Slashdot Mirror
Governer Dean Becomes Chair of DNC
sg3000 writes "It's official: the Democrats elected Howard Dean as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dean won the position after a particularly contentious run for chairman, as reported in The New Republic. Governor Dean became a national figure during his impressive run for president in 2003, where he started as an outsider and long-shot candidate but became the front runner, only to see support fail to materialize during the Iowa caucuses."
In article title: Not "Governer", "Governor"
BALRHGHGHASGHH!
Dean? A Democrat? Yes, he signed civil unions into law, but publicly declaired his discomfort about it and did the signing in private with no press allowed. He was practically the Republican governor of Vermont for ten years!
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
Struck a cord with the common man? Come on, Howard Dean was a joke, and it shows there is a leadership problem at the top of the Dem party.
If this is the best they can do, I'm sorry for them. They need someone who can distance himself from the mudslinging and negative image the democrat party got during the last election. Put some class back in the Democrat party. Select someone with class and integrity, even if his name is not as well known as Dean.
Like it or not, the last election was more of an indictment of the demorats than a victory for the republicans.
... As long as I can't realistically vote libertarian in a presidential election, this is the lesser of the major evils. I like Dean, too. Sure would have preferred him, but I digress.
/. I imagine do, you should try and vote libertarian in your local and even congressional elections.
But, if you lean that LP way, and alot on
What Libertarians actually support.
Go LP!
~Rebecca
Struck a cord with the common man? Come on, Howard Dean was a joke, and it shows there is a leadership problem at the top of the Dem party.
I agree with you that Dean wasn't the one striking a chord with the common man, but I don't think that was the reason. As much as I, and many here, hate George W. Bush, the reason he's in office is "striking a chord with the common man."
He comes off as "common man" with his poor speaking abilities. He goes to schools, and reads stories to children. He went out in the crowd of terrified family members after 9/11, shaking hands and pausing to listen to frightened citizens stories. Then shortly after, he stood up and told the country that he was going to make us safer, and make it alright.
"Common men" don't care about secret tribunals, election fraud, attacking the wrong guy, invading soveriegn nations, alienating the world, or any of that stuff that "nerds" (of all types) care about. They want to be told that their leader empathizes with them, and that by golly, he's going to make it right. That's the stuff that makes the "common man" sleep easy at night.
~Rebecca
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
For the GOP. Dean set all sorts of fundraising records, yet only got a pathetic 18% of the vote. He had no problem getting his message out....and no one cared. His acceptance speech boiled down to "I'm going to keep doing what I've ben doing." Why would the DNC choose as their leader a man who's vowed to push the party into the extreme fringes of liberalism and alienate most of their core? Nancy Pelosi. She's carried a pathetic grudge against Martin Frost, a very viable opponent to Dean, for challenging her for Minority leader job two years ago and she's the one clearing the way for Dean.
As a Republican, I think this is good. I think he'll lead the party in the wrong direction and will onlly make my party's life easier.
I see him as what is wrong the with the Democratic party. Full of venom, hate, and far to the left. I think he'll move the party even more to the left than they already are (which, in my opinion, is why they lost the elections recently, they are too far from center). I know other Republicans who share this view.
But this post isn't about why I think he is bad, or that I think he is bad (I think Zell Miller would have been a great choice but I know how well THAT suggestion would have gone over ;). What I would like to ask of the Democrats here on /. is... what do you think? Do you think this is a good thing? Is there anything about him that worries you? Are there any specific traits that you think will make him do a better job than Terry McCauluf (probably spelled wrong)? The only thing I see good about him is that he is good at fundraising and organizing the far left (but I really don't know much about the guy).
So what do you Dems think of this decision? Good, bad, indifferent, and why?
PS: He wasn't the Clinton's pick, from what I understand. I bet they are NOT happy about this. But that's another discussion entirely.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
now to reform the democratic party!
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
I haven't been following this very closely, but frankly I'm pleased that the Dems put him in. People keep arguing that the media is liberal and whatnot but as far as I see it, the entire conversation has been shifted far to the right. So far that those moderate Dems are now considered left wing radicals. The Democrats could have easily buckled into that and put somebody more conservative in this position. That, in effect, would be a victory in itself for the right.
