If you were a Dean supporter and the DLC was coming to your city...

[UnapologeticLiberal]

what would you do?

I am pretty sure that some people here are planning a rally in support of Dean outside the DLC Convention in Philly in a few weeks, and I am excited about it, but I am kind of nervous, because I am afraid it might look too much like a protest, and the last thing in the world we need is media coverage of Demcorats protesting other Democrats. Whether we like these guys or not, they still carry the same party label, and if we look divided it hurts everyone. I can just hear Rush Limbaugh and all them salivating at the chance to cover one group of Democrats protesting another group of Democrats, and I want to avoid that.

So there is a part of me that is tempted to attend the convention and infiltrate from the inside instead. There are probably a lot of DLC'ers who are not as far right as the two schmucks who wrote that memo about Dean, and it might be better to try to win some of them them over than to stand outside and disrupt their convention.

The problem is, if I were to go to the convention, I would have to pay, and I don't really want to give them my money. So I don't really know what to do. Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions?

[dsc]

1. Good question

What I would do is either ignore them completely or if I had the money attend (just go with an empty stomach and eat lots of free food that should eliminate the support problem). I think a demonstration outside is problematic for the same reason you allude to.

[VoteClark]

2. I am a Democrat thus I would go to the event and be happy to attend

I fully support the DLC. The current leaders of the DLC were the ones that got Clinton Elected and restored the economy from the first Bush Regime. For that, I am greatful. If you protest the event,PLEASE make sure you carry very big Dean for President signs. I don't want Clark and others being associated with it, we are Democrats. Thank you.

J4Clark

[dsc]

3. so you agree with them

on the war? on health care? The people who wrote that memo called us activist elites do you agree with that too? It should also be noted that the candidates which followed their strategy in 02 went down in flames.

[VoteClark]

4. Yes, I do, and here is why

During the time of war, it had a 85% approval rating. Going against the number would surely have doomed the party. Especially if WMD were found. At the time, we believed they did based on the fabricated evidence produced by the Bush administration. I don't think Dean is crediable in his attacks that voted for the War Resolution because he was not prevy to the (false) intelligence the US Senate and House of Representative were given. He was not there to vote. So I don't know how he would have voted.

I do believe that Dean supporters are very much activists. That is appearent based on the people that support him.

In terms of the 2002 elections I would like to point out a few things:

1) In off presidential elections men always vote in greater number than women. Men are more likely to vote republican. If you look at the history of the United States you will see that Republicans do better in off presidential elections and Democrats do better in presidential elections.

2) There was thing called a terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. I don't know if you remember that. But a direct attack on US soil was freigthening to many Americans. As a result, US flags were sold old, people all across the US united to help the victims of the attacks. Bush was seen as the living Symbol of the United States. Patriotism was at an all time high. You could not walk down a street in America without seeing a flag hanging out someone's window. Bush picked up a 90% approval rating. The Republicans enjoyed a 75% approval rating. I don' think it is fair to use that as an example. I would look at the 92, 96, 98, and 2000 elections to show how well they did. Not a time when the country considered itself at war.

3) Not all states lost seats. Some picked up some seats

4) If the leadership of a party is responsible for the lost of seats in their party. Then Dean is much worse. During his tenure, the Democrats lost about 20 seats in the Vermont house and was the only state to swich control from the Democrats to the Republicans.

Just join the Clark Camp, you don't have to argue so much. He is a uniter of the Democratic party.

J4Clark

[UnapologeticLiberal]

5. The Vermont House changed hands in 2000 because of civil unions

But the main story of the day there was not that the GOP took over the statehouse but that the Democrats held onto the governor's mansion and the state senate.

Of course, you can use this as proof that Dean is bad for Congressional Democrats if he gets the nomination. But by your logic, if he did the wrong thing in signing that bill because it hurt Democrats in the statehouse, then so too did Lyndon Johnson do the wrong thing by signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because he knew full well that it would doom the Democratic Party in the South.

