Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What is Howard Dean's Stance on the Flag Amendment?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:14 AM
Original message
What is Howard Dean's Stance on the Flag Amendment?
According to several sources Howard Dean's stance on the Flag consecration amendment appears somewhat "vague". As you know, Wes Clark was body slammed by the press (surprised?) for his. They are in fact making sure that it's part of his signature description when he is described. Some of his supporters were initially quite upset. There were a few threads posted in Du. However, those same supporters, when attempting to figure out alternative candidates, found that only Edwards, Kerry, Carol Mosley Braun and Al Sharpton were firmly against such an amendment. They also found that Representatives Kucinich and Gephardt had actually voted for it in the House. When they got to Governor Howard Dean, they didn't know quite what to make of his stance.

So can we get some clarification from those Dean "Stance Experts"? Does Dean support the amemdment or not? in attempting to answer the question, this is all I could find:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/11/14/friday/...
Dean's cute flag flap - Joe Conason's Journal
Several readers distressed by Wesley Clark's remarks supporting the flag desecration amendment wrote in to declare that they had dropped their support of the retired general in favor of Howard Dean. But others pointed out what I didn't know about Dean's own record on this issue. Two years ago, as governor of Vermont, he brokered a legislative resolution that urged Congress to "take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag." While a bit vague, that sounded much like an endorsement of the Constitutional amendment.

Around that time, Dean rather pompously declared that politicians should declare their positions on the flag issue before voters went to the polls in 2002. That requirement didn't apply to Dean himself, as he "coyly" told the Rutland Herald, because he wasn't on the ballot that year. So now that he is running for president, the candidate who prides himself in speaking bluntly should explain the limits of his support for the First Amendment -- in plain English.
<8:22 a.m. PST, Nov. 14, 2003>
Article links
brokered: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2002/journal/SJ010116.h...
coyly: http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/38411

AND THIS:
Dean intervenes in flag dispute
December 1, 2001
By TRACY SCHMALER Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER Gov. Howard Dean is working quietly to try to broker a compromise in the prickly debate over a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration.

I think this is a no-brainer; I think there is a compromise to be had and Ive certainly made that clear to people who are involved behind the scenes, Dean said during his weekly press conference Friday.

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks Dean said he believed the Legislature would want to act on the question and suggested that it would be important for voters in the upcoming elections to know where their candidates stood.

I do think the Legislature should pass a resolution, he said. I think the public is going to want to know where people are standing in the 2002 election
-----
But Dean is not apparently holding himself to that standard. He refused to reveal his position on amending the U.S. Constitution banning flag desecration, noting coyly that he would not be a candidate in 2002. He may, however, be a candidate in 2004, if he decides to run for president.


And This:
JOURNAL OF THE VERMONT SENATE
Joint Resolution Referred

J.R.S. 9.

Joint Senate resolution of the following title was offered, read the first time and is as follows:

By Senators Campbell, Ankeney, Bartlett, Bloomer, Chard, Condos, Cummings, Gossens, Kittell, Leddy, Lyons, McCormack, Munt, Rivers, Sears and Shumlin,

J.R.S. 9. Joint resolution in opposition to the desecration of the United States Flag.

Whereas, the flag of the United States is one of the greatest symbols of our nation, and

Whereas, this symbol represents the defining principles of our country, and

Whereas, these ideals also include the democratic principles of individual freedom enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution, especially by those amendments known collectively as the Bill of Rights, and

Whereas, Americans have placed their lives in harms way and, in hundreds of thousands of cases, have sacrificed their lives defending these principles, and

Whereas, their willingness to sacrifice their lives in defense of these cherished principles demonstrates one of the purest and most commendable forms of patriotism, and

Whereas, these patriots have focused on the flag as the ultimate symbol for which they and their families have sacrificed, and

Whereas, the flag serves important ceremonial functions at public gatherings, funerals, celebrations of patriotic holidays, parades and countless other gatherings, and

Whereas, respect for the flag and the various protocols attendant thereto (such as proper display, proper folding, saluting, et cetera) serves as the first introduction, for many young Americans, to the concept of patriotism, and

Whereas, therefore, we, the American people, accord our flag a unique position of respect, love and admiration, and recognize the importance of providing dignity and honor to this symbol, now therefore be it

RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

That the General Assembly expresses its respect, love and admiration for our United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly expresses its condemnation of all acts of flag desecration, and similar displays of disrespect for the United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Secretary of State transmit copies of this resolution to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate and all members of the Vermont Congressional delegation.

