http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/scudder08.jpg

Oh please Justin, let the other clones attack each other, Ron doesn’t need to do catfight the pussies to win this.
Let the Clintons do the race slime on Obama, and the Obama supporters use the racist card on the Clintons and ex-senator Kerry.
Let the Romneys and Guilianis and Huckabees do the theological slimes among themselves.  The irrelevant media needs thinks it needs those catfights and hissyfits to fill airtime and give the sofa sitting bloviators something to fill air about.  Watched Ron on CNN and some other irrelevant media morning gasbaggery show today.  On message, on point, polite, chivalrous, and quietly demolishing of the tired attempts to indulge in those “Let’s you and him fight” scenarios.  Quietly but surely he made the point that he is in it to win it and is in it through and beyond super sunday.
He has schooled Guiliani, McCain and Huckabee politely and without rancor or name calling or “going for the juglar.”
Keep the powder dry until it comes time to fight the real opponent(s):  whoever the dems nominate and ( if he runs ) Bloomberg and ( if he runs ) Nader.
Pissing on and pissing off the current supporters of the other misbegotten repub candidates is dumb. Yes of course they are fascists of one stripe or another, let them keep exposing their fascism.  There plans are not his plans and he does not have to take them any more seriously than they want to take him.

Run Ron Run

Huckabee is alot of things, but a fascist? It was
intellectually shallow, morally reckless and
a strategically stupid thing to say.

Part of his appeal lies in his measured, thoughtful
responses. This makes him appear like a college professor
getting down & dirty in the faculty lounge.

Let’s hope this blunder is aberrational and not a
harbinger of things to come.

I quite like Sinclair Lewis’ novels, so I appreciated that a lot.Huckabee shouldn’t have to worry too much though. The kind of folk supporting him are even more boorish and uncultured than he is. They won’t have a clue who Lewis was.

I think Ron Paul knows he is walking a fine line. Between pleasing and not offending his secularist libertarian supporters and his Christian conservative supporters. I am a big Ron Paul supporter, but I thought it was a dumb thing to say. The statement is only arguably true. Some sort of authoritarianism might come to America wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross, but “fascism?” The more likely brand of authoritarianism in America is the warfare/security state. The quote reflects the anti-fascists (and often pro-Communist) hysteria of an earlier time.

But I am more disappointed that he didn’t just go the “you guys are just being PC cultural Marxist” route. No need for Paul to jump on the PC all hail pluralism bandwagon that is fueling some of the anti-Huck hysteria.

‘Some sort of authoritarianism might come to America wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross’

Yes, it’s called the Bush administration.

It almost seemed like Ron just blurted this out without thinking about it. 

It came out sounding very reasonable considering the statement.

Didn’t Huey Long also say something like, “when fascism comes to America it will be under another name.  It might even be anti fascism.”

Sinclar Lewis covers the theocons and Huey covers the neocons.

That was not a wise comment by Ron Paul.  On the one hand, it does nothing but alienate him from any evangelical or Christian conservative voters who have been on the fence about his candidacy—and there are some.  To them, Huckabee simply said that the birth of Christ is more important than politics, and Paul rewarded him by calling him a fascist.  (That is, in fact, what happened.) On the other hand, Paul’s own “Season’s Greetings” ad says virtually the same thing, except it’s lighter and fluffier.  I bet Ron Paul will apologize for that comment.

‘To them, Huckabee simply said that the birth of Christ is more important than politics’

If Huckabee genuinely believes that, why did he give up being a pastor in favour of politics?

Aaron,
“I bet Ron Paul will apologize for that comment.”

He will have to, or be reduced to playing the role of
punching-bag at the next debate and a footnote to this
campaign.

Fascist is such a mindless perjorative, whether used
by the groping for a rallying-cry neo-cons, the
starved for ideas Left, or the it’s all about Me
Randians. He’s cooked, if as a result of this quote
he gets identified as the standard-bearer for
paranoids and malcontents.

The folks at Fox must be high-fiving each other right
now.

identified as a standard-bearer for

‘He’s cooked, if as a result of this quote
he gets identified as the standard-bearer for paranoids and malcontents.’

Fox et al. were already doing that. It didn’t stop Paul bringing in millions of dollars in funding.

“It didn’t stop Paul bringing in millions of dollars
in funding.”

This is the first time he really stumbled. If he has to
spend a lot of time defending this comment he will be
quickly declared President of Cyber-Space Inc. and be
relegated to status of; “what could’ve been”

As if the communists and warmongers that populate the USofA were ever going to vote for Ron Paul…

Why do you think Ron Paul polls below 10%?

Because 90%+ of Americans want communism and war!

‘This is the first time he really stumbled.’

