iPundit.com

Quick Thoughts on the Role of Government..

Just a few quick thoughts on the role of Government and how it has progressively grown in the United States. The 18th Century held the limited view of government which had its purpose as protecting private property. The 19th Century view told us that government could help create a better America through spending and through investments in industrialization. Carol Sheriff's , The Artificial River provides brilliant insight into how the relationship between business and government first began. I would argue that in the 19th Century the role of government was expanded to helping markets develop and grow as well. Sheriff cites the tumultuous relationship between the state government of New York and the businessmen who lived on the Erie Canal. When the government decided that a certain route was not favorable for the canal, they would change the artificial river on another route and would sometimes leave entire towns starved of trade as a result. The businessment began to argue that the government owed them money for the damages and business lost as a result of the government's actions. They based their argument on the notion that the government had created the market and the businesses had responded and as such the government was now obligated to them. I think this notion of creating markets was a big part of the 19th century and a big part of the government's role.

In the 20th century, we saw the government expand again but seemingly to fix the problems that markets could not. Part of this surely is regulation, disclosure requirements for financial institutions. In the 21st century, it looks like we will see Universal Healthcare, possibly even a Universal Living Wage and many other seemingly socialist reforms here in the United States.

My question is this, is this the logical next step of the intertwinement of government and markets? What does it mean for capitalism as a system? Is it as some say, the only way to ensure capitalism is to mend it?

Kick the Tires and Light the Fires..

Today's Democratic Debate I think marked the beginning of the end for Howard Dean. The man was utterly insincere in his stump speech and I noticed one thing in particular that seemed a bit eerie. Dean has given up on saying that he will win because he's going to get 2 Million Americans together who will give $100 each. Honestly, I just don't see it happening. I think his staff is starting to see the same thing. Their last fundraising effort ended rather poorly. Yes, they did raise over $15 million, I'm not conceeding this and I do think thats an amazing amount of money. However, in the last two weeks of the 4th quarter they had real trouble meeting their fundraising targets. Also, one might remember a certain Joe Trippi claiming his campaign would have a million supporters by the end of the year, well even when you define a "supporter" as someone who is on an email list, they are nowhere near that goal. In fact, the Dean campaign has been hovering around 550,000 "supporters" for weeks. They have been in the 500,000 range for months. And just by measuring the level of animosity amongst their supporters on the BlogforAmerica.com, you can see that support is drying out as people realize just how non liberal Howard Dean is.

Anyhow, to the highlights of the debate. I think John Kerry has really found his voice over the last few weeks, and he got a haircut, which is always a good thing. Kerry is doing a great job of defining the choices which the Democratic party has. If Wesley Clark had been there, I don't think Kerry could have defined himself so well. But General Clark was not there and as such, Kerry defined himself as a veteran with sufficient policy experience. I think Kerry has a lot going for him, he has paid staff in 31 of the 50 states and it looks like he is making some real headway in New Hampshire as well as Iowa. Sometimes, this campaign seems like an LSAT logic game, let's take a look at the first two states.

New Hampshire
Kerry has a lot of cash in the bank thanks to the loan of $6.1 Million he just gave his campaign. He also seems to be finding his voice in this whole thing and he's incredibly Presidential these days. Kerry will gain at Dean's expense because Dean's lead in New Hampshire is simply too large for him to maintain. Kerry nowadays is taking the high road on a lot of issues and isn't attacking Dean personally like he used to. He's making broad references and pointed statements on what it takes to be Presidential and he's exposing Dean for the fraud that he is. Now, as Dean loses ground to Kerry, you have to wonder, what happens to General Clark? Wes Clark is running third in New Hampshire right now and should Kerry not regain his footing, he stands the most to gain. Right now, any attack on Dean in New Hampshire is to Clark's benefit first and foremost because he is the most clear Anti - Dean but still positive revolutionary change. I don't know if John Kerry can win New Hampshire because he is 17 points down right now but I think he can close in on Dean's lead. If Kerry loses to Dean by under 7 points, I think he's the man to beat because he has the most extensive campaign staff. If Dean should beat Kerry by more than 10 points but Clark comes in second or a close third, his is the campaign to watch. Regardless of what happens, I think Dean ends up the loser, he peaked too early and now he's fighting to maintain it. He has nowhere to go but down.

