Leave a Comment below!
I am a white male Christian :)
Well, technically, I am borderline Christian, since I am a cafeteria Catholic and Catholics are Christian. And, technically, I am white, since when pressed to pick one of four boxes for race where Latino/Hispanic is not a choice (as Latino is not a race but an ethnicity) I choose white (fits me better than black, asian and native American). I am certainly not a male, so he is only almost right (2/3 right?) about me being all those three :)
he didn't say male though
You could start a category "unbelievably dumb and offensive statements by politicians" for an even richer experience. You'd have the additional material provided by Bush, DeLay, Schwartznegger, Kerry, et al.
Bush alone is a gold mine unto himself. We might say that Dean is the Democratic Bush when it comes to foot-in-mouth problems. :)
""WE WILL NOT HAVE AN ALL-VOLUNTEER ARMY!" -- George W. Bush, 10/16/2004
Thanks for pointing the male thing out. So, uhm, I am a Republican even by Dean's standards I guess :)
Dean is actually right. Here's the photo documentation:
http://republican.meetup.com/photos/
Wait, John, are you seriously saying only white Christians (of the Andrew variety) are the only people who are Republican? Uhm, ok, you are wrong, no matter how many pictures you show me. Maybe a lot of Republicans are white Christians, but not all! Urgh! I hate these dumb assumptions about what a Republican is.
Here's another photo.
Oh come on Brendan, pointing out the token minority ;)
I think Dean does have a point about the GOP LEADERSHIP being predominantly WASPish, but then again how much better is the Dems leadership? (asking cause I don't honestly know).
I would also say we should look at the staffers then, because, uhm, yeah, staffers might not be elected offcials but they certainly have some clout and a strong say in how things are shaped, and they are not all white. Granted, of the fifteen Republican State Senators in the California Legislature, fourteen are white (probably Christian) males. But take a look at their staff and you will see some diversity. Maybe they just hire us as tokens of diversity :)
All I'm saying is, name one person of color who is in a more prominent position in the Democratic Party (or was during the Clinton Administration) than Condi Rice.
I know you were kidding, but seriously, she is hardly a "token." And who do the Dems have? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Puh-leeze. Barack Obama, someday maybe, but not yet. The Republicans have the most prominent immigrant (Arnold), the most prominent Hispanic (Alberto Gonzales), the most prominent African-American (Condi)... granted, it helps that the GOP holds most of the positions of power in this country right now. :) But really, this argument seems like utter crap to me. And it doesn't help that some liberals have the unfortunate habit of saying racist things about Powell/Rice/etc, implying that they aren't REAL blacks because they're (gasp) Republicans.
Yeah,
Well said Brendan. I'm not sure if you caught the new blurb back in October about that spank radio host in Minneapolis who called Condi Rice an "Uncle Tom" and an "Aunt Jemima" live on the air. When asked to apologize, he apologized to Aunt Jemima...
"All I'm saying is, name one person of color who is in a more prominent position in the Democratic Party (or was during the Clinton Administration) than Condi Rice."
Howard Dean. Bill Clinton. Al Gore.
Oh, wait, you mean a color other than pale pink or pale yellow. :) Sorry, I just hate the term "preson of color"; as white as some of us guys can get, none of us quite reach the level of clear...
Having individual people in power is well and good, but that doesn't necessarilly mean that minorities are really welcome in the party does it?
I really should start a new blog category called "unbelievably dumb and offensive statements by Howard Dean." It would be a rich category.
Why don't you just entitle it "The Doctor Screech Watch"? :)
"...as white as some of us guys can get, none of us quite reach the level of clear..."
Actually, Mike, in high school I knew a guy whose melanin-challenged Unpigmentation :) would prettywell Do until Transluscent came along...dunno what Party he was though...Jewish fellow; perhaps it just was a Random variant of the (bogusly :) alleged Ashkenazi Adaptation, the kid WAS very Smart... :>
Truly no offense meant now, to Bea & to the rest of the Republican minority of non-WASP heritage, and/Or Of more-or-less undisputed non-Caucasian "color" [sic]; but the Real issue here is Not whether Dean is demographically Correct in claiming that "It's pretty much a white Christian party" ~ since it plainly IS that, now ~ but rather, whether a prudent Democratic National Chairman, who also Claims that he seeks to Win Back a bigfat Chunk of that white Christian majority of the American electorate, is Wise to implement his Plan by Dissing them with such bigoted & preposterous assertions as, "They all behave the same. They all look the same."
Yeah ~ time to create the Category, Brendan. :) Howard the Cluck has had his fair Chance. We have met the Enemy, and he is Him. :>
Joe - given that this *country* is pretty much a white Christian country, and with Republicans being the majority (at least by recent votes), then, yes, you can say that ""It's pretty much a white Christian party"" ... and I suspect you would be just as correct that the Democratic party is "" pretty much a white Christian party"" ...
