by Jerome Armstrong, Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 02:55:27 AM EDT
Update (Chris): Dean's comments remind me of something...
Tags: Republicans (all tags)
When has Howard Dean publicly attacked ANY Democrat since he dropped out of the 2004 race? Answer: He HASN'T.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden -- who last year went on FOX News to blame Clinton for 9/11 -- backstabs his fellow Democrats every damn chance he gets. Why? Because, like all "FOX Democrats", he prefers cozying up to the GOP/Media over sticking up for America in general and his party in particular.
Meanwhile, Dan Burton can call Bill Clinton a "scumbag", and John O'Neill can lie repeatedly about John Kerry, and no Republicans are asked by the press to apologize for those guys.
The proper Democratic response to "gotcha" is to turn it back on the would-be "gotcha artist".
Here's how it works:
GOTCHA ARTIST: Gore/Dean/Michael Moore said something that I intend to pretend is horrible and untrue. Your comments?
SMART DEMOCRAT: Let me know when they start making horse-masturbation jokes on national TV, the way Laura Bush did recently. I can't think of anything any Democrat has said that even approaches that in terms of offensiveness. But as for what Gore/Dean/Michael actually said, I'm glad to see the topic of voter disenfranchisement being brought up....
As a white Christian, I am offended by your apparent bigotry and I expect an apology.
..?
The closest equivalent
to the type of bread he could've divided to
feed all those hungry people would've been
pizza...
Soo I think they owe us free pizza.
What do you think?
But for your benefit, next time I use hyperbole (pssst...that's exagerration for effect) I'll make sure it's surrounded by big, bold meta tags declaring it as such.
Are you a white Christian fascist?
I just got my copy of War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning and What Every Person Should Know About War.
I'm going to take some time this weekend to read them. Highly recommended.
At least with gay people next door, your property values don't suffer.
You know damn well the difference between a Dobson theocrat and an average religious person.
Polls commissioned by the American Family Association, a politically right religious group have shown than American don't like pushy people living next door, because they really don't like being proselytized, and they value their privacy.
And that is the truth.
People don't like living next door to moralists and busybodies.
So what if Republicans are white christians? Democrats could be the party of green martian unitarians and I'd be all for them so long as they got us out of Iraq, balanced the budget and improved health care and education for everyone.
Dr. Dean needs to reign in some of the rhetoric and stick to the issues. We can win on issues. It doesn't do anyone any good to throw out generalizations about the makeup of the opposition. (At least not in June of '05)
It doesn't do anyone any good to throw out generalizations about the makeup of the opposition. (At least not in June of '05)
I take it you've never heard of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay or Bill Frist. Or perhaps you just fans of theirs.
Of course not Gary.
And hey, maybe we as a country in our politics have gotten past the point of civil discourse.
Those you have mentioned above are the root cause of the vitriol we see. All I'm trying to say is that in with all the progressive ideals we strive for in our policies, it doesn't serve the cause to add to the third grade name calling.
Again, I'm happy the Dean is the DNC chair. I love his approach to government and when he speaks to the issues, he is a powerful leader for change. But he doesn't do himself, or anyone who supports him any favors when he throws out a constant barrage of soundbites for the Republican Noise Machine to take out of context and blow out of proportion.
Not parse, just choose his words a little more carefully.
/I voted for the Iraq funding bill, before I voted against it!*
He should have said,"I voted for the Iraq funding bill when the intelligence showed us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. When we realized that the intelligence was flawed, I then voted against it. Just as you should vote against this war...blah blah blah......."
Dean's statements are easy to chop up because when he starts the rhetoric, he very rarely qualifies his statements. And some things he says, it's like he forgets he's talking to a room full of partisans, but the whole world is listening.
That statment about the white christians is true. But hell, it even offends white Christians who are Democrats because it villifies White Christians in particular, not just Republicans.
A lot of the Democratic rhetoric about Christians makes me uneasy , because they don't take the time to spell out who exactly they are talking about, and I am a Black Christian. It make the Democrats easy targets to paint as atheist or agnostic, moraless folx. And that will always put us in the minority.
Dean needs to focus on the core values of this party:
And I'm disgusted the "progressive" Democrat-bashers are just as bad as Lieberman et alia when it comes to bashing other Democrats...only a different set.
It will take all Democrats and fair fraction of independents working together to overthrow this malignancy in our government. And instead some of you want circle-jerks of arguing moral and political purity. Feh.
But, of course, they're not going to do any of that.
Look, Dean's correct. And you're correct too -- his statement won't help; it will hurt the Democratic Party, marginally.
Really, the impact of Dean's statements will not weigh too heavily when compared to people's feelings about Bush's success or lack of success in economic and security issues.
People are going to ask themselves "Have the Republicans made things worse or better? What do the Democrats say they will do fundamentally different?" They aren't going to ask themselves "Is Dean an ass or a straight talker?" Everyone without myopia knows that doesn't matter a lick.
Right now, the Democrats are failing because they are not providing any fundamental difference that people can see between them and the Republicans. Each Presidential election sees the parties grow closer, not further apart, in their rhetorical stands on both economic and security issues.
That is the problem the Democrats must fix. Dean's mouth is not a problem that needs fixing.
I think we need a bit better grounding
in reality, in this culture. I
will grant you that the editors
write the headlines
But if his new england sensibilities still
fail to account that an hour and a half drive over his border, Catholic priests were molesting
boys large scale - some noseless pervert
is on the news every day, and those that
call themselves christians are wrapping themselves
in a flag not unlike what was so clearly
foretold in revelations, the sign of the
beast - oh, and did we forget that
the Swiss are wrapping their glaciers
in plastic not unlike a woman in latex?
