The troubling thing here is that surely some of the core-elite in the WH cannot fail to realize the possible (likely ?) outcomes of the tactics being used to advance this "agenda"?

I know that I am not alone in seeing parallels between the culture and strident tones of parts of "middle America" and Germany in the early 1930's. The calls for "renewal", "moral rectitude". "Rightous empowerment" and the certainty that "the leaders knew" what was best. The enlistment of a disgruntled populace (parts of them anyway) who felt that their country had lost its way. Abdication of all sorts of powers "in the interest of national good". Tightly controlled meetings. The list goes on and on.

I know that many of those in power probably aren't aware of such things or at least consider that lunatic fringe. There have to be at least a few in the inner-inner-circle who see the parallels and possible outcome, yet persist in spite (or because) of this.

These thoughts are more troubling to me than the policies on the surface. In his own way, Reagan set the tone and miserable spitefulness with shudderingly greedy, stupid positions such as "ketchup = vegetable". Horrifying.

Here is the front-page article I wrote for an online (though our schools server) group that I am forming on campus. Mary, I believe we have some confusion on the dates. By 1890 hadn't the populist movement begun to take hold. I thought it was the 1880's that was truly the heart of the gilded age. Of course you would probably know more then me on this issue, but anyway here is the article.

The new American populist (yea, yea, I know the name is pretentious).

A meeting place for the new leftist movement in this country, in the tradition of the 1890's populist movement.

The new (and old) American populist history:

The gilded age was a terrible time for almost every worker within the United States economy. While the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers sat on their idle thrones, farmers, factory workers, railroad builders, women and children worked endlessly for pennies. It wasn’t until the fledging populist movement of the 1880’s (which coincidently enough started in Midwest states like Kansas and Missouri) gained steam in the 1890’s that some sanity in terms of wealth distribution was brought to this country. Labor Unions formed, government took over the railroad system, excess crops were bought so prices wouldn’t be driven down to the point of poverty for the small farmer. It was truly a time of reckoning for the American public, though not nearly complete. Today economic collapse in terms of unfair wealth distribution doesn’t happen so quickly. Such sudden changes would lead to massive economic overthrow by the general populace, and the Vanderbilts of our time would end up loosing money. No, the rich are much more subtle in their ways nowadays. Through the slow creep of economic disparity (mainly started in 1980’s under Reagan), the United States is moving toward another gilded age. Don’t believe me? In the 1979 a CEO whose company was traded on the Dow Jones industrial average made 42 times their average employee. Today, it is 300 times. This is only one of the shocking truths lying behind the new gilded age. Hopefully the American worker will again see the light of day, in the neo-populist movement.

For more info, check out the homepage link (which actually leads to an article by "the nation")

Lets look at things realistically, Reagan put everything he'd got into ridding the world of the murderous poison of communism (the american lefts eastern cousin), and by god are we better off without it?
Bush has took it upon himself to rid the world of the vast terrorist threat (90% of which comes from the islamic world, therefore islamic jihadist terrorism). A bold challenge that even the harshest anti-Bush critic has to respect him for ; deep down. But until Bush and his administration realise the key to understanding the terrorist lies within the muslims religious tenets and the koran, he has no hope of acheiving that goal, especially when he comes out with arse-headed comments like "islam is a religion of peace" (more like a religion of pieces of bodies) further confusing the public when they see the photos of muslims the world over burning american flags, chopping heads off western civilians, blowing themselves up to murder jews and iraqi civilians (oh sorry Kaffir collaborators) and seeing on the news that yet another country with a muslim population is at civil war due to it's islamic demographic causing mayhem.
But I try to convince myself that at least the threat is being met with resistance, whereas had Gore been in power on 9/11 it would not have been, nor would it had Kerry taken the reins last year.

I also think to myself, how come this islamic terrorist threat has been around throughout the nineties, yet only after the most devastating attack America has ever witnessed on her own soil ; was something done to fight it (despite the many warnings....IE- every mad imam and cleric in the middle east, and his mom threatening to wage a jihad on the liberal west)?
And then the answer comes leaping to mind "BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WERE IN POWER THROUGHOUT THE NINETIES!"

Now I'm no fan of Bush, in fact I think he's a dork, and I had simular opinions of Reagan..... but both of them stood up to the major threats to our civilization, of the west, in their respective times.
Who knows maybe if Clinton had've took it upon himself to fight terrorism during the nineties (instead of sticking his nose into Serbia's buisness) they'd have been significantly weakened, and perhaps enough that 9/11 may never have happened..... we can all dream though can't we?

