Is Dean a progressive?

This question keeps coming up on the board as a topic of disagreement so I thought I would make it a poll. This question is relevant since Dean is frequently portrayed as a leader of the left, has many progressive supporters, and is spoken of as a candidate for DNC chair or for President in '08.

Here are some quotes to illustrate why there might be confusion on the matter.

"I'm from the democratic wing of the Democratic Party"
-Dean during the primary, in honor of Paul Wellstone

"I think I represented the centrist wing of the Democratic Party"
-Dean during the Democratic convention

"I don't mind being characterized as 'liberal'—I just don't happen to think it's true."
-Dean in Salon.com

Of course, in today's politics, that puts him out on the left.

It's the convictions.

and health care. He was only progressive on one issue - Iraq. Check out his positions for yourself. He admitted that he was to the right of Bush on most issues.

LOL

Yeah, that Vermont that re-elected him five times and gave him their primary support is a HOTBED of radical right conservatives isn't it?
LOL

A Progressive with extra BENEFITS...

Pro-2nd Ammendment!!

I would label him more as an outsider right now, which is something I think the party needs very badly.

DTH

He wants change in the party, he is a centrist and moderate, but strong in his total support of civil unions and pro-choice. Unlike the party, he will not waver in those views...even though called unelectable by party leaders because of the VT bill.

He is progressive and liberal and moderate and centrist....depending on the issues.

And that is why he got such a groundswell of support...many of us are that way.

The party leaders on the whole are not that way. They follow a packaged way to speak, and it is not working.

but the Democratic Party needs him badly. In my opinion, he is the best choice for president in 08. We need leaders in the Democratic party who will hold on to their convictions the way Howard Dean does.

I think we will become fast friends.

He's from the democratic wing
he's from the centrist wing
he's not a liberal.

Most democrats are centrists, so the first two are similar. The third quote refutes the (untrue) meme that Dean is a liberal.

I voted "progressive" because by definition, that's what he is. A supporter of incremental change for the good of the people.

What's so hard to understand? :shrug:

was from Paul Wellstone, one of if not the most liberal member of the Senate when he was still alive. When Wellstone gave that line people knew what it meant: that he is a liberal. When Dean gave that line it had the same meaning to the Democratic primary voters he delivered it to as when Wellstone used that line. It was a clear attempt to give people the impression that he is a liberal.

There are differences between progressives and moderates.

when he said "I'm from the democratic wing of the democratic party" it meant just that. He did what was right. That does not equal liberalism, and I never took it as such.

Wellstone was a also a populist and he stood for certain values which he was happy to debate with anyone. People supported him who did not agree with him because of his convictions and authenticity.

When Dean quoted him he was not claiming to be liberal except I suppose where he is liberal. He clearly meant the wing of the party not willing to capitulate to the republicans on important issues like unjust war and choice.

Don't assume Dean confused anyone but yourself. You seem to the one of those stuck on meaningless lables that define something different to everyone who uses them.

I knew this poll was really a statement about something rather than an honest question.

Maybe the point of using that line is that it allowed liberals to believe he was liberal without directly saying it.

This poll was to start a discussion about an ongoing issue. The fact that I have an opinion doesn't make it dishonest.

The fact that Dean changed positions on some critical issues during the primary and allowed his liberal supporters to believe he is a liberal does not make him authentic in my opinion.

You must since you think we were fooled.

We were all duped, I tell ya. :D

I have been thinking the boy was a far left looney like me. :crazy:

at the number of people in the primary who accepted Dean as a liberal because of his liberal sounding speeches without considering his moderate record as Governor. I was also surprised at the number of people I met who supported him because he wanted to end the Iraq war quickly and supported gay marriage since he held neither of those two positions.

looking into things. I'm glad Dean was a moderate. Governors cannot and should not be faulted for working with corporations, or we'd all be out of jobs and screaming about it. And Mr. Bill Clinton would never have been elected by your standards.

because they were too stupid to know any better. I know that really bugs the hell out of some DK supporters.
I am not interested in refighting the primaries.

