Quote of the Day

Sunday, November 25th, 2007 @ 3:27 pm | Uncategorized

From our favorite commenter who ventures over here from the misnamed Common Sense Political Thought, Dana Pico:

You’d be correct to assume that I voted for George Bush, twice. Were he constitutionally able to run again, I’d vote for him again.

I think most people would find that a little bit funny and a little bit scary.

-jb

34 Responses to “Quote of the Day”

  1. Jesurgislac Says:

    But in the context in which it was offered – Dana had just put on a serious frowny face and offered solemn advice to Democratic voters as to who would be the best candidate to run for President in 2008 – it’s mostly funny.

    (In any other context, mostly scary.)

  2. IowaVoter Says:

    Yeah, I’d expect Dana to know better.

    Then again, I think a legally retarded person would likely know better than to vote for Bush again, were it possible.

  3. Dana Says:

    Personally, I’m glad that we term limit presidents, and I’d rather see some new blood: there has been either a Bush or a Clinton on the natiuonal ballot every presidential election since 1980.

    And while I wouldn’t mind seeing Jeb Bush as the nominee just to tweak the left, we’re better off without dynasties. It’s too bad that Dick Cheney isn’t in better health.

    However, that said, I very much approve of President Bush’s judicial appointments, tax policies and foreign policy, very much approve. My biggest complaint is that he had seemingly no inclination to restrict federal spending. My first choice would be for someone surnamed something other than Bush to be elected, and continue our current foreign and tax policies, and continue the current trend in judicial nominations.

  4. jeromy Says:

    Too bad that Dick Cheney isn’t in better health?

    Too bad for the U.S. Constitution the fucker didn’t drop dead ten years ago. The man is a living tumor within the body of our Republic. Nobody who believes in a “unitary executive” should be anywhere near a seat of power in our government, and realizing this is crucial to the long-term survival of freedom, accountability and democracy as integral components of the USA.

    Really, Dana, we already know what you think, what’s missing is how it has anything to do with the nation envisaged by the Founding Fathers. It’s time for guys like you, Dana, to quit pussyfooting around and declare the USA a failed experiment and the Constitution an antiquity, then tell us what kind of system of government you really want.

  5. Scott Says:

    I can just picture Jefferson and Hamilton having this same conversation about policy and power, but I doubt that Hamilton would have said that he hoped that bastard Burr would bite the big one. Ok maybe he would have. My point is, even these two guys couldn’t agree what kind of nation the founders envisaged. Consequently there has always been an expansion and contraction of executive power depending on the man and the times. In every case the Republic managed to survive. As it will again. To say the administration has somehow shredded the constitution is hyperbolic bull.
    To add to Dana’s list of Bush’s failings I would add the inability to communicate to the American people about the war has been frustrating. He certainly is no FDR in that regard.

  6. jeromy Says:

    Well, since Hamilton was killed by Burr, he surely should have wished him dead.

    Yes, the Founding Fathers did debate ideas, and the Constitution was the consensus, one that Hamilton strongly disagreed with and didn’t take very seriously at all. Little wonder he is so frequently cited by conservatives, flaunting the Constitution and proposing essentially the return of monarchy. The point, however, is that the Constitution became the law of the land, and that which presidents are sworn to uphold and protect. Obviously over the years presidents have tried to grab more power, but it was only through fighting back…

    …which is precisely what you, Dana, and the rest of the GOP will never do, as long as it’s a Republican in office anyway (Hillary will see the return of all of you as stalwart libertarians and Constitutionalists)…

    …that the pendulum was able to swing back towards liberty. Given that the favored arguments of today’s authoritarians rely on eternal war, eternal threats, and blatant lying about virtually everything under the sun, why would anybody trust you, Scott? You’re simply trying to reassure people into calming down while you try to tear up the Constitution into smaller bits. If anybody’s peddling bullshit here, it’s certainly you.

  7. Dana Says:

    “Tear up the Constitution into smaller bits?” I’m trying to figure this out, Mr Brown: are you convalescing from yoru surgery in prison? Have you been arrested for the things you’ve said? After all, neither Mr Ganzeveld nor you have appeared to be fearful of posting your own names (and Mike with his photo) on this site, so it seems that you have no fear of being arrested for what you’ve written.

