Howard Dean: "The few Republicans who do an honest day's work are prostitutes."

Well, not exactly.

The bully boys over at Hatemonger's Quarterly prophesy what the embattled head of the Democratic National Committee will say next. Besides the above, other imagined bon mots include "Orlando, Florida is hotter than a Puerto Rican Ferrari" and "The only thing I hate more than closemindedness is people who disagree with my opinions."

Whole bit, which gets less funny as it goes on (only being honest) here.

Dean may be taking heat for his recent blabberings, but his entertainment value--the last thing we can demand from politics in this country, since substantive debate and liberatory medical policies seem off the table--is unparalleled.

Comments

[joe]

None of the corporate press-bots know what to do with a Democrat who doesn't act like he's a debutante ball.

"You were mean to Tom Delay. Aren't you sorry you were mean to Tom Delay, Mr. Dean?"

"No. Fuck Tom Delay."

"Uhhh...we'll be right back, after this ad from a corporation that gives a lot of money to Tom Delay."

[Brian]

You know that line about a "gaffe" being when a politician accidentally tells the truth?

Anything is an improvement over the usual mewling supine typical democrat gimp "waa, please stop hitting me . . . be nice . . . can't we get along?" (That's best done in a Strong Sad voice).

[Ruthless]

Dean understands that politics ain't bean bag, or, as bean bag is called in Sinincincinnati, corn hole--corn being cheaper than beans.

[joe]

Just clicked on the "Hatemongers" link.

And, keeping in mind that I'm somebody who talks politics with libertarians, reads HP Lovecraft, and works as a city planner...

What a dork.

BTW, Dr. Dean, it's not nice to refer to the Republican base as "White Christians." Apparently, at least one of those words is an insult. The preferred term, according to Laura Ingram and Fox News, is "normal people."

[SR]

What's hilarious about the "White Christians" flap is how various fundies and evangelicals are denouncing it at the same time they're bragging about how they vote overwhelmingly for Republicans. As usual, Joseph Farah leads the pack, with this article that sneers at Dean's comment while also containing the following observation:

The numbers were dramatic in Ohio, the state that ensured Bush's victory. Self-described white evangelical, born-again voters represented 25 percent of the Ohio electorate and supported Bush by a 76-24 margin.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44695

[Ben]

Is a "Puerto Rican Ferrari" a term for something else or is that meant to be taken literally?

[metalgrid]

Good for him. I like the guy even more now that he isn't being a submissive bitch like the rest of the democrats. Maybe he'll be instrumental in getting across the propaganda that some democrats have a backbone.

[David]

Ben,

The hotter means stolen, implying that's the only Ferrari that a Puerto Rican could afford.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

metalgrid:

Ditto. I've read that the Democratic status quo (DSQ) are wetting their pants about Dean's loud mouth. These assholes want to disguise themselves in "moderate" sheep clothing, ala Hillary. Don't rock the boat, Howard!

DSQ = Fucking hypocrits. Let you colors shine. I disagree with about 80% of what you truly believe, but don't try to hide it, and try to trick me into voting for you. That only pisses me off.

[duncan]

"No. Fuck Tom Delay."

I just got a flash in my head of Richard Pryor as a senator. Oh my god that would be incredible.

[Mo]

I love loud and angry Dean. The same people who complain about the Republicans being called the "White Christian" party, they call our whole damn country "a Christian nation founded on European ideals" (read: white, Christian." So STFU. What was funny about the hotel staff comment a few months ago is that everyone over at NRO was upset about the comment, except for Ramesh (the only non-white guy in the bunch). Go Dr. Dean, be honest and impolitic, it makes for cheap entertainment!

duncan,
One can only dream.

[Franklin Harris]

duncan,

That reminds me of why I want Charles Barkley to run for gov. of Alabama, which he used to threaten to do every now and again.

[joe]

Mo,

I'd forgotten about the busboy comment.

Apparently, when right wingers use the term "colorblind," they mean "you're not supposed to notice that stuff."

[thoreau]

I agree with Mo.

Dean is at least entertaining, which is more than you can say for most DNC or RNC chairs.

