Dean's remarks on choice from the DNC conference in Orlando.

[madfloridian]

I find myself stunned how many think he is "selling out" on this issue. What he says here is very sensible, very practical, and very inclusive of people who differ in some ways. Many pro-lifers are DFA members, but they are the kind who accept that it is not just their way. What he says is good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/politics/24abortion.html

QUOTE:..."Howard Dean, campaigning two weeks ago in Orlando, Fla., to succeed Terry McAuliffe as Democratic national chairman, drew nods of approval from Democratic state party leaders when he urged the party to embrace Democrats who oppose abortion.

"We ought not turn our back on pro-life people, even though the vast majority of people in this party are pro-choice," Dr. Dean said. "I don't have any objection to someone who is pro-life, if they really dedicated to the welfare of children."

"If somebody is willing to stick with us who is pro-life, that means they are the right kind of pro-life person," said Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont. "What I don't want to do is to have a national message that makes it impossible for you to be a conservative, or to be a progressive who can't win."END SNIP

I like this approach, rather say just saying hey you guys you go be with Republicans, we don't want you. I like this. He has often said that DFA is open to independents, Greens, and moderate Republicans. Actually we have some in our local group, and we differ on very minor things.

Thanks, Howard Dean, for speaking clearly on this.

[greenohio]

1. If a DLCer would say this, it would be used as more ammo

to paint them as a traitor.

[NYCGirl]

2. But they're not. The DLC is saying we have to "soften our stance"

on pro-choice. There is a big difference.

[greenohio]

3. Link please.

[NYCGirl]

10. Here's one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6700571/site/newsweek

No one's suggesting that the party abandon its pro-choice roots. With George W. Bush expected to nominate as many as three presumably pro-life Supreme Court justices this term, advocates worry that the right to an abortion is more imperiled than it's been in decades. But as a step toward ultimately preserving that basic right, some Democrats now favor embracing common-sense restrictions on it. One possible initiative: a bill banning third-trimester abortions with broad exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

Democratic lawmakers have found themselves boxed in by a pro-choice orthodoxy that fears the slippery slope—the idea that allowing even the smallest limitation on abortion only paves the way for outlawing it altogether. As a result, most Democrats opposed popular measures like "Laci and Conner's Law"—which makes it a separate federal crime to kill a fetus—and a ban on the gruesome procedure called partial-birth abortion.

A small group of pro-choice Democrats—mostly from Red States—bucked that trend, voting for one or both measures. Still, the issue is so thorny that nearly every lawmaker contacted by NEWSWEEK declined to discuss those votes or the topic in general. But a handful of those senators—including Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, Arkansas Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh—have joined a new progressive advocacy group, Third Way, that hopes to move the party to the center on a number of cultural issues, including abortion. The effort is headed by a team of strategists who helped the Dems find middle ground on gun safety.

[xultar]

15. I don't get it, your link seems to go along with Dean's stance...

what is the problem? :shrug:

[NYCGirl]

16. Did you read the part about them voting for restrictions on abortion? NT

[xultar]

35. I will admit that I am conflicted about parental notification I'm not sure

how I would feel about my daughter having a surgical procedure without my knowledge. Furthermore, I'd like to talk to her about what happened to make sure it wasn't molestation.

But some parents wouldn't be socaring in that situation, which could cause her to be forced to carry the child to term, or beaten and punished regardless of the reason she was pregnant.

So I think a dialog would help us to work on this and figure things out.

Late term abortions usually only happen to save the life of the mother or if the child has a defect like expsed brain or spinal cord tissue.

If you get to be late in term meaning you 9 times out of ten were going to either keep it or give it up for adoption. It isn't because you didn't forget to go within the first 12 weeks. There are serious health issues involved. So if the anti-choice right respects life they should want to save the life of the mother.

[greenohio]

39. Cant you find anything at the DLC website? If this is their policy

I would want to see it. Just as not everything Pelosi says is Democratic Party Policy. Give it up. If Leiberman said we should "embrace pro-life" Dems, you guys would hit him over the head with a shovel. Dean says it, and you search for a hidden meaning.

[NYCGirl]

11. Another:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=2&u=/latimests/20041223/ts_latimes/democraticleadershiprethinkingabortion

Party leaders say their support for preserving the landmark ruling will not change. But they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions. Their thinking reflects a sense among strategists that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and the party's congressional candidates lost votes because the GOP conveyed a more compelling message on social issues.

