Dean: South should stop basing votes on "race, guns, God and gays"

I do believe we need to court that vote, but I don't know if Dean is going about it the right way.

 

BJ, I'm not arguing with you about this, I'm just saying the way Dean is doing it could cost him more votes than he expects to gain. I agree with you, but saying outloud "the south needs to stop basing there votes on religion, gays, race, and guns" is condescending. It's like he's telling people in the South they are too dumb to know how to vote the way that helps them the most (let's not get into whether that is true of the average voter or not). Just put yourself in their shoes, if a Republican tried to court your vote by telling you that you need to stop thinking about issues that you do because they are wrong, would you really be convinced? All I'm talking about is strategy.

 

Well put. Talking down to someone, as I interpret him to be doing, is not going to sit well with Southerners. The political landscape in the South, once the Solid South, is now solidly Republican because most felt that the Democrats went to far to the left. Since most people in the South believe in low taxes, less government, etc, the left message of "raise taxes, more social programs" doesn't sit well here.

 

Although I still have not made up my mind yet about Dean, I must say, it is refreshing to see someone actually say what they believe instead of pandering to lowest common denominator.

Instead of a slander campaign of fear questioning someone's patriotism, sexuality or race (as we've seen recently by some), here is a candidate that actually wants to have a serious dialogue on how to unite (remember that word?) disenfranchised voters of the south.

 

freaking yankee!

 

Howard's condescending tone and stereotyping of all Southerners as being politically unsophisticated is beyond insulting. He knows that he will do very poorly in the South, so at this point, he has nothing to lose. He's going to the extreme, because even if it doesn't work, then he is no worse off than today. The problem is that other undecideds around the country will see these remarks and characterize Dean as an angry, arrogant elitist -- which he most certainly is. At this stage in the process, Dean would be well served to not make these types of incendiary remarks, especially considering his apology for his support for the Confederacy yesterday.

 

agreed...i don't think it's ever a good thing to come across as a condescending jackass.

 

Yup, we're all jest a bunch o' rednecks down hair in the south. We don't know nutin 'bout nutin no how. *spit*

 

that reminds me...remember when clayton williams ran for governor and said he didn't have to worry about the black vote because they'd all be out fishing??

how freaking stupid was that??? see where being a condescending jackass gets ya?? that guy had a huge lead in the polls at the time, but get his ass handed to him on election day.

 

Of course, that's a completely different statement.

He's not stereotyping all Southerners. He's simply reaching out to a group of Southerners that tends to vote Republican because of social issues when he believes they'd be better off voting Democratic for their own personal fiscal situation. All candidates tell voters how they should vote, it's just that this one isn't ignoring a group that never votes for his party. He's simply pointing out why they should. I applaud him.

 

Al Hunt in the WSJ today has a good commentary about the Dean electability issue. the fear among non-washington party pros appears to be that Dean comes off as "inexperienced, angry, and pessimistic." that latter two qualities could define the entire democratic field. it seems that with his condescending attitudes towards southerners in general (typical of the entire northeast- i've lived here for 20 years and it's amazing how many people feel this way), and his comments about castro, he's written off florida before the general election's even begun.

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB106808424069239100,00.html

--
The Doctor Is In, But Can He Win?

Howard Dean is riding high: his presidential campaign is the class of the Democratic field, he is expected to win the backing today of the nation's largest labor union and he could sew up the nomination with early wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But conversations this week with a dozen Democratic politicians around the country reveal a deep apprehension over Howard Dean in a general election. They see George W. Bush as increasingly vulnerable, but doubt the former Vermont governor is the antidote, given considerable underlying problems of his own.

These Democrats are, with a few exceptions, non-Washingtonians, uncommitted to any presidential candidate and most spoke on background to be more candid. Virtually every one dismissed the notion that "electability" will be a factor in the primaries.

The despondency over a Dean candidacy is not because of the "L" word. "I'm a little surprised Howard comes off as a liberal," says former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes, who is backing John Edwards, though he served as a fellow governor with Dr. Dean. "In fact he's a very moderate guy." And it's not the "I" word, his passionate opposition to the Iraqi war; even most of the Southerners suspect that's turning into a nightmare.

To alphabetize it, they say instead it is the "C" problems: culture and commander in chief. "Republicans will frame him as a little guy from a little state -- Ben and Jerry's is the biggest company -- who has no national security experience," says a Democrat from the industrial Midwest.

