health insurance"? Are you saying that a child taken into an emergency room with various injuries would be turned away if they do not have insurance?
Household income does NOT translate into children not being fed. It translates into POOR family.
No stats on education?
Solon made another statement he cannot back up with proof OR fact. Don't try for him, frederboy, you won't find any either. Solon's opinion does not turn it into fact. No matter how much he and others think so.
"Just who are you talking about? What child in America goes hungry? What child in America doesn't have access to an education? What child in America doesn't have access to free health care? What I think is horrible is the way people feel they can murder infants as their way of birth control." This is what you said:
You asked what children in America go healthy. I responded with stats on our poverty rates. Some of those children are going hungry. You asked what child in America doesn't have access to free health care. I responded with statistics that 16% of Americans don't have health care insurance, and, there, for those familes would have to pay all of the expenses. I didn't answer the education one because I was at work (found a job, yes, in a good law firm, thank you), but I will just ask you this: Have you ever worked in the poorer schools in this country? The quality of education in this country vary greatly (which I am sure you already know).
Obviously, statistics won't answer all of your questions definitively, but I think your "what child goes hungry" and "what child doesn't have access to free health care" statements are ignorant at best. Have you ever worked with poor people who have health emergencies and seen the bills some of them have who don't qualify for government programs? Have you seen some of the schools these kids go to?
When I taught, some of my students did go hungry, but no, I can't give you hard stats.
"Have you ever worked with poor people who have health emergencies and seen the bills some of them have who don't qualify for government programs? "
See, to keep from being a complete failure on this arguement, you add a 'qualifier'. When was 'being on a government program' ever considered in ANY of my questions? The FACT remains the health care is available to those who can't afford it. Education is available for those who can't afford it. Food is available for those who can't afford it. Don't change your arguement after you find out that facts show you are wrong.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
What is American Fascism? The corporate takeover of government by drumming up hyper nationalism through fear as our civil liberties, and press are used to split the opposition with religion, and false patriotism.
We are in the final stages of this transition that would appear to need another Republican President to make the transition complete until which time the elections are little more than fanfare, and our vote needs not be counted.
The demise of an educated, involved civically minded middleclass that held the tide of Fascism for the past 50 years, and now is crumbling under the pressure of globalization, and corporatization and privatization of our democracy right down to the military.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
It's so hard to figure out whether you're just fear mongering irrationally to try and stoke people to vote for a Democrat, which you needn't do here, really.......or are you really that paranoid to sincerely believe your wild eyed fatalistic prediction nonsense you spout.
Fatalistic, fearmongering, yes...but Happy Thoughts, Tommy =->
I know, I think that "Happy Thoughts" signature should be replaced with "Scared Sh*#less"
Hey, I have a solution to your unhappy thoughts about Dan: solve the problems he names, and he won't monger any more fear about them!
Monitor and regulate the Corporations as their boundless greed, duplicity, and attempts to emulate the rights of real persons would warrant. Make them explicitly mortal, so that there is no recourse to "outliving" opponents. Force the boards and executives to do the prison time that would befall any individual who kills carelessly or worse - and not split among them, but rather the entire term to each of them. Institute some of the clarity financially that all those "onerous" reporting requirements were aimed to instill, but which were blunted by the plaints of the poor overworked accounting departments. Oh, and by those standards, consider FEMA and the formadehyde trailers in which some 60,000 are still resident, while FEMA personnel may not even enter due to that danger, yet FEMA continues to deny any problem. Maybe Corporations and government institutions could BOTH be better, if subject to these "new rules".
Or, forget the "new rules", and simply enforce one of the oldest: "Do unto others . . . "
"I have a solution to your unhappy thoughts about Dan: solve the problems he names, and he won't monger any more fear about them!"
I think you're giving too much credit to Dan's ability to recover. He proudly claims to support democracy, which means he will NEVER be satisfied no matter what repairs are done to our society. He will ALWAYS complain about something. Always has, always will.
