"if Dean has changed his position, he should just say so"

It's just another in a long list of his own positions and statements Dean is trying to run away from.

"That's about help for people who don't have any money, and I think we should do that. But I also think affirmative action has to be about race, and I've said that all throughout this campaign," Dean said.


OMG, he wants to include underprivileged Caucasians, too! Off with his head! /sarcasm off

Originally Dean said: "You know, I think we ought to look at affirmative action programs based, not on race, but on class and opportunities to participate."

Now he is saying it should be about race AND class.

Since when is affirmative action for whites? It sounds like Dean just has no clue as to what affirmative action is all about.

And why shouldn't we be looking at it? Looking at something and agreeing with it are two different things. Poverty can be seen along racial lines but is an issue that affects all racial categories. Why not take a look and see if our programs can't be broadened to help more?

This is not a revision of racial affirmative action, it is looking ahead and seeing how the program might need to be shifted.

No backtracking, no change of opinions. This is a moot issue.

Sounds to me like someone who isn't hidebound by ideological chains forged in the 60's, open to new and inclusive ideas...

how do you think bush got into harvard?

about what affirmative action is all about. But I'm not sure it is Dean.

And the post you're replying to above has a better understanding than you do.

Gender, race, disability, religion, class, sexuality and class are all very different things, and they all deserve to be addressed on their own terms, and not on the terms of any other category.

who says you couldn't base a program on economic situation and also call it "affirmative action".

Also, weren't disparities in class one of the things that affirmative action programs were designed to help ameliorate?

Would you say that gender/disability/nationality/sexuality discrimination is really about class?

Would you focus only on class to solve any those problems? No.

Harvey Milk High School in NY for kids who get bashed over their sexuality--how does having that high school for gay students solve the problem of gender discrimination? Having wheelchair ramps in public buildings -- how does that solve the problem Native Americans or Mexican immigrants have?

These are all very different issues that overlap in some places (some more than others), but to say that you're going to replace class as your proxy for dealing with race discrimination makes as much sense as saying gender is going to be your proxy for dealing with disability discrimination.

I'm also glad that there are racially-based programs in place.

...proxy for race when addressing racism.

He also has said that racism should be addressed by changing subconscious feelings.

And he's also talked about race in terms of an allegory in which a white man was the victim of discrimination by a woman who (I am presuming) was also white.

His chat on the issue of race sucks.

Edwards's allegories about race include reference to the fact that the valedictorian of his Law School class was a black man who wouldn't have been there if not for AA, and that the town he grew up in is now mostly latino, but they went there with the same dream his father had ... to make a better life for their children, and he wants to give them the same opportunities that he got.

Now that's good chat on race.

I also like to hear Edwards and all of the candidates talk about race.

Dean is actually quite good when he talks about people not being discriminated against and how we should all support and be proud of each other.

However, based on one small comment that people might "think" about using class as a basis for helping people, do you honestly propose that proves that Dean thinks all consideration for race should be thrown out? Is that one of his campaign positions? Has he come out for "color blind" programs?

I really think you are taking this way farther than any logic will allow. You are pushing Dean's position into some whacked out place and then criticizing that place.

Honestly, I've seen your arguments be pretty astute on other issues, but spin a bit out of control when it comes to Dean. Don't you think you've really mis-stated Dean's position here?

You put the pieces together the way you want, and make your argument about why the fit together that way. I'll put the pieces together in the way that makes sense to me, and I'll make my arguments.

Calling it spin, or saying that putting the pieces together is wrong doesn't change the fact that these candidates are all trying to explain who they are by laying out the pieces. You can't dismiss what I'm doing by just saying that these are tiny pieces.

I don't like the way he claims to talk bluntly about race and then listen to him talk about anti-white male gender discrimination. I don't like the fact that at any moment in his public career he tried to conflate class and race. I don't like his hostility to civil rights legislation in his stump speech, which he says is less important that subconscious feelings about race. I have yet to hear him say anything I like about race.

Race and class ARE conflated. That's why affirmative action came into being. Are you denying that?

How is that about class?

How is the glass ceiling for women executives about class?

There is overlap, but pretending all gender discrimination is about class, or all race discrimination is about class is a good way to ensure that the bad effects of racism and sexism will persit.

the roots of discrimination are about our "subconscious attitudes" which you like to go on and on about.

The effects of discrimination are often economic. (They don't have to be, as when minorities are disenfranchised, but they often are). Addressing economic disparities is a separate issue from addressing racial disparities, but there are areas of overlap between the two.

Please, come out of argue-bot mode and let's have an honest discussion about this.

...promote racist attitudes.

Always has.

The Civil Rights Act '64 has done more to undermine the foundations upon which media and other interests have been able to build the mechanisms which drive racist attitudes.

Are you a real Professor, or do you just call yourself one on the internet?

D.U.h!

who used to post interesting and fairly balanced things here.

I am, actually, part time faculty. I teach graduate courses.

Race and class are conflated, as you've just written above. Helping people in minority races often helps people in lower economic classes, as it is meant to. Helping people in lower economic classes often helps people in minority classes, as (presumably) it is meant to.

If you take a look at Dean's actual positions, you'll find he is in favor of doing both.

edit for typo

Oh, and I'm listening closely to what Dean actually SAYS.

