Fascists & Republican Party

>when did the fascists got control of the republican party?

Things began under Nixon, and during the Reagan election there were fights by the factions, i.e. power groups in America, to grab control of peoples in the Republican Party. Some of these emerging fascists are what people are calling neo-conservatives, but these ones come in different shades, and are allied to the various power groups. They are all, well, most of them, are using fascism to grab the last pinnacle of power in America. The Rothschild element literally tried to take out one of the American power group, but the group survived. It was injured for a time only, and is back in the ring to push its tier of fascism. All this was cemented in the 1980s.

Minds are already made up that fascism has to come to America, and this movement cannot be stopped!

As I said, the Democratic Party, nothing good can be expected from it either, as both parties are to blame, because all the power groups behind this are in both parties.

The Republicans and Democrats who are speaking out on what is to come, the mainstream press muzzles them out of the news, and so their voices are not heard.

The pattern you will most likely see with both the Republicans and the Democrats is to push things considered fascists. The mainstream media will not question (i.e. attack) their fascist angle, they will just go along with them. As I said before, the tiers of Democrats who want to hang on to power will have to become centrists, and soundings like Republicans a little, and the Republicans are now getting some centrists in them too. George Pataki is a centrist. Arnold Schwarzenegger will probably become a centrist for the Republican populace to trust him. It is a deceit to woo voters. Hillary is a centrist.

There is no way America can win this -- beating off fascism.

What is going on has been decided many years ago. The only ones who were not in the know was the American public. And with the Iraq war, the media have made people so naïve in supporting the war. It is very sad to see the sons and soon daughters (under Bush and others) being killed to push agendas of these shadow groups.

>do you think all the talk about federal reserve and
>social security reform will happen?

Yes. But nothing good will result. These are all agendas to injure America. The Federal Reserve will die, and also Social Security will die, and the Stock Market will die as well. If the power groups are fighting to divide America into zones, then maybe things will go that way. The concept of the United States of America is finished. What you have are the power groups implementing things to blame it on those things. I don’t think the public will ever be told the truth.

>do you think Schwarzenegger should be elected president
>before Hillary?

No.

From St. Loki:

Don't read unless you have a strong tummy for the vile and funny truth about Republicans.

http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/

You know it is true. 

“Fascism Anyone?” The 14 points
common to all fascist regimes. Regimes
like Hitler's, Mussolini's, Diam's,
Suharto's, Pinochet's, Franco's
and we must never forget Bush's.

1) Powerful and continuing nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make use of patriotic
mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other
paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere as
are patriotic symbols on clothing, public displays,
and cars.

2) Disdain for the recognition of human
rights
Because of the fear of enemies and the need
for security, the people in fascist regimes are
persuaded that human rights and civil liberties
can be ignored in certain cases because of
“need”. The people tend to look the other
way or even approve of torture, summary
executions, long incarcerations of prisoners
without trial, 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
a common threat or foe: ethnic or religious
minorities, liberals, communists, 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.

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. Opposition to abortion is high as is homophobia,
and anti-gay legislation as national policy.

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 common.

7) Obsession with national security
Fear is used as a motivational tool over the
masses.

8) Religion and government are intertwined
Governments in fascist regimes 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
and 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 for the 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 regimes tend to promote and tolerate
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 is openly attacked,
and governments often refuse to fund the
arts.

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 regimes are a
complete sham. Other times elections are
manipulated by smear campaigns or even assassination
of opposition candidates, use of
legislation to control voting numbers or political
district boundaries, and the manipulation
of the media. Fascist nations also tend to
use their judiciaries to manipulate or control
elections.

The true seal of the office.