[greenohio]

42. This doesn't even mention DLC . DLC policy:www.ndol.org

Now you are just grabbing articles.

[wyldwolf]

59. It doesn't take long for this to flare up again... sheesh!

What Dean is saying, and the statements from the DNC and other Democrats, ARE THE SAME THING!

From a post of mine in ANOTHER thread started by the SAME Du'er who started this thread on the SAME topic:

From a Boston Globe article:

No prominent Democrat has suggested that the party change its long-held stance that a woman should have the right to an abortion if she chooses... some are urging a "big tent" approach that is more welcoming to those who oppose abortion.

..and Dean said...

Democrats should "embrace" antiabortion voters and expand the term "pro-life" to such social issues as providing for children's medical care. "I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats..."

and...

We can change our vocabulary, but I don't think we ought to change our principles.

Our principles being (From the Globe article): long-held stance that a woman should have the right to an abortion if she chooses.

Same thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1441158

No matter how much folks try to spin Dean's words, he's saying the same damn thing as the DNC.

[janx]

61. Except that Dean and many others don't want to

install a guy with a record of anti-choice votes as chair of the DNC...

I'd say that's different.

[greenohio]

72. Thats cause Dean wants it for himself. It has been the pattern

all along. He bashes the leadership to help his pres campaign. He bashes the leadership to try to help his campaign for the DNC chair.

As far as Dean is concerned, it is, in the end, all about Dean.

[AmyStrange]

83. unfortunately...

(with all due respect to your opinion)

If it was really only all about Dean, DFA wouldn't exist...

d

[greenohio]

91. Why call them's DEANs Dozen.

Why place his name on candidates that he supports. Who else does that? Many leaders in safe races give money to fellow candidate but then don't place their name on a group that includes. Barak Obama would have won without Dean's money. Trust me.

[imenja]

4. to embrace pro-life Dem's is not the same as eroding abortion rights

I don't object to Dean's statement. Welcoming pro-life Democrats is good. I can respect their view. I do object to the idea presented in today's New York Times that some Democratic congressional leaders think compromising on provisions that erode abortion rights is a good idea. It is not only a betrayal of the party base but it's politically idiotic. The majority of Americans believe women should have the right to an abortion. Further eroding distinctions between Republicans and Democrats will only confirm the views of many that Democratic politicians don't really have strong convictions and that the party has no real message.

[madfloridian]

5. Some of them do want to soften it. You are right, welcoming is good.

The only other place they have to go is the GOP. If you ever read the DFA blog(when the trolls are not out in force)....many there are strong Christians with problems with so many abortions. However, they trust Dean enough with his saying it is a private choice between doctor, patient, and the patient's choice of who to involve.

It is a sensible position.

[x_y_no]

23. What would change in practical terms?

IIRC, it's only somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 percent of abortions which are third trimester, and almost all of them are for some compelling reason regarding the health and life of the mother. So I fail to see how this would erode abortion rights in any meaningful way, unless one buys into the domino theory argument.

It seems to me there are a lot of people like me who firmly support abortion rights through the first two trimesters but who see the humanity of the fetus as an emergent property which commences with the beginning of the capacity for conciousness in some form, and therefore signalled by the appearance of higher brain function in the third trimester. And it seems to me that it's not unreasonable, at that point, to begin consdering the emergent human rights of that fetus in some proportional way as a result. The natural consequent of this view is that the woman's rights are absolute through the first two trimesters, but after that we're talking about competing interests. The practical result is essentially no change in the status quo.

Yet this makes an enormous difference from the point of view of the ethical debate regarding abortion, because up to this point the anti-abortion forces have been able to present the palpable absurdity of pro-choice meaning that somehow a fetus is nothing but meat and then seconds later after birth is a full human being. I'm not saying that's really the belief of those who are pro-choice (it's certainly not mine) but rather that they are able to persuasively lie about the pro-choice position because of our intransigence in the face of reason.

