Gingrich says he fears an atheist country dominated by radical Islamists

[Associate Justice PiT]

This election increasingly starts looking like 1972. Few liked Nixon but he won in a landslide because his opponent was perceived as batsh**t crazy.

     But remember, if the Republican candidate loses in a landslide, the ultra-conservative faction will say it was because s/he was a moderate.

[Associate Justice PiT]

@jmfcst: I still hold by my statement that atheism != Islam or, to put it more eloquently, a firmly secular nation a la the Czech Republic is no breeding ground for radical Islam or any sort of radical religion.  I don't know why you think that will apparently happen in 10 years when such a logical conundrum seems next to impossible.

all it takes is for the Dems to view the small group of Muslims as the swing vote and kowtow to their wants.  we've seen it with other groups in the past:  the gays, the Zionists (which include me), teacher unions, etc, etc.   but the difference is that with Islam, you have something that at its core, doesn't believe in the freedom of religion/speech/press....so he wasn't equating atheism and Islam, or confusing steam and ice....he was simply saying what I had been saying the whole week before he made his comments.

Pandering to teacher's unions did not turn us into a teacher union-dominated athiest country.  I'm not even sure why the Democratic Party would bother with "radical Islamists" (isn't the corrrect term "muslims"?) who...
a) make up a very small portion of the population
b) when pruned to those who vote are not a large enough voting bloc to matter (if they even vote as a bloc which is contentious)
c) would by definition be socially conservative, and thus seem to fit better into the Republican coalition anyway

     Islamists are to Muslims as Fundamentalists are to Christians. It's not a term that was just made up by Gingrich or anything.