In fact, several disturbing analogies exist between George W. Bush and history's most infamous fascist, Adolph Hitler: Both men assumed power in defiance of the will of the majority; both men used "great lies" to pursue their warmongering agendas; both men preyed upon humanity's basest instincts to disseminate those "great lies"; both men were appeased by the British government, Hitler through Neville Chamberlain and Bush through Tony Blair; both men were willing to use national tragedies to justify the destruction of civil liberties, Hitler through the burning of the Reichstag and Bush through the September 11th terrorist attacks; both men were/are suspected of either participating in, or ignoring warnings about the imminence of, these tragedies in order to enhance their political stature and power; both men demonstrated no compunction about exploiting a culture of death for political self-aggrandizement, Hitler through his well-publicized genocide campaigns, and Bush who, while governor of Texas, routinely denied DNA tests to death row inmates, even though such tests could prevent wrongful executions; both men were willing to appeal to racism, Hitler through his quest for a "master race," and Bush through his condemnation of affirmative action policies, which primarily benefit racial minorities. While denouncing such policies as "preferential treatment," Bush predictably displayed no such aversion to the preferential treatment enjoyed by wealthy white people, like himself, through a system of nepotism and cronyism; both men reveled in war and exploited the military to satiate their personal ambitions and vendettas; both men used war to enrich their political cronies; both men demonstrated contempt for international law and the concerns of the world community; and both men believed they were/are on some holy crusade inspired by a "divine province" that placed them into power.

The Mad Monk found this while planning world domination and practiceing some "SnM" on non-belivers.

Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.

By Ayelish McGarvey

Former President Jimmy Carter, America's first evangelical Christian president, still teaches Sunday school at his Baptist church in Plains, Georgia, and he and his wife, Rosalynn, continue their human-rights work in developing nations through the Carter Center at Emory University. In recent months, the Carters toured Togo, Ghana, and Mali to raise awareness of the public-health needs of those nations. In February, Carter spoke about the role of evangelical Christianity in democratic politics with Prospect writing fellow Ayelish McGarvey.

AM: Republicans have been extremely successful at connecting religion and values to issues like the fight against terrorism, abortion, and gay rights. Democrats have been far less adept at infusing our issues -- compassion, help for the poor, social justice -- with any sense of religious commitment or moral imperative. Why do you think that is?

JC: When I was younger, almost all Baptists were strongly committed on a theological basis to the separation of church and state. It was only 25 years ago when there began to be a melding of the Republican Party with fundamentalist Christianity, particularly with the Southern Baptist Convention. This is a fairly new development, and I think it was brought about by the abandonment of some of the basic principles of Christianity.

First of all, we worship the prince of peace, not war. And those of us who have advocated for the resolution of international conflict in a peaceful fashion are looked upon as being unpatriotic, branded that way by right-wing religious groups, the Bush administration, and other Republicans.

Secondly, Christ was committed to compassion for the most destitute, poor, needy, and forgotten people in our society. Today there is a stark difference [between conservative ideology and Christian teaching] because most of the people most strongly committed to the Republican philosophy have adopted the proposition that help for the rich is the best way to help even poor people (by letting some of the financial benefits drip down to those most deeply in need). I would say there has been a schism drawn -- on theology and practical politics and economics between the two groups.

AM: What has attracted conservative Christians to a party that protects corporate interests and promotes an aggressive foreign-policy agenda? How do those square?

JC: There is an element of fundamentalism involved, which involves the belief on the part of a human being that [his or her] own concept of God is the proper one. And since [he or she has] the proper concept of God, [he or she is] particularly blessed and singled out for special consideration above and beyond those who disagree with [him or her].

Secondly, anyone who does disagree with [him or her], since [he or she is] harnessed to God in a unique way, then, by definition, must be wrong. And the second step is if you are in disagreement with [his or her] concept of the way to worship, even among the Christian community, is that you are inferior to [him or her]. And then the ultimate progression of that is that you’re not only different and wrong and inferior but in some ways you are subhuman. So there’s a loss of concern even for the death of those who disagree. And this takes fundamentalism to the extreme. This is an element of the fundamentalist cause in this country. If you are a wealthy white man, then you are naturally inclined to think that the poor are inferior and don’t deserve your first consideration. If you are a wealthy white man, then you also take on the proposition that women are inherently inferior. This builds up a sense of prejudice and alienation that permeates the Christian right during these days.

AM: What issues do you see galvanizing moderate evangelicals as they go to the polls in November?

JC: I’ve been involved in national politics now for more than 25 years. But this year we will see the Democratic Party more united than ever before in my memory, and even the earlier history that I studied before my life began. I think we’re completely united with a determination to replace the Bush administration and its fundamentalist, right-wing philosophy with the more moderate qualities that have always exemplified what our nation is: a nation committed to strength in the military. I served longer in the military than any other president since the Civil War except Dwight Eisenhower. I was a submarine officer. I used the enormous and unmatched strength of America to promote peace for other people and preserve peace for ourselves.

