"The public is not expecting perfection, but is looking for progress"

[Mairead]

Is this a Dean supporter defending his candidate's support for a Bush-Lite status quo? Sounds like it, doesn't it. Same ideas: even too little is good enough. Take the crumbs we're willing to give you and be grateful. Down with the uppity damn' purists who refuse compromise!

But no, in this case it's a GOP spokesman defending the 'ownership society'.

But it is the same elitist, anti-working-people attitude of mind on display.

[maddezmom]

1. do you have a link?

:)

[Mairead]

3. Yes, but a secondary source only

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclicktext/20031224/cm_ucru/weaselsofcrassdeception

(edit -- a more primary source)
David H. Winston, president of the Winston Group, a Republican polling firm, said: "Having passed the Medicare law, Republicans will be seen as more credible when they offer proposals on the uninsured. The public is not expecting perfection but is looking for progress."

http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGAY2TY38OD.html

[vi5]

2. As a Kucinich supporter can I ask a question?

I like Dennis. He seems like a charming, funny, smart guy.

But what about him makes him more liberal than any of the other candidates? A lot of uber-liberal people I know really support this guy. I guess what confuses me is his pro-life voting record. I don't have a major problem with this even though I'm staunchly pro-choice. And in some ways I like that he has that record since it proves that we are a big-tent party open to a lot of different ideas.

But doesn't that kind of put him in the same boat as all of the other candidates in that they are by and large liberal, but each has one or two issues on which they have been conservative over the years. Whether it's Kerry's impeccable liberal record marred by his Iraq vote, or Dean's impeccable liberal record tempered by his NRA approval rating and fiscal conservatism.

I'm just curious what about Kucinich gets him the "most liberal" tag?

[many a good man]

4. You're kidding, right?

Just listen to Kucinich for about 30 seconds and you can see he's far more to the left than any candidate we've seen in years. He's economic policies are more populist than any candidate we've run in decades because he doesn't kowtow to the pro-corporate line. His economic policies get a lot of support from farmers and laborers. His anti-militarism wins the heart of peaceniks everywhere.

I think the evolution of his position on abortion is a great template on how we can take the divisive abortion issue off the national agenda. Remember, he wins elections in a Reagan Democrat district. People are divided over social values wedge issues but working class people will support a populist platform. They respect him because he's honest and puts people first.

Just look at his positions and tell me he's not a real true blue liberal:

* for single-payer universal health care
* for free college education
* against globalism (would dismantle WTO and NAFTA)
* for reducing Pentagon spending (redirect $ to domestic needs)
* etc., etc.,

He doesn't moderate his positions to appeal to some version of the "conventional wisdom" that thinks liberal issues are not popular, when in fact they are. He is setting the agenda for a populist, liberal resurgence in this country that is our only hope if the Dean vs. DLC centrist approach fails.

[vi5]

7. Yes, but Kerry has just as many liberal positions.....

I have heard Dennis speak. I like the guy a lot. I'm not saying it's a bad thing if he's not some sort of super-liberal. My point is that he has a solid liberal voting record tempered with some conservative votes along the way. Kerry has a solid liberal voting record tempered with some conservative votes along the way. Ditto Dean.

I'm not saying Dennis isn't a liberal, just that I don't see how he's more liberal than the rest of them.

[Mairead]

15. I think perhaps part of it is the sense of 'where are they today?'

We can look back at Kerry's record and see a solid, if conventional, liberal legislator. But his vote for the invasion-and-massacre was a huge departure from that record (so much so that Randy Forsberg even opposed him for re-election, she was so furious), and his performance since then has been a sort of self-destructive aimlessness. My sense is that he's trying to be a DLCer without having his heart in it, and it shows. So today, he's not the liberal legislator he was.

Dean is trying to 'sell lamb and deliver mutton'. He doesn't have a liberal record --the reverse, if anything-- and he certainly doesn't have liberal policies! But he's trying to obfuscate that and, with the help of the corporate media, is succeeding at least among people who aren't very liberal to begin with but feel guilty (Phil Ochs's 'Love me I'm a liberal' types).

[Mairead]

5. "what about him makes him more liberal than the other candidates"

I myself don't find him to be all that 'liberal' except in the conventional sense of the term. To me, he seems a real FDR-type centrist. I think he comes up short of the basic goods in at least a few places at least as far as his declared policies go...I'm hoping that's an artifact of the limited time and energy he has, but I'm not giving him a pass on them.

