I think it is time to recognize that Huckabee has been a successful governor longer than he was a pastor. He knows how to govern in a divided state. That will come in handy in our deeply polarized nation. He brings the heart of seasoned pastor together with the head of an effective statesman. He seems to understand what the consequences of public policy are for the people who have to live and work and sometimes even fight and die under them. I personally like that. It reminds me of both Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan who ran against their party and it was good for the Republicans that they did and that they won. It’s not about his faith anymore, its about his basic good sense and his authentic kindness. His sense of humor is evidence that the man is emotionally healthy. His critics reveal more about the emptiness of their own souls than they do about the content of his ideas and character. Iowa picked up on that fact and that is why so many turned away from Romney. Now, if only Wall Street and the D.C. Beltway Crowd can will listen to what the man has to say, they may realize that he is a breath of fresh air for the party and the nation. The point is, Huckabee is a skillful uniter and that is just what America needs right now.

Hooray for Iowa. We LOVE Iowa. Iowa, you have made us believe in the good ole USA all over again. You have turned the page for all of us. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

What about Ron Paul. He got a solid 10%, just behind Thompson and McCain. He obviously beat the crap out of Giuliani. No one wants to talk about Ron Paul. They don’t want him in the debates either. He gets a larger portion of the vote than many candidates but is not mentioned. What is the media afraid of.

Yes, huge turnout among young voters was a surprise, but the war is not over for Ms. Clinton. Today’s result only shows how exciting and close this election is going to be. The big question is– why aren’t women wholeheartedly supporting Hillary?

I wonder why the Religious Right does not vote for Ron Paul? Mike Huckabee is not a economic conservative. why do they like him more than Ron Paul?

Amazing! 260,000 Democrats voted in Iowa tonight, and you have virtually elected the next President.

The actual numbers show that only 10% of all the votes casts were Democratic. In actuality Obama only got 4% of all votes or approximately 5,000 votes. I don’t see how that is promising a new change when over 90% of Iowans vote Republican. Sounds like media hocus pocus.

There is now a top tier in the republican candidates with 5 people making the cut. Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain and Ron Paul. The more people hear Ron Paul’s message the more people hop on his bandwagon. He’ll do better in New Hampshire and might just take get the republican nod when all is said and done.

Good for America !

It really is Time to Rise and Shine again America.

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America !

Really good people… really good.

Why is there no talk about Ron Paul anywhere? He is the man and I hope he wins .

Seriously, Ron Paul needs more media attention!

“A black man did this. In a state that’s 96 percent white. This is truly a historic night in America.” And as an evangelical Christian, a conservative, a Republican, and a businessman, I say hooray!

So you idiots are blacklisting Paul also????????????????? Go Media!!!!

obama is reagan in the weirdest way

Way to go America! You still have the genius and the guts to get rid of the bad guys and re-establish honor and integrity to this country! P.S. I love you.

Way to go America! You still have the genius and the guts to get rid of the bad guys and re-establish honor and integrity in this country! P.S. I love you.

Why it happened-
1) ALL of the Dem candidates save Barack used VOTER INTIMIDATION AND VOTER DISENFRANCHISMENT to stifle votes among youth= see “Rock the Vote” for further info.
The Republicans escaped the fray. This is why you see the “Cross Bearer” Huckabee killing it in Iowa. Iowa is merely a shout to “the powers that be” as to how skewed the race will be.
This way, “The powers that be” will have “an inkling” as to the idea at the lengths they must go to put “The Annointed Ones” in to power.

In Summary
THEY HAVE NO IDEA.

The republicans just jumped the democrat/repub lines to give the vote to a man they feel sure there worst can still beat in the end…. this is truly going to be an “it ain’t over til it’s over” election year.

Young and open-minded America,join Barack’s supporters and together we will write the new page of American history. You just have seen what we can do. Let’s bring it to the successful finish.

Young and open-minded America,join Barack’s supporters and together we will write the new page of American history. You just have seen what we can do. Let’s bring it to the successful finish.

I think that Clinton is over

Forgot to add-
they did the same exact thing to RON PAUL, only IT WASN’T REPORTED.
imagine the frustration and anger…

yeah, it’s coming. Like a choo choo.
Hope for the best if we win. If we don’t, prepare for the worst.

“obama is reagan in the weirdest way”

plzdie, kthxbye

The best blog comment I saw to answer the “Huckabee over Paul” question was:

“For some reason, the Midwestern cornfields, where terrorists are least likely to strike, is also where people are most afraid of them.”

That’s only part of it–religion is the other half. Giuliani is anathema to the truly evangelical, so even though he’s “Mr. 9/11,” he couldn’t benefit from these misplaced fears.

What about Mike Gravel? I think he could cut into Dennis Kucinich’s seemingly impenetrable lead in the upcoming Martian primary.

