link

This quote was all over talk radio today (at least I heard it was.

I found it on a couple of blogs through google.

Is this Howard Dean quote an accurate and acceptable dig at the Republican Party or is it an over the line, classless comment that he should be taken to task for?

Is this Howard Dean quote an accurate and acceptable dig at the Republican Party or is it an over the line, classless comment that he should be taken to task for?

Well, I definitely think it is classless, and I certainly think he should be taken to task for it. However, I do not feel it isn't completely inaccurate either.

The Republican party has a terrible time appealing to African Americans. Having lived in a mid sized city I found that my average neighbor supported the Democrats, be that neighbor: Gay, Straight, Black, Brown, Yellow, White, Poor, Affluent, etc, etc.

However, if you crafted discussions to avoid labels and focus on ideas something interesting was discovered.

The Majority of my Neighbors support getting tough on criminal sentencing and restricted insanity defenses.
The Majority of my neighbors support School Choice Initiatives
The Majority of my neighbors wanted less Government intrusion in their lives and wanted their taxes cut
The Majority of my neighbors were staunch supporters of Property Rights and Gun Ownership.

The Majority of my neighbors favored fiscal conservatism, long before it became fashionable for Democrats and yet the Majority of my neighbors voted Democrat, consistently.

One Key issue was Abortion
Another was homosexual rights (this was pre-same sex marriage)

However, the primary issue was the perception that all the Republicans were rich fat cats that only cared about themselves and their rich supporters. Trying to point out the same exists in nearly equal numbers in the Democratic Party usually fell on deaf ears. So did all other pro-Republican arguments (this was in my Republican days).

I never could quite understand why it seemed to be impossible for a Republican to be heard, let alone considered in the city.

Lets look at my cities last race for mayor.

The Democratic Candidate was pro business, pro redevelopment (even if eminent domain was needed) pro-public funding of a new football stadium, etc. He was also a wealthy businessman who had never known poverty. His big solution for the cities problems? Do whatever it takes, give away the store if you have to but get more and more businesses back into the city. Personally, compared to the GOP candidate he even looked more Republican. Short hair, stuffed shirt, etc.

The Republican candidate was an officer in a club called Metropolis. That clubs goal is to do pub crawls through the city with people who live out in the county to promote the city and entice people to move there. His big solution for the city? If we want more residents in the city, we need affordable housing and good schools. We have affordable housing but the schools are terrible. If schools turned around, new residents would be attracted, which would increase tax revenues that would pay for further improvements to schools. By slightly increasing taxes business now to improve the schools (which benefits business by improving the available pool of workers) we could get the ball rolling towards a health city resurgence. He was pro voucher, Pro gun ownership, Pro Choice, pro government reform and reduction, anti-stadium funding. He definitely looked more like a democrat then his opponent. Long hair, beard, almost never wore a tie, etc.

When the election results were in, the Democratic candidate for mayor had wiped the floor with the Republican candidate. The GOP candidate won less than 20% of the vote.

The Republican Candidate's views more closely represented the views of the residents (according to polls) and the Democrats view frequently opposed the desires of the local population. The Republican Candidate was a guy doing ok, who devoted alot of personal time to his pet cause of restoring the city to glory.
The Democratic Candidate was from an upper middleclass family and had never known poverty.

I never did quite figure out why the Republican message could not seem to penetrate the urban core. Then of course the Republicans Abandoned the majority of the message after gaining majority party status so I didn't bother defending them anymore.

Dean's comments were accurate, despite the fact that poll numbers for African American Families on the issues tend to lean just slightly, right of center. Regardless of political leanings the black communities voting numbers go overwhelmingly to the Democrat side.

If the Republicans ever do manage to capture just an even split of urban voters the Democrats might as well give up. For now however, the GOP seems to have no available inroads to the city voters, and their failure to act on instituting any of the various programs in the Republican platform that city voters support likely means they will see even less urban votes in the future.

Is this Howard Dean quote an accurate and acceptable dig at the Republican Party or is it an over the line, classless comment that he should be taken to task for?

It was a slam at the party of affluence (class-conscious), so it might have been tacky, but not "classless."

Dean has said some tacky things, but it would be a stretch to compare it to Trent Lott touting Strom Thurmond's segregationist platform of decades ago. Dean has also said some very good things about the fact that it is the Democrats who have consistently stood up for the dis- or less advantaged people in our society. Talk to any old-timey Republican who lived in the days of FDR who will tell you that Roosevelt with his socialistic Social Security program was going to ruin the country, except that the old person speaking probably has to depend upon that same program to have meals on a regular basis.

I think it is probably great sport for commentators and pundits to draw attention to Dean's utterances when they are less than 100% P.C. Wake me up when Dean starts talking glowingly about cross burnings or having women in America wear burkhas to douse the prurient attentions of males.

Is this Howard Dean quote an accurate and acceptable dig at the Republican Party or is it an over the line, classless comment that he should be taken to task for?



