Where is the Outrage?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So, Howard Dean the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the voice of the Democratic Party says Republicans are all white christian men who look alike and talk alike and think alike and in other speech he said he doubted that any republican had ever earned an honest living. Where is the outrage? When Trent Lott made an off-hand comment about Srom Thurmond, the media had a lynch mob mentality and whipped up on Trent, who might have deserved it. But, if being called a white christian male is an insult, what is Dean's opinion of praise?

 

The man (Dean) is out of control, how long can the Democrats keep him before the choice is him or the party?

[DugNevius 10]

well, as a white christian male, are you outraged to be grouped with republicans? Honestly, its no different then the countless other politicians since the dawn of politics, and VP Dick Cheney has been spitting back all along. Also, its probably safe to say that MOST republicans are white and chirstian and the G W Bush republicans are becoming a seperate party then the republicans, how long can that course maintain before there is a division in the GOP?

[Eamonn 61]

Looking back at the UK and the Thatcher Years.

Maggie at times was unpopular, out of touch and seemed to be uncaring. Still she was elected to serve three terms, not because she was loved or even liked, but because at that time the Labour Party, Michael Foot and the lunatic left lacked real leadership and some Labour party members seemed to open mouth and insert foot. Much like the Democrats are doing now.Howard Dean, with the President slipping in the polls is the best thing that the Republicans have going for them at the moment.

Eamonn.

[johndaigler 10]

short version . . .

scorpion needs a ride across the river, convinces the frog with promises of good behavior, gets half way across, stings the frog, they both drown.

 

Can your really be surprised by, or angry at, the scorpion?

 

 

jd

[Rooster7 11]

So what are you saying? It's in Howard Dean's nature to act like an idiot? He can't help himself?

[Rooster7 11]

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Why did Trent Lott's comment generate so much juice and Howard Dean's isnt a blip?

[Rooster7 11]

OGE,

 

Just to clarify...my previous questions were in response to johndaigler's post (i.e. the scorpion stinging the frog).

 

As to your question - It's simply a double-standard that the media (yes, the liberal media) has been employing since the early seventies. They've made it their job to portray Republicans in the worst possible light. And more recently, they seem to turn a blind eye to even the most inane comments and actions made by liberals.

 

No offense, but are you just now realizing this?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OGE, I think your posts have a few factual problems:

 

1. He didn't say Republicans are "all" white Christian men.

 

2. Either in the same statement or one shortly thereafter, Dean pointed out that he himself is a white Christian male.

 

3. You say: Why did Trent Lott's comment generate so much juice and Howard Dean's isnt a blip? Not a blip? I have been hearing about it for days. I have heard it on right-wing talk radio, I have heard it on left-leaning "The Daily Show" (Comedy Central), I have now heard about it in this forum. That's a lot more than a blip. I have heard a lot of outrage.

 

Of course, his statement was silly. But most of the "outrage" lacks credibility, to me. It is just politics.

 

What Lott said about Strom Thurmond is in a whole other league. It was outrageous in light of the history of segregation and discrimination and all the other bad things that Strom Thurmond promoted. I don't think Howard Dean's comments hurt anybody. Let's face it, white Christians make up a majority not only of the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party as well.

 

Nevertheless, I do think Dean will be gone soon, because he can't seem to restrain his careless comments.

[Rooster7 11]

NJ,

 

Just out of curiousity...Do you feel the same sense of outrage when a Democratic congressman compliments Senator Byrd?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[packsaddle 753]

OGE, Are you saying you don't see the difference?

This is what Trent Lott said that got all the attention:

 

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

 

I suppose Trent's statement could have been related to Strom's support of environmental protection (not) or the way Thurmond worked with the Republicans in their quest for fiscal irresponsibility (possible). Alternatively is it possible that the statement implied,

1) that Mississippi supported Strom's segregationist stand and

2) Trent laments the civil rights movement and its success and attributes this to our failure to embrace Strom's racist views?

H'mmmm? Trent Lott evidently agreed with this interpretation because he apologized for it when the so-called 'liberals' and civil rights organizations objected.

 

The difference I see is that Dean spoke from honest conviction and is unapologetic. Lott hid his honest convictions until they slipped out during Thurmond's 100'th birthday party. And then Lott apologized, knowing he was 'toast' if he didn't. Which one represents a deception in their views?

Howard Dean will get precisely what he earns in politics. The same way Trent Lott did. And James Watt did before him. And Earl Butts did before him.

 

 

 

[DugNevius 10]

"As to your question - It's simply a double-standard that the media (yes, the liberal media) has been employing since the early seventies. They've made it their job to portray Republicans in the worst possible light. And more recently, they seem to turn a blind eye to even the most inane comments and actions made by liberals."

 

Lets be honest here, two words: Fox News.

 

Politicians in every party say and do stupid things and all the subjective medias decide how they want to spin it. remember, when you point your finger at someone you are pointing three back at yourself.

[johndaigler 10]

I wasn't being glib. I think we all have Howard Dean's number at this point. He's the loosest of cannons with the poorest of aims. What he says is loud, but impotent.

 

Dean is merely the Clown Act. The DNC, IMHO, chose a blustering war chief because it's movie star aged out and it's psuedo-intellectuals couldn't complete a truthful, sincere sentence. I don't think Dean get's taken seriously because people know why he's there. He's just a hockey goon out on the ice while the real skaters are taking a blow. The Dems are looking around for a contenda'. Hilary? Obama? I'm sure there's a Kennedy relative somewhere - a real one, not a Californian.

 

Lott and Thurmond are supposed to be serious gentlemen. I think the double standard is more about public perception than the conspiracy of the liberal media. Politicos are entertaining - and usually fairly easy targets. It doesn't matter which color tie they wear. WADR, "liberal media" comments crack me up. There are plenty of examples of the media dissing liberals and Dems and other silly people. I don't think it takes a great liberal media conspiracy to see the ease with which it's possible to take potshots at GWB, Dick Cheney, et al. And I believe, if you take an actual count of media outlets and their listener base, you'll find that the "liberal media" and its base audience are numerically outgunned by the "other side's" media conspiracies.

 

Dean's not worth worrying about - unless, of course, you're a Democrat. He represents the seriousness of that party's chaos.

 

jd

[johndaigler 10]

sorry, double post

 

jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

[SR540Beaver 116]

The Dems have Dean and the Repubs have DeLay. Let's call it even. Speaking of that evil left wing media, notice how all of the conservative talk show guys rant and rave about "liberal" PBS being run at taxpayer expense and wanting to shut it down? The truth is, most of PBS's operating budget is underwritten by big capitalist corporations and only a tiny fraction is taxpater dollars. Pick up your TV Guide and look at PBS's line up of programming. Their target is Bill Moyer's program called Now. It is a 30 minute program that runs one night a week and the guy is retiring. I guess someone with a wild imagination could consider Antique Roadshow or those reruns of Lawrence Welk as some sort of subversive liberal propaganda.....but they might want to get their head examined. Comparing Moyer's 30 minutes per week as an equal to Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity, O'Reilly, Snow, Tammy Bruce, Laura Ingraham, Savage, Jerry Doyle, etc. being on 3 hours per day, five days a week is just slightly over the top. I think they just might have the propaganda market locked up. Do what I do, watch Discovery or the History Channel and tune the radio to music. All of the media outrage is bad for my blood pressure.