How can “Change” be together with Clinton? Miraculous recovery?????

I’ll bet that most of those Evangelicals showed up in mass because they would rather have a fool like Huckabee in the white house than a perfectly qualified man that happens to be LDS. All Huckabee does is tell stupid jokes and lie about his record. He’s the type of guy you wonder why you voted for him afterwards. Nominating Huckabee will lose the election for Republicans for sure. Not everyone thinks a fake phone call to god is cute.

It’s, Huckabee just makes it that much easier for Barrack!

Down Yonder,
I saw ref. To Huckaboom.
Not sure I undertand, but then again I do. People think that he is “for realz”. HE ISN’T!!!!!!!!!!!
NOOO HE ISN’T!
Huck let rapists go that escalated to MURDERERS AND RAPISTS and that was AFTER reading MANY MANY letters from the women the man who went on to RAPE AND KILL!
it is horrendous that the US would even consider this KNOWING the truth.
IF they believe THE TRUTH and still vote Huck,
THEY MUST GO.

It seems to me that Ron Paul obtained a very good score, especially if we consider that Iowa is a rural state (and agriculture is everywhere largely funded by the government…). So, he can do even better in New Hampshire: and at that time media cannot ignore him, in spite his anti-establishment proposals.

ROMNEY MAKES HUCKABEE LOOK LIKE MARY MARY QUITE CONTRARY!

Romney is a liar and a fraud and a WAR MONGERING DOUBLE GUANTANAMO WANNA BE trying to live up to his haircut and the PENIS he SUPPOSEDLY has!
Ruler anyone???
dick.
40 times skeerier than Huckacrossinyourfaceandrun.

Wondering why Ron Paul ….Dr Ron Paul is being ignored….I would say 10,000 plus votes and crushing Americas Mayor would deserve at least a little media attention…yet they dragged old rudy out and interviewed him for finishing so poorly, Dr paul hardly got mentioned….what are they so afraid of?

>”I wonder why the Religious Right does not vote for Ron Paul? Mike Huckabee is not a economic conservative. why do they like him more than Ron Paul?”

my guess is that the Evangelical block is highly single issue and Huckabee is much more demonstrative in his religious stance than the ‘keeps his own council” style of Paul. Economic nuance is not something many voters from any block care to dwell on, style and warmth and and easy sound bites simply work with most voters, evangelical or not and Huckabee has a winning stage presence compared to Paul. (though i really like that about Paul, i hate the smooth talkers, Paul is way more trustworthy in my personal screen test.)

Congratulations IOWA, thanks for standing up against anti-immigration fear mongerers, unpresidential negative campaigns, thanks for showing that definetely, the majority stands for comprehensive humane approach towards our Nation’s problems, and that America needs to recover its core values of liberty and justice for all mankind.

Ha, that’s funny – write off Rudy Giuliani just because of one state where everyone knew he didn’t have much draw to begin with? His campaign strategy there was not misguided, it was about cutting his losses and focusing on states where he has a lot more support. Republicans in California and New York are not going to be warming up to the religious right nonsense the way the Iowans did. We want somebody sensible in office, who does not base his leadership on a mythology book written a few thousand years ago.

Democrats *really* don’t want to see Giuliani win the Republican nomination, because he is the one Republican candidate who can seriously trounce the Democrats. He is also the best and sanest candidate, in these ridiculously polarized times. Giuliani is the only real centrist in the race; he’s socially liberal, fiscally conservative, tough on crime and tough on terrorism. Most of the other candidates are coming from the wingnut fringe, either the right wing religious nuts or the left-wing “let’s be nice to the terrorists” peacenik fringe. We can’t afford either kind of insanity. Just elect Rudy.

i watched MSNBC tonight about 11EST for over an hour and they mentioned _every_single_other _candidate except Ron Paul. Paul got double digits and beat Guiliani by more than double, which seems like it’s worth some mention as they went over and over the results.
Also, i was reading a thread earlier tonight on a NYTimes blog that was about huckabee, “Two-buck huck” a nice article btw, and there were 350 comments and as i was reading i was struck by the absence of any reference to ron paul. i searched the whole thread and there were zero mentions. so i made a comment speaking of Ron Paul and it has yet to be posted, many hours later.
could be bad timing on my part, but very suspicious i say!

Historic?

This is our history, least as i remember it from grammar school.

(1) During late 1770’s & early 1780’s, we fought a war, formed a nation, and landed white men got to vote.

(2) About a century later, in 1870 with enactment of 15th Amendment by 100% white male voting population, black men got to vote.

(3) Half a century & 4 Amendments after that, in 1920, women were granted suffrage.

And so it seems to me generally to have continued, in politics & most other professions. At least, here in U.S. First, white men have gotten status, position, whatever; then, all men; finally, women.

If Obama gets elected next year, we might elect a woman president by, say, 2050. If the planet lasts that long.

