TheAgitator.com
Vote Dean
Wednesday, January 14th, 2004My new Fox column is up. It’s a tongue-in-cheek (but only by a little) look at why limited-government Republicans should vote for Howard Dean.
Bring on the hate mail. I’ve got my hip-waders on.
90 Responses to “Vote Dean”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
What’s up with the Volvos? they’re not even forign anymore, owned by All-American Ford (which probably builds them in All-American Mexico) yeah i had one in high school, now i don’t even have a car, they’re too smelly. All the real “hipsters” I know are too busy not washing their hair to vote.
Very funny piece. It might put Dean over the top. Thanks!
Sorry. I’d rather “throw away” my vote.
As a resident of the city of Philadelphia, I can attest to the perils of one-party rule.
Howard Dean: The Era of Big Government is Over.
*heh*
I am voting Libertarian, which could have the same effect. I would rather vote for downsizing goverment out of principle.
That is exactly what I’ve planned to do for about a month now: vote across-the-board R for Congress and vote Dean (or any other D) for President. I don’t think Balko’s piece for Fox is humorous by any means. In fact, I think it makes perfectly reasonable sense that a one-party government, whoever’s in charge, will spend like crazy. What’s that old saying — “Republicans campaign like libertarians and govern like socialists”?
I tend to agree. If that is what it takes to get the government under the fiscal knife, then I’m all for it. I was Republican but they’ve strayed way too far from their conservative roots. I’ve recently become a libertarian. I believe in getting the govt out of our lives.
I just got back from a Dean house meeting, at which I volunteered to drive Dean supporters to the polls during the New Hampshire primary. My suspicion is that if/when Dean wins the nomination, he is going to hit Bush from the right on trade and spending.
Despite being painted by the conservative media as being “too damn liberal”, Howard Dean is, in actuality, quite conservative. He balances budgets, wears a 20 yr old suit, leaves gun control up to the states, and believes in freedom for all. Plus, the man is damn smart and Bush is simply not interested in problems solving. For these reasons, I AM Howard Dean!
P.S. Give a rich man $20 and come back in 10 years..he’ll still have it. Give a poor man $20 and he’ll stimulate the economy with it so fast it’ll make your head spin.
DUUUUH!
” He signed the free trade agreements GATT (search) and NAFTA (search), for example, and rolled out an initiative to gut federal bureaucratic waste.”
Um, what’s a “free trade agreement”? How do thousands of pages of regulations add up to free trade?
How do thousands of pages of regulations add up to free trade?
The same way thousands of pages of contract and property law add up to economic liberty. You don’t get liberty without people following rules, and the most basic rules are the ones enforced by governments.
JUDGES JUDGES JUDGES!! Letting Dean put judges on the supreme court & appeals courts will do more damage than Bush can do with four more years in office. Plus, I still hope deep down that the social spending was just Rove’s master plan to get republicans enough seats in 04 so they can push real reforms through.
I still hope deep down that the social spending was just Rove’s master plan to get republicans enough seats in 04 so they can push real reforms through.
And I still hope the Red Sox are just trying to lull the Yankees into a false sense of security.
Laugh all you want, but when Dean starts redistributing your wealth like he did in Vermont dont say I didnt warn ya. Where the ski town Killington is trying to secede from the state because they are one of the ‘gold’ towns which is soaked by the state
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=1593677&nav=4QcSK5lv
oh yea, and you’ll notice the town got screwed by the state’s superior court when they fought and wont their case in the lower court. Who do you think put those judges on the state’s superior court?
Thats why its worth 4 more years of Bush. And seriuosly, he cant possibly keep up the spending levels hes at right now anyway.
Brilliant. And so true. The best way to get small government is to have a divided government. And, aparently, the best form of divided government is a Democratic Executive and a Republican Congress.
Add in the fact that Dean has a record of choosing fiscal responsibility, and you have the best him as the best of a (bad) set of choices.
I don’t bother with Faux News, so I’m not going to bother with your article, but
“toungue-in-cheek”?
Oh, jeez.
