In Massachusetts and Vermont, maybe. Maybe. Not in New Hampshire.
Posted on 01/12/2004 3:15:24 AM PST by kattracks
Howard Dean found himself on the defensive last night after the Rev. Al Sharpton forced him to concede he never had a black or Hispanic cabinet member in his 12 years as governor of Vermont. "You keep talking about race," said Sharpton, who's at the bottom of the heap in Iowa and New Hampshire. "But no black or brown held a senior policy position, not one."Sharpton threw his punches in Iowa's famous Black and Brown Forum, a debate that focuses on minority issues.
"It seems as though you have discovered blacks and browns during this campaign," Sharpton said.
Dean "begged to differ" and shot back that he had a minority-group member on "senior" staff. But when Sharpton pressed him about his top cabinet, Dean acknowledged: "No, we did not [have a minority member]."
"I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to civil rights in the United States of America," Dean fired back.
The Dean pile-on has only intensified ahead of next week's crucial Iowa caucuses, where Dean is in a dead heat with Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt.
He also took hits on his plans for fixing the economy from Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who's hoping to resuscitate his sputtering campaign in Iowa so he can be competitive in New Hampshire's Jan. 27 primary.
Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, normally Dean's harshest critic, was largely ignored during the debate. His campaign, along with that of retired Gen. Wesley Clark, closed up shop in Iowa months ago.
Clark, who has emerged as Dean's biggest challenger in national polls, was the only one of the nine Dem candidates to skip the forum.
Before the debate, Kerry, who some pundits think is in a race with Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina for third place in Iowa, tried to take some of the wind out of Dean's endorsement from popular Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin on NBC's "Meet the Press."
He accused Harkin of endorsing Dean only because he thinks he will win. Kerry produced what he said was a Harkin E-mail that has him calling Gephardt his real choice.
The Harkin camp didn't dispute Kerry's assertion.
The senator believes Dean "can beat George Bush," said a Harkin spokeswoman.
In New Hampshire, the big story continued to be Clark, whose numbers continued to creep up and who campaigned while his fellow Democrats debated.
Clark will fly to New York tomorrow for political meetings and two fund-raisers, which will net about $500,000, campaign aides said.
He also plans a real-time forum to respond to President Bush's State of the Union address next week.
Originally published on January 12, 2004
Rev. Al may be a dishonest, self-serving race pimp and huckster, but he sure knows how to get in his digs. I always like it when he's on O'Reilly. He comes on there and takes his shots, but always dishes it out in return.
Like someone else on another thread asked, a good comeback for Rev. Al would have been, how many white people do you have on your staff?
Good point. Howie has a problem here. He shoots from the hip all over the place and when someone finally calls him on it, he blows his top, like he did with that voter at that one "town hall" meeting in Iowa recently (basically telling him to sit down and shut up). Dean either has incredibly thin skin or hates being confronted with unpleasant truths, or both. Not the kind of qualities one would want in a national leader with access to the launch codes.
Talk about a phoney!
Everyone needs to save a copy of the full article, because the ticket may end up with Gen Clark in one role or the other, and Kinsley will try to pull a 1984 harangue trick on us. :')Why do liberals swoon for a guy in uniform?[T]he current liberal swooning over (retired) generals is truly something new. A widespread fantasy among liberals who loathe the Bush administration, for example, is that Colin Powell will resign as secretary of state and "say what he really thinks." This will bring down the whole house of cards, these liberals believe. What he really thinks, they think, is more or less what they really think... Then there is Gen. Wesley Clark. Much of his support comes from people who think they haven't swooned themselves but believe that others will do so. But most of these people are in a swoon whether they realize it or not... How pragmatic is it, though, to snub the one candidate who seems to be able to get people's juices flowing -- that would be Howard Dean -- in favor of one with nothing interesting to say, on the theory that this, plus the uniform stashed in the back of his closet, will make him appealing to people you disagree with? When the odds are against you, as they are for the Democrats in 2004, caution and calculation can be the opposite of pragmatism... The rules entitle the swooner to project his or her views onto the candidate, despite any lack of evidence or even evidence of the opposite. But the rules also insist that the candidate will never win.
