What is this "Howard Dean democrat?"

[MrPeepers]

It is beyond my comprehension how people can classify themselves as democrats, and yet support only one man. How about Howard Deanocrats? How is it that people can be "democrats" and yet refuse to support anyone but Howard Dean? That is not a democrat at all. You can't be a democrat if you abandon your party when your favored candidate isn't picked. You can't be a democrat if you refuse to vote to oust the most divisive and extremist President we've had in modern history. What, exactly, is so repulsive about the other candidates? Kerry, Clark, Edwards, no matter what is said about them they have never been, nor will ever be, this Bush Lite that is so despised. How is the man who got a 93 lifetime rating from Liberal Americans for Democratic Action "Bush lite?" Someone, please, explain to me how this works, because I honestly don't get it.

Peepers

[maddezmom]

1. it was started by the RNC/GOP in ads against Dean

and his supporters picked up on it. I'm not sure it's really against other candidates, more against the ad.

[Mass_Liberal]

2. for one thing

a Howard Dean democrat doesn't mean you won't vote for the nominee if it's not Howard. Otherwise, like you said, we would be called Deanocrats. A Howard Dean democrat is someone who believes that if we're going to be the opposition Party, we'd sure as hell better start opposing.


That means not voting with Bush, ever. That means not trusting a Republican to do the right thing with the authority to go to war. That means not voting for unfunded mandates. That means balancing the budget. That means making national security as much of a democratic issue as a republican one. That means making sure that the word patriotism doesn't belong to John Ashcroft, Tom DeLay, George Bush, and Dick Cheney. That means a democrat who saw Howard Dean, and in him, saw real passion in a politician for the first time in decades.

All of those things, and more that I missed, make a Howard Dean Democrat.

[MrPeepers]

4. Mhm

That sounds a lot like what a "John Kerry democrat" would be, too. Fancy that!

Peepers

[Mass_Liberal]

7. well

Dean and Kerry have plenty in common. Dean just has more balls, and less of a history of caving on important votes.

[MrPeepers]

19. What votes?

Patriot Act? IWR? And what else, then? Let's talk about good ole' Howard. How about signing the Civil Unions bill only when faced with a certain overturn of any veto by the legislature, signing it in private with "grave reservations?" How about shipping nuclear waste to hispanic communities in the south west? What big, big balls he has!

Peepers

[Mass_Liberal]

38. ya, sure

Patriot Act, IWR. That's enough in my book. By the way, the signing of the Civil Unions bill took a hell of a lot of courage, anyone can see that. Dean had threats on his life, he had to wear a bulletproof vest. Furthermore, I'm sure it damaged his chances of reelection. But he did it anyway.


Call him what you will, but don't say he's gutless because that's blatantly false and you know it.

[MrPeepers]

46. And how about Senator Kerry?

Don't hold Dean up as the patron saint of all that is brave and then denounce the man who was brave enough to get himself landed on Nixon's target list. The man who was brave enough to back some of the very first legislation regarding gay rights. More recently, he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. Do you honestly think the Senator has never had threats on his life?

Peepers

[Indiana_Dem]

3. Probably because of all the corporate backing

and the vote on the IWR and Patriot Act and NAFTA/GATT/WTO....

[sallyseven]

8. I don't think all of Dean

supporters are not going to vote democrat in the election. Dean himself has indicated that he will support the nominee. People should remember that Dean never had to make those choices and vote in the public arena. He is using the benefit of hind sight.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. News flash: Dean supports NAFTA/GATT/WTO

and only wants to tinker with them, not renegotiate them.

[Mass_Liberal]

39. He said he wanted

to renegotiate NAFTA to work in international labor rights. That's a fairly large step. I wouldn't call it mere tinkering.

[Tinoire]

5. Think of them as moderate Progressives who are anti unjust wars &

anti the establishment of Anglo imperialism because of all the misery that has wraught on the world. Then you'll understand what a Howard Dean Democrat is.

Howard Dean Democrats are progressives wanting to take their party back from the Republicanish hands of the DLC.

Multiply that disgust and anger at the DLC & Democratic establishment by 3, change the anger to mourning, and that is a Kucinich Democrat.

It has nothing to do with the candidates- it has to do with how far we're willing to see our ideals prostituted.