He simply must produce a better plan.
California is running toward the GOP camp.
His tiny view of the problem is that
he can say something rad, and bring
all of california back into the camp.
I have a short list on my desk who encouraged
him to say this, and he was a 'supporter'
of Dean during his campaign who thinks
he's smart and moved high up to behind the scenes.
Theres no way Dean was meeting yesterday in SF
without meeting this guy, and if you want
to burn through 40 million dollars
in less than two months, he's your man.
Anyone else want to send in some cash?
These people were total idiots. They
didn't have the faintest clue of how
to play this game, and in a world where
Americans desperately need a new "deep throat"
they were only concerened about the media -
because... they were employed by media
entertainment, sold media entertainment,
and they want Dean to be .. you got it.
please, please post your comments in a readable format. pretty please?
Most of silicon valley realizes that
the latino population is
now determining the cost of
reform even if people like Boxer
would stand up and fight
for her christian, white, ATM machine
there in the valley... everyone
who plays the game knows that
Dean needs to be resonating with
this group.
They voted for Bush because they wanted
no change in leadership and they saw him
as Macho.
So I'd watch this group as the metric
to whether or not this Chairman is
doing his job.
PS. Another 10,000 activists can meet
somewhere else. Its all about EAST LA
now, homies.
So far, I'm seeing lots of invective, but no verifiable data.
Silicon Valley. Field large donors approval
and metrics like money collected.
In business, you have to make public
your plan to your investors. You have
to be able to trust them to
that extent, so that you
can give forward looking statements.
At minimum, Dean needs to make
public his slate to the party. I don't
see the people in the positions for this
50 state strategy.
Something else to watch: how many latinos
throw their name in the hat.
And Finally: How many Big Sky, Fiscal
Conservative Democrats can Dean land.
I guess the best metric there is
to find out how much the one Big Sky
Democrat we know and love thinks
of Dean. After all, there really
aren't that many big sky democrats
yet, are there?
-=-
No money until we see the plan.
Howard Dean is giving the local and state parties more authority over how to run campaigns in their own state than they have ever had before. That's why he is such a big threat to the Democratic D.C. elites.
There's a big difference. The elites work
for the special interests.
Not the other way around.
Dean's statements about party position are
playing right into the hands of the
special interests groups... he's naive, man.
The guy is naive.
For one, that's not "the truth". I don't know how you could say otherwise.
This was preceded by the statement a couple of dayss ago that Republicans have never made an honest living in their lives. Yes, I realize this was a statement made in jest, but Dean's a big boy, he knows how the media works in this day and age, and he should have learned from the scream that different types of media plays things different ways than intended.
I know that Jerome has had a connection to the Dean camp for a long time, but to try to say this is helpful is ridiculous. I want Dean out there hammering the president's record repeatedly. I want him out there hammering the Republican party's intolerance and greed. I don't want him making careless, stupid ass statements that distract from his message and scare people away from the party.
Can you honestly say that yesterday's statement was at all helpful in any way at all? Does this statement help or hurt a 50 state strategy? Come on Jerome. Face it, our boy needs to measure his words a lot better. Dean can shoot straight and tell it like it is without making an ass of himself.
a) still fighting the 2003 primary battles and are looking to knife those folks who came out ahead of them,
b) far more willing to attack other Democrats in public than they are to publicly attack Republicans
c) whenever a prominent Democrat or Democratic ally (like Gore) says something that the masses agree with, yet frightens the GOP/Media, there are always a few "FOX Democrats" who are all too willing to publicly backstab a fellow Democrat just to ensure they keep getting invited to speak on TV.
I dare you all to count the number of times Howard Dean has publicly criticized a Democrat by name during his time as DNC Chair -- or even since the end of the primaries.
And I wonder how much of the anti-Dean feeling coming out of the media centers is due to a lot of very expensive and very worthless Beltway consultants suddenly losing their perches -- and then running to whine to their media buddies about it in revenge?
the media people are grappling with a fresh
round of statistics that show they're
losing their grip on their audiences
with their news-as-media-entertainment.
here's the thing: inside the party,
there are people who are handling dean,
who are corrupt. they are paid off by
the GOP, probably from a fox news
bank account. they adopt 'gay'
lifestyles so that dean thinks
he can trust them, and then
they do a lot for dean, stabbing
him in the back. best example of this was
the miraculous decision some of them
made in dean's campaign to drop ship
everything UPS so the cost of
campaign materials skyrocketed out
of control...
then, outside the party - there are those
who'd rather have this all become a
media event and make their money off
partisan bickering, which has become
quite a growth industry - because you
don't have to have any royalty or licenses
to re-broadcast public figure's statements.
cheap media. zero cost, then they charge
you millions to view it with cable
fees an ad placements.
Xbox 360 quietly launched before they
were looking into the "statistics of the blogosphere" and now that GOOGLE posts
a larger valuation than Time/Warner
they are trying to ramp back up again.
In the old days, to get rid of a dot com
that was bothering them, they rallied their
investment banker friends to ladder
the stock price. The road show was met
with approval, and a zero valuation company
was pumped way up so that people dumped
way fast, and it created a void that
caused the largest spate of bankruptcies
ever.
But it didn't get rid of all of them,
and so now they're into crippling national
debate to draw attention away from themselves.
Media entertainment is a sinking ship.
they're greasing the skids of the georgetown
parlor set, not the other way around.
The biggest mistake you can make right
now is to assume that Dean has dealt
with security properly. I bet this
latest thing is a team effort.
