Ready, Ames, Fire: Straw Poll Hits, Misses

Here are the final results of the Iowa Republican Straw Poll, in which 14,302 ballots were cast:

1 Mitt Romney, 4,516 votes, 31.6 percent

2 Mike Huckabee, 2,587 votes, 18.1 percent

3 Sam Brownback, 2,192 votes, 15.3 percent

4 Tom Tancredo, 1,961 votes, 13.7 percent

5 Ron Paul, 1,305 votes, 9.1 percent

6 Tommy Thompson, 1,039 votes, 7.3 percent

7 Fred Thompson, 203 votes, 1.4 percent

8 Rudy Guiliani, 183 votes, 1.3 percent

9 Duncan Hunter, 174 votes, 1.2 percent

10 John McCain - 101 votes, 0.7 percent

11 John Cox- 41 votes, 0.1 percent

The obvious "winners" were Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is a frontrunner in Iowa and a number of other states, and Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who is emerging as the serious conservative alternative to the consistently inconsistent Romney.

Taking first place in the straw poll matters, as career trajectory of the man who did so in 1999, George W. Bush, attests. So Romney gained something on Saturday. His win in the voting at Ames was a big one -- Romney's 31 percent matched the level of support Bush received eight years ago -- and he managed it well: by criticizing Giuliani and McCain for dropping out of the competition. With new opinion polls showing both the former New York mayor and the senator from Arizona falling behind in Iowa, Romney is moving fast to establish himself as the clear leader in the first-caucus state.

In many senses, Huckabee's solid second-place showing represented an even more significant achievement. The ordained minister from Bill Clinton's hometown of Hope, Arkansas, broke from the pack of also-rans by attracting broader support than even his campaign expected. Campaigns bought $35 "tickets" to qualify their supporters as voters in the straw poll. Huckabee's camp purchased 1,800 votes but he got 2,587. That means that almost 800 Iowa Republicans who got into the event on another candidate's "dime" and then decided after the speeches were done to back Huckabee.

Brownback says he got "a ticket to the Iowa caucuses" with his third-place finish. But he spent more than $325,000 on the straw poll alone, making it an extremely expensive ticket that only got the Kansas senator into a third-class seat. He and Huckabee had battled, in reasonably ugly fashion, for the religious right vote. Huckabee won.

Tancredo also spent heavily and campaigned hard -- launching aggressive attacks on opponents who his campaign determined to be insufficiently anti-immigrant. His fourth-place finish offers another reminder that immigration is not the issue the GOP's yahoo caucus or its echo chamber in the media imagines.

Of the mid-range finishers, Paul won the loudest bragging rights. The anti-war, pro-constitution candidate has barely been to Iowa -- he made his third trip to the state for the straw poll -- and spent far less money on Saturday than the other candidates. While other candidates brought in rock bands, gave away rib dinners and ice cream and set up elaborate play areas for the children of supporters, Paul's backers deployed a large black sign with a quotation from Ben Franklin that read: "Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you."

History trumped persistence. The Texas congressman finished well ahead of Tommy Thompson, who had visited Iowa weekly since the start of the year and campaigned in every one of the state's 99 counties prior to the straw poll. He had run buses from across Iowa to get his backers to Ames. And he had even set up a miniature golf course at his tent to keep them entertained prior to the voting.

Thompson was the biggest loser Saturday. He had said he expected to finish in the top three. His sixth-place finish was a ticket out of the January caucuses. Bush's former Secretary of Health and Human Services retreated to an Ames hotel room before the straw poll results were announced, presumably to nurse his wounds before preparing a gracious statement to announce his exit from the national political stage. He issued that statement Sunday night, to no great notice.

The second biggest loser was the Republican party.

The 1999 straw poll drew 23,685 voters.

This year, with equally intense competition and a crowded field, and more media attention than ever, the turnout was down by almost 9,400. That does not suggest that enthusiasm for the Grand Old Party's current crop of contenders is anywhere near as high as it was when the party was competing to retake the White House in the waning days of Bill Clinton's presidency. Eight years of Bush appeared to have dampened spirits even among the party's most faithful.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (77)

1. "The second biggest loser was the Republican party."

   and the biggest winner is: THE REST OF THE WORLD

   good riddance!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2007 @ 10:21am

2. Yawn.......

   Wonder if NICHOLS has no other sources of income and is paid based on the number of articles here? Even on Saturday and Sundays!

   Posted by Happy at 08/12/2007 @ 1:10pm

3. Posted by HAPPY 08/12/2007 @ 1:10pm

   maybe, but at least the title's funny

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2007 @ 1:26pm

4. straw poll, straw men, straw dildoes....

   the republican party is adopting a radical new look

   Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 2:38pm

5. Yawn.......

   Wonder if HAPPY has no other sources of interaction and gets excited based on the number of comments here? Even on Saturday and Sundays!

   Posted by HAPPY 08/12/2007 @ 1:10pm

   Posted by Malcontent at 08/12/2007 @ 3:56pm

6. 3 of the top four are American Taliban. The top finisher will not draw out the huge fundie vote the repubs need to win, he is not a "real" christian. Good thing we don't have a religious test in this great land. :)

   Hap- are those proud Eagle Scouts signed up for a double tour in Iraq yet? We need them more, but not much more, than we need you to step up and help pay the bill for your little war.

   Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2007 @ 4:15pm

7. ...are those proud Eagle Scouts signed up for a double tour in Iraq yet?...

   Posted by CRABWALK 08/12/2007 @ 4:15pm

   Do you know that the Scout Troop we've been a part of for ~11 years, had already sent 4~5 Eagle Scouts to the Academies?

   Have you checked to see how many of our nation's Astronauts are Eagle Scouts? Do you have any concept that Scouting is structured fun for kids while teaching them to LEAD? How many of your kids, or grandkids for that matter, will get several chances by the time they reach 17~18, to learn the rewards & frustrations of leading a bunch of kids ranging from 11 to 16/17?

   Is your obvious distaste for Scouts based on religion and its exclusion of (known) gays? Are you being a bit, Scout-phobic? Do you have a problem w/a buch of patriotic adults and kids pledging allegiance to the flag? have faith in God? believes in the Scout Law (very similar to the Ten commandments), etc.....? Do we really pose such a threat to you?

