Howard Dean's mistaken foray into inclusiveness

[Padraig18]

Howard Dean's mistaken foray into inclusiveness


Published November 9, 2003


Memo

From: Chairperson, Ideological Purity Task Force, Democratic National Committee

To: Democratic presidential candidates

Re: Confederate flags and other matters

Folks, I'm afraid it's time to remind you of the old maxim that Republicans look for converts, and Democrats look for heretics. Let's keep those home fires burning! I know Howard Dean has learned the most important thing about this broad, diverse, tolerant, multicultural party of ours: If you're not like us, we don't want you.

Gov. Dean made a grave error, as the rest of you were kind enough to point out, when he said he wanted "to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks." His idea seemed to be that we would rather have someone like that vote Democratic than Republican. While this may have a certain crazy logic, it gets everything backward.

Sure, we could use the votes of the many Southern males who still have an attachment to symbols of the Old South. Back in the old days, those guys would no more vote Republican than they would wear pink underwear, and they helped us win a lot of elections.

But we have to attend to some basic hygiene here. What would people think if the wrong sort of people showed up at the polls wearing a Howard Dean button? Why, they'd assume that Gov. Dean is a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan, that's what. The only way to avoid such misperceptions is to keep a safe distance between us and voters who have yet to achieve an acceptable level of enlightenment.

<snip>

More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0311090488nov09,1,6875485.column?coll=chi-news-col

[Code_Name_D]

1. Dose this mean...

this guy advicates kicking out Zell Miller? Probably not.

[Padraig18]

2. I have no idea.

Never met him, never talked to him and never read anything by him on that subject. :shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

122. Just the opposite.

[democratreformed]

3. Wow

Padraig, I'm not sure what to make of this. What are your thoughts?

Edited to say: I finally understood what Dean was trying to say. Sounds like this person is saying we don't want to do that but that we want to alienate certain people at the same time by basically ignoring them.

[Padraig18]

4. I agree with the column.

Tongue-in-cheek though it is, it points out a uniquely "Democratic" dilemma: how do we balance our progressive values with our desire to be inclusive? IOW, do we as a party have a 'litmus test' that determines who is/can be a Democrat?

I think the article also illustrates the perception of 'ideological drift' within our party; that is to say, has our party drifted away to the right, as the classical liberals allege, or has it drifted to the left, as many former Democrats-turned-Republican allege?

A thought-provoking piece, whether you agree or disagree. :hi:

[democratreformed]

5. Sorry

I guess today is one of my "blonde" days. I didn't catch the sarcasm at all and thought it was a serious thing.

Just knock me in the head now.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Except Dean's message wasn't about inclusiveness it was about guns

Kerry criticizes Dean's gun views

Kerry supported the 1994 bill that outlawed the sale and ownership of assault weapons, which Dean says he now supports.

"Howard Dean, during the time we were trying to pass it, was appealing to the NRA for their support," Kerry said, while visiting a rural Story County farm.

"We don't need to be a party that says we need to be the candidacy of the NRA. We stand up against that."

Dean has said 2000 Democratic nominee Al Gore lost the election because he failed to win Southern states, where disaffected Democrats who favor gun owners' rights were reluctant to support him.

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," Dean said Friday in a telephone interview from New Hampshire. "We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."

Dean said he answered the questionnaire while running for re-election as governor of Vermont. He has said he was never asked to sign a gun control bill during his Vermont tenure.

Dean often touts his high rating from the NRA, which he attributes to Vermont's scant gun restrictions, low crime rate and tradition as a hunting mecca.
http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22649906.html



Howard Dean's rivals for the Democratic nomination roundly attacked him on Saturday for telling an Iowa newspaper he wanted "to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks" in defending his opposition to some gun control legislation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/politics/campaigns/02DEAN.html?ex=1068354000&en=31807d02d3911de5&ei=5062



Dean’s comment was reported in story about Kerry’s criticism of Dean’s record on guns. The senator claimed that Dean was an NRA favorite who opposed a 1994 law that banned assault weapons to civilians.

“I would rather be the candidate of the NAACP than the NRA,” Kerry said in a statement.

Candidate and civil rights activist Al Sharpton – who has accused Dean of having an “anti-black agenda” – said he was “surprised and disturbed” by the Confederate flag remark. “If I said I wanted to be the candidate for people that ride around with helmets and swastikas, I would be asked to leave,” Sharpton said.
http://nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=379&ArticleID=92608



Like Kerry, Arulanandam said Dean's support for the assault weapons ban isn't in sync with his stance as governor.

"Clearly it's inconsistent," Arulanandam said.

Kerry's attacks were spawned by Dean's recent remark about the Confederate flag, a comment the governor made in defending his position on guns Dean said the Democratic Party needs to court Southerners with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. Earlier this week, Dean said he regretted the remark and apologized.
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/kerry_on_crime_2003.shtml


Still, the gun and flag comments were clearly on the minds of some voters, all of them women, who came to hear Lofgren on Monday.

One woman asked about Dean’s position on gun control while another held up a newspaper clipping detailing the dispute over Dean’s Confederate flag comment.
http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1019963&l=1&t=Nation+%2F+World&c=26,1019963



Defending his record on guns, Dean recently told a newspaper that he wanted to be "the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." He has since apologized.
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/7222168.htm

[lastliberalintexas]

7. Which is STILL inclusiveness!

Whether we are talking about race or gun control issues, we are still talking about trying to bring more folks back to the Dems. That's still inclusiveness- sorry you and others can't (or won't) see that.

And btw- Dean has used this idea/phrase to speak to one, the other, or both issues on the campaign trail. He recognizes (or some Southerner on his staff does) that these issues are all tied together down here as excuses the repubs use to pick up voters.

[democratreformed]

9. Perhaps this might help

It was explained to me, by a worker on the Clark campaign I might add, in historical terms. During the 1970s, these issues were used by the Repubs to divide the Dem party and gain a stronghold in the South. Today's Dems face trying to come up with a way to circumvent this and bring the party back together - or, rather, to gain back supporters that fell for the ploy back in the 70s.

My daughter and I went to canvas at a college football game. The person from the Clark campaign who was our coordiantor sat down with us after we were finished and talked to us about many things. One of those was the statement made by Dean. On the way home (an hour drive), I thought a lot about what she said and how she explained it. Finally, even though I think the particular mode used to convey the message was a bit faulty, I understood the "meaning" of what Dean was trying to do. And, yes, I can even admire him for taking the chance.

