NEW! Presidential race '04

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Okay, it's back, and better than ever! Here's an updated selection. I hope we can discuss our choices here, explain them, debate the race, and update each other on what's going on in the race. I've included Dubya as an option this time, too. ;)

EDIT: If you'd vote for another person, or are currently undecided, talk about that, too.

[Helm]

Willie says fuck you, Kevin.

Oh, I voted for W. You americans are stupid. :)

[Rongi]

AL GORE ISN'T ON THERE :lol

I wanna vote for Al Sharpton just because having a black president would be awesome.

[Helm]

What sort of guy is this Dick Gerphardt? Is he a democrat? His name is kickass.

[The One and Only...]

None of them sound very good, and I won't support the LP candidate if I don't even know who he is. If I had to pick someone... I'd write in a vote for myself.

[Drev]

I accidently clicked on Al Sharpton. :(

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I really hate you all, yet I can't help but admire the aesthetic beauty to the responses that this has thus far gotten.

Willie?

[The_Rorschach]

Weeping, creeping Christ. . .DENNIS KUCINICH? I mean, aside from my political disastifaction with the man, he's ugly. At least W looks enough like a monkey to let his lack of attractiveness slide, but this guy looks like Alfalfa all grown up.

And what is with the heavy liberal bias here? I mean, from Lieberman to Ms. Moseley Braun we have ever leftist representative here but only one from the right, and that one doesn't even well represent the right might I add.

Anyway, I think it would be interesting if Edwards got it. He would be the first Congressman to go from the Senate to the Presidency since Kennedy. . .Speaking of which, he looks a bit like Bobby Kennedy doesn't he, or is it just me?

Anyway, in the primaries I'll be voting for Alan Keyes. When it comes time to vote for the President, I'll opt for whomever is least likely to make things worse. I voted Nader last time, maybe he'll do me favour and run again, although I think he lost his chance to ride on the tides of popularity in the last election.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And what is with the heavy liberal bias here? I mean, from Lieberman to Ms. Moseley Braun we have ever leftist representative here but only one from the right, and that one doesn't even well represent the right might I add.

:boohoo

Those are the men and woman on the poll because one of them will without a doubt be our president in 2004. We unfortunately live in an electoral system that only allows two factions to flourish. Bush isn't there because he's a Republican, or because he represents "the Right," but because he's the incumbent. The other folks are from the only other party that matters in America at this time, period.

So please Ror, get off the "Liberal bias" nonsense. Do you see Nader or whoever the Socialist Party USA just nominated up there....?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/20/politics/campaigns/20IOWA.html?ex=1067227200&en=676aa42b713a12a2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

October 20, 2003

2 Top Democrats Will Not Contest Iowa's Caucuses
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — Two prominent Democratic presidential candidates, Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, have decided to bypass Iowa's presidential caucuses, angering some party leaders there and signaling what could be a very different nomination battle next year.

Mr. Lieberman's advisers said on Sunday that they would pull out all but one of his 17 staff members in Iowa and send them to states considered more receptive to his appeal, like Arizona. General Clark's aides said he would maintain a minimal presence in the state, which has the nation's earliest presidential selection contest. Last week, the general hired the former Iowa coordinator for Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who quit the race two weeks ago, and dispatched her to other states.

General Clark's advisers said they concluded last week that his late-starting candidacy had left him unable to assemble the intricate organization needed to win the Iowa race, which puts a premium on drawing voters to some 2,000 precinct caucuses. Most of the state's experienced organizers have signed with other candidates.

"What we'll do is what I call the General MacArthur strategy," a senior Clark adviser said. "General MacArthur was very successful in World War II because he skipped over the Japanese strongholds, where they were more organized, and instead picked islands that were favorable or neutral terrain. Which means we would choose not to focus resources on Iowa and instead focus them on New Hampshire and on Feb. 3," when there are Democratic contests in seven states.

Mr. Lieberman's advisers said his moderate stances on issues that are big in Iowa now, including his strong support for the war in Iraq and support of treaties lowering trade barriers, were problematic in a contest that attracts many liberal and blue-collar voters. His decision marks something of a retreat by the man who was his party's vice-presidential candidate in 2000; Mr. Lieberman has spent 15 days campaigning in Iowa this year.

