From 2004, Howard Dean's views on crossing party lines to vote with extremists.

[madfloridian]

Dean on party discipline from 2004.

From 2004 You Have the Power, by Howard Dean.

He gives his idea of how we got sidetracked from standing for our core principals as a party:

From page 64"

During my presidential campaign I jokingly referred to the Democratic Leadership Council as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Some criticized this as a "gaffe". (The definition of a gaffe for Washington insiders is when you tell the truth, and they think you shouldn't have.) Yet it is true that the DLC contributed, however inadvertently, to the ascendancy of the Repubican Party by trumpeting the abandonment of the traditional values of the Democratic Party. We forgot that our values were what the people we represented needed, so our base became uninterested and despondent."

There was an abandonment by the party of the groups that should have been represented...labor, unions, minorities of all kinds.

"Democrats shouldn't be crossing party lines to help Republican ideology dominate, or breaking ranks to vote for measures like the Medicare prescription bill....There should be consequences for Democrats who do. For one thing, there is no reason not to pose primary challenges to Democratic incumbents who vote with the Republicans on critical Democratic priorities. When our own folks vote with Tom DeLay, it means that DeLay who is not stupid, gets to go to congressional Republicans from moderate districts and tell them he doesn't need their vote to pass his right-wing bill because he has enough Democratic votes to win."

"..Our opponents in Congress are extremists. We're fighting now for the future of our country and the future of democracy. To vote with the Republicans is to let extremism get the upper hand. In the past, our party's own ideal about inclusiveness kept us from having the necessary tools to fight. We need to toughen up. We can't afford to be divided by members peeling off on issues that touch upon our deeply held beliefs.

We don't need to march in lockstep on every vote. But on critical votes that touch on our key issues, Democrats can not abandon their core values. The history of the twentieth century teaches that we must never compromise with extremists."

This is what I think he means when he says "You Have the Power". The DNC is not able to do that. Other groups can, individuals can.

The central issues to me:

The votes on the Iraq war resolution, and the upcoming votes about staying or going.

The votes on the bankruptcy bill.

Upcoming votes on privatizing Social Security, votes NOT being taken on fixing the horrible Medicare D drug plan.

Trade bill votes...fast track. Done in secret as Rangel said or done in the open so we know what is going on.

Voting with the right wing to curb rights of women and gays.

Those are what I would label core issues in my mind.

One more statement by Dean from page 176.

A recurrent laugh line used by hundreds of Democratic politicians at thousands of Jefferson Jackson dinners all over America is the old Will Rogers saying:

"I don't belong to any organized party, I'm a Democrat."

We'll just keep laughing at that line until we laugh ourselves and the American Dream right into extinction. It's time to be disciplined, time to be organized, time to renew ourselves, time to reach out.

It's time to fight back.

[waiting for hope]

1. Agreed - and for the

life of me can not understand what is so terrible about the core values of the Democratic party....I am damn proud to be a liberal, I care about how people are treated, I care about the environment, I care about human/civil rights....I CARE. I want a Congress that cares about the American people as a whole.

"There was an abandonment by the party of the groups that should have been represented...labor, unions, minorities of all kinds."

That says a lot - we need to get back to the core principles.

[havocmom]

2. Kick for the good doctor's good sense

Thinkin I might send this to Max Baucus :evilgrin:

[madfloridian]

3. Well, we don't want the good doctor to forget it either.

Gotta keep him on his toes. He can't talk like that very much now....but can't let him become too DC.

[Lasher]

4. Get thee on to the greatest page

It's been an uncompromising war for a long time but only one party seems to realize it.

[madfloridian]

7. His words from 2003 over and over: "You do not compromise with the right wing"

And we compromised on the war, pushed the bankruptcy bill, went along with the Schiavo stuff, became fearful of standing up for women's right and gay rights....

And the worst was the way they refused to fight back against those extremists judges who are now with us for decades.

