Dean: "I am a Democrat BECAUSE of my moral values!" Now

[babylonsister]

ain't that the truth! This meme needs to be spread far and wide! :applause: :woohoo:

[patricia92243]

1. Dean comes through for us again. Oh, I love that man. n/t

[fishwax]

2. hear hear!

I've been saying that for years :D

[bperci108]

3. Attaboy, Mr. Dean!

This is the reason that the Right (and some of the supposed Left, like the DLC and it's political machine) are scared to death of Howard Dean.

It looks like he may be the driving force to return the Democratic Party to it's populist roots and back into the leadership of this nation.

I can hardly wait. :woohoo:

[kentuck]

4. This is a winning message...

This is where Republicans need to be challenged - just where they think they are the strongest.

[Cha]

5. Did Dean said this on

on mtp? What, did timmy throw a repuke talking point at him?.."the republicans say you don't have any moral values."

[Snotcicles]

6. He should have started with "well there they go, lying again"

I am a Democrat because of my moral values.

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Yes!

Hear hear Chairman Dean! I'm with you. When people ask how you can be a Christian and be a democrat well look at what Jesus talked about and compare it to the policies of the democratic party. Go Dean! Anyone have this video?

[IronLionZion]

8. YEARGH!!!!

Damn straight. We are the real party of family values because we value families. Tim Kaine managed to win in Virginia with his moral values of reducing abortion without criminalizing it.

Dean frames the issues so brilliantly. He is building our party and leading us to victory every damn day.

We need fair elections and I hope somebody is on that. But if we have fair elections, game, set, match. Start planning the victory parties.

[StellaBlue]

9. That line was EXCELLENT

I actually ENJOYED MTP today, for the first time in ages!!!

[Olney Blue]

15. Yes, I did too. Dean was amazing.

Even when Russert confronted him with the negative WaPo article
about lagging behind in fund-raising efforts, he handled it in a positive way.

[DarkTirade]

10. We've always been the party of moral values...

we just actually stop and think things through to make sure we're doing the right thing instead of blindly following a preacher who's giving his own interpretation of a 1500 year old book that's been retranslated dozens of times, and was written a few hundred years AFTER the people involved in the stories of this book had already died.

[TahitiNut]

11. Strange. I'm an independent liberal because of my moral values.

My moral values don't include blind partisanship. :shrug: To each, his or her own, I guess.

[Olney Blue]

14. Tahiti, I am a Democrat, but not blind.

I like your voice.

[TahitiNut]

32. I like yours, too.

I appreciate those who understand the (subtle?) distinction between "my moral values" and "(the) moral values." Just a very small exercise in the difference between possessing and nurturing one's own best comprehension of moral values (the healthy development of one's own 'inner compass') and the all-too-often implication that "moral values" are something to be imposed on others (only by self-anointed "leaders" and "experts," of course) is something that's sadly too often lost in the maelstrom of authoritarianism in which this nation is becoming more deeply enveloped. All I had to do is make an affirmation, quite congruent with Dean's, that I make my own best choices based on my own moral values and I was met with some antagonism - due possibly to some projection or habituation. I guess it's kinda funny that taking personal responsibility for my own development of moral values (rather than carrying some membership card) is seen as inimical to others, when it's anything but so.
I like choruses of harmonious and complimentary voices -- not all the same. I guess it's a matter of taste. :silly:

[RazzleDazzle]

46. No, not all the responses to your proclaimed "moral

values" were as discordant, antagonistic and judgmental as you inferred.

Take mine, for instance.

I frankly don't give a damn what your moral values are, but rather expressed the belief that Dean's moral values which make him a Democrat are probably different from whatever moral values you have that make you a so-called liberal independent, especially since said values don't take you in the direction of either the Greens or perhaps even Socialists.

You are not being persecuted, and any judgment I might have, but will keep to myself, is actually attached to your response to the responses rather than whatever values make you anything but a Democract, capital D.

You see: not inimical, surprising. And revealing.

[mzmolly]

16. My morals don't include BLIND partisianship. I'm a PROUD Democrat

There is nothing blind about being aware of the vast differences between the two major party's and voting accordingly for someone who can and will actually effect change.