I really detest that cynical attitude. That the only ones whose opinions are fit are these theoretical "joe sixpacks" that go to blue collar jobs, don't read books, drink domestic beer, etc. etc. I think that stereotype, and buying into it, is stupid, and I don't think any American "common" or "uncommon" should buy into an idea that their opinion doesn't really matter because they are not somehow the "prototypical American". There is no prototypical American. There is no universal Joe Sixpack. There's an implicit reverse elitism in that. There is no fucking reason a lab-worker or aerospace engineer, or single mother middle-manager, or ex-drug-addict playwright are any LESS American than our theoretical Joe Sixpack. I think that's what makes us Americans.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
What I can't believe is how far to the right this country's shifted so quickly. What was the center in 2000 is now the 'extreme left' today. Dean's a proper left-leaning democrat, not a republican-wannabe apologist.
The right's gotten a strong wind recently, and we need to fight back accordingly, not start letting go of core values. And it's well-needed, even with such a poor candidate as Kerry, we still got 48%* of the electorate. Kerry ignored most of the issues at hand and only attacked Bush's strongpoints. I don't think Dean will let our newer candidates make the same mistakes.
Maybe I'm an old romantic, but I don't think homophobia (gay rights), subordination of women (abortion), warmongering (iraq), and the extortion of the lower classes (taxes, social security) are American values.
--
* debates over the remnants of fair voting aside
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
nice summary. of course, it omits both the real reason his campaign failed, namely the endless pushing of the infamous scream by the corporate media and related commentary, and the key bit of truth most of the sheep still don't know, namely that the scream never really happened and was fabricated to discredit dean. click on the link. oh, and be sure to print it out before the brownshirts have it deleted. one of the many reasons anyone who uses the phrase "liberal media" is either a liar or a fool.
My prediction is the Dean will surprise all his critics over the next 4 years as a calm, rational, focused, and successful leader. Why? Because he is a calm, rational, focused, and successful person.
The reason why Dean exploded the way he did is because the media turned against him because he was "unelectable". It was a bunch of bullshit because he was not your typical "say only what you want to hear" politician. I think people in this country would have been smart enough to see that, and it would not have been a landslide win for Bush like the media said it would be. Unfortuntly the media has a lot of effect on the primary elections.
I gave $100 to the Dean campaign, and I do not regret it. That money indirectly helped him become the chair of the DNC, and I am very happy to see it.
BTW, at the Iowa Caucus (I was there) Dean had at least 3x as many people there as Kerry. To be honest, I am still a little amazed how quickly things fell apart.
It's hard to imagine a better development than this! Excellent! Terry McAuliffe had brought the party to its knees with his Republican-Lite approach to leading the DNC. Screw that. Dean is the man!
Few things are as amusing as watching people get all worked up into a lather denouncing the choice. What, exactly, is wrong with having an intelligent, passionate leader? America has become such a country of clucking chickens that we not only accept the degradations to our liberties performed by the current monkey admin, but now even the dissenters are afraid of having a leader with a voice. Grow some balls, people.
The old idea of being Not-As-Evil-As-Our-Opponents is dead. It's time to pick up the populist trail where we left it years ago.
Oh, and PS weirdo rightist fascists - Dean is not a 'leftie'. He's left-of-center, certainly, but he's barely moderate, let alone "far-left". Readjust that sociopathically-slanted political spectrum you've got before you slide into the abyss of fascism. Just a friendly tip.
The scream never happened? Is this like the plane that didn't hit the pentagon?
All the link says is that he had a handheld mic that filtered out the crowd. The crowd was going wild with him and he was yelling.
"And what about the scream as we all heard it? In the room, the so-called scream couldn't really be heard at all. Again, he was yelling along with the crowd."
Christ, is it such a bad thing for a politician to show some emotion and not be a stick in the mud?
I really enjoy this. The GOP had nothing of substance against Dean. No attack actually was based on his record as Governor of Vermont, only on word games of rhetoric. The Dems would have that problem with anyone, so having someone with Dean's record is a plus. He is a fiscally restrained populist and while he may not make a great candidate, now he doesn't have to.
So to all the GOP supporters jumping for joy, I'm jumping with you. If you're going to be this easy to distract, it will make it a lot easier to combat the intellectual disease coming from the right. Between this and all the cycles GOP supporters burn thinking about Hillary Clinton, I can't wait to see the pathetic defense of the GOP's record in the 2006 elections.
Yes, keep thinking these moves are this dumb. It will be nice to see the GOP fall prey to the complacency that lost the Dems the 2000 election.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Dean is clearly on the left side of the spectrum, but BushCo is much more clearly on the *FAR* right side. The rightwingers have become so dominant that the system is falling out of balance, and there are basically only two outcomes now. One possible outcome is a swing back to the left, and Dean is of course going to be pushing for that. The stronger the swing to the right, the stronger the counterswing will have to be.
