If Howard Dean revealed himself to be a Libertarian...

[AP]

...would this be a problem for you?


I've been trying to put this part of the puzzle together about the Dean persona. If he's a libertarian, it actually puts a lot of different elements of his politics into a coherent whole that makes a little more sense to me. However, I also understand that Dean's career seems to be divided in two: in 1999 and earlier he looked very much like a libertarian. From 2000-2002, Dean had some fiscal problems in the state which made him move away from libertarianism. (Or he started thinking about running for President). Also, the libetarians don't like his health care plan.

Anyway, if he is, in fact, a closet libertarian, would this be a problem?

[Loyal]

1. What are you talking about?

Dean is nothing like a libertarian. Centrist, maybe, but I think that you need to do some research on Libertarians because I don't think you have any idea what libertarians stand for.

[Friar]

11. libertarians stand for

when they have to get up off the chair and go someplace else.

[janekat]

25. Can you fill us in on what they stand for?

Don't just make a claim and then not back it up....

[AP]

32. I'll leave it to others to describe the philosophy. However the policy...

manifested by the philosophy would be things like no gun control, civil unions, fewer environmental regulations, privitization of utilities, lower taxes (or, esp., not using the tax code to tailor social and economic outcomes),

Basically, it’s about less government regulation in all spheres of life – economic and private. The way I think of liberterianism is, this way:

First, I think of the Democrats this way. If the world is like a football game -- the spectators are all the citizens, and the players are legislators and they're fighting over satisfying the people in the stands. Well, I think of the government as, like, the umpires and, sort of, the people who run the stadium. It's always better for the spectators when one side doesn't always dominate. But sometimes they do. And the MOST important thing is for the playing field to be level and for everyone to play by the rules. If one side dominates, at least it’s because they deserved to dominate. That's going to give the fans the best experience. So Democrats want to make sure there are umpires, that they have good resources, and that they have some power. The umpires are like the machinery of government.

The Republicans want to play football this way: they want their team to win every time by controlling the field, by cheating, and by reducing the number of umpires, by buying off the ones that remain, by moving the goal posts every time the Democrats have the ball, and by owning the stadium.

Libertarians think that the whole spectating experience of a football game would be best if there were no umpires at all, and they think that the two teams should not only compete on the field, but they should compete in every respect -- over who gets to determine the rules, over who gets to move the goal posts, over who gets to own the stadium. They think that the fans should enjoy the entire the entire experience and not just the football game – ie, fighting over the rules is part of the game, moving the goal posts is part of the game, etc. etec.

Personally, I think the world created by the Liibertarian football game is very much like the one created by the Republican football game, which is very much like the Wild West. Whoever is bigger, richer, more willing to act unethically, etc., will win the entire competition. And once one side is on top, they probably could only be usurped by an act of violence (or, as in the 30s, and dramatic financial collapse), because they’ll use their size and wealth to concentrate more power.

With football games, the point is the excitement and the competition, not the domination. If one team ALWAYS dominated (and I'm not just talking the Edmonton Oilers of the 80s, I mean, where one team one every game, and you knew they cheated and the game was rigged in their favor) people would stop going to football games because it'd be such a bad experience for spectators. In other words, the game of football would experience a Great Depression. That's what it would be like if one political philosophy dominated, or if the rich dominated. It would be bad for the masses.

[Guaranteed]

39. Yeah, less government, across the board.

The old joke is that the libertarian runs on the platform that they're going to go to Washington and do nothing.
Dean's talking about rescinding the tax cut for everyone. That is NOT libertarian.

[w4rma]

2. I've researched. IMHO, Dean is no Libertarian, but he may be a libertarian

Democratic Underground Forums - Viewing topic #41214 - Extremely massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. (v2.0)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214

…
Though Ron Paul is beloved by partisans from multiple parties, he's often relegated to the "back benches" in serious politics. This may change soon as there are rumors that he's on grassroots darling Howard Dean's short list for a presidential running-mate.
http://www.cryptonomicon.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=489

The Appeal of Howard Dean
From the September 15, 2003 issue: Why he could be Bush's more dangerous opponent.

SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.

Dean charmed nearly everyone in the boardroom. He came across as erudite, policy savvy, and, believe it or not, a friend of free markets--at least by the standards of the Tom Daschle-Dick Gephardt axis of the Democratic party. Even when challenged on issues like environmentalism, where he favored a large centralized mass of intrusive regulations, Dean remained affable.

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

He left--and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I've watched Dean's career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone.
…
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

[Loyal]

3. You're quoting an article by Stephen Moore

President of the Club for Growth, one of the biggest Bush groups in the country, in fact. :puke:

[w4rma]

4. Yup. IMHO, Dean may be a libertarian, but he's not a Libertarian.

I'll elaborate:
His positions on civil liberties are libertarian.
His positions on economics are Democratic.

btw, I voted:
"Yes, I am strongly opposed to the things for which Libertarians stand."

[Liberal Classic]

22. Having read his platform, I'd say you're right

After seeing a few posts about Howard Dean and his positions as they related to libertarians, I've taken an interest and have been reading his website. As a libertarian myself (or at least something close to it) I would agree with your analysis of Dean. He is in favor of many of the same civil liberties that libertarians advocate, such as mandatory DNA typing for capital crimes, liberal immigration policies, opposition to the so-called Patriot Act, and so on. He even says on his website that he's in favor of enforcing existing gun control laws rather than proposing new ones, and adopts a somewhat states-rights position on the question of state gun laws. While I can't speak for all of us, these are all things with which we libertarians would agree with Dean to one degree or another.

On economics, Dean is solidly a Democrat. He promises to repeal tax cuts and increase spending. He is for increased farm subsidies, and socialized medicine. These are positions that libertarians would generally oppose.

So I would not call Dean a libertarian, because he's clearly a Democrat. Democrats and Libertarians tend to agree of civil liberties but not economics, and this seems to fit with what I see on his website.

What I'd really like to see on DU is a thread contrasting and comparing the various candidates websites. Just skimming over Clark's website, he seems a bit more moderate than Dean on both civil liberties and economics. Dean's position on gun control is briefly 'keep Brady and allow states to decide the rest' Clark says explicitly "people who like assault weapons they should join the United States Army, we have them." In my opinion this makes Dean a stronger advocate for the second amendment than Clark, as well as a stronger advocate for states rights AKA federalism. Likewise, Dean advocates universal health care whereas Clark seems to take the more moderate position of supporting the existing healthcare systems.

