Well, let me see...

I've stayed at three hotels over the past year and most of the maids were black. Those that weren't black were Hispanic (and one was a Native American).

The banquet room staff did have elderly white males and females, but the majority were Hispanic males.

That's just my three limited stays at hotels in DC, Denver and Arizona.

So, does Howard Dean believe that members of the Black Community are disproportionately represented as hotel staff in this country?

I'm sure he does. That's part of the platform, that blacks and other minorities still do not have equal access to "white collar" careers and other forms of economic progress/success in this country. We still have work to do.

To echo Jay's point, when I was at a wedding outside of Atlanta a few years ago, all the attendees were white, and every single watier/waitress at the reception hall was black. Zero exceptions.

A room full of white people being served by a staff of black people -- I was a little uncomfortable with the historical resonance, particularly in a country club whose main building had been the home on a plantation.

If the room was getting too ethnic they could always let in every living cabinet officer from a former Democratic administration. No danger of admitting any minorities that way.

Not a trick that would work for the Republicans, of course...

Dave

part of it is geographical: being originally from Southern California, I was surprised to find any non-managerial hotel staff anywhere who weren't Hispanic.

Is this a parody?

All of David Flanagans posts are parody.

David Flanagan: It's demeaning, it's belittling, and I'm completely floored that he would level such an insulting remark upon this community. If ever members of the African American community in this country wanted evidence of how much they are taken for granted by the Democratic Party, this is a perfect example.

Just so you know, one of the janitors at my work told me he finds the term "African American" demeaning and belittling. He's says he's "Black".

One last comment before I go get some antacid to help me deal with my roiling stomach...

Maybe you and Nancy Hopkins ought to avoid political discourse.

David, I have to say it seems to me that he meant the statement as a joke given the context and the reaction. It wasn't necessarily very good joke and my black Republican friends would likely object if not take offense, but I think he was trying to be funny.

You need only look at the record of Dean as governor of Vermont to see his stance on minorities. He is a good man who believes in opportunities for everybody.

The way I read his joke is not covered in racism as you see it David, but he's saying that an African American wouldn't attend a meeting of Republicans unless their job required it.

The last two posts you did, before this one, amazed me. The one where you offered Dean congratulations on his nomination and a hope for change for Democrats was a good post that surprised me. There was another post after that, I forget what it was about, but it wasn't the type of venomous rhetoric that I often see in your words. What happened? Was that perception of wanting to find unity just a temporary thing?


One last comment before I go get some antacid to help me deal with my roiling stomach...

perhaps caused by indigestion?

So, does Howard Dean believe that members of the Black Community are disproportionately represented as hotel staff in this country?

If Dean's intent was to say that people of color are disproportionately represented in jobs in the service sector, he was correct in saying so.

Was Dean accurate? I have no idea.

Was Dean insulting or, at the very least, obscure in his attempt to use Blacks as the butt of his joke? Definitely!

The guy holds one of the most important positions in his party; he should KNOW better! Making such an off-the-cuff remark shows that he has NO sensitivity on this issue.

In the company where I work now, any white person making such a joke would be out the door the same day. Please, someone explain to me how this joke could be uplifting to members of the Black Community?

David

That was insensitive, if socially, and unfortunately, true

David, the excerpt you quoted says the audience laughed.

I don't see African Americans as the butt of the joke, David. I don't see he's saying that African Americans hold a disproportionate amout of service jobs, even if that might be a fact.

He's saying that the only African Americans who would go into a Republican convention, would be those who would have to do so for their job, (and that would primarily be anybody on the staff of where it's held, right?).

*shrugging* I don't see the offense you do.

I do think he was making a reference to the disproportionate numbers of minorities in service jobs, SteveS. The comment wouldn't make any sense if the implication wasn't that it was made up mostly of minorities, because it's prefaced by the question, "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?" [emphasis mine]

It's the idea that the hotel staff is made of "that many" minorities, i.e., a lot of them.

and that they wouldn't be Republicans, who are all, you know, rich and white

Indeed! ;-)

You all are going to great lengths and into severe contortions to explain Dean's behaviour. Would you be working this hard if, say, it had been Bill Frist up there saying the same thing?

I think not.

This is actually getting to be quite humorous.

Thanks,

David

David, it sounds like he made a joke to a community that was receptive to it. They laughed -- they weren't offended, apparently.

I wouldn't have made that comment, but Dean did and his audience didn't mind because they were IN on the joke. They got his point. They saw it as an attack on Republicans, not on them.

You're the one who has gone to great lengths and severe contortions to make a mountain out of a molehill on this one.

