You forgot to mention the name of the inconvenient example.
Or why it’s inconvenient.
I’m guessing he meant Nixon (who was raised as a Quaker) but maybe he meant Reagan (whose religious history before the WH I know nothing about).
In any case, I can’t see how it matters. Neither of those guys ran as openly non-Christian - certainly they did not run as Jews or Hindus or openly as atheists. Also, we’re talking about now, not then, and overt Christian religiosity has become far more prominent in the GOP than it was in the 70’s or the 80’s (althought it was starting to come into it’s own under Reagan).
There are two different arguments going on here. One is over whether Republican officeholders are “diverse”. Since the number of prominent officeholders is relatively small, it’s easy to create the illusion of a diverse party by hand-picking a few people from the elite who happen to be minority. (When elite universities want do this, they call it “affirmative action”.) Say the president is naming his cabinet. He needs to pick 15 people. It’s not that hard to find four or five eminently qualified, minority, politically conservative nominees out of the entire U.S. population. But it doesn’t prove your party cares about minorities.
The other argument is over whether Republican voters are diverse. That of course depends on what you mean by “diverse”, but the data show that Democrats have a near lock on minority voters. Another example: Bush lost his home state 95%-5% among black voters in 2000. If that isn’t bloc voting, nothing is.
Ehh, I think there is about an equal amount of religious diversity on both sides of the aisle. Also, what is so great about putting an openly non-Christian candidate on the ticket? How’d that work out for the Dems? For better or worse, historically most americans prefer that their president be a Christian, or at the very least believe in the Christian God.
That’s your spin. Mine is that only the Republicans have the principles to stand by their convictions. 
Seriously though, I don’t view the Republican agenda to be theocratic. Socially conservative, certainly.
This isn’t true for the Hispanic minority. Certainly Democrats hold a clear advantage on black voters, but even Chairman Dean acknowledges the point that Democrats have historically used the blacks as voters during election cycles and then turned their back on them after the polls have closed. That certainly doesn’t point to the fact that the Democrats really care about minorities.
What was it Barry Goldwater said about himself? “Ah, America! Where the first Jewish Presidential candidate is an Episcopalian.” But, that being said, I don’t know that I agree with you. While he’d never do it, if Joe Lieberman were to switch parties, he’d be a serious candidate for the Republican nomination, his Judaism notwithstanding, and more generally, if a candidate were conservative enough, especially socially conservative enough, I don’t think the fact that he’s, lets say, Jewish, would really hurt him among the Christian right. I don’t know that they’d support an outspoken atheist, but I don’t think an outspoken atheist would get the Democratic nomination.
As was referred to earlier, the Christian right pretty much got their start in the country when they supported the non-religious, previously divorced, but very conservative Reagan over the evangelical Baptist, but liberal Carter. So, that’s a case where ideology trumped religious affiliation.
I don’t know if this is fact or legend, but Johnson is reported to have said “We’ve just lost the South forever” as he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, the Democrats have lost the South, and if they could get just half of it back, they’d be winning elections in a walk.
The fundamental problem is that minorities are just that - minorities. By caring about minorities, Democrats have made themselves the minority party. It’s a matter of opinion whether this was the right thing to do.
Eisenhower actually, who left the Jehovah’s Witnesses before attending West Point. He later became a Presbyterian.
And how many Democrats have done so, apart from Senator Lieberman?
My point was that there is actually a considerable amount of religious diversity among Republicans, and interesting stories if you delve into it. Nixon was a Quaker, a lifelong one, yet he fought in World War II with no moral objections. Reagan was the child of a Fundamentalist mother and a Catholic father who became a mainline Presbyterian later in life.
But it doesn’t matter to you, since the Republican Party is hopelessly lost to the fundamentalists, in your view. Doesn’t matter to the Democratic leadership either, which is doing its level best to drive even more religious voters away with rhetoric like Deans.
The way I heard it, he said, “We have lost the South for a generation.” No cite.