Don’t you people use spell checkers? The improperly used, for example, “there,” “their” and “they’re” that I have seen among child bloggers are bad enough, but these obvious typos are getting annoying.
You might think about doing a little more to let first time readers know when you’re doing a spoof like this. Learning to spell tongue wouldn’t hurt either.
Raj –
How much do you pay for your subscription to this site? That’s right. It’s free. I post a lot on this site. It takes up a good deal of my free time. There will be errors. I’ve never claimed otherwise.
If that’s a problem for you, go somewhere else for your free ice cream. Seriously.
Judging my your two comments this morning, the only criticisms you can offer of me are my misspelling of “tongue,” and and cheap accusations of philosophical whoredom because I write for TCS.
I’ll take that as a compliment. Now, go away.
I cant believe you support dean. He wants to raise taxes, and increase gov regulations. Isnt that the opposit of your typical views?
I understand your frustration with G.W.B. I’m also glad to hear that your
comments are tongue in cheek. It appears
that some of your readers were too
dense to pick up on that. GOD HELP US
if we have to depend on a dumbocrat as
COMMANDER in CHIEF to keep us safe. That
hasn’t worked since F.D.R. The only times that slickwillie did anything of
a military nature was to distract from his whoring around. I was really impressed when he had our military blow
up that asperin factory.—NOT!!
On Radley’s reason for supporting Dean, it makes sense. I’m still voting for Bush though, for this reason…
I agree with Chris that if/when Bush gets re-elected, he’s going to put the hammer down on spending. I think we’re in for a lot of economic change in the next 4 years, and I for one am looking forward to it. I also agree about the judges. Unfortunately, more and more these judges are becoming ever so important to our freedoms.
As for this statement… “Give a rich man $20 and come back in 10 years.. he’ll still have it. Give a poor man $20 and he’ll stimulate the economy with it so fast it’ll make your head spin.” This is a slightly incorrect. Give a rich man $20 and he will invest it in a company, who will in turn hire more people to work for him which in turn will spur the economy to grow. The poor man has to buy food and diapers, which will in turn spur the economy to grow, but on a much smaller scale.
welcome back raj.
Hey, where’s serpent?
I cant believe you support dean. He wants to raise taxes, and increase gov regulations. Isnt that the opposit of your typical views?
Posted by: monkey boy on January 15, 2004 08:26 AM
He is not for Dean because he wants to raise taxes, he is for Dean because there would be gridlock, and he would not BE ABLE to raise taxes.
I’m gonna vote for gridlock in Congress be that Dean, Kerry, Clark, or Edwards….
not a bad plan Radley. The only reason I would support a republican over a democrat in this instance is national security. I don’t think any one of the democratic nominees know how bad people who are not in the US want to kill people who are residents of the US. Some of this is our own fault, but they still want to kill us. The judges thing bothers me, but I don’t think any of the current major political candidates care much about cheques and balances anymore or states rights. Many of the current slate of judges don’t either.
While I did appreciate the cheekiness of your column, I have to take issue with some of the comparisons you make between Bush and Clinton. Clinton wanted Hillarycare, a socialist-like plan that put more burden on the government. Bush is moving toward capitilizing (privatizing, whatever) healthcare, a Republican trait. Clinton wanted to make a Dept. of Ed. with more federal oversight and regulation of day-to-day education policies. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” does NOT enforce day-to-day policies on educators, but it does mandate testing and provide an influx of more funding. However, I do agree with you on campaign finance reform, that was political :-). But the thing (ignorant) people who read your comments won’t see is that just because more money is spent on programs does not mean that they are implemented the same. Bush’s policies are a far cry from Clinton’s, and the are Republican policies. That is why they are being passed. Plus, in regards to spending growth, is it possible to wage a war without spending money! Everybody seems to forget that we are at war.
Monkey Boy: I cant believe you support dean. He wants to raise taxes, and increase gov regulations. Isnâ??t that the opposite of your typical views?
Not at all.
You see, Mr. Balko only pretends to be a libertarian. In reality he is a flaming, raging Liberal.
