Huckabee strums and stumps

UpChuckAbee pushin' the 'Devil's Beat'?

Iowa poll numbers are starting to emerge with Mike Huckabee 2 to 1 over Mitt Romney. It appears in the final moments before the polls, Iowa voters are looking for a candidate with integrity rather than money.

The Repubs have a bunch of whackjobs for candidates.

The Huckster - is running around throwing bibles at people.

Willard Mitty Romney - is a walking, talking contradiction aka flip-flopping serial liar

Rudy Gi9u11iani - is a crossdressing pimp

America is laughing...

Off Subject:

I know Christmas is so 'last year', but just a thought before it goes;

Years ago, in another life, I used to travel to Bethlehem, PA on business as a shock troop for Little Steel. One year I happened to be there in July, and as my superior controller drove me out to dinner that night I noticed a old house all lit up with Christmas lights, and a tree glowing in the front room window.

I gave out a little laugh and asked the guy what was up with that in mid July?

He told me a little story. The widow that lived there had a son that was killed in Vietnam on Christmas 1968, and she had kept the lights burning bright ever since.

I think of her, and him, on every Christmas since then.

Happy New Year, Swampies.

C Morris,

That was a touching story about the widow who's son was killed in the [democratic] Vietnam War and, it was not only him but, 58,000 more were killed for nothing.

Thanks for making us remember how the dems don't know how to win a war.

Paulo

Paulo,
I agree 58k died for nothing, but it was far more than a Demo war.

Think Ike and the Dulles bros. We were DEEPLY involved by 1960.

Truman, too, though barely. He simply shunned Uncle Ho.

Somehow your semi-friendly response seems like the kiss of Judas. I'm looking over my shoulder.

BTW, Demos did OK in WWII.

c.morris...I don't understand the hostility against Christ followers. If it was rational that would make some sense. Are they suppose to be perfect when on one else is? They don't claim to be, so why hold them to such a standard? Huckabee gets to be the target presently. But what it comes down to is just juvenile name calling, like "Upchuckabee." And then I'm supposed to be moved by you telling a story about Christmas while you spew hate toward Christ followers? Irrational. Makes more sense to remember Christ on the day set aside to remember His birthday rather than two complete strangers who have no relevance to it....swampie.

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | January 1, 2008 8:25 PM

Paulo,

Tommorow is a school day and it's past your bed time.

I want you off of that computer and in your bed right now young man or I'm going to sell your puppy.

Your Mom

To the tune of Onward Christian Soldiers (permission hereby granted to sing at services):
Onward Christian soldiers, marching off to war, to Huckabee the victory, watch his poll numbers soar!
Lo the tide turns outward, lo the angels sing, Merry Christmas one and all, Huckabee's christening!
Help the straddling Christian, those who sit the fence, bring them to the polling place, give them recompense!
Hark the canvas caller, hark the new debate, o'er the towns flies Huckabee, caucus in his gait.
Onward Christian Soldiers, marching off for thee, now the trumpets sounding, President Huckabee!

* * * * *

Posted by: C.Morris | January 1, 2008 8:40 PM

C.Morris:

I respectfully suggest that you’ve got your facts wrong about the Vietnam War. When Kennedy took office we had less than 1,000 advisors in Viet Nam, and no full blown shooting war. I wouldn't exactly call that "DEEPLY involved."

Kennedy bumped up the figure by sending more advisors, and then added several thousand ground troops at the insistence of Robert McNamara. Yet, none of it turned into a shooting war in earnest until the Tonkin Gulf Resolution which occurred on L.B.J.’s administration. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was also based on vile lies of an administration sporting for war. (Sound familiar?) So, yes, despite the groundwork laid by Ike, the "War" part of the Vietnam War was owned by the Democrats. It took a Republican – Richard Nixon, of all people - to get us out of it.

No one in politics is squeaky clean.

It took a Republican – Richard Nixon, of all people - to get us out of it.

No one in politics is squeaky clean.