[imenja]

53. partial birth abortions

Roe v. Wade already limits third trimester abortions. The so-called partial birth abortion ban did not contain provisions to protect the life of the mother. These are procedures that are used for medical necessity. Not as a matter of choice. As a woman, I would like to believe I could go to hospital with a problem in a third trimester pregnancy and be able to leave alive. Who, I wonder, does the Right imagine will care for these premature babies once their mother has been killed?
The point of the pro-life movement in passing these laws that incrementally undermine a women's right to choose is to lead to the abolition of abortion itself. Now, it seems, the Democratic Party is willing to help them progress toward that goal.

[x_y_no]

54. :Partial Birth" abortions

I don't see that either Dr. Dean nor I nor the DLC have endorsed the ban on the mythical "partial birth abortion." Nor do I see that any of us have endorsed any of the other specific pieces of legislation which the anti-choice movement has advanced.

As you say, Roe v. Wade already limits (actually, allows the state to limit) third trimester abortions. And yet somehow, the anti-choice forces have managed to frame the debate in such a way that we as a party appear to be advocation what most of us do not - abortion on demant up until the instant of birth.

My take on the whole issue is this:

The basic interest of the state is the protection of human rights. This obviously includes the rights of the woman. It also (at the very latest at birth) involves the rights of the fetus/baby (don't get excited, I'm just trying to span the time which includes birth). That is, after birth, nobody disputes that the baby has rights. Prior to conception, nobody dispute that the egg has no rights. So the important ethical question is what can the state determine (in a religion-neutral fashion) about the question of when human life begins?

My proposed answer (which I am perfectly willing to reconsider in greater depth) is that there can be no such thing as meaningful human life consonant with the concept of "rights" without at least the capacity, past or present, for conciousness. And that conciousness is not possible without the neural connections in the higher brain neccesary to support thought. Those connections form in week 26 of gestation and later. From this, I come to the conclusion that the woman's rights are the only rights in question prior to week 26, but after that time the emergent humanity of the fetus brings into play the issue of the rights of the fetus, which must then be considered in greater and greater proportion up until the time of birth, when the rights of mother and child are exactly equal.

The virtues of this argument, from my point of view, are that it is based solely in reason without reference to any particular religious view, that it is nonetheless ethical in that it makes human rights paramount, and not least that it leads to what I, at a gut level, feel to be the right answer.

[janx]

55. The problem with this approach is that people who are anti-

choice do not primarily approach this matter from a logical perspective. Their perspective is, first and foremost, *religious.*


I know that there are anti-choice sites that try to provide some twisted view of facts, but make no mistake: This is a religious perspective. Some religions teach that life begins at conception, and you're not going to change any religious minds, no matter how logical your approach.

[x_y_no]

57. I'm not sure I'm understanding ...

Are you saying that mine is a religious perspective? I don't think it is, unless one is going to claim that any answer to the question "when does human life begin" is neccesarily religious - and in that case we've got a big problem because our laws do concern themselves with human rights and therefore with the issue of who is human (how can something undefined have rights protected by law).

The whole point of my endeavour is to frame the ethical debate as we think it should be, not as the anti-choice forces choose to frame it.

[janx]

58. No--sorry if my post was confusing.

I'm only saying that while your approach is admirable, most anti-choice people won't listen to it.

A fertilized egg is a baby as far as they are concerned, and they've been taught that since they were kids going through church.

Logic means nothing in that arena.

I respect their religion--but you can't argue logically with what their faith has dictated.

[x_y_no]

60. Well, OK ...

So there are certainly some significant number of people who will never be persuaded.

But in the meantime, we will have presented an ethical and coherent argument which destroys the anti-choice parody of our position that we want to "kill babies" even moments before birth. Surely that is worth doing in terms of the national discussion on this issue?

[janx]

62. No harm in trying.

Certainly.

[imenja]

63. the essential problem with the pro-choice position

Is that it is debate premised on practicality rather than morality. I personally oppose abortion and would never have one. Then again, I have never been in a position where I had to make that choice: I was never, for example, pregnant at age 14. I strongly support a woman's right to choose, though my own choice would be to never have one.
I don't agree with the notion that life requires "consciousness" as one poster described it. For one thing, we don't really know when a baby develops consciousness. I tend to think arguing about the origins of life aren't ultimately useful and won't persuade those who don't already support the pro-life position.
I wonder if we shouldn't instead focus on the life of women. How can conservatives support a law that refuses to respect a woman's own right to life and instead privileges the unborn? The other irony is that pro-lifers do everything to undermine efforts that would make abortions less necessary: access to birth control, resist comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence only programs, which have been shown to be ineffective.
I wonder if we might do better to articulate an argument that proclaims that abortion is a tragedy, a last resort that is only necessary when the rest of the medical and educational systems have failed. We could present programs to lessen the need for abortion as the Democratic pro-life position: education and target relief for poor mothers as well as sex education and access to birth control.