Please. Many said he’d made a great mistake in that May debate when Giuliani demanded he apologized and he refused to. Turned out that not apologizing was a brilliant tactic. The fact anyway is that it has been well documented that evangelicals are mostly war whoopers, and until this Huckster surge, many were lining up behind Romney and Giuliani. These kind of folk would never support Paul in the first place simply because he isn’t a warmonger.

To be fair, Paul was caught off guard. I don’t think he had seen the commercial that was being referred to, and what he was being asked about was how the shelf in the background seemed to look like a cross. The suggestion by many is that this was intentional. I don’t think he was commenting on the more general issue of Huckabee saying that Christmas is celebrating the birth of Christ which has also been criticized.

Had he just said I don’t support PC cultural Marxism and censorship, he would have scored points with many, and I don’t think it would have bothered his secularist libertarian supporters. But he has consistently stated that he is bothered by the invocation of faith in politics. He said this in his “Statement of Faith” that is available on the internet. He said when asked about Romney’s speech that he didn’t think Romney’s Mormonism was an issue, and he shouldn’t have to answer about it. He even raised the religious test issue. I think Paul is genuinely uncomfortable with the faith/politics mixture. He is right to be uncomfortable with faith being used cynically. His view is entirely consistent with his underlying libertarian philosophy. But I think he is wrong.

The problem is that people think faith can and should be separated from politics and that it is an illegitimate thing to consider. I am still strongly supporting Paul, but this is an illustration of where libertarians and traditionalist conservatives differ.

@Martin:

“Many said he’d made a great mistake in that May debate when Giuliani demanded he apologized and he refused to.”

But those “many” were not Ron Paul supporters.  The difference this time is that the congressman said something that will alienate some of his supporters, and some of those supporters---including myself--are calling it a mistake.

Scott you are wrong, the huckster was using the Cross in a sacriligous way.The Christians who support Huckabee are warmongers and not going to vote for Paul any way. It shores up Paul with those Christians who don’t like what Huckabee is doing.By my guess about 75%.He gets a lot of TV face time for free and undercuts Romney, Giuiani, and McCain.He will never appologize and he is right.

@Jack:

“It shores up Paul with those Christians who don’t like what Huckabee is doing.”

I’m a Christian who doesn’t like what Huckabee is doing, yet this doesn’t “shore up” Paul with me.  (Not that I needed shoring up.)

“He will never appologize and he is right.”

So he gets into a drawan-out debate on the meaning of
fascism and why Huckabee has earned the handle? He’d
lose that debate and soon be looking up at Alan Keyes in
the polls.

He’ll apologize. The sooner, the better.

Jack,

The problem is with this whole insistence on a politically correct, neutered Christianity that must bow to pluralism and tolerance. If you don’t think there has been some anti-Christian (evangelical) element to all the Huck bashing, then I think you are missing something that is very obvious. It has been so blatant that it may have actually helped Huck in Iowa with evangelicals who will now support him just to thumb their nose at the elitist, Establishment, secularcons.

Ron Paul is not in that group, but he doesn’t need to seem to be piling on or playing more pluralist than thou. He could easily wax libertarian and decry PC censorship that gets upset about alleged secret crosses and mentions of the real meaning of Christmas. This would put him on the right side of the culture war.

That far too many conservative Christians have supported an immoral war goes without saying, but that is a different issue.

1.  Some Fascists came to Europe with a cross—Clerical Fascists.  Don Luigi Sturzo was quite correct about this.

I have said before that Fascism differs sharply from Naziism, the latter an extremist form of racialist nationalism, the former something rather unique, and each repugnant.

2. The Republican Party is divided among Hamiltonians (the Giuliani fans), the Evangelicals (the Huckabee fans), and libertarians (the Ron Paul fans).  The former two will now gang up on Ron Paul.  The American version of social democrats (The Dimmykrat Party) do a better job of sticking together, largely because they all want the same thing: taxpayers’ money.

@ Martin

“If Huckabee genuinely believes that, why did he give up being a pastor in favour of politics?”

I have no idea.  You should ask MH or his supporters.  I was addressing how I think potential RP supporters would view such comments.

“Turned out that not apologizing was a brilliant tactic.”

But that was an entirely different topic.  Calling Huckabee a fascist for having a “Merry Christmas” ad not unlike his own is not a statement about the justness of a war, nor is it really a substantive comment on religion and politics.

“[E]vangelicals are mostly war whoopers, and until this Huckster surge, many were lining up behind Romney and Giuliani. These kind of folk would never support Paul in the first place simply because he isn’t a warmonger.”

Then Mr. Paul should just preach to the choir and lose even worse than he already will.  Fact is, not all evangelicals are war whoopers, and the longer this unjust, immoral debacle drags on, more will become capable of being swayed.  (It’s happening, though not in large numbers; I’ve seen it.) Flipping off “evangelicals” will only convince them not to listen.  Isn’t that the point of RP’s campaign—to expose more people to his message?