"I think it's pretty safe to say that there's recognition inside the campaign that Iowa is not now, and will never be, Lieberman country," one adviser said.

Another adviser said on Sunday, "There's no victory in being fourth in Iowa."

The candidates' decisions will hardly erase Iowa from the Democratic political map in 2004. With less than three months until the caucuses, the first real test of a candidate's strength in the voters' eyes, four other Democratic contenders are in an unusually frenzied competition.

Still, the absence of General Clark and Mr. Lieberman could plant an asterisk alongside the results of the caucuses on Jan. 19. Even Iowa Democratic leaders, eager to maximize their quadrennial exercise of influence, say it could diminish the state's role in choosing the a nominee.

That could prove to be a complication for Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, who are hoping for an unencumbered victory in Iowa as an anchor for their nomination strategies.

Mr. Lieberman and General Clark's decisions followed speculation in Iowa about whether they would seriously compete in the caucuses. Several Democrats took note of their absence from a debate sponsored by the AARP in Des Moines on Wednesday, and Mr. Lieberman skipped the state during a high-profile campaign tour last week.

The decisions drew a sharp reaction from state party leaders and from other Democratic candidates. Several predicted that that General Clark and Mr. Lieberman would come to regret their decisions, noting that no one who skipped the caucuses has ever won the Democratic nomination.

"That would be very unwise," said Gordon Fischer, the Democratic state chairman. "That strategy has not worked before: Al Gore tried it in 1988 and John McCain tried in 2000. It didn't work for either of them, and I predict it will not work again."

Thomas Henderson, the Democratic leader in Polk County, shook his head vigorously when asked if he thought General Clark and Mr. Lieberman were making a wise decision.

"No, no, no, no," Mr. Henderson said. "The day after Iowa will be huge news. And those guys will be out of the picture."

Mr. Gephardt said in an interview that he did not see how someone could win the nomination without competing in Iowa. "It's very hard to start bypassing states," Mr. Gephardt said. "We have a very competitive race going on as you know in Iowa."

Dr. Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, said: "I think it's a very dangerous strategy to skip the place. And if you guess wrong by not competing in Iowa, there will never be a way to put that back in the bottle. There really isn't any room to recover this year."

There is another risk for Mr. Lieberman and General Clark. Iowa is certain to be one of the most contested states in the general election, given Mr. Gore's 4,100-vote victory in 2000. Democrats said Mr. Clark and Mr. Lieberman could appear to be snubbing Iowa, a perception that President Bush's advisers might use to try to hold down Democratic turnout, should either of the truants be the party's nominee.

The effort by the Democrats who are competing in Iowa could hardly be more intense. Mr. Gephardt, Dr. Dean, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, have spent a total of 182 days in Iowa this year.

The major candidates have headquarters up and running in Des Moines well into the night, and the restaurants and bars along Grand Avenue are bustling with staff members arguing their candidates' cases. At the Polk County Democratic Party dinner in Des Moines on Friday night, as Dr. Dean was shouting in the background about his foreign policy views, John Norris, who is Mr. Kerry's state director, walked over to Jeani Murray, who is running Dr. Dean's campaign, to throw an elbow at his colleague.

"I take it your polls are showing he has some problems on foreign policy," he said with a grin. Ms. Murray smiled but kept her eyes on her candidate.

The contest has become a fight between the traditional organizational efforts that have historically triumphed in Iowa — the approach adopted by Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Kerry — and the wave of sheer enthusiasm generated by supporters of Dr. Dean. After a tentative start, Mr. Edwards is also mounting a spirited campaign, angling for a surprise showing in this shrinking field.

Though polling in Iowa is notoriously unreliable, state party leaders said Mr. Gephardt and Dr. Dean were the top contenders, followed by Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards.

Some Democrats held out the possibility that General Clark or Mr. Lieberman could be engaging in an elaborate feint, setting themselves up for a last-minute entrance and surprise showing in January.

But aides to the two men, even while acknowledging their decision was made largely out of necessity, said the caucuses would prove to be less influential this election year.