And Dean himself? Well, ask Joe Trippi..
he'll do anything you tell him to do..
even scream Yeaarrgh. Go get 'em, Dean!
Pump them up!
(ah. this little part of the conversation,
was, of course, left out of Trippi's book)
The obvious strategy for any sound thinking Democrat would be to critcize the RNC Chair instead of the DNC Chair. Is that strategy a little too subtle?
Democrats establish themselves as the ones who will take back the party from the other factions within the democratic party. It's all the same whether you are Lieberman or Kuchinich. My favorite thing about Dean is that he does this stuff. It's so much smarter than the circular firing squad crap.
The DLC was and is all about Money. As soon as I told them they were making bad decisions in the Kerry Campaign I was excommunicated.
Just like he was right about health care.
Just like he was right about pretty much everything.
Oh, and how DARE he set fundraising records for the DNC!
By the way, to forestall the whiners:
Just as the Afghan riots started well before the Newsweek story saw print, the flight of corporate money was happening long before Dean became DNC chair. In the 2004 cycle, with "Mr. Electable" Kerry as the guy picked to placate Corporate America, guess what happened? Corporate America donated ten times as much to the GOP as they did to the Democrats. In fact, along with the 527s and the unions, it was Dean's existing small-donor internet machinery -- machinery that was transferred to the Kerry campaign after the primaries -- that kept Kerry afloat.)
There are some folks who are still fighting the 2003 primary campaign, and they are so very, very pissed off that there's a bunch of us out there now organized to fight the DINOs. Too bad.
What could be more "morally relative" than faith? To me, just believing what ever you want to believe regardless of the facts is the ultimate act of self-centeredness. It smacks of the arbitrary nature of the despotic mind. What would happen if these people applied the scepticism they have towards evolution to their own religion? America is the greatest country, not because of religion, many countries have religion (and suck). It is because we were the first to establish freedom from religion that we are the who we are. Never forget that.
There seems to be this delusional thinking on the part of the self described "moderates" that if they finesse issues they can win.
Well, here is a flash, this ain't about issues, it about personality...and allowing the Republican to define us.
And Howard is doing something extremely weird: he is defining Republicans in populist terms: and stopping this endless defensiveness.
You can't win if you just play defense. You have to take risks, you have to redefine the game, and you have to offend a few people who wouldn't vote for us anyway.
Secularism is a form of advertising, and
a commercial medium. Whether its in the schools,
where teachers are bending themselves into pretzels
keeping from saying "christmas"
"No atheists in a foxhole. "
It is offensive to atheists.
Because they think that if you can capture the votes of the swinging middle you don't need a solid base.
In the north you get subtle housing, employment and education discrimination. In big business you get promotion discrimination. (See Tuesday NY Times about a discrimiation suit at GE). In the south the non-slave owning whites transformed into the Jim Crow enforcers after Reconstruction. Then they transformed into the Dixiecrats and now they are the core of the southern Republican "base".
In all of the country you get harsher law enforcement policies. By not addressing the issues openly, the effects remain, distorting the political landscape and allowing coded messages of "morality", "faith", "values", "patriotism", to sway people.
Robert D Feinman
Musings on Society: policies not politics
robertdfeinman.com
Fables and Follies for Our Time
Musings on Society and Public Policy
The best way to address the issue of racism is to address the issue of racism. Howard Dean is pursuing exactly the right strategy by getting a subject out into the open that favors the Democratic party. The M$M has allowed the GOPers to put on minstrel stage shows at the conventions that don't even pass the laugh test.
It's about time someone in the Democratic party found the courage to bring the racist record of the Republican party out into the spotlight of public opinion. This is a winning issue.
The politician to keep an eye on is Barak Obama. I wonder if Barak is going to jump on the bandwagon of the cowardly Democrats who don't believe the 1st Amendment applies to the DNC Chair and are afraid to discuss the important issues of our day.
Another example is the Downing Street Memo. Has any Senate Democrat mentioned the Downing Street Memo yet? Why is John Connyers carrying the burden of talking truth to power and the M$M about the Downing Street Memo?
You'd think by now that by now they'd have noticed that standing in the middle mostly just gets you run over. But, since they haven't, perhaps the other answer to your question is that they are just plain dumb.
But I'm really interested in knowing how Dean expects the Party to campaign in all 50 states if he keeps saying things that alienates a lot of people in the middle of the road whose vote we are trying to get. Such as:
White Christians
Moderate Republicans
The problem with Dean is that while he's energizing the base, I'm not sure he's getting us any new votes. New votes being those people that voted Red last time, but wereone issue voters..(gay marriage, abortion, Religious issues etc.) Those are the easiest ones to win over because instead of appealing to a bunch of issues, you just have to focus on one.
And you get those one issue voters by? Selling out the people on the other side of those issues? See, we can do that one issue at a time. The Democratic Leadership has been doing that on economic issues for a long time. And boy, that's worked like a charm.
Democrats can stand for what they want it's there perogative. What makes this politics is getting people to votes for Democrats.
This party is focusing on the base, but the base did what they were supposed to do last year. We have to increase our base and pick up some moderates to get more votes, or the same thing is going to happen to us again. Repugs will focus on a few wedge issues and get conflicting groups to vote for them. OUr small core base will vote the Democratic candidate and we will lose again, the same way we have been losing for the last 6 out of 9 elections.
Hell, if John Kerry would have just said we wanted to START to pull our boys home, that would have given him the swing votes to overcome the gay marriage/abortion wedge issue.....
