[Nonsuch]

Most of you probably know that Howard Dean is currently being lambasted by his fellow Democrats for saying he wants his campaign to appeal to white southerners "with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."

His opponents say his remarks unfairly stereotype poor and working class southerners and that they're generally in poor taste. Dean says he simply wants the Democratic party to reach out to poor southerners.

What were your thoughts when you heard the story? I personally think that Dean is correct to point out a culture gap between the working South and the Democratic leadership, but there certainly were better ways to express the point.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Most of you probably know that Howard Dean is currently being lambasted by his fellow Democrats for saying he wants his campaign to appeal to white southerners "with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."

Maybe he specifically means southerners who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flags attached...

True, it's not the most polite way to put something, but it's also not all that "racist" (racist against his own race?). I mean, many white southerners view the Confederate flag with pride, view the recent strong opposition to actions to remove the Confederate flag from the South. As for the pickup trucks, that may be a caricature, but from what I've seen, true.

[chris v]

Maybe he could have chosen his words better, but the truth is, the Democratic party has been ignoring the redneck Nascar demographic, much to their detriment. Those folks have the same real-life jobs-and-insurance concerns as the effete city intellectuals that the Dems have been courting as their base for the last 15 years. Dean is at least wily enough to realize that farmers and rednecks actually vote sometimes, and that if some of them voted Democratic, it would be a good thing.

That's not a divisive idea, although his opponents are trying to misconstrue his words as being divisive.

I'll be curious to see if he backs away, or sticks to his guns. Personally, I hope he shows some damn spine, and I'm an effete city intellectual.

CV

[OAW]

Dean is either an idiot or he's playing the same "Southern Strategy" race card that the Republicans have utilized for decades.

If his goal is to realize the "Big Tent" vision of the Democratic party, then to make a comment about "white southerners with confederate flags in their pickup trucks" is just an idiotic thing to say. All that statement does is alienate the African-American community which is the most loyal Democratic voting bloc there is. And the alienation is justified because by and large the Confederate flag is reviled in the African-American community just as a Nazi flag is reviled in the Jewish community. Furthermore, all the arguments about the Confederate flag being about "Southern Pride" hold about as much water as a Nazi flag being about "German Pride". Let's face it, he could have easily said "white southerners with gun racks in their pickup trucks" and delivered the same message while not kicking up a racial sh*tstorm in the process.

Then again, there could be a method to Dean's madness. The Republicans have used the "Southern Strategy" since 1968 ... and quite effectively at times. They have subtly ... and sometimes not so subtly ... utilized "wedge issues" with racial overtones to garner the white southern vote (especially males) ... in national elections. Whether the issue was crime, welfare, affirmative action, or whatever ... the Republican strategists knew one thing for sure. Namely, that a large percentage, if not a majority, of white southerners would vote against their own economic interest if they believed that the people they voted for would stick it to black people and other minorities. Period.

Since the Republicans in this country have a small majority when it comes to the white vote, a strong black voter turnout is needed in order for a Democrat to win the White House. So perhaps Dean ... a man from one of the whitest states in the country and who is virtually unknown in the African-American community .... is calculating that his support in the black community will be lukewarm at best, so he needs to get more white votes. Therefore, he actively courts the "redneck" vote by sending a psychological message about the "Confederate flag" designed to appeal to the actual, latent, and/or underlying racial attitudes of white southerners. Many of them are hurting in this economy ... and many are seeing their sons killed in Iraq so Bush just may be vulnerable in this voting bloc .... especially if you sweeten the deal a little by engaging in some "plausibly deniable" racial politics.

OAW

[thunderous_funker]

Wait a sec....

Saying that you want to include rednecks is a bad idea because it will alienate blacks??

So..all blacks hate rednecks and won't back a politicians who wants to include them??



Dean is a straight shooter and doesn't mix words. That kind of Political Incorrectness should be celebrated rather than castigated.

Were his comments divisive? Yes. But only to the politics-as-usual of playing the Race card and pitting southern whites against blacks and pretending that their visions of America are somehow mutually exclusive. Career party insiders are angry as hell that Dean would attempt to kick out their racist crutch from under them and dare to look past stereotypes and demographic-based-policy-by-polling.

Why the hell shouldn't a Democrat want to address the concerns of white southerners with confederate flags on their pickups? What's wrong with them? Why should they be left out?

Once more Dean proves that he might the Democratic party's last hope to save itself from itself.

Devisive? You bet. It should once and for all expose the rotten core of the Clinton/DLC wing of the democratic party.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Dean is a straight shooter and doesn't mix words. That kind of Political Incorrectness should be celebrated rather than castigated.

I agree. I'm neither a southern redneck or african american, but Dean has earned a degree of respect with me for not backing down and trying to appeal to ALL THE PEOPLE HE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT OF, instead of just being "President of the Minorities and Special Interests of the United States" or just the "President of the Rich White Folks of the United States".

I like the fact that this guy has the balls to stand behind what he says. He's a little too far to the left for me, but he has impressed me and that says a lot.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
I agree. I'm neither a southern redneck or african american, but Dean has earned a degree of respect with me for not backing down and trying to appeal to ALL THE PEOPLE HE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT OF, instead of just being "President of the Minorities and Special Interests of the United States" or just the "President of the Rich White Folks of the United States".

I like the fact that this guy has the balls to stand behind what he says. He's a little too far to the left for me, but he has impressed me and that says a lot.

I'm happy to hear you say that. Might I respectfully suggest that you investigate Dean's platform? Just because some people call him a Lefty doesn't make him one. If anything, he is painfully moderate.

