I can't say I agree with him, but my respect for Howard Dean is growing. In Jackson, Mississippi as the new chairman of the DNC, Dean said, "The way we're going to win elections in this country is not to become Republican lite. The way we're going to win elections in this country is to stand up for what we believe in."
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/11025163.htm
I wish the Republicans would try that. Although our perspectives are different by quite a bit, I agree with Dean that the Republicans and the Democrats are all too similar.
The Democrats have always enjoyed spending taxpayer money on social programs, at least since FDR. Why then have the Republicans balked on their principles to try to outspend the Dems?
We don't need another Democratic party. The party of Lincoln and Reagan, Eisenhower and Goldwater, has always accepted the task of being the more fiscally responsible party. Has Bush forgotten, or does he believe, as does Cheney, that "deficits do not matter."
Deficits do matter, and so do principles. If Dean rallies the Democrats and usurps Republican power, the Republicans will have only themselves to blame. And though I'm not rooting for him, it is nice to have a leader, who at least claims to stand up for what he says.
One can't help but respect that.
2 comments:
I'm sorry, Reagan was fiscally responsible? News to me.
Although he did pass a tax hike to make up for his tax cut, making him more fiscally sound than Bush II. So Reagan only tripled the debt, he didn't quadruple it like he could have. That takes a real dedication to a sound monetary policy.
The major difference which you failed to mention was Democratic control of the Senate. Since Republicans are in charge of the House and Senate, Bush should have no trouble with balancing the budget, if he wishes.
Reagan had no such luxury. For though the Republicans as of late oppose fiscal responsibility, let's not forget which party opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment.
Post a Comment