Dean: Democrats need 'big tent'

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050723-104020-8334r

Dean: Democrats need 'big tent'

WASHINGTON -- Young Democrats need to embrace Americans with different ideas and create a more civil tone in politics, the party's chairman said yesterday.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told the group of about 700 students at the annual convention of the College Democrats of America in Washington that "it's a moral value to respect those who disagree with you."

He defended the party's support of pro-life Democrat Bob Casey Jr., saying that the party needs "a big tent." Mr. Casey is challenging Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, in the 2006 election.

Mr. Dean said Mr. Casey is a good Democrat because "he cares about the child after it's born as well as before."

<</SNIP>>

[KittyWampus]

1. Dean Hitting Nail On Head Once Again! When He Hits The Mark, He's

very effective.

Mr. Dean said Mr. Casey is a good Democrat because "he cares about the child after it's born as well as before."

Thanks for posting, btw, will read whole piece later today. :)

[Rose Siding]

2. he he...Tancredo's "a lunatic"

snip>
But he criticized Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, whom he called "a lunatic." Mr. Tancredo recently came under fire for suggesting that the United States would retaliate for terrorist attacks in major cities by bombing Muslim holy sites, including Mecca. Mr. Dean said Mr. Bush "should put a collar and a mouthpiece" on some Republicans.

[sabra]

4. Dean rocks!

[Cha]

49. "collar and a mouthpiece"..

Dean has a way with word imagery.

I think "lunatic" is being on the polite side of things when describing tom tancredo.

[DemBones DemBones]

105. He should have said "collar and a muzzle" -- what

the hell is "collar and a mouthpiece" supposed to mean? Mouthpieces were lawyers who got gangsters out of jail in old movies.

[davidinalameda]

114. I can see a ball gag

:-)

[Extend a Hand]

3. this really worries me

I just don't feel comfortable including those that do not actively support a woman's right to make *all* medical decisions related to her pregnancy.

[MindPilot]

8. I agree; restrictions on reproductive freedom have no place in the party

And to make that tent even bigger, the government must get out of all medical decisions, not just those related to pregnancy and not just just those related to women.

[Rich Hunt]

101. I agree too, but

Rancor has gotten us nowhere. We may get further by finding common ground on other issues and moving forward from there.

[54anickel]

12. JMHO, but this is a step to "neuter" Roe as a wedge issue that's been

used by the right to cause divisiveness for so long.

Polls have shown that the majority don't want Roe overturned. No one is "pro-abortion", but that's the rights ploy, "with us or against us" all or nothing". It blocks the probability of having an intelligent discussion on the issue of abortion, and more importantly what can be done to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies to begin with. I say open the tent.

[Extend a Hand]

20. it is not possible

to have an intelligent discussion regarding abortion (or really much of anything) with the hard-core fundies.

[54anickel]

30. Who's talking about hard-core fundies? Are you saying Bob Casey, Jr is

a hard-core fundie?

Are you implying that to be against abortion (but not wanting to see Roe overturned) makes one a hard-core fundie?

Where from my post did you think I was talking about a discussion hard-core fundies - because I don't think you'll find any of them in the "middle", which is where I think Dean is talking about.

Seems we can be just as bad as the far-right. We here pro-life and assume hard-core fundie. They hear Dem, liberal, left, pro-choice and assume pro-abortion. That's an example of a wedge issue working EXACTLY as planned. People from both sides need to stop allowing themselves to be played.

[DemBones DemBones]

106. Very well said. There are many pro-life people who are

far from being hard-core fundies. Some, like me, are already Democrats and see being pro-life as a progressive stance, opposing war, capital punishment, abortion, and euthanasia. Back in the sixties and seventies, we were all against the war, against the death penalty, against killing, and then all of a sudden we were supposed to be for killing unborn babies. It didn't make sense then or now.

I have to say that it has seemed for years to be the intent of the party to drive us pro-life Dems out. I'm glad Howard Dean and Hilary Clinton are trying to include us again. All I've ever wanted is for Dems to work to reduce abortions, not to ban them.

[Iowa]

34. "Neuter Roe As a Wedge Issue..."

I agree completely with this comment by 54anickel. I have three siblings who were raised in a strongly pro-union, Democrat, Irish/Catholic family that despised everything the Republicans stood for (even before the current evil, virulent breed of neocon that exists today). All three have been duped by the Roe wedge issue. I think they're idiots. Roe isn't going anywhere; the Republicans themselves will see to that because Roe has worked so well for them! I'd be willing to bet that there are millions of others who think like my three siblings, and most would return to the fold if this could be neutered as a wedge issue. Dean is right.

[Rich Hunt]

102. yeah, that was my point, too

We can't make our own perspectives clear without respectfully listening to the other side.

I think that on some issues, progressives have failed in that regard.

[iamjoy]

24. It Worries Me A Little Too

Because I am pretty hard core Pro-Choice.

but then I think about the Republicans. They had people like Pro-Choice officials like Olympia Snowe and Arnold S. on in prime time at their convention. They also give them full support in their campaigns.

I have said in other threads that I do not think we (the Democratic party) should change its platform on abortion, but why must it (under any title) be the primary focus of a debate?

On the other hand, Democratic leaders can do more to reassure Pro-choice groups (and voters).

[Seabiscuit]

37. Neither do I, but what other Democrat besides Casey is challenging

Santorum for his seat? I think that's the quandry Dean finds himself in. Notice Dean said nothing about compromising our principles. He spoke of "respect".

[nicknameless]

71. How can ANYONE recommend giving up a woman's right to choose?

The Roe decision has saved countless women's lives.
Those who want to compromise on this issue are advocating trading votes for women's lives!

Is he also going to want to open up the big Dem tent to white supremacists?
Gotta allow for equal-opportunity bigotry, after all.

[MindPilot]

5. Howard Dean speaks truth--as always

but before the Dems can claim the "big tent" they need to act more like they represent the people who elected them instead of the corporations who bought them off.

I wish HD were out there more scolding the Dems who voted for the Patriot Act II or sided with the credit card companies on the bankruptcy bill.

[H5N1]

6. I'm with you on that. They need to get behind us -

let us know what they are doing for us and why it is
in our best interest.

[stray cat]

7. Dean is right only if we actually want to ever be in power

and have any political clout. Otherwise we can sit in our own little idelogically pure subgroups and self-righteously designate every one else as ignorant idiots and exist as a fringe political party to the republicans.

[Oreegone]

9. Right on!!!

Couldn't have said it better. Open the doors and open your minds, cause the moderate Republicans are coming and we need room for them in our party. We are having Republicans who have switched parties coming to our Democratic Central Committee meetings, ready to work. Please give them a chance. I know this is a big issue but it ain't the only issue.