David, you really should stop using the OpinionJournal as a source.

They're all just right-wing pimps over there.

BHW,

Actually, the article mentions they were laughing BEFORE the joke, it did not mention the attitude of the audience afterward.

Hal: Haven't you calle me a right-wing pimp too? Or something to that effect? Sounds like I'm in my element. ;-)

Thanks,

David

Would you be working this hard if, say, it had been Bill Frist up there saying the same thing?

He never WOULD have said the same thing, because he wouldn't have been talking to the black caucus. Why? Because every African-American in Congress is a Democrat. The GOP hasn't elected a black congressman since 2000.

This isn't hard to grasp. Any misinterpretation is just willful stupidity.

"Actually, the article mentions they were laughing BEFORE the joke, it did not mention the attitude of the audience afterward."

Well, Dean's still alive and the DNC chairman and not one soul on earth besides you cares about it, so I'm guessing the audience was fairly receptive.

Oh, I may have misinterpreted the piece - this was a Democratic party black caucus, not the CBC. Whatever the case, Dean's point is undeniable. Is there even such a thing as the Republican black caucus?

No, David, the term I used about you wasn't quite that flattering.

Steve S:
>>You need only look at the record of Dean as governor of Vermont to see his stance on minorities. He is a good man who believes in opportunities for everybody.<<

In the primaries Dean came under criticism for having made no appointments of anyone ethnic during his time as governor and in fact having not one black or hispanic on his campaign staff - this was criticism from other Democrats.

Gary:
>>He never WOULD have said the same thing, because he wouldn't have been talking to the black caucus. Why? Because every African-American in Congress is a Democrat. The GOP hasn't elected a black congressman since 2000.<<

Not for lack of trying, but most black Republicans of talent can get much better jobs than serving in congress and it's hard to keep them there. J. C. Watts could have gone on in congress forever - he was that popular - but he moved on to bigger and better things.

Did you know that Hiram Revels was a Republican and the first African American Senator when he took office in 1870, the same year that fellow black Republican Joseph Rainey became the first African American member of the House. The first African American democrat to reach capitol hill wouldn't get there until 1935 and that was by appointment to fill an unexpired term. John Lynch was a black republican who gave the keynote address at the 1884 Republican convention. Also, the first black cabinet level appointment was a Republican, as was the first black federal judge appointee. Oh, and might I mention that every piece of civil rights legislation to pass the congress has done so with a higher percentage of yea votes among republicans than among democrats - in some cases by substantial margins.

Maybe there's no Black Republican Caucus because in the Republican party African American members are actually treated equally and have been for over 150 years.

Dave

"Maybe there's no Black Republican Caucus because in the Republican party African American members are actually treated equally and have been for over 150 years."

Quit your day job Dave, you need to be a stand-up comic.

Republicans are so out of touch with reality it's funny. This is Mary Cheney all over again.

You all compared that to calling someone an "alcoholic" as if shame should be associated with homosexuality.

Dean knows, as well as every minority in that room knows, that Repugs could give a sh*t about minorities unless it's as servants and vote tokens. You been to a Republican convention lately? How about a Southern Country Club?

You just don't get it.

That's why you've never won the minority vote and YOU WILL NEVER win the minority vote. NEVER.

Dean's comments solidified my conversion to the Republican Party. Also, 2 other students I know at UW Madison told me they were changing after those comments.

Dave you must know that "Republican" in the 19th century does not equal "Republican" in the 20th and 21st.

This is basic history stuff.

Links to some of your assertions in comments would be nice, but no one else does it so I'm not singling you out on that.

Also what black Republican has better things to do regarding money in the private sector that a white Republican wouldn't also jump at. This paragraph was incredibly weak. Wouldn't you agree?. Add to that JC Watts seems to have got out because he felt like a token. He has many comments, not super critical, but almost resignedly saying that anytime anything related to race came up he was the face put forward. Under the impression I guess that Powell and Rice couldn't comment on such race matters.


See also:

Back when Watts was elected in 1994, he and Rep. Gary Franks of Connecticut were the only black Republicans in Congress since Rep. Oscar De Priest of Illinois finished the last of his three terms in 1935. Political circles used to buzz with talk of how Watts, an ordained minister and star quarterback at the University of Oklahoma in the late 1970s and early '80s, would make a fine running mate for some nice Republican presidential candidate.

But, in the end, he appeared to be leaving with black Democrats urging him to stay and some of his fellow Republicans reportedly relieved to see him go. He made no secret of his disappointment earlier this year when he considered running for majority leader but pulled back to avoid a public clash with Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas, with whom Watts had disagreed in the past.