As I've said REPEATEDLY, race and class don't overlap so much that you could focus on class, ignore race, and make any real impact on racism (just like you couldn't ignore gender discrimination, focus on class discrimation, and make a real impact on gender discrimination).

and one that Dean would agree with. I think you and he are on the same page here, I'm not sure why you are trying to push him off the page.

I teach pharmaceutical and medicinal chemistry.

I have yet to hear Dean say anything about race which indicates that he thinks about it the same way that I do.

and see if there is anything there to like. I think you'll like what you read. If it helps, cover up the URL and imagine it is another candidates web page as you read it.

The less I have reality mediated, the better off I think I am.

Let's see if I can rank this in the proper order.

The think I give the least credibility is, perhaps, reality mediated by Fox or CNN or any reporter listed on MWO's hall of shame.

After that, I give more credibility to a candidate's web site mediated, by, say Joe Trippi.

I give the most credibility to words that flow from people's mouths, unmediated by anything other than my eardrum. And I'll put those words into context, like, were they said when this guy was governor and actually seriously considering the implications of what he was saying?

The words were said when he was governor. The implications of an expanded AA to cover economically disadvantaged, non-minority constituents would have been great for Vermont. Of course he would have like to expand AA in that way.

If that's your spin, so be it.

But you've admitted that a disability discrimination program that addresses only gender isn't a disability discrimination program.

An AA program that ony addresses class and not gender or race isn't an AA program. It's a class discrimination program. It may be an "expanded" program for peopl who are poor. But it's not any kind of program if you're a woman or black.

Look, AA by definition is currently based on race. But if you expanded it to help non-minority poor people, what exactly would be the problem with that again? Do you have a problem with helping poor people? (Note how I have to fall back to stupid logic in order to stay in this stupid "discussion")

...much as you possibly can. If you grew up in the ghetto, but would make a great trial attorney, it's about letting you achieve that. If you're a VP, but you'd make a great CEO, it's about letting you achieve that.

AA is about not holding anybody back due to irrational subsidies to whiteness or manhood.

It's not just about class. It's about spreading wealth to those willing to work to earn it regardless of class.

I suspect I'm phrasing this in a way you haven't heard before. That's becaue you've been listening to the wrong politicians talk about this.

I feel every bit as strongly about fighting classism and about giving poor people opportunities as I fee about giving women and minorities chances, but I don't ask for a one size fits all solution to all these issues.

I think this off-the-cuff quote from a time when he was the chief executive of a state says way more about his attitudes than anything Trippi says he says now that he's running for President.

Where's the evidence that Iraq doesn't have WMDs?

One statement made in 1995 where Dean says that we 'ought to look at affirmative action based on class' meaning 'let's see how that would work, it might be good, it might be bad' sort of like when I told my girlfriend we out to look into buying a house. I wasn't saying 'let's buy a house' but 'let's start weighing the pluses and minuses.'

If you don't like the picture, it doesn't mean the pieces don't fit together.

Dean uses an allegory about anti-white male discrimination.

Dean says that subconscious attitudes will solve the problems civil rights legislation has left unsolved.

Dean says that class, not race, is the thing to look at to solve the problems AA means to solve.

Where am I trimming. Just because you don't like the implications doesn't mean the pieces don't fit.

and then ripping on your own mischaracterization.

He does use an allegory about anti-white male discrimination - to talk about _discrimination_, not race.

You seem to want to frame his views as an either/or choice, when in fact it could be both.

EITHER Dean supports race-based affirmative action (you say) OR he supports class-based programs (in reality, he might support traditional AA and also think about other ways to help those in poor economic classes, mightn't he?)

EITHER Dean thinks we should use legislation to promote civil rights OR Dean thinks changing subconscious attitudes will solve all of our problems (he might think that civil rights legislation is just peachy - in fact he states this - and also think that our subconscious attitudes are the root of the problem)

Come on, I know you are smarter than the false dichotomies you are using in your argument. If you don't like Dean, that's fine. But don't force him into bizarre fantasies about what he does and doesn't support and then use that against him. Those are just your own fever dreams.

In Dean's conference call he said (1) I'm the only person talking bluntly about race to white audiences, which he immediately followed with (2) his allegory about anti-male gender discrimination.

He confallted race and gender discrimination then. He's conflated race and class discrimination in the past.

As for setting up dichotomies, I don't know what your point is. I'm just trying to listen to the candidates' messages and decipher what they're trying to tell us their priorities are. To me, Dean seems to be saying to white people, don't worry, I don't care that much about race (which seems like it could be part of his closet libertarianism, or could be that the life he has lived hasn't allowed him to understand who race, class, gender, etc affect how you experience life).

base a program on economic situation and also call it "affirmative action".


You could also base a program on cutting down as many trees as possible and call it "Healthy Forests".

You could base a program on gutting the Clean Air Act and call it "Clear Skies".

We can do better.

If you want to address race, address race. Don't address gender, disability, sexuality, nationality, relgion, or class.

There is way more to racism than just class.

"address race"?

Most of affirmative action is designed to address the affects of racism on aspects of citizens rights, like voting rights, employment discrimination, and yes, class.

where the worst schools in the state might be predominantly black, and where there's a huge black-white divide, if you toss out race from your admission criteria and replace it with class considerations, you might admit a class that has many fewer black students than if you just admitted Michigan has created a racial divide and that it's important to confront it head on by considering race in admissions.