I don't have to pretend anything. I spoke to actual voters in New Hampshire during the primary and asked them why they supported Dean. Every single time I heard at least one position they believed Dean held that he did not in fact hold. I don't blame those voters for being dumb. I blame the Dean campaign for misleading people and allowing people to maintain false impressions about their candidate. There's a difference.

Of course you don't have one. No one does when they make these statements.

Sorry I don't have my entire life blogged on the net. It came from actual personal experience.

so much of the I converted 54 people threads. Sorry. Back up your statements with actual documented conversations.

I spoke with people who thought Kerry ate kitten fetuses. :eyes:

think that about Kerry. :)

I'm not in the habit of documenting my personal conversations with voters. If you deny that there was a general impression during the primary that Dean was liberal then you're fooling yourself.

the people on this poll voting that he is a progressive, a moderate, or that he can't be defined. Because clearly there is some confusion on the issue.

Again, those terms are merely relative descriptions which will of course vary from person to person. Which is why labels are meaningless.

I know the question wasn't addressed to me, but I thought I'd jump in anyway. :hi:

count up the people who are voting for Dean was a moderate and add them to those voting he can't be labeled. We got cha out numbered.

Besides, how people vote on a poll doesn't change the facts. It is a poll of people's opinions, many as mistaken as yours I am sure.

The poll results are proving that there is a lot of disagreement about what Dean is. You can also see that point proven every time someone on this board talks about Dean as though he is a progressive, which is often.
I'm fine with Dean being a moderate. What I'm not fine with is a moderate being propped up as a leader of the left and being portrayed as a progressive. I'm not trying to refight the primary. I'll just be happy when the "Dean is a liberal" myth is finally put to rest, and it clearly has not been, despite your unproven claims that everyone knew he was moderate all along.

boxes and since you don't understand it he must have misled people.
I think you ar just pissed of Dennis didn't do better.

NT

I didn't say loony and the left does have leaders.

NT

you didn't put DEAN IS A LIBERAL as a choice on your bogus little poll?

Because no one would have punched that card and your ridiculous "he presented himself as a liberal" whine would evaporate.

Clearly the only confusion was in YOUR head.

to stand for the beliefs we have. THAT is what I think he meant. Real Democrats fight back.

Yes.

If he isn't a liberal, then he SHOULD mind being characterized as one. Clearly he has a good number of supporters who think he is something he claims not to be. If I were running for office and my supporters didn't have a good idea of where I stood on the spectrum, then I would be a little bothered by that. If a lot of people think he is liberal then isn't he bound to correct them for honesty's sake?

It is not dishonest to us. It is just word that was damaged by the GOP talk. They turned it into something evil..

Dean is not a person who can be labeled. Neither am I, neither are most of his supporters.

Please don't try to turn it into something bad that he does not label well. Perhaps our party would be better off if we did not do as much groupspeak.

He is quite liberal on some important issues. You seem to have a need for people to fit into easily definable boxes.
So who did you support during the primaries?

PS...you do know they are over right?

about what they believe and what they represent.

I supported Kucinich who forced Dean to the left on a number of issues in order to keep his liberal base of support.

That is like saying Nader forced Gore or Kerry left to keep their liberal base.

The whole world knows Dean is nothing if not straight forward. You seem to want to refight the primaries. Personaly I don't find DK all that liberal if you really want to go there.

Dean supporting the $87 Billion appropriations for Iraq then opposing it only after Kucinich, then Sharpton, the Edwards opposed it.

Who forced Dean to explain how a "peace candidate" could support keeping our troops in Iraq for another five years or more and also maintaining the same level of defense spending as we currently have? Hint: it wasn't the media.

I don't want to re-fight the primaries. This is about whether or not a moderate should have a position of leadership among the progressive movement. Would progressives accept a moderate like Lieberman as one of their leaders? If not, then why a moderate like Dean?

