Dean's subtle "state's rights" subtext will slowly move to the forefront

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

First, I may or may not support Dean in the primary. This is true of every other candidate with the exception of Lieberman and Sharpton, who I will NOT support.

Everyone here has to have noticed how much he endorses state's rights. This is why the NRA could be supportive of him. This is also how he's going to make Bush (IF Dean is the nominee) eat his "no child left behind." Look, we all know the truth about Bush and his lies, but the media makes it very hard to put together the entire narrative. Dean's "state's rights" position in response to a number of questions sets a nice foundation for his attack. He will attack Bush from a state's right position on education. The president's education plan, he will argue, first is dishonest, and second is straight from WASHINGTON (another Dean subtext). How dare the president tell citizens in Louisiana and Arizona how to test and educate their children. The president promised not to interfere but interfere he has, and with horrendous results. The substance, ufortunately, doesn't matter much. But the overriding message does: your state should choose how to educate (without WASHINGTON's intrusion).

I really think this is the tack he'll take. It moves him to the right, and it allows him to put out a vision for education reform. Again, the substance makes no difference in today's media. It's only about message and how one frames one's position. Sad but true. Dean has repestedly emphasized states' rights and I don't think it's coincidental. It will allow him a lunge to the middle (at least for the media). He can say he's always been on the record for such things. It gives him an overriding political hermeneutic. And it makes his general message simple, while allowing him to fill in the details as he goes along. He will use it against the federal deficit, arguing why in God's name would we allow these people control over our states when this is how reckless they are with the country's money.

Again, I'm not arguing for reality (Dean may not be for any of this in terms of his own policy history); I'm thinking only in terms of message and framing the debate.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. true, that's Dean major hope in the general I think

It's part of the "rural strategy" and I think it could work, maybe.

[chimpymustgo]

22. Dean invoked states' rights on the SC Confederate flag. Yuck.

When asked on MLK Day last year whether the flag (which was flying over the statehouse) should come down, Dean said it was up to the people of SC to decide.

That's taking a stand. Thanks, Howard Brush Dean III.

[bowens43]

26. He didn't 'invoke' anything.

He told it like it is. Quite refreshing to have a candidate who isn't willing to wipe his butt with the Constitution for political gain.

You're right, he took a stand and although unpopular , it was the correct one.

[chimpymustgo]

29. Did you see him stammering, and ducking and dodging when he said it?

It was the first time I'dnever really seen Dean before. He was pathetic. Hemming, hawing - and OF COURSE - he later CLARIFIED his position - that he felt STRONGLY that the flag should come down.

LOL.

[bowens43]

31. Huge difference between 'should come down'

and implying that it is something that the federal government should or could facilitate. Hemming and hawing? Possibly. He knew that the correct answer would not be popular with his supporters but he gave the correct answer anyway. Nothing pathetic about it. Dean was correct.

[chimpymustgo]

38. It is an issue a true LEADER should take a stand on.

Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt - everybody else did. Dean was so worried about alienating SC voters, he pulled his usual bs.

[bowens43]

46. He did.

He said it's up to the people of South Carolina to decide. That is the only correct answer to the question.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

55. A point: States do not have rights

States have powers granted to them by their citizens. (Plus, the term "state's rights" was often used to mean state-sponsored racial segregation" - how about "local government" instead?

[BurtWorm]

60. Excellent point. Maybe "local power" should be the watchword.

It's worth working on this point, because it's radical in the original sense: back to the roots. A well-thought out local power position could be the beginning of the end of Empire.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. I think it would be a good idea.

I think the increasingly centralized nature of our government has done more harm than good. I think social programs could be structured at the national level but how they ar eimplimented should be left more up to the states. If Dean did this he would take a vital talking point away from conservatives and they would become the big government home spying conservatives. Especially with things like the Federal Marriage Amendment ect. I dont think Dean is liberal, conservative or moderate. I would call him a progressive because he takes the ideas from both sides that have worked in the past rather than being an ideologue.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. He only uses this argument wehn it is politically convenient

it's not based on principle. Witness his self-contradictory position on federal gun control laws.

[bowens43]

34. Example?

Be specific.

[sandnsea]

4. That's Republican policy

Why in the world would anyone support a candidate to "take back the Democratic Party" whose basic principles are Republican? How can this be a good thing for Democrats? Why support Dean because he's going to go right in the GE?