Iowa
Dean is up by a paltry ten points in Iowa. This is going to change REAL fast because Gephardt is going to be investing his entire future in this race in Iowa. If he loses Iowa, Gephardt is gone. Coming out of nowhere is John Edwards, he has finally found his voice, and his voice is that of hope. The man sounds more and more like Bill Clinton everyday. I've always like Edwards because he's a positive politician. A few months back, Arpan and I discussed that Edwards just was not enough of a policy wonk and that he didn't know enough to become President. That was after a horrible Meet the Press showing. Since then, Edwards has visited all 99 counties in Iowa and he was the clear winner in today's debate. He didn't make personal attacks and he stayed above the fray. He was the man with ideas and the only one to really discuss new ideas in the debate. Dean gave his normal stump speech, Kerry did well, Gephardt and Lieberman sound the same as they did 10 years ago and even Kucinich was starting to sound a little boring. However, Edwards sounded like a man with a plan and around the blogs, especially the Dean blogs, everyone seems to like Edwards. They are impressed with him and if he continues to campaign the way he has, look for Edwards to come in strong in Iowa. Edwards will take from Dean, Gephardt will take from Dean, and Kerry will take from Dean, all in Iowa. And there's someone else who we might get to credit as the spoiler this time around. Dennis Kucinich is having a hell of a year, in 2004 that is. He's anti - war, anti-free trade, anti everything. But he's come up with over $10 Million raised last year, and most of that has come in small contributions. Based on what his website tells us, Kucinich will have $9 million in the bank as soon as the first federal matching funds come in. Kucinich said after the debate today that he would be running ads in Iowa from now till the caucuses talking about his stance on the war and other issues. I think the biggest loser from all this is Howard Dean. A huge part of Howard Dean's support is in the anti-war left wing of the Democratic party. I think Kucinich is going to take away a good portion of this support from Howard Dean. This is his time to shine, I think he might even poll above 10%. I think Iowa ends with Gephardt in first, Dean in second, Edwards in third. If Gephardt should slip, I think Edwards has a great shot at second, and Kerry has a great shot at third. In this race, an Edwards victory means much needed fuel for his campaign. It matters but just not as much for Kerry.

Dean is finished, this is the beginning of the end for him and his 15 minutes are just about up.

Dean Blackmails the Democratic Party

This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard a political candidate say, let alone Howard Dean. I've got to give Howard Dean credit for up to this point running an unbelieveable campaign and getting a huge group of people involved that were otherwise slightly apathetic. However, thats where the credit ends and the bitching begins.

So why all the controversy? Its simple, Howard Dean told us today that support was not transferrable. He told the Democratic Party that unless he is the nominee, they will lose out on new voters and all of his supporters. Now of course the only reason any of this matters is because Dean is seen to be the front runner and the media has hyped him to be something he is not. They have talked about his amazing support. The man has 550,000 people on an email list. Now he's trying to blackmail the Democratic Party into making the attacks stop. Howard Dean needs to grow up. Attacks, whether they be personal or policy oriented are part of any election process, whether its a primary or a general election. If Dean can't handle a few Democrats calling him names, what will he do when Dubya and Karl Rove get crackin' ?

If you can't tell I'm incredibly peeved at Howard Dean for having the audacity to blackmail the Democratic Party when a single vote has not been cast. My question to the Dean people is simple. Instead of complaining and being the stereotypical whiny Democract, why not just win the primary? If the other candidates play dirty, either stay clean or play dirty as well. Dean keeps on telling his supporters that this campiagn is not about him, that its about them, and its about regular Americans taking back their country. If Dean really believes this, then why say that his support is non transferrable, why say that without him, Americans will not take back their country. Howard Dean is a dangerous democrat because he's made it clear that he will do anything for political gain. Sad, but true. He's sunk to new lows with this one and I hope the other candidates call him on it.

