Bill & Hill Push for 'Anybody But Dean'

[ELVIS]

Dean is too radical...

He scares normal people...

Not gonna happen...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Dean is too radical...

He scares normal people...

Not gonna happen...

Like I said to Freak, where's the evidence of Dean's alleged "radicalism"??

I have cited specific examples of his record, and you Busheep have yet to mention anything factual to support the mediawhore claim of his "radical extremism"

[academic punk]

Originally posted by FORD
Do you actually know anything about Howard Dean's record, or do you just take FAUX News' word for it.

How is a fiscal conservative who balanced the budget of his state every year he was governor (even though Vermont state law does not require it) a "left winger"??

How is a governor who recieved an "A" rating from the NRA a "left winger"??

Care to cite some examples of Dean's alleged "liberal extremism"?

FORD, I like Dean a whole lot, and he defintely brought fire and a perspective to the Democrats last year.

But in politics, perception is everything. He's been labeled a "loose-cannon liberal", and there's been enough (somewhat false) SOUNDBITES to support this. Now is the time - and Clintons understand this - to put a more centrist face on the party.

[ELVIS]

I agree with that...

There is absolutely nobody to fit this bill...

The democratic party is dead!

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I agree with that...

There is absolutely nobody to fit this bill...

The democratic party is dead!

The reasons the Democratic Party is close to being "dead" are:

1) The Corporate Whore media.

2) Electro-fraud voting

3) The DLC's domination of the Democratic party, which leaves "Democrats" like Judas IsKerryot with absolutely nothing to run on, because they fucking voted for 95% of Bush's agenda.

Howard Dean can definitely change the third one in short order. In fact he's already begun that process in his Presidential campaign and continuing through DFA.

Air America radio, proclaimed "dead" by most of you Busheep less than a month after it's launch date, due to financial difficulties common in ANY start up company, has grown rapidly in the last few months and can now be heard in 27 states. Not a match for Fear Channel, FAUX, AOLCNNCIA, MSRNC, and the Washingmoonie Times just yet, but it's a good start.

As for electro-fraud voting, that's the most troublesome of all. But the people of Washington state prevailed over the neocon theft attempt here, so there's hope for the rest of you.

With or without the DNC, we Deaniacs ain't even started yet. That you can count on

[freak]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh yeah, there's always massive deficit spending!

Or cutting spending and eliminating/overhauling wasteful programs.

[FORD]

Originally posted by freak
Or cutting spending and eliminating/overhauling wasteful programs.

Let's start with DOD.

First cost saving measure - Fire Rumsfeld and the PNAC treasonous fucks.

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
Let's start with DOD.

First cost saving measure - Fire Rumsfeld and the PNAC treasonous fucks.

Actually, I am thinking of change on a more local level. String up Robert Byrd and the rest of the crooks running WV for that nonsensical Corridor D bypass system. Billions spent to bypass an area no-one drives through to begin with. Pork. Nothing more.

[freak]

Originally posted by madraoul
I agree somewhat. But with our country currently to the right of the pope, maybe it's time for the extreme left to lash out. Dems are not going against "normal" Republicans here. Now is the time to challenge these "monarchs" and their lies. Remember, John McCain has a black baby!

John McCain is an opportunist. He's neither Dem or Rep.

As for the extreme left lashing out, that's why the Dems lost again. The far-lefties are every bit as crazy as the moral majority types. Actually, they share a great deal in common and both need marginalized in a hurry.

The center is the only way to go.

[FORD]

Originally posted by freak


The center is the only way to go.

What exactly would you call "the center" these days?

Remember the 1992 Republican Convention? Remember how it was the extremism of people like Bob Dornan and Pat Buchanan who scared the living shit out of voters and sent them running to Clinton AND Perot?

Dornan's still considered extremist, because let's face it, the man's a fucking nutcase. But Buchanan these days is looking like a sensible moderate compared to the neocon lunatics currently in charge of the Republican party, and gaining far too much of a foothold in the Democratic party, thanks to the DLC.

Would Buchanan be considered a "centrist" today then? And if so, if the "center" can be dragged to the right as the far right goes completely off the road, then when does the whole idea of a "center" become useless?

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
What exactly would you call "the center" these days?

Remember the 1992 Republican Convention? Remember how it was the extremism of people like Bob Dornan and Pat Buchanan who scared the living shit out of voters and sent them running to Clinton AND Perot?

