United Socialist States of America

Last night Stephen Colbert quite cleverly invited the actual Socialist candidate for President onto his show, to give him the opportunity to state the blindingly obvious: Obama's no Socialist. (Added bonus was hearing a real, actual socialist explain his philosophy on national television. That doesn't happen very often)

The McCainFoxDrudge campaign's decision to focus the last few weeks of the election on the combined spectre of redistribution and socialism (not, it should be noted, the same thing) is, I think, really dumb.

First, it's not working. A new Wall Street Journal poll shows likely voters favor Obama over McCain on tax policy by 14 points. Part of that is no doubt due to Obama's near obsessive focus on hammering home his proposal for middle class tax cuts, but it also seems entirely possible that a broad majority of Americans think that "spreading the wealth" isn't such a bad idea right about now.

Second, they're creating a mandate that Obama didn't formerly have. David Sirota put it this way:

[W]hile Obama has offered up a progressive-though-moderate agenda slightly to the left of Clinton-ish neoliberalism, McCain has gone totally ideological. In doing that, he has polarized the argument and turned the election into a referendum on the economic Darwinism of the conservative movement - a Darwinism that, as my column shows, has built a machine that confiscates middle-class wealth and sends it up the income ladder.

And Marc Ambinder recently noticed the same thing:

...it might be dangerous for the Republican Party to elevate the stakes for this election to a death match between competing ideologies. If Barack Obama's victory is as decisive as it is shaping up to be, the Democrats can justifiably claim that conservatism itself has been rejected as a political and governing philosophy. In the closing weeks of the campaign, as the Republican ticket continues to run against the very idea of progressive politics, they are sowing the seeds of the post-election realignment narrative.

I think this is exactly right, and not just because I think it's transparently moronic to argue that the difference between Capitalism and Socialism is the difference between a 35 percent top marginal tax rate and a 39.5 percent one. Obama himself, while he does weave in an ideological story into his main narrative, he tends, instead to offer himself as post-ideological and pragmatic. The Right, meanwhile, has turned this election into a referendum on Socialism.

And they're going to lose. Amazing.

Comments (55)

1. John McCain SPREADS AMERICA'S WEALTH to FLDS polygamists in Colorado City, Arizona who practice tyranny over women and children and receive 25-30 million a year in taxpayer handouts.

   Watch the video:

   http://www.bankingonheaven.com

   Posted by XPolygamistWife at 10/29/2008 @ 1:59pm

2. Posted by XPolygamistWife at 10/29/2008 @ 1:59pm |

   How does McShame do it, I'm interested in learning more.

   Posted by Truthman at 10/29/2008 @ 2:38pm

3. They never stuck with ONE attack....so it looks like blatent desperation when they come up with something NEW every week!

   Bill Ayers flopped...so now (per their talking points' sources, Rush, Hannity, Drudge) they're onto Rashid Khalidi...

   but it leaves people saying "Wait a minute? What happened to Bill Ayers!?!?!?"

   Plus how does McCain call Obama a socialist and "explain away" HIS vote for the bail-out or Palin "redistributing the wealth" from Alaskan oil "seized" from Big Oil "by the State"??!?!??

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 2:41pm

4. Maskdelta

   You asked "Plus how does McCain call Obama a socialist and "explain away" HIS vote for the bail-out or Palin "redistributing the wealth" from Alaskan oil "seized" from Big Oil "by the State"??!?!?? "

   I guess it would have to do with all the other socialistic initiatives that Obama offers that is not present from John McCain, from taxation as a means of promoting desired social policy rather than just collecting revenue for government operation, to use of government to restrict speech ("Fairness Doctrine"), to socialist health care, to judges who don't even pay attention to what the constitution says their job is and make law from the bench, to more govenment induced protection for people who have too much job protection now (government workers including teachers), and so forth.

   Which you know already, so your question was a rhetorical one. Government has gotten too big and there is too much wasteful government spending that does not accomplish the objectives and does not help people who need help, and this happens whether the president is Democrat or Republican, but at least most Republicans do not propose it from the get-go and do not actively promote it as agressively as Democrats. Most of the time they just do not do what they should to stop it. Democrats do not want to stop it, they want to increase it.

   Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 2:52pm

5. McCain has run a dumb campaign for a few months by now.

   But what else could he do, given the GOP record?

   Run like a Democrat?

   If indeed he had switched parties years ago, he might have well made it into the WH.

   Bye, John. You blew it.

   And Obama is the far, far better man.

   Posted by sloper at 10/29/2008 @ 3:08pm

6. Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 2:52pm

   Well, maybe THAT explains it, SJ.

   You guys are merely engaging in a "holding action" and not advancing.

   Remember your "Patton" (the movie)?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 3:20pm

7. Why was W at RNC headquarters yesterday?? He was delayed from getting out of his car upon his return from a meeting at RNC headquarters, by that intruder.

   But WHY would a sitting President be driven to Party Headquarters, unless he was up to no good? What, more devious plans that they don't want caught on White House recordings? More evidence that he is just a servant boy for the Powers That Be, just as he has always been.

