Centerfield

I don't remember which of his books it was, but E. E. Schattschneider hypothesized that political competition was about "weaker actors" enlarging the "scope of the conflict" to include previously non-participatory people, who could then re-shape the conflict in their favor. His conclusion was that these constituents (roughly one-third to two-fifths of the population) represented the ultimate wild card in American politics, since their inclusion threatened to derail the bipartisan status quo.

Posted by: Bobby at June 12, 2005 03:27 PM

I've always been part of your third group, Rick. Indeed, I used to be a Republican. Even after leaving the GOP I have remained very partial to Republicans, particularly the moderates. Only twice since I've been eligible to vote have I voted heavily in favor of Democrats. Both times there was a Bush running for the Presidency. First when Bush 41 ran in '88 and the second was this last November when Bush 43 ran for re-election. with those two exceptions, I have voted overwhelmingly for Republicans in every single election. And I'm 41. So, I've been doing this for a while now.

I love Howard Dean and don't think he should change a thing. The reality is that he's taking the Conservative Republicans own framing game and using it against them. And even then he's not stooping to the dirty tricks that the rightwing have used over and over, particularly over the last 5 years.

Dean didn't create the frame that the godless ACLU and the Dems are in cahoots and that both hate Christianity - Republicans did.

Dean didn't call voters in the 2000 primary and insinuate that McCain's friggin' adopted West Asian daughter was the product of an extramarital affair with a black woman - Republicans did... specifically, White conservative "christian" Republicans did.

Dean didn't start the meme that GOP stands for "God's Own Party" - Republicans did.

And that's just a quick sampling. There are many, many more such examples.

So why is Dean being taken to task for calling a spade a spade?

Posted by: Kevin at June 12, 2005 03:59 PM

If Dean did in fact recently charge that Republicans are all thieves and shiftless bums, could you link to the relevant transcript? After all, blogging is supposedly about locating links and commenting on them, not about making unsubstantiated accusations.

Posted by: Kenneth Almquist at June 12, 2005 04:06 PM

Kenneth,

Here's just one of many articles summarizing some of his recent faux pas, including saying that Republicans are "pretty much a white, Christian party" and that Republicans "never made an honest living in their lives." These comments have been disavowed by a number of prominent Democrats, including Senator Reid, Chris Dodd, and others.

Kevin, you are to some extent correct about who started those themes, but the practical problem for the Democrats with Dean's comments is that they play into those themes. If the Republicans have made headway claiming that the Democrats dislike religion, why in the world would a Democrat want to give them ammunition by implying that being Christian is a bad thing. Look at the two statement together. Republicans are people who have never held honest jobs. Republicans are white christians. Ergo, white christians are people who have never held honest jobs. That is NOT going to prove the Republican theme wrong.

Rick, I'm reminded of a Republican video I saw years ago. It was used only in smaller, private fundraisers with no press in attendance, so it was very funny and very effective. It showed a male rhinoceros slowly lumbering up to a female and then mounting her. The voiceover said, in that deep voiced announcer tone "THIS... is what the Democrats are doing to America". It was very funny, and entirely appropriate for its audience and that private context.

It would NOT have been appropriate, and would have failed miserably, had it been played in public or press-covered events. The problem with Dean is not what he said, per se. Although he has spoken them at gatherings of the Democratic faithful, they've been very public gatherings of such. He should be sophisticated enough to recognize that context and adapt his remarks accordingly.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 12, 2005 05:27 PM

If Dean did in fact recently charge that Republicans are all thieves and shiftless bums,...

What's needed is to distinguish between the actual spoken words and the meaning of those words. There is only one actual quote, however, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of what the words in that quote mean. I personally view the interpretation that Dean charged Republicans as thieves and shiftless bums as valid, but as far as political strategy goes, my opinion is irrelevant. The relevant opinions are those of the swing voters, and I do not find it farfetched that many of them would agree with that interpretation.

I'll close with a quote from Peter Beinart's Fighting Faith:

What they do not understand is that his real casualties are on the decent left.

Posted by: Scott Smith at June 12, 2005 05:39 PM

I dunno... seems to me that what Dean's doing is forcing the GOP to defend their own rhetoric. Anyone who is politically aware to even a small margin knows that former President Jimmy Carter is not only quite white, but that he also wears his Christian faith on his sleeve. And wasn't it just a month or so ago that the headlines were all about an overzealous rightwing Pastor trying to ostracize white Democrats in his own congregation? How could that be if it were true that only Republicans are white and Christian?

No, I think only the prejudiced will miss the irony in Dean's statements.

Look at this another way. In 2000 Bush called a reporter an "asshole." It was widely covered by the media. Just last summer Cheney told a Democratic Senator to "go F*** yourself." That too was widely covered by the media.

So, the premise here seems to be that swing voters, those who decide virtually every major election, are ONLY going to be offended by "over the top" (Cheney's term as of today) statements by Democrats but will remain blithly uncaring about open profanity by Republicans? Does anyone here seriously believe that to be the case?