If the Democrats focus more on providing alternatives to abortion, and getting the number down as opposed to fighting over the morality of the issue, we will get a lot of the religious moderates. see www.dfla.org
When have the Dems not done this? I don't see Democrats going out and advocating that people have abortions. In fact, Democrats support almost everything that would make fewer abortions a reality: sex ed, more available birth control, better economic circumstances, and so on. And in every case, the Republicans shout them down. Hell, I am on record as being in favor of non-religious homes for women in distress who want to either keep or adopt out rather than have an abortion. But you'll never see the Republicans supporting that either. I think what you want is for Dems to express moral disapproval of abortion, which is unreasonable.
There was moderate, bipartisan support for civil unions, but the Democrats went for full gay marriage and alienated the middle. In a day and age when priests are comming out of the closet to public outcry, support for gay marriage didn't win us any votes and cost us a lot.
Only by appeasing them and issuing statements that they've pre-approved can we fight back.
First, let's nominate a war hero, that ought to be acceptable.
I'm partial to McJesus Zombie.
Evengelical would also seem to be a good choice, since 77% of the voted Bush anyhow (the other 23% have since had dates standing in lines next to walls).
I think we need to make a distinction that allows us to separate our kind of Christian from their kind.
America needs to hear the genuine prophetic voice of Christianity. America needs to be reminded that Jesus was about beating swords into plowshares, not beating Iraqi prisoners.
By bursting the myth that God is a Republican, Jim Wallis and other committed, conscientious Christians can turn back the Christian Fascists and their Red Neck Warmonger Jesus.
Criticizing the Democratic strategy is like criticizing zero for not adding up. The Democratic leadership is meekly dodging the Downing Street Memo, dodging demanding an exit strategy from Iraq and dodging any overall strategy for 2006 or 2008.
What really bothers the fossils in the Democratic party is that Howard Dean is taking a stand for Democratic values and making them look pale by comparison. Since they can't compete with him on the issues, they are trying to tear him down to their low level of issue avoidance.
The fossils in the Democratic party should be criticizing and attacking the RNC Chair instead of the DNC Chair:
The DLC and the Corporate Democrats did everything they could to stop the grassroots movement to stop Howard Dean. They lost. The grassroots won. Howard Dean is not going to shut up, and I applaud him for that. His critics are splitting the party, not his criticism of the Republican party.
Absolutely nothing Howard Dean is doing or saying is preventing any of the Democratic Presidential wannabees from putting forward an economic and social agenda. The only thing standing in their way is their own timidity and failure to take a stand on the issues.
Democrats need to get over their minority mentality. Howard Dean is demonstrating exactly how to break out of the battered wife syndome that Kerry and the DLC are locked in to. You fight back against the aggressor.
So exactly what is the issue that Richardson or any other Democrat disagrees with?
Howard Dean is exactly right again. The Republican party is the party of racism and Christian white guys. The only way to pull their cover is . . . (drumroll) . . . to pull their cover. The Democratic party cannot allow the Republican party to pretend to be the party of racial inclusiveness when they are not.
I am looking forward to Rep. John Connyers reaction to Howard Dean. I am looking forward to the reaction of Jesse Jackson, Barak Obama and yeah, you heard me right, Rev. Al Sharpton.
It's time for the second stringers to get sent down to the farm team and for the real hardball players to take the field. Howard Dean is a real hardball player.
Biden and Kerry are both has beens and milquetoast wannabees. Edwards and Richardson have been shown a whole new kind of Democrat that they can't compete with. A fiery, no holds barred Democrat who knows how to oppose political tyranny.
Somewhere over the last few months I have become a Dean convert. I think he is fantastic.
I really don't understand why, knowing exactly how Gingrich and the Republicans staged their takeover of congress in the 90's, Democrats are somehow wrong for doing the same thing?
Democrats need to stand up, and call a spade a spade. Start acting like Democrats want to be the majority again. Instead when someone makes a strong statement that fairly accurately characterizes the current Republican party, people on the left go cower in the corner worried about what Republicans, or Republican-lite Democrats think.
You can tell them by their exhibiting three or more of the following traits:
The politically-correct, make nice nice, pro-corporate Democrats only succeeded in allowing the wholesale dismantling of the American middle class and allowing Republican-military-industrial, corporate/entertainment attacks on the poor, class warfare of the meanest sort.
The lackeys in the media sitting on their butts distributing White House press releases and cashing in on their 5 figure salaries aren't going to fight for us, we have to get out there and fight for ourselves, like Winston Churchill said-"We will fight them in the steets, we will fight them in the countryside, we will fight them in the air, we will never give up!!!" (Sorry Churchill for mangling your eloquence, but my memory does not serve me well).
God Bless Howard Dean for having the guts to tell the truth about the Fascist/Hypocritical "Christian" Republicans!!
This is from a lapsed Episcopalian who shared the generally pro-Republican mindset of his parents and many of the biases (he never liked the Kennedys very much). However, mainstream Protestants are disgusted over the evangelical nutcases from Texas and the rest of the south who are in power in Washington.
His opinion of the Kennedys I daresay has improved 100%. There is a realignment going on in this country, we just have to be on the winning side of it.
The disingenuous way the SF Chronicle political assassin Carla Marinucci "framed" Dean's comments serves to add fuel to the made-up controversy and burnish Ms. Marinucci's establishment bona fides by bashing Dean.
Consider the opening paragraph, which suggests that Dean, "unapologetic in the face of recent criticism that he has been too tough" on Republicans, thumbed his nose at critics by saying Republicans "all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party." Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Pure rubbish.