I have a WHOLE lot to learn about politics. And, I never pretend to know everything. And, I sure appreciate when people help educate me.

[helleborient]

11. Yes, I think it's very important...

That people use their own intelligence to get beyond running screaming when they hear "Confederate flag" and instead think about why it was brought up in the first place.

The "why" is much more complex than just whether you like the flag or not.

[lastliberalintexas]

19. I'm glad

you gave it that much thought! These issues are going to be very important for us to learn to deal with if we are ever going to win the South back again.

It can be very frustrating to campaign for Dem candidates in the South. You go into union halls to advocate for a very good, pro-labor candidate, and almost all the questions you get asked are about gun control and your person's stance on gun control issues. The people who hold the bigoted or prejudiced racial views might not be as outspoken or feel free to be as outspoken as the gun people, but they are there too. (and I'm not talking about the real racists- there is a difference between someone being prejudiced and a racist). We've got to somehow get those people to look at the whole picture and not just the Southern Strategy issues of the repubs.

And Clark and his people have shown a great deal of class during this flag fiasco- they haven't gone after Dean like the others have. That showed some good will between the camps I think.

I'm certainly no political expert either, and I can only go by what I've seen while out campaigning. I would just hate to see us write off these people and give them to the repubs when they are ripe for the taking.

[Padraig18]

12. I regret that...

... in your eagerness to score a high-school debating point, you completely missed the point of the piece. Oh, well.. :shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. The point of the piece

which the author stated so well in the last line, is:

"Remember, we don't want the Democratic Party to look like America--it's America's job to start looking like us."


And it's such BS right-wing crap that it doesn't even deserve a comment.

[Padraig18]

18. Dismissiveness...

... hardly substitutes for coherent, critical thinking. It is a well-written, thought-provoking piece that raises legitimate questions about our party and it's 'Southern problem.'

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. It ridicules Democrats.

For you, this provokes thought.

For me, it provokes nausea.

:puke:

You are welcome to your opinion about how well-written this piece is or the legitimatacy of its point that Democrats believe "it's America's job to start looking like us".

I think Chapman's 'point' is utter BS and typical RW propaganda -- obviously you feel otherwise.

[Padraig18]

35. It ridicules a mindset.

Hit a bit of a nerve, did it?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. Which the author falsely ascribes to Democrats

The author of this article is totally full of shit. Do you agree with him?

You are welcome to think that Democrats believe:

"we don't want the Democratic Party to look like America--it's America's job to start looking like us."

but you are wrong. The author is wrong about the Democratic party and he is just spreading right wing propaganda that we are 'liberal elitists'.

:puke:


Does it hit a nerve with me when the right wing lies about the Democratic party? Yes.

[Padraig18]

39. You're wrong.

The article is spot on about what is killing the Democratic party--- arrogance and PC.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Perhaps if Dean wins this WILL become the party "for guys with Confederate

flags in their pickup trucks".


Perhaps we should abandon our traditional constituencies like African-Americans and liberals in order to appeal to the NRA and Confederate flag folks.

Perhaps we should champion a politician who isn't

a "bleeding heart" - as evidenced by the time he publicly berated a single mother on welfare, saying, "You don't think you ought to work for a living?"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1109-08.htm

.

Perhaps that's what the Democratic party should become.

Perhaps.

[Padraig18]

43. Perhaps we should become..

... the inclusive party we proclaim ourselves to be. Why should we not reach out to *all* economically-disadvantaged people, regardless of color or locale?

Why? Because they own guns? Because they happen to be religious? Because they prefer NASCAR and the NFL to The Boston Pops and PBS?

Those certainly seem to be sensible reasons to shun them. :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. Your premise - that the Democratic party is a fraud - is simply wrong.

You present false choices based on this wrong-headed premise.

You champion a candidate who described the Democrats in Congress as cockroaches - and that is wrong-headed as well.

[Padraig18]

48. That's excellent 'logic':

"I'm right and you're wrong!" What next, "My daddy can beat up your daddy!"? :eyes:

You and Teddy are a minority within the party, whether you like it, or not. The time has come for the tail to quit wagging the dog.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. You say the Democratic party is not the party for liberals

well the Republican party certainly isn't. Just what is the choice we are going to present the voters? vote for the conservative Republican or the not-as-conservative Democrat?

A sure-fire loser, besides being wrong.

[Padraig18]

50. I didn't say that at all, ...

... so please don't put words in my mouth, if you please.

The electorate as a whole has shifted to the right--- there is no denying this; if we are to remain competitive, we must address the needs of those who are not as far to the left politically as are you and Teddy.

There are 51 separate elections held to determine who will become President; the reality is that an increasing number of electoral votes are moving into 'red states' in the South and West. Rage against demographics, if you must, but recognize today's electoral realities: we can not remain competitive without appealing to constituencies we have failed to appeal to over the last 30 years, primarily in the South and west, and to a limited extent the Midwest.

This false choice that you continue to put forth--- that we must somehow abandon our traditional stances on civil rights and economic justice, e.g.--- is just that, a false choice.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. You talk about your speculations as if they were fact.

The one fact that is clear in this discussion is that Steve Chapman is no friend to the Democratic party.



If you really think Chapman is not ridiculing the party, perhaps you should write to the: "Chairperson, Ideological Purity Task Force" and share your viewpoints. :puke:

[Padraig18]

52. The increase in 'electoral clout'...

.. of the South and West is fact, my friend. Live in denial, if you wish, but once again, how's that been workin' for ya? :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Montana will go Democratic this year. -IMHO

We are going to elect a Democratic governor - and not because he talks like a Republican, but because the voters are sick of Republican doubletalk and mismanagement. And if we present a real choice at the top of the ticket Montana will go Democratic there as well.

I don't know what you know about the South, but you certainly have no business lecturing me about the West.

[Padraig18]

54. I have every right to do so.

After seeing and reading about 30 years of this party doing the same stupid shit that doesn't work over and over, I have every right.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. I never said you didn't have a right to speak.

Of course you have a right to state your opinion no matter how ill-informed it is.


But you don't sound like you really know much about the West -- other than what you've read in the media.

[Padraig18]

56. And you, of course...

... are entitled to cling to that arrogant, sucicdal PC-ness which has cost us election after election and which now threatens to doom us to electoral irrelevancy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. Standing up for principles does not equal political correctness.