Hey, let's get RNC Chair Santorum! He's always good for entertaining comments!

[Mo]

You may get your wish throeau, he may be looking for a job soon. "The incumbent Republican [Santorum] now trails Democrat Bob Casey Jr. by a 44% to 37% margin in the 2006 Senate match-up"

[Anvilwyrm]

I think you are (willfully?) missing the point.

Many people are pissed because Dean said it in such a way to say that the Republicans are a party for ONLY white Christians. Others need not apply.

This is clearly false.

Would it be okay for a republican party leader (whoever that might be, not a republican) to say that democrats are all unemployed crack smoking atheists? Or to say (as many black leaders have) that if you vote for Democrats you are "not really white?" I doubt it.

That said, I really don't care *what* Dean says, though is does seem like a strategy which will alienate more people that it attracts, which can't be good for the Democrats.

[Anvilwyrm]

I guess we can now argue about whether Dean is a uniter or divider? 🙂

[SR]

"The incumbent Republican [Santorum] now trails Democrat Bob Casey Jr. by a 44% to 37% margin in the 2006 Senate match-up"

Why am I not holding my breath over a poll taken 17 months before the actual election?

[joe]

Anvilwyrm,

"White Christians" is the equivalent of "unemployed crack smoking atheists?" Really?

[Anvilwyrm]

Hmm, crack smoking is probably over the top.

But " white Christians" who "have never done a days work in their lives" maps nicely to "Unemployed Atheists" pretty well. Add that he "hates republicans" and we have a nice picture here. Should get just *gobs* of crossover voters.

The concept of saying "that other party is only for people who are totally unlike you" and using religion and race to try to make the point. is suspect whoever does it.

[Mark Borok]

The difference between calling the R's the party of White Christians and calling the D's the party of unemployed atheists is that the first statement is statistically true. At least according to what I've read recently. That is not to say that the Republicans haven't been reaching out to minorities and non-Christians.

His earlier comment that Republicans don't work for a living was unwise and unfair. He was referring to Republican voters, some of whom are the very people he should be trying to get to switch parties. Insulting them isn't going to do it.

[kwais]

I am always entertained by Dean. Where I dreaded a possible Kerry presidency, I believe he would have been many times worse than Clinton, and all the fucked up things that happened as a result would have been covered in lies.

I was wildly curious about the possibility of a man apparently not as bought and sold as everyone else.

Where I am somewhere in between Republican and Libertarian limbo, and I disagree with a lot about Dean,and what he stands for. I was mildly curious about a politician who appeared to say what he really believed.

[joe]

Crossover voters don't self-identify as Republicans. Anyone who gets offended by insults to Republicans isn't going to vote for the Democratic candidate. I got offended as hell when Newt Gringrich used to insult Democrats. You know what? I don't vote for Republicans. You know what else? Newt Gingrich took over Congress with that shtick.

"Never worked a day in their lives" is an obvious joke. Nobody actually thinks Howard Dean believes Republicans, on the whole, don't work for a living. Nobody with half a brain, anyway. It's an unfair, yet amusing, little dig.

"Pretty much a party of white Christians," on the other hand, was a serious statement, and has the virtue of being true. Sorry if Dr. Dean isn't "colorblind," but I like politicians who aren't blinded at all, thank you very much. If the GOP's lack of religious and ethnic diversity is an embarassment for them, maybe they should try to do something about it. We Dems are loud and proud about our party's demographic makeup.

[J1]

Ok. Let's rename the parties.

Repubs- The White Christian Party

Dem- The "We belive it is moral for the unproductive to live off the labor and capital of the productive, but since we have lots of minorities, that makes it OK" Party

Sound fair?

Both descriptions "have the virtue of being true"

[metalgrid]

Ok. Let's rename the parties.
Repubs- The White Christian Party
Dem- The "We belive it is moral for the unproductive to live off the labor and capital of the productive, but since we have lots of minorities, that makes it OK" Party
Sound fair?
Both descriptions "have the virtue of being true"

The problem with that is you can just move the "We belive it is moral for the unproductive to live off the labor and capital of the productive" part to the Republicans and it would be true as well.

