Dean: GOP a "white, Christian party"
 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/....ap/index.html

Mr. Dean....Howard...can I just call you insane senile geezer moron?

If you're saying the GOP is PRETTY MUCH a "white, christian" party, I'd like you to please look at the leaders and key people in your party and pleaee tell me what color skin and religion they are.

He is an embaresment to poloticians every where.

Oh, never Mind, Hell, they are all embarresing!:mad:

Delay does His best to be the biggest crook and now Sam Brownback from Kansas (:o ) is working on the stupid regimen!:eek:

Look for this snake oil salesman from Kansas to be running against Hillary in the future.

Once again no damn choice!:rolleyes:

Dean evidently is a black man with pagan beliefs since he is not in a white Christian party.

He was so black that "Russell Simmons, a loyal Democrat, met in Washington yesterday with Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, but not with Democratic Party chief Howard Dean. "When it comes to reaching out to poor people and minorities, I think there's no enthusiasm on Howard's part, while Ken shows a real willingness to listen," Simmons told me."

He was so in touch with Democrats that this is what fellow Democratic leaders said after his comments a few days ago:

Dean ''doesn't speak for me with that kind of rhetoric, and I don't think he speaks for the majority of Democrats," Joe Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday on ABC's ''This Week."

John Edwards said Dean ''is not the spokesman for the party."

Dean is ''a voice. I don't agree with it," Edwards, a former senator and the Democrats' vice-presidential nominee in 2004, said Saturday at a party fund-raising dinner in Nashville.

-Rudey

Eh, I still like Dean. He certainly keeps things interesting. Anyway, isn't the republican party something like 85% white and Christian?

I'm pretty sure it's about 85 percent white -- I don't have stats on the Christian part though.

A few people of color in high-profile spots (some of whom are clearly there to be the tokens) does not equal a diverse political party. Of course, that could be argued for most of the Democratic party as well.

I have to admit, I like Dean. If I were still a hard-core party person, I'd probably be behind him all the way. I mean, that "yee-haw" of excitement was, well, terribly exciting!

As it stands, though, he's one of the best things that ever happened to the Republican party.

That's what I was just thinking! :D

Re: Dean: GOP a "white, Christian party"
 

Cause its true.

BTW, how much is Russell Simmons worth? Of course hes gonna be republican.

He probably should have clarified his statement by adding, "made up of old white men" at the end.

Re: Re: Dean: GOP a "white, Christian party"
 

Stop it! You're interfering with the republican fantasy that they're actually diverse!

Re: Re: Re: Dean: GOP a "white, Christian party"
 

It reminds me of an anecdote on diversity from my undergrad days. Was at one of our regional conferences for the fraternity and there was a chapter there that was FULL OF THEMSELVES. All through the 90's they thought hey were the ISHT.

(I wont tell you which school it was, but it was a four year univeristy, that had Methodist in its name, was in the DFW area and claims Laura Bush as an alum.)

Anyway, one of the first breakout sessions was on diversity. My chapter had just gotten there. There was 7 of us: two white guys, a black guy, two mexicans, an asian and an iranian. A brother from the 'methodist' university got up to speak and said, "We're probably one of the most diverse chapters around. In fact, we even have a catholic."

Yeah. He said that. Kinda reminds me of the Republicans. "were diverse. We even have a few women and a mexican."

Re: Dean: GOP a "white, Christian party"
 

And using that logic, we understand why people insist on calling NPC/NIC orgs "WGLOs".

Exactly - which is why what Dean said didn't make sense. The leadership of the Democratic party doesn't exactly scream diversity either. There's no reason for either party (or its supporters) to take a high and mighty stance on the issue.

I'm not too upset about it either way; it's all just part of the rhetoric.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a Catholic going to a Methodist University somewhat akin to a Methodist going to Notre Dame? The analogy just doesn't hold as much water as you'd like.

You got that right!!

Re: Re: Re: Dean: GOP a "white, Christian party"
 

Love it.

Re: Re: Dean: GOP a "white, Christian party"
 

How is it true?

How much is Russell worth? I'm not sure. Are Democrat candidates poor now? By the way the words "a loyal Democrat" followed his name in my post.

-Rudey

Actually, Democrats are 90% liars, 86% intellectually inferior, and 100% of their candidates lost the last 2 presidential elections.

-Rudey
--Those stats were derived from the same place the other fake Republican statistic was pulled from

Republicans fake statistics? Say it isn't so!