    For all of your claims that President Bush is tearing up the Constitution, where the courts have limited him, his Administration has complied. When the voters took the very poor decision to change teh congressional majorities, their decision stood, and the Democrats claimed the majorities. And come January 20, 2009, George Bush and Dick Cheney will surrender their offices legally and peacefully to their duly elected successors (who we can only hope will be Republicans).

    I will be persuaded that President Bush has seized dictatorial powers or shredded the Constitution when you write about it from your prison cell, as did St Paul.

  8. jeromy Says:

    Which is the ultimate fascist’s argument: If they haven’t come for ME yet, then I should shut up, or at least you won’t listen…and we can continue handing power to the executive branch on paper without repercussions for the future. I’ve addressed this to you before, to have you slide off without comment, in order to make the same claim another day, and here is that day. Since, apparently, I’ll have to answer this question for you again someday, let me today provide Martin Niemoeller’s classic response to your authoritarian drivel:

    When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for the Jews,
    I remained silent;
    I wasn’t a Jew.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.
    ***

    p.s. Raise your hands, folks, if you remember in the 90s how much noise wingers used to make about the erosion of the Constitution and fears of black helicopters and jackbooted thugs coming after them. The difference? The President was a Democrat.

    I, on the other hand, found their concerns valid and disturbing back then. I didn’t disregard it just because I belonged to the same party as the President.

  9. Dana Says:

    Except, Mr Brown, that they haven’t come for anybody. A few people have been arrested for specific crimes and people who have made war on the United States have been imprisoned in Guantanamo, but there isn’t a single soul who has protested the government but committed no crime who’s been locked up.

    Wish I could remember the source of this quote: Fascism always seems to be coming to America, but somehow always actually arrives in Europe.

  10. jeromy Says:

    Dana, you fundamentally misunderstand the importance of principle in defining what America is. We are our ideals, and those ideals are codified in the Constitution. Habeus corpus must apply all the time to all people, at the very least all American citizens, justice must be carried out, and just because somebody is designated an “enemy combatant” by somebody in the executive branch doesn’t necessarily make it so. We don’t get to find out who has committed no crime, Dana. You don’t know who in Guantanamo was trying to make war on the US and who got sold off by their neighbors for a bonus. And since the government has already been willing to cross the line with Jose Padilla, not to mention all the innocent people from other countries, it’s no longer academic, it’s now about how often it happens.

    And you know full well protestors and public dissenters have been cracked down on by law enforcement, while the government is back up to its old tricks of doing surveillance on peace organizations.

    “There’s nothing to see here!” simply doesn’t wash. The United States has had an exceptional run, but it’s not invincible, and there’s a long history of democracies collapsing. For you to lazily blow off Bush/Cheney authoritarianism and disregard for the Constitution until we see dissidents locked up in reeducation camps is to cooperate with making that reality happen one day. A prudent conservative thinker would be strongly concerned by this point, but today’s GOP has turned radical. It’s liberals and libertarians who are being today’s conservatives.

  11. Jesurgislac Says:

    Dana: and people who have made war on the United States have been imprisoned in Guantanamo

    Some of the people who were or are imprisoned in Guantanamo were “making war on the United States”. We have no idea how many, or which ones, because they are extra-judicial prisoners, held illegally.

    but there isn’t a single soul who has protested the government but committed no crime who’s been locked up.

    Plenty of souls who’ve committed no crime – Mahar Arar, for one – who hadn’t even “Protested the government” who have been locked up, though.

  12. Scott Says:

    Jeromy, You made the Hamilton / Burr connection. Nice. But then you go on to make other connections that are more tenuous. The connection between totalitarianism and the concept of unitary executive for example is absurd. As Dana points out,when the presidents interpretation of law has been challenged he went to congress to change the law. From there you made the leap to facism. Once again without supplying evidence beyond the Niemoeller piece. This really isn’t an argument you are making, its really just Chicken Little does WWF rhetoric.

    About the 90’s. I dont think the parinoia was particulary pointed at the Democrats but at government in general.You have to remember that it was Buch Sr. that announced the begining of the “New World Order”, the buzz word of the loons that let then say we told you so. The FBI fiasco at Ruby Ridge and Reno sending in tanks to kill women and children at Waco only worked to add fuel on the fire.