-
Not that he regrets being a Republican or anything like that, but he had his role and he found it limiting. There is another quote I cannot find after 15 minutes of searching. I will tomorrow if you ask (and e-mail me)

(Edited for typos only and to fix open link 2.18.05 7:49 a.m. MST)

TS, my 'assertions' aren't assertions, they're statements of historical fact. You can find them in any history book and I'm not sure it's necessary to accompany them with citations.

As for J. C. Watts and your 6 to 10 year old articles about him, yes it's not easy being a black Republican or one of only a couple of black representatives in the house. What was your point again?

Dave

the first Hispanic person in Congress was a Democrat. So there ya go.

My question for you Dave is: Why does such a small percentage of African-Americans vote Republican? There has to be SOMETHING that makes them vote Democrat, right?

Absolutely, Scott. They've been brainwashed into a dependent mentality over the last 70 years. African Americans were hit particularly hard by the depression, which ended an era where they had been advancing rapidly culturally and economically. That sudden loss of what they'd gained since the Civil War made them desperate and the Roosevelt administration offered them government aid and support, which they took eagerly. Successive democrat administrations - particularly the Johnson administration - found it politically advantageous to maintain this dependent relationship and african american leaders found that promoting the democratic party and its free handouts was a good way to advance their careers.

The relationship between the democrats and african americans is essentially parasitical. The democratic party feeds off their votes and pays them back with programs which make it possible to live more successfully on the margins of poverty and at jobs working for city governments and public utilities where their income also flows from government. The biggest beneficiaries of the system are the african american leaders who make a good living off of encouraging this parasitical relationship and reinforcing dependence on government. African Americans who break out of this cycle and advance themselves through education and industriousness either find their way into the parisitical class which feeds on and encourages this relationship, or if they break away alltogether and realize the nature of what they escaped from they are stygmatized by their peer group, viciously attacked and reviled as uncle toms.

This is why theose african americans who have moved to the Republican party are so vehement and so anti-democrat - far more so than average Republicans. They have been insulted and abused by their own people and feel isolated and alienated because of this abuse. They see how the system keeps other african americans in a subjugated status, but they face the frustration of not being able to out-shout the enabler class of african american leaders who keep them there.

It's really a pretty sick situation, and sadly the nature of what the Republican party offers and the way that they do things isn't particularly well suited to breaking up that relationship. The message of individualism, self-reliance and hard work is easily twisted into a false perception of prejudice and scorn by those who benefit from promoting the parasitical party/voter bond.

This may be changing. More and more african americans are starting to realize that the policies of the democrats are not in keeping with their best interests. As I pointed out in a previous article there's a full-out revolt against public education and in favor of vouchers, and more and more religiously conservative african americans are finding democrat positions on homosexuality and abortion hard to go along with. One would also hope that younger african americans would notice that the republican party actually treats everyone equally - black republicans are treated just like anyone else - not like some sort of client or dependent group.

Dave

I would also like to say, yes, Hiram Revels was the first African-American on the Senate - but the first one placed there by popular vote was Edward Brooke (a Republican - from Massachusetts, no less) in 1966. He served until 1979 and no black Republicans have followed his footsteps into the Senate.

I'm not trying to single out Republicans. Both parties have done fairly poorly when it comes to African-Americans on the Senate.

I have more to type but it's late and I'm tired and I have to be up early tomorrow.

I think we can all agree it's a lot harder to get into the Senate than the House, regardless of race.

DAve

There was nothing wrong with what Dean said as he was referring to the Republican Party and he was correct to get more than a hand full of Black folks in a policy room of Republicans they would have to bring in the staffers at the hotel or off the street like the did in Philadelphia and New York.

What Jack has a difficult time facing is that Republicans treat their Negroes like prizes because so few are foolish enough to believe the garbage they put out and know that the racism and abuse within their policies do not represent the best interest of the Black community. Despite the token negroes and other people of color on the whole Africa, and African Americans have not faired well with those folks so he is trying befog the issue with what he thinks would be an issue if he could make something of it.

Having been in the room and having spoken with him before and after the meeting I know that his concern for African Americans exceeds those of Collin Powell and Ms. Rice. 

>>They've been brainwashed into a dependent mentality over the last 70 years

Another historical fact?

Look, I'm not saying there's anything racist about Republicans (That would be one of those statements I tend to call, stupid). but, it seems that Howard Dean, if we're talking historical facts, uttered one.

