Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind

I stand by my comments. Stereotyping, dividing and yes, dissing, people based on the color of their skin and their religious beliefs is always wrong. We, as Democrats, need to stand up to such bigotry. Did we learn nothing from Martin Luther King, Jr? Did we learn nothing from the California internment camps for Japanese during WWII?

Besides, Dean's job as DNC chair is not to preach to party of the existing Democratic choir. It is to build up paty memebership, which he will need to do by drawing in more moderates. He will never do that with crass, careless remarks like he made last week.

I agree and stand with Democrats Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and many more in saying that Howard Dean did not speak for me when he sneered his "white Christian" words.

Wait a minute, Deborah. Since when is the phrase "white Christian" dissing and dividing? I don't think there's anything wrong with being white, Christian, or both. Some of my best friends are white Christians. However, there IS something wrong with one of our only two viable political parties acting only in the interests of white Christians -- and only the most fanatical at that.

But equating Dean's comments with the California internment camps is, even by MY standards, way over the top. Actually, I congratulate you for that one. It's really hard to go over my top.

Last year the Democratic Party did a mighty job reaching out for the so-called moderates. Didn't do you guys a damn bit of good. Moderates clearly rejected the Democrats' attempt at being "Republican Light."

The problem I've had with the Democrats (my chosen party) since the November election has been that they've got all this ammo, but never really go for anything more than a flesh wound. It's like they're waiting to see how the public reacts to each scratch they deliver, never mind the fact that their indecision hurts the public's opinion of them.

It's a shame that Colin Powell isn't more active in politics, and isn't particularly a Democrat to begin with. They could really use his debate style of hammering you with evidence, over and over and over, until you have no choice but to concede his point. (That's what tricked so many of us into thinking Iraq had WMDs, after all...)

I would argue that it was NOT the "reaching out to moderates" that cost the Democrats so dearly last time but rather the "acting like crazy people" that turned so many off.

The fact that folks like Mike want to "purge" the party of those who do not, er, display suitable fealty to the principles of diversity and tolerance pretty much tells you where things are going. Would such an ideological cleansing really appeal to the large body of centrists out there?

Ironically, I think that Dean will be good for the party--when Hillary Clinton tosses him out on his ear she will get many points for opening up the party and taking it away from the extremists.

Mike, I'm with you 100%. Dean was blindsided by the Democrats of political expedience in 2004, and he's right about the Republicans. (Read more in the political science journal "DUH.") I'm especially amused when you receive comments that indicate that somehow Hillary Clinton is politically to the right of Dean, when she's probably more left than Dean; Dean's biggest problem is that he used to be pretty much a moderate, which seems to be what your opponents here are complaining he isn't.

Ultimately, we all lose so long as political pollsters and parties break up the electorate by race and religion.

Uhm, yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one Mike. No big shock, I know, but still...

Mike (Gold)-- you really gotta get past this fantasy
that the Dems are better than the Repubs. Once you
free your mind of the stereotypes, you'll be free to
understand that both parties suck. My fantasy is
someday they'll both decide to get their big fat
effing noses out of our business, quit stealing our
money, and stop churning out a thousand new laws every forty minutes.

As i say, a fantasy......

That being said, there's still no denying Dean's
got seven or eight screws loose......

One problem Dean has is that too much time in Vermont--as lily white and Christain as they come-has made hhim somewhat tone deaf. Otherwise he wouls have immediately seen how dopey it was for a White Christian Party Cahirman to set himself up for a critique from his opposite--a Jewish Republican.

"Purge"? "Quislings"? Gee, which party is still stuck in the cold war?

Yeah, I like the irony a lot. Dean's comments may not have been the most politically safe thing to say, but it's honest: the Republican party clearly represents white Christian concerns. And, as I said, there's nothing wrong with being a white Christian.

By the way, "Quisling" is a World War II reference. You'd know that if you watched more Looney Tunes -- which I highly recommend.

As for Nash's comment: yes, Dems are better than Repubs, right now. The past five years have proven that. But saying that does not make me a Democrat -- just ask Deborah White or Joe Lieberman -- and I'm not. I'm actually much more of the bomb-throwing anarchist type. The problem with Republicans and Libertarians is that the feel that anybody who disagrees with them is a Democrat. And that's just silly.