Posted by: Kevin at June 12, 2005 05:41 PM

Kevin,

You lump several very different things together. Yes, President Bush called a reporter a dirty word. But he did not do so knowing or intending that remark to be made public. It was a whispered aside to Dick Cheney, and Bush was not aware that the microphone was on. Dick Cheney did say that to a Senator, and I think he was probably wrong to do so. But again, that was a remark which happened to be overheard, not a remark intended to be broadcast to the country. And both the Bush and the Cheney remarks were disparaging comments about particular individuals, not slander of an entire political party. Their remarks and Dean's are not morally or politically equivalent.

If Dean wants to combat the GOP themes, he should have gone out and supported those Democratic churchgoers whose pastor tried to kick them out. If the Republicans actually say something stupid like "we're the party of Christians", then call them on it, and prove it's not true. But don't say, yeah, you're right, you are the party of Christians. If he meant it ironically, he really needs to work on his delivery.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 12, 2005 06:24 PM

The Democrats to need to be combative, but in an artful way. Dean would be more effective if, instead of his statements causing dissension among Democrats, it caused Republicans to fight amongst themselves.

Posted by: rickheller at June 12, 2005 07:26 PM

I think you're missing my point, Pat.

The arguement seems to be that Dean's "over the top" rhetoric will hurt Dems in elections. Did Bush's or Cheney's over the top remarks hurt them in elections?

That's my point. I don't find the premise that only Dems can be politically hurt by over the top remarks to be reasonable.

Posted by: Kevin at June 12, 2005 07:33 PM

Just for the record, here is what Dean actually said, courtesy CNN: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/03/wbr.01.html

DEAN: Here's a group of Republican leaders who think that they're appealing to working people.

They don't want a minimum wage increase. They're cutting police people off the beat. They're attacking Social Security.

Now comes out that people's private pensions are in trouble under this administration...

...It is as if the Republican leadership never had to work a day in their life.

What possible understanding could they have of what a working person in this country has to go through, if they're against everything that's good for working people?

BLITZER: But there are millions and millions of Republicans, more than 50 million of them, voted for President Bush's re-election.

Are you saying all these Republicans, they don't have to work for a living?

DEAN: No, no, no. Look, we don't go after voters.

Voters are the ones that pay our salaries. No matter whether they agree with us or not.

But we do go after bad leadership...we ought to go after the Republicans when they are once again hypocritical about what they're going to do for working people.

They do nothing for working people."

Funny...I don't see that he said 'shiftless bums" anywhere. Maybe my tinfoil hat is blocking out the soundwaves that everyone else is picking up. NOT.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 12, 2005 07:50 PM

Kevin, my point is that Bush and Cheney were not hurt by their "over the top" remarks because their remarks were not politically offensive in the context in which they were said. They did not denigrate the members of an entire political party. Dean did, and he did it intending the remarks to have a nationwide audience. And what he said fits right in with the "Republicans are just dumb" theme that many Democrats promoted during the last election, so they are not isolated misstatements or rudeness, but a continuation of an ongoing apparent strategy to demonize their political opponents.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 12, 2005 07:51 PM

Jean,

That's what he said when he was trying to dig himself out of the hole he dug himself in. What he said to get himself into trouble to begin with was clearly aimed at all Republicans. He was discussing long lines at polling places (which are entirely controlled by local officials, not national parties). He claimed that waiting is line that long is a hardship for people who "work all day and then pick up their kids at child care", but that it doesn't bother Republicans,

because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.

His other remarks were given to a forum of journalists and minority leaders. He said that Republicans are

"not very friendly to different kinds of people, they are a pretty monolithic party... it's pretty much a white, Christian party."

Did he use the words "bums and thieves"? No. But "never made an honest living" is not far from it.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 12, 2005 08:14 PM

OMG! Bush called a reporter an "asshole?" OMG! What to think, what to think.... They are all such a respectable, decent bunch. Oh the unfairness of it all.

Posted by: AR at June 12, 2005 08:35 PM

Dean's remarks forcing Republicans to defend their own rhetoric? Hardly. From what I can see, it's Dean who's been defending his own rhetoric.

One thing he might want to notice. 59% of the Democratic Party are self-described white Christians. Dean is playing to the activist base that supported him so well during the last election. But that activist base isn't the Democratic Party, only a fraction of it. And it's very white, but not very religious, so it would be a fair call the Dean wanted to blast Christians, just not black Christians. So my question is, was his statement [a] racist; [b] anti-religious; [c] both; or [d] neither?

Among these liberal faithful, only 1 percent are black compared to 22 percent in the rest of the party. Of those polled, 79 percent have college educations; in the Democratic Party, only 25 percent have college degrees. In this activist community, 29 percent have annual family incomes above $100,000; that's nearly three times the percentage among Democrats as a whole. Fully 38 percent of the activists say they have no connection to organized religion, and don't go to church. In the Democratic Party, that figure is only 10 percent.

Of course, whether or not Adam Clymer is truly a "major-league asshole" is entirely a subjective judgement call. De gustibus non disputandem est. I'll give the commentary a miss on the self-reproductive capabilities and/or inclinations of Senator Leahy.

Posted by: Tully at June 12, 2005 08:54 PM

Please, keep attacking the press. That worked sooooo well for Nixon and Spiro Agnew.