   Posted by Happy at 08/12/2007 @ 4:48pm

8. Posted by CRABWALK 08/12/2007 @ 4:15pm

   crab:

   if you want the beneficiaries of this occupation to pay for rewards-reaped, sending more people off to die isn't the answer. bring 'em all back now (from EVERY u.s. occupied country). then make people earning say, $10 million a year pay for the long-term care of wounded vets--adopt-a-vet.

   more disfigured vets could actually go and live in their nantucket mansions, receiving 24-hr care delivered directly from the most private of the private sector.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2007 @ 4:59pm

9. so happy, when you said your kid was an eagle scout did that have anything to do with spread. And exactly how much smut surfing did he have to do to win that acclaim.

   Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 5:01pm

10. Posted by HAPPY 08/12/2007 @ 12:30pm

    HAPP, to answer your question from the other thread...I put the odds on even Hillary winning at 60-65% (better than average).

    The GOP has nothing good to run on.

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2007 @ 5:10pm

11. CRABBY,

    A bit of American history, from Australia, on a slow Sunday......

    Scouts in Space

    Of the 294 men and women selected to be astronauts since 1959 to 2005, more than 180 have been Scouts.

    Astonishingly, 11 of the 12 men to have walked on the moon were Scouts. Even more remarkably perhaps, two thirds of all the astronauts ever to have gone into space were involved in Scouting. When NASA began its astronaut selection process, they were looking for people who were not only fit and technically proficient, but who had an even temperament and above all, a thirst for adventure. It was no coincidence that the majority of those who were handed "tickets to the moon" were former Scouts.

    NASA.....It was vital that those who spent days in the cramped conditions could keep calm under pressure and cope with being thousands of miles from Earth. Of course, many were former test pilots, but the confidence and initiative of the young men who had come from Scouting also impressed NASA.

    One Giant Leap

    Surely the most famous of all the "Space Scouts" was Neil Armstrong. Born in Ohio in the US on 5 August 1930, his interest in flight began early, when as a Scout he built and flew model planes. By the age of 16, he had earned his student's pilot licence.

    In 1971, Armstrong.....received the Boy Scouts of America's highest honour: the Silver Buffalo Award. What's more, Armstrong had carried the World Scout Badge with him on his historic mission....

    This article originally appeared in the August/September 2005 edition of the UK magazine called Scouting and is written by Chris James. It is copyright 2006 The UK Scout Association and is used by permission.

    Posted by Happy at 08/12/2007 @ 5:15pm

12. really cumbuckets, 60-65% is better than average? how much thinkin did you have to do before that light turned on?

    Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 5:15pm

13. hey.... happy kid can be a space cadet

    Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 5:16pm

14. at 60-65% (better than average).

    The GOP has nothing good to run on.

    Posted by MASK 08/12/2007 @ 5:10pm

    Come, now, MASK! 60~65% is good odds but a long, long, long ways from a "sure thing". I'm aware that you are leaving a bit of a back door by not taking it at 100% for HRC as the Nominee!

    Why have you dug in your heels on what the GOP can run on?

    Knock on wood....if no terror attacks of any consequence in the US by late next year, and assuming the economy is not in a definite trend into a recession, the GOP can rightly claim three very significant "good" to run on:

    - Kept the nation safe for 7 long, ?lucky? years

    - Kept the economy growing since the end of the Clinton Recession

    - Will keep taxes low to maintain Economic Growth

    The GOP can add another "good", IMHO, by coming up with a modest plan dealing with some minimal level of healthcare for CITIZEN poors....something like the welfare reform by tightly enforce rules and making sure benefits go to exactly those targeted. I also believe Immigration is an issue for ordianry Americans....even though the GOP comes across as `meaner' but also more credible!

    Frankly, I'm fairly certain the Dems don't have anything "good" really to run on, in substance, actually less than the GOP....its usual tired call for bigger Gov't but with a possible added issue of the Iraq War.....not clear it's a positive for the Dem Party.

    Posted by Happy at 08/12/2007 @ 5:31pm

15. Posted by HAPPY 08/12/2007 @ 5:31pm

    - Kept the nation safe for 7 long, ?lucky? years

    which was easy after you caved to osamma's demands

    - Kept the economy growing since the end of the Clinton Recession

    offset by record national debts (which clinton was paying down)

    - Will keep taxes low to maintain Economic Growth

    while we watch our cities drown, our bridges collapse..

    Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 5:54pm

16. yeah you hamsters should run on that

    Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 5:54pm

17. Posted by HAPPY 08/12/2007 @ 5:31pm

    Sorry, HAPP..."safe for the last 7 years" doesn't seem to cut Bush much slack, with a 28-32% (depending on te poll) approval, does it?

    As for the economy, all the indicators project modest growth, but the public sees it as sluggish or worse. It MAY be a fair economy, but that's not the way the voters see it, and as Bush-41 showed, you can't just "tell people it is" and make it stick.

    Taxes? Sure, but there's a fiscal conservative streak in this country and eventually it wins out. It did in 1992 (with both Clinton and Perot) and it will in 2008, nobody wants to see the deficits continue and there hasn't been a GOP candidate yet ('cept Ron Paul) who is offering ANY meaningful spending cuts to off-set the tax cuts.

    Nothing is 100% sure. But 60-65% for Hillary is pretty good. Can she be photo'ed in a three-way with Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad and even Brownback win it...sure. But not likely.

    But look at the upside...Limbaugh and Hannity will be able to stop playing defense.

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2007 @ 6:35pm

18. poor cumbuckets (she deosn't like me anymore)

    Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 6:37pm

19. Posted by WILL C. 08/12/2007 @ 6:37pm

    Sure I like you, WILL. Always have. You're like a puppy who got hit by a car and was "never quite right afte that".

    I especially love how you follow a towel around the room, or in your case, get all flustered at somebody suggesting you're gay and, unlike a REAL "progressive", you get panicked because you're secretly homophobic.

    I just have't seen much to comment on, but anti-female slurs.

    Posted by Mask at 08/12/2007 @ 7:01pm

20. I just have't seen much to comment on, but anti-female slurs.

    Posted by MASK 08/12/2007 @ 7:01p

    aw cumbuckets, are you really that spineless that you have to keep dragging all the other women in the world into it for support.