Also, lots of middle class and upper middle class black students from Ivy League schools go work at big companies as part of an AA program to create a more diverse work force with a more diverse experience (which goes way beyond how much money your parents have in the bank), and those programs work to create work places which benefit from diversity of experience, and from a lot of competition of ideas in which the best ideas reach the top.

and Dean supports them. He states support for UMich. explicitly on his website.

Dean is NOT Ward Connerly. He understands that because race is a basis for discrimination, it also needs to be the basis for AA.

Him wishing to help poor people, as well, doesn't mean he is against race-based programs.

If you're comfortable with a guy who has said in the past that he thinks class is an adequate proxy for race, and then, when he's running for president changes his tune, but, at the same time, says that other shit about race that I've cited, well, then, hey, that's fine.

I don't really care.

However, I, like many people, are looking for a way less stupid set of statements about race.

You show me where, exactly, Dean said (or even implied) that class was an adequte proxy for race.

You made that assertion, now back it up.

kill current AA programs and replace them. Could he not also have meant to expand them to include economically disadvantaged people (and would you have a problem with that?). It makes sense in light of the fact that at the time he was governor of a state that had lots of rural poor, but few minorities.

It's funny how you've suddenly decided to tell me what I'm arguing.

Is every other approach to this argument failing? No you have to tell me that I'm wrong to interpret this as an attempt to end AA, when I've NEVER EVER argued any such thing.

My argument is that Dean says some crazy shit about race (see 115 below) and I think I'm entitled to put those pieces of the puzzle together to make an argument that this guy doesn't have a good message about race.

What that has to do with this thread, though, I'm still trying to figure out.

Main Entry: affirmative action
Function: noun
Date: 1965
: an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=affirmative+action

Affirmative action isn't an effort to help poor people. When Dean tries to turn it into that, he reveals his underlying insensitivity to racial issues -- I guess you could even call it 'unconscious racism'.

was advocating turning affirmative action into a "color blind" program?

Let's look at it from Dean's point of view in 1995, when he was governor of a small state that had a lot of poor people but not a lot of minorities. I'm sure in that situation he would want to help out those who were at a disadvantage in his state.

See, his statement can be framed as compassion for those less fortunate in his state, not a desire to shaft black people.

Your (presumed) inability to admit this might be construed as intellectual dishonesty.

Howard Dean defended his record on minorities Tuesday after rival Al Sharpton resurrected a 1995 Dean comment that affirmative action should be based "not on race, but on class."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3321861,00.html

Let's see that again:

"NOT ON RACE"

I guess Dean would have had to actually used the phrase 'color blind' to convince you he meant what he said.

Who's being intellectually dishonest?

"replacing" AA with programs that used class, that would be much different. The quote above is ambiguous, so we don't know whether he was thinking about (and again, I can't believe we should argue this based on something he suggested we might want to think about, rather than actual actions on his part) REPLACING race-based programs with class-based programs or SUPPLEMENTING race-based programs with class-based programs.

Let's look at the two scenarios:

He is a governor of a state which has rural poor people but few minorities. He thinks that SUPPLEMENTING AA with class-based programs might help out more people in his state, get VT some federal money, and open opportunities for the poor in VT which they wouldn't otherwise have.

or

He wants to REPLACE race-based programs with class-based programs, which would help out some of his constituents but would royally screw over a large portion of our society in the process.

Most of his positions are based on the presumption that making society a better place for everyone benefits everyone, and the REPLACE scenario doesn't make much sense from that standpoint. It is also not practical to think it could be accomplished. It also doesn't jive with his stated and demonstrated positions regarding fairness, or his work with inner city children when he was in school, or much else about his history.

Therefore, I find the SUPPLEMENT interpretation much more in line with what we know about Dean. Your mileage may vary, I suppose, if you think that Dean would actually advocate revoking AA and all of the great strides it has brought with it.

It's like his ardent advocations of energy deregulation. Just because the legislature stopped him from enacting it, doesn't mean he didn't like it. Granted, this is a couple levels lower than that (maybe there is an example of Dean doing this, but will have to wait for a VT'er who can penetrate the sealed gov's records before we know). But I think it's OK to take a guy for his word when he states his opinion.

?

Dean didn't say:

"we should look at including income-level as a factor in administering affirmative action programs"

he said:

"You know, I think we ought to look at affirmative action programs based, not on race, but on class and opportunities to participate."

He gets anti-NRA people supporting him -- "he will do the right thing; and besides, maybe it IS a states issue?!"

He gets top black endorsements - "oh that was in 1995, this is now!"

He gets pro-palestinians people's endorsements - "oh, you can't get elected in this country without AIPAC on your side - he will do the right thing."

He gets people who want the archaic Cuba embargo to end to endorse him - "oh, fidel really has been pretty bad lately -- it just isn't the right time. Dean will do the right thing when it's time. and it isn't the time."

He gets the endorsement of multitudes of liberals who believe the iraq invasion was 100% illegal and unjustified, and states over and over again, "we just didn't do it right! I'd beef it all up! and would have gotten the UN and a bigger coalition...." (IE, he'd just do it BETTER than BUSH!) -- I don't know how this group rationalizes a vote for Dean.

He's the EVERYTHING to EVERYONE candidate. Now, is that too good to be true? And isnt' that what we are fighting for -- to get rid of illusions?

...stand on the issues, so long as people think they understand your character.

A perception of a person's character is a wonderful substitute for facts and reality.

