Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Democrats

Journal pudge's Journal: Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean 20

Journal by pudge

Howard Dean, the Grand Poobah of the Democratic Party, told a room full of the Democratic Black Caucus, "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

I am not here to bash Howard Dean. I am here to give him advice.

Howard: shut up. You only hurt yourself and your party when you talk where people can quote you. Have private meetings with donors and activists. Don't let the public get wind of what you're saying, because you're stupid and you end up saying stupid things. That's why you lost in Iowa. People don't like you. And they never will.

Oh, some people will like you, but most won't. And those that will are the people you need to speak to, away from microphones and reporters. That's the only way you can be effective as Grand Poobah, because the more the rest of the country hears you, the less they will like you and your party.

I'd like to say I wish you luck, but, well, I don't like you either, and I work for the other party. And perhaps I am only giving you this advice because I know you won't heed it anyway, so I won't belabor the point.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean More

Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean

Comments Filter:
  • But only in form of a "AAaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrgh!"
  • Of Maryland (a black republican) has called for an official apology from Dean. No word as of yet if he has recieved it. It was a racist remark implying that hotel staff are disproportionately black. If a republican had said something to that extent, they'd be ridden out on a rail and forced to resign.

    How to the democrats get away with this over and over, and still maintain the 'default' vote of most of the blacks in the United States (even though, they are the ones against desegragation in the 1950's).

    • Re:Lt Govenor Steele (Score:3, Informative)

      by thing12 ( 45050 )
      ...even though, they are the ones against desegragation in the 1950's

      Not the Democrats, the white Southern Democrats. And not in the 50's but through much of the 60's, pretty much up through Barry Goldwater. The Democrats voting against civil right and voting rights in the 60's were overwhelmingly white and Southern -- and even more opposed were the white Southern Republicans. It wasn't that Democrats were opposed it's that racist white people in the South were opposed. Most of them were Democrats at

      • The Dixiecrats are gone now -- the Democrats have plainly said "we don't want you." And while it would be better to just leave them out in the cold, it certainly appears that the Republicans have welcomed them with their anti-civil rights campaigning, aka "the southern strategy", of Goldwater and his successors.

        I think that's extremely unfair. But then, it IS the conventional wisdom. But today's Republican platform and policies are not remotely anti-civil-rights, apart from the gay marriage issue, which
        • I think that's extremely unfair

          It's definitely unfair... but it's undeniable - the anti-civil rights folks are under the "Big Tent", hopefully they don't have much of a voice, but they're in there... and their votes help elect people. As you say - the Republican platform, at the very least publicly and I'd hope privately as well, is not against civil-rights. But Goldwater surely was, and to a lesser extent so were/are Reagan and Bush 41/43. It seems we're at a point now where it's just something that'

          • but it's undeniable

            Allow me to prove you wrong, as I deny it.

            the anti-civil rights folks are under the "Big Tent", hopefully they don't have much of a voice, but they're in there

            Yes, which is what I said. But what YOU said is that the Republican party campaigns against civil rights. And this is what I deny.

            This isn't much different from the Democrats welcoming Marxists into their tent. They are welcomed, but they are not campaigned to.

            the Republican platform ... is not against civil-rights. But
            • And frankly, it shows supreme ignorance about Goldwater. He is branded as being against civil rights merely because he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the incorrect assumption being that this shows he was against civil rights.

              I never said that Goldwater was a racist or against civil rights, but that the campaign strategy encouraged people who were against civil rights to cast their vote in their direction. It says something that the only states Goldwater carried were Arizona and the deep sou

              • I never said that Goldwater was a racist or against civil rights

                ??? You wrote:

                the Republican platform, at the very least publicly and I'd hope privately as well, is not against civil-rights. But Goldwater surely was

                You surely did say he was surely against civil rights.

                the campaign strategies they've all used have been to include rather than exclude the people who are.

                Yes, just like the Democrats have tried to include Communists and other left-wing extremists. So what? How is this wrong?

                Even u
                • the Republican platform, at the very least publicly and I'd hope privately as well, is not against civil-rights. But Goldwater surely was

                  You surely did say he was surely against civil rights.

                  Sorry, I misspoke earlier, if I could go back and edit the post, I would.

                  Yes, just like the Democrats have tried to include Communists and other left-wing extremists. So what? How is this wrong?

                  There is something very wrong with the people who long for the days of "colored-only" restrooms. And there isn't anyt

                  • There is something very wrong with the people who long for the days of "colored-only" restrooms.

                    Agreed.