  13. Jesurgislac Says:

    Scott: Reno sending in tanks to kill women and children at Waco

    You know, I’d assume that anyone who was supposedly that concerned about what happened at Waco ranch would know enough about it to know that

    The siege of Waco began on February 28, 1993. Janet Reno took office on March 11, 1993. She did not, therefore, authorize the initial invasion of the compound that began the 51-day siege (at the time the siege began, there was no Attorney General, as Barr had resigned from office on January 20 1993). Nor did she “send in the tanks”: despatch of the armoured vehicles was authorized by Wesley Clark, who was then the commander of the 1st Cavalry Division at Ft. Hood Texas.

    Opponents of the Clinton administration rarely blame Barr for Ruby Ridge, even though it occurred while he was in office as Attorney General, but invariably blame Reno for the disaster at Waco, even though the trial of Randy Weaver was taking place during the siege of the Waco compound and it certainly appears to a non-partisan observer that the two are linked.

    Certainly, you rarely if ever see any partisan opponent of Clinton admit that the FBI after Ruby Ridge, during the trial of Randy Weaver, were trying to show themselves as an effective agency, and grandstanded themselves into the violent disaster of Waco. Reno was merely a convenient target to lay blame on, since conservatives loathe having Republicans take responsibility for their own errors.

  14. Scott Says:

    Jer,
    My appoligies, the Reno comment was a little pointed.(although she did authorize the gassing operation). My point was that those events, the result of bueaurcratic incompotence not presidential incompotence, fired a distrust in government that gave rise to things like the malitia movement and a parinoia that was not nessesarily a partisan phenomena.
    Now, thanks to the desire to bring down Bill Clinton we have developed this devisive propensity to run every event through this rep,vs dem, us vs them filter to find a way place blame that most damages the president politicaly. You see it manifested in BDS and CDS.
    My hope is we can elect someone that is not a Bush or a Clinton (preferably a Romney) and get beyond this nonsence and return to sane political discourse. It wont be as much fun but the country will surely benifit.

  15. Dana Says:

    Perhaps you’ll recall that Attorney General Reno took full responsibility for the decision to storm the Branch Davidian compound.

    The events at Waco began, as you dated them, on February 28, 1993, slightly more than a month into President Clinton’s term; that puts full responsibility on the Clinton Administration. David Koresh was known to make reasonably frequent trips into town; the government should have waited a few more days, until he left the compound voluntarily, and he could have been arrested without incident. Instead, someone wanted to have a “storm the ramparts” and put on a big show, and FUBARed it up.

  16. mike Says:

    Can we please stop pretending that the driving force behind Richard Mellon Scaife, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, the Bradley Foundation, Emmett Tyrrell, etc, was their heartfelt duty to right the wrongs of Waco and Ruby Ridge?

  17. Jesurgislac Says:

    Dana: Perhaps you’ll recall that Attorney General Reno took full responsibility for the decision to storm the Branch Davidian compound

    Thanks for linking to that, Dana.

    For fifty-one days negotiations continued, but in April the FBI alerted Reno that cult members were planning a mass suicide. Though Koresh had released some children, many remained in the compound.

    Reno ordered an assault on the compound, which took place on April 19, 1993. Cult members started fires in three locations, which soon engulfed the wooden buildings. Eighty-six cult members, including seventeen children, died that day. Reno, expressing anguish over the loss of life, particularly the children’s lives, took full responsibility for the decision to storm the compound. She came under heavy attack for having approved the plan, which she defended as having been based on the information known at the time. She conceded, however, that based on the results, it had obviously been the wrong decision.

    On April 19, 1993, Reno took a decision, based on faulty information, which killed 86 people. She took responsibility for making that decision and admitted that based on the results it was the wrong decision.
    Nearly ten years later, George W. Bush authorized the invasion of Iraq – a decision based on faulty information (the claim that Saddam Hussein had WMD and could be a threat) which has since proved, based on the results, to have been a wrong decision – approximately (just going by the lives lost) 11627 times as wrong as Reno’s decision. One million Iraqis dead. Two million more refugees from their own country. A nation wrecked.

    Not once has Bush acknowledged that he made a mistake. Bush, next to Reno, stands very small indeed.

  18. Dana Says:

    Silly stuff. No responsible organization, not the US, not the Iraqi government, not the United Nations, not any government in Europe, not even any government in the Middle East, believes the one million dead quackery number.

    Iraq apparently got rid of the WMD it had; our intelligence was wrong about that. But the invasion liberated the Iraqi people from one of the most brutal dictatorships on earth, one that remained in power by murder and terror and intimidation, and showed no signs, even after ten years of harsh sanctions, of going away. The invasion has proven more costly than we had hoped, but it was still the right thing to do.