But if you look at his actual declared policies and compare them to those of the other candidates, only Sharpton comes off well. None of the others do, not even Kerry (who, as you say, had an unbroken conventional-liberal record until he decided to try for the presidency). All the others come off as authoritarian (the Iraq invasion, the drugs war, the 'patriot' act, the states-rights-over-civil-rights, the SotA, ....) and pro-wealthy-elites (maintaining the war-industry, prison-industry, and medical-industry profits).

As you say, Kucinich has some stuff in his recent past that can't possibly be called 'liberal'. His change of mind appears, from the record, to have taken place over a long period of time and be genuine, and his explanation for it seems to many feminists, including me, to have been thoughtful and at least acceptable if not completely credible. I contrast that to the behavior of other candidates who either offer no explanation at all for their changes or offer a self-exculpatory one.

So to me, Kucinich is the centrist that others only pretend to be.

[sweetheart]

6. liberal is being open and flexible

and dennis has shown this attribute. Otherwise are we not reading from a script and denying the dynamic reality of life in front of us.

Dennis tangles with the moral conundrum of abortion pro-life, and in that regard shows his centrism and potential for winning the middle ground.

Being open and flexible takes much more maturity than the puberty views of having an opinion to hell with anyone else.

I realllllly like dennis. He is my champion regardless of what happens in this primary, and i hold the democratic party responsible towards taking his voting constituency in to the fold by conceding the republican-lite ground that has lost the moral power of opposition to republican-fat.

[vi5]

8. Yes, but people who voted for IWR could say the same...

That they were being open and flexible on the issue. I would disagree with that, but there's just as much of a case to be made there as there is anywhere else.

[sweetheart]

9. What is IWR?

Iraq War? Open and flexible don't mean stupid. There was no soverign threat. A samurai does not draw his blade frivolously... only a fool does.

Ok, liberal is a lot more than being open and flexble... but it is part of the package IMO.

[vi5]

10. Yes, but a staunchly pro-choice person...

Could say the same thing about Dennis's pro-life voting record.

I'm not trying to antagonize, just playing Devil's advocate.

I just tend to scratch my head at the selective vision many people have regarding their candidates. Whether it's Kerry/Gep/Edwards supporters dismissing the Iraq War Vote, or Dean supporters dismissing his NRA rating or his more conservative tendencies, or whether it's Kucinich supporters who don't recognize that his pro-life voting record and then sudden switch from that may just point to the fact that each candidate has their conservative skeletons, so throwing stones at other candidates is slighly disingenuous.

[sweetheart]

11. Understanding hipocrasy

Myself, i think mr. kucinich has come around to a more evolved point of view by dropping his Anti-women views... and i'm sure every feminist in his supporters will rip him a new asshole if he falls short there.

I don't care what people "used to think". I once voted for reagan... guilty as charged... but people grow up and mature. The flag burning thing (where i disagree with dennis) is a serious issue for me... and i think dennis would accept that criticism.

liking a candidate is understanding they ain't perfect. Its how they change their views that means more to me... and the story i heard of dennis's change on abortion further solidifies my belief that he is a liberal, like I am, but is not all knowing .. and sometimes wrong...

Have i been bashing other candidates on their past records? Not. I could give a toss. I like kerry, gephardt and edwards. I hope they are all in the next administration. The only guy who spooks me out is dean... he might be better as a revivalist preacher than in the presidency... it is in his supporters where i have seen the zealotry that concerns what you speak.

Men are fallible. When they understand that, it makes them wise.

[Mairead]

12. "sudden switch"

Does a year's time count as 'sudden'? That seems like a long incubation period, to me. To me, 'sudden' would be a change that occurred in a week or so -- especially if it happened without a precipitating event.

[vi5]

13. I guess it seems sudden to me when....

It came just at the same time that he's running for president and needs to appeal to the liberal base. And yeah, 1 year when looking at a whole career is relatively sudden. Don't get me wrong, I think each of the candidates have done this (playing down their conservative credentials and playing up their liberal ones). And I've personally received no animosity or negative feelings from Kucinich supporters, for which as an undecided, I am very grateful.

I would just like to see all candidates records explored more thoroughly and with a little more honesty when it comes to reservations people may have regarding specific issues which their candidate may be more conservative on.

That's been the biggest problem for me this primary season. Nobody wants to explore the seamy underbelly of their candidates and recognize their negatives. They only want to tout the "more liberal than though" credentials of said candidates. And it can be frustrating.