The other possible outcome would be bankruptcy and collapse. The United States has already lasted far longer than the average government, and it's showing plenty of symptoms of the kind of senility that often appears before a government collapses.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Too bad they didn't elect McGovern... The quintessential gey-rightist.
As might be imagined, the roar of the crowd at the event must have been deafening. This is a definite problem for those who want to use a microphone to speak- a balance must be struck between sensitivity and volume. However, what is instead used is a noise-cancelling microphone that reinforces the speaker's voice and blocks out background noises. Listen to any newscast in an area with lots of ambient noise, and you'll notice that the background seems "blocked out" whenever the reporter starts speaking.
Apparently, Howard Dean was so overwhelmed with the noise of the crowd that he felt the need to raise his voice in order for them to hear him. What came out was that mangled cry that he is now famous for. That unearthly sound may very well have cost him the Democratic nomination- all becuase of a microphone.
For those unbelievers out there, a few people were standing right near the stage taping the event on camcorders. They claim that Dean was absolutely impossible to hear over the roar of the crowd, and that only later did they realize he had screamed- when they came home to trun on the news. They never would have known otherwise.
Obivously.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
example direct quotes:
* Why Libertarians Support
Equal Rights for America's Gun Owners
* End Welfare
* The Libertarian Party: Working to slash your taxes!
* Do you remember when the standard of living in America was the best in the world?
+++++++
I mean, really, this is all just nuts
http://milkshake.dexy.org
Step 1: Divert topic to meta analysis of american politics.
/. superior to anyone who voted for GWB? Just because you broke the rightest/christian dogma and resocialized yourself you actually think you are better? Well good work, you traded one shit bag of backward logic for another shitbag of backward logic, except your new shitbag looks prettier.
Step 2: Discuss failure of the "average American".
Step 3: Talk shit about George Bush.
Step 4: Talk some more shit about the "average American".
Step 5: Talk some more shit about GWB.
Step 6: NEVER WAKE UP TO THE FACT THAT THOSE IN POWER ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE DESIRE WAR AND GREED AND ARE PART OF THE REASON THE "average American" IS SOCIALIZED TO BE A FUCKING MORON.
When a group of pro-war capitalists control a nation, why is it surprising that the entire nation is socialized to be absolute morons?
And more to the point and to be less US-centric when a group of pro-hierachy oligarchs/autocrats (I'm looking at you non-industrialized countries) control a nation, why is it surprising that the entire nation is socialized to be absolute morons?
How are any of you on
./revolution
Dean just plain hasn't got the right mix to make a viable party in the two party system.
He's hanging with the GOP on unpopular issues like immigration(where he basically endorses Bush's Open Borders policy) and failing to properly handle the social issues like Gun Control, Gay Rights,Drugs, Abortion(which constitutionally should all be state issues.
If they get someone with class and integrity who distances himself from the mudslinging, they're going to lose again. No, they need to have someone who appears to have and do all of those things, like the Republicans do.
That said, Dean is definitely the wrong person for the job. This is going to push moderates even farther away from the party, not bring them in.
Rob
By definition, there are more common men than uncommon men. People win elections (well, in theory) by getting more votes than the other guys. Therefore, appealing to the common man is more important than appealing to the uncommon man. Don't shoot the messenger, kiddo.
Rob
It's funny, because there are as many people on the right who show hatred for the Democrats (either Clinton, for example) as there are people on the left who show hatred for the Bush administration. It goes along with what I was saying earlier--the reason why the Republicans win elections is because they appear to have a much smaller group of haters than the Democrats do.
Americans are smarter than you think.
Oh, if only they were.
Rob
You seem to be implying that Bush won the election because of rhetoric and image. Certainly that's partially true, as with any politician. However, as long as the Democrats keep thinking that, they will never win an election.
The reason Bush won is because people knew what Bush was about, knew what he stood for, and agreed with some of his ideas.
The Democratic party needs to put forth someone with a message that the people like, and positions the people agree with. It's that simple. The Democrats are having somewhat of an identity problem, and that was reflected last election.
The fiscal liberals (i.e. people who want to involve the federal government more in economic transactions) are a strong component of the Democratic party. However, for better or worse, those ideas just don't get votes. Neither do politicians who support gay marriage.
There are really two options:
(1) Try to be honest about core values, like fiscal liberalism, abortion as a civil right, gay marriage, and more involvement with the U.N. This will initially cost the Democrats many positions, but will provide an opportunity to convince people of their ways.
(2) Continue their policy of Republican-Lite. The Democrats will hold more offices, but never will they gain the dominant position in the nation. They will never be able to convince anyone that liberalism is the way to go, because they can't even stand up and say it (or they'll lose votes).
