RE DLC Chair Contest: For the millionth time, Dean *IS* a moderate!!!!

[UdoKier]

I'm so sick of this meme that "moderates in the party are worrried about Dean taking the party in a more liberal direction."

HELLO! Dean is as centrist as a democrat can get! He just wants to stop the endless shuffling and scraping and ass-kissing that has plagued our party for the last decade or so.

And the people who fear him are not "moderates". They are right-wingers and conservative democrats who may as well join the GOP, since they seldom challenge them on ANYTHING.

I defy anybody to show me that Dean is a LIBERAL. He is NOT. He governed Vermont as a centrist, pro-business governor. Kucinich and Feingold are liberals. Kennedy is a liberal.

Please stamp out this false meme that Dean is a liberal. He's a mainstream democrat. He just happens to have a spine.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Yep. He is a moderate w/ a spine. But he does seem

to be opening up to listening to folks on the left, don't you think?

----------------------------------------------------------
Save our country one town, county, and state at a time!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm#why

[UdoKier]

5. Of course. He's a democrat. He's supposed to.

Can you imagine moderate republicans blowing off the far right the way the DLC does us?

People like McCain LOVE to hobnob with RW scum like Bush, Ralph Reed, Limbaugh, etc.

I NEVER hear about "moderate" repukes distancing themselves from the far-right nutjobs.

[Larkspur]

2. The DLC clowns or neo-con Dems fear Dean because they know that

he sees them for the jerks that they are and won't hesitate to attack them.

[cthrumatrix]

41. BINGO

[kerry-is-my-prez]

3. He's quite Conservative. He "acts" like a Liberal, though.

That's why people thought he was a Liberal. That and the gay marriage thing that he ended up supporting (after having initially been against it).

[NYCGirl]

50. Actually,

it wasn't gay marriage, but civil unions.

[DinahMoeHum]

4. Left wing, right wing, chicken wing, I don't care. Dean has balls.

The Beltway Dems don't.

:kick:

[Ruffhowse]

6. I agree, Dean is a moderate Democrat, but he has the guts and integrity

to speak out load and clear about the issues and clearly define Democrats from Republicans. I also believe Dean would do a good job of reaching out to the liberal wing of the party and help bring them back into the fold. The DLC IS conservative for Democrats, and I do NOT trust their agenda, which I think has been bought and paid for by corporate America, much like the Republicans.

[Jacobin]

7. No kidding.

The media smeared him with that handy "librul" moniker. Look at his policies and they are quite moderate ....balance the budget, leave gun regs up to states, keep federal government out of gay rights issue (let states decide).

He is for universal health care, but every fucking other developed country in the world has it, so what's the big deal.

I love Howard. Very reasonable and intelligent and doesn't like jumping into PNAC wars.

He's THE MAN

[patcox2]

8. Hey, he's not being smeared with the liberal label, its a left delusion.

Progressives seem to bizarrely think he is one of them, its the wierdest thing I ever saw. They are convinced the guy can shuck off his entire political life as a moderate by running one campaign based on slightly more liberal rhetoric, and suddenly he's a progressive.

Same trick Gore pulled, after years and years as a DLC leader and founding member, he gives a populist acceptance speech at the convention and suddenly he's a progressive.

Some people's have a limitless talent for self delusion.

[last1standing]

14. His beliefs are very progressive.

Just because you don't like him you want to label him as a dreaded "moderate" and his supporters delusional.

Progressive: Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods.

That definition fits Dean to a tee. I agree some people do have a limitless talent for self delusion. Unfortunately, they generally attack others for their own problems.

[UdoKier]

31. He doesn't favor single-payer, he wants corporate nat'l health care.

He wasn't against ever invading Iraq, he was just against Bush doing it quickly, without a real coalition.

His views are smack dab in the mainstream of the party, if you ask me.

[last1standing]

34. Dean has consistently come out in favor of National Health Care.

Whether it's single payer or corporate, it would be better than what we have now, which is nothing. As for his stance on Iraq, he was in favor of having Congress make the decision to declare war, not the president. It had something to do with the laws of this country or something, I'm not sure. Nothing important, of course.

I agree that his "views are smack dab in the mainstream of the party". That's why we need him, he actually holds our views. You seem to be implying that's a bad thing. Why?

[UdoKier]

36. Yes, corporate nat'l health would be better.

But pushing for it doesn't make you a liberal, IMO.