[x_y_no]

64. I disagree

I am arguing from a moral (ethical) viewpoint. And it's not just some ruse, it's what I believe is right.

You wrote:

"I don't agree with the notion that life requires 'consciousness' as one poster described it. For one thing, we don't really know when a baby develops consciousness."

Two things here:

I didn't say just "life" - after all an amoeba is alive but we don't say it has rights - but "human life consonant with the concept of rights." The point being that it's hardly sensible to talk about something which has never had a mind exercising rights.

Regarding when a fetus or baby develops conciousness, you're right we don't know when that happens, but we know that the essential physiological change which makes it possible happens in week 26 of gestation. Thus we can set a definite point prior to which it is senseless to talk about the fetus having "rights."


You say we should focus on the rights of the woman. I'm pretty sure I did that throughout. In fact, in my formulation the rights of the fetus did not equal those of the woman until birth, and never exceeded her rights. It's just that I think it morally unsound to ignore the fact that as the fetus approaches full term it is becoming more and more fully human, and thus has a growing claim to rights of its own.

[imenja]

69. I don't disagree with much of that

and I didn't mean to imply you were ignoring the rights of women. My point was directed against the pro-life factions that sponsored the partial-term and other bills. I, like you, was also directing my comments toward improving the Democratic party's political strategy and articulation of a pro-choice position.
May I ask how you know the 26th week to be some sort of turning point? Is there anything you can point me to that I might read on the subject?

[x_y_no]

70. Any decent reference on fetal development should do ...

For example, from: http://religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm


6 months/26 weeks: 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. Some rudimentary brain waves can be detected. The fetus will be able to feel pain for the first time. It will become conscious of its surroundings. State laws and medical association regulations generally outlaw abortions at this stage, except under very unusual circumstances.

(my emphasis)

[greenohio]

6. Ahhh the grace we give Dean, the moderate.

Dean moderate goood.
Everyone else moderate bad.

[Rowdyboy]

7. If Tim Roemer made the statement "We ought not to turn our back

on pro-life people, even thought the vast majority of people in this party are pro-choice...."

People at DU would howl from the rooftops about him selling out to the center.

I DEEPLY hope Dean is elected DNC chairman. Four years of actually observing how truly moderate he is will throw most of his supporters into chaos. It will be a very "long, strange trip".

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[xultar]

13. WTF Let's not be rude....The poster was right. I have proof!

I have proof from in earlier post. People got all excited and were calling me a DEAN HATER when I said exactly the same thing. I talked about Dean saying that he wanted to open the door to pro lifers and that he wanted to start a dialog and change the vocabulary cuz we are all pro-life & pro choice. No one is pro-abortion.

That is softening our stance to be more inclusive, it is not eroding our pro choice principles.

People went koo koo for coconuts:crazy:because I compared it to the DLC stance WHICH IS THE SAME.

[x_y_no]

24. I agree

Dr. Dean's statement here is pure good sense.

[Cheswick2.0]

29. Clark is selling his brand "General Clark"

He's a war profiteer. But why be surprized since he was a republican for so long and raised money for and praised Bush and his GLORIOUS VICTORY in Iraq.

Merry Christmas.

[x_y_no]

31. WTF? Where did this come from?

And how is it relevant to the subject? Oh, never mind, it isn't. You just want to toss out gratuitous attacks on General Clark whenever you can.

BTW, check out my vicious attack on Dr. Dean in this thread, you may want to respond to it. What's that? Can't find it?

[Cheswick2.0]

32. Tip

Your sarcasm could be more effective. If you'd like lessons, ten bucks an hour and I be happy to tutor you.

