Breaking News: DEAN TELLS TRUTH...... again

From Howard Dean:
"...a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

Update (Chris): Dean's comments remind me of something...



Display:


Say it soooo (2.00 / 2)

You wouldn't know it from their "Front" men & woman. These repigs are by nature corrupt in just about everything they do. They pull every minority they can find out for photo ops. Then when the lights go dim they return them to their cages. They remind me of those westerns where they put blue uniforms on Apaches and used them to hunt down Apaches when they were finished they were all shipped of to florida. I won't use the Nazi/jew comparison but you get what I mean.
by eddieb on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 07:39:59 AM EST

not again (2.25 / 4)

AT some point if need does not stop this he is going to divide the party to where we can not fix it.  I know bloggers here do believe it or do not care but this is the last thing we need right now.
by THE MODERATE on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 08:08:36 AM EST

Stop fighting back Howard! (none / 0)

Democrats should just go meekly into the night like John Kerry did in 2004. We all remember how well that worked out.
by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:09:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop fighting back Howard! (none / 0)

So you prefer watching Democrats play damage control with Deans mouth, which if this keeps up we are going to spend more time doing then formulationg a plan to beat Republicans.
by THE MODERATE on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:17:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop fighting back Howard! (3.00 / 1)

Democrats don't have any Damage to control, for anything Dean has said. Democrats have got to learn how to stand by and defend their man and party's leader. Dean is not the problem it's you wimps who get your undies all in a knot every time the repigs squeal. You are their patsies their pawns, their schills and sadly you don't seem to know it! STOP Being HOW HI'Jumpers and start being FU*K YOU'ers.
by eddieb on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:30:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop fighting back Howard! (3.00 / 1)

This is the Democratic party we do not just blindly follow what someone says when we do not like it, just because that person has a title.  That is what the Republicans do.  The Democrats have been like this since the days of our founder Col Jackson, and Howard Dean is not going to change that.
by THE MODERATE on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop fighting back Howard! (none / 0)

The problem with,  I won't be a repiglican and will speak out anytime I want to, is you don't seem to know when to keep a lid on it. There is Constructive criticism and there is "I want to show you how smart I am" Crap. The latter is harmful NOT helpful. I agree with you, we Progressives are not mindless drones but we have got to be smart not patsies. Try it you'll like it
by eddieb on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:53:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop fighting back Howard! (3.00 / 1)

But the Republicans don't make a habit of publicly attacking their own.

When has Howard Dean publicly attacked ANY Democrat since he dropped out of the 2004 race?  Answer:  He HASN'T.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden -- who last year went on FOX News to blame Clinton for 9/11 -- backstabs his fellow Democrats every damn chance he gets.  Why?  Because, like all "FOX Democrats", he prefers cozying up to the GOP/Media over sticking up for America in general and his party in particular.

by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:05:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop fighting back Howard! (3.00 / 5)

The SCLM is playing the same "gotcha" game with Dean that they did with Gore.  (Remember their framing of every single Gore utterance as either crazy or a lie?)  

Meanwhile, Dan Burton can call Bill Clinton a "scumbag", and John O'Neill can lie repeatedly about John Kerry, and no Republicans are asked by the press to apologize for those guys.

The proper Democratic response to "gotcha" is to turn it back on the would-be "gotcha artist".  

Here's how it works:

GOTCHA ARTIST:  Gore/Dean/Michael Moore said something that I intend to pretend is horrible and untrue.  Your comments?

SMART DEMOCRAT:  Let me know when they start making horse-masturbation jokes on national TV, the way Laura Bush did recently.  I can't think of anything any Democrat has said that even approaches that in terms of offensiveness.  But as for what Gore/Dean/Michael actually said, I'm glad to see the topic of voter disenfranchisement being brought up....

by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:46:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

When are these smart guys (none / 0)

going to figure out that the middle isn't where you start out, it is the consensus that is reached at the end of negotiations.
by nanorich on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 01:26:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do you hate white Christians. (none / 0)

Clearly you have something against us if you think that Dean mentioning that the Republicans are a monolithically white and Christian party.  Are you implying that people shouldn't mention us in polite company?  That we should be seen and not heard, or maybe even not seen at all?  That we're some kind of dirty little secret.

As a white Christian, I am offended by your apparent bigotry and I expect an apology.

by Teaser on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:34:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do you hate white Christians. (none / 0)

WWJD

..?

The closest equivalent
to the type of bread he could've divided to
feed all those hungry people would've been
pizza...

Soo I think they owe us free pizza.
What do you think?

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:40:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do you hate white Christians. (2.50 / 2)

Get over it. Are you a white Christian Bigot Repiglican. I hope not. Every one with an ounce of logic knows what kind of "Christian" Dean is talking about. They are actually the Anti-Christ(ians). So if your a Reasonable progressive white Christian count yourself out! If your a troll count yourself in!
by eddieb on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:44:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey Genius (none / 0)

The post was illustrative of a point:  why was anything Dean said insulting at all.  Is simply mentioning White Christians insulting to them?  No?  Then why should anyone be offended.

But for your benefit, next time I use hyperbole (pssst...that's exagerration for effect) I'll make sure it's surrounded by big, bold meta tags declaring it as such.

by Teaser on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 11:19:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We're taking our religion back! (none / 0)

Get over yourself pal. You don't own Jesus. You don't own Christianity. You don't own God.

Are you a white Christian fascist?

These are excerpts from Part II of an article in the May issue of Harper's magazine, Soldiers Of Christ. I provided excerpts from Part I, Inside America's Most Powerful Megachurch in a diary at MyDD, Onward Christian Soldiers. This post covers Part II, Feeling the Hate with the National Religious Broadcasters by Chris Hedges, Senior Fellow at The Nation Institute.

I just got my copy of War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning and What Every Person Should Know About War.

