Having failed to elect a Republican

to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the death of Republican Paul Coverdell,

Georgia Republicans have set their sites on Max Cleland in 2002.

Before I get into that, it

should be noted that although Republicans didn't get one of their own

in Coverdell's seat, they did get Zell Miller, who currently is walking

like a duck ... er, Republican, and talking like one. Personally, if he

votes for reasonable tax cuts and a conservative approach to spending,

I don't care which label he wears.

I do worry that Georgia will

be hurt by Miller's pro-Bush attitude if Democrats take back the Senate

in future elections. He could be persona non grata.

I suppose he's gambling that

Republicans will stay in power and he'll have extra influence with the

White House by voting a conservative line. Or maybe he's just letting

his conscience be his guide. Now that would be different, wouldn't it?

Anyway, Cleland is in the GOP's

gun sights, and although he is surely not as vulnerable as the party leadership

want to paint him as being, Cleland could face a tough campaign for the

first time ever.

Affable, intelligent, articulate,

and a genuine decorated and disabled war veteran to boot, Cleland is a

very popular figure in Georgia politics.

I remember meeting him for

the first time back in the '70s, when he flew into Conyers in a helicopter

to put on a hasty news conference. I think he was running for lieutenant

governor, and although he was unsuccessful, he made a strong run for a

little-known politician.

I liked him, and in subsequent

occasional interviews I have continued to like him. He is the quintessential

nice guy.

He also is more liberal than

the mainstream in Georgia, and unlike Miller, has been a party stalwart,

rarely breaking ranks on any major issue.

On the recent tax cut, he was

true to form. I wrote him asking him to support the president's full tax

cut package and then some, and he wrote me back ... well, his staff sent

me a form letter ... putting a positive face on the fact that he had voted

the party line, saying that he appreciated my input and that he had, indeed,

voted for tax cuts.

What he voted for was a Democrat-sponsored

reduction in a tax cut that already was quite modest, considering the

size of the tax burden in this country and the degree to which we are

currently overpaying our taxes. He called it bipartisan, but only a couple

of Republicans voted for it, and no Democrats voted for the president's

plan, so I don't buy the adjective.

Republicans, of course, are

already using the tax vote as the main plank in a robust campaign to unseat

Cleland. They're missing only one thing ... a candidate.

"Cleland taxin' Georgians

to the Max" is the catchy slogan on one "press release"

I got from the GOP.

An interesting dichotomy is

developing in the spin wars. Cleland has launched his reelection campaign

fairly early, and has already started to rake in the contributions. He

plays this as a positive, showing his strong support.

Republicans are playing it

as a negative. "... by announcing this early, Cleland is tacitly

acknowledging his vulnerability next year," says the jubilant release.

Well, maybe so, maybe not.

One thing's certain getting back at least one of Georgia's seats in the

Senate is important to the long-term goals of state Republicans, and this

is going to be a hard-fought election.

I'll be watching to see who

emerges as the Republican candidate. Liberals don't believe me when I

say I'm an independent, but in my book right now the burden of proof is

on the Republicans, and I think most Georgia voters see it that way.

Yes, Cleland has voted in ways

that I disagree with, but his record has been moderate ... even if fairly

far to the liberal side of the moderate spectrum. Simply complaining that

he voted for a smaller tax cut than we wanted is not going to be enough

to convince me to vote against him.

You're going to have to make

a convincing case against his overall record, and also put up a candidate

who can match Cleland on stature and leadership ability, and one who doesn't

come across as too far in the other direction.

Vulnerable? Maybe. If you come

up with the right candidate.