Is the Bush administration "conservative"?

Bush is not a fascist.

His dad is. Cheney is. Rumsfeld is. Ashcroft is.

Their little house slaves Powell and Rice can't make up for the fact that these men are fascists and even neo-nazist in their blatant racism. I'm sorry, but these guys are an insult to Republicans, to the military, and to security agencies. They're lunatics and it's about time they are removed.

I think they called it, "compassionate" something or other.....

I screwed up--voted before I read the instructions--just like being back in school all over again!

Anyhow I mean to choose "radical reactionary"--not "radical"!

Wolf,

I am somewhat disheartened by your seeming hatred of the current administration, not that I feel you are holding back, but i would invite you to speak to some of the few remaining people who actually lived through WWII under the governments of either Hitler or Mousselini and ask them to compare living then compared to living in America. I think you will find that our current administration doesn't even come close to the type of oppression that you perceive.

We are in the middle incipient stage of fascism - the only reason it is not that bad.

I think the Bush Administration is driving liberals nuts.

As the oldest democracy in the world, we would hope we have learned a thing or two in over 50 years. c.i.

Probably true. Kind of how it was for the conservatives under Clinton.

My only comment would be: There's good reason for liberals to be outraged over Bush. What was it about Clinton that incensed the righties for eight years?

They were jealous! c.i.

What incensed the neo-cons is that Clinton interrupted their march into their own vision of a brave new world order which they believed they had begun under Reagan.

Wailing and gnashing of teeth--the new sound of political discourse in Amer-ee-kay . . .

In some ways, the Bush administration is less worse than Hitler's national-socialism. It hasn't effectuated a holocaust, at least not in the open.

But behind the screens, oh boy. Do I dare to say the three letter word that we still erroneously call an intelligence agency...?

The harm that has been done by covert operations, and that is still done all over the world, is immeasurable. Tens of thousands of innocent families have been caught in the game of overthrowing democratically elected governments, and have died or gone heartbroken by the loss of family members.

The upgrade from the Schutz-Staffeln is that the intelligence agency's operations are totally hidden from the broad public. But look for the retrospect testimonies of some courageous whistleblowers and you might learn a lot. You might also discover what the Bush family is all about.

What went on from 1981 to 1989, and what's going on since 2000, can only be called pure fascism.

I notice that no one here has defined him/herself in terms of the categories listed in the poll...

I was a radical as a youth, and have now mellowed to liberal . . . if i live to, say, 150, i might make it to moderate . . .

I wanna change my vote! I voted radical as in extreme, not far left liberal.

I'd say I'm between radical and liberal, but closer to liberal.

I guess I'm a radical.

ha ha, let's play a game, ok?

Changing just a few words:

"What incenses the "progressives" is that Bush interrupted their march into their own vision of a brave new world order which they believed they had begun under Clinton.

Wailing and gnashing of teeth--the new sound of political discourse in Amer-ee-kay...."

Yeah, that about covers it...

These Bushbaughs haven't an original thought available to them. Nope. They bop into a discussion and, instead of adding anything new and interesting, they simply turn around every word written by the previous poster and then add the name Clinton, and then away they go. Suggest they not waste the time. A computer could react more interestingly to the posts here than the Bb's.

I'm a mixture of a few categories. Not a radical. Not a reactionary.

As a liberal, I do "believe that the government should be actively involved in the promotion of social welfare of a nation's citizens. Liberals usually call for peaceful, gradual change within the existing political system. They reject violent revolution as a way of changing the way things are, often called the status quo."

Where I differ with this is that my view of the PURPOSE of governments (fed, state, local) is the promotion of the welfare of its citizens and that it has no other purpose. I would probably differ with many on what that means.

Moderate, as defined above, smells like know-nothing-do-nothing and has no attraction for me. I only go for "wait-and-see" if one is committed to keeping an eye on things. Otherwise it sounds like cop-out.

I'm conservative in that I dislike government activism and feel that the less government there is, the better -- like Jefferson. But I'd probably call that flag-free, low-key libertarianism.

I also think there should be impassible firewalls between government on the one hand and social, financial, and religious institutions on the other.

Above all, as a progressive, I think the citizenry needs to be fully informed and active politically, looking for ways to change and better everything from roads to forests to living conditions to water quality to.... And for this to happen at better than 30% of eligible voters, we're going to have to make some significant changes in our educational systems...

That said, I think we have to be very careful about what we're talking about when we talk about government, saying "courts" when we mean courts, legislatures or executive when that's what we mean.

I'm a Townsendian.."Meet the New Boss..Same as the Old Boss"