Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights

[XASA]

Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights

In Modern Era, Only Nixon Scored Worse, And Only Truman Was Down for So Long

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007

President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, matching his all-time low. In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only once has a president exceeded that level of public animosity -- and that was Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before he resigned.

The historic depth of Bush's public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters -- at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency.

Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating. Seeking the best interpretation for the president's predicament, they argue that Bush can do what he thinks is right without regard to political cost, pointing to decisions to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and to commute the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.
But the president's unpopularity has left the White House to play mostly defense for the remainder of his term. With his immigration overhaul proposal dead, Bush's principal legislative hopes are to save his No Child Left Behind education program and to fend off attempts to force him to change course in Iraq. The emerging strategy is to play off a Congress that is also deeply unpopular and to look strong by vetoing spending bills.

The president's low public standing has paralleled the disenchantment with the Iraq war, but some analysts said it goes beyond that, reflecting a broader unease with Bush's policies in a variety of areas. "It isn't just the Iraq war," said Shirley Anne Warshaw, a presidential scholar at *****sburg College. "It's everything."

Some analysts believe that even many war supporters deserted him because of his plan to open the door to legal status for illegal immigrants. "You can do an unpopular war or you can do an unpopular immigration policy," said David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. "Not both."

Yet Bush's political troubles seem to go beyond particular policies. Many presidents over the past 70 years have faced greater or more immediate crises without falling as far in the public mind -- Vietnam claimed far more American lives than Iraq, the Iranian hostage crisis made the United States look impotent, race riots and desegregation tore the country apart, the oil embargo forced drivers to wait for hours to fill up, the Soviets seemed to threaten the nation's survival.

"It's astonishing," said Pat Caddell, who was President Jimmy Carter's pollster. "It's hard to look at the situation today and say the country is absolutely 15 miles down in the hole. The economy's not that bad -- for some people it is, but not overall. Iraq is terribly handled, but it's not Vietnam; we're not losing 250 people a week. . . . We don't have that immediate crisis, yet the anxiety about the future is palpable. And the feeling about him is he's irrelevant to that. I think they've basically given up on him."

That may stem in part from the changing nature of society. When Caddell's boss was president, there were three major broadcast networks. Today cable news, talk radio and the Internet have made information far more available, while providing easy outlets for rage and polarization. Public disapproval of Bush is not only broad but deep; 52 percent of Americans "strongly" disapprove of his performance and 28 percent describe themselves as "angry."
"A lot of the commentary that comes out of the Internet world is very harsh," said Frank J. Donatelli, White House political director for Ronald Reagan. "That has a tendency to reinforce people's opinions and harden people's opinions."
Carter and Reagan at their worst moments did not face a public as hostile as the one confronting Bush. Lyndon B. Johnson at the height of Vietnam had the disapproval of 52 percent of the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Gerald R. Ford never had disapproval ratings reach 50 percent.

Nixon remains the most unpopular modern president, though barely. His disapproval rating reached 66 percent on Aug. 5, 1974, four days before he resigned amid Watergate. Harry S. Truman reached Bush's current disapproval rating of 65 percent in February 1952 amid the unpopular Korean War. George H.W. Bush came close before losing his bid for reelection in 1992, with 64 percent disapproval.

The current president, though, has endured bad numbers longer than Nixon or his father did and longer than anyone other than Truman. His disapproval rating has topped 50 percent for more than two years. And though Truman hit 65 percent once, Bush has hit that high three times in the past 14 months.
Bush advisers clutch at Truman as if he were a political life preserver. If Bush has experienced a similar collapse in public support while in office, they hope he will enjoy the same post-presidential reassessment that has made Truman look far better today than in his time. A 2004 poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that 58 percent of Americans viewed Truman favorably.
And the president's team takes solace in the fact that the public holds Congress in low esteem, too. More than half disapproved of Congress generally, and Democrats in particular, in the latest Post-ABC survey, though their ratings were still better than Bush's.

The deep antipathy to Bush has fueled grass-roots support for impeachment. Democrats have resolved not to do that, remembering the division when a Republican Congress impeached Bill Clinton in 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice to cover up his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky. His public support, though, never fell as far as Bush's. Clinton's worst disapproval rating, 51 percent, came during his first term, and he soared to his highest approval rating days after the Lewinsky scandal broke.

As much as Bush advisers dismiss polls, their predecessors in the White House said public rejection invariably drags down the whole institution. "It colors everything you can do," Donatelli said. "Psychologically, it wears on you."
Caddell describes a White House down in the polls in one word: "Awful." "People start going through the motions," he added. "The energy is gone."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402263.html?hpid=moreheadlines&sub=AR

[LMAV]

I still have a ton of respect for the guy. He knows what needs to be done and is doing it regardless of his popularity. Exactly as a leader should act.

[socom6]

Well its all because of Iraq... shouldnt have gone in there in the first place. Invading a country filled with Muslim Arabs for dubious reasons is only asking for trouble. Plus Iraq has stymied Afghan progress in my opinion.

Anyways what I like about him is his stick to it mentality and getting at Al Qaeda terrorists despite low approval levels. The whole world will have to tolerate him till January 2009 and so be it.

[LMAV]

Well its all because of Iraq... shouldnt have gone in there in the first place. Invading a country filled with Muslim Arabs for dubious reasons is only asking for trouble. Plus Iraq has stymied Afghan progress in my opinion.