Howard Dean was responding to an Asian reporter's lengthy question regarding studies that suggest fewer Asians are supporting the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. She asked Dean to comment on that trend:
Reporter: A [unintelligible] that it shows that in the last four years, Asian voters supporting the [unintelligible], I remember maybe two or three studies that I covered recently they show that even eight or twelve years ago, so quite many Asians they support Republicans. But now, last year it shows that quite many Asians support Democrats. Do you have any comment you want to make about this, and..
Dean: I think a lot it has to do with [unintelligible]. The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. They pretty much, they all behave the same and they all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian Party, and the Democrats have everybody you can think of in our Party. So, as this gentleman was talking about, it's a coalition of a lot of different interest groups. The problems is that we've got to make sure it turns into a Party, which means I've got to spend time in the communities and our folks have got to spend time in the communities. I think we're more welcoming to different folks, because that's the kind of people we are. Now, but, that's not enough. We do have to deliver on things, particularly on jobs, housing, and business opportunities, and college opportunities and so forth.
Dean's comment was frank, honest and, perhaps to some, painfully true.
the latino vote basically decided not to switch
horses midstream. bush's re-election, if anything
was more a sign of strength from
the american people than anything else.
everyone knew his record, but we sent
a message to any enemy fighting us -
that we will not abandon our guy
in the middle of a war, no matter
what happens.
Latinos are a key issue for the GOP over
there. Dean is getting reports that Karl
Rove is planning to rifleshoot
california right out from underneath
him, and if that happens, the party is
finito.
My guess is that this is just the beginning,
because the media-news-entertainment
people are going to be able to seize
on this and drown out the downing
street memo.
I think the key thing is how
latinos read it. Good post.
The so-called "Christian Conservatives" are a big group of hypocrites. They say one thing and do another and they are very good a getting Americans to believe them. The most troubling thing is that they also have shown their true colors but it doesn't seem to cause them any trouble at all. Howard Dean says something as simple as "republicans are a party of white Christians" and the media is all over him.
Pat Robertson says something as shocking as "Whenever evangelization efforts meet with chronic resistance, extermination should follow." and no one takes him to task for it. He has also said: "Jesus was not a pacifist. He was not a sissy. We have enough votes to run the country. ... It's going to be a spiritual battle. There will be Satanic forces. ... We are not going to be coming up just against human beings to beat them in elections. We're going to be coming up against spiritual warfare." And, "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
After 9/11 Robertson blamed "abortionists, feminists, gays, and lesbians" for the terrorist attacks, and yet he is welcomed onto "news" programs everywhere as though he is mainstream!
Christians and Republicans need to get angry that these extremists are hijacking their vernacular, and hiding behind their labels. These extremists aren't Jesus' Christians nor Abe Lincoln's Republicans. They are unChristian and unAmerican. They need to be exposed for what they are.
from the yahoo caption:
Texas Gov Rick Perry, center front, signs the abortion consent bill during a ceremony in the gym of the Calvary Christian Academy in Fort Worth, Texas, Sunday, June 5, 2005. Looking on are, from left, Molly White, Joe Pojman, Dr. Linda Flower and State Sen. Kathy Adams. The bill restricts abortion late in a pregnancy and requires minor girls to get parental consent for an abortion. (AP Photo/LM Otero)
And to all the paretns of teenage daughters on this board, can I ask why there is an outcry for legislation requiring that an underage girl needs parental consent to have an abortion? I mean, damn shouldn't parents have their daughters are messing around and possibly getting diseases?
As for the second, perhaps you should tell everyone why you think that an incest victim should have to have the permission of her rapist father to abort his child. Because that is the consequence of parental consent laws: they serve only to endanger young women whose families are already so dysfunctional that they can't, for whatever reason, tell their parents that they are pregnant.
I fully understand the innate conflict of interest if father who has committed incest has to give consent to his daughter. That is unacceptable ,of course. A comprimise is requiring parental consent from only one parent. Or requiring the minor to notify the authorites of the parental abuse if and only if the girl plans to abort a fetus who is the product of incest.
But the resulting loophole of allowing teenage girls (who got pregnant through regular sex )access to unrestricted abortion is downright irresponsible, and needs to be addressed.
This is not a sexist issue, because there are millions of single parent mothers out there who would like to know if their daughter is having unprotected sex.
Oh, yeah encourage the girl to keep her mouth shut so she can bottle that shame up inside and let it eat her up as an adult who has been not only the victim of a rape but an abortion as well, all the while not being able to tell a soul.
Unless it's the father doing the raping, a teenage girl is not mentally pepared to have an abortion without prental consent.
And you still haven't said how do you address the other thousands of teenage girls who get pregnant each year the old fashioned way. You want to give them the ability to have abortions without parental consent, too?
How is a teenage girl who is not mentally prepared to have an abortion, mentally prepared to give birth to and be the mother of a child.
You also assumed that the mother of an abused girl would be open to the idea that her husband was the father of her daughter's child. That displays a monumental level of ignorance about incest and abusive families. That is like suggesting that abused alter boys should have gone to the bishop to complain about being sexually molested by their priest.
Thousand of teenage girls who get abortions every year are none of your business and none of Tom DeLay's business and none of James Dobson's business. If they do not have good enough of a relationship with their parents to tell them they are pregnant, how is getting the federal government involved going to help?
Do you want the federal government making decisions about how your family takes care of their problems? Have you thought about what kind of opening this makes for intrusion into family life? Do you think it will stop here? What is the boundary to federal intrusion into private family decisions?
What is the source of your moral authority for telling other people how to live their life? Unless you are God, how other people live their lives is none of your business.
I never said they weren't mentally prepared to have an abortion, I said :
"Unless it's the father doing the raping, a teenage girl is not mentally pepared to have an abortion without parental consent."
