The Progressive Case for Dean

This might help explain why (if you think Dean is one of the most right wing democratic candidates for some reason) he is getting lots of support from the left.

The Progressive Case for Dean
by Nico Pitney

<...>

Dean's Vermont "has one of the most progressive environmental programmes in America" according to the London Times. As former Vermont radio and television talk show host Jeff Kaufman points out, "uring his decade in office, Governor Dean helped protect more land from development than all previous governors combined; ... he administered a 'best practices' agriculture plan that preserves land and water quality; he helped form the nation's first statewide energy efficiency utility (preventing more than one million tons of greenhouse gas emissions since 2000); and he championed a commuter rail system to lower traffic congestion and pollution while diminishing urban sprawl (in its last report on sprawl, the Sierra Club ranked Vermont as the second best state in America for land use planning)." Vermont also followed California's lead in establishing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions that go beyond standards set in the Kyoto Protocol. According to the New York Times, Dean "is calling for the auto industry to build cars that get 40 miles per gallon by 2015 and for 20 percent of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. ... s president he would close the loophole that exempts sport utility vehicles from gas-mileage standards, ... make the Environmental Protection Agency cabinet level and work to re-establish the Clinton administration rules limiting roads in national forests." Even when Dean was judged less favorably on environmental issues, the executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council Elizabeth Courtney recognizes that pressing economic circumstances impacted his decisions ("in the early 90s the rest of the country seemed to be pulling out of the recession and Vermont seemed to be languishing in it") and acknowledges Dean's general qualities as governor: "fresh candor and intelligence. You always know where Howard Dean stands. He is candid and honest in his communications with Vermonters, and he is appreciated for that. He's also very bright, and he has a clear sense of his direction." The San Francisco Chronicle reported that " Pope said that although the Sierra Club had some disagreements with Dean's land-use policies, Dean did 'fabulous things in Vermont.'"

Plus, it now seems that Dean's hard-line fiscal policies may have paid some dividends. While virtually every state in the nation cuts funding for vital social services, Vermont ended the fiscal year with a $10.4 million General Fund surplus. For this accomplishment, Stephen Klein, chief fiscal officer for the current Vermont legislature, says that "Dean gets a large amount of credit." But Dean isn't as fiscally conservative as was suggested by Paul Wellstone's former press secretary Jim Farrell. Farrell argued in The Nation that Dean "targeted for elimination the public-financing provision of the state's campaign finance law," cut education spending, and proposed "deep cuts in Medicaid." These claims are all true, but Farrell leaves out critical details. Dean, who is a strong supporter of publicly financed campaigns, used the money from the public-financing fund to help balance Vermont's budget only after a federal court judge ruled that the spending limits provision in the campaign finance law was unconstitutional, meaning that the fund would sit untouched. Facing large state deficits, Dean proposed cuts in the amount of state funds to education because "dramatic increases in property values" already had produced an education fund that was "flush to overflowing with money," according to the Associated Press. The proposal to cut Medicaid was hardly serious; it was made as a threat to force the Vermont legislature to pass a 75-cent tax on tobacco products that Dean desired (the tax revenues actually went to fund Medicaid), a move supported by Vermont's PIRG and all of the state's major medical associations.

Dean not only signed the first bill in the United States recognizing civil unions for same-sex couples, but did it 6 months before his gubernatorial election when it was opposed by two-thirds of Vermont's population. According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Dean differs from top-ranked Kucinich and Braun only on the issue of gay marriage, and is unique among top-tier Democrats in supporting federally enforced equal rights legislation and GLBT-supportive education policies (Kerry and Gephardt only support state-based civil union legislation and both voted for "an amendment to the Improving America’s Schools Act prohibiting federal funds 'for instructional materials, instruction, counseling, or other services on school grounds, from being used for the promotion of homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative'"). Dean, who sat on the board of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England for five years, is perhaps the strongest Democratic candidate in regard to abortion rights. The New Republic's coverage of a presidential forum on abortion rights mentioned that "Dean took partial-birth abortion, NARAL's most controversial and difficult-to-defend position, and made it the centerpiece of his speech, insisting that the term itself was an artifice manufactured by the right. 'This is an issue about nothing,' he proclaimed to the most boisterous applause of the evening." Dean strongly opposes parental notification and implemented a program in Vermont that provides specialized child care, health services and home visitation to all families, regardless of income. He wants to sign the UN's 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and ratify the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Apart from his platform and its flaws, however, Dean should be commended by progressives for accomplishing what social justice movements so often work toward and only rarely achieve - his campaign is creatively utilizing the Internet to facilitate large-scale independent organizing, and drawing significant numbers of new and disillusioned voters into the political process, getting many of them to contribute their time and energy away from the computer screen.

