RESPONDING TO A READER: A Camel reader posted a long and thoughtful response to my Dean ramblings. Unfortunately, he posted it under my entry about the capture of the unfortunately-named sex offender Andrew Luster. Nonetheless I want to give the posting its proper attention, so I'm reposting it here with my responses.

Alright, I have to step up to the plate here. I have to admit that the crop of Democratic hopefuls don't inspire awe (or even much hope for that matter) but that doesn't excuse me from voting for the much lesser of two evils. I tend to agree with many of your points but I don't think that you are examining them as deeply as perhaps you should. I hate to point-by-point you, but I will:

Dems are more inclusive: probably true, although the cynic in me says that they aren't any more inclusive just a little bit more desparate for votes. Still the track record is hard to argue and Democrats have consistently been ahead of the curve on social issues.

Not examining points as deeply as I should? Guilty as charged. As for the inclusiveness question, it came up again just the other night. I was talking to a very bright physician (who happens to be my neighbor), and I brought up that Bush receives some of his most valued foreign policy advice from a black woman. "She's not very black," he said, echoing a comment I've heard from many other Dems about Rice and also about Powell. "She looks black to me," I replied. "Well, her policies don't seem very black." Aha. This has been a big eye-opener for me, when Dems try to tell me that Rice, Powell, and even Clarence Thomas are "not black." It reminds me that many Dems are less about racial inclusiveness than they are about liberal ideology. Sure, a conservative will only pick a man or woman whose views are close to his or hers. But the fact that Bush has done that regardless of skin type and religious affiliation tells me the Republican party has truly arrived on the issue of racial equality and inclusiveness.

Dems seemed smarter: I think this may be more of a liability at times - the reason the Left doesn't have a Limbaugh, Hanritty or Savage is because liberals have a tendency to examine both sides of the issue and recognixze the oppositions valid points; the Right is much more likely to dismiss the Left as a bunch of homo-hugging eco-freaks. Witness Bush's amazing ability to change the message regardless of facts to the contrary. Frightening but damn effective.

The Left has Donahue, Garofalo, Michael Moore, NPR, Salon.com, the NYTimes, Peter Jennings, etc. (And btw, I enjoy many Left pundits, personalities, and properties. I'm an NPR supporter, a Salon.com subscriber, and a regular NYT reader.) The Left does not lack for telegenic personalities. But what the Left does lack now is a popular message. And btw, your lack of specificity above doesn't allow me to have much of a discussion with you. To say that liberal sare more likely to examine both sides of the issue is cynical and indefensible.

GOP = $$ v. Dems Social issues: Here's the first point that I take serious issue with: both parties are about money and probably always will be. To me the difference comes down to how the parties approach wealth. This is a very complez argument and I don't want to suggest that I can cover it by any means but my general read of it is this: the GOP is all about retaining wealth - if you've worked hard enough to earn it you deserve to keep as much of it as you can. This seems like an inherently fair policy - after all you earned this money, right? It is difficult to argue against, especially when it is presented in this manner. The Dems, on the other hand, strive to be about creating wealth - that is to say they want to level the playing field so that everyone has an opportunity to create their own wealth. The major difference and the one that is most often overlooked is the fact that the GOP position actually penalizes those who work for a living while inordinately rewarding those who have through privelege of birth been awarded a particular staion in life. An example" Joe Sixpack works his way up from a hardscrabble life to a job where he is now earning $500,000 - he will pay taxes at the highest rate (currently thirty five percent). Meanwhile Billy Silverspoon has inherited $10,000,000 in stock. His current income is 400,000 in dividends and he sells 100k worth of appreciated stock each year. Same income, but his highest tax rate is 15% (long term cap gains). This seems to value birth over effort - I have a problem with that.

Over time, I've come to think the Dems are about redistributing wealth, which is a noble goal, but one that runs counter to our system of free-market capitalism. Your tax scenario is troubling. Personally, I favor some form of a flat tax, where everyone contributes a simple percent of their income (whether it's derived from investment or industry) and loopholes are closed for good.

Most importantly and something that you haven't addressed is the wholesale dismantling of civil liberties that is occuring on a daily basis. John Ashcroft may be one of the most dangerous men to ever hold such a crucially important office. The Patriot(!) Act is a miscarriage of justice of an epic scale and its abuses are well documented. Instead of recognizing that the country weas in a panic and perhaps over-reacted, he instead appears before Congress and states that the act doesn't go far enough and further intrusion is required. I understand the need for national security and recognize that we live in a dangerous time but wholesale destruction of the Bill of Rights doesn't make anyone safer. Does anyone realize that there is an American citizen who has now been in jail without access to a lawyer or even any charges being filed against him for over a year? Granted Padilla is pretty clearly a bad guy but so is OJ - the Constitution is the the greatest document ever written and the wanton disregard that this administration has for it is enough for me to do all I can to ensure it's defeat in 2004.

The erosion of civil liberties is a hot-button issue for many of my friends. Ashcroft does seem reckless and power-hungry, but I can't pretend to know much about the subject. If Ashcroft and company are seriously hijacking due process, I trust there are civil libertarians all over their ass. That Padilla is rotting in jail, though, is not an issue I'm overly concerned about. If you're ever rotting in jail, though, give me a call, and I'll march outside the jailhouse until they release you.

I haven't mentioned the Church/State argument or it's foreign policy missteps yet, or even touched upon the Roe v. Wade debate...

I'll tell you where I stand: I'm for separation of Church/State, and I think this Administration can have its Jesus and its prayer without trampling that line of separation. I wish they were more private about their religion, but I'm not threatened by it, either. Thing is, I'm all for more spiritual awareness in this country, and I'd rather have us err on the side of being too much taken with those things that are larger than us, than too little interested. Awkwardly stated, but that's the best I can do in a tossed-off, non-compensated response. Roe v. Wade? I loathe abortion, but I don't favor legislating it. I hope it's left alone, but it's not a hot-button issue for me at all.