I don't think it's accurate at all. But then again, I'm one of those mean, old racist Republicans that hate everyone with an income under 6 figures, and even if they make that much and are a member of a minority, I probably hate them as well. But, that's ok, Howie hates me because I'm a Republican and I'm just going to have to live with that I guess. That's just Howie being Howie and I think conservatives can survive his occasional outbursts. I just wish I could do a good imitation of him so I could apply to be a member of the cast of Saturday Night Live. Someone's gonna make a whole lotta cash off him in the next few years.

It was a gaffe and he shouldn't have said it. But that is just him. I don't really see what the big deal is. I didn't think that Lott should have been lynched the way he was either.

Dean was simply making the point that Republicans have a difficult time attracting african americans to the party. Although, many are leaning more conservative these days based on some of the moral values issues. Republicans should take this opportunity to gain a greater af. amer. membership. As OS points out, many Blacks really do identify more with the Republican position on the issues.

Over the next 4 years, Dean will make blunders like that. The press will be waiting to pounce on whatever he says. But in the long run, I think people will just come to accept that he is outspoken and take him for who he is.

I guess it's ok to utter comments stereotyping entire groups, as long as the audience you are speaking to agrees...

Dean is a time bomb. This happened on his first day on the job as DNC Chair. His comments make it as though there are no black Republicans, which is hogwash. Stupid comments like this need to be exposed, since stereotyping the opposition is hardly intellectually honest.

Some Democrats (Dean included, apparently) cannot fathom that yes indeed the Republican Party wants to help all people...not just black people. They cannot fathom that alternative ideas might actually work. They prefer rhetoric to results. (Kindly point out where the Democrats have helped their largest constituency overcome the problems it faces...)

It was a Comedy Central bit, as opposed to actually supporting policy that hurts people of color -- which includes everyone who is not white, not just the black community. Might I point out that Hispanics turned out to be a deciding voting bloc in Colorado (Spanish for red, how ironic), one state that went from red to blue in the state legislature this last election season, and put a Demo Hispanic in the Senate?

I don't think it was a classless comment at all. Social/economic class associated with race was at the core of the joke, and a joke is only as good as it reflects reality.

Was it a sardonic joke? You bet. Funny? Only if you're Demo, maybe independent. Repubs aren't laughing. Did it reflect reality?

Not sure, but it seems odd to me how much President Bush wants to support illegal aliens coming to this country -- and possibly working in the hotel business because, as the line goes, citizens don't want these jobs.

Dean is a huge threat to the Repub power base. I think if the radio yapping dogs went over the top on the joke, this reflects the amount of fear that Demos are getting their chops together. Dean raises money -- and that's dangerous, not only in the money part but in the source of the money -- grass roots.

I imagine the grass roots include unionized hotel workers. Are these workers mostly of color? Haven't found stats on this yet, still looking.

It is an absolutely accurate and acceptable dig at the GOP. Why wouldn't it be? Does the truth really hurt?

overlandsailor is right in his analysis of how socially conservative many blacks are. However, when it comes to whom they actually vote for, blacks see the Democrats as still the party they are more attuned with politically.

And why not? Sorry Amlord, but Dean never said there weren't black Republicans. There just aren't very many prominent black Republicans who weren't appointed to their positions of power. Where exactly are the African-American governors, U.S. senators or representatives in this brave new world of Republican hegemony? Being a black Republican may get you noticed, but it doesn't seem to help much in getting you elected.

The truth of the matter is when you take Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Michael Powell, Rod Paige or Clarence Thomas off the table because they were appointed, not elected, it becomes difficult to name a black Republican of prominence.

Howard Dean may be poking at the GOP in a touchy area, but he didn't create the opening. The Republican Party did and only the Republican Party can close the gap between themselves and Black America.

IF they want to. I have my doubts...

Howard Dean will not be taken to task because Democrats give lip service to African-Americans. This has more to do with brainwashed African-Americans thinking that Democrats actually look out for their interests. Democrats are for Affirmative Action, which is discrimanatory, but as long as it discriminates against "Whitey" it's acceptable. We can all understand how two wrongs make a right. Democrats don't hold African-Americans accountable. They can foster as many children out of wedlock as they want and Democrats won't say a thing, because they will blame poverty in African-American communities on Republicans because Republicans do not want to raise minimun wage or increase taxes to fund social programs like Welfare. We can all understand how getting out of poverty is so much easier at $7 an hour than it is at $5.75, or increasing monthly benefits from $1,000 a month to $1,200 can turn you into Rockefeller. So no, there will not be any backlash, his supporters will claim Dean is "Telling it like it is."

I'm sure that Republicans are, on average, wealthier than democrats. What I find so infuriating is those in power on the Democratic side are often the uber-rich, white, largely Northeastern liberal. And when those people make comments like this it ought to make black people mad. They purport to speak for a group that they really don't know, understand, or care about. They just want their votes every four years.


