posted
In the debate last night there was much ado over Howard Dean's rhetoric concerning southerners with confederate flags on their pickup trucks.
Having been involved with this campaign for several months now, and having heard this mark a hundred times, I can tell you unequivocably that the only context it has ever been used for is to argue that a Northern Democrat, contrary to popular belief, could in fact do well in the southern states; because those guys with confederate flags on their pickup trucks, the ones that have been voting republican for the last 40 years, well, their kids don't have health insurance either.
Which gives Al Sharpton plenty of license to call Dean a bigot and too arrogant to admit that he's wrong. And then they all started jumping on the bandwagon. "I don't want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," Gephardt said in a statement. "I will win the Democratic nomination because I will be the candidate for guys with American flags in their pickup trucks."
What babyish crap. I hate it. And the thing I hate about it most is that I have my doubts that people are able to see this stuff for the petty name-calling that it is.
In related news, just to let you know what's coming down the pipe, our campaign is about to decide whether or not we're going to forgo federal matching funds for this election. Here's the pertinent text from this morning's email from the good doctor:
quote:Dear Caleb,
I am writing to place the most important decision of this campaign in your hands. We need to choose whether we will decline federal matching funds or accept them.
Our political system is drowning in a flood of large corporate interest money. The pens that sign the checks of the lobbyists in Washington are the same pens that write our legislation.
Oil corporations write energy laws in the Vice-President’s office. The pharmaceutical industry drafts our Medicare laws. Billions of dollars worth of contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan are awarded to Bush contributors. For the Republican primary election, even though he has no opponent, George Bush is raising $200 million from large corporate interests.
The Bush campaign is selling our democracy so they can crush their Democratic opponent.
We are building the only campaign that can stop this outrage. Our campaign has not been just talk about future reform, it has been the action of real reform. Through hundreds of thousands of donations averaging $77, the impossible is happening -- ordinary Americans are poised to overpower the largest mass of special interest money our nation has ever seen.
But soon our opportunity to compete dollar-for-dollar against George Bush’s army of special interests may be gone. If we accept federal matching funds, our spending will be capped at $45 million -- and the greatest grassroots movement in the history of presidential politics will be stopped from raising money almost immediately and will reach the spending limit well before the end of the primaries. We will not have any funding until the Democratic convention at the end of July.
I have always been committed to public financing. But the federal matching funds law, though it was meant to provide an incentive for ordinary Americans to participate in the funding of our elections, is doing the opposite of what it intended. It could end up punishing a movement that has raised more from ordinary Americans than any campaign in history, while rewarding the campaign that has blatantly abused both the spirit and intent of campaign finance, selling off piece after piece of our country.
This is how the Bush campaign believes they can defeat us. If we accept federal matching funds -- and the $45 million spending cap that goes with it--they will have a $155 million spending advantage against us. From March through August, they will be able to define and distort us, and we will have no way to defend ourselves.
We do have the option to go toe-to-toe with the big corporate donors of George Bush by getting 2 million Americans to give a hundred dollars each. By declining matching funds, we free ourselves to raise the money needed to defend ourselves during the crucial months from March through August against the attacks of George Bush and his special interest backers.
But let me be clear, if you decide to decline federal matching funds, it will require a significant commitment from all of us who have brought this campaign to this point. Declining matching funds means turning down almost 19 million dollars that the federal government would give to this campaign.
That means we will have to raise that money ourselves if we are to win the primary, beat George Bush, and take our country back. Declining federal money and funding a campaign with grassroots support has never been done before, and if you choose this option it will be a challenge -- but with your commitment, your dedication and your hard work, we can do it.
This decision is no longer mine to make. This is a campaign of the people, by the people and for the people. Your successful effort of raising a historic amount of money through small contributions has made this choice possible. This is why I am putting this decision in your hands.
I am asking you to vote on what kind of a campaign we will conduct from this point forward. No matter how well intentioned both our options are – the choice is difficult: do we choose option (a) to fund our campaign ourselves and decline matching funds, or do we choose option (b) and accept federal matching funds and the spending limits?
