In S.F., Dean calls GOP ‘a white Christian party’
S.F. Chronicle
Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, unapologetic in the face of recent criticism that he has been too tough on his political opposition, said in San Francisco this week that Republicans are “a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It’s pretty much a white Christian party.”
“The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people,” Dean said Monday, responding to a question about diversity during a forum with minority leaders and journalists. “We’re more welcoming to different folks, because that’s the type of people we are. But that’s not enough. We do have deliver on things: jobs and housing and business opportunities.”
The comments are another example of why the former Vermont governor, who remains popular with the party’s grassroots, has been a lightning rod for criticism since being elected to head the Democratic National Committee last February. His comments last week that Republicans “never made an honest living in their lives,” which he later clarified to say Republican “leaders,” were disavowed by leading Democrats including Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
Dean was outspoken — as usual — as he trolled California this week, stoking his party’s coffers, and meeting with grass-roots activists. His San Francisco visit was at the tail end of a cross-country road trip, and Dean said that he will continue to pound the pavement — and the GOP — to get the Democratic message across to new voters, particularly in minority communities.
But Dean’s style and rhetoric have sparked increasing criticism from inside the Democratic Party in recent weeks — and gleeful Republicans say they couldn’t be happier.
“Where do I sign up on a committee to keep Howard Dean?” crowed GOP operative Jon Fleischmann, publisher of the FlashReport, a daily roundup of California political news and commentary. “He’s the best thing to happen to the GOP in ages.”
“I’m thrilled he’s the DNC chair,” says Tom Del Becarro, chairman of the Contra Costa County Republican Party. “Howard Dean is scaring away the middle. People don’t like angry people. They like hopeful people.”
June 7, 2005 - 07:08 PM on June 7th, 2005
Aren’t they?
June 7, 2005 - 07:37 PM on June 7th, 2005
Too much water for the mill on that one.
June 7, 2005 - 07:46 PM on June 7th, 2005
I would say that they rid themselves of him before the midterms.
June 7, 2005 - 07:48 PM on June 7th, 2005
When this jackass starts braying nothing comes out just a lot of poppycock sounds like mean dean is even more meaner then ever and they demacrats are stuck with this jerk too bad they have chosen a hitler to run them:roll:
June 7, 2005 - 08:12 PM on June 7th, 2005
He is a Madman:lol:
June 7, 2005 - 09:45 PM on June 7th, 2005
A white party,,, that is silly. However, comma, I don’t see how a Christian could vote demokrat. It baffles me.
June 7, 2005 - 09:46 PM on June 7th, 2005
I hope he stays in the position that he is in as head of the DNC>…. It will only help America.
June 7, 2005 - 11:13 PM on June 7th, 2005
[...] rom Howard Dean: Rhymes with Right, Swanky Conservatives, Varifrank, Midest Conservative, Right Voices, Captains Quarters, LGF, MassRight, Canadia [...]
June 7, 2005 - 11:43 PM on June 7th, 2005
Gotta be careful of that, JG. I always say my vote has to be earned. I don’t want the dems thinking they got my vote because I’m black. I don’t want the GOP to take my vote for granted because I’m a conservative and a Christian. Not everything is as it seems.
June 8, 2005 - 07:13 AM on June 8th, 2005
9-Great point Sasha. I posted this to show that this is the man they chose to speak for their party. The funny thing about elections is that many voters aren’t members of any party. They vote for the candidate they they feel most comfortable with at the time of the election. If we were to learn anything in the past few elections, it is that sex, age, race, and religious preference know no party.
June 8, 2005 - 09:19 AM on June 8th, 2005
Why is it wrong for Christians to support the GOP when Democrats openly campaign in Black Churches? How come no lefty decries the lack of separation of Church and State when Democrat President holds a rally in a Black church?
June 8, 2005 - 09:21 AM on June 8th, 2005
Because, you dare not saying anything negative about blacks…ever…under penalty of hanging, being labeled a racist…. we cannot disturb the fragile pscyche’s of the phoney black leadership or their plantation owners in the liberal democratic party elite!
June 8, 2005 - 09:24 AM on June 8th, 2005
a MUST READ……
If you listened to the rhetoric of black politicians and civil rights leaders, dating back to the Reagan years, you would have been convinced that surely by now black Americans would be back on the plantation. According to them, President Reagan, and later Presidents Bush I and II, would turn back the clock on civil rights. They’d appoint “new racists” dressed in three-piece suits to act through the courts and administrative agencies to reverse black civil rights and economic gains. We can now recognize this rhetoric as the political equivalent of the “rope-a-dope.”