He isn't running against your canidate anymore. Let it go, you'll feel beter.

what? DNC chair? President in '08? The corporate media's annointed leader of the left?
Howard Dean is still relevent today absent what happened in the primaries. That's why this question is relevant. I haven't attempted to defend Kucinich in this thread for that reason.

You'll feel better. The primaries are over.

As I said in the post. This is relevant because Dean is frequently named and is acting as a leader of the left. Should progressives accept a moderate as one of their main standard bearers? That's an important question and it's not about what happened in the primaries. You keep brining the primaries up, so maybe you have the problem letting it go...

they were never over. Particularly those who believe the primaries were fixed by the DLC.

Facts are facts. Is the DLC paying you well?

but apparently they're secret. Is Howard paying you well?

buh bye

Don't tease. Tell me something.

okay go:

or Dean on NAFTA?

okay go________________:

Many think not being gung-ho about the Iraq debacle places one on the far left. But his economic record has been one of deregulation and tax cuts, and Dean generally has had no problem with military intervention when it made sense. Perhaps on social issues Dean could be considered a liberal, but even this is dubious, given his 'A' ratings from the NRA, his support for capital punishment, and his comments against affirmative action in the past.

on social issues. He was the governor of VT, not the mayor of NYC. They have virtually no gun crime in VT. He and the NRA worked together on environmental issues. Shame on him for getting along and building bridges, dispite the fact that he supported the AWB and in to paraphrase his words, "gun control laws as they stand now".

He also signed gay union legislation which fact forced him to travel all over the state in a bullet proof vest convincing people it was the ethical thing to do.

He also lowered child abuse rates, brought jobs to the state (the main job of a governor, which is why they are generally more centrist than other democrats), provided almost universal healthcare and had the support of unions and environmentalists once he won their respect.

The thing Dean has that Wellstone had was the ability to bring people to his way of thinking and to listen to them and allow himself to examine his own thinking.

Dean was invited to the Progressive Democratic Convention in Boston during the Democratic Convention this past summer. He responded to the first invitation by saying, "But I'm not a progressive." I suppose that gives you your answer. He did eventually come, and clasped hands with Dennis Kucinich on the stage, an act that brought the house down.

His politics and his policy ideas, particularly in the realm of economics, are moderate centrist. The miraculous part is the manner in which he has managed to inspire and motivate so many serious progressives and left-wing folks. This is no small trick to turn. It is a knack not shared by Clinton or Gore; Kerry did not inspire the progressices this time around, so much as they were inspired to use him as the vehicle to remove Bush.

Dean was able to do this by the force of his convictions, particularly on the Iraq issue. IMHO, standing against the war before the invasion was not a 'progressive' stance per se, but was common sense...yet for a national politician, it took sand to publicly do so, and Dean did so. One could argue that he did so because he was not in the Senate when the vote came down, and could stand against the war without penalty. However you see it, the fact that an avowed centrist has earned the admiration, respect and hard work of so many progressives makes him a truly formidable presence on the political stage. It is that ability to cross normally difficult boundaries that makes him an absolute natural for the DNC Chair.

to fight back. People like a fighter and too many times have the Dems being compromising. Compromise is all well and good but not if it will hurt people too much.

Vermont on health care, civil rights, a womans right to choose, raising the minimum wage, his position on the war, etc..

then they saw all that great stuff. You have to get someone's attention first before they will look at your record.

:hi:

about using progressive language in front of progressive audiences to gain their support in the primary and then denying you're a liberal to the national media and party establishment? There are other names for that.

that he had pulled the wool over people's eyes. Most Dean supporters were and are fully aware of his stands on policy issues. We liked him because of his stands on TACTICS TOGETHER with stands on policy issues that we could live with.

and then changing your stance when you want to run for President? What is so liberal about voting for the anti flag burning ammendment and legislation that allows children to be tried as adults?