Give me a pragmatic liberal who says exactly what he thinks from start to finish any day of the week. If we want a liberal Democrat with a proven record who can actually beat Bush, John Kerry is the ONLY choice out there.

[headlouse]

6. States rights is kinda a big ball of wax...

And it is no longer just a republican position. Just look at medical marijuana or other drug law reform or look at various cities/counties that have passed anti-patriot act measures. With these and other issues, liberals now have a vested interest in some measure of states rights.

[redqueen]

9. You would have a point

If he were waving the 'state's rights' flag during questions about medical marijuana or drug law reform.

What exactly are his stances on medical marijuana and drug law reform? Does he want to leave those up to the states as well?

[redqueen]

39. Does anyone know if he has the same answer for MM or AS?

Medical Marijuana and Assisted Suicide?

Has he responded with 'states' rights' when asked about these issues?

This really needs to be discerned before we give him too much credit.

10. exactly

After all, as things currently stand if you go for states rights then medical marijuania is legal in California, right? Hardly a Republican position.

(I must be typing slow, Redqueen beat me to it)

[sandnsea]

12. Federal policy can trump that

It isn't a states' rights issue at all, as we've seen with Ashcroft. It's a matter of changing federal policy which is why we need somebody who actually believes current medical marijuana policy and drug policy truly harms people and will lead from the federal level. States' rights is what people say when they don't want to protect every citizens' rights or deal with problems that cross state lines. It's a position of weakness, not strength. It panders to those who would trample on civil rights. It is NOT a Democratic principle at all. Same with Dean and his letting individual National Parks decide on the environmental policies of those parks. That is NOT leadership and I don't want somebody who won't take a stand on anything in office.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

15. National Park policy and states' rights

is an anathema. That's pretty simple, and if this is his position, then he's wrong.

[bowens43]

23. Supporting the Tenth Amendment is a sign of weakness!?!?!?!?!?

Yes, it is a DEMOCRATIC principle. Like it or not , Democrats do support the Constitution. Wow. If Kerry feels the same way you do I made the right decision in not supporting him.

[Ripley]

11. Exactly. Ashcroft went after Oregon's euthanasia law and

New Orleans prostitution leniency (instead of checking into terrorists that were learning how to fly planes but not land them).

State's rights are not solely repub positions.

[sandnsea]

14. Ashcroft, exactly

That's why these issues are not states' rights. The federal policy must be consistent in protecting individual rights in those states. Protecting the right of the individual in Oregon is a federal civil rights responsibility. Just like protecting the rights of gays is a federal civil rights responsibility. Tossing off every single issue as a states' rights issue is wrong for the country and will result in no protections at all.

[Ripley]

17. I cannot understand your statement.

It is state's rights. Oregon voted twice I believe to allow doctor's to perform euthanasia in very certain circumstances. Euthanasia is not a federal law, but a medical procedure, dealing with people's values. Believe me, Alabama will never allow that to be legal. They have consistently voted down a lottery. Is the lottery a federal issue now, should the federal government say people have the civil right (to pursue happiness you know) to gamble in every state?

I don't toss off every single issue as "state's rights." But some are.

[sandnsea]

36. Dean's aren't

Issues that affect people across state lines are not states' rights issues. The ones Dean tends to toss off as states' rights generally fall into that category.

I live in Oregon. Euthanasia is not administered by a doctor. The patient takes the medication themselves. The doctor can prescribe the drugs under very strict circumstances. It is an individual civil rights issue, not a states' rights issue.

Medical marijuana has been decided based on the right of a doctor to prescribe medication. Ashcroft has circumvented that because of federal drug law. Again, it is not clear that it's a states' rights issue at all. Which is why we need a President who understands that and will work towards a comprehensive federal law to allow medical marijuana.

Which is very different than gambling which has no necessity to it and has no protection in the constitution whatsoever.

[bowens43]

56. "comprehensive federal law to ALLOW medical marijuana"

You have it exactly backward. Federal laws do not ALLOW things, they prohibit things. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate marijuana within a states borders. Same with euthanasia. It certainly IS a states rights issue.

As for gambling , you're wrong again (at least as far as the federal government is concerned). See the 9th Amendment.