[TahitiNut]

24. There's an effective "blindness" when financial support one might ...

... contribute to a committee or candidate would find its way into the coffers of someone like Ben Nelson or Zell Miller. We need not rehash all the arguments of deontological vs. teleological ethics - since I, as a deontologist, just don't subscribe to the teleological/'utilitarian'/'pragmatic' rationales. I'll continue to target my support to ACLU, NOW, NAACP, Planned Parenthood, and other such principle-based organizations. I'll continue to volunteer for specific candidates like Sandy Levin, Mike Honda, and John Conyers.

While you're at it, you might try to tell me whether Joe Lieberman is closer ideologically to George W. Bush or Dennis Kucinich. Here's a visual aid:

[mzmolly]

27. Thanks for the "visual aid" thankfully Mr. K changed his position on

choice in time for the elections. Joe Lieberman is to the left of Kucinich on womens rights and on the right to demonstrate using the American flag for example, so I prefer to look at an actual voting record as opposed to the little red dots listed above:

http://www.issues2000.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

You can contribute to the groups you mention all you like, but it's quite pointless if you don't vote for a Democrat - who will protect rights to privacy, womens choice, affirmative action etc.

[TahitiNut]

35. Why must I repeat ...

We need not rehash all the arguments of deontological vs. teleological ethics - since I, as a deontologist, just don't subscribe to the teleological/'utilitarian'/'pragmatic' rationales.

?? :eyes:

[mzmolly]

39. Kantian deontologists argue that judgments of right are justified only if

derived from principles of practical reason. ;)

[TahitiNut]

41. "Supplement to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy", (Macmillan)

:eyes:

Good Googling. :shrug:

Clearly, the metaethical question will always remain: "Why be ethical?" It is, however, an exercise in sheer sophistry to claim that a lexical congruence of proclaimed goals (or "protogoals"?) justifies any means or ethical approach.

Check out the recent work of Christine Korsgaard.

[mzmolly]

43. Thanks, I do love google.

I thought the wink would indicate that my reply was tongue in cheek? SEE >>> ;)

QUOTATION MARKS may have been prudent in hind-site so as not to confuse ? However, I felt that the quote was quite relevant to our discussion here as you brought up "deontologist philosophy" in order to justify/clarify your views. I found that the description I noted above described my views - in a nutshell. "... judgments of right are justified only if derived from principles of practical reason."

Though, I'm more of a blue collar democrat then an elitist one (which may explain why I'm practical,) I do enjoy the opportunity to learn about things that I hadn't had an opportunity to learn about previously, like "dentonologist philosophy" for example. So, thanks for the "opportunity" to use google in this case.

Regarding the additional philosophical recommendations - I prefer to examine the simple reality of current affairs and the effects that politics have on human beings when I make political/ethical decisions. And, I found it interesting that this statement applied to my own belief system "... judgments of right are justified only if derived from principles of practical reason." However, I don't attempt to apply someone else's philosophy to my own life decisions, as I have my own philosophy gained through my life experience which applies. Lastly, If I didn't feel that my vote (interest in politics) would/could benefit others, I'd simply refuse to participate in the process, and take a liking to uhm, survivor err .. something.

[TahitiNut]

44. Thus, we're back to what I said in my original reply.

I said, "To each, his or her own, I guess."

While I phrased that in a (tongue-in-cheek) whimsical way, I can assure you that my adherence to that precept is anything but whimsical.

I can whole-heartedly acknowledge that most folks, especially partisans, are indeed practicing consequentialists (teleological) - as are all snipers. In my younger days, I was a "hesitant" consequentialist. I've become a (mostly) Kantian deontologist on the basis of a variety of formative experiences - i.e. "practical reason." As such, I'd not do what Sophie did (in "Sophie's Choice"), for example. I'd make a terrible sniper, but not due to marksmanship.

You state the consequentialist viewpoint rather succinctly when you say you "feel that {your} vote (interest in politics) would/could benefit others". That's the "maximum happiness" goal. I only wonder how anyone can presume to perform the utility calculus in the prognostication of "benefit to others." To me, that's well beyond my "job description."