[AP]

33. Dean's economic positions changed in 2000 from being more libertarian to..

...less.

Was it because he was running for president?

Is it because he placed the libertarian principle of balancing budgets above the libertarian principle of reducing taxes?

In the article posted below the libertarians commend, at least, for proposing socialized medicine and then telling people they have to pay for it with higher taxes. They think he's rationalizing the costs of it and he's being clear about them. They also think it's irrelevant anyway because they say he knows that his plan isn't going to pass the House anyway, so it's just talk with no chance of becoming reality.

[Hep]

58. This isn't what you meant, but...

What I'd really like to see on DU is a thread contrasting and comparing the various candidates websites

This is sort of the reverse of that. But Maybe you haven't seen it and would like to check the results!

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

[imhotep]

5. what a stupid poll

why not ask "IF Dean ate babies would this be a problem?"

[AP]

9. So, to you, being a libertarian is the equivalent of eating babies?

?

[Atlant]

21. No, Libertarians happily feed on *EVERYONE*, not just babies. (NT)

[Hep]

30. Yep

Yes, being libertarian is like eating babies. That's exactly right.

[leftyandproud]

6. Libertarians would NEVER advocate..

getting rid of Dubya's tax cuts...They view them as pathetically SMALL, and think we need another $15 trillion in tax reduction over the next decade to bring things under control...no joke

[AP]

7. leftyandproud, meet w4rma. I think the two of you might have something

to talk about.

(Liberterians, according to the article below, think we should get rid of them if they don't correspond to spending cuts becaue it just passes debt on to future generations. Of course, maybe they're only saying this because they like Dean. However, it's in the article.)

[Loyal]

8. Libertarians don't like Bush's tax cuts

because they aren't accompanied by large spending cuts. I guess they do have a point. I'm not in favor of tax cuts OR spending cuts, but if you're going to do one then you should do the other. It's just stupid not to, unless you believe that you can just cut rates and more money will come rolling in. Reaganomics :puke:

[w4rma]

15. Not much to say. I agree with leftyandproud. (n/t)

[AP]

17. You could tell lefty to read the article which is posted which contradicts

what he says.

[w4rma]

18. I'm unaware of any article that contradicts what I'm agreeing with. (n/t)

[AP]

19. From below:

But as Alex Tabarrok of the Independent Institute has observed, those "cuts" amount to little more than a "tax shift." From a principled libertarian perspective, it's not clear why saddling the next generation with debt (and higher taxes) is any better than facing higher taxes now. One theory, sometimes referred to as the "starve leviathan" model, posits that high deficits now will act as a constraint on future spending. But that kind of fiscal restraint requires presidential leadership—leadership that a president in the Bush mold seems manifestly unwilling to provide.

The argument is that you can't cut taxes if you don't cut spending. I suspect they're only saying this to make Dean seem palatable to liberterians even though he wants to raise taxes. Nonetheless, clearly one logical conclusion of this argument is that if you're NOT going to cut spending, you CAN'T cut taxes...thus Dean opting not to saddle the next generation with debt is cool for the liberterian cats.

[Hep]

36. which means

that libertarians don't know WHAT they want.

[AP]

45. I think some of them know what they want: a President Dean.

I think that's the point of writing an article which forgives him for not running on cutting taxes more (after all, he does want the DEMOCRATIC nomination), and for arguing for socialized medicine.

Two things about his health plan: apparently the health industry likes it (and Cato, at least, likes what businesses like). Also, to make it clear, the liberterian who wrote that article says that he doesn't mind the socialized medicine as long as the price tag is put on it and (implied) it isn't charged progressively, ie, if you get 2000 bucks in benefit from it, you pay 2000 bucks a year for it. This coheres with Dean's reluctance to talk about progressive taxation.

[Hep]

49. reluctance?

Where has he been reluctant to talk about anything?

[AP]

52. I'm going to guess that you voted "No" and that this issue isn't going to

change your mind.

Reluctance: a Dean supporter here said that she went to a Dean fundraiser at a Philladelphia law firm at which Dean responded to the question, why don't you let the middle class have their tax breaks, but saying, essentially, that the middle class tax cuts were not on the table. If he allowed that, he'd be accused of helping the uppre middle class.

If you asked me two and a half years ago what the most important issue would be in 2004, I would have said tax policy. This doesn't take genius are great insight into the political process. It takes looking at what the one think Bush is using to achieve 99% of his political goals.

There is one candidate whose platrform is the antidote to what Bush is doing. There are a couple candidates who, at least, acknowledge that this tax slavery thing is happening, and, when confronted with the issues, have the right answers. There's one candidates who, when confronted witht he issues, acts like something else is a bigger problem.

[Hep]

55. I didn't vote

And don't plan to.

Dean wants to repeal all of Bush's tax cut. Not because he thinks every bit of it is wrong. In fact, when talking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, he admitted to there being some good things in Bush's tax cut, and I agree. But getting rid of Bush's tax cut doesn't mean you can't replace it with a more sensible tax policy that works for middle class and working people. But debates like we've seen don't allow a person to get into nuance.

[AP]

59. So, then, what kind of tax code does he want to enact.

From what I hear, he's going to focus on the poor, and expect the middle class to pay down the debt, and the only corporations tax he mentions, vaguely, has something to do with exporting jobs (no tax breaks for companies exporting jobs?).

Again, I think the tax code should be a central theme right now. Dean is too vague about it and when I wonder why, I go back to the Cato speech at which he, apparently, said that he doesn't agree with Democrats who try to guide policy through the tax code.

[Hep]

61. your questions about taxes are fair

I was impressed with how he favored cutting sales taxes on food and clothing while gov. Considering my tax cut was wiped out by a 1% increase in sales taxes in NC. Dean lauds his tax policy in Vermont as one of the most progressive in the nation. How do you rate that claim?

Here is a site that you may or may not have seen:

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Tax_Reform.htm

Let me know if it clears anything up, but especially if it enhances your fears.

[AP]

64. I saw a list of all the states ranked by progressivity of their tax codes

recently. CA was on top. I'm kicking myself for not noting VT's rank. The most dramatic thing about the list was that NOT A SINGLE STATE TAXED ITS RESIDENTS PROGRESSIVELY. (To be fair, I saw another study last spring that said that only three states had codes which effectively taxed their citizens at progressive rates -- but I actually think that study was taking into account all taxes, federal, state and local).