Posted by: John W. | January 1, 2008 9:52 PM

First,Nixon lied to the American people to get elected.He promised to end the war,only to escalate it.

Only after failing did he cut and run,therefore surrendering in Vietnam.

Get your facts straight Clarence Darrow.

PS,also killed innocent college students @ Kent State.

PSS,thanks C Mo,to some Americans,those were really tough times.

Maybe there is a reason to vote for UpChuckAbee!He also thinks Bush is an imbecile.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Republican Mitt Romney sharply criticized rival Mike Huckabee Tuesday for joking in a recent interview that President Bush has not been well versed on foreign affairs.

“I’m not sure if Mr. Huckabee meant the attack as a joke, but this is not the time to be mocking our president,” Romney said at an event in Johnston, Iowa, according to the conservative Web site Townhall.com.

Huckabee's comments came in an interview with Iowa's Quad City Times, in which a reporter asked him why, last month, he was at first unaware of a National Intelligence Estimate detailing the threat posed by Iran, despite the fact the report had been made public for several hours.

"That was released at 10 o’clock in the morning," Huckabee said. "At 5:30 in the afternoon, somebody says, ‘Have you read the report?’ Maybe I should’ve said, ‘Have you read the report?’ President Bush didn’t read it for four years; I don’t know why I should read it in four hours.”

Romney said Tuesday the comments were in 'bad taste," and lifted from the "Democratic playbook."

“It was in bad taste and I think we should recognize the great work our president is doing and not take our rhetoric or plays from the Democratic playbook," he said. "This is the kind of stuff you’d expect of the Democrats, but is certainly not something you’d expect of a presidential contender on the Republican side.”

Romney, who most polls show is locked in a dead heat with Huckabee in Iowa, has taken aim at his chief rival before for criticizing the president. Following the publication of a Foreign Affairs article in which Huckabee labeled portions of Bush's foreign policy 'arrogant,' Romney suggested Huckabee is "running in the wrong party."

"I had to look again," the former Massachusetts governor said then. "Did this come from Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Did it come from John Edwards? No, it was one of our own, it was Governor Huckabee."

'BTW, Demsos did Ok in WW11.'
Posted By----C.Morris

Excellent Point! But, why did we invade Europe, when we were attacked by Japan????....Hmmmmmmm???
Oh, I forgot...that's when [sane] Americans knew who the enemy was.

And in todays times...the lefies supports the enemy...

Paulo

c.morris...I don't understand the hostility against Christ followers. If it was rational that would make some sense. Are they suppose to be perfect when on one else is? They don't claim to be, so why hold them to such a standard? Huckabee gets to be the target presently. But what it comes down to is just juvenile name calling, like "Upchuckabee." And then I'm supposed to be moved by you telling a story about Christmas while you spew hate toward Christ followers? Irrational. Makes more sense to remember Christ on the day set aside to remember His birthday rather than two complete strangers who have no relevance to it....swampie.

Paulo,

The other axis powers (Germany and Italy) declared war on U.S. three days after Pearl Harbor. The biggest opposition to European involvement were from the republican isolationist.

So, yes, despite the groundwork laid by Ike, the "War" part of the Vietnam War was owned by the Democrats. It took a Republican – Richard Nixon, of all people - to get us out of it.

Yeah, and the (not) "silent majority" who protested against Johnson and Nixon on college campuses, city streets, the Pentagon and White House. Liberals tend not to be sheeple.

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

One hopes that, absent a Huckabee campaign effort, the media will counter Romney attacks by pointing out how, at Bain Capital, Mr. Romney used offshore corporations (and continues to) in order to avoid U.S. taxation, and he fee-milked acquired businesses before firing workers and taking them into bankruptcy, to amass his great $250,000,000 wealth.

So, when you compare how Mr. Huckabee's visionary FairTax advocacy compares to Romney's interest in the current tax system, it's pretty easy to see who will lead us out of tax slavery - the $265 billion annual tax code compliance costs representing 5 billion wasted hours, annually.

Paulo is a nut bag, and so is Upchuckabee!

