At least Sanders, unlike his Democratic brethren, is willing to publicly admit that he is a socialist.

I just read the article. I cannot believe how many times the word "extremist" was used to describe Bush or his popularly-elected agenda, but not to describe the socialist candidate who was the subject of the article. How far out there are these people? We must resist the extreme Bush agenda by supporting this socialist. Yeah, that’s much more mainstream.

Maybe I’m reading the article wrong, but it seems that the Chairman of the Republican Party of Vermont was calling Sanders and Co. the extremists...not the other way around.

And how "far out" are you? A direct quote: "unlike his Democratic brethren, is willing to publicly admit that he is a socialist." I bet a lot of Democrats would object to such broad generalization just as you object to being called an extremist.

I apologize. I spoke in haste. But he has a strong record of fighting the "extreme" Bush agenda? That is ridiculous. Bush is the best thing that happened to big government since FDR.

I also bet a lot of Democrats would object to being called socialists. But those Democrats aren’t the ones running in Vermont or stepping out of Sanders’ way now.

Gee, I thought Democrats were poor. Their money machine seems to be in excellent working order -- for a socialist, no less.

Mr. Frisk many "poor" Democrats here in Chapel Hill and Orange county seem ta be drivin’ many a BMW, Volvo, Opels, etc. and they are a still carryin’ "Kerry/Edwards" stickers on their rear bumpers. Many placed to da "left" side of da bumper. Ahem......jes a cooincidence; ah reckon.

I know it. Was making a joke.

The Dems are increasingly the party of the rich. Since this is an advantageous thing for them, we need to create at least a partial disadvantage by pointing it out to people who still believe the "party of the poor" nonsense.

Ohio Voter - your attention to the details is appreciated. We moderate Dems don’t like those catch phrases like "socialism."

Actually, the Dems have become the party of well-off parasites. Most of their "wealthy" constituents got that way on the government teat (e.g., bureaucrats, education administrators, college professors). And affirmative action...don’t get me started!

I don’t like the Democratic Party any more than anyone else here, but the sloppy use of the term "socialist" to describe anyone to the left of center is as bad as denouncing conservatives as "fascists." By definition, socialists advocate nationalization of the means of production. Sanders might support this, but is there any high-profile Democrat (Sanders is an independent) who does? The modern welfare state that most of us so dislike was built not by socialists but mainly by conservatives like Otto von Bismarck; genuine socialists denounced it from the start as a trick to dampen the class consciousness of the workers.

Perhaps John should go to one of the ACS’s seminars on the Constitution in 2020 and ask Bruce Ackerman what he thinks about the means of production. Or maybe he should read the American Prospect or The Nation and inquire as to how many Congressman and Senators are subscribers.