The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party

[dansolo]

The one thing that really annoys me is the assertion that being from the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" is automatically equated with being strongly liberal, just because Paul Wellstone had originally said it. I firmly believe that both Paul Wellstone and Howard Dean meant the same exact thing when they used the phrase. There is a description of what Paul Wellstone meant by his phrase in this article, and I don't see a lot of difference from what Dean is doing now.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-10-673.jsp

"Paul Wellstone invited us to dream, but he was not a dreamer. He urged people – particularly young people – to get involved. He fought ceaselessly about the direction of his party and the country. When Paul considered running for president in 2000, he traveled to Iowa, announcing that he was the candidate of the ‘Democratic wing of the Democratic Party’. He was in open revolt against the money wing, warning that the party could not thrive compromised by the same entrenched interests that fund Republicans. He was a small ‘d’ democrat, a warrior for democracy. He pushed to get big money out of politics, to limit the ability of lobbyists to curry favor with gifts and trips."

[Dagaz]

1. That bugs me too

I define the Democratic Party as a strong party a la FDR, Truman and JFK. Wellstone was a Greenie in Demos clothing and was pretty close to Nader on the issues.

On edit it should be called the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party.

[Bucky]

15. That's unfair to Wellstone. He was around before we had Greens

The tragedy that I see here is that Dean lifted this "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" tag line off a dead man--a dead man who would certainly disagree with many of the domestic policy positions that Dean takes.

[dpbrown]

2. How do you get money out by avoiding fundraising limits

If there's not "a lot of difference" between Paul Wellstone's entreaty to not compromise with the entrenched interests that fund Republicans, then how do you reconcile that with Dean's decision to avoid spending limits?

I think Russ Feingold's win in Wisconsin by keeping to his pledge to avoid taking special interest money is closer to what Wellstone had in mind, rather than Dean's rationale that in order to take over the government you've got to beat the Republicans at their own fundraising game.

[dansolo]

3. Did you even bother to read the last sentence?

"He pushed to get big money out of politics, to limit the ability of lobbyists to curry favor with gifts and trips."

The bulk of Dean's money is coming from the people, not special interests. You can't deny the fact that Bush is going to have lots of money, and on top of that he has the power of incumbancy and a sycophantic media. I'm amazed that Dean may be able to have enough money to fight Bush without having to rely on big money. It would be admirable if Dean could be in a situation where he didn't need to raise money, but until campaigns are publicly funded and the fairness doctrine reinstated, it is political suicide to not have enough money, especially against someone like Bush.

[Lefta Dissenter]

4. Isn't the opt-out just for the primaries,

and opt-in or -out separately for the General Election?

And yes, I agree on Feingold. How many candidates painted their campaign pledges on their garage doors for the world to see, and have lived up to every one of them??? He also has given back all raises that the Senate has awarded itself while he has been in office. AND he was the ONLY Senator to vote against the Patriot Act.

edit: and I talked with a woman the other day - she has just moved here from Minnesota. She is extremely offended by Dean's use of the Wellstone quote.

[dpbrown]

7. Yes, it's just for the Primaries, as I understand it

Dean believes he'll be positioned better by being able to continue to raise funds through the Primary, even past "hitting the limit" and has tried to allay other candidates' concerns that he will use that "excess" money against them.

[Jerseycoa]

14. Thanks

I was very concerned about this and hadn't heard Dean decided to adhere to limits for the primary. Good news.

[dpbrown]

6. Snide retort aside, you buy that Dean's beating Bush at his own game

If you're just looking for a fight, take it somewhere else.

You proposed that Wellstone's idea of the Democratic "wing" is the same as Dean's and I asked you to reconcile the two on the idea of public funding.

Your response is that you buy into the idea that Dean's contributions are "mostly" small, so it's okay for him to get however many it takes from AOL Executives, big PACS, or Vermont power company executives to bulk up his coffers to try to compete with Bush head-to-head in fundraising "prowess" - wagging his "fundraiser" in front of Bush wagging his "fundraiser" as they both stand at the trough in the men's room.

Somehow, I don't think that's what Wellstone had in mind.

Therefore I disagree with your proposal that Wellstone and Dean had the same thing in mind when they claimed to be representing the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

[CTLawGuy]

5. i interpret "Democratic Wing of the Democratic party"

to mean the wing of the party that is not defined by reaction. It's the wing that, while criticizing and disliking Bush, wants to have its own identity and is not ashamed to publicly take "unpopular" positions, if they genuinely have those positions. They want our party to stand for something, not necessarily to be far-left, but to be unlike Bush. What Bush does DOESN'T MATTER to this wing of the party.

This is in contrast to the "fear-of-Bush" wing, which bases its positions on what Bush is doing and what is "popular". They criticize Bush when it is safe, but when he looks good they cower and try to look like they agreed with him.

