<p>TheDad, welcome to my world!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now, citygirlsmom, I’d never expect you to respond to any serious question with facts. Give TheDad a chance.</p>
<p>cgm</p>
<p>I noticed that you were the one who started this thread, yet you haven’t weighed in yet on what happened with Mr. Hackett. Over at Democratic Underground there are a lot of people who are not happy with the way that they believe he was treated by the Dems. TD in post #67 points out the view expressed by the more traditional liberals in the party. Where are you on the matter?</p>
<p>From what I could tell the far left seems to be very distraught at the way that Hackett was treated. You started the thread, what do you think?</p>
<p>Okay, Strick…sorry, it was a long day and I wasn’t on CC much except when “on hold.”</p>
<p>I suppose I could have just excerpted the list for the most salient points, for certainly some are stronger and more relevant than others. And my scope is a bit wider than just the legal definition of the administration and I include its integral proxies and auxillaries such as the likes of James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, the Club for Growth, the charming folks at Red State.Com (until recently RedState.Org), etc. etc. etc.</p>
<p>So let me do a little triage and commentary:</p>
<ol>
<li>Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. BushCo 9</li>
</ol>
<p>BushCo at its most odious. If you disagree with anything they do, you’re not living in a post 9/11 world. If you disagree with them, you’re on the side of the terrorists. It is not an accident that the run up to the 2004 elections was marked by several elevated terror alerts…which amazingly subsided after the election. This year, being another election year, I expect more of the same, plus stale stories about “terror attacks” thwarted.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Supremacy of the Military -* Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. BushCo 7*I am thoroughly disgusted with the administration using the military for props, using “safe” military venues as insulated bubbles for speeches, the fuggheaded arrogance of Bush landing on an aircraft carrier with the stage managed “Mission Accomplished” banner, the cloying “to support our troops you must not be critical of the troops” [and this is the bubble that the “Band of Brothers” is bursting], all while the ops tempo is burning unit effectiveness, Guard and Reserve units, in particular, are doing without adequate equipment, and funding for veteran medical care and the like is below the level of demand.</p></li>
<li><p>Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. BushCo 8</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Do we really need to even discuss this? From Gitmo to Abu Gharib to “extraordinary renditions” to kidnappings from the soil of NATO allies such as Italy and Germany, there’s a string of ends-justifies-the-means actions that is eroding one quality the U.S. should never have a problem with: moral superiority. Under Bush, the U.S. is a law unto itself, free to interpret any restraints and conditions as it will while simultaneously imposing whatever conditions it wishes on any country. The result includes alienated or reluctant allies, a U.N. that is leary of taking any action where the U.S. may declare itself a unilateral enforcer, and most importantly is creating more sympathy for the Islamists faster than we can neutralize them. </p>
<ol>
<li>Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. BushCo: 7</li>
</ol>
<p>There is, running consistently through the subtext of BushCo’s arguments, a thread of American Exceptionalism and American Triumphalism, the justification of standards that may be applied to other countries do not apply to us and that we, in fact, are the sole judges. It is a rare politician who dares appear without an American flag stuck in his or her lapel for fear of being labeled anti-patriotic; I care far less about symbols of America, which any scoundrel can hide behind, and how individuals live their lives with respect to the principles of America.]</p>
<ol>
<li>Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.BushCo 7…but they’re working on it.</li>
</ol>
<p>Okay, we don’t have a national police force or national I.D. cards (yet) but, as per the current argument over warrantless wiretapping, “national security” is used as the justification for anything the administration wants to do. (See also, the first point, using fear as a motivator.) And once you accept that national security is expedient grounds for doing anything, then it’s not a slippery slope, it’s a plunge right off the cliff. </p>
<p>Those are the heavies.</p>
<p>=========</p>
<ol>
<li>Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. Bush Co 9</li>
</ol>
<p>The administration uses “terrorists” as if they were a unfied group with an agenda. “Terror” is a weapon, not an ideology, but such is to nuanced for the administration. The administration and its shills linked “9/11” and “Iraq” together so much that many voters think Iraqis were numerous among the hijackers and that Saddam Hussein helped planned it; this profoundly cynical and dishonest act accounts for the majority of those still supporting Bush with respect to Iraq. </p>
<ol>
<li>**Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts **- Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. BushCo 8</li>