I hear this all the time in the news and it still makes no sense to me. Please explain how more soldiers in Afghanistan would help us at all? You can have 500,000 soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan and they still wont be able to go in to Pakistan. At least in Iraq we can fight all the fighters that stream in to the country. Leaving Iraq to those Islamic extremists will pretty make everything we are doing in Afghanistan null and void.

[Biglug]

It's not all because of Iraq. There are certainly alot of Americans that think we should have never gone to Iraq, but it's not everyone.
I still feel Saddam needed to be taken out of power and was an evil pos that was a serious danger for future terrorism and an aid to others looking to harm us besides.
How the wars been run though I don't like, but it's just not that.

It's how Bush has seemily assaulted constitutional rights, ignored the checks and balances to make sure the constitution is respected in the war on terror out of country and in, and acts like he and his staff are above question.

I voted for him twice and want him gone. I'm highly disappointed in him and how I feel he's tarnished our image across the world even more.
Sadly I haven't found any worth voting for yet in the up and coming elections either and my hopes for a more positive future of our country are pretty low.
It's definitely time for positive change though in a big way as far as I'm concerned.:|

[LMAV]

It's how Bush has seemily assaulted constitutional rights, ignored the checks and balances to make sure the constitution is respected in the war on terror out of country and in, and acts like he and his staff are above question.The only problem with this line of thinking is that Clinton did much of the same things and didn't get anywhere near the flack for it. Its obvious to most people, that all of these scandals are nothing more than payback for the Clinton impeachment.


'm highly disappointed in him and how I feel he's tarnished our image across the world even more.Yet, people are still streaming in to America and both Canada and France elected pro-US/Conservative governments. Its my humble opinion that this idea of America being hated by the world is largely political and not at all reflective of actual feelings towards this country. Not to mention the "consider the source" factor. Most of the people who are stirring up all this hate for the US are countries who have no place throwing stones at glass houses.

[airchick00]

the thing is people say we shouldnt of gone to war. but you also have all those who say we should. all you ever see on tv is how soliders are getting killed and things are going bad. but see if you lived on a military base and got AFN all we see is how great we are doing and how yes some negative things are happing but we get more postive feedback.
yes bush has his moments but he is at least standing by what he said from the start. and see if he pulls us out now then we would look weak and all the other countrys will think this. let alone Iraq would think they won and it would get so much worse.
everyone makes mistakes but bush is standing by what he said and i will have to give him credit for that.

[Biglug]

The only problem with this line of thinking is that Clinton did much of the same things and didn't get anywhere near the flack for it. Its obvious to most people, that all of these scandals are nothing more than payback for the Clinton impeachment.

Yet, people are still streaming in to America and both Canada and France elected pro-US/Conservative governments. Its my humble opinion that this idea of America being hated by the world is largely political and not at all reflective of actual feelings towards this country.


Oh I'm not going to disagree on Clinton, he's a scumbag as far as I'm concerned. Our current political system needs a big overhaul to me and the people more exacting power over laws and amendments being voted in and more immediate deciding factor of punishment and restriction of our leaders actions.
I've felt for a while now that we should have a new voting system in place for the people to vote on new issues and there outcome instead of leaving it to biased and corruptable politicians.
We've got enough money wasted on pork projects in our budget to tighten our belt a bit and build permanent, secure computerized voting centers in every district that the people can go to bi-weekly, monthly or more as needed to deal with alot of our decisions from new laws, to changing old ones, who's out representing our country worldwide and what our taxes should be spent on.
If this is a free country the people should vote on whether they want to change the current system and than put out an open call for plans to all our institutions for a new system to be designed.
Than have an elected commitee organize out the best choices with clear definitions of them draw up for the people to understand and than the people vote on which they like best.

I don't have all the answers of course and there are many details that would need to be worked out, but that's a rough outline of where we should be in control of our futures on a whole instead of in the hands of a few.

[shocker1]

It's how Bush has seemily assaulted constitutional rights, ignored the checks and balances to make sure the constitution is respected in the war on terror out of country and in, and acts like he and his staff are above question.


I feel pretty much the way you do except for this tid bit. President Bush as no more trampled. the foundations of the Constitution than any other. I can think of a few Presidents who would today class as dictators. My disappointment is with his liberal leaning big government way of solving problems. I for one never understood the need for a Dept of Homeland Security.

As for Iraq this is where I see certain members of congress stepping out of their bounds. Like Durbin with is Nazi comment about the troops. Kerry with his snob nosed Yankee mug or Reid and his gambling base in Nevada. Passing toothless resolutions that only give headlines for Al_____ whatever news outlet. It seems to me that it is not enough for them to use committees. They must oppose the mission and support the troops. I am still trying to figure out how that works.

I support what we are doing in Iraq. Of course in hindsight some may have changed their mind. The President is guilty of incompetence, spineless towards Congress's political attacks, pretending to be Conservative when he is nothing more than a waste and spend liberal, list goes on. I do support his attitude towards Islamic fundamentalist governments and terrorist groups.

Vote Ron Paul next time. I do not agree with everything he says but he has conviction, wants small government and a lot of other good things. This is who we need to fix whats broke.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[Durandal]

I still have a ton of respect for the guy. He knows what needs to be done and is doing it regardless of his popularity. Exactly as a leader should act.

ROFL...

That's the funniest thing I've read this morning.

Keep in mind I voted for the guy.

He's completely dropped the ball in the war he has started.

He invaded another country when he had other options (conflict should ALWAYS be the tool of last resort).

After he invaded it he lied repeatedly to the people "if the generals asked for more troops I will give them more troops."

He's spent money hand over fist not controlled a crappy spending spree congress.

