Would you ever vote for an anti-choice or anti-gay candidate?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

No? Are these issues that you won't compromise on?

Then why am I and people like me expected to compromise for the economic right wingers, like Dean, Graham, and Lieberman? These are pro-corporate and anti-worker candidates. They support sending US jobs overseas, they support NAFTA, the WTO/GATT, and H1B visas, which lower the living standards of myself and my family. Do the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" Democrats expect me and people like me to just fall into line and vote for the GOP-Lites?

I can get behind Gephardt, who is rather centrist, and I'd love to have Kucinich, who is liberal. I'd even support Sharpton, who is very good on the issues, and not afraid to tell the truth even when it's uncomfortable for a lot of people. I really don't want to vote for Kerry, but at least he has a good AFL-CIO rating.

But what possible reason would I have to vote for right-wingers like Dean, Graham, and Lieberman? Are you kidding me? Would a gay man vote for Pat Robertson? Would a woman vote for Gary Bauer? Why would a working class person vote for Dean or Graham?

We have Democrats saying we need to "move to the right" in order to get these elusive "swing voters", and at the same time they blame the "left" who voted Green for Bush's selection. So which is it? If the Democrats move to the right can they win without the Greens? If they can, why blame them for Bush's selection?

I doubt many DUers would vote for an anti-choice, anti-gay but fiscally liberal candidate. So why should I vote for the opposite? Why can't we run a socially liberal, economically liberal candidate, or at least a moderate? Wouldn't that bring back the Greens, and reach out to the swing voters?

I'd cut off my right arm before I ever voted for a Bush, but if the Democrats turn into the right-wing economic party, and the GOP goes more populist, who knows? The Republicans did give the steel workers a break from GATT. Buchanan, odious theocrat that he is, is not hell bent on sending my job to Communist China. I'd never want to be in a position to have to choose between a candidate who supports me on the economy, but is anti-choice and anti-gay. You have the issues that are important to you, and I have the issues that are important to me.

I'm a swing voter. If the Democrats abandon me and my family to these "economic conservatives" like Dean, Graham, and Lieberman, why should I vote Democrat?

[Andy_Stephenson]

1. I voted for an Anti-Gay candidate already.....

Bill Clinton.

[pasadenademocrat]

2. But you would vote for a pro war candidate link Gephardt?

Huh?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. Clinton was as pro-war as Gephardt

How many wars did Clinton start? How many times did he bomb Iraq? Remember Serbia?

All politicians are pro-war, that's a fact of life. You really think Kucinich or Dean wouldn't start a war? Come on. That's what presidents do. Sure, most aren't as bad as the Bush chickenhawks, but let's not be naive.

I've thought about supporting Clark if he runs, you don't think he's pro-war? Kerry and Dean both want him.

[pasadenademocrat]

19. OK, let me rephrase

You would vote for a candidate dumb enough to authorize Bush to unilateraly preemptively invade Iraq?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

31. How did Dean vote?

That's right he has never had to deal with real federal level, foreign policy politics, just snipe from the outside - only after he started running. Gephardt has disappointed me many times with his votes, but he has a solid record of supporting the issues I care about, and I know where his base is - unions and the working class - and who is giving Dean his support? Socially liberal, "fiscally conservative" Democrats. No thanks.

Besides, Gephardt is electable and Dean isn't. Let's be pragmatic here.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Don't confuse the union fat cats with the rank and file

I know the difference very well, I helped put our corrupt union president in jail for theft and embezzlement. It took a long time for the local to be rid of him because he had the support of equally corrupt union officials at the regional.

Don't confuse the union fat cats, the ones that normally endorse candidates, with the rank and file! Sometimes they are both in sync, but far too often they are not!

One example is the carpenters' union, whose members include contractors as well as workers. Very strange mix!

Many unions are reactionary!

[jonnyblitz]

6. did you know that he had an ad on right wing christian radio.

when he was campaigning for his second term he put an ad on right wing christian radio bragging that he was "family values" because he signed Defense of Marriage Act.

[Sephirstein]

58. Yes....But not for Don't Ask, Don't Tell...

He had no choice there...

The Attack on Marriage Act (sometimes wrongly called DOMA) however...

[silverlib]

3. It depends -

I certainly wouldn't like to have to make that choice. I agree with almost everything you stated. In the primacies, I will support Kucinich (I only learned to spell his name yesterday, thanks to his supporters' postings on DU). He stands for everything I believe in and I believe his is the BEST choice. However, should he not get the nomination, I will stand by "Anybody But Bush in 2004." Any of the Democratic nominees are better qualified to represent a democracy than the Chimp. The candidate that wins the primary may not be someone who represents all my views, but will certainly be someone that represents more of my views than our present administration/would-be dictatorship.