‘This would put him on the right side of the culture war.’

And I suppose Huckabee, who gave out free tuition to the kids of illegals, is on the right side?

It was overall a good response. To everyone other than those who must wear their christianity on their sleeves and demand that you wear it on yours also, his answer showed an awareness of just where the theocons wish to go.  For every supporter of Huckabee’s that will be looking to take offense, there are a myriad of non fundamentalists citizens who will find both the Huckabee commercial “scary” and the Paul response quietly thoughtful.  That it was a “setup” a “gotcha” type question ... well those are about the only types of questions that Ron gets from the FoxFolks.  But that said, I do expect the odious Toad Russert to use it Sunday and Philadelphia’s inferior product to roadkill to use it tonite.  Funny thing, as I sit here thinking about it, if that 10 second blurb is used, it gives Dr. Paul a great leadin to elaborating on his belief in the separation of Church and State.

@CK:

“For every supporter of Huckabee’s that will be looking to take offense . . . ”

The problem isn’t Huckabee supporters.  What about Ron Paul supporters who weren’t “looking to take offense” but ended up offended by an ill-thought-out remark?

@Scott
Dr. Paul’s supporters know him and his stance.  I doubt that they will find his show of repugnance at a manipulative and offensive attempt to hijack the Cross into the explicit service of mammon will be offended.
The original Italian fascists co-opted the cross, the national socialists did likewise.  Now it is done a bit more subliminally, a bit less crudely but the Cross and God are always up for grabs for any cheap Thumper on the grift.

One thing I’ve been proud of while phone-banking for Ron Paul has been my commitment not to disparage the other candidates in any way, shape or form, my thinking being they themselves will do it for us while RP takes the high ground.  Unfortunately, this will be RP’s “Dean Scream” moment, it won’t be let go of. I’m sorely disappointed and he better come up with something good by Sunday.

@Bill
Donohue ( Catholic League ) was on before Ron and tore Huckabee a new one over the ad.
I think it is more likely that this add with its cheap subliminals will not harm Dr. Paul at all.
And just a reminder, Huckabee was asked who he could support for President and he specifically stated he could not support Dr. Paul.  I think ( again not a mind reader here ) that the debate where Dr. Paul took Huckabee to task for his foolishness re getting more American’s killed to save face, stung Huck.  For just an instant there the Huckabee stood revealed for what he was...a killer and an abettor of killers, and he didn’t like it. 
But we can expect that Fox will try to turn it into a Dean Scream moment, I just don’t think they have the chops to go to that well a second time.

“And I suppose Huckabee, who gave out free tuition to the kids of illegals, is on the right side?”

Martin, you don’t get it. The same liberal PC thought police who think it is offensive to bring up Christianity in the public square, are the same liberal PC idiots who make it impossible to address the real problem with immigration which is demographic dissolution. In both cases the enemy is the same. The liberal PC thought police. Why are you giving them aid and comfort.

Conservatives should be defending a particular America. That particular America is Christian. Christianity is a more important part of who we are and what we should be defending than is pluralism.

@Red Phillips:

“Conservatives should be defending a particular America. That particular America is Christian. Christianity is a more important part of who we are and what we should be defending than is pluralism.”

Amen.  But don’t expect those who call sincere believers (not warmongering Christian Zionists) “Christianists” and “theocons” to agree.

But if they think that Ron Paul can win the presidency, or even the Republican nomination, without the votes of Christians (including a significant number of Christians who reject pluralism), they’re delusional.

Some, not all, of these so called Christians that we keep hearing about and their stand on life, which I happen to agree with, and then in the same breath are sponsors of the war and the death and destruction that goes along with it.  Look at Reverend Pat Robinson, actually wanting to put a hit on Chavez.  This type of message of Christianity is flawed and I wish they would listen to Dr Paul’s expression at the recent values debate in Ft. Lauderdale where he said that Christ was not a man of war but rather Peace.  Until all Christians and others get back on the Peace train I think we will continue to have a variety of different problems in this country.

Dr. Paul was quoting Sinclair Lewis and I listened to it and felt very comfortable with the quote and his remarks afterwards.

That particular America is Christian -Red Phillips.

Would Jesus do empire?

America is a Christian nation by the overwhelming number of Christians that dwell in it, however our system of governance and our global banking system are of that of an Empire and NOT of a Christian design.

@JetMechanX:

“Would Jesus do empire?”

Because, of course, America, when she was Christian, was going all over the world, searching for monsters to destroy.

Oh, wait--that started when America began to lose her Christianity.  Of course, I’m sure we’ll hear now that the two things couldn’t possibly be related.

Oh, wait--that started when America began to lose her Christianity.