   Look for a November Surprise on Election Eve, courtesy of the RNC and Bush's buddy, Putin! A Commie scare straight from Russia! And this Socialist talk will really hit home...

   Posted by sjduskin at 10/29/2008 @ 3:44pm

8. Posted by sloper at 10/29/2008 @ 3:08pm

   Nawwww....like Ben Nighthorse Campbell or Lieberman, if McCain switched parties, he'd have stalled out WELL before Iowa in the Dem primaries (He COULDN'T eat all his "pro-life" stuff).

   Maybe a Veep spot...but even that would be very dubious.

   What killed him was picking Palin.

   It diced and sliced his "stability and experience" argument (by appointing a novice a 72 year old heartbeat away)...which McCain's bread and butter.

   Then ....she started talking!

   heheh

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 3:48pm

9. Two observations:

   1. sjduskin asks "But WHY would a sitting President be driven to Party Headquarters, unless he was up to no good? "

   This is breathtaking! Politicians do not stop Party-oriented activities once they are in office. Most politicians from a President to a city councilor engage in party activity.

   But of course, if George W. Bush does this, why there must be some evil going on! Some shenanigan! Something is up, but the libs on The Nation will keep a close eye on this and monitor the activity so as to leap at a moment's notice once the actual wrongdoing has occurred! Oooh, Ahhh!!! What high intrigue!!!

   2. Maskdelta opines "What killed him was picking Palin. "

   Actually, Maskdelta, the answer is no. As I recall from a few weeks ago, McCain was 2 points up in the polls until this Wall Street subprime economic problem hit the news. Then everything tilted towards Obama, as the whole circumstance which caused the mess (Democrat promotion of risky mortgages through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) got swept under the rug by the media and Republicans, evil corporate America, Wall Street, and everybody else but the cuplrits got blamed instead.

   That is what I remember happening, only a few weeks ago. It had nothing to do with Sarah Palin, if McCain had a different VP candidate it would not have made a difference. In fact, the selection of Sarah Palin put McCain in the lead (poll-wise), until this economic problem.

   By the way, gas prices are DOWN about $1.40 or more per gallon (A DOLLAR AND FOURTY CENTS OR MORE PER GALLON!!!) from what they were only abut 2-3 months ago, but has there been much publicity about THAT? No, because it doesn't fit the media template as they campaign for Obama.

   Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 4:17pm

10. Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 2:52

    So, I suppose all those Republicans who support the Home Mortgage Deduction, the goal of which is to increase the number of homeowners, are socialists?

    And if reinstating the Fairness Doctrine threatens free speech - even though Bob Grant and other right-wingers were all over the radio before the FD was killed by Reagan - then are Bush and Cheney Reds for promoting wiretapping and "total information" programs?

    Also, is it really "socialist" to leave the health care system largely in the hands of private insurers and employers, as Obama intends?

    Am I correct in assuming that you want to junk those parts of our legal system derived from the "common law" which, per Wikipedia, "refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, rather than through legislative statutes or executive action…Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in those nations which trace their legal heritage to Britain, including the United Kingdom, most of the United States and Canada, and other former colonies of the British Empire," the British Empire being socialistic in most of its practices at home and abroad?

    And the Republicans of the New York State Senate must be pinkos because their continued control of that body was recently endorsed by the state teachers union?

    Obama is no more of a socialist than Mask is. And most of his initiatives are not socialistic, even if a couple of them (job protection, heavens!) have roots in the socialist and anarcho-syndicalist movements and the lot. He is a centrist Democrat like the Clintons. But hey, if the public, in part thanks to McCain, expects and demands that Obama govern "from the left," I'll take it.

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/29/2008 @ 4:26pm

11. chermak

    both - the economic crisis made it more critical that the 72 year old have a good number 2, and like mask said...

    the woman opened her mouth off script and scared the crapola out of most in the center....

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/29/2008 @ 4:39pm

12. I wish Barack were a Socialist, and no, MASK is definitely not one. (I wish I could put "were" in italics but we can't do that anymore)

    Either way, that is one of the funniest videos of the election season.

    Spread the wealth! heheh Brian Moore is a pretty funny guy, too. Looks like a case-hardened old union dude from back in the day.

    Posted by jackwells at 10/29/2008 @ 5:14pm

13. "United Socialist States of America" the U.S.S.A.

    Has a nice ring to it doesn't it?

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/29/2008 @ 5:27pm

14. It's too bad the Socialist candidate is inarticulate and appears to be devoid of a sense of humor.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/29/2008 @ 5:27pm

15. Or maybe better yet: "United Democratic Socialist States of America." U.D.S.S.A.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/29/2008 @ 5:30pm

16. cka2nd,

    Right wingers were not "all over the radio" before the fairness doctrine was repealed. There was not much political discussion at all. It was not worth the bother of a radio station to have to put on a competing viewpoint anytime a political topic was being discussed, and then risk losing revenue because some of the stuff that would have to have been put on would not have drawn an audience, and thus would have brought low ratings at times.

