Works for me.
Back to Main
June 12, 2005
Getting It
Comments
The Obamas, Bidens and Billmons are so right: We certainly can’t have Democrats like Howard Dean making outrageous and inflammatory statements like this:
“Dean told a forum of journalists and minority leaders Monday that Republicans are “not very friendly to different kinds of people, they are a pretty monolithic party … it’s pretty much a white, Christian party.”
Challenged on that during the NBC interview, Dean said “unfortunately, by and large it is. And they have the agenda of the conservative Christians.”
“This is a diversion from the issues that really matter: Social Security, and adequate job opportunity, strong public schools, a strong defense,” Dean said.”
Posted by: susan | Jun 12 2005 6:52 utc | 1
i don’t care what he says. standing up and saying something, anything, is a hell of a lot more than has been said for years by the lame duckocrats.
Posted by: lenin’s ghost | Jun 12 2005 7:50 utc | 2
So maybe Dean is just pickin a fight, in light of the fact that the media will not touch, let alone criticize the political-ization of religion (I’ve yet to hear the word dominionist on the MSM) as so used by the repubs, and pronounced taboo by the media — which shields from public discourse the whole wretched mechanism along with any criticism of it, So rather than fit his rhetoric into the pre- made mold the media has created for him, Dean may be thinking, with a good sucker punch the media, which cant resist a good fight, will drop its guard and follow the fire truck and in the process open up this badly needed debate — so screw going to them on their terms, bring the media to the debate I want to have. And like bugs to a firelight they must and will come to it.
Posted by: anna missed | Jun 12 2005 9:25 utc | 3
anna_missed,
Exactly. Today the Dominionists. Tomorrow the AIPAC/neocon axis.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jun 12 2005 9:59 utc | 4
Also, get this: the Military tries to recruit from middle school.
The elementary school cadet corps is a voluntary after-school program that meets two or three times a week. Programs differ from school to school, but MSCC students generally learn first-aid, civics, “citizenship” and character development. They also learn military history and take field trips to local military bases. Once a week, students wear their uniforms to school for inspections. Tarsha describes buffing her uniform shoes in preparation for inspection days. “Everything has to be perfect,” she says. During drill practices they learn how to stand, turn and salute in synchronization. When they disobey an order, they do pushups. “Only 10,” says one administrator.
Joanne Young, a sixth-grade teacher at Goethe School in Chicago, recently wrote a letter to the local school council protesting the implementation of the cadet corps in her school. “I was told that it is not a military program, yet every aspect of it is military,” she wrote. “This program is training our students, as young as 11-years old, to march in formation and carry guns. … Students could be suspended for bringing something that appears to be a weapon to our school, yet we are handing them fake guns for this program.” Young, like many other teachers, feels that leadership and discipline could easily be taught in other types of after-school programs.
Herman Barnett, director of Lavizzo’s award-winning MSCC program, asks the public to give the students the benefit of the doubt. “They don’t look at it as getting ready for the army,” he says. “They’re just doing it for entertainment and fun.”
Posted by: fauxreal | Jun 12 2005 10:23 utc | 5
The media absolutely will not addresss the fact that the fundies are in essence no different than the “islamofascists” they love to demonize. Not here in Murca. We only good. Maybe the non wacked out religious brands are going to have to get some spine. I don’t know, but the growing insanity of the fundies scares me and IS, if not number one, a huge problem on the political scene. And somehow more voteers are going to have to recognize this. Surely the thugs aren’t gonna tell it.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 12 2005 12:47 utc | 7
One Reason Why Democrats Lose:
Reid calls Greenspan a hack (which Greenspan is) — the press wastes no time in looking for Democrats to diss him.
Cheney tells Leahy to “go fuck yourself” on the Senate floor — and for some reason, no Republicans are racing to get in front of a TV camera to diss him.
Oh, yes. We must be careful so that the media doesn’t egg on known camera-hungry backstabbers like Joe “Clinton Caused 9/11” Biden and Joe “I Spend More Time Attacking Democrats Than Republicans” Lieberman, because otherwise they’ll do to us what Republicans like Arlen Specter and John McCain did when the media ordered them to distance themselves from Rick Santorum after Santorum compared Democrats to Hitler.
