John Edwards said that because of the Iowa results, it is now a two-man race -- literally, two men, Edwards and Obama.
That doesn't even make sense on the surface: Edwards only beat Clinton by 0.28 percent, and she actually leaves Iowa with MORE national delegates than Edwards, because of her strong showing in Iowa's Fifth Congressional District. So even though she came in a very close third, she actually did better than Edwards, who came in second.
So in fact, Hillary came in second in the way it counts: she has the second most national delegates in the state. And that is not even counting "super delegates," where she is far outpacing both Edwards and Obama.
But even if none of that were true, even if Edwards had left Iowa with more delegates -- in, or out, of Iowa -- than Clinton, it is still nonsensical to count her out, as obviously she is far stronger in many other states than she is in Iowa.
Of course, if you are reading this, you probably already know that. And that's the point: everyone knows that. So why would Edwards say that she is out of the race? It can only be for one reason: he's desperate, so he is resorting to baldfaced lying in the hope he can peel off some more votes.
And that typifies Edwards. He pretends he is the antiwar candidate, despite cosponsoring the authorization for the use of force. He pretends he defends the "little guy," when his extremely lucrative career was made on exploiting the "little guy." He acts like he is experienced, when he has spent only one term in the Senate. Then he acts like he is an unknown outsider (a speech he gave yesterday bragged about coming in second against two "rock star" candidates) despite being on the national ticket just over three years ago.
I've said it before, and it is unfortunately true: I would much rather have Hillary as President than Edwards. Those who know me -- even a little -- know that this isn't much about Clinton, but a lot about Edwards, and nothing good. But I would love to see him win the nomination, because he is such an easy target for the GOP. Too bad he has no chance.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 05, 2008 09:17 AM | Email ThisIf there is no doubt in your mind that the Democratic nominee will win, then your mind is far too closed to far too many possibilities. There are many scenarios where a Republican can win in 2008.
Not sure what quagmire is being referred to: if you mean Washington not getting things done, that's a quagmire I can appreciate and admire. If only it were true. Washington is constantly getting things done, and we're all the worse for it.
Posted by: pudge on January 5, 2008 09:43 AMRegardless, that's not going to happen. Edwards won't get even close to 20% of the delegates, and one candidate will win the nomination outright, most likely Hillary.
Posted by: pudge on January 5, 2008 10:26 AMIf exploiting means winning millions of dollars for routinely, then yes. And if you are going to say that Edwards' activities increased the cost of insurance for th "little guy," I can stop you right there. Insurance costs have absolutely nothing to do with how much money the insurance companies have paid off recently. More to do with, um, the so called "market."
"Then he acts like he is an unknown outsider (a speech he gave yesterday bragged about coming in second against two "rock star" candidates) despite being on the national ticket just over three years ago."
Outsider, yes. Unknown, no. Being on a losing ticket does not make you an insider, it makes you someone who has tried to become an insider. In any case, Edwards has definitely never tried to say he is unknown, only that he isn't a celebrity who writes flashy books or is married to Bill Clinton.
I don't even like Edwards, I just don't like it when the truth is manipulated to make decent people seem scumy (swift-boat anyone?).
Posted by: Noble on January 5, 2008 11:19 AM1. In the London Times online for 1/5/08 Obama says he wants enough Democrats elected to be like the British Labor Government in 1946- 1951. (Yes, the one that socialized British industry and lead to stagnation and poverty for the Brits by 1970.) Hillary cannot use that against him in a Democratic primary. (Here is the relevant paragraph from the Times Article:
"He is a well-spoken, pleasant, African-American (literally; his father was a Kenyan) who argues, when he gets serious about it, that he can win enough votes to bring in a sufficiently Democratic Congress that will enact, something like the Labour Government of 1945-51 achieved, a thoroughgoing rebalancing of public and private sectors.")