How come liberals supported DK, were his supporters all fooled?

couldn't defend his position on the war in Iraq that he would just attack Kerry for being a flip-flopper instead. Isn't that kind of attack a really weak and pathetic tactic to use instead of defending your position?

when pointing out the hypocrisy of "progressives" accusing others of being stupid or selling out when their own standard bearer has a history of some very anti-progressive stands on issues.

so he could stand against the war without penalty? What penalty would that be? Being called unpatriotic by Karl Rove?

At least that's how I heard him describe himself in speech after speech.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment of his positions.

though his rhetoric gets him mistaken by those on the left, center, and right alike mistaken for a more progressive.

There are articles there criticizing his leftism. They knew better, too.

Actions count more than words. He signed gay union legislation, he is strongly pro-choice (with a much better record the DK I might add) with out qualification. He is for universal healthcare. He started one the most sucessful social programs for outreach to new parents that has ever been enacted in any state.
30 years ago he would be a moderate, today that makes him a liberal. But that is hardly all there is too the equation. He is also fiscally conservative because he believes in balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. Deficits run up interest on debt that cuts into social spending. He has said that too.

damn her and her lying ways. :mad:

:shrug: Most of the anti Deans have their minds made up. None of those quotes are shockingly out of balance with the others. I am for social liberalism and fiscal responsibility, but because I support Dean I am now a radical. Funny, eh? I don't think so. For what it's worth, I let Kerry slide on his,"I voted for it before I voted against it..." which was far worse and truly hypocritical in my opinion.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

bred twit ones.

Labels without any context are meaningless. What is liberal or conservative to me may be very different than how you would describe things.

Additionally, I don't think American politics can really be described on the left right axes anymore. I am extremely pro-union, pro-choice in every circumstance, pro-gay marriage, anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-"war on drugs", favor universal healthcare, and against the vast majority of gun control legislation. How would you describe me?

Similarly, I have a good friend who is pro-life (truly, not anti-choice), pro-union, pro-gun control, and pro-Iraq war. How would you describe her?

It's really impossible to describe any of us with flat terms such as liberal or conservative.

choice and pose this question? How bout quotes from Nader on why he busted unions?

Progressive is as progressive does ... so yeah he's a progressive.

some of the other Dean supporters on this thread because they disagree with you.

but you also believe he is a moderate. And you're arguing both sides on the same thread. Amazing.

The "doesn't fit into labels" argument is a cop out. It's called being two-faced.

give it a rest Dennis lost, all of us Dean supporters are the reason I am sure. You really should try to get over it.

NO. So that makes him a moderate according to your standards doesn't it? What about Paul Wellstone, he must also be a "moderate" because he voted against DOMA. Nader too, is a moderate because he is a union busting hypocrite.

See how that works. NOT ONE candidate agrees with me on EVERY issue. I am a liberal and a progressive.

Dean is progressive on most of the issues that matter to ME.

Still waiting for links to your quotes. /holding breath.

links? :shrug:

I didn't start this thread to talk about who was better in the last election. What is the relevance of quotes from Kucinich and Nader in a discussion on weather Dean is a liberal?

Do you really disbelieve that Dean said any of the quotes I gave from Dean? The last quote is at Salon.com and the second one came from a CNN article that MADFloridaDem linked to this site months ago. The first quote was repeatedly often before Dean was ahead in the polls.

paraphrase BTW.

The relevance from the Nader/Kucinich view point is that there is no PURITY test for being a Progressive. Each Democratic/Green candidate had strengths/weaknesses ... the word "progressive" is subjective depending on your view point.

I don't subscribe to Salon.com so here's where I found the Salon article quoted to make sure I got it right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean

That page has some good comments on the topic of this thread.

Here's the link to the CNN article, and let me put paste the whole thing since I did it from memory before.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/dems.dean/index.html

"I think that I represented the centrist wing of the party when I ran -- balanced budgets, death penalty support in some instances, eight consecutive A's from the National Rifle Association," Dean said.