For one thing, they said, the large number of candidates still in the race means caucuses will be less decisive in winnowing the field. In addition, the Democratic calendar would appear to give candidates other ways to get onto the field, and Mr. Lieberman and General Clark are looking to Feb. 3 to make their mark. The scattered geography of that day's voting will put a premium on television advertising, not on the time-consuming barnstorming that is required in Iowa and New Hampshire.

"Look, General Clark deeply respects and appreciates the role Iowa plays in the nominating process," said Matt Bennett, his communications director. "But we have to recognize that caucuses are organizational efforts and those other candidates have spent years — and, in at least one case, decades — working the caucusgoers."

Conversations with Iowa voters over the past week suggest the general might have had a hard time competing there. Several expressed admiration for him, but also skepticism about his political experience and ideological credentials.

"I do not want a general as president," said Dianna Weber, 66, a retired teacher in Mason City. "There, I just said it."

Mr. Gephardt's advisers said he could not survive a loss in Iowa, because he is from a neighboring state and because he won the caucuses in 1988, the first time he ran for president. Mr. Gephardt has followed a traditional path, campaigning intensely through rural areas while assembling a network of labor supporters to deliver his vote.

He has repeatedly attacked his opponents for supporting the kind of free trade treaties that unions blame for an exodus of jobs to other nations.

"They are really pushing labor unions, and labor unions are responding," said Jeff Link, a longtime Democratic organizer here. "And it's easy to underestimate labor."

But Mr. Gephardt is vulnerable for his support of the Iraq war. Dr. Dean has ridden that issue to great success, bringing so many new Democrats into the process that his campaign is planning to set up caucus schools to educate them on the fast-paced negotiations and horse-trading expected on caucus night from the more experienced backers of Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Kerry.
###

[El Blanco]

I notice a total lack of John McCain. I am severely disapponted.

[Protoclown]

I also noticed that Galactus wasn't on there.

[The_Rorschach]

Yeah but Kev, only one of them is going to get the Democratic nomination. Mosley Braun, Sharpton, Kerry and Edwards can be safely counted out of that line up, as well as pretty much everyone save Dean and Clark.

[Perndog]

I'm voting for whoever the Democrats put up just to try and keep the Republicans for winning. If I really hate the Democratic candidate, I'm writing in Pauly Shore because that vote will have about the same effect on the election as voting for any third party.

[The One and Only...]

Just don't vote for the guy who wants an international minimum wage. Or the rabid AA-supporting black chick.

[ItalianStereotype]

I'm voting for whoever the Democrats put up just to try and keep the Republicans for winning.

that's the worst reason for voting I've ever seen. thanks for doing your fair share to fuck up America.

[Protoclown]

I'm voting for whoever the Democrats put up just to try and keep the Republicans for winning.

that's the worst reason for voting I've ever seen. thanks for doing your fair share to fuck up America.

YOU DID IT FIRST :lol

[Perndog]

In my eyes, it's electing Republicans that fucks up America. By not voting for the candidate most likely to beat the Republicans, which has to be a Democrat since I don't yet believe a third party has a chance of winning the presidency (I do my research for other elections, just not this one), I do my part to keep the Republicans out and therefore I actively contribute to NOT fucking up America. And if, for some weird reason, the Republican is better than the Democrat, I don't vote, because at that point we're fucked no matter what. So piss off.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yeah but Kev, only one of them is going to get the Democratic nomination. Mosley Braun, Sharpton, Kerry and Edwards can be safely counted out of that line up, as well as pretty much everyone save Dean and Clark.

Every single one of those Democratics will probably be on the primary ballots,m providing they don't drop out prior to that. They are still an option for Democrats.

The question was who would you vote for. Not who will win, who's leading in the polls, but who out of the two more relevant factions would you support.

[The_Rorschach]

You're question was not who will you vote for in the primaries, but who will you vote for Presidentially. You are weaseling now boyo, pick primaries or Presidential, but state one or the other. ;)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Hmm, I think if I choose Howard Dean as my candidate in a primary, and I'm a Democrat, I'm probably voting for him in the general election.

There's no weaseling. One of those MEN (I said it), will be our president. It's incredibly naive, for instance, to assume that John Edwards and John Kerry are out of it. We're a year away, we have a long way to go. It's won't be the Green, it won't be the Libertarian, it won't be the Natural Law candidate, nor will it be the Psycho anti-tax tax payers who love God Party's guy.