2. Obama has no executive experience. (Neither does she.)
3. Obama comes from an unsavory source of political corruption, the South Side of the Chicago Democratic machine. (Not an argument that could be used before an Illinois Democratic primary where the Chicago machine is popular and as they used to say, the people just want their share of the fix.)
4. His comments about invading Pakistan. (She has hammered Bush for not emphasizing the capture of Bin Laden and the stabilization of Afghanistan. -- Not that she really believed in it, it was just a way to still look tough on terror while advocating abandoning Iraq.)
Posted by: KW64 on January 5, 2008 12:07 PMThis is a patently ridiculous statement. Insurance costs include ALL costs involved--that includes medical procedures, drug costs, administration and yes, litigation costs. Insurance is NOT priced like widgets. It is a financial product with the need to hold reserves and required surplus. To compete for capital, the company needs to provide an adequate return on equity (ROE) to shareholders. Sure they also have to compete with other insurance companies that are in the market to get market share, but ALL insurance companies factor in litigation costs into their prices. To think otherwise is simply "head in the sand".
Point 1: No one is going to nationalize private industry....they may regulate and tax it, but I really don't expect to see any Chavez/Putin nationalization moves in this country.
Point 2: Bush had little executive experience when he came to power. Texas Governor is more of a figurehead position than say the Wash. State Governor. His prior executive experience was bankrupting an Oil Company and using eminent domain to build a new Baseball Stadium in Huston at the taxpayers expense. Romney has more executive experience in his pinky than W did in his whole body when he ran in 2000. I'd have vote for him over W in a heartbeat. None of the Dem's have any executive experience, nor does Thompson for that matter but no one has a problem comparing him to Reagan. Hell, Gerald Ford wasn't even elected.
Point 3:How is the South side of Chicago anymore corrupt than say Houston, New York City, Los Angeles, or Seattle. Every major city has a dark side.
Point 4: Musharraf is a military dictator whose country gives sanctuary to terrorists who attack American soldiers in Afghanistan. This really guy the US want to be friends with?
And the money situation is bleak. Watch the dollars roll in for Senator Obama.
Posted by: Gingrich Is My Hero on January 5, 2008 01:03 PMI wish we could believe that--I think you are thinking of things like the Oil Industry, but there are a lot of Democrats that would like to nationalize the health care industry, or at least the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry...
Posted by: Bill H on January 5, 2008 01:04 PM"Noble" said :
"I don't even like Edwards, I just don't like it when the truth is manipulated to make decent people seem scumy (swift-boat anyone?)."
Your very statement contradicts you. The Swift Boat veterans for truth are honorable men who took up the call for duty once again to prevent a traitorous John Kerry from becoming president by riding a false war record into the white house.
Unlike your moniker, you are anything but noble.
Posted by: pbj on January 5, 2008 01:16 PMYou said:
"Point 1: No one is going to nationalize private industry....they may regulate and tax it, but I really don't expect to see any Chavez/Putin nationalization moves in this country."
And we are supposed to take the word of a liberal on face value? It seems to me that when the affrimative action programs were going through the senate a certain liberal assured us it would NEVER become a quota program or "he would eat his hat". Since then the word of liberals has become even more tarnished and unworthy.
Ultimate socialistic redistribution of wealth is the end game for liberals. They will lie and deny it till the sun comes down because if they were truthful about what they wanted, they would neve hold public office. A big part of the lie is the renaming of liberal to "progressive". There is nothing "progressive" about liberal policies.
"Point 4: Musharraf is a military dictator whose country gives sanctuary to terrorists who attack American soldiers in Afghanistan. This really guy the US want to be friends with?"
Time for a geography lesson!
DO you own a map? If not, here is a link for you:
http://www.worldpress.org/images/maps/afghanistan_map.jpg
Now please tell me exactly how much coastline there is in Afghanistan?
Answer: THERE IS NONE! ZIP! NADA! NONE AT ALL!!!!!
Ok, now having established that there is no coastline in Afghanistan, how else could a military attack against the taliban take place?