  19. Jesurgislac Says:

    No responsible organization, not the US, not the Iraqi government, not the United Nations, not any government in Europe, not even any government in the Middle East, believes the one million dead quackery number.

    Oh, silly Dana. No reputable organization – I except the present government of the US, of course, since that’s certainly a disreputable organization (currently claiming the right to kidnap!) – but knows the Lancet got the facts right. You yourself acknowledged this in that recent comment I stumbled over, where you claimed Bush had liberated 25 million Iraqis – obviously you were not including the million dead and the million refugees. (More like two million, I’m afraid – 4 million if we include those who are internal refugees.)

    But the invasion liberated the Iraqi people from one of the most brutal dictatorships on earth

    Ah, this foolish fantasy. The invasion, as you yourself acknowledged, killed a million Iraqis, wrecked their country, and sent well over a million into exile. The equivalent “liberation” in the US would have killed nearly 11 million people – over 7 times the population of Philadelphia, to give you this in concrete terms. Your notion that the Iraqis regard this as “liberation” is made nonsense by the fact that they are fleeing the country.

    It’s now estimated (September 2007 figures here) that 60 000 Iraqis are being forced to leave their homes every month: in the US, the proportional number would be six and a half million. (I give you these figures because you really don’t seem to have a clear idea how serious this situation is.)

    Syria has at least 1.2 million Iraqi refugees: it cannot handle so many and some are being forced to return. (Greatly against their will.) Jordan has at least half a million. The Gulf States have about 200 000. Shamefully, the US has taken in only 19 800 Iraqi refugees. That figure by itself, though – considered proportional to the population of the US, would represent 2 167 228 Americans. If “only” 2.1 million Americans had been forced to flee their homes and take refuge in a foreign country, would you consider this a serious problem, yes or no?

    The dead are silent. You can lie and claim they don’t exist. You can even jeer triumphantly at a village full of corpses, as Sharon did not so long ago. You can even come up with wiseacre ideas about counting the graves – secure in your posturing, safe in a country which has not been invaded and occupied, where you do not have to think about what it would be like for you if 11 million people had been killed.

    The notion that Iraq is a “liberated” nation, though, is belied by the millions of Iraqis desperate to get out of it. And, unlike the dead, their are not so easily ignored.

  20. MinorChord Says:

    Dana> so where do you draw the line for an appropriate number of dead civilians?

    Good luck trying to rationalize war crimes, asshole.

  21. jeromy Says:

    Jesurgislac: Maybe you missed it, but I’ve written before that I hate the accounting trick where one million dead in Iraq would be “like” 11 million dead in the U.S.

    No, it wouldn’t. People are not percentages. 1 million dead is equal to nothing other than 1 million dead, regardless of how big a country they live in. The lives of those in smaller countries are no less AND no more valuable than our own.

    Please, your argument does not need such statistical flim-flam. Leave the junk thinking to the rightwingers.

  22. Jesurgislac Says:

    Jeromy, I do see what you mean, and I don’t mean to say that Iraqi lives are either more or less valuable than American lives.

    I cite the proportionality to give an ignorant American (Dana) an idea of the enormity of what the US has done to Iraq. The US invasion and occupation has caused the deaths of 3.7% of the population of Iraq, and a further 14.8% are refugees. 18.5% of the population in total are either dead or displaced.

    Think about that in US terms. Think about what it would do to your daily way of life if, over the past four years, 1 in 20 people had died, and another 3 out of 20 people had left their homes.

    Perhaps you don’t need the proportional figures for the US to understand the destruction that Dana’s so-called “liberation” has wrought: Iraq is no longer a functioning country.

    Most of the Iraqis that have succeeded in leaving are the educated professionals: the very ones who would have been essential in rebuilding the country, had the US been interested in having that happen. But even if – between refugees and death – 185 people had just been randomly plucked out of every 1000, how functional do you suppose the average city in the US would be?

    Of course this is not just “plucking” – these people are running away out of justified fear for their lives, especially any of the skilled translators who worked with the American and British occupiers (not to either the US or the UK, though – both countries have been shamefully ungenerous about taking in Iraqi employees and their families).

    But even if all conflict could be magically stopped upon the instant – Iraq would still be wrecked as a country, and that wreckage would itself take massive investment to rebuild and to encourage those who fled to return. Just as the deaths of 11 million Americans would damage the US for a generation or more, so have the deaths of a million Iraqis damaged Iraq.