Glad to see it!

for actually getting things done. I like that in a progressive president. :-)

This guy is a leader with a heart who gets things done. His appeal to moderates and liberals and white males is profound. This is great because traditionally the Democratic Party has a problem with white males.

Good News for lower income people who need health care too.

This guy is the man. He may be better than Clinton.

I would, of course, take Clinton over Bush* any day but I'm tired of middle-of-the-road policies and politicians being praised as progressives. Clinton was an Eisenhower Republican so far as economic policies go. He gave us NAFTA and GATT. Thousands of American jobs are now being done by people in India and other cheap labor countries. Dean just wants to change NAFTA a bit. He doesn't get it because none of his physician friends or stockbroker friends have had their jobs exported out from under them. He doesn't get it that corporations always want the cheapest labor they can get.

Dean lost more Democrats to the Democratic Party becasue of his conservative politics....He lost them to the Vermont Progressive Party.

A great deal got done in Vermont over Deans head, and not with his approval.

Dean inherited a virtually pristine state which dusing his tenure lost 26 percetn of its small family owned farms, rezoned lands from agricultural to manufacuting purposes (in order to bring in a Canadian Plastics factory, the largest plastic bottle making factory in the U.S..) Cut Deans with one Lucien Breton, to bring in another enormous porks and bacon processing plant and egg farm , the kind that Iowans are asking presidential candidates what they will do to restrict.

As usual. Dean takes a great deal of credit where little is due.

Vermont PROGRESSIVES point to his bringing in massive chain stores, putting many small family businesses out of business, supporting massive real estate developent, and paving over more of the state than had been done in the prior fifty years:

Dean's record, however, shows just the opposite. Remember, when Dean took office there were no Wal-Marts in Vermont; there was no Home Depots; Burlington's downtown was dominated by local stores not the national chains that now rule the roost; there were 36% more small farmers in existence; there were no 100,000-hen mega-farms; and sprawl wasn't a word on the tip of everyone's tongue.

Interestingly, Dean told the Free Press last week that he wished the rest of "the country were more like Vermont." But it certainly seems Dean has been doing his best to make Vermont more like the rest of the country.

Stephanie Kaplan, a leading environmental lawyer and the former executive officer of Vermont's Environmental Board, has seen the regulatory process under Dean become so slanted against environmentalists and concerned citizens that she hardly thinks its worth putting up a fight anymore.


http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html

DAFM is not responsive, is not providing a high level of service, is not regulating pesticide use, is not providing information, and is not supportive of Vermont's dairy farmers. Something is terribly wrong when our agriculture policies expose Vermonters to unhealthy pesticides and infringe on the economic viability of our family farms. Vermonters should have a right to farm, but no one, not even farmers, have a right to pollute the waters of the state, nor do they have the right to expose neighbors to the increased risk of birth defects or cancers by their misuse of highly toxic pesticides. The right to farm that DAFM is protecting in Highgate is factory food production, at the expense of the family farm. Allowing collateral damage is not acceptable agricultural practice.

The legislature set up the Vermont Pesticide Advisory Council “to suggest programs for wise and effective pesticide use that lead to an overall reduction in the use of pesticides in Vermont.” In its 15 years of existence, VPAC has not dealt with the subject of the use of pesticides in agriculture.

Our Governor, our legislators and our courts have failed to protect Vermonters from the big money, corporate farming and chemical company interests whose agenda is being carried out by the current Agriculture Czar.


http://www.vtce.org/deancrisisagvt.html


Speaking of Dean's "Agriculture Czar":

USDA Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy was fired because he accepted gifts and trips by Tyson Foods. It is illegal for the secretary to accept favors from those he is supposed to regulate. Vermonters deserve the same protection. Leon Graves spent many days wining and dining Lucien Breton of the Vermont Egg Factory and he was overly concerned about Dan Smith's lobbying payments. At the very least he is guilty of the appearance of impropriety by being overly friendly with those that he, and only he, is authorized to regulate. Representative democracy should involve more than just lobbyists and state bureaucrats, but also the citizens and the communities who have to live with the results.

