On Meet the Press, Russert selectively cited Dean’s remarks to mischaracterize Dems on abortion
On the December 19 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, moderator Tim Russert mischaracterized remarks former Vermont Governor Howard Dean made on the program a week earlier about the Democratic Party’s position on abortion. Russert played a clip from the December 12 Meet the Press, in which Dean suggested that the party “ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats” and have a “respectful dialogue” about the issue. Russert then asked Wall Street Journal national political editor John Harwood if Democrats are “rethinking their position on cultural, moral issues, on abortion?” But immediately preceding the section of the clip of Dean that Russert played, Dean had clearly stated that Democrats should change their “vocabulary” but not their “principles” on abortion, and that the Democrats are “the party of allowing people to make up their own minds about medical treatment.”
Russert’s video clip of Dean also cut out the middle portion of Dean’s answer to Russert’s question on abortion. In between the clips Russert aired, Dean had strongly asserted that Democrats who are pro-life should be welcomed into the party because they stand for other core Democratic values: “[T]hey’re pro-life not just for unborn children. They’re pro-life for investing in children’s programs. They’re pro-life for helping small children and young families. They’re pro-life in making sure adequate medical care happens to children. That’s what you so often lack on the Republican side.”
From the December 19 edition of Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Last week, Howard Dean was on this program, the former governor of Vermont. He wants to be chairman of the DNC [Democratic National Committee]. I asked him about pro-life Democrats, and this was his answer.
[videotape, December 12]
DEAN: I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats. The Democrats that have stuck with us through their — who are pro-life, through their long period of conviction, are the kind of pro-life people that we ought to have deep respect for. […] But we can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop demagoguing this issue.
RUSSERT: And if you became chairman of the party, you would actively reach out to pro-life Democrats?
DEAN: I have — in my campaign, supposedly this liberal campaign, we had a number of pro-life people.
[end videotape]
RUSSERT: John Harwood, are Democrats rethinking their position on cultural, moral issues, on abortion?
From the December 12 edition of Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Let me turn to the issue of abortion. The Newsweek [sic] reports that [Senator] John Kerry went to a Democratic meeting to thank his supporters, and they asked him what he had learned from the past campaign. And he said, “We have to find a different way to deal with the issue of abortion in terms of explaining the Democratic position, and we have to find a way to bring in right-to-life Democrats back into the Democratic Party.” Could you conceive of a way the Democratic Party could say to mainstream ethnic voters, “We’re a different Democratic Party. We may look at perhaps the whole idea of parental notification in terms of abortion. We may look at banning it in the third trimester.” Is there a way the Democrats could change their vocabulary on abortion?
DEAN: We can change our vocabulary, but I don’t think we ought to change our principles. The way I think about this is — and it gets into the gay marriage stuff, too. We’re not the party of gay marriage. We’re the party of equal rights for all Americans. You know, I signed the first civil unions bill in America, and four years later the most conservative president the United States has seen in my lifetime is now embracing what I signed. We’ve come a long way. We’re not the party of abortion. We’re the party of allowing people to make up their own minds about medical treatment. It’s just a different way of phrasing it. We have to start framing these issues, not letting them frame the issues.
I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats. The Democrats that have stuck with us, who are pro-life, through their long period of conviction, are people who are the kind of pro-life people that we ought to have deep respect for. Not only are they pro-life, which, I think, is a moral judgment — I happen to be strongly pro-choice, as a physician — but they are pro-life more for moral reasons. They also, if they’re in the Democratic Party, are real pro-life. That is, they’re pro-life not just for unborn children. They’re pro-life for investing in children’s programs. They’re pro-life for helping small children and young families. They’re pro-life in making sure adequate medical care happens to children. That’s what you so often lack on the Republican side. They beat the drums about being pro-life but they forget about life after birth. And so I do embrace pro-life Democrats. I think we want them in our party. But we can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop demagoguing this issue.
RUSSERT: And if you became chairman of the party, you would actively reach out to pro-life Democrats?
DEAN: I have — in my campaign, supposedly this liberal campaign, we had a number of pro-life people.
Hi, Parker. This is really good, but unless I’m totally misreading your title, I think maybe it doesn’t say what you mean for it to say and I almost avoided reading it for that reason. It seems to say that Dean is the one who is misquoting history.
I think “Dean’s remarks used to mischaracterize Dems on abortion” might work better?
Great explanation of what’s going on, Parker!
This is exactly what I was trying to say in the other thread, and was being shouted down for. Dean’s “pro-life” stance is a media construction, pure and simple. This quote articulates his real position very clearly:
He’s pro-choice, and believes the party must be too. He’s pro-gay marriage, and believes the party must be too. He’s simply trying to find ways to express these values that do not immediately set off the culturally-embedded emotional alarms that most people carry around with them.