He softens on some issues. Which is fine. The problem comes when his supporters pretend that he stands firm as the rest of our leaders just "go along for the ride." The fact of the matter is, he is not any different. He just speaks more passionately. He supported NAFTA, something that I believe is losing the union vote and killing the party. He cut taxes. He is against gun control.

playing field for all, so that jobs don't bleed out is not what I consider "supporting NAFTA".

The fact of the matter is he is doing major tap dancing on NAFTA, just like the rest of the leadership. And some just give him a pass because he's their guy...or their on his payroll.

The only people I see using that juvenile expression about a candidate they support are Clarkies. I guess I know the purpose for the new screen name. So who are you really?

Now will you listen to me?

that was funny

clueless?

or atleast has proven to be on most major issues such as the war.

Labels are worthless.

I've always found it rather amusing that Dean devotees insist Dean is a liberal. Had they done their homework, they'd have found a moderate/centrist record. Just shows to go ya that it helps to vote with your eyes open.

that arrogant pinheads think we supported him without knowing his stands on policy. Your "analysis" is horseshit.

His supporters hold him up as someone who is TRUE to progressive values, unlike our leadership. When the fact remains is that he is true to SOME of our values, JUST LIKE the leadership.

I think he would do just fine as DNC chair. He fits right in.

I am sure you can make some more absolutely meaniningless attack posts about Dean. Okay GO:




PS.. what happened with your last screen name? Did you flounce off in a hissy and abandon it?

okay, your turn

No, sweat pea, I changed it because we are now two elections down the road and it's time to look ahead. But thanks for asking.

Then tell me what makes you think YOU define MY values.

I'm just going to hide all these threads. I don't like my god is better than your god and I don't like my candidate is better than your candidate. We've got more important things to worry about right now. Save the election bullshit for 2008.

I'd call him a 'populist', if I just had to put a label on him.

:shrug:

Its not fiscal. Is it social? I guess that depends where you live.

LOL, really are digging here aren't you?

Its good for the heart you know.

and call you our greenohio friend. :grouphug:

who think I'm angry. Well I accept your friendship, and I look forward to kicking some repuke butt with you.

:grouphug:

There is hope for the clueless.

Man, should have said that a long time ago.

Hooome hooome on the range....

with the person that gave you the impression that you were either witty OR clever.

ibegurpard friend.

Did I somehow give you the impression that I could give a flying fuck?
:shrug:

are an expert in wit.

to recognize the lack of it.

:yourock:

GreenOhio seems obsessed with Dean. So much so that he needs a new name to attack him with. Sad case

I didn't create this thread.

Even our local Communist (Yes, we have one--- one) is a gun owner.

:)

It's not liberal, it's not progressive ...

Goes to show how pointless political labels are.

Dean will fit in nicely with the leadership.

As far as anyone knows.

Going to extremes here aren't we?

:)

back things up anymore, so I guess I'd have to agree that Dean eats babies. I thought it was just fetuses. :(

and that is what I like about him. If he believes in something he will stand up for his principles.

Before you can answer this question.
Otherwise it's just a bunch of posturing and malarkey.
Just as one small example --

Liberal, like in the Enlightenment? Then basically every Democrat and a lot of Republicans are liberal.

Liberal in a European sense?

Progressive in the sense of believing in progress?

Conservative in the sense of conserving?

It's conservative to support the Bill of Rights because they've been around for 200 years and are part of the Tradition, but they're liberal so it's liberal to support the Bill of Rights and they're left wing polemics but they're part of the Tradition so it's conservative to support them.

I kind of like Sinclair Lewis's definition of liberal as being one who is tolerant.

I wonder how many people fit that bill?

This is exactly why.

Why didn't you all vote in the primaries?

