Howard Dean Plays Race Card

[Dos Equis]

McCain campaign hits Dean comment
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor
August 15, 2008 08:26 PM

John McCain's campaign is making noise tonight about comments that Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean made today about the differences between the two political parties.

With a new Census report out Thursday projecting that white people will no longer make up a majority of Americans by 2042, eight years sooner than prior predictions, Dean said on NPR that the Democratic Party is already a no-majority party that welcomes minorities and gives opportunity.

"If you look at folks of color, even women, they're more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the Republican Party because we just give more opportunity to folks who are hardworking people who are immigrants and come from members of minority groups,” Dean said at one point.

Carly Fiorina, a McCain campaign co-chairwoman, responded in a statement: “It is disappointing to see Howard Dean trying to use gender and race to divide voters. His comments are insulting, inappropriate and have no place in this election.”

UPDATE: Stacie Paxton, a DNC spokeswoman, responded by saying of Dean, “He misspoke and corrected himself immediately.”

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/mccain_campaign_1.html

[240 is Back]

aside from him playing the race card, which he did here...

IMO the democratic party does more to help empower african-americans.  Bush cuts medicaid and headstart (which affect more black ppl than white people).  Obama will give more $ from rich back to poor, which are predominantly african-american.

The republican party, on the other hand had TWO black secretaries of state in Condi and the very respected Powell.  They might cut a lot of programs which help proportionately more african-americans, but they do promote based upon loyalty, not skin color.

[w8tlftr]

aside from him playing the race card, which he did here...

IMO the democratic party does more to help empower african-americans.  Bush cuts medicaid and headstart (which affect more black ppl than white people).  Obama will give more $ from rich back to poor, which are predominantly african-american.

The republican party, on the other hand had TWO black secretaries of state in Condi and the very respected Powell.  They might cut a lot of programs which help proportionately more african-americans, but they do promote based upon loyalty, not skin color.

I STRONGLY disagree with you.

You do not help anyone by continuing programs of dependence (welfare), treating them special (i.e. affirmative action and hate crime legislation), or by reopening the wounds of racism and segregation (for political gain). Tell me, 240, if the Democrats have done so much for the black community why are so many of them still poor and struggling in inner-cities? What about cities like Washington, Baltimore, or New Orleans? How long have the Democrats had total control of those cities? You'd think they would be a socialist utopias by now.

All those programs do is continue the cycle of poverty and sense of entitlement. IMO, this is why Asian, Indian, or Pakistani immigrants come to America and make something of themselves. No hand outs, no "the man owes me", just hard work and discipline.

And poor is poor. It doesn't care what color your skin is.

[240 is Back]

I STRONGLY disagree with you.

You do not help anyone by continuing programs of dependence (welfare), treating them special (i.e. affirmative action and hate crime legislation), or by reopening the wounds of racism and segregation (for political gain). Tell me, 240, if the Democrats have done so much for the black community why are so many of them still poor and struggling in inner-cities? What about cities like Washington, Baltimore, or New Orleans? How long have the Democrats had total control of those cities? You'd think they would be a socialist utopias by now.

All those programs do is continue the cycle of poverty and sense of entitlement. IMO, this is why Asian, Indian, or Pakistani immigrants come to America and make something of themselves. No hand outs, no "the man owes me", just hard work and discipline.

And poor is poor. It doesn't care what color your skin is.

Poor is poor, yes.  But a disproportionately number of minorities are poor.  I grew up poor, lived in cracktown then a trailer til I was 18.  I did enjoy the benefits of WIC and welfare when I was a kid, and some days it was the only thing that fed us.

is the welfare system screwed up?  Sure is.  They should cut off those lazy sluts at 2 kids (same amount of cash for 2 kids as 12) and they should drug/alcohol test every week.  If you smoke pot or drink, you lose your check for a year.  I'm in no way defending the way things are.

