Politics: A new beginning

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Along those lines, right now would be a great time for Bush to reach out to minorities, if Rove can even imagine a way to do so.

Hello

You mean like by getting a prominent black on his team (say, Powell or Rice) and giving them real responsibility?

We're still waiting.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think the GOP is just upset that the Dems are finally trying to poach from their core base.

I don't think they'll succeed with this sales pitch.

The traditionally successful line of of "rich goddamn elitist Yankees stealing the true American working man's money and giving it all to their country club cronies" is no longer available, unfortunately, having been co-opted by the Repubs. I guess Dean should get some credit for trying to work out an alternative. But Edwards hit the nail on the head when he responded "the solution to the south's problems is not some fucking Yankee rolling down here and telling us what's good for us and expecting us all to snap to and say "yes, boss, ah po' inbred brains can't think none widdout you tellin' 'em what.""

BR(I paraphrased that a bit. But not much)C

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The unholy democratic alliance of northern white ethnics and northern blacks

What is "unholy" about this alliance.

I guess Pat Robertson's crew and the Wall Street tycoons comprise the "holy" alliance?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You mean like by getting a prominent black on his team (say, Powell or Rice) and giving them real responsibility?

We're still waiting.

Ahh, more of the narrow-minded tokenism talk from the left. Its almost, well, racist to advocate giving someone a job based on the color of their skin, right Greedy?

I mean, does this ring a bell from any news footage?

Greedy, greedy, greedy
Kill, kill, kill!

Aww yeah, I think I know who you are underneath that white sheet.


Actually, I think its time for the Republicans to start a dialogue (well, actually, maybe it would have been better to start is 3 years ago) with non-self-appointed black leaders. My best bet would be on black mayors etc.... I'm not sure anybody would change their entrenched views, but AFAIK, a lot of minorities don't want the Reps to change their entrenched substantive views. They just want the Reps to want them. How wrong would it be to court them?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
But Edwards hit the nail on the head when he responded "the solution to the south's problems is not some fucking Yankee rolling down here and telling us what's good for us and expecting us all to snap to and say "yes, boss, ah po' inbred brains can't think none widdout you tellin' 'em what.""

BR(I paraphrased that a bit. But not much)C

I think this may be Dean's undoing.

That having been said, the Dems ought to be focused on the demographic group that is white, male, southern and poor. The fact that this group has become almost as solidly Republican as the black, male, southern, poor vote is Democrat swings a number of important states, and there is no good reason for that to be the case once we get past racial issues, and I do believe we are, as a country, finally getting past those racial issues.

But we aren't going to win that group by calling them racists. It suggests that Dean isn't very over it.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And this is the central difference these days. Who do you think we are fighting in Iraq?

Possibly a group of pissed off people who didn't want some lumbering giant coming in and taking away their soveriegnty...they want their country back b/c clearly it's more fucked up now than it was before.

You'd be pissed too. You're not a terrorist. But you'd probably try to fight back. You'd probably try and do something b/c your country is now being run by a bunch of rich people who don't look like you and who have no idea how to rebuild a country. I know I'd fight back. I'm not a terrorist. They had their country taken from them - it's not difficult to imagine a decent-sized group of people being angry about this.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
What is "unholy" about this alliance.

I guess Pat Robertson's crew and the Wall Street tycoons comprise the "holy" alliance?

It doesn't surprise me that you stomach this without recognizing the unholy aspect. Picture Chicago, 1919. Mayor Daley's father is the secretary of the Hamburg club.

A race riot starts at the 31st street beach when a black kid swims over to a white swimming area. The kid drowns when the whites stone him under. The riots are entirely racial. On the one side, the white ethnic clubs, e.g., the Hamburg club. On the other, the minorities. Dozens are murdered.

Skip ahead to the 1980s. A black mayor is voted in. The ethnic whites in the entirely democratic city stonewall the mayor at every turn. The era is termed the "council wars".

On one side, the great Harold Washington. On the other, Richie Daley, Ed Burke, Ed Vrdolyak, etc....

What do the seemingly unrelated facts have to do with each other, aside from relating the hatred between parties? Well, the parties are the white ethnics and the northern blacks that form the unholy alliance.

Feel free to ditto Detroit, Cleveland, DC, and apparently, the confederate-flag waving areas of the south.

I mean, these people would lynch each other if they were found in each other's respective neighborhoods. They have lynched each other when found in each other's respective neighborhoods. But they all be one big happy group of democrats, right there with the dinosaur-economists and the apologists.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ahh, more of the narrow-minded tokenism talk from the left. Its almost, well, racist to advocate giving someone a job based on the color of their skin, right Greedy?