Again though your history is all effed up. That you won't acknowledge that often your basic premises are wrong, doesn't lead me to enjoy or enjoin with the rest of your work (though there are fine examples at BC.) And I'm doing it politely. Guess that honey / vinegar thing is so much hooey.


dave: TS, my 'assertions' aren't assertions, they're statements of historical fact. You can find them in any history book and I'm not sure it's necessary to accompany them with citations.


Well you can't be comprehending certain important parts. Again see: >>Dave you must know that "Republican" in the 19th century does not equal "Republican" in the 20th and 21st.


... left unanswered.


It's not too much to ask now, is it?

Lelisa:
>>What Jack has a difficult time facing is that Republicans treat their Negroes like prizes because so few are foolish enough to believe the garbage they put out and know that the racism and abuse within their policies do not represent the best interest of the Black community. <<

Ok, you said it. Now prove it. How does a policy of treating all people absolutely equally regardless of race add up to racism and abuse. You are spouting the party line lie of the democrat party which thinks that the best interest of the black community is to be kept on welfare and in low paying jobs and dependent on government. The Republican party wants blacks to have actual opportunity and to advance and rise in society, and they've been doing this despite democratic efforts to keep them oppressed and dependent. Before you accuse Republicans of racism, look at the racist democrat policies that assume that Blacks need government help to be successful and that they cannot achieve anything on their own. That's the real racism.

Dave

>>Well you can't be comprehending certain important parts. Again see: >>Dave you must know that "Republican" in the 19th century does not equal "Republican" in the 20th and 21st.<<

No, I don't see that on the race issue. Read the Republican platform. The elements on race and equality and freedom are essentially the same today as they have been in platforms going back to the Civil War. Yes, the party has been contaminated by some religious fundamentalists and a few individuals seem to be racist - though I think they are killing themselves off pretty fast. This was not a characteristic of the party 70 years ago or even 50 years ago, it's something we caught from the democrats because we pursued their southern voters. However, the party as a whole still has an egalitarian policy which is radically different from the paternalistic philosophy of the democrats. Treating blacks as equals in every way seems inherently less racist than the democratic policy of treating them as lesser people who need to be pandered to because they aren't able to take care of themselves.

Dave

Are you looking at words or actions Dave? Why is it only an element but with Govenor Dean's joke it's indicative of the entire Democratic Party?

Just exploring thought processes here. PS Thank you for the reply.

I've more or less gotten away from Dean's lame joke and am talking in more general terms.

The leadership of the Democratic party is just about as lilly white as the leadership of the Republican party. I'm sure the Republicans would have no problem filling a room with Black supporters if they wanted to. The point is that they don't feel a need to do so. One Republican is just as good as another one regardless of skin color. There's no need to single them out, gather them in groups by color or pander to them because of their race.

Do you see the difference?

Dave

OK. Lame joke. Check.

Lily-whitedness at leadership across the board. Check.

I still don't buy what you're selling, though as far as Republicans being better for blacks and Democrats worse. Because to buy that you'd then have to say blacks are stupid to vote Democrat - and I don't think you want to go there. Wouldn't you rather understand why that is and look into it?

And related to your comments that Republicans don't feel the need to single blacks out, why then was Condoleezza Rice introduced as "the first African American Secretary of State."

There's been a black man. There's been a woman. But she's the first black woman. Is that a big deal or not?

Howard Dean, like most liberals, hold blacks in contempt. They believe we are inferior to them because our ancestors were slaves. If a liberal had been enslaved, he'd have overthrown his slave owner. Because blacks didn't, indeed they couldn't without help of white Christians, they must be inferior. A successful black is a liberal's worst niughtmare.

Do you even know what a liberal is? DOAH , I mean DOPE!

Is Dietdoc black? Your IP is showing - along with all those names. So tiresome.

wait a minute - those names can't all be the same person, don't some ISP's have what amount to "communal IPs" - Phillip, you should check this out

AOL users go through a common proxy that shows them as coming from somewhere else - nice, at times;) - maybe something like that here?

Probably I'm batting 0.111 on 90 minutes sleep. Looking further down the list unless somebody is a retired deranged scary man, you have to be right on the communal thing. I'd never heard of that - but then I've avoided AOL like the plague since Day dot.

And dietdoc is not anything like some of these other people. Apologies, dietdoc.

"Treating blacks as equals in every way seems inherently less racist than the democratic policy of treating them as lesser people who need to be pandered to because they aren't able to take care of themselves."

Perhaps this is not so much a race issue as it is a class/poverty issue...
Saying Democrats treat blacks as lesser people and pander to them is waaaay off base. I guess you're looking at it as the glass half-empty kinda thing. I mean, I think that's a pretty offensive statement to be making.