I'm going to take some time this weekend to read them. Highly recommended.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:25:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I expect better from Gary Boatwright. (none / 0)

Perhaps I overestimated you.  Read the post again, and try this time.
by Teaser on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 11:20:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps you over estimate yourself (none / 0)

I read your post just fine. If you are offended as a white Christian, you may wish to ask yourself why. I perform a very regular moral inventory, thank you very much. You might consider examining your own character flaws, before you criticize others.
by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 12:56:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't hold your breath pal... (none / 0)

Christianist Taliban busybodies are disliked more by Normal Americans than gay people.

At least with gay people next door, your property values don't suffer.

by nanorich on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:37:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't hold your breath pal... (none / 0)

What the hell ?
What's that supposed to mean? If a religious person moves next door to you, then your property values go down?
by Bruticus on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 01:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here is what it means... (3.00 / 0)

It means you are misusing the language, by deliberately being obtuse about what is meant by Christianist.

You know damn well the difference between a Dobson theocrat and an average religious person.

Polls commissioned by the American Family Association, a politically right religious group have shown than American don't like pushy people living next door, because they really don't like being proselytized, and they value their privacy.

And that is the truth.

People don't like living next door to moralists and busybodies.

by nanorich on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 01:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are correct,. sir! (none / 0)

Resistance is futile...

and we wouldn't want to offend the Christianists and fascists who the DLC thinks they can bring over to the Suicidal Wing of the Democratic Party.

by nanorich on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:07:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It doesn't do any good (2.75 / 4)

Look, I'm a Dean guy, I really am, but comments like that do nothing to help the party.

So what if Republicans are white christians? Democrats could be the party of green martian unitarians and I'd be all for them so long as they got us out of Iraq, balanced the budget and improved health care and education for everyone.

Dr. Dean needs to reign in some of the rhetoric and stick to the issues. We can win on issues. It doesn't do anyone any good to throw out generalizations about the makeup of the opposition. (At least not in June of '05)

by TheLagerLad on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 08:41:11 AM EST

Unilateral disarmament? (2.66 / 3)

Kind of like the GOPers stick to the issues?

It doesn't do anyone any good to throw out generalizations about the makeup of the opposition. (At least not in June of '05)

I take it you've never heard of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay or Bill Frist. Or perhaps you just fans of theirs.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:08:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unilateral disarmament? (none / 0)

Parent you are absolutely Right! Why are we progressives so self depreciating. This is our guy and lets back him up. Let the other side do the whining. This is why people think we don't stand for anything because we always squabble. Stop nitpicking and start to defend & counter attack.
by eddieb on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:21:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unilateral disarmament? (none / 0)

I take it you've never heard of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay or Bill Frist. Or perhaps you just fans of theirs.

Of course not Gary.

And hey, maybe we as a country in our politics have gotten past the point of civil discourse.

Those you have mentioned above are the root cause of the vitriol we see. All I'm trying to say is that in with all the progressive ideals we strive for in our policies, it doesn't serve the cause to add to the third grade name calling.

Again, I'm happy the Dean is the DNC chair. I love his approach to government and when he speaks to the issues, he is a powerful leader for change. But he doesn't do himself, or anyone who supports him any favors when he throws out a constant barrage of soundbites for the Republican Noise Machine to take out of context and blow out of proportion.

by TheLagerLad on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:56:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unilateral disarmament? (none / 0)

Do you want a guy who is going to parse every word because the repigs will might get angry? I promise if your wish would come true they would squeal Dean is a wimp, He sounds like Kerry and on and on. They will never be appeased. So you guys who want dean to be more like Chamberlan, watch what you wish for.
by eddieb on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unilateral disarmament? (none / 0)

"Do you want a guy who is going to parse every word because the repigs will might get angry?"

Not parse, just choose his words a little more carefully.

by TheLagerLad on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:17:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unilateral disarmament? (none / 0)

OK.  If Dean does listen to you advice, then what?
I guarantee the repiglicans will immediately react by Squealing and Yelping a little more carefully.
Don't you get it! Nothing he can say or do will stop them. If he doesn't say anything at all. Not a word. They will hire the The swifties and they will make up things he never said and attack him for saying them. Know thy enemy.
by eddieb on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:47:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unilateral disarmament? (none / 0)

Like Kerry parsed his words?

/I voted for the Iraq funding bill, before I voted against it!*

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 12:52:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unilateral disarmament? (none / 0)

John Kerry's mistake was that he NEVER clarified that statement  in the following weeks, or even in the debates. In fact, I did a better job of explaining that remark to my friends than he ever did to the nation. For example, in the final debate, he said this:
"It was my mistake for not making that statement clear, but it President Bush's mistake for taking us to war."

He should have said,"I voted for the Iraq funding bill when the intelligence showed us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. When we realized that the intelligence was flawed, I then voted against it. Just as you should vote against this war...blah blah blah......."

Dean's statements are easy to chop up because when he starts the rhetoric, he very rarely qualifies his statements. And some things he says, it's like he forgets he's talking to a room full  of partisans, but the whole world is listening.

That statment about the white christians is true. But hell, it even offends white Christians who are Democrats because it villifies White Christians in particular, not just Republicans.

A lot of the Democratic rhetoric about Christians makes me uneasy , because they don't take the time to spell out who exactly they are talking about, and I am a Black Christian. It make the Democrats easy targets to paint as atheist or agnostic, moraless folx. And that will always put us in the minority.

Dean needs to focus on the core values of this party:

  1. Unions
  2. Social Programs
  3. Protest the War ( Why hasn't HE mentioned the Downing memo?
  4. Healthcare
  5. Growing Defecit
  6. Education

But instead he's running around the nation yapping and giving Karl Rove ammo. The last thing  Karl Rove and BushCo wants to talk about is ANY of the six things I listed.
by Bruticus on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 02:42:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unilateral disarmament? (none / 0)

Let's see Kerry was criticised for dumb words.

So why should Dean be immuned?

by v2aggie2 on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 12:53:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unilateral disarmament? (none / 0)

I agree with Dean's confrontational, adversarial approach.  I disagree with the dumb way he "shoots from the lip, providing, as you say, too many cheap and easy sound bites for the opposition.