So what ?
Are we getting up to Newsweek's unbiased news segment level - "The Sun rises in the east!" ... "Dog bites man ..." ???
Good to see that David is back to his 'normal' self, tho !
(grin)
Hey no fair! What did I do this time Alasdair?
Joe, has anyone else but me noticed that this group of Jews has the word NAZI embedded in their name. I'm surprised they haven't changed it by now...
The word belonged to us long before that piddly little art school dropout with one nut goosestepped onto the scene... :P
I love Howard. He might single-handedly ensure a Republican majority in power for years to come.
Well, him and that asshat Biden. Joe, nobody wants you as President, so just go away.
I don't care if Biden turns out ot be Jesus, I will never forgive him for the RAVE act. Yaargh!
I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about Biden. Hated the RAVE Act and hated the way he snuck it through Congress as a rider on the Amber Alert after it had been rejected on its own merits... loved his speech at the DNC last year, love his attitude on foreign policy, etc.
David...
I think Dean does have a point about the GOP LEADERSHIP being predominantly WASPish...
Having individual people in power is well and good, but that doesn't necessarilly mean that minorities are really welcome in the party does it?
Explain to me who these two statements aren't contradictory? Are we judging a party by its leadership, or by its rank-and-file membership?
Having individual people in power is well and good, but that doesn't necessarilly mean that minorities are really welcome in the party does it?
Yeah David, because if blacks try to join the Republican Party, we're just gonna kick 'em all out. They're kind ain't welcome here.
I'm so fucking sick of this crap.
I suspect you would be just as correct that the Democratic party is "" pretty much a white Christian party""
I dunno, I always thought of it as more of a secular, multicultural party that is nonetheless largely dominated by white people at the top levels.
And you know I love Howard, but yeah, that was a pretty dumb thing to say. There's not much I can do to defend him on that count. :) On the balance, though, I still think he's doing the party more good than not.
Urgh, David! Why do you say stuff like that! Everyone who likes Republican ideas is welcome into the party. It is not about the color of your skin but the ideas that you hold. I do not like your statement's implication that minorities need not try to join the party because they are not welcome. It is just not true. You might give me an isolated case of someone, somewhere, but on the whole, it is simply not true.
I can understand why a minority person might feel unwelcome in the party, though, since so much of conservative rhetoric and electoral strategy is hostile to them.
This guy, John Marshall, has a really good analysis of this topic that you might want to read.
Say stuff like what? I never said a thing, I asked a question because I thought it was worth discussing.
I'm getting a little sick and tired of being accused of saying things that I clearly did not. Honestly when have I ever not just said something when i meant it? If I was going to call the GOP racist like you and Patrick and sadly Brendan seem to be implying I am, I would have said it.
I don't think what I said is in any way out of line however. I simply asked whether or not the inclusion of a few minorities in power is an actual demonstration of openness to minority issues within the party or not.
I have not now, nor in the past accused the Republican party of being racist. I could certainly point to issues that I think show they aren't necessarilly friendly to certain aspects of race issues, but I don't think that makes them racists as I think alot of those issues have other motiviations (money, etc).
And while I can kinda understand Bea and Patricks comments I'm surprised Brendan at how many times recently you have called me out on things where I didn't actually say what you are implying i have said.
Excuse me, Craig, what rhethoric is unwelcoming to me, solely by virtue of being a minority? If you are a minority and you ascribe to the ideas espoused by the Democratic Party, you might feel unwelcome, sure, but not because you are a minority. I have been talking about this issue with my friend Helen, a Russian born Republican, because it drives us crazy. Can the Democrats not come up with something better to attack the Republican Party with than saying they do not welcome us? I am annoyed. How lovely, a bunch of white guys saying how the other party does not welcome minorities. Because all minorities must think Democratic if they know what is good for them... I am disgusted by the implication that only Democrats really listen and cater to minorities, when in reality I often see it more as pandering and using minorities to get their fill.
David, some of your comments about the Republican party lend themselves to inferences I do not agree with, and I find that annoying, yes. You certainly can have your opinion of the party, and perhaps your statement was meant as a benign question of whether minorities in leadership account for minority views being represented. It is a valid discussion to have (probably on another post) and I would say that generally, Republicans who happen to belong to a minority view themselves as person first and outside of their minority affiliation, and as minorities second. This is why gays might find a home in the Republican party, or I can be part of a party that is "anti-immigrant". Hence we lend ourselves to being called sell outs, when in reality we have a different idea of what is best for minorities and for the country as a whole. In the context of this post, it sounded more like you were implying that token minorities in leadership did not mean the party cares about minorities, and not merely asking an innocent quesion. Maybe I overreacted, sure, but when several people seem intent on implying my party does not welcome me solely because I am brown, I get pissed. I know you think Patrick and me capable of making stuff up about your statements, but are sadden at Brendan doing it to. Well, maybe Brendan sees what we see, and what you do not see, and maybe your statements do say or imply things that are disconforting at times. Or maybe we have finally lured Brendan to the dark side :)
The Republican Party welcomes anyone who wants to be a Republican, we have diversity of opinion and of color in our party, and to imply or say otherwise is absurd. There will always be isolated cases, there will always be racist people, there will always be people who hold prejudices, but that is human, not Republican.