If the pregnancy is because of incest by the father, there should be allowances under the law that she can have the abortion without parental consent, but that the authorites should be notified, since that is CHILD ABUSE.
But outside of rape and incest Gary, I really would like to know why you feel that's it's OK for teenage girls to have abortions without parental consent. Obviously, they aren't responsible (or they wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place) so why shouldn't parents know that their children are having unportected sex (possibly exposing themselves to STDs).
Especially, that teenage pregnancies often occur in the prescense of underage drinking and drugs.
But I suppose you feel that parents aren't really needed; and children can raise themselves.
And is there an age minimum for your teenage abortions without prental consent?
I hear 12 year olds can get pregnant now. Is it ok for their parents not to know that they are having unprotected sex?
"Unless it's the father doing the raping, a teenage girl is not mentally pepared to have an abortion without parental consent."
That makes absolutely no sense. So if the father is raping the teenage girl, then she is mentally prepared to have an abortion? You may wish to clear up your syntax.
But outside of rape and incest Gary, I really would like to know why you feel that's it's OK for teenage girls to have abortions without parental consent.
I don't think it is OK. I think I am not wise enough to make those decisions for every teenager in America. I think it is none of my business, because I am not God. It is none of Tom DeLay's business, because he offends God. It is not possible to write legislation to control and mandate these types of decisons.
A perfect example is the recent Barbarism in Texas, where barbaric legislation resulted in a couple of kids engaging in barbaric conduct.
But outside of rape and incest Gary, I really would like to know why you feel that's it's OK for teenage girls to have abortions without parental consent. Obviously, they aren't responsible (or they wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place) so why shouldn't parents know that their children are having unportected sex (possibly exposing themselves to STDs).
I don't think it's OK. I think government intrusion makes the moral and ethical situation more barbaric. You are assuming an Alice in Wonderland world, with Alice in Wonderland families. I am dealing with the reality of teenage abortion, abusive families and coat hanger abortions.
If the parents were responsible, the child would be able to talk to their parents without government coercion. You prefer Uncle Sam to be the father to your children and everybody else's. How is a parental consent law going to solve the problem of careless teenage sex? That's bizarre.
Especially, that teenage pregnancies often occur in the prescense of underage drinking and drugs.
So? How is parental consent legislation going to address that problem? How is any legislation going to solve that problem?
But I suppose you feel that parents aren't really needed; and children can raise themselves.
Uncle Sam is not a substitute for parents. Uncle Sam is not capable of raising kids or making medical decisions for families. Do you think Tom DeLay and Uncle Sam are better fathers than you would be? Why do you want them making decisions for your family instead of you?
And is there an age minimum for your teenage abortions without prental consent?
Nope. I am assuming that if the parents are the least bit observant and close to their child, the child will inform them or they will notice something is disturbing their child. If the parents are not observant and not fit, notifying them will not help.
All kids are different. If a teenage girl is capable of admitting herself to a hospital and demonstrating minimal consciousness of her situation and competence to make a sound medical decision, her parents should be left out of the decision.
You seem to be assuming that drive through abortions are available someplace in America. A teenage girl just has her sixteen year old boyfriend drive her up to the window in the drive through lane, order an abortion and get home in time for dinner with the family.
I am satisfied that the current procedures are more than adequate in most states to deal with the complications of teenagers who do not have sufficient judgment to make their own medical decisions. I trust the medical community's judgment more than I trust Tom DeLay's.
I hear 12 year olds can get pregnant now. Is it ok for their parents not to know that they are having unprotected sex?
Jeepers Bruticus. Nine years old girls are having sex and getting pregnant. I suspect their parents already don't know about it or are too unfit and unobservant to care. Is notifying them after the fact going to change anything?
I repeat. I trust the judgment of the medical community to make the decision in each individual case about whether to notify the parents. It is impossible to write comprehensive legislation that is capable of making parents fit, making teenagers wise, or making private medical decision for the family.
Perhaps you should tell everyone why you think that an incest victim should get an abortion and then go back home to her rapist father.
If a teenage girl is raped by anybody period, somebody needs to know, whether it's her father or the local teacher. Allowing them to have an abortion and shove the whole matter under the rug is just plain stupid.
You do. Because you're an asshole.
As far as prosecuting a rape, that should be left up to the family to decide. But either way, teh parents need to know.
And just so you don't embarass yourself again, most people regardless of political and religious affiliation (except the zealots of course) feel that abortion in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother, is ok.
It's the other instances where there is disagreement.
And there's the name calling. But the real asshole is you, because you didn't ask me if I thought the daughter should have the abortion anyway, which the answer is yes.
The topic of discussion was if the parents should be notified.
As far as prosecuting a rape, that should be left up to the family to decide. But either way, teh parents need to know.
And just so you don't embarass yourself again, most people regardless of political and religious affiliation (except the zealots of course) feel that abortion in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother, is ok.
It's the other instances where there is disagreement.
What's the difference? Why is a teenage girl or a woman competent to make the decision if she has been raped, but not if she inadvertently gets pregnant? The mother's life and health is almost always at risk in a pregnancy. Why is it OK for you to impose your judgment on another human being in one case and not the other?
Is it because only "bad" women get pregnant if they are not married? Please xplain the difference for a different standard.
bruticus, you have asked this question over and over and over and we have responded to you over and over and over. either you are intentionally ignoring our responses or you are choosing to remain ignorant. i'm not answering this question for you again. read the goddamned responses. read the goddamned links. educate yourself.
i for one fail to see how anyone could be FOR banning a medical procedure that is performed LESS THAN 500 TIMES PER YEAR AND ONLY IN CASES WHERE IT SAVES THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
Improvement of message: He let Matt Lauer keep comming back to Matt's talking points of Party division, Dean used that as a platform to bounce to keep talking up extremeist Repug Party.
