Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mr. Superbad · 07-12-2003, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-idaho
I agree that he deserves credit for signing the bill but not that much. Like I said the bill was the result of Vermont Supreme Court ruling. The state legislature was warned by Dean that he would not sign any bill that ok'd "gay marriage" and when he did sign the civil unions bill he did it outside the spotlight only holding a brief press conference afterward. It wasn't like he was out there giving speeches about the disenfranchised gay couples of America. He does deserve credit for signing it and then standing up for it after the fact.

According to this article (you have to pay to view it now, but it's called Invisible Man and it's from last year) he did more than that.

Quote:

Even today some supporters of the bill accuse Dean of cowardice, complaining that he signed the measure "in the closet." Peter Shumlin, a Democratic state senator, disagrees. By his account, it was Dean who ultimately pushed reticent legislators to pass the bill: "We went up to the governor and said, 'We need to appoint some commission on how to deal with this court decision and come back next year and pass a bill then.' He looked at us and said, 'This is the right thing to do, and we happen to be at a place in history where we can make it happen. We're not going to run from our responsibility.' ... And he knew the consequences. He knew there would be political fallout, that people would lose their jobs over it; but he knew it was the right thing to do for civil rights."

And this interview was taken only three weeks after he signed the bill, says he traditionally sided with the gay community.

Quote:

As Governor, Dean has historically sided with Vermont�s gay and lesbian community. He is credited with helping pass, and ultimately signing into law, legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He also supported the extension of benefits to the domestic partners of Vermont State employees. In 1994, Dean appointed Bill Lippert, an openly gay man, to fill a vacant seat in the House of Representatives. As a result of the state�s new civil union law, national gay newsmagazine The Advocate recently dubbed him the �Dean of unions.�

Bill · 07-13-2003, 01:30 PM

In the ABC News version of the poll, Dean doesn't look as good:

Lieberman: 13% (down from 29% on 4/30)
Kerry: 12% (a rebound from 7% on 6/1, but down from 14% on 4/30)
Gephardt: 10% (down from 19% on 4/30)
Dean: 8% (up from a consistant 3%)
Edwards: 6% (up from 4% on 4/30, but down from 11% on 1/20)
Sharpton: 6% (up from 2% on 6/1 but down from 7% on 1/20)
The rest of the field is omitted (but "None" got 13%, "Won't Vote" got 7%, and "No Opinion" got 16%)

If anything, those poll numbers over the past six months clearly demonstrate that the race is still wide open, and that the bulk of the electorate isn't paying too much attention (meaning its virtually anybody's race to win).

== Bill

exnihilo · 07-14-2003, 12:41 AM

Nice to see Lieberman is dropping, the last thing the democratic party needs is hoyl Joe running again. I would rather vote for Sharpton, but, in reality, would vote for nader again, if he runs. The problem with Lieberman and Gephardt, to a lesser extent, is they are too moderate and follow polls more than they do anything else. Personally, of the front runners Kerry seems the only one willing to attack Bush on a whole host of issues, not just Iraq.
As for Lieberman, he seems to operate under the mistaken belief that if he sucks up to corporations and continually speaks about his faith in god, that somehow the large group of undecideds/moderates/independents republicans will vote for him. Unfortunately, by doing so he is at the same time disillusioning many traditionally democratic voters.
People who vote republican--warning: generalization--people in the South ( I am from the South so I have a right to say this), fundamentalist christians, racsists, et al,. do so out of some delusional relational complex (my invention) thinking that by voting republican it allows them passage into the republican world: Rich, white and successful. For that reason nothing a democratic candidate could do would make them change their minds. For example, military people--the majority of which derive from the lower classes--traditionally vote republican. In previous elections they constantly harped onthe fact that Clinton didn't serve in Vietnan. Fast forward to 2002. The majority of these same people still voted for Bush, even though his example is far worse than Clinton's case. At least Clinton acted out of conscience, Bu$h, on the other hand, did what is common for the upper class, bought his way out--seems to be a lifelong activity of his--then went awol from the national guard, but again, was never held responsibile. Gore on the other hand volunteered and went to Vietnam, albeit in a non-combat capacity, which is nontheless infinitely more honorable than Bush's example.
Guess what it doesn't matter. The same goes for religion. Gore and Lieberman obviously live religious lives. Bu$h, on the other hand, judging by his past, obviously does so in only the most shallow way, which paradoxically makes him more Christian. He said that Jesus was his favorite philosopher at the same time thast he was presiding over more executions than any other governor in modern times. Once agian, however, he gets the vote.
Never under estimate the ignorance of the electorate, watch street smarts or jay walking for countless unbelievable example of this. Mybe that is the hidden logic behind the republican party's assault on public education...
I am not saying all republicans vote out of ignorance, some, especially the upper classes, do so simply because the republican agenda does most to promote their social and economic positions. I just wish they would admit it instead of veiling their republicanism in the garb or morals, and responsibility and similar bullshit.
What democrats need is a real democrat, not some wanna-be republican who is afraid to stand up for those things that has been demonized lately as "liberal".