[thermodynamic]

21. Now I'm torn, you make a good point...

I'm torn. Torn between voting for a candidate who is comparable to the values I believe in and simply getting that wretched little man* out of power.

On the other hand, people have also said that Bush* is just an enabler for the pukes whose saving grace (for the Democratic party, that is) is his desire to go to war at the drop of a hat.

Getting Bush* out of power is the paramount issue right now. So despite my rant, you've brought me back to the reality of the current situation. I will, perhaps grudingly, vote Dem regardless. But it sure isn't easy...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

36. Dean is a good liar about "free trade"

If a Mexican company wants to sell the cars they make in the US, I don't have a problem with that, and I wouldn't necessarily want to place a tariff on them.

But why should General Motors, a US company, be allowed to fire workers here in the US, and send those jobs to Mexico, just so they can pay their workers less? And get a tax break for it? This is exactly what Dean supports, along with Graham and Lieberman.

Why should a US company be allowed to bring over programmers from India on a speical H1B visa, because they don't want to pay an American worker the going rate? And get a tax break for this? Then send the Indian back to India, and not even let them move their family here?

That's not free trade, that's just a scam.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Do you have some substance to your allegations

or are you just blowing hot air to prove your capacity for mendacity?

Links?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

39. Right here IndianaGreen

http://deanvolunteers.org/DeanVolunteers/press_view.asp?ID=752

It was posted on this thread. Dean talks a great game about the environment and labor rights, and he won't support the main issue - if a US company should be allowed to fire American workers and hire overseas workers strictly so they can pay us less money.

That's not free trade, that's just a scam.

Dean says that as long as the corporations don't pollute too much and as long as they have nominal labor rights, that's a-okay with him. He also supports the voodoo-economics that claim this job-shipping is "good for the economy."

That is a DIRECT threat to my job and my family's living standards, and I won't support it. The more I read about Dean the more I realize he is very right-wing on corporate issues.

I'll be looking into Kerry next, to see if he is as "moderate" on the issues as his supporters claim.

[lastliberalintexas]

42. Sorry, but that's not what he says

"But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries." (quote from your link)

Dean is actually saying that it is BAD that we have shipped jobs overseas- otherwise, why would he call it a problem? I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first, but this appears to be just another anti-candidate thread (in this case, 3 candidates). If you are opposed to Dean, Graham and Lieberman, just say it. But please use factually accurate information to discredit them rather than what has been included in this thread.

Everything that I have read says that Dean is pretty good on labor issues (he's even gotten the endorsement of some labor guys). Dean is not ANTI-worker just because he is not as PRO-worker as your candidate.

I highly doubt that Graham is either, but I do not know enough about him to say otherwise. Check Project Vote Smart for his record. And *gasp!* even Lieberman has a high rating from most unions! Check out his voting record here:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103#Labor

Now contrast that with the supposed liberal Chafee that a number of people here want to join the Dem party.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BRI43231#Labor

Damn if someone isn't turning socialist pinko me into a Lieberman apologist. But please look at the candidates' actual voting records before going out on that limb and paintig them with the broad brush of the corporatist label. I doubt that the AFofL would give a 92% approval rating to a corporatist.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

46. Dean supports corporations sending jobs overseas

Let's quote the whole paragraph.
...
HOWARD DEAN: I haven't spoken against NAFTA, but your quotes are right. NAFTA was a big benefit to Vermont. We got--

JOE KLEIN: I've got to say, the union audience I saw you saying that to thought you were speaking against NAFTA.

HOWARD DEAN: No. What I said-- Well, I'll tell you what I said in a minute. But I'll follow my train of thought here, most briefly. Free trade has benefited Vermont a great deal. Here's the problem with free trade, and here's why I support fair trade, and why I want to change all our trade agreements to include human rights with trade, as Jimmy Carter included human rights with foreign policy. I still think NAFTA was a good thing. I think the president did the right thing. But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries. And the ownership pattern, and the ratio of reward between capital and labor in those other countries is what it was 100 years ago in this country.
...

So Dean's solution? Add "human rights with trade". He then goes on to justify the federal government helping corporations to lay of highly paid American workers and send jobs overseas, or bring poor immigrants here temporarily, long enough to lower our pay. He even gives a novel excuse - defense - and says we need to export jobs to raise the living standards of other countires. That's sweet, really, but what about us? So you're saying the corporations are doing this out of the kindness of their heart?

So now Dean lays it out:

"What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class."

So now he wants to transfer more jobs, otherwise the terrorists will get us?

Dean is very right-wing on jobs. Better than Bush, for sure. Dean is in the same camp as Graham and Lieberman, basically right-wing economic extremists.

