John Edwards is a Class Act: "Dean should be applauded"

[CMT]

Addressing a group of teachers and school employees Thursday evening, it appeared US Senator John Edwards is ready to move past the controversy following Democratic presidential candidate HOward Dean regarding his now-famous remark about the Confederate flag.

Edwards publicly accepted teh governor's apology Wednesday and told an audience at the women's issues forum in Manchester that Dean 'should be applauded" for saying he regretted the pain his statement had caused.

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/November/11_6Edwards.shtml

The rest of the article is very good as well with Edwards responses to questions on several issues.

[theivoryqueen]

1. He is a class act, and I wish he was doing better in the polls

Because every time I watch him in public appearances, he makes strong and well reasoned points. He is an eloquent speaker who is comfortable in his own skin, which is a nice change from the usual stiffness of pro-politicos.

[spooky3]

3. His positions are clearly spelled out on his website too.

I would like to think that if he has a good showing in the first few primaries, that a few others who don't will drop out, and he'll get relatively more attention.

[Ripley]

6. But he threw all of that away in the debate.

He jumped on the bandwagon vehemently attacking Dean. Saying something very creepy about not wanting northern Dems to "come down" here and tell North Carolinians what to do. WTF was that about?

Anyway I'm glad he's moving on.

[seaglass]

34. Dean realized that his sterotyping of Southern whites

wounded Edwards (NY Times yesterday). I would guess he saw the light after he (Dean) spoke with Jimmy Carter. That's what it was about.

Dean was wrong and Edwards graciously accepted his apology.

[Ripley]

57. You don't have anything close to the facts.

Dean did not stereotype southern whites. He was speaking to those he wanted to convince they should stop voting Republican.

Many of them drive down my street on a regular basis. Dean was not wrong and Edwards was anything but gracious by making it an issue about the flag.

[seaglass]

72. He certainly did, he specifically mentioned those whites that

lived in trailer parks as Confederate flag wavers. Dean was wrong, admitted he was wrong and acknowledged he wounded Edwards.

Pay attention.

[Classical_Liberal]

87. He said nothing of trailer parks.

.

[TLM]

109. Really can you cite the quote where Dean said that ALL

southern whites live in trailer parks and have confederate flag stickers?


If I say there are a lot of golden retrievers in California... that is not the same thing as saying all dogs in California are golden retrievers. That's one of the most basic logical fallacies. If you're going to lie about Dean at least come up with something a little more sound. Talk to BLM, she can give you some pointed on how to lie more effectively.

Dean said he wants to reach out to the folks in the south with the confederate flag decals and the folks in the trailer parks... he did not say that all southerners are confederate flag wavers, nor that all southerners live in trailer parks.


So why distort what he said... because what he actually said wouldn’t make sufficient attack fodder, so you have to LIE about what he said to try and prop up the attack.

Dean did say he was sorry if he caused anybody pain, that doesn't mean what he said was wrong or that it didn't need to be said.

[mbali]

116. He didn't say that in so many words, but that's what he MEANT

Isn't that what Dean folks usually say whenever anyone questions Dean's comments?

Apparently Dean fans that interpretation of Dean's comments can only be done by other Dean fans - anyone else who tries to read between the lines of Dean's statements is just picking on him.

[blm]

80. You don't have the facts. Dean was defending his NRA support

when he made those remarks. Dean and ALL his supporters who parrot him are promoting a LIE that he was discussing race relations when he made the remark that caused the controversy.

Do you see ANYTHING about race relations in this article?

The whole article is about the NRA and gun control, and NOWHERE does Dean mention race relations. NOWHERE.

Now...when has Dean said he was talking about the NRA when he made the remark?

Some of you are happy with Dean's lies and shifting stories. Many of us are not.
 
http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22649906.html
Kerry criticizes Dean's gun views
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
11/01/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, said Dean's opposition to an assault weapons ban in 1992, recorded in a National Rifle Association endorsement questionnaire, contradicts his position as a presidential candidate supporting a federal assault weapons ban.

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

"Howard Dean, during the time we were trying to pass it, was appealing to the NRA for their support," Kerry said, while visiting a rural Story County farm.
"We don't need to be a party that says we need to be the candidacy of the NRA. We stand up against that."

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

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

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

[Skwmom]

101. The problem with making a liar the nominee

is once Dean is exposed as the liar he is, that broad brush will be used to paint a lot of the Democratic incumbents in congressional races also as liars.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[madddog]

58. I live in the South

believe it or not, I do see people with Confederate flags on their cars/trucks. Why the fu** should Dean have to apoligize for stating the obvious. Are we so PC now we have to pretend these people don't exist?

[seaglass]

75. Then why did he apologize?

Did you read his remarks in the NY Times yesterday?

[Classical_Liberal]

90. He shouldn't have in my view..

.

[TLM]

110. As expected.... the bashers fall back ont he same old bullshit...

If Dean doesn't apologize they scream racist and if he does they say see that proves he was wrong.

Cheap crap... and sadly exactly what I've come to expect from this crowd of Dean bashers.

The fact is that Dean apologized for causing pain with his remarks, said that it was a clumsy way to say what he was trying to express, but he did not say that what he said was incorrect, and was clear that this is a discussion that needs to take place and some will be offended.

But as usual, no matter what Dean says or does the bashers will attack him.

[mbali]

115. Who on DU or anywhere else

has called Dean a racist? Please be specific.

[Pompitous_Of_Love]

76. Ah, yes, the proverbial North Carolina resentment...

A famous saying here in the Old North State is that North Carolina is a vale of humility nestled between two towering mountains of conceit, i.e. Virginia and South Carolina. The aforementioned bergs love to wax poetically about how they won the Revolutionary War and woulda damn near won the Civil War except for Sherman and Grant somehow hoodooing their aristocratic military geniuses who were the only ones who could save the Confederacy. In point of fact, however, North Carolina provided more troops to the Confederate Army than any other state in the Confederacy and experienced more casualties than any other. And all this despite the fact that secession was strongly opposed in many parts of the state and the 1860 convention to determine whether or not to secede may have been rigged by then-Governor John Ellis (contemporary common wisdom was that the convention would decide against secession) and his pro-Confederate political cronies. North Carolina suffered so badly during the war that Sherman issued orders to his army that they were to immediately cease plundering and burning everything in their path once they crossed into North Carolina (the order was mostly ignored).