I urge candidates like Wesley Clark, Lieberman, Kucinich, Edwards, and Kerry, as well as the rest of them, to call out on Howard Dean to retract yet another of his statements. I call on them to ask Howard Dean to once again take his foot out of his mouth.

I have yet to endorse a specific candidate for President but I admire John Kerry for standing up and making this very clear, Kerry said in a speech, "And on January 27th, you get to pick your choice – not just to run against George Bush, but to beat him; not just to denounce him, but to defeat him; not just to offer a new vision, but to enact a new reality for America – where we are a leader in the world, not an arrogant unilateral force; where the economy once again works for all Americans – and especially for working families; where we teach and inspire our children; and where health care is a fundamental right and not a privilege"

These are the things a candidate should be saying. Howard Dean is a dream world, he is not assured the nomination, and now, he's certainly not going to get it. To all you Wesley Clark supporters out there, or Kerry, or Lieberman, this campaign isn't over and I personally am counting on you to make sure that Democrats know that Howard Dean has offically decided he cannot win the primaries without resorting to cheap political tactics such as these.

You heard it here first, this attempt at blackmailing his own party will be one of the major reasons why Howard Dean does not win the nomination. He's made it an us and them game, and the sad part is, he's done it within his own party.

Calling it from here..

Since probably October of this year, the news media has been calling for a Howard Dean victory in the Democratic Presidential Primary. They have him up in New Hampshire, up in Iowa, up in South Carolina, up in Arizona, in Minnesota, in California and so many other states. But one thing is common, they all show him losing handily to George W. Bush. Some polls show him polling as little as 31% against Bush. In fact since Saddam's capture, every single poll shows Dean below 40% against Bush. This spells serious trouble for Dean and for the Democrats. But luckily for all of us, I really don't think Dean is going to win this nomination. Now, I say this without the benefit of polls which show that I'm right but rather with common sense that shows that his momentum is simply unsustainable.

Anger can only take you so far and that is what gets Dean going. Now, the Dean people vehemently deny that he is running a negative campaign or one that is based on anger. Agreed, Dean talks about a lot more than the war or his hatred for Bush. However, what really sets Dean apart is that he truly taps into the base of anger within the Democratic Party. He does it better than any candidate and the truth is, he's been able to raise $25 Million largely due to this anger. He's managed to run what some call a populist campaign, although having 550,000 people on an email list hardly qualifies as populist. Considering afterall that there are more than 290 Million people in the United States and even in the last election, more than 100 Million who voted. So right now, granted, Dean has half a percent of the likely voters on his email list. This is exactly where the problem comes in. Dean is hyped beyond belief and he is expected to win New Hampshire by over 20 points and Iowa by at least 10. So what happens if he doesn't? What happens if he doesn't win by such huge margins, or God forbid, does not win at all?

There are signs that show he might not win New Hampshire. Gephardt right now is mobilizing his people in Iowa and seeing as how he has won Iowa before, I would not put it past him to do it again. I predict that Dean will win by less than 10% in Iowa, possibly even closer. Dean has spent an enormous amount of money there and it seems to have paid off but can it last? Gephardt will pump a ton of money into Iowa as it is his must win state. He'll have his union people on the ground and he'll put his full resources into this state. This means Dean will have to spend a ton of money here to pull off a victory.