    AM radio was not doing well, because the main thing on AM radio was music, and listeners could certainly get better quality sound of the music by listening to FM stations instead.

    The Fairness Doctrine would force radio back into that mode - and no doubt would not place restrictions on stations and networks to place competing viewpoints whenever so called "straight news" would be presented, even though that is often served up with a lib viewpoint. And libs would scream that Fox News washes that all out so no imposed "fairness" would be needed, and thus the mainstream news media would continue to lean predominantly lib.

    When you are talking about law, you are referring to how our system is "case law", adopted from British practices.

    But, the other kind of law you talk about, law based more on specific statues rather than precedence of prior cases, is the kind of law common in countries like Germany and France - who are quite socialistic.

    So how you tie our case law system to socialism is beyond me.

    It seems that the two different legal systems are separate from any discussion of socialism or the lack therof.

    Why the British fell into one kind of practice and the French or Germans fell into another, I don't know. I also do not know how you can tie socialism into this, but you did anyway!

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 5:33pm

17. (Democrat promotion of risky mortgages through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 4:17pm

    I don't suppose you remember Dubya promoting sub prime mortgages in 2002. Check it out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/29/2008 @ 5:40pm

18. chaozen,

    I do not remember that - I do remember recently reading references to warnings from Republicans and President Bush about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You can read them, too.

    Business Fannie, Freddie Critics Say Warnings Were Ignored by John Ydstie http://www.npr.org/ templates/story/ story.php?storyId=92529364

    Sunday, September 21, 2008 Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone... Dems Ignored Warnings http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com /2008/09/ bush-called-for-reform -of-fannie-mae.html

    Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs http://www.whitehouse.gov /news/releases/2008/ 09/20080919-15.html

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 5:48pm

19. Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 5:48pm

    I suppose like all repugs you are a victim of the "Selective Memory" disease. The treatment for that is researching your opinions before posting one sided talking points.

    In other words learning to think for yourself..

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/29/2008 @ 5:53pm

20. chaozen,

    I did want to expand on the discussion of law to mention there seems to be another aspect to this.

    That is the concept of settled law.

    As near as I can determine, and I admit I am not a legal scholar, but settled law seems to imply that once something is law it takes on a life of it's own, in and of itself.

    Combined with the case law concept, settled law seems to mean that the mere fact that something is law gives it some kind of legal weight and precedence which has a bearing on the continuation of that law.

    The only time I have heard this concept is with regard to Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade is apparently settled law.

    I am not sure if any other law besides Roe v Wade is settled law.

    This comes up whenever a Republican nominee is up for the Supreme Court, and the implication is made by some (such as media and Democrat members of Congress), that the prospective jurist must understand how Roe v Wade is settled law.

    They then ask questions (i.e, prowl and search and vilify and crucify) during the confirmation hearings for any sign at all that the prospective jurist does not fully understand this.

    In summary:

    1. Case Law is the basis for our legal system, where cases are decided on precedent from past cases, and comes from British practices.

    2. France and Germany practice the opposite of case law, which is law based more on legal statutes.

    3. Settled law is now practiced in this country whenever it is necessary to warn a prospective Supreme Court nominee that they dare not mess with Roe v. Wade. Settled law seems to have it's origins from some liberal legal scholars' rear end.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 5:58pm

21. chaoszen,

    You imply we "repugs" do not think for ourselves, and thus you implication would also follow that you of the enlightened left do think for yourself.

    But thinking for yourself didn't seem to work very well for you when you tried to show that because our legal system is case law derived from the British, that our legal system is tied somehow to socialism.

    Maybe you think too much, whether for yourself or if you are reguritating leftist talking points. It seems you overthink.

    Stop thinking about this and go watch the completion of the baseball game tonight if weather permits. And do not try to show that somehow baseball is like socialism.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 6:04pm

22. Debate on Roe v. Wade is an endless quagmire of circular arguments encompassing religious, moral, political and constitutional issues.

    All I know is that a modest majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade. In my opinion the majority rules no matter how small that majority is.

    Personally, I believe in the right to privacy and a womans right to chose what goes on with her body.

    Personally, I am not comfortable with abortion. I believe it is possibly the most important decision a woman can make. But I am a man and as such am not qualified to judge.

    That's all I can say on the subject.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/29/2008 @ 6:17pm

23. Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 6:04pm

    I have no idea what your talking about. You must have me confused with someone else.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/29/2008 @ 6:24pm

24. "Actually, Maskdelta, the answer is no. As I recall from a few weeks ago, McCain was 2 points up in the polls until this Wall Street subprime economic problem hit the news. Then everything tilted towards Obama, as the whole circumstance which caused the mess (Democrat promotion of risky mortgages through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) got swept under the rug by the media and Republicans, evil corporate America, Wall Street, and everybody else but the cuplrits got blamed instead."