He vetoed the one thing that is pretty important to the U.S. in terms of science, education, and MONEY/Intellectual properties.

He has not vetoed pork bill spending.

Claimed he would support Congress in a ban on firearms.

Called for OTHER countries to be free, democratic, and transparent while at the same time doing the opposite at home.

Done as much to harm our Republic and the States that make it as Johnson and Roosevelt by pressing more and more privileges and special rules that allow the Executive Branch to operate outside normal checks and balances and in the shadows.

What's worse is that people like you respect the guy for single handedly corrupting (or setting up the frame work to encourage corruption) a system that the people YOU loath will eventually take advantage of.

And the silly part about the whole thing is that you think its OK because Clinton did it too.

Clinton was a ƒucking crook, a felon, a bigot, and a misogynist. But he lied well, pulled off the charm, to a tee, and controlled spending a WHOLE lot better. So the @sshat got a free pass in the end because the majority in Congress made the mistake of turning a criminal proceeding into a moral (*** scandal) one.

[Biglug]

I feel pretty much the way you do except for this tid bit. President Bush as no more trampled. the foundations of the Constitution than any other. I can think of a few Presidents who would today class as dictators. My disappointment is with his liberal leaning big government way of solving problems. I for one never understood the need for a Dept of Homeland Security.

As for Iraq this is where I see certain members of congress stepping out of their bounds. Like Durbin with is Nazi comment about the troops. Kerry with his snob nosed Yankee mug or Reid and his gambling base in Nevada. Passing toothless resolutions that only give headlines for Al_____ whatever news outlet. It seems to me that it is not enough for them to use committees. They must oppose the mission and support the troops. I am still trying to figure out how that works.

I support what we are doing in Iraq. Of course in hindsight some may have changed their mind. The President is guilty of incompetence, spineless towards Congress's political attacks, pretending to be Conservative when he is nothing more than a waste and spend liberal, list goes on. I do support his attitude towards Islamic fundamentalist governments and terrorist groups.

Vote Ron Paul next time. I do not agree with everything he says but he has conviction, wants small government and a lot of other good things. This is who we need to fix whats broke.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

I agree with alot of your outlook, just that any trampling of the constitution is wrong period. It's an amazing piece of work by our founding fathers with all the root respects for individual rights very well covered and has been warped and abused over time by our elected officials.This is where I feel it's time for us to have the majority of voting changes and decision for issues in for ourselves.
How does Ron Paul stand on the second amendment?

Thanks for the link too. I've heard his name, but don't know as much about him and am checking it out.

[shocker1]

From what I have read, voting record, words from his mouth. He is a strict Constitutionalist and supports small government. A system that provides for the security of the States, monetary stability and avoids foreign entrapments like Iraq/UN problems. Yes that last part means he voted against the Iraq War. I supported it and still do but that does not effect my opinion of him.

[Durandal]

How does Ron Paul stand on the second amendment?

He'd probably be the first President elected that we would have a chance of repealing any of the major control laws...such as National Firearms Act or the Gun Owners Protection Act.

Not that it would probably ever get past the House and Senate.

[Biglug]

Thank you both, I'm going give him a good looking into.:)

[shocker1]

The one thing I will stand by the President on is that the office deserves much more from members of Congress. There are so many ways to take issue with his policies but yet political undermining seems to be the rule of the day. Using 24 hour entertainment shock media to tickle our ears with flat out lies. This has never helped our nations goals. Like Clinton's ability to deal with AQ was severely damaged by the Newt attack machine.

I think the 20 year career politicians in Congress are the problem. Not 2 term Presidents, it is funny how those that can be elected over and over voted for Presidential term limits not that long ago in our history. Some of those guys may still be in Congress.

If Ron Paul runs as an Ind. and Hillary or some other loon from the left is in the Dem slot. A vote for Ron would pretty much be a vote for the person you despise the most. This is the sad state of any third party. I doubt he would get the Rep. nomination.

[noname]

ROFL...

That's the funniest thing I've read this morning.

Keep in mind I voted for the guy.

He's completely dropped the ball in the war he has started.

He invaded another country when he had other options (conflict should ALWAYS be the tool of last resort).

After he invaded it he lied repeatedly to the people "if the generals asked for more troops I will give them more troops."

He's spent money hand over fist not controlled a crappy spending spree congress.

He vetoed the one thing that is pretty important to the U.S. in terms of science, education, and MONEY/Intellectual properties.

He has not vetoed pork bill spending.

Claimed he would support Congress in a ban on firearms.

Called for OTHER countries to be free, democratic, and transparent while at the same time doing the opposite at home.

Done as much to harm our Republic and the States that make it as Johnson and Roosevelt by pressing more and more privileges and special rules that allow the Executive Branch to operate outside normal checks and balances and in the shadows.

What's worse is that people like you respect the guy for single handedly corrupting (or setting up the frame work to encourage corruption) a system that the people YOU loath will eventually take advantage of.

And the silly part about the whole thing is that you think its OK because Clinton did it too.

Clinton was a ƒucking crook, a felon, a bigot, and a misogynist. But he lied well, pulled off the charm, to a tee, and controlled spending a WHOLE lot better. So the @sshat got a free pass in the end because the majority in Congress made the mistake of turning a criminal proceeding into a moral (*** scandal) one.

You forgot the part where he was pushing for amnesty for millions of felons from south of the border.

[Durandal]

You forgot the part where he was pushing for amnesty for millions of felons from south of the border.

