Slashdot Mirror

The price elasticity has very little to do with the efficiency of a particular industry. Fuel is not elastic, you need fuel, you buy fuel, WHO you buy it from depends on what they charge. This argument only makes sense on the individual gas station level, because the entire industry as a whole is fixed. You buy from BP over Texaco because the price on the sign is less.

The problem with US healthcare is the insurance companies and health care providers have done their best to fix the price, so we all pay more than we have to, yet it is still comparable to the price English pay.

Your point about drugs is different. You need to trust the free market before you can understand that the price you pay for a drug is worthwhile because it will save your life. If nobody was willing to pay that price, the drug wouldn't exist. Take this article as an example of the public's misconception.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/ mississippi_has_a_place_for_he.html

You see, that man in the article was trying to do the victims of the disaster a favor by bringing them generators in the hour of need, he was charging twice as much, but if he were not able to charge that price than nobody would buy them.

Which brings me to my point, that the far more worrisome consequences of the public health care system is that the quality of the health care will suffer. Whether or not you get this or that no longer depends on what you are willing to pay, but rather, it depends on what the government says you can have. Nobody is going to bring those generators down to you.

I think this "price elasticity" argument is flat out misleading. I see no basis for your argument at all. Would you care to explain further?

Was this multi-paragraph first post some sort of coordinated effort to deceive people?

The consensus is that this is a failed mission (as the world warned the US it would be) and they have to live with that.

Last week, a federal appeals court in Washington handed down an important decision relating to the definition of income for tax purposes. What is important about the decision is that it is the first one in decades saying that the Constitution itself limits what the government may tax. If upheld by the Supreme Court, it could significantly alter tax policy and possibly open the door to radical reform.

Richard Nixon as President was the Republican party. He was the head honcho, the main man. A pardon for him was also a pardon for the party, as I already explained.

No it wasn't. The pardon was very unpopular politically. As a result, the Republicans got pounded in the midterm elections, losing 49 seats. That is far worse than they did in the last election.

Hardly. He did what was best for the only man who elected him to the position, Richard Nixon, and their political party, the Republicans.

Ford's White House had charge of the President's papers, formerly Nixon's, now his. His staff was spending 1/4 of their time just dealing with all of the legal mess from Watergate, and he was spending large amounts of his energy. That doesn't include what was going on in Congress and elsewhere. Much of the country was fixated on it. That could have lasted for years. Ford cleared it away with his pardon power: Shazam! - Instant 25% more time to spend on little things like the energy crunch, Middle East war & peace (a big deal after the massive Yom Kippur war in 1973), South East Asia, Europe, China, the Soviet Union, global cooling, and other matters. Having 25% more time to spend on issues that are important to the current business of the nation sounds best to me.

Not unlike what happened to Clinton during his 4-5 year, $50 million investigation which only determined that like a vast majority of Americans, he lied about sex.

Actually there were a series of determinations made about various issues, and new ones just keep popping up: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, the Lewinski affair, Vince Foster's death, and so on. If the white House would have cooperated instead of fighting tooth and nail, and various records hadn't mysteriously gone missing and then magically appeared years later, it might have gone quicker. And, just to be clear about it, Clinton lied about sex in a case in which his sexual behavior was an issue. It cost him an $850,000 settlement, his law license, and any reimbursement for legal expenses. Other people have gone to jail for what he did. Also, the answers were only clear after the investigations, not before.

Yes, that's called justice. It's not pretty and it can take time.

Weren't you just complaining about that in President Clinton's case? Why is it different for President Nixon?

Instead what we got was a mockery of justice that only proves well connected dirty Republicans are above the law.

Whew! I was worried, for a moment I thought it was only well connected dirty Democrats, Libertarians, and the occasional independents who get off lightly. Thank goodness we have equal justice. On second thought, if well connected dirty Republicans are above the law, how did Chuck Colson, Gordon Liddy, and various others of the White House "plumbers" go to jail, and Spiro Agnew get socked for tax evasion and bribery? Why did Nixon have to resign?

As far as I'm concerned, Ford is an accomplice to Nixon's crimes by letting him go free.

