Centerfield

I think the truth of whether Bush is dishonest is irrelevant. Even when a large faction in your party strongly believes it -- like, for example, the right's views on Clinton -- you don't run on that theme. You allow the party base to have their views, but you don't allow yourself to become the focus of those charges. Instead, you focus on competence, the results of your opponents policies, and your own positive vision for the nation.

I don't think Bob Dole focused on issues of Clinton's honesty, nor did Bush focus on Gore's honesty. They let those questions and accusations be made elsewhere.

OK, let's talk Dean for a moment: "the most liberal major candidate in the Democratic field". I'm not going to argue with this per se, but I don't find this description...useful.

Let's face it. 'Liberal' in the political vernacular is a pejorative term at best and I hear it used most often as an epithet.

It would be MORE useful to say 'someone who favors policies X, Y and Z to achieve goal A.

Of course, then you're in a pickle because you have to do a lot more work to carry on a discussion about the issues. BUT THAT DISCUSSION IS SO MUCH MORE USEFUL!!! And it's the one we should be having, isn't it?

I have to admit that I'm not very knowledgeable about Dean's policies. But I suspect that MANY Americans apply the term liberal simply because he was governor of the state that allows same-sex civil unions and is a democrat.

The candidate, in order to appear Presidential, should appear to be above the fray. The thing is that, as numerous commentators have stated, Dean is running on anger. His policies on paper may not all be liberal, but he is running the most hostile, anti-Bush campaign.

For instance, his promise to repeal all the Bush tax cuts seems to be hitting home, whereas suggestions by Kerry and others to retain the portion of the tax cuts which help the poor is flopping. The Democratic primary voters seem to be so hostile to Bush that they may vote against their own economic interests (Reagan seems to also have had the ability to convince voters to vote against their economic interests)

Dean's anger may win him the nomination, but I don't think it will win him the election.

You're right about the use of the word "liberal", Erasmus. It's treated as an argument in and of itself by many these days. That style of debate is apparent when folks use the term over and over in one sentence or paragraph. You sense the term has become the argument.

Dean's political identity is a complex issue. I think there's a good bit of distortion in the public discussion. On the one hand, commentators on cable news act like he's the most liberal candidate in recent memory, when in fact his positions and policies are somewhat mixed.

Dean supporters counter that he's actually a "fiscal conservative". But they don't use that term accurately, in my opinion.

You can call him a "deficit hawk", or you can use terms like "fiscally responsible". The guy did balance the budget every year in Vermont, and he did so after inheriting big deficits from his predecessor.

The term "fiscal conservative" doesn't, in my opinion, describe folks who balance budgets, though. It describes folks who do it in a *conservative* way -- namely, they cut spending rather than raising taxes.

There are folks on the left and right who are concerned about the budget. Both can call themselves "fiscally responsible" so long as they find a way to balance the budget.

So where does Dean's plan fit in all this? Well, he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Whether that's a tax increase or not is a matter of opinion. But he also wants to implement new spending programs that will probably amount to half, or more, of the "savings" we get from the tax cut repeal. This in an environment of *extreme* budget pressure -- deficits that are approaching $500 billion a year.

He has yet to call for a single specific cut in spending. So the term "fiscally conservative" is pretty much out the window. I suspect "fiscally responsible" is out the window too. It may describe what he did in Vermont, but it doesn't seem to fit his proposed federal agenda.

1. "I think the truth of whether Bush is dishonest is irrelevant. "

To the election, maybe, maybe not. To how this country is governed--are you serious?

2. "I don't think Bob Dole focused on issues of Clinton's honesty, nor did Bush focus on Gore's honesty. They let those questions and accusations be made elsewhere."

Sorry, that's a bit disingenuous since "elsewhere" really means "by operatives within their campaigns".

And thank you, Erasmus, for trying to substitute substance for labels. I hope it catches on.

Hello All,

I'm one of the contributors to the Repub for Dean website along with Dennis. Rather than explain why I like Dean, which some may wonder, I'll just explain a bit about myself.

1- I live in Louisiana
2- I voted for Bush in 2000 and Dole in 1996
3- I vote on Fiscal Issues and Budget Issues
4- I support Tax cuts but not at the expense of Fiscal Sanity
5- I need help with Health Care. My wife and I pay $7,590 per year.
6- I supported the war and am angry about the postwar failure and lack of WMD's.
7- I never hated Clinton, but the Lewinsky matter sent me far to the other side
8- Seven of my friends are out of work, and while my wife wants to get a new job, she can't find one even though she has two degrees.
9- I am a social Liberal in that I believe in States Rights for Gun Control/ Abortion/ and Civil Unions; all three which the "Liberal" Dean supports.

Thanks, and have a wonderful day!

Hi David and Steve. Welcome.

You're right, David, that Bush's honesty is relevant to the way the country is governed. It's relevant to the election, too -- but only to the extent others (besides the eventual Democratic nominee) bring it up. His views on that type of question will be discounted (and can easily backfire).

In the 2000 campaign, folks managed to get the feeling that Gore was a "serial exaggerator" -- a charge that may not have had much factual basis. It stuck in part because he didn't have a forceful personality that could serve as an alternative to the way people view him, and in part because the charge came through the media and not directly from the mouth of his opponent.

By the way, I'm going to the Dean Meet Up here in Columbus, Ohio tonight. My wife has been meaning to go to one, but hasn't had the time. And I'm tagging along with her.

If I come back with a blank stare in my eyes and spouting the Dean line, you'll know I drank some of that Dean kool-aid. ;-)

"I'm a liberal"; "I'm a conservative"; is all one hears these days. I may have what some people refer to as liberal ideas and what others refer to as conservative ideas. Does this make me a Centrist? Why do I have to be labeled? I told someone the other day I was a conservative Democrat and another that I was a liberal Republican. Both told me that that was impossible. Does anyone see what the media, both right and left, has created? Political polarization has gone way to far in our country. I am a free and independent American who still rejects labeling. Anyone with me?