[IndianaGreen]

53. You are using selective quotes out of context to bolster your weak POV

I posted the entire NAFTA segment and I used the actual link to the Kennedy Library forum as the source.

You are using selective quotes out of context to bolster your weak point of view about Dean, in other words, you are engaging in a smear.

Is Dean a capitalist? Well, aren't they all!

Dean is a moderate Democrat, with liberal views on human rights, and Clintonian views on fiscal management. Dean offers the best overall package of all the candidates running.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

56. Read the whole article

Dean is loud and clear. He has no problems shipping jobs overseas, as long as they don't pollute too much and have human rights.

First of all, if Dean were to win, he would not end trade with China - so he's giving us a campaign lie here. I expect politicians to lie, so that's not that big of a strike against him. But he refuses to come out against the job swapping, and he refuses to come out against the corporate-led temporary immigration. When he does that, he can have my vote.

[IndianaGreen]

51. You are right, that's not what Dean said. Dean spoke about fair trade!

Here is the link to the entire forum:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_dean.html

Here is the NAFTA portion of that forum:

A Conversation with Howard Dean
Moderated by Joe Klein

John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation
March 26, 2003

JOE KLEIN: <snip> Now, let's move on to one last area, and then we'll take some questions from the audience. And that area is trade. You were on record in '95, and I think for many years after, as being a very strong supporter of NAFTA. And in fact, it has had very positive economic impacts on the northern border. However, I saw you in Iowa in October, and you said fair trade is more important than free trade. And I heard you speak against NAFTA at that point. What caused you to change you mind about it? And in general, how do you feel about the notion of free trade?

HOWARD DEAN: I haven't spoken against NAFTA, but your quotes are right. NAFTA was a big benefit to Vermont. We got--

JOE KLEIN: I've got to say, the union audience I saw you saying that to thought you were speaking against NAFTA.

HOWARD DEAN: No. What I said-- Well, I'll tell you what I said in a minute. But I'll follow my train of thought here, most briefly. Free trade has benefited Vermont a great deal. Here's the problem with free trade, and here's why I support fair trade, and why I want to change all our trade agreements to include human rights with trade, as Jimmy Carter included human rights with foreign policy. I still think NAFTA was a good thing. I think the president did the right thing. But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries. And the ownership pattern, and the ratio of reward between capital and labor in those other countries is what it was 100 years ago in this country.

So the reason for NAFTA is not just trade. It's defense and foreign policy. That is, a middle class country where women fully participate in the economic and political decision making of that country is a country that doesn't harbor groups like Al-Qaeda, and it's a country that does not go to war. So that's in our intersect. That's why trade is really in our long term interest. What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class. The truth is, the trade union movement in this country built America, not literally-- Well, they did do it literally with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, and things like that. But they built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class people. And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.

Now, if you want trade to succeed, ultimately, we're going to have to create a climate in other countries that are beneficiaries of NAFTA where they can create a middle class with democratic ideals. That means we should not have any free trade agreements, and we should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards." Here's why. Today, if you run a factory in Iowa-- Let's suppose you spend a million dollars a year disposing of all the waste products that come out that are toxic. You can go to another country and dump all that stuff in the river and on the ground. So America, because we have environmental standards, and we're willing to trade, straight out, free trade, with countries that it's cheaper by a million dollars, before you even get to wages, to do business there, I think that's a big problem. We're essentially saying, "Our environmental laws are strict. It's cheaper for you to go into business someplace lese. Go ahead." That's the wrong thing to do.

The same with labor standards. I don't know why we should be shipping our jobs offshore when kids can work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for a small amount of wages. And isn't that what America fought against 100 years go? Wasn't that the victory of the trade union movement? So it seems to me that my position makes sense. We've gone through 10 years of free trade. We've gotten to a position where we now need to change our trade agreements.


John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library - Columbia Point - Boston, Massachusetts 02125
Local: [phone]; TTY: [phone];Toll Free: 1-866-JFK-1960;- Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library Foundation - Columbia Point - Boston, Massachusetts 02125
Tel: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

40. oppose book worship

"Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, "Show me where it's written in the book." When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership" but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it."


"Whatever can be linked is right" - "show me the link"

[qandnotq]

43. a question for you

should we ban all imports on the theory that will keep more jobs here? of course to be fair, we should then ban exports as well, which might just cost more than a few jobs.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

47. who said that? not me

If a foreign company wants to sell their products in the USA, that's good and I fully support it. Of course we want to sell our products overseas, and I support that too. I don't even think we should necessarily tax or tariff foreign products. Trade is good.

But when the federal government signs treaties with other governments to allow "free" job swapping to lower wage countries, and gives the corporations a tax break to do it, that is bad for my economy, at least, my family and almost everyone I know. I'm sure that's good for rich business owners, well good for them. Don't expect me to support it.