So, we've spent close to two full centuries carrying the weight for a bunch of plantation elitists. That aversion has been extended further to include pretty much every damn body outside North Carolina. That's how a dirtbag like Jesse Helms managed to stay in the U.S. Senate for so many years. He was North Carolina's symbolic finger to that part of the nation that felt compelled to tell everyone just what they had to do to achieve a satisfactory level of moral righteousness. Fuck that, man. Whenever North Carolinians hear that jive coming from people outside this state, it usually means they want our kids to go die for their cause.

This is the kind of mindset Edwards was coming from. If Howard Dean wants to make inroads in North Carolina, he needs to shut his pie-hole and come down here and listen to what people have to say. Otherwise he's just the latest in a long line of egomaniacs talking about a state and a people he knows nothing about. Oh, and North Carolinians aren't in the least bit blind to what the Confederate flag means. It's hate, not heritage. Until the civil rights struggle began in the 1950s, the Stars and Bars had faded into oblivion. White North Carolinians who sport the Confederate flag aren't interested in a damn thing any white Democrat has to say. Fortunately, they are in a small minority here.

Edwards was absolutely right to challenge Dean on this issue. I'm not against Dean, but he has developed the distressing habit of saying stupid things and not immediately retracting them or apologizing. I think he's made such political inroads because he is willing to voice the anger that many people (not just Dems) feel toward George W. Bush and the Republican Party. John Edwards is voicing that anger as well on the campaign trail. He probably needs to punch out a reporter to get the corporate-dominated media to cover that crucial aspect of his campeign (although the Washington Post did a good story about Edwards' increasingly fiery style on the stump). Praising Dean for owning up to his mistake is also very much in line with Edwards' character. This nation has a real leader in John Edwards and it will be a damn shame if Dems allow the corporate-dominated, GOP-friendly media bury him as a presidential candidate.

[Ripley]

84. 90% of my family were born, raised and live in NC.

My parents live north of Wilmington in the sticks and the flags are there whether you want to admit it or not.

I was very impressed with Edwards until he pulled this crap. He was getting all "fiery style" over something Sharpton blew out of context. And if he thinks he helps his chances with people not in the south by making statements about how "we don't want you Yankees telling us what to do," well, think again.

Dean should not apologize. Everyone knows any Dem candidate will automatically get the black vote and the liberal whites in the south. What, are they going to vote for Bush now? So Dean is trying to make in-roads to the swing voters, or non-committed voters, or those that need to outright switch parties. Maybe he is thinking a little too big, but he shouldn't apologize to any black person because he acknowledged that some white people have confederate flags on their trucks and they vote against their own best interests.

[Pompitous_Of_Love]

103. Bullshit

Dean should stop pandering to a group of voters whose votes he'll never get. He's proved through this incident that he has no understanding whatsoever of the symbolism inherent in contemporary use of the Confederate flag. And I was ready to give Dean a chance to earn my vote, but that's becoming increasingly unlikely because he seems to be fostering a cult of personality among his supporters, who apparently cannot bear to see him criticized at all. Sort of like Nader's true believers. Wait, maybe there's some overlap there...

[TLM]

111. So your position is to say "fuck the south" I guess...

"Dean should stop pandering to a group of voters whose votes he'll never get. "



How is it pandering to tell working class white conservatives in the south who have been voting republican, that they should vote dem because their kids need healthcare and good schools too?

How is it pandering to tell these folks that the republicans are using them, and robbing them blind?

How is it pandering to go to this group and tell them flat out to put the racist shit aside and think about their kids this election?

[Pompitous_Of_Love]

114. Do you see large numbers of them swarming to Dean's campaign?

No? Is there some magic date when this approach will begin to resonate with them? Care to tell the rest of us when it is?

Not every Southern white male worships the Confederacy. Okay, Dean, not knowing better, tried to pander to those who do. Not only did it reveal how clueless he is about Southern culture and politics, but it turns off a lot of us who remember how the Klan and the Councils of Conservative Citizens and all the other white supremacy groups of the 1950s and 1960s rallied around that same flag ole Howard finds just dandy. That association between white supremacy and the Confederate flag has become seamlessly fused during the past half-century.

Once again, let me spell it out for you. Dean needs to shut up on this issue until he has spent time talking to people in the South. Has he even shown up to campaign anywhere down here? My wife and I would like to see and hear him in person, but so far we haven't seen anything about him visiting the Raleigh area. Why in God's name would a Democratic presidential candidate buddy up with a far-right symbol of violence and racial discrimination? Hell, that's the Republican Party's shtick! This whole Confederate flag business shows that Dean desperately needs to get out of his own head and start listening to the people he wants to vote for him. And if any of his campaign leadership is reading any of this, they can consider themselves warned. The last time we had a man in the White House who was pathologically unable to admit that he was wrong or had made a mistake, he had to flee office one step ahead of a grand jury indictment. Howard Dean's behaving a lot like Richard Nixon, which doesn't make me feel a whole lot like voting for him.

If Howard Dean wants to reach out to Southern white males, he need not reach back to the Civil War, Reconstruction or Birmingham. He needs to take a look at Theodore Roosevelt. It's no secret that a lot of Southern white males like to hunt and/or fish. What appears to be a secret inside the Beltway is that a lot of these guys, who are reliable Republican voters, have personally seen the impact of pollution on game fowl, fish stocks, etc. They're probably more receptive to government intervention to protect and improve natural resources than at any point since Teddy was in office. Dean's a moderate on gun issues, which gives him some credibility with the hunting and fishing communities. They'll want to hear what he says about environmental issues. Forget going after white trash with Confederate flags. Target the hunters and recreational fishers instead. I think Dr. Dean can gain some traction among Southern white males if he can convince them that he wants to protect the environment and wildlife so they can continue enjoying their past-time.