I read Craig's link. I have little time to comment on this anymore (unlike what Howard Dean might think , us Republicans do work). So, this person is basically saying, although Reps are not racist and their conservative ideology does not lend itself to racism, but sometimes when push comes to shove the Reps will resort to racist-like rhethoric to get the votes they need, in certain parts of the country where this works. While there might be some truth to that, and I will not excuse it (politics is ugly and I do not like it any more than anyone else does) I will say that if we are willing to admit that is the case, then the same is true of the Democratic Party then. I see the Democrats use the race rhethoric, I see them construying the facts, framing the debate, leaving out information and taking advantage of minorities' ignorance of the process, of the issues and even of their lack of proficiency in the language to get more votes. It is dirty and the Democrats do it. And it works, and it is why people often question why I am a Republican. My party is no more racist than the Dempcratic Party, which is not to say that makes it ok, but that we welcome people, anyone really, who wants to join, and the isolated cases happen over here and over there in the Dem camp too.
David - why are you complaining when someone Davids your words ? (ROTFLMAO)
Bea - breathe ! Breathe ! Consider the source ... and remember, we are gradually winning Brendan back to the Light Side, and away from the D Side ... (grin) ...
What many miss about the Condi Rice appointment as Sec of State is that she got there by her own abilities, not because a quota token was required ...
Those who keep trying to maintain that the Republican Party is misogynist, racist, sexist, assorted-phobic somehow cannot see that such a party literally *cannot* allow someone like Condi Rice to be in high office ... they try to tar the entire Party based on some extremists who are part of the Party due to a 'wide-tent' ...
Bea - remember that " ...when several people seem intent on implying my party does not welcome me solely because I am brown ...", those same people are treating you according to their *own* beliefs ... and they are telling you WAY more about themselves than about the target of their indignation ... we can try to point that fact out to them, but, sadly, most of the time, they literally *cannot* take the new information in and process it ...
Look, all I'm saying is that when your party has operatives that run around black neighborhoods before an election posting flyers giving the wrong date for the election, something is wrong. And when your party has operatives that run push polls in swing states implying that your opponent has illegitimate black children, something is wrong.
Is it racism? Regardless of whether it's motivated by a pragmatic desire to win rather than personal venom against minorities, I'd have to say that it is.
But I'm sure that Bea and her Russian friend feel very welcome in the embrace of the GOP nonetheless.
And I am sure the Democratic party is guilty of shady politics with a pragmatic desire too, then. I see them use ignorant and non-English proficient immigrants to further their goals here in the state capitol, and I cringe at the way they take advantage of minorities. When I meet with people who are ot fluent in English and will have a hard time understanding what I have to say and conveying their message in English, I always make it a point to hold meetings in Spanish and explain everything, from the political process to the reasoning behind our legislative proposals, and I always make myself available as a resource to the many people who come visit my boss to voice their opinion and have limited English. We care about minorities, and we welcome minorities, and also many of us do not want to use or take advantage of them. We have a different idea of what is best for them, is all, and that does not mean we do not care about their issue. But, I cannot complain when Dean says "We have to be rough on the Republicans. Republicans don't represent ordinary Americans, and they don't have any understanding of what it is to go out and try and make ends meet." because even his fellow Dems are distancing themselves from his comments and because it is so not true it speaks for itself. As for the Reps misleading people about election dats and such, I can think of one prominent and infamous Democrat who might have engaged in similar behavior. Kevin Shelley, the Secretary of State who finally had to step down because he was so shady, might have been guilty of some date changing and innacurate posting for initiative deadlines to confuse some groups with initiatives and involved in signature gathering efforts, so they would not be able to qualify their initiative. Again, I am not saying the Dems do it too so it is fair game, but pointing out the hypocrisy of saying the Reps might be racist because there is isolated cases of shady business, when, yeah, it happens to the other party too. Not to re-open they debate over whether someone who has done something wrong cannot still see the wrong in someone else doing the same bad thing, but just pointing out that when you point a finger at us, maybe three are pointing right back at you.
And I am sure the Democratic party is guilty of shady politics with a pragmatic desire too, then.