And no, I don't think that's a bad thing. Unlike most DLCer's he isn't openly HOSTILE to liberal ideas like single-payer and more people like him in office might be a good step TOWARDS getting more real liberals in office, who could eventually get the insurance companies (which you KNOW will gouge us all) out of the equation.

I like Dean very much, make no mistake about that. I gave him more than I could afford to in the primaries. I also gave to Kucinich, whose views are much more in line with my own.

"That's why we need him, he actually holds our views." Maybe he holds your views. I'm a left-wing liberal, so he doesn't hold mine. I just find his views to be palatable enough to go for, whereas the Breauxs and the Liebermans and the Froms are pretty offensive.

[last1standing]

44. Liberal and Progressive aren't necessarily the same thing in politics

I agree he's not a liberal, but he is a progressive. He is certainly not as liberal in most on most issues as Kucinich, but I don't think we'll ever get to Kucinich without going through Dean first. After we get to Kucinich maybe we can get to politicians who will be willing to take on subjects like the legalizing pot and prostitution. But we have to take the first step and I really think that's Dean.

Dean is a moderate Democrat who holds views that are in line with the majority of the party. He's not a DINO by any means and he's willing to stand up and show this country what it's like to be a Dem with a spine. Hopefully, he'll recruit candidates who will actually stand up for themselves and our values.

I will say that Kucinich has done an incredible job in showing this party how to stand up and fight as well. I hope he is able to play a larger part in bringing this party back.

[sherilocks]

43. As DinahMoeHum says above

Left wing, right wing, chicken wing, I don't care. Dean has balls.

_____________________________________

There's a lot more to a politician than the labels that you, I, or the MSM give them and I don't consider myself deluded. Dean tells it like it is and just putting an all-inclusive knee-jerk DLC or moderate label on him doesn't change that.

[cali]

9. gee, I hate to disagree with you,

I mean what do I know, I've only lived in Vermont for a few decades, and been involved in politics here for almost that long. Dean is a social liberal. That's where his heart is. He's a fiscal conservative. That's where his head is. I know several people who worked for Dean- all women, btw, and there's absolutely no doubt that he's a social liberal. He doesn't believe there should be any restrictions on abortion, not late term bans, not parental notification- nothing. He supported and signed all the pre civil union pro gay rights legislation that came up, including hate crime laws and gay adoption. He supports all early childhood programs. OTH, he believes we should be able to pay for these programs, and that makes him a fiscal disciplinarian.

But you're right about his having a spine. He's a damn tough cookie.

[LSK]

10. social liberal? fiscal conservative! SOUNDS LIKE A WINNER TO ME

[UdoKier]

11. most of the "social issues" are tricks and wedges.

Fiscal and economic are the crucial thing. There are plenty of repukes and libertarians who support gay rights too. Like Arnold Scwharzenegger.

I'm liberal on social issues, but they aren't the dealbreaker for me. I'd vote for an anti-gay marriage guy who would pass universal health care and make the income tax more progressive before I would vote for some Social Security privatizing, business crony who supports gay marriage. So many people are in such a desparate state financially that that has to the priority for me.

Of course I would prefer a candidate on the left side of both social and economic issues, but I really feel that most politicians' positions on these things nowadays are not genuine, but more about dividing and wedging and creating an image for themselves.

I would give up gay marriage for national single payer health-care in a New York second. The benefits to all would be that huge. But that's just me.

[cali]

16. I agree.

I too would give up gay marriage for universal healthcare. But to parrot you, that's me. What if I had to give up privacy rights as established under Griswold and Roe? Hmm, that becomes more difficult.

What Dean always said, was that if we want to keep our social programs we have to be ficscally responsible. And Vermont has had a pretty good record of expanding and extending social services.

[ChairOne]

17. Wow.... why not call it what it is?

It's not "giving up gay marriage", it's endorsing bigotry...

But of course that doesn't sound as snappy....

[cali]

19. That's rich.

As someone who actively worked on the civil unions issue here, I can honestly state that I do not endorse bigotry, BTW, I know several gays (though no lesbians) who don't endorse gay marriage; it's not high on their list of pressing issues. What was presented was a hypothetical. The real world doesn't operate that way, but yeah, if forced to choose between gay marriage and universal health care, I'd go with universal healthcare. Call me a bigot if you like, but we all prioritize. And actually, I'm fine with civil unions rather than gay marriage. It'll get more people more rights in a shorter period of time.