Dr. Dean we love you, Rock on!!!:kick: :loveya: :grouphug: :yourock: :woohoo: :patriot:

[Don1]

13. Actually, no.

You do not need moderate Republicans to win. You won the last two Presidential elections with your current platform. They just cheated. Now, you move to the right to get more of them on board. They will cheat again and you will have lost everything. A bigger priority is to deal with this electoral problem.

[54anickel]

15. Is this really a move to the right? I don't see it that way but rather a

step back away from the corporatists that have divided this nation using wedge issues that do not have a black & white answer.

I think this opens critical dialog to begin the healing and taking our party back. Critical thinking, constructive conflict management, respect for all sides of an issue is how some of the greatest innovations come about.

[Don1]

21. It is a move to the right.

There are statements about which say the DNC campaigns are not going to give in to the left or right. In other words, centrism is the goal.

[Psephos]

17. You're talking about the presidential race...

...which is not a good indicator of whether Dems won or lost. If we owned Congress, * would be hamstrung. The truth is we lost rather broadly in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Broadly enough that repugs control House, Senate, Presidency, and the majority of governorships.

We do need a bigger tent. Calling it a move to the right is a twist of words designed to protect ideological purity at the expense of popular majority. We're actually talking about a move closer to the center, where the most votes are. I know that drives our brothers and sisters on the farther left crazy, but the repugs did the same thing over the howls of the harder right, and got results to show for it. Political winners build coalitions by finding some common ground. Political losers splinter apart.

Of course the electoral issues need addressing, but cheating is only effective in close races. Once an election goes beyond four or five percentage points, it's nearly impossible to cheat without leaving incontrovertible evidence of fraud. By analogy, if you want to avoid losing a tournament basketball game due to a bad foul call, make sure your team is up by ten points late in the second half.

Peace.

[shance]

19. The truth is we did not lose 2000 or 2004. That is not correct.

And respectfully I believe it is not healthy for the country to perpetuate an illusion and remain in denial about the fact that there have been two elections that were given to Republicans, but were won by Democrats.

[Psephos]

25. Read my post again, please...I am not talking about the presidential race

I'm referring to the broader election.

Peace.

[Don1]

22. You said...

"We're actually talking about a move closer to the center, where the most votes are..."

You were already at the center before.

[Psephos]

26. Where I am or you are is not relevant.

What's relevant is where the votes are.

Do the math....

Peace.

[Don1]

65. Do the math? I have.

Democrats are going to overtake Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008, regardless. The reason is that the Reich wing has been exposed for what it is. There is no need to move right.

[kaya33]

115. I thought so too.....

but there are some pretty strong arguments for the Republican party to stay in control. I was pretty sure last election we had it..sadly mistaken.
"Here's the very bad news - the Democrats will almost certainly lose in 2006 and again in 2008, for three essential reasons: (a) the GOP and the Bush junta simply cannot afford to lose, (b) they can prevent their defeat no matter what the voters have to say about it (as they have in the last three elections), and (c) apparently the Democratic Party, the media, and law enforcement are unable and/or unwilling to do anything about it. "

[bvar22]

29. Bush* would NOT be hamstrung....

...if enough of the Dems in Congress are Republican Lite. Electing Republican Lites to positions in Congress only INCREASES the total number of Republicans in Congress.

[CTLawGuy]

45. it is not about moving anywhere

its about not pushing people who don't agree with you on everything out of the party.

In the primary you are free to support anyone you want, you are also free to challenge dems whom you feel don't really represent you anymore, but come GE time, we need to embrace a broad range of ideas or only the republicans benefit.

I was really unhappy with Kerry and I worked to make Dean the nominee, but we lost and I got behind Kerry in the GE.

For those in PA, if you don't like Casey, run someone against him, but if you don't win, support him, he's better than in-sanitorum

[Psephos]

46. Darboy, you got that exactly right

In the primaries, try like hell to get your favorite candidate on the slate, but when it comes time for the general election, whether or not your candidate is there, support the party, and don't shove fellow Dems around or drive them away. We have two choices in the elections: find common ground, or lose ground. I can't believe how many people don't understand this most fundamental rule of politics.

I had to hold my nose a little to rally for Kerry (I wanted Dean, too), but Kerry smelled like an armful of lilacs next to the *other* choice.

Peace.

[Gronk Groks]

68. Anyone would be better than Santorum...

...Casey may be Republican-Lite but even that would be an improvement.

I supported Dean for the primary, but the issue was already decided by the time it got here. Kerry was honorable but un-charismatic, but better than Bush.

But God forgive my soul, I didn't go out and campaign for him...
...and I will have to live with THAT decision for the rest of my days.
:cry:

[Don1]

99. Sometimes it is about moving right...

For example, just answer these 2 questions with a yes or no.

If you live in Connecticut and Liberman defeats Orman (and other contenders) in the Dem primaries, then are you going to vote for Lieberman?

If you lived in Georgia and Zell Miller won the Dem primaries running for Rep in your district, then would you vote for him?

People who vote for the right-winger just because of this notion of "party unity" are destroying the Democratic party.

[1932]

11. I second that "right on"

Naomi Klein has written some very interesting things about how organizing the left might no longer be about getting everyone on the same page but will be about figuring out ways to take advantage of the way the left can float in and out of coalitions that generally move in the same direction, or something like that.

At the very least, if we can't all be on the same page, then we might as well appreciate that fighting together rather than against each other is the minimum requirement for moving forward. But I really don't see what's so hard about being on the same page.

LIsa Duggan has written an interesting things about that issue -- about how there is a very simple set of central principles that connect all progressive movements, and the problem is that people on the right who are better organized and have more money have figured out ways to insert wedges between progressive single-interest groups.

Duggan believes that liberals were able to figure out the common themes until Republicans got organized in the early 70s. Klein says new technologies have made political discourse and activism much like the the internet -- people get a little bit of information, they have their own interests, but they get their instant messages telling them which corner to show up on. So, it doesn't matter whether they all agree -- what matters is that they get out and act.

Both arguments have their merits. However, no matter which argument you believe, your post is right on.

[sendero]

14. You...

.... saved me the trouble. :) Exactimundo.

[Orion The Hunter]

23. Dmordue is right on point!

The Democratic Party cannot get back into power if it continues to make abortion its litmus test for being a member. There are plenty of liberal minded folks in the country who may disagree with abortion on several grounds, and disagreement is fine. Its when people denounce anyone not being pro-choice as a right-wing nutjob that the Democratic Party winds up turning off people who'd probably see eye to eye with most of the Democratics policies. And that plays right into the hands of the Republicans...

[Cha]

50. I agree..Really Big Tent

TIME!!