1) Ask Iran? Yeah I suppose Obama would do that. After all, he is going to bomb Pakistan anyway. I doubt the nut of Iran would allow it, but since Osama uh er Obama is going to sit dow to tea with him, I am sure he can broach the subject over crumpets and tea.
2) Fly over those countries? Sorry, you need permission to do that unless you intend to start a war.
There are the former soviet satellites, but I doubt that would be very good either. We did have some space to use there but they kicked us out.
So how are YOU going to attack the taliban after 911 when you don't like the dictator of Pakistan. Please, let au all know because after all Afghanistan was the "good" war on terror as we always hear liberals telling us.
BUT dear Spree saved the best part of that piece for the end. Hopefully she won't mind if I quote that part here.
"Then we come to the mantra that we have been hearing from all the candidates on the left, the mantra of "change"."
"What the hell does that mean anyway?"
"Seriously!"
"What is going to change? Politics? The political bickering in Congress and the Senate? Does anyone think that if Hillary OR Obama for that matter, won the 2008 Presidential election that the next morning we would wake up and the sun would be brighter? Millions would suddenly be on a socialist healthcare plan, magically, over night? Everyone would simply put politics on the back burner and make nice with each other? Terrorists would all of a sudden stop trying to kill us? Peace would reign? Would poverty be gone? Will homelessness diappear overnight?"
"What? What? What???!!!????"
"What exactly would change? Would someone please ask them this question and force them to actually answer the damn thing."
"I am truly curious."
"Just like the Novemeber 2006 elections, everyone is promising "change", like that is some magical word, but no one is asking the candidates exactly how they would implement that so called change."
"I will let you in on a little secret here, I like America, I love America, I am proud of America and I am proud to BE an American."
"Are you?"
"When I asked that question in a post of mine a while ago, amazingly enough, the only people that could not say they were proud to be an American without a "but" afterward their answer.....were the far left Democrats."
"That right there is the difference between Republicans, moderates and the far left of this country."
"Nothing against any other country or their country's citizenry, I would hope that they are just as proud of their country and just as proud to be from their country."
"To want certain things to improve is fine and dandy I could list dozens of things I would like to see run better, handled more efficiently, but improvement has a completely different meaning than "change" does."
"As long as they hold onto that mantra of "change" America, I think 2008 might just end up being a race between those proud to be Americans and those that are not and I believe that the majority of this great country is, indeed, proud to be Americans, which is going to be a huge problem for the Democrats in the 2008 elections."
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 5, 2008 01:35 PM1. Privately owned hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies will always exist in this country.
2. None of health-plans I've seen presented by either party do not call for the absorption of these companies into the arms of from privatization into the arms of Federal Govt.
I never said that Afghanistan had a coastline. I'm sure the former soviet republics would be happy to take our cash as fast as Pakistan did. Their economies could use the influx of American dollars as well as bringing their economies into the modern age.
We are the most successful nation in the world, we have the greatest military in the world, yet it strikes me as ironic how we rail against Cuba while propping up known terrorist sympathizers like Musharraf who directly and indirectly support those who take American lives.
You should be ashamed of yourself PBJ, your as bad or worse than the two bit SF liberal Pelosi and her traitorous liberal allies. America will prevail against terrorism!! Yet even an idiot can tell you that funding the Terrorists and their allies who's goal is to destroy us is not the way to win this war.
Yes, government has to get OUT of it.
Look at the utter failure of mandated healthcare in Massachusetts. Doctors, particularly General Practice and Family Doctors are leaving for neighboring state in droves, switching to a specialty or quitting altogether.
You can attempt to force citizens to have mandated health coverage (and Massachusetts DOES by fining people) but you can't force doctors to see them.
Furthermore there are those that CHOOSE not to have health insurance. My now 27 yr old was one of them when he was in law school. He was healthy and the cost of insurance far outweighed the cost of a trip to the doctor occasionally.
Ditto when he 1st joined his firm... there was a waiting period which reset when he took time off to study for the bar.