[qandnotq]

50. ah, seems it's the tax break you object to

not trade itself; sorry i misunderstood. i've not heard about this tax aspect before. got any links with info?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

54. no

It's not just the tax breaks, it's the fact that US companies are allowed to manipulate international markets to lower my wages. It's the fact that the federal government is collaborating with other governments to do just that. It's the fact that corporations are "contributing" to Democrats to pass those kinds of laws and treaties. It's the fact that if I make "too much" money, US corporations get to replace me with a cheaper overseas worker or bring an immigrant in temporarily to cut my pay. The don't even let the immigrant bring their family or stay in the US, it's nearly indentured servitude!

I support free, fair trade, and I think that Dean is better on this issue than Bush, Graham, and Lieberman, but not by much.

I want a candidate that is on record opposing this, like Gephardt, Kucinich, Mosely-Braun, and Sharpton. I don't want a candidate that is on record supporting this, like Dean, Graham, and Lieberman, and possibly Kerry, but I just don't know about him yet.

[Allah Akbar]

60. Goods going back and forth freely is free trade

Jobs going out of the country is not free trade, lets get the definition correct.

I'm getting kind of tired of "free trade" being used to mean our higher paying manufacturing jobs going out of the country.

[lastliberalintexas]

4. Actually I would

Since you are a Kucinich supporter, you should hope that a number of us would. Please don't give me the line that he has vowed to use abortion rights as a litmus test for judicial appointments. His voting record is anti-choice. Period.

So, even though Kucinich is not my choice for the primary, I would in fact vote for him come November.

Don't like my characterization of DK as anti-choice? Well, I am not so sure why you called Dean a corporatist. Being fiscally responsible does not equal wanting jobs shipped overseas, corporations ruling the world, etc.

And so you know, I consider myself a socialist economically. If I was choosing a candidate based solely on economic issues (and ignoring electability), I would be supporting Gephardt. But I think any of the 9 announced would be better than Shrub on economic issues. Even Lieberman, by a hair.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. I've read Dean's positions

He is a corporatist. He's a long time Wall Streeter, he's a supporter of NAFTA, the WTO/GATT, and H1B visas. He hasn't seen a corporate "free trade agreement" he doesn't like.

Sure, he's says he'll put some nice worker protection clauses in GATT, just like Kucinich has said he'll only nominiate pro-RvW judges. I can fully understand someone's concerns about Kucinich's voting record.

But let's ne honest - the Democratic party is NEVER going to become anti-choice and anti-gay, even if Kucinich were president. The Democratic party IS becoming more corporatist and anti-worker all the time.

[lastliberalintexas]

23. Sorry for my snippy reply

And no, Dean is not as economically liberal as I would prefer. But I still would not consider him a corporatist. I think the only one who comes close enough to that label is Lieberman.

I support Dean in part because I do believe that the budget should be balanced (or as close to it as possible) absent some extenuating circumstances. I was a supporter of Tsongas in 92 as well, just so you know. I think that fiscal irresponsibility is actually as much a threat to our middle class as NAFTA and GATT. Various economic reasons for that belief, but that's another thread. Suffice it to say that a heavy national debt puts a great deal of pressure on a country's economy, a la high interest rates, debt servicing monies taken from the budget, etc. All this usually results in a disparate impact on the poor/working poor and middle classes.

I think a number of repubs have actually figured this out, and that's one reason we no longer hear anything about the Concord Coalition or a Balanced Budget Amendment from those people. They have instead adjusted their focus on ways of screwing the poor and middle class from the big picture concept of the budget to tax burden and marginal rates issues.

I don't think any of the Dem candidates (and very few Dems at all) are opposed to progressive taxation or in line with Grover and his selfish little group, though! :-)

[revcarol]

7. Check out the "Feminists for Kucinich" site!!

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/feminsts_4_kucinich

snip
4. We want a candidate who opposes discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and who stands for women's reproductive rights and recognizes that these rights depend on universal health insurance. The right to choose means women are entitled to abortion, if that is their choice, and to all the social supports necessary to raise children, if that is their choice....

Dennis Kucinich i sthe only candidate who not only agrees with all these points but has developed policies to support them:...supporting unions and the right to organize...withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO and challenging IMF/World Bank policies...repealing the "Patriot Act"....

snip

Dennis is your dream candidate!!


"Kucinich is a keeper"

[IndianaGreen]

25. Kucinich voted for abortion restrictions

Check his voting record!

Some "feminists" were too quick to jump on Kucinich's bandwagon without checking his record first.

Abortion is an issue of conscience, whether one is for it or against it. I have trouble with any candidate that is prone to switch positions on an issue of conscience without undergoing first a transformation in their core values. How do we know for certain that Kucinich will not waffle on abortion rights as Kerry has on the Iraq war? How do we know that the progressive position on abortion rights that he has posted on his website is what he truly believes in? And if he truly believes in that, how does he explain his voting record on abortion rights?