I think your case would be stronger if you had some specific, recent examples of similar race-centric malfeasance on behalf of the Democrats to share with us.
Craig - you show me where Republicans slashed the tires of Democrats' campaign vehicles in the days leading up to a Presidential election, and I'll consider believing the assertion about "your party has operatives that run around black neighborhoods before an election posting flyers giving the wrong date for the election" ...
To get a bit back towards being on-topic - I wonder what Dean's opinions are on Born-Again Pagans ? Are we allowed into the Republican Party ? Are we allowed into the Democrat Party ?
Or are we just aloud on blogs ?
(innocent grin)
You are That, Laird Alas :). But if not the by R's & D's, I believe the Latter-day Druids are welcomed into the ranks of the ScotNats.
(bravehearted smile :)
What was the percentage of African Americans who voted Democrat in the last election? I think in the 2000 election it was somewhere around 95%. That's absurd. That's the African-American community screaming to be taken advantage of. It's like the old saying: if it ain't broke don't fix it. If, as it is now, the African American community will pump out Democratic votes...why would the Democratic party ever want to really help the African Americans? The status quo right now is that the Dems have the black community in their pockets--no reason to shake that up. And the Republicans don't need them--they win elections without them.
But the Hispanics? Well, they split their vote don't they? At least more than African Americans do. And as a result? Both parties are Hell-bent on doing whatever they can to get those votes. What does that mean? The Hispanic community is politically relevant, the African American community is politically irrelevant.
So bravo Dean...you're the head of a party that has fleeced the political relevance of this country's African American population. Way to go party of tolerance!
You should also throw in the fact that the DNC is not doing so well on the donation front, either. Seems Dean is a lot better at throwing out morsels of rabid rhetoric than coaxing hairballs of dinero out of party fatcats.
I didn't think the DNC could do worse than Terry McAuliffe, but I was wrong, apparently. We Republicans appreciate all the help we can get.
Andrew - shhhhh ! Don't let 'em find out that Dr Dean *is* part of our 'help' ! (grin)
Joe ... hmmmm ... I think you meant the ScotGnats ... tho we true Scots tend to call 'em "midges", not gnats ... (gnats are sorta like sassenachs, petty and annoying) ... (innocent grin) ...
Alasdair - As A Laird
I may just have to find a place and time to use that ! (bigger grin)
Dr. Dean is the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party!
He is just the gift that keeps on giving and he is articulating the Liberal position very well!
He is also venting the anger of the Left perfectly.
Andrew - shhhhh ! Don't let 'em find out that Dr Dean *is* part of our 'help' ! (grin)
Heh, poor Carl Rove must have been worried when their secret plant Dean lost the Democratic nomination ;)
you show me where Republicans slashed the tires of Democrats' campaign vehicles in the days leading up to a Presidential election, and I'll consider believing the assertion about "your party has operatives that run around black neighborhoods before an election posting flyers giving the wrong date for the election"
Let me get this straight: in order for you to believe that Republican operatives did in the black community what they have done continuously for the last 10 years, I have to show that Republicans have also done the same thing that Democrats have allegedly done to Republican campaign vehicles. Is that right? Because frankly, that's flat-out retarded.
How about instead of doing that, I simply post a link verifying that what I said is true?
"In 2002, the Republican Party admitted paying Black youths $75 to stand on street corners with signs discouraging Blacks from voting, and flyers were distributed in African American communities telling voters they could vote on Tuesday, Dec. 10, three days after the Senate runoff election was held."
Hold on there, Craig. You've linked to a Black Entertainment Television write-up that's being cited by House Democrats, and which contains no links, references, or citations that show proof that the allegations are true and accurate. Excuse me for still being skeptical, it sounds a lot more like the age-old scaremongering Democratic rhetoric they feed every year to minority voters if you ask me.
Pardon me, you're right. BET is not terribly credible. Perhaps you should try clicking here instead. The link leads to a PFAW report on voter suppression tactics issued last year. Click here to access the report's extensive end notes citing sources for each incident noted in the report.
Dude, that's all you got? Stories of a Republican who did something that was denounced by the other local Republicans, and of a Michigan politician stating the obvious truth that the suburbs have to turn out stronger than the city for the Republicans to win? Man, that's pretty pathetic.
Craig - you went from BET without citations, to 'People for the American Way' with citations for such heinous threats of atrocities as "threatening to prosecute persons who failed to meet ... definition of having a legal voting address." ... I believe that such a prosecution, if unfounded, can lead to criminal charges for "malicious Prosecution" (any something-Ls who can verify or debunk ?) ... the note - 6 - leads to "6 Harvey Rice and Terry Kliewer, "Students take DA to court," Houston Chronicle, 2/6/04, http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/prin...litan/2390118\"
which just happens, by innocent coincidence, to be a dead end ... so it cannot be verified ... and, from some Googling, it would seem that the Houston Chronicle would be comfortable with LAT/NYT/WaPo ...
