Howard Dean...the gift that just keeps on..keeping on.

[dude1394]

THIS is what the democrats consider is a serious political chairman???? Dean can't even keep his judges straight. HUH!! Now bush is ALSO responsible for the liberals on the court. What a whack-job party.

deaniac

He also said the president was partly responsible for a recent Supreme Court decision involving eminent domain.

"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is," Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court.

Dean's reference to the "right-wing" court was also erroneous. The four justices who dissented in the Kelo vs. New London case included the three most conservative members of the court - Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the fourth dissenter.

The court's liberal coalition of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer combined with Justice Anthony Kennedy to form the majority opinion, allowing the city of New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to seize private properties for commercial development.

"We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only," Dean said.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Forgive me for being a bit technical, but Howard Dean is what psychologists refer to as a loony. I only wish to god that he would've been the nominee instead of Kerry. If Dean had gotten the nomination, Bush would've won in a landslide. It would've been compareable to Johnson/Goldwater and Nixon/McGovern.

[Drbio]

Great thread title dude.

Howard Dean really is a nutjob. I'm glad he's the face of the dimwit party.

[FishForLunch]

It does not matter if there is any thruth to his statements as long as he bashes the GOP or Bush and raise some $$$ for the Dems, people like Reeds and Mavdag will lap it up.

[dude1394]

Dean on the stump! redstaterant

[chumdawg]

I don't care for Dean's political views, but I like his politics. I'm getting pretty tired of the anonymous sort of fight-for-the-middle elections we've seen for the most part the last fifteen years or so. (Which, incidentally, is also among the biggest reasons I like Bush, even if I don't necessarily identify myself squarely among the core constituency he won the election with.)

And I agree with Spiral. Dean would have had his ass whipped beyong recognition. And really, that's the way it should have been. I hate that the Dems hold on to enough ground to make the next election winnable, if things fall their way.

[dude1394]

Dean joins the Al Sharpton/Jessie Jackson race hucksters. No thanks howard, that race dog doesn't bark any more.

Dean: Race Played a Role in Katrina Deaths

By DENISE KALETTE
Associated Press Writer

Race was a factor in the death toll from Hurricane Katrina, Howard Dean told members of the National Baptist Convention of America on Wednesday at the group's annual meeting.

Dean, chairman of the Democratic party, made the comments to the Baptists' Political and Social Justice Commission. The Baptist Convention, with an estimated 3.5 million members, is one of the largest black religious groups in the country.

"We must ... come to terms with the ugly truth that skin color, age and economics played a deadly role in who survived and who did not," Dean said.

[LRB]

Race was a factor in the death toll from Hurricane Katrina, Howard Dean told members of the National Baptist Convention of America on Wednesday at the group's annual meeting.

Is Dean saying that God is a racist? Who else has the power to create a Hurricane and direct it at areas with poor black people?

[madape]

I think the Ku Klux Klan, Neo Nazis and the like would agree with Dean. They would suggest that black people are more inclined to rape and kill when security is lax. They would suggest that the reason New Orleans' mayor allowed thousands to die on his watch was due to intellectual limitations of his primitive, ape-like race. They would suggest that the reason that the people didn't evacuate New Orleans is that the people of New Orleans are primarily black, and therefore incredibly stupid and incompetent.

I've heard racist idiots make these points on talk radios in Dallas. I'm sure they these types of opinions are more prevelant than we would like to beleiveI wonder if these are the real reasons Dean thinks race was a factor in Katrina. I wonder if Dean is the real racist here. He's already gone on record calling blacks "janitors",

This is a man who grew up in Vermont, who spent his Vietnam years skiing in Colorado. He's an Episcopalian. He's probably never had a close friend who's even half black. Hell, he's probably never talked to more than a dozen blacks, outside of his recent political panderings in Baptist churches across the country.

[dude1394]

That howard dean...he just can't keep from sticking his foot in his mouth.....

Farrakhan visits Charlotte's Katrina shelter, criticizes federal response

He had harsh words for FEMA too. But that was just the warm up. Farrakhan also shared his thoughts on how the levee breached in the first place.

"I heard from a very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry," Farrakhan said.

Oooppssss.. my bad...I always get race-hucksters confused. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif[/img]

[Drbio]

"I heard from a very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry," Farrakhan said.

This is one of the most ignorant and blatantly stupid quotes that I have ever seen. Can even Howard Dean and the other dims possibly give any credence to this lame line of thought?

holy cow.

[Mavdog]

Farakhan has expressed racist and anti-semetic comments before.

It ranks right up there with this:

The latest elected official to step into the swamp was Rep. Richard H. Baker, a 10-term Republican from Baton Rouge. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that he was overheard telling lobbyists: "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."

[Drbio]

If that is true, Baker should be flogged.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Farakhan has expressed racist and anti-semetic comments before.

It ranks right up there with this:

The latest elected official to step into the swamp was Rep. Richard H. Baker, a 10-term Republican from Baton Rouge. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that he was overheard telling lobbyists: "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."

The piece of crap, IMO, argument that your guy is just as bad if not worse than my guy so that makes what my guy did OK. That's BS either Farakhan's actions were right or wrong all on their own merit and have zero to do with any thing that Richard Baker may or may not have alledgedly done. Personally I don't see how Farakhan's statement could possibly be defended unless the report was constructed from whole clothe, but I'll entertain listening to explanation. But if said explanation is that the WSJ reported a rumor that a Republican representative had said something that sounded racist. But WSJ "quote" was 2 hand repitition of an overheard private conversation versus a 1st hand report of a public conversation from Farakhan.