That’s what i think. Wouldn’t call it historic if a man of color wins candidacy for US Pres before a woman does, whatever the demographics. Par, maybe. ‘Cause, historically speaking, seems like gender trumps race.

Hillary has lost because of her support of the war in Iraq, and her support of yet another war against Iran. The rest of the issues are secondary. She might recover just a little bit in New Hampshire, But she can’t avoid to be blown out in South Carolina. She had a chance, and blew it. It’s nobody’s fault but her.

I don’t support Hillary, because I’d like a mammal in the white house this time. Yeah Barack!!

Giuliani isn’t finished yet. He’s competing in states like Florida, New York, and California…and if he does well there it will be more delegates than winning Iowa or New Hampshire. The risk is that of ‘momentum’ but it’s going to be McCain in NH, Huckabee in SC and Romney in Michigan, so if Giuliani wins FL he’s still in the mix.

Thompson: drop out now. You have no chance of winning.

“The actual numbers show that only 10% of all the votes casts were Democratic. In actuality Obama only got 4% of all votes or approximately 5,000 votes. I don’t see how that is promising a new change when over 90% of Iowans vote Republican. Sounds like media hocus pocus.”
Ummm…230,000 democrats voted in the caucus tonight compared with 93,000 Republicans. Each election cycle for the last 20 years more Iowans have voted Dem than the cycle before. Thats why the state senate is 50/50 and the house only narrowly Republican.

Rudy is definitely not out. The big states are most likely to roll his way and Iowa will be long forgotten. It is a risky strategy to be sure but it is certainly not over for him.

Thompson should keep plugging away. Huckabee only got votes of the Right because they really dont know his record yet or anything other than he is Christian and a good speaker. As they become more familiar with him and his record and he keeps saying stupid and uninformed things, they will bolt from him and will need a solid conservative to go to. Fred is the only one who can fit that bill.

Rudy’s hope is that Huckabee knocks out Thompson (the only real conservative that will survive scrutiny) and Romney (the only candidate who can keep writing his own checks). If so, Huckabees messes will give Rudy a good shot in the big states.

The problem with this is that this will utterly destroy the fiscal/moral conservative marriage that has existed – which is probably the idea for the left leaning media.

No surprize! Obama has been doing this for a liveing. As a democrat I could not vote for a freshman who has not earned his strips. Go Hillary!!!!!!!

Seventy percent of the American people are against the war and all of the Republicans (except for Ron Paul) are for it. That means the Republican nominee goes into the election down two to one. Good luck with that, guys.

I can’t hear Ron Paul’s name without thinking of either Sean Paul or Ron Jeremy. Anyone else?

Corporate America (CA) does not want Ron Paul’s message to be heard. Once you actually listen to what he says, you will walk away thinking that perhaps his message is correct and that we have truly been misguided with what the government can do for you. His message is clear and apparently he cannot be bought as the other candidates by CA, whom by the way, own the media. It truly is sad that the people are not getting a chance to hear what may be the best candidate in either party. This is the first time in a long time that I actually will be voting FOR a candidate instead of voting against candidates. Thank goodness for the internet and Dr. Ron Paul.

Huckabee is an idiot. And he will not win a general election.

Hopefully NH GOP voters are smarter than this…

It’s a shame Paul didn’t get 3% more, so the media bias would be truly exposed.

I love church controlled voters having high turnouts at elections. Really makes you believe in the beauty of representation. MINORITY EXTREMISTS FTW!!!!

Tim,

>>Rudy Giluliani is done.

Anybody home? Granted the Rudy man can’t be in two places at once but trust me – he’ll clean McCain’s clock and come back for seconds. McCain is the worst of all the Republicans. I hate him if for no other reason than that retarded anti-American McCain/Feingold act that helps no one but George Soros. Puke.

Anyway I agree with you about Obama. Actually I’m hoping you’re right.

r.d.

What the media refuses to acknowledge is that this is the most humiliating defeat that could’ve happened to Hillary.
–Rush Limbaugh.

rudy is likely finished. mccain is the ONLY hope the gop have. but in all truth even if a reagan clone ran against obama he’d be trounced. i doubted it before but obama can be for the dems,(if nominated, which is still unlikely) what reagan was for the gop:a game. changer.

I’ll probably get whacked for sounding religious but I believe Ron Paul is the man who has the cleanest spirit and as America wakes up over the next few months he will continue his steady upward movement. You have to “think” to see that Ron Paul is perfect for our time. It takes people, (especially the masses) time to “think”, but when they do he will shake the nation and be catapulted into office. Huckabee has stolen so many Ron Paul slogans and ideas its comical. I can’t wait to hear Huck say “We just marched in, we can just march out.” or “I am the champion of the Constitution.” That will make some great TV ads for Ron Paul to demonstrate Huck’s insincerity.

