Black != minority. Bush took 40% of hispanics and (AFAIK) lots of Asians; it’d be interesting to see how the nonblack minority vote went; I’d guess the GOP took about 40%.
And IIRC, Bush got something like 35% of the non-church-going vote.
Don’t kid yourself Diogenes, it’s a Christian country. :eek:
hat’s yet another weirdism from Howard Dean.
“You know, I care about values a lot. And one of the reasons that I care a lot is because of my upbringing. And it was a–I grew up in a Christian household. Now, because I grew up–I’m a congregationalist. People say, ‘Well, those are liberals.’ Well, since when do Christians get tagged liberal or conservative? You either believe in the teachings of Jesus or you don’t. I do. And I’m not ashamed to admit it.”
— Howard Dean to Tim Russert, May 22, 2005
He’s still white, isn’t he?
How is this inconsistent with the claim that the Republican party is overwhelmingly white Christian males? That Dean is one also is no more indicative of the broad makeup of the party than Condoleeza Rice is of the Republican party.
Everyone’s confused now.
His ‘monolithic, white Christian party’ comment was a coded invition to woo back Jewish neo-cons and Catholic Cubans in Miami while his “Republicans…a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives” was an attempt to pare down the number of homeless & college student Democrats.
Also Arlen Specter and Eric Cantor (Jewish), and Nancy Johnson (UU).
What an apt description of Howard Dean.
Regards,
Shodan
I posed this question earlier in the thread and I ask it again. Do any of you think that Howard Dean will be head of the DNC at this time next year?
Given the current environment and his behavior, I’m going to say no.
Well, as I see it, it is obvious that the Democrats have lost the South, but why they have lost it is debatable. Their “care” for minorities is one theory, but I think the more likely answer is that the South is by and large a very socially conservative area, and recent Democratic candidates have had trouble gaining traction there due to their socially liberal positions and their (at least perceived) hostility towards Christianity (e.g., removing the 10 commandments). And let me tell you: Dean’s rhetoric isn’t helping.
Well, do Democrats actually care about minorities, or just their votes? Sure, they love meeting in African American churches and getting “spiritual” while Pharisaically attacking the right, but I don’t see any real support for minorities. Just continuing the soft racism of diminished expectations that is also known as affirmative action.
I would list the right-wing figures who could reasonably be described as “slavering attack dogs” applying the same standards we are applying to Dean, but I don’t have the time and it would probably be a lot easier to list those who would NOT be slavering attack dogs by those standards. I leave it as an exercise for the interested observer.
Like I said, it’s a matter of opinion whether the Democrats have done right by minorities. Personally, I think that their abandonment of working-class interests has hurt minorities far more than their “rights” posturing has helped. Overall, Dean appears to be better on this issue than anyone in the party leadership has been for a long time, his latest criticism of the Republicans notwithstanding.
It is sort of amusing that when Republicans call themselves a Christian party, Democrats complain, but when Democrats call Republicans a Christian party, out come the crocodile tears on the Republican side. While Dean has a big mouth, it’s pretty funny to listen to Republicans start whining about decent political discourse.
It sounded to me like he was saying that there was something wrong with being a white Christian; otherwise, why make a big deal out of there being a white Christian party?
It’s funny to listen to both of you, quite honestly.
In context, it sounds like he is saying that the agenda of white christians dominates the party to the exclusion of other interests.
Nearly a non-smoking country, too. :eek:
-Joe
Sure, but when you’re a terminally offended White Christian looking for something to be offended about, it gives you someting to talk about.
It’s even likely the only reason at least one poster is visiting this thread.
-Joe
I suspect Dean will resign no later than a month after the midterm elections. He has become an embarrassment to his own party. It seems that Democratic Senators are being called upon almost daily to distance themselves from him. When Barbara Boxer does so, as she did yesterday, you know he’s gone too far.
I think Dean’s biggest problem is that he isn’t a team player. The stuff he’s spouting might gets him lots of air time, it’s bad air time for the party. And it’s only going to get worse. The press will now be tripping over itself to find the next “Deanism”. The story isn’t: How are the Democrats doing, but what outrageous think is Dean going to say next?
It may well be that Dean is doing exactly what party leaders have asked him to do, and that they are distancing themselves from his statements without any intentions of punishing him for those statements. It is possible that the Dem leadership understands that they need an attack dog or two, and they’ve asked Dean to fulfill that function.
It is also possible that they do not understand this … based on performance, the Dem leadership does not seem to understand that the Pubbies have taken the gloves off over the last two election cycles, and that if they want to win, they have to take their gloves off, too.
As I said earlier in this thread, it’s one thing to trash the politicians of the other party, it’s another thing altogether to trash the voters of the other party. Especially when you paint with such a broad brush that you end up trashing many of your own voters, or many swing voters in the process.
Do you not see the difference?