Somehow I doubt that what you are really after is justice for Nixon's part in the obstruction of justice in the Watergate affair. You do realize that Cambodia, the Christmas bombing, Kent State, Vietnam, and all of the rest, would not have played any part in the trial, or any possible punishment, don't you? Even if they would have prosecuted and convicted Nixon for obstruction of justice, I doubt that you would have found that an adequate proxy for whatever real punishment you think he really deserved.

Ford does not deserve my sympathy nor respect. If there is a hell, he is certainly burning in it.

You display a remarkable generosity of spirit.

I think that most 'true' hard-core geeks tend to be very liberal, perhaps having something to do with reading/watching Science Fiction stories, as the best of them often emphasize compassion, understanding and attempt to acknowledge society's ills.

Compassion and acknowledging society's ills are hardly limited to liberals.

Slashdot has a strong Libertarian trend, and the Left is well represented as well, especially when the Europeans and expatriates start chiming in.

If you caught idiots such as them on an honest day, you will find that they intentionally push their 'views' farther 'right' than they themselves believe, as many foolish people cling to the idea that 'the truth is in the middle', and by pushing their slander they hope to shove the public to their view points. I don't believe that kind of posturing is possible on the 'left' as liberals don't seem to stand for it.

You don't have to look hard on the left to find vitriol, nutters, all manner of other ideas, various troubling developments and unbalanced views. That isn't even starting to scratch the surface.

While there are always "signs" that point to "weaknesses" in the economy, most of what is out there is FUD spread by the mainstream media. The reality is that the current administration picked up the pieces of the .com crash and 9/11 and has done a remarkable job energizing the US economic engine through tax cuts. I encourage you to read the following piece by respected economic advisor Lawrence Kudlow: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/ the_bigbang_story_of_us_privat.html

Here's a few points:
  - Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent?
  - In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy. (so much for the "China is going to surpass us anytime soon theory - ed.)
  - Since the 2003 tax cuts, tax-revenue collections from the expanding economy have been surging at double-digit rates while the deficit is constantly being revised downward.

Housing MAY cause some short-term pressures (though I think this will be more isolated than is being reported) but it certainly isn't going to cause the economy to come to a halt. Maybe Yahoo should take a look at Google's numbers which, if I'm not mistaken, are doing just fine on the ad revenue side. Perhaps Yahoo should take a look in the mirror before proclaiming this is a US economic problem. When all the indicators show that online advertising rates industry-wide are down for multiple quarters I'll listen. Until then, this looks like short-term CYA by a CEO to help explain why his SG&A and EBITDA are not meeting the numbers the analysts want to see next quarter.

If you want more proof, read this article by John Stossel, which takes a look at what the "Congressional Record" is really all about. Or like parent says, watch CSPAN.

Yeah... it's all propaganda... well, and economic theory based on math... but don't let that get in the way. Freaking read a book on economics, preferrably by this guy.

this

From Larry Kudlow's interview with the President:

MR. KUDLOW: Well, yesterday, Energy Secretary Sam Bodman hinted that you might change position on the ethanol tariff, particularly with respect to Brazil. I guess there's a 54-cent tariff on that thing.

And the market responded--gasoline futures dropped nine cents, a huge drop. If you had a few of those you'll be back to $2.25 at the pump. Will you drop the tariff on--

PRESIDENT BUSH: I do want to work with Congress on that. I think it makes sense to--when there's a time of shortage of a product that's needed, so that the consumers can have a reasonable price, it seems to me to make sense to address those shortages, and dropping a tariff will enable the foreign export of ethanol into our markets, which will particularly help on our coasts. And yeah, I've talked to Congress about that.

I'm pretty much there with you.

There is no way that President Bush would ask, say, the NSA to do anything illegal is there?

And, although there may be a few renegades, there isn't much of official Washington that would use secrets for political gain.

But then there is the press which has recently developed some badly misplaced priorities, actively supporting and publicizing leaks of sensitive ongoing intelligence and military operations against the enemy over and over again. You would think it would be easy to understand that this harms our national security, yet much of the mainstream media passes over the issue in silence. On the other hand, they have endless energy and interest in a kerfuffle involving no crime.

