Next Republican Presidential Candidate?

Yes I understood the paragraph. What I did was post the 3rd paragraph from Kendra's source, which I don't think applies to this administration which is the reason 'she' left it out. Nor did I think the 2 paragraphs she posted apply.

Just because its your opinion that the administration is facist doesn't mean I have to come to terms with anything. You are the minority, not me.

And I call myself a conservative.

Briana Dawson

Explain why those paragraphs do not apply and her supporting text is faulty. I see you dismissing it without providing reason, which, if I can be inflammatory, smacks of right-wing punditry. If you're going to be the one to exonerate your brethren from allegations of fascism, then do it right.

You're quite handy with the dismissive comment and the "rolleyes" smiley. However, you have yet to state how these various definitions of fascism do not apply to the current administration. Here it is again: I think most would agree that Bush is a quintessential conservative demagogue.

~Ulrika~

In my opinion this administration has definite fascist leanings. I don't think they're card carrying or would in any way self identify that way, but many of their policies are things I consider frightening in their course... to wit, condoning torture, the doctrine of pre-emption, rendition, detention camps, search and seizure without warrant, wiretapping, data mining to identify "terrorists" without judicial oversight in collusion with corporations, paying reporters to write propaganda, sending out VNR's made to look like normal news, restricting first amendment protections for public workers who report wrongdoing, signing statements declaring the president above the law, requiring "loyalty oaths" be signed before being allowed to attend a speech, asserting a radical interpretation of executive power and bypassing checks and balances, rampant cronyism, two foreign invasions, declaring US citizens enemy combatants and putting them in prison without due process, overzealous no-fly lists, voting irregularity, corruption, blatant lying, and on and on and on and sickeningly on. That list isn't just the result of incompetance or rational reaction to threat. What do you call it? I call it disturbingly fascist.

See, I was thinking about just writing that when you posted, but I actually responded to you, instead. Nice to know you decided I wasn't worth your effort simply because I disagreed with you. I love the mutual respect thing we got going here.

You weren't worth my effort because your entire post was based upon the false supposition, that fascism is a binary not an analog state.

~Ulrika~

So by "dismantle" you mean prop up Saudi Arabia, ignore Syria, create chaos in Iraq and pretend the Israel-Palestine question doesn't exist? LOL.

And just how could Bush put an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions? Another badly planned, obscenely mismanaged war? Will we shift our focus from Iraq to Iran prematurely as we did with Afghanistan and Iraq?

In 2000 Bush called for "regime change" in Iraq. That has been his only real foreign policy objective ever since. It didn't matter what happened in the world, all foreign policy problems lead to Iraq. That's why there was no real plan for post-war Iraq, the goal was "regime change" not "nation building." So, unless somebody can convince W that Iran is Iraq, don't bet on him even really being concerned about Iranian nuclear ambitions. He'll talk about it, he'll sqint and grimace and grin unexpectedly, but like North Korea, he won't really do squat.

No wonder you support Bush, you are delusional.

Tiny government? LOL. The Republicans have overseen the largest, fastest expansion of the Federal Government in the history of this country.

Welfare? Your's is the party that proposed giving all of us $100 to counter high gas prices, even people who don't drive or own cars.

Low taxes? LOL. The tax burden of the average American has increased under Republican control of the federal government. Federal Income taxes have fallen, but property, state income taxes, sales taxes, Federal fees (read your phone bill) have all increased. Not to mention the huge public debt the Republicans have created. So every time your adjustable rate mortgage or your credit card rate goes up, think of it as another tax. When the government borrows so much, there's less money available to lend. That sends interest rates up.

Privatization? By that you mean selling off public assests to individuals and corporations closely connected to the people in power? Or perhaps you mean outsourcing government activity to private companies. Wasn't Dick Cheney the guy who set that up for the Pentagon? And then he's hired as head of Haliburton. Wow. No experience in running a private company at all, and he's hired to run a company that becomes the biggest recipient of a program he set up. Sounds like corruption to me.

And the sanctions against Iraq were working. Iraq was contained. We had more pressing issues to deal with, Afghanistan and Israel/Palestine. Afghanistan to ensure that the Taleban wouldn't make a come back (they are now) and Israel/Palestine to reduce the propaganda value of the situation.

And Bush did lie. He told us that Iraq had WMD while he, himself was being told that the evidence wasn't conclusive. He didn't say "I believe" that Iraq has WMD. He said that the evidence was incontrovertible. It wasn't and he knew it. After the invasion he told us that we'd found the WMD. We hadn't. Since then he's told us that the government wasn't tapping phone calls without a warrent. It was. He knew it was. He authorized it.

So, to sum things up...

Republicans are for big government and huge debt.
The tax burden on the average American has increased under Republicans.
Privatisation has cost us billions, with the money going to the well connected.
Bush lied. Repeatedly.

It really depends how well they do it. Republicans routinely paint anybody who disagrees with them as "bleeding heart liberals" or "hate America firsters". Repubicans in Congress routinely tell us that people who question the war are "helping the terrorists". Who invented the terms, "homosexual agenda", "femi-nazis", "liberal media", or my favorite "nattering nabobs of negativity"? Republicans did. And they've won a lot of elections doing so. Go to the "Current Affairs" section of any book store and check the titles of books written by conservatives. Browse the titles, "Treason" (not war profiteers or power hungry politicians who take bribes or ignore the constitution, but liberals) or "Saving America from terrorism and liberalism." Those are just two I can think of by Hannity and Coulter. Both of whom are outrageous liars themselves. Heck, just read any political thread in these forums and you'll see criticism of administration policies as "Bush bashing".

So when Kendra throws a little bit of the mud back, I find it hilarious to see the right wingers freaking out and getting their knickers all twisted up.

Back on the original track:

I think Rice will run if Hillary runs. This is a prime environment for Hillary to try: she may be EXTREMELY lib, but at this point the next election will likely be "well, we're not as corrupt as THOSE guys. I forgave my husband for lying about getting his knob polished, those guys sent thousands of our children to die and STILL don't admit they were wrong, and are breaking the law as we speak."

So Hillary could win just by not being Republican. The Reps know that, which is why they're trying to hard to dig up dirt (or plant it) on the Dems right now.

How do you beat the potential first woman President who is smart enough to say that standing by her husband indicates she values the sanctity of marriage?

Put up a potential first woman minority President that will say she held the auspice of her office above the activities of her compatriots.