I think in CA, the top quintile paid an effective tax rate of 6% and the bottom quintile paid and effective rate of 9%. That was the winner, mind you.

If Dean is bragging about VT having the most progressive tax code, he's basically claiming to be kind of the dipshits. No state should be proud of their tax codes.

Having said that, I totally disagree with high sales taxes, unless their on items either the consumption of which you want to discourage and/or the consumption creates costs which society then has to pay.

[Hep]

67. and?

what about the website I gave you?

[AP]

69. What about it. Tell me specifically what's in there that you think clears

up what Dean isn't making clear on the stump?

[Hep]

72. Jeez!

All I wanted to know was what you thought of the page, whether it made things more clear to you or if it was the same stuff you already knew. And your response is, I should tell you what it clears up for you?

[AP]

74. I'm more than willing to listen to

you tell me what you think it shold clear up.

[Hep]

80. OK

so you can't help me. THat's cool.

I was hoping to help you, but I don't even know if it worked. You said his policy was vague, so I found what I hoped would be a more clear bit of info, and you won't even tell me if it helped. I'm guessing that it didn't. Sorry for wasting your time.

The fact is that I'm not completely clear on what you are looking for so I can't tell you how the link might help. I'm just trying to help out. Again, sorry for wasting your time.

[AP]

83. I want a clear philosophy like, say,

we have to reward hard work with wealth, rather than wealth with wealth. That would be the umbrella.

And then under than umbrella philosophy, I'd like to see concrete things like a tax break which matches dollar for dollar your savings, or a second tier for dividends taxes, or a statement about why the inheritance tax can't go away, etc. etc.

[Hep]

88. Clarity is obviously subjective

we have to reward hard work with wealth, rather than wealth with wealth. That would be the umbrella.

It's funny that this is the umbrella for the candidate who vows to cut capital gains taxes for 95% of americans.

And then under than umbrella philosophy, I'd like to see concrete things like a tax break which matches dollar for dollar your savings, or a second tier for dividends taxes, or a statement about why the inheritance tax can't go away, etc. etc.


I like the matching for savings. And I'm all for the estate tax.

[AP]

90. Maybe. But it's also relative. And there are some stark contrasts between

the candidates.

If 95% of Americans make less than 200K/year, they deserve to be payin lower cap gains rates than people in the top 5%.

I'm not suprised that someone who tries to spin this issue that way might be enthusiastic about a candidate who seems to be more, well, 'libertarian' in his views about taxation, from a relative perspective, of course.

[Hep]

95. subject line

If 95% of Americans make less than 200K/year, they deserve to be payin lower cap gains rates than people in the top 5%.

"Edwards will set the top rate on capital gains at 25 percent for people earning over about $400,000, less than the top 1 percent of Americans."

Either way it amounts to, the more you make, the more you save.

BTW, what is the current rate on capital gains?

[AP]

98. Isn't it 20% or 22.5?

Edwards is trying to make cap gains more progressive.

You disagree with this?

By the way, do you have a link for this?

[Hep]

100. I don't know, it's why I asked.

Edwards is trying to make cap gains more progressive.

Do you claim he's the only one?

I don't disagree. It's just funny considering his umbrella statement. More accurate to say "I want to reward work with wealth, not wealth with wealth, although wealth should be rewarded with a little wealth too unless your rich."


The link is EDWARDS'S WEB SITE, which I thought you read.

[AP]

103. There's a disconnect between

what you've written, "wealth should be rewarded with a little wealth too unless your rich" and the policy you described, (making cap gainst tax more progressive).

I'm curious. Do you feel confident that you understand tax policy and how the tax code works?

[Friar]

10. I like libertarians

Books are good and without libertarians we wouldn't have any.

[Loyal]

12. Brilliant

I am in awe of you. :eyes:

[Friar]

14. thanks

I try...

[rudeboy666]

13. Attack of the Dean-Leaners___check this out

Interesting article:

http://www.reason.com/links/links101403.shtml

[AP]

16. Key parts:

Howard Dean, like Bill Clinton, may say he wants to dramatically increase government's role in health care. But with fewer vulnerable candidates than in the 2002 midterm elections, it's Republicans who are likely to have the final say on how and whether that happens. And while they've shown they'll happily roll over for Bush, who seems hell bent on delivering a prescription drug benefit, they'll be just as happy to deny President Dean a talking point when he goes stumping at AARP meetings in 2008.

In short Dean (or another Democratic nominee) has vices which are unlikely to translate into real policy. His virtues—opposition to an imperial foreign policy, greater support for gay rights, and even a qualified federalism, evidenced by his stance on gun rights—are more likely to be points on which bipartisan coalition building is possible.

This might be balanced by Bush's tax cutting zeal, if his cuts corresponded to cuts in domestic spending. But as Alex Tabarrok of the Independent Institute has observed, those "cuts" amount to little more than a "tax shift." From a principled libertarian perspective, it's not clear why saddling the next generation with debt (and higher taxes) is any better than facing higher taxes now. One theory, sometimes referred to as the "starve leviathan" model, posits that high deficits now will act as a constraint on future spending. But that kind of fiscal restraint requires presidential leadership—leadership that a president in the Bush mold seems manifestly unwilling to provide.

[Hep]

29. Dean on healthcare

Holy cow. Did the article mention that Dean's position on providing health care to everyone is supported by doctors, drug companies, AND insurance companies? With all of those lobbies behind you, you don't think this can become policy? Why vote at all if you are going to subscribe to such cynical ideals?

[KaraokeKarlton]

20. Dean has never looked like a Libertarian

Although now he's a lot more open to medical marijuana, he has been strongly opposed to legalizing it for even that purpose throughout his career. He does recognize drug addiction and abuse as a medical issue, and not so much a criminal issue, though. I've never met a Libertarian who didn't support legalizing at least marijuana. Dean does have a decent State's Rights record, which is big to Libertarians, but he feels that way due to his experience as a Governor. It's easier for a governor to do their job with less federal interference.

Dean doesn't fit in any neat political box. The easiest way to describe him is to say that he always does what he honestly believes is going to best represent and serve his constituents. He's good with money, gets more for less and is honest and principled and there are NO second class citizens with Dean...everyone has the same value and is equal under Dean. I didn't vote in the poll and am not going to, by the way.

