Via Allah, this bit of self-congratulatory puffery we’ve come to expect out of Howard Dean:
“I was recently asked about the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties,†Dean said. “When it comes right down to it, the essential difference is that the Democrats fundamentally believe it is important to make sure that American Jews feel comfortable being American Jews.â€Â
Ironically, Dean is correct—though not for the reasons he fancies: Democrats are concerned that American Jews remain comfortable feeling like a particularly reliable Democratic voting bloc known as “American Jews.”
Whereas I’m more concerned that American Jews feel comfortable being Americans.
It’s my assimilation complex, a variation on Portnoy’s (implicit) Complaint.
I call it nationalism. Which, I admit, ain’t so popular with the Dems—but hey, what’s a mensch to do?
Won’t they gain white guilt then?
Dean continues to be one of the most patronizing, crass individuals to ever chair a major party. Can you imagine the tidal wave that would have hit if the RNC chair said 1/10th of what Dean does in a single month?
Howard Dean–the gift that keeps giving.
I don’t think that there’s anything to read into his statement. It’s just nonsense, on par with his “metrosexual” bit or the bike path thing. He’s really, honestly without a clue of what to say so he just says the first thing that pushes itself to the front of the line.
Well, Dean said it, and in the world he inhabits, that is enough to make it true. I would love to see him give specifics of just how they go about making Jews feel comfortable where the conservatives don’t. I have a feeling we will never find out where he feels the differences are as on the left everyone just knows that they are superior in every possible way.
Dr. Dean is nearly as patronizing as actus, but much funnier.
word: Thing. “It’s a Dean thing, you wouldn’t understand.”
Hmmm.
Interesting.
So what does the Deanster say about Israeli jews?
Do they have any right to be comfortable in Israel?
Isn’t that the specific and extraordinary difference between the DNC and the GOP? That the DNC is solicitous of “American Jews” because they’re a source of votes and money. The GOP is solicitous of Israeli Jews because it’s the right thing to do.
Oy, whatta you, some kinda meshuggah nebbish? To your room, you should be sent for speaking ill of that nice Dr. Dean. A DOCTOR, mind you. So handsome too. Sometimes I wish I had a daughter…
Now eat your dinner.
What, you don’t like it?
/mom
It might be his way of playing off the ‘we are a christian nation’ thing. maybe. I don’t really care. Manufactured outrage is boring to me.
A couple other great quotes from Dr. Dean, Head of the DNC:
“I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can’t play, you know, “hide the salami”, or whatever it’s called” – referring to the nomination of Harriet Miers.
“I do not recommend drinking urine..but if you drink water straight from a river, you have a greater chance of getting an infection than you do if you drink urine” – addressing an eighth grade science class in La Crosse, WI
One can only imagine the media uproar if Ken Mehlman had uttered anything that resembled these!
But, of course, there’s no media bias.
Urine smells nasty and no doubt tastes nasty but urine from healthy mammals is usually sterile. But I’m not sure why the good doctor felt this particular fact was deserving of emphasis.
I think he’d probably have more success if the Democrats and liberals weren’t talking constantly about the pernicious nature of Israel, about what great fellows the Palestinians are, and if he’d stop wearing a kaffiyeh in public Arafat-style.
Is this something to do with the Israeli/American lobby?
Just wondering….
Wow. Talk about fashion felonies.
Why doesn’t the Dem Party just quietly shovel this guy off somewhere quiet?
I mean, frankly, if your party head makes Dan Quayle look like a cross between an Oxford debate team capatain and Don Juan de Marco, isn’t it time for a change?
Howard “Drinking Pee Isn’t So Bad” Dean
or perhaps:
Howard “Some of My Best Friends Are Jews” Dean
Stream-of-consciousness isn’t interesting, but it is revealing.
Well, next time I see a screaming horde of bandana-faced fist-pumpers with whitey dreads and Mao shirts dragging a SMASH THE JEWISH STATE banner down my street, I’ll remember that they’re the local College Republicans, and I’ll vote accordingly.
So what does it mean when Dean, who was put in charge of the Democratic party because he’s against the war, forgets that we’re at war when asked about the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans? The big difference is that Democrats like Jews?!?
He would have been better off if he had simply said, as Chuck Schumer and Al Franken like to, that “the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats stand for something” and then leave it at that. When you are trying to make a liberal look good, it’s best to avoid specifics.
Huh. I didn’t realize that Dean and I held common ground. We both like Jews. Orange, apple, grape, carrot, lemon…..
Sorry.
I couldn’t resist.
Merovign,
The Party’s base would be outraged!
Besides, Howlin’ Howie as DNC Chairman is about the best thing that could happen to the GOP.
I’m pretty sure what Howard meant is “I like some jews. The ones that support Israel and vote republican ? Not so much. YARGGGHHH”.
Carl,
Just for good measure from the Moussaoui verdict thread:
Fuck you.
That is all.
Explaining the strange relationship a majority of “American Jews” have with the Dems, who really don’t like the religious Jews.. scroll though the series of columns Dennis Prager has written on this subject.
And gays too. We love us some gays as long as they keep their mouths shut.
http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=6536
Hilarious!
“Democrats fundamentally believe it is important to make sure that American Jews feel comfortable being American Jews†and not neo-con scheming Zionist Bush c(C)abalists in service of Israel Jews.
Also, Dems fundamentally believe it’s important that Palestinians feel comfortable being the new Jews with whom we really sympathize.
