I couldn't agree with you more Billy. I had similar reflections as I watched the speech. But I have faith that Sarah Palin actually represents only a relatively small minority of Americans. My sense is that her act is more in tune with 2002 and 2004 than 2008, and doesn't have legs.

Yep, there was something about her last night that seriously turned me off and I think you've clarified what exactly it was. The war-hero cultism of the plutocrat/theocrat coalition has gone too far. Meanwhile, there has clearly been a concerted effort to erase evidence of her radical political leanings and to stop the media from examining her record. Very worrying.

I sincerely hope that her aggression is not going to connect with middle america. In terms of energy policy, I hope that Americans realize that "drill baby drill" is seriously lacking as an energy policy. I found hope in the ridiculous deliver of the words on foreign policy that were put in her mouth. They were the highlight of an entirely dishonest, mean-spirited and ridiculous speech.

She kept saying "Great Leader," with those shining, adoring eyes, and it was a kick to the gut for me. Reagan-Thatcher gave me that feeling (and both were initially taken as lightweights), but the conditions for deep damage are greater now: Media more controlled; Executive power greater; spying & detention; An enemy more easily found or imagined anywhere; People more rootless, or detached; Economic "threat" greater than in 1979-82 (conditions worse then, tenuousness greater now); Multiple wars; Lots of torture talk, glory, God and flag; The hidden big Corporare hand; The pitch to small business & the Poujadists.

Above all, what they're Drilling for is... RESENTMENT.

So Jackboots on Palin? Easy to see. What next? 1. Watch for them to throw more foreign (or even domestic) threats & "events" into the mix. 2. They'll keep Palin targeted on Obama, not Biden. 3. Obama is going to have to continue to grow, adapt as circumstances change.

This is all perhaps worst-case imaginings, but the intentions of the McCain campaign are clearer. And Palin is nasty, new, carries baggage & may well explode. But no mistake, their intent is more explicitly nasty now... and more dangerous forces have been loosed. Work hard in Michigan Billy.

Rec'd

Exaggerated, I think. I'm not fond of arguments that raise the specter of fascism, but the Karl Rove wing of the Party has long sought to turn the Democrats into the party of "minorities". Is this because they have some nefarious evil design or because they see that as an expedient to power. I think the later, primarily. Demographic projections of the Hispanic population growth , and probable growth of future immigrant flows from Asia might make that a losing proposition over the long ruin.

It's very instructive to study how they re-districted Texas--got rid of all the white Democrats and made sure that the majority black and Hispanic districts stayed consolidated. Deeply cynical at the very least.

MercerReader: "We need to keep pushing the media to cover her contradictions, misrepresentations, and hypocrisies."

Do you want to do the same for Obama? There is plenty harvest there.

I'm not crazy about McCain, but Obama doesn't have the right solutions for any of the major issues: taxes, education, national security, immigration, economy, healthcare etc. He wants the government to take care of and run everything - wrong answer.

hey, wingnuts...

DRILL THIS!

I've been worried about creeping authoritarianism for eight years now. In particular, it seems like we've turned our airports into poorly quarintined hotspots of dystopic police state contagion.

But "writing off the big cities, the black vote, the liberal-leaning independent vote, the unions, and, possibly, the Hispanic vote" is a recipe for electoral disaster--because you just described overwhelming electoral majority.

I get what you're saying. The Republican party has become ever more frankly authoritarian in outlook and platform, and rural evangelicals are uniquely susceptable to that way of thinking. But, to my mind, the real danger doesn't come from the countryside, it comes from the boardrooms. I don't think its a coincidence that the Republicans official ideology is becoming frankly militaristic and authoritarian at the same time its economic policies frankly embrace policies that promote increasing income stratificaiton and the dissolution of the middle class. The more our income distribution and class system look like Guatamala in the 1960s the more the party of the rich will want our government to look like Guatamala in the 1960s.

This is a pathetic post Billy. The neo-facism scare has been around for a few years. Old News.

