Tartar, Just on his initiative to provide universal health care for our children is enough for me! Sounds like a great humanitarian. c.i.
This is a really long thread, and some participants may not have read it from the beginning so I'm re-posting a quotation I posted way back on page 2.
re: civil unions
"You can always compromise when you are fighting over money, but there can never be a compromise when it comes to human rights. I never got to have the discussion with myself about whether or not this was a good idea for my political career. I knew I had to live with myself in or out of politics for the rest of my life, and that if I didn't support civil rights for every American, I'd just be another competent manager rotating through political office, who never stood up when confronted with a choice. I could have been politically expedient, or I could have done what was right."
This speaks volumes about Dean, about his character. No candidate can be in sync with all the voters on every issue, but the character issue is (IMO) essential for strong, honest, trust-inspiring leadership. Here is a guy with the courage to do the right thing, even when it means taking a risky unpopular stand.
Unlike some public officials, when Dean uses the phrase "my fellow Americans", I guess he means ALL Americans. This kind of attitude change and genuine integrity are long overdue at the top of our government.
I don't agree with sanctioning gay marriage - it might be the only bone I have to pick with Dean...
but it is an excellent point you raise about it being a sign of character that he would support something simply because he thought it the right thing to do, regardless of the poitical fallout.
snood: Dean supports gay civil unions, not gay marriages. Civil unions insure the same legal and human rights to gay couples that are afforded to straight couples. It says nothing about "marriage" which is the domain of organized religion, and a separate issue.
This guy sounds better every day. c.i.
A minor point on Dean's comment but it seems to push him toward the typical political side-show of taking credit for things he had little control over.
"You can always compromise when you are fighting over money, but there can never be a compromise when it comes to human rights. I never got to have the discussion with myself about whether or not this was a good idea for my political career. I knew I had to live with myself in or out of politics for the rest of my life, and that if I didn't support civil rights for every American, I'd just be another competent manager rotating through political office, who never stood up when confronted with a choice. I could have been politically expedient, or I could have done what was right."
Gee, that almost sounds like he means it. Unfortunately he didn't have to risk any political capital. The Vermont Supreme Court ORDERED the state Legislature to draft legislation recognizing Civil Unions and he was ORDERED to sign it or the State Supreme Court would step in and make the rules.
Maybe his comment does speak volumes about his character. He is a politician after all... He wouldn't be the first to claim credit for something he had no control over.
but then the Vermont State Supreme Court is not running for president.
Quote:Just on his initiative to provide universal health care for our children is enough for me! Sounds like a great humanitarian.
I think Carter was/is a great humanitarian. I also think he proved to be a lousy president.
As for government run health care--I'm afraid that's where we're heading, and it will further destroy the best health care system in the world.
Thanks for the reminder, Angie! Howard Dean strikes me as not only supporting freedom but actually being a free person, not something one can say about many people. Freedom takes courage. Some part of his feet are undoubtedly made of clay, but that aspect of his character -- that freedom and courage-- will insure my support!
Tres -- Dean's health package for children is a state program, not a federal one. That in itself is a bonus.
Here is a link to his website.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/
One of the most positive things we can do right now is contribute to his campaign, even if it's a pittance. It indicates to him that he's getting support, that we like what he's saying.
Angie, that distinction doesn't really affect my opposition. And I didn't intend to argue that point, because my opposition doesn't affect my support of his candidacy.
fishin'
Dean has made it clear on several occasions that HE BELIEVES IN civil unions, and in civil, legal, and human rights for ALL citizens, including gay people. Even if he was ordered to sign the legislation (and I believe you when you say he was), he could have made it quite clear that it was not a position which he personally believed in. He didn't, because he does.
Here in Massachusetts, we have a governor who has made it unquestionably and emphatically clear that he personally does NOT support civil unions. He would, of course, do whatever the courts ordered, but his personal belief is that gay couples ought not to have legally sanctioned unions.
I think it's clear that Dean was doing not only what the courts ordered, but what his heart and conscience dictated.
Tartarin wrote:Tres -- Dean's health package for children is a state program, not a federal one. That in itself is a bonus.
Yes, if a state wants to take that on, that's their choice, of course. I would be concerned that his support for the concept might extend to the federal level, as others here clearly seem to think.