[AP]

35. Actually, I think Deans fits most neatly into the libertarian box.

The links in this thread and in another thread in P&C do a nice job of arguing as much.

[Hep]

37. You think

based on articles written by people expressing their opinions about Dean and libertarians? Why not go to the source? Why not stop relying on what other people think and think for yourself? Here's how:

Go to the libertarian issues page:

http://www.lp.org/issues/

And then go to the candidates issues page:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/

Decide for yourself. You don't need articles that rely on the interpretations of others. You have the information at your fingertips. Stop being lazy.

[AP]

46. liberterians, Liberterians, or Cato Institute.

If I'm quoting a liberterian, small "l", from her blog, I AM going right to the source.

I'm actually less interested in the Libertarian party because, unlike most parties, I bet there are more libertarians than Liberterians, and I bet some of them are in the Republicans party and some are in the Democratic party. What I'd really like to do is read all the blogs of liberterians. But I can't do that, so I'm having the discussion here and hoping to get some libertarians at DU to talk about this...which has happened...and it's confirming my theory, which is that Dean might be a closet libertarian.

[Hep]

51. there's that logic again

Dean is a closet libertarian because he shares some views with them.

That sounds like when Hannity says Dean is a closet homosexual because he supports civil unions.

Look, let's put an end to this silliness right now.

Dean believes what he believes, and neither he nor I care in the least where you categorize him as a result.

The DLC thikns he's too liberal, the greens think he's too conservative, now hes a libertarian. Whatever. He's clear on the issues. Think what you want. Just vote for him, for chrissakes.

[Capn Sunshine]

23. ISNT THIS BLATANT PUSH POLLING?

What next " If Clark revealed himself to be a Reform Party"?

If Kerry revealed himself to be Republican?

Total BS.

[indigo32]

24. Exactly

eom

[Forkboy]

26. It is one stupid poll

And I'm not even a Dean supporter :shrug:

[ozone_man]

27. My take also.

What a dumb poll. Having said that, there might be a way to intelligently discuss libertarian issues and candidate views, but this is push polling as you say.

[DemBones DemBones]

31. AP did get y'all in here by doing a poll, though, and there's been

some good discussion. Would a thread explaining how some of Dean's views are libertarian have done as well?

[Hep]

34. Which

Which of Dean's views are libertarian, exactly, and how exactly are they libertarian?

And which Dem doesn't have views that are libertarian and why?

And why do we call the views libertarian instead of saying libertarians have some views that are liberal or Democratic?

No good discussion has come from this. This is the internet.

[AP]

38. I was very confused about how Deans social liberalism and fiscal...

...conservativism fit together. I didn't understand why he wouldn't talk more about tax policy being a tool to achieve a fairer economy, especially. He think balancing the budget is the tool, and tax policy is consequential. I think tax policy is the tool and balanced budgets are the consequence.

Generally speaking, I can't understand how a person can claim to be a Democrat without being a fiscal liberal.

Well, yesterday, I did some thinking and some googling, and it's dawning on me. Dean is a libertarian. (As far as I know, he's the only candidate who has given a speech to the Cato Institute. Also, on his web site, on one page he has a link to the Cato Institute for suggested further reading on the Patriot Act.)

[w4rma]

40. Consequential = "Top priority"? Maybe in Bizarro World

…
I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.
…
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003920
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=59851

[AP]

48. If you wanted to stop using tax policy to promote outcomes you

would give it top priority.

Also, Dean has said that his tax reform will be aimed at helping the poor not the middle class (but I thinking he's changing his position to accomodate reality, although he's already betrayed his core philosophy).

This is beyond question. Dean DEFINITELY places the idea of a balanced budget at the very pinacle of his fiscal policy.

I place tax policy at the pinancle.

[Hep]

43. WHat's the problem?

Open mindedness?

...conservativism fit together. I didn't understand why he wouldn't talk more about tax policy being a tool to achieve a fairer economy, especially. He think balancing the budget is the tool, and tax policy is consequential. I think tax policy is the tool and balanced budgets are the consequence.


Why do you think balancing the budget and tax policy don't go hand in hand? Why do you separate them as if one must be the tool and one must be the consequence? You can't balance or NOT balance the budget without a tax policy. So the roots of your argument seem faulty to me.


Generally speaking, I can't understand how a person can claim to be a Democrat without being a fiscal liberal.




That seems really simple to me. You can't fund programs without having money. You can't have any money if you spend more than you make. Why not start understanding by STOPPING with this "fiscal liberal/fiscal conservative" bit? Let's use the term fiscal responsibility.


Well, yesterday, I did some thinking and some googling, and it's dawning on me. Dean is a libertarian.


Like I said, either you don't know enough about libertarianism or you don't know enough about Dean.


(As far as I know, he's the only candidate who has given a speech to the Cato Institute. Also, on his web site, on one page he has a link to the Cato Institute for suggested further reading on the Patriot Act.)


If the Cato institute has good information that people need to know, why not link to it? I have opinions about people who regularly engage in ad hoiminem thought, but I'll get reprimanded if I share them with you.

[AP]

50. Here's my deal:

Why do you think balancing the budget and tax policy don't go hand in hand?

Perhaps, because of Hoover. Hoover balanced budgets at all costs, and he balanced them on the backs of the middle and working class. The problem with the economy was that there was a huge concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few (and they were the ones telling Hoover to balance the budget, but not with their dollars). We have income dispartity that is approaching the level just before the Depression. This is what Lieberman was talking about when he said a "Dean Depression". The problem with the economy is the disparity in wealth and political power, and balancing the budget isn't going to fix the problem. A dramatic shift in wealth and power back to the middle class and working class will. You do that by using tax policy as a tool. Tax policy shouldn't be used as a slave to balanced budgets. (And, if you're taxing people regressively, you're actually makinig the middle and working classes the slaves for a balanced budget).


Let's use the term fiscal responsibility.

Because that's self-delusion. It's all about the money. The Republicans use their social policies to cloak what they're trying to achieve fiscally. It's important that we're very up-front about what this is all about.

Like I said, either you don't know enough about libertarianism or you don't know enough about Dean.

I disagree, and I have this entire thread as evidence of what I, and others, know and of what we're learning.

If the Cato institute has good information that people need to know, why not link to it?

To me, that's like saying, if the Amercan Beef Association has good information about Vegetarianism, why not link to it?

