Noonan claimed Obama's DNC speech at Invesco Field "has every possibility of looking like a Nuremberg rally"
SUMMARY: In her online column, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan wrote that Sen. Barack Obama's DNC speech at Denver's Invesco Field "has every possibility of looking like a Nuremberg rally." Other conservative pundits have made references to Nazis when talking about Obama or discussing his speeches, including radio host Tom Sullivan, who once aired what he called a "side-by-side comparison" of an Adolf Hitler speech and an Obama speech.
In her August 28 OpinionJournal.com column, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's Democratic National Convention speech at Denver's Invesco Field "has every possibility of looking like a Nuremberg rally." Noonan wrote: "[T]he change of venue Thursday night to Invesco Field, and the huge, open air Obama acceptance speech is ... one of the biggest and possibly craziest gambles of this or any other presidential campaign of the modern era" [ellipses in original]. She continued: "Everyone can define what can go wrong, and no one can quite define what 'great move' would look like. It has every possibility of looking like a Nuremberg rally; it has too many variables to guarantee a good tv picture; the set, the Athenian columns, looks hokey; big crowds can get in the way of subtle oratory."
Media Matters for America has previously documented other instances of conservative pundits making references to Nazis when talking about Obama, including when discussing Obama's speeches in particular. For example, on the February 11 broadcast of his Fox News Radio show, Tom Sullivan aired what he called a "side-by side comparison" of an Adolf Hitler speech and an Obama speech.
From Noonan's August 28 Wall Street Journal column:
The general thinking among thinking journalists, as opposed to journalists who merely follow the journalistic line of the day, is that the change of venue Thursday night to Invesco Field, and the huge, open air Obama acceptance speech is...one of the biggest and possibly craziest gambles of this or any other presidential campaign of the modern era. Everyone can define what can go wrong, and no one can quite define what "great move" would look like. It has every possibility of looking like a Nuremberg rally; it has too many variables to guarantee a good tv picture; the set, the Athenian columns, looks hokey; big crowds can get in the way of subtle oratory. My own added thought is that speeches are delicate; they're words in the air, and when you've got a ceiling the words can sort of go up to that ceiling and come back down again. But words said into an open air stadium ... can just get lost in echoes, and misheard phrases. People working the technical end of the event are talking about poor coordination, unclear planning, and a Democratic National Committee that just doesn't seem capable of decisive and sophisticated thinking. So: this all does seem very much a gamble. At a Time magazine event Wednesday afternoon, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe suggested the power of the stadium event is in this: it's meant to be a metaphor for the openness and inclusiveness that has marked the Obama campaign. Open stadium, 60,000 people -- "we're opening this up to average Americans." We'll see. In my experience when political professionals start talking metaphors there's usually good reason to get nervous. (Questions: how many of the 60,000 will be Coloradans? Are a lot of the tickets going to out of staters? Are they paying for tickets? Is the Mile High event actually a fundraiser? What's the top ticket going for?)
LOL. That would drive me nuts after about 30 seconds so, sorry, didn't watch the entire video. :P
Hell, Rush is already throwing his tantrum. At 12.50, I turned the radio on and tuned in the local wingnut blowtorch and caught Limbaugh screaming "I can't HANDLE these people ANYMORE!!!" He was playing clips from Biden's speech - a homerun indeed - and he was absolutely losing it. He was also crying about how he will 'explode' if he hears another lib complain about high tuition costs. I snapped off the radio.
Well, go ahead and explode, you fat F! Just clean up after yourself when you're through.
On a similar note, one of McGrampy's advisors has revealed his plan for providing universal healthcare. It's called the Emergency Room. No sh*t.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/28/mccain-adviser-there-are_n_122095.html
He was also crying about how he will 'explode' if he hears another lib complain about high tuition costs. I snapped off the radio.
See, PigBoy is a Social Darwinist. He figures that, if you can't afford College, you must not be worth educating, and should accept the role God has chosen for you.
