I think it will all come down to who controls the word "values."

By that I mean the party chair position, future candidates, 2006, 2008.

I believe that we have already given up power over the "expansion of liberty"...or in other words...war.

I believe that as the states weigh in on the chair, we will see just how totally and completely the "values" issue has taken hold in our society.

Mostly, the pro-choice stance is determining this. I just read that a Democrat in Pasco county changed to Republican because he heard Howard Dean call abortion a "medical issue" between a woman and her doctor.

I don't think this is about whether Howard Dean gets the position of chair, I think it is more about our party's fears. Will they be so afraid of taking a stand that they will fail to take a stand on the issue of woman's choice.

We did not take a stand on the imperialistic wars, but I am hoping somewhere we will stop and say "enough is enough." I think we will be hearing more from the South soon.

when there are more appropriate words, such as "imperialism" and "quagmire"....

Did you see the Daily Show last night. Brilliant piece. I believe Bush said freedom 25 times and liberty 17 times...or something like that.

Here is the "Fourth Way" - a basic and brilliant reframing of the the 'values debate'.

"After the 2002 mid-term elections, I attended a private dinner for Harvard Fellows in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Our speaker was a Republican political strategist who had just won all the major senatorial and gubernatorial election campaigns in which he was involved. Needless to say, he was full of his success and eager to tell us about it. This very smart political operative said that Republicans won middle-class and even working-class people on the "social" issues, those moral and cultural issues that Democrats don’t seem to understand or appreciate. He even suggested that passion on the social issues can cause people to vote against their economic self-interest. Since the rich are already with us, he said, we win elections.

"I raised my hand and asked the following question. "What would you do if you faced a candidate that took a traditional moral stance on the social and cultural issues? They would not be mean-spirited and, for example, blame gay people for the breakdown of the family, nor would they criminalize the choices of desperate women backed into difficult and dangerous corners. But the candidate would be decidedly pro-family, pro-life (meaning they really want to lower the abortion rate), strong on personal responsibility and moral values, and outspoken against the moral pollution throughout popular culture that makes raising children in America a countercultural activity. And what if that candidate was also an economic populist, pro-poor in social policy, tough on corporate corruption and power, clear in supporting middle-class and working families in health care and education, an environmentalist, and committed to a foreign policy that emphasized international law and multilateral cooperation over pre-emptive and unilateral war? What would you do?" I asked. The Republican strategist paused for a long time, and then said, "We would panic!"

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0502&article=050210

Start over again, with core values at the center and we can redefine politics itself. America 2.0 Time to Reboot

but it would also mean the end of the Southern domination of our party's stances. They are not going to like that, and they are not going to give it up easily.

I am very afraid that like Frost, who actually ran ads praising Bush, and with no claim to being a Democrat....our Democrats in some areas will just trying to be just like the other side. And there is always a danger of forgetting who we are.

Here is an interesting article about the various governors view "values."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/10673420.htm?1c

Here are a couple of interesting statements:
SNIP..."There are a few Democrats - you know who they are, Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton - who Republicans like to tie around our necks, and they are universally disliked in places like Oklahoma," Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry said. "They have a reputation of being ultraliberal, and it filters down on us."

SNIP..."They say a key to their success is convincing voters, through their policies and personalities, that they are "one of them." Democrats in middle America must be viewed as part of a state's cultural fabric, clearly distinguishable from the national party in Washington."

And not just take away the ammunition, but BE the ammunition. And...karma update...Jim Wallace (author of the piece) is on Al Franken right now. His book is coming out as #2 on the NYTimes best-seller list. This, I honestly believe, is the future of western social democracies.

to DU~!

And we have George Lakoff, too, telling us about how Liberals need to frame their values in a language the people can understand

Snip~

BERKELEY – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

But I think the message will be a conglomerate of the messages coming from the states, if we can organize well enough.

"Values" really has become a code word, as Dean has said. But there's going to be a rehashing of a lot of what Americans stand for very shortly. It should be interesting.

She predicts that a new candidate will emerge in the race for the chair. That was said after a lot of quoting and loving about values.

She said when asked who: "I don't want to out my friends...."

I think another candidate will emerge, and I betcha we can guess sort of. I am very tired of the values thing, and I have some Republican friends who are as well..