As my colleague Tom Sowell pointed out in a recent column, “Liberals, Race and History,” if the Democratic party’s share of the black vote ever fell to even 70 percent, it’s not likely that the Democrats would ever win the White House or Congress again. The strategy liberal Democrats have chosen, to prevent loss of the black vote, is to keep blacks paranoid and in a constant state of fear. But is it fear of racists, or being driven back to the plantation, that should be a top priority for blacks? Let’s look at it.
Only 30 to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school. Many of those who do graduate emerge with reading and math skills of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. This is true in cities where a black is mayor, a black is superintendent of schools and the majority of principals and teachers are black. It’s also true in cities where the per pupil education expenditures are among the highest in the nation.
Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it’s not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands.
What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married. Today, it’s 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it’s 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925, “Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents.” Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what’s the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery — a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.
Since black politicians and the civil rights establishment preach victimhood to blacks, I’d prefer that they be more explicit when they appear in public fora. Were they to be so, saying racists are responsible for black illegitimacy, blacks preying on other blacks and black family breakdown, their victimhood message would be revealed as idiotic. But being so explicit is not as far-fetched as one might think. In a campaign speech before a predominantly black audience, in reference to so many blacks in prison, presidential candidate John Kerry said, “That’s unacceptable, but it’s not their fault.”
June 8, 2005 - 09:25 AM on June 8th, 2005
Christians come in all shapes,sizes and colors. The funny thing about the generalization is that only the Republicans have Christians, and no one but, in the party. I believe the owner of this site is an atheist. Does that mean she can’t support the right?
Bill Clinton is a Christian(some say fallen, but whatever) is he a republican. Kennedy is a Catholic, is he a republican?
June 8, 2005 - 09:29 AM on June 8th, 2005
If the 10 commandments govern entry into heaven, neither of those men (Kennedy and Clinton) will be invited in.
June 8, 2005 - 09:34 AM on June 8th, 2005
15-nor I for that matter. But I for one am tired of hearing this type of crap. How ridiculous to try to define what a party is based on race and religious preference.
June 8, 2005 - 09:36 AM on June 8th, 2005
Well, unlike those two, I’ve never raped, murdered or coveted thy neighbors wife.
June 8, 2005 - 09:41 AM on June 8th, 2005
17- I didn’t think so.:wink:
June 8, 2005 - 09:56 AM on June 8th, 2005
There is a special place in HELL set aside for Ted Kennedy and Billy Blowjob…..
June 8, 2005 - 10:07 AM on June 8th, 2005
Mike, given that Hell is specifically designed to be tailored to your own personal nightmare, they are probably going to be down there waiting for you…
June 8, 2005 - 10:36 AM on June 8th, 2005
Redfred, Hell is the total absence of God and his goodness. Sort of what lefties like you are trying to create here on Earth.
June 8, 2005 - 10:48 AM on June 8th, 2005
“Judge not, lest ye be judged”
The Ten Commandments don’t govern entry into heaven, nor does the Pope. That domain is God’s and God’s alone.
There is no political party of Christianity or religion for that matter. Most Christians I know don’t concern themselves with such things as politics as that is small when compared to their relationship with Christ.
This mindset is exactly why theocracies never, ever work. Want an example? Look toward the Middle East.
Ted
June 8, 2005 - 10:55 AM on June 8th, 2005
Why is that Redfred? Because I have done nothing in this life except work hard and treat each individual I encounter with respect and dignity. I have never killed, raped, adultered, etc.
Now, I”ll be joining billy the rapist and ted the murderer?
I don’t think so.
June 8, 2005 - 10:57 AM on June 8th, 2005
I hope so…
just a joke and nothing more
June 8, 2005 - 10:58 AM on June 8th, 2005
23-I took it that he was joking with you. I blog with him elsewhere and he has a wicked sense of humor.:smile:
June 8, 2005 - 11:02 AM on June 8th, 2005
25 – well that was intreguing…..
June 8, 2005 - 11:10 AM on June 8th, 2005
David Duke ran as a Republican (or tried to). Got a face lift and everything to make himself more attractive. He was still exactly the piece of human debris that he was and the RNC wanted nothing to do with him.