I have opinions about people who regularly engage in ad hoiminem thought, but I'll get reprimanded if I share them with you.

Do you know what ad hominem means? I'm trying to appeal to logic and reason. I'm not attacking personally to avoid a discussion of facts. Accusing me of ad hominem in effort to mischaracterize what we're debating here is actually a form of ad hominem attack.

[Hep]

53. wait

Your explanatino didn't answer my question at all. Dean wil have a tax package as part of his balanced budget. And he won't shift the tax burden more towards the working class.

Because that's self-delusion. It's all about the money. The Republicans use their social policies to cloak what they're trying to achieve fiscally. It's important that we're very up-front about what this is all about.

So you want to use vague buzzwords and claim you're being Up Front? Whatev!

If you think current republicans are fiscal conservatives, you're wrong.

To me, that's like saying, if the Amercan Beef Association has good information about Vegetarianism, why not link to it?

Wow, so OK, according to you, the Cato Institute isn't, wasn't, and never will be right about anything and therefore should be ignored at all costs. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

And there is no American Beef Association. If you'd like to use analogies, it'd be great if you could stay in the NON FICTION for me. 'K?

The point is, Cato is about limiting the scope of government, and the Patriot Act is an affront to that. Did you read and disagree with the article linked to?


Do you know what ad hominem means? I'm trying to appeal to logic and reason. I'm not attacking personally to avoid a discussion of facts. Accusing me of ad hominem in effort to mischaracterize what we're debating here is actually a form of ad hominem attack.


I know what it means. It's like when someone refuses to consider the merit of an article because of where it is published.

[AP]

60. You want to know what a clear tax policy looks like

along with a clear philosophy about how taxes relate to a functioning economy, look at Edwards's plan.

I think that all we know about Dean's plans are summed up in: "Dean wil have a tax package as part of his balanced budget. And he won't shift the tax burden more towards the working class."

He hasn't said anything concrete about what he'd do and he doesn't have a clear philosophy about tax policy which I could comfortably apply to fill the gaps.


As for the notion that my analogy about beef and vegetarians doesn't work because there's no ABA, all I can say is, are you picking your candidate with that logic?

Ok, Dean linking to Cato: he's not going to link to them on economic policy because, if he does agree, he'd be crazy to overtly state his agreement. As for linking on the Patriot Act issue, I think it's implicit that if you're linking to a think tank, you're sort of saying that you're not embarassed to be connected to this think tank. I think going to speak to them, as Dean did, says the same thing, even louder. And then, consider the things Dean said when he spoke to them.

That's not what ad hominem means. It means when you don't have logic and reason on your side, you resort to emotions.

[Hep]

63. I shudder

When I think of John Edwards, and I live in NC. His tax policy is interesting, but it doesn't do him much good. He lost D's a senate seat already. But his tax policy is interesting.

You don't seem to know why the article linked at the Cato Institute is good. Instead of coming up with fictional analogies, tell me what's wrong with that article. I've linked to it, and I'm no great fan of Cato.

Andmaybe you have it right about public perception. But I don't see Dean's linking to Cato the way you do. I see it as a link to a good article published on a website with some credibility.

[AP]

65. My concern is not the article, it's Deans enthusiasm for the Cato Inst.

revealed in descending order of importance:

(1) a set of policies which is closer to liberterianism than any of the other candidates,

(2) the fact that he spoke to the Cato Inst. and pleaded with them to like them, citing, among other things, number 1 above, and

(3) the fact that he feels comfortable linking to the Cato Inst web site.

Number three is the most circumstantial of the pieces of evidence above, but you can still get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Numbers 1 and 2, however, are direct evidence, and highly incriminating direct evidence.

(By the way, Edwards would have coattails. Dean wouldn't. If we could run two controlled experiments -- Dean running vs Edwards running, I bet, even if Edwards kept his senate seat in the Dean running scenario, the Dems would win more senate races in 2004 with Edwards running than with Dean.)

[Hep]

71. a conviction?

revealed in descending order of importance:

(1) a set of policies which is closer to liberterianism than any of the other candidates,


You said his tax policies were too vague, but now you've concluded that they are closest to libertarianism than any of the other candidates. So would you mind explaining in detail HOW this is so?


(2) the fact that he spoke to the Cato Inst. and pleaded with them to like them, citing, among other things, number 1 above, and


Your evidence being an article in the Weekly Standard. Do you have other articles or links or information that suggests his CURRENT policies or planks support your assertion?


(3) the fact that he feels comfortable linking to the Cato Inst web site.

Number three is the most circumstantial of the pieces of evidence above, but you can still get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Numbers 1 and 2, however, are direct evidence, and highly incriminating direct evidence.


You need a mountain of circumstantial evidence to convict a person, BTW, but it's interesting language for you to use. If only the statute of limitations hadn't run out on 1 and 2. But then, your number 3 doesn't include the fact that what he linked to was something NON tax related.

(By the way, Edwards would have coattails. Dean wouldn't. If we could run two controlled experiments -- Dean running vs Edwards running, I bet, even if Edwards kept his senate seat in the Dean running scenario, the Dems would win more senate races in 2004 with Edwards running than with Dean.)

I'll tell you one thing. Edwards decided not to pursue a second term because he knew what all NC Dems know. He lost the seat. He didn't have a prayer to win again. Considering that most Dems in NC will tell you that Dole has served us better than he has. And that seat is gone forever, barring a miracle.

[AP]

73. Answers:

(1) It the FULL set of policies (the social liberalism, gun control, et al) PLUS the vaugeness of the tax policy, which makes me think this.

(2) Are you honestly saying that we should discount what Dean said to the Cato Inst?

(3) You know how the statute of limitations may have run on a contract, but if you make a promise to pay, that's a new contract with a new statute of limitations. Well, if Dean changed his policies dramatically in 2000, that's a new issue, with new relevance which we need to addres, and the statute hasn't run on that one, and, just like it'd be relevant to talk about an original contract even thought the SOL ran on it, it's relevant to talk about Deans Cato leanings pre 2000.

Anyway, what is the SOL on political philosophy? Is Christopher Hitchens's ne0-conservativism so far from the Marxism he used to hold dear 30 years ago, or is it a logical outgrowth? I don't know what the SOL is on political philosophy, but I think Deans entire public career (and his life story, for that matter) are TOTALLY relevant to whether he'd make a good president.