Now it seems as though it is an attractive thing in Washington to resort to war in the very early stage of resolving an altercation; a completely unnecessary war that President Bush decided to launch against the Iraqis is an example of that. And I think that a reaction against that warlike attitude on the part of America to the exclusion of almost all other nations in the world -- and arousing fear in them -- is going to be a driving issue.

I think that the abandonment of environmental issues even endorsed by President Nixon when I was governor (as well as virtually all of the Republicans and Democrats) has been notable under the Bush administration. One of the things I learned as a young Baptist boy was to be a steward of the world that God blessed us to enjoy. And I think the abandonment of basic environmental standards by the Bush administration rallies us.

And I think the third thing is the obvious orientation of the Bush administration toward Halliburton, Enron, and other major corporations. You see this in the enormous tax reductions that have been granted to people that make more than $200,000 a year. That is another issue on which the Democrats will rally a common goal.

AM: Do you think that Democrats will be able to attract Bible-believing Christians in a year that gay marriage will be used as a smokescreen to distract attention from those issues?

JC: I think so. There isn’t a major candidate who has endorsed gay marriage; they are in favor of equal protection through a civil-union arrangement. I personally, in my Sunday-school lessons, don’t favor the religious endorsement of a gay marriage. But I do favor equal treatment under the law for people who differ from me in sexual orientation.

AM: What about abortion? How would you speak to moderate evangelicals who withhold support for Democratic candidates on that single issue?

JC: This was an issue that I had to face when I was campaigning 25 years ago. I have always been against abortion; it’s not possible for me in my own concept of Christ to believe that Jesus would favor abortion. But at the same time, I have supported the Supreme Court ruling of our country as the law of the land. And the present arrangement, whereby a woman is authorized to have an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy, or when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest -- these are the things that moderates who have beliefs like mine can accept as the present circumstances in our country. The liberality of abortion is anointed by the laws of our country, including the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court.

AM: How do you think the fundamentalist Christian right has misrepresented Christianity, as well as the democratic process?

JC: Well, what do Christians stand for, based exclusively on the words and actions of Jesus Christ? We worship him as a prince of peace. And I think almost all Christians would conclude that whenever there is an inevitable altercation -- say, between a husband and a wife, or a father and a child, or within a given community, or between two nations (including our own) -- we should make every effort to resolve those differences which arise in life through peaceful means. Therein, we should not resort to war as a way to exalt the president as the commander in chief. A commitment to peace is certainly a Christian principle that even ultraconservatives would endorse, at least by worshipping the prince of peace.

And Christ reached out almost exclusively to the poor, suffering, abandoned, deprived -- the scorned, the condemned people -- including Samaritans and those who were diseased. The alleviation of suffering was a philosophy that was enhanced and emphasized by the life of Christ. Today the ultra-right wing, in both religion and politics, has abandoned that principle of Jesus Christ’s ministry.

Those are the two principal things in the practical sense that starkly separate the ultra-right Christian community from the rest of the Christian world: Do we endorse and support peace and support the alleviation of suffering among the poor and the outcast?

AM: You spent so much of your career working toward a reasonable, peaceful solution to violence and strife in Israel and Palestine. Increasing attention has been paid to traditionalist evangelicals’ strong support for Israel, based on the New Testament prophecy that the reconstruction of the ancient kingdom of David will usher in the “end times” and the Second Coming of Christ. As a believer and a peacemaker, how do you respond to this?

JC: That’s a completely foolish and erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures. And it has resulted in these last few years with a terrible, very costly, and bloody deterioration in the relationship between Israel and its neighbors. Every president except for George W. Bush has taken a relatively balanced position between the Israelis and their enemies, always strongly supporting Israel but recognizing that you have to negotiate and work between Israel and her neighbors in order to bring about a peaceful resolution.

It’s nearly the 25th anniversary of my consummation of a treaty between Israel and Egypt -- not a word of which has ever been violated. But this administration, maybe strongly influenced by ill-advised theologians of the extreme religious right, has pretty well abandoned any real effort that could lead to a resolution of the problems between Israel and the Palestinians. And no one can challenge me on my commitment to Israel and its right to live in peace with all its neighbors. But at the same time, there has to be a negotiated settlement; you can’t just ordain the destruction of the Palestinian people, and their community and their political entity, in favor of the Israelis.