[sled]

53. Truer words...

never spoken. Sometimes I wonder, reading some of these threads, who's the real "puritans". On one hand one's supposed to be "open-minded" & "progressive", & at the same time, either embrace ideologies that you don't happen to agree with, or get lambasted for questioning the logic, behind some illogical "new age" drivel, that strains the bounds of reason...

There's a middle ground here, & Dean's trying to bury the hatchet, & open the debate. Absolutely a reasonable idea, & it's time, all these issues, either stand on their own merit, or get dumped in the trash bin, of history...if they're indefensible, then we shouldn't be forced to try to defend them.

Personally, I'd like to see civil liberties be the #1 priority, even if it means truly embracing a "bigger tent", so many seem to so vehemently oppose...America's big enough, for all Americans, & the party would do well, to follow suit. If we all agreed, on everything, what fun would America be. Mind your own business, leave your neighbor alone, stop trying to be holier than thou, & the laws should be, do as you please, no harm, no foul, the American way...let the party begin, & freedom reign...we have nothing to fear, but fear itself...


:party:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. Gee, Dr Dean....could you talk about THE MOTHER??

[Maddy McCall]

28. Our "ideologically pure" rights are negotiable, don't ya know.

I feel sick.

[nicknameless]

61. I can't believe what an eye-opening week this has been.

So many so-called progressives on DU are apparently willing to jettison Roe v. Wade in exchange for votes.
How many women's lives have been saved by that ruling?
These people are advocating trading women's lives for votes.
Un-freaking-believable.

[sled]

81. Good question...

That nobody here, seems to know the answer to...so, please enlighten us, "so-called progressives" who might not necessarily oppose "Roe v. Wade", but don't have a clue, what the answer is...

"How many women's lives have been saved by that ruling?"

:shrug:

[nicknameless]

87. Look it up, sled.

Prior to the passage of Roe, backalley abortions cost women’s lives.
Home-methods of pregnancy termination (coat hangers, knitting needles, etc...) cost women’s lives.
Look up statistics on women’s and girls’ lives lost during childbirth.

What’s an acceptable number of deaths?

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[nicknameless]

90. My, what a porcine post.

I’m not going to do your research for you.
Either you are sincere about wanting to know the answer, or your question is disingenuous.

You don’t know anything about backalley abortions and you won’t look it up. You’ve even gone so far as to refer to the practice as “inflammatory hyperbole,” and actually had the audacity to write: “I'm just not concerned with something, that may have never even happened, in the last 50 years, if at all, in the first place.” ... So I’m going with disingenuous.

The statistics for women and girls who lost their lives in childbirth, which would be pertinent, would be those prior to Roe’s passage.

Also, implicit in your original question is the suggestion that a certain number of deaths is acceptable.
Exactly how many deaths per vote do you consider to be acceptable?

Then you write that “life’s just too short” to concern yourself over the issue. It’s a good thing that it will never affect your life. How very fortunate for you.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[nicknameless]

104. HOW MANY WOMEN’S DEATHS PER VOTE IS OK BY YOU, SLED?!

The bar hasn't moved a damn inch. And, no -- I’m not doing your fucking research for you.
You just keep proving over and over again that you don’t give a rat’s ass about the answer to your question.
You see women’s lives as expendable. And yeah, that makes you a misogynist.
Don't like the word? Then stop being one.

You want to pretend that women, who didn’t have access to safe and legal abortions prior to the Roe ruling, didn’t die.

As far as your other blather goes, I can’t say that I’ve ever seen so many unrelated, moronic, clichés strung together before.

So what's the number, sled? Exactly how many women’s deaths per vote DO you consider to be acceptable?

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[shance]

16. Why not be more welcoming to pro choice women and men who

have been Democrats and progressives for decades and have given their loyalty, time, money and effort and dedication to Democratic causes and not to mention, have promoted empowerment for everyone?

I think we should begin there. To welcome and encourage those to run for office who have truly worked to include and not divide. Seems to me we should be recruiting those who have been fighting for civil rights, women's rights, gay and lesbian rights, EVERYONES rights, instead of recruiting and seeking approval and acceptance from those that seem more concerned on dictating others actions than worrying about their own.

Seems to me we need to first to bring back those who have become discouraged by the Democratic party and have felt abandoned and ignored. I think that is more advantageous, more lasting and certainly more powerful than recruiting those who are more motivated by controlling womens' choices (and bodies) and often times, pushing their own religious beliefs onto others as well.

We talk alot about not being dictated by the Republicanized viewpoint and yet moving to the "right" is exactly that. Those who are more concerned with telling others what to do are not those who are interested in the big tent philosophy and diversity.

They are interested in conformity and uniformal thought and structure. Continuing to let a right-winged, patriarchally based view dominate and be considered as main stream is what is eroding the nation because it dislikes diverse thought, and doesn't promote creative thought and expression. In fact as we are seeing with many Republican leaders they have effectively declared war on diversity. This type of mind set tends to perpetuates a superior/inferior mentality that divides and separates people into classes and categories in stead of promoting inclusion and diversity.

The realitiy is, it has been anti-abortion zealots (certainly not all anti-abortion individuals are in any way zealots) in the Republican party, that have disregarded others choices. Many of the 'zealots' of course would never even have to make such a choice of keeping a child or aborting it because they are male.

Certainly for some who are anti-abortion their conviction is real to them and authentic. However, it has been the anti-abortion extremists who have drowned out and intimidated those in the Republican party who support a woman's right to choose and have effectively silenced any other beliefs but their own limited views even to be considered within the Republican party.

It has been "pro-life" individuals that have assaulted, harmed and even murdered doctors at abortion clinics. Of course most "pro-lifers" wouldn't ever think of doing such a thing, however many "pro-lifers" are actually those who in the end, have an obsessive need to dominate and garner control over others and use abortion and so often, the bible as an excuse to cover and/or shroud their true intent.

That's what the Democratic party is now more interested in recruiting?

I am also baffled why the DNC is singing Casey's praises when there is another, more clearly defined Democrat running for Pennsylvania senator named Chuck Pennachio? And isn't the election primary the place and time for allowing citizens to decide their candidate and not the DNC, DSCC, or DCCC?

[napi21]

32. I can tell you why all the Dems are backing Casey.

I used to live in Pa. (for 42 years!) The Casey name has a very positive sound there. His father was a popular Governer, and he's very well know across the State. I sure never heard of Chuck Pennachio, and because Casey is already popular (and Santorum ISN'T) it's simply not worth spending the $$ to promote an unknown.

[shance]

42. If Bob Casey is popular, why did he lose handily to Rendell?

Unofortunately Casey is not a popular name to women who value the right to govern their own body.