[spooky3]

2. I agree. I wasn't able to watch Tweety yesterday--did anyone see it?

[soleft]

4. what would a Dean/Edwards ticket look like?

Edwards social conservatism troubles me so I've never really thought about it before. But he might be a stronger running mate than Graham.

[spooky3]

8. which positions specifically trouble you?

[soleft]

13. invokes too much religious rhetoric in gay marriage issue

not convinced in his support for civil unions. I can imagine he would not put up as big a fight against marriage amendment as Dean or Clark.

[AP]

15. Marriage is a religious institution!

All the candidates are on the same page on this issue.

Legally, marriage is a religious ceremony + gov't action (the license).

All the candidates agree that you can't make religions accept CU, but the gov't should recognize CUs.

It's like abortion rights. The all agree that you can't tell christians what to believe, but that the gov't should protect your rights.

[cprise]

18. No, it's legal

Marriage was traditionally the domain of common law, and only the wealthy and powerful had their marriages commemorated in a religious setting. The tradition was more concerned with establishing property and inheritence rights than anything else.

There is nothing in the Bible, for instance, which points to religion 'inventing' marriage.

[AP]

20. No. Read the law.

To be married, every state has two steps. A ceremony and a registration. Edwards and every other candidate says that the registration of CUs should be enough to trigger rights which married people enjoy. They're saying that they aren't going to tell religions their ceremonies have to be extened to gays.

Complaining that someone talks too much about religion when they talk about marriage is like saying someone talks to much about water when they're talking about rain.

It's a tautology, practically.

[ieoeja]

30. So a JP wedding is religious?

If I go to the Justice of the Peace for a purely secular marriage, you're saying it is still religious in nature? I suspect this will be big news to a lot of atheistic couples out there who thought they were getting married without religion.

[Hep]

32. Not the point

We're talking about controlling language. If we're not willing to separate the religious from the civil, we will never pursuade enough people that we're not trying to force the church to do anything.

The issue is NOT one of legality, but one of language.

[Hep]

23. This is very important

We need to separate the concept of the religious institution from the civil one. And the only way we can effectively do that is with LANGUAGE. If we use the term marriage, we never get what we want, because it is a RELIGIOUS institution as much as anything. But if we're talking about giving rights to people who don't have them, that's a ciuvil issue. A Civil union. We have to control the language. We have to make the distinction, because our opposition is going to muddy the waters.

[soleft]

19. not if you get married at city hall it ain't, plenty of married atheists

However, after posting this, I went and did a little research and saw that he's in support of gays in the military and gay adoption, so he's not as conservative as I thought. I stand corrected.

[AP]

22. There's still a ceremony in city hall.

[ieoeja]

31. But it's not a religious ceremony.

[Hep]

33. Not about the ceremony

at all. The problem isn't what atheists think about the nature of the institution. The issue is HOW can we get same sex couples the same rights that married couples have? And the answer is that we do it by distinguishing between giving people rights and making the church change their doctrine.

If all we are going to do is insist that "marriage" isn't just a religious institution, then we're never going to win because the opposition will be controlling the language of the debate. We use Civil Unions to drive the point home that it isn't about the church, it's about equal rights under the law.

[Hep]

21. EXACTLY

*WE* have to control the language. Gay marriage connotes religion. We can give same sex couples all the rights that married couples have without forcing the church to accept gay marriage. Simple as that.

[ShimokitaJer]

39. Sorry, AP -- you're making a noble effort, but you're just plain wrong

In fact, your confusion over whether or not the legal definition of marriage is a religious one is a big part of the problem with the debate over gay marriage.

Church and state are separate, correct? That means that, while the government has the right to recognize marriages, it does not have the right to legislate them AS RELIGIOUS BONDS. It has claimed the right to require registration in order for married couples to receive the legal benefits that the government has decided to grant, but it can claim NO jurisdiction over the religious aspects of marrage. That's why, if anybody decides to get ordained by some rubber-stamp church over the internet, the government is required to recognize weddings that person performs as long as the couple involved claims that person as their "spiritual advisor." The couple would still have to get a license and register the marriage if they wanted the LEGAL benefits of marriage, but the government has NO RIGHT to tell them they aren't married. If you look at it this way, there should be no "legal marriages," only religious marriages and legal civil unions (even between opposite sex couples). If marriage is a religous institution, the government has no right to legislate it.

By the same token, if an ordained minister (of any church whatsoever) decides to marry a gay couple, the government has NO RIGHT to deny that they are married. The big issue right now is whether or not to grant legal rights to married gay couples. And the way I see it, separation of church and state means the government CAN NOT selectively choose to recognize SOME church sanctioned marriages and not others. If they recognize ANY marriage, they are required to recognize ALL marriage.

[AP]

40. You don't understand the law or the debate.

[Hep]

42. Doesn't matter what you think

what matters in terms of civil rights is what the religious people think.

The masses will never be in favor of same sex marriages because of how THEY perceive the institution. They see the word marriage and they think church. But if you ask them if a man should be able to visit his life partner in the hospital, they'll say yes.

This is why civil unions is such a good term. I smacks of separation of church and state, it is palatable to religious people, and achieves the ultimate goal of getting rights extended to everyone.

If you are willing to get caught up in the semantics of tihs debate, we're never going to focus our attention on the POINT of the debate.

[ShimokitaJer]

43. It's just more separate but equal

If gay couples have civil unions while straight couples have marriages, it doesn't matter whether or not the legal benefits are the same -- it's a different institution.

Unless civil marriage between straight couples is also redefined as a civil union, the debate is not going to end by granting gay couples civil unions.

[Hep]

44. wha?????

If gay couples have civil unions while straight couples have marriages, it doesn't matter whether or not the legal benefits are the same -- it's a different institution.


My jaw dropped when I read this. You're saying this isn't about equal rights?