Pat, by the way, I've got a link just for you: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/061105Z.shtml

I love the bit about Dean swinging Willy Stark's meat ax. (Of course, ol' WS didn't exactly end up on the sunny side of the street, but he had a heckuva run up until then.)

By the way, speaking of the Dick--oops, I mean, Dick Cheney, he just said "Dean never won anything in his life."
(Pssst! Dean won the governorship of Vermont five times, and the chairmanship of the Democratic party last fall. Just so you know.)

EEEEeek! Doesn't Dick know that lying and insults aren't the way to win over swing voters? Doesn't he know the path to power is paved with sweetness, kindness and truth--uhhh, never mind.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 12, 2005 09:44 PM

Dean is allowed his rhetoric, but his rhetoric so far has been stupid and immature. It is not going to attract new/more voters, and that's the Dem party needs.

Posted by: Monica at June 12, 2005 11:00 PM

This was a dishonest representation of Dean's remarks by rickheller and PatHMV.

Dean did not say all, he did not say most, he did not say half - he said 'a lot of' republicans could stand in line because they had not had to make honest livings. I read that immediately the only way it can be read with any common sense, that he's taking a shot at the very wealthy who don't have to work like others. Anyone with the most basic awareness of the facts knows that criminals are far more likely to vote for democrats than republicans - Dean could hardly have been calling them criminals, and he did not, in spite of the dishonest comment by rickheller.

IMO, if people support democrats, they should not help republicans 'make Dean the issue' with posts like this. Isn't there enough going on to write about more important than the nuances of Dean's words on this issue?

Yes - for democrats. For their enemies, unwitting or intentional, talk about Dean's words instead.

Posted by: Craig at June 13, 2005 04:04 AM

Dean did not say all, he did not say most, he did not say half - he said 'a lot of' republicans could stand in line because they had not had to make honest livings. I read that immediately the only way it can be read with any common sense, that he's taking a shot at the very wealthy who don't have to work like others.

As if there were none in the Democrat party who were such of the above. Please.

Posted by: Scott at June 13, 2005 06:56 AM

Blue Jean,

I wouldn't call Cheney a great communicator, either. The only elections he's ever won on his was his Wyoming congressional seat. Often times, the things he says backfires, but I'm not inclined to give constructive criticism to Cheney at this point.

Craig,

I'm an independent who has lately been leaning toward the Democrats. Even if you think what I've said about Dean is distorted, I'm trying to provide contructive criticism. Imagine if Dick Cheney had said the following:

"A lot of Mexicans have never made an honest living in their lives"

Do you think the qualifying word "a lot" would have been enough to protect him from charges of racism?

What Dean said was stereotyping and wrong. I'm not calling on his to apologize, resign, or shut up. I just want him to throw his punches more accurately.

Posted by: rickheller at June 13, 2005 09:23 AM

Craig,

Even Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, not to mention plenty of other Democrats, have decried Dean's statements. It's not just Republicans being outraged. I can assure you that Rick and I rarely agree on any matters which touch specifically on party politics. Many leaders of Dean's own party say he went too far.

Also, this isn't a Democratic site. It's a centrist site, dedicated to improving the tone of political debate and finding better, less ideological, solutions to the issues facing America.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 13, 2005 10:07 AM

Tully...your insights about Sen. Leahy were amusing...the picture that sprang to mind was not.

Posted by: AR at June 13, 2005 11:08 AM

Whoa, Abel, I can't FTC your mental images...that's your own projector.

No one seems to want to answer the question I asked. Is Dean's calling the GOP a "white Christian party" [a] racist; [b] anti-religious; [c] both; or [d] neither?

Corollary: If Ken Mehlman had called the DNC a "black Muslim party" would that statement be [a] racist; [b] anti-religious; [c] both; or [d] neither?

Don't forget to reconcile your answers to both questions, should they differ.

And yes, Craig, saying that "a lot of them [Republicans] have never made an honest living in their lives" is a back-door way of saying that a lot of them make dishonest livings. How you care to categorize "dishonest living" is your own mileage.

But Dean is supposed to be taking on Republicans and raising money for Democrats, so I'll cut him a lot of slack in that regard. The real questions still remain, is Dean helping or hurting the Democrats? Is his rhetoric bringing in more votes and money, or pushing them away? The rest of the discussion is side issues.

Posted by: Tully at June 13, 2005 11:46 AM

It's one thing to call a particular individual an "a*hole" or to tell an individual even a Senator to "F* Off". We've all done that in our daily lives with people we get frustrated with. I think most of us can relate to that on a personal level. Some people may even feel it was justified..... I know of a few reporter who I think are "a*holes" and a few Congressmen I'd like to tell to "F* Off" .... and I bet the rest of you do too.... even if they aren't they same ones. I don't think such sentiments are likely to alienate too many people outside of those individuals and prehaps thier ardent fans.

Dean's comments are different in that they address a very broad group of people. Saying "alot of republicans...." is kinda like saying "alot of blacks...." or "alot of mexicans....." or "alot of jews.....". It's STEREOTYPING and people ARE (justifiably) going to get offended by it. It'd be one thing if Dean had said "Cheney hasn't had to work an honest day in his life".... I might think Dean is full of hot air, I'd probably even be offended...but it wouldn't P me off to the same degree.

