I've got some good Kucinich smack, but I've got to address that move likely pushed ahead by the buzz surrounding Barry Obama-- Senator Hillary Rodhan Clinton's released an indecipherable video that as analyzed, seems to announce a Presidential bid. What do you think of this, by the way? Meanwhile, Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) is also running for president, running as one of those hip new tough guy Western Democrats (whose ranks include a woman, Janet Napolitano), and Governor Richardson also happens to be part Hispanic-- possibly the sexiest new voting bloc since women got the vote. (And by "sexy", I mean election tipping) And if you have the time, please remind MSNBC that Dennis Kucinich is on the warpath for peace. This prognosticator anticipates that Mr. Kucinich's strategy is a media assault on the Daily Show and MySpace generation, designed to pick off delegates and get some good language in the party platform. However, my inside connection at the Kucinich headquarters tells me that Dennis will have the last laugh: Due to as-yet-unnaounced scandals and gay sexings by all the other candidates, Kucinich will inexplicably get the Democratic nomination, and name Al Gore his running mate, The (presumed) McCain-Romney ticket will implode during the GOP convention, and Michael Bloomberg will then jump into the race as an Independent, and he'll either pick Clint Eastwood or Joe Lieberman as his VP. Due to massive vote splitting, Kucinich-Gore wins California, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconson, Illinois, and Maryland. This would leave Kucinich with about 208 electoral votes, not enough to win a majority but hopefully ahead of the other two--it figures that the GOP will take the deep south and Texas no matter what, but the midwest and west are up for grabs by the right independent. In a split vote, the House of Representatives decides the presidency, and therefore, General Secretary Speaker Pelosi would be sure to install Kucinich. It can happen. Oh, and I've given a friend 7 Points and the Colts on Sunday. I think the Pats cover.

I've got some good Kucinich smack

It must be good...I'm getting a contact high.

Yeah man!  Kucinich 2008: It could happen!

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I have a hard beliving Clinton's operatives are leaking to Insight, but you never know. But they will have to stick the knife in all her opponents, and democrats overlook how unscrupulous the Clintionoids are when it comes to the researching/smearing of opponents/enemies/ex-girlfriends/witnesses.

That's a fascinating Kucinich scenario. Have you thought about getting a show - on public acess cable? I'm convinced Americans would never vote for a vegetarian, but you never know.

What do you think of this, by the way?

I think it smacks of the same hysterical mud-slinging (for lack of a better term) as the QL I posted on Obama being a smoker. I mean, really, people worry about this stuff?

I'm actually not sure though who looks worse here, Insight or "Hillary's camp." For now, I just think Insight is being ridiculous and inflammatory. But if I come to believe that Hillary's people really are the ones spreading this, then there's simply zero chance in hell I'd vote for her. Even if she does win the nomination.

Now with caps!

OK. At least you didn't call him a "gun grabber."  :D
But seriously, does this mean you essentially wouldn't vote for any Democrat? Isn't the Democratic Party platform essentially pro-progressive taxation, pro-welfare, and pro-social security? (not to mention and pro-or at least note rabidly anti-immigration?)

P.S -- speaking of immigrants, am I to assume you only mean illegal immigrants, or are you against any non-native born person receiving gov't services? (and la migra doesn't count as a "gov't service" for the purposes of this question ;)

Now with caps!

But seriously, does this mean you essentially wouldn't vote for any Democrat? Isn't the Democratic Party platform essentially pro-progressive taxation, pro-welfare, and pro-social security?

Coquito, have you been snoozing all this time? :-)

I've been accused of worse :D
Someone called me "obtuse" once. But I showed him. No one likes "the box."

Anyway... my point was that, if you are essentially unable/unwilling to vote for any Democratic candidate, why not just say so? Why say I don't like some of "Obama's positions," as though it was just about him? I just feel like, if you aren't ever going to vote Democrat anyway, then, well, who cares what you think about the Dem candidates?

OK, that's a harsh way to put it. But I don't get into discussions about the electability of Repub candidates (except for those that maybe once had a chance of me voting for them, like say, McCain). I wouldn't add anything to the discussion really, save for the obvious (well, I may have gone out of my way to knock some of the really crazy ones in the last couple of elections, but that was for fun :D

I kinda feel the same about Urkel's comment. I mean, of course he wouldn't vote for him even if he were white! Neither would about 30-40% of the American population. They wouldn't vote for a Dem. (So, in answer to Steve's question, lots of people can say they wouldn't vote for him regardless of his skin color).

OK... I should go back to snoozing now.

Now with caps!

You know, my mistake. When I asked you whether you've been snoozing, it was really in reference to your "Isn't the Democratic Party platform essentially pro-progressive taxation, pro-welfare, and pro-social security?" rather than whether wetkarma would vote for a Democrat.