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 4:17pm

    The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Act was intended to reduce discriminatory credit practices against such neighborhoods, a practice known as 'redlining'. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation. (See full text of Act and current regulations.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions.

    If you read it carefully, it says REGULATED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. The collapse came from the sector that had been deregulated.

    "By the way, gas prices are DOWN about $1.40 or more per gallon (A DOLLAR AND FOURTY CENTS OR MORE PER GALLON!!!) from what they were only abut 2-3 months ago, but has there been much publicity about THAT? No, because it doesn't fit the media template as they campaign for Obama."

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 4:17pm

    Gas prices are down because people stopped driving unnecessarily. Therefore the demand went down and the supply went up. Therefore it doesn't have a damned thing to do with who is running for election.

    Posted by Darth_Vulgar at 10/29/2008 @ 6:28pm

25. Socialism will be different in this country.

    There are guns here.

    Posted by bleedingheart at 10/29/2008 @ 6:39pm

26. "If you read it carefully, it says REGULATED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. The collapse came from the sector that had been deregulated."

    Posted by Darth_Vulgar at 10/29/2008 @ 6:28pm

    Correction: If you read it carefully, it says REGULATED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. The collapse came from the sector that had been deregulated OR DIDN'T FALL UNDER THE CRA FROM THE START.

    "By the way, gas prices are DOWN about $1.40 or more per gallon (A DOLLAR AND FOURTY CENTS OR MORE PER GALLON!!!) from what they were only abut 2-3 months ago, but has there been much publicity about THAT? No, because it doesn't fit the media template as they campaign for Obama."

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 4:17pm

    "Gas prices are down because people stopped driving unnecessarily. There fore the demand went down and the supply went up. Therefore it doesn't have a damned thing to do with who is running for election."

    Posted by Darth_Vulgar at 10/29/2008 @ 6:28pm

    The way you make it sound, McCain waved his magic fucking wand and gas prices dropped and the MSM just isn't reporting it. Neither Obama nor McCain had a fucking thing to do with gas prices dropping.

    Posted by Darth_Vulgar at 10/29/2008 @ 6:51pm

27. Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 4:17pm

    SJCHER, a recent poll showed that 55% of Americans don't think Palin is qualified to be President....

    you'd NEVER have gotten that number with Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty or even Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 7:52pm

28. Yes, sjchermak was confusing me and chaoszen. Honest mistake.

    sj, I linked Common Law, which grows out of decisions reached by courts - i.e., juries and/or judges - to socialism because you did so in your 2:52 post by calling it socialistic when judges make law from the bench:

    "I guess it would have to do with all the other SOCIALISTIC INITIATIVES [emphasis added] that Obama offers that is not present from John McCain, from taxation as a means of promoting desired social policy rather than just collecting revenue for government operation, to use of government to restrict speech ("Fairness Doctrine"), to socialist health care, to JUDGES WHO DON'T EVEN PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THEIR JOB IS AND MAKE LAW FROM THE BENCH [emphasis added] and make law from the bench, to more govenment induced protection for people who have too much job protection now (government workers including teachers), and so forth."

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/29/2008 @ 8:30pm

29. Its sad when "my freinds" from the right come to these blogs and spew the same BS we are being force fed from the RNC spin machine.... " BE VERY AFRAID !!! WHO IS BARACK OBAMA..?? JOE THE PLUMMER (LIAR,RIGHTWING PLANT,FOX NEWS ANALYST (LOL)) says IT SOUNDS LIKE SOCIALISM TO HIM !!..

    Listening to Sweet Sarah Palin go on and on with her stump speeches about "how it will be under B.O." makes me sick.. And people from the right should be ASHAMED of themselves for swallowing her BS. Im under no spell of Barack, but dont you think that this country needs to head in some sort of NEW direction..??

    Are "my freinds" on the right here SO BLIND as to believe the failed policies of the past 8 years (war(s), economic, diplomatic) should continue ..?? Do you guys REALLY believe this REALLY..??

    INSANITY: REPEATING THINGS OVER AND OVER AND EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT.

    OBAMA 08 !

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 10/29/2008 @ 9:24pm

30. chaoszen,

    Yes I did have you confused with someone else, my response was meant to be to cka2nd.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 9:31pm

31. cka2nd,

    Case law is not the same thing as left-leaning judges making law from the bench.

    Case law is making a decision on a case based on precedents established in other cases. It does not effectively create some new law that didn't exist before.

    Left leaning judges making law from the bench occurs when their interpretation of the facts on a case before them is so loosy-goosy that a new law effectively comes into being, or something is legal that was not beforehand. Judges are not supposed to make law, only decide on cases before them based on the law or Constitution as written.

    This is the system of checks and balances, with two law making branches of government only, the executive and the legislative.

    The worst example of this is abortion. Nobody voted abortion to be legal, and murder is illegal, but the Supreme Court somehow decided that privacy rights enabled the legality of abortion. Even some pro-choice legal scholars admit Roe v Wade was bad law.