When Dean says "republicans" he's talking about ME, personnaly. I KNOW I work an honest day.... probably more so the Dr. Dean on average. I also happen to not be Christian, yet the GOP has never told me I wasn't welcome. Dean later trying to weasel out by saying something like "I didn't really mean you, you're a GOOD republican, it was just the BAD republicans I was talking about" smacks of some-one like David Dukes saying "I didn't really mean you, you're a GOOD black.... it's just the bad blacks I was talking about" . It doesn't cut it.

The people Dr. Dean is insulting are the very same people the Dem's need to win over.... and if it's not them personaly then it's thier parents, thier freinds, thier co-workers and thier neighbors. The only people Dean's comments are going to play to are the extremists in his own party (IMO).

Posted by: cengel at June 13, 2005 12:26 PM

Tully,

It's hard to really peg it without knowing his intent. Taken at face value, the comment appears neither racist or anti-religious...simply an observation made by the esteemed Doctor. However, if taken in the context that Dean is Jewish (which I believe he is), then it could be viewed as a religious slam. If the comment was made with the intent to persuade black or latino voters that the Republicans were "whites", and therefore racist, it was wrong.

Personally, I don't find anything terribly wrong with the comment. I will say that if Mehlman called the Democratic Party a party of black muslims as you suggest, he'd be drummed out. He'd be called a racist, even if his comments were--on their face--true.

All that aside, I wish he hadn't said it. I think we'd be better off with a moderate Democratic Chair that drug the party to the center. Maybe that would force the Republican Party to make the same move.

"Dishonest living" is a pretty broad category that depends solely on the individual defining. That was certainly one of his more idiotic statements.

Posted by: AR at June 13, 2005 12:37 PM

I should have included a sentence in my post saying that I think Dean's comments were poorly phrased, and misguided as phrased, though he later clarified them - a clarification not listened to, but rather mocked by his opponents.

However, politicians will sometimes say things that are mistakes - what can make a big difference is when those mistakes are either minimized, or used for a huge focus for large political effect. I can show many, many *far* more outrageous, false statements by republican leaders than Dean's.

Yet, those don't seem to usually get the attention, the focus, the sniping from without much less within their own party that Dean's statements are - making him the issue - it's an absurd double standard.

For just one example of the effect, think back to when Al Gore's victory in 2000 was based in part upon his getting national credit for his foresight and leadership when he had earlier been a, if not the, leading proponent for funding development of the internet in the Senate.

Oh, wait, you can't - because the republicans took a less than perfectly phrased comment by him about his role, created an actual misquote, a lie, and the story the country believed was the lie, that he was going around saying he had 'invented the internet' - turning what he had earned as a major political feather in his cap into a devastatingly effective attack against him - how ironic. This of course fit into the republican strategy to paint this honest man as a pathological liar - ironically by pathologically lying about him.

You see the same sort of effect here - in the double standard applied to Dean.

There was a good quote about the democratic leaders criticizing Dean by a democratic consultant who said there's a reason the democrats are the minority party.

If the right-wingers are wrong in their conspiracy theory that this is a plot to get the democratic leaders publicity as 'centrist, moderate voices' by sacrificing Dean, in a sort of good cop-bad cop routine, Dean should improve his speech - but the issue does not deserve the major headlines and attention it receives just because he took a poke at the wealthy in the republican party that wasn't phrased quite right, just as the republicans lied about John Kerry's imperfectly phrased position on pursuing international support for policies more than the Bush administration, painting him as giving veto power to France.

And yes, it is a lie - and mistakenly believed by some: look at the error in this very thread by someone who insists that the only alternative to 'an honest living' is 'a dishonest living', i.e., 'theft' - ignoring the fact that the phrase 'an honest living' has for many decades existed for describing the people who work as wage earners, in contrast to the wealthier people who may simply own enough that they have significant leisure time - not literally a dishonest living.

I appreciate the centrists' interest in looking at the issues, but hope they don't let themselves be led around by the nose by the right-wing noise machine: and I speak from experience, having voted against Gore (for Nader, not Bush) in 2000 mostly because I fell for the right-wing campaign, in conjunction with an atrocious job by the media, myself, only to learn later what had really happened - I regret it.

I understand the argument that to an extent the posters I criticized were discussing 'how the statements sounded', but that's no excuse for being inaccurate in quoting what Dean said, or unreasonable in interpreting what he meant - do that, and we can 'meet in the middle' where I agree his words were poorly chosen, and perhaps we can agree that the right-wing has an interest in makng this story far more visible than it deserves to be. Where's all the similar attention to worse republican gaffes?

Until then, I think we should not play their game, and not give this attention, and stick to issues.

But for those who choose to focus on it, be accurate in the quotes.

Posted by: Craig at June 13, 2005 12:49 PM

look at the error in this very thread by someone who insists that the only alternative to 'an honest living' is 'a dishonest living', i.e., 'theft' - ignoring the fact that the phrase 'an honest living' has for many decades existed for describing the people who work as wage earners, in contrast to the wealthier people who may simply own enough that they have significant leisure time - not literally a dishonest living.

