Divider, not a uniter
Howard is already taking heat for this one:
A fair charge?
As usual with Dean, he makes a valid point but drapes it with an inflammatory metaphor that completely obscures it - and in the process, undermines his own goal.
Dean's point is that the GOP strategy solidly rests on a foundation of drawing a dividing line across America - where "Us" are righteous and "Them" are craven, and that teh very concept of a principled vote for Them is a contradiction. There are plenty on the supporters on the left who share that opinion. But the difference is that the Kerry campaign did not enshrine that attitude as electoral strategy. The Bush campaign never even tried for teh Independent vote - and Kerry did. Bush's campaign events were for the true believers only, complete with loyalty oaths. Kerry's were open to all.
For all the hand-wringing by self-identified Red Staters about how the Blues hate them, the venom for the Blue matches it equally. Here's what a Red guy thinks about Blue children:
That's MY daughter he's talking about. And the stereotypes he proudly displays are the result of a cultural war that has been fomented largely by the conservative media, especially on talk radio (I live in Houston. I listen to this stuff daily) where "liberals" are demonized hourly for being everything that the True Patriots fancy themselves holier than.
The truth is, that there has indeed been a culture war ging on - and regardless of who started it, it needs to stop.
"The truth is the president of the United States used the same device that Slobodan Milosevic used in Serbia. When you appeal to homophobia, when you appeal to sexism, when you appeal to racism, that is extraordinarily damaging to the country," Dean charged. "I know George Bush. I served with him for six years [as a fellow governor]. He's not a homophobe. He's not a racist. He's not a sexist. In some ways, what he did was worse … because he knew better."
A fair charge?
As usual with Dean, he makes a valid point but drapes it with an inflammatory metaphor that completely obscures it - and in the process, undermines his own goal.
Dean's point is that the GOP strategy solidly rests on a foundation of drawing a dividing line across America - where "Us" are righteous and "Them" are craven, and that teh very concept of a principled vote for Them is a contradiction. There are plenty on the supporters on the left who share that opinion. But the difference is that the Kerry campaign did not enshrine that attitude as electoral strategy. The Bush campaign never even tried for teh Independent vote - and Kerry did. Bush's campaign events were for the true believers only, complete with loyalty oaths. Kerry's were open to all.
For all the hand-wringing by self-identified Red Staters about how the Blues hate them, the venom for the Blue matches it equally. Here's what a Red guy thinks about Blue children:
spoiled, bored, self-centered, angry, dispirited, whiny and uncontrollable thugs, sociopaths and cowards.
That's MY daughter he's talking about. And the stereotypes he proudly displays are the result of a cultural war that has been fomented largely by the conservative media, especially on talk radio (I live in Houston. I listen to this stuff daily) where "liberals" are demonized hourly for being everything that the True Patriots fancy themselves holier than.
The truth is, that there has indeed been a culture war ging on - and regardless of who started it, it needs to stop.
Comments
I respect, but firmly disagree with, the sentiment that says to win you must play teh GOP's own game of demonization. I think that Purple Nation is waiting for something different from the status quo, not the same game.
Demonization does no good. Inclusive rhetoric is important and hasnt even been tried. I mean, do any of you think that Garrison Keillor's comments about dienfranchising the born0again Christian vote is remotely appropriate? Its much teh same kind of free ammo to the Right to justfy their culture war in the first place.
take away their ammo, and they are left with blanks.
(OTOH, "Racist" could be justified, to some extent, by the voter suppression strategies openly discussed and executed by the GOP.)
It's not a plus towards recommending him for the DNC chair, but he's got great qualities that may simply be part of the same bargain. He stayed pretty on message supporting Kerry, but the question is whether Democrats would enjoy explaining Dean's verbal flights that often. Analogies are dangerous enough, Howard, don't overextend them.
1) Sexism and Racism are from out in left field. There is really no evidence at all.
2) Supporting the FMA may be construed as homophobic, but listen to the President's reasoning. Read his speech supporting it. It is entirely about stopping activist judges from imposing same sex marriage. This is not homophobic, it is democratic. Just because he doesn't support gay rights does not make him a homophobe.
Howard Dean is following the Al Gore path of forgetting to think before he speaks now that he isn't in election-mode. But remember that this is the same Dean who leant credence to the idea that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened. He may have been a good Governor, but his anti-Bush worldview seems to be distorting his ability to live in the reality-based world.
Kerry's concession speech was a good example of how to start uniting... as was the President's acceptance speech.
If I recall correctly, Dean was speaking more to the point of the failure of the administration to really prevent 9-11. The fact that Bush was later found to have been given an explicit briefing on teh piotential threat has essentially vindicated asking the question, what did the goivernment know?
Thats not the same as asking "did the govt allow 9-11 to happen". Its a question of did the govt actually do its job. These are questions that Dean had a right to ansk and which it is unfair to ascribe to paranoid conspiracy theorizing.
Bush himself says he is for civil unions. I think his admission was one of those rare unscripted moments of honesty.
Wikipedia or not, it provides a verbatim quote of the Musgrave FMA:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
That is prima facie homophobic. Marriage is none of the federal government's business -- it's none of any government's business I think. But if it is, then institutionalizing separate but not equal will not do (to say nothing of neutering states' abilities to come to their own conclusions).
I don't give a flip what's in Bush's heart, he's lent his support to this trash, end of story. And the "legal incidents thereof" gives the lie to his "civil unions" smokescreen.