And that’s what some of the extreme fundamentalist Christians have done, both to the detriment of the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Topic: Tom Delay

Another of Bush's butt kissing bimbos. As is typical for modern American Politics, our losers oh I mean leaders are making asses of themselves yet again. The Washington Post and the New York Times have reported on yet another Washington scandal. This one involving Republican Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay. According to these sources, DeLay paid his wife and daughter more than $500,000 of his political donors' money over the last few years. In addition to this they report about a slightly less than ethical 1997 trip DeLay took to the Bahamas that was paid for by a Russian business interest. Furthermore this distinguished gentlemen chose to grandstand during the Terri Schiavo tragedy. I and a great majority of my people in this country feel this was both political convenience and opportunism. The straw that broke the camel's back for me your holy leader was the simple fact that some Republicans in Congress are speaking out against DeLay's action, but most are afraid of his Right-Wing power network of corporate and bible belt donors. We need to show all of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, that if they stand up to Tom DeLay we've got their back. America can only grow into the nation that we dream of when the people take a stance against the tsunami of nuts jobs that put the FUN in Christian fundamentalism.

Republican Leader Tom Delay's "dirty dozen" scandals :

1. Delay raises corporate cash for TRMPAC.
2. Delay bribes congressman to vote for medicare.
3. Delay uses taxpayer money for partisan stunt.
4. Delay pays for golf tournaments with cash meant for kids.
5. Delay promises 'seat at table' for donor.
6. Delay takes money from texas prison company with legislation pending.
7. Delay blocks legislation for partisan vendetta.
8. Delay takes shady donations for legal defense fund.
9. Delay leaves ethics behind on european vacation.
10. Delay leaves house rules behind on asian vacation.
11. Delay kicks ethics out of House of Representatives.
12. Delay tries to change rules to protect power.

From St. Roxy:

April 9, 2005

[recipient address was inserted here]


[recipient name was inserted here],

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose attempts to increase fines
for broadcast television and to restrict free speech on cable TV and even
Internet. I strongly believe expanding “indecency” fines and other
censorship, especially to cable TV and Internet, is inappropriate since
these are forms of entertainment that people voluntarily choose. I do
not believe the government should restrict the free flow of ideas and
information through these channels.

When our forefathers granted right of free speech, I highly doubt they
were only addressing the upper echelon of politics. Politicians and
those in Washington are free to speak their minds on issues that they
shouldn't address (Terry Shiavo), but I can't choose to pay for a service in my
own home that is uncensored? Why are we censoring cable television and not
the messages of fear and ignorance that our President spits out on a
daily basis?

I have read that the House of Representatives has already passed
legislation dramatically increasing fines for "indecency" on broadcast
radio and television. I understand that some Senators intend to try to
increase these fines and expand their use to satellite and cable TV as
well.

No one has adequately been able to define "indecency." Already
broadcasters and speakers are very wary of running afoul of the FCC.
For example, some ABC stations refused to air "Saving Private Ryan" during
Veterans Day out of fear of incurring fines due to language contained
in the movie. Increasing fines will further chill speech in order to avoid
possibly ruinous fines.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made it clear that cable and
satellite are different than the broadcast media because one has to make the
choice to subscribe to the service. And, technology is available to block
cable channels the consumer does not want in their homes. Expanding
"indecency" to cable and satellite would be clearly unconstitutional, and would
severely chill speech in that medium.

Once again, I urge you to oppose attempts to restrict free speech on
cable TV and even the Internet.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.

Sincerely,

(St. Roxy)

With apologies to George Tenet, the first 100 days of President Bush's second term have been no slam-dunk.

How rough has it been? Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president at this point in his second term, according to Gallup polls going back to World War II.

Bush's erosion of support among independents in particular has helped bring his overall approval rating down to 45 percent. Fort-nine percent disapprove of his performance.

Compare Bush's numbers, as of the most recent Gallup poll, to the previous six presidents who served second terms:

• Clinton: 59 percent approval versus 35 percent disapproval
  
  
• Reagan: 56 percent versus 37 percent disapproval
  
  
• Nixon: 57 percent versus 34 percent
  
  
• Johnson: 69 percent versus 21 percent
  
  
• Eisenhower: 65 percent versus 20 percent
  
  
• Truman: 57 percent versus 24 percent

True enough, Bush's numbers weren't all that high to begin with. In the last Gallup poll before the election, he was at 48 percent approval to 47 percent disapproval -- yet he still won and helped his party in the process.