And like all â??goodâ? destroyers, Language is his first target for destruction.
Chris is absolutely correct. It doesnâ??t really matter if a Republican Congress can gridlock Deanâ??s wealth redistribution agenda because Dean will still be able to appoint federal judges in any event; and there is no need to deal with Congress when you can simply have your Judges decree Socialism by fiat.
Individuals like Radley believe that no child should ever be subjected to terms like â??Godâ? or â??Prayerâ?, but it is perfectly acceptable for them to hear â??Fuckâ? or â??Shitâ?. He exists in a reality that is upside down, inside out, and backwards and he desperately wants (needs) to drag you right there with him.
—-
Ms Dani: Hey, where’s serpent?
Hey Princess. How ya doin? :)
Dan for Bush – I don’t think you quite understand the point of limited gov’t or the Constitution. I don’t care if Bush’s policies are implemented better or stress things you seem to think are important. The point of limited govt is to not spend the money at all. Where in the constituion does it say we can spend $1.5 billion on promoting marriage?
It doesn’t by the way, so don’t go looking for it.
I’m voting for whoever the Libertarian party puts on the ballot. That is NOT a wasted vote regardless of what the whiney conservatives preach.
Ok, here we go with the Libertarian nonsense. Whether you like it or not, we have a myriad of problems in this country created by FDR’s NECESSARY but socialist policies (which you should hate, since they all violate the constitution) that were never repealed by years of Democrat majority in Congress. Johnson didn’t help with his failed “Great Society”. So we have years of failed social policy. Then we were attacked! Attacked by murderers. Dire problems require action to fix. When they are solved, the spending will go down. And you know, Republicans rail against big government because it is wasteful and a FAILURE. You know the old capitalist saying, “You have to spend money to make money.” Well, it applies here. You have to take out mortgage to build the house. Don’t argue with me over simply spending money, because the Constitution doesn’t put any restrictions on that. If you want to argue over policy, I’m game.
When Bush is re-elected, no way is he going to reduce spending. His NASA pork barrel for high tech/ military spending is announced.
The best case Bush domestic agenda is this: he’ll bribe the retired enough so that a partial privatization of Soc. Security is enacted, that over a generation will become sustainable.
He’ll mildly push/ accept higher gas taxes to reduce the deficit, but only instead of more regulations (though I think he’ll actually do the reverse).
He’ll propose a lower flat rate corporate income tax, to spur employment.
He’ll leave such a big deficit that, whoever wins in 2008, spending cuts will “have” to be on the table. And the Soc. Security/ Medicare underfunded mountain (2014) of prior gov’t promises will be close enough to be exerting higher interest rate fears in the bond market.
Then, *really speculative*, VP Condi Rice explains to blacks how they MUST take more care of themselves, because gov’t is flat broke. And she gets enough positive response from middle class blacks to break the Dem lock on the black vote, without a huge boondoggle benefit.
Dean for Pres. in 2004 would be fiscally better; but the War on Islamofascist Terror is too important, still, to entrust to an angry Left radical Bush hater.
[Condi vs Hillary in 2008; the USA with a woman pres.? 20% likely from my view today.]
Ok, here we go with the Libertarian nonsense. Whether you like it or not, we have a myriad of problems in this country created by FDR’s NECESSARY but socialist policies (which you should hate, since they all violate the constitution) that were never repealed by years of Democrat majority in Congress. Johnson didn’t help with his failed “Great Society”. So we have years of failed social policy. Then we were attacked! Attacked by murderers. Dire problems require action to fix. When they are solved, the spending will go down. And you know, Republicans rail against big government because it is wasteful and a FAILURE. You know the old capitalist saying, “You have to spend money to make money.” Well, it applies here. You have to take out mortgage to build the house. Don’t argue with me over simply spending money, because the Constitution doesn’t put any restrictions on that. If you want to argue over policy, I’m game.
Actually, your FOX column on voting for Dean makes a lot of sense, and I would be inclined to follow your advice, were it not for the issue of National Security. Sorry–9/11 was a wake-up call. What good is limited government if we are all DEAD or forced to pray to Mecca 5 times a day???