[ChairOne]

20. I most certainly did not call you a bigot...

But in any case, would you (or someone else) kindly explain to me how the distinction between marriage/civil union is abstractly any different than that between black school/white school?

I would greatly appreciate understanding the difference between those two distinctions....

BTW - the "real world" also doesn't operate under the false alternation: gay marriage vs universal healthcare.

[cali]

26. Civil Unions aren't perfect

but I think the comparison to black school/while school is a little simplistic. Easy sure, but simplistic. Under that system, students got an inferior education with far less resources dedicated to them. It also kept children from growing up together and sharing the very experiences that could bring them, and the society by extension, closer, thus furthering racism. It was simply a way of oppressing people. The intent and effects of civil unions certainly don't further bigotry. Of course, two institutions are not as good as one, but an institution that enables people to gain rights is better than the alternative. Thirteen states codified bigotry into law this year via referendum. That's called backlash. They outlawed civil unions as well as marriage.

In Vermont, civil unions provide every right that marriage does. It does not provide for federal benefits, but neither does the MA marriage law.

[ChairOne]

27. Talk about simplistic....

The separate-but-equal schooling policy were ALSO supposed to "provide every right" that integrated schooling would - in a way that was deemed "socially acceptable". The SCOTUS eventually read the writing on the wall - that equal rights weren't even notionally possible under such a system. In effect, the notion of *separate* were at odds with the notion of *equal*.

The reason the analogy is "easy" is that it's correct. You're right - civil unions *aren't* perfect - they suffer from the singular flaw of being bigoted. Well, there may be other flaws as well, but that's enough for me.

And I'm straight for fuck's sake - whether or not gay folks can get married doesn't impact *me* in the least. Well, except for whether or not I'm ok with living under a bigoted system at any rate...

But if you really don't like that analogy, then take former laws prohibiting blacks and whites getting married (are they still on the books anywhere?).

The general question is: you seem to be willing to give up *a lot* in exchange for universal healthcare - is there anything you *wouldn't* give up for it?

I don't even like that way of phrasing the question, because it implicitly accepts the (still) false assumption that you can't support *both*...

[cali]

28. "they suffer from the singular flaw of being bigoted"

Let me ask you a very simple question: If you were gay, where would you prefer to live, in Vermont, which offers those oh so bigoted civil unions, or in just about any other state, excepting MA? Every single right and responsibility of marriage is embodied in civil unions and that offers some very, very concrete rights. As I said, it may be flawed, but you're nuts if you think it bolsters bigotry. Five years ago the majority of Vermonters were against civil unions, now nearly 80% support it. No one's trying to amend the constitution or introduce legislation that kills civil unions, as they are in MA. Because it was done through the legislation with hearings throughout the state, people have a sense of ownership. Just out of curiosity, where do you live, and can you honestly tell me that your state offers greater civil rights to gays and lesbians?

[ChairOne]

39. Simple answer + (or not! - lol)

To answer the more-or-less-direct question, assuming all of the relevant things: In Vermont.

Of course, when properly qualified, the question, and answer becomes nothing more than choosing the lesser of evils. If I were a nigger in the 1840s, sure, I'd rather be in the North than in the south (regardless of recent popular propoganda). And similiarly, if I were a fag, I'd (for the sake of argument - I've never been to Vermont) rather be in Vermont than be in, say, Arkansas.

So what? Being the lesser of evils does not by any reasonable stretch of imagination make one *good*.

The point IS NOT *relative good*, the point is good, *flat out*.

And you didn't say a single thing against my contention that civil unions are nothing but an attempt at the gay version of separate-but-equal.

You say civil unions are "flawed". Curious: how are they flawed, if not by their implicit bigotedness? So we don't forget, you've already emphasized how *equal* they are in terms of *legal* stuff... Wherein lies the flaw?

[UdoKier]

32. No, it's making do with the status quo for the time being

in exchange for progress on a more pressing issue.

I would never vote for a candidate who wanted to backtrack on civil rights.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. I asked someone else this.

I too would give up abortion rights for universal healthcare. I changed gay marriage with abortion. Would your position still remain the same?

[ChairOne]

25. lol - After my post, I was wishing I had used a similar example...

... Would you give up integrated schools for universal healthcare?...

Ah well...

[cali]

29. If you'd actually read my posts

you'd see that I did bring that up.

[ChairOne]

40. 'whoa - my bad - didn't read far enough, apparently.....

apologies...