Ron Paul is flat out crazy. The guy wants to completely get rid of the Dept. of Education and replace it with vouchers.

Guliani should be the furthest thing from anyones mind- who cares about his policies, he’s a self-centred hipocrite who is even more ‘for sale’ than any of the Bushes could possibly ever be. Stop deluding yourselfs into believing that another 9-11 could’nt happen under his watch when the first one did. Bear in mind he was the least popular mayor in NY history before the towers fell… Plus, the whole ‘tough on terrorism’ motif is pathetic- who wouldnt be tough on ‘terrorism’ when it’s such an election winner. Stop thinking about values… think about the candidate who can do LEAST HARM.

Great night, for America its inspiring that Obama and Huck won, different platforms yet an honesty thats been lacking its hard for Me to decide who to vote for in the primary either Huck or Obama eiter one will be better than Bush.

For the people who don’t get the difference in the numbers..read how each caucus is done so you can understand that the democratic numbers are not numbers of people, but representive of groups of voters.

Somebody was wondering why Hillary Clinton does not have more support among women. I happen to disagree with most of her stances on the issues; but even if I did agree with her on the issues, I find her personality extremely grating and unappealing. She appears to be grim and humorless and perpetually tense, as if all her circuits are overloaded, and she’s about to blow a transformer. She appears to have no charm, charisma, grace, or even genuine human warmth. (Even though I’m sure she tries.) She is utterly unfeminine too, and there is nothing more unappealing in a woman than watching her try to out-macho the boys, with cojones she does not actually have.

Finally: even if she were a wonderful and charming person and full of feminine grace, I still would not vote for her, because the office of President is a man’s job. I’m happy to see women in office as senators and congressmen, sitting on the supreme court, and just about anything else. But the president is the Commander In Chief of the armed forces; there is an aspect to the job that inherently involves martial or military leadership, and that is a masculine quality. It is not a job for women; they do not belong in military combat positions, and they certainly don’t belong in military leadership positions.

Novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand was remarkable for her time, in writing her heroines as strong and brilliant — architects and engineers and other nontraditional roles for women. But Rand also made a strong case against ever voting for a woman president. She was a woman herself, of course; as am I. Believe it or not, some women still want to see men step up to the masculine role of leadership.

As much as the radical feminists would like to paint all gender differences as “artificial” and the ideal of masculine leadership as a delusion of the bible-thumpers, that really has not much to do with it. There are many other people who realize that our deepest gender differences are natural and innate, and we like it that way.

And in rejecting Hillary for (among other things) her complete lack of feminine charm is not really being sexist, either; because I also tend to reject men who are utterly lacking in masculine charm. (One president who had plenty of masculine charm was Bill Clinton; and I respected him for that, as well as for his keen intelligence, his warm humanity, and his nuanced stance on many issues. I thought he was unjustly skewered over trivial personal issues that were none of anybody else’s business. But then, Hillary is not Bill — not by a long shot.) I have two bumper stickers I bought recently. One says “Rudy 2008″ and the other one says “Anybody But Hillary.” I’m still trying to decide which one to use.

Dee,

It would appear you need to review your history as well as current affairs. Yes, as a matter of fact, save for notable instances, men HAVE been commander in chief. Exclusively in this country. If we look at the military affairs of this country, objectively, you should be able to conclude that it’s been pretty much a shambles.

Our history books are rife with recounts of this country’s victories but notably overlooks our disasters, all led, ironically, by men. Abe and FDR are probably the finest examples of military leadership by Presidents, Abe for his direct involvement and FDR for his hands off approach. Neither of them is remembered for his ‘maleness,’ rather for their humanity. And if humanity is an exclusively male trait, it’s been cleverly hidden by most.

As for me, I would prefer a Prez who was a little less masculine and a little more humane. Save for Rudy, whom you seem to admire, it appears most of the candidates don’t believe testosterone is a necessary qualification for office.

HRC may be all the things you say, and more, and may NOT be qualified to be Prez, but I sure don’t think you’ve made a compelling case with the point you’re emphasizing.

Sorry, that was me. My Name keeps disappearing. Perhaps MCP is trying to tell me something.

To Dennis – You can’t seriously imagine that it’s news to me that men have almost always been in charge of military campaigns. Virtually every culture in the world has been male-dominated, back to pre-human prehistory; so yeah, that’s a given. Some men are good at military strategy and leadership, and some are bad at it. That does not change the fact that it’s a fundamentally masculine undertaking. Some men are good at boxing and some are bad at it; but the fact that many men are bad at it does not mean that boxing has no connection to masculinity, or that it’s an activity in which it’s appropriate for women to seek “equality.” It’s even conceivable that a very few women could be better at it than some men. That does not prove that the sexes are equal; that just proves that some women are unfeminine and mannish, and some men are unmasculine and wimpy. And the same holds for other masculine careers such as policemen and firemen and football players and combat soldiers, etc.

