|
May 22, 2005
A note on Dean
I caught the last few minutes of Howard Dean with Tim Russert as I finished my breakfast. Did Howard Dean really just deflect a question about socialism by insinuating that Bush's judicial nominees would work to repeal minority rights? This kind of rhetoric is unconscionable. I think he did. Here's the transcript: MR. RUSSERT: In your home state of Vermont, there's a vacancy for the United States Senate about to occur. Bernie Sanders, the congressman from Vermont, wants to run for that seat. He is a self- described avowed socialist. He was incredibly uncomfortable when Russert posed the question, stumbling over his words and smiling broadly as if to say, 'damnit, Tim ... why'd you have to mention that.' He recovered well and was downright Clintonian when claiming that this socialism thing was really just about semantics. He's a slick one, and dirty too. MORE: Does anyone doubt that the Democratic Party is becoming the party of Michael Moore? The cover of Bernie Sanders's book bears the endorsement of that great apologist for Islamic terrorism. And remember that according to Chairman Dean, Sanders is 'basically a liberal democrat.' Is this really representative of the Democratic base? I think not, but I also tend to think that Democrats settle for radicalism because the party will give them nothing else, besides ghost stories about the evils of the right. posted by Dennis on 05.22.05 at 11:30 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2362 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A note on Dean:
» Bernie Saunders from The Neolibertarian
Neolibertarian Network member Classical Values catches Howard Dean doing a little duck and dodge when confronted with the "S"[ocialism]-word. [Read More] Tracked on May 22, 2005 05:25 PM
Comments
One last thing I forgot to add to my post. Howard Dean is in 100% agreement with Bernie on Bernie's belief system. Yet he is 100% upset with Bernie's unwillingness to be a team player in the Democrat Party. Rule #1: Thou shalt not admit who you are. This article also fits nicely with another Democrat Playbook. The social security obstructionism by the Democrats is an obstructionism designed to "refuse" to provide an alternative plan to President Bush's plan. Democrats know that bringing an alternative plan would just mean exposing themselves to the public. So, a democrat comes forth with an alternative plan. Hob Wexler starts talking about a 6% tax hike and an increase in the retirement age. This plan is exactly what the Democrats Want but the Democrats do not want the public to know it. Jeff MacMillan · May 22, 2005 01:39 PM It has oft been noted that, if you look at the Republican and the Democratic party platforms of today, and then look at the Republican, the Democratic, and the Socialist (and the Communist*) party platforms of 1932, you will find that today's Democrats and Republicans resemble the Socialists of 1932 than their own parties in that fateful year. The Socialists, of course, call this "Progressive". I'm a Reactionary, proudly. I have to ask the Socialists: If Socialism is so good, why do they have to sneak it over on people? (*It has been said that Socialism is but Communism on a slow train.) Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · May 23, 2005 07:20 AM WOW!! You actually found ONE Democrat who actually fit your "liberal as evil pinko socialist" stereotype! At long last you've found that long-needed rationalization for calling all liberals evil and sucking up to the party of Sun Myung Moon, Alan Keyes, "al Qaeda Pat" Robertson, Jerry "me too -- I think -- no, maybe not" Falwell, Richard Mellon Scrapie, Charles "keep your daughters virginal and pure while I plunder your 401-Ks" Keating, Grover "drown our democracy in the bathtub" Norquist, and Ann "she treats her parents the same way, so it's all okay" Coulter. And this Democrat's a friend of your favorite boogeyman, Michael "Dude, Where's My Integrity?" Moore, too. BONUS! And I'm sure it's nothing but coincidence that you started screaming about Dean just as Republicans all over the place are starting to realize they can't shout down questions about our military's performance -- or its effect on our credibility -- by trashing Newsweek. Raging Bee · May 23, 2005 01:12 PM Can we talk about socialism? How about the post office? defense spending? massive government control of nearly every major industry and asset? most of this is supported by the statist Republicans and nearly everyone on the Right. You people haven't even bothered to define Socialism. You have no authority to criticize those whom you accuse of practicing it. While we're cleaning up all the socialism, don't forget to close the public universities, K-12 education, all roads and freeways, all airports, all bus depots, public transit, gasoline and other petroleum industry subsidies, assorted bailouts, FDIC, Social Security, Police, Fire, 911 Service. Of course, none of these things are on the chopping block. Smells like hypocracy to