[x_y_no]

33. I wasn't being sarcastic so much as I was being pissed off.

And any moment now I'm going to start calling a liar a liar and a scumbag a scumbag again, and I'm going to get all my posts deleted, because the mods inform me that while we can attack the message we shouldn't attack the messenger but when the message is something only a liar and a scumbag would say, then I have a damn hard time seeing how to avoid that glaring point.

So congratulations. You've inflamed another conversation for no good reason.

[greenohio]

50. Don't take the lessons. Trust me you won't get your moneys worth.

[Cheswick2.0]

65. I was responding to this

W, check out my vicious attack on Dr. Dean in this thread, you may want to respond to it. What's that? Can't find it?"

I can help you work on more varied come backs, that technique is overused.

Where did I lie? I only stated my opinion about Wesley Clark. He may not have been registered as a republican,{though we don't really know that}but he certainly attended their soires and toasted their policies and raised money for their campaigns. You might not think that makes him a republican but I do.

When Xalter various Clarkbars stop misrepresenting Dean I will stop telling the truth, as I see it, about Clark.

[x_y_no]

67. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

You called him a "war profiteer" and said that he was a long time republican, both of which are false. Worse, you for some inexplicable reason chose to do this out of the blue in a thread that had nothing to do with General Clark. Apaarently, you just really like stirring up shit for no good reason, and as far as I'm cocerned that makes you what I called the other person in the other thread yesterday which got all my posts deleteted and caused a moderator to give me some nonsense lecture about attacking the message but not the messenger as if the character of the latter can be divorced from the scummy, lying nature of the former.

And now this'll just get deleted anyway, so what's the point of your flamebaiting crap?

[FightinNewDem]

92. You are wrong in one respect

I believe the proper expression is "cukoo for Cocoa Puffs"!

[Rowdyboy]

17. I apologise.....Believe it or not, I like Dean

I actually think Dean would make an excellent head of the DNC. But-in my opinion-the vast majority of his supporters overlook his economic, labor and environmental records, and focus entirely on his anti-war record. Many supporters appear to think he is FAR more liberal than he really is. Statements like this one he made on abortion show that the man is really quite mainstream. I agree with his statement ENTIRELY.

I like his passion, I like his energy and I like his quickness. I wish he was a little more cautious in his public statements but thats something he could learn with time.

But many of his supporters portray him as the second coming of Che Guevara. He's not a revolutionary, or a radical, or even a liberal. He's an anti-war, anti-corporatist moderate-liberal which is everything I like to see in a politician.

As to Dean supporters, I truly believe many of them feel the man is far more liberal than he is in actuality. I don't consider those people idiots (your word), just mis-informed.

I do believe there is a double standard on DU. I believe that if Tim Roemer or Evan Bayh says something controversial, its an outrage. But if Dean says something controversial, its merely free expression.

As to kissing your ass....When I was younger, I might have given it a serious shot. In the spirit of the season, I'll just offer you a cyber holiday ***job and let it go at that (my BF keeps me on a tight leash).

[NYCGirl]

19. Actually, he's not even "anti-war". He's anti IRAQ war. NT

[Rowdyboy]

20. Good point

[w13rd0]

22. You sell short...

...many of his supporters. Quite a few are aware that he is fairly moderate in many of his positions. We just find him sensible. And we also like that he's "carrying the banner" of less reliance on corporate subsidy. Does the fact that he's been outspoken against Bush's actions in Iraq help? Sure, but that's not the sum total. Hell, I'm not a Democrat. My "natural home" is Independent. But that doesn't mean I welcome the corporatists of the DLC. Many times, it's not so much what From and them say, but what they do, and who they affiliate with, that's the problem.

[greenohio]

40. "fairly moderate in many of his positions" Wouldn't that move us to the

center?

[w13rd0]

77. Why would it?

And of course, I'm using MY definition of moderate, yours might differ. Moving to "my" definition of moderate (though no one said anything about moving), would likely move the party left of its present corporate-funded home.

[greenohio]

78. I thought we wanted a lefty, not a moderate.

I thought that was why we hated the DLC, was because they were moderates.

[w13rd0]

85. Common enough mistake...

...much like the RNC, the DLC when confronted with opposition, immediately assumes they are being persecuted for their beliefs. We hate the LEADERSHIP of the DLC because they are neocons and corporate whores, not because of an imaginary position on some childish left-right meridian.