And I'm disgusted the "progressive" Democrat-bashers are just as bad as Lieberman et alia when it comes to bashing other Democrats...only a different set.  

It will take all Democrats and fair fraction of independents working together to overthrow this malignancy in our government.  And instead some of you want circle-jerks of arguing moral and political purity. Feh.

by InigoMontoya on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 07:06:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It doesn't do any good (3.00 / 1)

Democrats...I'd be all for them so long as they got us out of Iraq, balanced the budget and improved health care and education for everyone.

But, of course, they're not going to do any of that.

Look, Dean's correct.  And you're correct too -- his statement won't help; it will hurt the Democratic Party, marginally.  

Really, the impact of Dean's statements will not weigh too heavily when compared to people's feelings about Bush's success or lack of success in economic and security issues.  

People are going to ask themselves "Have the Republicans made things worse or better?  What do the Democrats say they will do fundamentally different?"  They aren't going to ask themselves "Is Dean an ass or a straight talker?"  Everyone without myopia knows that doesn't matter a lick.

Right now, the Democrats are failing because they are not providing any fundamental difference that people can see between them and the Republicans.  Each Presidential election sees the parties grow closer, not further apart, in their rhetorical stands on both economic and security issues.

That is the problem the Democrats must fix.  Dean's mouth is not a problem that needs fixing.

by Too Kind By Half on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:30:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This remark is offensive (none / 0)


In a world where other young men
are giving their lives every day,
the least Dean could have done is
draw attention to the Downing
street memo and given all the
real christians something to
focus on. A target.

I think we need a bit better grounding
in reality, in this culture.  I
will grant you that the editors
write the headlines

But if his new england sensibilities still
fail to account that an hour and a half drive over his border, Catholic priests were molesting
boys large scale - some noseless pervert
is on the news every day,  and those that
call themselves christians are wrapping themselves
in a flag not unlike what was so clearly
foretold in revelations, the sign of the
beast -  oh, and did we forget that
the Swiss are wrapping their glaciers
in plastic not unlike a woman in latex?

He simply must produce a better plan.
California is running toward the GOP camp.
His tiny view of the problem is that
he can say something rad, and bring
all of california back into the camp.

I have a short list on my desk who encouraged
him to say this, and he was a 'supporter'
of Dean during his campaign who thinks
he's smart and moved high up to behind the scenes.

Theres no way Dean was meeting yesterday in SF
without meeting this guy, and if you want
to burn through 40 million dollars
in less than two months, he's your man.

Anyone else want to send in some cash?
These people were total idiots.  They
didn't have the faintest clue of how
to play this game, and in a world where
Americans desperately need a new "deep throat"
they were only concerened about the media -
because... they were employed by media
entertainment, sold media entertainment,
and they want Dean to be .. you got it.

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 08:49:32 AM EST

Re: This remark is offensive (3.00 / 1)

turner, can you please for the love of all that is holy stop with the messed up line wrapping?  is it too much to ask of you to simply keep typing instead of hitting your enter key every fifth word?  the formatting makes your comments difficult to read.  it also creates a ton of unneccessary white space... i zeroed out a comment of your's upthread for this reason.

please, please post your comments in a readable format.  pretty please?  

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 12:48:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

P.S. A Metric to go along with this (none / 0)


The metric you'll want to watch here is
the latino vote.

Most of silicon valley realizes that
the latino population is
now determining the cost of
reform even if people like Boxer
would stand up and fight
for her christian, white, ATM machine
there in the valley... everyone
who plays the game knows that
Dean needs to be resonating with
this group.

They voted for Bush because they wanted
no change in leadership and they saw him
as Macho.

So I'd watch this group as the metric
to whether or not this Chairman is
doing his job.  

PS.  Another 10,000 activists can meet
somewhere else. Its all about EAST LA
now, homies.

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 08:58:42 AM EST

Re: P.S. A Metric to go along with this (none / 0)

So where are your cites?

So far, I'm seeing lots of invective, but no verifiable data.

by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:49:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: P.S. A Metric to go along with this (none / 0)

East LA. Percentage approval amongst latinos.

Silicon Valley.  Field large donors approval
and metrics like money collected.

http://www.opensecrets.org

In business, you have to make public
your plan to your investors. You have
to be able to trust them to
that extent, so that you
can give forward looking statements.

At minimum, Dean needs to make
public his slate to the party. I don't
see the people in the positions for this
50 state strategy.

Something else to watch: how many latinos
throw their name in the hat.

And Finally: How many Big Sky, Fiscal
Conservative Democrats can Dean land.

I guess the best metric there is
to find out how much the one Big Sky
Democrat we know and love thinks
of Dean. After all, there really
aren't that many big sky democrats
yet, are there?

-=-

No money until we see the plan.

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:06:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The metric is local autonomy (3.00 / 1)

The reason Dean is so popular with the local grassroots Democratic activists is that he is letting them make their own decisions. He is not imposing a top down platform or a top down slate of candidates.

Howard Dean is giving the local and state parties more authority over how to run campaigns in their own state than they have ever had before. That's why he is such a big threat to the Democratic D.C. elites.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:31:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The metric is local autonomy (none / 0)

The elites aren't behind this latest salvo,
its the special interests groups. They're
the ones that are getting all tied up
in knots.

There's a big difference. The elites work
for the special interests.
Not the other way around.

Dean's statements about party position are
playing right into the hands of the
special interests groups... he's naive, man.

The guy is naive.

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 11:17:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The metric is local autonomy (none / 0)

Define the difference between "special interests" and "elites."

Dean is fighting back. Is that naive or is that the way to deal with an uncompromising opponent?

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The point is... (3.00 / 2)

The point is "that others need not apply". People in those minorities who don't meet any of the operative criteria know of what Howard Dean was speaking.
543,895 votes
by Michael Bersin on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:01:40 AM EST

Re: The point is... (none / 0)

Well, if you are a minority, you can join up, and they'll parade you around as a great example of a minority in their party.
by nanoboy on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:38:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The point is... (none / 0)

And they'll even take a picture with you.

by KimPossible on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 01:23:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ugh (2.00 / 1)

"They all look the same.  They all behave the same."