You will receive a ballot via email on Thursday and have until midnight Friday to vote. The results will be announced on Saturday.
The fate of this campaign rests in your hands, and I believe the future of our American democracy rests on your decision.
posted
Er...someone explain why Bush is allowed to raise so much more from corporations when the Democrats have a spending limit. At the moment I'm not up on my finance laws.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The importance of the second question is if you believe money wins elections or people do. If it is money, than perhaps we should just scrap voting and go for money raising as the new determiner of Democracy.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a very interesting situation. I would say that the campaign finance reform bill has been shown to be less than perfect. If the bill had not limited TV ads payed for by other groups, Dean could accept the Fed's money, then urge groups who endorse him to run ads. The unions will likely back him when the time comes, what with his protectionist trade ideas.
But he does seem to be toast, as far as hoping to raise as much money as GWB. I don't think that this will make a huge difference however, when it comes down to the final stretch, if Dean gets the nomination. With the ban on advertising within 60 days of the election by groups other than the candidates, Dean can save his cash for TV ads then, and rely upon others for earlier support.
Another idea to mull over is Dean's status as a media darling. He is well liked among most media circles, and will get plently of good coverage. You can expect the New York Times to come down heavily on his side, along with cnn and eventually the 3 big broadcast networks, when it gets closer to the election.
As far as the confederate flag thing, I think whether or not he is right, he should have known better than to say it. In this culture of absolute political correctness, there are words a candidate should never say, unless he/she is prepared for a fight, or talking about history. I personally have no problem with him saying what he did. Of course, I'm not going to vote for him anyways, but I don't think he said anything racist or insensitive. Expect Al Sharpton to stir up all sorts of trouble before this is over, and expect no one to ask him about Tawana Brawley.Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no fundraising limit, per se, aside from the one that limits individual contributors to no more than $2,000.
The limit comes into play if Dean chooses to accept--or if we the campaign decide to, rather-- Federal Matching funds. At that point he could raise no more money until after the Democratic nomination. Bush, of course, has no problem with this because he turned down the matching funds, so he's no longer eligible. And he did that because, obviously, he has no problems raising money.
quote: Bush is allowed to raise so much more from corporations when the Democrats have a spending limit. At the moment I'm not up on my finance laws.
The rules apply in an identical way to both parties. If Bush had decided to use federal matching funds, he would be capped at $45M(EDIT: cal- I didn't know Bush was not allowed the funds, but that sounds correct). Dean is trying to decide if he can raise enough money for the $45M cap would effect him, and if he thinks he can, then he will not accept the fed funds and be free to raise as much as he likes.
posted
Bush has chosen not to accept matching funds, which means he can receive as much money as he wants. If you accept matching funds -- which are designed to reward people who comply with certain restrictions -- you're bound by those funding restrictions.
Dean is saying that he won't be able to match Bush dollar for dollar if he accepts matching funds, but that he'll need a substantial pay-in from private donors if he doesn't.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bush is allowed to raise so much more from corporations
The Democrats -being in power for so long - came to rely on large donations from only a few givers. The campaign finance reform completely killed them.
The Republicans - being out of power so long (because big money follows power) - built up a grass-roots system. Those huge numbers are based on thousands and thousands of givers, who have been cultivated for years.
It's true. The McCain-Feingold law, which Republicans opposed out of principle and Democrats defended out of principle, is 100% advantageous to Republicans. The Democrats will need years to develop the infrastructure of popular monetary the Republicans have now. Dean's internet fundraising is the beginning of the catch-up race.
In a way, it's almost heartwarming. This is one of the few laws where lawmakers literally threw themselves on their swords in defense of principle.