Good unbiased sources, all ... what is that expression I have learned since coming to this country ... ???
"Yeah, RIGHT !!!"
(grin)
Sorta like Stalin or Kruschev citing Pravda, dontcha think ?
Oh yes and the right are a paragon of using unbiased sources Alasdair...
This rampant right wing paranoia about some sort of huge left wing conspiracy in the media is so sad. Gee, we don't like what they are saying therefore they MUST be biased and we just can't ever believe what they say, instead we will tune in to Fox News or The New Republic, whose success has come from telling the people what they want to hear. Gimme a break.
TNR is now right wing alongside Fox News? Wow. Now there's a clear marker for just how far gone David is these days.
Everything I have ever read from TNR has been incredibly right wing, granted its been what you have cited so its possible I'm missing out.
Ok, now I realize my mistake. I mixed up the New Republic and the National Review. Sorry for the confusion Andrew.
I can understand not liking the conservative message of National Review, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me that William F. Buckley's flagship magazine is successful because it tells people what they want to hear. For many years, you hide to hide your NR in your Playboy so as not to draw suspicion and scorn. The only reason you can now read NR openly without too much hostility is because many of Buckley's arguments have won the day.
*had to hide
Andrew - I understood you - it's just your accent, after all ... (grin) ...
David - I'm sure we can find some way-biased right-wing sources ... and they tend to proudly proclaim themselves as being such ... what they don't tend to do is try to pretend to be un-biased ...
I still use the LA Times as prime examples of newsprint bias ... and the LA Times does it in embarrassingly simplistic ways ...
Andrew - admit it ... Buckley's flagship *does* tell people what they want to hear ... and that's the *truth* !
LOL
The *truth* is what they want to hear - so they subscribe, and resubscribe ...
The citations in the PFAW article, which I provided a direct link to, come from mainstream newspapers. Unless you're one of these nutjobs that thinks that the entire media is left-wing, in which case I don't think there's any help for you.
And as for " Dude, that's all you got," I was asked for sources to back up the claims about Republicans flyering minority neighborhoods posting the wrong day to vote, and I gave it. Is there now some other phantom requirement you need to be convinced that this occurred?
Hmmm, yeah Craig, because Democrats would never do anything illicit in their attempt to win votes. And like your racism example, I'm sure these are just isolated incidents, not at all patterns of a wider problem within the Democratic Party. Nope, not at all.
NIce rebuttal Andrew, instead of defending your parties own actions (which you can't because they are indefensible) you just say, hey look the other guy does bad stuff too! Typical GOP smoke and mirrors.
My point, Dumbass Prime, was that shit happens, and you can't blame the national parties for local every shenanigan. You're the one trying to excuse one party and damn the other here.
*every local
I swear I dyslexic am the past days few.
Sigh.
Can't we all just admit that there are some *bad* people in BOTH parties that will do surreptitious & ethically challenged to blatantly illegal things to get more votes?
Seriously, that either party tries to claim a moral highground is laughable! It is exhausting to hear the constant indignant responses of a liberal pointing to isolated instances of conservative iniquity and then hear the conservative response of “at least we’re not as bad as [insert some neo-Marxist fool]” ad nauseum.
Craig’s PFAW link shows some possible evidence of real cases of voter intimidation—the list is, admittedly and on the whole, weak and rather unpublicized. All this should mean, however, is that the true believers of the Republican message should want an in-depth investigation (as far as or beyond any legal investigation) of any and all charges so as to 1. repudiate any erroneous and offensive charges and 2. remove those from party positions that did do something wrong.
Likewise, Andrew’s link to an obvious right-leaning blog with a rundown of Dem voter fraud charges in St. Louis represents a similar situation for the Democratic party! It seems wise that the same situation I called for above should exist—there should be an intense Democrat investigation!
It just doesn’t make sense to blow off every accusation of impropriety with the wave of a hand as if everything is some sort of partisan trick. If every accusation was met with a good-faith examination (the ideal role of an impartial media) none of the crap would carry any weight and we could all make better informed decisions. [Of course the whole of the MSM probably lean slightly to the left (with obvious examples of right- and left-wing proclivity) but on the whole seem most interested in breaking a story & running to the bank.]
This is what I would call the exhaustion of a moderate voter…For every ethically bankrupt Tom DeLay there’s a mentally bankrupt Howard Dean. For every disgusting, racist politician like Jesse Helms there’s a batshit-crazy, reverse-racist Maxine Waters.