Don't want to derail the thread, but I just continue to marvel how Dean has been effectively painted Green by people that want to marginalize his impact on the political playing field. At the same time that real Greens are criticizing him for being way way too conservative to limit his appeal to independents. When a guy is getting it from both sides, he must be squarely in the middle.

Check him out and ask questions. Dean's a solid guy who I think should appeal to all but the most radical of voters (left and right). He's sensible, pragmatic, non-dogmatic and isn't afraid to change his mind in the face of persuasive evidence. How's that for refreshingly different?

Anyway, Back OT.....

[boots]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Wait a sec....

Saying that you want to include rednecks is a bad idea because it will alienate blacks??

So..all blacks hate rednecks and won't back a politicians who wants to include them??

I think that simplification misses the point: Why try to gain support from one group by drudging up imagery that alienates another base of support?

Not all blacks hate rednecks...and many WILL back a politician who includes them. But not if they feel like they are being trampled upon in the effort to get the rednecks.

The message Dean seems to be sending is right on the mark (as your reasoning suggests), but there is a better way he could have phrased it. Having said that, many people say things that don't quite come out the way it was meant, and I suspect that this is one of Dean's occasions to experience that. The message was sound, but the way he phrased it draws too much attention away from the heart of the message.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by boots:
I think that simplification misses the point: Why try to gain support from one group by drudging up imagery that alienates another base of support?

Not all blacks hate rednecks...and many WILL back a politician who includes them. But not if they feel like they are being trampled upon in the effort to get the rednecks.

The message Dean seems to be sending is right on the mark (as your reasoning suggests), but there is a better way he could have phrased it. Having said that, many people say things that don't quite come out the way it was meant, and I suspect that this is one of Dean's occasions to experience that. The message was sound, but the way he phrased it draws too much attention away from the heart of the message.

I happen to think that there was nothing out of line about Dean's phrasing at all. The only reason we're talking about it because of the "liberal" media what essentially operates like a stenographer to authority.

They unquestionly and uncritically publish the politicized cheap shots of Dean's political opponents.

Every democratic candidates is strategizing how to win the "Bubba vote"--the working class white southerners who seem to irrationally vote against their own economic interests rather than support a democrat. So when the same candidates who are spending tons of time and money to figure out how to do exactly what Deans says he's going to do, suddenly he is "devisive" and "racist".

What if Dean had said he wanted to appeal to pickup drivers with pictures of Calvin urinating on a Chevy? Would he be accussed of alienating Chevy drivers and hurting the Party?

So any two-faced presidential candidate can make whatever ridiculous claim they want and suddenly its "news" and a hot issue because the press is too busy parroting instead of informing or questioning.

Guess what? Lots of southerners have confederate flags on their pickups. They are proud to be soutern white pickup drivers with confiderate flags on them. And very few of them are members of the Klan.

Dean says he's going to reach out to them and his opponents, who are aching to do exactly the same thing, are simply too PC to come out and say it. And mired in the retarded wedge politics that lost democrats the south in the first place.

[Millennium]

Racially divisive only to the terminally insecure.

[finboy]

Since he's a Democrat, none of his comments can ever be racially divisive.

Seriously, though, although he's taking heat from the other candidates, he doesn't have to answer to the media yet, at least in the Trent Lott sense.

Imagine that he'd said something like "I'd like to appeal to all the rural Southern black chicken-eating crowd." No different. Biased, elitist, and (in that example) blatantly racist.

I guess he's also said that he wanted Confederate-flag-flying Southern white trash in the "big tent" of the Democrat party. That's a great way to apologize.

What state was that he's from? Where? Howard who?

[OAW]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Wait a sec....

Saying that you want to include rednecks is a bad idea because it will alienate blacks??

So..all blacks hate rednecks and won't back a politicians who wants to include them??

T_F,

I think you need to re-read my post. I never said that the mere inclusion of the redneck crowd would alienate blacks. I said that rhetoric about "confederate flags" would alienate blacks. Furthermore, I specifically said that had he said "white southerners with gun racks in their pickup trucks" then there wouldn't have been a controversy. The point is this ... you don't create a "Big Tent" by reaching out to one group that you want to include by doing so in a fashion that offends a group that is already there.

OAW

[RooneyX]

Not divisive at all. He chose the wrong words and his competition exploited it even though many politicians secretly want the same.

[OAW]

Notwithstanding my first post about Dean's verbal "faux pas", I must say that it is refreshing to see a major white candidate speak on racial matters in a way that fundamentally crystallizes the issue ...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...lag/index.html

"Dean said institutional racism permeates the country, even after the success of the civil rights movement.

'You have a better chance of being called back for a job interview if you are white with a criminal record than you do if you are black with a clean record, never having been arrested or convicted," he said.'"

I expect a statement like that from a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton. Just as I expect most major white candidates to pay only nominal lip service to racial issues at best ... or avoid them like the plague at worst.

At some point I'll start paying closer attention to the Democratic primary race and examining the candidates' various platforms in more detail. I've been leaning towards Wesley Clark a bit thus far because he appears to be allied with Clinton and I'm definitely a "Slick Willie" fan (hey ... jobs were plentiful, raises were common, and the stock market was rising in the Clinton years, quite unlike the current Bush administration). And realistically, a "liberal" will not win the general election. Period. A moderate or a conservative will win because that is just the nature of the electorate right now. And it matters not whether one is actually a liberal or not. What matters is the perception of liberalness. Right or wrong ... Dean is currently perceived to be a liberal. And that makes me question his viability in the general election. Having said that, his statement above demonstrates a refreshing degree of honesty that will definitely make me take a closer look at him as time goes on.