Bob Casey was not so popular when Bill Clinton didn't allow him to speak at the Democratic convention.

The Casey's are Republicans. The issue of women's right to govern their own bodies is only one of a few significantly important issues that Bob Casey falls on the 'right' side of. I'm sure they are nice Republicans, but nevertheless, they stop pretending they are Democrats, because their beliefs and actions (Bob Casey versus Planned Parenthood is one example of his fathers legacy) fall much more in line with Republicans.

[dsc]

44. Wrong on several counts

First, Casey won reelection in 1994, after Clinton refused to let him speak (due to Casey not having endorsed him). BTW, his opponent that year was a pro choice woman who had endorsed Clinton. That would be the year that many Democrats such as Ann Richards and Mario Cuomo lost.

Second, I would like the name of one, out of the few hundred elected Republicans in Washington, who are to the left of Casey on labor issues, enviromental issues, and issues of taxation. Just one, out of the several hundred that are there, will do. Yes, I will demand an issue by issue comparision.

Finally, Casey lost the Democratic primary, primarily due to the fact that most Democrats live in or around Philly in PA, he also ran an ill advised attack ad which bit him in the ass.

[rabid_nerd]

18. Great post...

Go Chairman

[phiddle]

27. Yes, Howard, but it's a side issue.

Polls consistently show that 57-60% of the electorate is pro choice. If we get them all, and get them all to the polls, we win consistently. Anti-choicers tend to be more fanatical, and we'll rarely get them to vote Dem.
So, why do many pro-choicers end up voting Repub? They have them mistaken impression that the Repubs are strong and thrifty. Meanwhile we have not well articulated the fundamental progressive principals---good employment, secure pensions, adequate health care, freedom from government intrusion in private life, and prudent, pricipled foreign policy.
IMHO we must play the class card---the Repubs' policies benefit only the wealthy while causing the middle class to weaken by the year. Focusing on these fundamental principles will avoid being splintered by social wedge issues and create stereotypes which work for, rather than against, us.

[saracat]

31. Fuck this big tent! That is why we are going to get Roberts!

I can't take this anymore.Dean and all the otherappeasers shoule STFU. I am sooo sorry I asked for support for Dean. Never again. He is an appeaser! I am furious. I guess I no longer have a party that supports women's rights. I am soo upst that I might as well get out of this country. Dean is going to push me into resigning my party position if this keeps up. Pro choice is more important than pro Dem. I have had it.I am a liberal and not a Repuke lite!

[HereSince1628]

38. But what's the attraction inside the Big Top?

I think the Democratic party embraces a deep and abiding Liberalism which is largely characterized by tolerance and acceptance. In that sense we are always prepared to let people into the tent. We take in refuges from all sorts of political issues. Our tent is populated more because the environment outside the tent is not as tolerant as that inside than it is because the inside of our tent has attractions.

As a consequence many of the folks that come into the tent don't always coalesce around anything that resembles what could be called a Democratic ideology or even pragmatically a Democratic agenda. Many of the folks in the tent are Democrats because of a single issue.

Liberalism is fine but we need a reason that people are drawn to the tent. We need to put our ideals on a display in the center ring, that reaches across single issues.

[Sgent]

89. We are getting Roberts

Because WE ONLY FUCKING HAVE 44 SENATORS.

That's why we are getting Roberts, make no mistake. If we had 55 like the repubs, there would be no question, and we would have no Roberts.

Hell even Clarance Thomas was confirmed by a DEMOCRATIC senate (as was Scalia).

[nicknameless]

107. And how about this Dean quote from 2004:

"When you trade your values for the hope of winning, you end up losing and having no values....so you keep losing."
-- Howard Dean, 2004

Has he forgotten this?!!!

[Demeter]

33. We Have a Big Tent Already

It's just that some people keep trying to shrink it to fit little minds, or bring it crashing down in a fit of pique, or remodel it into either a restrooom or a castle.

Start with what works, and build from that. If you take down choice, you take down the party.

[napi21]

35. We Dems don't realize just how many Pro-Lifers already vote for Dems!

I happen to be one of them! I can also introduce you to quite a few more!!!

I don't usually get involved in the abortion fight here, because I believe we all deserve our own opinion.

It does really aggrivate me though, when you start slamming Dean for promoting acceptance of a lot of different ideas into the Party.

Dean is RIGHT when he says we can NEVER hope to win a National election if all we yell about is Abortion and Gay Marriage. Nobody ever said anyone has to give up their convictions! I sure don't want you to. You see, I KNOW that nobody is telling ME that I HAve to have an abortion, or that I have to be GAY! But that's what our opposition is telling their folks we're all about.

We MUST start NOW to promote the wide variety of issues that matter to people all across the country! We need to promote OUR ideas on how to fix health care costs, outsourcing of jobs, the destruction of pension plans, loss of our rights stated in the Bill of Rights, and a host of others! Those things matter to people in every State!

We are finally getting somewhere with getting people's attention on the bad ethics of this Administration! We need to keep pushing that and telling everyone we knowthat they might not have heard! But while doing that, we need to also convince them that we really do have better ideas, and yes, we're much more ethical than thee guys, and here is how we will make America better for it's people and how we'll convince the people of the World that Americans aren't bad people, it's just their current leadership...but they're on their way OUT!

[54anickel]

41. Good point. We need to be the ones framing the issues that you listed.

As I've stated in other posts on the matter, I don't want to see Roe over-turned. From the polls, that seems to be the view of a small majority of people.

I think boths sides would be in agreement that we'd like to see the need for an abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy become obsolete. I seriously doubt the majority of Pro-lifers are against birth control. Seems to me those pharmacists are on the fringe. :shrug:

[Seabiscuit]

36. Dean's in a tight spot - as DNC Chair, he has to support Casey's challenge

to Santorum. This is probably the least offensive thing Dean could say about it all. It's really a rather innocuous message.

[UrbScotty]

39. Go Howard! Nominated!

:woohoo:

[Writer]

40. Dean seems a little "DLC"ish to me.

Hmmm... :shrug:

[CTLawGuy]

47. not really

the DLC is about pandering to "swing voters" by taking positions that resemble watered-down versions of republican ideas. The point of this is to be more 'electable'. The DLC was formed because they thought people like Walter Mondale weren't electable enough.

What Dean is saying is that the party should be inclusive of a range of ideas, meaning those with minority views should be welcome in the party. This will help us grow our party. He's not saying we should try to move right to have a better chance of winning.

[Writer]

48. There's a very interesting application of set theory here.

A includes all of B, yet B (apparently) doesn't include A, even if it's completely a part of A.

So, if Dean is to support a big tent, ALL lines of Democratic thinking should be tolerated. Even those that appear to be Republican-lite. Right?