When I talk to Republicans who like Bush, I hear this sort of thing. They want to totally avoid a discussion about policy, but they keep repeating, "I like Bush. I trust him. Clinton got a blow a job. I don't like him."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214

Here is where Dean stands on the issues.

all spin, all the time

but i see no problem with that statement. to base affirmative action on class would truly be about civil rights..wouldn't it? that is really what howard dean is all about..remember civil unions? people thought it was about gays and lesbians..that is wrong..it was about ensuring that everyone had the same rights. i agree that if we are to use affirmative action it should be about class..not race

Schools in CA and TX which tried to find proxies for race when those states told them race couldn't be considered in college admissions could find NOTHING that produced the same results as considering race.

Racism is very pernicious, and has many causes, and it's hard to indetify the chicken and the egg. You could drop race from the consideration, but then you'd leave the problem of racism unsolved.

Furthermore, the problem of racism isn't JUST about class. You have a lot of black VPs and executives who are doing really well, but can't reach the top floor. It's like gender discrimination. The problem with sexism definitely isn't class. A lot of upper class women still hit the glass ceiling. And sexism has lots of manifestations other than whether you can crack through the glass ceiling.

There's no reason that we can't address race AND class AND gender discrimination.

That may be along the lines of what Dean was suggesting.

hope class-based preferences solve all the problems women confront"?

You think that makes sense?

It doesn't. To solve the problems of class, you focus on class. To solve gender discrimination, you focus on gender. To solve the problems of racism, you focus on race. To solve the problem of disability discrimination, you focus on disabilities.

There is overlap, sure. But you're not going to solve the problem of racism by focusing on gender, disability or class.

No.

Honestly.

Who hasn't thought that there should also be programs to help out people who were poor in a similar way that there are programs which help out people from disadvantaged races?

But we get it - you don't like Dean.

These are words that came out of his mouth. It's a mistake/attitude that I doubt would come out of the mouth of someone who thought harder about this issue and cared about it.

If he said this in '95 when he was a Dr in private practice, I'd be more inclined to dismiss it. However, he had been a politician for years. I think he understood the implications.

Then what the hell is all the "controversy" about?

Dean said: "You know, I think we ought to look at affirmative action programs based, not on race, but on class and opportunities to participate."

Of course, now, he's backtracked on this issue as well.

That doesn't look like support to me.

and you concluding that Dean thinks we should stop burning hydrocarbons.

Or insert your own ridiculous analogy here.

no place for logic or reasoned analysis here.

:)

It's amazing, really.

Argue-bots.

Dean is not good on race. He's not the best candidate on race by a mile.

You know, I didn't like Clinton going off on Sistah Souljah, and I was willing to criticize Clinton for it at the time. I was willing to admit that he was trying to reasure white America that he wasn't too black. (But I also knew how he governed Ark., which he replicated as president, so I wasn't worried.)

Here, we have a similar set of facts which are worth confronting. Dean is DEFINITELY articulating a meta-message geared at making white people feel like they're doing just enough on the issue of race without asking them to do very much at all. But I'm not sure that Dean has a track record which makes me comfortable that he would do the right thing if he were president (in fact, I think his track record is one of libertarianism, which isn't so enthusiastic about AA).

I don't know what you think you're gaining by trying to avoid this discussion.

And Dean quite good on race.

Very strong supporter of why AA is necessary, and was saying this way back in the beginning of the year with an anecdote about his staff being a matriarchy, and the importance of realizing that people tend to favor people like them.

And a quote from 95 where he says we should start looking at class based AA does not make him anti-black, no matter how much you or Sharpton say it does.

that I don't know how to respond to it.

"whirr. Click. Argue. Repeat. Whirr.
Argue-bots. "

I could counter every point you made -- if you had made any.

just an observation.

it was an attempt to avoid the topic at hand by ridiculing your opponents.

I've certainly not discussed it in this thread.

And ridiculing bad behavior is a way of wishing it would stop.

if there is ever a thoughtful discussion on P&C, I'll keep that in mind.

Plus, my comment was a reply to killbotfactory and had nothing to do with you. (unless you think it did?)

It would require that you discuss the issues at hand, rather than your opinions about your debate opponents.

For instance Dean's comment that "we ought to look at affirmative action programs based, not on race, but on class" is the topic of this discussion.

I'm not saying we shouldn't expand opportunities for working-class folks to get ahead. But that's not what affirmative action is about.

Dean seemed to acknowledge that when he backtracked with this statement:

"That's about help for people who don't have any money, and I think we should do that. But I also think affirmative action has to be about race, and I've said that all throughout this campaign," Dean said.

1995 was before Dean started running for President so you hear Dean speaking his real thoughts instead of the opinion-poll-generated policies of the campaign.

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/102603.htm#102903

<snip>

Which makes his outburst yesterday appear more calculated than knee-jerk, trying to position himself as the true-blue African-American leader, and not a sell-out (a dynamic that has long been part of the feud).

But that calculation won't pan out if Rep. Jackson succeeds in building significant black support for Dean, marginalizing Sharpton in the process.

</snip>

LO frames this more as another volley in the Sharpton/Jackson Sr. feud.

The tempest in the teapot...

Krugman to say that Dean's tax plan made sense. Krugman seems to like Dean for other reasons, but he still wouldn't say what liberal oasis wanted him to say. (He said that a more progressive tax code would probably be good, he said that nobody, including Dean's plan would close the gap between input on outflow, and he said that all the candidates better have a plan for growing the economy).

