TheAgitator.com
“Metrosexual:” 2004’s “Price of Milk.”
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003Howard Dean declared himself a “metrosexual,” then admitted he has no idea what the term means.
I’m not sure if either of these facts makes me feel better or worse about him.
Incidentally, for those of you critical of me for even considering voting for Dean, I’m now leaning toward voting for him for two reasons:
1) Divided governments tend to spend less of our money.
2) Republicans seem to rediscover their small-government principles only when they’re not in power. Put a Democrat in the White House, and maybe a GOP Congress grows a pair, and thinks twice about that prescription drug benefit.
Neither of these are reasons to vote for Dean the man, who grows less likeable by the day.
The only thing that’s making me hold back a bit? Bush has vowed to make Social Security reform a high-priority in a second term, something that most certainly wouldn’t happen in a Dean administration.
But Bush made that promise in 2000, too. Along with lots of others he seems to have forgotten about.
I don’t trust Bush. He has mislead at every turn. But I see no real alternative in the Donkey herd.
” Bush has vowed to make Social Security reform a high-priority in a second term, something that most certainly wouldn’t happen in a Dean administration.
But Bush made that promise in 2000, too. Along with lots of others he seems to have forgotten about.”
There’s also the distinct possibility that he could make a complete clusterfuck of it, like so many other things he’s gotten involved in.
My new Howard Dean slogan: “Putting the Creep in Creeping Socialism”
Ah, the ‘divide and conquer’ argument. Actually, I kind of respect it.
Radley Balko: [The only thing that's making me hold back a bit? Bush has vowed to make Social Security reform a high-priority in a second term, something that most certainly wouldn't happen in a Dean administration.
But Bush made that promise in 2000, too. Along with lots of others he seems to have forgotten about.]
In my experience second term presidents are far more likely to press politically unpopular but necessary reforms. The reason for this (in my opinion) is that they no longer have to worry about getting re-elected, and instead can focus on the good of the country and their long-term legacy and reputation.
Voting for any of the Democrats (Socialists) is like attempting to build a time machine and reverse our victory over communism in the cold war.
I’m glad you hit upon that the way you did. Seems some can’t understand that Libertarians for Dean isn’t a love fest for Dean and his policies, only an investigation whether the circumstances we’d find ourselves in under Dean would be more tolerable than Bush. Divided government is a very strong argument for our situation being better under Dean.
Serpent writes: “Voting for any of the Democrats (Socialists) is like attempting to build a time machine and reverse our victory over communism in the cold war. ”
Voting for Republicans is voting for people who legislate without concern for the long term because they believe the Rapture is imminent.
Deficits don’t matter if the people who will be paying them off over the long term are heathens and sinners.
Here’s a better reason not to vote for Dean: your vote will make zero difference in the outcome of the election. Especially since you live in Virginia.
“But Bush made that promise in 2000, too. Along with lots of others he seems to have forgotten about.”
Maybe he’s been a little busy in the last 3 years. It’s not like Bush knew he was going to be dealing with foreign policy on this scale (9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq) almost immediately after getting settled into the WhiteHouse when he made those promises in 2000.” Could it be that he’s possible been a little distracted?
Besides that, it’s not like social security cannot be reformed if Bush doesn’t do it himself. What are our other elected officials doing about it?
“I’m not sure if either of these facts makes me feel better or worse about him.”
Well, keep working on it. We can’t afford to make a mistake with the crucial libertarian voting block.
Jon H.:[ Voting for Republicans is voting for people who legislate without concern for the long term because they believe the Rapture is imminent.
Deficits don't matter if the people who will be paying them off over the long term are heathens and sinners.]
Serpent: Ohh my Goddess! Your religious bigotry and overgeneralizations seem to know no bounds.
So essentially you are arguing that voting for Godless socialists is ALWAYS preferable to voting for God-fearing libertarians?
John H. said…
Voting for Republicans is voting for people who legislate without concern for the long term because they believe the Rapture is imminent.
Deficits don’t matter if the people who will be paying them off over the long term are heathens and sinners.
______________________________________
And I’ll respond, by asking if you’re serious. We (conservatives) aren’t all a bunch of bible thumping racists out to starve babies and hang negroes. Do you really think anyone that would support Bush is rich (I’m not) or a religous fanatic (I’ve not been near a church in 30 years) or has no desire to keep a lid on the economy of today as well as that of the future?
Dittos for the statement above regarding the fact that Bush has been a little busy recently. I think he’s doing an okay job, even if he can’t pronounce nuclear. I’ll bet that there are more than a few terrorist types that wish they still had Bill Clinton as Hall Monitor.
I figure if you’re even contemplating casting a vote for Dean, you’re not really trying to decide on whether or not Bush is deserving of your vote.