However a 1st hand report of what Richard Baker said has a subtle difference in the wording, but one which causes a night and day difference in the meaning. Here's what Representative Bake gives as a 1st hand account of what was said, including context where it was said, unlike your report from the WSJ:

Link

Baker statement on public housing Friday, September 9, 2005
WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Richard Baker, R-Baton Rouge, released the following statement today in response to a quote attributed to him by the Wall Street Journal regarding New Orleans public housing:

“Today I am taken aback and perturbed by a comment wrongly attributed to me. For almost two decades I have fought for New Orleans public housing residents, touring Desire and other housing residences many times, conducting field hearings, and requesting HUD Inspector General investigations over the poor conditions. One of those inquiries concluded that the housing authority in New Orleans squandered hundreds of millions of dollars and that the families were forced to live in substandard, indecent conditions, and led to an actual takeover of the housing authority by federal authorities. With that as background, what I remember expressing, in a private conversation with a housing advocate and member of my staff, was that ‘we have been trying for decades to clean up New Orleans public housing to provide decent housing for residents, and now it looks like God is finally making us do it.’

“Obviously I have never expressed anything but the deepest concern about the suffering that this terrible catastrophe has caused for so many in our state, and my comment was a demonstration of my frustration over this unacceptable longstanding inability to improve the living conditions of New Orleans public housing residents. Since Katrina struck, I have visited thousands of New Orleans-area evacuees in relief centers in Baton Rouge and have arranged for federal agencies to visit them and provide them with assistance. And I have been working with area Congressmen, particularly Congressman Jefferson who represents so much of the hurricane-damaged area in question, to press for needed changes.

“The people in my district know that I led the effort to improve public housing in Old South Baton Rouge through obtaining an $18.6 million HOPE VI grant. Those who know me know that I am a champion of public housing residents and would never have meant them any offense. And those who know me also know that I will be a lead advocate for making sure Katrina victims have the best housing opportunities and options available going forward.”

[dude1394]

Sounds about right. Thanks LRB for defending this man (and also the parties) rep. If this had been said by a republican openly, he would have been roundly condemned by those same reppublicans. Farakan, Jessie Jackson, Sharpton and Dean however are race-hucksters who not only are not condemned by their party but supported.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

The piece of crap, IMO, argument that your guy is just as bad if not worse than my guy so that makes what my guy did OK. That's BS either Farakhan's actions were right or wrong all on their own merit and have zero to do with any thing that Richard Baker may or may not have alledgedly done. Personally I don't see how Farakhan's statement could possibly be defended unless the report was constructed from whole clothe, but I'll entertain listening to explanation. But if said explanation is that the WSJ reported a rumor that a Republican representative had said something that sounded racist. But WSJ "quote" was 2 hand repitition of an overheard private conversation versus a 1st hand report of a public conversation from Farakhan.

However a 1st hand report of what Richard Baker said has a subtle difference in the wording, but one which causes a night and day difference in the meaning. Here's what Representative Bake gives as a 1st hand account of what was said, including context where it was said, unlike your report from the WSJ:

the WSJ reporter stands by his story, which was what HE heard Baker say. It's not a "rumor" and not "2nd hand".

ironic that you rant about a fabricated attempt of "Farakhan's statement ... be defended" whan nobody is doing that, while at the same time you attempt to (as Baker tried to do when caught) defend Baker.

[LRB]

the WSJ reporter stands by his story, which was what HE heard Baker say. It's not a "rumor" and not "2nd hand".

Funny how you "forgot" to give a link, or at least copy the story other than giving your interpretation thereof. Then when responded to, you "add" "facts" not in evidence before. Even with a google search there isn't much info on this other than the WSJ reporting it, the quote itself, that the quote was "overheard" during a private conversation, eavesdropping???, that the WSJ reporter stands by the story, and that Representative Baker publicly and emphatically denies that said what the reporter says he said. Since we don't have a video and voice recording of this, at least there's I've found no mention of this, then it's a He said, he said thing. It's eveny possible that the reporter got the quote wrong by simple mistake or that Baker did say what the reporter said he said but meant what Baker said. But it really doesn't matter, because this is not the public position that Baker is taking, unlike Farrakan who apparently said his comment in a public press conference to TV cameras.

Link to Farrakan Quote

ironic that you rant about a fabricated attempt of "Farakhan's statement ... be defended" whan nobody is doing that, while at the same time you attempt to (as Baker tried to do when caught) defend Baker.

Wow it sure appeared like you were defending Farrakhan. So you admit that Farrakhan is a racial huckster who intentionally makes racially motivated and highly charged public statements?

while at the same time you attempt to (as Baker tried to do when caught) defend Baker

If Baker truely believes and preaches what he alledgedly said, then I think that he should be hung out to dry. However it's only one man's word against 2 (Baker and his staffer). I'm only giving the other side of the story which [sarcasm] you somehow in your infinite sense of fairness forgot to mention. [/sarcasm]

What is pathetic though is how you tried to put on the same level this private statement of Baker to that of the public statement of Farrakhan. Even if Bake meant every work the WSJ alledges that he said, he still said it in private and denied it in public. While it would be atroucious IMO for any one to hold such views in private, it still can't compare to those openly and blatantly preach those views in public with no apology and with the full intention of stirring up racial discord. Apparently you don't see any notable difference between the two, which only leads be to question if you give a damn about racial relations at all.