For Farm Connection

http://together.net/~wudchuck/987_watchman_34.html

because the progressive party got like 10%.

after he signed a bill that was at 1/3 public support and campaigned on having done so. I have no doubt in my mind that some of that 10% came from leftists opposed to gay rights (admittedly that party wasn't opposed to them) that couldn't bear voting for the right wing shill who was running as a Republican. If you ask me why I think that I can refer you to any gay marriage thread here to see the type of people I mean.

was because Dean did NOT push harder for gay marriage. I might be able to get the link hold on. http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3867
It looks like the total opposite of what you said that the progressive party candiate, Mr. Pollina ran because civil unions werent enough.

I specifically claimed that the party did favor gay rights. I was quite clear and you just either didn't read that or ignored it. But I do think that more than a few leftists who either didn't give two shits about gay rights or out right opposed them voted for that man. I think many who think that way post here. They couldn't vote for that Republican but figured denying Dean was good.

thats not my point, I think vermont liberals being pretty liberal thought that civil unions werent enough, things like this have happened before.

Dean got in the upper 90% of gay votes that year. We knew (I don't live in VT but am gay) that if he went down due to us being ingrates that no politician would take our calls again. The vast majority of the people who voted for that progressive candidate are straight, white, males who had and have no need of any government benefits. And many of those, I would be willing to bet, are like an awful lot of Greens here who don't give a rats ass about gay rights. I am not saying all but many. I can name of the top of my head if need be (PM me for a list) of Green type voters who consistently post threads that at best can be said to be dismissive of gay rights. In short I will take the man who actually did something over the man who didn't.

I agree with you though someone who does something over someone who wont. Its ok I wasnt mad, but it looked like common sense to me.

When that 35 percent statistic Dean gives was take. In December, after the supreme court determined that either gays be allowed to marry, or be offered some other sort of legal status, the idea that gays be allopwed to marry polled at 35 percent. By April, when the bill had been written, and passed both houses, the levels of support were 44 percent for the Civil Union Laws, and 52 percent against, but the margin of error in these polls was 9 percent, Meaning that half of the state supported it, and half did not.

Vermont Voters May Not Deliver Backlash
Wednesday, 3 May 2000

MONTPELIER, Vt. -- Based on the results of a recent poll, the Rutland Herald reports a majority of Vermonters disapprove of the civil unions bill signed into law last week, but with regard to upcoming gubernatorial and legislative elections, it does not appear the granting of legal benefits to same-gender couples will be a defining campaign issue for most voters.


The poll conducted last week by the Rutland Herald, Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and WCAX Channel 3 News, said that 52 percent of those polled said they disapproved of the civil unions bill, and 43 percent said they approved. But within those opposing the effort, only 16 expressed strong disapproval.

Asked if the issue would have an impact on their vote, only 24 percent said it would be important: 5 percent rated it as "very important," and 19 percent said it was "somewhat important."

Just over half of those polled (51 percent) said the issue wouldn't have much weight. Of those, 33 percent said it was "not very important," and 18 percent said it would not affect their vote at all. A quarter of the voters surveyed said they were not sure how passage of the civil unions bill would influence their choice in the governor's race.

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=6916

When Dena signed that bill, the signed were that three was enough support for it for Dena to not be troubled by it.

Besides, it is not courageous to sign a bil that the Supreme Court said you had to sign.

Dean chose the lesser of what he saw as two evils. The supreme court gave him only two choices. To allow gays to the same rights to marriage as non-gays, or to pass civil legislation, allowing gays parallel rights.

Oh he did have a third option. To refuse to sign the legislation and the be found in contempt of court, in violation of his oath as governor, and to be removed from office. I forgot that other option he could have taken.

either take a stats call or stop quoting stats. A poll with 44 in favor and 52 against and a 9 percent MOE can fall anywhere from 35 in favor to 53 in favor and from 43 opposed and 61 in favor. In other words MOE's aren't one way like you are always, and without exception, pretending they are. It is every bit as likely that that 35 percent of Vermont citizens favored civil unions when that poll was taken as it is that 53% of Vermonters did. And if you don't know that you need to take a class and if you do know that and posted what you did then you are being dishonest. You have made this error way too many times and in way too many contexts for me to simply think it is an error.