America has not lost its Christianity, our fake Christian leaders have twisted it into something much like that of Germany and that turned Jesus into a uber-moral country of war for peace. Its Orwellian.

‘Why are you giving them aid and comfort.’
There’s an old line I haven’t heard for a while. Last time I think it was someone accusing me of giving ‘aid and comfort’ to the islamofascists for apparently doubting the wisdom of St Petraeus of Mesopotamia.

I haven’t actually got anything against a politoco bringing religion into the public square quite frankly. I am just convinced that Huckabee is a downright fraud. And I think that such frauds will probably hurt religion a lot more than it will hurt PC liberals. Bush is a great example of this. This man has worn his faith on his sleeves. He has said that God told him to invade Iraq. 80% of evangelicals vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004. Have you talked to any Europeans about this? As a result of all this, many of them think the average American Christian is as completely mad as Bush. A great propaganda coup for Christianity, huh?

Sure, let politicians wear their faith on their sleeves. They have every right to do so. Please do not complain though if if they end up disgracing their religion and provide free propaganda for Richard Dawkins et al.

Empire building politicos have harmed Christianity. Just look at the culture of corruption that has occured under Bush, who said he spoke to God. Haggard, Foley, Cunningham, Vitter, Abramoff, Reed, Delay..

They ALL claimed to be good religious folk and they lied, they are about money.

Mammonists!

‘Oh, wait--that started when America began to lose her Christianity.  Of course, I’m sure we’ll hear now that the two things couldn’t possibly be related.’
Only about 13% of Americans are non-believers, and I think there is just one atheist congressman.

@Martin:

“Only about 13% of Americans are non-believers, and I think there is just one atheist congressman.”

Right.  You fit right in with the neocon Michael Novak, who claimed in the 1980’s that (and I’m paraphrasing, but it’s pretty close) “The American people are, by any objective standard, the most religious on the planet.”

Novak was wrong then, and you’re wrong now.  Self-identification in Gallup polls does not a Christian make.

‘Novak was wrong then, and you’re wrong now.  Self-identification in Gallup polls does not a Christian make.’

Well, okay that’s fine. I’m not a Christian myself, so I don’t really feel it is my place to tell any person who says they are a Christian believer that they aren’t one, but I’m sure you know your business here, so I will concede.

@ Scott:

“Because, of course, America, when she was Christian, was going all over the world, searching for monsters to destroy.

Oh, wait--that started when America began to lose her Christianity.”

I dare say that many, many people would contend that America has been making war on various parts of the world since it’s - the U.S.’s - very inception!

The comment is blunt, but 100% true. This is precisely why college kids and so many others are pounding the pavement and emptying their savings accounts for Ron Paul. Huckabee’s “I’m CHRISTIAN vote for me” commercial was simply pathetic--and no, I don’t believe Huckster’s claim that big white cross in the background was simply intended to represent a bookcase. Wasn’t it only last week that Huckster queried the New York Times about whether it was really indeed true that Mormons like Mitt Romney believed Jesus and the Devil were brothers? Of course, Huckster’s query was all just a big mistake and he was so, so sorry to Mitt Romney that he effectively nuked Romney’s candidacy, and to all the Mormons he harmed with such divisive, bigoted talk.

WOW, was that a loaded question and he took the bait, hook line and sinker.  He seemed drugged when he first started talking… did someone slip him a mickey right before the cmera started rolling?

The comment wasn’t an accusation that the Huckster is a fascist, but was meant as a warning of what can happen if the government doesn’t follow constitutional precepts i.e., the rule of law.  The Huckabees of the world try using religious symbolism to gain power, but care little about the restrictions on power provided for in the Consititution.  Paul has to convince 51% of the people that the federal government needs to be taken down a peg (as of right now) for the sake of freedom and prosperity. Quoting Sinclair Lewis will not hurt in that effort - it might be misconstrued, but in the end will give Dr. Paul another opportunity to talk about liberty vs. oppressive government.

Huck’s Crux.  No, it was a bookshelf, really.

The best thing that could happen is a 1 on 1 debate between Huckabee and Paul - they should be in proximity in Iowa within the next few days.

I would love to hear Ron ask Huckabee about why he was the first governor to restrict homeschooling.  Does he believe that Habeas Corpus should be suspended?  IThe Federal Reserve should continue?  Aren’t all these things “facist”?Truth in labeling.

He could then go on: llegals should get the same benefits as citizens?  Would he expand taxes by only 50
s; he did as governor?

It would be excruciating for Huckabee.

Paul would deflect the questions with his knowledge of the constitution, law, economics, medicine, and whatever else.