Liberal Oasis cleary likes Dean.

And it's outrageous that it's trying to drive a wedge between Sharpton and Jackson over this in order to help Dean.

Sharpton is right to criticize Dean.

LO isn't driving wedges, it is just pointing out that a wedge exists.

on edit:
Do a google search of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and you will get a good feeling of the bad blood between the two.

and I presume LO did the research and would have found something better if it were out there.

This is from the article LO cites:


We are talking about his Oedipal struggle with his political, religious, and civil-rights father, Jesse Jackson. The two men have feuded, made up, and feuded again over the past fifteen years.

"You know, my wife, Kathy, and Jesse's wife, Jackie, have remained good friends through all our fighting," Sharpton offers as an opening. "Our wives talk almost every day," he goes on. "A few months ago, Jackie says to my wife on the phone, 'Look at our two damn-fool husbands. Two fatherless preachers with awful childhoods, looking for love, and having a midlife crisis on national television.' "

This isn't hatred. This is two guys engaging and disengaging and then engaging agains as one would expect, given the circumstances. Their wives are friends.

Here's Jackson's take:

"This so-called feud is a white version of black reality. Ask me about poverty. Ask me about economic development. Ask me about aids and hunger. Ask me about Afghanistan and terrorism. But don't pull me into some racist media game. It minimizes my interest in the world. We should be discussing how I see the world at 60.

Here's another interesting quote. Here's where the fault lines are:

harpton's vast ambition has never exactly been a secret. And Jackson's focus on corporate America -- what some have called the velvet shakedown -- has taken him away from his protest roots toward Wall Street and Silicon Valley, leaving Sharpton an opening. The first public surfacing of the rift came in 2000, when Jackson and Sharpton took opposing positions in a franchise dispute between Burger King and a wealthy black franchisee named La-Van Hawkins. Hawkins claimed he was promised 225 additional franchises and that Burger King was reneging on the deal. Sharpton got involved and said Burger King should either honor its commitment or else award the franchises to other blacks.

Jackson sided with Burger King, which was a financial backer of his Wall Street Project. The New Republic then reported on the disagreement, making it public, personal, and political.

Maybe this is getting at the roots of Jackson's affinity for Dean and Sharpton's dislike of Dean.

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/2004race/5570/index.html

Just one issue the two have clashed over

http://www.commondreams.org/views/122800-106.htm
<i>There is another phone call that Jesse Jackson is being advised to make: To Al Sharpton. Relations between the on-again, off-again friends sank to a new low in October after the Burger King Corporation enlisted Jackson to help derail Sharpton's call for a boycott of the world's No. 2 fast-food chain. The Jackson-Sharpton feud was first reported by the Voice.

Sharpton has been backing black Detroit businessman La-Van Hawkins in a dispute with Burger King. In April, Hawkins's Urban City Foods sued Burger King in federal court, accusing the company of fraud and reneging on a deal to let Hawkins open 225 restaurants within five years. Hawkins alleged that Burger King treated him like a pawn, courting him because of his race and then using it against him to squelch his dream of owning a string of Burger Kings in underserved communities. Burger King argued it never made such promises and countersued, seeking more than $6.5 million it says Hawkins owes on a 1998 loan. (On December 15, a federal judge ruled that Burger King did not break any promises to Hawkins, setting the stage for the chain's bid to revoke his existing franchises.)

Sharpton initially threatened a nationwide boycott, but later relented and said it would begin on a city-by-city basis. In October, he called for a boycott of the fast-food chain in New York City, which has only one black franchise owner. Last month, according to The New Republic, "Jackson sent Sharpton a stiff letter warning that a boycott might be counterproductive, since it could harm the 'more than 100 black-and brown-owned franchises, employing more than 8000 people." But the magazine cites "Sharpton allies" who "point out that Burger King has backed Jackson's Rainbow-PUSH Coalition for nearly 20 years." Burger King estimates "it has given Jackson's group roughly $500,000," but Jackson "puts the figure at approximately $125,000," the magazine reported.

Sharpton supporters say that the quarrel is a wake-up call to Jackson, who, as he gains establishment approval, may be moving toward an elder statesman role. "I expect that sooner or later he is going to call," an aide to Sharpton bristles. "I don't know what he is going to say. I know that Reverend Sharpton might tell Reverend Jackson he'll do what he and others had trained him to do: Fight injustice." </i>

that would get in the way of candidate bashing.

...reality?

Did you read the article LO cites (which, incidentally, cites this BK think as the only substantial piece of evidence)?

Oh, and by the way, the point of the BK think was that Sharpton thought Jackson was too tight with Wall St. Is that the side of this tiny fissure that you want Dean to fall on?

Your mind is made up. You think LO is 'driving a wedge' and no amount anectdotal evidence (http://www.newsminute.com/jacksonmistress.htm) will convince you otherwise. It isn't like they get into fisticuffs. The issue revolves around Sharpton believing Jackson has 'gone inside' (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/politics/campaigns/29JESS.html?ex=1068008400&en=faf6690613da7a70&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE).

You are now eager to paint Jesse Jackson Sr. as less than who he is because his son has backed Dean. WTF is up with that?

Sharpton's attack against Dean has very little to do with Dean, but everything to do with trying to negate the affect of Jackson Jr's endorsement. This is not a big political issue, it is damage control.

especially "your mind is made up".