But because second terms are often so difficult for presidents, Bush needs his support to improve in order to avoid historic trends that often see the party of the president in power losing ground after re-election.

Only 38 percent of respondents said they believed Bush had done an excellent or good job in his first 100 days, compared to 58 percent who believed he had done a fair or poor job, according to a poll conducted March 31 to April 1 by Westhill Partners and the National Journal's Hotline.

People will analyze the data differently. But here are a few things that I believe have hurt the administration in the last few months:

• Overconfidence: The president beamed with confidence after his November defeat of John Kerry. After the election, Bush told a news conference, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style." This statement was certainly no surprise, given that Bush governed as though he had a clear mandate even after losing the popular vote by a half-million to Al Gore in 2000. But the reality of Bush's victory in 2004 was that he won with 50.7 percent of the popular vote to Sen. John F. Kerry's 48.2 percent. You'd have to back to at least the early 1800s to find a president who has been re-elected by a closer margin.
  
  

  The nation remains nearly evenly divided, yet Bush came out of the blocks as if he'd won by a Reaganesque landslide.

• Social Security: By the time Bush began pushing his first round of tax cuts in 2001, he had already been advocating the issue for two years, starting as a candidate in 1999. Bush made the issue his first priority, deploying his proven communications apparatus to make the case that the cuts benefited middle-class people and small business owners. By the time Bush took the nation to war in March 2003, he had been building his case, piece-by-piece, for months. But during his reelection campaign, he said little about Social Security. Had he made it a major issue, Kerry might be sitting in the White House today, a point that is reinforced by the reluctance of voters to accept Bush's proposal today. Democrats certainly would have been able to use the issue to bludgeon Bush among older voters, who also comprise the most reliable block of voters.
  
  

  After the election, Bush signaled clearly that Social Security reform would be the first domestic priority of his second term, putting the issue on the table before clearly laying out the case for the need to make changes. Democrats, defying their recent inability to coalesce around anything controversial, came together on this issue and quickly used their historic advantage on Social Security to define the debate before the White House. The administration is still playing catch-up, even working to overcome skeptical Republicans. Meanwhile, most polls show the public is strongly opposed to private accounts.

• Terri Schiavo: Bush declined to cut short his vacation after the southeast Asian Tsunami disaster, even as it became clear that it would be of epic proportions. Then, months later, he interrupted another vacation in Texas to fly back to Washington in the middle of the night to sign legislation, pushed through in a rare weekend session, designed to keep a severely brain-damaged Florida woman alive. The actions of Bush and his party appeared to deviate from their stated principles supporting states' rights and the sanctity of marriage and their opposition to judge shopping. Most polls have shown widespread disapproval of the president's handling of the issue, even among Republicans.
  
  
• Iraq: The recent Iraqi elections gave supporters of the president's foreign policy something to cheer about. But then the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- which had been created reluctantly by the president -- issued a scathing report about the CIA's intelligence failures leading up to the war. Fortunately for the White House, the commission was tasked with analyzing the intelligence-gathering agencies, and not how the president and other policy makers used the intelligence to make the case for war. The administration has long maintained, essentially, that everyone in the world believed that Hussein was building WMD. But there was never anything close to unanimity within the intelligence community about Hussein's stockpiles or capability to deliver them. Whatever the case, the public remains dissatisfied about the president's handling of Iraq, with 41 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving, according to the Westhill Journal poll.
  
  
• The economy: A majority of Americans -- 56 percent according to the Westhill poll -- oppose the president's handling of the economy. Republicans are even feuding even among themselves about the president's agenda, disagreeing on whether to push for a new round of tax cuts or to focus on tackling a massive federal budget deficit that clearly now is more than just a short-term problem.

For the first time in his presidency, Bush made a real effort to cut and slow spending, but his budget barely nips at the edges of the massive inequity between government revenues and spending. The signature economic achievements of Bush's first months of his second term -- new laws restricting class action lawsuits and bankruptcy protections -- could be two issues that resonate little with Joe and Jane Sixpack. Congress has already pushed through legislation designed at curbing class action lawsuits -- a top priority of the corporate lobby. And the Senate has passed a bill that would make it much more difficult for people to declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy, another corporate top priority. The House appears poised to pass a similar piece of legislation.

