Howard Dean lied to gay Democrats

[Brian_Expat]

http://www.washblade.com/2006/2-10/view/editorial/e2.cfm

LIKE MANY GAY Democrats, I was shocked to learn from a report in the Blade last week that party chief Howard Dean had abolished the Democratic National Committee’s office of GLBT outreach.

As the former deputy director of the office, I see this decision as an affront to all progressive Democrats, GLBT or straight, especially considering the importance of the gay vote and gay dollars to the party.

. . . snip. . .

WHAT’S EVEN WORSE than the DNC’s disservice to gay Americans is the fact that Howard Dean lied on this very issue.

During his campaign to become DNC chair, Dean stated in a questionnaire from the DNC Gay Caucus that, if elected, he would retain the office of GLBT outreach. Dean has broken his word and his flip-flop is tearing at the contract between the Democratic Party and GLBT voters, which has benefited both for so long. This gay Democrat is growing increasingly tired of political cowardice and lies.

WOW. Read this whole article, rather troubling and indicative of the trend we've been seeing for a while.

[zanne]

1. Sounds very much like a mole to me.

Sounds like something a Republican would say to tarnish Dean's image in the eyes of Democrats.

[davidinalameda]

3. go read the editorial

[zanne]

5. I'm sure the editorial is real.

I'm just saying the message stinks to high heaven.

[davidinalameda]

8. the message stinks?

so are we not allowed to question the activities or the DNC or are we supposed to just sit back and accept everything they say

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. You are correct, dwickham

We are not allowed to question the activities of the DNC, and we are supposed to just sit back and accept everything they say. And do. Because, in the end, there is no choice for us in the Two Party system and if we don't wholeheartedly support the Democrat wing of the Two Party, we by default support the Republican wing of the Two Party. And we can't allow that, can we? :sarcasm:

[foreigncorrespondent]

20. Well...

...as someone very wise said to me recently: if they see it that we (progressives) are destroying the party then they have no one but themselves to blame because they created us.

[dsc]

14. We should do so honestly

which that editorial doesn't. See post 13.

[zanne]

19. Listen; I've been blamed for being ANTI-DNC

I can't catch a break here lately. Since the spineless Dems didn't even attempt to filibuster Alito, I've sworn off donating to the DNC any longer. I'm a very disappointed and disillusioned Democrat. Just read some of my other posts. One of the few people I still have some faith in is Howard Dean. So if you want to slander him, you'll get lots of opposition from me.

[foreigncorrespondent]

21. So...

...because you still have faith in the man who has done this to himself, we have to take a seat on the back of the bus to please you?

[RazzleDazzle]

27. Oh, for Pete's sake -- it was explained to you that you are

punishing the wrong people, the very people (Dean and DNC) that are the best hope for actually CHANGING things because you're mad at the Dems in Congress. THEY ARE NOT CONNECTED. DEAN HAS NO POWER OVER ELECTED DEMS, AND CAN'T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO OR FORMULATE POLICY.


As for the GLBT thing -- I would like to wait to hear the other side on this before commenting. He's not known for either lying or going back on his word. I suspect that if this happens he has another approach he thinks is better. That would be more his style.

[zanne]

41. You're arguing with someone who agrees with you.

Read.

[Brian_Expat]

4. If he's a mole. . .

. . . then he's rather highly placed, given that he used to run the DNC's GLBT outreach campaign until it was shut down.

[zanne]

6. Is he more highly placed than Howard Dean?

If you're asking me to wonder who the liar is, it's not Dean.

[Brian_Expat]

7. Suit yourself

The fact of the matter is that gay Democrats now no longer have a voice in the DNC. And Howard Dean did indeed answer Stonewall's survey during the leadership campaign with a commitment to keep the office he now just shut down.

As a Howard Dean supporter in both the 2004 primaries and the DNC leadership campaign, to say I'm disappointed is a woeful understatement.