[sandnsea]

59. Making it legal is to allow it n/t

[BurtWorm]

43. Federal policy is not to protect individual rights

but to make laws governing the federation of states according to the principles laid out in the US Constitution. Every action the federal government takes to overrule a state law must be governed by legal precedent founded in Constitutional principle. When the federal government acts to end discrimination by states against individuals, it's on the basis of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment (I think). Ashcroft's clampdown on medical marijuana and euthanasia will be challenged in the courts, and he will have to explain himself on Constitutional grounds.

What do you think those grounds will be?

[sandnsea]

58. Yes, Equal Protection

Not States' Rights. It is clear we have a loon in Ashcroft who seeks to use federal law in ways it shouldn't be used. We've seen that with him digging up 1800's laws to arrest Greenpeace. But that isn't a justification to ignore individual rights and the importance of federal protection when the long tradition in this country has been to use States' Rights to avoid doing what is right for the people.

[BurtWorm]

62. But a position that argues in favor of empowering states and local

governments to do right by people--i.e., to empower (and enfranchise)them--could be extremely powerful, pardon the repetition, not only as a campaign strategy but as a principle of social reorganization, away from Empire and back toward democratic-republic.

[sandnsea]

68. It got us poverty, ignorance, and opression

I understand that most decisions are local and that respecting local differences can be a good thing. However, it has been proven time and again that the local community will too often support the majority over the minority. That is not what our Bill of Rights or this country is about. It is about protecting the rights of the minority so that the majority can never force its will and cause harm to groups because they're "different". It is why we have national protections for so many groups of individuals. It's why education, health care, housing, banking, voting, etc., have federal protections. Going back down the states' rights road is very dangerous for minorities and the country. You never know when YOU become that minority and will need YOUR rights protected over the individual State.

It isn't to say we want a completely federally based country. But when it comes to individual rights over States' Rights, then the federal has a responsiblity to protect the rights of the individual. That's just the way I see it.

[BurtWorm]

69. All this is very nice, but governments don't--can't, even--act

solely on the basis of being nice or good or decent, etc, because then they would be acting as arbitrarily as ones acting on the basis of the greed or power-lust of their representatives. Their actions need to be rooted in procedure that can be tested for its Constitutionality.

[bowens43]

19. States rights 'Republican policy'????

You're kidding right? Sorry, but the Constitution belongs to all of us, although the Republicans would like to convince voters that it's just their domain.

[sandnsea]

41. States' rights to trump individual rights

Is absolutely the Republican position. Every single time they want to outlaw something that violates individual civil rights, they haul out states' rights. They almost always lose. Going down that road is dangerous for individuals and just one more reason I reject Howard Dean.

[bowens43]

49. What individual rights were being violated in this instance?

No, supporting states rights is an AMERICAN position.

65. agreeing

and here's the text ....why not?

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[mrgorth]

5. Yep

He's got a quasi-libertarian thing going on and I think it'll work.

[robbedvoter]

7. NAACP will especially appreciate this agreement with W:

In 2000, candidate W angered NAACP with his position:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9714-2003Nov6.html
The highly nuanced, ever-tortured debate over the Confederate flag has laid political minefields for presidential candidates for years in this critical early primary state. South Carolina was the last southern state to remove the Confederate flag from its statehouse dome, transferring the banner to a flagpole in front of the capitol in 2000. That same year, then-presidential candidate George W. Bush sparked a controversy by refusing to take a position in the South Carolina dome debate, saying he felt it was a matter for state residents to decide.

Here's HD washing his hands off it:

From the transcript of CNN's Inside Politics with Judy Woodruff,
January 14, 2003:
WOODRUFF: In the state of South Carolina, where you'll be campaigning,
on the state Capitol grounds flies a flag with the insignia of the
Confederate flag. Should that come down?
DEAN: I don't like it, but that's a matter for the people of South
Carolina to settle, not me.
WOODRUFF: So, you wouldn't urge them to change it?
DEAN: I just said, I don't like it, but it's not for somebody from out
of the state to fix that problem. That's an in-state problem.

[bowens43]

20. An absolutely correct position.

Thankfully Dean , unlike some of the other candidates, isn't willing to sell out the US constitution for political gain.

[BurtWorm]

24. Where does the Constitution stand on the flag of South Carolina?

I'm afraid Dean is right. It is a state, not a federal, problem.

[redqueen]

8. In other words

Our party will nominate a Democrat that will use a Republican stance on issues to try to defeat a Republican?

What was that saying about giving voters a choice between a Republican and a Republican?

This is STUPID.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. States rights are a Constitutional issue.