Wrong according to your response. We should include Dean's moderate approach toward abortion but throw out OTHER moderate approaches to abortion... and taxation... and corporate finance... etc.

Notice that the DNC is typically mum on corporate issues. Why? Well, maybe its really not all that different from the DLC. At least, not in practice. And that includes Howard Dean.

[Larkspur]

55. DNC mum on corporate issues? The DNC broke it's fundraising record

this year with the help of small donors, not corporatists.

[Writer]

59. So... no corporate money funds the DNC?

Any extra cash is helpful, whether it's from "corporatists" or the little guy.

[Larkspur]

98. Corporate funds are welcome as long as corporations don't expect to

write legislation favoring them by Democrats.

[CTLawGuy]

66. you misunderstand the issue

DLC = the party should CHANGE its ideas in order to be more electable

Dean = the party should be inclusive of a diversity of ideas, that doesn't mean anyone should give up their principles, but extend the Democratic brand to a lot more ideas.

[Cha]

51. Or is Dean saying we should

let corporations buy us off and not listen to the People ..Who Have The Power!

[liberaliraqvet26]

43. The party should not be a special interest group...

While I am staunchly pro choice, Dean is on point here. There should not be a prerequisite to be accepted in our party. That is what NARAL and Planned Parenthood are for, of which I am a donor. Our party is a collection of ideas. Abortion is not the ONLY thing that makes us dems.

[newblewtoo]

56. Excellent Point

The number of voters lost boggles the mind. Abortion seems to be a lose lose for the Democrats and win win for the pubs.

[goforit]

52. Heres a diferent idea....take our flag back from GOP minority!!!!

1776.

[tmorelli415]

54. Pro-Choice is an Albatross Around the Party's Neck

Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned anytime soon, and even if it was the issue would revert to the individual states to decide. Republicans in Congress aren't in any hurry to lose the abortion issue, and a bill to completely outlaw abortion would never pass.

The Democratic party has been held hostage to NARAL and other abortion rights groups for too long. There is plenty of room for differing opinions on the issue, as with all platform issues. So why not be 'more welcoming' to pro-choice than moderates or pro-life voters? Because the pro-choice people are not going to bolt the party if it becomes more centrist in its stance toward abortion! Where are they going to go? Vote for Republicans? There are not enough single-issue pro-choice voters to be concerned over even if they did decide they would stop supporting the party for taking a centrist stand. And those who would abandon the party for taking a nuanced stand on a complicated issue like abortion are clearly just trying to hold the party hostage and we should let them go if that is what they want to do! They have no other viable option but to support the Dems, or lose all access to power. The pro-choice lobby is a huge albatross around our neck!

We're just playing into the Republicans' hands if we keep harping on this non-issue - they use it to drive natural Democratic constituencies out of the party and win elections. ***NEWS FLASH!!!*** Dateline 1973! Abortion is legal! We won! But the debate has gone on for 30 years non-stop and it has been our undoing. How about we take 'yes' for an answer and MOVE ON!

The issue is not abortion - the issue is privacy and freedom. The discussion should stop focusing on abortion policy, parental notification policy, etc. and be raised to the core Democratic value of individual PRIVACY and FREEDOM from government intervention in our private lives.

Allowing other viewpoints into the party will negate the argument that Democrats are the 'pro-abortion party' - instead both parties would have a variety of viewpoints on the issue and it would be neutralized. Thus allowing us to talk about INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM and PRIVACY. Republican-Lite? Not at all! Centrist means we support the privacy issues that surround healthcare decisions (including abortion). Republicans want to stick their noses into the patient-physician relationship, into our bedrooms, and up our collective national a**. Big difference.

This values platform works across the board and raises our argument out of complicated social policy discussion. It covers many many issues - not just abortion, but also gay relationships, feeding tubes, library books and sexuality. Privacy issues should remain private - hollering about them individually is just going to make people uncomfortable and that is what we've done wrong. Most people support pro-choice policy, but they are conflicted in that they find abortion very disturbing. Same with issues like homosexuality and assisted suicide. We're getting clobbered on those issues even though our policy is supported by the majority. There's a reason why our grandmother's said certain things were better left out of the conversation at the dinner table! PRIvACY and FREEDOM from government intrusion in our personal lives is the mantra - leave it at that! The Republicans will lose big if we raise the dialog out of policy and into the values that have always guided the party!

The Pro-Choice argument has not worked for us. We need to drop it once and for all and get back to talking about the core values of our party. Mark my words - there will never be a day when abortion is totally outlawed in this country - never never never! It is a political impossibility!

It is time to move on! Howard is right.

[bvar22]

57. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE!!!!!!

This should extend to the "Gay Marriage" Issue.
There IS NO GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE !

There IS a PRIVACY and Individual Freedom Issue. These are guaranteed in the Constitution.

NO DEMOCRAT EVER needs to say the word "abortion" or "Gay Marriage". ALL any Democrat needs to say is that he is a Democrat, and the Democratic Party believes that the Rights and Freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution should apply to ALL AMERICANS!PERIOD!

There is no need to qualify, elaborate, personalize, enumerate, explain, apologize, or embellish the above statement!.
When goaded by the Media to do so, ALL a Democrat needs to say is:"I answered that already. As a Democrat,
I believe that the Freedoms and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution should apply to ALL Americans.
Next Question".

[The Quizzical Toad]

60. I agree with that.

The problem with the gay marriage situation is that many do not understand the significance of the issue.

First and foremost, I don't think the issue should be "gay marriage". I don't think that the government ought to recognize "marriages" per se, heterosexual or homosexual. That which is recognized under "marriage law" ought to be recognized under "civil union law" (for both straight and gay unions). Civil unions should be granted government recognition, while whether a "marriage" exists or not should be left up to the individuals in question. Again, this idea ought to apply to both straight couples and gay couples. It would not be right to use the term "marriage" for one and "civil union" for the other - let them both be "civil unions" in the eyes of the government and "marriages" in the eyes of the couples in question.

Marriage strikes me as ultimately being a matter of opinion. The RIGHTS we connect to marriage, however, are definitely a matter necessitating government attention, especially regarding will and visitation rights. Those rights ought to be open to everyone, regardless of the sexual orientation and genders of the couple in question. That which is belongs in the arena of personal opinion should be left to personal opinion, while equal rights are recognized all around.

[bvar22]

62. Absolutely!

Marriage is a matter for Religion. Individual Churches can hammer that out however they see fit. NO Politician SHOULD EVER give his opinion about Religious Matters. When asked to do so by the CorpoMedia, he only needs to respond, "That is a Religious Matter. Go ask a minister. I represent the Government of the US and do not comment on my private Religious Beliefs."