Now, I'm not a member of the Democratic party, so maybe you shouldn't take my advice. I just want a healthy political landscape because that is better for me too. If the Democrats are constantly pandering and compromising and never really come up with a main issue that really creates a following, that means we have a bunch of Democrats, none of whom actually agree with the Democratic party.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
There's nothing good to say about Dean. He runs a tiny state with a singular constituency (96% white, $40,000 average income). Quite the resume. The MAYOR of the CITY I live in is better qualified for national office. She answers to a larger, more diverse population, with issues that a state full of rich white people just don't have to deal with. Good times.
Let's see -- you think Howie Dean was "full of venom and hate" but you're a supporter of Zell Miller's. How do you ever live with that sort of cognitive dissonance?
Zell Miller gave a speech at the convention this year in which he contrasted unamerican "agitators" -- pronounced with glowering eyes, foaming mouth, and around 18 syllables -- with our shining clean-cut soldiers, saying in so many words that our nation is about our proud military and not about inconsequential stuff like, oh, freedom of speech. Watching that speech I was taken aback by how openly the Republicans have declared ruthless war on not just those who dissent with them, but on the actual idea of dissent within our political system.
Zell Miller's the dying gasp of the "Dixiecrats." The Republican party's so-called "southern strategy" since Nixon has been to alienate Southern voters from the Dems, who in the 1960s actually came to terms with race (God forbid) and have been dealing with the issue with a measure of moral courage since. The strategy has played very well to the fears of my Oklahoma relations, who are frankly scared to death of anyone who doesn't look like them. All the old "Solid South" political figures, like Miller, have slowly turned from one party to the other.
Personally I don't think this country's going to avoid a truly evil course unless the south somehow, miraculously, comes to terms with the actual history of the Civil War. Politicians like Miller represent the determined derangement of that history, an ongoing denial of it.
It was political terrorism that ended reconstruction, and since then Lincoln's party has steadily forsaken everything he stood for. At the end of that chain, you get crossover figures like Miller -- stepping from a past evil into a present one, with eyes glaring up from lowered brows like a Stanley Kubrick character's. And you think this is moral courage, or something like. Because he rants about "agitators."
In all seriousness, God help you.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
:)
Someone had to do it... really...
I prefer a void in conversation to a vacuous one.
as the new Chairman?
Head to We've got Howard's Back and donate some money. Some folks are of the opinion that if enough money is donated right from the get-go, it will remind the Democratic National Committee to listen to the people and not the consultants all the time.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
"Common men" don't care about secret tribunals, election fraud, attacking the wrong guy, invading soveriegn nations, alienating the world, or any of that stuff that "nerds" (of all types) care about. They want to be told that their leader empathizes with them, and that by golly, he's going to make it right. That's the stuff that makes the "common man" sleep easy at night.
I take offense to this. I am a "nerd". I am young, I have a degree in computer science, live in a blue state, and work in another blue state (as a programmer) but I vote Republican. There are plenty of smart people who agree with the Republican party platform.
Isn't your party the one that dislikes stereotypes? Your basic argument that Bush won because Americans are stupid is disgraceful, not insightful despite the modding of your peers.
(As a Republican) that the "scream" was an overplayed "attack" on Dean from other Democratic party members. It makes absolutely 0 sense that in 24 hours Dean goes from being the revolutionary leading candidate of the Democratic Party to the whack-job has been who screams insanely.
Sure he had just lost the Iowa Caucus but he still had a lot of political momentum built up... But that disappeared almost immediately as the scream kept getting played and replayed and replayed... so much so that it became an incident in and of itself and the Iowa caucus' were quickly forgotten.
Especially when the "scream" was obviously just an emotional moment in a campaign. And there are plenty of those that happen that never get covered. But this one was... to death. Coincidence? I think not.
Never, have I ever seen anyone on the right compare either Clinton with Hitler.
e r
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Clinton+Hitl
Note especially that WND article about halfway down the first page.
As for your crack about Americans, what makes you think they are stupid?
I don't think that they are stupid. I just don't think that they're particularly smart, either.
Did they just stumble into being the greatest nation in the world?
No, they got there on the shoulders of their forefathers. Americans used to be a lot less complacent and reliant on the government for everything. We've grown fat and sluggish much like the Roman Empire did before its fall. Not to say that most of today's nations are any better, but it's only a matter of time until somebody else becomes the main superpower on Earth, most likely China.