After the third or fourth state, the primaries were pretty much over.

that people who don't win Iowa and NH don't get the nomination?

any traction beyond that.

Or maybe we should do the primaries like the general election and all of the states go at once.

NT

Or did we change that sometime. What are you referring to?

a candidate made a mistake, etc., there was no time to recover. It also meant that fundraising, in between primaries was more difficult.

Here's an article about "front-loading" in the 2000 race:

http://www.asne.org/kiosk/editor/99.dec/sternberg.html

Well, I voted for him in the primaries.....but he dropped out a month before. Yes, that one little state chose our nominee. Dean pulled back to 2nd place in NH, then he no longer actively campaigned.

Do not go there, greenohio. I am armed with ammunition on what happened in Iowa. They have the power, those folks in Iowa. The party leaders had the power as well.

How about that Bill Clinton...pretending to be for civil unions...then calling Dean supporters to support Clark because Dean signed the VT and was thus unelectable.

So then Clark is for them...so what's up with that? But now that Clark is planning to run for gov...he is more understanding of the opposite view...in other words..will he still support the right of women and gays. Hmmm.

Meanwhile, Dean won't back off from the issues, while the party is.

Do not there to Iowa. FL, CA, NY never got to vote for Dean. The 3 states with large electoral counts. Go figure.

Wasn't it first then?

a lot longer, so there was time to make a comeback for the "Comeback Kid."

Rather than the "so we have time to campaign against the incumbent" line.

NT

If Dean had strong organizations in the other early primary states it should have given him a quick chance to make a comeback, instead of having a full month of bad news and no new wins. The compacted schedule should have benefited the candidate with the most money and name recognition, which was Dean.

Dean suffered from high expectations in Iowa. The primary schedule was designed to help more moderate candidates win, but I don't think that's why Dean lost, for what it's worth.

and I'm not surprised that you wrote nothing to back up your comment.

Water's wet, your analysis stunk.

what candidate could have recovered better from a surprising loss in Iowa or New Hampshire? Dean had the most money, the most media coverage and the most name recognition right before Iowa. That means he was in the best position to take a loss and keep going on. He should have been able to keep his staff and ads up no matter what happened in Iowa. What candidate had the resources to endure an early loss and come back better than Dean?

If the Dean campaign blew its cash too early to endure a loss in Iowa that can't be blamed on anyone else.

If it even qualifies as analysis.

The DLC and other Democratic leadership colluded together to fix the primaries. They shortened the schedule and released some really mean memos, undercutting Dean. Oh, and I've learned that some of his supporters think they're funny. But they're really not. But they like to travel in packs in order support one another. I guess its good for self esteem.

I'm sorry he didn't win, there really appears to be some scars.

Amazing what you come up with.

started giving to his campaign, and I think even Wesley Clark suffered from not competing in Iowa.

IMO, if the same shortened primaries were in effect when Clinton ran, he might never have recovered from the Gennifer Flowers fiasco.

Kerry or Edwards might have run out of money and been forced to drop out after New Hampshire had they not gotten the bounce in Iowa. I think you're right about Clark. Dean didn't need the extra media and money that he would have gotten had he won Iowa. He should have had enough money to keep going strong and win a February primary state. I think Trippi had some comments about the campaign wasting money, so that may have been the problem as well.

I think Iowa really hurt Dean because he was expected to do so much better than he did and the overblown reaction to the scream. But that would not have been any different no matter how long or short the calendar is. I think with the amount of money Dean had he should have been better prepared for a comeback than any of them.

NT

and I'm no fan of the way the primary is set up. Still, I don't see how a longer primary would have helped Dean unless it were to give the media more time to tear down Kerry like it did Dean. But if that had happened it seems more likely that we would have ended up with Edwards after Kerry got torn up. Anyway, it's all speculation now.

My biggest beef is that the media tries to pick our nominee and chooses the front-runners long before the first primary. They are the ones destroying democracy.

5 candidates, plus a former president, plus the DLC calling him unelectable as well.