The reason we've been losing elections is because we've been too like the Republicans, not because we've been too different.

[Padraig18]

66. The reason we've been losing elections is...

... that we have allowed the looney-left and the gods of PC to dominate our party, rendering it out of touch with a majority of the electorate.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

68. The 'looney-left'?

I'll take the 'looney-left' over the 'radical right' any day.

[Padraig18]

71. Good.

Since we don't have a radical right in our party, I can hardly disagree.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. Guess what? We don't have a 'looney-left' in our party.

At least I don't think so.

Would you care to identify who you think the 'loonies' are?

[Padraig18]

76. Oh yes, we do.

And no, I don't care to name names. Let's just call them 'the usual suspects'; anyone with half a brain knows who that refers to.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. As long as it's clear which side you're on - and you've made that clear.

This is what the Dean camp means by

'the Democratic wing of the Democratic party'? Anti-liberalism?

[Padraig18]

82. It's not 'anti-liberalism'.

It's passionate centrism.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. Compassionate conservatism? Passionate centrism?

Healthy forests? Clear skies?


Whatever Orwellian turn of phrase you use, we know what you are talking about.

[no name no slogan]

86. "Usual suspects"?

Boy, that sure has a nice right-wing authoritarian undertone to it. "Usual Suspects"-- like in the movie "Casablanca" right?

Yes, blame those damn "looney-left" people for wanting their party to be liberal again. Because the right-wing "centrist" apoligists have done such an GREAT job over the last ten years (loss of both houses of Congress, governorships, etc.)

:eyes:

[Padraig18]

88. Do the names...

... McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis ring a bell with you? BTW, nice smear job with the 'right-wing' and 'centrist' linkup.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

93. This article is definately a right wing hatchet job on our party.

You are the one defending this view as 'centrist'.


As far as your attack on McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis goes -- well I was too young to vote for McGovern, but I actually voted for Mondale and Dukakis. They both would've been a lot better for this country than their opponents. I suppose you disagree.


However, without consulting a history book - who are these 'usual suspects' that you say are ruining our party by being too liberal?

[Padraig18]

95. Once again, I'm not biting the 'who's who' hook.

Mondale led us to the greatest electoral defeat we have ever suffered in a Presidential race. I agree he would be enormously preferable to the current gang of neo-fascists in the WH and Congress, as would Dukakis.

The article is not a "right wing hatchet job on our party", just because you say so. As anyone can clearly see from the comments in this thread, yours is distinctly the minority opinion on that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. I'm not afraid to 'name names' -- Zell Miller- that's a 'center-right' Dem

Howard Dean - he's another one. But you really have to wonder if maybe they're just in the wrong party?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

90. Wow finally an ally!

I was starting to think I was the only liberal left on DU!

[loyalsister]

139. Like it or not

he is talking about something very real. I had a conversation with a guy who's thinking of running for office about this issue. I made the comment that I thought Gep's statement that he didn't want their votes was more offensive. He said "I don't want their votes either." This is something that actually happens.
"Remember, we don't want the Democratic Party to look like America--it's America's job to start looking like us."
Real people who are Democrats have exactly that mind set.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

141. Let me get this straight.

You think the Democratic party is about:

"Remember, we don't want the Democratic Party to look like America--it's America's job to start looking like us."


you really believe that?

You don't think we represent America already? You dont' think America already looks like us?

[loyalsister]

150. The misinterpreter

once again try reading. I said real people who are Democrats have this mind set. Um, ya think maybe the full logical statement might go:
SOME Democrats have this mindset???
The point is that it has become a problem in the party. People want to exclude people who don't share particular PC beliefs. There's a huge difference between not wanting those beliefs to have influence that translates into action, and not wanting "those people" to benefit from what we have to offer. The point the author was making is that latter is unfortunately common.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

151. I'm not talking about some or all.

Some members of any large group will have fringe beliefs. On the other hand, there are probably very few things that all Democrats agree on.

Are there Democrats who believe "Remember, we don't want the Democratic Party to look like America--it's America's job to start looking like us." ?

Perhaps there are. But I've never met one.


It is a common line of attack from the right wing to criticise us for being too 'politically correct'. I think it is a bogus attack no matter who makes it. Whether someone from Fox News, or someone from the Chicago Tribune.

I asked if you really agreed with the author of the article, and apparently, you really do.

[loyalsister]

152. Gep said it! Kerry appealed to it

They both went after people's reactions to racism in hopes that they would be outraged away from Dean. All you have to do is backtrack through the boards to see how well it worked. You might find your name in that mix of using race as a political tool, however.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

153. Absolutely false.

And I find your false statement concerning what I've said offensive.

[helleborient]

8. This column is a parody on the DNC by an editor in a right-leaning

newspaper.

It is important to know that in reading the piece.

That said, it is thought-provoking.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. It's only wrong to post right-wing stuff when it criicizes Dean.

Didn't you know that?

[Padraig18]

13. The 'Tribune' is most certainly *not* a RW paper.

It is a very middle-of-the-road, Chamber-of-Commerce Republican-leaning paper that actually tries to be fair-and-balanced; it even endorses Democrats on a surpisingly regular basis. Now, a good example of a RW newspaper would be the Washington Times.

[helleborient]

15. Why wait to report on the Trent Lott controversy...

Several days...and then burying it on p. 7 or 8? U.S.A. Today did better than that.

If you really want to look at it...I can point to several right-leaning aspects of the Trib.

It's not the Washington Times, but they do publish more right-wing editorial columns than liberal as well. You'll have to do more to convince me they genuinely are "fair-and-balanced." They occasionally endorse Democrats, but in a city that is overwhelmingly Democratic, a newspaper that endorses more Republicans than Democrats is doing more than trying to be "middle of the road."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Maybe you didn't read the whole thing- it's a hit piece against Democrats.

[Padraig18]

20. It most certainly is not a 'hit piece against Democrats'!

It is a piece that openly ridicules the gods of PC who have driven this party to the point of irrelevancy in the South, and Gov. Dean's attempt to bridge that gap. If it's a 'hit piece' on anyone, it's a hit piece on the looney-left, tail-wagging-the-dog fringe that is clinging tooth and nail to the party's power levers that it seized following the 1968 convention!