Dornan's still considered extremist, because let's face it, the man's a fucking nutcase. But Buchanan these days is looking like a sensible moderate compared to the neocon lunatics currently in charge of the Republican party, and gaining far too much of a foothold in the Democratic party, thanks to the DLC.

Would Buchanan be considered a "centrist" today then? And if so, if the "center" can be dragged to the right as the far right goes completely off the road, then when does the whole idea of a "center" become useless?

I define centrist as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. You have to compromise with both sides. Big government is not the answer - Efficient government is. Pipe dream, I know.

Both sides have their dead-weight and radicals.

Bob Dornan and Pat Buchanan are/were about as helpful to Republicans as Kerry and Boxer are to the Dems.

[FORD]

Originally posted by freak
I define centrist as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. You have to compromise with both sides. Big government is not the answer - Efficient government is. Pipe dream, I know.

But Howard Dean did exactly that as governor of Vermont. Hell, Gary Locke did that as the governor here. Actually Locke was a bit too conservative for my standards (but still better than that ass Rossi who tried to steal his job)

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
The reasons the Democratic Party is close to being "dead" are:

1) The Corporate Whore media.

Aside from FOX, which I admit leans to the right, the "corporate media" as you say is liberal...

2) Electro-fraud voting

If you look at the FACTS, there were more documented cases of fraud in Ohio from the left...

3) The DLC's domination of the Democratic party, which leaves "Democrats" like Judas IsKerryot with absolutely nothing to run on, because they fucking voted for 95% of Bush's agenda.

I have yet to hear of a democrat that voted for Bush...

I do, however, know of some republicans that voted for Kerry...

Howard Dean can definitely change the third one in short order. In fact he's already begun that process in his Presidential campaign and continuing through DFA.

Howard who ??

Air America radio, proclaimed "dead" by most of you Busheep less than a month after it's launch date, due to financial difficulties common in ANY start up company, has grown rapidly in the last few months and can now be heard in 27 states. Not a match for Fear Channel, FAUX, AOLCNNCIA, MSRNC, and the Washingmoonie Times just yet, but it's a good start.


Dude, Air America sucks! I listen to it more than anyone I know...

Al Franken is the best talent they have and he is awful on the radio...

His 'Oi Oi Oi Show' is the the most un-funny thing I have ever heard...

Randi Rhodes is disgusting and disturbing talking about her sick sex life on the air with her drunken gay friends...

Ed Schultz, with his drunken Sylvester the cat like lisp, and Barney Rubble laugh, is the worst!

How many times can he say "righty" in one day ??

I prefer your "neocon shitbag" over his crap any day...

As for electro-fraud voting, that's the most troublesome of all. But the people of Washington state prevailed over the neocon theft attempt here, so there's hope for the rest of you.

How many King County votes were there ??

What's the population again ?? Thought so...

With or without the DNC, we Deaniacs ain't even started yet. That you can count on

"Deaniac" is the most uncool thing I have heard in recent times...

C'mon Dave, give me a break...

You can do better than that...

[FORD]

Ed Schultz isn't actually on Air America radio, though he does air on many of their afilliates. Some stations, like yours apparently, mix in programming from other syndicators along with AAR shows like Franken & Rhodes. I think Schultz might be better if he stopped trying to be a slightly left of center Limbaugh (he doesn't seem that Liberal to me really) and developed a little more of his own style.

As for Randi Rhodes, she even gets on my nerves at times. Kinda like Stern did when I had to listen to him for a while when Bob Rivers was off the air. I think it's the New York thing. Nothing wrong with that, just not what I'm used to.

And yeah, the Oi Oi Oi bit is anoying as Hell. I doubt even the Jews find that stuff funny. Franken should drop it. I've stopped listening to the streaming of his show in the mornings actually.

If I were running Air America I would probably make a few programming changes, but the network is growing, so they must be doing something right.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by freak
Or cutting spending and eliminating/overhauling wasteful programs.

AHAhahahahahahah...

Yeah right, but unfortunately the Republicans have become the party of pork. We claim to be against bigger government and spending, but what happens when the Repub's control the entire Gov't? This:

The Washington Post
Government Outgrows Cap Set by President
Discretionary Spending Up 12.5% in Fiscal '03

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 12, 2003; Page A01

Confounding President Bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels.