Ayn Rand’s objection to a woman as president was not that she thought it impossible for any woman to be competent at it; but that any woman who would actually want to be in a position of dominance and authority over all the men in her nation would be deeply unfeminine and emotionally unhealthy, and thus psychologically unfit to lead anyone. There are a lot of men out there who have been emotionally castrated, or are otherwise unfit or incompetent to take leadership roles; this is no news to women, certainly. But it’s a tragic thing, something that we should be trying to heal; not something to rejoice about and use as an opportunity push more and more radical feminist agendas down everyone’s throat. Certainly there have been some strong female political leaders; a few that come to mind are Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi and Benazir Bhutto come to mind. But in every case, it’s just tragic that women feel they have to take on that role, because there are not enough truly strong men around to do the job.

About the 2008 campaign, I’d say the two biggest issues are: (1) the environment in the long term (including overpopulation, global warming, and wilderness preservation and restoration; and (2) dealing with radical Islamic militancy in the short term. (Short term meaning the next 10 or 20 years, which is what it might take to permanently and decisively defeat militant Islam; and long term meaning the next 100 or 200 years, which is probably what it will take to get the human population back down to something sane and sustainable, like one billion people; even if we start with very vigorous global birth control programs right now.)

The rise of militant Islam is very much parallel to the rise of Nazism in the 1930’s, and just as then, poking our heads in the sand and hoping it will just go away will not work. (Or even worse: trying to make the militant Muslims our “friends” by making ridiculous and unjust concessions to their inane ideology. That will only embolden them; and in fact it already has.) Like the Nazis, the jihadists have been very clear that their ultimate intention is to dominate the entire world and force Islam onto everyone. (This should not be news to anyone, and if it is then it means you have not been paying attention, or are in willful denial of the known facts of reality.)

The big differences from the Nazis are: (1) Islamic extremists imagine they’re all going to paradise for their bloodthirsty and monstrous acts of evil, so they have few reservations about giving it their all, even unto sacrificing many of themselves in the process, and (2) Unlike the Nazis, the jihadists will have nuclear weapons. This is only a matter of time, and possibly there is very little time left. Therefore, we need a leader who understands that this is the BIG issue of our time; and who takes a clear and unequivocal commitment to utterly and permanently crush, defeat and destroy the militant Islamic movement and its evil ideology, no matter what it takes.

And those of you on the left wing who smirk and roll your eyes at the idea of calling militant Islam “evil” – that implies that either you don’t think any ideology is evil, or else you have a really warped set of moral principles. The jihadists are every bit as evil as the Nazis were, or the Ku Klux Klan. There is no real moral difference between ethic bigotry and genocide, versus religious bigotry and genocide. The fact that Christianity in past centuries also engaged in religious bigotry, terrorism and genocide does not excuse the Muslim extremists for doing the same damn thing, or even worse. I will be quite glad and willing to treat Muslim fundamentalists with exactly the same degree of religious tolerance and acceptance that they grant devout Pagan goddess-worshippers, polytheistic heathens and witches with. In Mecca. Fair enough?

How hard is it really to get the republican nomination? All you have to do is say Jesus a bunch of times and promise to make laws against all them queers and it’s in the bag.

The only down side to Hillary not winning is that if she did, some dittohead would try and asissinate her thus proving how violent and hateful by nature conservatives really are.

Dee,

Well stated. But sorry, don’t agree with much/most of what you say.

Being a throw-back chauvinist, I want women to be feminine and men masculine. But having been around a lot of both for many years, I’ve concluded that such is not going to be the case. And the more our culture departs from physicality as a means then the less differentiation there will be. You can argue the pros and cons of this position, but to what end?

Would that a few ‘real men’ would step forward and carry the mantle of masculine leadership that we all long for. Would that one could. But looking at that ‘the last men standing,’ after Iowa, I am not encouraged.

Your assessment of the campaign issues of this year seem ideologically consistent with your other views. To quote Clinton’s camp (Bill, not Hil), “It’s the economy stupid.” Any campaign that doesn’t make that the lead plank of their platform is facing an uphill battle. Being a left-leaning pinko, I naturally see the environment as an issue as well, but don’t think it will be a bell ringer. I don’t see the majority of Americans (voter types) selecting someone based on that issue. The issue will, in fact, drive politics, not the other way around.

As for the Islamic ‘threat,’ I fear you are right. Nothing better than the old ‘fear card’ to galvanize voters. I don’t see it being the threat you do, your historical references notwithstanding, but that doesn’t mean I blithefully ignore it. As a campaign issue, it’s a no-brainer. All a person need do, as Hil has shown, is talk tough and talk’s cheap. Actually doing something about a disparate group of zealots is quite another thing. We showed that to the Red Coats and the Vietnamese showed it to us and the Afghanis showed it to Russia.