The revelation that the RUBE-publicans are writing off large segements of the population and counting on the true-believers (who believe in the strength of the US government to protect and defend), isn't a newsflash.

That's the rapture base...that's the Deliverance party at its core. Them, and a bunch of braindead independents who must all own swamp land in Florida by now, are the reason we are where the RUBE-publicans have delivered us.

And as for Jack-booted, Dominatrix posturing? Why look further than Condi?

Surely you can do better than this doomsday message from the likes of Leo G Carrol. Ooooh! Tarantula! I'm scared?

This is a pathetic post Billy. The neo-facism scare has been around for a few years. Old News.

The revelation that the RUBE-publicans are writing off large segements of the population and counting on the true-believers (who believe in the strength of the US government to protect and defend), isn't a newsflash.

That's the rapture base...that's the Deliverance party at its core. Them, and a bunch of braindead independents who must all own swamp land in Florida by now, are the reason we are where the RUBE-publicans have delivered us.

And as for Jack-booted, Dominatrix posturing? Why look further than Condi?

Surely you can do better than this doomsday message from the likes of Leo G Carrol. Ooooh! Tarantula! I'm scared?

This is a pathetic post Billy. The neo-facism scare has been around for a few years. Old News.

The revelation that the RUBE-publicans are writing off large segements of the population and counting on the true-believers (who believe in the strength of the US government to protect and defend), isn't a newsflash.

That's the rapture base...that's the Deliverance party at its core. Them, and a bunch of braindead independents who must all own swamp land in Florida by now, are the reason we are where the RUBE-publicans have delivered us.

And as for Jack-booted, Dominatrix posturing? Why look further than Condi?

Surely you can do better than this doomsday message from the likes of Leo G Carrol. Ooooh! Tarantula! I'm scared?

Palin was pure fascist demagoguery.

I do agree with others that this sort of divisive fear/smear card played well in 2002, but is worn out.

People losing their homes and jobs don't care about the "liberal media".

McCain picked an incompetent corrupt rightwing hack as his VP. I think he's doomed, however the wingnuts wet themselves over her Goebels-worthy vitriol.

If McCain had picked a Bloomberg or other economic expert / centrist, I would have been nervous. Instead, he's gone too far right to ever get the middle.

Yes, I noticed that the discussion had borne fruit. At 9am.

Now, Mr. Glad, here is my problem: you are hurting your cause. I note with amusement that you expressed anger at me for questioning your premises in a thread that eventually fomented this theory of the threat of fascism.

I would, however, recommend a bit more of an inclusive approach. Clearly I and others are incapable of intuitively grasping what it is that makes Palin so formidable (perhaps it is because we are elitists, as well as intellectually inferior?). This is not to say she is not, or could not become a serious threat; but you would want to offer some insight to why you see it that way. Why her and not one of the others of that movement? Everything I have read about Palin indicates that she is, to borrow a phrase, a lightweight. Or is it about her at all? You mentioned the "yet unforseen ways," which I would also phrase as the short- versus long-term effect. Could she become their martyr in the case of a loss?

The second part is far more important, however, although it also benefits from understanding the underlying factors: what should be done about it? In your view of the situation, what is an effective strategy? As I am sure you recall, I, Ripper and many others tried to tamp down the family- and experience lines of questioning immediately.

Many of us cannot effectively contribute in a way that you find useful because we lack your perspective. Others already see how you are coming to your conclusions. If you want an intelligent, inclusive discussion, perhaps you could stop the exercise in irony for a moment and explain, rather than dictate, your premise.

The Sarah Palin you heard last night was just a sock puppet. She read what was written for her.

The media is praising her for how she read the words. Well DUH! She worked on TV reading from scripts, so now we are supposed to be amazed when she did the same thing last night.

The Sarah Palin you heard last night was just a sock puppet. She read what was written for her.

The media is praising her for how she read the words. Well DUH! She worked on TV reading from scripts, so now we are supposed to be amazed when she did the same thing last night.