"Oh, and by those standards, consider FEMA and the formadehyde trailers in which some 60,000 are still resident,"
You ever buy new clothes? You know there is 'formadehyde' in new clothing, right? How about carpets? In that too. You don't seem to mind that poison being put in your clothes and carpets, but you don't want it used by the government while supplying people with shelter?
Did you know your decafinated coffee bean has been soaked in methylene chloride or ethyl acetate for about 10 hours during the decafination process? I guess some poisons are just fine for Americans, but others are not?
LIVE IN A HYPOCRITICAL AMERICA: VOTE DEMOCRAT
First, your signature "Happy Thoughts" was funny after reading the rest of your post.
Second, I think you're just using the term "fascism" because you see the badguys, whatever form they take, walking around in Nazi-like uniforms. I think your arguments are way off traditional fascism.
For instance, in a true Fascist state, the government controls the corporations and industry, not the other way around. Corporations are all for globalism and immigration..the cheaper the labor, the better. You could argue the oil industry likes US policy right now...but you could very much argue that the rest of the companies losing their shirts in the market right now would not feel the same way.
Fascism also usually disregards religion in favor of a fervent statism...and I think you can look at the "Huckaboom" and realize that the populist Huckabee is no friend to corporate America.
Just food for thought, Dan. You can still despise Repubs, big corporations and big money, I just think the term "Fascist" isn't really accurate in the classical sense.
From Wikipedia - Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.[1]
Corporatism and religious attributes can definitely be a part of a fascist state.
What a ridiculous definition. Look up what it says on dictionary.com or Webster, etc. How can you attribute "populism", "collectivism" and "corporatism" to the same philosophy? How can you rationalize a pro-immigrant Huckabee fascists like the Nazis?
because, left unchecked, they can become a form of fascism.
You asked for a definition, so here it is:
Definitions and scope of the word
Main article: Definitions of fascism
Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He wrote in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:
Since Mussolini, there have been many conflicting definitions of the term fascism. Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that:
Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:
Stanley Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980) uses a lengthy itemized list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state; a regulated, state-integrated economic sector; fascist symbolism; anti-liberalism; anti-communism; anti-conservatism.[13] He argues that common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in same cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.[14] Semiotician Umberto Eco attempts to identify the characteristics of proto-fascism as the cult of tradition, rejection of modernism, cult of action for action's sake, life is lived for struggle, fear of difference, rejection of disagreement, contempt for the weak, cult of masculinity and machismo, qualitative populism, appeal to a frustrated majority, obsession with a plot, illicitly wealthy enemies, education to become a hero, and speaking Newspeak, in his popular essay Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt.[15] More recently, an emphasis has been placed upon the aspect of populist fascist rhetoric that argues for a "re-birth" of a conflated nation and ethnic people.[16]
Most scholars hold that fascism as a social movement employs elements from the political left, but many conclude that fascism eventually allies with the political right, especially after attaining state power. For example, Nazism began as a socio-political movement that promoted a radical form of National Socialism, but altered its character once Adolf Hitler was handed state power in Germany. Free market economists like Ludwig Von Mises argue that fascism is a form of socialist dictatorship similar to that of the Soviet Union.[17]
Very interesting. Sounds like the definition and "essence" of fascism has evolved and widened since the Nazis, with a different defining character depending on who you talk to.
It's true. Fascism in its truest since obviously started in Italy, so the Nazi party's brand of fascism was a deviation from the original "Fascist" state. It has since evolved into a more blanket statement evoking everything from authoritarian dictatorships to strict communism, in fact any state where authoritarian and/or one party rule and stifle dissent.
The word "fascism" comes from "fasces," individual stalks of wheat which are very tightly bound to one another to make a very strong stalk. The strength of individuals is therefore multiplied by such a binding, but there is absolutely no flexibility or individualism in such a structure at all. In this flawed method of thinking, the state is strong by placing its people into strict bondage with no hope of thought, question or rationality.