Let's just take the example of torture, for a moment, to see the difficulty. Consequentialists are hugely divided, some arguing the hypotheticals of preventing a nuclear holocaust and others arguing increased resistance of opponents and danger to our own troops. Wow! Tough job sorting out all the consequences, huh? For the deontologist, it's far simpler. No! I cannot do that which I wouldn't have the whole world do! For me, it's absolute. Nonetheless, in forming arguments in discussions, I'm obliged to recognize the audience's ethical system. So, I merely argue that it doesn't work and the consequences aren't "maximum happiness."

Furthermore, I'm not at all inclined to believe that "maximum happiness" in the short term necessarily equates to "maximum happiness" in the long term. There are altogether too many "principles of practical reason" that suggest otherwise. So, how do we choose?

As always, YMMV. You see, as a (Kantian and 'free-will') deontologist, I cannot ethically attempt to impose my own ethical system on others ... no more than I can accept the imposition of theirs on me.

:evilgrin:


Some might say "we live in the best of all possible worlds."
As one whose academic training is math, not philosophy, I might be inclined to say "we live in the most possible of all good worlds."

:silly: :dunce:

[mzmolly]

45. Well you see, we have different job descriptions is all.

That's the "maximum happiness" goal. I only wonder how anyone can presume to perform the utility calculus in the prognostication of "benefit to others." To me, that's well beyond my "job description."

As a former accountant, (an uneducated one, however) I have defined the benefit to others by crunching data such as poverty rates, deficit numbers, gas prices, educational cuts etc.

So, you see, it is within my job description to attempt to achieve maximum happiness for the maximum amount of people. In fact, that IS my job description as I see it. ;) This does not mean one can't look at individual ethics and determine that torture is just plain wrong - on every level. In fact, it could be argued that torture is wrong because the dude being tortured is having his fundamental right to "maximum happiness" withheld? :crazy: :freak:

Peace TH. It's been nice chatting with you. :hi:

:popcorn:

[Telly Savalas]

33. My chart is a bit different.

Bush








Lieberman

Kucinich


In what way is the methodology behind your chart superior to that of mine?

[TahitiNut]

34. You must be joking.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

A while back, over 180 DUers recorded their scores on the Poltical Compass. Here's a "map" of how those scores were distributed ...

[RazzleDazzle]

22. I didn't realize

there was an "independent liberal" tradition and record and platform of any longstanding.

I suspect your moral values aren't quite the ones Dean was referring to, esp. if they lead you away from the Democratic Party. Tho they need not be mutually exclusive with the Dem Party, I suppose. Or maybe they are. You're the only one who can know unless you care to share which of your values aren't shared by the Democratic Party and therefore make you a Liberal Independent.

[TahitiNut]

23. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is a "Democrat"; Zell Miller is a "Democrat"

I'm a liberal first and a (small-d) democrat second, because the first implies the second. While that should be enough, I suggest you read "A Theory of Justice" and "Justice as Fairness: A Restatement" by John Rawls. Maybe if you read (and understood) these then the Universe of what you "didn't realize" would shrink. What you might (snarkily) "suspect" about my moral values is of very little relevance (or interest to me). You might try asking yourself just what values are share among ALL "Democrats" -- other than gaining power. (That latter seems to be a 'value' shared by many - including Republicans.)


http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0674005112.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg


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

[mzmolly]

28. John Conyers is a Democrat, Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat,

Paul Wellstone - Democrat, Barbara Boxer is a Democrat, Jesse Jackson is a Democrat, Martin Luther King - Democrat, Rosa Parks - Democrat. The greatest progressives to effect change, in recent times, have been "Democrats."

As for Independents, Ron Paul is an independent, Timothy McVeigh was in independent, Michael Peroutka an inde, etc.

Perhaps you can share what two human beings on this earth agree on everything? Everyone who votes Democratic presumably agrees with the Party Platform for the most part.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

I would imagine the same holds true for the Green Party for example. They have a platform (albeit very simple) and chances are the members of that party agree with *most* of it.

