|
|
| Shakka |
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/graham.html
| quote: | Michael Graham
Howard Dean's Southern strategy
http://www.jewishworldreview.com | With Howard Dean, more is inevitably less.
The more he talks, the more time he is given, the less impressive he becomes. In the shorthand of the working political media, he's the "frontrunner," the "man to beat," he's got the "Big Mo."
But it was a little man who walked out on a podium in Columbia, South Carolina last Sunday and stood awkwardly behind Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., receiving his endorsement. And after the Chicago congressman's speech got the crowd revved up (he is his father's son), Howard Dean wasted no time in bringing them right back down to Earth.
What Howard Dean wants to say is that he's a mainstream, unifying candidate who can build a national coalition to defeat President Bush in 2004. What comes out of his mouth (slightly paraphrased) is "Bush Sucks!" What Howard Dean's motivated and ever-growing coterie of followers wants to hear is "Bush REALLY Sucks!"
What's a candidate to do?
But Howard Dean is no dummy. He realizes he's going to need to take the edge off to win a general election nest November. He's also aware of the conventional wisdom that southern moderates in early primary states like South Carolina and Virginia don't march to the Bush-bashing drumbeat.
So what does Dean do? He comes to South Carolina — home of those infamous white males with the "Confederate Flag in [their] pick-up truck" — and calls President Bush a racist. And, just to cover his bases, he accuses the entire Republican Party of racism, too.
The Republican Party is "purposely dividing the country over the issues of 'guns, G-d and gays'," Dean said. And President Bush is using "race-loaded" language by bringing up affirmative action.
"It's time we had a new politics in America — a politics that refuses to pander to our lowest prejudices," Dean said.
Now, being accused of pandering by Howard Dean is like having Michael Jackson make a crack about your plastic surgery. Dean's non-stop pander-monium is legend — it's how he got in trouble with the Confederate Flag in the first place. When asked what his favorite song was at the Democratic debate held at historically-black ????, Howard Dean said Jaspora by Wyclef Jean.
Yo, my Vermont homies be rockin' out to Jaspora at all the ski resorts, dawg…
The accusation that President Bush is using racial rhetoric to divide America is laughable on its face. Those of us who dream with Dr. King of a color-blind society wish the president would show some enthusiasm for the fight against race-based government policies. Instead, he smiles patiently while open-minded, tolerant Democrats hurl racial slurs at his minority nominees to the courts.
And what to make of Dean's insistence that the issues of "guns, G-d and gays" are part of a divisive GOP strategy? It's not the Republican Party that keeps bringing up the First and Second Amendments, it's the courts. If the Democrats are having trouble handling the issue of homosexual marriage, they should blame the "conservatives" on the Massachusetts state court who brought it to the fore.
Especially fascinating is the fact that all the "divisive issues" Dean says we shouldn't discuss — gun laws, religious expression and the definition of marriage — are part of the primary duties of government. Unlike the economy and job creation, which are only modestly affected by any government action, deciding the limits of gun ownership or the parameters of state-recognized marriage are the reason we have government in the first place.
Of course, Dean isn't saying people should talk about these things. What's he's saying is that we shouldn't disagree with him about them. In Dean's world, if you don't agree with the liberal orthodoxy on gay adoption or the Pledge of Allegiance, you must remain silent. If you speak out, you're a bigot.
Are Howard Dean's positions on freedom and family so weak that he cannot even discuss them, much less defend them? Is the Democratic Party so out of step with southern voters on cultural issues that they can't even engage in debate? If so, the Democrats have lost the South before they've even begun.
When Al Gore announced his endorsement of Howard Dean this week, pundits suggested the former Vice President could give Dean some mainstream, establishment credibility. That's certainly true. They also predicted that Al Gore could sway southern voters to support this New England liberal's campaign. And among Democratic primary voters, that's likely as well.
But when it comes to Howard Dean doing as well in the South against George W. Bush as Al Gore did in 2000 (0-for-13), the former vice president could have stayed home. Howard Dean seems to have it all under control. |
|
|
|
| imokruok |
Howard Dean will get a core base of Democratic support. The question is whether he can clean up his act enough to capture independent voters. Dean currently has extremely low name recognition outside of the Democrat circles. (Nationwide polls including all adults put his name at less than 15% recognition.)