[helleborient]

21. More bio info. on the author...

I will stand by my opinion of the Trib overall, but this author's background was with the New Republic prior to syndication...here's a brief bio on him...

"Stephen Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. His twice-weekly column on national and international affairs appears in some 60 papers across the country.

He came to the Tribune in 1981 from the New Republic magazine, where he was an associate editor. His column was first syndicated nationally in 1982. He has contributed articles to several national magazines, including the Atlantic, Harper's, Reason and the American Spectator.

Born in Brady, Texas, in 1954, Chapman grew up in Midland and Austin. He attended Harvard University, where he was a member of the editorial board of the Harvard Crimson. He graduated cum laude from the university in 1976 with a degree general studies and later did graduate work in business administration at the University of Chicago.

Chapman lives in Evanston, a suburb of Chicago, with his wife and three children."

The DNC should be paying attention to words like this from, most likely, a centrist Democrat.

[Padraig18]

23. He is a centrist Democrat.

I've read his column for years, growing up in Chicago. As regards the Tribune, they're definitely a conservative paper, but not 'reactionary' or 'radical', which is what distinguishes them from RW publications, IMO. :)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Like Dean. 'Nuff said.

It's an attack piece on the Democratic wing of the Democratic party from the 'centrists'.

[MercutioATC]

29. It's an "attack piece" on the "DNC wing of the Dem party", if anything...

We "centrist Democrats" realize that there are registered Dems who are....shall we say....a little further to the left than us. That, however, gives you no more right to suggest that we're basically Republicans than it does us of suggesting that you should be heavily medicated.

This piece attacked the DNC's stance on Dean and, more specifically, Dean's recent comments on race relations. Should you have failed to realize it, "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" means different things to different people. Coincidentially, displaying the Confederate flag means different things to different people, too.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Dean made a comment about guns.

Days later, when apologizing for the that comment, he tried to spin it into a comment about race.

That's what happened. Now this columnist tries to further Dean's spin by ridiculing Democrats as believing:

"we don't want the Democratic Party to look like America--it's America's job to start looking like us."

That's RW bullshit. The Democratic Party does represent America. We do look like America.


You can believe otherwise if you want. But you are wrong.

[helleborient]

28. I agree with you there...

And they do have outstanding material in the arts and culture.

[Padraig18]

36. Yes.

I believe it's at least as good, journalistically, as the NYT; different editorial slant, but great reporting.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. I prefer Ted Kennedy's vision of the Democratic party to Steve Chapman's

call me 'looney-left' if you want. I'll call myself a Democrat.

[Padraig18]

24. Soooo..... how's that been workin' for ya, electorally?

:eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. So we should become Republicans in order to win elections?

:puke:

[MercutioATC]

30. As I said above...

We "centrist Democrats" realize that there are registered Dems who are....shall we say....a little further to the left than us. That, however, gives you no more right to suggest that we're basically Republicans than it does us of suggesting that you should be heavily medicated.

Thee are many of us that feel that voting for the IWR and the Patriot Act were much more distasteful than getting an "A" rating from the NRA or speaking bluntly (if clumsily) about race relations.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. This article ridicules the Democratic party and I find it distasteful.

The sentiments expressed are not respectful of our viewpoints or our leaders.

I guess if you think the Democratic party and it's principles and traditions are wrong, and Dean is right, you'll feel differently.


I said I preferred Ted Kennedy's vision of the Democratic party to Steve Chapman's vision.

Padraig18 responded by saying:
"Soooo..... how's that been workin' for ya, electorally?"

And I say, we can win as Democrats, truly representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. We don't need to compromise our ideals in order to win elections.

[MercutioATC]

33. And again, he criticized the DNC, not the Democratic party.

...and AGAIN, that phrase "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" means different things to different people. I don't feel that the DNC represents MY view of what a Democrat is, so I don't consider them to be the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party".

I'm not saying that your BELIEF is wrong, I'm saying that Dean supporters feel that he DOES represent what Democrats should stand for.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Your analysis of this article is totally wrong.

I do agree however that "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party"

means different things to different people.

When Paul Wellstone said it, it meant just what it sounds like. Wellstone really did represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

When Howard Dean said it, it meant he would say anything, no matter how untrue, to get elected.

[Padraig18]

38. That has to be the pinnacle of arrogance!

The Democratic party is what you and Ted Kennedy say it is, eh? Reality check! :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. Calling me arrogant won't change this from right wing propaganda

into something else.

[Padraig18]

41. It's not RW propoganda.

It's a painful TRUTH, my friend. Like it or not, there is a HUGE part of the Democratic party that stands to the right of you and Teddy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. You think it is the truth that the Democratic party is ridiculous and

out-of-touch with America?

We don't need to become more like Republicans to win, and we shouldn't.

We were told before by the media that we couldn't win by standing up for our principles -- and the media wer wrong.

The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.

The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election.

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party.

More than that, I don't believe they have the best interests of the American people at heart. There is something more important involved in our program than simply the success of a political party.
--Harry S Truman
http://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1296&st=&st1=

[Padraig18]

45. Your point?

Ttuman was objectively at least as conservative as any candidate running today, and frankly a great deal *more* conservative.

Nice quote, and completely irrelevant to this issue.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. Now Truman was a conservative?

LOL

Go buy a history book. Or, you could simply re-read the provided quote. :eyes:

[Padraig18]

57. Read what I wrote again---

your laughter is ill-placed.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. You can say black is white

you can say that when you stated:

"Ttuman was objectively at least as conservative as any candidate running today, and frankly a great deal *more* conservative."

you actually meant Truman was a liberal.

You can say Dean is honest, or that his comment about the Confederate flag was the 'begining of a national dialogue on race'.


You can say any of those things.

"The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it." -- Harry S Truman
http://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1296&st=&st1=

As for my laughter, you're right, it is ill-placed. This isn't funny at all.

[Padraig18]

64. Again, I will speak for myself.

I will thank you *not* to put words in my mouth, as I have nicely asked you to refrain from doing previously. HST was as conseravtive as are any of today's candidates.

[MercutioATC]

61. Compared to the Dem candidates running today Truman WAS conservative

Not right-wing, mind you, but a conservative Democrat by today's standards.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. Who was more liberal - Ted Kennedy or Martin Van Buren?

The attempt to defend this attack on the Democratic party has descended to a truly meaningless level.