Maybe the media will start taking the war more seriously if Al Qaeda makes significant progress in their announced goal of killing four million Americans. Or maybe not. If there are more successful large scale terrorist attacks in the United States, aided by the media's disclosure of on-going military and intelligence operations, I expect that the majority of the media won't engage in self-examination, but will rather most likely start banging the drums from the fever swamp. The fever swamp runs deep, and support for the President among the media is thin.

Well, if the other party gains power, maybe things will change... or maybe not.

Thank goodness we are a country where you can still engage in dissent against the mainstream.

I'm pretty much there with you.

There is no way that President Bush would ask, say, the NSA to do anything illegal is there?

And, although there may be a few renegades, there isn't much of official Washington that would use secrets for political gain.

But then there is the press which has recently developed some badly misplaced priorities, actively supporting and publicizing leaks of sensitive ongoing intelligence and military operations against the enemy over and over again. You would think it would be easy to understand that this harms our national security, yet much of the mainstream media passes over the issue in silence. On the other hand, they have endless energy and interest in a kerfuffle involving no crime.

Maybe the media will start taking the war more seriously if Al Qaeda makes significant progress in their announced goal of killing four million Americans. Or maybe not. If there are more successful large scale terrorist attacks in the United States, aided by the media's disclosure of on-going military and intelligence operations, I expect that the majority of the media won't engage in self-examination, but will rather most likely start banging the drums from the fever swamp. The fever swamp runs deep, and support for the President among the media is thin.

Well, if the other party gains power, maybe things will change... or maybe not.

Thank goodness we are a country where you can still engage in dissent against the mainstream.

He has the authority to do it:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-051 2210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinionc ommentary-hed

It's the necessary thing to do:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/20 05-12-21-bush-spying-edit-yes_x.htm

It's been done before by your pals Clinton and Carter
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610- 7772r.htm

You are all for it when it serves your politics :
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_21_ 05_MM.html

----------
A Troll post for a Troll post.

Only a blind man can't see your troll for what it is worth.

Speaking of odds - if I were you, I wouldn't take up gambling.

The exit polls were clearly flawed, and they are not sufficient to based your study upon.

If you look at all of the national polls taken in the month or so prior to the election, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.htm l, you will see that the exit polls are an extreme outlier. To use that data would be absurd. The fact that the exit polling data was so ridiculously far out of line with the rest of the polls is exactly why I, and many, many others, immediately smelled a rat when those completely unbelievable numbers came out early in the afternoon.

And that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that they were known to have been skewed toward urban areas.

Oh, and re: Diebold... what makes you guys think that they would actually engage in fraudulent activity after all of the nutjobs that have been blaming everything on them for 3 or 4 years?

Where are you seeing 10% ??
Poll averages had Kerry only up by 1% in NH. I don't see anything even close to 10% there. And Bush was even up by one point in one poll.
Poll averages also had Bush up in FL, OH, WI, IA . .

And I'm tired of saying this, but here goes again: midday exit polling is NOT scientific. So it is notoriously unreliable.

I guess I wouldn't mind a recount, maybe it will put these silly conspiracy theories to rest finally.

Let's keep a tally of sites with relevant information. Not sure if there's a bias in their reporting of news, but I've come to like Real Clear Politics as a way to keep track of the polls, etc.

Of course there's always non-US news sites like The Guardian and The Economist's articles regarding the election.

Breaking "news" also appears on Drudge Report. As far as blogs go, I don't really have any good ones. Any other ones you guys like?

• http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/Around_the_World/Coun tries/United_States/Government/Politics/Elections/ 2004_U_S__Elections/
• http://www.electoral-vote.com/
• http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/
• http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/campaign/ind ex.html
• http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
• http://www.factcheck.org/

You are assuming he cooked the books, however he has been runing the site for quite some time and has documented his procedures using all the available polls.

Today shows a spike for Kerry because the crucial states are so close and a 1% change (or fluctuation in the margin of error) can cause a HUGE change in the electorial tallies. The latest round of polls went into that standard system and my minisule 1% margins gave Kerry a huge electorial jump.