Tres: I think the idea is that federal money would return to the states to set up their own programs -- I don't necessarily mean Dean's idea (I don't really know the details what he proposes in that sense) -- is the idea that is even now being considered in Congress.
Re: civil unions. To me this is a no-brainer. To the extent that the state is involved in unions ("marriage") by offering special benefits, tax breaks, whatever; and to the extent that the state sanctions health organizations and employers offering benefits to some partnerships but not others; that's the extent to which we discriminate against partnerships not receiving those benefits. The only thing preventing the treatment of unmarried partners of whatever sex these benefits is religious belief. We know that our laws prevent a collaboration between state and church. To those who are squeamish about acknowledging other kinds of partnerships I'd say, freedom, justice, and equality may not be your package but it's the one offered by this society so maybe you should just try to get used to it!
In answer to the musings about Dean's fiscal responsibility:
His educational funds sharing program made it possible for poorer communities to have the same financial backing as those who were better off. Dean has taken heat from Vermont Democrats for being too fiscally conservative. He cut income taxes in Vermont three times, removed the sales tax on most clothing and shoes, and since 1996, reduced his State's per capita debt by 23 percent.
He resisted, and resists, Bush's educational plan (labeled "no child left behind") as a federal handout, which would do less for his State than Dean has already done for education, and better. This doesn’t fit with the often bandied about image of Democrats eager to spend the government’s money.
http://www.fundforahealthyamerica.com/VermontRecord.asp
http://www.e-thepeople.org/a-national/article/13554/view
Sorry about the distorted words... I previewed my comments on a 'word' document, and when I c & p'd it, that happened...
Tartarin wrote:
"The only thing preventing the treatment of unmarried partners of whatever sex these benefits is religious belief. We know that our laws prevent a collaboration between state and church. To those who are squeamish about acknowledging other kinds of partnerships I'd say, freedom, justice, and equality may not be your package but it's the one offered by this society so maybe you should just try to get used to it."
Amen.
angie wrote:fishin'
Dean has made it clear on several occasions that HE BELIEVES IN civil unions, and in civil, legal, and human rights for ALL citizens, including gay people. Even if he was ordered to sign the legislation (and I believe you when you say he was), he could have made it quite clear that it was not a position which he personally believed in. He didn't, because he does.
Here in Massachusetts, we have a governor who has made it unquestionably and emphatically clear that he personally does NOT support civil unions. He would, of course, do whatever the courts ordered, but his personal belief is that gay couples ought not to have legally sanctioned unions.
I think it's clear that Dean was doing not only what the courts ordered, but what his heart and conscience dictated.
angie - The point is that he didn't expend any political capital contrary to his assertions that he disreguarded any possible future political implications of his actions. He's taking credit for the Civil Unions law in VT right now. We'll have to see if it becomes a liability and he changes his tune and starts saying how he didn't have any choice (which is more accurate..).
That's not to say he isn't a better candidate than others in the ring but it does show that he IS a politician which puts him in the same ring with all of the other politicians. (The ring of poop! lol)
Tartarin wrote: Re: civil unions. To me this is a no-brainer. To the extent that the state is involved in unions ("marriage") by offering special benefits, tax breaks, whatever; and to the extent that the state sanctions health organizations and employers offering benefits to some partnerships but not others; that's the extent to which we discriminate against partnerships not receiving those benefits.
Why not just decouple the administration of benefits from the institution of marriage entirely? By going from the current system to allowing Civil Unions (or same sex marriages) just changes the scope of discrimination. You've still left everyone that isn't in any committed relationship out.
Quote:The only thing preventing the treatment of unmarried partners of whatever sex these benefits is religious belief. We know that our laws prevent a collaboration between state and church. To those who are squeamish about acknowledging other kinds of partnerships I'd say, freedom, justice, and equality may not be your package but it's the one offered by this society so maybe you should just try to get used to it!
The
ONLY thing? If that's true then the ONLY thing making murder a crime is religious belief. Shall we abandon that too? Maybe we should just try it and get used to it... <removes tongue from cheek> (btw, there is NO law that prevents "collaboration" between church and state in the US. There is a Constitutional clause that prohibits the establishment of a state religion and limits the government's ability to interfere in the administration of religious groups.. They are however, free to collaborate to various levels at any time.)