    When it's really all about you

    Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 7:05pm

21. and it's still funny as hell that you need me to be gay

    Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 7:09pm

22. Having viewed Russo's "Freedom to Fascism," I volunteered to assist Ron Paul by making some phone calls and am pleased this one "alternate" (Libertarian-esque) Republican garnered almost 10% of the straw poll vote in Iowa.

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/12/2007 @ 9:31pm

23. Mask,

    Think Frank or WILL saw this? Frank may have been too tangled up in Hillarys skirt and WILL too busy getting BLOWN BACK by his male wife, but if Hillary loses this in 08..

    WOW...nashing of teeth will be tame..

    "By RON FOURNIER Google sponsored links Clinton's girl friends - Could 'mischief maker' Bill damage Hillary's presidential campaign? www.thefirstpost.co.uk

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

    They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

    In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races."

    Posted by john maasch at 08/12/2007 @ 11:04pm

24. hey check it out, maasch needs me to be gay too. But then I always thought their anti gay stance was just cover for a deeper hidden desire.

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 08:41am

25. I'm voting for either Theodore Roosevelt or Harry Truman, depending on whether I go DEM or REPUB. My preference is for Theodore, although either one of them dead would be way better than ANY of the current crop of candidates.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/13/2007 @ 08:45am

26. Posted by WILL C. 08/13/2007 @ 08:41am

    I'm pro-gay rights, WILL....look at my posts and prove otherwise.

    BTW, you're not gay...not yet. You just have a problem with women (and therefore think I'm one) and you're so homophobic that you panic if somebody calls you gay (a good indicator that you have some orientation issues ahead of you).

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 09:23am

27. Bigger news ahead, folks than WILL's issues...

    Karl Rove leaving.

    New David Corn (as well as others) article coming shortly!

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 09:24am

28. C'mon Chip! Buck up man. Why just this morning I learned the terms "polygyny" (synonymous with polygamy)and polyandry and am now capable of associating recalled past accusations of my being "Pollyannaish" with my desired growth and development as a Caucasian "no-sexist" and "non-racist."

    You too, Chipper, can raise your eyes from the muck and view Kucinich as a Democratic Cervantes and Edwards as our very own "Mr. Deeds" or "Mr. Smith," even if an ostentatious home and haircut elicited a one day's new cycle of scorn.

    Skeptical, mi amigos, not cynical!

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/13/2007 @ 09:47am

29. KARL ROVE THE COWARD RAN AWAY!!! JESUS WILL CATCH HIM AND THROW HIM WHERE HE BELONGS!!!! THIS IS WONDERFUL! KARL ROVE IF YOU WANTED TO BE WITH YOUR FAMILY, YOU WOULD HAVE STAYED WITH THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. RUN YOU WEAK LITTLE COWARD!!!!! HA HA HA HA !!!!

    Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 10:07am

30. I'm voting for either Theodore Roosevelt or Harry Truman, My preference is for Theodore, although either one of them dead would be way better than ANY of the current crop of candidates.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/13/2007 @ 08:45am | ignore this person

    yes, nothing but the best imperialism for you. this characterizes you well. see for yourself:

    http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=h&p=c&a=p&ID=23051

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 10:14am

31. There is one feature in the expansion of the peoples of white, or European, blood during the past four centuries which should never be lost sight of, especially by those who denounce such expansion on moral grounds. On the whole, the movement has been fraught with lasting benefit to most of the peoples already dwelling in the lands over which the expansion took place. Of course any such general statement as this must be understood with the necessary reservations. Human nature being what it is, no movement lasting for four centuries and extending in one shape or another over the major part of the world could go on without cruel injustices being done at certain places and in certain times. Occasionally, although not very frequently, a mild and kindly race has been treated with wanton, brutal, and ruthless inhumanity by the white intruders. Moreover, mere savages, whose type of life was so primitive as to be absolutely incompatible with the existence of civilization, inevitably died out from the regions across which their sparse bands occasionally flitted, when these regions became filled with a dense population; they died out when they were kindly treated as quickly as when they were badly treated, for the simple reason that they were so little advanced that the conditions of life necessary to their existence were incompatible with any form of higher and better existence. It is also true that, even where great good has been done to the already existing inhabitants, where they have thriven under the new rule, it has sometimes brought with it discontent from the very fact that it has brought with it a certain amount of well-being and a certain amount of knowledge, so that people have learned enough to feel discontented and have prospered enough to be able to show their discontent. Such ingratitude is natural, and must be reckoned with as such; but it is also both unwarranted and foolish, and the fact of its existence in any given case does not justify any change of attitude on our part.

    On the whole, and speaking generally, one extraordinary fact of this expansion of the European races is that with it has gone an increase in population and well-being among the natives of the countries where the expansion has taken place. As a result of this expansion there now live outside of Europe over a hundred million of people wholly of European blood and many millions more partly of European blood; and as another result there are now on the whole more people, of native blood in the regions where these hundred million intruders dwell than there were when the intruders went thither. In America the Indians of the West Indies were well-nigh exterminated, wantonly and cruelly. The merely savage tribes, both in North and South America, who were very few in number, have much decreased or have vanished, and grave wrongs have often been committed against them as well as by them. But all of the Indians who had attained to an even low grade of industrial and social efficiency have remained in the land, and have for the most part simply been assimilated with the intruders, the assimilation marking on the whole a very considerable rise in their conditions. Taking into account the Indians of pure blood, and the mixed bloods in which the Indian element is large, it is undoubtedly true that the Indian population of America is larger today than it was when Columbus discovered the continent, and stands on a far higher plane of happiness and efficiency. In Australia the few savages tend to die out simply because their grade of culture is so low that nothing can be done with them; doubtless occasional brutalities have been committed by white settlers but these brutalities were not an appreciable factor in the dying out of th natives. In India and Java there has been a great increase in well-being and population under the English and the Dutch, and the advance made has been in striking contrast to what has occurred during the same period in the near-by lands which have remained under native rule. In Egypt, in the Philippines, in Algiers, the native people have thriven under the rule of the foreigner, advancing as under no circumstances could they possibly have advanced if left to themselves, the increase in population going hand in hand with the increase in general well-being. In the Soudan, Mahdism during the ten years of its unchecked control was responsible for the death of over half the population and meant physical and moral ruin, a fact which should be taken into account by the perverted pseudo-philanthropy which fails to recognize the enormous advantages conferred by the English occupation of the Soudan, if not on the English themselves, certainly on the natives and on humanity at large. In the same way the Russian advance into Turkestan has meant the real advance in the well-being of the people, as well as the spread of civilization. In Natal the English found an empty desert; because of the peace they established it has filled up so densely with natives as to create very serious and totally new problems. There have been very dark spots in the European conquest and control of Africa, but on the whole the African regions which during the past century have seen the greatest cruelty, degradation, and suffering, the greatest diminution of population, are those where native control has been unchecked. The advance has been made in the regions that have been under European control or influence; that have been profoundly influenced by European administrators, and by European and American missionaries. Of course the best that can happen to any people that has not already a high civilization of its own is to assimilate and profit by American or European ideas, the ideas of civilization and Christianity, without submitting to alien control; but such control, in spite of all its defects, is in a very large number of cases the prerequisite condition to the moral and material advance of the peoples who dwell in the darker corners of the earth. Where the control is exercised brutally; where it is made use of merely to exploit the natives, without regard to their physical or moral well-being; it should be unsparingly criticised, and there should be resolute insistence on amendment and reform. But we must not, because of occasional wrong-doing, blind ourselves to the fact that on the whole the white administrator and the Christian missionary have exercised a profound and wholesome influence for good in savage regions.