Maybe someone from CO can help here, but Colorado sure doesn't mean "red" in Spanish. It actually means 'colored'... Maybe we should gather the hotel staff there and see what they think, as most of them speak Spanish. In fact, Dean is just showing how dated and out of touch he is - hotel staff are probably far more Hispanic than black by a large margin.

I appreciate your sharing a few race-baiting stereotypes, NeoCon30. Sure you didn't miss a few about playing basketball or eating friend chicken?

If your attitude is typical NeoCon30 of the majority of Republicans, it illustrates perfectly why African-Americans and Republicans have such a strained relationship.

Thanks for proving Howard Dean right.

What difference is there between being appointed versus being elected?

Can you hold it against potential black Conservative candidates that many in their own race see them as Uncle Toms or sell-outs to their race? These stereotypes are deeply entrenched, for whatever reason, and they have absolutely no bearing on who is Conservative (or Republican).

It's like asking: which came first: the chicken or the egg? Are there less blacks in the GOP because the GOP wants to exclude blacks or are blacks less likely to join the GOP due to stereotypes that have been placed upon the term "conservative"? There are real pressures put on black Republican candidates and yet you seem to blame those that are pariahed.

As OS pointed out, blacks tend to agree with Republicans in many areas and yet time and again will vote for a candidate that disagrees with them, simply because he has a (D) after his name on the ballot. There is an incorrect paradigm in play here, and I am not sure how to break it.

Are you trying to say that black candidates do not receive support from the GOP? That the GOP discriminates against them? What exactly are you trying to say?

Dean's dig at the Republicans is boorish and childish. He seems to want to re-inforce the stereotype that has been created by his own Party (with the help of the NAACP and other organizations) that Republicans hate blacks. It's bogus, flat out bogus.

Dean should be mildly rebuked but he won't be. What he said was crass and offensive, but he's the new Dem spokesperson so he will get plenty of slack.

His comment was quite revealing of his own prejudice. As such, the Dems should be wary. He really is a loose cannon and will do nothing but weaken his party, if that's possible.

Someone here said the Repubs should fear Dean. I agree. In fact, the entire country should fear him. He is quite capable of being the straw that breaks the back of the Dem party. And that is not a good thing for the USA.

The difference between being elected as opposed to being appointed is that an appointee doesn't campaign, doesn't go before the voters, doesn't have to stand in the fire and try to convince people he or she should be elected to public office.

I'm read this rap of yours Amlord that black Republicans candidates are ostracized by other black people and I don't buy it. I don't know what it's like for you in Cuyahoga County, but here in Franklin County there is no shortage of black Republicans running for office. Some win and some lose, but I've yet to see any of them say the reason they lost was because black people wouldn't vote for them.

IMHO, black voters are not predetermined to oppose black Republicans. They are predetermined to oppose black Republicans who offer nothing new, fresh or unique. Exhibit One: Mr. Alan Keyes meet Mr. Barack Osama.

The burden of electing black Republicans falls upon the Republican Party. Who else could it fall upon? If the GOP puts forth credible and qualified candidates whom happen to be African-American, can they sell that candidate to urban, rural and suburban voters? So far it seems they can, but only for two out of the three voting blocs. Why can't the GOP craft candidates who can woo black middle and working class voters?

The answer seems apparent to me. The GOP can win elections without urban voters. And they can't sell black conservatives to any of their core constituents with any degree of consistency.

Is that because urban blacks are brainwashed to vote only for Democrats? Is it because suburban and rural whites refuse to vote for a black candidate? Choose whatever generalization best suits you, Amlord.



From what I've seen, the GOP recruits, pays lip service to many of its black candidates and then abandons them. They don't receive the funding, the logistical and tactical support or the enthusiastic endorsement to carry them to victory. Here in Ohio, there is a possibility that next year two black men (Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell and Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman) will face off to become the next governor. In the case of Blackwell, he is clearly far more conservative than either of his two white challengers for the party's nomination. However, because Blackwell has ticked off so many of the party's elders with his aggressive tactics to outflank his rivals, they may not fully get behind his campaign.

So while you blame brainwashed blacks for not voting black Republicans into office, I point the finger at reticent Republicans not supporting their candidates.



It's not a stereotype if it's true. Dean didn't say Republicans hate blacks. Show me where he does. What he said is the Republicans aren't very diverse or inclusive and that is the case.

This would be a lovely opportunity for the GOP to engage in a little self-criticism, figure out where the disconnect is between the conservatism that Republicans and many blacks share and act upon it. The best way to put the lie to Dean's quip is to prove it untrue. But if the unwillingness of Republicans to see a problem even exists is any indication that looking inward isn't going to happen anytime soon---if at all.

So fried chicken quips are ok if I can prove that they are based in fact? Of course they aren't. They are stereotypes. All stereotypes are based on some perception of facts. If they weren't, they wouldn't "stick".

Let's look at what Dean said:



Is this true?? Utterly false. Of course the RNC could fill a room with black conservatives, without using the "hotel staff".

You don't see the dig at the hotel staff? Of course you don't, a Democrat said it. That statement is a stereotype.