I'd love to see a viable third party candidate, as long as said candidate represents my points-of-view better than the other candidates. Most important, I'd love to see a system that allows for the POSSIBILITY of a viable third party candidate. But that's a different argument.

Now, Mike, I didn't accuse you of being a Democrat,
only of thinking they are better than Republicans.
If you mean anarchy in the sense of no central
government, I might be with you, although I can't figure out if ordered anarchy is any less a fantasy than benevolent communism.

"I can't figure out if ordered anarchy is any less a fantasy than benevolent communism." Yeah, sadly, I agree with you, there.

Sorry Mike, but the Dems aren't any better than the GOP. Frankly all they done is point fingers and blame Bush for everything, whether he's guilty or not. Bush, unlike Clinton, doesn't seem to be made of teflon due to a down economy.

Seriously, can you name a solution that ANYONE has offered for ANYTHING that varies much from what the Republicans have offered? Socil Security? No. Tax Reform? The current tax system is the Dems best friend, so gonnna have to say No there. Price of oil? Nope? Global warming? I hear lots of lip service, but Congress rejected the Kyoto Treaty under Clinton almost unanimuosly. Health Care? Heck, even a mostly Dem Congress in clinton's first term rejectd that one.

So the Dems will obstruct and blame, but someone needs to tell them to put up a viable alternative solution to the problems or just shut the hell up. THAT's why they aren't winning anything.

It's neither my place nor my desire to defend the Democratic Party. But what you say does not make them the same as the Republican administration. I do not believe Gore would have lied us into Iraq. I do not believe either Gore or Kerry would have pushed the Patriot Act down our throats or tortured prisoners of war, and I think I would have preferred their judicial appointments and their position on stem-cell research.

As long as Bush is twisting in the wind on that issue, the Dems won't propose any alternatives -- other than upping the retirement age, which is a valid cure for a non-existent crisis.

Not being a Republican or Democrat, it's not my desire or place to defend or condemn either party. However, as a citizen of the US I have to live in the country they govern so I am critical of the policies they govern by.

Do I have a problem with the Patriot Act? Sure. Do I believe Gore or Kerry would have pushed the Patriot Act down our thoats? Kerry maybe. That tree stump Gore? Frankly, I believe there would have been more attacks under his watch.

That you would prefer their judicial appointments to Bush's doesn't surprise me. I think most people would like to stack the courts with judges that will rule they way they want them to rather than to uphold the law as it is written. I oppose judicial legislation from the bench, whether it's conservative or liberal.

As for stem cell research, your statement, as I'm sure you're aware, mischaracterizes the administration's position. They don't oppose ADULT stem cell research. They are the first administration to even fund such research. what they DO oppose, and as far as I can tell there's been no defining study to prove them wrong, is EMBRYONIC stem cell research. So what it boils down to is the SOURCE of the stem cells. And Bush even ALLOWED research on existing lines of embryonic stem cells to continue. Points which, I guess being fair enough to mention while trying to demonize the opposition, doesn't allow.

"As for stem cell research, your statement, as I'm sure you're aware, mischaracterizes the administration's position" Funny you should mention it. That's my next blog.

Well as they say around here in the south, "I'm sure it'll be a hoot and a holler". Can't wait to read it. 8^)

> Actually, I think the Democratic position is that Social Security is a good thing, and should be kept as it is, with perhaps some minor tinkering.

The majority of Republicans in the US are White Christians.

The majority of Democrats in the US are White Christians.

The majority of Americans are White Christians.

Dean=Twit.

Twit? Twit?

Did you ever read the Constitution, you moron? Did you think those guys were high when they ratified it, thereby forming our nation?

Oh, and if you object to my calling you a moron, remember, what's good for the goose...

I wasn't arguing with your position on the founding fathers nor did I call you a "moron."

But I would ask you to remember that "you" are the type of person that is getting Republicans elected across the country by propogating your own false sterotypes at the top of your lungs. It seems as if you would prefer your party to only include people like yourself, who share your views. I might call that "bigoted" but who am I to call people names when their own words reveal their true character.