Wow! The gay people in Vermont were pretty happy when Dean's CIVIL UNIONS bill gave them 500 rights they didn't have before. They didn't seem to be all that pissed that it wasn't called a Gay Marriage Act.

For the people that I know who are gay, this is ABOUT getting equal rights. My gay friends don't give a damn what you call it, just let them benefit from being on their partner's health insurance.

Unless civil marriage between straight couples is also redefined as a civil union, the debate is not going to end by granting gay couples civil unions.

I think you're wrong. Why is having the same terminology more important than power of attorney and hospital visitation?

[ShimokitaJer]

46. It's certainly a big step in the right direction, but it's not marriage

If you're arguing that civil unions are good because they are a step toward eventual recognition of gay marriage, I certainly agree. If you're arguing that civil unions are sufficient as a final answer, then you're wrong. Legal recognition is a huge step, but calling it something different does nothing to change the social perception that gays have no right to get married... or the mistaken assumption that religion dictates the terms of government recognition of marriage.

Having the same terminology is not "more important," but same rights/different term is insufficient.

[AP]

47. One step at a time, and you'll get to the ultimate goal faster.

[ShimokitaJer]

51. I certainly agree, but...

Since this particular section of the thread was dedicated to discussion of the idea of whether marriage was a religious or a civil institution, I had to take exception to the equating of marriage and civil unions.

Not all marriages are religious. Even if a ceremony is enacted by a JP, and even if that JP is a fervent believer who sees his actions as religious, the authority to perform that marriage comes not through any religious institution, but through the government. The belief that any religious group should have the power to determine the legal definition of marriage, thereby imposing that definition on others not of that faith, is a very real threat. That is why we must never let a religious definition of marriage define government policy, and why we can't be satisfied with civil unions for gays as a final solution

[AP]

61. marriage is defined as ceremony + certification

the gov't provides a ceremony for people who aren't religious. Yes, of course.

The smartest way to deal with this is to say, let's leave the ceremony part to the religions (notwithstanding the JP alternative) and make the trigger for rights be the certification part.

That's what all the candidates want. That's the separateion of church and state way to go. You gain so much more by going that direction than by saying the government should get in the business of pusing the ceremony part further and further in an ideological direction.

That way of dealing with it (lets increase the breadth of the ceremony part) is the sort of identity politics stance to take which ends up doing more harm than good.

I think the JP thing is a stupid waste of time and money, and it should be enough to get a marriage license. Why do want to unneccessarily increase government costs by expanding the role of the JP? JPs are a waste of tax money.

Isn't this obvious?

[ShimokitaJer]

69. An interesting idea

But let me just make sure I understand you properly:

You want to make the ceremony of marriage unnecessary, and have the legal rights formerly associated with the union of marriage entirely dependent on the certification process (i.e. license plus mutual consent by signature)

You want to make that certification process completely independent of religion and make it available to all couples, including gay couples. Nothings going to stop people from getting married in churches, but it is no longer a necessary part of the process

You want to call the bond created by the ceremony "marriage" and that created by the certification process "civil union" when it comes to gays and "marriage" when it comes to straight couples? Or "civil union" in both cases?

The first two points seem like a great way to go, and that last one is just thrown out there as a discussion point. Yes, except for the different terms in that last part, this solution would satisfy me completely, though I doubt it would satisfy the religous right. One of the hidden agendas here is that the religious right don't want separation of church and state. They are increasingly attempting to make their definitions of marriage, life, etc. the default definitions for government and I doubt they would accept a definition of marriage that was completely divorced from religion. In other words, merely recognizing the rights of a civil partner is okay for gays, but for straight couples they want the government to recognize that their bond is a religious one. After all, how many religious married couples would accept that their bond was "merely" a civil union?

[AP]

93. Why do we even have a JP ceremony? It's a concession to people who

care about religion. It's like saying, "yes, marriage is more than about registering and getting a license so we'll have this secular ceremony."

People arguing that you can't have marriage without having the JP able to perform the ceremony are barking up the wrong tree. If you believe in separation of church and state you should be arguing that we should get rid of the JP altogether, and that the registration should be enought (which is what a CU is anyway).

Let the dog have his bone. Let people who care about religion have their ceremonies. If there's a church that will marry same sex couples, that's great. If the church doesn't want to, so be it (we separate church and state in this country anyway, so who cares).

We shouldn't be arguing for a broader definition of marriage to include same sex unions, We should be arguing for a narrower definition, that makes the ceremony unneccessary for society to confer all the legal benefits of marriage unto married people.

In other words, render onto god what is god's and render unto Ceaser what is Ceasar's. the legal half of marriage is Ceasar's. The ceremonial half can be god's.

Furthermor, think of all the time that is wasted be people who want to get married and all the tax money that is wasted on the whole JP system just because we conceed to religious people that the ceremony is SO important that people who don't believe in god still need a non-god ceremony to get married. Silliness.

And, sure, call it a civil union for straight couples. Let the religious right look down on people who only have civil unions rather than ceremonies. Who cares? Who's even going to know? As long as you have all the legal rights married couples today have it doesn't make a difference.

And this is what all the candidates, including Edwards are angling for when they say that they don't know if the ceremony part needs to be extended to same-sex couples, but they definitely think that the rights conferred by some form of registration should be the same for gay couples and straight couples.

If they have to couch the debate in terms which don't scare off the right wing, who can blame them? They're going to get the results everyone wants sooner if they take this route.

[Hep]

48. I think we're on different pages

If you're arguing that civil unions are good because they are a step toward eventual recognition of gay marriage, I certainly agree. If you're arguing that civil unions are sufficient as a final answer, then you're wrong. Legal recognition is a huge step, but calling it something different does nothing to change the social perception that gays have no right to get married... or the mistaken assumption that religion dictates the terms of government recognition of marriage.

So you're saying that equal rights is a step but the goal is getting people to look at them like they look at married couples? And you propose that calling them married will accomplish this? I might be more cynical than you are, but I don't think calling them married is going solve the problem of public perception or acceptance.

