How unique are this administration's policies?

The Ed to Johnny Carson line: How unique is it?

I'm running around quite a bit today blatham but post and I'll be baaaaackkk...

Wednesday's always suck.. Work! Why do we bother?

OK...now let's go about this with a bit more care, and perhaps with some agreement as to what we are doing.

We came off of sozobe's thread wherein she had posed the rhetorical question (I'm paraphrasing, but this seems the question)..."Are my growing worries about this Bush administration justified...are they as extreme in policy and as covert in the forwarding of these policies as I am beginning to fear?"

My initial thesis was that sozobe has very good reason to be more than alert - alarmed and angry and fighting back is the appropriate response to what the Bush administration is attempting both externally and internally because the policies being forwarded are dangerously extremist (that's argument #1 and it divides into internal and external).

I also argue that the administration has not been adequately forthright (adequate for open and honest democratic debate by the citizenry) about the extent of their extremism either before the election or since, and that they are pushing these extremist policies (and the values/worldview behind them) effectively under the radar, to use sozobe's term (that's argument #2 and it divides into the underlying values/worldview issue and the issue of whether or not adequate forthrightness has been evidenced and thus whether they have anything even close to sufficient mandate.

So, #1 - extremist policies externally
- extremist policies internally
#2 - extremist worldview/values
- the administration has not been sufficiently forthright knowing that much of what they propose would be fought with vigor by citizens such as sozobe.

Now, if we are going to do this with any care at all, it's likely to be a slower process than normal. If someone says "That's just rhetoric" I'll want to hear a precise definition of 'rhetoric' and how it applies. I'd prefer not to engage in 'devil's advocate mode' with anyone who just wants a fight or with anyone who feels they have some duty to defend the administration come hell or high water. I actually am now mainly convinced that each of the above arguments are accurate and I won't at all mind discussing/arguing with others who see it differently SO LONG AS they are philosophically/psychologically prepared to inhabit the position that these arguments might reflect something close to reality. I may have it wrong too, either in estimation of the uniqueness or extremity of policy, or in my estimation of the influence of the evangelical wing of the party (though not regarding their nuttiness - on that I'm settled), or in the matter of forthrightness and mandate. I won't argue something I don't think relevant, nor try to 'score debating points' simply for the sake of that.

So, let's move with some carefullness such that we don't find a few dozen unresolved issues behind us while we merrily march forward.

fishin (or whomever)...I'll ask you to start by taking up which ever of these notions above you prefer...feel free to cut and paste from earlier thread. But let's keep it as narrowly focused as possible.

(note...I'll be fairly busy this week as well)

Blatham
Please take a stand.
Is it a popular Government in USA?