It will be a Democrat or a Republican. For me to make a poll and selectively say "well hey, let's just put Bush and Dean here, cut to the chase!" would be subjective, naive, and jumping to conclusions. Truth is, it could be Dean, it could be Kerry, it could be Clark, but it could also be one of the only two southern REAL politicians from the south, Gephardt or Edwards (particularly in light of Clark and Lieberman throwing it in in Iowa). Excluding Kucinich, Braun, and whoever else because their polls are low would just show plain ignorance of past races. Clinton, to name one, polled low at this point, too.

[AChimp]

CHEWBACCA FOR PRESIDENT!

http://www.xs4all.be/~patvl/chewbacca1.jpg

[VinceZeb]

I'll probably vote for Bush.

My question is this: Why the hell would you vote for a Democant? What positions do they feel strongly about, excluding hating Dubya and wanting to tax rich people more? Howard Dean might as well join the Socalist party. Hell, if you were a terrorist cell member, would YOU be scared of President Dean's tough stance on terror?

A vote for a Democant running in this presidental election is more or less voting for terrorist attacks and a fucked up economy. The Dem canidates have no direction, no purpose, and no vision for the country except to disagree with Bush on the war on terror and to tax "rich" people.

[Zhukov]

Cell members are in prison Vince! Nothing to be afraid of!

[ItalianStereotype]

In my eyes, it's electing Republicans that fucks up America. By not voting for the candidate most likely to beat the Republicans, which has to be a Democrat since I don't yet believe a third party has a chance of winning the presidency (I do my research for other elections, just not this one), I do my part to keep the Republicans out and therefore I actively contribute to NOT fucking up America. And if, for some weird reason, the Republican is better than the Democrat, I don't vote, because at that point we're fucked no matter what. So piss off.

whatever jackass, the fact is that you are still taking part in petty partisanship. you aren't interested in what is best for the country, your just buying into the hype. fucking sheep.

[Helm]

Kevin: our fellow poll-hating friend, executioneeeeeeeeer. Willie. You're breaking his heart :(

Also, just in: Vincezeb continues to be completely stupid! Clap.

[AChimp]

A vote for a Democant running in this presidental election is more or less voting for terrorist attacks and a fucked up economy. The Dem canidates have no direction, no purpose, and no vision for the country except to disagree with Bush on the war on terror and to tax "rich" people.

Funny... I thought that the U.S. economy was doing better when there was a Democrat in office. :/

Anyways, Canada says thanks for letting your president borrow money like there's no tomorrow. Our dollar has gone up almost 20% from the start of the year.

[ranxer]

this poll is depressing

i'm going to have a rough time voting for what i believe in..
primaries are easy, i believe in what kucinich has been saying.

voting for what you believe in requires you to look passed who you think is going to win, its soo sad that most americans need the polls to decide who they will vote for.. is it vain? damn, and the polling booths are private.. it's not like anyone would know who the hell you voted for.

this might be the first time i vote for the 'lesser of two evils' :/

the question i face after that is: how am i going to make up for it?

[The One and Only...]

Funny... I thought that the U.S. economy was doing better when there was a Democrat in office. :/

You wait and see what will happen with economy by the end of 2004. Bush knows what he's doing. Raising aggregate demand and using supply-side economics is not a bad strategy: in other words, it wasn't a bad move to INCREASE spending and SLASH taxes, primarily for the wealthy.

Unless, of course, you are worried about paying off the deficit.

[Perndog]

whatever jackass, the fact is that you are still taking part in petty partisanship. you aren't interested in what is best for the country, your just buying into the hype. fucking sheep.

Blah blah blah. You honestly think an independent has a decent chance of winning? I don't. And I don't vote for a loser in a pluralistic election, because to do so dilutes the pool against the party whose views I disagree with. A Republican, whose platform I more or less despised, became governor here in Minnesota because the Democrat and Independent candidates were so similar that half the Democratic voters went Independent - 60% voted for those two, 40% for the Republican. It's like being unable to choose between two flavors of ice cream and then eating chopped liver instead.

