« Get Your DeLay On | Main | More Dean »

June 10, 2005

Comments

carla

Zap:

You can rewrite these posts eight way to Sunday and you're still wrong.

Dean is spot on. The GOP is the party of White Christians:

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2005/06/why_the_outrage.html

The person who doesn't "get it" at the moment in you. The Democratic Party has spent the last three decades with it's tail tucked between it's legs in response to Republicans. No more. And it's time for conservatives and Republicans to get used to that.

There's a big portion of the left that mocks religion. Just as there's a big portion of the right that mocks secularism. The difference is that the majority are religious and they're being used to get votes. The pretention is on the part of the religious..who use their club of majority to beat down the minority. Consistently. The stench permeating from the Republican Party is laced with that pretention.

Right now..White Christians ARE unfriendly to anyone who isn't. That's the truth. You dont' like it? Tough. It's the way it is. And it's about damn time someone said so.

You want to go over a historical balance sheet? What the hell for? This somehow changes what is going on RIGHT NOW? This is so intellectually dishonest I can barely begin to grasp it, Zap.

This brouhaha over Dean is so amazingly disingenuous on the part of the Republicans that I hardly know where to begin. The Republicans (including Santorum, Cheney and Mehlman) have all used language about Democrats that's much more divisive and ugly. Their party backed them up. And here seats Dean...with navel gazing from without and within.

It's ludicrous.


Torrid

I'm quite saddened by Obama's total misapprehension about what's going on. How can he honestly look at the situation and then call DEAN the one dividing by religion? That's the real effect of the GOP agenda, to pit the fundamentalists against the rest of the country. As we've discussed and as you embody, those policies are even turning white Christians away from the GOP. When the right demagogues the left for espousing "secular humanism," I have to laugh--it's the LAW! The whole point of governance in this country is to do it in a secular fashion, providing benefit and support to persons, not churches. So how on earth is Dean dividing us by pointing that out?

As for Dean's move to grassroots: Refer to the articles that discuss the turnover in finance heads. Whether disparaging or supportive, they seem to revolve around a changing paradigm away from intense wooing of a small group of deep pocketed donors, and towards broad, retail politicking. And if I can dredge them up (going to see GTed this weekend) I'll find the articles discussing the abject love the state organizers have for him. I can remember one quote almost verbatim: "In 2004 the DNC raised 400 million dollars, and how much did the Nebraska Democrats get? $12,000." Dean has focused on red states in the early going to stimulate early organizing. He named eight states, and I think has added four more. It really is a fundamental shift in both atitude and practice, and it's why I'm so confident that much of the carping from the Dems over Dean is coming from those who stand to lose.

Torrid

Oh, but Carla--it's unfair to say "White Christians" are unfriendly to those that aren't. That's wholly untrue; as I've noted there are significant numbers of people who consider themselves white Christians, who are appalled at the turn the GOP has taken. Jim Wallis is leading that charge, IMO, but so are people like Zap. You're falling into the trap of referring to Dean's comments as a comment predominantly referring to white Christians, when they refer to the GOP's homogeneity. Saying the GOP is an unfriendly party to 'outsiders,' and describing the makeup of the insiders, is not the same as attributing that sentiment to everyone in the category.

carla

Saying the GOP is an unfriendly party to 'outsiders,' and describing the makeup of the insiders, is not the same as attributing that sentiment to everyone in the category.

TJ, point taken. It is unfair to generalize like that. My bad.

I'm irritated at the situation and taking it out a bit on Zap. I apologize.

You're right that it's about the GOP homogenuity as well...and that's really the bottom line. But that homogenuity has to do with the predominately White Christian group that is, in fact, excluding those who aren't.


