That L-Word

EVEN as the Democratic presidential contenders wrangle over their places on the political spectrum, Republicans see them as pretty much the same. Consider how the Republican National Committee, on its Web site, describes the would-be presidents:

Howard Dean: "An ultra-liberal on social issues who is out of the mainstream and wrong for America."

John Edwards: "An unaccomplished liberal in moderate clothing."

Richard A. Gephardt: "Keeper of the liberal flame."

Bob Graham: "A tax-and-spend liberal in moderate's clothing."

John Kerry: "A Massachusetts liberal out of touch with America."

Dennis Kucinich: "A flip-flopping liberal extremist."

Carol Moseley Braun: "A controversial liberal who was rejected by her own state."

The Rev. Al Sharpton: "A liberal Democrat out of touch with America."

Somehow, Joseph I. Lieberman escaped similar portraiture. He is described instead as an equivocator on a "journey from populist, to moderate, to moralist and back again."

At least he's not a liberal.

Clearly, the GOP plans to tar just about anybody who's left of Genghis Khan with the same old tired, worn-out epithets, so why be concerned about it? The American people can certainly be gullible, but I think the 100th or 150th time they hear yet another politician described in the exact same way, they're going to start getting the idea that to the Republicans, any Democrat, no matter how centrist, is a flaming ultra-liberal, even those whose policies the public generally finds that it agrees with, when they actually have the chance to hear what they are.

-----------------------------------

(Incidentally, it took the crimes and incompetence of George Bush to firmly move me from the stance of referring to the Democrats in the third-person, to completely identifying with them.

Although I've been registered as a Democrat for many years, that was more a strategic decision than anything else. Up until a few years ago, here in New York City, the Republican party was so weak that the winner of the Democratic primary pretty much determined the outcome of the general election -- so I changed my registration from "Independent" to "Democrat" in order to have a voice in who would govern us. But I still thought of myself as an independent, and did not identify with the Democratic party. Even though the candidates I voted for were overwhelming Democratic, whenever possible I voted for them on another party line (Liberal or Working Families), since in NY these votes are simply added into the votes received on the Democratic line.

But Bush changed all that -- I'm now a Democrat, through and through, and even though I have my preferences as to who would be the best candidate -- Dean/Clark is my wet dream, but Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards would be fine as well -- I will enthusiastically and fervently support whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be... even Joe Lieberman, who's at the bottom on my list.)