I think this is, as I said in the OP, not really about Dean at all...it is about who is going to hold the power in the party....the DC insiders or the people who want change.

I have excellent values, thank you kindly. I would like for my party to have equally good values. At least I knew it was wrong to invade a country which was no threat to us.

This "values" issue will destroy us in the long run, because I doubt we will take a stand.

today,he said not one word in defense of Dean but came up with some drivel that unless the Democrats got a unified message/some such. So no,Dean want be getting the chair and that is just dandy with me because I don't want him to get it. YOU HEARD IT HERE DEAN WILL NOT BE GETTING THE CHAIR!

The ABB unified message that lost the election and had Carville breaking eggs on his forehead like an idiot on national TV? That type of a unified message??

Of course they don't want Dean to be the DLC chair. Dean might do something as disastrous as collecting money from the people and actually giving them something in exchange for it.

But you know what? I'll be fine if Dean doesn't get the chair! I want Dean to stay and run in 2008 (not that one really precludes the other and one of their big problems with Dean is that he won't solemnly swear NOT to run in 2008 if he gets the chair). So yeah Dr Dean, best of luck to you.

If you get the chair- good for US.
If you don't - good for YOU because that will give you more time to build up your base and stick it to the war/corporation lovers.

Screw Carville. Let him go break unified eggs with Maitlin instead of foisting his failed strategies on us.

"values" in a person..I have to say that I admire the kind of person Dean is with his family,principles, and the giving of his energy to the cause of his country.

I'm not worried about that democrat(dino) in Pasco County, Florida..he sounds like a scaredy cat.

It's amazing that the "pro-choice" stance is scaring :scared: so many Dems when it seems that's what the majority wants.

So if Dean gets the Chair it will be because enough of the voters are courageous and want to see where this will take us instead of going along in same tired rut that has gotten us nowhere.

on that very issue. They are pro-choice, but they are afraid to support Howard Dean because they can't win that way. They are absolutely terrified to take a pro-choice stand!

And that absolutely terrifies me.

If some of the Southern states keep being afraid, and keep acting like the other party, soon they won't be able to tell the difference.

:shrug:

She keeps saying she has to appeal to the values they have or they won't win. I said talk to them differently, and I gave some tips from what Lakoff and Dean have said, especially on the choice issue. Her mind is closed.

Dean uses it alot and I've noticed it's kind of caught on.

That pretty much says it.

right now which is why the DLC is in an absolute frenzy. They already feel it all slipping out of their control and are going to spend the next 4 years trying to pawn off supporters of their conservative imperialist agenda as progressives. They're not stupid. They know pro-war, pro-imperialism, DLCers are out so they are going to be sneakier about it this time around.

Recently they brought one of Ralph Reed's right hand men on board (Marhsall Wittman) and made him one of the few official spokesmen for the DLC and the PPI. What this person helped the Christian Coalition do in the Republican Party is what the DLC is planning on doing to the Democratic Party- a total redefinition of values. It's no coincidence that shortly after Marshall Wittman's "re-awoke as a Democrat", Hillary Clinton, DLC, is already spouting off a bunch of garbage urging the use of faith-based initiatives.

We are fighting for who will own the right to redefine those values, since it's pretty obvious the current Democratic Party establishment has no interest in representing the values of the people it's allegedly representing. Our party is at a cross-roads. Who will be its soul? The people on the ground with our antiwar voices or the establishment Dems with their corporate and establishment ties?

You see it all over. You see it even a board like this. The Democratic Party just got its ass WHOOPED by the Republicans for its stupid games and already you see campaign operatives & die-hard supporters spinning their wheels trying to pump certain aspirants to the Presidency up instead of paying attention to any issues affecting us or our reaction to them.

That right there is one reason I want Dean as DNC chair (even though I think it's a waste of his enormous talents but at the same time hope that he will become DNC chair and run for President in 2006. Dean will be more honest than the establishment, corporation-serving Dems they're trying to foist in that position and I know he'll pay more attention to what we want instead of trying to tell us what we need.

Until 2007, the Democratic Party needs to keep all its knights, white horses and shining armor in the stables while we work out the issues and our collective values. All the propaganda being dumped on us is sickening and a total turn-off.

Very good post Madfloridian. Glad to see your "breath of fresh air" important post.

and such issues as faith-based initiatives. They will not stand up for them if they gave in so easily on the war.