K.A.,
Did it ever occur to you that the Democrats WERE fighting the terrorists and that's why no major attack happened on their watch? Go read yesterday's f**king headlines. Your dorky boy knew there was probably going to be an attack, and didn't care enough to pay attention to the warnings. I am sick to death of people like you who think they can rewrite history and cloak this asshole president in a mantle of heroism. Bush "standing up" to terrorism? Give me a break. Kidnapping and torturing innocent people isn't fighting terrorism. It's the destruction of everything our country is supposed to represent. That will be Bush's legacy.

couldn't agree more susan....i too am sick and tired of these clowns blaming clinton and the democrats for everything wrong in the world...9/11 HAPPENED ON BUSH'S WATCH...HE WAS WARNED AN HE LET IT HAPPEN...HE FAILED US...then used his failure for political gain...ronald reagan bankrupted the country..and in iran-contra was either a god damned liar or as dumb as a bag of hammers...take your pick

KA

How many Muslims do you know? How many have you cared to know? And exactly where do the Christians fall in your preconception of the world? You know the ones that flout White Supremacy, burn crosses, advocate the killing of MD's who perform abortions but cannot offer to adopt the child of the mother wrangling with the decision, and how bout the ones that agree with the "Crusade," that is mentioned in some of GW's speeches? You know what connotations that brings to mind?

Are you truly speaking of something you intrinsically know about, or something that is spoon fed to you that you regurgitate at will? I know a few Muslims, dark skinned and "caucasian," that speak of peace and the need, not for tolerance, but for acceptance of others for who they are and what they stand for.

According to your arguments, all Middle Eastern Muslims are evil. Is this what you want me to believe? Have you read the Koran or are you wrapped so tightly in the Bible that you cannot see what exactly is out there? Do you believe in the Old Testament or the tenants Jesus taught us?

I bet we can find Bible passages just as antiquated as the ideas you spouted in your above argument.

I fear KA, the only 'arse-head' here is you...

With the release of the study about the FAA warnings and the memo from Clarke, it would appear that the "tinfoil hatted" lefties were correct in their assessment that Dubya and the posse were using the 9-11 attacks like their own little Reichstag fire. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck?

K.A.,

It's a wonderful world when you can just pick and choose which facts you will pay attention to.

The current crop of Islamic radicals are largely a problem because Reagan and Bush's daddy allowed the CIA to train and finance their organization into the bands of murdering thugs that they are as part of your much vaunted fight against the communist scurge. Bill Clinton did not help to establish radical Islam. Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush did throughout the 1980's and early 1990's.

Dipshit.

bin laden determined to strike in us

geez, pdb, that sounds serious. I better think about that one for a while.

now watch this drive.

KA...you do realize that it appears that the Iraqi's have recently elected as the majority of leaders who will be developing a constitution in their country, religious Islamists and muslims who believe in using the tenets of their relgious faith as guideline and part of the institution for Iraqi rule of law. You know the exact type of thing you say W is brave to be taking the fight against and is trying to prevent.

So how is this War against islamist terrorism succeeding again by having an islamist-muslim theocracy now in power in Iraq?

Heard a great line recently.

"George W. Bush makes Nixon look honest, makes Reagan look intelligent, and makes his father look articulate."

AP poll has W. at 45% approval. Some mandate, eh, trolls. Relative to the 9/11 stuff, have those on the right actually thought about how hard it must have been NOT to have been alarmed by all the warnings. To ignore even the dire warnings by the WH's own Terror experts. To take NO action when virtually all the intelligence agencies were seeing a "red" threat. To simply go on vacation while every person involved in monitoring terrorists were screaming about iminent attacks. But yet the core group at the top, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rummy did nothing.

...didn't they want something similar to Pearl Harbor so they could go after the ME? I think I heard something about that somewhere.....terrorist warnings WILLFULLY ignored? hmmmmm - or maybe indeed they are dumb as a box of rocks

There's only one problem withyour thesis: Reagan was demonstrably NOT an honorable man. He pushed a bogus cargo cult tax theory called supply-side economics which even his VP admitted was voodoo economics. And he lied his ass off about Iran-Contra and his Central American policy in general. His administration provided cover for massacres in El Salvador and genocide in Guatemala.

Its hard to earn the title "honoroable man" when you have aided and abetted massacres and genocide -- and lied about it to boot.

Mary:Excellent observations. I too was pondering recently how the Republicans have gone from a first wave movement under Reagan where a competent (though misguided) adminsitration was with the exception of Iran-Contra able to keep a successful facade up for eight years. The early wave of any movement is usually more competent.