Quite frankly, I don't care about that, one way or another. As an owner of a farm I would like cheap labor and as a U.S. citizen I'd like to see an economic boon from having 20 million new citizens, the taxes they pay, the houses the would buy, the jobs they would create (new small business owners eventually).

At the same time, they did not play by the rules, not matter how stupid or ill thought those rules are, they broke the law. We'll have to figure out where to get cheap labor, but we can always legally import it I suppose or send all by the most localized jobs over seas like we are doing now.

You all decide what to do and I'll follow the rules.

There are far more important things to worry about.

[annihilation]

I still have a ton of respect for the guy. He knows what needs to be done and is doing it regardless of his popularity. Exactly as a leader should act.

What needs to be done? It seems to me almost everything he has done didn't need to be done in the first place. Iraq, we could have left them alone for another year or two. **** they were not a threat to us. They haven't been for 12 years and they would have been in the next day.

[Durandal]

If Ron Paul runs as an Ind. and Hillary or some other loon from the left is in the Dem slot. A vote for Ron would pretty much be a vote for the person you despise the most. This is the sad state of any third party. I doubt he would get the Rep. nomination.

THis about as unAmerican as it gets shocker.

Sorry if that comes across rude, but that's the way I see it. You vote for who you want to win and represent this great nation, not against the person you dislike.

That's the problem with America. We've all become satisfied for taking 2nd worst. "At least it was candidate X" "I voted for X so as not to give Y the win".

You might as well let corporations choose who leads us by the nose.

To me, if Ron Paul did not get the vote, this would be a signal to me that the Republican Party has completely transformed so far outside what it used to be as to no longer represent me at all.

A vote for another Republican candidate would be a sell out as an individual and as my duty as a citizen to vote for whom I want not against what I fear.

[LMAV]

Clinton was a ƒucking crook, a felon, a bigot, and a misogynist. But he lied well, pulled off the charm, to a tee, and controlled spending a WHOLE lot better. So the @sshat got a free pass in the end because the majority in Congress made the mistake of turning a criminal proceeding into a moral (*** scandal) one.

Yet, hes a god to the people who attack Bush the most. That should tell you that a lot of the furor over what Bush has done, is really nothing more than partisan politcs.


What needs to be done? It seems to me almost everything he has done didn't need to be done in the first place. Iraq, we could have left them alone for another year or two. **** they were not a threat to us. They haven't been for 12 years and they would have been in the next day.

CONGRESS VOTED FOR THE WAR, NOT BUSH...

[annihilation]

CONGRESS VOTED FOR THE WAR, NOT BUSH...

And they deserve part of the blame. But he asked for it (for all the reasons that we found out are wrong) and he ran the show. Those lost years after the invasion are his and his administrations mistake and not congress.

[shocker1]

THis about as unAmerican as it gets shocker.

Sorry if that comes across rude, but that's the way I see it. You vote for who you want to win and represent this great nation, not against the person you dislike.


That is how it is. I will vote for Ron Paul regardless due to my own convictions. However to sit there and dismiss the effect his bleed off of voters will have on the Republican base is naive. It will put a Democrat in unless enough people vote like I do. Finally you should consider NOT being so rude in your posts. I am as Patriotic as they come so keep those kind of remarks to yourself.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It's true that his numbers aren't just a result of Iraq. I'm not particularly pleased with Bush, but that's because IMHO he has done too much to please his domestic opponents. Most people don't like him for exactly the opposite reason - so he really can't win.

It is worth mentioning that as poor as his numbers are, those for Congress are worse. So... I wonder how much of these numbers can be chalked up just to dissatisfaction with government in general and or the state we find the world in today.

[DB-ERAUPilot]

His numbers are low because no one trusts anything he says anymore, well except for those that I'd discribe as fanatics and shouldn't be taken seriously anyway.
-He's full of contradictions, he claims the "war on terror" is his biggest priority yet our borders and ports remain easily accesible to terrorists and anyone else who wants to just walk across.
-communs the sentence of that asshat Libby while two border patrol agents continue to rot away in jail for doing their jobs.
- He claims he listens to the generals but when they intially asked for more troops to get the job done instead he listened to rummy's "smaller is better" theory and said nothing as dissenting generals were "retired", and is now trying to do what can be compared to putting a small bandaid on a gaping stomach wound to try to salvage something from Iraq.
- His foreign policy is a joke, "your "EVIL" I won't talk to you" :roll: if Regan could talk to the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union we definately need to be talking to the countries that are clear and present dangers to us now. -he still stands by Gonzales and Chertoff while both of those clowns should have been gone a long time ago
-Afghanistan is slipping back from the earlier gains made before we entered Iraq
-Trying to sneak this "North American Union" deal by the american public
-refuses to admit a single mistake and continues to blame everyone else for his mistakes..its the media, its congress, the public doesn't understand, the defeatist, France, Germany, Al Qaida, Clinton...
-spends money like a spoiled rich kid

and the list goes on and on..thas why his numbers are low

[MichaelF]

It's not, as the article pointed out, just about Iraq. Not even mostly.

[JKD]

- His foreign policy is a joke, "your "EVIL" I won't talk to you" :roll: if Regan could talk to the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union we definately need to be talking to the countries that are clear and present dangers to us now.

Yeah it's a pretty wierd way of going about things. The countries we MOST need to be talking to are the ones we're having problems with. The Bush method of just holding our breath till we're blue in the face, stomping our feet, and giving them the silent treatment(or just invading them) doesn't seem to have worked very well.