Don't forget guys, this is the idiot that flunked out of college, failling every single one of his freshmen classes, including BALLROOM DANCING. No wonder he b!tches about 'liberal bias' in academia! He's a poor, pitiful VICTIM of this terrible bias!
Rush, how about a wafer-thin after-dinner mint? It is only...wafer thin...
Forgive me for veering off-topic for a moment...
But how are you embedding images in your comments?
Are you simply hand-coding an IMG tag?
Highlight, copy, paste will do it.
And when you're composing your message, if the image is too big, simply highliight it in the editing box and drag a corner to resize it. (hint, hint, Snoopy)
Snoopy works on a grand scale befitting his self-image, little man !
(I kid, Snoop!)
Can you find anyone but a rabid neocon who pays any attention to dear old Peggy. Poor thing, she is so obviously such a Republican hack. Howard Fineman, definitely no Democratic hack said that the Republican Convention is being billed by the Republicans as "serious" "not a big show" and not in competition with the Obama nomination convention. However, Fineman also said that Obama took the Commander in Chief issue and stuck it to McCain. Alas some of the usual Republican echo chamber people are beginning to see they will look really stupid if they keep up those tirades. I guess Noonan is not clever enough to get it. Imagine, Iraq mess, economy in the dumps, illnesses due to toxic trailers furnished to NO residents, and Noonan spends time on the Convention of the Democrats.
They're worried, and they should be. It says so right here...
Bet on it.
Hahaha... great lines!
ps. While you are at it, what about Andrea Mitchell? I had to laugh when she mentioned there was a lot of botox in the Arena the other night. Yes there was and a lot of it was injected into her! :-)
"(Questions: how many of the 60,000 will be Coloradans? Are a lot of the tickets going to out of staters? Are they paying for tickets? Is the Mile High event actually a fundraiser? What's the top ticket going for?)"--Nanoo
I think Murdoch would fire her if she did do research.
You'd think with all the messiah talk that the conservatives started, they'd be more prone to likening it to the Pope addressing the Vatican.
But NO, they can't do that, the Pope's a nice guy, so they have to resort to likening Obama's speech to someone who was the embodiment of pure evil instead.
Pete,
I agree. (The Pope is a nice guy!)
Actually I agree with your point. It was over the top and uncalled for by Noonan.
Who cares if it looks like Nuremberg? Lets wait for the trials before judging.
Kyle,
You are welcome for the setup! :-)
Are you referring to your votes in 2000 & 2004?
Sometimes a punch line just isn't worth the story.
Yes, the RNC will more resemble the Nuremburg trials, with all the war criminals trying to justify their past mistakes.
Don't forget that the audience will be 98% white males. And the speakers will all be spouting lines of fear and hate.
But NO, they can't do that, the Pope's a nice guy
And the only guy in the story with an actual link to Hitler.
Peggy Noonan is not a bombthrowing rightwinger like Ann Coulter is, and MMFA knows it, even though they use her as "documentation" and a comparison to this piece by Noonan. Ridiculous.
Noonan makes some good points about tonight's speech and the risk of moving it to such a huge outdoor venue, personally, I wish he would have given it indoors and in the arena, for many of the same reasons Noonan gives. I feel the speech may get lost in the grandiosity of the event, and that would be a shame, considering it will probably be a great speech by Obama tonight.
You mean he should dumb himself down some for that connection? Be a little more like Gramps? Take a stupid pill every six hours or so?
Come on, explain what you're saying here.
The trouble with some of you is because you can't accept another opinion that is different from yours, you keep asking for an "explanation", as if you expect something you will accept or agree. I have explained my hesitations regarding Obama's speech in more than a couple posts, it ain't gonna change, and I may be proven wrong tonight or down the road, it's all cool, but my reservations as they exist today are still there, for reasons I have already explained. If you don't understand, can't read, or don't get it, then never mind.
