Right-to-Lifers = Taliban but Bigots = Potential Democratic Voters

Can someone explain the inconsistency?

Did someone say this?

Compared the right to life movement as being no different than the Taliban for women.

Honestly though I don't know the context or the exact quote so don't go by what I'm saying. But I think that is what he/she is referring to.

to the taliban.

And I'm trying to understand why one group of people with reprehensible views are seen by the Dean campaign as misguided but desirable potential voters while another group with reprehensible views are compared to the Taliban.

That Dean, at some time, made an overt appeal to bigotry in his desire to accumulate votes ....

Otherwise: this analogy makes NO sense whatsoever ....

Ok: .. Ill bite: ... WHEN did Dean make an appeal for the votes of bigots ? ... what did he say and what was his target audience ? ...

Dean said that Confederate flag wavers should be voting Democratic because their economic interests are more in line with ours. This was deeply offensive to many minorities who understand that bigots are voting Republican, not because of their economic interests, but because of they feel that Republicans will protect the social status quo they believe it. The only way to attract these voters is to make them feel that the Democratic Party will make concessions to them on those issues. I don't think Dean wants to do that, but feel he didn't really think through the ramifications of his position. However, whenever this was pointed out, our concerns were batted down as meaningless and we were told that we were overly-sensitive, among other things.

However, on this issue, Dean has apparently taken a different tack. I don't believe that anyone would have expected him to say that right-to-lifers are just misguided and could be convinced to vote Democratic because their economic interests are consistent with ours. Nobody would buy that for a second.

But, to me, the situations are the same. I have no doubt that people would have been deeply offended - indeed horrified - had Dean suggested that we should be trying to attract more Right-to-Lifers to vote Democratic. But that is the same reaction that many of us had toward his Confederate flag remarks, only to have those concerns dismissed.

I have been frustrated that so many people just couldn't seem to understand why many of us reacted to the flag remarks the way we did. I'm hoping that drawing this analogy will help folks better understand our view.

Dean said he wanted to reach out to those voters, not that those voters should be voting the Democratic ticket because it validates their views.

We SHOULD be reaching out to those voters. We SHOULD be reaching out to everyone. It's the best way to govern. EVERYONE deserves a share in government.

The point Dean was trying to make is that those voters are sometimes bigots because they are being told that their hard times come directly from minorities (as a ploy to keep them from looking at the corporate fatcats who are really causing everyone's suffering). Reaching out to them means trying to help them understand what their problems are, so that they can make their life better, and abandon hate. How could you be against that?

Don't fly off the handle on this.

But couldn't the same thing be said for Right-to-Lifers? If we're going to reach out to the Confederate flag voters, shouldn't we also be reaching out to the Right-to-Lifers because their economic interests are consistent with ours?

then we'll talk about your question.

You can see a replay on C-Span's page.

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=Vote_2004&ShowVidNum=6&Rot_Cat_CD=Vote_2004&Rot_HT=&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=15&ShowVidDesc=

Ack. If someone will remind me how to post a short link, I'll edit that.

Anyway, it was an awesome speech on a host of women's issues this morning in New Hampshire. If you watch it I think even you will find little in it about which to criticize Dean.

It's about the notion, raised by DUers, that it is perfectly good thing - in fact a great thing - to compare Right-to-Lifers to the Taliban (whether Dean actually did it or not, that seemed to be the premise of the original discussion). I found this interesting in light of the previous discussions about the Confederate flag wavers who, in my view, or similar in many ways to Right-to-Lifers.

Rather than immediately attack may question as a Dean-bash, perhaps people should step back and think about the point I'm making - which has absolutely nothing to do with Dean. It has to do with drawing an analogy that can help people better understand a view that they might not have previously been able to empathize with.

You're drawing a tortured analogy based on what you claim others said Dean said in a speech you didn't see. I think I understand what you're trying to say, but your analogy is based on a false premise.

I still think anyone discussing this "Taliban" thing should watch the speech, particularly if your're trying to make some statement about consistency or inconsistency.

I didn't much care for the confederate flag statement given that he had to double back and explain himself when he simply could have made the point that Repubs have played the "race card" for far too long...but he never said what you are implying.

Racism is not the point at all.

The point is that many people were offended at the notion of reaching out to a group whose views many of us feel are reprehensible and antithetical to the principles of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, that concern was dismissed by many who misread our concern as an attack on Dean or a failure to understand what he really meant.

Now comes another, and in my view analagous situation in which Dean is presumed (whether correct or not) to have compared the anti-abortion movement to the Taliban. Some of the same people who failed to understand why Dean's confederate flag comments seem to think that this notion was great. And I don't disagree with them. But I think that once they see the parallels between bigots and right-to-lifers, at least in the framework of electoral politics, they will better understand why the idea or drawing bigots into the Democratic Party was offensive to many Democrats.

I am a Dean supporter, and he should of course know that there are of course people who are pro-life and progressive. Often the abortion issue is dealt with pragmatically as a second tier issue. I frankly don't take issue with peoples religious or moral convictions, in some cases the pro-life contigent are atheistic. I look at progressive politics as a full spectrum, with many hues, denouncing any belief as Taliban-lite is narrow minded.

if you didn't see this then you have literally no business posting without at least stating that. If you did, and posted what you did you either can't remember what you hear or you can't honestly report what you hear.

I'm a Clarkie, but even I am getting sick of the Dean bashing. Why don't you post a positive thread about your candidate? There is already an active thread on this.

I am very troubled by the notion of Democrats reaching out to a segment of voters who hold views that are deeply offensive to many of the Democratic base. I'm raising this to help illustrate why this is offensive to many minorities, something that many people seem to be having difficulty understanding in a vacuum.

The fact that so many people seem to think it's perfectly appropriate to harshly criticize those whose ideology conflicts with Democratic principles - and would likely find it outrageous to suggest that we reach out and bring them into our party - should help people understand why the Confederate flag remark was offensive to many minorities.

As long as they vote for the Democratic nominee who gives a shit and, for cryin' out loud, why? A vote from these people is just as good and valid as my vote.

The only way to get these folks to vote Democratic is to convince them that we are going to give them something they want. And for these folks it will be concessions on issues of social policy. Reaching out to them, in my view, means that something's got to give, and most likely it would be issues of great concern to a significant element of our base.

He was referring to Bush and his boy team using God to justify their stand on womens rights as far as abortion and stem cell research. He said that creating laws based on your religious views is basically the same way the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.

When you post a lie about Dean calling right-to-lifers the Taliban in another thread and people call you on your BS because I actually watched his speech and corrected you on exactly what he said and that wasn't it....you just start a NEW thread on the meme.

This is the kind of shit that is so repuke. Now I remember why I shouldn't waste my time here...

I was referring to the discussions that had already taken place in DU.

And I did not start the other thread, mind you.

why did you post it here?

since this is about an issue raised by a candidate, not the candidate himself.

But I do believe it's an important issue, and urge people to think about it - it may help them better understand where a lot of voters are coming from.

Never mind - Gotta fly. :)

during the signing of the late term abortion bill to the Taliban. Basically, he's saying our government is like that government.

In fact, if you listened to the whole speech (and thought about it carefully) he made a point of saying that he respected pro-life people. He clearly said that he respected anti-abortion folks, but not folks who blow up abortion clinics. There's been a rash of threads today that say he's comparing pro-life people to the Taliban, taking him out of context. This is how rumors and dirty politics get started.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=186990

Thanks,

DU Moderator