Oh, wait, that last bit didn’t happen. The Republicans distancing themselves, that is. Because Rick Santorum did make the Democrats = Hitler comment, all right — it’s just that nobody in the press or the GOP sought to make an issue out of it.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Jun 12 2005 14:35 utc | 8
Re: the wingnuttery over Dean’s glib rhetoric (and the endless loop playing Deep Throated patriotism), what more evidence do we need that the media elite hold the lives of working class soldiers in contempt? I guess when death becomes so routine and predictable there is no scoop to be had. Up comes the bottom line. Says the news again and again: let’s talk about the talk.
I keep saying that Enlightenment liberalism is dead, but I don’t think anyone believes me.
Marx isn’t rolling over in his grave. He’s just nodding, with a sigh.
Posted by: Sloo | Jun 12 2005 15:58 utc | 9
Today the Dominionists. Tomorrow the AIPAC/neocon axis
Like there’s a difference.
I’m probably telling no one anything they didn’t know, but tell the Democrats in Congress you support Howard Dean here.
anna missed (@5:25 AM): an extraordinary suggestion, and something I never thought of. By this reckoning, Howard Dean becomes what the military writers call a forlorn hope , defined by Webster’s Third as a body of men selected usu. from volunteers to attempt a breach, scale a wall, or perform other perilous service esp. in advance of the main force (the equivalent term in French is enfants perdus ). This suggests that Dean is cutting a path for the Democrats from which he’s not likely to benefit in person: he “leads” as a vanguard, and not as a commanding officer safely ensconced at the rear, and protected by the “main force”.
Posted by: alabama | Jun 12 2005 16:18 utc | 11
Enlightenment liberalism is dead, but I don’t think anyone believes me.
“Enlightenment” cannot be “dead” if it true “das volk” choose, without coersion, forms of social integration inimical to the general welfare. Surely, many “choose” in the pall of false consciousness? Enlightenment is the confrontation to this hegemony. Further, Enlightenment exists to attack all reifications, all myths:
“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another….”–Kant, “What is Enlightenment?”
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 12 2005 16:19 utc | 12
I have to admit that I’d never thought of a political leader in those terms, but it’s not an unreasonable way to construe Dean’s moves, and makes him look very interesting indeed. It says that Dean, having put aside his presidential ambitions, is making productive moves on behalf of the party. It obliges us to follow up in a timely way; and to discipline such reluctant foot-soldiers as Biden and Pelosi, who may (if we press them hard enough), prove to be enemy agents in disguise. All in all (as the term “forlorn hope” implies) a rather high-risk strategy, but one that “works for me,” as Billmon might say.
Posted by: alabama | Jun 12 2005 16:19 utc | 13
Dean already did the forlorn hope bit.
The Dean Scream.
That he didn’t give up is admirable.
Posted by: Noisette | Jun 12 2005 16:38 utc | 14
my comment from the dizzy dean thread “we’ve got biden saying he’s good for the party and a lightening rod. although they are distancing themselves the farther out he gets he softens the blow for them because they all look more.. dada normal. even hilary came out w/ a fairly scaithing rethug comment this morn. don’t think the thugs aren’t going to be slinging the mud hot and heavy befor 06. by then dean being ‘outrageous’, although i hardly think ‘repub are mostly white and christian’ even borders on radical thought, will be so old hat.”
is this what you mean by forlorn hope?
Posted by: annie | Jun 12 2005 16:47 utc | 15
We need Howard Dean to be Howard Dean.
Everymovement needs both “Good Cops and Bad Cops.” Just look at the Neocons. They have their foaming mouth idiots and they have their soft spoken spokespersons. “Its not one, its not the other, its both.”
Now we need people to stand up to the Republicans, we need tit for tat. For every Republican backbencher willing to foam at the mouth we need our own backbencher willing to knaw on that republicans leg as he is foaming at the mouth. We have plenty of pretty boy soft spoken people – and we need them as well. But for heaven’s sake, if you don’t return a punch in the mouth with a punch in the mouth, then you are going to get pummelled without end.
Politics is as much like school yard bullying as it is like the debate society. It is a contact sport. It is a blood sport. You have to have your equivalent brown shirt street fighters to match their equivalent brown shirt street fighters. Republicans attack Dean because he is what we are missing, he is what they fear most, a Democratic party that can call a spaid a spaid, and fight back when and where it has to.