As usual you forget about him stalling for time and changing the Constitution as I HAVE POSTED THREE TIMES IN DETAIL HOW IT COULD BE DONE. Again this is no mistake it is dishonesty.

So many people left the democratic party that Dean was not worried about republican opposition, but liberal opposition:

There are a number of Democrats and a number of Catholics who I have lost the support of, and I need to get that support back. The biggest problem for me (in November) is (Progressive) Anthony (Pollina). Anthony is going to take votes away from me and he’s not going to take any votes away from (Republican) Ruth (Dwyer). So actually the better he does, the more likely it is that Ruth Dwyer is going to be Governor.

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jun2000/news06_dean%20.htm

Actually the republican opponent got 38 percent of the vote. Dean just squaked by to the 50 percent required to win (thoerwise the legislature deciides who will be governor by secrret ballot) and the Progressive candidate, Anthony Pollina took ten percent of the vote away from Dean. Dean lived in fear of Progressives, not Republicans:



Dean kept his distance from his party’s liberals during his governorship.

"He seemed to take glee in attacking us at every opportunity and using us as a way to form alliances with more conservative elements," said former state Sen. Cheryl Rivers, a leader of the state Democrats’ liberal wing and former chairwoman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.

Dean fashioned himself a position in the political center of Vermont politics even as the state has moved steadily to the left...

"Certainly the Democratic caucus was never 100 percent behind him and where there were differences, it was around how progressive or how moderate he was," Chard said.

Rivers blames Dean for helping a third political party to flourish in Vermont that many say siphons votes from Democrats. "The Progressive Party gained some momentum during his years as governor because he was so conservative," Rivers said, although she said she still may support Dean for president.

http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may%5F03/may%5F19/news/reg%5Fvt0519a.asp


Dean's support largely came from moderate Republicans. It was the liberal democrats and progressives who Dean continiually opposed, and the primary reson he almost lost his last election was that he signed the "Civil Unions Act" which angered Deans REPUBLICAN power base. Civil Unions was never in serious trouble in Vermont, Dean was the only person it caused trouble for, becasue most of Deans support were solidly republican. As the months passed after the Vermont Supreme Court decision was made, when the choice to go with a separate civil union law, rather than allow gays to marry, the public in Vermont was solidly behind the idea. Between Democratic party support for it and Progressive Party support, 60 percent of the Vermont Public supported civil unions very shortly after Dean signed the legisltation, and even at the time, the statistics were 50/50, with indications that the support for it was still rising.

Civil Unions were never in trouble in Vermont? Hey pal. Let me tell you something. I know what it is like to be gay and have to fight for your rights. I know what it is like to get the living shit beat out of you due to leaving a gay bar in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is nothing short of assine to say that civil unions are no big deal and that people like them. I know people who traveled up for that campaign and got spat on. I know people who went up there and had their tires slashed. There were people up there who would stop at nothing to stop civil unions. Take a walk in my shoes pal and then lecture me about how my rights just fall out of the sky.

I have sisters and other relatives who are gay, and I know what they think of Deans apartheid solution. And many otherds do as well.

Dean signed the act, but he left gays to rot for eight years as governor, when as executive, he could have asked for any kind of legislation granting civil unions and civil equality to gays. At ANYTIME in those eight years from 1992 until 2000. He could have stood up and not only spoke, but acted. Sorry, he waited until he had no other choice. Did Dean stand up, did Dean ask the progressives and democrats to present him with such legislation?? No it had to be foist upon him Dean did not decide, the decision was made for him:

The latest act of courage and leadership in pursuit of tolerance started last December, when the Vermont Supreme Court ordered equal marriage rights and benefits for gay Vermonters. Both houses of the Vermont Legislature responded quickly and by mid-April the governor signed the civil unions bill -- in private, of course. Reporters and cameras were not allowed in. But the secrecy of the signing didn't keep the controversy down.

For incumbent Governor Howard Brush Dean III, it was a fight he never asked for. The four-term governor (two-year terms in Vermont), had refused for years to publicly state his position on gay marriage. Dean is a Yale graduate (1971) and a medical doctor. Fiscal conservatism and universal health care are his issues. Dr. Dean describes his seat on the mandala of politics as that of a "passionate centrist." Again and again he told the public he would not comment on the same-sex marriage issue because it was a matter before the court.