Dr. Dean's effort this week to curry favor with rednecks -- vowing to be the "candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks" was seen as awkward at best. And when attacked in a debate his refusal to back off seemed arrogant, while diminishing his effectiveness in the encounter.

But his culture problems start with civil unions for gays; Vermont, under Gov. Dean, was the first state to adopt such a measure. "That will be very difficult to overcome in this state," says Susan Westrom, the chair of the Kentucky Democratic Party.

It shouldn't be. The chief effect of Vermont's civil union statute was to grant spousal benefits to gay and lesbian partners. That's now the policy of most enlightened companies -- including the owners of this newspaper -- and more and more state and local governments. But the issue is red meat for the right wing. Dick Cheney has a gay daughter, but that would not deter political smears, which more than a few Democrats fear would resonate with culturally conservative voters.

But Dr. Dean may have difficulties connecting culturally in a broader sense, his sympathies with gun owners notwithstanding. He's aggressively secular, not eager to talk about personal faith. Indeed he left the Episcopal Church because it opposed a bike path in Burlington. (This still is not as good as when Newt Gingrich explained he didn't go to Sunday services because his church was gerrymandered out of his district.)

To be sure, ostentatiously religious politicians should be suspect; they are captured beautifully in an otherwise forgettable Chris Rock movie in which a pandering politician closes every speech with a "God bless America -- and nobody else." But where a Democratic candidate has to do better than last time -- Missouri, the Florida panhandle, West Virginia, Southern Ohio -- voters like to hear some God talk.

On commander in chief, credibility was a requisite during the Cold War and then largely irrelevant from 1992 through 2000. In the aftermath of September 11, it matters again. It may not be the biggest issue but it's an admission price to credibly compete.

The Iraqi war, and the Bush administration's dreadful mismanagement of it (see last weekend's New York Times Magazine piece), should benefit Dr. Dean, the most prominent critic of the Iraqi venture. Yet however Iraq evolves, it could be a lose-lose for Dr. Dean.

In the unlikely event that stability and a budding democracy are flourishing next fall, Dr. Dean will be discredited. But if it's a debacle, it will accentuate the need for stronger leadership and the national security credentials that he lacks.

"Karl Rove, with $200 million to spend, will scare people that Dean is someone without any experience or ability to deal with a crisis," worries Tim Hagan, a veteran Ohio Democrat.

The general election is still a year from this past Sunday and if Dr. Dean is the nominee, events -- and his growth as a candidate and financial war chest -- could reshape these dynamics. "We don't know if he has the ability to broaden his base," notes a top California Democrat. The endorsement of the politically powerful Service Employees International Union today would be a signal his support extends beyond disaffected Starbucks voters.

To be fair, not one of the other Democratic aspirants -- a shaky consensus is starting to emerge that Dick Gephardt is the most probable chief rival to Dr. Dean -- excites these party professionals. Thus while they see George W. Bush as beatable -- a calamity in Iraq and a jobless recovery -- they increasingly worry about the ability to tap someone who can beat him.

More than ideology or issues, there are three qualities voters look for would-be presidents to convey: competence, strength and optimism. Dr. Dean, these party professionals fear, instead exudes inexperience, anger and pessimism.

 

Dean is labelling Southerns as political simpletons who base their vote on "race, guns, God and gays". This just puts Howard's ignorance and lack of familiarity with the South on display for all to see. This is not 'reaching out', as you naively stated. It is called *insulting*.

 

it may be different...but it still comes across as condescending and arrogant. that's where the statements are similar...and that's what i meant in my comparison.

 

I can see how you think the Dean comment is condescending and arrogant. Williams' comment sounds plain racist to me.

 

maybe we're arguing semantics..but i'd say condescension and arrogance are at the very heart of racism.

 

I disagree. I'd imagine that if you polled poor, rural Southern voters, one would find that they vote for a candidate based on "race, guns, God and gays" more than they do on economic issues. That's just my guess, though.

 

I think that Dean is correct in thinking that many of the poor white voters in the south who vote for Republicans would be better served by the policies he advocates. I think the way that Dean went about trying to express that was clumsy, and could be taken wrong on many different levels by many different groups.

It wasn't a huge mistake, and I think it would be hilarious if the Republicans tried to challenge Dean on it. Much of the Republican constituancy was in favor of keeping the stars and bars as part of various state flags, if the Republicans want to start going anti-confederate flag in the general election let them try. Dean might pick up a lot of those votes he was talking about.

 

How ironic that this thread is going on at the same time the Confederate flag thread is going.

Some things never change.