I am voting against Evan Bayh next year, partly because of his vote in favor of the ban on "partial birth" abortion. Yet, you could find Bayh getting a good rating from some women organizations. I think that the methodology of those ratings come into question whenever you have a politician voting to impose additional restrictions on women's reproductive rights.

I find it amazing that America in 2003 is still behind the eight ball when it comes to women's rights. In 1917 Lenin's Bolsheviks gave women the absolute right to abortion. Not even Rove v. Wade went as far as Lenin did in recognizing a woman's total control over her reproductive choices.

[silverlib]

34. Criminalization of abortions

I understand Kucinich switched his stance from anti-choice based on the subject line. Although he may not consciously believe abortion is a correct moral choice, he does not want to see it "criminalized." I think it is a fine reason to change his mind. I have, as was my mother before me (she was born in 1913, by the way) always been Pro-Choice, but if I can getting someone to rethink on the basis of crime, this is a wonderful step, and I appreciate the thought he put into changing his stance. I do not think W is quite capable of that much thought.

41. I'm sure they are aware of where Kucinich stands on the issue

You don't endorse a candidate without careful study and feminists don't ignore where a candidate stands on abortion.

[killbotfactory]

8. Isn't Kerry for NAFTA, WTO, etc?

Dean at least wants to change the agreements to include labor/environmental standards to improve the lot of those in third world countries.

Dean won the AFL-CIO wellstone award for organizing a nurses union.

Dean supports card check.

And no, I would not vote for an anti-choice anti-gay candidate.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. Is he?

I don't know. I don't like Kerry, and don't want to vote for him, but I haven't heard him make the same pro-corporate statements that Dean has. Dean has used a national security excuse to send jobs overseas - not even the Republicans have gone that far. Graham is a nightmare. Lieberman is hardly worth mentioning.

Gephardt, Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton, (in order of electability) are the only candidates that have spoken to my concerns, as far as I can tell.

[hedda_foil]

15. You say that Dean has used the "national security excuse"

"to send jobs overseas." I have combed through everything he has said on the issue and never, NEVER have I seen anything remotely approaching anything to that effect.

Please provide a link.

In the meantime, I would like to repost a section from the transcript of a very long and very intense and wide-ranging interview that Joe Klein (Primary Colors, Newsweek) conducted with Dean before a large audience at the Kennedy Library at the end of March. The interview is highly enlightening, I believe. This is the section dealing with trade.

Because too many people have a tendency to take statements entirely out of context, I will post as much of this section as I can in the hope of putting the canard about Dean being right wing on trade to rest for the time being at least. I intend to bookmark this page so I don't have to google for the transcript whenever this charge is flung about.

http://deanvolunteers.org/DeanVolunteers/press_view.asp?ID=752

Conversation with Howard Dean Moderated by Joe Klein
John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation March 26, 2003

<snip>
HOWARD DEAN: What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class. The truth is, the trade union movement in this country built America, not literally-- Well, they did do it literally with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, and things like that. But they built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class people. And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.

Now, if you want trade to succeed, ultimately, we're going to have to create a climate in other countries that are beneficiaries of NAFTA where they can create a middle class with democratic ideals. That means we should not have any free trade agreements, and we should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards." Here's why. Today, if you run a factory in Iowa-- Let's suppose you spend a million dollars a year disposing of all the waste products that come out that are toxic. You can go to another country and dump all that stuff in the river and on the ground. So America, because we have environmental standards, and we're willing to trade, straight out, free trade, with countries that it's cheaper by a million dollars, before you even get to wages, to do business there, I think that's a big problem. We're essentially saying, "Our environmental laws are strict. It's cheaper for you to go into business someplace lese. Go ahead." That's the wrong thing to do.

The same with labor standards. I don't know why we should be shipping our jobs offshore when kids can work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for a small amount of wages. And isn't that what America fought against 100 years go? Wasn't that the victory of the trade union movement? So it seems to me that my position makes sense. We've gone through 10 years of free trade. We've gotten to a position where we now need to change our trade agreements.

JOE KLEIN: The Republican wing of the Democratic party would argue back that what we get in return for free trade are lower prices that benefit every American, number one. And number two, you get the beginnings of third world economic development, and it starts many countries on the path that, say, Japan took. Remember when we were kids, "Made in Japan" was a sign of cheapness. And that country moved up the economic food chain as its workers took jobs in what we would call sweatshops, and then enabled their kids to be educated, and moved on up and up. It's happening in China now. It's happening in India now. I've been to villages in the third world where there is a sweatshop that enables a mother to buy shoes for her kids and let them to go school. What would you say to that mother?