Although I'm sure all of that played a part. A short primary calendar benefits the candidate with the most money and name recognition, and that was Dean.

was Lieberman really a candidate?

Ahead of the others by double digits.

looking back. I loved it when Michael Moore shocked and confused the hell out of Wolf Blitzer when he said Lieberman wasn't doing well because he's a Republican. I'm sure that never occured to Wolf.

Them's the facts.

It is both interesting and telling that you left off the remaining portion of his statement:

"I think that I represented the centrist wing of the party when I ran -- balanced budgets, death penalty support in some instances, eight consecutive A's from the National Rifle Association," he said.

"I think the biggest problem with the Democrats is they didn't realize how far to the right the country really went. So, I think we're all centrists. We believe in balanced budgets; the president believes in huge debts."

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/dems.dean/

And by the way progressive and liberal are two different words, with two different meanings.

Pro·gres·sive

* Moving forward; advancing.
* Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
* Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.

n.
A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.

Liberal

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

...

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

n.
A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

:hi:

That's why I said above that the terms have to be defined.
People like to bandy them about when they don't really know the real meanings of the terms, but only know the recent ahistorical usage of the terms that is so common to discourse in the United States.
That's probably why they get confused when someone has some subtlety in the way he uses them like I think Dean does.

I am so glad to see all these loving posts about us, aren't you?
:hi:

they want to be us.

We really want to help you. Its kinda like deprogramming.

all in how you look at it.

Dean inspires PASSION !

:hi:

but anyway, I don't think it changes anything in the context of the debate.

Liberal and progressive are subjective terms which mean different things to different people. That's why I didn't attempt to define them. However, liberal candidates more often call themselves progressives today, so I don't mind using them interchangeably. For example, the progressive caucus is made up of liberals. There are also a large number of issues where the liberal or progressive position is well known and accepted, which makes the terms relevant.

your purpose was to create a flame war. We are amused but not surprised.

Or maybe, he meant to have a meaningful conversation over where Dean actually stands.

This thread is not about issues.

name calling and making random insults about Kucinich or other leaders that have nothing to do with the thread. You know, like you have been doing.

How many times has the topic of Dean being a moderate or progressive come up in other threads? Many times. It is a relevant and interesting point of discussion. The fact that you don't like my opinion on the topic doesn't make it flame bait.

We knew what you were doing.

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

that's good flame bait

okay, your turn

:boring:

cleared up the matter sooner if you'd have posted the quote in context in the first place.

As for using words "interchangeably" many also DON'T use them as such ... myself and most Dean supporters included.

I didn't notice you asked for those quotes for a while. I think the quote in context works just as well.

There is still a common perception that Dean is a liberal, which I'm not happy about. I'm not comfortable with Dean being labeled as and acting as a leader of the left.

My hypothesis is that there would be a lot of disagreement about where Dean stood on the spectrum and it looks like I was right. That's my terrible secret agenda for starting the poll, which I didn't think was so secret but I didn't want to skew the poll by putting my views as part of the initial question.

which *I'm* not happy about. I'm not happy with anyone being labeled as the leader of the "left." We are entitled to differ on various issues, that's part of what being liberal (open minded) is about.

My hypothesis is that there is a lot of disagreement about where ANY candidate stands on the political spectrum.

Shall I start a poll to prove my point? Who cares what one labels X candidate? Labels prevent people from discussing ISSUES.

Kerry was labeled as "liberal" by George Bush and co. do you think all of us agree with George Bush on that ... NO.

It's all subjective my friend, which is what your thread proves. Though I personally knew that before you started it.

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

I have said before that Deans supporters do him no favors.

Thank you, sir/madam, for your kind words.
The first I've gotten here BTW.

or you'll just stop visiting.

Welcome to DU. :toast:

So very true... cranky, nasty, and very cult-like in their adoration.