  23. mike Says:

    MC> Dana likes to feign concern for those living under dictatorial regimes when it’s politically convenient. Missing from all of his pearl-clutching about Saddam is any sort of explanation as to why he had no problems with him throughout the worst of his atrocities (and beyond) and has no concern with any other despots, tyrants, autocrats besides Saddam Hussein.

    Since Dana considers himself a Christian then let’s apply our situation in Iraq to a couple simple moral truisms. The first is that actions are evaluated in terms of the range of likely consequences. A second is the principle of universality; we apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others, if not more stringent ones.

    As far as consequences were concerned, they were widely known within the intelligence community and beyond. Hence the “greeted as liberators” advertising campaign to overcome stateside objections and to also drown out the voices of Middle East nations that insisted that Saddam was no threat and feared the type of refugee nightmare that is currently taking place. George Bush even went so far as to sum up some of these consequences in his Gulf War memoirs. (as a side note, so unconcerned with the well-being of the Iraq people after the first Gulf War, he allowed Saddam access to previously confiscated weapons in order to put down a Shi’ite rebellion, effectively going right back to supporting “one of the most brutal dictatorships on earth” as Dana likes to put it.) It’s also widely understood that sanctions do nothing but strengthen dictatorial regimes and bring misery to the populace since those that find themselves on the bottom are forced to increasingly rely upon the despot. A consequence that was realized vividly when then Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, when asked by CBS reporter Lesley Stahl of the half a million dead Iraqi children as a result of sanctions against medical supplies, “I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

  24. mike Says:

    It also bears to the keep in mind that this whole “we’re liberating them!” rationale was virtually non-existent before the invasion and it’s completely disingenuous to pretend now that the hysteria over WMD’s was a minor footnote to a larger concern for human rights. It’s ideological institutions rewriting history from the standpoint of the victors. It’s as bad as the Nazi’s saying they were “liberating” the Jews from the Warsaw ghettos.

  25. jeromy Says:

    Scott: “The connection between totalitarianism and the concept of unitary executive for example is absurd.”

    No, Scott, you’re absurd, and shamelessly so. The concept of a “unitary executive” is in direct violation of the clear language of the Constitution, of the clear checks and balances that were written into it by the Founding Fathers, with the express purpose of making sure we didn’t have a king.

    You’re the damned fool who’s just waving this off as nothing. What’s so special or insightful about that? History is filled with scores of morons who said, “Oh, everything is fine, what are you complaining about?” while kings and dictators marched over individual rights and placed themselves above the law.

    Bush made clear what the new philosophy is: elections are the only “accountability moment” we deserve. If you win, you get the power, and the other two branches can go fuck themselves. Yes, the courts have been able to push back in some instances, but it is by slender grace. A term by Giuliani, for instance, would produce more weak judges willing to keep surrendering the Constitution to appease power. Bush and Cheney began their assault on the Constitution with the hope and expectation that the GOP would continue the fight after they were gone.

    And as we can see, you guys are ready and willing. That’s why you need to be really far from the reins of this country. It literally will not be able to survive you, not as the United States of America. We’ll have to rename it the Confederacy of America to quit pretending we care what Thomas Jefferson thought.

  26. Jesurgislac Says:

    And that is why the most important thing about 2008 isn’t which Democratic candidate is selected to run: it’s ensuring that the elections are fairly run and the candidate who wins gets to be President.

    Which, to remind y’all again: didn’t happen in 2000 – that we know for sure: and didn’t happen in 2004 – we have good reason to suspect.

  27. scott Says:

