Show me where Dean has specifically trashed Republican voters and swing voters who vote for Republican candidates. Be forewarned: when Dean says “I hate the Republicans” I understand him to be referring to Republican leaders and the GOP faithful who strongly self-identify as Republicans, and I’m completely cool with that because they’re not gonna vote Dem anytime soon anyway.
Fortunately, black voters see right through this racism as is demonstrated by their overwhelming voting support for Republican candidates.
The problem, Lib, is it’s hard to tell when you’re being serious once politics and religion arrive on the scene. But if you’re genuinely confused on this issue, the distinction Dean is making is between a party that has members who are white and/or Christian and a party that is controlled by a white Christain leadership to the exclusion of other races and/or religions.
He’s either:
(1)Bitching about the lucky-sperm club, which for him is the epitome of hypocritcal
(2)Saying political party leaders are dishonest and don’t really work.
But that’s inferring a nuance that is wholly missing in his original remarks.
When Dean says “I hate the Republicans,” shouldn’t I take him at face value that he hates all Republicans? That certainly is the clear meaning of his statement. And if that isn’t what he means, then Dean is being calculating and dishonest, which doesn’t reflect well on him.
Or he misspoke, which happens. But Dean has never backed down much from this statement, so we can rule that one out.
Of course you do because you are predisposed to put a postive spin on things that Democrats say. Most Americans are not. One key to succsess in politics is to realize that not everyone things like you do.
Well, I quoted from a transcript, but I saw the interview live. (Russert is, in my opinion, the best interviewer out there. He is a nonpartisan dragon slayer.) And the impression it gave me was that he (Dean) was saying that being Christian had nothing to do with being a Republican or Democrat. In fact, that’s pretty much exactly what he said. When I saw other statement he made about the party of White Christians, it definitely seemed like a contradiction to me.
Not true, that depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.
I think he’ll be forced out before the midterm elections. If the 2006 elections result in more gains for the Republicans in the House and Senate, the Democratic Party will be thrown into total chaos.
I see Dean as the canary in the Democratic coal mine. If he lives, that means that the party has chosen to stay proudly on the left and not move to the middle to attract moderate voters.
If he dies (as chairman, of course), that means that the Democrats have chosen to try to appeal to the center of the political spectrum.
Someone with national prominence and a safe seat would be better suited to this role. Ted Kennedy comes to mind. Dean cannot afford to alienate anyone in his position. I don’t think he understands this. I really think that when he gets before a group that wants red meat, he throws it to them without considering the consequences.
Argh! Keep rubbing it in. :mad:
But Dean isn’t on the left. The only thing that distinguishes him from more mainstream Dems is style, not the content of his politics.
You must not have your Republican Party Guide to Democratic Positions. To simplify: all Dems are wild-eyed leftys. Some are more or less tame centrist wild-eyed lefties, like “Fightin’ Joe” Leiberman, while others, such as Dr. Dean, are flaming Trotskyist cadres, determined to force Eagle Scouts into gay marriages, etc.
Problem is, the Tighty Rightys have attack dogs and the luxury of deniability. Hannity, Limbaugh, and others too numerous to mention, can say whatever repulsive insult comes to mind, and the Pubbies can wait for the feedback before they decide whether or not they have always agreed. See any Pubbies distancing themselves from Limbaugh’s recent insinuations about Sen Clinton’s sexuality, or rushing to defend a Senate colleague from such disgraceful suggestions? Why should they, save for questions of honor and integrity? They can reap whatever benefits are at hand, without leaving any fingerprints. As a bonus, they get to jump on whatever Dr. Dean says and blubber lachrymose at the degradation of public discourse without soiling thier communion dress. Its a whine-win situation.
Replace “funny” with “pathetic” and I’ll agree with you.
For the Dean-bashers in the audience, here’s a quick flashback down memory lane:
“The San Francisco/Boston Democrats led by John Kerry have now adopted Blame America First as their official policy.”
–RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie
“We cannot allow presidential candidates or their surrogates to become mouthpieces for terrorists.”
–RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie
“Democrats appear to be setting the stage to use the new provisional balloting rules to convert registration fraud into vote fraud, with the possibility of Kerry supporters voting in multiple jurisdictions or under multiple names”
–RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie, via email
And to play off Dean’s “honest day’s work” comment, let’s remember that Rush Limbaugh countered a proposal for making Election Day a holiday by saying it won’t help Democrats because “most of their voters don’t work anyway.”
Like other bullies and blowhards, Bush-apologizing Republicans can dish it out, but can’t take it.
Like I said, you’re both a real riot. 
On the contrary. Most Republican partisans jumps for joy whenever Dean dispalys diarrea of the mouth. Just ask Shodan, Bricker, or Mr Moto if they want Dean to keep quiet.
I’m hurt you didn’t include me too, John.
Knowing some of your postions BG, Dean probably does seem like a centrist to you. But I don’t think that is how he is perceived by most people.
Let’s look at it this way. Dean says something outrageous. He either:
- Is making a sincere off the cuff remark. If so, he is indicates that he has an elitist attitude. It also shows bad judgement because he’s not anticipating any negative consequences.
Or,
- His statements are calculated to produce an effect. If so, what effect to benefit whom?
Does he think that the Democratic faithful are so starved for red meat that he must feed them despite the negative consequences?
Or does he think that a potential voter who is not politically engaged will hear him and say “That’s my man right there!” and vote Democratic for the rest of his or her life?
And yes, Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the right-wing media can say similar things about Democrats. The difference is that their job is not to grow and sustain a political party. Their job is to entertain and inform. As such, they are not subject to the same consequences as Dean, however unfair that may seem to some.
Does this apply to Ed Gillespies’s remarks equating Democrat candidates with the mouthpieces of terrosts? Or does this righteous sword cut only one way?
I, for one, was inspired by Dean’s active presence in the DNC to give a little dough to them for the first time in a while. So perhaps they are calculating that his apparent cojones and fearless abandon will keep the support flowing from the party faithful, but intend to put someone more “moderate” on the stage after the midterm elections. (As others have pointed out, he was actually quite a “moderate” governor, and even campaigner for pres. candidate, until his anti-war stance caught fire).
Oh no. It cuts both ways. People in Dean’s (and Gillespie’s) position are in the spotlight, with every mistake noted and magnified by their idealogical opponents.
I don’t keep track of incidents on both sides because I don’t have time…but my gut feeling is that Dean has popped off more outrageously and more often than others in his position on either side of the political spectrum.
Gillespie’s remarks were also made during the heat of a presidential campaign, where this sort of thing is more common and more tolerated.
Dean’s mouth is getting in the way of raising cash. And that is going to be will eventually do him in.