Ditto our 2nd child: he was on the 5 yr plan for college and he was covered only till he wwas 23 under our plan. Again a healthy adult deciding he wasn't interested in health insurance.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 5, 2008 02:44 PM
http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid50398.aspx
Once again, I ask you to, for christ's sake, LOOK AT THE FRIGGIN MAP!!!
In order to get military supplies to the former Soviet satellites, what coastline will you use?
ANSWER: THERE IS NONE! We have to go beggin from Putin to cross HIS territory! Or China??!????
Pakistan is a NUCLEAR POWER. I will repeat, PAKISTAN IS A NUCLEAR POWER. Do you really want those nukes in the hands of terrorists? Because unless you are prepared to invade and take over Pakistan, alienating it will only drive it closer to the terrorists. No one ever said Musharraf was a boy scout. Many of the people we deal with are not. Get over it. Your heros FDR was in bed with Stalin, areguably one of the largest mass murderers in the 20th century.
Posted by: pbj on January 5, 2008 02:54 PMAh but grasshopper, how you know it not China?
Posted by: kson on January 5, 2008 03:00 PMPosted by OBL at January 5, 2008 01:10 PM"
(Smiling...) So, any one want my call on the Presidential election?
OBL SAID:
"Just an aside...Redskins will prevail today.
Emotion of their ultimate 12th man, #21 - they're doin it for him and 'Hawks will be beat. "
SEAHHAWK win!!! Eat crow OBL!!!
HA HA HA HA HA
Pathetic kicker on Redskins can't even make a 30 yard field goal. My 10 yr old nephew could do better!
Hawks 35, Loser Redskins 14
GO HAWKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: pbj on January 5, 2008 04:37 PMNo, he did not routinely win millions for anyone, except himself. Further, the point is that he -- routinely -- manipulated and lied to clients and juries to extort money from corporations. For example, he preyed on the emotions of parents with autistic children, convincing them that someone was to blame for their problem. Maybe he got them some money, but he just used them and their tragedies to make money for himself based on complete lies.
This is John Edwards, in a nutshell. Remember in the 2004 race when he lied to a huge gathering of people, telling them that embryonic stem cells would make the lame walk again, within our lifetime? Not that they COULD, but that they WOULD. He preyed on their emotions by lying to them in order to get their votes. That is Edwards: the liar, the manipulator.
The prototypical dishonest trial lawyer.
Posted by: pudge on January 5, 2008 05:07 PM1. In fact, many Democrats DO want to nationalize private industry. The most obvious is the health care industry. Another that nearly all the Democrats want to nationalize is education, which is currently public-private, of course. Then there's energy, television, and more.
2. Bush had executive experience, in and out of government. Obama and Clinton have none (of their own).
3. You must not know much about Chicago. It is FAR more corrupt than Seattle, Houston, and even Los Angeles (all three of which I have lived within 30 miles of). New York, I dunno. It's close.
4. Yes, we absolutely want to be friends with Musharraf, because the alternative is far, far, worse. No one with any foreign policy experience has seriously criticized our relationship with Musharaff, on the whole.
Posted by: pudge on January 5, 2008 05:16 PMBut you still might not get it, so let me be clear: I never said, or implied, anything that could possibly be taken to mean my opinion is more worthwhile than anyone else's. The problem here is with your lack of comprehension.
Posted by: pudge on January 5, 2008 05:53 PMPrivate industry has proven to be far superior. NONE, I repeat NONE of the health plans by the top-tier candidates propose doing away with private industry and/or nationalizing them. If anything my fellow Republicans want to nationalize TV to take all the smut off the air...especially on channels like MTV. Do I think smut should be gone from the airwaves, YES. Would I do it with Nationalization, NO!
2. Carter has "executive experience" too, look where that got us. Bush was a figurehead Governor with no REAL power (REAL power brings REAL experience). Bankrupting a company does not count as quality experience in my book. Now this Romney fellow has REAL experience. There is a difference.