Would have liked to seen more of the ole more agressive Dean, but he made good points of cooperation with Boxer and Reid.
Museing: We're just too damm nice to the SCLM when we get face time, need to call them out when they try to get on 'their' talking points and accuse them of being Rove Parrots a few times. Problem is we won't get invited back much if we do....unless we start winning some big ones. Oh well, back to the ground game.
I know it is considered an act of heresy to see Howard Dean as anything other than infallible, but that is the second time in a week that he has stepped on his dick.
Your party chairman should not be the only member of your party above the fold in your newspaper, for chrissakes.
Further, when over 70% of your country is white, and an even greater percentage consider themselves to be "Christians," dismissing the Republican Party as a party of white Christians is not exactly an intelligent use of...well...math.
Your next statement: 'when over 70% of your country is white, and an even greater percentage consider themselves to be "Christians,"' ... you missed the part when Dean stated that a Majority of Established Church Leaders feel that BushCo is going in the wrong direction. The Radical Evangelicals are running the Party, a fairly chummy, exclusive group, of ...you guessed it, Evangelical CRUSADERS! That is definatly a belligerent, vocal, Minority.
My point about the party chairman being above the fold is that you'd rather have your candidates, your ideas, and your agenda there.
And, with all due respect, as much as Bush and pals are f***ing up, I'd like them above the fold whenever possible. Dean might have stepped on his dick a couple of times in my humble estimation, but Bush has been stomping on his johnson for five freaking years. And, finally, the press is smelling blood instead of roses. Please, give us more fresh meat about the president with the 46% approval rating.
And while your distinction between rank-and-file church leaders and the theocratic elite is well intentioned (and accurate), the news hacks in Peoria aren't going to make the distinction. You just can't make categorical statements like that and then have to follow up with "what he really meant was..." By then, the chattering class is off and running.
We can all bemoan (with justification) the shallow nature of the SCLM, but it does not diminish the larger point. The headline, not the context, is what is going to be the point of fixation. And the broader point, which is good for our side, gets totally eclipsed.
Dean: Republicans are the party of White Christians.
White Christians: OK.
You see a potential problem?
He should change the subject and talk about one thing over and over again for the next month-DOWNING STREET MEMO.
He should tell us how Bush lied just the other day when finally a reporter got the guts to question Bush about the Downing Street memo and he lied again and said his mind was not made up about the attack on Iraq, even though the Downing Street Memo says he had.
The Dem's have had a gag on Gov. Dean, and they will jump on his ass every chance they get. Howard should have said screw all of you and run as an independent. LOVE DEAN, CONYERS, BOXER - Piss on the rest. When they get some balls, let me know.
My sentiments exactly. I am in Michigan, grew up in the Detroit area. My Dad was a tool and die maker and my Grandfather was an autoworker at Ford. My uncles all worked for one of the Big Three. It gave us middle-class wages and a few of us even graduated from college thanks to the UAW and their fight to give our families a living wage.
Michigan is hurting. The industrial Midwest is hurting big time. Clinton and his damn DLC asskissing of the corporations and their damnable NAFTA has killed off the golden goose.
Screw them. I am not really a Democrat anymore because the party has been taken over by the corporations and the asskissers. We need to do something fast to stop this Fascist Administration and their hateful allies in the religious right. It is a despotic dictatorship that has stolen 3 election cycles in a row.
If we don't get out into the streets now and raise hell we are not going to have a middle class or a country soon.
But I don't think UAW deserved what it got, at least its members deserve this sort of death. Maybe it's not too late to roll out an American hybrid?
UAW Local 594 President Suzanne Brown and Vice President Merrick Cotton get the word about the 25,000 layoffs. GM employed more than 258,000 in 1991. By 2008, the number will be closer to 85,000. GM still has 50,000 hourly workers in Michigan.
Metro reaction
Ideal of carmaker's stability disappears for employees
Several longtime workers don't know what the next day holds after layoff announcement.
By Louis Aguilar and Ronald J. Hansen / The Detroit News
John T. Greilick / The Detroit News
Bill Howard, GM worker, left, with colleague Andy Churilla.
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
Most of General Motors Corp.'s autoworkers are veterans who were raised on the rock-solid belief that working for the world's largest automotive company was as safe a career choice as anyone could make.
But Tuesday's announcement was the latest blow to shake that ideal.
"We all grew up thinking that General Motors is here forever," said LeRoy LeCureux , 51, a 28-year GM veteran, as he waited in the parking lot of the Pontiac Truck Assembly plant for his shift to begin.
His GM pickup has multiple decals of American flags.
"What else can I believe at this point?"
GM employed more than 258,000 in 1991. By 2008, the number will be closer to 85,000. GM still has 50,000 hourly workers in Michigan.
Like many, LeCureux has worked at several GM plants to avoid being laid off. The electrician currently drives one hour each way from his home outside Flint, where he worked for more than a decade, to Pontiac.
"As a GM worker, you learn not to worry about things that are out of your control. And you try not to let the daily news get to you too much," LeCureux said.
"Of course, everyone at some point thinks maybe they should have gone with another company, but the truth is, overall, it's really good work."
As Veronica Walker, an assembly line worker and 27-year-veteran of GM, walked out of the Pontiac plant Tuesday, she had one question on her mind: "Are they going to lay off people here?"