For one, that's not "the truth".  I don't know how you could say otherwise.

This was preceded by the statement a couple of dayss ago that Republicans have never made an honest living in their lives.  Yes, I realize this was a statement made in jest, but Dean's a big boy, he knows how the media works in this day and age, and he should have learned from the scream that different types of media plays things different ways than intended.

I know that Jerome has had a connection to the Dean camp for a long time, but to try to say this is helpful is ridiculous.  I want Dean out there hammering the president's record repeatedly.  I want him out there hammering the Republican party's intolerance and greed.  I don't want him making careless, stupid ass statements that distract from his message and scare people away from the party.

Can you honestly say that yesterday's statement was at all helpful in any way at all?  Does this statement help or hurt a 50 state strategy?  Come on Jerome.  Face it, our boy needs to measure his words a lot better.  Dean can shoot straight and tell it like it is without making an ass of himself.

by alhill on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:15:09 AM EST

This is why Democrats lose elections (3.00 / 4)

...because too many of them are:

a) still fighting the 2003 primary battles and are looking to knife those folks who came out ahead of them,

b) far more willing to attack other Democrats in public than they are to publicly attack Republicans

c) whenever a prominent Democrat or Democratic ally (like Gore) says something that the masses agree with, yet frightens the GOP/Media, there are always a few "FOX Democrats" who are all too willing to publicly backstab a fellow Democrat just to ensure they keep getting invited to speak on TV.

I dare you all to count the number of times Howard Dean has publicly criticized a Democrat by name during his time as DNC Chair -- or even since the end of the primaries.  

And I wonder how much of the anti-Dean feeling coming out of the media centers is due to a lot of very expensive and very worthless Beltway consultants suddenly losing their perches -- and then running to whine to their media buddies about it in revenge?

by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:36:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Key Question (3.00 / 1)

Why do the Democratic Presidential nominee wannabees think they can improve their popularity in the Democratic party by criticizing Howard Dean?

The obvious strategy for any sound thinking Democrat would be to critcize the RNC Chair instead of the DNC Chair. Is that strategy a little too subtle?

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:15:25 AM EST

It's the democratic way (none / 0)

Republicans establish themselves as the ones who are most directly opposed to the godless ways of the democrats.

Democrats establish themselves as the ones who will take back the party from the other factions within the democratic party.  It's all the same whether you are Lieberman or Kuchinich.  My favorite thing about Dean is that he does this stuff.  It's so much smarter than the circular firing squad crap.

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 12:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Key Question (none / 0)

They are seeing the money leaving their hands and do not like it.  They think, much like the rest of our government that the local people can not possibly know what is best for them.

The DLC was and is all about Money.  As soon as I told them they were making bad decisions in the Kerry Campaign I was excommunicated.  

DAGGER
by goplies on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 12:27:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Key Question (none / 0)

Chris Lehane is that you?
by risenmessiah on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:18:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Key Question (none / 0)

lol

guess there are lots of us out here.

DAGGER
by goplies on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Key Question (none / 0)

I am not sure Mary Beth Cahill bothered to tell John Kerry that 90% of self-identified Democrats thought he was doing it wrong. But no matter who you are, everyone sees through the Dean critics as either a) trying to appeal to a non-Democratic office becasue he or she seeks higher office or b) leaping all over this shit because it beats admitting that they are responsible for Iraq-nam.
by risenmessiah on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 01:04:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Red State Rebellion (none / 0)

Anyone who thinks it is not the time to strike back at the GOPers and strike back hard, should pay a visit to The Left Coaster and listen to the new song from The Honkey Tonkers For Truth, I'm Taking My Country Back.
by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:19:06 AM EST

How DARE Dean be right yet again! (3.00 / 4)

Just like he was right about how invading Iraq was a bad idea.

Just like he was right about health care.

Just like he was right about pretty much everything.

Oh, and how DARE he set fundraising records for the DNC!  

By the way, to forestall the whiners:  

Just as the Afghan riots started well before the Newsweek story saw print, the flight of corporate money was happening long before Dean became DNC chair.  In the 2004 cycle, with "Mr. Electable" Kerry as the guy picked to placate Corporate America, guess what happened?  Corporate America donated ten times as much to the GOP as they did to the Democrats.  In fact, along with the 527s and the unions, it was Dean's existing small-donor internet machinery -- machinery that was transferred to the Kerry campaign after the primaries -- that kept Kerry afloat.)

There are some folks who are still fighting the 2003 primary campaign, and they are so very, very pissed off that there's a bunch of us out there now organized to fight the DINOs.  Too bad.

by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:26:08 AM EST

Why Kerry Lost (3.00 / 1)

It wasn't because of corporate America (stocks flat over Bush's term), it was because of white rural Christians. They have been running to the hinterlands ever since the Italian Renaissance, and now that they don't have anywhere else to run they are taking a page out of Samson and taking the whole edifice of our Enlightened Republic down with them.

What could be more "morally relative" than faith? To me, just believing what ever you want to believe regardless of the facts is the ultimate act of self-centeredness. It smacks of the arbitrary nature of the despotic mind. What would happen if these people applied the scepticism they have towards evolution to their own religion? America is the greatest country, not because of religion, many countries have religion (and suck). It is because we were the first to establish freedom from religion that we are the who we are. Never forget that.

by Paul Goodman on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:47:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Kerry Lost (3.00 / 1)

Kerry lost because Americans don't like Bush much, they liked Kerry a hell of a lot less.

There seems to be this delusional thinking on the part of the self described "moderates" that if they finesse issues they can win.

Well, here is a flash, this ain't about issues, it about personality...and allowing the Republican to define us.

And Howard is doing something extremely weird: he is defining Republicans in populist terms: and stopping this endless defensiveness.

You can't win if you just play defense.  You have to take risks, you have to redefine the game, and you have to offend a few people who wouldn't vote for us anyway.

by nanorich on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:17:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Kerry Lost (2.00 / 0)

No atheists in a foxhole.