What seems obvious at least to this point is that the Democrats were caught off guard and haven't figured out how to respond to this woman. The criticism that her speech was "divisive" and "partisan" is just lame beyond belief.

Something about her speech last night did give me the general feeling of unease. Couldn't quite place it. But I think you've got part of it, though I don't know if I would have used the word fascism. Mostly because it's lost so much meaning it's hard to define clearly. And fascism in the 21st century is bound to be somewhat different than in the past. But there are parallels.

Hate and militarism dressed up as patriotism. Those nationalistic undertones. (Or often overtones.) The anti-elite business. Populism from the corporate oil party. Right. All dressed up in the guise of reform amidst a country that is rightly unrestful.

Palin is easily the most political pick I've seen in years. But people play politics for a reason.

Scary.

the Republican Party has all but written off the big cities, the black vote, the liberal-leaning independent vote, the unions, and, possibly, the Hispanic vote.Doh, you didn't need Palin's speech to tell you that.

Charlie Cook outlined it well and simply yesterday:

"McCain's challenge this week" http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/mccains-challenge-this-week.php

and he pretty much implied that the Obama campaign knows it, too, and has known it for quite some time.

It's actually sizing up to be pretty much the same old same old swing vote with little difference from the last couple decades. They were always ill-defined by single terms like "working class whites," or the more recent "Appalachian" label du jour.

That's not what it is, it's not so simplistic, it just shows up that way in polls because of the demographic questions they use--there's Filippino-American Catholics, Palestinian-American small business owners, and Taiwanese-American engineers in there, too.

I just saw Carl Bernstein say on CNN that the only Dem who has been successful at winnning against this has been Bill Clinton--I think I can safely put words in Carl's mouth and say what he really meant is that the DLC methods have the only proven success rate here.

Watch Lou Dobbs, think about Ross Perot's appeal (so much so that a third party got started with some real steam in the beginning,) re-read the Lizza article (how'd all those Dem govs get in in the West?) Heck, watch network TV sitcoms, they are in there. Or--you're in Michigan, right?--look at the people in Michael Moore's films starting with the Flint originals--don't listen to what Michael Moore says, listen to the people in them. I think them's the votes; Moore knows the demographic well, he just hasn't a clue of how to connect with them.

I have seen lots of evidence that the Obama team knows what they have to get. For instance, their Michelle Obama speech was an attempt to steal the "family values" and "work hard to get ahead" flags; they focus grouped that one to death and polled on it in the states in question right afterwards. Another: I suspect the whole FISA thing was in preparation for the debates with Mr. National Security. I think the question really is choice of tactics and whether Obama can execute them successfully.

Billy, I mentioned in a comment a few days ago that I was scared because I found myself "getting" you. Now I'm actually agreeing w/ you. What is this world coming to?

Ray McGovern has argued that Fascism is already here.

TPM. This whole commenting nightmare is pretty painful.

Damn these comments.

There are a number of people hanging out here who are determined to call any attempt to point out what's going on in this election year "concern trolling."

You may imagine that you're pointing out what's going on in this election.

But you're really just making a very silly argument. They're writing off huge numbers of voters! So, um, Fascism is coming!

The interesting thing about this argument is that the first half is right, and reflected in the polls. No convention bounce. Women (other than those in The Base) and independents turned off. They really are writing of blacks, hispanics, urban populations, liberals, independents, women who aren't in The Base.

But then from this result of narrowing McCain's support to the hard-core base, and widening Obama's lead, you "point out" that this puts us in Grave Danger.

Just too, too funny. But I give you credit, of the concern trolls who hang out here you are by far the best writer. And when there are genuine concerns you are quick to latch onto them and adept at explaining them.

So when you can't come up with real concerns, it makes me feel good. If they were out there, you'd be finding them.