"In this flawed method of thinking, the state is strong by placing its people into strict bondage with no hope of thought, question or rationality."
Is that what liberalism hopes to achieve by removing differing "thought" from the airwaves using the fairness act? Or by removing the ability to question by forcing government control into all aspects of human lives and not allowing individual choices? Or removing our ability to rationalize how to raise our children by stipulating it be done "only" certain ways?
How did you feel about the Bush adminstration goons arresting those guys with the anti-Bush t-shirts at a rally? What is the "liberal" way of raising kids?
How did you feel about the Bush adminstration goons arresting those guys with the anti-Bush t-shirts at a rally? What is the "liberal" way of raising kids?
That is a very generic statement. I could make the same statement inserting ANY democratic leaders name and it would be true also. Kindly provide names of the "goons", names of the arrested and location of rally you refer to. Until then, you are not being truthful about what happened during your rally.
Making up situations is not how to make an arguement become fact.
Farther down the article I read this, makes you wanna go hmmmmm.
The connection between the German form of Fascism, Nazism, and Protestantism has long been debated, with some saying that the Protestant denominations, especially the German Lutheran Church, was close. According to some scholars, especially Richard Steigman-Gall (The Holy Reich: Protestantism and the Nazi Movement, 1920-1945) the relationship was collaborationist. Hitler, in his manifesto, Mein Kampf, listed Martin Luther as one of Germany's great historic reformers. In Luther's 1543 book On the Jews and Their Lies, Luther advocated the burning of synagogues and schools, the deportation of Jews, and many other measures that resemble the actions later taken by the Nazis.
The overwhelming majority of Protestant church leaders in Germany made no comment on the Nazis' growing anti-Jewish activities. Many Protestants opposed the governments of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, which they saw as coalitions between the Socialists and the Catholic Centre party. In 1932, many German Protestants joined together to form the German Christian Movement which enthusiastically supported Nazism, and sought to join Church and State. 3,000 of the 17,000 Protestant pastors in Germany were to join the movement. Hitler wished to unite a Protestant church of twenty-eight different federations into one nationalist body. Pastor Ludwig Müller, the leader of the German Christian Movement, was soon appointed Hitler's adviser on religious affairs. He was elected Reich's Bishop in charge of the German Protestant churches in 1933. Many churches and ministers attempted to purge Christianity of "Jewish influences" and tried to institute the Nazis' Positive Christianity viewpoint on religion.
Whenever a spiritual impulse becomes a religion and a spiritual teacher finds that his proclaimed followers are doing the opposite of his teachings...we have authoritarianism and often fascism.
There are always exceptions,such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer , who resisted the Nazis and was executed.
PLUTOCRACY is a form of fascism, one which severely limits (or eliminates) individual liberty, rights, and freedom in favor of dictatorial control by the "leaders", those being the agents of the monied elites (which, in America today, is Bush).
Fascism is anti-democratic, anti-social responsibility, and FOR rigid control of the lives of its subjects. Fascism brokes no criticism, controls all media and eliminates all messages other than its own propaganda. Fascism spies on its citizens, the better to weed out dissidents (who are called "traitors").
Those in CHARGE in such a fascist state can be military coup leaders, dictators, monarchs, or Plutocrats.
Rule by the wealthy is not a new idea; the wealthy throughout the history of man has felt "entitled" to make all decisions and hold all power.
So, it's semantical masturbation to agonize over whether a burgeoning plutocracy, such as Bush has brought to the USA, is actually "Fascism" in a classic sense.
It doesn't matter.
What matters is that the rights, freedom, and liberties lost are just as gone, and the privileges, advantages, and perks of power are just as consolidated in the "leaders". In every practical sense, it's a distinction without a difference.
Tex, the difference is that one cannot invoke "Fascism" without, directly or indirectly, invoking Hitler, the SS, Mussolini, etc. I very much earlier noted that I wasn't arguing Dan's points that neocon government is "bad", just that it's not really Fascist in the classic sense.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Remember Franco? Remember Spain?