[MrPeepers]

9. Okay

First, what Anglo imperialism? I think we can hardly blame the current worlds ills on our imperialistic tendencies. The problem lies far more with our tendancy to stay out, in my opinion. Might I add that Howard Dean democrats aren't the only moderate progressives around, or the only people opposed to unjust war. I don't believe our ideas are being "prostituted." How, exactly, are democratic ideals being whored out? I don't see that. Might I add that the DLC is hardly "Republicanish." Lieberman isn't exactly Kucinich, but he's not George Bush, whatever people say. Not even close.

Peepers

[Minstrel Boy]

16. "we can hardly blame the...world's ills on our imperialistic tendencies"

That you can believe that goes some way to explaining why you have your work cut out for you rallying independents, Greens, progressives and "Howard Dean Democrats" to your cause. Which is what, exactly, if it's not undoing the damage of America's "imperialistic tendencies"?

[Atlant]

10. That's a very good way of putting it.

> It has nothing to do with the candidates- it has to do with how far
> we're willing to see our ideals prostituted.

That's a very good way of putting it. It's the crux of why I
(apparently) won't be voting Democratic this November.

Atlant

[blm]

11. Then why identify with the biggest CORPORATIST/CENTRIST in the race?

It shows complete diregard for Howard Dean's REAL record.

An accurate description might be - I believe Howard Dean's CAMPAIGN RHETORIC Democrat

[Cuban_Liberal]

14. His record is not corporatist.

It is, however, centrist.

[edzontar]

25. And whatever you guys try to say--he OPPOSED BUSH"S WAR

Which Kerry and Edwards supported....nuff said.

[blm]

27. Biden-Lugar use of force was NOT the antiwar position. Nuff said.

.

[Cuban_Liberal]

30. Not 'nuff said'.

It was significantly different from the IWR, and Dean's position has been pretty clear on this: he would have voted for the IWR *ONLY* if it had the B-L amendment attached to it.

[blm]

31. HAHAH...a "letter" to Hastert was enough to stop the war? HAHAHa.

.

[Cuban_Liberal]

35. That isn't the point.

The point is he would not have voted FOR the IWR w/o the B-L Amendment, something he has been entirely consistent on.

[blm]

26. Tell that to the environmentalists who hated Dean for his favoring of

corporations throughout his career as governor.

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. WHICH environmentalists?

They're not a monoluithic group, blm. MANY enviornmental groups, like the NRA, Ducks Unlimited, etc., thought he did a hell of a good job.

[blm]

32. I hope everyone reads your answer.

.

[Cuban_Liberal]

34. I hope they do, too.

Too many self-appointed spokesmen for 'environmental groups (plura;)' seem to think that only THEY speak for those of us who support the environment.

[Ripley]

6. First of all you need to read the rules of this board.

This board is not for "Democrats" only. In fact there are a lot of Independents (like me) and Greens here. This board is for Democrats, liberals, and progressives.

I should not be expected to vote for Kerry just because he is a Democrat.

Kerry has done nothing in his decades of existence as a public servant to break up the media monopolies who have been subverting our Democratic process, re-educating Americans with propoganda and determining elections recently, noticed that? Oh yeah, they like him because he won't rock the boat.

Yeah, there are big differences in the candidates and those of us who don't support the senators who gave Bush everything he asked for shouldn't be told to sit down, shut up and vote D.

The weak Democratic party has really killed itself this time.

[MrPeepers]

17. Umm

First, I was referring to the "Howard Dean democrats," not to everyone in general, hence the party references.

I don't expect you to vote for Kerry just because he is a Democrat. I expect people who say they support the democratic party and democratic ideas to vote for Kerry, IF he is the nominee. I'm not asking anyone to vote for Kerry in the Primaries just because I said so, by any means.

What effect, exactly, would breaking up these "media monopolies" have? There will always be a bias in the media, that's completely unavoidable. This media-controlling-our-elections is, to be frank, conspiracy theory. The media is not a united front to put forward a candidate they like, not by any means. Re-educating Americans? Then how is it that this country is still so deeply politically divided?

I'm pretty damn sure that the Senators you mention did NOT give Bush everything he asked for. Bush didn't ask for an IWR vote that included the demand for UN involvement. Bush didn't ask for a giant reduction in the size of his tax cut plan. Bush didn't ask for blocking of his judicial nominees. Bush didn't ask for a prolonged, dirty fight over his Medicare bill. Bush didn't ask for months of attacks leveled at him by the Democratic field.