Not Pug or Dem.

[bowens43]

18. You're opposed to 'states rights'?

Are you also opposed to the US Constitution.

It is spelled out very clearly:


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It's about time we have a President who not only takes an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution' but one who actually understands what it says.

This Liberal DEMOCRAT supports the Constitution of the United States.

[redqueen]

21. I'm not 'opposed to states' rights'

What ever gave you that idea?

What I'm saying is this: if Dean uses this tactic on Republican issues (like the flag, which is what bush did), then it's a loser, and stupid. However, if he uses it to deflect medical marijuana, or assisted suicide, then it's not.

Clear enough?

[bowens43]

25. So states rights should only apply when it's popular with liberals?

This isn't an 'either or' situation. The Constitution spells out the powers given to the federal government. It places limitations on the power of the federal government. We do not get to pick and chose when those limitations apply. To have made any other response than that which Dean made , would have been disingenuous and hypocritical. It would have validated the conservative claim that Democrats support the federal government over the Constitution and personal freedoms.

Clear enough?

[redqueen]

35. Ugh

You insist on responding to things I'm not saying. Why is that so popular around here?

I didn't say we should only observe states' rights when it's popular with liberals. I was commenting on his use of this tack in the campaign.

Get it now?

[bowens43]

52. Yes, I get it.

'mislead or distort for political gain'. No thanks, I've had enough of that from the current administration.


If a Constitutional issue is raised in the campaign, it needs to answered in Constitutionally correct manner. This is what Dean did in the flag issue, hopefully this is what he will continue to do when confronted with this kind of issue.

[redqueen]

54. We agree completely

I hope this is a consistent position for him, and that he manages to educate the public about it.

But based on what I recall reading about his stance on medical marijuana ... I'm not expecting too much.

[bowens43]

61. Well let's hope he does take this stance with medical marijuana.

You're absolutely right, it's an issue for the states not the federal government. To say otherwise would be inconsistent.

If Dean gets the nomination (which is by no means a sure thing) this will certainly become an important issue. Also , Alaska is getting ready to vote on the legalization of the possession and use of marijuana in private settings, this too is a states issue. I wonder how he feels about this?

[BurtWorm]

27. I think, as grendelsuncle suggested in the original post,

that Dean's position is not only more subtle, more true to the intent of the authors of the Constitution, and more healthy for the democracy on all levels than the Republicans could ever dream of taking, but also potentially brilliant strategically, precisely because it delineates when the federal government can step in and take control of an issue (as when equal protection is violated by state law) and when it cannot (as when the issue exceeds the reach of the US Constitution's provisions).

[redqueen]

37. You have a great point

I agree he could do great using this, but based on what I've seen so far (he's advocated states' rights for guns, flag), I'm really not too confident he'll use it for medical marijuana and assisted suicide (which would really complete the whole, and convince people he really is interested in upholding the constitution, and not just pandering for swing votes).

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

13. I don't understand how "state's rights" became republican policy.

Because it's not. Medical marijuana is a state's right, since its citizens voted to legalize it. Yet we hear HOWLS from this board about Ashcroft (and rightfully so) stepping on citizens' state-given rights. I'm afraid we've allowed the republicans to again co-opt a position that isn't republican or democratic but is part of the fibre of this country. Why do we have a Supreme Court if states' rights is simply a republican policy? Certainly, you won't maintain that the Supreme Court is only there for an individual's right (PLEASE, DEAR GOD, DON"T MAKE THIS ARGUMENT). If you were appalled at Bush V. Gore, for example, then you were for Florida's rights to govern its own legislative process.

I find this idea of states' rights as republican policy quite frightening. I'm in no way implying Dean has offered an anti-federal government rhetoric. But you can't be duped into believing the republicans' false dichotomy of states' rights versus the federal government. If you buy into this duality, I hate to say it, but you're not that far from the thought process of the Freepers, who only see it as a dichotomy and have chosen "STATES' RIGHTS." The two work together in our system. It's really that simple.

If you're anti-Dean and want to find fault with him, that's great (like I've said I may or may not support him). But don't let your aversion to him lead you down a path of intellectual myopia.