Ronald Rutherford

It would be fine for Dean to have a backbone. But a backbone does not imply that insults will work. How about a backbone on democratic values and filibuster the “Death Tax” repeal? Or push to decrimilize drugs (at the very least!). Present an energy policy or an alternative to Social Security reform. Or start on the process to find solutions to our health care crisis. Have a backbone where it counts and not on name calling.
I looked at the memes from GOP and Democratic Party.
First GOP agenda: President Bush's Plan to Grow the Economy and Create Jobs, Protecting the American People, A National Security Strategy that Meets the Challenges of Our Time, No Child Left Behind, Preserving Social Security, President Bush’s Agenda for Improving Health Care, Improved Air Quality for All Americans, and President Calls on Congress to Act on Energy Plan. We can criticize and condemn these plans but he does have some things on his plate.
Democratic Party site: Scandal man (Tom Delay). Democratic Party Platform: Strong at Home, and Respected in the World. If Respect is a primary meme of the democrats, how can you expect respect from what Dean has said. If Dean and the democrats can not respect the other parties how can they respect them back and thus in turn expect respect from the world? Parties, referring to the Reform party with Ralph Nader and the Green Party and the democrats showing little respect for their views and opinions.
Respect is what you earn and can not be legislated. Respect is gained by what you do and not what you preach.
As Gloria Allred would say, it is fine to have free speech as long as there is consequences for saying the wrong thing. Dean should be fired for saying such derogatory statements.


Carla:
You may see the world differently than me, but what I was trying to point out by:
But I only have to ask who pulls the strings in the Democratic Party?
Was that the democratic party is controlled by white Christians also. Look at Jimmy Carter, Clintons, Kerry, and the Kennedys.
If you have proof that “the Democratic party is predominately secular and non-white” then please present it Alyosha.
“White Chritians” is not an insult of itself but saying that group “they all behave the same, they all look the same” is.

Again going back to the neighborhood analysis, as a merchant I had to look at each customer in ways they wanted to be treated (as best I could). And Torridjoe you were incorrect to assume “I think it made you someone who lived in a black neighborhood”. For it was a mixed neighborhood without a 50% majority of any group. It would have taken a demographer to decipher what the neighborhood was. There is a phenomenon I have observed that minority groups tend to try to incorporate and bring into their group peoples that are not distiguished as one group or another. But I have not read anything about it.

carla

But I only have to ask who pulls the strings in the Democratic Party?
Was that the democratic party is controlled by white Christians also. Look at Jimmy Carter, Clintons, Kerry, and the Kennedys.

Ronald:

Look at Obama, Feinstein,Jesse Jackson, Bill Richardson,etc. There's a wide swath of Democrats who have power positions in the Party.

If you have proof that “the Democratic party is predominately secular and non-white” then please present it Alyosha.

The Democratic party power people are a much more diverse group than the Republicans. They're also much more open to diversity. Go back and look at videotape of the RNC Conventioneers and then do the same for the DNC. It's obvious.


Ronald Rutherford

Carla:
You have a start, but it takes more than a couple of names to say a party is more inclusive. By the way which office does Jesse Jackson hold? Feinstein-you mean the "white" woman in the senate? Murkowski? Bill Richardson of european descent as Governor of New Mexico? And as far as Obama your point is taken, but which has more power and influence 1 freshman senator or secretary of state?
Diversity in looks or ideas? Arnhold?
I actually see more diversity of ideas in the GOP.
Do you believe in the basic democratic meme that we should equalize results?

Torrid

Ronald, you keep confusing the makeup of the party, with the engineering of policy to coincide with one group's interests. The Democratic policies are not designed to elevate the interests of white Christians; the GOP policies are.

And don't blame me for calling it a black neighborhood; that's what you told me.

Ronald Rutherford

Torrid, I am sorry for your confusion but I did not say it was a black neighborhood, I said that a customer had said that. IMO he had his rose colored glasses on.
In that regard the GOP policies are to elevate the interests of white Christians, no shit. Why does any person join a political group unless to expess their interests. I voted for Murkowski in the hope of passing ANWR. Does not Jesse Jackson (A black Christian) try to engineer policy that promote his groups interests?

Torrid

individuals joining to express their interests is fine; once again, Dean's comments are not individually based. What's relevant in his comments (and obvious by reading the sentence before and the sentence after) is that the party is all about the interests of white Christians, whereas the Democrats do not so narrowly tailor their decisions to please. And where the interests of that narrow group runs up against things like the Constitution, the party seeks to change the latter to preserve the former.

Ronald Rutherford

That's news to me! I did not know we changed the Constitution, even the ban on Gay Marriages has not gotten anywhere.
I would say the narrow tailoring of environmental decisions is on par to please a narrow group.

Torridjoe

several have been, and I was not so much saying they had, as that their interests run up against them.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

AlsoThinkTank

Blog powered by Typepad