Posted at
Economists for Dean
By Lerxst
Nicholas Kristof writes:
Compared with Mr. Bush, John Kerry and most other Democratic presidential candidates are paragons of responsibility -- but only compared with Mr. Bush. The reality is that promises by Democrats like Mr. Kerry to start new health care programs, keep some of the tax cuts and restore black ink are nonsense. But it's less nonsense to say 2 + 2 = 5 (Mr. Kerry) than to say 2 + 2 = 22 (Mr. Bush).
Mr. Clinton lied about sex, and he was sleazy in other respects as well, but he was willing to tell America the unpleasant truth about trade and about budgets. I wish Mr. Bush and his Democratic challengers would be half as honest with the American public as Mr. Clinton was.
Its too bad that Kristof chooses to ignore Dean's position on the budget which I have been on a mini-crusade about (e.g. here and here) trying to point out is the only honest one. In an earlier post I pointed out how Michael Kinsley and Kristoff (to a lesser extent) deliberately distorted Dean's views on trade. Now it looks like the easier strategy is to simply pretend he doesn't exist.
To some extent this is Dean's own fault...at a time when the budget issue is at the forefront, Dean seems unwilling to emphasize this message. That's too bad, because it is a simple honest message that doesn't require impugning any one else's character --its the truth plain and simple. I can't imagine that he's worried about being a deficit hawk, he already occupies that ground and given his position now, what has he got to lose? What do you guys think?
My own thought is that Dean should lay out a detailed budget that would force the other candidates to show their hands so that the lazy journalists wouldn't have any more excuses for ignoring Dean.
I imagine Kristof thinks that given that Kerry is the front runner, he should focus only on him. But isn't it interesting that Kristof didn't write about the honesty about deficits (as far as I am aware) when DEAN WAS THE FRONTRUNNER?