More from the article you are defending:

The wrong way to approach the guys with Confederate decals is give them the wild idea that their values are somehow compatible with ours. (Gov. Dean was off base when he said to them, "You ought to be voting with us because your kids don't have health insurance either." We prefer to base alliances on ethical ideals, not grubby economic interests.)

The right way is to inform them, politely but firmly, that their values are grossly contemptible--and then offer them guidance on how to change.

I can't be absolutely sure, because I don't actually know any people like that, but I suspect they would be deeply grateful for the re-education. They don't mean to be ignorant Neanderthals, and they probably aren't truly happy in their vile state. Call it "Liberal Eye for the Redneck Guy." Once we make them over, we'll be happy to welcome them into our ranks.

Some of us could use our own stories of how we were cured of noxious conservative impulses that once afflicted us. Reps. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) can tell how they overcame the primitive superstition that a fetus is entitled to any protection whatsoever. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) could recount how he learned to love racial quotas. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark might tell how, in an amazingly short time, he came to understand the folly of invading Iraq (assuming he's still taking that position--it's hard to keep track, Wes!).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0311090488nov09,1,6875485.column?coll=chi-news-col

What a thoughtful 'critique' of the Democratic party. You could even call it - 'fair and balanced'.

:puke:

[MercutioATC]

65. It's not "fair and balanced", it's satire. It's an intentional

overstatement used to illustrate a point. I, personally, agree with nearly everything it has to say (in the satirical context, of course).

I think the HUGE difference between what Dean said and the outdated mantras of the DNC is that Dean calls for inclusion. Yeah, the Democratic party has been great about screaming "bigot!" at people who display the Confererate flag, but what has that accomplished? Might it not be better to show people how our needs are the same and it is in our individual and collective best interest to work together?

If the DNC can't see this, it IS the dinosaur I believe it is. I think it's time to hitch our wagon to a different donkey.

[Padraig18]

69. Yes!

It is time to put the ultra-left dinosaurs out to pasture, so to speak, and reclaim the center and center-left which has always given the democratic party it's power to win elections.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. If you agree with this author about the Democratic party

you are backing the right candidate. Just like Dean allied with the Republicans in the Vermont legislature, if he becomes President, the Republicans in Congress will be his natural allies. Won't that do wonders for our party.

(When Dean became governor) they (liberal Democrats) were all thinking, oh we got a Democrat back in the governor's office. And all of the sudden they find Howard Dean's worse on spending (than Snelling). The state was headed into a recession at the time. And Snelling before he died, he and Ralph Wright cut a deal on raising the income taxes and (inaud.) the deficit--a few years of austerity. Howard stuck with the plan. And as Dick McCormack (Democratic Senator from Windsor) will tell you of the meeting where he (Dean) met with the Democratic Caucus and told them then, and this might have been before, when he was still lieutenant governor, and told the Democratic Senators, you're never going to win because people don't trust you with their money. None of your great and lofty goals and plans and aspirations will ever be achieved because people don't trust Democrats with their money. We got to prove it to 'em. And that was key. I mean his political enemies for the first three terms were Democrats at the State House, not Republicans. Republicans loved his budgets.
--Peter Freyne, veteran Vermont political reporter
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/freyneint.html

[Padraig18]

73. And this is a condemnation?

"...and told the Democratic Senators, you're never going to win because people don't trust you with their money. None of your great and lofty goals and plans and aspirations will ever be achieved because people don't trust Democrats with their money. We got to prove it to 'em. And that was key...."

It happens to be true.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. You and Dean side with the Republicans, I'll side with the Democrats.

You can repeat the right wing mantras that liberalism is loony, that Democrats 'tax and spend' - all you want -- but it's still right wing bullshit.

[Padraig18]

78. I'll side with Democrats.

Keep the sophistry and hyperbolic BS to yourself. The apparently uncomfortable fact you fail to recognize is that there are a great many more moderate and centrist dems than there are left- and ultra-left ones.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

80. Which Democrats? Which ones aren't part of the 'looney-left'?

[Padraig18]

84. The centrists and center-left ones. n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

87. Who? Why so vague?

Who are the 'centrist and center-left' cockroaches, I mean Senators and Congresspersons, who are going to vote with Dean on cutting Medicare and on raising middle-class taxes?

[Padraig18]

91. Nice try.

I'm not biting.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

96. Hopefully the American public will have a clear choice

between a conservative Republican candidate for President, and a liberal Democratic candidate for President.


Otherwise, we'll lose.

[Padraig18]

98. We will win.

By having a centrist candidate versus * --- take it to the bank.

[MercutioATC]

106. Seems to me we HAD that situation in 2000...

And, the "we won but got cheated" crowd notwithstanding, there's a Republican in the White House.

I think the answer is to provide the American people with a different choice. I think Dean works well in that role.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. First of all, you are two years off.

Second of all, you are correct, in that, if we want to give the American people between Bush and someone who does not present as much of a contrast with Bush as Gore, Dean would work well in that role.

[MercutioATC]

115. I did correct the typo in the subject line, and yes, that's what I meant..

...in the same way that Dean is less of a contrast with Bush than Kucinich. Both are competent politicians, but we had image problems with Gore being too liberal in the general election and I think we need to be mindful of that in this election.

Dean's far from Republican. He does, however, represent a moderate Democratic position that I believe will garner a greater support base in the general than more liberal candidates.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

119. Gore's problem was that he was too liberal?

I don't agree, and I doubt most other DUers agree either.

[MercutioATC]

124. In the general election, that perception is what hurt him most, yes.

I'm not saying that he WAS too liberal, I'm saying that he had problems with voters outside the Democratic party who thought he was too liberal and it cost him votes.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

127. Gore did win, and he won because of his liberalism, not in spite of it.

[MercutioATC]

130. Like I said, there's still a Republican in the White House.

As an incumbent Vice-President in a time of prosperity, it should never have come down to Florida in the first place. The reason it did was the "average" American's feeling that Gore was too liberal. That's why they voted for the "compassionate conservative". He was closer to the center.

Personally, I think we've actually got more leeway than we had in 2000 because Bush has blown his cover and is clearly a right-wing candidate. Giving the people an option who has clear, centrist goals will win this for us. Making them uncomfortable again won't.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

134. Clear, centrist goals.

That beacon of clarity, the middle of the road.

