Ah yes,

"Paul Hackett's attempt to compare Christian conservatives to terrorists is abhorrent and completely inappropriate. These intolerant views have no place in the public debate, and I hope his fellow Democrats reject this divisive hate speech."

Added Bennett, "Down with gays, down with jews, this is gods country!"

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Ah, Paul, I understand what you were trying to say and you are completely correct but.....tact does have a place in politics...

He was doing fantastic and it looked like we were home free and had a spokesperson until he got to the Osama bin Laden part. That's going to be a tough one.

Of course, it might be a good time to bring up that the Republicans don't call them nuts - they call them wackos....like Abramoff's partner or whoever he was.

Wow, a democrat with some nuts. I didn't think I'd ever see one again. He is right on with his comments about religious fundamentalists being equivalent to Osama and his crew. It's time for people to realize that when you start denying rights to anyone based on irrational views, you are starting on a path that leads to a totalitarian state, whether it be based on religion or some other radical ideal. I hope more candidates take this guy's lead and tell it like it really is.

"it's unfortunate that views like his are embraced by the Democratic Party. I think, Mr. Hackett, you've once again proven who real 'radical nut' is"

right, like go there in the service of your country, put your life on the line only to find out it was all a damned lie and then have the cajones to say it like it is, is "nutty" indeed.

like molly ivins wrote in '88 "political self-righteousness is not the exclusive property of any one party: what is funny is how indignant Republicans get when they realize that Democrats consider themselves morally superior."

Cirano, that can be said about anyone. Everyone is indignant when compared to possible superior. Don't be so hypocritical, it happens on BOTH sides.

Again, making the connection that all republicans are Pat Robertson extreme is ridiculous. Can't believe anyone would support a politician with such backward, extreme thinking.

I’m glad to have Paul Hackett speaking so passionately! More public officials need to lift up the rug and ferret out these religious fanatics before it’s too late! We are on the verge of having the Supreme Court swing to the right for at least 20 years. Most of these “Pro-Lifers” are hypocrites! They don’t give a rats ass about the foetus, they’re white supremists who are afraid white babies won’t keep up with black or latino babies! (Imagine the guff a Democratic politician would get for saying that! I’m not running for office and I’ve talked to enough pro lifers to figure them out!)

The Bush administration is shredding the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights! Most people in Pakistan would agree right now with the comment that the religious fanatics in America are no different than Osama Bin Laden after the U.S. just murdered innocent people there, including woman and children. I’m still horrified from watching the Italian documentary where The United States Military (representing me and you) used White Phosphorus to wipe out Fallujah! Pat Robertson makes inflammatory comments every other week while he continues to raise money for Republicans. I welcome, along with the soft speaking Harry Reid’s and the Barrack Obama’s, the tough talkers like Paul Hackett! We need them all!

Rove never apologized for hurting the Democrats feelings so fuck 'em!

Al Gore’s speech today was great, by the way!

There are great differences between Pat and Osama, Osama's diabetic. He can also grow a beard. OTOH, neither thinks there're many Jews in heaven.

Their followers also differ. Robertson's klansmen are so fat and out of shape they can't waddle beyond the entrance to their trailer park without heat stroke setting in; they're also so phlegmatic they wouldn't fight for anything but the last Snickers bar.

To those who think Hackett went too far with the Osama comparison try look at the folks he's referring to. Isn't our current conservative leadership the same people who have called dissenters un-American all while pushing illegal spying agendas, condemning whistle-blowers while defending Libby's leaking the name of a CIA operative and claiming to be doing God's work while killing thousands, ignoring devastated homeland and neglecting education, health care and the environmnent? And to say Pat Robertson represents the right is fair since he's a major player in the political process. He is responsible for helping "inform" in millions of voters on the right with his twisted views. Oh yeah, and we all remember when he agreed with Falwell (Another political/religious zealot with strong ties to our leaders) who blamed "Pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians for bringing on the terror attack in New York [City] and Washington."

These people are no better than Osama, just better funded and socially acceptable.

Simply put:

"All of America needs more Paul Hacketts"

Osama is fighting for his religius beliefs - tell how different that is from Dubya?

I saw a wonderful T-Shirt yesterday, "If you are not part of the Solution, You must be in the Bush Administraton."

Pat Robertson wants to assassinate democratically elected leaders, which he justifies with his religion.

Osama bin Laden ditto.

Pat Robertson wants to create a theocratic government of, by, and for his religious followers. Everyone else can literally go to hell.

Osama bin Laden ditto.

Pat Robertson believes those voices in his head are an almighty God. An almighty God that can't do his own preaching.

Osama bin Laden ditto.

But, if Republicans are allowed to portray Paul's comments as attacking religion, rather than attacking fanatics, then I'd say Mr. Hackett's political career is finished.

