If Dems want to win, they should learn to speak

the languages of others, and identify culturally. Think for a moment of the success of Bush. Why did he get as many votes as he did in 2000. It wasn't because Rush Limbaugh was angry. Those voters voted Republican in 1996 and 1992.

It was because he learned to speak the language of others. Bush got more Hispanic votes than ANY OTHER Republican president. Why? He learned to speak Spanish. He celebrated Cinco de Mayo, etc.

Bush won the Solid South. He won the domain of Clinton and Carter. Why? He learned "to speak Southern," not in a literal sense, but culturally. He spoke openly about his personal life, talked about how much of a big Texan he was, and gave exclusive interviews to evangelical publications. While Gore hashed out detailed DLC policy, Bush sent cultural signals under the radar.

Yet many people on this board think that "stupidity" causes voters to go to the courthouse, register to vote, return on election day, and cast a vote for a Republican candidate. There is much more to it than that, and Dems need to pay attention.

He could connect with people.

because it implies that perhaps we ought to speak to "women with mullets" and other such representatives of the lower orders.

Leftists used to identity with the common people, but that went away, apparently never to return, in the 60's, when the political geniuses of the "New Left" decided that the proles were really the forces of reaction and the true revolutionary vanguard consisted of affluent college kids on acid. Thus the left became bourgeois, with all the attitudes and prejudices that implies.

That's why so many soi-disant leftists have no problem critiquing the hairstyles of the proles, joking about tornadoes hitting trailer parks, and the like. For all their talk of being leftists, they have most of the same social attitudes as the Charleston Junior League. Take away their bumper stickers and sandals and they're about as radical as my Aunt Louise.

> Leftists used to identity with the common people, but that went away, apparently
> never to return, in the 60's, when the political geniuses of the "New Left" decided
> that the proles were really the forces of reaction

In fairness, they usually came to that conclusion after being beaten up by the aforementioned "proles".

He's a blue-collar Italian guy who was active in the peace movement, and took some college boys to a working class bar, where they strolled in with long hair and Ho buttons and lectured the patrons on the class struggle. The patrons did not take this particularly well and drove them out, whereupon the hippies declared to my friend that these guys clearly were not ready for the truth.

My friend never had that problem with the same crowd, though, because he was from the neighborhood and spoke the local lingo, rather than trying to pontificate on Hegelian dialectic.

I don't know if you're a college student/academic or not, but aside from a few future state troopers around here who drip with contrived (rad)icalism, the only time I've encountered the kind of liberals you describe was when I was at school.

My guess is that most liberals outside of the academy are too busy at work to pose.

From a blue-collar background, which makes me an odd bird. (A couple of excellent books deal with what it's like being working class in such a quintessentially bourgeois institution: This Fine Place So Far From Home and Strangers in Paradise: Academics from the Working Class.)

I don't think that scorn for the Great Unwashed is limited to academic liberals, though--if it is then there must be an awful lot of academics at DU, judging from the nonstop slams of Southerners, religious people, gun owners, "women with mullets," etc.

post.

until we like it.

And Bush didn't "win" in 2000. He: steals votes, massacres innocent people, and puts our soldiers in harms' way real good though. Is that a model we Dems should shoot for?

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I can't let your statements of praise for that criminal moron go unchallenged.

You put "win" in quotation marks as if I said it. I didn't. I said he got more votes than Repubs in 1996 and 1992. The above statement is true, but I'll never concede that he won.

They just weren't allowed to be counted!

Sorry for the misunderstanding about "win". I actually wasn't quoting you. I was just making a point about the election 2000 fraud. Technically Bush "won" because a corrupt political system rigged it so he got more electoral votes. That's about par for the course in terms of how Bush has conducted his life. He probably feels like everything was fair and square about his selection. After all, the best crook "won".

and BTW.. he "speaks" spanglish...not spanish.. I was appalled during the campaign when I saw signs in spanish, that used English "word placement" , not spanish.. Hispanics were too polite to mention it, it I noticed it.. and I have not "spoken" spanish for yearrrrrs..

Bush is a poseur, and most people are shallow enough to "buy" it..


but you are right to a point.. our candidates either need to start talking straight and to the point, or get with the phony-ass prentending like he does..