Even better, when you can't come up with real concerns you don't go into hiding, you amuse us with these bizarre flights of imagination. If you put your mind to it I believe you could out-do your OBAMA CANNOT BEAT TEDDY ROOSEVELT masterpiece. I really think you could. And I look forward to your continued efforts.

Sarah Palin = Bush 2.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhjuRMi_78U

So the Republicans are counting on

the Republican evangelical base and ... white, working-class Americans

while it has

all but written off the big cities, the black vote, the liberal-leaning independent vote, the unions, and, possibly, the Hispanic vote.

If that's the case (and I hope it is), then, like NCSteve, I'm pretty happy with them odds.

A couple of thoughts.

First, there was a clear difference between the type of authoritarianism we have gotten used to from Bush and his cronies over the last few years and what I thin we heard yesterday.

With Bush, I could always tell that there were some political ideology behind the push for more executive power, a philosophical construct one could understand and thus successfully argue/fight against with other ideas.

With McCain/Palin, I have a strong sense there is no ideology, no rational basis for their quest for power. This makes sense for both of them - McCain's reputation as a "maverick", while usually interpreted as a different, personal ideology can just as easily be viewed as LACK of ideology. Palin's whole history has been non-ideological, and certainly her education and public record supports this. Her philosophical center is in fundamentalist religion, and her quest for power is rooted almost entirely in her religious, not political basis.

So here is the new "take away", I guess. For the first time in recent history, we have a major party ticket, which can't be reasonably connected to any established political ideology. The ticket appears to be animated by a mixture of militarism, personal power and fundamentalist religion. It is also distinguished by a pretty thorough lack of formal education. The news organizations have picked up on this (you would have to be pretty dumb or a complete brainiac not to) and the adoring coverage has been overwhelming.

It is a very potent mixture, the appeal of which operates on a level not readily addressed by clever, truthful or perceptive counter-arguments. THE VIOLENT FIGHTER - FERTILE MOTHER TICKET.

I am very concerned.

I post the thought that Palin's speech was Facist and call for a look at the historical roots of Fascism,

Silly Billy, if you'd simply written about Fascism and the Fascist-like aspects of GOP rhetoric, you'd have been fine. Being umpteen years late to recognize Fascistic rhetoric in GOP speeches would have made the point head-scratchingly boring, but at least it would have been a valid point.

But nooooo. A post without a Deep Concern just doesn't have that specialy Billy touch, and you aren't going to let the lack of a coherent argument stop you. So you end up with:

1. The GOP is writing off liberals, independents, blacks, hispanics, urban voters, union members, etc., etc.

2. ?????

3. Danger!

Just too funny. You couldn't just make a banal but coherent observation about Fascistic rhetoric in the GOP. No, you had to find a concern to write about, so you end up flailing your arms like that Lost In Space robot.

Danger, America! Danger! Danger!

On your big question on this post and your comment on your other thread on Polany
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/want-to-vet-her-some-more.php#comment-3078551
on your other thread, I humbly suggest you may be getting waylaid in your thinking by mixing populism with fascism and I think it's important to realize and fully understand the difference.
Fascism but also plenty of other movements used populism, lots of leaders of the 1st half of the 20th century read or knew of Gustave Le Bon's "The Crowd;" he was bigger at one time than that other new theorist guy Freud.

It's funny because immediately after Palin and Guiliani's speech, I thought "populism clear and true" but also then on a couple of M.J. Rosenberg threads here earlier in the year where there were some sub discussions on populism. And an infamous Rosenberg comment saying something along the lines of "what's wrong with populism?" as if he was really clueless and naive about it and how dangerous it can be and could lead to fascism or other totalitarian movements. I think that was one time when everyone on the thread lost a lot more respect for him....

A couple quick suggestions. Found out at that time that wikipedia has a really good lengthy in progress entry on populism--I was impressed by it--recommend it, it might help you firm up your thoughts on all of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Also highly recommend reading LeBon's "The Crowd," it's post copyright, available in full online free,
http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/BonCrow.html
and is not that long, like 100 pages. Back in the olden daze, I studied fascism with the scholar on the topic George L.K. Mosse, and LeBon was the first required reading, like the bible to start decoding the mid- 20th century. I recommend it not just because of refining the populism/fascism relationship but because you will have fun seinge this internet forum and other forums in it--echo chamber, mob psychology, etc.