Nazi Germany was a nation state with ‘needs.’ Islam is a philosophy that only wants you to think as they do. They don’t need to feed a nation or fuel its engines so can’t be as easily addressed as was Hitler. Not that I’m implying the conflict was easy. Certainly not for Europe. I have a feeling that when there’s nothing to eat and there’s no lights that the religious fervor will be banked some. Just an old guy’s take on human nature.

I think the young that visit this site, and hopefully vote, should be concerned about two things in this century: the environment you referenced and the house of cards that is our stock market-based economy. Think of the latter as a house with a very weak foundation. You can live in it for years, but sooner or later, it’s going to make you pay.

I see no investment being made in the future: not in they youth and not in whatever might be called the economy (food production, materials manufacturing, etc.). Very soon the U.S. is going to become a dependant state and won’t have the skillsets to change that. Ripe for the plucking. By Islamists?

It will probably be a Dem this cycle, Clinton in the White house, but Obama has proven he will play ball, not try and mess with the cash flows, so i could see him end up with it too.

the Repug likely to be Rudy “more war for Israel” Guiliani. He has the media and money of his camp but it is just a little too obvious to put him in, especially when there are such _reasonable_ people on the other ticket. too perfect to have a black and a woman running, prepare to get ready to puke over the ‘promise of america’ meme that is coming to your media wall a year from now. Bonus: the Dems will get blamed for the recession that will fully engulf the US in 2009 and the Repugs can take back the congress in 2010!

Dee, if we are to embark on a mission to destroy all radical, bloodthirtsy extremists who would kill other innocent people to further their ideo-logic, then i’m afraid you would end up on the chopping block too! (but dont worry, the vast majority of humans don’t see that as a viable solution, so you are pretty safe for now.) :>

Ron Paul the Saviour. If he doesn’t win, he will awaken many sleeping Americans.

Ron Paul should be in the debate saturday, Abc news is wrong not to have Him on there the right turn they took when Peter Jennnings died and Ted Koppel left has dropped them down a level. im not a Paul fan but i think He should be in the debate.

It does not surprise me that the republicans would try to exclude Dr. Paul from the next debate. It’s not like they’ve given him an equal amount of coverage or the same number of questions and speaking time at the debates. Besides, republicans have a long standing history of a predilection for prejudice.

Correction Ron Paul will be on the ABC debate tonight, but not the Hawk news debate Sunday. Sorry. i stand by my comment that ABC has taken a right turn.

Dee,

Ah the whinings of a neoconservative. So distinct you can see them a mile away.

I especially enjoyed how you go into specifics about how different the Nazis were from Islamic militants, yet you give NO EXAMPLE WHATSOEVER of how the two are similar (unless you count your assertion that the Nazis tried to force Islam onto everyone which they didn’t). At the same time you contend that militant Islam is as threatening as the Nazis were. Wrong and Sad.

The unfortunate fact for neoconservatives is that militant Islam and Nazi Germany are nothing alike. The differences are incredible, but besides ideology, history, tactics and economic power the most illuminating difference is that militant Islam is stateless and because of this that movement is deprived of the resources and territorial legitimacy that a state enjoys. Because of this lack of resources, “militant Islam” cannot recruit, train and equip a legal army. Instead “militant Islam” has to resort to “terrorist” acts in lieu of a state’s “military retaliation.” The truth is this: terrorism is a poor man’s war. The Zionist movement used terrorism against the British when it was stateless. I doubt Deb, that you would want to “permanently crush, defeat and destroy” the Zionist movement simply because it engaged in terrorist activities to achieve its objective: the state of Israel. If you did that it might make you an “antisemite.”

I also enjoyed your assertion that “it’s just tragic that women fell they have to take on [an authoritative] role, because there are not enough truly strong men around to do the job.”

This sounds like you need a real man in your bedroom. If you want I can give you my number…

yer darn right ABC has taken a right turn – i could be wrong, but i heard rupert murdock now owns ABC!?

East, radical islam is very similar to nazism in that it has shown itself to be very agressive and violent, yet there is a belief among certain elements that the best way to deal with it is to leave it alone.

Diggler, We can go back in history and compare radical islamists with many groups if the standard by which we are comparing is “aggressive and violent”. Terrorism is much more complicated than that. I don’t know anyone one of the candidates that want to ignore the threat they pose. You need to educate yourself more.

Diggler, We can go back in history and compare radical islamists with many groups if the standard by which we are comparing is “aggressive and violent”. Terrorism is much more complicated than that. I don’t know anyone one of the candidates that want to ignore the threat they pose. You need to educate yourself more.

Hillary should already be in jail with her dubious past. The public is finally waking up to her unfettered desire for power.

Hillary should already be in jail with her dubious past. The public is finally waking up to her unfettered desire for power.

