Chip Berlet & Matthew N. Lyons write about Lyndon LaRouche, whom they denote as a "Fascist Demagogue."#

Though often dismissed as a bizarre political cult, the LaRouche organization and its various front groups are a fascist movement whose pronouncements echo elements of Nazi ideology. Beginning in the 1970s, the LaRouchites combined populist antielitism with attacks on leftists, environmentalists, feminists, gay men and lesbians, and organized labor. They advocated a dictatorship in which a "humanist" elite would rule on behalf of industrial capitalists. They developed an idiosyncratic, coded variation on the Illuminati Freemason and Jewish banker conspiracy theories. Their views, though exotic, were internally consistent and rooted in right-wing populist traditions.

A former Trotskyist, LyndonH.LaRouche, Jr., founded the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) in 1968 as an offshoot of the radical student movement. But in the early 1970s, LaRouche engineered a political about-face, using cult pressure tactics to consolidate his grip over the NCLC and initiating a campaign of physical attacks on Communists and Black nationalists, which cut his followers off from the Left. The result was a fascist organization with some unique strengths: a dedicated, full-time cadre of several hundred members, a high proportion of intellectuals with advanced training, familiarity with leftist theory and organizing, and inside information about radical organizations and leaders.

Mark Schmitt on Political Wire's report that Cheney will be replaced by Bush.#

One of my big things now is to avoid making predictions. But I think it is a very safe bet that Cheney will be booted from the ticket when Bush needs a boost. Continually affirming that he will be on the ticket is fine for now, it actually helps make it more of a news event when it happens. And it frees Bush to make news by going in whatever direction he wants for a replacement -- toward a less-polarizing figure if need be, or a woman, or a particular state if necessary.

Cheney's health is a perfect excuse. He can have his doctor say he's perfectly healthy but that he's advised against the stress of another four years. Cheney's never helped Bush electorally, and at this point, he himself is the source of so many of the administration's screw-ups and crimes that he certainly ought to be a negative.

JoshK at Music For America acknowledges Bush-hate.#

We get a lot of flack and questioning probes here at MfA from people who think we're too hard on President Bush, who think that we're a bunch of haters. Often times people say they're "dissappointed," and that we appear to be bitter or angry or even irrational.

I'd like to set the record straight here. I don't hate president Bush. I don't even know the guy. However, I do have serious problems with what he's doing to our country, and the impact it's having on my and my friends' future. I also have a serious problem keeping quiet about what I see going on. Silence in the face of very bad governance is no virtue; I think we can all agree about that.

Grant Henninger writes about media motives.#

Back in 2001 I had a poli sci class, it was probably in the fall, before 9/11. We were talking about why all the reporters made such a big deal about President Bush spending so much time on his ranch in Crawford, Texas. My professor pointed out that it might be because it sucks to be in Crawford, at least for the reporters. They are not being objective in their reporting, they are bitching about being stuck in the middle of nowhere in a god-forsaken state.

Paul Hein cuts through campaign speeches.#

Consider these words from candidate Kerry: "This fight is about our future. About leadership. About making our system work for our people." Oh, spare me! Will there ever be any candidate who eschews such God-awful puerile rhetoric? I suspect that if I looked hard enough, I would be able to find, in the campaign speeches or literature of any candidate, an expression such as "my dream for America," or "my vision of a brighter tomorrow." Do we want leaders who are asleep, or suffering from hallucinations? Yet, year after year, we must endure this excruciating dreck about dreams and visions. Time to wake up!

Scott Rosenberg has hope for the Internet and what it represents: More than Howard Dean.#

But the at least partial validity of this comparison should not be taken by Dean's enemies as a cue to dance on the grave of his campaign. The collapse of the dot-com stock bubble was a disaster for many investors, but it never invalidated the fundamental accuracy of the insight that fueled it -- that the Internet would spark powerful changes in the way the world does business. Those changes have proceeded apace, even as the dot-com era recedes into memory as a spasmodic folly: Online sales boom. Internet use eats away at network TV viewing. Broadband and wireless extend their reach. New possibilities for self-expression beckon. Many dot-coms flamed out -- but the Internet is still reshaping the world.

Similarly, whatever happens now to the Dean campaign, it already achieved a great purpose -- and no, I don't mean that it taught a new generation of political operatives how to raise money online. Anyone could have done that. The real achievement of Dean's movement was something different and more radical.