[MercutioATC]

136. So you're advocating extreme positions?

If you argue that there is no such thing as "centrist", and conservatives are bad, where is "good"?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

138. I'm advocating liberal positions. So, what is a 'liberal'?

Sen. John F. Kennedy, acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination, September 14, 1960.

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."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort.

The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

Wow:

"Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend."

some things haven't changed.

[MercutioATC]

144. So your definition and Kerry's are the same?

I'm just asking because Kerry's isn't really a definition, it's a speech. I could substitute the word "conservative" and post it in Freeperville and it would have the same meaning: "X=Good" where "X" is "liberal" or "conservative" or "vegetarian" or what have you.

[Padraig18]

135. But if we don't nominate a liberal...

... how can we enact our patented 'circular firing squad' strategy perfected by the party's left wing in the years 1970-1990? :P

Hello, Democrats! Do the names McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis mean anything to you, electorally? :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

142. We'll lose. 'Bush-Lite' will never beat Bush.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

14. Confusion with in the party?????

This is a great article. It shows that maybe the DNC and the powers wihtin are chickens with the head cut off, trying to focus on what the party truly stands for.

"Remember, we don't want the Democratic Party to look like America--it's America's job to start looking like us."

[drfemoe]

58. not registered at chicago trib

But we have to attend to some basic hygiene here. What would people think if the wrong sort of people showed up at the polls wearing a Howard Dean button? Why, they'd assume that Gov. Dean is a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan, that's what. The only way to avoid such misperceptions is to keep a safe distance between us and voters who have yet to achieve an acceptable level of enlightenment.

And THIS guy is enlightened? This sounds like freeper 'logic' to me. Oh my law!!! what will people think???

"acceptable level" ??
Where is the dem squad to make sure we all meet the requirements? Please, I'd like to take the test.

And don't expect me to be able to think for myself .. I ALWAYS think in such broad generalities.. this guy is a freepin freeper in a donkey suit. :silly:

[DrFunkenstein]

62. Dean Wasn't Attacked For Months On This

Because no one disagreed with the sentiment. However, he phrased it extremely poorly. It is not the kind of issue that you short-hand, but Dean was foolish enough to do so.

How would you feel if a White guy called a Black stranger the N-word, but without meaning any harm? In fact, he was trying to better relations by bringing the issue out into the open. He doesn't bother to explain that to the stranger at the time, and when he is asked to apologize, rather than saying he was sorry that he spoke poorly, he becomes indignant and hostile because his motives were good.

[MercutioATC]

67. Find me a context where a white guy using the "N" word isn't a racist

thing (unless he's Vanilla Ice) and I'll agree. The Confederate flag means different things to different people. The "N" word, when used by whites has no other connotations to the best of my knowledge.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. Amazing how you can both reiterate the point and deny it in the same post.

I guess it just shows that despite your protestations, you really do 'get it'. lol

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

83. Where's the distortion?

Please point it out.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. You said I distorted. That was a false and baseless accusation.

[Padraig18]

97. It is a true statement.

"Find me a context where a white guy using the "N" word isn't a racist


thing (unless he's Vanilla Ice) and I'll agree. The Confederate flag means different things to different people. The "N" word, when used by whites has no other connotations to the best of my knowledge."

Happy now? He did NOT agree with you.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

100. Please point out where I distorted someone's words.

I'll stand by any comment I made. Just what did I say that distorted someone's words?


Here's DrF's original comment:

"How would you feel if a White guy called a Black stranger the N-word, but without meaning any harm? In fact, he was trying to better relations by bringing the issue out into the open. He doesn't bother to explain that to the stranger at the time, and when he is asked to apologize, rather than saying he was sorry that he spoke poorly, he becomes indignant and hostile because his motives were good."

Here is the reply:

"Find me a context where a white guy using the "N" word isn't a racist
thing (unless he's Vanilla Ice) and I'll agree. The Confederate flag means different things to different people. The "N" word, when used by whites has no other connotations to the best of my knowledge."


And my reply:

"Amazing how you can both reiterate the point and deny it in the same post.
I guess it just shows that despite your protestations, you really do 'get it'. lol "


Where's the distortion?

[Padraig18]

101. And I'll stand by mine.

You did, and I did point it out.

Have a nice day. I'm not going to continue this 'pissing contest'.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

102. Despite your attacks on me, I'm proud to be a liberal AND a Democrat.

I suppose if you had your way, liberals like me would have to find another party.

[Padraig18]

103. Nope.

You'd only learn not to bluff while holding a pair of deuces, which is currently what your wing of the party holds, card-wise.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

104. The Democratic wing of the Democratic party - is the right wing?

[Padraig18]

105. No.

It is the centrist wing-- by far and away the largest part of both our party AND America itself.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

110. The 'centrist wing'?

OK. Come Thanksgiving, will you be eating the left, right, or center wing of the turkey?

LOL

[Padraig18]

111. Appeal to ridicule.

Shows the absence of a valid argument, I'm guessing. :shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

113. Is there such a thing as a 'centrist' wing? Does that even make sense?

[Padraig18]

114. Yes. Yes.

Although, if you prefer to be the semanticist here, I would be pleased as punch to let you choose another term---just be consistent.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

121. What you are saying makes no sense.

You'll have to find your own words, sorry.

[Padraig18]

123. Quit trying to have it both ways!

Either choose something you like, or deal with the words I chose.

[MercutioATC]

126. I think he has a problem with a "wing" not being on the side...

Perhaps "segment" or "contingent" would make him happy.

[Padraig18]

128. Perhaps, but I doubt it.

:P

[Feanorcurufinwe]

131. Honesty would make me happy.

Less liberal means more conservative. It doesn't mean more 'centrist'. :eyes:

[Padraig18]

132. Pure semantics!

:eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

137. How Paul Wellstone Won Elections

Populism, Organization and Conviction

Today, the silence that Senator Paul Wellstone's progressive voice once filled is deafening. The plane crash that took his life in late October, 12 days before Election Day, was an agonizing tragedy on many levels.

His absence is especially poignant because Wellstone would have won his re-election campaign and would now be serving his third term in the U.S. Senate. No fewer than five separate polls taken before the crash, including those of both major Twin Cities newspapers, showed Wellstone holding a lead of 4 to 8 points. For more than a year, Wellstone had withstood a barrage of coordinated attacks from his opponent, the national Republicans, and insurance and drug industry front groups. He was accused of everything from taxing the dead (because he did not support complete repeal of the estate tax) to supporting policies that supposedly would have led to the death of more American soldiers in Afghanistan. And still he held a lead, just as his campaign organization was about to start its massive get out the vote effort-which many analysts believe were estimating could have added at least an additional percentage point to his vote.