Dan for Bush – first of all, calm down. Have a beer. that always helps me.
Now allow me to dissect your diatribe.
1. I know we have problems in this country, and I know that govt’s attempt at correcting said problems thru what they think are positive social programs is both unconstitutional and disgusting.
2. I don’t have any problem with spending money on defense. I will allow the president and congress that much latitude to spend whatever they deem necessary to keep our borders safe.
3. You’re right, people do rail against big govt because it is a failure and it is wasteful. I realize we’ve had these social programs for many years now, and we can’t just drop them cold turkey. We have to slowly let the air out of them, but I don’t see many current political leaders doing that. Bush is not trying to unwind the social program mess we are in. He’s jumping in with both feet. My earlier point about the new marriage program is a shining example of that.
As far as arguing over policy or arguing over money, how can you look at policies and not look at the cost?? The two are intertwined.
The constitution does limit the money the federal govt can spend. Check out the 10th amendment.
Living in California, a vote for the Libertarian candidate is basically a vote to let Dean win. That’s what I’ll be doing. Letting Bush know that I don’t support his big-government conservatism while (technically, at least) washing my hands of Dean as Commander-in-Chief. This is all provided, of course, that the LP runs someone who I won’t be embarrassed to vote for. If they do, I’ll write in my mom. And in 8 years, I can write in Radley!
Radley . . . way to handle the spell-checker head. Out of all the things to take issue with in your column (agree or not, you covered a lot), he goes for the throat! At least provide them a link to the Jerry Springer show before you put your foot in “there” hineys.
Oh, forgive me if I appeared hostile, I am as calm as a serene mountain meadow :-) Don’t mistake passion for anger. I still think you are not making much of a point. The government has mostly (but not admittedly not completely) from defense spending. What policy should we follow to clean up social programs? The point that you are missing is, if you “dissect” (your dissection was more of a summary) looking at Bush’s policies, all of the spending is one-time, flash in the pan deals designed to in one instant place the right people in positions to clean up our social messes created by Democrats. They are not recurring yearly programs of spending like Welfare, Democrat Education policy, and Democrat Health Care. And another thing people fail to consider is msot of Bush’s policies are earmarked to be enacted 2-3-4 years into the future; the spending has not yet taken place.
10th Amendment:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Thank you for proving my point. Democrat policy takes power away from the states, Republican power gives it back. Your interpretation of this amendment, in my humble opinion, is loose at best.
Good idea, the beer, probably would have a Guiness if I wasn’t at work!
I say elect Hillary. You want to see Congress shut her down?
Interesting when you think about two great times of properity, the 50′s and the 90′s. The federal governments’ hands were tied.
The socialist policies of LBJ and FDR were NOT “necessary.” They caused more harm than good (short term and long term).
Dan for Bush–
Care to explain how a massive, taxpayer-funded prescription drug entitlement constitutes a move “toward capitilizing (privatizing, whatever) healthcare”?
I’m all ears.
Actually a pretty good article, and makes a pretty good case for voting for Dean. Pretty good, but not good enough.
As a true limited-government Republican, I am more than a little unhappy with several things that President Bush has supported, but I’m a little troubled about my vote in 2004.
I could vote Dean for Gridlock, but casting a vote for a guy I don’t remotely support sounds like a move that lacks integrity, regardless of the ensuing gridlock.
I could vote Libertarian, especially since many of my views are more Libertarian than anything, but I can’t bring myself to align with a group that is both ineffective and EXTREMELY closed-minded, the latter being my biggest issue. In fact, I find Libertarians to be quite annoying, when discussing Libertarianism, of course.
As it is, I will probably vote for Bush again in 2004, particularly due to the National Security issue. If he fails to fight for the true Republican values in his second term, I’ll put my support behind someone who will.