By the way, if history has told as anything it's that Edward's seat is NOT gone forever. Hasn't it switched back and forth every 6 years since time immemorial. Maybe Elizabeth Edwards will hold it some day?

[Hep]

79. subject line

(1) It the FULL set of policies (the social liberalism, gun control, et al) PLUS the vaugeness of the tax policy, which makes me think this.

OK, that makes sense. But not many of the candidates are UNLIKE libertarians in terms of social liberalism. And several candidates have the same gun control policy as Dean. Kerry, for instance.

What I wonder is why Dean is being singled out here.

(2) Are you honestly saying that we should discount what Dean said to the Cato Inst?

Nope. I'm saying that we need to put it into context. And we need to look at it from more than the one angle I've seen, the Weekly Standard, which refers to his more liberal social planks as "dimwitted".

As far as the SOL on political philosophy, you do have a point. But Dean's career is that he is willing to look at all the options when considering how best to solve problems. And it seems to have paid off in some cases and not in others. I can't proclaim to know how to better govern. I wish there were more vermonters weighing in.

Edwards's seat is gone for 2004-2010, and it will be hard to get it back. NC is interesting in terms of the political spectrum. Registered D's are on the decline, partly because of growing numbres of liberal Independents, partly because of the fact that D in NC still stands for Dixiecrat in a lot of ways. We do vote for a lot of D's in statewide races, and we have often had a balanced Senate representation, but Erskine Bowles isn't going to win and there's noone yet who has emerged as someone who can get the votes.

In terms of switching, no, it hasn't always gone back and forth. Jesse Helms was senator for a very long time. But one thing is true right now. People are pissed at Edwards. Dole has served us far better as NCians. I don't hold Edwards terrible voting record against him, but a lot of people do. You don't win friends by missing roll call votes that directly affect people in your state. And you don't win friends by ignoring politically active people in your party.

[AP]

86. What terrible voting record?

He has missed fewer votes than anyone running for pres, I believe, and he's never missed a vote where his vote would have made a difference. He has cancelled campaign events to fly back when it would have made a difference.

He votes with his party 94% of the time.

He votes against NAFTA when it hurst NC workers.

Also, he votes the opposite of the other Senator in the same state more frequently than in any state other than SC.

It is the seat that Edwards holds that has flip-flopped, not Helms's seat.

If Edwards runs, Bowles has a better chance of getting in on Edwards's coattails then if Dean ran and Edwards had to get in on Dean's. That's just my feeling, but everythign above is a fact.

[Hep]

92. 90% missed votes

He has missed fewer votes than anyone running for pres, I believe, and he's never missed a vote where his vote would have made a difference. He has cancelled campaign events to fly back when it would have made a difference.


Makes you wonder why we even need democrats in congress when 90% of the votes aren't worth voting in.

And you mean senators, not anyone running, because Kucinich has by far the best voting record.

And his missing votes means something to people in NC when the vote is about whether or not to include research for drilling off the NC coast in the energy bill.

Also, he votes the opposite of the other Senator in the same state more frequently than in any state other than SC.

What a surprise, considering that up intil 2002 he was Junior to Helms. Even more surprising that he is second to SC, home of Strom.

It is the seat that Edwards holds that has flip-flopped, not Helms's seat.

Doesn't mean it has to. Edwards had a good chance at securing his seat for D's, but didn't do it. He put his political aspirations above what D's in his state want, and at least think we need.

If Edwards runs, Bowles has a better chance of getting in on Edwards's coattails then if Dean ran and Edwards had to get in on Dean's. That's just my feeling, but everythign above is a fact.

I'm telling you you're WRONG. Bowles couldn't use Edwards's coattails when he ran against dole in 2002, you think in 2004, with people being as mad at edwards as they are that he would fare better? Against a NON carpetbagging NON female in the south? I'm telling you that no coattails in this country could carry Edwards to getting reelected to his seat in NC.

[AP]

94. You either just lied or you're mixing up Gephardt and Edwards.

I think overall, he's in the high 70s and only Kucinich has done better. Last month he missed more that 70% but it was definitely a busy month.

[Hep]

96. Sorry

Yeah, I misremembered. It was a particular month in which Edwards missed 90%. September.

[Hep]

28. Yeah, uh

He's not libertarian. He doesn't think taxes are extortion or slavery, and he doesn't believe that a free market will regulate itself.

Forgive me for sounding rude, but either you don't know enough about libertarianism or you don't know enough about Dean.

[AP]

41. This is from a blog I found googling

ibertarians for Howard Dean

I love Libertarians, and I think Libertarians would love Howard Dean. Here's why:
He has essentially the same policy towards Iraq as the Cato Institute. No other Democratic candidate comes close to this position, and Bush is the polar opposite. (all Cato Institute Iraq articles)

He believes in equal rights for gays and lesbians via civil unions.

He has libertarian compatible attitude toward gun control (rural areas don't need or want it, and that's ok)

He's rabidly pro-choice

He's not officially a Libertarian, but he's the only candidate with a shot who is close. Ask yourself what your candidate's position on the Texas sodomy laws is (Bush likes em, Dean doesn't) or how about Total Information Awareness. Do you think Ashcroft is representing your interests in the Justice Department? Do you pine for the days when we cared about balancing the budget? Dean's your man. The more you read about him, the more you'll like him. Check out his site. And if you're from Montana, I can assure you that Dean has never dyed his skin blue (unlike some candidates).

3/31/2003 03:14:52 PM

http://noho-missives.blogspot.com/2003_03_30_noho-missives_archive.html

[AP]

42. And here's some other stuff, which is already in this thread, but, for...

emphasis:

SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors.
...
"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

He left--and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I've watched Dean's career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone.
...

Even as he pursued wild-eyed social experiments, Dean carefully nurtured a reputation as a "business-friendly" governor. On numerous occasions he pragmatically swept aside onerous environmental regulations and last-use restrictions (this is the greenest state of all) to make room for business expansion and jobs, jobs, jobs. He supported electricity deregulation to take monopolistic pricing power away from big utilities. He even launched one of the nation's most progressive voucher programs for high school students.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

Here's something else...
http://www.socialsecurity.org/dailys/07-02-03.html

And even Dean suggests you check out Cato's website on his own website
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=stopashcroft&JServSessionIdr002=x9og6g23h1.app193a

[Hep]

47. Yeah, interesting

That was an interesting article. But with lines like this in it:

"As governor, he supported and successfully enacted a whole menu of dimwitted liberal causes: a state-funded universal health care system..."