Iraq is a case in point. Last Oct, when the war had 70% popularity, the FOB wing, supported it to avoid being called "liberal". The Democratic Wing opposed it because it was wrong, not caring that the media might call them "liberal". When the war started to go badly, the FOB Dems said "I voted for the resolution for (insert lame excuse), but I don't agree with how he's handling it." When Bush loses gravitas, the FOB can criticize him. Of course the Democratic Wing stood by their assertion that the war was wrong when it was going well, as well as when it was going poorly. Finally, after Saddam was caught, Bush gained gravitas and the FOB went into full fear-mode. "I voted for the resolution that we used to capture Saddam, now the war isjustified. Aren't I smart?" And the Democratic Wing said "Saddam was an evil man, and it is good he will face justice, but the war was still wrong and should never have happened. We are no safer now that Saddam is gone."

in short:
Democratic Wing: Dems that take positions and stick with them regardless of what Bush does. the party should have an identity, could be either left or moderate.

FOB wing: Takes no real positions, bases rhetoric on what Bush does and how the polls react. No one knows what the party really stands for and no one is excited by it. See elections (massacre) of 2002

[bread_and_roses]

9. good points there....but

on every one of them, DK is far stronger than Dean.

[CTLawGuy]

10. I never said DK wasn't a member

I respect DK for being unmoving. the D-wing could be either liberal or moderate or a combination, but they must have unique ideas and positions they stick to. DK has that in SPADES.

Dean is a moderate, but he has REAL positions, Dennis is a liberal with real positions. I think more people agree with Dean and the moderates. Just my opinion though

[bread_and_roses]

8. at a bare minimum

"Democrats" have stood for progressive taxation, labor rights, and supports for the poor. Dean's proposed tax policy does not meet that criteria, in my estimation, and is one of the major reasons I do not support him. His health care plan preserves the profiteering of the drug companies and insurers, a la Clinton's plan, and is doomed to failure for the same reasons.

[CTLawGuy]

11. huh?

repealing the bush tax cut is not progressive???

Do you LIKE the bush tax cuts?

Since when do liberals care about low taxes?

[bread_and_roses]

12. Repealing the tax cuts

for low and middle income is NOT progressive. Look at the history of tax policy over the past twenty years, if you think otherwise. Correct me if I am wrong (as I am sure someone will) but does he not even propose repealing the child tax credit? However "paltry" some here believe that to be, it is significant to many low wage workers. And please, don't tell me that the trade off is for health care: Dean is NOT proposing universal care, nor can he even assure delivery of what he IS proposing. Low and middle income workers would lose the little tax relief they have without necessarly getting any relief in health care costs in return. But I don't know why I am even typing this...all these things have been said here before...the bang your head against the wall syndrome, I guess.

And please...disagreement with a Dean position does NOT equate to support for Bush, and I for one am tired of this accusation.

[quaker bill]

13. You lose more in services

than you save in taxes under Bush. Do the math, most of the total dollars goes to the richest few. Those dollars would have otherwise been spent on services that benefit the majority.

Further the most regressive federal tax, social security (or the payroll tax) is being used to fund the deficit spending. The truly rich pay the payroll tax too. However since they reach the $85,000.00 income cap on January 1 or 2, (some well before noon Jan 1) they stop paying the tax.

Most people on the other hand will pay 15 cents on every dollar they earn for the rest of their lives. This money is funding the deficit and is basically being used to give tax cuts to the rich. Deficit spending is an injustice to the minimum wage worker who is currently taxed excessively to pay for breaks for the rich.

[bread_and_roses]

17. I do not oppose

rescinding the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, nor closing corporate "loopholes" (a misnomer if ever there was one), or even actually RAISING taxes on corporations. I am quite familiar with how the tax burden is distributed, as well as how the wealth is distributed, something which is too often left out of this discussion. The shift in wealth combined with decreasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations are the factors bankrupting services and programs...not the paltry tax cuts to low and middle class earners. This has been going on since at least the Reagan years. It is the total pattern over the last 20-30 years that makes it bad policy and unjust to rescind the tax cuts for the lower and middle income earners.

[Egnever]

18. His plan goes further than just recinding the tax cuts

First, we must create economic growth and jobs new jobs, more jobs, and better jobs for Americans;

Second, we must return to fiscal sanity, for the sake of future generations, yes but also for the sake of our very national security. We cannot be a world-class country if we are the world's largest debtor;

Finally, we must reform our tax system. When I am President, I will work to repeal the top heavy Bush tax cuts, and replace them with a system that is fairer, and simpler, and places less of a burden on working Americans who live off their paychecks.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7343

[bread_and_roses]

19. That sounds great

and he can start by concentrating on rescinding those "top heavy" cuts and leaving the cuts to "working Americans who live off their paychecks" in place. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that there is any commonality in the tax burden borne by ordinary wage-earners and those in the upper (+/- a % point or so) 5%.

[genius]

16. THe line was stolen from Wellstone

For a conservative like Dean to use it is an insult to Wellstone.