On the Republican side, I will admit that the RNC does not have a black caucus. I will not admit that Republicans shun blacks. I will admit that the GOP does not stand for special treatment of any group, including blacks. That refers to entitlements, quotas, affirmative action or whatever else.

For the rest of your comments, we can discuss your positions in a new thread that turnea opened. Black and Republicans

According to to the National Center for Health Statistics, unmarried women accounted for 68 percent of black births in 2002 compared to 43.4 percent for Hispanics and 22.9 percent for whites. In 1965, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks stood at 25 percent.

So, now we look at definitions.
Stereotype - A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
Fact - Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:

It is not a stereotype if it is factual. As badly as you want to believe that African-Americans are joined together hand in hand fighting against the stigma of racism and oppression it is not the case. They are hurting their chances at advancement with frivolous sexual behavior. You have heard the cliche, "The rich get richer and the poor get kids." Well, not only is that true in the United States, it is a global truth as well.

My attitude, which I'll define for you is this: Help yourself. You should look to the government for one thing: Less intervention. That is my attitude.

If anybody is stereotyping it is Dean. Basically saying that minorities can be found in positions of servitude, but since he's a Dem its OK, and he is helping them make more money. It is a mathematical certainty that $7 an hour is more $5.75. Thanks to Howard Dean and your beloved Democrats, now you can get a soda while you wait for your bus.

Let the games begin. It took Howard Dean what, 72 hours to make himself look like an idiot...Although I've got to say, that's better than his predecessor...Anyway, this comment, like the Trent Lott comment, is sure to be blown wayyyyyy out of proportion. Dean said something stupid [which is surprising, given his past], but it wasn't anything other than that, stupid. Likewise, Trent Lott said something stupid in an attempt to flatter a 100 year old at his birthday party. Both people said stupid things, however only one will have resigned as a result of it...

CP

Why I like Dean. Says what he means.


Oh C'mon Amlord. For every one of you in the GOP there are at least two of the Necon30 who will just prove Dean right. Like Nighttimer said



The republican party has IMO begun to move away from its Willie Horton politics yet if it refuses to face some of the specters of its past it will never gain the numbers from the black community--or the latinos it really needs to break away from the Dems and become the controlling party of the future.

If they fail to do so then Dean will begin to do wonders for the Dems and help them regain lost ground.

Got some hotel worker stats from this site:

Working for America Institute

For hotel workers of color, it breaks out as follows:


1979 - 32.6%
1989 - 37.8%
1995 - 40.5%
1999 - 45.8%
2000 - 45.7%

So I can conclude that Dean's humor does indeed reflect reality in that more hotel workers of color are employed in the hotel industry than in 1979, and slightly less in 2000 than 1999. No data for 2003, unfortunately. Think that'd be interesting.

There's some unwarranted conclusions here. If babies born out of wedlock would inevitably lead to poverty, than the Scandinavian countires such as Sweden or Norway would be one of the poorest in Europe since the institute of family is loosened there somewhat and a significant percent of babies are born out of wedlock (more than 50 percent I believe). Yet, they're the richest countries in Europe - significantly richer than some countries with strong family traditions such as Italy and Greece. I guess "frivolous sexual behavior" of Swedes and Norwegians doesn't hurt their chances in life that much, does it?

The Republicans have an agenda, low taxes, personal freedom, ownership society, national security. The Democrats have an angle, play the race card, the sex card, and to the conspiracy theorists paranoia.

Personal responsibility is the only guarantee you have in securing providence. Personal responsibility is the cornerstone of Republican ideology. Less taxes, less government, more freedom. Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail, but ultimately freedom.

Please answer these questions: What does proving Dean right mean? What exactly is his message about Republicans and Race?

What I understand by his comments is that Republicans do not want diversity. I will concede the Republican party is not as diverse as Democrats in ideology, (conservative/liberal, those labels are applicable to the parties) but you get it wrong when you talk about physical diversity. Republicans don't give a EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER what you look like. That's not a criteria for entrance into the party, it is the core values that are important to you that makes you a Republican.

Is this Howard Dean quote an accurate and acceptable dig at the Republican Party or is it an over the line, classless comment that he should be taken to task for?

Though it is somewhat cringe-worthy, it is fairly accurate, as has been pointed out. I don't think it is any more over the line or classless than Rumsfeld's telling the troops "you don't go to war with the army you want...etc" or Bush's ...oh, gee whiz, there are just too many to choose from... or Cheney saying "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" or Condi saying that Syria is "causing a big problem" or "so as a matter of common sense, the United States must be prepared to take action, when necessary, before threats have fully materialized."

No contest. At least Dean's comment has an element of truth to it.

I didn't know anyone can talk about Demo's "conspiracy theories" with a straight face - after Republican's Iraqi WMD fiasco and constant "we are at Third World War!" drumbeat. As for personal responsibility - it's only fair with a level playing field and if everyone begins at the same starting line with the same resources. Otherwise "freedom to fail" becomes the only available choice.

