Waht kind of President would Howard Dean make?

Done and done.


You know I never understood the arguement that Bush would ever have an easy time with reelection. I mean he won by 2000 or so votes and if Nader hadn’t been in there he would have lost by a pretty large margin. Bush essentially only got in because the vote on the left got split.

OK, I admit I can’t find a link, but Dean was interviewed on CNBC on October 16th. It was a short interview (maybe 10-15 minutes) but within that time frame he did two things which alienated me: 1) talked too fast and 2) bashed everyone who didn’t agree with him.

Sorry I don’t have a link, but my view of him is that he needs to tone it down and talk slower.

He may have a message on his website but he needs to communicate that.

Well, I was also somewhat enamord of Mr. Dean until that nasty little website business came to light.

Let’s see here:

I’m a Republican who hates Bush. Now I dislike the forrunning Democratic candiate.

I guess that I have no choice but to register as a Democrat and vote for somebody else.

So, what’s this Kerry figure like?

Indecisive, typical patrician politician. A guy with just as much a sense of entitlement as George Bush.

Stick with Dean. I think he’s the best man in the field now.

Care to elucidate the clueless here? What “nasty little website business” do you mean?

So Dean says he wants to eliminate the Bush tax cuts and spend that money on health care.

Has anyone ever asked where the money for the rest of his program is coming from?

Plus I seriously doubt if giving unions the upper hand in most negotiations is going to help create jobs. Just the opposite, in fact.

Reading his website will cure most besides the unshakeably naive of calling Dean a “fiscal conservative” ever again. My wallet aches just reading it.


Dean’s just saying all that. He knows darn well none of it will ever get past a Republican Congress.

Dean’s history is that of a fiscal conservative. He knows he can lie the far left wing of the party and get away with it because he’ll never actually have to carry out the program he has promised.

I always pay more attention to a candidate’s record than their rhetoric. And Dean’s is excellent.

Sending a train from Philadelpia to New York is hardly driving it Europe (if you get my drift). Do you even know what Socialism is, Sam Stone, or is it just something your parents told you about to make you be a good boy?

Totally familiar with it, gex gex. Touchy about that word, aren’t we guys? The only use of it I made was in a little tongue-in-cheek phrase (holy Socialism, Batman!).

Dean may not be a socialist. His platform looks like the British labor party, ca 1970. But hey, he’s drying to dig the union vote out from under Dick Gephardt.

I’m sorry, but what do you people have against “socialism”?

From what I can make of comments here, you certainly have no idea what you are talking about.
In my opinion you have a very strange - alien - interpretation of it.

As for Dean:

Months ago and long before he became known as a potential candidate inside the USA, I read about him and from him.
To me he was at the very least a refreshing sound and next have send him a mail that if I was US citizen, I would certainly vote for him and would certainly contribute to his campaign.

So fat there isnothing that would make me change my mind.
Salaam. A

It’s just one of the Republican Party’s buzzwords for demonizing their opponents, Aldebaran. “Socialism” is just a shorthanded way of saying “government aid for programs the GOP doesn’t want.”

Whereas government aid for programs the GOP does want get more innocent names, like “subsidies” or “incentives”…

**I’m sorry, but what do you people have against “socialism”?

From what I can make of comments here, you certainly have no idea what you are talking about.
In my opinion you have a very strange - alien - interpretation of it.

Socialism almost never results in anything good. The few times it has, it’s been fed by capitalism. Nations that have implemented social democracy successfully tend to have good export economies to feed the welfare state. Even those that don’t rely on the free market for their funding. No state that has attempted to restrict the free market has ever succeeded.

Rjung, that’s a good point. Rank hypocrisy. Not to mention that most Democrats are staunch capitalists. Only a few Democrats like Kucinich are socialists. That’s part of the reason most leftists think the Democratic party isn’t worthy of their support except to keep Republicans out of office. Not because they like the Democrats.

This really isn’t about Dean. I’m not sure which candidate I support yet…

But as far as labor unions go: I know historically they have been linked to socialist movements. But as a logical purist, I fail to see why workers’ banding together to make a profit is any different philosophically from owners’ banding together to make a profit. What is bad about labor unions, so long as they’re non-violent?

I say, if workers want to form their own “corporation” - the union - and contract their labor to another corporation (i.e., the one we typically think of), then that’s just good business. Let the market sort out the details.

What am I missing here?

American unions have never really been bitten by the socialist bug like European unions.

American unions have generally limited their struggles to workers rights. European unions have sought a voice on government spending, even foreign affairs at times.

I don’t understand Dean supporters.

First, he was the Gov. of a tiny little piss ant state. Regardless of what he did there, how can that equate to him knowing how to run a country many, many, MANY times larger than what he’s used to running? At least W. (as well as most the other DEM. candidates) had experience ruling/representing a much larger populace/economy.

Second, the Republicans will probably control congress through 2006, if not longer.
How will Dean, or any other Dem. get any of their programs through?

When will people realize that the party whom controls Congress is who makes the country run? Do you really thing that Clinton was the sole reason for the prosperity of the mid-late 90’s?

As a conservative/libertarian, I think Republicans handle their Congressional duties much better with a Democrat in office. They have given Bush a blank check on spending in the interests of party unity and we have a 20% increase in spending as a result.

Posted by adaher:

Not even him, adaher. Check out Kucinich’s platform (http://www.kucinich.us/issues.htm and
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_10key.htm). He doesn’t call for nationalizing any industry . . . he doesn’t call for expropriating any significant amounts of wealth from the rich . . . what he calls for is a bigger-and-better welfare state. Apart from his support for labor unions and civil liberties, any part of his platform could have been written by Otto von Bismarck.

Posted by adaher:

Seems like the Euro-unions have the right idea, doesn’t it?

Posted by pkbites:

GWB has no experience “ruling” a big state, pkbites. Under Texas’ peculiar constitution, the office of governor is largely ceremonial and wields little real power. The Commissioner of Agriculture (Jim Hightower, not long ago!) is a more important official than the governor. See Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics, by Michael Lind (Basic Books, 2002).


He wants to nationalize the health care industry -

and he sure as hell wants to expropriate wealth from the rich.

If you don’t want to call it socialism, fine, but then let’s call it what it is - tax-and-spend liberalism writ large.