Thereupon, the President, in his discretion, treated the joint resolution as a bill and referred it to the Committee on Judiciary.

Joint Resolution Adopted in Concurrence

J.R.H. 15.

Joint House resolution entitled:

Joint resolution in memory of former Representative Maud-Ann Durgin.

Having been placed on the Calendar for action, was taken up.

Thereupon, the pending question, Shall the joint resolution be adopted in concurrence? was decided in the affirmative.

Adjournment





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. You mean 'vague' as in Clark's stance on gays in the military?
That kind of vague?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I am getting my question answered
with a question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Vague, like Clark's praise of Bush and Co?
Nope, that was not vague, though.

Dean has stated he does NOT want an amendment. However so many people are spastic on this issue that he sees a resolution as being ok.

Frankly, it is not nearly as serious as other things in our world right now.

If you want details do a search at his website. I am not doing your research for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. You are right....
although you also answered my question with a question.....

Clark's praise for the Bush Foreign policy team was not vague....it was pretty straight forward actually....it's just that the media whores (you know that ones that love Dean) cut off the sentence to leave it as vague:
on re-reading clark's lincoln day speech:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065

here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE!

And the rest of the speech is even more revealing:

two paragraphs up from the maligned "praise" we find this:
------------------------
But we're also extremely vulnerable. Our economy--we're using three times--we've got three times as much foreign investment as we're investing--capital flow--as we're putting out there. They're investing here because they believe in us. We're using energy like it's going out of style. We're using five to eight times as much energy per capita as people in the rest of the world, twice as much as even the Europeans. We're vulnerable to security threats--everything from terrorism to the developing missiles that are--we know rogue states are developing to aim at us.

And so I think we have to have a new strategy, and we have to have a consensus on the strategy, and we have to have a bipartisan consensus, and politics has to stop in America at the water's edge. We've got to reach out, and we've got to find those people in the world and share our values and beliefs--and we've got to reinforce them. We've got to bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have. They've got to get an education here. They've got to be able to send their children here. They they've got to go home. And they've got to carry the burdens in their own lands, and to some extent we have to help them.
----------------------------
notice that in the first paragraph Clark talks enviromentalism to a republican audience.
also note the warning about terrorism pre-9/11. Notice in the second paragraph he talks about bipartisanship, and reaching out to the world community. two traits that he shares spot on with his positions today.


in the two paragraphs after the alleged "praise"he further defines the european challenges:
-------------------------
We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans where we've still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United Sates and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest.

Look, in politics they told me--I don't know anything about politics now, I want to make that clear. But they told me--I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you've always got to protect your base. Well, for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. He calls them a 'great team'--what more do you need?
Dick Cheney? WTF?

Clark is all over the map. He wants to be everything to everybody.

And he's every bit as ethnocentric as Bush:

"We've got to find those people in the world and ... bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have."

What a crock of shit. How about supporting them in their own culture. "They've got to be able to send their children here"? That's just nauseating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Need a link to that please, I'm sure you didn't take it out of context n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. It's in the post I'm replying to
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. I don't know...it made sense to me
Edited on Mon Nov-24-03 01:55 AM by Frenchie4Clark
what Clark said.
"We've got to find those people in the world and ... bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have."

I myself emmigrated here to better my life and to get a good education. He's saying that America should not be against foreigners who come here to get an education. I guess he could have said in the speech....why don't you all come up with gazillion dollars so that we can build schools everywhere in the world...and then people ain't go to come here......

No, what he said is consistent with making sense.....duh..

rest of the sentence
"They they've got to go home. And they've got to carry the burdens in their own lands, and to some extent we have to help them."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. I will answer with a question when you can do the research yourself.
We have had this issue here many times.
Frankly, my only problem with Clark is some of the huge corporate connections he has, even to the Patriotic act and companies dealing with it.
His stances about Bush bother me, since he was claimed by the Clintons to be a star of the Democratic party.
His connections with these companies bother me more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. But Madfloridian,
I am not asking you about Clark and whether he bothers you or not. I was asking you about Dean's stance on the Flag issue. Are we debating issues here? or just calling names and we don't like the thread started by another. I asked a rational question, provided you with the research I'd come up with thus far...and you go on the attack straight out of the gate.

Why so defensive?

You made a statement about the candidate that I support. Did I try to run away? No, I posted a link that supported my answer to your defensive tit-for-tat (OMG, they're out to get me)put down.