Saying that we’re pro-abortion and encouraging women to have abortions will not get us votes, nor is it a particularly good thing to do. That’s just the inverse of the Republican position, rather than its opposite. Saying that we’re pro-choice – that we don’t care what you think about abortion, that it’s up to the woman who’s carrying the fetus – is the only sensible position.
As an attempt at reframing the debate, it’s pretty inept. And given the pressures from many on the left, including the DLC, to drop reproductive rights from the Democratic platform, it’s small wonder that the press is asking questions.
There seem to be a lot of people who want it both ways: claim to be pro-choice, but do nothing about it. Maybe it’s complacency. Maybe it’s hypocrisy. Maybe it’s mendacity. But when so many seem eager to sell out on this issue as politically inconvenient, is it any wonder that Dean’s remarks raise some very serious questions?
I agree the MSM is being unfair. But why is that a surprise?
Care to explain why it’s inept? It seems clear to me that to win on this issue, we have to either: a) forcibly remove it from the public eye (not going to happen, with the Republicans in control of the MSM) or b) reframe it so that people who self-ID as pro-life see no conflict between their beliefs and those of Democrats.
Dean attempts to do b) by reframing the debate to be about choice (“it’s up to a woman, not the government”) rather than be about baby-killing. You think this is bad, eh?
He’s very clearly said that he doesn’t “think we ought to change our principles“. And he’s tying it back to the “pro-life movement not really pro-life” thing. This is what the blogs have been begging Democrats to do since the middle of the Kerry campaign. And now that they do it, we jump on them for selling out and doing the wrong thing?
I think many here are reading and believing the MSM coverage (“Dean pro-life!!! OMG! WTF! N00B!”) not Dean’s actual words. Frankly, that surprises and depresses me. Dean’s actual words are everything we’ve been waiting to hear for months now. Yes, the MSM is lying about what he’s said – but it will lie about any positive move he makes. What’s really sad is that many here believe their lies.
I guess the blogsphere’s stupider than I thought.
But the simple fact that the MSM can take several sentences of his speeches out of context and paint him as saying something completely different tells me that his frame is weak.
Instead of focusing on governmental control, he repeatedly leads with opening the Democratic Party to “pro-life” people. He embraces their frame, their language, and then attempts to reframe it.
That’s the mistake. That’s what’s weak.
Reframing is essential, but how Dean’s doing it is setting him up for coverage like this.
Then there are no strong frames. At all. Ever.
As an example, here’s your position:
Guess your frame’s just as weak, isn’t it?
But you’re also wrong. Even in the quotes they pull, Dean is very clearly committing himself to a pro-choice position. The media is simply flat-out lying and saying he’s being pro-life. Why? Because the media does not like Dean. If you think he’s being so weak, how about you give some examples of things the governor could say that the media could not tell lies about? Note that these phrases have to make lies completely impossible to meet your criteria for “success”.
(It’s the same thing they did to Al Gore – they simply fabricated headlines, actions, and quotes wholesale to meet their required image of him.)
Well, yes, that’s what I said. He’s saying we have to open the party to these people by showing how their views are not inconsistent with the party’s pro-choice position. Despite their support for abortion, a lot of the country self-IDs as pro-life, because they don’t like the idea of abortions, even if they don’t think they should be illegal. These are the people Dean’s reaching out to.
He can’t focus on government control first. He has to identify his audience, then deliver his message.
Whatever.
Frankly I don’t see any MSM effort to push Dean into saying this or that. They’re asking the question that needs to be asked.
Given other luminaries in the Party who seem to think reproductive rights should be a non-issue, it’s a fair question.
“Blame the MSM” doesn’t seem like much of a strategy, either.
There are no questions that need to be asked. Dean very bloody clearly says that he’s committed to ensuring that the party remains pro-choice, and that the government stays out of private medical affairs. The “questions” are a media invention.
Dean’s basically telling the other “luminaries” in the Party to fuck off – he’s got his own plans, thank you very much, and they don’t include making the party pro-criminalization. Instead, they involve selling the pro-choice position to people who don’t support criminalization but self-id as pro-life.
Why you think this is a bad thing, and a precursor to making the party pro-criminalization, is beyond me.
And blaming the MSM is a strategy when the MSM lies. Did you even read the original Newswire article? They include Dean’s quotes, and then claim he’s saying exactly the opposite of what he actually said. It’s another manufactured controversy.