But, you have to realize there are legitimate needy people for social welfare program.  I sure as hell dont want to suppor tthem, but if you don't, our quality of life goes down as they resort to theft or armed robbery to eat.

I'm talking stats and numbers.  Bush hurt the poor, clinton helped them.  You can talk about local dem policy, but state and federal is where the $ comes from, and where the labor and educational infrastructure comes from. And where police resources come from.

Welfare sucks, and half of the people on it aren't deserving. 
Social security is flawed.  I know 4 scumbags who get a check for disability and work under the table.  I't s a load of crap, I agree there.

[w8tlftr]

Poor is poor, yes.  But a disproportionately number of minorities are poor.  I grew up poor, lived in cracktown then a trailer til I was 18.  I did enjoy the benefits of WIC and welfare when I was a kid, and some days it was the only thing that fed us.

is the welfare system screwed up?  Sure is.  They should cut off those lazy sluts at 2 kids (same amount of cash for 2 kids as 12) and they should drug/alcohol test every week.  If you smoke pot or drink, you lose your check for a year.  I'm in no way defending the way things are.

But, you have to realize there are legitimate needy people for social welfare program.  I sure as hell dont want to suppor tthem, but if you don't, our quality of life goes down as they resort to theft or armed robbery to eat.

I'm talking stats and numbers.  Bush hurt the poor, clinton helped them.  You can talk about local dem policy, but state and federal is where the $ comes from, and where the labor and educational infrastructure comes from. And where police resources come from.

Welfare sucks, and half of the people on it aren't deserving. 
Social security is flawed.  I know 4 scumbags who get a check for disability and work under the table.  I't s a load of crap, I agree there.

My wife grew up poor and I even lived in a trailer park at one time in my life too. Still, there is a difference between a hand out and a hand up. I have no problem with the government paying for job skills training and education. IMO, programs like that pay off in the long run because the more they earn the more they pay in taxes through purchases and income tax.

I fail to see your argument that the socialist that run the Democratic party have done more for minorities than the conservatives in the Republican party. Now, while I'm no fan of either even I can see that what the left is doing isn't helping.

Like I said before, if the Democrats do so much for blacks and other minorities why are they still disproportionately poor? Why aren't large cities with a large percentage of blacks (like Washington, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Detroit) socialist utopias?

[Dos Equis]

I agree.  Welfare is a safety net, but it does not empower people. 

[w8tlftr]

I agree.  Welfare is a safety net, but it does not empower people. 

Sure it does. It empowers socialist politicians.

I watched this happen up growing in Tucson and northern Maine and saw the same thing where my wife grew up in Georgia. Three completely different regions of the United States and of different cultures and skin colors. All the same dependencies on government "crack".

[Dos Equis]

Sure it does. It empowers socialist politicians.

I watched this happen growing in Tucson and northern Maine and saw the same thing where my wife grew up in Georgia. Three completely different regions of the United States and of different cultures and skin colors. All the same dependencies on government "crack".

I agree.  Doesn't empower the recipients.  Poverty is a vicious cycle and our welfare programs don't do enough to help break the cycle.  The focus is all wrong IMO. 

[OzmO]

Poverty often is a mental disease that some people won't ever get themselves out of.  there are a certain percentage who end up using welfare and social services temporarily until they get back on their feet.  however there is a great percentage that welfare becomes a way of life and sometime it continues to the next generation.

Our system is not set up to discourage continued usage.  Aside from it being mismanaged and misused, I bet we could spend less and do more if we reorganized it.

[Dos Equis]

Poverty often is a mental disease that some people won't ever get themselves out of.  there are a certain percentage who end up using welfare and social services temporarily until they get back on their feet.  however there is a great percentage that welfare becomes a way of life and sometime it continues to the next generation.

Our system is not set up to discourage continued usage.  Aside from it being mismanaged and misused, I bet we could spend less and do more if we reorganized it.

I agree.  Too many people on welfare are complacent and the kids fall right into that cycle. 

I could sit in a room with about 5 guys and come up with a better system in one day.