No, DeltAlum, I was referring to the fake statistic thrown out by a non-Republican on here about the Republican party.

I'm sure it was obvious, but I am OK with clarifying that for you since Democrats often get confused.

-Rudey
--Is this all really necessary?

No, but it's funny.

Two interesting statistics I found while while looking for statistics on the religious and racial makeup of political parties . . .

Something around 25 percent of gays and lesbians voted for Bush in the recent election . . . but something like 25 percent of evangelical Christians voted for Kerry. Something strikes me as being very off about both fo those statistics (not that I don't believe they're true -- just that this once again proves that politics will never make any sense to me).


Anyway . . . let's assume we are to debate this topic further. Are we looking at party leaders or are we looking at party makeup as a whole? I think it's hilarious when people think that Condi and Colin (and now Barack Obama) prove that their political party is diverse, and furthermore, that that diversity leads to sensitivity and concern regarding race issues. Let's be reasonable here. That said, I think that issues surrounding race will continue to be ignored until we have a person of color as president, and ditto for religious issues and a non-Christian. (Religion is a trickier issue to pinpoint than race because it's less obvious, but did you realize that we have never had a president who wasn't, at least in name, Christian? And that only one of these was non-Protestant? [Kennedy.]) So clearly the leadership of the party is still important. So where does that put our Colins and Condis and Baracks? Tokens or truly important to the cause, or both?

Umm Barak is an elected official. He wasn't appointed to anything. He is not the same as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Elaine Chao, or Alberto Gonzales.

And it's just so funny how Democrat leaders have distanced themselves from what Dean said but people are on here trying to justify it.

-Rudey

How does elected versus appointed have anything to do with the fact that these are all influential people of color within their political parties who achieved their current level of success both in spite of and because of their race? Nobody can argue that both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were not appointed to their current positions at least in part because of their race. Bush knew he would be facing criticism about the "old white Christian men" nature of his apointees had he not, thus Colin and Condi and other appointees of color/women were a wise political decision on his part. (Not to mention the fact that they allowed him to appoint old white conservative Christian men to other positions because his opponents could not accurately pull the "He only appoints old white conservative Christian men to positions of power!" card.) Obama, while he is an elected official, has certainly been tokenized within the Democratic party.

Furthermore, Democratic leaders have distanced themselves from a lot of things that are true because they don't want to harm their political careers. As DeltAlum would say . . . that's politics. I would like you to find me the statistics that refute the fact that the GOP is a primarily white, Christian party. You won't find them. Why not? Because this is a primarily white, Christian country. Any political party that does not make race and religion a major part of its platform will probably end up a white, Christian party.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced that Dean is wrong -- my understanding is that the GOP IS primarily whiter and more Christian than the rest of this country, and that statistics would bear this out. However, I've been looking a little bit and found nothing one way or the other, so anybody who wants to prove me wrong or right on this one can feel free to post statistics, and in the meantime I'm off to work.



ps: The real question, to me, is whether or not Dean can legitimately offer anything better than the "white, Christian" political party he is denouncing. Unless he plans to overhaul the Democratic party, I kind of doubt he can.

A token is merely symbolic. Obama was elected. The DNC did not just put Obama out there because he is a token. That is ridiculous.

Do you have proof that they were appointed because of their race? That is also ridiculous too and you have no proof but supposedly you make this claim.

And now after someone else posts a fake statistic that you support, instead of offering proof (which you admit you can't), you say others should offer proof contrary.

Well how about this:

Democrats are 86% racist, 46% rapist, 96% thieves, 75% killers. Of course it's true. Of course you can't provide statistics otherwise.

-Rudey
--"It's funny"

Re: Re: Dean: GOP a "white, Christian party"
 

I say I'm in a white frat all the time.....but that's just to spite the Asians who call me white washed :D

Re: Re: Re: Dean: GOP a "white, Christian party"
 

You're right, after all, the Democratic party is simply full of non-whites at the highest level.

-RC
--I'll be willing to bet that the D's are 80+% Christian too . . . after all, the NATION is well over 80%, isn't it?

Here's a question that is slightly off the topic.

Can ethnicity (other than caucasion) help a candidate in a geographic area that doesn't match her/his racial/ethnic background?

Here's the case in point.

The present Denver mayor is a caucasion male -- we're going to disregard him for just that reason.

The previous mayor for several terms, Wellington Webb, is a black man.

The mayor before him for several terms, Federico Pena, is a hispanic male.