[zanne]

9. You just seem to have an ax to grind.

I mean, your original title was "Howard Dean Lied". Come on--you don't see how that could be read as hostile to the man?

[Brian_Expat]

59. It was the title of the article

And it is correct.

Howard Dean lied when he stated that he would not disband the outreach program to GLBT people. He disbanded it. This is undeniable. You can say he had a better idea, or that he did it for good reasons, or any other of 1,000 different excuses, but the fact of the matter is that he went back on his word.

The other big politician to eliminate the GLBT outreach office? George W. Bush, when he assumed office as president. His explanation was much the same -- that he wanted a "broadbased" approach with no "special offices" that are "divisive."

To say Dean's move disgusts me is an understatement of the millenium. I was a staunch supporter of the man back when most people didn't even know who he was -- in 1999. To see how thoroughly he's accepted the Washington DNC culture and let it infect his once activist roots and commitment to social liberalism and fiscal conservatism is disheartening.

Now he's just another big government spending, no civil rights Democrat in a party already full of them.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. So you are to Dean what a Freeper is to Bush

No matter what is said, no matter what evidence is marshalled, Dean by definition can do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. Right?

[foreigncorrespondent]

22. Who the liar is?

Fucking hell mate, wake up. Dean did this. This is factual. This is not about queers trying to destroy your beloved Dean. This is seriously about Dean turning his back on the queer community.

By the way, my partner after finding out about this wrote to Dean to give him the benefit of the doubt before saying anything. Ya know what? She didn't even receive a standard form letter for your beloved Dean. So much for loving the people who support him.

[dsc]

24. You just might wish to read post 13 before you go to far down this road

I will grant the editorial has no lies in it but it does have a huge lie of ommission.

[foreigncorrespondent]

37. dsc...

...I read what you said this morning before heading out to work. I am not angry about the article and am not talking about the article. What pisses me off is the fact that Dean has done this to himself by doing his flip flop, and we have to put up with people telling us to back off from someone we trusted, IMPLICITLY, as our savior, who now appears to have turned his back on us.

By the way it doesn't matter that the LGBT community was only one of MANY minority groups that had their outreach offices closed. It was wrong, regardless of whether LGBTs were singled out, or NOT. So, why SHOULDN'T we be upset that they tossed US out, along with everybody else?

Plus Brian_Expat is dead-on: "The fact of the matter is that gay Democrats now no longer have a voice in the DNC." We really don't have a voice any longer. Now you might be happy with that, but Sapphocrat and I certainly aren't happy with it and certainly won't be giving $$$ to anyone who doesn't speak out for us. We have had four fucking years of living apart with our only hope of being together any time soon riding on the backs of the Dem's who in the last five years done sweet fuck all for us.

[dsc]

42. I am willing to wait and see

My point is that the editorial makes it sound like this was some plot against gays. It wasn't. It was an honest decision to serve minorities in a different way. I am not sure that is a great idea but am willing to wait and see.

[Brian_Expat]

62. It wasn't "honest"

It was Howard Dean going back on his commitment to keep the office intact.

To get the support of gay Democrats, he stated he would keep the GLBT outreach office. When he got there, he changed his mind and revoked it.

He lied when he said he'd keep the outreach office. Decisions he made about other offices have no bearing -- he made a specific decision to keep our office and didn't keep that commitment.

That's like me saying I promise to pay you back for a loan you give me, then I stop making payments, you complain, and I tell you "stop lying, I'm not just not paying you back, I've stopped paying everyone back, because I've changed strategies." It doesn't change the fact that I lied to you when I said I'd keep paying you back, regardless of what I've done with others. Ditto for Dean.

[dsc]

64. I haven't seen the original promise

but I would think that implicit in the promise was the idea that the LGBT office would be closed while others remained open. That clearly isn't what happened. I decided to take a look at both parties websites. I don't see a Christian outreach office listed on the GOP site. They do have a faith and values team as well as a Catholic team. Are they the same thing? I really don't know. But I do know that I would rather have as much say in their party than the amount of say we have in ours. It should be noted that there is a LGBT community page on the website.