[BurtWorm]

28. Extremely well said, grendelsuncle!

grendel should be proud! :toast: Dean's consistency on this is a beautiful thing to watch.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

32. Look, if he knows what he's doing

then there's a number of issues he's going to be able to attack from this position. And he can give them a progressive twist; imagine that, state's rights within a progressive political framework. He will decry the federal debt; he will decry the Patriot Act and executive power; he will reveal "no child left behind" as a failure and as a revelation of what happens when repubs. grab hold of federal authority.

Look, I may or may not support Dean. His response to the flag in SC was wimpy, to tell you the truth. He's worried about that southern white vote. His response should have been: "that is a state issue UNLESS someone's civil rights are being infringed. If South Carolina wants to portray itself as potentially bigotted and undoubtedly insensitive to a major part of its citizenry, that's up to the voters of that state. I'll tell you one thing, though, if that statehouse receives any federal dollars, I'd demand that it be taken down (or lose those federal dollars) because I don't think the federal government should pay for a symbol that attempted to overthrow said government and secede. That would be beyond ludicrous."

Please note: the above response may or may not be constitutional. I don't know and I may have just committed a major "gaffe."

[BurtWorm]

57. I'd like a response like that!

Whoever the Dem nominee is should be working on this, to construct a progressive state's rights position.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. "State's rights" history lesson

"State's rights" was the rallying cry of the segregationists. It is an argument we Democrats have fought for a long time. We have a Federalist system framed in careful balance and passing the buck on difficult issues by saying it is 'up to the states' threatens that balance.

During his campaign, Wallace talked of physically putting himself between the schoolhouse door and any attempt to integrate Alabama's all-white public schools.



On June 11, with temperatures soaring, a large contingent of national media looked on as Wallace took his position in front of Foster Auditorium. State troopers surrounded the building. Then,flanked by federal marshals, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach told Wallace he simply wanted him to abide by the federal court order.

Wallace refused, citing the constitutional right of states to operate public schools, colleges and universities. Katzenbach called President Kennedy, who federalized the Alabama National Guard to help with the crisis. Ultimately, Wallace stepped aside and the two students were allowed to register for classes.

But the incident catapulted the governor into the national spotlight and he went on to make four runs at the presidency. It was also a watershed event for President Kennedy, who in staring down the South's most defiant segregationist aligned himself solidly with the civil rights movement.

Vivian Malone Jones, then a 20-year-old transfer from an all-black college, said her goal was simply to sign-up for accounting classes. "I didn't feel I should sneak in, I didn't feel I should go around the back door. If were standing the door, I had every right in the world to face him and to go to school."

Two years later, she became the first African American to graduate from the University of Alabama.
www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1294680.html

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

45. 1860's - Civil War - States' Rights

He is exactly right. Supporting States' Rights to trump individual civil rights is an old tactic. It is very dangerous to throw the Democratic tradition of protecting individual rights aside for the States' Rights mantra. Civil unions, gun safety, the environment; how much more is Dean going to take out of the umbrella of federal protection.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

40. You're using an individual's perverse reading of states' rights

to argue against states' rights. I don't think that's fair. You're above analysis is ABSOLUTELY correct and demonstrates yet another example of the right's attempt to hijack and co-opt our government. But I wouldn't use the example of the Japanese internment during WWII to argue the absolute evil of federalism and for states' rights.

I really didn't intend for my post to be about states' rights versus federal jurisdiction (though I've enjoyed the posts immensely). I just thought Dean's positioning was interesting.

Again, I think many work under the fallacy of "either/or" where no such dichotomy exists. But I'm willing to consider that I'm wrong and that states have no rights except those granted by the federal government. But then I'd have to ignore A LOT of legal history to come to that conclusion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. You asked, I answered.

That is part of the history of how Democrats, or more accurately, progressives, became suspicious of people championing state's rights. Because it has often been used as no more than a smokescreen.

I am explicitly not making the either/or argument you refer to. I also do not see in any way how Japanese internment relates to this discussion.

[bowens43]

44. "It is an argument we Democrats have fought for a long time. "

Nonsense. All of the Democrats I know and I know many, support the Constitution INCLUDING the 10th Amendment. Yes, evil people have tried to twist the 10th amendment to their evil purposes but they were defeated. Segregation was NOT a states rights issue because it violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. You noticed didn't you, that Wallace LOST this fight?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. What is nonsense is the implication

that I don't support the 10th Amendment or the careful Federalist balance between state and federal power. The poster asked when state's rights became a Republican policy - and I answered -- although of course Wallace was a Democrat at the time, so I think it would be more accurate to say conservative policy.