Bill · 07-14-2003, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by exnihilo
What democrats need is a real democrat, not some wanna-be republican who is afraid to stand up for those things that has been demonized lately as "liberal".

That line is right out of Dean's usual stump speech ("I'm from the Democrat wing of the Democrat party....").

== Bill

Oresta · 07-14-2003, 09:18 AM

exnihilo:

People who vote republican--warning: generalization--people in the South ( I am from the South so I have a right to say this), fundamentalist christians, racsists, et al,. do so out of some delusional relational complex (my invention) thinking that by voting republican it allows them passage into the republican world: Rich, white and successful

ex, I didn't know you knew my father! Small world.

Shake · 07-14-2003, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sakpo
I'm tired of the ideas, mentioned here, that one can't be a leftist and support firearms rights or, to a limited extent at least, capital punishment. Dean isn't left wing at all, I agree, but that's mostly because of his "fiscal conservatism" as far as I'm concerned. I believe people should be allowed to own guns, and that that as long as the 2nd Amendment stands, that right, in America, ought not to be infringed. And I believe some scumbags ought to be hanged or shot or whatnot, at least in my theory. My problem is not with the concept of execution for heinous crimes, it's with how it's carried out in practice.

The ideas of left and right are out of date, perhaps never really relevant. This quiz can show you where you are on the political spectrum.

One problem with that ABC News poll, is that they had Hillary Clinton listed (albeit NA in 3/4 polls) when she's not even a declared candidate! That'll skew your numbers.

I like Dean too, and agree that no one is unelectable.

contracycle · 07-14-2003, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shake
The ideas of left and right are out of date, perhaps never really relevant. This quiz can show you where you are on the political spectrum.

This quiz... is a notorious con. I've seen it done on boards before, and almost everyone comes out Libertarian. It's quit a fun exercise though, and interesting as an example of the way language frames arguments.

King Rat · 07-14-2003, 10:54 AM

Quote:

This quiz... is a notorious con.

Yeah, I've taken several of these from varying sources. I come out different on every single one.

DarkBronzePlant · 07-14-2003, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sakpo
I'm tired of the ideas, mentioned here, that one can't be a leftist and support firearms rights or, to a limited extent at least, capital punishment. Dean isn't left wing at all, I agree, but that's mostly because of his "fiscal conservatism" as far as I'm concerned. I believe people should be allowed to own guns, and that that as long as the 2nd Amendment stands, that right, in America, ought not to be infringed. And I believe some scumbags ought to be hanged or shot or whatnot, at least in my theory. My problem is not with the concept of execution for heinous crimes, it's with how it's carried out in practice. Other than that, my views would probably have most rating me fairly left wing (abolishment of private ownership over the means of production, of national infrastructure, massive wealth redistribution, anti racism, major democratic reform in the political system, environmentalism, etc).

Anyway, as has been said, Dean isn't left wing. But it's because of how he has attacked welfare and such, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think issues liek gun control/gun rights and capital punishment should be seen as being as tied to sides of the left/right spectrum.

