Paul: Fox News is 'scared of me'
By James Pindell December 29, 2007 01:40 P
PLAISTOW, N.H. -- Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network "is scared" of him.
"They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," Paul said in an interview at a diner here. "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."
Paul's staff said they are beginning to plan a rally that will take place at the same time the 90-minute debate will air on television. It will be taped at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown.
"They will not win this skirmish," he promised.
The Fox debate occurs less than 24 hours after two back to back Republican and Democratic debates on the same campus sponsored by ABC News, WMUR-TV and the social networking website Facebook.
Paul, the Republican Texas Congressman, was wrapping up his final day of campaigning in New Hampshire until the Iowa Caucuses on Thursday.
He spent much of the day campaigning at diners in Manchester and Plaistow and downtown walks in Derry and Exeter.
Here is the beginning of my post. And here is the rest of it.
Huckabee stands by 'Christ' comment
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Sun Dec 30, 5:19 PM ET
DES MOINES, Iowa - Mike Huckabee, a Republican relying on support from religious conservatives in Thursday's hard-fought presidential caucuses, on Sunday stood by a decade-old comment in which he said, "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
ADVERTISEMENT
In a television interview, the ordained Southern Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor made no apologies for the 1998 comment made at a Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Salt Lake City.
"It was a speech made to a Christian gathering, and, and certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptists," Huckabee said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
He gave the speech the same year he endorsed the Baptist convention's statement of beliefs on marriage that "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ." Huckabee and his wife, Janet, signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement with 129 other evangelical leaders.
The year was 1983 and - as a history documentary in a primetime slot on Channel 4 next weekend vividly shows - the next six weeks would be the most dangerous the world has ever experienced. 
Comments (8)
))
Lee … a response to a post by thehim.
From Wiki:
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies are known as corporations (not necessarily the business model known as a 'corporation' though such businesses are not excluded from the definition either). Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When the political and economic power of a country rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place
From Lee
@36
Piper,
Thank you for the 3rd-Grade-level rundown of this topic. We all appreciate it.
The purpose of government should be to zealously protect and maximize individual liberty and freedom, not subplant them all in the name of some amorphous “collective good” defined by…government.
What you don’t seem to understand is that many, many people understand that you can maximize liberty by developing institutions and systems that benefit all of society. Collectivism (either through corporations or through government institutions) can both lead to greater liberty. Trying to inhibit the creation of one or the other is the path to totalitarianism. When the corporate form of collectivism is demonized, you get Communism. When the government form of collectivism is demonized, you get Fascism. By misunderstanding the reality that corporations are a form of collectivism, you have been unwittingly supporting a political party that has been inching towards Fascism for the past few decades.
I think the exchange over at HA is missing a very important and threatening idea. Corporatism, the esseence of fascism, is a very real threat to liberal democracy. I would even bet that many Americans, liberal or conservative, would vote for the interests of their corporate ties above the interests of the nation.
First, it is importnta to understand that the modern usage of fascism to refer to the Nazi's is historically incorrect. Mussolini invented the concept of fascism. Hitler was anything BUT a fascist. Mussolini’s big idea was that the interests of large corporations and the government were congruent. He brought large corporations into the government fold. To achieve this model there had to be limits on freedom. While it is true that Mussolini glorified the Roman State, that was more a reflection of concurrent ideas of nationalism than a governing principle. indeed, under il Duce, Jews inter alia prospered. Some of what looks today like Italian racism , was simply the usual Eurocentric colonialist mentality.
Not only was there no connection to racism or supremacism, at this stage of Mussolini’s system and il Duce himself were widely feted by liberals (FDR and Gandhi esp) as a potential answer to communism.
If I look around the globe today, it seems to me that Mussolini is VERY successful. Contrary to Fukayama, Democracy as a model for state reform may not be the ultimate end of history. The success stories of the moment include China, Russia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Sweden, England, Cuba, …. While these states call themselves by different names, they are all in fact very similar to Mussolini’s Italy.
Let me suggest a different term, “corporatism.” Sounds better, no?
I define corporatism as government where corporate governance remains in “private hands” but the government itself is controlled by a cadre of folks from the same corporate leadership. In a corporate state, the state works to promote the needs of the corporations. Clinton’s concept of state “investments” is as corporatist as Putin’s engineering of “private” takeover for Yukoil.
The most dramatic examples in our current world are pretty obvious … Lenovo is owned and controlled by the Chinese Army, Putin has just, reportedly, hidden 40 BILLION he will still control after leaving the Presidency. Cuba makes national POLITICAL decisions that are int he interest of Cuba’s Communist Party which is also the management6 of Cuba’s industries. Back to the US, the push for national health care is to relieve the corporations of the burden of health care as they compete world wide.
I will not dwell on the danger of corporatism controlling the US as well. That seems obvious to me. Instead, let me point out some of the outcomes, based on traditions economics, of a corporate society.
Corporations’ own self interest which may or may not include the interest of the nation. Microsoft is a clear (and scary) example. The company exists for only one reason .. to make money for its stockholders and it does that by monopolistic efforts at controlling the internet.
Suppose Steve Balmer concluded that MS would be more functional if its headquarters were in Beijing? Under the rules of capitalism, MS SHOULD move! Of course, under the cocprate model, the same is true in reverse. Just as Boeing moves its management to Chicago to escape Union oversight in its home town, one can imagine Lukoil moving its headquarters to Basel where controls of capital are more secure than in Moscow.
The motto of a corporatist society is:
The fittest must survive.
As in Ec 101, the corporatist tells u8s that any other model hurts the people by being inefficient. The only difference is that in a corporatist state, the fitness of the corporation is more important than the fitness of the nations.
Let me point out that corporatism is utterly antagonistic to Hitlerism. There is no racism, nor nationalism in a corporatist state. The Corporate state exists for the benefit of the corporation(s). The Hitler state existed for the benefit of the Nazi racist ideals.
And Then There Was Edwards .......Friday morning at a forum for undecided voters in Independence, Iowa, Edwards repeated his implicit criticism of Obama, saying any candidate who thinks he or she can invite corporate America to the table and achieve real results for Americans "is living in never-never land."
So he believes Barack Obama lives in never-never land?
"If he believes that, yes," Edwards said. "It's a little hard for me to tell sometimes based on the way he talks about this. I've heard him say he would give stakeholders a seat at the table. I assume he's talking about oil companies, drug companies and insurance companies."
Asked during the interview if he thought Obama or Clinton would be better at bringing about change were he not in the race, Edwards indicated his preference was Obama.
"One of them believes change is necessary and the system doesn't work, and the other defends the system," he said.
But Edwards had plenty critical to say about Obama as well, assailing comments made Friday by Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod that seemed to link Clinton's October 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq -- a vote Edwards cast as well -- with Bhutto's assassination. "She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which I submit is one of the reasons we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al Qaeda, who may still have been players in this event," Axelrod said.