I hope Dean finds a better way to make his point. After all, I am a white christian. Those Christian’s he’s talking about are hate mongering old testement christians that serve and worship the purposes of Mammon and not the purpose of Christ and the beattitudes. Pointing that out is not a bad thing. People should think about that sort of thing. I think he’ll get better as he goes.
Being polite all the time will only cause people to lose respect for Democrats. You can’t be good cop all the time. Especially when the other side has Good Cops and Bad Cops.
Posted by: Timka | Jun 12 2005 16:48 utc | 16
i think the white christians that are a threat to our democracy are the reed/dobson crowd. someone made the point earlier we aren’t hearing dominionist on msm. this needs to be flushed out way before the elections. i’d like to see a 60 minute segment on them. how do we even get there without this pre speak. in hindsight dean getting so much press over this white christian remark may not be such a bad thing. i’ve heard that deans being coached by lacoff. perhaps some of this is not quite as off the cuff as we think. it is really raising the bar. hillary may not look quite as far left after a year w/ howard making headlines.
Posted by: annie | Jun 12 2005 17:00 utc | 17
annie, I think there may be a lot of maneuver going on about the dependency of congressional Democrats on AIPAC. Dean, from this perspective, would be seeking to diminish that dependency, a risky move against a powerful funding source (and not against the Republican Party). Dean, at this stage of the game, would be seen as pushing against Democrats more than Republicans (all the while using anti-Republican rhetoric to do this). It’s a “forlorn hope” in the sense that Dean is deliberately drawing fire (a risky move!) from the Democratic friends of AIPAC, whom the rest of us must then proceed to target (in World War I, “forlorn hopes” were sent out from the trenches to draw fire from enemy positions, the location of which could thereby be fixed, and bombarded, by artillery units to the rear. That’s where you and I come in, provided we’re fighting with, and not against, Howard Dean in this scenario).
Posted by: alabama | Jun 12 2005 17:23 utc | 18
It’s the defiance, not the words.
Dean can scream at them for all of me, and he would be doing it with my blessing. Calling them racist is the least of the things on the plate. Treasonous war criminals is accurate enough to make the really unhappy.
Annie- Chris Hedges was on Now with Chris Brancacchio (or however you spell his name). Chris talked about his recent Harper’s article, and about Dominionists, as opposed to mainstream and fundamentalist Christians.
Then Now had Roy Moore (bleech) on who said some things like (paraphrasing) “you can’t reject the bible and love America because America was founded on the Bible.” He claims that only Christians allow freedom of religion…he’s apparently ignorant of 14c Europe and the Ottoman Empire, among other things…like the Indian Nations in the US who allowed Christians to worship, and boy, what a blowback…or Enlightenment ideas of freedom of conscious…you are free to believe, and free to reject…but you may not impose your religion via the state on me.
So, some discussion is out there, but not on the venues that people who are not already sympathetic to the issue, or maybe somewhat knowledgeable about don’t already seek out for information.
At least, that’s as far as I know. Since I rarely turn on the MSM, I can only tell you that I see no discussion of the issue related to them via other sources.
But Dean’s remark is a PERFECT opening to delineate the differences between fundamentalists and dominionists, and to ask where various politicians stand on this issue…also, to bring up the Constitution Restoration Act…who intro’d it, what it means…
Also to bring up the associations between various politicians and groups that would be considered extremist cults by most middle-class Americans who would call themselves fundamentalists.
Another opportunity to divide and conquer. Ask all those office park dads who go to the baptist church on sunday if they think women (or men) should be put to death for infidelity, for instance. Or if children should be killed for disobedience to their parents.
And why are those religious leaders trying to insert themselves, and those beliefs, into the American govt? Where do your rights stop and their rights to punish you begin?
If there will be civil war in America, it will be because of these Dominionists. Are you all keeping track of where politicians in your states are weighing in on these issues? When next election comes around, it would be nice to be able to contact your indie radio news, or public radio (if they’re not totally co-opted) with facts about these pols that deserve a hearing. Maybe your local paper might have a reporter who wants to make a name with some explosive information.
Just a thought or two.
Posted by: fauxreal | Jun 12 2005 17:58 utc | 21
Transformative politics is not for sissies.
