Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Dean apologizes for "Confederate Flag" remark

Elections 2004 Democrats Howard Dean

  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#41 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 12:11 AM

^

Not to mention some EEEEEEEEEEXCELLENT filk inspiration!   :lol:  :lol:
Posted Image

#42 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 12:19 AM

^ My God, Rov... what have you done? </Kirk>
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#43 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 12:22 AM

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAH

:ninja:
Posted Image

#44 Cyncie

Cyncie

    Cool Daddio!

  • Islander
  • 689 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 01:06 AM

Well, I can't actually claim to be from the South in the Civil War sense (Kentucky being a border state and all), only in a cultural sense. But, I can say that more stereotyping of Southerners as racist white trash isn't going to win anyone in any party the Southern vote.

Are there racist people in the South? Yes, just as there are in any part of the country. Are there impoverished people in the South? Yep, and they are one of the least represented groups where special interest lobbying is concerned. This I know, because I live in an area that has a high welfare rate. But try applying for assistance or grants for community programs.  They don't happen, because these poor are white trash poor and don't qualify as a minority.

Is there resentment in the South? Sometimes. See the paragraphs above for some of the reasons.
*****

Goodnight, Sweetheart
Well, it's time to go...

#45 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 01:10 PM

Working my way back into the forum after a brief absence.  I see the debates continue.  And that's a good thing, seriously.

So many thoughts on this thread, so little time:

MuseZack, you are partially correct in your characterization of the "Republican's" Southern Strategy.  But I put "Republican's" in quotes because they are not alone in this strategy.  It "takes two to tango" and the Republicans just happened to be better dancers.

It was Richard Nixon -- who in my humble opinion was the worst President in U.S. history, and I am not talking about Watergate -- who based his re-election strategy on campaigning against the civil rights programs that he himself started.  For example, it was Nixon (and not LBJ) who gave us explicit racial quotas with his "Philadelphia Plan" of 1969.

But the interesting thing about it is that the Democrats, led by George McGovern, instead of debating the merits of some of Nixon's initaitives (which were not universally supported even by non-Southern Democrats), began to base their strategy on supporting them even more vehemently.  Democrats had a "Southern Strategy" -- even a race-based "Southern Strategy" -- themselves, believing that they would gain more Black votes than White votes they would lose.  And indeed, only the passage of time is proving them wrong; although they began to suffer net losses immediately, only relatively recently has the South really become solidly Republican.

But again, the major difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the former were more successful.  Aside from the more extreme positions on both sides (i.e. I find the extremist on both sides to be racist), I have more issues with both strategies.

Javert Rovinski, I must agree with you.  As an African-American who finds himself strongly supporting many (but not all) conservative/Republican positions, I must admit that there is no incentive for the Republican party to court my vote as an African-American.  Republicans win without the votes of African-Americans. plan and simple.  

And let's face it, regardless of what the Republican party does, in the foreseeable future, the Democratic Party will still get (notice I do not say "win" or "earn") more than 85% of the Black vote.  Black people do not present themselves as an attractive target for the Republican Party.

Which sort of leads me to comments on the subject of this thread, Howard Dean.

First of all, I must wholeheartedly agree with the commentators who have said if George Bush (or any Republican, for that matter) had said the exact same thing as Howard Dean, they would have been "tarred and feathered" as racists.  At best, Dean's comments were silly and insensitive; at worst, they were stupid and racist.

Which means that I must disagree with Smitty and agree with Rhea.  "Guys flying a Confederate flag IS racist."

I am astonished (but not surprised, given the lack of historical knowledge in America) when "supporters" of the Confederate flag say they are flying the flag in support of their heritage and ancestry.  The Confederate flag only came back into play during the middle of the 20th Century as a reaction against the Civil Rights movement nearly a centrury after the defeat of the Confederacy.  Indeed, until 1956, Georgia did not have any symbol of the Confederacy in its state flag.

So perhaps as an aside, I would like to know how why all of a sudden, after nearly 100 years, the Confederate flag just happens to become a symbol of southern (White) heritage.  Just coincidentally, during the beginning of the modern Civil Rights era.  But this is a topic for another thread.

Indeed, unless I am accused of thinking all southern Whites are racists, I must agree with Al Sharpton and John Edwards (and MuseZack?) and say that most southern Whites do not fly the Confederate flag.

But, strangely enough, I don't think Dean's original comments would have hurt him.  He is a Democrat and would still have earned about 90% of the Black vote if he were the Democratic nominee.  And as for getting to the Democratic nomination, neither Iowa and New Hampshire has a large enough Minority population (or "Minority-aware" Majority population) to keep the story in the forefront of people's minds when they cast their ballots (or caucus) for the Democratic candidate.  And if Dean does well there, which seemed likely, he would have too much momemtum to be hurt politically during "Super Tuesday" and other primaries with large Minority populations.