<snip>

Why does it matter that Wellstone was going to win this last election? It's important because it was to be a particularly significant victory with national lessons. He was bucking all the trends. He was an outspoken progressive, running against the hand-picked candidate of Karl Rove and the Bush White House, winning in a year when Democrats were pounded across the country. He boldly stood up for what he believed in a year when Democrats struggled to find a message. He mobilized hundreds of thousands of people through his campaign organization in a year when Republicans did better than Democrats on the ground in many states.

How did he win three elections? He employed a campaign strategy that combined a consistent message with grassroots organizing and personal authenticity. At the core of the strategy were three elements: a sharp focus on an economic populist message, an emphasis on building a campaign off a strong, organized base, and having the courage of his convictions despite the political winds.

Focus on a Populist, Progressive Economic Message

<snip>

Base-Building and Volunteer Mobilizing

<snip>

The Politics of Conviction

<snip>

These lessons of Paul Wellstone's political career have implications for politics across the ideological spectrum. His successes offer a particular model of political leadership for progressives who want to win elections: show voters what you believe in and that you'll stick to your guns; mobilize an army of volunteers; and focus on an economic populist message that resonates with liberals and independents alike.

Paul Wellstone was, at his core, an organizer. He believed in teaching, training, and mobilizing people to become leaders in their communities. What's more, he believed this work was his responsibility and obligation to those without a voice and to future generations. If that plane had not crashed, Wellstone would have won, and would have continued to teach progressives how to win elections, even in a hostile political environment. So it will be up to those left behind to carry on the work that Paul and Sheila Wellstone would be doing today.
http://www.wellstone.org/about/elections.aspx

I wish I could have included more, but rules are rules. Wellstone showed how it is possible to stand for progressive ideas -- without being a 'knee-jerk liberal' -- and win swing voters and energize the Democratic party's liberal base at the same time.

He didn't do it by camping out in the 'centrist wing' whatever that means.

[drfemoe]

154. The dem wing of dem party

is the wing that doesn't vote for all the resident's tax cuts, war plans, patriot acts .
.. someone who stands up to the 'establishment' whether it is the dem or repup
.. the wing that wants to return honor to the entire country, including the dem party
.. the wing that has the guts to face unpopular issues
.. the wing that wants a reversal to the damage done by playing along with the rules per res.
THAT WING.

If your self description doesn't fit that wing .. then what does it represent?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

156. Slogans are all well and good but they have to be backed by actions.

It not just who can recite the most rousing stump speech. What does that person do once in office? Does it match the lofty rhetoric? Does he really believe in protecting the individual from the runaway power of the state? Can we count on him to reverse the environmental degradations of the Bush administration? When the Republicans fight the renewal of the assault weapons ban how hard will he fight back? Will every two-bit dictator be able to push his buttons?

[MercutioATC]

157. I think the thing to keep in mind is that Dean, as Gov. of Vermont,

had the State of Vermont as his primary focus (and rightly so). National policy-making was the other candidates' (other than Carol Mosley-Braun, Sharpton and Clark) job. To take Dean's actual actions on many issues (gun control, for example) and tout his "record" as evidence of what he'd do as President is absurd.

I find it funny that people who don't support Dean keep bringing up the fact that he's not all that liberal. We supporters have known that since the beginning, and it's one of the reasons we're supporting him. He isn't trying to fool anybody. Regardless of how the media paints him, Dean campaigns as a centrist, not a liberal. He governed as a centrist, not a liberal. Yes, we understand that.

As a note on "assault weapons" and "semi-automatic weapons":

Here's the official definition of an "assault weapon" http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/complete.htm

A "semiautomatic weapon" is any firearm that fires one shot per pull of the trigger without requiring a separate action to chamber a round (eg. no need to operate a bolt or lever mechanism between shots). It is NOT a selective-fire weapon capable of burst or fully automatic fire. Simply put, assault weapons can be semiautomatic weapons, but not all semiautomatic weapons are assault weapons. Dean supports the assault weapons ban, but not a ban on all semiautomatic weapons. There's no breach of logic there.

[Padraig18]

158. Yep, yep.

You've explained it beautifully, and anyone not pre-determined to *not* 'get it' will get it.

:hi:

[drfemoe]

160. When I answer your question

and pose a question to you ... and you ignore both my answer and my question, I am MOST disinclined to answer any more of your questions. You aren't looking for answers or discussion. Maybe you've got a scrap book of Newspaper editorials you have used to craft together a mosaic to support your belief system. That proves nothing. I could pull a dozen newspaper articles together to 'prove' gwb is the best thing that ever happened to the planet. Like that would make it so ...
eom

[Feanorcurufinwe]

161. All you did was recite slogans from Dean's stump speech.

And ask some meaningless question based on those slogans as premises. I pointed out that Dean campaign speeches are alot of BS when you compare them with his record. Sorry to be so blunt.

[drfemoe]

162. wrong

that isn't his stump speech .. that's the 'platform' of the dem wing as I understand it, which is what you (ostensibly) asked.

And if you think that asking YOU what YOUR wing stands for is "meaningless" .. I guess that just about says it all

.. you represent nothing. :boring:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

163. I believe in

freedom, civil rights, public education, a strong social safety net, environmental protection, worker's rights, a responsible and moral foreign policy, progressive taxation. Anytime someone lists what they are 'for' it sounds great. But when it's time to govern, what happens then? What do they actually do? What are the real priorities? Does the record stand scrutiny?

[MercutioATC]

164. See, so am I (with minor differences). It's all about degree and method.

We're all FOR the same things. We just have a difference of opinion on priorities and the best path to take.

[MercutioATC]

107. I can't see where you find any lack of continuity in my post...

But I'll be happy to type slower for you...

1) It is my belief that calling a person the "N" word and displaying the Confederate flag are much different in that the "N" word is ALWAYS a racist term, while the Confederate flag is NOT always a racist symbol.

2) Therefore, I do not believe that DrFunk's proposed situation accurately reflects Dean's Confederate flag statements, or his subsequent defense of them.

I fail to see how I "reiterated the point and denied it" in my post. And yes, I DO "get it".