If you’re to really change political trends, and put bottom rail on top for a generation, you can’t be gentle about it.
You can’t cajole. You can’t seduce. You have to go right for the throat. And you have to be ready for the whole of the old order to come down on you for it.
So let’s be clear about this right now. Love him or hate him, Howard Dean is a master politician.
He’s not really a liberal, you know. He’s what used to be called a Rockefeller Republican, back in the day. He believes that budgets should be balanced, that alliances should be negotiated, that science should be respected, and that it’s possible for government to make life better for people if it doesn’t take itself too seriously.
…
My criticism of Dean has little to do with what he says. I’m more worried about the fact that the technology at his headquarters doesn’t properly scale. The Democratic Party is not yet a two-way discussion. It’s still too much talk goes down and money comes up. The discussion happens elsewhere, in the blogosphere, and the party’s presence within that discussion – even Dean’s presence – is surprisingly muted.
There are legal reasons for this. Anything the party does must be paid for, full price, and a scaled political discussion encompassing 100 million would cost Dean’s entire marketing budget. So this discussion takes place elsewhere, at Dailykos, at the Huffington Post, at TPM, at Eschaton, at Liberal Osis, at 1,000 other “points of light” where Democrats gather around small virtual campfires to feel their shared victimhood and plot their political revenge.
Posted by: Fran | Jun 12 2005 18:03 utc | 22
While Dean and the dem leadership adroitely disarm republican rhetoric w/ these multidimensional Clausewitz-like parries, in which Dean sacrifices his political future for the good of the party, etc., maybe they could get together every other week over burritos and talk-up what kind of platform they might offer to the electorate; you know, like they could offer an opinion about the murder of Iraqis. Or something. Anything.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 12 2005 18:06 utc | 23
Thanks to all the Democrats who helped the craven Cheney make his point.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050612/ap_on_el_ge/cheney_dean
“Howard Dean is “over the top,” Vice President Dick Cheney says, calling the Democrats’ chairman “not the kind of individual you want to have representing your political party.”
I’ve never been able to understand his appeal. Maybe his mother loved him, but I’ve never met anybody who does. He’s never won anything, as best I can tell,” Cheney said in an interview to be aired Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes.”
Dean was elected governor of Vermont five times between 1992 and 2000. He ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination but closed down his campaign after poor showings in early primaries.
In recent weeks, Dean has described the GOP as “pretty much a white, Christian party” and said many Republicans have “never made an honest living.” Republican leaders have called on him to apologize, and even some Democrats have distanced themselves from his remarks.
“So far, I think he’s probably helped us more than he has them,” Cheney said in the interview taped Friday. “That’s not the kind of individual you want to have representing your political party.
The vice president added: “I really think Howard Dean’s over the top. And more important … I think many of his fellow Democrats feel the same way.”
Dean said Saturday that positive responses from influential supporters have reinforced his determination to keep talking tough.
“People want us to fight,” Dean told the national party’s executive committee. “We are here to fight.”
Addressing Iowa party activists later Saturday in Des Moines, he added: “We need to be blunt and clear about the things we’re going to fight for. I’m tired of lying down in front of the Republican machine. We need to stand up for what we believe in.”
Posted by: susan | Jun 12 2005 18:16 utc | 24
Why are we still talking about this? Shut up already.
Posted by: patience | Jun 12 2005 18:25 utc | 25
Looking over the thread, it seems people here are basically agreeing that starting afire of discussion around the theme of “White Christians” is an essential beginning point for many hyper-accurate critiques that have sputtered and died before.
Dean acting as a vanguard enfants perdus (or in the game of Go, a sute ishi – sacrifice stone) may cost him, but now that the corporate media and Demo-Judases have been kind enough to nail those terms up on the community postboard – white, Christian – they seem to have opened the conversation to actually expose the false politics of “white Christian Republicans”. The fact that Dean is softening the rhetoric a few days later is all part of how this works, not at all a sign to stop the conversation. So what does a good white Christian do in politics?