    Let me illustrate what I mean by particularly alluding to three cases - Algiers, India, and the Philippines. The North African coast was a mere nest of pirates during the first decades of the nineteenth century. Punitive expeditions were sent against these pirates again and again, but they could not be permanently suppressed by such expeditions, and all the great commercial nations were forced to pay them a more or less thinly disguised tribute or blackmail. The United States was among that number. It was the French conquest of Algiers which put a final stop to this blackmail; and it also put a stop, to the unspeakable barbarism and cruelty inevitably attendant upon the slave-hunting piracy of the dwellers in the independent North African states. In other words, the independence of these states was a menace to every peaceful people, and incidentally it meant dreadful wrong and injustice within the states themselves. Algiers is far better off in every way under French rule than it was eighty years ago, before the French came into the land, and it is far better off in every way than is the neighboring state of Morocco at the present time; and this simply and solely because the neighboring state of Morocco continues to enjoy much the same kind of independent self-government that Algiers enjoyed until the French went there.

    In India we encounter the most colossal example history affords of the successful administration by men of European blood of a thickly populated region. in another continent. It is the greatest feat of the kind that has been performed since the break-up of the Roman Empire. Indeed, it is a greater feat than was performed under the Roman Empire. Unquestionably mistakes have been made; it would indicate qualities literally superhuman if so gigantic a task had been accomplished without mistakes. It is easy enough to point out shortcomings; but the fact remains that the successful administration of the Indian Empire by the English has been one of the most notable and most admirable achievements of the white race during the past two centuries. On the whole it has been for the immeasurable benefit of the natives of India themselves. Suffering has been caused in particular cases and at particular times to these natives; much more often, I believe, by well-intentioned ignorance or bad judgment than by any moral obliquity. But on the whole there has been a far more resolute effort to do justice, a far more resolute effort to secure fair treatment for the humble and the oppressed during the days of English rule in India than during any other period of recorded Indian history. England does not draw a penny from India for English purposes; she spends for India the revenues raised in India; and they are spent for the benefit of the Indians themselves. Undoubtedly India is a less pleasant place than formerly for the heads of tyrannical states. There is now little or no room in it for successful freebooter chieftains, for the despots who lived in gorgeous splendor while under their cruel rule the immense mass of their countrymen festered in sodden misery. But the mass of the people have been and are far better off than ever before, and far better off than they would now be if English control were overthrown or withdrawn. Indeed, if English control were now withdrawn from India, the whole peninsula would become a chaos of bloodshed and violence; till the weaker peoples, and the most industrious and law-abiding, would be plundered. and forced to submit to indescribable wrong and oppression; and the only beneficiaries among the natives would be the lawless, violent, and bloodthirsty. I have no question that there are reforms to be advanced--this is merely another way of saying that the government has been human; I have also no question that there is being made and will be made a successful effort to accomplish these reforms. But the great salient fact is that the presence of the English in India, like the presence of the English in Egypt and the Soudan, of the French in Algiers, of the Russians in Turkestan, of the Germans in Southwest Africa and East Africa (and of all these peoples, and of other white peoples, in many other places), has been for the advantage of mankind. Every well-wisher of mankind, every true friend of humanity, should realize that the part England has played in India has been to the immeasurable advantage of India, and for the honor and profit of civilization, and should feel profound satisfaction in the stability and permanence of English rule. I have seen many American missionaries who have come from India, and I cannot overstate the terms of admiration in which they speak of the English rule in India, and of the incalculable benefits it has conferred and is conferring upon the natives.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 10:21am

32. Finally, take our own experience in the Philippines. Spain finally lost power to be of benefit to the islands; but do not forget that Spain accomplished very, very much for them during more than two centuries; and that the islands owe their present possibilities to the fact that the Spaniards took possession of them. Then we came in. I am sure that when international history is written, from the standpoint of acclaiming international justice, one chapter will tell with heartiest praise what our people have done in the Philippines. Exactly as, in the Caribbean Sea we have endeavored to give genuine and disinterested help to the independent peoples of Cuba and San Domingo, so, in the same spirit--though the task is of quite different character--we are endeavoring to educate and train the native races under our sovereignty in the Philippines. in our treatment of the Filipinos we have acted up to the highest standard that has yet been set as marking the proper way in which a powerful and advanced nation should treat a weaker people. Cuba we are at this moment leaving for the second time, to work out a destiny which we now hope and believe will be one of stable and orderly independence and prosperity. In the Philippines we are constantly giving an increasing measure of self-government. Of course, in one sense of the word self-government can never be bestowed by outsiders upon any people. It must be achieved by themselves. It means in this sense primarily self-control, self-restraint, and if those qualities do not exist--that is, if the people are unable to govern themselves--then, as there must be government somewhere, it has to come from outside. But we are constantly giving to the people of the Philippines an increasing share in, an increasing opportunity to learn by practice, the difficult art of self-government. If we had abandoned them at the outset to their own devices, if we had shirked our duty and sailed out of the islands, leaving them in a bloody welter of confusion, the chief sufferers would have been the Philippine people themselves. We are leading them forward steadily in the right direction and we are doing it because our people at home desire that they shall be treated right, and because our people in the islands, in the civil government, in the army, and among the missionary representatives of the various creeds work primarily for the advancement of the people among whom they dwell. I believe that I am speaking with historic accuracy and impartiality when I say that the American treatment of and attitude toward the Filipino people, in its combination of disinterested ethical purpose and sound common sense, marks a new and long stride forward, in advance of all steps that have hitherto been taken, along the path of wise and proper treatment of weaker by stronger races.

