Bush,conservatives, and Fascism

[jb_1430]

On the contrary, the win in 1994 was coined the "Republican Revolution" because of it's historic proportions and ramifications. For the first time in 40 years, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. It was much more than a "swing of the pendulum". Similarly, in 2006 it was the Democrats turn to post an historic victory. Ripping control of both houses from the Republicans and embarrassing the war mongering Bush administration. Again, much more than just a "swing of the pendulum".

Well, I dont recall the Clinton administration being embarrassed. The shift was even more significant in terms of seats in 94, about 74% MORE in 94 than it was in 2006. How can you consider the proportions of 2006 to be historic, when they were 74% HIGHER just 12 years earlier????? That would be like saying a company is liable for "HISTORIC proportions" of debt because they now owe $1 million, when in fact just 12 years earlier they owed $1.74 million. Pretty tortured arguement.

 

[Popeye]

Well, I dont recall the Clinton administration being embarrassed. The shift was even more significant in terms of seats in 94, about 74% MORE in 94 than it was in 2006. How can you consider the proportions of 2006 to be historic, when they were 74% HIGHER just 12 years earlier????? That would be like saying a company is liable for "HISTORIC proportions" of debt because they now owe $1 million, when in fact just 12 years earlier they owed $1.74 million. Pretty tortured arguement.

I'm saying both elections were historic. Last time the Republicans lost control it took them 40 years to get it back. Now, just a paltry 12 years later, they are once again in the minority. Unless fortunes change in Iraq you can look forward to more Republican losses in 2008, maybe even a Democratic president. I don't blame you for feeling pessimistic.

 

[Hard Driver]

Since it is the "Old American Century" that the cited site longs for, seems a foolish arguement to make if you compared the "nationalism" of today, to that of WWII America thru the 50s.

In case you don['t know, that is a play on words from the "project for the new american century" (PNAC). The PNAC is the neocon think tank that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feif, and Jeb Bush all liked to chum around during the Clinton administration and theorize about how to take out Saddam. The PNAC wrote such doozies like they believed that with the fall of the soviet union, this left America as the sole superpower in the world. THey thought this was the ticket to be use the military to forceably do what they believed was in the US interests, in particular establish military bases in Iraq after taking out Saddam.

The PNAC was even said that the implementation of their policies would be near impossible without a "new pearl harbor". Well Bush came into office and put basically most of the PNAC into his inner circle, then the "new pearl harbor" that the PNAC hoped for occured on 9/11 and these morons then got to implement their ignorant think tank theories, with the results that we all know now.

 

[Hard Driver]

My take is that this administation has facist desires, but that it is not possible to be a true facist state in America. SO this administration has just pushed in that direction with facist tendencies.

What is missing in this arguement is that acknowledgement of Straussian Theory. Leo Strauss was a big influence on this administration. He grew up in Facist Germany and wrote extensively about political theory. Straussian theory says such things like the government is allowed to make the "noble lie" in order to get what it needs and control the people. His theories also state that the government needs to have an external threat to unite the people behind the government and if an external threat does not exist, then create one.

The Bush administration has played the Straussian theory like their official game plan.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I'm saying both elections were historic. Last time the Republicans lost control it took them 40 years to get it back. Now, just a paltry 12 years later, they are once again in the minority. Unless fortunes change in Iraq you can look forward to more Republican losses in 2008, maybe even a Democratic president. I don't blame you for feeling pessimistic.

Just for your historical edification, the only time in this country's history that the President's party picked up any seats in Congress was in 2002.

 

[jb_1430]

The PNAC was even said that the implementation of their policies would be near impossible without a "new pearl harbor".

Sounds like you rely upon what you are told about the PNAC by others, when everything that the PNAC is, is put in writing and publically available. Or you are dishonest.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Yeah, I too would like to see the exact quote from the first-hand source.

 

[top gun]

Not that you would be expected to realize, but nothing there conflicts with my statement. BEFORE 2006 the Republicans had 55 seats, after they had 49. My #s are accurate and you are to ignorant to know any better.

You must be "ignorant"... I'd prefer to say confused if you think I'm arguing . I'm just saying the same thing I said all along. It's all about the huge gains and not the current split. You can only realistically pick up so many seats in just one election.

This trend will continue. That's good for America and obviously bad if you're a Republican.

 

[vyo476]

In case anyone is curious, here is a link to the report in question.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

I'm afraid you're wrong about what PNAC said in regards to the "new Pearl Harbor." If you flip to page 51 of the report (the 63rd page out of 90 in the PDF file above) you can see the Pearl Harbor quote. For your benefit I'll reproduce it below.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.

