November 06, 2003

It was bound to happen

A couple of months ago, I was reading an article in either Time or Newsweek that talked about the "Dean phenomenon" and pointed out that every time there's an outsider phenom like Dean, he eventually makes a rookie mistake and everybody jumps on him. Well, he finally did it. Apparently he made a remark, in response to a reporter's question about his courting of gun-rights activists in the 1990's, that he'd "like to be the candidate of the guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."

Um, yeah. Probably not the best move he could have made. What disturbs me is that while the remark wasn't racially motivated, he reportedly claimed that he did it to start a dialogue about race, but he'd done it "clumsily." Bad move, IMO. Kind of reminds me of my teenage son, who will keep changing tactics in an argument until he finds one that sticks.

He should have simply apologized to begin with and pointed out the context of the remark. It would have been over and done with. Now it's going to haunt him for months.

On another note, Dean is considering refusing Federal matching funds so that he doesn't have to adhere to the $45 million spending limit for the primaries. Why? Because Bush is planning to raise $170 million -- and has already said he won't take the matching funds.

Technorati tags:

Posted by roadnick at November 6, 2003 01:51 PM | TrackBack

Comments

"What disturbs me is that while the remark wasn't racially motivated..."

Oh yeah, your favorite candidate smears a whole region of white people and it's not racism at all but let someone you dislike say the word "black" and you and your fellow freaks fall down in the street screeching about hate crimes.

Look up "intellectually dishonest". Try also "propaganda"

Posted by: jdoe at November 11, 2003 08:54 AM

OK, first of all, it really amuses me to be called a "freak" by somebody who a) can't figure out how to submit a comment just once -- I deleted the other two duplicates, thanks -- and b) doesn't have the guts to use their own name rather than "John Doe."

That aside, let's take the comment itself. If you'd read the actual citation (which obviously you haven't) you'd see that the comment was made in response to a question about Dean's courting of gun rights activists in a previous election.

That was my point. If he wants to tout gun rights, great. What's more, I've heard the argument made -- by someone other than Dean -- that he was trying to start a dialogue on the idea that the Republicans have been using race as a wedge to court middle-class white southern voters while raking them over the coals economically. Is that an accurate statement? I don't know, and I'm not making a judgement on the matter. If it's true, then yes, the case SHOULD be made.

But my original point is that I don't like the fact that he seemed to dodge the original issue.

Oh, and any time you want to talk about propoganda, I'm up for it. Just don't be surprised if we come out on the same side.

Posted by: Nick at November 11, 2003 11:46 AM

Oh, my world. It is ok

Posted by: Stephan at May 27, 2006 04:27 AM
Post a comment
Remember personal info?