Remember Pinochet? Remember Chile?
Two Fascisms I have visited in my lifetime.
You have this 60's vision of TV's Hogan's Hero's version of Fascism. Fascism is little more than a few rich fanatics willing to do whatever needed for as long as needed until when the public is too busy just trying to get through the day they no longer notice that their government is owned by these very same few rich fanatics.
Most of these countries were like Italy, and Germany to begin with, DEMOCRACIES. Their freedoms were sacrificed for virtues of the state, or religion, or for virtues of ethnic purity.
I consider those who at this late date see my comments as paranoia as those not paying attention to what their government is doing, or more to the point, not doing.
When we call 'Chinese water torture' something other that torture, when we allow our government to spy on us without so much as a Independant Proscecutor to investigate, when we name laws subverting the Bill of Rights and Constitution things like the Patriot Act, or the Military Commission Act, when we accept LIES from our President/Vice President on all the public airways to get into a illegal war, when we listen to a Secretary of Defense tell us that the war would only take 6days, 6weeks, or 6months and do nothing about it 5 years later, and you stil see me as paranoid, I would say that labodomy seemed to have worked for you.
When our nation lets Draft Dodgers pound the drums of war, and later let them get away with lying about their reasons for war, it should be little surprise we find ourselves letting a few rich fanatics own our government.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
This is just another example of Huckabee's slickness - and insincerity. The more people get to know him, in my opinion, the less comfortable they feel with him; at least for those who were giving him a second look at all.
He may do well today in Iowa, but he's on a downhill slide from now on.
I agree Tommy. Huckabee from a record standpoint is probably one of the most centrist Republicans running. The ultimate nightmare for me would be having to choose between him or Hillary. If that happens I'll likely write in a vote for Elvis or something. We should pray that neither is a party nominee.
Slickness and insincerity?
All the present White House occupant had going for him was the latter. That and his bible thumping. Which gives Huckabee a leg up.
The last eight years have shown me that Americans don't look for leaders, they look for someone they'd like to have a beer with or go huntin' with or someone who doesn't make them look dumb.
How else can you explain the nation starting with GW (1) and ending up with GWB (43)?
Huckabee is Gomer Pyle's evil twin ;-)
Seriously, this guy is a slimeball.
J2, sorry he slimed your boy. He was crabbing last night (on Jay) about being outspent by millions by the Romney campaign. He's just an aw shucks good ol' boy who really means well ;-0)
Hello sweet Julia :-)
Well now I wouldn't exactly call Romney "my boy" just because he was once my governor, in fact I can't see me even voting for the the guy UNLESS Hillary is his opponent.
Sadly I can't think of one Republican candidate I'd even support at this moment. Of course I think Biden or Dodd would make a better President than any of your frontrunners....though I've got to admit I do like Obama.
Huckabee is such a joke, I'm really amazed that he's managed to fool as many folks as he has with his phony Aw Shucks act. Kinda scary to know how many nitwits there are in Iowa...
The entire list of Republican candidates bores me. The real fireworks is coming from the Democratic side.
Much like the NFL, (think Patriots - Colts) the REAL contest is who gets the Democratic nomination. The General Election (Super Bowl) is sure to be anti-climactic.
Actually, I think a McCain-Obama contest would be the most interesting, and the least nasty campaign of the current bunch running. If it's Clinton or Giuliani, I couldn't stomach all the mud being trashed back and forth - we, as a country, would be soiled miserably during that slugfest.
Great analogy Bruce HOWEVER if Hillary is the Democratic nominee watch out! Republicans will come out in droves & vote for whomever opposes her on the GOP ticket. Including me ;-)
One exception...if Giuliani is the Republican nominee vs Clinton, I'll leave Prez blank on my ballot.
"how many nitwits there are in Iowa..." -Jeter
So you do agree with Savage? "yokels" and "nitwits" convey a similar image. And yet all ripped into his comments, so similar to your own.