by Michael Kinsley
Everyone needs to save a copy of the full article, because the ticket may end up with Gen Clark in one role or the other, and Kinsley will try to pull a 1984 harangue trick on us. :')Why do liberals swoon for a guy in uniform?[T]he current liberal swooning over (retired) generals is truly something new. A widespread fantasy among liberals who loathe the Bush administration, for example, is that Colin Powell will resign as secretary of state and "say what he really thinks." This will bring down the whole house of cards, these liberals believe. What he really thinks, they think, is more or less what they really think... Then there is Gen. Wesley Clark. Much of his support comes from people who think they haven't swooned themselves but believe that others will do so. But most of these people are in a swoon whether they realize it or not... How pragmatic is it, though, to snub the one candidate who seems to be able to get people's juices flowing -- that would be Howard Dean -- in favor of one with nothing interesting to say, on the theory that this, plus the uniform stashed in the back of his closet, will make him appealing to people you disagree with? When the odds are against you, as they are for the Democrats in 2004, caution and calculation can be the opposite of pragmatism... The rules entitle the swooner to project his or her views onto the candidate, despite any lack of evidence or even evidence of the opposite. But the rules also insist that the candidate will never win.
by Michael Kinsley
Everyone needs to save a copy of the full article, because the ticket may end up with Gen Clark in one role or the other, and Kinsley will try to pull a 1984 harangue trick on us. :')Why do liberals swoon for a guy in uniform?[T]he current liberal swooning over (retired) generals is truly something new. A widespread fantasy among liberals who loathe the Bush administration, for example, is that Colin Powell will resign as secretary of state and "say what he really thinks." This will bring down the whole house of cards, these liberals believe. What he really thinks, they think, is more or less what they really think... Then there is Gen. Wesley Clark. Much of his support comes from people who think they haven't swooned themselves but believe that others will do so. But most of these people are in a swoon whether they realize it or not... How pragmatic is it, though, to snub the one candidate who seems to be able to get people's juices flowing -- that would be Howard Dean -- in favor of one with nothing interesting to say, on the theory that this, plus the uniform stashed in the back of his closet, will make him appealing to people you disagree with? When the odds are against you, as they are for the Democrats in 2004, caution and calculation can be the opposite of pragmatism... The rules entitle the swooner to project his or her views onto the candidate, despite any lack of evidence or even evidence of the opposite. But the rules also insist that the candidate will never win.
by Michael Kinsley
In Massachusetts and Vermont, maybe. Maybe. Not in New Hampshire.
Not a given. From the last time at bat:
CNN.com: Civil unions' for gays yield backlash in Vermont
September 13, 2000:'Take Back Vermont' spurred turnout
In many states, turnout was low. But in Vermont, a backlash against a state law authorizing "civil unions" for homosexuals led to the defeat of five Republican legislators who voted for it. Opponents of the law, which confers some of the same benefits on gay couples that married heterosexuals enjoy, have turned against incumbents who supported the measure.
"It hurts very much," said state Rep. Marion Milne, before Tuesday's vote was counted. Milne, who supported the law, lost the Republican primary to Sylvia Kennedy, a political novice and evangelical Christian who opposes civil unions.
"We've opened a can of worms by creating legislation for a small minority of people," Kennedy said.
A loosely organized movement called "Take Back Vermont" galvanized opposition to the civil union law. One of the chief authors of the bill, Republican House Judiciary Chairman Thomas Little, beat back a challenge.
But Republican Reps. Milne and John Edwards were defeated, and Republican state Sen. Peter Brownell and Reps. Robert Kinsey and William Fyfe were trailing. Also, a Democrat who voted against civil unions -- state Rep. James McNamara -- was ousted.
"This is probably something that's going to take a generation to resolve," Little said.
Some observers thought opposition could even threaten the re-election chances of Democratic Gov. Howard Dean, once considered a shoo-in for a new term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.