Both are Democrats. Webb is powerful in the party and Pena was in Clinton's cabinet.

The City of Denver demographics when both were elected were roughly:

7% African American
13% Hispanic
1% Native American
3% Asian
76% other -- mostly caucasion.

With those demos, why would Pena and Webb ever be elected? Does it fly in the face of the apparent assumption that "White Christians" (or white anything) will be presumed to vote for a white Christian?

Could it mean that many white people vote for a minority candidate to appear more "liberal" or non-prejudiced.

Or, could it mean that sometimes the electorate just votes for the best person?

(I live in a surburb and don't vote in Denver elections, but in my opinion, both Pena and Webb were outstanding mayors. I think the present mayor is also doing a really good job as well.)

Granted that Colorado politics can be a little strange. We have a "Bush Republican" governor in his second term and went for Bush in the recent election, but voted in a Democrat legislature majority (It had been Republican before the last election), and Democratic U.S. Senator and House of Representatives Hispanic brother team. The newly elected Senator replaced the only Native American U.S. Senator (who retired) who was a former Democrat, turned Republican a couple of terms ago.

Money.

-Rudey

DA, I could be wrong, but I think the white people who live in a city like Denver (i.e., me) tend to be more liberal and vote democratic. The odds of me voting for a republican are slim and his good friend none (I've only done so once that I can recall), regardless of anyone's color -- and I suspect most youngish, urban people have a similar mindset.

I'd be thrilled to correct you. Visit the campus and you'll understand what I am talking about. SMU is non-sectarian in its teachings. Most prodestant affilliated univeristies are that way. People dont go to SMU because they are Methodist. Just like people dont go to Trinity because they are presbyterian. I dont knwo if the same holds true for Notre Dame.

People go to SMU because they are rich. My comment wasnt a shot at SMU. It was a shot at my own chapter there. (But I'm sure they'll appreciate you getting their back and all.) They were not diverse and claimed to be (see the connection now?). With the makeup of SMU being 20% minority, they had no people of color in the chapter. I also dont tend to agree that catholics are a 'recognized minority' for the sake of diversity stats as these fellas were claiming.

Point is that they were an all white chapter claiming they were diverse bedcause they had a catholic. Thats BS. Just like your analogy was. An all white chapter at Notre Dame that had accepted a Methodist wouldnt be diverse either.

Ah, once again, someone comes to Earpspeak or typoing!:D Late Nite Bro?

I did not realize since I think 1958 that LXA was a White Fraternity. Oh, I think that was changed Then to accept Members of All Colors. Of course, I joined/Affiliated in 1967.

But, While I can only Speak for My Chapter for who has been Initiated. But I have ment Brothers from all over who arent Lily White!:cool:

While LXA was not the first to Start a Colony on a HBC, TKE and SP did but did not last for a lot of reasons. I am hopes that We will!:cool:

Now, I live in a Repuplican State except for the County I live In which is Dem.

It really doesnt make any difference, when they throw the Cloak on, they all become the same!:(

HAHAHAHA...When that question came up, I thought to myself...'the only religion that unifies all SMU kids is the Church of Daddy's Money.

I know someone from that chapter!

Re: Re: Re: Dean: GOP a "white, Christian party"
 

Heh. Maybe I'll start doing the same thing.

But wait, there are no black people in Vancouver to get upset about it, so it'd be kind of pointless.

Lots of liberals who want to "do the right thing"? Not to disparage the candidates' worth, but never underestimate the power of a bleeding heart (and for the record, my heart bleeds pretty profusely).

Your last sentence & paragraph said the same thing I did - trying rereading both of our statements without a jaundiced view.

And I used the generic Methodist, not SMU. Maybe I should have said Liberty College, since that gets so many liberals' panties twisted. The bottom line is what may be a minority at University A may not be a minority at University B.

I did reread. I stand by what I said. We said different things in those sentences. You implied that it was a minority thing, while I disagreed. Further, in a strict interpertation, catholics arent even a recognized 'minority' group by the federal governament. They arent subject to any 'protected' status. So legally speaking, they arent a minority.

But again, I was actually there, and saw the conversation I am referencing here. You werent. But thanks for jumping in and arguing about something you only heard second hand, about a chapter you've never visited on a campus youve never been to.

Liberty College dosent exist. I am assuming you meant Liberty University, which is a fundamentalist Baptist school. It ISNT non-sectarian in its teachings, and dosent have traditional greeks, so thats two bad analogies for you.