What's to whine about, or what's to say at all with those quotes?  Are you saying Dean was wrong just for showing up there?

The first thing that needs to happen here is a rebranding from "values voters" to "hate voters".  If your guiding principle as a voter is your irrational fear of homosexuals, you are a hate voter.

Do you have a link to the source article? I'd like to read the whole thing.

Mr. Dean also added that the Democratic Party platform defines marriage as between a man and woman but states that equal rights under the law are important. Mr. Dean concluded by saying Democrats need to court evangelicals and values voters because no party should govern if they ignore a segment of the population.

Now I can see why the GLBT activists are concerned.

That is capitulation to homophobia.

My values apparently don't count then, Governor Dean?  Because Buddhists know nothing about values.

Bullshit.

I would like a link to the full article, if you have it.

Actually, Dean didn't really say anything Earth shattering here. Most of what he said is the Democratic platform, and one I agree with, just in a way that won't freak out the 700 Club audience. So he emphasizes decreasing abortions -- he still said we are against criminalizing women and doctors.

So most of this is just smart phrasing of where we stand. The one issue you can take is with marriage between a man and a woman. This still leaves open civil unions, which opens the door to shift the American public in the direction of gay marriage, while taking out some steam. I still would prefer a strong stance on this issue, but it's hardly selling out. The Democratic platform has opposed gay marriage for the last two elections, and we still get beat up like we're pushing for it. So if we're going to get slammed regardless, maybe we should take the principled stand.

Obviously I didn't see Dean speak - since he was on the 700 Club - but I honestly am not sure what he said that is so surprising or disturbing.  As far as the gay rights piece of things goes, he reiterated the exact stance that Kerry (and Gore and Clinton before him)expressed.  In favor of civil unions (code words - equal rights) and against gay marriage.  

Personally, I'm all for Gay Marriage rather than civil unions.  But if Dems really do show full support for civil unions at this point, then I'm willing to settle for that right now.  I understand others may feel differently, but that's largely a disagreement about what the best strategy is for truly achieving equal rights.  Eventually, I think demographic changes are going to move the Country towards gay marriage regardless.  

On a macro level, I also disagree that this is stupid politically.  There's a grate discussion in "Bush's Brain" that describes a conversation between Rove and GWB when he was Governor regarding whether or not to give teachers a raise during a teachers strike.  Rove is in favor of a small raise and Bush asks why, given that teachers and their union will never support him.  Answer -- you're not trying to win over the teachers, who were a lost cause to Bush, but rather the Republican leaning suburban moms who were sympathetic to the teachers.

An analogy can certainly be made to Dean appearing on the 700 Club.  Will hard core, I love the religious right evangelicals vote for a Dem b/c of this appearance?  Of course not.  Can Dems win over a different segment of the evangelical community that - in addition to being against gay marriage and abortion - is also in favor of environmentalism and social justice?  I think the answer could be yes.

After all, if we're going to have a 50 state strategy we really do have to find a way to have a dialogue with members of what used to be the religious left.    

His stance on abortion - "we're both against it, but Democrats don't murder doctors or demonize women" was perfect.  It embraces their ideals while smacking down their hate.

Now, he can't do exactly the same thing with homophobia, because there's no ideal there, just pure hate.  But he could have done something as principled and honest as he did with abortion.  Like saying, say, the Democrats support the institution of marriage, and see no reason why gays should be restrained from participating if it means more stable, two-parent, productive-member-of-society families.  Or something along those lines.

Dean has consistently kept whatever pro-gay leanings he has at arm's length, and I've been consistently disappointed.

From the transcript of the broadcast:

Gay marriage the platform said 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 we believe in inclusion. That everybody deserves to live with dignity and respect and equal rights under the law are important. I'm not saying we'll agree with everything between the more conservative evangelicals and Democrats but I think there's more common ground and we're willing to work with the evangelical community.

Thank you Matt...

You won't get any whining from this Dean supporter.  Great post.  

When you combine this with the recent firing at the DNC and the squabble over whether to have gay and lesbian affirmative action goals in national convention delegate selection, you have got to wonder what is going on at the DNC on GLBT issues.

I don't see anything in Howard Dean's comments that represents a break with anything the Democratic Party has said anytime recently. This appearance is just an attempt to skim off a few votes from tottering evangelicals upset with the Bush Administration (or at least to encourage a few people to stay home).

I'm more surprised that the 700 Club would invite Dr. Dean knowing full well he was trying to shave a few wavering voters or keep them home.

I am a gay voter. Do I think the Democratic Party has ever been some kind of great guardian of human rights of gays and lesbians? Not in my lifetime. I'm sure the Democratic Party would gladly jettison gays and lesbians if it could make up our votes someplace else.