As to your example. If you were not paying anyone back I would figure that you just didn't have money, not that you had lied to me when you originally borrowed the money. Having a change in circumstance (going from having money to not having money) isn't lying.

[Brian_Expat]

65. The question was simple

And highlighted in the article.

It asked "will you maintain the GLBT liaison office?" Dean answered yes, and then closed the office. i.e. he lied in the survey

[dsc]

66. Unless I see the questionaire I don't know it said that

If you have a link to it then fine, but I don't trust that article to be honest.

[foreigncorrespondent]

18. zanne...

...why continue to deny the fact that the Dem's have not given us anything but pittance for a long time?

This article is right on the nose for how a lot of LGBTIQQ people happen to be feeling about the Dem party. A lot (even several right here on DU) have been saying for years that they are tired of the Dem's taking our money but not working for us.

If you believe this is a repuke plant then you are not connected with the LGBTIQQ community at all. And you certainly haven't been listening to gay DUers and the words we have been speaking for several years now.

The facts are that Dean has done this and Dean is responsible for his image being tarnished. Dem's have to stop shifting blame when their representatives turn their back on them.

[davidinalameda]

2. I believe in donating to candidates anyway instead of to the DNC

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. Why is this important?

After all, the Green Party and Ralph Nader gave us 8 years of fascism in the form of Bush, and we aren't allowed to mention it because they pitch a hissy fit. 8 years of fascism is far worse than 1 office (of the zillions of glbt offices) being shut down.

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. Repeating the "Blame Nader" lies is beneath you, Sarah.

It has been long established that even without Nader, Bush would have taken the Presidency anyway: most of the votes that went to Nader were votes that would not have been cast at all if there had been only two candidates. Even the Democrat Party has admitted this. Then, there is the simple fact that neither Nader nor any other third party had any impact at all on the 2004 election. It was strictly a contest between Kerry and Bush.

If you still feel so much bitterness that you must throw blame, try the 11% of self-declared Democrats who voted DIRECTLY FOR BUSH in 2000 and the GOP election fraud in both 2000 and 2004. These factors had far more influence on why Bush was able to claim then reclaim the Presidency. Working against those problems rather than battering down strawmen would be a far more productive use of your time and energy.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. It was a very evil thing for them to do to the U.S. so why not discuss it?

Why would it involve beneath me or above me or anything with me? It wasn't me that helped this fascist get elected.

[TechBear_Seattle]

31. Indeed: nothing is more evil than actually exercising our supposed choice

Or am I wrong in reading that the "them" who have done "a very evil thing" were the people who refused to keep swallowing the lies that the DLC have been feeding us since its very inception and who most likely would not have voted at all if Nader had not run in 2000? If the choice to not vote at all is so "evil" why no harsh language against the majority of potential voters who didn't vote anyway?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. If doing what you want is going to hurt millions of helpless, then...

You have a choice to make, right? Green Party and Nader made a choice that resulted in the harming of millions. It wasn't my choice. It was the choice of the Green Party and Nader.

[foreigncorrespondent]

38. Well...

...it is also very evil of the DNC to turn their backs on those who support them both through cash donations and voting for their people. So let's talk about that seem as how this thread is about that and not about whether Nader caused Bush* to take office in 2000. Which seems pretty fucking funny to me considering the election was stolen.

Now if you want to continue heading off topic then how about addressing the 11% of Dem's who actually voted against Gore in 2000. Or will we continue hearing crickets from you about this?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. Your sort of thinking got us 8 years of Bush.

Is that your intent? Are you quite aware that unless the entire system of elections is revamped, you at this moment have only 2 parties to choose from? What is your plan? As someone who isn't from this country, I marvel at how Americans are unaware of that and keep stomping their foot on the floor and saying, "Democrats are not being lefty enough", when it's quite clear that kowtowing to corporations is the only way anyone can get elected in the U.S.