In New Hampshire, its odd but Dean hasn't spent a dime on advertising and that means should it get close, he will have plenty to spend. Kerry has made a few key policy speeches and I think is ready to make a decisive comeback or at least a strong number two showing. In his latest statement, I think Kerry is dead on, he says, "Democrats can't beat George Bush by being Bush lite, but they also can't beat George Bush by being light on national security, light on fairness for middle class Americans or light on the values that make us Democrats." Some brilliant rhetoric by John Kerry. But of course he's right, Dean can't beat Bush and the one thing which he says will enable him to beat Bush seems to be slowing down like crazy. The one edge Dean has had throughout this race is his ability to raise money through incredibly small donations. In fact, he's raised millions online through donations averaging around $79. Amazing, no doubt. But there seems to be change in the air. Dean has posted up a bat on his website, as they call it, swing the bat for Howard Dean, its a fundraising gimmick. Now generally, the campaign busts right through its goals instantly. This time, they have hoped to raise $1.5 Million in the last 10 days of December. Its January 27th, the morning of and so far they have raised only $230,336.77 from 3,624 contributors.

Lets break down the numbers, thats $63.55 as the average contribution. The average contribution is getting lower. This means either that there just isn't enough money out there to give to Dean, or that his support is slowly drying up in terms of peopel willing to give his campaign money. What this also means is that in 4 days, the Dean campaign must come up with $1,269,663.33 to meet the fundraising goal of $1.5 Million. If the average contribution stays the same(it has been decreasing for the past month!), then they have to come up with another 19,978 contributors. I think even Dean's supporters are beginning to get a little peeved with his constant outbursts, his flip flops on policy positions and even his running of a seemingly negative campaign. A great example of Dean trying to center himself is his decision to start talking about his faith much like another Presidential candidate(Bush). Plus, they are learning more about his competitors and many of them are looking quite attractive.

One of those competitors who I think will score big if he is able to finish second or a strong third in New Hampshire is General Wesley Clark. Clark is expected to outraise Dean this quarter, with $10-$12 Million. Plus, he is overall a more appealing candidate because of his military credentials and because he fairs rather well against Bush. In many polls, he leads Bush. Furthermore, he's practical and he appeals to all segments of the Democratic party. Perhaps the best part is that in Iowa, Dean gets beat up by Gephardt. In New Hampshire, he gets beat up by Kerry and he probably ends up spending like crazy to maintain leads in either of these states. I see Clark cleaning house on February 3rd and then it will come down to March 2nd.

I think Dean will get beaten to a pulp by the other candidates, he peaked too soon and I think this will keep him from winning the nomination. He's already beginning to fall apart.

Answers to Arpan's Questions..

Arpan asks the right questions and I'll be happy to provide the right answers. As always I will assume that Karl Rove is a brilliant political tactician.

1. To what extent will Bush leverage this capture for his reelection bid?

Personally, I don't think the American people will care too much that we caught Saddam. Of course for the next two weeks or so this will be a major issue and it will be all over the news. However, in a month, it will be forgotten and I don't think it will be a real election issue. For all intents and purposes, this war is on the backburner with the most important thing being the economy. People are beginning to accept the fact that this war will go on for awhile and that we will continue to suffer a dozen or so casualties a week. This is no Vietnam and eventually stability will arrive. At the most I think Bush can use this as a kicker in one of his campaign ads talking about how he freed 25 Million people and captured Saddam.

2. Is Bush an automatic lock for reelection? Or will this event slip from voters' minds as time progresses?

This does not make his re-election more or less likely. Now, if he caught Bin Laden within 2 months of the election. That would make him an automatic re-elect.

