Dean: We Oppose Gay Marriage Too

[Peacebestill]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Dean: We Oppose Gay Marriage Too


[/FONT] Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has angered supporters in the gay and lesbian community by stating that his party opposes gay marriage.
Appearing on the Christian Broadcasting Network’s program "The 700 Club” on Wednesday, Dean declared: "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says



(continued)



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/11/94300.shtml?s=lh

 

[Voegelin]

Democrats mixing politics and religion again. What happened to separation of church and state? Why is Dean appearing on the "700 Club"? Isn't that unconstitutional?

 

[Peacebestill]

Sociopaths pander to whoever happens to be listening at the time.

I sincerely hope Dean stays in charge of the DNC for a long, long time.
He is our best ally.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Dean is just like any other politician; catering to demographics in order to get elected.

 

[Eryk]

Sheer lying:

Dean: “The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says. I think where we may take exception with some religious leaders is that we believe in inclusion, that everybody deserves to live with dignity and respect, and that equal rights under the law are important.”

2004 Democratic Platform: We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Link

Pathetic.

 

[Borealis]

Sheer lying:

Dean: “The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says. I think where we may take exception with some religious leaders is that we believe in inclusion, that everybody deserves to live with dignity and respect, and that equal rights under the law are important.”

2004 Democratic Platform: We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Link

Pathetic.

Very. As Peacebestill said, Dean is the Republicans' greatest asset right now. Well, him and Kerry, Sharpton, Sheehan, Clinton, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc...

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

at least the liberals have bush on their side

 

[Borealis]

at least the liberals have bush on their side

I know this is a difficult point for the left to grasp, but Bush isn't going to be running for office in 2006 or 2008. His term is over. Why people keep talking as if they need to defeat Bush in the next election is beyond me. On the other hand, Kerry, Clinton, and possibly Dean are all potential candidates for the presidency. Thankfully, they aren't capable of disguising their utter incompatibility with mainstream Americans.

 

[blueapplepaste]

I really don't like Dean. We need a new head of the DNC. Desperately.

 

[Voegelin]

Next Dean will say poverty does not cause crime, government handing out preferences based on race is racist and Americans are over-taxed.

 

[JustOneWay]

I know this is a difficult point for the left to grasp, but Bush isn't going to be running for office in 2006 or 2008. His term is over. Why people keep talking as if they need to defeat Bush in the next election is beyond me. On the other hand, Kerry, Clinton, and possibly Dean are all potential candidates for the presidency. Thankfully, they aren't capable of disguising their utter incompatibility with mainstream Americans.

Who says Bush needs to be defeated in the next election? We all know Bush is not running again.... Perhaps you are confused.

Aren't you Canadian? Do you spend much time in America to reach your conclusions, or is it just something you read?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I really don't like Dean. We need a new head of the DNC. Desperately.

Honestly, you really don't have any options for a good leader.

 

[Voegelin]

Sheer lying . . . Pathetic.

Then why are certain left wing publications and the "activists" who support them screaming about what Dean said? I would quote a few of them but I believe linking to them here is not allowed. But you know who I mean.

 

[Vylo]

I know this is a difficult point for the left to grasp, but Bush isn't going to be running for office in 2006 or 2008.

Bush doesn't have to run. He is doing wonders at destroying his party's credibility.

 

[chalice_thunder]

I know this is a difficult point for the left to grasp, but Bush isn't going to be running for office in 2006 or 2008. His term is over. Why people keep talking as if they need to defeat Bush in the next election is beyond me. On the other hand, Kerry, Clinton, and possibly Dean are all potential candidates for the presidency. Thankfully, they aren't capable of disguising their utter incompatibility with mainstream Americans.

Perhaps ImmortalTechnique meant that, regardless of the fact that Bush is basically done, it will unite the democrats at the polls, especially if he continues:

his plowing the country deeper & deeper into debt
his mismanagement of the unnecessary Irag mess
his attempts to circumvent and/or shred the consitution
his avalanche-slide in approval ratings

Unfortunately, as I have said before, it is going to be a massive clean-up operation. At least the dems are willing to do it.