Secularism is a form of advertising, and
a commercial medium. Whether its in the schools,
where teachers are bending themselves into pretzels
keeping from saying "christmas"

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:22:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Kerry Lost (none / 0)

Oh, no, not another alleged Democrat who fell for the FOX News "War On Christmas" bullcrap!
by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 12:23:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Foxholes (none / 0)

Turner, you really need to retire this piece of Christian propaganda:

"No atheists in a foxhole. "

It is offensive to atheists.

by Curt Matlock on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 12:24:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Kerry Lost (none / 0)

I used to teach English as a second language. One of my Vietnamese students, a Buddhist, became outraged because I was teaching vocabulary words about Christmas, words like wreath, sleigh, carols, etc.  You never know when you'll offend.
by prince myshkin on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 02:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

like hell there aren't atheists in foxholes (none / 0)


by jethropalerobber on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:54:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Standing in the middle of the road (none / 0)

"Why do the Democratic Presidential nominee wannabees think they can improve their popularity in the Democratic party by criticizing Howard Dean?"

Because they think that if you can capture the votes of the swinging middle you don't need a solid base.

by esmense on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:31:24 AM EST

Re: Standing in the middle of the road (none / 0)

You stand in the middle of the road, you get hit by trucks and end up being roadkill.
by nanorich on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:18:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nobody wants to discuss racism (3.00 / 3)

I'm cross-posting this comment from Bonddad's diary yesterday, Nobody wants to discuss racism:

The ugly truth is that racism hasn't been overcome in the US. We just pretend it has.

In the north you get subtle housing, employment and education discrimination. In big business you get promotion discrimination. (See Tuesday NY Times about a discrimiation suit at GE). In the south the non-slave owning whites transformed into the Jim Crow enforcers after Reconstruction. Then they transformed into the Dixiecrats and now they are the core of the southern Republican "base".

In all of the country you get harsher law enforcement policies. By not addressing the issues openly, the effects remain, distorting the political landscape and allowing coded messages of "morality", "faith", "values", "patriotism", to sway people.

Robert D Feinman
Musings on Society: policies not politics
robertdfeinman.com
Fables and Follies for Our Time
Musings on Society and Public Policy

The best way to address the issue of racism is to address the issue of racism. Howard Dean is pursuing exactly the right strategy by getting a subject out into the open that favors the Democratic party. The M$M has allowed the GOPers to put on minstrel stage shows at the conventions that don't even pass the laugh test.

It's about time someone in the Democratic party found the courage to bring the racist record of the Republican party out into the spotlight of public opinion. This is a winning issue.

The politician to keep an eye on is Barak Obama. I wonder if Barak is going to jump on the bandwagon of the cowardly Democrats who don't believe the 1st Amendment applies to the DNC Chair and are afraid to discuss the important issues of our day.

Another example is the Downing Street Memo. Has any Senate Democrat mentioned the Downing Street Memo yet? Why is John Connyers carrying the burden of talking truth to power and the M$M about the Downing Street Memo?

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:33:28 AM EST

Re: Nobody wants to discuss racism (none / 0)

The 1st amendment?

What does that have to do with anything going here.

Everybody on each side has the right to say what they want.  And if desired, everybody else has the right to criticise.

So I ask...who is going after the 1st amendment?

by v2aggie2 on Thu Jun 09, 2005 at 12:48:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Standing in the middle of the road, Part II (none / 0)

I should add to that -- if you don't need a solid base, of course, you also don't need solid principles. Which are oh so inconvenient for the ambitious.

You'd think by now that by now they'd have noticed that standing in the middle mostly just gets you run over. But, since they haven't, perhaps the other answer to your question is that they are just plain dumb.  

by esmense on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:35:57 AM EST

Re: Standing in the middle of the road, Part II (none / 0)

The only things in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead skunks.
by sixteenwords on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:57:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Standing in the middle of the road, Part II (2.00 / 1)

I'm all for standing for something. Hell, we all know what the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for.

But I'm really interested in knowing how Dean expects the Party to campaign in all 50 states if  he keeps saying things that alienates a lot of people in the middle of the road whose vote we are trying to get. Such as:
White Christians
Moderate Republicans

The problem with Dean is that while he's energizing the base, I'm not sure he's getting us any new votes. New votes being those people that voted Red last time, but wereone issue voters..(gay marriage, abortion, Religious issues etc.) Those are the easiest ones to win over because instead of appealing to a bunch of issues, you just have to focus on one.

by Bruticus on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:07:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Standing in the middle of the road, Part II (none / 0)

New votes being those people that voted Red last time, but wereone issue voters..(gay marriage, abortion, Religious issues etc.) Those are the easiest ones to win over because instead of appealing to a bunch of issues, you just have to focus on one.

And you get those one issue voters by?  Selling out the people on the other side of those issues?  See, we can do that one issue at a time.  The Democratic Leadership has been doing that on economic issues for a long time.  And boy, that's worked like a charm.

by paperwight on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:33:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Standing in the middle of the road, Part II (none / 0)

I'm not talking about  'selling out the people on the other side of those issues' but there is a lot of middle ground that hasn't been explored on these issues.
If the Democrats focus more on providing alternatives to abortion, and getting the number down  as opposed to fighting over the morality of the issue, we will get a lot of the religious moderates.  see www.dfla.org
There was moderate, bipartisan support for civil unions, but the Democrats went for full gay marriage and alienated the middle. In a day and age when priests are comming out of the closet to public outcry, support for gay marriage didn't win us any votes and cost us a lot.

Democrats can stand for what they want it's there perogative. What makes this politics is getting people to votes for Democrats.

This party is focusing on the base, but the base did what they were supposed to do last year. We have to increase our base and pick up some moderates to get more votes, or the same thing is going to happen to us again. Repugs will focus on a few wedge issues and  get conflicting groups to vote for them. OUr small core base will vote the Democratic candidate and we will lose again, the same way we have been losing for the last 6 out of 9 elections.