I'm sorry, Craig--did you just say that it was erroneous to attribute Dean's comments in the obvious manner because it's not the way you want them interpreted? I see you're wearing your tap shoes today!

So let's parse it just a little tighter, using your definition. If they're not making an honest living, then categorically they must either be [a] making a dishonest living, or [b] not making a living at all. And if "honest living" is confined specifically to your definition of "wage earners," then independent businesspeople are making dishonest livings. Independent contractors are making dishonest livings. Farmers are making dishonest livings. Salespeople on commission are making dishonest livings. You're only making an "honest living" if you work for wages--"money for labor or services usually according to contract and on an hourly, daily, or piecework basis." (Merriam-Webster)

So this leaves the alternatives to "making an honest living" defined by you as being a "wage earner" to be either dishonest, or vaguely parasitic, not making a living at all, but living off the work of others.

As an independent businessperson I feel so much better now that you've cleared that up. All this time I thought I was making an "honest living," paying all those extra taxes, being ineligible for unemployment or worker's compensation while still paying all the required taxes for it, etc., all without having been a "wage earner" for so very long. Now that I know it's all been in vain, that my extra effort to be independent makes me automatically either dishonest or a parasite, I am free to turn completely to the Dark Side.

P.S., Craig--you are the ONLY person to have equated "dishonest living" with theft in this thread. My own post specifically said: "How you care to categorize "dishonest living" is your own mileage." Just to be "accurate in quotes."

Posted by: Tully at June 13, 2005 01:44 PM

My apologies, Craig, I am of course asolutely wrong about thief attribution. But I didn't make that attribution.

Posted by: Tully at June 13, 2005 01:51 PM

Wow. Two recent thread on Howard Dean and over 150 responses. Lot's of heat. Are party Chair's supposed to get that much?

Posted by: C3 at June 13, 2005 02:12 PM

LOL Chris...good point. Party chairs are supposed to be raising money. I would suggest that by stirring up the hornet's nest, Dean is preventing the Democratic Party from developing a positive, visionary image.

Posted by: AR at June 13, 2005 02:36 PM

Uh...Abel...I hate to break our winning streak here, but Dean isn't Jewish. He's a Congregationalist. His wife is Jewish.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 13, 2005 03:15 PM

As a registered Republican who voted for Clinton and then for Bush, I definitely took some of Dean's remarks personally. It certainly hasn't put me off voting for a Democrat completely, but it's hard to feel good about supporting a party whose chairman has repeatedly insulted me. I would like to think that my candidate appreciated my ideas. Bill Clinton knew how to do that. Howard Dean seems to be saying "here we are, low life swing-voting Republican, take us as we are or leave us".

My Republican elected representatives have done some things recently that have really ticked me off (the Schiavo intervention heads the list) but the Democrats this time around, just like with Kerry, seem to be defining themselves as predominantly anti-this and anti-that, and not pro-anything. I'm one of those folks who throws his vote in support of ideas. Even shaky ones like invading Iraq are preferable to a vacuum of rhetoric. My vote in 2008 will depend upon the candidates, but so far I see a lot of anger and not many ideas coming out of the Democratic party. Would a first term Bill Clinton stand a chance of winning his party's nomination today?

Posted by: BrianOfAtlanta at June 13, 2005 06:06 PM

===No one seems to want to answer the question I asked. Is Dean's calling the GOP a "white Christian party" [a] racist; [b] anti-religious; [c] both; or [d] neither?

Corollary: If Ken Mehlman had called the DNC a "black Muslim party" would that statement be [a] racist; [b] anti-religious; [c] both; or [d] neither?

Don't forget to reconcile your answers to both questions, should they differ===

OK, Professor Tully, I'll bite. I choose "d" for both questions, as long as I can add in "e" for #1, since as I've said before, the GOP is 82% white and Christian, therefore "e" stands for "true". And if I can add in "f" for #2, since "f" would stand for "false."

That being said, If Mehlman did say such a thing, it would be perceived as racist, since Mehlman is a white Jewish man, for the same reason that black comedians can make fun of whites, while white comedians shouldn't joke about blacks. To be a member of the minority mocking the majority shows pluck and daring: to be a member of the majority judging the minority displays nothing but bullying.

But with Dean's statement, it's hard to see why the GOP WASPs are stirring around like a hornets' nest. After all, Dean is a WASP himself, and when he said the GOP is a white, Christian party, he was merely pointing out the truth.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 13, 2005 10:48 PM

Sorry, Blue Jean, the question isn't about the truth or falsity of the statement, but the bias. But the truth of the statement does come into play....

My own answer, given the context of the statement and assuming the corrolary statement were made in the same context, is [c] both, to both questions. It's race-baiting and religion-baiting in the context offered, regardless of truth or falsity or the majority/minority positons. There's no disparity to reconcile.

Here's where true/false comes in: According to Pew surveys, the correct figure for the GOP is 77% self-identifying white Christian. And for the Democrats it's 59%. So Dean's statement is true for both parties. Both parties are majority white Christian. So the only conceivable reason for Dean to label the opposition as such is not for description, but as disparagement, the implication that "white Christian" (or either) is a bad thing deserving of derision.