Then we could have a Chuck Norris v.s. Vox Day (wnd commentator) death match.

http://69.65.26.137/~ronpaula/RonPaulWHOJanMikelsonInterviewIowa121807.mp3

From ronpaulaudio.com, around 7:30 into the interview he discusses the fascism comment and the Huckabee pic.

When asked for comment about the cross in his ad, Huckabee blew it off by saying it was a bookcase and then joked that if you played the ad backwards it said Paul is dead, Paul is dead.

Does anyone know which came first - the Huckabee “joke” or the Sinclair Lewis quote by Ron Paul?

The FOX News clown responded to Dr. Pauls statement by saying that Huckabee isn’t selling fascism. So, what exactly is Huckabee selling? In terms of economics, perhaps Huckabee is selling fascism.

@GM:

“Of course, Huckster’s query was all just a big mistake and he was so, so sorry to Mitt Romney that he effectively nuked Romney’s candidacy, and to all the Mormons he harmed with such divisive, bigoted talk.”

Look--as I’ve explained over and over on this thread and others, I’m no defender of Huckabee (I support Ron Paul), but since when is it bigoted to accurately represent what someone else believes?

When someone says, “I don’t know for sure, but don’t Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?” I don’t cry, “Bigot!”

Of course, I’m not trying to run away from what my Church believes, as Romney and most Mormon in public life are.

So I watched most of Beck’s show last night thanks to youTube.  A very few weeks ago this Beck was calling Dr. Paul and his supporters “terrorists”; last night he is offering to French kiss the good Doctor.  Through most of the show Dr. Paul looked polite and bored.  Haven’t seen the dailys yet but will assume that last night will be Beck’s highest ratings ever.  The Huckabee visuals didn’t appear to be discussed in the part of the show I watched. 
I still believe that tactically, it is better for Doctor Paul to let his opponents destroy each other --- but when they lay themselves open for a free sniper shot—might as well help them along.  It is a long haul to the conventions, lots of ground to cover and chances to err or to profit from the errors of others.  One tidbit which may mean nothing is that on the site of the Great Orange Satan ( DailyKos for the humour impaired ) Dr. Paul inspires deep rage and deep admiration simultaneously; much as RedState and FreeRepublic have taken to banning and censoring posts about Dr Paul, DailyKos is starting to “trollRate” commentors and posters who say polite things about Dr. Paul.
The neo-conservative sites and the electanydemocrat sites marching together against Dr. Paul.  $18.5M raised sofar this quarter.  Next big thing will be this Sunday when he goes up against Russert.

Mr. Richert: I think we need to distinguish here between a thoughtful, intellectual discussion of religious differences between say Mormonism and mainstream Christian belief (such as your post last week on this website on the Huckabee comments); and a major political figure like Huckabee, who running for the highest office in the land, basically implying to the New York Times that Mormons are weirdos, quasi-Satanists, completely unlike GOOD Christians like himself. Huckabee is definitely being divisive and irresponsible. And I would take it further to say that in context what he did he was an act of bigotry. I believe your a traditional Catholic (like my parents by the way), and you know well the anti-Catholic history of the country and the way anti-Catholic politicians exploited religious differences between Catholics and evangelical Christians to scare people and garner political power. Huchabee is just doing the same thing in a modern sense to the Mormons.

Said Kevin:

“Huckabee is alot of things, but a fascist?”

Actually a fascist is exactly what he is.  From

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/09/ron-paul-this-is-man-take-notes.html

<quote>
We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation, under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America,’ he said.
</quote>

As is pointed out in the article, this is straight out of Hitler’s playbook.  The conflation of Leader, State, and People is the keystone in the fascist methodological edifice.

This man is the most dangerous person running for president.  And that’s saying something.

“It was intellectually shallow, morally reckless and a strategically stupid thing to say.”

If we’re going to sling ad hominems around, I’d say you’re the one who’s intellect is falling short on this one, as I just demonstrated.

As for morally reckless… are you serious?  We’re talking about a cabal that worships power in its most naked form, a literal cult of Machiavellianism that considers lying to be a virtue.  Not to mention the rape and the mass murder and the stealing and the espionage.

Give me a break.

Strategically, that is another point.  And perhaps a good one.  But there’s too much else here in your screed to correct.  Suffice to say that Paul’s avoidance of a reactionary modality has worked to his advantage.  Then again, a lot of us are *really mad*.  So it’s a tough call.

“Part of his appeal lies in his measured, thoughtful responses. This makes him appear like a college professor getting down & dirty in the faculty lounge.”

You mean like this response?  From

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/browne.php?articleid=11743

<quote>
‘HUCKABEE: A president has to [do] whatever is necessary to protect the American people. If we think Iran is building nuclear capacity that could be used against us in any way, including selling some of the nuclear capacity to some other terrorist group, then, yes, we have a right…

‘MATTHEWS: Without going to Congress?