Hell, if John Kerry would have just said we wanted to START to pull our boys home, that would have given him the swing votes to overcome the gay marriage/abortion wedge issue.....

by Bruticus on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 12:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Standing in the middle of the road, Part II (none / 0)

So you and I agree on one thing at least:  Bringing the troops home.  I want to challenge (though it's quite late) a couple things you have said:

If the Democrats focus more on providing alternatives to abortion, and getting the number down  as opposed to fighting over the morality of the issue, we will get a lot of the religious moderates.  see www.dfla.org

When have the Dems not done this?  I don't see Democrats going out and advocating that people have abortions.  In fact, Democrats support almost everything that would make fewer abortions a reality:  sex ed, more available birth control, better economic circumstances, and so on.  And in every case, the Republicans shout them down.  Hell, I am on record as being in favor of non-religious homes for women in distress who want to either keep or adopt out rather than have an abortion.  But you'll never see the Republicans supporting that either.  I think what you want is for Dems to express moral disapproval of abortion, which is unreasonable.

There was moderate, bipartisan support for civil unions, but the Democrats went for full gay marriage and alienated the middle. In a day and age when priests are comming out of the closet to public outcry, support for gay marriage didn't win us any votes and cost us a lot.

  1.  What do the priests have to do with anything?
  2.  ALL marriages that have anything to do with the state are nothing but civil unions which have to do with the rights and privileges granted by the state.  They have NOTHING to do with religion.  Creating a state-sanctioned separate category of lesser status is wrong, just like Jim Crow was wrong.  Pandering to bigotry is wrong.  Period.

by paperwight on Fri Jun 10, 2005 at 03:36:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gotta agree with the moderates (3.00 / 2)

Dean needs to lay low.

Only by appeasing them and issuing statements that they've pre-approved can we fight back.

First, let's nominate a war hero, that ought to be acceptable.

by sixteenwords on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:49:19 AM EST

Re: Gotta agree with the moderates (none / 0)

Ha ha ha, good joke!
by Wesgal on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:30:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why don't they like us? (none / 0)

First, let's nominate a war hero

or a general! That would be so awesome!

miasmo.com
by miasmo on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:58:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Drawing Christian distinction (3.00 / 0)

I think Democrats need to find a by-word for the type of Christian Dean is talking about.

I'm partial to McJesus Zombie.

Evengelical would also seem to be a good choice, since 77% of the voted Bush anyhow (the other 23% have since had dates standing in lines next to walls).

I think we need to make a distinction that allows us to separate our kind of Christian from their kind.

by jcjcjc on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:53:20 AM EST

Re: Drawing Christian distinction (none / 0)

How about Corservative. Lets make it a dirty word akin to what the wingnuts have done with Libreal
by eddieb on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 09:55:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Red Neck Warmonger Jesus (none / 0)

Who would Jesus bomb?

America needs to hear the genuine prophetic voice of Christianity. America needs to be reminded that Jesus was about beating swords into plowshares, not beating Iraqi prisoners.

By bursting the myth that God is a Republican, Jim Wallis and other committed, conscientious Christians can turn back the Christian Fascists and their Red Neck Warmonger Jesus.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:13:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Drawing Christian distinction (none / 0)

I love "McJesus."  I think "Zombie" is better for private consumption.  (Like your best wine?)
by prince myshkin on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 02:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Drawing Christian distinction (none / 0)

You have to be extremely cautious with "The Name".  However, even the Holy Rollers might appreciate the scorn of "McChristian".  Might be worth the inevitable lawsuit...
by theBender on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 05:35:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeeeaaaahhhhhh! (3.00 / 1)

Another reminder of Casy Stengel's Lament:

Or, as the baseball legend reportedly said while managing the New York Mets through their disastrous first season: "Can't anybody here play this game?"
If the Democratic Party were a baseball team, I've no doubt Stengel would be swearing at them from the dugout steps right now. To my mind, the latest flap over Howard Dean's, um, creative mouth highlights everything that's tactically wrong with the party. (I'd say strategically wrong, too, but that would be criticizing something that doesn't exist.)

Criticizing the Democratic strategy is like criticizing zero for not adding up. The Democratic leadership is meekly dodging the Downing Street Memo, dodging demanding an exit strategy from Iraq and dodging any overall strategy for 2006 or 2008.

What really bothers the fossils in the Democratic party is that Howard Dean is taking a stand for Democratic values and making them look pale by comparison. Since they can't compete with him on the issues, they are trying to tear him down to their low level of issue avoidance.

The fossils in the Democratic party should be criticizing and attacking the RNC Chair instead of the DNC Chair:

But, as witless as Dean's crack was, his immediate repudiation by the mushy moderates -- in this case, John "Opie" Edwards and Joe "Badger" Biden -- was in some ways worse.
Edwards and Biden may have thought they were immunizing themselves by pushing the media knife a little deeper into Dean's back, but all they did was ensure another couple of days of coverage for the "story" and give the GOP spinmeisters some fresh ammo to fire back at Dean -- who, whether they like it or not, is the chairman of the entire Democratic Party, not just the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

The DLC and the Corporate Democrats did everything they could to stop the grassroots movement to stop Howard Dean. They lost. The grassroots won. Howard Dean is not going to shut up, and I applaud him for that. His critics are splitting the party, not his criticism of the Republican party.

But Dean, or at least his political style, represents the future of the Democratic Party (assuming, of course, that it has a future.) Edwards and Biden, on the other hand, are products of an era in which accommodation to the conservative tide was the smartest survival strategy for most ambitious Democratic pols.
I don't necessarily hold that against them -- there's a lot to be said for survival -- but for the party as a whole their strategy is an evolutionary dead end. The task for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, it seems to me, is to attack the GOP machine at its weak points whenever and wherever possible, in the most aggressive way possible, while at the same time putting forward a economic and social agenda that is solidly progressive (as liberals understand the term) but also has common-sense, populist appeal.