3. Will the pesky Europeans demand that Bush hand Saddam over to the Hague?

Absolutely, the Europeans will talk about how important it is that Saddam be tried at the Hague. Bush will probably have a little battle with them. I think he might even use Saddam as a bargaining tool by letting the world know that if Saddam is to be tried in an International as opposed to a US Court, then the world better back him up on the war as well as the rebuilding of Iraq. It will be interesting to see what the Democratic candidates have to say about this. Lieberman has already indicated that he prefers an American or Iraqi Court because the International Tribunal cannot issue the death penalty. I think the Democrats would be wise to stay away from this rather minor issue of where Saddam should be tried. I don't think there are any political points to be won here but Lieberman seems to be trying to win some with his statements. I think Bush may use Saddam to help repair his relationships with European countries by accepting the Hague as a concession in exchange for support for the occupation of Iraq. Another thing to think about is if these trials will be public. I don't think they will be. Mainly because there is documented proof that Saddam was given biological weapons or at least the tools to create them by Donald Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration in the mid 1980's. I don't think that is something which the administration wants to have heard nor do they want to hear about the other assistance which the United States has given to Saddam over the years. However, if they are open, then the whole world can hear about what an evil guy Saddam Hussein is.

4. How soon will Saddam be tried? Will he be tried right as the election approaches to maximize Bush's popularity?

Arpan anticipated my answer to three. I think if the trial is open, this trial will start around August of next year. People hearing about how evil Saddam is will certainly help his re-election efforts. Plus I wouldn't put it past the Bush administration to schedule the trial around election time. I mean think about it, Bush is holding the RNC National Convention, his re-election convention in New York City. He's holding it the weekend of September 11th. Less than two months from the election. Of course he's going to use September 11th politically, and of course he'll talk about Saddam, he's going to remind the country of his "leadership" after those horrible events. And he'll remind them of his "leadership" during the Iraq war, in capturing Saddam, etc. Politically, I thought this was kind of a dumb move. Now if releasing the information about Saddam being caught were truly up to Karl Rove(I won't speculate as to the answer of that question!), I would have assumed that two weeks before the election would be the perfect time. But now that I think about it, this isn't bad timing either. Saddam being caught now gets Bush out of a political rut, I'm sure his popularity rating will surge, its at 51% as of the December 13th poll by Newsweek.I say it goes above 65% in the next couple of weeks and then it wll slide back down. Unless they capture Bin Laden, Bush is in HUGE trouble for re-election, more on that in a separate article.

5. Torture, I believe, is prohibited by international law. So to what extent (if any) will Saddam be tortured?

I'm sure a great many people want to torture Saddam. In my opinion, he won't be touched. They're going to shave off his beard, make him look like the Saddam we are used to. Because right now, he looks like he could be any of Saddam's 7 dozen body doubles, because Saddam does have a ton of body doubles. But he won't be touched other than that. The government doesn't want to look cruel at all, Bush and the rest want to take the higher road and as such he won't be tortured. I don't even to get information out of him. They can ask him all they want about the weapons of mass destruction but the truth is, he didn't have them when we went to war, he didn't have them a year before we went to war, and he certainly doesn't have them now. We've scoured that country, nothing is there. That and our proof for him having weapons of mass destruction has pretty much been Rumsfeld's word to begin with. More on that later as well.

Overall, the capture of Saddam is politically meaningless in the long run for Bush. He will get points however, if he says he's made the world a safer place on 9/11/2003 in New York City at the Republican Convention, and if he says the world is safer from terrorists because Saddam is gone. I'll leave it to Karl Rove to make the rhetorical link between Saddam and 9/11 once more, even though that link does not exist in reality, I'm sure that won't stop him. Reality or truth never does...

Webster's Reply to Hayne...

On March 7th, 1830, Daniel Webster rose on the Senate floor to deliver his now famous reply to Hayne. He rose to defend the cause of the union against the purveyors of nullification. In similar fashion, I must construct my own reply to Arpan. Now, let's be clear, this reply will not go down in history. In fact, it will not even have a small asterisk in the great storybook of American civilization. However, it will be recorded for people like yourself to stumble upon, to gaze, and to comment as to the political conditions of December 8th, 2003.

It seems Arpan has mininterepreted the purpose of the article and maybe even what I was trying to say altogether. So let me clear it up for him and any others that may be a bit confused. Both Arpan and I agree that Bush is not a conservative, I think those points are adequately addressed and proven in both my article as well as Arpan's. However, I think our disagreement lies in that I do not believe that Bush represents the view of the preponderance of Republicans. In fact, I would argue that Bush stands for few of the things which Republicans stood for even two years ago.