‘HUCKABEE: And I would do it in a heartbeat.’
<quote>

You call that “measured” and “thoughtful”?  That is sheer demogoguery.  It is a naked appeal to populism in its worst form and an absolutely abhorrent dismissal of the rule of law.

It’s fascism.

“Let’s hope this blunder is aberrational and not a harbinger of things to come.”

This isn’t some cordial disagreement at a dinner party.  They don’t play nice.  They murder and rape and steal.  They commit espionage and rig elections.  A lot of them should be in jail.

No, it’s time to take the gloves off.  My country and 800 years of Anglo-Saxon common law tradition (eg, habeas corpus) are on the line.  Better to hurt some feelings right now than get into a shooting war - and I mean a shooting war here, in the US.

Chuck Young
Austin

@Chuck:

Go back and reread Kevin’s comment.  He clearly meant that Ron Paul’s “appeal lies in his measured, thoughtful responses.”

@Chuck:

“Better to hurt some feelings right now than get into a shooting war - and I mean a shooting war here, in the US.”

Thanks.  You’re really helping the cause of those of us who support Ron Paul by threatening violence.  Brilliant.

This is what happens when ideology takes over politics.  People become unhinged.

‘This is what happens when ideology takes over politics.  People become unhinged.’

Like 1776?

Back in 1860 Robert E. Lee was offered the command of all the Northern FedGov forces.  He refused
Back in 1932, retired general Smedley Butler was approached by a group of well to do bankers and industrialists and asked to lead the overthrow of the elected government and replace said government with a simulacrum of Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany. He refused.
1776
1860
1932
http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/scudder08.jpg
Ah it is so good to know that “It Can’t Happen Here.”

@Martin:

“Like 1776?”

1776 wasn’t an ideological revolution.  There was a time that conservatives understood that ideology was the enemy of both Christianity and of all things that conservatives wished to conserve.

Pope Benedict XVI still understands this; it was one of the main points of his recent encyclical, Spe salvi.  Sadly, I think that you could round up all the conservatives in America who still understand this and put them in our lecture hall here at The Rockford Institute.  And there’d be room left for a full bar and a holiday smorgasbord.

‘1776 wasn’t an ideological revolution.’

I would disagree. I would used to have agreed with what you said, but reading Bernard Bailyn’s ‘The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution’, Gordon Wood’s ‘The Radicalism of the American Revolution’, and a lot of what Murray Rothbard wrote on the revolution changed my opinion.

@ Scott P. Richert on Dec 19, 2007.

“Thanks.  You’re really helping the cause of those of us who support Ron Paul by threatening violence.  Brilliant.”

Support?  Writing in a blog?  How much money have you raised?  How many votes have you gotten?  Organized your precinct yet?  I haven’t met many blogsters who actually do anything; its very rare for me to post, but here I am, for today anyway.  It’s entertaining, at least.

As to violence, I’m not into violence at all; I’m totally opposed to violence.  My point was merely this: lets get this fascism thing up on the table and talk about it, before it becomes a very, very serious problem (not that we’re not in serious trouble right now).

Do you think at some point, somewhere down the line, fascism is going to produce… what?  How far does the police state go, in your estimation?  I mean, are we reading the same history books?

And when it comes to that, what do you think is going to happen?  Do you think that, for instance, here in Texas, where there are 4 guns owned per capita, that the great unwashed are going to go gently into that dark night?

See, I’m an organizer.  I meet people.  I talk to them.  I hear what they’re saying.  There are farmers in Central Texas who absolutely will give their lives rather than see a ranch that’s been in their family for 6 generations stolen in some Eminent Domain land grab to further a supposedly mythical North American Superstate.  Many of them are ex-military, they are armed to the teeth, and generally have the support of local constabulary.  That’s my world, that’s what I see.  Ironically, I’m the guy that tries to calm ‘em down… yet you would accuse *me* of “advocating violence”.

“This is what happens when ideology takes over politics.  People become unhinged.”

What should take over politics, if not ideology?

As to “unhinged”, eh.  I’m clear as a bell; clearer, I think, than you.  Bottom line: 1 million dead.  Think those families are unhinged?

You people want to sit around in some ivory tower and talk in civil tones?  I’ll say it again: murder, rape, theft, lies, espionage, treason.  What does that call for?  A smile and a pat on the back, “That’s ok, we’re all friends here”???

What goes around comes around; that is fundamental spiritual law, whatever your dogma.  Right?  Now, what is going to come around?  What is being sown around the world by the Empire?  What will be reaped?

There will be hell to pay, literally, and that’s a fact.

c

@Chuck:

“What should take over politics, if not ideology?”

Spoken like a true believer, but not a true conservative, or a Christian.  Read Spe salvi.