The red state chairs want to do like Frost did, campaign as close to Republicans as possible, take a few of their issues, and not stand up for ours.

There are a bunch of articles out on this. And they will put in someone else to run for chair, who is acceptable to the reddest of the red states....once again leaving us out in the cold. As Donna Brazile said on NPR..."I don't want to out my friends...but." she says likely there will another entering the race.

In terms others can understand. Pro-Choice is pro-freedom and against tyrannical government. Anti-choice against freedom and for tyranical government.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...is the government without sin? Are we? Is it right that a tyrannical govenment take away a woman's ability to choose a godly life by making the decision for her? How then can she find God? Isn't that what Jesus was saying? When we judge others how can they find God? How can we?

We need to educate and reframe our values in terms and language other cultures can understand, not change our values. That is the key.

That lady does not have a feeling in her bones but fear for the Republicans and their values. I have used different words with her, but she is afraid to stand up and take a stand.

She is afraid if she says a woman has the right to choose she will be shouted down by the right.

She won't even define her values, she says she needs to use theirs. Or words to that effect.

The party has been letting the other side set the agenda so long they are totally afraid. It is really fear. I quit trying to convince her about Dean, just trying to convince her not to be afraid.

It deflates the "big government" meme they use against us. What they really want is a small and exclusive government of special interests. Actually, it's what they have now. They've stolen our government from us. They've taken it from the people.

I edited my post above to reflect that.

Woooboy, did YOU hit the nail ont he head. They are almost all, without exception, codependent ninnies afraid of their own shadows.

Well, hell, instead of me trying to explain it, let me just post this superbe explanation:


The Politics of Victimization
(Mel Gilles, who has worked for many years as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, draws some parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to the election.-- Mathew Gross)
http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html

discussed here, in case anyone is intereseted:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1395238

I sort of cringed when Dean said this on Hannity, but it bears a relation in a way. We were discussing it at Kos a little, and that tendency to need to please is most definitely there.

"The Politics of Victimization" should go down as an all time masterpiece.

We are afraid to discuss our stances, we feel must go along with the stances the other side advocates. That is what the co-chair I am writing right now in another Southern state really absolutely thinks.

She is afraid to cross them or they will punish her. She can't use those words, but that is what she is saying.

Like "battered spouses", they keep coming back for more abuse.

Thank you for posting this Eloriel! More people need to read this:


Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”

And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.

(snip)

The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.

As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.

(snip)

And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him ((Bush)), please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.


How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.

First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse.

(snip)

http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html

The difference for Dem's is that we 'walk the walk'...so by starting show images or pictures of how we live our 'values,' we should soar above the Repugs who can ONLY show a furling flag or soaring eagle to conjure up the concept of a government they haven't a clue about.

If you are willing to wait until the next decade to regain political power, then we should base our efforts around the phony values debate.

If you want power back now, it has to all be about economics. The entire values debate has to be exposed for the racket it is: a cover for a program of open class warfare by the GOP against the middle class and the poor.

We must expose the hypocrisy of the GOP, who decry the media but would do nothing to interfere with Hollywood as long as it make smoney. We need to expose the hipocrisy of "pro-birth" Republicans who will abandon the child the momente it is born.

More importantly, we need to make every debate about money. Don't wait for the GOP to say "values, values, values." If we do that, and respond, then we have lost.

We need to start the debate, and make it about the shrinking middle class and the growing wealth of the very few, in a system they have rigged to their benefit. When the GOP open their mouths in response and say "values", we need to be in their face and ask," why are you changing the subject? Are you or are you not in favor of the massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to yourselves?"

Before they can see "abortion", we have to say "healthcare for children" and not let them change the subject to abortion. We have to put them in a box where, when they open their mouths, it is clear they won't or can't answer the question: are you or are you not a crook, in the business of stealing from working people?

since Reagan -- GOPers have been slinging the terms family values and moral values around -- but they do not define it - nor do their actions/policies seem to support values (whatever they are)

Dems need to confront the "values" and force GOPers to define what they mean by values, what are they, how do they propose to support values, are GOPer values the same as mine, are they going to impose their values on the rest of us?

suggested exercise: Take some time and think about it -- what are your values, how do you define them.