We live in a natioin that remembers Howard Dean not for telling the truth about Iraq, but for committing the unspeakable sin of screaming "yeah!"

Yeah!

Is'nt it funny how Republicans can have such strong reactions against Mr. Hackett when he compares Robertson and others from the far right to Osama, and yet a few years ago these Republicans showed no outrage when their party ran ads that superimposed Osama's face over that of Max Cleland's or when Tom Cole said if Kerry won the Presidency it would be the same as Osama winning.

I guess now they just don't like to be reiminded of Osama since they have utterly failed, by every possible messure, to bring him to justice.

I'm so happy to finally have a Democrat in my state who has a backbone, I could cry. Mr. Hackett is right. There is no difference between Osama bin Laden and President Bush and other Republicans, with this one, small oversight: the Republicans aren't Islamic, so it's okay for them.

Mr. Hackett's comments are a awakening for how people in politics should act. He is not speaking out of blind rage or hatred for Republicans, but he is speaking with a clear view of what this country has become, how he is afraid of it slipping further down this slippery slope we are on... plus he has backbone. Did I mention that already?

More Democrats should be so lucky as to have the willingness to say such things and not care what others think.

Again, making the connection that all republicans are Pat Robertson extreme is ridiculous. Can't believe anyone would support a politician with such backward, extreme thinking.

"Anon", I've got a great idea - perhaps you should try READING Hackett's comments before condemning them. Moron.

"Equal justice under the law for all regardless of who they are and how they were born is fundamental to our American spirit and our American freedoms. Any person or group that argues that the law should not apply equally to all Americans is, frankly, un-American."

Yay, a pro-gun democrat opposed to Affirmative Action! Heh.

If You People can come up with a few more candidates like this one, I might be persuaded to vote for them. Keep 'em comin', the lack of real opponents for the Republicans is bad for the country.

"...the United States should assassinate a democratically elected leader in Venezuela..."

I think there is some debate as to whether Chavez was democratically elected in a fair election.

I think there is some debate as to whether Chavez was democratically elected in a fair election.

One might say the same thing about Dubya.

I think if good people dont stand up and support this guy in what will be a smear campaign, then you are to blame for what you allow your system to become.

Tact or no tact its nice to hear this sort of thing from representatives. I agree with him whole heartedly!

Cirano, that can be said about anyone. Everyone is indignant when compared to possible superior. Don't be so hypocritical, it happens on BOTH sides.

My statement (actually molly ivins's) says exactly that, that it can and does happen on both sides, except that the Republicans can't stand to even consider - let alone accept - that a Democrat can (even with good reason) feel morally superior.

Judging by the response from the Republicans, even they know Hackett is telling the plain truth. They don't deny the reality, they don't explain how what he says isn't true, they do the usual Republican response to truth. They scream that he has no right to speak. Suddenly his defence of the constitution and the rights of all Americans is "hate speach".

This would be funny in a movie but in real life it is anything but funny.

Smear the guy, shut him up, demand that his party shut him up. So that we can return the destruction of America, in peace.

Someone suggested he should have more tact. What? Are you nuts or just stoned?

This is very damned serious stuff. You are losing your country. The Repugs spew their filth and lies and hate every day of the week. Using the ugliest tactics going, and you want a tactfull response to madness?

Tact is not part of the Republican lexicon. The plain truth is often seen as rude, among people who no longer resort to tactics so crude and uncommon, as the simple truth.

just for the record, Sharon was not in any way interested in "land for peace." The man cared nothing for peace, just pacification for more land

http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/01/18/shron-a-man-of-peace-or-a-man-of-pacification/

just for the record, Sharon was not in any way interested in "land for peace." The man cared nothing for peace, just pacification for more land

http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/01/18/shron-a-man-of-peace-or-a-man-of-pacification/

I'd love to think that Paul Hackett is at the front of a new, organized, hearty movement with the Dems. Last year's article in Mother Jones showed him to be a straight arrow, with balls to the wall. It's time for those with a spine to speak their minds.

I'm a Democrat. I voted for Kerry, Gore, and twice for Clinton. All were easy calls for me. I consider myself to hold liberal views, and I've never voted for a Republican for a House or Senate seat in my life.

I'm also very much against the Religious Right, and I do consider them fanatics.

Nevertheless, Hackett's comments have ensured I will never vote for him. It isn't the demonization of the Religious Right that bothers me; that's fine. But when you make the comparison he makes, it also tends to excuse Bin Laden and his supporters.

There's a huge difference between Robertson's working through the political process to try to enforce radical and crazy beliefs and Bin Laden's killing innocent civilians to do it.

Also, as horribly misguided as he is, Robertson wants what he thinks is best for the USA. Bin Laden wants what he thinks is worst for the USA. If one wants what is best for the USA (the definition of patriotism) he doesn't excuse Bin Laden.