Now after 20 or more years we see the later wave hangers on many of whom are simply riding the train for power and wealth. 911 truly harmed America in that it gave a group of lesser ability ideolouges who came into office with serious doubts about the legitimacy of their election or selection a powerful tool to scare the masses with. Mixing fear and nationalism brews a potent drink that when overconsumed can lead to disaster.

Chris65203: You're basically correct about the reform movement gaing steam in the 1890's. According to Wikipedia in 1888 all reform movements, including prohibition, got around 4% of the vote and carried no states. In 1892 the Populist party alone got 9% and recieved electorial votes from six midwestern and western states.

The hammer is clearly down when the left looks back at Reagan with benign nostalgia (nothwithstanding their forgetfulness of the intransigence and vituperation against him at the time). We're on the Right track.

BTW, congrats on the new DNC chairman. There, I said it with a straight face.

I am proud to say that my Representative to Congress voted NAY on the Real ID Act that would give the Secretary of Homeland Security absolutely unchecked authority to construct "barriers and fences" around our borders.

"Bush wants his legacy to be that he brings about the right-wing vision of a perfect society - a society where people don't depend on government like the golden years of the 1890s."

But to do this, they're making government bigger, and entertwining it with all aspects of our lives. Then, when they succeed in 'starving the beast,' what does that do to us? We're in the belly of the beast, or even at the heart of it, so when the beast goes, so do we.

These folks seem to think they're in a different boat from the rest of the country. Not so. We're all in this ark together, and these twits are drilling large holes in the hull!

Idjuts. Every one of 'em.

Ed

Just pulled this off of the AP wire:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Consumers' confidence has fallen dramatically over the past month, reaching a 16-month low, and economists say the political debate over revamping Social Security probably is a major factor in the decline.

The AP-Ipsos consumer confidence index sank to 79.1 in February, down sharply from 92.5 in January. February's showing was the worst since October 2003.

The latest reading on consumer confidence was taken after the State of the Union address, where President Bush made clear his desire to overhaul the retirement program that pays out benefits to millions of Americans; the Federal Reserve raised interest rates for a sixth time since June and signaled higher rates in the future; and a government report that showed sluggish job gains.

Dang, thats a quick and deep drop in Consumer Confidence. Coupled with AP's poll showing 58% now feel the country is on the wrong track and one has to wonder how long it will be before the GOPers up for mid-term election will start jumping from USS BushCo. I'd love to see Bush work his magic with a Dem Senate majority the last two years. I bet there'd be some "investigatin" going on.

Goldilocks economy!

It's amazing to see the negative posts on the economy here. It's like you folks don't know squat about economics. Low unemployment. 3-4% GDP. Enough new jobs to pick up the new workers coming in, but not too many to put pressure on labor.

What's the stock market projecting the economy will look like 6 months out...?

I thought it was the 1880's that was truly the heart of the gilded age.

Looking for the heart of the "Gilded Age" (thank God for Mark Twain) is probably less important than understanding that it was Wilson who hammered it kinda sorta flat in 1914. You cannot peg the end to Sherman Antitrust because that act was actually used against unions rather than trusts (business). But the oligarchs never left us. In some rare instances we had visionary leadership (Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson -please don't abuse me over Vietnam here- the Great Society was a shining example of the last of the new deal democrats).

Lets look at things realistically

Okay, I'll help you do so. The British Mandate set the stage for what we are seeing in the Middle East. Through their incompetence, cruelty, racism, internment of Muslims and use of concentration camps they felt their "white mans burden" demanded of them, they set us on the path that led to these horrific and oppressive governments in the Middle East. Since that time U.S. and western policies have further exacerbated the economic conditions of those living under these regimes. The majority of Muslims in the world are dirt poor largely because of the failure of the west to identify the abasement of these people as having some possible future impact on our society. These radical Muslim elements started about 80 years ago, and are largely the response of a once great people to the oppression they experience on a daily basis. It must be difficult (as for many of us who lived through the 50s, 60s, and early 70s in the U.S.) to realize your once great society is no more. People will try to assign cause for what they perceive as the root cause of their degradation and eradicate it, or change it. For example: You are being told Islam is the cause of your degradation by the idiot son, and you belleve it.

"islam is a religion of peace" In Nazi Germany Christianity was a religion of death camps and exterminations.

Reagan put everything he'd got into ridding the world of the murderous poison of communism

Reagan ran massive budget deficits, gutted social programs, and gave huge corporate welfare to business. His ideas about economic growth from tax cuts were dead wrong, and after ten years of his policy economic growth did an amazing thing and grew...directly in proportion to population growth. A zero-sum game. If you really want to assign cause for the fall of the Soviet Union you need to go a bit further and examine Ostpolitick. The Soviets were slowly imploding under their massive military armaments and repressive policies well before Reagan came along. Amazingly, these are some of the same policies the idiot son supports: massive military spending and nothing for the people while the apparatchiks get the spoils.

"BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WERE IN POWER THROUGHOUT THE NINETIES!"

Yes, except for the part the idiot son's dad fucked-up (why don't you ever state idiot Bush I failed to eradicate the problem when he had a chance). With Dems in office you saw business growth and a good market. History shows it always gets better under the Dems, but back to your point: So it is Clinton's fault that Condi and the idiot son did nothing mid-2001 when the threat became imminent? Man, you are really able to connect the dots on this one.

(instead of sticking his nose into Serbia's buisness)

And you've proven you're a common type of moron. What kind of neo-con are you? One of those evangelical snake kissers, or just the more common uneducated white cracker?

It's amazing to see the negative posts on the economy here.

Not really.

It's like you folks don't know squat about economics.

Well, we don't drink the Bush triumphalist Kool-Aid, if that's what you mean.

Low unemployment.

Due to reduced workforce participation, not creation of jobs.

3-4% GDP.

Still lower, per-capita, than Europe (And that's from Goldman-Sachs research, btw, so you'd better have a good source if you are going to disagree).

Enough new jobs to pick up the new workers coming in, but not too many to put pressure on labor.

This is just wrong. Not enough new jobs to cover population growth, and a steady stream of people dropping out of the workforce is more like it.

Would that be the Enron stock market? Nuff said.

Would that be the Enron stock market? Nuff said.

Would that be the Enron stock market? Nuff said.

Apologize for the triple posts. But at least it's a point worth repeating.

Daniel, I know you like to editorialize and try to justify why you believe the official numbers are wrong. But, these are the numbers we have and the numbers we historically use to gauge the health of the US economy.

Lets just use the 5.2% unemployment rate and the 3-4% GDP rate in US terms. The Fed historically has a target of 3-4% GDP and has claimed that 5% unemployment is "full employment." We're there.

We also need approx 150,000 new jobs to handle new workers coming into the workforce. We're right around that number. A few thousand on either side.

In response to this economic condition, the Fed is normalizing interest rates. If we see job growth significantly above what we're currently seeing, and unemployment dip below 5%, we'll see more aggressive rate hikes from the Fed as they try and tap on the brakes to cool the economy.

Sure, Im be happy to return to the glorious 1890's where people didn't depend on the government. As soon as I get my 40 acres of land to homestead I will be completely self sufficient.

Prol troll

People may not have depended on the government in the 1890's (they depended on their neighbors-try that in a crack infested 'hood today) but large corporations sure did. Anyone remember the Railroad Land Grants? Or how about the fact that the Sherman Anti-trust Act was used against unions?

True free enterprize economics is a myth expounded by those who usually think that they will benefit by applying the theory to everyone except themselves.

First Anthony, I'M NOT A FUCKING CHRISTIAN,I'M AN ATHEIST, I'VE MET PLENTY OF MUSLIMS , the ones integrated into western society, feeling the secular elements of civilization, cannot be compared to the raging religious lunatics dominated by sharia law and the wahabbi sects instructions.
Christianity isn't a global movement whose religious tenets specifically require it's adherents to make war on the unbelievers until the entire world is ruled under sharia law.... thats the top and bottom of it. Good and "evil" aren't in it, I'm sure the nuttiest, most fundamentalist muslim believes he's trying to make the world a better place, but the truth is anyone whose killing people and declaring and waging war based; all on the demented rantings of a peadophile claiming the koran is the instructions of "allah" himself, who died 1400 years ago is insane and they are a danger to us all.... as is the piece of shit religion they follow. Like all religions it needs banning, but islams definaitely the worst of a bad bunch.
You're all so fucking ignorant, the reasons you critisize christians and jews, are the precise reasons you should be critisizing muslims.

Christianity used to be a dangerous religion, and it's followers violent devine psycos.... but the fact is, it's matured with age. As society has become more secular, christianity has evolved.... chritianity allows it's followers to question things and choose whether they believe or not.
Islam doesn't, anyone who leaves the religion is to be executed under sharia law, and the ideology of it allows for no deviation from it's set routines and beliefs, nor does it give room for questioning it..... therefore muslims' mental growth is stunted, it leaves them in a kind of limbo where they are isolated from the rest of the world, where they believe they are right, their ways are the norm and everyone else is wrong, is angering their god, and must be shown the error of their ways, either by conversion, death or dhimmitude.

Do some research, it might surprise you.