As for marriage, well, I'm not one who particularly cares. I am much more concerned with civil rights legislation, which the Democratic Party had so precious little about.

Yeah well North Carolina isnt a good example of your idea of the "radical right" when their governor and entire state legislature is and has always been controlled by Democrats. They dont have a Jesse Helms as poster boy for the right anymore either.

Also, we can thank Bill Clinton for what the Dem party platform states. Remember DOMA? I dont forsee Howard Dean or any other national level Democrat trying to change that until they have power again.

LGBT, like you and I, fighting for "nothing short of marriage" right now is a losing battle. We're doing nothing but festering the hate mongers ourselves and driving them to the polls by allowing the mob to set public policy(here in TX we lost the anti amendment initiative 75-25).

You can call bullshit to high heaven everytime someone isnt pandering to every little activist group right now. Im sorry, but Im still going to subscribe to the "Crashing the Gates" theory of staying away from pet projects until we have control again. I've learned my lesson.

...Democrats worry about ... the lack of spirituality and that's something we have in common.

Why do politicians constantly go out of their way to poke the non-religous in the eye?  The value of spirtuality is obviously a personal thing.  Why the fuck should government care that I don't believe in ghosts?

Seriously, why the hell should an atheist vote for somebody who says something like that instead of, say, a libertarian candidate?  I keep telling myself that "no, that's wrong, you've gotta be a pragmatist and vote for the lesser of two evils", but every time I do it sounds sillier and sillier.

I think where we may take exception with some religious leaders is we believe in inclusion. That everybody deserves to live with dignity and respect and equal rights under the law are important.

And how is this not a principled stand?  

The one thing that I will disagree with you on, Matt, is the idea that it's not worth it because he won't convince 700 Club viewers of anything, i.e., when you say his appearance "isn't going to help Democrats in, say, North Carolina."  I think his appearance just might do exactly that.

Isn't this what the 50 state strategy is all about?  Yeah, he could have chosen different things to say, but the idea that it isn't worth trying to reach out to 700 Club viewers is ridiculous.  If we just run to our already existing constituency, we don't expand the party's base.  Dean on the 700 Club won't help in 2006.  But it might help in 2008 or 2010 or 2012.

Selling out is bad; reaching out is good.  Of course it's a fine line there, but it wasn't his attempt to appeal to these voters that crossed a line.  Did he say things I wish he hadn't?  Yeah.  But by and large, I think his presence was good.

Quick story: I grew up in a Republican house.  We didn't have cable.  I woke up really early on weekends even when I was six because I kind of liked the house nobody else around.  Well, with no cable, what do you think was on at 6am on a Sunday?  Infomercials and The 700 Club; I split my viewing pretty evenly.

My point?  These ridiculous shows do reach a few people who aren't typical viewers.  Moreover, they reach a few persuadable viewers and some who may not yet realize they are persuadable.  Democrats are presently at a huge structural disadvantage.  Taking every opportunity to reach out to new people is good.

This issue has bothered me for a long time and I've mostly stayed out of it entirely.  It throws me because so much of it is just a semantic debate.  I really don't understand why calling it a "union" or calling it a "marraige" in a legal sense makes a damn bit of difference, regardless of whether the couple in question is heterosexual or homosexual.  People make this into a much tougher issue than it needs to be.

This post betrays a lack of knowledge about the distinction between evanglicals and the radical religious right. Many folks who watch tv evangelists or who attend evangelical churches are not of the radical right political stripe. Evangelicals are Christians who rely on the bible as their sole source of inspiration. That does not mean necessarily they are literalist, or fundamentalist, or social conservatives. The Democratic party needs to reach out to evanglicals who are concerned about values, including the values of peace, social justice, and the environment. Not to forget just a decent wage and having health care for your children. Howard Dean is doing the right thing.

"You beat failure by projecting strength, not by pandering."

Yup, that strategery is working out well for Bush in Iraq and foreign policy.

I supported Howard Dean in 2004 for being exactly this kind of principled pragmatist, and yes he is a man with principles, just not yours.  You expect whining, then fine, I'll give it to you.  

In you're own way, you're becoming almost as bad as Joe Liebermann with your attempts to distract from the Democratic message.  The core Democratic issues have nothing to do with abortion or homosexuals.  The core Democratic issues are primarily about economic and distributive justice.  

Quit being such a damn fool.

Gov Dean is being consistent.  He has been saying the same thing  even before he was a  presidential candidate.

I dont see anything wrong with what he said.