"I don't feel secure at all. It used to be after 10 years (working at General Motors), you felt like you would be OK," Walker said.
"But after 27 years, I have the same insecurity and feeling that tomorrow, all of it can be shut down. Now, we have concerns about our pensions."
The Pontiac Truck Assembly plant has had its share of labor strife in the recent past. Many workers are members of United Auto Workers Local 594, which just completed a raucous campaign that spawned a recall campaign and libel lawsuit.
It ended with a landslide election that ousted the current chairman, who received 21 of 1,706 votes.
Many workers became convinced the chairman did not fight hard enough to quash GM's plans to move 900 union jobs from Pontiac to its Warren technical center. And in 1997, workers here went on strike for 87 days over GM's plans to cut jobs. Federal indictments against several Local 594 leaders later were handed down, accusing them of prolonging the strike until GM agreed to hire several of their friends and relatives. The charges later were dropped.
Nevertheless, many came to the defense of GM on Tuesday.
"General Motors has been great for America," said Rick Einhueser, 48, a 28-year veteran and White Lake resident.
"We build good products. But if Americans keep buying foreign cars instead of American, what can any of us do?"
At GM's Romulus Transmission Operations plant, two veterans reacted in anger.
"They should start at the top, and not with the guys who make the product," said Andy Churilla, a 29-year employee and Garden City resident. "We have done everything they expected of us."
Churilla and Bill Howard of Allen Park said they knew changes were likely after the company's sales slumped badly earlier this year and credit agencies downgraded GM stock to junk-bond status. Howard has worked at eight GM plants through his 27-year career at GM.
"It's just shaky ground for us right now," said Howard, who assembles transmissions. "I feel sorry for the young people at GM. I'm glad I'm at the end of the road instead of the middle of it."
"This is the tip of the iceberg," Churilla said of Monday's announcement. "If we don't sell vehicles, we're going to be in a heap of trouble."
While the company begins to outline its layoff plans, Churilla and Howard had different dramatic news Monday. They learned they are being transferred to GM's Lake Orion plant next week.
You can reach Louis Aguilar at (313) 222-2760 or laguilar@detnews.com.
But, some of Dean's recent Democratic critics aren't completely wrong when they say Dean's not being careful about what he says. It IS possible, after all, to be correct and careless at the same time. Basically, Dean probably needs to stop talking about "Republicans" and start talking about "Republican leaders," "Republicans in Congress," and "the President," as well as how they exploit "hard-working Americans" and their Party's own rank and file.
He needs to not attack heedlessly, but demoralize the enemy's troops. Instead...he's leaving himself WAY too open to misinterpretation and brutal, successful attack.
Dean's most recent less-than-careful remark--regarding the GOP as a "Christian" party--is particularly unwise, I think.
There are far too many self-identified Christians who voted for Bush while holding their noses, who hate how things are going in Iraq, who didn't like the Schiavo mess, who think the country is in general going "in the wrong direction" for Dean to be potentially isolating them and losing their swing votes (many voted for Clinton) by using the word "Christian" in such a way that it could be interpreted as an an intended insult, but suggesting that all Christians are a collective "them" not welcome in the Democratic Party.
Dems aren't likely to win many GOP Congressional seats soon or the 2008 presidential race without the Jim Wallis-type progressive Christians demonstrating to other Christians--particularly to evangelicals and non-evangelicals nonetheless identifying as "born again" (forget the Fundamentalists and Pentacostals; they're essentially lost causes) that the Democratic Party is a potential home, and thereby if not swinging over some 2004 GOP votes to Democrats, at least leaving them unsure enough about the Republican Party to stay at home.
Dean's language lately hasn't helped.
Dr. Dean: for now, attack the Republican LEADERSHIP. Attack the LEADERS and undermine THEM, and the glue holding together the GOP's coalition of New Right/Christianist/Libertarians will begin to fail.
But the sentiment is the same. Dean's job is different that Mehlman's at this point, Mehlman has to keep things the way things are and his party is fine, Dean must reform his party, and getting Democrats to stand up is part of that.
Oh, and I'm sure if Mehlman was attacked 24/7 by half of his party quotes like this would come up.
From my diary Social Security Negotiation - Just Say No!:
I linked to a post by Mark Schmitt, The Decembrist, Senators' Optimal Experiences:
From the TNR article, [Game On https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w050314&s=mann031805]:
That sounds perfectly sensible to Bush, the M$M and David Broder. There's one little hitch:
So what should the Democratic strategy be?
Does anyone remember the Bowers diary Five Easy Pieces?
The only way to oppose a bully is to stand up to him. The only way to deal with a liar is to call them on their bullshit.
Howard Dean is following exactly the right strategy for the Democratic party.
What do the republicks really look like?
By now it is plain that we are not engaged in a dialogue with a parliamentary adversary here. World War IV has already started. It's r hegemonists vs the rest of humanity, and patriotic Americans are at last beginning to see it this way. This is the rs' bed that they carefully made, and now they should be forced to lay in it. And, this late in the r's takeover game, a speech's actual semantic context doesn't matter as much as the fighting words themselves: Dean may have been remiss in using the word "voters" but his emotional, untempered feeling of outrage and the continued media attention are well worth the speech.
After all, how else can a patriot break through the logjam of our scared-shitless national media? This kind of fire that Dean started should be part of countless j'accuse fires that all elected and appointed Democrats should be starting, giving the rs no peace. God knows there's enough kindling fuel they left lying around.
Or should we, say, parse Thomas Paine's every word, and summarily dismiss his pamphlet should we find one phrase that may possibly be an exaggeration or distortion?
Go Howard!
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
139 Comments