OAW

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by OAW:
T_F,

I think you need to re-read my post. I never said that the mere inclusion of the redneck crowd would alienate blacks. I said that rhetoric about "confederate flags" would alienate blacks. Furthermore, I specifically said that had he said "white southerners with gun racks in their pickup trucks" then there wouldn't have been a controversy. The point is this ... you don't create a "Big Tent" by reaching out to one group that you want to include by doing so in a fashion that offends a group that is already there.

OAW

So what should he have said? "We want white southerners but only if they take the confederate flag off of their pickup so as to not offend anyone who associates the confederate flag with racism..."

Or is "rednecks" preferable? How about "Bubbas"?

Maybe when Dean said he wants to appeal to southern whites with confederate flags on their pickups, he meant that he wants to appeal to southern whites with a confederate flags on their pickups. It is a real group of people, after all. Now if he had suggested that everyone in the south fits that description, or that everyone who drives a pickup is white or proudly displays a confderate flag I might understand how people could take offense (even if I would find it over-sensative to be offended by it). But he didn't.

White southerners who drive pickups with confederate flags are not ashamed of being white southerners who drive pickups with confederate flags. I don't see why addressing them as a group is divisive, racist or anything other than being direct, honest and diplaying a healthy sense of common sense about a topic that apparently the other democratic candidates are afraid to talk about.

Everyone loves to hate Political Correctness, but they sure love to jump on a guy's case for not displaying enough of it when it suits them.

[OAW]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

Maybe when Dean said he wants to appeal to southern whites with confederate flags on their pickups, he meant that he wants to appeal to southern whites with a confederate flags on their pickups. It is a real group of people, after all.

And if that's the case then that is his prerogative. Rather stupid. But his right nevertheless. Let me see if I can break this down for you in another manner....

Let's say a major political candidate for the presidency of the United States said that he wanted to appeal to Americans who collect Nazi paraphernalia. Now ask yourself the following questions:

1. Do you think the Jewish community would be none too pleased with such a statement?

2. If so, would such an appeal be likely to garner the support of the new group, while at the same time maintaining the support of the Jewish community?

3. If not, then was the statement, regardless of its intent, an effective approach towards the goal of expanding the candidate's political base ... especially considering the political influence of the Jewish community?

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

White southerners who drive pickups with confederate flags are not ashamed of being white southerners who drive pickups with confederate flags.

Indeed you are correct.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

I don't see why addressing them as a group is divisive, racist or anything other than being direct, honest and diplaying a healthy sense of common sense about a topic that apparently the other democratic candidates are afraid to talk about.

Well Castro supporters aren't "ashamed" of being Castro supporters. But would you care to bet your next paycheck that a political candidate in Florida who actively courted the "pro-Castro" vote could maintain support in the Cuban-American community?

OAW

[boots]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So what should he have said? "We want white southerners but only if they take the confederate flag off of their pickup so as to not offend anyone who associates the confederate flag with racism..."

Or is "rednecks" preferable? How about "Bubbas"?

Had he said he was after the "NASCAR demographic" it would have covered the same people but not been even perceived as racist. The fact that we are even having this discussion is evidence that it was poor wording...it is diverting discussion from the real issue. Petty, unfortunate, but real.

And I'm not sure the Calvin-pissing-on-a-Chevy analogy is apt since this is understood as a joke. The confederate flag is not understood as a joke. Whether we understand why or not, it is a powerful symbol for both sides. I feel it was poor wording that is detracting from his message. That's not a PC vs Anti-PC argument. It's just pragmatic.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by OAW:
And if that's the case then that is his prerogative. Rather stupid. But his right nevertheless. Let me see if I can break this down for you in another manner....

Your entire reasoning is that his statement was pejorative. It isn't. And your comparisons and analogies reveal to me that you have some rather strong bias against some element of the description.

So what is the bad part of being a white southerner who drives a pickup with a confederate flag?

Being white? Southern? Trucks? Probably the confederate flag, right? I understand that for some people it holds a very negative connotation, but that is not a universal reaction.

In fact, considering that people Dean was appealing to take offense at their beloved symbol being equated with Nazis makes his statement all the more refreshing in today's PC stupidity. Sidestepping the issue of southern pride (and its controversial symbol) is hardly the way to let southerners know you are honestly interested in their viewpoint.

The confederate flag is only offensive to those who cannot understand that it represents something different to a majority of those who continue to venerate it.

I happen to consider crucifixes to be symbols of barbarism, cruelty and torture. But I also understand that it doesn't mean those things to most people who display them. Coincidently, the Klan also used the crucifix rather prominently as a symbol of White Power.

Lots and lots of southerners would love to reclaim the icon of the confederate flag from its negative association with slavery or the KKK. It means something else to them and telling them it can never be anything but a symbol for slavery or the KKK is more devisive than anything else I can think of. If anything, the rest of America should embrace any attempt to reclaim that symbol to stand for something positive, uplifting and important to southerners.

[boots]

Dean himself sums up my feelings on this:

Dean said, "I started this discussion in a clumsy way. This discussion will be painful and I regret the pain that I may have caused either to African-American or Southern white voters in the beginning of this discussion. But we need to have this discussion in an honest, open way."

I said in another thread that there are serious issues that, at this time and in this place, we simply can't have serious discussion about...this is one of the examples of what I meant. The issue gets overshadowed by the rhetoric. This whole thread is a monument to that. Clinton tried this early in his tenure...and dropped it when the rhetoric got to hot. I'd love to see Dean carry this through...even at the expense of a political career. This is more important that one person's shot at president.

It was a clumsy statement. I said that in another post (vide supra). But that doesn't change his message. I think he's right on this one, and if we can't start the discussion - even in an awkward way - problems won't get fixed.