The reason this sounds so counter-intuitive and the reason the party members voted as they did is because of the myths about each party and the need to soothe their ideological base. The ideological base of the Democrats is the "common people"; never mind that they got the vast majority of their money from only a few donors - people so rich they could afford to encourage others to give it away. The ideological base of the Republicans is the business population and those for less government regulation; never mind that the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law was the greatest thing to ever happen for current Republican politicians.
quote:Democrats knew that campaign-finance reform would cripple their fundraising ability—but they backed the idea anyway, largely on principle. Republicans knew that it would give their party an even bigger edge than it already had—but they staunchly opposed it, also largely on principle. The fate of McCain-Feingold ultimately rests with the Supreme Court. But principle has already cost the Democrats plenty
posted
It just shows that Dean has little grasp of who Southerners are, but he's happy to live with stereotypes.
Those guys who have voted Republican down here for so many years, were simply tired of being referred to as a bunch of hicks and racists. They didn't leave the Democratic party so much as they were driven out of it.
Of course, it's interesting to note that the only candidates the Dems have successfully run for president since Kennedy were all Southerners... of course, I don't remember Johnson with a Confederate flag during his efforts to get the Civil Rights movement accepted, or Carter's Rebel kepi being worn when he brokered the peace between Israel and Egypt. Maybe Clinton used to affect a Foghorn Leghorn accent while doing his dissertations at Oxford.
Just a bunch of Southern, inbred, good ol' boys. And the only successes the Dems have had in a looong time. Perhaps they should look a little more positively at the South.
posted
Sopwith, you've hit Dean's point on the nose. It's his contention that these voters whom the democrats have abandoned are ripe for the picking because they are hurting too.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Howard Dean said in the debates last night, while responding to Sen. Edwards:
quote: Because people who fly the Confederate flag — I think they are wrong, because I think the Confederate flag is a racist symbol. But I think there are a lot of poor people who fly that flag because the Republicans have been dividing us by race since 1968.
I have a lot less sympathy for Dean when he comes up with something like this. Republicans are why people fly the confederate flag? The south has previously been a fortress of democrat politics. Until recently, most southern states were dominated by democrats in the local governments, governorships, and federal positions. These are the people who did not change the state flags, these are the people who fought hardest against the civil rights movement.
posted
Yep, Caleb, they might be ripe for the picking, but Dean's already painted a pretty unflattering picture of these voters. Or does he not get it? To one half of the argument, the flag is racist, to the other half it isn't. Sadly, what he doesn't get, is how small a portion of the population actually cares about the old battle flag. He's looking for Dixiecrats, but he's going to find an electorate that doesn't like (or need) to be talked down to.
He's going to peter out completely as the primaries swing through the South. Sad to say, but I think the Dems are letting him run at the front of the pack early on as an attention grabber and then push through a stronger candidate later in the race.
Kerry has all of the punch and charm of Lurch from the Addams Family. Sharpton, who has matured greatly as a politician, is still viewed as a joke. Mosley-Braun is the best speaker and thinker of the bunch, but is sadly, pretty much unelectable. Lieberman can't shake the Casper Milktoast image and manages to inspire no one. Gephardt, a perrenial candidate just doesn't get it that he'll never hold the Oval office. Clark has a spotty record and a few skeletons in the closet. Kucinich (sp???) is probably a verifiable genius in how things should work, but let's face it, he's the nerdy kid at the back of the class who won't ever get a fair shake (and that's sad, he shows a lot of character and wisdom). Edwards, might be good, but he has a problem with making himself stand out on the stage, he's a bit too shy for what he's wanting to do. And lastly, Dean, while a heck of a fellow with a great record behind him, is appealing more to fringe groups and New Englanders; if he could break out of that, he'd stand a chance.
But honestly, the Dems had better have someone really break out during the primaries. Bush is still the man to beat, and his voter base is stronger than the Democrats are willing to admit. If they lob another cardboard personality at us come election time, expect Dubya Dubya II.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just curious... is Democratic the correct way to turn the noun Democrat into an adjective? I have used this form myself, but it seems as though the word "Democrat" is sufficient. Democrat party, democrat candidate, democrat problem. What do you grammar wranglers think?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I disagree with you that he's painted an unflattering picture of those voters.