Maybe once that's understood, one can move on to understanding that most people are not all one or the other. People have many opinions, some "left", some "right", some up or down or whatever. Real independents and moderates evaluate issues on a per-case basis, and decide on their position accordingly. They don't take a poll or tow whatever line their corpocashcow instructs them to.

[greenohio]

90. Wouldn't you prefer a true liberal?

[Cheswick2.0]

26. ummmmmmmm no

We have a much better idea of who Dean is than you do.

[greenohio]

81. Where we is who....Dean interns?

They would be in a better position to know Dean intimately.

[janx]

56. Most DFA supporters are moderates.

Half of them aren't even Democrats.

[greenohio]

79. "Half of them (DFA supporters) aren't even Democrats."

Now THAT I believe.

[NYCGirl]

12. And he said he favors bans on late-term abortion. I think that's

where the howling begins.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1219-03.htm

But abortion rights supporters worry that the right to abortion will be further eroded if the party weakens its position -- or even if it has high-profile leaders who favor restrictions or a ban on the procedure. Roemer, for example, said last week on CNN that those who don't favor bans on late-term abortion have a "moral blind spot" on the issue.

"Tim Roemer is the one with a 'moral blind spot,' " said Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "He is completely failing to consider the women whose lives may be in danger."

[xultar]

18. Let's be honest you're not going to get a late term abortion like a soda

They are done to save the life of the mother or if there are serious problems with the fetus. I'm sure the ban will be only on those who wanna get a late term like a pack of ciggys @ the quick mart.

[rfkrfk]

21. some states have essentially no abortion laws.

Let's keep it that way.

[xultar]

36. Agreed. If there aren't any then don't mess with a good thing. Those

states evidently understand.

[x_y_no]

38. But that allows the anti-abortion forces to frame the debate.

They claim Democrats want to "kill babies" up until moments before birth. That this isn't true because only a very tiny fraction of abortions are third trimester and they are almost all due to compelling reasons involving the life or health of the woman doesn't matter, because they can take our legal position and paint it in the extreme.

I think we have to engage the debate of when human life begins, and answer that question in terms of human life emerging in the third trimester on the basis of emergent conciousness in the fetus. This removes the anti-abortion argument that we want to "kill babies" by putting the debate where it belongs - in terms of the rights of the woman first, and the emergent rights of the fetus/child and when (in religion-independent terms) those rights do come into being.

This argument has both the virtue of being right (in my humble opinion) and putting a hard stop in the "slippery slope" of eroding abortion rights at 26 weeks gestation (a point which leaves 99% of all abortions performed today absolutely unrestricted).

[Cheswick2.0]

25. bull

Tim Roemer is anti-choice and Dean is pro-choice.

[DemBones DemBones]

28. LOL, how true that is! The few of us at DU who are pro-life will

attest to DU's intolerance for our views.

[Cheswick2.0]

30. Pity

You want to control the moral and medical decisions of other women. Why should anyone tolerate that?

[greenohio]

41. Dean said to embrace....listen to the words of the saviour...

that was not embracing.

[madfloridian]

44. Are you aware many of "his supporters" are moderate as well?

The DLC is the group who started the "Dean is a liberal" stuff.
Are you even aware that most of us saved the interviews and speeches, and we know exactly....and most of his critics never paid attention...just listened to the spin.

Look up the Issues site...lost the link...Roemer has voted as he believes. He is truly ANTI-choice, and his election would change the negotiations to "Oh, do we really want pro-choice in the party?"

Oh, yeah.

[greenohio]

49. Wouldnt a centrist move the party away from the left?

Hes telling us to EMBRACE PRO-LIFE dems here. Listen to what the man says. Either start embracing or admit you don't like Dean's stance.

[Nite Owl]

8. He's not selling us out at all

he's calling the right wingers out as hypocrits. They only want the fetus not the baby or the child. Ther're totally screwed if we can successfully do this.

[JNelson6563]

34. Amen Night Owl!

The difference many cannot see here is that the DLC mindset is very willing to alter the party platform to resemble the neo-cons'. Dean is saying what needs to be said, "pro-life" people tend to not give two shits once that fetus becomes a child outside of the womb. They will fight with everything they have to make sure there is no safety nets in place should the child be hungry and they will pay as little as possible ($0 if they can pull it off) for educating these formerly precious ones.