The obvious argument here is that Democrats are more in favor of social programs to help those stuggling and in poverty (a large percentage of which are African-American), whereas Republicans don't really care. If I were in that situation, then yeah, I would tend to vote for the party that helped me rather than the party that ignored me.

According to the Census Bureau nearly 36 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5% of the population. This was up from 34.5 million, or 12.1% in 2002. Sounds like Republican policies haven't really been working too well for those in poverty situations and with no relief in sight. It's kinda easy to see how African-Americans would vote for Democrats. Democrats value people over money. Republicans simply want tax cuts and guns. Oh, and no gay people marrying each other.

TS Wrote:
>>I still don't buy what you're selling, though as far as Republicans being better for blacks and Democrats worse. Because to buy that you'd then have to say blacks are stupid to vote Democrat - and I don't think you want to go there. Wouldn't you rather understand why that is and look into it?<<

They are not inherently stupid, but they can make stupid decisions for the wrong reasons just like anyone else. As a community blacks have for years been indoctrinated into voting for Democrats despite the fact that it is against their own best interests. The Democrats have established party loyalty, and even more, loyalty to programs and policies which many blacks feel that they are dependent upon, even when it need not necessarily be true.

>>And related to your comments that Republicans don't feel the need to single blacks out, why then was Condoleezza Rice introduced as "the first African American Secretary of State."

There's been a black man. There's been a woman. But she's the first black woman. Is that a big deal or not?<<

This goes back to something we said earlier. Republicans don't want to bribe blacks to join the party and that leaves them with only one way to get blacks interested in the Republicans, to point out to them whenever possible that it is the GOP which is advancing blacks to the highest offices in the land, not the democrats. So it makes some sense to point to Condy with pride in the hopes that some other black americans might get the hint.

Dave

Scott:
>>Saying Democrats treat blacks as lesser people and pander to them is waaaay off base. I guess you're looking at it as the glass half-empty kinda thing. I mean, I think that's a pretty offensive statement to be making. <<

No, I'm not looking at the glass half-empty. I have no idea how that applies here. And the offensive thing is the policies which democrats have pursued over the years to encourage dependence on government in the black urban population and discourage economic advancement outside of the predetermined channels established for blacks by the democratic party.

The obvious argument here is that Democrats are more in favor of social programs to help those stuggling and in poverty (a large percentage of which are African-American), whereas Republicans don't really care. If I were in that situation, then yeah, I would tend to vote for the party that helped me rather than the party that ignored me.

>>According to the Census Bureau nearly 36 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5% of the population. This was up from 34.5 million, or 12.1% in 2002. Sounds like Republican policies haven't really been working too well for those in poverty situations and with no relief in sight. <<

Actually, in a period with no actual inflation, the income level used to define poverty by the census bureau is increased by 2.1% every year because of a built in indexing for inflation which was put into their system in the 1970s and which does not make sense in the current economic environment where there is no measurable inflation. So, in fact, an increase in poverty from 12.1 to 12.3% is slightly less than the increase in the poverty level cutoff. So, in fact, poverty did not go up, the definition of poverty went up. Actual poverty went down by .04%.

>>It's kinda easy to see how African-Americans would vote for Democrats. Democrats value people over money. <<

Wrong. Democrats favor groups of people and their voting power. Whatever will keep those groups fat, lazy and not questioning the democratic leadership is their policy. They care not one bit for the welfare of individuals or the ability of individuals to advance themselves or improve their lives.

>>Republicans simply want tax cuts and guns. Oh, and no gay people marrying each other.<<

65% of democrats are also against gay marriage. And Republicans stand for a lot more than you think. In particular they stand for individual enterprise and opportunity, something which is anathema to the democrats.

Dave

You said: >>and that leaves them with only one way to get blacks interested in the Republicans, to point out to them whenever possible that it is the GOP which is advancing blacks

and

>>One Republican is just as good as another one regardless of skin color. There's no need to single them out.

That's just what they did with Rice. So which one is it? Do they point them out or is there no need to single them out. See what I'm saying?

(And as an aside did Rice succeed because she's a Republican or just because of who she is? Aren't there successful black men and women who are Democrats? Answer: Yes.

See to me your argument on deeper scrutiny than perhaps your used to talking with your friends doesn't make sense.

>>but they can make stupid decisions for the wrong reasons just like anyone else.

You're still saying 90 percent of black men and women are too stupid to realize they're being pandered to.

That's mighty white of you :-) JOKE.

By the way when Democrat and Republican presidents talk about the American dream and all that America offers I don't think they're excluding blacks in the conversation. When a politician talks about America, he talks about everyone. That's a lot of non-pandering.