Speaking of book recommendations, I have a book recommendation for you as well:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0679462945.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

As for Mr. Rawls:

This is a political summary of the defects of John Rawls' contractarian liberalism. Rawls Theory of Justice (1971) is the most influential normative work of political philosophy of the last two generations. In 1993 it was followed by a broader work on Political Liberalism. Rawls later work claims that his concerns are not metaphysical, but political: a stable and workable society in the western liberal tradition. In reality, all his work is a justification of liberal societies against others. Worse, it (Rawls Book) is a justification of the inequality and injustice in those societies, and a model for a conservative future.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/rawls.html

I think I'll pass on his books, personally.

[TahitiNut]

30. So, you rely on Treanor's opinion?

The same person who says:

WHY DEMOCRACY IS WRONG
Democracy does not deserve the semi-sacred status accorded to it. In Europe, democratically elected politicians such as Jörg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Silvio Berlusconi, Umberto Bossi, Gianfranco Fini and Pim Fortuyn are a reminder of democracy's defects: an anti-racist dictatorship is preferable to a racist democracy. Democracy is expanding globally, but not because of its moral superiority. Military intervention is now the standard origin of democratic political systems. Any universal ideology will tend to crusades and messianic conquest, and democracies feel entitled to 'bring freedom' to other countries. Below, more on the ethical problems, definitions of democracy, the issue of inequality, the defects of democratic culture, the nation as the 'demos', the claimed justifications for democracy, and alternatives to democracy.

... and call yourself a "Democrat"???

Fascinating!!! :eyes:

[mzmolly]

31. No, I rely on myself ~ and the Democrats who I noted in my post to you.

Further, I call myself a "PROUD Democrat." ;)

[DeepModem Mom]

12. Another K&R!!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. And that means

because of what we do; not just because of what we say.... We believe that actions should match words.

"And now, suppose that a man has the worldly goods that he needs, and sees his brother in want; if he steels his heart against his brother, how can we say that the love of God dwells in him? My little children, let us show our love by the true test of action, not by taking phrases on our lips". John I, 17,18.

[mzmolly]

17. Go Dr.!

:toast:

[flyarm]

18. we don't steal from Indians and the poor to have more in our treasure

chest!!
we do not steal food out of the mouths of children to fill our treasure chest!

we do not borrow on the backs of future generations to fill our treasure chest...

we are the party of the poor and middle class..who don't have tens of thousands to give to our treasure chest..we worry more about caring for them!!

we do not fill the pharmaceutical companies with tax cuts to fill our treasure chest..we try to fill prescriptions for those in need of health care!

we do not steal from the poor and middle class to buy boats and beach houses for the rich..to fill our treasury!

we do not steal social security surplus to give tax breaks to those who don't need it!

we do not build bridges to no where when we have people who have lost their homes and loved ones to fill our Treasury!

we do not do speeches and charge people to come see the people supposed to be representing the people..to fill our treasury!

we do not use AF1&2 TO DO CONSTANT CAMPAIGNING INSTEAD OF THE PEOPLES BUSINESS to fill our treasury.

we do not take the country to war based on lies to get funds from the richest corporations with no bid contracts....to fill our treasury on the blood of our young and our bravest!

i am a proud democrat..and i will sing it from the rooftops!!

and i am a proud liberal...and i will scream that from the rooftops!!

fly

[Dinger]

19. Dean Was Magnificent On MTP Today

Damn, how about a Clark/Dean ticket? Hell, I'd even go with a Dean/Clark ticket!

[ProSense]

20. Dean scores, game over, immoral Republicans zero! n/t

[raysr]

21. A member of a progressive

group I belong to had a different take on Dean's MTP appearance as did several other members similar to this one:
"I have just listened to the chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean on Meet the Press. I must say I was sorely disappointed. How can we, as a party, take the house and senate without a plan? How much longer must we wait? Yes, there is an agenda, but what are we to tell the American public, when they ask, how? I am also tired of being put off by my own party as to what is our plan. We have to come together on the issues or this is surly to fall apart in 2006. How much longer must Americans' wait for an answer,Mr.Dean? Do we think we are going to raise more funds for our candidates without clear direction? I think, not. I also think it is a mistake to engage in religious campaigns. We really do not want to go there, do we? He spoke of giving the American people the truth. Why should we wait till 2006, for it to be told? When we have the upper hand? Too many times we have waited till the wind was blowing our way. It is time the party took a stand, and let it be known!"

