I think it's both. "Woted 98 times to increase taxes," when several of the votes were on the same bill, is misleading, though technically true. The Bush number earlier in the campaign was 350, so I guess they're getting a little better. Did you go over to http://www.factcheck.org to ingestigate Kerry's voting record on taxes? I don't know what you consider "more likely than most," especially in light of the tax increases he voted on (increase in cigarette tax, the no-new-taxes-taxes, and Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction package). The relevant article is here, and this is the RNC rebuttal.

I think this is an area where conservatives fundamentally misunderstand the Democratic party.

Yes, under the influence of Keynes, Roosevelt, and JFK, the Democratic Party of the last century was defined by an economic policy based on spending, and liberalism was defined by a hostility to totally free markets and a belief that government spending could be an economic boon.

At the end of the sixties and on into the seventies, Democrats got creamed politically espousing these views. The period from Nixon to Reagan can be written as a period in which conservatives came up with intellectual alternatives to what had been a truly dominant Keynesian economic outlook and in which Republicans successfully turned the word "liberal" into a perjorative. If you look at Democratic senators who have been in office since the 60s or 70s you'll still see traditional liberals with this outlook.

But the Democratic Party has not been Keynesian for some time, and the dominant views in the Clinton administration were very different. One of the legacies of Clinton is that while most Democrats, yes, have a heart and want to do more for people, most Democrats also recognize that we can do more with a healthy economy and balanced budget.

So, to get to a long-winded answer, yes, the way Bush uses a perjorative liberal to paint Kerry as an economic Kennedy is entirely and completely mistaken.

Kerry has, from the beginning, run as a more pragmatic Democrat. He took the seat previously held by Paul Tsongas, who tried to turn pragmatism into a creed within the party (you may remember, Tsongas coined "New Democrat" as a replacement for "Liberal" or "New Deal Democrat" and tried very hard to build a coalition around middle-of-the-road budget policies). When he took that seat, he ran as the Tsongas Democrat against a guy named Jim Shannon, who was running as the outspoken liberal. But Bush doesn't realize who won back then, and is instead trying to use a label that has worked pretty well for the Republicans.

I believe, after the Clinton administration and 8 years of fiscal disclipline, the country understands that Democrats are fiscally responsible, and after 4 years of Bush, they see that Republicans are not always fiscally responsible.

I'm not concerned with the actually number, only the substance underlying it. I don't have the links handy, but Kerry has been voted among the worst senators on taxes by those organizations (e.g., Jarvis) who track such things. Are you disputing this? Or are you disputing that that may be true but substatively his positions are moderate?

I'm saying go read what Kerry's voting record has been with regard to taxes and make up your own mind. I assume you trust Annenburg, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

I agree with some of this, but disagree with most of it.

Clinton certainly was a New Democrate and, over all, he wasn't to shabby on economic matters. His fiscal dicipline is laudable and his policies on free trade were fantastic. But Clinton, to his dismay, did not fundamentally change the direction, as highlighted by the DEMs nomination of Kerry rather than a true New Democrat such as Lieberman.

I agree that the Democratic party is, by and large, not the party of Roosevelt/LBJ any longer. (For the record, JFK (the real one) was a tax cutter, and I don't consider him in the Roosevelt mold). But that only means that the center has moved right in the last 60 years and they have moved right with it. The party is still a "liberal" party, albeit a wattered down version of its former self.

Kerry is not a New Democrat. He is a liberal Democrat that is more fiscally conservative than the Democrats from the 60s and 70s, but that is just a matter of degrees. Fundamentally, he still believes that government, rather than the individual, is still the primary fix for societies ills, and as long as he holds this view, he is going to need public money to support it.

My mind is made up. I'm interested in your view. Let me phrase it differently. Among the 100 senators, where does he fall in terms of tax policy on a scale from 1-100, with 1 being "I never met a tax cut I didn't like" and 100 being "I never met a tax raise I didn't like."

Kerrey's record is not one of fiscal responsibility, unless you are calling him voting against funding the soldiers in Iraq fiscal responsibility.

I'm not familiar with Jarvis.

Realize that "taxes" and fiscal discpline are two different things. If you're looking at rankings from an organization whose view is focused entirely on cutting taxes, my bet is they're going to calibrate votes based on the Republican's parties chosen pet issues.

Let's look at a couple of votes that mattered. Gramm-Rudman passed 61-31, with Kerry voting in favor of it. That was a fundamental and defining vote on fiscal discpline that many Democrats objected to. So, is he a liberal there? Is the label meaningful?

Welfare reform. He voted in favor of a fundamental overhaul of Welfare limiting benefit periods. Backed by Clinton, opposed by many liberals, and a major piece of legislation. Liberal? Meaningful label?

Look at the man! I mean, he just LOOKS liberal! If he sat down next to me at the bar, I'd quickly stick my cigarettes in my pocket, if you know what I mean. He'd be muttering "from each according to his ability, to each . . . . Hey! you've got cigs! Hey, everybody, cigs!"

Can you base this on something other than the Bush/Cheney mantras of the last year?

If you look at his voting record over the last 1.5 years, he comes in as one of the most liberal (i.e., no real comment on fiscal responsibiity, but likely to tax.) But, this period may be somewhat skewed. Over the last ten years, I believe he came in at around the 20th percentile. So, not the worst (or best, as the case may be), but not really a moderate.

Do I have a link right now? No.

Does he even have a voting record over the last 1.5 years?

"Daniel Simpson Day has no grade point average. All classes incomplete."

Hmmm. Voting record over the last year and a half measured by your metrics. I'm suspicious.

In the last year and one-half, Bush has been simultaneously spending like a drunken sailor and seeking tax cuts. The latest Pork Bill is the most recent example. If you're measuring liberal by whether or not he's supporting the Republican's policies of the last year and one half, I think you're getting the answer by the way you're asking the question.

And, on the 20th percentile, again, whose metrics? The Republicans (and its not all of them) who believe that you cut taxes first and figure out how to cut spending are not preaching fiscal discipline.

How about his health care plan? Fundamentally, it increases the government's involvement (i.e., our costs) in the health care system.

How about his proposal to increase taxes on the wealthiest 1% (or is 2%)? From each according to . . .

How about his view that the tax cuts were not equitable because the "wealthy" received more in gross dollars than the middle class did?

How about his views on Free Trade and outsourcing?

I've said before that I think Bush is a fiscal liberal, but I've been laughed off the board.