The pragmatic choice at that point becomes:

Repubs- "We belive it is moral for the unproductive to live off the labor and capital of the productive and The White Christian Party"

Dem- The "We belive it is moral for the unproductive to live off the labor and capital of the productive, but since we have lots of minorities, that makes it OK" Party

So where does that leave us?

[scape]

I thought Dean's gig was to rattle his sabre and rally base Democrats and get the attention of those apathetic, independent, unsatisfied or crossover voters. It's the same thing he did before the last election. Then Gephardt, Hillary, Edwards and "electable" Democrats distance themselves from Dean by making respectable, centrist statements designed to appeal to the widest possible audience. Dean plays his position well.

[Mo]

If Kerry made it a close election, I think Dean would've mopped the floor with Bush. The American people actually like a guy that speaks his mind, no matter how nuts some of his comments are. Look at Ross Perot, he's completely, batshit insane (LP presidential candidate insane) and he got 30% of the vote, despite dropping out and coming back in.

[metalgrid]

If Kerry made it a close election, I think Dean would've mopped the floor with Bush. The American people actually like a guy that speaks his mind, no matter how nuts some of his comments are. Look at Ross Perot, he's completely, batshit insane (LP presidential candidate insane) and he got 30% of the vote, despite dropping out and coming back in.

This is why I'm hoping for a Ventura run in 08. Would be the first time in while I won't have to vote for the crazy LP guy.

[thoreau]

The only Democrat more entertaining than Dean in 2004 was Kucinich. He actually went on Leno's show where a few women competed to go on a date with him.

But the most entertaining Presidential candidate of the past 15 years was definitely Perot! Completly batshit insane, yet he had lots of charts and graphs and numbers.

Is it too late to bring him out of retirement and run him for President? I'd vote for a Perot-Dean ticket, just for the entertainment value!

[joe]

Well said, scape. Sort of like Norm MacDonald muttering "Mmmm. Bod Dole doesn't approve of that. Not at all. Heh Heh Heh" while Pat Buchanon gives Steve Forbes a wedgie.

Mo, "If Kerry made it a close election, I think Dean would've mopped the floor with Bush." Dean would have mopped the floor with Bush IF he had gotten within striking distance. Kerry only got the chance to bring it home because he was able to hang in there - you know, the electable thing. Bush tried, and failed, to bury Kerry early, and couldn't do it. He might have been able to bury Dean early, however - the press was already all over the "look at wacko Dean and his legion of freaks" story.

[mudfoot]

Dean's appealing to the angry yahoo element of people inclined to vote democratic.

Which is what swept the neo-fascons into power in 1994, except those were the angry yahoos inclined to vote republican.

[Stretch]

I love crazy Howie Dean. He's really only saying the things that so many liberals believe. Although there's a grain of truth in his words, he just keeps on going until he looks totally crazy, which he may be.

The bottom line is he's failing at his job. He's certainly not drumming up more support for the Dems and his fundraising has been abysmal. Sure, there's the side effect of making H-Rod and others look moderate, but if it's calculated I don't think Dean is in on it. He's a politician, and if things keep going like they are, the absolute best he could hope for in the future is a very minor presidential appointment. If he actually gets canned, then it's pretty much over for him. Of course, he could always get a job at MoveOn.

[Stretch]

As for the election, Dean would have had a better shot if he didn't go all whacky. He held some more conservative positions as governor and I think he really could have gotten a strong swing vote. I think Kerry was the worst candidate, and his campaign was run pathetically (which, depending on how conspiratorial you are, might have been semi-intentional).

The fact that Kerry got as many votes as he did shows exactly how much animosity there is for Bush.

[joe]

Dean isn't actually doing poorly at fund raising - the DNC lifers are spreading that meme, but he's actually raised more money this quarter than any other DNC chair has raised in the comparable quarter in the election cycle.

They keep pointing out that the DNC is got less money in Q1 - 05 than in Q1 - 04. Well, there isn't a presidential election eight months away.