Gads. Vote for Dean if it’ll make you feel good. And if, as someone suggested, you live in Virginia (as I do), we shan’t worry that it’ll make much difference. This ain’t Florida, afterall.
I’m afraid we’re going to have to accept that the Baby Killer Party is out of power for a few years. As to whether or not a divided gov’t spends any less - if you say so. $400m to buy the votes of the geezers with a little medicine? Hell, that’s probably less than any Democrat would want.
Having watched the Pentagon smoke blowing down the Potomac a couple of years ago, I’m personally glad that the Appeasement Party (aka The Baby Killer Party) is not busy appeasing the people that would kill me and my family.
Whether I claim that Islam is a religion of peace or that I think all Muslims are terrorists - there are a few of these fanatics that would like to end my (and yours) way of life. And someone would actually favor a Democrat (aka - nevermind, you know the drill) as our Head Honcho? Shirley, you’re not serious.
Dean appeals to the extreme of the left - reason enough for me to hope that he makes it to the finals, only to be crushed in a landslide.
I thought the point of Jon’s comment was that it’s as silly to pretend all Democrats are socialists as it is to pretend all Republicans are theocrats.
Can someone tell me why we even have political parties and affiliatoins? What are they good for?
Imagine what it would be like having no political parties, you vote for who you agree with most, give your money to the CANDIDATE you agree with the most (not the party), wouldn’t that be a more true democracy? How and why did we come to this partisanship? I’m frustrated as to why there has to be 2 main parties and all the rest are there for annoyance’s sake. It is so anti-democratic. Where is the representation? If you ask me, I think it’s (party affiliation) one of the worst traditions we brought with us from England. We only thought we won the American Revolution.
I can conceive of non-theocratic republicans, even atheist republicans. Ron Paul is not theocratic, for instance.
But where’s the example of a non-socialist democrat?
Which is not to say that Republicans are not nearly all socialists too.
Anonymous: [I thought the point of Jon's comment was that it's as silly to pretend all Democrats are socialists as it is to pretend all Republicans are theocrats.]
There are only two sides to the coin as far as I am aware. Any other âapparentâ differences are simply the result of unperceived logical inconsistencies in the individualâs own views/philosophy.
If either group are theocrats I would say it is the group that is defying the constitution in their attempt to establish an Atheist Theocracy against the will of the majority.
“Can someone tell me why we even have political parties and affiliatoins? What are they good for?”
Looting.
“Imagine what it would be like having no political parties, you vote for who you agree with most, give your money to the CANDIDATE you agree with the most (not the party), wouldn’t that be a more true democracy?”
Imagine what it would be like having no government, you spend all your money as you see fit and nobody else has a say.
on October 29, 2003 01:52 PM wrote
Maybe he’s been a little busy in the last 3 years. It’s not like Bush knew he was going to be dealing with foreign policy on this scale (9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq) almost immediately after getting settled into the WhiteHouse when he made those promises in 2000.” Could it be that he’s possible been a little distracted?
Like government is not big enough to walk and chew gum at the same time? Do you really think that all the things that come out of the White House Bush came up with or works on? If he put out the order to get it done, it would get done, it is all political why nothing has happened till now
and as for the no political parties idea, parties are a by product of voting economics. Imagine if every election was like the recall…100+ people to pick from, now multiply that over 40-80 years however many elections a citizen votes in or whatever. It is much more efficient to pin your support to a party that you agree with 60% of the time and let it ride then to pick out the candidate you agree with 90% of the time in every election. Now I would like to see more parties here in the states, but parties are here to stay, they are an inevitable feature of democracy
Any libertarian that would vote for another party just to get the lesser of 2 evils should be ashamed of theirselves. Why do you think third parties always do so bad? If everyone, or at least enough, voted for a libertarian on a regular basis, maybe we could start to get that lesser, as libertarian policy would become heard more and the duopoly that we have now may have to start addressing issues differently. At least we’d be working in the the right direction. Voting in a democrat would do NOTHING but make it worse. Shame on you Radley…
Hey Chris,
Now that is a radical idea. Libertarians actually voting for the Libertarian candidate!?!?
Who knows, even if the Libertarian candidate is corrupt/inept and has no chance of winning; perhaps if enough libertarians did it — at very least — it will send a message to one of the two major parties and they just might change their policies slightly for the better?
libertarian != Libertarian
shame on you for not knowing that.
I value the former much more than the latter.
I think the main reason that Bush has not followed up on his promise of Social Security reform is because he came to the correct realization that radical Social Security reform isn’t workable. His commission came up with three proposals back in ‘01 as to how to convert to a savings system from a pay-as-you-go and all three included nebulous “transfers from general revenue” in the 2018-2040 timeframe.