Lastly you talk about labeling groups while at the same time you say Democrats do this and Democrats do that. You make all kinds of charges about what Democrats do, but lightly dismise the bad that Republicans have done?

I'm still sincerely pursuing the thoughts here and I don't believe I'm being padantic.

>>That's just what they did with Rice. So which one is it? Do they point them out or is there no need to single them out. See what I'm saying?<<

Yes, and the answer would be that you're not saying much. There's a difference between singling out groups for special treatment and singling out an individual for recognition for achievements already attained. If you can't see the difference then there's no point in even talking to you.

>>See to me your argument on deeper scrutiny than perhaps your used to talking with your friends doesn't make sense.<<

No, as indicated by your inability to differentiate between achievement and preferential treatment, you're the one not making any sense.

>>You're still saying 90 percent of black men and women are too stupid to realize they're being pandered to. <<

Is there something wrong with your brain? I never said they were stupid, in fact I repeatedly said they were not stupid, but that they were deceived. And anyone can be deceived when they are told things which appeal to their baser instincts year after year.

>>Lastly you talk about labeling groups while at the same time you say Democrats do this and Democrats do that. You make all kinds of charges about what Democrats do, but lightly dismise the bad that Republicans have done?<<

Bring on the bad and I'll consider it.

>>I'm still sincerely pursuing the thoughts here and I don't believe I'm being padantic.<<

Well, maybe you should work on your pedantry, because it at least requires some sort of precision of thought, and you're not displaying much here so far.

Dave

Dave you descended. I'm sorry about that. I thought we established that of course you wouldn't say blacks are stupid or that I thought you would. I thought we established that we were having a reasoned discussion

Nuff said. It was developing into a good debate - and you had to be a prick. I am sincerely sorry about that.

"Wrong. Democrats favor groups of people and their voting power. Whatever will keep those groups fat, lazy and not questioning the democratic leadership is their policy. They care not one bit for the welfare of individuals or the ability of individuals to advance themselves or improve their lives."

Kinda like how Republicans do with Conservative Christians, right? They dangle issues in front of them to win elections (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and then do nothing about them. They know that for them to keep winning, abortion actually can't be made illegal, so that they can keep that piece of red meat to dangle in front of conservatives eyes and keep their vote. That door swings both ways. The difference is that the Democratic policies actually do some good. Not just empty promises. During the Clinton years, poverty fell by 25.2 percent. Poverty has climbed steadily under President Bush. According to the most recent data from the Census Bureau, the number of Americans living in poverty has "risen ten percent since 2000." That means "nearly 36 million Americans - one in eight - now live in poverty and tens of millions are considered working poor."

"Actually, in a period with no actual inflation, the income level used to define poverty by the census bureau is increased by 2.1% every year because of a built in indexing for inflation which was put into their system in the 1970s and which does not make sense in the current economic environment where there is no measurable inflation. So, in fact, an increase in poverty from 12.1 to 12.3% is slightly less than the increase in the poverty level cutoff. So, in fact, poverty did not go up, the definition of poverty went up. Actual poverty went down by .04%."

I have no idea where you got this info from. I just spent time on the census bureau's website and their press release from August 2004 reads:

"Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. At the same time, the nation's official poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003. The number of people with health insurance increased by 1.0 million to 243.3 million between 2002 and 2003, and the number without such coverage rose by 1.4 million to 45.0 million. The percentage of the nation's population without coverage grew from 15.2 percent in 2002 to 15.6 percent in 2003."
Nothing about "actual" poverty going down in there...

"Republicans stand for a lot more than you think."
I know what the Republicans stand for. I was giving the shortened version. To say Individual enterprise and opportunity is "anathema" to Democrats is hilarious. Democrats stand for a lot more than YOU think.

>>Kinda like how Republicans do with Conservative Christians, right? They dangle issues in front of them to win elections (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and then do nothing about them. They know that for them to keep winning, abortion actually can't be made illegal, so that they can keep that piece of red meat to dangle in front of conservatives eyes and keep their vote. <<

Similar, but not exactly the same. Certainly the religious right has some sort of similar weird parasitical relationship with the Republican party though.

>>That door swings both ways. The difference is that the Democratic policies actually do some good. <<

I can't agree with that. Standard democratic policies do nothing but keep the poor poor.

>>Not just empty promises. During the Clinton years, poverty fell by 25.2 percent. <<

Clinton was a very conservative Democrat who implemented programs like Workfair which were designed to get the poor working. Those programs are absolutely anathema to most Democrats and you won't see their like again from the Democratic party. Clinton was only able to pass them with Republican support. Democrats opposed him on all aspects of welfare reform.