[kg_veteran]

Baker's explanation sounds pretty reasonable to me. Moreover, actions speak much louder than words, and it is Baker's actions which make it clear that the comment attributed to Baker was either a result of the reporter not hearing everything that was said, or worse, the reporter purposely distorting what was said.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Funny how you "forgot" to give a link, or at least copy the story other than giving your interpretation thereof. Then when responded to, you "add" "facts" not in evidence before. Even with a google search there isn't much info on this other than the WSJ reporting it, the quote itself, that the quote was "overheard" during a private conversation, eavesdropping???, that the WSJ reporter stands by the story, and that Representative Baker publicly and emphatically denies that said what the reporter says he said. Since we don't have a video and voice recording of this, at least there's I've found no mention of this, then it's a He said, he said thing. It's eveny possible that the reporter got the quote wrong by simple mistake or that Baker did say what the reporter said he said but meant what Baker said. But it really doesn't matter, because this is not the public position that Baker is taking, unlike Farrakan who apparently said his comment in a public press conference to TV cameras.

ah yes, impugn the reporter, attack the source. in this case it is one of the most repected newspapers in the country (the world?) who stands by their story.

at the least, Farrakhan has the guts to make his (absurd) claim in public, while baker says his in private and then does a backpeddle when caught.

Wow it sure appeared like you were defending Farrakhan. So you admit that Farrakhan is a racial huckster who intentionally makes racially motivated and highly charged public statements?

guess you missed the statement at top of my post.

If Baker truely believes and preaches what he alledgedly said, then I think that he should be hung out to dry. However it's only one man's word against 2 (Baker and his staffer). I'm only giving the other side of the story which [sarcasm] you somehow in your infinite sense of fairness forgot to mention. [/sarcasm]

then where is your criticism of baker, rather than your attempts of defending him? According to your logic, when someone is caught braking the law and they claim they are innocent, then they MUST be, in spite of eye witness who IDs them.

What is pathetic though is how you tried to put on the same level this private statement of Baker to that of the public statement of Farrakhan. Even if Bake meant every work the WSJ alledges that he said, he still said it in private and denied it in public. While it would be atroucious IMO for any one to hold such views in private, it still can't compare to those openly and blatantly preach those views in public with no apology and with the full intention of stirring up racial discord. Apparently you don't see any notable difference between the two, which only leads be to question if you give a damn about racial relations at all.

total disagreement. Baker's comments are more insidious due to his apparent duplicity. public servants who harbor racist opinions but hide them from the public are just as, if not more, threatening to our racial harmony than farakhan-like hucksters. at least ethey can be exposed for who they are.

your attempt to throw a knife at my caring about race relations is about as ridiculous as defending baker. of course, it clearly shows your strategy of when you ahve no defense, throw crap against the wall. and crap it is.

[LRB]

ah yes, impugn the reporter, attack the source.

No, I was just attacking your argument style, ie how you said it not what you said.

at the least, Farrakhan has the guts to make his (absurd) claim in public, while baker says his in private and then does a backpeddle when caught.

I wouldn't call making a racist statment a brave action, rather it seems pretty cowardly to me. I really don't give a rat's rearend what a politician says in private among friends as long as it doesn't carry over into his actions nor is meant as a degrading attack on the person who was addressed. And it's far from proven that he even said what he is alledged to have said. I definitely don't give a rat's rearend about how respected the WSJ is, they have human beings for reporters who make mistakes just like the next guy. The also have hidden agendas and political views that affect their work just like the next guy. We don't even know if this reporter, still haven't seen any corroboration that he was the one who overheard, overheard or had told to him by another the full context of the conversation. I'm seen absolutely no evidence that this statement is at all reflective of Baker's actions.

Oh but how hypocritical you are when you didn't even want to call for an investigation of Democratic Senators for denying confirmation of a federal judge in large part due to his race. In that case there was hard copy evidence in the form of dozens or more of memo's between said senators and other leftwing organizations. This was reported to a very respected paper, the Washington Post, who also stood by their story.

then where is your criticism of baker, rather than your attempts of defending him?

I see no reason to criticize Baker. I've seen no compelling proof that he's done any to criticize him for.

According to your logic, when someone is caught braking the law and they claim they are innocent, then they MUST be, in spite of eye witness who IDs them.

This has nothing to do with breaking the law. Baker isn't even accused of that, only of using an extremely poor and possibly offending choice of words. The witness who say he didn't are twice as many as the ones who say he did. The proof against bake is not even sufficient to bring a case to trial much less convict in any fair and unbiased court. The proof must be beyond any reasonable doubt. There is more proof that he didn't say and mean this than that he did. Ultimately, it appears only 3 people could know for sure and 2 say he didn't.

It seems that according to your logic that a person should be tried and convicted without any possible defense if a prominent newspaper says that he's guilty of breaking the law. Thank goodness our system of laws doesn't work that way.

total disagreement. Baker's comments are more insidious due to his apparent duplicity. public servants who harbor racist opinions but hide them from the public are just as, if not more, threatening to our racial harmony than farakhan-like hucksters. at least ethey can be exposed for who they are.