There are wonderful, valid ideas on both sides of the aisle. This partisan bickering exhausts me. I hope this thread ends here with an implicit acknowledgement of the terrible imperfections of many party figures. Neither major party, in this centrist’s opinion, have done an effective job of weeding out the slimeballs and whackjobs to effectively convince me (as if I matter) of some sort of moral ascendancy.
I’m sorry to rant—but I just can’t take party apologists and holier-than-thou rhetoric. It annoys me to no end and is the antithesis of democratic debate.
Can't we all just admit that there are some *bad* people in BOTH parties that will do surreptitious & ethically challenged to blatantly illegal things to get more votes?
I can admit that, and so can Andrew. This started because I tried to point out that the linked post's examples of "racism" in the Republican party are shenanigans for gettting votes, and that both parties do things like that. I was not excusing either party, simply pointing out that, uhm, both parties do it, so calling out one means calling out the other. You think it is laughable that one party tries to claim the moral ground? Tell that to Craig then.
I was not claiming the moral high ground for my party, I was arguying agaisnt this idea that the Republican party is racist, and that people like me are not welcom solely because we are not white. I agree with ya that all this bickering is annoying and unproductive, and it certainly distracted us from the initial issue in the post, which is that the Republican party is racist, and that many Dems believe this to be true, on the whole, and not that an islotaed event here and there is bound to happen. That is not true and it is annoying as hell when people continue to believe this to be true, to argue for it being true, and to insult me by arguying WITH ME a latina immigrant that feels welcome in my party, that it is true.
My point, Dumbass Prime, was that shit happens, and you can't blame the national parties for local every shenanigan. You're the one trying to excuse one party and damn the other here.
Ah Andrew, your intelligent and well reasoned comments help so much in promoting good discussion. Too bad it was Craig who was making the comments not me.
You think it is laughable that one party tries to claim the moral ground? Tell that to Craig then.
Craig, the Democrats are not inherently morally superior.
That better, Bea?
My main point is that the apologists on both sides shouldn't quit with the "calling out" but rather take the calling out to heart & make a change! This is, naturally, pie-in-the-sky dreaming, but baseless accusations would easily be recognized as such if accusations with legitimate evidence were NOT ignored or dismissed in such an offhand way...If party figures with ethics violations were given more than a slap on the wrist or stupid claims in offensive speeches were denounced by the party it would really, really, really be nice.
[/dream sequence.]
Anyway, I'm going to bed.
Scientizzle, that was essentially my point. As Bea noted, the whole thread started with Craig bashing the GOP for being racist, and not only was the evidence weak, but I felt like pointing out that there are Dems actually on trial in St. Louis for buying off votes. There were other known instances of this happening in Milwaukee in the 2000 election, helping Gore to carry the state very narrowly, and there has been evidence of similar things in King County. In '94, it was proven that Loretta Sanchez benefited from some illegal immigrants voting. None of these instances, of course, are worthy of overturning an election necessarily, and none of them prove that the Democratic Party supports voter fraud, although it angers me that Democrats tend to oppose any efforts to require better identification and election controls to prevent these things when they know full well they are the ones who benefit from it more often than not.
So my point was exactly the same as yours, Scientizzle. Shit happens in elections, because there are corrupt people in both parties who will do anything to win. And it angers me when Craig and David get on their high horses and start bashing the GOP when both parties do it. Get over it, people, that's my take.
My point was different. Not that "shit happens," nor that any party has some sort of monopoly on shit production or shit distribution. And it certainly wasn't to "get over" the shit.
Rather, it's that there is a conspicuous lack (on both sides) of accountability at the local & national levels in the party offices.
It's much easier, I guess, and perhaps more politically effective to hide the truth, spin the story, blame a media bias or point to something the other guy did that was just as bad!
What happens? The problem is never solved and hardly anyone is held accountable. Seems like a perfect recipe for repeat offenses.
While your accusations, Andrew, may turn out to be 100% verifiably true it still has no bearing on Craig’s accusations! None! It’s a diversionary tactic used copiously by partisans on this blog and in the national scene and it MEANS NOTHING.
[Of course your points are a set of valid topic on their own—but for all the legalese that’s spouted around here there’s sure a constant influx of “inadmissible” and “prejudicial” evidence…]
Bottom line, without people taking seriously the (real & accused) flaws in their own parties we get No Accountability & No Change. That’s it. It’s okay as long as we’re not worse than the other guys.
I hate baseless charges and political innuendo as much as anyone. And you know I hate faulty logic. But double standards kill me.