You understand why it's a rift, right? Because Sharpton thought Rev. Jackson was too close to Wall St.

You also read Rev. Jackson's characterization of the rift, right? He said it's driven by people who want to put a wedge in the black left.

And you understand that LO supports Dean right? At least one other person posted that they agreed.

And I'm allowed to use the Krugman interview to support my argument right?

And Sharpton doesn't like Dean, by the way. I think that one's obvious, especially after the second last debate, and also based on LO's own comments. Which I think completes the circle on why LO would like to portray this as a rift between Jackson and Sharpton.

and there is a split between Jackson and Sharpton.

Just take that into account when you read things.

The rift is about leadership of the Civil Rights movement and Sharpton feeling Jackson has gone 'inside' and stopped fighting from the streets.

It is a rift over power.

Mr. Jackson's neutrality is no surprise to Democratic Party officials, who say they would not expect him to squander his leverage this early in the campaign season. But it is a setback to the two black candidates, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun, who could benefit most from his support, analysts say.

His silence, combined with the decision of his son, Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois, to support Howard Dean, has exacerbated tensions between him and Mr. Sharpton, people close to them say. Mr. Sharpton, after all, is casting himself as the new Jesse Jackson.
reference link

LO has repeatedly called Sharpton “recklessly selfish,” and argued his agenda was personal power at the potential expense of the Dem party.

This is another display of selfishness, though for him, a particularly damaging display.

I think Sharpton has made a fantastic contribution to the debates. I think Dean has legitimate problems appealing to black voters, notwithstanding Rep. Jackson's pending endorsement. I think it's right to debate those weaknesses. And I don't like the attitude that Dean has wrapped up the nomination before the first primary vote has been cast, so we should just ignore these problems. I think LO has the issue ass-backwards.

and discussing candidates' weaknesses (honestly) is a good thing. But I think in this case it is prudent to consider Sharpton's criticism of Dean with his history with Jackson in mind.

a white version of black reality. LO is doing exactly what Jackson criticizes...trying to drive a wedge to protect Dean from legitimate criticism on the issue of race from Sharpton.

attacking other Democratic candidates.

Ah well, I didn't really mean that. Criticism of the candidates is a good thing - it gets their dirty laundry out in the open. But with each criticism that comes up, we have to weigh if the criticism is

1. True
2. Relevant

Is Sharpton's criticism that Dean doesn't support affirmative action based on race true? Not from the evidence that has been presented here. Would it be relevant if it were? I personally think so, but this small quote from Dean does not imply any lack of support for racially-based programs.

so we should all fall in line behind him.

I'm with Sharpton. I think it's important that we still do what's neccessary to get a nominee who can actually win the general election. Getting a candidate who cares about issues which are important to black voters is part of a (general election) winning strategy.

I've cited three examples above which I think reveal that Dean isn't good on race issues.

You quote a couple of things from Dean's stump speech.

The man/woman story is just an example he uses about how discrimination in all forms is pervasive and insidious, and he uses it to point to the importance of programs to address racism.

You can't say that he addresses race poorly by quoting a story where he is not addressing race. Can you?


Here's Dean on ending racial inequality in healthcare:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_health_racialdisparities

Here's Dean on racial profiling:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_racialprofiling

And here is Dean on affirmative action:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_affirmativeaction

these are excellent positions and refute Sharpton's criticism. Unless he is hiding "how he really feels" under a cloak somewhere.

...about race for days. He says that he's the blunt talker. The next time he talked about race in front of a white audience -- his conference call -- this is how he talked about it. (And he'd use that allegory before.) In the conference call, he repeated that absurd statement about him being the only one, blah, blah, blah, and went right into the story about the anti-white male gender discrimination which he stopped. That isn't blunt. I was expecting something blunt.

I think it is a positive that Dean considers race an important enough issue to him to try to distinguish himself from his fellow Democratic candidates with it. Though I think all of them have good records on racial issues, and the differences he is trying to emphasize are probably not as stark as he would like them to be. It doesn't mean he wants to end AA, though.

I don't understand why I can't listen to what Dean says and draw inferences from it.

I'm not saying that he wants to end AA. I'm saying that he's not where I am on issues of race (and taxes) and there are other, better candidates who are where I am.

I don't know why he isn't in the same place, but some of the inferences aren't very flattering. Either his privileged background has produced an adult who doesn't really understand these issues. Or, perhaps, his campaign is geared towards white males who think they're liberal but really aren't when it comes down to the core issues. Or maybe he's a closet libertarian, because an antipaty towards AA, however mildly stated, fits in with many of his other positions. Or maybe it's a combination of all of the above. I don't konw.

and also quite legitimate to feel Dean doesn't address racial issues in a way you would like to see them addressed.

But that is quite different from claiming that Dean is a racist and wants to end AA (which is what Sharpton and FC are claiming).

Dean's actual biography and some of his interactions with people of color are interesting. He requested roommates who were black in college. He volunteered to do work in inner city and black neighborhoods when he was in school. He has put his money where his mouth is and it isn't right to call him a racist based on the fact that he once expressed a desire to help the poor.

He's a good candidate, but we are lucky to have lots of good candidates.

...saying.

Dean may have told Yale to give him a black roomate, but he left NY for VT when he finished med schoo.

Plus, moving to Vermont makes him a bastard? Whatever.