Rob
Struck a cord with the common man? Come on, Howard Dean was a joke, and it shows there is a leadership problem at the top of the Dem party.
Oh, yes, Howard Dean is a joke among the common man. That must be why thousands of individuals generated over $106,061.77 in Democratic contributions in just two days in order to endorse his leadership.
Nay-saying's a lot of fun, isn't it?
I'm skeptical about how much Dean will be able to do, but he can't possibly be worse for the Democrats than Terry McAuliffe.
...
...
The Boston Globe had some bits to say regarding Dean:
"I'll pretty much be living in red states in the South and West for quite a while," Dean told reporters after he was elected to the post on a voice vote. "The way to get people not to be skeptical about you is to show up and say what you think."
"If we want to win nationally, we have to start by winning locally," said Dean, who repeated his pledge to rebuild party organizations in each state. "We can't run an 18-state strategy and expect to win. This party's strength does not come from consultants down, it comes from the grass roots up."
In a news conference after his speech, Dean said he planned to reach out to evangelicals, a bloc of voters that forms the core of Republican support. "We are definitely going to do religious outreach," said Dean, whose recent speeches routinely cite an example of a conservative evangelical who now supports him because of his support for expanded healthcare.
If I understand correctly the attention to local politics is a significant shift in DNC policy, which has in the past decade had a tendency to almost completely ignore local and state campaigns, focusing almost entirely on failed bids for the presidency. I have my fingers crossed that the Democrats will take up the nigh-forgotten banner of "States' Rights," which the Republicans seem to have dropped like a lead brick (particularly when it comes to things like gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion, and medical marijuana).
Also, I'm curious to see if Dean's grassroots approach can actually manage to reach beyond those who are already True Believers. Before, it just seemed to basically be Dean supporters (including myself) telling each other how much they hated Bush, which would get them riled up, which would have the end result of them telling each other how much they hated Bush.
I thougth dean's campaign failed because Kerry mortgaged his wife's house to fund an all-out campaign in Iowa, thereby cementing his status as the "electable" candidate for all the primaries from then on.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
People vote for Presidents, representatives, school board members.
Who cares if it's Howard Dean or Martha Stewart? The people who were actually elected to office control the "direction" of the party. The principle job of the DNC chairman therefore is to run the conventions.
Come to think of it, this seems like it would be a job at which Martha Stewart would excel!
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Great. Now since you're one of the smart ones, you are going to bother to tell us your logical, rational reasons for supporting Bush, right? Although I'm sure you were just about to do that.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
And I'm out of mod points. I could not have said it better. It's time that Democrats quit BUYING INTO the Republican position-namely, that "liberal" is some kind of epithet, a "dirty word" if you will. I am a LIBERAL, I'm proud of it, and it's about damn time we put some pride back in it.
There is one other thing-the Democrats need to play on the inherent wish of Americans to be moral. And in fact, they can do that! The Republicans pick garbage issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) that they know will divide. It's time for the liberals (Dem or otherwise) to stand up and say "Who GIVES A CRAP if 2 guys get married, when over 40 million Americans live without basic health coverage! THAT is immoral! THAT is unethical! And for that matter, it is UNCHRISTIAN!" Well guess what, Joe Average can rally around that! Now you're making it a question of basic morality, not a question of any type of cost-benefit scenario, not looking at it as some sort of "handout".
It's time for liberalism to quit being seen as an elitist philosophy, and for what it is-the philosophy which really DOES care about every man, instead of pandering to him and then stabbing him in the back with a cheerful smile, and trying to convince him that he did it to himself. That is my liberalism, thank you very much, and I see it as a good thing. And when someone calls me a "liberal", expecting me to begin backpedaling and prove that I'm not, I smile and say proudly "You are goddamn right I am, and I am proud to be. Thank you for noticing." They don't even know what to do!
And no, I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, either, they don't represent my wishes really any more than the Republicans do. When they get back to being good old social democrats, well then, I'll be the first to sign up. Until then, I have no wish to participate in the ultraconservative (Republican) vs. plain old conservative (Democrat) scam.
As for Bush-he DID win with rhetoric, and most certainly with image. Personally, I'm scared of the guy, although I'd be scared anytime that the guy with access to the "nukyalur" button can't even pronounce "nuclear" properly. Apparently, a lot of people find that endearing. I find it disturbing. But he did win on a lot of style and very little substance (for example, not correcting several of his statements during the debates, even when they were proven factually incorrect.) But he's not the first politician to try the image-over-substance trick. The Dems, however, handled it artlessly-instead of exposing the fraud, they played along. Instead of pointing out that he'd rigged the game, they played by his rules. And unsurprisingly, they lost.