Absolutely nothing Howard Dean is doing or saying is preventing any of the Democratic Presidential wannabees from putting forward an economic and social agenda. The only thing standing in their way is their own timidity and failure to take a stand on the issues.

Democrats need to get over their minority mentality. Howard Dean is demonstrating exactly how to break out of the battered wife syndome that Kerry and the DLC are locked in to. You fight back against the aggressor.

But I do know that parties with a minority mentality (i.e. that try to blur differences instead of sharpening them) tend to stay in the minority. And one of the classic symptoms of the minority mentality is cowardice -- being ready at the drop of a hat to turn on your own leaders because they've made a gaffe or heated up the debate beyond your own personal comfort zone.

So exactly what is the issue that Richardson or any other Democrat disagrees with?

If Edwards and Biden had disagreed with Dean over a matter of policy I'd probably feel differently about their public criticism: Marching in partisan lockstep obviously can be as unhealthy and destructive as forming the firing squads in a circle. But this was purely an exercise in duck and cover -- even though Dean was dead right on the actual issue at hand and they knew it.

Howard Dean is exactly right again. The Republican party is the party of racism and Christian white guys. The only way to pull their cover is  . . . (drumroll) . . . to pull their cover. The Democratic party cannot allow the Republican party to pretend to be the party of racial inclusiveness when they are not.

I am looking forward to Rep. John Connyers reaction to Howard Dean. I am looking forward to the reaction of Jesse Jackson, Barak Obama and yeah, you heard me right, Rev. Al Sharpton.

It's time for the second stringers to get sent down to the farm team and for the real hardball players to take the field. Howard Dean is a real hardball player.

Which, to switch back to my original baseball metaphor, only shows how far the Dems have to go even to get up to the level of play of the '62 Mets -- much less the "Miracle Mets" of 1969. But then, the Mets didn't make it to the World Series with the same players (or manager) they fielded in that dismal first season. It took a whole new team. And I suspect the same will be true of the Democrats.

Biden and Kerry are both has beens and milquetoast wannabees. Edwards and Richardson have been shown a whole new kind of Democrat that they can't compete with. A fiery, no holds barred Democrat who knows how to oppose political tyranny.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:05:56 AM EST

The look alike they walk alike (none / 0)

they talk alike.  They're cousins identical white christian cousins...........

Somewhere over the last few months I have become a Dean convert.  I think he is fantastic.  

by Wesgal on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:13:31 AM EST

Long past time Democrats stood up (3.00 / 3)

I posted a rant about this obsessive need by Democrats to criticize other Democrats here: http://supremeirony.blogspot.com/

I really don't understand why, knowing exactly how Gingrich and the Republicans staged their takeover of congress in the 90's, Democrats are somehow wrong for doing the same thing?

Democrats need to stand up, and call a spade a spade.  Start acting like Democrats want to be the majority again.  Instead when someone makes a strong statement that fairly accurately characterizes the current Republican party, people on the left go cower in the corner worried about what Republicans, or Republican-lite Democrats think.

by David Austin Tx on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:17:39 AM EST

Re: Long past time Democrats stood up (3.00 / 2)

I call the public backstabbers "FOX Democrats".

You can tell them by their exhibiting three or more of the following traits:

  1. Their obsessive need to be in front of a TV camera, preferably on Rupert Murdoch's network.  (Biden, Traficant, Miller, Estrich, Lieberman, Stephanopoulous, Dick Morris, etc.)

  2. Their willingness to backstab their allies publicly to further their own careers.  (See #1.)

  3. Past or present scandal that threatens their careers/bank accounts sufficiently so as to make selling out an attractive option (Biden = Plagiarism, Richardson = Los Alamos Scandal, Dick Morris = Toesucking, Traficant = Everything)

  4. Past or present incompetence that threatens them á la #3  (Stephanopoulous = Fired as Clinton's press guy, got revenge with book and ABC-TV gig; Estrich = Shunned by sane Democrats after her horrific butchering of 1988 Dukakis campaign; now goes on FOX to give out bad advice to Democrats)

  5. A feeling of jealousy/envy towards the figure or figures being attacked. (Biden to Clinton and Dean, Lieberman to Clinton, Gore, Dean, Kerry, etc.)

There you go.
by Phoenix Woman on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 12:21:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Long past time Democrats stood up (none / 0)

You know it's bad when Sean Hannity can't even get John Breaux to say something bad about Dean. That was funny.
by Bruticus on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 03:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tough talk from Dean (3.00 / 3)

Its time that Democrats stand up for Dean.  We finally have a party chairman with guts to speak the truth about what is happening in our country.  We need to let Biden and Edwards and anybody else know that the time is over for kissing up to Republicans who steal elections and call us unpatriotic and anti-family and faith.

The politically-correct, make nice nice, pro-corporate Democrats only succeeded in allowing the wholesale dismantling of the American middle class and allowing Republican-military-industrial, corporate/entertainment attacks on the poor, class warfare of the meanest sort.

The lackeys in the media sitting on their butts distributing White House press releases and cashing in on their 5 figure salaries aren't going to fight for us, we have to get out there and fight for ourselves, like Winston Churchill said-"We will fight them in the steets, we will fight them in the countryside, we will fight them in the air, we will never give up!!!"  (Sorry Churchill for mangling your eloquence, but my memory does not serve me well).

God Bless Howard Dean for having the guts to tell the truth about the Fascist/Hypocritical "Christian" Republicans!!  

by MichiganDemocrat on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:40:50 AM EST

The truth from Dean (3.00 / 1)

I think people in this country instinctively know that the religious wackos have taken over the country.  After the last election, my stepfather, the prototypical "swing" voter-who voted for Reagan in the 80's, Papa Bush in 88, and then switched to Clinton in 92 and has stuck with the Democrats ever since remarked after Bush had been "re-elected"- "Its the religious nuts who did it."

This is from a lapsed Episcopalian who shared the generally pro-Republican mindset of his parents and many of the biases (he never liked the Kennedys very much).  However, mainstream Protestants are disgusted over the evangelical nutcases from Texas and the rest of the south who are in power in Washington.  