[dsc]

9. I think the Schiavo stuff was different

There were a good many Democrats, especially people like Harken who are staunch defenders of the disabled, who legitimately felt there was a federal role there. You may disagree, that is your right. But people like Harken weren't sell outs on that issue. They honestly believed in that bill.

[madfloridian]

10. It was about government interfering in personal decisions. They all knew it.

Just like the government and courts have now interfered in women's rights.

Dying has been a private matter between families and doctors until our government intervened.

[dsc]

12. For many, many disabled people and their activists this was

about just how disabled does someone have to be before they are killed. I know you disagree but that doesn't change the fact that many disabled people had a legitimate belief that this bill was about that.

[madfloridian]

13. Your use of the word "killed" told me enough.

I went through too much arguing with you about women's rights, which you are not particularly strong about.

Not going there with you anymore.

Terri Schiavo was NOT "killed."

[dsc]

14. You are not the fount of all knowledge

nor apparently are you that able to read. They felt it was a slippery slope (something like you feel about pharmacists and birth control) in that they felt that today Terri tomorrow someone who is paralized or mentally challenged. I know you don't agree with them but that doesn't make them the craven sell outs you continue to portray them as. People can disagree with you without being bigots, sell outs, liars, or other nefarious things you wish to portray them as. For the record, on Shiavo, I felt then, and feel now, that we do need to look at laws giving a husband such power. There was no real evidence, other than through him, that she felt the way he said she did. While I agree with the efficacy of the final result in this case (she was clearly brain dead) I do see some very real potential problems with husbands deciding to end life support for their own selfish needs. I could easily see, say a Scott Peterson, deciding Laci Peterson's fate and don't particularly like that idea. The Florida courts never got to the issue of what her wishes actually were due to the fact that he was permitted to act in her stead. I am very leary of that kind of power being given to a spouse. I don't think what the feds did was the correct solution.

[madfloridian]

15. You used the word "killed". That ended any discussion.

.

[dsc]

16. It isn't my fault you won't read posts

This is what I said:

For many, many disabled people and their activists this was
about just how disabled does someone have to be before they are killed. I know you disagree but that doesn't change the fact that many disabled people had a legitimate belief that this bill was about that.

Note what I didn't say. I didn't say that Terri Shaivo was killed. Nor did I say I believed what they believed. They felt, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, that allowing Shaivo to have life support removed could lead to other people with less severe problems having the same thing happen. Again, as you almost always do, you simply refuse to read posts and respond to them but instead make crap up and respond to that. That isn't my problem, it's yours.

[madfloridian]

17. 'the fount of all knowledge"?

I'm not?

Coulda fooled me. I always put myself up on a knowledge pedastal.

:think:

[Pastiche423]

21. I would LOVE to see a link

to your, "many, many disabled people and their activists..."

How many disabled people do you personally know?

Where did you get such an idiotic statement?

[madfloridian]

25. Good luck on getting that link.

I have learned not to argue with him on rights for women, and now I am learning about all of us being wrong about Schiavo.

:shrug:

[msongs]

5. howard dean, the un-obama and the not-hillary.

what I liked best about howard dean was his concrete, detailed plans about what he would like to do. no mealy mouthed grand gestures lacking specific content or dodging issues and questions.

all our current candidates would do well to dust off dean's policies, pamphlets, books and materials and put them out again as the new democratic party agenda.

Dean for president in 2008.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[ljm2002]

30. Agreed on Dr. Dean...

...it really is a *tragedy* what the media did to him when he ran. Not for him -- he is doing very well, thank you -- but for the country. Basically our strongest candidate was destroyed by the media themselves, because they see their role as the water-bearers for the Republic Party for some reason.

Oh, for another plain speaker as one of our top candidates! I know we do have a couple (Kucinich comes to mind), but I sadly concur that Kucinich is not electable -- even though I would vote for him without hesitation. He is a real fighter, and he is one of the very few actual practicing politicians who also has very progressive policies.