First of all, we need to place his words in context. He would never have said anything about the confederate flag during a debate; the question was put to him as an attack. The times when he has said that he wants those votes were in front of, like you said, New Englanders. And it was during a time when no one believed Dean could stand a chance because there's no way a Yankee like him could take the South (please ignore the Civil War-like rhetoric--I don't mean to be insensitive towards African Americans or Southern Whites ). It was in an effort to dispel that myth that Dean was saying, more or less, "even THESE guys, which nobody would expect to vote democratic; I want to reach out to them too, because their kids don't have health care either". And they don't. The South has fewer people per capita with health insurance than anywhere else in the country. It was, in short, an attempt to reach across the boundaries that the confederate flag essentially stands for and pull people together for the common good. To recognize that we can all work together and make our country a better place.
And he was trying to dispel fears that his candidacy wasn't viable because people see the South as unattainable for a Northern Democrat. And mostly they are right, which is WHY Dean chose to be proactive about it.
The injustice here is the intellectual dishonesty of the other candidates grilling him over it as if he was, as Gephardt suggests, "pandering to people that go against the nature of our party". The insinuation that Dean was unable to be sensitive to racial issues was just an unfounded attack and I hope that they are ashamed of themselves for such a direct and purposeful misinterpretation of his sentiments. That's why I hate the Democratic party right now and I find myself wishing he were running on an independent ticket, even though I doubt it would make much difference.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, he was pandering to a people that don't really exist much anymore. If he wants to go South, then he's made a statement that brings up the disdain of Southerners. Their response is simple and straightforward, "You aren't from around here, are you?"
Or as Sen. Edwards so straightforwardly said it, "We don't want you coming here and tell us how we should be doing things." (paraphrased heavily).
Basically, Dean showed a weakness that many had worried about -- that he won't be able to connect with many folks outside of his region. It's his Achille's heel and if the other Dems don't go after it, Bush will.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He may have been talking to an New England audience, but even though he is right in his assertion - much of the South is poor and would benefit from social programs, so they are reachable - he did it in a manner that alienates those same people. /"We can get those rascist hicks' votes for our side!"/
I know he didn't mean it derogatively (to anyone), but I do think he's completely out of touch with the South if he ever thought saying that statement would be a good idea.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I hate the democratic party too, but thats just because I am a Republican. Before I was kindof undecided, but after our 100% democrat city council passed a measure to send an "Offical Notice of Displeasure" to the whitehouse, saying that Bloomington was against the war, though a poll shows that those people who actually live in Bloomington, IE not the students, actually support Bush and the war by about 15%. The sheer stupidity of this act by deocratic politicians drove me to the Republican side, after that I began to pay attention to politics as well. And know I am beginning to get a good feel for the political scene, and I am and forever will be a proud republican.
posted
Paul, why aren't you in this thread? I would be interested to see a dialogue between you and caleb.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, he was pandering to a people that don't really exist much anymore.
See, this is why I'm so upset about it. The fact is that he wasn't "pandering" to anyone. He wasn't trying to gain confederate votes. Look up pander in the dictionary and you'll realize that there's no way of interpreting what he's said to be pandering.
I do agree that using the phrase was unwise, in retrospect. His argument was that it was possible to get democratic votes out of an extremely conservative demographic if we were able to offer them a better America. There's no racism in that at all. He chose the confederate-flag sporting stereotype because it was sort of a catch-all for poor conservatives--keep in mind that to people who DO display the confederate flag, it is generally NOT to advertise their blatent racism.
And before all of this hubbub happened I actually thought it was a smart move. Heck, I don't live in the South; I live in Kansas City Missouri and I see trucks with confederate flags on them ALL THE TIME. But now that it's been miscronstrued to be something that it wasn't, I agree that he has ACCIDENTALLY shot himself in the foot on this one. I don't know exactly how bad the effects will be, if any, but I agree that it would be better if he hadn't have said it at all. It would be even better than that if the Democrats would argue about policies and philosophies rather than calling each other names and accusing each other of being racist. Give me a break.
