And here I am at a convention that's about to nominate a so-called "Massachusetts liberal" for the presidency. He's a man, by the way, who has pledged to cut the budget deficit, restore fiscal responsibility, end "corporate welfare" subsidies to big companies, and require that any new spending or tax cut be matched by a corresponding tax increase to pay for it. This so-called "Massachusetts liberal," as a Senator, also supported Bill Clinton's trade policies when he was in the Senate -- the North American Free Trade Act, enlargement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which became the World Trade Organization, and expanded trade with China.

Now, take a look at the so-called Republican "conservative" who's going to be nominated for a second term next month in New York. He has amassed the largest budget deficit in history, with the cooperation, of course, of a congress that's also run by so-called "conservative" Republicans. And on trade, this "conservative" president has done no big multilateral trade deals at all. The Doha Round is going nowhere. He's given us itsy-bitsy bi-lateral deals with Australia and one coming up with Morocco, but his record is largely protectionist. He's raised tariffs on steel and given billions more to American agribusiness, which effectively keeps out food imports.

So who's the real liberal here, and who's the real conservative? On economics, at least, the roles have been reversed. Of course, Republicans will try to characterize the man who's being nominated this week in Boston as a "Massachusetts liberal." But take a closer look and their man is the free-spending, budget-busting, anti-free trader, and the Democrat is just the opposite.