What difference does it make that Bush poll numbers appear to be weak on all of the major issues that have come up so far in his second term? One of the enduring realities of the American presidency is that second terms are often politically tougher than first terms. What's unusual in Bush's case is that the public's typical second-term disillusionment began so early. In one sense, this matters little because Bush will never run for another election. But it could be an early sign of trouble for his party, especially when you consider that the Republican-run Congress's approval rating has dropped to its lowest point in nearly a decade, with only 40 percent or fewer approving of the job it is doing, according to several recent polls.

Among political professionals, the campaign season runs continuously. So even though there's little news about it in the nation's papers and broadcasts, both parties are already in the thick of candidate recruitment for the 2006 midterm congressional elections. Much is at stake. Elections in the sixth year of a presidency are typically perilous territory for the party of the president in power.

"There have been six of these elections in the post-World War II era (1950, 1958, 1966, 1974, 1986, and 1998). The average loss for the White House in these sixth year elections has been six Senate seats -- double the overall midterm average loss of three seats," wrote Larry J. Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, in a recent analysis.

A loss of six seats for Republicans would put Democrats back in control of the Senate. But averages are nothing more than academic debating points. In truth, each election has its own dynamic.

Clinton's Democrats lost no seats in 1998's "Sixth Year Itch." But Eisenhower, who began his second term with significantly more popularity than Bush, saw his party lose 13 seats in the Senate in the 1958 midterm election.

"[Bush] got no real bounce out of the election," said nonpartisan election analyst Stuart Rothenberg. "He has had an ambitious but controversial agenda and doesn't start off with widespread support. And I think it's relevant a couple ways, both down the road and over the next six months. First it will affect candidate recruitment. And it will also impact his ability to intimidate the Hill."

Some left-wing activists are becoming increasing engaged in an effort to defeat the bankruptcy bill in the House. They appear to be energized not only by the president's troubles on the economy, but by their anger at the 18 Democrats broke ranks to support the bill in the Senate.

And the Schiavo case may complicate the GOP's efforts on other parts of its domestic agenda, particularly the nomination of conservative Bush appointees to the bench. Democrats are planning to use the Schiavo case -- and the disparaging comments made by congressional Republican leaders about the judges in that case -- to argue against the elimination of the filibuster in judicial nominations, which some Republicans are advocating.

Of course, none of Bush's problem matters if the Democrats can't get on the same page. Already the party has shown deep fissures on the Schiavo case as well as the class-action lawsuit and bankruptcy bills. Nearly as many Democrats voted for the Schiavo bill as voted against it, which will complicate the party's efforts to make a sustained case about GOP extremism in coming months.

The Republican triumph of 2004 was less about the electorate's overwhelming love for the Bush agenda than it was about the failure of Kerry and the Democrats to present an enticing and viable alternative and a cohesive vision for the future.

As it stands today, there's little evidence -- outside of the Social Security issue -- that the Democrats have changed all that much since Kerry's defeat in November. They don't appear positioned to take advantage of Bush's dropping poll numbers any more than Republicans are queuing up behind the president as a strong leader of the party. It seems in some ways that both parties are doing their best to lose.

If you ever wondered how much a war costs go here: http://costofwar.com/

Oh Yeah! 

"There should be limits to Freedom." - George W. Bush (May 26, 1999)

This nation is on the verge of a major alteration. Mr. Bush's Senate could be on the doorsteps of a momentous decision - which means it will be a total abortion of the United States Constitution. One clear consequence of this action will reverberate across America for decades to come. Senator Frist, the Republican Majority Leader and Bush's butt kissing bimbo, has a plan to make his President's judicial nominees immune to a Senate filibuster. If frisky Frist can convince enough Republican Senators to go along, the nomination and confirmation of judges will become a tightly-controlled, one-party affair. And, we all know that W likes to get together will all his friends down in Crawford for an Armadilla’ BBQ. The Senate's actions are a major affront to American History. How dare this Congress cross this dangerous line? First Mr. Bush wanted the power to say who lives and dies. When his legislation failed in the courts the next logical move for America's Hitler is to alter the face of the American Justice System. By forging a neo-conservative-guilty-until-proven-innocent fascist state, this New American Order will be lorded over by religious demi-gods who love only those that thump the Bible. I can not agree with, nor understand how, our country can hold up religious freedom and tolerance to the world as our mantel when Bush and his Right-Wing coalition deny it to American's. God Bless America and no one else!