* * * * *

"Liberals tend not to be sheeple."

* * * * *
Posted by: dt | January 2, 2008 2:15 AM

Um, WRONG!

With very few exceptions, I see less independent thought among the so-called “liberals” (read pseudo-liberals) on this blog than among members of a water ballet troupe going through their exercises. If there were so many independent thinkers among pseudo-liberals out there, someone might have figured out that the “progressive” policies of the D.N.C. and sympathetic, coordinate organizations actually lead to more dependence on government, less independent thought, and less individual freedom.

In fact, there are many (especially among the followers of Edwards and Billary) who believe we all ought to be rounded up into the same pen, ear-tagged, and each given our own government nipple to suck on for the rest of our lives. No more thinking would be necessary. Just sit there and bleat. The differences between the two camps, if any, are in the minor details of how to accomplish this ultimate goal at the expense of everyone else.

Right along with these ideals, I see an increased hostility and intolerance for any idea or cultural manifestation which doesn’t fit the approved “progressive” or so-called “liberal” ideology. Now, you might not call these people “sheeple,” and that’s your right. But I suspect you might have a tough time convincing any other rational creature in the universe that you are correct.

BTW, Nixon didn’t order the National Guard to the Kent State Campus. The Governor of Ohio did. There was no federal involvement in that tragedy.

* * * * *

Posted by: Raving Loon | January 1, 2008 10:29 PM

Wow, are you still that mad at me after the discussion we had over Wicker? Get over it, and get over yourself.

You wrote: “Get your facts straight Clarence Darrow.”

I have my facts straight, Loon. Nothing you wrote contradicted my post.

Richard Nixon did get us out of Vietnam. Admittedly, he didn’t take us on the most direct route out of the war. The most direct route would have been immediate surrender, which he never promised. To the contrary, he specifically promised “to bring an honorable end to the war in Vietnam.” See http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/nixon/nominationacceptance1968.html

He was silent on the details as to what he meant. Thus, the fact that he chose to end the war by trying to force the North Vietnamese to a peace agreement – which is what he eventually accomplished – hardly makes his promise a lie. Only by telescoping his words into what you believe they should have meant can you come up with the idea that he lied.

Nor can I agree that he cut and ran. Operation Linebacker II (a heavy bombing operation over North Vietnam) resulted in the North Vietnamese agreeing to cease fire in 1972 and the corresponding withdrawal of American Troops from Vietnam by early 1973. It wasn’t until more than a year later, in 1974; after Watergate, after Nixon was gone, and after the U.S. cut off all air support for South Vietnam, that the North Vietnam restarted hostilities and eventually overran South Vietnam. By then, the only Americans we had left in Vietnam consisted of a small number of advisors (permitted under the peace agreement), our diplomatic corps, and a contingent of security personnel at the American Embassy. The result may not have been satisfactory to some, but it sure wasn’t cutting and running like you suggest.

And you are genuinely historically challenged if you think Richard Nixon was at all responsible for the tragic deaths at Kent State. A poorly trained contingent of the National Guard was ordered to Kent State by the Governor of Ohio after the local mayor declared a state of emergency. The federal government had no hand in the matter whatsoever - except for the F.B.I. investigation that occurred after the fact. Admittedly, Nixon’s response to the Kent State tragedy was callous and ill advised. But he had no hand in ordering the National Guard to the campus.

You are the one who needs to get your facts straight.

Why does Huckabee think that we want a bass player in the WH? Enough is enough alright...

Why does Huckabee think that we want a bass player in the WH? . . .

Posted by: lochnessmonster | January 2, 2008 8:20 AM

I dunno. Maybe he heard somewhere that Republicans were upset about too much sax in the Oval Office.

Wow, I must say this is an interesting way to spend a 15-min break. Wading through the obsurdity you folks are posting about WWII, Vietnam, Ike, Nixon, and Kennedy. None of those things is even remotely relevant to this campaign. The Demcorats lost the Vietnam War? The Democrats won WWII? Who cares? The democratic and republican parties of today are entirely different and completely re-aligned compared to the parties of the '60s and '40s. Let's get out fo the time machine and come back to 2008, boys.