>>Poverty has climbed steadily under President Bush. According to the most recent data from the Census Bureau, the number of Americans living in poverty has "risen ten percent since 2000." That means "nearly 36 million Americans - one in eight - now live in poverty and tens of millions are considered working poor."<<

Where do they actually say this. The statistics I see on their site don't support this and I can't find any of these statements on the site either.

"Actually, in a period with no actual inflation, the income level used to define poverty by the census bureau is increased by 2.1% every year because of a built in indexing for inflation which was put into their system in the 1970s and which does not make sense in the current economic environment where there is no measurable inflation. So, in fact, an increase in poverty from 12.1 to 12.3% is slightly less than the increase in the poverty level cutoff. So, in fact, poverty did not go up, the definition of poverty went up. Actual poverty went down by .04%."

>>I have no idea where you got this info from.<<

The figures are from the department of HHS standards which are used by the census bureau to determine the poverty line.

>> I just spent time on the census bureau's website and their press release from August 2004 reads:

"Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. At the same time, the nation's official poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003. The number of people with health insurance increased by 1.0 million to 243.3 million between 2002 and 2003, and the number without such coverage rose by 1.4 million to 45.0 million. The percentage of the nation's population without coverage grew from 15.2 percent in 2002 to 15.6 percent in 2003."
Nothing about "actual" poverty going down in there...<<

Their interpretation of the data is deceptive because it does not take into consideration that the standards for where poverty starts changed during that period and the poverty cut-off was raised more than the amount necessary to account for their increase in poverty. In other words people didn't get poorer, they just raised the income level that defines poverty.

>>"Republicans stand for a lot more than you think."
I know what the Republicans stand for. I was giving the shortened version. <<

Shortened and incorrect and for that matter mostly just a statement of irrational bias.

>>To say Individual enterprise and opportunity is "anathema" to Democrats is hilarious. Democrats stand for a lot more than YOU think.<<

Not for individual success. Every policy they support discourages enterprise and individual achievement.

Dave

I work in a hotel. We have ONE black housekeeper.

The rest are either white or Hispanic.

"Just so you know, one of the janitors at my work told me he finds the term "African American" demeaning and belittling. He's says he's "Black"."

Good point!

I NEVER use the term "African-American" when dealing with black folks. I just call them black. And they never seem to mind...

"You need only look at the record of Dean as governor of Vermont to see his stance on minorities."

How many blacks did he hire/promote while he was governor?

How many blacks were on his campaign staff?

"Dean knows, as well as every minority in that room knows, that Repugs could give a sh*t about minorities unless it's as servants and vote tokens."

If "Repugs" don't "give a sh*t" about minorities, why do over 10% of blacks vote for them? Why do well over 30% of Hispanics vote for them? Why do over a quarter of gays and Jews and Asians vote for them?

"Dean's comments solidified my conversion to the Republican Party. Also, 2 other students I know at UW Madison told me they were changing after those comments."

Why? The Dems have done far worse things to this country than make an off-color (pardon the pun) joke...

"Both parties have done fairly poorly when it comes to African-Americans on the Senate."

If anything, "blame" the voters...

Hey, Dave! I added you to my BlogRoll.

FYI...

"they just raised the income level that defines poverty."

Which just goes to show that "poverty" is highly subjective...

Thanks RJ. :-) Much appreciated. You are, of course, on my blogroll as well.

David

Various responses.

The last hotel I stayed in everyone who worked there was black, but they were all Ethiopians, which may not count.

RJ: As I'm sure you know Dean hired no black campaign staff and made no black appointments as governor of VT. But his excuse is a good one. There are no black people in Vermont.

So, RJ - was it me you blogrolled or Flanagan. Inquiring minds want to know.

Dave

I also added Mr. Nalle to my BlogRoll.

You are welcome to add me to yours as well, Mr. Nalle! ;-)

All shall be blogrolled until they are entirely flattened!

Dave

"Similar, but not exactly the same."

True. Republicans don't actually mean any of the things they say about getting rid of abortion or constitutionally defining marriage between man and woman. they just want those votes.

"I can't agree with that. Standard democratic policies do nothing but keep the poor poor."

I don't see the poor getting unpoor under Republican policies. They improved under Clinton. Sorry, you lose.

"Shortened and incorrect and for that matter mostly just a statement of irrational bias. Not for individual success. Every policy they (Democrats) support discourages enterprise and individual achievement."

Talk about a shortened statement of irrational bias...jeez...