I just thought that you would have been familiar with his strong libertarian stance. I may disagree with him on just about everything, but I do respect him for his consistency and well-stated opinions.

But seriously, does this mean you essentially wouldn't vote for any Democrat?  Isn't the Democratic Party platform essentially pro-progressive taxation, pro-welfare, and pro-social security? (not to mention and pro-or at least note rabidly anti-immigration?)

I've mentioned in my prior posts that the majority of time I vote an anti-incumbent ticket when a libertarian candidate is not available.  In the recent election, I voted for Jim Webb (D), Virginia's new senator - so despite Ms. Sue's implication I have no problems voting for a Democrat if A) I agree with the positions they have taken or B) they are not the current incumbent.

If you believe the Democratic party is pro-progressive taxation, pro-welfare and pro-social security thats fine (might even be accurate). As I'm fiscally conservative, I'm naturally against all three. However since I'm also socially liberal there are plenty of areas I have common ground with party on (abortion, sex education, gay rights etc.).

As to the immigrant question -- I'm against the programs (welfare, social security) themselves. Given that the country does not have open borders partly because these programs exist, I'm against any measure which extends the coverage/budget of these programs. Social programs acts as an inhibitor on immigration and the free flow of labor because any country that is throwing out free money to people who live there will eventually either a) go bankrupt or b) implement restrictive rules on who can live there.

 I favor immigration (actually I'm an immigrant myself) on the basis that a free market should not only apply to goods but labor as well -- so its not a question of not wanting to see government services go to those who were not "natural born" citizens. It is rather that my view of what services government should provide does not encompass welfare or social security; programs which I view as incredibly flawed and which have caused incredible harm to the people it was allegedly meant to help.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

Thanks for the in-depth reply, wetkarma. All very interesting. If and when you have time, and you can always just send me a message if you don't want to post, I'd like to hear more about your objections to welfare and social security, and how you think they should be changed, or if they should just be abolished. I am also curious about your idea of open borders. Are you suggesting unrestricted access? A kind of "work visa" program?

Thanks again,

      --coq

Now with caps!

I'd like to hear more about your objections to welfare and social security

Much of my thoughts on welfare  and social security have been posted over the years on Plastic and more recently on Tnt.

My basic objection is this: Welfare acts as an incentive for people to not maximize their producitivty.  It creates a cycle of dependency which (over time) causes more harm than good to the people it means to help.

Social Security is a similar program to welfare in that it depends on government to fund a persons "retirement" (i.e. when they are in theory too old to work) thus removing incentive for people to save for themselves AND creating a financial structure with ever escalating costs to the working population.

Combined together these programs (and others like medicare/medicaid) has the government spending money on things with poor/zero return on investment. We've taken money from productive people and given it to non-productive people. This is not only ineffecient, but at the margins it converts the productive people to become non-productive, and keeps those who are non-productive in that category.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

Thanks again. Gonna take me some time re-read all those threads... Oy!

Now with caps!

Are you also against minimum wage and OSHA?  I'm just curious.  I'm also an immigrant, but free flow of labor has serious problems, even if you assume that we provide no services beyond education, roads & national defense.  

Thalia

Are you also against minimum wage and OSHA?  I'm just curious.  I'm also an immigrant, but free flow of labor has serious problems, even if you assume that we provide no services beyond education, roads & national defense.  

As an ideological point, I am against the minimum wage.* On a practical level, I don't really care. I think that the mid/long term effect of arbitrarily raising the minimum wage is simply to raise inflation while maintaining present levels of wealth distribution. (i.e. as you raisie the minimum wage, the buying power of the minimum wage earning indiivdual  remains neutral.)

As for OSHA - my position on OSHA is similar to that of my position on the ACLU. In principle I am supporter, but some of the regulations they have are dumb -- overbroad, counterintuitive and unjust. OSHA does a lot of good, but we shouldn't ignore the inordinate harm done to small businesses trapped in a quagmire of complying with various regulations. Regulations often written by the entrenched larger business oligopolies.

My position on what government should do differs from the standard libertarian line -- I believe in the least intrusive form of government which maximizes personal liberty. Under this formulation its relative easy to see within the spectrum of government programs which reduce liberty, which enhance it, and which are in a gray area.

If you believe the free flow of labor has fundamental problems, I'd really be interested in hearing your thoughts on the idea. If you can link those thoughts back to the the present free market system (for goods) we use, I'd appreciate that .

*True story: back in college I was earning the minimum wage and after 3 months of work was given a raise of .50c/hr for my performance. I was quite pleased. Until a month later Congress raised the minimum wage by .50c/hr. All my work to outperform my colleagues and -earn- an increase in pay was set to naught.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.