HOWARD DEAN: What I would say is, we've gone the first mile. The first decade has worked, for exactly the reasons you say. I don't disagree with the premise of the free traders. I had this discussion with Bob Rubin, and I said, "Here's the problem. We need an emerging middle class in these countries, and we're not getting one. So now is the time to have labor and environmental standards attached to trade agreements." He said, "You're totally wrong. I can't disagree with you more." I said, "How would you address the problem?" I haven't heard back. You have to deal with this problem. It's a serious problem.

JOE KLEIN: What if they say no?

HOWARD DEAN: Then I'd say, "Fine, that's the end of free trade."

JOE KLEIN: What do you mean, that's the end of free trade? Then we slap tariffs on these countries?

HOWARD DEAN: Yes.

JOE KLEIN: So you'd be in favor of tariffs at that point.

HOWARD DEAN: If necessary. Look, Jimmy Carter did this in foreign policy. If you can't get people to observe human rights, and say that we're going to accept products from countries that have kids working no overtime, no time and a half, no reasonable safety precautions-- I don't think we ought to be buying those kinds of products in this country. We're enabling that to happen. I'm serious.

<snip>

Now, please post a link to your accusation if you have one.

(edited to fix a typo that bolded most of the text instead of selected sections.)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

27. Didn't Dean say ...

... that we needed to build up the middle classes of OTHER countries, and that was in our national security interests? This is what I have a problem with about Dean - he says:

"The first decade (of free trade) has worked, for exactly the reasons you say. I don't disagree with the premise of the free traders."

NAFTA has worked all right, but deindustrializing America and costing us jobs - exactly what it was designed to do. He doesn't disagree with the "free traders" which means he think's it's accetable for the government to charter corporations and send jobs overseas, strictly to lower wages here at home. He's saying they shouldn't send jobs overseas to pollute more, but it's okay to send jobs overseas strictly to lower wages.

The facts are these free trade agreements have brought DOWN wages in the West and barely touched wages in the South. So Dean wants to support free trade, and then if a country has a bad environmental or labor record he'll cut the agreements - is he going to do that with China right away? Is he going to do that with Indonesia the first day in office? So they clean up their act on the environment, than it's okay to pay them less? I believe he specifically came out and said there shouldn't be wage parity.

This rhetoric is EXACTLY what Clinton and the Republicans used to pass NAFTA, and look how that turned out. This is the exact same rhetoric that Bush Sr. used to support MAI.

It's going to be very difficult for me to vote for someone who thinks I get paid too much, especially when it's a rich Wall Streeter like Dean. I say let him take a paycut first.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. What's Wrong

with NAFTA, GATT.


And although I am pro-choice I respect sincere pro-lifers but I have no respect for homophobes.

I could argue the pro-life position but I could never argue the anti-gay position.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. NAFTA and GATT are anti-democratic

for one. They hurt our economy in the US. They make human rights abuses worse in other countries and they lower wages and lose jobs here at home.

These agreements allow corporations and rich people to govern globally without any input from the people they govern over; they are anti-American. That's against the principle of government by consent of the governed.

[Prodemsouth]

14. I think we all need to be careful here.

I see very narrow minded politics in play. You are EXPECTED TO MAKE A BETTER CHOICE when you do not have an option. You are expected to think -you know use the stuff between your god damn ears!! This is an example: Picture yourself in a voting Booth: AND YOU THINK: I love Nader, and I agree with him all the time, but will Nader have a chance of being President. NOOOO! Well, lets see my other options are Bush and Gore. Should have been an easy fucking decision as the intellectually honest Greens now admit. Anyone who is willing to sit back an let Bush have it for another four years because Graham, Dean, even fucking Lieberman is not Dennis Kucinich on labor issues is insane. The same would work the other way other Democrats may have been better than Clinton on Gay rights but can they tell me with a straight face that Bush for another four years would have been better for gays. As I see it the Clinton years included better treatment of gays.

[Crowdance]

12. No. These are human rights issues.

And central to a person's way of thinking. If a candidate believes that women and gays are not entitled to full human rights because of their very natures--something is essentially flawed in that candidate's thinking. I couldn't vote for a candidate with such a serious flaw.

And, you are certainly entitled, indeed, obligated, to vote for the candidate who supports your issues. I, too, wish we could find a candidate who has a record of being economically AND socially liberal. But we haven't yet, so we'll all have to stand behind the candidate that comes closest for us as individuals.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Attacks On NAFTA and GATT

If NAFTA and GATT hurt the economy how come we enjoyed unparalelled prosperity during the Clinton administration.