Once the general election comes along, if the economy is good, and Iraq is no worse than it is today, no Democrat has a chance of breaking into the independent vote. And while the Democrats all spew hate about Bush, Bush has been making inroads into the independent vote. |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
The problem I have with articles like that, is that they treat the reader as a fool. By writing it in such a clearly biased, and in no way academic way it takes away any legitimacy it might of had as a piece of political commentary.
As far as Dean goes, he seems like he's very close to hacing it in his pocket. With the support of gore he's gained a lot of sway and power. Although there is still a lot of time left until the democractic convention where it will be decided. |
|
|
| occrider |
| I think Dean would get my vote if it was a Dean/Clark ticket. As much as I despise his said economic policies, I half think that he would never implement the majority of such. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/graham.html
Michael Graham
Howard Dean's Southern strategy
http://www.jewishworldreview.com | With Howard Dean, more is inevitably less.
The more he talks, the more time he is given, the less impressive he becomes. In the shorthand of the working political media, he's the "frontrunner," the "man to beat," he's got the "Big Mo."
But it was a little man who walked out on a podium in Columbia, South Carolina last Sunday and stood awkwardly behind Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., receiving his endorsement. And after the Chicago congressman's speech got the crowd revved up (he is his father's son), Howard Dean wasted no time in bringing them right back down to Earth.
What Howard Dean wants to say is that he's a mainstream, unifying candidate who can build a national coalition to defeat President Bush in 2004. What comes out of his mouth (slightly paraphrased) is "Bush Sucks!" What Howard Dean's motivated and ever-growing coterie of followers wants to hear is "Bush REALLY Sucks!"
What's a candidate to do? |
I'll go with that interesting paraphrase, though it's ever-so slightly spinned (to the point of nausia). My response is, "So what? I agree completely. What should a candidate running against the President say? He agrees with him? He supports him? Dean said it straight, and he has every reason to say he "Sucks!", esp. since approx. 1/2 of the nation feels that way too (if not more).
| quote: | But Howard Dean is no dummy. He realizes he's going to need to take the edge off to win a general election nest November. He's also aware of the conventional wisdom that southern moderates in early primary states like South Carolina and Virginia don't march to the Bush-bashing drumbeat.
So what does Dean do? He comes to South Carolina — home of those infamous white males with the "Confederate Flag in [their] pick-up truck" — and calls President Bush a racist. And, just to cover his bases, he accuses the entire Republican Party of racism, too. |
Nice way to beat that misinterpreted drum.
| quote: | The Republican Party is "purposely dividing the country over the issues of 'guns, G-d and gays'," Dean said. And President Bush is using "race-loaded" language by bringing up affirmative action.
"It's time we had a new politics in America — a politics that refuses to pander to our lowest prejudices," Dean said.
Now, being accused of pandering by Howard Dean is like having Michael Jackson make a crack about your plastic surgery. Dean's non-stop pander-monium is legend — it's how he got in trouble with the Confederate Flag in the first place. When asked what his favorite song was at the Democratic debate held at historically-black ????, Howard Dean said Jaspora by Wyclef Jean.
Yo, my Vermont homies be rockin' out to Jaspora at all the ski resorts, dawg… |
Cute. This guy a well-known columnist?
| quote: | | The accusation that President Bush is using racial rhetoric to divide America is laughable on its face. Those of us who dream with Dr. King of a color-blind society wish the president would show some enthusiasm for the fight against race-based government policies. Instead, he smiles patiently while open-minded, tolerant Democrats hurl racial slurs at his minority nominees to the courts. |
"He smiles patiently?" That's too rich. I'm trying to find these racial slurs he's referring to. I'm so incredibly sick and tired of hearing dittoheads continue this banter on this nomination of minority nominees. The issues the Dem. Senators had with these nomineess had NOTHING to do with their minority - an issue that dittoheads easily ignore. They had controversal pasts and rulings, and that WAS the issue they had with them. Funny how the Dem. Senators seemed to pass 168 out of 172 Bush nominees, and have a much better record of passing nominees than when Clinton was in office, another point dittoheads love to skip right over.
| quote: | | And what to make of Dean's insistence that the issues of "guns, G-d and gays" are part of a divisive GOP strategy? It's not the Republican Party that keeps bringing up the First and Second Amendments, it's the courts. If the Democrats are having trouble handling the issue of homosexual marriage, they should blame the "conservatives" on the Massachusetts state court who brought it to the fore. |
I believe Dean is referring to the outcry from Rebugs and their hinchmen fundies on these rulings. What the hell is he talking about Dems. having trouble with the issue of homosexual marriage?!? All I hear are the conservative fundies yelling bloody murder about it, and that it will lead to polygamy, beastiality (I loved that one, thanks O'Reilly), and God knows what else. You'd think it was the end of moral society by listening to these idiots.