11: PCD, I’m not suggesting it’s wrong. I think it’s important to remember, for those of us with a God perspective at least, that it’s not for us to define or humanize God with respect to political parties. Not only that, not everyone affiliated with either party is a Christian. And there are enough divisions among people, let alone the Church, to let issues of hair texture, melanin and eye color become issues of further division.
12: On the contrary mike, I believe you can say whatever critical thing that needs to be said, as long as it’s truthful. How you mean it and how others take it … everyone can choose to be offensive or offended … or not, and work it out. Or not.
As I think about it, possibly one reason you see more political activity in black churches than white churches is the same reason the Christian Coalition lost its tax-exempt status and the NAACP hasn’t: One can scream racial persecution and the other can’t.
June 8, 2005 - 11:14 AM on June 8th, 2005
26-I thought it would.:wink:
June 8, 2005 - 11:21 AM on June 8th, 2005
21- so my belief in God or not determines if I am leftist of rightist? And I resent the idea that I am trying to create an absence of god here on earth, whether I be devout christian or indeed an atheist neither would seem to be within the realms of possibility. Indeed if you believe in God you would also believe that it were completely beyond your power to eliminate him, and if you didn’t then an attempt to eliminate a being that you don’t beleive existed would be a tad contradicting would you not agree?
June 8, 2005 - 11:28 AM on June 8th, 2005
13: Some friends and I were talking about this a few months ago, mike. Our grandparents were telling us about this.
Before abortion became choice.
Before the pill.
Before people were rewarded for poor choices and bad behavior.
Illegitimacy rates among blacks were very low.
Why? Because if you got pregnant, there was no welfare, and you carried that stigma. Like being divorced. You had to leave town. As a result, women weren’t just giving it up to any and every guy who came along.
Unlike now, where people have no respect for each other and little respect for themselves.
It’s your body. Please yourself. It’s all about you.
If you make a mistake, and it proves to be inconvenient, get rid of it and pretend it never happened. It’s all about you.
If you don’t want to get rid of it, make somebody else pay. Make your life easier. It’s all about you.
June 8, 2005 - 11:31 AM on June 8th, 2005
I am an agnostic, and don’t see how that says anything about anything… I am a conservative because I believe in the power of the individual over the state to improve his life and excercise freedom tempered with responsibility…..
June 8, 2005 - 11:32 AM on June 8th, 2005
30-Well said and how very true Sasha.
June 8, 2005 - 11:33 AM on June 8th, 2005
31-Therefore disproving Dean’s statement:wink:
June 8, 2005 - 11:34 AM on June 8th, 2005
sasha…well stated.
June 8, 2005 - 11:39 AM on June 8th, 2005
29,
I am assuming that only the first sentence was addressed to me because some of the other areas you go into involved things that others brought up.
No- I am saying one’s belief in God (or lack there of) has little or nothing to do with whether you are right or left.
Ted
June 8, 2005 - 11:45 AM on June 8th, 2005
35- Actually no none of what I wrote was directed at you it was all directed at comment 21 (you were comment 22) but thanks for agreeing with me….
June 8, 2005 - 11:46 AM on June 8th, 2005
30,
*standing ovation*
I have often stated that the “progressive revolution” of the 60’s turned our society from a group of individuals that took each other as a primary consideration to a group that takes ourselves into a primary consideration. Granted this is one’s right, however it has hurt society immensely.
This is why I feel that things like prostitution and drugs should not be legal. Again, it is one’s decision to do with as they please but it hurts society as a whole! There are consequences beyond that of those to the individual.
June 8, 2005 - 11:50 AM on June 8th, 2005
This is where you lose me ted…what are the social consequenses of me going out on a saturday night, getting a little high, having a good time and going home??????
or, for that matter, if one was to enter into an economic transaction for sex between willing participants?
I guess, I just think that muslim animals flying planes into buildings and beheading people are the REAL danger to society.
June 8, 2005 - 12:37 PM on June 8th, 2005
27, Sasha, I asked 2 questions no chose to answer. I made no comment about humanizing GOD. IF anything, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who criticize Christians who either practice their religious principles and morals while the same people will campaign in Black Churches.
I made no mention of either party being Christian or not. Personally, I believe open Christians who believe the Bible as written not revised are more welcomed in the GOP than with the Deomcrats.
June 8, 2005 - 12:42 PM on June 8th, 2005
and I believe that god is irrelevant in the Democratic slavemasters exploitation of the black electorate.