I'm not going to give it a whole lot of merit. The article goes on to talk about how he raised taxes, a decidedly NON libertarian act.

On Socialk Security, have you seen any of the debates or read any of his myriad of responses to the "dean wants to raise the SS age" schtick? It's bunk!

As far as linking to the Cato Institute, it's a really good article on the subject. You think it was wrong to link it?

[AP]

54. Re-read my original post

I said this " However, I also understand that Dean's career seems to be divided in two: in 1999 and earlier he looked very much like a libertarian. From 2000-2002, Dean had some fiscal problems in the state which made him move away from libertarianism. (Or he started thinking about running for President). Also, the libetarians don't like his health care plan."

Regardless of the things you cite, I think this is worth talking about.

[Hep]

57. Worth talking about

Stop being disingenuous.

In one post you say his career is divided into two time periods, the PAST being when he seemed to espouse libertarian ideas, and in another post you claim that you think Dean IS a closet libertarian. Why is it not WAS a closet libertarian? And why are we focusing on what he did years ago instead of what his policies are NOW?

[AP]

62. This is obvious:

There are a couple possibilities.

(1) Maybe Dean decided he was going to run for President and he needed to cover his tracks.

(2) Maybe Libertarianism doesn't work and when it ultimately produces a shitty economy, you start having to do the things you said you'd never do.

I'm sure there are other possibilities, all of which amount to the fact that this is still worth talking about.

Why are you so hysterical about this?

Either I'm wrong, and hysteria is not required to address these issues. Or I'm right, and we should all be honest about this, or somewhere in between, and it's still worth arguing about without resorting to hysteria.

[Hep]

66. hmmm

(1) Maybe Dean decided he was going to run for President and he needed to cover his tracks.

A la kucinich and reproductive rights? Possible, but he doesn't seem to be apologetic about other past decisions. He doesn't seem to be hiding anything.

(2) Maybe Libertarianism doesn't work and when it ultimately produces a shitty economy, you start having to do the things you said you'd never do.

If Dean was a closet libertarian when gov of vermont, it certainly didn't result in a shitty economy. So that isn't a reason for changing.

How about this:

(3) Maybe Dean has always shared some views with libertarians, but it doesn't make him a closeted anything. Maybe all the candidates have overlapping views with libertarians, greens, and perhaps natural lawyers.

I'm sure there are other possibilities, all of which amount to the fact that this is still worth talking about.


Who wins on American Idol is worth talking about to some people. It's not up to me to decide. But my participation in the discussion should be enough evidence as to how I feel.

Why are you so hysterical about this?

Hysterical? This is how you define hysterical? OK!

Your poll was ridiculous. IS ridiculous.

Or maybe I'm a hysterical person. I'm sure you've already decided.

[AP]

68. I thought you said you were finished with this discussion

He doesn't seem to be hiding anything.

What's in those papers he sealed? And why can't he be more clear about his policies regarding one of the most important issues today -- taxes?

So that isn't a reason for changing.

If you read some of the articles below you'd learn that VT was experiencing revenue shortfalls after 2000, and Dean had to close holes by cutting services and raising taxes.

[Hep]

76. Where did I say I was finished?

What's in those papers he sealed? And why can't he be more clear about his policies regarding one of the most important issues today -- taxes?

Which papers did he seal?

And why haven't you asked someone more important than people here why he isn't more clear about his policies? And why are you bouncing back and forth between saying his policies aren't clear and saying his policies are of a libertarian nature?


If you read some of the articles below you'd learn that VT was experiencing revenue shortfalls after 2000, and Dean had to close holes by cutting services and raising taxes.

VT was experiencing revenue shortdalls after 2000? How many states can you name that haven't experienced revenue shortfalls since 2000? Hint: Don't say NC.

[AP]

81. That's how I read this:

Look, let's put an end to this silliness right now.

Dean believes what he believes, and neither he nor I care in the least where you categorize him as a result.

The DLC thikns he's too liberal, the greens think he's too conservative, now hes a libertarian. Whatever. He's clear on the issues. Think what you want. Just vote for him, for chrissakes.

You don't know that Dean sealed papers? Or you don't know which papers Dean sealed?

If it's the former, I wonder how we've made it this far in this discussion. If it's the latter, I have the same quesiton you have: "which papers did he seal?

And why haven't you asked someone more important than people here why he isn't more clear about his policies?

I can see for myself that they aren't clear, and I don't think I'd be telling his professional campaign managers anything they don't know if I asked them why he isn't being more clear about progressive taxation.

And why are you bouncing back and forth between saying his policies aren't clear and saying his policies are of a libertarian nature?

I hate having to repeat myself. All his clear policies and the fact that he isn't clear about taxes might all point in the same direction: closet libertarianism. (And if you read the articles linked here, the libertarians seem to think the same thing.)

About those revenue shortfalls. The issue isn't THAT they experienced revenue short falls, it's how they dealt with them. Dean might have dealt with them by abandoning his penchance for not using taxes to close the budget.

Think of it this way. Your goal is a balanced budget. The Feds give you a decent economy. You lower taxes because it's easy with the economy doing so well. You go to the Cato Inst and say, see, like me. The economy slows. You're stuck. You got to close that budget because that's how you've defined yourself as a politician, and you plan on running for president as a budget balancer. You raise some taxes here and there, so you don't lose your persona...etc. etc.

[Hep]

85. nonsense!

It's just bizarre how people come from all sides trying to pin him onto some area of the political landscape. I'm waiting for someone to claim he's natural law.

I can see for myself that they aren't clear, and I don't think I'd be telling his professional campaign managers anything they don't know if I asked them why he isn't being more clear about progressive taxation.

But maybe they can tell you something you don't know. It's obvious that no one here can.


Think of it this way. Your goal is a balanced budget. The Feds give you a decent economy. You lower taxes because it's easy with the economy doing so well. You go to the Cato Inst and say, see, like me. The economy slows. You're stuck. You got to close that budget because that's how you've defined yourself as a politician, and you plan on running for president as a budget balancer. You raise some taxes here and there, so you don't lose your persona...etc. etc.

It's clear that you have a very clear understanding of Dean's work in Vermont. Which taxes did he raise and which services did he cut to balance the budget?

[AP]

87. It's not me. It's Libertarians who are trying to make him palatable to

libertarians. I'm just trying to let DUers know.

If a candidate doesn't realize how they're campaigning, and they want me to come, as an individual, to them to get the answer, that candidate is doomed. Just the fact that I have to go ask for a clarification is damning. I'm going to assume they know what they're doing.

This isn't highschool. There aren't 30 kids in the classroom, and it's not my job to participate in my political education by asking teacher questions after class. That's a quaint idea, and fits in with the general meta-message of the Dean campaign. But any candidate who's relying on that kind of thing, like I said, is doomed.

[Hep]

99. sums it up I guess

I'm just trying to let DUers know.

Good God!

Will we expect posts from you regarding Dean's being a potential closeted Green based on what Greens tell each other trying to gain support for him? Or republican?

Every constituency tries to make a candidate more palatable to others who think like them. Every candidate appeals to different groups on different issues. Surely this doesn't come as a surprise. But tell me, have you look at blogs or websites of libertarians for Kerry or Gephardt? Why is it Dean?

If a candidate doesn't realize how they're campaigning, and they want me to come, as an individual, to them to get the answer, that candidate is doomed. Just the fact that I have to go ask for a clarification is damning. I'm going to assume they know what they're doing.

The Dean campaign is clear. Go to a meetup. Get involved. You have access to the answers you want if you want them.

Why do you think a candidate is doomed if they expect you to go to them for answers? To whom do you suggest people go? And do you seriously expect clarity on your terms on every issue from evrey candidate, or is Dean the only one not giving you the answers you want in umbrella form?

This isn't highschool. There aren't 30 kids in the classroom, and it's not my job to participate in my political education by asking teacher questions after class. That's a quaint idea, and fits in with the general meta-message of the Dean campaign. But any candidate who's relying on that kind of thing, like I said, is doomed.

Well then I suggest you give up on Dean and focus on another candidate.

[AP]

104. Are you beating a dead horse?

You're repeating stuff, you're ignoring other stuff, and you're misstating other things.

Sometimes I wonder if people post errors in logic and fact deliberately to encourage repetitive responses, and drive a thread to a length that makes it useless for discussing the ideas which it attempts to address productively.

I think you crossed that line a while ago.

If you want me to answer any further questions, or you want to make statements that you'd like me to contradict, I'm willing to do it privately. Drop a message in my box. But I think it's silly to keep going round and round.

But, for now, I'll say (with each number representing your original paragraphs):

1-logically weak. Wouldn't ever happen anyway.

2-answer is too obvious

3-what more do they say that isn't said at DU or on the stump?

4-asked and answered

[Hep]

44. This is your evidence?

Holy cow. Let's test my ability for restraint.

HEY CHECK THIS OUT! I WAS GOOGLING THE OTHER DAY AND I FOUND THIS!

http://republicansfordean.blogspot.com/

I DIDN'T KNOW DEAN WAS A REPUBLICAN!

Hows that logic looking to you now?

[LynneSin]

56. If Dean (who I support) runs on the libertarian ticket...

I'd be voting for the democrat, even if that democrat was Joe Lieberman.

I'm a democrat - any issues with that??
:shrug:

[AP]

70. It is amazing how this poll has stuck at around 50:5:45

It looks like Dean being a liberterian (if it were the case) would be a problem for about half of DU'ers. The people who like him no matter what would need to convince all the people on the fence that this wasn't a problem.

[indigo32]

75. Where's the option for:

HE'S NOT A LIBERTARIAN

[AP]

78. I suspect that, now that we're seeing that the question is relevant, maybe

over the next couple months we'll be having the debate over whether Dean's set of policies and his actions reveal that he has strong libertarian leanings.

Frankly, I'm stunned that this hasn't come up sooner.

I feel like we've totally been having the wrong debate on Dean.

Who decided the terms of the debate on Dean's candidacy? Well, it was the wrong debate. I think this is the real debate.

[Hep]

82. out of curiosity

Are you a Dean supporter? On the fence? Who will you vote for in the primary? Is this all about Dean because he's the front runner?

You don't have to answer any of this of course, but it would be interesting to know.

[indigo32]

84. And I read the entire thread before posting

some interesting discussion there... but came to the conclusion that you are way off base... though I'm not surprised your still pushing the issue.

[AP]

89. It's posts like this one which make me glad that I can take a look

at how people are voting in the poll to see if this is a common sentiment.

It looks like there's at least one person who disagrees with you for each person who agrees with you.

[indigo32]

93. But you didn't leave any option on the poll

that would dispute your original thesis did you? I never voted because that option doesn't exist....
You either disclike HD because he's a libertarian or you can stomach it. No option allowing someone to say he's NOT a libertarian.

[AP]

97. The PREMISE of the poll is that if he were a libertarian...

...what would you think.

Save the debate for whether he is for a differnt poll.

I wanted to know if it was even worth asking the question--whether it even mattered to people.

Clearly it does.

So, from now on, I'll be thinking about Dean's policy statements with this paradigm in mind, because it apparently matters.

Anyway, I thought there was enough evidence to suggest that he is, plausibly, a libertarian. I thin w4rma's posts above establish the plausibility. I think w4rma definitely has credibility on the subject of discerning Dean's politics. I think w4rman might have stayed out of the argument since those posts because of the surprising hostility to the thesis.

[indigo32]

101. OK that was the premise of the Poll

in which case I'd have to say yes it matters to me too... and I'd agree w4rma has credibility.
Ya know, I did go back and read the entire thread to try and give you a chance to state your thesis and understand it better before I drew my conclusion .... and there really isn't that much hostility here. Most of it is a conversation between you and Hep.
Dean really would have to make a turn around on quite a number of issues... including his tax policy... to qualify as a libertarian.

[Hep]

102. It's a push poll

Doesn't that mean anything?

[gully]

77. Here's the platform...he's not a Libertarian..

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/execsumm.html

He like most politicians shares some of the beliefs of the Libertarian Party, but the differences make a difference.

For example Dean wants to repeal Bush's tax cut, and the LIB Party takes this position:

"Taxation
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights."

You can find elements from all of our candidates in this platform KWIM?

[AP]

91. A flaw in this pole:

It doesn't reveal whether Dean supporters would have a problem with Dean's hypothetical libertarianism. It may be that very vew of the do, or that they either don't or they would refuse to accept the notion that he was a libertarian.

[gully]

105. The flaw is it's a ridiculous question...

See the platform I posted...