Oh so according to your logic, it is more insidious to have racist thought and admit such in private, but commit no racist actions than to harbor racist thought and publicly commit racist actions. [sarcasm] I'm sure all the people who've been killed by racist would agree with you. They'd much rather have someone kill them than privately think racist thoughts about them but publicly try and do right by them including supporting laws that would insure their safety. [/sarcasm]
[img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

Edit: But show me more and compelling proof that Baker made a racist statement or has committed racist actions and I'll reconsider whether I think there is enough to "prove him guilty" IMO.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
No, I was just attacking your argument style, ie how you said it not what you said.

really? here's what you said:"It's eveny possible that the reporter got the quote wrong by simple mistake or that Baker did say what the reporter said he said but meant what Baker said."

so according to you the reporter got it wrong....

I wouldn't call making a racist statment a brave action, rather it seems pretty cowardly to me. I really don't give a rat's rearend what a politician says in private among friends as long as it doesn't carry over into his actions nor is meant as a degrading attack on the person who was addressed. And it's far from proven that he even said what he is alledged to have said. I definitely don't give a rat's rearend about how respected the WSJ is, they have human beings for reporters who make mistakes just like the next guy. The also have hidden agendas and political views that affect their work just like the next guy. We don't even know if this reporter, still haven't seen any corroboration that he was the one who overheard, overheard or had told to him by another the full context of the conversation. I'm seen absolutely no evidence that this statement is at all reflective of Baker's actions.

still impugning the reporter (and the newspaper) I see.

Those who harbor prejudice, hide it with insincere public comments, only to secretly support racism in any form are despicable, especially if they are public servants. they hide their true thoughts in false outward expressions of congenialty and acceptance of others, they are untrustworthy and should be exposed for the charlatans they truly are.

Oh but how hypocritical you are when you didn't even want to call for an investigation of Democratic Senators for denying confirmation of a federal judge in large part due to his race. In that case there was hard copy evidence in the form of dozens or more of memo's between said senators and other leftwing organizations. This was reported to a very respected paper, the Washington Post, who also stood by their story.

those memos which (in that very Post story) have no attributable source? Yes, I would support an investigation on where they originated from.

According to your logic, when someone is caught braking the law and they claim they are innocent, then they MUST be, in spite of eye witness who IDs them.

This has nothing to do with breaking the law. Baker isn't even accused of that, only of using an extremely poor and possibly offending choice of words. The witness who say he didn't are twice as many as the ones who say he did. The proof against bake is not even sufficient to bring a case to trial much less convict in any fair and unbiased court. The proof must be beyond any reasonable doubt. There is more proof that he didn't say and mean this than that he did. Ultimately, it appears only 3 people could know for sure and 2 say he didn't. [/quote]

that analogy went right by you huh? too bad.

It seems that according to your logic that a person should be tried and convicted without any possible defense if a prominent newspaper says that he's guilty of breaking the law. Thank goodness our system of laws doesn't work that way.

no one is accusing Baker of breaking the law, just of harboring a discriminatory perspective. still missing the analogy huh?

Oh so according to your logic, it is more insidious to have racist thought and admit such in private, but commit no racist actions than to harbor racist thought and publicly commit racist actions. [sarcasm] I'm sure all the people who've been killed by racist would agree with you. They'd much rather have someone kill them than privately think racist thoughts about them but publicly try and do right by them including supporting laws that would insure their safety. [/sarcasm]
[img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

Edit: But show me more and compelling proof that Baker made a racist statement or has committed racist actions and I'll reconsider whether I think there is enough to "prove him guilty" IMO.

no, but a good attempt to misdirect.

a public servant who professes acceptance publically, only to harbor discrimination internally, is difficult to uncover. they hide their true beliefs and are able to use their position to clandestinely push programs that are not inclusive and that may have avenues for discrimination. they have used the public trust to possibly achieve their own self interested goals.

Those who publically express racism are easily identified and countered, they are still vermin. yet they are not deceitful and are not betraying the public's trust like the hidden racism above.

[kg_veteran]

It is pretty disappointing, Doc. I agree. It's particularly disappointing that Mavdog jumps to the conclusion that Baker is lying to cover his ass and that Mavdog is more concerned with insensitivity in private than actions in public.

I guess this quote from the story Mavdog initially quoted (but, as usual, failed to link) says it all:

These days it seems that no Republican remark is too small or ambiguous to trigger a Democratic mass mailing.


link

[LRB]

really? here's what you said:"It's eveny possible that the reporter got the quote wrong by simple mistake or that Baker did say what the reporter said he said but meant what Baker said."

so according to you the reporter got it wrong....

Oh I see that I had a typo in my post instead of "eveny" it should be "even" perhaps now you can comprehend the common English that I used, but I highly doubt it because it appears to me that you "fail" to comprehend on purpose. What I said was it's possible or in other words it's capable of being true while not contradicting the known facts. That is a far cry from a declarative that the reporter got it wrong which would imply that it's not capable of being false while not contradictinf the known facts.

still impugning the reporter (and the newspaper) I see.