[VoteClark]

8. I think he did both

I think that signing the bill was the wrong thing to do, for both gay people and the Vermont Democratic Party.
Saying Civil Unions are ok has created a new monster in America. It is saying giving Gays second class citizenship rights is the right thing to do. Had Dean vetoed the bill he would have forced gays to be given full marriage rights to gays through the Vermont Supreme Court ruling. This can't be appealed by the Supreme Court of the US because it is a state law issue. He should have avoided to vote and deferred to the Courts on matters of civil rights. There was not a 2/3 vote to change the constitution in Vermont.
Second, Johnson won re-election in a record landside in 1964. Granted, many changed their party affiliation because of that decision. But it did not change the people that were elected. I think what Johnson did was smart, both for civil rights and for the party. The number minorities sswitched to the Democratic party. They are now the largest group in most electoral rich states and growing.

J4Clark

[dsc]

9. Had he insisted on marriage there would have been

It only took a 2/3 vote of one body to change the constitution (VT Senate). Given a 35% approval rating for Civil Unions I don't think that would have been terribly difficult to get. Even if that hadn't happened the likelihood of a veto override was huge.

All the word marriage would have done is permit people outside of Vermont to go there and attempt to transfer that marriage in their own states. Many would then have passed mini me DOMAs to stop that.

[dsc]

6. Several things

First, Dean opposed the war as did Clark. Clark, being retired, had the same exact same official access to intelligence which is to say none. I would presume that both of them were kept informed to some extent by people who did have that access. I also think that as a declared candidate, which Dean was, he had some access to briefings (I may be wrong on that).

Second, I note you left out 94. What war were we fighing then? It should be noted that we picked up one seat in Arkansas against a hypocritical horndog. We lost one race in a plane crash, and two with DLC candidates running DLC type races.

Third, Dean's losses were caused by Civil Unions. You may have heard of them. Unless losing seats for principle is to be considered the same as losing them for cowardice then those are radically different things.

Fourth, I note you left out elites from my quote. I don't dismiss us being activists it is the elite I take issue with.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

7. He is not even running

But I think Dean or whoever gets the nomination would be smart to look closely at him for VP.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

10. I could put together something to hand out

I could probably find quotes from other Democratic governors from a few years back saying good things about Dean, or articles from when he was governor that show him fighting with the liberals in the state legislature. I know Clinton had some nice things to say recently about his record as governor (does anyone know where i can find the quote?), and there was an article recently that showed some centrist Democrats in the House saying they might support him, and I can probably find some other stuff. If anyone would like to help with this project, feel free to send me anything you can find that would help show that he IS electable.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

11. So any other suggestions?

I was really primarily asking Dean supporters, people who had suggestions for how to deal with the DLC, not to have this thread be another thread for the pro-Dean and anti-Dean people to argue.

[polpilot]

12. Democrats protesting against other democrats can't occur. Protesting

against Al From and crew is necessary. Just look at it as 'tough love' for Al & Crew.

If you go just imagine that you represent the men, women, and children who died in the 'Iraqi War'. This is not a time for timidity and you must respond as if the media and naysayers didn't exist. Protest, dissension is the foundation of democracy. Let it rip!!!

A bunch of mamby pamby get-along demos won't ever win anything...certainly not anything to be proud of. Let 'em know you're there. Have fun!!!!

Dean '04

[AZStudentsforKerry]

13. Funny...since Dean is invited

Thats kind of weird to protest an organization that your candidate was once apart of and gets invited to each year. The National Conversation is one of the most premire Democratic events of the year.

Why would anyone protest such an wonderful event?

[mdmc]

14. Protest their support of Bush

Shit it sure was popular, but what did it gey us, Democrats.

Protest their support of the war.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

15. Do you have a link for that?

He was invited to the DLC conference? I did not know that. Can you get me a link?

Anyways, I know that Philly 4 Dean is doing a party/rally near where the convention is, but it is not going to be a protest. We are also writing a letter to distribute to convention delegates. So I am a little concerned that it will be perceived the wrong way, but it should be okay.