[Stretch]

joe, point well taken, but it's not just about comparing him to his predecessors. The Republican finance machine is in overdrive, and while they're due to get some benefit from being the ones in power, the gap is impressive. We're talking 350% here, so he'd better do something if the Dems want to have their best shot at reclaiming some seats come 06.

[My Two Cents]

I don't think it's quite right to label the Republicans as the "White Christian" party. I think "The NeoCon" party is more accurate. Here, "NeoCon" means at least 3 things: Neo-Conservatives, who want to extend American hegemony around the world; Neo-Constantinians, who want to make their flavor of Christianity the de facto state religion (de jure, if they get the right judges in place, so they can ignore that pesky First Amendment); Neo-Conmen, such as the Enron bunch, who wish to use the state to further their personal wealth at the expense of customers, employees, shareholders, and anyone else; and the Neo-Confuddled (aka libertarians) who used to be clear thinkers but cannot see all the other NeoCons that have iron-grip control the party.

The Dems? They're the "Frozen in Amber" Party. FDR! JFK! LBJ! Guys, your glory days are more than 40 years in the past. Find a new message, or you'll be as irrelevant as the R's were from 1933-1981. Do you really want to be marginal players for 50 years? "Me Too" versions of Republicans, at best? You have to decide which is more important: the ends or the means. 'Cause right now, all I see are efforts to defend the means (various government programs) rather than a focus on the ends (reduced poverty, improved health, etc.) Focus on the ends, you stubborn asses! There are several ways to achieve the ends. Some of them don't require massive state programs. Find them!

[Morat]

Strech: Also bear in mind the DNC's fundraising took a massive hit from McCain-Feingold. In an off-year, it should have slaughtered the DNC's ability to raise funds. (Their off-year fund raising relied heavily on certain methods M-F hammered).

The fact that Dean is easily beating previous off-year records for fundraising -- despite the problems M-F introduced -- is a good sign.

The people bitching are the people who used to run the place. They weren't happy with the way Dean came in and took over, and they REALLY aren't happy that he's tossing money and authority to the various state parties. You can't tell for certain with these "anonymous sources" but I'd bet a hundred bucks the bulk of them are Democratic consultants who aren't going to have near the earning potential that they used to. (Among other things, state parties can hire local consultants, instead of having DNC picks -- usually heavily networked beltway retards -- forced on them).

Dean dried up a lot of the funds for these folks, and unlike the GOP they don't have quite the comfortable think-tank safety net. They're pissed because Dean took away quite a bit of power and money in the last three months. You should take their bitching with a huge grain of salt.

[thoreau]

"The few Republicans who do an honest day's work are prostitutes."

Given how much money there is to be made in adult entertainment, I've often wondered how prostitutes, porn stars, and people in similar jobs vote. Just going by social stances I'd assume that they vote Democrat. But I wonder if, say, a legal brothel owner in Nevada wants to vote for somebody who's going to raise taxes and make it easier for customers and employees to sue.

[Jeff]

Look, the Republicans have been successful turning "liberal" and "Democrat" into bad words by not giving a crap about hurting people's feelings. They know they will piss off the hardcore Dems who will never vote Republican anyway, and they don't care. Because they know that the people in the middle will think "hey, do I really want to be associated with a bunch of blame America first, tax-raising racial quota mongers?" I don't know if it will work, but if Dean can turn "Republican" into a word meaning "rich, elitist, fundamentalist asshole" then he will have done a very good thing for his party. And in the interest of getting our country back to a more even split, he will have done us all a favor. I think a libertarian's best hope in the near term is for the Democrats to get themselves off the mat and start slowing down the big government conservatives.

[Stevo Darkly]

I don't know if it will work, but if Dean can turn "Republican" into a word meaning "rich, elitist, fundamentalist asshole" then he will have done a very good thing for his party.

But the Democrats have been trying to do this very thing since the 1980s, with limited success.

[joe]

Steveo, I gotta disagree.

Mike Dukakis certainly did no such thing - remember, it's about competence not ideology?

Bill Clinton did no such thing.

Al Gore ran a positive technocratic/pseudo-rose garden campaign. And do you remember the Gore/Bradley campaign - what am I saying, of course you do! (Zzzzzzzz.....) Nobody was arguing who can take it to the Republicans more.