John W...

LOL

OK Clarence,Watergate never happened either.

Keep on revising history,Faux Entertainment will always back you up.

OK Clarence,Watergate never happened either.

Keep on revising history,Faux Entertainment will always back you up.

Posted by: Raving Loon | January 2, 2008 9:50 AM

No Loonie, Watergate most certainly did happen. But, as is usual, you can't reply with facts or reason, so you come back with snarky remarks and name calling - again. You are sooooo predictable.

* * * * *

Posted by: John | January 2, 2008 9:38 AM

Oh, but John, these candidates! They are so boring and vapid! They should have their pulses checked every two hours just to make sure they are alive. A hot debate over history is much more interesting any day - hands down.

I respect Mitt Romney for using his resources to help fund his campaign. It would be very disheartening to think he had the resources but expected the American People to fund it entirely knowing that he could easily contribute. I think it shows his integrity and willingness to give. Mitt Romney has put more of himself (time, talents, family, energy, knowledge and experience) into this race than any other single candidate on the GOP ticket. He has been fully engaged for the entire year. I think that shows committment, fortitude, earnestness, leadership, and trust. "Money is not the root of all evil. The love of money is". Mitt Romney is not in this campaign to amass wealth (he didn't take income or gifts when Governor and has even stated he won't take an income from the tax payers when he is President). He has used the wealth he has earned through a life time of honest hard work to serve others. It would be a sad day if someone in his position were to ask for campaign funds of the electorate but would not invest his own abundance to the cause.

I get tired of the media slamming him for his contributions. Those writing articles are doing it for the big bucks themselves. If they get the "story" they get the money. I worry a lot more about their hearts and motives than I do the motives of Mitt Romney. I personally feel Mitt Romney's upright life style and choices so out shine the media and many of the candidates running for office.

It is a cruel world that tries to punish someone for being "too good". Mitt lives a clean and decent life and puts many others who know better to shame. People are judging the mote in Romney's eye while their own has a beam.

I respect Governor Romney. He has put up with a lot of slander this year and has kept the campaign to the issues at hand when every one else attacked him on non issues.

Mike Huckabee's heroes are characters made up on television (Chuck Norris) or rock stars (Rolling Stones who seek money for selfish gain not caring about what their music does to harm young people).

Mike Huckabee said that he does not want to make the rich poor, but to make the poor rich. There will always be some one that has more than another. To seek for riches is not the goal. To take care of others is. I think Mitt Romney has shown that he knows how to use resources for the benefit of others. That is true leadership.

Here are to two extremes of money:

16 "Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!
17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!
18 But blessed are the poor who are pure in heart, whose hearts are broken, and whose spirits are contrite, for they shall see the kingdom of God coming in power and great glory unto their deliverance; for the fatness of the earth shall be theirs.
19 For behold, the Lord shall come, and his recompense shall be with him, and he shall reward every man, and the poor shall rejoice."

Clarence,if Tricky Dicks speech is proof of what actually happened,you're a bigger goof than I realized!

Here's your links on Rep.Wicker the racist is attends KKK(CCC)meetings.

You remind me of another poster who I ran off a years ago.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=315

http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups383.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Conservative_Citizens

And in todays times...the lefies supports the enemy...

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | January 1, 2008 10:56 PM

What a tool you are! Your neonut heroes mostly avoided the draft during the Viet Nam era but now are steely eyed macho men (not) bent on rewriting their own and US history to cover up their hypocrisy, flip-flopping or whatever you would call their past pussy behavior. Let's reinstitute the draft with no deferements for males and females or age up to 40. We'd see who had the will for battle pretty darn fast.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/generation-chickenhawk-t_b_56676.html

* * * * *

Posted by: Raving Loon | January 2, 2008 11:19 AM

Raving Loony-Toon:

1. I never claimed that “Tricky Dick’s” speech indicated what really happened. You claimed that he blandly promised to get us out of Vietnam. I cited his acceptance speech to show that his promise was a little more nuanced than that. I’m sorry you missed the subtlety there. Better yet, I’m sorry you can’t read or reason.