[socom6]

Yeah all of you run your mouths bout "its not just Iraq" well if the US wasnt in Iraq his popularity wouldnt be in the dumps that is for sure as a matter of fact you would have people goading him (may be me too) to get Bin Laden no matter what the Pakistanis say and we wouldnt be worrying about the Taliban as they wouldnt even get their heads out of their caves.

Bush came in as a President who had a strong domestic economic and social agenda he was also looking towards a new future with Latin America and to build strong commercial ties.

Thanks to Bin Laden and the subsequent invasion of Iraq a lot of plans have been put on the back burner The steady casualties from Iraq (even though I count Iraq casualties as historically miniscule) has spooked the American public who I admit have bought into the negative press about whats going on in Iraq and blame Bush for even a headache.

If Bush didnt go into Iraq there would have been a whole different world dynamic not having to worry about US troops Iraq and whats going on there, other issues would be to the fore and Bush wouldnt get the blame for everything. Where Bush would have caught flak for would be immigration and big government spending which are what I call normal US politicking not worthy of giving a President low approval rate with steady growth and low unemployment levels.

[Durandal]

That is how it is. I will vote for Ron Paul regardless due to my own convictions. However to sit there and dismiss the effect his bleed off of voters will have on the Republican base is naive. It will put a Democrat in unless enough people vote like I do. Finally you should consider NOT being so rude in your posts. I am as Patriotic as they come so keep those kind of remarks to yourself.

I think you can handle it. I've seen your comments from time to time on PC issues and well, claiming you are voting for the lesser of two evils is a sell out attitude. If that describes you, fine. If it does not (which you just claimed), well, get some thicker skin.

I am tired of whining when people get called out.

I've been called out plenty times here and I deserved it, I take the heat.

[netchicken]

Does no one hate him for turning America into a fascist state?

Where your free speach is denied, where every movement is followed, where you are treated like criminals and have to prove you're innocent. Where air travel becomes a laborious process, where your emails, phone calls, reading material is noted, logged and controlled?

Where terror alerts are used for political ends?

Where the legal processess are prostituted to political ends with libby.

Where your own agents are outed and exposed by the administration in a political feud

.. or has everyone forgotten about that?

Its like the "how to boil a frog" senario, just how was the domestic security situation BEFORE bush, and before Homeland Security?

Remember the last election and how the rest of the world rose in chorus to try to stop americans from voting for Bush? Seems they were right, yet again (like with the wmd in iraq).

[Durandal]

Where your free speach is denied, where every movement is followed, where you are treated like criminals and have to prove you're innocent. Where air travel becomes a laborious process, where your emails, phone calls, reading material is noted, logged and controlled?

Man, you are as bad as those neo-cons who claim liberal professors are helping corrupt our war making ability.

Absolute wacko.

[Hollis]

Does no one hate him for turning America into a fascist state?




Are you sure your from the same planet as the rest of us?

Do you know what a fascist state is?

At least buy better dope.

[shocker1]

I think you can handle it. I've seen your comments from time to time on PC issues and well, claiming you are voting for the lesser of two evils is a sell out attitude. If that describes you, fine. If it does not (which you just claimed), well, get some thicker skin.

I am tired of whining when people get called out.

I've been called out plenty times here and I deserved it, I take the heat.
What an assinine post that is. "Called me out" like you stood your ground and caught me in something. What? That I said a vote for an Ind. is a vote for the other guy? That is an opinion not an Un-American voting stance. You did no great service or great revealing of facts. Nor did you save the day.

If you do not agree with my opinion fine. It is just that an opinion about the effects of a strong 3rd party bleeding off Republican voters. It has happened before and can again. Basically splitting the party in two. Now if that result is Un-American then I can agree. It ends up being the one with the deepest pocket winning not the best candidate.

[LMAV]

Where your free speach is denied

How do you feel about the fairness doctrine?

[netchicken]

A fascist state ...


Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, militarism, corporatism, populism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I am sorry, which part of this definition does NOT apply to America today?


Are you sure your from the same planet as the rest of us?

Do you know what a fascist state is?

At least buy better dope.

[socom6]

Does no one hate him for turning America into a fascist state?

Where your free speach is denied, where every movement is followed, where you are treated like criminals and have to prove you're innocent. Where air travel becomes a laborious process, where your emails, phone calls, reading material is noted, logged and controlled?

Where terror alerts are used for political ends?

Where the legal processess are prostituted to political ends with libby.

Where your own agents are outed and exposed by the administration in a political feud

.. or has everyone forgotten about that?

Its like the "how to boil a frog" senario, just how was the domestic security situation BEFORE bush, and before Homeland Security?

Remember the last election and how the rest of the world rose in chorus to try to stop americans from voting for Bush? Seems they were right, yet again (like with the wmd in iraq).

Who is this idiot?:roll: You sir are one of those at the other end of the loony spectrum... a tin foil hat wearer and conspiracy theorist. Im not an American, but I thought it pretentious and incredulous that people in the rest of the world like yourself were calling Americans to tell them not to vote for Bush, who the fcuk do they think they are? Have u been to the US to know if its a "facist state"? Jesus give me a break.:cantbeli:

The only big problem I really have with Bush is invading Iraq in the first place and not planning for what happens after thereby causing a huge amount of unnecessary problems in that country and diverting attention... nothing else, he's not my President anyways I already have some fools in my country to deal with.

[netchicken]

Another definition of a fascist state...

1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions;
2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits;
3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts;
4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint;
5. fear of foreign `contamination.

Which of these do NOT apply to America today?

Sure stick your fingers in your ears and shout abuse, doesn't change the facts though.