The benefits of a Civil Union should be available to ALL AMERICANS.
As a Democrat, I believe the rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution apply to ALL AMERICANS.

PERIOD!

[pseudostar]

111. Exactly!

I wish progressives would just let abortion go. Catchy phrases like 'culture of life' are meaningless bumper-sticker fodder. If they wanted to legislate, they've had ample opportunity.

And let's be honest, if Roe Vs. Wade were overturned tommorrow, it would effect >.01% of our lives.

Let's motivate on progressive taxation, universal health care, and industrial recovery.

Let the pro-choice/pro-life people rent a convention center with the Pro/Anti Flag Burners and the Pro/Anti Marriage Amendment makers to hold a "DiversionaryWedgeIssuepalloza"

[The Quizzical Toad]

58. As a former conservative, here is how I see it.

The abortion issue is a large part of what kept me out of the Democratic Party since I first became interested in politics (I'm still young, going conservative was a error of youth). As a rather devoted Catholic, I couldn't conceive of being part of a party that embraced something I saw as fundamentally wrong. It was a rather large stumbling block.

As a result, I got locked into a party and way of thinking that made me compromise how I thought about many other issues that were not quite as important to me as the abortion issue. I know that there are many others that are still stuck in the Republican Party because of this very issue, simply because they consider it that important. These are people that might otherwise most likely have little quarrel with the Democratic Party apart from the lies they are fed by the likes of Limbaugh.

To me, the Democratic Party is first and foremost about helping people and protecting fundamental freedoms (and that includes a woman's ability to procure an abortion, as much as some might dislike it). It is larger than any one issue. The key is in how these issues are framed. If one rejects those that oppose legalized abortion from the outset, one pushes individuals that might have otherwise agreed with oneself on many issues into the hands of the Republicans. If, on the other hand, one moderates one's stance and looks for common ground on the issue, such as the desire to make abortion rare, through education and programs to help mothers that desire to give birth to their children but otherwise could not afford to do so, one can draw in potential allies and aid them in moderating their stance.

It is not difficult to understand that abortion is ultimately a very personal decision, and that in a free society one does not have to like it or support it in order to support its legality. If you tell people that the must accept that fact before they can be political allies with you, however, they will never be open to it, as much as you may argue with them. When you let them in, are their ally on many other issues, and are able to actually dialog with them as why you believe as you do, it is then that you begin to make progress on the matter.

I think that Howard Dean is right on the money with his approach.

[Rainscents]

63. Thank you sharing your thought... Very good!

I also agree with Howard Dean and I am a stanch Pro Choice!

[tmorelli415]

64. Caught in the Middle

I think your point is very important. I, too, am a Catholic and I am very distrubed by abortion. However, legalized abortion is a necessary evil in a society that believes in the freedom of individuals to make private decisions without government intervention.

There are those who are pro-choice and who are not offended by abortion per se. There are those who are pro-life and oppose all legalization per se. Both of those groups are small but vocal minorities on the far left and right.

But most Americans I think are caught in the middle like us. There are no good choices right now: either you're pro-choice, or pro-life. The vast majority support legalized abortion (with some restrictions) as an issue of personal privacy and freedom. However, in their personal lives they are deeply disturbed by abortion and would avoid it on moral grounds at all cost.

Where do they fit in? These people are a blend of the two sides of the issue, and I think by re-framing this into a larger discussion of freedom from government intrusion on our private lives (that covers more than just abortion) we provide those caught in the middle with a 'home', while not compromising any of our core values or fundamental view of abortion policy.

I hope that the staunch pro-choicers can see that nothing is lost in this compromise. In fact, I suspect that like you, there are many many centrist voters who long to join the Dems and would be delighted to see the dialog re-framed in this way. It is the staunchly right-wing pro-lifers who will be marginalized, and we can finally get past this ugly issue and start talking about how we can make abortion less necessary.

Those in the middle are a natural constituency of the Dems. Catholics especially are a natural constituency of the Dems due to our strong commitment to social justice issues, but we're losing them on the abortion issue and nothing else. Catholics (and certainly many other tranditionally Liberal Christians who are actually the majority among faithful in the U.S.) will come home to the Dem party en masse if we re-frame - I'm certain of it! The issue just waiting for us to claim the vast middle ground where most Americans reside. The Republicans are being held prisoner to the far right position by the Fundies (Catholics and Liberal Christians are very uncomfortable to be associated with these people, but many feel they have no choice due to the abortion issue); we must not be held prisoner by our own well-intentioned interest groups on the left.

I *think* this is what Howard is trying to do. I'm not entirely certain, though, because there's been no change in the messaging.

[IndianaGreen]

67. There is no tent big enough to hold the prowar and antiwar factions!

The Left has nothing to say to people that support continuing the war in Iraq under any pretext, and that support American imperialism abroad, and increasing totalitarianism at home.

There is no tent big enough to hold followers of Operation Rescue and NARAL, of Creationism and science, of superstition and reason!

The GOP has made clear that they are at war against everything we hold dear, including our belief in the Bill of Rights, and in the right of every person to enjoy equal rights with all other Americans.

The "big tent" is a myth, even in the GOP, where the only views allowed are those of the most extreme elements of the righwing.

[The Quizzical Toad]

69. What about...

those that might be a little less than enthusiastic about "abortion" but are even less enthusiastic about the war in Iraq? What about those that profess religious belief and belong to a church but can see the value in recognizing equal rights for all Americans? It strikes me as rather unproductive to push people over to the right simply because they do not fit a certain "orthodoxy" of the left, especially when the left ought to not have an orthodoxy to begin with!

The GOP won't be defeated by pushing away people with whom we might otherwise agree simply because we may disagree with them on this or that issue. I'd like to think our ideals are just a tad bigger than that...

[IndianaGreen]

70. We are way past that point!

The situation we are facing today is not unlike the one the abolitionists faced a century and half ago. There is no such thing as middle of the road on slavery, one was either for it or against it.

We are at war against the rightwing, and this is no time for warm fuzzy feelings. If they are not on our side of the barricades, then they are with the enemy!

As to those that profess religious belief and belong to a church, I can only repeat what Lenin wrote back in 1905 about religion:

The modern class-conscious worker, reared by large-scale factory industry and enlightened by urban life, contemptuously casts aside religious prejudices, leaves heaven to the priests and bourgeois bigots, and tries to win a better life for himself here on earth. The proletariat of today takes the side of socialism, which enlists science in the battle against the fog of religion, and frees the workers from their belief in life after death by welding them together to fight in the present for a better life on earth.