You can even get flamed by Deanies for LIKING him, if you don't like him SUFFICIENTLY to their degree of devotion and blindness. It happened to me more times than I care to count.

to get you out of your "nothing we can do will ever make a difference so why bother" mode, right ZW?

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

And you can thank us when we've rescued the party from irrelevance. Now, aren't there some yaks that need discussing?

THIS is more fun, getting under your skin. :P

Plus, you still aren't making a difference, because you can't outspend and out-propagandize those bastards... you insist on playing on THEIR turf, and YOU LOSE.

If you don't use your imagination or brains to come up with new ways of living your life, making effective changes, and giving a damn about anything, you will continue to be frustrated, impotent, and bitter, as evidenced in your sardonic yak comment. ;-)

You can't get to me, no matter how superior you think you are. :loveya:

Anything to rescue you from a fate of endless inane lounge-lizard coffee threads.
:hi:

:hi:

BS in the morning. Look, people don't hate dean. They just hate his followers bad jokes. Not that I give a flying.... You guys are great at winning people over. Are you from the leadership trying to keep Dean down?

eom

politicians. One could say the same for the "chess playing" Kerry supporters, with their holier than thou attitude. I simply like the fact that Dean stood up for my values at a time when no one else would listen. I like it that Dean can mobilize his supporters, that these very same supporters mobilized for Kerry, myself included. I know many would like to paint us as wild eyed, lusting, crazy people, but it isn't true. And we're not going away. I want my party back. :hi:

I'm rather surprised my post about Dean was deleted. It was merely an opinion with regard to his followers, an opinion I might add that has been played out here already.

Suffice to say, Dean's most fervent followers did him no favors.

Can I say that?

I guess I'll find out.

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

It wasn't necessarily an astute observation that the Deannies are cranky. Just read the posts here and just about every other message board on the internets. It was more of an observation because I started out liking Dean but was put off by some of his more rabid followers. I'd think the sane Dean supporters would want that information if he intends to run again sometime.

I am utterly shocked at the names we are being called lately. I wear them with pride, and they don't bother me.

But I am called them constantly. Then we are blamed for attacking.

Folks, this is how it is going to be? I hope not. I hope there will not be so much hatred.

No, it is not my fault. I did not start this thread.

SNIP.."It wasn't necessarily an astute observation that the Deannies are cranky. Just read the posts here and just about every other message board on the internets. It was more of an observation because I started out liking Dean but was put off by some of his more rabid followers. I'd think the sane Dean supporters would want that information if he intends to run again sometime.
(The rabid word is becoming a talking point.)That is my comment.

This is the DU member formerly known as gorewon2000."

Dean supporters don't need that information. We already know it. I see this as the future here, that we are crazy and rabid. It is a shame, really.

candidate.

The only difference is that Dean actually came close to winning the nomination, thus was subject to bullshit from all ends for a lengthy period of time. As a Dean supporter I was in the position of defending him constantly because he was the front runner and that pissed everyone off.

this flame war.

Were in a position to constantly defend the man months after he lost the primaires and somehow WERE the frikkin problem?

:nopity:

are posting here as well? :shrug: Just a thought.

Which in the mind of Red America, he is just slightly to the right of Fidel Castro. I appreciate the fact that Dean is well-regarded by the NRA for his strong stand on gun rights. If us LIBBERALLS ever get a collective set of cajones, we'll need those gun rights. With Bush in charge, it's the only right we'll have left.

http://www.revolutionleft.org

For us rabid folks.

I always felt he was more progressive than Kerry. But then that depends on your definition of "progressive", doesn't it.

I am a "life and death" issues first sort of progressive who cringed every time I heard John Kerry say he was going to "hunt down and kill the terrorists". Not that I have a love of terrorists mind you, I just don't think our track record of properly identifying them is all that good.

One who wants change is progressive.

Guys, the primaries are over. We fought these
battles long ago. It is time to look forward
and try to figure out how to win in the future.



DU Moderator