Thursday, July 31, 2003

The mainstream press is becoming more enamored with the Howard Dean “phenomenon”. Lately they’ve been working very hard at painting him as a centrist Democrat rather than an outright liberal. Even some of my otherwise conservative-minded friends are buying into this ruse. I beg to differ. Who else but a committed liberal would utter this rather ominous message on the issue of tax cuts, as Dean did last night:

"Working Americans have a choice: They can have the president's tax cuts or they can have health care that can't be taken away. They can't have both."

If this is the kind of “not-really-a-liberal” talk we can expect to hear from Dean throughout the campaign, then the Bush campaign machine can just stop fundraising right now. Bush will win by default. Forcing Americans to make a such a stark choice between lower taxes and big government is not the way to win an election.

Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman have so far opposed the idea of rolling back the tax cut. As Lieberman’s spokesman stated, “While the Bush economic plan has been a disaster for the middle class, raising taxes on the middle class would just be piling on.”

Am I the only one who sees the contortion here? According to the "centrist" Democratic candidates, Bush’s economic plan, the centerpiece of which is an across the board tax cut that favors the middle class quite heavily, is a disaster. Yet, taking away the tax cut is also a disaster. If taking away the tax cut is a bad thing, how is giving the tax cut in the first place also bad? How can you condemn both the cutting and raising of taxes in the same sentence?

This convoluted logic doesn’t even count as doublespeak; it’s just stupid, and a recipe for disaster for Democrats come 2004.


Post a Comment

<< Home