[vlorbik]

16. why vote democrat?

i've got nothing against single-issue politics.
show me a candidate who'll say
"free all drug war prisoners"
(and make me think they mean it)
and i'll probably vote for that candidate
regardless of whatever bigotries they may have
against gays or women or the working class.
of course such rhetoric is unlikely
from even the leftiest of the democrats.
as is "nationalize the insurance industry".
and so i'll probably be out on the fringe
once again voting my conscience for some
snowball-in-hell "third party" candidate.
sigh. how about "end the occupation"?
that just might have a chance. anybody?

[thermodynamic]

18. Dean supports the moving of US jobs overseas?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I haven't been paying enough attention - that's not sarcasm, I haven't been paying enough attention.

I've been hearing how Dean is supposed to be more left than center!

Graham and Lieberman, I've only heard bad things - but Dean? Somebody help me out here and tell me he's not for supporting such anti-American behavior!!!

NAFTA too? ugh...

I agree with you, though. Always vote for the candidate who you think is the best, even if it isn't for Republican or Republican-Lite. Any other take on the issue is spin.

I am a liberal and I am proud. I will support liberals. I may be castigated, pointed at, laughed at, or spit on - even by other so-called "liberals" who choose to live within the 2 party prison they have created for us all. But I will not capitulate to a bunch of capitulators. If the Dems can't provide a proper candidate or act like the progressives they once were, I am tempted to vote elsewhere. I will surely not support them when they don't give a frick about the ideals they merely claim to cherish. Especially if Graham or Lieberman is nominated, but now I'm not so sure on Dean either. :-(

And if that means another 4 years of Bush, well that's not my fault nor am I the problem. Given a choice of Bush, Bush-lite, or liberal - my choice is obvious and it is clear.

Obviously I'm starting to develop a backbone. Maybe some of the Dems in power will do the same before too many people wake up and stop voting for them?

[hedda_foil]

24. The answer to your question is in post 15.

Thanks for asking.

[MaverickX]

20. just because someone's not a raving socialist like Kookcinich...

Doesn't make them economically right-wing. There are liberal reasons to support free trade. Also "fiscal conservatism" simply means the adherant supports a balanced budget. Dean isn't an economic right-winger by any means.

[thermodynamic]

22. So you're calling me a kook then as well?

I stand fully behind Kucinich (my spelling may be wrong, but I sure as hell am closer to the correct spelling) and what he stands for.

He probably won't get nominated, but at least there's one Democrat I know I can be completely proud of.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Let's Be Real

Dennis Kucinich has zero chance of being elected president.

[silverlib]

29. AMEN!

:D to thermodynamic

[kayell]

49. Thermodynamic, you speak my mind also

[IndianaGreen]

32. Kucinich is not a socialist

He has not called for the abolition of capitalism and for all power to be concentrated on the working class.

For that matter, neither is Nader, who is as much a corporatist as those he attacks.

[MaverickX]

62. he's not that dumb..

To openly call for the abolition of capitalism. Also, not all socialists are Marxists that support worker control of property. Are you saying Kucinich isn't hostile to capitalism? By the way, I never viewed Nader as a socialist.

[dsc]

28. I have before and suspect I will again

Full disclosure I am 'anti choice' as you put it. I won't get into semantics. But I have voted for boat loads more anti gay candidates than anti choice ones. And if God forbid an anti gay nominee were to happen this time I would vote for him or her. A partial list of the anti gay candidates for whom I voted.

Tom Musgorve for LT Gov of MS,
Mike Moore for AG of MS,
Molpus for Gov of MS,
Dristal my current state Rep OH

I could go on but that should suffice for now.

[karlschneider]

30. I would frame the question a little differently...

mostly to generate a little more heat I suppose ;-)

If Dubya were to come out (there's an interesting Freudian choice of words, eh?) in favor of gay marriage and abortion on demand, would you vote for him?

heh heh
:D

[qandnotq]

33. Maybe you should run

Hell, maybe we should all run. That way we can each vote for someone who agrees with ourselves exactly on every point. Bush would, of course, be elected. But we would all have the smug satisfaction of having truly voted our consciences, and damn the consequences.

[Prodemsouth]

38. Why should we care if someone is anti-gay?

When it is apparent that some gay posters on this thread are "torn" about enabling anti-gay canidates by supporting no win idiots. They don't care why should we?

Just pissed off at some of the absurd remarks in this thread! There are many good reason not to support homophobes, they are usually wrong about everything else too.

[Lindacooks]

44. ANYBODY BUT BUSH

This is a major worldwide crisis. It's as important to make sure that Bush gets kicked out on his ass as it was to fight Hitler.

[DagmarK]

45. I take issue with your assertions

that Dean is

Anti-worker (he strongly opposes corps setting up offices on the Caymans to avoid taxes; and he does oppose the shipping off of jobs to foreign countries

Anti-choice -- puhleeze! he's pro-choice

And he could NEVER be considered a "right winger"

And the lump him in a sentence with the likes of Lieberman is way off the mark.