Essentially, privatizing or converting social security would cost just as much as making up for future revenue shortfalls with general revenue. “Social Security Reform” is just a talking point. There is no magical privatization bullet that will fix social security. Higher taxes, decreased benefits, and higher retirement age are the only solutions and the ones that will be used, in one form or another.
Actually, I think Bush’s idea of Soc. Sec. “reform” might very well be worse for liberty than no reform at all. This is because:
1. he’s likely to propose some half-baked, super-regulated managed-forced-savings nonsense with a thousand strings attached;
2. this will be sold as a “deregulated, free-market policy”;
3. it will fail miserably and at great cost, as half-baked, super-regulated false deregulation usually does (see: electric power grids, British railroads);
4. the left will then jump on the failure as evidence that “free markets don’t work”, and spend the next several decades shouting down anyone who proposes Soc. Sec. privatization as “wanting to take us back to the days of the failed, costly Bush plan.”
Hey Brady,
Brady said: [libertarian != Libertarian
shame on you for not knowing that.]
I thought that libertarian (little âlâ) referred to a philosophical libertarian, and Libertarian (BIG âLâ) referred to the political party. Is that an incorrect interpretation?
In an S.E. Hinton sort of way, George W puts the Soc in Creeping Socialism.
Why should we have to wait until the second term for a President to make potentially unpopular, although correct, decisions?
The time has clearly come for term limits to make career politicians extinct. True, it comes with its own problems, but on the whole we’d be largely free of the Big Government Spending if career politicians were out of the mix.
Big Government is simply the result of the self-preservation of career politicians. Single-term politicians can actually work to cut spending, since their popularity doesn’t really matter as much to them.
Frankly,I think political parties themselves become less important, too.
Serpent:
You are correct, “!=” means “not equal”.
“I value the former much more than the latter.”
That means I value the philosophy over any party. If by manipulating the political situation (i.e. voting for divided government) I find myself in a more libertarian country than I would by voting symbolically (voting for big “L”) then I consider that standing by my principles.
I’m not suggesting that it would be wise to abandon the party completely (though some would), just in this situation.
Roger,
I think an even better solution than term limits is an amendment that would prohibit a politician from succeeding himself in the same branch of government for more than a single term. Although after skipping a term in office they could re-run again at a later time.
In other words, if you were a congressman or senator you could not run for congress or the senate in the next election (although you would be eligible to run for president).
I have a problem with term limits in that they are anti-democratic. If you like a particular individual then why shouldnât you be able to elect him or her to office more than once?
The real problem is that once a politician gets into office they spend our money (taxpayer money (just think of the âFranking privilegesâ)) ensuring that they keep their position forever â like a modern day aristocracy. They also refrain from any good-for-the-country decisions which conflict with their selfish desire to be re-elected and remain in power.
I also believe that the original (justified) intent of the Constitution was to ensure that there was no true âpolitical classâ, in that all of our representatives would be drawn from ordinary citizens who actually held jobs and paid taxes.
If you institute term limits then the guys runs for congress (serves 6 years or 8 or 10), then he jumps to the senate (and serves another 12), and then he comes home and runs for governor (8 years) and then he runs for President (8 years).
Under my scenario the guy could serve as a Congressman, and then he would be out of office with a real job for at least 2 years. After that if his fellow citizens wanted to elect him again they could.
Wallster,
[i]There is no magical privatization bullet that will fix social security.[/i]
Sure there is, one right between the eyes.
I’m with John.
Who cares if Bush wants to reform SS? I say the faster it collapses, the sooner we get rid of it completely.
Roger,
“The time has clearly come for term limits to make career politicians extinct.”
Yeah, and the limit on the number of terms should be zero.
Chris wrote:
“Any libertarian that would vote for another party just to get the lesser of 2 evils should be ashamed…”
Actually, the innovative “Libertarians for Dean” strategy is to vote for the greater of two evils. Twice the shame and twice the ineffectual stupidity, in a new, improved package of self-deluding lameness!
Progress is a beautiful thing.
John S.:
Put down the crayons and write up an argument if you have one. Juvenile name-calling makes you look much more foolish than it does anyone else.
5{“Put down the crayons and write up an argument if you have one. “
I have no crayons! I am too poor!
Will President Dean buy me new crayons with all the money he saves by bringin’ the troops back home?
Hopefully,
J “deprived” S
Serpent -
Not a bad idea. I never thought of it that way.
One thing’s for sure, however, either plan is better than the one we currently endure.
I love the your idea of some of these schmucks periodically joining us in the working world. It just may shock a few of them back into reality…
Can I just add to Serpent’s ideas on term limits and such?