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men’s consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

Socialism and Religion (1905)
V.I. Lenin

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

[brentspeak]

72. I'm not interested in what mass-murderers like Lenin wrote

as well I shouldn't - this is a Democratic website, for Democrats. People who vote Democrat. American.

[IndianaGreen]

75. All you have shown is how well indoctrinated you have been

since kindergarten, like the rest of us, except we now recognize it all for the crap that it was.

People who vote Democrat. American.

Yeah, and motherhood and apple pie, with the Ten Commandments in every public building, and with GAWD on the Pledge of Allegiance (despite the fact that GAWD was put on the Pledge by a rightwing Congress in 1954).

Care for a Support the Troops magnetic ribbon?

BTW, I don't know of anyone in here that votes "Democrat" as you said. Only FAUX and the other organs of RW propaganda refer to the Democratic Party as the Democrat party.

[sled]

78. Interesting...

Hmmm...maybe a "big tent" is the key...a socialist/fundie...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy

"Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a devout Baptist minister and a socialist, composed the original Pledge of Allegiance for the Boston based Youth's Companion in 1892."

And the old "Democratic Party as the Democrat party" spiel doesn't fly...a lot of life-long Democrats make the same mistake, if it's even worth calling a "mistake", cause it's a distinction, without a difference...it's been dragged out, & shot down, so many times, it's beginning to resemble Swiss cheese...

[tmorelli415]

73. Ridiculous!

Nobody is suggesting that we ought to bring together those who have views completely at odds with core liberal/progressive values.

What is being suggested is that an array of socio-cultural positions like legalized abortion need to be brought together in the minds of Americans under the over-arching liberal principle that is at the heart of our stand on the issues themselves: respect for individual freedom and privacy.

It is not a ploy to get Fundies on our side - they don't agree with liberal principles so it wouldn't work even if we wanted it to. Those who share our principles - whether they are religious or not - are welcome allies.

Our current approach to these issues is not working. There is a cognitive dissonance here that we *must* address: Why do Americans largely support our policy positions, yet our share of the electorate is no proportionate to that support? We know in the case of abortion policy that there is nuance to the issue that 'pro-choice' doesn't address. One can be 'pro-life' *and* 'pro-choice' at the same time, and most Americans are pro-life when it comes to their own bodies, and pro-choice when it comes to public policy on the basis of respect for privacy and individual freedom.

There are not just two selections: 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life'. There is a third hybrid choice that requires we give up nothing in terms of current policy position. And the majority of Americans are hybrid types: personally pro-life, yet pro-choice policywise. Many are personally uncomfortable with homosexuality, yet support legal recognition of gay relationships policywise. There are those who don't agree with our traditional policy stand on certain issues, yet share our liberal principles very deeply. These people naturally belong in our tent - they are no threat to us, and they are not Republican-Lite. Democrat-Lite? Some would say yes. But they're Democrats none-the-less.

You speak of slavery - Abolitionists were deeply religious Christians let by Reverened John Brown. They were the liberals of their day. The Reverened Martin Luther King Jr also comes to mind, of course.

The issue is not religion, but rather secularism vs. fundamentalism. Nobody is suggesting that we drop our principle of a separation between religion and government, or somehow appease Fundies. We have a lot of friends who simply need to have things explained to them in a language that they understand - Democrats used to be good at 'giving people hope' and not just policies.

[IndianaGreen]

76. There is nothing nuanced about abortion

Abortion is terminating a human life, it doesn't matter at what period of gestation it takes place. The real issue is who should decide to have or not have an abortion. For me the answer will always be the mother!

But as you stated, there are some common grounds that we can work together, but that are only possible outside capitalism such as free health care for all, free day care for working parents, and a collective interest in the raising of all children.

The problem is that the political situation in this country has deteriorated to such a degree that there is little to hold this country together anymore. Half this country is happy with Jesusland, while the other half is reading up on emigrating to Canada.

[The Quizzical Toad]

82. On the contrary...

Abortion can be a very nuanced subject. You yourself admit that abortion is the termination of a human life, no matter what period of gestation it takes place. In recognizing that, it ought not be overly difficult to understand why there are some that are uncomfortable with it. I admit that I personally am uncomfortable with the measure. Yet there are those that can be uncomfortable with a measure and yet realize that laws do not exist to force moral behavior, but rather to protect the rights of citizens. Some must be brought to a realization of this fact slowly. It does little good to push them away immediately by telling them they have no place here. The same goes for individuals that profess belief in a particular religion. Would you push away the Hindus, the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Taoists, the Sikhs, and many other potential allies simply because they do not fit a perfect "orthodoxy" of liberalism at the outset?

I think it's a mistake to think that the only "common ground" must exist necessarily outside of "capitalism" per se. Capitalism, socialism, communism... these are all ideologies. The best solutions for society do not exist within rigid ideologies, but rather in our ability to take what we find in various ideologies and implement them as our own. Certain parts of capitalism work at certain times - that is why we ought not throw it as a whole into the wastebasket of history. Other parts do not work. The same goes for socialism. The key is not in following a rigid dogma that says there is one way things must be done, but rather in educating ourselves on various matters so that we can find the best solutions for a given situation. To me, that is liberal, because ultimately it is the most human approach. Dogmatic loyalty to a particular dogma, on the other hand, is for computers, because it ultimately deals in 1s and 0s. The best "common ground" exists in recognizing that we have a shared responsibility to find good solutions for society's ills in a responsible manner, and that these solutions are best found while working together.

The right is successful now because it has polarized society. That is their game. We do not win by playing their game of polarization, by attempting to form a strict orthodoxy of the left. That simply pushes people into their hands, as they are the masters of that game. The way we win is through depolarizing these issues while working to find solutions to the major problems we face today: an ever increasing deficit, sky high oil prices, tyrannical laws such as the "Patriot Act", a president who is glad to be a pawn to corporate interests, an endless "War on Terror", a faulty-premised war in Iraq where many innocent civilians and American troops are losing their lives every day, skyrocketting costs in health care, along with many, many others. We will never be successful in making fundamental progress on these issues if we simply push people away at the outset because they are religious in their personal lives and/or have a strong opposition to abortion. There is simply too much more at stake than that, and refusal to see past personal orthodoxy simply serves to ultimately add to the list of our problems.

[sled]

77. "belief in the Bill of Rights"???

Some Democrats actually support & defend the "Bill of Rights", as written, not just "believe" in them. How many of our elected representatives voted for the misnamed "Patriot Act", without even knowing what it says? How many of them support the war on our fellow Americans, under the guise of the so-called "War on Drugs", which, on its face is unconstitutional, & has had the effect of stealing freedom away from millions of our own compatriots? Who among them can even mention the Second Amendment, without attempting to act like it, no longer applies? Can any one of them, with a straight face, support an American's right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", & vote for anything resembling the "Patriot Act", or the war on Americans, mislabeled as a "War on Drugs"? Which one of them believes "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted', yet they support locking up potheads, for an interminable number of years, just because they smoked the wrong plant?