Work to change the election system. Don't work against the Democrats as the ONLY thing that does, is to put in office fascists.

Just my 2 cents.

[foreigncorrespondent]

45. You are so far out it isn't funny!

Once again you ignore the FACT that 11% of Dem's voted for Bush* in 2000 and attack the person instead. No, Sarah my kind of thinking never got you 8 years of Bush* but sadly yours is what has caused many true progressives to give up on your beloved Dem's. So yeah keep going, and keep destroying the party.

I might not be in the U.S. but my partner IS, so you better believe I take a keen interest in what is happening there.

And it is quite obvious to me that the Dem's kowtowing to corporations, centrists and the repukes is actually destroying the party. If you cannot see that then I truly feel sorry for you. What the Dem's have been doing isn't working. And so long as the business about stolen elections isn't dealt with they will continue to be stolen right out from under you.

[Brian_Expat]

61. My reaction to Sarah's headline is "so what?"

Why does it matter to me if the government is full of social conservative anti-gay big spending Republicans, or social conservative anti-gay (but slightly less anti-gay) big spending Democrats?

Why should I care?

Most of the Democrats supported anti-gay laws. Most of the Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq. Most of them supported the Real ID act. Most of them support the "war on terror." Most of them support various violations of our everyday civil liberties (with a few notable exceptions when the activists make a loud enough noise and enough Republicans disagree with Bush to make it look "bipartisan.")

Why does it matter that Bush supposedly "got in" on the backs of Nader voters?

With the way the DNC is acting, it's clear that a Kerry administration wouldn't have been much better on the laws which matter to me anyway. So why should I care?

Please, tell me.

[LiberalPartisan]

16. It's not.....n/t

[foreigncorrespondent]

39. Hmmmm!

Would you mind telling me what your big "issues" are, so in the future I can tell you how unimportant they are? Thanks.

[LiberalPartisan]

43. My big issue

Is defeating republicans in 2006 and 2008. Everything else is secondary and a distraction. The DNC doesn't need a GLBT outreach program at this time. The DNC doesn't need an outreach program for any group. I would argue the opposite. The GLBT community, and other groups, ought to be throwing themselves at the DNC offering their assistance since there is no alternative party to challenge the RNC and which is philosophically sympathetic to GLBT issues.

Please reference this post in this thread for more clarification regarding what Dean actually did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=27558&mesg_id=27571

[foreigncorrespondent]

46. Unbelievable!

Uh-huh the Dem's don't need outreach programs for all minority groups. Well done mate, you just cost the Dem's financial support and votes. Do you think these minorities are gonna turn out and vote for a party that has turned its back on them?

Sympathetic for LGBTIQQ community, huh? Hahahahahahahaha! Oh that is funny! Yes DADT and DoMA show just how sympathetic they have been.

[LiberalPartisan]

47. Nothing matters

Nothing matters if the Dems. cannot oust the republicans from the WH, Senate and Congress during the next 2 election cycles. Everything else is a distraction from the goal. If a group is not naturally a republican group then they ought to be Dem. without having to be courted. The option to stand on the side and proudly display a 'Don't blame me..' bumper sticker is always an option. Join the cause or don't, that's your choice.

I've told you how I feel. Can you please expand on why you feel the GLBT community, or any other for that matter, is deserving of special overtures from the DNC? What unique assest does the GLBT bring to the table?

[foreigncorrespondent]

50. Oh you are now treading...

...on right wing talking points with this little gem: Can you please expand on why you feel the GLBT community, or any other for that matter, is deserving of special overtures from the DNC?

Number one you are making yourself look like a fool. My name is FOREIGNcorrespondent meaning I am obviously not an American. Meaning I am in another country. Meaning I don't have any choice to join the cause or not. But I am here because my partner IS an American.

As for your "special rights" bullshit. Someones life isn't special rights. We don't have the rights we were born with. Had I been opposite sex to my partner she would have been able to sponsor me soon after we met and established our relationship for immigration. However, because we are same sex your government refused to recognize the validity of our relationship for immigration purposes.