I'll point out now that I'm straight, so I can't say what it is about for the GLBT community. My opinion is only based on what friends have said to me and what my brand of logic dictates.

Thanks for not getting mad when I said it doesn't matter what you think. I'm glad that you knew I meant in terms of public perception, not that your opinions weren't valid.

[ShimokitaJer]

54. No offense taken...

I've certainly seen a lot worse on DU.

I have a feeling we're actually on the same side of the issue. I fully support civil unions for gay couples. The only reason I'm pressing the point of the difference between religious and civil definitions of marriage is because I believe those in power are attempting recast many government institutions as religious and that needs to be resisted. Bush's "protection of marriage" act, his support for "faith based initiatives," the debate over the ten commandments in the courthouse, the debate over "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- I believe these are all part of an attempt to redefine civil institutions as religious, and particularly Christian. The only reason for granting the same legal rights to gay couples but calling it something different, is to further push the impression that marriage is necessarily a religious bond

[Hep]

68. You're right

It's one of several convoluted issues. I realize that in order to have my view, I have to resolve the fact that the right has once again manipulated the language. They've taken control of the word "marriage" and made it mean what they want it to mean. I hate it, and I'm granting their premise.

[spooky3]

16. do you really think that a constitutional amendment

has any chance of succeeding when the Equal Rights Amendment did not?

[AP]

12. "Edward's social conservativism"??? Huh?

People need to get a clue.

[Hep]

5. Does this mean

it's OK for "PEOPLE LIKE HIM" to come down here and tell us what to do now?

Where the hell is Edwards's apology, the weak kneed hypocrite?

[quinnox]

7. Well, to be cynical, Edwards is grateful to Dean

He scored major points in the debate, by calling Dean out forcefully. I saw an article where it said this might be a turning point for the Edwards campaign, the spark where Edwards catapults to the top bracket. I tend to agree with them.

I am not saying Edwards wasn't gracious, he was, but it might be for more reasons then seem apparent at first glance.

[JNelson6563]

28. yep, like AG in a Dean Admin.

Edwards is no fool.

Julie

[CMT]

37. I also think Edwards is keeping his options open

he is a great guy, but also an ambitious guy like any politician. He gave up the senate to run for president and if that doesn't pan out it may be he would like to have some good will with Dean (should he be nominated) to be on his list for vice president, like he was with Gore in 2000.

[Snellius]

9. Edwards just hung a "VP for hire" sign around his neck

It was a magnanimous gesture but maybe he knows he owes an apology too for jumping too quickly at a cheap political gotcha.

[AP]

14. Not EVERYTHING is about Dean.

Dean would never pick someone who is the opposite of a Libertarian.

It would be like admitting that everything you stand for is wrong.

[blm]

53. Nope. Hillary and Kerry applauded Bush for going to the UN

and heeding their advice to him. That's how you keep the dishonest more honest. Reward them publically for their capitulation.

Man...it's one of the oldest political tricks in the book. Clinton used it all the time with the GOP congress.

[AP]

10. The article has an unrebutted statement from a Republican that Bush ...

increased public education funding. Why do they leave that out there unrebutted?

Bush is increasing education funding so that school districts can buy standardized tests from private companies. It's like Bush increasing funding for Iraq. Just because you throw many at something doesn't mean it isn't a mess, IF THAT MONEY IS JUST FLOWING DOWN INTO SOME PRIVATE COMPANY'S POCKET.

Why don't they spend money on teachers and infrastructure so that students, and not Neil Bush, profit from the 'investement' in education made by the government?

[onecitizen]

11. I was disappointed in Edwards when.............

he skewered Dean at the debate on CNN. I think it was a really cheap shot and I thought he was above that. Especially since Dean was right. Just like he was right re: the Israeli/Pales. issue. He may not be eloquent in his speaking, but,IMO, he is right on both those issues.

[Hep]

17. Stick to that

because some people here will tell you that looking good on TV is more important than being right.

[sangh0]

26. Dean disagrees

Dean said that he thought Edwards was genuinely hurt by his remarks. Dean's apology for the pain he caused was gracious. You might want to consider emulating it.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[AP]

95. The interesting thing is that he didn't say same thing about Sharpton.

Sharpton gave him the black man's perspective. Edwards gave him the southern white man with humble roots's perspective. Dean went out of his way to say that it was Edwards who made him understand and with whom he now empathizes. As for Sharpton...crickets.

So, if Dean's message is that he's trying to tell white people, "I feel your pain, caused by racism," then his apology continued making that point.

[mbali]

96. Great point! n/t

[AP]

102. There are several posts here that state things that are so true...

...they have the "excellent post" and "good point" replies.

I'm not sure if we're all brilliant for figuring this stuff out, or if we're idiots for responding to things that are so brutally and painfully obvious with the emotion of surprise, as if acknowleging the truth is so rare that it should surpise us.

[criticalwords]

24. Get over Dean and civil unions!!!

I'm sick and tired of hearing people spout that crap, and I'm sick and tired of hearing Dean brag about it.

DEAN WAS FORCED TO SIGN THE BILL BY VERMONT!!!

HE DIDN'T WANT TO SIGN IT, HE WAS FORCED TO!

Get a clue people.

Dean is an opportunist...

[Ripley]

27. Ring ring ring ...

Pick up the phone, it's your doctor calling. He really says you need to stop taking those pyschotrophic drugs, it's affecting your perception of reality.

Did someone march Dean into the room and put a pistol to his head and force him to sign it after he walked around with a bulletproof vest on for months?

[mbali]

29. I'm also tired

of Dean and his supporters trotting out this one bill as evidence of his civil rights credentials whenever they are asked to offer any proof of what Dean has done to advance the cause of race relations. While it's all well and good that Dean signed this bill, whatever his motivations, it is hardly proof that Dean is some great civil rights crusader. It is, however, typical of Dean's lack of any in-depth insight into the race issue, as evidenced by his consistent tendency to always address the issue by going straight into talk about white folks.