Hypocrisy is thick in the GOP/"pro-life" ranks. Dean hits the nail on the head. Again.

Julie

[The Traveler]

14. "If they are really dedicated to the welfare of children"

That means signing up to a lot of ideas that your average neo-con just isn't willing to agree to. Neo-cons are NOT dedicated to the welfare of children. Said welfare should be left to free market forces ... yeah, right.

Dean knows where he stands. His proposition seems simple to me. If the state chooses to exercise extraordinary control over a woman's body and require her to bring a child to term, then the state must accept singular responsibility for the welfare of that child. Only thus can there be a moral balance. Any other arrangement is an immoral and irresponsible exercise of power.

[Pepperbelly]

27. I am pretty moderate on many things and I think Dean would be good.

I am in favor of him as DNC Chair.

So what?

The DNC will select the chair. It will come down, as always in our processes, to who can secure the most votes among those who can vote. Unless we have DNC members at DU, none of us will have much influence on the process. Writing newspapers and signing petitions will have very little influenece on the process. Talking to the DNC members from your area might have a little more.

So yeah, I am for Dr. Dean for DNC chair.

[shockra]

37. I'm disappointed.

Sure, it's a sensible personal philosophy, but as a political stance it opens more doors to having women's rights taken away.

I was a Dean supporter, and I remember him mentioning sometimes in his speeches that a reliable indicator of how successful a democracy would be was the number of women involved in government. You can't have a successful democracy without women's rights being represented. That is an important bottom line to remember. Capitulating on women's rights will always move you further away from democracy.

[greenohio]

43. Sacrilege! Dean can do no wrong! Welcome to DU by the way.

[madfloridian]

45. Well, then you will just have to leave the party.

His is the most liberal stance on choice.

[greenohio]

48. Whatever.

[madfloridian]

46. The others would be saying: "Should we embrace pro-choice."

Dean is saying embrace pro-life. The tables would turn with someone like Roemer.

Gee, and I thought I was strong on issues, but I still have a D after my name on the voter rolls for now.

[Obviousman]

47. It's like his so called confederate flag flap

But seriously people, Dean cann't run the risk of branding Harry Reid un-democratic. Keep in mind, Dean is also a politician.

[madfloridian]

51. Tell yourself: if we turn our backs on them....they would go to the GOP.

Do you want to give those voters to the GOP on a silver platter? That is where they would go.

Some are allowing the terminology the right wing has used to throw you for a loop, and it will send many people away.

You would be amazed at how many people in our conservative area were impressed by his statements on MTP about the issue. He helped some see how reasonable it was to have your stances, but not condemn others.

[madfloridian]

52. Dean said the late term abortion ban had a chilling effect on doctors.

They would be afraid to take proper measures if a woman's life were in danger. Roemer voted for the ban, I believe. That ban has no exception for the life of the mother.

[saracat]

71. Let them go. We need to create more liberal Dems!

[madfloridian]

73. From where?

Where do you plan on finding these folks who will refuse to accept any one with differing views? Do you know how many you are telling to go the GOP?

[saracat]

74. From the 200 million that didn't vote!

I will not bargain or "nuance " the right to control my own body! I just don't see the sense in catering to these people. Why is it no one cares if we lose all the liberals who were energized by this election? Many people don't like this "softening on abortion". or "re framing the issue", so that these Pro lifers will like us. Why doesn't anyone care if we leave the party in droves? Can we be replaced b moderate Repugs? This is insulting to women everywhere. If you aren't insulted, I don't know what to think. It is beyond belief. But Merry Christmas madfloridian. I admire your spunk. We will just have to agree to disagree on this!:)

[madfloridian]

75. You don't understand what I am saying.

I don't seek your admiration for my "spunk." I don't mind if you disagree.

What you guys are advocating here is a dangerous concept. That is one hell of a lot of people who will vote for the GOP.

Because Dean made conciliatory comments, but reiterated his pro-choice stance....you are abandoning millions.

Yet Roemer and the others are actively ANTI-choice, so they win again....don't they.

[saracat]

76. Don't get me wrong ,madfloridian. I have been campaigning for Dean for

DNC Chair. I have spoken to everyone who has a vote! I would NEVER support Roemer. But I disagree with Dean's stance on this. I won't reach out to people who are against my rights. Sorry. But I still back Dean as he is the best of the lot.