That was a curious post, if I may say. Is there some offense taken to being labelled, at least in part, "non leftist"? The things you mention, such as firearm rights and the death penalty are, flat-out, generally right-wing attitudes. If you are in favor of them, then at least on those realms, you take the side of the right. Seems kind of odd if someone favors right-wing causes but protests being called "non leftist"...

(online BBS disclaimer: the above wasn't meant as an attack at all; I just found the quote interesting)

07-13-2003, 01:30 PM	#12
Bill Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gatorville, Florida Posts: 4,334	A Different Poll In the ABC News version of the poll, Dean doesn't look as good: Lieberman: 13% (down from 29% on 4/30) Kerry: 12% (a rebound from 7% on 6/1, but down from 14% on 4/30) Gephardt: 10% (down from 19% on 4/30) Dean: 8% (up from a consistant 3%) Edwards: 6% (up from 4% on 4/30, but down from 11% on 1/20) Sharpton: 6% (up from 2% on 6/1 but down from 7% on 1/20) The rest of the field is omitted (but "None" got 13%, "Won't Vote" got 7%, and "No Opinion" got 16%) If anything, those poll numbers over the past six months clearly demonstrate that the race is still wide open, and that the bulk of the electorate isn't paying too much attention (meaning its virtually anybody's race to win). == Bill

07-14-2003, 12:41 AM	#13
exnihilo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: in the Desert (not really) Tucson Posts: 335	the prob with demopublicans Nice to see Lieberman is dropping, the last thing the democratic party needs is hoyl Joe running again. I would rather vote for Sharpton, but, in reality, would vote for nader again, if he runs. The problem with Lieberman and Gephardt, to a lesser extent, is they are too moderate and follow polls more than they do anything else. Personally, of the front runners Kerry seems the only one willing to attack Bush on a whole host of issues, not just Iraq. As for Lieberman, he seems to operate under the mistaken belief that if he sucks up to corporations and continually speaks about his faith in god, that somehow the large group of undecideds/moderates/independents republicans will vote for him. Unfortunately, by doing so he is at the same time disillusioning many traditionally democratic voters. People who vote republican--warning: generalization--people in the South ( I am from the South so I have a right to say this), fundamentalist christians, racsists, et al,. do so out of some delusional relational complex (my invention) thinking that by voting republican it allows them passage into the republican world: Rich, white and successful. For that reason nothing a democratic candidate could do would make them change their minds. For example, military people--the majority of which derive from the lower classes--traditionally vote republican. In previous elections they constantly harped onthe fact that Clinton didn't serve in Vietnan. Fast forward to 2002. The majority of these same people still voted for Bush, even though his example is far worse than Clinton's case. At least Clinton acted out of conscience, Bu$h, on the other hand, did what is common for the upper class, bought his way out--seems to be a lifelong activity of his--then went awol from the national guard, but again, was never held responsibile. Gore on the other hand volunteered and went to Vietnam, albeit in a non-combat capacity, which is nontheless infinitely more honorable than Bush's example. Guess what it doesn't matter. The same goes for religion. Gore and Lieberman obviously live religious lives. Bu$h, on the other hand, judging by his past, obviously does so in only the most shallow way, which paradoxically makes him more Christian. He said that Jesus was his favorite philosopher at the same time thast he was presiding over more executions than any other governor in modern times. Once agian, however, he gets the vote. Never under estimate the ignorance of the electorate, watch street smarts or jay walking for countless unbelievable example of this. Mybe that is the hidden logic behind the republican party's assault on public education... I am not saying all republicans vote out of ignorance, some, especially the upper classes, do so simply because the republican agenda does most to promote their social and economic positions. I just wish they would admit it instead of veiling their republicanism in the garb or morals, and responsibility and similar bullshit. What democrats need is a real democrat, not some wanna-be republican who is afraid to stand up for those things that has been demonized lately as "liberal".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-14-2003, 09:18 AM	#15
Oresta Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 1,107	exnihilo: People who vote republican--warning: generalization--people in the South ( I am from the South so I have a right to say this), fundamentalist christians, racsists, et al,. do so out of some delusional relational complex (my invention) thinking that by voting republican it allows them passage into the republican world: Rich, white and successful ex, I didn't know you knew my father! Small world.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.