[TLM]

113. So first of its kind legislation can be ignored, because he didn't do more

Dean has doen more for equal rights than anybody else running, including sharpton.


Is it you think there are no gay black folks or gay asian folks or gay latinos? Does gays=whites in your mind?


Also look at the social programs Dean put in place like the sucess by six program to help those most in need, regardless of race. Dean worked to lift everybody up and reduced child abuse by 47% and child sexual abuse by 70%. Is it your position that there are no minority kids who are abused?

Does a policy have to only protect the rights of one minority to group to be credited as benefiting civil rights?

Dean has a very strong civil rights record and it shows...

I will support affirmative action, from which we have all benefited, because it has strengthened our institutions and provided opportunity.

I will unflinchingly defend a woman’s right to choose against those who would take away this right.

I will nominate federal judges with outstanding legal credentials, records of professional excellence, and demonstrated commitment to the constitutional principles of equality, liberty, and privacy.

I will work to expand equal rights to same-sex couples and ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, strengthen federal protections against anti-gay violence, give federal employees the right to name same-sex partners as beneficiaries, remove bias from our immigration laws, and end the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

I will work to ensure that racial profiling ends and I will direct my Attorney General to use regulatory authority under existing anti-discrimination laws the 1964 Civil Rights Act to define racial profiling as discrimination, and to withhold federal funds from state and local law enforcement that violate those regulations.

I will appoint an Attorney General who sees our constitution not as a document to be manipulated, ignored, and violated, but who recognizes and respects it as the fabric that binds the American community together.

I will oppose expansion of the Patriot Act, efforts to remove sunset clauses included in the act, and I will seek to repeal the portions of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional.

I will put the weight of my office behind the Innocence Protection Act, proposed by Senator Patrick Leahy, which would expand access to DNA testing and strengthen the quality of lawyers for defendants facing the death penalty.

I will protect the civil rights of immigrants detained by the Department of Homeland Security.

I will work for federal legislation to restore the right to vote in any federal election for ex-felons who have paid their debt to society.

[killbotfactory]

41. Nope.

Nice try, though.

[TLM]

112. Anybody else notice the sudden influx on new accounts bashing Dean?

Dean was not forced to sign the civil unions bill, he could have easily done what several other governors did and amend the state constitution to block it.

Instead Dean took the mandate from the court to protect the rights of gays, and used it to pass a law that focused on the rights, not the words. Gay marriage wouldn't have gotten passed, even in VT. But civil unions did get passed, because the law was about the rights of people not the institution of marriage that is seen by so many as a religious issue they don’t want the government f-ing with.

The fact is Dean had to wear a bullet proof vest for several months because of death threats he got for supporting the bill and he damn near lost the election over signing the bill.

But he did it, and that's more than anybody else has ever done... and he deserves credit for getting it done.


Oh and by the way... the civil rights movement was backed up by several court decisions, do you also feel that folks like Dr King were forced to fight for civil rights by the courts... or did they use the courts for leverage and momentum to aid in their fight?

[wryter2000]

25. Way cool, Senator

Real class. :yourock:

[truthspeaker]

38. marriage is both a civil and a religious institution

Government should only be concerned with the civil part (and thanks to the First Amendment it is). If the feds ever codify gay marriage it should explicitly state that no church or religious organization would be required to perform such a ceremony. Churches already have that right - any clergyperson can refuse to perform a marriage for any reason, but I see nothing wrong with reiterating it. I think the Canadian law does just that.

For example, interracial marriage is (finally) legal in all 50 states, but the Church of Christ (for example) is not required to marry an interracial couple.

[CWebster]

35. I'll not wait for your apology to the American people

about sending their children to be killed, promising there would be cheering Iraqis in the streets. You smug empty suit. Some people will do anything to get their name in the paper.

[Hep]

36. Dean's got a BIG set of coattails

Eventually everyone will be jumping on.

[Scott Lee]

45. Edwards for Press Spokesman

I smell a great cabinet position for him in a Dean administration. Keep it up!

[Nailzberg]

49. If you gonna put him in the Dean cabinet, let the guy be AG

eom

[Scott Lee]

56. Even better!

Thanks for the correction.

[Eloriel]

50. I thought he was a class act too

Until I saw a clip of him in the debate telling Dean he had no business telling Southerners what to do -- LIKE VOTE FOR US INSTEAD OF THEM?? What a STOOGE.

Under Edwards' rule, no one except another Southerner has a right to talk to Southerners at all, about anything.

Well, screw that.

And him.

Eloriel

[haymaker]

52. Yeah, that ridiculous piling-on, out of context attack

this week was real classy.

[blm]

60. Care to put in its real context. Dean remarked on his NRA support

when he used the Con flag argument. ALOT different than the context of race relations that he referenced last February. But, hey, let's PRETEND he was talking about race relations when NOWHERE in the interview does Dean talk about anything except the NRA and gun control when he pointed to the Con flag wavers.

[haymaker]

62. They all made it out to be about race,

when it wasn't. "He should apologize to so and so..". Bullshit. They knew he didn't mean anything racist about it and they knew he meant that he believes the Democrats should make a point of telling poor/middle class white southerners that they are being fucked by the Repubs and to quit voting for them.

But noooooo, they had to make a big CLASSLESS, race baiting, bullshit brouhaha out of it.

How churchillian. How Rooseveltian.

[spooky3]

65. If that's what Dean meant, that's what he should have SAID.

He's made his apology. It's time for us to stop debating what Dean meant and what Edwards meant, and MOVE ON and let this issue die as it should, rather than provide more ammunition to the Repugs. Let's try to find some solutions to bigger problems.

[haymaker]

79. No argument from me.

If only all were so insightful.

[blm]

77. Dean SAID he was trying to discuss race relations

when he made his "clumsy" remark. That was Dean's using race to cover up the FACT that he was using the Confederate flag while talking about his NRA support. Stick to the facts. Dean lied.

The others jumped on his USE of the flag and its symbolism. Dean's lie to coverup was his own doing.