3. Houston may not be as corrupt as Chicago, Detroit, or NYC but it's certainly up there. Nixon was corrupt but he made the best trade deal of the century by opening up markets in China. Would you vote for him? I did and still proud of it.
4. You want to befriend someone who's country members publicly call for execution of our proud American soldiers fighting overseas. Nukes or no Nukes the Musharaff has to go out with or without Democratic elections. Any dictator who actively supports and gives harbor terrorists in their country should be forcibly removed from power. We removed Saddam, we can remove Musharaff.
1. In fact, no, laws do not have to be "ruled Constitutionally valid." And just because a law is unconstitutional doesn't mean it won't get passed, and enforced. Look at No Child Left Behind, McCain-Feingold, Social Security in the 40s, the Sedition Act of 1798 ... the list is practically endless. Those are just a very few of the well-known highlights.
2. Shrug. You said Bush had significant executive experience, but the original statement was about Obama and Clinton having NONE. I don't care one whit whether you think his experience is significant, or good, because it is entirely beside the original point that YOU were responding to.
3. Shrug. Again, I couldn't care less whether you don't care about corruption. You made the point that all of those cities were as corrupt as Chicago, and it's not true. Anything else you have to say is irrelevant to that.
4. Yes, I very much want to befriend Musharaff. We looked at Afghanistan on a map; now, look at Pakistan. Who is Musharaff's neighbor to the east? I would befriend any leader of Pakistan who is willing to do more good than harm. The cost of not doing so is, most likely, World War. Pakistan and India fighting would most likely pull in many people -- if not the nations -- of the Middle East, probably China, maybe Russia, certainly the U.S. and Europe.
You are making three basic errors here. First, is not considering the consequences of taking action against Musharaff, as I described above.
Second, is in simply being naive about what is actually going on: you are blaming Musharaff for what the fact that some people in his government are against us and for the terrorists, but that would be the same no matter who was in charge of Pakistan. What, you think that sort of thing didn't go on when Bhutto was Prime Minister? Funny, because the first reports of Pakistanis selling illegal nuclear technology to North Korea came WHILE she was Prime Minister.
Read that again: While Bhutto was the duly elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, A.Q. Khan and others were selling, and trying to sell, nuclear technology to North Korea, and Iraq. So please don't pretend that Musharaff is to blame for all these things, because that is nonsense.
Third, is in thinking that we have the capability of ousting a leader of Pakistan and keeping the country from descending into full-scale civil war (on a far greater level than anything we saw in Iraq). Pakistan is far less stable than Iraq, and has far many radical Islamists living in it already. It just wouldn't work.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kXOg23pGeA&feature=related
Wow, I guess every country in the world would be our enemy then including our own as there are people here in the USA who have called for the murder of our soldiers.
Posted by: pbj on January 5, 2008 09:50 PMRon Paul blames America for the 911 attacks. He admitted he and Obama are almost identical in terms of positions. I think that nutty Ron Paul was at the wrong debate. He belonged with the Democrats.
Romney went up in my opinion of him. Though I think he tried to dodge the issue of his healthcare mandates in MA while gov.
Huckabee just seemed really petty to me.
McCain was totally noncredible when it came to illegal immigration.
Giuliani seemed polite and straightforward. Lost credibility when challenged for New York being a sanctuary city.
Fred Thompson spoke well and was polite. His ideas were credible and well presented. He just didn't interrupt or throw mud like Huckabee. Some may take this as not being ambitious or being lazy but is just a gentleman, which may work against him unfortunately.
Overall the moderators were liberals bent on scoring liberal points. Case in point, the question as to whether the candidates would run with or away from the Bush foreign policy. Reminiscient of the CNN rigged debates where Democrats posing as undecided Republicans were picked to answer questions.