The much abused by Bush commission who went to look for wmd were right...
The french were right ...
Now with one of the lowest ratings for a president ever shows that the rest of the world were right about that as well..

rise above petty abuse and show some facts to dispute that... if you can

I thought it pretentious and incredulous that people in the rest of the world like yourself were calling Americans to tell them not to vote for Bush, who the fcuk do they think they are? Have u been to the US to know if its a "facist state"? Jesus give me a break.:cantbeli:

[socom6]

Lol netchicken it seems u really believe the US is a fascist state, goes to show that you ARE a tin foil hatter and probably a former denizen of Bellevue.

[Hollis]

A fascist state ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I am sorry, which part of this definition does NOT apply to America today?


Man, what ever dope your smokey, is not worth what you paying for it. OH yeak I have to go to our local Bund meeting in 30 Minutes and turn in some neighors who have pirated a DVD of a movie,

BTW, have you checked of cannabalistic dust bunnies hiding under your bed?


I am really sorry, in all seriousness, the US is not a fascist state. Get some counciling, OK!!

[netchicken]

If America is NOT a fascist state then show it, put up or shut up.

What part of those definitions does NOT apply to America today?

All I see here are people who themselves do not understand the definions of "fascist" and fail to see just what is happening in the world.

Abuse is a poor mans argument

go on, use some neurons and refute it...


Man, what ever dope your smokey, is not worth what you paying for it. OH yeak I have to go to our local Bund meeting in 30 Minutes and turn in some neighors who have pirated a DVD of a movie,

BTW, have you checked of cannabalistic dust bunnies hiding under your bed?


I am really sorry, in all seriousness, the US is not a fascist state. Get some counciling, OK!!

[Durandal]

What an assinine post that is. "Called me out" like you stood your ground and caught me in something. What? That I said a vote for an Ind. is a vote for the other guy? That is an opinion not an Un-American voting stance. You did no great service or great revealing of facts. Nor did you save the day.

If you do not agree with my opinion fine. It is just that an opinion about the effects of a strong 3rd party bleeding off Republican voters. It has happened before and can again. Basically splitting the party in two. Now if that result is Un-American then I can agree. It ends up being the one with the deepest pocket winning not the best candidate.

Sorry man, how 'bout I PC it up a litttle bit and say...

"It OK, we agree to disagree."

:)

Come on shocker, snap out of it.

[SBL]

Netchicken: DAOTW?

[Hollis]

Netchicken: DAOTW?


I'll second that,

[netchicken]

If I knew what DAOTW I would probably agree also, but its telling that not one person can refute it.

Just goes to show how little people understand politics and history.

Go back to sleep guys this is just too much for you to handle....



I'll second that,

[SBL]

If I knew what DAOTW I would probably agree also, but its telling that not one person can refute it.

Just goes to show how little people understand politics and history.

Go back to sleep guys this is just too much for you to handle....

Then it's a go.p-)

[Buckeye67]

A fascist state ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I am sorry, which part of this definition does NOT apply to America today?

Pretty much all of it.

Drive through please.

[netchicken]

You guys just got owned ... bend over and take it. :) :)

Pretty much all of it.

Drive through please.

[Buckeye67]

You guys just got owned ... bend over and take it. :) :)

You just owned yourself, noobsauce.

[LMAV]

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state

You do realize that republicans are generally for smaller government?


forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. What country's unity ISN'T based on ethnic, cultural or racial attributes? Out of all the world's countries, I'd say the US is the best racially integrated country in the world. We have our problems, but I don't think you can find our kind of unity and diversity anywhere else on the planet.


Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, militarism, corporatism, populism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalismAgain, please show me a country that doesn't display some or all of these characteristics is some form? It's like this definition was form fit for "special people" to copy and paste in debate forums. Have you seen a protest rally lately?

[socom6]

If America is NOT a fascist state then show it, put up or shut up.

What part of those definitions does NOT apply to America today?

All I see here are people who themselves do not understand the definions of "fascist" and fail to see just what is happening in the world.

Abuse is a poor mans argument

go on, use some neurons and refute it...

None of what you say are true and none of what u have posted isnt anything new. Ive been to the US way after Sept 11th and had a whale of a time in Miami at night clubs, beach, and strip clubs, yeah I was sweated at immigration and it was annoying but frig that I got in and had fun with friends and relatives didnt have no probs with Storm Troopers or the SS I didnt see any of those guys lol.

[shocker1]

Sorry man, how 'bout I PC it up a litttle bit and say...

"It OK, we agree to disagree."

:)

Come on shocker, snap out of it.
All right, I'm not mad. Voting for the lesser of the two evils is Un-American. I am not as your post suggested and which light a fire under my rear. It is all good though, no ill from me. We will leave it at that.

[LMAV]

nevermind, its not worth it.

[netchicken]

:) If you don't like the definition then just blame the messenger ... good ad hominem attack, saves you having to actually think about it.

Here we go, let me do the work for you, hold my hand it won't hurt much ...

Check out this directly related article....
GW Bush and the 14 Points of fascism
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
This page is a collection of news articles dating from the start of the Bush presidency divided into topics relating to each of the 14 points of fascism.

Even in 1933 there was a coup plot by business leaders to bring fascism to the US. has it come using other means?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document.shtml

This looks like an interesting movie about it
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0772153/
America: From Freedom to Fascism (2006)

How about this?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mac_mcki_070708_red_alert_3a_has_santo.htm

Don't forget the Italians would have had trouble seeing what was wrong in their country under Mussolini. They had a strong leader making hard decisions for their country, and anyone against it deserved to be shot.