    Effectively creating law where it did not exist before through a loose interpretation of law or Constitution, or even considering other factors such as "current societal norms" or what other countries do is in no way the same thing as case law practice of basing a ruling in court on past rulings and decisions. Not even close.

    I did not link case law (you call it "common law") to socialism. I did not bring up case law, you did. My comment was about judges making law from the bench.

    That is not case law, or common law. It isn't law, period. It is liberalism, getting implemented through court action when it can not get implemented at the ballot box.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/29/2008 @ 9:43pm

32. Come on Chris, it's not about the difference between a 35 and 39.5% tax rate. It's about giving tax credits (rebates) to those who pay no taxes at all, and doing it on a large scale. Sure, it's not socialism (yet) but it's certainly a socialist policy. It's just one more step, and it should be called what it is. The only fair tax is a flat one. What's to be gained by incentivizing laziness, except Democratic voters? Congratulations, you'll be in power when we are attacked in our weakness and the USA ceases to be.

    And ACORN was a key pusher - along with the Clinton Administration, the Boston Fed, and later Fannie/Freddie - of the "innovation" of throwing out historical income, down payment, and credit requirements for mortgage qualification. Sure, the Republicans helped the crisis nose-dive all the worse once it started, but the affordable housing agenda push was the reason (even by definition, obviously) of the sub-prime meltdown and - because those lax standards became the new industry norm - the wider mortgage industry.

    The Constitution, as written, should be preserved and defended. Which candidate poses the greater danger to it, and is to be avoided? Well, anyone who wants to appoint judges who discard the actual wording of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to push their particular vision on the rest of us are problematic, and antithetical to liberty. The Right has its problems, but Bush has never been a conservative in other than a social values sense. I can't claim that McCain is a principled conservative either, but at least he's shown that he's willing to stand on principle. Obama's ascendancy owes its success to his largely hidden past (even his aunt is now on a gag order), and his sweet talk of no substance.

    Posted by alaskan71 at 10/29/2008 @ 10:10pm

33. I can't claim that McCain is a principled conservative either, but at least he's shown that he's willing to stand on principle.----Posted by alaskan71 at 10/29/2008 @ 10:10pm

    Can you name 4-5 things?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 10:39pm

34. LOL... Alaskan...

    The Constitution, as written, should be preserved and defended. Which candidate poses the greater danger to it, and is to be avoided? Posted by alaskan71 at 10/29/2008 @ 10:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Tell us that you are really just joking.....?!? Hows that socialist check you get from the state of Alaska for petroleum revenues...?? Do you send that back in protest..?? YOU DONT..?? Are you sure your a real AMERICAN..??

    Did you think this way in 2000 and 2004..?? Did you ..? Am I going out on a limb here and thinking you voted for the same administration twice.... How did the Bush admin do with that lil' ol constitution thingy...??

    Antithetical to Liberty ..?? WTF does that mean..?? It dosen't behove anyone on here to start throwing around such words as LIBERTY/FREEDOM(S). Can these words even BE defined in todays society..??

    After 8 years of the most sinister regime in the U.S. History, you mean to tell me we should all collectively be afraid of an Obama administration..??

    Now Mccain after months of campaigning (giving a reach around to DUBYAs base) comes out and says "BUSH BAD"... I almost spit out my Freedom Fries when i saw that.... He has finally taken on B.O.'s campaign mantra... Maybe, just maybe he should have started with that... But we all know he wouldn't have the support of DUBYA's base of lobotomized jesus freaks. (no offence to the truly lobotomized of course)

    In closing I would just like to blame all that are responsible for the past 8 years of failures...

    The French, Bill clinton, Hillary, The Islamo-Facists (my favorite catch phrase).. Harry Reid, Pelosi, Olberman, The LIBRL' MEDIA ELITES , BARBRA STREISAND... Gimme a break...

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 10/29/2008 @ 10:45pm

35. alaskan71 You make several important errors. First, the progressive income tax is a liberal policy. We have a progressive income tax, endorsed by such 'socialists' like Adam Smith, which as a matter of equity and fairness redistributes money because the market, as we currently see, "that those who control great amounts of capital(say bankers) within a society, generally participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth(like bankers). Thus, it is a natural fact that the wealthiest in a society will, on average, become even disproportionately wealthier over time." By definintion a flat tax would produce a more unequal society and let me demonstrate middle class :: upper class worker Adj Gross income 1st income layer 25,000 :: 25,000 2nd income layer 0 :: 30,000 3rd income layer 0 :: 145,000 Total income 25,000 :: 200,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- Progressive Tax 1st layer @ 15% 3,750 :: 3,750 2nd layer @ 28% 0 :: 8,400 3rd layer @ 33% 0 :: 47,850

    Tax w/ 20% Flat tax 5,000 :: 40,000 Tax change w/ Flat tax +1,250:: -20,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Take home pay progress tax 21,250 :: 140,000 flat tax 20,000:: 160,000

    Apparently alaskan71, a true flat tax is NOT fair, indeed its inherently unfair, the upper class worker pays significantly less. So how DO you fund the govt? Well choice 1) you cut back govt, 2) borrow and spend, and 3) squeeze the middle class.