[OAW]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

Your entire reasoning is that his statement was pejorative. It isn't. And your comparisons and analogies reveal to me that you have some rather strong bias against some element of the description.

Actually you are incorrect. I don't think his statement was pejorative at all. I do, however, think it was a pretty stupid thing to say. In fact, I used the term "idiotic". My reasoning is based upon the fact that the vast majority of people in the US simply do not associate anything positive with the Confederate flag. My reasoning is based upon the fact that the vast majority of people in the US associate it with slavery, Jim Crow, and racism. My reasoning is based upon the fact that it is pretty stupid to then utilize that sort of rhetoric in an attempt to expand one's political base ... because it will inevitably backfire as it has.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

In fact, considering that people Dean was appealing to take offense at their beloved symbol being equated with Nazis makes his statement all the more refreshing in today's PC stupidity. Sidestepping the issue of southern pride (and its controversial symbol) is hardly the way to let southerners know you are honestly interested in their viewpoint.

The confederate flag is only offensive to those who cannot understand that it represents something different to a majority of those who continue to venerate it.
.
.
.
.

I hear what you are saying. There are many who argue that the Confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery, racism, and Jim Crow ... but rather, a symbol of "Southern Pride". I liken that to taking a sh*t in the middle of the living room floor and then swearing on a stack of Bibles that it's rose petals ... when every one can see and smell what it really is.

The reality is that Confederate flag has over a century's worth of association with slavery, racism, Jim Crow, and KKK activity. Now perhaps there are those whites in today's modern society who are trying to "redefine" the meaning of the symbol. However even if that is true, such recent efforts simply do not outweigh the legacy of that symbol. Just like white people can't use the N-word in the presence of black people without running the risk of a serious beatdown ... because even though the word may have a different meaning in certain contexts, the historical legacy of the usage of the word by whites simply outweighs any modern usage, and thus makes it "verboten" for use by whites for the foreseeable future.

Furthermore, there is a long history of denial in this country when it comes to racism. Quite frankly, there are those whites who are so in denial about racism that they would characterize a group of whites burning a cross in a black family's yard as a simple case of "arson" rather than "racial intimidation". In my view, it is this same denial that fuels these "Confederate Flag = Southern Pride" assertions ... while conveniently overlooking the fact that the culture of the South, the Southern "way of life" itself was fundamentally rooted in slavery at worst and white supremacy at best.

But I suppose that redneck driving a pickup truck with a Confederate flag in the back who's never said a positive thing about "nigras" in his entire life outside of a sports competition can simply say ....

"Who are you going to believe ... me or your lying eyes?"

.... and there would be those who would believe him.

OAW

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Most of you probably know that Howard Dean is currently being lambasted by his fellow Democrats for saying he wants his campaign to appeal to white southerners "with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."

His opponents say his remarks unfairly stereotype poor and working class southerners and that they're generally in poor taste. Dean says he simply wants the Democratic party to reach out to poor southerners.

What were your thoughts when you heard the story? I personally think that Dean is correct to point out a culture gap between the working South and the Democratic leadership, but there certainly were better ways to express the point.

I'm not so sure the remarks were against southerners, or the poor, or even "whites" (in a wholesome sense).

The obvious intention (reading his quote word for word in context)... is that the phrase refers to racists.

I think it's rather interesting a White Presidential hopeful is tackling the topic right on. Historically (Bush, Clinton).. would rather run into traffic rather than attack the issue.


I'll bet this time around, race will play an even more important issue. With issues such as Racial Profiling, Gidmo prisoners, racial crimes increasing in many areas...

Some other politicians already carved this up (we know where several stand on the issue).

He kind of went against the grain. I'm not sure if it will hurt or help him. He is well aware there is an issue (and says so). But the question is will that hurt him? Or could it really help him?

IMHO, I would perfer a president who aknowledges problems... I'd rather a president who says "our country is a shithole"... because he's working to better it. Than someone like Bush or Clinton who swear repeatedly there is not one real issue within our borders.

I'm not sure how this would play out politically though. Could help.. or kill him.


The race issue hurt Bush seriously. If Bush wasn't so stuborn on answering questions on the issues... he could have wipped Gore.... rather than take it to court. Gore came off as the better man in that category.

I don't think it would give 20% of the vote... but enough to swing an election? Absolutely.


You know what this means though?

1 candidate is going to go extreme in each direction. 1 very pro-racism. 1 very anti-racism. Both going to make asses of themselves. Any guesses on who will play what role?

The one who can balance, will get that vote.

[BlackGriffen]

OAW - the black Rush Limbaugh.

I think I'll let you argue with Jesse Jackson, Jr. -

"White folks in the South who drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us because their kids don't have health insurance either, and their kids need better schools too."-- Dr. Howard Dean, DNC Winter meeting, February 21, 2003

Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., said yesterday, "This year we celebrated the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's famous speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. Forty years later, Dr. Howard Dean is reminding us that the great task of uniting the northern black and white urban poor and working class, with the southern black and white rural poor and working class around common economic issues good health care, high quality schools, and affordable housing is the key to wrestling our democracy away from the race-oriented Republican right-wing.

"Democrats were not competitive in the South in 2000, and we have struggled to thrive, and in some instances survive, since Richard Nixon and the Republican Party began using their race-based 'southern strategy' in 1968. The use of race, cultural and social issues have served to distract voters by keeping the focus off of economic issues has been the basic strategy of Bush and the Republicans in the South. That's why they make wedge issues out of prayer in school, the Ten Commandments on public buildings, civil unions, the false allegation that Democrats will take away hunters' gun rights, choice for women, the controversy of having the words 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Confederate Flag. Lest we forget, the Confederate Flag is the Democratic Party's historic contribution to the South, and current Democratic candidates have not been able to figure out how to come to grips with their own historic symbol.