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Out of curiosity

I'm liberal on social issues, but they aren't the dealbreaker for me. I'd vote for an anti-choice guy who would pass universal health care and make the income tax more progressive before I would vote for some Social Security privatizing, business crony who supports choice (for abortion). So many people are in such a desparate state financially that that has to the priority for me.

I changed "anti-gay" with "anti-choice." Would your views remain the same?

[UdoKier]

30. First of all, I would never vote for an "anti-gay" candidate.

I can deal with someone who favors the status quo in exchange for progress elsewhere, but not someone who favors backsliding (bringing back sodomy laws, etc.).

As for the choice question, yes, I would vote for a pro-life liberal, (like Dennis Kucinich was pre-2004) if it would mean universal health coverage and the risk to Roe V. Wade was remote enough. Choice is not a big priority to me. Contraception is much more important than last-ditch measures like abortion, IMO. ALL of the religion-based issues fomented by the right are phony and wedges. They(the GOP politicians, not GOP voters) don't REALLY care about ANY of them. That's why they pass little laws like the "partial-birth" law, to give some meat to their loony followers so they will continue to turn out, but they still keep it legal so they can continue to get their girlfriends their hush-hush abortions.

I've never been happy with our side's reliance on Roe v. Wade to keep abortion legal. I think a constitutional amendment defining for once and for all at what point a fetus becomes a person, and abortion's legality would settle it and end all the stupid legal wrangling. Unfortunately, both parties have reached a bargain that they will both use the "issue" to keep their respective bases in a perpetual state of anxiety over it.

Fact is, the vast majority of women will never have an abortion, and many of those performed could have been prevented with responsible use of contraceptives. On the other hand, contraceptives can fail, and nobody is perfect, so there is a need for it, so I favor it being legal. My world just doesn't revolve around it. I'm more concerned that sick people get help and that nobody goes hungry or homeless.

BTW, your post has a needlessly confrontational tone when we are on the same page in essence. You can berate me for not supporting gay marriage or choice enough until you're blue in the face, but I've already come to my conclusions on the matter. I'll vote for the guy with the better position on healthcare and taxes and jobs. Choice and gay marriage are secondary. If the candidate is a staunch supporter of gay marriage and choice, all the better. But it's still secondary to me. If you don't want my less-than-pure votes, just let me know.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Interesting response

Since I don't really remember your posts on any "choice" threads, it was the first thing that popped into my mind to use as an alternative. However, I see that you basically responded the same way, so that answers my question.

I fail to see how my post had a 'needlessly confrontational tone when the entire post consisted mainly of your post with two words substituted. The only problem I noticed was that I wrote: "I changed "anti-gay" with "anti-choice."" When I should have written: "I changed "anti-gay MARRIAGE" with "anti-choice." I left out that word on accident. So, I can see how you thought I was implying something I was not.

As for a "needlessly confrontational tone," you need only to reread your own post with the caustic response, "If you don't want my less-than-pure votes, just let me know." If you don't want to vote, that is your issue, not mine. I simply asked a question based on your statement, with two words changed. I would hardly say it was a call to arms, but you read it any way you wish and vote any way you wish. You answered my question, and that was what I needed.

[UdoKier]

35. Sorry for bristling...

But I've been baited enough times by people wanting to get into a big argument over this, when the point of the thread is whether or not Dean is a liberal. In my mind, being pro-choice and pro-gay rights don't make a person a liberal, it makes them a libertarian - many libertarian republicans also feel this way. So a person who favors choice and gay rights, but does nothing about economic justice is not a liberal. That's just how I see it. I am a liberal AND a libertarian. Both are very important to me, but I think our country has gone way too far to the right on economic issues, whereas we are doing pretty good on gay rights, compared to most of the world.

Again, sorry for getting testy.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. Thanks for clearing it up

I appreciate your honesty. I, too, try to be as honest as I can. I also appreciate you explaining your position. I may not agree with it, but that is not important. I just dislike when people put forth an argument, then get too bent out of shape when someone questions them on it. However, I also understand the "bristling" part too, because it seems to be an increase in 'attacks' here recently. I think frustrations levels are at a very dangerous level, so we lash out at one another.

I do agree we, as a nation, have fallen way to the right on economic issues, but I feel that the right has also taken the social agenda too. So, I will say that your assertion about the US is doing pretty good on gay rights as compared to the rest of the world, is not very accurate. Some STATES are keeping step with the rest of the world, but the nation as a whole is woefully lagging! Just my opinion.