The issue was, is the Republican Party racist because there is isolated events of shady stuff when it comes to votes? If that makes the party racist, then the Democratic party is also racist. After all, baseless accusations seem to be enough to conclude the party is racist (this dirty shenahigans are about votes, not race by the way, but yeah tell that to the guy who wrote the article of the link, who thinks reps do it due to racism and not for votes, and do not construe this to mean in any way that I support shenanigans for votes). Politics is dirty, and yes, I agree with you, everyone who participates in shenanigans should be held accountable. But if that makes one party racist, it makes the other pary racist too. Racist actions motivated by racism makes something racist. Dirty politics is, well, dirty politics.
The question is Bea are they truly isolated incidents or not. We may never know but we can see patterns of behavior and in order to show whether either (or both) parties have some inherent racism on these grounds we would have to look at the evidence for each. Stating that both sides do shady things therefore they are either both racists or not is plain wrong. It matters to what extent it is happening.
Politics is dirty
Its dirty because we as a people put up with it. We elect politicians who are willing to play dirty, we don't hold them accountable to real campaign finance reform, we have accepted a low standard and that is truly a sad thing.
Rather, it's that there is a conspicuous lack (on both sides) of accountability at the local & national levels in the party offices.
It's much easier, I guess, and perhaps more politically effective to hide the truth, spin the story, blame a media bias or point to something the other guy did that was just as bad!
What happens? The problem is never solved and hardly anyone is held accountable. Seems like a perfect recipe for repeat offenses.
Scientizzle, you're just plain wrong here. Both parties are held accountable, there are laws and regulations, and there are also regular investigations and punishments. The thing is, you see the one incident on the news that everyone across the country talks about, and then you extrapolate it and figure everyone is doing it. Not so. Both parties have renegades, and I don't care how perfect the system is, you'll always have bad apples. It's like the USPS--sure they lose a lot of mail, but when you're dealing with billions of deliveries, .001% is a lot of lost mail!
In all the cases mentioned, by either Craig or myself, all those instances were investigated, and in most cases, someone was punished. Rarely does it overturn an election, but the bad guys do get caught usually.
So yes, get over the shit, because it will never be perfect.
While your accusations, Andrew, may turn out to be 100% verifiably true it still has no bearing on Craig’s accusations! None! It’s a diversionary tactic used copiously by partisans on this blog and in the national scene and it MEANS NOTHING.
I meant no diversionary tactic, I meant to prove a point. Craig was willing to paint the entire GOP as racist because of two isolated incidents that were blown out of proportion anyway. So I linked to the Democratic malfeasance and wondered if he'd make the same logical leap. There's nothing diversionary about it.
David's approach is precisely the problem. Politicians will never be angels, but they can be expected to behave, and they most often do. But his gnostic approach, shared by too many others who swallow everything the media feeds them, is to "hold them accountable" with more and more regulations and rules. They completely ignore the law of unintended consequences, so now you have congressmen who don't know the issues because they simply run from PAC fundraiser to PAC fundraiser so they can cobble together the small individual amounts required to comply with CFR and stay in office. I am all for high standards and accountability, but with the attitude you guys display, it's a case of perfection becoming the enemy of the good.
Sure Andrew, my approach, of wanting to hold people accountable si the problem, not your "this is the way its done, it can't be better, just accept it" approach.
I am not saying we need MORE laws I'm saying we need effective ones. We need laws that mean when someone like DeLay does what he does as often as he has done it he doesn't get to remain in power, regardless of which party is in power. I'd be far more inclined to believe the GOP claims of being the "moral" party if they actually backed it up by holding their own members to standards.
As for campaign finance and PAC's all I ever said is we need effective laws. I never said we need to only let people donate small amounts. Just that we have effective and enforced laws.
But go ahead, jump to whatever conclusions you want, it just proves that you are missing out on the truth.
David,
The truth just rolls by you and you call it a right wing conspiracy.
Poverty to you is vast right wing conspiracy.
WE, the educated and experienced, have found that enabling the individual, like the Bible says: "Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you will feed him for life," is the best way to go.
Republicans have embraced that idea and work it every day by creating a capitalist system to empower the individual.
Democratic Liberal ideals empowers the government by sapping the need to succeed and keeping everyone down that is on entitlement programs.
The Social Security debate is key to the ideal of ownership versus governmental dependency from cradle to grave, which was a cornerstone of the Clinton administration.
Unemployment is down, we have had 14 consecutive quarters of growth. This hasn't happened since the Republicans took over Congress and made Clinton look good.
And, if anyone kicked out any minority out of the Republican Party, the Republican Party would be sued soooooooooooo fast it would make heads spin.
David, you are young and foolish. The Republicans don't 'kick-out' anyone. They cannot stop you from voting Republican in any way.
The only people that join the Republicans do so on their own mature volition, by thinking through the facts, policies and direction the Republican Party carries the governments they manage.
Most young and immature people or old and set in their ways folks vote Democrat without much thinking but, instead use a lot of passionate feeling in expressing their vote.
