I've made the point in the past that for all the left likes to lay all kinds of 'far right' insults on Mr. Bush, he's anything BUT far right. It's to the point where, at least in domestic issues, one could logically ask if the Democrats complaints were more based in powerlust, more than anything resembling policy differences.

To be honest, it's one factor that has kept me fascinated with Mr. Bush; He tweaks the Democrats simply by being Mr. Bush; they really can't seem to get into specifics as regards policy differences. Which in tun is one big reason the DNC is in the state it's in today.

Bithead:

The problem I've observed with Democrats is they're VERY big at pointing out problems, and then loudly proclaiming that THEY are the only ones who can do anything about them.

Then after the election, the problem that was so pressing right before the voter stepped into the booth sinks out of sight - until the next election.

After all, why discard a good tool? You solve a problem, you solve a campaign issue that got you elected. So you'd better not do anything too drastic. (Yeah, I got fooled by Clinton in '92. Decided then that I was going to examine candidates MUCH more carefully. Read Bush's bio and all else I could find, read up on Gore - and then I asked myself, 'To who could I hand my wallet to, walk out of the room for an hour, and expect to find my wallet intact when I returned?' I just didn't think Gore had it.)

Bush has been taking out a lot of the DNC talking points, certaianly. Jobs? We're recovering, according to Bloomberg radio, from the recession that started while Clinton was in office and magnified by 9/11. Health-care? That prescription drug plan works for me - considering the Dems had plenty of time to propose and pass something like that while Clinton was in office, but didn't.

WoT? So far I think Bush has done pretty well. He hasn't done perfectly, but we live in an imperfect world, and he's certainly done better than I would have hoped. WMD? Well, if UN inspection teams and foriegn intelligence services also thought they had them, it would have been a damn stupid thing to ignore them as a threat. It looks to me like Saddam's scientists managed to convince the world they had them - which prolonged their careers (and lives) because Saddam would have killed them in short order if he thought they were spoofing him.

There's issues I don't agree with him on - cloning, stem cell research, abortion - so I'll give him a high B instead of an A+.

But you know, what I'm thinking is that Bush isn't working for the Republican Party. He's not working for big business. I think he's really doing what he thinks best for the country, for the people - instead of special interest groups.

I can't say I think the same of the DNC candidates, except maybe Joe Lieberman. And he dropped.

I think it's going to be very interesting between now and November.

J.

Seems to me, J, that you've made the case that Bush is a moderate.

As for the Democrats and the issues that seem to disappear when they get elected, I think that long those lines, we can easily point to Clinton's tax cut that never showed up until we got a Republican Congress.

You're right; there is much to argue about with Mr. Bush, from a philisophical baseline perspective on matters of policy, and I'm on record as doing so, repeatedly. Yet in a choice between Mr. Bush, and what the Democrats have offered us, my choice is already made.

What I see here is a tremendous will to believe. We had a relative in our family once who constantly made unfortunate choices that not only affected him, but others around him.

His mother made excuses for him all along the way, hoping that her support would have a transforming effect. It never came. She died with the faith that he would turn things around.

What fascinates me is the reliance on reports and figures when much of that conflicts with what we see and hear in our everday lives. For example, jobs are rebounding, yet hardly a day goes by that a major corporation doesn't announce a few thousand layoffs. It doesn't pass the test of personal experience on the street.

And there, perhaps we see the difference between evdience and anicdotes. Your reference to the job market does seem to take the union line to heart, and ignores the reality of smaller commercial concerns and non-union positions that are replacing the unions.

Bithead -

What I'm thinking is that extremist positions from either side aren't what the country needs. And that loudly labeling the opponent's stance or programs as 'extremist' ignores the fact that although many people will believe you, it may not necessarily be true or accurate. Political expediency and pandering has made for some pretty bad national policy over the years. (See Prohibition, for one.)

I look at the DNC candidates and don't see anything moderate about them. I do see they're pandering to their core to get elected, not trying to create a centrist/moderate position that will convince people who are uncommitted to support them.

Perhaps the current crop of candidates figure after the selection process is over, people will forget the tactics and statements used during the process. And they can try to recast themselves as centrist-moderates...

But I don't think it'll be so easy this time around.

J.

There is an excellent article in Sunday's Dallas Morning News on what direction Bush's "third way" will go.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/0208043dnedituffnell.3ab4e.html