All told, I don’t think I could withstand a Dean re-election campaign in 2008. Besides, Hillary would probably make sure that he meets with an accident…
I can’t argue with you on the prescription drug “entitlement”. I don’t like it, it is a handout to seniors (but only seniors I must say). I like that word, seniors are too damn grumpy :-) But I would take exception to how “massive” it is compared to other goverment programs. We’re gonna spend $40 billion for drugs next year in a $2.3 trillion budget = 1.7% of the budget, so it is relatively very small. Cutting it would have minimal effect on the budget. The privatizing part is the introduction of private companies to bid on Medicare policy contracts. The idea is to lower costs via competition, another core capilitalist property. Furthermore, the Medicare bill gives companies incentives to maintain employees healthcare plans after they retire, another form of the privatization of Medicare. Please don’t twist my words into something for your own benefit, you are misconstruing the meaning.
As for FDR (I never said LBJ’s policies were necessary, again, read carefully), you are being too inflexible by saying his policies were not good medicine. None of us can identify with a time like the Great Depression, and something drastic had to be done. But, in Teddy-Speak, the most tragic and dismal failure of social policy in the last 200 years was the failure of our government to repeal all of these policies when our country was economically healthy.
Dan for Bush
I didn’t prove your point that only Democratic policies are taking rights away. It is quite clear that they are, that’s not the point I’m aruging. i don’t believe that any of the recent Republican social proposals is giving power back to the states. I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen a politician worth his salt who was willing to give back power and money.
It doesn’t matter if the money is spent now or down the road, the govt is still spending money.
My interpretation of the 10th amendment is actually quite literal, not loose.
Radley… VERY well done article! Kudos to foxnews.com for posting it.
May I (respectfully) say to all that I see a flaw in the pro-Bush rebuttals posted here. Bush’s government spends and spends and spends and I think by now – after three years in office and most of that with a GOP Congress – if President Bush isn’t cutting spending, he won’t ever. There will ALWAYS be another program, another initative, another outreach, period.
Here’s what I fear will happen: the deficit will continue to balloon. The breaks will be applied not at the upper levels of government, but when creditors lose patience and seige the banks. That impacts Wall St.
I think gridlock is a much more relaiable mechanism to pin our hopes on than the restraint of one party.
I can’t argue with you on the prescription drug “entitlement”. I don’t like it, it is a handout to seniors (but only seniors I must say). I like that word, seniors are too damn grumpy :-) But I would take exception to how “massive” it is compared to other goverment programs. We’re gonna spend $40 billion for drugs next year in a $2.3 trillion budget = 1.7% of the budget, so it is relatively very small. Cutting it would have minimal effect on the budget. The privatizing part is the introduction of private companies to bid on Medicare policy contracts. The idea is to lower costs via competition, another core capilitalist property. Furthermore, the Medicare bill gives companies incentives to maintain employees healthcare plans after they retire, another form of the privatization of Medicare. Please don’t twist my words into something for your own benefit, you are misconstruing the meaning.
As for FDR (I never said LBJ’s policies were necessary, again, read carefully), you are being too inflexible by saying his policies were not good medicine. None of us can identify with a time like the Great Depression, and something drastic had to be done. But, in Teddy-Speak, the most tragic and dismal failure of social policy in the last 200 years was the failure of our government to repeal all of these policies when our country was economically healthy.
Radley… VERY well done article! Kudos to foxnews.com for posting it.
May I (respectfully) say to all that I see a flaw in the pro-Bush rebuttals posted here. Bush’s government spends and spends and spends and I think by now – after three years in office and most of that with a GOP Congress – if President Bush isn’t cutting spending, he won’t ever. There will ALWAYS be another program, another initiative, another outreach, period.
Here’s what I fear will happen: the deficit will continue to balloon. The breaks will be applied not at the upper levels of government, but when creditors lose patience and siege the banks. That impacts Wall St.
I think gridlock is a much more reliable mechanism to pin our hopes on than the restraint of one party.
If i recall, when asked what he was going to do when he got to DC, Goldwater said he was not going there to do anything, he was going there to undo eveything that had be done. I will vote for the first person that stands up for the 10th Amendment.
The amouont of money that is wasted by the Federal government is mind blowing. The fact that someone 1500 miles from here takes my money and then tells me I can’t have it back until I do X, Y and Z really pisses me off.