This isn't a thread for American Foreign Policy. Do you need a map to find out where you are?

Workers "of color"? I hate to be pedantic, and I really do appreciate you finding this info, but your conclusions are misleading. You added up the following to call Dean's statement reflective of reality.
Black - 15.2
Hispanic - 21.8
Other - 8.7
"of color" - 45.7

So, a whopping 15% of hotel workers are black, and Howard Dean's statement is accurate. Especially when blacks make up 12.9% of the US population. pdf link Not exactly an overwhelming majority of hotel staff vs. the general population ... is it.

I bet he was just thinking back to those nice Northeastern hotels he stayed at when he was going to Yale or whatever. "Can ah he'p you wit' yo baggage, Missah Dean, suh?' He's stuck in the 60's yet again.

I knew I was right when I said this:



edited to add
For those that didn't see the context of this original quote - he wasn't speaking to "colored" or Hispanic or Eskimos, he was speaking to the Democratic black caucus.

Psssst…Spanish majority are devout Christians, very poor hard working folks. They, like all humans in stress will follow the path easiest traveled. Neither party truly wants them with the exception of their votes. In all democracies you have groups of people that are either viewed by the majority as assets or debits. The Mexican, Puerto Rican and Cuban Americans fall into the same category as the Turks in Germany, votes that can decide an otherwise fairly equally divided election. Mexican illegal aliens (assets or debits you decide) however are considered as a blood drain to taxpayers of almost every state in the union. Like an expensive fishing boat you use every two years and pay and care for daily, a group of leapers with the power to elect a rich white guy and we are talking votes for sale. The majority party will either get them in their camp or pass legislation requiring presentation of proof of citizenship in order to vote in upcoming federal elections, remember the national ID drivers license going through congress?

The Dem’s didn’t have a money problem in the most recent election, the money was almost equal and only thing that caused loss was the message. The Dem’s are working on the message, they have an atheist funding religion for them, take a look at this article by Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition who will speak on ABC this weekend on the subject The Religious Left: Sock Puppets For Atheist George Soros? At link (think clean thoughts before clicking this propaganda link) http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2129

I think the problem with Dean will be the message too. He is great with the grass roots, money and motivation of the base but will the folks running for office be able to support all of the stupid stuff that falls out of his mouth? Message may go, so Presidential candidate do you agree with Howard Dean’s bla, bla, bla, when the candidate wants to focus on his or her message.

Come on now DaffyGirl...It has an element of truth in it? It's pretty classless as well. You can't tell me that if a Republican said something this...racially insensitive, Democrats wouldn't be up in arms calling for blood? This just doesn't seem consistant...I think that this is just as bad as Trent Lott's stupid comment [I don't think either one is particuarly bad, I think Conservatives will overreact to this, just as Liberals overreacted to Lott], and for the sake of consistancy, Democrats should be upsett at Dean...I won't hold my breath.

CP

The funny thing about statistics NeoCon30 is that they will testify for either side.

Reading from Debra Dickerson's book, The End of Blackness she quotes from the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

White high school students are seven times more likely than blacks to have used cocaine; eight times more likely to have smoked crack; ten times more likely to have used LSD; and seven times more likely to have used heroin. In fact, there are more white high school students who have used crystal methamphetamine (the most addictive drug on the streets) than there are black students who smoke cigarettes. What's more, white youth ages 12--17 are more likely to sell drugs: 34% more likely....White youth...are twice as likely to binge drink, and nearly twice as likely as blacks to drive drunk. And young white males are twice as likely to bring a weapon to school as are black males.

The face of drug addiction, drug distribution and drug consumption in America is that of white males. The face of most serial, spree and mass murderers is that of a white male. The face of the worst of the worst pedophiles, rapists, and child molesters is that of a white male. The face of history's worst murderers, polluters, perpetrators of incest, dictators, despots and evil is that of a white male.

So, you see NeoCon30, your statistics about out-of-wedlock births for blacks doesn't impress me much. You get yours and I'll get mine and we can bore each other.

We should take people to task for saying things that aren't true. No lies here. Move along.

I was reading Debra Dickerson's book but my pup Rottweiler ate it. So I never got to that quote from her. But from what I get you are trying to suggest that white people do bad things too. I'm not into casting stones, I'm interested in solving problems.

Education and income are directly related. Parental guidance is the penultimate variable in a child's education, second only to ambition. But the chances of success for a child are greatly reduced when the parent (singular) is too busy working to supervise the child(ren).

African-Americans are falling into the chasm of poverty. How do we keep that from happening? Well, if education and income are directly related then you would expect to increase the education among African-Americans, but that likely won't happen with absentee parenting.

Poverty is not a racial problem it is a class problem, but because the statistics of minorities in poverty are so high, it manifests itself as a racial problem. Whenever anybody, Bill Cosby is a perfect example, admonishes the black community, it is seen as racist or unjust criticism. I don't know why it is race-baiting or stereotyping to suggest that when have children you take care of them. And if you do, you'll increase their chance of success. Democrats like Dean will never say that.