You keep saying I can't back up my opinion, when in reality it's you that just can't accept another opinion, no matter how much backup exists for it. Just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean I am going to keep repeating or selling it to you over and over again.
You will just have to live with my responses, as ineffective as you want them to be, sorry.
What Tommy's saying (if I may be so bold) is that standing in front of 75000 cheering supporters, Obama will not come across as the guy next door that you could sit down and have a beer with, like Bush. Tommy thinks that to appear incredibly popular with the public, he might have to give up seeming more like Bush, and that is a bad thing.
Don't sell yourself short, Tommy. Bush was re-elected largely because "he seemed like the type of guy you could sit down and have a beer with". You recognize that there's a large constituency who will cast their vote based solely on that criteria, and you expressed the danger of Obama losing that kind of voter by not maintaining an aura of "approachability". Whether you were cognizant of the "Bush-like" context of it or not, it's there.
That is your opinion. I made no comparison because to me it's invalid. Bush was elected largely out from Rovian scare tactics of targeting certain rightwing groups and energizing them to the polls with initiatives and propositions on their state ballots to enflame their fears and drive them to vote. Also, he energized his evangelical base and they turned out for him in droves. And Gore barely lost when he should have trounced Bush, but he dissed Clinton and he was wooden, stiff and unappealing to many, his elitism hurt him, Bush took advantage of that. In 2004, Bush should have lost again, but Kerry was a lousy candidate and couldn't make his case.
Obama has none of the negativity surrounding his campaign or style that Bush had, he is nothing like Bush, nor his appeal. That is why any comparison between the two is invalid, in my opinion.
So you're saying that the "aura of approachability" factor which you felt was at risk for Obama is insignificant? I guess we agree after all.
By the way, I did like your analysis of why Bush was elected.
Darn! And here I thought we'd found common ground there for a minute.
I do happen to think it's insignificant. I still have a little faith in the American voting bloc and count those who will enter the voting booth packing approachability as their sole determining factor to be an insignificant fraction. And they're presumptively McCain voters by default, anyway.
>><b>Bush was re-elected largely because "he seemed like the type of guy you could sit down and have a beer with". </b>
Then would that make McCain "the type of guy you could sit down and have an Ensure with"?
Rabbit,
If you could tone down that anger a tad, you might be able to focus better.
I think what Tommy meant was that a larger than life candidate may not be preferable to folks who would like to feel they have a bond, a partnership, a kinship with a candidate. Something more intimate, if you will.
Personally I believe that Obama can achieve that, whether he delivers his speech in a stadium or a phone booth.
Noonan & others on the Right knows this, & are fearful. So they write crap like this. As a Con, trust me, it's not working.
Many of us on the left are angry. Nothing personal, Jeter. :)
But here's the thing, What I do not understand is why is the Right going after Obama so much when they should be expending that energy promoting their own candidate? I mean, this is nuts. The RNC starts in a few days and there was a story about McCain being on the radio in Pgh telling KDKA that he hasn't even DECIDED on his VP pick. What is going on with them?
All this yammering about Obama's speech venue and the temple backdrop and all... what exactly is this doing for YOUR side, Jeter? Obama's a done deal - he's been nominated, he's on his way, he may or may not win. Done. But what about YOUR side? Where are the McCain ads telling us what he wants for America?
Rabbit,
Just for the record, while I'm a Conservative [a fairly moderate one] I am no longer a registered Republican. I re-registered as "Unenrolled", which I guess is sort of like Independent [that's how it's done in Massachusetts, not sure about elsewhere] back during the primaries so that I could vote for Hillary, which btw I did. I did post that I was leaving the Republican party back then, but it didn't get much fanfare here... hell I thought I deserved a party in my honor ;-)
Now to try & answer your question. Quite simply, McCain has no message. No core beliefs that I can see, other than winning a war we shouldn't have been fighting in the first place. So knocking Obama is about all the Republicans have.