The liberals also need to show that THEY are the real "freedom party"-the ones who advocate genuine freedom. Freedom of religion, including, for those who desire it, freedom FROM religion. Freedom of opportunity for everyone, not just the elite. Freedom from those we did not elect having power by virtue of their bank balance. Freedom from tyranny by corporations, as well as from tyranny of the government. Freedom from government interference in our bodies and bedrooms. Freedom from poverty. This is freedom. The conservatives only seek to offer us corporate tyranny, where instead of a dynasty of monarchial rulers, we face a dynasty of the wealthy elite, who, exempt from nearly all taxes, hold all the REAL power.
This situation is immoral and horrific. But the Dems, if they want to have any hope, better start painting a hell of a lot clearer picture of where we're REALLY going if we follow the conservative method. Otherwise, the conservatives will just keep nudging that heat on up, until it really IS too late for the frog to jump out of the pot. Currently, it's not.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
His support failed to materialize. But nobody mentioned how his support collapsed after? YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGG! "I have a Scream"
The reason that economic leftism cannot find a place in the American psyche is because rich people and corporations have spent many billions over decades to convince/persuade/brainwash Americans that economic leftism is bad and has bad effects.
But the facts are obvious from looking at the effects of economic leftism on countries like Sweden, Norway, France, Denmark, etc. THose countries have the highest standards of living in the world. And they are economic leftist countries: high progressive taxation, high social spending. THe proof is in the pudding.
But Americans are propagandized/hipmotized by the boob tube/talk radio/newspapers, which over the decades have been subject to a steady bombardment of pro-economic rightism.
See my sig for more details...
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I consider leftism to work much better on a smaller scale. The countries you mentioned are small (with the exception of France, regarding which some might disagree about your claim of a higher standard of living).
I don't think leftism works on a large scale because governments are naturally heirarchical, and that model does not extend well to large numbers (or so I claim). The reason is that individuals have more information about any situation than a far-away government, so they tend to make better decisions. So, it's good for the economy to give them economic freedom. There are limits, of course. You must prevent stealing, extortion, etc.
So, be wary of the E.U. taking over, because it could destroy those countries.
I think there's a natural tendency to call any large group of people who disagree with you "brainwashed". I just don't think that's the case.
More foreign people enter the U.S. each year than any other country, so we're doing something right. Something tells me that even if one of those countries had an open-immigration policy, there wouldn't be nearly the influx there. I bet you could even discount Mexican immigration and it would still be more immigration here.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
I am a LIBERAL, I'm proud of it
Finally, someone I can talk sense with. You know what your positions are, and you know the logical conclusions of those positions. I respectfully disagree with you on many issues I'm sure, but that's better than you disagreeing with yourself (and trying to make a political party out of that idea).
when over 40 million Americans live without basic health coverage
Without health coverage does not mean without health care. Another interpretation of that statistic is that 40 million people think that they can manage their own health better than someone else managing it for them.
he DID win with rhetoric, and most certainly with image
But there was substance there, consider:
* no gay marriage
* continue with war in Iraq on course
* hold Iraqi elections soon
* don't increase government involvement in health care
* avoid increasing tax burden
* appoint SC justices wihtout a "litmus test"
Those are positions of substance. You and I may both disagree with some of his positions, but at least we knew who the man was. Kerry, we had no idea. During the debates he kept talking about a big government health program, but everytime Bush said "So you mean socialized heath"*, Kerry would say "No No No, it's all through a series of private companies that the government just pays"*. Of course that's dumb: the goverment paying for health is socialized health care, and everyone knew it. You say that's good and you might be right. But then Kerry won't call it what it is, so he looked like an idiot.
To this day I don't entirely know for sure a policy that Kerry supports. He really didn't have much substance. He basically ran the "I'm not Bush" ticket.
Freedom from tyranny by corporations, as well as from tyranny of the government.
Corporations are a government-imposed structure with rights above and beyond what private individuals or groups can achieve. Particularly, corporate owners have immunity from liability beyond their corporate investment in most cases. So perhaps those are one and the same? Or at least partially so?
Freedom from poverty.
Be a little careful with this one. Don't create a right for one person that enslaves another.
* Bush/Kerry quotes are paraphrased to the best of my recollection.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Bush won because he has very strong support with Christians, especially fundamentalists. They (being the GOP and Karl Rove in particular) motivated and mobilized a huge segment of people in '04 that never voted before: people who were largely fundamentalist in religion but disinterested in politics, and they did it by making those people afraid or angry with respect to a supposed "moral decline".