Bush has rang up the highest budget deficits since Ronald Reagan was in office. However, he's done it in different ways as both my article and Arpan's article describe. Furthermore, he's engaged in the very thing which the Republican party has been against which is nation building. Not only has he done it without our allies he's done it without the financing which they generally provide. One only look back to Bush 41 to see what multilateral intervention can do, it can provide for 90% of the cost of an expensive war. As we all no, Saudi Arabia financed that war. We are financing this one. In fact, Bush has lost support from even the most partisan of Republicans, Newt Gingrich. The bottom line is that Republicans are criticizing Bush on his lack of fiscal responsibility, planning for the war, and finally for sacrificing key Republican principles for political points. My point is that Bush gravitates towards the center on fiscal issues, or even hard left in many cases, and he keeps the Right Wing Happy on his social issues, like faith based initiatives, etc, etc.

On to Dean. I don't think its easy to pin any label on Dean, especially one that calls him a leftist. If one looks at Dean's record over the past 11 years as Governor of Vermont, Dick Gephardt has some excellent analysis which for the most part Dean cannot deny. One need only look at Dean's own words to see what he truly believes in. Dean is more of a centrist than anything else. However, here's where the twist comes in.

The reason why a Nader campaign can't work is because Dean is left enough on issues like the Environment to pre-empt a Nader campaign. On some issues, its impossible for anyone but Dennis Kucinich to be left of Dean. The reason why a right wing candidate can't work is because Bush has social conservatives wrapped around his pinky finger. This is where McCain comes in.

My argument is not that the candidates are moving to the center, it is that both candidates are all across the board in an attempt to please each part of the voting bloc. They are not attempting to triangulate, I don't even know what you would call their strategy but its basically having a policy for every segment of the electorate. Unfortunately, with both candidates playing this game, voter's must stick with their party because they have no other choice. A voting bloc gets one favorable position and in exchange must live with many unfavorable positions.

(1) McCain is clearly a fiscal conservative and this is what I believe matters most to Republicans, their view that government should be smaller, not bigger. He tears away a base of fiscal conservatives which Bush has while also taking away the moderates which Bush has. What does this leave Bush with? Social Conservatives.

(2) McCain is a likeable war veteran who is a moderate on issues like Gun Control, the Environment, Campaign Finance Reform, Education. Most of all, he is a straight talker, much like Bush and Dean, but the difference being that he strives to create the policy positions he preaches. I think Republicans are learning the truth about Bush and that Democrats will learn the same about Dean.

(3) In order for voter's to switch their party alliances, they must see a candidate who can win but also stands up for the major principles in which they believe. I rest my belief in McCain's ability to attract traditional Republicans on the grounds that they stand for smaller government and in a Bush v. McCain v. Dean race, McCain is for the smallest government and most fiscal restraint of the three. Finally, I think the center is where the votes are captured and in a three way race, McCain is the perfect centrist. Bush isn't gravitating towards the center, even he does not know where he lies on the political spectrum if you take the sum total of his policies. They are irreconcilable with both Republican principles and even with each other.

In essence, Arpan is right, McCain is irrelevant because he probably won't run for President. However, if he does, he will ensure that Bush loses. I think Bush for the most part in such a race will become irrelevant. He will have lost the support of the majority of his party, their way of getting back at him for giving them the cold shoulder. He will have lost the center. And it will be a McCain v. Dean contest. I think that McCain will probably poll more Democrats than Dean will. Dean's candidacy is based on being the Anti-Bush, the Anti-Conservative, but sadly enough both Bush and Dean have one thing to learn. They are more alike than apart. They are both political animals who sadly enough will survive another election because there is no other viable or electable choice. Not the Green, the Libertarian, or even a moderate like Clark because he will be hard pressed to win the primary.