I was never planning on voting for McCain. I figured I'd leave President blank on my ballot. But I'm 99.9% certain I'm going with Obama.
"Now to try & answer your question. Quite simply, McCain has no message. No core beliefs that I can see, other than winning a war we shouldn't have been fighting in the first place. So knocking Obama is about all the Republicans have."
I cannot disagree with this. Seems to me the Right just doesn't care any more about the issues or messages or goals... except winning. Winning for winning's sake and nothing more. Keeping a Dem out of the White House.
If Obama wins then the Republican party will be in shambles... just my opinion. Then again, seems like it already is.
I re-registered as "Unenrolled", which I guess is sort of like Independent [that's how it's done in Massachusetts, not sure about elsewhere]
Jeter, in Cali. it's "Decline to State", and I've always had a beef with that. It sounds sneaky, or as if the voter is unable to make a commitment. I almost registered "Independent" once accidentally, before I realized it was a party, and didn't really mean "independent".
I've never been registered with a political party, feeling that was assuring them of my vote. I just decide on the candidate. I think there should be a nationwide designation for non-party members....hmmm... "Maverick?... Lone Wolf?... Rugged Individualist?.. all way cooler than (in Wally Cox voice) "I decline to state"
I think there should be a nationwide designation for non-party members....hmmm... "Maverick?... Lone Wolf?... Rugged Individualist?.. all way cooler than (in Wally Cox voice) "I decline to state"
Good plan Colonel. Maverick would have been my pick, but I think it's been tainted beyond repair ;-)
I like the sound of Rugged Individualist...but just before I read your post Will the Wolf Survive [Los Lobos] was playing on the radio, so I think I'm gonna take that a a Sign.
So you can be the West Coast Lone Wolf, & I'll be the East Coast Lone Wolf. I kinda like the symmetry of that, don't you?
I'll petition my registrar immediately.Looking forward to checking the "Lone Wolf" box.
What the hell happened to Los Lobos? I used to love seeing that band.
Maybe the voters who thought that Bush would be fun to 'have a beer with' will realize that just because someone seems like them, doesn't mean they know how to run the greatest country in the world. Maybe this time, they will elect someone with extraordinary leadership abilities.
Wishful thinking...
JLyons, Paul Begala is a tool of the leftwing, ever since his sick love affair with Clinton.
Doesn't that sound just as silly?
Hey Tommy,
Maybe Obama will start a trend?
At one point I thought he might have trouble filling the stadium but was way off on that one. I find the backdrop a bit silly but if people want to go see him, more power to them! If I were Denver, I would go just to see it. It should be fun!
ps. I'd bring my beach balls and frisbee too.
pps. On second thought, I bet the DNC will be passing them out.
ppps. Maybe Obama hired the same guy that did the Olympics closing. I didn't understand a word but that was a good show!
I doubt the Republicans will follow suit, it's a little unlikely McCain could fill such a place, a mall food court more like it. And they are obviously jealous of Obama's appeal, so much of their pooh-poohing of this stems from that.
I am just not convinced it is the best thing for Obama either, but we will see how it comes off tonight.
Apparently, one of Rove's tactics is to have Gramps air an ad, directed personally at Obama, during the speech. The idea is to siphon off people from Obama's event into Gramps' usual tired worn-out fearmongering negativity.
Jesus... these morons simply can't stand on their own merits, hell, they don't even HAVE any merits!
This would be a fantastic new trend, and will help us to remain a superpower in the world (despite Bush/Cheney/McCain/Rove's best efforts to fail!)
Great bits of snarkiness today. I'm enjoying them.
The reality is that elections can be won by going positive or going negative. We know which way McCain is going. You can rail all you want about it, but candidates on both sides do it in every election. Obama has already started going negative in his ads.
I was only joking about Obama starting a trend with the stadiums. I think if needed, McCain could also fill a stadium. The call would go out and the faithful would show up. The fact that Obama thought of it and is putting it together is a point in his favor.
