McCain seeks distance from Stevens

Sarah Palin is a socialist, people! She taxed oil companies and redistributed that revenue to every Alaskan. How is nobody ribbing her for that?

I would rather redistribute wealth to those that actually need it than to the wealthy who don't - George Bush's redistribution plan, which John McCain would have us continue, has by all accouints placed more dollars in fewer hands

War is soacialism

Leah, you clearly don't understand basic economic principles. Taxes do not equal socialism. Everyone pays taxes. Even rich people. The idea that wealthy people should pay more than everyone else simply because they are wealthy in order to 'spread the wealth around' is socialism.

Another corrupt Republican? No!

Stevens and Palin palled around all the time. They sucked $$$ from the Feds for years. Stevens kept sucking it into his house. Palin sucked it into her wardrobe.

Dantherman, wrong again.

"spreading the wealth around" by itself is not socialism. Capitalism spreads wealth around, hell even a dictatorship can spread the wealth around. Socialism is the collective or governmental ownership/administration of the means to control means of production and distributing it around for an equal society. Socialism by itself does not work. When the few have the vast majority of the wealth in a country that is Free Market Capitalism. Free Market Capitalism by itself does not work either. When the wealthy class controls the majority of the wealth and the middle class shrinks that is bad for the American people. The rich do not get richer in this system. When the middle class has enough wealth to sustain a level of comfort then the rich actually become the mega rich, Wealth increases for all classes and the economy florushes. The trickle down, small government philosphy of the Republican party has failed over the last 8 years to the point where we are on the verge of a depression that will occur should McCain get into office.

Leah you need to do more research on the term socialist
Look up Obama on the internet and his picture is right next to
socialist

Ted Stevens for president!

A wraparound, three-season porch for every home!

Right on #7. If I had a nickel for everytime a moron offered up yet another incorrect definition of socialism in the past three weeks, (ie., dantheman), I would be wealthy enough to want to vote for McCain!
But I'd still be smart enough to vote for Obama :)

Under the Bush Administration 70% of the tax breaks received by Americans went to the top 1% of Americans. Why shouldn't the rich pay more in taxes? People should pay taxes according to what they earn, this is not sociallism and it is not "sharing the wealth". The nifty little sound bite "sharing the wealth" that the McCain and the Republicans have obviously been successful in stuffing into peoples' brains has no real meaning other than to scare people into voting for them. Additionally, these tax breaks mostly for the rich are coming from money that we don't have. The Republicans overspent the budget by hundreds of billions of dollars rasing the national debt to the highest it has ever been. Who pays for this ? Americans do. We pay at least one third of our tax dollars towards interest on these debts and it keeps increasing. We are handing our children larger debt and a significant chunk of that debt went to tax breaks for the rich. The rich are sucking money out of our economy and asking us to pay for it! How does a Republican consider conservatism to be severely overspending the budget ever single year? If socialism is "sharing the wealth", what do you call taking money from the poor and working class and giving it to the wealthy? I call it welfare for the rich!

Palin is corrupt and she spends too much on her wardrobe? You people have nothing else to talk about? That's the best you can do?
She taxed oil companies and gave it to the people, which should make any liberal have an episode in their pants. If it were Ted Kennedy that had done the same thing you would call him a hero. Some of you have mentioned the cost of Palin's wardrobe, but I've heard nothing about Barack's fifteen hundred dollar suits.

STEPHEN M
Redistribute wealth to those that need it? Who couldn't use a few extra dollars in their pocket, but who are you to suggest that hard work should be penalized? Do you believe that I should not tip a waiter and give it to the homeless person outside because they are more deserving of it? Isn't that wealth redistribution?
Also, I could list many corrupt Democrats. Many politicians, Dem and Rep, have been accused of corruption over the years, including Richard Daley, a friend of Barack Obama's.
And the idiot that tried to make a connection between Stevens and Palin is dead wrong, but I would expect that from an Obama supporter. Why are none of you bothered by Obama's association with corrupt politicians, black racist organizations, Bill Ayers, Tony Resco, ACORN and many other less than desirable groups. Because most of you are hypocrites.... Angry, bitter hypocrites.

Dear Wake up: tell us more about Baraks 1500.00 suits! Where does he get them? How many does he have? What kind of shoes does he wear? How bout Michelle's dresses?

nothing to back it up?....didn't think so...

Give Leah a bit of a break; I suspect some irony in her post.
I was in Alaska a few years ago for a short time. It was interesting hearing Alaskans talk about how they're entitled to a payout from the state government each year, but that payout to which they're entitled isn't "an entitlement." Clearly not since entitlement was a naughty word at the time. I thought it was more funny than sad, but I'm rethinking that reaction these days.

I believe that the Western world endured a nearly unfettered period of capitalism during the 19th century. Wealth did not get spread around during that period. The trickle down was barely perceptible. Robber Barons essentially ruled entire nations, including this one. Five year old children worked from dawn to dusk. Workers died in mines and factories through accidents and fires dismissed as part of doing business. Rail accidents killined hundreds, thousands a week were commonplace. It was that Republican icon, TR, who recognized the gross imbalance and the threat of real unrest and possible revolutuion and led the way in reigning in the exploitation.
Train wrecks often eventually spawn social change. The Wall St. train wreck may do so. Capitalists cannot regulate themselves as Greenspan recently, finally, acknowledged. Their excesses are the reason for social change. If we drift toward socialism look to the under-regulated capitalists for paternity. You will ind their DNA all over it.