Maybe it's real, or maybe it's a margin-of-error effect from the polls. It is extremely close and can flip either way on tiny margins.

If you look at the map from the day before yesterday he had Kerry 243 Bush 280. Neither result is a solid predition.

This does several things that helps Kerry.

I don't see how. If anything inflating the Kerry figures would probably tip things in Bush's favor. A ton of Kerry supporters aren't voting for Kerry so much as they are voting against Bush, and they simply wouldn't bother going voting if inflated results indicated they didn't need to.

Go hit realclearpolitics.com
If you look at their map you'll see the only discrepancy is that realclearpolitics has Hawaii for Kerry and electorial-vote has Hawaii for Bush. The difference is that realclearpolitics has left many states white. That keeps their results stable, but it doesn't actually make any effort at predict the outcome. Electorial-vote colors each state based on so much as a 1% result in the polls. That means it sees wild swings in electorial results, swings that can easily be caused by margin of error in the polls.

Because of our dumb-ass electorial college system and "winner-takes-all" system it can easily turn into a landslide for either Kerry or for Bush, all within the margin of error.

this asshat has CA as only 'leaning Kerry' (Obviously to ensure the Pro Kerry forces in CA get frightened to the polls.)

That's a stupid allegation. He's not making up numbers. He has documented all of the polls and his proceedures for handling those polls. If he tried to "make up numbers" it would be trivial for you to prove it.

The Feild poll from Oct 27 shows a 7% lead for Kerry. That is less than 10% thus it is light blue. Light blue (or light red) is very unlikely to flip. It is that states that are merely outlined in light blue or light red - the ones with the white centers - that are under 5% and have high chance of flipping. And those states can still throw it either way.

-

Huh? When you go to an actual balanced polling summary, you see that the election is strongly balanced with a marginal lean towards Bush, in many of the states that Andrew has tagged as leaning Kerry.

This is why you should suspect the results of an organization that has admitted that it supports one candidate over another, and then claims to have impartial results. Kind of like the New York Times, CBS and ABC...

Go here: Real Clear Politics

Simple as that.

Amazing how in the battleground states where he has Kerry leading, he almost always uses the Zogby poll to validate his predictions.

This site is worthless and obviously partisan. If he really wanted to offer a realistic picture, then he would offer some sort of poll average rather than focusing on one pollster per state. Zogby has publicly said that he expects Kerry to win, and if you examine his and his family's activities, it is pretty clear that he is partisan. Not only that, you can see that in 2000, he was one of only two dissenting pollster opinions in the state of the race.

For a real poll wrap, check: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

Well, if you compare his site to RealClearPolitics, you'll notice the wide divergence between them, his site showing a much larger bias towards Kerry.

I'd guess that he thinks that showing Kerry with an imaginary big lead in the electoral college will make him more likely to win.

IMHO, that's mostly wishful thinking, but a lot of newspaper polls do essentially the same thing. The main paper in Minnesota hasn't been within 10 points of predicting the vote there in probably 30 years, but they keep publishing polls election cycle after election cycle that show the Democrats unrealisticaly way ahead every time. They must have some reason for it.

What would be interesting would be to go to some real political sites, with people who have actual backgrounds in this type of stuff, instead of this make-believe one.

Rasmussen Reports

Real Clear Politics

Yeah, its amazing to see how many slacker college students appear for a kerry event. I wonder what percentage will actually vote? Your wishful thinking was a disease I had during clinton vs Dole in 96. Sorry to tell you, but the polls are not as favorable for Kerry as you think.

What makes electoral-vote.com kind've special is that he's going out on a limb and declaring that "undecided voters" (currently something like 4%) will go out and vote for Kerry by a 2:1 ratio

The problem with this "undecided's always break for the challenger" analysis is that generally it is ONLY true of the very last poll. Polls a few days out do not display such a consistent "break" to the challenger. In fact they just as often "break" towards the incumbent.

I don't think anyone knows which way this election will break in the closing week. The RCP poll average has been showing a surge towards Bush. Perhaps this is just Bush regaining lost ground after the debates as Kerry regained his lost ground during them bringing us back to square one. Even more interesting is that while Bush has gained ground in the national polls some of the key battleground polls have shifted towards Kerry. It looks like we might end up with a mirror image of 2000 with Bush winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote. It will be amusing to see how the two parties would spin such a result.