Take a look at your leadership: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Dr. Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Al Gore.
The only winner out of the bunch is Clinton, and he was disbarred for lying.
Common, David. Think about it.
What is left of the Democratic party is slackers, losers and wannabes. Obama for example, is a pretty face with smooth words. He hasn't done anything but he is the Democrats shinning star among a bunch of losers.
Neither party has ever been as bad off as the Democrats, but you loyalist keep making excuses for them.
As a concerned party, the Republicans may have to have an intervention with the Democrats so that they will stop the bender and pull out of this cycle of self-destruction.
Okay, I give up! What the hell is the point of this thread? I mean, beyond being amused (and saddened) by the fact that one moderate pops their head up for a few comments and then both of the partisan sides try to drag him into their camp, I must say I'm a bit lost.
Can we please cut the bullshit, for a little while at least? I mean yes, shit happens and bullshit happens, but it would be nice if, every so often, we could cut the bullshit and clean out the stables, maybe even try to stop the shit from hitting the fan.
The problem is not that any one of us leans liberal or conservative - the problem with this thread is that there is no point to this fight! We have streams of bullshit flying in from all directions and the discussion was already mired in shit in the first place. What the hell is the point of all this? I mean this is not a policy debate it is a skeletons in the closet debate - a fight neither side can win. Why? Because both parties have pulled some really bad shit in order to win elections.
Dean said a stupid thing - you know, like he does -and really, that is basically the end of it. What kind of argument is based on, "yeah, our guy said something kind of dumb and insensitive, but at least it is not as dumb and insensitive as stuff the other side has done." Which is responded to by what? "Well, we might have done that, but it is not as bad as this other thing you all did." After a few cycles of this each side is dredging up ancient party history and flinging it across the room with a total loss of context. But worse, everyone ends up looking like an idiot - which no one here is.
I say it again. There is no point to this fight. None. Dean said a stupid thing, and for this thread that should be the end of it.
Sure, other threads can debate other things. Discussing the ethics of certain political tactics is certainly a important debate to have in a democracy. Examples of this or that pice of bad behavior in the past can be relevant to drawing the line. And it is relevant for the News media to expose the bad behavior of both sides and to encourage prosecution of it - protecting the political process is exceedingly important and a vital national interest. Be that as it may, a no your side is worse argument is not constructive. Saying that we need to find better ways to stop voter intimidation, voter fraud, dead people voting, and other nefarious tactics is constructive. Saying we need to find a way to get both sides to raise the level of political discourse - to discuss issues instead of bullshit - is constructive. To say we need to get the new media to pay attention to important national issues and inform us when our national interest is threatened instead of reporting that Paris Hilton's dog took a crap next to a fire hydrant is important. That is to say, enough bullshit, lets move on.
What in the world are you talking about Charles? Can you not even READ. Where in the world did I claim that poverty was a vast right wing conspiracy? Where in the world did that even come into this discussion.
Since you are so clearly blind, let me spell it out for you, this was a discussion about racism in the Republican party and expanded to racism in both parties. I never once mentioend poverty, so i don't know where you pull that one off.
And in case you hadn't noticed I have been crticizing BOTH parties. I know its a hard concept for you to grasp but when I criticize the GOP its not because I am a Democrat but because I am NOT a Republican, the two are not equivalent cases. So its not "my leadership" when you mention Al Sharpton or Bill Clinton.
It has become clear to everyone but a few people that you live in your own world were facts are what Fox News tells you and everyone must fit into your little places for them. Reality however is different, people do not simply choose Republican or Democrat but can have a wide variety of views. I'm sorry that this is impossible for you to understand but I suppose when you sit on the far right, everything must appear that way to you. However as long as you maintain such a simplistic and logically false view you will do nothing but marginalize yourself and your positions. You are like a Republican version of Howard Dean with your crazy views of everything left of Atilla the Hun.
Andrew, the thread hardly started with my comments. I joined in rather late in the game, actually. I was simply responding to Bea, who seemed positively flummoxed at the thought that some minorities might not feel entirely welcome in the embrace of the GOP. I offered the above incidents as an explanation.
So my point was exactly the same as yours, Scientizzle. Shit happens in elections, because there are corrupt people in both parties who will do anything to win. And it angers me when Craig and David get on their high horses and start bashing the GOP when both parties do it.
Both parties probably subvert elections laws to gain an advantage, yes. But both parties don't run around trying to suppress the minority vote, and that's the point I was making. Is it inherently worse than buying off voters? Probably not. But I can see how it would make minorities feel intimidated and uncomfortable, and thus view the GOP as racist.
I ask you: is it really necessary to try to spin and distort my remarks here on a weblog? At least wait until I'm in public office, for goodness sakes! ;)
Commenting by HaloScan.com