[madfloridian]

25. Can you wait 6 weeks? This is pretty obvious.

It is mid-November.

This is so non-productive. Most of know exactly which groups are out to undermine the Democratic Party. Trouble is they are going after the wrong people.

Instead of going after the DLC types, they are hounding Dean and the ones who speak out.

Some groups are getting very bad advice, and they are not going to get results that way.

No one is perfect, but some of us are really trying to change things. Go after the right people if you want your group to be respected.

[mopinko]

40. the plan is called

the 50 state strategy. contest every seat. make them spend money everywhere, wear them down, fight a war of attrition.
raise money from real people, even if it comes in small chunks.
support good candidates, like the "dean dozen" strategy, only bigger.

like this- from 2004 second round dean dozen candidate
christine cegalis' blog-

What a Weekend!
Submitted by Christine Cegelis

Wow, what a weekend!

My campaign manager and I spent the weekend in Phoenix at an invitation-only campaign training event run by the New House PAC and AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees). We came away with some great tools to turn the 6th district and this country around.

We spent the weekend with 14 other Democratic candidates from around the country organizing and learning. We’ll be able to continue working together through the election, learning from the successes and setbacks of others.

While there were many great speakers and training sessions, the highlight of the weekend was meeting Nancy Pelosi, the next Speaker of the House. The party leadership which Nancy represents realizes that bringing candidates together and giving them a helping hand through training and advice is the best way to take back the house in 2006.

The most valuable session for me was about house parties. Last cycle, we met hundreds of people in the district through house parties and the “Coffee with Christine” meetings. I still meet people that tell me they first met me in a Caribou Coffee where I stopped by for an evening of dialog.

These informal gatherings of give and take have always been my favorite part of the campaign. With this training, we can be even more effective in the use of house parties. We hope to do 100 to 150 over the next year.

We are going to do a variation of this at the Lombard Library, “Conversation with Christine”, Tuesday on October 25th at 7:00 PM. This informal gathering will be focused on Education and the idea is to have a conversation, to really discuss what’s happening in education and what needs to be happening. If you are able to attend, please come by and add to the conversation.

I have come back energized from the training and know that both the New House PAC and AFCSME will be behind us as we move forward in 2006. If you would like to gather a few of your friends and neighbors together, hosting a house party is a great way to get involved and to make some new relationships. Contact us at [e-mail] and we’ll help you make it happen.

The Democratic leadership understands that if we are going to change the direction of this country, we’ll need a different type of candidate. We need to elect candidates that are in touch with their constituents and with their concerns. That part of campaigning, meeting people in the district and hearing what they think, has always been my favorite part of running for office. I’m pleased to have it confirmed that it’s also the most important.

I hope you will help me win this race to represent your interests in the 110th Congress. Let’s work together to change the direction of this country.""




and, oh, yeah, have howard dean throw his body at the whore media, and yell the truth, no matter what.
tell your friend to wake up and read his e-mail. it's out there.
and mad is right about the dlc- see what

[More Than A Feeling]

26. damn straight, and I might I also add

It warms my heart when our candidates and elected officials express those moral values!

[Peter Frank]

29. K & R nt

[DanCa]

36. Everything I learned in church made me a democrat

Hows that for a t shirt?

[TahitiNut]

37. Change 'democrat' to 'liberal' and I'll buy one.

Biblical times were anything but 'democratic' - everything I learned in school helped make me a democrat.

[Az_lefty]

38. That's why I'm a Democart...

Morals mean action, not just something to be talked about.

[Bouncy Ball]

42. Well, hell, that's why I'm a Democrat, too!

Because I don't believe in screwing over little people in favor of big fat welfare-fed corporations.

Because I don't believe in attacking countries that did nothing to us.

Because I don't believe in stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

Don't believe in stealing at all.

I could go on, but I think everyone knows what I mean.