There really hasn't been a deliberate effort at the national level to smack down the Republicans before the 2004 election.

[StevO StevO StevO Darkly]

jeo --

If you mean no recent presidential candidates have been trying to say all Republicans are "rich, elitist fundamental assholes" ... maybe so. I was just thinking of what every pundit, columnist, comedian, or anyone else with a public megaphone who supports the Democrats, plus most Democrats I know personally, says about Republicans.

[joe]

Apologies, Stevo.

I, of all people, should be aware of such things, being particularly (case) sensitive myself.

[Stevo Darkly]

'Twas meant only as a gentle chiding, joe. 🙂

[thoreau]

We can come up with lots of examples where Democrats sneer at Republicans. But the bottom line is that the Republicans seem to have done a better job of making the Democrats embarassed. "Liberal Democrat" is perceived as a worse label than "Conservative Republican."

Republicans just sound bolder to me when they campaign. Yes, I know, they'll break those promises and they can waffle and spin with the best of them. But it just sounds like Republicans have a plan and they aren't ashamed of it.

It's hard for me to be precise about this or give good examples, because you can find loud-mouths and wafflers on both sides. But I just get the vibe that Republicans are bolder and less willing to compromise, while Democrats have accepted the inevitability of compromise before they even open their mouths, so their campaigning sounds less convincing.

Now, joe could spin that as A Good Thing ("See, my side is more open to compromise!") and certainly it has its pluses. But:

1) It isn't a plus on the campaign trail if it makes you look embarassed rather than reasonable. Being reasonable is a virtue, but being ashamed of your own platform isn't.

2) I don't think it reflects a reasonable approach so much as a recognition by Democrats that, for whatever reason, being liberal isn't popular. Yes, joe, I know, you can point to polls where the Democrats' positions on certain issues are (supposedly) more popular. The fact remains that the liberal package remains tainted. People might like the elements of it, but for one reason or another they don't like the way it was put together.

We can debate why that is and how to change it, but the bottom line is that Democrats campaign like people who perceive themselves as unpopular.

And so this thread connects to a point made in the thread about geeks as lovers: If when a guy approaches a woman he comes across as embarassed about himself, she won't find him attractive. And if Democrats come across as being embarassed about being liberal, they'll have a harder time on the campaign trail. It's nothing concrete, it's just the vibe that I get from Democrats.

[Stevo Darkly]

Dr. Thoreau, you may have led us to an insight. In any presidential campaign, it's easy to predict who will win. The guy who comes across more as an arrogant jerk (compared to the other guy) will always beat the guy who comes across as more of a nerd.

Certainly this holds true at least as far back as the beginning of my political consciousness.

Jimmy Carter: Smooth smiley jerk, at least compared to Gerald Ford
Gerald Ford: Nerd, even more so than Jimmy Carter

Reagan: Jerk (on account of his presence)
Jimmy Carter: Definitely a nerd

Reagan: Jerk
Mondale: Nerd

Bush1: Jerk
Dukakis: Nerd

Clinton: Jerk
Bush1: Nerd

Clinton: Jerkamundo
Dole: Nerd

Bush2: Jerk
Gore: Nerdissimo

Bush2: Jerk
Kerry: Nerd

It appears to be true back into history, as far as I know:

LBJ: Jerk
Goldwater: Nerd

JFK: Jerk
Nixon: Nerd

Eisenhower: Jerk
Adlai Stevenson: Nerd

Lincoln: Jerk (Mr. Charming)
Stephen Douglas: Nerd

Some things are constants:

Raph Nader: Nerd

Any Libertarian: Nerd

[thoreau]

Stevo-

Good point. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" sounds nice to us true believers, but fundamentally it's an apology. "Really, there's nothing wrong with my platform! Honest!"

Ever since 1994, Democrats have sounded like they're on the defensive (well, except Clinton, who won elections). That doesn't mean that the solution is to go on the attack. But it means that they have to learn how to walk tall and proud. Whether that means they exhibit pride in their current platform or get a new platform that they can be proud of, either way they need to be proud of what they stand for if they want to win.