June 8, 2005 - 01:09 PM on June 8th, 2005
gee mikey & pcd, if i said something like that about the right wing, what names do you suppose i’d be called?
no comment ted>?
June 8, 2005 - 01:12 PM on June 8th, 2005
The right wing dosen’t exploit blacks, chain them in poverty, promise them hand outs in exchange for their votes, then ignore them until the next election
June 8, 2005 - 01:14 PM on June 8th, 2005
shiloh, some of what you call name calling directed towards you are merely observations of your character as exhibited by your posts. If you can’t understand that, read a few of your posts folled by the direct posts in reaction to Mawmaw. First, I’d like to see if you don’t get your butt kicked. Second, I’d like to get the action reports of you thereafter. Bet you won’t have time to diddle on these boards for a long while.
June 8, 2005 - 01:18 PM on June 8th, 2005
waaaah!!! Don’t call me a name….waaaah!!!!
Fucking baby.
June 8, 2005 - 01:25 PM on June 8th, 2005
asking someone not to resort to name calling is babyish but “shitloh” is the height of maturity?
June 8, 2005 - 01:33 PM on June 8th, 2005
39: PCD, I believe I addressed both questions at the end of 27. I should’ve made that more clear. I wasn’t accusing you of humanizing God. I was making more of a commentary to you of what I see happening within certain factions of the parties, and the churches. I actually agree that it requires more tolerance to stay out the churches than go in before a captive audience shooting fish in a barrel.
What I was pointing out is that as a body, we’re fractious enough as it is without all these red herrings, and it does nothing for those on the outside looking in to see it happening from the left or right, as it were.
Hope that clarifies.
June 8, 2005 - 01:52 PM on June 8th, 2005
45, Fred, you are sticking your nose into a long running feud. You know what happens when you step between a “Hatfield” and a “McCoy”? Both of them shoot you.
June 8, 2005 - 02:09 PM on June 8th, 2005
just calling it like I see it.
June 8, 2005 - 04:11 PM on June 8th, 2005
48-Redfred- You missed much of shilohs rather short history here. Lisa could fill you in I am sure. He likes to tell her what her vision for the site was as opposed to where it is, etc. You can kind of get the picture. We all fight like cats and dogs, but find a common ground somewhere in the middle. Then there is shiloh:wink:
June 8, 2005 - 06:53 PM on June 8th, 2005
or dg…
June 8, 2005 - 07:34 PM on June 8th, 2005
38,
While I will admit that correlation is not equivalent to causation, let me ask this question of you:
Don’t you see a correlation between the Progressive Revolution that started in the 1960’s and the downfall of our society as we know it? We have had conversations about how America was in the 50’s and before and how we wish it was now more like that now. That changed when the 60’s began, and the “Progressive Revolution”.
Ted
June 8, 2005 - 08:34 PM on June 8th, 2005
Or maybe to finer point on it, Ted:
The Pill
The Sexual Revolution
Johnson’s Great Society/War on Poverty
Roe v. Wade
June 9, 2005 - 03:50 AM on June 9th, 2005
I agree Sasha, Peejz, Ted.
It really angers me that Dean seems to think that if a person is white and a Christian that (in his limited cranium deficiency) means that the person is and can only be a Republican. I don’t understand what is “bad” about being a Christian and what difference a persons skin color matters. Seems to me that “Dr. Dean” is very racist and it is starting to come out. I really don’t believe that the Democratic party is going to put up with this type of antic for long. After all, some of the most religious and conservative and moderate people I know are not just whites.
Politics and religion are not a good mix- people are very protective of their religious beliefs (i.e. Palestinians vs. Israel). It is time for both parties to just deal with political views, not religious, and quit lumping everyone together because of skin color, religious beliefs, etc.
June 9, 2005 - 08:19 AM on June 9th, 2005
Nobody says it quite like you, cf
Long time no hear from.
June 11, 2005 - 02:58 AM on June 11th, 2005
Thanks Sasha- I’ve missed everyone.
Think I’ll be able to get back to blogging a bit now. Looks like you all have been holding up our end of things. Way to be!!:!:
June 16, 2005 - 06:43 PM on June 16th, 2005
question for ya’ll
do we have anyone here that is not a “white Christian” ????
June 16, 2005 - 07:25 PM on June 16th, 2005
Yes, we have people of all colors from various religious sects. Any other questions?
June 16, 2005 - 08:19 PM on June 16th, 2005
I’m not Christian… but alas I am white… sorry