Jeff,
So I am getting from what you are saying that the Democratic party does not make you feel comfortable?
Does that mean they have failed?
Well, no news there.
“Some of my best candies are Jewjewbe’s,” Dean salivated at a fund-raiser concession line.
Dem. Rep. (GA) Cynthia McKinney’s father upon her defeat in ‘02: “Jews own everybody. J-E-W-S.”
McKinney won back her seat next election with plenty of money from special interest groups. That’s A-R-A-B-S, for the spelling impaired.
Hmmm.
And here’s another damn thing that I frankly don’t quite understand:
Liberals are opposed to the US military for it’s policies on gays because soldiers who are openly gay are discharged from active service.
Liberals want openly gay people serving in the US military.
Liberals are opposed to the US military fighting in Iraq.
Liberals want active duty soldiers to desert and head to Canada.
WTF!?
Isn’t the damn military doing what the liberals want by discharging soldiers and preventing them from fighting in Iraq?
Isn’t the ultimate endpoint, if the world were fucking crazy enough for it to happen, where active duty gay soldiers fight to the death in Iraq while straight deserters party it up in Canada?
sw: to each his own, and to some a real ass-kicking.
I’m looking forward to Dean’s explanation for the large number of anti-semites in his party.
Dean and the Democrats really CAIR about American Jews:
“When asked which Democratic Party candidate [American Muslims] would vote for, respondents favored Howard Dean…
When asked to name the political party that best represents the interests of the American Muslim community, more respondents named the Democratic Party (27 percent)… than the Republican Party (3 percent).”
Ed,
Your mistake, and it’s a common one, is expecting any sort of intellectual consistency in liberal positions and actions.
Just as the feminists continue to support Kennedy and Clinton, despite their repeated offenses of “using” women for their own gratification, just as the unions and blacks stand lockstep with a party that supports unlimited immigration thru “open borders”, which in turn depresses wages and hurts those same groups, just as “pro-choice” & “tolerant” students and academics that trash pro-life displays and attempt to silence conservative speakers like David Horowitz or Ann Coulter when they guest lecture on campuses.
The essence of modern liberalism is “I’m smarter, I’m better and therefore anything I do is enlightened”. Or as Jeff has so aptly put it, “the ends justify the means”.
There’s no room for anything as trivial as “consistency” when you’re just clearly so much better than everybody else.
All those upper east side hatahs
And here’s another damn thing that I frankly don’t quite understand:
It’s called “compartmentalization.” The ability to separate ideas and theories from each other so that each one stands on it’s own, even if two or more are contradictory. That’s how feminists could support serial adulterer and sexual harasser President Clinton and civil rights activists can consider Condoleeza Rice a sellout and not really black. That’s how it’s ok for Ted Kennedy to be a philandering drunken murderer, but just awful for President Bush to have had a wild youth.
The two ideas are distinct and separated, they don’t even bother to make a cohesive whole of their worldview. It’s part of the entire relativist philosophy – where truth is simply what you choose it to be.
Exactly. Someone could be personally horrible to women, but could represent, support, and enact policies which benefit women—specially over the alternative. No reason why you can’t make a cohesive whole about deciding to support people for the good things they do despite the bad.
Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!!!!!
Yeeeagggha, nagila yeeeagggha….
TW: latter. WTF? We doesn’t love us any damn Mormons.
Sweet merciful keeee-rap! Actus apparently has his head so far up his own posterior that he has somehow constructed a bizarre rhetorical Mobius strip from windpipe and lower intestine.
I mean, just because most of the House and Senate are guilty of some manner of ethics infringement doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t trust their attempts at ethics reform, right? Or, just ‘cause Teddy “The Cape Cod Orca” Kennedy is personally against having windpower generators near his house doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to his drunken, slurring pronouncements on all things environmental, right? Right?
TW: game, as in: Man, them Congresscritters sure talk a mean game.
So,in actus’ world, just b/c you’re ethically challenged is no reason to cast aspersions or doubts if you might be doing the right thing.
BUT have links to, say, an oil and services company like Halliburton, and the fact that Kellogg, Brown & Root (a subsidiary) gets contracts is the ultimate proof of cronyism?
Lurking Observer  You meant the Halliburton whose biggest shareholder is a Texas family named Johnson?
Right. Its quite possible to look at what the alternatives are, and conclude that one way of action is quite unperfect but in the end better than another. Is this unsurprising to people? Has no-one ever had to make decisions where they chose to not have the perfect be the enemy of the good? It seems quite a normal part of life to me.
If they come up with a good ethics reform we should support it despite their bad ethical past. Of course.
We have come full circle, folks, to the apocalypse.
Of course.
Of course, the definition of “good” or “bad” is firmly set, so that we don’t have ethics that change for personal or political convenience.
Like, say, demanding a withdrawal from Iraq because American soldiers are dying, and then demanding American soldiers to head to the Sudan where they can die. Since, of course, dying is always bad. As is killing.
Of course.
Actus, you’re going to be one of the 99% of lawyers who make the other 1% look bad.
Most interest groups have decided what is good/bad to them. Womens groups, for example, have already decided what policies are good and bad, and thus can distinguish among politicians based on their support for these policies.
The personal may be political, but politics is not all personal. When we pick leaders and policies, we’re not picking our friends and neighbors.
Its so cute that you know this quote.
It’s so cute that you seem to think I was complimenting you.
What makes you think that?