2. The first link you provided is the same SPLC cite that you gave me in the other thread. I already dealt with the insignificance of that data. Or, just in case you have forgotten in the interval of a few hours, I’ll remind you. It merely showed that Congressman Wicker showed up to a CCC meeting. Why he did so, or what he did or said at the meeting – we don’t know. We also have no proof that he is a member of the CCC or any other racist group. Nor have you furnished any other evidence that he has acted or spoken in a manner that promotes or condones racism. Under the totality of these circumstances, you have nothing but the vapid argument of “guilt by association” based upon the single CCC meeting to assume he is a racist. That would be like someone claiming you were a Christian for attending one church service without knowing why you went or what you did during the service. Neither inference is logical.

And, as I said before, this is the same kind of smear technique that Joe McCarthy used back in the ‘50s to ruin people for attending one meeting of the Communist Party. I had really hoped that political discourse would have grown up since then. But, I guess desperate people grasp for any argument, good or bad.

3. The other two links merely regurgitate the claim in the SPLC article. In fact, the third article from Wikipedia merely asserts, without reference to detail, that Wicker is said to have attended a CCC meeting. In case it hasn’t dawned on you, the same story from three different sources doesn’t make it any more convincing – especially where, as here, none of the accounts offer any more detail than the fact that he attended one meting.

4. You aren’t running me off with this trash. I haven’t budged a millimeter. You are too entertaining in spite of yourself.

Posted by: John W. | January 2, 2008 12:10 PM

What matters is right now, today, here in the present.

If you want to go back in history lets look at the recent history that matters today.

You voted for a draftdodger (W) and a Veep who had "better things to do" than fight for his country and they've done nothing but trash the constitution and start a pre-emptive war among other f-ups.

Instead of being on here trying to prove that you have superior intelligence over everyone else you should be off standing in a corner with your head down in shame thinking about what an idiot you have been.

3. The other two links merely regurgitate the claim in the SPLC article. In fact, the third article from Wikipedia merely asserts, without reference to detail, that Wicker is said to have attended a CCC meeting. In case it hasn’t dawned on you, the same story from three different sources doesn’t make it any more convincing – especially where, as here, none of the accounts offer any more detail than the fact that he attended one meting.

Posted by: John W. | January 2, 2008 12:10 PM

Johnny W,

In a court of law (R) Roger Wicker is not a racist.

In the court of public opinion (R) Roger Wicker is a racist and I will continue referring to him as one.

Posted by: John W. | January 2, 2008 12:10 PM

Johnny W,

It's recent history that matters right now and considering that you voted for the the worst Prez in history you should be holding your head down in shame rather than trying to convince everyone of your superior intellignce.

In a court of law (R) Roger Wicker is not a racist.

In the court of public opinion (R) Roger Wicker is a racist and I will continue referring to him as one.

Posted by: John E | January 2, 2008 1:33 PM

And that's only because you are so bigoted and closed minded that you have to assume only the worst about any white, male, southern Republican. I feel sorry for you that your world is that tiny.

* * * * *

Posted by: John E | January 2, 2008 1:58 PM

JohnEEEEE:

We’ve been over this before. I voted for Duh’bya in 2000, when no one had any idea of just how bad a president he would become. I didn’t vote for him in 2004. I stayed home that year because I couldn’t stomach the idea that Duh’bya would get reelected or that Kerry would ever become President – and they didn’t have “None Of The Above” on the Ballot, so I am told.

And, no John E, I don’t mope over past mistakes. I reflect on them, learn from them what I can and then move on.

And I’m not trying to convince or impress anyone that I am intelligent. I have engaged in this exercise with you and Raving Loon because: 1) I am offended at how bigoted and narrow minded you folks have been in your treatment of Wicker; 2) I am concerned that your self image of being “liberal” and “open minded” has actually blinded you to your own prejudices and narrow mindedness; and 3) I think it is healthy to play the gadfly and remind you from time to time just how true all of this is.