What’s NOT news is that the MSM distorts speeches by taking sound bites. What’s really NOT news is that the MSM distorts what Dean says. Or maybe you never heard of “the scream.”
As for the assertion that there are no questions that need to be asked, well, I think that’s patently ridiculous. I want the press asking questions. They don’t ask enough questions, if you ask me.
You’re mistaken in thinking that I’m against reframing reproductive rights and addressing pro-life as pro-criminalization, pro-state-control. I’m just not surprised that Dean is having a hard time of it. He’s just starting, he doesn’t have a strong relationship with the press, and he’s setting himself up for obvious slams.
And I say “whatever” to your little gotcha debate tricks. I am not the DNC chair. I don’t have legions of paid staff. I’m just sharing some thoughts here. So get all nyah nyah all you want, but it don’t fit.
But maybe it’s time you woke up and smelled the coffee. This is hardball, national politics. If Dean’s having trouble getting the message out the way he’s doing it, then it’s up to him to change. Excuses like blaming the MSM may play when shouting at the television (which I do plenty), but when it comes to reframing debates and winning elections it doesn’t carry much water at all.
Oh really? So you want the press doing things like asking “Why is Governor Dean pro-life?” and then not allowing Dean to answer? Because that’s what they’re doing.
I want the press asking people questions. I don’t want them asking rhetorical questions and then stifling any attempt to respond. That’s what they’re doing, and what many people here are cheering.
He’s talking to small groups of people who’re influential in their communities and trying to make things clear to them. The press is straight-out lying about his efforts, and many in the blogsphere are encouraging them. He’s not setting himself up for anything – he’s fighting instead of rolling over and playing dead.
That’s what we wanted him as DNC Chair for, remember?
Unless you think that he should avoid anything that the MSM could lie about or distort. Which would basically mean doing nothing at all.
The MSM is the enemy. It’s owned by massive, right-wing corporations that have a vested interest in controlling culture and steering it to the right. They will not paint anything we do right in a positive light. In fact, the surest sign that we’re doing something right is the MSM screaming about how wrong it is.
Oh look. The MSM’s screaming about how wrong what Dean’s doing and saying is. I guess it must not be any good! </sarcasm>
So you think Dean’s doing the wrong thing, but have no idea how he could do the right thing, or even what the right thing is? And have no evidence that he’s doing the wrong thing other than that the right-wing media is able to tell lies about what he’s saying? And have no problem running out in public and screaming at the top of your lungs “Dean’s trying to destroy women!” because of those lies?
What a wonderfully productive position!
Who said that Dean was having trouble getting the message out? The MSM is lying about what he’s saying, yes. The fact that they feel compelled to says that they’re afraid that he is being effective. The MSM is claiming that he’s having problems. Again, guess what? This means he’s probably being very effective!
My dear Egarwaen, really I don’t know where to start.
Yes, I do want the press asking questions. And I want the hard questions. Dean’s a big boy. He can handle himself. There are important questions. Does the Democratic Party support reproductive rights? Some of them. Many don’t. Many just duck and run whenever the question comes up. It’s an important question. They have no credibility any more. They’ve squandered what little they had as they sold out on bill after bill.
Dean may be DNC chair, but he doesn’t represent the elected officials. They’ve made it clear. So I think it’s good that even the MSM are asking questions.
I think it’s admirable that you have a clear set of convictions. But that doesn’t mean you can be as simplistic about the political realities as Bush. The MSM are not a monolith. They are not an “it.” And playing the media game is part of politics. Dean knows that as much as anyone. You may not like it when your boy gets criticized, but that’s reality in politics.
You know, I had to look over my shoulder when reading this silliness. Who are you talking to, anyway? It seems that it’s your name up at the top of this thread with a post whining about how poor Dean’s message is being distorted by the media. It seems like you’re doing the screaming. And it’s your straw woman apparently who said Dean is attacking women, because I never said it.
But don’t let that get in the way. Have at it.
Wow, the media conspiracy in full force. That’s a bit rich. Yes the media corporations have vested interests. So does each of the reporters and editors. They’re all different. I sincerely doubt that they’re losing sleep at night whether Dean is getting his word out. I’m as disgusted with the media’s performances on real news over the past 10 years. I don’t see Dean as being singled out.
What do you propose? Got a few billion laying around and want to buy them out? If not, then you have to find other ways to get the message out.
You can attack me. You can tilt windmills. Me, I’m waiting for someone to say something real. If Dean were running, I’d be paying more attention. As it is, the field is pretty thin, with nobody eager to do anything but be liked by the Republicans.