He is correcting the misimpressions of evangelicals about Democrats.

Kudos to Gov Dean for reaching out to Evangelicals.  

Because the Democratic Party is more about loving your neighbor and that we are our brother's keeper,  in contrast to the Republicans.  For Jesus said, whatever you do to the least of my bretheren you do to me.

I don't see the problem here.  How is a civil union different then a gay marriage in any way accept for the word?

And why shouldn't we engage the right-wingers?  It's positive for us to fill their world with our message, to challenge their view, and to show that there are lots of people in the world who see things differently.  We ignore them at our own peril.

Chapeau to Dr Dean for going into hostile terrain and speaking clearly.

I'm not sure I get what some are vilifying him for. The man has a record on gay rights that we should all be proud of; this is the US, after all, and he seems to me to simply be employing very diplomatic language to respectfully express his disagreements with his hosts at the 700 Club on both gay rights and abortion.

One thing he also does in going on a show like this and speaking calmly and respectfully is that, in the eyes of what is likely a fifth of the electorate, Protestant evangelicals, he undermines the street cred of one of the standard GOoPer screed about us - that we are angry, screaming Xtian haters.

Another thing he does is gets them thinking about what values we share, and despite the many bigotted stances many evangelicals hold, Xtian values are much more in line with ours when it comes to topics of economic justice than they are with those of the money changers in the temple of the GOP. So even if they still go out and vote GOP, they may start pressuring for an economic fair deal from the GOP congress critters. Many evangelicals are also suffering from the past couple of decade's economic policies. And in the weak Dem majority we're likely to see in the next Congress, setting up limited alliances of this sort ain't necessarily a bad tactic.

We'll get to gender pay equity, and we'll get to full and absolute equal civil rights for all people regardless of race, creed, gender and sexual orientation. One brick at a time. I would argue that the strongest foundation for these goals is economic equity and inclusion, and this is one arena we can definitely work with evangelicals. After all, it's not for nothing that Eugene Debs had a picture of Christ up in the cell that famous Democratic bigot, Woodrow Wilson, had confined him to.

First, I think we all know by now that Howard Dean is not the policy setter.  He doesn't get to declare by fiat that the Democrats support gay marriage, thereby excommunicating every Democratic candidate who isn't there yet.  There are mechanisms by which the party platform can be changed and I have no problem with anyone who makes a priority out of pursuing that option.

Second, people who think the "homosexual agenda" is the greatest evil facing America today are not going to vote Democratic, and that's a given.  But not everyone who is evangelical or watches the 700 Club fits into that category.  In fact, the following two statements are true: (1) most Americans oppose "gay marriage" per se; and (2) most Americans care very little about gay marriage as an issue.  Dean's political strategy is to assure people we're not advocating anything radical and to move on to the next topic.  It's good strategy.

Some people have commented that you can't be for both "defining marriage as between a man and a woman" and "equal rights under the law."  This is literally true, of course (unless you're fine with "separate but equal").  What these people are overlooking, however, is that even though you can't logically believe both those things, a majority of Americans do, in fact, believe both those things!  Dean is simply engaging in framing; instead of saying "we're for gay marriage" (warning lights start flashing) he says "we're for equal rights under the law" (perfectly acceptable statement, everyone is fine with it).  Then over time, as Democrats repeat this point, more and more people come to realize what we already know; gay marriage is, in fact, an expression of equal rights under the law.  This is not so much an argument for incrementalism as it is for persuading people on terms they can relate to.

I don't see anything wrong with anything Dean said, but I'm a big fan and can mentally spin the good doctor's words until they fit comfortably with my perceptions.

First, on the abortion issue, do we not want abortions to be rare?!  Of course we do.  We want contraception and family planning and some of us are even OK with abstinence education.  Abstinence IS the only failproof way to remain free of STDs and fetuses.  Abstinence-only education is dumb and dangerous, but including discussion of abstinence makes sense.

And he didn't lie when he said that the Democratic platform does not condone gay marriage.  I have a feeling that might change in 2008, but it currently does not.  As governor of Vermont, he advanced civil unions as a remedy for unfair treatment of gay couples.  In my gay opinion, civil unions can be a perfectably acceptable alternative.  I support gay marriage, but civil unions can provide all the legal protections that are needed.  I know there's the impression that CUs are second-class treatment, but if the same protections are provided, who cares what they call it?

For those who don't get why some of us are so hot about this, pretend for an instant that he said the following:

One of the biggest things that Democrats worry about is the lack of racial purity in our culture.

Mr. Dean also added that the Democratic Party platform defines marriage as between two people of the same race but states that equal rights under the law are important.