    Posted by hdthoreau at 10/29/2008 @ 11:25pm

36. guess what? america already HAS sociolist programs medicare school lunch program USDA bank bailouts etc etc etc only the stupid ignorant low information types dont already know that. they usually vote on good looks speaking style etc like a high school prom king queen etc they are they ones who the republicans corperate machine has aken advantage of yet they continue to vote against their own self interest becuase of wedge issues like abortion gay rights the word god in the plege of allegance christianity being declared the religion of america as a state religion. creationism being aught as science in the classroom dumb stuff meanwhile the republicans use them to enrich themselves and leave them broke with no pensions no health care broken schools and broken roads and bridges. they just dont care that what hard right wing capitolism IS its not about the nation as a whole or its people, its a legal apperatus to use the people as basically labor for the corperate machine. while they party in london paris and viennia opera ball with the european royalty which they all aspire to.

    Posted by reality check at 10/30/2008 @ 12:06am

37. C'mon, we've been trending "socialist" as a nation since Woodrow Wilson. So?

    There's no reason to believe politicians of either stripe are interested in changing that trend.

    In many cases their intentions are sincere and good. The consequences of collectivism, however, are devastating on liberty. The 20th century proved that to anyone paying attention.

    Having fools in charge is nothing new. We'll survive or fight.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 10/30/2008 @ 10:29am

38. The Republican's have done smear jobs for close to 40 years now. That's why the country has been so dumbed down. It isn't any wonder most American's have become immune to them. I realize there are a certain amount of people who buy their slop and swallow it whole like it were the gospel. That's who the Republican's target for votes. But, most of the rest of us have gotten to where if a Republican says it goes in one ear and out the other! Not stopping in between to take root and grow. I has to be a lie that's come out of the right wing slime machine. I think they must hire people to think up all this garbage they spread daily. So the Socialist label is in that category. I don't take it seriously. It's only the act of desperate people who are losing on all fronts. Even in the heavy Republican part of my state the Democrat running for Congress is holding her own against the Republican incumbent. She might actually win too.

    Posted by ganddw42 at 10/30/2008 @ 10:30am

39. Posted by bleedingheart at 10/29/2008 @ 6:39pm -----------

    Awesome.

    Posted by Scroot at 10/30/2008 @ 10:37am

40. i gotta laugh at all the 'liberal bias' 'left-leaning' talk. i see two reasons. A) people who buy this line are either just plain hoodwinked or perhaps so far to the right that anything centrist, moderate, or neutral seem outright socialist from their far-out vantage point B) maybe there is a bias. and why might that be, seeing how most media outlets are conservative owned and operated? well, chew on this one. the world's majority is somewhat liberal/left-of-center. hmmm. and don't use "whats popular isn't always right" please. im sorry but that stupid line simply cannot apply to every damn scenario thats ever occured on planet earth which doesn't specificly fall into your narrow world view. get over it. nobody "Knows" what is absolutely "right". but maybe, just maybe we oughta try something different. the right wing has NEVER succeeded in making the world a better place. history so very clearly shows this. war, poverty, death, destruction, distrust, fanaticism, totalitarianism. awesome stuff, really makes for a happy place. and no, soviet and chinese style communism is not liberal. not at all. oh, and Washington was a liberal. look it up. ;)

    Posted by skawtee at 10/30/2008 @ 10:42am

41. sjchermak,

    Just a correction or clarification. At the state level, the legislature of the State of New York and the people of the State of Washington did vote to make abortion illegal. I'm proud to say that I know or knew some of the folks who led the campaign to legalize abortion by way of public referendum in Washington, and yes, they are/were socialists.

    alaskan7,

    I don't know if you're ignorant of the history of these two items, but the Earned Income Tax Credit was largely pushed by Reagan and the Republicans as an alternative to raising the minimum wage. Apparently by the late 90's and early 2000's, Ronald Reagan (and Jack Kemp?) had become socialists.

    As for ACORN and home loans, a few things. First, loans under the Community Reinvestment Act tend to have extraordinarily high payment, as in non-forclosure rates. Second, ACORN protested against predatory lending practices. Third, while I despised the Clinton Administration - and Obama is supposedly going to name Lawrence Summers as his Treasury Secretary, one of the architects of the late-90's financial deregulation!!!! - how about the "ownership society" promoted by Bush and the GOP before him?

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/30/2008 @ 10:44am

42. "When Reagan was elected, I sent a proposed platform for true conservative and constitutional government...."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/30/2008 @ 12:15pm

    And how much of your platform did Reagan PROMOTE, much less implement? List 3-4 things, if you like.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/30/2008 @ 12:30pm

43. Gas prices are down because people stopped driving unnecessarily. Therefore the demand went down and the supply went up. Therefore it doesn't have a damned thing to do with who is running for election. Posted by Darth_Vulgar at 10/29/2008 @ 6:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    that is NOT why gas prices went down, for now.

    they went down because the financial system of the entire world went down. demand for all commodities is plunging and oil is no exception.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/30/2008 @ 12:37pm

44. "they are they ones who the republicans corperate machine has aken advantage of yet they continue to vote against their own self interest becuase of wedge issues like abortion gay rights the word god in the plege of allegance christianity being declared the religion of america as a state religion. creationism being aught as science in the classroom dumb stuff meanwhile the republicans use them to enrich themselves and leave them broke with no pensions no health care broken schools and broken roads and bridges."