I can assure you, any thinking-person's take on Bush's "cultural identifying" with Hispanics is that he is an imbecile. His crappy version of Spanish is embarrassing to listen to; he didn't really understand what Cinco de Mayo means to Hispanics; he mentioned the Day of the Dead (which is a negative giveaway to anyone who has the slightest appreciation for Hispanic culture) I don't think this alone would have convinced anyone I know of moving from Dem to Republican. No, I think it's way more complicated than the token veneer that Bush displays.

Bush's command of Spanish sounds to me much like one of those trailer-trash screamfests on Jerry Springer. He can't roll an R if his life depends on it, and it comes out with that sickening Texas accent (apologies to Texans, not south bashing - I just think Bush's accent is not authentic, but put-on).

to do much better among Latino voters than previous GOP candidates in Texas?

Honest question, by the way. If it wasn't his attempt to at least act as though he had some respect for Latino culture, then what was it?

and the percentage of hispanics that cast votes was something like 25 %.. so if he got 80% of that, it's still not a lot of hispanic votes.. Percentages only work fairly when you know the starting numbers:)

if Bush is getting higher percentages of Latino votes, as seems to be the case, then that is a change from other GOP candidates, and it would be worth knowing how he does it.

I agree that Republican praise of diversity is as phoney as can be, by the way, so I'm not trying to argue that Bush really gives a damn about Latinos.

But, if Republicans are making inroads into any voter group that hasn't had much use for them in the past, it's worth knowing how they're doing it.

His pronunciation and accent are absolutely terrible (and I'm a gringa) and his vocabulary in Spanish is even more limited than his vocabulary in English.

There's a story about him campaigning for governor when he tried to speak in Spanish, using the phrase (in Spanish) "together we can" and instead came out with the phrase "together we fart". I believe it.

If you hear Howard Dean speak Spanish you'll realize that Bush sounds like an imbecile. Dean sounds like someone who actually learned the language and learned how to pronounce the words. Probably still has a bit of a gringo accent (how would I know since I've got one myself) but sounds much more real.

Bush only repeats words that he's been told to say and he doesn't even do that well in English. However, English speakers understand his "code" religious words and "code" racist words so they forgive his incoherence.

There's a man of the people for you...

I have since I first heard about him. I haven't really who to support, though. Gephardt, Graham, and Clark complicate our choices a little.

es verdad !

Jorge es un carepicha!

(Costa Rican variation)

What I think that means is George isn't going to look down on you because you aren't rich. George likes the guy who is working and taking care of his family. And George isn't going to tell you how to do that either, he trusts you to be a decent citizen and parent.

Liberals are always telling you go get an education and do some stuffy office job. And they're always telling you how to raise your kids and putting new programs in the schools and are just always breathing down your neck about something you're not doing right. Liberals think you're too stupid to tie your damn shoes.

Forgetting, for a moment, that you'd as soon light him on fire as look at him, wouldn't you rather have a beer with George?

:evilgrin: I'd like to drink him under the table in fact, and then put him in front of the TV cameras. Kind of like he looked last night, come to think of it.

Looking at Dem candidates, as to their ability to "relate to the common man or woman", my rankings from 1 to 5: 5 = "Clintonesque"

Lieberman = 2
Kerry = 2
Dean = 3
Gephardt = 4
Kucinich = 3
Sharpton = 4
Braun = 3
Graham = 3
Edwards = 3
(Clark) = 2

Just a shot.

Dean's pretty good but could improve. He doesn't have to really connect, because he's a doctor, a natural authority figure, combined with trusted figure.

Clark gets plus 2 points with women like my Mom.

Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun plus 1 with real hard lefties. Lieberman probably plus one with older, conservative people.

Kerry's just going to have to go for the "strong leader" shtick, because he doesn't seem to me as very personable. Probably better in person.

of every freeper myth re liberals...You may choose to socialize with Bush I have better tasts.....

I have never never been able to understand that. Bush is the most arrogant, entitled, bullshitter I've ever heard. I come from a very blue collar background, father worked in a steel mill, mother a secretary. Western PA where I grew up has always been very democratic. Not liberal but very pro-union and democratic.