If by impugning the reporter and/or the newspaper that I'm saying that they are human or run by humans in the case of the WSJ are are capable of making mistakes, then yes, by all means I am impugning them. I see no reason why they should be believed over Baker and his staffer with no other corroborating evidence. Is it possible that they are correct, I would agree to that. But I would say that it looks to be just as possible if not more so that they were not correct. Most likely we'll never know for sure one way or another. Lot's of vicious, nasty, and untrue rumors have been started over partially overheard conversations where the listener was not privy to the full context and may not have even known that they didn't have the full context since they were eavesdropping. I find it questionable to bandy about such a rumor, and that is really all it is, in such a national format. certainly the reporter has a great conflict of interest as does the journal not to report the version Baker claims if they had to choose between the two versions. What seems so laughable is that you seem to believe that there is no way that this reporters story could not be true. Good thing that he didn't say that you were a racist jerk or there wouldn't be any defense for you.

Those who harbor prejudice, hide it with insincere public comments, only to secretly support racism in any form are despicable

Holy wild jump in logic Batman!!! In what way has Baker been even accused of supporting racism. What action has he been accused of committing? All he's been accused of doing is making a statement that could be construed to be racist. If everyone who's made a similar type of statement in private in whatever context is secretely supporting racism, then 90% + of America, regardless of color, is probably doing so. Boy are we in one hell of mess according to you almost everyone is a racist.

those memos which (in that very Post story) have no attributable source? Yes, I would support an investigation on where they originated from.

On so you don't think that those allegations should be investigated, but that only the messenger should be investigated? Why, so the messenger can be shot? I think it's much more important to determine if race is becoming a major factor in determining fitness for jobs at the highest level of our government. If this was a private corporation, or a group of republicans you'd already have them convicted. But Democrats get a free pass from even being investigated about the truth of serious allegations to which there is some nontrivial evidence that they might indeed be true. But I guess for you there needs to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegations are true before even an investigation can be authorized.

that analogy went right by you huh? too bad.

I do have a problem understanding poorly written and worded analogies. Maybe if you did a better job.

no one is accusing Baker of breaking the law, just of harboring a discriminatory perspective. still missing the analogy huh?

there is a huge leap in logic here as well from going from alledgedly making a statement which could be construed as racially insensitive to "harboring a discriminatory perspective." Too bad you haven't posted anything to support that leap or was that on purpose? And see my statement above for the analogy.

a public servant who professes acceptance publically, only to harbor discrimination internally, is difficult to uncover. they hide their true beliefs and are able to use their position to clandestinely push programs that are not inclusive and that may have avenues for discrimination. they have used the public trust to possibly achieve their own self interested goals.

Talk about misdirection, your quote above is a perfect example of it. With all the totally unsupported conspiracy mumbojumbo you just spewed I'm surprised you didn't accuse Bake of shooting Kennedy and ML King Jr. as well. Even if Baker did make a racist statement, and that's far from proven, you've yet to show how making one racial statement in private means that Baker is secretly supporting hidden racist legislation. What is this secret legislation, and is it only visible if you have a wide liberal streak running down your middle? Or maybe it only appears when under the influence of narcotics?

Those who publically express racism are easily identified and countered, they are still vermin. yet they are not deceitful and are not betraying the public's trust like the hidden racism above.

So if the head of the NAACP makes public racial statements then there is no public trust being betrayed because why? The NAACP is by nature a racist organization? Or likewise if the head of the Democratic National Convention makes public racial statements there is no betrayal of trust because racism is a major plank in the Democratic Parties political platform? Or if a democrat US Senator makes a racial statement like say it's hard enough gettting those people to show up for work, much less get themo to evacuate, then there is no betrayal of public trust like it would be if they had said it in private? Boy, I'm sure glad I don't believe like you.

[Dooby]

Now I remember why I hate this place.

[Mavdog]

This is very illuminating. A republican representative makes a discriminatory, callous remark, and he’s defended to the nth degree. The reporter and his newspaper are questioned as to at the least their professional abilities and to the worst their integrity. Of course there’s no way to prove their abilities and integrity, it’s possible…..so HEY! They must be at fault.

Two people say the reporter wasn’t right. Those two people are Baker and his aide. Nevermind the reporter or the paper have no benefit from lying, while of course baker and his aide do.
No, Baler is at fault, he was looking at the tragedy and how it will shape the political landscape. How it effected what he and other republicans wanted, to rid themselves of the lower income black residents in the public housing projects of NOLA who rarely if ever voted republican.
'
Baker’s remark is certainly discriminatory. Is he a racist? We can’t answer. I never labeled him as a “racist” although the remark he made has racist connotations. I'd give to him, like I do to others, the benefit of the doubt and say he isn't racist.

But the discussion went beyond that.

First is the mention about hidden haters, those who don’t reveal their racism. A comment that I “am more concerned with insensitivity in private than actions in public.”
Ironic as I appear to be the only person who has expressed outrage at both, calling the later “vermin” and the former “insidious”.

How is a private organization like NAACP the same as a public servant? The rant about them is unintelligible.

Second, the issue of the “memos” of purported senate demo race discrimination that have appeared, memos that don’t have a source.
Another irony: the person most vocal in defending baker has already determined the dems mentioned in the memos are guilty. No evidence any of those memos came from any dem senator’s office, or the senators ever actually did anything the memo accuses them of, and there's no one who has stood forward in accusing someone, anyone, yet the senators mentioned are already deemed guilty.

Yes, where the memos originated from should be investigated. Once the source is verified, then the next step should be taken. If the senators did conspire to discriminate on the basis of race, expose them. If the memos were a dirty trick, expose that as well.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Dooby
Now I remember why I hate this place.