"Normally, rather than directly confronting poor and working class white southerners with a strong economic agenda, Democrats have tried to imitate Republicans on many of these social issues. It is good that we have a candidate offering hope to the South with an economic agenda. It is Dr. Dean who is reminding us that the combination of poor and working class blacks and whites, north and south, united in coalition around a common economic agenda of jobs, health care, education and housing will constitute a winning strategy in 2004," concluded Cong. Jackson.

To steal a line some reporters are using, it's, "Much ado about very little."

Did the big mean Dean man offend you by not villifying the Confederate flag at every mention?

I'll post some lines from a movie, and let those here fill in the blanks for who is acting like whom:

RICKY

That's the whole thing, Dad. They don't feel like it's anything to be ashamed of.

- The Colonel looks at Ricky sharply.

COLONEL

Well, it is.

- A beat, as Ricky continues his calculations, before he realizes a response is expected from him. Then:

RICKY

Yeah, you're right.

- The Colonel's eyes flash angrily.

COLONEL

Don't placate me like I'm your mother, boy.

- Ricky sighs, then looks at his father.

RICKY

Forgive me, sir, for speaking so bluntly, but those fags make me want to puke my ****ing guts out.

- The Colonel is taken aback but quickly covers.

COLONEL

Me too, son. Me too.

Now, the issue isn't as entirely one sided as the situation in the movie, but the parallels are strong.

My take:

This is nothing more than dirty politicians trying to twist what a man said, and blow it out of proportion. And those of the Orthodox Church of the Politically Correct are jumping all over it.

What Dean said amounts to, "I want those people to vote for me, because it is in their best interests to do so." Those people just happen to be a group of people who embrace a symbol that offends a lot of other people.

Now, he's got people claiming that he thinks all Southerners are that way. An accusation which is beyond the scope of what he said.

He also has people claiming that he supports racists.

What he said may have been inopportune, though it didn't offend anyone at the DNC meeting when he first said it, but there's nothing wrong with it.

So, OAW, you like politicians to be phony opportunists who measure every word they use by how well they poll?

BlackGriffen

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
...I think I'll let you argue with Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Jesse Jackson, Jr. is either confused or one of your "dirty politicians". Nixon had a Southern strategy in 1968 but it was no more race-based than is Howard Dean's today. I'll remind you that George Wallace was also running that year as an independent. If Nixon even wanted to court the vote of segregationists, there's no way he could have outbid Wallace.

As for Dean, the reaction to his remarks was predictable. I hate race-baiting as a tactic although I have been tempted to indulge in a little schadenfreude that the one getting the grilling this time is Dean. That said, it's still a contemptible tactic.

Dean did have an opportunity here to show us how he handled the pressure but he's now caved.

[BlackGriffen]

Nixon ran in more than one election, I hope you realize. Was Wallace in both?

BG

[zigzag]

Racially divisive, or realist? I would say that it was a realist statement that happened to touch on a racially divisive topic. I don't blame anyone for resenting the confederate flag (and neither does Dean - he has made this clear), but at the same time I don't think his actual statement was divisive.

If he had said "We need to appeal to Southern whites who have confederate flags on their pickup trucks by pandering to their fear of blacks," which the Republican Party has been doing for 35+ years, then I would consider that to be controversial, but he didn't say that. He just said that the economic interests of working class Southern whites would be better served by the Democratic Party. He could have said it more delicately but I don't think he said anything especially controversial.

I would equate it with, say, J.C. Watts saying something like "Black folks who wear Sean John and listen to gangsta rap ought to be voting with us because [insert Republican talking point here]." Is it a stereotype? Yeah, but in the context it doesn't strike me as a malicious one.

If our resident hillbilly is any indication, the offense is not in the stereotype, but in the notion that his economic interests would be better served by the Democratic party.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Nixon ran in more than one election, I hope you realize. Was Wallace in both?

BG

By 1972 Nixon was the incumbent who had established affirmative action. His landslide victory over McGovern that year had a LOT more to do with issues other than race.

[zigzag]

In anticipation of a response from roger to my remark about Republican strategy for 35+ years, I'll concede ahead of time that it's a generalization and in some instances an unfair one, but I stand by it as a generalization. However, I know from previous exchanges that he has some solid counter-arguments.

If he were to say "Democrats have gotten a lot of mileage over the same time period by pandering to blacks' fear of whites," I wouldn't necessarily argue with him. To me, they're just political realities.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by OAW:
'You have a better chance of being called back for a job interview if you are white with a criminal record than you do if you are black with a clean record, never having been arrested or convicted," he said.'"

Wow...I'd really like to see the data supporting that ascertion. I doubt if any exists. I know that's not the case AT ALL for the company I work for. It would be tough to get someone with a criminal record on the payroll, yet I've hired several black people - every single one the most qualified for the job at the time (not bad considering there's very little turnover in my department).

While I know racism still exists, and often race CAN be an obstacle in the manner Dean mentions, I think that Dean is either exagerating or is just repeating stuff he's heard other misquided people say. Most companies I've worked for ENCOURAGE the hiring of minorities. The same can't be said for convicted criminals. Sorry.

[stupendousman]

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean told a Tallahassee audience today that southerners have to quit basing their votes on "race, guns, God and gays."

Wow... I was wrong. This guy doesn't deserve anyone's respect. He's a complete idiot.

Dean's Brain...(or what substitutes for it): I've got a great idea, I'm going down South and tell those snake handlin' homophobes to vote for me. I'll set them straight!

Har, Har, Har....