    Now in speaking tonight I wish to lay stress upon the missionary side of the general work in the foreign lands. America has for over a century done its share of missionary work. We who stay at home should as a matter of duty give cordial support to those who in a spirit of devotion to all that is highest in human nature, spend the best part of their lives in trying to carry civilization and Christianity into lands which have hitherto known little or nothing of either. The work is vast, and it is done under many and widely varied conditions., Personally I have always been particularly interested, for instance, in the extraordinary work done by the American schools and colleges in the Turkish Empire, both Turkey in Europe and Turkey in Asia; a work which has borne such wonderful fruit among the Bulgarians, among Syrian and Armenian Christians, and also among the Mohammedans; and this although among the Mohammedans there has been no effort to convert them, simply an effort to make them, good citizens, to make them vie with their fellow citizens who are Christians in showing those qualities which it should be the pride of every creed to develop; and the present movement to introduce far-reaching and genuine reforms, political and social, in Turkey, an effort with which we all keenly sympathize, is one in which these young Moslems, educated at the American schools and colleges, are especially fitted to take part.

    Bishop Hartzell's work has been done in Africa, the continent in which of all others there has been the most need for Christian work, and in which that work shows signs of reaching its widest development. It has been indeed a Dark Continent, and some of the white men who have gone thither have by their acts deepened the gloom. Let us as a race be thankful that so many other men have gone thither to strive for the uplift of the people; to strive for the betterment of conditions. Our own country has in the past committed grave wrong against Africa for which it should amply atone, and no better atonement can be made than that which is being made by the American missionaries of every creed and church, who are now doing so much in almost every corner of Africa for the physical, the intellectual, and the moral betterment of the people. I hope there will be the most hearty support of these men, who in far-off regions are fighting for progress in things of the spirit no less than in things of the body. Let us help them to make the missions centres of industrial no less than of ethical teaching; for unless we raise the savage in industrial efficiency we cannot permanently keep him on a high plane of moral efficiency, nor yet can we render him able to hold his own in the world.

    Bishop Hartzell, I greet you; and I extend my heartiest good wishes to the great Methodist body on this golden jubilee of its far-reaching work in Africa. No denomination has done more zealous and effective missionary work than the Methodists. They were in many large regions west of the Alleghanies the pioneers of missionary work in our own land; and their missionaries are now to be found in every continent and under every clime. In Africa, on the west coast, the foreign missionary work of the Methodist Episcopal Church was begun seventy-five years ago.

    From that beginning a world-wide missionary movement has developed which now involves the annual expenditure of three million dollars from America, besides large amounts raised on the various foreign fields. This great work includes the establishment and maintenance, in several foreign countries, of churches and hospitals, schools of various grades and kinds, and far-reaching evangelistic effort. In recent years, with the opening of that continent to civilization, the work in Africa has grown to large proportions, and the church is face to face with unparalleled opportunities and responsibilities in the strengthening of the centres it now occupies and in answering the calls for enlargement.

    The missionary authorities of the church, with the cordial approval of the board of bishops, have designated the year 1909 as Africa Diamond Jubilee year. The nearly twenty thousand pastors of the church will present to their people the claims of Africa as a mission field and ask for jubilee offerings. The amount asked for from America is three hundred thousand dollars. Suitable literature is being published for wide distribution. In addition to the contributions in money, it is fully expected that a large number of well-prepared young men and women will consecrate their lives to service in different parts of the Dark Continent.

    The twentieth century will see and is now seeing the transformation of Africa into a new world. Within a few years, its vast domain has been partitioned among various European nations. These nations are expending enormous sums of money and utilizing their best statesmanship and colonizing abilities in the development of colonial empires of wide extent and extraordinary material possibilities. Steamship lines encircle the continent. A continental system of railways and of lake and river steamboats will soon extend northward from Cape Town six thousand miles to Cairo, while branch lines will unite the east and west coasts at several points. The latest results of science are being utilized in mining and agriculture, while scholarly experts in different centres of Europe are studying the questions of native languages and religions, as well as the best methods of advancing civilization among the many millions of native peoples. The wealth of the commerce which will be developed cannot be estimated. The white man rules; but there is only one white man on the continent to one hundred others, who are either barbaric black heathen or fanatical Mohammedans.

    Self-interest and competition will, I believe, unite in making the governments fair to the people, and the indomitable energy of the adventurous settlers and the wealth of the nations behind them will result in exploiting the vast commercial resources of the continents. But there is a question that is larger than either government or trade, and that is the moral well-being of these vast millions who have come under the protection of modern governments. The representative of the Christian religion must have his place side by side with the man of government and trade, and for generations that representative must be supplied in the person of the foreign missionary from America and Europe. Civilization can only be permanent and continue a blessing to any people if, in addition to promoting their material well-being, it also stands for an orderly individual liberty, for the growth of intelligence, and for equal justice in the administration of law. Christianity alone meets these fundamental requirements.

    The change of sentiment in favor of the foreign missionary in a single generation has been remarkable. The whole world, which is rapidly coming into neighborhood relations, is recognizing as never before the real needs of mankind, and is ready to approve and strengthen all the moral forces which stand for the uplift of humanity. There must be government for the orderly and permanent development of society. There must be intercourse among peoples in the interests of commerce and growth. But, above all, there must be moral power, established and maintained under the leadership of good men and women. The upright and far-seeing statesman, the honest and capable trader, and the devoted Christian missionary represent the combined forces which are to change the Africa of today into the greater and better Africa of the future.

    The responsibility of America for the moral well-being of the people of Africa is manifest. Our wealth and power have given us a place of influence among the nations of the world. But world-wide influence and power mean more than dollars or social, intellectual, or industrial supremacy. They involve a responsibility for the moral welfare of others which cannot be evaded.