Fin, those in Iowa that are easily fooled by Huckabee's Aw Shucks act & support this phony are, IMO, nitwits & yokels.
I don't believe Jeter called the entire state of Iowa nitwits.
I don't believe Jeter called the entire state of Iowa nitwits.
No I wasn't, thanks dbeden for pointing that out to Fin. I would have figured it was obvious that I was ONLY referring to those that were supporting Huckabee.
J2,
Careful with Fin. He likes absolutes and stereotypes. He isn't much for individual differences. Just a warning....
Right you narrowed it down to the followers of a certain candidate. Is there scientific data Backing up your comments of how Huck followers in Iowa are "nitwits"? If not then MMFA could write an article on this egregious misinformation you spout.
Fin,
YOU are criticizing the generalizations made by another poster? GIVE US A BREAK! You group whole races into segments and he already said its NOT THE WHOLE STATE
My generalizations are backed by 'evidence' or 'data', while the generalization that all Huckabee followers in Iowa are"nitwits" is and cannot be founded on fact.
Sorry, but based on past posts and on the "handsome" factor, I was sure Romney was your boy. ;-)
Glad to know you may vote for a Dem. I myself even like Dodd. I just contributed money to him for his work recently on holding back immunity for the phone companies.
Well Julia while Mitt & I are both good-looking...there is a difference.
Romney is Ken Doll pretty boy handsome, while I'm Italian Stallion ruggedly handsome.
;-)
I'd vote for Obama, Biden or Dodd. I doubt Dodd or Biden have a chance, but I hope that if the Dems win the White House, that Biden & Dodd would be included in the administration in some capacity.
I'll vouch for the Stallion, JJ, here's a picture I took of Jeter while on vacation.
Hmmm, pretty sure this is Jeter
But I thought this was Jeter?
Thanks for the laugh kids ;-)
Snoop wins the who jeter looks closest to contest. Well of course I think I look like Rocky!
I'm sorry, Jeter, my first link was based on a ridiculous outdated stereotype. The 2004 Census figures (most recent available), indicate that less than 12% of Italian-Americans are employed as organ grinders, fewer than are employed as pizza chefs or mafia hitmen.
You do actually look more like Rocky, as anybody can see by this more recent photo.
I apologie for the smear.
Geez Beach couldn't you find a photo of me wearing my pants?!?
How humiliating!
;-)
Ah, Jeter, it's cold in Mass. we won't make fun of you. ;0)
Is Jeter chewing that poor man's hat?
Hey! Get offa my Hate Horse!
Sorry I had to dump on you HB, but that's my new favorite phrase that I picked up (plagiarized) from a friend in another thread.
And I know you wouldn't mind me using on you.
I was honored by the tribute, so get offa yer Pity Pony already. ;0)
"slickness - and insincerity"-Tommy
I would think that the opposite would better fit Huckabee, I see more of Romney in those words.
Actually, both men you mention capture those qualities.
Then who does capture the image of warmth and sincerity? Certainly not Obama? :}
We all make our decision based on a variety of characteristics when choosing a candidate. I don't necessarily vote for the warmest candidate, but if one is insincere or a phony, they will not get my vote - regardless of their ideology or party affiliation.
It's a personal judgement, granted.....but Huckabee and Romney fail on the "sincerity" test for me. As of this moment, Obama does not.
Fin,
I know I am walking onto a landmine here, but what makes you think Obama is not warm and sincere?
I never seriously said whether Obama was sincere or not, I have yet to make my opinion regarding that aspect. But if he is or not it will not change the fact that our views differ.
Huckabee is shameless. Why did he even have to announce to the press that he had decided not to run this ad, if he didn't want to play both sides of the story?
because he actually wanted to play both sides of the story. To the average American who doesn't pay much attention, it looks like he's taking the high ground.