</ol>
<p>I rate this so highly because Bush’s lack of curiosity, disdain for book learning, active exclusion of any data contrary to belief, and use of belief in lieu of knowledge. Add to that Rove’s famous “We don’t respond to reality, we create it.” The result is decisions made in a fantasy world.</p>
<ol>
<li>Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. BushCo 7…with spikes to 9, e.g., Fox News</li>
</ol>
<p>Aside from Fox, Rove & Co. have done a good job at bullying the media to their own ends. Witness the NYT sitting on stories for months for fear of incurring the WH’s wrath. Fortunately, the media is beginning to get some teeth back.</p>
<p>====</p>
<p>Part II: Sorry…my post exceeded the CC 10K limit on characters.</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>The “Eh.”</p>
<p>5.** Rampant Sexism**- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. Bush Co 8</p>
<p>Whether an attribute of fascism or not is an interesting question. But I don’t find your examples of women as indicators of BushCo’s attitudes compelling. Their preference seems heavily tilted towards stay-at-home mom’s and what one woman of my acquaintance calls yesdears and actively hostile towards what they regard as “uppity women.” Bush himself makes exceptions for Karen Hughes. [I think Condi is in waaaay over her head. Can’t hit a curveball to save her life.]</p>
<ol>
<li>**Religion and Government are Intertwined **- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions. BushCo 8</li>
</ol>
<p>Certainly BushCo use of evangelicals certainly puts me in the mind of Franco and the Spanish Catholic church. The counter-example would be the Church in Latin America, which has been first pro- and then anti-authoritarian. So the statement with respect to Bush’s use of religion I regard as true, as an indicator of fascism per say, no.</p>
<ol>
<li>**Corporate Power is Protected **- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. BushCo 9</li>
</ol>
<p>True but irrelevant. Just natural republican behavior, though extra efficient due to the K Street project.</p>
<ol>
<li>**Labor Power is Suppressed/b]- Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. BushCo 7</li>
</ol>
<p>Again, true but irrelevant. Normal Republican behavior. </p>
<ol>
<li>Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. BushCo 9</li>
</ol>
<p>Plain silly to use this as an indicator of fascism. Almost as silly to link this to Republicans though they display a more natural talent for cronyism than usually do Democrats. One line item for comparison: James Lee Webb vs. Michael Webb. Ouch. A certain amount of cronyism is inherent in our system. But BushCo seems to have raised it to high art.</p>
<ol>
<li>Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. BushCo 7</li>
</ol>
<p>Certainly silly to use this as an indicator exclusively of fascism. I’m not particularly a “the elections were stolen” hobbyist. However, I take note of consistent GOP opposition to requirements of an auditable paper trail, the funny way that inadequate polling stations and broken polling equipment most often turns up in Democratic-leaning heavily minority districts, the gerrymandering of legislative districts to minimize Democratic-leaning African-American voting power, the imposition in Georgia of voting I.D. requirements that disproportionately penalize the Democratic-leaning poor, the careless disenfranchisement of voters in Florida of supposed felons without verification that the person being stricken from the rolls is the same person on the list of felons, use of official looking “immigration officers” to intimidate Latino voters from coming to the polls in California, and the unprecedented mid-census redistricting in Georgia and Texas…yeah, the Republicans pretty well suck when it comes to electoral integrity and partisan advantage.</p>
<p>Strick, as for my anger, I have a lot to be angry about. This administration has taken the ship of state and put it on a course to run it upon the rocks at flanks speed. I don’t trust the s.o.b.'s an inch…Dick Cheney could tell me that the sun was rising in the east and I’d want to check the direction with a compass and the spectrum of the astral body to make sure that another G-type star had not been substituted. I made the mistake of giving them the benefit of the doubt when it came to invading Iraq and I’ll never give them a second chance. </p>
<p>I won’t even worry about what my party will do or not do until we have control; I hope some sane and sober heads prevail and I hope the Band of Brothers (see OP) is instrumental in doing so, that the USA can be both tough and smart at the same time. </p>
<p>You <deleted> are so arrogant that you act as if you think that you’ll govern forever. Payback is a rhymes-with-witch but I do hope tha you and yours get <em>slightly</em> more consideration than BushCo has given.</deleted></p>
<p>TD, I keep promising myself to leave this thread alone, but I seem to cave in regularly. Regarding rampant sexism in the Republican party, you seem completely out of touch with reality to me. Whether or not you like any of Bush’s policies, he is the first president to appoint a woman or minority to Sec. of State. Your condescending remarks about Dr. Condoleezza Rice strike me as chauvinistic. I imagine her acquaintances may consider her to be an “uppity woman.” Here is info from a web page about her qualifications.