Good lord, maybe Dean was wrong, maybe those Republicans (and Demo-Judases) don’t really act like Christians after all. Silly Dean (shake heads). Let’s set him straight.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 12 2005 18:33 utc | 26
“So far, I think he’s probably helped us more than he has them,” Cheney said in the interview taped Friday. “That’s not the kind of individual you want to have representing your political party.
susan,
thanks for such conclusive evidence that Dean is a republican nightmare.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 12 2005 18:35 utc | 27
One thing still bothers me though, why would Dean bother to call the Republicans the party of whiteness? For the life of me…
Posted by: citizen | Jun 12 2005 18:37 utc | 28
Why are we still talking about this? Shut up already.
You know patience, that’s the second time you’ve told me to shut up. The first time I let it go — this isn’t my blog after all. But not twice. So why don’t you fuck off already?
Posted by: Billmon | Jun 12 2005 19:25 utc | 30
Or tell us why we should shut up about this, patience. I mean, we’ve barely begun to scratch the surface, so I suppose the topic itself poses a problem of some kind, but I don’t happen to know what it is. So “give it to us with the bark on,” patience (as they used to describe it in the CIA). I think we can stand the pain.
Posted by: alabama | Jun 12 2005 19:37 utc | 31
Frankly, I love the fact that Cheney makes comments like this. Any time, the VEEP is unable to stay above the fray is to the Democrats’ advantage. It makes Cheney look very small-minded to engage in such silly personal attacks. For many undecided on Dean Democrats, it also makes Dean look better to have evoked this kind of reaction from Cheney. “If Cheney goes down to the gutter to attack Dean, Dean must be doing something right.”
Posted by: Ben Brackley | Jun 12 2005 19:40 utc | 32
patience seems to lack patience.
Sorry, bad joke. But honestly, the discussion here continues as long as people continues it and if you do not like the subject there are other threads.
Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jun 12 2005 19:40 utc | 33
My dad and a colleague of mine are both non-religious Nixonian republicans. They both despise “bible-thumpers.” both were impressed by Dean’s epithet about christian republicans.
I’m not saying both are inspired to vote democrat, but there’s no question they enjoyed Dean’s confrontational effort.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 12 2005 19:44 utc | 34
“Howard Dean is “over the top,” Vice President Dick Cheney says, calling the Democrats’ chairman “not the kind of individual you want to have representing your political party.”
Perhaps the Dems. should follow the example of the Repugs. They have a closet gay guy pursuing an agenda of war on gays, so perhaps the Dems. should have a theocrat heading their party. Is that what you had in mind? Or an Evangelical Christian who hates how anti-Christian the Repugs are & how they’re trying to turn America into a Theocracy. And there are a lot of those folks. Ask Randi Rhodes.
In fact, it’d be a damn good idea for Howie to give one a prominent position – if they’re pro-choice. Or at least put together an Evangelicals Against Theocracy Group & send them all over hell on a speaking/organizing tour for the Dems.
Posted by: jj | Jun 12 2005 20:11 utc | 35
Another point about Dean that was brought up in an earlier post…he’s not really THAT liberal.
This, too, worries the Republicans, imo. He’s liberal in common sense ways…like health care for all children…cost effective preventative care…that makes sense for adults too.
He’s not sensible about decriminalizing marijuana, as far as I know, but he should be, as a doctor, esp. with medical marijuana issues for terminally ill and chronically ill people.
…hmmmm….would the Schiavoistas have advocated medical marijuana for her since they kept saying she felt pain? just wondering.
I see Dean, and always have, as a Teddy Roosevelt. I really do think he has the ability to pull mainstream Republicans away from their party because of the dominionist takeover (aided by the Likudniks.)
For this reason, I really wish he were not the still part of the dem. party. Instead, I wish he would form a third party and play to moderate Republicans, libertarians, the fed up dems, and computer literati who like his grass roots ways.
Where I am, the greens cannot do it for me. Pardon my bluntness, but how many Americans are going to vote for someone who looks like he was cryogenically frozen in 1969 and was unthawed to pump up “unsafe at any speenadar” who was ready to destroy this nation, frankly, imo, by not making a political agreement with dems to get rid of Bush, KNOWING what a fascist fuck Bush and his crew have already shown themselves to be before the last election.
Dean, on the other hand, could form a coalition of socially liberal conservatives/moderate fiscal republicans who give a shit about small biz and what is happening to this country under the tinpot dick-tater-heads.
I know liberal dems might not like to hear that, but he was much more honest about talking about issues pertaining to finance and public services than Kerry ever was. I still feel like I need to wash the slime off my hands after voting for Kerry. There is no way in hell I will vote for Hilary.