Diggler,

I find it offensive that your criteria for Nazism is merely being “aggressive and violent” and someone feeling that you should be left alone.

That is setting the bar so low for being a Nazi that it makes the term meaningless and insults the memories of the people who actually died at the hands of the real Nazis.

There was a time when the Anti-Defamation league and Jewish groups would publicly abhor such comparisons. Wonder why they’re so quiet when people compare the terrorists to Nazis?

Not my criteria, just a valid point of comparison. I think the nazism comparison is way overused, so I sympathize with your objection to it. On the other hand, radical islam is trying to expand its sphere of influence through violence and intimidation. At the same time, there are many (you?) who don’t feel threatened by this movement. These people hate the west – not because of what the west stands for – but because they feel their status as the annointed is reduced by the west’s relative prosperity. Maybe this is another point of comparison, something like Germany at the end of WWI. Either way, the comparison is a bit tired and overused. I just wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it outright.

Disclaimer, I believe in many of the things Ron Paul advocates, and I think he is a fairly honest man who will follow through on what he says. Also, I think pretty much the opposite of Rudy. Take what I say with a bag of salt when it comes to other GOP candidates.

That said, I don’t agree with the conclusions drawn from Iowas polling for Rudy. He didn’t spend any time there and, although Ron Paul spent even less time in Iowa, it was expected that he wouldn’t do well in such a highly religious region. Many people there have no tolerance for cross dressers, no matter how harmless it may be. While I would LOVE for Rudy to disappear, I am wary of calling him finished just yet.

I absolutely abhor that man and want him gone as much as the next person, but lets see how he does in places he has focused on first. Just look at how well Mitt did in Iowa. He spent a fortune there. It shows that direct campaigning helps and that when we get around to states Rudy worked on, his numbers will likely improve.

After Nixon I thought, “It can’t get any worse.” Then came Reagan.

After Reagan I thought, “It can’t get any worse.” Then came Bush.

After Bush I thought, “It can’t get any worse.” Then came Shrub.

I don’t want to think about it.

Diggler,

You insult the memories of the Jesith people who died in the holocaust by saying that it is “valid” to liken Arabs to Nazis. It not only disrespects the victims of the holocaust it actually is a rancid invitation to a new holocaust directed at a different historic minority: Arabs.

Make no mistake, your critique of “radical Islam,” as you provide no balancing critique of “radical Christians”-who believe Jews are malformed Christians-or “radical Jews” who are even more insane than their Islamic counterparts, sounds as hypocritical as is humanly possible. In fact, it sounds downright racist.

To answer your question, as an American, I feel FAR MORE threat from radical Christians and Jews than I ever have from “Islamic terrorists.” Evidence: a conservative movement rife with evangelicals and Likudists has brought this country to the brink of destruction by invalidating its every ideal, and they used 911 as an excuse to do so. I can think of no greater victory for any “terrorist” whether it be Christian, Islamic or Jewish.

Your continued warmongering is only evidence that you are a part of one of these groups. Three guesses as to which and the first two don’t count. Racist.

It was his to lose and lose he did

roses

Eastwood, you insult your own inteligence. The false implications that you have read into some of the posts below add no value to a forum such as this. They represent a brand of extremism which is an even greater threat to a civil society than anything Nazis or Islamic terrorists could ever hope to achieve.

Branding people ‘racists’ for sharing their (moderate) interpretations of current events is at best idle fearmongering, and at worst, cultivation of further animosity and misunderstanding in an increasingly divided society. I would suggest that you should be ashamed of yourself, but you are probably too stupid to understand why. I am confident, though, that over time, that the influence of weak, ineffectual people such as yourself, who have little to offer beyond projecting their own twisted emotions onto the rest of the world, will diminish as our society comes to an understanding that the solutions to the problems we face require constructive action and not merely divisive criticisms.

I can’t seriously believe that anyone needs to have it explained to them why militant Islam today is comparable to the rise of Nazism in the 1930’s. In both cases it’s an evil ideology that is utterly bend on world domination, with fanatics who feel assured that destiny is on their side, and are therefore willing to do crazy things to fulfill that destiny. Come to think of it, you can throw communism into that pot, too — another radical, fanatical, evil ideology bent on world domination, and willing to commit any numbor of horrors and atrocities to get there. In all three cases it was absolutely clear that the goal was world domination, because they said so loudly and repeatedly. (Well, the Nazis perhaps pretended that they would settle for most of Europe, but I think we all know their ultimate goal was world domination.)

And shame on anybody who tries to suggest that Christianity or Zionist Judaism is anywhere near the same level of threat that Islam is. The Christians went through their murderous and bloodthirsty phase a few centuries back; and while they can still be a nuisance trying to push their religion in everybody’s face, they are no no longer in the business of torturing people and burning them alive, etc. The evils of Christianity were mostly in the past. Judaism has been by far the best-behaved of the monotheistic religions; mainly because it’s a tribal religion so Jews are not out trying to convert anyone.