The Republicans have developed a pretty nifty counter. They have parodied Obama's big crowds with Brittany and Paris. Undecideds will now look critically at what Obama says. If it is all sweetness and light, Obama will deflate like my kids birthday balloons. If Obama actually says something concrete, he will add to his rock star status.
One of the things I like about McCain, although I am not a McCain fan, is his campaigns acknowledgement about doing what it takes to win. Naysayers here will say he lies, but it is all perception. He is a masterful politician and will do a credible job of negating Obama's strengths and exploiting his weaknesses. Some here will say that is despicable, but just wait, you'll see Obama eventually get down in the mud. McCain has realized that part of Obama's appeal was that he was supposed to be above all that. When people find out Obama is not, again the balloon will start to deflate.
"Obama has already started going negative in his ads."
Only AFTER McCain went into the gutter... AFTER McCain said that he wasn't going to run a negative campaign.
Now who's the real flip-flopper here? :P
The Republicans have developed a pretty nifty counter. They have parodied Obama's big crowds with Brittany and Paris.(AA)
A survey shows that only 12% of Americans considered that a nifty counter.Coincidentally, that's the same percentage of Americans who have used the word "nifty" in the past 50 years.The same group , according to the survey, would also vote Republican if the GOP ran a used tube sock for President.
Sorry, I don't have a link to the survey.
"Peggy Noonan is not a bombthrowing rightwinger like Ann Coulter is, and MMFA knows it, even though they use her as "documentation" and a comparison to this piece by Noonan. Ridiculous."
So that makes her Nazi reference more palatable, more acceptable? Yeah, I get it. That damn Halo Effect again...
But if Coulter did it, you'd be all over her ass, right?
But if Coulter did it, you'd be all over her ass, right?
Please don't mention Ann Coulter's ass. I just ate lunch.
Sorry, Wiz. Wanna bucket? ;)
Ann Coulter has an ass? Since when?
Speaking of asses, I just heard a great joke while I was at lunch from a dittohead caller to Rush;
"Jesus rode in on an ass, he didn't vote for one"
LOLOLOLOLOL !!!! Get it? Obama's an ass, as is the symbol of the Dem party. Then Rush and his remora-like caller started really riffing--Obama could ride onto his Greek God set on an ass, his hands full of arugula to feed the masses. Hi-Larious!
BTW, is it just me, but is the uproar over the Obama set a bit crazy? Doesn't just about every building in Washington have that type of architecture?
Ann Coulter has an ass? Since when?
Of course she does. It's called "Bill O'Reilly."
"Peggy Noonan is not a bombthrowing rightwinger like Ann Coulter is, and MMFA knows it, even though they use her as "documentation" and a comparison to this piece by Noonan. Ridiculous."
"Bombthrowing rightwinger" is your term, not MMFA's.
MMFA used "conservative pundit" to describe them both.
MMFA cited Hitler/Obama comparisons made by both.
You have no case.
All right, this is what I think. Tommy's telling us that because Noonan is more polished and works for a - ahem - respectable paper in contrast to Coulter, who is brash, skanky, and disrespectful to everyone who isn't like her and writes trashy columns found in gutter rags and sites there can be no valid comparison made between the two. OK. Got it. So Noonan making a Nazi reference is somehow 'better' than Coulter doing it IN SPITE OF such a reference being horrendous in its own right.
In other words... it's not the message but the messenger. We've seen this before with Tommy in regards to how he responds to different posters here.
Change YOUR mind? As if.
Just simply blowing your case full of holes, that's all.
Well, those that think Peggy Noonan is comparable to Ann Coulter, in any stratosphere, do so because it's easier to slap the extreme label on all evil rightwingers because it then becomes less of a thoughtful challenge in arguing with the Coulters, than with the Noonans; slime over substance, so to speak. For if you can push Noonan to the right extreme corner, you can invalidate her arguments as "bombthrow drive bys", as Coulters are. Ahh, makes it so much easier.