How about also making the politicians earn the country’s average in minimum wage and live in govt housing while in Washington doing their duties, and then let’s see what kinds of people run for office. My suspicion is that the people who would want to run for office would be more like the founding fathers whom sometimes spent their life savings (if I’ve read right) in order to serve this country instead of the likes of Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton who use this country for power and prestige.
Serpent says: “In my experience second term presidents are far more likely to press politically unpopular but necessary reforms. The reason for this (in my opinion) is that they no longer have to worry about getting re-elected, and instead can focus on the good of the country and their long-term legacy and reputation.”
In my experience, second term president’s are lame ducks under seige from scandal. Name one second term president since the 1960’s for whom this was not the case. Nixon? (Watergate), Reagan? (Iran-Contra), Clinton? (Monica-gate et al.). A Bush second term will see a deluge of accusations and recriminations over the War in Iraq among others. And the rank and file will desert him. Repubs looking to 2008 elections will distance themselves from him as his popularity plummets and then stab him in the back.
great job balko! i am sure your 1 measly vote will put dean over the top. meanwhile you marginalize libertarians in the one party they have a chance of making gains into!
dumber than promoting a blue-skinned druid as a libertarian candiate!
Garth’s point is right on. There’s a reason why we call them lame ducks. Even without a scandal, a second-term president is almost by definition coming off the biggest expense of political capital he will see in his 8 years. All of his party’s House members and 1/3 of his Senators will have to face the electorate within two years, and will be loath to rock the entitlement boat too much. And second term presidents typically have shorter coat-tails, so the president will be owed fewer favors. All of this rolls together with the opposition’s natural tendency to look ahead to the next election and start building an electoral foundation right away, leaving the lame duck very much out in the cold.
Reagan offered his huge and controversial tax restructuring in his first term; Clinton offered his bold if fatally flawed health care proposal; Nixon turned the old missile-gap mentality on its head with the first SALT talks, and unexpectedly reversed his own fiery anti-communist past with a willingness to “do business” with China.
If you’re waiting for the second term for Bush to get down to nutcutting, you’ll likely be disappointed.
John Kennedy: [Yeah, and the limit on the number of terms should be zero.]
The form of anarchy you espouse is the exact opposite of civilization. It would reduce the status of homo sapiens to that of animals (i.e. survival of the fittest/Might makes right).
Fortunately the majority of individuals will always recognize that in order to ensure their own rights and liberties (existence) then they MUST be willing to accept a minimal standard of behavior (i.e. laws or common moral code).
Complete anarchy is only a utopia when solipsism is true.
Solipsism = the notion that the self is all that exist (i.e. the person reading this post is the only thing to exist, and the universe and everyone else in it are simply figments of your imagination).
Serpent,
Since might doesn’t make right why do you want to implement a monopoly of might?
Ohh, I think you have it backwards, my Brother. I believe that being Right (true) makes one Mighty.
I don’t understand why Radley is so infatuated with the idea of voting for Dean. I guess the idea is a bit shocking and unexpected coming from a libertarian, but I don’t think that’s enough reason to go though with it. All I want to point out is this: if Dean does win, it won’t be because of the sudden upsurge of libertarian support. Market liberals will not decide who wins this election; there aren’t enough of us. With that in mind, wouldn’t it be better for those who support the sort of ideals the big-L Libertarian party mostly supports (or even more broadly, support the political direction the Libertarian party proposes) be better off actually voting for the Libertarians in 2004? There are very few people in this country who are able to vote for the libertarian party; if you’re one of them, wouldn’t it be foolish to throw that opprotunity away? I’m not suggesting that if all libertarians voted Libertarian that a libertarian canidate would be elected. I’m only saying that voting for the libertarian party will have a bigger real-world positive political impact than voting for Howard freaking Dean. Would someone please explain why I am wrong? Because I’m getting pretty tired of seeing this libertarians-for-Dean crap.
Kurt:
“I’m only saying that voting for the libertarian party will have a bigger real-world positive political impact than voting for Howard freaking Dean.”
What positive impact would it have? Give an example for me to consider. Here’s an argument for my case from Cato Chairman William Niskanen on divided government. What is your response to that?
Right now I call voting Lib in ‘04 a wasted vote. Who the hell is even running for the Libertarians? How do I know I’d like him?
How’s this for a symbolic gesture:
Bush and the GOP losing in ‘04 for all of their very unlibertarian actions during their first term.
To me, allowing a dirtbag like Bush to be re-elected is the most shameful thing that we can do.
“Because I’m getting pretty tired of seeing this libertarians-for-Dean crap.”
Sorry, but I’m tired of seeing Dubya and crew on television representing America.
bush hatred + libertarianism = stupdity
Amen Brother Anonymous!
Balko’s on a roll
So I hopped over to Radley Balko’s blog and, as expected, found some great posts. In particular, he address Howard