Like that Gephardt quote: "The last thing we need in the South is some Northern Democrat telling us what to do". That has NO MEANING. It was tagged on to this issue of discrediting Dean in the South, but at no time--especially not with the confederate flag quip (and really, it was just a quip)--had Howard Dean tried to tell Southerners how to do ANYTHING.
In fact, Dean truly is the best Democratic for the South, because he's the only one really interested in restoring Rural America.
posted
Look, Caleb, it was a call to poor white trash. Who else would someone think of when they talk about the guys with the rebel flags on their trucks?
To so many people outside of this region, Southern and poor white trash are synonomous. What a sad and tragic thing to believe. It's right up there with thinking white Southerners keep one set of white sheets on their beds and a second set hanging in the closet. But hey, why knock a stereotype?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So when a study came out in 2000 saying that in much of the Great Plains rural workers don't even earn half of what people in metropolitan areas earn, those numbers told a story we already knew.
This is deliberately confusing. Have these numbers been adjusted for cost of living? The cost of a house in rural Iowa is less than half of that house in a suburban area of some of the biggest cities.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, Sopwith, you are right: it was a slip of the tongue stereotype. He shouldn't have said it.
But he was not pandering to them. That makes no sense. It's logically inconsistent to ask for someone's vote while insulting them. That was quite obviously not his intention.
Robespierre -
It's a speech, not a report. I don't even know what report he's talking about. I would IMAGINE that those costs would be taken into account, but I just can't factually answer that question. The point is, anyway, that none of the OTHER candidates have placed such a vital importance on strengthening and supporting our rural communities as has Howard Dean. It's been a main topic in many of his speeches.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All this does is strengthen my theory that Howard Dean is only good for polarizing and splitting people, and will therefor never win the presidency.
I am friends with a countless number of guys who drive trucks. I would guess about 1/4 of them have a confederate flag on the truck. I can tell you right now that regardless of what Dean meant to say, what he said will push them away from him. So, now we have a comment that not only makes some blacks believe that he is racist (I don't think he is, but many will) and makes those poor ignorant southerners like me that he was trying to reach out to dislike him. More division and weakening his own chances.
Quite frankly Caleb, I don't think what he said was inherently wrong. I don't believe that he meant it in a completely derogatory way. But his intentions no longer matter. Intentions don't count in a 15 second sound bite. So it comes down to a really really poor choice on his part. Most politicians know that the confederate flag is a hot spot that will offend people no matter which way you weigh in on it, and so they do the smart thing and avoid it.
It's all good for me, I want to vote for a democrat in this next election, but I don't believe I will be able to if it's Dean. So go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot buddy!
posted
I am willing to bet that if Dean stood up and said that he supported the flying of the confederate flag, he would gain a LOT Of sympathy from many southerners. Not to bring up the whole confederate flag issue again, but it's just a fact that many white southerners do not view it in the same way that blacks/black southerners do. From a purely vote-getting standpoint, it would gain him a lot of votes.
posted
It would be *very* interesting thread to discuss how race plays into politics and whether playing to 'the black' vote hinders or helps Democrats, and whether Republicans do, in fact pander to 'the white' vote, and how this factors into either party's rise and/or fall--keeping in mind, of course, that there are certainly people of all stripes who vote for both parties. But I'm not going to start it. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
). It was in an effort to dispel that myth that Dean was saying, more or less, "even THESE guys, which nobody would expect to vote democratic; I want to reach out to them too, because their kids don't have health care either". And they don't. The South has fewer people per capita with health insurance than anywhere else in the country. It was, in short, an attempt to reach across the boundaries that the confederate flag essentially stands for and pull people together for the common good. To recognize that we can all work together and make our country a better place.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