That's the real tactic at play here.
Whose argument is filled with holes now?
We agree to disagree then. Noonan certainly could have chosen a different rally to use as a comparison, she didn't have to take the Nazi route. Whether that is a reflection of her personally - anti-Semite or not - or whether she was appealing to the fringe or whether she made an honest mistake... we will never know. But the reference was offensive regardless and my point is that the MESSAGE matters much more than the MESSENGER. It would have been just as offensive if Coulter said it.
It would have been offensive if ANYONE said it.
As I eluded to earlier in the thread, she just as easily could have compared Obama to the Pope addressing the faithful at the Vatican, since it does have numerous greek columns, after all, and the conservatives have dubbed Obama 'the messiah'.
One would think that if she is the reasonable and civilized conservative pundit that Tommy tells us she is, she would have done so. But she didn't. She chose to compare Obama and his speech to the rallies of history's most brutal and hated dictator.
I'm on vacation (Yes, Colonel, another one), and I'm just speed reading these threads.
I think we'll all agree that Coulter lives in the deep end of the cesspool.
Why would Noonan choose to join her by dipping her toes in the shallow end?
She's not in the same league but she'll swim in the same waters for her party.
"Whose argument is filled with holes now?"
Sorry, yours still is. I'm not slapping an "extreme" label on Noonan in the same way that your slapping the "bombthrower" label on Coulter. All these terms were brought up by you. MMFA does not limit its scope to "extremists" or "bombthrowers."
Noonan just joined Coulter in the stratosphere of Nazi and Hitler comparisons.
You can excuse it all you want with Noonan's otherwise sterling reputation, but she still chose to go down that road of her own free will. She still compared Obama to Hitler, and there's nothing you can do to change it or make it go away.
Noonan may have made some good points about the risks of Obama speaking in this venue but she lost them all with the Nuremberg reference.
First of all, she introduces a paragraph about the possible problems with the venue and the logistics with the Nuremberg comparison. But the rallies at Nuremberg are considered by most scholars as immensely successful and a major landmark in modern political communication. Hitler's words did not get lost in the crowd, the spectacle did not overpower the man, he elevated himself through those speeches. It was hallmark of what Hitler and his people (goering, Goebbels, etc.) were capable of in propoganda. (Not to say it wasn't completely and totally evil, but it was undeniably successful.)
Secondly, why make the Nazi comparison at all? Sure it gets the attention and the headline, but it obscures any other point. There may be some irony in an author destroying her own message through hyperbole when she is trying to warn a candidate of the dangers of having his message clouded by celebrity and overproduction.
Here's a link to a Denver Post article about how the tickets for Obama's speech were gone in one day:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10132731
And to answer Peggy Noonan's questions:
How many of the 60,000 will be Coloradans?
One-half of the tickets were set aside for Colorado residents. And they were snarfed up in less than 24 hours - an indication of how popular Obama is in a so-called "red state".
Are a lot of the tickets going to out of staters?
They were trying to have two-thirds of the stadium filled with folks from the Mountain states.
Are they paying for tickets?
No. The tickets were available free-of-charge.
Is the Mile High event actually a fundraiser?
No.
What's the top ticket going for?
From the Denver post article:
The huge demand could entice some to try to sell their tickets, but the Obama campaign said it will closely track the bar codes on tickets and any ticket up for sale will be deactivated.
So it won't do anybody any good to try and buy a ticket. It would be voided.
Someone needs to get on the phone to Loony-Noony's boss and tell him/her that she's failing at her job.
Oh, I'm sure her bosses already know what a failure she is...
Quit lying, here's the info on the tix:
http://cbs4denver.com/denver2008/obama.speech.tickets.2.788901.html
Haven't heard from 'Science' in a while... just sayin.