Edwards comes closest in the so-called "top tier" -- at least he has put the party's core values front and center, and stands up for the poor and the middle class. But he is hardly a plain speaker in the mold of Dr. Dean.

Well there is of course the silver lining: Dean's role as DNC chair was instrumental in giving Dems the slim -- yet surprising -- victory we got in 2006. He has shown us the truth of the old advice, "Don't get mad, get even." We all need to keep it in mind -- well, actually, here's how I'd word it for our current situation: "Get mad, and get even."

[madfloridian]

6. "Party failed to live up to its mission of being a party for ordinary people. "

I believe the polls have borne out this statement overall.

"The American people have felt equally disenfranchised by Democrats and Republicans. They weren't entirely wrong. While I believe the Republicans are responsible for the lion's share of what has gone wrong in America over the past few decades, I don't think they are wholly to blame.

..."The Democratic Party has for some time failed to live up to its mission of being a party for ordinary people. While we haven't actively sought to undermine Democracy and the American sense of community (as I believe the right wing Republicans have done) we have neglected to stop the decline when we could have. We have sacrificed our core mission for what turned out to be erroneous short-term calculations about political viability. And we have lost the people's trust along the way.

Page 55 You Have the Power.

[Rose Siding]

8. Even as chair, Dean has talked about primary challenges to dems

in congress who don't vote like dems.

That he's lasted so long is proof that his successful 50 state strategy has already shifted power.

[madfloridian]

11. I hope so very much...

and I tend to agree. It most certainly will be tested by fire before very long.

[Vidar]

18. K&R.

[madfloridian]

19. I think there will be a fine line to walk between holding the party accountable....

and being supportive.

If we don't speak up, things will never change. If we do speak up even fairly, there is risk of alienating people.

I don't see how we can see a month with votes like the funding bill and with the trade deal being handled in the background without speaking out. Like Charlie Rangel said...let's just do it catch hell.

Rangel..."bam, seal it and catch hell" ...about the trade deal

May be a fine line but watching things like the increased funding for the abstinence only education...how can we not speak out?

[madfloridian]

20. Dean spoke up for activists in 2003.

In 2003 Howard Dean stood for activists when the DLC called us "fringe".

Dean Statement in Response to DLC's Charge that Public Servants are
"Fringe Activists"

“Once again, the DLC has chosen to put their own political agenda
ahead of the progress needed to unite the Democratic Party. This election
has barely begun, and the DLC has repeatedly dismissed people who attend
caucuses, who get out the vote, and now the 1.3 million members of AFSCME as
‘fringe activists’ who do not reflect ‘the mainstream values, national pride
and the economic aspirations of middle-class and working people.’

“The DLC staff can say what they want about me, but they owe an
apology to the 1.3 million members of AFSCME. Our teachers, our health care
workers, and our state and local public servants don't need a lesson from
Washington insiders about the needs and concerns of middle- and
working-class families. What they need is a Democratic Party that will stand
up for them.”

Posted by Mathew Gross at 04:27 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000206.html

The Dean for America archives are not accessible now.

[wyldwolf]

22. yet candidate Dean played the defection card himself

From Josh Marshall at TPM:

Howard Dean said yesterday that DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe should rein in the fusillade of attacks coming Dean's way from other candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.

For the moment, I don't have any particular comment on that. They can attack. He can say they shouldn't attack. He can ask McAuliffe to make them stop. Whatever ...

But then Dean goes on to imply (once again) that his supporters won't support another Democratic nominee.

"I don't know where they're going to go, but they're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician," the Times quotes Dean as saying.

The Times goes on to say ...

"Though Dr. Dean has repeatedly said he would back whichever Democrat wins the nomination, he said Sunday that support was "not transferable anymore" and that endorsements, including his own, "don't guarantee anything."

http://web.archive.org/web/20041204110607/www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_12_28.php
I don't care if Dean says he'll endorse whoever wins. He's playing the defection card. And that crosses the line.