Good for you. How’s that relevant to the article at hand? How’s that at all relevant to the topic at hand? Dean said explicitly that he and the party support a woman’s right to choose. The media then proceeded to lie about this. You then proceeded to cheer on the media for “asking tough questions”:
Well, yes, it is a wonder… Because those questions are raised only through lying about what he actually said.
They are, as you’d know if you’d done any research at all into their background. The vast majority of traditional media outlets – including TV, radio, and newspaper – are owned by less than ten companies, many of which share directors. Most, if not all, are also involved in the production and “protection” of movies, music, entertainment TV, and software, and editorial decisions get made from the top. The objective of these corporations is to control the creation and proliferation of culture, and to make it into something that ensures their future profits and control. These objectives are fundamentally incompatible with the Democratic party’s platform and, specifically, with Dean’s goals.
Forgotten the 2004 primaries already? Let me refresh your memory.
Dean made one comment in December about reversing the excessive content cartel deregulation that had taken place under Bush. His media coverage went from 50/50 positive/negative to something like 80-90% negative. Meanwhile, his opponents went from about 50/50 to closer to 75% positive. The MSM has since continued to smear Dean as “unstable”, “extremist”, and lie about what he says and does. Why? Because he threatens their control of culture.
Nope, no singling out of Dean at all.
Also, please note that the newswire article that was linked to in the diary that inspired this one actually flat-out lied about what Dean said. They included quotes of him saying one thing, then claimed he was saying the exact opposite.
This is, however, largely irrelevant. My point was that the RWCM will distort and attack any victories by progressives. Buying their spin – as many in the original diary did – is not productive, especially not when it leads to attacking one of our few actual allies for something he did not say or do.
I propose doing exactly what Dean’s doing, and exactly what you’re attacking him for: talking to influential members of moderate communities face-to-face and giving them the tools they need to reframe the issue. Build healthy, progressive local parties. Run viable, progressive candidates in every race. Simply ignore the media. Bypass them. They’re not going to give us positive coverage, so route around the damage, instead of throwing ourselves over the cliff again and again. When you do have to deal with the media, ignore their spin – you can’t control it, so don’t try. Instead, focus on articulating yourself clearly to anyone watching your original broadcast.
Again, exactly what Dean’s doing.
“. . .set off the culturally-embedded emotional alarms”
Indeed.
Throughout the presidential debates, I openly cringed whenever a moderator asked the candidates what they would look for in a SCOTUS. The cringe resulted from Kerry’s immediate responses that he’d seek a SCJ who would uphold Roe v. Wade.
Sorry – but even as a pro-choice Dem, I felt he should have focused on a SCJ who would uphold the constitution (and later, perhaps, he could throw in something about RvW)
Each time he said that, I couldn’t help but think of the number of votes he had just lost.
Did you really think he ever had the votes of people who don’t support Roe v. Wade? I think Dean’s right that we need a new dialog on this, but the notion that there are just tons of potential Dem voters who are voting Republican because Dems keep supporting Roe flies in the face of polls and reality. Dean is right that a lot of people don’t seem to understand the actual meaning of pro-choice and pro-life, but most Dem voters, and most people, in this country, want abortion to be legal.
Apparently I didn’t phrase that very well. That’s certainly not what I intended.
It’s a good example of the kind of thing to not do – IE, he shouldn’t mention a single issue so explicitly. An answer that focused on upholding individual rights and choices, or protecting ordinary Americans from government, or anything like that would’ve been better. Because, really, upholding Roe V Wade shouldn’t be the prime criteria for selecting a SC judge. The judge should support upholding Roe V Wade because of their other beliefs. (Specifically, we want judges that believe in the fundamental equality of women, and in the right to privacy of citizens.)
Thank you for providing the clarification. That’s what I had intended to convey, but apparently I did a poor job. I merely had a knee-jerk reaction with Kerry’s responses because he jumped in with such a divisive topic, rather than approaching the question from a constitutional, civil rights perspective.
The topic allegedly had an impact on otherwise left-leaning Latino and Black voters in 2004. (On the other hand, I don’t necessarily believe any of the reporting from last year’s election.)
I support Dean’s leadership, pretty much across the board – but I must get back to my work at hand.
Good day!
An example of (what I view as) a good approach to the subject arrived via e-mail from Barbara Boxer this morning. In that communication, she positioned Roe v Wade as one of numerous crucial considerations.
“It is critical that the American people learn about Judge Roberts’ views on privacy, a woman’s right to choose, civil liberties, environmental protection, and many other issues, so that we can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts deserves to be placed on the highest court in the land.”
I liked that it was referenced and not singularly showcased.