DemocratforObama08 - Did I say that spreading the wealth around was socialism? I'm pretty sure I said something more along the lines of 'the idea that wealthy people should pay more than everyone else simply because they are wealthy in order to 'spread the wealth around' is socialism.' Wait let me check.... Yup that's what I said. That IDEA sounds pretty socialist to me. why don't you get your facts straight SocialistforObama08... I know that's really hard for the Obama supporters to do.

I believe that the Western world endured a nearly unfettered period of capitalism during the 19th century. Wealth did not get spread around during that period. The trickle down was barely perceptible. Robber Barons essentially ruled entire nations, including this one. Five year old children worked from dawn to dusk. Workers died in mines and factories through accidents and fires dismissed as part of doing business. Rail accidents killined hundreds, thousands a week were commonplace. It was that Republican icon, TR, who recognized the gross imbalance and the threat of real unrest and possible revolutuion and led the way in reigning in the exploitation.
Train wrecks often eventually spawn social change. The Wall St. train wreck may do so. Capitalists cannot regulate themselves as Greenspan recently, finally, acknowledged. Their excesses are the reason for social change. If we drift toward socialism look to the under-regulated capitalists for paternity. You will ind their DNA all over it.

Is Barry calling for Dianne Wilkerson to resign? Or will he put her in his admistration? After all, it was racism that caused her to lie, cheat and steal. Is he calling for Barney "Hot Bottom: Frank to resign for demolishing the finacial system in the country? How about Do-Do Dodd? Or the state Senator from Arlington who likes to assault women?

Just keep sending Beacon Hill your money- they need more or the sky will fall.
VOTE YES ON #1

RUDE LIBERAL

I guess the name speaks for itself. I have never been fooled by liberals and their so called tolerance and compassion.

I really don't care how much he spends on his shoes, clothes, or whatever, and you and your liberal friends in the media shouldn't care what Palin wears or how much she spends on her clothes. It's pathetic.
Both parties spend a lot of money looking good for their supporters and the media. Palin shouldn't be criticized for it and it's the liberals doing whatever they can to discredit her. I thought liberals considered themselves to be tolerant. I guess the cat's out of the bag.

Hard work is not all it takes to make money. Business, communication, transportation, education and many other government-maintained systems all have to work together to allow individuals, small businesses, the rich and huge corporations to survive and flourish. Huge corporations and the rich profit the most from the systems and securities government provides and therefore should have the highest tax burden.

You may criticize Palin's wardrobe, but my guess is that she know that J-O-B-S is a four letter word unlike her counterpart, Joe Biden. That has to be one of the funniest moments of the campaign. So what happens if Obama gets elected and something happens to him? "Foot in the mouth Joe" will be up for the job telling all the physically challenged people in America to "stand up." Sounds like a great plan!

I am so glad that GW Bush has finally taken the spot previously held for Richard M Nixon and John McCain has just added the exclamation point.

What do Nixon, Bush and McCain all have in common? The ability to circumvent .

Socialism is a bizarre label in the USA, because it is used without being understood at all, as some commentators above have rightly pointed out. The extreme right in the USA mistakes social democracy for Communism, for example, which is completely wrong (European nations are mostly social democracies. There is no planned economy, just a solid social system aimed at ensuring social and political peace... even Bismarck in the 1870s recognized the need for stricter labor laws to coopt the socialists... but that would mean actually learning something, so the eyxtreme right shuns it.)
I have long tried to figure out what people mean by these labels, though. Growing up in the Sixties, kids used to call each other "Commie", and I could never figure it out. It meant nothing.

But the "socialist" label raised by the Elmer Fudd/Cruella ticket is more subtle and harks back to a racial stereotype by association created by the Reagan attack dogs who were, in the end, blatant racists: Here it is: black man = poor man=welfare family=government support=socialism. And the non-existent welfare queen as well (now in the form of bankers and GM executives). No one has remarked on this. It's not far-fetched.

And it is repulsive, because Obama is not a socialist by far. He is a conservative, he believes in hard work, in hard study in paying your dues and in taking responsibility (that is a bad word in the GOP mouth). McCain and Cruella take the easy road: they scream epithets at the top of their lungs, and no one knows what their political thrust is? They hope to cruise by on some vague accusations, some "joe the Plumber" type vignette, true or false. They have no substance.

So for those who are simply screaming, get real. Our's is not a nation of screeching narcissists. Please. Get real. You want those two Disney characters at the helm? Realy? Well have them. At least the country will be completely irrelevant.

DemocratforObama08, wrong again. Did I say spreading the wealth around was socialism? I'm pretty sure I said something more along the lines of 'the idea that wealthy people should pay more than everyone else simply because they are wealthy in order to 'spread the wealth around' is socialism.' Let me check... yup that's what I said.

We are not on the verge of a depression, the economy will recover regardless of who wins the election, and the current state of the economy is not Bush's fault. I'm not a huge fan of Bush myself (certainly not the bailout) but you can't just look around and say look what Bush did because it's not that simple.