I think her qualifications outshine mine and, possibly, yours.</p>
<p>Secondly, you say
Based on what? Your vast familiarity with conservative women? I don’t think that anyone I know, especially my dear husband, would ever call me a ‘yesdear’ type of woman. In fact, he frequently refers to me as ‘feisty’ and I can’t imagine that any of my posts have ever led anyone to believe that I am either passive or subservient. I can think of a number of posters who would qualify for your pet name ‘uppity women.’</p>
<p>And your continued disparagement of stay at home moms is just annoying. If I worked full time in day care would you consider that a job? If I taught in a classroom would you consider that worthwhile – after all you are quite a supporter of education. (and I say that sincerely.) ARe you suggesting that only paid work has value? What about all the artists and writers who are unable to support themselves through their work? I don’t define myself or other people based on their income. It’s just a job at the end of the day, whether you are paid or not. And the stay at home moms I know have had careers in medicine, law and business, and many intend to return to paid employment when they feel they’ve taken care of another important job – raising children.</p>
<p>I just wish you’d stop carrying on about women’s rights – perhaps you think you’re being chivalrous, but I honestly don’t know any women, Republican or otherwise, who need your help. Maybe you should actually talk to some Republican women, stay at home or other.</p>
<p>Fine, I forgot about Madeleine Albright. Sorry.</p>
<p>TheDad, I’m not sure when I’m going to be able to get back to this, but rest assured I will make time for it soon.</p>
<p>The thing is, to get the numbers you quoted in your first post on this, I’m going to hold you to a higher standard than you seem to think is adequate. I want tangible examples, not “everyone knows” things out of the Democrats handbook. And I have some ideas of what constitutes a legitimate baseline. You can disagree with the details, but I hope you agree that something of that sort is required. It will take a reasonable knowledge of history to appreciate, which I assume you have.</p>
<p>Finally, you have show that there was a material change in policy from recent administrations to really make the point that the fradulent Dr. Britt wanted you to take, that the US is moving rapidly toward fascism. That particularly goes when you’re claiming ratings as high you are, which effectively states we’ve achieved fascism.</p>
<p>For instance, your points on “Supremacy of the Military”. I can’t imagine how the US ranks as more than a 2 or 3 on that scale. I’m assuming we should use Sparta (though not fascists) or Nazi Germany for the baseline of 10 on that one. Reasonable? If it is, explain to me where the word “Surpemacy” comes in in regard to the military in the US? </p>
<p>I mean, in those countries military service was mandatory with training for boys starting at a young age (7 in Sparta). There were great military displays, parades, massive rallies in which the political figures (note, only one party was legal) appeared full military reglia (not a flightsuit). Military budgets were larger than social spending by a wide margin. In the case of Germany, a major portion of all industry was devoted to arms and munitions, not a specialized, minor percentage of the economy, however large in absolute terms. It was a crime to criticize the military.</p>
<p>I seem to be missing most of those elements here in the US. I witnessed a protest of the recruiting center in Times Square just shy of a year ago and not only did no one get beaten to death by brownshirts, no one was arrested and the police took only a mild interest. We’re still trying to settle in courts whether or not schools can prevent recruiters from coming to campus, and, far from mandatory service, students can opt out of seeing recruiters at all.</p>
<p>There is a fairly strong martial tradition in some families in the South were I was raised, but on the whole the country remains a large, peaceful democracy that doesn’t put take interest in what the military’s doing outside reports that troops are dying. Which is to say, so long as we’re bombing people rather than using ground troops.</p>