Posted by: fauxreal | Jun 12 2005 20:11 utc | 36
I think that’s my primary complaint about Dean’s previous remarks. Don’t attack the Repugs for being a Christian party. (Though if he wants to clarify, he should repeat the remarks by the retired Minn. Repub. Senator who said – to get into Repug. politics you used to have to get the stamp of approval of the Chamber of Commerce. Now you have to get the approval of the Theocrats. And he wasn’t being hyperbolic.) Attack them for being so radically un-Christian, & organize the Christians in the Dem. party to point out how it’s the agenda of the Dem. party that is both truly Christian, and non-denominational.
Posted by: jj | Jun 12 2005 20:17 utc | 37
“They both despise “bible-thumpers.” both were impressed by Dean’s epithet about christian republicans.”
exactly. are the majority fo republicans willing to let their party be dragged into the inquisition because of the thumpers? are they aware school vouchers means what i think it means. the under handed agenda disguised in seemingly reasonable initiatives being a threat to our freedoms is something i think all moderate republicans are becoming aware of , and the very republicans dean may be able to woo, especially once the mask is pulled off.
“One thing still bothers me though, why would Dean bother to call the Republicans the party of whiteness?”
because it is. doesn’t mean there aren’t millions of white dems, just means current republican policy offers nothing to minorities. and calling it a white party should make any minority pause. it’s a discussion we need to have. its short, to the point, and not likely to be forgotten. a talking point.
i noticed this a.m. on the sunday shows all this gabbing about dean not having a message for the party, always the focus on himself. what a laugh, they don’t cover what he says about policy. they just demonize him. i bet there is a method to this madness.
Posted by: annie | Jun 12 2005 20:29 utc | 38
Speaking of Obama ( well I saw his name up thread ) the guy’s doing a great job.
If you didn’t like his vote to approve Rice, I understand but he delivered a wonderful volley of questions in the hearing. He left no doubt he was the teacher she the student.
He also gave a good speech against the bankruptcy bill when it was before the Senate.
So far, I think Billmon was right, Obama does have the gift.
Posted by: folgers | Jun 12 2005 20:42 utc | 39
another thing that impressed me listening to dean speak was that he said the democratic party has to be the party of reform. theft of tax money is a moral value. misuse of funds is a moral value. these things need to be pointed out. we have to point to the hypocrisiy of republicans laying claim to morality while these abuses are occuring under their watch. we cannot equivocate about these issues. we have to stand for clean government. re the corporate funded golf trips, some democrats may say: we’ll, were guilty of that too. dean said it doesn’t matter. they have to take their lumps too. we can’t tie our hands behind our backs for their sake. democrats have to stand for the party of reform.
Posted by: hello | Jun 12 2005 20:59 utc | 40
I think Obama is a major sell-out; much like my Democratic senator, Ken Salazar.
“So far, I think Billmon was right, Obama does have the gift.”
He IS a gift…to the Republicans!
Despite his anti-war positions as a candidate in 2004, Obama’s second vote as a U.S. Senator was in support of confirming Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. He also voted to confirm John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, despite Negroponte’s involvement in Iran-Contra and other situations that clearly raise questions about his ethics and discretion. Obama also voted for a bill to limit citizens rights to seek legal redress against abusive corporations. During the bankruptcy debate, he helped vote down a Democratic amendment to cap the abusive interest rates credit card companies could charge. And now, Obama cast a key procedural vote in support of President Bush’s right-wing judges.
Posted by: susan | June 12, 2005 05:04 PM | #
Posted by: susan | Jun 12 2005 21:10 utc | 41
*sigh* Late again.
@alabama
The “forlorn hope” (enfants perdu) tactic might be the same as what A Swedish Kind of Death described as “moving the goalposts” (viz. taking an extremely polarised position that could not possibly be adopted so that more “moderate” followers can make palpable gains in your wake… in the meantime, your opponents can grant concessions because they feel that they are at least not caving in to the unreasonable demands of the designated zealot).