me. David Howe · May 23, 2005 01:56 PM You guys really showed me! I'm actually glad we're here for each other. I keep you off the streets and you keep me amused. Dennis · May 23, 2005 02:03 PM what's hypocracy? is that like theocracy? is it rule from below? E · May 23, 2005 02:17 PM Dennis: you're getting an even sweeter deal than you think: you don't need to make any effort to keep me off the streets, 'cause I have a real job, so you're getting your amusement for free. Raging Bee · May 23, 2005 03:13 PM At any rate, you've missed the point of the post, which was to note Dean skirting the question of socialism by accusing Bush's judicial nominees of potentially working to repeal minority rights. How might that happen, and why would one fear it? Is it by virtue of the president's approval that these judges would be covert operatives of the KKK? Ah, not long now till my best friend's 'evil pinko socialist' wedding. Can you believe he made me the best man? A fascist neo-con like me! The funny thing about being a libertarian is that you can coexist with Democrats (the socially liberal) as well as Republicans (the fiscally liberal), yet be hatefully villified by those wearing political blinders when they fail to see that you're both socially and fiscally liberal. The authoritarian wing of the Republican party has far less control than you would have us believe, while the authoritarian wing of the Democratic party is the party. Cheers. Dennis · May 23, 2005 03:57 PM I think he might mean hypnocracy. Eric Scheie · May 23, 2005 04:09 PM The authoritarian wing of the Republican party has far less control than you would have us believe, while the authoritarian wing of the Democratic party is the party. Wrong again. Sun Myung Moon has been a major contributor to Republican candidates for decades; Alan Keyes, despite being an obvious loony and over-the-top homophobe, was the GOP nominee for a US Senate seat; Scrapie, a long-time opponent of the Civil Rights Movement, was a central and guiding figure in the anti-Clinton smear campaign that passed for a Republican agenda during the '90s; Pat Robertson, last seen taking al Qaeda's side against Americans he didn't like, has been an ardent Bush supporter, has run for the Republican nomination for President, and inspired the creation of the very powerful Christian Coalition; and Republicans have been doing their best to inflict bogus sex-ed curricula and creationist "science" on our students since at least the 1980s. Can you tell us exactly WHO are "the authoritarian wing of the Democratic party," and WHAT exactly they're doing to us? If you want us to buy your '50s-era "Democrat=Communist" propaganda, you'll have to put a bit more effort into it than I've seen so far. Raging Bee · May 23, 2005 04:35 PM You've got a lot of explaining to do when you claim that the Republicans are jointly controlled by the Moonies and the Christian Coalition. PS: What's a scrapie? Dennis · May 23, 2005 06:43 PM First, I did not say that Moon and the Christian Coalition "control" ther GOP; I said that these people were, and are, influential beyond their numbers or the popualrity of their policies among the general public. Furthermore, the "moderate elements" in the GOP are about as powerless, unorganized and cowed as the "moderate elements" in Iran. (Remember John McCain? He ran against Bush for the nomination in 2000 and Bush responded by smearing the military service record of a FELLOW REPUBLICAN who -- unlike Bush -- did not dodge his duty.) If you can think of any socialists, Stalinists or other extremists who are just as influential within the Democratic Party, you have yet to name them. Second, GOOD GODS, what kind of Democrat am I?! Here I am, trying to describe the Republicans' blithering, dangerous extremism, and I TOTALLY FORGET to mention that ongoing, over-the-top, mind-crushing (and decidedly un-Libertarian) emotional meltdown known as the War on Drugs [and the Non-Rich Users who Use Them or Question Our Rhetoric About Them]. Raging Bee · May 23, 2005 11:05 PM At any rate, you've missed the point of the post, which was to note Dean skirting the question of socialism... A politician SKIRTED A QUESTION?!! Why that's INCONCEIVABLE! I'm shocked SHOCKED and hurt HURT that anyone would do such a thing THING. Um...speaking of skirting questions...how many press conferences has Bush submitted to? How many public events has he attended where the "public" were not pre-filtered by his handlers? Has he EVER satisfactorily explained why we never found those WMDs in Iraq that he said were our main reason for going to war? Raging Bee · May 23, 2005 11:22 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Howard Dean was in a conundrum. The Democrat Playbook is to DENY being a socialist while being a socialist. The Democrat Playbook constantly fights against the "Socialist" labels and descriptions of their belief system in order to keep getting re-elected.
Tom Dashle got the boot specifically because he couldn't hide his "Socialism" anymore.