[Mairead]

17. Well, what *wouldn't* be sudden, then?

Just out of curiosity, if someone is going to change their mind, how long should it take? :)

Given that he seems to have stopped voting against Choice about the same time he got the flood of please-stand-for-election pleas, I'd agree that the two events are probably not unconnected. I'm not sure that I'd agree (apologies if this isn't what you're saying) that if it weren't for the draft he wouldn't have changed. Perhaps he wouldn't have, but I don't think we have any evidence for that. We do, though, have a clear rationale for his current position, and it definitely holds water when seen in isolation. So I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt--he could have announced a change of mind back in spring '02, and then he'd have a year on the good side to point to. But he didn't do that, and I can't think of any reason other than that it was a real change of heart and he was working it all out in an honest way.

[vi5]

19. It wouldn't be sudden if it came before his run...

To be perfectly honest with you, as pro-choice as I am I would almost be more pro-Kucinich if he stuck to his guns and simply explained that he was voting his conscience. This is especially true if he were "drafted"(for the record I don't know that he was as much as say Clark was). If he were truly entering for his supporters rather than just for personal political reasons then he would have had the strength to simply say that those who recruited him would have to accept his record as is rather than having him change his views.

Personally speaking I don't plan on voting for Dennis, pro-choice or not. He's just not my guy. I just think that if he had stuck to his guns that I would be more of a staunch defender of his if not an actual supporter or voter. I think the kind of inclusion he would bring as a pro-life voice in the democratic party (and there are some out there) would present a more broad based image and appeal. I think for whatever reason he's been unfairly marginalized by the establishment and the media and the other candidates and I maintain that might not have happened if he had stuck to his pro-life stance.

[many a good man]

18. IMPORTANT DISTINCTION: Social liberal or Economic liberal

There IS a difference. You could be one and not the other. I would posit that most "Reagan Dems" vote that way because of wedge social issues, busing, crime, abortion tops among them. Dem decline began with the emergence of wedge "value" issues.

DK is primarily an economic liberal, or populist. His district is socially conservative. His original stance on abortion probably helped him get elected. Hopefully his conversion won't doom him there. His newfound openness on other social issues may also lead him to lose reelection.

People here have to realize that there are a LOT of voters in our base that are Democrats BECAUSE OF economic issues and IN SPITE of social issues.

FDR realigned the electorate because he put working people's concerns at the forefront. The (Goldwater/)Reagan Revolution realigned the country because it put wedge social issues in front.

Traditional (white and white ethnic) blue collar workers are caught in the middle. They see Democrats as fighting for minorities and not for them. They see Democrats as championing social values that they oppose. They see Democrats raising taxes for programs that probably won't benefit them.

I'm as socially liberal as anyone here but I understand where these people are coming from because I grew up in a blue collar household in Cleveland. These people are decent people and they normally aren't racists. They tend to hold traditional moral values.

In the '50s Urban Renewal tore down the central city slums in Cleveland and didn't replace the housing stock. Very poor blacks had to move into formerly middle class white neighborhoods. Crime, violence, alcohol/drug abuse, and other symptoms of poverty naturally followed. People saw the once-idyllic neighborhoods of their youth gradually turn into slums as they moved out into the suburbs. The ones who stayed behind were the ones who couldn't afford to move out. They had to compete with the Blacks and Puerto Ricans (and "hillbillies") for low-paying jobs which threatened their self-esteem. Segregation by neighborhood was the norm and forced busing inflamed their emotions. They began to vote Republican in droves.

DK respects his constituents' socially conservative values and is looking for a way to move beyond them. He has shown how a person can move from a personal opposition to abortion to political tolerance of it. IMHO, if we can do this on the wider range of wedge issues we will become the majority party by a long shot. People's #1 concern is their pocketbook; Democrats need to reach out with social welfare policies that target the entire middle class, not just the very poor and minorities. I still maintain that Kucinich's economic and foreign policy positions are far more liberal than the rest of the field and I can't understand how people can see otherwise.

[bitchkitty]

14. Use a quote from

a Republican, that has nothing to do with Howard Dean, to bash Howard Dean in the first sentence. Puhleeeeeeeeeeeeze.

[Mairead]

16. We can see that same sentiment used to defend Dean's status-quo policies

all over the place at DU. Sorry. If Dean supporters don't want to be tarred with that 'progress not perfection' brush, then perhaps you shouldn't use it.