The man enjoys rural life and wanted to continue enjoying it. That is all.

even you say "I'm not saying that he wants to end AA" but then you go on to express your disappointment in his "antipathy to AA." AP you really have a blind spot when it comes to Dean.

I want a candidate who appeals to people's best instincts on the issues of race, and not one who tries to tell people that, if you change your subconscious feelings, that's enough, and that drug treatment programs solve the problem of higher black incarceration rates.

I don't think I have a blind spot when it comes to Dean. I think it's the opposite.

I think people don't like me blowing a little reality up their asses when it comes to Dean. You all got an idea about what kind of character he is, and the facts don't jibe with that idea.

part of it is true... and part of it is mischaracterization with no quotes included.
When I stated you had provided no proof... I meant it... in regards to the charge that Dean thinks class is an acceptable proxy for class in AA. You haven't backed that up yet.

in the quote about no considering class rather than race in AA programs.

What do you think that means?

Do you think we could safely ignore the comment if this were an issue we cared about?

I really have a difficult time making judgements on that quote because I don't have a clue of anything he said before or after it...where or when he said it...even if it's real (all I've read is Al said and Dean replied.... I don't know where Al got it).

I'll grant you it could be read the way you interpret it... but he could also be talking about expanding AA... I just don't know.

One reason may be that Dean was one of the only candidates to grant them an interview early in the campaign.

But I second LuminousX - there is not need for LO to "drive a wedge" between the two, considering the big wedge which is already there.

Sharpton is absolutely right on Dean. I've been saying for months that Dean's position on the right to a fair trial and capital punishment is racist. This is the precise reason I stopped working on his campaign.

can't recognize a racist when he sees one, no?

...on the candidates.

But, just because Rep. Jackson is endorsing Dean doesn't mean criticizing Dean on racial issues is not longer appropriate.

all issues. But you have to at least be honest about their positions.

This is just an opening call. So, aside from one quote, I want to see some evidence where Dean attemtped to dismantle affirmative action programs.

"You know, I think we ought to look at affirmative action programs based, not on race, but on class and opportunities to participate."

One would be STUPID not to make a note of how he feels.

but can you provide more substance to this argument than that quote?

How about what Dean said regarding Bush and 'quotas'?

Can we find any other action Dean has taken? Any other quote that indicates through Freudian analysis what Dean REALLY believes regarding race issues?

Can we maybe see that his roommate in college, being active in Civil Rights issues maybe angered Dean to the point that he uttered the 'N word' once or twice? Let's dig deep here. The man has to be closet racist. The man, who has gotten the support of Jesse Jackson Jr., who up to this point has only been criticized for being a governor of a state with less than 3% minority population is suddenly being chided for his position on race. There must be something to it and can't have ANYTHING to do with Sharpton's damage conrol.

...these issues, he said: "You know, I think we ought to look at affirmative action programs based, not on race, but on class and opportunities to participate."

This isn't Freudian analysis. This is putting the pieces of the political persona toghether.

Look, I know race is something that most DU'ers don't take seriously, (I know this from the many stupid things I've read about race here at DU, but the tide had been turning and people were getting smarter). I know that Dean's target demographich matches the DU demographic. So, I'm not expecting a very interesting debate at DU about this issue. However, I feel like I'm doing some of you a favor by showing you how a lot of people are going to view this issue.

I want more.

If Dean has an issue with race, there should be a lot of evidence, at least more than one. Heck, I will even toss in the 'weepy and liberal' phrase he used regarding blacks in prison to help you along in developing a case.

But it still isn't a case.

Dean's only issue with race is he wasn't ever active in the Civil Rights movement. That isn't a sin. That won't prevent him from being elected. That just prevents him from using it as a beacon in his campaign. On the other hand, Lieberman WAS very ACTIVE in the Civil Rights movement, and see where he is right now?

You may honestly think you are doing us a favor, but you don't want Dean elected so you motives are suspect.

- at Howard U., he said that carring about higher black incarceration rates is "liberal and weepy" and said that drug treatment programs is the way to deal with them (huh?)

- for a long time, he said that he was the only candidate to talk about race in front of white audiences. When proven a lie, he only changed to say that he and Clinton were the only politicians to talk bluntly about race.

- Dean's blunt talk about race in his conference call actually turns out to be not-so-blunt talk about gender discrimination

- Dean think class is an adequate proxy for race in AA programs

- Dean says that civil rights legislation has gone as far as it can and the solution to the problem of racism is to change subconscious feelings.

Basically, this is a list of EVERYTHING I've heard come out of Dean's mouth about racism. I have no doubt that the more he talks about it, the more things I'll be able to add to this list.

- at Howard U., he said that carring about higher black incarceration rates is "liberal and weepy" and said that drug treatment programs is the way to deal with them (huh?)

Drug treatment instead of putting people in jail over drug use. It works for Republican drug users, it will work for minority drug users.

- for a long time, he said that he was the only candidate to talk about race in front of white audiences. When proven a lie, he only changed to say that he and Clinton were the only politicians to talk bluntly about race.

I don't know how this makes him racist or weak on race issues.

- Dean's blunt talk about race in his conference call actually turns out to be not-so-blunt talk about gender discrimination

I know nothing about this, please elucidate.

- Dean think class is an adequate proxy for race in AA programs

He never said that, you infered that.

- Dean says that civil rights legislation has gone as far as it can and the solution to the problem of racism is to change subconscious feelings.