Partisanship is the way of the world. Fuck idealism and voting for your absolute favorite candidate - your vote doesn't matter a whole lot when he only gets 10%, and that vote could have been used for a more viable candidate who might be less appealing but is certainly better than the other major competitor. Our next president will be a Democrat or a Republican, no matter which way you or I vote. I choose between the two. Not because I haven't read about politics, not because I don't know what any of the other candidates stand for. Because this is what has an effect.

Buying into the hype, sheep my ass. This is the way things are. You're allowed to tell me I'm wrong as soon as there's a Libertarian in the White House.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Howard Dean might as well join the Socalist party.


Defend this, argue the point, otherwise shut the hell up, idiot.

[Helm]

Please don't misuse the term 'idealism', Plato cries. Thank you.

[Perndog]

Sorry, Helm, I'm one of those Americans who uses words for their implied rather than traditional or dictionary meanings. Idealism to me is concentrating on the way things should be rather than the way they are (the converse would be realism). Tell me a better word to use for that, and I'll change, but otherwise idealism fits the bill.

[Helm]

See you're a stupid american that doesn't know how to use his language properly. It's your obligation to change that. I'm a stupid greek that doesn't have to know how to use your language properly either, but I'm not obliged to change that by any means and I'm certainly not obliged to run around looking up words for you. I suppose what you meant was something in the lines of high-mindedness, and if you used that word, Plato wouldn't cry.

Now you can go back to debating your futile point.

[The One and Only...]

Defend this, argue the point, otherwise shut the hell up, idiot.

I'll do it for him.

- Dean is all over socialized healthcare.

- Dean supports repealing the Bush tax cuts to fund the above, Social Security, and "investments in job creation" i.e. more government job. Dean is not dumb enough to think that repealing those tax cuts would fund all of this, but that is his claim.

- Dean wants more expensive public schooling, including "broader access" higher education. Dean also wants lighter testing because it is "unfair" to poorer school districts.

- Dean supports (here's the big one) big labor like no other. I quote this from Dean's website:

"Right now there are no serious consequences if an employer ignores a newly formed union. There should be meaningful financial penalties available to federal regulators when an employer fails to negotiate in good faith with a union."

That, my friends, combined with Dean's natural tendency to intervene in what should be economic affairs, makes Dean a socialist.

Remember, socialism can mean "the stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved." Dean's submit-to-union tactic certainly is getting there, though.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

- Dean is all over socialized healthcare.

As were the Clintons, as well as past Democratic candidates. Republicans such as Eisenhower even supported expansive Medicare-like coverage for Americans. And our current president, Mr. Bush, plans to expand the already largest healthcare system in cost to the elderly. Nationalized healthcare is a norm in every other industrialized nation, so calling it a staple of international socialist ambition is just stupid on your part, OAO.

- Dean supports repealing the Bush tax cuts to fund the above, Social Security, and "investments in job creation" i.e. more government job. Dean is not dumb enough to think that repealing those tax cuts would fund all of this, but that is his claim.

Progressive taxation was supported by all sorts, from Adam Smith onward. Even if your assertions of a Dean "New Deal" program were accurate, which they aren't, this would hardly justify calling the man a Socialist, unless viewed through the lense of a fringe free market radical.

- Dean wants more expensive public schooling, including "broader access" higher education. Dean also wants lighter testing because it is "unfair" to poorer school districts.

And the point is? He's a socialist because he supports public schools? You need to stop readin lp.org OAO, seriously....

- Dean supports (here's the big one) big labor like no other. I quote this from Dean's website:

"Right now there are no serious consequences if an employer ignores a newly formed union. There should be meaningful financial penalties available to federal regulators when an employer fails to negotiate in good faith with a union."

That, my friends, combined with Dean's natural tendency to intervene in what should be economic affairs, makes Dean a socialist.

Yet all of the unions are supporting Gephardt. :/ He must be a Socialist, too. :rolleyes You guys are hysterical....