Mavdog does that to all of us.

[LRB]

This is very illuminating. A republican representative makes a discriminatory, callous remark, and he’s defended to the nth degree.

This is a completely disingenuous and duplicitous statement because it is based on facts not in evidence. Nowhere have you proven that Representative Baker made a disciminatory and callous remark. You have only repeated that you read where a reporter has alledged that the congressman made such statement. Yet you've provided no links, you have not written the full text of the article(s) pertaining to Baker, but instead have only given your interpretation of what you read. But still I can say I researched it and feel it highly credible that an article was written in the WSJ that made a statement at least similar to what you've reported although I haven't been able to find the text of the artilce. But you've done nothing to show that it would be nigh on impossible for either the WSJ or the reporter in question could have made an error whether intentionally or unintentionally which may have mischaracterized Rep. Baker's alledged statement. No it is possible that Rep. Baker said what the WSJ said he said and meant it in the context that you have repeated. But that is not the same as proving that he did do it, in fact it is a very long way from proving it. Even in a civil court where only a preponderance of the evidence is needed to decide a verdict you have not nearly come close to the burden of proof to convince any fair minded jury that Baker did it with what you have presented. In fact, your testimony would not be allowed unlike Rep. Baker's and the staffer with whom he had the alledged conversation. I've provided you with links to Baker's official web page with his statement on the incident. You you have provided nothing but complete and utter hearsay. And yet you have the unmitigated gall to climb on your high horse and condescending reply as if you have proven your point without providing any evidence at all other than your own heavily biased opinion.

The reporter and his newspaper are questioned as to at the least their professional abilities and to the worst their integrity.

Of course they are questioned. Any reasonable and fair person would question someone who brought an allegation against a public figure to purposefully impugn the character of said public offical. As far as I know the reporter doesn't even claim to have heard this himself, you being the only source presented which made this claim, and even if he did it would still be fair minded to question him. Does he have anything to gain by printing this story? I would say that he most definitely does. He will be paid for the article, his byline will appear in media outletts throughout the nation and around the world and this will do a great deal to help advance his career. Does this mean that the reporter lied or mistakenly mislead us? No, it doesn't. We can't fairly label the WSJ reporter a liar on facts in evidence. But in the same vein we can't label Rep. Baker a liar either. At best we can fairly concur that these allegations may or may not be true. I've already gone on record that if true, then he should recieve appropriate rebuking for his words.

Of course there’s no way to prove their abilities and integrity, it’s possible…..so HEY! They must be at fault.

Ok get it through your think skull once and for all please, no one has sait that the WSJ and that reporter who wroter the article are liars. It has only been stated that there is no proof to prove that they are not. This hardly makes them liars, and it would be unfair to label them as liars with no definitive proof that they have lied. But it's equally unfair to believe their charges against Rep. Baker with no other proof than the reporter's word. Can you comprehend the possibility of a group of people giving conflicting accounts of an event with no other proof to corroborate they story than the people who claim to have been there. We know of at least 3 in this case. Two apparently are different than the third. From this I surmise that no fair minded individual could make a definitive judgement which was accurate. I certainly cannot. However I will not stand by and let some innocent, and he is such in our culture until proven guilty, man have rumors heaped upon him as if they were truth in order to fuel your personal political agenda.

Two people say the reporter wasn’t right. Those two people are Baker and his aide. Nevermind the reporter or the paper have no benefit from lying

Again you either purposefully or via ignorance state a complete falsehood as if it were the absolute truth. Baker, his aide, the reporter, and the WSJ all have things to gain and lose in their contention over the story. To say I've already covered what the reporter has to gain above. The WSJ has a great story to gain that will attract readers. They really are in the business of giving their readers stories that the readers would be interested in, and this would definitely qualify as one for a larger number of organizations. This would also generate many other media outletts quoting the WSJ and gaining it free publicity. Why several people might even subscribe to see if they could find this article. To say money, publicity, and business goals are nothing to gain is utterly and completely ludicrous.

No, Baler is at fault, he was looking at the tragedy and how it will shape the political landscape. How it effected what he and other republicans wanted, to rid themselves of the lower income black residents in the public housing projects of NOLA who rarely if ever voted republican.
'

OK so that's your opinion with is worth no more or less than mine which differs considerably. So what? You think Baker did it what you say, I think I've seen nothing compelling to lead me to come to that conclusion.

First is the mention about hidden haters, those who don’t reveal their racism. A comment that I “am more concerned with insensitivity in private than actions in public.”
Ironic as I appear to be the only person who has expressed outrage at both, calling the later “vermin” and the former “insidious”.

So you're upset because I didn't fully comment on your attempt to lead the discussion off on a tangent? Who are these supposed hidden haters? I fully aknowledge the possiblity, but I tend to judge people on their actions. If someone with a hidden hate agenda does something good for those he or she hates, is that worse than doing something hateful? Are you saying that it's your opinion that it's worse for this person to do good than for them to do bad? If so, I can't agree with you. But if you're not saying that but saying that you worry about the people who sneak in hateful actions while that publicly say the opposite, then I would agree that I compeletely abhor this behavior. But this has nothing to do with the subject at hand. There's been no proof presented that Rep. Baker has committed secret hateful actions. Neither has there been any presend that Rep. Baker's staffer has nor the WSJ, nor the reporter. So it appears to me that you are trying to lead the conversation down a tangent. Best to completely disregard this in the future when no relevance has been shown.