Sorry...I can't give credence to one word of your post.......

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

52. Dean is pro-choice

I didn't mean to imply that Dean is anti-choice. I am under the impression that all of the candidates are pro-choice, and I do not want to vote for a candidate that is anti-choice, nor anti-gay rights. I doubt I would vote for any candidate that was anti-choice or anti-gay, unless it was necessary to, let's say, get Bush out of office.

I do believe that Dean is anti-worker and that he is a right-winger on jobs and the economy. I base this on his statements, since he doesn't have a voting record outside of state politics in Vermont. I also have the same personal doubts about Dean, who is an upper-class Wall Street Yalie, just like I do Kerry, who is an even richer upper-class Wall Street Yalie. I'll admit, I prefer a working class candidate in the same way someone might prefer a male candidate if you were male, or a straight candidate if you were straight, etc. I would not base by vote on that factor alone, ever. But the kinds of networks and families that Kerry and Dean represent can't empathize with my family or me and I feel the same about them.

I will probably vote for whoever gets the nomination, and I would prefer Dean over Graham and Lieberman, but not by much. I don't know much about Kerry yet so I have to withhold judgement for a few weeks until I look into him.

I really like Kucinich and Mosley-Braun and Sharpton (in order of electability) but I have doubts that any of them can win the primary. If Kucinich won the primary, I think he could win the election against Bush. Gephardt is a centrist and a sell-out but I know where his base of support is, and I know his voting record, and I think he could beat Bush, especially with someone like Kucinich or Clark as VP.

Just so you know, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Green party :) I also think third-party politics does more harm than good, at least under the current law. I think voting for Nader in a swing state was really stupid, and I'm glad I didn't.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong, and I've been known to change my mind.

[IndianaGreen]

55. Please, spare us the phony class consciousness that you are spewing

You are all over the map in your posts on this thread, and it seems clear to me that your objective is to smear Howard Dean by engaging in a game that we DUers have become too accustomed to see from the supporters of another candidate that shall remain nameless.

I prefer a working class candidate in the same way someone might prefer a male candidate if you were male, or a straight candidate if you were straight, etc.

Vote for Edwards! He comes from a working class family.

Or better still, vote for Jello Biafra, a real working class candidate!

Please, spare us the phony class consciousness that you are spewing, they are as transparent as your intentions to smear Dean.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

59. I'm telling you my conflict of interest

I probably shouldn't have. I'm laying it right on the line that I am a straight white male, educated, and middle class, and I admit that I have bigotries, just like everyone else. I like to think I won't let them get in the way of my vote, but I'm human just like everyone else.

Dean is pro-NAFTA, he said so himself. He is pro-WTO, pro-GATT, pro-H1B visa. That hurts the middle and working class in the US - me and my family. These programs are specifically designed to cut our pay. Dean supports this, he says so himself.

Dean was an unknown quantity for a while. I didn't know if he represented the pro-worker, pro-union, working class faction of the Democrats, or the corporate NAFTA/GATT/H1B visa, etc, etc, wing.

He's come out of the closet, just like Graham and Lieberman, that's he's all for it, and against me.

Gephardt voted against NAFTA. Kucinich has come out strongly against it. Mosely-Braun and Sharpton are both strongly pro-worker. They are part of the pro-worker end of the party.

Dean, Lieberman, and Graham are pro-NAFTA, etc, and they are part of the pro-corporate wing of the party. I don't support them.

What do you want me to do, just shut up and do what I'm told? If Democrats want my vote, they have to earn it. I'm just another demographic like everyone else, Dems can decide if they want me or not.

[DrGonzoLives]

48. There's a new one! Dean is right-wing!

Man, the insults and smears just keep on coming! :eyes:

[Kellanved]

57. Not likely

Unless the other candidates were worse.

The interesting question IMHO:
Would you vote for a gay or pro-choice candidate?
I'm not asking you, but the general public.
We here were suprised ourselves, when we managed to get our candidate into office (although some people, including me, had issues with the campaign T-shirts- don't flame me).
Klaus Wowereit: his slogan was "Ich bin Schwul und das ist auch gut so"; Meaning: "I'm gay and that's all right.".
He is still very popular in Berlin (he's the Mayor now); one of the few left politicians who gained in approval in the last months.

The Wowereit-Bush meeting was kinda funny: Bush looked even more awkward than with Schroeder.

[Sephirstein]

61. I'd have a hard time doing that even against an RIAA whore like Berman...

Cyber liberties are a big enough deal to make me despise the CRFP (aka CCP), but not enough to betray gays and women.