    You have some naïve notion that the founding fathers wrote a cook book containing the recipe for democracy that is one part this and two parts that, when the constitution is in fact a purposely vague and sometimes ambiguous guideline for governance. Therefore there has never been a “clear” interpretation of what some of the language means. Lord knows the commerce and welfare clause has been controversial and the Unitary Executive is just another example that has been debated since about 1800 and never in that time has the nation been turned into a dictatorship. (Although I would say Roosevelt II came close.)
    By example, let’s go back to Hamilton and Jefferson for a moment.
    A. They were founding fathers so they should have known what the constitution meant.
    B. Even they couldn’t agree on what it meant!
    Ham thought the constitution gave the president the power to promote commerce, start a bank, build a navy, and become a player in the world. Jeff on the other hand had some silly notion that the constitution didn’t allow for any of those things, until he became president of course and kept the bank, expanded the navy and went to war in the Med. Hamilton realized that the truly great leaders would use the constitution to take bold steps to advance or protect the union while lesser men would be more concerned with getting their knob washed by an intern. If interpretation was cut and dried as you suggest we wouldn’t have the need for two parties or a supreme court and you and your crew here wouldn’t have to live in fear of GWB. Fortunately that’s not the case. My question to you is what president is on the ten dollar bill and which one is on the nickel? (careful this one’s tricky)
    And finally, maybe you can enlighten, me since I have my head buried in the sand. (please dont say its somewhere else) What steps GB taken that has turned this country into a fascist state? If you can identify an example aren’t members of congress complicit in this coup? Why didn’t the democrats stop him? When are they coming to take us away?
    They’re coming to take me away, HA HA
    They’re coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA.
    Peace.

  28. jeromy Says:

    Okay, Scott, what are some of those ambiguous passages in the Constitution that support the idea of a “unitary executive?” Note, of course, that those words never actually appear in the Constitution.

    …the constitution is in fact a purposely vague and sometimes ambiguous guideline for governance.

    Purposely vague? Gosh, slow down Scott, or you’re going to end up arguing the Constitutionality of gay marriage!

    The Constitution is purposely vague in specific passages, and the intent is usually clear. You know, like the intent in giving the power to declare war to Congress. Oh, wait, that’s explicit and not vague at all. As well as most of the contents of Articles I and II of the Constitution, which delineate the powers of the executive and legislative branches.

    Despite all your flabby logorrhea, you still don’t tell me what’s so vague about the Constitution as to warrant the unitary executive, which blatantly contradicts the listed powers of each branch. I assume you know the difference between bending the rules and flat-out breaking them, no?

    Hamilton foresaw Clinton? Next you’ll tell me the GOP was simply honoring Hamilton in 1998.

    And first we must understand what the commonalities of fascist states are, just to make sure you know what you’re talking about:

    Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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.
    6. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes the 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.
    7. Obsession with National Security – Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Labor Power is Suppressed – 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.

  29. jeromy Says:

    p.s. I stole that from http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/08/27/has-america-become-fascist-the-14-defining-characteristics-of-fascism/

    Oh, and yes, Scott, quite a few members of Congress are complicit. Nearly every single Republican to the white man, and a few weak Democrats. If we actually had Republican cooperation on defending the Constitution instead of laughing it off, maintaining checks and balances would be a snap.

    It’s amazing that you can ask such questions while continuing to be part of the problem.

  30. Iowa Liberal » Blog Archive » Say it loud. Says:

    […] I’ve said elsewhere, if only we had some cooperation in protecting the Republic from our fellow […]

  31. Scott Says:

    Flabby logorrhea,whew at least you didn’t tell me I had my head up my ass. Thanks

    As I read the thoughts of Dr Britt, I am reminded of the words of Geroge Orwell who writes;
    …”Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

    But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.”

    Also stolen from :http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
    So much easier than thinking up shit my self at 6am.

  32. jeromy Says:

    Wow. Well, maybe someday somebody will identify similar characteristics of fascist states. Maybe they’ll even come up with 14 of them.

    Til then, onward with the cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working class Bush/GOP governing style, eh?

  33. Scott Says:

    Scott said, “From there you made the leap to facism. Once again without supplying evidence beyond the Niemoeller piece. This really isn’t an argument you are making, its really just Chicken Little does WWF rhetoric.

    Scott then said, “What steps has GB taken that has turned this country into a fascist state?”

    Now Scott says, “Once again instead of offering evidence of the Bush facist state you give one persons interpretation of what defines a fascist state. That might be a good starting point, lets start with point one. Nationalism.”

  34. jeromy Says:

    “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.”

    How did you feel when Obama didn’t wear his flag pin, Scott? Seen many “Support Our Troops” bumper stickers (a slick diversion to sell war, “the troops” always meant Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld)? Have you heard any realistic analysis of 9/11 as blowback dismissed as “blaming America first!”??? Heard of any increases in government power named the PATRIOT Act? Listened to anybody on the radio singing, “Freedom isn’t free!” while some radio jockey gets people like you hopped up about Democrats being traitors?

    I mean, does any of that description ring a bell about the Bush years to you? Or are you going to instinctually pawn off everything on 9/11?