So why don't you just post your link to Dean's flag stance, and then we can all move along. I asked for a reason.
OK?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. YOU do your own research. I have answered you.
You are not a good representative for Clark.

Do a search in the archives for the last month. Why should I have to do it for you. I answered you above, told you his stance, and you agreed.

Now this is ridiculous. You do not hurt me, you hurt yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. So does that mean you don't know?
Because if you ask me a question, I am going to try my damnest to answer you. You see that evidenced right here in this thread.

Got a couple of Clarkies answering the one thrown out in self defense on Gays in the military...

I answered the one about "praising Bush"......

But you, my friend, haven't answered anything.

I represent Clark well....as I answer questions

You represent Dean well, I suppose, as you don't.

Telling me to do my own research and then starting a thread about it doesn't seem like the kind of representation any candidate would want to have. That's why there are all those issue downloads, etc....

Here's the thread you started out of your desperation:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. I'm sure I'm recalling this correctly...he'd repeal don't act don't tell
He thinks that everyone who wants to serve should serve. He going to send it back to the Military and make them come up with something better. Alot of gay military people came to talk to him when they outed themselves. He has gay friends.

What about his sance don't you get? I think that is pretty crystal clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
4. It allows politicians like Dean to argue both sides of the issue...
I favor protection of the flag, but I do not favor a constitutional amendment, Dean said Monday. A constitutional amendment should be passed only in very rare circumstances.

He said that he supported the resolution that passed both the House and Senate last week by wide margins. It voiced support for protecting the flag and suggested a constitutional amendment as one possible option, but stopped short of calling on Congress to take that step.

While the language in the resolution allowed both sides to claim victory in the contentious fight, it has also allowed some politicians like Dean to argue both sides of the issue.

I do believe the flag ought to be protected, he said. ... I dont think you should amend the (U.S.) Constitution without a deep purpose. Protecting the flag is certainly a deep purpose, but I dont believe you can amend the Constitution for that.

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/40656
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. There is nothing wrong with arguing both sides of an issue.
I hope those who represent me will do that. I hope you were not meaning that in a derogatory way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. But if any other candidate does it then it is a bad thing...do I have
that correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #5
10.  "There is nothing wrong with arguing both sides of an issue."??
Edited on Mon Nov-24-03 01:43 AM by Frenchie4Clark
So when does one take a stance? I know that Howard Dean is principled and upright....talks from his heart and tells you like it is!

I though the wishy-washy business of arguing both sides of the issue and never taking a stance was more the label left to the coackroaches, or the DLC (bad, bad, bad), or the "Insiders", or the candidates that were not going to empower it's voters.....you know the top down "establishment" "status Quo" guys.....

not the stand up guy that was representing the Democratic/libertarian/conservative wing of the Democratic party?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. ? He did take a stance.
I explained it above. Every candidate must examine both sides of the issues. It surprises me that the two of you don't think that is a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. So when does he come down on
one side or another? After the nomination or after the election? Or never?
Or when the public opinion tilts more heavily in one direction?
Or when the wind blows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. You are just being silly now.
Good night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. I don't think Dean *has* committed on that issue
but I really don't see the incredible importance of the issue as a candidate.

Do you feel the flag is sacred? I don't, but I can understand why some people do. A candidate's stance on that issue would not influence me in the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. He is against an amendment, would not be adverse to a resolution.
I have heard him say that a couple of times. I see nothing wrong with that. Many people in the US think we should protect the flag. I don't fall in that category, nor do I think we should have a law.

I think we should teach people to respect it and give them a reason to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. any links.?...
Edited on Mon Nov-24-03 02:31 AM by Frenchie4Clark
I asked because I have a Dean supporter friend who told me that she prefered Dean's flag stance to Clark's. So when I asked her about Dean's stance, she said he was flat out against it. When I did my research (cause I like to be informed), what I found was not a stance at all, but a wishy-washy......maybe, maybe not stance. So I thought that I could come here and ask.....

But I guess that I couldn't.

Plus I need some links of some sort...can't take the word of someone that actually just tells me to go and do my own research and throws out accusations and spews on the candidate I support.

What I will do is save this link and show it to the Dean supporter, so that she can see what her family looks like. Those that are representing Howard Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
24. I guess that this question
won't be answered......and will be a thread that will eventually sneak away.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-03 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
25. Dean is for a flag burning law/wouldnt change U.S. Constitution for flag
Dean is for a flag burning law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Dean wouldnt change U.S. Constitution for flag
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 26th 2014, 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC