If he's a Libertarian, a drastic reduction in spending is a given. A government that has less to do, costs a good deal less.
I don't literally know if he is a Libertarian. He made a very sparse statement which <b>I</b> characterized as Libertarian.
By the way TJ, I've listened to the Dean scream more than once now and I detect no "r" sound at all. There may be a couple of "g" sounds, but I can't tell for sure. You might want to change your sig to reflect this new knowledge.
The Democrats' response to Bush's State of the Union Address was nothing short of awe-inspiring. They really knew how to captivate an audience.
Maybe that Outkast song "Hey Yaaaaa" was in his head. Dean was the guy who said he liked Wycleaf Jean's music.
I might not be a Libertarian, but I would support one if they balanced the budget (with no accounting tricks). This country goes through political cycles. I am a moderate and tend to like it best when transitioning between liberal and conservative. The Clinton Presidency was a good time for me. We had a balanced budget. And the Democratic left leaning White House was balanced out by a right leaning Congress on most political matters. With a balanced budget, priorities can shift during the political cycle but at least no one is "buying" their re-election on the backs on our grandchildren. Now I can dislike it when the cycle has gone to the far right, but I know that the cycle will eventually turn and whatever excesses were committed can be undone. BTW I would also dislike it when the cycle has gone far left. Outside of serious political reform, I do not see how we can get balanced budgets on a continuing basis. There is no check to balance the "buying" of a re-election. My emphsasis on political reform is why I voted for Perot twice and Nader last time (and probably this time as well). One can easily see why I was a Bush hata from the start. The first thing GWB wanted was to give back the surplus to the people as tax cuts, regardless of the fact that the surplus was only temporary (based largely on full employment and the capital gain from the stock market bubble).
Most of you guys in Texas votes don't matter - it won't be close, and since it's winner take all in the electoral college I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Even if all 10000 of clutchcity lived in Texas it wouldn't matter one way or the other. Bush won by over a million votes in Texas. The only way a single voter can matter in a Presidential election is to live in or move to state where the race will be very close or the population is low or to attempt to influence a large number of voters through time and/or money.
practically, you're right.... but hopefully you don't vote this way when you go to the polls. hopefully you vote for whom you feel is the best candidate without regard for those externalities.
I'll vote but it won't matter. I don't know what anyone's motivation is, but I would imagine that this has gotta be one of the reason's most people don't vote in America. That and the lack of choice in candidates.
I know where you are coming from giddy. I am not a big fan of Bush myself (I know that might surprise many), simply because I cringe every time the man opens his mouth. But I find myself more aligned to conservative views than the other side. However, there is something about Wesley Clark that makes me want to vote for him. I may need to check out Edwards, as well. If it is Dean or Kerry or anyone else on the Dem side, forget it - they are not going to get my vote (even though it really doesn't matter).
Straight popular vote, or keep the delegates in a non winner-take-all environment? I really, really don't want to vote for Bush, I'd vote for Kerry/Edwards (or vice versa) in a heartbeat. I can't in good conscience vote for a ticket with either Dean or Clark on it.
Either or. There's just no reason why your vote should effectively be worth less than the average Floridians vote.
I thought this was an interesting site to determine the candidate best for you. http://www.presidentmatch.com
Buck: Why Kerry or Edwards but not Clark or Dean? Manny: Why Edwards or Clark but not Kerry or Dean? Just curious. giddyup: You must know Edwards pretty well, being from his state. What are your thoughts on him so far? What are your thoughts on the other Dems?
Hey, I got 100%. Kucinich that is. Sharpton, Kerry, Clark, Dean following up at 97,90,88, 87. Bush got 8%. Then again, it gave Edwards and Lieberman almost the same score for me at 77 and 76 % respectively, and I can't stand Lieberman.