Unless of course, McCain enters, and it becomes revealed that like Webster, I was right all along. Alas, Webster did not live to see the day that his reply to Hayne would become essential for this nation, and I probably will not live to see the day when my reply to Arpan will serve any similar purpose. Not because Arpan's right, but just because McCain probably will not split up the Republican Party in defense of Republican Principles. But oh how much fun it would be if he did!

John McCain for President 2004

An interesting thing is happening in American Politics today. The general trend is for candidates to move towards the center, ala Bill Clinton in 1996, or for candidates to move to the edges to polarize their base, ala Ronald Reagan. Today our candidates are all over the board. They try to please everyone and in that effort convince no one. Take George W. Bush for exampe, he's grown the government into a $400 Billion deficit, he's increased the size of discretionary spending by 21% in his first term. He's passed over $3 Trillion in tax cuts. The President has approved a $400 Billion Medicare Drug Beneift, he has a $401 Billion Defense Bill that he has signed. But that's not all, he also has faith based initiatives, de-regulation of the environment, re-regulation of financial disclosure requirements through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the largest federal expansion into education since the creation of the Department of Education with the "Leave No Child Behind Act". President Bush has accomplished quite a bit and I don't mean in terms of successful policy but rather in accomplishing his agenda. He has yet to veto a single bill with almost three years complete in office.

Let's look at the otherside of the spectrum, the Democratic Frontrunner wants balanced budgets, he claims to be a fiscal conservative but wants Universal Healthcare. Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont is anti gun control, he wants to raise taxes and increase regulations on the environment. Yet he also wants to be fiscally responsible while doing all of these things. He wants to fully fund special education and create a Medicare Drug Benefit that is even more expansive than the one that the federal government has proposed. He believes that gay marriage is a state's right issue and he believes that it should stay that way.

It's funny, but both of these candidates want to be as much as they can, to everyone that they can. They have policies for the right, left and middle. Yet, they please no one. Dean on policy is hardly a leftist Democrat and Bush on the record is hardly a right wing Republican. It seems, especially in the case of Bush that the more he tries to appeal to his base, the more he actually does to appease the center of the political spectrum. As a result, we have traditional Republicans up in arms over the lack of fiscal restraint as well as the Bush invasion into civil liberties. However, Bush is the best that the Republicans have. In contrast, Dean is the best choice that the Democrats seem to have. For some, he is incredibly left, for others like Dick Gephardt, he's too center, Dean is everything to everyone and they just can't seem to stick a label on him. However, there's a third route, a route which no one really wants to go but I think that they can.

I'm talking about having John McCain run for President in 2004. I think he can win and this is how he should do it. McCain should run as an independent and run as a movement by traditional republicans, republicans circa 1994 or even 1999, to regain control of their party. I think there is enough pent up anger against Bush that Republicans will defect and vote for McCain. He's strong on defense and is a war veteran. McCain is a fiscal conservative and has been amongst the first to criticize the GOP for spending money like a drunken sailor. McCain can effectively bargain to get more international support for the war on Iraq. Most of all, I think McCain is an appealing candidate. He can attract libertarians, conservative republicans, moderates and most importantly independents. Unlike the conventional wisdom, I do believe that this election will be won through a centrist approach. I think right now, the candidates are too across the board on the issues to actually mobilize their base. Unless Bush makes some serious changes, I think a lot of libertarians are going to vote for a strong civil liberties based Democrat like Dean who takes the First, Second and Fourth Amendments seriously. I think many Republicans will just sit this one out to show Bush that he is too much of a fiscal hack for their tastes.

But then again, there's an alternative, and I think that alternative is John McCain. He can grab votes from that center as well as the disenchanted voters on the extreme right and the exterme left, he can do it because he's charismatic and most of all because he's truly and Independent who may be wrong at times but always unapologetic and unwavering for his beliefs.

Ruchit Shah is a Government/Philosophy/History Junior at the University of Texas at Austin