What makes electoral-vote.com kind've special is that he's going out on a limb and declaring that "undecided voters" (currently something like 4%) will go out and vote for Kerry by a 2:1 ratio

The problem with this "undecided's always break for the challenger" analysis is that generally it is ONLY true of the very last poll. Polls a few days out do not display such a consistent "break" to the challenger. In fact they just as often "break" towards the incumbent.

I don't think anyone knows which way this election will break in the closing week. The RCP poll average has been showing a surge towards Bush. Perhaps this is just Bush regaining lost ground after the debates as Kerry regained his lost ground during them bringing us back to square one. Even more interesting is that while Bush has gained ground in the national polls some of the key battleground polls have shifted towards Kerry. It looks like we might end up with a mirror image of 2000 with Bush winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote. It will be amusing to see how the two parties would spin such a result.

Besides the UMN site already mentioned above, I highly recommend everyone regularly visit RealClear Politics (whose rolling averages have become a de facto barometer for journalists), The Horserace Blog (Jay Cost crunches the numbers in a way that puts the mainstream press' attempts to shame, and explains every step of his analyses), and Daly Thoughts (the best single state-by-state analysis of poll trends).

A better site for polling breakdowns is this one.
It averages out all the polls to get a global view of what is going on. It also has and electoral map and electoral count breakdown, as well as polls for each state.
They actually show you the data that they are basing their numbers on.

A better site for polling breakdowns is this one.
It averages out all the polls to get a global view of what is going on. It also has and electoral map and electoral count breakdown, as well as polls for each state.
They actually show you the data that they are basing their numbers on.

A better site for polling breakdowns is this one.
It averages out all the polls to get a global view of what is going on. It also has and electoral map and electoral count breakdown, as well as polls for each state.
They actually show you the data that they are basing their numbers on.

polls.

As for the rest of the world, yeah, they were sympathetic until we actually did something, which is exaclty why we should never let the UN interfere with our national security. You know, the same UN which refuses to pass even a resolution condemning terrorism?

I'd rather be feared than loved, if that's what these Islamic nations stand for.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php

http://realclearpolitics.com/

http://althouse.blogspot.com/

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/

http://www.intel-dump.com/

http://denbeste.nu/indexlofi.shtml

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevoluti on/

http://www.parapundit.com/

http://www.allahpundit.com/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/

RealClearPolitics - Polling data and best of the MSM commentary.
Instapundit - Smorgasboard of daily links interspersed with commentary.
Hugh Hewitt - Law professor, author, and radio talk show host.
Powerline - Commentary and links. Were very influential in the Rathergate controversy.

http://realclearpolitics.com/index.html

It's basically a link-blog, but its good to get the news.

Colorado Republicans are worried that Kerry might win Colorado, so this is designed to help Bush.

I'd like to see a modest change to the EC. The winner within a Congressional District in a state gets the EV for that House seat. The winner of the entire state gets 2 EVs for the Senate seats. This forces the presidential race to be a little more local in the bigger states and forces both sides to campaign in states where they have significant minorities even though they are likely to lose across the entire state. It would probably hurt the Dems overall since the Repubs control Congress. The Dems would lose places like Orange Co, CA, and upstate NY, but pickup EVs in places like Cleveland, OH or Atlanta, GA.

Don't want to scare you even more, but did anyone read the recent NY times Op Ed piece by Bob Herbert?

Don't have a link because it is the NY Times, but here is the summary/introduction. The article was very scary, especially when you combine hanging chads, the Bush running the state, Floridia's "too close to call" status, and all of its electoral votes.

Voting While Black

By BOB HERBERT (NYT) Op-Ed
August 20, 2004, Friday
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 23 , Column 6

The smell of voter suppression coming out of Florida is getting stronger. It turns out that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation, in which state troopers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando in a bizarre hunt for evidence of election fraud, is being conducted...