Jesse Jackson Sr. said the essentially the same thing, except in 1995 Dean saw this and starting thinking that we should start exploring other avenues ('ought to look at') for Affirmative Action.

- at Howard U., he said that carring about higher black incarceration rates is "liberal and weepy" and said that drug treatment programs is the way to deal with them (huh?)

Drug treatment instead of putting people in jail over drug use. It works for Republican drug users, it will work for minority drug users.

It's strange that Dean attributes the entire problem of higher black incarceration rates to convictions for drug USE. Most of those crazy drug-related convictions are for possession with intent to distribute, which raises the question of whether treating people for drug use problems will solve the bigger problem of why anyone's trying to make money selling drugs.

I, for one, believe that the problem of high incarceration rates have way more to do with drug USE. (Notice how Noelle Bush and Rush Limbaugh aren't incarcerated.)

- for a long time, he said that he was the only candidate to talk about race in front of white audiences. When proven a lie, he only changed to say that he and Clinton were the only politicians to talk bluntly about race.

I don't know how this makes him racist or weak on race issues.

Again, I'll put words in my own mouth. Never said he was racist, and that isn't even the issue. I'm saying that he's an ass who doesn't know his history, or he's trying to drive a wedge between black voters and the Democratic party, or he's stupid. JFK and LBJ made brilliant statments about race which I know about. I'd be surprised if there were any fair-to-excellent Dem candidate who didn't make brilliant statements about race to white audiences. Cuomo has said brilliant things about race to white audiences.

- Dean's blunt talk about race in his conference call actually turns out to be not-so-blunt talk about gender discrimination

I know nothing about this, please elucidate.

If you can find a transcript of his record-setting conference call, it lays it out better than I can. My short version is above in this thread.

- Dean think class is an adequate proxy for race in AA programs

He never said that, you infered that.

I only infer it in the sense that when I was five or six I learned how to read and I was tought how to infer meaning from words.

- Dean says that civil rights legislation has gone as far as it can and the solution to the problem of racism is to change subconscious feelings.

Jesse Jackson Sr. said the essentially the same thing, except in 1995 Dean saw this and starting thinking that we should start exploring other avenues ('ought to look at') for Affirmative Action.

The last time this came up, Deanies posted a Clinton speech in which they claimed that Clinton said the same thing. However, Clinton said that much as a rhetorical device in a speech which began by saying that we stand on the back end of the progress of the civil rights era and that now was time for a dialog on race, and then he proceeded to list about 20 examples of how the law and policy could take America to the next level.

If you care to cite the Rev. Jackson speech, we can break it down and see if he really agrees with Dean that subconscious attitudes about race are the last frontier of the fight against racism.

with a lot of rural poor. Of course he would want to expand government programs to include the economically poor. He wanted to help the people in VT, and get some federal money too, while he was at it.

Implying that he was out to get minorities does not follow.

...arguing that existing AA programs (hypothetically, addressing race and gender) should eliminate race and gender as their criteria and only consider class. You don't have to do the former by getting rid of the latter.

To borrow from something you said above, it's a false dichotomy. It's very similar to saying that, if you want lower property taxes, you need to accept higher Federal income taxes on middle class incomes.

Dean never says AA should only consider class. You DON'T have to eliminate existing programs to help the rural poor - that's exactly what Dean was advocating: Helping the rural poor while still keeping AA. In other words supplementing the program to address poor people who weren't minorities. To say you had to do one or the other IS a false dichotomy, which Dean would agree with.

Why are we still arguing this?

Expanding AA based on class? Might as well put on a white sheet, Dean.

It's people! Dean eats people!

If you don't want to debate the issue, you should just step aside.

.

Most of the arguements on this topic seem to go like this:
Person A: Dean is horrible on race, look at this quote.
Person B: Wrong. That quote doesn't mean what you say it does.
Person A: Dean is horrible on race, look at this quote, again.
Person B: Wrong. That quote doesn't mean what you say it does.
Person A: Dean is horrible on race, look at this quote, again.
Person B: Wrong. That quote doesn't mean what you say it does.
Person A: Dean is horrible on race, look at this quote, again.
Person B: Wrong. That quote doesn't mean what you say it does.
Person A: Dean is horrible on race, look at this quote, again.
Person B: Wrong. That quote doesn't mean what you say it does.
Person A: Dean is horrible on race, look at this quote, again.
Person B: Wrong. That quote doesn't mean what you say it does.

if I come off that badly in this exchange, I guess I'll just quit. Sorry.

you do not come off badly.

pamphlets, posters and more if he were to admit all the positions he's changed his mind on.

Easier to cry, 'they're pickin' on me ma'.

yawning could be dangerous. With all the BS Dean is spreading around, there are bound to be flies.

public defenders office is about as racist as one can get.

1. The ex-governor ex-doctor ex-stockbroker wants people — especially members of racial minorities — to believe he supports Affirmative Action.

2. The ex-gov ex-doc ex-stock doesn't want people to know he supports AA based on income, not ethnicity.

Gee. That sounds sneaky, to put it simply; nefarious, to phrase it accurately.

What makes it an especially illustrative example of hypocrisy is the way HoHo's supporters go out of their way to ignore the truth — the guy said what he said — and to attack anyone who dares print Dean's own words.

It would make me laugh, but if Dean gets the nomination, we're stuck with four more years of Bushler. That's no spin from a Kerry backer.