@Scott

You said

<quote>
Go back and reread Kevin’s comment.  He clearly meant that Ron Paul’s “appeal lies in his measured, thoughtful responses.”
</quote>

OK.  I did.  If that is what he meant it certainly isn’t clear.  He said:

<quote>
Huckabee is alot of things, but a fascist? It was intellectually shallow, morally reckless and
a strategically stupid thing to say.

Part of his appeal lies in his measured, thoughtful responses. This makes him appear like a college professor getting down & dirty in the faculty lounge.
<quote>

This boils down to “Huckabee… it… his appeal”.  Since the last person mentioned before use of of the possessive pronoun “his” was “Huckabee”, the implication is actually clearly that Huckabee produces “measured, thoughtful responses”.  If it was miswritten, that is on Kevin.

So, wrong again.

Next?

c

@Scott:

<quote>
“What should take over politics, if not ideology?”

Spoken like a true believer, but not a true conservative, or a Christian.  Read Spe salvi.
<quote>

I don’t have a clue what “ideology” means to you.  For me, it’s a working intellectual framework built from moral principles, supported by historical referents, conceived rationally (thus separating it from “dogma").

And you’re right, I’m not a Christian.  I don’t believe the Bible is the literal word of God; or more accurately, it is, but so is “Ulysses”, “Mein Kampf” and the latest issue of “TV Guide”.  The point thus being moot.

I’m probably also not a “Conservative”.  “Conservative”, in it’s traditional sense, is certainly not a label I relish.  Regardless, I’m indifferent to what you or anyone else thinks that I “am”.  What I am is a spirit in the material world, and I refuse to be categorized by any of you.  I’m a free and sovereign human being.  I refuse your chains, be they ideological or literal.

You’ve made a reading recommendation which I’m sorry to say I’ll not be following.  I just read Rothbard’s _Betrayal of the American Right_, which is quite lucid on the subject of these terms “liberal” and “conservative”, and their evolution, or more properly devolution, through the last century; let me be so bold as to counter your reading recommendation with that one.  It seems to me you could use some “liberal” referents in your “ideology”.

Ah, confusion, confusion.  No wonder.  The labels “liberal” and “conservative” are twisted so far beyond recognition as to be useless to us now.  No surprise that the mainstream, which is steeped in this broken “ideology”, is mystified by us in the Movement.  We are beyond right and left.

This is what the R[evol]ution is all about: liberty.  That is, freedom, and especially freedom from government control.  Liber, liberty, liberal, libertarian.  The true spirit of Liberty is rising up, as it will from time to time, just as the light of gnosticism rises up over and over against the stultifying, authoritarian, dogmatic, corrupt, oppressive tyranny of the Catholic Church and all its sanctimonious Christian confreres.

That last bit is just for you, Scott.  Conservative that you are.

c

‘Spoken like a true believer, but not a true conservative’
‘Lumping together all ideologies – without looking at the components of each within its own ideological framework – amounts to an evasion of proper methodology and reasoning. In truth, ideology is not a hopped-up form of political persuasion, but it is purely a systematic way of thinking about the social order. Conservatives have always denied such absolutes as economic law and systematic thought. Nevertheless, to deny the validity of systematic thought is to deny logic itself. On balance, to be “conservative” is to retain that which centuries of custom have handed down while renouncing any immediate change in the prevailing state of affairs, and this necessarily empowers the existing statist polity.’- Karen De Coster, http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster76.html

Besides, I’m not a ‘conservative’. Far more of a classical liberal. I agree with Murray Rothbard (and Paul Gottfried has said similar things too) that the right has been going wrong since it adopted the ‘conservative’ label.

@Chuck:

You’re right about the placement of “his,” but the “This” is Paul’s comment (referred to in the previous paragraph by “It"), not anything Huckabee did.

@Chuck:

“The true spirit of Liberty is rising up, as it will from time to time, just as the light of gnosticism rises up over and over against the stultifying, authoritarian, dogmatic, corrupt, oppressive tyranny of the Catholic Church and all its sanctimonious Christian confreres.”

Good luck with that.  And good luck winning the White House without the votes of Christians.

@Martin:

“Besides, I’m not a ‘conservative’. Far more of a classical liberal. ”

Right.  And now we’re seeing the tensions in the Ron Paul coalition exposed.

And I’ll just say it again: Good luck winning the nomination, much less the White House, without the conservative elements of that coalition.

I’ve heard many ‘conservatives’ accuse anybody that believes in the economics of Mises and the other Austrian school economists as ‘ideologues’. Russell Kirk practically accused Mises as being as bad as Marx. As we know, Dr Ron Paul is a huge fan of Mises, Rothbard, Hayek etc though. Is he not a Christian then?