    Posted by reality check at 10/30/2008 @ 12:06am

    And once it blows up in their faces, they blame the Dems for all of it...

    It's all based on FEAR, the Dems are taking away your guns, the Dems are sitting around waiting to kill your babies, the Dems are violating your Constitution, the Dems are cheating, lying terrorists, or consorting with terrorists, etc, etc, etc.

    Tax and spend? The Repug's mantra is "borrow and spend", that's why we are trillion more in debt than we were 8 years ago. And McBush wants to continue it. The rich make money, lending it to our government. And when it blew up on them, they want 700 billion in bail-0ut. So they can go on a hunting trip to Europe...

    And the Constitution?? While it's a great start, it was written years ago, by people that believed that killing American Indians was a-ok, as well as slavery. Things that don't evolve, stay the same. Time for the Constitution to evolve...

    Just my $.02 worth, your actual mileage may vary...

    D4L

    Posted by Dem4Life at 10/30/2008 @ 1:26pm

45. "they are they ones who the republicans corperate machine has aken advantage of yet they continue to vote against their own self interest becuase of wedge issues like abortion gay rights the word god in the plege of allegance christianity being declared the religion of america as a state religion. creationism being aught as science in the classroom dumb stuff meanwhile the republicans use them to enrich themselves and leave them broke with no pensions no health care broken schools and broken roads and bridges."

    Posted by reality check at 10/30/2008 @ 12:06am

    And once it blows up in their faces, they blame the Dems for all of it...

    It's all based on FEAR, the Dems are taking away your guns, the Dems are sitting around waiting to kill your babies, the Dems are violating your Constitution, the Dems are cheating, lying terrorists, or consorting with terrorists, etc, etc, etc.

    Tax and spend? The Repug's mantra is "borrow and spend", that's why we are trillion more in debt than we were 8 years ago. And McBush wants to continue it. The rich make money, lending it to our government. And when it blew up on them, they want 700 billion in bail-0ut. So they can go on a hunting trip to Europe...

    And the Constitution?? While it's a great start, it was written years ago, by people that believed that killing American Indians was a-ok, as well as slavery. Things that don't evolve, stay the same. Time for the Constitution to evolve...

    Just my $.02 worth, your actual mileage may vary...

    D4L

    Posted by Dem4Life at 10/30/2008 @ 1:28pm

46. Unfortunately, here in West-by-God-Virginia, it does seem to be working. But then so are the Obama-is-a-Muslim, Obama-is-not-a-patriot, Obama-is-a-friend-of-terrorists, and the other pure garbage McCain campaign tactics. People here actually believed that Kerry's presidency would be the end of guns and Bibles due to a phone blitz of misinformation before the last election.

    I've heard people say Obama is a Muslim (no matter what anyone thinks), a Communist, certainly NOT a patriot, and was not born in the USA. A good friend who voted early for Obama told me today that she has gotten horrified reactions to her support for Obama - same as the above. She said she stopped trying to argue because there's no logic to what the ignorant think.

    I suppose the same people wouldn't have voted for a black guy or "liberal" no matter what the McCain smear machine said, so perhaps it's not that it's working but more likely the votes were already lost long ago.

    These voters have no clue as to the issues anyway, and would rather see a rich, old white guy with too many houses to keep track of and a truly ignorant, rabble-rousing, supporter of secessionism running mate become president before they'd vote for a "liberal" black man of intelligence. They can use every other excuse imaginable, but much of it comes down to a huge dose of racism and a phenomenal amount of ignorance.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 10/30/2008 @ 1:39pm

47. Whenever the far right-wing ideologues find themselves desperate and bankrupt of ideas, their reaction is always the same: to trot out the old, tired and hackneyed scare-word, "socialism!" Such demagoguery is the last refuge of the politically bankrupt.

    In principle there is no difference between welfare for the poor and tax breaks for the wealthy. Both consist of government aid to groups of people and are aimed at 'spreading the wealth around.' Only the recipient groups are different!