A cynical statement but true nonetheless.

Where Dean screwed up was with his apology.  It makes him look arrogant, stubborn ("I tend to be somebody, who under pressure, tends to fight back" and "When they come after me I tend not to give an inch") and spineless.  Which, as another aside, being somewhat familiar with his political history, I think he is.

The difference between Howard Dean and Bill Clinton is that Clinton understood the "language of political discourse" better than Dean.  In other words, Clinton could play to a certain type of voter -- for example, remember his comments about Sista Souljah in front of Jesse Jackson -- but he would not be crude about it.  Whatever else you say about Bill Clinton -- and trust me, I can say a lot -- I honestly cannot imagine him saying anything like Dean's comments surrounding the Confederate flag.

And finally, to somewhat "answer" Drew's "question": Clinton did not win the election so much as George H. W. Bush lost it.  Also, and this is a point many people forget, Ross Perot (temporarily) withdrew his Presidential bid just as the Democrats were concluding their 1992 convention: giving Clinton and Gore an unprecedented publicity opportunity.

And even with that, we often forget that Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.  I know I never voted for him.  Whatever else, more people always voted against him than for him.

Trivial note: The last Presidential candidate to win the majority of the popular vote was George H. W. Bush in 1988.  And the last Democratic candidate to do it was Jimmy Carter in 1976.  Even if Al Gore won the electoral college (and thus the Presidency) in 2000, he still lost the majority (as opposed to the plurality) of votes.

Sorry to be so long-worded and for being so pedantic but I guess I'm back.  (At least for a few.)

Edited by Yama, 07 November 2003 - 01:14 PM.

Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#46 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 01:29 PM

*shakes head*

http://www.multied.c...ns/1992pop.html

1992:  Clinton got 43.3% compared to Bush's 37.7 compared to Perot's 19%

http://www.multied.c...tions/1996.html

1996:  Clinton got 50% compared to Bush's 42% compared to Perot's  8%

Clinton may not have won 50%+1 of the popular vote, but he CERTAINLY got the majority of those votes.

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 07 November 2003 - 01:41 PM.

Posted Image

#47 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 01:35 PM

Yama, on Nov 7 2003, 11:10 AM, said:

And even with that, we often forget that Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.  I know I never voted for him.  Whatever else, more people always voted against him than for him.
Actually, that's not true. I don't remember the numbers for the second election, but the split for the '93 election was Clinton 43%, 38% for Bush, and 19% for Perot.

That may not be more than 50% but it is a clear majority of the popular vote. I'm too lazy to look up the second election. :p
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#48 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 01:36 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 7 2003, 06:29 PM, said:

*shakes head*

http://www.multied.c...ns/1992pop.html

1992:  Clinton got 43.3% compared to Bush's 37.7 compared to Perot's 19%

http://www.multied.c...ns/1992pop.html

1996:  Clinton got 50% compared to Bush's 42% compared to Perot's  8%

Clinton may not have won 50%+1 of the popular vote, but he CERTAINLY got the majority of those votes.
No Una Salus Lillius, Clinton won a plurality and never a majority of the vote.  By definition, a majority is 50% +1.

And if I'm not mistaken, in 1996 Bill Clinton won slightly less than 49.3% of the popular vote; still not a majority.  For most accurate results on the 1996 Presidential election, see http://www.georgetow...USA/pres96.html

By the way, both links you posted point to 1992 results.

Edited by Yama, 07 November 2003 - 01:40 PM.

Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#49 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 01:45 PM

I corrected the link.

As for the definition of majority, I'll see your pedantry and raise you one:

From Mirriam Webster online:

Quote

: a number greater than half of a total b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : MARGIN c : the preponderant quantity or share
4 : the group or political party whose votes preponderate

:p

Lil
Posted Image

#50 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 01:47 PM

Rhea, on Nov 7 2003, 06:35 PM, said:

Yama, on Nov 7 2003, 11:10 AM, said:

And even with that, we often forget that Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.  I know I never voted for him.  Whatever else, more people always voted against him than for him.
Actually, that's not true. I don't remember the numbers for the second election, but the split for the '93 election was Clinton 43%, 38% for Bush, and 19% for Perot.

That may not be more than 50% but it is a clear majority of the popular vote. I'm too lazy to look up the second election. :p
Actually, Rhea what you are saying is not true.  Neither you nor Lil seem to know the definition of "majority" is and what the difference is between a "majority" and a "plurality".