    The United States has no territorial interests in Africa, and may never have. The republic of Liberia was the outgrowth of immigration movements from our colored populations. But beyond a paternal interest, the United States has no organic relation with or responsibility to that government. We are friendly to all governments on the continent, and stand with them, to the extent of our influence, for righteous rule, especially as applied to the vast native populations. Our commercial relations, already large, will grow to vast proportions in coming years. But beyond questions of rule or traffic are the responsibilities of America as to the moral uplift of the people of Africa. This responsibility is to be met in cooperation with the Christian forces of other nations. So vast is this problem of redeeming a continent, which has lain for thousands of years in darkness, that all sections of the Christian Church must have a hand in this great work. The few score of missionaries who are now on the field from America should be multiplied in the near future, and the money contributed to Africa should be doubled over and over again year after year. It is a joy to learn that among the, missionary forces in Africa, from different lands and representing different branches of the church, there are fraternal and mutually helpful relations.

    The responsibility of America toward Africa is emphasized because of our past history, and because of the number of our citizens who are of African descent. As a result of the African slave-trade, the crime of the ages, and of two and a half centuries of slavery in America, the United States has nearly ten millions of colored people as a part of its citizenship. No other country outside of Africa has so large a negro population; and, what is more, there are no other ten millions of negroes in the world who own as much property and have as large a per cent, who are intelligent, moral, and thrifty. The education and uplift of the American negro now going forward should be accompanied by the increase of the missionary and Christian forces on the continent from which his ancestors came. The number of those who go as missionaries to Africa will increase; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that a large share of the leadership for the evangelization of the continent will be furnished from among our own colored leaders in America.

    In the redemption of Africa all sections of the Christian church must be united, but Methodism, because of the vast numbers it represents and the spirit and methods of its movements, should have a share of especial note. The spirit of Methodism is the spirit of expansion and of world-wide conquests in the kingdom of righteousness. John Wesley's motto was: "The world is my parish." I hope the Methodists of to-day will make this statement good. Previous Next Personae

    Terms Defined

    Referenced Works

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 10:22am

33. http://danawilliams2.tripod.com/philippines.html

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 10:24am

34. When we demonize or glorify, especially the former with too pleasurable condemnation, Conshame, we associate rather than separate, IMHO. Rove's Machiavallien(sp?) character and "realpolitikal ability" is clear, yet he, like us, is a "child of Gott," i.e. his behavior is distinct from his soul/spirit/humanity. To ignore this distinction is to descend, albeit figuratively, to the depths of devilish depredation.

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/13/2007 @ 10:25am

35. So what were the works,?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/13/2007 @ 10:28am

36. Posted by CONSHAME 08/13/2007 @ 10:07am

    He's not running, CS.

    He's walking...like Spacey as "Keyser Soze" at the end of "The Usual Suspects"!

    Posted by Mask at 08/13/2007 @ 10:30am

37. As a graduate of Methodist-affiliated Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Virginia, I applaud and salute your hoped-for vision of the "Dark Continent." Furthermore, I'd advise any and all with an interest to read Barbara Kingsolver's "Poisonwood Bible;" exceedingly edifying and artistic.

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/13/2007 @ 10:31am

38. Chip, I don't mean to be hostile to you or your opinions. I just want you to see what you're nostalgic for.

    Harry Truman called the civilian city Hiroshima a military target. I'm not saying he was worse than other pres, just pointing out, well certain inconsistencies.

    the Pat Tillman scandal is very illustrative. america has always been portraying itself in the best possible light. that's how guys bombing civilians from up high get transformed into heroes instead of criminals.Nuremberg has proven many things, one of which that it was a victor's justice. is there any other kind?

    the military minds that ordered the savage bombing attacks on, yes, women and children and old folks, knew very well of their culpability, and had they lost, they would have stood in the dock.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 10:34am

39. So what were the works,?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/13/2007 @ 10:28am | ignore this person

    you'll have to go to the site.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 10:36am

40. I must admit JR, I found this a very level headed, practical and objective review. Checked out the website. I'm confused, though: I expected you to throw somrthing Zinn-like at me. This article doesn't change my feelings at all about those historic personages. ( In fact I've reached the conclusion, all things considered, that Roosevelt was no doubt the best over all President we ever had) The geosocial & political movement of peoples to and fro across the world usually IS frought with violence, many times because of the beliefs held by people at the time. This hold true even for the American Indians, for example, whose status of victims may be dimmed in future as more questions involving the Kenniwick Man discovery are answered. In any event, I'll take North America's (and their European ancestors)brand of "conquest" over any other in terms of what they did to achieve it, and what they left in its wake. And frankly, its unfair, ludicrous and a little hypocritical to judge people of the past from the vantage point, and the comfort, (which they helped create) of our lives today.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/13/2007 @ 11:02am

41. Sorry, JR I was typing when you wrote your second post. Yes, Truman did "push it" a little calling Hiroshima a military target, justifying it because Japanese 2nd Army Hq's was there. If he had hit Osaka, though, I'm not sure civilian causalties would have been any less. (between the projected losses for an upcoming invasion and the fact that my father was in the Pacific, I've never had a problem with Trumans decision. A little selfish, but there it is)

    And I agree about victors justice. But Dresden & Tokyo were preceded by Rotterdam and Nanking: Civilians are always the losers.

    And the Pat Tillman thing. Yes, Gov. bullshit, no arguement

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/13/2007 @ 11:12am

42. And I agree about victors justice. But Dresden & Tokyo were preceded by Rotterdam and Nanking: Civilians are always the losers.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON

    What kind of excuse is that?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 11:33am

43. In any event, I'll take North America's (and their European ancestors)brand of "conquest" over any other in terms of what they did to achieve it, and what they left in its wake. And frankly, its unfair, ludicrous and a little hypocritical to judge people of the past from the vantage point, and the comfort, (which they helped create) of our lives today.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON

    Apologist.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/13/2007 @ 11:34am

44. Posted by HAPPY 08/12/2007 @ 4:48pm

    Get over yourself. I have no hatred for the Scouts, nor do i consider them, or you, to be a threat.

    I just want you to sign your kids up to go to Iraq, if "we" are going to stay there. As they have proven their ability to follow orders and polish their shoes, I am sure they would do fine negotiating a peace between the Interior dept of Iraq and the Sunni militia.