This morning on CNN, John Roberts was interviewing two political analysts, Leslie Sanchez (R) and John Avlon. Everyone was making a big deal out of the big stadium, and what a terrible idea it was for the Dems.
Avlon said,"But it's not about the stage, it's about the speech."
To which Sanchez replied, (And I swear you can't make this sh1t up): "That's exactly right, it's about the speech, not the stage. Which is why this venue is so important..."
FAIL.
The republicans' take on this is insane. It's all about jealousy. Their entire line about Obama being popular and a celebrity is all about jealousy. Why did Obama want to give the speech in such a large place? He explained it as trying to include as many people as possible. Imagine our current president doing that? Not likely. And the republicans are acting like being popular and motivating is a bad thing? That's a negative? I'm sure that they were saying Bush was awful when his approval rating was at over 90% (ah the good old days post 9/11).
I personally think that one of the best traits of a good leader is someone who can inspire others to act. Someone who can inspire others to do things. Obama, is that person. He's a born leader with great charisma, great oratory ability, and he's (as we would say in Maine) wicked smart. His speech tonight in front of 70K+ is going to be a knock out. I have no doubt about it.
"Why did Obama want to give the speech in such a large place? He explained it as trying to include as many people as possible."
And Noonan compares that to a Nazi rally? She is just as filthy as the rest of those rightwing bloviators and writers, in spite of what Tommy says. Comparing Obama supporters with Hitler supporters... got it.
Way to go there, Peggy, with the Nazi reference... good way to piss off the Jews. A bit anti-Semitic there, Peggy?
“National Socialist German Workers’ Party”.
Thanks for the laugh.
Despite having the word "socialist" in their official party name, the Nazis were hardly comparable to actual socialist movements. Most political science scholars call Nazism, like fascism, a modern ideology that has commonalities with other political theories but is not really a part of them.
Not that you haven't been told this something like a thousand times or so now.
Are you trying to be obtuse?
Just because a political party or country calls itself 'socialist' doesn't make it so. For example, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was never a socialist nation. None of the countries which call themselves socialist are actually socialist. The Nazi party is/was a child of the right-wing. It's based upon complete control of all aspects of government and party functions, all the way down to the people. It most readily identifies itself with Conservatism before it would identify itself with Liberals. Hell, the Nazis put liberals in concentration camps. And you think Nazis are left-wingers? Puh-lease.
Communism and Fascism both arose from Socialism which grew out of French Liberalism during their revolution.
Communism, Socialism, and Fascism competed against each other as ways to organize society. Fascism simply replaced the idea of the proletariat and class warfare, found in Communisim,with a classless society based primarily on Nationalism. They were all on the left even though they disagreed with each other. They all advocated the importance of the state above the rights of the individual.
On the right you have American classic Liberalism and the rights of the individual superseding the rights of the state.
Thanks for the laugh.
I'll bet AA thought the "German Democratic Republic" was a Democratic Republic, too.
Hitler's party was named that before it ruled Germany. It's socialist policies helped it become popular with the working class.
East Germany was conquered and assigned its name by the Communists.
Nice attempt.
And Hitler turned it away completely from the Socialist policies that made it popular.
The Nazis were not Socialists. You're wrong yet again.
At least you're consistent.
Consistently wrong.
The term “National Socialism” derives from this citizen-nation relationship, whereby the term socialism is invoked and is meant to be realized through the common duty of the individuals to the German people; all actions are to be in service of the Reich. The Nazis stated that their goal was to bring forth a nation-state as the locus and embodiment of the people’s collective will, bound by the Volksgemeinschaft, as both an ideal and an operating instrument. In comparison, traditional socialist ideologies oppose the idea of nations.
-wikopedia
Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis.
-wikopedia
Ouch! :)
http://www.usmagazine.com/news/cindy-mccains-half-sister-im-voting-for-obama
OT, I know, but a good catch...
OT, I know, but a good catch...
Who else has Cindy conveniently forgotten?