The flaw in it is that he's also disparaging the majority of his own party. Which isn't smart.

Posted by: Tully at June 13, 2005 11:44 PM

????????

Duh...I hate to argue with your grading system, Prof, but how does race baiting and religious baiting come into it? Yes, the majority of both parties is white Christian, but the majority of the country is white Christian; so what?

Maybe we're working from different dictionaries here, but in my vocabulary, to "bait" means "to harrass, to persecute". No one is persecuting white Christians here (despite what the wingnuts say): nobody even makes jokes about them. Not even me. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 14, 2005 09:37 AM

Blue Jean,

I think those of us in the GOP who would are not "white Christians" would disagree with Dr. Dean that it is a "white christain" party and with your assertion that Dr. Deans statement was simple truth. Or in your mind do people of different ethnicity and religion only start to count once they vote Democrat?

Posted by: cengel at June 14, 2005 10:45 AM

Blue Jean,

If it's not an attempt at disparagement or division, why the heck mention it at all? And in a disparaging way? You may have a point about the level of mockery going on (de gustibus and all that) but is there any doubt at all about Dean's use of the phrase as other than a neutral descriptor--since it also applies to the Dems? Which is the crux of the matter.

In any case, "race baiting" as a phrase has a broad meaning that Dean's usage certainly appears to fit. "Race carding" is similar, and would also apply in both contexts. Religion carding or baiting is much the same thing. Dean combined them.

The plain and obvious interpretation of Dean's remark is that it was focused on undermining the GOP's efforts at outreach into minority communities long dominated by the Democrats, by painting the GOP as a racist and bigoted party. The "simply a nuetral descriptor" line as an "innocent explanation" falls rather flat. (I've known too many Spaniards.)

Posted by: Tully at June 14, 2005 12:11 PM

This reminds me of an old lawyer's trick question (attributed to Lincoln, though I have my doubts) where the lawyer says "Call a dog's tail a leg. How many legs does it have?"

"Five." said his opponent.

"Wrong." said the lawyer. "Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Sorry, Tully and Cengal, calling Dean's remark race baiting doesn't make it race baiting, any more than calling a dog's tail a leg makes it a leg. I don't know anybody who would be insulted by being called a white Christian. In fact, KKK members routinely brag about being white Christians, and there are plenty of white Republicans who trot out their Christian credentials for all to see, whether they are asked about it or not. You can't brag about your religion and then howl when somebody calls you what you insist on being called.

Now, if you can find some little kid who runs home crying "Mommy! Mommy! Mean Howard Dean called me a white Christian!" or some gentleman slapping Howard Dean's face with a glove and declaring "You called me a white Christian? How dare you, sir? I shall demand my satisfaction of you at dawn." then I'll concede your point.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 14, 2005 02:54 PM

Sorry BlueJean stop playing dumb. There was nothing innocent in the way Dean used that term and even alot of his own party members have come out to disasociate themselves with such nonsense (Good for them! At least some-one on that side of the aisle is displaying a little common decency).

Furthermore, calling the GOP a "party of white christians" doesn't make it so. The implication being that if you aren't both white and christian you don't belong in the GOP. Well I'm in the GOP and I'm not christian.... and no one in the GOP has ever given me any greif about it. So go peddle your vitrol somewhere else.

Posted by: cengel at June 14, 2005 03:32 PM

You're attempting to misdefine the terms to meet your own argument. "Race baiting" is NOT an attempt to insult, which is what you're making it out to be. It's the derogatory use of race as a wedge factor. "Look out for the GOP--they're white." Race carding is much the same--the attempt to use someone's race to either accuse them of racism, or to exploit the fear of race for political or other advantage. Similarly with religion-baiting and carding.

Once again, if Dean was not attempting to use the phrase as a divisor, then there was simply no reason to use it at all. Maintaining the "innocent descriptive utterance" defense is hip-deep fertilizer. The same phrase can be accurately used to describe his own party, and he has not so used it. The Democratic Party is, after all, also a majority white Christian party. There is no reasonable interpretation of Dean's remark in the context offered that doesn't lead directly to the conclusion that he was derogatorily using race and religion as wedge factors.

The dog analogy doesn't fly either. Trying to call a dog a turtle because both have four legs and a tail doesn't cut it--when the creature being described is on dry land and chasing a cat at the time.

Posted by: Tully at June 14, 2005 03:50 PM

Excuse me, Cengal, but I'm not the one peddling vitriol here. (Yes, that's the correct spelling. Look at your dictionary.) I'm stating my opinion here; I'm not selling you anything, and I don't work with vitriol, I work with facts.

I'm not insulting you, unless you think white Christian is an insult. If you're not a white Christian, that's fine, but that still doesn't make white Christian an insult and it doesn't change the fact that the GOP has a higher percentage of white Christians than does the Democratic party.

Speaking of playing dumb, Cengal, let's deal with facts here; how many black Republicans are in Congress right now? I can name five African American Democrats right off the top of my head; Senator Barak O'Bama, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. Harold Ford, and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. I've undoubtably skipped quite a few, but you get the idea.

How many black Republican Congressmembers can YOU name, Cengal? Take your time....can you name five?