I mean, does this ring a bell from any news footage?

Greedy, greedy, greedy
Kill, kill, kill!

Aww yeah, I think I know who you are underneath that white sheet.

Not sure what the hell you're trying to say here.

My comment is that Bush was consciously trying to reach out to blacks by putting two very qualified blacks in leading positions, but the turkey then treats them like they're his servants. He fails to listen to them, gets a white male circle around him that excludes them, and generally behaves the way he told us he wouldn't.

Appointing Powell wasn't tokenism, but good politics. He found a well qualified person who also brought him political strength with several important consistuencies (blacks, moderates, the military).

But Bush has turned it into tokenism by treating him the way he has. So until Bush changes his world view and his inner circle, he is incapable of reaching out to minorities.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think this may be Dean's undoing.

That having been said, the Dems ought to be focused on the demographic group that is white, male, southern and poor. The fact that this group has become almost as solidly Republican as the black, male, southern, poor vote is Democrat swings a number of important states, and there is no good reason for that to be the case once we get past racial issues, and I do believe we are, as a country, finally getting past those racial issues.

But we aren't going to win that group by calling them racists. It suggests that Dean isn't very over it.

I'm pretty sure that Dean wasn't calling them racists. I think he was acknowledging that the group, with the damned Confederate flags (which most of them would say have nothing to do with racism, and much more to do with Southern heritage, but then I'm a Texan, so what do I know about the south?), needs to be picked up by the Democratic party.

Sharpton called Dean a racist.

Salon notes that Dean has said this before, back when he was an underdog that didn't have snowball's chance in hell of winning the primary, and that he generally got standing ovations when he said it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Possibly a group of pissed off people who didn't want some lumbering giant coming in and taking away their soveriegnty...they want their country back b/c clearly it's more fucked up now than it was before.

You'd be pissed too. You're not a terrorist. But you'd probably try to fight back. You'd probably try and do something b/c your country is now being run by a bunch of rich people who don't look like you and who have no idea how to rebuild a country. I know I'd fight back. I'm not a terrorist. They had their country taken from them - it's not difficult to imagine a decent-sized group of people being angry about this.

That would be a good explanation if it were true, but it's not, at least not wholly. Many of those we are fighting have come across the borders from other countries (e.g. Iran, Syria, etc.), hence the call for more troops from Left and Right alike.

[sgtclub]

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/263834|top|11-05-2003::01:47|reuters.html

[GOP sweeps governors races]

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Not sure what the hell you're trying to say here.

My comment is that Bush was consciously trying to reach out to blacks by putting two very qualified blacks in leading positions, but the turkey then treats them like they're his servants. He fails to listen to them, gets a white male circle around him that excludes them, and generally behaves the way he told us he wouldn't.

Appointing Powell wasn't tokenism, but good politics. He found a well qualified person who also brought him political strength with several important consistuencies (blacks, moderates, the military).

But Bush has turned it into tokenism by treating him the way he has. So until Bush changes his world view and his inner circle, he is incapable of reaching out to minorities.

I wish I could take your word for it, Mr. Wizard. It would actually be offensive if I did explain it, so I'd rather not.

As for the treatment of Powell, it all comes down to perception. And the perception of the American public is almost never in line with reality. In the meantime, for the purposes of the tokenism that democrats seem to love, he has well-fulfilled that task.

Not to say that I agree with the suggestion that Powell and Rice don't have authority. Just getting to the heart of the matter, and what matters most to the well-trained democrat blocs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And this is the central difference these days. Who do you think we are fighting in Iraq?

Sunni Ba'athists, for the most part. But we could just call them Arabs and terrorists if that's easier. They all look the same, right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Dakar! <-- Pronounced as I presume Ricardo Montalban would pronounce it.

That's the name the woman goes by, apparently.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That would be a good explanation if it were true, but it's not, at least not wholly. Many of those we are fighting have come across the borders from other countries (e.g. Iran, Syria, etc.), hence the call for more troops from Left and Right alike.

Many also are local Shi'a who have about as much fondness for Hussein as for the US and are looking to carve out their own space for when the US leaves -- as it eventually and inevitably will.

It is my bet that we will create more terrorists than we control by entering Iraq. I also think the war in Iraq is drawing resources away from places where a lesser commitment of resources would have resulted in a net reduction in terrorists and terrorists activities. But that die has now been cast.