    You appear unwilling to put your body where your ideology is, so isn't it up to your proud scouts? It's a recurring theme around here, the war mongers won't go, not even in civilian jobs. Ya'll have a great opportunity to practice your theories in a libertarian environment, pack heat and kill bad guys.

    Or drive a truck for Halliburton. Or be a chemical engineer, or get the stock mkt up and running.

    get to it. Git-R-Dun!

    Or hide behind someone else's kids.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2007 @ 11:37am

45. Chip, you see I would be ashamed to set my name under that speech by Roosevelt. to me it is barbaric above all.

    I don't know what you mean by judging the past and its actors. the pain of hundreds of thousands of filipino "rebels" cried out then as now. our value system is as old as history, and we have only amended it.

    that speech reeks of racism and contempt for anyone one but the whites. it is a lie. no happy darkies there. this was a brutal domination by force of arms.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 12:00pm

46. "This hold true even for the American Indians, for example, whose status of victims may be dimmed in future".

    it will be revealed that the indians were merely inconvenienced.

    unbelievable. more than racist, hatred of the victim, is there a word for that?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 12:04pm

47. hide behind someone else's kids.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/13/2007 @ 11:37am

    IF I was still in the service, I'd be itching to go to Afghan or Iraq!

    As for your constant harping having my kids' joining up, you keep forgetting that unfortunately in many respects, our armed forces is now all-volunteer. Fact is, literally all commissioned officers still come from families like mine via the Academies. My Scout Troop has sent kids to all 3 Academies and I have no doubt, one or two of the earlier ones have already served in Iraq!

    Now, if a much large number of middle-class and upper-class kids start joining the services, perhaps because it becomes seen as a resume-builder, I'm certain you Libs would turn right around and decry how we are `squeezing out' the disadvantaged from one of the few career choices for `mere' high-school grads from lower social classes or immigrants!

    Those of you that constantly harp on the need for war supporters to have to personally or have kids in the war are disingenuous....just like JMUSO (whatever his handle).....well, maybe you can take his place and answer me, how can you be pro-abortion IF you had never performed one?????????? How can you be pro-gay marriage if you are not gay???? Do we must all have first-hand status as an active participant to advocate for something?????? I guess in your bankrupt thought process, since you are NOT rich, what gives you the right to decide how they are taxed???? I'm not poor, I should never give a shit for them.....presumably, you too...unless you're poor!

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 12:29pm

48. IF I was still in the service, I'd be itching to go to Afghan or Iraq!

    Gosh, I love that kind of talk.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 12:48pm

49. Sarcasm besmirches, especially you, here, JR.

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/13/2007 @ 1:09pm

50. I was glad to see Mitt win the straw poll, but I would like to see him in more match-ups with Rudy and Fred. Huckabee seems like a likeable fellow, and he says the right things, and in a personable way. However, I would like to know more about Huckabee...what has he done or accomplished? What kind of President would he be? He's still too much of an unknown. Fred Thompson also...he's been a Tennessee senator and a Law and Order actor. Other than that, I know almost nothing about him and what he's accomplished.

    On another note, I wish Karl Rove the best as he takes his leave as a White House advisor. Great man. I'm sure most Democrats would have wanted him to leave on their terms (i.e., indicted or convicted for something) instead of his. May God continue to bless him.

    Lastly, I love the Boy Scouts! Be Prepared, Do a good turn daily, and be Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent. :)

    Cheers!

    Posted by DJ in AZ at 08/13/2007 @ 1:21pm

51. Posted by LEWWELGE 08/13/2007 @ 1:09pm | ignore this person

    not this time Lew. read what I was "satirizing" again. sounds a little smug, just a tad phony? just a teensy weensy rationalizing, just a smidgeon hypocritical? sorry I hadda spell it out.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 1:42pm

52. I will be thrilled if Mitt Romney gets the nomination. What does he really believe in? What self-respecting Christian, moral-majority, doomsdayer will vote for a mormon? If he's the best they can get, I'm feeling a lot better about Hillary Clinton.

    Who gives a shit what the Hitler youth boy scouts have done? People should care more about the poor and building our nation from the bottom up, not the top down. If more people took an interest in our citizenry, of which the poor represent a good portion, we could start building morale and see some of the social dysfunction decline. It won't happen overnight, as it is an evolutionary process.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/13/2007 @ 1:48pm

53. "I wish Karl Rove the best as he takes his leave as a White House advisor. Great man"

    gosh, i love that kind of talk..

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 1:53pm

54. sorry I hadda spell it out.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/13/2007 @ 1:42pm

    I've resisted on more occasions than not, to "be like JR"! Eventually, I'll just `ignore' JR! You `pose' to be many things and I've yet to pose as anything other than who I am and what I believe! For someone with woodstock in your background, you'll only get so many passes from me!

    Posted by Happy at 08/13/2007 @ 1:54pm

55. MT me? apologize? You should know better

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/13/2007 @ 2:20pm

56. Ok Jr, then don't put your name to it. I just have no problem, OVERALL, with what he tried to do, thats all. I never claimed he was perfect.

    BTW, the reference to "Indians being inconvenienced" Hell, YOU gave ME the website guy. I just read it.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/13/2007 @ 2:25pm

57. Rove is obviously leaving on a cloud of triumph.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 4:37pm

58. BTW, you're not gay...not yet. You just have a problem with women (and therefore think I'm one) and you're so homophobic that you panic if somebody calls you gay (a good indicator that you have some orientation issues ahead of you).

    Posted by MASK 08/13/2007 @ 09:23am

    cumbuckets, you are one ditzy broad. First you say I'm gay, then you say I'm not gay. I'm not sure what's more disturbing to you, that you're a girl or that I know it. But you've lied about everything else and it doesn't surprise me that you want to continue to lie about that too

    Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:09pm

59. Those of you that constantly harp on the need for war supporters to have to personally or have kids in the war are disingenuous....just like JMUSO (whatever his handle).....well, maybe you can take his place and answer me, how can you be pro-abortion IF you had never performed one?????????? How can you be pro-gay marriage if you are not gay???? Do we must all have first-hand status as an active participant to advocate for something?????? I guess in your bankrupt thought process, since you are NOT rich, what gives you the right to decide how they are taxed???? I'm not poor, I should never give a shit for them.....presumably, you too...unless you're poor!