If this is Dean’s strategy, then more power to him. I wouldn’t be too concerned about his career prospects, either. Falling on your sword for a Bush has always paid dividends (remember how Admiral John Poindexter “threw away his career” for taking the heat off Reagan during Iran/Contra? I wonder what ever happened to that guy *insert sarcastic face here*). Now, if the Dems learn how to creatively reward thier benefactors the way the Republicans traditionally have, Dean can breach the perimeter and still be sitting pretty in 10-15 years time. It only takes the Dems learning how to work synergistically (something they have not been historically very successful doing) and to stop throwing their real friends to the wolves in futile attempts at individual self-preservation.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 12 2005 21:15 utc | 42
I think the country club republicans were taken by surprise to find that the talibornagains had taken over their party sooooo thoroughly. I’ve read the same by some…in Texas, even.
The morning after the second Bush term was a huge in-your-face moment for the radical reconstructionist talibornagains (they’re not Christians, to me, so I cannot call them that.) All those hate-filled spewing green pea soup editorials about godless liberals…the country club republicans knew they were just as “guilty” as liberals for not jointing the talibornagain cult.
Reed, Robertson, and members of the legislature…across the nation, tho concentrated in the south, engaged in a stealth campaign…keeping their agenda within “rational discourse” until they had enough power (and a prez) to appoint crazies to positions across the board. This is why we have such dumb shit as creationist literature about the formation of the Grand Canyon in that park. This is why we have a former supporter of McCarthy heading up the CPB. This is why Bush is prez.
Reed is still playing it close to the vest, because he still has an agenda. btw, I’m not gay, but he really sets off my gaydar. Maybe it’s just that I’ve become so accustomed to religious republicans who rail against gays who turn out to be pedophiles or who have “marines” for lovers, or who claim to be good family men who want their wives to do a little hot girl on girl action while they watch…along with everyone else in Plato’s retreat. (and, btw, that’s not for me, but I knew some people who went there long ago, and I don’t really care what people do if they’re honest about it and it doesn’t involve minors or coercion.)
I think there’s been some major denial on the part of traditional republicans, because they are so averse to democrats….they cannot wrap their minds around the idea that their party is worse for them and the entire nation than the detested dems. But hopefully people like Paul Craig Roberts and others can wake them up.
It’s too bad those people cannot be brought in as poll watchers, along with moderate dems, rather than the baby seal killers the repukes have trained to harass democratic voters. Next election, btw, I plan to take a video camera, even tho it’s not allowed to video in the voting area, to do my own polling…asking people on camera about their experiences and recording the people who are doing the obstruction. I know where to go in my area, based upon demographics.
Posted by: fauxreal | Jun 12 2005 21:18 utc | 43
Hooray for Digby!
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_digbysblog_archive.html#111860145137090431
Courtiers and Fools
“Press The Meat today was one for the books. After a colorless exchange between the usual ineffectual Democrat and a looney tunes, delusional Republican (Joe Biden and Curt Weldon) Monsignor Lil’ Russ joined the roundtable where they ignored everything that had just been said to breathlessly offer their learned opinions on the runaway bride and Michael Jackson of the beltway — Hillary and Howard.
Gwen Ifill pointed out that while Dean is popular with the rank and file, the Washington Democrats are very upset. The Knights of the Botox all made it quite clear that while Bush catering to his base is a smart strategy, they agree with the DC Dems that catering to the filthy Democrat rabble is quite beneath any civilized politician. But then, as we all know, Bush’s base are Real Americans while the Democratic base consists of a bunch of godless, bi-coastal, terrorist sympathizers who are waaaay outside the mainstream. All 49% of ’em. No way are Judy, Gwen, Father Tim, and Dean Broder associated with those treasonous bastards. Why, everybody on Nantucket practically lives on pork rinds these days. (Atkins, don’t you know.)* …”
Posted by: susan | Jun 12 2005 21:20 utc | 44
that reminded me, annie. i just remembered. mccain, when asked to comment about his party being the party of white christians…sneered that dean is the gift that keep on giving.
but guess what? when mccain was running in the primary, he said essentially the same thing. he said the religious right was “destroying” the republican party.
fucking hypocrite.
p.s. when i googled the mccain thing, found another incident re when bob dole ran for office, his financial manager said the christian coalition had “hijacked” the republican party. well, well.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 12 2005 21:27 utc | 45
Blondesense provides more evidence of how this is turning out:
On June 8th, America’s dickweed, Lush Bimbo said:
Let me tell you something, the Democrats are more fearful — and I’ve told you this too — they’re more fearful of Christians than they are of Al Qaeda. The Democrats are more fearful of Democrats [sic] than they are of Islamist terrorists living in this country. They are more fearful of Christians than they are of any enemy of the United States of America. They probably have more fear of Christians than they do nuclear weapons being launched by North Korea. [mediamatters.org]
Rush is right to a point. He should have clarified his statement though:
more blondesense here
and a link on the boycott power of talibornagains from the comments
Posted by: citizen | Jun 12 2005 21:56 utc | 47
Monolycus,
quite correct. Same strategy.
Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Jun 12 2005 21:59 utc | 49
I still feel like I need to wash the slime off my hands after voting for Kerry. There is no way in hell I will vote for Hilary.
You better get ready. Dean’s job is sucker the masses into donating to the Robber Baron Jr. Party. But the elite meme, is “Just Win”. This strips politics out of the discussion – so they can come back with “would you rather lose” when people say Hell no. A VIP Dem., and one who knows & stated -Publicly- that it’s Wall Street that’s causing the major problems in America – that he proceeded to correctly elucidate – anyway, behind the scenes the elites want to run… no joke…John McCain.
Posted by: jj | Jun 12 2005 22:13 utc | 50
another thing, from the article:
Dean acknowledged that he sees his party’s national campaign apparatus as being “30 years behind” the one fielded in November by the Bush-Cheney campaign, and said the solution is for Democrats to be tough, describe themselves boldly and get organized in all 50 states.
can somebody tell me why the democrats have allowed the party building infrastructure to deteriorate for the last 30 years? anybody?
thank you bill clinton, the king of vichy scum, for doing nothing to strengthen the party. thanks for nothing. and the bitter irony is after dean repairs party outreach, hillary gets to swoop in to take advantage of it. it’s like an obscene chinese trap. we get caught which ever way we pull. grrr. oh well, i’ll take hillary if it means we’ll get more mayors, governors and congress people on the local level.
Posted by: hello | Jun 12 2005 22:30 utc | 51
Hey Susan–
“Why, everybody on Nantucket practically lives on pork rinds these days….”
Maybe Digby missed the mark a little huh?
‘Cause apparently, thanks to the clampdown on H-2B Visas, those folks in Nantucket are having a tough time bringing in the bakers and slave waiters from Bulgaria etc. that help them fill their oh so particular bellies.
speaking of rush…. i am more fearful of what the dobsonites may do to this country than…Al Qaeda,Islamist terrorists living in this country,and i believe they are more of a threat to our democracy than any enemy of the US. and yes, the chances they can screw us up is more likely than the nuclear threat of north korea. IMHO. but then, who am i? they are the wolf in sheeps clothing.
and mccain…what kind of racist christian morals brought down his campaign in south, or was it north carolina with all those accusations of illegitimate an black baby, pandering to the white christian morality i presume. but i’d have to agree w/ him too, dean is the gift that keeps on giving!
Posted by: annie | Jun 12 2005 23:48 utc | 53
News alert: Of all the things that could be said about republicanism and christianity, what Dean said is not one of those things.
Why is this so difficult to grasp? It certainly doesn’t reflect well on those who ignored the facts, nor bode well for the future.
Posted by: razor | Jun 13 2005 0:00 utc | 54
Razor, I look forward with trembling anticipation to your links on false Republican faith.
As you may know, this has been a hypothesis of mine for some time now – and I will be very, very peeved with Mr. Dean if it turns out that he has been subtly defending them all this time.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 13 2005 0:08 utc | 55
Hahaha! Perfect!
They send out Dick Cheney, the man who told Pat Leahy to “Go fuck yourself” on the floor of the Senate, to be Miss Manners for Howard Dean?!
Okay, folks, if that’s not enough to rev your letters-to-the-editor juices, nothing is.
By the way: In 2001, the GOP had a 3-to-1 money advantage over the Democrats. In 2005, Dean’s whittled that down to 2-to-1 — and he’s doing it with small-donor money. He’s also breaking the DNC’s fundraising records. (And this isn’t counting the money he’s raising for the state Democratic groups.)
Howard’s doing just fine. 🙂
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Jun 13 2005 16:29 utc | 56