And I just discovered that wikipedia has a halfways decent entry on Le Bon now too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Le_Bon

Fear and dread are not the best tools against the the neo-fascist streak in America that has been around for centuries but never (yet) progressed to national dominance. The Nazis did not succeed in early 1930s Germany because there was too little fear and hatred of them. They were ultimately able to rise to power because their opponents offered no credible alternative (and because Germany in a little over a decade had managed to lose a world war it helped start, then saw its currency wiped out by runaway inflation, and then suffered a crippling economic depression). Instead of following McCain down into Karl Rove's gutter of ignorance-based fearmongering, Obama should lead him back to straight-talking about, for example, getting money out of politics, taxing carbon, fixing social security financing, health care, and immigration regulations, and exposing neo-con foreign "policy" for the deceit it has always been.

Mr. Glad, I trust you find that I did not call your post "silly." You may, in fact, find that I encouraged you to elaborate precisely because of the subject matter.

If you do not want to further the discussion by addressing the questions I posed, perhaps it would be advisable to explain why? Are those the wrong questions to ask? How about:

What just changed?

dimitry, Drifter, quinn and Lux all offer good viewpoints, sections of the overall situation. There is reason for caution, surely, but what is different now? Why her? Why now? What is the mechanism, the pathology? What am I missing?

For the sake of the discussion, assume that I am not disagreeing with your assessment because I am stupid.

I do not see it. Help me.

Billy, You have this exactly right. She has the nasty whiff of America's no-nothing, nativist and reactionary underbelly. Hello Charles Lindbergh.

I agree with you on this.

They are dangerous. I thought they would break Olympia Snowe, who knows this at some level, but she towed the line (for now).

I don't know the answer to the demographic question whether they can win while writing off blacks, hispanics, and urbanites so completely. I suspect they can't. But a Republican Party that doesn't even try to put on a patina of "compassion" is a scary thing indeed.

I think a serious plan needs to be put in place to fight this thing in the courts if it turns out to be almost a "tie" or if Obama "loses" by some small amount and there's even a hint of cheating, then Obama & Democrats need to have a plan to

1) expose the voter fraud in FL and OH (it will happen again in November, so find the evidence), and

2) Fight this thing in all courts and shut the f'ing government down. Cause a Constitiutional crisis if they have to.

They've accumulated too much power, and it's warped our nation into something completely unrecognizable. 30 years of Republican ideology has ruined this country.

The Republicans were very volksy weren't they? The oligarchy pretending to be with the volks. You know, like the expressions "hockey mom"
"weed wacker"
the joke about the pit bull.

That is the phoney populism that facsists use.

Billy,

May I suggest this commentary written by Henry Wallace on fascism in 1944. Here's his definition of fascism:

A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends.

Not perfect but it's interesting to look at how people at the time when fascism was rising defined the term.

Well, I have watched these two corrupt parties on C-Span passing laws to steal our freedoms and pass corporate written bills.

Informed but most Americans are not.

In Woodwards new book he quotes McCain:

"Everything is fucking spin.”

And the straight talk express finally tells the truth. It all comes back to the number one rule in politics.

Never, ever trust a politician.

Billy I can't agree with you on this one.

Taking the woman's comments and inferring a fascist turn among Republicans is going too far IMHO.

I tend to take my political bottom-line perspective from the WHO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zydAs5bRW1U

Nobody has said it better as far as I'm concerned. Right or left, are we not always precariously close to a fascist-like tilt? That's why it's important to keep faith in the people and not in politicians; that's my mantra before this election, and it will remain so afterwards.

Won't get fooled again.

Godwin's Law invoked. End of thread.