Fox was right in excluding Ron Paul from the Republican debate. He is no Republican, but rather a liberatarina at best or liberal at worst. He is hitching his wagon to the Republican party because he realizes that the libertarian party is a joke and a luaghing stock fringe party that would never get national coverage. The soone he is thrown out of the debates the better. A 12 yr old aborted fetus is more viable than Ran Paul.
What was your impression of the Republican debate?
If you mean the CNN/YouTube debate, you're incorrect: neither CNN nor YouTube (nor the questioners you're probably referring to) ever stated or implied in any way that the questioners were either undecided, or Republicans. The confusion here may stem from the fact that a few weeks before that debate, there was a separate CNN debate (NOT a YouTube debate) that WAS specifically for undecided Democrats. But the CNN/YouTube debates were not limited to any particlular group of people. Anyone could ask a question, and many of the questions came from Democrats.
And heck, many of them came from decided Republicans. Seattle's Andrew Jones, a college student, was one of the YouTube questioners. His question was used in the debate, and he flew out to Florida for the debate, and he was a McCain backer. His question, if you may recall, was basically "how could you disagree with McCain, of all people, on torture?" Not very undecided. But it didn't have to be. No one ever said it would be.
Also, Ron Paul is a Republican, by any definition of the word. Indeed, if you look at the Republican platform -- which is the most reasonable way to judge whether someone matches up to the beliefs of the Republican Party -- Ron Paul is "more Republican" than Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee and maybe even Mitt Romney. To say he is not a Republican just seems like unthinking nonsense to me.
David Duke was mainstreamed into the republican candidate for governor of Lousiana. He ran against Edwin Edwards, a true crook, who later went to prison. One-party rule benefits no one. One-party rule is really responsible for much of the misery after Katrina. People need to wish Governor Jindal, God speed as he is attempting to clean up corruption from decades of political dynasties and one-party rule along with the KKK residue in his party.
Now for some interesting articles:
1. This is from the official web site for David Duke:
The Official Website of Representative David Duke, PhD
10/6/2007
REGISTER Republican by October 12th or You Can't Vote For Ron Paul!
Posted under: General-- @ 12:20 am
Ron Paul MUST Run Ads Nation-Wide NOW!!
Neocons are closing primaries to anyone who doesn't register Republican by Oct. 12th
By James Buchanan -- EURO
Ron Paul on with Alex Jones
A week ago, I wrote an article listing the many reasons why an early advertising campaign would benefit Ron Paul. How Ron Paul needed to break through the mainstream media black out and the biased coverage and go directly to the American people. I suggested running a few short commercials late at night as an experiment. Well, we no longer have that option. The neocons have made a calculated political move, which will affect only Ron Paul. They are closing primaries in many states so that only people, who have registered as Republicans by October 12th, will be able to vote.
If this were a chess game, the neocons have just put our king in check. We must come up with a good response immediately to stay in the game.
The Ron Paul campaign MUST start running ads, which introduce Paul to the vast American audience and which also WARN Americans that their opportunity to vote for the only viable anti-war candidate is rapidly slipping away. That they must register as Republican by October 12th or their votes won't count for anything this election.
This is an emergency situation. A nation-wide commercial campaign needs to be started immediately. The first commercial should be thrown together in an hour and broadcast within 24 hours. Just show Ron Paul shaking hands with Ronald Reagan and crowds of people waving Ron Paul signs and the audio would say:
"If elected Ron Paul will end the Iraq War as soon as possible. Ron Paul will enforce immigration laws and end the 'anchor baby' loophole.
If you want our troops out of Iraq, then register Republican by Oct. 12th and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary."
It takes just under 20 seconds to read the above words. It would be good to flash up a black-background with white lettering at the end of the commercial that says "The neocons are closing the Republican primaries specifically to hurt Ron Paul because he is the only viable anti-war candidate. You must register by Oct. 12th to vote for Ron Paul and to bring our troops back from the Iraq War otherwise it will be too late!!!!"