But I am not about to tell you anything else. You have shown me your true colours and obviously don't give a fuck about someone seeking "special rights" asks for.

On edit: typo

[LiberalPartisan]

51. Right wing talking points?

I asked you a question. My point is crystal clear: Defeating the republicans is the one and only goal for the next two election cyles and anything else is a distraction. If you are not a republican than you must be a democrat - there is no other choice, at least none which is a legtimate alternative to the republicans, and you shouldn't have to be convinced. To choose otherwise is to go against your best interests.

Also, I made no mention of 'special rights'. I did mention 'special overtures'.

[foreigncorrespondent]

56. Ohfor crying out loud!

special overtures same damn thing as special rights.

What part of foreign in my name don't you get? I do NOT have to be a repuke or a Democrat. DO you understand that now?

[LiberalPartisan]

57. I do understand this conversation is going nowhere

Have a nice day.

[dsc]

52. We are a demographicly Republican group who votes

overwhelmingly Democratic. LGBT voters tend to pay higher marginal tax rates than their stright counterparts and are overwhelmingly white. Both are indicators of voting Republican yet we vote over 3 to 1 Democratic. We are more loyal than pro choicers, more loyal than union members, both of which are courted by Democrats. In addition we are more likely to donate to political causes than the typical person.

[dsc]

13. This editorial is highly misleading

Dean didn't just close the office of LGBT outreach but closed all the specific outreach offices. It may have been a bad idea and he certainly needs to explain the flip flop, but it is highly dishonest to cast this decision the way that the editorial has. Clearly this decision is part of a plan of ending the tailoring of messages to specific minorities. Again, it may well be a bad idea, I tend to think it is, but that is way different than the decision being portrayed in this editorial. The editoral also overstated the LGBT vote for Kerry, it was 75 not 81 percent.

On edit A link from the very same paper backing up my contention.

http://www.washblade.com/2006/2-3/news/national/dems.cfm

Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean has abolished the Democratic Party’s constituent outreach desks, including the post of director of lesbian and gay outreach.

A DNC spokesperson said Dean replaced the outreach director positions with a new program called the American Majority Partnership, which integrates efforts to address the concerns of minorities into all of the DNC’s departments and offices. The little noticed move took place last year.

Again, it might well be a bad idea, but it isn't the war on gays that editorial would have you believe.

[RazzleDazzle]

28. Ah, exactly what I just said above --

that it would be more his style to replace it with something he thinks is better.

I think there's great potential for this -- instead of splintering off all the different constituencies, he's saying "we're all in this together." We'll see how it works out; I'd definitely give him a chance. It's not like he's been so much of a disappointment in his new job so far. He's done marvelous things to build the party. Let's give him a chance here.

[ruggerson]

33. That was exactly the question that I had

did he close ALL the outreach arms?

Because if he did, this is purely a bureaucratic move, wise or not. If he only closed the gay outreach program, I'd have serious questions for Dr. Dean.

[dsc]

35. he evidently did

Hopefully it works out. I am sort of skepitcal myself but we will see.

[BR_Parkway]

40. In 2001 Shrub said we should attack Iraq, some of us knew better

but more are coming to see that we were right all along - does the fact that he said it then mean he shouldn't change it now?

A DNC spokesperson said Dean replaced the outreach director positions with a new program called the American Majority Partnership, which integrates efforts to address the concerns of minorities into all of the DNC’s departments and offices. The little noticed move took place last year.

After some time seeing how the structure was operating (or fighting amongst itself),
why is it such a bad thing if Dean said, hey - lets combine these areas to stop all the infighting?
To make sure that every minority group that we represent is involved and represented at all levels? To make sure one group isn't put aside in favor of another groups program perhaps.

Is there something evil or discriminatory about trying to replace a system that may not be functioning well with something else that might? Considering the past few years, I can't see how the earlier system has been extremely beneficial and why it should be considered blasphamy to attempt to make things better.