Then, within one hour of the Vermont Supreme Court decision that declared gay marriage constitutional, Dean clumsily told reporters that when it comes to homosexual marriage, he was "uncomfortable about it, just like anybody else."

At least he was honest. Gay marriage simply was not his issue. It dropped into his lap like piping hot tomato soup. He was clearly relieved the Supreme Court had offered an out -- creation of a parallel system that would grant the rights and benefits without the "marriage" title. "Civil union" was born.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3867


Progressive Steve Hingtgen of Burlington reprimanded the committee in his remarks. Calling anything other than marriage was inadequate, he said domestic partnership would validate hate.

“It institutionalizes the bigotry and affirmatively creates an apartheid system of family recognition in Vermont,” said Hingtgen.

Bill Mackinnon of Sharon joined Hingtgen and Lippert in voting to amend marriage statutes, making the final vote was eight to three against marriage.

Less than an hour after the committee took the public vote, a 22-page draft bill, An Act Relating to Domestic Partnerships, was in circulation.

The document attempted to create an arrangement exactly parallel to marriage; in its early drafts, it used as much of existing statutes as possible.

Outside the committee, only Governor Howard Dean seemed enthusiastic about the decision to move toward domestic partnerships. Vowing to devote his energy to “selling the idea” to legislators and the people of Vermont, Dean commended the panel.

Representative Dean Corren of Burlington, lead sponsor of a bill that would include gays and lesbians in marriage statutes, was angered by the decision of the judiciary committee.

“They can’t call this a civil rights bill,” said Corren. “This is a denial of civil rights.”

http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/mar2000/news_cdu.htm

You like being treated, as separate but equal. you ready to say to the straights around you "Yah Baas", just like black in South Africa had to.

You are not made equal by civil unions, you are being quarantined.

I know SOMEBODY who's responsible for quite a bit of Dean fundraising

:evilgrin:

I have posted now six times his record on gay rights. Each and every time I have it has been in threads that you have seen. Yet again you are not telling the truth. Dean passed and signed a bill granting full civil rights to gays (job, housing, etc) in 1992 just a few months after becoming governor. In 1994 he appointed the first gay to the Vermont House. That is not leaving gays to rot. You are a (forbidden word). You know it. I know it. And the people of DU know it even if I can't say it.

the points raised in this post? They are similar to criticisms of Dean I've read elsewhere. And in general, on this board, it seems that most often Dean supporters do not answer but instead start talking about his anti-war stance or civil unions. (and yes, that's an impression...i am not about to go back and re-read all those threads I've read over the past few weeks). The progressives I personally know and work with are not enamoured of Dean.

Dean's positions and record have been discussed over and over on this board. I agree though that recently the Dean supporters (myself included) don't bother responding to these long posts -- instead, some of us donate $$ to Dean's campaign for every post that causes us to scroll to read the same information we've read 20x before.

Dean is not as liberal as he's labeled on a number of issues, and many Progressives prefer Kucinich. Which is fine.

On edit: Welcome to DU! Fasten your seat belt!

...I will just trust the very savvy and practical progressives I know and not bother to try to figure out Dean's appeal anymore. Thanks for your welcome, but having lived through Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, BushI, and Clinton, I hardly think I need a seat belt for DU:).

because after a bit of investigation, I found that 2 of the above mentioned were personal grudge match articles. And certain DUers continue to post them day after day. Just gets tiring for Deaniacs.

at least at my eye level why a progressive party would run against Dean for doing something progressive. I dont have the feelings about Dean that Nick does, I am not a supporter for the nomination but I am ok with him and his supporters.

His supporters are terrified of his record as governor, and never respond to things like his promises to provide universale health care by 2002, and by that year making massive cuts in the budget to services. Denas entire career is an afrontery to the poor and the disabled and elderly. Yet they cannot come up with reponses how one justifies taking medication away form the elderly, services from the blind.All they have is the war and civil unions.

...

Upside down! :-)

I've been having a lousy week - and feeling low wading through the anti-Dean muck around here lately.

Should have known to stop by DDF for a reality dose...

Thanks!