By the way, isin't Dean an advocate on gun rights? I'm afraid this partisan author can't go too far with that one.
Quote from Dean on Fox News Sunday:
"Why can't we talk about jobs, health care and education, which is what we all have in common, instead of allowing the Republicans to consistently divide us by talking about guns, God, gays, abortion and all this controversial social stuff that we're not going to come to an agreement on?"
I agree with him 100% on here. These are wedge issues that the dittoheads and fundies are pounding out, which do nothing but divide everyone further. Furthermore, I personally feel, as Dean does, these should not be the central issues to be debating here.
| quote: | | Especially fascinating is the fact that all the "divisive issues" Dean says we shouldn't discuss — gun laws, religious expression and the definition of marriage — are part of the primary duties of government. Unlike the economy and job creation, which are only modestly affected by any government action, deciding the limits of gun ownership or the parameters of state-recognized marriage are the reason we have government in the first place. |
I would love to hear him qualify this more. I just couldn't wait where it would go. Only "modestly affected by any government action?" Puulease.
| quote: | | Of course, Dean isn't saying people should talk about these things. What's he's saying is that we shouldn't disagree with him about them. In Dean's world, if you don't agree with the liberal orthodoxy on gay adoption or the Pledge of Allegiance, you must remain silent. If you speak out, you're a bigot. |
That's the most interesting spin I've ever heard. Of course, the counterpart states that if you don't support the war, you're aiding the terrorists, and what's worse, you're UNPATRIOTIC! Gawd, I shore dew luv dat Ashcroft guy!
| quote: | Are Howard Dean's positions on freedom and family so weak that he cannot even discuss them, much less defend them? Is the Democratic Party so out of step with southern voters on cultural issues that they can't even engage in debate? If so, the Democrats have lost the South before they've even begun. {/QUOTE]
I think Dean realizes that the South is very difficult to capture, if not impossible. His strategy is to strengthen up his strong support first (unions, northern states, grassroot folks), then go after those swing states next. It's a different strategy, to be sure. It will either propel him or backfire on him. Time will tell. As for being out of step with Southerners, I think he's stretching things just a bit here. Of course, judging from his partisan spin throughout the entire article, that hardly seems outlandish for him now.
[QUOTE]When Al Gore announced his endorsement of Howard Dean this week, pundits suggested the former Vice President could give Dean some mainstream, establishment credibility. That's certainly true. They also predicted that Al Gore could sway southern voters to support this New England liberal's campaign. And among Democratic primary voters, that's likely as well.
But when it comes to Howard Dean doing as well in the South against George W. Bush as Al Gore did in 2000 (0-for-13), the former vice president could have stayed home. Howard Dean seems to have it all under control. |
No doubt, the Rebugs have a dominant presence in the South, as was witnessed by the latest gubernatorial campaigns (save Louisiana). In the 2000 election, Repugs on got some 5% or so of the minority vote. Considering how many minorities now live in the South, who do you think is a little out of touch?
Other than that, what a great piece of literature. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I think Dean would get my vote if it was a Dean/Clark ticket. As much as I despise his said economic policies, I half think that he would never implement the majority of such. |
Why Clark? If its just because he is a former General, IIRC Dean has two former Generals in his current staff. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Former general who was fired for character issues...
Not that this is a serious website, but I just ran accross this and thought some of the pictures were funny. I haven't read it yet, so I don't know how serious it is--it may have been sponsored by Kerry for all I know.
http://www.wafflepoweredhoward.com/ |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
Interesting article. Gave me a good laugh. Too biased, however, to sway me.
The writer comments on how one of the tactics is "Bush SUCKS"? This seems like an article made purely to say "Dean SUCKS".
With all these misleading articles, it's no wonder half the nation doesn't know for whom to vote!
When the debates and political campaigns truly begin, all true colours shall be seen. |
|
|
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
tranceaddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate
|