[madfloridian]

66. Roemer voted to ban saving life of woman...Dean says effect...chilling.

NO, the rest of the party is NOT talking the same as Howard Dean. Roemer's vote on this issue will affect women and doctors and choice in emergencies.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/pr/041217-letter-dnc.html

An Open Letter to the Democratic National Committee from Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Gloria Feldt Regarding Comments Made by Former Congressman Tim Roemer

December 17, 2004

I was dismayed to hear former Congressman and DNC chair candidate Tim Roemer speak with John King on CNN last night about his plans for the Democratic Party. Rejecting his party's platform and core belief that women should have access to the reproductive health care they need, he said, "I personally don't think that we should have late-term abortions or partial birth abortions. I think that's a moral blind spot."

SNIP.." The real moral blind spot is the one that keeps lawmakers from seeing how restricting access to needed reproductive health care puts women's lives in danger.

The Democratic Party and its leadership should champion pro-choice values, and uphold the platform's stated commitment to women's rights and health. But this is about more than one party's platform. Reproductive rights are human rights. Regardless of their party affiliation, all our legislators should respect our human right to make our own childbearing decisions without government interference, our right to privacy in our medical and sexual lives, and our right to access to health care that makes the other rights meaningful...."

Do not tell me that this guy holds the same belief as Howard Dean on this topic.
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002138.html

Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Dean Blasts Bush For Signing Partial Birth Abortion Ban
MANCHESTER--Today Governor Howard Dean, M.D., sharply criticized the President's signing of the late term abortion ban into law:

"Today marks a dark day for American women, who are seeing their reproductive freedoms restricted by a President acting in concert with a right wing congress. As this controversy moves to the judicial system, we are reminded anew of the importance of electing a pro-choice president next year.

"As a physician, I am outraged that President Bush has decided that he is qualified to practice medicine. There is no such thing in the medical literature as partial birth abortion. But there are times when doctors are called upon to perform a late term abortion to save a woman's life or protect her health. Today President Bush made it a crime for a doctor to perform such medically necessary procedures when a woman's health is at stake.

"This law will chill the practice of medicine and endanger the health of countless women. Despite what politicians tell you, there is not an epidemic of third trimester abortions in this country. This kind of legislation serves the sole purpose of chipping away women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights with the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade....."

[janx]

68. How could any Democrat even contemplate backing Roemer

for DNC chair? It's bizarre!

[greenohio]

80. Yeah. He doesn't even look like Dean.

I doubt he could do the scream either.

[Forkboy]

82. Still trying to get Dems to band together I see

I hate to see Dems demonized says greenohio.

[greenohio]

88. AWWW. Are we oversensitive on Dean?

Hi FORKBOY. Here let me show examples of real demonizations:

Fu-- the DLC.
The DLC are traitors.
The DLC are republicans.
The DLC are repukes.
The DLC are evil.

Posts like this and worse are posted daily here.

I mention Howard's infamous scream and you cry demonization. Did I offend the centrist reformers groupies and interns? Hypocrites.

[Forkboy]

93. I'm not a Dean guy

you're just a hypocrite who cries foul then commits the same infraction.

You claimed the other day that you tried to get Dems to band together.When asked for proof you were silent.

You also claimed that you hated to see Dems demonized,yet have done nothing but engage in the same behavior you decry.

Who is the hypocrite? You.


Deal with it...and know that others see it too.Sockpuppets wont help you.

[greenohio]

94. Just a wanabe?

Keep working at it, maybe they'll let you in.

Apparently mentioning the Dean scream is demonization in your eyes, just like the Deaniacs.

[Forkboy]

95. Why must you always bash Dems?

:silly:

[x_y_no]

84. ugh ...

This is no better than cheswick's or mad's gratuitous slurs of Clark.

I do wish some people could see how counterproductive their behavior is ... :-(

And on that happy note, Merry Christmas and a Happy Festivus to everybody.

[madfloridian]

86. I am sorry you called my name, saying I slur Clark. I did not do that.

You should not have mentioned my name specifically. This post was about Dean's words on choice. It was not about Clark.

[madfloridian]

87. And BTW, how was this post about Clark?

Just wondering.

[greenohio]

89. So teach us the true mean of productive.