Can you name one? No, Alan Keyes doesn't count. J.C. Watts has been out of Congress for three years. I'm talking about CongressMEMBERS, people who actually ran on the Republican ticket and were elected, and serving in Congress right now. Cabinet appointees don't count, and neither do judges. Neither do staff people, or folks who were hired to entertain at the GOP convention.

So name five African American Republicans who are serving in Congress now.

I understand answering this question may take a while, but I'll be here when you get the answer. If it's more than the Dems, I'll concede your point. If it's less, well....that offers up all sorts of interesting possibilities.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 14, 2005 04:35 PM

 Tully, your argument is with the American Heritage dictionary, not me. This is what I looked up,
bait:

PRONUNCIATION:
  bt

NOUN:
1a. Food or other lure placed on a hook or in a trap and used in the taking of fish, birds, or other animals. b. Something, such as a worm, used for this purpose. 2. An enticement; a temptation. 3. Archaic A stop for food or rest during a trip.

VERB:
Inflected forms: bait·ed, bait·ing, baits

TRANSITIVE VERB:
1. To place a lure in (a trap) or on (a fishing hook). 2. To entice, especially by trickery or strategy. 3. To set dogs upon (a chained animal, for example) for sport. 4. To attack or torment, especially with persistent insults, criticism, or ridicule. 5. To tease. 6. To feed (an animal), especially on a journey.

INTRANSITIVE VERB:
Archaic To stop for food or rest during a trip.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old Norse beita, food, fodder, fish bait. V., from Old Norse beita, to put animals to pasture, hunt with dogs. See bheid- in Appendix I.

OTHER FORMS:
baiter —NOUN

USAGE NOTE:
The word baited is sometimes incorrectly substituted for the etymologically correct but unfamiliar word bated (“abated; suspended”) in the expression bated breath."

Yes, I would put a link or a URL, but it seems you wouldn't read it, or you wouldn't accuse me misusing the term to suit my own argument.

I assume Dean is not putting food out for anyone as in definitions 1 and 2 and 6, nor is he hunting anyone with dogs, as in definition 3, and I can safely say he's not teasing anyone, as in definition 4. Unless there's something you haven't told me, I would say the only definition that comes anywhere near your description is definition 6.

If I am to believe you that Dean is indeed "race baiting", then he is a) insulting himself, since he is a white Christian, and b) he is trying to alienate the majority of the voters in this country, including his own party:
"Quick! Don't vote for the white Christians! Oh, wait, I am a white Christian...damn! Don't vote for me, then."

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but then, I'm not as fond of Dodgson's wonderland as you are. ;-) Here, tails aren't legs, dogs aren't turtles, and mock turtles don't sob and tell stories to little girls.

In this world, Jesse Helms' "white hands" ad is race baiting. Trent Lott's playing up Strom Thurmond's possible presidency is race baiting. And yes, Robert Byrd's KKK record is race baiting too.

But I'll play your game. For the sake of the argument, let's say that Dean was "race baiting", since every mention of race in public discussion is race baiting. By that definition, then, the Million Man March is race baiting, King's "I Have A Dream" speech is race baiting, and we're race baiting right now, since we're talking about race.

By the same token (no pun intended) in this world, Republicans who say "This is a Christian nation." are religion baiting, bumper stickers who call the GOP "God's Own Party" are religion baiting, Jerry Falwell's saying "God does not hear the prayers of a Jew." is religion baiting.

Funny, but I've never heard you go after those statements, though they are far more blatant and offensive than anything Howard Dean has said (or is imagined to have said). Perhaps you can give me the links to your outrage over those quotes, me being so disingenuous and all.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 14, 2005 05:16 PM

By the way, Cengal, since you are so wise, then perhaps you can answer Tully's original quiz, and eludicate on your answers. Of course, Tully has already given out his own answers, but I'm sure you can enlighten us all with your opinions.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 14, 2005 05:21 PM

I'm sorry--since when is the American Heritage dictionary considered the only source for modern English language usage? I clearly supplied sources that back up what I described, the contemporary usage of the two phrases. You're still quibbling for an extremely narrow definition that avoids the actual case--Dean's specific usage in context. (If you want an even more exclusionary source, the 1711 Britannica can be found online, I believe. Then you'll have no problem at all avoiding modern usages.)

Or you could check Cambridge, which defines "play the race card" as "to mention someone's race in order to influence the way people think about them". I'd say that one sure fits. Or defn. 1 for "bait" in Merriam-Webster, "to persecute or exasperate with unjust, malicious, or persistent attacks". Combine that with Dean's contemporaneous utterances of "brain-dead" and "never made an honest living" and so on and I'd say you're pretty much pettifogging (defn. 2) around the point there, no? But hey, whatever.

For the sake of the argument, let's say that Dean was "race baiting", since every mention of race in public discussion is race baiting.