How is a private organization like NAACP the same as a public servant? The rant about them is unintelligible.

They are a public organization which elected their leaders and place public trust in them. I apologize that it is beyond your intelligence to understand.

Second, the issue of the “memos” of purported senate demo race discrimination that have appeared, memos that don’t have a source.
Another irony: the person most vocal in defending baker has already determined the dems mentioned in the memos are guilty.

Yes IMO I would think the dems guilty. Based on no more evidence than the memos would I convict them as a jury member? No, I couldn't fairly do that. Despite my personal opinion there isn't conclusive evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But I do feel that there is enough evidence to begin an investigation. Then let the chips fall where they may. If sufficient evidence is uncovered to convict them, then do so. If the evidence clears them, then publish it and clear their names. If it remains as it is, inconclusive then each person will have to draw or decide not to drawn their own conclusions, but certainly there wouldn't be enough to fairly punish them under the law.

Yes, where the memos originated from should be investigated. Once the source is verified, then the next step should be taken. If the senators did conspire to discriminate on the basis of race, expose them. If the memos were a dirty trick, expose that as well.

Even if the source is found to be Ted Kennedy's personal secretary that really won't change much if at all (except to possibly get her or him fired). It's not who the source of the memo that is of any importance, because let's face it anybody with brains enough to use a computer, printer, and copier could have produced the physical copies. No, the real importance is whether the information in the artilces corresponds with known facts. If so, and I do believe it does, then it merits investigation to prove the truth or untruth of the allegations. Go ahead and investigate the source, but I have a feeling that the paper won't give it up. Media have a funny habbit of doing that with confidential sources. Why not just go look at official copies of the memos and go directly to confirmation or denial of the allegations. Could it be that there is something to hide? Or maybe it's just a standard argumentative approach.

But just one more quick note on political scandals and anonymous sources, just what was the name of that source that really broke open the Watergate scandal? Don't think that I or the rest of the nation ever got his legal name.

[dude1394]

As much as it's disgusting, it is nice to see a democrat speaking from the heart. Democrats are mired in vietnam and american retreat.

Saying the “idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

Dean made his comments in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio.

“I’ve seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, ‘just another year, just stay the course, we’ll have a victory.’ Well, we didn’t have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening.”

[dude1394]

Dang...I thought it was just Howard Dean that was our own special christmas gift. Looks like Santa left us another one.

Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has come to national prominence since his call for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, said Thursday night that he worries about "a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory."

Appearing at a town meeting in Arlington, Virginia, with fellow Democratic Rep. James Moran, Murtha said, "A year ago, I said we can't win this militarily, and I got all kinds of criticism." Now, Murtha told the strongly antiwar audience, "I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing."

The meeting, which attracted an overflow crowd, was promoted by the Internet activist group MoveOn.org, which said that "Congressman Moran has extended a special invitation to MoveOn members in his district and nearby." It was also promoted on some antiwar websites like afterdowningstreet.org. War supporters organized by the conservative freerepublic.com demonstrated outside.

Murtha said he has told some Democrats who are considering a run for president that they are missing an opportunity by declining to call for a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. "A number of senators who are running for president have called me," Murtha said. "And I told them there's only two policies. That's the policy of redeployment, which I've suggested, and the president's policy — stay the course is not a policy. And you folks, you're in between, you're missing an opportunity to show leadership. If you want to run for president, you can show leadership."

[dude1394]

Golly...it's just like christmas come early every election...

DNC to Dean: Show Us the Money

What happens when you put a lunatic like Howard Dean in charge of millions of dollars of donations to the Democratic National Committee?

He spends, and spends, and spends, but buys nothing.

So, the DNC cupboards appear to be empty. Will there be an accounting for where the cash went? Will the MSM investigate DNC spending? Will Americans hear anything about this? No. Democrats up for reelection in 2006 will simply focus on raising their own cash, like they normally do, that is, if they have any hope in running sustainable campaigns.

[Drbio]

This truly was the perfectly named thread.

[dude1394]

March 9, 2006 — WASHINGTON - The head of Islamic chaplains in the New York City Department of Correction said in a recent speech that the “greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House,” Jews control the media, and Muslims are being tortured in Manhattan jails.

The outlandish remarks were made by one of the city’s most prominent Islamic leaders, Imam Umar Abdul-Jalil, the executive director of ministerial services for the city Department of Correction. He spoke at a conference of Islamic leaders in Tucson, Ariz., and was secretly recorded by the counterterrorism organization The Investigative Project.

The recordings capture Abdul-Jalil - speaking at two separate symposiums on Islam in America held by the Muslim Students Association on April 15 and 16 last year - making incendiary charges and espousing extremist views.

Abdul-Jalil, 56, who is also imam of the Masjid Sabur mosque in Harlem, initially denied making the comments - but later admitted to The Post that the tape was most likely accurate and said his words are being “taken out of context.”

At one conference session, Abdul-Jalil charged that Muslims jailed after the 9/11 attacks were being tortured in Manhattan, according to the tape. “They [some Muslim inmates] are not charged with anything, they are not entitled to any rights, they are interrogated. Some of them are literally tortured and we found this in the Metropolitan Correctional Facility in Manhattan. But they literally are torturing people,” Abdul-Jalil said.