Not “lost to”, Moto, but beholden to. Allied with. The greater majority of “economic Republicans” are acolytes of the Mammonite Church, a religious orientation that permits a great degree of flexibility. But without the support of Troglodytes, the Pubbies would not have won. I know that, you know that, Karl Rove sure as hell knows that.
*“So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late…”
- St. Robert of Hibbing
Don’t blame me, I supported Simon Rosenberg.
This is exactly how I predicted Dean would screw up. Under the hood, I actually think he’s doing some good things in terms of structure, but I guess we’re talking spin here, not brass tacks. And in terms of spin, Dean is obviously tone deaf and non-media savvy media.
One thing’s going to come out of this. By the end of next week, we’ll know exactly how many black Republicans there are. Because every one of them will have been put on television.
Heck, let determine if there’s any substance to Dean’s statement. What percentage of registered black voters are registered as Republicans?
Democrats have been called immoral and have been accused of hating America, hating God, and supporting terrorists, just to name a few.
The time to take the gloves off is way past due.
Does that mean that it’s Dean’s job to play John L. Sullivan? Ken Mehlman hasn’t been using his job as a sparring match.
There are more black Republicans than there were, and there will be more than there are now. As more black people rise into the upper income classes, it is inevitable that some will choose a politics of self-interest, and the Pubbies unswerving devotion to the moneyed is legendary. If we are sincere in our advocacy of equality, we have to recognize that.
Further, if a man should choose to live apart from his heritage, whether racial, cultural, or religious, no impediment should be placed in his way. If you oppose racism, you have to oppose all of it, it ain’t a buffet. No one should be accused of “betraying” a racialy based group, as racially based groupings have no legitimacy than anyone is bound to respect. A racial bias in favor is merely a milder version of the same pernicious foolishness.
Of course, if you groove to a hip-hop beat you should groove it whether your great-great grandaddy danced the Highland Fling or the Funky Chicken. Richard Pryor’s dick is funnier than Bob Hope’s entire career.
Hah! You ain’t seen nothing yet. What we have planned for you will make John L. Sullivan look more like Ed Sullivan, Gilbert & Sullivan or Maureen O’FUCKINGSullivan.
What would that be, praytell? Because I know what we have planned for you. It’s not a big secret, but it is very scary to the Democrats if we can pull it off.
If not the part chairman’s job, whose job is it?
Didn’t the RNC under Gillespie send out a mailer not too long ago accusing Democrats of trying to ban the Bible?
There aren’t any virgins in this fight.
Ok, but he didn’t announce that he was non-Christian when he was running for prez did he? Did he even actively reject Christianity at all or just stop practicing for a while?
One is still more than none.
In Psycho Pirate’s link above, I counted exactly one Congressional Republican in either house who does not self-identify as Christian (Norm Coleman, R. Mn. who is Jewish). There wasn’t exactly a dizzying diversity among Dems either but there was at least a modest handful who identified as Jewish, UU or did not specify an affiliation).
I wouldn’t call a variety of exclusively Christian denominations “diversity,.”
I think the Republicans have definitely been hijacked fundamentalists and theocrats. Even though much of the rank and file is probably more religiously moderate, it’s the True Believers who are driving the bus.
But if you thinkDean is driving voters away from the Dems you should be happy, shouldn’t you?
I’m just glad some Democratic leader SOMEWHERE is actually playing attack dog to the Republicans. For years the response of Democratic leaders to any kind of Republican attack has been to pull down their pants and bend over … hell, it was starting to look like a reflex.
“What was that Mr. Delay? We’re vicious America-hating fools who betray our troops with everything we say and do? O… Okay … sure … but we’re LOYAL America-hating fools who betray our troops with everything we say and do!”
I sure have gotten sick of that shit. Time to call the Pubbies what they are, as Mr. Dean has done. It’s just good strategy. Offering the olive branch is always better received if you have a couple of slavering attack dogs ready to go if the olive branch is refused.