It's cynical conspiracy theorists who have weakened the Democratic party, thank you very much.

Peepers

[Ripley]

21. Before you insult me again...

Maybe you should read a little...

http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/040201_TheScream.htm

If you honestly think the Democratic party is strong except for those fruitcake cynical conspiracy theorists...tell me how conspiracy folks kept the Democrats from winning elections in the last few go-rounds?

[vision]

42. IWR did not "force" Bush to do much

the text of the resolution says

"The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ."

the Key word IMO is "supports", it did not force him to go to the UN but it did support him there.

It continues
"(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ."

The President is "authorized" to use force and He deterimes when and how it should be used. The IWR IMO was a blank check that only "forced" him to endorse the back in order to cash it. It did not ask for mutiple forms of ID (i.e. proof) etc.

"Giant reduction" in his tax bill? I guess that is in the eye of the beholder but to me it wasn't a giant reduction.

And the fight over the Medicare bill was not "dirty" enough IMO.

Bush got what he wanted and except for a few judicial apppointment he has got what he wanted their also. Certainly the Dems were pointing out how many more they have approved than the Repubs did for Clinton.

[Mass_Liberal]

12. by the way

Howard Dean, and by extension, maybe, Howard Dean Democrats, have recognized, as I'm sure we all have in DU, that our Party has become weakened and tainted. Since 9/11, Democrats in the House and Senate have been, for lack of a better term, wusses.

The DLC and other elements in our Party are calling our core ideas radical, and have given us the impression that our base ideals are unappealing to voters. Dean just wants the democratic party to go back to its roots and to as he put it "Lift up a true democratic agenda against the Republican agenda, because if you do that, the Republican agenda wins every time."

If we stick to our beliefs, as Dr. Dean tells us to do, we will win every time.

[Kanary]

22. Uh, there's one Dem in the House who is FAR from a "wuss"

Remember him?

The one who keeps correcting these oversights?

Yeah, him.

Kanary

Kucinich 2004!

[Mass_Liberal]

40. you're right

but I'm afraid Kucinich is more consistent in following his beliefs than many other congressmen and senators.

[dansolo]

13. The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party

And before the Kucinich people get all up in arms, they are part of it as well. That phrase does not exclusively refer to liberals. Paul Wellstone wanted to get big money out of the political system, and that is what he meant by the phrase. Dean and Kucinich exemplified this the most in this election.

[blm]

33. Dean's entire record as governor was CORPORATIST.

You can't revise the facts of what Dean did WHILE in power.

A man is his record, NOT his rhetoric.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[politick]

15. I just think

people felt Howard Dean is real, that he speaks from the heart, that he offers empowerment, that he represents change from the Beltway Vacuum that has done so much to ruin this country. He is an outsider who seemed to spark the interest of an entire nation, and the thought of going from the country's worst president to THAT, in such a short period of time, was really inspiring. And now those hopes have been all but dashed, and by the very forces Dean and his supporters are against: Big Media, politics as usual, divisions, the Establishment.

And Kerry, liberal rating or no, is the Establishment personified. Granted it is within the DNC. But he is still a suit. Dean supporters felt a real surge of energy, almost a high, and to watch it get crushed by the grinding wheel of history, to see that real change is hard to foment and easy to quell, is disheartening. There is a kind of arrogance about Kerry that many resent. The fact that he can sort of swoop in from under Dean, steal his issues, steal the momentum he created in the party, and then declare himself above the fray leaves many with a sour taste.

While ABB is great, and I intend to vote ABB, there is a sort of nagging question: in the long run, how much progress have WE really made when we elect a man worth $800, 000,00.00, who raised more money from lobbyists than any other senator into the White House? This is a man who's going to stand up to special interests? The man who voted for two of the worst pieces of legislation put forth by the Bush Administration, two bills that sum up the arrogance and recklessness of the President? So we'll replace that with a man who, sure, under Ted Kennedy's shadow was able to vote liberally, but can't even come out in favor of gay marriage? Who toe checks every issue for political ramifications? A man who has managed to be on both sides of every issue from Vietnam to Iraq?!