Interesting blog / article on the future of fascism in America...
http://blog.sunvalleyonline.com/index.php/greg-farber/1757/

Finally in the last few days Bush has make it illegal to complain about the war, on it rolls, ...

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=23032

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon's military agenda in Iraq.

In substance, the Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:

"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."





You It's like this definition was form fit for "special people" to copy and paste in debate forums. Have you seen a protest rally lately?

[MichaelF]

A fascist state ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I am sorry, which part of this definition does NOT apply to America today?

Know any people who grew up in East Germany (DDR)?

Ask them if the US is a fascist state.

You'll note that one of our biggest issues is how to keep people out. Fascist/Police States have, historically, had the opposite problem.

[socom6]

LOL netchicken is a classic DAOTW candidate I vote for him rofl.

Dont bother arguing with netchicken he is convinced that the US is a fascist country where the people are afraid of men knocking at their door at nights and carrying them away to concentration camps. People like him reminds me of communists and socialist propaganda back in the seventies and eighties I used to see when I was a youth... I pity the fools.

netchicken the wards at Bellevue are missing you, you dinner is getting cold.

[WarriorMonk]

If the US really was a fascist state he would have been gone by now...either that or I should call my personal Gestapo FBI hit squadron on him.

All states exhibit characteristics of "fascism" to some degree, and all states exhibit characteristics of "communism" to some degree - hell an anarchist will think ANY sort of state is "fascism" because it "apparently" impinges on his liberty.

If the US really was a fascist state, if I were to protest in front of the White House, the Secret Service would have aimed a frikkin bazooka at me, turned me into spaghetti, high-fived each other, and watched as a LOT OF citizens dance around my remains, shouting "death to the enemies of the state!" or some other crap.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Did they find Tony Bliar up there when Bush went for his colonoscopy last week?

[WarriorMonk]

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.

Okay, so it's a little overdone with the slogans and stuff, what's wrong with that - it's jingoism you have to worry about.

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.

Every country with an intelligence agency has done ONE of these things in the past. Yes, it's a little more than we need today, though.

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.

I don't see what's wrong with identifying al Qaeda as the culprits of 9-11 and going after them and anyone who supports them - however the way we have been going about doing this is lackluster.

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.

The military's budget is LESS than 20% of the national budget. Please tell me that isn't "disproportionate. Plus, every state has to promote its armed services in some manner.

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 homo******ity are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

I'll stay out of this one.

6. 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.

Which has happened in the past, to some degree - this can be claimed by both neocons and far leftists.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Wow, this is kind of short...with no real examples. Sure it's a little overdone though.

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.

Won't mess with this one either...

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.

I'll go along with this one, even though I don't have much research.

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.

I'll go along with this one, even though I don't have much research.

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.

I'm surprised they let Michael Moore publish his films, let alone try and explode him with several thousand orders of Big Macs.

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.

A little overboard, but then again, FBI, Scotland Yard...so what?

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.

I'll go along with this one, even though I don't have much research.

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.

Well, John Kerry wasn't assassinated, neither was my state senator Jim Webb, and almost everyone smeared each other during the 2006 campaigns, but I do need more research.



<----Radical Centrist. Death to the Left and Right! Take their skulls for the skull throne!

(I hope this stays up long enough before my IP is logged, I hear that "overdone" is something the FBI/CIA/Illuminati doesn't want to hear from an obedient citizen.)

[mcc-dano]

Just in general...should you be quoting Wikipedia as a CREDIBLE source? Anyone can go in a twist an article, and you basically get the spin of whoever posts said article...

My school and myself do not consider Wikipedia to be a legitamate source to quote from in any factual capacity.

[CPLHUNTER]

Haha...good point.

I've been sitting back and observing this thread...

Without having to read thru everything else on this topic, I know that his approval rating is quite low...however as usual such things are taken out of context.

If one person on this thread actually had to quote a credible source aside from wiki's and blogs I would drop dead.

Now we all know I hope at least that the rating poll has only been in effect since the late 30's.

Also lets not forget that the same Bush who is low right now, had the highest rating post 9/11.

So what does that tell you?

And don't forget either that everyone's Peace and Love Prez Carter had an approval rating of 28% when he was on tough times.

Unfortunately people myself included live in the moment and are soon to forget the past even the last year and it's events.

At first I thought that those facist rulers here in the US were attempting to erase my memory until I realized that my puny brain can only hold so much freaking info.

The reason why it seems we live in the moment is b/c we can only process X amount of data.

Blogs, Threads, TV, Radio, CD's, IPODS, CellPhones, Newspapers, word of mouth, email, internet, etc, etc.

Trying to keep up w/ all the data and process it correctly and catalog as such is the job of a computer.

[Chounch McGavin]

A fascist state? Debatable. One thing's for sure, we're not a "Democracy" nor do I believe our boys are fighting and dying for our "freedom"

Oh, and Bush Jr. is an overrated candidate for 'worst president of the US' - Herbert Hoover takes the cake


And a big thumbs up for the Republican party of the 20th century :cantbeli:

[Will938]

I am sorry, which part of this definition does NOT apply to America today?


Well, we can start with an "authoritarian political ideology" and go on from there. Do you understand what the concept of an Authoritarian regime involves? Let me help you out:

- Military in charge - Obviously doesn't happen here
- Masses demobilized - By communication or travel either way it doesn't happen
- Limited dissent allowed - Yeah, let me tell you, the media have really been silenced here

Its a completely ridiculous notion that you're talking about. People elect the representatives for better or worse. Three branches of federal government constantly struggle with each other. WTF do those things have to do with an authoritarian regime? You tell me that.