WOW. So much here to consider. I don't have a problem with what Howard Dean said. We need more people in politics saying what they think without the aid of poltical correctness filters. I've stayed in many hotels in the last few years and I cannot think of one instance where waitstaff was a white American. They were "people of color" from Blacks to Asians and every shade of the spectrum in between.

The year before last I had an opportunity to take an Alaskan cruise. While onboard we were told that a particular cruise line was going to place two ships under U.S. Registry and that the entire crew would be American. I asked several crewmembers if they thought this was a good idea. NONE of them thought it would succeed because "Americans are afraid to work hard." As unfair as it is to lump all Americans under that declaration, it is very hard to argue that point when so few white Americans work in the "lower ranks."

I think it's time for some honest dialogue in America, political correctness be damned. Screw the focus groups. Put the ratings companies under lockdown. Tell Madison Avenue ad executives to take a powder for a week. Maybe that's what we need. A good old fashioned family feud where all the dirty laundry is aired out, we get drunk, kiss and make up.

Pardon me now. I think I'll put some kevlar on.

>>I don't see the poor getting unpoor under Republican policies. They improved under Clinton. Sorry, you lose.<<

Scott, do try to keep up. This theory has already been disproven previously in this thread.

Dave

Well, Americans like to work hard when it makes a lot of money - or in their own backyard where they benefit.

But these other "glue" jobs they, generally, view as menia and beneath them. consequently they will continue to view the races that do them as less than them, if only, primarily, subconsconsiously (How many African "villages" really are towns and cities?). But then they also wonder why many non-menial jobs are going overseas. I often wonder what Americans will be left doing as they watch, now, even highly skilled jobs leave the country. Perhaps then the thought, "Do I really need all this .. stuff ... around me" might come to mind.

Of course, this is not only an American trait, but it is more pronounced here, this gathering of "things." Of which, I am in no way immune by the way.

"Scott, do try to keep up. This theory has already been disproven previously in this thread."

Disproven? Am I the one that needs to keep up here?

They did under improve under Clinton, right?

They're not improving under Republicans, right?

Try to keep up here Dave. You're slipping.

Why do I have to go over this again.

>>They did under improve under Clinton, right? They're not improving under Republicans, right?<<

Wrong. As I demonstrated with data from the census and HHS, the appearance of an increase in poverty was created by the poverty level being indexed for inflation, but since there was no actual inflation, all it did was make people who previously would have not been counted as poor suddenly count as poor even though they actually became no poorer in actual purchasing power. In fact, because the consumer prices for most necessities except for gasoline went down during the last two years they were effectively better off than they had been when they were techinically not poor.

Dave

So, according to Dave Nalle, "actual" poverty in 2003 went down .04%.

The facts be damned! Poverty went down, dammit!

You have bested me sir. At least I'm man enough to know when I've been beat.

It's not that whites are "afraid" of hard work, or that they are somehow "lazy."

It's just that, as a group, they demand higher wages than non-whites. And therefore "menial" jobs (which usually go to the lowest bidder, on the labor end of things) will disproportionately go to non-whites.

Actually, in a period with no actual inflation, the income level used to define poverty by the census bureau is increased by 2.1% every year because of a built in indexing for inflation which was put into their system in the 1970s and which does not make sense in the current economic environment where there is no measurable inflation.

Here's a site that shows the inflation rate for the past few years. The current inflation rate is 3.26%, according to the site.

Well, that's a new one on me. Thanks for pointing me to that link. All the sources I've seen suggested an inflation rate closer to 0% or even negative over the last 5 years, but clearly they have a different analysis. I've bookmarked it for further analysis. BTW, that 3.26% figure you cite is only for the month of January of last year. The actual rate of inflation for 2004 is 2.68% for the year. During Bush's first term the inflation rate averaged just over 2% a year according to their figures. Of course, if you take oil prices out of the calculation the rate drops substantially and even goes negative over that 4 year period.

So, if these figures are true the number of poor in the country has stayed pretty much stable. Exciting.

Dave

Here's a page where they describe the CPI and how they calculate inflation. I look forward to your analysis because I honestly couldn't tell you if they're doing anything differently than any other organization that publishes such info.

The 3.26% was displayed in the right column of this page under the heading of "current inflation rate." It represents the past 12 months, I believe. That same figure appears in the table, too, which seems to be a coincidence.

There was actually an error on the chart for 2004. They left the final yearly total blank for some reason, so the last number on the right was the December figure. I had to calculate the figure for the year by averaging the 12 months.

Dave

Don't you get it? he was alluding to the fact that there are so few black republicans that the party would have to count the black staff as attendees to whatever

it seems that every time a white person begins to mention black folks we stopp listening and decide that we are being mocked