<p>As when Clinton launched air attacks in the Balkins killing upwards of two thousand civilians or sent cruise missiles flying at various times. Then it’s OK.</p>
<p>Finally, where’s your support for any suggestion that the military has become more “supreme” here in the US than it was during the Clinton administration, who used it more often in more minor conflicts than any other president, or Bush or Reagan? Tangible examples, remember, not vague hand waving like most of what you list above.</p>
<p>See my point? Facts, please. Measured against a legitmate (arguable if you wish) standard. </p>
<p>Britt’s work is malicious, amature crap and I can’t see the basis for your ratings.</p>
<p>OK, TheDad, I’ve had a chance to read your responses more carefully and I admit it’s not quite as bad as I thought. But even you point to instances where the list doesn’t adequately define facism, more than enough to disqualify the list as valid.</p>
<p>I hope you agree by the sort of absolute standard that should be applied, that your original ratings are a bit far fetched. Take your voter fraud issue. Requiring voter id on registration isn’t that far out of bounds, particularly when the three most famous incidents of voter fraud relied on lax voter registration to fill the rolls with the dead (all were by Democrats, I might add). </p>
<p>Complaining about the redistricting in Georgia and Texas is pretty bold, too, after the century that Democrats gerrymandered districts in those states. I’m from Texas where voter registrations used to be preprinted “Democrat”, btw. I’ve seen gerrymandering done by masters as the Democrats tried to stave off their inevitable decline in power. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.</p>
<p>Do you at least see what I mean? That list was designed not to legitemately relate anything to facists, but to reach in to that vague, fuzzy anger that most liberals have. It intentionally used that anger to hinder your critical thinking. It encouraged you to put values on things that you were already upset about, numbers I don’t believe you can really justify when you think about it objectively. </p>
<p>It is purely a propaganda tool, nicely ironic given what it purported to be. Don’t be taken in.</p>
<p>Strick, given BushCo’s theory about the unitary executive and what powers are subsumed in the President’s duties to defend the country, it’s arguable about how fast we’re moving, but that we <em>are</em> moving in an unpleasant direction isn’t.</p>
<p>SJMom, I know a large number of artists and writers. I do not have a problem with stay at home moms. I have an extreme problem with that model being put forth as the superior or privileged model, a stance either implicit or explicit in many Republican stances. Me “carrying on about womens rights” is doubtlessly annoying to those who are complacent and satisfied with things as they are. Good. I have no intention of changing and anyone who doesn’t like it can get stuffed. Contentment on your part produces no obligation in anyone else to be equally contented.</p>
<p>As for Condi Rice, I’m very familiar with her. Probably much more so than you may think, with a person of previous signficance in her life being of some significance in mine. My opinion stands. Her education and intelligence is not an issue. Her temperament and outlook are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s different. No need drag up old propaganda like Britt’s for us to disagree about that. </p>
<p>It’s obvious to anyone who’s studied previous US conflicts that the President has never had to have Congressional authorization to listen to enemy communications. FISA can’t limit that, nor is it clear at least to a laymen like me that FISA applies to international calls since it specifically refers to domestic ones time after time.</p>
<p>And, of course, even if FISA does conflict with the President’s Consitutional authority, he’s entitled to ignore it, at least that’s what the Clinton Justice Department was arguing as late as October, 2000 in a case nearly identical to this. That and another paper the Clinton Justice Department produced on when it was reasonable for a President to ignore an Unconstitutional law (oddly enough, it spoke specifically to his war powers) was an eye openning read, too.</p>