This is a governor who made fiscal conservatism when balancing the Vermont state budget a key aspect of his time in office. He quickly and privately signed a state gay unions bill, when a full gay marriage proposal was popularly being pushed. He has gone on record as saying that he would not touch defense spending as president, and would maintain funding for the unproven, hocus-pokus "Star Wars" missile shield program. He has flip flopped on the war, first saying it was totally immoral, and then saying it was wrong to go without a UN resolution. He is widely considered by many in Left-Wing Vermont to be a flat out Conservative, and people in Vermont think it's a lark that a guy who gets big money from AOL-TTime Warner and opposes legalizing marijuana for medical purposes has been compared to McGovern, or even more ridiculous, a Socialist. :rolleyes

Remember, socialism can mean "the stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved." Dean's submit-to-union tactic certainly is getting there, though.

FDR could be called, and has been called a Socialist on similar grounds. Ask a real Commie what they think of FDR, though. During the Great Depression, the North Country of New York State was bursting with talk of Socialist rebellion due to the horrid poverty. Your theory that an activist government implies Marxist leaning is silly, because every level of government intervention seems Socialistic to someone who wants everything privatized, from police to proms. :lol

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And just to add to that, here are some quotes by Dean off his website:

http://soli.inav.net/~njohnson/kucinich/libdeane.html

From His Own Web Pages. Finally, here are some quotes from his own Web site, www.deanforamerica.com (as of July 8, 2003):

Capital Punishment: “I believe the death penalty should be available for extreme and heinous crimes . . .. [But it] should only be imposed after a fair trial.”

Environment: “[T]here are legitimate concerns about provisions of the [Kyoto] agreement. . . . We have to make practical trade offs.”

Homeland Security: “Governor Dean . . . would use these funds [from reversing the tax cuts] to establish a Homeland Defense Trust Fund . . . in addition to increased military, intelligence and police focus on offensive operation against terrorists . . . operating overseas . . . [and] our military special forces capabilities abroad . . ..”

National Security: “We are attacking Baghdad with a war budget. We need a war budget here at home . . ..”

Sensible Gun Laws: “I believe we should keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have . . . and then let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun control laws they want . . . we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns . . ..”

Universal Healthcare: “We’ll establish an affordable health insurance plan people can buy into. . . . We shouldn’t turn our back on the employer-based system we have now.”

Welfare Reform: “Vermont was the first state to implement a statewide time-limited welfare program.”

[Zhukov]

Remember, socialism can mean "the stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."

Where did you get this?

OAO, you have taken an idiotic atempt at an insult and tried to build something on it, Howard Dean is not a Socialist becasue he is a Capitalist! OH NO!

[The_Rorschach]

Just out of curiousity, what was it about Stalin's general that prompted you to use his name as your handle here at the Mock Zhuky?

[Zhukov]

Someone already had my username, and I sometimes use great generals of the past. I got the avatar and sig to fit.

I didn't plan on entering any political discussion, but it is much funnier than General Blabber. I would probably change the name if I got the chance.

[Big Papa Goat]

Why does no one understand the difference between a welfare state and a socialist state? :(

[The One and Only...]

Remember, socialism can mean "the stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."

Where did you get this?

OAO, you have taken an idiotic atempt at an insult and tried to build something on it, Howard Dean is not a Socialist becasue he is a Capitalist! OH NO!

Dictionary.com is so wonderful, isn't it?

[The One and Only...]

As were the Clintons, as well as past Democratic candidates. Republicans such as Eisenhower even supported expansive Medicare-like coverage for Americans. And our current president, Mr. Bush, plans to expand the already largest healthcare system in cost to the elderly. Nationalized healthcare is a norm in every other industrialized nation, so calling it a staple of international socialist ambition is just stupid on your part, OAO.

Yet, it's only one part. You aren't looking at the whole picture. No doubt Dean plans on billing this to the wealthy, which is all the more socialistic.

Progressive taxation was supported by all sorts, from Adam Smith onward. Even if your assertions of a Dean "New Deal" program were accurate, which they aren't, this would hardly justify calling the man a Socialist, unless viewed through the lense of a fringe free market radical.

You claim you made about Adam Smith seems out of touch. I saw the quote you put up - to me, it simply supported taxation. Taxation in and of itself is progressive since it charges at various rates rather than one. The exception might be sales taxes, but even they can be made progressive.