[Will938]

Another definition of a fascist state...

1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions;
2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits;
3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts;
4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint;
5. fear of foreign `contamination.

Which of these do NOT apply to America today?


Oh geeze, I didn't read that we were fascists, only that we were authoritarian. The wiki entry is wrong champ. fascist states are totalitarian, not authoritarian.

They involve:
no dissent allowed - we can say whatever the hell we want about our government
Complete control of all economic functions - doesn't happen
All aspects of power covered - the president doesn't control the other two branches, hence you're full of ****
Top down control over all aspects of individual life - we can do just about anything we want

you're completely full of ****, I recommend you take off the tinfoil hat and start helping us fix important problems with our federal republic, which has democratic (not totalitarian) tendencies.

[Bia]

ROFL...

That's the funniest thing I've read this morning.

Keep in mind I voted for the guy.

He's completely dropped the ball in the war he has started.

He invaded another country when he had other options (conflict should ALWAYS be the tool of last resort).

After he invaded it he lied repeatedly to the people "if the generals asked for more troops I will give them more troops."

He's spent money hand over fist not controlled a crappy spending spree congress.

He vetoed the one thing that is pretty important to the U.S. in terms of science, education, and MONEY/Intellectual properties.

He has not vetoed pork bill spending.

Claimed he would support Congress in a ban on firearms.

Called for OTHER countries to be free, democratic, and transparent while at the same time doing the opposite at home.

Done as much to harm our Republic and the States that make it as Johnson and Roosevelt by pressing more and more privileges and special rules that allow the Executive Branch to operate outside normal checks and balances and in the shadows.

What's worse is that people like you respect the guy for single handedly corrupting (or setting up the frame work to encourage corruption) a system that the people YOU loath will eventually take advantage of.

And the silly part about the whole thing is that you think its OK because Clinton did it too.

Clinton was a ƒucking crook, a felon, a bigot, and a misogynist. But he lied well, pulled off the charm, to a tee, and controlled spending a WHOLE lot better. So the @sshat got a free pass in the end because the majority in Congress made the mistake of turning a criminal proceeding into a moral (*** scandal) one.

I admire you and your words.

[Chounch McGavin]

ROFL...

That's the funniest thing I've read this morning.

Clinton was a ƒucking crook, a felon, a bigot, and a misogynist. But he lied well, pulled off the charm, to a tee, and controlled spending a WHOLE lot better. So the @sshat got a free pass in the end because the majority in Congress made the mistake of turning a criminal proceeding into a moral (*** scandal) one.

That's cute; did you catch those phrases on Fox News? First and foremost, don't apply the word "crook" to a politician, because it's not true :cantbeli:

Secondly, a "felon?" Come on now. Angry about his domestic policies (social security reforms, government assistance, record breaking pro-environment legislation, etc.)? Address them properly.

Bigot. Again, calling someone a "bigot" is solidifying your perspective - not his.

Misogynist; I suppose Jefferson and his inventory of concubines were just maids, right? We're all squirrels trying to get our nuts, bro. Last I checked, Bush Jr. is trying to supress women's rights regarding abortion/free-choice. So don't bring up misogynism.

Oh, What president hasn't had a "free pass?" One comes to mind, that's Nixon. GWB is going to waltz off his presidency with people throwing rose pedals under his feet.


You're right, funniest thing I read all morning.

[netchicken]

Of all the posters in this thread I take my hat off (tinfoil of course) to WarriorMonk who actually read the articles, and posted valid coherent replies, instead of just drooling on the keyboard and hitting abuse.

Thanks mate, I appreciate the time you took to examine it, and the greater risk of even argeeing with some of the 14 points.

When you start to look around the evidence is right there....

http://www.mountainx.com/news/2007/flagged_down_activists_arrested_in_row_over_protest_flag_allege_abuse_by_bu


<----Radical Centrist. Death to the Left and Right! Take their skulls for the skull throne!

Originally Posted by 14 Characteristics of Fascism
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.

Okay, so it's a little overdone with the slogans and stuff, what's wrong with that - it's jingoism you have to worry about.

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.

Every country with an intelligence agency has done ONE of these things in the past. Yes, it's a little more than we need today, though.

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.

I don't see what's wrong with identifying al Qaeda as the culprits of 9-11 and going after them and anyone who supports them - however the way we have been going about doing this is lackluster.

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.

The military's budget is LESS than 20% of the national budget. Please tell me that isn't "disproportionate. Plus, every state has to promote its armed services in some manner.

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 homo******ity are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

I'll stay out of this one.

6. 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.

Which has happened in the past, to some degree - this can be claimed by both neocons and far leftists.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Wow, this is kind of short...with no real examples. Sure it's a little overdone though.

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.

Won't mess with this one either...

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.

I'll go along with this one, even though I don't have much research.

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.

I'll go along with this one, even though I don't have much research.

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.

I'm surprised they let Michael Moore publish his films, let alone try and explode him with several thousand orders of Big Macs.

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.

A little overboard, but then again, FBI, Scotland Yard...so what?

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.

I'll go along with this one, even though I don't have much research.

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.

Well, John Kerry wasn't assassinated, neither was my state senator Jim Webb, and almost everyone smeared each other during the 2006 campaigns, but I do need more research.

(I hope this stays up long enough before my IP is logged, I hear that "overdone" is something the FBI/CIA/Illuminati doesn't want to hear from an obedient citizen.)