 

[Borealis]

Perhaps ImmortalTechnique meant that, regardless of the fact that he is basically done, it will unite the democrats at the polls, especially if Bush continues:

his plowing the country deeper & deeper into debt

No arguments here; cutting spending seems to have fallen off the federal radar entirely down there. At least up here we elected a Conservative government that actually IS reducing spending while cutting taxes. It's a small step, but that's what you have to take in a minority government. Next year it'll be a majority.

his mismanagement of the unnecessary Irag mess

Strange, because all the reliable sources I've seen say that Iraq is going quite well. Of course, I ignore the mainstream media since their agenda has been clearly defined since 2000 anyway.

his attempts to circumvent and/or shred the consitution

Which part? I hear this often but it's never actually defined.

his avalanche-slide in approval ratings

The NYT/CBS poll (link)from last week said Bush had a 31% approval rating. The same one gave Congress a 23% approval rating. Hillary's at 34%. John McCain's at 31%. Kerry's at 26%. Al Gore's at 28%. So this isn't just a 'Bush' issue. Politicians of all stripes are looking to take a trip behind the woodshed from voters.

Unfortunately, as I have said before, it is going to be a massive clean-up operation. At least the dems are willing to do it.

Sorry, but I simply don't trust the Democrats to do a real cleanup job anymore than I trusted the Liberals to do so up here. The Dems were in power for 40+ years and didn't clean anything up; if anything, they just made it worse. Claiming they're going to do it now is either wishful thinking or deliberate ostriching.

 

[chalice_thunder]

No arguments here; cutting spending seems to have fallen off the federal radar entirely down there. At least up here we elected a Conservative government that actually IS reducing spending while cutting taxes. It's a small step, but that's what you have to take in a minority government. Next year it'll be a majority.

Good luck to you all on that. I don't see it happening...but, who knows?

Strange, because all the reliable sources I've seen say that Iraq is going quite well. Of course, I ignore the mainstream media since their agenda has been clearly defined since 2000 anyway.

Again with the fallacy of the "liberal" mainstream media.
You are welcome to your opinion. IMO, the negative outweighs the positive at this point.

Which part? I hear this often but it's never actually defined.

Well we can start with the 750+ "signing statements."

George Washington University Constitutional Scholar Jonathan Turley said yesterday:
Well, first of all this President's theory of his power I think is now so extreme that it's unprecedented. He believes that he has the inherent authority to violate federal law. He has said that. Not just the signing statements and the infamous torture memo-that Alberto Gonzales signed. It was stated that he could in some circumstances order federal officials to violate federal law and this is consistent across the board with this President. Frankly, I'm not too sure what he thought he was swearing to when he took the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and our laws. I've never seen a President who is so uncomfortable in his constitutional skin.

The NYT/CBS poll (link)from last week said Bush had a 31% approval rating. The same one gave Congress a 23% approval rating. Hillary's at 34%. John McCain's at 31%. Kerry's at 26%. Al Gore's at 28%. So this isn't just a 'Bush' issue. Politicians of all stripes are looking to take a trip behind the woodshed from voters.

But Bush is the one in the Oval Office. People are not paying a lot of attention to the polling data of others - mainly the precipitous slide of Bush...and well-deserved it is.

Sorry, but I simply don't trust the Democrats to do a real cleanup job anymore than I trusted the Liberals to do so up here. The Dems were in power for 40+ years and didn't clean anything up; if anything, they just made it worse. Claiming they're going to do it now is either wishful thinking or deliberate ostriching.

I dispute your assertion that they made it worse. Especially in the last 5 years - we are not the ones holding power. The mess clearly sits with the agenda-driven GOP, Bush, and his PNAC handlers.

It's amazing to me that anyone can lack trust in the democrats at a time dirty politics and power grabbing is overwhelmingly (in the extreme) republican.

 

[Eryk]

Then why are certain left wing publications and the "activists" who support them screaming about what Dean said? I would quote a few of them but I believe linking to them here is not allowed. But you know who I mean.

Perhaps you missed what I said.. I'm calling Dean a pathetic liar.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

The funny thing that republicans don't quite grasp about what Bush means to their party: Obviously Bush cannot run again. We all know this. What it shows, and why Republicans need to be scared, is because America doesn't like BUsh's agenda and policy. For midterm elections, this is a substantial problem for Republicans running, because they have rubberstamped every single thing that Bush allows, without ever doing anything about it. So, Bush's agenda, Bush's policies --the ones that Americans do not like-- are the Republican agenda and Republican policy. And guess what. Republicans haven't come out with a new agenda or new policy. Their current plan seems to be to simply speculate on what ifs, if Democrats get elected. Guess what. Americans aren't going to buy it.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Perhaps you missed what I said.. I'm calling Dean a pathetic liar.

And he is a pathetic liar. After the blogswarm hits, it'll be interesting how Dean responds, because, well, we know he can't be silent. He owes his entire political career to netroots, so he certainly won't be silent.