And that's only because you are so bigoted and closed minded that you have to assume only the worst about any white, male, southern Republican. I feel sorry for you that your world is that tiny.

Posted by: John W. | January 2, 2008 2:02 PM

W,

I have no sympathy for politicians (Wicker) who pander to racist hate groups.

P S - You're name calling makes me feel all warm and cuddly inside, Johnny.

We’ve been over this before. I voted for Duh’bya in 2000, when no one had any idea of just how bad a president he would become. I didn’t vote for him in 2004. I stayed home that year

) I am concerned that your self image of being “liberal” and “open minded” has actually blinded you to your own prejudices and narrow mindedness; and 3) I think it is healthy to play the gadfly and remind you from time to time just how true all of this is.

Posted by: John W. | January 2, 2008 2:44 PM

W,

This "close-minded" liberal knew how much of a joke W was in 2000, maybe you should have done like you tell everyone else on here before you voted for him and opened your mind and done some homework before you blindly walked into the voting booth and pulled the (R) lever.

* * * * *

Posted by: John E | January 2, 2008 2:50 PM

John E:

What evidence do you have, other than his non-descript attendance at that one CCC meeting, to conclude that he "panders" to racist hate groups? How do you know that he didn't just show up and give them a piece of his mind? Do you have any evidence that the CCC even likes him any more? Has he ever been invited back? You are clueless, and yet you judge.

P.S. I am not calling you names. The words "bigoted" and "closed minded" accurately describe your obstinate inability to fairly judge facts and circumstances because of your distaste for that particular class of persons in which Congressman Wicker is included – i.e. white, male, southern Republicans.

However, I am glad that you feel all warm and cuddly inside. Now go curl up with your teddy bear and blanket. It’s cold outside.

However, I am glad that you feel all warm and cuddly inside. Now go curl up with your teddy bear and blanket. It’s cold outside.

Posted by: John W. | January 2, 2008 3:07 PM

W,

This case is closed, you lose.

See ya...

* * * * *

Posted by: John E | January 2, 2008 2:57 PM

No. No. No. No. and No.

There was nothing out there to put a reasonable person on notice that Duh’bya would turn out to be such a changeling. I defy you to show me something that was well known about him at the time that would have given me pause, or otherwise led me to doubt his bona fides as a mainstream conservative. To listen to anyone on the Republican side, you would have thought that sunshine sprinkled out of his you-know-where. He was the son of a President, he had served as governor of Texas, and his administration in Texas turned in no major, or even noteworthy, scandals or gaffes – at least, nothing that made it into the news or onto the net. Even Ron Paul didn’t speak out against him and the neo-cons until July 10, 2003.

I also assumed that if Duh’bya had any serious defects as a person or a leader, I could count on the Democrats to bring those defects out into the open. Yet, they, too, were silent. No one, but no one, ever mentioned as much as his business failures.

But, in any event, I reiterate: None of his defects or screwed up policies were reasonably foreseeable to the average voter in 2000 when he was first elected. If you had any dirt on him, you were one of the few who did and you didn’t do a good job of sharing it with the rest of us.

And, with that, I'm going to take a nap - but not because I feel all warm and cuddly inside.

John W,

I wonder if many conservative republicans protested Nixon's war escalation like liberal democrats who protested Johnson's? I think the cons win the sheeple contest. Or, I guess you could argue that cons bought the "peace with honor" deal.

And judging from the comments on the blogs here, I think that liberals are more consistent about which candidates they favor, and why, unlike cons who will vote for Giuliani, or Huckabee, two diametrically opposed candidates, simply because they're Repubs. As the turncoat Dennis Miller would say, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...Peace, J.W.

This case is closed, you lose.

See ya...

Posted by: John E | January 2, 2008 3:39 PM

Only in your wildest pseudo-liberal dreams.

Only in your wildest pseudo-liberal dreams.