If this is the best the Democrats have, I hope you enjoy another 4 years of making fun of Bush's verbal faux paus. You'd do better at dumping Dean and that power mad General and pushing Lieberman. Of course, he'll never get the jew-hating, imbred and illerate votes either... but he's probaby a lot smarter than to go where he thinks there might be a couple, and chastise everyone there based on a stereotype.

Maybe next he'll preach to African Americans that in the interest of their health, they've got to fill their diet with more than just fried chicken and watermellon. That giant sucking sound you're hearing has nothing to do with Ross Perot or jobs lost to Mexico...it's the sound of Dean's campaign imploding.

Smart man that Dean ...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Wow... I was wrong. This guy doesn't deserve anyone's respect. He's a complete idiot.

Weren't you the same guy in another thread that berated democrats for making fun of Bush's intelligence, calling it essentially a desperate argument?

*looks it up* why, by golly, you were.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Weren't you the same guy in another thread that berated democrats for making fun of Bush's intelligence, calling it essentially a desperate argument?

*looks it up* why, by golly, you were.

I'm not saying he lacks a brain, that he wouldn't do well in school, or that he doesn't have a thought in his head. I'm saying that his comments prove that he's a POLITICAL idiot. You can't hope to get people to vote for you if you spend your time insulting them. All you do is write them off.

The Democrats aren't going to be a voting majority in this country until they realize that they've got to appeal to people on a vast number of topics, and not just the ones that energize their base. For what it's worth, Bill Clinton undestood that. I think George Bush does too. I'm sure Bush hopes that even the people who disagree with him on some core issues, can find enough common ground with him that he's prefered over the competition.

With several major Democrat candidates now going on record as NOT wanting the votes of people who they feel disagree with them on some major issues, they're making their jobs harder than they have to be. If Bill Clinton was running in 2004, he wouldn't be making the mistakes the current crop are. That's why he was elected twice, and why the other guys are going to be lucky to win a few liberal states in the long run if they keep it up.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean told a Tallahassee audience today that southerners have to quit basing their votes on "race, guns, God and gays."

Wow... I was wrong. This guy doesn't deserve anyone's respect. He's a complete idiot.

Dean's Brain...(or what substitutes for it): I've got a great idea, I'm going down South and tell those snake handlin' homophobes to vote for me. I'll set them straight!

Har, Har, Har....

If this is the best the Democrats have, I hope you enjoy another 4 years of making fun of Bush's verbal faux paus. You'd do better at dumping Dean and that power mad General and pushing Lieberman. Of course, he'll never get the jew-hating, imbred and illerate votes either... but he's probaby a lot smarter than to go where he thinks there might be a couple, and chastise everyone there based on a stereotype.

Maybe next he'll preach to African Americans that in the interest of their health, they've got to fill their diet with more than just fried chicken and watermellon. That giant sucking sound you're hearing has nothing to do with Ross Perot or jobs lost to Mexico...it's the sound of Dean's campaign imploding.

Smart man that Dean ...

word up.


As a Southern White Pickup-driving male (albeit without the Confederate flag) I can say without reservation that Dean will get as much as 0% of the Southern White Pickup-driving male vote...and maybe 1% of the non-pickup-driving white folks that represent 98% of the south. After all, we make fun of the rednecks, too.

Wow. That's all I can say.

One sentence brought down a potential presidential candidate.

Maybe he can get those chitlin-eating black folks that drive worn-out Cadillacs to vote for him. But I doubt it.


*Defending Dean makes you look like a Dean zealot, and a racist yankee*

[petehammer]

By Spliffdaddy:
*Defending Dean makes you look like a Dean zealot, and a racist yankee*

*Defending Bush makes you look like a Bush zealot, and a moronic frat-boy*

Does that make sense to you? Or are you simply grasping at straws trying to bring down Dean, who is still going very, very strong.

Perhaps fear that W is going to be moving out of DC soon?

[Spliffdaddy]

yep. Dean is way out in front

And this poll was taken BEFORE he stuck his foot in his mouth.

I'd say he's done.

[OAW]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
OAW - the black Rush Limbaugh.

How you came to that conclusion is a total and complete mystery .. but oh well.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

I think I'll let you argue with Jesse Jackson, Jr. -

A high ranking staffer for Jesse Jackson Jr. was Al Sharpton's campaign manager for quite some time. Recently, this person resigned, returned to Jackson's staff, and soon thereafter Jackson Jr. is endorsing Dean. Dean then inserts foot in mouth with his "Confederate Flag" comments. Is it any wonder that Sharpton is one of the main ones now using that against him? If for no other reason than to get some payback for the actions of Jackson Jr. and his former campaign manager? Without a doubt this is all political. But again, as I said earlier ... Dean just handed Sharpton the ammunition. Not a wise move IMO.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

Did the big mean Dean man offend you by not villifying the Confederate flag at every mention?

I never said I was "offended". All I said was that what Dean said was stupid ... politically speaking. Just like I wasn't "offended" by Clinton getting a BJ in the White House ... but it was still a stupid thing to do politically. The bottom line is that when you have people out to get you, you just don't hand them a loaded gun to use against you. I fail to see what's so hard to understand about this concept.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

I'll post some lines from a movie, and let those here fill in the blanks for who is acting like whom:
.
.
.
Now, the issue isn't as entirely one sided as the situation in the movie, but the parallels are strong.

I'm not familiar with that movie or the context. As such, I'm not really getting your point. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

What Dean said amounts to, "I want those people to vote for me, because it is in their best interests to do so." Those people just happen to be a group of people who embrace a symbol that offends a lot of other people.

