President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 29, 2008 12:41 AM UTC
20 Comments
Fascists ruled Italy, Germany and Russia in the 20s, 30s an 40s. When FDR came to power, many in his administration were fascists, but they over played their hands and lost power.
What is scary is that the Obama campaign is leading attacks on critics, including authors and reporters who are digging up information that links the candidate to anti-American terrorists and other radicals.
Dems are so determined that they will win that they don’t care what kind of candidate they are voting for.
They gloss over the fascism, as does the mainstream media, because accusing someone of being a fascists is so politically incorrect.
But Obama is what he is, and people will get used to talking about it, especially if he’s elected.
where Obama “leads attacks on critics”.
As to the right makeing “accusing someone of being a fascist “politically incorrect”. The rest of us see the lies, the manipulation, the deceit, the hypocrisy.
Stop already….how do you live with yourself?
FDR a facist? Give me a break.
First off, the FDR administration “lost power?” Seeing as how he’s the one president to get elected 4 times, that’s totally divorced from the facts.
Second, the right claimed that FDR was leading us toward socalism, not facism. Throughout the depression FDR fought the forces in the US that saw facism as the solution.
Garbage like this is beyond ridiculous.
Fascism is socialism with intimidation and murder thrown in to enforce the socialism.
Read Liberal Fascism: http://www.liberal-fascism.com.
I know there’s a lot to read, but this is an important book.
Are you now working for the Conservative Book of the Month Club?
We all know about the book by now – you’ve been promoting it for at least a month. We all know it’s just as important as the poorly researched Unfit for Command, and the demonstrably false Obama Nation.
It’s just, we like our non-fiction books with real facts, not fantasy facts.
As soon as they came to power, the real socialists were thrown in jail and/or shot, followed by a purge of those who believed in the socialist sales pitch espoused by the leaders. Check out “Night of the Long Knives” sometime.
You’re all wet on the issue. Socialism (true socialism, not Leninist or Stalinist or Maoist Marxism) is defined by its international centered nature, driven by the same values of valuing people regardless of their social, ethnic, or national background that liberals of all time periods hold dear.
Fascism is first and foremost a nation-centric form of chauvanism that values the “natives” of a nation over any other nation, as well as any “aliens” who reside within the boundaries of that nation (as long as they are to be found in high numbers). Hence antisemitism was not a problem with Italian Fascism early on (or Fascist Spain either) because, thanks to the Inquisition centuries earlier there were no large numbers of Jews to be found, unlike Germany, Austria, and the countries to the east. The parallel with current American politics is much more vivid with anti illegal alien activists than with any liberal group. And as any student of history knows, nationalism is a cornerstone of conservatism, and extreme nationalism (for example, Fascism) is simply extreme expression of rightist politics.
Intimidation, when it exists, is not a hallmark of any one political philosophy, having been employed by extremists of all persuasions. Even if you can demonstrate that it’s a facet of today’s Democratic Party, or Obama’s campaign (and so far you and cologeek have fallen short, to be charitable) it would not prove any charge of Fascistic tendencies with these groups.
You’re all wet on this issue. Give it up.
and make the exact same point about the ‘pubs, especially how they chose their candidate in 2000.
Remember: “Liberal Fascism” is an oxymoron. Fascism is purely a right wing phenomenon. Those who use the term reveal both the shallowness of their intellect and the pettiness of their character.
Now, that’s not to say that the left never attempts to silence opponents: Witness the Reign of Terror. But that alone is not Fascism.
Is there any effort being undertaken to silence Obama’s critics today? there’s no credible evidence being presented by anyone on this blog that it’s happening.
(BTW, correct observation about Stalin being a Fascist. He was (though not in the same fashion as Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were). But paradoxically he was at the head of a leftist system. The fact that this system was not Fascist can be seen in the fact that any Fascistic tendencies died out with Stalin and are only being reborn now.)
You’ve been sucked in by the Communist propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…
This definition is close, but it ignores the fact that the only place that fascists imposed anti-Semitism was Germany, which imposed it on Italy in the late 1930s. Until then, Jews were prominent fascists in Italy.
http://www.merriam-webster.com…
…if so, the answer is NO. See how easy the quiz is?! Don’t be afraid to venture a guess yourself next time.
If you follow the links and legal analysis of the article, the Obama campaign’s claim is quite valid. The ad is, by the organization’s own admission, express advocacy. And the organization’s spokesman admits that “enough money will be spent to qualify the organization as a legal [group that can spend on express advocacy].” In other words, the group is, by its own admission, a front for the funneling of unlimited, untracked funds expressly attacking Barack Obama’s candidacy – as much a valid enterprise as the stereotypical “import/export business” used by the mob.
How cool!
And thanks for being part of the “nation of whiners” your candidate’s economic adviser accuses us of being.
It’s politics; if your side plans to play to the edge of the rules, don’t come crying to the ref when our side plays hard entirely within the rules.
Just seeing patterns emerging.
I read/viewed all your links and there is not one solid, tangible piece of evidence presented in any of them to support your diary.
In the ABC piece, all you see is edited footage of the cops shoving and arresting the reporter. At no point do we see what he did to provoke this, and at no point do we see anything that would even indicate that those bad ol’ Dems sicced the cops on him. We don’t even know what story he was covering at the time. Maybe there’s something else out there that answers these questions, but your diary fails when you don’t include it.
The Malkin video shows fringe-types, not Democrats. Why did you even include it?
Most egregiously, you use the term “show trials” when the link you have calls for no such thing. “Show trials” were the big trials associated with Stalin’s Great Terror of the 1930s, in which high-level Communists who either posed some kind of threat to his power (because they either were popular in their own right or because of what they knew about Stalin) were accused of causing all of the USSR’s problems (catastrophic crop failures and failure to reach industrial goals mostly) at the behest of their enemies.
No, what the person in that video speaks of is tribunals along the lines of the Nuremburg Trials, in which Nazi war criminals were tried based on the evidence at hand. No one but Nazi sympathizers believes that the Nuremburg Trials were unjust.
Now, you’re entitled to your opinion that bringing Bush admin officials to a war crimes tribunal is extreme, but unless you’re knowledgeable about international law and the exact ways the Bushies conducted themselves here, I’d say that such an opinion is likely underinformed and premature. But you’re not entitled to misrepresenting what was said.
What are you left with? The Politico piece, in which an Obama attorney is calling for investigation into a billionaire’s political activities. At last, something really and truly connected to Obama. Unfortunately your reading of it is not level headed. More facts need to come out before we can say that it’s simply an attempt to intimidate the people funding that group – for example, if an investigation does occur and finds about as much illegal activity as Starr found the Clintons had committed. If it’s that devoid of merit, then you might be onto something. But claiming it now is premature if not slanted.
As I said elsewhere, this is disappointing. The fact that AS is the only one here supporting you should tell you something about the quality of this post.
Intimidation of political opponents and critics?
Do you even know what the term means, insofar, as politics and business?
To answere your question, reoundingly, “No!”
YOu need to catch up.
You surely can’t mean that. It has nothing to do with “tactics”, which I presume you mean to be authoritarian.
Fascism is a political philosophy where business and the state is merged.
Communism is when the state controls all economic output and planning.
My god, you can’t be that stupid, can you?
and conducted himself like one. But as such he was an anomaly in Soviet history – even his henchmen did not share this tendency.
AS is wrong to characterize the Soviet Union as a Fascist state for the reasons you cite, but it was kind of one for about 18 years, from the time of the Great Terror (mid to late 30s) til Stalin’s death in 1953, since it was led by one.