Definition of Lip Service:
Verbal expression of agreement or allegiance, unsupported by real conviction or action; hypocritical respect

That's what Dean is doing, unless you really believe the former Governor/Doctor/Harvard grad feels the pain of the brotha's. Come 'on, the man doesn't know the difference between EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER. STOP CURSING AND BREAKING THE Rules. IF YOU DO THIS AGAIN YOU WILL BE ISSUED A STRIKE. and shizzle.

If that were in fact the Republican Agenda, I'd still be a Republican. But that's a story for another thread.



I find these statistics hard to believe...I don't think they've been normalized to population. I'm willing to bet that the odds of any individual black kid or white kid having tried coke aren't that far off of each other, certainly not 8 times. But, hey, I could be wrong.

Saying that statistics can be used to argue any side doesn't lessen the value of statistics for those who understand them--any form of argument can be used for either side - emotion, facts, anecdotes, etc.

African-Americans aren't slipping through the cracks of poverty any more than white people are (in fact, the majority of welfare recipients are white -- again, not by percent, but by raw numbers). There are quite a few well-off blacks.

A little humor now and then doesn't hurt letting us all know that we are human. Joking that the GOP doesn't have a lot of colored people is a far cry from saying that maintaining segregation would have saved us a lot of trouble.

I thought the same thing when I read this. I had heard good things about this book, but I questioned these stats. So...I looked it up and found a non-biased source, the cdc
Those numbers are right on - white students much more likely to use cocaine, pot, inhalants, binge drinking, tobacco. Interesting stuff. Maybe next time Dean has an all-white audience, he can say "bet the Republicans couldn't get this many parents of drug users in one room"

Debra Dickenson's statistics are both true and truly irrelevant. It is just an attempt by Nighttimer to make a case that 'Two Wrongs Make a Right.' African-Americans are still mired in poverty far more than whites. Do not give me this raw numbers argument either SW, that is misleading and you know it. Here is a breakdown that I hope can be understood:

If Dean's statement is correct and most people of color are to be found in occupations of servitude, such as a hotel staff employee, and Debra Dickenson's statistics about how whites do more drugs than blacks are true, then wouldn't that make sense to do drugs? Then you would be staying in a hotel instead of working in one.

Or maybe the drugs have absolutely nothing to do with this argument!

nighttimer was not making a case for “Two Wrongs Make a Right.” He was pointing out that statistics, including yours, can be manipulated to support almost anything. Apparently you missed his point.



Then please give us some raw numbers to debunk what SW’s raw numbers.



You seem to have a knack for condescension. I think we can all understand your argument. On the other hand, did you mean you hope you had written it clearly enough to be understood?

The black v. white drug usage isn’t the point of the argument as Dean used the term of identifying where the blacks are in the Repubs audience.

The point he was making is the Dems have the blacks in their pocket with the exception of a few misguided blacks that still have character to decide to support morals v. “we will save you” philosophy.

I worked with the Washington DC National Guard where all the guardsmen and women were black and got to know them quite well. The families, as Dean stated work in many lower level jobs and I mean jobs. They work very hard on several jobs but when the sun goes down in DC the town turns totally black with exception of Georgetown and the Whitehouse. People in position to effect change in education are as surely enslaved to the master as the black people were during slavery. Union black inner-city teachers are protected by the Dems and they are reminded the check comes regardless of performance along with a class full of students from parents that are either single, kids themselves, unable to assist with homework or working one of three jobs they work to make ends meet.

I watched in astonishment as the Senator from LA Landau argued against a test voucher program the Repubs proposed, which was offered above the normal DC budget. It was the undeniable stupidest argument I have ever witnessed, as she defended the failing teachers while rejecting a life raft at no cost to the DC residents to allow a possible education success. In DC if you would place success of two programs of school and sewage waste side by side with equal results the government would have to shut down from the stench and it is simply indefensible.

As the moms and dads go off to work in the US mint, Park Police, janitor service or security guard the kids are left to predators of drugs glorified by Hollywood. In my unit the morality was so low when summer camp training came due there would be fist fights over who was going to sleep with the single girls in the unit in field training and I’m talking from the top down, married or single men. My commander told me he thanks god for the guard because it got him off the street dealing drugs, the First Sergeant tells the men preparing for overseas deployment to German for REFORGER not to bring drugs with them, they will be able to get plenty in Holland when they get there in a meeting. He briefed the folks after I told him the soldiers would be subject to active duty law and customs would be checking the aircraft during departure and to be vigilant of the soldiers while in Germany and Holland because drugs are easy to acquire there.