Indeed. But as I and others have pointed out he could have easily expressed this same sentiment without utilizing the Confederate flag rhetoric. Again, had he said that he wanted to be the candidate for white guys in the South who drive pickup trucks with gun racks in the back .... there would be no furor now would there? Why create all the unnecessary drama? Why put yourself on the defensive when you could be using your time articulating your message?

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

So, OAW, you like politicians to be phony opportunists who measure every word they use by how well they poll?

BlackGriffen

I like politicians who are politically smart and who support policies that for the most part are in my interests, the interests of my community and the country as a whole. A politician that doesn't know how to communicate his message appropriately and who finds himself constantly entangled in unnecessary controversies over his choice of words simply damages his effectiveness as a candidate and/or elected official. The bottom line is that sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it.

The political genius of Clinton was his ability to effectively communicate. The ability to comfortably speak extemporaneously, yet manage not to stick his foot in his mouth at the same time. He was able to compete for the Southern vote (he basically ran even in 1992 and 1996) without alienating the North in general, and urban African-Americans in particular. A Democrat needs these latter two constituencies ... along with a respectable showing in the white Southern vote in order to win the White House. Period. Dot. End of sentence.

It seems like Dean is trying to do this. The problem is he's just not going about it too well thus far. We'll see if he can smooth over the ruffled feathers and pull it off. I sort of doubt it because Dean is about as "yankee" as you can get ... and history shows us that guys from wealthy Northeastern states don't play too well in the Deep South. But there's a first time for everything I suppose.

So no, it's not about measuring every word by how well they "poll". It's about being "in tune" with the concerns of the various constituencies you are trying to reach out to. It's about not being so "out of touch" that it just doesn't occur to you that saying you want to be the candidate for "Southern white guys who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flags in the back" is not going to endear you to a core constituency of the Democratic party that is absolutely needed to win a national election. Some things shouldn't need a "poll". There is this thing called common sense. But alas, we sometimes see that common sense isn't always so common.

Then again, I probably shouldn't be so hard on Dean. After all, Vermont probably only has about 5 or 6 black people in the entire state. He just might not know any better.

OAW

[boots]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
[pie chart]

yep. Dean is way out in front

And this poll was taken BEFORE he stuck his foot in his mouth.

I'd say he's done.

Dean, Clark, and Leiberman are in a statistical dead heat. Other doesn't mean anything except people are taking a wait and see stance. That's not uncommon at this stage.

As I said above, there are some things that can't be discussed in any real way because the rhetoric side-tracks the issue. Race relations is one of those issues...we get bogged down by stereotypes and it turns into a mud pit.

This may really hurt Dean's chances of being elected, but I do respect him for trying to get the dialogue going. He's been pretty clumsy in his approach so far, but....

I'll note that YOUR views have changed over the time I've been here....mine have too...so don't dismiss his arguments because of a visceral reaction. Try to get through that, and we can get at the real issues...why DO southern males as a demographic consistently vote against their own economic interest, focusing on issues that ultimately get decided by the courts (gun control, etc.)?

But politically, Dean's heading from medium to well done...almost time to stick a fork in him. (IMHO)

[Zimphire]

Dean said some stupid stuff (I Know lots of rich people with rebel flags on their cars)

He will have to pay for his lack of vision!

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
yep. Dean is way out in front

And this poll was taken BEFORE he stuck his foot in his mouth.

I'd say he's done.

Dean is comfortably in the lead in two key primary/caucus states, Iowa and New Hampshire. That's where he needs to be strong right now; national averages mean very little at the moment. Nice wishful thinking, though.

[thunderous_funker]

Once again Dean take a touchy subject head on and the only thing anyone wants to talk about it how un-PC he is.....typical. American politics is dead.

Anyone want to challenge the assertion that the wedge politics of "race, guns, God and gays" are the foundation of Left/Right politics? And that voting lines in the South are very much drawn along those lines?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Once again Dean take a touchy subject head on and the only thing anyone wants to talk about it how un-PC he is.....typical. American politics is dead.

Anyone want to challenge the assertion that the wedge politics of "race, guns, God and gays" are the foundation of Left/Right politics? And that voting lines in the South are very much drawn along those lines?

no, I think its a sad political reality that wedge issues define elections even though they should not. I really can't challenge that assertion because its correct.

However, the question of the thread: racially divisive or realist? is not mutually exclusive. I think its both, divisive and realistically portraying the whacked situation as it is today.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no, I think its a sad political reality that wedge issues define elections even though they should not. I really can't challenge that assertion because its correct.

However, the question of the thread: racially divisive or realist? is not mutually exclusive. I think its both, divisive and realistically portraying the whacked situation as it is today.

I guess I'm just thick-skinned or something. I can't see how its devisive except to those who want to continue playing wedge politics.

Dean is saying that politicians have divided American along issues of "race, guns, God and gays" and we should should start wising up to that fact so we can get past these artificial barriers and really start communicating.

Isn't this a dialouge to bring people together and expose the fact that these wedge issues are hollow tactics of political elites?

[boots]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I guess I'm just thick-skinned or something. I can't see how its devisive except to those who want to continue playing wedge politics.

Dean is saying that politicians have divided American along issues of "race, guns, God and gays" and we should should start wising up to that fact so we can get past these artificial barriers and really start communicating.

Isn't this a dialouge to bring people together and expose the fact that these wedge issues are hollow tactics of political elites?

TF, it's devise for the very reasons that wedge politics work! If you don't buy into the wedge issues, it ain't no big thing. If you do buy into the wedge issues, it's a make or break issue.

Sad, but wedge politics work in the US.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by boots:
TF, it's devise for the very reasons that wedge politics work! If you don't buy into the wedge issues, it ain't no big thing. If you do buy into the wedge issues, it's a make or break issue.