@Scott:

<quote>
Good luck with that.  And good luck winning the White House without the votes of Christians.
</quote>

We have a *lot* of Christians on our side.  We don’t have the <bible thumping hate spewing fear mongering kill the Islamofascists do whatever Israel tells us to> Christians with us.  We *do* have plenty of real Christians, who believe in Peace, in emulating the life of Christ, loving their neighbors, and loving God.  In fact, most of those Central Texas ranchers I was talking about are Christians.

Those people are salt of the earth.  We get along famously.  We’re all acutely aware of what time it is.  It’s time to find common ground in Peace and Liberty.

c

@Chuck:

“We get along famously.”

And do you tell them what you think of their Christianity, as you did in the comments above?

@Scott

<quote>
And do you tell them what you think of their Christianity, as you did in the comments above?
</quote>

Sure.  I love *THEIR* Christianity.

c

@Chuck:

So who are the “Christian confreres” of the Catholic Church that you referred to?

@Scott:

<quote>
So who are the “Christian confreres” of the Catholic Church that you referred to?
</quote>

Those who worship form over substance.  Those who esteem ritual over faith.  Those who prefer authority to truth.
It really is down to the gnostic undercurrent, the quest to realize the self, dig down to the diamond center, emulate the Christ.  To reflect God more perfectly - pick your metaphor, whatever is appropriate to the cultural symbol set you choose to dialog in.  The common thread is the very important spiritual imperative that *you* are the master of *you*.  And none may trespass upon that, in any sense; those who do so do it at their peril, on many levels, physical, metaphysical, political, what have you.  That, to me, is Truth.  That to me, is the Law.  It is the source of all Law, but that is another subject.
Every religion has its mystics - Sufis, Cabalists, Gnostics, the list goes on.  These invariably penetrate the depths of the Self.  Regardless of the outcome, those whom the establishment cannot safely absorb they ruthlessly suppress.  No?
The Catholic Church as an institution is a prime example.  Is this not an instrument of repression, historically?  How many burned?  How many slain in crusade and pogrom?  Not to mention the massive appropriation of wealth.  And of course Protestant institutions were co-opted as soon as they could stand on their own feet.  All institutions are ALWAYS coopted.  This is the critical epiphany of the founders of this Republic.
In the original sense of the word “conservative”, the Church, whatever its religion, is definitely a piece of the “establishment” which must be “conserved”.  Rothbard had a term for it: “Throne and Altar”, or again, the “Ancien Regime”.  As a Classical Liberal or Paleocon or Kook or whatever label seems appropriate, I’m opposed to the hegemony of institutions such as these, as were the Founders of this Nation.  And yes, that’s where the r[evol]ution is coming from.  No question.
For me personally, I’m interested in the substance of what a person is made of and what (s)he stands for.  The forms are irrelevant to me, because it’s time to come together over some very very basic principles.  Peace, Freedom, simple stuff.
And yes, we will, eventually, win.  Liberty wins.  Truth wins.  Love wins.  However flawed my understanding may be, and certainly there is no end to my errors, I know that in the end, the Light wins.  Such is my “faith”.
It’s back to work for me.  Good luck.

c

@Chuck:

“The common thread is the very important spiritual imperative that *you* are the master of *you*.  And none may trespass upon that, in any sense; those who do so do it at their peril, on many levels, physical, metaphysical, political, what have you.  That, to me, is Truth.  That to me, is the Law.”

That, to me, is all we need to know about you, Chuck.

To Chris S and anyone else who thinks Dr. Paul was wrong for calling Huckabee a fascist.

If you were not aware of what fascism is, fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party.

Fascists, without fail, seek to forge a type of national unity. This is usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes.

ALL of which apply to Huckabee and his lemming mentality. It also applies to Benito, Mitt, little Tommy Tancredo and certainly the other huckster—Alan Keyes.

Moreover, I heard Huckleberry on NPR Friday afternoon and he was full of half truths and non sequiturs about domestic spending, i.e. welfare programs and at the same time FULL justifications for a belligerent foreign policy thereby justifying warfare programs.

The whole of the interview was quite frustrating to listen to and NPR’s Robert Siegel seemed uninterested in asking one substantive question. Well, maybe if they considered Huck a more viable candidate they would have been harder on him. You know, by asking follow up questions and asking him to explain his ideas in more detail. But, since he seems like more of hayseed than Bill Clinton with only half the charisma I’m sure they thought, “[L]let’s just have the guy on and then he will just go away.” Or something to that effect.

Either way, the candidate with the real firepower when it comes to monetary policy, foreign policy and the role of the Constitution vis-à-vis in the application of American “superpower” status in the world is the good doctor from Texas, Dr. Ron Paul.

@ Chuck:
Well spoken, and I hope that Scott means it positive, when he says that that is all he needs to know about you.

Moreover, have you ever read
The War Prayer by Mark Twain?