I voted strictly Republican for a number of years. I graduated from a Christian high school. I agreed with (and largely STILL agree with) what I saw as the fundamental tenants of the Republican party:
* Fiscal responsibility (by both the government and individuals)
* Smaller government (ie, less of it, and more local where possible)
Eventually, I abandoned my religious viewpoints. Lacking the religious impetus to maintain them, a lot of my so-called "viewpoints" reversed: for example, when I was 18, I'd have probably been arguing for an Amendment to ban Gay Marriage. Now, I just can't figure out why people care who marries who. (Of course, I don't wonder why the religious right cares...)
That said, on top of a conversion to social liberalism, I think the Republicans abandoned their platform quite some time ago. I was a libertarian for quite some time and still regard myself as one at heart, but in races like '04, I had to back the Democrats. To short-list reasons why I was horrified that Bush won and I voted for Kerry instead: (and, yes, I was voting 'against bush'; the only democrat I really 'liked' was Dean)
* Bush and the Republicans passed one of the largest and most inefficient and expensive social program expansions EVER, in the form of the "Prescription Drug Benefit" for medicare. This was insane, as the legislation included language to stop the government from exerting pricing pressure on drug manufacturers...like, say, all the HMOs and PPOs do. Whether you believe we should pay for seniors' drugs or not, the handout to pharma companies was just ludicrous.
* Bush and the Republicans are the hard-core proponents of the PATRIOT act and under Bush, there have been a rash of extremely scary violations of civil rights. The complete lack of respect for the Constitution is horrendous, and Bush was completely disingenuous during the debates. During the town hall debate, he was asked a direct question about the way the PATRIOT act limited civil rights and he essentially said that it didn't and that he would never support that. Despite that, the PATRIOT act continues to have provisions struck down by the Courts and we're not anywhere done with it yet. He supported and is now working toward removing the expirations on many of the expiring provisions.
* Bush passed a huge tax cut and led us into a huge deficit. Given that tax cuts are often spent on consumer goods and we have an enormous trade deficit which largely comes from an insatiable demand for foreign consumer goods, you could argue that a tax cut stimulated China's economy more than it did ours. Where is the fiscal responsibility? Who's going to pay this bill? Meanwhile, the dollar is suffering huge declines against foreign currencies, especially the Euro.
* Bush argued from a position of certainty that Iraq had WMDs. We never found any. Worse, Bush has spread other deliberate misinformation, like using a completely bogus report to very loudly link Iraq with Al-Qaeda; then the report turns out to be a fraud.
* Republicans support their own brand of social program. Farm subsidies, for example, are this massive welfare program for red states. It's totally nuts.
Not that I don't have problems with the Democrats. The left side of the Democrats uses the term "Progressive" and when I think: "Progress towards what?" the answer that occurs to me is: full socialist wealth redistribution. Then there's the refusal to support legislation to ban horrendous late-term and even partial-birth abortion. I spent a lot of time analyzing abortion looking for a defensible moral ground, and my conclusion was only that it was indetermin
I respectfully disagree with you on many issues I'm sure, but that's better than you disagreeing with yourself (and trying to make a political party out of that idea).
No problem there, I've met very many intelligent, articulate conservatives quite capable of having a respectful debate. Thus far, you certainly seem to fall into that category. I don't expect that the whole world would agree with me, that would be terribly boring.
Without health coverage does not mean without health care. Another interpretation of that statistic is that 40 million people think that they can manage their own health better than someone else managing it for them.
True, or that they are too young for anything to happen, or...
However, I would imagine that, if we did a survey of those people, we would find that at least the majority would have health coverage if they could afford it, and because they cannot, live without checkups, diagnostic screenings, and other basic health care services.
Some further information on this point:
"The proportion of children who were uninsured did not change, remaining at 11.6 percent of all children, or 8.5 million, in 2002."
Source: United States Census Bureau report. (PDF)
Children, of course, did not make that choice.
So far as adults?
"Even having to pay very small contributions to health insurance policies can deter workers from joining. In fact, about 20 percent of all uninsured people live in families where a worker has declined employer-sponsored insurance coverage, with two-thirds citing cost as the culprit. For many, the decision to purchase health insurance must compete with the need for food and housing."
Source: Urban Institute research paper.
You might be right in a few cases, but in the majority, cost of insurance is just not payable. Of course, those who cannot insurance can also not afford to pay directly for care. Therefore, lack of health insurance does, at least in a very significant number of cases, bear a causal relationship to a lack of health care. (Except in an emergency situation, where care must be provided regardless of ability to pay. Even in these circumstances, however, followup care is often inadequate.)