That may have been lost on you and many others, but, don't think there aren't sharp people out there who DID notice, and some of them work for Karl Rove.

[haymaker]

81. Wrong again.

How did you get inside Dean's head and miss it completely?

I read what he said and think you are wrong. Dean lied? What are you psychic?

Gawd this is pathetic. One reach after another. You guys are relentless.

Isn't casting your vote for Bush enough? Do you feel like you need to poison the well too?

[blm]

82. Read the article yourself. Find race relations anywhere and you win.

Do you see ANYTHING about race relations in this article?

The whole article is about the NRA and gun control, and NOWHERE does Dean mention race relations. NOWHERE.

Now...Nowhere does Dean say he was talking about the NRA when he made the remark. NOW, Dean says he was talking about race relations. That is not true.

Some of you are happy with Dean's lies and shifting stories. Many of us are not.
 
http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22649906.html
Kerry criticizes Dean's gun views
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
11/01/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, said Dean's opposition to an assault weapons ban in 1992, recorded in a National Rifle Association endorsement questionnaire, contradicts his position as a presidential candidate supporting a federal assault weapons ban.

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

"Howard Dean, during the time we were trying to pass it, was appealing to the NRA for their support," Kerry said, while visiting a rural Story County farm.
"We don't need to be a party that says we need to be the candidacy of the NRA. We stand up against that."

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

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

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

[haymaker]

92. I was refering to the rebel flag

dust-up. It wasn't about race either, until he unfortunately said rebel flag and that was all it took for the paraphrasing and misinterpretations to begin. The "he should apologize" stuff. it was out of context.

[blm]

106. My problem is with Dean's lie that he said it to talk about race

when he was saying it to talk about guns and never mentioned race relations.

You think that reporter doesn't have him on tape?

[mbali]

67. Howard "Chance" Dean?

Remember the classic film in which Peter Sellers plays Chauncey Gardner (Chance the Gardner), a complete imbecile who makes clueless and moronic comments that everyone else things demonstrate his vast brilliance and insight into politics and society?

Howard Dean is starting to remind me of Chauncey. While I don't think that Dean is a moron - not even close, he's obviously a very smart man - the "Being There" dynamic infuses these discussions. Dean supporters always seem to interpret every comment he makes - regardless how casual and shallow - as evidence of his brilliance, depth and insight.

When Dean makes a simple and poorly thought-out comment about welcoming Confederate flag decal sporting white folks into the fold in the context of the NRA and gun control, his supporters turn that into some sort of insightful discussion on race.

When questions are raised about his comments, Dean supporters recite a litany of thought-provoking insights that he REALLY MEANT when he spoke, even though he didn't even come close to saying any such thing.

When he is criticized for insensitivity, we are told that this shows that he is SUPER sensitive to the issue and the very fact that we are complaining about his comments is evidence of his absolute genius.

When questions are raised about why he would make such a reckless comment, Dean supporters scream that he MEANT to stir up controversy, that he is purposely trying to provoke dialogue in a forward-thinking effort to force Democrats to finally, at long last, to address this issue.

I have no doubt that if Howard Dean held a press conference tomorrow to announce that the sky was green, Deanies would fall all over themselves proclaiming that "Dr. Dean is once again demonstrating that he is his own man and will not allow himself to be restrained by the laws of nature and science in his interpretation of the color of the sky."

It's amusing to see numerous attempts to characterize Dean's comments as further evidence of his brilliance and infallibility when the logical explanation is simply that Howard Dean said something stupid.

[DrFunkenstein]

70. Quote of the Day

"When Dean makes a simple and poorly thought-out comment about welcoming Confederate flag decal sporting white folks into the fold in the context of the NRA and gun control, his supporters turn that into some sort of insightful discussion on race."

[haymaker]

85. His supporters?

Man, this is surreal.

[spooky3]

71. Well put--except that I'd suggest we say "SOME Dean

supporters..."

I am a Dean contributor (and have contributed to other candidates) and still support him (and remain ABB), but I agree with your comments.

[mbali]

73. Point taken

You're right. I generally try to phrase it that way, but failed to do so this time.

[haymaker]

86. I'd say so.

Generalize much. The post was an incredible reach.

[blm]

78. HAHA...but, this is more sad than funny, because it will bring down the

whole Dem party. ALL Dean's lies are being catalogued to be played endlessly during the election.

[haymaker]

83. I saw what he said,

read what he said, and I know exactly where he was going with it. If you want to cry about the rebel flag reference go ahead. I couldn't give a rat's ass.

It is only the Dean haters or opportunistic, and self defeating opponents who want to distort what he was saying.

You guys are killing us. that's not what you want is it?

[mbali]

89. Thanks for making my point

You knew exactly where Dean was going with his comment - even though he obviously didn't?

But let's not forget that Dean is brilliant and infallible and, therefore, anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him or, God forbid, criticize him, is a "Dean hater, opportunistic or a self-defeating opponent."

Do you have any idea how sycophantic and irrational you sound in attacking the motivations of every single person who questions Dean?

[haymaker]

91. That's hysterical.

Nobody is saying that Dean is infallible. Or brilliant, so stow that rhetoric.

Do you have any idea how little you know about what I think? I am sure you can read Dean's mind, but apparently you cannot read mine. You are so far away from away from knowing where I stand that it calls into question YOUR motives.

I heard EXACTLY what he said and do not think he should have been pilloried for it. I will confess that his choice of words was bad, but I had no trouble following his line of thinking. And the one portrayed in the media, and yes, by his opponents who are shooting us all in the foot, was not even similiar.

The strawmen are out in force. Face it, you may not be a Dean detractor dead set upon his defeat, at all costs, but there are many. I am just pointing it out.

[AP]

97. This is some of the best political commentary I read...right here at DU.

mbali, you need to blog.

This is a smarter, more accurate, more insightful assessment of the current state of the political debate than anything published in any journal, or spoken on CNN or NPR or anywhere else.