    Even Adam Smith, the 'father' of modern capitalism wrote in the conservative 'bible', "Wealth of Nations", "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." -- Bryce Babcock

    Posted by bandz at 10/30/2008 @ 2:20pm

48. Adam Smith? born 1723, died 1790

    yes he's real relevant in our time. hahahahaha

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/30/2008 @ 3:59pm

49. vvf69,

    You want to throw consideration of liberty and freedom out???? Where'd you learn that? Those who ask government to meet their material needs also ask it to take their freedoms. Decisionmaking at the lowest possible levels (individual/family/community) protects essential liberties from gov't usurpation and keeps people responsible for themselves as they should be. Liberty is essentially the ability to choose, think, and act for oneself; such a state is characterized by the absence of unnecessary gov't intrusion, with necessity being actions needed to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (self-determination). The more responsibilities we cede to gov't, the less self-determined we are and liberty fades. No government opposed to self-determination is legitimate. So yes, we should all be very afraid of an Obama administration - unless you aspire to tyranny.

    So international terrorism is a simple law enforcement issue?

    ckaznd,

    I'm no fan, but at least the EIC only applies to those with earned income.

    Predatory lending was a predictable off-shoot of intentionally-govt-lowered underwriting standards, and the existence of GSEs in the secondary mortgage market to encourage risky lending. This is what happens when the gov't effectively pushes racial quotas for mortgages: The standards lower, the lower standard spreads, and people find ways to meet the govt's own intent to spread housing ownership. So ACORN was, in the end, protesting against problem that it helped create.

    The markets were not free (not that they shouldn't be well-regulated) - they were forced to push an agenda, and the cancer spread. ACORN was one of the kool-aid distributors in the mess.

    hdthoreau, Interesting food for thought, thanks. Out of characters..

    Posted by alaskan71 at 10/30/2008 @ 8:24pm

50. Maskdelta,

    Sorry for the late reply. Here are 5 of McCain's principled stands:

    1. Immigration reform 2. The Iraq war (committing to "the surge") 3. Campaign-finance reform 4. fight against pork-barrel spending 5. Against torture

    He was at odds with his party and the Bush Administration on all of them, at least initially.

    Posted by alaskan71 at 10/30/2008 @ 9:22pm

51. taxation as a means of promoting desired social policy rather than just collecting revenue for government operation

    Uh, ok. ALL tax policy promotes desired social policy. Whether you tax income or spending, give deductions for charitable contributions or mortgage interest, or you don't, you are modeling the kind of society you want. If you raise revenue through tariffs, you affect trade. If you don't, you affect trade. Cause and effect--it's a pretty basic law.

    Posted by EvelynU at 10/30/2008 @ 9:28pm

52. He was at odds with his party and the Bush Administration on all of them, at least initially. Posted by alaskan71 at 10/30/2008 @ 9:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    at least initially.

    and craven to forsaken once principled stands for political expedience.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/31/2008 @ 11:29am

53. Reverting back to the Republicanism of eons ago, when he was just a child, McCain inveighs against the "socialist" design of Barack Obama's tax platform. This delusional ranting, like so much of his behavior this year, tells us nothing about Obama (or socialism!) but much about him.

    Let's begin with the dishonesty of the McCain rant. What Obama proposes is to restore tax rates on the wealthy to the same level as during the Clinton administration-that is, to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire without renewing them for individuals and families reporting more than $250,000 in annual income. There is nothing radical in this idea, let alone socialistic (especially compared with the violations of capitalist orthodoxy that McCain has supported recently as emergency measures to rescue the financial industry).

    Not only is there nothing radical about repairing the unfairness of the Bush tax cuts, but it is precisely the same position that McCain argued when they were first enacted. Is his memory so poor that he cannot remember saying the Bush tax plan was "skewed" to benefit the rich? Having reversed that position for political convenience, he has also invented a different justification for opposing Bush back then-namely that he thought the cuts were fiscally irresponsible. But that isn't what he said in 2000 and 2001.

    Posted by davefoley0 at 10/31/2008 @ 2:07pm

54. OK, now let's discuss the other bit of demagoguery in McCain's most recent speeches, when he complains about the "redistribution of wealth" and equates an income tax rebate for working people with "welfare." Leaving aside the racial subtext of those remarks, it is hard to say whether they display ignorance, dishonesty or both. The American tax system, like all other taxation in modern nations, has always redistributed wealth. Sometimes it sends streams of money upward, from low-income taxpayers into the pockets of corporate executives; at other times it sends those streams downward, to assist the very poor.

    But to cast socialist aspersions on a tax refund to working families whose incomes are too low to pay income taxes is to paint a big pink stripe onto McCain's supposed idol, Ronald Reagan. In 1986, Reagan signed legislation greatly increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, a credit for low-income workers that reduces the impact of payroll taxes in order to boost take-home pay above poverty levels. When the credit is more than the amount of federal income taxes owed by an individual, that person receives a tax "refund." Reagan praised the Earned Income Tax Credit as the best "anti-poverty" and "pro-family" legislation ever enacted by Congress.

    It must be troubling for Republicans to learn that, according to McCain, the Gipper was a socialist, too.

    Posted by davefoley0 at 10/31/2008 @ 2:08pm

55. I also think Obama is a socialist...but I will agree to stop calling him one if everyone agrees to stop calling McCain or Palin conservatives. Creative writing by the way.

    "So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb. "

    Posted by interjoeit at 10/31/2008 @ 2:45pm