At Doug's suggestion, I'm pledging myself to increased civility and decreased venom.
Rather than vituperating about still more dangerously loose thinking, I'll say this: I wish people on our side of the spectrum would try to be tighter and more precise in their language. I don't believe fascism is on the U.S. agenda. I believe we are fighting ordinary corporate capitalism, which is not fascism, despite its many shared traits with racially-justified state-directed capitalism.
The question is whether John Kerry should replace Bush. Bush is not a fascist. He is a particularly demagogic and unthinking subscriber to and advancer of the long-established ruling class agenda for the United States. As Noam Chomsky argues, he is way at the extreme right pole of establishment policy, but he is not Adolf Hitler.
Having said this, it is surprising to me that somebody who defines the problem as "fighting fascism" would not be ABB. I thought the shared assumption of Nader supporters (of whom I am one, up to a point) was that the differences between a Bush II and a Kerry regime will not be that great. John Kerry is certainly a fumbling powerseeker with no real ideas, but he is not a fascist, in my opinion.
Good day to all.