Yes. I read it. You'll want to read this too:

What Bob Herbert Didnt Tell you

And
Herbert's Dishonest Jihad Continues

After that, you could find the following meme-killing article on the Florida elections interesting:

Florida Forever

If you're wondering, I tend to collect links that counter the prevailing winds in the media. Also I tend to distrust something I read in the NY Times unless I can find corroboration from trustworthy sources.

This speech by Michael Crichton is good reading too:

Why Speculate?

Have fun.

Don't want to scare you even more, but did anyone read the recent NY times Op Ed piece by Bob Herbert?

Don't have a link because it is the NY Times, but here is the summary/introduction. The article was very scary, especially when you combine hanging chads, the Bush running the state, Floridia's "too close to call" status, and all of its electoral votes.

Voting While Black

By BOB HERBERT (NYT) Op-Ed
August 20, 2004, Friday
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 23 , Column 6

The smell of voter suppression coming out of Florida is getting stronger. It turns out that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation, in which state troopers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando in a bizarre hunt for evidence of election fraud, is being conducted...

Yes. I read it. You'll want to read this too:

What Bob Herbert Didnt Tell you

And
Herbert's Dishonest Jihad Continues

After that, you could find the following meme-killing article on the Florida elections interesting:

Florida Forever

If you're wondering, I tend to collect links that counter the prevailing winds in the media. Also I tend to distrust something I read in the NY Times unless I can find corroboration from trustworthy sources.

This speech by Michael Crichton is good reading too:

Why Speculate?

Have fun.

Electronic voting fraud is a small risk compared to other methods of rigging elections. And besides, any slashdot reader knows which party most of the hackers capable of rigging an electronic vote would cheat for.

YOU KNOW, sometimes I feel like maybe I'm too harsh in my charges of media bias. Then I read accounts like this one from Baghdad, by the Daily Telegraph's correspondent Toby Harnden:

The other day, while taking a break by the Al-Hamra Hotel pool, fringed with the usual cast of tattooed defence contractors, I was accosted by an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials.

She had been disturbed by my argument that Iraqis were better off than they had been under Saddam and I was now -- there was no choice about this -- going to have to justify my bizarre and dangerous views. I'll spare you most of the details because you know the script -- no WMD, no 'imminent threat' (though the point was to deal with Saddam before such a threat could emerge), a diversion from the hunt for bin Laden, enraging the Arab world. Etcetera.

But then she came to the point. Not only had she 'known' the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the 'evil' George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. 'Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.' Startled by her candour, I asked whether thousands more dead Iraqis would be a good thing.

She nodded and mumbled something about Bush needing to go. By this logic, I ventured, another September 11 on, say, September 11 would be perfect for pushing up John Kerry's poll numbers. 'Well, that's different -- that would be Americans,' she said, haltingly. 'I guess I'm a bit of an isolationist.' That's one way of putting it.

The moral degeneracy of these sentiments didn't really hit me until later when I dined at the home of Abu Salah, a father of six who took over as the Daily Telegraph's chief driver in Baghdad when his predecessor was killed a year ago.

Moral degeneracy, indeed. You hate to think that any American journalist could feel this way, but we've had other admissions of this sort in the past. To explain things in words of few syllables: It's wrong to root for your country's defeat. Especially when that defeat would mean the death of innocents. And surely it's worse still when it's merely for domestic political advantage.

The American establishment, led by the media and politicians, is in danger of talking the United States into defeat in Iraq. And the results would be catastrophic. . . .

> If you look at Fox News, or any of the other conservative news stations, they will say hes far left because they'd rather you vote for him than for Kerry or Gephart, the real far left.

Well Dean is well left of Kerry and Gephardt at least on military issues. And I don't think either of the latter have openly endorsed same sex marriages.

At least one Republican is advocating that Republicans should contribute to Dean's campaign to get him nominated, because Bush would eat his lunch in the general election. :)

Personally, I think it would be pretty interesting if Dean won the primary. Unlike Clinton, Gore, Gephardt, and Daschle, Dean seems to be a liberal with a principle or two, and he seems to be closer to the people. I'd rather have him elected than any of them.

Since the powers that be in slashdot seem a little left wing. Here is a right wing site analyzing the election.

real clear politics