Conservatives are still the greatest champions of the states rights argument -- it is a simple fact.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

51. You're absolutely correct.

They are the greatest champions of states' rights. They've co-opted it and made it part of their platform. But they didn't invent the issue. They've perverted it. We really should take it back.

Because the repubs. co-opt things doesn't mean we should allow them to claim it. I'd be willing to be a lot of money that the vast majority of flags on cars belong to repubs. too. So is patriotism their issue? They champion the hell out of it. Or are we simply inundated by their definition of it? I think it's the same with states' rights.

Please, I don't mean to be snide at all in my responses to you. If I have been, I apologize. It was not in any way intended.

[adamrsilva]

42. Those are the types of positions Dems should take

See, the Dems are never liberal when it counts (Iraq war), but are when it hurts us the most (gun control). No wonder we lose so much...

[mydawgmax]

47. What about civil unions?

I believe I have heard Dean say, (if I'm wrong please set the record straight) that he dosen't support a national civil unions bill becuase it is a states rights issue. That some states aren't ready for it - Vermont was. This is what troubles me about his states rights approach. If you support civil unions due to a belief in the basic civil rights of all, regardless of sexual orientation, then how can you use a states rights approach? Full civil rights in some states and not others? Maybe not all states were ready for desegregation? It was federal action in the face of the assertion of states rights that was responsibile for much of the civil rights progress made in this country.

[adamrsilva]

53. Cause maybe he doesn't want Bush to have a 49 state landslide?

Along with gay marriage, people aren't even ready for civil unions everywhere either.

[JohnKleeb]

64. wait hes not for federal civil unions law

Thats a shame honest, I thought he was, people weren't ready for civil rights in the 60's either yet you had men like Bobby and LBJ at every turn. I am not criticizing Dean, I just am expressing my disappointment that he doesnt support a federal civil unions law, its one thing that he doesnt support one for gay marriage, thats understandable, but I always thought he prided himself on signing this law, in fact to be honest, a federal law for civil unions with gay marriage up to the states may be a fair compromise.

[mydawgmax]

66. Thats my point

I guess thats my point - and I use Civil Unions as an example - not the only one. Civil rights have to be pushed at the federal level over "states rights" objections becuase in some places Civil Unions may never be acceptable. I'm not surprised Dean is not pushing it-- he is a politician and he is trying to win an election. I do wish he wouldn't cloak the issue in a States Rights argument becuase that opens up a whole can of worms regarding civil rights generally. As democrats, we should be embracing a strong commitment to civil rights on a national level, not a state by state approach.

[JohnKleeb]

67. Ive read that very few of the public wanted to integrate in the early 60's

but ya know what, through the actions of some brave indidvuals like Dr. Martin Luther King and countless others, my generation is very integrated and tolerant. Gays deserve this too, I am a hetero but I would like to see gays be treated as my equal, not only under the eyes of god or the law but under our eyes. I urge Dean to support a federal civil unions bill NOT gay marriage, I understand why people find that risky but civil unions, if he wont push that, then thats a shame.

[burning bush]

63. Dean is taking on Nixon's Southern Strategy

Let it be noted that I've brought this up in this forum before.

"States Rights," when used by Republicans, is a catch phrase for racism, and is a term used to divide, not unite.

Dean has given every indication that he has seen this, and understood what to do about it.

He constantly reframes solid Dem positions in the context of states rights, and is bringing new blood and ideas to the party under the same methodology.

Republicans think they want a race against Dean, because they don't understand him or his campaign at ALL.

Dean is playing to win the Dem nomination right now, and I have to agree that the tactics used to win the nomination will not win the GE. So, I forgive all the Dean Stoppers who think Dean can't win, and I am not afraid of Republican faux support.

When Dean wins the nomination (and it is looking like it will be closer than I once thought, but still a Dean win), expect to see Dean begin relating new ideas, using new catch phrases, and placing a stronger emphasis on certain issues. All designed to take back the South and South-West without alienating the Northern or Western Dem strongholds.

The net effect will be Dean victories in the South-West, a few Southern areas, Gore's solid Blue states, and a few Bush marginal states, pushing the US into the sea of Blue that will be 2004. I'm not predicting a landslide, but a decisive victory nonetheless.

2006 will take back the Congress, on Dean's coat tails and with a revitalized Dem party, and 2008 will be the year to start talking landslide.

Patience.