But there was substance there, consider:
I will indeed.
* no gay marriage
Not a substantive issue at all. It's one that raises the hair on a lot of people's necks, but no one's shown how government belongs involved in the issue in the first place. Also, he knew well that the proposed Constitutional amendment against gay marriage didn't have anywhere near the kind of support it needed in order to pass, that was pure window-dressing.
I have yet to hear any objection to gay marriage on non-religious grounds. Pursuant to the separation of church and state, religious reasons are not and cannot be a rationale for government prohibition of an activity. (I presume this to be well-known, I'll cite sources upon request.) The only other argument I've heard is that it's "not natural"-and by that rationale, we should ban cars.
* continue with war in Iraq on course
Certainly no denying that this was an issue of substance, but I would've been far more comfortable had the failures of intelligence, etc., been more thoroughly addressed by Bush, instead of glossed over with "Well he wasn't a very nice guy anyway, so it's alright in the end."
* hold Iraqi elections soon
Fair enough, but I never heard Kerry be against that one, so I'm not sure how Bush "won on" that issue-to my knowledge, it was never in dispute. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. As to the fact that the elections were held on time, and went off overall quite well, I'm thrilled to see it, and I certainly hope that Iraq can stay on that course.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
The statement on the coinage is because that is really in whom the currency's value lies. It was added after the the US was taken off the gold standard. As the currency was nothing but fiat, it's value depended on the continuence of the government -and that is dependent on God - according to the consensus of the elected government.
The only know conviction is of a brother of a woman running on the democratic ticket for the house in Wi who slashed the tires of vans the republicans planned to drive people to the polls with..
Interesting health info. I'm still checking that out.
What we have now is a bad health care system. Costs are not controlled because the people making the buying decisions are not the ones paying the costs. To balance it out, the insurance companies must require patients to go to low-cost providers who underprescribe and generally provide poor service. And, because the costs are only loosely controlled, the premiums are still very high. So, we have high premiums and low quality medical care. The allocation of medical resources is very inefficient.
Health care in the U.S. is very important to me since I have high health care costs and I will my entire life. I need quality health care and prescriptions, and I am willing to pay the cost.
When a politician speaks to me of "health care as a right" or reducing the price to me, I don't like it at all, because I want quality health care. It's no secret that if you reduce the consumer's price, via insurance or social programs, one or more of the following things will happen:
(1) reduced quality
(2) shortage
(3) lines/queues/rationing
Which all result in doom for me personally.
I think it would be much better if the government got out of health care and employers got out of health care, and the government just issued a voucher to everyone below a certain income level. They could spend it on whatever health care they want.
Regarding gay marriage, I'm a little unclear whether that should be allowed or not. It is clear to me that government is involved in marriage, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. It probably shouldn't be a Federal issue though. The only reason to make it Federal is because couples move around, and generally we expect to be able to maintain the same family structure when moving within the U.S. This whole issue is one of those unfortunate murky situations, because it's much easier to treat everyone as an individual.
But everyone is not an individual. A married person is no longer an individual in many practical ways. They share children with another person, who are also not really individuals. Marriage is a practical recognition of human nature. In many ways, marriage is designed to protect the woman from various outcomes. One common situation is that the woman might support a man for 20 years as he builds his career, and then if the man were to leave the woman would have nothing and the man would have everything. Marriage protects the woman in that case. And I don't consider marriage religious since it is pervasive throughout the human population of all different religions. It's more of an acknowledgement of human nature. I'm not saying that we should force people to bahave naturally, but in some cases it might be good to acknowledge a common human behavior.
Some of these assumptions do not really translate to same sex marriages.
I think if you allow other forms of marriage you might as well just get rid of the entire thing from government involvement. Everyone can just go to whatever church they want, or no church, and make whatever agreement they want. They can sign a contract or not make any legal committment at all. I'm not really against the idea of getting the government out of marriage (however, I think if you do that a lot of women will get really really screwed by their husbands if they break up). I just don't see the point in extending the definition of marriage so far that the laws regarding marriage don't even make sense any more.
Either way, it is an issue. I think people had an idea who Bush is. Let me put it this way: I don't think that Kerry alienated ONE PERSON in the entire country with a one-liner. You know someone doesn't have any stance when they don't alienate someone. Bush would take a stance, and if someone didn't agree with him, he would let the vote disappear, not pander. I'm not saying a candidate needs to be overly devisive (and I would respect the argument that Bush is overly divisive), but you can't please everyone.
Ker
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.