My whole point is this, he was bragging that the Dems have been helping as the reason so many blacks were in his camp yet all of the problems are getting worse as each year passes with his party’s help. Yes, I have a hayseed nephew from Bear Wollar Holler in WV down the ridge from thirteen mile crick who is white and grows pot scattered over a thousand acres of forest to supplement his tire repair income but he doesn’t take advantage of twelve year old girls while their parents are at work nor solicit the boys to do anything; nor does he sell rap music about killing cops or aborting his girlfriend and he isn’t any white kids hero in the rural area where he lives. He has a wife and kids and goes to PTA meetings regularly demanding the best for his kid’s education and would kill anyone who placed his family in jeopardy. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t insist on any special recognition of his plight with poverty if he were caught with his weed on the way to market.

The problem is the inner city is broke, the Dems are taking credit for fixing it and blaming the Repubs for holding them back from doing it correctly yet there have been periods of Dems holding majority and they didn’t fix it so I say Dean should ask why should he be proud to say he has so many blacks in the room with such a poor party record?

Oh, so when you introduce non-related statistics, you're just verifying the validity of your subsequent stereotypical remarks. But when I do it...



...I'm quoting facts that are true, but "irrelevant." How precisely does that work,NeoCon30?



No, my point was not that "Two Wrongs Make a Right," NeoCon30. My point was that "Two Wrongs Don't Make It Right, But It Sure Makes It Even."

As I have said, we could start innumerable threads on this board about white pathology, criminality, anti-social and barbaric behavior, but by focusing on the ills that plague blacks, the dysfunctional behavior of whites goes unexamined.

Tossing off a casual statement that "African-Americans are still mired in poverty far more than whites" without any attempt made to put that declarative statement into some sort of context is intellectually barren.

Poverty rates remained unchanged for Hispanics, non-Hispanic Whites, and Blacks, although it rose for Whites and Asians.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03hi.html

The proclivity of the constant nyah-nyah-nyahing that comes from certain conservatives directed toward blacks in born not of a willingness to work with them to resolve the dilemma, but instead to hold blacks up a constant example of poverty, criminality and failure.

Howard Dean just called them on it. Don't hate the playa.

I just have to say that I think we have to take all these statistics seriously. We can't brush them off because they may support a stereotype. Both sets of statistics (from nighttimer and neocon) are accurate and tell us something. Are we listening? The nighttimer statistics scare the heck out of me-- because they are absolutely true. And they represent a reality that I must deal with as a mother of an 11 year old. As individuals we must take responsibility for our children and take heed of the warning that comes from these statistics. I would be just as wary if I were african american and faced with the statistic of the great percentage of out of wedlock births.

It serves no good purpose to ignore these statistics to make a point that they only support stereotypes. So what? They are what they are. We need to ask why they exist. And then do something about it.

Workers "of color"? I hate to be pedantic, and I really do appreciate you finding this info, but your conclusions are misleading. You added up the following to call Dean's statement reflective of reality.
Black - 15.2
Hispanic - 21.8
Other - 8.7
"of color" - 45.7

- Carlitoswhey



- See first post.

I really don't understand the objection to my conclusion. It seems to me that Carlitoswhey and others want to turn this into a black/white situation, something that by Dean's own words is simply untrue.

I stand by my conclusion and protest the attempt to plant words into Dean's mouth.

I do not need to give raw numbers to debunk SW. The raw numbers he proposed were misleading. His argument was that there are more white people on welfare than black people, but there also more white people than black people overall, so obviously there are going to be more white people on welfare, that is why percentages are the relevant statistic not total numbers.

Confusing Cause and Effect, Red Herring, and Two Wrongs Make a Right are three logical fallacies that you are using in your argument. 1. White drug usage has nothing to do with black poverty, cause and effect fallacy. 2. Therefore, white drug usage is a diversionary tactic, Red Herring. 3. And finally, just because white people do drugs, does not mean it is OK for black people to abondon their children and increase the probability of poverty.

How does focusing on the dysfunctional behavior of whites alleviate the problem of blacks in poverty? Red Herring.

My statistics addressed single parent families among races and specifically, African-Americans. It does not take much more than common sense to understand that raising a child or children is easier with two parents than with one parent. If you think, it is easier to raise a child with one parent as opposed to two parents, then by all means, try to make an argument.

This sounds like a 'two wrongs' argument, exactly what point are you trying to make?

My point is and has always been that when you introduced your statistics about black birth rates it had nothing, nada, zip, zero to do with the stated question of this thread which as you may recall was: Is this Howard Dean quote an accurate and acceptable dig at the Republican Party or is it an over the line, classless comment that he should be taken to task for?

For all your talk about "confusing cause and effect," "red herrings," "two wrongs make a right" "logical fallacies" and "diversionary tactics" you were the one who interjected apples into a debate about oranges.

Pardon me if I don't see the correlation between the birthrates of African-Americans and Howard Dean's quip about the lack of racial diversity in the GOP. If there a connection, I fail to see it. Perhaps you could explain it.

Irresponsible parents raise irresponsible children, irresponsible children work at Pizza Hut or mop floors at the Quickie Mart or change sheets at hotels or in a worst case scenario they wind up in prison. Guidance from parents will keep kids from having to work these jobs into their mid to late twenties thus ensuring poverty. I have to just stop and get an understanding of what your position is. Are you against responsible parenting? Or is it that you simply cannot brook a white man admonishing the black community?