The sheer extent of what Dean wants to implement appears socialist to me. Like I said, look at the whole picture.

And the point is? He's a socialist because he supports public schools? You need to stop readin lp.org OAO, seriously....

He's a socialist because he wants government programs for the biggest non-entertainment industries.

Yet all of the unions are supporting Gephardt. :/ He must be a Socialist, too. :rolleyes You guys are hysterical....

This is a governor who made fiscal conservatism when balancing the Vermont state budget a key aspect of his time in office. He quickly and privately signed a state gay unions bill, when a full gay marriage proposal was popularly being pushed. He has gone on record as saying that he would not touch defense spending as president, and would maintain funding for the unproven, hocus-pokus "Star Wars" missile shield program. He has flip flopped on the war, first saying it was totally immoral, and then saying it was wrong to go without a UN resolution. He is widely considered by many in Left-Wing Vermont to be a flat out Conservative, and people in Vermont think it's a lark that a guy who gets big money from AOL-TTime Warner and opposes legalizing marijuana for medical purposes has been compared to McGovern, or even more ridiculous, a Socialist. :rolleyes

Yet, you fail to recognize that this is one key stage in initiating the dictatorship of the proletariot. Dean wants business to submit to the workers. If Dean actually had this passed, it would be hell for the free market.

FDR could be called, and has been called a Socialist on similar grounds. Ask a real Commie what they think of FDR, though. During the Great Depression, the North Country of New York State was bursting with talk of Socialist rebellion due to the horrid poverty. Your theory that an activist government implies Marxist leaning is silly, because every level of government intervention seems Socialistic to someone who wants everything privatized, from police to proms. :lol

When someone wants free healthcare, free schooling, high progressive taxation, general extended government subsidies, and to force businesses to "negotiate" with unions, I call him a socialist. That is, by far, delving into the depths of not really capatilist, not really communist. It is the biggest joke to the laissez-faire principles we were founded upon since the New Deal.

[Zhukov]

One and only, the fact that you wer reduced to looking up the word 'Socialism' in a dictionary makes it look like you don't know what you are talking about.

Dictionary.com is so wonderful, isn't it?
Not this time. Socialism is the term for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. There will be no dictating by them before or after.

Socialism is NOT "not really capatilist, not really communist". You are throwing the word around like some people use "fascist" to describe their parents.

When someone openly declares that they struggle for the overthrow of all existing social conditions - then I might consider the label. If Howard Dean is such a socialist, then why isn't he in a Socialist party?

[mburbank]

I just want to say here that I thought Vinth presented his position really well. Republicans are better than Democrats. It's hard to see how I ignored that all this time, becuase it's a really well thought out argument. Plus, if you vote for a democrat, that's more or less voting for terrorism. Put that way, how could you vote democrat? The logic is inescapable.

If you're five.

And have head trauma.

And think that stating things is the same as making an argument.

You're just so stupid, Clarice. You're like some sort of freakishly overgrown toddler with a rage disorder who's parents always told him he was a genious. Homest to god, I can't believe I get to read your stuff without paying a quarter and having a dwarf lift the tent flap.

"OH! You are a JEW, you Jew Jew! Put you in a OVEN you nose so BIG! IT BIG!!"
-Vinth "Why post when you can ban?" Clambake

[kahljorn]

Having played Warcraft 3 for the last few hours, I am confident I would make the best president we have ever had.

[Perndog]

I admire kahljorn a little more after every post like this one. :love

[Helm]

he's better when he's not making any sense.

[The One and Only...]

Zhukov, there are plenty of reasons Dean wouldn't be in the socialist party. For one, they don't have a snowball in hell's chance of winning.

[Drew Katsikas]

And lord knows the LP has a great chance.

[The One and Only...]

The LP barely even campaigns at the national level. It still pulled in 1%, though.

[Zhukov]

Zhukov, there are plenty of reasons Dean wouldn't be in the socialist party. For one, they don't have a snowball in hell's chance of winning.

So, what you are saying is that he will take the presidency, then anounce to everyone "Oh, hey guys, I'm a Socialist." Very sneaky, Howard Dean. VERY sneaky. Tricking the masses like that, it's so... so... SOCIALIST!