                    And there isn't anything wrong with people who want to live in a utopia where money and crime are not an issue.

                    Disagreed.

                    One is morally reprehensible, the other is just wishful thinking.

                    No. These are the people [workers.org] who organized the huge anti-war protests in 2003, who praised the Tiananmen massacre and openly support Castro and long for a return to Stalin. They want to suppress human freedom with f
                    • No. These are the people who organized the huge anti-war protests in 2003, who praised the Tiananmen massacre and openly support Castro and long for a return to Stalin. They want to suppress human freedom with force. This is a utopia to them, but it, to me, is evil on par with -- nay, worse than -- racism.

                      For sure, Stalinists are evil -- I wasn't referring to them and didn't realize that there were Stalinists hoping to achieve some agenda through the Democratic party. I was talking about the doe-eyed co

                    • But I wouldn't want to be part of a party that included stalinists or racists.

                      I wouldn't want to be part of a party that excluded anyone who wanted to participate in positive ways.

                      Even using common ground simply to garner votes is wrong.

                      I can't even begin to imagine how you came to this conclusion. It makes no sense to me at all. You have someone who is racist. He agrees with 90 percent of what I believe in (the things that have little or nothing to do with race). Why should I not want his vote?
                    • It seems like your goal is nothing more than segregating the people whom you dislike so you can more easily dislike them and keep them marginalized. Can we not marginalize a viewpoint without being vindictive toward the people who hold it?

                      I'm not sure we can. I'm not suggesting that it's a way to win elections. The constitution ensures that the fringe can have their viewpoints, and that's fine, but the parties should not encourage them - even indirectly by allowing them to be part of the group. It's a

                    • The constitution ensures that the fringe can have their viewpoints, and that's fine, but the parties should not encourage them - even indirectly by allowing them to be part of the group.

                      To which viewpoints should this apply? Who decides?

                      And I deny that "allowing" them to be part of the party is condoning their viewpoints, directly or indirectly. We had representatives from the Log Cabin Republicans at the GOP state convention last year. It was quite clear that the overwhelming majority of delegates di

  • I dunno... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jhon ( 241832 ) * on Sunday February 20, 2005 @03:38PM (#11729899) Homepage Journal
    I'm certainly not a Dean fan and I'll agree that it's not the brightest thing he could have said...

    BUT

    It was obviously (at least to me) a slam on the Republicans suggesting they are racist, not that Blacks can't be much more than Hotel help.

    I don't think Dean should appologize for making a racist comment -- but he SHOULD appologize for suggesting that Republcians are racist. Then again, maybe he should stop suggesting that the rhetoric between the two parties needs to be down toned for the good of the country when in nearly the same breath he says that he "hates republicans and everything they stand for".

    • FWIW, I don't think Dean was stupid because it was racist against hotel personnel. I think it was accusing the Republicans -- and the people who prefer them over the Democrats -- of being racist.

      Dean and the other people in the Crazy wing of the Democrat Party keep forgetting that most of the voters picked Republicans, and that saying things like "Republicans are racist" (parapharsed) and "I hate Republicans and what they stand for" is not going to *help* the Democrats with the swing voters the next time

  • Although one's initial impression here is to have a knee jerk reaction, especially since it was clear that was Dean's intent (although, he intended it to be against Republicans, rather than against himself), it's not really called for. I believe the point he was after was that Republican supporters are disproportionately white. In order to get a balance of another race, they would need to bring in a group from the general population -- such as the hotel staff, or a crowd of people off the street. But th

  • > On the other hand, does anyone know the
    > statistics on race in the hotel industry?

    I'm not sure facts are going to be of any help in responding to a charge of racism. (Either in defense against the charge, or to pile on.)

    Did you hear about the guy who ended up apologizing for using the word "niggardly"? (http://www.thesaurus.com, http://www.dictionary.com) The fact that he was using a word correctly and his accusers in their ignorance (or feigned ignorance) didn't know that, matters not.

    Once th
  • Shouldn't this advice be given to Bush as well? Countless times he has let loose with a zinger, mostly poking fun at the poor, in similar situations...

    I guess it doesn't matter in his case, because he doesn't think of the poor as a voting consituency.

    Like I said, I am not a Dean fan, but still...
    • The difference is that Bush is far more well-liked. Dean has a serious image problem, even in his own party where he came in third in Iowa after spending more money than anyone ever had; whereas, Bush is one of the most popular Presidents ever within the Republican party, and is well-liked enough among swing voters to win the national election.

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol

Close