What do you mean by central issue?

Dean stereotyped that people of color could be found in jobs of servitude. Does he have a plan to get them out of these jobs? Not that I know of. Education is your way out of poverty but since there are so many absentee parents in the black community the chances for success are greatly diminished. Democrats will never say that in order to succeed you need to be more responsible. The Republicans say that with their actions and how they vote.

I keep trying to point out that there is a direct relationship between poverty and education, there is also a direct relationship between poor parenting and poor education. What do you think a child is going to choose math or bike riding? Science or football? Reading or video games? Unless the parent is there to give guidance to the child, the child won't be diligent in their studies and thus lag behind everyone else, perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

You have dodged the basic question. Dean says people of color work poverty level jobs, like hotel staff, so then what is your solution for poverty in the black community? All I have heard from you on this question is crickets.

...and the generalizations just keep on coming.

RESPONSIBLE parents can raise RESPONSIBLE children and RESPONSIBILE children can work at Pizza Hut or the Quickie Mart or change sheets at hotel. So what? Something wrong with kids learning the value of work at entry-level jobs? And words like "responsible" and "irresponsible" are loaded words, but can often lose meaning in the real world. You can be "responsible," give your kids a good value system, feed them nutrious meals, expose them to good books, art and culture, teach them a love of religion, government and country and THEY CAN STILL SCREW IT ALL UP and end up strung out on drugs, engaging in sex before they are ready and producing unwanted babies, and waste away in prison or trapped in a downward spiral of dead-end jobs.

NONE of this is exclusive to race.



Not if the white man knows what he's talking about AND has some credibility with and understanding of the black community. If he doesn't and he thinks by virtue of his white skin it gives him a license to admonish people he knows squat about, then by all means he shouldn't miss a good opportunity to shut the hell up and worry about the problems plaguing his own community. Which doesn't mean he knows jack about those problems either, but at least within his presumed comfort zone the ignorance won't seem so pronounced.



The last time I looked the President's last name was Bush, not Dean. You'd be better served asking him what's HIS plan to get people of color out of service-economy jobs. After all, with all the jobs lost and never created in his first four years, Bush sure has put a lot of people IN the service economy. Yeah, Republicans say you have to be more responsible in order to succeed, then when you elect them they slash the safety net programs and all others that are designed to lift the poor and disadvantaged out of their present situation.

Which is a liitle bit like having your house catch on fire and when the Republican Fire Department shows up they tell you instead of coming up on ladders to get you out it will be better if you just jump for it. It builds character.



And all you're going to hear from me on this question, NeoCon30 is crickets. Because despite your persistent attempt to spin it into a discourse about birth rates and education neither one is germaine to the question originally posed by Eeyore.

As I noted above - he was speaking to the Democratic black caucus and he was speaking about blacks. I didn't put these words in Dean's mouth,the AP did.

"

Nighttimer do you know what probability and statistics are for? Of course there are exceptions to the rule. I could leave my kids in the woods to be raised by wolves and there is a possibility they could become the King of Rome, but that's not probable, it's just possible. There is a huge difference, a difference which you either cannot see or refuse to accept.

When the thread discusses stereotypical comments about people of color, then it is appropriate to discuss people of color, why they are stereotyped, and how that can change.

It is called 'No Child Left Behind.' You may not like it or think it a ruse, but it is a plan.

Safety net programs designed to lift the poor? Apparently, you do not know the concept of a safety net. A safety net catches people from falling, it has nothing to do with 'lifting.'




I am not suggesting birth rates and education are related, I am saying single parent families and education are related.

Here’s a start: put some alka seltzer in your mouth until nice and frothy, stand on a stage and have someone shock you every few minutes until you yell like a cat in a room full of rockers. And don’t forget the crazy eyes. (and remember, if you go any where with this I get 10% !!!)

Is this Howard Dean quote an accurate and acceptable dig at the Republican Party or is it an over the line, classless comment that he should be taken to task for?

While it's debatable that there might be an element of truth in there some where, I find his remarks completely classless. I cringed when he was named to his current position and I probably won’t come out of cringe position until he’s gone. The man is frightening and here’s example one.

In my mind the GOP has never looked so inviting as a target and I was really hoping for a chair that would use some tact while going on the offensive. Someone that would bring a bit of grace and dignity to the party, someone that would take the high road, at least on occasion.

Boy am I bummed.

As I noted above - he was speaking to the Democratic black caucus and he was speaking about blacks. I didn't put these words in Dean's mouth,the AP did.

- Carlitoswhey

Arf, that's funny too.

Dean never used the term "black," so how can anyone possibly claim that he did? "he was speaking about blacks" -- how so? Just because he was in the room? That's an assumption, not a statement of fact. Demonstrate where Dean's words indicate anything other than the inclusive "people of color" fact.

The burden of proof is out of my court, should anyone wish to continue trying to knock down my granite-like argument with wispy speculations.