His opinion of the Kennedys I daresay has improved 100%.  There is a realignment going on in this country, we just have to be on the winning side of it.

by MichiganDemocrat on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:48:04 AM EST

The Photo (none / 0)

What's best about the photo is that it was taken during the signing of the partial birth abortion bill. Not only are the Republicans racist, they're sexist too!
by IsaacGol on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:51:49 AM EST

Re: The Photo (none / 0)

Sorry, forgot the link...
by IsaacGol on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:53:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Where are the grunts in our party? (3.00 / 1)

I fear the problem with the Democrats is everyone thinks they are Chiefs and nobody wants to an indian.
by eddieb on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 10:55:12 AM EST

Some Dems are getting a little froggy (3.00 / 2)

They tend to jump all over Dean every time the corporate media perpetuates the false story line about Dean's so-called "rhetoric."

The disingenuous way the SF Chronicle political assassin Carla Marinucci "framed" Dean's comments serves to add fuel  to the made-up controversy and burnish Ms. Marinucci's establishment bona fides by bashing Dean.

Consider the opening paragraph, which suggests that Dean, "unapologetic in the face of recent criticism that he has been too tough" on Republicans,  thumbed his nose at critics by saying Republicans "all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party." Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Pure rubbish.

Howard Dean was responding to an Asian reporter's lengthy question regarding  studies that suggest fewer Asians are supporting the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. She asked Dean to comment on that trend:

Reporter: A [unintelligible] that it shows that in the last four years, Asian voters supporting the [unintelligible], I remember maybe two or three studies that I covered recently they show that even eight or twelve years ago, so quite many Asians they support Republicans. But now, last year it shows that quite many Asians support Democrats. Do you have any comment you want to make about this, and..

Dean: I think a lot it has to do with [unintelligible]. The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. They pretty much, they all behave the same and they all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian Party, and the Democrats have everybody you can think of in our Party. So, as this gentleman was talking about, it's a coalition of a lot of different interest groups. The problems is that we've got to make sure it turns into a Party, which means I've got to spend time in the communities and our folks have got to spend time in the communities. I think we're more welcoming to different folks, because that's the kind of people we are. Now, but, that's not enough. We do have to deliver on things, particularly on jobs, housing, and business opportunities, and college opportunities and so forth.

Dean's comment was frank, honest and, perhaps to some, painfully true.

by fafnir on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 11:00:49 AM EST

Please be real (none / 0)

The Republican Party has several 'minority' members which include several Representatives and Senators as well as Lt. Governors and  Cabinet officials at the federal, state and local level.  Somewhere between 40 and 44% of the Hispanic vote went to President Bush in the last election.
by shadow1 on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 11:11:28 AM EST

Re: Please be real (none / 0)

higher in my state.

the latino vote basically decided not to switch
horses midstream. bush's re-election, if anything
was more a sign of strength from
the american people than anything else.

everyone knew his record, but we sent
a message to any enemy fighting us -
that we will not abandon our guy
in the middle of a war, no matter
what happens.

Latinos are a key issue for the GOP over
there. Dean is getting reports that Karl
Rove is planning to rifleshoot
california right out from underneath
him, and if that happens, the party is
finito.

My guess is that this is just the beginning,
because the media-news-entertainment
people are going to be able to seize
on this and drown out the downing
street memo.

I think the key thing is how
latinos read it.  Good post.

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 11:20:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you do realize this photo includes at least 1 Dem? (none / 0)

Democratic Congressman Sabo of Minnesota
by leap on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 11:23:16 AM EST

Don't shut Dean up. Yell loudly with him. (3.00 / 1)

The Republicans have been defining Democrats for years and the public (even Democrats) buy every word they say. Don't shut Dean up. Yell loudly with him.

The so-called "Christian Conservatives" are a big group of hypocrites. They say one thing and do another and they are very good a getting Americans to believe them. The most troubling thing is that they also have shown their true colors but it doesn't seem to cause them any trouble at all. Howard Dean says something as simple as "republicans are a party of white Christians" and the media is all over him.

Pat Robertson says something as shocking as "Whenever evangelization efforts meet with chronic resistance, extermination should follow." and no one takes him to task for it. He has also said: "Jesus was not a pacifist. He was not a sissy. We have enough votes to run the country. ... It's going to be a spiritual battle. There will be Satanic forces. ... We are not going to be coming up just against human beings to beat them in elections. We're going to be coming up against spiritual warfare." And, "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

After 9/11 Robertson blamed "abortionists, feminists, gays, and lesbians" for the terrorist attacks, and yet he is welcomed onto "news" programs everywhere as though he is mainstream!

Christians and Republicans need to get angry that these extremists are hijacking their vernacular, and hiding behind their labels. These extremists aren't Jesus' Christians nor Abe Lincoln's Republicans. They are unChristian and unAmerican. They need to be exposed for what they are.

by BlueStatePride on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 11:35:52 AM EST

nope, no white christians here either (3.00 / 1)

from the yahoo caption:

Texas Gov Rick Perry, center front, signs the abortion consent bill during a ceremony in the gym of the Calvary Christian Academy in Fort Worth, Texas, Sunday, June 5, 2005. Looking on are, from left, Molly White, Joe Pojman, Dr. Linda Flower and State Sen. Kathy Adams. The bill restricts abortion late in a pregnancy and requires minor girls to get parental consent for an abortion. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 11:44:22 AM EST

Re: nope, no white christians here either (2.00 / 1)

COnsidering how rare and inhumane a partial birth abortion is, can I ask why there is an outcry  against banning it? I would appreciate it if you didn't use the 'Domino Effect' either. (That is, they will try for second semester abortions next, etc.)

And to all the paretns of teenage daughters on this board, can I ask why there is an outcry  for legislation requiring that an underage girl needs parental consent to have an abortion? I mean, damn shouldn't parents have their daughters are messing around and possibly getting diseases?

by Bruticus on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 01:26:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Simple (none / 0)