Abdul-Jalil also accused the Bush administration of being terrorists, according to the tape. “We have terrorists defining who a terrorist is, but because they have the weight of legitimacy, they get away with it . . . We know that the greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House, without a doubt,” he said.

At another session, Abdul-Jalil urged American Muslims to stop allowing “the Zionists of the media to dictate what Islam is to us” and said Muslims must be “compassionate with each other” and “hard against the kufr [unbeliever].”

Ooppss my bad. Honest mistake.

[Drbio]

I love to see this thread bumped because I love a good Dean brainfart as much as the next guy....and although this is a good read about a complete ass, I really wish Dean was involved.

[Drbio]

I guess screaming Dean thinks the repubs are the cause of Katrina too.

By DAVID CHALIAN
ABC News

April 21, 1006 — In one of those odd political moments that combine a poignant message with somewhat opportunistic maneuvering, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean took part in a cleanup effort in flood-ravaged New Orleans and used the moment to take a shot at the Republicans.

In his first post-Katrina visit to the Crescent City, Dean helped Acorn, a nonprofit community group that works with low-income families, to clean out Vincent Cooper's flood-damaged home on Derbigny Street in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans.

"I don't want to be partisan at a time like this, but this is why the Republicans are going to be out of business," Dean said, pointing to the destruction around him. "Nine months after the hurricane, to have this? This is ridiculous. This is not the America we grew up in."

When asked if he thought Americans had moved beyond Katrina and may forget about the storm by the time the November elections rolled around, Dean replied, "This is a searing, burning issue, and I think it is going to cost George Bush his legacy and it's going to cost the Republicans the House and the Senate and maybe the presidency in the next election. People will never forget this."

The Acorn Home Clean-Out project is a volunteer drive to help people gut their damaged homes so that rehabilitation can begin. The 68-year old Cooper, a retired shipyard heavy-lift operator, has lived in this house since 1971.

Dean is in the Crescent City for the Democratic National Committee's annual spring meeting. The 350 DNC members and staffers attending the meeting are taking part in various community-service rebuilding projects in New Orleans.

[dude1394]

It's been a while since the screaming mimi popped his head up ( or probably quite a while since I gave a crap). But here you go folks.

Dean Calls Iraqi PM an 'Anti-Semite'


WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an "anti-Semite" for failing to denounce Hezbollah for its attacks against Israel.

Al-Maliki has condemned Israel's offensive, prompting several Democrats to boycott his address to a joint meeting of Congress and others to criticize him. Dean's comments were the strongest to date.

"The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite," the Democratic leader told a gathering of business leaders in Florida. "We don't need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah."

[Drbio]

Never has a thread been more appropriately named.

[Mavdog]

huh? you said the same thing that dean said in the thread titled "Israel in lebanon again-uh oh"

Originally Posted by Drbio

You are either an anti-semite or have been brainwashed by hezbollah and the like. Disgusting either way.

so which is it, are you and dean wrong or not?

[Drbio]

You really try hard to make others words fit your agenda. Dean is the gift the keeps on giving. How does that have anything to do with the other thread? Oh yeah...as usual you are full of crap and it doesn't. Nice try though. Actually not really. Nice to see you hang off all my posts still though. I was reading through this thread and two things were very apparent:
1. Dean is the gift that keeps on giving....as I so accurately stated in two psots above. When reviewing this thread as I did ealier before mavdog so foolishly tried to take the thread downhill (shocker) it was obvious again that Dean provides mucho fun quotes.
2. LRB completely and totally dismatled the idiotic style of mavdog once again and the funny thing is that the retard didn't even get it. LOL!!!!


Another sickly ironic thing is that mavdog says in the other thread that children dying as a result of Israeli airstikes is unfortunate but part of Isreal's right to defend themselves, but he has in the past criticised the US for the same thing. So which is more (or less) acceptable dumbass?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by dude1394

It's been a while since the screaming mimi popped his head up ( or probably quite a while since I gave a crap). But here you go folks.

This other headline (by the same author) doesn't quite fit:

Howard Dean calls for end to divisiveness
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/4074348.html

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

You really try hard to make others words fit your agenda. Dean is the gift the keeps on giving. How does that have anything to do with the other thread? Oh yeah...as usual you are full of crap and it doesn't. Nice try though. Actually not really. Nice to see you hang off all my posts still though. I was reading through this thread and two things were very apparent:
1. Dean is the gift that keeps on giving....as I so accurately stated in two psots above. When reviewing this thread as I did ealier before mavdog so foolishly tried to take the thread downhill (shocker) it was obvious again that Dean provides mucho fun quotes.
2. LRB completely and totally dismatled the idiotic style of mavdog once again and the funny thing is that the retard didn't even get it. LOL!!!!

once again the master of doubletalk speaks and tries to do the sidestep.

so answer the question, which is it? are you and howard dean wrong in calling them "anti-semites" or not?

Another sickly ironic thing is that mavdog says in the other thread that children dying as a result of Israeli airstikes is unfortunate but part of Isreal's right to defend themselves, but he has in the past criticised the US for the same thing. So which is more (or less) acceptable dumbass?

what? why don't you attempt to prove this asinine comment.
where have I "criticized the US for the same thing"? most importantly, when has the US faced "the same thing"?

you can't.

just like it seems you can't come to grips with the FACT that you and howard dean said the same thing.
it bothers the hell out of you doesn't it?
too funny...