What Bush needs is to go have a beer in a steel town and get his ass kicked for once in his life by a real blue collar worker. I think if he'd just had his ass kicked when he was younger we'd all be better off. :beer:

And another thing. Why is it that southern candidates don't ever have to learn how to speak northern? Why is that? I think southerners are smart enough to listen to issues and vote with their heads. Same with all cultures. We need to use our bullshit detectors and vote in our own best interests.

When I come to DU and see threads that attack the Pledge of Allegiance and call US troops "baby killers" I can understand why many voters support Republicans.

All too many voters have the (false) perception that the Democrats are "hostile" and disrespectful to mainstream values.

That is a major problem that led to Bush winning.

That's the thing and if we're going to survive we have to allow the differences the Constitution calls for. I was talking to a Catholic friend who wanted prayer in public schools. Well what if the teacher were having her kids pray to Allah? She didn't like that. Neither would a Protestant parent like their kids saying a Hail Mary. I recall a poll that asked whether faith based money should go to Muslim schools and most said no. These are the kinds of things that when pushed into the mainstream cause divisiveness. It just seems to me people used to understand the implications of something like the Pledge, that a Jehovah's Witness child couldn't say it, they were more understanding of not creating laws to force people to choose between their beliefs and being an outcast. Today's Republicans want anybody not like them to be an outcast. You may have read the LBN article where a Fresno councilman said something to the affect he'd like to drop a dirty bomb on all liberals. That doesn't sound like any sort of mainstream values I've ever heard of.

As to the baby killers, I've seen very few threads that say that, if any. Some of them are ruder than I would prefer, but they also have a point of view in there. And if somebody doesn't point out the truth of what a soldier does in war, particularly if it was an over-reaction or resulted from lack of training or support, then that's not a country I really want to live in either.

...my, how you like to distort issues and give the 'right' point of view.

- DUers protested (not attacked) the phony pledge to God in the Pledge of "Allegiance'. And I don't remember any 'liberal' DUers calling troops 'baby killers'.

- It's so nice to know that you're here to perpetuate the myths of the right wing.

It is misapplied intelligence. Off course and absurdly self-assured.
Absolkutely right about candidates who can be both capable and people leaders. That is what politics is about and we do have more than enough
people to match the bill. Or "the Bill".

In fact intimidation of money, character assassination and other discouragements of the status quo DO suppress good candidates. Boy Scouts,naifs and system players do not necessarily show the best people leadershiip qualities- only the upper circle gaming elitism.

As for Bush. He was crafted by a system and is a LOUSY people person so long as all better people are reduced and kept out of his artficial limelight. Eventually people will puzzle out the empty suit and the lies. But will they have a fair view of an alternative?

Some of the lessons you post are like the Bush-praising tendencies of the DLC. They hope failures or deus ex machine will intervene and let the more competent bureaucrats of the Democratic party slide in. Do they hope to inherit the blessing of the machine, Corporate Pravda, the Oligarchs, the misled masses, the Swing Voters? Yessirree they do.

THAT is stupid.

Try running a campaign with the lingo that you just used. Chances are, it will not work. Yes, Bush is a fake. But in politics, image matters more than reality, particularly in a Presidential campaign.

Case in point: we like Dean. We know that Dean is conservative, but we like him because he's angry at Bush and opposed the war. Dean reaches out to the "progressive culture," if there is such a thing.

I think not. He speaks pretty fluent Spanish and that takes some time to do.

how come, if he is so fluent in Spanish, he is practically incoherent in English?

The guy is too lazy and self-absorbed to be "fluent" in any language.

Julie

I've heard him speak Spanish, and fluent is definitely not the right word.

However, I can see imagine Spanish speakers might appreciate the effort, and forgiving most errors, since many of them can relate to how embarrassing it is to have to speak a foreign language.

Also, we need to connect with the under 25 and first time voter again. Voter turnout was at it's highest mark since the 1960's and 70's when Clinton was running for President. There is something interesting I noticed when I was looking at the electoral college maps of the 1996 and 1992 election. Clinton won every state that bordered the Mississippi River.

He was genuinely fluent, not just stumbling over a few basic phrases like Bush, and it didn't help him any. Instead, the media savagely ridiculed him for being too smart and "showing off."

Once the media decides how they want to portray a candidate, it is very hard to work around the constant repetition of memes and propaganda.