[Feanorcurufinwe]

109. I'm sure you do fail to see it.

lol

[Padraig18]

112. Stick. Dead horse. Beat. Repeat.

You're wrong, so why not just admit it? :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

117. I've declared myself as a champion of liberalism. You say I'm wrong.

You say(post 66): "The reason we've been losing elections is that we have allowed the looney-left and the gods of PC to dominate our party, rendering it out of touch with a majority of the electorate."



George Bush no doubt also believes that the Democratic party is dominated by 'looney-lefts'.

I'd guess that Russ Feingold is probably on my side of this argument.

What about Bill O'Reilly? I wonder if he thinks "The reason we've been losing elections is that we have allowed the looney-left and the gods of PC to dominate our party, rendering it out of touch with a majority of the electorate." -- I bet he'd be in total agreement with you.

Ted Kennedy? well, although you didn't have the courage to name names, I'm pretty sure Ted Kennedy doesn't think the 'looney-left' dominates our party.

I wonder if Ann Coulter believes that the problem with the Democratic party is that it is too liberal?

I know you are a Dean supporter and not a disruptor, troll or freeper -- and that's why I find it so hard to believe you are arguing that our problem is that we are too liberal.

[MercutioATC]

116. Is this like the other thread with the pic of Sharpton and Dean?

You know, the one where you connect two unrelated items and then respond to people who don't agree with short, smug answers?

[Padraig18]

118. You typed what I've been thinking. n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. This is a thread where I'm saying the Democratic party needs to stand for

it's liberal principles. I say we can win as Democrats, and if we try to run as pseudo-Republicans, we will lose.

[MercutioATC]

125. Great! I have no problem with you stating that (it's your opinion).

But when I offer a different viewpoint why do you claim that I'm contradicting myself, refuse to answer exactly HOW I'm contradicting myself, and then resort to short, smug answers?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

129. You say you have no problem with me expressing my opinion

and then call my answers smug?


Back to the topic at hand (which isn't me, or you, it's an article in the Chicago Tribune) I'll keep a wary eye out for other things written by this Steve Chapman guy. I know a right wing hack when I see one.

[MercutioATC]

133. See post #109

<<<Feanorcurufinwe (1000+ posts) Wed Nov-12-03 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #107

109. I'm sure you do fail to see it.


lol>>>





THAT's a smug answer.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

140. You said you fail to see it, and I said I'm not surprised.

If you want to take that as a reason to engage in name-calling... oh that's right, you already have.

[MercutioATC]

143. Name-calling? I just said you gave smug answers. You did.

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

145. You want this to be about me. It's not. It's about RW attack

on the Democratic party in the Chicago Tribune.

Here is what you are defending:

"Chairperson, Ideological Purity Task Force, Democratic National Committee"

" I know Howard Dean has learned the most important thing about this broad, diverse, tolerant, multicultural party of ours: If you're not like us, we don't want you."

"The only way to avoid such misperceptions is to keep a safe distance between us and voters who have yet to achieve an acceptable level of enlightenment."

"The right way is to inform them, politely but firmly, that their values are grossly contemptible--and then offer them guidance on how to change.

I can't be absolutely sure, because I don't actually know any people like that, but I suspect they would be deeply grateful for the re-education. They don't mean to be ignorant Neanderthals, and they probably aren't truly happy in their vile state. Call it "Liberal Eye for the Redneck Guy." Once we make them over, we'll be happy to welcome them into our ranks."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0311090488nov09,1,6875485.column?coll=chi-news-col

That is what you are defending, and both you and Steve Chapman are absolutely wrong about the Democratic party.

[MercutioATC]

146. We've come full circle, it seems. This is an attack on the DNC, not the

Democratic party. I don't feel that the DNC represents the party any more, either. That's why I'm defending this satirical article, because it calls the DNC's preposterous recent positions into question.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

147. You can call this an attack on the DNC, or on Zell Miller

but we are able to read it for ourselves.

[MercutioATC]

148. True. The article CLEARLY reads:

"From: Chairperson, Ideological Purity Task Force, Democratic National Committee"

Did it say "From: The Democratic Party"? No, it very specifically singled out the DNC (even going so far as to fabricate an "Ideological Purity Task Force").

How could you POSSIBLY not see this as a specific attack on the DNC?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

149. Like I said, we can read it for ourselves.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I wouldn't try to convince you that the sun rises in the east if Dean told you otherwise.

You say this is an attack on 'the DNC' - not the Democratic party.

You say the Democratic party is too liberal and we need to move towards the other side of the spectrum -- which oddly enough would not mean becoming more conservative.

:eyes:

[drfemoe]

81. "Race" Relations

One thing the discussions on DU have done for me is awaken me to the fact that I (and lots of us I hope) totally get the Black outrage.

A lot of people mention 'facism' when referring to current conditions in our country; but I think a better term is 'feudalism'. I don't like being treated like a slave. I'm not implying that it is equal in intensity to have actually BEEN chained in bondage and owned as property .. But I feel outrage at what I see as the current master and slave(s) paradigm that much of our political 'system' and culture rests upon.

Aren't we all mad about the same issue?

[Padraig18]

92. Yes, we are.

Economic disenfranchisement.

[drfemoe]

155. Human being disenfranchisement even n/t

[burr]

159. Another second-rate amateur freak show put on by the DNC...

First of all, as a candidate for election...Dean's comments will be judged by primary voters. The last thing our candidates need are "Tips on Campaigning" written by the DNC, especially after 2002!

Secondly, if you felt Dean's remarks were racially divisive...all the DNC is doing is advertising them both to the party and to our political opponents. Classic self-destruct behavior, and we would never see the RNC doing this.

Thirdly, it gives all the opposing forces more ammunition to dragout this destructive shooting match even longer! It gives Zell an opportunity to rip Howard Dean and all the Presidential candidates yet again for thinking southerners are all dumbass "HICKS". It gives the RNC an opportunity to dump on the DNC, for PUBLICALLY trashing southern, blue-collar voters..some who do fly confederate flags. And it basically defends Dean's opponents, who wish to endlessly repeat this charge that Dean is a bigot, from any such counter-responses.

Is this type of hate filled discussion really going to reduce racial tensions in our country or even in the party? Time for people to take the chill pill and relax...or else there will not be a party left to do the nominating this summer!! x(

just be glad it was a bad joke and not the real thing...