Sad, but wedge politics work in the US.

But isn't their effectiveness due to the fact that that stiffle dialouge?

Can't anti-gun, pro-choice, Athiest, homosexuals and NRA-lovin, abortion-protesting, God-fearing, homophobes have similiar economic interests? Or foreign policy interests? Or similar concerns about housing, healthcare and education?

Wedge politics is about de-railing any effort to address the concerns that effect us all buy telling us we shouldn't be talking with people who believe a certain way on issues of "race, guns, God and gays".

As long as the political dialouge is strangled by those most personal and largely un-political issues, nothing ever changes on all the other fronts that effect our lives.

Look at the Recall in California for an example. Whenver anyone asked Davis about an issue, all he did was say, "Do you want a govenor who is anti-choice and anti-gay"? Well, I guess the Gray campaign learned the hard way that wedge politics isn't as successful in California as they were hoping.

Just because we might have different ideas about philosophical matters doesn't mean we can't all agree on practical policy matters. Political elites divide and conquer by keeping us all talking about the shyt that doesn't really matter so they can continue to run things to benefit themselves and their plutocratic financial interests.

[boots]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
But isn't their effectiveness due to the fact that that stiffle dialouge?

...

Political elites divide and conquer by keeping us all talking about the shyt that doesn't really matter so they can continue to run things to benefit themselves and their plutocratic financial interests.

Yep. I'm not arguing with you about whether or not it is stupid, but the reality is that much of the population buy into the wedge issues as real, not diversionary.

My comments are reflective of what is, not what I'd like. And I think Dean would be much better served by taking reality into consideration...not that he should disengage in the dialogue he wants to start, but be sensitive to the fact that presentation means as much as substance in our country....He's successfully opened himself up as a target for wedging when he didn't have to.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by boots:
TF, it's devise for the very reasons that wedge politics work! If you don't buy into the wedge issues, it ain't no big thing. If you do buy into the wedge issues, it's a make or break issue.

Sad, but wedge politics work in the US.

thanks, you're more eloquent than I.. that's what I meant.

[thunderous_funker]

Well if talking about wedge politics is now a wedge issue, then I guess we're doomed.

I guess I'll just have to find a quiet corner of the country where I can watch the disintegration of civil society from a safe distance.

[OAW]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Once again Dean take a touchy subject head on and the only thing anyone wants to talk about it how un-PC he is.....typical. American politics is dead.

Anyone want to challenge the assertion that the wedge politics of "race, guns, God and gays" are the foundation of Left/Right politics? And that voting lines in the South are very much drawn along those lines?

T_F,

I fear you are confusing what was said and what was meant. I agree that it's a touchy subject. I also agree that "race, guns, God, and gays" are the wedge issues that the Republican party uses to get poor to middle class whites in the South to vote for them even though one could argue that Republican economic policies aren't in their interest. But this isn't what Dean said. Or perhaps, this isn't what he said that got him into hot water. It was his comments mentioning the Confederate flag that got him in trouble. Now perhaps he didn't mean any harm. In my view, he probably didn't. I think he meant exactly what you are saying. But what he said was different. And now what he said is being used against him, because he made a political mistake and handed his opponents the ammunition that they are now firing at him.

Dean is running for the Presidency of the United States of America. This is the big leagues. And as the old saying goes ...

"If you can't run with the big dogs, then keep your ass on the porch."



OAW

[thunderous_funker]

And I think most of you are putting way too much on style over substance.

I continue to marvel that people still think that the opposition has to offer a polished, refined, silvery-tongued, "presidential" candidate like we used to think of.

Newsflash: George Dubya is president!! Arnold won in Sacremento!
Dean is leading the polls and has invigorated segments of the electorate that have never been invigorated in modern times!

Politics-as-usual is facing the greatest challenge in my lifetime. People are finally fed up with it and angry enough to vote for an outsider who isn't slick, isn't all that articulate and sure as hell isn't careful about his words but offers credibility, sincerity and honesty.

All this talk about Dean being "clumsy" is exactly why I think he's the best possible candidate to beat Bush in a national election.

That is, of course, unless the Democrats once again stoop to dirty politics to paint him in a corner where he gets even further marginalized and demonized by an already hostile media.

I give up. By all means nominate Edwards or Kerry. The are the quintessential, old-school, TV-president. Tall, white, southern, affluent and polished to high Potomac Luster. And watch them go down in flames just like Gore for exactly the same reasons--Americans are sick and tired of Professional Politicians.

Dean is ahead for all the reasons the other Democrats are trying to take him down--for being feisty, unpolished, and painfully direct about tough issues. If they drag him down and make him play politics-as-usual and dumb-down his message to the usual Pollitically Correct Plattitudes and Nothingisms, then he will loose everything he's gained up to now.

[boots]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And I think most of you are putting way too much on style over substance.

I continue to marvel that people still think that the opposition has to offer a polished, refined, silvery-tongued, "presidential" candidate like we used to think of.

Newsflash: George Dubya is president!! Arnold won in Sacremento!
Dean is leading the polls and has invigorated segments of the electorate that have never been invigorated in modern times!

Hey, I understand. I want to actually tackle issues too. I hate the visceral reaction that most people have to Race and Religion issues. It just drives down the IQ or our race as a whole.

GW and Arnold are not terribly eloquent, this is true. But neither of them fumbled on one of "The Issues" like race, God, guns, etc. As long as you sound folksy around other issues you seem to be a political outsider....but once you fumble on the wedges issues, people get irrational.

I'm still leaning strongly toward Dean. I hope he survives the jackels. And I think his message is very important whether or not he can pull it off politically.