<p>You read the NY Times article that detailed the extraordinary pains the Administration went to to allow the FISA court to supervise the program and address their concerns I presume? They even stopped the program so they could beef up reporting to the Court to ensure that evidence obtained without a warrant would never be used in court.</p>
<p>Not that it matters. Congress will probably quietly pass a law that legalized the whole thing some time in the next 3 months or so. Anything to avoid a serious Constitutional crisis.</p>
<p>See the difference? Before I was being highly critical of a false and misleading article. Now I defending Bush. ;)</p>
<p>Not to spoil the fun, but back for a moment to the original discussion on this thread…</p>
<p>Mike Lyon, the executive director for the Band of Brothers, told NYTimes reporter Ian Urbina, “Alienating Hackett is not just a bad idea for the party, it also sends a chill through the rest of the 56 or so veterans that we’ve worked to run for Congress. Now is a time for Democrats to be courting, not blocking, veterans who want to run.”</p>
<p>Rasmussen did a quick poll of likely Ohio Democratic voters after Hackett’s withdrawal and found that 31% of those polled thought Hackett was screwed by the party while 24% did not. 45% either didn’t know who Hackett was or did not have an opinion on the matter.</p>
<p>“ALLOW” to look at? That was mighty nice of the administration to allow for checks and balances</p>
<p>“ALLOW”- that makes it alright then doesn’t it</p>
<p>If you prefer “enable”, help yourself, citygirlsmom. All I meant to say was that they bent over backwards to make sure FISA could tell what they were doing.</p>
<p>Think about that Rasmussen poll for a moment. Nearly half (45%) of likely Ohio Dem voters either had never heard of Hackett or didn’t have an opinion on how he was treated by the Dems. This is a party that thinks it can take the seat away from DeWine? Doesn’t it tell you that the likely Dem voters in Ohio are clueless? How can you not have an opinion or not know about what happened with Hackett?</p>
<p>Sure, there’s a very solid base of hard core “work till they drop” Dems who will do whatever it takes to beat DeWine and any other Repub who crosses their path. But that’s all it is…a hard core base. DeWine’s going to win with ease…and in Ohio to boot.</p>
<p>Brownie, there’s a difference between name recognition among us self-selected political junkies and the general population. In this, you and I have more in common with each other than the average voter. In close elections when the Undecideds making up their minds in the last 10 days swing the election, it is disproportionately the least partisan but least interested and least [politically] educated voters who hold the balance. A sobering point to consider.</p>
<p>Btw, without making a prediction, Brownie, DeWine is polling around 45 percent, iirc. Psephologists generally look at any incumbent polling under 50 percent as “in trouble.”</p>
<p>There are some other telltales that correlate with this but I think I’ll keep them in the bag for now. Ask me again in June.</p>
<p>DeWine’s lead over Brown has actually increased from 5 percentage points to 9 according to Rasmussen since the Dems Swiftboated Hackett. The Swiftboating was a huge blunder by the Dems and it will be very difficult for Brown to regain his footing after such a huge mistake by the party elders.</p>
<p>Since so many of the likely Dem voters and general population seem to be unaware of Hackett and how he was maltreated by his party, how do you think that they are going to react when the Repubs point it out to them as we get closer to the election?</p>
<p>My guess is the it won’t be looked upon favorably. Look for this Senate seat to stay in Republican hands.</p>
<p>There must be something in the water in Ohio. Charlie Wilson, the leading Democratic candidate for Ohio’s 6th Congressional District, was disqualified on Wednesday because only 46 signatures of the 96 he submitted to qualify for the May 2nd primary were valid. 50 were needed. How does someone do that?</p>
<p>As a result Congressional Quarterly said it is changing its election forecast for the district from “leans Democratic” to “No clear favorite”.</p>
<p>Yeah, and we can trust the Ohio election machine to be fair.</p>