And while Arab nations have never ceased in their aggressions against Israel and their determination to destroy it as the Jewish homeland, Israel has sought only to exist, and has only fought when aggressed against. And while the Arabs (including but not limited to the Palestinians) have committed hundreds of acts of terrorism each year against the Israelis, even the most radical zionists have committed remarkably few acts of terrorism. The reason left-wingers keep bringing up the King David Hotel even though it was many decades ago is precisely because it’s very hard to find examples of Israeli terrorism. (And don’t start on Sabra and Shatila; that was Lebanese Christians doing the massacres.)

The fact is that radical Islam is to blame for something like 98% of the hundreds of terrorist incidents that happen every year. And to refuse to acknowledge that — or worse, to try and bury that fact with distractions and turn around and blame Israel instead? That is utterly dishonest and hypocritical, and a shameless abdication of the urgent fight against a very real and growing evil.

apparently capitalism fits that description as well. the US has taken it upon itself to be the worlds policeman when it is suitable to it’s needs or interests. It’s easy to point the finger at others and call them evil when you have blinded yourself to your own shortcomings.

Oh and Jed,

Look at the commentators here. The only one saying “militant Islam today is comparable to the rise of Nazism in the 1930’s” is also saying “Judaism has been by far the best-behaved of the monotheistic religions; mainly because it’s a tribal religion so Jews are not out trying to convert anyone.”

Let’s see. We have here someone who says the reason Christians were “in the business of torturing people and burning them alive” was mainly because Christians are “out to convert” people. Conversion is a basic tenant of being Christian and a central teaching of Jesus Christ. Oh and leave aside the fact that U.S. policy under Jewish neoconservatives was torture using the same techniques perfected by Israel in it’s dealing with “terrorists.”

Jed,

Here we have evidence of the neoconservative movement that brought the attack on “militant Islam” in Iraq. Look at this key gem from neoconservative Dee: “while Arab nations have never ceased in their aggressions against Israel and their determination to destroy it as the Jewish homeland, Israel has sought only to exist, and has fought only when aggressed against.”

Here we have a genuine Jewish neoconservative hilariously lying through her teeth and attempting to bait the United States into war against the vague threat of “militant Islam” while proclaiming her support of Israel. She literally said “Israel has only fought when aggressed against.” That is an insane thing to say, given the vast amount of evidence to the contrary.

Here’s a thought Jed, maybe she’s secretly employed by the oil company…

Wake up. Israel is responsible for our ruinous middle east war policy. I have lost count of the number of times I’ve embarrassed you on this point. Simply admit it. Israel is horrible for the national security and economic well-being of the United States. They are not allies.

Hey, that’s hilarious — Eastwood imagines that I’m both a neoconservative, and a Jew?? Wrong on both counts there, really quite wrong.

My only real point of agreement with neoconservatives is that we should maintain a strong national defense, and that we should encourage good behavior by other countries, including military intervention when appropriate. But I disagree with the neoconservatives in their ideology that democracy is the cure for all ills. If you introduce democracy into a nation where the public is already brainwashed by radical Islam, then they will just vote in a radical Islamic government. How is that not easy to predict? Why was anyone surprised that the Palestinians used their newfound democracy to put a terrorist organization into power? Of course that should have been expected.

As for your whacked assumption that I’m Jewish, that says a whole lot about your own prejudices, Eastwood. It says that you can’t imagine anyone standing up for Israel on purely ethical grounds, without having any hidden motives there. I don’t have any Jewish ancestry that I’m aware of; it’s mostly Celtic and Germanic. And I’m a devout Wiccan, a pagan who has no use for any monotheistic religion, including Judaism. But as a pagan I can also honestly observe that the Jews have been very well behaved towards other religions, in general; while the Christians and the Muslims have engaged in bloody campaigns of persecution and terror. Yes, there are stories in the Torah/Old Testament about Yahweh telling the Hebrews to go conquer some other people, whatever; but for all we know that may be pure myth, and not history at all. In any case, it was a very long time ago, while the ravages of Christianity stopped only a few centuries ago, and the Muslims are still out killing people in the name of their god.

So there is no good reason for all this anti-semitism, and it appears to derive solely from the small minds of invidious people who resent the fact that Jews have been historically very successful. Faced with centuries of persecution, the Jewish people always manage to rise above it, and go on to accomplish things of significance. For that they deserve our admiration, not suspicion and resentment.

PS: Oh, and then Eastwood goes for a third wrong guess about me, suggesting that maybe I’m employed by the oil company?? Uh, no. Maybe you should stick to forecasting people’s horoscopes or something. Because you’re really lousy at making guesses about someone you’ve never met.