Everyone is afraid to say this. Yet this is so true. The "Being There" analogy is spot on.

[blm]

107. I agree. Brilliant.

Because it's accurate.

The shame of it is that Dean knows he is manipulating them. He knows what he said, he knows his real centrist record, yet he plays the angry populist role to the hilt anyway. Kinda mean to hoodwink your audience most of the time. And the media plays right along....for now.

[MercutioATC]

55. Edwards has shown some real class lately

I think he's shown some real character in the debates and, while I take issue with some of his comments, I've been impressed with the was he's handled himself. As of a month or so ago, he's my #2 choice. If Dean doesn't get it, I really hope Edwards does.

[CWebster]

59. Reply to Edwards

"NO ONE ACCUSED Howard Dean of whistling Dixie in February when he tried to appeal to Southern white men or to Southern black people about Southern white men.

'You know all those white guys riding around with Confederate flags in the back of their pickup trucks? Well, their kids don't have health insurance either.'

Dean said this before a group of African-Americans at a hamburger joint in Spartanburg, S.C. A Newsday story said, 'This blunt appeal to a commonality of racial interests won the moment and a burst of applause.'

That same month in Washington at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting, Dean said, "I intend to talk about race during this election in the South because the Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us. . . . White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals in the back ought to be voting with us and not them, because their kids don't have health insurance either and their kids need better schools, too."

That brought a standing ovation.

That makes very curious the catcalls nine months later from Dean's rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination...

...At this week's Rock the Vote forum in Boston, John Edwards told Dean, \'"The last thing we need in the South is somebody like you coming down and telling us what we need to do.' Al Sharpton said Dean sounded 'more like Stonewall Jackson than Jesse Jackson.' Sharpton also said, "Maynard Jackson said that the Confederate flag is America's swastika. . . . I don't think you're a bigot, but I think that is insensitive.'

That last dig showed how fast Sharpton and the Democratic candidates get lost without a compass. Maynard Jackson, Atlanta's first African-American mayor who died this summer, gave Dean some of the loudest applause at the DNC meeting...

...Dean should not drop the cause. The real apology should come from the other Democratic candidates for not joining it. Dean was the first to get off the floor to say the Democrats cannot win unless they tell white men how code politics is killing them in the pocketbook. Back in February, Maynard Jackson said Dean's bluntness 'stole the show.' The other candidates are merely jealous that Dean stole the issue of white men while they are still talking their way out of the fetal position

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1107-04.htm

[Ripley]

66. WOW. Thanks for posting that.

Krugman, Common Dreams,...man I'm in good company.

[PurityOfEssence]

94. It may come as a shock, but Dean is not the center of the universe

Edwards was shown a clip of the February speech by Matthews on Hardball last night, and said flat-out that he'd never heard anything of it; when asked what his response would have been had he heard it at the time, Edwards said that he would have taken issue with it.

This is a recurring theme of unctuous hypocrisy among the Dean supporters: when Dean insulted everyone else on the stage by saying that he was the only one of them who spoke about race in front of white audiences, he was unrepentant to being corrected. His argument was that he couldn't be expected to see EVERY speech that his opponents gave. Suddenly, however, all of his opponents are absolutely obligated to hang on his every word and know all of his utterances. Somehow there's some kind of "window of opportunity" with Dean's pronouncements: if one doesn't respond immediately, one is being "politically motivated".

Dean is a religion: he doesn't need to be responsible for anything bad he does, and all good flows from him. This is ridiculous.

He repeatedly slanders the Senators for having voted for the tax cuts, when they ALL voted against them, and vigorously fought them.

He slanders them on their sincerity over the issue of race, which is something many of them have dealt with--and had to--for all of their careers, when he has been in a small pond where it's not an issue.

Dean expects everyone to "be fair" and listen to everything he says, but absolves himself of any responsibility to those other inferiors who are obviously morally stunted.

Set aside the war issue--I hate it too, by the way--and look at Edwards' record: he's a glowing light of virtue, dammit. He's a damn sight more liberal and po'-folk friendly than Howard Brush Dean III.

[sangh0]

98. Good point, POE

Dean has no problem pointing to certain votes that happened months to years ago, but if Dean said something similar in the same time frame, he claims it's "politically motivated" unless they complain immediately. He complains about how some voted for the PATRIOT Act, but on 9/13/2001 Dean gave an interview and said we might have to limit our civil liberties in response to the attack.

[mbali]

99. Excellent Post!

His argument was that he couldn't be expected to see EVERY speech that his opponents gave. Suddenly, however, all of his opponents are absolutely obligated to hang on his every word and know all of his utterances.

Dean said the same thing after wrongly accusing John Edwards of ducking his Iraq war vote, moments after Edwards had stood up to boos over the issue from the same audience. When called on his misguided attack, Dean claimed that he hadn't heard Edwards - who had spoken just before him.

Dean needs to either start paying closer attention to what his opponents are saying and doing or else stop trying to characterize behavior he obviously knows nothing about.

[AP]

100. Excellent catch.

I'm embarrassed I didn't notice that too.

Well said.

[Scott Lee]

104. Then why do his detractors insist on making him so?

n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

63. Thank you, Senator Edwards

as a Dean supporter who was VERY disappointed in the gang bang the good Senator chose to engage in, I appreciate your backing off of what, IMO, was a non-issue in the first place.

[PopSixSquish]

74. Speaking as Someone Who Has Had...

the "pleasure" of being told to my face by another person from that great and enlightened state of California what was wrong with me for being a Southerner, I can understand why Edwards got pissed. And yes I am an Edwards supporter, but I'd also vote for Dean were he to get the nomination.

Good idea, bad execution on everyone's part and let's move the h*ll on!

[Classical_Liberal]

88. I don't agree.

When Edwards going to apologize for the George Wallace routine he did in responce to Dean. When is he going to apologize for saying the confederate flag is a "frivolous issue"?

[TLM]

105. Good job... I bet he knows that he's on the short list for VP

Good for Edwards... now I can take him off my "needs swift kick in the nuts" list.