[SushiFan]

55. Correct dsc. Editorial-opinion not fact-prob. written by drama queens nt

[sui generis]

58. just the same, we won't survive "bad ideas" either.

Unless Howard Dean can eloquently explain that anti-discrimination measures based on sexual orientation protect HETEROSEXUAL people too, and unless Howard Dean can go to bat in a meaningful, and clear stance on civil marriage for any two adults, this is not just a bad idea, it's counterproductive.

I know that if you drop an association to win some political victory, you will have to stay disassociated to retain that political imcumbency, and so I don't put a lot of faith in the future without Dean making some very strong statements now on what his stances REALLY are.

And, I don't like that he doubled back on his promise.

[Brian_Expat]

63. Well, I have heard the DNC's message loud and clear

1: Prepping anti-gay Warner to be their poster boy in the next elections;

2: Closing their outreach office;

3: Heavily funding anti-gay candidates across the country;

4: Letting their candidate in the 2004 elections head to Louisiana to blast his home state party for supporting marriage equality AND letting the same candidate call for state constitutional amendments to prevent marriage equality;

5: Cutting ties with local Democratic activists who support gay rights. . .

What message am I hearing?

"You're not welcome."

Oh sure, they'll not say it outright -- we'll get all the same tortured logic when Warner runs for prez against gay marriage and civil unions and prattles on about "family values" -- that he's different from the GOP and where else are we going to go?

Well, we've got two options:

1) Third parties. A legitimate option for principled folks who have had enough;

2) Political war. No donations to anti-gay Democrats; supporting gay-supportive third party candidates in close races with anti-gay Democrats; yanking endorsements and funding from the DNC.

I'm not sure which I'm going to take yet.

I think that Dean's gone down this road is proof positive that the party cannot be "reformed from within." He's chasing the old beltway logic -- he's been "assimilated."

[Brian_Expat]

60. It's not misleading.

Dean said he wouldn't close the office. He then turned around and closed the office. In other words, he lied when he said he wouldn't close the office. Simple fact.

[TankLV]

17. Oh my GOD! DEAN's not PERFECT! Stop the Presses!

He's only done about - 99% of what I want - HORRIBLE!

As a gay man, I find this SHOCKING!

I can think of a LOT more Dems that disappoint me than the good Doctor ever could.

I'm a DEMOCRAT who happens to be gay, not a GAY person who happens to be a Democrat.

BIG difference.

Some people should try it.

[zanne]

23. OK; So I have a question..

Who's left? Is there anybody worth voting for? This is a sincere question.

[RazzleDazzle]

29. Well, for those who, like you, can't quite get it about how

this whole Party thing works, does it really make that much difference? You'll probably make up your own story(ies) about candidates and why you (ought to) support them, so go right ahead.

[TaleWgnDg]

26. This reminds me of what Eleanor Roosevelt used to say to

This reminds me of what Eleanor Roosevelt used to say to FDR. And what her own personal vision and feelings were about America. Eleanor wanted equal rights for blacks. As Eleanor criss-crossed across America being (wheel-chair-bound) FDR's eyes and ears, she would report back to him about the plight of blacks, the excruciatingly long plight of blacks mired in America's lowest socio-economic strata.

All throughout FDR's presidency, Eleanor would tell FDR to demand of Congress, push through Congress, equal rights for blacks across America. FDR resisted, for FDR knew that it would split the country, north from south, northeast from mid-west, all during wartime.

It wasn't until Truman took the presidency that blacks had their first toe-hold on equality. That's when Truman signed an executive order integrating the U.S. military. Then the G.I. Bill further allowed black rights w/i America's society for it did not allow racial discrimination in receipt of its monetary and educational benefits.

What about Howard Dean? Well. Howard's "out there" and now fully understands that gay rights is a divisive issue. An issue that may deliver a Democratic congress or not. I'd question how long and tenatiously Howard Dean fought to keep his word and what his true feelings are about his promises.