Every appearance of race in the public discourse of forum is not "race baiting," as you now attempt to imply, nor have I ever said any such thing. I do NOT accept the premise "for the sake of the argument" because it comes hooked up to a false co-premise. That's straw-manning by subversion, and some massive conflationary inclusion you're attempting there--and it totally undermines the other "teeny tiny narrow definition" argument you're making. Contrasting reductio ad absurdum with inflatio ad absurdum proves nothing at all. Nor does comparitive political demonology. We were talking about Dean, not the outrages of others. Their particular sins are simply irrelevant to the specific case. One does not justify the other, in either direction, and it's a major departure from your original statements. The "innocent utterance" defense still falls flat.

Frankly, since you haven't been around long enough to know what I've "gone after" in the historical record, I'm a bit insulted at your devolving yourself to expansionary ad hominem. That I make a particular argument in a particular case does not obligate me to make universal arguments in all cases. Nor is it relevant to the debate. Extending the argument to me, ad hominem, rather than to Dean's words themselves, is patently dishonest, offensive, obnoxious, and uncivil. You're better than that. Though if you're really interested in my opinion of the theocrats, you can recall our earlier discussions of the Demon of Westboro Baptist, or check out my earlier relocation suggestions in this thread.

Posted by: Tully at June 14, 2005 07:10 PM

Blue Jean,

You want to go ahead and play the false restriction game that's fine....but anyone with a brain can see through that sort of cheap rhetorical ploy.

A sitting member of SCOTUS doesn't count but a 1 term Rep. would? Why? Which one do you think has more power? Which one has more lasting impact on the Nation? How about Secratary of State? National Security Advisor? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? In your mind are those all "token" positions? Which party's current CHAIRMAN isn't a White Christian?

Congress-critters are voted for by the public. They can only win if the public chooses them (That includes Republicans, Democrats and Independents). Appointments represent the choices of the politicians themselves.

I don't view being called a "white christian" as an insult despite the fact that Dr. Dean might have intended it as one (i.e. saying that he hates Republicans and everything about them previously and subsequently calling the Republicans a party of "white christians" certainly infers a negative association with the term in Dean's mind, wouldn't you say?) It's simply a mis-labeling of who I happen to be ( I'm white but not christian)....and a mis-labeling of many other Republicans who don't happen to be white christians. It's a prime example of STEREOTYPING.

Indeed, there are very many people in the GOP who are white and christian just as is true for the Democrats (probably the Greens & Libertarians too). It may even be that a larger percentage of the membership in the GOP are white christians then in the Democratic party. I've never bothered to look into....and I won't because it's simply UNIMPORTANT. Ritz crackers and Cheez Whiz both have lots of sugar in them.... Ritz Crackers happen to have more.... that doesn't make either one a "sugary confection".

The Republican Party, just like the Democratic Party is a party of many different ethncities and religions. ANY other statement is patently FALSE and can be PROVEN patently false by simply pointing out 2 members of the same party who have different ethnicities or religions.

It's clear to anyone with a hint of objectivity that Dr. Deans statement was an ugly display of STEREOTYPING intended to paint a caricature of his political opponents. Your defense of it reflects poorly upon you. That's sad becuase, despite the fact that we disagree ideologically, I had held a higher opinion of you then that.

P.S. I'm a lousy speller and I don't spell-check before posting so you'll just have to excuse me if I make a few spelling errors. In return, I won't harrass you for misspelling my name ;)

Posted by: Cengel at June 15, 2005 02:29 PM

This thread may be "dead" but I thought it was the right place to put this: This am on NPR heard a story from KC public radio on illegal immigrants in Kansas (Tully, LISTEN UP). She went on to describe such immigrants in Olathe, a suburb of KC. Now it was clear from the get-go that a key point would be that illegal immigrants (or undocumented workers, whichever you prefer) are in many places you "wouldn't expect them to be" (like Arizona).

Anyway to begin that distinction the reporter described Olathe as "white" and "religious". Huh? Do those two necessarily go together? Are we supposed to then assume its "Republican country"? Are Mexicans not "religious"?

The story was ok but the attempt to capture the essence of the suburb for the audience just blew me away. Maybe Howard Dean's comments do resonate with a certain segment of the population. If they do then I have a surprise for them, Mexican's legal and illegal are strong-churchgoers (read: "religious")

Posted by: c3 at June 15, 2005 07:20 PM

Rickheller misrepresented what Dean said, and apparently isn't willing to issue a retraction. Instead, he defends changing "a lot" to "all" on the grounds that Dean's statement would merit criticism even if he hadn't distorted it. I am singularly unimpressed by this defense. Simple fairness dictates that Rickheller should criticize Dean based on what Dean actually said, not based on statements falsely attributed to Dean.

I'd expect to see this type of thing on a Republican site, but I would have thought that a self-proclaimed centerist site would have a higher standard of intellectual honesty.

Posted by: Kenneth Almquist at June 16, 2005 04:12 AM

LOL, Kenneth. I think it's been addressed pretty adequately on the merits, by both defenders and attackers and the semantics and background and context.

And surprise! If you read the whole thread I don't condemn Dean for a darn thing, other than rhetorical style. Of which he's got plenty of company on both sides of the divide. I just think he's being counter-productive. He may be stacking up chips on one side right now as part of a comprehensive plan, intending to modify his rhetoric in another direction as time goes on, but it doesn't show yet. We'll know in several months.

Posted by: Tully at June 16, 2005 02:07 PM