You can look up both words here: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Sidebar: This post probably came across harsher than I intended.  My sincere apologies but I don't know a better way to say it.  Seriously.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#51 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 01:49 PM

Oooo!!! A definition battle! :)

Of course, after reading all these definitions my head hurts. ;)

#52 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 01:50 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 7 2003, 06:45 PM, said:

I corrected the link.

As for the definition of majority, I'll see your pedantry and raise you one:

From Mirriam Webster online:

Quote

: a number greater than half of a total b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : MARGIN c : the preponderant quantity or share
4 : the group or political party whose votes preponderate

:p

Lil
I think your quote supports my definition.

And back to my original comment about Bill Clinton, however you want to define it or whatever you want to call it, more people still voted against him (i.e. for someone else) than voted for him.  In 1992 and in 1996.

Can we get back on topic now?
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#53 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 02:34 PM

Just for the record, in politics, the term for Clinton's win is a plurality; majority is always reserved for those who get 50% + 1.

However, it doesn't matter; he won a clear majority in electoral votes both times... which, as we all know, is all that counts.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#54 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 03:19 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Nov 6 2003, 10:44 PM, said:

But Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman are so much cooler… :)
Yeah, but at the time, all I knew were Halleck, McClellan, Pope and Meade.

Compared to them, Robert E. Lee is a colossus.

However, Lee could've fought for the Union just as readily as the Confederacy. He just sided with his home state, is all.

That said, however, I have nothing but admiration for Ulysses Grant and William Sherman. And Lincoln demands my utmost loyalty.

You know, I'm half-tempted to start a Civil War thread.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#55 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 04:45 PM

^Go for it!

:cool:
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#56 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 05:00 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Nov 6 2003, 02:57 PM, said:

^  Heh I like it Drew…

Party of Lincoln vs. Dean and his Confederate Flag Wavers….

Oh yes this has potential as a campaign commercial.  ;) 

This does show how desperate the Democrats are to grasp at every straw they can in order to gain a few votes.
Sounds like the Civil War all over again.  

After all the Democratic party was pro-slavery.  

And yes, the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, the party that was specifically created to end slavery.

#57 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 05:15 PM

Yama, on Nov 7 2003, 02:10 PM, said:

Which means that I must disagree with Smitty and agree with Rhea. "Guys flying a Confederate flag IS racist."

I am astonished (but not surprised, given the lack of historical knowledge in America) when "supporters" of the Confederate flag say they are flying the flag in support of their heritage and ancestry. The Confederate flag only came back into play during the middle of the 20th Century as a reaction against the Civil Rights movement nearly a centrury after the defeat of the Confederacy. Indeed, until 1956, Georgia did not have any symbol of the Confederacy in its state flag.

So perhaps as an aside, I would like to know how why all of a sudden, after nearly 100 years, the Confederate flag just happens to become a symbol of southern (White) heritage. Just coincidentally, during the beginning of the modern Civil Rights era. But this is a topic for another thread.
This is what always amazes me.

The confederate flag existed as a flag of the 'country' in the south for something like 2 years. It didn't even exist in the beginning of the war and went through several variations before it landed on what we now recognize as the confederate flag.  That's 2 years out of 275+ years.

Don't tell me all about how it's part of the south's heritage. It means one thing, something they should be ashamed of, not proud of.

It's like a code-word.  Everyone knows what it means and it's used in that manner. But then the people flying can say, we never said it was pro-slavery or pro-racism, it's just our heritage.  Bull.

It's like the other code-word, "state's rights".  Note how every single time that phrase is bandied about it's really a case of a state trying to take away a right from an individual, or trying to prevent an individual from gaining their due rights as people of this nation. Every single time I have ever heard it used it has been this situation.  They couch it in retoric about the mean federal government telling states what to do to try and cover up the truth, but it's always about a state trying to do something they shouldn't and the federal government stopping them.

And everyone knows it, or should.

#58 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 05:31 PM

Those who say that flag is a symbol of heritage are telling the truth. The problem is the heritage itself. It's a heritage of only evil.

#59 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 07 November 2003 - 05:46 PM

Don't everyone pass out, but I agree with Delvo.   :eek2:  :eek2:

The confederate flag represents a group of states who thought it was ok to use other people as slaves, beasts of burden. To most people, including many in the South, it is a symbol of infamy, not pride. It's almost as revolting an association as the swastika is with the Nazis.

(And I too am the product of generations of Southerners - in fact, when I was a kid I was called the "little Yankee" because I was the first one not born in the South!)

Edited by Rhea, 07 November 2003 - 05:48 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Elections, 2004, Democrats, Howard Dean

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users