That doesn't answer the question of the other candidates, and that's not necessarily how I feel, but I think it does go a little way toward describing the Deanie condition right now. We're defeated by history again. And perhaps we're foolish to think Dean is different, better. But now we may never know.

[mondo joe]

20. For me it means not having to plug my nose when I vote

I'll vote for Kerry.

But Dean is one of the few potential nominees that I wouldn't have to plug my nose to vote for.

[shance]

23. I feel Howard Dean is real and the others are more imitation

Thats how I see it.

[candy331]

45. I see the Howard Dean phenomenon

as a movement by the people rather than just about the man. Howard Dean is just the messenger or you might say spokesmen for the movement at this time. Somewhat like MLK was the greatest spokesperson for the Civil Rights movement which continued even after his death. Dean came on the scene spoke up when the others were cowering behind Bush and persons who were dying(you could say angry) for change heard him and jumped on the bandwagon. They now saw where they could become involved in their govt and were encouraged to get involved, that they could make a difference. Of these persons I am one.

Many, many, persons recite how they never were involved or had left the political system altogether were inspired by Dean's message. I was so impressed with all the young folks who went to Iowa and yet they were trashed by the media and not highly welcomed and praised by the party as new voters who are so needed by the party.If the party didn't want Dean surely they should have extended open arms to them and to now think they will just switch to whomever they choose as candidate is absurd. What a shame that the Democrats tore and allowed others to tear one of their own to shreds. If Dean does not win which it now looks like the SELECTED candidate will be Kerry, Dean will go on about his life but the cost will be to the party. I will repeat from Zell Miller while holding my nose to do so the Dem party is on a crash course to "A National Party No More".

[edzontar]

24. I think you miss the point. Dean's movement emerged

At a time when Dems like Kerry et al were caving in to bush at every turn, when the DNC Dem-Lite strategy had led us to crushing defeat (2002), and when our country had been hijacked by a criminal, illegitimate administration that made illegal war and the repeal of the Bill of rights its principle policies.

As these horrors transpired, what did we hear from Kerry and his ilk?


Nothing, just waffling and weakness, surrender and defeat....


Then Dean comes along and speaks the truth about the party's sell-out to war and fascism, and attracts a solid core of dedicated progressives.


The establishment candidates, fingers to the wind, take note of this and begin to actually criticize Bush and the war.

And then the hatchet job begins on Dean--- as we saw here on DU for months.


But the Kerry folks and the other Dem-Lite operatives failed to grasp the full implications of the movment, or that possibility that their strategy of bashing and dis-entitlement might backfire.

As a result, they will surely fail to attract any significant support from the majority of the Dean camp.

Indeed, they may well have helped to isnpire a new movement that will refuse to compromise with their "lesser of two evils" agenda of war and corporate sell-out.

That reains to be seen.

But as far as money and active support is concerned, my guess is that Kerry will get very little indeed from the Dean folks.

He hasn't done anything to deserve our support, and I for one will no longer provide it in exchange for NOTHING.

[politick]

28. well put edzontar

I may not completely agree, but you seem to have summed it up. Nicely done.

[vision]

37. Do you support one man?

You have a graphic of Kerry beside your name so I suppose you support Kerry. How is that any different than those that support Dead?

I support Kucinich first of all but don't brand myself as any specific Dem. Personally I would rather have Dean than Kerry but will vote for whoever is the nominee.

[Mass_Liberal]

41. I think you mean

Dean, not Dead. That's a freaky slip, dude ;-)

[vision]

43. lol

yeah but if you listen to the media he might as well be ;)

But so was Paul B-)

[LizW]

44. "You're not a real Democrat if..."

So you're ready to throw people out of the party who don't salute and fall in line quickly enough? Sounds like a plan.

Be sure and let us know how that works out in November.

Here's a newsflash: Howard Dean is still in the race for President. He's running second in the delegate count. If he drops out, ONLY THEN will I consider another candidate. If he stays in until the convention, but is not the nominee, ONLY THEN will I consider voting for someone else.

I will do this because I believe Howard Dean is that much better and more qualified to be President than any of the other candidates.

Get over it.

[Moderator]

47. Locking...

1. If you start a thread in this forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. The moderators have the sole authority to decide whether a thread topic is inflammatory.