Posted by: John W. | January 2, 2008 3:57 PM

W,

You didn't do your homework before you voted for Prez 26% and you support racist politicians.

This pseudo liberal just kicked your "real conservative" butt.

Nightie night....

Well, my little NYD posting caused quite a kerflluffle!

John W; By deeply involved I meant the political involvement of us behind Diem. Ike and the Dulles bros. refused to look at the situation except through the cold war lens.

There was also a religious component.

We continued to back a hated Catholic minority to the end. They, the ruling Catholic minority were seen as lackys of the former French colonials whom we backed to the hilt with $$ and weapons throughout the early 50's. From the VN peasants perspective we had blood on our hands.

richard smith;
I have a funny nick name for all the candies, not just UpChuckAbee. BTW, I have nothing against Jesus, the man.

And, I think remembering these two unknown people every Christmas is the true meaning and purpose of the day.

John W,
My critique of Ike's handling of the gestation period of the VN war is not intended as a general condemnation of his presidency.

He did resist the MIC, and successfully kept us out of the direct line of fire. He even held out against LeMay and the 'first strike' gang in the Air Force.

* * * * *

Posted by: dt | January 2, 2008 3:55 PM

Nearly 40 years ago, when the American People had their fill of an what appeared to be an endless war in Vietnam, the Democratic and Republican Parties bore no resemblance to what they are today. In particular, the Democratic Party was such a mixed bag that it wouldn’t be improbable for a clash between civil rights demonstrators and government forces to involve only Democrats on both sides. That was certainly true in 1968 during the riots in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention. It was also true in the south before the Democratic Party nominated McGovern for the ‘72 election. So, when you tell me that “the liberal democrats . . . protested Johnson’s [war],” we have to remember that it was a relatively smaller group of Democrats protesting at the time as compared to today. By 1968, the Democratic Party had deep divisions over the war (which is probably why Nixon won).

And, yes, there were protests against Nixon’s incursion into Cambodia from within the Republican Party, and even from within his administration. His Secretary of the Interior protested against it in public. Three of Nixon’s NSC advisors resigned over it, as did several of Kissinger’s aids. 250 State Department employees, including 50 foreign service officers, signed a letter of protest against the incursion. In Congress, Senator John Sherman Cooper, Republican from Kentucky, co-sponsored a bill with Democrat Frank Church to restrict funding for the operations in Cambodia and to mandate the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Cambodia by a date certain. It passed with the support of a significant number of Senate Republicans. And this is just some of the stuff that took place within the government itself. The majority of the American People, both Democrats and Republicans, opposed the invasion. So, no, I don’t think it’s fair to say that Republicans passively submitted like “sheeple” to Nixon’s escalation of the war.

With regard to the divisions you now see within the ranks of Republicans, I think that undercuts any notion that Republicans are monolithic or passive in their views – “sheeple” as it were - or incapable of independent thought. There are significant ideological differences between those who support Rudy Giuliani on one end versus those who favor Ron Paul at the other. The only issue upon which most Republicans agree is in the need for greater fiscal conservatism. There are differences all over the map regarding just about everything else. That is why no clear, run-away leader or leaders exist among Republican candidates.

* * * * *

Posted by: John E | January 2, 2008 4:56 PM

John E:

I get up from my nap, and what do I see? All of a sudden, I find out that I support racists, and that I “didn’t do my homework” before voting for Duh’bya.

This is genuinely disingenuous on your part and you know it. You know I don’t believe Wicker is a racist. You also know that I don’t believe your accusation against him is either fair or rational. I have already explained why ad nauseam. Furthermore, you have yet to tell me what I have missed that I should have found out about Duh’bya had I done some homework. Until you start forking up some facts to back any and all of these allegations, I will simply assume you are trying to pull my chain.

No kewpie doll – again. Go back to your teddy bear and blanket.

John E. is it me or is John W. a more polite college Republican, Jeff?

Posted by: John W. | January 2, 2008 7:55 PM

You lose beachball head, case dismissed!

Typically, JW posits many truthy facts, then takes a hard right at the end of every paragraph!!