I don't doubt that it would be hard to reconcile some Dean supporters to another Democratic nominee. But that's not the point. By saying it, he's leveraging it, and encouraging it.

The price of admission to the Democratic primary race is a pledge of committed support to whomever wins the nomination, period. (The sense of entitlement to other Democrats' support comes after you win the nomination, not before.) If Dean can't sign on that dotted-line, he has no business asking for the party's nomination.

[madfloridian]

23. I knew there was a reason...

So I guess back you go.

Actually, I would not have blamed him for defecting. I admire his staying on trying to keep the rest of the disillisioned on board.
I feel often like deflecting myself.

One group has screwed our Democratic party for years, they ain't done yet, and their supporters come here to say that those in their social class don't like country music.

Harold Ford is now insulting Democrats on Fox News. That whole wing of the party looks down their noses at us peons.

I say good for Howard Dean for speaking out and caring enough to hang around to try to keep the party together.

So you go back to your high class friends who look down their noses at those who like country music and such. Go back to them, ww, and tell them to say hello to one country music fan who was raised on classical piano, gave concerts....go ahead and let your superiority show.

And be sure to tell on me to the admins...like you often do.

[wyldwolf]

24. awww... putting me on ignore won't stop inconvenient truths about Howard Dean

[PassingFair]

26. Let's not forget that Dean's foulest critic was the lovely Lieberman.

And we know who HE SERVES now, don't we.

[wyldwolf]

27. so? Does that excuse Dean for threatening to send his supporters away?

Nope, not at all. You can't excuse Dean for playing the defection card by pointing to Lieberman.

[PassingFair]

28. As I recall, Dean vowed, ON STAGE, during the debates, to cede

to the winner of the primary.

Don't you remember?

[wyldwolf]

29. We're talking about Dean's statements in regards to his supporters

[PassingFair]

31. Right. Mind Control.

:crazy:

[madfloridian]

32. Keep up the good fight, PF

I see only one side of the conversation, so you keep fighting while I keep my sanity.

:think:

Sounds pretty interesting.

:hi:

[PassingFair]

34. It only SEEMS interesting.

Same poop.

Different election....

:hi:

[wyldwolf]

36. yeah, it only seems so. When PF can't add 2+2, it gets boring fast

[wyldwolf]

35. much like that mind control that keeps you and MF obsessing on the DLC

[rinsd]

33. Strange Howards Dean seemed to think these were Democratic values

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

Though I expect him as head of the DNC to be a bit more harsh when it comes to party discipline and core Democratic values.

[madfloridian]

37. I thought about this tonight when I read Jane Hamsher's interview...

at Mother Jones. It is sort of along the lines of getting them to listen to the needs of the people. Spoken in true Hamsher form, it gets right to the point....they will no matter who wins have to start listening because there are too many of us talking to each other now.

http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2007/07/jane_hamsher.html

"MJ: Can a Democrat win without winning over the blogosphere?

JH: The Democrats are still trying to play this Big Tent bullshit over a center that doesn't exist. As they wake up and smell the coffee, they'll realize they have to play to the base. The place the base goes to organize, get its opinions, is increasingly online. It may not be everyone, but it's everyone who are the opinion makers, the people who collect at the water cooler in the office, and everyone wants to know what they're thinking. They tend to have influence beyond what their numbers would indicate. In this next election cycle, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama probably don't need the netroots behind them-they just need us not to hate them. Whereas we could be more helpful to the candidacy of a John Edwards or a Bill Richardson or somebody like that. But beyond 2008, they're going to be dealing with a situation much like the Republicans are. They have a base and they have to be able to speak to them. They won't be able to marginalize the netroots, because it's not one blogger-its not Markos, it's not Atrios-it's the way the base communicates with each other."