BTW, how many years did women's suffrage (vote) take to pass? How about black civil rights to pass? The first answer is 133 years from the inception of our constitution. The second answer is about 350 years since the first black African slave arrived on the shores of America in 1619 until the mid-1960s Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, and that upon the shoulders of an extremely tumultuous time! As for women, they still do not enjoy full and equal protection u/ our federal constitution. Why? Because the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has never become emboldened into our constitution. Thus, due to the fact that there are no express words in our constitution as to women, courts and congress can (and do) construe women with less rights than men. Women remain second class citizens in America.

Think about it. And, while doing so, understand that the law evolves very very very very slowly.
.

[RazzleDazzle]

30. Boy, are you wrong about Howard

BOY are you wrong.

Did you forget, or just not know, that he's the one who signed the Civil Unions bill in Vermont, the first in the nation?

And he learned a powerful and valuable lesson in the process. remember that he did this just months before the election at a time when he was already at only 35% approval -- and WENT ON TO WIN! I'm sure he learned many lessons, but two of them were: (1) do what's right and defend it mightily and (2) let people know they've been heard.

After he signed that, he wore bullet-proof vests (yes, there were death threats) and just went around everywhere, INCLUDING the most hostile areas, letting people talk. He said that they eventually talked themselves out, and were glad to have been heard. Just listening defused them.

LIke I said, he went on to WIN that election.

No, Dean doesn't believe Gay Rights is a divisive issue that ought to be avoided. He knows better, because he lived it.

Howard's "out there" and now fully understands that gay rights is a divisive issue. An issue that may deliver a Democratic congress or not. I'd question how long and tenatiously Howard Dean fought to keep his word and what his true feelings are about his promises.

Dean is the master of healing/erasing the wedge in "wedge issue." His response on Civil Unions is that it's an equal rights issue -- no class of Americans ought to have less rights than any other class. Damn hard to argue with that.

[TaleWgnDg]

36. No, I am not "wrong about Howard (Dean)" as you say. Instead,

I am answering the OP's writings re Dean is being accused of a flip-flop about a broken promise to the gay community that Dean would retain the gay group w/i the Democratic Party. And, I was attempting to temper betrayal feelings as expressed by the OP and other DUers.

As for your writings about Dean and civil unions (which is off topic in this thread, btw), yes, Dean did sign civil unions into law in Vermont; however, if you had read the Vermont Supreme Court's written opinion, he and/or the Vermont legislature had little choice. No, I'm not attempting to take away that Governor Dean actually signed civil unions into law but in doing so he caused the least turmoil in light of the Court's opinion. All that being said, civil unions grant only second class citizenry to gays, not first class in law.
.

[TechBear_Seattle]

48. "he's the one who signed the Civil Unions bill in Vermont"

Only at the demand of the state's Supreme Court, who threatened actual equal marriage if a separate-but-equal law was not passed. During the election campaign for president, Dean admitted that he does not support equal marriage and signed the civil unions law only to prevent equal marriage.

[dsc]

49. that is blatently false

He didn't sign civil unions to prevent equal marriage but he signed civil unions because he supported them (as did the only openly gay member of the VT House). Also they could have had a Constitutional amendment, though admittedly it would have been a long drawn out process. I have repeatedly posted the ins and outs of that process but basicly it would have required two votes in two different years one would put it on the ballot and the other to ratify it after it got passed. Only one vote, before the people's was by anything other than majority (2/3 of the Senate).

[TechBear_Seattle]

54. My bad. I got the wrong 2004 candidate

Going back and checking my notes, I see that it was Kerry who went on the record opposing equal marriage, not Dean. My apologies.

[MuseRider]

34. This does not surprise me.

I waited for a while before getting angry until I found out what he was going to do after this. Sorry, his change is hurtful. There are too many specific issues that need to be dealt with.

[benburch]

53. We Interrupt This Thread For An Important Announcement!!!