The list is endless, of these yahoos just going along, trying to pass themselves off as believers in the "Bill of Rights", & trying to be Republicon-lite, at the same time. It's time for the "leadership" to either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way, cause most of them believe in nothing, but their own self-preservation.

The party elite need to stop kidding themselves, that they "believe" in things, & start acting on things. You either stand for something, or fall for anything, & unfortunately, we have...that these rubes, in Washington, believe in freedom, or our best interests, or anything even slightly resembling them. Game over...

[IndianaGreen]

79. Great post!

We should also add the Democratic politicians that voted for additional abortion restrictions and oppose extending full marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

Equality under the law remains a myth!

[sled]

80. Thank you...

Personally, I'm opinionless concerning abortion, if one can be such a thing, but I do hope, like someone who posted elsewhere, that it will ultimately become a non-issue, & becomes unnecessary, as technology overtakes, philosopy.

As to "gay marriage", I can't understand the government even being involved, actually, except as a civil matter, like property issues, etc. Having been married, by a Justice of the Peace, in a civil ceremony, some 32 years ago, I personally wouldn't allow the church to have a say, in my marriage...like I need them, to "sanctify" anything I do. My business, is none of theirs, even though they may believe otherwise...it changes nothing, I'm as married as anyone, I've ever met. Screw them...it's absolutely none of their business, & I refuse to let it be, contrary to their misguided beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, they're just tilting at windmills, if they think they could possibly ever un-marry, my wife, & I, or anyone else, for that matter. That's our decision, even if property issues, weren't even involved...we're married, fuck'em...

[The Quizzical Toad]

83. As I said before,

That is exactly how I see it. The government ought to not recognize any marriages, straight or gay. Marriage is ultimately a matter of opinion (in many cases, religious opinion). The government ought only concern itself with "civil unions", which would involve the rights we consider under marriage law today. The government could certainly recognize civil unions between any two consenting adults, regardless of the genders of the people in question.

The law exists to protect rights, not to promote opinions in morality. I can understand individuals questioning the validity of "gay marriage", as such is ultimately a matter of opinion. But only a bigot would oppose "civil unions" for gay people when understood in the manner which I outlined above.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[liberaliraqvet26]

74. Just a thought...

In a decade or so will the medical procedure we know of as abortion even exist? When we get the hardcore Fundies and other religious zealots off the FDA im sure all sorts of medicines will come on the market to ease pregnancy termination (RU 486, the morning after pill, etc...) plus better birth control methods to prevent it in the first place. Women will be able to comtrol their own destiny without seeing a doctor and fighting off protesters who can't mind their own business. These methods will be much more accepted by the general public and have opposition only by the extreme fringes like the Pope Benedicts, Fatass Fallwells and Robertsons of the world and show them for the fools they are. This is coming, probably sooner than we think, be optimistic.

[The Quizzical Toad]

84. It cracks me up...

The fact is, many of the policies that the die-hard "pro-life" crowd oppose will ultimately be what pushes abortion to the wayside. Most so strongly oppose sex education and birth control, yet these are what ultimately keep women from undesired pregnancies!

But, alas, the right wants to live in a fantasy world, where youths are never taught about sex and thus are never curious until they are married. The right wants to persist in myths that somehow this stuff is best explained by parents themselves, who often times have as little a clue as the teens themselves!

And everyone knows if we teach "abstinence" to our youth, they'll certainly keep their pants on until they get married... :eyes:

[Oreegone]

86. I hope we are not becoming the one issue party here.

The Republicans will sacrifice their freedom, social security, income etc. to keep gays from marriage. I guess we are willing to give up a democratic who is a moderate to Santorum because of his stand on abortion?? Get a grip.

[Chicago Democrat]

92. Hey lets be the party of getting out of Iraq now!

Ally with like minded Republicans and tell JoE Liebermann to SHOVE IT!

[Chicago Democrat]

91. We ARE the tent.. YES ABSOLUTELY....

two approaches...


1)YOU ARE NOT THEM
2)WE LIE LESS

[Mairead]

94. Funny that Dems never talk about big-tenting with the LEFT

It's always 'we have to reach out to the right'.

Why is that, do you suppose?

[dsc]

96. actually some of our most leftist Congressmen have run up against this

Bonior was unable to win MI governorship due to this and Kucinich had to switch on it to run for President. Not all pro life Dems are the far left Congressmen those two are but several of them are like that.

[Orsino]

97. No...Dems need money.

Which they have to get by appealing to corporate interests that are necessarily opposed to those of working Americans, the same big tent you're pretending to want.

You've almost got it, Howard. You set some sort of record for small donations from ordinary folks. Don't you see that the machine is at odds with what you're saying. The same machine you wanted to head?

[sam kane]

100. Dean: steal bad cliches & ideas from Republicans, ignore winning strategy

Dismiss the significance of women's authority over their own bodies, thereby alienating most of base. While Republicans win again and again by consolidating base and energizing, be sure to do the opposite. Continue long Democratic tradition of trying to win by dismissing base and courting center--and losing, losing, losing.

[nicknameless]

118. Great post, sam kane!

I wonder if Dean remembers saying this:

"When you trade your values for the hope of winning, you end up losing and having no values....so you keep losing."
-- Howard Dean, 2004

He sure was a smart guy ... back in 2004.

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[redqueen]

110. Glad he's saying this.

If Republicans can find room in their party for pro-choicers, why shouldn't we do the same for pro-lifers?

Not all pro-life people are the same. Some would like to see better sex education, easy access to contraception, etc. Reducing the necessity for abortion is pro-life, too.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[redqueen]

117. Hey... I saw this before...

I wonder why it was deleted... it was complimentary, FCOL.

:crazy:

[Zorra]

113. It is a moral value to respect those who disagree with you to a point.

When those who disagree with you are turning the Constitution into toilet paper, crushing democracy and killing thousands of innocent people, I think it becomes a moral value to lose all respect for them.

[Strawman]

116. I don't know

Casey's anti-abortion views aren't likely to have much impact in the Senate, but here we are fighting against a SCOTUS nominee who will likely reduce the majority on court that agree with the decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and on the other hand we're supposed to fight for Casey.

I have supported Democrats who have opposed abortion (Bonior was one, but I believe he was less strident in his anti-choice views), but it's definitely a strike against them. If Dean wants to reach out that's fine, but I think he should also preface comments like that by making it clear that the party strongly and unequivocally supports a woman's right to choose.