Again, thanks for taking the time to clear this up and I apologize to for my misstatement in my original post. :toast:

[robertpaulsen]

12. I thought he was shooting for DNC chair, not DLC.

[Selwynn]

13. Dean is a moderate that I can RESPECT -- here's why:

I believe that he is a "moderate" becuase his BELIEFS, CONVICTIONS AND VALUES PUT HIM THERE. I believe he would still be a "moderate" even if it was unpopular. I believe he thinks it is more important to stand by convictions - hell stand for something - than it is to waffle around always trying to shift positions in the sand looking for whatever is most "popular" and will "win."

Also, Dean is hard to label. He certainly has some moderate viewpoints and certainly has some more traditionally liberal view points. What he DOES NOT HAVE is any intention to suck up to the fanatical right-wing, nor a desire to co-opt the right's language. There is a difference in my mind between certain more moderate democrats and the wolves-in-sheeps colthing closet repbulicans literally trying to undermine the very fabric of the party. I find it very hard to label Dean as one of those.

Disclaimer: I had strong reservations about dean during the 04 campaign, and I have since very publically acknolwedged that I think I was wrong about him.

[Tinoire]

15. Pure BS. The only thing they're worried about is about

Dean appealing more to the anti-war faction comprised of the majority of Democrats than he will to the corporations because the corporations that have been funding the DLC and the DNC want none of this people first, antiwar nonesense.

Problem with Dean isn't that he's a Liberal, which he's not, never was and clearly said he wasn't, but that he actually listens to the base. He's dangerous because the Democratic base would BUY our party back under Dean. And Space System Loral ain't selling.

[buddhamama]

42. agreed.

The real danger is the base, us.

The fact that Dean champions grassroots politics and, has worked tirelessly to educate and invigorate the People to take "our" party,
makes Dean a target of the Party Elites who, it seems to me, will do almost anything to hold on to their Power.

One need only to read Strauss to understand.

[roenyc]

46. i too agree

so how do we make sure dean gets this position? who makes the decision?

i know move on had a petition on this way back in support of dean. anything going on now?

[buddhamama]

47. write of your support

there's a thread in the DfA group with links on who to contact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=244x1555

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

18. It's the spine thing

that appeals to me! :)
When I first heard him interviewed on the Nation, about 2 years ago I think, I liked what I heard. Here's how I look at it, if the reigning Democratic kingmakers don't want Howard as DNC chair, I say the hell with them. Let's have Howard lead the New Democratic Party! The difference between the Dems and the New Dems? We have spines and walk upright amongst the 'Pubs. We articulate our position and don't allow ourselves to be bullied or shouted down.............

[RetroLounge]

21. I defy you to show me that people said Dean is a LIBERAL

or are you just buying the MSM meme?

Dean never said he was liberal. His supporters never said he was liberal. I never said he was liberal. DFA has never said he was liberal. So who has?

Dean is a moderate, since he's socially liberal and fiscally conservative. He IS progressive, since he want to progress towards a better country, a better party and actual Democratic Party election victories.

As opposed to DLC who are really right-wing democrats.

RL

[mandyky]

24. They have "spinal envy", is all

I giggle and growl at the same time every time the media (and others) say Dean claims to be a liberal. The man defies all labels, even moderate. Let Dean be Dean! Labels be damned!

[UdoKier]

38. Yes, and he doesn't MIND being called a liberal.

"I don't mind being called a liberal. I just don't really think it's true."

-Howard Dean

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

-John Kennedy, Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960



If more democrats would wake up, stand up, and have some pride and embrace the word "liberal" and all that it is SUPPOSED to mean, we would be the majority party by at least ten percentage points. I believe that fervently.

[Cuban_Liberal]

45. DNC chair, not DLC. n/t

[UdoKier]

48. OOPS! I hate when I do that! And I knew better!

NT

[ProfessorPlum]

49. What I like most about Dean

is that he doesn't seem to be an idealogue. He seems to pick and choose governing policies based on a careful weighing of the pros and cons, not what Bill Bennett will think of them. In other words, he seems interested in _governing_ and governing well. (As opposed to _ruling_, which is what the current junta is doing).

Except that he also seems to have a big heart, and doesn't like the way poor people and other downtrodden people get shafted, blamed, and scapegoated by most of our leaders. Thus his social liberalism.

The DNC should be begging Dean to be their head. The fact that it is even in question makes me question the party leadership and their grip on sanity.