Well, im not reading 47 comments, so hopefully im not repeating any of them.
Radley, what if voting for the LP candidate would accomplish the same thing, Dean in office? Wouldn’t that be preferable to telling the gov. we want a, for brevity’s sake, lefty running our country?
Hold that thought a moment … maybe pretend
libertarians should vote Kerry?
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. This is not a joke.
I have always said I vote one party for President, the opposite for Congress.
Otherwise, there is no check and balance left…..including the Supreme Court!
There should be an amendment to the Constitution stating as such. At a minimum, force the two houses on Congress to not be the same political party.
But I would take exception to how “massive” it is compared to other goverment programs. We’re gonna spend $40 billion for drugs next year in a $2.3 trillion budget = 1.7% of the budget, so it is relatively very small.
Dan, I truly envy your ability to not view $40 billion as massive, regardless of what percentage of the national budget it happens to be. Can I have 1.7% of your annual gross income?
The way I see it, $40 billion here, $12 billion there, $120 million there, is exactly how we ended up with a $ 2.3 trillion budget in the first place. Maybe you think that is a perfectly acceptable figure for a federal budget (which would explain why you don’t have much problem with Bush), but I do not.
As to the other reforms in the Medicare bill that you mentioned…the way to privatize Medicare is to privatize Medicare…which is to say, the government should not be a provider of health care benefits. If it’s a good thing for private companies to bid for policy contracts administered via Medicare, why isn’t it better for companies to simply compete for customers directly?
Kennedy: How do thousands of pages of regulations add up to free trade?
Mithras: The same way thousands of pages of contract and property law add up to economic liberty. You don’t get liberty without people following rules, and the most basic rules are the ones enforced by governments.
I don’t think Radley wants to run with that story.
Serpent,
That link goes nowhere. If it went in a circular pattern, I would just attribute it as another one of your arguments…
Welcome back!
I don’t think Radley wants to run with that story.
Well, if people want to pretend that sophisticated markets create themselves without government enforcing the rules, then I can’t help them. You want a completely free market? Try Mogadishu.
As for health care, we have 43 million people without health insurance in this country. They wait until they get really sick and then they get uncompensated care from hospitals. As a result, people are suffering and hospitals are teetering on the brink of insolvency. Meanwhile, we spend more per capita than other industrialized nations on health care and do worse on things like infant mortality and life expectancy. If the market gets any freer, we’ll all be dead.
I agree with Mithras.
This earth, people, society have been going around for (at least) 3000 years. America is one of the newest of those societies, yet look at our quality of life as compared to the rest. What makes us different from people in 3rd world countries who have just as many and sometimes more natural resources than we do? Democracy, freedom, capitalism… it works. Israel, Britain, Canada all enjoy similar lifestyles as we do, and they all have some semblance of democracy.
How can we help people living in 3rd world countries? Stop giving them handouts and let them work even if it is for significantly less than we would ever imagine working for. It gives them a sense of accomplishment and responsibilty. Besides, no one respects a handout.
Above a ways Frank N made the best point of the day. Radley’s article makes uber-sense if applied to Hillary. No one, and I mean NO ONE, gets Republicans’ blood pressures up like her. If she were in the Oval Office (with a pretty young intern under the desk) the R led Congress would be looking for legal ways to nuke the White House themselves.
Further, she seems like she would be tough on our enemies, at least tougher than the rest of the D field (Lieberman excepted).
I doubt she would even bother presenting Hillarycare since Frist and Co. would punt it right up her ass.
So Go Hillary! Give us the gridlock we so desperately need!
Has anyone considered what the potential momentum would do to the Congress if Democrats win the White House in ’04?
Vote Dean, Light GOP Fire
Here is an article found on FOX News that gives some pretty interesting reasons for voting for Dean (or any other Democratic candidate) It was written by Radley Balko, of The Agitator and is a freelance writer for FOX News….
Vote Dean, Light GOP Fire
Here is an article found on FOX News that gives some pretty interesting reasons for voting for Dean (or any other Democratic candidate) It was written by Radley Balko, of The Agitator and is a freelance writer for FOX News….