As you can see, they do not say that it would be "impossible" for their goals to come to pass without a "new Pearl Harbor," simply that it was going to take a long time.

If you really want to see how they thought people were going to take the report, refer to this section of the introduction (located on page iii, or page 10 of 90 on the PDF):

New circumstances make us think that the report might have a more receptive audience now than in recent years. For the first time since the late 1960s the federal government is running a surplus. For most of the 1990s, Congress and the White House gave balancing the federal budget a higher priority than funding national security. In fact, to a significant degree, the budget was balanced by a combination of increased tax revenues and cuts in defense spending. The surplus expected in federal revenues over the next decade, however, removes any need to hold defense spending to some preconceived low level.

Moreover, the American public and its elected representatives have become increasingly aware of the declining state of the U.S. military. News stories, Pentagon reports, congressional testimony and anecdotal accounts from members of the armed services paint a disturbing picture of an American military that is troubled by poor enlistment and retention rates, shoddy housing, a shortage of spare parts and weapons, and diminishing combat readiness.

Finally, this report comes after a decade's worth of experience in dealing with the post-Cold War world. Previous efforts to fashion a defense strategy that would make sense for today's security environment were forced to work from many untested assumptions about the nature of a world without a superpower rival. We have a much better idea today of what our responsibilities are, what the threats to us might be in this new security environment, and what it will take to secure the relative peace and stability. We believe our report reflects and benefits from that decade's worth of experience.

As you can see, PNAC obviously worked under the assumption that people were going to sit up and take notice of what they had to say - even if it was going to take a while to implement what they had to say.

That, as they say, is that.

 

[vyo476]

It's all about the huge gains and not the current split. You can only realistically pick up so many seats in just one election.

It was a gain. I'd hardly call it a "huge" gain since every time I pick up a newspaper one headline or another is shouting, "Democrats have insufficient numbers to pass anti-war legislation!"

Kind of like this one: http://www.yahoo.com/s/681894

We would appear to have different opinions on the word "huge."

 

[jb_1430]

Strauss wouldnt consider "to get what it needs" or to "control the people" to be very noble.

My take is that this administation has facist desires, but that it is not possible to be a true facist state in America. SO this administration has just pushed in that direction with facist tendencies.

What is missing in this arguement is that acknowledgement of Straussian Theory. Leo Strauss was a big influence on this administration. He grew up in Facist Germany and wrote extensively about political theory. Straussian theory says such things like the government is allowed to make the "noble lie" in order to get what it needs and control the people. His theories also state that the government needs to have an external threat to unite the people behind the government and if an external threat does not exist, then create one.

The Bush administration has played the Straussian theory like their official game plan.

 

[Popeye]

It was a gain. I'd hardly call it a "huge" gain since every time I pick up a newspaper one headline or another is shouting, "Democrats have insufficient numbers to pass anti-war legislation!"

All that proves is that the Democrats don't blindly follow their leaders, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. It hardly changes the fact that 2006 was without a doubt an election of huge gains for the Democrats.

 

[jb_1430]

You must be "ignorant"... I'd prefer to say confused if you think I'm arguing . I'm just saying the same thing I said all along. It's all about the huge gains and not the current split. You can only realistically pick up so many seats in just one election.

This trend will continue. That's good for America and obviously bad if you're a Republican.

Confused, I thought you were disputing my #s, alleging that I was quoting # before 2006 as being the #s after 2006.
Regardless, the shift in 94 was about 74% larger than it was in 2006. 2006 was a shift, not unprecedented, not unusual, not even particuliarly large historically. A shifting of the political winds that you seem desparate to characterize as a monumental event.

 

[Popeye]

Regardless, the shift in 94 was about 74% larger than it was in 2006. 2006 was a shift, not unprecedented, not unusual, not even particuliarly large historically. A shifting of the political winds that you seem desparate to characterize as a monumental event.

The fact remains, that with the monkey on the Republican's back commonly known as the Iraq war, things are looking good for the Democrats again in 2008. Considering that you still seem to be in a state of denial over 2006, you could be in for a long cold night on Nov. 4, 2008.

 

[jb_1430]

????? I suspect the Dems will likely take the presidency and some more seats in 2008 so I dont know what you are going on about or what you think I am in denial about ya freakin loon.

The fact remains, that with the monkey on the Republican's back commonly known as the Iraq war, things are looking good for the Democrats again in 2008. Considering that you still seem to be in a state of denial over 2006, you could be in for a long cold night on Nov. 4, 2008.