I saw him on Jay last night and Jay asked him about the tape getting to reporters and he sidestepped the question with some inane answer like "well, they'd say I didn't really have a tape if I didn't show it to them". Sorry about the run on sentence.
So counting that reply to Jay, how many versions of the truth does this guy have?
Of course Huckabee will say he didn't have a "tape." The ad was handed out to the Press on discs.
It is a mark of a shrewd politician, Machiavelli would applaud him. This is how the base game of politics is played, Huckabee just shows that he is more clever than he lets on.
Machiavelli might applaud him, but the Federal Election Commission should investigate him and if warranted the Justice Department should indict him.
I don't know Fin, I don't think it was too clever at all. The reporters at his press conference laughed at him & the media hasn't cut him any slack. I think everyone saw through it.
Fin,
Is Huck your guy? We know why you don't like Obama.
Any why would anyone think that Fin doesn't like Obama?
T'would either be Huck or Romney. Obama is a successful, well-dressed black man and I like that. That should be the popular image of the African American. But I shan't vote for him as i disagree on certain key issues.
I know you t'wouldn't vote for the black man no matter how he was dressed, Uncle Cracker. I shan't apologize for my use of the word cracker, Cracker.
Actually, in an extreme and unlikely case that a black candidate resounds with me in nearly all aspects, I shan't not vote for him. Although i doubt very much black men have the White nationalistic ideals I have.
About cracker, you do realize that this disparaging term is along the lines of the more publicised "N word", which has curiously attained the level of profanity. Personally "cracker" should likewise be considered profanity.
Fin,
Find the history of cracker and how its been used to demean and dehumanize the white man, please.
And your comment about Obama is just ridiculous. Do you expect all of your white heroes to be well-dressed too?
In other words they probably dont put on the hooded sheets and go to the meetings? Probably not. Your racist BS is stinking up the site again.
The difference being that the word you describe as reaching the level of profanity, is considered profanity when hatefully used by a caucasian to depict an African American.
We use the word cracker to define one of our fellow caucasians because of his hateful racist beliefs, which bring shame to all people, regardless of race.
And you've been the most consistently racist poster I've read at this site.
Freidbergboy, "cracker" is a disparaging term you may not have found in the lib version of the encyclopedia.
"your comment about Obama is just ridiculous. Do you expect all of your white heroes to be well-dressed too?" -freidbergboy
Is it something abnormal or incredible to admire a man for the manner in which he bears his clothing? So the fact that Obama is well dressed is not something to admire him for? Because he is not dressed like a hoodlum? My heroes are certainly more likely to be white, seeing as all the greatness of civilization was primarily a "white" accomplishment.
Once again the Liberal paranoia is shown as you begin to see the 'racism' bogeyman wherever you turn.
So you use "Cracker" to depict other Whites while blacks use the "N word" at each other and it means nothing? When was this word double-entendre first documented? As far as I know anyone can use "cracker" freely.
"And you've been the most consistently racist poster I've read at this site."-Worrierking
Really? And I though that I was topped by that Verticalsmile fellow. I am consistent in my beliefs, which is less than i can say for some people.
He announced his ad to the press and showed it to reporters. The ad then became news. News is reported by the media.
It was a rotten way to get his ad out there without having to pay for the ad to be shown on the networks.
Mike Huckabee, a scumbag's scumbag.
That tactic worked so well for the Swift-Boat liars, that it probably leads the list of Repugnant "things to do" for every prospective campaign. Sad, too, that a "man of God" could stoop so low in pursuit of earthly glory - but, then, he IS a Repugnant.
I just heard this on Air America a minute ago...
guy called in, said something to the effect of "I'm a minister of the Christian faith, and Mike Huckabee scares the hell out of me."
Classic
Good info on fascist definitions. Will a wingnut wiegh in on the subject?
The varied images of Jeter leave me wanting to shout out, "Hey Jeter watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!" I feel some guilt about this and am looking for anybody willing to take it off my hands, cheap.