Vote Dean, Light GOP Fire
Here is an article found on FOX News that gives some pretty interesting reasons for voting for Dean (or any other Democratic candidate) It was written by Radley Balko, of The Agitator and is a freelance writer for FOX News….
Radley:
What you are proposing is analogous to the old policy of containment against Saddam & Sons.
It doesn’t solve our government’s fundamental problem — which stems from the Mutually Assured Dumbness that has resulted from a political equivalent to the Cold War.
We have two super-parties, of approximately equal strength, that are like two trees that have fallen against each other — where the very act of pushing against the other supports both, letting them hold the ground they have and keep new growth out.
Rather than propose gridlock, this independent proposes that we cut down the tree with the weaker trunk, and see both fall.
From a philosophical and policy standpoint, the Democratic Party is the weaker tree. Totally discredit it — by not just helping the GOP take the presidency, but helping them take down the Democratic Congressional contingent — and you will establish something that the American people will not sustain; total dominance by one party.
Then, Americans will finally consider other alternatives to the two major parties — because it will diminish the risk that the vote for an alternative will result in electing the greater of two evils.
They will also be prodded into consideration of their role in perpetuating the Mutually Assured Dumbness — and just maybe start THINKING instead of feeling when it comes to how our nation conducts its business.
Hmmm . . .
I know I’m going to catch flak for saying so, but I am putting trust in the Republican Party and the Bush Administration. Let’s see what a Republican Congress and Republican President can do for 2 terms. I might be biased being that I’m young enough to see the results of this “Bush experiment” and still have enough time to recover if it tanks, but I want to see what happens, I need to see what happens. I will vote for Bush and I will vote for my Republican Congressman.
In 8 years if Bush’s agenda fails us, I will be man enough to conceed to a more liberatarian viewpoint, but untill then, BUSH 2004!
Dean is done. The guy could hold seminars on self destruction, his core positions seem irrelavent now that the debate centers around his mental stability.
golf
golf clubs
golf equipment
golf carts
golfing
golf tips
http://golf.sweetbuyz.com
snowboarding
snowboard
snowboards
snowboard gear
snowboard boots snowboarding tricks
snowboard accessories
how to snowbaord
snowboarding secrets
http://snowboardingsecrets.sweetbuyz.com
stress
stress management
anxiety
anxiety and depression treatment
anxiety treatment
http://stresstips.pedronetwork.com
people finder
people search
background checks
search people
people finder free
http://people-finder.crpublish.com
snowboarding
snowboarding tricks
snowboarding tips
snowboard
how to snowboard
http://amazingins.pedronetwork.com
people search
people finder
free people search
free people finder
http://people-search.crpublish.com
mp3
music downloads
music
linkin park
ipod
free music downloads
kazaa
http://Mymusic1.pedronetwork.com
No chips hedge out heads pacific poker download slow http://www.plantationchristian.com/pacific-poker.html number second stand railbirds pot pacific poker http://www.plantationchristian.com/pacific-poker.html gesture scalper!
There is fold score flat hand party poker freeroll chip http://www.lepcart.com/party-poker.html rooms horses spades party poker http://www.lepcart.com/party-poker.html pocket door prize wheel under!
Perhaps apple hopper odds variations bust holdem poker rooms rank set pocket quads natural http://www.lepcart.com/poker-rooms.html base rag upcard implied poker rooms http://www.lepcart.com/poker-rooms.html money stiff strategies texas?
Recently texas holdem poker game spread offers insurance site http://www.lepcart.com/texas-holdem-poker.html keno texas holdem poker http://www.lepcart.com/texas-holdem-poker.html wheel paigow?
Just cheat empire poker http://www.lepcart.com/empire-poker.html up action empire poker http://www.lepcart.com/empire-poker.html .
They glossary online poker free profit progressive http://www.free-online–poker.com heads progressive rag free online poker http://www.free-online–poker.com shuffling vegas rolled rank!
duchang
please visit casinos online