    Posted by HAPPY 08/13/2007 @ 12:29pm | ignore this person

    Happy, Happy, Happy! You're really sensitive about the cowardice issue, aren't you, chickenhawk? Since you asked - you see, there's this all-volunteer military that's pressed for recruits because there's an occupation going on. You support that illegal occupation, and the sending of lots of people to their deaths, but you don't have the balls to put yourself in the same jeopardy. As for being pro-choice and pro-equality vis a vis marriage, that has to do with being in favor of basic human rights. Now, just because those rights may not apply directly to my own life circumstances, they do apply to other human beings. And in fact, many of us do all we can to support human rights. Since, you see, we also have human rights. At any rate, there are those of us who actually believe (and I know you righties can't possibly comprehend this) that the world extends past the ends of our own noses. People who actually have morals and values, the real stuff, not the phony right-wing bloviating, know that morality has to do entirely with the way in which people treat the vulnerable, the needy, the poor. You would see them used as cannon fodder for the rich, while, as I've mentioned before, you hide from your moral responsibility to put your ass on the line for that which you claim to support. I don't suggest your kids go fight for your cause (unless they support this occupation). I've never suggested sending the kids. I've suggested, and I'll do so again, that you enlist, that you join the troops in Iraq as a combatant. That anything less than that proves you to be an abject coward.

    Posted by jmusolino at 08/14/2007 @ 01:04am

60. Rove is obviously leaving on a cloud of triumph.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/13/2007 @ 4:37pm | ignore this person

    A large, green sulfur trioxide cloud, wouldn't you agree, JR? Reminds me of a trip to Ticonderoga, NY when I was a kid and the paper mills were pumping this incredible rotten egg stench into the air. Thinking back, it reminds me a lot of Rove!

    Posted by jmusolino at 08/14/2007 @ 01:10am

61. HAPPY, good rationalization of your cowardice. You don;t have to fight. You could drive a truck, or help set up the stock market. Instead of sitting on your ass making money off of other peoples work.

    but, clearly you don't believe in the cause.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2007 @ 08:39am

62. Just saying the ends of effectively influential blogging doesn't justify the means of sarcasm, which is abhorent to me for personal as well as intellectual-logical reasons, Jr.

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/14/2007 @ 10:41am

63. Lew, you must be kidding. the statement I satirized was the most obnoxious self satisfied crap I have seen. you can go on genuflecting before Hap's phony self sacrifice.

    I just can;t believe you on this. everyone heaps abuse on one another here and you object to sarcasm?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 12:08pm

64. how about hypocrisy, Lew? is that abhorent to you?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 1:06pm

65. I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, but rather Hap.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 1:17pm

66. when I accuse the US and Britain of barbarism and war crimes for the massive and sustained bombing of civilians during WW2, I am by no means letting germany and Japan off the hook. they too bombed civilian targets, though not to such an extent as the allies.

    the difference for me is that the germans were accused of war crimes and punished for war crimes at Nuremberg. the americans and the british were not, and they still have not morally accepted the guilt for these actions.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 9:23pm

67. JOHANNESROLF: "I accuse the US and Britain of barbarism and war crimes for the massive and sustained bombing of civilians during WW2"

    I accuse you as a massively unworthy or just plain old retarded American, if you IS one.

    Cities filled with civillians just happen to be where war making factories are, workers live, rail and road network hubs are, leaders and their own precious families live and ding, ding, ding, ding, another coincidence, where most antiaircraft guns are placed. Ding, ding, ding, ding! Still there?

    Man, I feel charitable, you must be just dumb or IS German.

    Posted by is is IS at 08/14/2007 @ 10:23pm

68. Posted by IS IS IS 08/14/2007 @ 10:23pm | ignore this person

    not worth my time.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 10:31pm

69. hey Hap, market down 200 points. cause for celebration, hurrah.

    by the way, I don't believe a word of it. you are likely a pimple faced wannabe, sitting in front of the computer in your underwear, instead of a captain of the stock market.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/15/2007 @ 08:17am

70. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/15/2007 @ 08:17am

    Somehow, to me, your opinion ranks pretty low among bloggers here! You do represent a big city, the NYC Lib part of TN blog! You sputter about your art and readings and I, with stocks....you maybe a phoney, so could I.....Big Deal! To each his fantasy!

    As more interesting new bloggers arrive, I will need to whittle down who I read.....you're on the bubble.....hehehehh:)

    Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 10:51am

71. Man, I feel charitable, you must be just dumb or IS German.

    Posted by IS IS IS 08/14/2007 @ 10:23pm

    Give JR more credit, he is BOTH!

    Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 10:52am

72. the stock market has lost nearly all the gains made this year. anyone with real money in the market is not cheering. that's how I know you are a phony, Hap.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/15/2007 @ 12:47pm

73. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/15/2007 @ 12:47pm

    The fact that I've stated on numerous ocassions that I have been cashing in for months, and my cash holdings is at a 10-yr high, means nothing to your bird-brain! Sigh! IF I lived in NYC and talked regularly with financial types, lord knows how much more I could make! Am I down from my personal peak a month or so ago, of course, I'm still 70%+ invested! Have I `lost' all of gain year-to-date, not even close!

    JR, sometime you come across as absolutely the dumbest person on the board! I'm getting tired of BS-ing w/you!

    Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 1:09pm

74. JR,

    One last thing before I seriously consider MASKing you, I have succeeded as an investor mostly because I buy when most sell, and I sell when most buy! IF I have to explain the logic to you, you're totally worthless!

    Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 1:11pm

75. Posted by HAPPY 08/15/2007 @ 1:11pm

    Not sure what "MASKing" Professor Rolf means, HAPP. I haven't put him on Ignore...he put ME on Ignore for daring to mock a learned amateur academic such as himself!

    Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 1:18pm

76. Not sure what "MASKing" Professor Rolf means, HAPPY. I haven't put him on Ignore...he put ME on Ignore...

    Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 1:18pm

    I was just bouncing a message off of your handle! I know your principal to `take on' all comers. cept maybe RESE & PLUNGEE! In 20 more years, you'll find out, your own time is the most precious of time, PERIOD!

    Posted by Happy at 08/15/2007 @ 1:25pm

77. ..he put ME on Ignore...

    Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 1:18pm

    hell hath no fury than a knucklehead scorned.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/15/2007 @ 2:51pm