I suggest that the Ron Paul campaign spend at least a million dollars putting out ads telling people to register Republican before October 12th. At a maximum, I would suggest spending the entire $5.3 million dollars plus whatever has been collected for the October fund drive. Basically everything! This sinister neocon move is so potentially harmful that we MUST react to it strongly and decisively.
Every dollar spent BEFORE October 12th will be one hundred times as effective as a dollar spent after October 12th. We need to get anti-war Libertarians and Democrats re-registered as Republicans and we have only SIX DAYS to do it. So we must DO IT NOW!!!!
Once October 12th goes by, then we're competing for the votes of life-long Republicans. Many of these people listen to neocon talk show hacks on a daily basis getting their daily dose of pro-war brainwashing. The enemy knows that this will put us at an extreme disadvantage so we must counter their move by moving quickly and decisively and doing an emergency advertising campaign (which could easily become a news item all by itself generating additional publicity).
October 6th, 2007
Read more James Buchanan at WhiteCivilRights.com
Ron Paul Campaign:
Our goal is to win. We have 96 days, maybe less. We have one shot.
October 2nd, 2007
Yesterday afternoon, the Ron Paul 2008 staff came together to hear that message. I shared it with them then. I share it with you now.
Our goal is to win. Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination. Ron Paul becomes our next president.
We have 96 days, maybe less. The first contest will be January 5 in Wyoming. But Iowa will change its date to be earlier than Wyoming and New Hampshire will do the same. Michigan will hold its primary on January 15. South Carolina and Nevada are set for January 19, followed by Florida on January 29.
We have one shot. The time is right for this Ron Paul Revolution; there are many reasons why. But this opportunity we now hold in our hands will never come again.
The future of our nation lies with us, and with the people who will soon join this freedom movement.
We have the answer: freedom. We have the man: Ron Paul. We have each other.
We have what we need to win.
Kent Snyder
Chairman
RonPaul2008.com
Staff
http://www.davidduke.com/general/register-republican-by-october-12th-or-you-cant-vote-for-ron-paul_2877.html
2. The ADL has extensive info on Duke and his attempt to mainstream his ideas into the republican party:
David Duke:
White Revolution on the Internet
Like Don Black, David Duke first became an active racist as a teen-ager. Soon after, as a student at Louisiana State University, he founded the neo-Nazi group White Youth Alliance. After his graduation, Duke founded the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and launched a publicity blitz that boosted its membership.
Duke tried to move the Klan into the mainstream, encouraging his Klansmen to "get out of the cow pasture and into hotel meeting rooms." Heeding his own advice, Duke got himself on network television, where he articulated a subtle brand of racism, skillfully exploiting legitimate issues such as illegal immigration, affirmative action and court-ordered busing as a vehicle for voicing his white supremacist propaganda. Couching his bigotry in pseudo-scientific and sociological terms, Duke attracted audiences with his moderate-sounding approach, leading critical journalists to describe his views as "rhinestone racism" and "button-down terror."
http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/duke.asp
I wonder if the attempt to paint Paul as a mainstream republican is like the attempt to paint Duke as a mainstream republican governor of Louisiana?
Posted by: WVH on January 6, 2008 09:57 AMWow, you're one to talk about being full of oneself and having time to kill to write a lot and thinking people care about what you have to say. You've written about a quarter of all the posts here in this one discussion, and it was by far the least interesting quarter. Like the part where you tried to argue with yourself.
Posted by: pudge on January 6, 2008 02:58 PMSo when I look at all those comments, about 1/4 of the whole discussion, and see the fact that they came from the exact same IP address ...
Shrug. Who are you trying to convince here?
Posted by: pudge on January 6, 2008 04:46 PMIt must be a public library, then. Oh wait, no, because then you wouldn't have spelled so many words incorrectly!
Posted by: pudge on January 7, 2008 12:41 PM hipatitis: Terminal coolness
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
pudge, you can look up IP addresses.
Posted by: swatter on January 7, 2008 12:51 PMSilver: keep trying, maybe someday you'll get close.
Posted by: pudge on January 7, 2008 01:54 PM