The sudden rise in spending subject to Congress's annual discretion stands in marked contrast to the 1990s, when such discretionary spending rose an average of 2.4 percent a year. Not since 1980 and 1981 has federal spending risen at a similar clip. Before those two years, spending increases of this magnitude occurred at the height of the Vietnam War, 1966 to 1968.

The preliminary spending figures for 2003 also raise questions about the government's long-term fiscal health. Bush administration officials have said fiscal restraint and "pro-growth" tax cuts should put the government on a path to a balanced budget. Bush has demanded that spending that is subject to Congress's annual discretion be capped at 4 percent.

But the Republican-led Congress has not obliged. The federal government spent nearly $826 billion in fiscal 2003, an increase of $91.5 billion over 2002, said G. William Hoagland, a senior budget and economic aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). Military spending shot up nearly 17 percent, to $407.3 billion, but nonmilitary discretionary spending also far outpaced Bush's limit, rising 8.7 percent, to $418.6 billion.

Much of the increase was driven by war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as homeland security spending after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But spending has risen on domestic programs such as transportation and agriculture, as well. Total federal spending -- including non-discretionary entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- reached $2.16 trillion in 2003, a 7.3 percent boost, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

White House officials have said the president's 4 percent annual growth cap was never supposed to curtail "one-time" spending requests, such as natural disaster aid or wars. But even if such emergency spending measures are removed, spending jumped last year by 7.9 percent, Hoagland said.

"Getting growth down to 4 percent? We're still not there, not by any stretch of the imagination," he said.

Administration officials say spending is being brought under control. White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo said the president cut spending growth, excluding the Pentagon and homeland security, to 6 percent in 2002 and 5 percent in 2003, and has proposed to hold all discretionary spending to 4 percent growth this year.

"The president has said that he would spend what's necessary to win the war on terrorism and protect Americans at home," she said, "but outside these items, he has put a serious brake on other spending, which is key to halving these deficits over five years."

Even some Republicans have trouble squaring such comments with the evidence. "It's still more than it ought to be," Hazen Marshall, Senate Budget Committee staff director, said of spending that excludes the military and homeland security.

Official spending figures for fiscal 2003 will not be released until January, when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office unveils its next 10-year federal deficit forecast. But the latest figures track closely with the CBO estimates released in August.

"I don't expect the official numbers to be any different than those, or not much different," Marshall said.

Regardless of the final numbers, there can be little doubt that government growth has been accelerating, said Richard Kogan, a federal budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And although Congress ultimately controls the purse strings, Bush is not immune from criticism, said Rudolph G. Penner, a Republican and former CBO director.

"The most interesting thing is Bush has not vetoed anything, let alone a spending program," Penner said. "One wonders how serious the White House is about holding the line."

Stan Collender, a federal budget analyst at Fleishman-Hillard Inc., said: "This is an administration that cannot possibly take up the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It's probably the least fiscally conservative in history."

Penner said the lapse in spending restraint occurred in two stages. First came large, projected budget surpluses at the end of the Clinton administration. Discretionary spending rose 0.9 percent in 1998, then 3.6 percent in 1999 and 7.5 percent in 2000. The projected surpluses have disappeared into a flood of red ink, but the 2001 terrorist attacks, coupled with a recession that year, eliminated any sense of restraint beyond rhetoric, Penner said.

"After September 11, it was 'We have to do anything we can to pull ourselves out of recession and protect ourselves,' " he said, adding that the surge in deficits and spending have so far had few political ramifications. "I don't remember a time when there's been so little commentary on it, and I can't really explain it."

Marshall said the surge in military spending was inevitable, once the nation mobilized for war, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. The nonmilitary discretionary spending increases have been driven by increases in homeland security spending, he said.

But even after factoring those out, some Republicans say spending is rising too quickly. Marshall noted that after Republicans took control of Congress in the 1994 elections, discretionary spending actually fell, by 1.6 percent between 1994 and 1996.

Budget experts said taxpayers should not anticipate a return to austerity anytime soon. The military bill that passed Congress yesterday would mandate $40 billion in additional spending over the next decade, Marshall said. Nearly half of that would be for veterans' benefits, but $18 billion would finance a controversial program to buy and lease military tanker planes from Boeing Co.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company